Federal Bureau of Prisons Mission Statement

The Federal Bureau of Prisons protects society by confiningoffenders in the controlled environments of prisons and commu-nity-based facilities that are safe, humane, and appropriately se-cure, and which provide work and other self-improvement oppor-tunities to assist offenders in becoming law-abiding citizens.

Cultural Anchors/Core Values

n Bureau familyThe Bureau of Prisons recognizes that staff are the most valuableresource in accomplishing its mission, and is committed to thepersonal welfare and professional development of each employee.A concept of “Family” is encouraged through healthy, supportiverelationships among staff and organization responsiveness to staffneeds. The active participation of staff at all levels is essential to thedevelopment and accomplishment of organizational objectives.

n Sound correctional managementThe Bureau of Prisons maintains effective security and control ofits institutions utilizing the least restricttve means necessary, thusproviding the essential foundation for sound correctional manage-ment programs.

n Correctional workers firstAll Bureau of Prisons staff share a common role as correctionalworker, which requires a mutual responsibility for maintaining safeand secure institutions and for modeling society’s mainstreamvalues and norms.

n Promotes integrity

The Bureau of Prisons firmly adheres to a set of values thatpromotes honesty andintegrity in the professional efforts of its staffto ensure public confidence in the Bureau’s prudent use of itsallocated resources.

n Recognizes the dignity of allRecognizing the inherent dignity of all human beings and theirpotential for change, � ��� Bureau ��� Prisons treats inmates fairly andresponsively and affords them opportunities for self-improvementto facilitate their successful re-entry into the community. TheBureau further recognizes that offenders are incarcerated as pun-ishment, not for punishment.

n Career service orientationThe Bureau of Prisons is a career-oriented service, which has

: enjoyed a consistent management-philosophy and a continuity ofleadership, enabling it to evolve as a stable, professional leader � �the field of corrections.

n Community relationsThe Bureau of Prisons recognizes and facilitates the integral role ofthe community in effectuating the Bureau’s mission, and workscooperatively with other law enforcement agencies, the courts, andother components of government.

n High standardsThe Bureau of Prisons requires high standards of safety, security,sanitation, and discipline, which promote a physically and emo-tionally sound environment for both staff and inmates,

_Cover Photo: Among the tools that the Bureau of prisons hasintegrated into the planning process are automated informationsystems. Pictured, left to right: Nathan W. Carrington, UnitManager; Gene Harris, Executive Assistant; and LieutenantBrenda Hearn, Federal Correctional Institution, Jesup, Georgia.

From the Attorney General

I' m very pleased to be able to

introduce the 1992 edition of the

State of the Bureau. Since I be-

came Attorney General earlier this year.

one of my priorities has been to ac-

quaint myself with the Federal Bureau

of Prisons and its many and varied

operations. For the past few years the

Bureau has been the largest component

of the Department of Justice, certainly

it is the component that has undergone

the most significant growth.

That the inevitable growing pains have

been handled as smoothly as they have

is a tribute to the professionalism and sense of service ot

the more than 25,000 men and women who make up

the Bureau’s workforce. The American people can con-

sider themselves fortunate to have such dedicated

public servants.

Last summer I, along with hundreds of thousands of other

south Floridians, witnessed first-hand the incredible dev-

astation caused by Hurricane Andrew. The only value to

this tragedy was that it brought out the best in so many

people—prominent among them the Bureau of Prisons

staff members at Miami and Homestead, who stuck to

their posts maintained security, and kept their inmate

charges safe, although many staff members could not

even contact their own families.

we must harness every bit of creativity we possess to find

workable, cost-effective solutions to very large prob-

lems. We must treat prison bedspace as a scarce resource,

used for the protection of society by housing offenders

who truly threaten our communities. For those who pose

no risk to the public, community-based alternatives to

incarceration better serve the goals of justice and the

needs of the offender. We must develop prevention and

early intervention programs that will reduce strains on the

prison system by reducing the number of people who

enter the criminal justice system in the first place. We in

the criminal justice system must be sensitive to the needs

of victims in everything we do.

After the hurricane, Bureau staff from around the Nation

responded to their coworkers’ loss of homes and posses-

io ns with an outpouring of support. Despite the se losses,

and the total destruction of the Homestead prison camp.

Bureau staff went right to work rebuilding the detention

I am confident that Federal Bureau of Prisons staff will

help meet these challenges, as they have met so many

others outlined here in the 1992 State of the Bureau.

center in Miami, and I am proud to announce that it was Janet Reno

rededicated in February of this year—a major feat of Attorney General

logistics, coordination, and plain hard work.

Although 1993 brings a new adminis-

tration. a new Attomey General. and a

new Director of the Bureau of Prisons.

under our system of government there

is always a great deal of continuity.

Principles we all cherish will remain

the foundation of our work—accessi-

bility and openness to all citizens, a

workforce that rellects the true diver-

sity and strength of America, and sound

decision-making that is guided by what

is right under the law.

At the same time we alI know that we

are in an era of limited resources. and

From the Director

t theA end of 1992, a major transi-tion occurred in the FederalBureau of Prisons. On Decem-

ber 4, I was named the Bureau’s 6thdirector. J. Michael Quinlan, who hadserved with the Bureau for 21 years—andas director since 1987—stepped down tomove into retirement. Mike Quinlan tookon the daunting task of steering the Bu-reau through a period of unprecedentedgrowth—a near-doubling of the inmatepopulation and the addition of more than 20 new correc-tional facilities—while developing the organizational struc-tures to support this huge increase in size.

Despite these sweeping changes, the Bureau remains anexcellent organization, with a strong sense of family. MikeQuinlan’s working philosophy was that staff are our mostimportant resource—and he supported enhancements toour recruitment, training, career development, and affirma-tive action programs. He increased the Bureau’s reliance onstrategic planning and management information systems tohelp ensure that leaders made informed decisions. He ledoutreach efforts to other law enforcement agencies and thecommunity, spearheaded the Bureau’s exploration of vari-ous intermediate sanctions, and stressed the importance ofoffenders’ reintegration into the community.

Transition is often a challenging time for any organization;however, the Bureau’s strong foundation will serve us verywell. This time of transition will be characterized not bydramatic changes, but by continued professional growthand organizational improvement.

Throughout the Bureau’s history, it has always been acareer agency, with leaders who develop by moving upthrough the ranks and a variety of different positions. In mycareer, I began in 1976 as a psychologist at the Federal

At left: Federal Correctional Institution, Jesup, Georgia.

Correctional Institution (FCI),Morgantown, West Virginia, and in 1983became chief of psychology servicesthere. I was an instructor and later direc-tor of staff training at the Staff TrainingAcademy in Glynco, Georgia; associatewarden of FCI Ft. Worth, Texas; wardenof FCI Butner, North Carolina; and as-sistant director for the Program ReviewDivision, which coordinates and facili-tates the Bureau’s strategic management,

program oversight, and planning processes.

The Bureau’s program review and strategic planning sys-tems have been integral in meeting the recent challenges ofrapid growth in our inmate population. This State of theBureau details the enhanced management focus and themechanisms designed to ensure that every aspect of ouroperations receives informed oversight—by all levels ofmanagement (the field, the regional offices, and the centraloffice). This constant “fine-tuning” is absolutely necessaryto help us continue to progress and to preserve not only thesafe, secure, and humane institutions we are so proud ofduring the period of Government cost containment that liesahead, but also the emphasis on programs that facilitateinmates’ preparation for a productive—and hopefullycrime-free—return to life in the community after release.

Having been the Bureau’s Assistant Director for the Pro-gram Review Division from May 1989 to December1992—and now being the Bureau’s 6th Director—I amvery proud to introduce to the readers of the State of theBureau this issue’s special focus on program review andplanning. I welcome your comments on this issue, as wellas on other aspects of the Bureau and its operations.

Kathleen M. Hawk, Director

3

Program Evaluationand Planning in the Federal Bureau of Prisons

Prisons are unique organizations At left: Federal Prison Industries,

in many ways, with an overrid-or UNICOR, which employs roughly afifth of the inmate population (ex-

ing need to consider security in ciuding minimum-security inmates)

all aspects of their operations, and a needin producing goods and services forthe Federal Government, is one of 14

to offer employment and other programs separate areas with its own evalua-

such as education and drug treatment totion guidelines. Pictured: Warden J.D.Lamer with Linda McReynolds, Ac-

train inmates, prevent idleness while counting Technician, and Lisa Ognilla,

incarcerated, and prepare them for whatFabric Worker Foreman, Federal Cor-rectional lnstitution, Jesup, Georgia.

will hopefully be a productive return tothe community upon release. Yet there are also ways inwhich prisons resemble corporations, hospitals, militarybases, and other complex organizations. Prisons sharewith these other organizations a need to contain costs, toincrease operational efficiencies, and to make hard choicesabout allocating resources in an era when they are in-creasingly scarce.

The Bureau has doubled in size in less than a decade as thebattle against drug-related crime brought increased lawenforcement and prosecutorial initiatives, as well aschanges in Federal sentencing. Since 1988 alone, theagency’s inmate population has increased by 95 per-cent—with proportional increases in budget and staffing.The Bureau’s tradition has always been to provide safeand humane conditions of incarceration and a variety ofprograms to help those inmates who want to change. Butsuch traditions inevitably come under pressure frompopulation and organizational growth of this magnitude.

Taxpayers are rightly concerned about the significantincreases in national spending for prisons. But the twinobjectives of protecting the public while providing mean-ingful programs such as work, literacy, and drug treat-ment for inmates—95 percent of whom will eventuallyreturn to the community—have always been the core ofthe Bureau’s mission and cannot be compromised.

To preserve the quality of its programsand maintain a good working environ-ment for its employees in the face ofinmate population growth, the Bureauhad to explore ways to increase its op-erational efficiencies. As the recent his-tory of American business has shown, asuccessful way to do that is by develop-ing enhanced methods of planning and

evaluating operations and opening new channels of com-munication—from the correctional officer on the line allthe way up to the most senior managers. The Bureaudeveloped a flexible planning/evaluation/reporting struc-ture—outlined in this publication—that incorporatesvarious data systems to provide clear, concrete feedbackto managers at all levels of the organization.

Management information is only worth collecting if it isput to use effectively. The thrust of the Bureau’s effortsin the 1990’s has been to combine program evaluationinformation with strategic planning into one “strategicmanagement cycle.” Planning is no longer a top-downmechanism: it occurs at the level of the individual depart-ment or housing unit in an institution, bringing line staffin touch with the mission of the organization—andkeeping senior managers apprised of concerns, con-straints, and new initiatives suggested by the field.

The Bureau evaluates its programs for a number ofreasons:

n To assure itself (and the Attorney General) that itsprograms are in compliance with law and organizationalpolicy; are managed effectively; and are achieving theagency’s strategic goals.

n To ensure that its operations maintain strong internalcontrols in the face of unprecedented staffing and inmatepopulation levels, a younger workforce, an influx of more

5

sophisticated and violent offenders, and ����� � ��� � Good management in- The systems now in place not only meet

a more diverse inmate population requir-volves all departments and levelsof staff in every institution. Pic- the requirements of the Federal

ing varied and intensive programs and tured: Correctional Officer Allen Manager’s Financial Integrity Act

services in such areas as education, healthNoey with three inmates, FederalCorrectional Institution. Peters- (FMFIA),* but have strengthened,

standardized, and expanded theBureau’s review process. Broadly, the

care, detention, and drug treatment. burg, Virginia.

n To ensure that it responds effectively to increased levelsof scrutiny from Congress, the Department of Justice’sOffice of the Inspector General, the General AccountingOffice (GAO), and other outside agencies, as well asprivate citizens and the media.

n To justify the resource requirements needed to carry outits mission at a time when public revenues are shrinking.

Ultimately, as a component of the U.S. Department ofJustice, the Bureau of Prisons is responsible to the taxpay-ers. This publicationBureau has attemptedpublic stewardship.

Background

outlines the ways in which theto live up to its responsibility for

The Bureau has, throughout its history, used a variety ofevaluation tools, ranging from periodic formal assess-ments (such as audits and surveys) to monitoring toolsthat allow continuous tracking of programs. In 1988,then-Director J. Michael Quinlan integrated the Bureau’saudit, review, evaluation, and planning functions bycreating the Program Review Division.

The creation of this new division gave program review animportance in the organization equal to that of suchtraditional correctional operations as correctional pro-grams and health services. The Program Review Divisionhas continued its search for ways to integrate functionsand bring useful information to Bureau managers. Thisarticle will discuss aspects of the program review pro-cess—strategic planning, independent evaluation, self-evaluation, climate assessment, external oversight, andprogram monitoring—and how they have become inter-related in a single Strategic Management Cycle.

ongoing process now includes:

n The identification of “high-risk” areas.

n An annual opportunity to refine evaluation guidelinesin each of 14 program areas: correctional services, correc-tional programs, psychology, chaplaincy, inmate sys-tems, community corrections, health services, food service,safety, UNICOR (prison industries), education, facilities(maintenance), financial management, and human re-source management (personnel, training, and affirmative

action).

n A plan for correcting all significant systemic problemsidentified over the past year.

n An annual “letter of assurance” in which the programhead personally assures the Attorney General that pro-grams are working ��� �� ����������� and that any areas that mayneed improvement have plans in place to correct them.

