Donate
Subscribe
Newsletters

Court Cases and Policy Chaos: Business as Usual

Jack Donson on October 12, 2026

Policy confusion

After releasing over a hundred updated policies during the past year, the BOP has revised several of them again. This breaks with past-agency practice, in which it took decades for policies to be updated. 

One of the updates from September is to the Patient Care program statement, among the most fundamental and important medical policies. The new policy refers four times to a program statement titled “Health Care Utilization Management.” But there is no such directive on the BOP website. So, I submitted a FOIA request and received a reply confirming that there is no such statement. I then reached out to BOP staff, who only told me where to find the listing of all policies! Strange but true. 

What the BOP has failed to update is probably one of the most important directives of them all: CCC Utilization and Transfer Procedures, PS # 7310.04. Aside from being nearly 30 years old, it does not incorporate the recent memoranda clarifying halfway house processing issues relative to the Second Chance Act. I have long chastised the agency for not updating this policy via change notices, as required in the Directives Management Manual, PS 1221.66. As a result, I often hear about staff who incorrectly use this policy when determining RRC referral eligibility. 

FSA news

Our organization commented on a new BOP rule recently published in the Federal Register. The BOP will now begin awarding FSA credits starting at sentencing certain conditions are met. That means time credits will accumulate before arriving at the designated facility The rule is needed but premature. The Supreme Court will hear the Maxwell v. Thomas case to answer the question: Can a federal prisoner use a habeas corpus petition to challenge the government’s calculation of First Step Act time credits to seek an earlier transfer to a halfway house or home confinement? 

Supreme Court to weigh in

The Kingdom v. Trump case, a class action suit challenging the Trump’s Executive Order and new BOP policies that prohibit access to gender-affirming care, is finally in front of the Supreme Court. In an example of BOP management hypocrisy, one of the key government witnesses has a previous reputation as a proactive and staunch supporter of transgender rights (when practicing in a clinical capacity in the prison setting). Rightly so, Judge Lambert rejected the declaration.  

The Rise and Fall of Joshua Smith

Jack Donson on October 12, 2026

BOP Deputy Director Joshus Smith abruptly resigned last month, and whether it was voluntary is questionable given the terse notice published on the agency website. Who will replace him has yet to be announced. 

The big question and crucial decision is if the Director William Marshall will assume a more central role, or if the deputy director will continue to be the real authority. In past BOP administrations, while the deputy wielded a lot of power, he or she was not the highly visible face of the agency like Smith was from the beginning. (Rumor has it that he was originally targeted for the director’s job, but his past prison time was too controversial – and it continued to be among many staff members throughout his short tenure.)

In the past few weeks, Director Marshall has by necessity been somewhat more in the limelight, but his experience in mostly in law enforcement, with minimal experience running a small correctional agency. The West Virginia Department of Corrections, which Marshall was appointed to oversee in 2023, has approximately 10, 000 inmates and 4,000 staff in comparison to the BOP’s approximately 152,000 inmates and 34,000 staff. His predecessor, Collette Peters, also came from a small state agency [Oregon] but she led the state system for a decade compared to Marshall’s 27 months. Peters ran the BOP or about three years and her deputy director, William Lothrop was an agency veteran who stayed very much in the background. 

That leads me to believe that the new deputy director will be another person will play the more visible role Smith did. I hope the agency again brings in a person from outside the BOP culture, but is allowed them to amass a team that has their back. An interesting selection would be Randall Liberty, who recently retired as commissioner of the Maine Department of Corrections. His approach to the position was shaped by his personal history: When he was 7 years old, he visited his incarcerated father at the maximum-security Maine State Prison. It was 40 years later, in 2015, when Liberty returned to the same facility as its warden. He inherited a traditional, highly volatile environment plagued by staff-inmate violence, high suicide rates and regular, 23-hour-a-day lockdowns.

Liberty pioneered what became known as the “Maine Model of Corrections,” a human-centered operating philosophy that treats incarceration itself as the punishment, rather than adding further punishment inside. I once participated in tablet zoom meetings with a high-security inmate within his cell in a Maine facility who was working on a research project. That is leaps and bounds ahead of the BOP, which uses tablets more for profit-related motives than meaningful progressive programming.  

Under Liberty’s tenure, Maine’s statewide recidivism rate plummeted to 21%, among the lowest in the United States (where the national average hovers around 50% to 65%). For prison residents who complete at least an associate degree while in the Maine system, the return-to-custody rate is a rather staggering 0.05%. 

No matter who agrees to pick up the torch, they will need to extinguish many fires that continue to burn within the BOP. 

What can we conclude from Smith’s tenure?

The polarization apparent in opinions about Smith’s tenure and departure reflect the split in our society. In both open and closed Facebook groups and LinkedIn comments, opinions ranged from describing him like the second coming of the messiah to dismissing him as an incompetent devil. 

I’ve attempted to summarize below both the “good” and the “bad” changes Smith made – or tried to make. One of his moves can be seen in as both: the termination of the union’s collective bargaining agreement. That action — which both removed a significant barrier to progressive chances and provided staff another reason for resentment – remains a point of contention. The union recently won its fight for reinstatement in district court, then the BOP promptly found a new reason to terminate it. Stay tuned!

The good

Love them or hate them, Smith attempted to make drastic changes in the BOP culture, including recognizing the festering rot in management and spending substantially on recruiting; targeting decaying infrastructure; and undertaking PR efforts like unannounced prison visits in which he talked directly to inmates. Decades of F-up/move-up practices and good ole boy favoritism had resulted in employees being promoted beyond their skills and intelligence, affecting all aspects of agency operations. That culture was more prominent in some facilities, which have operated like rogues.   

