This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-12-743 
entitled 'Bureau of Prisons: Growing Inmate Crowding Negatively 
Affects Inmates, Staff, and Infrastructure' which was released on 
September 12, 2012. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

A Report to Congressional Requesters: 

September 2012: 

Bureau of Prisons: 

Growing Inmate Crowding Negatively Affects Inmates, Staff, and 
Infrastructure: 

GAO-12-743: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-12-743, a report to congressional requesters. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

BOP operates 117 federal prisons to house approximately 178,000 
federal offenders, and contracts with private companies and some state 
governments to house about another 40,000 inmates. BOP calculates the 
number of prisoners that each BOP-run institution can house safely and 
securely (i.e., rated capacity). GAO was asked to address (1) the 
growth in BOP’s population from fiscal years 2006 through 2011 and BOP’
s projections for inmate population and capacity; (2) the effects of a 
growing federal prison population on operations within BOP facilities, 
and the extent to which BOP has taken actions to mitigate these 
effects; and (3) actions selected states have taken to reduce their 
prison populations, and the extent to which BOP has implemented 
similar initiatives. 

GAO analyzed BOP’s inmate population data from fiscal years 2006 
through 2011, BOP’s 2020 long-range capacity plan, and BOP policies 
and statutory authority. GAO visited five federal prisons chosen on 
the basis of geographic dispersion and varying security levels. The 
results are not generalizable, but provide information on the effects 
of a growing prison population. GAO selected five states based on 
actions they took to mitigate the effects of their growing prison 
populations—and assessed the extent to which their actions would be 
possible for BOP. GAO makes no recommendations in this report. BOP 
provided technical clarifications, which GAO incorporated where 
appropriate. 

What GAO Found: 

The Department of Justice’s Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP) 9.5 percent 
population growth from fiscal years 2006 through 2011 exceeded the 7 
percent increase in its rated capacity, and BOP projects continued 
population growth. Growth was most concentrated among male inmates, 
and in 2011, 48 percent of the inmates BOP housed were sentenced for 
drugs. From fiscal years 2006 through 2011, BOP increased its rated 
capacity by about 8,300 beds as a result of opening 5 new facilities 
and closing 4 minimum security camps, but because of the population 
expansion, crowding (or population in excess of rated capacity) 
increased from 36 to 39 percent. In 2011 crowding was most severe (55 
percent) in highest security facilities. BOP’s 2020 long-range 
capacity plan projects continued growth in the federal prison 
population from fiscal years 2012 through 2020, with systemwide 
crowding exceeding 45 percent through 2018. 

According to BOP, the growth in the federal inmate population has 
negatively affected inmates, staff, and infrastructure, but BOP has 
acted within its authority to help mitigate the effects of this 
growth. BOP officials reported increased use of double and triple 
bunking, waiting lists for education and drug treatment programs, 
limited meaningful work opportunities, and increased inmate-to-staff 
ratios. These factors, taken together, contribute to increased inmate 
misconduct, which negatively affects the safety and security of 
inmates and staff. BOP officials and union representatives voiced 
concerns about a serious incident occurring. To manage its growing 
population, BOP staggers meal times and segregates inmates involved in 
disciplinary infractions, among other things. 

The five states in GAO’s review have taken more actions than BOP to 
reduce their prison populations, because these states have legislative 
authority that BOP does not have. These states have modified criminal 
statutes and sentencing, relocated inmates to local facilities, and 
provided inmates with additional opportunities for early release. BOP 
generally does not have similar authority. For example, BOP cannot 
shorten an inmate’s sentence or transfer inmates to local prisons. 
Efforts to address the crowding issue could include (1) reducing the 
inmate population by actions such as reforming sentencing laws, (2) 
increasing capacity by actions such as constructing new prisons, or 
(3) some combination of both. 

Figure: A Triple-Bunked Cell in a BOP Facility: 

[Refer to PDF for image: photograph] 

Source: BOP. 

[End of figure] 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-743]. For more 
information, contact David C. Maurer at (202) 512-9627 or 
maurerd@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

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

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

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

Concluding Observations: 

Agency Comments: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: BOP's Population Growth: 

Appendix III: Effects of a Growing Inmate Population: 

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Related GAO Products: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Site Visits to BOP Facilities: 

Table 2: Site Visits to State Correctional Facilities: 

Table 3: Offense Composition of the Inmate Population in BOP 
Facilities, by Year, from Fiscal Years 2006 through 2011: 

Table 4: Offense Composition of the Non-U.S. Citizen Inmate Population 
in BOP Facilities from Fiscal Years 2006 through 2011: 

Table 5: BOP's Rated Capacity and Crowding, by Facility Security Level 
as of September 2011: 

Table 6: BOP Population, Rated Capacity, and Percentage Crowding from 
Fiscal Years 2006 through 2011: 

Table 7: BOP Projected Population, Rated Capacity, and Percentage 
Crowding from Fiscal Years 2012 through 2020: 

Table 8: Rated Capacity and Temporary Bed Space by Institutional 
Security Level From Fiscal Years 2006 through 2011: 

Table 9: Rated Capacity and Temporary Bed Space of Selected BOP 
Facilities from Fiscal Years 2006 through 2011: 

Table 10: Systemwide Inmate Participation Rates in Selected BOP 
Programs in September 2011: 

Table 11: BOP's Drug Education Programs in Male Facilities: Inmate 
Participation Levels, Waiting List Numbers, and Average Waiting Time, 
by Institutional Security Level from the End of Fiscal Years 2006 
through 2011: 

Table 12: BOP's Nonresidential Drug Treatment Programs in Male 
Facilities: Inmate Participation Levels, Waiting List Numbers, and 
Average Waiting Time, by Institutional Security Level from the End of 
Fiscal Years 2006 through 2011: 

Table 13: BOP's Residential Drug Abuse Programs in Male Facilities: 
Inmate Participation Levels, Waiting List Numbers, and Average Waiting 
Time, by Institutional Security Level from the End of Fiscal Years 
2006 through 2011: 

Table 14: BOP Inmate to Total BOP Staff Ratios from Fiscal Years 1997 
through 2011: 

Table15: BOP's Inmate to Total Institutional Staff Ratios from Fiscal 
Years 2006 through 2011: 

Table 16: Snapshots of BOP's Inmate to Correctional Officer Ratios, by 
BOP Region, from Fiscal Years 2006 through 2011: 

Table 17: Guilty Findings for Prohibited Acts by Severity Level, 
Fiscal Years 2006 through 2011: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Illustration of a 20-Cell Medium Security Facility with 45 
Inmates and 50 Percent Crowding and a 20-Cell High Security Facility 
with 39 Inmates and 56 Percent Crowding: 

Figure 2: BOP Systemwide Population, Rated Capacity, and Percentage 
Crowding from Fiscal Years 2006 through 2011: 

Figure 3: Examples of BOP's Use of Temporary Bed Space: 

Figure 4: Percentage Crowding in Male Long-Term Facilities from Fiscal 
Years 2006 through 2011 by Institutional Security Level: 

Figure 5: BOP's Projections for Population, Rated Capacity, and 
Percentage Crowding from Fiscal Years 2012 through 2020: 

Figure 6: Projected Percentage Crowding in Male Long-Term Facilities 
from Fiscal Years 2012 through 2020 by Institutional Security Level: 

Abbreviations: 

ACA: American Correctional Association: 

ADP: average daily population: 

ADX: Administrative Maximum: 

BOP: Bureau of Prisons: 

DHO: disciplinary hearing officer: 

DOJ: Department of Justice: 

ESL: English as a Second Language: 

GED: General Educational Development: 

IG: Inspector General: 

NIC: National Institute of Corrections: 

OMB: Office of Management and Budget: 

PHS: Public Health Service: 

RDA: PResidential Drug Abuse Program: 

RICO: Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act: 

RRC: Residential Reentry Center: 

S&E: Salaries and Expenses: 

UDC: Unit Discipline Committee: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

September 12, 2012: 

The Honorable Elijah E. Cummings:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform:
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Robert C. Scott:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security:
Committee on the Judiciary:
House of Representatives: 

As of December 2010, federal and state correctional facilities 
incarcerated more than 1.6 million persons (about 1 in 200 U.S. 
residents), according to the most recently available data from the 
U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).[Footnote 1] At the federal level, 
DOJ's Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is responsible for approximately 218,000 
of these inmates, with a fiscal year 2012 operating budget of about 
$6.6 billion--the second largest budget within DOJ.[Footnote 2] BOP's 
population has increased by more than 400 percent since the late 
1980s, and by about 50 percent since 2000. According to BOP, this 
growth is primarily attributed to an increase in inmates' sentence 
length over time.[Footnote 3] At the end of fiscal year 2011, BOP 
housed nearly 178,000 inmates in the 117 institutions that it owns and 
operates, and it contracted with other correctional facilities, such 
as those of states and private companies, to house nearly 40,000 
inmates.[Footnote 4] 

BOP calculates the number of prisoners a given prison facility is 
built to house safely and securely and calls this its rated capacity. 
[Footnote 5] Crowding, as defined by BOP, is the extent to which a 
facility's inmate population level exceeds its rated capacity. 
[Footnote 6] Systemwide, BOP prisons exceed their rated capacity by 39 
percent, and crowding has been a significant ongoing concern. 
Assessments conducted through the Federal Managers' Financial 
Integrity Act have identified prison crowding as a material weakness 
since 2006.[Footnote 7] Further, since that same year, DOJ's Inspector 
General (IG) has included detention and incarceration among DOJ's top 
10 management and performance challenges departmentwide. In its 2011 
list of challenges, the IG noted its concerns regarding the impact of 
federal prison crowding and the related stresses on BOP's prison 
staffing regarding BOP's ability to safely manage the increasing 
federal inmate population.[Footnote 8] The Attorney General has 
reported both of these findings annually in his performance and 
accountability report for the department. 

While federal inmate population growth has been steady, the overall 
growth of the state inmate population began to decline in 2009. DOJ 
reports that the overall state prison population increased from 
calendar years 1977 through 2008, with the first decline of 0.2 
percent (2,857 prisoners) occurring in 2009. DOJ reported a second-
year decline in 2010 of 0.8 percent (10,881 prisoners), with 25 states 
reporting decreases in their prison populations.[Footnote 9] While not 
all states experienced reductions in their prison populations, in 
those states that did, changes in those states' policies and practices 
are potential contributing factors to this decline. According to a 
2008 study by the Pew Center on the States, a state may reduce its 
prison population growth while protecting public safety by (1) 
diverting a greater number of low-risk offenders from prison, (2) 
reducing the time that low-risk offenders are in prison, or (3) a 
combination of these approaches.[Footnote 10] In contrast to the 
prison populations of the states, the federal prison population has 
continued to grow. BOP is required by statute to provide for suitable 
housing and the safekeeping, care, and subsistence of all persons 
charged with or convicted of offenses against the United States. 
[Footnote 11] Thus, while the size of a prison population is, in part, 
a function of crime rates, sentencing laws, and law enforcement 
policies, these factors are all beyond BOP's control. BOP's population 
is expected to continually increase, given current incarceration 
rates, and safety and security concerns will remain paramount. 

We have previously reported on BOP's population projections, the 
security and safety of inmates and staff, and inmate programs. 
[Footnote 12] For example, in November 2009, having assessed how BOP 
developed its population projections and compared its projections with 
its actual inmate population growth from fiscal years 1999 through 
August 20, 2009, we concluded that BOP's projections were accurate, on 
average, to within 1 percent of the actual inmate population growth 
during this time period.[Footnote 13] In February 2012, we reported on 
BOP's use of its discretionary authority to reduce a prisoner's period 
of incarceration.[Footnote 14] We recommended that BOP establish a 
plan, including time frames and milestones, for requiring contractors 
to submit separate prices of beds in residential reentry centers--also 
known as halfway houses--and home detention services. BOP concurred 
and has actions under way to address the recommendation. 

You asked us to review the impact of crowding in BOP facilities and 
any related lessons that BOP can learn from selected states. 
Specifically, this report addresses the following questions: 

1. What was the growth in BOP's population from fiscal years 2006 
through 2011, and what are BOP's projections for inmate population and 
capacity? 

2. What is known about the effects of a growing federal prison 
population on operations (i.e., inmates, staff, and infrastructure) 
within BOP facilities, and to what extent has BOP taken actions to 
mitigate these effects? 

3. What actions have selected states taken to reduce their prison 
populations, and to what extent has BOP implemented similar 
initiatives? 

To address the first question, we analyzed policies and procedures 
that may affect the increased federal prison population (e.g., BOP's 
inmate classification policy) and BOP's statutory authority affecting 
its capacity and conditions of confinement. We also analyzed BOP's 
inmate population data and crowding percentages by institutional 
security level from fiscal years 2006 through 2011 and BOP's 2020 long-
range capacity plan, which was issued in January 2012. We assessed the 
reliability of BOP's inmate population and crowding data by reviewing 
relevant documentation, interviewing knowledgeable agency officials 
about how they maintain the integrity of their data, and updating 
previous assessments that we did for previously issued reports. We 
found BOP's inmate population and crowding data to be sufficiently 
reliable for the purposes of this report. We also interviewed BOP 
headquarters officials to discuss how BOP's population has grown. 

To address the second question, we analyzed BOP's statutory authority, 
policies, and procedures pertinent to the effects of the growing 
population on operations in BOP facilities (i.e., effects on inmates, 
staff, and infrastructure) and BOP's ability to mitigate the effects 
of a growing population. We also analyzed BOP studies on the effects 
of population growth and prison crowding on BOP operations, as well as 
BOP data from fiscal years 2006 through 2011 on available bed space, 
inmate program participation and waiting lists, inmate-to-staff 
ratios, and available infrastructure costs. We also present systemwide 
BOP staffing ratios from fiscal years 1997 through 2011 because 
officials believed that presenting the ratios for a longer period 
better illustrates the effect of BOP's population growth relative to 
the number of staff.[Footnote 15] We assessed the reliability of BOP's 
inmate, staff, and infrastructure data by interviewing knowledgeable 
agency officials to determine how BOP collects and maintains the 
integrity of these data. We found these data to be sufficiently 
reliable for the purposes of this report. We visited 5 of BOP's 117 
prisons that are located in four of BOP's six regions, which we chose 
on the basis of varying security levels and to ensure geographic 
dispersion.[Footnote 16] Because we did not randomly select the 
prisons we visited, our results are not generalizable to all BOP 
prisons; however, they provided important insights into BOP's 
operations. We interviewed BOP headquarters officials and all six 
regional directors. Further, we discussed the effects of BOP's 
population growth on correctional staff with officials from the 
Council of Prison Locals, the union that represents all nonmanagement 
staff working in BOP facilities. 

To also address the second as well as the third question, we compared 
and contrasted BOP's actions to mitigate the effects of its increased 
population and attempt to reduce its prison population with similar 
actions taken by five selected states--Kansas, Mississippi, New York, 
Ohio, and Wisconsin--that had experienced prison population growth and 
had taken actions to mitigate its effects or reduce their prison 
populations. To select the states, among other things, we reviewed the 
Bureau of Justice Statistics's (BJS) report on state prison inmate 
populations in 2010.[Footnote 17] We also reviewed relevant reports on 
actions that states have taken to mitigate the effects of their prison 
population growth, published from 2006 through 2011 (e.g., those from 
the Pew Center on the States). Further, we assessed the extent to 
which actions in these selected states would be possible for BOP to 
undertake within its statutory authority. We also conducted site 
visits to three facilities in two of these five states. 
Dissimilarities between federal and state prison systems--legally, 
structurally, and in how crowding calculations are determined--limit 
the comparability between federal and state correctional systems, but 
we mitigated this limitation by the criteria we used to select the 
states in our sample (e.g., size of the prison population and diverse 
approaches to addressing increased prison populations). We are unable 
to generalize about the types of actions states have taken to mitigate 
the effects of state prison population growth or reduce their prison 
populations, but the information we obtained provides examples of 
state responses to prison population growth. Appendix I includes more 
details about our scope and methodology. 

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

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.[Footnote 18] 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).[Footnote 19] BOP has six regional offices, each led by a 
regional director, covering the Mid-Atlantic, North Central, 
Northeast, South Central, 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.[Footnote 20] 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.[Footnote 21] 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.[Footnote 22] 

[Side bar: Rated capacity reflects the number of prisoners that the 
institution was built to house safely and securely. End of side bar] 

BOP establishes a rated capacity for each of the facilities that it 
owns and operates.[Footnote 23] A facility's rated capacity reflects 
the number of prisoners that 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.[Footnote 24] In 
determining a facility's rated capacity, BOP considers American 
Correctional Association (ACA) occupancy and space requirements. 
[Footnote 25] 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. 

[Side bar: Crowding in BOP's facilities is the extent to which a 
prison's inmate population exceeds the institution's rated capacity. 
End of side bar] 

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. 

Figure 1: Illustration of a 20-Cell Medium Security Facility with 45 
Inmates and 50 Percent Crowding and a 20-Cell High Security Facility 
with 39 Inmates and 56 Percent Crowding: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Medium security:          
Rated capacity: 50% of the cells double bunked (houses 30 inmates); 
50% crowding: 33% of the inmates are triple bunked, 67% of the inmates 
are double bunked (houses 45 inmates). 

High security: 
Rated capacity: 25% of the cells are double bunked (houses 25 inmates); 
56% crowding: 97% of the inmates are double bunked, 3% of the inmates 
are single bunked (houses 39 inmates). 
           
Source: GAO analysis of BOP's fiscal year 2013 congressional budget 
submission. 

[End of figure] 

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;[Footnote 26] 

* 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.[Footnote 27] 

As of December 31, 2011, BOP had a total staff of about 38,000, 
including correctional officers[Footnote 28] and administrative, 
program, and support personnel responsible for all of BOP's activities 
nationwide.[Footnote 29] 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.[Footnote 30] 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.[Footnote 31] 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.[Footnote 32] 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). 
[Footnote 33] 

- Non-U.S. citizen inmates are housed in BOP-run low, medium, and high 
security level facilities, as well as in private contract facilities. 
[Footnote 34] 

- 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.[Footnote 35] 
Specifically, in fiscal year 2011, 

- 48 percent of the inmates BOP housed were serving sentences for 
drugs, 

- 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. 

