Audit Report

The Bureau of Prisons' (BOP) Home Confinement Program allows federal inmates to live at home and work at gainful employment while remaining in official detention status. To participate, inmates must be within the last 6 months or 10 percent of their sentence (except Intensive Confinement Center cases) [Intensive confinement is a specialized program for first time offenders, for which a longer stay on home confinement is permitted. ] and not require the full range of services provided by Community Corrections Centers (CCCs). [The results of our audit on BOP's community corrections center program are contained in Report Number 96-08, The Community Corrections Center Program in the Bureau of Prisons.] Our audit scope and methodology are contained in Appendix I.

In BOP's Headquarters, the Community Corrections and Detention Division is responsible for policies and procedures related to the Home Confinement Program. In each of the six BOP regional offices, the Community Corrections Regional Administrator is responsible for community corrections, contract confinement, and detention services. The Regional Administrators also manage 13 Management Center Administrators and the activities of 32 BOP Community Corrections Management Offices throughout the United States. Each BOP Community Corrections Management Office supervises several CCCs.

The Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) supports the operations of probation offices located in each of the 94 Federal judicial districts.

Home confinement is a part of the overall Community Corrections Program. The program began in 1988; as of February 28, 1995 there were 1,170 offenders participating in the program. About 140 of these offenders were supervised by probation offices. The remaining offenders were supervised by CCCs. The goal of the Community Corrections Program is to provide federal prison inmates a transition back to the communities where they will live upon release from federal custody. Home confinement uses community supervision with electronic or other types of monitoring as an alternative to incarceration. Inmates are generally referred from institutions and normally spend time in a CCC before placement on home confinement. The amount of time spent in CCCs varies among individuals and depends on their adjustment to the community.

Most home confinees supervised by CCCs are monitored by telephone and home visits by CCC staff. However, some CCCs opt to use electronic monitoring to supervise home confinees. CCCs are required to offer inmates job counseling, academic and vocational training, family reconciliation services, access to substance abuse programs, and community adjustment services.

The AOUSC has its own home confinement program, monitoring offenders who are sentenced directly to home confinement without serving prison time. Since the AOUSC has probation offices located in every judicial district, the BOP entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with AOUSC to obtain monitoring of home confinees at locations where BOP CCCs are inaccessible. All BOP home confinees supervised by probation offices are electronically monitored. Also, probation offices were supposed to provide supervision and drug testing services for BOP home confinees.

The electronic monitoring system used by probation offices consists of a transmitter worn by the home confinee. The signal is received by a receiver dialer, a unit installed at the monitored location (connected to the inmate's telephone), which notifies the central computer of a change in the inmate's status when the inmate comes within or goes out of range of the unit. The central computer contains the inmate's schedule and, when notified of a change in the inmate's status, compares the time of the change with the schedule to determine if the break in contact is authorized. The central computer also receives a signal if the inmate tampers with the equipment.

The BOP pays CCCs half of the per diem rate for residents. For example, if the CCC receives $40 a day from the BOP for a resident, it will only receive $20 a day for a home confinee. Participants in the Program, with exceptions for unusual circumstances, are required to pay 25 percent of their weekly gross income. However, a participant's contribution cannot exceed the CCC's reimbursement rate for home confinement.

In FY 1995, the BOP reimbursed the AOUSC about $5 a day for electronic monitoring costs and $12 a day for personnel costs to supervise home confinees as agreed in the MOU between the two agencies.

The BOP accounted for CCC and home confinement costs jointly. For FY 1994, we estimated the cost of the home confinement program to be $6.7 million, plus about $270,000 paid to the AOUSC for electronic monitoring.

Overall, the program was operating satisfactorily within reasonable costs. We followed up on deficiencies reported in prior audit reports and found that the BOP had taken corrective action. However, the BOP can operate the program more efficiently by:

In our judgment, electronic monitoring of home confinees is a cost effective alternative to CCC incarceration and the manual monitoring of home confinees as practiced by most CCCs. The BOP can reduce the $6.7 million program costs by: (1) implementing electronic monitoring for all home confinees ($1 million), (2) collecting subsistence from BOP home confinees monitored by the AOUSC, and (3) ensuring that bills from the AOUSC are reduced by these subsistence collections.

