For example, BOP cost  BOP also tracks its obligations and expenditures by budget object and  subobject classification. Correctional Services Is BOP’s Largest Operational Cost, and BOP Has Initiated a Number of Efforts to Reduce Costs

		BOP’s Correctional Services, Private Prison Contracts, Medical Care, and Food Services Account for the Majority of Its Costs, with the Largest Share of Spending on Personnel

During fiscal year 2013, BOP obligated approximately $6.6 billion for all  its programs and operations. Key  initiatives for which BOP has estimated cost savings over the last 3 fiscal  years are listed in table 1. BOP Has Designed Internal Processes to Identify Opportunities for Additional Cost Efficiencies, but Could Improve the Monitoring of Corrective Actions

		BOP Has Designed Mechanisms to Identify Opportunities for Cost Efficiencies

BOP has various mechanisms to identify opportunities for cost  efficiencies, including the following:
Strategic Plan. Cost Efficiencies and Innovations Catalog. Best practices internal site. BOP’s Internal Control System Helps Identify Opportunities to Achieve Efficiencies, but Lacks a Mechanism to Consistently Monitor Bureau-wide Corrective Actions

We found that BOP’s internal control system is designed to identify  additional opportunities for cost efficiencies, but BOP did not provide  specifics or documentation on a mechanism to consistently monitor  bureau-wide corrective actions. BOP has processes to identify and share information about these  frequent and significant deficiencies. Authorities within BOP’s Control to Reduce Costs Are Limited; Options outside of BOP’s Authority Could Have a Larger Impact on Costs

		BOP’s Current Authority to Reduce Inmate Sentences Results in Limited Cost Savings Relative to Its Overall Budget

See 18 U.S.C. Compassionate Release. No cost savings estimate could be provided for earlier  releases because, according to the IG report, BOP did not maintain  cost data associated with the custody of inmates eligible for  consideration under the program, and BOP had not conducted any  analysis of cost savings achieved by releasing such inmates. Potential Actions outside of BOP’s Authority Could Reduce Prison Populations and Costs, and Experts Say There Are Advantages and Disadvantages to These Options

We examined cost-saving options that are outside BOP’s authority and  that are widely discussed among criminal justice policy experts, the  USSC, and DOJ, such as instructing federal prosecutors to decline to  charge certain defendants in certain drug cases in such a manner as to  trigger mandatory minimum prison sentences, reducing the lengths of  sentences specified by federal guidelines for drug offenders, or applying  the provisions of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 retroactively in order to  provide sentences for cocaine base (“crack”) offenders that are less   Toward  disparate from those applied for possession of powder cocaine.this end, we reviewed selected reports and analyses from entities chosen  for their expertise in criminal justice issues, and had discussions with  officials from DOJ, BOP, and the USSC. Through this review, we identified  eight options outside BOP’s authority that could reduce the size of the  inmate population. In particular, these options may have additional effects, such as on public  safety. As table 4 shows, a number of options outside of  BOP’s current authority exist by which the sentence lengths of  prospective and incarcerated offenders could be reduced (producing bed  year savings), as well as the number of offenders to be incarcerated,  such as under the Attorney General’s August 2013 Smart on Crime  direction (option 3). However, establishing a mechanism for relevant Central Office divisions  to consistently monitor bureau-wide corrective actions and assess their  progress in the presence of repeated frequent or significant findings could  help BOP better ensure that it is resolving such deficiencies promptly and,  ultimately, operating more efficiently. BOP’s inmate population is its primary cost driver; however, BOP’s ability  to reduce its population, and thus its costs, are limited. Recommendation for Executive Action

To enable BOP to promptly address repeated frequent deficiencies and  other significant findings it identifies through its program reviews in areas  of high cost across multiple institutions, we recommend that the Director  of the Bureau of Prisons establish a mechanism for relevant Central  Office divisions to consistently monitor bureau-wide corrective actions. GAO is  not taking a position on any of these options, but presents information on  estimated cost savings and experts’ views of advantages and  disadvantages for such options to inform policymakers as they weigh  whether and how to address rising costs at BOP. For some options that could result in reduced  sentences and earlier releases of about 78,000 or more offenders, we also calculated per  capita savings, as such population reductions that could allow BOP to reduce its staff or  close facilities. 3. 4. 1::!.2.
Why GAO Did This Study

