The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is an agency within the Department of Justice responsible for administration of the federal prison system. BOP is headquartered in Washington, D.C., and currently includes 114 prisons, 6 regional offices, 2 staff training centers and 28 community corrections offices. The agency is responsible for the custody and care of all 200,000 or so federal inmates—85% of whom are incarcerated in government facilities, with the remaining 15% in private prisons. The Bureau is also responsible for carrying out all legally mandated federal executions, and maintains a lethal injections center in Haute Terre, Indiana-- where in 2001, Oklahoma City Bomber Timothy McVeigh was the first federal prisoner to be executed in almost 40 years. In addition to its use of capital punishment, BOP has been subject to criticism over budget and program cuts, privatization and agency contracting practices.

Located within the Department of Justice, the Bureau of Federal Prisons was established in 1930 with a mandate to manage and regulate “all federal penal correctional institutions.” At the time of its founding, the agency’s reach included 11 federal prisons. By the end of 1930, the bureau operated 14 facilities for just over 13,000 inmates—an operation that grew to 24 facilities and 24,360 inmates by 1940.

 

However, notwithstanding minor changes, the inmate population remained relatively stable through 1980, when the population stood at 24,252. As the operational structure transitioned over time—from large facilities of mixed security levels, to smaller facilities confining inmates of similar security needs—the number of facilities almost doubled.

 

According to the bureau, federal law enforcement efforts and new legislation in the 1980s dramatically altered sentencing and caused a spike in federal inmate numbers: “The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 established determinate sentencing, abolished parole, and reduced good time; additionally, several mandatory minimum sentencing provisions were enacted in 1986, 1988, and 1990. From 1980 to 1989, the inmate population more than doubled, from just over 24,000 to almost 58,000. During the 1990s, the population more than doubled again, reaching approximately 136,000 at the end of 1999 as efforts to combat illegal drugs and illegal immigration contributed to significantly increased conviction rates.”

 

Staffing levels grew concurrently with inmate numbers, from about 10,000 bureau employees in 1980 to just over 19,000 in 1990. Current levels are around 36,000.

 

The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) BOP consists of 114 prisons, 6 regional offices, a headquarters, 2 staff training centers and 28 community corrections offices. The regional offices and the headquarters are responsible for overseeing and providing support to the prisons and community corrections offices. The community corrections office then oversees community correction centers and home confinement programs. The BOP is also responsible for the care and custody of all 198,294 federal inmates. 85% of these inmates are currently staying in correctional facilities or detention centers. The remaining 15% are staying in private prisons.

 

Central Office
Office Complexes
Prison Facilities
Regional Offices

 

Total population: 201,117

Total sentenced population: 183,378

Inmates in BOP facilities: 166,001

Inmates in privately-managed secure facilities: 23,046

Inmates in other contract facilities: 12,070

 

Sentence Imposed
Types of Offenses

 

Statistics at a glance:

 

From the Association of Government Employees (AFGE) Weekly Review, April 7, 2008:

 

“Sixteen House lawmakers last month sent a letter to the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science urging the panel to appropriate approximately $5.6 billion in fiscal 2009 for the cash-strapped Bureau of Prisons, which is on the verge of cutting thousands of correctional staff positions after years of underfunding. The $5.6 billion – $5.55 billion for the salaries and expenses account and $400 million for the buildings and facilities account – is an increase of about $530 million over the 2008 level. The lawmakers' push for more funding for BOP is a direct result of AFGE's campaign to educate more lawmakers about the urgent need to significantly increase funding for federal prisons. AFGE has been drawing attention to this serious safety issue for years with informational pickets and meetings with lawmakers. Last month, officials from AFGE Council of Prison Locals and AFGE Local 3951 accompanied Rep. Bill Shuster, R- Pa., to tour the Federal Correctional Institution at Loretto, Pa. Shuster said afterward that the tour was an eye-opener and that the government has to make sure prison officers have enough resources to do their jobs. Also last month, on the West Coast, AFGE Local 1102 met with Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., and Rep. Dave Reichert, R-Wash., to discuss different issues including fiscal 2008 supplemental funding for BOP, which is currently underfunded by $433 million. AFGE is urging its Locals to continue reaching out to their lawmakers to secure enough funding for BOP.”