Another plus for Smith was the updating of nearly 100 BOP policies, which had long been overdue for revision. He also issued the agency’s first policy governing lockdowns and modified operations. Although I have yet to observe any consistent changes, it was a necessary first step to reducing the rampant use of these practices. Most recently, he inked a deal to finally bring tablets into the men’s prisons that will be set up for email correspondence and phone calls.  

I applaud the fact that someone with a history of incarceration was appointed to work for the agency that once had such power over him. And based on what I could observe, Smith appeared to have good intentions; he personally helped a few people on issues that our organization brought to his attention.  As one staffer wrote on social media: 

A man who had been incarcerated built himself back up, created a multimillion-dollar business, helped formerly incarcerated people find jobs and stay out of trouble — and eventually became the second-highest-ranking official in the very agency that once imprisoned him. That should be the BOP’s dream.

We should want a million Josh Smiths.

Imagine a Bureau of Prisons whose ultimate measure of success wasn’t how many people it locked up, how many disciplinary reports it generated, or how many years it kept people behind bars.

Imagine instead  if success meant: “How many people did we help become Josh Smith?” That’s rehabilitation. Unfortunately, the culture inside the BOP has often been built around something very different: punishment first, rehabilitation second. And when someone comes along trying to challenge that culture, the natural reaction inside a bureaucracy can be resistance.

Smith traveled around the country visiting institutions — sometimes unannounced. He challenged leadership. He pushed changes. He helped replace or transfer roughly 70% of BOP executive leadership and pushed the agency to confront problems that had been allowed to exist for years.

And not everybody liked it. Some employees and union representatives openly criticized his appointment because he had once been a federal inmate. But that’s exactly where the BOP needs to have an honest conversation with itself.

If a person serves their sentence, rebuilds their life, creates jobs, helps other people coming home from prison and ultimately becomes successful enough to lead — isn’t that evidence that rehabilitation can actually work? Instead of asking, “How dare a former inmate run the Bureau?” Maybe the question should be: “What did this man do differently that we should be teaching every person who enters federal prison?”

The bad

Attempting to turn such a behemoth of an agency so quickly comes with consequences, and ordinarily, effective leaders know to take it slow initially. First actions are overly scrutinized. Smith’s constant talk about leadership and accountability via public speeches and press releases could have been more measured and incremental.  

Likewise, while talking to inmates during facility listening tours, kicking staff out of Going on facility listening tours is passe as all the previous directors participate in that dog and pony show. The Fau pau was taking around inmates to lecture staff and giving credibility to media people with an ax to grind that were constantly bashing the agency. Early on, the decision to terminate the union contract in combination with the listening tours that prioritized inmate feedback alienated a significant number of institution “homesteaders” (those who stay in place instead of transfer for promotions). Management has much less of an impact on facility culture than the rank and file, so when you alienate them, reform goals become almost unobtainable. I

Lowering the educational and experience requirements for correctional officers was also a poor decision that will have a negative impact going forward. 

And making addictive tobacco products for sale was a head scratcher that has already been cancelled. (CBS News reported that a Florida company established for only three months won a contract to be the only business permitted to stock the commissaries with flavored nicotine pouches. However, the 6-mg pouches, called “mindSHFT,” are not authorized by the FDA for sale in the United States. Likewise, the BOP never formally issued a request for bids and the agency didn’t even have a signed contract with mindSHFT. Despite this, BOP trust fund chief Adam Morrow informed all federal prison commissaries on July 21 that the sale of nicotine pouches “has been authorized,” and the sole approved vendor would be SHFT Holdings Enterprise LLC.)

Here’s another staff member expressing his dissatisfaction with Smith:

Three decades ago, he walked into a federal prison in handcuffs. Fourteen months ago, he walked back through those same gates as the second most powerful figure in the entire federal prison system. On Monday, Josh Smith walked out again, leaving behind a mountain of unanswered questions, wrecked morale, and ethics complaints that make his departure as predictable as it was inevitable.

Smith’s rise was pitched as a heartwarming tale of conservative redemption: a former drug conspirator pardoned by Donald Trump who somehow rose to become Deputy Director of the Bureau of Prisons. But beneath the shiny public relations propaganda was a toxic cocktail of sheer incompetence and self-dealing that destabilized an already fragile agency.

Placing a man with zero law enforcement or administrative experience at the helm of an $8 billion federal agency bypassed standard civil service merit principles and background suitability rules, setting the stage for an absolute administrative disaster.

Inside the bureau, his 14 months felt less like modern management and more like a targeted purge. Smith ousted roughly 70 percent of the agency’s executive staff, alienating career officers who viewed the appointment of a convicted drug trafficker as a personal insult to their profession.The primary union representing prison staff watched morale collapse as experienced guards were driven to early retirement, all while Smith pushed policies that line staff felt systematically elevated inmates over the officers meant to keep the facilities safe.

The operational failures were quickly compounded by glaring conflicts of interest and bizarre financial arrangements. While running the BOP, Smith used his private media company to promote a documentary praising a consulting firm that his own agency had just handed a $180,000 contract to select new wardens.To top off the procurement circus, union officials raised alarms over a multi-million-dollar inmate tablet contract awarded to a Texas firm, warning the technology created unvetted contraband channels and severe safety hazards for line staff.

