Bureau of Prisons
Written Policies on Lateral Transfers and Assessment of Temporary Assignments Needed Gao ID: GAO-09-141 February 25, 2009The Department of Justice's Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is responsible for the custody and care of more than 202,000 federal offenders with approximately 35,000 employees, almost half of whom are correctional officers, dispersed across BOP's 114 correctional facilities in 6 regions. In response to a request, GAO identified whether BOP had policies and procedures and how it assessed the management of those policies and procedures for (1) employee-requested lateral transfers of BOP employees between correctional facilities and (2) day-to-day changes in correctional services or temporary assignments of BOP employees within a correctional facility. GAO reviewed available documentation on BOP's policies and procedures on lateral transfers and temporary assignments. GAO also interviewed officials from BOP's central and regional offices and seven facilities selected on the basis of the number of staff; at least one facility was selected from within each of BOP's six regions.
BOP does not have written policies and procedures on lateral transfers of staff. Each correctional facility evaluates requests for lateral transfers on a case-by-case basis. Typically, when an employee requests a lateral transfer to another facility, the warden at the employee's current facility determines whether to forward the request to the desired facility's warden. The processes for requesting a lateral transfer and the criteria for forwarding, granting, or denying such requests varied across the facilities GAO reviewed, and generally no documentation on decisions reached or actions taken was maintained. Further, BOP does not systematically review decisions concerning these requests at any level. As a result, BOP cannot determine the number of requests for lateral transfers, the outcome of these requests, or whether requests were handled consistently within or among facilities. GAO has previously reported that agencywide policies and procedures help ensure consistent treatment of staff when agencies have geographically dispersed locations. Other Department of Justice law-enforcement components have written policies, procedures, and a review process concerning requests for lateral transfers. Unlike lateral transfers, BOP has written policies and procedures on how facilities are to temporarily assign staff to fill in for absences or to meet other needs that arise in a facility. However, BOP has not systematically assessed how facilities are managing temporary assignments. As part of a costreduction strategy affecting temporary assignments, in 2005, BOP designated mission critical posts, that is, assignments that were deemed essential for the safe and secure operations of its facilities and that would be vacated only in rare circumstances. The mission critical post initiative was intended to reduce facilities' reliance on overtime and non-correctional services staff, who had typically been used for temporary assignments. A memorandum from the Assistant Director of Correctional Programs described how each facility was to gather information for 6 months on overtime and staffing under the mission critical post initiative and how BOP would evaluate the effectiveness of the initiative. However, BOP conducted no such evaluation. BOP officials also generally do not review temporary assignments at any level, including the effect of leaving mission critical posts unassigned. According to the Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, federal agencies are to employ internal control activities, such as top-level review, to help ensure that management's directives are carried out and to determine if agencies are effectively and efficiently using resources. Without assessing its mission critical post initiative and data on temporary assignments, BOP does not know whether it is efficiently and effectively using staff for temporary assignments or achieving the desired cost savings. Also, without reviewing the effect of leaving mission critical posts unassigned, BOP cannot assess the effect, if any, of unassigned posts on the safety and security of its facilities.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-09-141, Bureau of Prisons: Written Policies on Lateral Transfers and Assessment of Temporary Assignments Needed
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-141
entitled 'Bureau Of Prisons: Written Policies on Lateral Transfers and
Assessment of Temporary Assignments Needed' which was released on
February 25, 2009.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
February 2009:
Bureau Of Prisons:
Written Policies on Lateral Transfers and Assessment of Temporary
Assignments Needed:
Bureau of Prisons:
GAO-09-141:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-09-141, a report to congressional requesters.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Department of Justice‘s Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is
responsible for the custody and care of more than 202,000 federal
offenders with approximately 35,000 employees, almost half of whom are
correctional officers, dispersed across BOP‘s 114 correctional
facilities in 6 regions. In response to a request, GAO identified
whether BOP had policies and procedures and how it assessed the
management of those policies and procedures for (1) employee-requested
lateral transfers of BOP employees between correctional facilities and
(2) day-to-day changes in correctional services or temporary
assignments of BOP employees within a correctional facility. GAO
reviewed available documentation on BOP‘s policies and procedures on
lateral transfers and temporary assignments. GAO also interviewed
officials from BOP‘s central and regional offices and seven facilities
selected on the basis of the number of staff; at least one facility was
selected from within each of BOP‘s six regions.
What GAO Found:
BOP does not have written policies and procedures on lateral transfers
of staff. Each correctional facility evaluates requests for lateral
transfers on a case-by-case basis. Typically, when an employee requests
a lateral transfer to another facility, the warden at the employee‘s
current facility determines whether to forward the request to the
desired facility‘s warden. The processes for requesting a lateral
transfer and the criteria for forwarding, granting, or denying such
requests varied across the facilities GAO reviewed, and generally no
documentation on decisions reached or actions taken was maintained.
Further, BOP does not systematically review decisions concerning these
requests at any level. As a result, BOP cannot determine the number of
requests for lateral transfers, the outcome of these requests, or
whether requests were handled consistently within or among facilities.
GAO has previously reported that agencywide policies and procedures
help ensure consistent treatment of staff when agencies have
geographically dispersed locations. Other Department of Justice law-
enforcement components have written policies, procedures, and a review
process concerning requests for lateral transfers.
Unlike lateral transfers, BOP has written policies and procedures on
how facilities are to temporarily assign staff to fill in for absences
or to meet other needs that arise in a facility. However, BOP has not
systematically assessed how facilities are managing temporary
assignments. As part of a cost-reduction strategy affecting temporary
assignments, in 2005, BOP designated mission critical posts, that is,
assignments that were deemed essential for the safe and secure
operations of its facilities and that would be vacated only in rare
circumstances. The mission critical post initiative was intended to
reduce facilities‘ reliance on overtime and non-correctional services
staff, who had typically been used for temporary assignments. A
memorandum from the Assistant Director of Correctional Programs
described how each facility was to gather information for 6 months on
overtime and staffing under the mission critical post initiative and
how BOP would evaluate the effectiveness of the initiative. However,
BOP conducted no such evaluation. BOP officials also generally do not
review temporary assignments at any level, including the effect of
leaving mission critical posts unassigned.
According to the Standards for Internal Control in the Federal
Government, federal agencies are to employ internal control activities,
such as top-level review, to help ensure that management‘s directives
are carried out and to determine if agencies are effectively and
efficiently using resources. Without assessing its mission critical
post initiative and data on temporary assignments, BOP does not know
whether it is efficiently and effectively using staff for temporary
assignments or achieving the desired cost savings. Also, without
reviewing the effect of leaving mission critical posts unassigned, BOP
cannot assess the effect, if any, of unassigned posts on the safety and
security of its facilities.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that BOP (1) develop and implement specific policies and
procedures for administering employee requests for lateral transfers
and (2) systematically assess temporary assignments. BOP agreed with
GAO‘s findings, disagreed with the first recommendation, and agreed
with and plans to take action on the second. GAO continues to believe
written policies would help ensure consistency across BOP.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-141]. For more
information, contact George H. Stalcup at (202) 512-9490 or
stalcupg@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
BOP Lacked Written Policies and Procedures for Processing Requests for
Lateral Transfers:
BOP Has Policies and Procedures for Staffing Temporary Assignments but
Has Not Systematically Assessed Their Use:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: BOP's Correctional Services Roster Assignment and
Temporary Assignment Process:
Appendix III: Analysis of Correctional Services Daily Rosters at
Selected BOP Facilities:
Appendix IV: Comments from the U.S. Department of Justice:
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Table:
Table 1: Estimated Average Daily Number of Special Assignments and
Number Unassigned for Selected BOP Facilities, 2007:
Figures:
Figure 1: Locations of BOP Facilities and Regions and the Facilities in
Our Review:
Figure 2: Options for Staffing a Temporary Assignment:
Figure 3: Estimated Average Daily Percentage of Unassigned Mission
Critical Posts at Selected BOP Facilities, 2007:
Figure 4: Estimated Average Daily Percentage of Mission Critical Posts
Filled with Overtime at Selected BOP Facilities, 2007:
Figure 5: Estimated Average Daily Percentage of Mission Critical Posts
Filled with Non-Correctional Services Staff at Selected BOP Facilities,
2007:
Figure 6: Estimated Average Daily Percentage of Special Assignments
Filled with Overtime at Selected BOP Facilities, 2007:
Figure 7: Estimated Average Daily Percentage of Special Assignments
Filled with Non-Correctional Services Staff at Selected BOP Facilities,
2007:
Abbreviations:
AFGE: American Federation of Government Employees:
BOP: Bureau of Prisons:
EEOC: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission:
FCC: federal correctional complex:
FCI: federal correctional institution:
FMFIA: Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act of 1982:
NFC: National Finance Center:
OPM: Office of Personnel Management:
USP: United States Penitentiary:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
February 25, 2009:
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
Chairman:
The Honorable Lamar Smith:
Ranking Member:
Committee on the Judiciary:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.
House of Representatives:
The Department of Justice's Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is
responsible for the custody and care of more than 202,000 federal
offenders, up from fewer than 25,000 in 1980. According to BOP, more
than 166,000, or approximately 82 percent, of these inmates are
confined in BOP's 114 correctional facilities and detention centers of
various security levels.[Footnote 1] Responsible for the custody and
care of these inmates are approximately 35,000 BOP employees.
As agreed, this report responds to your request that we review BOP's
management of permanent reassignments and temporary assignments of BOP
employees at its facilities. Specifically, our objectives were to
identify whether BOP had policies and procedures and how it assessed
the management of those policies and procedures for (1) permanent
reassignments of BOP employees between correctional facilities and (2)
temporary assignments of BOP employees within a correctional facility.
