Bureau of Prisons: Improvements Needed in Bureau of Prisons' Monitoring and Evaluation of Impact of Segregated Housing
Published: 2013-05-01T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: BOP confines about 7 percent of its 217,000 inmates in segregated housing units for about 23 hours a day. Inmates are held in SHUs, SMUs, and ADX. GAO was asked to review BOP's segregated housing unit practices. This report addresses, among other things: (1) the trends in BOP's segregated housing population, (2) the extent to which BOP centrally monitors how prisons apply segregated housing policies, and (3) the extent to which BOP assessed the impact of segregated housing on institutional safety and inmates. GAO analyzed BOP's policies for compliance and analyzed population trends from fiscal year 2008 through February 2013. GAO visited six federal prisons selected for different segregated housing units and security levels, and reviewed 61 inmate case files and 45 monitoring reports. The results are not generalizable, but provide information on segregated housing units.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The overall number of inmates in the Bureau of Prisons' (BOP) three main types of segregated housing units--Special Housing Units (SHU), Special Management Units (SMU), and Administrative Maximum (ADX)--increased at a faster rate than the general inmate population. Inmates may be placed in SHUs for administrative reasons, such as pending transfer to another prison, and for disciplinary reasons, such as violating prison rules; SMUs, a four-phased program in which inmates can progress from more to less restrictive conditions; or ADX, for inmates that require the highest level of security. From fiscal year 2008 through February 2013, the total inmate population in segregated housing units increased approximately 17 percent--from 10,659 to 12,460 inmates. By comparison, the total inmate population in BOP facilities increased by about 6 percent during this period.
BOP has a mechanism to centrally monitor segregated housing, but the degree of monitoring varies by unit type and GAO found incomplete documentation of monitoring at select prisons. BOP headquarters lacks the same degree of oversight of ADX-specific conditions of confinement compared with SHUs and SMUs partly because ADX policies are monitored locally by ADX officials. Developing specific requirements for ADX could provide BOP with additional assurance that inmates held at ADX are afforded their minimum conditions of confinement and procedural protections. According to a selection of monitoring reports and inmate case files, GAO also identified documentation concerns related to conditions of confinement and procedural protections, such as ensuring that inmates received all their meals and exercise as required. According to BOP officials, in December 2012, all SHUs and SMUs began using a new software program that could improve the ability to document conditions of confinement in SHUs and SMUs. However, BOP officials acknowledged the recently implemented software program may not address all the deficiencies GAO identified. Since BOP could not provide evidence that it addressed the documentation deficiencies, GAO cannot determine if it will mitigate the documentation concerns. BOP expects to complete a review of the new software program by approximately September 30, 2013, which should help determine the extent to which the software program addresses documentation deficiencies GAO identified.
BOP has not assessed the impact of segregated housing on institutional safety or the impacts of long-term segregation on inmates. In January 2013, BOP authorized a study of segregated housing; however, it is unclear to what extent the study will assess the extent to which segregated housing units contribute to institutional safety. As of January 2013, BOP is considering conducting mental health case reviews for inmates held in SHUs or ADX for more than 12 continuous months. However, without an assessment of the impact of segregation on institutional safety or study of the long-term impact of segregated housing on inmates, BOP cannot determine the extent to which segregated housing achieves its stated purpose to protect inmates, staff and the general public.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that BOP (1) develop ADX-specific monitoring requirements; (2) develop a plan that clarifies how BOP will address documentation concerns GAO identified, through the new software program; (3) ensure that any current study to assess segregated housing also includes reviews of its impact on institutional safety; and (4) assess the impact of long-term segregation. BOP agreed with these recommendations and reported it would take actions to address them.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Since the late 1980s, America’s federal prison population increased by  more than 400 percent, accompanied by the use of certain types of  segregated housing units where prisoners are kept apart from the general  inmate population in at times highly restrictive conditions. The  Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is responsible for  the custody and care of approximately 217,000 federal inmates. BOP’s  mission is to confine federal inmates 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  operates several types of segregated housing units to separate inmates  from the general inmate population for different purposes, such as  administrative detention, disciplinary reasons, gang-related activity or  assaulting staff. Specifically, these units are the (1) Special Housing Units  (SHU), where inmates can be placed for administrative reasons, such as  pending transfer to another prison, and for disciplinary reasons, such as  violating prison rules; (2) Special Management Units (SMU), a four-level  program in which inmates can progress from more restrictive to less  restrictive conditions; and (3) the Administrative Maximum (ADX) facility  in Florence, Colorado, for inmates that require the highest level of  security. As of February 2013, BOP confined approximately 12,460  federal inmates—or about 7 percent of inmates in BOP-operated  facilities—in segregated housing units. According to BOP, these  segregated housing units help ensure institutional safety for inmates and  staff. Approximately 435 individuals in ADX are held in what is commonly  referred to as solitary confinement, or single cells alone, for about 23  hours a day.
There is little publicly available information on BOP’s use of segregated  housing units. Given the potential high costs, lack of research on their  effectiveness, and possible long-term detrimental effects on inmates, you  requested that we review BOP’s segregated housing unit practices,  including BOP’s standards, reasons for segregating inmates, and costs.  Specifically, this report addresses the following objectives:  1.  What were the trends in BOP’s segregated housing unit population  and number of cells from fiscal year 2008 through February 2013?  2.  To what extent does BOP centrally monitor how individual facilities  document and apply policies guiding segregated housing units?  3.  To what extent has BOP assessed the costs to operate segregated  housing units and how do the costs to confine an inmate in a  segregated housing unit compare with the costs of confining an  inmate in a general inmate population housing unit?  4.  To what extent does BOP assess the impact of segregated housing  on institutional safety and the impacts of long-term segregation on  inmates?
Overall, to address our objectives, we reviewed BOP statutory authority  and policies and procedures related to each type of segregated housing  unit and interviewed BOP management officials responsible for inmate  placement and security, monitoring and program compliance, facility and  financial management, and research. To address our first objective, we  obtained and analyzed BOP’s inmate population and number of cells data  for each type of segregated housing unit for the past 5 fiscal years to the  most recent data available—from fiscal year 2008 through February 2013.  We also compared the total inmate population in BOP-operated facilities  with the total segregated housing unit population data to identify trends in  the segregated housing unit population as a share of the total inmate  population in BOP-operated facilities during this period. We assessed the  reliability of BOP’s segregated housing unit inmate population and cell  data by reviewing relevant documentation, interviewing knowledgeable  agency officials about how they maintain the integrity of their data, and  examining the data for obvious errors and inconsistencies. We found the  segregated housing unit inmate population and cell data were sufficiently  reliable for the purposes of this report. We also interviewed BOP  headquarters officials to discuss reasons for the trends in BOP’s  segregated housing unit inmate population and cells.
To address our second objective, we assessed BOP’s monitoring for  each type of segregated housing unit by reviewing monitoring policies,  guidelines and reports. We analyzed BOP’s segregated housing unit  policies and monitoring guidance and compared them against criteria in  Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. We also  analyzed BOP’s policies and procedures pertinent to the monitoring of  individual prisons’ compliance with BOP policies, including those of  BOP’s Program Review Division (PRD), which leads monitoring reviews.  In addition, to observe the conditions of confinement, procedural  protections and inmate placement in segregated housing, we conducted  visits to 6 of BOP’s 119 institutions. We chose these institutions to reflect  a range in the types of segregated housing units and security levels.  Although the results of our site visits are not generalizable, they provided  insights about BOP monitoring. Further, to assess the methodology and  system BOP employs to monitor, identify, and address deficiencies at  prisons, we requested a selection of monitoring reports from BOP, which  BOP provided for a variety of facilities. Specifically, we analyzed 45 of  187 PRD monitoring reports from 20 of 98 prisons from fiscal years 2007  to 2011. We also reviewed related follow-up monitoring reports to  determine the extent that these prisons resolved deficiencies. Further, we  independently assessed compliance with segregated housing policies for  selected inmates at 2 institutions we visited. For example, we selected a  random sample of 61 case files from inmates housed in segregated  housing units, including SHUs. Although our selection of case files was  not generalizable to all inmates in all types of segregated housing units, it  provided insights into whether these 2 institutions were following BOP  policy. We also reviewed information related to BOP’s new software  program, that includes the SHU application, and compared it against best  practices for project management and criteria in BOP’s monitoring  documentation policies.
