United States General Accounting Office

GAO

Report to Congressional Committees

June 2001

PRISONER
RELEASES
Trends and
Information on
Reintegration
Programs

GAO-01-483

Contents

Letter

1
Results in Brief
Background
Inmate Releases and Recidivism Reflect a Revolving Door Trend
Sentence Length, Criminal and Drug Use Histories, and Program
Participation
Reintegration Addressed in Three Phases of Federal Correctional
System
Implementation of the Young Offender Initiative Is Evolving
Agency Comments

3
6
7

19
27
32

Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

36

Appendix II

Supervision Tools and Community-Based Social
Services Used by Federal Probation Officers

40

Appendix III

Pilot Reentry Projects and Legislative Proposals

42

Appendix IV

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

46

12

Tables
Table 1: First-Time Offenders Released From Federal Prison and
Returned Within 3 Years
Table 2: Recidivism of Prisoners Released From State Prisons in
1983
Table 3: Sentence Length Information for Inmates in 1997
Table 4: Criminal and Drug Use Histories of Inmates in 1997
Table 5: Inmate Participation in Prison Programs in 1997
Table 6: Substance Abuse Treatment in Adult Correctional
Facilities in 1997
Table 7: Inmate Participation in Substance Abuse Treatment or
Other Programs in 1997
Table 8: BOP In-Prison Programs for Inmates

Page i

10
10
13
14
16
17
19
21

GAO-01-483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs

Table 9: Supervision Tools and Community-Based Social Services
Used by Federal Probation Officers
Table 10: Pilot Reentry Partnerships (Sites and Target Populations)
Table 11: Pilot Reentry Courts (Sites and Target Populations)

40
42
43

Figure 1: Trends in Releases From Federal and State Prisons and
Returns for Violating Parole or Other Release Conditions

8

Figures

Abbreviations
AOUSC
BJS
BOP
DOJ
DOL
GED
HHS
NIJ
OJP
TRIAD
SAMHSA
UNICOR

Page ii

Administrative Office of the United States Courts
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Bureau of Prisons
Department of Justice
Department of Labor
General Equivalency Diploma
Department of Health and Human Services
National Institute of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Treating Inmates’ Addiction to Drugs
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration
Federal Prison Industries, Inc.

GAO-01-483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs

United States General Accounting Office
Washington, DC 20548

June 18, 2001
The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy
Chairman
The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
The Honorable James Sensenbrenner, Jr.
Chairman
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on the Judiciary
House of Representatives
American criminal justice policies and other factors in recent years have
resulted in record numbers of offenders being incarcerated in federal and
state prisons.1 Although many inmates are serving longer sentences than
they would have a decade ago, most federal and state prison inmates are
not serving life sentences without the possibility of parole or release.2
After inmates complete their terms, they return to communities
throughout the nation. Although many are successfully reintegrated into
society, other ex-offenders are arrested for new crimes or violations of
parole or supervision and are returned to prison. In order to reduce
recidivism3 rates—and to enhance public safety, alleviate fiscal pressures
associated with ex-offenders being returned to prison, and provide
opportunities for ex-offenders to straighten out their lives—policymakers,

1

On June 30, 2000, according to Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) data, the total number of
inmates in the custody of federal and state prison authorities was 1.3 million. State
correctional systems accounted for the large majority (about 90 percent) of inmates
nationally.
2

According to BJS data, for example, at the end of fiscal year 1997, only 3 percent of federal
inmates and 8 percent of state inmates were serving life sentences or had death sentences.
For all other inmates, the data showed that more than one-third of the federal inmates and
more than one-half of the state inmates were scheduled for release within 5 years.
3

Typically, recidivism is defined as the reincarceration of an ex-offender after being
convicted of a new crime or for violating a condition of supervised release. Different
studies may define recidivism as rearrest, reconviction (which may or may not result in a
prison sentence), or reincarceration.

Page 1

GAO-01-483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs

correctional system administrators, and other concerned parties are
looking for ways to more successfully reintegrate ex-offenders into
communities.
To provide data related to efforts to reintegrate prisoners, we addressed
the following questions:
•
•

•

•

What are the trends in the number of inmates released from federal and
state prisons and the extent of recidivism?
On the basis of available research, what is known about sentence length
and the criminal and drug use histories of federal and state prison inmates
and about the extent to which inmates participate in educational,
vocational, drug treatment, or other programs designed to address
offenders’ needs or otherwise help offenders reintegrate into society?
Within the federal correctional system’s three phases—(1) the in-prison
phase, which is sometimes called the prerelease phase; (2) the transitional
or halfway house phase,4 which involves placement in a community-based
facility; and (3) the community supervision phase, in which probation
officers assist and monitor releasees—what are the programs for
preparing and assisting offenders with reintegrating into communities?
What is the status of the Young Offender Initiative, a federal interagency
initiative that would provide federal grants to assist states and local
communities with reintegrating offenders released from state prisons,
juvenile correctional facilities, and local facilities housing state prisoners? 5
As agreed, we addressed this report to you because of your legislative and
oversight responsibilities for criminal justice issues.
To answer these questions, we conducted a literature search; reviewed
applicable studies; and interviewed knowledgeable individuals, such as
selected correctional system managers and researchers. To address the
question regarding trends in prison releases and recidivism, we analyzed
BJS and other data. To determine what is known about sentence length,
inmate criminal and drug use histories, and participation in programs

4

The federal correctional system uses contractor-operated community corrections
centers—commonly referred to as halfway houses—for transitioning inmates from a
correctional facility to the community.
5

The full name of the interagency initiative is “Young Offender Initiative: Reentry Grant
Program and the Demonstration Grant Program,” which is being designed to target a
population of offenders within the age range of 14 to 35 years old (Reentry Grant Program)
and 14 to 24 years old (Demonstration Grant Program).

Page 2

GAO-01-483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs

designed to address offenders’ needs or otherwise facilitate reintegration
into society, we reviewed data obtained by BJS during its most recent
(1997) survey of federal and state prison inmates. To identify the federal
correctional system’s programs for preparing offenders to reintegrate, we
interviewed responsible officials and reviewed relevant documentation at
(1) the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), which is responsible for
managing the prerelease phase and the halfway house phase, and (2) the
Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC), which
develops and communicates national community-supervision policies for
probation officers.6 Similarly, regarding the Young Offender Initiative, we
interviewed responsible officials and reviewed relevant documentation at
the Departments of Justice, Labor, and Health and Human Services (DOJ,
DOL, and HHS)—the three participating federal agencies.
We conducted our work in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards between May 2000 and April 2001.
Appendix I presents more details regarding our objectives, scope, and
methodology.

Results in Brief

The number of federal and state inmates released to communities has
increased more than threefold, from 148,867 in 1980 to 532,136 in 1998, the
most recent year for which complete data were available.7 For many
offenders, however, release from prison involves a revolving door—that is,
the releasees often are subsequently reincarcerated. Recidivism rates have
been about 40 percent historically, that is, since about 1980. Within the
group of recidivists, the number of offenders reincarcerated for violating
parole or other release conditions increased more than sevenfold, from
28,817 in 1980 to 209,782 in 1998.8 Further, such reincarcerations represent
an increasing proportion of all prison admissions—for instance,
reincarceration of violators of parole or other release conditions
represented 17 percent of all prison admissions in 1980 but increased to 35
percent of admissions in 1998.

6

National community-supervision policies are established by the Judicial Conference of the
United States, which is the policymaking authority for the federal judiciary. Each district
court appoints officers and supervises the implementation of policies in the probation
system.
7

In 1998, of the total number of inmates released, 95 percent (506,049) were state prisoners.

8

In 1998, of the total number of violators reincarcerated, 98 percent (206,152) were
returned to state prisons.

Page 3

GAO-01-483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs

Regarding sentence length, BJS’ most recent (1997) survey data showed
that a smaller percentage of federal inmates than state inmates had less
than a year remaining on their sentences (27 percent versus 44 percent),
whereas a larger percentage of federal inmates than state inmates were
serving sentences of more than 5 years (31 percent versus 18 percent).9
Also, the 1997 survey data showed that most federal offenders (62 percent)
were imprisoned for drug offense convictions,10 and almost half (47
percent) of all state offenders were incarcerated for violent offense11
convictions. Further, the 1997 survey data showed that the majority of
inmates in both correctional systems—federal inmates (73 percent) and
state inmates (83 percent)—had some history of illegal drug use.
Regarding inmate participation in prison programs, survey data were less
extensive but indicate that some needs, such as drug treatment, may be
unmet. For example, the 1997 survey showed that 57 percent of federal
and 70 percent of state inmates reported having used drugs regularly
before prison. Although not all drug users may need treatment, our
analysis of inmates scheduled to be released within 12 months of BJS’ 1997
survey showed that 33 percent of the federal and 36 percent of the state
inmates participated in residential inpatient treatment programs for
alcohol or drug abuse.12 Further, BJS’ 1997 survey data on inmates
scheduled for release indicated the following:
•
•

27 percent of both federal and state inmates participated in vocational
training programs;
11 percent of the federal inmates worked in prison industry jobs,
compared with 2 percent of the state inmates; and

9

All estimates presented from the BJS 1997 inmate survey data are surrounded by a 95percent confidence interval of plus or minus 5 percentage points or less.
10

According to AOUSC, the relatively high percentage of inmates in federal prison for drug
offense convictions (62 percent) can be attributed to the effects of longer sentences for
such convictions. Also, AOUSC noted that the percentage of defendants appearing in
federal courts with a drug offense as their most serious offense remained fairly steady at 35
to 38 percent in the 1990s.

11

Violent offenses include murder, nonnegligent manslaughter, manslaughter, rape and
other sexual assault, robbery, and assault.

12

According to AOUSC, because many non-drug felony offenses (e.g., fraud) have relatively
short sentences, the inmate population to be released within 12 months will always have a
lower proportion of drug offenders (who usually have long sentences) than the prison
population as a whole. Thus, AOUSC noted that more than half of the drug offenders in the
inmate population released will have participated in drug treatment.

Page 4

GAO-01-483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs

•

37 percent of federal inmates participated in prerelease programs,
compared with 12 percent of state inmates.
Generally, in the federal correctional system, an inmate’s preparation for
reintegration is to encompass all three phases of the system. That is, the
process is to begin immediately and extend throughout the in-prison phase
of the offender’s incarceration in a BOP correctional facility, continue
during a transitional period in a community-based halfway house for a
period not to exceed the final 180 days of the sentence, and further
continue during a 3- to 5-year period of community supervision by
probation officers. For the in-prison phase, BOP provides programs—
including work, education, vocational training, and drug treatment—to
help many inmates rehabilitate themselves. According to BOP, providing
such programs not only supports correctional management purposes, such
as minimizing inmate idleness and increasing the safety of staff, but also
prepares inmates for employment opportunities and successful
reintegration upon release.
Moreover, BOP’s policy is that rehabilitation programming is to continue
during the halfway house phase. During this phase, for example, each
participating inmate is expected to find and keep a job and, if applicable,
continue to participate in drug or alcohol treatment programs. Further,
after an inmate is released from BOP’s custody, a probation officer is
expected to finalize a supervision plan for managing the offender in the
community. Under AOUSC guidelines, a supervision plan should reflect a
probation officer’s statutory responsibilities, which include reducing the
risk the offender poses to the community and providing the offender with
access to treatment, such as substance abuse aftercare and mental health
services. Recently, AOUSC reported that the probation system faces
challenges in supervising an offender population that not only is growing
but also poses higher risks and has greater needs than ever before. For
example, according to AOUSC, the population to be supervised
increasingly reflects higher numbers of offenders with violent criminal
histories. To help meet these challenges, AOUSC has contracted for a
comprehensive assessment of the system’s organizational structure,
policies, and practices and expects a final report in fall 2002.
Under the Young Offender Initiative, federal discretionary grants are to be
provided to help states and communities work together to improve
offender supervision and accountability—and essential support services—
in order to minimize public safety issues posed by high-risk or specialneeds offenders released from state prisons, juvenile correctional
facilities, and local facilities housing state prisoners. For fiscal year 2001—

Page 5

GAO-01-483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs

the first year of federal funding for the initiative—designated funding
consisted of $30 million from DOJ, $55 million from DOL, and $8 million
from HHS. The initiative was in the early stages of implementation at the
time of our review. For instance, DOJ, DOL, and HHS jointly developed a
solicitation for grant applications, which was issued June 1, 2001.
Applications are to be submitted to DOJ by October 1, 2001.
In commenting on a draft of this report, DOJ and AOUSC generally agreed
with the substance of the report and provided various technical
clarifications, which we incorporated where appropriate.

