| Updater |
ACTION ALERT! FedCURE's
Contact Congress Campaign: BARBER Amemdment Good Time Bill
FedCURE On
PBS
Fedcure Org
FedCURE
FedCURE on GETTR
FedCURE News
BNNreports.com
Support FedCURE Through Your Online Purchases From These Vendors:
|
SECOND LOOK | The Sentencing
Reform Act
Top Management and Performance Challenges Facing the
Department of Justice - 2013
December 11, 2013
MEMORANDUM FOR: |
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY
GENERAL
|
FROM: |
MICHAEL E. HOROWITZ INSPECTOR GENERAL
|
SUBJECT: |
Top Management and Performance Challenges Facing the
Department of Justice
|
Attached to this memorandum is the Office of the Inspector General's
(OIG) 2013 list of top management and performance challenges facing the
Department of Justice (Department), which we have identified based on our
oversight work, research, and judgment. We have prepared similar lists since
1998. By statute this list is required to be included in the Department's
Agency Financial Report.
This years list identifies six challenges that we believe represent the
most pressing concerns for the Department. They are Addressing the
Growing Crisis in the Federal Prison System; Safeguarding National
Security Consistent with Civil Rights and Liberties; Protecting
Taxpayer Funds from Mismanagement and Misuse; Enhancing
Cybersecurity; Ensuring Effective and Efficient Law
Enforcement; and Restoring Confidence in the Integrity, Fairness,
and Accountability of the Department. While we do not prioritize the
challenges we identify in our annual top management challenges report, we
believe that one of the challenges highlighted this year, which we also
identified in last years report, represents an increasingly critical threat
to the Departments ability to fulfill its mission. That challenge is
Addressing the Growing Crisis in the Federal Prison System.
The crisis in the federal prison system is two-fold. First, the costs of
the federal prison system continue to escalate, consuming an ever-larger
share of the Departments budget with no relief in sight. In the current era
of flat or declining budgets, the continued growth of the prison system
budget poses a threat to the Departments other critical programs
including those designed to protect national security, enforce criminal
laws, and defend civil rights. As I have stated in testimony to Congress
during the past year, the path the Department is on is unsustainable in the
current budget environment. Second, federal prisons are facing a number of
important safety and security issues, including, most significantly, that
they have been overcrowded for years and the problem is only getting worse.
Since 2006, Department officials have acknowledged the threat overcrowding
poses to the safety and security of its prisons, yet the Department has not
put in place a plan that can reasonably be expected to alleviate the
problem.
Meeting this challenge will require a coordinated, Department-wide
approach in which all relevant Department officials from agents, to
prosecutors, to prison officials participate in reducing the costs and
crowding in our prison system. In that respect, the challenge posed by the
federal prison system is reflective of all of the challenges on our list:
each is truly a challenge to be addressed by the Department as a whole, not
just by individual Department components.
We hope this document will assist the Department in enhancing its
operations and prioritizing its efforts to improve. We look forward to
continuing to work with the Department to respond to these important issues
in the coming year.
Attachment
-
Addressing the Growing Crisis in the Federal Prison System
The Department of Justice (Department) is facing two interrelated
crises in the federal prison system. The first is the continually
increasing cost of incarceration, which, due to the current budget
environment, is already having an impact on the Departments other law
enforcement priorities. The second is the safety and security of the
federal prison system, which has been overcrowded for years and, absent
significant action, will face even greater overcrowding in the years
ahead.
Containing the Cost of the Federal Prison
System
Although the Departments mission has remained substantially
unchanged since 2001, the budgetary environment has changed
dramatically. After enjoying an increase in its discretionary budget
from $21.5 billion in fiscal year (FY) 2001 to $28.9 billion in FY 2011,
the Departments discretionary budget decreased in FY 2012 to $28.3
billion, and by 10 percent in FY 2013 to $25.5 billion. During this same
period, the prison population in the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP)
facilities grew from about 157,000 inmates in FY 2001 to about 219,000
inmates presently. As a result, the cost of the federal prison system
has increased dramatically and represents an ever increasing portion of
the Departments budget. For example, pre-trial detention costs, which
are the responsibility of the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS), were $617
million in FY 2001, but by FY 2013 those costs had more than doubled to
$1.5 billion. Similarly, the budget for the BOP, which is primarily
responsible for housing sentenced defendants, was $4.3 billion in FY
2001, or about 20 percent of the Departments discretionary budget, but
by the end of FY 2013 the BOPs budget had grown to $6.4 billion, or 25
percent of the Departments discretionary budget. Moreover, according to
the Presidents most recent budget, the total cost of federal
correctional activities will continue to rise through at least FY 2018.
By that time, if the BOPs budget increases at the same rate projected
for all federal correctional activities and the Departments budget
remains flat, the BOPs budget will consume over 28 percent of the
Departments discretionary budget.
The Departments leadership has noted that these rising prison costs
threaten the Departments ability to fulfill its mission in other areas.
For example, in a recent speech to the American Bar Association, the
Deputy Attorney General remarked that the unsustainable cost of the
prison system represents a crisis that . . . has the potential to
swallow up so many important efforts in the fight against crime, and
that [e]very dollar we spend at the Department of Justice on prisons
and detention . . . is a dollar we are not spending on law enforcement
efforts aimed at violent crime, drug cartels, public corruption cases,
financial fraud cases, human trafficking cases, [and] child
exploitation, just to name a few.
Yet each year the costs of the federal prison system continue to
grow, with no evidence that the cost curve will be broken anytime soon.
In August 2013, the Attorney General announced a program to limit the
number of defendants that face lengthy prison sentences for drug
offenses by instructing federal prosecutors not to charge defendants
under statutes carrying mandatory minimum sentences if the defendants
are nonviolent; do not have significant ties to large-scale drug
trafficking organizations, gangs, or cartels; and do not have
significant criminal histories. However, this policy change is unlikely
to have a significant short-term impact on prison costs because
defendants who qualify for this relief are still likely to face some
period of incarceration for their crimes. Whether the policy change will
have a material long-term impact on prison costs remains to be seen
since many of these same defendants, if they had been subjected to a
mandatory minimum charge, might have qualified for the mandatory minimum
safety valve that Congress created in 1994. This safety valve is
already incorporated into the federal sentencing guidelines and can
result in a sentence of less time in prison than the mandatory minimum
sentence specifies.
The Department also introduced in August 2013 the Smart on Crime
initiative, which sets out five principles designed to identify reforms
to enforce federal laws more fairly and efficiently. Some of these
principles echo strategies Department officials have discussed
previously, such as pursuing lower-cost alternatives to incarceration
for those convicted of low-level, non-violent crimes, including drug
courts and diversion programs. The initiative also directs prosecutors
to pursue the most serious cases, based on the Departments priorities
to protect Americans from national security threats, violent crime, and
financial fraud, and to protect the most vulnerable members of society.
