Detailed Information on the
Prisons Operations Assessment

On a quarterly basis, the Chief of Capacity Planning will review the most recent Capacity Planning Committee decisions based on updated population projections to assess the appropriate number of contract beds for future budget requests.

Establish and monitor the agency-wide Reduction and Elimination of Duties Management Assessment Project (REDMAP) for medical operations at BOP prisons to identify and reduce/eliminate redundant functions, outdated prison management systems, and cost prohibitive initiatives. Provide a summary of the findings and track the elimination of redundant functions.

Take greater advantage of state and local and private sector bedspace to meet its space requirements.

Provide population, crowding and rated capacity per BOP institution per region on a quarterly basis.

Provide additional information to supplement the 2006 study: (1) Explain the basis behind BOP's rated capacity standards, (2) Provide a timeline of previous changes made to BOP's crowding standards in recent history, (3) Discuss alternative recommendations to relieve the negative effects of overcrowding other than new construction (e.g. increased staffing, prison improvements, etc.).

Complete an analysis of trends in the population of BOP inmates in residential re-entry Centers (RRC). This analysis should include: (1) Population of Federal inmates in RRCs--by security level where available--(1997-present); (2) RRC utilization levels by security level where available--(1997-present). Utilization level is defined as the number of inmates in RRC (by security level where available) divided by the number of inmates eligible for RRC placement; (3) An explanation of legislative, policy, and management changes that have affected (increased or decreased) RRC placement or population; (4) Provide targets for number of inmates in RRCs and utilization rates, share methodologies behind such targets, and evaluate the feasibility of increasing targets.

Measure: Systemwide crowding in Federal Prisons as measured by rated capacity: 100% double bunking in low and minimum security, 50% double bunking in medium security and 25% double bunking in high security prisons.

Explanation:The overcrowding rate is the rate by which double bunking exceeds BOP's double bunking guidelines. BOP policy calls for double bunking in 25 percent of high security, 50 percent of medium, and 100 percent of low. Whereas severe overcrowding in federal prisons has been shown to increase the likelihood of violence and complicate management of the federal prison population, BOP has committed to reducing systemwide crowding in Federal prisons to 29% by 2012, with the ultimate goal of reducing crowding to 15%.

Measure: Systemwide prison overcrowding rates. The number of inmates as a percentage of overall rated capacity, defined as the total capacity of BOP systemwide that factors in double bunking in 25 percent of high security, 50 percent of medium, and 100 percent of low.

Explanation:The overcrowding rate is the rate by which double bunking exceeds BOP's double bunking guidelines. BOP policy calls for double bunking in 25 percent of high security, 50 percent of medium, and 100 percent of low. Whereas severe overcrowding in federal prisons has been shown to increase the likelihood of violence and complicate management of the federal prison population, BOP has committed to reducing systemwide crowding in Federal prisons to 29% by 2012, with the ultimate goal of reducing crowding to 15%.

Measure: Comparative recidivism for inmates employed by Federal Prison Industries (FPI) versus inmates not employed by FPI 6 years after release.

Explanation:FPI is a wholly owned government corporation within DOJ whose mission is to employ and provide vocational training for the greatest practical number of inmates. FPI represents BOP's most successful rehabilitation program, and accordingly the Bureau aspires to realize a 15% reduction in the rate of comparative recidivism for Federal Prison Industry inmates versus non Federal Prison Industry inmates 3 years after release and a 10% reduction 6 years after release.

Measure: Comparative recidivism for inmates employed by Federal Prison Industries (FPI) versus inmates not employed by FPI 3 years after release.

Explanation:FPI is a wholly owned government corporation within DOJ whose mission is to employ and provide vocational training for the greatest practical number of inmates. FPI represents BOP's most successful rehabilitation program, and accordingly the Bureau aspires to realize a 15% reduction in the rate of comparative recidivism for Federal Prison Industry inmates versus non Federal Prison Industry inmates 3 years after release and a 10% reduction 6 years after release.

Measure: Escapes from secure BOP facilities through 2012.

Explanation:Ensure there are no escapes from secure BOP facilities.

Measure: Escapes from secure BOP facilities.

Explanation:

Measure: Increase percentage of inmates in contract facilities to 20% by 2012.

Explanation:While the BOP is the only Federal agency mandated to be responsible for the care and custody of Federally sentenced offenders, the Bureau is not obligated to incarcerate all of these offenders in Federal facilities. BOP strives to increase the share of its prisoner population housed in contract facilities and ensure that these inmates are prepared for re-entry into society.

Measure: Percentage of inmates in contract facilities.