Figure 2: BOP Systemwide Population, Rated Capacity, and Percentage 
Crowding from Fiscal Years 2006 through 2011: 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Number of inmates: 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Rated capacity: 119,810; 
Population: 162,514; 
Percentage crowding: 36%. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
Rated capacity: 122,189; 
Population: 167,323; 
Percentage crowding: 37%. 

Fiscal year: 2008; 
Rated capacity: 122,366; 
Population: 165,964; 
Percentage crowding: 36%. 

Fiscal year: 2009 
Rated capacity: 125,778; 
Population: 172,423; 
Percentage crowding: 37%. 

Fiscal year: 2010; 
Rated capacity: 126,713; 
Population: 173,289; 
Percentage crowding: 37%. 

Fiscal year: 2011; 
Rated capacity: 127,795; 
Population: 177,934; 
Percentage crowding: 39%. 

Source: GAO analysis of BOP data. 

[End of figure] 

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[Footnote 36] for ongoing expenses, which were 
generally about $25 million during each of the 6 fiscal years in this 
period.[Footnote 37] 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. 

[Side bar: BOP officials said that housing low security inmates in 
medium security institutions is contributing to crowding in medium 
security institutions, but BOP's low security facilities are "just 
plain full." End of side bar] 

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 appendix 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. 
[Footnote 38] To address some of this growth, BOP expects to activate 
five newly constructed prisons by 2014, adding about 6,720 beds. 
[Footnote 39] 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. 

Daily Living: 

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.[Footnote 40] 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. 

Figure 3: Examples of BOP's Use of Temporary Bed Space: 

[Refer to PDF for image: 2 photographs] 

Source: BOP. 

[End of figure] 

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. 

Program Participation: 

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.[Footnote 41] 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 appendix 
III).[Footnote 42] 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,[Footnote 43] constrained BOP's ability to admit participants 
early enough to earn their maximum allowable reductions in times 
served.[Footnote 44] 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. 

Meaningful Work Opportunities: 

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.[Footnote 45] BOP 
inmates participate in a variety of jobs. 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. 

Visitation: 

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. 

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. 

[Side bar: The increased inmate-to-staff ratio can increase staff 
overtime and stress and reduce inmate and staff communication. This 
can affect the safety and security of the institution as a whole. End 
of side bar] 

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.[Footnote 46] This is not the only staffing ratio BOP 
calculates however. In addition, BOP calculates a ratio of inmates and 
institutional staff within its facilities.[Footnote 47] 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.[Footnote 48] 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,[Footnote 49] 
nearly all BOP facilities had fewer correctional staff on board than 
needed, with a BOP-wide staffing shortage in excess of 3,200.[Footnote 
50] 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. 

Nevertheless, the study stated that BOP's use of a systemwide ratio 
had not been sufficiently effective in justifying additional annual 
budget requests, because the ratio did not convey operational 
realities at the institutional level. Specifically, the study found 
that there were variances in the number of daily correctional officer 
shifts based on the time of day and the day of the week that the 
overall ratio was not incorporating. Our observations illustrated this 
point. At one medium security facility we visited, officials reported 
a population of about 1,300 inmates, 56 percent crowding, an inmate to 
total staff ratio of 6.0:1. Facility officials explained, 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 realities. 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.[Footnote 51] 
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.[Footnote 52] 
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. 

Infrastructure: 

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.[Footnote 53] 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 appendix III for additional information 
on the effects of BOP's population growth on infrastructure.) 

Security and Safety: 

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.[Footnote 54] 
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. 

[Side bar: BOP places inmates in Special Housing Units for 
disciplinary or administrative reasons when their presence in the 
general inmate population would otherwise threaten the safety, 
security, or orderly operation of the facility or potentially cause 
harm to the public. BOP places inmates in Special Management Units 
when inmates need an even more restrictive and controlled environment--
for even longer terms--than can be offered in a Special Housing Unit 
or among the general inmate population. End of side bar] 

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.[Footnote 55] Nevertheless, BOP 
officials stated that its Special Management Units are now crowded and 
experiencing waiting lists.[Footnote 56] 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. 

[Side bar: BOP officials said they have both experienced and effective 
staff, but that they are reaching the highest crowding rates ever and 
have increasingly unfunded repair requests. They said that BOP cannot 
keep operating as it is without new capacity. End of side bar] 

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.[Footnote 57] 

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. 

Efforts to Increase Inmate and Staff Safety and Security: 

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.[Footnote 58] 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.[Footnote 59] 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.[Footnote 60] 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. 
[Footnote 61] 

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.[Footnote 62] 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.[Footnote 
63] 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. 

Efforts to Utilize Resources Efficiently: 

[Side bar: BOP's Federal Correctional Complex in Florence, Colorado, 
comprises three secure facilities: an Administrative Maximum U.S. 
Penitentiary, a high security U.S. Penitentiary, and a medium security 
Federal Correctional Institution. The complex also includes a minimum 
security satellite camp. End of side bar] 

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.[Footnote 64] 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 benefited 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.[Footnote 65] 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.[Footnote 66] 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.[Footnote 
67] 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.[Footnote 68] 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.[Footnote 69] 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.[Footnote 70] 

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.[Footnote 71] These guidelines became effective on November 
1, 2007.[Footnote 72] 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).[Footnote 73] The 
effect of this change was realized almost fully in fiscal year 2008. 
[Footnote 74] 

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.[Footnote 75] Like Ohio, Kansas 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 these facilities.[Footnote 76] BOP may place 
inmates there in the final months of their 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.[Footnote 
77] 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.[Footnote 78] 
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.[Footnote 79] 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.[Footnote 80] 
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. 
[Footnote 81] 

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.[Footnote 82] 

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.[Footnote 83] Specifically, BOP's RDAP offers sentence 
reductions of up to 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. 

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).[Footnote 84] Good conduct time 
credit may be given to an 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.[Footnote 85] 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. 
[Footnote 86] 

Some inmates have contested BOP's methodology in court, maintaining 
that allowing inmates 54 days per year of sentence imposed was the 
original intent of the statute,[Footnote 87] 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.[Footnote 88] 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.[Footnote 89] 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 
[hyperlink, 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. 

Signed by: 

David C. Maurer: 
Director: 
Homeland Security and Justice: 

[End of section] 

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,[Footnote 90] (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. 
[Footnote 91] 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. 

To address the second question, we analyzed BOP's statutory authority, 
policies, and procedures pertinent to the effects of the growing 
prison population on BOP operations, including inmates, staff, and 
infrastructure, and that may affect BOP's ability to mitigate the 
effects of a growing population. Further, we analyzed BOP studies on 
the effects of population growth and crowding on BOP operations. We 
also analyzed data provided by BOP on available bed space including 
temporary bed space for all security levels,[Footnote 92] inmate 
program participation and waiting lists, inmate-to-staff ratios, and 
available infrastructure costs. Unless otherwise noted, these data 
covered the period from fiscal years 2006 through 2011. We also 
present systemwide BOP staffing ratios from fiscal years 1997 through 
2011 because officials believed that presenting the ratios for a 
longer period better illustrates the effect of BOP's population growth 
relative to the number of staff.[Footnote 93] We assessed the 
reliability of BOP's inmate, staff, and infrastructure data by 
interviewing knowledgeable agency officials to determine how BOP 
collects and maintains the integrity of these data. We found these 
data to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. In 
addition, we reviewed BOP's fiscal year 2011 congressional budget 
submission to identify past actions to address federal prison 
population growth and crowding, including any proposed legislative 
changes. To observe some of the effects of a growing federal prison 
population and crowding on current BOP inmates, staff, and 
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. 

Table 1: Site Visits to BOP Facilities: 

Facility name: Petersburg Complex; 
Mid-Atlantic Region; 
Security level: Low, medium. 

Facility name: SeaTac; 
Western Region; 
Security level: Administrative--mixed security levels including men 
and women. 

Facility name: Lewisburg; 
Northeast Region; 
Security level: High, Special Management Unit. 

Facility name: Schuylkill; 
Northeast Region; 
Security level: Medium. 

Facility name: Leavenworth; 
North Central Region; 
Security level: Medium (previously high). 

Source: GAO analysis of BOP information. 

[End of table] 

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.[Footnote 94] 

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),[Footnote 95] 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. 

To also address the second as well as the third questions, we compared 
and contrasted BOP's actions to (1) mitigate the effects of its 
increased population and (2) attempt to reduce its prison population 
with similar actions taken by five states--Kansas, Mississippi, New 
York, Ohio, and Wisconsin--that had experienced prison population 
growth and had taken actions to mitigate its effects or reduce their 
prison populations. To select these states, we analyzed DOJ's Bureau 
of Justice Statistics's (BJS) report on 2010 state prison inmate 
populations.[Footnote 96] 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.[Footnote 97] 

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. 

Table 2: Site Visits to State Correctional Facilities: 

State: Kansas; 
Facility name: Lansing; 
Security level: Maximum, medium, and minimum. 

State: New York; 
Facility name: Edgecombe; 
Security level: Low (parole violators; 
substance abuse). 

State: New York; 
Facility name: Sing Sing; 
Security level: Maximum. 

Source: GAO, based on state data. 

[End of table] 

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. 

[End of section] 

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. 
[Footnote 98] Federal law outlined 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.[Footnote 99] 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.[Footnote 100] Beyond 
drug offenses, BOP reported that length of sentence for 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.[Footnote 101] 

Table 3: Offense Composition of the Inmate Population in BOP 
Facilities, by Year, from Fiscal Years 2006 through 2011: 

Offense: Drugs; 
Fiscal year: 
2006: 91,690; 
2007: 95,321; 
2008: 94,456; 
2009: 96,415; 
2010: 96,094; 
2011: 97,164. 

Offense: Weapons/explosives; 
Fiscal year: 
2006: 27,036; 
2007: 28,901; 
2008: 30,256; 
2009: 31,454; 
2010: 32,188; 
2011: 33,136. 

Offense: Immigration; 
Fiscal year: 
2006: 18,992; 
2007: 19,862; 
2008: 20,165; 
2009: 22,298; 
2010: 21,767; 
2011: 24,800. 

Offense: Fraud/bribery/extortion; 
Fiscal year: 
2006: 8,426; 
2007: 9,268; 
2008: 10,229; 
2009: 10,493; 
2010: 10,930; 
2011: 11,462. 

Offense: Sex offenses; 
Fiscal year: 
2006: 3,824; 
2007: 4,754; 
2008: 5,989; 
2009: 7,308; 
2010: 8,610; 
2011: 9,653. 

Offense: Robbery; 
Fiscal year: 
2006: 9,428; 
2007: 9,099; 
2008: 8,965; 
2009: 8,712; 
2010: 8,493; 
2011: 8,289. 

Offense: Burglary/larceny; 
Fiscal year: 
2006: 6,381; 
2007: 6,417; 
2008: 6,499; 
2009: 6,694; 
2010: 6,747; 
2011: 7,136. 

Offense: Homicide/aggravated assault; 
Fiscal year: 
2006: 4,895; 
2007: 4,942; 
2008: 4,940; 
2009: 4,894; 
2010: 4,900; 
2011: 5,114. 

Offense: Court/corrections; 
Fiscal year: 
2006: 2,174; 
2007: 2,209; 
2008: 2,192; 
2009: 2,180; 
2010: 2,183; 
2011: 2,200. 

Offense: Miscellaneous[A]; 
Fiscal year: 
2006: 2,374; 
2007: 2,298; 
2008: 2,305; 
2009: 2,281; 
2010: 2,064; 
2011: 2,006. 

Offense: Counterfeiting/embezzlement; 
Fiscal year: 
2006: 1,066; 
2007: 1,016; 
2008: 1,017; 
2009: 945; 
2010: 928; 
2011: 948. 

Offense: Continuing criminal enterprise[B]; 
Fiscal year: 
2006: 430; 
2007: 416; 
2008: 412; 
2009: 390; 
2010: 374; 
2011: 364. 

Offense: National security; 
Fiscal year: 
2006: 108; 
2007: 103; 
2008: 105; 
2009: 98; 
2010: 97; 
2011: 95. 

Offense: Total offender population; 
Fiscal year: 
2006: 176,824; 
2007: 184,606; 
2008: 187,530; 
2009: 194,162; 
2010: 195,375; 
2011: 202,367. 

Source: GAO analysis of BOP data. 

Notes: Sentencing information is not available for all inmates, for 
example, pretrial inmates whose information has not been entered into 
the data system. 

[A] Miscellaneous offenses include criminal civil rights violations; 
food and drug violations; economic espionage; destruction of an energy 
facility; District of Columbia offenses, such as driving while 
intoxicated, malicious mischief, and contributing to the delinquency 
of a minor; and violations of fish and game laws. 

[B] Continuing criminal enterprise refers to sentencing under the 
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) Act 
(codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1961), for example, drug kingpins. 

[End of table] 

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.[Footnote 102] In 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. 

Table 4: Offense Composition of the Non-U.S. Citizen Inmate Population 
in BOP Facilities from Fiscal Years 2006 through 2011: 

Dominant offense: Drug offenses; 
Year: 
2006: 19,980; 
2007: 21,450; 
2008: 21,501; 
2009: 21,690; 
2010: 20,931; 
2011: 22,135. 

Dominant offense: Immigration offenses; 
Year: 
2006: 15,509; 
2007: 16,819; 
2008: 16,570; 
2009: 18,227; 
2010: 17,978; 
2011: 21,451. 

Dominant offense: Violent offenses; 
Year: 
2006: 1,908; 
2007: 2,086; 
2008: 2,288; 
2009: 2,387; 
2010: 2,481; 
2011: 2,696. 

Dominant offense: Property offenses; 
Year: 
2006: 1,047; 
2007: 1,190; 
2008: 1,470; 
2009: 1,423; 
2010: 1,429; 
2011: 1,532. 

Dominant offense: Miscellaneous; 
Year: 
2006: 1,505; 
2007: 1,615; 
2008: 1,656; 
2009: 1,621; 
2010: 1,655; 
2011: 1,746. 

Source: GAO analysis of BOP data. 

Note: Drug offenses include the distribution of narcotics to a minor 
and possession of narcotics. Immigration offenses include illegal 
entry and illegal reentry into the United States. Violent offenses 
include assault, homicide, bank robbery, and 
firearms/weapons/explosive violations. Property offenses include 
embezzlement, auto theft, larceny, and destroying government property. 
Other offenses include sex offenses (e.g., obscene mailing and white 
slavery); justice system offenses (e.g., perjury, obstruction of 
justice, and jumping bail); racketeering; general offenses (e.g., 
bribery, extortion, and failure to pay child support); and regulatory 
offenses (e.g., customs law violations, espionage, sabotage, and 
violations of national defense laws), among other things. 

[End of table] 

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. 

Table 5: BOP's Rated Capacity and Crowding, by Facility Security Level 
as of September 2011: 

Male[A]: 

Facility type: Minimum; 
Rated capacity: 18,476; 
Actual population: 21,091; 
Actual inmates double bunked: Number: 13,246; 
Actual inmates double bunked: Percentage: 63%; 
Actual inmates triple bunked: Number: 7,845; 
Actual inmates triple bunked: Percentage: 37%; 
Actual inmates quadruple bunked: 0; 
Percentage crowding: 14%. 

Facility type: Low; 
Rated capacity: 32,242; 
Actual population: 44,174; 
Actual inmates double bunked: Number: 8,384; 
Actual inmates double bunked: Percentage: 19%; 
Actual inmates triple bunked: Number: 35,790; 
Actual inmates triple bunked: Percentage: 81%; 
Actual inmates quadruple bunked: 0; 
Percentage crowding: 37%. 

Facility type: Medium; 
Rated capacity: 41,039; 
Actual population: 61,908; 
Actual inmates double bunked: Number: 40,338; 
Actual inmates double bunked: Percentage: 65%; 
Actual inmates triple bunked: Number: 21,570; 
Actual inmates triple bunked: Percentage: 35%; 
Actual inmates quadruple bunked: 0; 
Percentage crowding: 51%. 

Facility type: High[B]; 
Rated capacity: 13,570; 
Actual population: 20,978; 
Actual inmates double bunked: Number: 20,244; 
Actual inmates double bunked: Percentage: 97%; 
Actual inmates triple bunked: Number: 0; 
Actual inmates triple bunked: Percentage: 0%; 
Actual inmates quadruple bunked: 0; 
Percentage crowding: 55%. 

Female[C]: 

Facility type: Minimum; 
Rated capacity: 4,207; 
Actual population: 5,086; 
Actual inmates double bunked: Number: 2,449; 
Actual inmates double bunked: Percentage: 48%; 
Actual inmates triple bunked: Number: 2,637; 
Actual inmates triple bunked: Percentage: 52%; 
Actual inmates quadruple bunked: 0; 
Percentage crowding: 21%. 

Facility type: Secure; 
Rated capacity: 3,808; 
Actual population: 5,866; 
Actual inmates double bunked: Number: 0; 
Actual inmates double bunked: Percentage: 0%; 
Actual inmates triple bunked: Number: 5,250; 
Actual inmates triple bunked: Percentage: 89%; 
Actual inmates quadruple bunked: 616; 
Percentage crowding: 54%. 

Source: GAO analysis of BOP data. 

Notes: According to BOP, rated capacity is the maximum population 
level at which an institution can make available basic necessities, 
essential services (e.g., medical care), and programs (e.g., drug 
treatment, basic education, and vocational education). BOP calculates 
rated capacity only for the prisons that it operates; therefore, 
private institutions are excluded. Further, BOP does not calculate 
rated capacity for residential reentry centers or inmates in home 
confinement because BOP does not assign security levels to these 
confinement arrangements. The capacity figures used to calculate 
percentages and determine double and triple occupancy for this table 
are from BOP end of fiscal year 2011 historical information from BOP's 
2020 long range capacity plan. 

[A] Male long-term institutions include four security level 
designations--minimum, low, medium, and high. 

[B] The remaining 3 percent of inmates in high security facilities are 
single-bunked. 

[C] Female facilities include three security designations--high, 
secure, and minimum, but female high security facilities are single 
bunked. 

[End of table] 

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. 