Background

Given the record number of ex-inmates leaving prisons and returning to
communities, research and policy experts have begun to focus attention
on reintegration issues. In March 2000, for example, DOJ sponsored a
symposium for members of the judiciary and the courts, criminal justice
professionals, representatives of victims advocacy organizations, state
legislators, and academicians to discuss various sentencing and
corrections issues, including the topic of prisoner reintegration and its
relationship to public safety.13 Generally, the participants anticipated that
without successful programs of prisoner reintegration, prison systems
would continue to grow in size and cost. Also, in October 2000, a
symposium for criminal justice researchers and practitioners was
convened by the Urban Institute for the purpose of developing a research
and policy agenda for prisoner reintegration.14 The organizers pointed out
that the sheer volume of returning prisoners “creates unprecedented
problems of reintegration.”
Symposium participants and other experts also pointed out that more
needs to be learned about what policies and programs are most effective
in helping offenders successfully reintegrate into communities. However,
there seemed to be a consensus among participants and other experts that
the need to address basic deficiencies—such as the lack of job skills and
dependency on alcohol or drugs—would likely continue. Further, experts

13

The symposium, titled Crime Policy in the 21st Century: Sentencing and Corrections, was
sponsored by DOJ’s Office of Policy Development and the National Institute of Justice
(NIJ) and was held in Washington, D.C., March 21-22, 2000.

14

This symposium, titled Reentry Roundtable, was held in Washington, D.C., October 12-13,
2000. The leadership for organizing the roundtable was shared by the Urban Institute and
Joan Petersilia, a researcher at University of California, Irvine.

Page 6

GAO-01-483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs

assert that prisoner reintegration has emerged as a key policy issue, which
increases the importance of obtaining more evidence-based evaluations of
what types and levels of rehabilitative programs work.

Inmate Releases and
Recidivism Reflect a
Revolving Door Trend

The severalfold increase in the prison population in recent years has, in
turn, led to record numbers of offenders eventually being released and
returned to communities. The number of offenders released from federal
and state prisons surpassed the half-million mark in 1998. After being
released, many individuals—about 40 percent historically—later are sent
back to prison for committing new offenses or violating conditions of
release.

Increasing Number of
Inmates Released From
and Returned to Prison

Nationally, the total inmate population in federal and state prisons
increased almost fourfold during the past 2 decades—from 329,821 at the
end of 1980 to about 1.3 million at the end of 1999. In consonance with the
trend of larger prison populations, the number of inmates who complete
their sentences and return to communities has also risen significantly in
recent years. Specifically, as figure 1 shows, the number of federal and
state inmates released to communities increased from 148,867 in 1980 to
532,136 in 1998, the most recent year for which complete data were
available.15 Also, figure 1 shows that the number of offenders
reincarcerated for violating parole or other release conditions increased
more than sevenfold, from 28,817 in 1980 to 209,782 in 1998.16 These
reincarceration data, as noted in figure 1, do not include ex-offenders who
were returned to prisons for committing a new crime but were not under
parole or supervised release. Nonetheless, the reincarcerations shown in
figure 1 represent an increasing proportion of all prison admissions. For
instance, reincarceration of violators of parole or other release conditions
represented 17 percent of all prison admissions in 1980 but increased to 35
percent of admissions in 1998.

15

In 1998, of the total number of inmates released, 95 percent (506,049) were state
prisoners.

16

In 1998, of the total number of violators reincarcerated, 98 percent (206,152) were
returned to state prisons.

Page 7

GAO-01-483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs

Figure 1: Trends in Releases From Federal and State Prisons and Returns for
Violating Parole or Other Release Conditions
Number of offenders
600,000
Offenders released

532,136

Offenders reincarcerated for
violating parole or other
release conditions

500,000

400,000

300,000
209,782

200,000
148,867

100,000
28,817

0
1980 1982 1984
Calendar year

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

Note 1: For offenders released, no federal data were reported for 1990, 1991, and 1992. For these 3
years, the graph reflects only state prison releases.
Note 2: For offenders reincarcerated, violations of parole or other release conditions can consist of
various technical violations, such as not keeping appointments with probation officers or failing a
urinalysis test for illegal drug use. Supervision revocations and reincarcerations can also result from
the commission of a new crime, an act that violates the most basic of release conditions. However,
the reincarceration data shown in the graph do not include returns to prison of ex-offenders who
committed a new crime while not under parole or other supervised release.
Source: Compiled by GAO from BJS data.

Recidivism Rates
Historically Have Been
About 40 Percent

Available studies indicated that recidivism rates historically—since about
1980—have been about 40 percent. Generally, these recidivism rates
reflect the trend or pattern for federal as well as state prison offenders. No
national recidivism studies that were both current and comprehensive,
however, were available. For instance, some studies either were somewhat
dated or focused on selected groups, such as first-time offenders.

Recidivism of Federal
Offenders

In its most recent survey of federal prison inmates—conducted in 1997—
BJS obtained extensive demographic information, including self-reported
data about current offenses and prior criminal histories. Although not a
study of recidivism, per se, the survey data indicated that 61 percent of
federal prison inmates had one or more prior sentences, and 40 percent
had one or more prior incarcerations.

Page 8

GAO-01-483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs

The most current BOP study we identified that focused specifically on
recidivism of prisoners released from federal prisons was completed in
1994. In its study, BOP analyzed recidivism on the basis of a representative
sample of 1,205 federal inmates released to the community during the first
6 months of 1987.17 Also, in this study, BOP compared results from its
earlier recidivism studies, which were based on releasees in 1970, 1978,
1980, and 1982. The 1994 study found that within 3 years of being released
from BOP, about 41 percent of the 1987 releasees had either been
rearrested or had their parole revoked.18 Also, the study reported that
recidivism rates (rearrest or parole revocation) for the 1978, 1980, and
1982 releasees were very similar, at around 40 percent. Further, the study
noted that the 1970 releasees had a higher recidivism rate (about 52
percent), which may be attributed to a disproportionate number of
youthful car thieves among that year’s releasees.
Another study we identified that focused specifically on recidivism of
prisoners released from federal prisons was prepared by the Urban
Institute and published by BJS in September 2000. The study focused on a
3-year follow-up of first-time offenders—that is, offenders released from
federal prison for the first time during calendar years 1986 through 1994.19
As table 1 shows, the study found that a total of 215,263 offenders were
released from federal prison for the first time between 1986 and 1994, and
of this total, 33,855 (16 percent) were returned to federal prison within 3
years. The table also shows that the return percentages increased annually
from 1986 to 1994, except for 1993.
It should be emphasized, however, that the return percentages shown in
table 1 underestimate the overall prison return rates. For instance, the
study’s measure of recidivism did not include prisoners who entered state
prisons or jails after release from federal prison. Moreover, as designed,
the study focused only on offenders who were released from federal
prison for the first time during a specific period. Recidivism rates for those
who have been in prison more than one time are higher, according to other
studies.

17

Miles D. Harer, BOP, Office of Research and Evaluation, “Recidivism Among Federal
Prison Releasees in 1987: A Preliminary Report” (Mar. 11, 1994).

18

The study did not report any data on the number of former inmates who were reconvicted
or reincarcerated.

19

BJS, Special Report, “Offenders Returning to Federal Prison, 1986-97” (NCJ 182991, Sept.
2000).

Page 9

GAO-01-483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs

Table 1: First-Time Offenders Released From Federal Prison and Returned Within 3
Years
Number of
releases
21,493
22,889
22,237
22,221
25,389
24,685
24,280
25,224
26,845
215,263

Year of
release
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
Total

Number of
returns to prison
2,440
2,942
2,995
3,225
3,948
4,291
4,429
4,593
4,992
33,855

Returns as apercentage
of releases
11.4
12.9
13.5
14.5
15.6
17.4
18.2
18.2
18.6
15.7

Note: Releases were in 1986 through 1994; returns were in 1986 through 1997.
Source: BJS and BOP data.

Recidivism of State Offenders

The most comprehensive national study we identified regarding recidivism
of prisoners released from state prisons was published by BJS in 1989.20
BJS officials told us that the 1989 publication was BJS’ most current study
of state prisoner recidivism. The study was based on a projectable sample
of more than 16,000 prisoners released in 1983. More specifically, BJS
projected its findings to the universe of 108,580 persons released from
state prisons in 11 states, which accounted for 57 percent of all state
prisoners released in the nation during 1983. As indicated in table 2, BJS
reported that of the 108,580 prisoners released in 1983, an estimated 63
percent were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3
years, 47 percent were reconvicted, and 41 percent were returned to
prison or jail.
Table 2: Recidivism of Prisoners Released From State Prisons in 1983
Time after release
6 months
1 year
2 years
3 years

Rearrested
25.0%
39.3
54.5
62.5

Reconvicted
11.3%
23.1
38.3
46.8

Reincarcerated
8.4%
18.6
32.8
41.4

Source: BJS data.

20

BJS, Special Report, “Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1983” (NCJ 116261, Apr. 1989).

Page 10

GAO-01-483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs

Further, in this study, BJS reported that failure rates—rearrest,
reconviction, or reincarceration—in the first 3 months following release
were more than three times higher than failure rates in the last 3 months of
the follow-up period.21
Also, in its most recent survey of state prison inmates—conducted in
1997—BJS obtained self-reported data about current offenses and prior
criminal histories. Although not a study of recidivism, per se, the survey
data indicated that 76 percent of state prison inmates had one or more
prior sentences, and 65 percent had one or more prior incarcerations.

New York State Study Reported
a Recidivism Rate of 40 Percent

•
•
•

Regarding individual states, a June 2000 report by the New York State
Department of Correctional Services presents return-to-custody
(readmission) information regarding the 26,932 inmates released in 1996
from the state’s correctional facilities.22 According to the report,
40 percent (10,795) of the released inmates were returned to custody
within 3 years;
almost two-thirds of the 10,795 inmates who were returned were
recommitted within the first 18 months following release; and
of the 26,932 inmates released in 1996, 24 percent were returned for
violating parole, and 16 percent were returned committing new crimes.
Also, regarding readmission for committing new crimes, the report noted
that more offenders were returned to custody for committing a drug
offense (45 percent) than any other offense category. For example, the
next highest readmission categories reported were property and other
offenses (24 percent) and violent felony offenses (23 percent).

21

During our review, AOUSC officials questioned the value of an 18-year-old study—that is,
BJS’ study of prisoners released from state prisons in 1983—and suggested that we delete
reference to it. We retained reference to the study because it was the most comprehensive
national study we identified regarding recidivism of prisoners released from state prisons.

22

New York State Department of Correctional Services, “1996 Releases: Three Year Post
Release Follow-Up” (June 2000).