Strategic planning

Never have the demands on the Bureau been morechallenging. The challenge for Bureau staff is to findways to accomplish the organization’s goals as effi-ciently and effectively as possible. Increasingly, largeorganizations have come to rely on strategic planning asa means of ensuring that the processes of goal develop-ment and fulfillment are linked in an organized fashion.In 1988, the Office of Strategic Planning was establishedto introduce this methodology to the Bureau.

*FMFIA, passed in 1983, requires that individual managers estab-

lish internal controls to help reduce waste, fraud, and abuse of public

funds and resources; that agency heads provide annual “assurance

reports” to Congress and the President that their controls are work-

ing; and that agencies comply with Government Accounting Office

(GAO) and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) auditing and

reporting standards.

6

For the first 2 years, institutions wereencouraged but not required to adoptstrategic planning, and each institutionwas allowed to develop its own strategicplanning mechanisms. As more and moreinstitutions set up planning processes,the level of expertise increased until, in1991, it was decided that strategic plan-ning could be institutionalized Bureau-wide.

The current strategic planning processentails a two-way flow of information.Line staff identify critical issues, whichare passed through wardens to their supe-riors, the six regional directors, andthrough program administrators to assis-

At left: 4 Food service is another ofthe 14 program areas with its ownevaluation guidelines. A smoothlyfunctioning food service operation isessential to the safe and orderly run-ning of any prison. Pictured: inmateworkers with Raymond Simmons, As-sistant Food Service Administrator,in background; Federal CorrectionalInstitution, Jesup, Georgia.

Under the streamlining initiative, anumber of functions were targetedfor reduction. For example, in 1993,the Bureau has reduced its trainingbudget by 22 percent, eliminated con-ferences, trimmed administrativetravel and staff overtime, and insti-tuted salary funding and staff reduc-tions of 10 percent at the central andregional offices, and 5 percent ateach of the 70 institutions.

tant directors. Conversely, once Bureau goals are estab-lished by the executive staff (based on input they receivefrom the field), supporting action steps within eachdiscipline are developed by regional and institutionalprogram managers. While the Bureau has long-termstrategic goals—and all subcomponents share thesegoals—individual subcomponents, such as institutions,regions, or divisions, are likely to have distinctiveobjectives and action plans related to their respectiveresponsibilities.

Progress towards the achievement of these goals is re-ported to the executive staff every quarter. In 1992, theStrategic Planning Office began to reduce reportingrequirements for managers by introducing an automatedstrategic planning program that could be used on personalcomputers. In 1993, this program will be used Bureau-wide.

The Bureau’s evaluation programs begin and end withstrategic planning. Planning sets the agenda for newinitiatives and is required when program needs are iden-tified through evaluation. The development of evaluationguidelines is another critical component of the strategicmanagement process. To ensure that evaluation resourcesare assigned where they are most needed, guidelines forthe 14 program areas (see section 2) are reviewed at leastonce a year ��� the program managers and program reviewstaff.

During this past year, planners askedstaff, in effect, to reevaluate theBureau’s purpose. At all levels of theagency, they were to review individualresponsibilities and determine whetherthey were performing functions thatdirectly related to the achievement ofBureau goals and objectives, and, ifnot, whether there was still a reason tocontinue them. These strategic issueswere presented to the Bureau’s execu-tive staff—the director, and the assis-tant and regional directors—who usedthis input to formulate goals for 1993and beyond.

As a result, the Bureau reaffirmed itslong-term goals in six important areas: population man-agement, human resource management, security andfacility management, correctional leadership and effec-tivepublic administration, inmate programs and services,and building partnerships. Under the fourth area, forexample, a grassroots streamlining initiative was launched.Staff from all institutions, regional offices, training cen-ters, and central office (headquarters) participated inidentifying functions that should be considered for poten-tial reduction or elimination.

Independent evaluation

At regular intervals, program review teams (PRT) coor-dinated by the Program Review Division evaluate everyFederal institution, regional office, central office branch,and community corrections office throughout the coun-try. PRT’s are made up of subject-matter experts whowork at other locations, headed by experienced centraloffice reviewers. The central office-based reviewers arefield technicians who are selected on average for 2-yearassignments, after which they typically return to the fieldas program managers.

The benefits of an impartial review by the PRT’s areobvious:

n With so many new line staff, manag-ers, and institutions, the Bureau’s needfor a consistent interpretation of policy,management expectations, and evalua-tion standards has never been greater.

n Because of the consistency with whichprogram review evaluations are con-ducted, review findings are cataloguedand monitored across regions, institu-tion security levels, time periods, anddisciplines. In this way, trends are iden-tified and monitored, and feedback isprovided to program administrators sothat modifications can be made locally,regionally, or Bureau-wide.

At right: b “Double-bunking” is in-creasingly the norm in Federal pris-ons. As the pressures of crowdingincreased dramatically during the1990's, the Bureau’s planning pro-cesses developed appropriate waysto manage the increasing populationwithout compromising security,safety, or essential program activi-ties. Pictured: inmates in a two-person room at the Federal CorrectionalInstitution, Petersburg, Virginia.

n All reviews include procedures toassess safety, security, human resourcemanagement, responsiveness, and cost-efficiency. The information collectedlast year is presently being studied todetermine if trends could be iden-tified across different programs andinstitutions.

To meet its goal of population man-agement, the Bureau attempts to re-duce crowding whenever possible.Accordingly, the Bureau has devel-oped a streamlined “capacity plan-ning” process—the process by whichinmate population projections aremarried to short- and long-term insti-tution capacity plans to allow theoptimally efficient use of theBureau’s population capacity. In1991, the process was modified toallow “double-bunking” (more thanone inmate per room or cell) up to100 percent in minimum- and low-security facilities, 50 percent in me-dium-security facilities, and 25 per-cent in high-security and detentionfacilities. This “rated capacity” ap-proach to the management of theBureau’s inmate population is verycost-effective, while appropriately fo-cused on the security and programneeds of the inmate population.

In addition, plans have been devel-oped regarding the mission of newinstitutions (what mix of inmates, atwhat security level, they will hold),as well as for changing the missionof existing institutions. In all, thesedesign and capacity changes will re-duce the funding required for con-struction over the next 10 years byhundreds of millions of dollars.

n Although the independent evalua-tion is conducted by Bureau staff whocome from outside the institution beingevaluated, an important aspect of theevaluation prevents it from being “dis-owned” by institution staff. The evalu-ation guidelines—the reviewer’s “roadmap”—are developed primarily by pro-gram staff, not by outside reviewers. The program staffresponsible for the development of guidelines form anorganizational structure that includes the institutions andthe six regional offices and central office as well. Withinthis structure, issues for guideline development are iden-tified at the institution level. Regional and central officestaff bring these issues to the formal meetings with theevaluation staff to build and modify the evaluation guide-lines. In this way, program staff have a direct investmentin the guidelines and, thus, the evaluation process.

Local staff, using the same evaluationguidelines as the independent programreview teams, assemble review teamsand examine documentation, interview

staff, observe meetings and activities, quantify data,measure productivity, and conduct surveys. Self-exami-nations are required at least once between reviews byprogram review teams, but institutions are greatly en-couraged to conduct them more frequently, on an ongo-ing basis.

In 1992 alone, more than 420 self-evaluations occurred atthe department level. As with the independent, outsidePRT evaluations, the major objectives of the self-evalu-ation are to:

10

At the end of 1992, the Bureau refined itsreview policy to allow differing timeschedules for reviews, based upon situa-tions at individual institutions. Previ-ously, each institution had been reviewedevery 2 years. Under the new policy,indicator data for institution programswith “superior” or “good” ratings will beexamined at the 2-year point; if the ex-amination warrants, those programs willthen be reviewed every 3 years. Thosewith lesser ratings will be reviewed morefrequently—targeting Program ReviewDivision resources where they are mostneeded.

Self-evaluation

Another essential component of theBureau’s program review process is self-evaluation. While the program reviewteams coordinated by the Program Re-view Division perform regular evalua-tions at every Federal institution, regionaloffice, central office branch, and com-munity corrections office throughout thecountry, field staff responsible for man-aging the 14 targeted program areas alsoconduct their own evaluations.

n Determine whether the program isfunctioning successfully.n Ascertain whether it will continue toperform at this level.n Highlight exemplary programs.n Point to specific areas requiring cor-rective action.

At left: Paul Barnard, Central ToolRoom Officer (standing) and an in-mate worker replace tools on a“shadow board, which displays anoutline of all tools used in the facilityand allows instant inventorying. Fed-eral Correctional Institution, Jesup,Georgia.

P L A N N I N G I N A C T I O N

Correcting problems identified by theself-evaluations may involve staff train-ing, procedural changes, additional man-agement attention, or additional

resources.

Strict tool control is one of the vitalsecurity functions in any prison.While inmates must use tools in theirdaily work, the possibilities for con-verting them to weapons or escapeimplements are obvious.

The self-evaluation process benefits theBureau in a number of ways. First, itplaces program “ownership” where itbelongs—on local managers and super-visors. Second, self-evaluation providesan outstanding way for new staff tobecome familiar both with the programand with management’s expectationsfor it. Third, it is a cost-effective exten-sion of the central office program reviewfunction. Finally, self-evaluation allowslocal staff to identify and correct prob-lems before they become issues thatmust be addressed by senior managers.

Continued program review findingsfor tool control problems providedthe impetus for the Bureau to de-velop an automated tool control pro-gram that is presently operational in90 percent of all facilities. The newsystem allows an institution to trackpossible deficiencies in identifica-tion, classification, supervision andstorage of tools, and increase ordecrease internal controls accord-ingly-thus enhancing institutionsafety and security.

To ensure that managers understand theself-evaluation process, the Program

Audits conducted by the Departmentof Justice’s Office of the InspectorGeneral revealed that “life safety”projects conducted by some institu-tions were not receiving the prioritythey should have. Data generated byprogram reviews in the Facilities areaenabled Bureau of Prisons programmanagers in the Facilities and Safetydisciplines to better track ongoinglife safety projects and monitor theircompletion.

Review Division has developed a course of instructionconducted at the Bureau’s Management and SpecialtyTraining Center in Aurora, Colorado. In 1992, 330 de-partment heads, wardens, associate wardens, and pro-gram administrators received formal training in how toconduct a self-evaluation.

attitude of the inmates towards the insti-tution, the staff, and other inmates? Arethe lines of communication betweenmanagement and staff open or closed?

One of the most important ways thatBureau staff assess the interpersonaldynamics in an institution is throughMBWA—“management by walkingaround.” This means that departmentheads and institution senior staff are outand about, interacting with staff andinmates and observing operations first-hand. Managers are on the floor, in theclassrooms and clinics, and walkingthe compound with inmates and linestaff. They are present at the dining hallfor inmates’ meals. They are periodi-cally assigned duty officer responsi-bilities that require them to inspect,observe, and assess institution-wideprograms, services, housing units, and

facilities.

Climate assessment

In 1992, and for the preceding 4 years,the Bureau has added more formal cli-mate assessment measurements to theseinformal, time-tested methods of prisonmanagement. Since 1988, the Bureau’sOffice of Research and Evaluation hasconducted annual “prison climate sur-

veys” ��

a large cross-section of institution staff. Becausethe surveys are uniformly administered, the Bureau cananalyze the results in a variety of ways to help create apicture of each institution’s climate, compare the overallclimate against selected staff subgroups (such as correc-tional officers), and note any changes in morale fromprevious years. This information is closely monitored bystaff at all management levels.

While refining and expanding program-evaluation initia-tives such as those previously discussed, the Bureau :

recognizes that management must also be tuned in to the :

interpersonal dynamics or “climate” of each institution. :

Are the staff generally upbeat, or resigned; relaxed, ortense? Do they feel safe on the job? What is the overall

In addition to climate surveys, the Bureau also institutedother, more informal methods to help capture the dimen-sions of institution functioning that “hard” data mightotherwise fail to reflect. Interview teams led by a regional

13

director periodically visit each institu-tion, meeting with a random samplingof managers, line staff, and inmates.The interviewers evaluate such inter-personal concerns as mood, morale, pro-fessionalism, communication up anddown the line, and responsiveness.

����� � ���� A program review in the

Education Department, Federal Cor-rectional Institution, Jesup, Georgia.Program review team member MartyCannon, Supervisor of Education, Fed-eral Correctional Institution, Milan,Michigan, interviews an inmate.

These interview-based assessments wereused in 1992 by regional office staff asa followup and extension of the climatesurveys; for the first time they also wereincluded in every evaluation by pro-gram review teams. While the results ofthese face-to-face surveys could not bemeasured statistically, the interviewsdid allow evaluators to go beyond theinitial data provided by surveys to pro-vide more in-depth, qualitative insights.

Some examples from the Bureau’sSouth Central Region show how cli-mate assessment works in practice:

n The Federal Detention Center andFederal Correctional Institution,Oakdale, Louisiana, are located in aneconomically depressed area of theState. As part of the climate assess-ment process, the South Central Re-gional Director met with spouses ofstaff members to find out their con-cerns, one of which was the areaschools. As a result, the wardens ofFDC and FCI Oakdale established atask force to work with local educa-tors and help bring parents into theschools as volunteers.

