In fiscal year 2010, BOP oversaw more than 209,000 inmates, housing more  than 170,000 of these inmates in its 116 institutions. Since fiscal year 2000, BOP’s inmate population has grown by 45 percent,  as shown in figure 1. BOP and Selected States Provide a Variety of Protective Equipment to Officers, but Opinions on Impact of Equipment on Officer Safety Are Mixed

BOP and the selected states with whom we spoke provide their officers  with a variety of equipment to protect them. BOP also provides officers  with the option to carry flashlights and wear stab-resistant vests. States have discretion over the equipment they make available to their  officers, and officials in the 14 states with whom we spoke provided  examples of three types of equipment they allow their officers to carry  while on duty that BOP generally does not, including pepper spray and  batons. Most BOP officers  and union officials with whom we spoke reported that carrying additional  equipment while on duty and while commuting to and from work would  better protect officers, while BOP management largely reported that  officers did not need to carry additional equipment in order to better  ensure their safety. BOP’s policy prohibiting officers from storing personal firearms on BOP  property is largely consistent across its institutions; however, there are  limited exceptions to this policy. Specifically, officers most  frequently cited concerns that the equipment could be taken from the  officer and used against him or her by an inmate. As shown in figure 7, most officers and all union officials reported that  being permitted to store personal firearms on BOP property would  enhance officer safety, while most BOP management officials reported  that doing so would not enhance officer safety. BOP Has Not Evaluated the Effectiveness of Its Equipment in Ensuring Officer Safety and Correctional Equipment Experts Suggest Several Factors to Consider in Making Equipment Acquisition Decisions

BOP and states provide a variety of equipment to their officers to ensure  their safety; however, none of the BOP officials, state correctional  officials, and correctional experts with whom we spoke reported that they  were aware of or had conducted evaluations of the effectiveness of  equipment in ensuring officer safety. Correctional Equipment Experts Report Equipment Costs Such as Training, Maintenance, and Liability, among Other Factors, to Be Important Considerations in Purchasing New Equipment

Officials from the NLECTC, NIST, and NIJ reported that BOP would need  to consider factors such as training, replacement, and maintenance costs;  potential liability issues; and whether the equipment met technical  performance standards if it acquired new equipment, as well as the price  of new equipment. Additionally, these organizations suggested that any  decision must first be based on a close examination of the benefits and  risks of using certain types of equipment. Correctional Accrediting Experts Cited Inmate Management and Officer Training among the Institutional Factors Most Impacting Officer Safety, and BOP Has Evaluated the Effectiveness of Its Efforts in Ensuring Officer Safety

Equipment available to officers is one important part of officer safety;  however, there are other factors—such as those related to the movement  of inmates throughout the facility and the skills and training of prison  personnel—that impact both officers’ safety and the overall safety of the  institution. These experts most frequently  reported that the existence of ineffective inmate management, insufficient  officer training, inmate gangs, correctional officer understaffing, and  inmate overcrowding in an institution would most affect officers’ safety. To address overcrowding, officials from one of the BOP institutions and 3  of the 14 states with whom we spoke reported converting community  space, such as television rooms, into inmate cells to accommodate a larger  inmate population. For instance, in 2001, ORE  conducted a study empirically evaluating BOP’s substance abuse  treatment program’s effectiveness in reducing prisoner misconduct, which  is closely related to officer safety. The study found that treatment program  graduates were 74 percent less likely to engage in misconduct between  program graduation and release from prison than a comparison group. Recommendation for Executive Action

To capitalize on the data BOP already collects and to further DOJ’s  evaluation efforts, we recommend that the Attorney General direct the  Director of BOP to leverage existing BOP data systems, such as  TRUINTEL and SENTRY, as well as the institutional expertise available  through NIJ and NIC, as appropriate, to assess the impact of the  equipment BOP has provided or could provide to its officers to better  protect them in a range of scenarios and settings. Specifically, this report  addresses the following questions:    What equipment do the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and selected states  provide to protect officers and what are the opinions of BOP officers and  other correctional practitioners regarding this equipment? What institutional factors do correctional accrediting experts report as  most impacting officer safety, and to what extent has BOP evaluated the  effectiveness of the steps it has taken to address these factors? However, this information provided useful insight into state  correctional practices. 2.
Why GAO Did This Study

