United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

August 2014

BUREAU OF
PRISONS
Management of New
Prison Activations
Can Be Improved

GAO-14-709

August 2014

BUREAU OF PRISONS
Management of New Prison Activations Can Be
Improved
Highlights of GAO-14-709, a report to
congressional requesters

Why GAO Did This Study

What GAO Found

The federal inmate population has
increased over the last two decades,
and as of July 2014, BOP was
responsible for the custody and care of
more than 216,000 inmates. To handle
the projected growth of between 2,500
and 3,000 or more inmates per year
from 2015 through 2020, BOP has
spent about $1.3 billion constructing
five new institutions and acquiring one
in Thomson, Illinois. BOP is activating
these institutions by staffing and
equipping them and populating them
with inmates.

The Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is behind
schedule activating all six new institutions—the process by which it prepares
them for inmates—and does not have a policy to guide activation or an activation
schedule that reflects best practices. BOP is behind schedule, in part, because of
challenges, such as staffing, posed by the locations of the activating institutions.
According to BOP officials, delays in receiving congressionally directed activation
funding can exacerbate these challenges (see fig.). None of the six institutions is
fully activated, or at rated capacity, as they do not house the number of inmates
they are designed to safely and securely house.

GAO was requested to review BOP’s
activation process of newly constructed
and acquired institutions. GAO
reviewed, among other things, (1) the
extent to which BOP is activating
institutions within estimated timeframes
and has an activation policy or
schedules that meet best practices,
and (2) why DOJ purchased Thomson
and how the purchase affected system
wide costs. GAO reviewed BOP
budget documents from fiscal years
2008 to 2015 and assessed schedules
against GAO’s Schedule Assessment
Guide. GAO conducted site visits to
the six institutions, interviewed BOP
officials, and reviewed staffing data
from fiscal years 2010 through 2013.

What GAO Recommends
GAO recommends that DOJ use its
annual budget justification to
communicate to Congress factors
that might delay prison activation,
and that BOP analyze institutionlevel staffing data and develop and
implement a comprehensive
activation policy and a schedule that
reflects best practices. DOJ
concurred with all of GAO’s
recommendations.
View GAO-14-709. For more information,
contact Dave Maurer at (202) 512-9627 or
maurerd@gao.gov.

Schedule Slippages for Institutions in the Activation Process

BOP does not effectively communicate to Congress how the locations of new
institutions may affect activation schedules. BOP officials said that when directed
by Congress to investigate a location, they consider this as direction to focus on
construction at that site. DOJ and BOP could more effectively manage activation
timelines and costs by using the BOP annual budget justification to communicate
to Congress the factors associated with certain locations that can delay
activations, such as challenges hiring staff and placing inmates in institutions.
Also, BOP officials said they review staffing data system-wide, but they have not
prioritized an analysis of such data at the institution level. Analyzing staffing data
on institutions in the activation process could help BOP assess its progress in
staffing and tailoring effective mitigating strategies. Finally, BOP lacks a
comprehensive activation policy to guide activations, as well as an activation
schedule that reflects best practices, and it has largely relied on staff’s past
experience to complete ongoing activations. Developing and implementing a
comprehensive policy and a schedule that reflects best practices, could better
position BOP to meet its estimated timeframes and activation costs.
DOJ purchased Thomson to help reduce crowding among inmates requiring high
levels of security. Once it is fully populated, it will reduce BOP-wide crowding by
16 percent at the high-security level. Thomson will cost about $160 million
annually to operate once fully activated, adding to BOP’s system-wide costs.
BOP officials said Thomson will provide benefits, such as high-security bed
space, which outweigh the costs associated with the institution.
United States Government Accountability Office

Contents

Letter

1
Background
BOP Is behind Schedule Fully Activating New Institutions, and
Does Not Have an Activation Policy or Schedules That Meet
Best Practices
BOP Obligated Funds from Two Accounts to Maintain Partially
Activated Institutions
The Six Institutions Being Activated Will Reduce Crowding
System-wide when They Reach Rated Capacity
DOJ Purchased Thomson to Reduce High-Security Crowding, but
It Will Increase Costs
Conclusions
Recommendations for Executive Action
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

29
35
35
36

Description of Schedule Slippages due to Delays in Receiving
Congressionally Directed Activation Funding

40

Appendix II

Analysis of BOP’s Human Resources Data

43

Appendix III

Analysis of BOP’s Products against Best Practices

47

Appendix IV

Comments from the Department of Justice

56

Appendix V

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

59

Table 1: Extent to Which the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP)
Schedules Met Best Practices

20

Appendix I

6
12
24
27

Tables

Page i

GAO-14-709 Bureau of Prisons

Table 2: Federal Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP) Congressionally
Directed Activation Funding and Actual Obligations from
Its Salaries and Expenses (S&E) Account for Partially
Activated Institutions from Fiscal Year 2010 through
March 2014
Table 3: Anticipated Federal Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP) Beforeand-After Crowding Rates, Assuming Institutions Reach
Rated Capacity in Fiscal Year 2016 and Associated
Obligations Data
Table 4: Staff On Board at Partially Activated Federal Bureau of
Prisons’ (BOP) Institutions from Fiscal Years 2010
through 2013
Table 5: Staff Hired at Partially Activated Federal Bureau of
Prisons’ (BOP) Institutions from Fiscal Years 2010
through July 2014
Table 6: Staff Separations for Partially Activated Federal Bureau
of Prisons’ (BOP) Institutions from Fiscal Years 2010
through July 2014
Table 7: Summary Assessment of the Federal Bureau of Prisons’
(BOP) Schedule Estimates for Six Institutions Compared
against Best Practices
Table 8: Extent to Which Federal Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP)
Schedules Were Comprehensive
Table 9: Extent to Which Federal Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP)
Schedules Were Controlled
Table 10: Extent to Which Federal Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP)
Schedules Were Well Constructed
Table 11: Extent to Which Federal Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP)
Schedules Were Credible

25

28
44
45
46
48
50
52
53
54

Figures
Figure 1: Life Cycle of Federal Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP)
Institutions
Figure 2: Map of Federal Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP) Institutions in
the Activation Process
Figure 3: Schedule Slippages for Federal Bureau of Prisons’
(BOP) Institutions in the Activation Process

Page ii

9
11
13

GAO-14-709 Bureau of Prisons

Abbreviations
ADX
B&F
DOJ
EHRI
BOP
FCI
M&R
OPM
S&E
USP

Administrative Maximum
Buildings and Facilities
Department of Justice
Enterprise Human Resources Integration
Federal Bureau of Prisons
Federal Correctional Institution
Modernization and Repair
Office of Personnel Management
Salaries and Expenses
U.S. Penitentiary

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the
United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety
without further permission from GAO. However, 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.

Page iii

GAO-14-709 Bureau of Prisons

441 G St. N.W.
Washington, DC 20548

August 22, 2014
Congressional Requesters
The Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP)
requested about $6.9 billion in fiscal year 2014 to provide for the custody
and care of an inmate population that has increased from about 24,000 in
fiscal year 1980 to over 216,000 in July 2014. According to DOJ, as of
July 2014, BOP-operated institutions are about 31 percent overcrowded,
which occurs when institutions house more inmates than they are
designed to hold. Moreover, according to BOP’s most recent long-range
capacity plan included in DOJ’s annual congressional budget justification
for BOP, the bureau projects annual inmate growth of between 2,500 and
3,000 or more from fiscal years 2015 through 2020. 1 BOP is not
responsible for controlling the flow of inmates into the federal prison
system, as convicted felons are placed directly into BOP’s custody and
care, but BOP is responsible for confining these inmates safely and
securely. As we reported in September 2012, this responsibility can be
challenging with a growing inmate population. 2 In particular, we found that
crowding has negatively affected inmates housed in BOP institutions,
institutional staff, and the infrastructure of BOP facilities, and has
contributed to inmate misconduct, which affects staff and inmate security
and safety. In recognition of the difficulties crowding causes, DOJ’s
Inspector General included detention and incarceration among DOJ’s top
10 management and performance challenges department-wide for 2013,
and noted that the department has identified crowding as a material
weakness every year since 2006.
BOP considers reducing crowding rates system-wide to be a strategic
goal and has spent over $1.3 billion on the construction and acquisition of
six new federal institutions to help alleviate crowding across the prison
system. Specifically, BOP constructed five federal prisons: (1) Federal
Correctional Institution (FCI) Aliceville in Alabama, (2) FCI Berlin in New
Hampshire, (3) FCI Hazelton in West Virginia, (4) FCI Mendota in

1

For the purposes of our report, we refer to DOJ’s annual congressional budget
justifications for BOP as BOP’s budget justifications.
2

GAO, Bureau of Prisons: Growing Inmate Crowding Negatively Affects Inmates, Staff,
and Infrastructure, GAO-12-743 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 12, 2012).

Page 1

GAO-14-709 Bureau of Prisons

California, and (5) U.S. Penitentiary (USP) Yazoo City in Mississippi. 3 In
addition, BOP acquired the Thomson Correctional Center, now referred to
as Administrative USP Thomson, from the state of Illinois in October 2012
to address crowding for inmates requiring high levels of security. 4 BOP is
currently working to activate these institutions—a process by which BOP
staffs and equips institutions, and populates them with inmates—and has
received or is waiting for congressionally directed funding to activate all
six of these new institutions. 5 In addition to BOP, DOJ is also working to
address the growth in the prison population, and in 2013, launched its
Smart on Crime Initiative, which includes several efforts to modernize the
criminal justice system, including reprioritizing federal law enforcement
prosecutions to focus on the most serious cases. Additionally, over the
past 2 years, Members of Congress have introduced at least five bills to
date that seek to modify federal sentencing requirements in order to
reduce the length of incarceration of inmates convicted of nonviolent
drug-related offenses.
In light of crowding conditions and BOP’s recent construction of new
institutions and the acquisition of the Thomson Correctional Center, you
asked us to review BOP’s activation process. Specifically, this report
addresses the following questions:
1. To what extent has BOP activated the six institutions within estimated
time frames, and to what extent does BOP have an activation policy
or schedules that meet best practices?
2. How has BOP covered the costs of maintaining the six institutions?

3

BOP has several types of institutions, including FCIs that generally house inmates who
need less security than those housed in USPs, which generally house inmates requiring
higher security.
4

According to BOP officials, Administrative USP Thomson may hold both high-security and
maximum-security inmates, but BOP is still in the process of determining the specific
types of inmates that the institution will house.
5

Generally, either the annual appropriation act or the conference report accompanying
BOP’s annual appropriation act directs BOP to use Salaries and Expenses (S&E)
appropriations for activation activities at particular institutions. Conference report language
that is incorporated by reference into an appropriations act becomes part of the public law.
However, BOP generally follows directives contained in the conference report language
even if not incorporated into the appropriations act. For the purpose of this report, we refer
to the conference report language as “congressional direction” and the related funding as
“congressionally directed activation funding.”

Page 2

GAO-14-709 Bureau of Prisons

3. How will the addition of each institution likely affect system-wide
crowding rates?
4. Why did DOJ purchase the Thomson Correctional Center, and how, if
at all, will it affect costs?
To determine whether BOP has activated the six institutions within
estimated time frames, we reviewed documents that accompany BOP’s
annual congressional budget justifications, called budget exhibits, from
fiscal years 2008 through 2014 that include timelines for when BOP
expects to activate new institutions. 6 We also analyzed data from the
Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) human resources database,
Enterprise Human Resources Integration (EHRI) Statistical Data Mart, for
fiscal years 2010 through 2013 to determine the extent to which staffing
challenges identified by institutions in the activation process affected
BOP’s ability to meet estimated time frames related to activation. 7
Further, we reviewed legislation enacted from relevant fiscal years,
specifically fiscal years 1999 through 2006, and associated reports to
identify the process through which specific institution locations are
identified, as well as BOP’s assessments of proposed locations for new
institutions. Additionally, we evaluated the extent to which BOP’s
schedule documents used for completing activation for each institution
complied with and reflected best practices outlined in GAO’s Schedule
Assessment Guide. 8 We also interviewed agency officials on the
challenges, if any, institutions face related to activation and the actions
BOP has taken to mitigate the effects of those challenges.

6

BOP was unable to provide full budget justifications prior to fiscal year 2008.

7
OPM’s EHRI is a collection of human resources, payroll, and training data that facilitates
management of personnel in the federal government. We used EHRI data to report hires
and separations through the end of each relevant fiscal year. To report the most current
data on hires and separations in fiscal year 2014—from October, 2013 through July,
2014—we relied on BOP to provide this information from its personnel database. We
determined that BOP’s staffing data are comparable to our analysis of OPM’s EHRI data
and are reliable for the purposes of our report.
8

GAO, GAO Schedule Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Project Schedules,
GAO-12-120G (Washington, D.C.: May 2012). Our Schedule Assessment Guide provides
guidance to agencies on developing and maintaining reliable, high-quality schedules to
manage programs and projects, such as construction or activation projects. We developed
this guide through a compilation of best practices that federal cost-estimating
organizations and industry use.