Explanation:While the BOP is the only Federal agency mandated to be responsible for the care and custody of Federally sentenced offenders, the Bureau is not obligated to incarcerate all of these offenders in Federal facilities. BOP strives to increase the share of its prisoner population housed in contract facilities and ensure that these inmates are prepared for re-entry into society.

Measure: Rate of Serious Assaults in Federal Prisons (Assaults per 5,000 inmates) to 13/5,000 by 2012.

Explanation:

Measure: Rate of Serious Assaults in Federal Prisons (Assaults per 5,000 inmates).

Explanation:

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: An agency of the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) has a clearly defined mission. Established by statute in 1930, the BOP is charged with protecting society by safely and securely incarcerating Federal offenders in BOP-administered prisons as well as private, state and local prisons and community-based facilities.

Evidence: See Mission Statement and Title 18 USC, Part III, Chapter 303 - Bureau of Prisons.

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The purpose of the BOP is to safely, securely and cost-effectively incarcerate Federal inmates and to provide vocational and education opportunities to assist inmates in becoming law-abiding citizens upon their release from prison. Presently, there are over 195,000 inmates in the BOP's custody. In addition to the responsibility of housing and providing care for these inmates, the BOP has been faced with the dual challenges of providing for more comprehensive vocational opportunities and expanding the share of its inmates residing under contract in private, state and local facilities.

Evidence: The percentage of inmates in contract facilities is up from 1.5% in 1980 to 10.7% in 1990, to 15.6% at the end of 2006. As of May 3, 2007, there were 16.1% of inmates in contract confinement. See Population Report; Monday Morning Highlights and BOP FY 2008 President's Budget S&E base descriptions. See Link for BOP State of the Bureau (www.bop.gov/news/PDFs/sob05.pdf).

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: While the BOP is the only Federal agency mandated to be responsible for the care and custody of Federally sentenced offenders, the Bureau is not obligated to incarcerate all of these offenders in Federal facilities. BOP strives to increase the share of its prisoner population housed in contract facilities and ensure that these inmates are prepared for re-entry into society. In its place at the end of the criminal jusice pipeline, the BOP is responsible for all Federally sentenced inmates and nearly 1/4 of USMS pre-trial detainees. The BOP coordinates with FBI, USMS, USAs, ICE, Federal Courts, state and local governments, and communities to ensure that all Federally sentenced inmates serve their term in facilities which provide appropriate programming, work opportunities, and pre-release transitioning to the community.

Evidence: The BOP is mandated oversight responsibility for all Federal inmates. The BOP has determined that privately run prisons provide an appropriate alternative to housing low security inmates in BOP facilities and continues to secure bedspace. The BOP continues to increase its reliance on the private sector and state and local correctional agencies to incarcerate short-term criminal aliens. However, non-alien low security Federal inmates represent a small percentage of this contract population despite the fact that the Taft demonstration and a majority of states have shown that this population can be safely and cost-effectively incarcerated by contract confinement. The percentage of inmates in contract facilities is up from 1.5% in 1980 to 10.7% in 1990, to 15.6% at the end of 2006. The BOP has in its custody over 195,000 inmates in 114 BOP owned and operated facilities and in private contract facilities, community corrections centers, and on home confinement.

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: The BOP operates Federal prisons of varying security levels and also utilizes privately operated facilities, residential reentry centers (halfway houses), and facilities secured through intergovernmental agreements (IGAs).The BOP strives to manage an efficient and cost-effective prison system by placing inmates in the least restrictive and least costly correctional facility appropriate to their custody and security level requirements. On October 1, 2005, BOP released a study by Abt Associates Inc. comparing private vs. public prison management, operations and costs. The study's findings indicated that cost savings could be achieved by expanding private management of BOP's low security population. In addition, DOJ cited Federal prison crowding as a program material weakness in its 2006 Performance and Accountabiltiy Report (PAR).

Evidence: The BOP has made progress in the areas of streamlining operations and improving management of its intergovernmental agreements for contract prison space. The BOP consistently strives to acheive efficiencies in the dual processes of managing a growing prisoner population and preparing inmates for release. In July 2006, the Bureau's Executive Staff approved the Reduction and Elimination of Duties Management Assessment Project (REDMAP). Through this process, BOP is examining major programs , systems, and services and reducing the workload on staff by reducing paperwork, eliminating redundant processes, and removing unnecessary duties. See Link for copy of Abt Associates Inc.'s study (http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/211990.pdf);See page I-18 of the 2006 PAR(www.usdoj.gov/ag/annualreports/pr2006/TableofContents.htm).

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: The BOP's classification and designation system ensures that offenders are confined in prisons and community-based facilities that are safe, humane, cost-efficient, and appropriately secure. With this approach, offenders are placed in the most appropriate security level facility with programming specifically suited to their needs. There are no identifiable unintended subsidies provided for by this program.

