BOP REQUIREMENTS FOR NON-ELECTRIC MONITORING BY CCCs
|ATLANTA, GA||ATLANTA, GA||MIAMI, FL||CHICAGO, IL||GRAND RAPIDS, MI||HUTCHINS, TX||ALBUQUERQUE, NM||NEW YORK, NY||WASHINGTON, D.C.||SAN DIEGO, CA||TUCSON, AZ|
|NUMBER OF INMATES TESTED||6||7||5||10||6||10||6||10||6||9||4|
|INMATE CONTACTED DAILY AT HOME OR WORK||YES||NO
3 OF 7
1 of 10
6 of 6
|WAS CONTACT RANDOM?||NO||NO||YES||NO||YES||YES||YES||YES||NO||NO||NO|
|INMATE VISITED WEEKLY AT HOME AND AT WORK||YES||YES
5 of 7
2 N/A (2)
1 of 5
8 of 10
4 of 6
2 N/A (2)
10 of 10
3 of 6
5 of 6
|INMATE RETURNED TO CCC TWICE WEEKLY||YES||YES (4)||YES||YES
9 of 10
1 of 10 (1)
5 of 6
1 N/A (2)
|NOTIFIED CCC IMMEDIATELY OF ANY ESCAPE||N/A (3)||N/A (3)||N/A (3)||N/A (3)||N/A (3)||N/A (3)||N/A (3)||N/A (3)||N/A (3)||N/A (3)||N/A (3)|
|REPORTED OTHER VIOLATIONS WITHIN 24 HOURS||N/A (3)||N/A (3)||N/A (3)||N/A (3)||N/A (3)||YES||YES||N/A (3)||N/A (3)||N/A (3)||N/A (3)|
(1) Home confinee in wheelchair and was given waiver.
(2) N/A - not applicable - home confinee had not been on home confinement long enough to meet this requirement.
(3) N/A - not applicable - there were no escapes or reported violations.
(4) During 1 week, a home confinee had car problems and returned to the CCC only once. We did not take exception to this isolated occurrence.
BOP REQUIREMENTS FOR ELECTRIC MONITORING BY CCCs
|UNITED STATES PROBATION OFFICES||CCC|
|NUMBER OF INMATES SAMPLED||3||5||4||10||4|
|Tested all inmates for drugs at least once per month||YES
2 of 3
1 OF 3 (2)
2 of 5 (9)
4 of 4 (3)
5 of 10
1 of 10 N/A
4 of 10 (2)
|Had in-person contact at least once a week||NO
1 of 3
5 of 5
4 of 4 (4)
5 of 10 (4)
|Documented all in-person contacts||YES||YES||YES||YES||YES|
|Visually inspected equipment at each contact||NOT RECORDED (1)||NOT RECORDED (1)||NOT RECORDED (1)||YES
2 of 10
8 of 10 (6)
|Verified employment, residence, and participation in required programs and activities at each contact||YES||YES||NOT RECORDED (1)||YES||YES|
|Reviewed inmate's monthly telephone bill to detect call-forwarding by the offender||NOT RECORDED (5)||NO (10)||NOT RECORDED (5)||NO (8)||YES|
|Immediately reported escapes to CCM||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A|
|Reported other violations to the CCM within 24 hours||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A|
(1) Information was not recorded but probation officers stated that they do complete this monitoring requirement.
(2) Inmate had not been on home confinement long enough to meet this requirement.
(3) Probation officer only does random drug testing unless the inmate requires drug aftercare.
(4) Probation officer stated this was not done because of caseload.
(5) Probation officers stated they did inspect phone bills periodically but did not record the information.
(6) Probation officers stated they were not concerned because the monitoring company does this automatically.
(7) CCC inspects the equipment only when they are notified by monitoring company of a problem.
(8) Probation officer stated they do not inspect telephone bills unless considered questionable.
(9) Probation officer stated the missed tests were an oversight.
(10) Probation officers stated they were not aware of the requirement to record this information.
Note: Although we tested probation offices against BOP's requirements for CCCs using electronic monitoring, these requirements were not clearly defined in the BOP's MOU with the AOUSC.
