Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 3:57 am
Time: 3:57 am
Results for u.s. federal bureau of prisons
6 results foundAuthor: U.S. Department of Justice. Office of the Inspector General. Audit Division Title: Audit of the Federal Bureau of Prisons' Furlough Program Summary: The Federal Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP) furlough program allows “an authorized absence from an institution by an inmate who is not under escort of a BOP staff member, U.S. Marshal, or state or federal agents.” In general, the BOP grants two types of furloughs – transfer and non-transfer. Non-transfer furloughs are used whenever an inmate leaves and returns to the same institution and are generally used to strengthen an inmate’s family ties or to allow inmates to receive medical treatment or participate in educational, religious, or work-related activities. Transfer furloughs are generally used to transfer an inmate to: (1) another BOP institution; (2) a medical facility for treatment; or (3) a Residential Re-entry Center, or “halfway house.” Halfway houses are used to prepare inmates for reentry into society by helping them adjust to life in the community and find suitable post-release employment. For fiscal years (FY) 2007 through 2009, the BOP reported that it granted 162,655 transfer and non-transfer furloughs to 90,002 inmates. Each year, the BOP granted furloughs to approximately 13 percent of its inmate population. The objective of this audit was to determine whether the BOP has implemented effective internal controls related to its furlough program, including adequate safeguards to ensure furloughed inmates are sufficiently monitored, and whether the BOP adequately coordinates with other agencies regarding inmate furloughs and escapes. To accomplish these objectives, we interviewed more than 30 BOP officials regarding the use of furloughs, including Community Corrections Managers and individuals in the Correctional Programs Division. We also met with officials from the United States Marshals Service (USMS) to assess BOP and USMS coordination efforts related to escaped prisoners. In addition, we performed audit work at two BOP institutions: (1) Bryan Federal Prison Camp (Bryan FPC) in Bryan, Texas; and (2) Victorville Federal Correctional Complex (FCC Victorville) in Victorville, California. We also obtained and analyzed BOP data related to furloughs granted during the period FY 2007 through FY 2009, and we reviewed BOP policies related to the furlough program. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, 2010. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Audit Report 10-44: Accessed October 29, 2010 at: http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/BOP/a1044.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/BOP/a1044.pdf Shelf Number: 120122 Keywords: Prison FurloughsPrison InmatesPrisonersU.S. Federal Bureau of Prisons |
Author: U.S. Department of Justice. Office of the Inspector General. Audit Division Title: Follow-up Audit of the Federal Bureau of Prisons' Efforts to Management Inmate Health Care Summary: The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is responsible for delivering medically necessary health care to inmates in accordance with proven standards of care. To accomplish this task, the BOP has established policy to hire appropriately trained, skilled, and credentialed staff. The policy identifies lines of authority and accountability to provide for appropriate supervision of health care practitioners. To verify and monitor its health care practitioners’ knowledge and skills in providing health care, the BOP implemented its policy for Health Care Provider Credential Verification, Privileges, and Practice Agreement Program. During fiscal year (FY) 2009, the BOP obligated about $865 million for inmate health care. In February 2008, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) completed an audit of the BOP’s efforts to manage inmate health care. Among other issues, our 2008 audit found that the BOP allowed health care providers to practice medicine without valid authorizations such as privileges, practice agreements, or protocols. In addition, some providers had not had their medical practices evaluated by a peer as required by BOP policy. Allowing practitioners to provide medical care to inmates absent current privileges, practice agreements, or protocols increases the risk that the practitioners may provide medical services without having the qualifications, knowledge, skills, and experience necessary to correctly perform the services. Absent a current peer review, the BOP has a higher risk of providers giving inadequate professional care to inmates. Also, if inadequate professional care goes undetected, the providers may not receive the training or supervision needed to improve the delivery of medical care. We initiated this audit to follow up on the BOP’s corrective actions on the recommendations in our 2008 audit report related to maintaining current privileges, practice agreements, protocols, and peer reviews. While performing the follow-up audit, we also assessed the BOP’s use of National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) reports to ensure health care providers have not been involved in unethical or incompetent practices. The NPDB is maintained by the Department of Health and Human Services and is a central repository of information about: (1) malpractice payments made for the benefit of physicians, dentists, and other health care practitioners; (2) licensure actions taken by state medical boards and state boards of dentistry against physicians and dentists; (3) professional review actions primarily taken against physicians and dentists by hospitals and other health care entities, including health maintenance organizations, group practices, and professional societies; (4) actions taken by the Drug Enforcement Administration; and (5) Medicare and Medicaid Exclusions. The BOP requires its institutions to query the NPDB at the initial appointment of health care providers, and no less than once every 2 years thereafter to identify adverse actions by the providers. