National Institute of Corrections Library

“This report (1) identifies the types of costs that compose BOP's budget accounts as presented in its budget justifications, and (2) assesses the extent to which opportunities exist to enhance the transparency of information in BOP's budget justifications for congressional stakeholders and decision makers. GAO analyzed DOJ and BOP budget justification documents for fiscal years 2008 through 2014 and interviewed officials to determine how they develop budget justifications … GAO recommends that the Attorney General consult with congressional decision makers on providing additional BOP funding detail in future budget justifications, and in conjunction with BOP, take action as appropriate. DOJ concurred” (p. 2). Sections of this report following highlights include: Background; Institution Security and Inmate Care Constitute the Majority of BOP’s Salaries and Expenses Account Costs as Presented in Its Budget Justifications; BOP Could Enhance the Transparency of Its Budget Justification by Providing Additional Data on Cost Components within the Program, Project, and Activity Levels; Conclusions; Recommendation for Executive Action; and BOP Comments. Also included are: Appendix--Dollar Amounts Associated with Bureau of Prisons’ Budget Request Financial Management Information System (FMIS) Data Fields for Inmate Care and Programs; and Appendix II--Narrative Summaries for Institution Security and Administration, Inmate Care and Programs, and Contract Confinement in the Bureau of Prisons’ Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Justification. SOURCE: U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) (Washington, DC).

Recent court cases (2013) concerning the restricted use of the Internet by sex offenders are reviewed. These cases are: Doe v. Nebraska; Doe v. Prosecutor, Marion County, Indiana; and Bykov v. Rosen. “Restricting Internet access has always been seen primarily as a risk management condition … Internet conditions/restrictions on community corrections cases (probation, parole, supervised release), properly crafted have been repeatedly upheld. The Bykov case signifies that separate and apart from managing cyber-risk, an Internet restriction can be punishment that deters future Internet misconduct” (p. 2). SOURCE: corrections.com (Scituate, MA). Authored by Bowker, Art.