Entrevista dirigida al Jefe Bodega, Ing Mary Carey

effectively managing the treaty transfer program for foreign national inmates. We reviewed federal laws and regulations; BOP program

statements; BOP, OEO, and USMS policies and procedures; and written correspondence of recommendations between Department and

component officials. We conducted case file reviews of inmates whose requests for treaty transfer were approved and inmates whose requests were denied, and we interviewed Department officials with the BOP, EOUSA, FBI, Criminal Division, USAOs, and USMS. The following

provides additional information related to the methodology of our review.

Data Analysis

Timeliness

To determine timeliness by the BOP and IPTU, we obtained data from the BOP to define a foreign national inmate’s time “in the program.” We defined “in the program” as the date the inmate signed the transfer inquiry form as listed in SENTRY to the date IPTU made a decision on the application. Using data the BOP and IPTU provided for their

respective times to process transfer requests, we were able to calculate the number of days it took the BOP to process an inmate and IPTU to make a decision.

Costs

To determine the costs associated with incarcerating a foreign national inmate, the BOP provided data on daily and annual costs for prisons by security level. Using the “in the program” dates, we were able to calculate the number of days each participant in the program spent in a BOP prison from FY 2005 through FY 2010. Using the corresponding cost estimate the BOP provided for the security level of the prison, we were able to determine how much each inmate cost the BOP during his time in the program.

The cost data provided by the BOP represented the total annual and daily cost to cover the incarceration of an inmate, which is the same data the BOP provides to the Justice Management Division as

justification for its annual budget submission, rather than the “marginal” cost recommended by the BOP and IPTU in response to a working draft of this report. Also, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) utilized

the total costs provided by the BOP including “correctional officer salary, medical care, food service, and utilities” in a recent report.126 _Using these cost estimates, the GAO reported that the estimated annual cost to incarcerate criminal aliens in BOP facilities ranged from $1.1 billion in 2005 to $1.3 billion in 2009. Finally, the average annual cost used by the OIG was consistent with the BOP’s submission to the Federal

Register as the fee to cover the average cost of incarceration for a single inmate.

To calculate the cost to the Department for delays in processing by the BOP and IPTU, we calculated the number of days to process each inmate’s application. From that total, we subtracted the number of days outlined in the BOP program statement (60 days) or IPTU expectation (90 days) from the total to obtain the number of days “over” the processing time. With that figure, we multiplied the daily average cost of

incarcerating an inmate from FY 2005 through FY 2010 by the number of days over the expected timeliness standard in processing applications by inmates ultimately transferred in the program.

We limited our analysis to those inmates within the scope of our review, FY 2005 through FY 2010.127 _{In addition, we calculated costs for} those inmates in the treaty transfer program, which is defined as the date the inmate signed the transfer inquiry form to the date the inmate: (1) had his request approved by IPTU, (2) was transferred, or

(3) remained in custody pending a decision by IPTU. In addition, our analysis includes the costs associated with the inmate at the inmate’s designated prison at the time of our data request. Therefore, our analysis does not include the costs for housing inmates if they were transferred to a different prison with a higher or lower security level or a medical facility during the course of our review. We also did not

calculate the costs for inmates incarcerated while waiting on a foreign country decision because we did not have foreign country approval dates. These costs would increase or decrease the cost of maintaining a foreign national in BOP custody.

126 _{Government Accountability Office, Criminal Alien Statistics: Information on}

Incarcerations, Arrests, and Costs, GAO-11-187 (March 24, 2011).

127 _{Inmates who were housed in a BOP prison and signed the transfer inquiry} form before the start of our scope were included in our analysis because a decision to approve or deny an inmate was made by IPTU during FY 2005 through FY 2010.

Limited Sample of Ineligibility Determinations

We reviewed a small sample of ineligibility determinations made by the BOP from FY 2005 through FY 2010. Our sample was limited to 52 cases because the BOP’s Office of Research and Evaluation stated that staff would have to do manual research to determine why each case was determined to be ineligible for a treaty transfer since this information is generally not available in SENTRY. Our sample selection methodology was not designed with the intent of projecting our results to the 67,455 inmates determined ineligible for treaty transfer.

Case File Review

We conducted a case file review of Inmate Central Files for a

sample of 167 case files from Low Security Correctional Institution (LSCI) Allenwood, Correctional Institution (CI) McRae, Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) Safford, and FCI Petersburg. The files were chosen using proportional random sampling based on country of citizenship data provided by the prison. The purpose of our Inmate Central File review was to obtain dates on the prison’s process, including date of admission and orientation, first meeting with the case manager, and the dates of review by prison management.

We also reviewed 511 IPTU case files, chosen by the OIG’s

statistician using stratified random sampling based on IPTU decisions and country of citizenship, of inmates whose requests were approved, denied, or who had been transferred. The purpose of our IPTU case file review was to obtain dates on IPTU’s process, including the date the USAO responded to IPTU requests, the date law enforcement agencies responded to IPTU requests, and the reasons supporting or opposing transfer. Our review of IPTU case files was based on the singular use of denial codes, although IPTU will deny an inmate’s transfer request for more than one reason.128

When IPTU analysts evaluate inmates for suitability for transfer, they use criteria derived from the guidelines. In their recommendations for transfer, IPTU analysts justify their use of criteria in the application summary that is reviewed by IPTU management. We reviewed these justifications and found examples of inconsistent reasons for IPTU analysts’ recommendations to approve or deny inmates for treaty

128 _{We found that IPTU denied transfer requests for a single reason 68 percent} of the time, but it also denied transfer requests for more than one reason 31 percent of the time.

transfer. This has resulted in some inmates being disapproved while others in similar circumstances were approved. Some of the

justifications we reviewed presented more than one criteria for approval or denial. Because IPTU can deny an inmate for multiple reasons, our analysis was limited to the individual justification for specific criteria. We analyzed and compared similar justifications that appeared in multiple recommendations for approval or denial of treaty transfer requests.