Then came the celebrity side-show that read more like a bad fever dream than federal law enforcement management. Reality television star Todd Chrisley, another felon pardoned by Trump, was granted unmonitored back-channel access to federal facilities across the Southeast. Chrisley then took to his podcast to publicly name line-level BOP employees, boasting on air that he had reported a female guard directly to Smith and demanded she be fired over a workplace grievance.

That staff, predictably, did not suffer in silence. Workers at FCI Hazelton in West Virginia described Smith’s presence as a slap in the face, while retired union leadership openly accused him of running a “revenge tour” against the guards who keep the lights on. The situation devolved so far into farce that former BOP employees set up a parody Facebook page specifically to celebrate his exit with farewell memes.

Going forward

The cling-ons and sycophants in the advocacy world claim Smith’s tenure was some great success story while his detractors call it a failed experiment that has further wrecked the agency. Time will tell if the truth lies somewhere in the middle. More Than Our Crimes members mostly report sympathy with Smith, dismissing the allegations of contractual irregularities. They believe his desire to change the system for the better was genuine. However, based on the emails I have received from inmates around the country, there were at least several facilities that became worse during his tenure and operated unchecked. 

You decide! 

Needed but Superficial: First Step Act Fix

Jack Donson on September 21, 2026

The BOP recently published a proposed new rule in the Federal Register in response to the myriad cases filed against the agency’s restrictions on applying First Step Act time credits. It addresses the practice of awarding credits only after a person arrives at their designated facility – an interpretation of the law that is more restrictive than the actual intent. For example, the agency has determined it takes an average of 66 days after sentencing before a person arrives at the designated facility; that means they never receive any of the approximately 22 FSA credit days they could get for that time

Yes, this latest proposed rule change would fix an inequity, but let’s be clear that it did not result from a shift in agency culture. Rather, it was forced by costly litigation in multiple circuits that continues today. PERA has consistently maintained that significant BOP reform could be accomplished, without new legislation, within the current policy framework if the agency would broaden its use of discretion to facilitate freedom rather than to keep people inside.  

Like compassionate release, furloughs and other such discretionary issues, internal culture continues to drive the bureau’s reputation as the “agency of no.”  Another case in point: The U.S. Sentencing Commission just released its compassionate release data for the third quarter of 2026. Incarcerated people must first seek compassionate release by applying to the Bureau of Prisons via their wardens, and the numbers show that of the applications ultimately approved by the court, only 1.5% were given the go-ahead by the BOP.

State concurrency neglected

Meanwhile, the agency is missing the mark on a larger issue related to FSA credits: how state concurrency is handled. Inmates often are moved to federal facilities to be prosecuted for federal crimes while they are still in primary state or local custody. They are returned to their local facility after sentencing, often to serve their time concurrently with their federal sentence. This overlap can last for years, yet they are unable to earn FSA credit. As I said in a published comment in the Federal Register, that needs to be fixed. Consider that the BOP has been awarding people in its prisons full credit who have not completed any programs, just because they are on a waiting list. Why shouldn’t state rehabilitation programs count? 

The BOP administration should have considered its own policy, titled the Designation of State Institution for Service of Federal Sentence (PS-5160.06), and made the necessary adjustments to the proposed rule regarding state concurrency.

What about pre-trial detention?

Another inequity the BOP should address is the practice of automatically halting credit accrual when people are sent to a local hospital for treatment, the SHU for non-disciplinary reasons, or state or local facilities for testimony and/or prosecution. There should be no penalty in these situations. 

And it would be remiss if I didn’t call on Congress to reconsider the First Step Act to correct some of its inherent injustices – like the exemption for people with a long list of “undesirable” charges referred to as “carve outs,” and not starting the clock while they are in pre-trial detention. Under previous law, the BOP could retroactively award lump sums of credit for pre-trial confinement, which can be lengthy and disproportionately impact marginalized populations.

So…yes, celebrate any needed improvement, but let’s not overstate it.

‘Bureau of Promises’ Shutters Prisons and Overhauls More Policies

Jack Donson on July 8, 2026

Just after we published our last blog post, the BOP released 23 revamped policies, dated June 22 – bringing the total of new or revised directives to nearly a hundred this year alone. In that post, we also mentioned the timing – coinciding with pending litigation by the union, which is attempting to overturn its dismissal. If the union is successful in its opposition, it will likely invoke its right to weigh in on policy changes before implementation. If so, even more chaos will ensue. (And this is at a time when the BOP also has announced plans to close 13 low- and medium-security prisons, affecting more than 500 employees!) Every action has a reaction. 

Toothless policies

Before we dive into some of the details – many of which are positive – I want to state a caution: PERA’s organizational mantra has always been that the Bureau of Prisons has good policies that can be leveraged to accomplish meaningful correctional reform. The challenge has never been the absence of policy; rather it’s management’s willingness to enforce and be held accountable for it. For instance, the policy on unit management and inmate program review that was updated in February requires the unit manager to attend team meetings. Yet from what I have heard, there has been zero enforcement. That leaves case managers handling these assessments on their own in a sort of paper exercise, instead of what should be a meaningful classification and program review, focused on rehabilitation. 

And there are many other examples. Unfortunately, I must conclude that at least some of these policy updates, press releases and facility closures are reactive management decisions aimed more at short-term public relations than improvement of long-term consequences.