Like policy and performance problems,morale and institution climate can pro-foundly affect the overall success of aprogram. Climate assessment helps man-agement understand the “big picture.”The Bureau’s local self- and programreview evaluation methods used thisyear allowed managers to identify inci-dents of policy noncompliance, thestrength of the controls in place to keepthe operation going, and the underlyingtechnical causes of program failures.Climate assessment helped managers tobetter understand and monitor attitudi-nal shifts and trends, and, when neces-sary, intervene before a problemoccurred.

n As the population of Hispanic in-mates increases, so does the needfor Spanish-speaking staff mem-bers. The Federal Correctional Insti-tution, La Tuna, located in a heavilyHispanic area of Texas, had a largerpool of Spanish-speaking recruitsthan it needed. As a result of theassessment process, La Tuna hasnow become a “feeder” institution,continuing to recruit Spanish-speak-ing staff who then go to work at otherinstitutions.

n Staff perceptions gathered througha climate assessment helped sup-port the decision to change themission of the Federal CorrectionalInstitution, Bastrop, Texas, frommedium- to low-security. A numberof staff stated that they thoughtthe institution’s physical layoutcould create potential security prob-lems when holding medium-securityinmates.

External oversight

In addition to the massive expansion of prisons and

prisoners, the Bureau has experienced a substantial in-crease in the number of external reviews, audits, andinquiries. In 1992, this scrutiny came primarily from

Congress, the GAO, and the Depart-ment of Justice. This added anotherlevel of independent review that Bu-reau managers could draw upon.

The Bureau carefully coordinates allexternal audits through one office inits Program Review Division, whichshares the results with appropriate ad-ministrators so that the results of thesereviews may be integrated with otherfindings. In fact, the results of one such1992 audit, conducted by the JusticeManagement Division, Department ofJustice, concerned the Bureau’s pro-gram review function itself. The audit

concludes:

“...The Bureau of Prisons has made amajor commitment of resources toachieve a very comprehensive systemof control that functions at all levels ofmanagement within the BOP. The de-cision to make such a commitmentseems most appropriate in view of thedifficult nature of BOP programs andextensive growth in recent years of theBOP workload and corresponding man-agement control problems....The pro-gram is both well conceived and wellmanaged, and provides a sound basisfor the year-end reasonable assuranceprovided by the Director to the Attor-ney General.”

Program monitoring

Consistent with the principles of quality-oriented man-agement systems used in many private- and public-sectororganizations, the Bureau has made significant stridesover the past 3 years to move away from “reactionmanagement” toward a more proactive, program-moni-toring approach to managing prisons. The term “programmonitoring” here refers to oversight that relies on thefrequent monitoring of important measures used by man-agers at all levels of the organization. This year Bureau

14

staff routinely monitored program per-formance, financial indicators, popula-tion characteristics, and other essentialindicators. By constantly taking thepulse of the organization, staff werebetter able to project needs and circum-vent crises.

At left: “Management by walkingaround” is a traditional way for war-dens to keep informed about the ac-tivities of every institutional depart-ment. Pictured: Warden CarolynRickards (center), with Darlene Ely,Accounting Supervisor, and JimWagner, Controller, Federal Correc-t ional Inst i tut ion, Petersburg,Virginia.

Access to information and staff involve-ment are critical components of qual-ity-oriented systems. It would beinefficient to have the Bureau’s mostsenior managers monitor programs ifmid-level managers and line staff donot. In this regard, a management-indi-cator tracking system—Key Indica-tors—developed by the Office ofResearch and Evaluation ���

�first imple-

mented in 1988, continued to serve theBureau very well in 1992. This trackingsystem has become a vehicle for dis-seminating key data elements, from anumber of information sources, to Bu-reau managers. The system contains data elements relat-ing to inmate characteristics, behavior and programs,staff demographics, financial management, and commu-nity corrections. Data can be reviewed by institution,region, and institution security level, and displayed intabular or graphic form (see chart).

Since 1990, senior managers in theCorrectional Services Branch haveused Key Indicators to closely trackall uses of force by Bureau staff.Data on uses of force—including, forinstance, whether a staff team wasneeded to control the situation, whattype of restraints was used, and thetotal time any inmate spends underrestraint—are entered daily at theinstitution level, reviewed at boththe regional and Central Office level,and aggregated to provide a Bureau-wide monthly report. Managers arealert for any unusual patterns thatmight indicate a need for upper-levelintervention; as an example, a high-security penitentiary that reportedsignificant increases in uses of forceover other penitentiaries might re-quire additional training for staff.

During the past several years, an automated “informationmodule,” extracted from Key Indicators, has been devel-oped that provides a concise summary of importantinstitution management data, thus permitting the identi-fication of important trends. This year’s improvements tothe module allowed executive staff members to quicklyreview as many as 50 important indicators for each of theBureau’s institutions, representing various program ar-eas. Furthermore, when reviewing any facility, they wereable to scan data relative to similar Bureau institutions,and to skip over data within normal ranges to focusselectively on indicators that diverge from the norm,having unusually high or low values. Through automa-tion, the same modules reviewed by the executive staffwere made available to other managers. For example,each warden could view his or her own institution’s trenddata and comparison data for other institutions.

One of the great strengths of the Key Indicators system isthat it requires no special data entry work by Bureau staff.The system pulls in data from pre-existing sources, runsstatistical programs on these data, and reformats theinformation in ways useful for managers.

Additionally, Key Indicators displays data patterns overtime in monthly, quarterly, or yearly increments, en-abling trend analysis. This tracking system has an advan-tage over “hard copy” reports in that it allows staff tomake comparisons that have specific relevance to theirneeds, as opposed to relying on more standardized report-ing information. Staff can use this system to justifyresource requests, establish and monitor goals, gain addi-tional perspective on their own operations, and monitorcritical characteristics and program performance.

Key Indicators Monthly Schedule

Quality assurance for programcomponents and data

Key Indicators database updatingand quality control

v

CD-ROM production

v

Distribution to users

development. and enhancements

17

The Bureau’s executive staff tracks pro-gram trends and accomplishments andprovides divisional strategic planningbriefings to the director. These briefingsmay involve the use of charts, graphs,and brief narratives that illustrate trendsfor a wide range of program compo-nents. For example, the CorrectionalPrograms Division may report on suchkey areas as inmate security level, race,citizenship, age, sentence length, fur-loughs, residential drug treatment, es-capes, and assaults.

In 1992 as in 1991, significant time atexecutive staff meetings was dedicatedto a close review of trend data, oneinstitution at a time. In light of thisinformation, the focus of executive staffdiscussions includes not only systemicprogram issues but operational issuesconcerning the overall functioningof each region and its respective

institutions.

Conclusion

When an inmate has a complaint, heor she is required first to contactstaff and try to informally resolve it.If this is unsuccessful, the inmatemay then file a formal request for“administrative remedy,” which mustbe responded to within 15 calendardays. Using Key Indicators, wardenscan monitor—on a monthly, quarterly,or yearly basis—the number of ad-ministrative remedies filed by in-mates, and can compare the filingsat their institution against compa-rable filings at other institutions. Ifan increase in filings is seen, war-dens can quickly identify the spe-cific area (e.g, quality of the food,access to educational programs ormedical services) and follow up withthe appropriate administrative staff.If necessary, the warden may decideto speak personally to the inmate(s)involved, or even call a “town meet-ing” with the inmates to get at thesource of the problem. Key Indica-tors enables Bureau managers tomonitor many such trends and quicklyidentify areas in need of manage-ment attention.

The administrative nature of strategicplanning and management systems mayat first glance seem far removed from the often tense andsometimes dangerous “real world” of prisons. However,both research and the empirical experiences of prisonmanagers lead to the conclusion that well-managed pris-ons are also safer, more secure, and more humane. Giventhe Bureau’s commitment to good management and theempowerment of staff at all levels of the organization, thequestion then becomes: what techniques help achievethese goals?

In 1991, the Strategic Planning Officebecame part of the Program ReviewDivision. In 1992, strategic planning,for the first time, was formally inte-grated with the program review process.As a result, grassroots initiatives wereconsidered both for formulating strate-gic plans and identifying potential weak-nesses that should be targeted inupcoming reviews. Plans for correctiveaction and strategic initiatives were cross-linked for the first time. Program moni-toring tools were redesigned to correlateto the Bureau’s strategic goals. And, in1992, guidelines for enhanced policy

development were approved, requiring a justification forany proposed new policies in light of the Bureau’s

strategic goals.

A number of evaluation and planning strategies andaccomplishments have been touched upon in these pages.To think of these initiatives as autonomous would bemisleading; the whole—these coordinated, interdepen-

1992 was a most challenging year for the Bureau ofPrisons. It was also the year that saw a number ofpromising strategies and tools continue to move towardan optimal, agency-wide, integrated system; a systemthat strives to replace conjecture with knowledge andempowerment. In an unprecedented way, the StrategicManagement Cycle challenges all Bureau staff to beaccountable for, and involved in, the management andcontinuous improvement of their programs.

At Right: b Many Bureau recyclingprograms began through staff initia-tives formalized through the strate-gic planning process. Pictured: In-mates from the Federal Prison Camp,Petersburg, Virginia, work at a recy-cling operation at nearby Fort Lee.The joint operation-prison and mili-tary base—recycles 12 truckloads ofwaste each month.

dent planning and evaluation systems—is much more than the sum of the parts.They achieve their maximum potential

only when used as an integrated process,which the Bureau calls the “StrategicManagement Cycle”; it establishes aframework for all of the agency’s pro-gram-review strategies. Self-evaluationsand independent evaluations comple-ment each other; both are enriched byclimate assessments. Monitoring instru-ments both support and are supported bythe other evaluation tools.

18

The Year in Review

Growth and transition

I n December 1992. the Bureau ofPrisons underwent a major tran-sition in leadership, as Kathleen

M. Hawk was named to head the orga-nization as its sixth director upon theretirement of J. Michael Quinlan. Di-rector Hawk—the first woman to headthe Bureau—had previously served aswarden, Federal Correctional Institu-tion, Butner, North Carolina; chief ofBureau staff training, Staff TrainingAcademy, Glynco, Georgia; and assis-tant director, Program Review Divi-sion, among other positions in her16-year career.

In 1992, the Federal Bureau of Pris-ons’ inmate population grew by 11

Keeping inmates productively occupiedis one of the major challenges the Bureaufaces as the population continues togrow.

percent over December 1991 levels; staffing levels grewby 9 percent. At the end of 1992, the Bureau’s inmatepopulation stood at 79,859, compared to 71,998 at the endof 1991.

Due to increases in the number of beds (from expansionof existing Bureau institutions, new construction, orconversion of noncorrectional facilities) and to changesin the method of calculating rated capacity (discussedbelow), the systemwide crowding rate remains at 137percent. The Bureau’s goal is to reduce the crowding rateto 130 percent by 1995.

Throughout the Bureau in 1992, 1,736 beds were addedthrough new construction, and 758 through conversions,upgrades, and other enhancements at existing institu-tions. A new medium-security Federal Correctional In-stitution (FCI) opened in Manchester, Kentucky.

About 60 percent of the Bureau’sinmate population are serving timefor drug offenses. The population isapproximately 25 percent non-U.S.citizens. The Federal pretrial detaineepopulation has exploded over the lastdecade, from 4,000 in 1981 to 7,000today. The proportion of femaleoffenders now totals 8 percent—representing a growth rate consider-ably higher than that of the malepopulation.

The growth in inmate population andnumbers of facilities have requiredincreases in the number of staff aswell—to 23,846, from 21,923 in 1991.Recruitment remained a major em-phasis. At year’s end. the Bureau’s

workforce included 38.6 percent correctional servicesstaff. with the remainder in such occupational categoriesas health services, chaplaincy, mechanical services, foodservice, psychology. and education.

n The first elements of what will be an increasinglyimportant organizational concept for the Bureau of Pris-ons came on line in 1992. Federal Correctional Com-plexes (FCC’s) have several institutions of diffferentsecurity levels on a common site. As well as sharingutilities, administrative services. and an inmate labor

pool. FCC’s will provide increased career opportunities�����

employees and for spouses who are both employed bythe Bureau, without the disruption of moving families toother Bureau locations.

The Federal Prison Camp (FPC), one of four facilitiesbeing constructed at FCC Florence, Colorado, opened inJuly 1992. The other facilities at that location—to beopened in 1993 and 1994 will be a medium-security

20

Federal Correctional Institution, a high-security peni- medically able. Participation in drug education programstentiary, and an administrative maximum-security peni- is mandatory for specific inmates who have a history oftentiary, designed to replace the U.S. Penitentiary, substance abuse, and involvement in literacy programs isMarion, Illinois, as the most secure facility in the Federal mandatory for the many inmates—45 percent—who do

system. not have a high school diploma or a GED.

Two existing Bureau facilities—in Allenwood, Pennsyl- n Individuals with substance abuse treatment needs arevania, and Butner, North Carolina—are being expanded nowhere more strongly concentrated than among theto FCC status. The existing Federal Prison Camp at I Nation’s prisoners. Because a substantial proportion ofAllenwood is being integrated with newly constructed : Federal inmates have a lifelong pattern of drug depen-low-, medium-, and high-security Federal institutions. ! dency, it is evident that society benefits from effectiveThe existing Federal Correctional Institution and camp at : intervention in the lives of properly motivated inmates.

The Federal Correctional Institution, Manchester, Kentucky, the Bureau’s newest medium-security institution, opened in 1992.

