Subscribe
Donate

Reset, Reform or the Same Old Song and Dance?

Jack Donson on May 22, 2025

Aside from the regular BOP chaos, including increasing lockdowns and continuing First Step Act issues, it’s been relatively quiet since William Marshall was named the new director. I truly hope he brought some of his own staff from outside the agency (he previously headed the West Virginia Department of Corrections, although he has no direct prison experience himself). Otherwise, his fate will likely be the same as the two others hired from the outside (Colette Peters, from the Oregon system, and Mark Inch, who was chosen from the military corrections and investigation branch). 

I have never seen so many vacant leadership positions at the top of the BOP (10 as of this writing) for such a long time, and my intuition is that the silence signifies that something big is about to drop. Will Marshall be up to the task? The West Virginia prison system is small (5,900 prisoners and about 3,000 employees) compared to the BOP (156,600 and 35,000), and much more geographically dispersed. And the number and degree of crises within the BOP is unprecedented. (Toto, I have a feeling we’re not in Charleston anymore!) 

Mr. Marshall recently participated in his first TV interview since his appointment, with Lara Trump, the president’s daughter-in-law, on Fox News. It was both disappointing and encouraging. On the disappointing front, he said he was “excited” to assess the president’s  proposal to reopen Alcatraz as a working prison. Yes, he is new and was talking to the president’s daughter-in-law. But he surely didn’t have to embrace a patently unrealistic proposal so enthusiastically.  Let’s hope he also raises concerns about the new Letcher prison planned for Kentucky, because the rank-and-file understand that the government does not need another unstaffed prison in the middle of nowhere.   On the encouraging front, Marshall talked about his plans to “walk the prisons” and emphasize transparency and accountability. He also said he wants to equip prisoners’ tablets so that they can be used to access educational programming during lockdowns. That would be a significant reform, but it should be paired with a reduction in lockdowns.

If the director realizes the need and is ready for decisive action, there’s plenty of low-hanging fruit that could give him instant street credibility. However, it’s unlikely it will be pointed out by the current central office administration (thus I hope he really does “walk the prisons” and talk to the rank-and-file below the wardens). Renaming what incarcerated people are called and holding listening sessions for the usual cast of nonprofits is ineffective theater. It’s time for changes to be made on the treatment/program side of the system. 

Rein in the wardens

I’d free up funds for these changes by eliminating the six regional offices and reining in the wardens. Too many wardents run their facilities like kings with little accountability, leading to arbitrary exercises of power. The BOP actually has good policies, but too many staff members simply don’t follow them. I believe that’s mostly due to poor leadership, extending to the warden level. Exacerbating the problem is the fact that the central office has failed to keep its policies current via change notices and/or issue operations memoranda. Blaming budget shortfalls, staff shortages and an incalcitrant union for the chaos within the BOP has gotten old and it’s time for action. 

Get serious about accountability

The administrative remedy process is fundamentally failing at its mission to provide incarcerated residents a fair and reliable method of seeking redress. Complaints range from being refused the necessary forms, to frivolous rejections, to failure to even respond – even after a receipt is issued with a due date. The new director could gain some instant credibility by tackling the first step of that process, an attempt at informal resolution that requires the filing of a BP-8 form. Many of the incarcerated people I correspond with tell me they sometimes must beg for the BP-9 form for days before the counselor will provide it. Then it’s rejected for timeliness, don’t reply etc. A simple solution would be to use the Trulincs email system for submitting a BP-8, similar to cop-outs. This would allow them to be tracked. Tracking and setting a time frame for informal resolutions would greatly reduce rejections due to a lack of timeliness.  

Where are the policies?

One of the most egregious examples of outdated policy is PS #7310.04, “Community Correction Center Utilization and Transfer Procedures,” which has not been updated since before the Second Chance Act was adopted by Congress in 2007. That act made significant changes to halfway house placement and it is unacceptable that such a critical policy has been ignored. At least part of the confusion and missed opportunities for early release to the community is the growing practice of “governing via internal memoranda.” It lacks transparency and does not comply with the Directives Management Manual, which lays out how policies are supposed to be developed and maintained. 

Answer the phone!

Other, more micro changes that the director could quickly implement to make a significant difference include assuring that each facility has a process that assures calls from family members and attorneys are promptly answered, protecting private legal communication, and updating facility websites to include current visiting policies (including days and hours), mail procedures, etc. PERA trains attorneys around the country and the anger at the BOP that is evident is indicative of the lack of respect many BOP staff members have for the right to protected legal communication. 

