Jack Donson, Author at PERA

Carve-outs Create a Class of ‘Unlucky Ones’ in the BOP

Jack Donson on December 8, 2025

In the midst of the laser focus on the First Step Act by the new Bureau of Prisons administration, I feel compelled to shine a light on the people left behind by that law, but who are no less worthy of redemption and no less able to be rehabilitated. I am speaking about the “carve-outs.”

Why we got to where we are today must be understood in the context of the tough-on-crime era that originated in the 70s but gained momentum during the crack epidemic of the 80s and 90s. Prior to this period, prison systems typically adhered to the traditional parole model, in which people were sentenced, then – after a specified period of time – were assessed for early release by an independent parole board based on their conduct and rehabilitation.

But, as states began to pass “truth in sentencing” laws (fueled by public officials and others who wanted people who commit crimes to serve their full time), parole was slowly abolished. The federal government followed suit with the 1987 Sentencing Reform Act (SRA), requiring prisoners to serve 85% of the full term imposed by the court. The SRA, often referred to as the “new law,” limited judges’ discretion and created controversial sentencing guidelines (including mandatory minimums). Offenders were sentenced based on factors such as the severity of the act and their criminal history. The length of the prison term was considered the punishment and people were treated equally once imprisoned (at least from a sentencing-structure perspective).

And then came carve-outs. In legislation, a carve-out is a provision that excludes a specific group of people from its benefits or other provisions. In criminal justice at the federal level, they first surfaced with the Residential Drug Abuse Treatment (RDAP) and Intensive Confinement Center Programs in the 1990s. Participants who successfully completed the programs were eligible for early release – except those who had committed violent crimes. Advocates who pushed for the bill accepted a compromise that set a bad precedent from which we’ve never recovered. When the First Step Act (FSA) was passed in 2018, similar carve-outs were included. That means an estimated half of federal prisoners are ineligible for the early-release benefits, watching their peers leave while even the few crumbs of incentives they qualify for (like near-release transfers) are often unobtainable.

What justifies labeling people as “violent” for the rest of their lives, often for one act often committed decades ago? Who decided that white collar offenses are less damaging to society as a whole? To me, it is at least as traumatic, and with arguably greater lifelong consequences, to lose your life savings by fraud than to be robbed at gun point. I’ve interacted with so-called “violent” people in the prison environment for decades and they are no different from the people I oversaw at a federal prison camp. Having read hundreds of pre-sentence reports, which often revealed patterns of childhood poverty, physical abuse, absent fathers and a childhood in crime-ridden neighborhoods, I actually found myself respecting many who had committed violent acts even more than those who faced less adversity. It’s hard to accept that a sociopathic fraudster who grew up in a life of privilege and may steal the last penny from an elderly widow the minute they are released can get the early-release benefit, while an older adult from the “hood” is labeled and excluded based on his worst act. We truly have created an us vs. them justice culture that politicians capitalize on in legislation.

The research backs me up. For example, the results of a 2023 meta-analysis found that the odds of violent recidivism are 24% lower for individuals who participate in interventions – thus meriting incentives for completion of such programs.

The FSA has become a huge distraction for the BOP as its new administration scrambles to fix the unmitigated disaster it has become even for the individuals who qualify. As I’ve addressed in other blog posts, the BOP is now issuing conditional release dates to remedy issues that could have been addressed under its discretion many years ago. We are nearly seven years into implementation of the FSA and lawyers continue to be forced to bring suits to assure that prisoners get the time credits they deserve. The resulting frequent adjustment to BOP procedures is leaving case managers the scapegoats for administrative mismanagement.

However, the bigger picture that is not getting any attention is the fact that the agency is hyper focusing on the population who often needs the least support while the prisoners with the most rehabilitation needs are left behind in violent carceral settings that are void of meaningful programs and are characterized by continuous lockdowns and inhumane treatment.

While the chosen few reap the spoils of early release, it’s time for the advocacy world to rise up and demand legislative fixes such as a “second step” law that does not discriminate based on the nature of the crime. The term “violent” as a descriptor for people should be removed from the advocacy lexicon and carve-outs must end!

From Mail to Legal Calls, BOP Bends Rules to Block Prisoner Communication

Jack Donson on December 5, 2025

The BOP is increasingly deviating from policy, the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and even its own past practices in its obstruction of inmate communication, even with their lawyers.

These growing restrictions have been subtle and incremental, but systemic. The significant delays in mail delivery were initially attributed to the introduction of contraband, such as suboxone and K-2. One such incident occurred in August 2024, when a mailroom officer at USP Atwater died after reportedly being exposed to a toxic substance on a letter. That death triggered further restrictions on mail processing at federal prisons across the country.

Although the BOP conducted an official pilot program in which incoming mail is copied, then distributed, it wasn’t institutionalized via law or policy change notices. This lack of clear, written guidelines has resulted in a lack of transparency and inconsistent practices among facilities, usually at a warden’s whim.