Butner will be complemented with a medical center forfemale prisoners. Two additional FCC’s are in the devel-opmental stages in Beaumont, Texas, and Coleman,Florida.

n The Bureau has often adapted former military proper-ties to penal use (and has a number of prison camps onactive military bases). In 1992, the Bureau signed anagreement with the Department of the Army to convert alarge part of Ft. Dix, New Jersey, which was designatedfor closure, to low- and minimum-security use. Two low-security institutions and a satellite camp, with a capacityof more than 3,500 inmates, will operate under a supervis-ing warden and supporting associate wardens—makingFt. Dix overall the largest facility in the Federal system.

Inmates and inmate programs

In the Bureau, many self-improvement opportunities forinmates are available. Work is mandatory for all who are

To meet the needs of such offenders, the Bureau offers acomprehensive substance abuse treatment strategy thatpresents every offender with a broad range of treatmentoptions of varying length and intensity. The Bureau’smultilevel drug treatment strategy includes education,counseling, residential programs (in which inmates livein special units and receive about 3 hours of intensivedrug treatment programming per day, for a total of 500treatment hours), and transitional services to ensure acontinuum of treatment when an inmate is transferred toa Community Corrections Center or placed on probation.Sixteen residential programs were opened in 1992, bring-ing the total systemwide to 31.

To detect and deter inmate drug use while in custody, theBureau operates a program of random and targeted drugtesting. In 1992, more than 47,000 random tests wereadministered, resulting in only a 1.3-percent detectionrate.

21

n In Federal prisons, meeting inmateliteracy needs is a major area of pro-gram emphasis. Inmates must attain aspecified educational level—before theycan be assigned to higher paying jobsin the institution. This facet of theBureau’s educational program was

implemented in a progressive fash-ion, and is now set at 12th-gradeequivalency. As a result, literacy pro-gram completions are up 600 percentsince mandatory education started in1982. In 1992, 5,450 inmates com-pleted GED programs as a result of

this mandatory program strategy.Above . One o f F e d e r a l P r i s o nIndustries’ major objectives is to teachinmates good work habits, not justspecialized industrial skills. ��� ����� � Aclass at the Intensive ConfinementCenter, Bryan, Texas.

n Perhaps the most important of allcorrectional programs is the inmatework program referred to as FederalPrison Industries, or UNICOR, awholly owned Government corporation since 1934.While all able-bodied Federal inmates must work,about 22 percent of them are employed by UNICOR(15,897 in December 1992, up from 14,610 in 1991).

in postal automation. More than 10 million pieces ofautomation-compatible mail will be processed by FCIFort Worth’s UNICOR operation in the next fiscal year,saving Federal agencies more than $1 million in that yearalone.

In June, the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C.,sponsored a Prison Industries Summit to bring togetherBureau and Department of Justice officials; representa-tives of labor and trade associations; business executives;and Congressional staff to discuss public policy issuesrelated to prison industries. Participants in the Brookingssummit have continued to focus on UNICOR issues inregular Workgroup meetings.

In October, the National Prison Industries Task Force metat the Supreme Court, chaired by former Attorney Gen-eral Griffin Bell. The Task Force meeting was attendedby high-level representatives from the executive andlegislative branches of Government, the criminal justicesystem, and the private sector. Participants in thesemeetings discussed such issues as the Congressionally

mandated independent market studyof Federal Prison Industries opera-tions completed in 1991, its recom-mendations for the future growth ofprison industries, specific industry andlabor concerns related to UNICORoperations, and the development ofstrategies to ensure that the growth in

inmate employment will parallel therising inmate population in ways de-signed to minimize any negative im-pact upon the private sector.

Many UNICOR field operations had

notable achievements in 1992.���

instance, the Federal Correctional In-stitution, Fort Worth, Texas, was nomi-nated for the “Partnership ���� ProgressAward” by the U.S. Postal Service,given for outstanding achievements

n Inmates returned much of what they earned in workprograms to victims through the Inmate Financial Re-sponsibility Program, which seeks to collect court-or-dered fines, restitution orders, and other judgments. In1992, 18,505 participating inmates returned more than$14.16 million through this program, and more than $67million has been collected since the program’s inception

in 1987.

In April, the Department of Justice’s Office for Victimsof Crime recognized Bureau facilities and staff for theiroutstanding contributions in the collection of fines fordeposit in the Crime Victims Fund. Receiving awardswere the Federal Prison Camp, Eglin, Florida; the FederalMedical Center, Lexington, Kentucky; and Paul Horner,former chief of the Inmate Financial Responsibility Pro-gram (IFRP), Central Office.

n The Bureau’s first Intensive Confinement Center (ICC)for female offenders opened at the Federal Prison Camp,

22

Bryan, Texas, in July 1992. The first inmate team gradu-ated in January 1993. The Bryan ICC houses 120 femaleinmates, with a staffing complement of 29. The first ICC,for male offenders, opened in 1991 at the U.S. Peniten-

tiary, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, and had graduated 417

inmates as of year’s end.

The ICC program, the Bureau’s adaptation of the “bootcamp” concept, is designed to teach inmate participants

self-discipline and self-respect and prepare them for asuccessful adjustment to society upon release. Inmateswho successfully complete the 6-month program will bepermitted to serve the remainder of their sentence incommunity-based correctional facilities (rather than moresecure facilities) until they become eligible for prerelease

programming.

Programming consists of physical labor and intensiveself-improvement programming for 17 hours a day, 6days a week. A labor-intensive work assignment for the

Bryan ICC was established with the U.S. Forest Servicein New Waverly, Texas; inmates work in the forest.

clearing brush. maintaining trailsfacilities for the

public, and performing other du-ties 3 days per week. The other 3days of their regimen, as is the

case with the ICC program formales, include physical con-ditioning, drug abuse coun-

seling, religious services, and training in life copingskills, literacy, and vocational skills. Because physicalhealth is an important component of the progam, the ICC

is a smoke-free environment for inmates and staff.

Participation in the ICC is voluntary—with the approvalof the sentencing judge. Living conditions are strict:inmates have few privileges; Sundays and Federal holi-

days are the only days that inmates are permitted toreceive visits and participate in recreational activities;

personal property and telephone calls are very limited.

n An old health threat. tuberculosis, reemerged in a newdrugresistant form in 1992; because of its ability tospread among confined populations, its prevention hasbecome a major concern for Bureau medical operations

(although there were no multi-drug-resistant cases in theBureau in the last year). The Department of Health and

Human Services convened a task force on which theBureau served to provide a correctional perspective-that resulted in the Natnonal Action Plan to Conhat

Mlilti-Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis

n The agency’s successful management of HIV-infectedinmates (“mainstreaming” them in the general popula-tion in all cases except for the predatory or promiscuous)is regarded as a national model. The Bureau is continuing

to collaborate with other Federal health agencies andother correctional systems in addressing this extremelyserious health issue.

“Basic training” for all new Bureau employees at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, Glynco, Georgia, includesrole-playing exercises, firearms and self-defense instruction, and classroom work.

n The Bureau’s chaplaincy staff undertook a majorproject in 1993: a series of work groups focusing on the“multicultural” spiritual needs of the increasingly diverseinmate population. Work groups on Hispanics, Native

Americans, African-Americans, and women developed asolid knowledge base for use by staff in the field and madea number of recommendations for enhancements in chap-laincy programs.

Staff

One of the major challenges facing the Federal Bureau ofPrisons is recruitment. Staffing levels, which almostdoubled in the 5 years from 1986 to 1991, are expected toalmost double again by 1995. Inadequate staffing canpotentially mean compromises in security as well asdramatic increases in overtime costs. Meeting this chal-lenge has become one of the agency’s top priorities,requiring additional expansion of everything from train-ing facilities to information systems for managing humanresources.

In 1992, the recruitment of new staff generally kept pacewith the growth of the inmate population—with 23,846staff at year’s end, as compared to 21,923 in December1991. The Bureau’s comprehensive recruitment strat-egy—including a professional advertising campaign basedaround the slogan “Do Your Career Justice”-has re-sulted in major increases in the number of correctionalofficer applicants, as well as the numbers of minority andbilingual applicants. The percentages of minorities andwomen employed in the Bureau have also grown steadily,from 22.7 percent and 18 percent, respectively, in 198 1 to28.6 and 27.1 percent in 1992. In other highlights of theyear:

n Bureau efforts in Affirmative Action produced signifi-

cant advances in minority recruitment and promotion.Affirmative Action Programs (AAP) were significantlyenlarged and restructured to reflect the increasing impor-tance of cultural diversity to the agency. In addition to itscurrent responsibilities—which include minority recruit-ment, diversity training, and special emphasis programs—the AAP branch will have a strong research missioninvolved in tracking the career development and ad-vancement, job satisfaction, and work environment expe-rienced by minorities in the Bureau. AAP will also assess

24

the impact of Bureau policies and practices on minoritystaff. The branch will be tasked with proposing andadvocating changes to Bureau policies and strategic plansto ensure staff representation.

On July 1, the League of United Latin American Citizenspresented then-Director J. Michael Quinlan with its high-est award to honor excellence in Bureau of Prisons operations, services provided to staff, commitment tocultural diversity, and the quality of the programs andopportunities offered to inmates. Currently, 8.3 percentof the Bureau’s staff are of Hispanic origin. In the pastyear, the number of GS/GM- I3 Hispanic managers in theBureau grew by 43 percent. Then-Arkansas GovernorBill Clinton and Texas Governor Ann Richards ad-dressed conference participants.

n In May, the Bureau’s training facility at the FederalLaw Enforcement Training Center in Glynco, Georgia,celebrated its 10th anniversary. With a staff of only 18,the academy provided training for 1,400 employees in itsfirst year. In 1992, the academy’s 72 staff membersprovided introductory and specialty training tomore than 6,000 Bureau employees. Eightypercent of the Bureau’s current workforceare Glynco graduates.

At the Management and SpecialtyTraining Center (MSTC) in Au-rora. Colorado, 4,570 studentsattended classes in such fieldsas facilities management, spe-cial investigations, food service,paralegal support. and recreationsupervision.

n Development of executive andmanagerial talent is a critical issue.given the Bureau’s rapid expansion. Forthat reason, the agency has implementeda range of programs to identify, train, anddevelop the administrative skills of itsemployees. who, in comparison to their

tions. As an example, 41 Bureau executives attended acourse sponsored by the Woodrow Wilson School ofPublic and International Affairs of Princeton University.The course. entitled “Public Leadership and Manage-ment Skills for Corrections.” focused on global anddomestic policy issues that affect corrections. TheBrookings Institution also sponsored a program for theBureau’s senior managers entitled “Political Realities in

Public Management.”

A tradition of excellent labor-management relationscontinued in 1992, as a new Master Agreement wasnegotiated and ratified between the Bureau and the Coun-cil of Prison Locals. American Federation of Govern-ment Employees. Warden Pat Keohane, U.S. Penitentiary,Terre Haute, Indiana, received the 1992 AFGE Councilof Prison Locals National Labor Relations Award, pre-sented annually to Bureau Chief Executive Officers.Warden Keohane was nominated for his tireless efforts atcreating positive labor/management relations in the insti-

tutions he supervised.

Technology andresearch

n A major new telephone systemfor inmates promises both en-hanced security and increased ser-

predecessors, must assume supervisoryand management-level duties with lesson-the-job experience in prior posi-

vices. The new Inmate TelephoneSystem (ITS), installed first at the

Federal Correctional Institution,Butner, North Carolina, will be in placethroughout the Bureau in about 3 years.

Among the system’s numerous secu-rity and control capabilities are controlover telephone numbers called, dura-tion of calls, location from which callsmay be placed, and call accountingaudit trails. The direct-dial ITS willplace the financial responsibility for

Recruitment of minorities and womenr e m a i n s a m a j o r e m p h a s i s f o r t h eexpanding Bureau workforce.

25

the payment of calls on the inmates. (In traditional BOPphone systems, all outgoing calls were “collect,“ placingthe financial burden on family members in most cases.)

�����new system greatly reduces accounting costs through

its ability to “sell” telephone credits to inmates in theinstitution commissary or inmate store. These credits arethen automatically transferred to the ITS on the followingmorning. The ITS can give account balances and the costof the last completed call through a voice responsesystem. allowing inmates to check on the statusof their accounts.

n The Bureau began to distribute nonsensitive program(policy) statements and operations memoranda electroni-cally, via CD-ROM (Compact Disc-Read Only Memory).This technology allows users to access the most currentpolicy quickly and easily and-in the long tern-willgreatly reduce the bulk associated with paper distribu-tion. CD-ROM enables users to conduct name or wordstring searches to rapidly identify relevant policies andretrieve portions of those policies that address theirspecific needs.

n In August, experts from the AFGECouncil of Prison Locals (CPL) and the

this will dramatically reduce the costs and securityrisks associated with transporting inmates.

n In October, the Bureau’s Office ofSecurity Technology completed theinstallation of avideo teleconferenc-ing system between the U.S. Court-house in Tallahassee, Florida, andthe new Federal Detention Center(FDC) in Tallahassee. The systemenables the court to conduct certainpretrial procedures without having tomove offenders from the FDC to the court;

resource training performed via teleconference—atless than one-fourth the cost of an in-person conference.