At the heart of the way federal prisons operate, including the relationship staff have with prisoners, is how units are managed – a process that has been broken for many years. The failure to engage incarcerated individuals in regular team meetings, as required by the recently updated Program Statement 5321.09, impedes rehabilitation and makes both prisons and communities less safe. Likewise, it would not be hard to assure that weekly reviews are conducted for every person in the special housing unit (SHU), to make sure no one stagnates there for months at a time “pending investigation.” 

[Note that the BOP finally restored its program statements to the public website that were removed due to altered language required by President Trump’s executive orders. However, the lack of transparency continues. Just the other day, I noticed the BOP removed most of the forms used to initiate early-release review under RDAP (Residential Drug Addiction Program). They also removed the transgender and MAT clinical guidelines even before the executive orders.]

Needed: leadership and money

Critical, but more complex issues, like inadequate health care and crumbling infrastructure, will require money and bold leadership to address — both scarce for many years. It remains to be seen whether Mr. Marshall can exercise the leadership and if Congress and the Trump administration will put money where their mouths are. (Speaking about money, Congress could start by approving funds to implement the Federal Prison Oversight Act, which would provide a significant step toward mandating greater accountability for the BOP. The law, passed last year declared that “it is the sense of Congress that the amount allocated to the Inspector General and the Ombudsman to carry out these activities should equal 0.2 percent to 0.5 percent of the annual appropriation for the BOP.” That language fell just short of mandating the funding, however.) 

PERA was established to help fill the current accountability gap. Please support us and spread the word as we grow our alliance and initiatives.      

Collective Action Works

Jack Donson on May 22, 2025

Last month, the BOP announced that it would limit to 60 days placements in residential reentry centers (RRCs, or halfway houses) earned under the Second Chance Act (SCA). The reduction to two months from a maximum of 12 was significant and would have been a disaster for many. However, after less than a week of loud outcry from every party within the federal justice community, the bureau retracted its memo. That’s a true testament to the influence we can have when we act collectively. (Now we need to do this more intentionally, and more often. There are so many issues with BOP operations that cry out for it!)

There has always been a misunderstanding of the SCA, which lacks the stronger statutory requirements for community transition found in the First Step Act (FSA). A class action suit recently filed by the ACLU focuses on the inability of the BOP to honor FSA-mandated pre-release credits due to a lack of RRC bed space. Another, related consequence of too few RRC spaces is that higher-risk people don’t get the longer stays that would be most beneficial for them. Instead, the beds are occupied by low-risk people who need RRC time the least. While most people think the solution is to send low-risk individuals to home detention, that requires money for the monitoring infrastructure. And that kind of money simply does not exist currently due to the underfunding of the law by Congress. 

Meanwhile, government resources continue to pour into an increasing reliance on private operators, and it’s not only for ICE detention centers. It is my belief that privatization is a cancer in the justice system that has metastasized into other methods of exploitation like fees to use the telephone and prison email system, charges for tablets, etc. It took decades for advocates to achieve federal regulation of phone fees, and now the industry has pivoted to exploitation via tablets.  

ICE, BOP and Private Contractors: an ‘Unholy’ Alliance

Jack Donson on March 14, 2025

It’s difficult to keep up with the chaos in the federal prison system that has ensued over the past few weeks. Among them are the welter of issues caused by the administration’s heavy-handed focus on migrants. 

A top focus of concern at the recent House Appropriations Subcommittee hearing on the BOP was the Trump administration’s decision to hold ICE detainees at five bureau facilities: FDCs Miami, Philadelphia and Atlanta, and FCIs Leavenworth and Berlin. However, that list may grow. On March 12, NBC News reported that Department of Homeland Security (DHS) immigrant detention centers are at capacity and officials are working with the Marshals Service, Department of Defense and the BOP to increase bed space.

This reminds us of when a BOP central office official circulated a memorandum directing the transfer of noncitizens to privately run facilities, just before he retired and joined the GEO Group, one of the largest prison contractors. GEO is the same company that has close ties to Attorney General Pamela Bondi, who lobbied for the company when on the team of Ballard Partners. And now, GEO was just awarded a $1 billion fixed-priced contract from ICE to adapt its immigration-processing center for adult males in Newark, NJ, so it can house “mixed populations” (thus fueling internal BOP rumors that privatization will not be limited to ICE detainees). Let’s watch to see where all those recently retired BOP executives end up… 

Referring to the BOP’s new contract with ICE, Rep. Grace Meng, the ranking Democrat on the appropriations subcommittee, remarked, “The BOP has so many problems, and this just complicates its operations even more. It also raises legal questions about housing civil detainees with criminals.” 