Page 3

GAO-14-709 Bureau of Prisons

To determine how BOP has covered the costs of maintaining the six
institutions while waiting for congressional direction on activation funding,
we reviewed BOP’s annual congressional budget justifications from fiscal
years 2008 through 2015. We also reviewed BOP’s annual spend plans,
which DOJ or its components develop after receiving an appropriation, for
fiscal years 2010 through 2014 to identify congressionally directed
activation funding. Further, we analyzed data on actual obligations BOP
made from fiscal years 2010, or the first year BOP made activationrelated obligations for those six institutions, through March 2014 to fund
and activate the six institutions to determine the total cost of new
institution activations. We also reviewed program statements, which are
BOP’s formal policies and procedures, related to using appropriated
funds for building projects.
To determine how each new institution will likely affect system-wide
crowding rates, we evaluated BOP’s long-range capacity plan that
accompanied BOP’s fiscal year 2015 congressional budget justification.
That plan includes BOP’s estimates of the future inmate population and
crowding rates through fiscal year 2020, and assumes that all six
institutions in our review will be fully populated, or fully activated, by fiscal
year 2016. We then used data in that plan to calculate estimated
crowding rates—assuming the new institutions were not fully activated by
fiscal year 2016 (e.g., did not provide any beds)—by subtracting the
number of beds the six institutions would otherwise have added to overall
capacity in that fiscal year. Our analysis compared crowding rates with
and without the addition of new beds provided by the six institutions and
examined the effect of that additional capacity across (1) all BOP
institutions, (2) respective security levels of each institution, and (3)
gender.
To assess why DOJ purchased the Thomson Correctional Center in
2012, we reviewed BOP’s congressional budget justifications and
accompanying budget exhibits that specifically requested funds for
Thomson from fiscal years 2011 through 2015; state of Illinois documents
on selling the Thomson Correctional Center to the federal government
that were produced in 2010; and relevant acquisition documents, such as
an environmental assessment and appraisals of the institution. We also
reviewed relevant statutes to understand the department’s legal authority
to acquire the Thomson Correctional Center. To determine how, if at all,
the purchase of Thomson affected costs, we reviewed BOP’s

Page 4

GAO-14-709 Bureau of Prisons

Modernization and Repair Unfunded Priorities list from 2012, which was
the list available when DOJ purchased Thomson. 9 We also analyzed BOP
budget documentation to determine how much BOP will spend to operate
the institution once it is fully activated.
To address all of the objectives in our review, we conducted site visits to
all six institutions, and interviewed institution and regional office staff
about the challenges, if any, they face during activation. 10 We also
interviewed BOP officials to discuss crowding, cost and schedule
estimates, and any potential cost implications of the Thomson purchase.
To assess the reliability of data related to BOP’s staffing, obligations, and
the inmate population, we reviewed documentation related to BOP’s
staffing database; annual congressional budget requests; and the Sentry
database, which contains inmate population data. 11 We interviewed
human resources officials from BOP’s Central Office to discuss what data
BOP provides to OPM to verify our data analysis and tested the data for
missing data, outliers, and obvious errors to ensure that the data are
reliable. We also conducted interviews with knowledgeable agency
officials about related internal controls of databases. We determined that
the data used as a basis for these findings are reliable for the purposes of
our report.
We conducted this performance audit from November 2013 to August
2014 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

9
BOP uses funds for modernization and repair activities to cover the costs of items on this
list. BOP designates modernization and repair funds, which are aimed at rehabilitating,
modernizing, and renovating buildings and associated systems, as well as repairing or
replacing utilities or other critical infrastructure at BOP institutions. Because DOJ acquired,
rather than constructed, the Thomson Correctional Center, we analyzed the extent to
which purchasing the Thomson Correctional Center affected other BOP costs.
10

BOP has six regional offices, each led by a regional director, covering the North Central,
Northeast, South Central, Mid-Atlantic, Southeast, and Western regions of the United
States. BOP’s regional offices and its Central Office, which has its headquarters in
Washington, D.C., provide administrative oversight and support to prisons, among other
things. We interviewed officials from the regional offices that have oversight of the prisons
undergoing activation in our review, which include all but the South Central region.

11

BOP’s Sentry database is an information system containing, among other things,
information related to the care, classification, subsistence, protection, discipline, and
programs of federal inmates.

Page 5

GAO-14-709 Bureau of Prisons

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings
and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Background
Federal Prison System

To carry out its responsibility for the custody and care of federal
offenders, BOP currently houses inmates across six geographic regions
in 120 long-term federal institutions. 12 The Central Office and regional
offices provide administrative oversight and support to institutions, among
other things. The management officials located at each institution,
including wardens and associate wardens, provide overall direction and
implement policies.
Male long-term institutions include four security-level designations––
minimum, low, medium, and high––and female long-term institutions
include three security designations––minimum, low, and high. The
security-level designation of a facility depends on the level of security and
staff supervision that the facility is able to provide, such as the presence
of security towers; perimeter barriers; the type of inmate housing,
including dormitory, cubicle, or cell-type housing; and inmate-to-staff ratio.
Additionally, BOP designates some of its institutions as administrative
institutions, which specifically serve inmates awaiting trial, or those with
intensive medical or mental health conditions, regardless of the level of
supervision these inmates require. As of June 2014, BOP owned and
operated seven stand-alone minimum-security institutions, 30 lowsecurity institutions, 47 medium-security institutions, 16 high-security
institutions, 1 administrative maximum (ADX) institution that houses
inmates requiring the highest levels of security, and 19 administrative
institutions. Many of these facilities are colocated on BOP-operated
complexes that also contain minimum-security camps, which are

12

In addition to these long-term federal institutions, BOP also houses inmates in privately
managed facilities and home detention. According to BOP officials, privately managed
contract facilities are low security and primarily house non-U.S. citizens convicted of
crimes while in this country legally or illegally. Home detention describes all circumstances
under which an inmate is serving a portion of his or her sentence while residing in his or
her home. BOP also houses inmates in 200 residential reentry centers, and BOP officials
stated that they use an additional 49 residential reentry centers through intergovernmental
agreements for work release purposes.

Page 6

GAO-14-709 Bureau of Prisons

nonsecure facilities that generally house nonviolent, low-risk offenders
that are not included in this count. For example, USP Yazoo City is
located on the Yazoo City Complex, which also includes a mediumsecurity FCI, a low-security FCI, and a minimum-security camp.
BOP calculates the number of inmates a given institution is built to safely
and securely house and defines this as its rated capacity. BOP
establishes a rated capacity for each of the institutions that it owns and
operates. In determining rated capacity, BOP considers occupancy and
space requirements. According to BOP, rated capacity is the basis for
measuring crowding and is essential to both managing the inmate
population and BOP’s annual congressional budget justifications for
resources.
After an inmate receives his or her sentence, BOP initially designates that
person to a particular institution based on (1) the level of security and
supervision the inmate requires; (2) the level of security and staff
supervision the institution is able to provide; (3) the inmate’s program
needs, such as residential drug treatment or intensive medical care; (4)
where the inmate resides at the time of sentencing; (5) the level of
crowding in an institution; and (6) any additional security measures to
ensure the protection of victims, witnesses, and the public. 13

BOP’s Schedule Estimates

BOP communicates its schedule estimates related to activating new
institutions to Congress through the annual budget process. BOP
receives appropriated funds through two accounts—Buildings and
Facilities (B&F) and Salaries and Expenses (S&E)—which BOP has
divided into subaccounts, called decision units. The B&F account funds
the construction of new institutions and the maintenance of existing
institutions. Specifically, the B&F account has two subaccounts: (1) new
construction and (2) modernization and repair. The B&F account includes
no-year appropriations, which are available until expended. BOP’s B&F
account’s modernization and repair subaccount funds are used to
rehabilitate, modernize, and renovate buildings and associated systems,
as well as repair or replace utilities or other critical infrastructure at BOP
institutions. BOP’s B&F budget justification includes accompanying

13

BOP, Inmate Security Designation and Custody Classification, Program Statement
P5100.08 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 12, 2006).

Page 7

GAO-14-709 Bureau of Prisons

budget exhibits, which, among other things, provide estimated timelines
for when new institutions will provide rated capacity. Broadly, the S&E
account covers costs for staffing; inmate medical care, food, and
programming; and utilities at existing institutions. Specifically, the S&E
account has four subaccounts: (1) inmate care and programs, (2)
institution security and administration, (3) contract confinement, and (4)
management and administration. Generally, the S&E account includes 1year appropriations, which are available for obligation only in the fiscal
year for which they were appropriated.

Description of the
Activation Process

BOP receives congressionally directed funding for activation—the overall
process by which BOP staffs and equips institutions and then populates
them with inmates—through its S&E account. 14 BOP officials stated that,
generally, BOP does not start the activation process until it has received
congressionally directed activation funding. Upon receipt of
congressionally directed activation funds, BOP begins completing what,
for the purposes of this report, we consider “preactivation” steps, which
include completing renovations; hiring staff, such as wardens and
executive staff to manage the institution; and ordering supplies and
equipment. Preactivation also includes meeting with community
members, recruiting and training new staff, and furnishing the new
institution.
When these steps are completed, the institution begins receiving inmates,
and when this occurs, for the purposes of this report, we consider that
institution to be partially activated. Once the institution houses inmates at

14

The annual appropriations act or the conference report accompanying BOP’s annual
appropriations act may direct BOP to use S&E appropriations for activation activities at
particular institutions. For example, the Consolidated and Further Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2013, Pub. L. No. 113-6, 127 Stat. 198, 249, stated “[t]hat of the
amount provided [for Salaries and Expenses] . . . not less than $99,496,000 shall be for
activation of newly constructed prisons in Berlin, New Hampshire, Aliceville, Alabama,
Yazoo City, Mississippi, and Hazelton, West Virginia, as requested in the Department’s
fiscal year 2013 budget.” As another example, the conference report, H.R. Con. Rep. No.
111-366, at 671 (2009), accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010, Pub. L.
No. 111-117, 123 Stat. 3034 (2009), directed that “[o]f the total amount provided,[for
Salaries and Expenses] . . . not less than $22,000,000 shall be used for the activation of
FCI Mendota.” Conference report language that is incorporated by reference into the
appropriations act becomes part of the public law. However, according to BOP officials,
BOP generally follows directives contained in conference report language even if not
incorporated into the appropriations act.

Page 8

GAO-14-709 Bureau of Prisons

its rated capacity, or the number of inmates BOP determines the
institution can safely and securely house, we consider that institution to
be fully activated. All of the institutions in our review are currently in the
preactivation or partial activation phases of the activation process
because they do not yet house the number of inmates they were
designed to hold. See figure 1 for a description of the life cycle of those
institutions.
Figure 1: Life Cycle of Federal Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP) Institutions

BOP’s Design and Construction Branch is responsible for, among other
things, overseeing the construction of new institutions, and when
construction of an institution is almost complete, it transfers responsibility
to the regional office or the local institution, thereby formally transitioning
from construction to the beginning of the activation process. Once this
responsibility has been transferred, regional or local officials work with the
construction contractor to ensure that all items covered by the
construction contractor’s warranty, such as cooling and heating systems,
are working properly prior to the warranty’s expiration. They also work to
conduct some alterations, installations, and repairs, such as placing
additional razor wire and upgrading security features, that must be

Page 9

GAO-14-709 Bureau of Prisons

completed before the institution can securely house inmates. BOP made
similar repairs to four of the six institutions in our review.
When the institution is ready to accept inmates, BOP issues an
“Activation Memo” that specifies the criteria that inmates must meet in
order to be housed in the new institution. Such criteria are based on the
security level of the institution and the medical and mental health care
services the institution was designed to provide. The criteria also
generally include inmate characteristics that will allow for smooth
transitions as the institution prepares for activation. For example, the
Activation Memo may state that inmates should have histories of good
conduct, no prior gang affiliation, and be generally healthy. Institutions
that have inmates that meet those criteria can request that those inmates
be transferred to the activating institution by submitting a formal request
to the Designation and Sentence Computation Center, which officially
approves the transfer. The Designation and Sentence Computation
Center is also responsible for classifying inmate security levels and
designating those inmates to specific institutions.

Background on Institutions
in the Activation Process

From fiscal years 2005 through 2007, the President’s annual budget
request included a moratorium on new institution construction in an effort
to have BOP take greater advantage of public and private sector bed
space, which operate under contract with BOP, to meet the need for
greater capacity. As a result of that moratorium, BOP officials reported
that they were reluctant to proceed with the construction of several
institutions, as we previously reported. 15 BOP has six federal institutions
across the country currently in different phases of the activation process,
as we discuss later in this report. See figure 2 for a description of each of
those institutions.

15

GAO, Prison Construction: Clear Communication on the Accuracy of Cost Estimates and
Project Changes Is Needed, GAO-08-634 (Washington, D.C.: May 29, 2008). In that
report, we recommended that the Attorney General of the United States instruct the
Director of BOP to clearly communicate in DOJ’s annual congressional budget submission
(1) the extent to which project costs may vary from initial estimates and (2) changes that
may affect the functionality of projects. BOP agreed with and implemented our
recommendation.

Page 10

GAO-14-709 Bureau of Prisons

Figure 2: Map of Federal Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP) Institutions in the Activation Process

Page 11

GAO-14-709 Bureau of Prisons

BOP Is behind
Schedule Fully
Activating New
Institutions, and Does
Not Have an
Activation Policy or
Schedules That Meet
Best Practices

BOP is behind schedule in fully activating, or reaching rated capacity for,
all six institutions in the activation process. This is due, in part, to
challenges posed by the locations of the activating institutions. However,
although the institutions’ locations posed challenges related to staffing,
BOP is not effectively monitoring staffing challenges at individual
institutions to ensure that they are staffed and, in turn, fully activated,
within estimated time frames. Further, BOP does not have a policy in
place to guide the activation process, or an associated schedule that
meets best practices, which limits BOP’s ability to accurately assess
activation progress and ensure that the new institutions effectively reduce
crowding as intended.

BOP Is behind Schedule,
In Part, because of
Challenges Posed by
Institutions’ Locations

All six institutions in the activation process have had schedule slippages
due to challenges caused by their locations and delays in receiving
congressionally directed activation funding. According to BOP officials,
delays in receiving congressionally directed activation funding are outside
BOP’s control and can exacerbate existing challenges with staffing or
populating an institution with inmates. This type of delay generally occurs
because of aspects of the appropriations process, including continuing
resolutions, that have resulted in BOP receiving its final funding level and
associated congressional direction late in the fiscal year. 16 In addition, in
some fiscal years, BOP does not receive congressionally directed
activation funding for specific institutions. 17 Generally, either the annual
appropriations act or the conference report accompanying BOP’s annual
appropriations act directs BOP to use S&E appropriations for activation
activities at particular institutions. 18 BOP generally follows directives
contained in the conference report language even if not incorporated into
the appropriations act and therefore, in practice, does not activate
institutions without congressional direction. Figure 3 illustrates the fiscal
year in which BOP initially expected each institution to be fully activated,

16

Continuing resolutions provide funding when action on regular appropriation bills is not
completed before the beginning of the fiscal year. GAO, A Glossary of Terms Used in the
Federal Budget Process, GAO-05-734SP (Washington, D.C.: September 2005).

17

For the purpose of this report, we refer to the conference report language as
“congressional direction” and the related funding as “congressionally directed activation
funding.”

18

Broadly, the S&E account covers costs for staffing; inmate medical care, food, and
programming; and utilities at existing institutions.

