Subscribe
Donate

The dialogue that didn’t happen at the House Appropriations BOP hearing

Pam Bailey on March 20, 2025

Among the primary channels for independent oversight of the federal Bureau of Prisons are the House and Senate Judiciary and Appropriations committees. And yet the hearings held by these bodies are too often “dog-and-pony shows”—featuring questions that often miss the issues that most need examination, followed by BOP responses that omit or obscure the full truth. What’s needed is for committee staffers to consult in advance with an organization like PERA, which can identify issues that need exposure, as well as how to word the questions, then provide real-time analysis of BOP responses and suggested follow-up questions.

A case in point is the recent BOP oversight hearing held by the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies. Here are our thoughts on questions that missed the mark or weren’t asked, along with responses that hid more than they revealed:

Plans for a new prison

Republican Chair Hal Rogers from Kentucky predictably promoted the planned construction of a new federal prison in his state’s Letcher County. Given that so much of the rest of the hearing focused on the BOP’s struggle to recruit and retain staff (Deputy Director Kathleen Toomey cited more than 4,000 vacant positions across all its facilities) and maintain its buildings (there’s a $3 billion modernization and repair backlog!), it’s hard to understand how he can justify another prison. (Toomey: “Currently, more than 4,000 beds are unusable due to dangerous conditions like leaking or failing roofs, mold, asbestos or lead. That’s the equivalent of two to three entire prisons.”)

To justify a new prison, Rogers cited “a rise in inmate numbers” that “demands a careful assessment of whether the BOP has the infrastructure…to manage this growth while maintaining safety and rehabilitation.” What he does not know or did not divulge is that the agency is incarcerating 64,000 fewer people today than in 2013 (155,000 vs. 219,000). 

Likewise, the Letcher County location is like most other federal institutions – in the middle of nowhere and thus don’t facilitate family visitation and do not attract qualified workers. 

The BOP’s staffing shortage

In her opening comments, Toomey elaborated on the large number of vacancies the BOP has yet to fill, saying that salary incentives have been most effective – totaling $229 million in fiscal year 2024. However, due to current push to cut costs, she acknowledged that this tactic is not sustainable. What is needed, yet no one asked about, is a deeper analysis of non-pay dynamics that affect job satisfaction. Likewise, an expanded, creative use of university interns would be an option; and once in the door, many stay.

When it comes to cost cutting, the BOP should be pushed for details and challenged on its choices. For example, Toomey reported that the BOP has reduced its operating budgets across the board by 20% and paused employee training. But instead of the DOGE-style “chainsaw” approach, the BOP should first look at its top-heavy bureaucracy. 

While there is indeed a critical shortage of correctional officers and medical professionals, overall, the BOP is actually up in staff since 2005: The bureau employed 32,735 staff in 2005. In contrast, as of May 30, 2024, the BOP reported 35,827 employees and 3,827 vacant positions. That’s 3,000+ more staff than in 2005. What should be cut, as we said in a recent blog post, is headquarters staff (with 10 divisions) and the six regional offices. 

Another possible cost-saving solution is a shift away from designating most BOP staff members as law enforcement personnel. This would have two beneficial effects: It would save money by altering the benefit structure, including pensions and retirement age, as well as curb the practice of “augmentation,” in which even these professionals are expected to be correctional officers when there is a shortage. Requiring someone who wants to be and is trained as a teacher, social worker or case manager to search cells, etc. is antithetical to a mission of rehabilitation.

What should not be cut are items like the injections that had been used as the primary therapeutic intervention in the BOP’s medication-assisted treatment program for drug addiction. The injections of naltrexone or buprenorphine had long been preferred over oral treatments in the prison setting due to the greatly reduced risk of diversion. However, a switch to oral strips was recently mandated to cut costs. Toomey obliquely referred to this cut in her testimony, yet none of the congressmembers present questioned it.

And then there are some short-term additional expenses that would both alleviate shortages and improve some longstanding deficiencies in the care of adults in custody. For example, it would be worth the minimal extra cost to equip inmates’ currently “dumb” tablets with the functionality needed for video visits and interactive educational programs. Since the shortage of COs have led to an unacceptable frequency of lockdowns, allowing video visits with family, email from inside cells and online educational programming would mitigate some of the negative consequences. In addition, fewer educational staff would be needed. Instead, as of today, the tablets offer only pay-per-view mindless entertainment.

Another example is the scheduling of medical exams and procedures that must be performed by outside specialists. One of the most common complaints we hear from both AICs and family members is tests and procedures that take months to happen. Toomey noted that a portion of the significant overtime paid to COs is caused by the need for officers (often three at a time) to take inmates to the outside hospitals, etc. When those personnel are not available, the trips simply do not take place – leading to cases like one individual we know of who didn’t get a prostate biopsy for nine months after his PSA levels signaled trouble. But there is another solution that could save money in the long run:  more mobile units that offer more services, bringing outside medical care directly to the prison. (During its inspection of FMC Devens – a hospital facility! – earlier this year, the OIG found that exams were on average 53 days overdue, due in part to a lack of COs to escort inmates to scheduled appointments.)

First Step Act implementation

When questioned about the BOP’s notoriously troubled First Step Act (FSA) implementation, Toomey touted the “good news” that “last year, we created some dedicated positions, and we were able to almost double that number from about 350 to about 700.” 

The committee members allowed her statement to stand, so we must assume that they aren’t hearing from many inmates like we do, describing the long waiting lists and “ghost” programs (existing only on paper). For example, this was a prominent issue at FCI Dublin, closed after it became known as the “rape club.” It’s a chronic problem within the BOP; when the Second Chance Act was passed in 2007, the required reentry affairs positions were filled by simply renaming existing jobs. 