To address the third objective, we reviewed BOP fiscal year 2012  average inmate per capita costs for institutions at each security  classification: high security, medium security, low security, minimum  security, administrative, and Federal Correctional Complex. Further, we  analyzed a BOP estimate of fiscal year 2012 inmate per capita costs that  BOP provided in January 2013. We interviewed knowledgeable BOP  officials to understand their processes for developing these cost data and  estimates, and we found the average inmate per capita costs and  estimated inmate per capita costs data to be sufficiently reliable for the  purposes of this report. We also used BOP’s estimated segregated  housing unit versus general population housing inmate per capita cost  data, combined with fiscal year 2012 BOP inmate population data, to  illustrate the possible costs of housing the inmate population in  segregated housing units compared with the costs of housing these same  inmates in general population housing for fiscal year 2012.
To address the fourth objective, we analyzed BOP’s policies, including  program objectives, for each segregated housing unit and policies  governing the provision of mental health services to inmates in  segregated housing units. We also reviewed BOP lockdown information  from fiscal years 2007 through 2012. In addition, we interviewed senior  BOP officials to discuss the extent that BOP has assessed the impact of  segregated housing on institutional safety and their views on the impact  of long-term segregation on inmates. Further, we identified and reviewed  actions five states have taken regarding segregated housing units. We  selected these five states because they were involved in addressing  segregated housing unit reform and had taken actions to reduce the  number of inmates in segregated housing units. For each of the five  selected states, we reviewed relevant documents on segregated housing,  including placement policies, and we interviewed corrections officials in  these states to understand the reasons for and impact of segregated  housing unit reforms. We visited correctional facilities in two of the five  states—Kansas and Colorado. While the results from our interviews are  not representative of all prisons, they provided us with perspectives on  state actions. We also analyzed studies and reports that describe,  evaluate, or analyze the impact of segregated housing units on  institutional safety and inmates held in these units. We compared BOP’s  mechanisms for evaluating the impact of segregated housing units on  institutional safety, and the impacts of long-term segregation on inmates,  with BOP’s policies and mission statements. Appendix I includes more  details about our scope and methodology.
We conducted this performance audit from January 2012 to April 2013 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 for 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: BOP operates three main types of segregated housing units: (1) SHUs,  (2) SMUs, and (3) the ADX facility in Florence, Colorado. BOP also  operates Communications Management Units (CMU), where conditions of  confinement are similar to general population and inmates are allowed to  congregate outside their cells for up to 16 hours per day. For information  about CMUs see appendix II. According to BOP policy, all three types of  segregated housing units have the same purpose, which is to separate  inmates from the general inmate population to protect the safety, security,  and orderly operation of BOP facilities, and to protect the public.  However, the specific placement criteria and conditions of confinement  vary for each type of segregated housing unit. In addition, inmates in  SHUs, SMUs, and ADX are confined to their cells approximately 23 hours  per day.three units.
section_title: Segregated Housing Unit Population and Number of Cells Have Increased since Fiscal Year 2008
paragraphs: From fiscal year 2008 through February 2013, the total inmate population  in segregated housing units increased approximately 17 percent—from  10,659 to 12,460 inmates. The total inmate population in segregated  housing units increased since fiscal year 2008, but the trends in inmate  population vary by type of segregated housing unit. By comparison, the  total inmate population in BOP facilities increased by about 6 percent  since fiscal year 2008. In addition, the total number of segregated  housing cells in BOP facilities increased by nearly 16 percent. The main  reason for the increase in segregated inmates was the creation of the  SMU program in fiscal year 2008.
SHUs. From fiscal year 2008 through February 2013, the total SHU  population remained about the same at 10,070 and 10,050,  respectively. BOP generally double-bunks inmates in SHUs; however, BOP has the capability to hold some SHU inmates in single cells. For  example, as of November 2012, BOP had 6,731 double-bunked SHU  cells and 360 single-bunked SHU cells. BOP officials also stated they  may add beds to some SHU cells to accommodate the population at a  given facility.
SMUs. As shown in figure 5, from fiscal year 2008 through February  2013, the SMU population increased at a faster rate than SHUs and  ADX—from 144 inmates in fiscal year 2008 to 1,960 inmates as of  February 2013. housing units in five BOP facilities to 1,270 total SMU cells, as of  November 2012. By March 2013, BOP closed SMUs in two facilities and  moved those SMU inmates into other SMUs or released them from prison  after serving their sentence.
BOP developed SMU capacity by converting existing  ADX. From fiscal year 2008 through February 2013, the total ADX inmate  population declined by approximately 5 percent from 475 inmates to 450  inmates. During this period, ADX cells remained stable at 623 cells.  According to BOP officials, the ADX population has declined overall since  2008 because of the transfer of inmates out of ADX Step Down to the  general population of another high security prison or because inmates are  being placed in SMUs instead of being placed in ADX. (See fig. 5 for the  trends in population growth for SHUs, SMUs, and ADX from fiscal year  2008 through February 2013).
These data include inmates in the SHUs within each SMU.
section_title: BOP’s Monitoring of Segregated Housing Policies Varies by Type of Unit, and Some Facilities’ Documentation Is Incomplete BOP Monitors Compliance Differently across the Three Types of Segregated Housing
paragraphs: BOP Headquarters (HQ) has a mechanism in place to centrally monitor  how prisons implement most segregated housing unit policies, but the  degree of BOP monitoring varies depending on the type of segregated  housing unit. In addition, we identified concerns related to facilities’  documentation of monitoring conditions of confinement and procedural  protections.
BOP monitors the extent to which individual prisons implement BOP  policies. BOP’s monitoring includes specific steps to check compliance  with requirements for SHUs and SMUs, but not for ADX. BOP’s Program  Review Division is to perform reviews at least once every 3 years to  ensure compliance with BOP policies. However, BOP can review prisons  more frequently if it identifies performance deficiencies. These follow-ups  can occur at 6-month, 18-month, 2-year or 3-year intervals. These PRD  reviews assess compliance with a variety of BOP policies for inmates in  the general population prison and segregated housing. For example, PRD  assesses compliance with BOP policies on conditions of confinement,  such as whether inmates are given three meals a day, provided exercise  time 5 days a week, and are allowed telephone and other privileges.  Following a review at a facility, PRD issues a program review report,  noting deficiencies and findings at the BOP facility. These PRD  monitoring reviews are done on a prison complex basis, which may  include a variety of housing types, including low, minimum, medium, high  security prisons, and the three types of segregated housing units (e.g.,  SHUs, SMUs, and ADX).
According to BOP officials, BOP provides training for PRD program review staff to  conduct on-site monitoring. For example, on-site monitoring generally includes a team of  an average of about five examiners, depending on the size and security level of the  facility. Before a staff member leads an on-site monitoring visit, he or she is required to  shadow an experienced staff member for about 1 year. BOP also trains all employees in  basic correctional duties and inmate supervision. For example, BOP requires all new  examiners to participate in annual refresher training. program reviews. If PRD determines that the prison response is  insufficient, PRD can request that the prison take corrective actions in a  subsequent follow-up report.
We reviewed 43 PRD follow-up reports and found that PRD concluded  that the facilities generally addressed deficiencies identified in all of the  43 reports. For example, one follow-up report was completed within 30  days and identified steps taken by the prison to address each of the four  problem areas—administrative operations, operational security, inmate  management, and intelligence operations—identified in the PRD report.  To address one of the deficiencies related to improper documentation of  exercise, meals, and supervisor assignments in SHUs, PRD required  additional training for the SHU staff. Following training, the prison  determined that it was in compliance with the relevant requirement,  deficiencies were addressed and PRD closed the recommendation. As  part of PRD’s monitoring process, once the facilities document steps  taken to address deficiencies in their follow-up reports, PRD determines  whether to close the recommendations.
As part of the monitoring process discussed above, PRD also checks  compliance with selected SHU- and SMU-specific policies, but has no  requirement to monitor ADX-specific policies. According to documentation  that BOP provided, we determined that BOP’s monitoring system is  designed to assess whether individual BOP prisons are in compliance  with SHU and SMU procedural policies, such as why an inmate is placed  in segregation, and with the specific conditions of confinement. For  example, BOP’s SHU policy requires that prison staff review the inmate’s  status within 3 days of being placed in administrative detention. To  assess compliance with this SHU policy, BOP monitoring guidance  requires PRD staff to review whether the inmate’s status was reviewed  within 3 days of being placed in administrative detention as required. In  addition, PRD also is to verify that prisons completed their quarterly  audits and operational reviews to ensure that procedural protections for  inmates have been followed and that inmates are housed according to  BOP policies. However, as discussed below, BOP does not have  requirements in place to monitor similar compliance for ADX-specific  policies. BOP’s monitoring policies for each type of segregated housing  unit are described below.
