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

Letter

Background

There are specific state and federal laws that define, prohibit, and penalize criminal behavior. Various factors, such as the nature and type of the crime committed and the relevant law, may determine whether the state or federal justice system is responsible for the prosecution, sentencing, and incarceration of an individual accused and found guilty of a crime. State and federal laws also define the potential sentences for those crimes to be imposed by judges and methods for reducing the period of incarceration, such as parole, probation, or good conduct time credit. These laws and policies affect the growth of their respective prison populations and the level of crowding in state and federal prison populations.

Federal Prison System

To carry out its responsibility for the custody and care of federal offenders, BOP currently houses inmates across six geographic regions in 117 federal institutions, 15 privately managed prisons, 185 residential reentry centers, and home detention. BOP’s central office consists of eight divisions that provide oversight of major BOP program areas and operations, such as correctional programs and health services, as well as the National Institute of Corrections (NIC). BOP has six regional offices, each led by a regional director, covering the North Central, Northeast, South Central, Mid-Atlantic, Southeast, and Western regions of the United States.

BOP generally houses sentenced inmates in its long-term institutions. Male long-term institutions include four security level designations–– minimum, low, medium, and high––and female institutions include three security designations––minimum, secure, and high. The security level designation of a facility depends on the level of security and staff supervision that the institution is able to provide, such as the presence of security towers; perimeter barriers; the type of inmate housing, including dormitory, cubicle, or cell-type housing; and inmate-to-staff ratio. Additionally, BOP designates some of its institutions as administrative institutions, which specifically serve inmates awaiting trial, or those with intensive medical or mental health conditions, regardless of the level of supervision these inmates require.

From fiscal years 2006 through 2011, the distribution of facilities by security designation remained relatively constant. In fiscal year 2011, there were 7 stand-alone minimum security camps, 29 low security facilities, 46 medium security facilities, 16 high security facilities, and 19 administrative facilities.

BOP establishes a rated capacity for each of the facilities that it owns and A facility’s rated capacity reflects the number of prisoners that operates. it was designed to house safely and securely and in which BOP can provide inmates adequate access to services, necessities for daily living, and programs designed to support their crime-free return to the community. In determining a facility’s rated capacity, BOP considers American Correctional Association (ACA) occupancy and space requirements. Since 1990, ACA has required 35 square feet of unencumbered space per inmate to ensure that each inmate has sufficient movement or exercise space within the inmate’s personal living space, whether in a cell, room, or open dormitory. In essence, rated capacity is the measure of inmate housing space and, therefore, does not include housing used for medical and special housing purposes (e.g., disciplinary segregation and administrative detention space). BOP also does not include in its rated capacity additional beds placed in areas such as a facility’s halls, gyms, mezzanines, or television rooms to address crowding. BOP excludes this use of space from its rated capacity calculation because it considers these beds to be temporarily converted housing space that is to be restored to its original purpose when circumstances permit. Further, for such temporary space to become permanent space and thus included in a facility’s rated capacity, the facility would require infrastructure changes, such as additional toilet or shower facilities, to meet ACA standards.

According to BOP, rated capacity is the basis for measuring prison crowding and is essential to both managing the inmate population and BOP’s budget justifications for capital resources. BOP’s formula for calculating rated capacity has changed over time. Until 1991, the rated capacity of a facility was equivalent to the total number of cells, because the rated capacity was based on one inmate being housed in each cell. As a result of the growth in BOP’s population during the 1980s, BOP began to double-bunk (i.e., house two inmates in each cell) in many of its facilities, particularly those at the lower security levels. In 1991, BOP established a new rated capacity formula that allowed for stratified bunking across all security levels. BOP’s current rated capacity guidelines account for

25 percent double bunking and 75 percent single bunking of cells within high security facilities,

50 percent double bunking and 50 percent single bunking of cells within medium security facilities, and

100 percent double bunking of cells in low and minimum security facilities.

By way of illustration, figure 1 shows crowding in a medium security facility and a high security facility, each with 20 cells. The rated capacity of the medium security facility, which includes 50 percent double bunking, is 30 beds. With a population of 45 inmates, 67 percent of the inmates are double bunked, 33 percent are triple bunked, and the facility’s percentage crowding is 50 percent. The rated capacity of the high security facility, which includes 25 percent double bunking, is 25 beds. With a population of 39 inmates, 97 percent of the inmates are double bunked, 3 percent are single bunked, and the facility’s percentage crowding is 56 percent.

BOP initially classifies an inmate to a particular institution based on the level of security and supervision the inmate requires; the level of security and staff supervision the institution is able to provide; the inmate’s program needs, such as residential drug treatment or intensive medical care; where the inmate resides when sentenced; the level of crowding in an institution; and any additional security measures to ensure the protection of victims, witnesses, and the public.

In most cases, BOP’s Designation and Sentence Computation Center staff calculates a point score for the inmate and then matches the inmate with a commensurate security level institution.

As of December 31, 2011, BOP had a total staff of about 38,000, including correctional officers and administrative, program, and support personnel responsible for all of BOP’s activities nationwide. BOP’s philosophy is that all employees are correctional workers first, whether or not they serve as correctional officers. Accordingly, BOP trains all employees in basic correctional duties to secure the facility in the event of a disturbance and to provide inmate supervision. BOP also requires them to participate in annual refresher training. When circumstances warrant, a warden will require program and administrative staff members to serve in the capacity of a correctional officer––a practice that BOP calls augmentation. For example, under augmentation, a vocational education teacher or a psychologist may provide escort services for an inmate leaving the facility for specialized medical care or provide ancillary supervision in a recreational yard.

State Prison Systems

Selected state departments of corrections included in our review share similarities and exhibit differences with BOP. For example, both state departments of corrections and BOP are required to house, clothe, and feed inmates in a safe and secure setting, but selected states determine rated capacity and measure crowding differently. Several of the selected state departments of corrections’ methods are different from BOP’s methods. For example, New York calculates rated capacity using standards set forth by the New York State Commission of Correction and by subtracting temporary beds from the number of general population beds. In contrast, Wisconsin does not calculate rated capacity but instead uses design capacity and operational capacity. Furthermore, differences in state and federal authorities affect the types of actions that are taken to mitigate the effects of crowding. For example, state departments of corrections may have been granted certain state statutory authorities that are not currently available at the federal level (i.e., states may transfer inmates to county and local jails, but BOP does not have this option).

BOP’s Population Grew More than Systemwide Capacity, and BOP Projects Continued Population Growth through 2020

From fiscal years 2006 through 2011, the inmate population in BOP-run facilities grew 9.5 percent, while capacity grew less than 7 percent. As a result, BOP’s overall crowding increased during this period from 36 percent to 39 percent. BOP projects an additional 15 percent increase in its inmate population by 2020.

BOP’s Population Grew Steadily because of a Variety of Factors

The inmate population housed in BOP-run facilities steadily increased from 162,514 to 177,934 inmates—or 9.5 percent—from fiscal years 2006 through 2011. A variety of factors contribute to the size of BOP’s population. These include national crime levels, law enforcement policies, and federal sentencing laws, all of which are beyond BOP’s control. During the 6-year period, growth occurred in BOP’s male, female, and both its U.S. citizen and non-U.S. citizen populations. Specifically,

The number of male inmates housed in BOP institutions increased about 10 percent (151,003 to 165,595).

The number of female inmates housed in BOP institutions increased about 7 percent (11,511 to 12,339).

The relative proportion of non-U.S. citizen to U.S. citizen inmates housed in BOP facilities remained constant (about 26 percent), although the approximately 16 percent (46,369 to 53,733) growth in the noncitizen inmate population surpassed the approximate 13 percent growth in the U.S. citizen inmate population (135,074 to 152,581).

Non-U.S. citizen inmates are housed in BOP-run low, medium, and high security level facilities, as well as in private contract facilities.

The largest number of these inmates are housed in low security facilities.

Drug, weapons/explosives, and immigration offenses constituted the largest number of offenses for which all BOP inmates were incarcerated in each year from fiscal years 2006 through 2011.Specifically, in fiscal year 2011,

48 percent of the inmates BOP housed were serving sentences

16 percent for weapons/explosives, and

12 percent for immigration.

Appendix II provides additional information on the growth of the federal inmate population from fiscal years 2006 through 2011 and the other offense categories for which BOP inmates have been sentenced.

Rated Capacity Grew Less than 7 Percent, Contributing to Crowding

BOP’s 9.5 percent population growth from fiscal years 2006 through 2011 among inmates housed in BOP facilities exceeded the increase in its rated capacity, which grew less than 7 percent (from 119,510 beds to 127,795). BOP’s rated capacity during this 6-year period grew because it opened five new facilities and closed four stand-alone minimum security camps, which BOP officials told us were less efficient to operate. As shown in figure 2, however, because the inmate population in BOP-run facilities grew at a faster rate than the growth in rated capacity, crowding in BOP-run institutions increased from 36 to 39 percent systemwide.

From fiscal years 2006 through 2011, the percentage crowding in male medium security facilities increased from 37 percent to 51 percent and from 53 percent to 55 percent in high security level facilities. Table 5 in appendix II illustrates the range of crowding across BOP institutions of different security levels as of December 2011, and the double, triple, and quadruple bunking that has resulted. For example, the population in BOP’s high security population was about 21,000 in December 2011—or about 7,000 more than its rated capacity—resulting in 97 percent double bunking and a 55 percentage crowding.