Page 12

GAO-14-709 Bureau of Prisons

the subsequent revisions to that estimate, and the reasons for delay.
Appendix I provides additional details on how delays in congressionally
directed activation funding have resulted in schedule slippages for each
of the institutions in the activation process.
Figure 3: Schedule Slippages for Federal Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP) Institutions in the Activation Process

Note: Activation is the overall process by which BOP staffs and equips institutions and then populates
them with inmates. Once the institution houses inmates at its rated capacity, or the number of
inmates BOP determines the institution can safely and securely house, we consider that institution to
be fully activated. BOP officials stated that, generally, BOP does not start the activation process until
it has received congressionally directed activation funding. Generally, either the annual appropriation
act or the conference report accompanying BOP’s annual appropriation act directs BOP to use
Salaries and Expenses (S&E) appropriations for activation activities at particular institutions.
Conference report language that is incorporated by reference into an appropriations act becomes part
of the public law. However, BOP generally follows directives contained in the conference report
language even if not incorporated into the appropriations act. For the purpose of this report, we refer
to the conference report language as “congressional direction” and the related funding as
“congressionally directed activation funding.”

On our site visits to these institutions, we found that the locations of these
institutions posed challenges related to staffing institutions and populating
them with inmates within schedule estimates. For example, officials from
FCI Aliceville stated that the institution’s location made it challenging to
hire staff up to authorized staffing levels during activation because of the

Page 13

GAO-14-709 Bureau of Prisons

low locality pay in Alabama compared with pay in other states. 19
According to officials, it has been difficult to find local applicants who
could pass BOP’s preemployment background check because
prospective hires often had disqualifying levels of debt, even though they
met the qualifications based on skill. 20 Similarly, officials from the
Southeastern Regional Office stated that staffing two of the institutions
within its region—FCI Aliceville and USP Yazoo City—has been
challenging because of their rural locations. Further, officials from USP
Yazoo City told us that it was particularly challenging to hire medical staff
because of the institution’s location and low pay in that area.
Moreover, we found on our site visits that the locations of some of these
institutions also posed challenges related to populating them with
inmates. In particular, these institutions generally accept inmates who are
healthy, because the institutions are not located close to hospitals that
can provide care for inmates with chronic or serious conditions requiring
frequent visits, such as those with liver disease. 21 For example, officials
from FCI Berlin told us that they had difficulty populating the institution
with inmates because it could provide care only for generally healthy
inmates, given its distance from major hospitals. 22 In fact, FCI Berlin is
more than 2 hours away from the closest large hospital that can provide
care for inmates with serious health conditions. As a result, according to
officials from FCI Berlin, they originally planned to transfer to FCI Berlin
only those inmates who are in overall stable health—those with a Care
Level 1 designation—as doing so would minimize the need to regularly

19

BOP determines the number of staff a new institution is authorized to hire based on
funding levels and security levels of the new institution. Each activating institution is
authorized to hire up to a certain number of staff, from within BOP or from outside the
agency, including applicants from the local community. Hiring is generally funded through
congressionally directed activation funding.

20

BOP’s preemployment check assesses applicants’ financial and criminal histories to
ensure that they are not vulnerable to corruption within the institution.

21

BOP determines the level of medical care for a new institution based on the types of
medical care services available in the local area. BOP-operated institutions generally
provide a range of outpatient services related to primary health care and transport inmates
with medical emergencies to the nearest hospital.

22

FCI Berlin was not designed to provide acute or intensive medical care services at the
institution.

Page 14

GAO-14-709 Bureau of Prisons

transport inmates to faraway hospitals for necessary medical care. 23
However, there were not enough Care Level 1 inmates who also met the
other criteria FCI Berlin specified, such as inmate security level, so the
institution expanded its health care designation to also accept stable Care
Level 2 inmates, who need more medical care than Care Level 1 inmates.
BOP officials acknowledged that distance from major hospitals is a
primary factor in determining the care level for institutions, such as FCI
Berlin.
Although the specific locations of these new institutions can delay
activation, BOP does not communicate to Congress the effect that
location can have on BOP’s ability to fully activate the institutions and to
do so within estimated time frames. Our analysis of legislation enacted
from fiscal years 1999 through 2006 and associated reports shows that
conference reports directed BOP to investigate specific locations to
determine whether institutions could be built there and to identify land
where the institutions would eventually be built. In some cases, such as
for FCI Berlin, the conference report accompanying DOJ’s annual
appropriations act for fiscal year 2002 directed BOP to begin partial site
selection and planning for an institution to be located in Berlin, New
Hampshire. 24 In contrast, for USP Yazoo City, the conference report
accompanying DOJ’s annual appropriations act for fiscal year 2000
directed BOP to study the feasibility of constructing an institution in Yazoo
City, Mississippi. 25 In response to congressional direction to investigate a
given location, BOP conducts environmental assessments or

23

BOP classifies inmates into four categories of medical care needs, ranging from Care
Level 1, which includes generally healthy inmates, to Care Level 4, which includes
inmates with the most serious medical conditions. According to BOP officials, an inmate’s
medical care level can change over time because he or she can develop chronic care
conditions during imprisonment.
24

The conference report, H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 107-278, at 83 (2001), accompanying the
Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-77, 115 Stat. 748 (Nov. 28, 2001), stated that
“[t]he conference agreement provides that of the $650,047,000 provided for increases as
outlined below, $5,000,000 shall be for partial site and planning of the USP Northeast/MidAtlantic facility, to be located in Berlin, New Hampshire.”

25

The conference report, H.R. Con. Rep. No. 106-1005, at 220 (2000), accompanying the
District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2001, Pub. L. No. 106-553, 114 Stat. 2762 (Dec.
21, 2000), stated that “[t]he conference agreement adopts the Senate report language
directing BOP to continue to assess the feasibility of construction of a high-security facility
in Yazoo City, MS, as described in the Senate report.”

Page 15

GAO-14-709 Bureau of Prisons

environmental impact statements. 26 In contrast, BOP’s annual
congressional budget justification is used to convey BOP’s funding and
housing needs, and these justifications would allow DOJ and BOP
officials the opportunity to convey to Congress any potential challenges
BOP may be facing or anticipating with respect to selecting certain sites
for new institutions.
According to BOP officials, when BOP is congressionally directed to
investigate a particular location, BOP generally considers this as a
direction to focus its efforts on constructing an institution in that specific
location. However, officials from both BOP’s Central Office and activating
institutions acknowledged that the locations of these newly constructed
institutions make activation more difficult. Standards for Internal Control in
the Federal Government states that management should ensure that
there are adequate means of communicating with, and obtaining
information from, external stakeholders, such as Congress, that may have
a significant impact on the agency achieving its goals. 27 Since delayed
activations limit BOP’s ability to reduce crowding as BOP intended, DOJ
and BOP would be better positioned for future activations and could more
effectively manage activation costs and timelines by using BOP’s annual
congressional budget justification to communicate to Congress the factors
that might delay future activations, such as challenges hiring staff and
placing inmates, associated with the locations of new institutions. In turn,
congressional decision makers could be better positioned to take such
factors into account when directing BOP where to build new institutions.

26

Environmental assessments describe how an institution would affect the physical
environment, such as air quality, and the socioeconomics of the local area, such as the
unemployment rate. Environmental impact statements are more detailed than
environmental assessments.

27
GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1999). Further, we recommended in December 2013 that BOP
could better ensure that it meets congressional stakeholders’ needs by consulting with
congressional decision makers to determine if it would be helpful to include additional
funding details in its annual budget justification. GAO, Bureau of Prisons: Opportunities
Exist to Enhance the Transparency of Annual Budget Justifications, GAO-14-121
(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 6, 2013). DOJ agreed with our recommendation.

Page 16

GAO-14-709 Bureau of Prisons

BOP Does Not Analyze
Staffing Data at the
Institution Level to Mitigate
Staffing Challenges

BOP’s Central Office reviews aggregated data of staffing system-wide,
but it does not monitor or analyze staffing data by individual institutions,
such as those located on a complex, or track how long it takes individual
activating institutions to hire staff. When we analyzed OPM’s EHRI data
on BOP staffing, we found that none of the institutions in the activation
process has a full complement of staff. 28 Although the following
institutions are partially activated, FCI Aliceville is 63 percent staffed, FCI
Berlin is 67 percent staffed, and FCI Mendota is 73 percent staffed. 29
Since these institutions are not fully staffed, they cannot be fully activated
until they have a full complement of staff to effectively manage additional
inmates.
Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government calls for
agencies to identify, capture, and distribute operational data to determine
whether an agency is meeting its goals and effectively using resources. 30
Because BOP’s Central Office does not review staffing data at the
institution level, BOP’s human resources officials from the Central Office
could not tell us whether all of the specific institutions in our review,
specifically those located on complexes, faced obstacles recruiting and
retaining staff. Likewise, BOP officials were not positioned to discuss the
impact of potential staffing challenges on activation. Such staffing
challenges could affect how quickly BOP can reduce crowding across the
system—one of BOP’s key strategic goals.
According to BOP officials, they could analyze available data by institution
by reallocating staff to conduct such an analysis. However, BOP has not
made such monitoring a priority because, as BOP officials told us,
wardens of institutions are ultimately responsible for ensuring that
institutions are properly staffed. In addition, our analysis demonstrates
that each institution has experienced recruiting and retention challenges.
For example, although two of the three partially activated institutions have
experienced increases in the number of staff it hires each fiscal year,

28

OPM’s EHRI database is the primary government-wide source for information on federal
employees. EHRI contains information on personnel actions and other data for most
federal civilian employees. These data are as of September 30, 2013.
29

OPM’s EHRI data are reported by complex, rather than by institution. As a result, we
were unable to use these data to accurately determine the extent to which FCI Hazelton
and USP Yazoo City were staffed since they are both located on complexes.

30

GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1.

Page 17

GAO-14-709 Bureau of Prisons

where institutions hired staff at higher rates in each consecutive year,
authorized positions remained unfilled. In addition, for example, not all of
the employees FCI Mendota hired from fiscal years 2010 through 2013
remained on board to work at the institution. Additionally, our analysis of
OPM data indicates that each institution undergoing activation has had
staff sever employment with BOP or transfer to other institutions,
compounding existing staffing issues. For instance, each year more staff
have separated from employment at FCI Mendota than in the prior year,
for a total of 40 employees—about 21 percent of its total hires—from
fiscal years 2010 through 2013. 31 Additionally, according to data provided
by BOP from its personnel database for fiscal year 2014—through July—
an additional 11 employees separated from FCI Mendota. See appendix
II for our analysis of BOP’s human resources data.
BOP currently provides some relocation benefits and salaries above the
minimum rate to any institution struggling to hire sufficient staff, including
those undergoing activation. 32 However, these incentives have not
effectively addressed the challenges that activating institutions face hiring
staff. Specifically, BOP officials said that BOP has the authority to offer
incentives in order to recruit and retain qualified staff for positions that are
difficult to fill, either because they are specialty positions, such as medical
personnel, or because they are located at institutions in remote
locations. 33 According to BOP data, BOP offered incentives a total of 150
times for a combined total of about $1.1 million as a means of recruiting
potential new hires to the institutions in our review, and 147 of those
incentives were ultimately accepted by new hires. 34 Although BOP
Central Office officials stated that these incentives were used frequently,
the staffing challenges continue to delay activation. Without analyzing
staffing data, such as recruiting and retention data, at individual activating
institutions, BOP is not positioned to assess its progress toward reaching

31

During this time frame, there were likely also existing BOP staff that transferred in and
out of that institution.

32

OPM defines the minimum rate as the minimum wage an employee may be paid based
on the employee’s scheduled rate of pay.

33

BOP cited three legal authorities allowing it to use incentives for attracting candidates in
hard-to-fill positions: 5 C.F.R. § 575.106 (recruitment incentives), 5 C.F.R. § 575.206
(relocation incentives), and 5 C.F.R. § 575.306 (retention incentives).

34

According to BOP, more than 1 incentive could be offered to a potential applicant.

Page 18

GAO-14-709 Bureau of Prisons

authorized staffing levels or to develop effective, tailored strategies to
mitigate those challenges.

BOP Does Not Have a
Policy to Guide Activation
or a Schedule That Meets
Best Practices

BOP institutions in the activation process rely on the expertise of staff and
two templates that the Central Office developed to guide the activation
process: (1) the activation handbook, which identifies roles and
responsibilities for BOP officials during the activation process, and (2) the
staffing timeline, which provides a general sequence of hiring events that
BOP staff are to follow prior to the institution receiving inmates. Activating
institutions complete these templates, and may modify the documents at
their discretion; thus, they differ in style, scope, and substance depending
on the institution completing them. However, the two templates do not
constitute a documented, bureau-wide policy related to activation, nor do
they include an activation schedule that incorporates best practices, such
as accounting for factors that might delay activation, including delays in
receiving congressionally directed activation funding or challenges with
staffing institutions.

No Documented Activation
Policy

Activating institutions in our review did not have a detailed policy or
schedule to guide the activation process. Instead, they relied heavily on
relationships with individuals who had experience with activations. For
example, officials at half of the institutions told us that they relied on the
experience of officials who had previously been involved with activations
to help guide the process. Further, on our site visit to USP Yazoo City,
officials told us that the primary challenge related to financial
management during the activation process was ensuring that the
managers of each of the departments in the institution, such as business
administration or human resources, knew what was required for
activation. The business administrator sought out assistance from the
regional office and visited another institution that was activated prior to
USP Yazoo City to review records and itemized lists of what officials had
determined they needed for that activation. Further, BOP relied on the
experience of a now-retired official serving as the Activation Coordinator
for the institutions in our review. BOP relied on that official to initiate the
activation process by ordering necessary supplies and equipment.
Officials we interviewed from the regional offices noted that without the
Activation Coordinator’s guidance, they would not have known what
supplies and equipment were needed for activation. Standards for
Internal Control in the Federal Government states that policies and
procedures are needed to enforce management’s directives, and that

Page 19

GAO-14-709 Bureau of Prisons

significant events need to be documented in policies and procedures. 35
According to BOP documents and officials, BOP does not plan to
construct, and subsequently activate, new institutions for the foreseeable
future. In addition, officials contend that BOP has vast institutional
knowledge to guide the activation process, rendering a formal written
policy unnecessary. Nevertheless, BOP will likely face difficulty during
future activations since about 32 percent of BOP staff will be retirement
eligible within 5 fiscal years—a proportion that is similar to the retirement
rate for the federal workforce as a whole. Such staffing attrition
underscores the need to have documented policies in place to ensure
that future staff can conduct and complete activations effectively and
within cost and schedule commitments.

