This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-13-429 
entitled 'Bureau of Prisons: Improvements Needed in Bureau of Prisons' 
Monitoring and Evaluation of Impact of Segregated Housing' which was 
released on May 31, 2013. 

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: 

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

May 2013: 

Bureau of Prisons: 

Improvements Needed in Bureau of Prisons' Monitoring and Evaluation of 
Impact of Segregated Housing: 

GAO-13-429: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-13-429 a report to congressional requesters. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

BOP confines about 7 percent of its 217,000 inmates in segregated 
housing units for about 23 hours a day. Inmates are held in SHUs, 
SMUs, and ADX. GAO was asked to review BOP’s segregated housing unit 
practices. This report addresses, among other things: (1) the trends 
in BOP’s segregated housing population, (2) the extent to which BOP 
centrally monitors how prisons apply segregated housing policies, and 
(3) the extent to which BOP assessed the impact of segregated housing 
on institutional safety and inmates. GAO analyzed BOP’s policies for 
compliance and analyzed population trends from fiscal year 2008 
through February 2013. GAO visited six federal prisons selected for 
different segregated housing units and security levels, and reviewed 
61 inmate case files and 45 monitoring reports. The results are not 
generalizable, but provide information on segregated housing units. 

What GAO Found: 

The overall number of inmates in the Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP) three 
main types of segregated housing units-—Special Housing Units (SHU), 
Special Management Units (SMU), and Administrative Maximum (ADX)—-
increased at a faster rate than the general inmate population. Inmates 
may be placed in SHUs for administrative reasons, such as pending 
transfer to another prison, and for disciplinary reasons, such as 
violating prison rules; SMUs, a four-phased program in which inmates 
can progress from more to less restrictive conditions; or ADX, for 
inmates that require the highest level of security. From fiscal year 
2008 through February 2013, the total inmate population in segregated 
housing units increased approximately 17 percent-—from 10,659 to 
12,460 inmates. By comparison, the total inmate population in BOP 
facilities increased by about 6 percent during this period. 

BOP has a mechanism to centrally monitor segregated housing, but the 
degree of monitoring varies by unit type and GAO found incomplete 
documentation of monitoring at select prisons. BOP headquarters lacks 
the same degree of oversight of ADX-specific conditions of confinement 
compared with SHUs and SMUs partly because ADX policies are monitored 
locally by ADX officials. Developing specific requirements for ADX 
could provide BOP with additional assurance that inmates held at ADX 
are afforded their minimum conditions of confinement and procedural 
protections. According to a selection of monitoring reports and inmate 
case files, GAO also identified documentation concerns related to 
conditions of confinement and procedural protections, such as ensuring 
that inmates received all their meals and exercise as required. 
According to BOP officials, in December 2012, all SHUs and SMUs began 
using a new software program that could improve the ability to 
document conditions of confinement in SHUs and SMUs. However, BOP 
officials acknowledged the recently implemented software program may 
not address all the deficiencies GAO identified. Since BOP could not 
provide evidence that it addressed the documentation deficiencies, GAO 
cannot determine if it will mitigate the documentation concerns. BOP 
expects to complete a review of the new software program by 
approximately September 30, 2013, which should help determine the 
extent to which the software program addresses documentation 
deficiencies GAO identified. 

BOP has not assessed the impact of segregated housing on institutional 
safety or the impacts of long-term segregation on inmates. In January 
2013, BOP authorized a study of segregated housing; however, it is 
unclear to what extent the study will assess the extent to which 
segregated housing units contribute to institutional safety. As of 
January 2013, BOP is considering conducting mental health case reviews 
for inmates held in SHUs or ADX for more than 12 continuous months. 
However, without an assessment of the impact of segregation on 
institutional safety or study of the long-term impact of segregated 
housing on inmates, BOP cannot determine the extent to which 
segregated housing achieves its stated purpose to protect inmates, 
staff and the general public. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that BOP (1) develop ADX-specific monitoring 
requirements; (2) develop a plan that clarifies how BOP will address 
documentation concerns GAO identified, through the new software 
program; (3) ensure that any current study to assess segregated 
housing also includes reviews of its impact on institutional safety; 
and (4) assess the impact of long-term segregation. BOP agreed with 
these recommendations and reported it would take actions to address 
them. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-429]. For more 
information, contact David C. Maurer at (202) 512-9627 or 
maurerd@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

Segregated Housing Unit Population and Number of Cells Have Increased 
since Fiscal Year 2008: 

BOP's Monitoring of Segregated Housing Policies Varies by Type of 
Unit, and Some Facilities' Documentation Is Incomplete: 

BOP Estimates that Segregated Housing Costs More than Housing Inmates 
in General Population: 

BOP Has Not Evaluated the Impact of Segregated Housing Units on 
Institutional Safety or the Impacts of Long-Term Segregation on 
Inmates: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Communications Management Units: 

Appendix III: Location and Length of Stay in BOP Segregated Housing 
Units: 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Bureau of Prisons: 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Results of Our Independent Analysis of 51 Selected Inmate 
Case Files: Inmate Review and Procedural Protections Issues, Fiscal 
Years 2011-2012: 

Table 2: BOP Average Daily Inmate Costs per Capita by Security Level, 
BOP-wide, for Fiscal Year 2012: 

Table 3: BOP Estimated Daily Inmate Costs per Capita in Selection of 
Institutions and Different Types of Segregated Housing Units, by 
Security Level for Fiscal Year 2012: 

Table 4: Site Visits to BOP Institutions: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Comparison of Segregated Housing Unit Policies: SHU and SMU: 

Figure 2: Comparison of Segregated Housing Unit Policies: ADX: 

Figure 3: Required Procedures for Special Housing Unit (SHU)-
Disciplinary Segregation: 

Figure 4: Proportion of BOP Inmates in General Population and in 
Segregated Housing Types, as of February 2013: 

Figure 5: Trends in Inmate Population by Type of Segregated Housing 
Unit, Fiscal Year 2008 through February 2013: 

Figure 6: Special Housing Unit Cell, U.S. Penitentiary, Leavenworth, 
Kansas: 

Figure 7 : Outdoor Recreation Area, Special Management Unit, U.S. 
Penitentiary, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania: 

Figure 8: Interior of Single-Bunked Cell, U.S. Administrative Maximum 
Facility, Florence, Colorado: 

Figure 9: Outdoor Recreation Areas, U.S. Administrative Maximum 
Facility, Florence, Colorado: 

Figure 10: Common Findings from Our Analysis of 45 Monitoring Reports: 

Figure 11: Overview of Communications Management Units: 

Figure 12: Communications Management Unit Cell, Terre Haute, Indiana: 

Figure 13: Communications Management Unit Common Area, Marion, 
Illinois: 

Figure 14: Locations of Segregated Housing Units within BOP Facilities: 

Abbreviations: 

ACA: American Correctional Association: 

ADX: Administrative Maximum: 

BOP: Bureau of Prisons: 

CMU: Communications Management Unit: 

CPD: Correctional Programs Division: 

DHO: Discipline Hearing Officer: 

DOJ: Department of Justice: 

FCC: Federal Correctional Complex: 

GP: General Population: 

HQ: Headquarters: 

IPPA: Information, Policy, and Public Affairs Division: 

OJP: Office of Justice Programs: 

ORE: Office of Research and Evaluation: 

PDS: Psychology Data System: 

PRD: Program Review Division: 

SAM: Special Administrative Measure: 

SHU: Special Housing Unit: 

SMU: Special Management Unit: 

USP: United States Penitentiary: 

[End of section] 

May 1, 2013: 

The Honorable Richard J. Durbin: 
Chairman: 
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights: 
Committee on the Judiciary: 
United States Senate: 

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, Homeland Security, and 
Investigations: 
Committee on the Judiciary: 
House of Representatives: 

Since the late 1980s, America's federal prison population increased by 
more than 400 percent, accompanied by the use of certain types of 
segregated housing units where prisoners are kept apart from the 
general inmate population in at times highly restrictive conditions. 
The Department of Justice's (DOJ) Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is 
responsible for the custody and care of approximately 217,000 federal 
inmates.[Footnote 1] BOP's mission is to confine federal inmates in 
the controlled, safe, secure, humane, and cost-efficient environments 
of prisons and community-based facilities, and to provide work and 
other self-improvement opportunities to assist offenders in becoming 
law-abiding citizens. BOP operates several types of segregated housing 
units to separate inmates from the general inmate population for 
different purposes, such as administrative detention, disciplinary 
reasons, gang-related activity or assaulting staff. Specifically, 
these units are the (1) Special Housing Units (SHU), where inmates can 
be placed for administrative reasons, such as pending transfer to 
another prison, and for disciplinary reasons, such as violating prison 
rules; (2) Special Management Units (SMU), a four-level program in 
which inmates can progress from more restrictive to less restrictive 
conditions; and (3) the Administrative Maximum (ADX) facility in 
Florence, Colorado, for inmates that require the highest level of 
security. As of February 2013, BOP confined approximately 12,460 
federal inmates--or about 7 percent of inmates in BOP-operated 
facilities--in segregated housing units. According to BOP, these 
segregated housing units help ensure institutional safety for inmates 
and staff. Approximately 435 individuals in ADX are held in what is 
commonly referred to as solitary confinement, or single cells alone, 
for about 23 hours a day.[Footnote 2] 

There is little publicly available information on BOP's use of 
segregated housing units. Given the potential high costs, lack of 
research on their effectiveness, and possible long-term detrimental 
effects on inmates, you requested that we review BOP's segregated 
housing unit practices, including BOP's standards, reasons for 
segregating inmates, and costs. Specifically, this report addresses 
the following objectives: 

1. What were the trends in BOP's segregated housing unit population 
and number of cells from fiscal year 2008 through February 2013? 

2. To what extent does BOP centrally monitor how individual facilities 
document and apply policies guiding segregated housing units? 

3. To what extent has BOP assessed the costs to operate segregated 
housing units and how do the costs to confine an inmate in a 
segregated housing unit compare with the costs of confining an inmate 
in a general inmate population housing unit? 

4. To what extent does BOP assess the impact of segregated housing on 
institutional safety and the impacts of long-term segregation on 
inmates? 

Overall, to address our objectives, we reviewed BOP statutory 
authority and policies and procedures related to each type of 
segregated housing unit and interviewed BOP management officials 
responsible for inmate placement and security, monitoring and program 
compliance, facility and financial management, and research. To 
address our first objective, we obtained and analyzed BOP's inmate 
population and number of cells data for each type of segregated 
housing unit for the past 5 fiscal years to the most recent data 
available--from fiscal year 2008 through February 2013. We also 
compared the total inmate population in BOP-operated facilities with 
the total segregated housing unit population data to identify trends 
in the segregated housing unit population as a share of the total 
inmate population in BOP-operated facilities during this period. We 
assessed the reliability of BOP's segregated housing unit inmate 
population and cell data by reviewing relevant documentation, 
interviewing knowledgeable agency officials about how they maintain 
the integrity of their data, and examining the data for obvious errors 
and inconsistencies. We found the segregated housing unit inmate 
population and cell data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes 
of this report. We also interviewed BOP headquarters officials to 
discuss reasons for the trends in BOP's segregated housing unit inmate 
population and cells. 

To address our second objective, we assessed BOP's monitoring for each 
type of segregated housing unit by reviewing monitoring policies, 
guidelines and reports. We analyzed BOP's segregated housing unit 
policies and monitoring guidance and compared them against criteria in 
Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. We also 
analyzed BOP's policies and procedures pertinent to the monitoring of 
individual prisons' compliance with BOP policies, including those of 
BOP's Program Review Division (PRD), which leads monitoring reviews. 
In addition, to observe the conditions of confinement, procedural 
protections and inmate placement in segregated housing, we conducted 
visits to 6 of BOP's 119 institutions. We chose these institutions to 
reflect a range in the types of segregated housing units and security 
levels.[Footnote 3] Although the results of our site visits are not 
generalizable, they provided insights about BOP monitoring. Further, 
to assess the methodology and system BOP employs to monitor, identify, 
and address deficiencies at prisons, we requested a selection of 
monitoring reports from BOP, which BOP provided for a variety of 
facilities. Specifically, we analyzed 45 of 187 PRD monitoring reports 
from 20 of 98 prisons from fiscal years 2007 to 2011. We also reviewed 
related follow-up monitoring reports to determine the extent that 
these prisons resolved deficiencies. Further, we independently 
assessed compliance with segregated housing policies for selected 
inmates at 2 institutions we visited. For example, we selected a 
random sample of 61 case files from inmates housed in segregated 
housing units, including SHUs. Although our selection of case files 
was not generalizable to all inmates in all types of segregated 
housing units, it provided insights into whether these 2 institutions 
were following BOP policy. We also reviewed information related to 
BOP's new software program, that includes the SHU application, and 
compared it against best practices for project management and criteria 
in BOP's monitoring documentation policies. 

To address the third objective, we reviewed BOP fiscal year 2012 
average inmate per capita costs for institutions at each security 
classification: high security, medium security, low security, minimum 
security, administrative, and Federal Correctional Complex.[Footnote 
4] Further, we analyzed a BOP estimate of fiscal year 2012 inmate per 
capita costs that BOP provided in January 2013. We interviewed 
knowledgeable BOP officials to understand their processes for 
developing these cost data and estimates, and we found the average 
inmate per capita costs and estimated inmate per capita costs data to 
be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. We also used 
BOP's estimated segregated housing unit versus general population 
housing inmate per capita cost data, combined with fiscal year 2012 
BOP inmate population data, to illustrate the possible costs of 
housing the inmate population in segregated housing units compared 
with the costs of housing these same inmates in general population 
housing for fiscal year 2012. 

To address the fourth objective, we analyzed BOP's policies, including 
program objectives, for each segregated housing unit and policies 
governing the provision of mental health services to inmates in 
segregated housing units. We also reviewed BOP lockdown information 
from fiscal years 2007 through 2012. In addition, we interviewed 
senior BOP officials to discuss the extent that BOP has assessed the 
impact of segregated housing on institutional safety and their views 
on the impact of long-term segregation on inmates. Further, we 
identified and reviewed actions five states have taken regarding 
segregated housing units. We selected these five states because they 
were involved in addressing segregated housing unit reform and had 
taken actions to reduce the number of inmates in segregated housing 
units. For each of the five selected states, we reviewed relevant 
documents on segregated housing, including placement policies, and we 
interviewed corrections officials in these states to understand the 
reasons for and impact of segregated housing unit reforms. We visited 
correctional facilities in two of the five states--Kansas and 
Colorado. While the results from our interviews are not representative 
of all prisons, they provided us with perspectives on state actions. 
We also analyzed studies and reports that describe, evaluate, or 
analyze the impact of segregated housing units on institutional safety 
and inmates held in these units. We compared BOP's mechanisms for 
evaluating the impact of segregated housing units on institutional 
safety, and the impacts of long-term segregation on inmates, with 
BOP's policies and mission statements. Appendix I includes more 
details about our scope and methodology. 

We conducted this performance audit from January 2012 to April 2013 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions for our audit objectives. We believe that the 
evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Background: 

BOP operates three main types of segregated housing units: (1) SHUs, 
(2) SMUs, and (3) the ADX facility in Florence, Colorado.[Footnote 5] 
BOP also operates Communications Management Units (CMU), where 
conditions of confinement are similar to general population and 
inmates are allowed to congregate outside their cells for up to 16 
hours per day. For information about CMUs see appendix II. According 
to BOP policy, all three types of segregated housing units have the 
same purpose, which is to separate inmates from the general inmate 
population to protect the safety, security, and orderly operation of 
BOP facilities, and to protect the public. However, the specific 
placement criteria and conditions of confinement vary for each type of 
segregated housing unit. In addition, inmates in SHUs, SMUs, and ADX 
are confined to their cells approximately 23 hours per day.[Footnote 
6] See figures 1 and 2 for a comparison of differences among the three 
units. 

