For example, in the course of the federal criminal  justice process, a U.S. attorney is involved in the process of investigating,  charging and prosecuting an offender, among other responsibilities. Selected Stakeholders Reported Considering a Number of Factors When Using Alternatives at or before Sentencing, but DOJ Does Not Track the Use of Some Alternatives

		Selected Stakeholders Reported Considering Presence of Violence and Offender’s Role in the Crime, Among Other Factors, When Determining Use of Alternatives to Incarceration

DOJ and court officials we interviewed told us they consider various  factors when deciding whether to use an alternative to incarceration for  certain federal offenders in the early stages of the federal criminal justice  process. Use of Alternatives to Incarceration has Largely Remained Consistent, but DOJ Lacks Reliable Data on the Use of Pretrial Diversion

As figure 2 shows, based on data from AOUSC, DOJ, and the USSC on  the use of alternatives to incarceration at or before sentencing, the overall  use of these alternatives nationally and across the subset of districts that  have adopted court-involved pretrial diversion practices has been largely  consistent during the respective time periods for which they are  available—from fiscal years 2009 to fiscal years 2015 for alternatives at  sentencing; from fiscal years 2012 to 201 for pretrial release; and from  fiscal years 2014 to 2015 for referrals to another jurisdiction. However, in performing our analysis of the data on the use of alternatives  over time, we found that DOJ’s data on pretrial diversions were unreliable  for two reasons. By taking steps to revise its case management system to separately track  the use of Title 9 diversion and court-involved pretrial diversion programs,  and issuing guidance to USAOs as to how and when to use them—for  instance, when the offender enters the program, completes the program,  or both—-DOJ would have more reliable and complete data to determine  what types of pretrial diversion are being used, in what districts, how  frequently, and how successfully. BOP Considers Statutory Requirements and Inmate Risk Levels when Deciding Whether to Use Incarceration Alternatives and Has Increased Use of Such Alternatives for Minimum and Low Security Inmates

		BOP Guidance and Policy Identifies Key Statutory Requirements and Risk Levels when Deciding Whether to Place Inmates into Incarceration Alternatives

According to BOP officials, when placing inmates into incarceration  alternatives they consider factors that are in accordance with BOP policy  and guidance which also provides for the overall process for identifying  and placing eligible and appropriate inmates into the incarceration  alternatives of RRCs and home confinement. Moreover, according to BOP guidance, in addition to  considering the basic eligibility requirements, BOP staff must consider the  appropriateness of placing inmates into RRCs and home confinement as  well as evaluate each inmate for their individual reentry needs, risk for  recidivism, and risks posed to the community for placing them in RRCs or  home confinement. BOP Use of Incarceration Alternatives for Inmates Increased Overall from Fiscal Years 2009 through 2015, Particularly in Home Confinement for Minimum and Low Security Inmates

From fiscal years 2009 through 2015, BOP increasingly placed inmates  into RRCs and home confinement, with inmates designated as minimum  and low security making up the two largest groups of inmates in RRCs  and home confinement. DOJ Has Tracked Some Data on the Cost Implications of Alternatives to Incarceration, but Could Better Measure Outcomes

		DOJ Has Not Measured the Outcomes and Cost Implications of Pretrial Diversion Programs, but the Judiciary Has Collected Some Data

DOJ has not measured the outcomes or identified the cost implications of  the Title 9 and court-involved pretrial diversion programs DOJ has  decision-making power and expends resources on these incarceration  alternatives, which are carried out at or before sentencing. The survey asked about their use of court-involved pretrial  diversion practices, such as a presentence diversion court, and, if they  used such a court, whether the court was evaluated or assessed. While BOP can measure the overall costs of RRCs and home  confinement, it does not track the information needed to help measure  their outcomes and does not have such measures in place. According to  BOP officials, the contract was signed in April 2016 and the report is  expected to be released during the summer of 2016. Conclusions

To help reduce the overall size and costs of the federal prison population,  DOJ components such as USAOs, in coordination with judicial branch  stakeholders such as PPSO and federal judges, have utilized alternatives  to incarceration for low-level offenders and minimum and low security  inmates at various stages of the criminal justice process. However, DOJ’s data on the use of pretrial diversions  is of limited usefulness and reliability because EOUSA’s case  management system does not distinguish between the different types of  diversion and DOJ has not provided guidance to USAOs as to when and  how pretrial cases are to be entered into the system. Further, by taking steps to obtain and track data on the outcomes of the  programs and developing performance measures for its use of pretrial  diversion, DOJ would be better able to determine the extent to which the  alternatives are contributing to the achievement of DOJ goals and  objectives and what adjustments to policies and procedures, if necessary,  may make them more effective.
Why GAO Did This Study