It further encourages prosecutors to focus on significant cases rather
than just the number of cases prosecuted. The Office of the Inspector
General (OIG) is monitoring several issues related to the Departments
implementation of the Smart on Crime initiative, including the use of
pre-trial diversion and drug court programs.
The Smart on Crime initiative represents a strategy that could help
contain federal prison costs depending upon the success of its
implementation. The Departments policies governing prosecutorial and
investigative decisions are a key driver of prison costs, and they need
to reflect the real and growing impact that increasing prison costs are
having on the Departments budget. Additionally, prosecutorial and
investigative components should be aware that, in a flat or declining
budget environment, increased spending on the prison system has the
potential to impact spending on their own activities. The Smart on Crime
initiative appears to be an attempt to better align the investigative
and prosecutive policies that drive incarceration costs with the
Departments current budget situation. However, with the Presidents
most recent budget projecting continually increasing costs for federal
correctional activities in the coming fiscal years, and with the
Departments own projection that the BOPs prison facilities will suffer
even greater capacity challenges in the years ahead as discussed below,
it is likely additional steps still will be required in order to address
this challenge.
Another growing challenge for the federal prison budget is the
increasing number of elderly inmates. From FY 2010 to FY 2013, the
population of inmates over the age of 65 in BOP-managed facilities
increased by 31 percent, from 2,708 to 3,555, while the population of
inmates 30 or younger decreased by 12 percent, from 40,570 to 35,783.
This demographic trend has significant budgetary implications for the
Department because older inmates have higher medical costs. The National
Institute of Corrections has estimated that elderly inmates are roughly
two to three times more expensive to incarcerate than their younger
counterparts. For example, according to BOP data, in FY 2011, the
average cost of incarcerating a prisoner in a BOP medical referral
center was $57,962 compared with $28,893 for an inmate in the general
population. Moreover, inmate health services costs are rising: BOP data
shows that the cost for providing health services to inmates increased
from $677 million in FY 2006 to $947 million in FY 2011, a 40 percent
increase. The OIG is currently reviewing the trends in the BOPs aging
inmate population, the impact of incarcerating a growing population of
aging inmates, the effect of aging inmates on the BOPs incarceration
costs, and the recidivism rate of inmates age 50 and older who were
recently released.
In addressing these issues, the Department must better manage and
leverage its existing programs. Recent OIG reviews have identified
several such opportunities. For example, in 2011 the OIG reviewed the
Departments International Prisoner Treaty Transfer Program, which
permits certain foreign national inmates from treaty nations to serve
the remainder of their sentences in their home countries. Foreign
nationals made up as much as 26 percent of federal inmates as of August
2013, and 46 percent of federal defendants in FY 2012. However, the OIG
found in our 2011 report that from FY 2005 through FY 2010, the
Department rejected 97 percent of foreign national inmates requests to
transfer, and that in FY 2010, less than 1 percent of the 40,651 foreign
national inmates in the BOPs custody were transferred to their home
countries to complete their sentences. While some of the factors
involved in this outcome were beyond the Departments control, such as
the requirement that treaty nations must approve a transfer request
before a transfer can be completed, the OIG found that if only 5 percent
of eligible inmates who had never previously applied were transferred to
their home countries, the BOP would remove 1,974 inmates from its
prisons and save up to $50.6 million in annual incarceration costs.
However, 2 years after the OIGs report was issued, the Department has
not fully implemented the reports recommendations and, although the
Department appears to have made improvements to its program, BOP data
shows that the number of prisoners transferred from BOPs custody under
the program has not significantly increased since our report. At a time
when the Departments leadership is concerned about a prison cost
crisis, the Department must continue its efforts to improve the
implementation of this program that has been authorized by Congress and
that could have a material impact on prison costs.
The BOPs compassionate release program, which allows the Department
to release inmates under extraordinary and compelling conditions, also
could provide some budgetary relief for the BOP. However, an OIG review
earlier this year found that the program was badly mismanaged and that
better administration of the program would inevitably result in cost
savings to the BOP and help the BOP address its capacity problems. As
part of the Departments Smart on Crime initiative, and in response to
our review, the BOP has issued a new compassionate release policy that
expands the programs medical criteria and also includes criteria for
elderly inmates. Similarly, in February 2012, the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) assessed the flexibility available to the
BOP to reduce inmates time in prison and found opportunities for
improvement, including expanded use of the BOPs Residential Drug Abuse
Treatment Program and community confinement at the end of sentences. To
have a meaningful impact on its immediate budget situation, the
Department needs to consider how it can move forward in all of these
areas.
Finally, one of the factors contributing to the increasing number of
prisoners in the federal prison system over the past 3 decades has been
the trend to prosecute at the federal level many offenses that were
previously handled largely or exclusively by state and local
authorities. By one estimate, the number of federal criminal offenses
grew by 30 percent between 1980 and 2004; indeed, there are now well
over 4,000 offenses carrying criminal penalties in the United States
Code. In addition, an estimated 10,000 to 100,000 federal regulations
can be enforced criminally. In May 2013, the House Committee on the
Judiciary passed a bipartisan resolution to create the
Over-Criminalization Task Force to review federal laws and modernize the
criminal code. The Department should simultaneously consider how the
federalization of criminal law has affected its budget and operations,
and whether rebalancing the mix of cases charged federally might help
alleviate the budget crisis posed by the federal prison system without
sacrificing public safety, particularly where state and local
authorities have jurisdiction to prosecute the conduct.
Improving Prison Safety and Security
Ensuring the safety of staff and inmates in federal prison and
detention facilities is among the Departments most important
responsibilities, a fact tragically demonstrated when, in February 2013,
an inmate using a homemade weapon murdered a correctional officer at a
BOP high security facility. The BOP is responsible for the custody and
care of approximately 219,000 federal inmates and detained persons
awaiting trial or sentencing. Approximately 81 percent of these
individuals are confined in BOP-operated facilities, while the rest are
confined in privately managed or community-based facilities and local
jails. Yet, as of November 2013, the BOP was operating with its
facilities at approximately 36 percent over rated capacity, with medium
security facilities operating at approximately 45 percent over rated
capacity and high security facilities operating at approximately 51
percent over rated capacity. This overcrowding affects the safety and
security of a large and growing number of staff and correctional
officers, as well as the inmates themselves.