Figure 4: Percentage Crowding in Male Long-Term Facilities from Fiscal 
Years 2006 through 2011 by Institutional Security Level: 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 
Percentage of Bureau of Prisons crowding: 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Minimum security: 18%; 
Low security: 41%; 
Medium security: 37%; 
High security: 53%. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
Minimum security: 16%; 
Low security: 35%; 
Medium security: 42%; 
High security: 53%. 

Fiscal year: 2008; 
Minimum security: 7%; 
Low security: 35%; 
Medium security: 44%; 
High security: 50%. 

Fiscal year: 2009; 
Minimum security: 6%; 
Low security: 40%; 
Medium security: 47%; 
High security: 49%. 

Fiscal year: 2010; 
Minimum security: 14%; 
Low security: 37%; 
Medium security: 43%; 
High security: 53%. 

Fiscal year: 2011; 
Minimum security: 14%; 
Low security: 37%; 
Medium security: 51%; 
High security: 55%. 

Source: GAO analysis of BOP data. 

[End of figure] 

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.[Footnote 103] 

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. 

Table 6: BOP Population, Rated Capacity, and Percentage Crowding from 
Fiscal Years 2006 through 2011: 

Security level of facility: Total inmates in BOP-run institutions; 
2006: Population: 162,514; 
Capacity: 119,510; 
Percent crowded: 36%; 
2007: 
Population: 167,323; 
Capacity: 122,189; 
Percent crowded: 37%; 
2008: 
Population: 165,964; 
Capacity: 122,366; 
Percent crowded: 36%; 
2009: 
Population: 172,423; 
Capacity: 125,778; 
Percent crowded: 37%; 
2010: 
Population: 173,289; 
Capacity: 126,713; 
Percent crowded: 37%; 
2011: 
Population: 177,934; 
2011: Capacity: 127,795; 
2011: Percent crowded: 39%. 

Security level of facility: Males; 
2006: 
Population: 151,003; 
Capacity: 111,067; 
Percent crowded: 36%; 
2007: 
Population: 155,254; 
Capacity: 113,111; 
Percent crowded: 37%; 
2008: Population: 153,992; 
Capacity: 113,288; 
Percent crowded: 36%; 
2009: 
Population: 160,315; 
Capacity: 116,050; 
Percent crowded: 38%; 
2010: 
Population: 161,295; 
Capacity: 117,171; 
Percent crowded: 38%; 
2011: 
Population: 165,595; 
Capacity: 118,596; 
Percent crowded: 40%. 

Security level of facility: Long-Term; 
2006: 
Population: 133,331; 
Capacity: 97,439; 
Percent crowded: 37%; 
2007: 
Population: 137,195; 
Capacity: 100,170; 
Percent crowded: 37%; 
2008: 
Population: 136,138; 
Capacity: 100,361; 
Percent crowded: 36%; 
2009: 
Population: 142,005; 
Capacity: 102,867; 
Percent crowded: 38%; 
2010: 
Population: 143,059; 
Capacity: 104,003; 
Percent crowded: 38%; 
2011: 
Population: 148,151; 
Capacity: 105,327; 
Percent crowded: 41%. 

Security level of facility: Minimum; 
2006: 
Population: 20,046; 
Capacity: 16,963; 

Percent crowded: 18%; 
2007: 
Population: 20,003; 
Capacity: 17,271; 
Percent crowded: 16%; 
2008: 
Population: 18,556; 
Capacity: 17,353; 
Percent crowded: 7%; 
2009: 
Population: 18,904; 
Capacity: 17,768; 
Percent crowded: 6%; 
2010: 
Population: 20,329; 
Capacity: 17,837; 
Percent crowded: 14%; 
2011: 
Population: 21,091; 
Capacity: 18,476; 
Percent crowded: 14%. 

Security level of facility: Low; 
2006: 
Population: 43,723; 
Capacity: 31,037; 
Percent crowded: 41%; 
2007: 
Population: 41,646; 
Capacity: 30,791; 
Percent crowded: 35%; 
2008: 
Population: 41,825; 
Capacity: 31,081; 
Percent crowded: 35%; 
2009: 
Population: 45,153; 
Capacity: 32,294; 
Percent crowded: 40%; 
2010: 
Population: 44,264; 
Capacity: 32,302; 
Percent crowded: 37%; 
2011: 
Population: 44,174; 
Capacity: 32,242; 
Percent crowded: 37%. 

Security level of facility: Medium; 
2006: 
Population: 51,972; 
Capacity: 37,911; 
Percent crowded: 37%; 
2007: 
Population: 56,492; 
Capacity: 39,680; 
Percent crowded: 42%; 
2008: 
Population: 55,543; 
Capacity: 38,479; 
Percent crowded: 44%; 
2009: 
Population: 57,904; 
Capacity: 39,375; 
Percent crowded: 47%; 
2010: 
Population: 57,708; 
Capacity: 40,294; 
Percent crowded: 43%; 
2011: 
Population: 61,908; 
Capacity: 41,039; 
Percent crowded: 51%. 

Security level of facility: High; 
2006: 
Population: 17,590; 
Capacity: 11,528; 
Percent crowded: 53%; 
2007: 
Population: 19,054; 
Capacity: 12,428; 
Percent crowded: 53%; 
2008: 
Population: 20,214; 
Capacity: 13,448; 
Percent crowded: 50%; 
2009: 
Population: 20,044; 
Capacity: 13,430; 
Percent crowded: 49%; 
2010: 
Population: 20,758; 
Capacity: 13,570; 
Percent crowded: 53%; 
2011: 
Population: 20,978; 
Capacity: 13,570; 
Percent crowded: 55%. 

Security level of facility: Florence ADX[A]; 
2006: 
Population: 462; 
Capacity: 490; 
Percent crowded: -6%; 
2007: 
Population: 476; 
Capacity: 490; 
Percent crowded: -3%; 
2008: 
Population: 476; 
Capacity: 490; 
Percent crowded: -3%; 
2009: 
Population: 458; 
Capacity: 490; 
Percent crowded: -7%; 
2010: 
Population: 444; 
Capacity: 490; 
Percent crowded: -9%; 
2011: 
Population: 451; 
Capacity: 490; 
Percent crowded: -8%. 

Security level of facility: Marion; 
2006: 
Population: 0; 
Capacity: 804; 
Percent crowded: 0%; 
2007: 
Population: 0; 
Capacity: 0; 
Percent crowded: 0%; 
2008: 
Population: 0; 
Capacity: 0; 
Percent crowded: 0%; 
2009: 
Population: 0; 
Capacity: 0; 
Percent crowded: 0%; 
2010: 
Population: 0; 
Capacity: 0; 
Percent crowded: 0%; 
2011: 
Population: 0; 
Capacity: 0; 
Percent crowded: 0%. 

Security level of facility: Medical; 
2006: 
Population: 2,715; 
Capacity: 2,646; 
Percent crowded: 3%; 
2007: 
Population: 2,642; 
Capacity: 2,657; 
Percent crowded: -1%; 
2008: 
Population: 2,622; 
Capacity: 2,604; 
Percent crowded: 1%; 
2009: 
Population: 2,683; 
Capacity: 2,604; 
Percent crowded: 3%; 
2010: 
Population: 2,505; 
Capacity: 2,487; 
Percent crowded: 1%; 
2011: 
Population: 2,501; 
Capacity: 2,517; 
Percent crowded: -1%. 

Security level of facility: Detention; 
2006: 
Population: 14,085; 
Capacity: 9,349; 
Percent crowded: 51%; 
2007: 
Population: 14,521; 
Capacity: 9,455; 
Percent crowded: 54%; 
2008: 
Population: 14,335; 
Capacity: 9,494; 
Percent crowded: 51%; 
2009: 
Population: 14,741; 
Capacity: 9,721; 
Percent crowded: 52%; 
2010: 
Population: 14,877; 
Capacity: 9,823; 
Percent crowded: 51%; 
2011: 
Population: 14,085; 
Capacity: 9,878; 
Percent crowded: 43%. 

Security level of facility: Witness security[B]; 
2006: 
Population: 410; 
Capacity: 339; 
Percent crowded: 21%; 
2007: 
Population: 420; 
Capacity: 339; 
Percent crowded: 24%; 
2008: 
Population: 421; 
Capacity: 339; 
Percent crowded: 24%; 
2009: 
Population: 428; 
Capacity: 368; 
Percent crowded: 16%; 
2010: 
Population: 410; 
Capacity: 368; 
Percent crowded: 11%; 
2011: 
Population: 407; 
Capacity: 384; 
Percent crowded: 6%. 

Security level of facility: Females; 
2006: 
Population: 11,511; 
Capacity: 8,443; 
Percent crowded: 36%; 
2007: 
Population: 12,069; 
Capacity: 9,078; 
Percent crowded: 33%; 
2008: 
Population: 11,972; 
Capacity: 9,078; 
Percent crowded: 32%; 
2009: 
Population: 12,108; 
Capacity: 9,728; 
Percent crowded: 24%; 
2010: 
Population: 11,994; 
Capacity: 9,542; 
Percent crowded: 26%; 
2011: 
Population: 12,339; 
Capacity: 9,199; 
Percent crowded: 34%. 

Security level of facility: Long-Term; 
2006: 
Population: 10,060; 
Capacity: 7,253; 
Percent crowded: 39%; 
2007: 
Population: 10,691; 
Capacity: 7,847; 
Percent crowded: 36%; 
2008: 
Population: 10,690; 
Capacity: 7,847; 
Percent crowded: 36%; 
2009: 
Population: 10,730; 
Capacity: 8,497; 
Percent crowded: 26%; 
2010: 
Population: 10,691; 
Capacity: 8,311; 
Percent crowded: 29%; 
2011: 
Population: 10,971; 
Capacity: 8,039; 
Percent crowded: 36%. 

Security level of facility: Minimum; 
2006: 
Population: 5,192; 
Capacity: 4,429; 
Percent crowded: 17%; 
2007: 
Population: 5,362; 
Capacity: 4,429; 
Percent crowded: 21%; 
2008: 
Population: 5,134; 
Capacity: 4,429; 
Percent crowded: 16%; 
2009: 
Population: 5,026; 
Capacity: 4,479; 
Percent crowded: 12%; 
2010: 
Population: 5,003; 
Capacity: 4,479; 
Percent crowded: 12%; 
2011: 
Population: 5,086; 
Capacity: 4,207; 
Percent crowded: 21%. 

Security level of facility: Secure; 
2006: 
Population: 4,853; 
Capacity: 2,800; 
Percent crowded: 73%; 
2007: 
Population: 5,311; 
Capacity: 3,394; 
Percent crowded: 56%; 
2008: 
Population: 5,537; 
Capacity: 3,394; 
Percent crowded: 63%; 
2009: 
Population: 5,690; 
Capacity: 3,994; 
Percent crowded: 42%; 
2010: 
Population: 5,671; 
Capacity: 3,808; 
Percent crowded: 49%; 
2011: 
Population: 5,866; 
Capacity: 3,808; 
Percent crowded: 54%. 

Security level of facility: High; 
2006: 
Population: 15; 
Capacity: 24; 
Percent crowded: -38%; 
2007: 
Population: 18; 
Capacity: 24; 
Percent crowded: -25%; 
2008: 
Population: 19; 
Capacity: 24; 
Percent crowded: -21%; 
2009: 
Population: 14; 
Capacity: 24; 
Percent crowded: -42%; 
2010: 
Population: 17; 
Capacity: 24; 
Percent crowded: -29%; 
2011: 
Population: 19; 
Capacity: 24; 
Percent crowded: -21%. 

Security level of facility: Medical; 
2006: 
Population: 393; 
Capacity: 378; 
Percent crowded: 4%; 
2007: 
Population: 574; 
Capacity: 378; 
Percent crowded: 52%; 
2008: 
Population: 466; 
Capacity: 378; 
Percent crowded: 23%; 
2009: 
Population: 521; 
Capacity: 378; 
Percent crowded: 38%; 
2010: 
Population: 481; 
Capacity: 378; 
Percent crowded: 27%; 
2011: 
Population: 435; 
Capacity: 378; 
Percent crowded: 15%. 

Security level of facility: Detention; 
2006: 
Population: 1,058; 
Capacity: 812; 
Percent crowded: 30%; 
2007: 
Population: 804; 
Capacity: 853; 
Percent crowded: -6%; 
2008: 
Population: 816; 
Capacity: 853; 
Percent crowded: -4%; 
2009: Population: 857; 
Capacity: 853; 
Percent crowded: 0%; 
2010: 
Population: 822; 
Capacity: 853; 
Percent crowded: -4%; 
2011: 
Population: 933; 
Capacity: 782; 
Percent crowded: 19%. 

Source: BOP. 

Notes: 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. 

[A] The Administrative Maximum (ADX) facility in Florence, Colorado, 
houses offenders requiring the tightest controls. 

[B] Witness security refers to BOP housing for inmates in the federal 
Witness Security Program. 

[End of table] 

BOP's 2020 Long-Range Capacity Plan: 

BOP's 2020 long-range capacity plan projects continued growth in the 
federal prison population from fiscal years 2012 through 2020. 
[Footnote 104] 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. 

Figure 5: BOP's Projections for Population, Rated Capacity, and 
Percentage Crowding from Fiscal Years 2012 through 2020: 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Number of inmates: 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Rated capacity: 128,433; 
Population: 182,624; 
Percentage crowding: 42%. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Rated capacity: 131,435; 
Population: 188,051; 
Percentage crowding: 43%. 

Fiscal year: 2014; 
Rated capacity: 134,175; 
Population: 190,187; 
Percentage crowding: 42%. 

Fiscal year: 2015; 
Rated capacity: 134,175; 
Population: 192,567; 
Percentage crowding: 44%. 

Fiscal year: 2016; 
Rated capacity: 134,675; 
Population: 194,947; 
Percentage crowding: 45%. 

Fiscal year: 2017; 
Rated capacity: 135,175; 
Population: 197,327; 
Percentage crowding: 46%. 

Fiscal year: 2018; 
Rated capacity: 138,111; 
Population: 199,71; 
Percentage crowding: 45%. 

Fiscal year: 2019; 
Rated capacity: 145,871; 
Population: 202,088; 
Percentage crowding: 39%. 

Fiscal year: 2020; 
Rated capacity: 151,895; 
Population: 204,470; 
Percentage crowding: 35%. 

Source: GAO analysis of BOP data. 

[End of figure] 

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. 
[Footnote 105] 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. 

Figure 6: Projected Percentage Crowding in Male Long-Term Facilities 
from Fiscal Years 2012 through 2020 by Institutional Security Level: 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Percentage of Bureau of Prisons crowding: 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
High security: 48%; 
Medium Security: 63%; 
Low Security: 34%; 
Minimum security: 17%. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
High security: 52%; 
Medium Security: 63%; 
Low Security: 37%; 
Minimum security: 20%. 

Fiscal year: 2014; 
High security: 47%; 
Medium Security: 62%; 
Low Security: 36%; 
Minimum security: 20%. 

Fiscal year: 2015; 
High security: 49%; 
Medium Security: 65%; 
Low Security: 36%; 
Minimum security: 22%. 

Fiscal year: 2016; 
High security: 52%; 
Medium Security: 68%; 
Low Security: 36%; 
Minimum security: 25%. 

Fiscal year: 2017; 
High security: 55%; 
Medium Security: 71%; 
Low Security: 35%; 
Minimum security: 27%. 

Fiscal year: 2018; 
High security: 44%; 
Medium Security: 71%; 
Low Security: 35%; 
Minimum security: 24%. 

Fiscal year: 2019; 
High security: 23%; 
Medium Security: 65%; 
Low Security: 35%; 
Minimum security: 14%. 

Fiscal year: 2020; 
High security: 12%; 
Medium Security: 58%; 
Low Security: 35%; 
Minimum security: 12%. 

Source: GAO analysis of BOP data. 

[End of figure] 

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. 

Table 7: BOP Projected Population, Rated Capacity, and Percentage 
Crowding from Fiscal Years 2012 through 2014: 

Total BOP inmates: 
Population: 
2012: 222,768; 
2013: 229,268; 
2014: 233,765; 
2015: 237,884; 
2016: 242,003; 
2017: 246,122; 
2018: 
Population: 250,241; 
2019: 
Population: 254,360; 
2020: 
Population: 258,479. 

BOP institutions: 
2012: 
Population: 182,624; 
Capacity: 128,433; 
Percentage crowding: 42%; 
2013: 
Population: 188,051; 
Capacity: 131,435; 
Percentage crowding: 43%; 
2014: 
Population: 190,187; 
Capacity: 134,175; 
2015: 
Population: 192,567; 
Capacity: 134,175; 
Percentage crowding: 44%; 
2016: 
Population: 194,947; 
Capacity: 134,675; 
Percentage crowding: 45%; 
2017: 
Population: 197,327; 
Capacity: 135,175; 
Percentage crowding: 46%; 
2018: 
Population: 199,710; 
Capacity: 138,111; 
Percentage crowding: 45%; 
2019: 
Population: 202,088; 
Capacity: 145,871; 
Percentage crowding: 39%; 
2020: 
Population: 204,470; 
Capacity: 151,895; 
Percentage crowding: 35%. 

Security level of facility: Males; 
2012: 
Population: 169,921; 
Capacity: 119,177; 
Percentage crowding: 43%; 
2013: 
Population: 174,958; 
Capacity: 120,973; 
Percentage crowding: 45%; 
2014: 
Population: 176,873; 
Capacity: 123,177; 
Percentage crowding: 44%; 
2015: 
Population: 179,074; 
Capacity: 123,177; 
Percentage crowding: 45%; 
2016: 
Population: 181,220; 
Capacity: 123,677; 
Percentage crowding: 47%; 
2017: 
Population: 183,366; 
Capacity: 124,177; 
Percentage crowding: 48%; 
2018: 
Population: 185,514; 
Capacity: 127,113; 
Percentage crowding: 46%; 
2019: 
Population: 187,659; 
Capacity: 134,873; 
Percentage crowding: 39%; 
2020: 
Population: 189,805; 
Capacity: 140,897; 
Percentage crowding: 35%. 