And these issues do not just interfere with the mail. Policy and practice deviations impact communication via telephone and email as well. PERA staff members regularly correspond with hundreds of incarcerated people and their family members, as well as attorneys. The frequency of these complaints has noticeably ramped up. What we are hearing:

Delayed and missing postal mail

Postal-service mail (both personal and legal) is delayed weeks or months, and sometimes totally disappears. Mail theft and/or destruction is a crime. When we receive repeated reports about one prison, it is simply too coincidental to think that post offices are losing it. (In the case of our collaborator at More Than Our Crimes, Pam Bailey, none of her letters to her network members at FCI Florence were received!)

When letters are rejected, the CFR requires that both the sender and the recipient be notified (and the correspondence returned). The CFR included in the BOP policy statement titled Correspondence states:

“§540.13 Notification of rejections. When correspondence is rejected, the Warden shall notify the sender in writing of the rejection and the reasons for the rejection. The Warden shall also give notice that the sender may appeal the rejection. The Warden shall also notify an inmate of the rejection of any letter addressed to that inmate, along with the reasons for the rejection and shall notify the inmate of the right to appeal the rejection. The Warden shall return rejected correspondence to the sender unless the correspondence includes plans for or discussion of commission of a crime or evidence of a crime, in which case there is no need to return the correspondence or give notice of the rejection, and the correspondence should be referred to appropriate law enforcement authorities.”

Limits on books

Hard cover books are routinely rejected by most federal prisons, despite being allowed in BOP policy and CFR:

“540.71 Procedures. (a)(1) At all Bureau institutions, an inmate may receive hardcover publications and newspapers only from the publisher, from a book club, or from a bookstore. The sender’s address must be clearly identified on the outside of the package. (2) At medium security, high security, and administrative institutions, an inmate may receive softcover publications (for example, paperback books, newspaper clippings, magazines, and other similar items) only from the publisher, from a book club, or from a bookstore. (3) At minimum security and low security institutions, an inmate may receive softcover publications (other than newspapers) from any source.”

Granted, this policy has not been updated since 2011 (almost all BOP program statements have not been revised in a decade or more), but it is still on the books. And while prisoners tell us staff cite difficulty in checking hardcover books for contraband, there is no logical reason why a few federal prisons can safely receive hardback books while others cannot.

And then there are three prisons (that we know of) that are essentially banning the receipt of books altogether: USP Lee, USP McCreary and FCI Allenwood Medium. From what we hear, inmates can only order books themselves, directly from publishers. It’s a process so unwieldy that the effect is to limit inmates to the books in the prison library.

Obstructed legal communication

Equally concerning is the limitation of legal communication for people involved in post-conviction litigation. A lot of post-conviction litigation has been filed since Covid and over First Step Act violations, and the need for legal communication has drastically increased. Yet inmates and attorneys asking for legal calls are being outright denied and/or asked to prove an imminent court deadline (although that is not required). BOP policy only calls for this limitation when lawyers or their clients make repeated requests in a short period of time:

“The inmate is afforded the opportunity to place an occasional unmonitored call to his or her attorney. Based on these provisions, frequent confidential inmate attorney calls should be allowed only when an inmate demonstrates that communication with his or her attorney by other means is not adequate. For example, when the inmate or the inmate’s attorney can demonstrate an imminent court deadline.”

Note the word “frequent.” However, we’ve heard from people making first requests for a legal call being asked to provide documentation of an imminent deadline! Dig a little deeper, and you’ll see that the CFR within this policy states: “The warden may not apply frequency limitations on inmate telephone calls to attorneys when the inmate demonstrates that communication with attorneys by correspondence, visiting, or normal telephone use is not adequate.” The CFR is a bit archaic, considering its reference to postal-service mail (which is often slow and delayed) and the inference that communication can be accomplished via a personal visit (which assumes the client is in a local facility, instead of 500 or more miles away). Lastly, suggesting “normal” telephone use implies it is appropriate to conduct protected legal communication on a monitored line. That is unacceptable.

Email blocks

There is also an increasing practice of restricting email communication via Corrlinks, with advocacy organizations among the targets. We have received many credible reports of staff intimidating and even retaliating against people who correspond with advocates when they identify/expose staff misconduct, etc. Pam Bailey, our More Than Our Crimes collaborator, filed a lawsuit against the BOP to stop it from blocking such communications and the judge has declined the agency’s effort to have it dismissed. And yet the harassment continues. Recently, three individuals got word to her that they were blocked from adding her to their contact lists, then thrown into the SHU for “investigation.”

All of this is in addition the recent BOP ban on group emails, which effectively puts a stop to newsletters from advocacy and legal-update newsletters.

Just what is the BOP so afraid of?

