Skip navigation
The Habeas Citebook Ineffective Counsel - Header

Stacia Hylton Statement Before the Us House Appropriation Committee 2007 and 2008

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
STATEMENT OF
STACIA HYLTON, FEDERAL DETENTION TRUSTEE,
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
BEFORE THE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE
AND RELATED AGENCIES
March 27, 2007
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the
President's Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 Budget request for the Office of the Federal Detention
Trustee (OFDT), Department of Justice, totaling $1,294,226,000 ($1,262,391,000 for
detention services and $31,835,000 for JPATS Transportation).
The Department's focus on securing our borders, waging the war on drugs, reducing
violence and gangs in our neighborhoods, and protecting our children from sexual predators
are all important initiatives and all have a direct impact on the increased need for detention
and prison space at the state and federal level. Your continued support is much appreciated
since, as we all know, the ultimate success of new law enforcement strategies depends upon
the ability of each agency to bring to bear the appropriate resources at each stage of a case -arrest, detention, transport, judicial process, and incarceration. Increasing the resources of
one facet without considering the requirements of other facets will ultimately impede our
efforts to accomplish the stated goal.
OFDT's mandate is the oversight of detention management and the improvement and
coordination of detention activities for the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department
of Homeland Security (DHS). In addition, Congress, in 2005, directed OFDT to assume the
responsibility of managing the Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation System (JPATS) to
ensure equality among agencies while allowing unimpeded prisoner transportation
operations.
We have made great strides over the past 20 months; however, the increasing detainee
population demands diligence in the daily management of detention resources. Below I will
discuss some ofthe challenges we face in the detention community, some of our successes,
and the FY 2008 budget request.
The Federal Government relies on various methods to house detainees at the most
efficient cost, in terms of both operational effectiveness as well as monetary resources, to the
government: (1) federal detention facilities, where the government pays for construction and
operation of the facility; (2) Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA) with State and local
jurisdictions for prison/jail bed space, where a daily rate is paid; (3) private jail facilities
where a daily rate is paid; and, 4) Cooperative Agreement Program (CAP), where capital

investment funding is provided to State and local governments for detention space in
exchange for guaranteed bed space where a daily rate was paid.
Of the approximate 56,000 detainees held daily in FY 2006, 65% were housed in state
and local facilities, 20% in BOP facilities, and 15% in private detention facilities. There are
II BOP federal detention centers and nine private detention facilities. In the past, the
Department has relied solely on Federal facilities and IGAs to meet the needs of the
detention population. Now, State and local governments are also experiencing higher
volumes of detainees due to increased law enforcement initiatives, a trend which requires
them to use the beds in their own jails. As a result, the Department must increasingly look to
private contractors.
I believe that the best value for the government, nationwide, is to balance the use of
federal, local, and private detention bedspace. IGAs have been and continue to be a good
approach to housing federal detainees due to the overall size of the detainee population
located throughout the U.S. and its territories, the variance in bed space requirements from
district to district and importantly, the need to locate detention beds as close to federal court
cities as possible. OFOT will continue to work cooperatively with state and local
governments and the private sector to establish and maintain capacity for those in federal
custody in cost-effective, safe, secure, and humane facilities.
CAP has been, in the past, a principal tool used by the federal government to secure
guaranteed, long-term detention bed space in close proximity to court cities; however, in
recent years, CAP funding has been lost to other competing priorities and very seldom makes
it into the Commerce, Justice, and Science Budget. Identifying CAP funds through the
Commerce, Justice, Science appropriation could help alleviate both federal and local
detention issues. For instance, counties could use, once again, CAP funding to make capital
improvements for inci-eased space and increased security of local jails in exchange for
guaranteeing a specified number of detention beds for federal prisoners. OFDT is looking to
revive the program, believing it to be a cost effective approach to guaranteeing bed space in
districts where detention space is a significant challenge in the present environment.
JPATS is responsible for moving federal prisoners and detainees, including sentenced
and pretrial detainees and deportable aliens, whether in the custody of the United States
Marshals Service, Bureau of Prisons, or Immigration Customs Enforcement. OFDT's long
term goal of increasing the efficiency of JPATS includes several primary projects for
equitable distribution of costs and faster prisoner movement with available resources.
Another key OFOT strategy is expanding eGovernment initiatives to address the state
of technology within the detention community, where the situation is often that of multiple
agencies with disparate and incompatible legacy IT systems and capabilities. Many of the
data processes are either manual or within a local IT environment which does not result
easily in efficient electronic information sharing. Developing a strategy that aligns the
operational needs of the detention community with emerging eGovernment technologies and
integrating an IT Infrastructure that takes advantage of new commercial-off-the-shelf
solutions while leveraging current IT assets, will assist in streamlining detention operations

2

and reducing costs. To accomplish these goals, OPOT is developing a comprehensive IT
environment that addresses the business requirements of detention operations, establishes the
foundation for future technology requirements, and integrates enterprise solutions with
existing legacy systems.
Fiscal Year 2006 Accomplishments
To ensure that the detention community's ability to provide effective and humane
detention keeps pace with aggressive law enforcement initiatives, OFOT works with the
detention community to identify and implement efficiencies and strategies to mitigate the
ever increasing population growth. OFOT also seeks to realize efficiencies without
hampering operations and strives for savings which can be reinvested in infrastructure
improvements, providing cost containment over the long term.
Over the past 20 months, OFOT's approach has been to aggressively mitigate the
growth in population by improvements to infrastructure that reduced the time in detention
from 186 days to 140. Any savings (or cost avoidance) is reinvested in infrastructure
improvements, including additional transportation support. Several initiatives, with the
major focus on the post sentencing process, were undertaken. Two key projects were 1)
automating paperwork required to designate and transfer inmates from detention to
incarceration and 2) adding regional in-transit housing hubs.
The interagency automation system, eOesignate, was developed to allow the Courts,
USMS, and BOP to electronically transmit and exchange documents for the post-sentencing
process. Operationally, the system accelerates the movement of prisoners from detention to
BOP facilities thereby reducing the number of days in detention and the corresponding
pressure on appropriated resources. e-Oesignate also assists agency personnel in the
administratively taxing designation process. The system is in place in 50 districts and will be
fully deployed to all districts by the end of fiscal year 2007.
The addition of two regional in-transit housing hubs as transfer centers for JPATS, at
strategically located sites, immediately decreased the time in transportation by 4 days. Four
additional hub sites will come on line over the next 18 to 20 months. Up until 2006, only one
transfer center (OKe) existed and it was often at capacity, leading to backups in the entire
system. This initiative also will reduce some capacity issues and detention costs by allowing
sentenced prisoners to be staged in facilities outside court cities, where per diem rates are
generally lower. In FY 2005 and 2006 and continuing into 2007, OFOT funded special airlift
missions to relieve congestion at lP ATS pressure points. Through these supplementary
airlifts, prisoners were transported to BOP designated correctional facilities more
expeditiously, resulting in a noticeable reduction in post-sentencing detention time.
As a result of several proactive initiatives, taken by OFOT, U.S. Attorneys, and other
detention agencies I -- such as fast-tracking prosecution of selected offenses, reducing the
I Many of the initiatives focused on Southwest border districts where there was tremendous growth in the
detainee population over the past decade. For example: sentenced prisoners along the Southwest Border with
short-term sentences (less than 180 days), historically served those sentences in detention facilities. OFDT, in

3

number of defendants ordered detained, and expediting the designation and transfer of
sentenced prisoners to BOP facilities -- the detention rate decreased from approximately 85
percent of persons arrested during FY 2004 to 82 percent during FY 2005-2006; and the
length of time defendants are detained pending adjudication and subsequent transfer
decreased from 159 days during 2004 to 145 days during FY 2005-2006.
In 2006, OFOT launched OSNetwork, a multifaceted, full-service internet site, which
supports the procurement of private detention services and state and local intergovernmental
agreements, shows the results of Quality Assurance Reviews, and offers customized search
capabilities. The goal is to significantly improve the interaction between government
agencies and service providers and to reduce lengthy and cumbersome workloads required
for locating, procuring, and monitoring detention services. Among the services already in
place are Electronic Intergovernmental Agreements (eIGA) and the Facility Review
Management Systems (FRMS). elGA provides a core-rate baseline for negotiations,
automates current forms, and tracks the IGA life cycle, from application to implementation.
FRMS facilitates Quality Assurance Reviews for contract and high volume IGA facilities,
which provide a system of objective checks and balances while ensuring the government
receives the services for which it paid. The comprehensive Quality Assurance Review
Program includes assessment, follow-up, and training to ensure safe, secure, and humane
confinement, as well as address Congress' concern for public safety as it relates to violent
prisoners (e.g., Interstate Transportation of Dangerous Criminals Act, also known as Jenna 's
Act).

Reducing time in detention has had a significant impact on detention resources by
allowing the system to take in more detainees, freeing up much needed bed space in court
cities, and easing the pressure on detention funding. As the examples above indicate, OFOT
and our detention community partners have worked hard for cross-government solutions.
While we still have a growing detainee population, over the past 20 months we have
developed strategies and implemented efficiencies so that we no longer have costs rising as
rapidly as they have in the past. From FY 2000 to FY 2007, the USMS detention population
increased at an average of 8.5 percent, annually. As a result of these and other initiatives,
OFOT currently projects that FY 2008 detention will increase at the rate of2.l percent above
the FY 2007 level. We have made significant progress in advancing detention infrastructure;
nonetheless, vigilance in the management of this complex program is still required.
Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Request

For FY 2008, the President's Budget requests $1,294,226,000 ($1,262,391,000 for
detention services and $31,835,000 for JPATS Transportation). A total of 21 positions are
funded. This request represents an increase of $68,410,000 over the FY 2007 Joint
Resolution Enacted level. The request includes $.5,18.5,000for adjustments-ta-base,
$2,475,000 for a technical adjustment, and $3,000,000 reduction for program offsets. In

conjunction with BOP and USMS, established procedures for identifying those prisoners and expediting their
transfer to the BOP.