 

Department of Justice, BOP and other correctional agencies; Federal Prison Industries, Inc. (FPI or UNICOR); Corrections Corporation of America (CCA, the largest U.S. private prison operator) and the GEO Group; subcontractors for private and government management and builders; prison employees and unions; prisoners and their families; communities where prisons are located.

 

Federal Prison Industries (Unicor website)

Prison Activist Resource Center (Prisonactivist.org)

Since the 1980s, expanding prison populations and fiscal constraints have led to increased privatization of the federal prison system, with DOJ agencies including BOP relying on state, local and private prisons to house federal inmates. The government has come under criticism for its contracting practices, which increased the risk of default among private service providers typically contracted for management and construction—thereby increasing security risks. In a 2000/2001 report, the Department’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) found that the state and local providers consistently overcharged the government, criticized the BOP for relying too heavily on a few private contractors, and pointed to an unstable procurement practice. In response, Congress passed legislation authorizing DOJ to procure private prison services through “nontraditional” or “innovative” agreements—meaning more flexible terms. Under the law, agencies are allowed to procure services independently of traditional government contracting rules.

Crime pays for US prison companies (Agence France-Presse)

Reforming prison contracting: An examination of federal private prison contracts (by Joseph Summerill, Corrections Today)

The Department of Justice's Reliance on Private Contractors for Prison Services (Report No. 01-16, Report from the National Institute of Justice)

Going Backwards: Federal Government Saves Private Prisons As State Convict Population Levels Off  (by Joseph T. Hallinan, Wall Street Journal)  

Quality of Prison Operations in the U.S. Federal Sector: A Comparison with a Private Prison (by Scott D. Camp, Gerald G. Gaes, and William G. Saylor, Office of Research and Evaluation,

Federal Bureau of Prisons) (PDF)

Statutory Authority to Contract With the Private Sector for Secure Facilities (Memorandum Opinion BOP)

Cost, Performance Studies Look at Prison Privatization (by Gerry Gaes, DOJ)

The President’s 2005 budget put a moratorium on BOP’s construction of new prisons—instead providing funding for 4,500 additional “contract beds” in an attempt to bring the contract market up to speed with a burgeoning prison population. Per the budget:  “BOP’s total prison population increased by 10 per cent between 2002 and 2003 but its contract population remained largely static. The 2005 request is intended to help reverse this trend. The 2005 budget places a moratorium on new prison construction while promoting more aggressive BOP contracting with state, local and private sector providers.”

 

“Without consulting federal judges or other members of the legal profession, the Bureau of Prisons decided to close down the Intensive Confinement Center (ICC) program - a shock treatment camp designed to rehabilitate first-time, non-violent offenders. The announcement was part of a Jan. 5 memo by Prison Bureau Director Harley G. Lappin, announcing several cuts in counseling and rehabilitation programs as cost reduction initiatives.”

Alternative incarceration program discontinued by Bureau of Prisons (by Nora A. Jones, Daily Record) 

Federal prison industries program expects to lose millions in sales (by Elise Castelli, Federal Times)

Job cuts for prison staff (PrisonOfficer.Org Forums)

 

Federal Prison Industries (SourceWatch)

More Prison Inmates Could Mean More Money for Towns (Associated Press)

Up for sale: prisons and prisoners (by Janet Sutherland, Freedom Socialist)

The Prison Industry in the United States: Big Business or a New Form of Slavery? (by Vicky Palaez, El Diario – La Prensa, New York)

Cafeteria Funds Private Prisons, activist says (by Ariel Troster, Link)

 

In addition to state capital punishment laws, the federal government also uses the death penalty for certain federal offenses. Since its introduction in 1790, 336 men and four women have been executed. In the 20th Century, 16% of federal executions have been minority defendants. (See Race and the Federal Death Penalty). There were 34 federal executions between 1927 and 1963. In 1972 the Supreme Court ruled that all state death penalty statutes were unconstitutional because they allowed for “arbitrary and capricious application”—a ruling that similarly affected the federal statute. Between 1963 and the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1988, there were no federal executions.

