Federal Watchdog Slams BOP for Sham Accreditations
by Matthew T. Clarke
In November 2023, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) published an audit of the $2.75 million contract awarded to the American Correctional Association (ACA) by DOJ’s Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to accredit and reaccredit its lockups. The audit found numerous irregularities in the contract’s execution, oversight and payments. Most startling was a finding that BOP received no value from ACA reaccreditation, the main service provided in the contract, because ACA was not performing an independent review of the facilities’ compliance with ACA standards; rather it merely incorporated BOP’s own findings into its reports. As a result, prisons with deficiencies that should have prevented reaccreditation were routinely reaccredited.
Founded in 1870, ACA is the oldest membership association specifically for “corrections.” Its mission statement describes it as a professional organization for individuals and groups with a common goal of improving the justice system. But its membership roster is filled with private prison operators and manufacturers of jail and prison equipment, such as restraint chairs and pepper spray. Effectively, ACA is a prison-industrial special interest group.
ACA first developed standards for prisons during the 1940s and 1950s, publishing manuals of Correctional industry standards in 1954. Later, it developed a national accreditation process to access compliance with ACA standards at jails, prisons and their administrative areas.
To begin the accreditation process, an organization or facility enters into a contract for accreditation services with the ACA. Importantly, no federal law or regulation requires BOP facilities be ACA accredited.
Once accredited, a facility must be reaccredited after three years or lose its accreditation. The $2.75 million contract that BOP awarded ACA in 2018 was for initial accreditation and reaccreditation, as required, for one base year with four one-year options. But it was effectively a contract for reaccreditation, since all BOP facilities had been accredited prior to 2018, and BOP had not activated new facilities.
BOP officials stated that they wanted ACA to perform an independent third-party review of BOP facilities. However, OIG found that “ACA’s accreditation of BOP facilities relied on the BOP’s own internal program review and oversight process.” It failed to follow “ACA’s standard reaccreditation process that would have provided a comprehensive independent evaluation of the BOP’s operations and programs.” In other words, ACA gave a sign-off to BOP’s own findings, without ensuring any compliance with ACA standards. Neither party disputed this, but both faulted decisions in the 1990s by officials in their respective organizations—decisions not memorialized in writing, so no one currently working for either organization knew the exact terms of the agreement.
OIG also found that BOP did not properly oversee the contract, and payments were improperly made before services were rendered. The report further noted that BOP findings incorporated into ACA evaluations included deficiencies that should have prevented accreditation but did not do so. OIG could “not identify instances where the BOP used ACA’s accreditation process to improve BOP standards for health, safety, and security of inmates and staff.” See: OIG Audit Division Report # 24-009, DOJ (2023).
BOP is not the only prison system to fall for the sham of ACA accreditation. In September 2021, Nebraska awarded a $143,600 contract for ACA to accredit the 12 facilities in its state prison system. See: Nebraska Service Contract # 96908 04 (2021).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login