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, 2010. 51p. Source: Internet Resource: Audit Report 10-30: Accessed october 29, 2010 at: http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/BOP/a1030.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/BOP/a1030.pdf Shelf Number: 120123 Keywords: InmatesPrison Health CarePrisonersU.S. Federal Bureau of Prisons |
Author: U.S. Department of Justice. Office of the Inspector General. Oversight and Review Division Title: A Review of Federal Prison Industries' Electronic-Waste Recycling Program Summary: This report describes the results of an investigation by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) into the health, safety, and environmental compliance practices of Federal Prison Industries’ (FPI) electronic waste (ewaste) recycling program. Federal Prison Industries, which is known by its trade name “UNICOR,” is a government corporation within the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) that provides employment to staff and inmates at federal prisons throughout the United States. UNICOR sells a variety of consumer products and services, such as office furniture and clothing, and industrial products, such as security fencing and vehicle tags. As of June 2010, UNICOR had 103 factories at 73 prison locations, employing approximately 17,000 inmates or 11 percent of the inmate population. Starting in 1997, UNICOR began to accept computers, monitors, printers, and other types of e-waste for recycling at federal prisons. UNICOR sold these e-waste items to its customers, sometimes following refurbishment, or disassembled the items into their component parts and sold the parts to recyclers for further processing. E-waste contains many toxic substances that can be harmful to humans and to the environment. For example, a computer can contain toxic metals, such as cadmium, lead, mercury, arsenic, and beryllium. Cathode ray tubes, which are found in televisions and computer monitors, typically contain between 2 to 5 pounds of lead. When e-waste is disassembled and recycled, workers can be exposed to toxic metals which can cause serious health implications. UNICOR’s recycling of e-waste resulted in complaints from BOP and UNICOR staff and inmates, most notably from Leroy A. Smith, Jr., a former Safety Manager at the United States Penitentiary (USP) in Atwater, California. In particular, the complaints asserted that UNICOR’s e-waste recycling practices were not safe and had made UNICOR staff and inmates sick. As a result of these complaints and at the request of the BOP, Department of Justice (DOJ), and attorneys for Mr. Smith, the OIG investigated the safety of UNICOR’s e-waste recycling operations, as well as other allegations of theft, conflict of interest, and environmental crimes that arose during our investigation related to UNICOR’s e-waste operations. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, 2010. 173p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 2, 2010 at: http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/BOP/o1010.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/BOP/o1010.pdf Shelf Number: 120160 Keywords: Hazardous WasteOffenses Against the EnvironmentPrison IndustriesPrison LaborU.S. Federal Bureau of Prisons |
Author: U.S. Government Accountability Office Title: Bureau of Prisons: Growing Inmate Crowding Negatively Affects Inmates, Staff, and Infrastructure Summary: The Department of Justice’s Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP) 9.5 percent population growth from fiscal years 2006 through 2011 exceeded the 7 percent increase in its rated capacity, and BOP projects continued population growth. Growth was most concentrated among male inmates, and in 2011, 48 percent of the inmates BOP housed were sentenced for drugs. From fiscal years 2006 through 2011, BOP increased its rated capacity by about 8,300 beds as a result of opening 5 new facilities and closing 4 minimum security camps, but because of the population expansion, crowding (or population in excess of rated capacity) increased from 36 to 39 percent. In 2011 crowding was most severe (55 percent) in highest security facilities. BOP’s 2020 long-range capacity plan projects continued growth in the federal prison population from fiscal years 2012 through 2020, with systemwide crowding exceeding 45 percent through 2018. According to BOP, the growth in the federal inmate population has negatively affected inmates, staff, and infrastructure, but BOP has acted within its authority to help mitigate the effects of this growth. BOP officials reported increased use of double and triple bunking, waiting lists for education and drug treatment programs, limited meaningful work opportunities, and increased inmate-to-staff ratios. These factors, taken together, contribute to increased inmate misconduct, which negatively affects the safety and security of inmates and staff. BOP officials and union representatives voiced concerns about a serious incident occurring. To manage its growing population, BOP staggers meal times and segregates inmates involved in disciplinary infractions, among other things. The five states