Since 1980, the federal prison population increased from about 25,000 to almost 200,000, as of March 2016. In part to help reduce the size and related costs of the federal prison population, DOJ has taken steps to slow its growth by pursuing alternatives to incarceration at various stages of the criminal justice process for nonviolent, low-level offenders. Senate Report 113-78 included a provision for GAO to review DOJ's management of the federal prison population.
This report (1) describes factors criminal justice stakeholders consider when using incarceration alternatives at or before sentencing and identifies the extent to which those alternatives are used, (2) describes factors BOP considers when using incarceration alternatives for inmates and the extent of their use, and (3) assesses the extent DOJ has measured the cost implications and outcomes of using the alternatives.
GAO analyzed DOJ and federal judiciary branch data and documents from fiscal years 2009 through 2015, and interviewed DOJ and judiciary officials at headquarters and in 11 selected nongeneralizable judicial districts about the use of alternatives. GAO selected districts to provide geographic diversity and a mix of districts using and not using the alternatives.

What GAO Found

Department of Justice (DOJ) and federal judiciary officials reported considering numerous factors when using alternatives to incarceration at or before an offender's sentencing, but DOJ does not reliably track the use of some alternatives. A variety of alternatives can be used for offenders at or before sentencing, such as referral to state and local prosecutors, pretrial release, and probation. Other such alternatives include pretrial diversion programs which divert certain offenders from the traditional criminal justice process into a program of supervision and services or into court-involved pretrial diversion practices, such as drug courts, that provide offenders an opportunity to avoid incarceration if they satisfy program requirements. DOJ and judiciary officials most commonly reported considering the presence of violence and the offender's role in the crime when determining use of an alternative at or before sentencing. Based on DOJ and judiciary data on referrals to other jurisdictions, pretrial release, and alternatives at sentencing, the overall use of such alternatives across districts was largely consistent during the periods for which data were available from fiscal years 2009 to 2015. However, DOJ data on the use of pretrial diversion is unreliable because DOJ's database does not distinguish between the types of pretrial diversions. Further, when and whether the use of the pretrial diversion is recorded into the database varies across DOJ staff responsible for entering the data. By revising its system to track the different types of pretrial diversion programs, and issuing guidance as to when staff are to enter their use into its database, DOJ would have more reliable and complete data.
DOJ's Bureau of Prisons (BOP) considers statutory requirements and risk levels when placing inmates into incarceration alternatives such as residential reentry centers (RRCs, also known as halfway houses) and home confinement, and has increased its use of alternatives, particularly home confinement, in the past seven years. In addition to the basic eligibility requirements, BOP evaluates inmates' needs for reentering society, risk for recidivism, and risks to the community if placed in RRCs or home confinement. For low-risk and low-need inmates, home confinement is the preferred alternative according to BOP and BOP increased its use by 67 percent for minimum security inmates and 58 percent for low security inmates from fiscal years 2009 through 2015. Relative to home confinement, use of RRCs grew at a slower pace for low security inmates and declined for minimum security inmates.
DOJ has tracked some data on the cost implications of using incarceration alternatives, but could better measure their outcomes. For example, DOJ conducted a survey in 2014 and 2015 of U.S. Attorneys to obtain district-level information about the use of court-involved pretrial diversion practices. However, the data collected do not measure the outcomes or cost implications of the alternatives. For alternatives used at the end of inmates' sentences, BOP maintains data on the costs, such as average daily costs, of placing inmates in RRCs and home confinement. While BOP has measures in its strategic plan to monitor the use of RRCs and home confinement and has contracted for an analysis of its use of RRCs and home confinement that is expected to be completed during the summer of 2016, BOP, does not currently track the information needed to help measure the outcomes of these alternatives. By taking steps to obtain outcome data and developing performance measures for the alternatives used, DOJ and BOP would be better able to determine the extent to which the alternatives are achieving their goals and objectives and what adjustments may be necessary to make them more effective.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOJ enhance its tracking of data on use of pretrial diversions and that DOJ and BOP obtain outcome data and develop measures for the alternatives used. DOJ concurred.