Deputy Director Katheen Toomey sought to alleviate such concerns, noting that ICE will pay all the costs and that immigration detainees “are put in separate housing units and don’t interact with the rest of the population at any point.” 

What makes no sense to PERA is that the BOP is already understaffed. Adding ICE units to existing facilities will stress already limited resources. What’s even more concerning is that DHS is reimbursing the BOP at a rate equivalent to the annual cost of incarceration: nearly $45,000 per person. Yet Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has reportedly offered access to 4,000 vacant prison beds for the federal government’s detention of illegal immigrants. Detainees only require short-term housing and are not offered programs, so maybe our dealmaker president should have negotiated that contract for ICE! That’s something for DOGE to look into for sure. 

FSA benefits for noncitizens

And then there are the inconsistencies in how First Step Act (FSA) time credits are applied to noncitizens. For example, consider the case of Michael Harriot v. Warden J.L. Jamison: Harriot was in the country illegally when he was given a life sentence for narcotics distribution. In 2021, a U.S. District Court (South Carolina) judge granted his request for a sentence reduction (to 360 months) under the FSA. Two years later, the BOP informed Harriot that it would apply the 365 days of credit he had earned under the FSA toward early release, resulting in a one-year advancement of his projected release date. Meanwhile, ICE lodged a detainer against Harriot, requesting that the BOP inform the DHS of his impending release at least 48 hours before. 

As a result, one month later, the BOP informed Harriot that he was no longer eligible for early release. In its ruling, the judge rejected that reasoning, saying “the BOP erred by relying solely on the contents of the detainer to deny application of Harriot’s FSA credits.” Thus, he should have been released on March 12, 2024 – well before the bureau was notified of an old Notice and Order of Expedited Removal (filed in 1997, after which Harriot illegally reentered the United States), followed by a notice of intent to reinstate the order. And unfortunately, it was on that basis that the judge refused the remainder of Harriot’s petition.

Trevor Parkes (counsel and project director for the NACDL’s First Step Act Resource Center), points out this other interesting comment from the judge: “Harriot may, therefore, have a plausible claim for money damages for false imprisonment for each day that he was imprisoned in BOP secure custody.” Such relief could be sought, he noted, by bringing a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

It has been a common practice for the BOP to award noncitizens 365 days of FSA time credits, only to abruptly rescind them shortly before an individual’s scheduled release. PERA has been tracking noncitizen issues like this for many months and has also received descriptions of people being taken to an area of the prison where ICE agents tell them to sign paperwork without representation or interpreters.  

This is an evolving concern that PERA will watch closely.

DOGE: Target the BOP, but First Talk to People Who Have Been in the Trenches

Pam Bailey and Jack Donson on March 5, 2025

Union sources tell us that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is closing two of its six regional headquarters as part of cost-cutting moves – the two offices most recently opened (Mid-Atlantic and Western). That’s a smart place to cut. But the bureau shouldn’t stop there. 

In addition to the regional offices, there are 10 divisions in its Washington, DC, headquarters – each with probably more than 100 employees. Prison staff will tell you that these administrative layers (especially at the regional level) have become bloated at the expense of correctional and other specialized personnel at individual facilities. General Mark Inch, BOP director before Colette Peters (who was also the first director hired from outside the bureau), understood this and had planned to close at least two regional offices before his abrupt resignation. Rather than closing camps, as the BOP recently announced, the DOGE team should look at the burgeoning “overhead” staff.

 The stated goal of the new Department of Government Efficiency is a “more transparent, accountable and efficient governance system.” The federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is desperately in need of that kind of focus, as evidenced by the more than two years of near-constant negative disclosures – from the “rape club” culture at one of its women’s prisons, to the suicide of supposedly heavily guarded prisoners, to the forced closure of one unit due to rampant violence.

The BOP accounts for the largest chunk of the Department of Justice budget: The bureau’s FY 2025 budget request is for nearly $9 billion, mostly for the salaries of 37,706 employees – nearly 2,000 more than it had in the mid 2000s, with roughly the same number of people in custody. Yet, at the same time, a shortage of staff is the most common justification by the BOP for almost all its ills.