Federal Executions (Citizens United for Alternatives to the Death Penalty)

News and Developments - Current Year

News and Developments - Previous Years

Responses to Terrorism (including Military Tribunals and the case of Zacarias Moussaoui)

 

President Clinton commissioned a study from the DOJ to examine the Department’s decision-making process for seeking the death penalty in individual cases—and to collect statistical information on racial, ethnic and geographic distribution of defendants and their victims.

 

Released in 2000, the study found dramatic racial and geographic disparities, revealing that 80% of the cases submitted for death penalty review in the previous five-year period were for (racial) minority defendants—African-Americans were defendants in more than half of the cases. The report also found that 40% of 682 cases sent to the DOJ for approval were filed by only five jurisdictions.

Source: dealthpenaltyinfo.org

 

Racial Disparities in Federal Death Penalty Prosecutions: 1988-1994, prepared by the Death Penalty Information Center at the request of the Chair of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights.

Source: The Federal Death Penalty

 

ACLU Letter to House Judiciary Committee Voicing Opposition to H.R. 3060, Terrorist Death Penalty Enhancement Act of 2005 (ACLU website)

 

Timothy McVeigh dead (CNN)

A glance, a nod, silence and death (by Julian Borger, The Guardian)

 

Background (from 2007 GAO Report)

There has been an ongoing debate over the privatization of prisons, that is, contracting for the management of prisons by private firms, whether the prisons are owned by the private sector or by the government. In particular, proponents of privatization claim it can save money without reducing the levels or quality of service such as safety and security (i.e., levels of safety and security for staff, inmates, and the general public), whereas others have questioned whether privatization is a cost-effective alternative to publicly run facilities. Federal guidance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) requires that economic and cost comparison analyses be conducted to demonstrate the benefits of privatization, including how it would reduce the government’s long-term costs. BOP’s use of contracting to meet inmate bed space needs at low and minimum security facilities, in particular, has generated significant interest in the comparative costs of confining federal inmates in BOP, private, and IGA facilities.

 

Prompted by the debate over privatization, previous GAO reports have determined it impossible to compare public and private prisons, and found all previous studies to that effect to be flawed. In 2007 GAO reported that a refusal on the part of BOP to collect certain crucial information - even though it is legally required to do so - makes it impossible to judge whether private prisons cost less or provide better quality.

Cost of Prisons: Bureau of Prisons Needs Better Data to Assess Alternatives for Acquiring Low and Minimum Security Facilities (GAO) (PDF)

Private and Public Prisons - Studies Comparing Operational Costs and/or Quality of Service GAO GGD-96-158 (GAO) (PDF)

The Costs of Privatized Prisons (Unbossed.com)

 

Prison Privatization: Past and Present (by Matthew Zito, International Foundation for Protection Officers)

See Controversy Section for more information and background on the privatization debate.

 

A Guide to Prison Privatization (by Dana Joel, Heritage Foundation)

 

The Myth of Prison Privatization Cost Savings (Word document)

to the ‘opportunities’ created by society's temper tantrum approach to the problem of criminality (by Phil Smith, Covert Action Quarterly)

 

Prison Crowding

Prison Crowding Research Reexamined (by Gerald G. Gaes, Federal Bureau of Prisons) (PDF)

GGD-94-48 Federal Prison Expansion: Overcrowding Reduced but Inmate Population Growth May Raise Issue Again (GAO Report to Congress)

The Federal Prison Industries Corporation (FPI or UNICOR) is a government-owned company that employs inmates to manufacture products and services sold to executive agencies in the federal government. There has long been contention over whether the UNICOR received preferential treatment in the private sector and unfairly competes with small businesses. Legislation in 2003 and 2005 phased out noncompetitive contracting with FPI, in favor of supporting a competitive market for private contracting.

Federal Prison Industries (by Nathan James, Congressional Research Service)

 

Federal Prison Industries Reform (U.S. Chamber of Commerce)

 

Federal Prison Industries: Fair to business, vital to society (by Larry D. Thompson, Federal Times)

 

See 2005 FPI Legislation in Controversies.