The Department first identified prison overcrowding as a programmatic
material weakness in its FY 2006 Performance and Accountability Report
and has done so again in every such report for the past 7 years. Each
year, the Department has created a corrective action plan to address the
issue, yet the outlook for the federal prison system has remained bleak:
even under the scenario outlined in the Departments plan, which assumes
it will be fully funded and implemented in each of the next 5 years, the
BOP projects that its system-wide crowding will continue to rise to 44
percent over rated capacity by 2018. The costs of achieving even these
results will be significant, as reflected in the Departments FY 2014
budget request, which includes $236.2 million in enhancements to
maintain secure facilities, improve prisoner reentry, pay for increased
detention-related costs, and fund the initial or continued activation of
five facilities that will increase the BOPs rated prison capacity by
about 4,600 beds. These enhancements would also cover the addition of
1,000 contracted beds at a cost of $26.2 million.
The growth of the inmate population, along with the Departments
tightening budget situation, has prevented the BOP from reducing its
inmate-to-correctional officer ratio, which has remained at
approximately 10-to-1 for more than a decade. In comparison, the
Congressional Research Service reported that among the five largest
state correctional systems in 2005 California, Texas, New York,
Florida, and Georgia the highest ratio of inmates to correctional
officers was just over 6-to-1. The Department has indicated it is
attempting to address this problem by, among other things, requesting
funding for an additional 1,155 correctional officers in FY 2014 as
compared to FY 2012 enacted staffing levels. However, in the current
budget environment, more funding for the BOP to pay for additional
correctional officers may simply result in less money being available
for other Department priorities. As a result, the Department also needs
to consider addressing the other part of the correctional
officer-to-inmate equation, namely the number of federal inmates.
Overcrowding at BOP institutions has a significant financial impact
on the USMS. The USMS is projected to detain an average of 62,131
individuals per day in FY 2014, a 15-percent increase since FY 2004. The
USMS estimates that the BOP will only be able to house approximately 18
percent of USMS detainees. The USMS must pay to house the remainder an
average of about 50,000 detainees per day in approximately 1,100
state, local, or private facilities.
There are several other important safety and security issues at
federal prison and detention facilities that the OIG is monitoring
carefully. The OIG has long been committed to addressing allegations of
staff-on-inmate sexual abuse in federal prisons. The Prison Rape
Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA) expanded the Departments
responsibility to prevent the sexual abuse of inmates in BOP facilities
and detainees in the custody of the USMS. In response to PREA, the OIG
has processed over 1,000 complaints related to allegations of sexual
abuse and opened criminal cases on over 200 of those complaints. This
work by the OIG, which is ongoing, has resulted in numerous criminal
convictions and administrative actions by the BOP and the USMS. PREA
also required the Department to issue national standards for preventing,
detecting, reducing, and punishing sexual abuse in prison, which it did
in May 2012. With national standards in place, the Department must
ensure that those standards are being met, which will require careful
oversight of BOP, USMS, and federal contract facilities, including
residential reentry centers, and an extensive program for compliance
auditing. The OIG intends to monitor the Departments efforts to ensure
that the national standards are met.
The OIG is also conducting oversight to help ensure that the
Department takes appropriate and cost-effective measures to keep
contraband and weapons out of prisons. For example, as a standard part
of our investigations involving the introduction of contraband to BOP
facilities, the OIG has begun assessing the implementation and
effectiveness of the BOPs employee search policies, which the BOP
substantially revised in July 2013. In addition, the OIG is reviewing a
$4 million contract the BOP awarded for X-ray scanners used to augment
the BOPs efforts to inspect packages entering its facilities. This
review will assess the use of the purchased equipment and its
effectiveness in meeting the BOPs security needs.
Finally, the Departments efforts to ensure the safety and security
of its prison and detention facilities must address the challenges
relating to the mental health of its inmates and the impact of
correctional approaches such as solitary confinement on inmates mental
health and recidivism rates. For example, a July 2013 GAO report
recommended that the BOP improve the timeliness of its internal reviews
relating to mental health services, develop a plan to evaluate treatment
programs, and update its formal policies related to mental health
services. In February 2013, the BOP also stated its intention to hire an
independent auditor to assess its use of solitary confinement, and that
review is now underway. The OIG intends to monitor the BOPs actions
closely, including its responses to the GAOs recommendations and the
results of the study of its use of solitary confinement, and will
conduct additional work in this area as appropriate.
-
Safeguarding National Security Consistent with Civil Rights and
Liberties
According to the Departments Strategic Plan for FYs 20122016,
defending national security from both internal and external threats
remains the Departments top priority, and Aprils bombings during the
Boston Marathon tragically demonstrated the importance of this effort.
However, the Departments challenge is not limited to ensuring that its
efforts to safeguard American interests are effective: it must also
protect civil rights and liberties. Recent disclosures concerning the
governments data collection and surveillance processes have sparked
public debate over mass surveillance and government secrecy, and in so
doing have underscored the difficulty of operating national security
programs while also respecting the publics expectations of privacy, a
key civil rights and liberties concern.
The Departments national security efforts have long been a priority
of the OIGs oversight work, which has consistently shown that the
Department faces many persistent challenges in its efforts to protect
the nation from attack. One such challenge is ensuring that national
security information is appropriately shared among Department components
and the intelligence community so that responsible officials have the
information they need to act in a timely and effective manner. The
Department has made important progress in this regard. For example, in
response to OIG audits, the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) has
implemented new policies and procedures to better ensure that the
terrorist watchlist is complete, accurate, and current. We are
conducting a follow-up audit to assess the effectiveness of the FBIs
most recent efforts in this area.
Technological advances, particularly in the realm of communications
technology, have vastly increased the amount of data potentially
available to law enforcement agencies, thereby compounding the
difficulty of ensuring that relevant information is identified and
shared among law enforcement entities in a timely and actionable manner.
For this reason and others, information sharing remains a persistent
challenge to the Departments efforts to ensure national security. Our
recent interim report on the federal Witness Security (WITSEC) Program
demonstrated the continuing stakes of this challenge. That review found
that the Department did not authorize the disclosure to the Terrorist
Screening Center of new identities provided to known or suspected
terrorists and their dependents who were admitted into the WITSEC
Program. Consequently, it was possible for known or suspected terrorists
to use their new government-issued identities to fly on commercial
airplanes, thereby evading one of the government's primary means of
identifying and tracking terrorists' movements and actions. Improved
information sharing would also increase the efficacy of the FBIs
Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force (FTTTF), which conducts in-depth
analyses using government and public source datasets to identify and
track terrorist and national security threats and provides intelligence
on these threats to the intelligence community. An OIG review found that
while the FTTTF provides significant value to the Department by
proactively identifying national security threats, it would benefit from
better coordination with and outreach to FBI field offices to ensure
that relevant and actionable information is provided to the agents who
need it in a timely manner.