Bureau’s labor-management relationsstaff gathered at a local televisionstudio in Denver for a video tele-conference to review changes andanswer staff questions about thenew Master Agreement between

the CPL and the Bureau. Staff wereable to watch the teleconference live at

most Bureau institutions and phone in

questions. This program was the first human

The Tallahassee system is the first of such systems thatthe Bureau will pilot for the Department of Justice.Similar systems are being considered to link the Metro-politan Detention Centers in Guaynabo, Puerto Rico, andNew York City with their respective courthouses. Afourth system is planned to link the Federal MedicalCenter, Lexington, Kentucky, with the Immigration andNaturalization Service Regional Office in Chicago topermit Executive Office of Immigration Review judgesto conduct detention and deportation hearings.

n As Bureau information systems are increasingly placedon personal computer networks, the threat of data con-tamination by virus increases. To help counter thesedangers, and to increase the level of protection frominmate abuses, the Bureau’s Information, Policy, andPublic Affairs Division established a Computer SecurityOffice within the Office of Information Systems.

n On July 16, the National Institute of Corrections’National Academy of Corrections conducted a nation-wide satellite video teleconference, entitled “Ethics in the‘90’s.” More than 2,300 State and local correctionalprofessionals and educators from 28 States participatedvia satellite. The 2-hour program included taped seg-ments in which correctional administrators from aroundthe Nation expressed their views; viewers in remotelocations were able to participate live by phoning in theirquestions and comments.

Community corrections andintermediate sanctions

In 1992, the Bureau’s Community Corrections and De-tention Division focused both on traditional forms of

community corrections and on expanding options forintermediate sanctions. The Division supervised 33 of-fices around the Nation that monitor Community Correc-tions Center (CCC) or “halfway house” contracts; 250

26

contracts were awarded or continued during the year,providing 5,O14 beds for inmates who are nearing the endof their sentences or serving short terms of confinementin the community.

n Innovative intermediate sanction/work programs co- 1

sponsored with other Federal agencies continued to ex-pand. Two examples:

The Federal Correctional Institution,Loretto, Pennsylvania, signed an in-teragency agreement with the De-partment of the Interior, NationalPark Service (NPS), and the Allegh-eny Portage Railroad that will allowan inmate work cadre to assist theNPS in maintaining the grounds andfacilities of the Allegheny PortageRailroad National Historical Site.

establish several Comprehensive Sanctions Centers(CSC’s). CSC’s will provide judges and wardens with afull range of sanctions—creating environments that maybe less restrictive than imprisonment, but more restrictivethan traditional Community Corrections Centers—with-out compromising community safety. The program willcontain six different levels of supervision, ranging fromday-reporting to 24-hour confinement. CSC’s also willhave an intensive treatment component. A key compo-

A probation officer and Community Corrections Center resident, Volunteers ofAmerica Regional Correctional Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

As a result of an informal arrange-ment between the National WeatherService (NWS) and the Federal Cor-rectional Institution, Schuylkill,Pennsylvania, the FCI has recentlybecome a weather observatory forthe NWS. Inmate volunteers measure and record weatherdata at least twice each day. The Schuylkill observatoryprovides important information because of the site’selevation and location and because there are no otherNWS observatories in the area. The project also providesinformation to the Pennsylvania Department of Trans-portation for Schuylkill County, which maintains localhighways. Schuylkill camp inmates also maintain a For-est Fire Observation Point, in cooperation with the Penn-sylvania State Department of Environmental Resources(DER).

nent of the program will be helping offenders reintegrateinto the community by working closely with familymembers and a support network of community-basedvolunteers, who will work in conjunction with program

staff.

Cooperation with other agencies

The worst natural disaster ever to affect the agencyoccurred in 1992—Hurricane Andrew. Thanks to ad-vance weather warnings and successful emergency pre-paredness plans—and a great deal of help from otherFederal, State, and local agencies—Federal Prison Camp(FPC), Homestead, and Metropolitan Correctional Cen-ter (MCC), Miami, staff and inmates were kept safe fromHurricane Andrew’s destruction. However, Miami’s

n Bureau staff continued to work closely with the U.S.Probation Service in the development of electronic moni-toring and home confinement programs—which provideappropriate, cost-effective supervision for offenders inan increasing number of judicial districts.

n The Bureau and the U.S. Probation Office in theNorthern District of Ohio developed a pilot project to

27

buildings and grounds suffered significant damage, By 10:00 p.m. on August 26—just 2 days after the storm

while Homestead’s were totally destroyed. Tragically, a hit—Bureau staff, assisted by the U.S. Marshals Service,

third of the 400 Bureau staff members in south Florida had safely transported nearly 1,400 inmates to other

lost their homes. Bureau and non-Bureau correctional facilities through-

Above: Staff clean up after the hurricane, Metropolitan Correctional Center,Miami, Florida. Below: A UNICOR truck split in half by the hurricane.

On August 23, the day before the hurricane hit southFlorida, 146 FPC Homestead inmates and 63 institutionstaff were moved to MCC Miami. When HurricaneAndrew reached Miami at 5:00 a.m. on the 24th, therewere 1,402 inmates and 408 staff members at the MCC.In addition, more than 200 family members had gatheredin the institution’s visiting room and training center to“ride out” the storm. The hurricane immediately knockedout electricity, water, and phone service. Fortunately, noone suffered serious injuries.

The Bureau had begun emergency evacuation proce-dures as the storm approached, positioning staff andvehicles near South Florida to be ready to move in afterthe hurricane passed. Airlifts werealso arranged when theBureau identified a Miami-area airport that was opera-tional. As the buses and airplanes moved toward theinstitution, MCC Miami and FPC Homestead staff—who had just endured a terrifying storm—undertookprocedures to ensure security, and began assessing thedamage and preparing for an orderly evacuation.

out the Southeast Region. This aston-ishing feat was accomplished throughhours of hard work and outstandinginteragency teamwork.

The staff of FPC Homestead and MCCMiami remained on the job at the insti-tution during the hurricane and thetime required to evacuate inmates andsecure the facility. Despite the fact thatmany lost their homes and all theirpossessions to the storm—and, in anumber of cases, had no idea of thewhereabouts of family members andno way of contacting them—they re-mained focused on their professionalduties.

MCC Miami came back on line early in 1993; FPCHomestead will not be reopened. A bright spot to thedisaster was the outpouring of support from Bureau staffand friends of the Bureau for the Miami and Homesteademployees who suffered so greatly and lost so much. Bythe end of the year, institutions around the Nation hadraised $295,000 in disaster relief and collected manytruckloads of food, clothing, and personal items.

n In April and May, Los Angeles was swept by some ofthe worst riots in modern U.S. history. In response to apresidential order to dispatch Federal law enforcementpersonnel to south-central Los Angeles to keep the peace,20 of the Bureau’s Special Operations Response Teams(SORT’s) from Federal institutions nationwide traveledto the riot-tornarea on Fri-day,‘May 1.

28

The SORT’s were actively involvedin protecting property, patrollingneighborhoods, searching burned-outbuildings for possible victims, andserving as support for the Los AngelesPolice Department (LAPD). SORT’salso were responsible for apprehend-ing four individuals possessing co-caine, preventing an individual fromstabbing a woman, and apprehendinga sniper who had been shooting atresidents. In this incident, which oc-curred at night, the SORT surroundedthe building where the sniper washiding, and, using a “stealth entrymaneuver,” captured the individualand placed him in the custody of theLAPD. In the absence of the SORT’s,staff onsite at the home institutionsmaintained security; there were nodisturbances during the riot period.

A The N/C Academy in Boulder, Colorado,trains State and local correctionsprofessionals.

n To help enhance coordination with the Federal judi-ciary, the Bureau participated in a Sentencing Institute forabout 65 judges of the 2nd and 8th Circuits in Lexington,Kentucky. Co-sponsored by the Bureau of Prisons andthe Federal Judicial Center, the Institute focused on therelationship between the U.S. Sentencing Commissionand the courts, sentencing guideline issues and the amend-ment cycle, hearing factors, the role of the probationofficer in guideline sentencing, intermediate sanctionsand conditions of supervision, and plea bargaining fac-tors. Bureau staff sponsored exhibits about matters ofmutual concern. In addition, the Bureau published anenhanced second edition of the Judicial Guide to theBureau of Prisons.

n The Department of Defense continued its support forconversions of military property to prison use and forprison camps located on military installations, whichoften provide much-needed work crews and services forbase maintenance. As mentioned, a portion of Ft. Dix,New Jersey, is in the process of conversion from an Armybase to a major complex of minimum- and low-securityinstitutions-the largest in the Federal system.

n The Bureau worked closely withother Department of Justice compo-nents in 199 1. Detention issues were amajor focus of interagency efforts.The Bureau, the Immigration andNaturalization Service, the U.S. Mar-shals Service, the Executive Office ofImmigration Review, and the Com-munity Relations Service met regu-larly as the Department’s JointDetention Planning Committee, un-der the auspices of the Office of theDeputy Attorney General, in continu-ing support of an interagency plan toproject the Department’s detentionneeds to 1996. Anotherjoint program,as previously described, was the elec-tronic monitoring project managed bythe Bureau in cooperation with theU.S. Parole Commission and the U.S.Probation Service for offenders inhome confinement status.

n The National Institute of Corrections continued itswork with State and local systems, training more than1,360 correctional professionals at its NIC Academy inBoulder, Colorado, and providing training to another3,187 through conferences and workshops. NIC alsoresponded to more than 8,700 requests for informationfrom practitioners and policymakers, awarded 38 grantsto State and local agencies and private organizations (forsuch projects as facilitating the use of intermediate sanc-tions, training, and developing and implementing classi-fication systems), and conducted 60.5 technical assistancevisits to State and local agencies.

n One of the Bureau’s largest interagency projects is theprisoner transportation program, operated in cooperationwith the U.S. Marshals Service, which carried out 157,454prisoner moves in 1992 using Bureau buses and U.S.Marshals airplanes.

29

To support this critical operation, a Federal TransferCenter (FTC), to be located at the Will Rogers WorldAirport in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, will be privatelybuilt, then leased to and operated by the Bureau ofPrisons. The FTC will provide temporary confinementfor about 1,000 prisoners in transit from either the courtsto designated facilities or between facilities. Locating thisoperation at the Will Rogers World Airport will relievethe Federal Correctional Institution, El Reno of thisoperational task.

n In May, a special program was held at the FederalCorrectional Institution, La Tuna, Texas, to observe the50th anniversary of the Mexican/American Prisoner Trans-fer program. The program included representatives fromthe Government of Mexico and U.S. Federal law enforce-ment officials from the Bureau, the U.S. Attorney’sOffice in northern and western Texas, the U.S. MarshalsService, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and

the U.S. Parole Commission.

n This year marks the 20th anniversary of the WitnessSecurity Program. Many individuals in the program areincarcerated in Bureau facilities—currently, more than400 inmates. Administered by the U.S. Marshals Serviceand coordinated with the Department of Justice’s Officeof Enforcement Operations (Criminal Division) and theBureau of Prisons’ Inmate Monitoring Section, this pro-gram has been a vital tool in the battle againstorganized crime for many years. The convic-tion rate in trials where the testimony of pro-tected witnesses was offered is more than86 percent. More than 5,800as well as 7,200 of theirmembers, have entered theness Security Program since1971. During that time, notone witness in the programhas been harmed because ofhis or her testimony.

n Last year, the Bureau and the National Institute ofCorrections received legislative authority to provide tech-nical assistance to foreign governments. A Bureau/NICteam spent 2 weeks in Romania surveying Romania’scorrectional system and formulating recommendationsfor its localized and systemic improvements. The teamvisited nine institutions to meet with their commandersand support staffs, and made recommendations regardingRomania’s inmate classification scheme, inmate workand program assignments, the stratification of institu-tions (by security level), organizational management,and conditions of confinement. In addition, the teamreviewed draft legislation concerning prison manage-ment and confinement. Formal training in confrontationavoidance and inmate searching procedures was pro-vided for training instructors.

Another assessment team visited Jamaica in Septemberto assist Jamaican corrections staff in such areas asmanagement and organizational structure, inmate classi-fication, and security and custody methods. In addition,the Bureau provided short-term technical assistance tothe corrections agencies in Colombia, Ecuador, Bolivia,and Panama. All technical assistance is conducted incoodination with the U.S. Department of State.

Public outreach andcommunity involvement

n In April, the Department of Justice hosted the AttorneyGeneral’s Summit on Corrections in McLean, Virginia.

The summit focused on increasing prison capacity for offenders in a cost-ropriate use of interme-nts for nonserious,

nonviolent offenders; trends in therole of the courts in corrections; andeffective institutional programming,including work, drug treatment, andeducation/literacy programs. Bureaustaff played a major role in prepar-ing for the conference and present-ing at many of the sessions.

Parker Evatt, Director, SouthCarolina Department of Corrections,speaks at the Attorney General’sSummit on Corrections.

30

Former Attorney General William P.Barr was keynote speaker at the Sum-mit. Other primary speakers were formerSolicitor General of the United StatesKenneth W. Starr; Chairman of the U.S.House Judiciary Subcommittee on In-tellectual Property and Judicial Admin-istration William J. Hughes; Massa-chusetts Governor William Weld; SouthCarolina Department of Corrections Di-rector Parker Evatt; and then-Bureau ofPrisons Director J. Michael Quinlan. Inaddition, the conference included work-shops and plenary sessions on capacityexpansion strategies, efficient manage-ment, effective institutional program-ming, intermediate sanctions, and legalissues in corrections.