The New BOP Administration Assessed: So Far, So Good

Jack Donson on October 8, 2025

I have been critical of BOP operations based on what I see at the ground level, especially over the past few years. But while I am skeptical of some of their press releases, photo ops and listening tours, the new administration has been responsive to the issues we have brought to its attention. It’s the first administration that hasn’t ghosted us and has acted on issues we bring to their attention. We are encouraged that some of their early emphasis is on issues we focus on and write about – mainly leadership!

For example, one of my criticisms has been how wardens are chosen on their ability to follow rather than lead and have far too much power. When the agency was progressive, the leadership consisted mostly of college-educated professionals with a correctional programs background and orientation. However, during the tough-on-crime era and build-out of the federal prison infrastructure, the emphasis became incapacitation rather than treatment. This, in combination of the difficulty to filling positions, lowered the bar for candidates and created conditions that were ripe for abuse.

That’s why I was encouraged to see Director Marshall make warden selection and training a priority, acknowledging that promotions based on a resume and “who you know” are a disservice to everyone.

I am personally aware of people who could barely put two sentences together having their subordinates write their applications for leadership positions. It’s toxic when combined with the “daddy” system – in which yes men and women follow their sponsors around the system, then into the private sector of the prison-industrial complex. Wardens should not be given carte blanch authority like an unchecked king.

I was also heartened by Deputy Director Smith’s video about increasing the monthly telephone minutes available to prisoners from 300 to 510. To be honest, that should have been the case for a while now, since it was called for by the First Step Act. And while he’s at it, I would like to see more telephones and computers installed in the prisons, due to the increased demand generated by this change. This is especially true in the high-security facilities, where they are locked down so frequently and the telephones are controlled by certain cars.

I’d also like to note that a blog post published on the BOP website indicated the Director Marshal and Deputy Director Smith recently visited the Colorado Supermax (ADX) prison. Unlike the releases issued for previous visits, this announcement didn’t reference any interaction with the inmate population. We hope they did meet with a few of them or at least reviewed the status of the people held there. There have been many individual in the ADX for long periods who policy dictates should have been stepped down to alternate housing. The façade of inmate program reviews at the ADX should be looked at by the administration, just as it should examine the practice in mainstream prisons, where a paper is slid under a cell door to suffice as a program review.

Missing from the BOP press releases is any talk of the Federal Prison Oversight Act and the independent ombudsman that is so needed as a check on internal abuses. PERA stands ready to offer support of and feedback on such an ombudsman once it’s created.

Bottom line: The new administration is saddled with the remnants of the dysfunctional management dumpster fire that took hold over the past few decades. And I remain skeptical of the reform efforts until I start seeing more proof on the ground, but so far so good.

Open Houses and Mainline: When Communication Between Staff and Prisoners Breaks Down

Jack Donson on October 7, 2025

PERA prides itself on our ability to informally resolve issues between inmates and staff in a non-adversarial manner via our deep familiarity with both prison policy and culture. The first and most important principle we adhere to is respect for the official process. That starts with the unit team in what is referred to as “open house” – set times when key personnel are supposed to be available to inmates and their issues. Unfortunately, however, we too often hear complaints like this one from FCI Waseca (Minnesota).

“Our case manager doesn’t like to see us, even when she has open house. She has her open house from 8:30 to 9:30 a.m. during census, when some people can’t leave work. She even makes personal calls during her open house. [But] she won’t see us at any other time. When she is not having open house, which is a lot, she’s hanging out with the other staff just talking, taking almost 2 hours to eat lunch. She does the bare minimum.”

The problem with open house

It’s important to understand two points about the open house and communication with prisoners in general: Prisons built before the 1990s were designed to include staff offices on the ranges, within sight and easy reach of the inmate population. Yes, open houses were held then too, but most case managers were more accessible throughout their shifts to deal with issues – frequently “walking and talking “with the population. This created a positive treatment relationship and safer environments because it was also a way to gather intelligence.

In contrast, facilities built in the 1990s and on located staff offices between the units, behind steal doors, with limited access to the population. (The exceptions are therapeutic program units like Challenge, RDAP and BRAVE. where clinical coordinators have offices in the same space.) That means the open house is it.

Too often, open house consists of opening of doors for exactly one hour, inmates line up, and staff hurry them in and out if they even show up. It is a less-than-ideal way to communicate, especially on sensitive issues. One of the complaints we often receive is that when the hour is up, the door closes regardless of who is still waiting to be seen. That demonstrates indifference, especially since many unit team program reviews are simply a case manager sliding a report under a locked door for an inmate’s signature.

What’s missing in this picture is the lack of unit management oversight. Word about staff who are indifferent and lazy gets back to management. Staff members know who the slackers and doers are. It boils to down to a management supervision issue. However, working against that is the fact that unit managers’ caseloads are so large it provides an excuse not to be present at team meetings and/or to be unable to hold their staff members accountable. For anyone who noticed, when the BOP released its new unit management manual earlier in the year, it was combined with the inmate program review directive. And one of the changes requires the unit manager to be present at unit team meeting. I’d be curious to know how many unit managers are present when the case manager slides the paper under the cell door?