According to BOP, BOP’s ability to increase rated capacity is directly affected by funding appropriated for new prison construction and to support contracts with private prison providers for additional inmate bed space. In fiscal year 2005, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) placed a moratorium on all new BOP prison construction. To address BOP’s bed space needs, OMB focused on contracting with private prisons. BOP officials stated that, because of this moratorium, the yearly presidential budget submissions for BOP’s Buildings and Facilities account for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2011 did not include requests to begin construction on any new facilities. Instead, the Buildings and Facilities requests included what BOP considers to be baseline funding for ongoing expenses, which were generally about $25 million during each of the 6 fiscal years in this period. Congress, however, provided about $1.1 billion specifically to aid in the site selection, design, and construction of new BOP facilities—in addition to funding the baseline that BOP requested. According to BOP officials, the time from receiving the funding appropriation to building and opening—or activating—a facility is generally 3 to 5 years.

In addition, according to BOP officials, funding was requested and provided to contract for private bed space during this period—with the exception of fiscal years 2008 and 2011. BOP officials explained that only low security inmates can be housed in privately managed facilities; thus, in years when BOP has received related funds, they have been able to move these lower security inmates to the contracted facilities. However, since they have not consistently received this money, BOP officials told us they designated some low security inmates to medium security facilities. As a result, BOP is currently housing 4,500 low security inmates in medium security facilities, contributing to crowding at that security level.

According to BOP data, 81 percent of male inmates housed in low security facilities were triple bunked at the end of 2011. Officials noted that if they were able to add more contract beds they could reduce crowding in medium and low security facilities by moving (1) non-U.S. citizen inmates from low security facilities to contract facilities and (2) low security inmates from medium security facilities to low security facilities. (See table 6 in app. II for additional data on BOP’s population growth, rated capacity, and percentage crowding data for fiscal years 2006 through 2011.)

BOP Projects Continued Population Growth

BOP’s 2020 long-range capacity plan assumes continued growth in the federal prison population from fiscal years 2011 through 2020, with about 15 percent growth in the number of inmates BOP will house. To address some of this growth, BOP expects to activate five newly constructed prisons by 2014, adding about 6,720 beds. In addition, BOP is budgeting for additional contracted bed space—1,000 beds in 2013 and 1,500 the next year, but the addition of these contracted beds is subject to future appropriations. Despite its plans to add capacity through 2014, given the expected inmate population growth, BOP projects crowding will increase from the current rate of 39 percent to 44 percent by 2015.

Beyond 2015, BOP projects it will be able to bring crowding in BOP facilities down to 35 percent by 2020. BOP’s projections assume that BOP will receive additional funding for constructing new facilities. Specifically, BOP assumes an overall increase of over 17,500 beds from fiscal years 2016 through 2020, generally as a result of opening new high and medium security facilities, none of which is under construction. BOP has not requested funding for this additional bed space, and as a result, its plans are contingent on the budget development and appropriations processes and are subject to change. Appendix II provides additional information on BOP’s population growth from fiscal years 2006 through 2011 and projections from fiscal years 2012 through 2020.

BOP’s Population Growth Has Negatively Affected Inmates, Staff, and Infrastructure, but BOP Has Acted to Help Mitigate These Effects

According to BOP and our observations, the growth of the federal inmate population and related crowding have negatively affected inmates housed in BOP institutions, institutional staff, and the infrastructure of BOP facilities, and have contributed to inmate misconduct, which affects staff and inmate security and safety. Nevertheless, BOP officials said that it is difficult to demonstrate or isolate the effects of crowding, per se, as distinguished from population growth or other factors such as staffing levels.

Impacts of Population Growth

Inmates

The growth in the inmate population affects inmates’ daily living conditions, program participation, meaningful work opportunities, and visitation. Appendix III describes each in greater detail, and we present some highlights here.

To increase available bed space, BOP reports double bunking in excess of the percentages included in a facility’s rated capacity; triple and quadruple bunking; or converting common space, such as a television room, temporarily to housing space. As a result of BOP actions to increase available bed space in its institutions to accommodate the growing federal inmate population, more inmates are sharing cells and other living units, which brings together for longer periods of time inmates with a higher risk of violence and more potential victims. Table 8 in appendix III illustrates the use of temporary beds by institutional security level, and shows, for example, that temporary beds, not including those used for disciplinary purposes, composed about 29 percent of the bed space in male high security facilities in fiscal year 2011. According to BOP headquarters officials, wardens have discretion to provide temporary beds by adding a third bunk within cells, converting a television room to bed space, or using both approaches. The facility’s infrastructure also affects the approach the warden may implement. For example, the smaller cells in older BOP facilities make it more difficult to add a third bed, while the larger cells in newer facilities can be triple-bunked. The officials noted, however, that triple-bunking all cells in a unit presents a challenge to staff who have to manage the large number of inmates. Additionally, a regional director may have a preferred approach to providing temporary beds within his or her region. Figure 3 illustrates some of the options used.

All of the BOP facilities we visited reported using temporary beds from fiscal years 2006 through 2011 and continue to do so. At the time of our site visits in 2011 and 2012, these facilities continued to use temporary space. For example, we observed triple-bunked cells in a low security facility and a converted television room that housed 10 inmates in a medium security facility. In addition to experiencing crowding in a facility’s housing and common areas, inmates may experience crowded bathroom facilities, reductions in shower times, shortened meal times coupled with longer waits for food service, and more limited recreational activities because of the increased inmate population.

According to BOP officials, the growth in the inmate population affects the availability of program opportunities, resulting in waiting lists and inmate idleness. BOP provides programs including education, vocational training, drug treatment, and faith-based reentry programs that help to rehabilitate inmates and support correctional management. BOP officials said that two long-term benefits of inmate programming are (1) public safety, attributable to enhanced inmate skill sets that can reduce future crime and inmate rearrest rates, and (2) institutional safety and security because of reduced inmate idleness.

According to BOP officials, facility staff provide a range of education programs, including mandatory General Educational Development (GED) courses; 8- to 10-week nonmandatory courses on topics such as parenting, word processing, and conversational Spanish; occupational training; and computer-based self-paced courses such as English. BOP reported that overall inmate participation in one or more programs was 36 percent in September 2011 (see table 10 in app. III). BOP also offers residential drug abuse treatment in more than half of its facilities and nonresidential drug abuse and drug education programs in all of its facilities. The percentage of participation, number of inmates on waiting lists, and length of the average waiting time varied by program. As tables 11 through 13 in appendix III illustrate, all of the drug treatment and drug education programs had waiting lists from fiscal years 2006 through 2011. For example, as of the end of fiscal year 2011, about 2,400 inmates in male medium security institutions participated in residential drug treatment, almost 3,000 more inmates were on the waiting list to participate, and the average wait for enrollment exceeded 3 months. According to BOP officials, if BOP cannot meet the substance abuse treatment or education needs of inmates because it does not have the staff needed to meet program demand, some inmates will not receive programming benefits. As we reported in February 2012, long waiting lists for BOP’s Residential Drug Abuse Program (RDAP), which provides sentence reductions for eligible inmates who successfully complete the program, constrained BOP’s ability to admit participants early enough to earn their maximum allowable reductions in times served. From fiscal years 2009 through 2011, BOP expanded RDAP capacity by 400 slots. Though wait times for enrollment have declined, the program continues to experience long waiting lists.

According to BOP headquarters officials, the growth in the federal inmate population has also affected inmate work opportunities, as it is difficult to find meaningful work for all inmates, even though generally all inmates are required to have a job. For example, at facilities we visited, we observed inmate workers preparing meals under the supervision of staff, sweeping the floors, and working in a factory that produced and printed a variety of government publications. BOP officials explained, however, that with the growth of the prison population, fewer opportunities exist to engage in meaningful work. This makes it difficult for staff to keep inmates busy, resulting in inmate idleness, which can lead to additional tension and fighting between inmates. For example, officials at one facility told us that more inmates than needed may be assigned to a task and paid the same wage, but consequently, not everyone is engaged and equally busy.

BOP inmates participate in a variety of jobs.

According to BOP headquarters officials, the quality of the interaction between an inmate and family can positively affect an inmate’s behavior in prison and aids an inmate’s success when returning to the community; however, crowded visiting rooms make it more difficult for inmates to visit with their families. Each BOP facility has visiting space to accommodate the number of inmates that the facility was designed to house and a visitor capacity to enable staff to manage the visitation process. The infrastructure of the facility may not support the increase in visitors as a result of the growth in the prison population. For example, at one older facility we visited, officials said that the number of visitors was so great and the visiting room was so small that visitors had to wait hours to get into the visiting room.

The Crime Control Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-647, § 2905, 104 Stat. 4789, 4914 (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 4121 note) established a mandatory work requirement for all federal prisoners. A prisoner may be excused from this requirement only as necessitated by security considerations; disciplinary action; medical certification of disability; or a need to work less than a full schedule in order to participate in literacy training, drug rehabilitation, or similar programs in addition to the work program.

Staff

BOP headquarters officials said that with the primary exception of hiring staff when a new facility opens, the number of staff positions generally has not increased as BOP’s population has grown, affecting staff stress and overtime hours worked. BOP officials explained that BOP is required to feed, clothe, and provide medical care for inmates. After these costs are met, BOP funds staffing levels to the extent possible. As a result, BOP headquarters officials confirmed that overall staffing in BOP facilities systemwide is on average less than 90 percent of authorized levels, varying by the facility’s location. For example, a warden may staff correctional programs at the 97 percent level and the business office at the 60 percent level. In addition to funding, BOP officials identified recruitment challenges that affected staffing levels. For example, one regional director said that finding qualified staff to hire was an ongoing issue in his region because generally applicants did not meet BOP’s requirements. At two facilities we visited, officials noted that hiring professional staff (e.g., psychologists or medical staff) was difficult because BOP salaries were less than those paid in the community for the same position.