Assertions that can’t be challenged

And then there are statements like Rep. John Carter’s (“There’s been a notable rise in violent instances within federal facilities, particularly against correctional officers”) that Toomey let stand and cannot be challenged because the BOP still has not republished hundreds of policies and forms, saying “this content is temporarily unavailable as we implement the executive order on ‘Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.’” Other pages have “dead links,” like this one that offers data on assaults in prison, both by AICs and staff. 

As the old saying goes, “democracy dies in the darkness.”

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.

Change in Phone Policy Creates Chaos

Pam Bailey on January 3, 2025

Last-minute and confusing communication by the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and its facility-level staff members is stoking rumors and fueling anxiety among incarcerated individuals and their family members. 

In October, the BOP issued a public announcement indicating that adults in custody (AICs) would no longer be able to make up to 510 minutes of free phone calls each month, beginning in 2025. Instead, it said, only AICs who are at least on a waiting list for one of its “evidence-based recidivism-reduction” (EBRR) programs would be able to make calls for free – and only up to 300 minutes per month (and no more than 30 minutes per day). This, even though the First Step Act of 2018 authorizes the BOP to award up to 510 additional phone minutes to individuals participating in programming, over and above the 300 minutes everyone received prior to the COVID pandemic (during which all AICs were allocated 510 free minutes, since personal visits weren’t possible). 

In the three days leading up to the new year, the BOP finally got around to informing AICs in every prison of this new policy, and chaos has ensued. We began to receive a torrent of confused emails from AICs, and Facebook groups of family members are abuzz. 

“The BOP has decided to make its own rules once again,” wrote one prisoner. “And it’s contrary to the First Step Act, the law of the land. Three hundred minutes is what everyone got before the FSA.  One of the incentives for recommended programming that was supposed to be offered is more minutes – an additional 510. If the BOP is concerned about budget, wouldn’t it want to do that, then charge for it? This is ripe for litigation.” 

Phone calls are the backbone of AICs’ connection to family and friends; visits are expensive and mail is often unpredictable and slow. Three hundred minutes is only 20 15-minute calls a month – less than one per day.  “I have 10 children I communicate with and a multitude of family and friends I communicate with!” says one AIC. The co-founder of More Than Our Crimes must make many calls to help run the nonprofit organization. In addition, he is housed at USP Coleman 1, a facility that was locked down about three-quarters of 2024. The 30-minute daily limit on calls is particularly punitive.

“This ‘incentive’ feels like a straight-up punishment,” says Christopher Cobb, from FCI Atlanta.

In addition, individuals inside the prisons say they are receiving a variety of conflicting information, much of it wrong, according to what we’ve been told by the BOP itself:

USP Atwater (CA): “The warden made an announcement saying that although we can only get 300 minutes free now (if are in a program or on a wait list and are on the ‘refuse’ list for paying fines and restitution), we can pay for another 210 minutes.” This is incorrect. The BOP says the limit is 300 minutes, and it is “exploring” an expansion to allow another 210 minutes, at the AIC’s expense. 

USP Victorville (CA):  “Two memos have been posted on our electronic bulletin: one from the captain and one from the Trulincs [email) supervisor. But they differ: One says 300 free minutes for those signed up for FSA classes, and the other says everybody will get 300 free minutes, and FSA enrollees will get an additional 210.”  The second memo is incorrect. 

FCI Sheridan (OR): “Here they are saying that if you aren’t FSA-eligible, you do not receive any free calls.” The trick here is what is meant by “FSA-eligible.” AICs do not need to be eligible for FSA time-off credits to receive the free minutes. They merely need to be on the wait list for an approved program (a status that is reviewed monthly).

FCI Hazelton (WV): “What if you already have done a multitude of FSA programs and can’t do any now? There aren’t any waiting list for eligible programs here.”  It is relatively easy to get on a waiting list at most prisons, but we can imagine that isn’t true everywhere, and the BOP bulletins do not address that situation. For example, to be accepted into an EBRR program, an AIC typically must be marked as in need of at least one of the 13 skills (such as anger management and parenting) in the SPARC -13 assessment. It’s possible a person could be assessed as not in need.

FCI Fairton (NJ): “Once you complete your 30 minutes of free phone time here, you can’t talk anymore even if you are willing to pay.” This is not how it’s supposed to be operating, from our understanding. The 30-minute limit per day is for free calls.

FCI Loretto (PA): “They posted a chart here showing that if you have to call internationally, the cost varies by country.” Our reading of the July FCC ruling is that international calls also are subject to the 6-cent-per-minute cap. However, we are seeking to confirm that. 

Another important observation: If a call is not free, family members may pay instead via an account with ICSolutions. However, when we contacted them, the operator had no knowledge of the FCC ruling (which states the agency intended to reduce costs for AICs as well as their family members) and listed per-minute costs much higher than 6 cents for even domestic calls. On the other hand, there is an advantage to paying for calls through the outside service. A proposed rule from the BOP would authorize the agency to deduct dollars from AICs’ accounts every month if they owe court-ordered restitution or other fees.

A final note: The free calls do not start until an AIC uses up his or her minutes from the previous cycle. Once an AIC “revalidates,” the free calls kick in. This was not communicated to AICs in advance – another source of confusion!

In previous times, says PERA executive director and former BOP case manager Jack Donson, staff were given talking points in advance when major changes like this were implemented across the BOP, and a townhall meeting was held to make sure everyone was on the same page. Clearly that didn’t happen now. If there was ever a textbook case of another poorly managed aspect of the FSA, this is it. Stay tuned, there will clearly be more updates.

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. 

Subscribe

* indicates required