4

addition, language is included allowing up to $5 million to be made available for the
Cooperative Agreement Program (CAP).
The Average Daily Population (ADP) projected for detention for FY 2008 is 63,145
and is predicated on an estimated 193,088 arrests. This projection assumes that 82 percent of
those arrested will be detained for more than 4 days and that the average length of detention
will be 137 days.
The FY 2008 budget request is based upon estimates that are formulated in the prior
year to the budget being requested. The estimates are re-calculated throughout the year to
ensure that the Office of Detention Trustee has the most accurate projections based upon the
latest law enforcement data.
Detention Services -- Of the $1,262,391,000 requested for detention services,
included are costs totaling $1,148,899,000 associated with detention and care of prisoners.
Program costs for health care and medical guards are $80,102,000 and $15,850,000,
respectively. Also included in the total cost for this program activity is $14,114,000 for
intra-district transportation and $3,426,000 for other associated costs.
JPA TS Transportation -- $31,835,000 is requested for JPA TS prisoner transportation
($28,225,000 for air transportation and $3,610,000 for transportation support).
Transportation resources include transportation by air for long distance movements and
resources for districts supporting the Jp A TS airlift.
Adjustments-to-Base
The base adjustment reflects an increase for medical services and other specific
commodities. Costs for detention-related services have increased proportionately to the
increase in the Average Daily Population and as a result of increases in relevant price indices.
Accordingly, anticipated costs for health care services reflect the growth in the detention
population and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services estimate of increases in
Medicare/Medicaid service rates.
The resources that Congress provides to OFDT and to other detention agencies are
critical to our success. All of us in the detention community are grateful to the Chairman and
to members of the Subcommittee for your support and leadership.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks.. I would be pleased to answer any
questions.

5

STATEMENT OF
STACIA HYLTON, FEDERAL DETENTION TRUSTEE,
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

BEFORE THE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE
AND RELATED AGENCIES
March 12, 2008
Chairman Mollohan, Ranking Member Frelinghuysen, and Members of the Subcommittee:
Good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the
President's Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 Budget request for the Office of the Federal Detention
Trustee (OFDT), Department of Justice, totaling nearly $1.3 billion, a majority of which is
for detention services and close to $33 million is for the Justice Prisoner and Alien
Transportation System (JPA TS).
Securing our Nation's borders, continuing the war on drugs, reducing violence and
gangs in our neighborhoods, and protecting our children from sexual predators are all
important initiatives that have a direct impact on the increased need for detention and prison
space at the state and federal level. Your continued support is appreciated. The ultimate
success of new law enforcement strategies depends upon the ability of each agency to bring
to bear the appropriate resources at each stage of a case - investigation, arrest, judicial
process, detention, transportation, and incarceration. Increasing the resources of one facet
without considering the requirements of others can impede efforts to accomplish stated goals.
In 2005, Congress directed the OFDT to assume the responsibility of managing the
(JPATS) to ensure equality among agencies while allowing unimpeded prisoner
transportation operations. In December 2007, Congress approved OFDT's proposed
organization incorporating this directive. In general, the new organization structure, which
includes the position of Assistant Trustee for Transportation, provides better alignment to
support increased emphasis on strategic planning, outcome measurement, improved
projection methodologies, and strengthened financial management.
I would like to discuss some ofthe challenges we face in the detention commumty,
along with some of our successes, and the FY 2009 budget request. To begin, I am pleased
to report that our current projections for the remainder ofFY 2008 are right in-line with the
appropriated funds received. We have worked diligently on improving detention program
effectiveness and on our forecasting population model in order to ensure this account is in
alignment. However, this account can be very volatile due to a number of variables,

including, but not limited to rising costs for detention beds in mission critical locations and
aggressive law enforcement initiatives implemented outside the budget cycle.
Over the past three years, OFDT has launched numerous successful cost avoidance
initiatives that have allowed us to manage the account more effectively by reducing time in
detention. These initiatives, which have been taken into account in OFDT's budget request,
enabled OFDT to continue to meet the increase of new arrests while better containing the
funding requirements for the population. I emphasize that we have already accounted for the
efficiencies that we anticipate will be realized in the detention account. We also have
adjusted the population projections to incorporate these efficiencies and established
aggressive performance measures to ensure they stay on track to keep costs down.
The FY 2009 budget request is based upon the trends in growth experienced over the
last several years, and OFDT should be able to mitigate the normal variables always
experienced in detention. OFDT does not anticipate any unobligated balances from FY 2008
that can be carried over into FY 2009. Therefore, our concern is with law enforcement and
immigration initiatives that occur outside of the budget process and cause significant
detention population increases.
The Federal Government relies on various methods to house detainees. Detention
bed space for federal detainees is acquired "as effectively and efficiently as possible"
through: (I) federal detention facilities where the government pays for construction and
subsequent operation of the facility through BOP; (2) Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs)
with State and local jurisdictions who have excess prison/jail bed capacity and receive a daily
rate for the use of a bed; (3) private jail facilities where a daily rate is paid per bed; and, (4)
the Cooperative Agreement Program (CAP), where capital investment funding is provided to
State and local governments for guaranteed bed space in exchange for a daily rate.
I believe that the best value for the Government, nationwide, is to balance the use of
federal, local, and private detention bed space. IGAs have been and continue to be a good
approach to housing federal detainees due to the variance in bed space requirements from
district-to-district. More importantly, the IGAs assist OFDT in locating detention beds close
to federal court cities which provide efficiencies for the United States Marshals Service
(USMS) who carry out the daily operational mission of detention. Of the 56,290 total
average daily population in FY 2007, 65% were housed in state and local facilities, 21 % in
BOP facilities, and 13% in private detention facilities.
As those statistics indicate, state and local government facilities are incredibly
important to us. Available capacity in these facilities over the past few years has been
declining due to competing priorities in the local government budgets, thereby reducing jail
expansions in some locations. We are currently focusing our enorts to strategIcally work
with local governments in an effort to establish and maintain cost-effective, safe, secure, and
humane facilities for those in federal custody. OFDT is taking a number of steps by
leveraging technology, streamlining work and driving economies of scale through effective
capacity planning. These are further explained in our budget request.

2

A key strategy for OFDT in stabilizing this account has been to take every
opportunity to mitigate the growth in the detainee population through improvements to
infrastructure that reduce the time in detention. Toward that goal, we have increasingly
established cross government solutions, mostly through technology, to streamline the
workload across participating agencies. For example, our first of a number of projects
undertaken to reduce time in detention was eDesignate, now implemented in all judicial
district and territories. Reducing time in detention has had a significant impact on detention
resources by allowing the system to take in more detainees, freeing up much needed bed
space in court cities, and easing the pressure on detention funding. Time in detention peaked
at 186 days and is projected to fall to 118 days in FY 2009, at which time the total cost
avoided is projected to reach nearly $35 million.
DSNetwork, a multifaceted, full-service internet site for detention services, is another
key initiative. The network permits authorized detention stakeholders to access information
regarding procurement, availability of bed space for federal use, and detention facility data.
Detention services include the Electronic Intergovernmental Agreement (eIGA), the Facility
Review Management System (FRMS), the Multi-year Acquisition Plan (MAP) and the
Detention Services Schedule (DSS) as part ofOFDT's Quality Assurance Program (QAP)
FRMS is a web-based application that standardizes, records, and reports the results of
Quality Assurance Reviews (QARs) performed at private contract and high-volume IGA
facilities. FRMS has been used successfully in numerous QARs and will provide the basis
for data and trend analysis. MAP, a web-based system available for detention agency longrange planning, reached full implementation in FY 2008. DSS, which will focus on
detention bed space and services, is still under development.
We are also aggressively seeking improvements to the transportation infrastructure
that will reduce "choke points" in the system. In 2006, OFDT developed a concept of
increasing available in-transit housing through Regional Transfer Centers (RTC) and Ground
Transfer Centers (GTCs). After the success of our pilot project with the Grady County jail as
an overflow facility for the Federal Transfer Center (FTC) in Oklahoma City, OFDT
determined that additional RTCs and GTCs strategically located nationwide would further
reduce the dependence on the Federal Transfer Center (FTC) in Oklahoma. Additional RTCs
and GTCs will provide better scheduling capabilities, better utilization of transportation
modes, and further reduce time in detention.
Following the model of Grady County, OFDT facilitated an agreement with a San
Bernardino, California facility, which also provides for ground transportation between the
airlift and facility, and transportation to other close proximity BOP facilities. Most recently
we activated the Robert Deyton facility outside Atlanta, Georgia. OFDT's strategy is to
increase the number of RTCs and analyze other heavy detention population areas. The goal
is to have a total of 2,000 relatively low-cost transfer center beds available by the end of FY
2008.
DOl has increasingly turned to the private sector to provide bed space in those areas
where bed space is unavailable in federal, state, or local facilities. To provide for future
detention needs, as well as to provide housing to support the expansion ofRTCs/GTCs, two

3

new facilities will be constructed and are scheduled to be on-line in FY 2009. The Nevada
Detention Center will provide approximately 1,000 beds to support the court city of Las
Vegas, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Jp ATS. The new Laredo, Texas,
Detention Center will provide approximately 1,500 beds to support the court city of Laredo
and, once operational, will provide beds for a GTC, a staging area for in-state designations,
and for "short-term" sentenced prisoners.
Each of these locations has not only addressed in-transit beds, but is determined to be
strategically located to serve locations that were experiencing difficulties with detention and
prison beds, so that federal and local governments have the ability to capitalize on economies
of scale, by working closely together.
An important facet of the conditions of confinement is ensuring appropriate medical
care for detainees at or near detention facilities. Rising medical costs puts an even greater
burden on the detention community's already significant challenge to provide a uniform
approach at the best value to the Government, while minimizing the cumbersome process for
field operations. To the extent possible, the USMS leveraged a re-pricing strategy to address
such costs. OFDT enhanced this approach by awarding a national managed-care medical
contract to provide a uniform, systematic approach that reduces staff work hours and tracks
medical savings nationwide.
Seeking to lessen the requirements for detainee bed space, where possible, OFDT
continues to enhance the Federal Judiciary's program of alternatives to pretrial detention;
such as: electronic monitoring, halfway house placement, and drug testing and treatment.
Historical data indicates that the federal detention account would have incurred costs of over
$28 million had the defendants been detained in secure facilities rather than utilizing an
alternative to detention.
Concurrent with the desire to create efficiencies within detention is the need to ensure
that facilities utilized by the Federal Government provide for the safe and secure confinement
of detainees. This is especially challenging considering the large number of state, local and.
private facilities in use. OFDT developed the QAP, which includes QARs and the FRMS, to
ensure that facilities providing detention bed space to the Federal Government meet a
minimum confinement standard. This program has been developed to span across various
detention agencies and is tied to performance-based contracts, validating that expenditures
are in line with the services required by the contract.
While we have been successful in improving the detention infrastructure and
stabilizing the detention account, diligence in the daily management of detention and
transportation resources is still required. Through these and other initiatives discussed, we
are constantly strengthening infrastructure and creating a more effective environment for the
detention communities. When we can strategically plan for the full impact of law
enforcement initiatives, we will see a reduction in the volatility we have seen previously in
this account over the years. In closing, we are grateful for the spirit of cooperation from the
leadership of the United States Marshals Service and the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