Activation Schedule Does Not
Meet Best Practices

According to our analysis of the details included in each institution’s
version of the activation handbook template and the staffing timeline
template, we determined that BOP’s schedules do not meet all 10 best
practices required for a schedule to be reliable. Specifically, we assessed
each of the six institutions’ versions of the activation handbook and
staffing timeline templates against four characteristics of a reliable
schedule associated with the 10 best practices. 36 As table 1 shows,
collectively, the six BOP institutions minimally met two and did not meet
two of these four characteristics.
Table 1: Extent to Which the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP) Schedules Met Best
Practices
Characteristic

Characteristic description

Assessment

Comprehensive

A schedule should reflect all activities.

Minimally met

Controlled

A schedule should be continuously updated using
logic, durations, and actual progress to realistically
forecast dates for program activities.

Minimally met

Well constructed

A schedule should be planned so that critical project Not met
dates can be met.

Credible

A schedule should include data on risks and
opportunities for the project, and a level of
confidence in meeting a project’s completion date
based on those data.

Not met

Source: GAO analysis of BOP schedule documentation. I GAO-14-709

35

GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1.

36

GAO-12-120G.

Page 20

GAO-14-709 Bureau of Prisons

The activation handbook template and general staffing timeline template
that BOP’s Central Office provides are positive steps toward a schedule
that could be used to guide future institution activations because they
provide some level of detail regarding the activities required for activation.
However, as illustrated in table 1, collectively, institutions’ versions of the
activation handbook and the staffing timeline templates minimally met the
criteria for being comprehensive or controlled and did not meet the criteria
for being well constructed or credible, which are aspects of reliable
schedules.
Comprehensive. We reviewed the activation handbook and staffing
timeline templates that each of the six institutions completed and found
that they minimally met the requirements for a comprehensive schedule.
The activation handbook template contains some elements key to having
a comprehensive schedule, such as listing necessary tasks, organized by
responsible departments or contractors. However, the activation
handbook template provides the tasks, or activities, in the list in a general
way, but none of the six institutions tailored the tasks to meet their
specific requirements, limiting the bureau’s ability to oversee all activation
activities. Similarly, the activation handbook template does not fully
include details on all of the necessary resources to do the work
associated with each activity and does not identify the specific personnel
within the department responsible for each activity. Finally, none of the six
institutions included any reference to project duration in its respective
activation handbook. Without information about the estimated length of
time required to complete each activity, management cannot accurately
identify the staffing resources required to complete it, assess the progress
of the activation process, or establish realistic dates for institution
activation. With respect to the general staffing timeline template that
BOP’s Central Office provides, this document roughly identifies when
particular staff resources are needed based on the anticipated activation
date. However, the general staffing timeline template is based on the
anticipated activation date rather than based on the activities each of the
staff would be doing—and none of the six institutions made modifications
to elaborate on these activities. Because of these deficiencies, the
information contained in each of the six institutions’ activation handbooks
and staffing timelines does not assist management in forecasting whether
activities will be completed as scheduled or as budgeted. Further, these
documents do not allow insight into the allocation of resources, increasing
the likelihood that the activation process will not be completed as
anticipated and limiting BOP’s ability to ensure accountability for the total
scope of work.

Page 21

GAO-14-709 Bureau of Prisons

Controlled. The activation handbook and staffing timeline templates that
each of the six institutions modified minimally met the requirements for a
controlled schedule. Two of the activating institutions provided versions of
BOP’s activation handbook and staffing timeline templates that contained
some indication that information on key dates and activities was updated
at some point in time by the activating institutions. However, the activation
handbook and staffing timeline templates modified by each institution did
not indicate whether they had been updated at regular intervals, or that
they reflected the actual status of the respective activations. Further,
none of the activating institutions’ activation handbooks or staffing
timelines included the status of key milestone dates, such as whether
specific activities had been completed, or when the activation should be
completed. In addition, none of the activating institutions used the
activation handbook and staffing timelines to describe the critical risks
that the institution faced in meeting its goals for activation or
contingencies if those risks were realized, such as challenges with
staffing. Without regularly updating the schedule based on the current
status of the activation at each respective institution, BOP is limited in its
ability to monitor activation progress or make decisions on how to mitigate
risk or allocate resources for activating institutions.
Well Constructed. The activation handbook and staffing timeline
templates that each of the six institutions modified did not meet the
requirements for a well-constructed schedule, because the activation
handbook and staffing timeline documents did not provide specific
information regarding start and finish dates, durations, or sequencing of
activation-related activities. As a result, BOP does not have insight about
the interdependencies between activities or the way in which early delays
in some activities could affect activities later on as well as the overall
activation completion date. Additionally, without identifying linkages
between activities, BOP does not know the critical path of the activation
process—that is, which activities can and cannot be delayed if the overall
schedule is to be met. This prevents the agency from providing Congress
with reliable timeline estimates or anticipated activation dates.
Credible. The activation handbook and staffing timeline templates that
each of the six institutions modified did not meet the requirements for a
credible schedule. A credible schedule is horizontally integrated, where
products and outcomes are linked with other associated sequenced
activities, which helps verify that activities are arranged in the right order
to achieve aggregated products or outcomes. A credible schedule is also
vertically integrated to ensure that the start and completion dates for
activities are aligned with such dates on subsidiary schedules supporting

Page 22

GAO-14-709 Bureau of Prisons

tasks and subtasks. With respect to the best practice of vertically and
horizontally aligning activities, two institutions adapted BOP’s activation
handbook template to insert targeted due dates for selected activities, but
neither identified subset activities or linked overall activities in any specific
order to achieve full horizontal or vertical integration. Without such
integration, BOP is not positioned to ensure that subactivities are on track
for an overall activity’s completion.
The activation handbook and staffing timeline templates that BOP
developed and that are modified by activating institutions are positive
steps toward a baseline schedule that could be used to guide future
institution activations, because they provide some level of detail regarding
the activities required for activation. However, the activation handbook
and staffing timeline templates contain only limited information consistent
with best practices and therefore cannot be used by management to
reliably measure, monitor, or report on performance. Appendix III contains
our detailed assessment for each characteristic and the reasons BOP
minimally met or did not meet the best practices.
BOP officials stated that each institution undergoing activation generally
follows the same process and is guided by experienced officials at both
the Central Office and the regional offices, which, in the past, included the
experience of an Activation Coordinator. In particular, according to BOP
officials, activation of new institutions follows standardized processes that
allow BOP to generally predict accurate timelines for activation. However,
as discussed above, each of the activating institutions is behind schedule,
which indicates that the schedules used during activation may not
adequately ensure that activation occurs within schedule estimates. BOP
officials acknowledged that scheduling delays can occur, and when they
do, it is usually because of delays in congressionally directed funding or
difficulty with hiring. BOP officials stated that, generally, BOP does not
start the activation process until it has received congressionally directed
activation funding, and because of this, according to DOJ officials,
activation schedules are inherently affected by the availability and timing
of the agency’s final funding level for a fiscal year. Because BOP officials
consider that the activation clock does not start until it receives such
funding, they do not consider it an activation process delay on their part if
a delay in receiving such funding causes an institution to be activated
later than was originally planned. However, our analysis showed that the
activation handbook and staffing timeline documents used as schedules
by the six institutions did not contain contingencies related to external
factors, such as receiving congressionally directed activation funding. A
comprehensive policy with a schedule that is well constructed and

Page 23

GAO-14-709 Bureau of Prisons

credible, for example, could be used to reflect how delays in receiving
congressionally directed activation funding might affect activating
institutions within schedule estimates and improve the quality of
information that BOP provides to Congress regarding the status of the
activation process.
Because the activation handbook does not fully reflect a standardized list
of all of the activities required for activation, management cannot ensure
that the total scope of work is accounted for by the handbook.
Consequently, BOP is limited in its ability to minimize the potential for
delays in the activation process. Developing and implementing a
comprehensive activation policy that incorporates the knowledge of staff
with experience activating institutions could help equip BOP staff with the
expertise and resources needed to efficiently activate new institutions.
Additionally, having a schedule that incorporates the four characteristics
of scheduling best practices could better position BOP staff to activate
institutions in accordance with realistic schedule commitments and to
navigate potential obstacles that may arise, thereby saving the bureau
time and resources.

BOP Obligated Funds
from Two Accounts to
Maintain Partially
Activated Institutions

From fiscal year 2010 through March 2014, BOP obligated about $25
million from its S&E account to maintain partially activated institutions
while it waited for congressionally directed activation funding through the
S&E account. The amount of congressionally directed activation funding
included in BOP’s annual spend plans reflects the amount the bureau
planned to spend activating each of the individual institutions in our
review from fiscal year 2010 through March 2014. 37 However, we found
that BOP obligated more than its planned amount for two of the three
partially activated institutions (see table 2).

37

After an agency or component receives an appropriation, agencies develop plans for
how they will spend that funding. We reviewed BOP’s spend plans from fiscal years 2010
through 2014—the fiscal years for which BOP received congressionally directed funding
for activation.

Page 24

GAO-14-709 Bureau of Prisons

Table 2: Federal Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP) Congressionally Directed Activation
Funding and Actual Obligations from Its Salaries and Expenses (S&E) Account for
Partially Activated Institutions from Fiscal Year 2010 through March 2014

Institution
FCI Aliceville

Total congressionally
Amount obligated
directed activation
Total actual
from BOP’s S&E
funding from BOP’s
obligations from account while waiting
a
b
S&E account BOP’s S&E account for activation funding
$51,457,000

$47,391,800

FCI Berlin

50,195,000

57,713,200

7,518,200

FCI Mendota

49,400,000

67,077,300

17,677,300

$151,052,000

$172,182,300

$25,195,500

Total

0

Source: GAO analysis of BOP data. I GAO-14-709

Note: We included institutions in this analysis only for which BOP is no longer obligating activation
funds. According to BOP officials, it has not finished obligating funding for activities related to the
activation of Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) Hazelton, U.S. Penitentiary (USP) Yazoo City, or
Administrative USP Thomson. Accordingly, the extent to which BOP will spend what it planned on
activating those institutions is not yet clear.
a

These obligations represent the cumulative obligations made from fiscal year 2010 through March
2014.

b

BOP receives congressionally directed activation funding through its S&E account. When such
congressionally directed activation funding has been delayed, BOP has obligated funding from the
S&E account, which is generally used to fund the operation of all BOP institutions, to maintain
partially activated institutions. For FCI Berlin and FCI Mendota, this amount represents the difference
between the amount BOP planned to spend and what it actually obligated. Because BOP obligated
less than it planned for FCI Aliceville, BOP did not obligate any funds from its S&E account while
waiting for congressionally directed activation funding for that institution.

Specifically, BOP obligated about $7.5 million and $17.7 million more
than it planned to activate FCI Berlin and FCI Mendota, respectively, for a
collective total of about $25.2 million more than it estimated in its spend
plan. Additionally, we found that BOP’s obligations for activating those
three institutions are similar to what BOP has spent in the past when
activating new institutions. Specifically, when adjusting for inflation, BOP
spent, on average, about $41,100 per bed for those institutions, and
spent, on average, about $40,600 per bed on the 21 institutions activated
from 1994 through 2000. 38

38

We adjusted for inflation all obligations made for partially activated institutions and
divided those by the total number of beds that these institutions and their respective
camps provide for each fiscal year from 2010 through 2014. Without adjusting for inflation,
BOP spent, on average, about $39,600 per bed on partially activated institutions in our
review, and, on average, $29,200 per bed on the 21 institutions constructed from 1994
through 2000.

Page 25

GAO-14-709 Bureau of Prisons

To finance the additional $25 million of activation-related activities, BOP
officials told us they used S&E funds that are generally used to fund the
operation of all BOP institutions. Specifically, BOP officials told us that
BOP spends between $1 million and $4 million each year to maintain a
newly constructed or acquired institution while waiting for the
congressionally directed activation funding needed to complete the
activation process. This additional spending supports, among other
things, salaries of a core group of staff and the cost of utilities to maintain
institutions and keep them secure prior to receiving congressionally
directed activation funding. According to BOP officials, when BOP is
waiting for congressionally directed activation funding for a given
institution, BOP hires a facility manager to ensure that the building is
operating appropriately and covers costs associated with utilities, such as
electricity and water. For example, to maintain Administrative USP
Thomson while waiting for congressionally directed activation funding,
BOP obligated $1.3 million in fiscal year 2013, and, as of March 2014,
BOP has obligated about $440,700. Those costs included relocation
expenses, uniforms, and training for the maintenance staff; utilities; and
mechanical services for the institution, among other things. In addition,
BOP officials told us that BOP spent about $150,000 over 2 fiscal years to
fund a state of Illinois employee to maintain the institution while waiting
for BOP staff to be hired. Further, BOP spent about $10 million in utility
and personnel costs to maintain FCI Berlin for an additional 2 fiscal years
while BOP waited for congressionally directed activation funding to begin
activation. According to BOP officials, that additional funding covered the
salary expenses for 16 employees that the agency hired to maintain the
institution. BOP officials told us they had planned on paying for these
salaries with its requested activation funding, but because the activation
funding was delayed, BOP used other available funds from its S&E
account to keep the staff in place.
In addition to maintaining empty institutions while waiting for
congressionally directed activation funding, BOP has also obligated funds
from its B&F account to provide a range of modifications to new
institutions after construction is complete. According to BOP data, BOP
spent a total of about $1.2 million on alterations, installations, and repairs
at four of the six institutions in our review, with costs per institution
ranging from about $130,000 to $458,000. For example, FCI Berlin spent
$150,000 repairing roofs that could not handle the heavy amounts of
snowfall and constructing overhangs at exterior doorways to provide

Page 26

GAO-14-709 Bureau of Prisons

protection from the weather. 39 BOP officials told us that additional costs
are generally related to maintaining empty institutions because of a lag in
receiving activation funds. As discussed earlier in this report,
communicating the potential challenges that certain locations may pose
for activation could help BOP minimize the amount of renovation or staff
relocation expenses it ultimately spends while awaiting congressionally
directed activation funding.

The Six Institutions
Being Activated Will
Reduce Crowding
System-wide when
They Reach Rated
Capacity

BOP plans to activate and fully populate all six institutions with inmates by
fiscal year 2016, which would add 7,852 beds to BOP’s overall capacity. 40
If BOP achieves this goal, these institutions will reduce the overall
crowding rate from almost 42 percent to 34 percent. According to our
estimates using BOP’s projections of the future inmate population, we
found that crowding reductions will vary for inmates depending on their
gender and security level. To determine how these institutions will affect
system-wide crowding, we compared crowding rates with and without the
addition of new beds that BOP anticipates the six institutions will provide
by fiscal year 2016. On the basis of that comparison, we estimate that
BOP will have spent almost $200 million per percentage point decrease in
the overall crowding rate—or about $1.6 billion since fiscal year 2003—on
constructing, acquiring, and activating the institutions in our review. For
specific details on these institutions’ impact on crowding, see table 3.