SHU. BOP policies require that PRD monitor SHU policies and review  documentation of 10 percent of inmates held in SHUs in each facility.  BOP policies also require PRD to select 10 inmate files from those held in  SHU disciplinary segregation for a review of procedural protections and  disciplinary procedures. Further, BOP requires PRD to monitor SHU  specific policies that cover additional requirements to monitor conditions  of confinement and procedural protections. BOP incorporates ACA  monitoring standards as part of its SHU policy. See figure 6 for a  photographic example of a SHU cell, which PRD is required to monitor to  ensure the prison provides conditions of confinement for inmates held in  SHUs.
SMU. According to BOP policy, PRD is required to monitor a prison’s  compliance with SMU-specific policies, including those SMU-specific  policies that require prisons to provide specific conditions of confinement  and procedural protections. PRD reviews are required to check  compliance with nine SMU-specific policies such as providing inmates  with 5 hours of recreation per week; an opportunity to shower a minimum  of three times per week; and access to visits, correspondence, and  medical and mental health care. According to BOP officials, BOP  incorporates ACA monitoring standards as part of its SMU policy. BOP  also requires PRD to review 25 SMU inmate case files that cover  conditions of confinement for SMU inmates. See figure 7 for a  photographic example of a SMU recreation area, which PRD is required  to monitor to ensure the prison provides conditions of confinement for  inmates held in SMUs.
ADX. ADX inmates are included in any PRD program review that covers  the entire Florence prison complex. While PRD has some oversight over  ADX, PRD does not monitor ADX to the same degree that it monitors  SHUs and SMUs. According to BOP officials, except for inmates held in  ADX-SHUs, PRD is not required to monitor ADX-specific conditions of  confinement–such as exercise, telephone, and visitation–as they do for  SHUs or SMUs. For example, PRD reviews do not check for compliance  with ADX-specific policies, such as whether inmates are afforded a  minimum of 7 hours of recreation per week or the minimum of one 15- minute phone call per month in the Control Unit.
The ADX-specific policies for recreation, telephone calls, and visits  allowed vary in each of the three ADX housing units: the Control Unit, the  Special Security Unit, and the Step Down Units. (See fig. 2). According to  BOP officials, PRD does not have monitoring requirements for ADX- specific policies because BOP management has not identified ADX as a  high-risk area that needed specific monitoring requirements due to other  oversight mechanisms. For example, BOP HQ reviews the referral and  placement of all inmates in ADX, including a review of each inmate  placed in the Control Unit every 60 to 90 days to determine the inmate’s  readiness for release from the unit. BOP officials also told us that ADX- specific policies are monitored locally by ADX officials.
However, conditions of confinement in ADX housing units are generally  more restrictive than those in SHUs and SMUs. For example, unlike  SHUs and SMUs, nearly all inmates in ADX are confined to single cells  alone for about 23 hours per day. Also, although BOP HQ has  mechanisms to monitor some procedural protections, and ADX officials  locally monitor ADX-specific policies, BOP HQ lacks oversight over the  extent to which ADX staff are in compliance with many ADX-specific  requirements related to conditions of confinement and procedural  protections to the same degree that it has for SHUs and SMUs. According  to PRD officials, PRD does not assess the extent to which ADX provides  conditions of confinement or procedural protections as required under  ADX policy and program statements because it is not required to do so.  As a result, PRD cannot report to BOP management on the extent of  compliance with these ADX-specific requirements. With such oversight,  BOP headquarters would have additional assurance that inmates held in  BOP’s most restrictive facility are afforded their minimum conditions of  confinement and procedural protections. See figures 8 and 9 for  examples of a cell in the ADX housing unit and recreation areas, which  PRD is required to monitor to some extent to ensure the prison provides  conditions of confinement for inmates held in ADX.
Standards for Internal Controls in the Federal Government states that an  effective internal control environment is a key method to help agency  managers achieve program objectives. The standards state, among other  things, that monitoring activities are an integral part of an entity’s  planning, implementing, reviewing, and accountability for stewardship of  government resources and achieving effective results. Specific  requirements for PRD to monitor ADX-specific policies to the same  degree that these requirements exist for SHUs and SMUs could help  provide BOP HQ additional assurance that ADX officials are following  BOP policies to hold inmates in a humane manner, in its highest security,  most restrictive facility. The Acting Assistant Director of PRD agreed that  developing such requirements would be useful to help ensure these  policies are followed.
subsections: section_title: Selected Facilities’ Documentation Problems Related to Conditions of Confinement and Inmate Placement Raise Concerns about the Monitoring of Inmates Placed in Segregation
paragraphs: BOP has a mechanism in place to centrally monitor how prisons  implement most segregated housing unit policies. However, given a  selection of PRD monitoring reports from 20 prisons and our independent  analysis of inmate case files at two federal prisons, we identified concerns  related to how facilities are documenting that inmates received their  conditions of confinement and procedural protections, which are  described below.
PRD monitoring reports. We reviewed 45 PRD monitoring reports from  20 prisons that assessed compliance at general population units and  SHUs and SMUs. PRD identified deficiencies in 38 of these reports,  including documentation concerns in 30 reports. As part of our review,  we found PRD monitoring reports identified deficiencies, such as missing  SHU forms, or incomplete documentation that inmates held in  segregation for at least 22 hours per day received all their meals and  exercise as required. For example, segregated inmates in SHUs and  SMUs are entitled the opportunity to have 1 hour of exercise per day but  the documentation at these prisons did not clearly indicate that these  standards were always observed.
According to our review of 45 PRD reports from 20 prisons, we found that  BOP rated 15 prisons as generally compliant with both BOP policies and  policies specific to SHUs and SMUs. However, while BOP found that these prisons were generally in compliance with segregated housing unit  policies, most of these prisons had some deficiencies. For example, our  analysis of the PRD reports found that, in 38 of the 45 reviews, PRD  identified deficiencies such as missing documentation, monitoring rounds  not being consistently conducted, or inmate review policies not fully  implemented. (See fig. 10 for common deficiencies.)
To assess how PRD staff conducted monitoring at prisons, we observed  PRD conducting reviews at one prison complex that included two medium  and high security BOP facilities with SHUs. For example, we found that  PRD staff (1) performed monitoring rounds at SHUs, (2) reviewed log  books, and (3) reviewed inmate files, to determine if the facilities followed  the required procedural protections steps. Given our observations, we  concluded that PRD staff monitored these facilities’ compliance with BOP  policies, as called for in PRD’s monitoring guidelines.
Independent analysis of inmate case files. We also conducted an  independent analysis of BOP compliance with SHU-specific policies at  three facilities. Specifically, we reviewed a total of 51 segregated housing  files for inmates held in administrative detention and disciplinary-SHU for  fiscal years 2011 and 2012 at three facilities. We found that these three  facilities were generally complying with BOP policies related to inmate  placement and ensuring procedural protections for inmates placed in  SHU-disciplinary segregation, in light of our review of these selected  files. For example, 42 out of 51 inmate case files we analyzed provided  reasons for inmate placement in SHUs, as required by BOP policies.  However, of the 35 case files we reviewed for inmates held in  administrative-SHU – in which we reviewed conditions of confinement,  monitoring, and procedural protections –only 4 files consistently  documented that the inmates were afforded their rights to recreation and  procedural protections. For example, these 4 files consistently  documented that these inmates in SHUs received 1 hour of exercise a  day, 5 days per week, and that the inmates’ status in segregation was  consistently reviewed within 7 days of being placed in the SHU, as well as  meals and recreation, as required by BOP policy. The remaining 31 of the  35 files did not consistently document that the inmates were afforded  these rights. (See table 1.)
Given (1) our review of 45 BOP monitoring reports and (2) our  independent analysis of 51 selected inmate case files at three facilities,  we found that that the facilities did not consistently document conditions  of confinement and procedural protections as required under BOP policy  guidelines. For example, 38 out of the 45 reports identified deficiencies  such as missing documentation, monitoring rounds not being consistently  conducted, or inmate review policies not fully implemented. In our  independent analysis of 51 segregated housing unit case files, we  reviewed 35 files focused on determining if BOP regularly monitors  inmates’ status, conditions of confinement, and procedural protections,  and found documentation-related concerns in 31 out of 35 files.
While our selection of reports and site visits cannot be generalized to all  BOP facilities, the extent of documentation concerns indicates a potential  weakness with facilities’ compliance with BOP policies. Without proper  documentation of inmates’ rights and conditions of confinement, neither  we nor BOP HQ can determine whether facility staff have evidence that  facilities complied with policies to grant inmates exercise, meals, and  other rights, as required. In January 2013, BOP officials agreed with our  finding that BOP monitoring reports regularly identified problems with  documentation. BOP officials said that they believed these were  documentation problems caused by correctional officers forgetting to  document the logs, and not instances where inmates were not getting  their food, exercise, and procedural protections granted under BOP  guidelines. They noted that inmates can use the formal grievance  process, called the Administrative Remedy process, if they believe they  have not been granted these rights.