Security level of facility: Long-term; 
2012: 
Population: 152,414; 
Capacity: 105,923; 
Percentage crowding: 44%; 
2013: 
Population: 157,353; 
Capacity: 107,719; 
Percentage crowding: 46%; 
2014: 
Population: 159,202; 
Capacity: 109,923; 
Percentage crowding: 45%; 
2015: 
Population: 161,344; 
Capacity: 109,923; 
Percentage crowding: 47%; 
2016: 
Population: 163,430; 
Capacity: 109,923; 
Percentage crowding: 49%; 
2017: 
Population: 165,517; 
Capacity: 109,923; 
Percentage crowding: 51%; 
2018: 
Population: 167,605; 
Capacity: 112,859; 
Percentage crowding: 49%; 
2019: 
Population: 169,691; 
Capacity: 120,619; 
Percentage crowding: 41%; 
2020: 
Population: 171,777; 
Capacity: 126,643; 
Percentage crowding: 36%. 

Security level of facility: Minimum; 
2012: 
Population: 21,795; 
Capacity: 18,604; 
Percentage crowding: 17%; 
2013: 
Population: 22,597; 
Capacity: 18,796; 
Percentage crowding: 20%; 
2014: 
Population: 22,816; 
Capacity: 18,988; 
Percentage crowding: 20%; 
2015: 
Population: 23,260; 
Capacity: 18,988; 
Percentage crowding: 22%; 
2016: 
Population: 23,704; 
Capacity: 18,988; 
Percentage crowding: 25%; 
2017: 
Population: 24,149; 
Capacity: 18,988; 
Percentage crowding: 27%; 
2018: 
Population: 24,593; 
Capacity: 19,884; 
Percentage crowding: 24%; 
2019: 
Population: 25,037; 
Capacity: 21,932; 
Percentage crowding: 14%; 
2020: 
Population: 25,482; 
Capacity: 22,700; 
Percentage crowding: 12%. 

Security level of facility: Low; 
2012: 
Population: 43,105; 
Capacity: 32,211; 
Percentage crowding: 34%; 
2013: 
Population: 44,045; 
Capacity: 32,211; 
Percentage crowding: 37%; 
2014: 
Population: 43,824; 
Capacity: 32,211; 
Percentage crowding: 36%; 
2015: 
Population: 43,755; 
Capacity: 32,211; 
Percentage crowding: 36%; 
2016: 
Population: 43,687; 
Capacity: 32,211; 
Percentage crowding: 36%; 
2017: 
Population: 43,619; 
Capacity: 32,211; 
Percentage crowding: 35%; 
2018: 
Population: 43,551; 
Capacity: 32,211; 
Percentage crowding: 35%; 
2019: 
Population: 43,482; 
Capacity: 32,211; 
Percentage crowding: 35%; 
2020: 
Population: 43,414; 
Capacity: 32,211; 
Percentage crowding: 35%. 

Security level of facility: Medium; 
2012: 
Population: 65,993; 
Capacity: 40,583; 
Percentage crowding: 63%; 
2013: 
Population: 68,501; 
Capacity: 42,137; 
Percentage crowding: 63%; 
2014: 
Population: 69,873; 
Capacity: 43,239; 
Percentage crowding: 62%; 
2015: 
Population: 71,198; 
Capacity: 43,239; 
Percentage crowding: 65%; 
2016: 
Population: 72,467; 
Capacity: 43,239; 
Percentage crowding: 68%; 
2017: 
Population: 73,737; 
Capacity: 43,239; 
Percentage crowding: 71%; 
2018: 
Population: 75,010; 
Capacity: 43,839; 
Percentage crowding: 71%; 
2019: 
Population: 76,279; 
Capacity: 46,191; 
Percentage crowding: 65%; 
2020: 
Population: 77,549; 
Capacity: 49,047; 
Percentage crowding: 58%. 

Security level of facility: High; 
2012: 
Population: 21,521; 
Capacity: 14,525; 
Percentage crowding: 48%; 
2013: 
Population: 22,210; 
Capacity: 14,575; 
Percentage crowding: 52%; 
2014: 
Population: 22,690; 
Capacity: 15,485; 
Percentage crowding: 47%; 
2015: 
Population: 23,131; 
Capacity: 15,485; 
Percentage crowding: 49%; 
2016: 
Population: 23,572; 
Capacity: 15,485; 
Percentage crowding: 52%; 
2017: 
Population: 24,012; 
Capacity: 15,485; 
Percentage crowding: 55%; 
2018: 
Population: 24,452; 
Capacity: 16,925; 
Percentage crowding: 44%; 
2019: 
Population: 24,893; 
Capacity: 20,285; 
Percentage crowding: 23%; 
2020: 
Population: 25,332; 
Capacity: 22,685; 
Percentage crowding: 12%. 

Security level of facility: Florence ADX[A]; 
2012: 
Population: 441; 
Capacity: 490; 
Percentage crowding: -10%; 
2013: 
Population: 444; 
Capacity: 490; 
Percentage crowding: -9%; 
2014: 
Population: 444; 
Capacity: 490; 
Percentage crowding: -9%; 
2015: 
Population: 443; 
Capacity: 490; 
Percentage crowding: -9%; 
2016: 
Population: 444; 
Capacity: 490; 
Percentage crowding: -9%; 
Population: 443; 
Capacity: 490; 
Percentage crowding: -10%; 
2018: 
Population: 443; 
Capacity: 490; 
Percentage crowding: -10%; 
2019: 
Population: 442; 
Capacity: 490; 
Percentage crowding: -10%; 
2020: 
Population: 443; 
Capacity: 490; 
Percentage crowding: -10%. 

Security level of facility: Medical; 
2012: 
Population: 2,566; 
Capacity: 2,552; 
Percentage crowding: 1%; 
2013: 
Population: 2,647; 
Capacity: 2,552; 
Percentage crowding: 4%; 
2014: 
Population: 2,704; 
Capacity: 2,552; 
Percentage crowding: 6%; 
2015: 
Population: 2,755; 
Capacity: 2,552; 
Percentage crowding: 8%; 
2016: 
Population: 2,806; 
Capacity: 2,552; 
Percentage crowding: 10%; 
2017: 
Population: 2,858; 
Capacity: 2,552; 
Percentage crowding: 12%; 
2018: 
Population: 2,909; 
Capacity: 2,552; 
Percentage crowding: 14%; 
2019: 
Population: 2,961; 
Capacity: 2,552; 
Percentage crowding: 16%; 
2020: 
Population: 3,012; 
Capacity: 2,552; 
Percentage crowding: 18%. 

Security level of facility: Detention; 
2012: 
Population: 14,085; 
Capacity: 9,828; 
Percentage crowding: 43%; 
2013: 
Population: 14,085; 
Capacity: 9,828; 
Percentage crowding: 43%; 
2014: 
Population: 14,085; 
Capacity: 9,828; 
Percentage crowding: 43%; 
2015: 
Population: 14,085; 
Capacity: 9,828; 
Percentage crowding: 43%; 
2016: 
Population: 14,085; 
Capacity: 10,328; 
Percentage crowding: 36%; 
2017: 
Population: 14,085; 
Capacity: 10,828; 
Percentage crowding: 30%; 
2018: 
Population: 14,085; 
Capacity: 10,828; 
Percentage crowding: 30%; 
2019: 
Population: 14,085; 
Capacity: 10,828; 
Percentage crowding: 30%; 
2020: 
Population: 14,085; 
Capacity: 10,828; 
Percentage crowding: 30%. 

Security level of facility: Witness security[B]; 
2012: 
Population: 415; 
Capacity: 384; 
Percentage crowding: 8%; 
2013: 
Population: 429; 
Capacity: 384; 
Percentage crowding: 12%; 
2014: 
Population: 438; 
Capacity: 384; 
Percentage crowding: 14%; 
2015: 
Population: 446; 
Capacity: 384; 
Percentage crowding: 16%; 
2016: 
Population: 454; 
Capacity: 384; 
Percentage crowding: 18%; 
2017: 
Population: 463; 
Capacity: 384; 
Percentage crowding: 20%; 
2018: 
Population: 471; 
Capacity: 384; 
Percentage crowding: 23%; 
2019: 
Population: 479; 
Capacity: 384; 
Percentage crowding: 25%; 
2020: 
Population: 488; 
Capacity: 384; 
Percentage crowding: 27%. 

Females: 
2012: 
Population: 12,703; 
Capacity: 9,256; 
Percentage crowding: 37%; 
2013: 
Population: 13,093; 
Capacity: 10,462; 
Percentage crowding: 25%; 
2014: 
Population: 13,315; 
Capacity: 10,998; 
Percentage crowding: 21%; 
2015: 
Population: 13,493; 
Capacity: 10,998; 
Percentage crowding: 23%; 
2016: 
Population: 13,727; 
Capacity: 10,998; 
Percentage crowding: 25%; 
2017: 
Population: 13,962; 
Capacity: 10,998; 
Percentage crowding: 27%; 
2018: 
Population: 14,196; 
Capacity: 10,998; 
Percentage crowding: 29%; 
2019: 
Population: 14,430; 
Capacity: 10,998; 
Percentage crowding: 31%; 
2020: 
Population: 14,665; 
Capacity: 10,998; 
Percentage crowding: 33%. 

Security level of facility: Long-term; 
2012: 
Population: 11,322; 
Capacity: 8,096; 
Percentage crowding: 40%; 
2013: 
Population: 11,697; 
Capacity: 9,302; 
Percentage crowding: 26%; 
2014: 
Population: 11,909; 
Capacity: 9,838; 
Percentage crowding: 21%; 
2015: 
Population: 12,079; 
Capacity: 9,838; 
Percentage crowding: 23%; 
2016: 
Population: 12,304; 
Capacity: 9,838; 
Percentage crowding: 25%; 
2017: 
Population: 12,529; 
Capacity: 9,838; 
Percentage crowding: 27%; 
2018: 
Population: 12,755; 
Capacity: 9,838; 
Percentage crowding: 30%; 
2019: 
Population: 12,980; 
Capacity: 9,838; 
Percentage crowding: 32%; 
2020: 
Population: 13,205; 
Capacity: 9,838; 
Percentage crowding: 34%. 

Security level of facility: Minimum; 
2012: 
Population: 5,285; 
Capacity: 4,264; 
Percentage crowding: 24%; 
2013: 
Population: 5,470; 
Capacity: 4,470; 
Percentage crowding: 22%; 
2014: 
Population: 5,550; 
Capacity: 4,470; 
Percentage crowding: 24%; 
2015: 
Population: 5,598; 
Capacity: 4,470; 
Percentage crowding: 25%; 
2016: 
Population: 5,703; 
Capacity: 4,470; 
Percentage crowding: 28%; 
2017: 
Population: 5,807; 
Capacity: 4,470; 
Percentage crowding: 30%; 
2018: 
Population: 5,912; 
Capacity: 4,470; 
Percentage crowding: 32%; 
2019: 
Population: 6,016; 
Capacity: 4,470; 
Percentage crowding: 35%; 
2020: 
Population: 6,121; 
Capacity: 4,470; 
Percentage crowding: 37%. 

Security level of facility: Secure; 
2012: 
Population: 6,017; 
Capacity: 3,808; 
Percentage crowding: 58%; 
2013: 
Population: 6,207; 
Capacity: 4,808; 
Percentage crowding: 29%; 
2014: 
Population: 6,339; 
Capacity: 5,344; 
Percentage crowding: 19%; 
2015: 
Population: 6,459; 
Capacity: 5,344; 
Percentage crowding: 21%; 
2016: 
Population: 6,580; 
Capacity: 5,344; 
Percentage crowding: 23%; 
2017: 
Population: 6,700; 
Capacity: 5,344; 
Percentage crowding: 25%; 
2018: 
Population: 6,821; 
Capacity: 5,344; 
Percentage crowding: 28%; 
2019: 
Population: 6,941; 
Capacity: 5,344; 
Percentage crowding: 30%; 
2020: 
Population: 7,062; 
Capacity: 5,344; 
Percentage crowding: 32%. 

Security level of facility: High; 
2012: 
Population: 20; 
Capacity: 24; 
Percentage crowding: -19%; 
2013: 
Population: 20; 
Capacity: 24; 
Percentage crowding: -16%; 
2014: 
Population: 21; 
Capacity: 24; 
Percentage crowding: -14%; 
2015: 
Population: 21; 
Capacity: 24; 
Percentage crowding: -13%; 
2016: 
Population: 21; 
Capacity: 24; 
Percentage crowding: -11%; 
2017: 
Population: 22; 
Capacity: 24; 
Percentage crowding: -9%; 
2018: 
Population: 22; 
Capacity: 24; 
Percentage crowding: -8%; 
2019: 
Population: 23; 
Capacity: 24; 
Percentage crowding: -6%; 
2020: 
Population: 23; 
Capacity: 24; 
Percentage crowding: -4%. 

Security level of facility: Medical; 
2012: 
Population: 448; 
Capacity: 378; 
Percentage crowding: 19%; 
2013: 
Population: 462; 
Capacity: 378; 
Percentage crowding: 22%; 
2014: 
Population: 472; 
Capacity: 378; 
Percentage crowding: 25%; 
2015: 
Population: 481; 
Capacity: 378; 
Percentage crowding: 27%; 
2016: 
Population: 490; 
Capacity: 378; 
Percentage crowding: 30%; 
2017: 
Population: 499; 
Capacity: 378; 
Percentage crowding: 32%; 
2018: 
Population: 508; 
Capacity: 378; 
Percentage crowding: 34%; 
2019: 
Population: 517; 
Capacity: 378; 
Percentage crowding: 37%; 
2020: 
Population: 526; 
Capacity: 378; 
Percentage crowding: 39%. 

Security level of facility: Detention; 
2012: 
Population: 933; 
Capacity: 782; 
Percentage crowding: 19%; 
2013: 
Population: 933; 
Capacity: 782; 
Percentage crowding: 19%; 
2014: 
Population: 933; 
Capacity: 782; 
Percentage crowding: 19%; 
2015: 
Population: 933; 
Capacity: 782; 
Percentage crowding: 19%; 
2016: 
Population: 933; 
Capacity: 782; 
Percentage crowding: 19%; 
2017: 
Population: 933; 
Capacity: 782; 
Percentage crowding: 19%; 
2018: 
Population: 933; 
Capacity: 782; 
Percentage crowding: 19%; 
2019: 
Population: 933; 
Capacity: 782; 
Percentage crowding: 19%; 
2020: 
Population: 933; 
Capacity: 782; 
Percentage crowding: 19%. 

Contract: 
2012: 
Population: 40,144; 
2013: 
Population: 41,218; 
2014: 
Population: 43,578; 
2015: 
Population: 45,317; 
2016: 
Population: 47,055; 
2017: 
Population: 48,794; 
2018: 
Population: 50,533; 
2019: 
Population: 52,272; 
2020: 
Population: 54,010. 

Males: 
2012: 
Population: 38,330; 
2013: 
Population: 39,334; 
2014: 
Population: 41,630; 
2015: 
Population: 43,336; 
2016: 
Population: 45,042; 
2017: 
Population: 46,747; 
2018: 
Population: 48,453; 
2019: 
Population: 50,159; 
2020: 
Population: 51,864. 

Security level of facility: Juveniles; 
2012: 
Population: 144; 
2013: 
Population: 148; 
2014: 
Population: 152; 
2015: 
Population: 155; 
2016: 
Population: 157; 
2017: 
Population: 160; 
2018: 
Population: 163; 
2019: 
Population: 166; 
2020: 
Population: 169. 

Security level of facility: Residential Reentry Centers; 
2012: 
Population: 7,609; 
2013: 
Population: 7,609; 
2014: 
Population: 8,215; 
2015: 
Population: 8,371; 
2016: 
Population: 8,527; 
2017: 
Population: 8,683; 
2018: 
Population: 8,840; 
2019: 
Population: 8,996; 
2020: 
Population: 9,152. 

Security level of facility: Long-term (criminal aliens); 
2012: 
Population: 24,186; 
2013: 
Population: 25,186; 
2014: 
Population: 26,686; 
2015: 
Population: 28,186; 
2016: 
Population: 29,686; 
2017: 
Population: 31,186; 
2018: 
Population: 32,686; 
2019: 
Population: 34,186; 
2020: 
Population: 35,686. 

Security level of facility: Taft; 
2012: 
Population: 2,347; 
2013: 
Population: 2,347; 
2014: 
Population: 2,347; 
2015: 
Population: 2,347; 
2016: 
Population: 2,347; 
2017: 
Population: 2,347; 
2018: 
Population: 2,347; 
2019: 
Population: 2,347; 
2020: 
Population: 2,347. 

Security level of facility: D.C. felons; 
2012: 
Population: 0; 
2013: 
Population: 0; 
2014: 
Population: 0; 
2015: 
Population: 0; 
2016: 
Population: 0; 
2017: 
Population: 0; 
2018: 
Population: 0; 
2019: 
Population: 0; 
2020: 
Population: 0. 

Security level of facility: Jail-detention; 
2012: 
Population: 1,783; 
2013: 
Population: 1,783; 
2014: 
Population: 1,783; 
2015: 
Population: 1,783; 
2016: 
Population: 1,783; 
2017: 
Population: 1,783; 
2018: 
Population: 1,783; 
2019: 
Population: 1,783; 
2020: 
Population: 1,783. 

Security level of facility: Home Confinement; 
2012: 
Population: 2,261; 
2013: 
Population: 2,261; 
2014: 
Population: 2,448; 
2015: 
Population: 2,495; 
2016: 
Population: 2,541; 
2017: 
Population: 2,588; 
2018: 
Population: 2,634; 
2019: 
Population: 2,681; 
2020: 
Population: 2,727. 

Females: 
Population: 1,814; 
2013: 
Population: 1,883; 
2014: 
Population: 1,948; 
2015: 
Population: 1,981; 
2016: 
Population: 2,014; 
2017: 
Population: 2,047; 
2018: 
Population: 2,080; 
2019: 
Population: 2,113; 
2020: 
Population: 2,146. 

Security level of facility: Juveniles; 
2012: 
Population: 21; 
2013: 
Population: 21; 
2014: 
Population: 22; 
2015: 
Population: 22; 
2016: 
Population: 22; 
2017: 
Population: 23; 
2018: 
Population: 23; 
2019: 
Population: 24; 
2020: 
Population: 24. 