REFERRAL PROCEDURES OF CCCs
|GRAND RAPIDS, MI||OK||OK||OK||NONE|
|NEW YORK, NY||OK||OK||4>||8>|
|SAN DIEGO, CA||OK||OK||OK||NONE|
|A = SYSTEM FOR IDENTIFYING RESIDENTS LEGALLY ELIGIBLE|
|B = JUSTIFICATION FOR RESIDENTS NOT REFERRED|
|C = ACTIONS PRIOR TO REFERRAL (DOCUMENTED SIGNED COPY OF CONDITIONS OF HOME CONFINEMENT AND NOTIFIED PROBATION)|
|D = EFFECT OF OCCUPANCY RATE ON REFERRALS|
|1> Has no formal system; relies on list from BOP.|
|2> CCC relies on BOP institution staff to determine who is eligible for HC.|
|3> One inmate referred for HC was a convicted arsonist who had a history of alleged domestic violence.|
|4> Director stated that approval of release plan by Probation, the CCC, and the CCM sometimes takes 6-7 weeks.|
|5> Executive Director cited high costs of handling a large HC caseload as a problem that affects referrals.|
|6> Director says currently not a problem but would be if referrals to CCC dropped below quota.|
|7> Executive Director stated that referring all eligible/qualified inmates could mean loss of CCC jobs.|
|8> Occupancy currently at 115%, so not a factor right now.|
|9> Director stated that "occupancy is the mainstay" of the CCC and therefore, affects the rate of referrals.|
U.S. Department of Justice
Federal Bureau of Prisons
Office of the Director
Washington, DC 20534
January 31, 1996
MEMORANDUM FOR GUY K. ZIMMERMAN, ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL
FROM: Kathleen M. Hawk, Director
Federal Bureau of Prisons
SUBJECT: Draft Audit Report on the Home Confinement Program
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Audit Report: The Home Confinement Program in the Bureau of Prisons. As noted in my response to the companion report on Community Corrections Centers (CCCs), the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) appreciates the courtesy and professionalism your staff showed at all times during the review.
The BOP accepts all of the recommendations made. Again, your efforts will be of great service to the BOP as we guide the development of community corrections in the coming years.
The report makes five primary recommendations to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of program operations:
Recommendation #1 -- Implement a pilot project to determine if electronic monitoring of all home confinees would be more cost effective than non-electronic monitoring.
The BOP accepts the recommendation to implement a pilot project to determine if electronic monitoring of home confinement is more cost effective. We are in the planning stages of developing a pilot solicitation package that will require prospective CCC providers to provide a separate cost figure for home confinement with and without electronic monitoring. This will be tested in different parts of the country and with different size providers. This approach will enable the BOP to determine if electronically monitored home confinement can be provided at less cost than our current practice.
At the same time, we believe that as currently structured the BOP's home confinement program effectively meets the correctional purposes for which it was designed. Implementing electronic monitoring for all home confinees would provide no significant improvement to the correctional effectiveness of the program.
Further, we seriously question key assumptions underlying this rationale relied upon to reach the recommendations. The draft Audit Report reaches the conclusion that over $1 million can be saved based on a finding the electronically monitored home confinement provided by the AOUSC is about $4 per inmate less than the national average for home confinement currently provided by contract CCCs. It then extrapolates based on the total number of inmates on home confinement.
It is unlikely in an open solicitation that CCCs will be able to subcontract for electronic monitoring services and still be able to provide home confinement at the same price as is currently the case. The BOP is willing to test this assumption, however, and we will reevaluate our policy based on the results of the pilot project.
We also have some concerns about the wisdom or necessity of using electronic monitoring for many inmates in the process of making the transition back to the community. For cases releasing to remote locations, electronic monitoring is both appropriate and desirable. For most cases, however, electronic monitoring provides greater restriction than necessary to meet the correctional purpose of home confinement. Home confinement for inmates transitioning to the community is a final step designed to allow inmates to take greater control over their lives and exercise increased responsibility in the last weeks of their sentences. Electronic monitoring reduces a degree of personal responsibility and in many circumstances it may detract from the goals of home confinement.
Nevertheless, the BOP is committed to testing electronic monitoring to measure its cost effectiveness and we will proceed with the pilot project as recommended.
Recommendation #2 -- Ensure the maximum allowable subsistence is collected from BOP home confinees monitored by the AOUSC.
The BOP accepts this recommendation and we will meet with the AOUSC to determine which steps might be taken to increase collection of subsistence (copayments in the parlance of the AOUSC). Both the BOP and the AOUSC are committed to collecting appropriate subsistence payments from inmates on home confinement.
Recommendation #3 -- Ensure that future bills from the AOUSC are reduced by collections from BOP home confinees.
The BOP accepts the recommendation that future bills from the AOUSC will be reduced by the amount of any subsistence payments collected.
However, beginning with the first MOU effective May, 1994, the AOUSC has always agreed to reduce the payment made by the BOP by the amount of subsistence collected. There is nothing to suggest that the AOUSC has violated our agreement. Nevertheless, the 1996 MOU will include explicit language requiring the AOUSC to provide separate documentation on the amount of subsistence collected and the amount subtracted from each quarterly bill submitted by the AOUSC.
Recommendation #4 -- Ensure that CCCs comply with the BOP's monitoring requirements.
The BOP takes very seriously the need to maintain inmate accountability on home confinement. The BOP accepts the recommendation that all CCCs consistently comply with monitoring requirements. All CCC contracts are continually examined to ensure compliance with BOP policies, but the need for extra vigilance will be emphasized in future training with BOP Community Corrections field staff.
Recommendation #5 -- Clearly define the BOP's monitoring requirements in the MOU with AOUSC.