According to BOP officials, in December 2012, BOP began using a new  software program, called the SHU application in all SHUs and SMUs.  BOP officials told us that this new software program could improve the  documentation of the conditions of confinement in SHUs and SMUs, but  acknowledged it may not address all the deficiencies that we identified.  Because this new software was recently implemented, and BOP did not  provide evidence to the extent that it addressed the documentation  deficiencies, we cannot determine if it will mitigate the documentation  concerns. In addition, BOP does not have a plan that provides the  specific objectives of the software program, how it will address the  documentation deficiencies, or specific steps BOP will use to verify that  the software will resolve the documentation problems we identified.  According to best practices in project management, the establishment of  clear, achievable objectives can help ensure successful project  completion. A plan that clarifies the objectives and goals of the new  software program and the extent to which they will address  documentation issues we identified, along with time frames and  milestones, could help provide BOP additional assurance that inmates in  these facilities are being treated in accordance with BOP guidance.
section_title: BOP Estimates that Segregated Housing Costs More than Housing Inmates in General Population
paragraphs: BOP does not regularly track or calculate the cost of housing inmates in  segregated housing units. BOP computes costs by facility or complex,  and does not separate or differentiate the costs for segregated housing  units, such as SHUs, SMUs, and ADX that may be within the complex.  For example, Federal Correctional Complex (FCC) Florence in Florence,  Colorado, contains four different facilities, including ADX, one high  security, one medium security, and one minimum security facility, as well  as different types of housing units within most facilities. Specifically,  within the high security facility, there is a SHU and a SMU. According to  BOP officials, segregated housing unit costs are not separated because  most of the costs to operate a facility or complex apply to inmates housed  in all housing units within the facility or complex.reported that inmates in a segregated housing unit within a facility share  the same costs under the facility’s total obligations, such as utilities, food  services, health services, and facility maintenance, among other things.  BOP officials also stated that BOP aggregates the cost data for an entire   BOP officials further  facility or complex to reduce paperwork and streamline operations. BOP  also computes an overall average daily inmate per capita cost by security  level for each fiscal year. See table 2 for BOP’s computation of average  daily inmate per capita costs by security level for fiscal year 2012.
BOP officials stated that segregated housing units are more costly than  general prison population housing units because segregated housing  units require more resources—specifically staff— to operate and  maintain. According to BOP officials, the staff-to-inmate ratio in  segregated housing is significantly higher than in the general prison  population, which makes segregated housing units more expensive to  operate. For example, at one high security facility we visited, we  estimated there was an average of 41 inmates to one correctional officer  in the SHU during a 24-hour period. This contrasts to an inmate-to- correctional-officer ratio of about 124:1 in general population housing  units in the same facility during a 24-hour period. BOP officials at  facilities we visited stated that ADX, SMUs, and SHUs require more staff  than general population housing because most of the inmates are  confined to their cells for approximately 22 to 24 hours per day. As a  result, they are dependent on the correctional officers for many of the  activities that those in the general inmate population do for themselves.
For example, at least two correctional officers are needed to escort SHU  and SMU inmates to showers and to recreation cells. Some high security  inmates at SMUs require a three-officer escort each time they leave the  cell. Staff are required to bring meals to inmates in their cells in SHUs,  SMUs and ADX three times each day. In addition, staff are also required  to provide laundry services, daily medical visits, and weekly  psychological, educational, and religious visits to inmates in their cells in  SHUs, SMUs and ADX. In contrast, inmates in general population units  can generally access services in other areas of the facility freely, and  therefore can perform these activities without assistance from correctional  officers.
On January 31, 2013, BOP budget officials provided a snapshot estimate  that compares the daily inmate per capita costs in fiscal year 2012 at  ADX, a sample SMU, a SHU at a sample medium security facility, and a  SHU at a sample high security facility. For example, BOP estimates the  daily inmate per capita costs at ADX are $216.12 compared with $85.74  at the rest of the Florence complex. According to BOP estimates, the  inmate per capita costs at the sample SMU facility are $119.71, which are  higher than per capita costs in general population in BOP’s sample high  security facility, which are $69.41.(see table 3).  For its estimates of the  costs to operate SHUs, BOP selected Federal Correctional Institution  (FCI) Beckley for a sample medium security facility and U.S. Penitentiary  (USP) Lee for a sample high security facility. According to a senior BOP  official, BOP did not select these facilities because of costs but because  these facilities are a “typical” medium security and high security facility.  The estimated daily costs per inmate at these two sample facilities in  table 3 are lower and not directly comparable to the system-wide average  daily costs per inmate for medium and high security facilities, as shown in  table 2. Please see appendix I for a description of how BOP calculated its  estimated costs.
According to these cost estimates that BOP provided, we estimated that  the total cost of housing 1,987 inmates in SMUs in fiscal year 2012 was  $87 million. If these inmates were housed in a sample BOP medium or  high security facility, the total cost would have been about $42 million and  $50 million, respectively. Also, given BOP estimates, we calculated that  the total cost to house 435 inmates in ADX in fiscal year 2012 was about  $34 million. If these inmates were housed in a medium security or high  security facility, the total costs would have been about $9 million and $11  million, respectively. Moreover, the estimated costs of housing 5,318 SHU  inmates at the cost estimated by BOP for the sample medium security  facility, FCI Beckley, would be $152 million, which is more expensive than  housing inmates in medium security general population housing units  which would cost an estimated $112 million. Similarly, the estimated cost  of housing 2,701 SHU inmates at the cost estimated by BOP for the  sample high security facility, USP Lee, would be $92 million, compared  with housing inmates in high security general population housing units,  which costs an estimated $69 million.
According to BOP officials, the use of SMUs can reduce BOP costs. The  officials said that SMUs resulted in reduced assault rates and a reduction  in the number of facility lockdowns. Senior BOP budget officials noted  that there are significant financial costs associated with keeping disruptive  inmates in the general prison population who can cause a serious  incident and lead to costly lockdowns. For example, according to BOP  data, from fiscal years 2007 through 2011, lockdowns and disturbances  led to losses totaling about $23 million. These officials explained that,  during a lockdown, a facility has to use its entire staff to perform security  and custodial duties at the expense of other duties.
section_title: BOP Has Not Evaluated the Impact of Segregated Housing Units on Institutional Safety or the Impacts of Long- Term Segregation on Inmates
subsections: section_title: BOP Has Not Assessed the Extent to Which Segregated Housing Impacts Institutional Safety
paragraphs: BOP has not assessed the extent to which all three types of segregated  housing units—SHUs, SMUs, and ADX— impact institutional safety for  inmates and staff.impact of segregation, BOP senior management and prison officials told  us that they believed segregated housing units were effective in helping  to maintain institutional safety. According to BOP officials, SMUs helped   Although BOP has not completed an evaluation of the  reduce assault rates BOP-wide and reduced the number of lockdowns  due to conflict and violence from 149 in fiscal year 2008 to 118 in fiscal  year 2010, during a period when the overall inmate population increased.  BOP, however, could not provide documentation to support that these  reductions resulted from the use of SMUs.
Although state prison systems may not be directly comparable to BOP,  there may be relevant information from efforts states have taken to  reduce the number of inmates held in segregation. Five states we  reviewed have reduced their reliance on segregation—Colorado, Kansas,  Maine, Mississippi, and Ohio—prompted, according to state officials, by  litigation and state budget cuts, among other reasons. These states  worked with external stakeholders, such as classification experts and  correctional practitioners, to evaluate reasons why inmates were placed  in segregation and implemented reforms that reduced the number of  inmates placed in segregated housing units. After implementing  segregated housing unit reforms that reduced the numbers of inmates  held in segregation, officials from all five states we spoke with reported  little or no adverse impact on institutional safety. While these states have  not completed formal assessments of the impact of their segregated  housing reforms, officials from all five states told us there had been no  increase in violence after they moved inmates from segregated housing  to less restrictive housing. In addition, Mississippi and Colorado reported  cost savings from closing segregated housing units and reducing the  administrative segregation population. For example, Colorado closed a  high security facility in 2012, which state officials reported led to cost  savings of nearly $5 million in fiscal year 2012 and $2.2 million in fiscal  year 2013. According to Colorado officials, segregation reform efforts  helped lead to the closure of this high security facility. In Mississippi,  reforms in segregation also led to the closure of a supermax facility in  early 2010, which Mississippi Department of Corrections officials reported  saved the state nearly $6 million annually.