Try ‘mainline’

When the unit team is not responsive or available, “Mainline” is the alternative. This is when department heads and executive staff stand in the dining hall during lunch time. It is designed to offer inmates access to the executive staff to ask questions and/or raise issues after they have exhausted the chain of command within the unit team. To take full advantage of mainline, it is important to know which associate warden is over which departments, as well as who the department heads that supervise specific programs. For instance, email and commissary are under the trust fund supervisor, who ordinarily reports to the associate warden of operations (the AWO).

Too often, when I tell incarcerated people to go to mainline, I am dismissed as if it is always ineffective. However, many things can be accomplished via mainline if a person approaches the participants in a professional and non-adversarial way. It is critical to not allow frustration to come across as combative, to avoid citing policy too quickly or referring to unit staff in a less- than-flattering way. I advise people not to get down to the level of staff members if they are unprofessional and just move on to the next person in the chain. Communication style can either get goals accomplished or cause a deeper divide.

The Consequences of Too Much Self-Improvement

Jack Donson on October 6, 2025

In the never-ending saga of the BOP’s First Step Act implementation, it is difficult to keep up with the myriad issues being reported from around the prison system. This blog post focuses on non-time credit incentives – specifically, free phone minutes in return for completing eligible programming. We are now receiving reports from people who have programmed like rock stars, and thus no longer have a documented need for such self-improvement. Consider this email received by our partner organization, More Than Our Crimes:

Come December 13, I will have been incarcerated 18 years. On January 3, the BOP began offering 300 phone minutes a month in return for programming based on the needs identified by your unit team. I am not receiving them because I no longer have needs!

I have programmed constantly throughout my time in prison. To date, I have completed over 3,000 hours of educational and psychological programming. I even requested a transfer to a Virginia institution, on the other side of the country from my home, so I could participate in a residential program unit solely focused on lowering recidivism. I am prioritizing my own rehabilitation.

Yet I have been told by staff that because I have met all my “needs”, I am not eligible for the incentive/free phone minutes. A staff member informed me that because of the way the system is set up, I would literally have to do something to get myself sent to the hole (SHU) — like punching someone in the face and thus needing anger management classes – to qualify for the incentive. What sense does this make?

I have a life sentence (which I am working on changing), but I continue to program and follow the rules. I am a mentor and role model for others. It’s frustrating that the BOP is discouraging my good behavior, while limiting my ability to stay in contact with my family.

To fully explain this situation, I need to get a bit technical. When a person arrives at a designated federal prison facility, they meet with their unit staff within the first four weeks. At that meeting, staff identify evidenced-based recidivism-reduction (EBRR) programs and productive activities (PAs) the individual would benefit from. Their recommendation is based on assessments from various departments of 13 risk/need areas* related to reducing their criminality profile (a tool called the SPARC-13). For each inmate, a “Y” (yes) or “N” (no) is keyed into the computer for each of the 13 factors. For instance, drug treatment would be recommended for the “substance abuse” need if the inmate has a history or active practice of misuse. (Note that the data for much of this assessment comes from the individual’s pre-sentence report.)

What has long been our concern is that the BOP has the discretion to only award incentives for inmates with at least one “Y” from the unit team. So, as inmates complete programming, staff have the discretion to change the “Ys” to “Ns”.

While it sounds counter-intuitive to penalize people who address their risk/need areas, the rule was probably intended to reduce program waiting lists. Anyone who remembers the implementation of early-release incentives for the Intensive Confinement (ICP) and Residential Drug Abuse Treatment (RDAP) programs understands the disastrous consequences of extensive waiting lists, including reduced early-release benefits (because of not getting into the program soon enough) as well as the manipulation of the queue by the chosen few.

Academics, politicians and beltway organizations who are disassociated from the reality of prison sub-culture probably don’t understand that people without means will indeed commit infractions, if necessary, to create a new need and allow greater family communication. If they can’t get the free phone minutes, they may also turn to illegal cell phones. While we haven’t yet received complaints about the inability to earn FSA time credits for the same reason, I expect we will.

Meanwhile, a problem that gets lost in all of this is the BOP’s misrepresentation that people with the greatest risk of recidivism (those in high- and medium-security prisons) are prioritized for program placement. I continue to see individuals in high-risk penitentiaries sit on waiting lists for years. Likewise, people who are ineligible for early release spend nearly 85% of their time in violent environments (USPs) with minimal access to programming due to the frequent lockdowns. How does that make correctional sense?

It was during the failed “tough on crime” era that the government created carveouts that differentiated by charge and imposed sentence that created the impression that they were “taking action.” The length of the sentence itself is the punishment and is based on the totality of the criminogenic circumstances. Once incarcerated, people should be treated equally from a sentence-structure perspective.

PERA’s position: Once entering the carceral system, everyone should be treated equally — including the eligibility to earn early-release benefits.