The real problem is how the BOP budget is spent and where the positions are allocated. Among the best sources for exposing fraud, incompetence and inefficiency in our federal prisons are rank-and-file case managers, clinicians and other “in-the-trenches” workers who take both the security and rehabilitation missions of the prisons seriously. And, surprisingly to some, prisoners themselves often know from where the corruption stems, as well as which vital functions are actually underfunded.

Reform-minded former BOP employees have come together to form the federal Prison Education and Reform Alliance (PERA). It collaborates closely with More Than Our Crimes, a network of thousands of individuals incarcerated in the federal system, who have an untapped view on what works and what doesn’t.

The same lack of balance can be seen in executive bonuses at the bureau. An analysis obtained a few years ago by USA Today via FOIA showed that upper management at BOP were paid nearly $2 million in bonuses over a two-year period. And those excesses are continuing. FOIA documents recently shared in a private Facebook group document large bonuses for wardens who manage some of the most dysfunctional prisons in the country. 

Another area of operations ripe for DOGE analysis is employment of adults in custody (AICs). At one time, some of the more meaningful jobs that are now being performed by staff were done by incarcerated individuals, which allowed them to both develop work skills for re-entry and earn income (although wages for prisoner labor are inequitably low, given the fact that they must pay for so many essentials themselves). The transfer of additional jobs to AICs, along with fair pay, would allow more staff members to focus on program delivery (such as education) and direct correctional duties.

A similar improvement with multiple additional benefits would be to capitalize on an under-tapped element of the First Step Act (which President Trump signed into law) and expand UNICOR (the federal prison industry) to include the sale of contemporary products and services to non-federal markets. The result would be profits that could be funnelled into programs like medical care or infrastructure improvements (so many federal prisons have leaky roofs and mold infestations), while giving more prisoners an income, a productive use for their idle time, and work skills required for re-entry. DOGE could provide a real benefit by insisting that current gold standards for business be applied to prison industries as well.

The elephant in the room in DOGE’s endeavour will be medical care. This is an area in which resources should actually be added. Delays in diagnostic testing and medical treatment are among the most common civil rights abuses in federal prisons. Capacity can be cost-effectively increased if the BOP heeds the recommendations of the National Academy of Public Administration. For instance, permanent modular clinics stationed within secure facility perimeters would reduce the manpower needed to take incarcerated people out of the prison for medical care.

The message to DOGE: The BOP needs more transparency, efficiency and accountability.  Bring it on! But this task would be best served by listening to people who have lived or worked in the depths of the “swamp,” and who want to see the bureau become a better version of itself.

The ‘Trump Effect’ begins to emerge

Jack Donson on January 23, 2025

Sign up for our newsletter

The ‘Trump Effect’ begins to emerge

Before word spread of BOP Director Colette Peters’ resignation, the various Facebook groups for agency employees were abuzz with comments welcoming her departure.  In combination with some of President Trump’s first executive orders, her resignation may be telling about the direction of prison reform under the new administration.

First, consider that the acting director named to step into Peters’ shoes until a permanent replacement is chosen has a correctional services (“custody”) background, similar to former Director Michael Carvajal, who was forced out in 2022 due to rampant corruption and abuse. Interim Director William Lothrop began his BOP career in various non-professional, corrections officer positions, which are more focused on the incapacitation of incarcerated individuals at the expense of rehabilitation. And he worked his way up from those ranks as a lieutenant, captain, etc.

This choice for interim director is somewhat concerning, given the steady stream of recent disclosures of troubling behavior in the federal prison system, including rapes at FCI Dublin and physical abuse at USP Lee. An interesting subliminal message is found in Lothrop’s introductory statement on the BOP website, which returns to  the term “inmates.” Director Peters had replaced it with the term “adults in custody” (AICs). Semantics, however – while important – should take a back seat to the myriad needed reforms.

Peters’ legacy

It’s unfortunate that during her tenure, Director Peters focused more on public appearances and the image of reform than on attainable and relatively easy improvements that would have given her credibility with advocates for change, the federal justice community, and the rank and file. It’s not rocket science to operate a functioning appointment-and-telephone system for legal calls, a notification system to protect family visits from the frequent last-minute and/or lengthy visiting closures,  and stop wardens from operating carte blanche outside the scope and intent of policy, with little accountability and transparency.

Likewise, how hard is it to keep policy directives current and post updated and accurate information on facility websites? Why must AICs still complete archaic, carbon copy forms to file a complaint (which often must be submitted by hand to the very people who are the subject of the grievance), when they could be initiated electronically? These types of “low-hanging fruit” of easily correctable issues would have given her some serious street credibility. Instead, she was surrounded with an entrenched clique from yesteryears who ran the agency into the dirt.