All five states changed their criteria for placing inmates in segregated  housing, which helped them reduce their segregated inmate populations.  Of the five states, three—Colorado, Mississippi, and Ohio—reviewed and  changed the classification for placing inmates in administrative SHUs and  two—Kansas and Maine—established new or modified the criteria for  placement of inmates in SMUs. For example, in 2007, Mississippi found  that approximately 800 inmates (or 80 percent) did not meet its revised  criteria for placement in administrative segregation. Before reforms,  inmates would generally be transferred directly from admittance to  administrative segregation without consideration of the inmate’s offense  and would generally remain in segregation without regular review of the  inmate’s status irrespective of whether the inmate had committed any  serious misconduct. After implementing reforms, Mississippi adopted new  criteria that stated inmates could be held in administrative segregation  only if they committed serious infractions, were active high-level members  of a gang, or had prior escapes or escape attempts from a secure facility.  According to Mississippi officials, this reform did not lead to an increase in  violence, assault rates, or serious incidents.
In 2011, after a study with external stakeholders that reviewed and  recommended changes to Colorado’s administrative segregation  operations, Colorado revised its policies for placement of inmates in  segregated housing. Subsequent to the external study’s completion,  Colorado began reviewing all offenders that had been in administrative  segregation for longer than 12 months and found that nearly 37 percent  or about 321 inmates in administrative segregation could be moved to  close custody general population. After Colorado revised its  classification criteria and increased oversight of the inmate review  process, the number of inmates held in segregation decreased from 60  per month in 2011 to approximately 20 to 30 per month in 2012.  According to Colorado state officials, these reforms did not lead to an  increase in violence.
In addition, in 2011, Maine’s Department of Corrections reformed its  inmate placement policies for SMUs. After changing the criteria and  classification for holding inmates in SMUs, Maine significantly reduced  the number of inmates in its 132-cell SMU, by closing a 50-cell section of  its supermax SMU.  Inmates removed from the SMU were reintegrated  into a less restrictive, general population setting, and according to  officials, there was no increase in incidents of violence.
While the policies and procedures for segregated housing vary between  states and BOP, and their experiences may not be directly comparable,  there may be lessons for BOP in the states’ experiences reducing their  reliance on segregated housing. According to BOP officials, BOP  generally uses larger states, such as California, Texas, or New York, for  comparison, and that the five states included in our report may not be  comparable with BOP. BOP officials also told us, in response to the  findings from these states, that BOP has more comprehensive  classification criteria, reviews, and procedural protections than the states.  As a result, they indicated that BOP might not have the same reductions  in costs and inmates in SHUs found at the state level. However, without  an assessment of the impact of segregated housing, BOP cannot  determine the extent to which placement of inmates in segregation  contributes to institutional safety and security. Such an assessment is  also important to inform DOJ and congressional decision making about  the extent to which segregation meets BOP’s key programmatic goals for  institutional safety. Our past work and the experience of leading  organizations have demonstrated that measuring and evaluating  performance allows organizations to track progress they are making  toward intended results—including goals, objectives, and targets they  expect to achieve—and gives managers critical information on which to  base decisions for improving their programs.
Given that BOP maintains data on assault, violence, and lockdown rates  across all prison facilities, BOP senior officials reported that evaluating  the relationship between assault rates and segregation might help them  evaluate the impact of segregated housing. An assessment of the  effectiveness of segregation, including consideration of practices across  local and state correctional systems, could better position BOP to  understand the extent to which different types of segregated housing  units meet BOP mission goals to ensure institutional safety for inmates  and staff.
On January 31, 2013, BOP officials told us that the BOP Director had  authorized the solicitation of an independent review of segregated  housing and, once a contract is awarded, they expect the study to be  completed during fiscal year 2014. BOP officials explained that the  study—with the objective of identifying improvement in BOP’s practice  and policy—is to review segregated housing, including identifying best  practices across the correctional spectrum, such as inmate management,  and mental health, among other areas. According to BOP, the statement  of work for this solicitation requires the recipient to provide an  assessment of the use and practices of segregated housing units in BOP.  However, it is unclear to what extent the review will assess the extent that  segregated housing units contribute to the safety and security of inmates  and staff and ensures that BOP meets its mission goals.
section_title: BOP Conducts Regular Assessments of the Mental Health of Inmates in Segregated Housing, but Has Not Conducted an Evaluation of Impacts of Long-Term Segregation on Inmates
paragraphs: BOP psychologists are required to provide an initial intake screening of  each inmate within 30 days of the inmate’s arrival in a BOP facility.  Moreover, BOP requires that psychological staff visit inmates in  segregated housing on a weekly basis and provide psychological  assessments after 30 consecutive days in the SHUs, SMUs, and ADX  Control and Special Security Units. According to BOP’s Psychology  Services Branch Administrator, these weekly visits and psychological  assessments provide staff an opportunity to intervene when and if they  find that an inmate is having difficulty in segregation. BOP also has a  suicide prevention program, which includes training for all staff and  additional supplemental training for staff working in segregation. In  addition, inmates receive information on suicide prevention upon their  arrival at an institution and the availability of mental health services while  in segregated housing. BOP also develops “hot list” memos that are  posted in SHUs to help inform staff of inmates who may have specific  mental health concerns or suicidal tendencies.
While BOP conducts regular assessments of mental health of inmates,  BOP has not evaluated the impact of long-term segregation on inmates.  BOP’s Office of Research and Evaluation (ORE) officials said they have  not studied the impact of long-term segregation on inmates because of  competing priorities related to studying impacts of prisoner reentry, drug  treatment, and recidivism. are methodological concerns related to finding an appropriate control  group of inmates to compare with inmates held in segregation. We  recognize the methodological limitations; however, a 2010 Colorado study  that was funded by DOJ identified a comparison group of inmates in order  to evaluate the psychological impact of segregation.
BOP’s Office of Research and Evaluation (ORE), which reported that BOP is in the  early stages of a study dedicated to evaluating the impact of SMUs on offenders. BOP  does not yet have an estimated completion date for the study.
BOP officials, including psychologists, at four of the six facilities we visited  reported little or no adverse impact of segregation on inmates. Some of  these psychologists and BOP HQ officials cited the 2010 DOJ-funded  study of the psychological impacts of solitary confinement in the Colorado  state prison system. This study showed that segregated housing of up  to 1 year may not have greater negative psychological impacts than non  segregated housing on inmates. While the DOJ-funded study did not  assess inmates in BOP facilities, BOP management officials told us this  study shows that segregation has little or no adverse long-term impact on  inmates. BOP’s Psychology Services Branch Administrator explained that  the impact is dependent on each individual inmate. For example, she told  us that a small number of inmates with mental disorders, such as  schizophrenia, actively seek placement in segregation, and some appear  to function reasonably well in this environment.
We reviewed several studies on the impact of segregated housing on  inmate mental health, and several suggest that long-term segregation or  solitary confinement can cause significant adverse impacts. See appendix  I for information about criteria used to select studies in our review. These  reports describe possible adverse impacts of segregation, including  exacerbation or recurrence of preexisting illnesses, illusions,  oversensitivity to stimuli, and irrational anger, among other symptoms,  although it is unclear how applicable the conditions studied are to BOP  segregated housing. Other reports addressed the possible effect of  segregation on other outcomes, such as recidivism or new convictions  after release from prison. Few reports, however, incorporate a comparison between inmates in segregation versus inmates not in  segregation, limiting the ability to draw conclusions about the impact of  segregation. A comparison of inmates held in segregation with those in  general population would be important for understanding the extent to  which any adverse psychological impacts are unique to long-term  segregation.
While most BOP officials told us there was little or no clear evidence of  mental health impacts from long-term segregation, BOP’s Psychology  Services Manual explicitly acknowledges the potential mental health risks  of inmates placed in long-term segregation. Specifically, it states that  BOP “recognizes that extended periods of confinement in Administrative  Detention or Disciplinary Segregation Status may have an adverse effect  on the overall mental status of some individuals.” In addition, according to  BOP’s mission statement, BOP protects society by confining offenders in  prisons that are, among other things, safe and humane. In our prior work,  we reported that DOJ stresses the importance of evidence-based  knowledge in achieving its mission. Specifically, DOJ’s Office of Justice  Programs (OJP) supports DOJ’s mission by sponsoring research to  provide objective, independent, evidence-based knowledge to meet the  challenges of crime and justice, such as the 2010 Colorado state prison  system study. In addition, BOP’s ORE is responsible for conducting  research and evaluation of BOP programs, but ORE has not conducted  studies on the impact of long-term segregation on inmates. Further,  according to generally accepted government auditing standards,  managers should evaluate programs to provide external accountability for  the use of public resources to understand the extent to which the program  is fulfilling its objectives.