For purposes of this report, permanent reassignments, which BOP refers
to as lateral transfers, are employee-requested transfers to other BOP
facilities that do not involve a promotion or demotion.[Footnote 2]
Temporary assignments are day-to-day changes in correctional services
assignments within BOP facilities, which are made for a variety of
reasons, including (1) illness or other absences of staff or (2)
special assignments (i.e., to meet needs that arise in a facility, not
including regularly assigned posts).[Footnote 3]
As part of our review, we selected seven BOP facilities, which included
five separately located facilities and two federal correctional
complexes (FCC).[Footnote 4] We selected facilities with the largest
number of staff, with at least one facility from within each of BOP's
six regions, and included low-and medium-security federal correctional
institutions (FCI) and high-security United States Penitentiaries
(USP). We excluded administrative facilities from our review. The
facilities selected were USP Lee in Virginia, USP Hazelton in West
Virginia, USP Pollock in Louisiana, FCI Sheridan (medium) in Oregon,
FCI Fort Dix (low) in New Jersey, FCC Coleman (consisting of four
facilities--two high-security, one medium-security, and one low-
security) in Florida, and FCC Terre Haute (consisting of two
facilities, a high-security and a medium-security) in Indiana. We
conducted a site visit to USP Hazelton and interviewed officials at the
other facilities by video conference.
To assess BOP's management of lateral transfers and temporary
assignments, we reviewed available documentation on BOP's written
policies and procedures for such transfers and assignments, the
implementation of those policies and procedures, and how BOP has
assessed the implementation of those policies and procedures. We also
reviewed the lateral transfer policies of four other law enforcement
Justice components--the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the U.S.
Marshals Service; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and
Explosives; and the Drug Enforcement Administration. For lateral
transfers, we interviewed officials from BOP's Human Resources and
Program Review divisions; each of its six regional offices; its
Consolidated Employee Service Center in Grand Prairie, Texas; and the
selected facilities. We also interviewed representatives of the
American Federation of Government Employees Council of Prison Locals
(AFGE). For temporary assignments, we reviewed BOP's policies and
procedures related to correctional services' roster assignments. For
each facility in our review, we analyzed a stratified random sample of
60 hard-copy correctional services daily rosters, 5 per month, for
calendar year 2007 and estimated the extent to which the facilities in
our review used temporary assignments. For FCC Coleman, which uses
separate daily rosters to assign staff at each of its four facilities,
we reviewed the separate rosters from each facility for the same 60
days. For FCC Terre Haute, which uses a consolidated roster to assign
staff throughout the complex, we reviewed the consolidated daily roster
for the 60 days. We determined that the data from the hard-copy daily
rosters were sufficiently reliable for purposes of this report. We also
interviewed individuals from BOP's Correctional Programs and Program
Review divisions, its Office of Research and Evaluation, each of its
six regional offices, the selected facilities, and representatives of
AFGE. See appendix I for a more detailed discussion of our scope and
methodology.
We conducted this performance audit from August 2007 to January 2009,
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Results in Brief:
BOP does not have written policies and procedures on lateral transfers
of staff. Correctional facilities generally evaluate requests for
lateral transfers on a case-by-case basis. Typically, when an employee
requests a lateral transfer to another facility, the warden at the
employee's current facility determines whether to forward the request
to the desired facility's warden. However, the processes for requesting
a lateral transfer and the criteria for forwarding, granting, or
denying such requests varied across the facilities we reviewed, and
generally documentation on decisions reached or actions taken was not
maintained. Further, BOP does not systematically review lateral
transfers at any level. BOP officials told us that they did not think
written policies on lateral transfers were necessary because of the
infrequency of such requests and had not considered lateral transfers a
high-risk area necessitating review. Without documented procedures or
documentation on transfers made, BOP cannot determine the number of
requests for lateral transfers, the outcome of these requests, or
whether requests were handled consistently within or among facilities.
We have previously reported that agencywide policies and procedures
help ensure consistent treatment of staff, particularly when agencies
have geographically dispersed locations. According to an official from
the Office of Personnel Management's Strategic Human Resource Policy
Division, documentation of consistent treatment would also provide
support for an agency's decision-making process when there are claims
of favoritism and help an agency to avoid perceptions of inconsistent
treatment. Other Justice law-enforcement components have policies,
procedures, and a review process covering lateral transfers.
Unlike lateral transfers, BOP has written policies and procedures on
how facilities are to temporarily assign staff. However, BOP has not
systematically assessed how facilities are managing temporary
assignments. As part of a cost-reduction strategy affecting temporary
assignments that began in 2004, BOP designated mission critical posts
in 2005, that is, assignments that were deemed essential for the safe
and secure operations of its facilities and that would be vacated only
in rare circumstances. The mission critical post initiative was
intended to enable facilities to reduce reliance on overtime and non-
correctional services staff, who had typically been used for temporary
assignments. A memorandum from the Assistant Director of Correctional
Programs described how each facility was to gather information on
overtime and staffing over a 6-month period and how BOP would evaluate
the effectiveness of the mission critical post initiative. However, BOP
conducted no such evaluation, and BOP officials could not explain why
the evaluation was not conducted. According to the Standards for
Internal Control in the Federal Government, federal agencies are to
employ internal control activities, such as top-level review, to help
ensure that management's directives are carried out and to determine if
agencies are effectively and efficiently using resources.[Footnote 5]
BOP's Management Control and Program Review Manual states that BOP is
to maintain a system of management controls that enables managers to
assess program performance regularly. Further, in addition to not
having evaluated the mission critical post initiative, BOP officials
generally do not review temporary assignments, including the effect of
leaving mission critical posts unassigned. Because BOP's computerized
roster management system does not produce summary data on temporary
assignments, the only way currently to assess how BOP is temporarily
assigning staff would be to manually review daily rosters. Without
evaluating its mission critical post initiative or routinely analyzing
data on temporary assignments, BOP does not know whether it is
efficiently and effectively using staff for temporary assignments or
achieving the desired cost savings. Also, without reviewing the effect
of leaving mission critical posts unassigned, BOP cannot assess the
effect, if any, of unassigned posts on the safety and security of its
facilities.
We recommend that the Attorney General direct the Director of BOP to
(1) develop and implement specific policies and procedures for
administering employee requests for lateral transfers, including
providing for the collection of data on such requests and their
outcomes and the development of a system of oversight, and (2)
systematically assess temporary assignments to ensure that BOP is
meeting the objectives of the mission critical post initiative and
effectively and efficiently using resources.
We provided the Attorney General with a draft of this report for review
and comment. In his written comments on behalf of the Attorney General,
the Director of BOP agreed with our findings on the first
recommendation but disagreed with the recommended action because BOP
would have to devote resources to developing policies and procedures
and maintaining such a program. In addition, BOP perceived our
recommendation as elevating the process to a central office function.
Instead, BOP plans to "encourage a practice to have locations post a
vacancy announcement on USAJobs before filling local vacancies." We
continue to believe that without written policies and procedures for
managing lateral transfers, BOP cannot ensure that staff are being
consistently treated when requesting lateral transfers. Regarding our
second recommendation, the Director agreed and stated that BOP will
conduct a systematic assessment of correctional services mission
critical post use and conduct regularly scheduled reviews of
institutions to determine whether it is meeting its mission critical
post initiative and effectively and efficiently using resources.
Background:
BOP consists of a headquarters and six regional offices--Mid-Atlantic,
North Central, Northeast, South Central, Southeast, and Western--that
directly oversee the operations of its 114 facilities within their
respective geographic regions of the country. BOP operates facilities
of different security levels--minimum, low, medium, and high, which
respectively have increasing security features, inmate to staff ratios,
and control of inmate movement, and administrative, which have special
missions, such as the treatment of inmates with serious or chronic
medical problems. Some BOP facilities are part of BOP's 13 FCCs, which
consist of two or more facilities colocated on property that is
contiguous. BOP facilities are given a security designation based on
the level of security and staff supervision the facility is able to
provide. Figure 1 shows the locations of BOP facilities and regions and
the facilities in our review.
Figure 1: Locations of BOP Facilities and Regions and the Facilities in
Our Review:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a map of the United States depicting the locations of
BOP facilities and regions and the facilities in our review, as
follows:
Region: Northeast;
Facility included in review: FCI Ft. Dix, New Jersey.
Region: Mid-Atlantic;
Facility included in review: USP Hazelton, West Virginia; USP Lee,
Virginia.
Region: Southeast;
Facility included in review: FCC Coleman, Florida.
Region: North Central;
Facility included in review: FCC Terre Haute, Indiana.
Region: South Central;
Facility included in review: USP Pollock, Louisiana.
Region: Western;
Facility included in review: FCI Sheridan, Oregon.
Note: The total number of the facilities indicated on the map is less
than 114 because some facilities are part of federal correctional
complexes (FCC), which include more than one facility. For example, FCC
Coleman consists of four facilities, and FCC Terre Haute consists of
two facilities.
[End of figure]
Facilities are managed by a warden and other officials, including an
executive assistant and associate warden who generally provide overall
direction and implement policies. Each facility consists of various
departments, including the correctional services department, which
represents the largest segment of each facility. Correctional workers
are responsible for the correctional treatment, custody, and
supervision of criminal offenders. The captain is the head of the
correctional services department and generally reports to the warden or
associate warden. Lieutenants are generally responsible for the day-to-
day staffing of correctional services and report to the captain or
deputy captain. Non-correctional services staff include, among others,
those assigned to health services, unit management, food services, and
facility operations.
According to BOP written responses, all facility staff receive the same
initial core 5 weeks of training and 1 week of annual refresher
training.[Footnote 6] BOP's Master Agreement with AFGE permits
management to determine the internal security practices of the agency
and take whatever actions may be necessary to carry out the agency
mission during emergencies.[Footnote 7] According to BOP officials, the
warden is permitted to use all facility staff (including non-
correctional services staff, such as secretary, nurse, or dentist) for
correctional services assignments during emergencies and at other
designated times. One of BOP's published core values is that all
employees are "correctional workers first," regardless of the specific
position to which an individual is hired, and both correctional
services staff and non-correctional services staff are responsible for
the safety and security of the facility.