The OIG will continue its efforts to conduct reviews that improve the
effectiveness of the Departments national security efforts. Among other
reviews, we are continuing our review of the WITSEC Program and will
evaluate the Departments progress in implementing corrective measures
in response to the recommendations contained in our interim report. We
are also working with the Inspectors General of the Intelligence
Community, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Department of
Homeland Security to conduct a coordinated and independent review into
the U.S. governments handling of intelligence information leading up to
the Boston Marathon bombings. The review is examining the information
available to the U.S. government before the Boston Marathon bombings and
the information sharing protocols and procedures followed between and
among the intelligence and law enforcement agencies. In addition, a
recent OIG review of the Departments compliance with certain
classification requirements found that the Department had not
effectively administered its classification policies and procedures to
ensure that information is classified and disseminated in compliance
with national security information guidelines. We intend to monitor
closely the Departments efforts to implement the 14 recommendations we
made in that report to help improve the Departments classification
management program and its implementation of classification procedures.
While remaining effective in its national security efforts, the
Department must simultaneously remain committed to the principles of
compliance with law, transparency, and oversight in its management of
classified surveillance and data-collection programs. The importance of
these principles was demonstrated by prior OIG reviews assessing the
FBIs use of national security letters (NSL), which allow the government
to obtain information such as telephone and financial records from third
parties without a court order. These reviews found that the FBI had
misused this authority by failing to comply with important legal
requirements designed to protect civil liberties and privacy interests,
and we therefore made recommendations to help remedy these failures. We
are now conducting a third review of NSL use to assess the FBIs and the
Departments progress in responding to the recommendations made in our
past NSL reports and evaluate the FBIs compliance with NSL requirements
following its implementation of corrective measures. The OIGs ongoing
reviews also include our third review of the Departments requests for
business records under Section 215 of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act (FISA), as well as our first review of the
Departments use of pen register and trap-and-trace devices under FISA.
Although the full versions of our prior reports on NSLs and Section 215
all remain classified, we have released unclassified versions of these
reports, and we have requested that the Department and the Office of the
Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) conduct declassification
reviews of the full classified versions. The results of any
declassification review may also affect how much information we will be
able to publish regarding our pending reviews when they are
complete.
The OIG has also conducted oversight of other programs designed to
acquire national security and foreign intelligence information,
including the FBIs use of Section 702 of the FISA Amendments
Act (FAA), which authorizes the targeting of non-U.S. persons
reasonably believed to be located outside the United States to acquire
foreign intelligence information. The OIGs 2012 review culminated in a
classified report released to the Department and to Congress that
assessed, among other things, the number of disseminated FBI
intelligence reports containing a reference to a U.S. person identity
and the FBIs compliance with the targeting and minimization procedures
required under the FAA. Especially in light of the fact that Congress
reauthorized the FAA for another 5 years last session, we believe the
findings and recommendations in our report will be of continuing benefit
to the Department as it seeks to ensure the responsible use of this
foreign intelligence tool. This report also was included in our request
to the Department and ODNI for a declassification review, as was the
full, classified version of our 2009 report on the Presidents
Surveillance Program, which described certain intelligence-gathering
activities that took place prior to the enactment of the FAA.
Additional concerns about civil rights and liberties are likely to
arise in the future. For example, significant public attention has been
paid to programs authorizing the acquisition of national security
information, but relatively less has been paid to the storing, handling,
and use of that information. Yet after information has been lawfully
collected for one investigation, crucial questions arise about whether
and how that information may be stored, shared, and used in support of
subsequent investigations. Similar questions arise about the impact on
civil rights and liberties of conducting electronic searches of national
security information and about whether and how information obtained in a
national security context can be used for criminal law enforcement. As
the Department continues to acquire, store, and use national security
information, these issues will arise more and more frequently, and the
Department must ensure that civil rights and liberties are not
transgressed.
-
Protecting Taxpayer Funds from Mismanagement and Misuse
Avoiding wasteful and ineffective spending is a fundamental
responsibility of federal agencies in any budgetary environment, but in
the current climate of budget constraints the Department needs to take
particular care to ensure that it is operating as efficiently and
effectively as possible. The OIGs recent oversight work has
demonstrated the challenges facing the Department. In FY 2013 alone, the
OIGs reports, including those related to audits performed by
independent auditors pursuant to the Single Audit Act,
identified more than $35 million in questioned costs and more than $4
million in taxpayer funds that could be put to better use. These figures
are in addition to the numerous OIG recommendations for program
improvements that have not been quantified in dollars, many of which
remain open.
The OIGs reports have identified numerous opportunities for improved
efficiency at the Department. For example, in a review of Department
airfares and booking fees, the OIG found that the Department has not
configured its travel booking system to ensure that employees on
official travel select the most cost-effective airfare available, and
that it can continue to reduce travel contractor fees by maximizing the
use of its online booking system. Other recent OIG audits have
identified problems with USMS procurement policies and practices. An OIG
audit found significant deficiencies in how the USMS Office in the
Superior Court of the District of Columbia (SCDC) accounts for overtime
and supplemental pay for law enforcement officers; identified over
$275,000 in total unsupported costs associated with district-level
salaries, fleet cards, and purchase cards; and concluded that the USMS
SCDC needs to take multiple actions to strengthen its internal controls
to ensure that it is adequately preventing waste, fraud, and abuse. A
separate OIG audit of USMS procurement actions found that a substantial
portion of the actions we reviewed lacked appropriate and necessary
documentation, such as evidence of advance approvals, required
certifications of fund availability, receiving documents, or
justifications for sole source awards or limited competition. Problems
such as these have the potential to undermine the Departments
reputation as a trusted custodian of public safety and taxpayer
funds.
The Department must remain particularly vigilant when taxpayer funds
are distributed to third parties, such as grantees and contractors. In
part due to the sheer volume of money and the large number of recipients
involved, grant funds present a particular risk for mismanagement and
misuse: according to the Administrations USASpending.gov website, from
FY 2009 through FY 2013 the Department awarded approximately $17 billion
in grants to thousands of governmental and non-governmental recipients.
These risks were evident in a recent OIG audit which questioned nearly
all of the more than $23 million in grant funds awarded by the
Department to Big Brothers Big Sisters of America (BBBSA), which
resulted in the Departments Office of Justice Programs (OJP) deciding
to freeze the disbursement of all grant funds to BBBSA.
The Department has reported taking important steps toward improving
its management of this vast and diverse grantmaking effort. For example,
the Associate Attorney Generals Office established a Grants Management
Challenges Workgroup that is responsible for developing consistent
practices and procedures in a wide variety of grant administration and
management areas. In January 2012, the Department issued policy and
procedures developed by the workgroup to implement the Department-wide
high risk grantee designation program, which allows the Department to
place additional restrictions on the use of funds it provides to
grantees who, for example, are deemed financially unstable or have
failed to conform to the terms and conditions of previous awards.