For FY 1994, the BOP's reported cost to house an inmate in a CCC ranged from $23 to $130, averaging $42 per day. [The $42 is the average of the contract amount paid by the BOP to CCCs per inmate per day. The net cost per day to the BOP is $42 plus $3 BOP overhead per inmate per day, less an average of $6 subsistence collections per inmate per day, for a net cost of $39.] The BOP paid CCCs 50 percent of this rate, an average of $21 per day, to monitor home confinees. Through the MOU, the BOP paid the AOUSC $17 per day to electronically monitor home confinees, generally in locations where CCCs were inaccessible. The AOUSC used electronic monitoring for almost all its home confinees. In our judgment, the BOP could lower its costs by monitoring all home confinees electronically (See Appendix II).

By applying the $4 difference [Our savings are based on the $4 per day per inmate difference. This amount is the same whether the gross or net amounts are used.] between the AOUSC's $17 cost and CCC's $21 cost to the average daily population on home confinement monitored by CCCs for FY 1994, [The average daily population on home confinement monitored by CCCs was 752 for FY 1994.] we estimate the BOP could save about $1 million by electronically monitoring all home confinees. The actual savings would depend on the cost at which the BOP could obtain electronic monitoring services. Further, Directors at CCCs using electronic monitoring stated that it was cost effective and reduced staff workload.

The BOP requires Community Corrections Centers to collect 25 percent of each resident's weekly gross income to defray program costs. However, the weekly subsistence collected should not exceed the per diem rate established for home confinement times 7 days.

During our audit period, the BOP home confinees monitored by the AOUSC paid about $5 a day, the contract cost for electronic monitoring. However, home confinees monitored by CCCs were generally required to pay the full 25 percent of their gross weekly income.

The BOP's subsistence collections nationwide averaged $6 per day, $1 above the amount collected by the AOUSC. Based on an average of 140 BOP home confinees, the number monitored by the AOUSC on February 28, 1995, we estimated the BOP could save about $51,000 annually if an additional $1 was collected daily from the home confinees monitored by the AOUSC.

Under the terms of the MOU, the BOP reimbursed the AOUSC for the contract costs of electronic monitoring services. The AOUSC was supposed to reduce bills to the BOP by subsistence collected from BOP home confinees under their supervision. The AOUSC's contractor collected the contract cost of $5 per day from offenders electronically monitored and reduced its bill to the AOUSC by the amount collected; however, the AOUSC did not reduce its bills to the BOP.

We did not make a recommendation to recover funds because the AOUSC did not bill the BOP for the full amount of electronic monitoring services provided during FYs 1994 and 1995. We estimated the cost for the services which were provided by the AOUSC but not billed to the BOP were greater than the amount which was not reduced from the billing. However, the BOP needs to ensure that future bills from AOUSC have been reduced by subsistence collections before they are paid.

1. Implement a pilot project to determine if electronic monitoring of all home confinees would be more cost effective than non-electronic monitoring.

2. Ensure the maximum allowable subsistence is collected from BOP home confinees monitored by the AOUSC.

3. Ensure that future bills from the AOUSC are reduced by collections from BOP home confinees.

Community Corrections Centers' staff generally completed the requirements for monitoring home confinees. However, some CCCs' staff did not always contact home confinees daily on a random basis or conduct weekly residence and employment visits. Additionally, BOP home confinees supervised by probation offices were subject to less stringent monitoring standards than BOP's home confinees supervised by CCCs. This occurred because the BOP did not clearly define its requirements in the MOU with the AOUSC.

Monitoring does not guarantee that violations will not occur. However, in our judgment, if home confinees are not monitored as required, the risk that program violations such as drug use, missed curfew, or other offenses could go undetected increases significantly.

