It’s been a literal policy frenzy recently, and I’m devoting this blog post to some of the updates. First, though, I want to address an announcement from the BOP that it will begin transferring some people to camps before their release. Everyone’s excited, but this option has always been available; it’s been in the classification manual since 2006! Finally implementing it is good, but reports I’ve received indicate that some people with very little time left are being told they will be transferred even though they do not want to go. Another ironic result may be that some white-collar offenders, who often exaggerate the hardship of camp time, will now live side by side with inmates indoctrinated at FCIs and USPs.
What I’d really like to see is for the agency to be proactive and re-purpose camps as work/study-release centers for inmates of all security levels at any time during incarceration. Camps could also be a way to give 12 months of “RRC” placement to people ineligible for the First Step Act, or to fill the gap when people have earned sufficient release credits but can’t be transferred to an RRC due to a bedspace shortage. Camps could also be a practical alternative to the poorly supervised, K-2-infested RRC contract facilities, offering the benefits of furloughs and work-and- study release programs.
Now, on to the new and revised policies.
In September, the BOP terminated the master agreement with the union. I was critical of the administration at the time because it didn’t immediately seize upon the opportunity to update the many out-of-date bureau policies. The previous BOP administration often cited the union as the reason for inaction on this issue. However, while it’s true that the required union review was indeed an impediment, it became a crutch – an excuse to not even try.
But now, I must eat a little crow. Since February, the BOP has issued 65 updated directives. (Rather than get into the weeds and differentiate between operations memoranda, change notices and new or revised policy, I refer to them all as “updated directives”.) And just in time. Since the VA’s union won its battle to continue to operate, I wouldn’t be surprised if a victory is coming soon for the Council of Prison Locals.
While I haven’t yet taken a deep dive into all the new directives, I’ve reviewed a number, and – in addition to the detailed analysis I’ve already shared for the new policy on lockdowns and modified operations – here’s a summary of my thoughts so far:
Transgender care
The first policy drop in February (11 updated directives) included one titled, “Management of Inmates with Gender Dysphoria and Ongoing Obligations under the Preliminary Injunction Issued in Kingdom, et al., v. Trump, et al., 25-cv-691.” This new directive comes after the BOP followed a presidential order and removed from its website its previous transgender offender manual and clinical treatment guide.
While the new policy states that neither hormone therapy nor surgery will be provided for gender dysphoria, it also acknowledges that the agency is obligated to comply with the preliminary injunction issued on June 3, 2025, by the U.S. District Court for DC in Kingdom v. Trump et al. That ruling requires the BOP to provide hormones and social accommodations to inmates diagnosed with gender dysphoria, in accordance with the policy that existed before President Trump’s executive order. As long as that ruling remains in place, treatment will proceed as outlined in a joint internal memorandum written by several BOP divisions on July 16, 2025. PERA has submitted a FOIA request for that memo.
Staff misconduct
The revised directive on the Office of Internal Affairs includes a new component outlining a “Misconduct Diversion Program” for Classification 3 acts (defined as allegations of staff misconduct that ordinarily have the least impact on institutional operations). The diversion program allows misconduct to be resolved without referral to the OIA or OIJ for investigation, except for those who are GS-13 or above, a member of the Public Health Service staff, or in a probationary period. What concerns me is the potential for abuse within the BOP’s good old boy culture. The diversion program may allow the administration to cite a reduction in open staff investigations — down from the 1,200-plus reported by the GAO in February 2025.
Communication Management Units
In addition, the revised policy governing Communications Management Units (CMUs) – areas for individuals who have been designated as requiring total monitoring of their connections with people outside – has been updated to include three phases of movement through the program. A form BP-A0944 – informing inmates of their designation to the CMU – is mentioned, but the only such form I can locate on the bureau’s website is from 2015. So much for full transparency!