If President Trump and his Attorney General-in-waiting Pamela Bondi want to leave a different legacy and appoint a BOP outsider (albeit someone with serious technical experience in carceral systems), they must avoid the mistakes that crippled both Director Peters and Mark Inch, the only other previous director who came from outside the agency. Directors who are not BOP insiders must be allowed to bring their top deputies with them, rather than be limited to the entrenched biases of the “old guard.”

President Trump wastes no time

As Director Peters left, Trump also announced a 90-day hiring freeze, ordering the directors of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) to develop a plan to reduce the size of the federal workforce. The only exempted positions are military personnel, and employees focused on immigration enforcement, national security or public safety. The BOP is not included in those exemptions, and the Office of Personnel Management has already instructed its management to identify employees currently on probationary status or administrative leave. Probationary employees are typically new hires brought on after extensive recruitment efforts. In addition, Lothrop has issued a memorandum prohibiting the filling of vacant positions and revoking all current offers.

This will be disastrous for the BOP. There is without a doubt many cuts that could be made within the BOP. For example, the six regional offices (each with 100 or more employees) are wasteful, as is the ill-deserved executive bonuses. And that new prison in Letcher County, Kentucky? Not needed. But what is needed in federal prisons are more correctional officers and medical/mental health treatment professionals. Shortages in those positions are causing lengthy lockdowns that prevent rehabilitative programming and unnecessary, harmful delays in medical testing and treatment.

Meanwhile, several other executive orders signed by President Trump on the first day of his second term promise to make the needed culture change within the BOP much more difficult. Several of the orders signal a return to a harsh regime that will both feed mass incarceration and condone mistreatment behind the walls and fences:

Death penalty reinstated

Trump ordered the attorney general to pursue the death penalty for “all crimes of a severity demanding its use” – specifically calling out crimes involving the murder of a law-enforcement officer and any capital crime committed by individuals who did not legally enter America. (Keep in mind that besides murder, capital crimes also include robbery and burglary!)

Reinforcing this call for the harshest of sentences is a new charging and sentencing policy issued this week by the interim attorney general. The memo effectively reverses the policy set under President Obama, which for the first time encouraged federal prosecutors to use their discretion to seek what seems proportionate and just, rather than push for the highest charges and longest sentences.

Draconian treatment condoned

One of Trump’s executive orders that didn’t get much public attention calls for the individuals whose death sentences were commuted to life without parole by President Biden to be imprisoned in “conditions consistent with the monstrosity of their crimes.” Specifically, he instructed the attorney general to “evaluate the places of imprisonment and conditions of confinement” for each of these 37 people, with the intent of assuring that they are sufficiently horrible. Sure, the order also carefully states that the actions taken should be “lawful and appropriate,” but the BOP is often given wide leeway in court. Plus, the abuses at Dublin and Lee illustrate that there are corrupt staff members who could see that order as tacit permission for abuse.  

Welcome back, profit motive

Trump rescinded Biden’s order that barred contracts between the Department of Justice and private detention centers. That should be regarded with caution, since the opportunity for corruption is rife with privately run detention centers. Consider the case in 2018, when the bureau’s assistant director for correctional programs sent a memorandum tasking prison leaders with identifying  people who could be transferred to private facilities. A few months later, he announced his retirement and began working at the GEO Group as its director of operations. The company is one of the largest contractors for privately operated prisons. And a 2015 analysis of private prison contracts found that two-thirds included requirements that governments keep the facilities filled or pay for unused, empty beds.

Withdrawal of consideration for transgender people

Trump’s executive order states that “sex” refers to an “individual’s immutable biological classification as either male or female.” The order goes on to bar the federal government from funding gender-affirming care, mandate that trans women be housed in men’s prisons, and remove protections for transgender people from the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA). Current BOP policy (in place since 2016) allows individuals who identify as the opposite sex to not only receive gender-change treatment, but also be housed in a prison that matches their chosen gender. (Despite this policy, the agency already had started to back off on the directive. Criticism had been harsh from some members of Congress, and the policy was targeted in some Trump campaign ads. Likewise, some female prisoners have charged that they were being sexually harassed by transgender individuals who had not yet completed the sex-change process.)

