A BRIEF FROM THE CHARLES COLSON TASK FORCE ON FEDERAL CORRECTIONS: MAY 2015
Consequences of Growth in the
Federal Prison Population
In response to the challenges facing the federal prison system, Congress created the Charles Colson Task Force on
Federal Corrections to examine trends in correctional growth and develop practical, data-driven policy responses.
The Task Force has recently examined the drivers of growth, finding that much of it is attributable to the number of
1
drug trafficking offenders in federal prison. This policy brief examines the consequences of that growth.
Prison Population Growth Has Led to Harmful Overcrowding
Growth in the population of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) has outpaced prison capacity, resulting in systemwide overcrowding and a continued reliance on contract facilities (the majority of which are privately operated
prisons). Overcrowding, defined here as the percentage of the total prison population that exceeds facility design
capacity, was at 30 percent in BOP-operated facilities, but is concentrated in the highest security levels at fiscal
2
year-end (FY) 2014. This overcrowding presents challenges throughout the system, including safety risks for
correctional officers and inmates. Moreover, overcrowding reduces program availability due to lack of staff and
3
space. Though overcrowding has begun to fall in lower security facilities, at the end of FY 2014 overcrowding
remained at 39 percent in medium and 52 percent in high security facilities, the very facilities where inmates have
the greatest need for intensive programming and present the greatest security threats.
250,000
4
Overcrowding Persists in BOP Facilities5
200,000
Overcapacity
150,000
Contract
Capacity of
BOP
Facilities
100,000
50,000
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
0
The Charles Colson Task Force on Federal Corrections was created by Congress. This nine-person, bipartisan, blue-ribbon task force is mandated to
examine challenges in the federal corrections system and develop practical, data-driven policy responses. The Task Force will meet throughout
2015 to conduct its work and present its findings and recommendations in the beginning of 2016 to Congress, the Department of Justice, and the
President. The Urban Institute and the Center for Effective Public Policy provide research and logistical support to the Charles Colson Task Force.
This brief was developed by Samuel Taxy and Abigail Flynn, researchers at the Urban Institute.
Spending on Prisons Remains High
In FY 2014, BOP saw its first population decline in decades, with further reductions in FY 2015. Compared to 1980,
however, the population is still 750 percent higher and spending is 635 percent higher (in inflation-adjusted terms),
6
with almost 210,000 inmates as of April 30, 2015; almost $7 billion was appropriated to BOP for FY 2015.
Importantly, expenditures for the BOP have also increased as a share of the total Department of Justice (DOJ)
budget, from about 20 percent in 2009 to over 25 percent today (see graph). Although the prison population is
expected to decrease further in the coming years, spending on prisons is anticipated to consume a similarly large
proportion of the DOJ budget; the budget request for FY 2016 asks for over $400 million in additional spending to
improve safety in overcrowded and understaffed facilities and expand the availability of programming.
Prison Funding Comes at Expense of Other
Public Safety Priorities
Share of DOJ Spending
Increases8
30%
250,000
25%
200,000
20%
150,000
15%
100,000
10%
5%
50,000
0%
0
United States Attorney Richard Hartunian (NY-N)
testified to the Task Force that high spending on
prisons relative to other justice programs “will only
get worse and will have a real, negative effect on
public safety.” DOJ programs that have already
experienced or could see future budget reductions
include:




2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Percent of DOJ Budget
7
BOP Population
Federal prosecutors;
Assistance to victims of crime;
Support for treatment, prevention and
intervention programs; and
Grants to state and local law enforcement.
Hartunian noted that, “Not only is this model
unsustainable, but there is some substantial
9
evidence that it just doesn’t work either.”
Notes
1.
Samuel Taxy, Drivers of Growth in the Federal Prison Population (Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2015).
2.
U.S. Department of Justice, FY 2016 Performance Budget Congressional Submission: Federal Prison System, Salaries and Expenses
(Washington, DC: US DOJ, 2015). Hereafter, BOP S&E Request, 2016.
3.
U.S. Government Accountability Office, Bureau of Prisons: Growing Inmate Crowding Negatively Affects Inmates, Staff, and Infrastructure
(Washington, DC: US GAO, 2012).
4.
BOP S&E Request, 2016.
5.
Source: Urban Institute analysis of Bureau of Prisons data as presented in Nathan James, The Federal Prison Population Buildup: Overview,
Policy Changes, Issues, and Options (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2014). Hereafter, James, 2014.
6.
See, for example, James, 2014.
7.
BOP S&E Request, 2016.
8.
All data from Department of Justice Budget and Performance Summary and Congressional Budget Submission FY 2012-FY 2016. FY 2010 –
FY 2014 spending is outlays, FY 2015 is amount appropriate, and FY 2016 is budget request. Dashed budget line represents budget request,
and dashed population line represents projected changes to the prison population as presented in BOP S&E Request, 2016.
9.
Richard Hartunian, Statement of Richard S. Hartunian United States Attorney Northern District of New York before the Charles Colson
Task Force on Federal Corrections (Washington, DC: US DOJ, 2015).
This project was supported by Grant No. 2014-ZR-BX-K001 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a
component of the Department of Justice's Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of
Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the Office for Victims of Crime, and the SMART Office. Points of view or opinions in
this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the US Department of Justice or the views of
the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. Funders do not determine research findings or influence scholars’ conclusions.