39

Officials explained that the construction contractor contended that the building’s flat roof,
which is part of BOP’s standard design, was not appropriate for the heavy snowfall in
northern New Hampshire and took steps to limit its liability for weather-related warranty
repairs. BOP’s Design and Construction Branch staff explained that they routinely review
and modify designs as necessary, but told us the construction contractor determines how
the roof of an institution will be built, and the material of the roof determines whether or not
the roofs are pitched or flat.

40

This number includes the additional beds provided by the individual institutions in our
review only. This number does not include the beds provided by each institution’s
respective minimum-security camp, because camps were outside the scope of our review.

Page 27

GAO-14-709 Bureau of Prisons

Table 3: Anticipated Federal Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP) Before-and-After Crowding Rates, Assuming Institutions Reach Rated
Capacity in Fiscal Year 2016 and Associated Obligations Data
Crowding rate in fiscal
year 2016 if
institutions in our
review do not house
a
any inmates (before)
Overall

Crowding rate in
Anticipated
Total obligations
fiscal year 2016 if
institutions in our percentage point made to construct and
review are fully
reduction in activate institutions in
b
populated (after)
crowding
our review

42%

34%

Overall male

41

Overall female

45

Medium male

Obligations made
per percentage
point decrease in
crowding rate

-8%

$1,582,575,403

$204,231,529

34

-7

1,309,691,973

175,247,023

24

-21

272,883,430

12,761,393

55

42

-13

918,947,210

72,087,213

High male

57

31

-26

390,744,763

14,945,386

Low female

84

28

-56

272,883,430

4,890,524

By gender

Security level

Source: GAO analysis of BOP data. I GAO-14-709
a
The estimated crowding rates are based on BOP’s estimates of the future inmate population in fiscal
year 2016. Fiscal year 2016 is the year when BOP anticipates that each of the institutions in our
review will be fully activated.
b

We totaled BOP data on obligations BOP made to construct or acquire and activate Federal
Correctional Institution (FCI) Aliceville, FCI Berlin, FCI Hazelton, FCI Mendota, U.S. Penitentiary
(USP) Yazoo City, and Administrative USP Thomson. To calculate the obligations made by security
level, we totaled obligations for institutions with corresponding gender and security levels.

Crowding by gender. The new institutions housing male inmates will add
a total of 6,316 beds to total capacity once they are fully activated. The
addition of these beds will reduce crowding among male institutions by
about 7 percentage points, lowering the rate from about 41 percent to
about 34 percent, assuming that the institutions will reach rated capacity
by fiscal year 2016 as BOP intends. Similarly, the only new institution to
add beds for female institutions, FCI Aliceville, will add a total of 1,536
beds to total capacity for institutions housing female inmates. The
addition of these beds will reduce crowding among female institutions by
about 21 percentage points, falling from about 45 percent to about 24
percent.
Crowding by security level. The new institutions housing mediumsecurity inmates will add a total of 3,456 beds, while the new institutions
housing high-security inmates will add a total of 2,860 beds, once they
are fully activated. Additionally, the new institution housing low-security
female inmates will add 1,536 inmates. The addition of medium-security
beds at FCI Berlin, FCI Hazelton, and FCI Mendota will reduce crowding
at that security level by about 13 percentage points, lowering the

Page 28

GAO-14-709 Bureau of Prisons

crowding rate from about 55 percent to about 42 percent, assuming that
the new institutions will reach rated capacity by fiscal year 2016 as BOP
intends. Similarly, the addition of high-security beds at Administrative
USP Thomson and USP Yazoo City will reduce crowding at that security
level by about 26 percent, lowering the crowding rate from about 57
percent to 31 percent. Finally, once fully activated, FCI Aliceville will
reduce crowding among low-security female institutions by about 56
percentage points, or a decrease from about 84 percent to about 28
percent. Because FCI Aliceville will add 1,536 beds to an overall capacity
of 5,048 beds among medium-security institutions housing female
inmates, these new beds will have a large effect on crowding at that
security level.

DOJ Purchased
Thomson to Reduce
High-Security
Crowding, but It Will
Increase Costs

DOJ purchased the Thomson Correctional Center in an effort to reduce
high-security crowding, and if the institution reaches rated capacity by
fiscal year 2016, we estimate that the institution will reduce high-security
crowding by about 16 percentage points. However, purchasing Thomson
resulted in unplanned costs at the time of the purchase and will increase
costs in the future.

DOJ Purchased Thomson
to Provide High-Security
Bed Space and Used
Several Accounts to
Finance the Purchase

DOJ stated in its budget requests that acquiring the Thomson
Correctional Center in Illinois would address high-security crowding and
support BOP’s mission, as well as DOJ’s strategic goal to ensure the fair
and efficient administration of justice. The state of Illinois constructed the
institution in 2001 to address inmate crowding in state-operated
institutions, but never populated the high-security portion of the institution
with inmates because of the institution’s high operating costs, among
other things. In December 2009, the President issued a memorandum to
the Attorney General and Secretary of Defense directing DOJ and the
Department of Defense to purchase and use the Thomson Correctional
Center. 41 The memorandum stated that the acquisition of the institution
would facilitate the closure of detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay

41

The President, Memorandum of December 15, 2009—Directing Certain Actions with
Respect to Acquisition and Use of Thomson Correctional Center to Facilitate Closure of
Detention Facilities in Guantanamo Naval Base, Federal Register Vol. 74, No. 241
(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 15, 2009).

Page 29

GAO-14-709 Bureau of Prisons

Naval Base and reduce BOP’s shortage of high-security, maximumcustody bed space. However, legislation limited or prohibited the use of
federal funds to transfer Guantanamo Bay detainees into the United
States, 42 and DOJ officials stated that the department was committed to
fully adhering to those prohibitions. DOJ pursued the purchase of the
institution to provide beds for high-security inmates who, according to
DOJ officials, were not previously detained at Guantanamo Bay.
DOJ requested funding from Congress to purchase and activate the
Thomson Correctional Center in its annual budget requests for fiscal
years 2011 and 2012. Congress did not provide funding for either
request. While DOJ continued to wait for specific funding for the
acquisition of the Thomson Correctional Center, DOJ and the state of
Illinois assessed the purchase of the institution. During this time, DOJ
obtained two appraisals indicating an average value of $165 million, and
the state of Illinois conducted three appraisals. On the basis of the
average value from the two appraisals conducted on behalf of the federal
government, DOJ and the state of Illinois agreed on a price of $165
million (the compensation for the taking of the property by the federal
government as described below). 43
Congress did not provide specific funding to finance the purchase of the
Thomson Correctional Center. Therefore, in July 2012, DOJ notified the
Senate and House Committees on Appropriations of its intention to
allocate $165 million in existing funding to purchase the institution. 44 DOJ

42

See Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-32, 123 Stat. 1859 (June
24, 2009). Congress continued to pass legislation limiting or prohibiting the use of federal
funds to transfer Guantanamo Bay detainees to U.S. facilities. See, e.g., National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-84, 123 Stat. 2190 (Oct. 28,
2009); Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-117, 123 Stat. 3034 (Dec.
16, 2009); Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, Pub. L.
No. 111-383, 123 Stat. 4137 (Jan. 7, 2011); and National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-81, 125 Stat. 1298 (Dec. 31, 2011).
43

Additionally, BOP estimates that it will cost $25 million to renovate Administrative USP
Thomson for a total acquisition and renovation cost of $190 million. Further, in its fiscal
year 2014 spend plan, BOP included $43.7 million to begin activation of USP Thomson.

44

DOJ provided a notification letter to the appropriations committees in response to
requirements of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012, as it
related to the reprogramming and transferring of appropriated funds in BOP’s annual
appropriation, as well as 28 U.S.C. § 524(c)(8)(E), as it related to the transferring of funds
from the Assets Forfeiture Fund Super Surplus.

Page 30

GAO-14-709 Bureau of Prisons

and BOP allocated funds from three separate funding sources.
Specifically, BOP reprogrammed $5 million in its B&F appropriation from
the modernization and repair subaccount into the B&F new construction
subaccount, 45 and transferred $9 million from BOP’s S&E account to
BOP’s B&F account. 46 In addition, DOJ transferred $151 million from
DOJ’s Assets Forfeiture Fund Super Surplus to BOP’s B&F account. 47
According to DOJ and BOP budget officials, the absence of specific
funding for purchasing the Thomson Correctional Center, and restrictions
on transferring and reprogramming applicable to BOP’s annual
appropriations affected DOJ’s decisions to use these multiple funding
streams. 48 In September 2012, the Director of BOP filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois a “declaration of
taking” to acquire the Thomson Correctional Center and deposited the
$165 million with the court as compensation. In October 2012, DOJ

45

Reprogramming is a shifting of funds from one purpose to another within a single
appropriation.

46

A transfer is the shifting of funds between appropriations.

47

Every year, federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies seize millions of dollars in
assets that are forfeited through the DOJ Assets Forfeiture Program. Forfeited assets can
include, but are not limited to, businesses, cash, bank accounts, automobiles, boats,
airplanes, jewelry, art objects, and real estate. Under the statutory authority of 28 U.S.C. §
524(c)(8)(E), subject to certain notification procedures, any excess unobligated balance
remaining in the Assets Forfeiture Fund Super Surplus is available to the Attorney General
for any federal law enforcement, litigative/prosecutive, and correctional activities, or any
other authorized purpose of DOJ. Further, any amounts provided could be used under the
authorities available to the organization receiving the funds.

48

Section 205 of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012,
provided that “not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made available for the current
fiscal year for the Department of Justice in this Act may be transferred between such
appropriations, (emphasis added)” which limited the amount BOP could transfer from its
S&E account. Additionally, the Act provided that “no such appropriation, except as
otherwise specifically provided, shall be increased by more than 10 percent by any such
transfers, (emphasis added)” which limited the amount that the B&F account could accept
from any appropriation made available for fiscal year 2012 for DOJ in the Act. Pub. L. No.
112-55, § 205, 125 Stat. 552, 619. Section 205 of the Act provided that any transfer
conducted pursuant to the section was to be treated as a reprogramming of funds under
section 505 of the Act. Under section 505 of the Act, none of the funds provided under the
Act would be available for obligation or expenditure through certain types of
reprogramming of funds unless the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations
were notified 15 days in advance of such reprogramming of funds. Pub. L. No. 112-55, §
505, 125 Stat. 552, 630-31.

Page 31

GAO-14-709 Bureau of Prisons

acquired the Thomson Correctional Center from the state of Illinois and
subsequently renamed the institution Administrative USP Thomson. 49

Purchasing Thomson Will
Address Crowding at the
High-Security Level, but
Will Result in Increased
Operational Costs

Once it reaches rated capacity, according to our analysis of inmate
population data, Administrative USP Thomson will help address crowding
at the high-security level by about 16 percent for male inmates, which is
similar to the decrease in crowding rates that DOJ asserted in the
business cases submitted to Congress as part of the annual budget
process. The expenses associated with the initial purchase price shifted
funds away from BOP repairs and program services, and the continued
expenses of operating and maintaining the institution will incur future
costs. BOP officials acknowledged that the purchase of Administrative
USP Thomson posed costs at the time of the purchase and will pose
costs in the future, but said that the benefits that Administrative USP
Thomson provides—particularly high-security bed space—far outweigh
the costs associated with the institution. The activation of any new
institution, including Administrative USP Thomson, will increase BOP’s
operational costs. Further, according to DOJ officials, the purchase of
Administrative USP Thomson provided bed space at a lower cost than
constructing a new institution.
The $14 million DOJ used from BOP’s S&E and B&F accounts toward the
purchase of Administrative USP Thomson came from accounts that BOP
uses for the operation and maintenance of the federal prison system.
Specifically, BOP uses funds from the B&F account’s modernization and
repair subaccount to address outstanding, unfunded modernization and
repair items system-wide, otherwise known as BOP’s maintenance and
repair backlog. BOP maintains a list of these backlogged items that are in
excess of $300,000, such as replacing roofs and boilers, that it considers
important in order to rehabilitate, modernize, and otherwise repair
physical structures and systems needed to maintain safety and security at
its institutions and avoid costlier repairs in the future. BOP’s list from 2012
totaled approximately $346 million and included 150 items, the most

49

DOJ acquired the Thomson Correctional Center through eminent domain, a process by
which the federal government can obtain property from other entities. Pursuant to 40
U.S.C. § 3113, “[a]n officer of the Federal Government authorized to acquire real estate
for the erection of a public building or for other public uses may acquire the real estate for
the Government by condemnation, under judicial process, when the officer believes it is
necessary or advantageous to the Government to do so.”

Page 32

GAO-14-709 Bureau of Prisons

expensive of which was about $16 million. Since Thomson is a 13-yearold facility and will incur repair costs as it ages, it may add new items to
BOP’s existing list of unfunded maintenance and repair priorities. BOP’s
S&E account funds staffing, inmate medical care, food, utilities, and
services at various BOP institutions, such as inmate educational or
vocational programs, among other things. In addition, during the nearly 2
years BOP has owned Administrative USP Thomson, it has spent
approximately $1.8 million from the S&E account to maintain the empty
facility while waiting for activation funding.
BOP estimates that once Administrative USP Thomson is fully activated,
it will cost $160 million each year to operate it as a high-security
institution that primarily houses special management unit (SMU)
inmates. 50 Of that amount, $45 million is expected to cover food, medical,
clothing, laundry, utilities, programming, and other related operating
expenses, and $115 million is expected to cover staff salary and benefit
costs. This $160 million estimated total annual operating cost is higher
than that for all but two other BOP institutions, Federal Correctional
Complex (FCC) Butner and FCC Coleman, based on fiscal year 2013
operational cost data. 51 In BOP’s fiscal year 2014 congressional budget
request, BOP estimated the need for 1,158 correctional positions at
Administrative USP Thomson, 749 of which will be positions for
correctional officers. 52 SMUs require more staff than institutions with
lower security levels because more staff are needed to provide constant
inmate supervision. BOP officials told us that Administrative USP
Thomson will require a large number of staff to operate because BOP
plans to move some of the most dangerous SMU inmates housed
elsewhere into Administrative USP Thomson.

