Return to the USDOJ/OIG Home Page
Return to the Table of Contents

The Federal Bureau of Prisons Inmate Release Preparation and Transitional Reentry Programs

Report No. 04-16
March 2004
Office of the Inspector General


Appendix III
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

The purpose of our audit was to determine whether the BOP ensures that federal inmates benefit from its programs designed to prepare inmates for successful reentry into society.† The objectives of our audit were to determine whether the BOP ensures that each of its institutions maximize the number inmates that complete programs designed to prepare inmates for reentry into society including occupational, educational, psychological, and other programs; and all eligible inmates are provided the opportunity to transition through a CCC in preparation for reentry into society.

We conducted our audit in accordance with Government Auditing Standards.† We included such tests as were necessary to accomplish the audit objectives.

We conducted fieldwork at the BOP Central Office, and conducted field work and/or obtained information through questionnaires from the following BOP regional offices and institutions:

  • Northeast Regional Office, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania;
  • South Central Regional Office, Dallas, Texas;
  • FPC Alderson, Alderson, West Virginia;
  • USP Allenwood, White Deer, Pennsylvania;
  • USP Atlanta, Atlanta, Georgia;
  • FCI Bastrop, Bastrop, Texas;
  • FCI Beaumont, Beaumont, Texas;
  • FCI Beckley, Beaver, West Virginia;
  • FCI Butner, Butner, North Carolina;
  • FPC Eglin, Eglin, Florida;
  • FCI El Reno, El Reno, Oklahoma;
  • FCI Elkton, Elkton, Ohio;
  • FCI Englewood, Englewood, Colorado;
  • ADX Florence, Florence, Colorado;
  • FCI Florence and the adjacent camp, Florence, Colorado;
  • USP Florence, Florence, Colorado;
  • FCI Fort Dix, Fort Dix, New Jersey;
  • FCI Greenville, Greenville, Illinois;
  • USP Leavenworth, Leavenworth, Kansas;
  • USP Lompoc, Lompoc, California;
  • USP Marion, Marion, Illinois;
  • FCI Milan, Milan, Michigan;
  • FCI Morgantown, Morgantown, West Virginia;
  • FPC Pensacola, Pensacola, Florida;
  • FCI Safford, Safford, Arizona;
  • FCI Sandstone, Sandstone, Minnesota;
  • FPC Seymour Johnson, Goldsboro, North Carolina;
  • USP Terre Haute, Terre Haute, Indiana; and
  • FPC Yankton, Yankton, South Dakota.

We also examined reported data for the 82 institutions listed in the following table.

Institution Security Level Institution Security Level
ADX Florence Maximum FCI Petersburg Low
FCI Allenwood Low FCI Petersburg Medium
FCI Allenwood Medium FCI Phoenix Medium
FCI Ashland Low FCI Ray Brook Medium
FCI Bastrop Low FCI Safford Low
FCI Beaumont Low FCI Sandstone Low
FCI Beaumont Medium FCI Schuylkill Medium
FCI Beckley Medium FCI Seagoville Low
FCI Big Spring Low FCI Sheridan Medium
FCI Butner Low FCI Talladega Medium
FCI Butner Medium FCI Tallahassee Low
FCI Coleman Low FCI Terminal Island Medium
FCI Coleman Medium FCI Texarkana Low
FCI Cumberland Medium FCI Three Rivers Medium
FCI Danbury Low FCI Tucson Medium
FCI Dublin Low FCI Victorville Medium
FCI Edgefield Medium FCI Waseca Low
FCI El Reno Medium FCI Yazoo City Low
FCI Elkton Low FPC Alderson Minimum
FCI Englewood Medium FPC Allenwood Minimum
FCI Estill Medium FPC Bryan Minimum
FCI Fairton Medium FPC Duluth Minimum
FCI Florence Medium FPC Eglin Minimum
FCI Forrest City Low FPC Montgomery Minimum
FCI Fort Dix Low FPC Nellis Minimum
FCI Greenville Medium FPC Pensacola Minimum
FCI Jesup Medium FPC Seymour Johnson Minimum
FCI La Tuna Low FPC Yankton Minimum
FCI Lompoc Low USP Allenwood High
FCI Loretto Low USP Atlanta High
FCI Manchester Medium USP Atwater High
FCI Marianna Medium USP Beaumont High
FCI McKean Medium USP Coleman High
FCI Memphis Medium USP Florence High
FCI Miami Medium USP Leavenworth High
FCI Milan Low USP Lee High
FCI Morgantown Minimum USP Lewisburg High
FCI Oakdale Medium USP Lompoc High
FCI Otisville Medium USP Marion High
FCI Oxford Medium USP Pollock High
FCI Pekin Medium USP Terre Haute High

The 82 institutions include the ADX and all FCIs, FPCs, and USPs.† We excluded the FDCs, FMCs, FTCs, MCCs, MCFPs, and MDCs because of the unique missions of these institutions.

To determine the percentage of the educational and occupational goals achieved, we obtained the Annual Program Report for Education and Recreation Services for FY 1999 through FY 2002 for each institution included in our audit.† We compared the completion goals and outcomes reported for each institutionís GED, ESL, ACE, parenting, and occupational programs and determined the percentage of goal achieved, which equates to the outcome divided by goal.† Additionally, for FY 2002 we compared the National Strategic Plan performance indicator goal and outcome for the percent of inmates enrolled in one or more education programs for each institution and determined the percentage of goal obtained.

To determine the percentage of the CCC utilization targets achieved for each institution during FY 2000 through 2002, we obtained the total number of inmates transferred to a CCC and total number of inmates released directly to the community as reported in the BOPís Key Indicators system.48† To calculate the CCC utilization rate for each institution, which equates to the number of inmates transferred to a CCC divided by the number of inmates transferred to a CCC plus the number of inmates released directly into the community.† We then compared the CCC utilization rate for each institution to the BOPís goal for that security level and determined the percentage of the goal achieved which equates to the outcome divided by goal.

To determine the GED performance factor for each institution during FY 1999 through FY 2002, we obtained the total number of completions and withdrawals from the BOPís Key Indicators system.† We then calculated the GED performance factor, which equates to completions divided by completions plus withdrawals.† Additionally, to determine the GED performance factor based on voluntary withdrawals for each institution, we obtained the total number of completions and voluntary withdrawals from the BOPís Key Indicators system.† We then calculated the GED performance factor, which equates to completions divided by completions plus voluntary withdrawals.

To determine the percentage of citizen inmates required to participate in the literacy program that have dropped out and are therefore not promotable above the maintenance pay grade for work programs, we obtained the percentage of GED Dropped Non-promotable (GED DN) from the BOPís Key Indicators system for FY 1999 through FY 2002.† Additionally, to determine the percentage of noncitizen inmates required participate in the literacy program that have dropped out and are therefore not promotable above the maintenance pay grade for work programs, we obtained the percentage of Exempt GED Non-promotable (GED XN) from the BOPís Key Indicators system.

Finally, to determine the occupational technical and vocational performance factors for each institution during FY 1999 through FY 2002, we obtained the total number of completions and withdrawals from the BOPís Key Indicators system.† We then calculated the occupational technical performance factor, which equates to completions divided by completions plus withdrawals.


Footnotes
  1. The BOP, Key Indicators, A Strategic Support System of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Volume 14, Number 1, January 2003.