According to the BOP website, there are currently 1,538 transgender females in its custody and 750 transgender males. If Trump’s executive order prevails, what will happen to these individuals? A February report from the Vera Institute of Justice and Black and Pink National reported that out of nearly 300 incarcerated trans people surveyed, 31% said violence from fellow prisoners is the principal reason they feel unsafe. Likewise, more than half have reported being sexually assaulted during their current prison sentences.

This is a battle that will be fought in the courts.

Many of Trump’s executive orders are a boon for lawyers and will require all hands on deck across the BOP (and among stakeholders such as PERA) due to the potential for abuse. Stay tuned.

.

BOP reports: Read Between the Lines

Jack Donson on January 8, 2025

Being a federal prison junkie, I keep a close eye out for any new reports from the DOJ-IG, GAO or the BOP itself. And with each one, I shake my head in disappointment because too often, what the BOP, or even the DOJ, reports obscures the “reality on the ground.”  For the most part, the authors are not being intentionally misleading; instead, these instances mostly stem from a misunderstanding of what is really happening in our federal prisons.

For example, consider the DOJ’s FY ‘24 performance budget submission for the BOP to Congress. It falsely assumes that the BOP complies with its policy on the safe, secure and humane housing of AICs, which calls for no more than 50% of cells to be double-bunked in medium-security facilities and a cap of 25% in high-security penitentiaries. But the reality is that that virtually all the cells in these prisons now have two occupants. Some context: Older prisons were designed for only one resident. (Note that although the DOJ has said it believes the presence of a cellmate prevents suicides, AICs will tell you that the risk of assaults and homicides goes up.) However, at the beginning of the “tough on crime” era (specifically the abolition of parole via the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984), the BOP began to use double and triple bunks to accommodate the growing influx of prisoners. I vividly remember management repeatedly describing the excessive crowding as “temporary.” Over the years, however, a new normal was born and it is no longer questioned. A similar situation exists with staffing. The BOP intentionally limited staffing to less than 100% of requirements, due partly to warden’s incentives to keep costs down, and that lower percentage now has become the new norm, as if prisons can operate effectively with a reduced complement of staff. 

Another example is the FY 2025 performance budget submission. It states that “all sentenced adults in custody in federal correctional institutions are required to work (except for those who, for security or medical reasons, are unable to do so).  Most adults in custody are assigned to an institution job such as food service worker, orderly, painter, warehouse worker or groundskeeper.” On paper (or rather, on the computer), that is true; everyone is assigned a job. But many AICs don’t actually work, and thus they don’t receive even the paltry “maintenance pay” (and for which prisons receive funding). The idle time, like crowding, creates unsafe environments and fails to equip incarcerated individuals with reentry skills. In addition, the lack of income that can be used for commissary purchases leads many AICs to hustle for money in other, more destructive ways, such as gambling, drug smuggling and the operation of illicit stores within units. 

And then there are the descriptions of services, in that same report, that are more aspirational than fact. A good example is the agency’s claim to offer a comprehensive reentry-preparation program, including “classes in resume writing, job seeking and job retention skills.  It also includes presentations by officials from community-based organizations that help with employment and training opportunities after release from prison.” However, if you talk to incarcerated individuals themselves, you’ll often hear that only a couple of classes are offered, the programming is superficial or antiquated, or the services can’t be accessed due to long waiting lists. The DOJ has publicly and repeatedly identified deficiencies in reentry programming since the 1990s, which should give us pause about whether calling for more department oversight is an effective call to action. 

It’s worth noting that in the same 2025 performance submission, the DOJ said, “Incentives have been expanded under the First Step Act, and when adults in custody complete a recommended EBRR program in an identified need area, they may earn additional phone minutes, a monetary incentive award, incentive event, transfer nearer to home, preferred housing or additional visitation.” Yet it is unclear which of these incentives, if any, have been implemented. Just this month, the BOP announced that phone minutes for AICs are now capped at 300 – well under the 810 promised to eligible individuals in the FSA.

This is, in part, why PERA was established: to help stakeholders discern the myths from the realities of what is happening in our federal prisons – thus informing legislation, regulations and advocacy to achieve better outcomes for AICs. 