Figure 1: Comparison of Segregated Housing Unit Policies: SHU and SMU: 

[Refer to PDF for image: policy comparison] 

Special Housing Units (SHU): 

Referral: 
Inmates placed in SHU are in either administrative detention or 
disciplinary segregation status: 

Administrative detention (AD): Inmates who are pending security 
classification or reclassification of the inmate’s security or program 
needs, in holdover status during a transfer to a facility or other 
location, or removed from the general inmate population because they 
pose a threat to other inmates and staff and meet additional 
criteria.[A] Placement in AD is intended to be temporary and 
nonpunitive. 

Disciplinary segregation (DS): Possible sanction for inmates who 
violate rules. Length of stay is based on severity of offense.[B] 

Procedural policies: 

* Inmates placed in AD are not provided a hearing, but inmates placed 
in DS are to receive an inmate discipline hearing. (See figure 3.) 
Inmates are to be provided an opportunity to attend the hearing and 
make a statement, present documentary evidence, request witnesses, and 
have a staff representative. 

* All inmates placed in AD are to receive a notice of reasons for 
placement within 24 hours of placement in SHU, except inmates pending 
transfer or in holdover status, and a review of their supporting 
records within 3 work days.  

* The Segregation Review Official (SRO) is to review the status of 
each inmate regularly, generally after 7 days of continuous placement, 
and after every 30 days, SRO is to formally review inmate status at a 
hearing that the inmate can attend. 

General conditions of confinement: 

* Mostly double-bunked.
* Minimum 5 hours of out-of-cell exercise per week. 
* May shower/shave at least three times per week.
* One phone call per month, unless restricted as disciplinary sanction. 
* Minimum 4 hours visiting per month. 
* Inmates eat all meals inside cells. 
* In AD, inmates are to have access to programming (e.g., education) 
to extent institutional safety and order and public safety are not 
jeopardized.
* In DS, inmates may have their participation in programming suspended.
* In DS, inmates are to have their personal property impounded, except 
for legal materials, limited reading/writing, and religious items, and 
commissary privileges may be limited, 

Number of cells and population[C]: 
Number of cells: 7,381 cells; 
Population: 10,050. 

Special Management Units (SMU)[D]: 

Referral: 
BOP may consider designating an inmate to a SMU who (1) participated 
in or had a leadership role in disruptive geographical group/gang-
related activity; (2) has a history of serious disruptive disciplinary 
infractions; (3) committed any greatest severity level prohibited acts 
after being classified a member of a disruptive group, among other 
reasons. 

* Referral of inmates to SMUs must be approved by the warden of the 
facility where the inmate is housed and the Regional Director. 
* If the Regional Director determines sufficient evidence exists, he 
or she will appoint a Hearing Administrator to conduct a hearing. 

Procedural policies: 
* Inmates are to be provided a hearing, including an opportunity to 
attend, and make an oral statement, present documentary evidence and 
written witness statements, and have a staff member assist in 
obtaining these documents. 
* SMU staff are to review inmates initially within 28 days of 
placement and in conjunction with periodic reviews of the inmate’s 
program progress and needs every 180 days thereafter. The inmate may 
attend these reviews. 
* SMU staff also are to review each inmate every 90 days in levels 1 
through 3, and every 30 days in level 4 to assess the inmate’s 
readiness to progress to the next level. 

General conditions of confinement 
* Ordinarily conditions are to be made less restrictive when an inmate 
progresses from level 1 to level 4. 
* Mostly double-bunked. 
* Five hours of out-of-cell exercise per week. 
* May shower/shave at least three times per week. 
* Minimum two completed calls per month, may be increased by level.
* Correspondence and telephone calls subject to monitoring for 
intelligence purposes. 
* Telephone calls live-monitored where feasible.
* Minimum 4 hours visiting per month.
* May be provided noncontact visits through videoconference or other 
technology.
* Inmates eat all meals inside cells. 

Number of cells and population: 
Number of cells: 1,270; 
Population: 1,960. 

Source: GAO analysis of BOP information; Art Explosion (clip art). 

[A] According to BOP policy, BOP may place inmates in SHU-
administrative detention status who are removed from the general 
population because they pose a threat to other inmates and staff or 
the orderly running of an institution and are (1) under investigation 
or awaiting a hearing for possibly violating a BOP rule or criminal 
law, (2) pending transfer to another facility or location, (3) placed 
in a SHU for the inmate's own protection, or (4) in post-disciplinary 
detention status. 

[B] BOP lists 91 different types of prohibited acts, which have 
different punitive measures depending on their severity, including 
greatest, high, moderate, and low severity acts. Examples of greatest 
severity prohibited acts are killing, attempted or accomplished 
serious physical assaults and encouraging others to riot. Examples of 
high severity prohibited acts are fighting with others and threatening 
bodily harm. Examples of moderate severity prohibited acts are 
indecent exposure, and refusing to obey an order. Inmates who commit 
low severity offenses are not eligible to receive disciplinary 
segregation as a sanction. 

[C] BOP provided SHU number of cells data as of fiscal year 2012, and 
SMU number of cells data as of November 2012. The population data for 
both SHUs and SMUs is as of February 2013. Also, the total SHU 
population does not include inmates in SHUs within the Florence 
Administrative Maximum facility or SHUs within SMUs. These SHU inmates 
are counted under the ADX and SMU total inmate populations, 
respectively. For example, the total SMU population in figure 1 
includes inmates in the SHU within each SMU. 

[D] SMUs consist of a four-level, 18-to 24-month program. According to 
BOP policy, an inmate may progress through the levels depending on his 
compliance with behavioral expectations, ability to demonstrate 
positive "community" interaction skills, and preparedness to function 
in a general population setting with inmates from various group 
affiliations. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 2: Comparison of Segregated Housing Unit Policies: ADX: 

[Refer to PDF for image: policy comparison] 

Florence Administrative Maximum Facility (ADX)[A]: 

Referral: 
Inmates whose placement in another facility poses a risk to the safety 
of inmates, staff, or the public or good order of the facility; and/or 
inmates whose status before or after incarceration does not allow them 
to be safely housed in another facility. BOP has identified several 
factors to be considered when determining whether inmates meet one or 
both of the above criteria. Referrals of all inmates to ADX must be 
approved by the Regional Director (RD); Chief of BOP’s Designation and 
Sentence Computation Center; and the Assistant Director, Correctional 
Programs Division. 

Procedural policies: 
All inmates are to receive a hearing prior to placement in ADX. 
Inmates may attend the hearing, make an oral statement, and present 
documentary evidence to the Hearing Administrator.[B] 

General conditions of confinement: 
* Nearly all single cells[C]; 
* Inmates consume all meals inside cells, except inmates in Special 
Security Unit (SSU) phase 3 and Step Down Unit phases 3 and 4. 

Number of cells and population[D]: 
Number of cells: 623; 
Population: 450. 

Control Unit: 

Referral: 
Inmates who are unable to function in a less restrictive environment 
without posing a threat to others or institutional order. Initial 
referral: (a) The warden of the facility where the inmate is housed 
must make a recommendation based on very specific criteria; 
(b) The RD of that region is to review recommendation; (c) If the RD 
concurs, RD is to forward to the RD of the North Central Region, where 
the control unit is located, who is to designate a Hearing 
Administrator to conduct a hearing.[E] 

Procedural policies: 
* Inmates may attend the hearing, present documentary evidence, call 
witnesses, and receive assistance from a staff representative.
* After the hearing, the Hearing Administrator is to give a copy of 
the decision to the inmate and to the Executive Panel for final review 
and placement decision.
* Inmates are to be reviewed within 4 weeks of placement in unit, and 
receive a copy of their reason for placement and expected length of 
stay.
* The Unit Team is to conduct monthly reviews of the inmate’s status, 
and the Executive Panel is to review each inmate’s placement on a 
quarterly basis.[F] 

General conditions of confinement: 
* Seven hours of individual, out-of-cell exercise per week.
* Three-staff escort and hand and leg restraints when escorted outside 
cell.
* Showers in cell.
* One 15-minute social phone call per month. 
* Up to five visits per month. 

Population: 78. 

Special Security Unit (SSU): 

Referral: 
Inmates who have more restrictive measures, or special administrative 
measures (SAM), imposed by the Attorney General[G]. 

Procedural policies: 
Each inmate’s SAM is reviewed annually to determine SAM renewal or 
modifications. Inmate may provide related documentation and may meet 
with BOP and FBI staff to discuss any related issues. 

General conditions of confinement: 
* The SSU is a three-phase program. Inmates are to be kept in 
increasingly less restrictive conditions based on program progress. 
* Minimum 10 hours of out-of-cell exercise per week.
* Two staff escorts and hand restraints in phase 1. 
* Minimum three showers per week.
* All nonlegal communication is to be provided per inmate’s SAM.
* All nonlegal mail is reviewed.
* Two to four social calls a month.
* Calls and visits contemporaneously monitored by FBI and recorded.
* Visits supervised by staff.
* Inmates eat all meals inside cells, except in phase 3, in which 
inmates may have minimum of one meal per month with up to three other 
inmates.
* Other conditions, such as number of calls and time outside cell, are 
to increase from phases 1 to 3. 

Population: 30. 

General Population (GP) and Step Down Units: 

Referral: 
Inmates who meet ADX placement criteria. Purpose of program is to 
monitor an inmate’s adjustment to GP, with increased privileges and 
recreation time. 

Procedural policies: 
During regular program reviews, inmates may be present and ask 
questions about their placement. 

General conditions of confinement: 
* GP and Step Down units constitute a four-phase, minimum 36-month 
program; inmates are to be kept in increasingly less restrictive 
conditions based on progress through program.
* Minimum 10 hours out-of-cell exercise per week
* Shower stalls inside each cell in phase 1; inmates may shower at any 
time they are on the range in phases 2 to 4.
* Two-officer escorts, hand restraints behind back (except phase 4, no 
restraints).
* Two to four social calls a month. 
* May increasingly interact with more inmates for more hours per day 
in phases 3 and 4. 

Population: 275. 

Source: GAO analysis of BOP information; Art Explosion (clip art). 

[A] The ADX houses BOP inmates who require the tightest controls. The 
ADX operates five types of housing unit programs: the Control Unit, a 
Special Housing Unit, the Special Security Unit, General Population 
Units, and the Intermediate Phase (Phase 2) of the Step Down Program. 
The Transitional Phase (Phase 3) and Pre-Transfer Phase (Phase 4) of 
the ADX Step Down Program are physically located in the United States 
Penitentiary (USP) Florence (high security) facility. 

[B] If the Designation and Sentence Computation Center (DSCC) staff 
determine the inmate warrants consideration for ADX placement, the 
Chief, DSCC, is to forward the referral packet to the BOP National 
Discipline Hearing Administrator, who is to designate a Hearing 
Administrator who is experienced in working with and observing inmates 
and is familiar with the criteria for inmate placement in different 
institutions, with an emphasis on ADX. 

[C] Inmates may be reviewed to be placed in a double-bunked cell, 
after an initial placement of three months in a single cell in Phase 4. 

[D] BOP provided the number of cells data as of fiscal year 2012. The 
population data are as of February 2013. The ADX number of cells and 
population data include the total number of ADX cells and population 
physically located in ADX, including the ADX SHU, and the total number 
of cells and population in Phases 3 and 4 of the ADX Step Down Unit, 
physically located at USP Florence. For example, the total ADX 
population includes inmates held in the ADX SHU (67 inmates). 

[E] For more information about BOP policies related to the ADX Control 
Unit, see BOP program statement 5212.07 (February 20, 2001), available 
on BOP's website. 

[F] The Executive Panel is composed of the Regional Director of the 
region where the control unit is located and the Assistant Director, 
Correctional Programs Division. 

[G] Special administrative measures (SAM), which must be authorized by 
the Attorney General, primarily limit communication with others, 
through restricted telephone, correspondence, and visiting privileges. 
SAMs based on a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury may 
be imposed for a period of up to 120 days, or, with the approval of 
the Attorney General, up to one year and may be renewed. SAMs based on 
national security threat may be imposed for a period of up to 1 year 
and may be renewed. The BOP Director may renew special restrictions 
within the SAMs if the Attorney General or federal law enforcement or 
intelligence agency provides written notification of continued 
substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury or threat to 
national security related to the inmate's communications or contacts 
with other persons. See 28 C.F.R. §§ 501.2, 501.3. 

[End of figure] 

BOP Segregated Housing Unit Policies: 

BOP has specific procedural and conditions of confinement policies 
that govern each of the three types of segregated housing units. For 
example, BOP's procedural policies govern how determinations are made 
to place inmates in each type of segregated housing unit. These 
determinations vary based on the level of security and supervision an 
inmate requires as well as any prohibited acts committed (e.g., 
assault against staff or gang activity). BOP policies require hearings 
to determine whether an inmate should be placed in an SMU, SHU-
disciplinary segregation, or ADX.[Footnote 7] In general, a discipline 
hearing officer (DHO) not involved in the alleged infraction presides 
over the hearing, and inmates have a right to testify and call 
witnesses. (See figure 3 for the required procedures for SHU-
disciplinary segregation). In addition, BOP's procedural policies 
state that staff are to periodically review inmates' status to 
determine whether they should remain in SHUs, SMUs, and ADX.[Footnote 
8] 

Figure 3: Required Procedures for Special Housing Unit (SHU)-
Disciplinary Segregation: 

[Refer to PDF for image: process illustration] 

Staff become aware of inmate’s involvement in incident. 
Ordinarily maximum of 24 hours: 

Staff give inmate notice of charges by delivering incident report; 
The Investigating Officer, a supervisory officer not involved in the 
incident, investigates the incident; 
The inmate may provide a statement. 
Maximum ordinarily of 5 work days from the time staff become aware of 
the inmate’s involvement in the incident. (Excludes the day staff 
become aware of the inmate’s involvement, weekends, and holidays.) 

Unit Disciplinary Committee (UDC) review: 
* UDC reviews incident report after investigation is complete; 
* Inmate may appear before the UDC, make an oral statement, and 
present documentary evidence; 
* UDC cannot impose a sanction of SHU-disciplinary segregation; 
* UDC will refer incident report to the Discipline Hearing Officer 
(DHO) for further review, based on severity of prohibited acts charged. 
Minimum of 24 hours (unless waived). 

Discipline Hearing Officer (DHO) hearing: 
* Inmate may be present at hearing, present documentary evidence, and 
has a right to call witnesses and have a staff representative; 
* Inmate is given a copy of the DHO hearing decision, ordinarily 
within 15 work days of decision; 
* Inmate is notified of his right to file administrative remedy. 

Source: GAO analysis of BOP documents. 

[End of figure] 

Further, according to BOP regulations, BOP administers an 
Administrative Remedy Program which includes formal procedural 
protections and provides all inmates in its custody--including those 
in segregated housing units--a method for filing a complaint about 
their placement, treatment or conditions while in custody, including 
placement in a segregated housing unit.[Footnote 9] In addition, BOP 
has specific policies governing the conditions of confinement of 
inmates by segregated housing unit, such as minimum number of hours of 
exercise per week, minimum number of telephone calls and visits, and 
other privileges. 

BOP also requires all of its facilities to be accredited and follow 
standards developed by the American Correctional Association (ACA). 
[Footnote 10] BOP policies state that all facilities, security level 
and housing unit notwithstanding, must provide the same minimum 
conditions of confinement, including clean housing units; 
nutritionally adequate meals that meet dietary requirements (such as 
vegetarian or religious diet); access to educational, occupational, 
and leisure time programming; basic medical and mental health care; 
and access to a chaplain and basic religious items according to the 
inmate's religious beliefs. 

According to BOP officials, BOP does not hold anyone in solitary 
confinement because BOP staff frequently visit inmates held in single-
bunked cells alone.[Footnote 11] BOP officials stated BOP staff 
regularly interact with inmates during their required monitoring 
rounds and while providing meals to inmates. In addition, BOP 
officials stated that inmates who are in single cells can interact 
with other inmates during recreation while in either the same or 
separate recreation areas and they are also able to talk to each other 
in adjoining cells. However, inmates in these three types of 
segregated housing units are subject to more restrictive conditions of 
confinement than their counterparts in the general population. 