Page 11

GAO-01-483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs

Sentence Length,
Criminal and Drug
Use Histories, and
Program Participation

Based on BJS’ most recent (1997) survey of prison inmates, we developed
information on selected characteristics—such as sentence length, criminal
history, and drug use history—comparing federal and state inmates.23

Violent Offenders Received
Longer Sentences Than
Drug Offenders

As table 3 shows, a smaller percentage of federal inmates than state
inmates were serving life sentences or death sentences (3 percent versus 8
percent). For other inmates in federal and state prison systems, the
median sentence lengths across all types of inmates who were in prison in
1997 were 7 years and 5 years, respectively. Also, in both federal and state
prisons, violent offenders received longer sentences than drug offenders,
although the difference in median sentence length between violent and
drug offenders was far less pronounced in federal prisons. A smaller
percentage of federal inmates than state inmates had less than a year
remaining on their sentences (27 percent versus 44 percent), whereas a
larger percentage of federal inmates than state inmates were serving
sentences of more than 5 years (31 percent versus 18 percent).
Regarding federal offenders and criminal case processing, in February
2001, BJS published more recent data showing that federal incarceration
for drug convictions and length of federal prison terms are increasing.24
Among other things, BJS reported the following:

•

•

Drug prosecutions constitute an increasing proportion of the federal
criminal caseload, rising from 21 percent of defendants in cases
terminating in U.S. district court during fiscal year 1982 to 36 percent
during fiscal year 1999.
The proportion of all federal defendants sentenced to prison increased
from 54 percent during fiscal year 1988 to 72 percent during fiscal year
1999. For this same time period, the proportion of federal drug offenders
sentenced to prison increased from 79 percent to 92 percent.

23

In a recent report, we used data from BJS’ two most recent surveys (1991 and 1997) to
present detailed information on inmate characteristics; see State and Federal Prisoners:
Profiles of Inmate Characteristics in 1991 and 1997 (GAO/GGD-00-117, May 24, 2000). Also,
we used the BJS data to report more specifically on female inmates; see Women in Prison:
Issues and Challenges Confronting U.S. Correctional Systems (GAO/GGD-00-22, Dec. 28,
1999).

24

BJS, “Federal Criminal Case Processing, 1999” (NCJ 186180, Feb. 2001).

Page 12

GAO-01-483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs

•

The length of federal prison sentences imposed increased from an average
of 55.1 months during 1988 to an average of 58.1 months during 1999.
During this period, federal prison sentences imposed for drug offenses
increased from an average of 71.3 months to 75.4 months, and for weapon
offenses, sentences imposed increased from an average of 52.3 months to
99.5 months.
Table 3: Sentence Length Information for Inmates in 1997
Offender characteristic
a
Life sentence or death sentence
For those not serving life or death sentence
b
Median sentence length
All offenders
Drug offenders
Violent offenders
c
Sentence time remaining
Less than 1 year
1 to 5 years
More than 5 years
Number of inmates

Federal
3%

State
8%

Length in years
7
5
8
3
9
7
Percent of inmates
27
44
42
38
31
18
89,072 1,059,607

Note: The percentages are based on numbers slightly smaller than the total number of inmates
because not all inmates responded to the question.
a
Some offenders with life sentences may eventually be released, and some offenders not serving life
sentences may never be released. The latter include, for example, older offenders who have very
long sentences to serve and younger offenders who have multiple, lengthy sentences to serve
nonconcurrently.
b
Sentence lengths are based on the number of years that the inmates are anticipated to actually
serve, not the number of years in the court-imposed sentences. Actual time served often is less than
the number of months or years reflected in court-imposed sentences for various reasons, such as
reductions in prison terms for good behavior.
c

Time remaining on sentence is computed from the time of BJS’ survey and not from the time of
admission to prison.
Source: Compiled by GAO from BJS data.

Page 13

GAO-01-483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs

Drug or Violent Offenses
and Prior Incarceration
Were Characteristics
Common to Many Inmates

As table 4 shows, nearly two-thirds (63 percent) of federal inmates in 1997
were drug offenders, and 15 percent were violent offenders. In
comparison, one in five (21 percent) of the state inmates were drug
offenders, and nearly one-half (47 percent) were violent offenders.25
Table 4: Criminal and Drug Use Histories of Inmates in 1997

Inmate history
Current offense
Drug offense conviction
Violent offense conviction
Past criminal history
b
Under supervision when arrested
Prior incarceration
Prior sentence imposed
Illegal drug use before prison
Ever used any drugs
c
Used drugs regularly
c
Used cocaine or crack regularly
c
Used heroin regularly
Number of inmates

All inmates
Federal
State

a

Releasees
Federal
State

63%
15

21%
47

54%
12

28%
30

27
40
61

47
55
76

30
37
56

56
56
78

73
57
28
9
89,072

83
70
34
15
1,059,607

71
55
26
8
22,583

85
73
36
16
400,821

Note: The percentages are based on numbers slightly smaller than the total number of inmates
because not all inmates responded to the question.
a

Inmates to be released within 12 months from the time of BJS’ survey in 1997.

b

Includes persons who were on parole, supervised release, or probation and those who had escaped
and been rearrested.
c

Used drugs at least once a week for at least 1 month.

Source: Compiled by GAO from BJS data.

Further, regarding past criminal history, table 4 shows that 61 percent of
federal inmates and 76 percent of state inmates who were in prison in 1997
had been sentenced before, and 40 percent of federal inmates and 55
percent of state inmates in prison in 1997 had served prior prison
sentences. Moreover, not all inmates had a long stretch of “street time”
between sentences. Of the inmates who were in prison in 1997, more than

25

The type of offender (violent crime and drug offense) is determined on the basis of the
primary, or most serious, offense for which offenders were currently sentenced to prison.
The primary types of offenses—other than those that involve violence or drugs—involve
property offenses (e.g., burglary and larceny) and technical violations (e.g., violations of
terms of probation and parole).

Page 14

GAO-01-483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs

one-quarter (27 percent) of federal inmates and nearly half (47 percent) of
the state inmates were under supervision at the time of the arrest that led
to their incarceration.
To provide the reader with an annual reintegration perspective, table 4
also presents data about inmates scheduled to be released within 12
months from the time of BJS’ 1997 survey. Regarding current offenses, for
example, table 4 shows that 54 percent of the federal and 28 percent of
state inmates to be released were drug offenders—a total of about 124,000
releasees. Further, table 4 shows that 12 percent of the federal and 30
percent of state releasees were violent offenders—a total of about 123,000
releasees. Table 4 also shows that 56 percent of the federal and 78 percent
of state releasees had a prior criminal sentence.

Most Inmates Had Used
Illegal Drugs Before Prison
Admission

Table 4 shows further that it is not just criminal histories generally that
characterize the bulk of inmates in prison, but substantial histories of drug
use as well. More than 7 in 10 (73 percent) of the federal inmates and 8 in
10 (83 percent) of the state inmates reported having used illegal drugs
before their current admission. Nearly 6 in 10 (57 percent) of the federal
inmates and 7 in 10 (70 percent) of the state inmates reported having used
illegal drugs regularly. Approximately 1 in 4 (28 percent) federal inmates
and 1 in 3 (34 percent) state inmates reported having used cocaine or
crack regularly. Also, as table 4 shows, the percentages of releasees using
various drugs are similar to those for all inmates. For instance, 26 percent
of federal inmates to be released reported having used cocaine or crack
regularly, compared with 28 percent of all federal inmates in prison in
1997.26

Generally Low Inmate
Participation in Prison
Programs

BJS’ 1997 survey provided less extensive information about inmate
participation in prison programs. In table 5, we summarize available
information about inmate participation in various programs. About one of
every four federal and state inmates—25 percent and 24 percent,

26

According to AOUSC, drug histories reported by federal inmates may be overstated since
18 U.S.C. 3621(e)(2)(B) authorizes BOP to reduce the sentence (by up to 1 year) for any
prisoner convicted of a nonviolent offense after successful completion of drug treatment.
On the other hand, according to BOP, adequate safeguards are in place to prevent inmates
who are not drug addicts (or who do not have histories of drug abuse) from participating in
drug treatment programs and receiving reduced sentences. Further, it should be noted that
BJS’ survey of inmates is conducted on a basis of confidentiality. Thus, the survey results
are not used for programming services for individual inmates.

Page 15

GAO-01-483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs

respectively—had participated in a drug treatment program since their
admission. Further, fewer than half of the inmates in either prison
system—federal (45 percent) and state (38 percent)—had been involved in
education programs since being admitted. And less than one-third of the
inmates had received any vocational training—federal (29 percent) and
state (31 percent). Although 87 percent of federal inmates and 60 percent
of state inmates had work assignments, only 17 percent of federal and 3
percent of the state inmates had assignments in prison industry jobs.
Finally, only 13 percent of federal inmates and 8 percent of state inmates
had participated in prerelease programs. However, as would be expected,
the data indicate that participation in prerelease programs increased
significantly among inmates scheduled to be released within 12 months,
particularly among federal inmates (37 percent). Also, regarding the
federal prerelease programs, BOP officials said that, since the 1997 BJS
survey, BOP has provided more training to staff and placed additional
emphasis on the prerelease programs.
Table 5: Inmate Participation in Prison Programs in 1997

Type of program attended
Residential inpatient treatment
Alcohol program
Drug program
Education classes
b
Vocational training
c

Any work assignment
d
Prison industry jobs
e
Prerelease programs
Number of inmates

All inmates
Federal
State
28%
33%
20
24
25
24
45
38
29
31
87
17
13
89,072

60
3
8
1,059,607

a

Releasees
Federal
State
33%
36%
24
27
28
29
43
35
27
27
87
56
11
2
37
12
22,583 400,821

Note: The percentages show inmate participation since admission to prison for current offense. They
are based on numbers slightly smaller than the total number of inmates because not all inmates
responded to the question.
a

Inmates to be released within 12 months from the time of BJS’ survey in 1997.

b

Vocational training includes in-class training and on-the-job training, excluding institutional jobs.

c

Work assignments include institutional jobs (e.g., food services, laundry, grounds maintenance, etc.)
and prison industry jobs.

d

Federal Prison Industries, Inc., called UNICOR, operates as an income-producing business. Many
state prisons also have income-producing businesses.
e
These programs include classes covering such topics as budgeting, stress reduction, and job
interviewing skills.

Source: Compiled by GAO from BJS data.

Page 16

GAO-01-483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs

Additional Perspectives on
Inmate Participation in
Drug Treatment Programs

•
•

To obtain additional perspectives on substance abuse treatment in federal
and state prisons, we reviewed data compiled by HHS’ Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). In 1997, at the
request of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, SAMHSA designed
and conducted the first national survey of substance abuse treatment
services in adult and juvenile correctional facilities. For adult correctional
facilities, as table 6 shows, the survey results showed that on a given day
in 1997,
about 12,500 federal inmates and about 99,000 state inmates received
substance abuse treatment and
most of these inmates were treated within a general facility population
setting versus a specialized unit, hospital, or psychiatric unit.

Table 6: Substance Abuse Treatment in Adult Correctional Facilities in 1997

Treatment setting
General facility population
Specialized unit
Hospital or psychiatric unit
Total

Prison inmates in treatment
Federal
State
6,693
66,119
5,744
30,697
71
2,162
12,508
98,978

Note: The data reflect the number of prison inmates in treatment on a given day in 1997, not all year.
Source: SAMHSA, Substance Abuse Treatment in Adult and Juvenile Correctional Facilities
(Apr. 2000).