To help BOP HQ assess inmates placed in segregation, BOP maintains a  psychology data system (PDS) that is used to document all mental health  screenings and staff visits by psychologists and treatment specialists, and  a Bureau Electronic Medical Record (BEMR) that documents all staff  visits by physicians and medication provided. Given that BOP’s PDS and  BEMR systems maintain data on the mental health of inmates and BOP’s  Psychological Services Manual states there may be potential adverse  effects from long-term segregation, a study that uses existing information  to assess the impact of segregation on inmates would better position  BOP to understand the effects of segregation, including any related to  inmates’ mental health. BOP’s Psychology Services Branch Administrator  agreed that such a study would be useful. As of January 2013, BOP  announced that the bureau is considering the development of procedures  for conducting individualized mental health case reviews of inmates held  in long-term segregation, i.e., inmates housed in SHUs or the ADX  Control Unit for more than 12 continuous months and inmates who fail to  progress through the SMU or ADX General Population Step Down  phases in a timely manner. These reviews would be conducted at BOP  HQ, and if the review found any concerns, the reviewers would contact  prison staff to discuss strategies to reduce or eliminate the identified  mental health concerns. However, the proposal is still under  consideration, has not yet been implemented across all prison facilities,  and we cannot determine the extent to which this proposal will  systematically assess the long-term impact of segregated housing on  inmates.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Over the past 5 years, the number of BOP inmates in segregated housing  has grown at a faster rate than the general inmate population. With more  inmates held under more restrictive conditions, often for months or years  at a time, segregated housing represents an important part of BOP’s  effort to achieve its primary goal of confining inmates in a safe, secure,  and cost-efficient environment. While BOP has a mechanism to centrally  monitor many of its segregated housing unit policies, BOP does not  centrally monitor the policies specific to its most restrictive segregated  prison, the ADX facility. As a result, BOP has less assurance that ADX  staff consistently follows ADX-specific policies to the same degree that  these requirements are followed for SHUs and SMUs. We also found that  prison officials were not consistently documenting that inmates’ conditions  of confinement, such as food and exercise privileges, were being met.  BOP has taken initial steps toward addressing these documentation  issues by implementing new software that may help track the monitoring  of SHUs and SMUs. However, BOP has not developed a plan to clarify  the objectives and goals of the new software program, with time frames  and milestones that explain the extent to which it will address  documentation issues we identified.
BOP officials believe that segregated housing helps maintain institutional  safety. Given BOP’s increased reliance on segregated housing and the  higher costs associated with its use, it is notable that BOP has not studied  the impact of segregated housing on inmates, staff, and institutional  safety. As BOP considers options for conducting a study of segregated  housing, BOP may want to consider lessons learned from some state  initiatives that reduced the number of inmates held in segregation without  significant, adverse impacts on violence or assault rates. In addition,  BOP’s own policies recognize that long-term segregation may have a  detrimental effect on inmates. While BOP does regularly check the mental  health of inmates in segregated housing, BOP has not conducted an  assessment of the long-term impact of segregation on inmates.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To improve BOP’s ability to centrally oversee the implementation of  segregated housing policies, we recommend that the Director of the  Bureau of Prisons take the following two actions:  (1) develop ADX-specific monitoring requirements and  (2) develop a plan that clarifies the objectives and goals of the new  software program, with time frames and milestones, and other means,  that explains the extent to which the software program will address  documentation concerns we identified.
To ensure that BOP’s use of segregated housing furthers BOP’s goal to  confine inmates in a humane manner and contributes to institutional  safety without having a detrimental impact on inmates held there for long  periods of time, we recommend that the Director of the Bureau of Prisons  take the following two actions:  (1) ensure that any current study to assess segregated housing units also  includes an assessment of the extent that segregated housing contributes  to institutional safety, and consider key practices that include local and  state efforts to reduce reliance on and the number of inmates held in  segregated housing and  (2) assess the impact of long-term segregation on inmates in SHUs,  SMUs, and ADX.
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 this draft, which are reproduced in full  in appendix IV. BOP concurred with all of our recommendations. BOP  also provided technical comments on the report on April 19, 2012, which  we incorporated as appropriate.
BOP concurred with the first recommendation that BOP develop ADX- specific monitoring requirements. BOP stated that it will conduct a  Management Assessment to identify aspects of the Control Unit at ADX  that are vulnerable to violations of policy. BOP further noted that it would  develop guidelines, as appropriate, to be incorporated into the program  review guidelines. If fully implemented across all ADX housing units,  BOP’s planned actions will address the intent of this recommendation.
BOP concurred with the second recommendation that BOP develop a  plan with timeframes and milestones, to explain the extent the software  program will address documentation concerns. BOP stated that the goal  of the new software program is to help ensure compliance with  requirements to maintain accurate and complete records on conditions  and events in segregated housing units. BOP indicated that they will  conduct a program review by September 30, 2013 to determine if the  SHU documentation deficiencies have been reduced. If fully  implemented, BOP’s planned actions will address the intent of this  recommendation.
BOP concurred with the third recommendation that BOP ensure any  current study to assess segregated housing units also includes an  assessment of the extent that segregated housing contributes to  institutional safety.  BOP stated that the current scope of work for the  Special Housing Review and Assessment will include an assessment of  how segregated housing units contribute to institutional safety. BOP  further noted that the scope of work will include consideration of key  practices of local and state correctional systems. If fully implemented,  BOP’s planned actions will address the intent of this recommendation.
BOP concurred with the fourth recommendation that BOP assess the  impact of long-term segregation on inmates in SHUs, SMUs, and ADX.  BOP stated that the assessment of mental health of inmates is consistent  with its public safety mission. BOP stated that BOP will develop and  distribute an expanded mental health screening tool for psychology staff,  which will help conduct a longitudinal assessment of: (1) inmates housed  in SHUs or the ADX Control Unit for more than 12 continuous months;  and (2) those inmates who fail to progress through the SMU or ADX  General Population Step Down phases in a timely manner. In addition,  BOP stated that its review of segregated housing units will include an  evaluation of inmate mental health history and a review of BOP’s mental  health assessment process.  If fully implemented, BOP’s planned actions  will address the intent of this recommendation.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies to the Attorney General,  Director of the Bureau of Prisons, selected congressional committees,  and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at no  charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.
Should you or your staff have any questions concerning this report,  please contact David Maurer at (202) 512-9627 or by email at  maurerd@gao.gov. Contact points from 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 V.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: Our objectives for this report were to address the following questions:  1.What were the trends in the Bureau of Prison’s (BOP) segregated  housing unit population and number of cells from fiscal year 2008 through  February 2013?  2.To what extent does BOP centrally monitor how individual facilities  document and apply policies guiding segregated housing units?  3.To what extent has BOP assessed the costs to operate segregated  housing units and how do the costs to confine an inmate in a segregated  housing unit compare with the costs of confining an inmate in a general  inmate population housing unit?  4.To what extent does BOP assess the impact of segregated housing on  institutional safety and the impacts of long-term segregation on inmates?
Overall, to address our questions, we analyzed BOP’s statutory authority  and policies and procedures (e.g., BOP’s inmate placement, procedural  protections, and general conditions of confinement for segregated  housing units—Special Housing Units (SHU), Special Management Units  (SMU), and the Florence Administrative Maximum facility (ADX)—and  Communications Management Units (CMU)). BOP considers CMUs as  self-contained general population housing units. However, since CMU  inmates are separated from general inmate population and have  restrictive conditions, such as 100 percent of their communications  monitored and noncontact visits, we include CMUs within the scope of our  review, as described in appendix II.
To address the first question, we obtained and analyzed BOP’s number of  cells and inmate population data for each type of segregated housing unit  and the CMUs. We focused our data analysis on the period of fiscal year  2008 through February 2013 or the past five fiscal years to the most  recent data available. We assessed the reliability of the inmate  population and number of cells data by (1) participating in an electronic  demonstration of the SENTRY database that BOP uses to generate  required inmate population, (2) reviewing existing information about the  data and the system that produced them, (3) examining the data for  obvious errors and inconsistencies, and (4) interviewing BOP officials  knowledgeable about the data. We determined that the required data  elements were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.
To address the second question, we analyzed BOP’s policies and  procedures pertinent to the monitoring of individual prisons’ compliance  with segregated housing unit policies. To observe the conditions of  confinement, procedural protections, and inmate placement in segregated  housing, we conducted visits to 6 of 119 BOP federal institutions. We  chose these institutions because of different types of segregated housing  units and varying security levels they contain. As shown in table 4, the six  prisons we visited cover the three main types of segregated housing  units—SHUs, SMUs, and ADX—as well as CMUs.