Reintegration Units
RUs are designed to assist inmates with safety concerns reintegrate into the general population. This is the first program statement on RUs, since it was formerly an old, expired operations memorandum. The policy establishes a lot of protocols for RU management, programming and psychology staffing, which will be difficult for the BOP because it is hemorrhaging psychologists. Unfortunately, it also continues to require inmates to be housed in SHU in multiple facilities and serve disciplinary segregation time before qualifying for the RU. It makes no sense to require cooperators and sex offenders to first accumulate multiple incident reports (including mandatory loss of good conduct time) and transfers before being transferred to a RU because a threat cannot be “verified”.
Suicide prevention
Like the RU policy, this directive update gives psychology staff a lot more responsibility and expands the program to other “dysregulated behaviors”, such as self-directed violence. Good luck with that! The BOP routinely takes a hit for its suicide program management from Congress and the DOJ-IG, especially since the Jeffrey Epstein event. It’s concerning that it would need to point out that one of the changes in the policy is that the person conducting the screening be required to review the psychology intake questionnaire (PSIQ). That should have long been a requirement! (The PSIQ is a form that has always been executed at prison intake and reviewed as core document prior to a person being cleared for the general population because it asks about self-harm and suicide ideation.) I also can’t conceive how the BOP is going to be able to comply with the mandate for emergency response training that includes at least three interactive, live, mock suicide emergencies yearly, one on each shift, approximately four months apart considering current staffing levels. Missing from the policy is recognition of the fact that suicidal inmates should not be housed with cellmates who go to visits, shower and/or participate in recreation, thus leaving them alone.
The next policy release occurred in March, when 23 directives were issued — five of which I consider significant: Physical Capacity for Bureau Facilities, Inmate Request to Staff, Reintegration Units and Suicide Prevention Program.
Prison capacity
The directive on physical capacity (formerly known as rated capacity) previously limited the number of double-bed cells, based on a formula that used data points such as cell square footage, security level, ACA standards, etc. Before the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, when parole was abolished, the BOP followed it to some degree medium and higher-security facilities had a lot of single cells that were used as incentives and to recognize longevity/seniority. Now, the bureau recognizes the new norm: “Bureau Physical Capacity is ordinarily based on double occupancy unless there is a programmatic and/or security reason for single occupancy.”
Request to staff
The inmate-request directive is important to note, because if this administration truly wants to walk the walk and be transparent and responsive, it would allow inmates to initiate the administrative remedy process via an electronic request. After all, the new directive states, “All inmates have the opportunity to address questions, requests, or concerns to Bureau staff or departments” [via a cop-out].
Paper BP-8s so often “disappear.” Or the response is so late that BP-9s are denied for a lack of timeliness. Yet no mention is made of the use of the electronic request process to streamline the process and force staff accountability. Instead, what’s telling is the indifference reflected in this statement: “Ordinarily, if warranted, a response will be completed within 30 calendar days.” Based on the number of complaints we receive on disappearing requests, I expected a response requirement that is more definitive as well as a shorter duration to respond.
And finally, in May, the BOP released 31 more directives. As mentioned, the most significant one is on lockdowns and modified operations, covered in a separate post. Here are a few others that are worth highlighting:
Location of medical care
I heard a while ago that the BOP is trying to keep as much treatment local as possible, avoiding transfers to medical centers. And that mandate is reflected in the revised policy for Medical Designations and Referral Services for Inmates. It states that, “Acute care requiring hospitalization of the inmate will usually be provided in a community hospital near the institution. Most institutions will be able to locally manage hospitalizations between seven and 14 days for acute medical care or surgical procedures followed by one to three post-operation appointments.” In the previous policy, the threshold was five to seven days.
Meanwhile, I’m still waiting for an updated policy on halfway house placement, which hasn’t been revised since before the Second Chance Act of 2007, along with the updated classification manual with a new system for calculating security points, which was circulated as a draft over two years ago.
We will continue to share on our blog as we take a deep dive into other recent directives. W’ere told that another batch of new policies just dropped, including one on patient care – a big one! Watch this space!