The directives that were released in the most recent batch include Internal Audits, which discusses DOJ oversight; Multi-Media Communication, which replaced News Media Authorization; and the Release Preparation Program (RPP), which – a good thing – finally standardizes the curriculum (although I am not holding my breath for the promised quarterly “community resource days”). 

The two most interesting of this batch, from a case management perspective, are the new Career and Technical Education Programs directive, which replaced the Occupational Education Programs policy, and the revised Patient Care policy. I consider Patient Care one of the bureau’s most important directives, and it deserves scrutiny.

Patient Care and Medical Services

Some time ago, I began hearing that the bureau was attempting to keep as much treatment local as possible to reduce transfers to federal medical centers. That objective is reflected in the revised Medical Designations and Referral Services for Inmates policy, which states:

“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-operative appointments.” Under the previous policy, the threshold was generally five to seven days.

Last October, the BOP updated the clinical treatment guide for care levels (although it left the 2019 guide on the public website until a few months ago). And late last year, we started to hear about inmates being medically reclassified in large numbers  – reminiscent of  2018, when the BOP came under scrutiny for downgraded care levels. These two developments go together.  

As for the Patient Care policy itself, the changes appear to be a mixed bag. On paper, the policy improves continuity of care, documentation requirements, chronic disease management, telehealth utilization, and reentry planning. The policy also formally incorporates telehealth as a standard health care delivery method and reminds institutions to expedite medically appropriate reduction in sentence (RIS) and compassionate release requests for seriously ill inmates.

At the same time, however, several changes appear designed to provide greater operational flexibility so the bureau can reduce physician involvement. That raises implementation concerns because many institutions remain severely understaffed and are already struggling to provide timely health care access. For example, clinical encounter notes must now be completed by the next business day. Will that still be possible?

Another notable and concerning change is the removal of the section on the Utilization Review Committee, which was a team assembled to approve procedures based on requests from sub-specialists after consultations. It will be interesting to see where this authority will now lie. That should be spelled out. 

And then there is the removal of the requirement that a physician approve additions to chronic care clinics (a designation that requires regular, comprehensive medical evaluations). As a result, some inmates with complex cases could receive less direct physician involvement, and facilities may increasingly rely on other health care staff because of staffing shortages, rather than clinical necessity.

Historically, the bureau’s health care problems have not resulted from a lack of policy. Instead, they have stemmed from staffing shortages, transportation limitations, budget constraints and institutional backlogs – of which can cause delays in outside care. 

The underlying challenge remains the same: Meaningful reform depends not merely on updating policies, but also on ensuring that institutions have the staffing, other resources, built-in accountability, and leadership necessary to implement them effectively.

After Long Inaction, BOP Issues a Frenzy of Policies

Jack Donson on June 30, 2026

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!

BOP Explores Privatization on Multiple Fronts 

Jack Donson on June 2, 2026

The BOP appears to be betting on privatization to solve some of its money and staffing woes. It recently published RFPs looking for contractors willing to take over the prison network’s health care (including psychology services), food serviceand commissary.

This raises concerns for me, because 1) the very few companies large enough to take on the BOP often don’t have good track records (think Aramark), 2) private contractors means less accountability (think RRCs!). It’s also ironic that the BOP included in its next year’s budget proposal (see below) money for retention and recruitment bonuses to attract and keep health care personnel. What medical professional would want to join an agency that may privatize that function? 

We will be watching the progress on the RFPs carefully.

Meanwhile, we took a closer look into the BOP’s FY 2027 Performance Budget Congressional Submission. This is an annual process and this year’s request includes a narrative with an overview of the administration’s thought process on salaries and expenses, referred to as “S & E.”  Some of the inclusions are telling:

Highlights that caught my eye include an increase of $766 million for program costs, allocated to some of the more controversial and (too often) dysfunctional aspects of the BOP. These include an expansion of RRCs (halfway houses-$106 million), outsourcing of mail processing to cut down on drug introduction ($46 million); greater use of telehealth ($4 million); and the replacement of the out-of-date medical records system (BEMR-$81.7 million). The latter request doesn’t make sense considering the recent RFP to outsource medical services. 

It will be interesting to see if this administration’s stated prioritization of the First Step Act and its professed commitment to transparency are matched in how the monies are actually spent, which is often not the case. Comments from rank-and-file staff in closed BOP Facebook groups are predominately negative. The common theme is that things at ground zero are even worse than under Director Collette Peters: There is more staff augmentation (the use of all staff to cover correctional officer posts to make up for gaps), and less attention paid to management accountability than to line staff. And, of course, many staff members are still griping about being led by a former inmate (Deputy Director Joshua Smith). Remember, culture eats strategy for breakfast! With the win of the 

Meanwhile, the BOP is reportedly continuing to hemorrhage medical and psychology personnel. I zoomed with a BOP psychologist who recently resigned from a federal complex. He described pressure from the central office to misrepresent clinical treatment notes to bring them into compliance with external audits. He said the financial incentives he was offered to stay was not worth the stress. 

Here are some specific questions and thoughts that came to mind when I reviewed the BOP’s budget request:

RRC expansion

The BOP is not the only culprit in the First Step Act implementation disaster when it comes to the shortage of pre-release custody options (RRC/HC). The FSA was passed in 2018 and was not properly funded from its inception. Shame on the legislators for repeating the same mistake they made in 2007 when they passed the Second Chance Act. That law increased maximum RRC eligibility to 12 months but the BOP ran out of contract beds almost immediately.  Lessons not learned! 