Evidence: Offenders in BOP's custody are assigned a custody status which relates to the degree of supervision needed and ensures that offenders are placed in the least costly correctional environment appropriate to their custody and security level needs. The result is a grouping of offenders with similar custodial needs in an institution and a significant reduction in the mixing of aggressive and non-aggressive offenders.

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: The BOP has ambitious long-term performance measures which are closely monitored and updated on a continuous basis and annual goals that are planned to achieve the Bureau's long-term goals. The measures focus on outcomes and involve security, a sophisticated population projection model, and inmate programming. The long-term performance measures are 1) system-wide crowding in federal prisons, goal of 29% by 2012; 2) comparative recidivism for FPI inmates versus non-FPI inmates 3 and 6 years after release (goals of 15% and 10% respectively); 3) zero escapes from secure BOP facilities through 2012; 4) Maintain ACA Accreditation at 99% of BOP facilities; and 5) Increase percentage of inmates in contract facilities to 20% by 2012.

Evidence: Evidence is found in the public DOJ Performance Plan/Report GPRA document, BOP/DOJ strategic plan, and in BOP budget submissions. Further, there are numerous BOP documents which contain performance reporting information. Each BOP budget submission contains the inmate population, number of inmates in contract facilities, BOP facilities rated capacity and crowding projected into the outyears. See FY 2008 Congressional Budget Estimates GPRA Tables; Link for the DOJ Strategic Plan through 2012 (http://10.173.2.12/jmd/mps/doj_sp_ombdraft.pdf); FY 2006 PAR Performance Measures; the Projected Population Capacity and Crowding Chart.

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: The BOP has ambitious long-term performance targets and time frames which are closely monitored and updated on a continuous basis, and annual goals are planned to achieve the long-term goals. Long-term plans are reviewed and updated quarterly by the BOP's Executive Staff. Quarterly updates for annual measures are also submitted by program managers. Specifically, BOP's long-term measure of systemwide overcrowding in Federal prisons is geared towards alleviating prison overcrowding at BOP's most critical security levels in conjuction with estimated impacts of already funded new prison projects and improvements that allow BOP to better manage its prisoner population. BOP's recidivism measure is consistent with the Bureau's mission to rehabilitate its inmates and highlights Federal Prison Industries (FPI), BOP's most successful vocational program. Additionally, BOP's contract confinement measure reflects the Bureau's policy to continue to expand the confinement of its low and minimum security inmates in contract facilities.

Evidence: Evidence is found in the public DOJ Performance Plan/Report GPRA document, BOP strategic plan, and the BOP budget submissions. Further, there are numerous BOP documents which contain performance reporting information. Each BOP budget submission contains the inmate populaton, BOP facilities rated capacity and crowding projected into the outyears. For example, the FY 2008 budget projects this information through FY 2010. See evidence under 2.1 (FY 2008 Congressional Budget Estimates GPRA Tables; Link for the DOJ Strategic Plan through 2012; FY 2006 PAR Performance Measures; and the Projected Population Capacity and Crowding Chart.)

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: The BOP annually measures prison crowding, per capita costs, number of assaults, suicides, escapes, inmates completing residential and non-residential drug treatment programs, inmates participating in Life Connections Pilot, inmates receiving education and vocational training, number of contract beds, and adult corrections personnel trained by NIC. The BOP has specific targets which are outcome oriented and emphasize the importance of obtaining adequate capacity as well as improving offender skills and training, and providing substance abuse counseling while incarcerated. Five annual goals are: (1) systemwide crowding rates. The number of inmates as a percentage of overall rated capacity; (2) Comparative recidivism for FPI inmates versus non-FPI inmates 3 years after release/6 years after release; (3) escapes from secure BOP facilities; (4) percentage of inmates in contract facilities; and (5) Rate of Serious Assaults in Federal Prisons (per 5,000 inmates).

Evidence: The BOP has identified specific targets which are outcome oriented and emphasize the importance of obtaining adequate capacity and maintaining security as well as improving offender skills and reducing recidivism rates. Based on 1st quarter data, the FY 2007 performance goals for the four targets will be met. The targets for FY 2007 are listed in the performance section of the PART. See evidence under 2.1 (FY 2008 Congressional Budget Estimates GPRA Tables; Link for the DOJ Strategic Plan through 2012; FY 2006 PAR Performance Measures; BOP's Current Capacity Plan through 2010, and the Projected Population Capacity and Crowding Chart.)