From fiscal years 1997 through 2011, BOP reported that the systemwide ratio of inmates to all BOP staff (i.e., at BOP headquarters, regional offices, institutions, and training centers) increased from 3.57:1 to 4.94:1. This is not the only staffing ratio BOP calculates however. In addition, BOP calculates a ratio of inmates and institutional staff within its facilities. From fiscal years 2006 through 2011, the inmate to total institutional staff ratio for all facilities systemwide and for all male facilities was generally 5.2:1. In fiscal year 2011, this ratio was lower in high security facilities (4.1:1) and higher in low and minimum security facilities (6.1:1 and 8.0:1, respectively). Further, BOP calculates a ratio of inmates to correctional officers. According to BOP, this ratio is 10:1 systemwide, but it varies depending on security level and mission of the facility. For example, in one Special Management Unit we visited, officials told us that there were about 6 inmates to each correctional officer. This contrasted to a medium security facility where officials told us the ratio of inmates to correctional officers was 14:1.

According to an August 2010 DOJ study of BOP’s staffing, BOP facilities had fewer correctional staff on board than needed, with a BOP-wide staffing shortage in excess of 3,200. Moreover, even if BOP filled all authorized positions, the study reported that the shortage would exceed 1,800. The study team observed that the institutional staff was very lean, highly functional, and adept at managing large numbers of inmates at a time, but there was also anecdotal evidence that understaffing was stressing the workforce. Thus, the study concluded that the systemwide inmate-to-staff ratio in BOP institutions—5.3:1 in 2009 when the study was prepared—must, at a minimum, be maintained.

Justice Management Division, DOJ, BOP Staffing Study (Washington, D.C.: August 2010). however, that about 17 correctional officers were on duty during nights and evenings to supervise the general population. Thus, in contrast to the reported ratio, the actual inmate-to-staff ratio during these occasions was about 76:1. The DOJ study goes on to state that an inmate-to-staff ratio can provide a valuable perspective when it is used to show how staffing varies during specific shifts at specific institutions. When ratios are used in this context, decision makers can more effectively determine the appropriate number of institution staff needed to safely manage an institution. Accordingly, for BOP to justify its staffing levels plus additional resources for increased staff—as the inmate population grows—the study recommended, among other things, that BOP set a minimum inmate-to- staff ratio that is required to run a safe, secure, and efficient prison system given operational realties. Partly in response to the DOJ report, BOP officials said that they had developed minimum staffing guidelines, and as of June 2012, BOP was in the process of applying these guidelines at each facility. Tables 14-16 in appendix III illustrate the various inmate-to-staff ratios and trends over time.

BOP headquarters officials and the union representatives said that correctional staff worked more overtime hours to meet additional staff needs as a result of the larger inmate population. Alternatively, in lieu of paying overtime, facility management may divert other professional or administration staff, as trained correctional officers, from their primary duties to supervise other aspects of inmate care and confinement, such as meal times or medical trips. According to BOP headquarters officials, this practice, known as augmentation, affects programming. For example, if a teacher has to fill a correctional post, then the class does not occur or another teacher may be required to supervise the course. Headquarters, regional, and facility officials said that they generally used augmentation during annual correctional officers’ refresher training. For example, during our site visit to a Special Management Unit, we observed an administrative staff member serving as a correctional officer in the unit, replacing a correctional officer who was attending BOP-required annual staff refresher training. BOP facilities and regional offices have tracked the use of augmentation, but headquarters did not review or analyze this information centrally until February 2012, at the direction of the new BOP Director. Therefore, during the course of our audit work, BOP could not provide any trend analysis on the use of augmentation systemwide.

The increased population taxes the infrastructure that was designed for a smaller inmate population, affecting use of toilets, showers, water, and electricity, and wear and tear on food service equipment (e.g., freezer units). According to BOP headquarters and regional officials, crowding affects the general usage and upkeep of the facility, which affects the facility itself, the environment, and the local community.

BOP has also experienced increased maintenance and repair costs, with 51 facilities over 30 years old and newer facilities also in need of maintenance and repair. BOP reported systemwide maintenance and repair costs of about $228 million in fiscal year 2006 and $262 million in fiscal year 2011—approximately a 15 percent increase. BOP headquarters officials stated that they are most concerned with “life safety issues,” such as ensuring that sprinkler systems work properly in the event of fire in the facility. These officials said that requests for repairs are often put off when BOP does not receive funding. (See app. III for additional information on the effects of BOP’s population growth on infrastructure.)

BOP officials said the increasing inmate population and staffing ratios negatively affect inmate conduct and the imposition of discipline, thereby affecting security and safety. A 2005 BOP report on the effects of crowding and staffing levels in federal prisons on inmate violence rates concluded that population pressures on both staffing levels and inmate living space have an upward impact on serious prison violence. Nevertheless, the study also found that systemwide violence rates remained stable, although measures of both percent rated capacity and inmate to correctional officers ratios rose in federal prisons during the latter part of the study. The study posits that this stability may stem from prison managers employing some operational practices, such as augmentation, that in the short term countered the negative effect of increased crowding. BOP officials told us that a follow-up to the 2005 study is not necessary because they did not believe that the findings would change.

BOP generally reported increases in the number of guilty findings for inmate misconduct from fiscal years 2006 through 2009, but the number of findings for misconduct of the greatest severity (e.g., killing, serious assault, and possession of weapons) began to decline in fiscal year 2010. Additionally, from fiscal years 2006 through 2011, BOP systemwide imposed almost 4,000 lockdowns––a temporary situation in which all inmates are confined to their living quarters/cells until staff are able to assess the situation following a critical incident (e.g., a disturbance, assaults on staff by several inmates, or a food or work strike) and can safely return the institution to normal operations. Similar to the inmate misconduct data, the number of lockdowns increased from fiscal years 2006 through 2009, and then began to decline. Appendix III provides information on BOP’s disciplinary system and data on inmate misconduct and lockdowns.

BOP officials at all levels told us that they believe the establishment of Special Management Units beginning in fiscal year 2008 had contributed to the decrease in misconduct in the general population and the decline in the use of lockdowns, but that these facilities are too new to evaluate. Nevertheless, BOP officials stated that its Special Management Units are now crowded and experiencing waiting lists. Specifically, BOP reported that from March 1, 2012, through April 20, 2012, 231 inmates were approved for Special Management Unit placement and were awaiting a bed. The average wait time for placement in a Special Management Unit bed was 110 days.

Officials said that waiting lists for transfers to a Special Management Unit contribute to crowding in the facility Special Housing Unit. According to BOP officials, without space for disciplinary segregation, they are limited in how they can address inmate misconduct. Officials further stated that when a facility has no Special Housing Unit space available, the regional office may move the inmate to a Special Housing Unit in another facility of a different security level—a practice referred to as trans-segregation. Alternatively, headquarters officials said that disciplinary hearing officers may dispense shorter time in segregation or use other sanctions or a combination of nonsegregation sanctions. As a result, the officials said that the imposed sanctions may not be as much of a deterrent with the inmates, which affects the security and safety of inmates and staff.

Additionally, BOP headquarters officials and union representatives we spoke with expressed concerns about future effects of increased inmate population growth. First, officials raised concern about the possibility of a serious incident occurring, especially at a high security or medium level facility. A serious incident could occur in a high security facility because these facilities are extremely crowded and house the most serious inmates (i.e., those who have committed the most serious crimes in society or in prison). A union representative also said that medium security facilities were at risk of an incident because these facilities lack the better lockdown procedures found in high security facilities. Nevertheless, BOP officials did not discount an incident happening at a low security facility because of the high gang presence in these facilities. They said that although the criminal histories of low security inmates suggest that they are not a “high risk” for violence, these inmates may still be a high risk for problems because of frustrations resulting from crowded conditions. Second, BOP officials were also concerned that the federal courts might require BOP to address conditions related to crowding or that ACA might revoke the accreditation of BOP institutions.

BOP Has Worked to Increase Inmate and Staff Safety and Security and Has Reported Utilizing Resources More Efficiently

BOP has taken actions to manage a growing population within its facilities—and its approaches were similar to those in selected states we reviewed. These have generally been aimed at increasing inmate and staff safety and security and utilizing resources efficiently.

Controlled inmate movement. BOP has implemented controlled movement for inmates, which is a practice that officials from one of the five states we reviewed also reported using, specifically to deal with crowded conditions. For example, because of crowded conditions, one way that BOP restricts inmates’ movement in high and medium security facilities is by instituting earlier in-cell hours at night for inmates. Further, BOP has a system of inmate movement in place to reduce potential tension and fighting and allow staff to better supervise inmates (i.e., staggering activities or meal times so that one cell block or unit of inmates proceeds at a time). Like officials at BOP, officials from Mississippi’s Department of Corrections stagger recreational activities to curtail inmate fighting so that only one cell block or unit is released to the yard at a time.

Disciplinary housing. As previously discussed, because escalating tensions in crowded facilities can cause increased security concerns, BOP utilizes Special Housing Units to segregate inmates involved in disciplinary infractions. Officials in Kansas and New York also reported using disciplinary housing. BOP officials stated that the use of Special Housing Units has resulted in a decrease in inmate misconduct because those inciting tension within the general population have been removed. According to a 2006 New York State Department of Correctional Services’ report on prison safety, the department believed that the certainty of facing Special Housing Unit confinement for misbehavior contributed generally to improved inmate conduct, as reflected in inmates spending less time in these units without reductions in time to make room for other inmates.