A Scrap wood f rom the UNlCORfactory is turned into toys for charityat the Federal Correctional Insti -tution, Sheridan, Oregon.

Guests included State legislators; mem-bers of the judiciary; Federal, State, andlocal officials involved in correctionsand intermediate sanctions in the com-munity; and representatives of relatedprofessional associations, victims of crime, local police :

and prosecution agencies, and the media. Altogether, :

about 300 public policy officials from around the Nation :

attended the Summit.

n Volunteerism received increased emphasis in policy 1

and practice in 1992. Community volunteers make enor- :

mous contributions to agency operations and to the well- 1

being of offenders. Over the past year, there have been :

significant efforts to increase the number of people who :

regularly volunteer in institutions, augmenting existing :

academic, counseling, and religious programs.

ons Journal focused on the female offender—a growingsegment of the Bureau’s inmate population and that ofcorrectional systems nationwide. The issue immediatelybecame a leading resource in an area that has received toolittle attention, discussing the need to review classifica-tion techniques for female offenders, parenting pro-grams, women’s health care in prison, management ofwomen’s institutions, and other topics.

In May, the Bureau established the National Office of :

Citizen Participation (NOCP) to help expand the role of :

volunteerism within the Bureau of Prisons. The NOCP :

will foster new partnerships with the private sector; :

strengthen existing linkages with public and charitable :

organizations; provide support to institutions and Re- 1

gional Offices; and act as a liaison to national service !

organizations. A priority for the office will be the devel- 1

opment of new programs and initiatives to provide a :

n The American Correctional Association (ACA) awardedthe Bureau of Prisons’ video “Toymakers” first place inthe “Special Interest” category of its annual film awards.The 18-minute program, written, directed, and producedby the Bureau’s Office of Public Affairs, highlights theFederal Correctional Institution, Sheridan, Oregon’s in-novative toy building operation. Inmates involved in thisprogram make toys out of scrap wood generated at theinstitution’s furniture factory and, through the local

support network for released inmateswho are attempting to reintegrate intothe community and remain crime-free.

n Renew America, a national environ-mental organization, announced that theUNICOR Strategic Recycling programlocated at the Federal Prison Camp,Duluth has been selected to receive aCertificate of Environmental Achieve-ment. The Duluth program was chosenfor its success in protecting the environ-ment, while serving as a model that canbe replicated around the country. Itemsrecycled throughout the camp includecardboard, office paper, tin cans, alu-minum cans, fabric swatches, and pal-lets. UNICOR Strategic Recycling willbe listed in Renew America’s I992Environmental Success Index, the mostcomprehensive guide to the Nation’senvironmental programs.

n A special issue of the Federal Pris-

31

Kiwanis Club, donate them to a nearby ����� � ����� Inmates using the tele-

children’s hospital and other local phones at the Federal CorrectionalInstitution, Jesup, Georgia. A new

charities.

Program integrity

direct-dial inmate telephone systemis beginning to be installed and willbe in place throughout the Bureau inabout 8 years. The new system placesfinancial responsibility for the pay-ment of calls on inmates.

The Bureau has always emphasized pro-fessionalism and integrity in its operations. However,

with the rapid growth of the organization and the relativeinexperience of many staff, this is an especially challeng-ing and important issue. See the front section of thispublication, “Program Review and Planning in the Fed-eral Bureau of Prisons,” for further discussion.

Program integrity within the Bureau is ensured through awell-developed system of internal controls—such asregular program reviews—and management systems formonitoring the quality of programs throughout the Bu-reau and the enhancement of operations at Bureau insti-tutions. Program integrity also is safeguarded by theopenness of Bureau facilities—to the public, to the press,to the academic community, and to oversight by Govern-ment organizations, including Congress.

n The Bureau continues to support the accreditationprocess of the American Correctional Association. Atpresent, 52 Bureau institutions are accredited by ACA,with another 6 accreditations in process. In addition, theJoint Commission on the Accreditation of HealthcareOrganizations has accredited or is preparing to accredit anumber of Bureau medical facilities-in Butner, North

Carolina: Lexington, Kentucky; Rochester, Minnesotaand Springfield, Missouri. This accreditation helps en-sure that medical care commensurate with communityhealth care delivery standards is provided to all Bureauinmates who require it.

n A particularly important focus for the Bureau in man-aging public moneys in a time of tightening Federalbudgets is cost containment. With a major facility expan-sion program underway, the agency is focusing on achiev-ing additional construction economies, and has recently

made several changes to its buildingprogram: building correctional com-plexes (as discussed earlier) that offermany economies of scale; increasing therated capacity of institutions and double-bunking about two thirds of all inmates,thus reducing per capita inmate costs by

one-third; using inmate workers on selected construction

projects; and reducing the amount of program space inprison support areas to a level that supports basic pro-gramming.

Construction costs typically represent 3 to 5 percent of thetotal expense for a facility over its life; the major opera-tional cost is staffing. Because of its staff—efficient insti-tution design philosophy and flexible use of employees,Bureau institutions use an average of 27 percent fewerstaff than comparable State institutions-another ex-ample of how the responsible use of public funds isincorporated into Bureau planning.

n Federal Prison Industries hired an ombudsman toexamine and report on private sector concerns, serve as anunbiased mediator and conciliator, and look for opportu-nities for partnerships that benefit both the private sectorand FPI. The new ombudsman reviews and makes finaldecisions on customer waiver appeals and reports toFPI’s Board of Directors regarding FPI’s impact on theprivate sector. He works with private companies andtrade associations, striving to find mutually beneficialmethods of resolving problems and complaints in orderfor FPI to achieve its correctional mission without undulyaffecting the private sector.

32

Outstanding individualachievments

During the past year, a number of individualswere recognized for their outstanding achieve-ments. The “Directors’ Awards”—named for

the first four directors of the Federal Bureau of Prisons—and the Equal Employment Opportunity Award are thehighest honors given by the Bureau. The AttorneyGeneral’s awards are presented by the Attorney Generalin a ceremony at the Department of Justice.

The Sanford Bates Award

Granted annually, since 1967, to non-supervisory em-ployees for exceptionally outstanding service or for inci-dents involving extraordinary courage or voluntary riskof life in performing an act resulting in direct benefit to theBureau or to governmental operations.

David Marshall and Robert PerdueCorrectional Officers, Federal Correctional

Institution, Phoenix, ArizonaOfficers Marshall and Perdue risked their own lives tohelp prevent the escape of two heavily armed inmatesfrom FCI Phoenix in October 1991. Their courage andprofessionalism exemplify the highest standards of theFederal Bureau of Prisons.

The James V. Bennett Award

Granted annually, since 1967, to supervisory and man-agement employees for exceptionally outstanding ser-vice or for incidents involving extraordinary courageor voluntary risk of life in performing an act resultingin direct benefit to the Bureau or to governmentaloperations.

Thomas WilsonCorrectional Supervisor, Federal CorrectionalInstitution, Jesup, GeorgiaIn July 1991, while working as operations lieutenant atthe Metropolitan Correctional Center, Miami, Florida,

Mr. Wilson was held at gunpoint by inmates who threat-ened to kill him in their escape attempt. His calmness andclear thinking under extreme pressure demonstrated trueleadership ability.

The Myrl E. Alexander Award

Granted annually, since 1970, to any employees whothrough their own initiatives have been instrumental inthe development of new techniques in Correctional Pro-grams, or who have succeeded exceptionally well in theimplementation of new and innovative procedures.

Donna M. HenkeFinancial Manager, Federal Correctional Institution,

Otisville, New YorkMs. Henke, on her own initiative, implemented severalnew programs within her department that increased theefficiency of institutional operations, and has shownconsistent success in tackling unresolved problems.

The Norman A. Carlson Award

Granted annually, since 1987, to employees who haveshown excellence in leadership and who have demon-strated the highest personal and professional standards ofattainment.

Rita K. SuddethUnit Secretary, Federal Correctional Institution,Talladega, Alabama

While being held hostage by Cuban detainees during theTalladega incident in August 1991, Ms. Suddeth demon-strated extraordinary courage and resourcefulness insupport of her fellow hostages and of the rescue effort.

Granted to any employee who, through exceptionalachievements in training, recruitment, management, orother activity, advances equal employment opportunityin the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

34

Frederick MenifeeAssociate Warden, Federal Correctional Institution,

Oakdale, Louisiana

At FCI Oakdale, Mr. Menifee developed a very progres-sive recruitment program. He is active in the communitythrough the National Association of Blacks in CriminalJustice and has increased staff involvement and participa-tion in Affirmative Action programs.

Distinguished Service

For accomplishing assigned duties in such an exemplarymanner as to set a record of achievement that will inspireothers to improve the quality of their work.

Audrey HartwellLegal Technician, Metropolitan Correctional Center,

San Diego, California

Outstanding Service to Disabled Employees

For providing such services as recruitment, employment,or provision of services, accommodation, or equipmentto disabled employees of the Department of Justice.

Arthur F. PulfordCase Management Coordinator, Federal Prison Camp,

Duluth, Minnesota

Attorney General’s Award for Upward Mobility

For making significant contributions to the UpwardMobility Program—in leadership, training, program de-velopment or implementation, or other areas that enhancemobility for lower-grade employees.

Diane SchatzEmployee Development Manager, Metropolitan

Correctional Center, New York, New York

The John Marshall Award (Providing Legal Advice)

recognition of outstanding legal achievement in fur-nishing sound legal opinions and expertise in areas in-volving significant litigation or matters of importance tothe Government.

Excellence in Management

For extraordinary achievements in the improvement ofoperational or program effectiveness, efficiency, or pro-ductivity; the reduction of costs through innovative ad-ministrative initiatives; or the reduction of fraud, waste,mismanagement, or abuse.

David A. ChapmanAdministrator, Intensive Confinement Center,U.S. Penitentiary, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania

Kathleen M. HawkThen-Assistant Director, Program Review Division

Excellence in Administrative Support

For outstanding performance over a sustained period orextraordinary achievements that overcame unusual diffi-culties in unique situations of high importance to theorganization’s mission.

Mary (Kathy) GrabowskiWarden’s Secretary, Federal Correctional Institution,

Otisville, New York

Clarita J. Rodriguez Secretary, Federal Prison Camp, Bryan, Texas

Meritorious Public Service

In recognition of the most significant contributionsof citizens and organizations who have assisted theDepartment of Justice in accomplishing its missions andobjectives.

Sandra J. MenleyChairperson, Community Relations Board, FederalCorrectional Institution, Bastrop, Texas

Attorney General’s Medallion

In recognition of outstanding achievements in support ofthe mission of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Thomas R. KaneAssistant Director, Information, Policy, and Public

Affairs Division (Acting Director, July-December, 1992)

Dominique RaiaStaff Attorney, Metropolitan Correctional Center,

New York, New York

35

Statistical dataDecember 31,1992

Inmate characteristics

Institution design capacity Average costs of confinement per inmate

Percent of capacity occupied 137%

Inmates under Bureau jurisdiction

Annual $20,830

Median months expected to be served

In Bureau institutions 71,671 Drug offenses 64

Sentenced 88.3%

Type of commitments (%)

Probation violation

State, Territorial .8

Property offenses 48

Violent offenses

White-collar offenses

Courts or corrections 28

National security 58

Gender (%)

Fema le 8

36

Race/ethnicity (%)

Black 32.3 Cannabis 26.2 6.0

Asian 1.0 Other narcotics 12.5 6.2

Citizenship (%)

Mexico 8.4

Cuba 3.4

Nigeria 1.1

Inmates held by security levels (%)

Low 14.2

High

Pretrial 6.7

INS 2.4

Substance abuse before commitment (%)Used in past Reported problem

Amphetamines 7.0 2.9

Barbiturates

Hallucinogens 2.7 0.3

Inhalants 0.8

Substance abuse estimates are based on a sample of new commitments

0.3

37

New law/old lawcomparative figures

Inmate characteristicsNew law Old law All BOP

Average age 36 40 37 Robbery 7.0 13.4 9.1

Sentence length (%) Extortion, fraud, bribery 6.5 7.0 6.7

1-3 years 23.2 5.4 18.8 Firearms, explosives, arson 8.7 3.0 6.8

5- 10 years 24.9 14.6 22.3 Immigration 2.6 0.3 1.8

15-20 years 6.3 15.7 8.6 Sex offenses 0.6 0.7 0.6

Life 0.9 5.2 2.0

Type of offense (%)New law Old law All BOP

Continuing criminal enterprise 0.4 1.5 0.7

Employees

Gender (%)

Female 27.1

Institution department (%)

CEO’s Office

Race/ethnicity (%)

Black

Mechanical Services

American Indian

Business Office 6.8

Records/Inmate Systems

Personnel

Psychological Services

Unit/Case Management 9.2

Training/Staff Development 0.8

39

Bureau institutions

FCC:

FCI:

FDC:

FMC:

FPC:

ICC:

LSCI:

MCC:

����� � � � ��� � � � � � � � ��� ��� � � ���� � � � � ���� � � � � � � � �� ��� � � � ��� � � ���� � � � � ���� � � � ����� � � ���� � � � � ����� � � � � ����� � � ���� � � � � �� �! " # $%��� �&�' (*) +*, -.+/�� ��0 1 � � ��� � �2���� ���� 3�465 � � 7�� 1 8:9 3�; ; <�� � = 3���>�� ��� � � � ��� � 3��? <�� ; 3�@�3� = � >�� �� � � ��� � � � ��2���� ���

A&A&BC D BB BryanEGFGHGFJILKGMJN�O PGQLRSOGO TGTVU W X Y Z [ \ ]

^ _ ` a b�c d e f a gih*h*j*k*l*m*n*o*prqsGTGPGtLuGNGvGt�O uGQGPwGxGMGyLsGTGPGtGNGzLTGtGPG{GsGz

FCI/FPC ButnerEGFGHGFVILKGM�O TGTGT| } ~ � � � ��� KG�L�G�J�GxG�GKL�G�G�GxJNGQL{GTGP��� �L�����������������wGxGMGyLP�O PGtG{GQL{GtGzGvGs�O

FCI/FPC Florence�G�G�G���G�G�G�L���G���G�G�� G¡£¢�¤¥�G¦L§G�G¨©�ª�«�¬�­�®�¯�­L°²±�«�ª�«�¬�³�´�«¶µ�� ·���¸

FCI Fort Dlx©�«�¬�¹²º�»�¼�°¾½�¿ÁÀÂÃÄÀzGTGPGtLQGNGvGt�OLO TGTÅ a f�ÆJÇ�¸��G����·��G� ¸������

FCI Fort WorthÈrÉ �*�*Ê*¦*Ë*�*¦*Ì2Í*¦*�*ÎÏ�Ð Ñ Ò6Ó*Ô2Õ*Ö*×.Ø Ù2Ú*Û*Ü2ÝßÞ Ãáàà�âáãä�ââõ�� �G����å��G� ·������wGxGMGyæuÁO QGtG{Gv�O tGN�O PGv

MDC Guaynaboçáè�éêè�IGKGM%vGsGTGNLuëGìGíGî%ïGðGñGòGóLôGóGôGõ%öGðG÷GíGîGì�ø�ù ú ûuGTGPGtLQGuGNGtGzL{GvGNwGxGMGyLuGTGPGtGQLsGPGtGsGvGzLv

FCI/FPC Manchesterü ý þ ÿ ��������� ��� ý � � �� þ � ÿ �·G¸���G�LÌ��G¨G���L�G�GË����L�GÌG�G§��������G�������zLTGzGtG{GPGuLt�O PGTGT©G³ ¼�� Ç�¸�ÇL������µL�L� ��� å

FCI Oakdale "!$#"%"& ä�Àáä�À'  �(*)G �+*,�-�.*/�0G�*1G�G �2� 43"5"6"7"8v�O uGtGvGvG{GtLsGTGQGTwGxLMGyGv�O uGtLzGuGQGtGP�O u�O

FDC Oakdale9�:�;�:�<G¦�=G�L���G�> ? @ A ? Z ] BDCG¦G§�E���EG�GÌG�GF�É ���GÈv�O uGtGvGvG{GtLsGsGzGz©�³�¼��æå�� µG��å�å�����������Ç

FCI/FPC MarlannaH ÃJI {�K*L*M4N*O*PRQS a b a b b aRTVU�W ¦LË�EGÎG��È��������PLTGsGtG{GNGzLtGNGv�O vXJYRZJ[]\ ^ _ ` _ � a ` b � c �

FCI Otisville9�:�;�:�<G¦�=��L�G�HG�L��d�eG�G�G��fGRhgRi*j4k�lRmRn O TGPGzGvP�O sGtGvGuGzGtL{GuG{G{©�³�¼��S��� �G��å�µ�ÇG���������

FMC Carville9�:�;�:�<G¦�=��L��� U ��op ? W q W Z Z ] rts u v w g x a b a Þ À Þ Ià{GTGsGtGzLsGNGtG{GTLsGsÅ a f�Æ ��¸��G� å�µ��L� ¸�Ç�åG�

USP/FPC Martony z { � ý |��~} � � � | ý � � b a \ � \Ç*� µG� ��Ç��G�L� �����wGxLMGyGz�O uLtGPGzGsGt�O zGPG{

��������� FPC Maxwell�R�R�R���R�R����� ������������������

�GKL�G���GK���fG���GR��G�Lx� Gx��Gx¡8"7"5"5"¢·�¸���� µ�å��G� å�Ç�µ��wGxLMGyGNGTG{LtGNGzGPGt�O sGvGT

FCI/FPC McKean�R� ��� ý � ä�ÀÀÀ¤£ ¥�¯R¦�­�³�®±�«�§�®�¹�¨�©ªG¬�³�´R«�«�¬�´G°­¬R® � Ç���¸��u�O sGtGvGzGNLtGuGPGTGTwGxLMGyGu�O sLtGvGzGNGtGvLNGuGQ

FCI MemphisOGO T�O°¯LKG�G���GF�±�fG�G��ft²GKGx�³´ ��µ�¶�·�¸���¹���º�º����������vLu�O vGsGtGQLzGPGTPLT�O tGvGQGNLtGNGNGzGPwGxLMGyGQGTGTLtGNGNGuGtGuLvGPG{

MCC/FPC Miamiq p*j*krq�»½¼ ¾½¼*q l*h�¿ ·ÁÀ�Â���º�Ã��¥G»�³ ÄG»G°²©�ª�«�¬�»�´�³¶å�å�� ���vLTG{GtGNG{GvLtGsGsGTGT����ŽÆ�Ç È É Ê Ë Ì Ì Ê�Í Ì È Î

FCI Milan¥�»�ª�³�®L°Ï¥G»�¯�Ð�»RÑ�³�® ��µ�� Ç�¸å� å����GåG����� �*�G�wGxLMGyGv�O vLtGsGvGPGt�O PGsGs

FPC MillingtonÒ�Ò o ÒÁÓ ��Â�ÔÁÕ�����Öy � � � � | × ÿ ý |R� Ø�� | | � � � � � 8"ÙRÚJÛ"8PLT�O tGuGQGNLtGNGNGQGQU ��=�Ü��G��É ÝG��FGÈG���L���

FCI/FPC OxfordÞ�ß à {�T�T� � á ý { â�� ã � � ä ý | � � | ä H âáä"IãT�{�T�TÇ�¸�µG����µ��G���������wGxLMGyGzGTGuGtL{GuGsGtG{GvÁO {

MCC ChicagoQ�Oæå*ç è Òêé xG�JI�ëL��fG��G�G��ìLx��GKGRGí í í î ï ð ñ zGTLzGTG{v�O NGtLvGNGNGtGTG{LzGQwGxGMGyGvÁO NGtGvGNLNGtGTG{GzG{

FCI/FPC Danburyº�³�®Rò*§�¬ ¨�°V±�«�®�®�­�¯�¹�»�¯�§�¹TGzGu�OLO tGvGTGPGP·G¸Gå��G���Gå���ÇG���*�wGxGMGyGNLTGvGtGQGsLzGtGQGvGPGv

ó½ôöõ ÷½ø�? <Rù&=� >� 9 <���� <�;ûú 3�;��� � � � � �"üL� 1 ý ��� � ý

USP: þRÿ�� � � � � � � � � � � �FCI/FPC JesupNGzGTGT�G���G��Gx��LvGT�O �GK�ëG�G�¯�f�d�ë��GR���fGKL���G�Gx v�O {LsG{P�O NGtLsGNGQGtGTLuGQGTwGxGMGyLP�O NGtGsLNGQGt�O NGNLz FPC Pensacola��� ¸ ÍG���������G�GÌG§G�� e b g a � u x a�c Å x u _ w � a H Iä�Àâáã

{�O NGQ�G¸L�����L�G�L�*� �2�G�©�³�¼��S��¸��G������µG����·����

FCI/FPC La Tuna� #�� §�®�³G°¥½�­ � ´ ��Å�¸���� m ¹���Å����µGµG¸G·�P�O {GtLuGuGzGtGvLsGNGNwGxGMGyVPÁO {GtGuGuLzGtGsGPGQGQ

FPC Alderson����� �"!$#&%(')#(*)#,+ ¢û6&- 5�ÚåL¸G�����G���L��·G�G¸2�wLxGMGyGvGTGsLtGsGsG{GtGNLzGQG{

FPC/LSCI Allenwood¥G«�®�¹RÑG« ÄG­�¬�¨�° ¬�­�®�®/.�¨Gª 0L³�®�»�³O QGQG{GN�*� �L�������L��� ÇG�2�wLxGMGyGQ�O QLtG{GsGQGtÁO {GTGs

FCI/FPC Ashland���G¨ W �GÌLÎ����G�GÌG�L§��������ÁÉGÉ �G�zLTGzGtGPGNLuGtGzGs�O swLxGMGyGQGTGTLtGvG{GuGtLuG{G{GN

USP/FPC Atlanta7RÚJ5G��ì�±GKG�GK�ëGxL� ^ Í 1 � T32RT 4�T�G�G�GxG�G�LxGR���fGKG���G�Gx vGTGv�O {GtGT�O uGN�L¸G����ÇG·L·���ÇG·G�2�wLxGMGyGsGTLsGtGvGv�O tLN�O vGQ

FCI/FDC/FPC Dublin5Gð�6�7�8LôGõ:9Gó(7�8�;GìGíLô�8Gó âÄáä�ÃÂs�O {GtLuGvGvGtGQG{LTGTwGxGMGyGsÁO {GtGuGvLvGtGQG{GPGP FCI/FPC Petersburg9�:�;�:�<G¦�=�É �G�G�

�*��ÿ*�R{��/<�þ*{�×�� =��R{R×*��|*�RzNGvLuGTGsGt�O TLTGTµ�¸��G����å�åG����µ�µ��wGxLMGFGuGTGsGtLQGvGvGtGvGQLNGu

USP/FPC Leavenworth>�­�³?0G­�®?�L«�¬�¹RÐL° ¦�³�®@.G³?. 7"7RÚJ6"ÙP�O vGtLzGuGNGtGuLQGTGTwGxGMGyLP�O vGtGzLuGNGtGvGz�O Q

USP/lCC/FPC>L­@��»�.�ò�§L¬*ÑA?B C@D E F G H I/JLK B M M E N?O P@Q M?D Q 5"3"Ù"8�3�*� �L�G��·Gå���� ·L�*�wGxGMGyLQ�O QGtG{LNGsGtG{GuGTL{

FMC Lexingtonl*l*krqSR � � � ÿ ý T | Õ�����ÖU�fGMG�L���G�GKG�LRWV�fL�G��ë�ì�X���sGTL{�OGOzGTGzGtLNG{G{GtGzLu�O N©�³ ¼�� Ç�¸�ÇG� ·G����� ��µ�Ç�¸

USP/FPC LompocvGPGT�OZY�7G÷GíGô IGK�ëL��f�eGxG��³>�« Ä�[�«�¯G°�±�³�ª�»R«�«�¬�®�»�³£��å���å�ǵG¸L�L�G��åL�L��·��G�*�wGxGMGyLuGTG{GtGQGvLQGtGTGNGPL{

FPC Duluth±�ëG��ëG�G�LR��G�G�G��f�dGKL�Gx Û"Û"Ù"5"6N�O uGtLQGNGNGtGuGzLvGswGxGMGyGNÁO uGtGQGNLNGtGuGQGPGN

FCI/FPC PhoenixÈ�F��G�G�]\ T ^ É _ ` ���G�GÌG§L��:º�­?[�¹:� Ç�µ�¸a&b)c&d *)#�e)f"g)%&#�h c *)+ Ù Û�Ú ¢ 3zGTLNGtGsGzG{GtLPGQG{GQi/j?k�l�m@n@o�p?q@m/r/p?s@n/r�t

FPC Eglinu�v�7�8Gô�w�8Gí wGKG��ì�fJIGx�d�fLRwG�GKG�G��³Lx lyx*p*nyxPGTGsGtLuGuGNGtGuG{LNGN©�³ ¼�����¸��G����·��G��µ�·�Ç��

FPC El Pasozy{ ����Å q Ò l*k*k| �~} >�� 3��$�L<@� >�� �/�@�@�/�@� �/�@�/���� ��� � ����� ��� � �©�³ ¼�� �*� ��������¸G� Ç�� Ç��

FCI Ray Brook�RT È #"%"&"H ÀÀÍG��� <GËG¦G¦������G���(�G¦GË��O NGPLQGQ{�O uGtGuGP�O tL{GsGTGT©�³�¼�� ��� µG� µ��*� � ¸�¸*���

FCI Rastrop� {y� h*l*kILx�dG�G�GK(�GF���fGMGx�dGQGuGzGTGN{ÁO NGtGvGNÁO tGvGPGTGvwLxGM {�O NGtGvLN�O tGzG{LzG{

FCI/FPC El Reno��� ��� ý �êà�ÀÀÀ��ªS��­�®G«G°��@��ª�³�Ð�« ÄL³QGvGTGvLzGt�O TGTGTsGTGsGtLNGzGNGtGsGuLQG{©�³ ¼�� ��¸��G������åG�L� ·�·��

FCI/FPC EnglewoadR � ÿ ÿ � � ÿ ý |���� ý � ý { z â ý¤� ^/� a cvGTGvGtGPLuG{Gt�O {LzGzwGxGMGyGvLTGvGtGQGzLvGtGNG{G{Gv