Mail scanning and legal communication

Directly related to one of our other areas of focus is the $46 million allocated for offsite inmate mail-scanning and attorney-client emails.  This allocation attempts to solve the persistent flow of contraband by following in the footsteps of many states and sending all inmate mail to a for-profit company that will scan and send a digital copy of each piece of mail to inmates’ tablets – when they are eventually delivered. As Smith visits prisons, he seems to be creating an expectation that all these tablets are just sitting in a warehouse ready to be delivered as soon as tomorrow. However, I am not holding my breath; the services he is promising – email, video visits, educational content – are complex. Still, the addition of tablets that can be used for communication purposes would be a positive game changer, provided the necessary bandwidth and infrastructure are available and reliable. The BOP has fallen so behind in technology in general, compared to even some state and private systems. I hope the BOP sets strict limitations on when staff can impose use can be taken away as punishment, especially for low and moderate incident reports. 

What concerns me about the mail-scanning allocation is that these third-party services often further delay mail delivery and deprive inmates of the tactile pleasure of physical mail – while not reducing the flow of contraband. You can’t tack a letter or photo that comes in via tablet onto the wall.

As for the proposed special email channel for attorneys and their clients, the cryptic proposal for a secure online platform raises a lot of questions and concerns. We train federal defenders around the country and one of the most frequent complaints is indifference to unmonitored legal communication. While the BOP does an average job at facilitating legal calls in pre-trial detention centers, the agency’s handling of legal calls in post-conviction facilities is obstructive, inconsistent and indifferent.  While unmonitored legal email communication seems like a practical solution at first glance, the attorneys I speak with question the confidentiality, given the BOP’s lack of integrity. The agency is ignoring the increased need for post-conviction communication created by the First Step Act, such as compassionate release litigation and 2241s (given the violations in implementation of the law regarding time credits). 

Updating the agency’s electronic medical records system (BEMR) is long overdue, but will be a difficult undertaking, given the lengthy and burdensome government procurement processes. And expanding telehealth to “emergency room specialty services” is a slippery slope and a bit concerning if it prevents prisoners from getting comprehensive care available at a local hospital. 

On the Alcatraz front, we’d like to suggest that the $152 million dollars for the environmental impact study could be spent better elsewhere. Spending money to investigate using Alcatraz for a prison once again demonstrates a blind allegiance to presidential whims at the expense of common sense! 

A few weeks ago, we published an updated report card on the new BOP administration and despite the stream of press releases issued by agency heads, the system appears to be getting worse based on the complaints we receive from around the country. The rank-and-file staff are the backbone of the agency, so when you lose them, you lose the agency. Like the previous administrations, there’s been little progress in addressing incompetent management that seems to get a pass at the expense of line staff. The reality on the ground doesn’t coincide with all the polished reform rhetoric.  

BOP Administration Report Card: the Good, the Bad and the Ugly

Jack Donson on April 7, 2026

There has been a lot going on in the federal prison world as the new BOP administration attempts to address numerous organizational deficiencies that have festered for decades. In October, I offered my initial thoughts on the performance of BOP Director William Marshall (shown above) and Deputy Director Joshua Smith. But those were still early days, and it’s time for another look: 

The Good

Bold and decisive action is needed and some of the administration’s early efforts can be characterized as such. The rhetoric and optics are on point, provided Marshall and Smith consistently follow through with action. 

  1. Smith has followed through on his commitment to visit many individual prisons personally, and we’re hearing that he usually talks to inmates as well as staff members. And while “listening campaigns” are ordinarily spin cycle events with minimal results, some of the on-site visits resulted in actions taken to address issues raised by the incarcerated people he talked to. For instance, some people whose transfer requests had been denied tell us that the deputy director intervened, and the decisions were reversed. Others tell us that Smith gave them waivers that allowed them to receive FSA credits, despite their medium recidivism risk. Still others said that after Smith intervened, they received longer pre-release (halfway house) placements. 
  2. After President Trump’s allocation of $4 billion to address the massive infrastructure maintenance backlog across the system, Deputy Director Smith acted by centralizing about 2,000 facility staff members across the system under his supervision and holding an “industry day” earlier this year, which private sector experts heard from BOP employees about the agency’s most pressing needs. In addition, more inmates are being trained and certified as electricians etc., then paid at rates competitive with UNICOR jobs
  3. There also appears to be more of a focus on rehabilitation, programs and specifically the involvement of justice-involved people.  For example, Deputy Director Smith has invited two formerly incarcerated authors and self-improvement speakers to address inmates across the prison system: Michael Santos of Prison Professors and Damon West.
  4. On a related note, Smith has said that inmates across federal prison will be provided tablets that can be used for both family communication and educational programming. We are waiting to see when that happens and what is actually offered.
  5. It is also a very positive sign to see the BOP host an industry day for manufacturers of body-worn camera technologies. As the BOP reported on its website:  Participating vendors will demonstrate their solutions and discuss potential applications that support the Bureau’s goals, including improved documentation of staff actions…” And in a media interview, Marshall said, “I think [bodycams] could be absolute game changer when it comes to making sure our officers are doing the right thing.” PERA has strongly advocated for the use of bodycams for correctional officers. They are particularly needed in the more dysfunctional institutions with staff cultures that promote inhumane treatment and civil rights violations.
  6. I have long bemoaned the dozens of BOP policies that are out of date or not available on the bureau’s website at all. Finally, Director Marshall is prioritizing these core documents and has updated and issued 30 of them. the recent issuance of over 30 program statements was positive, although we haven’t yet done a deep dive into the specifics of the update. Now, the BOP must figure out a way to assure that staff follow those policies. 