Preferential housing. To increase the safety and security of inmates and staff, BOP has encouraged positive behavior from inmates by rewarding them with preferential housing, and this was a practice we observed directly in a New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision facility. BOP officials described preferential housing as cells or dormitory rooms with fewer inmates than the facility’s general population housing and located close to the phones or showers. BOP union officials stated that, at some facilities, preferential housing is given to inmates directly in response to their good behavior, and officials explained that inmates highly coveted these rewards and modified their behavior accordingly. For example, in one facility we visited, inmates in the cleanest unit were rewarded by getting to eat meals before inmates in other units. At one state facility we visited in New York, officials rewarded well-behaved inmates by allowing them to live in the “honor block”—a preferential housing unit that allows inmates more freedom of movement and additional personal decision making (e.g., inmates are allowed to decide when they wish to shower and do their laundry).

Expanded program options and incentives. To accommodate growing inmate populations, reduce inmate idleness, and help inmates prepare for life outside of prison—all of which relate to institutional safety—BOP officials have expanded inmates’ program options. Officials from all five of the states we selected reported similar activities. Generally GED classes are held during the day, but, for example, two BOP facilities we visited have begun offering evening GED classes to accommodate the increase in inmates who are required to receive a GED education. Also, one BOP facility we visited had expanded its vocational training capacity by combining woodshop learning with classroom study, so that one group of inmates could be learning in the woodshop while another group of inmates could be participating in classroom lessons. According to the program director, when he ran the program from 2001 through 2005, about 30 inmates received certification each year for completing the program; currently, about 60 to 80 inmates receive certification annually. At one facility we visited, to encourage program participation, inmates in the Special Management Unit were given cash incentives for completing psycho-educational programs, such as stress/anger management classes or those designed to improve interpersonal relationships and help inmates focus on personal goals and maintaining positive conduct. Specifically, an inmate may earn $25 for completing these types of classes. Like BOP, both Ohio and Wisconsin have offered additional programming in the form of expanded program hours and expanded reentry programs; for example, classes on financial literacy, housing, and personal health care to teach inmates who are about to be released how to manage their daily lives in the community.

Correctional complexes. BOP has established correctional complexes over the last 15 years to better leverage its staff. Officials from one state in our sample—Kansas—told us they employ this practice as well. BOP correctional complexes are institutions that are located on the same grounds and may include low, medium, and high security facilities. According to BOP officials, the use of correctional complexes helps in particular with the leveraging of medical services and supplies. It also helps BOP manage crowding by sharing staff resources across the correctional complex, if one facility has greater needs than another for certain programs.

Energy conservation. BOP has also taken actions to minimize the burden that crowding places on facilities’ infrastructure, and officials from one state in our sample—Ohio—acknowledged similar activities. According to BOP officials, BOP has aggressively pursued energy conservation following a 2009 governmentwide executive order to reduce energy usage. BOP officials stated that their energy-saving efforts have prevented BOP from experiencing a dramatic increase in energy usage despite the growing prison population. Examples of energy-saving actions that BOP officials reported include the installation of slower-flowing shower heads, which use 2 rather than 5 gallons of water per minute and flushing toilets every 5 to10 minutes rather than after each use. According to BOP officials, most BOP facilities have recycling programs. One BOP facility that we visited began a recycling program that, in addition to efficiently utilizing resources, created inmate jobs and benefitted the environment. Ohio officials told us that they have reduced utility costs with similar efficiency initiatives.

Visitor accommodations. BOP has taken a variety of actions to accommodate the increased number of visitors within existing infrastructure, which is similar to the steps officials from two of the five states we reviewed. For example, at one BOP facility we visited, because the facility did not have money to enlarge the visiting room, it shortened the length of visits from 4 hours to 2 hours and changed visiting hours from an open schedule (i.e., where visitors can come during any visiting hours) to a rotating basis (i.e., visitors for a particular inmate may be allowed to visit on certain days and between certain hours). In an effort to supplement face-to-face visits, BOP has permitted the increased use of e- mail between inmates and their loved ones. Ohio and Wisconsin have implemented scheduled visitation times rather than open visitation hours.

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

States Have Taken Broader Actions Intended to Reduce Prison Populations than Those Taken at the Federal Level

While BOP and the five selected states have taken a variety of similar actions to manage the growing number of inmates they incarcerate, these states have been able to take broader actions than BOP to reduce their prison populations because these states have legislative authority that BOP does not have. These states’ actions can be grouped into three general categories: modifying criminal statutes and sentencing, relocating inmates (e.g., moving them from state to local facilities or community corrections, whereby their release is supervised at halfway houses or in-home detention), or providing inmates with good time credit or adjusting inmates’ sentences based on participation in certain programs or demonstration of positive behaviors.

To take these actions, these state departments of corrections have generally worked with their state legislatures to propose and pass legislation that effects these changes. Officials from three of the five states we spoke with—Kansas, Ohio, and Wisconsin—told us their states also embarked on justice reinvestment efforts to facilitate legislative or other changes to their corrections approaches. For example, in 2006, Kansas sought technical assistance through the Justice Reinvestment Initiative to avert an increase of 700 new inmates in its prison population that it projected between 2007 and 2010. Using the justice reinvestment approach, as described below, Kansas (1) relocated inmates from state- run facilities by diverting them to nonprison alternatives and transferring them to county jails and community corrections facilities and (2) offered inmates credit for positive behavior thereby reducing inmates’ time in prison. As a result, the state experienced a net increase of 10 inmates rather than the 700 inmates it had anticipated during this period.

Officials in the five selected states generally believed that the actions taken had helped them to reduce their prison populations; however, because these initiatives were recent, empirical data showing the impact of these initiatives were generally not available. In contrast, federal law does not provide BOP with the authority to implement many of these measures and generally requires BOP to provide for suitable housing and the safekeeping, care, and subsistence of all persons charged with or convicted of offenses against the United States. Unlike certain states’ laws, federal law does not provide BOP with the authority to transfer inmates to local prisons or move inmates to community corrections or supervised release beyond what current federal law permits. Additionally, because of the mandatory minimum sentences required for many federal offenses and the absence of parole for most federal inmates in the federal system, BOP generally does not have the authority to significantly modify an inmate’s period of incarceration.

Modifying Criminal Statutes and Sentencing

Two of the five states we reviewed have changed their sentencing statutes or guidelines. For example, in 2009, New York implemented changes to its drug statutes, which affected the sentencing of some drug felony offenders. These changes included revising the ranges for state prison sentences by lowering the minimum sentence allowable for certain nonviolent drug felony offenders. New York has reported decreases in its total custody population since 1999, when the population reached 71,472 and drug offenders constituted 31.2 percent of this population. From the end of calendar year 2009 through 2011, New York reported a decrease in its total custody population from 58,378 to 55,090. This decrease included not only a decline in the number of drug offenders from 10,319 to 7,509 but also in the percentage of drug offenders in custody from 17.7 percent to 13.6 percent. In 2011, Ohio revised its sentencing laws to eliminate the differences between the penalties for crack and powder cocaine violations. Generally, the change provides for a uniform determination of the penalty for drug offenses based upon the amount of any type of cocaine (powder cocaine or any compound, mixture, preparation, or substance containing cocaine) an individual possesses. In effect, this change resulted in an increasing of the amount of crack needed to those of powder cocaine for lower-level offenses and a decreasing of the amounts of powder cocaine needed to crack levels for higher-level offenses.

While states may change their sentencing statutes or guidelines to reduce their prison populations, at the federal level, BOP does not determine which offenders are sentenced to prison and what the length of their sentences should be. On May 1, 2007, the U.S. Sentencing Commission submitted to Congress amendments to the federal sentencing guidelines. These guidelines became effective on November 1, 2007. One of the amendments modified the drug quantity thresholds for crack cocaine offenses. Generally, the commission lowered the sentencing guidelines for certain crack cocaine offenses. Subsequently, the commission made the amendment apply retroactively. As a result, some incarcerated offenders were eligible to receive a reduction in sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The effect of this change was realized almost fully in fiscal year 2008.

Relocating Inmates

Selected states have also relocated inmates to relieve the crowding of their state prison facilities, such as through use of nonprison alternatives (e.g., drug treatment programs), expanded use of parole, the movement of inmates to county or local jails, or the wider reliance on community corrections (e.g., halfway houses). For example, Mississippi expanded use of house arrest and Kansas and New York expanded drug rehabilitation programs as an alternative to incarceration for certain low- level drug offenders. Other selected states have passed legislation that allows some inmates to be paroled sooner and made parole available to more inmates. For example, Mississippi has passed legislation that extended parole eligibility to (1) all nonviolent offenders irrespective of the offender’s first-time offender status and (2) certain drug sale offenders. New York allows well-behaved drug and other nonviolent offenders to appear before a parole board earlier. Additionally, Kansas and Wisconsin have moved some low-risk inmates to county jails for more localized management and relief for state prison crowding.

Three of the five selected states also reported using community corrections—also known as supervised release at halfway houses or in- home detention—as a way to either divert offenders from prison or move more inmates out of prison. For example, Ohio uses halfway houses, as is typical, to provide supervision and treatment services to inmates who are released from state prison or are sentenced to halfway houses by courts for an offense or as a result of violating parole.has diverted parole and probation violators to supervised release. Similarly, Mississippi uses an intensive supervised release program as an alternative to incarceration for low-risk and nonviolent offenders.