BOP Lacked Written Policies and Procedures for Processing Requests for
Lateral Transfers:
BOP has no written policies for lateral transfers and provides no
guidance to facilities on how to process requests for lateral transfers
or criteria for granting such requests. Requests for lateral transfers
are generally handled on a case-by-case basis, and the processes and
criteria used for granting those requests varied across facilities in
our review. Neither BOP nor most of the facilities reviewed maintained
documentation or tracked data on lateral transfers and their outcomes
and did not systematically review lateral transfers. We have previously
reported that agencywide policies and procedures help ensure consistent
treatment when agencies are geographically dispersed.[Footnote 8] Our
review of the lateral transfer policies of four other Justice
components showed that each had established written policies and
procedures for lateral transfers.
BOP Had No Written Policy for Lateral Transfers, and Processes and
Criteria Used Varied Across Facilities and Regions:
According to officials from BOP's Human Resources Division, BOP has no
written policies and procedures for processing staff requests for
lateral transfers. The officials said that BOP staff request lateral
transfers because of a variety of personal reasons, including personal
hardship, such as a sick family member, or a relocated spouse. At most
of the facilities included in our review, officials told us staff
generally requested a lateral transfer from their current facility to
another location by submitting a memorandum through their warden to the
warden at the desired location. According to a written response from
BOP, this approach is informal and is at the discretion of both
wardens. BOP provides no guidance to facilities on how to process such
requests or criteria for granting them. In addition, because no written
policies and procedures exist, BOP has no way of ensuring that staff
are aware of how to request a lateral transfer. An official at one
facility in our review said because no written policies exist, if an
employee wanted to find out about how to obtain a lateral transfer, the
employee would have to ask someone. BOP officials told us that they did
not think written policies on lateral transfers were necessary because
of the infrequency of such requests.
Officials from the facilities in our review reported using different
processes and criteria for lateral transfers. Officials from two
facilities said their Employee Services Department, which is
responsible for human resources functions, forwarded a memorandum from
the employee to the warden at the desired facility, while officials
from other facilities said their Employee Services Department had no
role in receiving or forwarding requests for lateral transfers.
Officials we interviewed from two facilities said that their wardens
routinely approved reassignment requests going out of the facility,
while others said requests would be considered individually on a case-
by-case basis. Further, in accepting requests for incoming lateral
transfers, officials from some facilities said the decision was based
on a combination of budgetary, staffing, and work performance factors,
while one facility official said he preferred not to approve lateral
transfers of senior correctional officers, specifically those at the
General Schedule grade 8, because of its affect on morale.
BOP Did Not Monitor Requests for Lateral Transfers or Their Outcomes:
BOP was unable to identify the number of staff who were laterally
transferred because it did not maintain data on the manner in which
employees are permanently reassigned. According to a BOP Human
Resources Division official we interviewed, BOP's personnel database
did not contain information by type of permanent reassignment, such as
agency-initiated, application for announced vacancy, or lateral
transfers. In fiscal year 2005, a total of 2,749 staff were permanently
reassigned; in fiscal year 2006, 1,952; and in fiscal year 2007, 1,901.
According to BOP officials, these numbers reflect the total number of
staff successfully reassigned through all types of permanent
reassignments; BOP could not isolate lateral transfers. In addition,
these numbers did not include the number of staff who applied for or
requested a reassignment and were denied.
BOP did not require facilities to maintain any documentation of
requests for lateral transfers, such as the original memorandum making
a request or documents indicating whether requests were forwarded,
approved, denied, or reasons for denial. Officials from most of the
facilities in our review said their facilities retained the original
employee request memorandum in some circumstances, but one official
said the request memorandum was never retained. Without such
documentation, BOP was not able to determine BOP-wide the number of
staff who requested lateral transfers, the number of times an employee
requested a transfer, the number of requests approved or denied, or the
reasons for denial.
According to BOP, its central office exercises no role in reviewing
decisions concerning lateral transfers where the warden is the deciding
official. BOP officials stated that lateral transfers have not been
considered a high-risk area necessitating review. At the regional
level, officials from five of the six regions told us that their
offices had no role concerning requests for lateral transfers where the
warden was the deciding official. At the sixth region, an official said
that starting in the first quarter of 2008 all wardens in that region
were required to obtain authorization from the regional director before
approving lateral transfers. According to this official, the approval
policy was implemented because of a concern that transfers from hard-
to-fill positions would contribute to turnover. At the facility level,
if the warden at the employee's current facility decided not to forward
the request or the warden at the desired facility denied the request,
BOP had no formal process for reconsideration.
Agencywide Policies, Procedures, and Monitoring Are Important for
Ensuring Consistent Treatment of Staff:
We have previously reported that it is important to have agencywide
policies and procedures to help ensure consistent treatment, especially
if employees are geographically dispersed across regions.[Footnote 9]
Further, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's
(EEOC) Management Directive 715, to ensure management and program
accountability, agencies should maintain clearly defined, well-
communicated personnel policies, and ensure that they are consistently
applied.[Footnote 10] A Human Resources Specialist from the Office of
Personnel Management's (OPM) Strategic Human Resource Policy Division
told us that policies, procedures, and monitoring of employee-initiated
reassignments are not required by regulation. However, according to the
official, as with any other personnel action, documentation could be
helpful if a personnel action is later questioned. The official also
said that documentation of consistent treatment would also provide
support for an agency's decision-making process when there are claims
of favoritism and help an agency to avoid perceptions of inconsistent
treatment. The absence of BOP-wide policies and procedures for lateral
transfers diminishes BOP's ability to ensure consistent treatment of
staff across BOP's 114 facilities in 6 regions.
Our review of the policies and procedures of four other Justice law-
enforcement components--the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the U.S.
Marshals Service; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and
Explosives; and the Drug Enforcement Administration--showed that each
of these had established written policies and procedures applicable to
some or all employees for requesting a transfer to another location.
[Footnote 11] For example, the Marshals Service, whose policy is
intended "to provide a standard, fair, and efficient means of
considering employee requests for transfer," uses a centralized
automated system where deputy U.S. Marshals can register their interest
in transfers to district positions at General Schedule grades 12 and
below in one or more geographic locations.[Footnote 12] For medical
hardship requests, the policy also provides for a review panel whose
decisions can be appealed to a designated agency official to approve or
reject a request for a transfer.
BOP Has Policies and Procedures for Staffing Temporary Assignments but
Has Not Systematically Assessed Their Use:
BOP has policies and procedures on how facilities are to assign staff
on a temporary basis, but it has not systematically assessed how such
temporary assignments are being made. As part of a cost-reduction
strategy involving temporary assignments that began in 2004, in 2005
BOP designated certain posts as "mission critical," that is,
assignments that were deemed essential for the safe and secure
operations of its facilities and would be vacated only in rare
circumstances. The mission critical post initiative was intended to
reduce facilities' reliance on overtime and non-correctional services
staff, both of which had typically been used for temporary assignments.
BOP provided facilities with general guidance on implementing the
initiative but did not subsequently conduct an evaluation on the
effectiveness of the initiative or determine whether it resulted in
reduced reliance on overtime and use of non-correctional services staff
for mission critical posts. Under the Standards for Internal Control in
the Federal Government,[Footnote 13] federal agencies are to employ
internal control activities, such as top-level review, to help ensure
that management's directives are carried out and to determine if the
agencies are effectively and efficiently using resources. BOP generally
does not review data on temporary assignments at any level. In
addition, BOP's computerized system cannot produce the summary data
that would facilitate such a review. As a result, we had to conduct a
manual review of temporary assignments. Our manual review showed that
reliance on overtime and non-correctional services staff varied by
facility and that some mission critical posts were left unassigned.
BOP Policies and Procedures Provide Options for Temporarily Assigning
Staff:
BOP's written sources of policies and procedures on temporary
assignments are the negotiated Master Agreement with AFGE and BOP's
Correctional Services Procedures Manual. BOP's Master Agreement with
AFGE provides that management, in accordance with applicable laws, has
the right to assign work and to determine the personnel by which
operations shall be conducted and outlines the negotiated procedures
for assigning work and other matters subject to negotiation.[Footnote
14] For example, according to the Agreement, employees shall be given
at least 24-hours notice when it is necessary to make shift changes,
except employees assigned to the sick and annual leave list or when the
requirement for prior notice would cause vacating a post.[Footnote 15]
Work assignments on the same shift may be changed without advance
notice. In addition, when BOP determines that it is necessary to pay
overtime for assignments normally filled by bargaining unit employees,
the Agreement provides that qualified employees in the bargaining unit
will receive first consideration for these overtime assignments and
that these assignments will be distributed and rotated equitably among
bargaining unit employees. Each facility may negotiate specific
procedures regarding overtime assignment. The stated purpose of the
Correctional Services Procedures Manual is to promote standard
management practices for correctional services staff at all facilities,
while recognizing the differences among facilities that vary in
missions and security levels. The Manual requires facilities to use the
computerized roster management system for the correctional services
daily roster, reflecting all temporary assignments.[Footnote 16]
According to interviews with BOP officials, all temporary assignments
must be recorded in the computerized roster management system.
As stated earlier, BOP uses temporary assignments, or day-to-day
changes in correctional services assignments, for a variety of reasons
including to fill in for staff regularly assigned to correctional
services posts at BOP facilities who are absent because of illnesses or
other reasons, such as training, or for special assignments. Special
assignments are used to meet needs that arise in a facility and are not
regularly assigned posts and may include escorted trips, airlifts, bus
transports, and phone monitoring. Special assignments are used to
address needs that could (1) arise unexpectedly, such as a medical
emergency, or (2) be anticipated and may be planned for in advance,
such as a scheduled educational activity or medical appointment.
According to BOP officials, staffing decisions on temporary assignments
are made at the discretion of each individual facility and are
generally carried out by the lieutenants who are responsible for the
day-to-day staffing of the correctional services departments. The
options for staffing temporary assignments are not contained in BOP-
wide written policy. However, according to officials at the facilities
we interviewed, when there is a need for a temporary assignment, the
assigning lieutenants have five options, as shown in figure 2.