Population of Segregated Housing Units: 

BOP has segregated housing units in prisons located throughout the 
country. (See appendix III for more information about the location of 
segregated housing units). With more inmates held under more 
restrictive conditions, often for months or years at a time, 
segregated housing represents an important part of BOP's effort to 
achieve its goal of confining inmates in a safe, secure, and cost-
efficient environment. Of all federal inmates in BOP facilities, about 
7 percent are held in segregation and, as of February 2013, BOP held 
the majority of segregated inmates--81 percent, or 10,050 inmates--in 
SHUs. The second largest population held in segregation is SMU 
inmates, who comprise about 16 percent of all segregated inmates, or 
about 1,960 inmates. ADX holds 450 inmates, including 15 inmates in 
the ADX Step Down Units at the high security United States 
Penitentiary (USP) Florence. See figure 4 for inmate population by 
segregated unit type as a percentage of the total inmate population in 
BOP facilities as of February 2013. 

Figure 4: Proportion of BOP Inmates in General Population and in 
Segregated Housing Types, as of February 2013: 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

Inmate population in general population housing units: 92.9%; 
Inmate population in segregated housing units: 7.1%: 
* Special Housing Units: 5.7%; 
* Special Management Units: 1.1%; 
* Florence Administrative Maximum: 0.3%. 

Source: GAO analysis of BOP data. 

[End of figure] 

Segregated Housing Unit Population and Number of Cells Have Increased 
since Fiscal Year 2008: 

From fiscal year 2008 through February 2013, the total inmate 
population in segregated housing units increased approximately 17 
percent--from 10,659 to 12,460 inmates.[Footnote 12] The total inmate 
population in segregated housing units increased since fiscal year 
2008, but the trends in inmate population vary by type of segregated 
housing unit. By comparison, the total inmate population in BOP 
facilities increased by about 6 percent since fiscal year 2008. In 
addition, the total number of segregated housing cells in BOP 
facilities increased by nearly 16 percent.[Footnote 13] The main 
reason for the increase in segregated inmates was the creation of the 
SMU program in fiscal year 2008. 

SHUs. From fiscal year 2008 through February 2013, the total SHU 
population remained about the same at 10,070 and 10,050, respectively. 
[Footnote 14] BOP generally double-bunks inmates in SHUs; however, BOP 
has the capability to hold some SHU inmates in single cells. For 
example, as of November 2012, BOP had 6,731 double-bunked SHU cells 
and 360 single-bunked SHU cells. BOP officials also stated they may 
add beds to some SHU cells to accommodate the population at a given 
facility.[Footnote 15] 

SMUs. As shown in figure 5, from fiscal year 2008 through February 
2013, the SMU population increased at a faster rate than SHUs and ADX--
from 144 inmates in fiscal year 2008 to 1,960 inmates as of February 
2013.[Footnote 16] BOP developed SMU capacity by converting existing 
housing units in five BOP facilities to 1,270 total SMU cells, as of 
November 2012. By March 2013, BOP closed SMUs in two facilities and 
moved those SMU inmates into other SMUs or released them from prison 
after serving their sentence. 

ADX. From fiscal year 2008 through February 2013, the total ADX inmate 
population declined by approximately 5 percent from 475 inmates to 450 
inmates. During this period, ADX cells remained stable at 623 
cells.[Footnote 17] According to BOP officials, the ADX population has 
declined overall since 2008 because of the transfer of inmates out of 
ADX Step Down to the general population of another high security 
prison or because inmates are being placed in SMUs instead of being 
placed in ADX. (See figure 5 for the trends in population growth for 
SHUs, SMUs, and ADX from fiscal year 2008 through February 2013). 

Figure 5: Trends in Inmate Population by Type of Segregated Housing 
Unit, Fiscal Year 2008 through February 2013: 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Fiscal year: 2008; 
Administrative Maximum: 475; 
Special Management Units: 114; 
Special Housing Units: 10,070. 

Fiscal year: 2009; 
Administrative Maximum: 453; 
Special Management Units: 927; 
Special Housing Units: 10,879. 

Fiscal year: 2010; 
Administrative Maximum: 440; 
Special Management Units: 1,377; 
Special Housing Units: 10,963. 

Fiscal year: 2011; 
Administrative Maximum: 447; 
Special Management Units: 1,518; 
Special Housing Units: 11,110. 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Administrative Maximum: 457; 
Special Management Units: 1,987; 
Special Housing Units: 11,046. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Administrative Maximum: 450; 
Special Management Units: 1,960; 
Special Housing Units: 10,050. 

Source: GAO analysis of BOP data. 

[End of figure] 

BOP's Monitoring of Segregated Housing Policies Varies by Type of 
Unit, and Some Facilities' Documentation Is Incomplete: 

BOP Monitors Compliance Differently across the Three Types of 
Segregated Housing: 

BOP Headquarters (HQ) has a mechanism in place to centrally monitor 
how prisons implement most segregated housing unit policies, but the 
degree of BOP monitoring varies depending on the type of segregated 
housing unit. In addition, we identified concerns related to 
facilities' documentation of monitoring conditions of confinement and 
procedural protections. 

BOP monitors the extent to which individual prisons implement BOP 
policies. BOP's monitoring includes specific steps to check compliance 
with requirements for SHUs and SMUs, but not for ADX. BOP's Program 
Review Division is to perform reviews at least once every 3 years to 
ensure compliance with BOP policies. However, BOP can review prisons 
more frequently if it identifies performance deficiencies. These 
follow-ups can occur at 6-month, 18-month, 2-year or 3-year intervals. 
[Footnote 18] These PRD reviews assess compliance with a variety of 
BOP policies for inmates in the general population prison and 
segregated housing. For example, PRD assesses compliance with BOP 
policies on conditions of confinement, such as whether inmates are 
given three meals a day, provided exercise time 5 days a week, and are 
allowed telephone and other privileges. Following a review at a 
facility, PRD issues a program review report, noting deficiencies and 
findings at the BOP facility. These PRD monitoring reviews are done on 
a prison complex basis, which may include a variety of housing types, 
including low, minimum, medium, high security prisons, and the three 
types of segregated housing units (e.g., SHUs, SMUs, and ADX). 

To help HQ ensure that PRD monitoring teams are consistently assessing 
the extent that individual prisons are complying with general BOP 
correctional program and correctional services policies, BOP provides 
training for all program review staff. Additionally, new PRD staff are 
provided training and accompany experienced staff before being allowed 
to conduct a review independently.[Footnote 19] This training also 
covers examiner independence and how to conduct program reviews. BOP 
also has a system designed to address problems identified at the 
individual prisons, including PRD follow-up with each prison to assess 
whether PRD recommendations were implemented. For example, PRD 
requires individual prisons to issue reports within 30 days to explain 
how they implemented the PRD recommendations to address problems 
identified in program reviews. If PRD determines that the prison 
response is insufficient, PRD can request that the prison take 
corrective actions in a subsequent follow-up report. 

We reviewed 43 PRD follow-up reports and found that PRD concluded that 
the facilities generally addressed deficiencies identified in all of 
the 43 reports. For example, one follow-up report was completed within 
30 days and identified steps taken by the prison to address each of 
the four problem areas--administrative operations, operational 
security, inmate management, and intelligence operations--identified 
in the PRD report. To address one of the deficiencies related to 
improper documentation of exercise, meals, and supervisor assignments 
in SHUs, PRD required additional training for the SHU staff. Following 
training, the prison determined that it was in compliance with the 
relevant requirement, deficiencies were addressed and PRD closed the 
recommendation. As part of PRD's monitoring process, once the 
facilities document steps taken to address deficiencies in their 
follow-up reports, PRD determines whether to close the recommendations. 

As part of the monitoring process discussed above, PRD also checks 
compliance with selected SHU-and SMU-specific policies, but has no 
requirement to monitor ADX-specific policies. According to 
documentation that BOP provided, we determined that BOP's monitoring 
system is designed to assess whether individual BOP prisons are in 
compliance with SHU and SMU procedural policies, such as why an inmate 
is placed in segregation, and with the specific conditions of 
confinement. For example, BOP's SHU policy requires that prison staff 
review the inmate's status within 3 days of being placed in 
administrative detention. To assess compliance with this SHU policy, 
BOP monitoring guidance requires PRD staff to review whether the 
inmate's status was reviewed within 3 days of being placed in 
administrative detention as required. In addition, PRD also is to 
verify that prisons completed their quarterly audits and operational 
reviews to ensure that procedural protections for inmates have been 
followed and that inmates are housed according to BOP policies. 
[Footnote 20] However, as discussed below, BOP does not have 
requirements in place to monitor similar compliance for ADX-specific 
policies. BOP's monitoring policies for each type of segregated 
housing unit are described below. 

SHU. BOP policies require that PRD monitor SHU policies and review 
documentation of 10 percent of inmates held in SHUs in each facility. 
BOP policies also require PRD to select 10 inmate files from those 
held in SHU disciplinary segregation for a review of procedural 
protections and disciplinary procedures. Further, BOP requires PRD to 
monitor SHU specific policies that cover additional requirements to 
monitor conditions of confinement and procedural protections.[Footnote 
21] BOP incorporates ACA monitoring standards as part of its SHU 
policy. See figure 6 for a photographic example of a SHU cell, which 
PRD is required to monitor to ensure the prison provides conditions of 
confinement for inmates held in SHUs. 

Figure 6: Special Housing Unit Cell, U.S. Penitentiary, Leavenworth, 
Kansas: 

[Refer to PDF for image: photograph] 

Source: BOP. 

[End of figure] 

SMU. According to BOP policy, PRD is required to monitor a prison's 
compliance with SMU-specific policies, including those SMU-specific 
policies that require prisons to provide specific conditions of 
confinement and procedural protections. PRD reviews are required to 
check compliance with nine SMU-specific policies such as providing 
inmates with 5 hours of recreation per week; an opportunity to shower 
a minimum of three times per week; and access to visits, 
correspondence, and medical and mental health care. According to BOP 
officials, BOP incorporates ACA monitoring standards as part of its 
SMU policy. BOP also requires PRD to review 25 SMU inmate case files 
that cover conditions of confinement for SMU inmates. See figure 7 for 
a photographic example of a SMU recreation area, which PRD is required 
to monitor to ensure the prison provides conditions of confinement for 
inmates held in SMUs. 

Figure 7: Outdoor Recreation Area, Special Management Unit, U.S. 
Penitentiary, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania: 

[Refer to PDF for image: photograph] 

Source: BOP. 

[End of figure] 

ADX. ADX inmates are included in any PRD program review that covers 
the entire Florence prison complex. While PRD has some oversight over 
ADX, PRD does not monitor ADX to the same degree that it monitors SHUs 
and SMUs. According to BOP officials, except for inmates held in ADX-
SHUs, PRD is not required to monitor ADX-specific conditions of 
confinement-such as exercise, telephone, and visitation-as they do for 
SHUs or SMUs. For example, PRD reviews do not check for compliance 
with ADX-specific policies, such as whether inmates are afforded a 
minimum of 7 hours of recreation per week or the minimum of one 15-
minute phone call per month in the Control Unit. 

The ADX-specific policies for recreation, telephone calls, and visits 
allowed vary in each of the three ADX housing units: the Control Unit, 
the Special Security Unit, and the Step Down Units. (See figure 2). 
According to BOP officials, PRD does not have monitoring requirements 
for ADX-specific policies because BOP management has not identified 
ADX as a high-risk area that needed specific monitoring requirements 
due to other oversight mechanisms. For example, BOP HQ reviews the 
referral and placement of all inmates in ADX, including a review of 
each inmate placed in the Control Unit every 60 to 90 days to 
determine the inmate's readiness for release from the unit. BOP 
officials also told us that ADX-specific policies are monitored 
locally by ADX officials. 

However, conditions of confinement in ADX housing units are generally 
more restrictive than those in SHUs and SMUs. For example, unlike SHUs 
and SMUs, nearly all inmates in ADX are confined to single cells alone 
for about 23 hours per day.[Footnote 22] Also, although BOP HQ has 
mechanisms to monitor some procedural protections, and ADX officials 
locally monitor ADX-specific policies, BOP HQ lacks oversight over the 
extent to which ADX staff are in compliance with many ADX-specific 
requirements related to conditions of confinement and procedural 
protections to the same degree that it has for SHUs and SMUs. 
According to PRD officials, PRD does not assess the extent to which 
ADX provides conditions of confinement or procedural protections as 
required under ADX policy and program statements because it is not 
required to do so. As a result, PRD cannot report to BOP management on 
the extent of compliance with these ADX-specific requirements. With 
such oversight, BOP headquarters would have additional assurance that 
inmates held in BOP's most restrictive facility are afforded their 
minimum conditions of confinement and procedural protections. See 
figures 8 and 9 for examples of a cell in the ADX housing unit and 
recreation areas, which PRD is required to monitor to some extent to 
ensure the prison provides conditions of confinement for inmates held 
in ADX. 

Figure 8: Interior of Single-Bunked Cell, U.S. Administrative Maximum 
Facility, Florence, Colorado: 

[Refer to PDF for image: photograph] 

Source: BOP. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 9: Outdoor Recreation Areas, U.S. Administrative Maximum 
Facility, Florence, Colorado: 

[Refer to PDF for image: photograph] 

Source: BOP. 

[End of figure] 

Standards for Internal Controls in the Federal Government states that 
an effective internal control environment is a key method to help 
agency managers achieve program objectives. The standards state, among 
other things, that monitoring activities are an integral part of an 
entity's planning, implementing, reviewing, and accountability for 
stewardship of government resources and achieving effective results. 
Specific requirements for PRD to monitor ADX-specific policies to the 
same degree that these requirements exist for SHUs and SMUs could help 
provide BOP HQ additional assurance that ADX officials are following 
BOP policies to hold inmates in a humane manner, in its highest 
security, most restrictive facility. The Acting Assistant Director of 
PRD agreed that developing such requirements would be useful to help 
ensure these policies are followed. 

Selected Facilities' Documentation Problems Related to Conditions of 
Confinement and Inmate Placement Raise Concerns about the Monitoring 
of Inmates Placed in Segregation: 

BOP has a mechanism in place to centrally monitor how prisons 
implement most segregated housing unit policies. However, given a 
selection of PRD monitoring reports from 20 prisons and our 
independent analysis of inmate case files at two federal prisons, we 
identified concerns related to how facilities are documenting that 
inmates received their conditions of confinement and procedural 
protections, which are described below. 

PRD monitoring reports. We reviewed 45 PRD monitoring reports from 20 
prisons that assessed compliance at general population units and SHUs 
and SMUs. PRD identified deficiencies in 38 of these reports, 
including documentation concerns in 30 reports.[Footnote 23] As part 
of our review, we found PRD monitoring reports identified 
deficiencies, such as missing SHU forms, or incomplete documentation 
that inmates held in segregation for at least 22 hours per day 
received all their meals and exercise as required.[Footnote 24] For 
example, segregated inmates in SHUs and SMUs are entitled the 
opportunity to have 1 hour of exercise per day but the documentation 
at these prisons did not clearly indicate that these standards were 
always observed. 

According to our review of 45 PRD reports from 20 prisons, we found 
that BOP rated 15 prisons as generally compliant with both BOP 
policies and policies specific to SHUs and SMUs.[Footnote 25] However, 
while BOP found that these prisons were generally in compliance with 
segregated housing unit policies, most of these prisons had some 
deficiencies. For example, our analysis of the PRD reports found that, 
in 38 of the 45 reviews, PRD identified deficiencies such as missing 
documentation, monitoring rounds not being consistently conducted, or 
inmate review policies not fully implemented. (See figure 10 for 
common deficiencies.) 

Figure 10: Common Findings from Our Analysis of 45 Monitoring Reports: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Deficiency: Cleanliness[A]; 
Total: 3. 

Deficiency: Documentation[B]; 
Total: 30. 

Deficiency: Monitoring[C]; 
Total: 16. 

Deficiency: Policy[D]; 
Total: 16. 

Deficiency: Procedural protections[E]; 
Total: 11. 

Deficiency: Security protocol[F]; 
Total: 11. 

Deficiency: Timeliness[G]; 
Total: 10. 