At the federal level, BOP uses Residential Reentry Centers (RRC) to help inmates reintegrate into the community, as well as to reduce crowding in prisons, but is limited by what federal law allows as well as the capacity of BOP may place inmates there in the final months of their these facilities. sentences (not to exceed 12 months) under conditions that will afford the inmate a reasonable opportunity to adjust to and prepare for reentry into the community. BOP officials stated that BOP maximizes the use of RRCs to the extent possible but that there are not enough beds in RRCs to accommodate all eligible inmates. In February 2012, we reported that as of November 2011, BOP estimated 8,859 available RRC beds under contract. For each available RRC bed, BOP can transfer one inmate to the RRC for a maximum of 12 months, or BOP could send multiple inmates for shorter placements (e.g., three inmates for 4 months each). To provide all eligible inmates with the maximum allowable 12 months in an RRC, BOP would require about 29,000 available beds annually.Further, BOP places inmates according to a court’s or judge’s sentence, which may require some probation and supervised release violators to serve terms in community corrections.

Providing Inmates with Credit for Positive Behaviors

Selected states have taken a variety of actions that reduce inmates’ time in prison by providing inmates with credit for positive behaviors. For example, in Mississippi, certain inmates may be eligible to receive a trusty time allowance of 30 days’ reduction of sentence for each 30 days’ participation during any calendar month in approved programs while in trusty status. According to Mississippi officials, these programs include alcohol and drug treatment, GED classes, faith-based programs, and vocational education. New York and Kansas allow inmates who complete certain rehabilitative programs to be released earlier, either through earned compliance credits in Kansas or by receiving a parole hearing earlier in New York. New York officials stated that since 1998, approximately 37,000 inmates have been released because of this policy. Ohio has an earned credit program that rewards an inmate for productive participation in educational programs, vocational training, prison industries work, substance abuse treatment, or any other constructive program with specific performance standards. Additionally, in Ohio, there is a mechanism for the possible release with sentencing court approval of certain department of corrections inmates who have served at least 80 percent of their prison terms.

Officials from two of the five selected states also reported that their states award inmates credit toward the service of their sentence for good behavior—compliance with institutional disciplinary regulations—as a way to relieve prison crowding. For example, Kansas’s department of corrections offers good time credits and is authorized to adopt rules and regulations providing for a system of good time calculations. The system provides circumstances under which an inmate may earn good time credits and for the forfeiture of earned credits.

We have previously reported on BOP’s use of its sentence reduction authority, noting that it is affected by both inmate eligibility and BOP capacity.1 year to inmates convicted of a nonviolent offense who successfully complete the program. BOP officials told us that they strive to maximize RDAP programs as a management tool to reduce recidivism and because of the program’s ability to reduce an inmate’s sentence. RDAP programs are full, however, and BOP cannot keep up with demand for RDAP enrollment, which limits BOP’s ability to fully leverage this program. Additionally, because of long waiting lists, those eligible for a sentence reduction are generally unable to complete RDAP in time to earn the maximum reduction. Furthermore, federal law provides for the amount of time awarded for each inmate who successfully completes the program. Moreover, according to BOP officials, given BOP’s staffing shortages and in the absence of additional funding for the program, BOP has generally been unable to increase the number of RDAP’s staff to accommodate more inmates.

Specifically, BOP’s RDAP offers sentence reductions of up to Further, as we reported in February 2012, BOP is authorized to award up to 54 days of good conduct time credit each year (which vests on the date the inmate is released). inmate serving a sentence of more than 1 year, but less than life. BOP’s method of awarding good conduct time credit at the end of each year an inmate serves results in a maximum of 47 days earned per year of sentence imposed. From fiscal years 2009 through 2011, BOP data show that about 87 percent of inmates had earned all of their available good conduct time credit by the end of each year, and an additional 3 percent of inmates earned at least 90 percent of the maximum available good conduct time credit.

GAO-12-320. original intent of the statute, but the U.S. Supreme Court upheld BOP’s approach. BOP officials told us that the agency was supportive of amending the statute related to good conduct time credit, and legislation pending before Congress would allow for 54 days to be provided for each year of the term of imprisonment originally imposed by the judge, which would result in inmates serving 85 percent of their sentence. BOP provided us with estimates in December 2011 showing that if the good conduct time credit allowance was increased from 47 to 54 days, as proposed, BOP could save over $40 million in the first fiscal year after the policy change from the early release of about 3,900 inmates. As of July 2012, the legislative proposal has been introduced in the Senate but not the House. BOP officials told us that they are examining initiatives that would allow for the restoration of good conduct time, but that they are reluctant to pursue them. They explained that loss of good conduct time is one of the most powerful sanctions in BOP’s inmate discipline program, which helps ensure the safety, security, and orderly operation of correctional facilities.

Concluding Observations

Over the last 25 years, BOP’s population has grown more than 400 percent, and BOP projects future growth through 2020. With more inmates, BOP’s spending to secure, feed, and provide services to a growing population has also been rising. BOP’s annual appropriation now exceeds $6.6 billion, and represents nearly a quarter of DOJ’s annual budgetary authority. Despite the continued growth in inmates and related expenses, in recent years, BOP has been adding capacity and staff at a lower rate than the inmate population has been growing. As a result, both individual facilities and the federal prison system as a whole are experiencing increased crowding. Crowding has implications for inmates, staff, and infrastructure—as well as safety and security, and the potential for inmate disruptions or an even more serious security incident is a significant concern. BOP has taken steps to help mitigate the implications of crowding in the federal system, but does not have the authority to implement many of the reforms that several states have adopted to reduce crowding and, in some states, the size of their prison populations. BOP also requires congressional approval and appropriated funds to expand capacity in the federal system. As such, BOP has limited ability to address crowding in the federal prison system. We are not taking a position on matters of policy such as how crowding in the federal system should be addressed. However, as policy makers weigh whether and how to address crowding in the federal system, options that will be important to consider include (1) reducing the size of the projected inmate population by reforming sentencing laws, allowing alternatives to incarceration, and/or providing BOP greater sentencing flexibility; (2) increasing capacity in the federal system by constructing new prisons, contracting for additional private capacity, and adding additional staff; or (3) taking some combination of both approaches.

Agency Comments

We provided a draft of this report to DOJ for official review and comment. BOP provided technical clarifications, which we incorporated where appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the Attorney General, selected congressional committees, and other interested parties. In addition, this report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any further questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-9627 or maurerd@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Our objectives for this report were to address the following questions: 1. What was the growth in the Bureau of Prison’s (BOP) population from fiscal years 2006 through 2011, and what are BOP’s projections for inmate population and capacity? 2. What is known about the effects of a growing federal prison population on operations (i.e., inmates, staff, and infrastructure) within BOP facilities, and to what extent has BOP taken actions to mitigate these effects? 3. What actions have selected states taken to reduce their prison populations, and to what extent has BOP implemented similar initiatives?

To address the first question, we analyzed BOP’s statutory authority and policies and procedures (e.g., BOP’s inmate classification policy) that potentially affect growth in the federal prison population and conditions of confinement in BOP facilities. We also analyzed BOP’s (1) inmate population data (e.g., demographics and offenses), (2) 2020 long-range capacity plan based on inmate population projections and future capacity estimates depending on funding, (3) percentage crowding at all institutional security levels, (4) staff-to-inmate ratios, and (5) available infrastructure costs (e.g., water and electricity costs). Unless otherwise noted, all of these data covered the period from fiscal years 2006 through 2011. We also reviewed Department of Justice (DOJ) and BOP reports describing BOP’s population and staffing during this period. We assessed the reliability of BOP’s inmate population data and crowding data by reviewing relevant documentation, interviewing knowledgeable agency officials about how they maintain the integrity of their data, and updating assessments that we did for previously issued reports. We found BOP’s inmate population and crowding data to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this engagement.

To determine how BOP developed its population and capacity projection estimates, we analyzed BOP’s program statements, performance goals, and congressional budget submissions for fiscal years 2011 through 2013. We also interviewed BOP headquarters officials to discuss the extent to which BOP’s population has grown; the reasons for this growth; how BOP calculates the percentage crowding in its facilities; and how BOP develops its population growth and capacity projections, including any changes to this process since our November 2009 report. In that report, we assessed how BOP developed its population projections and capacity plans. We compared BOP’s projections with its actual inmate population growth from fiscal years 1999 through August 20, 2009, and concluded that BOP’s projections were accurate, on average, to within 1 percent of the actual inmate population growth within this time period. We also reviewed government and academic studies on federal incarceration determinants.

BOP reports the use of additional cots in areas such as an institution’s halls, gyms, mezzanines, or television rooms—to address crowding in an institution—as temporary housing because this temporary living space is to be restored as program space when circumstances permit. Thus, such temporary use of space is not factored into BOP’s rated capacity calculation. infrastructure, we conducted visits to 5 of BOP’s 117 institutions. We chose these prisons on the basis of varying security levels and to ensure geographic dispersion. As shown in table 1, the five prisons we visited were located in four of BOP’s six regions. Additionally, to identify variations in the effects of increased prison populations, we selected facilities of different security levels (i.e., low, 1; medium, 3; high, 1; and administrative, 1); the Petersburg Complex included a medium and a low security facility.

During each site visit, we interviewed institutional management officials and toured the facility to observe inmate housing, recreational areas, food service, medical services, and educational and vocational programming. Because we did not visit all BOP facilities and did not randomly select the facilities we visited, our results are not generalizable to all BOP facilities. Nevertheless, these results provided us with examples of the effects of BOP’s population growth on a facility’s inmates, staff, and infrastructure, as well as examples of actions taken at the facility level to mitigate these effects. We also interviewed the six regional directors to obtain their perspectives on the increased prison population and the effects of this growth and crowding on BOP institutions within each region. Further, we discussed the effects of BOP’s population growth on correctional officers with officials from the Council of Prison Locals, the union that represents all non-management staff working in BOP facilities. Additionally, we analyzed American Correctional Association’s (ACA) standards (e.g., minimum inmate space standards) and reviewed ACA audits from fiscal years 2009 through 2011 (the most recent audits available) of the BOP institutions we visited to try to identify potential effects of growing populations in these facilities. We also met with ACA officials to identify any areas where BOP might not be meeting these standards.