To determine whether the BOP's monitoring requirements were met, we reviewed 79 home confinee files at 11 CCCs using non-electronic monitoring, 4 home confinee files at a CCC using electronic monitoring, and 22 home confinee files at 4 probation offices. Our test results are summarized in Appendix III for non-electronic monitoring and Appendix IV for electronic monitoring. Most CCCs use non-electronic monitoring methods to supervise home confinees. Electronically monitored BOP home confinees are generally monitored by probation offices; however, some CCCs use electronic monitoring because it is cost effective and reduces staff workload.

According to BOP requirements, Community Corrections Centers' staff should: (1) telephonically contact the resident at random hours each day at home or at work or both; (2) visit residents on home confinement at their homes and at their places of employment at least once per week; (3) ensure residents on home confinement return to the CCC twice weekly for progress reviews, counseling, and monthly urine testing; (4) maintain documentation of all contacts with residents on home confinement; and (5) notify the BOP Community Corrections Manager immediately of any escape, misconduct, or failure of a resident on home confinement to comply with the signed Conditions of Home Confinement.

Community Corrections Centers were required to: (1) visit the home confinee's residence and place of employment monthly; (2) test for drugs once per month; (3) have one in-person contact per week; (4) document all contacts which shall include visual inspection of monitoring equipment, verification of employment, residence, and participation in any other required program or treatment activity; and (5) review home confinees' telephone bills monthly to detect call forwarding. Call forwarding could allow a home confinee to move the receiver dialer to an unauthorized location and transfer calls there.

Staff at the one CCC we visited which used electronic monitoring did not visually inspect monitoring equipment at each contact. They stated that they did not inspect the equipment unless they were notified to do so by the monitoring company. All other requirements were either met or were not applicable.

Probation offices, under the terms of the MOU, should ensure: (1) all home confinees under their supervision are monitored 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and (2) probation officers respond to all violations of the conditions of home confinement. United States Probation contracted for electronic monitoring services. When contractor staff were electronically notified of a potential home confinement violation and could not resolve the issue in 30 minutes, they had to notify the probation officer.

One probation office did not monitor messages of potential violations received over the weekend until the next workday. For example, if the contractor received a "tampering" message on a Saturday morning, they would leave a message (as they have been instructed to do) on the probation office's answering machine. A tampering message occurs when the transmitter is tampered with, removed or jarred. The office did not require the probation officer to listen to the message until the next workday. Staff at AOUSC Headquarters stated that this was probably an isolated incident, and that the officer handling the caseload had retired.

The BOP did not clearly define its policies for monitoring home confinees in the MOU with the AOUSC. In our judgment, all home confinees should be subject to the same requirements. Accordingly, we tested probation office's actions against the BOP's requirements. Probation offices did not always: (1) test for drugs at least once a month; (2) complete in-person contacts once a week; (3) document verification of employment, residence, and participation in required programs; (4) visually inspect monitoring equipment at each in-person contact; or (5) review home confinees' monthly telephone bill to detect call forwarding.

We performed on-site work at 2 CCCs and conducted a telephone survey of the other 13 CCCs around the country which used electronic monitoring. Staff at these CCCs stated that electronic monitoring:

Disadvantages included age-related problems with the monitoring equipment (1 site), rare systems crashes (1 site), false alerts (1 site), and public misconception that electronic monitoring prevents violations (false security) (1 site).

BOP Community Corrections Managers took appropriate disciplinary actions for violations. At six BOP Community Corrections Management Offices, home confinees were removed from the program and returned to either the CCC or a secured facility for 26 of the 27 violations identified. The Community Corrections Manager deemed the remaining violation as minor, and allowed the CCC staff to handle it informally. We agreed with this assessment. We did not identify any home confinement program violations at one office.

Although Directors at 5 of 12 CCCs indicated that low occupancy rates at their CCCs have or could affect referrals to home confinement, our testing indicated that Community Corrections Centers generally referred inmates for home confinement appropriately (See Appendix V). We reviewed files for 142 inmates who had been referred to home confinement. In our judgment, 141 of the 142 inmates were referred appropriately. We also reviewed files for 192 inmates who had not been referred to home confinement. In our judgment, all 192 non-referrals were appropriate. We identified non-systemic weaknesses as detailed below.