The Department should continue to be aggressive in identifying high
risk grantees and placing appropriate restrictions on their funds or
halting their funding altogether. But the Department also has other
tools at its disposal to mitigate the risk of releasing funds to
grantees, such as ensuring that pass-through agencies that receive block
grants have robust subrecipient monitoring systems, ensuring that
grantees have adequate accounting procedures in place to track their use
of Department funds, attaching special conditions to grants where
grantees may have difficulty complying with Department grant
requirements, actively seeking suspension and debarment of grantees in
appropriate cases, and making use of tools designed to deter
smaller-dollar fraud, such the Program Fraud Civil Remedies
Act, which can be used for false claims where the alleged liability
is less than $150,000.
The Departments grantmaking components must also ensure that their
own operations are streamlined to ensure maximum value for the taxpayer.
Specifically, recent OIG and GAO reports have found that improvements
could be realized by reducing duplication and improving coordination
among the Departments three grantmaking components, the Office of
Community Oriented Policing Services, the Office on Violence Against
Women, and OJP. The Department reported in FY 2012 that it would conduct
an assessment to better understand the extent to which the Departments
grant programs overlap with one another and to determine if grant
programs may be consolidated to mitigate the risk of unnecessary
duplication. We have not yet been provided with the results of that
planned assessment. The Department should take prompt action to address
these concerns, and the OIG will continue to closely monitor the
Departments actions in addressing duplicative functions in order to
ensure that these grantmaking components are optimally coordinating with
each other to ensure the maximum effectiveness of each grant dollar
spent.
The Department also plays an important role in protecting taxpayer
funds through its efforts to enforce laws against financial offenses and
fraud. For example, in FY 2012, the Department reported recoveries of
approximately $5 billion in false claims cases the largest annual
recovery in its history with $3 billion attributable to health care
fraud civil recoveries and $1.4 billion attributable to housing and
mortgage fraud. The OIG is currently reviewing the Departments efforts
to address mortgage fraud, including its policy guidance, coordination
of component programs at the national level, and public reporting of
mortgage fraud-related accomplishments.
But securing a financial judgment is not enough. The Department must
also use all available tools to recover money owed to it, and it must
ensure that the recovered money is wisely spent. In FY 2012, the U.S.
Attorneys Offices (USAO) collected $13.2 billion in criminal and civil
actions, more than double the amount collected in FY 2011. However, at
the end of FY 2012, an additional $23 billion was owed to the United
States, including $18 billion in criminal fines and $5 billion in civil
debts. The USAOs efforts to collect criminal and civil debts are the
subject of an ongoing OIG review. Of similar significance to the
taxpayer, the balance of the Departments Assets Forfeiture Fund, which
is funded by law enforcement asset forfeitures, rose from $2.9 billion
in FY 2011 to $4.4 billion as of FY 2012. A portion of these funds is
available to be shared with state and local law enforcement agencies for
permissible law enforcement uses, and from FY 2011 to FY 2012, these
equitable sharing payments increased from $440 million to $681
million. While this program represents an important opportunity for the
Department to collaborate with state and local partners, it also creates
an opportunity for abuse, as demonstrated by a recent OIG investigation
of a local law enforcement entity that resulted in the recovery of $1.8
million in misused equitable sharing revenues. As a result of this
investigation, the Department is revising its policies to prevent
similar abuses in the future.
Finally, whistleblowers play a critical role in preventing and
rooting out mismanagement, waste, and other abuses in the Department,
yet retaliation against whistleblowers by Department employees remains a
serious subject of concern. For example, in a report released in May
2013, the OIG found that a then-U.S. Attorney, who had resigned prior to
the issuance of our report, violated Department policies by disclosing
an internal memorandum to a journalist. We concluded that there was
substantial evidence that the U.S. Attorneys motive for disclosing the
memorandum was to retaliate against a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives (ATF) special agent who had previously testified
before a congressional committee regarding his concerns about Operation
Fast and Furious. The Department must redouble its efforts to
aggressively respond to any attempt to retaliate against
whistleblowers.
In light of the importance of whistleblowers to the effective
management of the Department, in 2012 the OIG created a Whistleblower
Ombudsperson position, one of the first within the federal government,
to enable the OIG to continue its leadership as a strong and independent
voice within the Department on whistleblower issues, and the OIG was
recently certified by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) as
compliant with training and other whistleblower provisions pursuant to 5
U.S.C. § 2302(c). We believe the Department should consider having its
components obtain similar certification from the OSC. The OIG also has
been, and will continue to be, actively involved in developing
whistleblower-related policies, procedures, and training within the
Department; in ensuring that whistleblower complaints are reviewed
quickly and thoroughly; and in working with other agencies and OSC to
help deter retaliation against whistleblowers. The OIG has provided its
staff with training on whistleblower rights and protections using a
video developed in conjunction with the Departments Office of Legal
Education and Justice Television Network, and we are now working with
the Department to ensure that training on this important topic is
expanded to other components.
-
Enhancing Cybersecurity
The United States continues to face serious, rapidly evolving
national security threat posed by cyber attacks and cyber espionage
against its computer systems and infrastructure. The Director of
National Intelligences March 2013 Worldwide Threat Assessment of
the U.S. Intelligence Community emphasized this threat and noted
that digital technologies evolve faster than our ability to understand
the security implications and mitigate potential risks. Moreover, the
increased pace of attacks is staggering: a recent report by the GAO
found that the number of cybersecurity incidents federal agencies
reported as having placed sensitive information at risk increased 782
percent from 2006 to 2012, averaging more than 130 incidents per day
during FY 2012. These cyber attacks are in addition to the threat posed
by more traditional unauthorized disclosures by government employees and
contractors, disclosures that are significantly aided by the electronic
storage and transmission of increasing amounts of information.
The Departments FY 2014 budget request reflects its continued
recognition of cybersecurity as a top priority. The request includes
$668 million specifically related to cybersecurity, an increase of $92.6
million, or 16 percent, from FY 2013. The majority of the increase,
$86.6 million, is to support the FBIs Next Generation Cyber Initiative,
which was launched in 2012 to enhance the FBIs ability to help address
cybersecurity threats to the nation and which is the subject of a
recently initiated OIG audit. The increased funding would be used in
part to add 50 special agents and 50 computer scientists to increase
cyber investigation capabilities and victim identification. As criminals
increasingly exploit cyber vulnerabilities and use sophisticated digital
technologies and computer networks in the commission of crimes, it is
important for the Department and the FBI to ensure that all of its
agents not just those designated as cyber specialists are properly
trained in basic cyber investigatory techniques and provided with
adequate cyber tools to conduct their investigations.
