Federal Jail Bedspace

Cost Savings and Greater Accuracy Possible in the Capacity Expansion Plan Gao ID: GGD-92-141 September 24, 1992

The Bureau of Prisons should revise federal jail design standards, as it has already done for prisons, to allow double-bunking. The Bureau has successfully doubled-bunked detainees extensively for many years. GAO suggests that double-bunking 50 percent of bedspace in fiscal year 1996 could save as much as $61 million. The contract bedspace programs should be better planned and emphasized. Estimates of fiscal year 1996 bedspace as part of Intergovernmental Agreements--arrangements with state or local jails for use of bedspace for a per diem, on an "as available" basis--may be inaccurate because they rely on out-of-date information and were gathered from a survey using ambiguous terminology. The U.S. Marshals Service may lose bedspace because the Office of Management and Budget, believing that bedspace at the Bureau is more economical, may cut funding. GAO's analysis, however, shows that bedspace under the Cooperative Agreement Program--under which federal funds are given for state or local jail construction in exchange for guaranteed bedspace for a specified number of years--is cost effective and fills needs that the Bureau cannot. Listings of Bureau bedspace available for use by the U.S. Marshals Service in fiscal year 1996 contained inaccuracies affecting 19 of 31 locations. Among other errors, the Bureau failed to consider sentenced inmate or Immigration and Naturalization Service bedspace needs.

GAO found that: (1) BOP should revise federal jail design standards to allow double-bunking; (2) double-bunking 50 percent of fiscal year 1996 bedspace could result in savings of as much as $61 million in the bedspace acquisition program; (3) contract bedspace programs should be better planned and emphasized; (4) the Service may lose Cooperative Agreement Program bedspace because the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) may cut funding on the basis of its belief that this bedspace is less economical than BOP bedspace; (5) Cooperative Agreement Program bedspace is cost-effective and fills needs which BOP cannot; (6) listings of BOP bedspace available for Service use in fiscal year 1996 contained inaccuracies relative to 19 of 31 locations; and (7) BOP failed to consider sentenced inmate or Immigration and Naturalization Service bedspace needs.

Recommendations

Our 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:


The Justia Government Accountability Office site republishes public reports retrieved from the U.S. GAO These reports should not be considered official, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Justia.