4

Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Request
For FY 2009, the President's Budget requests $1.3 billion ($1.26 billion for detention
services and $33 million for JPATS transportation). A total of 24 positions are requested to
be funded. This request represents an increase of $69 million over the FY 2008
appropriation. The requested increase includes: approximately $86 million for adjustmentsto-base, $38 million for program increases and $54 million in program offsets.
The Average Daily Population (ADP) projected for detention for FY 2009 is 60,821
based on estimated bookings. OFDT projected for a sizeable increase in general immigration
activities in FY 2009. The Congress recently ordered the immediate expansion ofDHS'
Operation Streamline, which has the potential to significantly impact detention requirements.
OFDT does not have sufficient information to determine the actual impact of this initiative,
additional growth resulting from the expansion of this program is not included in the
projected ADP.
The resources that Congress provides to OFDT and to other detention agencies are
critical to our success. All of us in the detention community are grateful to the Chairman and
to members of the Subcommittee for your support and leadership.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks. I would be pleased to answer any
questions.

5

QUESTIONS
FOR THE RECORD - Chairman Alan B. l\lollohan
Office of the Federal Detention Trustee (OFDT)
Please provide the number of on-board .FTEs for September 2005, September
<lnd March 2007 by e~lch program in your agenc)'.

2006,

Tb~ OFDT has unly one program activity for 2005-2007. In Septemb~r 2005. the OFDT
had 17 un-board FTF. in September 2006, 20 FTE. and in March 2007. 21 1"1'1::.

Please provide the number of on-board FTEs for September 2005, Septemher
and March 2007 by each agenc}' location (including international
offices).

2006,

OFDT has only one location: Arlington. VA. In September 2005, the OFDT had 17 onboard FTE. in September 2006.20 FTF, and in March 2007, 21 FTF.

Pkase pro\'ide the number of contract employees for September
200(), and J\larch 2007 by each program in your ~tgcncy.

2005, Septemher

The OFDT has only one program activity l()r 2005-2007. In September 2005. the OFn!'
had 5 contract employees, in September 2006, 31. and in March 2007.31. In addition.
our orticc has several contracts that have multiple contractors providing subject matter
expertise it)f limited periods of time for short-term projects. Because thL' lists of these
experts are greater than the number \ve would use for any project, the projects are shortterm. and the contractors mayor may not he used on any project, we did not include them
in uur contractor count.

Please pn)"ide the number of contract employees for September 2005, September
2006, and March 2007 by each agency location (including international
offices).
()FDT has only one location: Arlington, VA. In September 2005. the OFDT had 5
contract employees. in September 2006,31, and in March 2007,31.
In addition. our
orticc has several contracts that have multiple contractors providing subject matter
expertise for limited periods of time for sh0l1-term projects. Because the lists of these
experts arc greater than the number 'v'll' would use for any project. the projects are shortterm. and the contractors mayor may not be used on any project, \\iC did not include them
in nur contract(lr count.

1)leuse provide the name and grade level for each Presidential
Appointment
with
Senate confirmation
(PAS), non-career Senior Executive Service (SES), sclll'dulc C
and schedule A appointee in your agency in fiscal years 2005, 2006 and projected for
2007.
The OFDT has no PAS, non-career SES. or schedule C or A appointees.

Please provide the number of dehliJees assigned to your agency, whether the detail is
reimbursable
or not, and the entity from which they came for tiscal years 2005,
2006, and projl'ctcd for 2007.
The OFDT has not had any dctailees during the period 2005-2007.

Please provide the number of employees on detail to another entity and the name of
the entity to which they are assigned for fiscal years 2005, 2006 and projected for
fiscal year 2007.
The OFD"!" has one employee on detail as of March 2007. The employee is detailed to
the Department's Justicetvlanagemcnt
Division personnel otlicc. OFD'!' did not have
any detailees prior to 2007.

Please provide a list of any procurements
in tiscal years 2005, 2006 and 2007.

made for the service of a media consultant

The OFD'!' has nev-:r procured the services of a media consultant.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY CHAIRMAN MOLLOHAN
Office of the Federal Detention Trustee
March 12,2008

General
QUESTION:
You testified that your FY 08 projections are in line with your
appropriated
levels, meaning that you have sufficient funding in FY 08 to
accommodate your population. However, the FY 09 request includes a $60 million
base program adjustment that is described as necessary to make up for FY 08 cuts.
Why do you need a program adjustment to make up for FY 08 if your FY 08
projections are in line with your appropriation?
ANSWER: The Office of the Federal Detention Trustee's budget requirement for any
given fiscal year is always based on the most current information available regarding the
detainee population at the time. OFDT's anticipated needs are then technically presented in
the budget. Thus, when the FY 2009 budget was originally formulated, the base for the
presentation was the FY 2008 President's Budget and the anticipated need was $1.3
billion. Before the FY 2009 budget request was submitted to the Hill, the FY 2008
Consolidated Appropriations Act was passed and OFDT's enacted level was $60 million
lower than the President's FY 2008 Budget request, the net effect of which was to reduce
OFDT'S FY 2009 total requirements. Since the requirement remained at $1.3 million, the
$60 million was merely an adjustment to maintain the formulated level of need for FY
2009.
Population Projections
QUESTION: Please provide OFDT's projected and actual average daily populations
for each of the last 5 fiscal years.
ANSWER:
Projecting the average daily population (ADP) for the detention account
is a challenging exercise due to the complexity and dynamic nature of the many
variables that are involved in calculating the projections. For example, prior to
formulating a budget for a given fiscal year, detention projections are calculated using
reliable trend analyses comprised of several leading indicators such as: types of
bookings; time in detention; law enforcement and attorney staffing levels; and other
criteria which are factored into the projection with a significant degree of accuracy.
However, there are a number of other influences such as special law enforcement and
prosecutorial initiatives which are frequently established outside of the budget process
(and usually after the budget year decisions have been made) that have substantial
influence on detention needs. For this reason, population projections are in a fairly
constant state of flux and require periodic adjustments based upon these variables. The
following chart depicts the ADP projections from FY 2004 through FY 2009:

ADP Projections
July
Recalculation

President's
Budget

November
Recalculation

February
Recalculation

May
Recalculation

48,499

49,598

49,698

49,855

49,712

2005

* 45,010
* 50,001

46,310

55,115

54,312

53,801

54,121

2006

60,558

58,362

57,745

56,972

56,610

56,413

2007

62,920

61,816

57,352

56,673

56,615

56,290

2008

63,145

59,001

56,821

2009

60,821

Fiscal Year

2004

Actual

**
**

56,821
60,651

* ADP as presented in the budget was reduced to correlate to resources; the account experienced
significant shortfalls in FY 2004 and 2005.
Estimate

** Current

It is important to note that the budgets for FY 2006 and 2007 were formulated prior to
OFDT designing and implementing a number of cost avoidance projects that ultimately
reduced the ADP by reducing time in detention. The FY 2008 and 2009 budgets
(which were developed in FY 2006 and 2007) are the first formulations to factor in the
efficiencies that were achieved as a result of these measures.
QUESTION: The OFDT FY 09 enhancement request is part of a larger Departmentwide southwest border initiative. What kind of coordination took place across the
Department to create this multi-component
border initiative and ensure that the
different pieces fit together into a coherent whole?
ANSWER: The Department of Justice (DOJ) worked closely with the Office of
Management and Budget during the fall of 2007 to ensure that a comprehensive budget
request was included as part of the President's FY 2009 budget request to Congress.
The OFDT has been providing regular programmatic and statistical updates to the
Justice Management Division to ensure that senior departmental leaders are kept
abreast of how Southwest Border initiatives impact the OFDT. At the local level, the
funding will be used to accommodate an anticipated increase in the number of
detainees placed in non-federal facilities along the Southwest Border. These resources
will be utilized to fund the costs associated with providing housing, care and
transportation of detainees.
Recognizing that the Department of Homeland Security's secure Border initiatives
have a direct and significant impact on DOJ components, the FY 2009 request includes
$100 million for the Southwest Border including new resources for: the United States
Marshals Service (USMS); Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys; Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; Criminal Division; Executive Office of
Immigration Review; Drug Enforcement Administration; and Organized Crime Drug
Enforcement Task Force.