As the Department increases its cyber capabilities, coordinating its
cyber efforts will become even more important. Within the Department,
numerous entities and offices focus on cybersecurity and cybercrime.
Among those entities is the FBIs Cyber Division, which leads the
Departments cyber investigative efforts as the component responsible
for protecting against cyber-based terrorism, espionage, and computer
intrusions. But there are many others, including the National Security
Divisions cyber unit, the Criminal Divisions Computer Crime and
Intellectual Property Section, and the many USAOs responsible for
prosecuting cyber cases. The FBI is also responsible for leading the
National Cyber Investigative Joint Task Force, which involves senior
personnel from approximately six key federal agencies and which the
President has directed to be the central point for all government
agencies to coordinate and share information related to domestic cyber
threats. This proliferation of cybersecurity efforts creates the
pressing challenge of proper coordination to ensure that the
Departments cyber efforts work in concert with each other and toward
the same goal, and that information related to cyber threats is being
properly shared and disseminated.
Importantly, a successful cybersecurity strategy will require
cooperation from the private sector, and that cooperation must be
reciprocal: not only must the Department conduct sufficient outreach to
the private sector and offer sufficient safeguards of private sector
proprietary information, it must also be willing to share information
about cyber threats so that the private sector can prepare for and
defend itself against cyber attacks. To this end, the President issued
an Executive Order in February 2013 on Improving Critical Infrastructure
Security that required the Department to implement procedures to rapidly
share quality cyber threat information with private sector entities. The
order stressed increased information sharing from the government to the
private sector and the need to ensure that privacy, data
confidentiality, and civil liberties protections are in place. The
Department should move aggressively to implement the Presidents order
and, in doing so, should ensure that it solicits the input of all key
private sector constituents about what information, in what form, would
be most useful to receive.
A successful cybersecurity strategy will also need to incorporate
measures to combat the use of digital technologies to accomplish
intellectual property theft, which the FBI and the Department have
identified as a growing threat. The Departments Task Force on
Intellectual Property coordinates with federal, state, and local law
enforcement partners, and international counterparts, to combat
intellectual property crimes, and the Departments 2013 Joint Strategic
Plan on Intellectual Property Enforcement identified 26 specific online
and off-line actions to protect intellectual property, increase
enforcement against counterfeiting networks, and encourage
multi-national cooperation to protect rights holders. The Department
must take all appropriate actions to combat this threat, including those
measures identified in the Administrations Strategy on Mitigating the
Theft of U.S. Trade Secrets, issued in February 2013, which include
providing warnings and threat assessments to the private sector on
information and technology that are being targeted for theft by foreign
competitors and governments.
In addition to preventing, deterring, and responding to cybersecurity
incidents, the Department must establish effective internal network
defenses to protect its own computer systems and data. Of particular
concern are insider threats, and in March 2012 the Department
established a working group to create an insider threat prevention and
detection program to deter, detect, and mitigate actions by employees
and contractors who may represent a threat to national security. The OIG
is participating in this working group to ensure, among other things,
that suspected incidents of insider threats are appropriately reported
to the OIG for possible investigation.
The Department has taken other recent steps to protect its computer
systems and data. For example, in August 2013, the Departments Chief
Information Officer approved new incident response procedures that
include a requirement for the Justice Security Operations Center to
notify a subset of Department offices, including the OIG, within 72
hours of significant cybersecurity incidents. These notifications are
intended to ensure that determinations regarding breach notifications
are made properly and in a timely manner, and to ensure that effective
oversight of the Departments response to these breaches is possible.
The OIG will actively monitor these notifications to determine whether
they require further inquiry or investigation. However, in other areas
the Department must do more to help ensure the security of its computer
systems and data. For example, the Federal Information Security
Management Act (FISMA) requires the OIG to perform an annual
independent evaluation of the Departments information security programs
and practices, which includes testing the effectiveness of information
security policies, procedures, and practices of a representative subset
of agency systems. The OIGs FY 2012 FISMA audits provided 90
recommendations for improving implementation of the Departments
information security program and practices for its computer systems. The
Department must address these recommendations promptly, as well as the
42 open recommendations from previous FISMA audits.
-
Ensuring Effective and Efficient Law Enforcement
The Departments traditional law enforcement missions preventing
crime; protecting the American people; and administering justice at the
federal, state, local, tribal, and international levels remain of
vital importance and occupy a central place in the Departments current
Strategic Plan. The OIGs recent work, however, has identified numerous
challenges facing the Departments law enforcement efforts.
A fundamental but persistent challenge in this area is ensuring that
each Department law enforcement component has a clear mission and
policies that incorporate best practices from across the law enforcement
community. The OIGs reviews continue to identify instances in which
this does not occur. For example, the OIGs 2012 report on Operations
Fast and Furious and Wide Receiver identified significant weaknesses in
ATFs ability to conduct adequate oversight of its field offices
firearms trafficking investigations, coordinate with U.S. and Mexican
law enforcement entities, and implement public safety controls like
those used in other Department law enforcement components. That
investigation also determined that ATF and the Department had not
devoted sufficient attention to ensuring that ATFs policies adhered to
requirements found in the Attorney Generals Guidelines and other
Department policies. For example, the Department never amended the
Attorney Generals Guidelines Regarding the Use of Confidential
Informants (the AG Guidelines) to cover ATF after ATF joined the
Department in 2003, and ATF did not revise its confidential informant
policies to conform to the AG Guidelines until 8 years after ATF joined
the Department. In response to these findings, we made a number of
recommendations to the Department and ATF, including that the Department
maintain a regular working group involving leadership from its law
enforcement components to ensure appropriate coordination among them on
significant law enforcement policies and procedures, case deconfliction
mechanisms, and law enforcement initiatives. The Office of the Deputy
Attorney General and ATF have reported to the OIG that they have taken
significant actions to address the concerns expressed in our report. The
OIG has initiated a follow-up review to evaluate the progress and
effectiveness of the measures the Department and ATF have taken to
implement the recommendations in our Fast and Furious report, and will
consider activities and operations ATF initiated subsequent to the new
measures implementation, including Operation Fearless in Milwaukee. The
OIG is also completing two reviews of additional ATF operations along
the Southwest Border, one relating to the illegal trafficking of grenade
components into Mexico, and the other relating to illegally purchased
weapons that were recovered at the scene of the murder of two
Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents by members of the Los Zetas
cartel.