Security level of facility: Residential Reentry Centers; 
2012: 
Population: 1,219; 
2013: 
Population: 1,288; 
2014: 
Population: 1,317; 
2015: 
Population: 1,342; 
2016: 
Population: 1,367; 
2017: 
Population: 1,392; 
2018: 
Population: 1,417; 
2019: 
Population: 1,442; 
2020: 
Population: 1,467. 

Security level of facility: Long-term; 
Population: 0; 
2013: 
Population: 0; 
2014: 
Population: 0; 
2015: 
Population: 0; 
2016: 
Population: 0; 
2017: 
Population: 0; 
2018: 
Population: 0; 
2019: 
Population: 0; 
2020: 
Population: 0. 

Security level of facility: D.C. felons; 
2012: 
Population: 0; 
2013: 
Population: 0; 
2014: 
Population: 0; 
2015: 
Population: 0; 
2016: 
Population: 0; 
2017: 
Population: 0; 
2018: 
Population: 0; 
2019: 
Population: 0; 
2020: 
Population: 0. 

Security level of facility: Jail-detention; 
2012: 
Population: 208; 
2013: 
Population: 208; 
2014: 
Population: 208; 
2015: 
Population: 208; 
2016: 
Population: 208; 
2017: 
Population: 208; 
2018: 
Population: 208; 
2019: 
Population: 208; 
2020: 
Population: 208. 

Security level of facility: Home Confinement; 
2012: 
Population: 366; 
2013: 
Population: 366; 
2014: 
Population: 401; 
2015: 
Population: 408; 
2016: 
Population: 416; 
2017: 
Population: 424; 
2018: 
Population: 431; 
2019: 
Population: 439; 
2020: 
Population: 446. 

Source: BOP. 

Notes: 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. 

[A] The Administrative Maximum (ADX) facility in Florence, Colorado, 
houses offenders requiring the tightest controls. 

[B] Witness security refers to BOP housing for inmates in the federal 
Witness Security Program. 

Assumptions: 

1. The population projections for fiscal year 2012 and beyond have 
been adjusted. 

2. BOP will activate Federal Correctional Institution Mendota, 
California, and Federal Correctional Institution Berlin, New 
Hampshire, during fiscal year 2012. 

3. BOP will activate Federal Correctional Institution Hazelton, West 
Virginia, during fiscal year 2013. 

4. BOP will activate U.S. Penitentiary Yazoo City, Mississippi, during 
fiscal year 2013. 

5. No additional contract beds are projected to be added in fiscal 
year 2012. 

6. One thousand additional contract beds are projected in fiscal year 
2013, and 1,500 additional contract beds annually in fiscal year 2014 
and beyond. 

7. No increase to Residential Reentry Centers and Home Confinement is 
projected from fiscal years 2011 through 2013. 

8. Future capacity increases are dependent upon future funding to 
construct new prisons and to expand the use of private prison 
contracts. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Effects of a Growing Inmate Population: 

This appendix presents additional information and elaboration on the 
effects of a growing inmate population on: 

* inmates, 

* staff, 

* infrastructure, and: 

* security and safety. 

Inmates: 

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

Daily Living: 

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.[Footnote 106] 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. 
[Footnote 107] 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). 

Table 8: Rated Capacity and Temporary Bed Space by Institutional 
Security Level from fiscal years 2006 through 2011: 

Male[A]: 

Facility type: Minimum; 
Year: 2006: 
RC: 16,963; 
Tem: 3,030; 
Year: 2007: 
RC: 17,271; 
Tem: 2,679; 
Year: 2008: 
RC: 17,353; 
Tem: 1,150; 
Year: 2009: 
RC: 17,768; 
Tem: 1,083; 
Year: 2010: 
RC: 17,837; 
Tem: 2,439; 
Year: 2011: 
RC: 18,476; 
Tem: 2,562. 

Facility type: Low; 
Year: 2006: 
RC: 31,037; 
Tem: 11,083; 
Year: 2007: 
RC: 30,791; 
Tem: 9,252; 
Year: 2008: 
RC: 31,081; 
Tem: 9,078; 
Year: 2009: 
RC: 32,294; 
Tem: 11,306; 
Year: 2010: 
RC: 32,302; 
Tem: 10,409; 
Year: 2011: 
RC: 32,242; 
Tem: 10,329. 

Facility type: Medium; 
Year: 2006: 
RC: 37,911; 
Tem: 10,178; 
Year: 2007: 
RC: 39,680; 
Tem: 12,894; 
Year: 2008: 
RC: 38,479; 
Tem: 13,146; 
Year: 2009: 
RC: 39,375; 
Tem: 14,611; 
Year: 2010: 
RC: 40,294; 
Tem: 13,376; 
Year: 2011: 
RC: 41,039; 
Tem: 16,831. 

Facility type: High; 
Year: 2006: 
RC: 11,528; 
Tem: 4,367; 
Year: 2007: 
RC: 12,428; 
Tem: 4,781; 
Year: 2008: 
RC: 13,448; 
Tem: 4,830; 
Year: 2009: 
RC: 13,430; 
Tem: 4,678; 
Year: 2010: 
RC: 13,570; 
Tem: 5,252; 
Year: 2011: 
RC: 13,570; 
Tem: 5,472. 

Female[B]: 

Facility type: Minimum; 
Year: 2006: 
RC: 4,429; 
Tem: 737; 
Year: 2007: 
RC: 4,429; 
Tem: 862; 
Year: 2008: 
RC: 4,429; 
Tem: 679; 
Year: 2009: 
RC: 4,479; 
Tem: 521; 
Year: 2010: 
RC: 4,479; 
Tem: 498; 
Year: 2011: 
RC: 4,207; 
Tem: 853. 

Facility type: Secure; 
Year: 2006: 
RC: 2,800; 
Tem: 1,947; 
Year: 2007: 
RC: 3,394; 
Tem: 1,811; 
Year: 2008: 
RC: 3,394; 
Tem: 2,081; 
Year: 2009: 
RC: 3,994; 
Tem: 1,540; 
Year: 2010: 
RC: 3,808; 
Tem: 1,707; 
Year: 2011: 
RC: 3,808; 
Tem: 1,902. 

Legend: 

RC refers to rated capacity. 

Tem refers to temporary bed space, not including disciplinary housing 
beds. 

Source: GAO analysis of BOP data. 

Notes: Total bed space, not including disciplinary housing beds, is 
the sum of RC plus Tem. 

[A] Male long-term institutions include four security level 
designations--minimum, low, medium, and high. Female facilities 
include three security designations--high, secure, and minimum. 

[B] Female high security facilities did not experience crowding during 
the 6-year period. 

[End of table] 

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. 

Table 9: Rated Capacity and Temporary Bed Space of Selected BOP 
Facilities from Fiscal Years 2006 through 2011: 

Facility[A]: Petersburg (low); 
Year: 2006: RC: 858; 
Year: 2006: Tem: 356; 
Year: 2007: RC: 834; 
Year: 2007: Tem: 414; 
Year: 2008: RC: 834; 
Year: 2008: Tem: 381; 
Year: 2009: RC: 834; 
Year: 2009: Tem: 413; 
Year: 2010: RC: 834; 
Year: 2010: Tem: 225; 
Year: 2011: RC: 834; 
Year: 2011: Tem: 371. 

Facility[A]: Petersburg (medium); 
Year: 2006: RC: 1,152; 
Year: 2006: Tem: 364; 
Year: 2007: RC: 1,152; 
Year: 2007: Tem: 481; 
Year: 2008: RC: 1,108; 
Year: 2008: Tem: 686; 
Year: 2009: RC: 1,108; 
Year: 2009: Tem: 759; 
Year: 2010: RC: 1,108; 
Year: 2010: Tem: 596; 
Year: 2011: RC: 1,108; 
Year: 2011: Tem: 557. 

Facility[A]: SeaTac; 
Year: 2006: RC: 736; 
Year: 2006: Tem: 152; 
Year: 2007: RC: 768; 
Year: 2007: Tem: 179; 
Year: 2008: RC: 768; 
Year: 2008: Tem: 56; 
Year: 2009: RC: 768; 
Year: 2009: Tem: 39; 
Year: 2010: RC: 722; 
Year: 2010: Tem: (59); 
Year: 2011: RC: 722; 
Year: 2011: Tem: (71). 

Facility[A]: Lewisburg (Special Management Unit)[B]; 
Year: 2006: RC: 72; 
Year: 2006: Tem: (21); 
Year: 2007: RC: 72; 
Year: 2007: Tem: (11); 
Year: 2008: RC: 72; 
Year: 2008: Tem: 25; 
Year: 2009: RC: 528; 
Year: 2009: Tem: 237; 
Year: 2010: RC: 720; 
Year: 2010: Tem: 281; 
Year: 2011: RC: 720; 
Year: 2011: Tem: 429. 

Facility[A]: Lewisburg (general population); 
Year: 2006: RC: 698; 
Year: 2006: Tem: 607; 
Year: 2007: RC: 698; 
Year: 2007: Tem: 648; 
Year: 2008: RC: 698; 
Year: 2008: Tem: 615; 
Year: 2009: RC: 242; 
Year: 2009: Tem: (40); 
Year: 2010: RC: 160; 
Year: 2010: Tem: (47); 
Year: 2011: RC: 160; 
Year: 2011: Tem: 41. 

Facility[A]: Schuylkill (medium); 
Year: 2006: RC: 720; 
Year: 2006: Tem: 473; 
Year: 2007: RC: 848; 
Year: 2007: Tem: 382; 
Year: 2008: RC: 848; 
Year: 2008: Tem: 379; 
Year: 2009: RC: 848; 
Year: 2009: Tem: 446; 
Year: 2010: RC: 848; 
Year: 2010: Tem: 293; 
Year: 2011: RC: 848; 
Year: 2011: Tem: 400. 

Facility[A]: Leavenworth (medium); 
Year: 2006: RC: 1,193; 
Year: 2006: Tem: 476; 
Year: 2007: RC: 1,193; 
Year: 2007: Tem: 372; 
Year: 2008: RC: 1,193; 
Year: 2008: Tem: 556; 
Year: 2009: RC: 1,193; 
Year: 2009: Tem: 516; 
Year: 2010: RC: 1,193; 
Year: 2010: Tem: 515; 
Year: 2011: RC: 1,193; 
Year: 2011: Tem: 505. 

Legend: 

RC refers to rated capacity. 

Tem refers to temporary bed space, not including disciplinary housing 
beds. 

Source: GAO analysis of BOP data. 

Notes: The parentheses represent beds available above the rated 
capacity, but not used. The beds were available because of specific 
institutional changes, such as the conversion of Lewisburg to a 
Special Management Unit. During fiscal years 2010 and 2011, the 
temporary female beds at SeaTac were not used. 

[A] The Petersburg, Lewisburg, Schuylkill, and Leavenworth facilities 
are male long-term institutions. Male long-term institutions include 
four security level designations--minimum, low, medium, and high. 
SeaTac is an administrative facility that specifically serves inmates 
awaiting trial, or those with intensive medical or mental health 
conditions, regardless of the level of supervision these inmates 
require. 

[B] A Special Management Unit operates as a more controlled and 
restrictive environment for inmates whose interaction requires greater 
management to ensure the safety, security, or orderly operation of BOP 
facilities, or protection of the public. BOP established a Special 
Management Unit at Lewisburg Penitentiary in fiscal year 2008, and 
subsequently converted the entire facility to a Special Management 
Unit, with the exception of a unit housing general population high 
security inmates. 

[End of table] 

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.[Footnote 108] 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. 

Program Participation: 

BOP provides programs including education, vocational training, drug 
treatment, and faith-based reentry programs that help to rehabilitate 
inmates and support correctional management.[Footnote 109] 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.[Footnote 110] 

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). 
[Footnote 111] According to BOP data, overall inmate participation in 
one or more programs ranged from 35 to 37 percent from fiscal years 
2006 through 2011.[Footnote 112] 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. 
[Footnote 113] Table 10 shows systemwide participation rates in 
selected BOP education and training programs as of September 2011. 

Table 10: Systemwide Inmate Participation Rates in Selected BOP 
Programs in September 2011: 

Inmate participation rate[B]; 
At least one program: 36%; 
GED classes: 13%; 
Adult continuing education: 11%; 
Occupational training: 7%; 
Parent education: 2%; 
Postsecondary programs[A]: 1%. 

Source: GAO analysis of BOP data. 

[A] Post Secondary Education is a program category that is funded by 
inmates' personal funds rather than through BOP's salaries and 
expenses budget account. The curriculum extends through an associate's 
degree. 

[B] Some programs are not offered year-round (for example parenting), 
and if the participation snapshot occurs when a program is not in 
session, the participation level will be zero. 

[End of table] 

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,[Footnote 114] constrained BOP's ability to admit participants 
early enough to earn their maximum allowable reductions in times 
served.[Footnote 115] 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. 

Table 11: BOP's Drug Education Programs in Male Facilities: Inmate 
Participation Levels, Waiting List Numbers, and Average Waiting Time, 
by Institutional Security Level from the End of Fiscal Years 2006 
through 2011: 

Program participation by security level: High: Participation; 
Year: 2006: 2,578; 
Year: 2007: 2,394; 
Year: 2008: 2,378; 
Year: 2009: 3,716; 
Year: 2010: 3,195; 
Year: 2011: 3,198. 

Program participation by security level: High: Waiting list; 
Year: 2006: 2,984; 
Year: 2007: 3,700; 
Year: 2008: 3,808; 
Year: 2009: 6,268; 
Year: 2010: 5,129; 
Year: 2011: 4,681. 

Program participation by security level: High: Average wait in days; 
Year: 2006: 324.5; 
Year: 2007: 333.6; 
Year: 2008: 298.1; 
Year: 2009: 209.2; 
Year: 2010: 190.5; 
Year: 2011: 105.0. 

Program participation by security level: Medium: Participation; 
Year: 2006: 9,016; 
Year: 2007: 9,159; 
Year: 2008: 9,344; 
Year: 2009: 11,448; 
Year: 2010: 14,074; 
Year: 2011: 12,523. 

Program participation by security level: Medium: Waiting list; 
Year: 2006: 10,436; 
Year: 2007: 12,193; 
Year: 2008: 12,467; 
Year: 2009: 17,948; 
Year: 2010: 17,474; 
Year: 2011: 18,231. 

Program participation by security level: Medium: Average wait in days; 
Year: 2006: 230.2; 
Year: 2007: 228.6; 
Year: 2008: 192.0; 
Year: 2009: 159.5; 
Year: 2010: 123.7; 
Year: 2011: 82.6. 

Program participation by security level: Low: Participation; 
Year: 2006: 7,804; 
Year: 2007: 7,826; 
Year: 2008: 8,560; 
Year: 2009: 10,490; 
Year: 2010: 11,263; 
Year: 2011: 10,130. 

Program participation by security level: Low: Waiting list; 
Year: 2006: 9,892; 
Year: 2007: 9,200; 
Year: 2008: 9,749; 
Year: 2009: 17,909; 
Year: 2010: 18,527; 
Year: 2011: 19,992. 

Program participation by security level: Low: Average wait in days; 
Year: 2006: 223.4; 
Year: 2007: 197.7; 
Year: 2008: 160.4; 
Year: 2009: 168.7; 
Year: 2010: 143.1; 
Year: 2011: 84.4. 

Program participation by security level: Minimum: Participation; 
Year: 2006: 4,959; 
Year: 2007: 4,872; 
Year: 2008: 4,084; 
Year: 2009: 5,423; 
Year: 2010: 5,291; 
Year: 2011: 5,183. 

Program participation by security level: Minimum: Waiting list; 
Year: 2006: 6,269; 
Year: 2007: 5,857; 
Year: 2008: 5,124; 
Year: 2009: 7,104; 
Year: 2010: 7,043; 
Year: 2011: 7,400. 

Program participation by security level: Minimum: Average wait in days; 
Year: 2006: 141.5; 
Year: 2007: 136.8; 
Year: 2008: 130.4; 
Year: 2009: 102.4; 
Year: 2010: 90.5; 
Year: 2011: 63.2. 

Program participation by security level: Administrative: Participation; 
Year: 2006: 833; 
Year: 2007: 813; 
Year: 2008: 646; 
Year: 2009: 746; 
Year: 2010: 628; 
Year: 2011: 769. 

Program participation by security level: Administrative: Waiting list; 
Year: 2006: 789; 
Year: 2007: 756; 
Year: 2008: 669; 
Year: 2009: 1,088; 
Year: 2010: 1,118; 
Year: 2011: 1,295. 

Program participation by security level: Administrative: Average wait 
in days; 
Year: 2006: 180.5; 
Year: 2007: 150.7; 
Year: 2008: 153.2; 
Year: 2009: 130.9; 
Year: 2010: 111.2; 
Year: 2011: 73.7. 

Source: GAO analysis of BOP data. 

Note: Drug education programs are distinct from residential and 
nonresidential drug treatment programs. 

[End of table] 

Table 12: BOP's Nonresidential Drug Treatment Programs in Male 
Facilities: Inmate Participation Levels, Waiting List Numbers, and 
Average Waiting Time, by Institutional Security Level from the End of 
Fiscal Years 2006 through 2011: 

Program participation by security level: High: Participation; 
Year: 2006: 493; 
Year: 2007: 585; 
Year: 2008: 554; 
Year: 2009: 818; 
Year: 2010: 566; 
Year: 2011: 946. 

Program participation by security level: High: Waiting list; 
Year: 2006: 160; 
Year: 2007: 197; 
Year: 2008: 397; 
Year: 2009: 465; 
Year: 2010: 699; 
Year: 2011: 1,388. 

Program participation by security level: High: Average wait in days; 
Year: 2006: 253.4; 
Year: 2007: 264.7; 
Year: 2008: 310.4; 
Year: 2009: 395.0; 
Year: 2010: 199.1; 
Year: 2011: 101.3. 

Program participation by security level: Medium: Participation; 
Year: 2006: 2,480; 
Year: 2007: 3,281; 
Year: 2008: 4,195; 
Year: 2009: 3,411; 
Year: 2010: 3,446; 
Year: 2011: 4,852. 