50

SMU inmates are housed in a type of segregated housing unit used to separate inmates
from the general population for different purposes—such as disciplinary reasons, gangrelated activity, or assaulting staff. SMU inmates are part of a four-level program where
they progress from more restrictive to less constrictive conditions.
51

FCC Butner is a large complex consisting of four separate institutions and a camp, and
its staff provide medical services to inmates requiring an advanced level of care. FCC
Coleman is also a large complex consisting of four separate institutions (two at the highsecurity level) and a camp, and it has the largest number of inmates of any BOP facility.

52

BOP officials told us that the remaining correctional positions will be for staff necessary
for operating the institution.

Page 33

GAO-14-709 Bureau of Prisons

Administrative USP Thomson has a rated capacity of 2,100 beds—1,900
high-security SMU beds and 200 minimum-security beds at the onsite
camp—and, according to BOP officials, the potential to use some of its
high-security rated capacity to house up to 400 ADX inmates.
Additionally, BOP officials told us that they estimate the institution
eventually will be overcrowded by about 30 percent, given current and
projected inmate population levels system-wide. Accordingly, they
estimate that Administrative USP Thomson will ultimately house between
2,600 and 3,000 inmates. While this level of crowding would be lower
than the current rate of 52 percent at BOP’s other high-security
institutions, the daily cost per inmate at Administrative USP Thomson will
still exceed the daily cost per inmate for SMU bed space at USP
Lewisburg, which is the only other institution whose USP entirely houses
SMU inmates. 53 Specifically, we estimate that BOP will spend between
$146.12 and $168.60 each day per inmate housed at Administrative USP
Thomson and its camp. In comparison, we estimate that BOP spends
about $100.46 daily per inmate for all inmates at USP Lewisburg (i.e., the
SMU and camp inmates). This cost rises to $123.33 daily for only those
inmates in its SMU. 54
BOP included funding to activate Administrative USP Thomson in its
fiscal year 2014 spend plan and anticipates that it will be fully activated by
fiscal year 2016. As of July 2014, BOP had not determined how many
inmates the institution will house, including how many ADX beds will be
necessary. As we found in 2013, BOP has had empty ADX beds in
Florence since fiscal year 2008. We also found that, according to BOP
officials, the ADX population has declined overall because, among other
things, BOP has placed inmates in SMUs instead of in the ADX
institution. 55 Given that BOP expects to begin activation at Administrative
USP Thomson this fiscal year, and is behind its target date for completing

53

USP Lewisburg also has a minimum security camp onsite.

54

We divided BOP’s estimate by the number of inmates it estimates that the institution will
house—2,600 inmates in one case and 3,000 inmates in another case— to provide the
range in annual costs per inmate. We then divided the annual costs by 365 days in the
calendar year to arrive at daily cost per inmate. BOP’s daily cost per inmate varies
depending on the number of inmates housed at the institution. BOP previously provided
daily inmate costs for the SMU institution, USP Lewisburg, which we adjusted for inflation.

55
GAO, Bureau of Prisons: Improvements Needed in Bureau of Prisons’ Monitoring and
Evaluation of Impact of Segregated Housing, GAO-13-429 (Washington, D.C.: May 1,
2013).

Page 34

GAO-14-709 Bureau of Prisons

activation, its uncertainty regarding the number and security level of the
inmates it plans to house there underscores the challenge of activating
institutions without a comprehensive policy and without a schedule
anchored in best practices, as discussed earlier in the report. If BOP had
a policy in place to guide its activation of new institutions and a schedule
that could account for different scenarios, it would be better positioned to
determine more precisely the number and type of inmate it plans to house
at Administrative USP Thomson and help ensure that the institution is
activated within schedule estimates. BOP would also be better positioned
to make adjustments to account for changes in resources, as well as
variations in cost, while keeping within established time frames.

Conclusions

BOP’s six new institutions will reduce crowding system-wide, but doing so
has cost more and taken longer than BOP initially estimated because of
internal and external challenges, many of which, according to BOP
officials, are outside of BOP’s control. Doing more to guide the aspects of
the activation process over which BOP does have control could prevent
similar schedule delays in future activations. In particular, by using the
BOP annual budget justifications to clearly communicate to Congress the
factors that might delay activation, like institution locations, DOJ could
more effectively mitigate activation challenges and better meet the
bureau’s needs. Further, ensuring that the Central Office is analyzing
staffing data at individual institutions in the activation process and
developing effective strategies to mitigate staffing challenges would help
expedite the activation process. In addition, by developing and
implementing a comprehensive activation policy that incorporates the
knowledge of staff with experience activating institutions, as well as the
four characteristics of scheduling best practices, BOP would be better
positioned to ensure that future activations are implemented in
accordance with realistic cost and schedule commitments. While the
success of new institution activations relies heavily on congressional
direction regarding activation funding, BOP ultimately is responsible for
the taxpayer dollars it spends on construction, acquisition, and activation
of new institutions. Taking action to address challenges that BOP can
control will help mitigate obstacles in ongoing and future activation of new
institutions.

Recommendations for
Executive Action

To ensure that the challenges that BOP faces activating new institutions
are clearly conveyed to decision makers, we recommend that, in future
activations, the Attorney General use DOJ’s annual congressional budget
justification for BOP to communicate to Congress factors that might delay

Page 35

GAO-14-709 Bureau of Prisons

activations, such as challenges hiring staff and placing inmates
associated with the locations of new institutions.
To better address obstacles that occur during the activation process and
to help ensure that institutions are activated within estimated timeframes,
including those institutions that do not currently have inmates, such as
Administrative USP Thomson and USP Yazoo City, we recommend that
the Director of the Bureau of Prisons take the following three actions:
•

•

•

Agency Comments
and Our Evaluation

direct the Central Office to analyze staffing data at individual
institutions in the activation process to assess their progress toward
reaching authorized staffing levels and use that assessment to
develop effective, tailored strategies to mitigate those challenges;
develop and implement a comprehensive activation policy that
incorporates the knowledge of staff with experience activating
institutions; and
develop and implement an activation schedule that incorporates the
four characteristics of scheduling best practices.

We provided a draft of this report to DOJ for review and comment. DOJ
provided written comments, which are reprinted in appendix IV, and
technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. DOJ agreed
with all four of the recommendations and outlined steps to address them.
If fully implemented, these actions will address the intent of our
recommendations.
•

With respect to the first recommendation, DOJ agreed to use the
annual congressional budget justification to communicate with
Congress any factors that might affect schedules in future activations.

•

Regarding the second recommendation, DOJ agreed that BOP’s
Central Office will analyze staffing data at individual institutions in the
activation process to assess progress toward reaching authorized
staffing levels and use that assessment to develop effective strategies
to mitigate those challenges. DOJ stated that BOP’s regional offices
will monitor staffing levels and report to the Central Office quarterly.
BOP’s Central Office will provide oversight of staffing at activating
institutions and will work to develop effective strategies, such as using
recruitment incentives, when hiring challenges occur at those
institutions.

Page 36

GAO-14-709 Bureau of Prisons

•

In response to the third recommendation, DOJ agreed to develop and
implement a comprehensive activation policy that incorporates the
knowledge of staff with experience activating institutions. DOJ stated
that BOP will use knowledgeable staff to develop a new institution
activation handbook. However, DOJ did not state what information
would be included in this new institution activation handbook or how it
would differ from the current activation handbook template. Ultimately,
BOP should have a consistent policy that staff at institutions can use
during the activation process to ensure that all future activations follow
the same process.

•

Finally, for the fourth recommendation, DOJ agreed to develop and
implement an activation schedule that incorporates the four
characteristics of scheduling best practices. DOJ stated that a
template of this schedule will be included in the new institution
activation handbook and will take into account the best practices
outlined in GAO’s Schedule Assessment Guide.

Further, DOJ commented that BOP cannot begin the activation process
until Congress provides the necessary funding, which occurs over
multiple years. DOJ stated that it cannot be held to activation estimates
included in its annual budget requests when it does not receive such
funding. As we note in the report, each of the institutions in the activation
process has experienced schedule slippages due to delays in receiving
congressionally directed activation funding, which is outside of BOP’s
control, as well as challenges associated with institutions’ locations. We
also note that institutions have experienced delays even after BOP has
received multiple years of congressionally directed activation funding,
which indicates that there is more that BOP could do to ensure that
institutions are activated within schedule estimates. If BOP had a
schedule that reflected best practices, it could revise its estimates, when
warranted, for when activation would be completed. The ability to make
such schedule revisions would allow BOP to adjust for the risks
associated with funding delays and more accurately reflect the status of
activation.
Finally, DOJ commented that Administrative USP Thomson, like every
newly activated prison, will increase BOP’s future operational costs. DOJ
also stated that BOP’s primary cost driver is the number of inmates, not
the number of prisons. We agree that activating any new institution will
consequently increase BOP’s operational costs, and that this is not
specific to Administrative USP Thomson. We also agree, and have
previously reported, that the number of inmates entering the federal

Page 37

GAO-14-709 Bureau of Prisons

prison system is the primary driver of operational costs, rather than the
number of institutions that BOP operates. 56 However, we believe it is
important to note that the acquisition or construction any new institution,
including Administrative USP Thomson, will incur costs to operate and
maintain in the future.
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 of
the United States, appropriate congressional committees, and other
interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on
the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact
me at (202) 512-9627 or maurerd@gao.gov. Contact points for our
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in
appendix V.

David C. Maurer
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues

56

GAO-14-121.

Page 38

GAO-14-709 Bureau of Prisons

List of Requesters
The Honorable Tom Coburn
Ranking Member
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
United States Senate
The Honorable Charles Grassley
Ranking Member
Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
The Honorable Bob Goodlatte
Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary
House of Representatives
The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner
Chairman
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security and
Investigations
Committee on the Judiciary
House of Representatives

Page 39

GAO-14-709 Bureau of Prisons

Appendix I: Description of Schedule
Slippages due to Delays in Receiving
Congressionally Directed Activation Funding
Appendix I: Description of Schedule Slippages
due to Delays in Receiving Congressionally
Directed Activation Funding

Each of the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP) institutions in the activation
process has had schedule slippages due to delays in receiving
congressionally directed activation funding. 1 Such delays can exacerbate
existing staffing challenges related to recruitment and retention, as
discussed in appendix II. None of the six institutions is at rated capacity—
the number of inmates that a given institution can safely and securely
house.
•

•

Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) Mendota. BOP estimated in
fiscal year 2008 that FCI Mendota would be fully activated by fiscal
year 2010, but received congressionally directed activation funding in
fiscal year 2010. As a result, BOP subsequently revised this estimate
to fully activate FCI Mendota in fiscal year 2011. After BOP received a
second year of congressionally directed activation funding for FCI
Mendota in fiscal year 2012, BOP determined the FCI would accept
its first inmate in February 2012 and accepted the first inmate that
same month. 2 As of August 2014, FCI Mendota has not reached rated
capacity—4 fiscal years after BOP’s initial estimates—with 85 percent
of its 1,152 beds occupied.
FCI Berlin. BOP estimated in fiscal year 2008 that FCI Berlin would
be fully activated by fiscal year 2010. However, BOP subsequently
revised this estimate to fully activate FCI Berlin in fiscal year 2011
because it had not received congressionally directed activation
funding. After BOP received congressionally directed activation
funding for FCI Berlin in fiscal year 2012, BOP determined that the
FCI would accept its first inmate in January 2013 and accepted the
first inmate 1 month later, in February. BOP received congressionally
directed activation funding for FCI Berlin in fiscal year 2013. As of
August 2014, FCI Berlin has not reached rated capacity—4 fiscal
years after BOP’s initial estimate—with 83 percent of its total 1,152
beds occupied.

1

Generally, either the annual appropriation act or the conference report accompanying
BOP’s annual appropriation act directs BOP to use S&E appropriations for activation
activities at particular institutions. Conference report language that is incorporated by
reference into an appropriations act becomes part of the public law. However, BOP
generally follows directives contained in the conference report language even if not
incorporated into the appropriations act. For the purpose of this report, we refer to the
conference report language as “congressional direction” and the related funding as
“congressionally directed activation funding.”
2

A specific activation date is determined by the activating institution and regional office
staff primarily based on funding, staffing, and training needs.

Page 40

GAO-14-709 Bureau of Prisons

Appendix I: Description of Schedule Slippages
due to Delays in Receiving Congressionally
Directed Activation Funding

•

•

•

•

FCI Aliceville. BOP estimated in fiscal year 2008 that FCI Aliceville
would be fully activated by fiscal year 2011. However, BOP
subsequently revised this estimate to fully activate FCI Aliceville in
fiscal year 2012 because it did not receive congressionally directed
activation funding. After BOP received congressionally directed
activation funding for FCI Aliceville in fiscal year 2012, BOP
determined that the FCI would accept the first inmate in June 2013
and accepted the first inmate 1 month later, in July. BOP received
congressionally directed activation funding for FCI Aliceville in fiscal
year 2013. As of August 2014, FCI Aliceville has not reached rated
capacity—3 fiscal years after BOP’s initial estimate—with 77 percent
of its total 1,536 beds occupied.
FCI Hazelton. BOP estimated in fiscal year 2008 that FCI Hazelton
would be fully activated by fiscal year 2012. However, BOP
subsequently pushed back this estimate twice—once to fully activate
FCI Hazelton in fiscal year 2013 and again to fully activate the
institution in fiscal year 2014—because it had not received
congressionally directed activation funding. After BOP received
congressionally directed activation funding for FCI Hazelton in fiscal
year 2013, it determined that the FCI would accept its first inmate in
March 2014. BOP received congressionally directed activation funding
for FCI Hazelton in fiscal year 2014. However, as of August 2014, the
institution has not yet reached rated capacity—2 years after BOP’s
initial estimate—with about 27 percent of its 1,152 beds occupied
because of a leaking roof that had to be fixed before inmates were
housed there.
U.S. Penitentiary (USP) Yazoo City. BOP estimated in fiscal year
2009 that USP Yazoo City would be fully activated by fiscal year
2013. However, BOP subsequently revised this estimate to fully
activate USP Yazoo City in fiscal year 2014 because it had not
received congressionally directed activation funding. BOP received
congressionally directed activation funding in fiscal years 2013 and
2014. According to BOP, it has not completed activation of the
institution because it was waiting for a congressional response to its
spend plan relating to fiscal year 2014 funding. BOP received
responses from the Senate and House Committees on Appropriations
in April and May 2014, respectively, supporting BOP’s plans to
activate USP Yazoo City. As of August 2014, USP Yazoo City has not
admitted any inmates.
Administrative USP Thomson. BOP initially estimated that
Administrative USP Thomson would be fully activated by fiscal year
2011. However, BOP subsequently revised this estimate to fully
activate Administrative USP Thomson in fiscal year 2014 because it
had not received congressionally directed activation funding in fiscal

Page 41

GAO-14-709 Bureau of Prisons

Appendix I: Description of Schedule Slippages
due to Delays in Receiving Congressionally
Directed Activation Funding

year 2012 or 2013. BOP received conflicting congressional direction
regarding activation funding for Administrative USP Thomson in the
committee reports corresponding to the DOJ/BOP fiscal year 2014
annual appropriations act. 3 BOP subsequently included funding to
activate that institution in its fiscal year 2014 spend plan, which was
submitted to the Committees on Appropriations. BOP received
responses from the Senate and House Committees on Appropriations
in April and May 2014, respectively. However, those responses also
included conflicting direction regarding activation funding for
Administrative USP Thomson. As of August 2014, Administrative USP
Thomson has not admitted any inmates.