Additionally, our September 2013 report on ATFs income-generating
undercover operations found that ATF did not properly authorize, manage,
or monitor these investigations. The OIG found that none of the 35
investigations that had been approved by ATF and the Department fully
met ATFs policy requirements for approval. For example, none of the 35
investigations had been reviewed by ATFs Undercover Review Committee as
required by ATF policy. We also identified one income-generating
undercover operation that did not receive the required prior approvals.
Further, ATF misused the proceeds from these investigations and failed
to properly account for cigarettes purchased as part of them. Among the
problems we found was ATFs inability to reconcile the disposition of
2.1 million cartons of cigarettes with a retail value of more than $127
million. In our recommendations, we again advised the Department that it
needed to consider implementing best practices across its law
enforcement components for these undercover operations.
The Department also must address issues that affect its investigative
and prosecutorial efforts in fundamental ways. One of those challenges
is the need to integrate emerging and rapidly evolving technologies into
law enforcement efforts even as the legal rules governing those
technologies remain in flux. For example, unmanned aerial systems (UAS,
or drones), global positioning system (GPS) devices, and mobile phone
technologies all promise to improve the efficacy of law enforcement
efforts by making locational data more available. But these technologies
also raise important civil liberties considerations and as-yet unsettled
legal questions about what policies are appropriate for governing their
approval and use in law enforcement. A recent OIG review of the
Departments domestic use of UAS illustrates the point. During our
review, FBI and ATF officials stated that they did not believe there was
any practical difference between how UAS and manned aircraft collect
evidence through aerial surveillance. However, we found that the
technological capabilities of drones such as their ability to fly for
extended periods of time and maneuver effectively yet covertly around
residences and the current, uncoordinated approach of Department
components to using UAS may merit the Department developing consistent
UAS policies to guide the proper use of UAS. Similarly, issuing and
maintaining appropriate guidance on permissible and recommended law
enforcement uses of other emerging technologies, and carefully tracking
their use, will help ensure that the Department continues to respect
individuals privacy and ensure the admissibility of evidence in future
court proceedings.
A staple of the Departments law enforcement approach has been to
provide strong support to state, local, tribal, and international law
enforcement efforts, a strategy that aims to capitalize on resources
outside the Department. However, creating, coordinating, and supporting
partnerships can present unique challenges in Indian Country and the
U.S. territories. In Indian Country, where there are disproportionately
high violent crime rates, widespread substance abuse, and high rates of
domestic violence and sexual assault, and where recent FBI data show
that violent crime has increased to more than 20 times the national
average on some reservations, the responsibility to patrol more than 55
million acres of land must be shared and coordinated among more than 500
federally recognized tribes. The Departments August 2013 Policy
Statement on Tribal Consultation established a formal process for
Department components to seek tribal input on Department-initiated
policies, regulations, and legislative actions that may affect Indian
tribes, and in September 2013, the Department announced almost 200 new
awards totaling over $40 million in grants under the Coordinated Tribal
Assistance Solicitation. The crime data, however, suggest that the
Department must redouble its efforts to assist Native American Tribes in
reducing violent crime on reservations.
Similarly, crime rates in the U.S. territories have risen drastically
in recent years. In Puerto Rico, for example, a 2011 crime report showed
that the homicide rate had reached five times that of the U.S. mainland.
Criminal Division data also shows that the U.S. Attorney for the
District of Puerto Rico secured more federal public corruption
convictions between 2002 and 2011 than any other district in the United
States and its territories except for the District of New Jersey. Puerto
Ricos 130 federal public corruption convictions in 2011 were more than
twice the next highest number of such convictions in any other district
that year. Previous OIG audits in Puerto Rico and other Territories also
have identified problems with grant management and oversight of
sub-recipients. The OIG is currently auditing the Puerto Rico Department
of Justices administration of grant funds, including the adequacy of
its processes for meeting grant goals and objectives.
As part of its law enforcement mission, the Department must also
ensure the efficacy and integrity of its regulatory compliance programs,
which are crucially important to preventing crime and ensuring that
weapons and hazardous materials are handled, transferred, and stored
safely and securely. Recent OIG reviews of ATFs federal firearms
licensee and federal explosives licensee inspection programs, however,
documented needed improvements to these important efforts. Further, the
OIGs recent review of ATFs actions in revoking a firearms license
concluded that an ATF field division did not comply with ATFs
administrative action policy or instructions it received from
headquarters. The OIG will continue its close oversight of law
enforcement programs, including through an ongoing review of the Drug
Enforcement Administrations adjudication of registrant actions it has
taken against businesses or health care practitioners found to have
violated the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, and through a
separate ongoing review of the Departments process for referring
individuals denied the purchase of a firearm by the National Instant
Criminal Background Check System to ATF for investigation and possible
prosecution.
Finally, the Departments law enforcement components and criminal
prosecutors must strive to coordinate and share information and
resources as effectively as possible. Information sharing in the
criminal context can raise important questions about due process and
civil rights, such as when it is appropriate in a criminal investigation
to use foreign intelligence information that reveals potential criminal
activity of American citizens, and how the use of such information will
affect a subsequent prosecution. The OIG is conducting multiple reviews
relating to information sharing among law enforcement agencies,
including the previously mentioned multiagency review of the U.S.
governments handling of intelligence leading up to the Boston Marathon
bombings and a review of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task
Forces Fusion Center.
-
Restoring Confidence in the Integrity, Fairness, and Accountability
of the Department
Public trust in the Department, its senior officials, and its
employees is essential to every aspect of the Departments operations.
The Department must ensure that it strengthens and maintains its
reputation for integrity, fairness, and accountability of its personnel
and its operations.
The non-ideological, non-partisan enforcement of law is fundamental
to the publics trust in the Department. Yet in a recent report
assessing how the enforcement priorities of the Voting Section of the
Civil Rights Division have changed over time and whether the voting
rights laws have been enforced in a non-discriminatory fashion, the OIG
identified issues in the handling of a small number of cases that the
OIG believed risked undermining public confidence in the non-ideological
enforcement of the voting rights laws. The investigation also revealed
several incidents in which deep ideological polarization fueled disputes
and mistrust that harmed the functioning of the Voting Section,
including numerous examples of harassment and marginalization of
employees and managers due, at least in part, to their perceived
ideological or political beliefs. These incidents received substantial
public attention through congressional hearings and media reporting,
thereby feeding the concern that the administration of justice had
become politicized. The OIG will monitor the Departments corrective
actions taken in response to our report.
The OIG has identified recent instances in which Department employees
made inaccurate or incomplete statements to Congress or other government
entities. These inaccurate and incomplete statements generated
significant attention in both Congress and the national media and
resulted in an erosion of trust in the Department. For instance, in the
Fast and Furious report referenced above, the OIG found that senior
Department and ATF officials shared responsibility for providing
inaccurate information in two letters to Congress. The OIG also raised
concerns about subsequent representations to Congress by Department
officials about Operation Fast and Furious.