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: The BOP has ambitious annual targets and historical data to support baseline measures. Baselines and targets are published in the DOJ Performance Plan/Report GPRA document. The BOP has an active research office who work with DOJ, US Courts, and Sentencing Commission to maintain baseline data and chart future trends. The BOP's automated SENTRY system and Key Indicators/Strategic Support System provides data regularly to permit comparisons across time and for program analyses. The BOP established and reported on a new recidivism measure in FY 2006: Comparative recidivism for FPI inmates versus non-FPI inmates 3 years after release/6 years after release. FY 2006 actuals were 23% less likely to recidivate after 3 years and 10% less likely to recidivate after 6 years. The BOP has annual goals and monitors and evaluates the percentage of inmates in contract confinement and has a goal of 20% by 2012. The actual percentage for FY 2006 for the number of inmates in contract confinement was 15.6%.

Evidence: Evidence is found in the BOP Performance Plan/Report GPRA document. In addition, the BOP has established baselines which have led to the development of a sophisticated population projection model and continuing research in concert with other agencies on the trends affecting projections, and other comparisons such as recidivism rates. The BOP provides weekly updates to DOJ and OMB on popuation, capacity, and crowding trends, and monthly updates on construction status. See evidence under 2.1 (FY 2008 Congressional Budget Estimates GPRA Tables; Link for the DOJ Strategic Plan through 2012; FY 2006 PAR Performance Measures; BOP's Current Capacity Plan through 2010, and the Projected Population Capacity and Crowding Chart); and Status of Construction, and Weekly Population Report.

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: The BOP partners with state, local, and private correctional providers to reach several of its annual and long term goals relating to prison crowding, inmate care and programs. While all contracts contain explicit guidance and criteria which address achievements expected, it is unclear how BOP communicates its needs to prospective partners with respect to the optimal number and makeup of BOP's low security population incarcerated in contract facilities. Currently, solicitations for BOP's Criminal Alien Requirements (CAR) represent the bulk of contract confinement procurement, and it remains to be seen how BOP will continue to use private, state or local bedspace to house its non-alien low security population. BOP Residential Reentry Centers (halfway houses), which enable inmates to participate in a variety of programs that assist in re-entry, represent another type of partnership with contract providers. These centers provide a structured, but less restrictive environment that is key to the BOP's goals of reducing recidivism and providing programs to combat substance abuse and enhance inmate skills. During FY 2006, while RRC placement was secured for 98.5 percent of all inmates that BOP referred, x% of all inmates eligible for RRC placement (those in the last 10% or 6 months of their sentences) were placed in an RRC. In conjunction with BOP's PART Improvement Plan, the Bureau will account for this discrepancy and provide recommendations for methods to increase the number of inmates in RRCs.

Evidence: Specific contract performance standards are included with all solicitations. They outline consequences of non-performance (i.e., failing to complete the work within the time specified in the contract) as well as conditions under which a performance incentive award fee might be earned. For inmates participating in FPI work programs, FY 2006 actuals were 23% less likely to recidivate after 3 years and 10% less likely to recidivate after 6 years. The Life Connections Program (LCP) has been implemented in institutions of various security levels and in various geographical regions of the country, and is being carried out in partnership with a broad spectrum of religious and community organizations. See CAR 6 Awards (5) and 3.2b for a sample full contract.

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The BOP is regularly the subject of initial findings, audit and follow-up reports conducted by the American Correctional Association (ACA) and the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Organizations (JCAHO) for the purposes of achieving and maintaining national facility and operational accreditation. Institutions are ACA accredited within 2 years of activation, and ACA accreditation must be renewed every 3 years. JCAHO reviews occur every 3 years. Independent accounting firms such as KPMG and PWC perform audits annually. The BOP has consistently received "unqualified" (clean) opinions with no material weaknesses on its Audited Financial Statements for the past 8 years. The Bureau of Prisons reviews all external audits and responds to the appropriate agency regarding any recommendations. Responses are initially prepared by subject matter experts and finalized by the Program Review Division (PRD). Initial responses are approved and signed by the Director. Subsequent status updates are provided by PRD with input from the appropriate division. Corrective Action Plans are developed for each open recommendation and updated on a quarterly basis until completed. CEOs and/or other management staff are notified by the appropriate division regarding any changes in operations due to recommendations in an external audit. PRD staff review program statements and program review guidelines to ensure issues identified by external audits have been incorporated, if necessary.