* The 13 areas include: • anger/hostility • antisocial peers • cognitions • dyslexia • education • family/parenting • finance/poverty • medical • mental health • recreation/leisure/fitness • substance use • trauma • work. Both EBRR programs and productive activities that correspond with the specific risk/needs can be found on pages seven through 10 in the approved programs directory.

The unit team is required to recommend programs and productive activities that match these areas of risk/need. However, the team also can changed needs to no needs.

Two Case Studies: the Volunteer, the Wife and How PERA Helped

Jack Donson on October 3, 2025

One of PERA’s unique benefits in the criminal justice space is our deep familiarity with BOP policy, how the agency works and our ability to use that knowledge to resolve conflicts for family members, incarcerated people and others. It is our team of advocacy-minded BOP experts from multiple disciplines who allow us to provide guidance, reach out to the right contacts and obtain positive outcomes. Two recent victories, which may seem small to some but were significant to those involved, demonstrate how we can work with the BOP in a positive and professional manner.

Visitation denied

The first case involved an older inmate who reached out to More Than Our Crimes, which referred him to us. His wife and codefendant had been denied visiting privileges, even though she had been out of prison for several years, compliant with the conditions set and was now off paper. After reviewing their specific circumstances, we reached out to an official in the BOP central office.

Within a few days, his wife was added to his visiting list. He messaged

“Hello Jack, this is a great morning for me! Because yesterday I was getting ready to mail my BP-11 [grievance form] into the central office when my new case manager came up to me and told me that my wife was put on my visitation list. Whatever you did worked. I appreciate you and Pam Bailey [More Than Our Crimes] more than you will ever know.”

The BOP has a lot of discretion when it comes to visiting privileges; it can deny individuals, but it also can approve them. The primary considerations are institutional security and the nature of the relationship. In this case, the wife had paid her dues, and the husband had maintained a good record. Given his age and release date, it was possible the couple would never see each other again if she could not visit. If he had filed a grievance, it would have cemented an adversarial relationship. And on the prison’s part, the culture too often instills staff indifference toward the needs of their incarcerated charges. We are encouraged that the new BOP administration is listening, then acting with sound correctional judgement when contacted.

Unfair dismissal of a volunteer

The second case involved a retired BOP employee with an exemplary track record, who then volunteered in one of the prisons. However, he was later abruptly dismissed when he questioned the warden’s decision to strip search and demean inmates without justification, just to send a message. Again, we contacted the central office, and the volunteer was reinstated:

“I thank you from the bottom of my heart, If it wasn’t for you taking the time to connect the BOP with this situation, I would be forever barred from volunteering and offering training in any BOP facility.”

I believe Director William Marshal and Deputy Joshua Smith recognize that wardens are often the source of dysfunctional institutional culture. In fact, on Aug. 25, the director announced on the agency’s website that he is overhauling how wardens are selected: “Warden selections are among the most important decisions we make, and it’s time we raise the standard… Our selections will be guided by objective evaluations, not just resumes or based on a system of ‘it’s who you know.’ Applicants will be interviewed and tested on their ability to lead through crisis, inspire their teams, and drive the kind of cultural change we need across the bureau.”

The BOP used to be progressive, with the leadership consisting mostly of college-educated professionals with a correctional programs background and a treatment orientation. But during the tough-on-crime era, when the federal prison infrastructure boomed, the emphasis shifted to incapacitation and punishment, with far less accountability. This, in combination with an inability to fill leadership positions, lowered the bar for candidates and created conditions ripe for abuse. One result was a “daddy” system in which ”yes people” follow their bosses throughout the BOP and then into the private sector of the prison industrial complex.

Wardens should no longer have carte blanche authority to deviate from policy like some unchecked king. While there are some executives who live up to the standards laid out in the regulations, it is clear currently, there are not enough of them.

Prison Unions: a ‘Two-Edged Shank’

Jack Donson on October 2, 2025

The dramatic move to terminate the master union agreement by the new bureau administration caused quite a stir in BOP land this week. I am an AFGE-CPL Local 33 member and have paid yearly dues since retirement. I’ve both negotiated one of the master agreements on the union side of the table and occupied management positions, so I can speak to lived experience on both fronts.

I want to say at the outset that I’m strongly in support of employee rights — including a BOP union and a master agreement that encompasses all the locals. The focus of PERA is primarily the need for reform of the bureau and the slow and painful evolution of BOP management. However, the union has often acted as an impediment to reform. And that’s partly why the new BOP management terminated the union contract. (President Trump paved the way, however, when he issued an executive order in March, citing a provision of the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act to ban unionization at most federal agencies under the auspices of national security. Intense litigation has ensued, but federal appellate courts have—with one exception—allowed the administration to proceed with implementation while those lawsuits work their way through the courts.) In a blog post on the BOP’s website, Bureau Director William Marshall said he “comes from a pro-union family,” but “when a union becomes an obstacle to progress instead of a partner in it, it’s time for change.”