During the site visits, we interviewed institutional management officials  and toured the prison to observe inmate housing, recreational areas, food  service, and educational and vocational programming. We also  interviewed officials from BOP’s Program Review Division (PRD), which  leads monitoring reviews, and officials from BOP’s Correctional Programs  Division (CPD), which has primary responsibility for inmate placement  and procedural policies at segregated housing units. 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. However, we  selected the sites to provide perspectives on different types of segregated  housing units and varying security levels, which were useful in  understanding population trends, BOP monitoring of conditions of  confinement and procedural policies, cost, and the impact of segregated  housing.
Further, for our second question, we assessed BOP’s monitoring for each  type of segregated housing unit by reviewing monitoring policies,  guidelines, and reports. We analyzed BOP’s segregated housing unit  policies and monitoring guidance and compared them against criteria in  Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. We also  assessed the methodology and system BOP employs to monitor, identify,  and address deficiencies at prisons; we reviewed 45 of 187 PRD  monitoring reports from 20 of 98 facilities that PRD monitored during the  period from fiscal years 2007 to 2011. We requested a selection of PRD  correctional services monitoring reports, which BOP provided for a variety  of facilities during this time period. In addition, we requested monitoring  reports for the facilities we visited for our site visits. We also reviewed 43  follow-up monitoring reports related to the 45 monitoring reports to  determine the extent that prisons resolved deficiencies identified in the  monitoring reports.
We reviewed these PRD monitoring reports to summarize common  findings and deficiencies relevant to our engagement related to  cleanliness, conditions of confinement, documentation, procedural  protection, monitoring, policy, security protocols, timeliness, and training.  We developed a methodology for selecting these areas to assess the  extent that BOP monitored conditions of confinement, procedural policies,  and other key issues identified in the monitoring reports. One analyst  reviewed each report and highlighted any common findings and  deficiencies noted in the report. A second analyst independently verified  the findings and deficiencies identified. We also interviewed PRD officials  responsible for doing on-site monitoring, and interviewed senior BOP  officials who are responsible for developing monitoring policy guidance to  understand the degree and methodology of monitoring used.
To provide an independent analysis of BOP compliance with segregated  housing unit policies at selected prisons, we developed a data collection  instrument (DCI) according to BOP’s monitoring policies, and guidance  and questions. Our DCI is similar to questions used during PRD periodic  on-site monitoring reviews of segregated housing unit policies at SHUs,  SMUs, and general prison policies at CMUs. We selected two of the six  institutions we visited—FCC Terre Haute and USP Marion. At each  institution, we selected a random sample of case files from fiscal years  2011 to 2012, of inmates currently housed in segregated housing units— including SHU-administrative detention, SHU-disciplinary segregation,  and CMUs—totaling 61 files. These 61 inmate case files include 51 SHU  inmate case files, and 10 CMU inmate case files. We selected the inmate  case files from SHUs using the same sample size BOP PRD inspectors  use when conducting correctional services monitoring reviews of SHUs.  For example, according to BOP PRD monitoring guidance for correctional  services reviews of SHUs, PRD inspectors are to review documentation  of 10 percent of inmates currently in SHU to determine whether the  inmates are afforded specific conditions of confinement, inmates’  placement and status in SHU are regularly reviewed, and other SHU  policies are followed. Accordingly, we selected the case files of 10  percent of inmates in SHUs in the two institutions for our analysis.  According to PRD monitoring guidance for the review of disciplinary-SHU,  PRD inspectors are to review 10 disciplinary hearing packets. For our  review, we selected 17 disciplinary inmate case files and hearing packets  because we were interested in understanding the extent to which BOP  provided procedural protections for inmates held in disciplinary-SHU. We  randomly selected the inmate case files from both SHUs and CMUs from  a roster of inmates in each SHU or CMU at the time of our visit. Although  our selection of files was not generalizable to all inmates in all types of  segregated housing units, it provided insights into whether these  institutions were following BOP policy. We used the DCIs to extract  information relevant to BOP’s monitoring policies, inmate placement,  conditions of confinement and procedural protections for inmates held in  SHU-administrative detention, SHU-disciplinary segregation, and CMUs.  One analyst summarize information from the inmate case file, and a  second analyst verified the DCI information collected. A third analyst  reviewed and summarized information collected from the DCIs. In  addition, we observed PRD staff conduct on-site monitoring of SHUs and  CMU at two facilities.
We also reviewed information and documentation received related to  BOP’s new software program, that includes the SHU application,  compared against best practices for project management and criteria in  BOP’s monitoring documentation policies. For example, we reviewed  implementation dates and plans, training materials used across BOP  facilities, and analyzed BOP monitoring policies, and interviewed PRD  officials to understand to what extent the new SHU application addresses  any documentation concerns we identified during our engagement.
To address the third question, we reviewed BOP fiscal year 2012 average  inmate per capita costs for prisons at each major security level: high  security, medium security, low security, and minimum security levels.  These inmate per capita costs cover all costs associated with the day-to- day operation of the entire institution, including health services, uniform,  food, programming, and contractual services and equipment costs related  to each prison. According to BOP, the inmate daily per capita costs are  calculated as total obligations as reported in BOP’s Salaries and  Expenses appropriations account divided by total inmate days. Further, in  January 2013, BOP provided a snapshot estimate of fiscal year 2012  inmate per capita costs broken out by segregated housing versus general  population housing at four institutions: (1) USP Lewisburg, a SMU facility;  (2) FCC Florence, which includes ADX Florence; (3) a sample medium  security facility (FCI Beckley); and (4) a sample high security facility (USP  Lee), which both include SHUs. We interviewed BOP officials from the  Administration Division, who have responsibility over financial and facility  management, about their processes for developing the estimates.  According to senior BOP officials, BOP selected these facilities because  they considered them “typical” medium security and high security  facilities. We found BOP’s segregated housing versus general population  housing inmate per capita cost data to be sufficiently reliable for the  purposes of presenting an overview of possible costs. For illustration  purposes, we also used BOP’s estimated segregated housing versus  general population housing inmate per capita cost data, combined with  BOP inmate population data, to estimate the costs of housing the number  of inmates in ADX, all SMUs, and all SHUs, BOP-wide, as of fiscal year  2012 compared with the costs to house these same amount of inmates in  general population housing units for fiscal year 2012. For example, to  estimate the total costs of housing the total SMU inmate population in  SMUs, BOP-wide, for fiscal year 2012, we multiplied BOP’s estimated  daily inmate per capita costs for USP Lewisburg SMU by the total SMU  population times 366 days, or the number of calendar days in 2012. To  estimate the costs of housing this same number of SMU inmates in  general population housing in a medium security or high security facility,  we multiplied the total SMU population, BOP-wide, by BOP’s estimated  daily inmate per capita costs for the sample medium facility, FCI Beckley,  times 366 days, and estimated daily inmate per capita costs for the  sample high security facility, USP Lee, times 366 days, respectively.
To address the fourth question, we reviewed BOP’s policies, including  program objectives, for each segregated housing unit and policies  governing the provision of mental health services to inmates in  segregated housing units. We also reviewed BOP lockdown data from  fiscal year 2008 through fiscal year 2012. We also interviewed officials  from BOP’s Correctional Programs Division (CPD), which also includes  the Psychology Services Branch that is responsible for mental health  services. We also interviewed officials from BOP’s Office of Research and  Evaluation (ORE), who produce reports and research corrections-related  topics. During these interviews, we discussed the lack of BOP studies  that assess the impact of segregated housing units on institutional safety  and inmates and staff, and their views on the impact of long-term  segregation, including their views on the impact of segregation on  inmates, including those with mental illness. We also discussed the  impacts of segregation with officials from the Council of Prison Locals, the  union that represents all nonmanagement staff working in BOP facilities.
To identify actions states have taken regarding segregated housing that  may be relevant to BOP, we reviewed actions taken by five states— Colorado, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, and Ohio. We selected these five  states because they (1) were involved in addressing segregated housing  reform and (2) had taken actions to reduce the number of inmates held in  segregation. For each of the five selected states, we reviewed relevant  documents on segregated housing, and in four states we reviewed  placement policies. For four of the five selected states, we reviewed  relevant reports on their segregated housing unit conditions for context.  While conducting site visits to BOP prisons in Kansas and Colorado, we  also visited state correctional facilities in those two states. We interviewed  corrections officials at these facilities and the other states regarding  reasons for reducing the segregated housing unit population and any  reported impact of the segregated housing unit reforms on institutional  safety. While the reports and results from our interviews are not  representative, they provided us with perspectives on state actions to  reduce segregated housing  There are dissimilarities between federal and state prison systems— legally and structurally, to name a few––that limit the comparability  between federal and state correctional systems. We are unable to  generalize about the types of actions other states have taken to reform  segregated housing policies and reduce the number of inmates held in  segregation and any effects. Nevertheless, the information we obtained  through these visits provided examples of state responses to reforming  segregation and reducing inmates housed in segregated housing units.  We also discussed with BOP officials the state actions we identified.