The BOP accepts this recommendation and language has been added to the MOU with the AOUSC for 1996 to more clearly define BOP monitoring requirements.
Finally, I was pleased that you found the referral process to be working well. You noted that all 192 cases you reviewed that were not on home confinement (although eligible) had a "reasonable explanation" for not being referred. I believe this shows the seriousness with which we view the importance of home confinement and the efforts we have made to place every appropriate inmate.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment, and we will await your final decision on whether additional action is necessary.
OIG, AUDIT DIVISION
ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY OF ACTIONS
NECESSARY TO CLOSE REPORT
1. Resolved. This recommendation can be closed when BOP implements the pilot project. The solicitation package should contain language that requires prospective CCC providers to provide a separate cost figure for home confinement with and without electronic monitoring. Also, please provide us with the results of your evaluation of the pilot project.
In the response to our draft report, the BOP agrees with the finding and recommendation, but raises concerns about our methodology in arriving at our $1 million for Funds to Better Use. The $4 per day, per inmate, savings multiplies out to $1,097,920 which we rounded down to $1 million. We based our savings on the only known variables. Specifically, we compared the current BOP cost for non-electronic monitoring of home confinees to the cost if AOUSC were to assume electronic monitoring responsibilities for everyone. We believe this is a logical approach. This seems to be the least AOUSC could do, given the $14 million annual subsidy for CCC services the BOP provides for AOUSC (see details in our report on The Community Corrections Center Program in the Bureau of Prisons, Report Number 96-08). BOP could legitimately use this information during negotiations with AOUSC.
The unknown variable is the cost to BOP if it were to exclude AOUSC and contract for electronic monitoring, themselves. Monitoring home confinees, either through the CCCs or through some other intermediary, should be explored. We do not know how much this contract would cost. However, we believe BOP could do no worse than the current $17 rate AOUSC now charges, and it is likely that BOP could do better.
As discussed on page 2 of the report, the $17 per day the BOP pays to AOUSC consists of $5 which is the amount AOUSC pays their national contractor for electronic monitoring plus $12 in AOUSC personnel costs. The 140 percent add on for personnel costs appears excessive to us, but there is no way to determine this without an open solicitation. We can, however, offer the following reasons why the cost should be far less than the current rate:
Electronic monitoring is much less labor intensive than non-electronic monitoring as described on pages 6 through 8 of the report. Therefore, electronic monitoring should be less costly. Monitoring of home confinees electronically is performed essentially on an "exception" basis (e.g., other than the required in person visits, you only worry when you get a signal from the monitoring device that something may be wrong). Therefore, random telephone calls to the inmate's residence and place of employment are not required with electronic monitoring. In addition, the required number of in-person visits to residence and workplace decreases from weekly to monthly.
In addition to less monitoring being required, consider the cost of labor when personal involvement is necessary. AOUSC's Probation officers handling BOP cases were generally Grade 13s; CCC staff monitoring inmates did not come close to making a Grade 13 salary. In most cases, the CCC directors did not make a Grade 13 salary. AOUSC's personnel rates reflect these salaries.
If BOP can contract for less than the current $17 rate, through either CCCs or someone else, the savings would be far greater than our $1 million estimate. If the BOP cannot contract out for less than the current $17 rate, they could increase the number of inmates monitored by AOUSC and do no worse than $17.
The BOP also expressed their concerns about the wisdom or necessity of using electronic monitoring for many inmates in the process of making the transition back to the community. The BOP states that electronic monitoring provides greater restriction than necessary to meet the correctional purpose of home confinement. However, in the professional judgment of the managers and staff we interviewed at CCCs already using electronic monitoring, it provided better accountability for home confinees and was cost effective. In our judgment, given the general ease, reliability, economy, and effectiveness of electronic monitoring, we believe that BOP will find it suitable for almost all home confinement cases.
Based upon our $4 per day cost savings and belief that electronic monitoring will prove suitable for almost all home confinees, we think our dollar estimate is fair.
2. Resolved. This recommendation can be closed when we receive a copy of the additional steps to be taken to increase collection of subsistence from inmates monitored by probation offices.
3. Resolved. This recommendation can be closed when we receive: (1) a copy of the FY 1996 Memorandum of Understanding, and (2) the AOUSC's first quarterly bill for FY 1996 which demonstrates that subsistence collected from inmates has been subtracted. Contrary to statements made by the BOP in its response to the draft report, our testing determined that the AOUSC did not reduce its bills by the amount of subsistence collected from BOP home confinees. However, we did not recommend that the costs be recovered because the AOUSC did not bill the BOP for the full amount of electronic monitoring services provided.
4. Resolved. This recommendation can be closed when we receive documentation, such as a training agenda and schedule, that the need for extra vigilance in ensuring CCCs comply with the BOP's monitoring requirements has been emphasized to Community Corrections field staff through training.
5. Resolved. This recommendation can be closed when we receive a copy of the 1996 Memorandum of Understanding showing the added language which clearly defines the BOP's monitoring requirements.