Document Analysis

We reviewed guiding laws, treaties, and legislative history of the treaty transfer program. We also reviewed BOP program statements, training materials, correspondence between the BOP’s Central Office and BOP prisons, and treaty transfer program documents. In addition, we reviewed IPTU internal memoranda, evaluative guidelines, and denial codes. During our IPTU case file review, we analyzed case file documents and IPTU correspondence with analysts, USAOs, and law enforcement agencies.

Interviews

Organization/Division Position Federal Bureau of Prisons

BOP Headquarters

Assistant Director Correctional Programs Division

Senior Deputy Assistant Director

Administrator, BOP Correctional Programs Division

Assistant Administrator, BOP Correctional Programs Division (x3)

Senior Program Specialist, Correctional Programs Division (x3)

Deputy Chief, Labor Management Relations Office of Information Systems IT Specialist National Institute of Corrections Representative Research Analyst

FCI La Tuna Unit Manager and Treaty Transfer Coordinator _{Assistant Case Management Coordinator} Sea Tac Case Management Coordinator

Metropolitan Detention Center,

Los Angeles Case Management Coordinator FCI Ray Brook Case Management Coordinator FCI Texarkana Case Management Coordinator MCC New York Security Officer _{Correctional Services Officer}

FDC Miami Supervisory Inmate Systems Specialist BOP JPATS Prisoner Transportation Coordinator

Organization/Division Position

LCIS Allenwood

Associate Warden (x2)

Case Management Coordinator Unit Manager (x2) Acting Warden Case Manager (x6) Inmates (x12) CI McRae Warden Associate Warden

Case Management Coordinator Unit Manager (x7)

Case Manager (x12) Chief Scheduler Inmates (x12) FCI Petersburg Case Manager (x5)

FCI Safford

Warden

Associate Warden

Case Management Coordinator Unit Manager

A&O Coordinator Case Manager (x8) Inmates (x12)

Office of Enforcement Operations

Office of Enforcement Operations Director Deputy Chief International Prisoner Transfer Unit Chief

Deputy Chief (x4) Program Analyst IPTU Attorneys (x4) Paralegal Specialist (x3) IPTU Data Representative

United States Marshals Service

Acting Chief, Prisoner Operations Chief, JPATS

Chief of Scheduling

Executive Office for the United States Attorneys

Legislative Counsel

Federal Bureau of Investigation

FBI NCIC Unit Chief

United States Attorneys’ Offices

Criminal Chief, Southern District of Texas Criminal Chief, District of Arizona

Section Chief, District of Arizona (Phoenix) Section Chief, District of Arizona (Tucson) Criminal Chief, Central District of California Criminal Chief, Western District of Texas Criminal Chief, Middle District of Pennsylvania Criminal Chief, Southern District of Georgia Criminal Chief, Northern District of Mississippi Chief, Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force, Southern District of California

Organization/Division Position

Criminal Chief, Eastern District of Virginia Criminal Chief, Southern District of California Criminal Chief, Northern District of Georgia Criminal Chief, Southern District of Florida Criminal Chief, Eastern District of California Criminal Chief, Western District of Washington Criminal Chief, Southern District of New York

Non-DOJ Interviews

Administrative Office for the United

States Courts Chief of the Criminal Law Policy Staff

Site Visits

The team conducted site visits to five prisons: FCI La Tuna, LSCI Allenwood, CI McRae, FCI Safford, and FCI Petersburg. At the

recommendation of BOP staff, we visited FCI La Tuna to observe a consent verification hearing. We visited LSCI Allenwood at the

recommendation of BOP and IPTU staff. We visited CI McRae because it is a contract institution with increasing involvement in treaty transfer over the last 3 years and has a highly diverse foreign national inmate population. We visited FCI Safford because of the number of

applications for transfers to Mexico it produced from FY 2005 through FY 2010.

While on our site visits, we encountered difficulties at three

prisons. At LSCI Allenwood, case managers initially would not speak to our team without union representation. The union’s president told us that he could be excused from interviews only by the warden. However, at the time of our visit, the warden was not available. At FCI Safford, we learned that case managers were provided a “quiz” by institution

management on the treaty transfer program to prepare for our visit. Because of this quiz, we decided to conduct a 1-day site visit to another prison with inmates who applied to the treaty transfer program. We chose FCI Petersburg because of the number of inmates in the treaty transfer program and its proximity to Washington, D.C. During our case file review at FCI Petersburg, we discovered an inmate’s case file with a Transfer Inquiry Form dated and signed by the inmate the day of our visit. This inmate’s request had previously been denied, but the inmate’s case file was missing his application packet, indicating that institution staff had checked the case files prior to our arrival and had made adjustments to ensure that all treaty transfer documents were in place and correctly dated. These actions may have corrected problems, or provided the staff we interviewed with knowledge they did not have previously, which could have prevented the OIG from identifying further shortcomings. We also later learned that case managers at FCI

Petersburg were asked by the Case Management Coordinator to “PLEASE read the program statement on treaty transfer” and to “Please know the policy.” Case managers were told the “OIG is doing an audit and will be interviewing all case managers.”