QUESTION:
What is the level of coordination between OFDT and DHS when
estimating the impact of DHS enforcement activity? What is the mechanism by
which this coordination takes place?
ANSWER: The OFDT and the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) have facilitated
multiple discussion on how to effectively and efficiently detain and transport illegal
immigrants apprehended along the Southwest Border. For example, during initial
operations in the Tucson and Yuma sector of the Border, the CBP estimated that 25-30
arrests per day (in each city); however, 35-40 arrests were made. Shortly thereafter,
CBP announced that they would like to increase their arrests to 100 detainees per day
in Tucson alone. After further discussion and negotiations with the CBP, it was agreed
that there was inadequate space to detain this magnitude of illegal immigrants. The
CBP agreed upon the apprehensions of 40 illegal immigrants in the Yuma sector and 60
within the Tucson sector. Through these type of negotiations and mutual consideration,
the OFDT has been able to handle this increase population with existing resources ..
Detention Capacity Planning
QUESTION:
How do federal, state/local,
average jail day costs?

and private facilities rank in terms of

ANSWER: The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) operates all Federal facilities that house
Federal detainees. BOP estimates an average daily cost of $72.44 per inmate. OFDT
anticipates that by FY 2009, private facilities will cost an average of$93.06 a day versus
an average of$68.35 for state and local facilities. In a straight cost analysis comparison, it
would appear that private facilities are generally the most expensive detention facilities for
the USMS to use. However, this type of comparison does not represent a true picture upon
which to measure costs since private facilities are routinely acquired in locations where
federal, state and local facilities are generally unavailable; therefore, competitive options
for detention are extremely limited or do not exist at all. Additionally, these locations
tend to be in high real estate areas that have significant cost impact such as: New York,
Arizona, Nevada, and San Diego. This being the case, the OFDT seeks to capitalize on and
achieve economies of scale, whenever and wherever possible, to mitigate the costs
associated with detention bed space.
QUESTION:
Would OFDT like to see a long term shift in the split of detainees
between federal facilities, state/local facilities and private facilities? What kind of
constraints might prevent you from making any such long term shift?
ANSWER: As conveyed in the 'l'rustee's written and oral statement, OFDTbelieves that
the best value for the Federal Government would be the balanced use offederal, local, and
private detention bed space. OFDT does not determine the type offacility for any specific
site by preference. The OFDT determines the best location by evaluating program
requirements and then determining the best value to the Government.
Section 119
provides OFDT the freedom to acquire bed space at the best economical value to the
Government.

QUESTION: Does OFDT believe the revitalization ofthe CAP program will make a
substantial impact in the availability of state and local detention space? If so, can you
quantify that impact?
ANSWER: The revitalized Cooperative Agreement Program (CAP) provides resources to
select state and local governments to renovate, construct, and equip detention facilities in
return for guaranteed bed space for a fixed period of time for federal detainees in or near
federal court cities. This program is important because it gives OFDT another asset to
negotiate for bed space and guarantees beds in difficult situations, which can occur even
with the smallest amount of beds. Though the impact on quantity will be negligible,
nevertheless, the possibility of acquiring bed space where none is currently available
(and/or alternative facilities are located a great distance away from the courts) could make
a significant difference for USMS operations.
QUESTION: Will all agreements under the revitalized CAP now include a fixed per
diem rate, with standardized increases over the life of the agreement?
ANSWER:
OFDT's goal for CAP policies is to best leverage CAP agreements for a
long-term, fixed per diem rate which allows for per diem rate increases within a fixed
acceptable margin of growth, mirroring the length of the agreement. We are looking to
control cost increases in comparison to the past when the number of beds were guaranteed,
but the per diem rate was not; the local government holding the CAP agreement was
allowed to request per diem increases in the same manner as other state and local
governments holding IGAs (standard agreements). However, CAP agreements cannot be
standardized; negotiations are individualized and some negotiations may not be as
successful as others, depending on the severity of the bed situation.
QUESTION:
How much funding within the FY 09 request will be used for the
revitalized CAP program? How much additional detention space will that provide?

ANSWER: Currently, OFDT's appropriation language provides up to $5 million of the
appropriation for the CAP program.
Although numerous applications have been
submitted, specific sites have not yet been selected. Presently, OFDT has identified 10 to
15 court cities that have either the most critical shortage of bed space, an expiring CAP, or
a new requirement with no viable alternative. In addition, OFDT is targeting 700 beds and
anticipates that there will be a minimum of 60 percent -- or 420 beds -- available after
negotiations have concluded.
Detention Confinement Standards
QUESTION:
Why is OFDT projecting a decrease in the number of facilities
compliant with minimum confinement standards between 2007 and 2009?
ANSWER: We did not anticipate being able to achieve 100 percent compliance in FY 07
since the Quality Assurance Review (QAR) Program is still a relatively new initiative and
some initial crossover from year to year is to be expected. It is often difficult to identify
clear-cut goals at the outset of a newly-created program. However, as the program
becomes more established over time, one has a better opportunity to assess current targets
(as a result of more available and reliable data) and to ascertain reasonable adjustments

with which to measure its success. We do not envision attaining 100% compliance at this
early stage ofthe program. Nevertheless, as data becomes more available and dependable,
we will raise the bar in establishing achievable targets with specific, measurable outcomes.

QUESTION: Looking at data from prior years and OFDT's projections for 2008 and
2009, it appears that private facilities are more likely to be in compliance with the
minimum confinement standards?
Does OFDT believe this is the case, and, if so,
why?
ANSWER:
confinement
standards or
compensation
standards.

Private facilities are more likely to be in compliance with the minimum
standards because they are contractually bound to meet the minimum
face financial penalty. Private contractor performance evaluation and
is based upon each facility's ability to demonstrate alignment with the

QUESTION: Does OFDT inspect every facility that houses federal detainees, or only
those that house some minimum number of detainees? If the latter is true, how does
OFDT verify the quality of facilities where only a small number of detainees are
housed?
ANSWER:
OFDT has developed a comprehensive QAR Program that ensures all
facilities are reviewed and/or inspected. OFDT conducts QARs annually at: private
facilities; high volume IGA facilities (average daily population of 500 plus); any facility
that has had a significant incident; and, special requests by detention agencies. All other
facilities have an annual inspection conducted by USMS field representatives. OFDT has
developed an automated Facility Review Management System (FRMS) which captures
560 checklist data elements for each facility reviewed. These data elements reflect specific
points of compliance required to meet the Federal Performance-Based Detention
Standards. As this data continues to be gathered, FRMS will generate the data necessary
to not only document improvements in the quality of confinement but will enable in-depth
analysis of potential problem areas. With such information garnered from each inspection
(regardless of the number of detainees housed at the facility), reviewers will be able to
thwart the growth of negative trends by expanding specific areas of review. The consistent
gathering of data and analysis gives us the tools necessary to ensure that our detainees'
confinement is not only safe, secure and humane, but that the quality of such interim care
in on a continuous path of improvement.
QUESTION: What steps are taken when deficiencies are noted? Has OFDT ever
stopped placing detainees in a particular facility because of repeat violations of the
confinement standards?
ANSWER: When a facility review notes deficiencies, the facility is required to submit a
corrective action plan addressing these deficiencies to OFDT. However, when a review
identifies an area "at risk," an immediate corrective action must be in place before the
review team leaves the facility the day it is identified. Follow-up reviews are conducted at
facilities that had key standards identified as "at risk" and/or "deficient." The USMS
districts directly monitor all at risk or deficient areas to ensure corrective actions remain in
place and that the facility is operating in a safe, humane and secure manner. To date,
facilities have been very cooperative in taking the corrective actions necessary to remove

an "at risk" rating. As a result, OFDT has not had to remove or stop placement of
detainees at any particular facility.
Alternatives to Detention
QUESTION:
On average, how do the per day costs of housing a prisoner through
traditional secure detention compare with the per day costs of utilizing a detention
alternative?
ANSWER: The cost of detention alternatives is substantially less, on average, than secure
detention. During FY 2007, the Federal Judiciary expended approximately $2.4 million of
OFDT funds to supervise 3,226 criminal defendants for a total of 564,545 days. The
average cost per day for detention alternatives for these 3,226 defendants was $4.25, as
compared to $69.30 for secure detention (including detention-related services). (The
Administrative Office of the United States Courts estimates that the cost per day for
pretrial supervision for FY 2007 was approximately $5.65).
QUESTION:

How many detainees are currently in various alternatives to detention?

ANSWER: In FY 2007, there were 6,979 defendants released pending adjudication with
release conditions that included only substance abuse testing; 9,994 were for substance
abuse testing and treatment; and, 5,520 for home confinement with or without electronic
monitoring.
QUESTION: Does OFDT expect to increase the use of alternatives
FY 09, and, if not, why?

to detention

in

ANSWER:
In 2008, the OFDT, in cooperation with the Judiciary, initiated a study of
policies and practices relating to pretrial release and detention with the specific objective
of identifying classes of criminal defendants who are currently detained but who might
otherwise be good candidates for the alternatives to detention program. It is the
expectation of the OFDT and the Judiciary that the results ofthis study could be used by
the Judiciary to fashion guidance for Federal judges and Magistrate judges on the
increasing use of detention alternatives. If this new guidance is promulgated by the
Judiciary, additional funding may be warranted. The Trustee speaks regularly with the
Administrative Office of the United States Courts and members of the Judiciary and
participates on panels, along with employees from various Pretrial Services offices and
Magistrate Judges, to continue to enhance this program.
As way of background, prior to the establishment of the OFDT, the USMS provided the
Judiciary with $1 million annually to support the alternatives to detention program. With
the establishment of OFDT, the Detention Trustee initially increased funding to the
Judiciary to $2 million. Following the proven success of the program and the good
working relationship between OFDT and the Judiciary, funding was increased in 2006 to
$4 million. OFDT will continue to make up to $4 million available annually to the
Judiciary to support the alternatives to detention program. During 2006 and 2007, the
Judiciary was not able to obligate all ofthe available money. It is OFDT's expectation that
the Administrative Office of the United States Courts will work closely with the district
courts to take full advantage of the available funding.

Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation System
QUESTION: What specific plans does OFDT have in place to increase the efficiency
of Jp A TS operations in FY 09? What impact will these efficiencies have on total cost
per prisoner?
ANSWER: The OFDT, in cooperation with JPATS, the United States Marshals Service,
other government agencies, and private entities, has established Regional Transfer Centers
(RTCs) to facilitate the movement of sentenced prisoners to designated correctional
institutions. Establishing such hubs expands the transit infrastructure. They will improve
the transportation system, reduce in-transit time, and expand ground transportation
capabilities.
These hubs increase Federal Transfer Center (FTC) capabilities by
strategically placing additional housing close to airlift sites. The also reduce detention
costs with the advent of the eDesignate system, the Federal Courts, USMS, and BOP are
all able to process designations and initiate faster movement of prisoners to their
commitment locations. Movement requests, both ground and air, will be put into
eDesignate, which will allow agencies to see immediately where problems may exist and
allow for quick resolution.
QUESTION: OFDT is projecting that the average age of the JPATS fleet will be 24
years in FY 09. When does OFDT anticipate having to replace these aging aircraft?
When you do so, will the Jp ATS revolving fund sufficiently cover any increased
leasing costs?
ANSWER:
IP ATS currently owns four aircraft. Although the average age of JPATS
aircraft will be 24 years in FY09, it is necessary to look at the ages of the individual
aircraft to get a better picture. The chart below depicts the aircraft age as ofFY08 and in
FY09. It should be noted that the Beech 99 Aircraft (tail number N80275) is the oldest
aircraft in the JPATS fleet at 39 years of age in FY09. This represents a significant age
differential to the remainder ofthe fleet and skews the average age. Removing the Beech
99 from the average leaves an average age of 18 for JPA TS-owned aircraft in FY09.