Collective Punishment on Steroids

Jack Donson and Pam Bailey on October 24, 2024

Recently, it has become clear that sanctions normally designed to penalize the negative behavior of an individual are being imposed on an entire unit, or even facility. For example, an individual assaults an officer, or a fight breaks out between a couple of AICs, and the entire unit of 120 men is locked down for weeks. Or contraband comes in through the mail and the entire prison is shut down. A few cases in point:

  • On Aug. 9, the mailroom supervisor at USP Atwater (CA), died after opening a letter containing pages that appeared to be “soaked” with a substance. Although one individual inside and two in the community were pretty quickly indicted in connection with the alleged drug smuggling, the entire prison of 1,078 men were immediately locked down 24/7 until they began being gradually let out on Sept. 30. 
  • On Aug. 14, FCI McKean (PA) reported contraband coming in through the mail and locked down all 930 AICs. Around Aug. 20, an AIC-on-staff assault occurred, and the lockdown was extended. In a memo sent outside by an AIC on Sept. 19, the warden said, “…the timeline for transition back to normal operations will be dictated by inmate behavior.” It was not until Oct. 7 that the lockdown was gradually lifted.
  • Since Atwater, concerns about drugs coming in via AIC smuggling have spiked, along with seemingly kneejerk reactions. At FCI Thomson (a low-security institution!), a memo was issued saying, “…possession and/or distribution of hard contraband will not be tolerated and (AICs) will be held responsible. Due to recent events, the following restrictions will be in place effective Tuesday September 17, until further notice: 
    • Monthly commissary spending limits reduced to $50 (from $350).
    • Inmate telephone privileges reduced to two 5-minute calls per day (from 15 minutes, unlimited).
    • Inmate emails reduced to five per day.
    • Outside recreation yard is closed.
  • And then this week, we received this report from FCI Sheridan (OR): “Everyone in our unit lost our commissary privileges because we didn’t score high enough in the sanitation inspection. No, it was not because our unit was dirty. They scored us low because some people had gotten a second mattress somehow to make their beds more comfortable. Why penalize us all? And why this way? This is the only place I have been in where they do not want us to spend money in the commissary.”

The BOP has always used collective punishment as a tool, albeit on a limited, tempered scale. For instance, a messy TV room in a particular unit might be closed for a few days to send a message that good sanitation is important. The belief is that peer pressure just might solve the problem. And when a larger-scale fight or other disturbance occurs, it is often practical to lock down the facility for mass interviews and cell checks for weapons. But that process typically only requires a few days (although there are rare exceptions, like when one gang targets another, even causing threats at other facilities). And in the case of the death at Atwater, closing down the prison for maybe a week or two allowed the staff to work through their grief and anger without allowing an opportunity for those emotions to spill over into altercations with AICs. 

However, mass lockdowns should be used sparingly and lifted as soon as possible – with special attention paid to impact on family visits. The negative impact of lockdowns should be considered along with any immediate benefit. These adverse ripple effects were documented in this analysis of a suicide that occurred this summer at USP Victorville (CA). 

And some of these actions, such as revocation of commissary privileges, are supposed to be sanctions imposed on individuals by a disciplinary hearing officer (DHO) – not as a generic action imposed on a collective basis. 

And when it comes to contraband, it also seems that the fact that contraband is also introduced into a facility by staff members who repeatedly circumvent the metal detectors. Yet no actions appear to have been taken to control this elephant in the room.

These are dangerous management practices that can themselves trigger assaults, which jeopardize the safety of both staff members and AICs – especially in higher-security facilities. Regional directors seem to have little accountability for their wardens’ decisions, and it does not appear that the central office is providing the necessary guidance for fairness and consistency. A centralized policy governing what types of collective punishment is acceptable and when, with a specific focus on lockdowns, is needed. Some facilities appear to be trying to avoid acknowledging their increased use of lockdowns by resorting to “modified” schedules, in which AICs are let out for small portions of the day, then sent back into their cells. This used to be a way to ease off of lockdowns and transition back to normal practice. But now such lockdowns have become an independent practice of their own. What is lacking is specific, nationwide standard procedures, and data that allows transparency and accountability. While there are individual, institutional contingency plans that include lockdowns for emergencies, they are not policy documents in the public domain. 

When drafting the necessary policies, the BOP would benefit from following the example of the Environmental Protection Agency, conducting an impact assessments that look at both benefits and risks of its proposed actions.

Lockdowns, cancellation of visiting, limiting contact with loved ones through phone and email, and mass commissary restrictions are not reform-minded practices with rehabilitation as a mission equal to security. 