At a congressional hearing in October 2000, a SAMHSA representative
testified as follows about substance abuse treatment for offenders: 27
“A disturbingly high percentage of offenders are high on drugs or alcohol when they
commit crimes. Under the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring … program funded by the
Department of Justice, detained arrestees in at least 23 urban jurisdictions throughout the
United States are tested periodically to determine the extent of illegal drug use. In 1999,
sixty-eight percent of detained arrestees tested positive for one or more illegal drugs.
Those arrested are not tested for alcohol use. If they were, the percentage of persons who
are high when arrested would clearly be greater than 68 percent.

27

Testimony of Bruce C. Fry, Social Science Analyst, Center for Substance Abuse
Treatment, SAMHSA, HHS, before the Subcommittee on Crime, Committee on the
Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, October 2, 2000.

Page 17

GAO-01-483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs

“When incarcerated in … state prisons and jails, these offenders are unlikely to receive
appropriate substance abuse treatment, although the Residential Substance Abuse
Treatment program operated by the Department of Justice is substantially increasing the
availability of treatment in state prisons. Earlier this year SAMHSA’s Office of Applied
Studies issued a report analyzing whether treatment is provided in correctional settings.
28
Forty-five percent of state prisons and 68 percent of jails have no treatment of any kind.
More seriously, in most cases where treatment is provided it is minimal. Only 21.8% of all
prisons provided treatment in segregated settings, which research shows is the most
effective approach. Finally, please note these studies only address whether there is any
treatment in these facilities—not whether there are enough treatment slots in these
facilities.
“It is estimated that about 70 percent of persons in state prisons need treatment. Since
most are not treated in prison, when they leave prison they are at extremely high risk of
relapse, and are likely to commit crimes again and again until they are caught and put back
into prison, where the cycle begins all over again.”

During our review, while agreeing that there is a need for more substance
abuse treatment, BJS officials offered a cautionary comment about
statistics that quantify this need. For instance, the officials commented
that not all drug users are addicts. Also, the officials noted that BJS’ most
recent (1997) survey of federal and state prison inmates showed that the
percent of alcohol- or drug-involved prisoners—who, since admission to
prison, participated in treatment or other substance programs—increased
as the time to expected release decreased.
As table 7 shows, for example, among the alcohol- or drug-involved federal
inmates, about 20 percent of the inmates serving their final 6 months
reported receiving treatment, compared with 10 percent of the inmates
with more than a year until release.

28

In commenting on a draft of our report in May 2001, SAMHSA officials emphasized that
these percentages were based on 1997 data. Also, the officials commented that the quoted
material, which reports that 68 percent of jails have no treatment, might exaggerate the
lack of treatment in correctional facilities given that a very low proportion (6 percent) of
federal prisons do not provide treatment.

Page 18

GAO-01-483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs

Table 7: Inmate Participation in Substance Abuse Treatment or Other Programs in
1997
Time to expected release
Federal prisoners
Greater than 1 year
6 to 12 months
Less than 6 months
State prisoners
Greater than 1 year
6 to 12 months
Less than 6 months

a

Treatment

Other programs

b

10.0%
12.5
20.5

24.2%
28.4
36.9

12.6
16.3
18.6

31.0
32.4
34.0

Note: These data show inmate participation since admission to prison for current offense.
a
Includes residential facilities, professional counseling, detoxification units, and maintenance drug
programs.
b

Includes self-help or peer counseling groups and educational or awareness programs.

Source: BJS, Special Report, “Substance Abuse and Treatment, State and Federal Prisoners, 1997”
(NCJ 172871, Jan. 1999), p. 9.

Reintegration
Addressed in Three
Phases of Federal
Correctional System

Generally, in the federal correctional system, an inmate’s preparation for
reintegration is to encompass all three phases of the system. That is, the
process is to begin immediately and extend throughout the in-prison phase
of the offender’s incarceration in a BOP correctional facility, continue
during a transitional period in a community-based halfway house for a
period not to exceed the final 180 days of the sentence, and further
continue after the offender’s release during a 3- to 5-year period of
community supervision by probation officers. BOP oversees inmate
activities during the in-prison phase and the halfway house phase, and U.S.
Probation Offices oversee the community supervision phase.

In-Prison Phase: BOP
Provides Various Programs

At the end of 1999, BOP housed 125,682 inmates in 98 correctional
facilities. For the in-prison phase, BOP provides various programs—
including education, work, vocational training, and drug treatment
programs—to help inmates rehabilitate themselves. For example, BOP
requires all federal inmates to work if they are medically able. BOP
recognizes that release preparation begins at initial intake or
classification29 and encourages inmates to begin preparing for their release

29

In the context of correctional systems, the term “classification” refers to the systematic
subdivision of inmates into groups on the basis of their security and program needs.

Page 19

GAO-01-483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs

from prison upon their arrival at the institution. Table 8 describes the
programs generally available to inmates during incarceration. As noted in
the previous section of this report, not all federal prisoners participate in
these programs.
According to BOP, providing inmates with such programs not only
supports correctional management purposes, such as minimizing inmate
idleness and increasing the safety of staff, but also prepares inmates for
employment opportunities and successful reintegration upon release. As
supporting evidence, BOP has cited the results of long-term evaluations of
its drug treatment and work training programs. For example:
•

•

Drug treatment. In fall 2000, BOP reported that an evaluation of its
residential drug abuse treatment program showed that offenders who
completed the program and had been released to the community for 3
years were less likely to be rearrested or to be detected for drug use than
were similar inmates who did not participate in the program. The multisite
evaluation—referred to as the TRIAD project (an acronym for “Treating
Inmates’ Addiction to Drugs”)—represented an interagency agreement
between BOP and the National Institute on Drug Abuse.30
Work training. In a postrelease employment project, BOP evaluated the
impact of prison work experience and vocational and apprenticeship
training on offenders’ behavior after release to the community. Begun in
1983, the evaluation collected data through 1987 on more than 7,000
offenders. On the basis of the evaluation, BOP concluded that inmates
who participated in work and job skills programs were less likely to be
returned to federal prisons—even as many as 8 to 12 years after being
released.31

30

BOP, Office of Research and Evaluation, “BOP TRIAD Drug Treatment Evaluation ThreeYear Outcome Report–Executive Summary” (Sept. 2000).

31

William G. Saylor and Gerald G. Gaes, “Training Inmates Through Industrial Work
Participation and Vocational and Apprenticeship Instruction,” Corrections Management
Quarterly (Spring 1997), pp. 32-43.

Page 20

GAO-01-483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs

Table 8: BOP In-Prison Programs for Inmates
Program type
Education

Work

Occupational or vocational training

Drug treatment

Mental health

Release preparation

Inmate placement

Program description
Literacy programs are to allow inmates without a high school diploma (or its equivalent) to earn
a General Equivalency Diploma (GED). Under provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of
1995 (P.L. 104-134), inmates lacking high school credentials must participate and make
satisfactory progress in the GED program in order to earn the maximum amount of good time
credit, which may reduce sentence length. According to BOP, 3,962 federal inmates
successfully passed the GED test during the first 9 months of fiscal year 2000.
An English-as-a-second-language program is to allow inmates with limited English fluency skills
to achieve at least an eighth grade English proficiency level. The Comprehensive Crime Control
Act of 1990 mandates that non-English-proficient inmates participate in this program until they
function at the eighth grade level in English competency. According to BOP, 18,852 federal
inmates (15 percent of the total federal inmate population) were eligible for the English fluency
program during calendar year 1999.
Inmates are to learn job skills in institutional job assignments, such as food service worker,
orderly, plumber, painter, warehouse worker, or groundskeeper. Also, some inmates work in
Federal Prison Industries, Inc. (UNICOR) factories that produce, for example, metal products,
furniture, electronics, or textiles. According to BOP, most inmates have institutional job
assignments, and the other inmates work in UNICOR factories—although a small percentage of
inmates have no work assignments due to medical conditions.
BOP reports that it has occupational or vocational training programs that encompass 86
different skill areas, and inmates are provided with opportunities to develop work skills by onthe-job training through institution work assignments and prison industry jobs. For fiscal year
1999, BOP reported that 8,711 federal inmates completed at least 1 occupational training
program. Also, as of March 2000, BOP data showed that 9,427 federal inmates (about 9
percent of total federal inmate population) were enrolled in an occupational training program.
According to BOP, its drug treatment programs include substance abuse education,
nonresidential substance abuse treatment and counseling, and residential substance abuse
treatment. BOP data indicate that approximately 34 percent of the total federal inmate
population have a diagnosed substance abuse disorder. For fiscal year 2000, BOP reported
that 12,541 federal inmates participated in its residential drug abuse treatment program.
Psychologists are to provide professional diagnosis, counseling, and treatment on an individual
or group basis. In calendar year 2000, BOP data showed that 14,369 federal inmates (10
percent of the total federal inmate population) were diagnosed with a mental health need.
Designed to help inmates transition from prison to the community, this program is to offer
courses in six core areas—(1) health and nutrition, (2) personal growth and development, (3)
personal finance and consumer skills, (4) employment, (5) release requirements and
procedures, and (6) information on community resources. Beginning approximately 24 months
before release, inmates are encouraged to enroll in and complete at least one course in each
core area. Generally, each core area may offer various courses. For example, the health and
nutrition core area may include courses about disease prevention, including AIDS awareness,
as well as courses about weight management and how to eat nutritionally.
This program is to encourage federal correctional institutions to plan and hold mock job fairs to
help inmates hone their job search and interview techniques. In addition, the inmate placement
program is to provide job placement services to inmates, help inmates prepare release folders
(which include such documents as a social security card, education certificates, and vocational
certifications), and help institutions establish onsite employment centers. According to BOP,
between 1996 and 2000, the inmate placement program conducted 127 mock job fairs at 66
institutions, with approximately 5,000 inmates participating.
Source: GAO analysis of BOP data.

Page 21

GAO-01-483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs

The same types of programs as those presented in table 8 are also
available to inmates during their transition back to the community (i.e.,
during the inmates’ halfway house stay or during the offenders’ term of
community supervision). For example, inmates with diagnosed substance
abuse addictions who were receiving treatment in prison are to continue
that treatment during their transitional period at contractor-operated
halfway houses and after release to supervision. Also, inmates who are
prescribed medications for diagnosed mental illness are to leave the
institution with a 30-day supply to begin their halfway house stays.

Halfway House Phase:
BOP Provides a Transition
Period

BOP uses contractor-operated community corrections centers, commonly
referred to as halfway houses, for transitioning inmates from a federal
institution to the community. In 2000, BOP contracted for 282 halfway
houses that provided 6,911 beds and served 18,113 inmates.
Normally, 11 to 13 months before each inmate’s probable release date
from a federal correctional facility, BOP staff are to decide whether the
inmate is eligible or appropriate for halfway house placement. According
to BOP, in calendar year 2000, of the total 40,674 inmates released from a
federal correctional facility, about 55 percent (22,561 inmates) were
ineligible or inappropriate for halfway house placement or were initially
deemed eligible but were not transferred to the halfway house. BOP
officials explained this to us as follows.
•

•

Deportable aliens are the largest category of federal inmates ineligible for
halfway house placement.32 Other ineligible or inappropriate categories
include (1) sex offenders; (2) inmates undergoing inpatient medical,
psychological, or psychiatric treatment; (3) inmates serving sentences of 6
months or less; (4) inmates who refuse to participate in an institution’s
Release Preparation Program; and (5) inmates who pose a significant
threat to the community.
Some of the reasons an eligible inmate may not be transferred to a halfway
house are the inmate’s sentence was too short or a change of plans
occurred that precluded halfway house referral; difficulties were
experienced in relocating the inmate to an appropriate supervision
district; or the halfway house declined to accept the inmate.

32

BOP data indicate that 13,519 deportable aliens were released from federal correctional
facilities in 2000.