Owned Aircraft
Hawker N2032
Hawker N2033
Beech 99 N80275
Saab 2000 N92225
Average Age Owned

Year
1990
1987
1970
1996

FY09 Af;!e
19
22
39
13
23.25

JP ATS currently has no plans to replace the Beech 99 aircraft. It is well suited to the
current environment and there are no adequate replacements on the market. In this
particular case, the chronological age of the aircraft is not relative to structural integrity.
The Beech 99 has extremely low accumulated flight hours and flight cycles; approximately
one third of the typical hours and cycles ofa Beech 99 in commercial service. The same is
true for the SAAB 2000 and the Hawkers.

Furthermore, the soon-to-be awarded Long Term Lease (LTL) will provide a fleet of
transport category aircraft with an anticipated average age of 15.5. This would give
JPATS an average fleet age, owned and leased aircraft, of approximately 19.5 years in
FY09.
When Jp ATS determines that it is necessary to upgrade or increase our fleet, there are two
alternatives. The first alternative is to purchase aircraft from Jp ATS' Capital Program
with no impact to lease costs or customer rates; this alternative is currently only viable for
smaller aircraft. The second alternative is to lease replacement aircraft. For lease aircraft
there are two primary considerations: age and practical availability in the industry.
Aircraft availability for aircraft manufactured after 1995 drops sharply and the expense is
considerably greater. Lease costs would be dependent on the prevalent market rates and
funding would be dependent on customer need and flight hour projections.

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD
FROM THE
DEA - BOP/USMS/OFDT HOUSE HEARING
MARCH 12, 2008

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD ROGERS
QUESTION (BOP): The Bureau of Prisons has expressed concerns about the rapidly
increasing prison population and the resultant over-crowding of facilities which house
inmates. The inmate population has increased by 700 percent over the past 25 years, to
nearly 201,000 inmates currently, which is 37% above system-wide rated capacity. In
addition, BOP has indicated that inmate population is expected to grow by an additional
25,000 inmates in the next 4 years. These population projections coincide with a recent rise
in violent criminal activity at Big Sandy Prison in Inez, Kentucky. I have received reports
of excessively high levels of overcrowding (with 4-5 inmates occasionally sharing 1-2 person
cells), numerous incidences of moderate to severe assaults involving officers and inmates,
and narcotics trafficking. The following statistics on violent incidents were reported to me
by USP Big Sandy employees:
•
•
•

2004: 123 investigations, 42 assaults (15 with weapons), 3 attempted murders, 1
narcotics bust
2005: 409 investigations, 151 assaults (58 with weapons), 2 attempted murders, 21
narcotics busts
2006: 773 investigations, 259 assaults (140 with weapons), 4 attempted murders and 2
murders, 13 narcotics busts

These statistics indicate substantial increases in violent incidents at USP Big Sandy.
~ Given the safety concerns for both inmates and correctional officers at Big Sandy, what
are BOP's plans to decrease existing over-capacity concerns at their facilities? What
are BOP's plans to maintain or decrease crowding at their facilities in future years?
ANSWER: The BOP continues to recognize the need to mitigate the effects of prison
overcrowding at BOP's most critical security levels and when appropriate add new capacity
through limited new construction, contract confinement and facility expansion.

~ In order to keep pace with the projected prison population growth, how many new
prisons are needed in the next ten years?
ANSWER: Currently, as identified in the FY 2009 President's Budget, four medium security
prison construction projects are fully funded .. The Budget also identifies nine partially funded
construction projects.

~ What steps are being taken specifically at USP Big Sandy to quell violence and alleviate
the pressure on staff that has coincided with increasingly high levels of overcrowding?
What is the role of the U.S. Office of the Federal Detention Trustee in situations such as
these?
ANSWER: Several initiatives have been undertaken at USP Big Sandy with regards to inmate
violence and staff safety.
USP Big Sandy is currently in the process of increasing their correctional services staff. The
institution executive staff recently conducted training with staff regarding areas where incidents
are more likely to occur (i.e. food service, segregation and recreation). This has led to a greater
staff awareness ofthe potential for violent inmate behavior.
The institution has adopted and is currently using a more restrictive inmate movement schedule.
This new schedule is designed to provide a more controlled environment for the inmates. The
institution's Special Investigative Agent's office has also developed several proactive procedures
to identify potential threats to staff safety and allow for preventative measures to be put in place.
The OFDT does not have a role in this type of situation. They are responsible for utilization of
detention beds for U.S. Marshal Service prisoners, not sentenced inmates.

QUESTION (BOP): The President's Budget includes a mere $95 million in BOP's building
and facilities account, an indication that projects already in planning or under construction
are subject to delays.
~ During his testimony, Director Lappin indicated that contemporary prison design
affords greater efficiency in staffing because it allows staff to oversee more inmates. He
acknowledged that future construction and increasing beds will be important for
managing the growing prison population. What process is BOP utilizing to prioritize
construction projects, given the deep B&F cuts proposed in the President's Budget?
Does co-location and citing prisons in close proximity assist in controlling costs?
ANSWER: The process BOP utilizes to prioritize construction project is based on population
projections by security level. The BOP maintains a long range plan for development of future
institutions in priority order. On a quarterly basis or more frequently, the Capacity Planning
Committee (Agency Executives) meets to review, discuss and prioritize requests for additional
capacity (expansions of existing facilities or construction of new institutions). The Committee
utilizes information from a variety of sources to determine the location and security level of
future institutions, conversions or modifications.
The BOP believes that co-location and siting prisons in close proximity assist in controlling
overall costs. The BOP attempts to co-locate new prison projects where there is sufficient land
space and community infrastructure to support more than one facility. This method has proven

o ORIGINAL

STENOGRAPHIC
:vIINLTES
L:nrevised and Unedited
~ot for Quotation or
Duplication

COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS

FOR 2009

Wednesday, March 12,2008
DRUG ENFORCEMENT

ADMINISTRATION

BUREAU OF PRISONS; U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE; OFFICE OF THE
FEDERAL DETENTION TRUSTEE

Committee Hearings
oftbe

u.s. HOUSE

OF REPRESENTATIVES

OFFICE OF THE CLERK
Office of Official Reporten

HAP072.190

PAGE

1

HUNT REPORTING COMPANY

2

HAP072190

3

COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES

4

APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2009

5

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

6

DRUG E~FORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION

7

BUREAU OF PRISONS; U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE; OFFICE OF THE

8

FEDERAL DETENTION TRUSTEE

1

HAP072.190

PAGE

4686

are out there on the line, you know, putting

4687

the line for us.

4688

And we look forward

4689

real· needs.

themselves

to working

I really

4691

Mr. CLARK.

Thank you both.

4692

Mr. MOLLOHAN.

4693

And next we will hear from our final witness
Hylton,

Federal

Ms. Hylton,

4696

We thank you for your

4697

us.

time.

Service

are largely

4700

workload

in Southwest

4701

enhanced

immigration

4702

on your resources

4703

how you manage

We appreciate

Detention

border

4706

help you address

4707

about

4708

services

and challenge

and discuss

4709

part

4710

oral presentation,

to surging

We understand

that

strain

you to think creatively

increasing

detainee

to hear your thoughts
budget

about

population.

about

this

increases

will

We also hope to spend time talking

the state of detention

of the record.

with

and the Marshal

has put an enormous

how your proposed

it.

generally.

your patience

Trustee

districts.

enforcement

a constantly

problem

to have you here today.

in the same boat with respect

We are interested

of the day,

to your testimony.

of Federal

4705

it.

Trustee.

we are very pleased

4699

4704

Detention

And we look forward
The Office

appreciate

Thank you.

4695

4698

it.

with you to try to meet your

Mr. CLARK.

Stacia

on

They do a great job and we appreciate

4690

4694

194

housing

Your written

and transportation

statement

will be made a

I invite you to summarize
initial

presentation.

that in your

But before

that I

HAP072.190

PAGE

4711

would

4712

his comments.

4713
4714

like to call on Ranking

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN.
and thanks

Welcome.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

4716

Mr. MOLLOHAN.

4718

Ms. HYLTON.
Frelinghuysen.

4720

appear

4721

request.

4722

appreciated.

Thank you for being here

Thank you, Mr. Frelinghuysen.

before

Good afternoon,

Chairman

Thank you very much.
you to discuss

Ms.

Your continued

In addressing

support

the budget,

I would

4725

with our successes.

4726

that our current projections

4727

right in line with the appropriated

4728

We have worked diligently
of Detention

4730

assure

It is a pleasure

for the remainder

shortfall

to report

of 2008 are

in order to

with appropriated

requirements

can produce

notable

4733

over the past three years OFTT has launched

4734

successful

4735

manage

the account

as we have seen in 2004 and 2005.

initiatives

more effectively

along

the effectiveness

model

4732

cost avoidance

some

funds we received.

on improving

is in alignment

As you recall, unfunded

community,

I am pleased

Program and our forecasting

this account

is

like to discuss

we face in the detention
To begin with,

to

2009 budget

in this account

of the challenges

4729

and Congressman

our President's

4724

4731

for

Hylton.

4719

4723

Mr. Frelinghuysen

for your patience.

4715

4717

Member

195

funds
a
However,

numerous

that have allowed

by reducing

us to

the time in

HAP072.190

PAGE

4736

detention.

4737

These

initiatives

enabled

4738

increase

4739

requirements

4740

was able to return

4741

Congress

in the last budget

4742

however,

that we have

4743

initiatives

4744

adjusting

4745

efficiencies.