Deficiency: Training[H]; 
Total: 6. 

Source: GAO analysis of BOP information. 

Notes: Seven reports contained no deficiencies. 

[A] Cleanliness refers to the living, sanitary conditions of cells 
where inmates are held. 

[B] Documentation covers several issues, such as whether medical staff 
were signing Special Housing Unit forms daily as required, inmate 
files adequately processed and documented inmates' conditions of 
confinement, and information was appropriately keyed into the BOP 
inmate management data system, SENTRY, and other databases. 

[C] Monitoring refers to monitoring of inmate status and segregated 
housing unit policies, such as SHU monitoring rounds conducted on 
every shift, or every 30-minute period, and 10 percent of inmate calls 
monitored in the past 12 months. 

[D] Policy refers to monitoring review policies, investigation, inmate 
classification and program policies. 

[E] Procedural protections covers compliance with procedural policies, 
including whether disciplinary sanctions were appropriately 
implemented, informal resolutions in place, and incident reports 
expunged for appropriate reasons. 

[F] Security protocol refers to investigative operational policies, 
ensuring that key equipment is regularly checked and hot lists are 
available to alert staff of inmates who pose a security threat. 

[G] Timeliness refers to conducting monitoring and operational reviews 
in a timely fashion, and ensuring that staff investigations are 
forwarded to BOP HQ within 120 days as required. 

[H] Training refers to staff training requirements. 

[End of figure] 

To assess how PRD staff conducted monitoring at prisons, we observed 
PRD conducting reviews at one prison complex that included two medium 
and high security BOP facilities with SHUs. For example, we found that 
PRD staff (1) performed monitoring rounds at SHUs, (2) reviewed log 
books, and (3) reviewed inmate files, to determine if the facilities 
followed the required procedural protections steps. Given our 
observations, we concluded that PRD staff monitored these facilities' 
compliance with BOP policies, as called for in PRD's monitoring 
guidelines. 

Independent analysis of inmate case files. We also conducted an 
independent analysis of BOP compliance with SHU-specific policies at 
three facilities. Specifically, we reviewed a total of 51 segregated 
housing files for inmates held in administrative detention and 
disciplinary-SHU for fiscal years 2011 and 2012 at three facilities. 
[Footnote 26] We found that these three facilities were generally 
complying with BOP policies related to inmate placement and ensuring 
procedural protections for inmates placed in SHU-disciplinary 
segregation, in light of our review of these selected files.[Footnote 
27] For example, 42 out of 51 inmate case files we analyzed provided 
reasons for inmate placement in SHUs, as required by BOP policies. 
However, of the 35 case files we reviewed for inmates held in 
administrative-SHU--in which we reviewed conditions of confinement, 
monitoring, and procedural protections--only 4 files consistently 
documented that the inmates were afforded their rights to recreation 
and procedural protections. For example, these 4 files consistently 
documented that these inmates in SHUs received 1 hour of exercise a 
day, 5 days per week, and that the inmates' status in segregation was 
consistently reviewed within 7 days of being placed in the SHU, as 
well as meals and recreation, as required by BOP policy. The remaining 
31 of the 35 files did not consistently document that the inmates were 
afforded these rights. (See table 1.) 

Table 1: Results of Our Independent Analysis of 51 Selected Inmate 
Case Files: Inmate Review and Procedural Protections Issues, Fiscal 
Years 2011-2012: 

Type of segregated housing policy: Documentation provided to inmate 
about placement; 
Description: Inmate was provided a copy of administration detention 
order when placed into special housing units (SHU); or inmate received 
discipline hearing officer (DHO) report that explained reasons for 
placement in disciplinary segregation in SHU; 
Number of inmate case files in compliance: 42 out of 51[A]. 

Type of segregated housing policy: BOP regularly monitor inmate status, 
conditions of confinement, and procedural protections; 
Description: Inmate in SHU received recreation 5 hours per week; 
inmate status in SHUs reviewed on a regular basis (e.g., every 3 days 
and 7 days); 
Number of inmate case files in compliance: 4 out of 35[B](subset). 

Type of segregated housing policy: Procedural protections provided in 
disciplinary segregation; 
Description: Inmate provided a hearing process and advised of right to 
appeal the decision; 
Number of inmate case files in compliance: 16 out of 17 [C](subset). 

Source: GAO analysis of BOP, DOJ (2011-2012) inmate files. 

[A] One inmate in the sample file was randomly selected in both 
administrative-SHU and disciplinary-SHU. 

[B] Given a selected sample of 35 SHU inmates, which we selected from 
the sample size of 10 percent of SHU inmates that PRD inspectors use 
when conducting monitoring reviews. For details, please see appendix I. 

[C] Given a selected sample of 17 disciplinary -SHU inmates and their 
hearing packets, which we selected largely based on the sample size 
that PRD inspectors use when conducting monitoring reviews. For 
details, please see appendix I. 

[End of table] 

Given (1) our review of 45 BOP monitoring reports and (2) our 
independent analysis of 51 selected inmate case files at three 
facilities, we found that the facilities did not consistently document 
conditions of confinement and procedural protections as required under 
BOP policy guidelines. For example, 38 out of the 45 reports 
identified deficiencies such as missing documentation, monitoring 
rounds not being consistently conducted, or inmate review policies not 
fully implemented. In our independent analysis of 51 segregated 
housing unit case files, we reviewed 35 files focused on determining 
if BOP regularly monitors inmates' status, conditions of confinement, 
and procedural protections, and found documentation-related concerns 
in 31 out of 35 files. 

While our selection of reports and site visits cannot be generalized 
to all BOP facilities, the extent of documentation concerns indicates 
a potential weakness with facilities' compliance with BOP policies. 
Without proper documentation of inmates' rights and conditions of 
confinement, neither we nor BOP HQ can determine whether facility 
staff have evidence that facilities complied with policies to grant 
inmates exercise, meals, and other rights, as required. In January 
2013, BOP officials agreed with our finding that BOP monitoring 
reports regularly identified problems with documentation. BOP 
officials said that they believed these were documentation problems 
caused by correctional officers forgetting to document the logs, and 
not instances where inmates were not getting their food, exercise, and 
procedural protections granted under BOP guidelines. They noted that 
inmates can use the formal grievance process, called the 
Administrative Remedy process, if they believe they have not been 
granted these rights. 

According to BOP officials, in December 2012, BOP began using a new 
software program, called the SHU application in all SHUs and SMUs. BOP 
officials told us that this new software program could improve the 
documentation of the conditions of confinement in SHUs and SMUs, but 
acknowledged it may not address all the deficiencies that we 
identified. Because this new software was recently implemented, and 
BOP did not provide evidence to the extent that it addressed the 
documentation deficiencies, we cannot determine if it will mitigate 
the documentation concerns. In addition, BOP does not have a plan that 
provides the specific objectives of the software program, how it will 
address the documentation deficiencies, or specific steps BOP will use 
to verify that the software will resolve the documentation problems we 
identified. According to best practices in project management, the 
establishment of clear, achievable objectives can help ensure 
successful project completion.[Footnote 28] A plan that clarifies the 
objectives and goals of the new software program and the extent to 
which they will address documentation issues we identified, along with 
time frames and milestones, could help provide BOP additional 
assurance that inmates in these facilities are being treated in 
accordance with BOP guidance. 

BOP Estimates that Segregated Housing Costs More than Housing Inmates 
in General Population: 

BOP does not regularly track or calculate the cost of housing inmates 
in segregated housing units. BOP computes costs by facility or 
complex, and does not separate or differentiate the costs for 
segregated housing units, such as SHUs, SMUs, and ADX that may be 
within the complex. For example, Federal Correctional Complex (FCC) 
Florence in Florence, Colorado, contains four different facilities, 
including ADX, one high security, one medium security, and one minimum 
security facility, as well as different types of housing units within 
most facilities.[Footnote 29] Specifically, within the high security 
facility, there is a SHU and a SMU. According to BOP officials, 
segregated housing unit costs are not separated because most of the 
costs to operate a facility or complex apply to inmates housed in all 
housing units within the facility or complex.[Footnote 30] BOP 
officials further reported that inmates in a segregated housing unit 
within a facility share the same costs under the facility's total 
obligations, such as utilities, food services, health services, and 
facility maintenance, among other things. BOP officials also stated 
that BOP aggregates the cost data for an entire facility or complex to 
reduce paperwork and streamline operations. BOP also computes an 
overall average daily inmate per capita cost by security level for 
each fiscal year. See table 2 for BOP's computation of average daily 
inmate per capita costs by security level for fiscal year 2012. 

Table 2: BOP Average Daily Inmate Costs per Capita by Security Level, 
BOP-wide, for Fiscal Year 2012: 

BOP security level: Minimum security; 
Actual average daily inmate costs per capita by security level, BOP-
wide: $59.27. 

BOP security level: Low security; 
Actual average daily inmate costs per capita by security level, BOP-
wide: $74.22. 

BOP security level: Medium security; 
Actual average daily inmate costs per capita by security level, BOP-
wide: $72.91. 

BOP security level: High security; 
Actual average daily inmate costs per capita by security level, BOP-
wide: $93.02. 

Source: BOP (2011-2012). 

Note: Using two databases, an accounting system known as the Financial 
Management Information System and the population management system 
known as SENTRY, BOP calculates the inmate daily per capita costs by 
dividing the total obligations under the Salaries and Expenses account 
by total inmate days for the entire institution, including general 
population and segregated housing units. Total inmate days equal the 
average inmate daily population multiplied by the number of calendar 
days for the fiscal year. Inmate days are obtained via the SENTRY 
Population Management System. BOP prepares a report reflecting the 
overall average and annual daily inmate per capita costs and the 
average annual and daily inmate per capita costs by security level for 
each fiscal year. BOP obtains the average annual and daily per capita 
costs by security level by consolidating the information for each 
institution within that security level to arrive at an "average" 
inmate per capita cost for that security level. 

[End of table] 

BOP officials stated that segregated housing units are more costly 
than general prison population housing units because segregated 
housing units require more resources--specifically staff--to operate 
and maintain. According to BOP officials, the staff-to-inmate ratio in 
segregated housing is significantly higher than in the general prison 
population, which makes segregated housing units more expensive to 
operate. For example, at one high security facility we visited, we 
estimated there was an average of 41 inmates to one correctional 
officer in the SHU during a 24-hour period. This contrasts to an 
inmate-to-correctional-officer ratio of about 124: 1 in general 
population housing units in the same facility during a 24-hour 
period.[Footnote 31] BOP officials at facilities we visited stated 
that ADX, SMUs, and SHUs require more staff than general population 
housing because most of the inmates are confined to their cells for 
approximately 22 to 24 hours per day. As a result, they are dependent 
on the correctional officers for many of the activities that those in 
the general inmate population do for themselves. 

For example, at least two correctional officers are needed to escort 
SHU and SMU inmates to showers and to recreation cells. Some high 
security inmates at SMUs require a three-officer escort each time they 
leave the cell. Staff are required to bring meals to inmates in their 
cells in SHUs, SMUs and ADX three times each day. In addition, staff 
are also required to provide laundry services, daily medical visits, 
and weekly psychological, educational, and religious visits to inmates 
in their cells in SHUs, SMUs and ADX. In contrast, inmates in general 
population units can generally access services in other areas of the 
facility freely, and therefore can perform these activities without 
assistance from correctional officers. 

On January 31, 2013, BOP budget officials provided a snapshot estimate 
that compares the daily inmate per capita costs in fiscal year 2012 at 
ADX, a sample SMU, a SHU at a sample medium security facility, and a 
SHU at a sample high security facility. For example, BOP estimates the 
daily inmate per capita costs at ADX are $216.12 compared with $85.74 
at the rest of the Florence complex. According to BOP estimates, the 
inmate per capita costs at the sample SMU facility are $119.71, which 
are higher than per capita costs in general population in BOP's sample 
high security facility, which are $69.41.(see table 3). For its 
estimates of the costs to operate SHUs, BOP selected Federal 
Correctional Institution (FCI) Beckley for a sample medium security 
facility and U.S. Penitentiary (USP) Lee for a sample high security 
facility. According to a senior BOP official, BOP did not select these 
facilities because of costs but because these facilities are a 
"typical" medium security and high security facility. The estimated 
daily costs per inmate at these two sample facilities in table 3 are 
lower and not directly comparable to the system-wide average daily 
costs per inmate for medium and high security facilities, as shown in 
table 2. Please see appendix I for a description of how BOP calculated 
its estimated costs. 

Table 3: BOP Estimated Daily Inmate Costs per Capita in Selection of 
Institutions and Different Types of Segregated Housing Units, by 
Security Level for Fiscal Year 2012: 

BOP sample institution and security level: Sample Medium Security, 
Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) Beckley; 
Estimated daily costs per inmate at sample BOP facilities: 
General population units[A]: $57.41; 
Segregated housing units: $78.21 (SHU); 
Total facility, including general population and segregated housing 
units: $58.74. 

BOP sample institution and security level: Sample High Security 
facility, U.S. Penitentiary (USP) Lee; 
Estimated daily costs per inmate at sample BOP facilities: 
General population units[A]: $69.41; 
Segregated housing units: $93.04 (SHU); 
Total facility, including general population and segregated housing 
units: $72.39. 

BOP sample institution and security level: Sample Special Management 
Unit (SMU) facility, (USP) Lewisburg; 
Estimated daily costs per inmate at sample BOP facilities: 
General population units[A]: n/a; 
Segregated housing units: $119.71 (SMU); 
Total facility, including general population and segregated housing 
units: $97.51[B]. 

BOP sample institution and security level: Federal Correctional Complex 
(FCC), Florence, including the Administrative Maximum facility (ADX); 
Estimated daily costs per inmate at sample BOP facilities: 
General population units[A]: $85.74[C]; 
Segregated housing units: $216.12 (ADX); 
Total facility, including general population and segregated housing 
units: $105.25. 

Source: BOP estimates. 

Notes: BOP provided estimates of costs, which are defined as salary 
and non salary obligations. 

[A] These costs exclude the staffing costs for segregated housing 
units within each facility. BOP selected FCI Beckley for the sample 
medium security facility and USP Lee for the sample high security 
facility. According to a senior BOP official, BOP did not select these 
facilities based on costs but because they considered them to be a 
"typical" medium security facility and a high security facility. 

[B] These costs include the costs of USP Lewisburg, which is an 
entirely SMU facility, and a minimum security prison camp. 

[C] BOP's estimate of the daily costs per inmate for the Florence FCC 
excludes the staffing costs for ADX and includes the staffing costs 
for the rest of the complex--the general population in the medium 
security, high security and camp facilities, the USP Florence SMU, and 
the SHUs within the medium and high security facilities. 

[End of table] 

According to these cost estimates that BOP provided, we estimated that 
the total cost of housing 1,987 inmates in SMUs in fiscal year 2012 
was $87 million. If these inmates were housed in a sample BOP medium 
or high security facility, the total cost would have been about $42 
million and $50 million, respectively. Also, given BOP estimates, we 
calculated that the total cost to house 435 inmates in ADX in fiscal 
year 2012 was about $34 million. If these inmates were housed in a 
medium security or high security facility, the total costs would have 
been about $9 million and $11 million, respectively. Moreover, the 
estimated costs of housing 5,318 SHU inmates at the cost estimated by 
BOP for the sample medium security facility, FCI Beckley, would be 
$152 million, which is more expensive than housing inmates in medium 
security general population housing units which would cost an 
estimated $112 million. Similarly, the estimated cost of housing 2,701 
SHU inmates at the cost estimated by BOP for the sample high security 
facility, USP Lee, would be $92 million, compared with housing inmates 
in high security general population housing units, which costs an 
estimated $69 million. 

According to BOP officials, the use of SMUs can reduce BOP costs. The 
officials said that SMUs resulted in reduced assault rates and a 
reduction in the number of facility lockdowns.[Footnote 32] Senior BOP 
budget officials noted that there are significant financial costs 
associated with keeping disruptive inmates in the general prison 
population who can cause a serious incident and lead to costly 
lockdowns. For example, according to BOP data, from fiscal years 2007 
through 2011, lockdowns and disturbances led to losses totaling about 
$23 million. These officials explained that, during a lockdown, a 
facility has to use its entire staff to perform security and custodial 
duties at the expense of other duties. 