FCI/FPC Estillb@� ^�� z � ÿ�ü z � � { ý z â�� � � �Ê�E��G¨(�G���GÈ���É �G¦L§G�G¨� � ÿ � � ���h� ý þ ÿ ��� z { ý � � | zVa \ \@� �FCI/FPC Fairton9�:�;�:�<G¦�=��L�G��   ¡ ¢ £ ¤ ¥ ¦�§ ¨ ©~ª ¨ ¢ «?¨ ¬¾À H I�ÀzGTGPGtLsG{GvGt�OGO QGQ©�³ ¼��æÇ�¸��G� ����åG� ��¸*� �

FMC Rochoater "!�#"%"& ÄÃÀÀxrq*q k®­ ¯ ° ±�²(³�´(µ(³(¶"»�¿ ����� ¿²GK�ìG��f�dG��fL�GR ���G��f�dGKL�Gx{G{LPGTGvGtGsGzLTGT{GTLQGtGNGuGQGtLTGzGQGsXJYRZJ[t� ^ � ` a � a ` c � _/�

FCI Morgantown·�¸@¹@º/»@¼@½�¸ ¾�¼(¿�À(Á/Â�½ÄÃ�Å@¹@º/Å@¼/Å@»N�z�{�T�{vGTLsGtGNGPGzLtGsGs�O zwGxLMGyGvGTGsGtLNGPGzGtGQL{GsGP

FPC NellisÆ � í í ð ñÄ��EGË U ¦GË��G�®Ç È É Ê?Ë~��Ë����ÍÌyÌUGx�d é f��Gx�dGR � f�eLx�³GxuGPÁO P�O tG{LTGTGT�G¸G·���ÇG�G������¸G¸2�wGxLMGy£QGTLNGtGzGsGsGtLQGsGuGv

FCI/FPC Big Spring^ _ ÎSÏ@[�¬�¬�®*ÑL° � ­ ¼L³?.S������·�¸G�Q�Q�P�PPÁO {GtGNGzLvGtGuGvGTGswLxGM P�O {GtGNLzGQGtG{GPÁO T

FCI Lompocl Ò k*kyÐ Ã�����Ö�Õ�����Ö>�« Ä�[�«�¯G°�±�³�ª�»R«�«�¬�®�»�³ ��å���å�ÇuGTG{GtLQGvGzGtGsÁO {Gs©�³ ¼�� µ�¸�������å���� µ�¸�µ��

FCI Loretto9�:�;�:�<G¦�= É �G�G�R ý { � ÿ ÿ ý � � � | | � Ñ � � z | � z 5"Û�-"6RÚu�O sGtLsGQGNGtGsÁO sGT����Å½Æ � � _ ` _ � a ` _ � � ^MDC Los Angeles�GÈG����::� W ��ÒG�GÎG� »�¿ ����� ¿R ý �Ó� | × � � � ���]� z � � á ý { | � z \ ^ ^/� aN�O vGtLsGuG{GtGTLsGvGPwGxGMGyLN�O vGtGzLNGzGtG{GuGTÁO

FCI SaffordÔÕÔ�NLFGIGKGMGuGNLTSafford, ÖØ× Ù Ú?ÛÝÜ Þ Ù Û Û 6 7zGTGNLtGsGNGuGtLzGzGTGT����Å½Æ b ^ a ` _ a � ` � � � a

FPC Boron9�:�;�:�<G¦�=L�G�G� ý { ý |���� z � � á ý { | � z \ c �?� bÇ*� �G����Ç�·G����� Ç��wLxGMæz�O PGtGQLz�O tGzGsLTGP

MDC Brooklyn� ^ ^ a \ ÿ �G� ÿ { � � ÿ<LËG¦G¦�� W �LÌ��àß/á âäã@å æ çêÉ�É ��È��±�«�®�¹�³�¯�¹�¹RÐG¬�«�§RÑ*Ð ½�«�¬�¹*Ð�­�³?.�¹ü � × { ý | z �éè ê ê w � e

MCC San Diegoµ�¸�µìë�®�»�«�®ZÏ�¹G¬�­�­�¹í Y@îðï w e Î u c3ñ a x w ê u _ b w a��·*� ¸�� ��Ç�¸���µÇ�� �G� ·�å�·G� ��å����©�³�¼��SÇ�� �G����������¸�å���¸

MCC ò�ó,ô Yorkq p*k z ���yõ�Õ��yö÷�ø�ù�ú"%�û�üþý@÷�ø�ù�ú"%�û�ü à�ÂÀÀ ÞN�O NGtGQGP�O tGP�O vGTwGxLMGy£N�O NLtG{GQ�O tÁO TGvGs

40

l TALLADEGA

FCI Sandstone MCFP SpringfieldSandstone, ��� ��������� � ��������� ������������������������ "!" "#"$"!" " "�" %'&)('* +',)-'*'. /'0132)* 4'4'5'6)('*87)9 :';':<�=�>�?A@�B C�D�C�E�F�D�F�B G�H E�B G�D�H�@�C�D�G�I�E�BJ"K"L"M"#�� N"!"O"P"N"!�� N�� NFCI/FPC SchuylkillQSR TSR U�V�W�X�Y�Y2)* +).'( 4 Z�* /'/).�[]\). +'+'4 Z)/ Z�^ +)*'^� N"_"$"#N�� N"!"$"#"#"!"N�� `"`J"K"L"M"N�� N"!"$"#"#"!"N" " "$

FCI Seagoville%).'^ ,'5 Z)/'/'/).�1 a�. b)^ 4dcfefgfe'hC�B E"D"C"H"G"D"C"i�B"BJ"K"L"M" �� #"!" "O"N"!"#"O" "N

FPC Seymour Johnsonj =�k�k�l�mon�p�>qH�I�I�Er p�k�s�t�u�p�m�p�vxw j C�G�F�y�y�D�H�I�I�Ei�B i�D�G�y�F�D�i�G�B�B<�=�>�?Ai�B i�D�G�y�F�D�I�B @�i

FCI/FPC Sheridanz�X�Y�X�z3{ | } } ~ � � ����V����� � � � � � � �'� ���������� _"N"P"N"O"!"_"�"`��$"`"P"!"O"#"P"!"#"#"#" � � ����F�I�y�D�H�E�y�D�y�E�I�H

FCI/FPC Talladegaef�fe�� � � �¡ �¢�£f¤�¥�¦�¢¨§�©�ª�«¬�=�k�k�=�s�l�­�=�®�¯�k�=�u�=�°�=²± efgf�'³ "`"$"!"P"�" "!"`"#�� `<�=�>�?�C�I�F�D�y�@�C�D�H�y�y�B

FCI TallahasseeF�I�B j =�´�µ�¶�=�k¸· ¹ º » ¼ ½ ¾¿w�v�À�vÁ"K"Â"Â"K"Ã"K"Ä"Ä"Å"Å"ÆxÇ È É Ê Ê Ë Ì¸Í'Î'Í ;ÐÏ [P"$"N" _"`"#"!"_"�"$"!" "`"`"`Ñ���WSÒÔÓ ;'Õ�Ö Ó Õ Î Ö : Í)× Õ

FCI Terminal IslandØ'Ù Ú Û Ü Ý � Þàß"Ä"Â"K"á"â"ÆAã | } ä å � æ � ä |i"I"G"y�BC�B y�D�H�y�B D�H�i�@�BJ"K"L"M"P�� `"!"$"#"N"!"`"`"N"`

USP/FPC Terre Hauteç�è�é�é�èAê'ë'ì'í î'ï ð ñ ò�ó ô�ñ ôöõ�X�÷�Y�÷H�B C�D�C�y�H�D�B F�y�B<�=�>�?øH�B C�D�C�y�H�D�i�H�G�y

FCI/FPC TexarkanaÁ"Å"L"K"ù"ú"K"á"K"Æ"Á"Å"L"K"ÄûG�F�F�I�G_"`"P"!"O"P"O"!"#"$"O"N<�=�>�?�i�I�y�D�H�y�H�D�E�I�G�B

FCI/FPC Three Rivers���������������������a)ü)('.'.öý)* Z�.'( 41¸a�. b)^ 41 × :'; × Ï$�� "!"N"O"�"!"P"$"N"�Ç Ì þ ÿÔ$�� "!"N"O"�"!"#"_"`"_

FCI Tucson÷���Y�����V��������� ������ ��V����¬�����t�p���®o¯�m�µ���p���=�� efc'³ ��"`" "!"N"#�� !"P�� `"`Ñ���WSÒ 7'; Î Ö 9 × Õ�Ö ; ×'× 9FPC Tyndall��������� ���� �!�"$#&%�'�(&)+*�,&-�)<�k�p�m�µ�s�=Ôy�C�E�I�y�D�I�B F�I_"`"#"!" "O"�"!"�"N"N"N<�=�>�?øi�I�E�D�C�H�@�D�@�@�I�y

FPC Yankton. ©0/ � � ³1�=���2�¶�p���D�3�p���¶�465���7�V����98�X�Y�X�÷:�Y�8�;�:�:�8�;�<�z�:�zJ"K"L"M"�"`"$"!"�"�"$"!"#"N"`"P

Mid-AtlanticRegional Office� Y�Y�� Y>= ? Ý @ A Ü B Ý�C D E F&G3���µ�¶�løB I�I�D�wH á"á"K�I�J"Â�K"ÄML N � O � ä � � PQ���é�R�S���T���z�Y�X�Y��P"`�� !"P�� N"!"N"`"`"`U�V�WYX¸P"`�� !"P�� N"!"N"`�� $

North CentralRegional Office¯�µ�m�Z�p�m�k�s j l���¶�l�m� `"_" "` H�[�\ K"Ä"Ä"K"â�J"ù^]"ù�K�_"Å"Æ` ? Ü A Ù z�Y�Ya���T�b���b>c d e f g 2)* 4'4'5'6)('*�"#�� $"PO�� �"!"O"_�� !"N"`"`"N<�=�>�?øH�B @�D�H�i�B D�B y�E�i

NortheastRegional Officeh�i�j�i�k�l"Ä�m�J [ ÄMn�J�l"Ä"Å�i"N�m"Ão Þ B B Úp&q «Aª q «^rts�u�v w xzy w|{�} ~ �&�&} �� � ä } | � � } � � ä | ���"Å"á"á"Ä��"Â�_"K"á�K"K����� ��� �� $"!"$"_"N"!"�"P�� NJ"K"L"M¡ �� $"!"$"_"N"!"�"P�� $

South CentralRegional Office��p g&�0�f«fª0�9�0�0�0� q0�0� §f©fªf«%'6)* �). Í ;';� ^ /'/)^ 41 a�. b)^ 4 X�8�z�� � �� #"!"N"�"N"!"_"N"`"`<�=�>�? C�B E�D�G�@�G�D�i�G�C�E

SoutheastRegional Office8�z�<6Q���5�V�T�V������xU�V���S�è�����é������H m"Â"K"á�m"K"Æ r l�p�m�­�µ�=qP"`"P�� $#"`"#"!"�" "#"!"$" "`" J"K"L"M¡#"`"#"!"�" "#"!"O�� $��

Western Regional OfficeX���8�Y� ?   Þ Ü Ý�¡ 5'6'/). Z�^'( 01 Í ( 0£¢ S�V�V�é� 6&¤'/)* +1¦¥'^ /)*'- 5)( +)*'^ Ó Õ)9 7':$�� `"!"O"`"P"!"#"N"`"`<�=�>�?øF�B I�D�H�I�y�D�E�H�I�C

Federal Bureau of PrisonsÍ'Î ;+§)*'( 4&�¸%&�)('.'. �1©¨ ª"[«"K"Ä"Ã�K"á�¬�m�J"á"Æ9]�kø "`"$"P"# "`" "!"P"`"N"!"P�� _"O

41

Response sheet

The Federal Bureau of Prisons is pleased to be able toprovide this 1992 State of the Bureau report to its con-stituents, other agencies, and organizations, as well as tothe public. Our objectives are to make corrections moreunderstandable to the American public, and to convey theimportant part that corrections plays in American crimi-nal justice. If you would like to receive information not. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Response sheet

Name

Title

Organization

Address

City

Phone (Optional)

Comments:

State Zip

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Response sheet

Name

Title

Organization

Address

City

Phone (Optional)

Comments:

State Zip

. . . .

. . . .

contained in this issue, or if you have other suggestionsfor improvements in how the information is presented,please use this form.

Direct any responses or inquiries to: Office of PublicAffairs, ����������� Bureau of Prisons, 320 First Street, NW.,Washington, DC 20534. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

¨ I would like to receive the

Federal Prisons Journal, a

quarterly publication on prison

issues

¨ I would like to receive the

Facilities Book, an annual

directory of BOP institutions

¨ I am not on the mailing list for

this State of the Bureau

report, but would like to be added

¨ Please send me additional

information, as noted

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

¨ I would like to receive the

Federal Prisons Journal, a

quarterly publication on prison

issues

¨ I would like to receive the

Facilities Book , an annual

directory of BOP institutions

¨ I am not on the mailing list for

this State of the Bureau

report, but would like to be added

¨ Please send me additional

information, as noted

. . .

Administration

Community Corrections

Correctional Programs

Health Services

Human Resources

Industries & Education

Public Affairs

Program Review

Regional Offices

MARO SCRO

NCRO SERO

NERO WRO

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

¨ Administration

¨ Community Corrections

¨ Correctional Programs

¨ Health Services

¨ Human Resources

¨ Industries & Education

¨ Public Affairs

¨ Program Review

¨ Regional Offices

MARO SCRO

NCRO SERO

NERO WRO