BOP reports: Read Between the Lines
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.