Program participation by security level: Medium: Waiting list; 
Year: 2006: 568; 
Year: 2007: 774; 
Year: 2008: 997; 
Year: 2009: 2,723; 
Year: 2010: 3,688; 
Year: 2011: 4,707. 

Program participation by security level: Medium: Average wait in days; 
Year: 2006: 299.2; 
Year: 2007: 266.1; 
Year: 2008: 214.1; 
Year: 2009: 204.4; 
Year: 2010: 178.0; 
Year: 2011: 98.5. 

Program participation by security level: Low: Participation; 
Year: 2006: 4,088; 
Year: 2007: 4,747; 
Year: 2008: 4,127; 
Year: 2009: 3,717; 
Year: 2010: 3,538; 
Year: 2011: 4,931. 

Program participation by security level: Low: Waiting list; 
Year: 2006: 1,070; 
Year: 2007: 1,615; 
Year: 2008: 1,704; 
Year: 2009: 2,691; 
Year: 2010: 3,570; 
Year: 2011: 3,842. 

Program participation by security level: Low: Average wait in days; 
Year: 2006: 160.9; 
Year: 2007: 184.4; 
Year: 2008: 188.2; 
Year: 2009: 211.4; 
Year: 2010: 169.9; 
Year: 2011: 79.8. 

Program participation by security level: Minimum: Participation; 
Year: 2006: 2,475; 
Year: 2007: 2,820; 
Year: 2008: 2,559; 
Year: 2009: 3,040; 
Year: 2010: 3,055; 
Year: 2011: 3,984. 

Program participation by security level: Minimum: Waiting list; 
Year: 2006: 596; 
Year: 2007: 676; 
Year: 2008: 980; 
Year: 2009: 1,989; 
Year: 2010: 2,531; 
Year: 2011: 3,115. 

Program participation by security level: Minimum: Average wait in days; 
Year: 2006: 223.0; 
Year: 2007: 217.5; 
Year: 2008: 165.8; 
Year: 2009: 171.7; 
Year: 2010: 151.4; 
Year: 2011: 85.3. 

Program participation by security level: Administrative: Participation; 
Year: 2006: 224; 
Year: 2007: 239; 
Year: 2008: 247; 
Year: 2009: 218; 
Year: 2010: 195; 
Year: 2011: 759. 

Program participation by security level: Administrative: Waiting list; 
Year: 2006: 111; 
Year: 2007: 184; 
Year: 2008: 172; 
Year: 2009: 202; 
Year: 2010: 200; 
Year: 2011: 523. 

Program participation by security level: Administrative: Average wait 
in days; 
Year: 2006: 121.8; 
Year: 2007: 268.0; 
Year: 2008: 244.3; 
Year: 2009: 226.2; 
Year: 2010: 125.6; 
Year: 2011: 59.3. 

Source: GAO analysis of BOP data. 

[End of table] 

Table 13: BOP's Residential Drug Abuse Programs in Male Facilities: 
Inmate Participation Levels, Waiting List Numbers, and Average Waiting 
Time, by Institutional Security Level from the End of Fiscal Years 
2006 through 2011: 

Program participation by security level: High[A]: Participation; 
Year: 2006: 63; 
Year: 2007: 1; 
Year: 2008: 0; 
Year: 2009: 2; 
Year: 2010: 0; 
Year: 2011: 0. 

Program participation by security level: High[A]: Waiting list; 
Year: 2006: 354; 
Year: 2007: 298; 
Year: 2008: 305; 
Year: 2009: 277; 
Year: 2010: 226; 
Year: 2011: 245. 

Program participation by security level: High[A]: Average wait in days; 
Year: 2006: 377.0; 
Year: 2007: 322.5; 
Year: 2008: 324.9; 
Year: 2009: 292.8; 
Year: 2010: 231.3; 
Year: 2011: 131.1. 

Program participation by security level: Medium: Participation; 
Year: 2006: 1,772; 
Year: 2007: 1,884; 
Year: 2008: 2,008; 
Year: 2009: 2,114; 
Year: 2010: 2,220; 
Year: 2011: 2,379. 

Program participation by security level: Medium: Waiting list; 
Year: 2006: 2,577; 
Year: 2007: 2,770; 
Year: 2008: 3,054; 
Year: 2009: 2,745; 
Year: 2010: 2,546; 
Year: 2011: 2,928. 

Program participation by security level: Medium: Average wait in days; 
Year: 2006: 242.3; 
Year: 2007: 226.5; 
Year: 2008: 213.6; 
Year: 2009: 194.8; 
Year: 2010: 147.1; 
Year: 2011: 92.8. 

Program participation by security level: Low: Participation; 
Year: 2006: 3,547; 
Year: 2007: 3,326; 
Year: 2008: 3,256; 
Year: 2009: 2,987; 
Year: 2010: 3,398; 
Year: 2011: 3,082. 

Program participation by security level: Low: Waiting list; 
Year: 2006: 3,378; 
Year: 2007: 3,409; 
Year: 2008: 3,773; 
Year: 2009: 3,185; 
Year: 2010: 3,264; 
Year: 2011: 3,723. 

Program participation by security level: Low: Average wait in days; 
Year: 2006: 205.3; 
Year: 2007: 174.6; 
Year: 2008: 178.0; 
Year: 2009: 166.2; 
Year: 2010: 125.3; 
Year: 2011: 80.2. 

Program participation by security level: Minimum: Participation; 
Year: 2006: 3,704; 
Year: 2007: 3,443; 
Year: 2008: 3,789; 
Year: 2009: 3,764; 
Year: 2010: 3,719; 
Year: 2011: 3,231. 

Program participation by security level: Minimum: Waiting list; 
Year: 2006: 4,104; 
Year: 2007: 3,931; 
Year: 2008: 3,998; 
Year: 2009: 3,440; 
Year: 2010: 3,379; 
Year: 2011: 3,758. 

Program participation by security level: Minimum: Average wait in days; 
Year: 2006: 258.8; 
Year: 2007: 237.6; 
Year: 2008: 223.9; 
Year: 2009: 202.9; 
Year: 2010: 145.6; 
Year: 2011: 83.8. 

Program participation by security level: Administrative: Participation; 
Year: 2006: 64; 
Year: 2007: 31; 
Year: 2008: 92; 
Year: 2009: 56; 
Year: 2010: 75; 
Year: 2011: 65. 

Program participation by security level: Administrative: Waiting list; 
Year: 2006: 145; 
Year: 2007: 87; 
Year: 2008: 149; 
Year: 2009: 108; 
Year: 2010: 92; 
Year: 2011: 106. 

Program participation by security level: Administrative: Average wait 
in days; 
Year: 2006: 279.6; 
Year: 2007: 224.2; 
Year: 2008: 199.8; 
Year: 2009: 187.7; 
Year: 2010: 156.6; 
Year: 2011: 87.1. 

Source: GAO analysis of BOP data. 

[A] According to BOP officials, high security facilities currently do 
not offer a Residential Drug Abuse Program, but because the program is 
offered near an inmate's release date, high security inmates may apply 
for the program and may be able transfer to a lower security level 
facility that offers the program by the time they are ready for 
release. BOP plans to activate Residential Drug Abuse Programs in high 
security facilities in fiscal year 2013 and has requested funding for 
this program in its fiscal year 2013 budget submission. 

[End of table] 

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. 

Meaningful Work Opportunities: 

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.[Footnote 116] 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). 

Facility officials underscored that the most desirable jobs in the 
facilities were those in UNICOR factories.[Footnote 117] These 
factories (1) produce items such as furniture, office supplies, and 
uniforms for sale to government customers and (2) perform services for 
both government and private sector purchase. Officials at one medium 
security facility we visited told us that these jobs teach inmates 
valuable reentry skills, such as coming to work on time.[Footnote 118] 
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.[Footnote 119] 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.[Footnote 
120] 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. 

Visitation: 

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.[Footnote 121] 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.[Footnote 122] 

Correctional Staff: 

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.[Footnote 123] 
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. 

Table 14: BOP Inmate to Total BOP Staff Ratios from Fiscal Years 1997 
through 2011: 

Year: 1997; 
Total S&E staff onboard: 28,302; 
BOP institution population: 101,091; 
Inmate to staff ratio by fiscal year: 3.57. 

Year: 1998; 
Total S&E staff onboard: 28,870; 
BOP institution population: 108,207; 
Inmate to staff ratio by fiscal year: 3.75. 

Year: 1999; 
Total S&E staff onboard: 29,176; 
BOP institution population: 117,295; 
Inmate to staff ratio by fiscal year: 4.02. 

Year: 2000; 
Total S&E staff onboard: 30,382; 
BOP institution population: 125,560; 
Inmate to staff ratio by fiscal year: 4.13. 

Year: 2001; 
Total S&E staff onboard: 31,806; 
BOP institution population: 130,327; 
Inmate to staff ratio by fiscal year: 4.10. 

Year: 2002; 
Total S&E staff onboard: 31,823; 
BOP institution population: 137,527; 
Inmate to staff ratio by fiscal year: 4.32. 

Year: 2003; 
Total S&E staff onboard: 32,265; 
BOP institution population: 146,212; 
Inmate to staff ratio by fiscal year: 4.53. 

Year: 2004; 
Total S&E staff onboard: 32,746; 
BOP institution population: 152,518; 
Inmate to staff ratio by fiscal year: 4.66. 

Year: 2005; 
Total S&E staff onboard: 32,735; 
BOP institution population: 159,501; 
Inmate to staff ratio by fiscal year: 4.87. 

Year: 2006; 
Total S&E staff onboard: 33,114; 
BOP institution population: 162,514; 
Inmate to staff ratio by fiscal year: 4.91. 

Year: 2007; 
Total S&E staff onboard: 33,994; 
BOP institution population: 167,323; 
Inmate to staff ratio by fiscal year: 4.92. 

Year: 2008; 
Total S&E staff onboard: 34,139; 
BOP institution population: 165,964; 
Inmate to staff ratio by fiscal year: 4.86. 

Year: 2009; 
Total S&E staff onboard: 34,914; 
BOP institution population: 172,423; 
Inmate to staff ratio by fiscal year: 4.94. 

Year: 2010; 
Total S&E staff onboard: 35,972; 
BOP institution population: 173,289; 
Inmate to staff ratio by fiscal year: 4.82. 

Year: 2011; 
Total S&E staff onboard: 35,987; 
BOP institution population: 177,934; 
Inmate to staff ratio by fiscal year: 4.94. 

Source: BOP data. 

Note: The President's annual budget justification to Congress for BOP 
includes a systemwide inmate to total BOP staff ratio. This ratio is 
systemwide rather than by facility security level. BOP calculates this 
ratio using (1) the inmate population at each facility on the last day 
of the fiscal year and (2) the total number of BOP staff on board as 
of the last pay period of the fiscal year. The total number of BOP 
staff includes all staff at BOP institutions, regional offices, 
training centers, and the central office (i.e., staff funded by BOP's 
Salaries & Expenses (S&E) appropriation and Public Health Service 
(PHS) staff). 

[End of table] 

Table 15: BOP's Inmate to Total Institutional Staff Ratios from Fiscal 
Years 2006 through 2011: 

Systemwide; 
2006: 5.2; 
2007: 5.2; 
2008: 5.2; 
2009: 5.2; 
2010: 5.2; 
2011: 5.2. 

Administrative; 
2006: 6; 
2007: 5.7; 
2008: 5.5; 
2009: 5.1; 
2010: 5; 
2011: 4.9. 

Complex; 
2006: 5.1; 
2007: 5.4; 
2008: 5.4; 
2009: 5.3; 
2010: 5.1; 
2011: 5.3. 

Detention; 
2006: 4.6; 
2007: 4.4; 
2008: 4.6; 
2009: 4.6; 
2010: 4.5; 
2011: 4.6. 

High; 
2006: 4.5; 
2007: 4.5; 
2008: 4.2; 
2009: 4.1; 
2010: 4.1; 
2011: 4.1. 

Low; 
2006: 6.6; 
2007: 6.1; 
2008: 6; 
2009: 6.1; 
2010: 6.2; 
2011: 6.1. 

Medical; 
2006: 3; 
2007: 2.7; 
2008: 2.8; 
2009: 2.9; 
2010: 2.8; 
2011: 2.8. 

Medium; 
2006: 5.4; 
2007: 5.5; 
2008: 5.6; 
2009: 5.5; 
2010: 5.5; 
2011: 5.6. 

Minimum; 
2006: 8; 
2007: 8; 
2008: 7.6; 
2009: 7.6; 
2010: 7.6; 
2011: 8. 

Female facilities; 
2006: 5.7; 
2007: 5.7; 
2008: 5.7; 
2009: 5.5; 
2010: 5.2; 
2011: 5.2. 

Male facilities; 
2006: 5.2; 
2007: 5.2; 
2008: 5.2; 
2009: 5.2; 
2010: 5.2; 
2011: 5.2. 

Source: GAO analysis of BOP data. 

Note: For purposes of this table, a ratio of "x:1" is expressed more 
simply as "x." These ratios were calculated using the following 
information. The inmate population used to calculate the ratio is 
based on the Fiscal Year Average Daily Population (ADP) for each 
facility. ADP is calculated by totaling the total inmate days recorded 
at each facility for the fiscal year and dividing that number by the 
number of days in the fiscal year. The staffing level used to 
calculate the ratio is based on the fiscal year end onboard staffing 
level at each facility as of the last pay period of the fiscal year. 
S&E and PHS staff onboard at year end were included in this 
calculation. The calculation excludes Buildings and Facilities, 
UNICOR, and Trust Fund staff as well as all staff at regional offices, 
training centers, and central office locations and facilities that 
were in the activation process. 

[End of table] 

Table 16: Snapshots of BOP's Inmate to Correctional Officer Ratios, by 
BOP Region, from Fiscal Years 2006 through 2011: 

Mid-Atlantic; 

Ratios: Low ratio; 
2006: 7.8; 
2007: 3.6; 
2008: 8.1; 
2009: 7.4; 
2010: 7.9; 
2011: 7.5. 

Ratios: High ratio; 
2006: 24.4; 
2007: 26; 
2008: 23.3; 
2009: 22.5; 
2010: 24.6; 
2011: 25.3. 

Ratios: Average ratio; 
2006: 11.5; 
2007: 10.5; 
2008: 11; 
2009: 10.8; 
2010: 10.3; 
2011: 10.6. 

North Central; 

Ratios: Low ratio; 
2006: 1.6; 
2007: 4.9; 
2008: 5.2; 
2009: 5.3; 
2010: 5.0; 
2011: 5.3. 

Ratios: High ratio; 
2006: 37; 
2007: 26; 
2008: 25.8; 
2009: 28.2; 
2010: 26.7; 
2011: 28.6. 

Ratios: Average ratio; 
2006: 9; 
2007: 8.8; 
2008: 9.1; 
2009: 9.3; 
2010: 8.8; 
2011: 9.3. 

Northeast; 

Ratios: Low ratio; 
2006: 6.9; 
2007: 5.5; 
2008: 4.6; 
2009: 5.9; 
2010: 5.5; 
2011: 5.9. 

Ratios: High ratio; 
2006: 21.7; 
2007: 17.2; 
2008: 17.8; 
2009: 24.6; 
2010: 19.8; 
2011: 14.6. 

Ratios: Average ratio; 
2006: 11.8; 
2007: 10.4; 
2008: 10.3; 
2009: 10.6; 
2010: 10.3; 
2011: 10.1. 

South Central; 

Ratios: Low ratio; 
2006: 7.6; 
2007: 7.5; 
2008: 6.7; 
2009: 7.1; 
2010: 7.3; 
2011: 7.8. 

Ratios: High ratio; 
2006: 31.7; 
2007: 29.6; 
2008: 24.2; 
2009: 24.1; 
2010: 22.3; 
2011: 24.4. 

Ratios: Average ratio; 
2006: 13.2; 
2007: 12.9; 
2008: 11.7; 
2009: 12.5; 
2010: 12.5; 
2011: 12.7. 

Southeast; 

Ratios: Low ratio; 
2006: 9.3; 
2007: 9.4; 
2008: 8.4; 
2009: 9.7; 
2010: 9.2; 
2011: 9.9. 

Ratios: High ratio; 
2006: 34.9; 
2007: 28.1; 
2008: 26.2; 
2009: 27.4; 
2010: 25.6; 
2011: 30.4. 

Ratios: Average ratio; 
2006: 12.4; 
2007: 12; 
2008: 11.8; 
2009: 11.8; 
2010: 11.6; 
2011: 12.2. 

Western; 

Ratios: Low ratio; 
2006: 5.9; 
2007: 4.7; 
2008: 5.9; 
2009: 6.5; 
2010: 5.4; 
2011: 5.9. 

Ratios: High ratio; 
2006: 16.5; 
2007: 18.1; 
2008: 17; 
2009: 17.8; 
2010: 14.6; 
2011: 16.5. 

Ratios: Average ratio; 
2006: 10.4; 
2007: 10; 
2008: 9.7; 
2009: 9.7; 
2010: 9.4; 
2011: 10.3. 

Source: GAO analysis of BOP data. 

Note: Correctional officer refers to those BOP staff who enforce the 
regulations governing the operation of a correctional institution. All 
values imply an inmate to correctional officer ratio of "x:1." For 
purposes of this table, we have omitted the "1" from the ratio and 
just reported the "x." BOP includes facilities not yet fully activated 
in its data. Thus, where a facility had an inmate-to-staff ratio of 
some number less than 1:1, we omitted that facility from our analysis 
of the high, low, and average ratios for the respective region. For 
example, in fiscal year 2010 and 2011, BOP listed a facility called 
Mendota in its listing for the Western Region. In fiscal year 2010, 
BOP recorded the inmate to correctional officer ratio for Mendota as 
00:1 and in fiscal year 2011, BOP reported the ratio as 0.6:1. This 
facility was not fully activated in either year, so we omitted it from 
our table. 

[End of table] 

Infrastructure: 

[Side bar: Systemwide, water costs were over $25 million in fiscal 
year 2005 and more than $37 million in fiscal year 2011, an increase 
of about 48 percent. Water usage increased from 7.9 billion gallons in 
2005 to 9.9 billion gallons in 2011. End of side bar] 

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. 

