the June 30, 1975 population of 23,566. The projected average annual increase over the next 10 years is about 2 percent. The projected population for long-term adults shows a continuing decline while young-adult population shows a slight increase.

Bureau officials advised that the increase in inmate population is due to the following factors: (1) trend toward increased sentences of those offenders confined in Federal institutions; (2) nature of crimes being committed is more violent-bank robberies, firearms violations, and assaults; and (3) improved law enforcement efforts. In addition, Bureau officials advised that the U. S. Board of Parole has recently tightened its parole actions, hence, longer stays in the prisons for offenders.

It is interesting to note, also, that the Bureau used FY 1967 as the base year in comparing population trends within its facilities.

The FY 1967

population amounted to 19,548 and represents the low point in the analysis prepared by the Bureau and presented to the Committee during its appropriation hearings in March 1975. Based on the Bureau's analysis, it appears that the prison population has been increasing. However, the average population, when analyzed over a 14-year period (FYs 1962 to 1975), amounts to 21,734, or an overall decrease of 3.8 percent. Thus, the FY 1975 population is actually 298 under the population of 14 years ago.

Existing Bureau management information systems, which are required to analyze matters concerning populatior, facility capacity changes, and utilization were either lacking complete and accurate data or had become entangled in a web of unclear and changing definitions and terminology. In order to adequately assess the above matters, the Bureau, as a minimum, should have the following information.

accurate and reliable documentation reflecting past, present, and
future Federal prison activities in order to analyze major
decisions affecting inmate population, overcrowding, and frequent
changes made with respect to facility capacities;

adequate integration of the operating activities with long-range
goals and objectives; and

standards (guidelines or criteria, including clear and precise
definitions of terms to be used) in order to measure management's
performance toward established goals.

The Bureau's management information system also had several shortcomings which impact on both its effectiveness and ability to provide timely and meaningful data. For instance, standard definitions of terms are lacking, and since automated reports are not prepared in a timely manner, they are of little use to both Central Office and field officials.

The Bureau did not have information to show the original architectural design capacity for each institution at the time they were built. Several attempts by the Bureau to reconstruct such data, including modifications to the institutions, were unsuccessful. In this regard, the Bureau did make available the results of certain studies that were conducted between 1964 1975 which attempted to determine the design capacities for each institution. These studies contained widespread variances in design capacity data and were of questionable use.

The Bureau's long-range construction program has the following objectives: (1) reduce overcrowding, (2) close antiquated penitentiaries, i.e., Atlanta, Leavenworth, and McNeil Island, and (3) replace the antiquated institutions with smaller facilities which house about 500 offenders.

The Investigative Staff believes that the Bureau has not adequately Justified its request for construction funds either on a short-term basis or when reviewing its long-range construction goals. The major shortcomings are

(1) lack of a coordinated planning effort, (2) inconsistent terminology, (3) unclear definitions, (4) the question of what is overcrowding and whether every inmate should have a single cell, (5) the underutilization of 3,834 setup beds, (6) questionable statistical data, (7) the lack of relationship between projection factors and planned growth, and (8) a constantly changing master plan format.

Regarding the Bureau's plans to construct 5 maximum custody facilities, including one in the South Central Region and another in the Northeast Region, several Bureau officials expressed concern whether or not all of these facilities were needed, because formal feasibility studies had not been conducted to justify each of the proposed facilities. Also, the Bureau's files show that they have been contemplating the closure of Atlanta, Leavenworth, and McNeil facilities over the past 10 years. A recent architectural evaluation of the Atlanta penitentiary indicated that the institution's buildings are structurally sound. Based upon the available evidence, the Investigative Staff has doubts whether Atlanta or Leavenworth will be closed in the foreseeable future. Until a formal decision is made on the disposition of these facilities, including firm target dates for such action, their inclusion in any long-range plan will be vague or subjective at best.

Because of recent concern expressed with the capacity of Federal institutions, the Bureau has made several attempts to develop capacity data. The Bureau's goal is to establish capacity figures for each institution and explain either the increase and/or decrease and the reason for such change. This work was not finalized at the time this report was issued. An illustration of the type of data being developed is as follows: El Reno institution;

designed capacity (beds) base year 1966 was 1,110, present capacity 998, or a reduction of 112 beds. The loss of beds was due to conversion of dormitories to provide cubicles (semiprivate sleeping accommodations), the provision of certain space for unit management activities and a 5 percent flexibility allowance for program changes. Bureau officials advised that the reduction in the number of beds in an institution is to provide a more humane environment in the older type institutions and indicated that the conversion to cubicles usually results in lost capacity amounting to about 30 percent.

The Bureau has provided for a 5 percent flexibility allowance in assessing the capacity for each institution. The 5 percent allowance is a judgemental factor, which Bureau officials claimed was necessary to provide for program changes. The Bureau's plans for the construction of institutions in the future also made provision for this allowance. The need for a certain amount of flexibility with respect to older buildings seems to have some merit. However, the 5 percent flexibility would not seem to be justified in the case of new construction, since adequate planning and design criteria would provide for the inclusion of such space needed for the amenities and administrative

purposes.

Regarding the matter of expenditures for facility repair and improvements, particularly those planned for closure, it was noted that proposed expenditures of $145,000 and $400,000 for rehabilitation work at Atlanta and Leavenworth appeared to be justified. Moreover, it appears that such expenditures would serve a useful purpose, since these facilities would most likely be turned over to state correctional authorities for further use as prisons, if and when their use as Federal prisons is discontinued.

The Bureau has made several attempts to develop a formal long-range master plan. The first such effort was initiated in 1970; 2 years elapsed before a second effort emerged (1972). Two more years elapsed and the formal longrange master plan, never updated during the intervening years, was abandoned for a so-called "FY 1974 Matrix." In subtance, the matrix displayed the Bureau's estimate for facilities needed to house their projected sentenced population. The Bureau's most recent effort, the "FY 1985 Matrix," although different in format than its predecessor, extends the Bureau's projected

needs through 1985.

One of the key factors used in the long-range plans concerns the projection of increased population to be committed to Bureau institutions. Apperently, the Bureau has relied upon a formula that indicated a high correlation between unemployment rates and an increase in inmate population. Bureau officials recognize that such projections are subjective, they believe the methodology is the best available when all the circumstances are con

sidered.

While the

It is interesting to note that the basis used by the Bureau to correlate unemployment and the increase in prison population indicated a negative correlation moreover even if the correlation hypothesis were valid the leveling off of the unemployment rate would reverse projected population increases.