4746

of new arrest

while better

for the existing

unobligated

cycle.

t~se

projection

4748

cost contained.

4749

into better

alignment

4750

the current

status

4751

of these efforts.

to ensure

Therefore,

experienced

4754

considerable

4755

OFTT does not anticipate

4756

over form 2008 to 2009 to mitigate

4757

concern

4758

may occur outl:llu(:

4759

would cause significant

over the last several

aggressive

the account

funds is reflected

demonstrating

years coupled

in immigration

in

the success

detention
totals

However,

balances

the unknowns.

and immigration

Ll1<: Department's

with

activities.

any unobligated

which

by

is based upon the trends

4753

The 2009 request

to

for these

our goal of bringing

request

is law enforcement

request

to account

with appropriate

increase

balances

OFTT

they stay on track to keep

of 2008 budget

The 2009 budget

the funding

cost savings

At the same time, we have developed
measures

the

I would emphasize,

incorporated

the population

to meet

As a result,

into our 2008 and 2009 budget

performance

4760

containing

population.

significant

4747

4752

OFTT to continue

196

budget

carried
Our current

initiatives
process,

population

as

that

which

increases.

$1.3 billion

represents

an

HAP072.190

PAGE .

4761

increase

4762

will require

4763

must ensure

4764

swiftly

4765

no room for outside

4766

during

4767

move sentenced

4768

Resources

of $69 above the 2008 appropriation.
diligence

that sentence

into BOP beds.

the development

prisoners

We anticipate

nor the inability
prison

community.

4770

detention

and prison

4771

federal detention

4772

value

4773

of federal,

Capacity

space requirements,
nationwide

local, and private
agreements,

remains

detention

known

been and continue

to be a good approach

4776

federal

due to the need to locate

4777

beds withing

4778

building

4779

out EIGA in 2008.

4780

paperwork

4781

both State and federal government

4782

responsible

for this cumbersome

4783

8U~~~88

w~ dl~ v~ry proud of it.

4784
4785

federal

court cities.

the relationships

for IGAs reducing

dlld

In our constant
taking a number

drive

that the best

the balanced

for housing

USMS

those detention

In an effort

to continue
we rolled

fully automated

numerous

the

hours of processing

and the workers

process.

used

as IGAs have

with local governments,

This initiative

the

bed space.

4775

detainees

for the

In meeting

I believe

otherwise

to

for adequate

beds are critical.

for the government

Interagency

planning

of

beqs.

are only a part of the challenge

detention

is little or

of which we were unaware

into federal

We

can move

that there

of this budget,

prisoners

This request

the time in detention.

designated

initiatives

4769

4774

in managing

197

for

that are

It has been a great

to improve detention,

of steps to insure efficient

we are

capacity

HAP072.190

PAGE

4786

planning

4787

driving

4788

outlined

4789

would

4790

have

4791

If you recall

4792

prisoner

4793

our attention

4794

transportation

4795

points

4796

by leveraging
economies
a number

of scales
of these

like to highlight
in our budget.

streamlining

processes

government.

We have

in our 2009 budget
initiative

It is imperative
which

has been

to seeking

request.

our cost.

the post sentencing

fully implemented.

the improvements

infrastructure

I

for 2009 that we

to containing

automated

and

We now turn

in the

that will reduce

the choke

in the system.

We will accomplish
regional

4798

str~E-.a~.~y

and ground

47~~-~m~~ments

this by implementing

transfer

centers

more effectively

impact

4801

capabilities.

of scheduling

is identified

4803

for the transportation

4804

bed space shortages

4805

have realized

4806

diligence

4807

transportation

4808

constantly

4809

more effective

system,

in certain

in detention

With approximately

judicial

location

critical

districts.

While we

the account,

of detention
imperative.

the infr~otructurc

environment

and ai-r

the best

but to also address

remains

strengthening

ground

and capacity

to provide

and stabilize

and daily management
resources

of

by region will have a significant

on the efficiencies

Each location

our concept

which will be

..•.
l.9cated na:i9J1~.ide. UUlizing

4800

4810

across

a major

e-Designate

paperwork

4797

4802

technology,

198

for the detention

190,000 new arrests

and
We are
and creating
community.
annually

an

a

HAP072.190

PAGE

4811

effective

4812

ensuring

4813

still remains to be addressed

4814

enforcement

4815

budget

4816

in the account

4817

spirit of cooperation

4818

States Marshal

4819
4820
4821
4822
4823

4824

infrastructure

costs are contained

initiatives

process

in order

within

Service

appropriated

throughout

the system.

to reduce

the volatility

and the Federal

this concludes

[The information

Bureau

What

follows:]

the

we have seen
for the

of Prisons.
that Congress·

leadership.

my remarks

that you may have.

**********INSERT**********

levels.

of the United

the resources

to OFTT, your support and your

to answer any question

to

Within

We are grateful

from the leadership

we appreciate

Mr. Chairman,

is critical

is the full impact of law

over the years.

In closing,
provides

and management

199

and I am pleased

HAP072.190
4825

PAGE

Mr. MOLLOHAN.

4826

billion

4827

of detainees

4828

based your budget

4829

daily detainee

4830

average

4831
4832
4833

including

Your fiscal year 2009 request
$38 million

generated

daily detainees

Ms. HYLTON.

4836

to how BOP forecast

4837

where drugs themselves

4838

because

your average

time in detention
of course,

of the average
to be 60,821

daily population

Immigration
quicker

through

4841

in detention

4842

the trend.

4844

actuals

will create

4845

projected

4846

projections

proved

Ms. HYLTON.

similar

time in detention

sometimes

So it is a balance
those offenses

will be

of that time

that we have see in

at a chart that has your
have what you have

How accurate

have those

to be?
Well, you know,

projections.
Mr. MOLLOHAN.

in. Time

And so, you know,

a longer

But it doesn't

for those years.

coming

by the offense

and offenses

I am looking

2008.

projections

of the case.

the system.

incorporating

up until

and new arrests

their population.

initiatives

Mr. MOLLOHAN.

daily population

is generated

of the complexity

4840

4849

You have

in 2009.

Our average

in detention,

4848

number

projections?

4835

4847

efforts.

which you estimate

How did you calculate

incorporate

4843

on a projection

population,

totals $1.3

the increased

the DHS enforcement

largely

4834

4839

to address

200

Okay.

we are very pleased

on the

HAP072.190
4850

PAGE

MS. HYLTON.

201

We have put a lot of work into these.

And

4851

we of course as we talked a little bit about

~ast;.;S".r,you

4852

know,

coming

4853

us.

4854
4855
4856
4857

are faced with the fact of the unknown

Mr. MOLLOHAN.
they proven

Mr. MOLLOHAN.

4859

Ms. HYLTON.

4860

Mr. MOLLOHAN.

4861

Ms. HYLTON.

4862

Mr. MOLLOHAN.

Ms. HYLTON.

4865

Mr. MOLLOHAN.

have

to say this year.we

are right

I think that one-This year being?

2008.
2008.
And for 2009.
Well what about 2007?

Or do you know?

On the population
On your average

forecasting?
daily population

forecasting.

4867

Ms. HYLTON.

4868

Mr. MOLLOHAN.

4869

Ms. HYLTON.

4870

Mr. MOLLOHAN.

4871

Ms. HYLTON.

4872

But how accurate

You may not know.

4864

4866

I am pleased

That,

4858

4863

I know.

to be in the past, your projections?

Ms. HYLTON.
on the mark.

No, no.

towards

I feel that 2007 is-I think that would be hard to do.
To project

out?

Accurately.
It is a challenge,

but one that we try to

get right.

4873

Mr. MOLLOHAN.

4874

Ms. HYLTON.

I am just trying
Yeah.

to get how--

I guess what I want to say is that I

HAP072.190

202

PAGE

4875

feel we have come further in the process.

There is always

4876

the unknown risks.

4877

think the one thing we have accomplished in the forecasting

And that is why knowing what we know.

model is ~h~ fac~~~~

I

we actually have blended instead of

just trend analysis what we see coming is staffing on board
4880

levels for law enforcement, prosecutors.

4881

that we have blended into this process now.

4882
4883

Mr. MOLLOHAN.

That is something

So you think that is going to improve

.
your projections even more?

4884

Ms. HYLTON.

Oh, absolutely.

4885

seen that improvement.

4886

what we are seeing in 2008.

4887

I feel we have already

You know I am so very pleased with

The third factor that we have moved in that never

4888

existed before is the fact that once we take one of these

4889

major initiatives that you hear me so often talk about.

4890

then project out the savings of time in detention, because it

4891

is that time in detention that drives this account.

4892

five days in, 60,000 people, $20 million you know that

4893

delays.

4894

And so it is all about time for us.

We

I mean

And so we are

4895

pleased that we actually by putting these performance

4896

measures in place, take those time frames and blend that into

4897

our fon~('asting.

4898

board, and we what we put in as far as performance measures

4899

for--

Those three factors of trendD, ctaffing on

HAP072.190

PAGE

4900

Mr. MOLLOHAN.

4901

in your testimony.

4902

Ms. HYLTON.

4903

Mr. MOLLOHAN.

And those external factors you mentioned

Those are our greatest risks.
And one of them is this Operation

4904

Streamline which I was asking some of our other witnesses

4905

about.

4906

incorporated in your calculations?

4907
4908

Are projections associated with that activity

Ms. HYLTON.

Mr. MOLLOHAN.

4910

Ms. HYLTON.

4911

Mr. MOLLOHAN.

4913

No, sir.

What is incorporating our

calculations--

4909

4912

.

Could that drastically impact your cost?
It could.
What other external factors might there

be that were not taken into consideration?
Ms. HYLTON.

The two things that could greatly impact

4914

2009, I was waiting for your question of 2009 being

4915

sufficient.

4916

Mr. MOLLOHAN.

4917

Ms. HYLTON.

4918

Mr. MOLLOHAN.

4919
4920

203

Well-But the-I just want this little question in

between that.
Ms. HYLTON.

Yeah, sure.

The fact is, is that those

4921

immigration initiatives we have allowed a 12 percent growth

4Q??

in 2009 for immigration based on the 2008 actuals.

