Bill Overview
Title: Federal Prison Oversight Act
Description: This bill establishes an inspections regime for the Bureau of Prisons (BOP). The Department of Justice (DOJ) Inspector General must conduct risk-based evaluations of BOP facilities. An inspection of a facility may be announced or unannounced. Higher risk facilities must receive more frequent inspections. The bill (1) provides for the establishment in DOJ of an Ombudsman who may receive complaints, make inquiries, and recommend actions, and decline to investigate or take action, as specified; and (2) prohibits retaliation against any person or entity that has instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding, investigation, or inspection.
Sponsors: Rep. McBath, Lucy [D-GA-6]
Target Audience
Population: Federal inmates and BOP staff
Estimated Size: 135000
- The Bureau of Prisons oversees approximately 150,000 federal inmates housed in its facilities across the United States.
- The bill involves inspections, which directly pertain to the facilities and their conditions, impacting those residing and working there.
- Federal inmates are a target population as they reside in these facilities and their living conditions may change based on findings from the inspections.
- The Ombudsman role focuses on complaints and protections against retaliations, affecting both inmates and staff who may use these channels.
- BOP staff will be involved in the oversight and may experience changes in procedures or conditions based on inspection results.
Reasoning
- The Federal Prison Oversight Act is intended to improve the conditions within federal prisons, which can impact both inmates and staff positively. Given the budget constraints, the policy will likely focus first on higher-risk facilities and issues that can have the most impact with available resources.
- The primary targets of the policy are federal inmates and BOP staff. These groups will experience direct changes in their environments as a result of enhanced oversight and the creation of an Ombudsman role.
- While the policy primarily targets the Bureau of Prisons, people connected to inmates, such as family members, may indirectly feel changes based on inmate experiences and feedback.
- The policy effects on wellbeing are likely to be varied depending on individual roles and experiences. Inmates in better-managed facilities may report higher wellbeing scores over time.
- BOP staff might experience increased workloads due to adjustments in operations following inspections, possibly impacting their wellbeing initially until improvements stabilize their environments.
- Some individuals, such as those not directly associated with BOP, may not experience significant changes in their day-to-day lives and thus remain largely unaffected by this policy.
Simulated Interviews
Inmate (Texas)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe the policy could improve living conditions, but I'll wait to see actual changes before believing it.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Correctional Officer (California)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm optimistic that inspections could lead to safer work conditions, but I worry about additional responsibilities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Facility Administrator (New York)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The oversight is needed for transparency, but it might strain our already tight budgets and resources.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Family member of an inmate (Georgia)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this policy improves my husband's conditions, but I'm skeptical it will happen quickly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 3 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Inmate (Florida)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could really help or it could be more of the same promises. I'm hopeful but guarded.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Psychologist at a federal prison (Ohio)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Inspections can highlight areas of improvement for inmate mental health services.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Inmate (Nevada)
Age: 32 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Inspections could address some safety and equality issues I've faced.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Retired, Former BOP Staff (Illinois)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's about time these changes happen, although it should have been sooner.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Advocate for prison reform (Washington)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could lead to some meaningful improvements if implemented properly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Consultant for prison systems (Alabama)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Inspections can be a game-changer if carried out with integrity and consistent support.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 2: $26000000 (Low: $21000000, High: $31000000)
Year 3: $27000000 (Low: $22000000, High: $32000000)
Year 5: $29000000 (Low: $24000000, High: $34000000)
Year 10: $32000000 (Low: $27000000, High: $37000000)
Year 100: $50000000 (Low: $45000000, High: $55000000)
Key Considerations
- Consideration of the national budget context and priorities for justice department and prison funding.
- Balancing transparency and security within federal prison facilities.
- The bill's provisions may lead to inter-agency coordination challenges.
- Long-term impacts of enhanced oversight on prison management and operation costs.