Further, to determine the extent to which BOP has taken actions to mitigate the effects of a growing federal prison population, we analyzed BOP’s statutory authority to identify provisions that affect BOP’s ability to mitigate the effects of the growth of the prison population. We also analyzed BOP’s policies, DOJ and BOP studies, and BOP’s fiscal year 2011 congressional budget submission to identify actions BOP has taken, including any proposed legislative changes that could mitigate the effects of the growth of the prison population. We interviewed BOP headquarters officials to obtain information on these actions and proposals as well as to discuss the extent of their statutory authority, which affects their ability to mitigate the effects of the increased population. During our BOP site visits and interviews with BOP regional directors, we asked officials to identify any actions taken at the facility or regional level to mitigate the effects of the growth of the federal prison population and crowding in facilities in the region. Also, we discussed actions taken by BOP to mitigate the effects of prison population growth with officials from the Council of Prison Locals. We also interviewed corrections experts from DOJ’s National Institute of Corrections (NIC), ACA, Pew Center on the States, and academia. We selected these experts from our review of the corrections literature and on the recommendation of BOP officials and other experts. While the views of these experts are not representative, they provided us with perspectives on BOP’s actions and ability to mitigate the effects of its increased prison population.

NIC, a component of BOP, provides training, technical assistance, information services, and policy/program development assistance to federal, state, and local corrections agencies.

Wisconsin––that had experienced prison population growth and had taken actions to mitigate its effects or reduce their prison populations. To select these states, we analyzed DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics’s (BJS) report on 2010 state prison inmate populations. We also reviewed relevant governmental and nongovernmental reports on state prison population growth and states’ actions taken to reduce or mitigate the effects this growth, which were published from 2006 through 2011 (e.g., the Pew Center on the States, Vera Institute, and Council of State Governments). We also interviewed (1) BOP, NIC, and BJS officials; (2) stakeholder interest groups (e.g., Pew Center on the States, Council of State Governments, ACA, and Association of State Correctional Administrators); and (3) academic corrections experts to obtain their perspectives on state efforts to mitigate the effects of prison population growth or reduce prison populations.

We selected these five states because they (1) reflected a range of prison population sizes (e.g., New York and Ohio have two of the largest state prison populations, with 56,656 and 51,712 inmates, respectively); (2) were involved in addressing prison crowding issues (e.g., Kansas and Ohio are working with the Council of State Governments and the Pew Center on the States to address prison crowding issues as part of the Justice Reinvestment Initiative); and (3) had taken actions to address population growth, including actions similar to BOP’s actions.

For each of the five selected states, we obtained available data (e.g., BJS state correctional population) and reviewed relevant studies on prison conditions for context. We then interviewed state corrections officials regarding actions taken in their states to reduce the prison population, as well as to mitigate the effects of prison population growth. We analyzed correctional statutes and policies identified by these officials during our interviews. As shown in table 2, we also conducted site visits to three facilities in two states.

During our site visits, we discussed with correctional administrators and observed actions taken within these facilities to mitigate the effects of the growth of the prison populations.

Additionally, to further address the third question, we assessed the extent to which actions implemented in the five states to reduce their prison populations would be possible under current federal law for BOP to implement. Dissimilarities between federal and state prison systems— legally, structurally, and in how crowding calculations are determined–– limit the comparability between federal and state correctional systems. We mitigated the effects of these limitations by the criteria used to select the five states. We are unable to generalize about the types of actions states have taken to mitigate the effects of state prison population growth or reduce their prison populations. Nevertheless, the information we obtained through these visits provided examples of state responses to prison population growth. Further, to determine the extent to which BOP has implemented similar initiatives from states’ experiences, we analyzed BOP documentation describing BOP initiatives to address the growth of federal prison populations. We also discussed with BOP officials the state actions we identified, including the extent to which these actions would be possible under current federal law for BOP to implement.

We conducted this performance audit from September 2011 to September 2012 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Appendix II: BOP’s Population Growth

This appendix presents additional information and elaboration on BOP’s population growth. Specifically, it addresses factors contributing to growth, offense composition of BOP’s population,

BOP’s rated capacity and percentage crowding trends, and

BOP’s long-range capacity plan.

Factors Contributing to Growth

Among the factors that contribute to the size of the federal prison population are national crime levels, law enforcement policies, and federal sentencing laws, all of which are beyond BOP’s control. According to BOP officials, the length of the sentences that federal inmates serve is one of the single most important factors in prison population growth. Prior to the passage of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, most federal statutes provided only for broad maximum terms of imprisonment and federal judges had broad discretion in sentencing.the maximum sentence, federal judges imposed a sentence within a statutory range, and federal parole officials eventually determined the actual duration of incarceration. The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 abolished parole, and subsequent legislation established mandatory minimum sentences for many federal offenses; these federal laws limit the ability of BOP to affect the length of the sentence or the size of the inmate population.

According to BOP, the increase in sentence length is the primary reason for the growth in the federal inmate population from 42,000 in 1987 to over 218,000 today. Drug offenses constitute the largest component of admissions to BOP. The average time an inmate served for drug offenses increased 250 percent after 1987, when the U.S. Sentencing Commission revised the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines in order to implement the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. Most recently, the Administrative Office of the U. S. Courts reported to BOP that for the year ending March 31, 2012, federal courts had ordered over 8,000 sentences of 6 or more years, and nearly 3,000 of those prison sentences were for 12 or more years.almost all federal offenders had increased since the implementation of the act. For example, immigration offenders currently serve much longer sentences than they did in the 1980s.

Offense Composition of BOP’s Population

As shown in table 3, drug, weapons/explosives, and immigration offenses composed the largest number of offenses for which all BOP inmates were incarcerated in each year from fiscal years 2006 through 2011.

BOP explained that the offense composition of BOP’s population generally shows a higher number of drug offenses than immigration offenses, because drug offenses carry longer sentences than immigration offenses. For example, BOP data show that the number of drug offenses in fiscal year 2011 was four times greater than the number of immigration offenses that year, although the yearly admission to BOP for each of these offenses is usually about the same. Further, the number of admissions for weapons offenses is generally about one-fourth that of immigration offenses, but the number of weapons offenders in the BOP population is significantly higher than the number of immigration offenders because of the much longer sentences for weapons offenses.

The distribution of offenses varied by institutional security level, although, with the exception of high security facilities, drug violations constituted the largest number of offenses. In medium and low security facilities, drugs, weapons/explosives, and immigration were among the three largest offense categories. In minimum security facilities, drug offenses were followed by fraud/bribery/extortion and weapons/explosives offenses.high security facilities, weapons/explosives offenses constituted the largest number of offenses, followed by drugs, robbery, homicide/aggravated assault, and immigration.

As shown in table 4, drug and immigration offenses accounted for the largest numbers of offenses among non-U.S. citizen inmates in each year of the 6-year period. Violent and property offenses increased during the same period, but were a smaller number of the total offenses.

During each year of the 6-year period, the largest number of non-U.S. citizen inmates (ranging from about 28,000 to 33,000) were incarcerated in low security facilities for drug offenses. Among non-U.S. citizen inmates incarcerated in medium and high security facilities, immigration, followed by drugs, constituted the largest number of offenses. As to why these inmates were housed in medium and high security facilities, BOP officials explained that offenders who were convicted of violent offenses, had a history of violent behavior, or had been found guilty of serious misconduct while in BOP custody were usually sent to higher security level facilities. These officials said that over 45 percent of non-U.S. citizen inmates who were placed in higher security level facilities had a history of violence.

BOP’s Rated Capacity and Percentage Crowding Trends

Table 5 below shows BOP’s rated capacity and double, triple, and quadruple bunking levels as of September 30, 2011.

As a result of the growth in the inmate population in BOP-run facilities relative to the increased rated capacity, crowding in BOP-run institutions increased from 36 to 39 percent systemwide from fiscal years 2006 through 2011. Nevertheless, within male facilities, the percentage crowding varied by security level, as shown in figure 4. For example, the percentage crowding in male medium security facilities increased from 37 percent to 51 percent, and from 53 percent to 55 percent in high security level facilities (see table 6). Additionally, the percentage crowding in minimum security facilities more than doubled from fiscal year 2009 through 2010 because of a population increase of more than 1,400 inmates while capacity increased by 69 beds.

During the 6-year period, the overall percentage crowding in female long- term facilities decreased from 39 to 36 percent, but there were some variations by facility security level (i.e., minimum, secure, and high). Specifically, the percentage crowding in secure facilities decreased from 73 to 54 percent and the percentage crowding in minimum security facilities increased from 17 to 21 percent. BOP headquarters officials explained that BOP was able to increase the number of female secure facility beds by converting a male facility at Waseca, Minnesota, to a female facility.

Table 6 shows BOP’s male and female populations, rated capacity, and percentage crowding data by institutional security level for fiscal years 2006 through 2011.

BOP’s 2020 long-range capacity plan projects continued growth in the federal prison population from fiscal years 2012 through 2020. The plan relies on multiple approaches to house the increased federal prison population, including contracting with the private sector for certain inmate populations; expanding existing institutions where infrastructure permits; and acquiring, constructing, and activating new facilities as funding permits. BOP officials explained that BOP changes its capacity plan several times each year. For example, rated capacity figures may change as a result of the reclassification of a facility to address population needs. BOP also adjusts its actual capacity and population figures each year.