The Bad

However, there are some disappointments as well. There has been little action on the “low hanging fruit” we previously wrote about, such as reducing the cultural barriers to unimpeded communication between inmates and their lawyers, systemic administrative remedy obstruction by staff, and inconsistency in lockdown and MAT practices. 

  1. If the director made legal communication a priority by issuing specific written guidance to the field, that issue could be corrected overnight.  Instead, the frequency of frustrated legal communication has increased. That is simply unacceptable …and correctable.
  2. Likewise, allowing inmates to initiate administrative remedies over the Trulincs system via an electronic cop out would go a long way to expediting the process and allowing progress to be tracked.  In addition, making remedy forms available to inmates without counselors acting as gatekeepers would alleviate the frustration of the population and foster better staff-inmate communication. 
  3. And finally, criteria are haphazard or missing altogether for full and modified facility lockdowns, as well as the implementation of MAT. For the former, a policy is needed that spells out when and how they should be implemented. And for the latter, financial constraints should not decide who receives treatment for their addiction or which treatment they receive. After practically forcing people to accept injections due to the rampant diversion of Suboxone, the agency reversed course due to the cost of the injections and switched nearly everyone to the strips. The result: Diversion is alive and well. In the summer of last year, the BOP removed from its website the clinical treatment guidelines for MAT, titled “Opioid Use Disorder: Diagnosis, Evaluation and Treatment” (dated August 2021). It only recently posted a new document, which fails to spell out guidance governing implementation within the BOP. 

The Ugly

  1. Case manager training and responsiveness is horrendous and unacceptable. It amazes me how little today’s case managers know and the indifference they display toward inmates who looking for answers. One of the most frequent complaints we hear from prisoners continues to be the lack of access to staff and the indifference they experience when they finally get to interact. For example, unit managers are not attending team meetings as required in BOP policy. As a result, unit team meetings, which are the most important element of unit management, are superficial and broken. For example, unit managers do not attend team meetings and team meetings aren’t held as intended. Instead of organizing the required meetings, staff often just slide a paper under an inmate’s cell door. This is counterproductive to rehabilitation and negatively impacts facility safety. 
  2. Likewise, both medical and mental health care are systemically inadequate, in part because staffing shortages continue. Look no further than the recent letter to the BOP from the House Committee on the Judiciary and a document obtained via a recent FOIA request (and posted on our website) documenting extensive medical and psychology staff vacancies (10 psychologists at USP Leavenworth, for example!). We recently zoomed with a former BOP psychologist who resigned earlier this year who told us the entire complex he worked at was down to four psychologists. His resignation was due to the stress associated with being unable to fulfill his clinical responsibilities, as well as pressure to falsify clinical treatment notes to maintain program review compliance. It’s easy for regional and central staff who work in the “crystal palaces,” some of whom have never worked in a prison, to apply such pressure. We also just received a report that FMC Devens has no permanent doctor on staff and is rotating in professionals from other facilities to cover their responsibilities. This may sound dramatic, but these are life-and-death issues that deserve more priority. 
  3. The administration’s response to these shortages has, in part, been a downgrading of medical and psychological care levels. Meanwhile, the 2019 clinical directive on medical and psychological care levels remained on the website until it was finally replaced with a new version in October (and not posted on the BOP’s website until March!). That is the opposite of transparency. 
  4. Like it or hate it, the termination of the BOP’s collective bargaining agreement with the employee union early in the administration has caused an internal revolt; I’m hearing terms like “quiet quitting,” and the most popular comment we hear from line staff regarding the administration is that it is a dumpster fire. Rank-and-file employees are the backbone of the agency; when you lose them, you lose the agency. 

It is still early days for this new administration, given the enormity of the problems facing the BOP.  The optics are good and some substantive action has occurred. But in the end, we will judge the administration when the repeated complaints of civil rights violations decrease significantly.   

BOP Finally Begins Updating Ancient Policies

Jack Donson on April 7, 2026

Ever since BOP Director William Marshall terminated the agency’s collective bargaining contract with the union, I’ve been waiting for a barrage of policy updates. After all, the union allegedly was one of the most significant barriers to new and updated policies. However, there was minimal movement on the issue until early March, when 10 policies dated February 26 hit the agency’s public website. Another 23 were dropped several weeks later, all dated March 19.  

Reintegration Units

Of the first 10 revised policies, there are only two of interest from a correctional programs perspective. The first is an update to PS 52801.01 Reintegration Units. Previously, there had only been an operations memorandum (which expired in 2017), not a formal policy. As one RU resident at USP Atwater told us, “The rules are now pretty much the same as how they were running it. But now it’s in black and white so they can’t just make up things as they go along. And if they don’t do something that’s in the rules, such as putting us in for transfers to medium-level facilities at 24 months, we can file and quote the program statement chapter and verse.” He added that he likes that the new program statement makes it clear that the captain and SIS officer are authorized to remove people removed from the RU if they repeatedly cause problems. “We had a guy that kept going to the SHU for having a knife but they would just let him come right back to the unit,” he wrote. “Now he’s being sent to another facility, so he won’t cause problems for the inmates here who are trying to do the right thing.”