3
Section 4 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, Pub. L. No. 113-76, § 4 128 Stat.
5, 7, referenced an explanatory statement regarding the act, printed in the House of
Representatives section of the Congressional Record, 160 Cong. Rec. H475, H507 (Jan.
15, 2014). The explanatory statement, which was to have the same effect as if it were a
joint explanatory statement of a committee of conference, stated that report language
included in House Report 113-171 or Senate Report 113-78 that is not changed by the
explanatory statement or the act is approved. House Report 113-171, at 47, stated “[t]he
Committee continues to prioritize maintaining staff levels at institutions and the
continuation of activation activities, as necessary, at the four institutions which received
fiscal year 2013 activation funding. No funding is included for the activation of the
Thomson, Illinois facility.” However, Senate Report 113-78, at 79, stated “[t]he Committee
fully funds the requests to activate prisons that currently sit empty or partially empty due to
prior year budget constraints. These funds will complete the activation of a mediumsecurity prison located in Berlin, New Hampshire, and a medium-security prison for female
inmates in Aliceville, Alabama, and begin activations of a high-security prison in Yazoo,
Mississippi, a medium-security prison in Hazelton, West Virginia, and a high-security
prison in Thomson, Illinois.”

Page 42

GAO-14-709 Bureau of Prisons

Appendix II: Analysis of BOP’s Human
Resources Data
Appendix II: Analysis of BOP’s Human
Resources Data

We analyzed data from the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM)
human resources database, Enterprise Human Resources Integration
(EHRI) Statistical Data Mart, 1 on staffing levels at the three institutions in
our review that are partially activated and found that each faced obstacles
hiring staff up to authorized levels (see table 4). 2 Specifically, although
FCI Aliceville, FCI Berlin, and FCI Mendota are all partially activated,
none has a full complement of staff, as demonstrated by the number of
employees on board each fiscal year. 3 For example, FCI Berlin is
authorized to fill 378 positions and has been staffing the institution since
fiscal year 2010, even though BOP first received activation funds for that
institution in fiscal year 2012, but it was only 67 percent staffed at the end
of fiscal year 2013.

1

EHRI is a collection of human resources, payroll, and training data that facilitates
management of personnel in the federal government.
2

We included three of the four partially activated institutions because the staffing data for
FCI Hazelton included staff on board across the entire complex, rather than by individual
institution. As a result, we could not calculate the number of employees staffed by fiscal
year or the percent currently staffed for that particular institution. Additionally, we did not
include data on Administrative U.S. Penitentiary (USP) Thomson or USP Yazoo City
because BOP has not begun activating those institutions. According to BOP officials,
Administrative USP Thomson had two employees on staff to maintain the institution. We
were unable to determine the number of staff at USP Yazoo City because, as with FCI
Hazelton, staffing data were by the entire Yazoo City complex. As a result, we could not
calculate the number of employees staffed by fiscal year or the percentage currently
staffed for that particular institution.
3

Staff “on board” at an agency refers to personnel employed as of September 30 of the
reporting period. Staff “hired” refers to new appointments that occur within the fiscal year.

Page 43

GAO-14-709 Bureau of Prisons

Appendix II: Analysis of BOP’s Human
Resources Data

Table 4: Staff On Board at Partially Activated Federal Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP) Institutions from Fiscal Years 2010 through
2013
Number of employees on board by
fiscal year
Institution

2010

2011

Federal Correctional Institution
(FCI) Aliceville
FCI Berlin
FCI Mendota

2012

2013

Number of
authorized
positions

Number of authorized
positions unfilled in
fiscal year 2013

Percentage
staffed

84

240

378

138

63

2

16

123

252

378

126

67

55

171

250

261

359

98

73

Source: GAO analysis of Office of Personnel Management (OPM) data. I GAO-14-709

Note: These data reflect the number of staff on board on September 30 of each fiscal year. We
included three of the four partially activated institutions because the staffing data for FCI Hazelton
included staff on board across the entire complex, rather than by the individual institution. As a result,
we could not calculate the number of employees on board by fiscal year or the percentage currently
staffed for that particular institution. Additionally, we did not include data on Administrative U.S.
Penitentiary (USP) Thomson because BOP has not begun activating that institution. As of June 2014,
Administrative USP Thomson had two employees on staff to maintain the institution. Further, we were
unable to determine the number of staff at USP Yazoo City because, as with FCI Hazelton, staffing
data were by the entire Yazoo City complex. As a result, we could not calculate the number of
employees staffed by fiscal year or the percentage currently staffed for that particular institution.

Furthermore, our analysis of OPM data demonstrates that two of the
three partially activated institutions have experienced increases in the
number of staff they hire each fiscal year through fiscal year 2013, when
institutions hired greater numbers of staff in each consecutive year
although authorized positions remained unfilled (see table 5). As a result,
these staffing challenges have implications for activating institutions
because, as BOP officials told us, being able to receive additional
inmates and thereby reach rated capacity relies, in part, on having
enough staff to provide adequate security for those inmates.

Page 44

GAO-14-709 Bureau of Prisons

Appendix II: Analysis of BOP’s Human
Resources Data

Table 5: Staff Hired at Partially Activated Federal Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP) Institutions from Fiscal Years 2010 through July
2014
Number of employees
hired by fiscal year
Institution

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Total employees hired

Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) Aliceville

-

-

52

71

25

148

FCI Berlin

-

1

39

72

34

146

40

64

55

31

50

240

FCI Mendota

Source: GAO analysis of Office of Personnel Management (OPM) data and BOP personnel data. I GAO-14-709

Note: We included three of the four partially activated institutions because the staffing data for FCI
Hazelton included staff on board across the entire complex, rather than by the individual institution.
As a result, we could not calculate the number of employees hired by fiscal year for that institution.
Additionally, we did not include data on Administrative U.S. Penitentiary (USP) Thomson because
BOP has not yet begun activating that institution. As of June 2014, Administrative USP Thomson had
two employees on staff to maintain the institution. Further we were unable to determine the number of
staff at USP Yazoo City because, as with FCI Hazelton, staffing data were by the entire Yazoo City
complex. As a result, we could not calculate the number of employees hired for that particular
institution. We used Office of Personnel Management (OPM) data to report hires through the end of
each fiscal year. To report the most current data on hires in fiscal year 2014, we relied on BOP to
provide this information from its personnel database. BOP’s data include hires that occurred between
October 2013 and July 2014. We determined that these data are comparable to OPM’s data and are
reliable for the purposes of our report.

In addition to facing challenges recruiting qualified applicants, officials
from two of the six institutions we visited reported that they faced
challenges in retaining both new hires and experienced BOP staff that
transferred from other BOP institutions. Officials said that BOP staff
transfer to activating institutions to gain experience before receiving
promotions elsewhere, so some staff do not stay in those new institutions
over time. Further, officials from all of the institutions we visited noted that
certain positions, such as those for medical staff, are particularly
challenging to fill because, among other things, it is difficult to provide
competitive salaries for those positions compared with what those staff
could make in the private sector. Officials from BOP’s Central Office also
noted that recruiting medical staff, such as doctors and nurses, was a
challenge system-wide, not just within the institutions undergoing
activation. In fact, one of BOP’s objectives in its strategic plan is to attract
and retain competent health care professionals using a range of
strategies, including recruitment and retention bonuses. Similarly, our
analysis of OPM data demonstrates that partially activated institutions
have had staff sever employment with BOP (see table 6). For instance,
each year more staff have separated from employment at FCI Mendota

Page 45

GAO-14-709 Bureau of Prisons

Appendix II: Analysis of BOP’s Human
Resources Data

than in the prior year, for a total of 40 employees—about 21 percent of its
total hires—from fiscal years 2010 through 2013. 4 Additionally, according
to data provided by BOP from its personnel database for fiscal year
2014—through July—an additional 11 employees separated from FCI
Mendota.
Table 6: Staff Separations for Partially Activated Federal Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP)
Institutions from Fiscal Years 2010 through July 2014

Institution

Number of staff
hired from fiscal
years 2010
through July 2014

Number of staff Separations as a
separated from
percentage of
BOP from fiscal
hired staff from
years 2010 fiscal years 2010
through July 2014 through July 2014

Federal Correctional
Institution (FCI)
Aliceville

148

30

20.3%

FCI Berlin

146

21

14.4

FCI Mendota

240

51

21.3

Source: GAO analysis of Office of Personnel Management (OPM) data and BOP personnel data. I GAO-14-709

Note: Separations include, among other things, voluntary and mandatory retirement, resignations,
terminations, and death of hired or existing staff. We used EHRI data to report hires and separations
through the end of each relevant fiscal year. To report the most current data on hires in fiscal year
2014, we relied on BOP to provide this information from its personnel database. BOP’s data include
hires that occurred between October 2013 and July 2014. We determined that these data are
comparable to OPM’s data and are reliable for the purposes of our report.

4

These transfers may include existing BOP staff that transferred in and out of that
institution during this time frame.

Page 46

GAO-14-709 Bureau of Prisons

Appendix III: Analysis of BOP’s Schedules
against Best Practices
Appendix III: Analysis of BOP’s Schedules
against Best Practices

We determined that BOP’s schedules for activating the six institutions in
our review are not reliable based on our assessment of whether those
schedules met best practices as outlined in our Schedule Assessment
Guide. 1

Purpose and Scope of the
Schedule Guide

In May 2012, we issued GAO’s Schedule Assessment Guide to provide
guidance to auditors in evaluating government programs. According to
that guide, the success of a program depends, in part, on having an
integrated and reliable master schedule that defines when and how long
work will occur and how each activity is related to the others. A schedule
is necessary for government programs for many reasons. The program
schedule provides not only a road map for systematic project execution,
but also the means by which to gauge progress, identify and resolve
potential problems, and promote accountability at all levels of the
program. A schedule provides a time sequence for the duration of a
program’s activities and helps those involved understand both the dates
for major milestones and the activities that drive the schedule. A program
schedule is also a way to develop a budget that incorporates the time it
will take to complete phases of the project. Moreover, the schedule is an
essential basis for managing trade-offs among cost, schedule, and scope.
Among other things, scheduling allows program management to decide
between possible sequences of activities, determine the flexibility of the
schedule according to available resources, predict the consequences of
managerial action or inaction on events, and allocate contingency plans
to mitigate risks. Moreover, an integrated and reliable schedule can show
when major events are expected to occur as well as the completion dates
for all activities leading up to them, which can help determine if the
program’s parameters are realistic and achievable.
Our research has identified 10 best practices associated with effective
schedule estimating, which can be collapsed into four general
characteristics:
•
•
•
•

comprehensive,
controlled,
well constructed, and
credible.

1

GAO, GAO Schedule Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Project Schedules,
GAO-12-120G (Washington, D.C.: May 2012).

Page 47

GAO-14-709 Bureau of Prisons

Appendix III: Analysis of BOP’s Schedules
against Best Practices

After reviewing documentation BOP submitted for its activation schedule
estimates and conducting interviews with BOP officials involved in
activations, we determined that the documents used as schedules by the
six activating institutions are not reliable. 2 Collectively, the six BOP
institutions minimally met two of the four characteristics of a reliable
schedule and did not meet the remaining two characteristics, as
summarized in table 7. To arrive at this determination, we examined the
extent to which each of BOP’s six activating institutions adhered to each
of the 10 best practices. We then assigned a corresponding score. We
took the average score for all six institutions, by best practice, and
collapsed the 10 best practices into the four characteristics to get an
average that reflected an overall assessment by schedule characteristic. 3
Table 7: Summary Assessment of the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP) Schedule Estimates for Six Institutions Compared
against Best Practices
Best practice
related to
schedules

Characteristic
Comprehensive schedules include
•
all activities, as defined in the project’s work
breakdown structure, which defines work necessary
to accomplish objectives;
•
the labor, materials, travel, facilities, equipment, and
the like needed to do the work;
•
whether resources identified above will be available
when needed; and
•
how long each activity will take, allowing for discrete
progress measurement, with specific start and finish
dates.

Average assessment
score for all six institutions
per best practice

Overall assessment
by schedule
a
characteristic

Schedule
captures all
activities.

2

Minimally met (score
b
of 1.72 )

Schedule has
resources
assigned to all
activities.

2

Schedule
establishes the
durations of all
activities.

1.17

2

A schedule is considered reliable if the overall assessment ratings for each of the four
characteristics are substantially or fully met. If any of the characteristics are not met,
minimally met, or partially met, then the schedule cannot be considered reliable.
3

We first scored each of the six institutions on the 10 best practices: not met equaled 1,
minimally met equaled 2, partially met equaled 3, substantially met equaled 4, and met
equaled 5. Then, we took the average of the institutions’ ratings for each best practice to
determine the average assessment score for all six institutions per best practice. We then
took the average of the assessment scores per best practice within each schedule
characteristic. The resulting average becomes the “overall assessment by schedule
characteristic” using the same scoring categories: not met equaled 1.0 to 1.4, minimally
met equaled 1.5 to 2.4, partially met equaled 2.5 to 3.4, substantially met equaled 3.5 to
4.4, and met equaled 4.5 to 5.0.

Page 48

GAO-14-709 Bureau of Prisons

Appendix III: Analysis of BOP’s Schedules
against Best Practices

Best practice
related to
schedules

Characteristic

Average assessment
score for all six institutions
per best practice

Controlled schedules are
•
updated periodically by schedulers trained in critical
c
path method scheduling;
•
statused using actual progress and logic to
realistically forecast dates for program activities;
•
compared against a documented baseline schedule
to determine variances from the plan;
•
accompanied by a corresponding baseline
document that explains the overall approach to the
project, defines assumptions, and describes unique
features of the schedule; and
•
subject to a process to manage changes to the
baseline schedule.