As shown in figure 5, BOP expects the overall inmate population in BOP- run institutions to continue to grow from approximately 182,600 inmates in fiscal year 2012 to about 204,410 inmates in fiscal year 2020. The plan also projects an increase in systemwide capacity from 128,433 beds in 2012 to 151,895 beds in 2020, with a projected reduction in crowding from 42 percent to 35 percent.

Specifically, BOP’s 2020 capacity plan projects the male inmate populations in long-term institutions at all security levels to continue to grow or remain stable; however, BOP projects variations in the changes in rated capacity across the security levels, resulting in respective differences in crowding percentages. For example, as shown in figure 6, from fiscal years 2017 through 2020, BOP’s plan projects a decrease in crowding in male medium security facilities from 71 percent to 58 percent and in high security facilities from 55 percent to 12 percent, as a result of the projected increased capacity. Congressional budget requests have not included funding for this additional bed space, and as a result BOP’s plans are contingent on the budget development and appropriations processes and are subject to change. During the same period, BOP also projects crowding in low security facilities to be about 35 percent.

BOP’s plan also projects an increase in the female long-term inmate population from fiscal years 2012 through 2020, but anticipates variations in percentage crowding across security levels. Specifically, the projections show an increase in the percentage crowding in female minimum security facilities from 24 to 37 percent and a decrease in the percentage crowding in female secure facilities from 58 to 32 percent. BOP noted that this reduction in crowding is contingent on appropriations to fund the opening of a secure female facility in Aliceville, Alabama, in fiscal years 2013 and 2014. According to BOP officials, BOP’s projections do not include any additional long-term facilities for women, because the percentage crowding in female facilities is well below the percentage crowding in, for example, male medium security facilities. Nevertheless, officials said that BOP will review and adjust capacity needs as it develops its plan beyond fiscal year 2020.

Table 7 shows BOP’s rated capacity, population, and percentage crowding projections from fiscal years 2012 through 2020. According to BOP officials, BOP’s long-term population projections are always conservative; therefore, the actual number of inmates would likely be higher than the projections. Additionally, they said that other factors that may affect the accuracy of these projections include legislation affecting federal crimes and sentencing as well as new law enforcement initiatives leading to more arrests, prosecutions, and convictions.

Appendix III: Effects of a Growing Inmate Population

This appendix presents additional information and elaboration on the effects of a growing inmate population on security and safety.

The growth in the inmate population has affected inmates’ daily living conditions, program participation, meaningful work opportunities, and visitation.

BOP uses double bunking in excess of the percentages included in a facility’s rated capacity; triple bunking or converting common space (e.g., a television room) temporarily to house its growing population. BOP counts these additional beds as temporary space rather than increased rated capacity. As a result of these actions to increase available bed space, more inmates are sharing cells and other living units, bringing together for longer periods of time inmates with a higher risk of violence and more potential victims. Table 8 shows the temporary bed space BOP added from fiscal years 2006 through 2011 by security level and male and female facilities. During the 6-year period, the use of temporary space generally increased in male medium, and high security facilities and in female minimum security facilities, but the number of temporary beds fluctuated with changes in the number of general population beds (e.g., rated capacity).

BOP officials told us that they were aware of the use of temporary beds in BOP’s 117 institutions, but BOP does not track whether a facility uses television rooms or triple bunks in a cell. Instead, when temporary beds are added, BOP generally refers to this as triple bunking. As shown in table 9, all of the BOP facilities we visited reported using temporary beds during the period from fiscal years 2006 through 2011. At the time of our visits in 2011 and 2012, these facilities continued to use temporary space, with the exception of SeaTac.

According to all of the regional directors and wardens in the two facilities we visited, different regions and facilities used different approaches to temporary bed space. For example, one regional director said that all facilities in his region used some temporary space to house inmates, but generally, institutions were no longer using television rooms to house inmates. He said that it is safer to manage 3 inmates in one cell through triple bunking than to manage 16 inmates in a converted television room.

Alternatively, at a medium security facility we visited in another region, officials told us that all inmates were double bunked in cells and the facility had converted four former television rooms to temporarily house 8 to 10 inmates in each. In each housing unit, all televisions were relocated to a single common room. BOP headquarters officials noted that having a single television room is a common cause of disciplinary incidents because fighting may erupt among groups of inmates who want to watch different programs.

In addition to crowding in a facility’s housing and common areas, inmates may experience crowded bathroom facilities, reductions in shower times, shortened meal times coupled with longer waits for food service, and more limited recreational activities because of the increased inmate population. For example, with more inmates, it takes longer for correctional officers to escort inmates to the dining hall and for each inmate to be served in the food service line. According to BOP officials, extended wait times at meals in particular can be problematic because BOP attempts to keep inmates on strict schedules and extended waits may cause inmates to arrive late for vocational classes or work assignments, which can delay the start of the class or assignment. The increased inmate population also affects recreation space and activity time. For example, according to staff at one BOP facility we visited, in a crowded arts room, inmates may accidentally bump elbows, resulting in tension or friction, which may lead to a security incident. At another BOP facility, with a rated capacity of 850 but housing 1,300 inmates, officials said that crowding affects accessibility to recreational activities such as team sports, especially during warmer weather, when 500 inmates may be in a recreational area supervised by one or two staff.

BOP provides programs including education, vocational training, drug treatment, and faith-based reentry programs that help to rehabilitate inmates and support correctional management. According to BOP officials, two benefits of inmate programming are (1) public safety, and (2) institutional safety and security because of reduced inmate idleness. These officials said, however, that the growth in the inmate population had increased program waiting lists, contributing to inmate idleness.

BOP officials said facility staff offer a variety of education programs, such as mandatory General Educational Development (GED) courses; 8- to 10- week nonmandatory courses on topics such as parenting, word processing, and conversational Spanish; occupational training; and computer-based self-paced courses (e.g., English). According to BOP data, overall inmate participation in one or more programs ranged from 35 to 37 percent from fiscal years 2006 through 2011. The percentage participation, number of inmates on waiting lists, and length of the average waiting time varied by program. For example, BOP snapshots from fiscal years 2008 through 2012 of the total population at BOP-run facilities showed that between 13 and 14 percent of inmates were enrolled in literacy programs, while between 11 and 12 percent remained on waiting lists.systemwide participation rates in selected BOP education and training programs as of September 2011.

BOP provides inmates with the opportunity to participate in a variety of drug treatment programs. In more than half of its facilities, BOP offers a residential drug abuse treatment program. In all of its facilities, BOP offers nonresidential drug abuse and drug education programs. All of the drug treatment and drug education programs had waiting lists from fiscal years 2006 through 2011. According to BOP officials, if BOP cannot meet the substance abuse treatment or education needs of inmates because it does not have the staff needed to meet program demand, some inmates will not receive programming benefits. As we reported in February 2012, long waiting lists for BOP’s Residential Drug Abuse Program (RDAP), which provides sentence reductions for eligible inmates who successfully complete the program, constrained BOP’s ability to admit participants early enough to earn their maximum allowable reductions in times served. From fiscal years 2009 through 2011, the number of slots for inmates to participate in RDAP increased by 400. According to BOP officials, as RDAP capacity has increased, BOP has reduced waiting lists even with continued growth in the inmate population, thereby enabling inmates to enter the program sooner and increasing the number of inmates (from 14 to 25 percent) who complete the program and receive a sentence reduction. Nevertheless, the program continues to experience long waiting lists, although the average wait has declined. For example, in low security facilities in fiscal year 2006, 3,547 inmates participated in the RDAP program, 3,378 inmates were on the waiting list, and the average waiting time was about 205 days. In contrast, in low security facilities in fiscal year 2011, 3,082 inmates participated in the program, 3,723 were on the waiting list, but the average waiting time was approximately 80 days. Tables 11-13 provide additional data on participation, waiting lists, and average waiting time for BOP drug education and treatment programs in male facilities.

BOP also implements two faith-based reentry programs through its Religious Services Branch. Life Connections is BOP’s 18-month residential program, begun in 2002, that offers a core curriculum taught by spiritual guides hired from different faiths. The number of enrollments in the program ranged from 345 to almost 400 inmates systemwide. The program waiting lists for each security level were generally equal to or greater than the number of participants. Threshold is BOP’s nonresidential faith-based program, which began in 2008. Over 550 inmates were enrolled in the program as of January 2012; maintaining a waiting list for Threshold program participation is at the discretion of participating institutions’ wardens.

According to BOP headquarters officials, the growth in the federal inmate population has also affected inmate work opportunities, as it is difficult to find meaningful work for all inmates in a crowded facility, even though generally all inmates are required to have a job. They said that with the growth of the prison population, fewer opportunities exist to engage in meaningful work. This makes it difficult for staff to keep inmates busy, resulting in inmate idleness, which can lead to additional tension and fighting between inmates. Inmate discord can then affect the security and safety of other inmates and staff. For example, BOP headquarters officials and the warden at one facility we visited explained that inmate wages vary with the job. Specifically, wages may range from 12 cents per hour for sweeping the facility to $1.15 per hour for some jobs in factories that Federal Prison Industries, also known as UNICOR, runs on the prison grounds. Tensions may arise because inmates want to be reassigned from lower- to higher-paying jobs. According to BOP officials, BOP has tried to develop an index of idleness; however, measuring idleness is difficult because inmates are usually engaged in some activity, even though that activity may not be meaningful to their development (e.g., filling salt shakers in the cafeteria).