4923

feel that is sizeable.

4924

has been in place.

And we

We feel that, that is in line to what

It is line to what we see as far what--

HAP072.190
4925
4926
4927

PAGE

Mr. MOLLOHAN.
request?

Ms. HYLTON.
anything

4929

incorporated

4930

it is unclear

4931

driven--

4933

Mr. MOLLOHAN.

If

But you know it is going

Streamline

of what could be

to generate

It is going

to generate

And it is not included

activity.
in your

calculation.
Ms. HYLTON.

4938

Streamline

4939

handle

that.

Anything

Mr. MOLLOHAN.
an amended

What we are seeing

has been incorporated

budget

4942

Ms. HYLTON.

4943

Mr. MOLLOHAN.

additional

in subsidies

our 2009 can

to how it exist today-at a supplemental

or

request?
Yes.
2009,

have projected

4945

and budgeted

4946

but why do you budget

4947

am I right?

4948

projected?

if I am reading

and then budgeted.

is $59,222.

I mean

this correctly,

Projections

says $60,821

it is not a big difference

on a lower number

Do you budget

Ms. HYLTON.

today as Operation

You will be looking

4944

4949

growth.

activity.

Mr. MOLLOHAN.

4941

And Operation

to us and what that definition

4935

4940

is a 12 percent

that it would not be

in our 2009 request.

Ms. HYLTON.

4937

Our 2009 request

was to occur outside

4934

4936

So how does all that impact your 2009

Why is your 2009 request--

4928

4932

204

than i~ projected?

on a lower number

than iE

As you go we take into that consideration

Or

HAP072.190

PAGE

4950

some of the efficiencies

4951

a little bit last year,

4952

recalculate

4953
4954
4955

Ms. HYLTON.
in fact, you know,

4957

today,

4958

forecast

4960

because

We recalculate

this account

just ran our numbers

Mr. MOLLOHAN.
comfortable

I get the bottom

with this request

4962

Mr. MOLLOHAN.

4965

Well you can be repetitive

because

quarterly

in preparation

and
for

is on track.

Ms. HYLTON.

4964

but

of the, you know, to make sure that, that

4961

4963

I don't want to be repetitive,

is a really good way to learn things.

4956

4959

we feel like we can build and again

that projection--

Mr. MOLLOHAN.
repetition

205

line.

So are you

based upon those projections?

I am.
And you are asking

less than you actually

project?
Ms. HYLTON.

I am based on two factors.

Would you allow

me that to--

4966

Mr. MOLLOHAN.

4967

Ms. HYLTON.

4968

2009 request

4969

request

4970

supplemental,

4971

the process.

4972

Without

Please.

No.

No.

Absolutely.

There are two risks associated

that you have in front of you.

from, as strongly
which

as I could,

I am so pleased

that, this account
prison

And I would

the support

have adequate

4974

can see how on a dime $20 million,

to that BOP

to see it moving

is at great risk.

4973

with the

beds to get into.

through

We have

As I explained,

five days.

you

to

HAP072.190
4975
4976

Mr. MOLLOHAN.
from?

206

PAGE

Do you know where that BOP request came

Do you know where they are getting that money?

4977

Ms. HYLTON.

4978

Mr. MOLLOHAN.

4979

on where it came from.

I can't speak to that.

4980

Ms. HYLTON.

4981

Mr. MOLLOHAN.

4982

Ms. HYLTON.

I don't.

I was just wondering if you had a comment

I am sorry, I don't.
Okay.
I was pleased to hear it today.

You know

4983

it was one of those things we have been following and I know

4984

that it just recently came through.

4985

Mr. MOLLOHAN.

4986

Ms. HYLTON.

okay.
But, you know, BOP and the adequate bed

4987

space, them being able to secure their prison is accurate are

4988

so important to our ability to move fast.

4989

moving fast in detention.

4990

we can get them in, the more we contain those costs.

4991

that is critical to us.

4992

appreciated.

4993

It is all about

The faster we can move, the faster
And so

And so your support there is greatly

If that does not occur that does pose a challenge for

4994

this account.

4995

we have recently heard in the last couple of months and see

4996

Congressman Culberson is not here, but he has, you know, put

4997

forth numbers in Operation Streamline.

4998
4999

In essence, the other risk is the fact that as

Again, the Department, I can't say it enough as I have
tried to layout

over the last several months.

The

HAP072.190

PAGE

5000

Department

5001

they have prosecuted,

5002

grows

5003

but if were to grow the numbers

5004

the last 30 or 60 days, we would be back, you know,

5005

discussions

5006

pose.

has addressed

every year.

significantly

they are moving

with your

staff about the difficulties

for 2009.

say that even up until

5009

ourselves

5010

go through

5011

request

5012

this point we are down 2.1 percent

5013

much

5014

helps

5015

before

to that budgeted

the process,

It

over

in heavy
it could

So I am pleased

last night

request.

to

that we see

And again as you

you know, when we start the budget

to accurately

on projections.
variance.

projected.

As we get to
So we are so

I don't know if that

to see that, but that is why we run that number

right

we come.

5016

Mr. MOLLOHAN.

5017

Ms. HYLTON.

5018

[Laughter.)

5019

Ms. HYLTON.

5020

Mr. MOLLOHAN.

5021

Ms. HYLTON.

5022

the projection

there is a 4.6 variance

closer

at a strong pace.

that had been discussed

5008

closer

You know

immigration.

And when we built that into our account,

So those are the two risks

5007

207

I mean you sound convincing.
And so you know, I feel--

We did this last year.
Huh?
We did this last year.

that it io an appropriate

5023

Mr. MOLLOHAN.

5024

Ms. HYLTON.

I really

do I feel

requeot.

Yeah.
I do point

out those risks.

I mean they

HAP072.190

PAGE

5025

are throughout

5026

very, very real.

my oral and written

5027

Mr. MOLLOHAN.

5028

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN.

5029

are you talking

5030

or are we talking

Mr. Frelinghuysen.

Are we talking

I am talking

5033

error factor

5034

close to, because

5035

use all the way up until the end of February

5036

project

5037

half of 2007.

5038

it is all about what we are seeing

that as we get closer

that forecast

is 2.1, on either

we get more recent

So we have real numbers

5041

difficult

We are able to
in 2008 to

process,
because

we are using
in detention

today.

I have to say that I it is a little

5042

are.

5043

part of your statement.

5044

the full impact of law enforcement

5045

reduction

5046

account

to figure out exactly

what your true funding

You know, you have in your,
"When

in the volatility

and I quote

we can strategically
initiative

plan

Wh~t doeD thut mean exactly?

5048

Ms. HYLTON.

Well I appreciate

for

we will see a

we have seen previously

5017

needs

from the later

in the

over the years."

that for you.

the

Well I think you are doing a pretty

good job on it, although

clarify

on population

numbers.

When we start the budget

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN.

I am

side, you know, as we get this

5040

5049

about population

about population~

talking

5039

on projections

about budget?

5032

out.

and they are

What sort of variance

about here?

Ms. HYLTON.

5031

Thank you.

testimony

208

the opportunity

to

HAP072.190

PAGE

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN.

5050
5051

volatility

because

5052

with one number

5054

initiatives

5055

well develop

5056

what

5057

unknown

5058

I think you will get more

I assume when you go to OMB you corne in

and then the back and forth here.

Ms. HYLTON.

5053

Because

As you go through

are developed

tomorrow

they want to roll forward

to.

new

I mean DHS may very

and decide that, that is
That would be information

to us.

And so the point

is, is that in a budget process

more we can strategically

5060

the initiative

5061

prosecution

5062

which

5063

more

5064

volatility

5065

supplementals

plan

throughout

the

from the start of

to the end, the full front of law enforcement,

and the back end of what we call the process

is the Marshal
comprehensively

Service,

Detention,

of anyone

having

to come forward,

and everything

5067

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN.

Ms. HYLTON.

you know,

the
in

else.

So I think that as a government

did you put before

and prison beds. The

we can do that, the more we reduce

5066

5069

the budget process

all the time.

an initiative

5059

5068

209

as we--

So when you appeared

before OMB what

them?
What we put for OMB is what we knew of what

5070

we were seeing at that point.

And at that point that--I

5071

focused

that right now is the ri·s'C······

on immigration

because

am
.'.

5072

factor.

So we have projected

5073

objectives

5074

sizeable

were in prosecuting

growth

.,,'

baaed on wh~t the Department's
immigration.

in there; a 12 percent

And we allowed

growth.

HAP072.190
5075

PAGE

And because

we have seen immigration

5076

the years.

5077

growth,

it is a ten percent

5078

growth,

it is a 12 percent

appear

5082

about

5083

the more damn acronyms

5084

[Laughter.]

these IGAs.

anymore.

5087

bit about this.

5088

knowledge

5089

can shoe horn somebody

growth.
before

OMB and as we

Tell us a little more
over your testimony,

than Carter has pills.

And Carter

But intergovernmental

doesn't

agreements

have pills
tell me a little

I think most of us have some, you know,

of that because

5090

Ms. HYLTON.

5091

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN.

you look for any space where you

in.

That is correct.
And then there are other

terms of, you know, the proper

5093

Ms. HYLTON.

5094

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN.

5095

it is an 11 percent

I mean I am looking

5086

5092

growth,

All right.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN.

5085

over

today, we are in line with that.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN.

5081

incrementally

it is a nine percent

And so I feel that when we appeared

5079
5080

So we have, you know,

210

reimbursement

issues

in

level.

You know we enjoy our-And how many do you have?

I assume

you have what 100s, l,OOOs or how many?
Ms. HYLTON.

5096

We do have 1,900 which at any given

5097

1,200 are utilized.

5098

based

5099

local government.

They, you know,

on the need and the availability

time,

they go up and down
within

the State and

HAP072.190

PAGE

5100

IGA, to go back

5101

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN.

5102

to your original-And were it not for those IGAs which

have been going on for what, 30, 40 years

5103

Ms. HYLTON.

That

5104

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN.

5105

Ms. HYLTON.

5106

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN.

5107

Ms. HYLTON.

That

it is advantageous

5109

we can capitalize

5110

have 4,000 prisoners.