BOP FSA Missteps Continue

Jack Donson on October 22, 2024

In early September, the BOP’s FSA time-credit assessment tool was updated to incorporate future pre-release credits. However, a few days later, BOP case managers were told by the central office to stop sharing the assessments, amid rumors of a “glitch.” I did some calculations using a couple of the new assessments and they were all off substantially. One assessment produced an “FSA conditional placement date” that was two years earlier than the person’s actual eligibility. It’s disturbing that the FSA was passed in 2018, the time-credit application went live in 2022, and yet the government still can’t get it right. Earlier this month, the application was reportedly corrected once again but we are getting reports of case managers refusing to provide copies.  

A few things to keep in mind regarding the BOP’s calculation of FSA time credits: An average of 27 months is required for AICs to earn the maximum 365 days of time credits. This advances the projected release date from GCT REL (good conduct time, or 15%) to FSA REL. Be aware that a person’s release date on the BOP website updates monthly but stops when the maximum 365 days of credits are earned.  At that point, pre-release credits can be calculated by adding the monthly awards going forward while subtracting the same amount of days from the FSA release date at the back end. The point at which they meet is the FSA conditional placement date (CPD). The CPD is the date when a person can be transferred to an RRC (halfway house) or home detention. 

It is very important that pre-release credits are calculated and applied! PERA is supporting the New York ACLU, which is collecting information on cases in which AICs are past their CPD but remain in prison. This issue is not going away. 

Meanwhile, on Oct. 4, the BOP published this statement:

The BOP is updating its FSA time credit system to better support AICs as they engage in pre-release planning. Under the FSA, AICs earn time credits for completing approved programs while in custody, which can reduce the time before they are placed in community settings such as Residential Reentry Centers (RRCs) or home confinement.

AICs will now see three key dates in their records to help them plan their release:

  • FTC conditional placement date: The date when an AIC may be eligible for pre-release placement based on earned FSA time credits.
  • Second Chance Act (SCA) conditional placement date: The date when an AIC may be eligible for release under the SCA. SCA eligibility requires an individualized assessment and is not guaranteed.
  • Conditional transition to community date: The earliest possible release date, based on a combination of FTCs and SCA eligibility.

FBOP employees will use these dates to make release decisions, beginning the process 17-19 months before the date for conditional transition to community. For eligible individuals, this could include recommendations for direct home confinement, bypassing RRC placement when appropriate.

It is essential for AICs to continue participating in FTC-earning programs, as any suspension in their participation due to misconduct could delay their release. The FSA conditional release date is a projected date based on various factors, including continued eligibility for FTCs, participation in programs, and eligibility and appropriateness under SCA.

The BOP will prioritize processing referrals based on placement dates, with unit teams initiating referral packets for pre-release placement at least 12 months, but no later than 60 days, prior to the conditional transition to community date. The Residential Reentry Management Office will work to ensure that AICs are placed in the community according to these recommendations, provided there are adequate resources in the community.

—

We’ll be monitoring implementation. Stay tuned.

Confusion over FSA Implementation Continues to Reign Within BOP

Jack Donson on August 27, 2024

BOP Director Colette Peters testified to the House Judiciary Committee in July that the tool developed by the agency to calculate release dates under the First Step Act has been updated to incorporate credits expected to be earned in the future toward transition into a halfway house (residential reentry management centers, or RRCs) or home confinement. However, we’ve checked with a few people inside the federal system and no one we spoke to said that that has happened. Rather, Director Peters likely was referring to the initial 365 days of early release credits available to eligible FSA recipients, over and above the 15% good-conduct credits federal prisoners already receive. What is still missing from the agency’s calculator is the accumulation of future pre-release credits for home confinement or RRCs.  

BOP policy is clear that case managers should calculate future FSA credits when they process halfway house referrals. It is not rocket science to add 10 or 15 days for each month until release. Yet the director’s testimony seems to communicate that the BOP views the initial 365-day advancement as a mandate, and release to community detention as discretionary. That thinking has led to the current shortage of RRC beds and a dearth of home detention placement. Don’t forget: FSA pre-release credits are in addition to halfway house placement days awarded according to the five factors outlined in the earlier Second Chance Act. The number of 2241 habeus corpus petitions filed on this issue are at a fever pitch right now as a result, and the ACLU is considering legal action on behalf of people in federal custody. 

In the BOP’s defense, Congress did not properly fund the augmentation of RRC/home detention infrastructure needed to fulfill FSA requirements. This is indicative of legislators not grasping the unintended consequences of the back-end provisions of the laws they pass. One of our next blog posts will focus on the lack of funding for the ombudsman function in the Federal Prison Oversight Act.

Subscribe

* indicates required