Figure 2: Options for Staffing a Temporary Assignment:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is an illustration of a staffing plan for a temporary
assignment, as follows:
Facility lieutenant: Can choose from the following options to fill
temporary assignments:
Sick and annual list:
Use staff assigned to the sick and annual list who serve as a
designated group of officers used for a variety of reasons including to
fill in for staff on leave, in training, or for special assignments.
The number of staff on the sick and annual list varies by facility.
Non-correctional services staff:
Use staff regularly assigned to departments other than correctional
services on a given day and shift, leaving the regular position of the
non-correctional services staff vacant.
Pay overtime/compensatory time:
Use staff (correctional services or non-correctional services) not
regularly assigned for the given day and shift that need to be filled.
Overtime or compensatory time hours are in addition to the employee‘s
regularly assigned hours.
Leave unassigned:
Do not make a temporary assignment and leave the post or special
assignment vacant.
Correctional services staff assigned to other posts:
Use correctional services staff regularly assigned to other posts. If
this option is selected, this officer‘s regular post would be vacant.
The lieutenant would need to determine whether and how to fill the post
or leave it unassigned.
Source: GAO analysis based on BOP information.
[End of figure]
While most officials said that there were specific posts that should
never be left unassigned--including the control room, towers, special
housing unit, and mobile or perimeter patrol--officials from all of the
facilities in our review said that some mission critical posts could go
unassigned, depending on the type of post and the circumstances (e.g.,
in emergencies). For example, an official from one facility said that
if there is snow on the ground and fewer inmates than normal are in the
recreation yard, one or more recreation yard posts may go unassigned.
BOP Implemented the Mission Critical Post Initiative to Achieve Cost
Reductions for Temporary Assignments but Did Not Assess the
Initiative's Effectiveness:
In 2004, faced with significant budgetary constraints associated with
increases in the inmate population, BOP began implementing a three-
phase comprehensive strategy designed to streamline its operations and
reduce costs. As part of its overall cost-reduction strategy, in 2005,
BOP implemented the mission critical post initiative. The objectives of
the mission critical post initiative were to (1) establish posts that
were deemed essential for the safe and secure operations of its
facilities and would be vacated only under rare circumstances, (2)
reduce the reliance by the correctional services department on non-
correctional services staff, and (3) substantially reduce overtime
costs. According to BOP's Director, these objectives were to be
achieved by making other correctional services posts available for
relief and special assignments. Before the mission critical post
initiative, special assignments had most often been covered by use of
overtime or non-correctional services staff.
Under the mission critical post initiative, BOP identified standard
correctional services posts for each security level. These included
posts that were mandated by current policy as well as posts that were
determined to be essential for the daily operations of the facilities,
such as those in the control room, where staff can monitor all facility
activity and control entrances and exits, and housing units, which
include sleeping spaces and a common area. BOP gave facility wardens
final authority in designating mission critical posts to accommodate
specific facility missions and designs, such as the needs of an older
building, and to consider other factors. Correctional services posts
deemed not mission critical, such as front gate or chapel officers,
were eliminated. BOP guidance stated that certain essential duties,
such as telephone monitoring, still needed to be accomplished despite
the absence of a dedicated post. BOP guidance also required the
facility captain to ensure that all other reasonable options had been
exhausted before authorizing overtime to fill mission critical posts.
However, BOP did not specify what such options were. Further, BOP's
Correctional Services Procedures Manual, which provides guidance on
assigning correctional services staff, was last updated in October
2003, before the implementation of the mission critical post initiative
and, therefore, does not provide further guidance on when it is
appropriate to (1) use non-correctional services staff or (2) leave a
mission critical post unassigned rather than pay overtime.
A memorandum from the Assistant Director of Correctional Programs
designated a 6-month evaluation period for the mission critical post
initiative and described how BOP was to gather information from the
facilities and how it was to evaluate the implementation of the
initiative:
"In order to monitor this process over the next 6 months, each Captain
will be required to submit a weekly recapitulation to their (sic)
respective Regional Correctional Services Administrator identifying
their (sic) daily activity regarding local roster management. At
minimum, the weekly recapitulation must consist of the amount of
overtime used, number of posts filled by shift, the number of staff on
day off, annual leave, sick leave, holiday, and training. The weekly
recapitulation must be sent to the respective Regional Correctional
Services Administrator by the close of business on Monday of the
following week. At the end of the six-month period, the roster
recapitulation results by institution will be analyzed regarding the
amount of overtime used in regards to each institution's Custody
staffing pattern and mission."
According to BOP officials, BOP never conducted the analysis described
in the memorandum and has not conducted any evaluation of the mission
critical post initiative. BOP officials could not explain why the
evaluation was not conducted. Such an evaluation would have been
consistent with both the Standards for Internal Control in the Federal
Government, which provide that federal agencies are to employ internal
control activities, such as top-level review, to help ensure that
management's directives are carried out and resources are effectively
and efficiently used, and BOP's Management Control and Program Review
Manual, which lays out the basic components of its system of management
controls, which include assessing program performance regularly.
BOP Management Generally Does Not Review Temporary Assignments:
BOP's management generally does not review temporary assignments. For
example, BOP's central office does not review temporary assignments,
including the extent to which facilities leave mission critical posts
unassigned or rely on overtime or non-correctional services staff to
fill temporary assignments. Central office reviews, which are conducted
by BOP's Program Review Division, generally every 3 years, are limited
to reviewing a sample of daily rosters to ensure that the rosters are
signed and properly maintained and do not include a review of temporary
assignments. At the regional level, reviews of temporary assignments
are generally limited to overtime usage and do not include reviews on
the extent to which mission critical posts were left unassigned and the
reliance on non-correctional services staff. While facilities in all
six regions are to submit overtime reports to their regional offices
for review, according to BOP written responses, these reports are not
provided in a consistent manner throughout the agency and are used
differently by each region. At the facility level, reviews of temporary
assignments are mostly limited to the day-to-day reviews of the daily
rosters generally to verify accuracy.[Footnote 17] In addition,
officials from one of the seven facilities reported tracking mission
critical posts left unassigned on daily rosters, and the warden at that
facility said that he randomly reviews daily rosters on a weekly basis.
Without reviewing unassigned mission critical posts, facilities cannot
determine whether leaving mission critical posts unassigned has an
effect on facilities' safety and security.
Because of limitations with BOP's computerized roster management
system, the only way currently for BOP to assess how it is temporarily
assigning staff would be for BOP officials to manually review daily
rosters. The system does not produce summary data on temporary
assignments and does not produce reliable historical data on non-
correctional services positions. While the system contains data on
temporary assignments for individual days, it currently does not
produce summary data that would make it easier for BOP officials to
assess BOP's use of temporary assignments. For example, when a facility
leaves a mission critical post unassigned, it is designated on the
correctional services daily roster, but BOP's computerized system does
not produce summary data on the number of mission critical posts left
unassigned. To obtain summary data, a facility would have to count the
occurrences of unassigned posts from each daily roster for a given
period. In addition, although the system can produce limited data on
overtime and non-correctional services staff by individual days,
[Footnote 18] it does not produce summary data over time on the use of
overtime or non-correctional services staff or the purposes for which
overtime was paid or non-correctional services staff were used. In
March 2008, one region began manually reviewing individual daily
rosters submitted by its facilities.[Footnote 19] Officials in that
region said that two staff members currently spend about an hour a day
reviewing the rosters and that one staff member is spending about an
hour and a half reviewing the rosters on a weekly basis. Also according
to BOP officials responsible for the design and implementation of the
system, although it distinguishes between correctional services and non-
correctional services staff, if an employee moves from a correctional
services position to a non-correctional services position or vice
versa, the employee's department status would change for all rosters
that are stored on the system before the move. As a result, any
historical data on the use of non-correctional services staff is not
reliable, and only hard copy versions of daily rosters maintained at a
facility are an accurate record. Without summary data on the use of
overtime and non-correctional services staff and the purposes for which
overtime was paid or non-correctional services staff were used, BOP
cannot assess whether the policy changes it made involving temporary
assignments enabled BOP to achieve its goals of reducing its reliance
on overtime and non-correctional services staff. Also without summary
data on unassigned mission critical posts, BOP cannot assess the
effect, if any, of such posts on the safety and security of its
facilities. Further, without reliable data on the use of non-
correctional services positions, BOP cannot accurately assess the
extent to which it has reduced its reliance on non-correctional
services staff.
Manual Review of Temporary Assignments Shows That BOP Facilities Left
Mission Critical Posts Unassigned and Relied on Overtime and Non-
Correctional Services Staff to Varying Degrees:
Our review of BOP's management of temporary assignments included
determining how BOP temporarily assigned staff, specifically the extent
to which the facilities in our review left mission critical posts
unassigned and relied on overtime and non-correctional services staff
for temporary assignments. Because of the limitations with BOP's
computerized roster management system, we manually reviewed individual
daily rosters. For each of the facilities in our review, we analyzed a
stratified random sample of 60 correctional services daily rosters, 5
per month, for calendar year 2007. We counted for both mission critical
posts and special assignments the occurrences of (1) unassigned posts,
(2) non-correctional services staff paid regular time, (3) correctional
services staff paid overtime, (4) non-correctional services staff paid
overtime, and (5) compensatory time and statistically estimated the
average number and percentage of mission critical posts and special
assignments for each of these categories.[Footnote 20] We also counted
the total number of special assignments. We did not review daily
rosters completed before the implementation of the mission critical
post initiative and therefore do not know the impact of the initiative.
Appendix I provides detailed information on the methods we used for
conducting our analysis. Appendix III provides the results of our
analysis for each of the facilities in our review.
Our analysis showed that facilities in our review left mission critical
posts unassigned, with an estimated low of 3 percent of mission
critical posts per day on average at two facilities and an estimated
high of 12 percent per day on average at another facility. Facilities
differed in the occurrences of overtime to fill mission critical posts,
with estimated low of 1 percent per day on average and a estimated high
of 6 percent per day on average and for special assignments an
estimated low of 21 percent of special assignments per day on average
and an estimated high of 63 percent per day on average. Facilities
differed in the of use of non-correctional services staff to fill
mission critical posts, with an estimated low of 1 percent of mission
critical posts per day on average and an estimated high of 10 percent
per day on average and for special assignments an estimated low of 2
percent of special assignments per day on average and an estimated high
of 25 percent per day on average. It is unclear the extent to which
leaving mission critical posts unassigned, paying overtime, and using
non-correctional services staff may affect the safety and security of
BOP's operations.