BOP Has Not Evaluated the Impact of Segregated Housing Units on 
Institutional Safety or the Impacts of Long-Term Segregation on 
Inmates: 

BOP Has Not Assessed the Extent to Which Segregated Housing Impacts 
Institutional Safety: 

BOP has not assessed the extent to which all three types of segregated 
housing units--SHUs, SMUs, and ADX--impact institutional safety for 
inmates and staff.[Footnote 33] Although BOP has not completed an 
evaluation of the impact of segregation, BOP senior management and 
prison officials told us that they believed segregated housing units 
were effective in helping to maintain institutional safety. According 
to BOP officials, SMUs helped reduce assault rates BOP-wide and 
reduced the number of lockdowns due to conflict and violence from 149 
in fiscal year 2008 to 118 in fiscal year 2010, during a period when 
the overall inmate population increased. BOP, however, could not 
provide documentation to support that these reductions resulted from 
the use of SMUs. 

Although state prison systems may not be directly comparable to BOP, 
there may be relevant information from efforts states have taken to 
reduce the number of inmates held in segregation.[Footnote 34] Five 
states we reviewed have reduced their reliance on segregation--
Colorado, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, and Ohio--prompted, according to 
state officials, by litigation and state budget cuts, among other 
reasons. These states worked with external stakeholders, such as 
classification experts and correctional practitioners, to evaluate 
reasons why inmates were placed in segregation and implemented reforms 
that reduced the number of inmates placed in segregated housing units. 
[Footnote 35] After implementing segregated housing unit reforms that 
reduced the numbers of inmates held in segregation, officials from all 
five states we spoke with reported little or no adverse impact on 
institutional safety. While these states have not completed formal 
assessments of the impact of their segregated housing reforms, 
officials from all five states told us there had been no increase in 
violence after they moved inmates from segregated housing to less 
restrictive housing. In addition, Mississippi and Colorado reported 
cost savings from closing segregated housing units and reducing the 
administrative segregation population. For example, Colorado closed a 
high security facility in 2012, which state officials reported led to 
cost savings of nearly $5 million in fiscal year 2012 and $2.2 million 
in fiscal year 2013. According to Colorado officials, segregation 
reform efforts helped lead to the closure of this high security 
facility. In Mississippi, reforms in segregation also led to the 
closure of a supermax facility in early 2010, which Mississippi 
Department of Corrections officials reported saved the state nearly $6 
million annually. 

All five states changed their criteria for placing inmates in 
segregated housing, which helped them reduce their segregated inmate 
populations. Of the five states, three--Colorado, Mississippi, and 
Ohio--reviewed and changed the classification for placing inmates in 
administrative SHUs and two--Kansas and Maine--established new or 
modified the criteria for placement of inmates in SMUs. For example, 
in 2007, Mississippi found that approximately 800 inmates (or 80 
percent) did not meet its revised criteria for placement in 
administrative segregation. Before reforms, inmates would generally be 
transferred directly from admittance to administrative segregation 
without consideration of the inmate's offense and would generally 
remain in segregation without regular review of the inmate's status 
irrespective of whether the inmate had committed any serious 
misconduct. After implementing reforms, Mississippi adopted new 
criteria that stated inmates could be held in administrative 
segregation only if they committed serious infractions, were active 
high-level members of a gang, or had prior escapes or escape attempts 
from a secure facility. According to Mississippi officials, this 
reform did not lead to an increase in violence, assault rates, or 
serious incidents. 

In 2011, after a study with external stakeholders that reviewed and 
recommended changes to Colorado's administrative segregation 
operations, Colorado revised its policies for placement of inmates in 
segregated housing. Subsequent to the external study's completion, 
Colorado began reviewing all offenders that had been in administrative 
segregation for longer than 12 months and found that nearly 37 percent 
or about 321 inmates in administrative segregation could be moved to 
close custody general population.[Footnote 36] After Colorado revised 
its classification criteria and increased oversight of the inmate 
review process, the number of inmates held in segregation decreased 
from 60 per month in 2011 to approximately 20 to 30 per month in 2012. 
According to Colorado state officials, these reforms did not lead to 
an increase in violence. 

In addition, in 2011, Maine's Department of Corrections reformed its 
inmate placement policies for SMUs. After changing the criteria and 
classification for holding inmates in SMUs, Maine significantly 
reduced the number of inmates in its 132-cell SMU, by closing a 50-
cell section of its supermax SMU. Inmates removed from the SMU were 
reintegrated into a less restrictive, general population setting, and 
according to officials, there was no increase in incidents of violence. 

While the policies and procedures for segregated housing vary between 
states and BOP, and their experiences may not be directly comparable, 
there may be lessons for BOP in the states' experiences reducing their 
reliance on segregated housing. According to BOP officials, BOP 
generally uses larger states, such as California, Texas, or New York, 
for comparison, and that the five states included in our report may 
not be comparable with BOP. BOP officials also told us, in response to 
the findings from these states, that BOP has more comprehensive 
classification criteria, reviews, and procedural protections than the 
states. As a result, they indicated that BOP might not have the same 
reductions in costs and inmates in SHUs found at the state level. 
However, without an assessment of the impact of segregated housing, 
BOP cannot determine the extent to which placement of inmates in 
segregation contributes to institutional safety and security. Such an 
assessment is also important to inform DOJ and congressional decision 
making about the extent to which segregation meets BOP's key 
programmatic goals for institutional safety. Our past work and the 
experience of leading organizations have demonstrated that measuring 
and evaluating performance allows organizations to track progress they 
are making toward intended results--including goals, objectives, and 
targets they expect to achieve--and gives managers critical 
information on which to base decisions for improving their programs. 
[Footnote 37] 

Given that BOP maintains data on assault, violence, and lockdown rates 
across all prison facilities, BOP senior officials reported that 
evaluating the relationship between assault rates and segregation 
might help them evaluate the impact of segregated housing. An 
assessment of the effectiveness of segregation, including 
consideration of practices across local and state correctional 
systems, could better position BOP to understand the extent to which 
different types of segregated housing units meet BOP mission goals to 
ensure institutional safety for inmates and staff. 

On January 31, 2013, BOP officials told us that the BOP Director had 
authorized the solicitation of an independent review of segregated 
housing and, once a contract is awarded, they expect the study to be 
completed during fiscal year 2014. BOP officials explained that the 
study--with the objective of identifying improvement in BOP's practice 
and policy--is to review segregated housing, including identifying 
best practices across the correctional spectrum, such as inmate 
management, and mental health, among other areas. According to BOP, 
the statement of work for this solicitation requires the recipient to 
provide an assessment of the use and practices of segregated housing 
units in BOP. However, it is unclear to what extent the review will 
assess the extent that segregated housing units contribute to the 
safety and security of inmates and staff and ensures that BOP meets 
its mission goals. 

BOP Conducts Regular Assessments of the Mental Health of Inmates in 
Segregated Housing, but Has Not Conducted an Evaluation of Impacts of 
Long-Term Segregation on Inmates: 

BOP psychologists are required to provide an initial intake screening 
of each inmate within 30 days of the inmate's arrival in a BOP 
facility. Moreover, BOP requires that psychological staff visit 
inmates in segregated housing on a weekly basis and provide 
psychological assessments after 30 consecutive days in the SHUs, SMUs, 
and ADX Control and Special Security Units.[Footnote 38] According to 
BOP's Psychology Services Branch Administrator, these weekly visits 
and psychological assessments provide staff an opportunity to 
intervene when and if they find that an inmate is having difficulty in 
segregation. BOP also has a suicide prevention program, which includes 
training for all staff and additional supplemental training for staff 
working in segregation. In addition, inmates receive information on 
suicide prevention upon their arrival at an institution and the 
availability of mental health services while in segregated housing. 
BOP also develops "hot list" memos that are posted in SHUs to help 
inform staff of inmates who may have specific mental health concerns 
or suicidal tendencies. 

While BOP conducts regular assessments of mental health of inmates, 
BOP has not evaluated the impact of long-term segregation on inmates. 
BOP's Office of Research and Evaluation (ORE) officials said they have 
not studied the impact of long-term segregation on inmates because of 
competing priorities related to studying impacts of prisoner reentry, 
drug treatment, and recidivism.[Footnote 39] In addition, BOP 
officials explained that there are methodological concerns related to 
finding an appropriate control group of inmates to compare with 
inmates held in segregation. We recognize the methodological 
limitations; however, a 2010 Colorado study that was funded by DOJ 
identified a comparison group of inmates in order to evaluate the 
psychological impact of segregation. 

BOP officials, including psychologists, at four of the six facilities 
we visited reported little or no adverse impact of segregation on 
inmates.[Footnote 40] Some of these psychologists and BOP HQ officials 
cited the 2010 DOJ-funded study of the psychological impacts of 
solitary confinement in the Colorado state prison system.[Footnote 41] 
This study showed that segregated housing of up to 1 year may not have 
greater negative psychological impacts than non segregated housing on 
inmates. While the DOJ-funded study did not assess inmates in BOP 
facilities, BOP management officials told us this study shows that 
segregation has little or no adverse long-term impact on inmates. 
BOP's Psychology Services Branch Administrator explained that the 
impact is dependent on each individual inmate. For example, she told 
us that a small number of inmates with mental disorders, such as 
schizophrenia, actively seek placement in segregation, and some appear 
to function reasonably well in this environment. 

We reviewed several studies on the impact of segregated housing on 
inmate mental health, and several suggest that long-term segregation 
or solitary confinement can cause significant adverse impacts. See 
appendix I for information about criteria used to select studies in 
our review. These reports describe possible adverse impacts of 
segregation, including exacerbation or recurrence of preexisting 
illnesses, illusions, oversensitivity to stimuli, and irrational 
anger, among other symptoms, although it is unclear how applicable the 
conditions studied are to BOP segregated housing. Other reports 
addressed the possible effect of segregation on other outcomes, such 
as recidivism or new convictions after release from prison.[Footnote 
42] Few reports, however, incorporate a comparison between inmates in 
segregation versus inmates not in segregation, limiting the ability to 
draw conclusions about the impact of segregation. A comparison of 
inmates held in segregation with those in general population would be 
important for understanding the extent to which any adverse 
psychological impacts are unique to long-term segregation. 

While most BOP officials told us there was little or no clear evidence 
of mental health impacts from long-term segregation, BOP's Psychology 
Services Manual explicitly acknowledges the potential mental health 
risks of inmates placed in long-term segregation. Specifically, it 
states that BOP "recognizes that extended periods of confinement in 
Administrative Detention or Disciplinary Segregation Status may have 
an adverse effect on the overall mental status of some individuals." 
In addition, according to BOP's mission statement, BOP protects 
society by confining offenders in prisons that are, among other 
things, safe and humane. In our prior work, we reported that DOJ 
stresses the importance of evidence-based knowledge in achieving its 
mission. Specifically, DOJ's Office of Justice Programs (OJP) supports 
DOJ's mission by sponsoring research to provide objective, 
independent, evidence-based knowledge to meet the challenges of crime 
and justice, such as the 2010 Colorado state prison system study. In 
addition, BOP's ORE is responsible for conducting research and 
evaluation of BOP programs, but ORE has not conducted studies on the 
impact of long-term segregation on inmates. Further, according to 
generally accepted government auditing standards, managers should 
evaluate programs to provide external accountability for the use of 
public resources to understand the extent to which the program is 
fulfilling its objectives.[Footnote 43] 

To help BOP HQ assess inmates placed in segregation, BOP maintains a 
psychology data system (PDS) that is used to document all mental 
health screenings and staff visits by psychologists and treatment 
specialists, and a Bureau Electronic Medical Record (BEMR) that 
documents all staff visits by physicians and medication provided. 
Given that BOP's PDS and BEMR systems maintain data on the mental 
health of inmates and BOP's Psychological Services Manual states there 
may be potential adverse effects from long-term segregation, a study 
that uses existing information to assess the impact of segregation on 
inmates would better position BOP to understand the effects of 
segregation, including any related to inmates' mental health. BOP's 
Psychology Services Branch Administrator agreed that such a study 
would be useful. As of January 2013, BOP announced that the bureau is 
considering the development of procedures for conducting 
individualized mental health case reviews of inmates held in long-term 
segregation, i.e., inmates housed in SHUs or the ADX Control Unit for 
more than 12 continuous months and inmates who fail to progress 
through the SMU or ADX General Population Step Down phases in a timely 
manner. These reviews would be conducted at BOP HQ, and if the review 
found any concerns, the reviewers would contact prison staff to 
discuss strategies to reduce or eliminate the identified mental health 
concerns. However, the proposal is still under consideration, has not 
yet been implemented across all prison facilities, and we cannot 
determine the extent to which this proposal will systematically assess 
the long-term impact of segregated housing on inmates. 

Conclusions: 

Over the past 5 years, the number of BOP inmates in segregated housing 
has grown at a faster rate than the general inmate population. With 
more inmates held under more restrictive conditions, often for months 
or years at a time, segregated housing represents an important part of 
BOP's effort to achieve its primary goal of confining inmates in a 
safe, secure, and cost-efficient environment. While BOP has a 
mechanism to centrally monitor many of its segregated housing unit 
policies, BOP does not centrally monitor the policies specific to its 
most restrictive segregated prison, the ADX facility. As a result, BOP 
has less assurance that ADX staff consistently follows ADX-specific 
policies to the same degree that these requirements are followed for 
SHUs and SMUs. We also found that prison officials were not 
consistently documenting that inmates' conditions of confinement, such 
as food and exercise privileges, were being met. BOP has taken initial 
steps toward addressing these documentation issues by implementing new 
software that may help track the monitoring of SHUs and SMUs. However, 
BOP has not developed a plan to clarify the objectives and goals of 
the new software program, with time frames and milestones that explain 
the extent to which it will address documentation issues we identified. 

BOP officials believe that segregated housing helps maintain 
institutional safety. Given BOP's increased reliance on segregated 
housing and the higher costs associated with its use, it is notable 
that BOP has not studied the impact of segregated housing on inmates, 
staff, and institutional safety. As BOP considers options for 
conducting a study of segregated housing, BOP may want to consider 
lessons learned from some state initiatives that reduced the number of 
inmates held in segregation without significant, adverse impacts on 
violence or assault rates. In addition, BOP's own policies recognize 
that long-term segregation may have a detrimental effect on inmates. 
While BOP does regularly check the mental health of inmates in 
segregated housing, BOP has not conducted an assessment of the long-
term impact of segregation on inmates. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To improve BOP's ability to centrally oversee the implementation of 
segregated housing policies, we recommend that the Director of the 
Bureau of Prisons take the following two actions: 

(1) develop ADX-specific monitoring requirements and: 

(2) develop a plan that clarifies the objectives and goals of the new 
software program, with time frames and milestones, and other means, 
that explains the extent to which the software program will address 
documentation concerns we identified. 

To ensure that BOP's use of segregated housing furthers BOP's goal to 
confine inmates in a humane manner and contributes to institutional 
safety without having a detrimental impact on inmates held there for 
long periods of time, we recommend that the Director of the Bureau of 
Prisons take the following two actions: 

(1) ensure that any current study to assess segregated housing units 
also includes an assessment of the extent that segregated housing 
contributes to institutional safety, and consider key practices that 
include local and state efforts to reduce reliance on and the number 
of inmates held in segregated housing and: 

(2) assess the impact of long-term segregation on inmates in SHUs, 
SMUs, and ADX. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to DOJ for its review and comment. 
BOP provided written comments on this draft, which are reproduced in 
full in appendix IV. BOP concurred with all of our recommendations. 
BOP also provided technical comments on the report on April 19, 2012, 
which we incorporated as appropriate. 

BOP concurred with the first recommendation that BOP develop ADX-
specific monitoring requirements. BOP stated that it will conduct a 
Management Assessment to identify aspects of the Control Unit at ADX 
that are vulnerable to violations of policy. BOP further noted that it 
would develop guidelines, as appropriate, to be incorporated into the 
program review guidelines. If fully implemented across all ADX housing 
units, BOP's planned actions will address the intent of this 
recommendation. 