Page 22

GAO-01-483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs

Under BOP policy, inmates ineligible or inappropriate for halfway house
placement or otherwise not transferred to a halfway house are to complete
their sentences in a federal correctional facility, and a unit team is to
prepare these inmates for life after prison.
In 2000, of the total 40,674 inmates released from a federal correctional
facility, about 45 percent (18,113 inmates) were transferred to a halfway
house. Generally, the halfway house transition period is not to exceed the
final 180 days of an inmate’s sentence.33 During this period, the inmate
must find and keep a job, pay a subsistence charge to help defray the cost
of the halfway house stay,34 continue to participate in applicable drug or
alcohol treatment programs, and follow all other rules and regulations of
the halfway house—or else risk being returned to the BOP institution.
According to BOP officials, approximately 40 percent of inmates living in
halfway houses are enrolled in drug treatment programs. If the inmate
graduated from a federal correctional facility’s residential drug abuse
treatment program, BOP policy requires the inmate to participate in the
halfway house’s drug treatment program.
According to BOP, about 90 percent of inmates successfully complete
their halfway house transition periods and are released from BOP custody
and transferred to probation offices for supervision in the community by
probation officers. The 10 percent of inmates who do not successfully
complete their transitions in a halfway house are returned to federal
institutions because, for example, the inmates refused to find and keep a
job while living in the halfway house, disregarded curfew, or failed a drug
urinalysis test.
Typically, 90 days before releasing an offender for community supervision,
BOP is to notify the U.S. Probation Office in the jurisdiction where the
offender was originally sentenced and where the offender will be
supervised, if different from the sentencing jurisdiction. Once notified, the
Probation Office is to assign a probation officer to the case. Typically, the
probation officer then is to verify or assess the suitability of the offender’s
proposed residence and prospective employment. Just before release, BOP
is to send the Probation Office an updated information packet on the

33

According to BOP data, the average halfway house stay length was 104 days in calendar
year 2000.

34

This charge is 25 percent of the inmate’s gross income not to exceed the average daily
cost of the halfway house placement.

Page 23

GAO-01-483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs

offender. The packet is to include, for example, the progress reports of the
offender’s conduct while serving his or her sentence, medical treatment
received (including drug treatment), and the extent of schooling.

Community Supervision
Phase: Probation Officers
Are to Assist and Monitor
Offenders

As of September 30, 2000, according to AOUSC, there were 2,097
probation officers appointed by 93 district courts dedicated to supervising
101,081 ex-offenders. AOUSC’s Federal Corrections and Supervision
Division—which has responsibility for general oversight and program
support for the federal probation and pretrial services system—provides
policy and program guidance to probation officers, whose primary
responsibility is the community supervision of federal offenders.
Within 72 hours after being released from BOP custody, each offender
under supervision is to contact a designated probation officer. At this
contact, the probation officer is to conduct an interview, which marks the
beginning of a 60-day period, generally referred to as the “initial
assessment period.” During this period, a probation officer is expected to
finalize a supervision plan for managing the offender. Under AOUSC
guidelines, a supervision plan should reflect a probation officer’s
responsibilities35 to (1) enforce the conditions of supervision; (2) reduce
the risk the offender poses to the community; and (3) provide the offender
with access to treatment, such as substance abuse aftercare and mental
health services.36
Some offenders require more intensive supervision than others because,
for example, they have a substance abuse problem. Still others suffer from
more than one problem, such as offenders with a dual diagnosis of
substance abuse and mental illness. For all such cases, AOUSC policy
encourages probation officers to develop supervision plans to cover
multiple treatment modalities to address all of an offender’s problems. In
addition, BOP and AOUSC have signed an interagency agreement that calls
for a continuation of the type of substance abuse treatment in the
community that was provided in prison and halfway houses and explains
the coordination necessary to request the court to modify the conditions

35

Title 18, section 3583 of the U.S. Code provides for inclusion of a term of supervised
release after imprisonment. Section 3603 specifies the duties of probation officers.

36

AOUSC, Supervision of Federal Offenders—Monograph 109 (revised Aug. 11, 1993). In
March 2001, AOUSC officials told us that Monograph 109 was currently under revision.

Page 24

GAO-01-483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs

of release. At the time of our review, BOP and AOUSC were in the process
of developing a similar agreement regarding mental health treatment.
To help probation officers determine appropriate levels of supervision and
assess the risks that offenders pose to communities, the Federal Judicial
Center developed a Risk Prediction Index. This tool is to be used to
summarize an offender’s background characteristics relevant to potential
recidivism—characteristics such as the offender’s age, criminal history,
drug use history, education level, family situation, and the outcome of
prior periods of supervision.
Offenders are typically supervised in the community for a period of 3 to 5
years. During this time, the probation officer is expected to maintain an
awareness of the offender’s conduct as well as problems related to family
discord, residence or employment instability, educational deficiencies, or
financial concerns. According to AOUSC:
•

•

A probation officer, through timely and active intervention, can reduce the
number of violations and revocations—and equally important, decrease
the risk of danger to the community.
Each probation office has at its disposal a wide variety of supervision
tools and community-based social services to assist offenders with
reintegration issues.37 These resources can be used, as needed, to address
offenders’ needs. For instance, even though probation offices do not have
a GED program, per se, the offices can help offenders locate, register, and
attend classes to obtain a GED.
In the most recent decade, the population of federal offenders under
community supervision increased by 22 percent—from about 83,000 at the
end of fiscal year 1991 to more than 101,000 at the end of fiscal year 2000.
AOUSC projects that the community supervision population, which
includes probationers, parolees, mandatory releasees, and supervised
releasees,38 will increase an additional 21 percent by 2006.

37

Appendix II presents an overview of the supervision tools and community-based social
services available for probation officers to use in assisting offenders with reintegration.

38

Supervised release is a sentence created by the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984
that requires supervision of offenders for a term of 3 to 5 years once they are released from
prison to the community.

Page 25

GAO-01-483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs

In recent years, supervised releasees have been the only growing segment
of the federal community supervision population. Since 1991, the number
of supervised releasees increased more than 400 percent—from about
12,000 at the end of fiscal year 1991 to about 65,000 at the end of fiscal
year 2000. According to AOUSC:
•

•

Increasing numbers of offenders sentenced in recent years to community
supervision following a period of incarceration are more hard core—that
is, more and more have serious criminal histories of violent crimes and
weapon violations.
The increasing population of hard-core offenders under community
supervision poses greater risks to federal officers and the public. Thus,
these offenders require close supervision, which places increased
workload demands on probation officers.
AOUSC projects that increasing numbers of offenders released from
federal prisons in fiscal year 2001 and beyond will be in high-risk
supervision categories that is, offenders with serious criminal histories.
This projection reinforces an observation that we reported in 1997:
“During fiscal years 1991 through 1995, the number of offenders sentenced with serious
criminal histories grew at a significantly greater rate than did those with less serious
criminal histories. Further, available data suggest that inmates released from BOP prisons
in fiscal years 1997 through 2001 may include a greater number of high-risk offenders than
39
did the population released through fiscal year 1996.”

On September 30, 2000, to help address the challenges that the probation
system faces, AOUSC awarded a contract for a comprehensive assessment
of how well the system’s current organizational structure, policies, and
practices support its mission.40 The study is to be divided into three stages
over approximately 24 months, with a final report expected in late 2002.
The report is to include sections covering the program areas of substance
abuse and mental health. In addition, the report is to address a number of
specific reintegration issues, including the following:

39

Federal Offenders: Trends in Community Supervision (GAO/GGD-97-110, Aug. 13, 1997),

p. 5.
40

AOUSC awarded the contract to PricewaterhouseCoopers. The Urban Institute and
Wooten Associates (a supervision consulting firm located in Laytonsville, MD) are
subcontractors.

Page 26

GAO-01-483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs

•
•
•
•
•

Are the probation system’s supervision policies and practices effective?
What percentage of offenders under supervision violate conditions of
release?
How often do offenders successfully complete supervision without
committing new crimes?
Are the federal judiciary’s substance abuse and aftercare programs
effective, and are some better than others?
What has been the experience of other jurisdictions using alternative
structures or approaches, and how do they compare with the current
federal system in terms of effective service delivery and cost?
In addition to the ongoing external assessment, AOUSC recently
established an internal committee to update the agency’s strategy and
policy for reintegrating (i.e., supervising and assisting) offenders newly
released to communities. Also, AOUSC has started a lecture-anddiscussion series to help create a dialogue with experts in the field of
criminal justice. One purpose of the series is to provide information to a
supervision workgroup of probation officers, supervisors, and AOUSC
officials. The workgroup, in turn, is to develop recommendations for
updating pretrial services and postconviction supervision policies.
Further, AOUSC is considering options for improving the surveillance of
sex crime and other offenders under home confinement. According to
AOUSC, these reintegration measures are being taken to enhance public
safety, provide correctional treatment, and help ensure that offenders
comply with conditions of supervision.

Implementation of the
Young Offender
Initiative Is Evolving

DOJ, DOL, and HHS—in response to the large number of offenders being
released from state prisons and returning to communities—are developing
a federal grant program, the “Young Offender Initiative: Reentry Grant
Program and the Demonstration Grant Program.” Under the Reentry Grant
Program component, applicants are to target a population of young
offenders (within the age range of 14 to 35 years old) returning to the
community from incarceration (minimum of 12 consecutive months for
adults, 6 consecutive months for juveniles) who pose a risk to community
safety. The Demonstration Grant Program component is to fund separate
awards for communities to target young offenders (within the age range of
14 to 24 years old) who are already involved in the criminal justice system
or gangs—or who are at risk of such involvement.
The goal of the interagency initiative is to help states and communities
work together to improve offender supervision and accountability and
essential support services in order to enhance community safety through

Page 27

GAO-01-483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs

the successful reintegration to the community of high-risk or special-need
offenders released from state prisons, juvenile correctional facilities, and
local facilities housing state prisoners.
For fiscal year 2001, the first year of federal funding for the Young
Offender Initiative,
•

•
•

DOJ designated $30 million to support development of reintegration
programs that are to focus on offender supervision and accountability
through various law enforcement efforts,
DOL designated $55 million to be used for employment and training
services for offenders, and
HHS designated $8 million to provide a continuum of substance abuse and
mental health services for offenders.
By making federal grants available, the goal of the interagency Young
Offender Initiative is to help state and local agencies and communities
develop reintegration programs.41 Such programs are intended to reduce
recidivism by allowing grant recipients to create broad-based state and
local partnerships to provide a combination of surveillance, sanctions,
incentives, and support services for offenders.

Focus on High-Risk
Offenders and
Communities

Under the Young Offender Initiative, interagency resources are to jointly
target the same communities, especially areas with high concentrations of
returning offenders. And communities are to be encouraged to target
offenders who pose significant public safety risks and who are likely to
benefit from structured interventions. According to DOJ:
•

•

Special emphasis is to be placed on high-risk offenders returning to the
community from incarceration (minimum 12 consecutive months for
adults and 6 consecutive months for juveniles).
Also, a focus is to be given to offenders with special needs, such as those
who need job training or substance abuse treatment, as well as those
diagnosed with both substance abuse and mental illness disorders.

41

According to an Office of Justice Programs (OJP) official, nonprofit organizations may be
eligible for Young Offender Initiative grants if the organizations are partnered with the
appropriate state and local agencies.