Conclusions:
BOP does not have written policies and procedures for managing lateral
transfers. Without such policies and procedures, BOP cannot ensure that
staff at each of its 114 facilities in 6 regions across the United
States have similar processes available to them or are being
consistently treated when they request lateral transfers. While BOP
does have processes in place for managing temporary assignments, it has
not evaluated the effectiveness of its mission critical post initiative
nor systematically assessed temporary assignments. Without such
assessments, BOP is not employing internal control activities specified
in federal standards and BOP policy and, therefore, cannot determine
whether it is achieving the desired cost savings or determine the
effect, if any, of unassigned mission critical posts on the safety and
security of its facilities.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
We recommend that the Attorney General direct the Director of BOP to:
* develop and implement specific policies and procedures for
administering employee requests for lateral transfers, including the
collection of data on such requests and their outcomes and the
development of a system of oversight to ensure the consistent treatment
of BOP staff and:
* systematically assess temporary assignments to ensure that BOP is
meeting the objectives of the mission critical post initiative and
effectively and efficiently using resources.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
In a letter dated February 5, 2009 (see appendix IV), the Director of
BOP, on behalf of the Attorney General, agreed with our findings.
Regarding our first recommendation, the Director disagreed with the
recommended action that BOP develop and implement specific policies and
procedures for administering employee requests for lateral transfers
because BOP would have to devote time and personnel to developing
policies and procedures and maintaining such a program. In addition,
the Director stated that implementation of our recommendation would
elevate this process to a central office function rather than retain it
at the local level where staffing decisions are made. While developing,
implementing, and overseeing policies and procedures that we recommend
would require some resources, these actions would not necessarily
require centralizing either decisions on requests for lateral transfers
or the data collection on such requests and their outcomes. For
example, decisions on transfer requests could primarily remain at the
facility level; facilities would collect and retain data on all
requests and their disposition and facilities would then report these
data on lateral transfers to BOP. This would allow BOP to conduct
appropriate oversight to ensure that requests for lateral transfers are
handled consistently across facilities. The Director stated that
instead of implementing our recommendation, BOP plans to "encourage a
practice to have locations post a vacancy announcement on USAJobs
before filling local vacancies." Such a plan would fall short of the
intent of our recommendation of having specific policies and procedures
for facilities across BOP to administer employee requests for lateral
transfers, including the collection of data on such requests and their
outcomes and the development of a system of oversight to ensure
consistent treatment of staff. We continue to believe that without such
written policies and procedures covering lateral transfers, BOP cannot
readily monitor how such transfers are being managed across BOP or
ensure that staff are being consistently treated when requesting such
transfers.
Regarding our second recommendation, the Director stated that BOP will
conduct a systematic assessment of the use of correctional services
mission critical posts at its field locations from January 1 through
December 31, 2009. Further, the assessment will include the issue of
vacating posts. After the initial assessment, BOP's Correctional
Services Program Review Guidelines will be modified as appropriate
based on BOP's findings, and BOP plans to conduct regularly scheduled
reviews of institutions to determine whether it is meeting its mission
critical post initiative and effectively and efficiently using
resources.
We will send copies of this report to the Attorney General and other
interested parties. Copies will be made available to others upon
request. This report will also be available at no charge on GAO's Web
site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you have questions about this report, please contact me on (202) 512-
9490 or at stalcupg@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last
page of this report. Staff who made major contributions are listed in
appendix V.
Signed by:
George H. Stalcup:
Director, Strategic Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Our objectives were to identify whether BOP had policies and procedures
and how it assessed the management of those policies and procedures for
(1) permanent reassignments of BOP employees between correctional
facilities and (2) temporary assignments of BOP employees within a
correctional facility. For purposes of this report, permanent
reassignments, referred to as lateral transfers by BOP, are employee-
requested transfers to other BOP facilities that do not involve a
promotion or demotion. Temporary assignments are day-to-day changes in
correctional services assignments at BOP facilities made for a variety
of reasons including (1) to fill in for staff regularly assigned to
correctional services posts who are absent because of illnesses or
other reasons, such as training, or (2) for special assignments (i.e.,
to meet needs that arise in a facility and are not regularly assigned
posts).[Footnote 21]
As part of our review, we selected seven facilities, which included
five separately located facilities and two federal correctional
complexes (FCC).[Footnote 22] We selected facilities based on the
number of staff, as reported in BOP's 2006 State of the Bureau, with at
least one facility from within each of BOP's six regions, and included
low-and medium-security federal correctional institutions (FCI) and
high-security United States Penitentiaries (USP). Because of their
specialized missions, we excluded administrative facilities, such as
Federal Detention Centers, Federal Medical Centers, and the
Administrative-Maximum USP. To select the FCCs, we included an
additional criterion, whether the FCC used separate rosters to assign
staff at each of the facilities in the complex or one consolidated
roster to assign staff throughout the complex. Based on information
provided by BOP, we selected the FCC with the highest number of staff
that uses a consolidated roster, FCC Terre Haute (consisting of two
facilities, a high-security and a medium-security) in the North Central
Region, and the FCC with the highest number of staff that uses separate
rosters, FCC Coleman (consisting of four facilities--two high-security,
one medium-security, and one low-security) in the Southeast Region. For
the remaining regions, we selected the facility in each region with the
highest number of staff. In the Mid-Atlantic region, we selected the
two facilities with the highest number of staff, one at which to
conduct a site visit. We selected low-security FCI Fort Dix in the
Northeast Region, medium-security FCI Sheridan in the Western Region,
and the following high-security USPs: Hazelton and Lee in the Mid-
Atlantic Region and Pollock in the South Central Region. We conducted a
site visit to USP Hazelton and interviewed officials at the other
facilities by video conference.
Objective 1: Lateral Transfers of BOP Employees among Correctional
Facilities:
To identify whether BOP had policies and procedures on lateral
transfers and how it assessed the management of such policies, we
requested documentation on such policies and procedures. We also
interviewed officials from BOP's Human Resources and Program Review
divisions, each of its regional offices, its Consolidated Employee
Service Center in Grand Prairie, Tex., and the seven facilities in our
review. We interviewed representatives of the American Federation of
Government Employees Council of Prison Locals (AFGE) and reviewed
AFGE's Master Agreement with BOP. To obtain information about the use
of written policies, procedures, and oversight of lateral transfers in
the federal government, we interviewed an official from the Office of
Personnel Management's Strategic Human Resources Policy Division. We
also requested and reviewed documentation on the extent to which four
other Department of Justice law enforcement components--Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; Drug Enforcement
Administration; Federal Bureau of Investigation; and United States
Marshals Service--had written policies and procedures in place for such
reassignments.
To identify the number of BOP employees who were permanently reassigned
for fiscal years 2004 through 2007, we requested and obtained National
Finance Center (NFC) data from BOP on the number of permanent
reassignments.[Footnote 23] These data included those successfully
reassigned through all types of permanent reassignments, including
lateral transfers, agency-initiated reassignments, application for an
announced vacancy, BOP's Management Selection System, and the Open
Continuous Announcement System, but BOP could not separate the data by
type of reassignment. We compared the NFC data with data on permanent
reassignments generated by the Office of Personnel Management's Central
Personnel Data File. The discrepancies were small enough for us to
determine that the NFC data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes
of this report.
Objective 2: Temporary Assignments of BOP Employees within Correctional
Facilities:
To identify whether BOP had policies and procedures and how it assessed
the management of its policies and procedures for temporary assignments
of BOP employees within correctional facilities, we reviewed BOP
program statements and other guidance related to temporary assignments.
We interviewed the relevant officials at BOP's central and regional
offices, and at each of the selected facilities. We also interviewed
representatives of AFGE and reviewed AFGE's Master Agreement with BOP.
To determine how the facilities in our review used temporary
assignments, we analyzed correctional services daily rosters provided
by BOP for each of the facilities included in our review. BOP
facilities maintain daily rosters in two ways: (1) in its computerized
roster management system, which can be accessed at a later date and (2)
as hard copies stored at each facility. We analyzed hard-copy
correctional services daily rosters from facilities in our review
because BOP's computerized roster management system does not produce
historically accurate data on the department status of correctional
services and non-correctional services staff that are sufficiently
reliable for purposes of this report. According to BOP officials
responsible for the design and implementation of BOP's computerized
system, although the system distinguishes between correctional services
and non-correctional services staff, if an employee moves from a
correctional services position to a non-correctional services position
or vice versa, the employee's department status would change for all
rosters that are stored in the system before the move.
To determine the reliability of the hard-copy daily rosters, we
reviewed training and other technical documentation associated with the
computerized roster management system used at BOP facilities and BOP's
policies and procedures for ensuring the accuracy of the data. We
interviewed BOP's Correctional Services Administrator; BOP officials
responsible for designing, maintaining, and updating the computerized
roster management system and for organizing system training at the
facilities; and BOP officials from each of the seven facilities in our
review knowledgeable about entering data and generating daily rosters.
We determined that the data contained in the official hard-copy
correctional services daily rosters were sufficiently reliable for the
purposes of this report. BOP considers the hard-copy daily rosters the
official record of staffing in correctional services, including the use
of overtime and the use of non-correctional services staff. According
to facility officials we interviewed, the evening watch lieutenant and
captain review and sign each day's hard-copy roster for accuracy,
typically within the 24 to 48 hours following the end of the last shift
of the day. That roster then becomes the final version. BOP requires
the signed hard-copy daily rosters to be stored at the facility for 10
years.[Footnote 24]
We did not evaluate the accuracy of information on the individual daily
rosters. We excluded those hard-copy daily rosters that were printed
more than 30 days after the date of the daily roster because we
determined that the designations on non-correctional services staff
were not sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.