BOP concurred with the second recommendation that BOP develop a plan 
with timeframes and milestones, to explain the extent the software 
program will address documentation concerns. BOP stated that the goal 
of the new software program is to help ensure compliance with 
requirements to maintain accurate and complete records on conditions 
and events in segregated housing units. BOP indicated that they will 
conduct a program review by September 30, 2013 to determine if the SHU 
documentation deficiencies have been reduced. If fully implemented, 
BOP's planned actions will address the intent of this recommendation. 

BOP concurred with the third recommendation that BOP ensure any 
current study to assess segregated housing units also includes an 
assessment of the extent that segregated housing contributes to 
institutional safety. BOP stated that the current scope of work for 
the Special Housing Review and Assessment will include an assessment 
of how segregated housing units contribute to institutional safety. 
BOP further noted that the scope of work will include consideration of 
key practices of local and state correctional systems. If fully 
implemented, BOP's planned actions will address the intent of this 
recommendation. 

BOP concurred with the fourth recommendation that BOP assess the 
impact of long-term segregation on inmates in SHUs, SMUs, and ADX. BOP 
stated that the assessment of mental health of inmates is consistent 
with its public safety mission. BOP stated that BOP will develop and 
distribute an expanded mental health screening tool for psychology 
staff, which will help conduct a longitudinal assessment of: (1) 
inmates housed in SHUs or the ADX Control Unit for more than 12 
continuous months; and (2) those inmates who fail to progress through 
the SMU or ADX General Population Step Down phases in a timely manner. 
In addition, BOP stated that its review of segregated housing units 
will include an evaluation of inmate mental health history and a 
review of BOP's mental health assessment process. If fully 
implemented, BOP's planned actions will address the intent of this 
recommendation. 

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents 
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days 
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to the 
Attorney General, Director of the Bureau of Prisons, selected 
congressional committees, and other interested parties. In addition, 
the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

Should you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, 
please contact David Maurer at (202) 512-9627 or by email at 
maurerd@gao.gov. Contact points from our Offices of Congressional 
Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this 
report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix V. 

Signed by: 

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

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Our objectives for this report were to address the following questions: 

1. What were the trends in the Bureau of Prison's (BOP) segregated 
housing unit population and number of cells from fiscal year 2008 
through February 2013? 

2. To what extent does BOP centrally monitor how individual facilities 
document and apply policies guiding segregated housing units? 

3. To what extent has BOP assessed the costs to operate segregated 
housing units and how do the costs to confine an inmate in a 
segregated housing unit compare with the costs of confining an inmate 
in a general inmate population housing unit? 

4. To what extent does BOP assess the impact of segregated housing on 
institutional safety and the impacts of long-term segregation on 
inmates? 

Overall, to address our questions, we analyzed BOP's statutory 
authority and policies and procedures (e.g., BOP's inmate placement, 
procedural protections, and general conditions of confinement for 
segregated housing units--Special Housing Units (SHU), Special 
Management Units (SMU), and the Florence Administrative Maximum 
facility (ADX)--and Communications Management Units (CMU)). BOP 
considers CMUs as self-contained general population housing units. 
However, since CMU inmates are separated from general inmate 
population and have restrictive conditions, such as 100 percent of 
their communications monitored and noncontact visits, we include CMUs 
within the scope of our review, as described in appendix II. 

To address the first question, we obtained and analyzed BOP's number 
of cells and inmate population data for each type of segregated 
housing unit and the CMUs. We focused our data analysis on the period 
of fiscal year 2008 through February 2013 or the past five fiscal 
years to the most recent data available.[Footnote 44] We assessed the 
reliability of the inmate population and number of cells data by (1) 
participating in an electronic demonstration of the SENTRY database 
that BOP uses to generate required inmate population, (2) reviewing 
existing information about the data and the system that produced them, 
(3) examining the data for obvious errors and inconsistencies, and (4) 
interviewing BOP officials knowledgeable about the data. We determined 
that the required data elements were sufficiently reliable for the 
purposes of this report. 

To address the second question, we analyzed BOP's policies and 
procedures pertinent to the monitoring of individual prisons' 
compliance with segregated housing unit policies. To observe the 
conditions of confinement, procedural protections, and inmate 
placement in segregated housing, we conducted visits to 6 of 119 BOP 
federal institutions. We chose these institutions because of different 
types of segregated housing units and varying security levels they 
contain. As shown in table 4, the six prisons we visited cover the 
three main types of segregated housing units--SHUs, SMUs, and ADX--as 
well as CMUs. 

Table 4: Site Visits to BOP Institutions: 

Institution name: Federal Correctional Complex (FCC) Allenwood Complex; 
Types of segregated housing units Included: SHUs, SMUs; 
Security level of the individual facilities we visited: High security, 
medium security. 

Institution name: U.S. Penitentiary (USP) Lewisburg; 
Types of segregated housing units Included: SHUs, SMUs; 
Security level of the individual facilities we visited: High security. 

Institution name: FCC Florence; 
Types of segregated housing units Included: SHUs, SMUs, ADX; 
Security level of the individual facilities we visited: Administrative 
maximum, high security, medium security. 

Institution name: U.S. Penitentiary (USP) Leavenworth; 
Types of segregated housing units Included: SHUs; 
Security level of the individual facilities we visited: Medium 
security. 

Institution name: USP Marion; 
Types of segregated housing units Included: SHUs, CMUs; 
Security level of the individual facilities we visited: Medium 
security. 

Institution name: FCC Terre Haute; 
Types of segregated housing units Included: SHUs, CMUs; 
Security level of the individual facilities we visited: High security, 
medium security. 

Source: GAO analysis of BOP information. 

[End of table] 

During the site visits, we interviewed institutional management 
officials and toured the prison to observe inmate housing, 
recreational areas, food service, and educational and vocational 
programming. We also interviewed officials from BOP's Program Review 
Division (PRD), which leads monitoring reviews, and officials from 
BOP's Correctional Programs Division (CPD), which has primary 
responsibility for inmate placement and procedural policies at 
segregated housing units. Because we did not visit all BOP facilities 
and did not randomly select the facilities we visited, our results are 
not generalizable to all BOP facilities. However, we selected the 
sites to provide perspectives on different types of segregated housing 
units and varying security levels, which were useful in understanding 
population trends, BOP monitoring of conditions of confinement and 
procedural policies, cost, and the impact of segregated housing. 

Further, for our second question, we assessed BOP's monitoring for 
each type of segregated housing unit by reviewing monitoring policies, 
guidelines, and reports. We analyzed BOP's segregated housing unit 
policies and monitoring guidance and compared them against criteria in 
Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. We also 
assessed the methodology and system BOP employs to monitor, identify, 
and address deficiencies at prisons; we reviewed 45 of 187 PRD 
monitoring reports from 20 of 98 facilities that PRD monitored during 
the period from fiscal years 2007 to 2011. We requested a selection of 
PRD correctional services monitoring reports, which BOP provided for a 
variety of facilities during this time period. In addition, we 
requested monitoring reports for the facilities we visited for our 
site visits. We also reviewed 43 follow-up monitoring reports related 
to the 45 monitoring reports to determine the extent that prisons 
resolved deficiencies identified in the monitoring reports. 

We reviewed these PRD monitoring reports to summarize common findings 
and deficiencies relevant to our engagement related to cleanliness, 
conditions of confinement, documentation, procedural protection, 
monitoring, policy, security protocols, timeliness, and training. We 
developed a methodology for selecting these areas to assess the extent 
that BOP monitored conditions of confinement, procedural policies, and 
other key issues identified in the monitoring reports. One analyst 
reviewed each report and highlighted any common findings and 
deficiencies noted in the report. A second analyst independently 
verified the findings and deficiencies identified. We also interviewed 
PRD officials responsible for doing on-site monitoring, and 
interviewed senior BOP officials who are responsible for developing 
monitoring policy guidance to understand the degree and methodology of 
monitoring used. 

To provide an independent analysis of BOP compliance with segregated 
housing unit policies at selected prisons, we developed a data 
collection instrument (DCI) according to BOP's monitoring policies, 
and guidance and questions. Our DCI is similar to questions used 
during PRD periodic on-site monitoring reviews of segregated housing 
unit policies at SHUs, SMUs, and general prison policies at CMUs. We 
selected two of the six institutions we visited--FCC Terre Haute and 
USP Marion. At each institution, we selected a random sample of case 
files from fiscal years 2011 to 2012, of inmates currently housed in 
segregated housing units--including SHU-administrative detention, SHU-
disciplinary segregation, and CMUs--totaling 61 files. These 61 inmate 
case files include 51 SHU inmate case files, and 10 CMU inmate case 
files. We selected the inmate case files from SHUs using the same 
sample size BOP PRD inspectors use when conducting correctional 
services monitoring reviews of SHUs. For example, according to BOP PRD 
monitoring guidance for correctional services reviews of SHUs, PRD 
inspectors are to review documentation of 10 percent of inmates 
currently in SHU to determine whether the inmates are afforded 
specific conditions of confinement, inmates' placement and status in 
SHU are regularly reviewed, and other SHU policies are followed. 
Accordingly, we selected the case files of 10 percent of inmates in 
SHUs in the two institutions for our analysis. According to PRD 
monitoring guidance for the review of disciplinary-SHU, PRD inspectors 
are to review 10 disciplinary hearing packets. For our review, we 
selected 17 disciplinary inmate case files and hearing packets because 
we were interested in understanding the extent to which BOP provided 
procedural protections for inmates held in disciplinary-SHU. We 
randomly selected the inmate case files from both SHUs and CMUs from a 
roster of inmates in each SHU or CMU at the time of our visit. 
Although our selection of files was not generalizable to all inmates 
in all types of segregated housing units, it provided insights into 
whether these institutions were following BOP policy. We used the DCIs 
to extract information relevant to BOP's monitoring policies, inmate 
placement, conditions of confinement and procedural protections for 
inmates held in SHU-administrative detention, SHU-disciplinary 
segregation, and CMUs. One analyst summarize information from the 
inmate case file, and a second analyst verified the DCI information 
collected. A third analyst reviewed and summarized information 
collected from the DCIs. In addition, we observed PRD staff conduct on-
site monitoring of SHUs and CMU at two facilities. 

We also reviewed information and documentation received related to 
BOP's new software program, that includes the SHU application, 
compared against best practices for project management and criteria in 
BOP's monitoring documentation policies. For example, we reviewed 
implementation dates and plans, training materials used across BOP 
facilities, and analyzed BOP monitoring policies, and interviewed PRD 
officials to understand to what extent the new SHU application 
addresses any documentation concerns we identified during our 
engagement. 

To address the third question, we reviewed BOP fiscal year 2012 
average inmate per capita costs for prisons at each major security 
level: high security, medium security, low security, and minimum 
security levels. These inmate per capita costs cover all costs 
associated with the day-to-day operation of the entire institution, 
including health services, uniform, food, programming, and contractual 
services and equipment costs related to each prison. According to BOP, 
the inmate daily per capita costs are calculated as total obligations 
as reported in BOP's Salaries and Expenses appropriations account 
divided by total inmate days. Further, in January 2013, BOP provided a 
snapshot estimate of fiscal year 2012 inmate per capita costs broken 
out by segregated housing versus general population housing at four 
institutions: (1) USP Lewisburg, a SMU facility; (2) FCC Florence, 
which includes ADX Florence; (3) a sample medium security facility 
(FCI Beckley); and (4) a sample high security facility (USP Lee), 
which both include SHUs. We interviewed BOP officials from the 
Administration Division, who have responsibility over financial and 
facility management, about their processes for developing the 
estimates. According to senior BOP officials, BOP selected these 
facilities because they considered them "typical" medium security and 
high security facilities. We found BOP's segregated housing versus 
general population housing inmate per capita cost data to be 
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of presenting an overview of 
possible costs. For illustration purposes, we also used BOP's 
estimated segregated housing versus general population housing inmate 
per capita cost data, combined with BOP inmate population data, to 
estimate the costs of housing the number of inmates in ADX, all SMUs, 
and all SHUs, BOP-wide, as of fiscal year 2012 compared with the costs 
to house these same amount of inmates in general population housing 
units for fiscal year 2012. For example, to estimate the total costs 
of housing the total SMU inmate population in SMUs, BOP-wide, for 
fiscal year 2012, we multiplied BOP's estimated daily inmate per 
capita costs for USP Lewisburg SMU by the total SMU population times 
366 days, or the number of calendar days in 2012. To estimate the 
costs of housing this same number of SMU inmates in general population 
housing in a medium security or high security facility, we multiplied 
the total SMU population, BOP-wide, by BOP's estimated daily inmate 
per capita costs for the sample medium facility, FCI Beckley, times 
366 days, and estimated daily inmate per capita costs for the sample 
high security facility, USP Lee, times 366 days, respectively. 

To address the fourth question, we reviewed BOP's policies, including 
program objectives, for each segregated housing unit and policies 
governing the provision of mental health services to inmates in 
segregated housing units. We also reviewed BOP lockdown data from 
fiscal year 2008 through fiscal year 2012. We also interviewed 
officials from BOP's Correctional Programs Division (CPD), which also 
includes the Psychology Services Branch that is responsible for mental 
health services. We also interviewed officials from BOP's Office of 
Research and Evaluation (ORE), who produce reports and research 
corrections-related topics. During these interviews, we discussed the 
lack of BOP studies that assess the impact of segregated housing units 
on institutional safety and inmates and staff, and their views on the 
impact of long-term segregation, including their views on the impact 
of segregation on inmates, including those with mental illness. We 
also discussed the impacts of segregation with officials from the 
Council of Prison Locals, the union that represents all nonmanagement 
staff working in BOP facilities. 

To identify actions states have taken regarding segregated housing 
that may be relevant to BOP, we reviewed actions taken by five states--
Colorado, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, and Ohio. We selected these five 
states because they (1) were involved in addressing segregated housing 
reform and (2) had taken actions to reduce the number of inmates held 
in segregation. For each of the five selected states, we reviewed 
relevant documents on segregated housing, and in four states we 
reviewed placement policies. For four of the five selected states, we 
reviewed relevant reports on their segregated housing unit conditions 
for context. While conducting site visits to BOP prisons in Kansas and 
Colorado, we also visited state correctional facilities in those two 
states. We interviewed corrections officials at these facilities and 
the other states regarding reasons for reducing the segregated housing 
unit population and any reported impact of the segregated housing unit 
reforms on institutional safety. While the reports and results from 
our interviews are not representative, they provided us with 
perspectives on state actions to reduce segregated housing: 

There are dissimilarities between federal and state prison systems--
legally and structurally, to name a few--that limit the comparability 
between federal and state correctional systems. We are unable to 
generalize about the types of actions other states have taken to 
reform segregated housing policies and reduce the number of inmates 
held in segregation and any effects. Nevertheless, the information we 
obtained through these visits provided examples of state responses to 
reforming segregation and reducing inmates housed in segregated 
housing units. We also discussed with BOP officials the state actions 
we identified. 

Further, to identify the universe of reports and studies that 
describe, evaluate, or analyze the impact of segregated housing, 
including any long-term impacts associated with mental illness, we 
used a multistaged process. First, we (1) conducted key word searches 
of criminal justice, legal, and social science research databases; (2) 
searched academic, nongovernment and stakeholder interest group-
related Web sites, such as those of Vera, American Civil Liberties 
Union (ACLU), and Urban Institute, (3) reviewed bibliographies, 
published summaries, meta-analyses, and prior GAO reports on 
segregated housing; and (4) asked academic corrections experts to 
identify evaluations. Our literature search identified over 150 
documents, which included articles, opinion pieces, published reports, 
and studies related to segregated housing. We further identified 
studies that compared inmates in segregated housing with inmates in 
the general population. We reviewed these reports and studies to gain 
a broader understanding of the potential impacts of segregated housing 
and of the extent and quality of research available on the subject. We 
compared BOP's mechanisms for evaluating the impact of segregated 
housing units on institutional safety, or the impacts of long-term 
segregation on inmates, with BOP's policies and mission statements. 