Schedule is
updated with
actual progress
and logic.

Well-constructed schedules include
•
all activities, logically sequenced with predecessor
and successor logic;
•
limited amounts of unusual or complicated logic
techniques that are justified in the schedule
documentation;
•
a critical path that determines which activities drive
the project’s earliest completion date; and
•
total float, or slack, that accurately determines the
d
schedule’s flexibility.

Schedule shows
the sequence of
all activities.

1

Schedule
confirms that the
critical path is
valid.

1

Schedule
ensures there is
reasonable total
float.

1

Credible schedules include
•
the order of events necessary to achieve aggregated
products or outcomes;
•
varying levels of activities, supporting activities, and
subtasks;
•
key dates that can be used to present status
updates to management;
•
a level of confidence in meeting a project’s
completion date based on data about risks and
opportunities for the project; and
•
necessary schedule contingency and high priority
risks based on conducting a robust schedule risk
analysis.

Schedule can be
verified that it is
traceable
horizontally and
vertically.

1

Schedule risk
analysis
conducted.

1

Baseline
schedule is
maintained.

1.5

Overall assessment
by schedule
a
characteristic
Minimally met
(score of 1.83)

2.17

Not met
(score of 1.0)

Not met
(score of 1.0)

Source: GAO analysis of BOP schedules. I GAO-14-709
a

Met—BOP provided complete evidence that satisfies the entire criterion, substantially met—BOP
provided evidence that satisfies a large portion of the criterion, partially met—BOP provided evidence
that satisfies about half of the criterion, minimally met—BOP provided evidence that satisfies a small
portion of the criterion, and not met—BOP provided no evidence that satisfies any of the criterion.

b

We first scored each of the six institutions on the 10 best practices: not met equaled 1, minimally met
equaled 2, partially met equaled 3, substantially met equaled 4, and met equaled 5. Then, we took
the average of the institutions’ ratings for each best practice to determine the average assessment
score for all six institutions per best practice. We then took the average of the assessment scores per
best practice within each schedule characteristic. The resulting average becomes the “overall

Page 49

GAO-14-709 Bureau of Prisons

Appendix III: Analysis of BOP’s Schedules
against Best Practices

assessment by schedule characteristic” using the same scoring categories: not met equaled 1.0 to
1.4, minimally met equaled 1.5 to 2.4, partially met equaled 2.5 to 3.4, substantially met equaled 3.5
to 4.4, and met equaled 4.5 to 5.0.
c

The critical path method for scheduling is a process used to identify the activities that cannot be
delayed without delaying the end date of a program.

d

Total float, or slack, is the amount of time by which a predecessor activity can slip before the delay
affects the program’s estimated finish date.

As summarized above, BOP’s six activating institutions minimally met two
of the four characteristics of a reliable schedule and did not meet the
remaining two characteristics. Each of the sections below provides
greater detail about where BOP’s practices were deficient.
Comprehensive. We reviewed the activation handbooks and staffing
timeline documents that each of the six institutions completed and
found that they minimally met the requirements for a comprehensive
schedule, as illustrated by table 8.

Table 8: Extent to Which Federal Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP) Schedules Were
Comprehensive
Characteristic

Characteristic description

Assessment

Comprehensive

A schedule should reflect all activities as defined in
Minimally met
the program’s work breakdown structure, including
activities to be performed; the resources (e.g., labor,
materials, and overhead) needed to do the work; and
how long each activity will take.

Source: GAO analysis of BOP schedules. I GAO-14-709

To guide activation, BOP’s Central Office provides each activating
institution with a standard activation handbook template and general
staffing timeline. With respect to the activation handbook template
provided to activating institutions, this document contains some elements
of a work breakdown structure, which is an important feature in a
comprehensive schedule. In particular, the activation handbook template
lists necessary tasks, organized by responsible departments or
contractors. However, the activation handbook template provides the
tasks, or activities, in the list in a general way, but none of the six
institutions tailored the tasks to meet their specific requirements, which
limits the bureau’s ability to oversee all activation activities. Similarly, the
activation handbook template does not fully include all work associated
with each deliverable and does not identify the specific personnel within
the department responsible for each activity—and none of the six
institutions modified the template to provide this information. For example,

Page 50

GAO-14-709 Bureau of Prisons

Appendix III: Analysis of BOP’s Schedules
against Best Practices

the activation handbook template specifies that the Correctional Services
department is responsible for coordinating with on-site project staff to
evaluate all entrances, doors, locks, intercoms, cameras, and so forth.
However, it does not provide additional detail about what is required as
part of these evaluations, how these requirements might differ by
institution, which specific staff should be executing or overseeing these
activities, or what the costs associated with this activity might be. Two of
the six institutions adapted the activation handbook template to provide
detail on some resource costs associated with activation. In the case of
FCI Berlin, that institution’s activation handbook included details on the
associated costs by department, such as Correctional Services, Food
Services, or Medical Services, and the materials those departments
would need to provide services to inmates, such as vaccines. However,
FCI Berlin’s activation handbook did not provide sufficient information
about why the specific resources would be needed to keep the activation
on schedule and the impact of not having the resources. Finally, none of
the six institutions included any reference to project duration in its
respective modified activation handbook. For example, the activation
handbook template provided by BOP to activating institutions states that
the Case Management Coordinator is responsible for establishing transfer
arrangements for inmates and coordinating assignments for the transfers’
work areas, but it does not provide an indication of how long the activity
may take to complete. Without information about the estimated length of
time required to complete each activity, management cannot accurately
identify the staffing resources required to complete it, assess the progress
of the activation process, or establish realistic dates for institution
activation.
With respect to the general staffing timeline template BOP’s Central
Office provides, this document roughly identifies when particular staff
resources are needed based on the anticipated activation date. For
example, the general staffing timeline template specifies that 7 months
prior to activation, the institution should hire the Warden, Executive
Assistant, and Secretary within the Executive Staff department. However,
the general staffing timeline template is based on the anticipated
activation date rather than based on the activities each of these
individuals would be doing—and none of the six institutions made
modifications to elaborate on these activities. According to best practices
for comprehensive schedules, resources, such as staff, should be
assigned to particular activities in order to facilitate completion of these
activities.

Page 51

GAO-14-709 Bureau of Prisons

Appendix III: Analysis of BOP’s Schedules
against Best Practices

Because of these deficiencies, the information contained in each of the
six institutions’ activation handbooks and staffing timelines does not
assist management in forecasting whether activities will be completed as
scheduled or as budgeted. Further, these documents do not allow insight
into the allocation of resources, increasing the likelihood that the
activation process will not be completed as anticipated and limiting BOP’s
ability to ensure accountability for the total scope of work.
Controlled. The activation handbooks and staffing timeline templates
that each of the six institutions modified minimally met the
requirements for a controlled schedule, as illustrated in table 9.

Table 9: Extent to Which Federal Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP) Schedules Were
Controlled
Characteristic Characteristic description
Controlled

Assessment

A schedule should be updated periodically using logic Minimally met
and actual progress to realistically forecast dates for
program activities. A schedule narrative should
accompany the updated schedule to provide decision
makers and auditors a log of changes and their effect,
if any, on the schedule time frame. The schedule
narrative should contain key dates, a description of
critical paths, and significant variances between
planned and actual performance. This analysis is
especially important for those variations that affect
activities identified as being in a program’s critical path
and that can affect a scheduled completion date. A
baseline schedule should be used to manage the
program scope, the time period for accomplishing it,
and the required resources.

Source: GAO analysis of BOP schedules. I GAO-14-709

Two of the activating institutions provided versions of BOP’s activation
handbook and staffing timeline templates that contained some indication
that information on key dates and activities was updated at some point in
time by the activating institutions. However, those activation handbook
and staffing timeline templates modified by each institution did not
indicate whether they had been updated at regular intervals, or that they
reflected the actual status of the respective activations. For example, the
activation handbook and staffing timeline templates modified by officials
at FCI Aliceville that were used to guide that activation included
handwritten dates for when specific steps in the activation process were
expected to be completed, but these did not appear to be updated
systematically or include an indication of when or if those activities had

Page 52

GAO-14-709 Bureau of Prisons

Appendix III: Analysis of BOP’s Schedules
against Best Practices

been completed. Further, none of the activating institutions’ activation
handbooks or staffing timelines included the status of key milestone
dates, such as whether specific activities had been completed, or when
the activation should be completed. In addition, none of the activating
institutions used activation handbooks or staffing timelines that described
the critical risks that the institution faced in meeting its goals for activation
or contingencies if those risks were realized. As BOP officials have noted,
meeting scheduled dates for activation is often dependent on receiving
specific activation funding as planned, and, according to best practices for
a controlled schedule, such risks should be documented to ensure
reliability. Without regularly updating the schedule based on the current
status of the activation at each respective institution, BOP is limited in its
ability to monitor activation progress or make decisions on how to mitigate
risk or allocate resources for activating institutions.
Well constructed. The activation handbooks and staffing timeline
documents that each of the six institutions modified did not meet the
requirements for a well-constructed schedule, as illustrated in table
10.

Table 10: Extent to Which Federal Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP) Schedules Were Well
Constructed
Characteristic

Characteristic description

Well constructed

A schedule should be planned so that critical project Not met
dates can be met. To meet this objective, all activities
should be logically sequenced—that is, listed in the
order in which they are to be carried out. In particular,
activities that must finish prior to the start of other
activities (i.e., predecessor activities), as well as
activities that cannot begin until other activities are
completed (i.e., successor activities), should be
identified. The establishment of a critical path
between one activity and its successor is necessary
for examining the effects of any activity slipping along
this path. The calculation of a critical path determines
which activities drive the project’s earliest completion
date. The schedule should also identify total float, or
the amount of time a predecessor activity can slip, so
that the schedule’s flexibility can be accurately
determined.

Assessment

Source: GAO analysis of BOP schedules. I GAO-14-709

The activation handbook and staffing timeline templates modified by
activating institutions did not always provide specific information

Page 53

GAO-14-709 Bureau of Prisons

Appendix III: Analysis of BOP’s Schedules
against Best Practices

regarding start and finish dates, durations, or sequencing of activationrelated activities. For example, BOP’s general staffing timeline template
identifies the sequence in which staff should be hired, which is an
important feature of a well-constructed schedule, but there is no
sequencing of the activities listed in the activation handbook template. For
example, the general staffing timeline specifies that within the Facilities
department, the Communication Technician should be hired 7 months
prior to activation, while the Facility Manager and Electrician and others
should be hired 6 months prior to activation, but it does not provide
contingencies if predecessor positions cannot be filled “on time” or
describe the effects, if any, of filling positions out of sequence. Aside from
staffing-related issues, the activation handbook template does not contain
information on the order in which any of the activation tasks should occur.
As a result, BOP does not have insight about the interdependencies
between activities or the way in which early delays in some activities
could affect activities later on as well as the overall activation completion
date. Additionally, without identifying linkages between activities, BOP
does not know the critical path of the activation process—that is, which
activities can or cannot be delayed if the overall schedule is to be met.
This prevents the agency from providing Congress with reliable timeline
estimates or anticipated activation dates.
Credible. The activation handbook and staffing timeline templates
that each of the six institutions modified did not meet the requirements
for a credible schedule, as illustrated in table 11.

Table 11: Extent to Which Federal Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP) Schedules Were
Credible
Characteristic Characteristic description
Credible

Assessment

A schedule should be horizontally and vertically
Not met
integrated. A horizontally integrated schedule links
products and outcomes with other associated
sequenced activities, which helps verify that activities
are arranged in the right order to achieve aggregated
products or outcomes. A vertically integrated schedule
ensures that the start and completion dates for activities
are aligned with such dates on subsidiary schedules
supporting tasks and subtasks. Data about risks and
opportunities are used to predict a level of confidence in
meeting the project’s completion date. The level of
necessary schedule contingency and high-priority risks
and opportunities are identified by conducting a robust
schedule risk analysis.

Source: GAO analysis of BOP schedules. I GAO-14-709

Page 54

GAO-14-709 Bureau of Prisons

Appendix III: Analysis of BOP’s Schedules
against Best Practices

With respect to the best practice of vertically and horizontally aligning
activities, two institutions adapted BOP’s activation handbook template to
insert targeted due dates for selected activities; however, neither
identified subset activities or linked overall activities in any specific order.
Without this vertical alignment, BOP is not positioned to ensure that
subactivities are on track for an overall activity’s completion. Similarly,
without a clear sequencing of all activities, which is horizontal integration,
BOP also is limited in the extent to which it can monitor overall progress
toward activation. For risk assessment, neither the activation handbook
template nor the staffing timeline contains a schedule risk analysis. Such
an analysis typically focuses on key risks and how they affect the
schedule’s activities. Without a schedule risk analysis, the likelihood of
the project’s completion date or the activities or risks, such as funding
details, most likely to delay activation cannot be determined.
The activation handbooks and general staffing timeline templates that
BOP has developed and institutions have modified during activation are
positive steps toward a baseline schedule that could be used to guide
future institution activations, because they provide some level of detail
regarding the activities required for activation. However, the activation
handbook and general staffing timeline contain only limited information
consistent with best practices and therefore cannot be used by
management to reliably measure, monitor, or report on performance.

Page 55

GAO-14-709 Bureau of Prisons

Appendix IV: Comments from the
Department of Justice
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department
of Justice

Page 56

GAO-14-709 Bureau of Prisons

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department
of Justice

Page 57

GAO-14-709 Bureau of Prisons

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department
of Justice

Page 58

GAO-14-709 Bureau of Prisons

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff
Acknowledgments
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff
Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Dave Maurer, (202) 512-9627, maurerd@gao.gov

Staff
Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact listed above, Joy Booth, Assistant Director;
Pedro Almoguera; Billy Commons; Adam Couvillion; Emily Gunn; and Jan
Montgomery made key contributions to this report. Also contributing to
this report were Lorraine Ettaro, Susan Hsu, Elizabeth Kowalewski, Karen
Richey, Rebecca Shea, and William Varettoni.

(441187)

Page 59

GAO-14-709 Bureau of Prisons

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 (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 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,
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 www.gao.gov.

To Report Fraud,
Waste, and Abuse in
Federal Programs

Contact:
Website: 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) 5124400, 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

Please Print on Recycled Paper.