[Footnote 25] We also excluded from our analysis incomplete daily
rosters (i.e., those that were sent to us with missing pages) and
rosters that we did not receive.[Footnote 26]
Analysis of Daily Rosters:
To analyze the correctional services daily rosters from each of the
facilities in our review, we selected a stratified random sample of 60
hard-copy daily rosters, 5 per month, from the universe of 365 daily
rosters per facility for calendar year 2007. We did not look at daily
rosters completed before the implementation of the mission critical
initiative and therefore do not know the impact of the initiative. For
FCC Coleman, which uses separate daily rosters to assign staff at each
of its four facilities, we reviewed the separate rosters from each
facility for the 60 days. For FCC Terre Haute, which uses a
consolidated roster to assign staff throughout the complex, we reviewed
the consolidated daily roster for the 60 days. In total, we reviewed
600 daily rosters. With this stratified random sample, each roster in
the universe had a chance of being selected. Each selected roster was
subsequently weighted in the analysis to account statistically for all
the members of the universe, including those who were not selected.
For each day selected in the sample, on the daily roster we manually
counted for both mission critical posts and special assignments
occurrences of (1) unassigned posts, (2) non-correctional services
staff paid regular time, (3) correctional services staff paid overtime,
(4) non-correctional services staff paid overtime, and (5) compensatory
time. In addition, we counted the total number of special assignments
assigned per day at each facility in our review. Based on these
results, we estimated the average daily number and percentage of
mission critical posts and special assignments that were unassigned,
filled with non-correctional services staff, or filled with overtime
using either correctional services staff or non-correctional services
staff. These results are limited to the facilities in our review for
calendar year 2007 and are not intended to be applied to facilities
across BOP.
For the overtime results, we based the average daily count on the
number of overtime occurrences rather than number of overtime hours.
The total number of overtime occurrences per day was determined by
adding the daily count of occurrences of correctional services staff
paid overtime and non-correctional services staff paid overtime.
Because of resource constraints, we did not count the total number of
mission critical posts listed on each of the 600 daily rosters. This
would have provided the actual total number of mission critical posts
for each day. Instead, we calculated daily percentages based on the
maximum number of posts possible per day in the facility, which ranged
from 70 mission critical posts at low-security FCI Coleman to 232
mission critical posts at FCC Terre Haute.[Footnote 27] BOP facilities
determine the number of days needed for each post, and posts are
designated as consisting of between 1 to 7 day shifts per week. For
example, a visiting-room post was identified as a 2-day shift per week
at one facility in our review. We assumed for each day in our sample
that each mission critical post would be listed on the daily roster--
that is, the visiting room would be staffed on each day of our sample.
Because it is likely that not every post would be included on the daily
roster on each of the days in our sample and that the actual number of
posts listed on the roster would be less than the maximum number of
posts possible in a day at that facility, our methodology potentially
underestimates the results.
Because we followed a procedure based on random selection, each of our
samples is only one of a large number of samples that we might have
drawn. Since each possible sample could have provided different
estimates, we express our confidence in the precision of our particular
sample's results as a 95 percent confidence interval. This is the
interval that would contain the actual value for 95 percent of the
samples we could have drawn from the universe. For mission critical
posts, each estimate from these samples has a margin of error at the 95
percent confidence level, of plus or minus 2 percent or less for
average daily percentage estimates or plus or minus 4 posts or less for
average daily post estimates. For special assignments, each estimate
from these samples has a margin of error, at the 95 percent confidence
level, of plus or minus 6 percent or less for average daily percentage
estimates or plus or minus 3 special assignments or less for average
daily special assignments estimates.
We conducted this performance audit from August 2007 to January 2009 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II: BOP's Correctional Services Roster Assignment and
Temporary Assignment Process:
This appendix describes how BOP assigns staff to correctional services
mission critical posts and makes temporary assignments to these posts
and special assignments.
Assignments to Mission Critical Posts:
BOP correctional services staff are assigned to or selected for two
types of mission critical posts, rotating and non-rotating. Most posts
in a facility are rotating posts and are assigned on a quarterly basis
in accordance with the bidding procedures contained in the Master
Agreement between BOP and AFGE. The outcome of the bid process
represents the correctional services assignments for that specific
quarter. These include such posts as the control room, where staff can
monitor all facility activity and control entrances and exits, and
housing units, which include inmate sleeping spaces and a common area.
Staff may also bid on what are called "sick and annual" posts. Staff
who hold sick and annual posts serve as a designated group of officers
used for a variety of reasons, including filling in for staff on leave,
in training, or for special assignments. Non-rotating posts are not
open to quarterly bidding, and staff are assigned or selected on a
permanent basis. These include such posts as captain's secretary,
captain, and special investigative agent. Assignments to mission
critical post (rotating and non-rotating) are reflected on each
facility's quarterly roster that is prepared and stored in each
facility's computerized roster management system.[Footnote 28] The
quarterly roster reflects all staff assigned to posts for the quarter
and serves as the basis for all daily rosters for that quarter and is
generated from each facility's computerized system.
Temporary Assignments to Mission Critical Posts and Special
Assignments:
Approximately 2 weeks before a particular date, the designated
administrative lieutenant at each facility generates the daily roster
from the computerized system. Subsequently, designated supervisory
staff, typically other lieutenants, enter temporary assignments
directly into the computerized system to reflect correctional services
staff requests for leave and special assignments. In staffing temporary
assignments, lieutenants are to consider the number of staff needed and
the specialized experience, training, or certification required for
some posts and special assignments and the qualifications of available
staff. For example, in cases of medical escort special assignments, BOP
policy requires a 3-to-1 staff-to-inmate ratio for maximum custody
inmates, but only a 2-to-1 ratio for high-and medium-custody inmates.
To escort an inmate to an outside medical facility, the staff assigned
must have completed basic prisoner transport training and be
recertified annually. Names of staff who are current on this
certification and certifications required for other posts or special
assignments are contained on lists available to the assigning
lieutenant and are available under the staff member's name in the
computerized system. In addition, officials from some facilities and
regional offices told us that staff assigned to some posts, while not
requiring a formal certification, should have a certain level of
knowledge or experience. For example, in the control room, officials
told us that it is important to have someone with knowledge of the
facility to fill in for someone regularly assigned. Finally, officials
from two facilities said that certain non-rotating posts--those that
are not assigned on a quarterly basis--such as special investigative
agent, emergency planning officers, captain's secretary, captain, and
deputy captain could go temporarily unassigned, and officials from one
of these facilities said staff assigned to some non-rotating posts are
used for temporary assignments to mission critical posts and special
assignments. Temporary assignments are made as necessary until the end
of the last shift of the day (i.e., midnight).
[End of section]
Appendix III: Analysis of Correctional Services Daily Rosters at
Selected BOP Facilities:
This appendix describes the results of our analysis of correctional
services daily rosters of how each of the facilities in our review used
temporary assignments to mission critical posts and special assignments
for calendar year 2007. For a more detailed description of the methods
we used to conduct our analysis, see appendix I.
Mission Critical Posts:
Our analysis showed that during calendar year 2007 facilities in our
review left mission critical posts unassigned ranging from an estimated
low of 3 percent per day on average at FCI Sheridan and FCI Coleman
Medium to an estimated high of 12 percent per day on average at USP
Coleman II. Figure 3 shows the 2007 estimated average daily percentage
of unassigned mission critical posts for each of the facilities we
reviewed. We did not analyze which specific posts went unassigned
(e.g., rotating or non-rotating posts or posts by name).
Figure 3: Estimated Average Daily Percentage of Unassigned Mission
Critical Posts at Selected BOP Facilities, 2007:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is vertical bar graph depicting the following data:
BOP Facility: FCI Ft. Dix;
Estimated Average Daily Percentage of Unassigned Mission Critical
Posts: 7%.
BOP Facility: FCI Sheridan;
Estimated Average Daily Percentage of Unassigned Mission Critical
Posts: 3%.
BOP Facility: USP Hazelton;
Estimated Average Daily Percentage of Unassigned Mission Critical
Posts: 6%.
BOP Facility: USP Lee;
Estimated Average Daily Percentage of Unassigned Mission Critical
Posts: 4%.
BOP Facility: USP Pollock;
Estimated Average Daily Percentage of Unassigned Mission Critical
Posts: 4%.
BOP Facility: FCI Coleman low;
Estimated Average Daily Percentage of Unassigned Mission Critical
Posts: 4%.
BOP Facility: FCI Coleman medium;
Estimated Average Daily Percentage of Unassigned Mission Critical
Posts: 3%.
BOP Facility: USP Coleman I;
Estimated Average Daily Percentage of Unassigned Mission Critical
Posts: 6%.
BOP Facility: USP Coleman II;
Estimated Average Daily Percentage of Unassigned Mission Critical
Posts: 12%.
BOP Facility: FCC Terre Haute;
Estimated Average Daily Percentage of Unassigned Mission Critical
Posts: 4%.
Source: GAO analysis of BOP correctional services daily rosters.
Note: All estimates have a margin of error, at the 95 percent
confidence level, of plus or minus 2 percent or less for average daily
percentage estimates.
[End of figure]
Facilities paid overtime to fill, on average, an estimated low of 1
percent per day of mission critical posts at USP Lee and a high of 6
percent per day of mission critical posts at FCI Coleman Low, FCI
Coleman Medium, and USP Coleman II, as figure 4 shows.
Figure 4: Estimated Average Daily Percentage of Mission Critical Posts
Filled with Overtime at Selected BOP Facilities, 2007:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is vertical bar graph depicting the following data:
BOP Facility: FCI Ft. Dix;
Estimated Average Daily Percentage of Mission Critical Posts Filled
with Overtime: 4%.
BOP Facility: FCI Sheridan;
Estimated Average Daily Percentage of Mission Critical Posts Filled
with Overtime: 2%.
BOP Facility: USP Hazelton;
Estimated Average Daily Percentage of Mission Critical Posts Filled
with Overtime: 5%.