Page 28

GAO-01-483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs

•

•

Resources are to be targeted to offenders 14 to 35 years of age because
this group accounts for a large portion of the offender reentry population
at risk.
However, resources also are to be used for assisting a select number of
jurisdictions in developing reentry programs for youth in custody of the
juvenile justice system.
In May 2001, in commenting on a draft of this report, SAMHSA provided us
with information explaining that inmates with certain impairments or
deficits will require extensive planning for aftercare following release from
correctional facilities. SAMHSA noted, for example, a need to focus on
individuals who have neurological impairments caused by fetal alcoholassociated brain damage and individuals who have two or more physical
and/or mental disorders occurring simultaneously, such as substance
abuse and diabetes. Regarding impairments due to prenatal alcohol
exposure, according to SAMHSA:

•
•

Empirical evidence suggests that afflicted individuals are at heightened
risk for involvement with the criminal justice system.
Such offenders, whether male or female, are multi-problem individuals
who have great difficulty living independently; thus, aftercare should be
extended as long as possible.
Generally, SAMHSA emphasized that high-risk offenders probably will
need comprehensive services that include, among others, educational
help, job training, and substance abuse and mental health treatment.

Joint Efforts for
Developing Grant
Solicitations and Selecting
Applicants

DOJ, DOL, and HHS have joint responsibility for developing solicitations
for grant applications from jurisdictions interested in applying for federal
funds available under the Young Offender Initiative. The first solicitation—
for the Reentry Grant Program component of the Young Offender
Initiative—was issued June 1, 2001. Applications are to be submitted to
DOJ by October 1, 2001. To ensure quality applications in response to the
solicitation, the federal agencies anticipate holding a preapplication
workshop and using other means to respond to questions that prospective
applicants have regarding the Initiative’s goals, program elements, and
other reentry-related issues. Also, the agencies anticipate jointly selecting
grantees and making awards. According to the solicitation, approximately
$79 million is available to fund approximately 25 grants of up to $3.1
million each to applicants that demonstrate a collaborative effort and
broad-based community support.

Page 29

GAO-01-483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs

A second solicitation—for the Demonstration Grant Program component
of the Young Offender Initiative—is to be issued at a future date.
According to the federal agencies, this grant program will fund separate
awards totaling up to $11.5 million for communities to target young
offenders within the age range of 14 to 24 years old.
Applicants may apply for awards under both solicitations. However,
according to the federal agencies, applicants are to be eligible to receive
only one award for the same or similar target populations.

Various Models or
Approaches for
Reintegration Programs

Generally, according to DOJ, the expectation is that the federal funds will
be used to establish broad-based coalitions to support the reintegration of
offenders. In establishing such reintegration coalitions, grant applicants
may use various models or approaches, including, for example, reentry
partnerships, reentry courts, and juvenile reentry programs. Generally,
these models or approaches are reflected in the pilot projects that
preceded and contributed to formulation of the Young Offender Initiative.42

Reentry Partnerships

Reentry partnerships are to have representatives from numerous entities,
such as state, local, or tribal law enforcement agencies (including
corrections agencies); businesses, municipalities, and faith-based groups;
and other governmental and community organizations. The partners are to
work together to develop and implement reentry plans for offenders
scheduled for release. The plans are to encompass a network of
community resources, including, for example, employment and treatment
resources. One or more of the partnering entities are to take the lead in
managing the reentry process. However, to ensure accountability and
supervision, law enforcement agencies are to be required partners.

42

Appendix III provides information about various (1) pilot projects that preceded and
contributed to formulation of the Young Offender Initiative and (2) legislative proposals
that would provide federal grants to states and local communities, similar to the Young
Offender Initiative.

Page 30

GAO-01-483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs

Reentry courts—similar in concept to drug courts43—are to help reduce
recidivism and improve public safety through the use of judicial oversight
of returning offenders. For instance, reentry courts are to

Reentry Courts

•
•
•
•
•

review offenders’ reentry progress and problems,
order offenders to participate in various treatment and reintegration
programs,
use drug and alcohol testing and other checks to monitor compliance,
apply graduated sanctions to offenders who do not comply with treatment
requirements, and
provide modest incentive rewards for sustained clean drug tests and other
positive behaviors.

Juvenile Reentry Programs

Juvenile reentry programs are to address the public safety concerns and
needs of youth in custody of the juvenile justice system. Jurisdictions
receiving grants to develop juvenile reentry programs are to use either a
reentry partnership or a reentry court approach. Law enforcement
agencies, including juvenile justice correctional agencies, are to be
required partners in the reentry programs.

An Evaluation Component
to Identify What Works

Under current plans, in order to fully assess reentry programs to identify
what works, the Young Offender Initiative is to have a national evaluation
component. According to an OJP official, a contract for national
evaluation probably would be awarded to an external research entity, as
was done for the ongoing national evaluations of the various pilot projects
that preceded and contributed to formulating the Young Offender
Initiative.44 For example, in October 2000, NIJ contracted with the
University of Maryland’s Bureau of Governmental Research to evaluate
eight pilot reentry partnerships.
Regarding the prospective national evaluation of the Young Offender
Initiative, the OJP official explained that

43

A drug court is a special court given the responsibility to handle cases involving less
serious drug-using offenders through supervision and treatment programs, which include
frequent drug testing; judicial and probation supervision; drug counseling, treatment, and
educational opportunities; and the use of sanctions and incentives. See Drug Courts:
Information on a New Approach to Address Drug-Related Crime (GAO/GGD-95-159BR, May
22, 1995) and Drug Courts: Overview of Growth, Characteristics, and Results
(GAO/GGD-97-106, July 31, 1997).
44

The pilot projects are discussed in appendix III.

Page 31

GAO-01-483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs

•
•

tentative plans call for all sites, involving a total of about 25 grant awards,
to be included in the national evaluation and
because all sites are to be part of the national evaluation, each grant
recipient will be expected to collect and report a core set of data.
In reference to core data requirements, the OJP official said that the
participating federal agencies—DOJ, DOL, and HHS—were engaged in
continuing discussions and that final decisions were not expected before
fall 2001.

We provided a draft of this report for comment to DOJ, DOL, HHS, and
AOUSC. During the period May 17-30, 2001, we received written or oral
comments from all of these agencies.

Agency Comments

On May 24, 2001, DOJ’s Audit Liaison Office (Justice Management
Division) provided us with a written response indicating that the draft had
been reviewed by representatives of OJP, BOP, and the Criminal Division.
DOJ generally agreed with the substance of the draft and provided various
technical clarifications and updated information, which we incorporated
in this report where appropriate. Also, a representative of NIJ—a
component of OJP—commented essentially as follows regarding inmates’
need for drug treatment:
•
•

Estimates showing that most inmates need drug treatment are based on
the results of BJS survey questions to inmates about their drug use.
BOP has used other questions from the federal inmate survey to
approximate the DSM-IV45 criteria applicable to determining substance
abuse and dependence to produce an estimate of 34 percent of inmates
who “need” treatment, that is, have a diagnosable condition.
While the scope of our work did not include reviewing DSM-IV criteria, we
acknowledge that there can be a distinction between regular drug use and
drug addiction. Also, there can be multiple methods—including selfreporting and diagnostic assessments—for determining what percentages
of inmate populations need treatment for substance abuse. Each of these
methods has limitations and may not produce a “right” percentage.

45

American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
– Fourth Edition (DSM-IV), Washington, D.C., 1994. The manual is the main diagnostic

reference of mental health professionals in the United States.

Page 32

GAO-01-483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs

Nonetheless, there is general recognition that the need for substance
abuse treatment exceeds the availability of existing programs, particularly
in reference to state prisons. For example, at a congressional hearing in
October 2000, a SAMHSA representative testified that 45 percent of state
prisons had no treatment of any kind.
In further commenting on a draft of this report, the NIJ representative
noted the following regarding recidivism:
•
•

•

No one really knows what the recidivism rate is in the United States,
although the rate presumably is around 40 to 50 percent.
The 1994 BOP report on recidivism was based on a sample of inmates
released in 1987. There are now many more drug offenders in federal
custody, and it is unclear how they compare with those who were in
federal prisons in the 1980s.
Also, BJS’ 1997 survey of inmates reveals next to nothing about recidivism
rates, given that many of these inmates have been in prison for many years
and may have many years yet to serve.
As indicated previously, we found no national recidivism studies that were
both current and comprehensive, although available studies indicated that
recidivism rates historically have been about 40 percent. The 1994 BOP
study was the most current study we identified that focused specifically on
recidivism of prisoners released from federal prisons. The 1994 study,
which now is somewhat dated, nonetheless was comprehensive in that it
was based on a representative sample of federal inmates released in 1987.
To reiterate, the 1994 study found that within 3 years of being released
from BOP, about 41 percent of the 1987 releasees had either been
rearrested or had their parole revoked. Regarding drug offenders in federal
custody, the scope of our work did not include comparing current inmate
populations and characteristics with those of the 1980s. We do note,
however, that BJS data show that drug prosecutions constitute an
increasing proportion of the federal criminal caseload, rising from 21
percent of defendants in cases terminating in U.S. district court during
fiscal year 1982 to 36 percent during fiscal year 1999. Regarding BJS’ 1997
survey of inmates, we acknowledge that the survey is not a study of
recidivism, per se. But the survey results are relevant and informative in
that they tend to reinforce the perspective that recidivism rates are high.
For example, the survey results showed that 40 percent of federal and 55
percent of state prison inmates in 1997 had one or more prior
incarcerations.

Page 33

GAO-01-483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs

In another comment on a draft of this report, the NIJ representative
questioned the statistical validity of using BJS’ 1997 data to calculate
prison program participation percentages for inmates scheduled to be
released within 12 months (see table 5). We conducted these analyses at
the suggestion of knowledgeable BJS staff. Also, in preparing to conduct
the analyses, we discussed the design of our work with the BJS staff, who
had earlier used the 1997 survey data to analyze inmate participation in
substance abuse treatment programs. Specifically, as presented in a
January 1999 report, BJS analyzed program participation in reference to
time expected to release—less than 6 months, 6 to 12 months, and greater
than 1 year.46 See table 7 for a summary of BJS’ analysis.
On May 30, 2001, DOL provided us with oral comments. These comments
generally were technical clarifications and updated information, which we
incorporated in this report where appropriate.
On May 18 and 30, 2001, we received written comments from SAMHSA, a
component of HHS. These comments were mainly technical clarifications
and updated or additional information, which we incorporated in this
report where appropriate. Regarding high-risk offenders, for example,
SAMHSA provided information explaining that inmates with certain
impairments or deficits—for example, individuals with neurological
impairments caused by fetal alcohol-associated brain damage—will
require extensive planning for aftercare following release from
correctional facilities. Also, SAMHSA noted the following:
•

•
•

Regarding co-occurring disorders in prison populations, applicable
inmates should receive treatment for both substance abuse and mental
illness; recidivism can be expected to be higher if only one problem is
addressed.
The sheer number of people in state prisons and jails with mental illness
and dual diagnoses dwarfs the number in federal prisons.
The National Commission on Correctional Healthcare has developed
standards for mental health and substance abuse treatment in prisons,
jails, and juvenile justice settings.
On May 17, 2001, we received written comments from AOUSC. Overall,
AOUSC said that the draft report accurately described the judiciary’s

46

BJS Special Report, “Substance Abuse and Treatment, State and Federal Prisoners, 1997”
(NCJ 172871, Jan. 1999), p. 9.

Page 34

GAO-01-483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs

reintegration programs. Also, AOUSC provided technical clarifications,
which we incorporated in this report where appropriate.
We are providing copies of this report to the Chairman and Ranking
Minority Member, Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the
Courts, Senate Committee on the Judiciary; the Chairman and Ranking
Member, Subcommittee on Constitution, Federalism, and Property Rights,
Senate Committee on the Judiciary; the Chairman and Ranking Minority
Member, Subcommittee on Youth Violence, Senate Committee on the
Judiciary; the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on
Crime, House Committee on the Judiciary; the Attorney General; the
Secretary of Labor; the Secretary of Health and Human Services; the
Director of BOP; and the Director of AOUSC. We will also make copies
available to others on request.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report or wish to discuss
it further, please contact me at (202) 512-8777 or Danny R. Burton at (214)
777-5600. Other key contributors are acknowledged in appendix IV.