Security and Safety: 

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.[Footnote 124] BOP classifies prohibited acts into 
four levels according to the severity of the offense and provides a 
range of sanctions.[Footnote 125] 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).[Footnote 126] BOP 
disciplinary hearing data show an increase from fiscal years 2006 
through 2010 and a decline in fiscal year 2011.[Footnote 127] 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. 

Table 17: Guilty Findings for Prohibited Acts by Severity Level, 
Fiscal Years 2006 through 2011: 

Fiscal years: 2006; 
Guilty findings for 100-level prohibited acts: 7,711; 
Guilty findings for 200-level prohibited acts: 23,731; 
Guilty findings for 300-level prohibited acts: 54,219; 
Guilty findings for 400-level prohibited acts: 1,929. 

Fiscal years: 2007; 
Guilty findings for 100-level prohibited acts: 8,361; 
Guilty findings for 200-level prohibited acts: 24,112; 
Guilty findings for 300-level prohibited acts: 51,519; 
Guilty findings for 400-level prohibited acts: 2,025. 

Fiscal years: 2008; 
Guilty findings for 100-level prohibited acts: 9,552; 
Guilty findings for 200-level prohibited acts: 24,980; 
Guilty findings for 300-level prohibited acts: 50,633; 
Guilty findings for 400-level prohibited acts: 1,933. 

Fiscal years: 2009; 
Guilty findings for 100-level prohibited acts: 11,021; 
Guilty findings for 200-level prohibited acts: 27,386; 
Guilty findings for 300-level prohibited acts: 54,043; 
Guilty findings for 400-level prohibited acts: 2,125. 

Fiscal years: 2010; 
Guilty findings for 100-level prohibited acts: 10,677; 
Guilty findings for 200-level prohibited acts: 28,915; 
Guilty findings for 300-level prohibited acts: 59,462; 
Guilty findings for 400-level prohibited acts: 2,042. 

Fiscal years: 2011; 
Guilty findings for 100-level prohibited acts: 10,195; 
Guilty findings for 200-level prohibited acts: 27,168; 
Guilty findings for 300-level prohibited acts: 60,269; 
Guilty findings for 400-level prohibited acts: 1,731. 

Source: GAO analysis of BOP data. 

Note: This table reflects only the most serious prohibited act for 
each incident report. One hundred-level prohibited acts are of the 
greatest severity (e.g., killing or assaulting a person) and 400-level 
acts are of the lowest severity (e.g., feigning illness). 

[End of table] 

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. 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

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

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. 

[End of section] 

Related GAO Products: 

Federal Bureau of Prisons: Methods for Estimating Incarceration and 
Community Corrections Costs and Results of the Elderly Offender Pilot. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/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. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-320]. Washington, D.C. February 7, 
2012. 

Bureau of Prisons: Improved Evaluations and Increased Coordination 
Could Improve Cell Phone Detection. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-893]. Washington, D.C.: September 
6, 2011. 

Bureau of Prisons: Evaluating the Impact of Protective Equipment Could 
Help Enhance Officer Safety. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/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. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-94]. Washington, D.C.: 
November 10, 2009. 

Prison Construction: Clear Communication on the Accuracy of Cost 
Estimates and Project Changes is Needed. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/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. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-06]. Washington, D.C.: 
October 5, 2007. 

Prisoner Releases: Trends and Information on Reintegration Programs. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-483]. Washington, D.C. 
June 18, 2001. 

State and Federal Prisoners: Profiles of Inmate Characteristics in 
1991 and 1997. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-00-117]. Washington, D.C.: May 24, 
2000. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] See Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners 
in 2010 (Washington, D.C.: December 2011). The Bureau of Justice 
Statistics is the statistical agency of DOJ. 

[2] The Federal Bureau of Investigation has the largest budget within 
DOJ at $8 billion. BOP's $6.6 billion includes $6.551 billion for 
salaries and expenses and $90 million for buildings and facilities. 

[3] The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, Pub. L. No 98-473, 98 Stat. 
1987, changed the federal sentencing structure. The act was effective 
for offenses committed on or after November 1, 1987. The act abolished 
parole, and subsequent legislation established mandatory minimum 
sentences for many federal offenses, which limits the authority that 
BOP has to affect the length of the sentence or the size of the inmate 
population. 

[4] BOP has established performance-based contracts with four private 
corrections companies. The private prisons in which BOP houses federal 
inmates operate in accordance with BOP policies. 

[5] Rated capacity is the maximum population level at which an 
institution can make available basic necessities, essential services 
(e.g., medical care), and programs (e.g., drug treatment, basic 
education, and vocational education). According to BOP officials, by 
contract with BOP, privately run prisons cannot exceed 15 percent 
overcapacity. BOP also has agreements with state and local governments 
and contracts with privately operated facilities for the detention of 
federally adjudicated juveniles and for the secure detention of some 
short-term federal inmates. 

[6] Unless noted otherwise, the term "crowding" in this report refers 
to BOP's definition. 

[7] The Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act, Pub. L. No. 97-255, 
96 Stat. 814 (1982), assessment process evaluates the effectiveness of 
internal controls to support effective and efficient program 
operations, reliable financial reporting, compliance with applicable 
laws and regulations, and whether financial management systems conform 
to financial system requirements. 

[8] Since 1998, the IG has prepared lists of top management challenges 
for the department. By statute, the Attorney General is required to 
include each year's list in the annual performance and accountability 
report. 

[9] See Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners 
in 2010 (Washington, D.C.: December 2011), and Prisoners in 2009 
(Washington, D.C.: December 2010). 

[10] The Pew Center on the States, One in 100: Behind Bars in America 
2008 (Washington, D.C.: February 2008). The Pew Center on the States 
provides nonpartisan reporting and research, advocacy, and technical 
assistance to help states deliver better results. Among the issues it 
addresses are heath, the economy, revenue and spending, and public 
safety. 

[11] 18 U.S.C. § 4042(a)(2). 

[12] See Related GAO Products at the end of this report. 

[13] GAO, Bureau of Prisons: Methods for Cost Estimation Largely 
Reflect Best Practices but Quantifying Risks Would Enhance Decision 
Making, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-94] 
(Washington, D.C.: Nov.10, 2009). 

[14] For GAO reports on federal prisons, see, for example: GAO, Bureau 
of Prisons: Eligibility and Capacity Impact Use of Flexibilities to 
Reduce Inmates' Time in Prison, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-320] (Washington, D.C. Feb. 7, 
2012). 

[15] According to BOP officials, BOP also includes this information in 
its annual congressional budget request. 

[16] We selected five federal prisons of different security levels, 
including one that was a complex and on whose grounds there was a low 
and a medium security facility. Thus, our five selected sites included 
six BOP facilities--one low, three medium, one high, and one 
administrative. We describe the distinctions among security levels 
later in this report. 

[17] See BJS, Prisoners in 2010 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 2011). 

[18] According to BOP officials, privately managed contract facilities 
are low security and primarily house non-U.S. citizens convicted of 
crimes while in this country legally or illegally. Home detention 
describes all circumstances under which an inmate is serving a portion 
of his or her sentence while residing in his or her home. 

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

[20] In this report, data presented by institutional security level 
include information for male inmates by the four security levels and 
for females by the three security levels. Unless noted, these data do 
not include information on detention, medical, administrative, or 
Witness Security Program housing. 

[21] The Administrative Maximum (ADX) facility in Florence, Colorado, 
houses offenders requiring the tightest controls. 

[22] BOP has 7 stand-alone minimum security camps that are not 
colocated with higher security level facilities. BOP also has 73 
minimum security satellite camps that are colocated with a secure 
institution or complex. Stand-alone camps usually have a rated 
capacity of 256 inmates, and colocated camps usually have a rated 
capacity of 128 inmates. Female secure facilities are included in the 
low security level facility figure. 

[23] BOP does not include privately contracted beds as part of its 
systemwide rated capacity, because the capacity of each of these 
facilities is based on its contract. 

[24] Basic necessities include safety, living space, and access to 
toilets, showers, and food. Essential services include medical care, 
visitation, and telephones to allow contact with family and other 
members of the community. Programs include drug treatment, work, 
education, vocational training, anger management, and parenting to 
prevent idleness and enable inmates to develop skills needed to return 
to the community following release. 

[25] ACA's mission includes the development and promotion of effective 
standards for the care, custody, training, and treatment of offenders. 

[26] For prior work related to BOP's implementation of Second Chance 
Act provisions, which affect programming needs related to preparing 
inmates for eventual reentry into society, see GAO, Federal Bureau of 
Prisons: BOP Has Mechanisms in Place to Address Most Second Chance Act 
Requirements and Is Working to Implement an Initiative Designed to 
Reduce Recidivism, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-854R] (Washington, D.C.: July 14, 
2010). 

[27] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-320]. 

[28] Correctional officers enforce the regulations governing the 
operation of a correctional institution, serving as both supervisors 
and counselors of inmates. 

[29] These staff included all staff on-board funded under BOP's 
appropriation for Salaries and Expenses (i.e., headquarters, regional, 
institutional, and Public Health Service staff), as well as Buildings 
and Facilities, Commissary, and Federal Prison Industries staff. 

[30] See GAO, Bureau of Prisons: Evaluating the Impact of Protective 
Equipment Could Help Enhance Officer Safety, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-410] (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 8, 
2011). 

[31] Design capacity is the number of inmates that planners intended 
for a facility. Operational capacity is the number of inmates that can 
be accommodated based on a facility's staff, existing programs, and 
services. 

[32] These data include only those U.S. inmates housed in BOP-run 
facilities, not privately contracted facilities. 

[33] These data include only those U.S. citizen or non-U.S. citizen 
inmates housed in BOP-run facilities. The total number of non-U.S. 
citizen inmates, including those housed in BOP-run and private 
contract facilities, increased about 13 percent (50,275 to 56,933) 
from fiscal years 2006 through 2011, and constituted about 26 percent 
of the total BOP population during this time period. 

[34] BOP does not send non-U.S. citizen inmates to minimum security 
facilities because of their risk of flight. 

[35] BOP officials explained that for reporting purposes, they 
categorize inmates according to the offense for which an inmate is 
serving the longest sentence (dominant sentence offense). For example, 
an inmate may be serving sentences for both drug and immigration 
offenses, but BOP will categorize the inmate by the offense having the 
longer sentence (e.g., the drug offense). 

[36] BOP's Building and Facilities budgetary account includes two 
"decision units"--one for "new construction" and one for "maintenance 
and repair." Within the "new construction" decision unit, baseline 
funding includes about $10 million annually to support the lease 
payments on BOP's federal inmate transfer center, as well as other 
costs associated with considering potential construction sites, 
studying environmental impact, and any facility expansion and 
conversion projects. These baseline funds also cover the salaries and 
administrative costs of architects, project managers, and procurement 
and other staff necessary to carry out the efforts. 

[37] During this period, the fiscal year 2008 budget submission was 
the outlier, when the request included $115 million to support 
construction that had already begun at the Mendota facility. Congress 
ultimately appropriated these funds, but did so as part of the fiscal 
year 2007 budget. Because of protracted budget negotiations in fiscal 
year 2007, the budget that year passed after the fiscal year 2008 
budget had been submitted. 

[38] These projections are from BOP's 2020 capacity plan dated January 
10, 2012. In November 2009, we concluded that BOP's projections at the 
time were accurate, on average, to within 1 percent of the actual 
inmate population growth from fiscal year 1999 through August 20, 
2009. See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-94]. 

[39] According to BOP, these facilities include two medium security/ 
camp facilities in Mendota, California (1,152 beds) and Berlin, New 
Hampshire (1,280 beds), that will open from 2012 through 2013; one 
female secure/low security camp facility in Aliceville, Alabama (1,792 
beds), opening from 2012 through 2014; and one medium security/camp 
facility in Hazelton, West Virginia (1,280 beds); and one high 
security facility in Yazoo City, Mississippi (1,216 beds), scheduled 
to open from 2013 through 2014. 

[40] BOP. The Effects of Changing Crowding and Staffing Levels in 
Federal Prisons on Inmate Violence Rates--Executive Summary 
(Washington, D.C.: October 2005). 

[41] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-483]. 

[42] BOP's Monthly Participation Reports provide a snapshot of program 
participation levels of inmates within BOP facilities. Figures for 
overall inmate participation do not duplicate. That is, if an inmate 
is enrolled in more than one program area (for example GED and 
parenting), the inmate's participation is counted only once. 

[43] 28 C.F.R. § 550.53(b) outlines the RDAP eligibility criteria. 28 
C.F.R. § 550.55 outlines eligibility for early release. 

[44] For more on RDAP, see [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-320]. 

[45] 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. 

[46] BOP calculates the ratio for inmates and all BOP staff at the 
systemwide level; not by security level. The inmate population is the 
actual population at each facility on the last day of the fiscal year. 
The staffing level is the total number of staff on board as of the 
last pay period of the fiscal year and includes all staff funded by 
BOP's Salaries and Expenses appropriations and Public Health Service 
staff at BOP headquarters, regional offices, institutions, and, 
training centers. 

[47] In fiscal year 2005, BOP began calculating overall institutional 
staffing ratios on the basis of (1) all staff under BOP's Salaries and 
Expenses appropriations, including correctional officers, noncustody 
staff (e.g., teachers, psychologists, and administrative staff); and 
Public Health Service staff on board as of the last pay period of the 
fiscal year; and (2) the average inmate daily population at each BOP 
facility. These ratios exclude BOP Buildings and Facilities, Federal 
Prison Industries, Commissary, regional office, training center, and 
central office staff, as well as staff at facilities that were being 
activated. 

[48] A Special Management Unit operates as a more controlled and 
restrictive environment for inmates whose interaction requires greater 
management to ensure the safety, security, or orderly operation of BOP 
facilities, or protection of the public. 

[49] Justice Management Division, DOJ, BOP Staffing Study (Washington, 
D.C.: August 2010). 

[50] According to the study, BOP uses a staffing roster to determine 
the number of correctional officers needed to fill custody posts at 
its facilities. The roster process identifies a clear need of 
correctional services personnel that is typically higher than the 
numbers of both funded and authorized positions. The study states that 
there appears to be a disconnect between (1) establishing authorized 
and funded staff positions and (2) determining the number of 
correctional officers needed to ensure institutional safety and 
security through BOP's staffing roster process. 

[51] For fiscal years 2009, 2010, and 2011, BOP reported a total of 
1,480,713; 1,416,269.50; and 1,381,129.50 overtime hours charged by 
correctional officers in all facilities, respectively. BOP also 
maintains data on overtime costs for all BOP staff. Institutional 
overtime costs for all BOP regions totaled $102,877,891; $102,352,434; 
and $89,035,146 for each respective year. BOP officials said that the 
decline in fiscal year 2011 was due, in part, to reduced 
appropriations that year. 

[52] BOP established a Special Management Unit at Lewisburg 
Penitentiary in fiscal year 2008, and subsequently converted the 
entire facility to a Special Management Unit, with the exception of a 
unit housing general population high security inmates. 

[53] In our previous work [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-94], we reported that BOP's methods 
for estimating costs in its annual budget requests largely reflect the 
four best practices outlined in GAO, Cost Estimating and Assessment 
Guide: Best Practices for Developing and Managing Capital Program 
Costs, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-3SP] 
(Washington, D.C.: March 2009). 

[54] The study used calendar quarter data for 73 federal low, medium, 
and high security all male prisons from July 1996 through December 
2004, a period of increased prison crowding and increased inmate to 
correctional officer ratios. 

[55] We have ongoing work that focuses on BOP's Special Management 
Units and Special Housing Units. We expect to publish our results in 
early 2013. As part of our review, we are analyzing their effects on 
inmate misconduct. 

[56] As of January 31, 2012, BOP reported housing 1,664 male inmates 
in its Special Management Units. 

[57] In May 2011, the United States Supreme Court held in the case of 
Brown, Governor of California, v. Plata, 131 S.Ct. 1910, that a court-
mandated prison inmate population limit was necessary to remedy the 
violation of a federal right, specifically the severe and unlawful 
mistreatment of prisoners through grossly inadequate provision of 
medical and mental health care. The Court recognized that for years 
the medical and mental health care provided by California's prisons 
had fallen short of minimum constitutional requirements and had failed 
to meet prisoners' basic health needs with needless suffering and 
death being the well-documented result. The Court stated that 
overcrowding had overtaken the limited resources of prison staff, 
imposed demands well beyond the capacity of medical and mental health 
facilities, and created unsanitary and unsafe conditions that made 
progress in the provision of care difficult or impossible to achieve. 

[58] Controlled movement in high security facilities is often called 
restricted movement. 

[59] As of January 31, 2012, BOP reported housing 11,624 male inmates 
and 179 female inmates in Special Housing Units. 

[60] As part of our review on BOP's Special Management Units and 
Special Housing Units, we are analyzing their effects on inmate 
misconduct. We expect to publish our results in early 2013. 

[61] New York State Department of Correctional Services, Prison Safety 
in New York (Albany, New York: April 2006). 

[62] According to BOP Program Statement 5350.28, generally an inmate 
confined in a federal institution who does not have a verified GED 
credential or high school diploma is required to attend an adult 
literacy program for a minimum of 240 instructional hours or until a 
GED is achieved, whichever occurs first. 

[63] This program is funded by the BOP Inmate Trust Fund, which is 
maintained by profits from inmate purchases of commissary products, 
telephone services, and the fees inmates pay for using the inmate 
computer system. See GAO, Bureau of Prisons: Improved Evaluations and 
Increased Coordination Could Improve Cell Phone Detection, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-893] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 6, 
2011). 

[64] Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic 
Performance, Exec. Order No. 13514, 74 Fed. Reg. 52,117 (Oct. 5, 2009). 

[65] An inmate is permitted to exchange electronic messages only with 
persons who have accepted the inmate's request to communicate. For 
more information on BOP's use of electronic messaging, see [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-893]. 

[66] Actions taken by states and discussed in this section have been 
intended to reduce prison populations. However, a variety of factors 
and circumstances (e.g., new drug sentencing laws and a drop in drug-
related crime) may also have contributed to decreases in prison 
populations. 