Evidence: The BOP is the subject of external evaluations and audits of its operations conducted by the ACA, the JCAHO, and the Office of the Inspector General as well as budget and financial audits conducted by the Government Accountability Office, the OIG, and independent accounting firms such as PWC and KPMG. In addition, the BOP has an internal systematic approach to assessing operations and programs at all organizational levels through the BOP Program Review process. Further, the BOP is accountable through the annual performance plan, the strategic plan, the "State of the Bureau" (an annual publication that provides a summary of the BOP's yearly activities, statistical data, and articles on specific aspects of BOP's operations) all of which provide program evaluation information. See 2006 PAR ACA Performance Measure; ACA website (www.ACA.org); JCAHO and ACA Tracking Accreditation; JCAHO Link (www.jointcommission.org); PriceWaterhouseCoopers Audit Report - Financial (Clean Audit); Link for OIG Mail Management Report (http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/reports/BOP/e0609); Link for DOJ Strategic Plan (http://10.173.2.12/jmd/mps/doj_sp_ombdraft.pdf), and Link for BOP State of the Bureau (www.bop.gov/news/PDFs/sob05.pdf).

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: The BOP program budget is strategically aligned by decision unit with program goals and objectives. For example, in the Inmate Care and Programs decision unit, BOP's goal is to provide residential drug treatment to 100% of eligible inmates. Funding requirements to meet these goals take into account the anticipated number of inmates to receive such services. Also, in the Contract Confinement decision unit, there is a direct and clear relationship between requests for additional contract capacity and impact on capacity and crowding goals targets. The program reports all direct and indirect costs.

Evidence: Consistent with the Government Performance and Results Act, the FY 2008 budget (similar to the FY 2007 President's budget) proposes to streamline the S&E decision unit structure from four program activities to three to align the BOP budget more closely with the mission and strategic objectives contained in the DOJ Strategic Plan (FYs 2003-2008). The budget will be realigned to reflect the BOP's outputs and full costs for each major program activity by attributing management and administration costs for each program in the appropriate program decision unit. Thus, it will provide a more accurate picture of total activity costs in the budget. In this way, budget and performance are more closely linked, and provide a better basis on which to make budget decisions. See FY 2008 President's Budget - DOJ Chapter.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: Strategic planning is driven by the BOP's mission and vision statements, which are supported by four broadly stated, long-term correctional goals. Each of the four goals is supported by specific objectives and action plans. The BOP Executive Staff holds quarterly planning sessions to ensure that the agency's strategic goals continue to meet the needs of society and reflect the major issues that face the agency, the vision and mission of a modern correctional system, and the challenges confronting the BOP both currently and in the future. During these sessions, the Executive Staff make decisions concerning proposals to revise, eliminate, or add objectives. Additionally, required reports from institutions, regions, and divisions outlining progress toward meeting objectives and action plans are reviewed.

Evidence: Material weaknesses are identified, i.e., crowding, and addressed through the agency plan, the Department's Strategic Plan as well as through long-term objectives and annual goals which support the BOP's budget requests. See BOP Mission and Vision Statements; Link to DOJ Strategic Plan (http://10.173.2.12/jmd/mps/doj_sp_ombdraft.pdf), and 2006 PAR measures.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: The BOP has 13 privately managed prison and detention facilities included in its inmate management portfolio. They are required by contract to enter inmates data in the BOP system. The BOP utilizes a Quality Assurance Plan to routinely monitor contractor compliance and improve performance. The key indicator system summarizes performance information which BOP Executive Staff use to make management decisions for the agency. Headquarter divisions are asked to run reports regularly, weekly, monthly, quarterly, for different agency reporting requirements and to keep track of and adjust targets as necessary.

Evidence: The BOP routinely maintains on-site contract and other management personnel at contract and privately managed facilities. In addition, biannual reviews are conducted utilizing a Quality Assurance Plan to monitor and improve program performance. The BOP relies on its own reporting, compliance records and observations about operations, as well as contract company-entered computer data, to determine whether contract specifications are being met, revisions and modifications are required, and/or contract termination is warranted. The NIJ sponsored Taft Study was released by Abt on October 1, 2005. Abt Associates concluded that the level of performance at Taft was more than acceptable and cites the fact that BOP paid the contractor an additional $2.2 million in bonuses ('award fees') for good performance above and beyond mere compliance with the contract. In addition, Abt concluded that the contractor operated the facility at less cost than would have the BOP during the same period (savings estimates were $12-24 million). See Quality Assurance Plan; List of Privately Managed Prisons; Link - NIJ TAFT study (http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/211990.pdf).

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: Federal Managers are held accountable through the Performance Appraisal process. The Performance Appraisal is consistent with the President's Management Agenda (PMA); the DOJ Strategic Plan, and BOP's Strategic Plan as well as short term items identified by the Executive Staff which are reported quarterly and reviewed by the Director. Performance decisions are made accordingly. All contracts contain explicit guidance and criteria which address achievements expected and how it impacts annual and long-term accomplishments goals.