Laurie E. Ekstrand
Director, Justice Issues

Page 35

GAO-01-483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology
Our review focused on the following questions:

Objectives
•
•

•

•

What are the trends in the number of inmates released from federal and
state prisons and the extent of recidivism?
On the basis of available research, what is known about sentence length
and the criminal and drug use histories of federal and state prison inmates
and about the extent to which inmates participate in educational,
vocational, drug treatment, or other programs designed to address
offenders’ needs or otherwise help offenders reintegrate into society?
Within the federal correctional system’s three phases—(1) the in-prison
phase, which is sometimes called the prerelease phase; (2) the transitional
or halfway house phase, which involves placement in a community-based
facility; and (3) the community supervision phase, in which probation
officers assist and monitor releasees—what are the programs for
preparing and assisting offenders with reintegrating into communities?
What is the status of the Young Offender Initiative, a federal interagency
initiative that would provide federal grants to assist states and local
communities with reintegrating offenders released from state prisons,
juvenile correctional facilities, and local facilities housing state prisoners?1

Scope and
Methodology

In addressing these questions—and to obtain historical and contemporary
perspectives—we reviewed a variety of reports and studies on
correctional treatment or programming for inmates and offenders under
community supervision. The literature presented a variety of conclusions
or observations ranging from “nothing works” to “some things work for
some types of offenders and more research is needed.” We did not attempt
to systematically or thoroughly review the literature to synthesize research
results regarding the efficacy of correctional treatment or programming.
We do, however, provide references to research studies or other source
documents we used in addressing the objectives of this review.

Trends in Prisoner
Releases and Recidivism

To determine trends in the number of inmates released from federal and
state prisons and the extent of recidivism, we used data collected or
published by two agencies—the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and the
Bureau of Prisons (BOP). More specifically, regarding number of inmates
released, we obtained information from BJS’ series of publications on

1

The full name of the interagency initiative is “Young Offender Initiative: Reentry Grant
Program and the Demonstration Grant Program,” which is being designed to target
offenders within the age range of 14 to 35 years.

Page 36

GAO-01-483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology

correctional populations and national prisoner statistics. Similarly,
regarding recidivism, we extracted information from relevant BJS and
BOP reports. According to BJS and BOP officials, at the time of our
review, these reports were the most current studies of recidivism they had
conducted. Further, although not a study of recidivism, per se, we
reviewed data from BJS’ most recent survey of prison inmates, conducted
in 1997, which collected extensive demographic data, including
information on prior sentences and prior incarcerations.
Also, as suggested to us by a BJS official, we contacted the New York State
Department of Correctional Services to discuss its research or studies of
recidivism regarding inmates released from that state’s correctional
facilities (see p. 11).

Sentence Length, Criminal
and Drug Use Histories,
and Participation in Prison
Programs
•

•
•

•

Regarding sentence length, criminal and drug use histories, and inmate
participation in prison programs, we summarized selected information
from the results of BJS’ most recent (1997) survey of inmates in federal
and state prisons. An overview of the scope of BJS’ survey is as follows:
The survey population consisted of 91 federally owned and operated
facilities and 1,409 state prisons that held sentenced inmates as of June 30,
1996—89,072 sentenced inmates in the custody of federal facilities and
1,059,607 inmates in state correctional facilities.
From this population, the final survey sample selection consisted of 40
federal facilities and 275 state facilities.
At the selected facilities, inmate interviews were conducted from June to
October 1997. A total of 4,041 federal inmates and 14,285 state inmates
were interviewed regardless of the inmates’ sentence length.
On the basis of the survey sample data, BJS used weighting factors to yield
national estimates of the characteristics of the federal and state prison
populations at the middle of 1997.
Based on generalized variance estimates provided by BJS, all of the
national estimates that we present in this report are surrounded by a 95percent confidence interval of plus or minus 5 percentage points or less.
To obtain additional perspectives on substance abuse treatment in federal
and state prisons, we reviewed data compiled by the Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) of the Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS). In 1997, at the request of the Office of
National Drug Control Policy, SAMHSA designed and conducted the first

Page 37

GAO-01-483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology

national survey of substance abuse treatment services in adult and juvenile
correctional facilities.

Federal Correctional
System Reintegration
Programs

To obtain an overview of federal correctional system programs, we
reviewed BOP’s currently applicable guidance documents covering
relevant in-prison and halfway house programs and functions. Similarly, at
the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC), we
reviewed currently applicable guidance used by probation officers for
supervising offenders in the community.
We interviewed responsible BOP officials at headquarters and at two field
locations in Texas: the South Central Regional Office in Dallas, which is
one of BOP’s six regional offices, and the Federal Corrections Institution
at Seagoville, which we toured. We selected these locations because our
assigned staff were based in Dallas. Further, we interviewed staff of BOP’s
contractor-operated halfway house in Hutchins, TX. We also toured this
facility.
To better understand the problems and challenges of supervising federal
offenders in communities, we reviewed various reports and studies,
including two BJS special reports: Federal Offenders under Community
Supervision, 1987-1996 (NCJ 168636, Aug. 1998) and Offenders Returning
to Federal Prison, 1986-1997 (NCJ 182991, Sept. 2000). Also, in
Washington, D.C., we interviewed officials at AOUSC, the Federal Judicial
Center, the U.S. Sentencing Commission, and the Department of Justice
(DOJ). Further, we interviewed probation officers in the U.S. Probation
Office in the Northern District of Texas.

Status of the Young
Offender Initiative

Regarding the status of the Young Offender Initiative, we contacted
officials at the three federal departments—DOJ, Department of Labor
(DOL), and HHS—participating in the Initiative. These officials provided
us with information on the Young Offender Initiative’s purposes and
components, as well as the various pilot projects that preceded and
contributed to formulating the Young Offender Initiative. Further, we
discussed with DOJ, DOL, and HHS officials the amounts and uses of
federal funds designated for the Young Offender Initiative and the plans
for interagency management of the funds and grant activities.
In addition to interviewing responsible federal officials, we reviewed
budget submissions, appropriations bills, and other available
documentation that provided information on the status of the Young
Offender Initiative. For example, among other sources, we reviewed the

Page 38

GAO-01-483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology

Proposed FY 2001 Offender Reentry Initiative Preliminary Plan (Dec. 21,
2000), which was prepared by DOJ’s Office of Justice Programs (OJP) and
submitted to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees in
response to a requirement in the explanatory language of the conference
report for H.R. 4942.
Also, we reviewed a Web site (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/reentry) established by
OJP that is dedicated to providing reentry information. The Web site
includes an electronic link so that individuals can subscribe to the
“Reentry Report,” which is a quarterly newsletter published to facilitate
information sharing among reentry initiatives sponsored by OJP. The Web
site also provides descriptions of reentry initiatives in participating states.
We reviewed these descriptions; however, we did not physically visit any
of these reentry locations to make first-hand observations.
Finally, to provide a broader contextual perspective, we identified and
reviewed four recent legislative proposals that would provide federal
grants to local communities (similar to the Young Offender Initiative). Two
of the legislative proposals (S. 2908 and H.R. 5563) were introduced during
the 106th Congress, and the other two proposals (S. 194 and S. 304) were
introduced in the 107th Congress.

Page 39

GAO-01-483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs

Appendix II: Supervision Tools and
Community-Based Social Services Used by
Federal Probation Officers

Appendix II: Supervision Tools and
Community-Based Social Services Used by
Federal Probation Officers
To assist offenders with reintegration issues, AOUSC policy encourages
federal probation officers to develop individualized supervision plans
through the use of appropriate supervision tools and community-based
social services. Table 9 presents examples of the various resources—tools
and services—used by federal probation officers to assist offenders with
reintegration issues.
According to AOUSC officials:
•

•

•

Approximately 3,000 local vendors provide a variety of services, such as
vocational training, literacy and educational training, drug- and alcoholabuse treatment, and mental health treatment.
Through national contracts, vendors provide urine testing services and
electronic monitoring equipment and monitoring services. Vendors do not
directly supervise offenders. Rather, the monitoring done by vendors is
limited, for example, to alerting probation officers that the monitoring
equipment has been tampered with or that the person has left the
designated areas.
Probation officers perform all the direct supervision services, including,
for instance, using a portable (“drive-by”) electronic monitoring unit to
detect whether an offender wearing a bracelet is within 300 feet of a
designated location.

Table 9: Supervision Tools and Community-Based Social Services Used by Federal Probation Officers
Tools and services
Basic services

Employment assistance

Literacy, education, and vocational
training
Diagnostic assessment of substance
abuse
Detoxification services

Description
Probation officers may need to help offenders obtain services, such as welfare and food
stamps, to meet basic needs. Officers also may make arrangements for emergency
temporary housing and financial assistance for the purchase of necessities, such as food,
clothing, medicine, and child care. In addition, referrals may be made to anger
management, parenting, and money management counseling services. Also,
transportation may be arranged for offenders to travel to and from treatment facilities,
vocational training, or placement programs.
Probation officers may refer offenders for testing and work skills evaluations,
preemployment training, classroom training, and skill-development community service
placements. Also, probation officers may make direct referrals to employment or job
placement agencies. Further, medical examinations may be obtained to determine
employment suitability.
Literacy, GED, and vocational training programs are available, as is access to higher
education institutions. According to AOUSC, stipends are available for clients attending
such programs.
A formal substance abuse assessment may be conducted by a licensed professional. The
assessment may include a comprehensive diagnostic interview and testing, followed by a
prognosis report and treatment plan.
Probation officers may request inpatient and outpatient detoxification services. Such
services may include, for example, a physical examination and report; medication, such as
methadone, antabuse, or trexan; laboratory work; and residential placement.

Page 40

GAO-01-483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs

Appendix II: Supervision Tools and
Community-Based Social Services Used by
Federal Probation Officers

Tools and services
Substance abuse treatment

Drug detection

Alcohol detection

Diagnostic assessment for mental health

Mental health treatment
Community and home confinement

Community service

Sex offender treatment
Remote location verification

Description
Educational, counseling, residential, and medical approaches to treatment are available to
address substance abuse problems of varying types and seriousness. These approaches
or programs include substance abuse prevention and treatment readiness groups;
individual, family, and group substance abuse counseling; intensive outpatient group or
individual treatment; short-term residential treatment; longer term placement in a
therapeutic community setting; and methadone maintenance.
Probation officers and service providers may collect urine specimens, which are sent for
analysis to a national laboratory under contract with AOUSC. On-site drug testing
laboratories are utilized in some districts to analyze specimens and provide results in less
than 1 hour. Hand-held, portable drug-testing devices are also used to produce results in 5
to 10 minutes. Further, in conjunction with other testing methods, a sweat patch may be
used to detect the presence of drugs in perspiration.
Hand-held breathalyzers and saliva swabs can be used to detect alcohol use. In some
districts, remote alcohol detection equipment—connected to a telephone line—is used to
measure the alcohol content in a breath sample and immediately transmit the results over
the telephone line. Also, some districts use a vehicle ignition lock device, which links a
breathalyzer to an offender’s vehicle. The ignition cannot be started unless the offender
blows into the device and registers a breath alcohol content level below a prescribed point.
Probation officers may arrange for psychological and psychiatric evaluations, which
include comprehensive diagnostic interview and testing, followed by a prognosis report
and a treatment plan.
Mental health services include individual, family, and group counseling and prescriptions
for psychotropic medication.
A probation officer may recommend that the court require an offender to reside in a
community corrections center or to remain in his or her residence for all or part of the day.
Both of these options are used as alternatives to incarceration, permitting the officer to
work with the offender in the community.
Probation officers may use a variety of civic, nonprofit, public, and private organizations to
place offenders required to perform community service. Such placements are generally
designed to (1) benefit the community and may also include elements that use any special
skills the offender may possess, (2) enhance the offender’s awareness of the
consequences of his or her actions, and (3) sharpen the offender’s employment skills.
Sex offender management includes the use of polygraph examinations and penile
plethysmograph testing, as well as special sex offender therapy programs.
Continuously signaling electronic monitoring devices may be used to monitor compliance
with a home confinement condition. This tool is used to detect, for example, whether an
offender wearing a tamper-resistant transmitter “bracelet” is within 150 feet of a monitoring
device attached to a telephone in the home. In driving by a particular location, a probation
officer may use a portable (“drive-by”) electronic monitoring unit to detect whether an
offender wearing a bracelet is within 300 feet of that location. An automated telephone
contact system that combines caller identification and voice verification technology may be
used to determine whether an offender is at a particular location. Also, according to
AOUSC, global positioning systems that use the military’s satellite network are being fieldtested for use in remote location verifications.
Source: AOUSC data.