We conducted this performance audit from January 2012 to April 2013 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions given our audit objectives. We believe that 
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions for our audit objectives. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Communications Management Units: 

BOP established CMUs in 2006 and 2008, in two institutions to house 
inmates who require increased monitoring of their communications with 
the public to protect the safety, security, and orderly operation of 
BOP facilities and the public.[Footnote 45] Inmates in CMUs have 100 
percent of their communications monitored by BOP officials and are 
allowed only noncontact visits with family and friends. According to 
each prison's institution supplement guidelines, CMUs are self-
contained general population housing units in which inmates reside; 
eat; and participate in all educational, religious, visiting, unit 
management, and work programming in the unit, similar to general 
population inmates.[Footnote 46] From fiscal year 2008 to February 
2013, the total CMU population increased from 64 inmates to 81 
inmates.[Footnote 47] See figure 11 for an overview of CMUs. 

Figure 11: Overview of Communications Management Units: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Communications Management Units (CMU): 

Referral: 
Inmates may be referred to CMUs who, because of their current offense 
of conviction, offense conduct, or other verified information, require 
enhanced monitoring of all communications with persons in the 
community. 

* Referrals for transfer to a CMU are to be coordinated by the BOP 
Counter Terrorism Unit (CTU). Referrals may come from any source 
within BOP or from other law enforcement agencies or courts. Once the 
CTU receives the referral, the CTU is to review information relevant 
to the referral, such as information contained in the inmate’s case 
file and any other information or intelligence related to the 
referral. In addition, CTU staff may draw upon sensitive information 
and the expertise of other law enforcement and intelligence agencies 
during the CMU review process. 

* Once the referral information is reviewed, a recommendation is to be 
made to the North Central Regional Director for CMU placement with 
appropriate referral documentation. 

* The North Central Regional Director is to then make a decision as to 
whether the inmate should be placed in a CMU based on a review of the 
evidence presented, and a conclusion that the inmate’s designation to 
a CMU is necessary to ensure the safety, security, and orderly 
operation of correctional facilities, or to protect the public[A]. 

Procedural policies: 
Inmates placed in CMUs do not receive a hearing. Inmates placed in 
CMUs are to receive written notice of their reason for placement, 
conditions of confinement, and their procedural protection rights. The 
unit team is also required to review the inmate’s placement in a CMU 
every 6 months, and inmates are expected to attend these regular 
reviews. 

General conditions of confinement: 

* Ordinarily allowed outside cell 15 to 16 hours per day. 

* All nonlegal correspondence is monitored, and all social phone calls 
and visits are live-monitored and recorded. 

* Two 15-minute calls per week (eight calls per month). 

* Up to 8 hours of noncontact visits per month. 

* Legal communication exempted from monitoring. 

* All inmate meals served in communal area of CMU. 

Number of cells and population[B]: 
Number of cells: 113; 
Population: 81. 

Source: GAO analysis of BOP information; Art Explosion (clip art). 

[A] BOP promulgated a proposed rule in April 2010 to establish 
specific parameters for CMU operations and put inmates and the public 
on notice of CMUs; the comment period closed in June 2010, and a final 
rule has not been published. Under the proposed rule, BOP's Assistant 
Director of the Correctional Programs Division would become the 
authorizing official for CMU designations. Communications Management 
Units. 75 Fed. Reg. 17,324 (proposed Apr. 6, 2010) (to be codified at 
28 C.F.R. pt. 540, subpt. J). 

[B] The total CMU inmate population and number of cells includes SHUs 
within the CMUs. 

[End of figure] 

Placement Criteria and Procedural Policies: 

According to a BOP memorandum, BOP places inmates in CMUs for several 
reasons, including conviction, conduct or involvement related to 
international or domestic terrorism, and commission of prohibited 
activity related to misuse or abuse of approved communication methods 
while incarcerated, or for other reasons.[Footnote 48] 

Inmates referred to CMUs do not receive a hearing prior to placement 
in CMUs.[Footnote 49] According to the prison's institution supplement 
guidelines, an inmate assigned to a CMU is to receive a notice of 
transfer to the CMU within 5 days of arrival in the unit, including 
reasons for placement and notice of the right to appeal the transfer 
through the administrative remedy process. At the institution, prison 
officials are to review the CMU inmate's status every 6 months, 
according to BOP's national policy that applies to all inmates in BOP 
custody. The guidelines also call for prison officials to regularly 
review an inmate's readiness to be transferred out of a CMU by 
examining a number of factors, including programming needs and if the 
original reasons for CMU placement still exist. After conducting the 
review, prison officials may recommend to the warden that an inmate be 
transferred out of the CMU. 

General Conditions of Confinement: 

All CMU inmates are segregated from the general population in self-
contained housing units to regulate and monitor their communications 
with persons in the community. However, they are allowed to congregate 
outside their cells, but within these self-contained housing units, 
for 15 to 16 hours per day like inmates in the general 
population.[Footnote 50] Inmates in CMUs require 100 percent live 
monitoring of their telephone calls and social visits, and a review of 
their incoming and outgoing social mail.[Footnote 51] All telephone 
calls and social visits are also recorded, and they must occur in 
English only, unless the call is previously scheduled and conducted 
through simultaneous translation monitoring. Other than increased 
communications monitoring, BOP officials stated that conditions of 
confinement in these units are the same as conditions of confinement 
for inmates in other medium security general population housing units. 
This includes (1) access to medical and mental health services; (2) 
meals that meet inmate dietary requirements served in common dining 
areas; (3) access to recreation and leisure in a common area daily up 
to 16 hours per day, including table games, television in the common 
areas, and some aerobic exercise equipment; (4) religious service 
opportunities; and (5) access to law library services. 

Also, like general population housing, each CMU contains a SHU 
dedicated to housing inmates in need of being placed in SHU-
administrative detention or SHU-disciplinary segregation status. See 
figures 12 and 13 for photographs of a CMU. 

Figure 12: Communications Management Unit Cell, Terre Haute, Indiana: 

[Refer to PDF for image: photograph] 

Source: BOP. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 13: Communications Management Unit Common Area, Marion, 
Illinois: 

[Refer to PDF for image: photograph] 

Source: BOP. 

[End of figure] 

BOP Monitoring of CMUs: 

As previously discussed, BOP headquarters has a mechanism in place to 
centrally monitor how prisons implement most housing unit policies, 
but the degree of monitoring varies depending upon the type of 
housing. In addition, we reviewed PRD monitoring reports, assessed how 
PRD conducted monitoring at one of the two prisons with CMUs, and 
conducted an independent analysis of BOP compliance at these two 
prisons. 

At one of the two prisons with CMUs we visited, we observed that PRD 
checked compliance with general prison policies, as well as SHU-
specific policies, but PRD does not have requirements to monitor CMU-
specific policies. CMU inmate files may be included in any PRD program 
review that covers the entire prison complex. According to BOP 
officials, although not required, BOP may randomly select some CMU 
inmate files as part of the prison complex during periodic PRD 
reviews.[Footnote 52] However, PRD does not have requirements to 
monitor CMU-specific policies found in the institution supplement 
guidelines. According to BOP officials, additional monitoring for CMUs 
is not required because they do not have the same kinds of restrictive 
conditions of confinement that are the subject of SHU-and SMU-specific 
monitoring steps. 

As part of our review of PRD monitoring reports, we found that 8 of 
the 45 monitoring reports covered these two prisons with CMUs. PRD 
found that these prisons were in general compliance with BOP policies, 
and none of these PRD monitoring reports identified any findings or 
deficiencies specific to the CMUs. To assess how PRD staff conducted 
monitoring at one of these prisons, we observed PRD conduct reviews at 
the CMUs in accordance with PRD guidelines. In light of our 
observations, we found that PRD staff (1) performed monitoring rounds 
at CMUs, (2) reviewed log books, and (3) reviewed inmate files, to 
determine if the prisons followed the required procedural protections 
steps. In addition, we also conducted an independent analysis of BOP 
compliance with CMU-specific policies at the two prisons with CMUs. 
Specifically, we reviewed a total of 10 files for inmates held in CMUs 
for fiscal years 2011 and 2012 at these two facilities. We found that 
all 10 inmate case files we analyzed provided reasons for inmate 
placement in CMUs, as required by BOP institution supplements. 
However, similar to the documentation problems we noted in the body of 
the report, we found documentation deficiencies during our review of 
the CMU files. For example, 2 out of the 10 inmate case files we 
reviewed did not include documentation that unit team staff regularly 
monitored the inmate's CMU status every 6 months and ensured that 
inmates were afforded their rights to programming activities. Without 
complete documentation, BOP headquarters cannot be assured that 
inmates in CMUs are receiving the procedural protections and 
conditions of confinement to which they are entitled, as stated in BOP 
policy and institution supplements. 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Location and Length of Stay in BOP Segregated Housing 
Units: 

Location of Segregated Housing Units: 

BOP has segregated housing units in prisons located throughout the 
country. For example, BOP has SHUs in 109 out of its 119 facilities. 
Three facilities have SMUs. See figure 14 for a map of the locations 
of each type of segregated housing unit. 

Figure 14: Locations of Segregated Housing Units within BOP Facilities: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated U.S. map] 

Depicted on the map: 

Facility that has a Special Housing Unit (SHU); 
Facility that has a Special Management Unit (SMU); [2 in Pennsylvania] 
Federal Correctional Complex Florence, which includes the 
Administrative Maximum (ADX facility); a SMU in its U.S. Penitentiary; 
and a SHU in each main facility [1 in Colorado]. 

Source: GAO analysis of BOP information; Map Resources (map). 

[End of figure] 

Length of Stay: 

According to BOP, the length of stay inmates serve in segregated 
housing units varies, and BOP does not track an inmate's total length 
of stay or establish a maximum length of stay for inmates in any type 
of segregated housing unit. An inmate's length of stay in segregated 
housing varies depending on the inmate's program needs and status, 
reason for placement, and behavior while in the unit. BOP policy 
provides the expected length of stay for some segregated housing 
units. For example, according to BOP officials, placement of inmates 
in SHUs is intended to be temporary. Inmates may be sanctioned to 1 to 
18 months in a SHU for disciplinary reasons, given the severity of 
infraction. Also, BOP policy states inmates placed in SMUs, the ADX 
Step Down Units, and ADX Special Security Unit may participate in 
structured, phased programs where they can progress or "step down" to 
general population after approximately 18 to 36 months if they 
maintain good behavior. However, according to BOP officials, an inmate 
may remain in any of the segregated housing units if the inmate 
continues to be disruptive or BOP officials determine through the 
review process that the inmate's original reason for placement still 
exists. 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Bureau of Prisons: 

U.S. Department of Justice: 
Federal Bureau of Prisons:
Office of the Director: 
Washington, DC 20534: 

April 19, 2013: 
David C. Maurer, Director: 
Homeland Security & Justice: 
Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Room 6B44: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Maurer: 

The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) appreciates the opportunity to formally 
respond to the Government Accountability Office's draft report 
entitled "Improvements Needed in Bureau of Prisons' Monitoring and 
Evaluation of Impact of Segregated Housing", GAO-l3-429. We have 
completed our review of the information reflected in the report and 
offer the following comments. 

To improve BOP's ability to centrally oversee the implementation of 
segregated housing policies, we recommend that the Director of the 
Bureau of Prisons take the following two actions: 

Recommendation 1: Develop ADX-specific monitoring requirements. 

Response: The BOP concurs with this recommendation and will conduct a 
Management Assessment to identify aspects of the Control Unit at the 
Administrative Maximum Security Prison, Florence Colorado (ADX) that 
are most vulnerable to violations of policy. Appropriate
guidelines will be established and incorporated into the respective 
discipline's program review guidelines. We request this recommendation 
be closed. 

Recommendation 2: Develop a plan that clarifies the objectives and 
goals of the new software program, with timeframes and milestones, and 
other means, that explains the extent the software program will 
address documentation concerns we identified. 

Response: The BOP concurs with Recommendation 2. The BOP's policy 
(PS5270.10), Special Housing Units, defines the program objectives for 
SHU management. Those objectives or expected results of the program 
are: 

1. A safe and orderly environment will be provided for inmates and 
staff, 

2. Living conditions for inmates in disciplinary segregation and 
administrative detention will meet or exceed applicable standards, and, 

3. Accurate and complete records will be maintained on conditions and 
events in special housing units. 

BOP developed the software program, or "SHU application", that is the 
subject of this recommendation to facilitate its compliance with the 
third objective listed above. The objectives and goals of this 
software program are to enable staff to document the management of SHU 
operations in an automated fashion, and to provide for automated and 
accurate maintenance of records kept in accordance with PS5270.10. 
Thus, the SHU application will track and maintain records on 
conditions and events in special housing units that include inmate 
meals, inmate recreation, inmate showers, psychology or medical staff 
rounds, and cell rotations. 

As of December 6, 2012, the SHU application was fully deployed to all 
institutions. As part of the deployment, all users have been trained. 
In order to assess whether the SHU application addresses the 
documentation concerns GAO identified, the BOP will implement the 
following plan: 

Milestone: Deploy SHU application nationwide and train users
Expected Completion Date: Completed - December 6, 2012 

Milestone: Review Program Review findings after six-months of 
institution review assessments and determine if SHU documentation 
deficiencies in specified areas (inmate meals, inmate recreation, 
inmate showers, psychology or medical staff rounds, and cell 
rotations) have been reduced when compared to institution findings for 
a similar time frame before the application had been deployed.
Expected Completion Date: Approximately September 30, 2013. 

We request this recommendation be closed. 

To ensure that BOP's use of segregated housing furthers BOP's goal to 
confine inmates in a humane manner and contributes to institutional 
safety without having a detrimental impact on inmates held there for 
long periods of time, we recommend that the Director of the Bureau of 
Prisons take the following two actions: 

Recommendation 3: Ensure that any current study to assess segregated 
housing units also includes an assessment of the extent that 
segregated housing contributes to institutional safety, and consider 
key practices that include local and state efforts to reduce reliance 
on and the number of inmates held in segregated housing. 

Response: The SOP concurs with Recommendation 3. The current Scope of 
Work for a Special Housing Review and Assessment to be performed by 
experts in the field (external to BOP and the Department of Justice), 
calls for an assessment of how special housing units contribute to 
institutional safety and consideration of key practices of local and 
state correctional systems, as well as any other correctional system. 
Below are key passages from the Scope of Work that address the 
recommendation: 

* Conduct a comprehensive review of restricted housing operations for 
the current population of at least one site housing a SHU and a SMU, 
and the Florence Administrative Maximum Security Facility (ADX), 
excluding H Unit. This comprehensive review will include, at a 
minimum, a thorough evaluation of designation and referral processes; 
inmate notification and due process; inmate movement; inmate mental 
health history, evaluation, and treatment; inmate discipline; inmate 
administrative remedies; inmate health care; inmate programming and 
recreation; inmate housing; and inmate property. 

* Conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the management of highly 
disruptive inmates within a correctional environment. This evaluation 
will include a review of existing applicable Bureau policies including 
institutional supplements and guidance memoranda, a review of 
corrections best practices across the correctional spectrum, and a 
review of empirical literature on the topic. 

* Conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the management of and use of 
housing units and other behavioral management tools currently used 
within the Bureau, best practices within that area across the 
correctional spectrum, and a review of empirical literature on the 
topic. 

The Bureau of Prisons will ensure these areas are addressed with the 
selected contractor. We request this recommendation be closed. 

Recommendation 4: Assess the impact of long-term segregation on 
inmates in SHUs, SMUs, and ADX. 