Non-U.S. citizens who are currently under an order of deportation, exclusion, or removal from the United States are precluded from participating in the UNICOR program, under 28 C.F.R. § 345.35. us that these jobs teach inmates valuable reentry skills, such as coming to work on time. Such jobs can also teach money management and budgeting, and because the earnings are higher than those for other prison jobs, inmates have the opportunity to send money home to their families. As a result, officials said there is less idleness among inmates with UNICOR jobs, which helps to support security and safety in the facility, and that the recidivism rate for participants is lower. Facility officials also noted that the decline in the number of UNICOR jobs has resulted in waiting lists and challenged staff to create jobs to support industrial work programming. Systemwide, the number of UNICOR factories peaked at 110 in 2007, declining to 88 in 2011. These factories employed over 23,000 inmates in 2007, declining to 14,200 inmates in 2011. In May 2010 the waiting list for UNICOR jobs was over 26,000 inmates, with an average waiting time of 16 months. According to BOP officials, a UNICOR waiting list includes inmates from the facility where the factory is located. An inmate transferring to a facility may be placed on the waiting list, but an inmate cannot be transferred to a facility to participate in the UNICOR program. At one facility we visited, officials told us that approximately 200 inmates were on the waiting list. They explained that the waiting list consisted of three groups: inmates with financial responsibilities, inmates with prior UNICOR experience, and inmates on the general waiting list. When slots opened up, inmates were selected equally from each of the three lists.

Crowded visiting rooms make it more difficult for inmates to visit with their families. BOP headquarters officials said the quality of the interaction between an inmate and family can positively affect an inmate’s behavior in prison and aids an inmate’s success when returning to the community. Each BOP facility has visiting space to accommodate the number of inmates that the facility was designed to house and a visitor capacity to enable staff to manage the visitation process. The infrastructure of the facility may not support the increase in visitors as a result of the growth in the prison population. Further, with more inmates, the visitation process requires more staff resources. BOP officials explained that the visiting process requires at least four staff––one in the front lobby to process visitors, one to escort inmates in and out of the visiting room and search the inmate for contraband following the visit, one to document and search visitors to prevent the introduction of contraband, and one to walk around the visiting area supervising interactions.

Limited visiting capacity and the larger numbers of inmates can lead to frustrations for inmates and visitors, such as when visits are shorter or visitors are turned away because there are too many visitors on a particular day. Five of the regional directors and officials at four of the facilities we visited reported that the effect of the population growth on visitation varied by region and facilities within the region because of a number of factors, including proximity of the facility to inmates’ families. If a large percentage of the inmate population is from the area where the facility is located, the visiting room is used at a greater frequency. Conversely, if inmates’ families do not live near the facility, the increase in the number of inmates does not have a similar effect on visitation. For example, one regional director told us that the increase in the number of inmates had not affected overall visitation in the region because of the large number of inmates who were non-U.S. citizens and whose families did not visit. In another region, the regional director told us that some facilities have problems with visitation only on holidays, when families wish to be together, while others have problems regularly. According to officials, allowing all inmates rather than none or some inmates to have visitors helps inmates’ morale and facility management.

Additionally, the larger number of inmates also limits inmate access to the telephone to call home and computer to e-mail family members and other contacts. For example, at one facility we visited, each housing unit had three telephones for about 156 inmates. We reported in September 2011 that BOP provided a variety of options to its inmates for making phone calls to friends and families; nevertheless, the number of contraband cell phones in prisons had risen. Given the potential that these phones provide for furthering criminal activity (e.g., selling drugs), the illicit use of cell phones can pose a danger to staff and inmates, as well as the public at large.

Facility officials told us that because of the large prison population, correctional officers do not have time to use their interpersonal correctional skills and maintain communication between staff and individual inmates. Representatives of the correctional workers’ union and officials at three of the five prisons we visited specifically emphasized the importance of interaction and communication between inmates and correctional staff for purposes of inmate reentry and facility management. During one site visit, we observed that facility department heads and unit managers stand along the cafeteria serving line during meals to provide the opportunity for inmates to speak with staff about problems and concerns. A union representative observed that inmates used to tell correctional staff about problems (e.g., where other inmates were storing contraband), but with more than one inmate in a cell, inmates may not want to talk to the correctional officer in front of the other inmates.

Tables 14 through 16 provide historical data on inmate to total BOP staff ratios, inmate to BOP institutional staff ratios, and inmate to BOP correctional staff ratios.

More inmates results in greater water usage for heating, laundry, showers, toilets, sanitation, and food service. As a result, BOP is the largest energy and water consumer in DOJ. Specifically, BOP estimated that each inmate uses approximately 150 gallons of water per day. BOP’s electricity costs also increased about 35 percent, from about $79 million in fiscal year 2005 to more than $107 million in fiscal year 2011. According to BOP, the main reason for this increase is the rising cost of electricity over the last 6 years, although more inmates with more laundry also have had a marginal impact. BOP regional and facility officials said that with the increased population, the food service equipment is used to prepare more meals, thereby shortening the life of the equipment.

In February 2012, BOP reported 150 major unfunded repair projects (i.e., each project had an estimated repair cost of $300,000 or more) for a total projected repair cost of almost $346 million. These included unfunded repairs totaling about $30 million for four of the five prisons we visited, such as replacement of a roof, repairs to the perimeter wall, replacement of the perimeter fence, and upgrading a sewer system. One regional director observed, however, that when BOP does not have funding for repairs, staff find a way to “make do.” For example, at one older facility in that region, staff built a second roof over the computer room, rather than undertake the more costly roof repair, because the main roof of the facility leaked.

BOP officials said facilities are so crowded that closing older facilities is not an option. These officials explained that BOP’s goal is to reduce crowding to 15 percent systemwide. Because BOP projects continued population growth and does not anticipate a large increase in facility capacity, a significant decrease in the population would have to occur before BOP would be able to consider facility closures. Officials said that before closing BOP-run facilities, BOP would reduce its private prison contracts, but reductions in facility space would also depend on the security level of the population where reductions occurred.

According to BOP officials, the increasing inmate population and staffing ratios negatively affect inmate conduct and the imposition of discipline, thereby affecting security and safety. BOP maintains an inmate discipline program for all inmates in BOP custody, which is to help ensure the safety, security, and orderly operation of correctional facilities, as well as the protection of the public, by allowing BOP staff to impose sanctions on inmates who commit prohibited acts. BOP classifies prohibited acts into four levels according to the severity of the offense and provides a range of sanctions. Available sanctions are based on the severity of the offense and include disallowance and forfeiture of good conduct time credit, disciplinary segregation, loss of privileges (e.g., visitation, telephone, and commissary). BOP disciplinary hearing data show an increase from fiscal years 2006 through 2010 and a decline in fiscal year 2011. Table 17 shows the trends in the number of guilty findings for each level of prohibited acts from fiscal years 2006 through 2011. According to BOP officials, moderate severity (300-level) prohibited acts include less serious but more frequently committed types of inmate misconduct, such as insolent behavior toward staff, thus explaining the large number of findings reported for this category.

During the 6-year period, BOP data indicated that the most frequently imposed sanctions for guilty findings were loss of privileges, disallowance of good time credit, and segregation.

In addition to maintaining individual discipline, BOP facility management may lock down a facility––a temporary situation in which all inmates are confined to their living quarters/cells until staff are able to assess the situation following a critical incident (e.g., a, assaults on staff by several inmates, or a food or work strike) and can safely return the institution to normal operations. According to BOP data, BOP systemwide imposed almost 4,000 lockdowns from fiscal years 2006 through 2011. Similar to the inmate misconduct data, the number of lockdowns increased from fiscal years 2006 through 2009, peaking at 1,042 that year and then declining to 824 in fiscal year 2011.

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Joy Booth, Assistant Director; Pedro Almoguera; Willie Commons; Eric Hauswirth; Lara Miklozek; Linda Miller; Meghan Squires; Barbara Stolz; and Greg Wilmoth made key contributions to this report.

Related GAO Products

Federal Bureau of Prisons: Methods for Estimating Incarceration and Community Corrections Costs and Results of the Elderly Offender Pilot. GAO-12-807R. Washington, D.C.: July 27, 2012.

Bureau of Prisons: Eligibility and Capacity Impact Use of Flexibilities to Reduce Inmates’ Time in Prison. GAO-12-320. Washington, D.C. February 7, 2012.

Bureau of Prisons: Improved Evaluations and Increased Coordination Could Improve Cell Phone Detection. GAO-11-893. Washington, D.C.: September 6, 2011.

Bureau of Prisons: Evaluating the Impact of Protective Equipment Could Help Enhance Officer Safety. GAO-11-410. Washington, D.C.: April 8, 2011.

Bureau of Prisons: Methods for Cost Estimation Largely Reflect Best Practices, but Quantifying Risks Would Enhance Decision Making. GAO-10-94. Washington, D.C.: November 10, 2009.

Prison Construction: Clear Communication on the Accuracy of Cost Estimates and Project Changes is Needed. GAO-08-634. Washington, D.C.: May 29, 2008.

Cost of Prisons: Bureau of Prisons Needs Better Data to Assess Alternatives for Acquiring Low and Minimum Security Facilities. GAO-08-6. Washington, D.C.: October 5, 2007.

Prisoner Releases: Trends and Information on Reintegration Programs. GAO-01-483. Washington, D.C. June 18, 2001.

State and Federal Prisoners: Profiles of Inmate Characteristics in 1991 and 1997. GAO/GGD-00-117. Washington, D.C.: May 24, 2000.