CCC staff have to refer inmates to home confinement, but the CCCs are only reimbursed 50 percent of the daily rate for residents placed on home confinement. In our judgment, this is a conflict of interest. Further, the Statement of Work for CCC contracts states that a CCC Director may recommend an inmate for home confinement when the inmate will derive no further significant benefit from continued CCC residence. In our judgment, the statement "derive no further significant benefit from continued CCC residence" was too broad, allowing CCC staff to always justify the non-referral of an inmate. However, we found no systemic effect from these two conditions. As demonstrated in the graph at Appendix VI, the overall trend for placements on home confinement approximated 20 percent, the BOP's goal.

Title 18 United States Code, Section 3624(c), allowed the BOP to place inmates who were within the last 6 months or 10 percent of their sentence, whichever was less, on home confinement. In addition to this legal requirement, the BOP established the following criteria before an inmate can be placed on home confinement: (1) the resident will derive no further significant benefits from continued CCC residence; (2) the resident has developed a release plan that has been approved by the supervising probation officer; and (3) the resident is not considered to present a substantial threat to the community or safety of others. Inmates convicted of crimes of violence and sexual offenses were not eligible for home confinement.

Procedures at the BOP's Montgomery, El Paso, and Phoenix Community Corrections Management Offices were adequate to identify inmates eligible for home confinement. For example, the Community Corrections Manager at El Paso obtained explanations from CCC staff as to why inmates who had been in the CCC for a reasonable length of time were not on home confinement.

Staff at the Detroit and Miami offices did not regularly review the status of potential home confinees. Staff at the Atlanta office reviewed inmate data, but did not follow up with CCCs to see if inmates were placed.

In Baltimore, 6 of 10 cases reviewed were properly excluded, but 4 were not. In our judgment, these four non-referrals were not significant enough to warrant an audit recommendation.

Staff at ten CCCs generally reviewed case files periodically to monitor the progress of inmates and to determine if they were ready for home confinement. For example, weekly team meetings were held at one CCC during which the program director and the case managers discussed who was eligible for home confinement. The remaining two CCCs did not have internal systems, and relied on the BOP to identify eligible inmates.

Actions taken by BOP Community Corrections Offices and CCCs prior to referral were generally satisfactory. However, 1 of the 142 inmate files we reviewed was for a CCC resident who was placed on home confinement although he was convicted of arson and had an alleged history of violence. According to the CCC Director, the inmate met the criteria and was not a threat to the community.

All CCCs provided reasonable explanations for the non-referral of 192 sampled inmates who were legally eligible for home confinement. Some reasons given were: no permanent residence, loss of job, history of repeated substance abuse, hostility, and disrespect.

In planning and performing the audit of the BOP's Home Confinement Program, we considered the BOP's management control structure for the purpose of determining our auditing procedures. This evaluation was not made for the purpose of providing assurance on the BOP management control structure as a whole. However, we noted certain matters that we consider to be reportable conditions under government auditing standards.

Reportable conditions involve matters coming to our attention relating to significant deficiencies in the design or operation of the management control structure that, in our judgement, could adversely affect the ability of the BOP to effectively manage its Home Confinement Program operations. We identified weaknesses in the systems for collecting subsistence from home confinees monitored by the AOUSC and the payment of bills received from the AOUSC (Pages 4 and 5) and the monitoring of home confinees by CCCs and the AOUSC (pages 6, 7, and 8).

Because we are not expressing an opinion on the BOP's management control structure as a whole, this statement is intended solely for the information and use of the BOP management in monitoring the Program. This restriction is not intended to limit the distribution of this report, which is a matter of public record.

We have audited the BOP's Home Confinement Program. The period covered by the audit was FY 1994 through the second quarter FY 1995, and included a review of selected activities and transactions. The audit was conducted in accordance with government auditing standards.

In connection with the audit, and as required by the standards, we tested transactions and records to obtain reasonable assurance concerning the agency's compliance with laws and regulations that, if not complied with, we believe would have a material effect on operations. Compliance with laws and regulations applicable to the Program is the responsibility of BOP management.