He is right that some union officials are their worst enemies and often act as obstacles to needed change. It was widely reported that resistance from the union, and her fear of it, was a major roadblock for former BOP Director Collette Peters. And I certainly witnessed poor judgement when I worked inside: For example, union officials would often leave their posts, allegedly for official union business, but mostly hung out in the office, etc. Meanwhile, other workers had to cover their posts a real problem when there is a severe staffing crisis. Another concern I often hear about is the yearly trips to conferences by local union officials on the members’ dime, which appeared to involve more partying than meaningful business.

Unions also have a track record of overly protecting rogue staff and deliberately slow-walking approval of new policies. (Union officials are part of the review process when policies are updated and can invoke the right to negotiate if they believe the policy update will affect its members – which many will, since they staff the prisons.) This has historically caused significant delays in policy implementation but also gave dysfunctional BOP management a reason to maintain the status quo and blame the union for the inertia. This lack of progress on policy revisions has increased the BOP practice of managing by internal memoranda, which are frequently not publicly available (in contrast to official policies). A stark example of this is the policy governing placement in halfway houses (residential reentry centers, or RRCs), which has not been updated for nearly 30 years despite significant changes in the law (the Second Chance Act of 2007 and most recently the First Step Act of 2018).

However, dysfunction in the union/management relationship also occurs on the management side. Consider the process through which negotiations and other communications occur between local bargaining unit officials and management. When I was involved in negotiating the master agreement, workers were represented predominately by correctional officers and a few other line staff members, who sat across from a warden, associate warden and several department heads. That puts GS-8 correctional officers in a precarious position, since they must deal with people several levels above their boss. Political suicide often occurs, and management intimidation can impact negotiations, with one misstep wrecking a person’s career in the BOP “good ol’ boy” network (where promotion is not based on merit but the ability to be a good follower and boot lick).

Unfortunately, union officials predominately reflect the typical law-enforcement mentality of correctional officers, in which incapacitation trumps treatment. I could write a blog post just on this philosophical concept, but it can be summarized as “us vs. them.” In other words, the inmates are the enemy. This dichotomy is unnecessary and makes prisons more dangerous for both staff and the incarcerated. When the agency had stronger leadership in the 1980s and early ‘90s, the mantra was “firm but fair.” But that no longer seems to be the dominant practice, and PERA advocates for changing this mindset from the very beginning, when new hires are oriented at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Academy. Creating positive custodial and treatment relationships foster safe environments for everyone and reduces recidivism.

Such a behavioral shift requires culture change, as well as real accountability. And the latter won’t be possible unless there is a truly independent ombudsman’s office. Creation of an ombudsman function was included in the recently enacted Federal Prison Oversight Act. However, it has not yet been funded. What a lost opportunity!

Here is a radical idea: Maybe the union rank and file should align with the incarcerated population. Despite the current divide, they share something critical: They are the ones living and working at ground zero of our prisons, and thus bearing the brunt of the risks (think high suicide rates and stress-related medical conditions) while management makes questionable decisions in their central and regional office crystal palaces.

How Many More Reasons Will the BOP Find to Lock People Down?

Jack Donson on July 27, 2025

One of PERA’s priority most concerning advocacy topics is the abuse of restrictive housing. I have written on this subject extensively and it has been the focus of Congress and the DOJ’s Inspector General for decades. Yet there has been little if any changes in the BOP’s restrictive custody practices. In fact, SHUs that are filled to capacity are now being cited as excuses for modified lockdowns across the system – often paired with commissary restrictions for everyone in the entire unit,

The growth in lockdowns

Lockdowns, for any reason, were not always endemic in the BOP. In 2012, there were 159,501 prisoners and 32,735 staff across the agency; lockdowns were imposed infrequently, mostly due to institutional emergencies. There was also a conscious effort to resume normal facility operations as soon as possible. Today, the BOP website states that there are 154,853 prisoners and 35,577staff on board – fewer inmates and more employees than in 2012. Yet lockdowns have become almost the norm. Why?

In part, it is due to fewer correctional officers. But mostly, it is a leadership issue, in combination with no centralized policy or reporting requirements, particularly for modified lockdowns (partial days). Thus, the practice of augmentation (in which non-custodial staff occupy correctional posts to maintain operations) has become common, resulting in less access to rehabilitation programs and fewer opportunities for family visits. That impacts re-entry and, more broadly, institutional security

The lockdown-SHU connection

Now, in addition to “short staff,” we are increasingly hearing a new reason for lockdowns at the unit level: a full SHU. If staff wants to send someone to the SHU but they cannot be transferred due to “no room at the inn,” the individual’s entire unit is locked down. The question should be asked, why is the SHU full, and so frequently? And why aren’t alternatives to lockdowns considered? The negative consequences of prolonged Isolation have been well documented in numerous audits and congressional hearings over the past few decades. Yet in its latest report on the BOP’s use of the SHU, the GAO reported that SHU placements have increased since 2016 (when the agency’s previous report on the subject was issued), with approximately 8% of all of its prisoners – 12,000 individuals – now confined there. The GAO went on to say that many of the recommendations it had made in 2014 and 2016 have not been implemented. This failure is due, in part, the report said, to the BOP’s failure to assign responsibility to appropriate officials. Now, that is a simple failure of leadership.