BOP Facility: USP Lee;
Estimated Average Daily Percentage of Mission Critical Posts Filled
with Overtime: 1%.
BOP Facility: USP Pollock;
Estimated Average Daily Percentage of Mission Critical Posts Filled
with Overtime: 2%.
BOP Facility: FCI Coleman low;
Estimated Average Daily Percentage of Mission Critical Posts Filled
with Overtime: 6%.
BOP Facility: FCI Coleman medium;
Estimated Average Daily Percentage of Mission Critical Posts Filled
with Overtime: 6%.
BOP Facility: USP Coleman I;
Estimated Average Daily Percentage of Mission Critical Posts Filled
with Overtime: 5%.
BOP Facility: USP Coleman II;
Estimated Average Daily Percentage of Mission Critical Posts Filled
with Overtime: 6%.
BOP Facility: FCC Terre Haute;
Estimated Average Daily Percentage of Mission Critical Posts Filled
with Overtime: 2%.
Source: GAO analysis of BOP correctional services daily rosters.
Notes: Averages are based on the number of overtime occurrences rather
than number of overtime hours. The total number of overtime occurrences
per day was determined by summing the daily count of occurrences of
correctional staff paid overtime and non-correctional services staff
paid overtime.
All estimates have a margin of error, at the 95 percent confidence
level, of plus or minus 2 percent or less for average daily percentage
estimates.
[End of figure]
Facilities used non-correctional services staff to fill, on average, an
estimated low of 1 percent per day of mission critical posts at FCI
Sheridan, USP Hazelton, USP Lee, USP Pollock, and FCC Terre Haute and a
high of 10 percent per day of mission critical posts at FCI Coleman
Medium, as figure 5 shows.
Figure 5: Estimated Average Daily Percentage of Mission Critical Posts
Filled with Non-Correctional Services Staff at Selected BOP Facilities,
2007:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is vertical bar graph depicting the following data:
BOP Facility: FCI Ft. Dix;
Estimated Average Daily Percentage of Mission Critical Posts Filled
with Non-Correctional Services Staff: 4%.
BOP Facility: FCI Sheridan;
Estimated Average Daily Percentage of Mission Critical Posts Filled
with Non-Correctional Services Staff: 1%.
BOP Facility: USP Hazelton;
Estimated Average Daily Percentage of Mission Critical Posts Filled
with Non-Correctional Services Staff: 1%.
BOP Facility: USP Lee;
Estimated Average Daily Percentage of Mission Critical Posts Filled
with Non-Correctional Services Staff: 1%.
BOP Facility: USP Pollock;
Estimated Average Daily Percentage of Mission Critical Posts Filled
with Non-Correctional Services Staff: 1%.
BOP Facility: FCI Coleman low;
Estimated Average Daily Percentage of Mission Critical Posts Filled
with Non-Correctional Services Staff: 8%.
BOP Facility: FCI Coleman medium;
Estimated Average Daily Percentage of Mission Critical Posts Filled
with Non-Correctional Services Staff: 10%.
BOP Facility: USP Coleman I;
Estimated Average Daily Percentage of Mission Critical Posts Filled
with Non-Correctional Services Staff: 7%.
BOP Facility: USP Coleman II;
Estimated Average Daily Percentage of Mission Critical Posts Filled
with Non-Correctional Services Staff: 7%.
BOP Facility: FCC Terre Haute;
Estimated Average Daily Percentage of Mission Critical Posts Filled
with Non-Correctional Services Staff: 1%.
Source: GAO analysis of BOP correctional services daily rosters.
Notes: Averages are based on the number of occurrences of non-
correctional services staff used rather than number of hours worked.
The total number of non-correctional services staff occurrences per day
was determined by summing the daily count of occurrences of non-
correctional services staff paid regular time and non-correctional
services staff paid overtime.
All estimates have a margin of error, at the 95 percent confidence
level, of plus or minus 2 percent or less for average daily percentage
estimates.
[End of figure]
An official from one facility said he tries not to use non-correctional
services staff for temporary assignments because they have their own
assignments to complete and being reassigned to a post would disrupt
that work. Officials from six of the facilities told us that they
regularly use non-correctional services staff for temporary assignments
during annual refresher training, a 1-week course that occurs several
times a year at each facility and is required for all facility staff.
Special Assignments:
The estimated average number of special assignments per day ranged from
10 at FCI Coleman low and medium to 47 at FCC Terre Haute (one high-
security and one low-security), as table 1 shows.
Table 1: Estimated Average Daily Number of Special Assignments and
Number Unassigned for Selected BOP Facilities, 2007:
Institution: FCI Ft. Dix;
Average number of special assignments: 16;
Average number of unassigned special assignments: 0.
Institution: FCI Sheridan;
Average number of special assignments: 16;
Average number of unassigned special assignments: 1.
Institution: USP Hazelton;
Average number of special assignments: 25;
Average number of unassigned special assignments: 1.
Institution: USP Lee;
Average number of special assignments: 22;
Average number of unassigned special assignments: 8.
Institution: USP Pollock;
Average number of special assignments: 16;
Average number of unassigned special assignments: 1.
Institution: FCI Coleman Low;
Average number of special assignments: 10;
Average number of unassigned special assignments: 0.
Institution: FCI Coleman Medium;
Average number of special assignments: 10;
Average number of unassigned special assignments: 0.
Institution: USP Coleman I;
Average number of special assignments: 18;
Average number of unassigned special assignments: 1.
Institution: USP Coleman II;
Average number of special assignments: 20;
Average number of unassigned special assignments: 0.
Institution: FCC Terre Haute;
Average number of special assignments: 47;
Average number of unassigned special assignments: 1.
Source: GAO analysis of BOP correctional services daily rosters.
Note: All estimates have a margin of error of plus or minus 3
assignments or less for the average number of special assignments
estimates and plus or minus 6 percent or less for the average
percentage estimates or less at the 95 percent confidence level.
[End of table]
On average, the facilities in our review filled nearly all special
assignments, with the exception of USP Lee, which left an estimated 8
of 22, or 37 percent, of special assignments unassigned per day.
The facilities in our review paid overtime to fill, on average, an
estimated low of 21 percent of special assignments per day at USP Lee
and a high of 63 percent at FCC Terre Haute, as figure 6 below shows.
Figure 6: Estimated Average Daily Percentage of Special Assignments
Filled with Overtime at Selected BOP Facilities, 2007:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is vertical bar graph depicting the following data:
BOP Facility: FCI Ft. Dix;
Estimated Average Daily Percentage of Special Assignments Filled with
Overtime: 31%.
BOP Facility: FCI Sheridan;
Estimated Average Daily Percentage of Special Assignments Filled with
Overtime: 38%.
BOP Facility: USP Hazelton;
Estimated Average Daily Percentage of Special Assignments Filled with
Overtime: 48%.
BOP Facility: USP Lee;
Estimated Average Daily Percentage of Special Assignments Filled with
Overtime: 21%.
BOP Facility: USP Pollock;
Estimated Average Daily Percentage of Special Assignments Filled with
Overtime: 29%.
BOP Facility: FCI Coleman low;
Estimated Average Daily Percentage of Special Assignments Filled with
Overtime: 37%.
BOP Facility: FCI Coleman medium;
Estimated Average Daily Percentage of Special Assignments Filled with
Overtime: 37%.
BOP Facility: USP Coleman I;
Estimated Average Daily Percentage of Special Assignments Filled with
Overtime: 40%.
BOP Facility: USP Coleman II;
Estimated Average Daily Percentage of Special Assignments Filled with
Overtime: 44%.
BOP Facility: FCC Terre Haute;
Estimated Average Daily Percentage of Special Assignments Filled with
Overtime: 63%.
Source: GAO analysis of BOP correctional services daily rosters.
Notes: Averages are based on the number of overtime occurrences rather
than number of overtime hours worked. The total number of special
assignment overtime occurrences per day was determined by summing the
daily count of occurrences of correctional services staff paid overtime
and non-correctional services staff paid overtime.
All estimates have a margin of error of plus or minus 6 percent or less
for the average percentage estimates or less at the 95 percent
confidence level.
[End of figure]
The facilities in our review used non-correctional services staff to
fill, on average, an estimated low of 2 percent of special assignments
per day at FCI Sheridan and FCC Terre Haute and a high of 25 percent
per day at FCI Ft. Dix, as figure 7 shows.
Figure 7: Estimated Average Daily Percentage of Special Assignments
Filled with Non-Correctional Services Staff at Selected BOP Facilities,
2007:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is vertical bar graph depicting the following data:
BOP Facility: FCI Ft. Dix;
Estimated Average Daily Percentage of Special Assignments Filled with
Non-Correctional Services Staff: 25%.
BOP Facility: FCI Sheridan;
Estimated Average Daily Percentage of Special Assignments Filled with
Non-Correctional Services Staff: 2%.
BOP Facility: USP Hazelton;
Estimated Average Daily Percentage of Special Assignments Filled with
Non-Correctional Services Staff: 6%.
BOP Facility: USP Lee;
Estimated Average Daily Percentage of Special Assignments Filled with
Non-Correctional Services Staff: 3%.
BOP Facility: USP Pollock;
Estimated Average Daily Percentage of Special Assignments Filled with
Non-Correctional Services Staff: 6%.
BOP Facility: FCI Coleman low;
Estimated Average Daily Percentage of Special Assignments Filled with
Non-Correctional Services Staff: 18%.
BOP Facility: FCI Coleman medium;
Estimated Average Daily Percentage of Special Assignments Filled with
Non-Correctional Services Staff: 20%.
BOP Facility: USP Coleman I;
Estimated Average Daily Percentage of Special Assignments Filled with
Non-Correctional Services Staff: 12%.
BOP Facility: USP Coleman II;
Estimated Average Daily Percentage of Special Assignments Filled with
Non-Correctional Services Staff: 10%.
BOP Facility: FCC Terre Haute;
Estimated Average Daily Percentage of Special Assignments Filled with
Non-Correctional Services Staff: 2%.