in GAO’s review have taken more actions than BOP to reduce their prison populations, because these states have legislative authority that BOP does not have. These states have modified criminal statutes and sentencing, relocated inmates to local facilities, and provided inmates with additional opportunities for early release. BOP generally does not have similar authority. For example, BOP cannot shorten an inmate’s sentence or transfer inmates to local prisons. Efforts to address the crowding issue could include (1) reducing the inmate population by actions such as reforming sentencing laws, (2) increasing capacity by actions such as constructing new prisons, or (3) some combination of both. Why GAO Did This Study BOP operates 117 federal prisons to house approximately 178,000 federal offenders, and contracts with private companies and some state governments to house about another 40,000 inmates. BOP calculates the number of prisoners that each BOP run institution can house safely and securely (i.e., rated capacity). GAO was asked to address (1) the growth in BOP’s population from fiscal years 2006 through 2011 and BOP’s projections for inmate population and capacity; (2) the effects of a growing federal prison population on operations within BOP facilities, and the extent to which BOP has taken actions to mitigate these effects; and (3) actions selected states have taken to reduce their prison populations, and the extent to which BOP has implemented similar initiatives. GAO analyzed BOP’s inmate population data from fiscal years 2006 through 2011, BOP’s 2020 long-range capacity plan, and BOP policies and statutory authority. GAO visited five federal prisons chosen on the basis of geographic dispersion and varying security levels. The results are not generalizable, but provide information on the effects of a growing prison population. GAO selected five states based on actions they took to mitigate the effects of their growing prison populations—and assessed the extent to which their actions would be possible for BOP. GAO makes no recommendations in this report. BOP provided technical clarifications, which GAO incorporated where appropriate. Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2012. 92p. Source: Internet Resource: GAO-12-743: Accessed September 17, 2012 at: http://www.gao.gov/assets/650/648123.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.gao.gov/assets/650/648123.pdf Shelf Number: 126353 Keywords: Elderly InmatesPrison AdministrationPrison OvercrowdingPrisonersU.S. Federal Bureau of Prisons |
Author: U.S. General Accounting Office Title: Bureau of Prisons: Improvements Needed in Bureau of Prisons’ Monitoring and Evaluation of Impact of Segregated Housing Summary: The U.S. Federal Bureau of Prisons confines about 7 percent of its 217,000 inmates in segregated housing units for about 23 hours a day. Inmates are held in Special Housing Unit (SHUs), Special Management Units (SMUs), and Administrative Maximum (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 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. Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2013. 72p. Source: Internet Resource: GAO-13-429: Accessed June 1, 2013 at: http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/654349.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/654349.pdf Shelf Number: 128885 Keywords: Corrections ManagementInmate ClassificationInmate SegregationPrison AdministrationPrisons (U.S.)U.S. Federal Bureau of Prisons |
Author: McGinnis, Kenneth Title: Federal Bureau of Prisons: Special Housing Unit Review and Assessment Summary: This report provides an independent, comprehensive review of the Federal Bureau of Prisons' operation of restrictive housing and identifies potential operational and policy improvements. Specifically, it provides a comprehensive, detailed evaluation of the Bureau's use of restrictive housing, including the following key areas: national trends and best practices in the management of restrictive housing units; profile of the Bureau's segregation population; Bureau policies and procedures governing the management of restrictive housing; unit operations and conditions of confinement; mental health assessment and treatment within restrictive housing units; application of inmate due-process rights; reentry programming; and the impact of the use of restrictive housing on system safety and security. The report also evaluates the impact of the restrictive housing program on the federal prison system and places the Bureau's use of segregation in context with professional standards and best practices found in other correctional systems. The findings and recommendations contained in this report are based on the information and data collected while conducting site visits to the Bureau's restrictive housing units and facilities from November 2013 through May 2014. Any operational changes or new written policies implemented by the Bureau after completion of the site visits regarding their use of restrictive housing are not reflected in this report. Some such changes were in process or were scheduled for implementation after the completion of the site visits. Details: Arlington, VA: CNA Analysis & Solutions, 2014. 262p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 9, 2015 at: http://www.bop.gov/resources/news/pdfs/CNA-SHUReportFinal_123014_2.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.bop.gov/resources/news/pdfs/CNA-SHUReportFinal_123014_2.pdf Shelf Number: 134770 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationFederal InmatesFederal Prisons Restrictive Housing Solitary ConfinementU.S. Federal Bureau of Prisons |