Additionally, in September 2013, the OIG released a report finding
inaccuracies among terrorism-related statistics that the Executive
Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) reported to Congress and the
public. These statistics had been used to make operational and budgetary
decisions. The report further found that EOUSA had not significantly
improved its reporting of terrorism-related statistics since a 2007
audit report that made similar findings. By contrast, the OIGs
September 2012 report examining the reporting of terrorism-related
statistics by the Departments National Security Division (NSD) found
that NSD had improved on the weaknesses identified in our 2007 report
but still required additional improvements to ensure the accuracy of
reported statistics.
The OIGs investigations of Department employees and contractors
during FY 2013 led to 77 criminal indictments or informations resulting
in 63 convictions, pleas, or pre-trial diversions. These investigations
also prompted 266 administrative disciplinary actions by Department
components and resulted in monetary recoveries totaling more than $14.1
million, which includes civil and criminal penalties, judicial and
non-judicial fines, forfeitures, and restitution. Investigations by
Department components led to additional criminal charges and
administrative disciplinary actions. Given that the Department has
approximately 115,000 employees, these figures do not indicate
widespread abuse and corruption in Department operations, but they do
demonstrate the need for continued vigilance and for a robust, fair, and
transparent disciplinary process.
For that reason, the OIG has conducted several reviews in recent
years that assess the disciplinary systems of the Departments law
enforcement components and made recommendations for improvement. Many of
these recommendations were designed to ensure that discipline is imposed
consistently throughout the agency. But the Department faces a broader
challenge than simply ensuring that individual components maintain
internally consistent and effective disciplinary systems: it must also
ensure that disciplinary procedures remain consistent across components
so that all of the Departments employees attorneys and non-attorneys
alike are held to the same tough but fair standards. Accordingly, the
OIG is continuing its work with a review of the disciplinary system used
by the USAOs and EOUSA, and we have initiated two multi-component
reviews, one of how law enforcement components handle sexual misconduct,
and another of the Departments efforts to prevent misconduct by
employees on official travel or assignment in foreign countries.
Finally, an issue that the OIG has consistently identified as
affecting the publics confidence in the Departments efforts to address
employee misconduct is the statutory limitation on the OIGs
jurisdiction to handle allegations of misconduct by attorneys. Whereas
the OIG is the primary oversight entity with respect to most Department
employees, including all of its law enforcement agents, the Office of
Professional Responsibility (OPR) is authorized by statute to
investigate allegations of misconduct against Department attorneys where
the allegations relate to the exercise of the attorneys authority to
investigate, litigate, or provide legal advice. The OIG has long
questioned this distinction between the treatment of misconduct by
attorneys acting in their legal capacity and misconduct by other
Department employees, including agents. We believe the institutional
independence of the OIG, which is codified in the Inspector General
Act, is critical to the effectiveness of our misconduct
investigations. Unlike the OIG, OPR does not have that statutory
independence, and the Attorney General appoints and can remove OPRs
leader. Additionally, the OIGs strong record of transparency is vital
to ensuring the Departments accountability and enhancing the publics
confidence in the Departments operations. For these reasons, we
continue to believe that Congress should eliminate this carve-out from
the OIGs jurisdiction.
Updated: December 2013
SOURCE: http://www.justice.gov/oig/challenges/2013.htm
New GAO-14-121 Report: According to BOP
officials, BOPs biggest challenges are managing the continually increasing
federal inmate population while providing for inmates care and safety, as
well as the safety of BOP staff and surrounding communities, within budgeted
levels. BOP officials project continuing inmate population growth and
estimate increases in funding needs for the foreseeable future. Consultation
with congressional decision makers could help BOP identify what additional
information, if any, is needed, such as providing more comprehensive
detailed information on projected costs using data already gathered by BOP.
This could enhance the transparency of BOPs budget justification and the
Presidents budget request and better inform congressional decision
making. See: http://www.fedcure.org/documents/GAO-14-121-FBOP_BudgetTransparency_041213.pdf
Over-criminalization is an issue of
liberty.
As federal
criminal laws and regulations have increased, so has the number of Americans
who have found themselves breaking the law with no intent of doing
so.
Americans who
make innocent mistakes should not be charged with criminal
offenses.
House Judiciary
Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)
Over-Criminalization [bi-partisan] Task Force of 2013
Almost 40,000
e-Certified signatories. Many kind thanks' for your
support.
{-|-}
BARBER AMENDMENT IS CURE ~ Dangerously Over Crowded Federal Prison
System {-|-}
$1.2 billion Incarceration dollars shift to $1.2 billion Re-Entry
dollars.
"System-wide,
the Bureau is operating at 36 percent over rated capacity and crowding is of
special concern at higher security facilities, with 51 percent crowding at
high security facilities and 45 percent at medium security
facilities." Charles E. Samuels, Director, Federal Bureau
of Prisons.
Despite a ten year
build out, spending over $1 billion dollars a year outsourcing prison cells
from private prison contractors, increased double bunking and triple
bunking, since 2003, the overcrowding rate hovers at 38% and FBOP
forecasts 44%. The federal prison population was 165,000 in January
2003. November 2013, it is hovering at 219,200. America
cannot build its way out of crowding. Private prisons bring in
about $3 billion in revenue annually. Senate Committee Report
says "None of these efforts, however, have had a significant impact on
prison overcrowding" and says no more prisons. See: Senate Committee on
Appropriations FY2014, Report No. 113-000, at pp. 90-91.
BARBER
AMENDMENT, on its own, or amended to: S.619 and H.R.1695 ~ the
"Justice Safety Valve Act," to H.R. 2371 ~ the Prisoner Incentive Act of 2013, or S.1410 - the
Smarter Sentencing Act of 2013, increasing 54 to 128 days, retroactively, is
CURE. $1.2 billion Incarceration dollars shift to $1.2 billion Re-Entry
dollars, annually.
"For every
dollar we invest in programs like these we are going to save much more in
prison costs, an outcome that will enable spending limited law-enforcement
resources on other priorities." Attorney General, Eric
Holder.
"New
consideration should be given to the reinstatement of parole for
federal offenders to help restore fairness in the criminal justice system
and relieve overcrowding in the swelling federal prison system. The
federal system, which holds about 220,000 inmates, is at least 40% over
capacity, according to the Justice Department. Parole, which was abolished
for federal offenders convicted after 1987 as part of tough anti-crime
measures of the time, 'ought to be discussed.'" Attorney General, Eric
Holder.
|