Response: The BOP concurs with Recommendation 4. Consistent with its 
public safety mission, the BOP assesses the mental health of all 
inmates in segregated housing units on an ongoing basis. These reviews 
address each inmate's adjustment to the restricted housing setting. In 
addition, BOP will develop and distribute to the field an expanded 
mental health screening tool for use by psychology staff with inmates 
held in long-term segregation. This tool will be used to aid 
psychology staff in conducting a longitudinal assessment of inmates 
housed in SHUs or the ADX Control Unit for more than 12 continuous 
months and those inmates who fail to progress through the SMU or ADX 
General Population Step Down phases in a timely manner. In addition, 
to assess the impact of the long term effects of segregation on 
inmates, BOP's regular assessments of those inmates in BOP custody 
will be informed by the comprehensive review of BOP's segregated 
housing units, as described above. The Scope of Work for such review 
(the contract was recently awarded), requires the contractor to 
"Conduct a comprehensive review of restricted housing operations for 
the current population of at least one site housing a SHU and a SMU, 
and the Florence Administrative Maximum Security Facility (ADX), 
excluding H Unit. This comprehensive review will include, at a 
minimum, a thorough evaluation of inmate mental health history," The 
scope of work also requires the contractor to "Conduct a comprehensive 
review of the Bureau's mental health assessment process." The BOP will 
ensure mental health records are available to the auditors in 
accordance with their needs to facilitate a thorough and complete 
evaluation and in accordance with all privacy laws and regulations. We 
request this recommendation be closed. 

If you have any questions regarding this response, please contact Sara 
M. Revell, Assistant Director, Program Review Division, at (202) 353-
2302. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Charles E. Samuels, Jr. 
Director: 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: 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, Ned George, Assistant 
Director; Pedro Almoguera; Lori Achman; Carla Brown; Jennifer Bryant; 
Frances Cook; Michele Fejfar; Eric Hauswirth; Lara Miklozek; Linda 
Miller; Jessica Orr, Meghan Squires; Helene Toiv; and Yee Wong made 
key contributions to this report. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] As of February 2013, BOP held the majority of inmates in its 
custody in 119 BOP-operated federal prisons. BOP held about 41,700, or 
about 19 percent, of the total BOP federal inmate population in 
community confinement (residential reentry and home confinement) and 
15 privately managed prisons. We are focusing only on the 119 BOP-
operated facilities for the purposes of this review. 

[2] According to BOP officials, BOP does not hold anyone in solitary 
confinement because BOP staff interacts with inmates who are held in 
single cells alone. 

[3] We selected six federal prisons, three of which were complexes 
that contained multiple facilities. Thus, our six selected sites 
contained 11 BOP facilities, 10 of which we visited. See appendix I 
for the specific facilities we visited. 

[4] BOP operates Federal Correctional Complexes (FCC), which have 
different missions and security levels. 

[5] BOP also operates other types of segregated housing units, 
including protective custody units for inmates requiring protection, 
sex offender management units for convicted sex offenders, and a 
Special Confinement Unit to hold inmates on death row, among others. 

[6] Inmates in segregated housing units may be confined to their cells 
for fewer or more hours per day, depending on their unit. For example, 
inmates in Phase 3 of the ADX Step-Down Unit may recreate outside of 
their cells for three hours per day, or are confined to their cells 
for 21 hours per day. Inmates in other types of segregated housing 
units, such as SMUs, are permitted five hours of recreation per week, 
ordinarily on different days, in which case they would be confined to 
their cells 24 hours per day on at least two days. For more 
information about the number of hours of out-of-cell recreation per 
segregated housing unit, see figure 1. 

[7] According to BOP, the hearing process is intended to meet the 
prison disciplinary system due process requirements established in 
Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974). This includes providing the 
inmate advance written notice of the alleged violation, and permitting 
the inmate to (1) attend the hearing and make a statement, (2) call 
witnesses, (3) present documentary evidence, and (4) have staff 
representation. The inmate is also provided a written statement of the 
evidence and reasons for the disciplinary action taken. 

[8] Inmates placed in SHU-administrative detention do not receive a 
hearing prior to placement. However, BOP policy requires officials to 
review the inmates' records within 3 work days of being placed in SHU-
administrative detention, and to review their detention status within 
7 calendar days of their placement and every 30 calendar days 
thereafter. 

[9] The Administrative Remedy Program is BOP's process for filing a 
complaint, such as concerns about the appropriateness of placements, 
or allegation of improper physical or verbal abuse against facility 
staff, along with any aspect of an inmate's confinement and appeals of 
disciplinary decisions. 

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

[11] BOP holds all inmates in single-bunked cells alone at ADX. 
Inmates in Phase 4 of the ADX Step Down program may be double-bunked 
and are physically located at USP Florence. As of February 2013, ADX 
held 435 inmates in single-bunked cells alone. In addition, as of 
November 2012, BOP had 360 single-bunked SHU cells and 17 single-
bunked SMU cells across its facilities in which inmates are confined 
to their cells alone for about 23 hours per day. 

[12] The percentage of the total inmate population in segregated 
housing increased from 6 percent in fiscal year 2008 to 7 percent as 
of February 2013. The total inmate population in segregated housing 
units includes the total inmate population in ADX, all SHUs, and all 
SMUs in BOP facilities. 

[13] BOP uses different units of measurement to calculate capacity for 
its segregated housing units. BOP calculates the number of inmates 
SMUs and ADX can hold in terms of each unit's rated capacity. Rated 
capacity reflects the number of prisoners a facility or unit 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. 
A facility's rated capacity excludes medical and SHU bed space, and 
BOP does not maintain rated capacity data for SHUs. Instead, BOP 
provided SHU capacity in terms of number of cells. For the purposes of 
analyzing trends in segregated housing unit capacity over time, we 
used the number of cells in SHUs, SMUs, and ADX to have the same unit 
of measurement for all segregated housing units. BOP provided number 
of cells data for fiscal years 2008 through 2012 for SHUs and ADX and 
number of cells data for fiscal year 2008 through November 2012 for 
SMUs. 

[14] Based on data that BOP provided, these data do not include the 
inmate population in SHUs within ADX or SMUs. The SHU inmate 
population in these units is included under the total ADX and SMU 
populations, respectively. Also, based on our analysis, although the 
SHU population increased since fiscal year 2008, there has been a 
decline recently. According to BOP officials, the SHU population trend 
might be following the trend in total population in BOP facilities, 
which increased from fiscal years 2008 through 2011, then declined 
slightly in fiscal year 2012. 

[15] According to BOP officials, many SHUs contain at least one single-
bunked cell to hold inmates on a temporary basis who require being 
placed alone to maintain institutional safety. In addition, although 
the SHU at USP Marion has 50 single-bunked cells, the warden at USP 
Marion double-bunked and in some cases triple-bunked the SHU when 
several inmates needed to be placed in SHU following a large inmate 
fight in November 2011. 

[16] These data include inmates in the SHUs within each SMU. 

[17] These ADX inmate population and cell data include ADX SHU inmates 
and cells. 

[18] Generally, PRD conducts 15 program reviews covering 15 different 
areas of BOP operations at a minimum of every 3 years but may conduct 
reviews more frequently if prior reviews identify overall performance 
deficiencies. 

[19] According to BOP officials, BOP provides training for PRD program 
review staff to conduct on-site monitoring. For example, on-site 
monitoring generally includes a team of an average of about five 
examiners, depending on the size and security level of the facility. 
Before a staff member leads an on-site monitoring visit, he or she is 
required to shadow an experienced staff member for about 1 year. BOP 
also trains all employees in basic correctional duties and inmate 
supervision. For example, BOP requires all new examiners to 
participate in annual refresher training. 

[20] Operational reviews conducted by individual facilities provide a 
status update on all areas identified by PRD in the previous program 
review, including operational issues, such as human resources, 
financial management, as well as BOP programs in the facility, such as 
SHUs. Individual facilities perform operational reviews about 10 to 22 
months between BOP program reviews, depending on the rating the 
facility received. 

[21] BOP's Correctional Services Program Review Guidelines requires 
that PRD review 23 SHU specific policies. 

[22] Inmates in Phase 3 of the Special Security Unit and Phases 3 and 
4 of the ADX Step Down Unit may be allowed additional recreation time 
and interaction with others, and inmates in Phase 4 of the ADX Step 
Down Unit may be double-bunked. See figure 2 for a comparison of 
conditions of confinement by ADX program unit. 

[23] From fiscal years 2007 through 2011, PRD conducted 187 
correctional services program reviews at 98 BOP prisons. 

[24] For example, some monitoring reports state SHU-specific 
deficiencies related to missing BP-A292 forms, which document meals, 
recreation, and other conditions of confinement. 

[25] BOP rated these 15 prisons as generally compliant, with ratings 
such as acceptable, good or superior. For the remaining 6 prisons, BOP 
did not provide similar ratings because they were based on SHU program 
review observation reports, or part of quarterly, summary program 
reports covering several facilities and programs. According to BOP 
policy, program review reports for individual facilities are often 
assigned an overall rating ranging from superior, good, acceptable, or 
deficient to at risk. None of the selected reports rated individual 
facilities as deficient or at risk. 

[26] In addition to 51 inmate SHU case files, we reviewed 10 CMU case 
files, which are described in appendices I and II. 

[27] Out of a total of 51 inmate case files, we reviewed 35 inmate 
files related to monitoring of inmate status, conditions of 
confinement, and procedural protections in administrative segregation; 
and 17 inmate files related to procedural protections in disciplinary 
segregation. In fiscal year 2012, the total segregated housing inmate 
population at these three facilities was 405. 

[28] Project Management Institute, The Standard for Program Management 
© (2006). 

[29] BOP Federal Correctional Complexes include several institutions 
with different missions and security levels located in proximity to 
one another. 

[30] BOP applies support costs to an institution's daily inmate per 
capita costs based on the percentage of overall support cost to total 
BOP obligations. Support costs are institution-related expenses that 
are paid by BOP HQ due to centralized billing procedures, such as 
phone charges, workers compensation, payroll processing, information 
technology support, and costs of Regional and Central Office and 
Training Center staff. The inmate daily per capita rate does not 
include any one time non-routine costs or construction and renovation 
costs. 

[31] Based on staffing ratios that BOP officials provided, we 
estimated the average number of correctional officers assigned to a 
segregated housing unit. For example, the number of correctional 
officers assigned to a SHU varies by shift (e.g., morning, daytime, 
and evening shifts), and we estimated the average number of 
correctional officers assigned to the SHU in a 24-hour period, based 
on the different staffing ratios in each shift. 

[32] According to BOP, a lockdown is an emergency security practice in 
which inmates are locked in their cells and movement is restricted 
(e.g., dining, showering, recreating, and programming outside of cells 
is halted) for immediate or long-term control of a crisis or to 
prevent a crisis situation. In addition, BOP officials noted the 
number of lockdowns declined during a time frame when the total BOP 
inmate population rose. 

[33] BOP's Office of Research and Evaluation (ORE), which conducts 
research and evaluations of BOP programs, reported in March 2012 that 
a SMU study was underway. However, as of February 2013, BOP officials 
could not confirm when the SMU study would be completed. 

[34] For example, both state departments of corrections and BOP are 
required to house, clothe, and feed inmates in a safe and secure 
setting, but BOP noted the federal correctional system and states are 
subject to different sentencing laws, which affect the types of 
inmates and types of segregation each system manages. 

[35] State administrative segregation units, some of which are 
referred to as supermax facilities, are designed to hold the most 
dangerous inmates. Supermax facilities are designed to separate 
violent or disruptive inmates from general prison population and 
generally require confining inmates in a single cell up to 23 hours 
per day, with minimal contact with staff or other inmates. Some states 
have implemented segregated housing reforms earlier than others. For 
example, Ohio initiated segregated housing reforms about a decade ago. 

[36] Custody levels in Colorado refer to level of supervision and are 
identified as minimum, minimum restricted, medium, and close. 

[37] For example, see GAO, Information Sharing, DHS Could Better 
Define How it Plans to Meet Its State and Local Mission and Improve 
Performance Accountability, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-223] (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 16, 
2010), Managing for Results: Enhancing Agency Use of Performance 
Information for Management Decision Making, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-927] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 9, 
2005); Program Evaluation: Studies Helped Agencies Measure or Explain 
Program Performance, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-00-204] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 
29, 2000); Agency Performance Plans: Examples of Practices That Can 
Improve Usefulness to Decisionmakers, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-69] (Washington, D.C.: 
Feb. 26, 1999); and Managing for Results: Strengthening Regulatory 
Agencies' Performance Management Practices, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-00-10] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 28, 
1999). 

[38] For example, the 30-day psychological assessment is to include an 
interview with the inmate, assessment of each inmate's adjustment to 
his or her surroundings, and any threat the inmate poses to self, 
staff, and other inmates. We currently have work under way for the 
House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the House 
Judiciary Committee, which is reviewing the extent to which BOP 
monitors and assesses the cost and quality of inmate mental health. 

[39] BOP's Office of Research and Evaluation (ORE), which reported 
that BOP is in the early stages of a study dedicated to evaluating the 
impact of SMUs on offenders. BOP does not yet have an estimated 
completion date for the study. 

[40] The psychologist at one facility reported that segregation could 
adversely impact an inmate's mental health. 

[41] Maureen L. O'Keefe et al, Colorado: One Year Longitudinal Study 
of the Psychological Effects of Administrative Segregation, National 
Institute of Justice Report, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, 
D.C. (2010). 

[42] For an example of some studies we reviewed, see S. Grassian, 
"Psychiatric Effects of Solitary Confinement, " Journal of Law & 
Policy, vol. 22, no. 325 (2006); D. Lovell, L. C. Johnson and K. C. 
Cain, "Recidivism of Supermax Prisoners in Washington State," Crime & 
Delinquency, vol. 53, no. 4 (2007); D. P. Mears and W. D. Bales, 
"Supermax Incarceration and Recidivism," Criminology, vol. 47, no. 4 
(2009); H. A. Miller and G. R. Young, " Prison Segregation: 
Administrative Detention Remedy or Mental Health Problem," Criminal 
Behaviour and Mental Health, vol. 7: 85-94 (1997); and P. Smith, "The 
Effects of Solitary Confinement on Prison Inmates: A Brief History and 
Review of the Literature," Crime and Justice, vol. 34: 441-568 (2006). 

[43] See GAO, Designing Evaluations: 2012 Revision, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-208G] (Washington, D.C.: January 
2012). 

[44] BOP provided population data at the end of each fiscal year for 
fiscal years 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and as of February 2013. 
BOP also provided number of cells data from fiscal years 2008 through 
2012 for SHUs, ADX and CMUs, and from fiscal year 2008 through 
November 2012 for SMUs. 

[45] BOP operates CMUs in two medium security BOP facilities. BOP 
established a CMU at FCI Terre Haute in 2006 and a second CMU in USP 
Marion in 2008. As part of this review, we visited both CMUs. 

[46] According to BOP officials, BOP does not have a national policy 
governing CMUs. Rather, the prisons containing the CMUs have developed 
institution supplements, or local guidelines and procedures that 
govern the CMU inmate review process and conditions of confinement. 
The CMU institution supplements for FCI Terre Haute and USP Marion are 
generally the same. 

[47] BOP has had 113 CMU inmate cells since fiscal year 2008. The CMU 
population and cell totals include the CMU SHUs. 

[48] According to BOP's Memorandum for Continued CMU Designation, 
dated October 14, 2009, BOP also refers inmates to CMUs for the 
following reasons: attempt or propensity to contact victims of the 
inmate's current offense of conviction, and/or conviction or conduct 
indicating a propensity to coordinate illegal activity through 
communication with persons in the community, or evidence of a 
potential threat to the safety and security of prison facilities or 
the public, as a result of the inmate's unmonitored communication with 
persons in the community. 

[49] As of February 2013, there is litigation pending in federal court 
addressing the issue of whether the lack of a hearing prior to 
placement in a CMU adequately protects inmates' constitutional rights. 
See Aref v. Holder, No. 10-0539 (D.D.C. filed Apr. 1, 2010). 

[50] According to the CMU institution supplements, inmates in the USP 
Marion CMU will generally be housed in single-bunked cells, and 
inmates in the FCI Terre Haute CMU will generally be housed in double-
bunked cells. 

[51] Legal and special mail (e.g., attorney, federal courts) can be 
sealed and delivered to unit management. 

[52] According to BOP officials, BOP considers CMUs as general 
population housing, and thus does not require separate oversight like 
SHUs or SMUs. 

[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. 

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. 

[End of document]