This situation reminds me of a BOP practice in the mid-2000s when the leadership attempted to deter inmates from “checking in” (for protective custody) by mandating clean conduct in the SHU before transferring the person to a new prison. When someone was cited with even a minor infraction, the clock for the transfer started over again. As a result, it was common to for prisoners to live in the SHU for nearly a year. This practice was soon stopped, most likely due to legal challenges.

The SHU was never intended as a long-term housing arrangement. Yet, we regularly hear of people languishing in the SHU for many months, sometimes for over a year, without even being charged with a violation of the code of conduct. Consider the case of Robert Aguon: He was confined to the SHU at FCI Hazelton in West Virginia for nearly two years while he was allegedly under investigation – not for any wrongdoing he committed, but for what staff thought he knew about a contraband smuggling ring. It wasn’t until PERA intervened that Robert was finally released and transferred to another prison. And, despite the fact that no charge was ever brought against him, Robert continued to be harassed at his new prison, with emails often delayed for many days or not delivered at all.

What is so concerning about cases like this one is that prison management, from the warden on down, are supposed to conduct a weekly case-by-case status review of everyone in the SHU. If someone is in the SHU week after week with no charge or other resolution, wardens should be questioning why there have been no developments. I believe that simply requiring that these weekly reviews take place, and be conducted with serious intention, would quickly alleviate crowding in the SHU. Other simple actions that would quickly cut SHU populations include mandating deadlines for investigations, discouraging SHU placement for low and moderate violations, and encouraging participation of the prisoner in the seven- and 30-day reviews.

Abuses of the SHU are endemic within BOP culture and are well known by both Congress and the DOJ’s inspector general for the agency. However, after corrective recommendations are made, there is little accountability. Two, three and more years later, many remain uncompleted.

“SHU malpractice” could be corrected almost overnight with proper leadership. Prolonged isolation negatively impacts mental health, detracts from correctional treatment and makes facilities less safe for all. The time for leadership on this issue has long passed!

The FSA-SCA Confusion Continues: Reality vs Rhetoric

Jack Donson on July 11, 2025

In the wake of the new BOP director’s press releases and internal memorandum directing staff to maximize community-placement opportunities, we continue to receive complaints from people who are past their home detention eligibility date yet sitting in K2-laden residential reentry centers (RRCs). Another situation that is still depressingly common is individuals still in prison who are long past their RRC eligibility date.

Anyone who has closely followed BOP issues over the years became quickly aware that the only news in the BOP director’s press release was that he stated that, “Residential re-entry center bed availability/capacity shall not be a barrier to home confinement when an individual is statutory-eligible and appropriate for such placement.” That’s a big deal because, up until now, that was the main impediment to the application of FSA (First Step Act) pre-release credits. Congress underfunded the First Step Act from the beginning, so contract quotas limited capacity in most parts of the country – leaving people in prison and RRCs longer than intended. We can only hope that the $500 million that was allocated to the cancelled Letcher, KY, prison or a cut of the $5 billion designated for the BOP in the “big beautiful bill” will be diverted to expand the RRC/HC infrastructure, rather than funneling it to the reopening of Alcatraz! That would be true leadership.

Something else that is concerning and requires leadership is an issue related to the calculation of home detention eligibility dates (HDED). I never thought about this before or received previous complaints, but a recent complaint indicates it may be a new issue. The individual provided the corresponding SENTRY and FSA time credit-assessment forms, and, after review, I am certain there is problem issue with the calculation. In this case, the BOP determined the HDED based on the SENTRY-projected FSA release date rather than on the conditional release date on the assessment form. This calculation reduced the home detention allotment from 10% of a person’s sentence (or six months, whichever is less) to approximately 3%. In other words, this individual, who has a 30-month sentence, should have already transferred to home confinement. SENTRY, however, reflects an August 29 HDED due to the failure to apply FSA credits. That’s yet another FSA glitch to add to the previous ones!

A final, related issue to watch is an effort to get the BOP director to realize that the agency is acting outside the scope of law and its own repeated assertions by not allowing FSA credits to continue to accrue and be applied once individuals are transferred to the community. We hope that all the rhetoric and PR turns into action. It’s encouraging that just this week, RRM offices were instructed to clear out the facilities for people who are eligible for home confinement. In addition, RRC case managers were instructed to fill their beds asap. The next few weeks should be an indicator of talk vs action if this is true.

Context and history of home detention eligibility

Prior to the First Step Act, a person’s six-month/10% HDED was calculated based on their full sentence, to allow transfer to home confinement prior to the individual’s projected GCT release date.