Evidence: Specific contract performance standards are included with all solicitations. They outline consequences of non-performance (i.e., failing to complete the work within the time specified in the contract) as well as conditions under which a performance incentive award fee might be earned. See copy of complete contract, including performance standards , costs, and schedules as a sample.

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner, spent for the intended purpose and accurately reported?

Explanation: The BOP focuses very closely on timely obligation of funds. Program Managers and financial staff at Institutions, Regional Offices, and Headquarters consistently review status of obligation reports monthly and quarterly.

Evidence: Apportionment requests, Treasury end-of-year reports, 133's indicate that funds are obligated in a timely manner. In addition, the BOP has made funding adjustments to accommodate the enacted pay raise (for example, 3.1% actual in FY 2006 vs. 2.3% included in enacted funding).

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: The BOP does have procedures to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution. The BOP uses multiple options to house the inmate population. The BOP contracts for bedspace with private corrections companies, states and localities to house its low security and criminal alien population. On January 17, 2007, the BOP awarded multiple contracts to five offerors to house low security criminal alien inmates currently under BOP custody. Four of the communities/companies were previously under Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs) and won contract awards. This contract approach was selected in an effort to utilize fair and open competition to fulfill this bed space requirement, with the best services and the best price for the taxpayers. As a result of the competition, the BOP was able to acquire the 7,654 beds for $13 million less than the annual amount that would have been paid had the IGAs been renewed. Since 1996, the BOP has strived to hold its inmate per capita cost below inflation through cost containment initiatives including: A-76 competitions; reverse auctions; review of functions; reengineering of processes; streamlining of budget decision units; construction and shared services at prison complexes; and identification and achievement of savings goals. Additionally, the BOP also regularly tracks data to determine progress toward goals, i.e., assaults/homicides/suicides/escapes. The new recidivism measure established in FY 2006 further demonstrates the effectiveness of FPI work programs.

Evidence: The BOP has initiated a number of management actions to streamline operations, improve program efficiencies and save costs, including centralizing prisoner sentence computation and inmate designation funtions, consolidating human resource and employee development functions, and transferring inmates with the most critical medical needs to dedicated BOP medical centers. BOP continues to make progress in its streamlining and other efficiency measures initiated to operate within available resources. BOP has already abolished over 2,300 positions, closed four outmoded and inefficent prison camps, and continue the transfer of inmates with the most critical needs to consolidated BOP medical centers resulting in savings to the taxpayer. The BOP began using reverse auctions for large scale/large quantity purchases in 2001. The BOP has conducted a minimum of one per year with an average savings of 15% - 20%. The savings is used to purchase additional items. For example, in 2003 we used the reverse auction process to purchase new computer servers across the BOP. Because of the low pricing obtained through the auction we were able to purchase 10 additional servers. The BOP uses a company called FedBid.com, which does not charge for using the program. The vendor who receives the award actually pays the fee (1%-3% of award amount). The BOP has conducted two streamlined A-76 competitions. In FY 2005, the BOP competed the dialysis function at Springfield, 43 FTE. The award decision was made in May 2005 with the Most Efficient Organization (MEO), BOP staff, receiving the award. In FY06, the BOP conducted a streamlined competition of the medical laboratory function, 12 FTE, at Rochester. Again, the MEO winning the competition was BOP staff. See IGA chart; FY 2006 PAR goals; Per Capita chart and Medical Classification Care Level Criteria.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The BOP coordinates with FBI, USMS, USA's, ICE, Federal Courts, state and local governments, and communities to ensure that every Federally sentenced inmate serves their term in facilities which provide appropriate programming, work opportunities, and pre-release transitioning to the community. In addition, the BOP houses inmates for the USMS, ICE and other state and local correctional systems. The BOP has served as a model for many of these systems and institutions.

Evidence: In addition to collaborating with other criminal justice systems, the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) provides assistance to international, Federal, state and local correctional agencies. Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) with the USMS and FBI are in existence which ensure smooth and efficient operations and use of resources. Further, the BOP regularly participates in joining task forces with other organizations (i.e., Joint Terrorism Task Force). The BOP also utilizes Public Health Service (PHS) personnel on a reimbursable basis to help carry out BOP medical services programs as appropriate. See Internet Link - NIC's mission statement (http://www.nicic.org/Mission); MOU/FBI and USMS; Interagency Agreement - USMS, and PHS Language.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The BOP has consistently received "unqualified" (clean) opinions with no material weaknesses on its Audited Financial Statements for the past 8 years.