Page 41

GAO-01-483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs

Appendix III: Pilot Reentry Projects and
Legislative Proposals

Appendix III: Pilot Reentry Projects and
Legislative Proposals
This appendix discusses (1) various pilot projects that preceded and
contributed to formulating the Young Offender Initiative and (2) four
legislative proposals (S. 2908, H.R. 5563, S. 194, and S. 304) that address
prisoner reintegration.

Pilot Projects That
Preceded the Young
Offender Initiative

Eight pilot reentry partnerships and nine pilot reentry courts preceded and
contributed to formulation of the Young Offender Initiative. These 17
pilots, which were planned or implemented before fiscal year 2001, were
initiated largely with state and local resources, with some technical
assistance support from OJP. According to DOJ officials, the various pilot
sites may be eligible to apply for funding under the Young Offender
Initiative when the grant solicitation period becomes effective.

Eight Pilot Reentry
Partnerships

In May 1999, state correctional administrators from several sites met with
DOJ representatives to discuss reentry challenges and approaches. The
site representatives discussed, for instance, the profiles of returning
offenders in their communities, existing reentry efforts, and approaches to
building collaborations to support reentry. Subsequently, according to
OJP, a number of jurisdictions interested in exploring reentry management
developed concept papers, and OJP offered to provide technical
assistance support for eight pilot reentry partnerships (see table 10).

Table 10: Pilot Reentry Partnerships (Sites and Target Populations)
State
Florida

Site
Lake City (Columbia County)

Maryland
Massachusetts

Baltimore (3 neighborhoods)
Lowell

Missouri

ZIP codes with Weed and Seed sites

Nevada

Clark County (ZIP codes with Weed and
Seed sites)
Columbia (specific ZIP codes)
Offenders released to the target sites under supervision.
Burlington (Old North End neighborhood) Offenders furloughed to the target site.
Spokane (specific ZIP codes)
High-risk offenders released to the target site from one of four institutions.

South Carolina
Vermont
Washington

a

Target population
Offenders returning to Columbia County. As of October 2000, 50 inmates
from across the state had been selected to participate in the initial reentry
partnership group.
Male offenders returning to target site.
Offenders released upon completion of their sentences with no
supervised release requirement
Male and female offenders with children under 18 years of age returning
to the target sites.
Offenders returning to the target sites.

a

Weed and Seed is a community-based multiagency program to “weed out” crime from targeted
neighborhoods and then “seed” the sites with a variety of programs and resources to prevent crime
from recurring. See Federal Grants: More Can Be Done to Improve Weed and Seed Program
Management (GAO/GGD-99-110, July 16, 1999).
Source: OJP.

Page 42

GAO-01-483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs

Appendix III: Pilot Reentry Projects and
Legislative Proposals

Nine Pilot Reentry Courts

In September 1999, OJP announced a “call for concept papers” from
jurisdictions “willing to test the concept of a reentry court.” According to
an OJP official, this outreach effort gave applicants the flexibility to target
juvenile populations, if desired. The announcement also stated that
•

•

selected jurisdictions would be invited to participate in three technical
assistance cluster meetings—with the first anticipated in February 2000—
over a 15-month period to discuss issues, approaches, progress, and
challenges; and
while there is no programmatic funding available, OJP will cover travel
expenses for the cluster meetings and offer technical assistance to the
selected sites.
Of the 21 proposals received from jurisdictions throughout the country,
OJP selected nine (see table 11). As indicated, one of the pilot reentry
courts (West Virginia) was to target juvenile offenders.

Table 11: Pilot Reentry Courts (Sites and Target Populations)
State
California

Site
San Francisco Sheriff’s Department

Target population
Violent felony offenders whose state sentences were suspended in lieu of
county jail time and lengthy postrelease supervision. As of April 2000, the site
plans to oversee 12 offenders per month.
Colorado El Paso County
High- and low-level offenders with substance abuse problems and mental
illness. As of April 2000, program plans called for serving 30 to 60 parolees.
Delaware Delaware Superior Court, New Castle
Offenders sentenced to community service as a condition of release. As of
County
September 2000, 18 offenders had entered the program.
Delaware Superior Court, Sussex
Domestic violence offenders sentenced to community service as a condition of
County
release and who are at risk of re-offending. As of September 2000, 18 offenders
had begun the program.
Florida
Broward County, Florida Drug Court
Nonviolent third-degree felons with substance abuse problems.
Iowa
Department of Corrections–Des Moines Offenders discharged from prison without community supervision.
Department of Corrections–Waterloo
Offenders with dual diagnoses of substance abuse and mental illness.
Department of Corrections–Cedar
Offenders with mental health disorders.
Rapids/Iowa City
Kentucky Louisville/Jefferson County and
Probationers with substance abuse problems.
Lexington/Fayette County
New York Division of Parole, Harlem
Nonviolent parolees sentenced for drug possession or sale who are Harlem
residents.
Ohio
Richland County, Adult Probation
Offenders subject to postrelease control supervision or judicial release. As of
Department
April 2000, program plans called for targeting up to 90 postrelease control
offenders and approximately 110 judicial release offenders returning to Richland
County.
West
Department of Military Affairs and
Violent juvenile offenders who will be released in certain counties. As of
Virginia
Public Safety, Division of Juvenile
September 2000, three 16-year-old offenders were enrolled.
Affairs
Source: OJP.

Page 43

GAO-01-483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs

Appendix III: Pilot Reentry Projects and
Legislative Proposals

Evaluation of Pilot
Projects

In October 2000, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) awarded a grant to
the University of Maryland’s Bureau of Governmental Research to evaluate
the eight pilot reentry partnerships. According to NIJ, the grantee plans to
complete the evaluation and submit its evaluation report to NIJ by fall or
winter 2001.
Also, at the time of our review, NIJ was still in the process of selecting a
contractor to evaluate the nine pilot reentry courts. NIJ anticipated that
the evaluation would start in October 2001 and last about a year.
In addition, some of the pilot reentry partnerships and pilot reentry courts
have begun self-evaluation efforts. According to an OJP official, as
volunteer participants, the pilot reentry partnerships and pilot reentry
courts were not required to conduct self-evaluations, but OJP encouraged
the pilot participants to track their progress so that mid-course
corrections, if needed, could be made.

In the 106th Congress, two bills were introduced that addressed prisoner
reintegration. In July 2000, Senator Joseph Biden introduced the “Offender
Reentry and Community Safety Act of 2000” (S. 2908) and in October 2000,
Representative Henry Hyde introduced an identical bill (H.R. 5563) before
the House of Representatives. Neither of these bills was enacted during
the 106th Congress.

Legislative Proposals

Also, in the 107th Congress, two bills that address prisoner reintegration
were introduced. In January 2001, Senator Biden reintroduced the
“Offender Reentry and Community Safety Act of 2001” (S. 194). In
February 2001, Senator Orrin Hatch introduced S. 304, the “Drug Abuse
Education, Prevention, and Treatment Act of 2001”; Title VI of the bill is
the “Program for Successful Reentry of Criminal Offenders into Local
Communities.” As of May 2001, neither of these bills had been enacted.
These bills seek to address the public safety threats of offenders returning
to communities by providing funding to
•

•
•

establish projects in several federal judicial districts, the District of
Columbia, and BOP, using new strategies and emerging technologies to
help successfully reintegrate released offenders into the community;
establish court-based programs to monitor released offenders, using court
sanctions to promote positive behavior;
establish state offender reentry projects, using government and
community partnerships;

Page 44

GAO-01-483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs

Appendix III: Pilot Reentry Projects and
Legislative Proposals

•
•

establish intensive aftercare projects for juvenile offenders; and
evaluate these reentry programs to determine their effectiveness.
S. 2908, H.R. 5563, and S. 194 would authorize, over 5 fiscal years (2001
through 2005), approximately $6 million to BOP, $18.7 million to the
federal judiciary, and $23.6 million to the Court Services and Offender
Supervision Agency of the District of Columbia. Also under S. 2908 and
H.R. 5563, grant funding totaling $60 million annually for fiscal years 2001
and 2002—plus any sums necessary for fiscal years 2003 through 2005—
would be available to local grantees. Under S. 194, grant funding totaling
$60 million annually for fiscal years 2002 and 2003—plus any sums
necessary for fiscal years 2004 through 2006—would be available to local
grantees. Under all three bills (S. 2908, H.R. 5563, and S. 194), the $60
million would be provided to local grantees as follows: $40 million would
be used to establish adult offender state and local reentry partnerships;
$10 million would be used to establish state and local reentry courts; $5
million would be used to establish juvenile offender state and local reentry
programs; and $5 million would be used to conduct reentry program
research, development, and evaluation.
S. 304 would authorize, over 3 fiscal years (2002 through 2004),
approximately $3.4 million to BOP, $11.2 million to the federal judiciary,
and $13.9 million to the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency
of the District of Columbia. Also under S. 304, grant funding of $47 million
for fiscal year 2002—plus any sums necessary for fiscal years 2003 and
2004—would be available to local grantees. Of this $47 million, $40 million
would be used to establish adult offender state and local reentry
partnerships; $5 million would be used to establish juvenile offender state
and local reentry programs; and $2 million would be used to conduct
reentry program research, development, and evaluation. No grant funding
would be provided to establish state and local reentry courts under S. 304.

Page 45

GAO-01-483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs

Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff
Acknowledgments

Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff
Acknowledgments
GAO Contacts

Laurie E. Ekstrand, (202) 512-8777
Danny R. Burton (214) 777-5600

Acknowledgments

In addition to the above, David P. Alexander, Ann H. Finley, Michael H.
Little, Donna M. Leiss, Mary K. Muse, Ronald J. Salo, Andrea Sellers,
Douglas M. Sloane, Susan Wallace, and Ellen T. Wolfe made key
contributions to this report.

(182095)

Page 46

GAO-01-483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs

Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of reports are
$2 each. A check or money order should be made out to the
Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are also
accepted.
Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are
discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:
U.S. General Accounting Office
P.O. Box 37050
Washington, DC 20013

Orders by visiting:
Room 1100
700 4th St., NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)
Washington, DC 20013

Orders by phone:
(202) 512-6000
fax: (202) 512-6061
TDD (202) 512-2537
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To
receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days,
please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will
provide information on how to obtain these lists.

Orders by Internet
For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet, send an email message with “info” in the body to:
Info@www.gao.gov
or visit GAO’s World Wide Web home page at:
http://www.gao.gov

To Report Fraud,
Waste, and Abuse in
Federal Programs

Contact one:
•
•
•

Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)