Historically, the projected GCT-based release date never changed unless a person lost time for misconduct or won a sentence modification in court. After the FSA went into effect, the GCT release date was renamed the “statutory release date” in the SENTRY database, and the projected actual release date is now calculated based on the FSA (if the person is eligible). However, it doesn’t incorporate the application of FSA time credits after the individual transfers to the community.

This situation could be corrected without a lot of work. What’s required is for the BOP to include a conditional HDED in the FSA time-credit computation. Then, a person could go to home confinement at six months, or 10% prior to the FSA conditional release

I am hoping the BOP is not intentionally depriving people of home confinement time. The courts have given the BOP broad discretion on these issues; let’s not forget that in the past, the BOP held to its guns and insisted on basing the 15% GCT on a person’s net (full term minus good conduct time) instead of gross sentence. And it prevailed at the Supreme Court. The only way it was able to be corrected was with legislation (the FSA).

‘Dawn of a New Era,’ or More Rhetoric that Doesn’t Match Reality?

Jack Donson on June 20, 2025

A BOP press release is causing quite a stir in the advocacy world. Some individuals with influential voices are heralding it as a change that will free many more people via early, supervised release. “Halfway house bed space is NO LONGER an excuse,” crowed one person on Facebook. “If someone qualifies for [halfway house] or home confinement, they should be placed—period.” But there are lots of reasons to be skeptical.

I can’t say that I blame lay people for their lack of caution, given the triumphalist wording of the press release: “This is the dawn of a new era, one in which the Bureau of Prisons will realize the full potential of the First Step Act (FSA) and Second Chance Act (SCA)…” Specifically, the release stated that SCA benefits and FSA earned-time credits “will be treated as cumulative and stackable.”

The wording sounds like eligible individuals could get transferred to the community a year earlier than their release date under the SCA (although it has always been discretionary) and another year with the accumulation of FSA time credits. But not so fast. An internal memorandum disseminated by the new BOP director on May 28 states that due to statutory limitations in the SCA, individuals who earn the full 365 days of early release available under the FSA cannot get more than 12 months of community placement (RRC or home confinement). Perhaps the press release simply fails to say that while benefits under the two acts can only be stacked up to a year.

First Step Act confusion is one of the more exploited issues in the predatory consulting world. Too many people fall for Google ads or Facebook postings implying that the sponsor can get a loved one out of prison early in return for thousands of dollars. FSA is also misunderstood in the legal community.

The reality: Aside from the early days following the passage of the FSA, very few people who were serving a lengthy sentence have been awarded SCA time stacked on top of earned FSA pre-release credits. In addition to the claimed statutory limitation, there is simply insufficient bed capacity in residential reentry centers (halfway houses) and contract limitations on the staff and equipment required to place more people in home detention. The underfunding crisis developed quickly following implementation of the FSA. (The same shortfall occurred in 2008 after the enactment of the SCA, which is one reason why the potential of a full year of community release was elusive before the FSA.)

With the significant budget deficits and cuts that are in the news, I’d like to know how or where the BOP would obtain the funding to pay private contractors to exceed their pre-set quotas. In fact, the BOP has not been able to place people in RRCs or home confinement even for the time earned under the FSA! And recently, DC’s District Court rejected the argument by the ACLU and its partners that “shall means shall,” ruling instead that the FSA does not compel the BOP to transfer every prisoner to community release on the date of their eligibility.

“Section 3632(d)(4)(C) [of the FSA] is best read as a directive that identifies what group of prisoners the BOP must transfer into prerelease custody, not as establishing an immutable date by which the BOP must effectuate individual transfers,” the judge ruled.

So, unless the ACLU team appeals and wins, or there are other favorable circuit court decisions, I guess “shall” doesn’t mean shall anymore!

A review: It takes about 27 months in prison before an FSA-eligible person begins to earn credits toward a year of early release. Those credits ordinarily accumulate at the rate of 15 days a month, which requires over two additional years to get to the maximum 365. So, that’s 27 months, plus 24 months to hit the statutory maximum community placement under the SCA, as stated in the director’s internal memorandum.

The broader, systemic issue that no one is paying attention to is this: People ineligible for FSA credits due to the nature of their charge and who are most in need of community transition are getting shorter RRC placements because there is a shortage of beds, since they are occupied by lower-risk FSA-eligible individuals.

Readers who have followed my monthly Sentencing Partner articles for the past 10 years know that changes in policy are required to be disseminated as “Change Notices,” according to the BOP’s own policy on directives management. Governing by internal memo or press release lacks rigor and transparency and leads to inconsistency, confusion and exploitation.

Another issue flying under the radar is the fact that once sent into the community, people are not continuing to earn time credits under the FSA. That’s because once a person is transferred to an RRC or HC, there is no way to apply the credits because they are already in the community. Since the BOP is already using its discretion to apply the first 365 credits toward early supervised release, it could also front load all projected credits so they could transition into the community even sooner.