Source: GAO analysis of BOP correctional services daily rosters.
Notes: Percentages are based on the number of occurrences of non-
correctional services staff used rather than number of hours worked.
The total number of non-correctional services staff used per day was
determined by summing the daily count of occurrences of non-
correctional services paid regular time overtime and non-correctional
services staff paid overtime.
All estimates have a margin of error of plus or minus 6 percent or less
for the average percentage estimates or less at the 95 percent
confidence level.
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the U.S. Department of Justice:
U.S. Department of Justice:
Federal Bureau of Prisons:
Office of the Director:
Washington, DC 20534:
February 5, 2009:
George H. Stalcup, Director:
Strategic Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Stalcup:
The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) appreciates the opportunity to formally
respond to the Government Accountability Office's draft report entitled
Bureau of Prisons: Written Policies on Lateral Transfers and Assessment
of Temporary Assignments Needed. We have completed our review of the
information reflected in the report and offer the following comments.
Recommendation 1: To the Attorney General to direct the Director of BOP
to develop and implement specific policies and procedures for
administering employee requests for lateral transfers, including the
collection of data on such requests and their outcomes and the
development of a system of oversight to ensure the consistent treatment
of BOP staff.
Response: While the Bureau agrees with the accuracy of the findings
which indicate there are no written policies on this issue, we
respectfully disagree with the recommended action to be taken by our
agency.
The recommendation was made to develop and implement specific policies
and procedures for administering employee requests for lateral
transfers, including the collection of data on such requests and their
outcomes and the development of a system of oversight to ensure the
consistent treatment of Bureau staff. By doing so, the Bureau would
need to devote time and personnel to developing the policies and
procedures, as well as commit resources to maintain such a program.
Additionally, this would elevate the process to a Central Office
function, rather than retain it at the local level with the CEO of the
location, where the staffing decisions are made. As noted in the
report, our current practice does not violate any staffing regulations.
Therefore, we do not feel it is necessary or a good use of resources to
initiate a national program to minimize possible risk of complaints of
favoritism. However, to address GAO's concerns, the Bureau will
encourage a practice to have locations post a vacancy announcement on
USAJOBS before filling local vacancies. This will afford interested,
qualified individuals an opportunity to apply. This modification to our
current practice meets the needs of our staff while ensuring oversight
and consistent treatment, consequently, the Bureau requests this
recommendation be closed.
Recommendation 2: To the Attorney General to direct the Director of BOP
to systematically assess temporary assignments to ensure that BOP is
meeting the objectives of the mission critical post initiative and
effectively and efficiently using resources.
Response: The Bureau will conduct a systematic assessment of
Correctional Services "mission critical post" use at its field
locations. Utilization of resources (staffing, overtime, etc.) and the
issue of vacating posts will be examined. This assessment will commence
immediately and cover the one-year period from January 1 through
December 31, 2009. After this initial assessment, Correctional Services
Program Review Guidelines will be modified as appropriate based on the
findings. Subsequent, regularly-scheduled reviews of institutions will
continuously address whether the Bureau is meeting its mission critical
post initiative and effectively and efficiently using resources. The
initial assessment and subsequent program reviews will address GAO's
recommendation, so the Bureau requests this recommendation be closed.
If you have any questions regarding this response, please contact
VaNessa P. Adams, Senior Deputy Assistant Director, Program Review
Division, at (202) 616-2099.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Harley G. Lappin:
Director:
cc: Richard Theis, Assistant Director:
Audit Liaison Group, JMD:
[End of section]
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
George H. Stalcup on (202) 512-9490 or at stalcupg@gao.gov:
Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individual named above, Kiki Theodoropoulos,
Assistant Director; James Ashley; Dewi Djunaidy; Karin Fangman; Tamara
F. Stenzel; and Gregory H. Wilmoth made key contributions to this
report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] The remaining approximately 36,000 inmates are confined through
agreements with state and local governments or through contracts with
privately-operated residential re-entry centers, detention centers,
prisons, and juvenile facilities.
[2] BOP stated in a written response that employees may also be
permanently reassigned through (1) agency-initiated reassignments,
generally of management staff; (2) application for an announced
vacancy; (3) the Management Selection System for wardens and associate
wardens; and (4) the Open Continuous Announcement System for
supervisory correctional officers. We did not review BOP's policies and
procedures and BOP's assessment of the management of its policies and
procedures on these other types of permanent reassignments.
[3] A post is the location or assignment that is worked by staff.
Temporary assignments are reflected on BOP facilities' correctional
services daily rosters, which identify all individuals assigned to
correctional services for the day and are generated using BOP's
correctional services computerized roster management system. BOP
considers the correctional services daily roster the official record of
all staff assignments to the correctional services department. See
appendix II for additional information on the correctional services
daily rosters.
[4] FCCs have two or more facilities colocated on a property that is
contiguous. For purposes of this report we refer to both the FCCs and
separate facilities as "facilities."
[5] GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1]
(Washington, D.C.: November 1999).
[6] Some positions require certification or additional training. For
example, the security officer position requires specific training
courses in the repair and maintenance of BOP weapons and
recertification every 2 to 3 years.
[7] The labor-management relations chapter of title 5 of the U.S. Code
permits BOP management to take whatever action is necessary to carry
out the agency mission during emergencies. See 5 U.S.C. §
7106(a)(2)(D).
[8] GAO, Equal Employment Opportunity SSA Region X's Changes to Its EEO
Process Illustrate Need for Agencywide Procedures, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-604] (Washington, D.C.: July 16,
2003).
[9] GAO, Equal Employment Opportunity SSA Region X's Changes to Its EEO
Process Illustrate Need for Agencywide Procedures, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-604] (Washington, D.C.: July 16,
2003).
[10] EEOC's Management Directive 715 provides guidance and standards to
federal agencies for establishing and maintaining effective equal
employment opportunity programs, including a framework for executive
branch agencies to help ensure effective management, accountability,
and self-analysis.
[11] We did not evaluate the policies and procedures of the other
Justice law-enforcement components.
[12] The centralized system is used regardless of whether or not there
is an announced vacancy.
[13] GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1]
(Washington, D.C.: November 1999). We used the criteria in these
standards, issued pursuant to the requirements of the Federal Managers'
Financial Integrity Act of 1982 (FMFIA), to provide the overall
framework for establishing and maintaining internal control in the
federal government. Pub. L. No. 97-255, 96 Stat. 814. Also pursuant to
FMFIA, the Office of Management and Budget issued Circular No. A-123,
revised December 21, 2004, to provide the specific requirements for
assessing and reporting on internal controls. Internal control
standards and the definition of internal control in Circular No. A-123
are based on the aforementioned GAO standards.
[14] The labor-management relations chapter of title 5 of the U.S. Code
sets forth management's right to assign work and to determine the
personnel by which operations shall be conducted. 5 U.S.C. §
7106(a)(2)(B).
[15] Staff assigned to the sick and annual list serve as a designated
group of officers used for a variety of reasons including to fill in
for staff on leave, in training, or for special assignments. The number
of staff on the sick and annual list varies by facility.
[16] BOP's computerized roster management system is a stand-alone
Microsoft Access-based program used by each facility and contains
information on all correctional services and non-correctional services
staff who have previously been assigned a correctional services post or
special assignment.
[17] Some of the BOP captains we interviewed said they also reviewed
roster summaries for overtime use and excused and unexcused absences.
Officials from two of the facilities in our review said that their
associate wardens review roster summaries including for the number of
employees on leave and in training.
[18] BOP's computerized system can generate an overtime report that
includes for each day, the name of each staff member who worked
overtime, the name of the post or type of special assignment, the hours
worked by the staff member, and if the staff member was regularly
assigned to a non-correctional services department. For non-
correctional services staff, the summary on the last page of the daily
roster contains a total count of the occurrences of non-correctional
services staff used for mission critical posts and special assignments
combined.
[19] These officials said they are reviewing individual daily rosters
for overall staffing, including use of sick and annual staff,
correctional and non-correctional services staff, overtime, and special
assignments. The officials also said that they are trying to make sure
all staff (correctional services and non-correctional services) are
assigned before overtime is used.
[20] For mission critical posts, each estimate from these samples has a
margin of error, at the 95 percent confidence level, of plus or minus 2
percent or less for average daily percentage estimates or plus or minus
2 posts or less for average daily post estimates. For special
assignments, each estimate from these samples has a margin of error, at
the 95 percent confidence level, of plus or minus 6 percent or less for
average daily percentage estimates or plus or minus 3 special
assignments or less for average daily special assignment estimates.
[21] Temporary assignments are reflected on BOP facilities'
correctional services daily rosters, which identify all individuals
assigned to correctional services for the day and are generated using
BOP's correctional services computerized roster management system. BOP
considers the correctional services daily roster the official record of
all staff assignments to the correctional services department. See
appendix II for additional information on correctional services roster
assignments.
[22] FCCs have two or more facilities colocated on a property that is
contiguous. For purposes of this report we refer to both the FCCs and
separate facilities as "facilities."
[23] NFC operates an integrated payroll/personnel system and provides
related support services for the payroll process to various federal
agencies.
[24] Changes to leave categories can be made as needed after the daily
roster has been finalized. The daily roster would be updated in the
computerized roster management system and a new hard copy would be
generated, signed, and stored at the facility.
[25] One daily roster was excluded from our analysis because it was
printed over 30 days after the date of the daily roster.
[26] One roster from one facility and two rosters from another facility
were excluded from our analysis because the rosters were either missing
pages or were not provided to us.
[27] The maximum daily posts were obtained from each facility's
quarterly complement analysis which, according to BOP, is generated by
each facility's computerized roster management system and shows which
posts are to be staffed for the quarter as well as defining the
staffing required to fill the listed posts for each day in that
quarter.
[28] The computerized roster management system is a stand-alone
Microsoft Access-based program used by each facility and contains
information on all correctional and non-correctional services staff who
have previously been assigned a correctional services post or special
assignment. The information is entered into each facility's
computerized system at the facility level.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