Evidence: The BOP has received "Unqualified" (clean) opinions with no material weaknesses on its Audited Financial Statements from 1999 through 2006. Since 1997, the BOP has designed and teaches an "appropriations class" to financial, facilities, and procurement personnel to ensure a better understanding of the process and implement that knowledge accordingly in spending decisions. The BOP also has many financial policies to guide program managers in accurately reporting of all financial data, such as P.S. 2250.02, Accounting-Recording Obligations. See PriceWaterhouseCoopers Audit Report - Financial (clean audit); Internet Link - PS 2310.03 - BOP Appropriations, Use of (www.bop.gov/policy/progstat/2310_003.pdf), and Internet Link to all Program Statements 2000 series (http://bop.gov/DataSource/execute/dsPolicyLoc).

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: The BOP is regularly the subject of initial findings, audit and follow-up reports conducted by the American Correctional Association (ACA) and the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Organizations (JCAHO) for the purposes of achieving and maintaining national facility and operational accreditation.

Evidence: The BOP is the subject of external evaluations and audits conducted by the ACA, the JCAHO, the Government Accountability Office, the Office of Inspector General, and PriceWaterhouseCoopers and KPMG (audited financial statements). In addition, the BOP has an internal systematic approach to assessing operations and programs at all organizational levels through the BOP Program Review Process. See same evidence as 2.6 (2006 PAR ACA Performance Measure; ACA website; JCAHO and ACA Tracking Accreditation; JCAHO Link; PriceWaterhouseCoopers Audit Report - Financial (Clean Audit); Link for OIG Mail Management Report; Link for DOJ Strategic Plan, and Link for BOP State of the Bureau).

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: The BOP has ambitious long-term performance goals which are closely monitored and updated on a regular basis, and the Bureau's annual goals are planned to achieve its long-term goals. The goals involve a sophisticated population projection model and formal capacity plan. The BOP's long term goals include: 1) systemwide crowding in Federal Prisons as measured by rated capacity: 100% double bunking in low and minimum security, 50% double bunking in medium security and 25% double bunking in high security prisons; 2) Comparative recidivism for FPI inmates versus non-FPI inmates 3 years after release/6 years after release; 3) Ensure there are no escapes from secure BOP facilities through 2012, and 4) Increase the percentage of inmates in contract facilities to 20% by 2012.

Evidence: The BOP capacity plan is utilized to manage the current Federal inmate population and plan for the future. It contains detailed long-term performance measures based on anticipated resource levels along with projected inmate population levels. Each BOP budget submission contains the inmate population, BOP facilities rated capacity and crowding, projected into the outyears. For example, the FY 2008 budget shows projections for this information through FY 2010. See Internet Link to FY 2006 DOJ Strategic Plan (http://10.173.2.12/jmd/mps/doj_sp_ombdraft.pdf); FY 2006 PAR measures; Capacity Plan through 2010, and Projected Population, Capacity and Crowding Chart.

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: BOP's five annual goals include: (1) system-wide crowding rates. The number of inmates as a percentage of overall rated capacity; (2) Comparative recidivism for FPI inmates versus non-FPI inmates 3 years after release/6 years after release; (3) escapes from secure BOP facilities; (4) percentage of inmates in contract facilities; and (5) Rate of Serious Assaults in Federal Prisons (per 5,000 inmates). Examples where annual performance goals are met include performance goals for inmates completing at least one vocational program, percent of inmates in RDAP, and Number of inmates in non-residential drug treatment. These goals have been met or exceeded in both FY 2005 and FY 2006 (the most recent years for which final data is available). For FY 2006, a new annual goal reported on for the BOP and its longtime partner FPI is Comparative Recidivism for FPI inmates vs non-FPI inmates 3 years/6 years after release. The BOP works toward its annual and long term goal of reducing crowding by increasing reliance on contract providers. The percentage of inmates in contract facilities is up from 1.5% in 1980 to 10.7% in 1990, to 15.6% today.

Evidence: In the past two years, the BOP has ensured 12,805 inmates completed at least one vocational training program; enrolled 100% of eligible inmates in its residential drug treatment program; and enrolled 13,697 inmates in non-residential drug treatment programs. Actual FY 2006 recidivism for FPI inmates vs non-FPI inmates were -- 3 years: 23% less likely to recidivate, and 6 years: 10% less likely to recidivate. See Inmate Population report; evidence 2.1a, and Per Capita Chart.