5111

have to outsource

Ms. HYLTON.

population

5116

agreements--

You would be up the creek.

of scales,

It wouldn't

are in those

5118

Mr. HYLTON.

IGAs.

places

where we

be advantageous

to use to

our State and local

Sixty-five

percent

of our

And IGAs are intergovernmental

--that we enter into and sign with the

counties

and city governments.

5120

win/win

across

5121

support

our county

5122

that is being able to provide

the board

And it is actually

for all of us.

and local governments

can be a

I mean it does
by partnering.

And

and pay for that daily Late.

And so,· you know, we couldn't
impact

in locations where

Yes.

5119

positive

where

Uh huh.

are so critical.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN.

5124

industry

And so that is where

5117

5123

in all honestly

and look for 30 beds.

5113

5115

is correct.

on economies

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN.

relationships

Yeah.

to use private

5112

5114

or?

is correct.

We would be because

5108

211

speak enough

that has on this account.

about the

And so, you know,

HAP072.190

PAGE

5125

we were very pleased.

I guess one of the reasons

5126

EIGA

felt that county

5127

governments

5128

because

is that we really

it automated

Those

5129
5130

would

5131

complicated.

5132

hours.

5136

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN.

We compliment

understandably

5139

cost that sort of go into looking

5140

know

5141

is some uniformity.

they take a look at these intergovernmental

that your people

Ms. HYLTON.

into account.

5144

of operating

5145

for the negotiations.

after

agreements

these populations.

do those calculations.

There is.

taken

And of course

The county

that facility

I assume

And we negotiate

is able to represent

and that is what becomes

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN.

with the countieo
Yeah.

I

there

those costs are

And so, you know, we look to pay our freight

woods

who

feel that there are a lot of other associated

5143

5149

you on what you call

But there are some jurisdictions

5138

5148

a lot of

Thank you.

when

bed~.

and

that it has reduced

5137

5147

that anyone

and DIAZ Network.

Ms. HYLTON.

5146

and city

to that initiative

They are very intricate

And by automating

5135

5142

governments

IGAs are worse than any tax documents

have to fill out.

e-Designate

we nqte the

the entire process.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN.

5133
5134

have been so appreciative

212

the cost
the basis

for those

~n ~cccptublc

r~te.

Well I know in my neck of the

there has been some, you have done your homework.

So I

HAP072.190

PAGE

5150

am not even sure I want to have

5151

we are communicating

5152

issues.

trying

it appear

But thank you for what you are--

5154

Ms. HYLTON.
It allows

5156

and that is what we want to accomplish.

the counties

5157

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN.

5158

Ms. HYLTON.

5159

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN.

5160

Ms. HYLTON.

5161

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN.

to better

reflect

their operating

cost

The--

Well I know that is the goal.

But--

And so we look forward-You look to the local law

to do, you know, a fairly across

Ms. HYLTON.

5164

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN.

the board--

We do.
--evaluation

of what

the real costs

are.

5166

Ms. HYLTON.

5167

the States and county

5168

and can't expand.

5169

us.

5170

how best we can support

5171

county

S172

on some

Yeah.

5163

5165

but

I think the IGA will also help with that.

5155

enforcement

on the record,

to get some clarification

5153

5162

213

And as in States
governments

such as New Jersey
are feeling

I mean this is something

the pressure

that is real for

Our focus out in 2008 and 2009 on county

level, because

And so we look at ll.ylll~

5173

counties

5174

own competing

Lu

to help them stay whole,
priorities

government

and keep that infrastructure

we know we couldn't
t:lIIlH.cl.t:t:!

survive
cl.ud

is

at the

without

it.

work with the

but they are within

of education,

where

growth,

their

highways,

you

HAP072.190
5175

know.

5176

and there is more of a push to get into those beds.

5177

it does impact us.

5179

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MOLLOHAN.

Thank you, Mr. Frelinghuysen.

Mr.

5181

Frelinghuysen, looking around this room, you and I are

5182

probably the only ones here who even know there such of

5183

things as Carter liver pills.

5184

They don't even--they never heard of them.

5185

Ms. HYLTON.

5186

Mr. MOLLOHAN.

5187

Ms. HYLTON.

5188

Mr. MOLLOHAN.

5189

Ms. HYLTON.

5191

Mr. MOLLOHAN.

Who is Carter?

What are liver pills?

I am just kidding.
Okay.

I am confused.

I think I heard

Yes, sir.
What is this $60 million base program

cost adjustment in your summary of requirements?

5193

Ms. HyLTON.

5194

Mr. MOLLOHAN.

5195

Who is Carter?

you say that you are fine for 2008?

5190

5192

'.,

Okay.

And so

Thank you.

5180

- .', ''!!It'

And so those expansion of jail beds become difficult

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN.

5178

214

PAGE

May I-Oh, please.

If that doesn't suggest that

you needed this adjustment?

~19'7

Mr. Chairman, rather than answer that
•
inaccurately, would that be something I could get back to you

5198

on?

5196

5199

Ms. HYLTON.

Mr. MOLLOHAN.

Certainly.

HAP072.190
5200
5201

PAGE

Yeah.

Ms. HYLTON.

Mr. MOLLOHAN.

5203

Ms. HYLTON.

5204

Mr. MOLLOHAN.

5205

Ms. HYLTON.
prefer

Okay.

All right.
If that wouldn't

to answer

be inconvenient,

I

would

that.

Mr. MOLLOHAN.

5208

Ms. HYLTON.

5209

Mr. MOLLOHAN.

Sure.
Thank you.
And how did you arrive

5210

efficiency

reduction

5211

efficiency

reduction?

5212

How do you compute
Ms. HYLTON.

for fiscal year 2009?
What is it?

at the $54 million
And what is an

How do you get to it?

it?
The efficiency

I highlighted

reduction

5214

one reason

5215

the ground transfer

5216

about how we have tried a way to reduce

5217

detention.

5218

that budget year.

5219

to

--and the base costs.

5207

5213

When we get into adjustments

base--

5202

5206

215

those regional

centers

and as you see and

transfer

and

is I spoke a little bit earlier
the time in

And how many days we can reasonable

So our goal with transportation

achieve

is to of course

four and five days.

in

reduce

5220

time detention

5221

see an efficiency

5222

Lllcl.L
t:!ffil;lt:!llCY
cl.w.1
UUl YUcl.l1::1 Llll.uuyll
Lllcl.L,
wllcl.t
I ut:!llt:!ve,

5223

will be accomplished

5224

ground

transfer

between

centers

And so when you

tag like that, we are trying

through

center.

that regional

to drive

transfer

and

to

HAP072.190
5225

PAGE

Mr. MOLLOHAN.

5226

have

5227

at it.

5229

Mr. MOLLOHAN.

5230

Ms. HYLTON.

5231

challenge.

5232

you- -

Ms. HYLTON.

I will be the first to say that would be a

It is an estimate

upon adequate

5237

in what we have projected

5238

initiatives

I truly believe

5241

immigration

5242

can be achieved.

beds move

Mr. MOLLOHAN.

5244

Ms. HYLTON.

5245

detention

5246

to get into.

5249

in immigration

today versus
forward

Because

say
shifts

or law enforcement

this budget

cycle.

even four weeks

to the supplemental

I believe

ago that if
and if the

that, that $54 million

I can reduce

four or five days.

Because

beds?
Ms. HYLTON.

that I will frankly

How?

by another

Mr. MOLLOHAN.

that you don't have a

beds and no radical

stays with this growth,

5243

5248

prison

at all that are outside

the prison

I will tell

in.

is contingent

5240

for us.

This is an estimate

5236

5247

to work hard

I have heard.

That will be a challenge

lot of confidence

5239

you know, you have

Is true.

Mr. MOLLOHAN.

5235

but it would

Hope is not enough.

Ms. HYLTON.

5233

is very commendable,

to be tied to something,

5228

5234

That

216

Yes, sir.

We have

the time in
to have beds

you can push them into other

HAP072.190

5250
5251

PAGE

Mr. MOLLOHAN.

Okay.

But that is based on a lot of

contingencies.

5252

Ms. HYLTON.

5253

Mr. MOLLOHAN.

Everything
I mean

5254

what is sounds like.

5255

Seriously,

is.

it sounds

simultaneously

5257

get well adjustment

5258

you know, makes

5259

am not sure you can depend

5260

something

5261

budget

with this efficiency

it very problematic,

we should

a $60 million

in the 2008 budget,

I think,

and something

I

on and I am not sure it is

rely on in our considerations

of your

request.

Ms. HYLTON.

It is difficult

adjustments

to base

5264

everything

has rising

5265

so does it as you see in prisons

5266

inflationary

5267

account.

5268

carrying

issues

when we get to the

in this account,

costs associated

Because

because

just as

with our daily

and detention.

costs can raise a potential

living,

And those

problem

we face, you know, our current

in this
services

that into--

Mr. MOLLOHAN.

You are not suggesting

5270

get well is unintended

5271

Ms. HYLTON.

5272

Mr. MOLLOHAN.

5273

Thank you very much

5274

reduction,

to make up for costs

5263

5269

like quite a wag, is

and the fact that you are requesting

5256

5262

217

can achieve

inflationary

the $60 million

costs?

No, I am not.
Mr. Frelinghuysen?
for your good work and if anybody

those efficiency

cost reductions,

we know you

and

HAP072.190
5275

can.

5276

up our budget.

PAGE

So we will look forward to working with you as we mark

5277

Thank you very much for your good--

5278

Ms. HYLTON.

5279

here today for me.

5280

Mr. MOLLOHAN.

I appreciate both of your time and staying

Well let me finish complementing you and

5281

then you can do that.

5282

for all your hard work and we appreciate it and we look

5283

forward to working with you as we mark up this bill.
Ms. HYLTON.

5285

Mr. MOLLOHAN.

5286

[Whereupon, at 5:00 p.m., the Subcommittee was
adjourned.]

Okay.

And I was just going to say thank you

5284

5287

218

Thank you, sir, very much.

Thank you, Ms. Hylton.

 

 

Stop Prison Profiteering Campaign Ad 2
Advertise here
The Habeas Citebook Ineffective Counsel Side