Employee Misconduct

Another policy change that is significant, but in a potentially negative way, is PS 1210.06 Office of Internal Affairs. This one is a bit comical to read at first, since staff has always been required to report any misconduct by other staff members that they observe. Yet based on the nature of many emails sent to our organization, it does not appear most BOP staff members are adhering to the reporting rules. If they did, I’m certain augmentation would grow exponentially given the exodus of staff – both voluntarily and by termination.

What is worrisome is that a section labeled “Alternatives to Investigation” allows wardens the option to informally resolve Classification 3 allegations of staff misconduct themselves, without referring them to the OIA for investigation. [The new policy calls it a “misconduct diversion program.”] Although Class 3 allegations are considered as “ordinarily having a lesser impact on the institution,” these types of misconduct include failure to follow policy, inattention to duty and unprofessional conduct – all of which can be serious. While this change could mean that problems are resolved more quickly than under the previous policy, it also means that no public record or higher-office notice will exist for the issues reported and the employees involved may not be disciplined or learn the required lesson. 

‘Director’s Discretion’ and FSA credits

In the most recent list of updated policies, I’m disappointed in PS 5162.06 Categorization of Offenses. The revised policy updates the list of statutory offenses considered violent, based on the First Step Act. Unfortunately, it also continues to include the controversial “Director’s Discretion” exemption, which – if used – will preclude early release from prison after completion of RDAP under 18 USC 3621(e). When “director’s discretion” is applied, the BOP is allowed to deny early-release benefits for uncharged behavior associated with an individual’s conviction. For example, if a person’s pre-sentence report states that someone possessed a gun at the time of his crime, but he was not charged with gun possession and his sentence wasn’t even enhanced, he could still be denied early release after completing RDAP. 

Note that unlike the Second Chance Act, the FSA does not reference the director’s discretion authority. However, I have long been concerned that the BOP would invoke it to make it difficult for inmates with medium and high recidivism risk to receive FSA time credits. That concern led me to reach out to BOP staff; I received the disturbing email below on April 6.  Be forewarned! 

Mr. Donson: 

It is our understanding that the section regarding “Director’s Discretion” MAY affect FSA credits. Once DSCC updates the FSA-disqualifying offenses, those deemed appropriate, based on Section 4, will be ineligible for FSA. FSA eligibility based on current offense utilizes offense codes for automatic exclusion.  We will not know how this affects discretion cases until the ineligible offenses are updated. Currently, if an offense is ambiguous or does not match the exclusionary offense codes, it is sent for a second review by Legal. Our office expects this to continue, as well as to include the Director’s discretionary factors.  

 I hope I’m actually answering your question.  This is as much as we know, at this point.

Other updated policies of interest included those for Secure Mental Health Units, Suicide Prevention Program, Sexually Abuse Behavior Prevention and Intervention Program,  Life Connection and Threshold Programs, Records and Information Management Programs, Physical Capacity for Bureau Facilities and Request To Staff, Inmate.

The BOP actually has many sound policies that merely need an updated review and a public posting, for the sake of transparency. The real problem is for management to figure out a way to force staff to follow them! That can only happen with staff accountability, transparency and leadership. I’m not holding my breath.   

2025: Stability, and a Foundation for Growth

Jack Donson on January 6, 2026

“Our hopes for a more just, safe and peaceful world can only be achieved when there is universal respect for the inherent dignity and equal rights of all members of the human family.” Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka 

As we head into the new year, I want to celebrate our achievements in 2025 – none of which would have been possible with the many people who have supported us by donating, volunteering, referring others our way, etc.  

Here are a few highlights from 2025: 

We had a productive year, positively impacting myriad incarcerated people, their families and the broader justice community. We began 2025 by bringing on more consulting clinical staff, thus growing our fee-for-service revenue, and ended it with a strategic-planning retreat to help bring us to the next level for an even more productive 2026. Our strategic plan, now in development, will enable us to approach funders to demonstrate that we have a sound growth strategy to build the infrastructure needed for even greater impact. 

Throughout the year, we conducted training sessions for the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC), defender organizations and even the U.S. Probation Office in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In addition to our basic BOP-related training for attorneys, we conducted two national training sessions for the AOUSC on transgender issues and a webinar for paralegals, investigators and other court support staff. 

In the spring of 2025, we were awarded a $50,000 state grant as a co-applicant for the preliminary planning of a day treatment center in Pennsylvania. (It is a long-term goal for PERA to pilot programs like this as a prison-diversion strategy or rehabilitation option for halfway house residents.) In the summer, we participated in a New Jersey district-wide training for federal judges. We also executed a retainer agreement for the Western District of North Carolina to support its clients with declarations and general BOP-related issues. 

In the fall, we engaged with various ACLU attorneys, both on a pro bono and fee-for-service basis, to support First Step Act (FSA) litigation as well as actions supporting individuals who had been given the death penalty before former President Biden commuted their sentences. These individuals were moved to USP Terre Haute, and now President Trump is pushing to send them to the ADMAX, the only facility where true solitary confinement is enforced 24/7. 

Throughout 2025, we maintained active correspondence via the BOP email program, helping hundreds of federal prisoners navigate the system within the BOP policy framework in a professional and non-adversarial manner. We regularly engaged with BOP support coordinators and higher-level bureau officials to significantly aid individuals and families. For instance, a retired BOP chaplain reached out to us who had been inappropriately terminated as a volunteer, and we intervened to help him be reinstated after we brought the case to the attention of central office management. We also were able to help a person who had been housed in the SHU for over 14 months, resulting in his transfer to another facility’s general population.