Further, to identify the universe of reports and studies that describe,  evaluate, or analyze the impact of segregated housing, including any  long-term impacts associated with mental illness, we used a multistaged  process. First, we (1) conducted key word searches of criminal justice,  legal, and social science research databases; (2) searched academic,  nongovernment and stakeholder interest group-related Web sites, such  as those of Vera, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and Urban  Institute, (3) reviewed bibliographies, published summaries, meta- analyses, and prior GAO reports on segregated housing; and (4) asked  academic corrections experts to identify evaluations. Our literature search  identified over 150 documents, which included articles, opinion pieces,  published reports, and studies related to segregated housing. We further  identified studies that compared inmates in segregated housing with  inmates in the general population. We reviewed these reports and studies  to gain a broader understanding of the potential impacts of segregated  housing and of the extent and quality of research available on the subject.  We compared BOP’s mechanisms for evaluating the impact of  segregated housing units on institutional safety, or the impacts of long- term segregation on inmates, with BOP’s policies and mission  statements.
We conducted this performance audit from January 2012 to April 2013 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 given our audit objectives. We believe that the  evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions for our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Communications Management Units
paragraphs: BOP established CMUs in 2006 and 2008, in two institutions to house  inmates who require increased monitoring of their communications with  the public to protect the safety, security, and orderly operation of BOP  facilities and the public. Inmates in CMUs have 100 percent of their  communications monitored by BOP officials and are allowed only  noncontact visits with family and friends. According to each prison’s  institution supplement guidelines, CMUs are self-contained general  population housing units in which inmates reside; eat; and participate in  all educational, religious, visiting, unit management, and work  programming in the unit, similar to general population inmates. From  fiscal year 2008 to February 2013, the total CMU population increased  from 64 inmates to 81 inmates. See figure 11 for an overview of CMUs.
According to a BOP memorandum, BOP places inmates in CMUs for  several reasons, including conviction, conduct or involvement related to  international or domestic terrorism, and commission of prohibited activity  related to misuse or abuse of approved communication methods while  incarcerated, or for other reasons.
Inmates referred to CMUs do not receive a hearing prior to placement in  CMUs. According to the prison’s institution supplement guidelines, an  inmate assigned to a CMU is to receive a notice of transfer to the CMU  within 5 days of arrival in the unit, including reasons for placement and  notice of the right to appeal the transfer through the administrative  remedy process. At the institution, prison officials are to review the CMU  inmate’s status every 6 months, according to BOP’s national policy that  applies to all inmates in BOP custody. The guidelines also call for prison  officials to regularly review an inmate’s readiness to be transferred out of  a CMU by examining a number of factors, including programming needs  and if the original reasons for CMU placement still exist. After conducting  the review, prison officials may recommend to the warden that an inmate  be transferred out of the CMU.
subsections: section_title: General Conditions of Confinement
paragraphs: All CMU inmates are segregated from the general population in self- contained housing units to regulate and monitor their communications  with persons in the community. However, they are allowed to congregate  outside their cells, but within these self-contained housing units, for 15 to  16 hours per day like inmates in the general population. Inmates in  CMUs require 100 percent live monitoring of their telephone calls and  social visits, and a review of their incoming and outgoing social mail. All  telephone calls and social visits are also recorded, and they must occur in  English only, unless the call is previously scheduled and conducted  through simultaneous translation monitoring. Other than increased  communications monitoring, BOP officials stated that conditions of  confinement in these units are the same as conditions of confinement for  inmates in other medium security general population housing units. This  includes (1) access to medical and mental health services; (2) meals that  meet inmate dietary requirements served in common dining areas; (3)  access to recreation and leisure in a common area daily up to 16 hours  per day, including table games, television in the common areas, and  some aerobic exercise equipment; (4) religious service opportunities; and  (5) access to law library services.
Also, like general population housing, each CMU contains a SHU  dedicated to housing inmates in need of being placed in SHU- administrative detention or SHU-disciplinary segregation status. See  figures 12 and 13 for photographs of a CMU.
As previously discussed, BOP headquarters has a mechanism in place to  centrally monitor how prisons implement most housing unit policies, but  the degree of monitoring varies depending upon the type of housing. In  addition, we reviewed PRD monitoring reports, assessed how PRD  conducted monitoring at one of the two prisons with CMUs, and  conducted an independent analysis of BOP compliance at these two  prisons.
At one of the two prisons with CMUs we visited, we observed that PRD  checked compliance with general prison policies, as well as SHU-specific  policies, but PRD does not have requirements to monitor CMU-specific  policies. CMU inmate files may be included in any PRD program review  that covers the entire prison complex. According to BOP officials,  although not required, BOP may randomly select some CMU inmate files  as part of the prison complex during periodic PRD reviews.PRD does not have requirements to monitor CMU-specific policies found  in the institution supplement guidelines. According to BOP officials,  additional monitoring for CMUs is not required because they do not have  the same kinds of restrictive conditions of confinement that are the  subject of SHU- and SMU-specific monitoring steps.
As part of our review of PRD monitoring reports, we found that 8 of the 45  monitoring reports covered these two prisons with CMUs. PRD found that  these prisons were in general compliance with BOP policies, and none of  these PRD monitoring reports identified any findings or deficiencies  specific to the CMUs. To assess how PRD staff conducted monitoring at  one of these prisons, we observed PRD conduct reviews at the CMUs in  accordance with PRD guidelines. In light of our observations, we found  that PRD staff (1) performed monitoring rounds at CMUs, (2) reviewed log  books, and (3) reviewed inmate files, to determine if the prisons followed  the required procedural protections steps. In addition, we also conducted  an independent analysis of BOP compliance with CMU-specific policies at  the two prisons with CMUs. Specifically, we reviewed a total of 10 files for  inmates held in CMUs for fiscal years 2011 and 2012 at these two  facilities. We found that all 10 inmate case files we analyzed provided  reasons for inmate placement in CMUs, as required by BOP institution  supplements. However, similar to the documentation problems we noted  in the body of the report, we found documentation deficiencies during our  review of the CMU files. For example, 2 out of the 10 inmate case files we  reviewed did not include documentation that unit team staff regularly  monitored the inmate’s CMU status every 6 months and ensured that  inmates were afforded their rights to programming activities. Without  complete documentation, BOP headquarters cannot be assured that  inmates in CMUs are receiving the procedural protections and conditions  of confinement to which they are entitled, as stated in BOP policy and  institution supplements.
section_title: Appendix III: Location and Length of Stay in BOP Segregated Housing Units
subsections: section_title: Location of Segregated Housing Units
paragraphs: BOP has segregated housing units in prisons located throughout the  country. For example, BOP has SHUs in 109 out of its 119 facilities.  Three facilities have SMUs. See figure 14 for a map of the locations of  each type of segregated housing unit.
According to BOP, the length of stay inmates serve in segregated  housing units varies, and BOP does not track an inmate’s total length of  stay or establish a maximum length of stay for inmates in any type of  segregated housing unit. An inmate’s length of stay in segregated  housing varies depending on the inmate’s program needs and status,  reason for placement, and behavior while in the unit. BOP policy provides  the expected length of stay for some segregated housing units. For  example, according to BOP officials, placement of inmates in SHUs is  intended to be temporary. Inmates may be sanctioned to 1 to 18 months  in a SHU for disciplinary reasons, given the severity of infraction. Also,  BOP policy states inmates placed in SMUs, the ADX Step Down Units,  and ADX Special Security Unit may participate in structured, phased  programs where they can progress or “step down” to general population  after approximately 18 to 36 months if they maintain good behavior.  However, according to BOP officials, an inmate may remain in any of the  segregated housing units if the inmate continues to be disruptive or BOP  officials determine through the review process that the inmate’s original  reason for placement still exists.
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the Bureau of Prisons
section_title: Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Ned George, Assistant Director;  Pedro Almoguera; Lori Achman; Carla Brown; Jennifer Bryant; Frances  Cook; Michele Fejfar; Eric Hauswirth; Lara Miklozek; Linda Miller; Jessica  Orr, Meghan Squires; Helene Toiv; and Yee Wong made key  contributions to this report.