BOP is responsible for the custody and care of 216,000 federal inmates—an almost 9-fold increase since 1980. At the same time, BOP appropriations increased more than 20-fold. DOJ states that the costs of the growing population are BOP's greatest challenge. BOP's population size is driven by several factors, such as law enforcement policies and sentencing laws.
GAO was asked to review BOP's opportunities to save costs. This report (1) describes BOP's major costs and actions to achieve savings, (2) assesses the extent to which BOP has mechanisms to identify additional efficiencies, and (3) describes potential changes within and outside of BOP's authority that might reduce costs.
GAO analyzed BOP financial data for fiscal years 2009 through 2013, reviewed but did not test its internal control system and processes for achieving efficiencies, and interviewed BOP officials. On the basis of sentencing reform options identified by experts and actions by the Attorney General, GAO developed a list of policy options that could reduce BOP's population. GAO gathered views on their potential effects from entities and 4 states selected for their criminal justice expertise. The views are not generalizable, but provide insights.

What GAO Found

Correctional services—which includes salaries and benefits for correctional officers—is the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Bureau of Prisons' (BOP) largest operational cost, and BOP has undertaken a number of initiatives to reduce costs. Specifically, on the basis of GAO's analysis of BOP's fiscal year 2013 obligations of approximately $6.6 billion, BOP obligated the largest share—about $3.9 billion, or 59 percent—for personnel compensation and benefits. Further, BOP has undertaken a number of initiatives, such as renegotiated contracts, to achieve cost savings of about $61 million over the last 3 years.
BOP has designed internal processes to identify opportunities for additional cost efficiencies, but could improve the monitoring of corrective actions to achieve them. For example, BOP focuses on cost efficiency and innovation in its strategic plan and has developed mechanisms for staff to share information on best practices and cost savings efforts. BOP also employs an internal control system with processes, such as program reviews, that allows it to identify opportunities for cost efficiencies. However, when program reviews repeatedly cited frequent deficiencies or significant findings that could increase costs—such as insufficient contract monitoring—responsible BOP Central Office divisions did not provide specifics or documentation for how they always monitor the effectiveness of corrective actions to prevent the same deficiency or issue from reoccurring. Establishing a mechanism for relevant Central Office divisions to consistently monitor the progress of bureau-wide corrective actions in the presence of repeated frequent deficiencies or significant findings could help BOP better ensure that it is resolving such deficiencies or issues promptly and, ultimately, operating more efficiently.
BOP's current authorities to reduce inmate sentence length result in limited cost savings, but potential actions outside of its authority could have a greater impact on costs. GAO has reported previously on BOP authorities to reduce inmate sentences, and thus its costs, in detail, and found that inmate eligibility for certain programs and lack of capacity affect BOP's use of them. For example, greater use of programs such as Compassionate Release for terminally ill inmates could reduce sentences, but cost savings relative to BOP's budget would be small—about $651,000 in 2013. Additional opportunities outside of BOP's authority, including those requiring legislative or executive action, such as options to reduce sentence length, could reduce BOP's population, and thus potentially significantly reduce its costs. For example, an option to reduce sentences of incarcerated drug offenders by an average of 44 percent could save about $4.1 billion. Potential savings could be even higher if the changes sufficiently reduced the inmate population to allow BOP to reduce its staff or close facilities. Expert entities GAO consulted reported that all of the options GAO reviewed also have advantages and disadvantages unrelated to costs that should be taken into consideration, such as potential effects on public safety if released inmates reoffend. GAO is not taking a position on any of these options, but presents information on estimated cost savings and experts' views of advantages and disadvantages for such options to inform policymakers as they weigh whether and how to address rising costs at BOP.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that BOP establish a mechanism to consistently monitor if bureau-wide corrective actions address repeated deficiencies and findings. DOJ concurred.