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: The BOP does have procedures to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution. The BOP uses multiple options to house the inmate population. The BOP contracts for bedspace with private corrections companies for low security criminal aliens as well as state and local governments. For example, on January 17, 2007, the BOP awarded multiple contracts to five offerors to house low security criminal alien inmates currently under BOP custody. Four of the communities/companies were previously under Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs) and won contract awards. This contract approach was selected in an effort to utilize fair and open competition to fulfill this bed space requirement, with the best services and the best price for the taxpayers. As a result of the competition, the BOP was able to acquire the 7,654 beds for $13 million less than the annual amount that would have been paid had the IGAs been renewed. Since 1996, the BOP has strived to hold its inmate per capita cost below inflation through cost containment initiatives including: A-76 competitions; reverse auctions; review of functions; reengineering of processes; streamlining of budget decision units; construction and shared services at prison complexes; and identification and achievement of savings goals. Additionally, the BOP also regularly tracks data to determine progress toward goals, i.e., assaults/homicides/suicides/escapes. The new recidivism measure established in FY 2006 further demonstrates the effectiveness of FPI work programs. Five annual goals are: (1) systemwide crowding rates. The number of inmates as a percentage of overall rated capacity; (2) Comparative recidivism for FPI inmates versus non-FPI inmates 3 years after release/6 years after release; (3) escapes from secure BOP facilities; (4) percentage of inmates in contract facilities; and (5) Rate of Serious Assaults in Federal Prisons (per 5,000 inmates).

Evidence: The BOP has initiated a number of management actions to streamline operations, improve program efficiencies and save costs, including centralizing prisoner sentence computation and inmate designation funtions, consolidating human resource and employee development functions, and transferring inmates with the most critical medical needs to dedicated BOP medical centers. BOP continues to make progress in its streamlining and other efficiency measures initiated to operate within available resources. BOP has already abolished over 2,300 positions, closed four outmoded and inefficent prison camps, and continue the transfer of inmates with the most critical needs to consolidated BOP medical centers resulting in savings to the taxpayer. The BOP began using reverse auctions for large scale/large quantity purchases in 2001. The BOP has conducted a minimum of one per year with an average savings of 15% - 20%. The savings is used to purchase additional items. For example, in 2003 we used the reverse auction process to purchase new computer servers across the BOP. Because of the low pricing obtained through the auction we were able to purchase 10 additional servers. The BOP uses a company called FedBid.com, which does not charge for using the program. The vendor who receives the award actually pays the fee (1%-3% of award amount). The BOP has conducted two streamlined A-76 competitions. In FY 2005, the BOP competed the dialysis function at Springfield, 43 FTE. The award decision was made in May 2005 with the Most Efficient Organization (MEO), BOP staff, receiving the award. In FY06, the BOP conducted a streamlined competition of the medical laboratory function, 12 FTE, at Rochester. Again, the MEO winning the competition was BOP staff. See evidence as 3.4 (IGA chart; FY 2006 PAR goals; Per Capita chart and Medical Classification Care Level Criteria).

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: The NIJ sponsored Taft study was completed by Abt on October 1, 2005. Abt Associates concluded that the level of performance at Taft was more than acceptable and cites the fact that BOP paid the contractor an additional $2.2 million in bonuses ('award fees') for good performance above and beyond mere compliance with the contract. In addition, Abt concluded that the contractor operated the facility at less cost than would have the BOP during the same period (savings estimates were $10-17 million).

Evidence: The National Institute of Justice awarded a grant to Abt Associates to conduct an evaluation of the private prison demonstration project at Taft Correctional Institution. See Link - NIJ Taft Study (http://www.ncjrs.gov//pdffiles1/nij/grants/211990.pdf).

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: The BOP facilities are routinely and systematically reviewed for accreditation by independent, external organizations. 99 percent of eligible BOP facilities were accredited by ACA during FY 2006, and 94.6% percent of eligible BOP facilities accredited by JCAHO. These evaluations mentioned in the response to question 2.6 meet PART guidelines for quality and scope.

Evidence: The BOP is the subject of external evaluations and audits of its operations conducted by the ACA, the JCAHO, and the Office of the Inspector General as well as budget and financial audits conducted by the Government Accountability Office, the OIG, and independent accounting firms such as PWC and KPMG. In addition, the BOP has an internal systematic approach to assessing operations and programs at all organizational levels through the BOP Program Review process. Further, the BOP is accountable through the annual performance plan, the strategic plan, the "State of the Bureau" (an annual publication that provides a summary of the BOP's yearly activities, statistical data, and articles on specific aspects of BOP's operations) all of which provide program evaluation information. 99 percent of eligible BOP facilities were accredited by ACA during FY 2006, and 94.6% percent of eligible BOP facilities accredited by JCAHO. See evidence 2.6 (See 2006 PAR ACA Performance Measure; ACA website; JCAHO and ACA Tracking Accreditation; JCAHO Link; PriceWaterhouseCoopers Audit Report - Financial (Clean Audit); Link for OIG Mail Management Report; Link for DOJ Strategic Plan, and Link for BOP State of the Bureau).