[67] The Justice Reinvestment Initiative is administered by DOJ's 
Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, in 
coordination with related efforts supported by independent 
organizations (e.g., the Pew Center on the States). It provides 
technical assistance and competitive financial support to states and 
localities engaged in or well positioned to consider different 
investments in their justice and law enforcement dollars. When 
considering reinvestment, states and localities collect and analyze 
data on drivers of criminal justice populations and costs, identify 
and implement changes to increase efficiencies, and measure both the 
fiscal and public safety impacts of any changes. Wisconsin 
participated in the initiative in 2008, but was no longer 
participating in the initiative at the time of our review. 

[68] 18 U.S.C. § 4042(a)(2). See [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-320]. 

[69] The Second Chance Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-199, § 251(a), 122 
Stat. 657, 692-93, amended 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c) to enable BOP to place 
inmates in community corrections for up to 12 months and home 
detention for the shorter of 10 percent of the term of imprisonment or 
6 months. 

[70] According to the U.S. Parole Commission, offenders who are under 
the supervision of the commission and eligible for parole include 
inmates currently incarcerated for federal offenses committed prior to 
the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984; all District of Columbia offenders, 
as of August 5, 2000; the U.S. military prison population that has 
been transferred to federal correctional institutions; a few cases of 
Americans who have committed a crime in a foreign country; and 
offenders in the federal witness protection program. 

[71] Under 28 U.S.C. § 994(a), the commission is to promulgate and 
distribute to all of the courts of the United States and to the United 
States Probation System guidelines for use of a sentencing court in 
determining the sentence to be imposed in a criminal case, including 
(1) whether to impose a sentence to probation, a fine, or a term of 
imprisonment and (2) the appropriate amount of a fine or the length of 
a term of probation or imprisonment, among other things. Pursuant to 
28 U.S.C. § 994(p), generally, the commission is to submit to Congress 
amendments to the guidelines and modifications to previously submitted 
amendments that have not taken effect. 

[72] The federal sentencing guidelines provide federal judges with a 
set of consistent sentencing ranges to consult when determining a 
sentence. The guidelines consider both the seriousness of the criminal 
conduct and the defendant's criminal record. Federal courts must 
consult the sentencing guidelines and take them into account when 
sentencing, but are not bound to apply the guidelines. 

[73] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-320]. 

[74] The change to the sentencing guidelines for crack cocaine went 
into effect on November 1, 2007. As of June 2011, the Sentencing 
Commission reported that of the 25,736 inmate applicants for a 
sentence reduction, 16,511 (64.2 percent) had been granted their 
requests. Eligible inmates received an average sentence reduction of 
26 months. The Sentencing Commission was able to determine the origin 
of the motion for 15,016 of the inmates who were granted a sentence 
reduction. U.S. Sentencing Commission, U.S. Sentencing Commission 
Preliminary Crack Cocaine Retroactivity Data Report, June 2011 
(Washington, D.C.: June 2011). 

[75] In Ohio, generally parole is used for inmates convicted of crimes 
prior to July 1, 1996, when Ohio was under an indefinite sentencing 
structure. Most offenders who committed crimes after July 1, 1996, 
serve definite sentences, with a period of postrelease supervision for 
certain crimes upon their release from prison. 

[76] BOP refers to halfway houses as RRCs. 

[77] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-320]. 

[78] GAO, Federal Bureau of Prisons: Methods for Estimating 
Incarceration and Community Corrections Costs and Results of the 
Elderly Offender Pilot, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-807R] (Washington, D.C.: Jul. 27, 
2012). 

[79] Pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 47-5-138.1, a trusty time allowance 
is a reduction in sentence that may be granted in addition to any 
other administrative reduction in sentence to an offender in trusty 
status as defined by the classification board of the Department of 
Corrections. In this instance, "trusty" refers to those inmates who 
are eligible to receive an allowance of 30 days reduction of sentence 
for each 30 days of their participation during any calendar month in 
an approved program 

[80] Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2967.193. 

[81] Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2967.19. 

[82] Pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-6821, generally, the good time 
credit, which can be earned by an inmate and subtracted from any 
sentence, is limited to 15 percent of the prison part of the sentence 
for a crime committed on or after July 1, 1993, and increased to 20 
percent of the prison part of the sentence for certain crimes 
committed on or after January 1, 2008. 

[83] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-320]. 

[84] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-320]. 

[85] As authorized in statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b), BOP awards "up to 
54 days at the end of each year of the prisoner's term of 
imprisonment," or 54 days per year of sentence served. As applied by 
BOP, this results in 47 days earned per year of sentence imposed 
because inmates do not earn good conduct time for years they do not 
ultimately serve because of being released early. 

[86] BOP tracks inmates' earned good conduct time credit throughout 
their terms of imprisonment. 

[87] Under the Sentencing Reform Act, the U.S. Sentencing Commission 
established sentencing guidelines with the understanding that inmates 
would receive good conduct time credit so that their actual time 
served would be 85 percent of the length of the sentence imposed by 
the judge, assuming good behavior. BOP's method of awarding good 
conduct time, however, results in inmates serving more than 85 percent 
of their imposed sentences, even after earning the maximum good 
conduct time credit. 

[88] The additional credit would be awarded retroactively to inmates 
sentenced under the Sentencing Reform Act prior to the legislative 
change. For the hypothetical inmate with a 10-year sentence, the 
inmate would receive a total of 540 days of good conduct time. Thus 
the inmate would serve 3,110 days (85 percent) of the 3,650 days 
sentence. 

[89] Second Chance Reauthorization Act of 2011, S.1231, 112th Cong. § 
4(f) proposes to amend certain statutory provisions related to good 
conduct time in 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b)(1). As of August 2012, the 
legislative proposal has been introduced in the Senate but not the 
House. 

[90] We analyzed BOP's 2020 long-range capacity plan dated January 10, 
2012. 

[91] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-94]. 

[92] 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. 

[93] According to BOP officials, BOP also includes this information in 
its annual congressional budget request. 

[94] ACA's mission includes the development and promotion of effective 
standards for the care, custody, training, and treatment of offenders. 
As part of its accreditation process, a visiting committee of ACA 
auditors (1) audits the corrections agency or correctional facility 
against standards and expected practices documentation and (2) 
evaluates the quality of life or conditions of confinement. An 
acceptable quality of life is necessary for an agency to be eligible 
for accreditation. The quality of life in a facility includes staff 
training, cell size and time inmates spend outside the cells, current 
population, adequacy of medical services, offender programs, 
recreation, food service, classification, sanitation, use of 
segregation, crowding, and reported and/or documentation of incidents 
of violence. 

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

[96] See BJS, Prisoners in 2010 (Washington, D.C.: December 2011) and 
Prisoners in 2009 (Washington, D.C. December 2010). BJS is the 
statistical agency of DOJ. 

[97] The Justice Reinvestment Initiative, which is administered by 
DOJ's Bureau of Justice Assistance in the Office of Justice Programs 
in coordination with related efforts supported by independent 
organizations (e.g., the Pew Center on the States), provides technical 
assistance and competitive financial support to states and localities 
engaged in or well positioned to undertake justice reinvestment. The 
purpose of justice reinvestment is to manage and allocate criminal 
justice populations more cost-effectively, generating savings that can 
be reinvested in evidence-based strategies that increase public safety 
while holding offenders accountable. States and localities engaging in 
Justice Reinvestment Initiative activities collect and analyze data on 
drivers of criminal justice populations and costs, identify and 
implement changes to increase efficiencies, and measure both the 
fiscal and public safety impacts of those changes. According to 
Wisconsin officials, Wisconsin participated in the initiative in 2008, 
but was no longer participating in the initiative at the time of our 
review. 

[98] The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, Pub. L. No 98-473, 98 Stat. 
1987, changed the federal sentencing structure. The act was effective 
for offenses committed on or after November 1, 1987. 

[99] The U.S. Sentencing Commission is an independent agency in the 
judicial branch of government. Its principal purposes are (1) to 
establish sentencing policies and practices for the federal courts, 
including guidelines to be consulted regarding the appropriate form 
and severity of punishment for offenders convicted of federal crimes; 
(2) to advise and assist Congress and the executive branch in the 
development of effective and efficient crime policy; and (3) to 
collect, analyze, research, and distribute a broad array of 
information on federal crime and sentencing issues. 

[100] The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts is the central 
support entity for the judicial branch. It provides a wide range of 
administrative, legal, financial, management, program, and information 
technology services to the federal courts. 

[101] BOP officials explained that for reporting purposes they 
categorize inmates according to the offense for which an inmate is 
serving the longest sentence (dominant sentence offense). For example, 
an inmate may be serving sentences for both drug and immigration 
offenses, but BOP will categorize the inmate by the offense having the 
longer sentence (e.g., the drug offense). 

[102] BOP does not send non-U.S. citizen inmates to minimum security 
facilities because of their risk of flight. 

[103] BOP officials explained that BOP was able to convert the male 
facility because it had opened a new male facility and converted older 
male high security facilities to medium security facilities, thereby 
increasing the number of beds available for male inmates. 

[104] These projections are from BOP's 2020 capacity plan dated 
January 10, 2012. In November 2009, we concluded that BOP's 
projections were accurate, on average, to within 1 percent of the 
actual inmate population growth from fiscal year 1999 through August 
20, 2009. See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-94]. 

[105] BOP's 2020 long-range capacity plan, dated January 10, 2012, 
projects an increased capacity of 5,808 (43,239 to 49,047) beds and 
increased population of 3,812 (73,737 to 77,549) inmates in male 
medium security facility between fiscal years 2017 and 2020. In male 
high security facilities, the plan projects an increased capacity of 
7,200 (15,485 to 22,685) beds and increased population of 1,320 
(24,012 to 25,332) inmates from fiscal years 2017 and 2020. 

[106] 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 (1) this 
temporary living space is to be restored as program space when 
circumstances permit and (2) the additional bathrooms and other 
facilities required to meet permanent housing space specifications are 
not added to the infrastructure. Thus, such temporary use of space is 
not factored into BOP's rated capacity calculation. 

[107] BOP. The Effects of Changing Crowding and Staffing Levels in 
Federal Prisons on Inmate Violence Rates (Washington, D.C.: October 
2005). 

[108] Non-U.S. citizens or deportable aliens can participate in 
recreation programs (e.g., leisure, fitness, wellness, or sports 
activities). A deportable alien is an alien in the United States and 
admitted to the United States subject to any grounds of removal 
specified in the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1227. 
This includes any alien illegally in the United States, regardless of 
whether the alien entered the country by fraud or misrepresentation or 
entered legally but subsequently violated the terms of his or her 
nonimmigrant classification or status. 

[109] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-483]. 

[110] BOP also houses low security non-U.S. citizens in private 
contract facilities. BOP's contracts require the private providers to 
provide all programs (1) in accordance with the contract, which 
requires compliance with ACA standards and (2) as outlined in the 
contractors' technical proposals. According to BOP, most private 
contract facilities provide work and self-improvement opportunities to 
inmates. 

[111] According to BOP, non-U.S. citizens or deportable aliens housed 
in BOP facilities are exempt from the required participation in the 
GED program, but are encouraged to attend these courses. These inmates 
can also participate in English as a Second Language courses, adult 
continuing education classes (e.g., typing and computer literacy), a 
release preparation program, and parenting classes. Additionally, 
these inmates may participate in BOP's occupational education programs 
if BOP resources permit after meeting the needs of other eligible 
inmates. 

[112] BOP's Monthly Participation Reports provide a snapshot of 
program participation levels of inmates within BOP facilities. Figures 
for overall inmate participation do not duplicate. That is, if an 
inmate is enrolled in more than one program area (for example GED and 
parenting), the inmate's participation is counted only once. 

[113] Enrollment figures include participation in GED classes and 
programs BOP is piloting but has not yet implemented on a wider scale. 
BOP defines the literacy wait list to include those inmates who are 
capable of participating and willing to participate in the literacy 
program and who are not enrolled in the GED program, English as a 
Second Language (ESL) program, or a literacy pilot program. Snapshots 
of the literacy program waiting lists in January and February 2012 at 
the facilities we visited were Petersburg medium (250), Petersburg low 
(93), Lewisburg (13), Schuylkill (36), Leavenworth (187), and SeaTac 
(78). 

[114] Under 28 C.F.R. § 550.53(b), to be admitted into RDAP, inmates 
must meet the following criteria: (1) inmates must have a verifiable 
substance use disorder; (2) inmates must sign an agreement 
acknowledging program responsibility; and (3) when beginning the 
program, the inmate must be able to complete all components of the 
program. Under 28 C.F.R. § 550.55, inmates may be eligible for early 
release by a period not to exceed 12 months if they meet the following 
criteria: (1) were sentenced to a term of imprisonment under either 
(i) 18 U.S.C. Chapter 227, Subchapter D for a nonviolent offense 
(i.e., an inmate who committed a federal offense on or after November 
1, 1987, after the effective date of the Sentencing Reform Act of 
1987, also known as "new law."); or (ii) D.C. Code § 24-403.01 for a 
nonviolent offense, meaning an offense other than those included 
within the definition of "crime of violence" in D.C. Code § 23-
1331(4); and (2) successfully complete a RDAP during their current 
commitment. To receive the full-sentence reduction of 12 months, 
inmates are required to participate in the program for 27 months. "Old 
law" inmates who are parole eligible, may, at the U.S. Parole 
Commission's discretion, be considered for an advanced release date 
through an award of Superior Program Achievement. 

[115] For more on RDAP, see [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-320]. 

[116] 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 prisoners. Specifically, this 
section provided that in general, it is the policy of the federal 
government that convicted inmates confined in federal prisons, jails, 
and other detention facilities shall work. The type of work in which 
they will be involved shall be dictated by appropriate security 
considerations and by the health of the prisoner involved. A federal 
prisoner may be excused from the requirement to work only as 
necessitated by security considerations; disciplinary action; medical 
certification of disability such as would make it impracticable for 
prison officials to arrange useful work for the prisoner to perform; 
or a need for the prisoner to work less than a full work schedule in 
order to participate in literacy training, drug rehabilitation, or 
similar programs in addition to the work program. 

[117] 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. 

[118] Reentry refers to the transition of inmates from prisons or 
jails back into the community. It is BOP's philosophy that preparation 
for reentry begins on the first day of an inmate's incarceration. 

[119] William G. Saylor and Gerald G. Gaes. PREP: Training Inmates 
through Industrial Work Participation, and Vocational and 
Apprenticeship Instruction, Federal Bureau of Prisons (Washington, 
D.C.: Sept. 24, 1996), and Saylor and Gaes. The Differential Effect of 
Industries and Vocational Training on Post Release Outcome for Ethnic 
and Racial Groups, Federal Bureau of Prisons (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 
8, 1999). Recidivism generally refers to a former inmate's relapse 
into criminal behavior, and although agencies may measure recidivism 
in different manners, recidivism measures can include the rearrest, 
reconviction, or re-incarceration of former inmates. 

[120] The waiting lists by security level were minimum (638), low 
(2,549), medium (13,154), high (9,439), and maximum (569). The source 
for these data is Marketing Research & Corporate Support. 

[121] Through BOP's system for e-mail, inmates can communicate with a 
list of contacts, but they cannot access the Internet. Both inmates 
and persons in the community with whom they correspond must consent to 
having all incoming and outgoing electronic messages monitored and 
retained by BOP staff. 

[122] GAO, Bureau of Prisons: Improved Evaluations and Increased 
Coordination Could Improve Cell Phone Detection, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-893] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 6, 
2011). 

[123] According to BOP, this practice also affords security additional 
to that provided by uniformed correctional officers, as these 
administrators and staff are also trained correctional officers. 

[124] BOP's inmate discipline program is authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 
4042(a)(3). 

[125] BOP has four levels of offenses, ranging from level 100 to level 
400: greatest severity level (100) offenses (e.g., killing, serious 
assault, and possession of weapons), high severity level (200) 
offenses (e.g., fighting or threatening bodily harm), moderate 
severity level (300) offenses (e.g., being in an unauthorized area, 
refusing an order, or insolence), and low severity level (400) 
offenses (e.g., feigning illness). 

[126] Generally, BOP is authorized to award up to 54 days of good 
conduct time credit for each year served (which vests on the date the 
inmate is released). Good conduct time credit may be awarded to an 
inmate serving a sentence of more than 1 year, but less than life. The 
credit may be disallowed for an inmate found to have committed a 
prohibited act. Loss of good conduct time credit is a mandatory 
disciplinary sanction for Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement 
Act of 1994 violent inmates, Prison Reform Litigation Act inmates, and 
D.C. Code offenders pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 541.4. The amount of good 
conduct time disallowed is based upon the severity level of the 
offense and is a sanction that may only be imposed by the disciplinary 
hearing officer (DHO). The DHO may also sanction an inmate to 
forfeiture of good conduct time, if available, as good conduct time 
does not vest until the inmate is released. 

[127] BOP has two types of disciplinary hearings. One is conducted by 
the Unit Discipline Committee (UDC), which consists of two or more 
institution staff. The other type of hearing is conducted by the DHO, 
who works for the regional director. Initially, the UDC reviews the 
incident report. Depending on the severity of the prohibited act, the 
UDC may make a finding that the inmate did or did not commit the 
prohibited act or the UDC may refer the report to the DHO for a 
hearing. The DHO must make a final disposition on all greatest (100) 
and high (200) severity level offenses. The total number of UDC 
hearings increased from about 67,000 in fiscal year 2006 to about 
72,700 in fiscal year 2010, declining to about 70,800 in fiscal year 
2011. The total number of DHO hearings increased from about 53,000 in 
fiscal year 2006 to over 60,600 in fiscal year 2010 and then declined 
to about 59,600 in fiscal year 2011. 

[End of section] 

GAO’s Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the 
performance and accountability of the federal government for the 
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates 
federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, 
and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, 
and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is 
reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and 
reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO’s website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, 
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select 
“E-mail Updates.” 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black 
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s 
website, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

Connect with GAO: 

Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]; 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov; 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470. 

[End of document] 

Congressional Relations: 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, DC 20548. 

Public Affairs: 
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 
Washington, DC 20548.