An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence about laws and regulations. The specific regulation for which we conducted tests was found in Title 18, United States Code, Section 3624(c), Release of a prisoner; Pre-release custody. For the items tested, we found no material or immaterial instances of noncompliance with the above regulation.

With respect to those transactions not tested, nothing came to our attention that caused us to believe that BOP management was not in compliance with the regulation cited above.

FUNDS TO BETTER USE [FUNDS TO BETTER USE are defined as future funds that could be used more efficiently if management took actions to implement and complete audit recommendations.]	AMOUNT	PAGE
Future savings by optimizing the use of electronic monitoring for all home confinees	$1,000,000	4
ENHANCED REVENUE [ENHANCED REVENUE is defined as future annual revenues that can be obtained from management action on audit recommendations. Examples include, but are not limited to: (1) establishing new fees, (2) increasing existing fees, (3) collection of current fees or debts owed, or (4) improving the value of assets prior to their sale. ]
Failure to collect allowable subsistence from BOP home confinees monitored by the AOUSC.	$ 51,000	5

Our audit objectives were to: (1) determine ways to decrease the costs of the home confinement program, (2) assess the adequacy of systems used to monitor home confinees, and (3) evaluate the criteria for placing individuals on home confinement. Our audit focused on operations for FY 1994 through the second quarter of FY 1995. We conducted work at BOP Headquarters and the AOUSC in Washington, DC, and at the following locations:

We conducted the audit in accordance with government auditing standards, and included such tests of program records as were considered necessary.

To assess the adequacy of systems used to monitor home confinees, we identified the BOP's requirements as found in the Statement of Work for contractors, in the MOU with the AOUSC, and other written procedures. We interviewed BOP Central Office and AOUSC staff to ensure our understanding of these requirements. At 12 CCCs and 4 probation offices, we reviewed 105 case files and records to determine if they complied with the BOP's monitoring requirements. We tested 79 cases at eleven CCCs that monitored home confinees non-electronically, 4 cases at a CCC that monitored electronically, and 22 BOP cases monitored by probation offices. We also reviewed case files for 27 violations identified at 6 BOP Community Corrections Management Offices to determine what actions were taken when the CCC or probation office reported a violation of program rules. No violations were identified at one BOP Community Corrections Management Office.

To evaluate the criteria for referring inmates for home confinement, we examined 192 case files of inmates legally eligible, but not referred for placement. We also examined 142 case files for inmates who were placed on home confinement to determine if the Community Corrections Managers and CCCs had taken proper action prior to placing the inmates on home confinement. We interviewed staff at BOP Community Corrections Management Offices to determine the procedures for processing incoming referrals, and to obtain suggestions on possible revisions to the referral policy. We also interviewed CCC Directors to determine the effect of the CCC's occupancy rate on decisions regarding referrals.

During the survey phase of our audit, we conducted limited audit work at a CCC using electronic monitoring in Dania, FL. The primary purpose of our work was to determine the CCC's satisfaction with electronic monitoring. We also obtained comments on electronic monitoring from staff at one CCC visited during the verification phase of our audit. We later surveyed 13 CCCs to determine their satisfaction with electronic monitoring. We also observed operations at AOUSC's contractor for electronic monitoring services in Boulder, CO.

NOTE 1: Probation was reimbursed the same rate for all BOP inmates under their supervision, regardless of location.

CCC Location	Reimbursement Rate for CCC Residents	Home Confinement Reimbursement Rate	Reimbursement to Probation For Electronic Monitoring
Atlanta, GA	$40.00	$20.00	$17.48
Atlanta, GA	$42.80	$21.40	$17.48
Miami, FL	$37.30	$18.65	$17.48
Chicago, IL	$56.68	$28.34	$17.48
Grand Rapids, MI	$46.86	$23.43	$17.48
Hutchins, TX	$43.50	$21.75	$17.48
Albuquerque, NM	$40.08	$20.04	$17.48
New York, NY	$73.00	$36.50	$17.48
Washington, D.C.	$57.88	$28.94	$17.48
San Diego, CA	$55.50	$27.75	$17.48
Tucson, AZ	$46.76	$23.38	$17.48
Mobile, AL	$39.44	$19.72	$17.48