The Department of Justice's (DOJ) Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) manages more than 209,000 inmates, up 45 percent between fiscal years 2000 and 2010. As the prison population grows, so do concerns about correctional officer safety. As requested, GAO examined the (1) equipment that BOP and selected state departments of corrections (DOC) provide to protect officers, and the officers' and other correctional practitioners' opinions of this equipment; (2) extent to which BOP has evaluated the effectiveness of this equipment, and factors correctional equipment experts consider important to the acquisition of new equipment; and (3) institutional factors correctional accrediting experts reported as impacting officer safety, and the extent to which BOP has evaluated the effectiveness of the steps it has taken in response. GAO reviewed BOP policies and procedures; interviewed BOP officials and officers within BOP's six regions, selected based on such factors as the level of facility overcrowding; interviewed officials at 14 of the 15 largest state DOCs; and surveyed 21 individuals selected for their expertise in corrections. The results of the interviews cannot be generalized, but provide insight into issues affecting officer safety.

What GAO Found

BOP and 14 state DOCs included in GAO's review provide a variety of protective equipment to officers, but BOP officers and management have different views on equipment. BOP generally provides officers with radios, body alarms, keys, flashlights, handcuffs, gloves, and stab-resistant vests while on duty, but prohibits them from storing personal firearms on BOP property, with limited exceptions. DOC officials in 14 states GAO interviewed provided examples of equipment they allow officers to carry while on duty that BOP does not--such as pepper spray--and officials in 9 of the 14 states reported allowing officers to store personal firearms on state DOC property. BOP and states provide similar equipment to protect officers in an emergency, such as an inmate riot or attack. Most BOP officers with whom GAO spoke reported that carrying additional equipment while on duty and commuting would better protect officers, while BOP management largely reported that officers did not need to carry additional equipment to better protect them. BOP has not evaluated the effectiveness of equipment it provides in ensuring officer safety, and correctional equipment experts report that BOP needs to consider a variety of factors in acquisition decisions. Neither the officials nor the experts with whom GAO spoke reported that they were aware of or had conducted evaluations of the effectiveness of equipment in ensuring officer safety, although BOP tracks information necessary to do so in its data systems. By using information in these existing systems, BOP could analyze the effectiveness of the equipment it distributes in ensuring officer safety, thus helping it determine additional actions, if any, to further officer safety and better target limited resources. All of the correctional equipment experts GAO spoke with reported that BOP would need to consider factors such as training, replacement, maintenance, and liability, as well as whether the equipment met performance standards, if it acquired new equipment. These experts suggested that any decision must first be based upon a close examination of the benefits and risk of using certain types of equipment. For example, while state officials reported that pepper spray is inexpensive and effective, a majority of the BOP management officials we spoke with stated that it could be taken by inmates and used against officers. Correctional accrediting experts most frequently cited control over the inmate population, officer training, inmate gangs, correctional staffing and inmate overcrowding as the institutional factors--beyond equipment--most impacting officer safety. These experts suggested various strategies to address these factors, and BOP reported taking steps to do so, such as conducting annual training on BOP policies, identifying and separating gang members, and converting community space into inmate cells. BOP has assessed the effectiveness of steps it has taken in improving officer safety. For instance, a 2001 BOP study found that inmates who participated in BOP's substance abuse treatment program were less likely than a comparison group to engage in misconduct for the remainder of their sentence following program completion. BOP utilizes such studies to inform its decisions, such as eliminating programs found to be ineffective.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that BOP's Director assess whether the equipment intended to improve officer safety has been effective. BOP concurred with this recommendation.