We are continuing to grow our network and reputation and have become a go-to organization for the media, law clinics, politicians, CJA panel attorneys and numerous defender organizations. We were even invited as a stakeholder to provide input to the DOJ regarding its Access to Justice Initiative and the Federal Prison Oversight Act. The GAO also solicited our feedback on tits ongoing review of First Step Act implementation. 

One priority currently under development is a post-conviction support initiative that I hope to formalize with a law clinic and possibly another organization. Most promising is our meeting with NYU’s Jailhouse Lawyer’s Initiative (JLI) to collaborate on a pilot to provide legal support and education. We have already been able to get a few attorneys assigned to individuals who reached out to us for assistance, including an FSA case that was recently argued in the Third Circuit. Our declarations have assisted in the release of individuals with compassionate release cases, and judges have often cited our declarations in their decision-making process.

We continue to attract technical experts who want to make an impact and we now have a retired BOP medical doctor, former BOP psychologist, and a recently retired USPO sentencing guidelines expert complementing our existing staff. We continue to be fortunate to have compassionate people involved with the organization, as volunteers or at discounted rates, allowing $100 of every billable hour to be allocated to extending our services to those who would not be able to pay. We started the year struggling to make payroll but ended the year with approximately $27,000 in the account (and several billings pending receipt).   

But what really demonstrates our impact more than any meetings or dollars are the words of those we have assisted:

“We won that parole case. You are like my magic wand. I’m so grateful for your time, educating both me and that parole board member. He had never recommended anyone for parole before… but he recommended my client for parole, and Mr. _____ is coming home after 40 years.”

I know that PERA can develop into the primary federal prison stakeholder in the country and significantly impact the federal justice community. We have made steady progress, and the strategic plan and our relationship development with high-profile stakeholders will grow our organization and impact even more. The impact we could collectively have on a broader scale once we have the financial support for our business infrastructure is endless. Donate what you can now and share this email with others who care about the cause!

With gratitude!  

Jack T. Donson, Executive Director

Transparency That’s Hard to See

Jack Donson on January 1, 2026

With all the BOP press releases on and talk about transparency, there are so many ways in which the agency hasn’t stepped up to the plate. The agency continues to govern by internal memoranda and word of mouth, rather than by public policy updates. And that leads to exploitation and inconsistency across prisons – further harming the agency’s reputation. 

PERA considers transparency one of the low-hanging wins that could be easily achieved; yet to date, it appears to be getting only superficial lip service.   

Secretive changes

A recent example is the downgrading of medical care levels. That could very likely mean people with acute or chronic illness will be housed in prisons with less of an ability to care for them. Yet the directive and the new criteria used to determine medical and psychological classifications have not been communicated to the public via the agency’s website, which still contains the previous clinical treatment guide from 2019, titled “Care Level Classification for Medical and Mental Health Conditions or Disabilities.” 

Other documents that have historically been available also have been removed from the BOP website, such as the clinical guide for medication-assisted treatment of opioid abuse disorder. This removal appears to have occurred in conjunction with an abrupt shift away from the use of an injection to treat addiction to an oral medication that is much easier to divert. The reason: cost savings. 

Also notable is the removal from the website of the BOP’s national formulary, a critical document listing which medications the agency will allow medical professionals to prescribe. Historically, the document has always been posted on the BOP website so people could prepare for treatment shifts prior to incarceration. The formulary is important for prisoner advocates as well as to inmates who want to file administrative remedies.  

Recently, a team from BOP headquarters visited the Victorville complex in California and reportedly made some medium- and high-risk inmates eligible for FSA time credits. While these on-the-spot modifications have good PR value, the more systemic issue is what are the new criteria that made them possible, and why haven’t they been communicated via a public change notice to PS 5410.01 [FSA-Time Credit Procedure for Implementation of 18 USC 3632 (d)(4)] as required by the BOP policy on directives management? Internal communications are reportedly being circulated by the regional offices and rumors are running wild. This lack of transparency not only feeds rumor that raise expectations, but also is exploited by disreputable consultants that solicit business from hopeful families. 

Outdated, inaccurate public policies

Another stark example of the lack of transparency is that the core document on RRC (residential reentry centers) placement, PS 7310.04 (Community Correction Center Utilization and Transfer Procedures) has not been updated since the Second Chance Act was passed by Congress in 2007. I’ve been beating a dead horse in this specific issue for many years now to no avail. Although the BOP general counsel wrote  internal memoranda on implementation of the law, the agency never issued a change notice to update the policy. That’s simply not transparency.  

PERA has also received complaints about FCI Beaumont in Texas, which has discontinued weekend visits – a direct violation of the CFR. When we raised the issue with the BOP’s regional support coordinators, we were informed that it was only temporary due to a staffing shortage. (No notice to that effect is posted on the prison’s website.) However, we discovered that another complex – the entire Hazelton campus in West Virginia – has permanently eliminated weekend visits. 

The BOP has also removed prisoner handbooks from facility websites. Historically, handbooks were frequently outdated, but at least they were posted. Handbooks are a comprehensive guide to many facility issues that are beneficial for families and people who surrender directly to a prison. 

The underlying problem

The broader, systemic issue is regarding the agency’s inability to adhere to PS 1221.66, the Directives Management Manual, which requires it to issue change notices and operations memoranda for the changes in practice that are not in accordance with current policy. 

The new BOP administration is talking a good game, but the reality is lagging. Systemic change and a cultural shift can only come about by restoring agency credibility, and that starts with greater transparency.

Subscribe

* indicates required