Communication Archives

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?

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.

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.

The BOP Strangles Advocacy Communication

Pam Bailey on July 21, 2025

The federal Bureau of Prisons seems set on making it difficult for its captives to forge connections with anyone beyond the inner circle they entered with – including people from advocacy organizations.

Why else, for example, would you be asked on the form you must complete to become an approved visitor whether you knew the person prior to their incarceration? I’ve heard from a number of people both in prison and out that if you are honest and say “no,” your visit will be denied, 9 times out of 10.

This is true at state prisons as well, and I asked a warden who I met at a conference why being a new acquaintance is an immediate reason for denial. He admitted that he didn’t know why. “It’s just been a rule for as long as I can remember.” (And no one questions it!) One friend was engaged to marry a woman he had come to know through letters, and she was never allowed to visit. At least most state prisons offer video visits. The BOP has so far offered that benefit only in women’s prisons.

BOP bans all but one-to-one emails

Now, the BOP has taken aim specifically at advocacy organizations, although that is not its stated intention. First, the agency limited emails to 10 people at a time. Then, this month, the limit was scaled back even further to one. Imagine organizations like More Than Our Crimes, which has a prisoner list in the thousands, sending emails out via CorrLinks (the prison email service) one by one. It’s simply too time-consuming.

The BOP’s stated reason

In 2020, the DOJ’s Office of the Inspector General issued a report that analyzed the BOP’s efforts to “prevent radicalization” by monitoring inmates’ communication. During the years examined in the report, there were 512 individuals in the BOP who were identified as having a “nexus to international or domestic terrorism” (fewer than 1% of the high of 219,000 inmates). All of their emails are supposed to be screened. But because the BOP is concerned that others may be radicalized after their incarceration, the agency also randomly monitors a sample of emails (and phone calls, letters, etc.) to and from all inmates. (The target is at least 5%.)

However, during the OIG’s investigation, “several” BOP staff members reported that it is not possible to meet that standard, thus necessitating measures to reduce the volume of emails. Although the BOP uses software to search emails by key words, the OIG concluded that the process was insufficient.

Here is the key section of the OIG report: “We found that the BOP does not have sufficient control over inbound emails…Several personnel said they have detected radical emails being sent to multiple inmates. BOP staff also expressed concern to us about the possibility of a mass email being sent to all inmates in a particular group such as Al Qaeda, Aryan Circle, Al-Shabaab or ISIS, directing them to take coordinated action on a certain day.”

BOP staff told the OIG team that the agency had not banned mass emails previously “due to legal concerns” – indicating that the agency understood that its recent action likely is a violation of rights related to the First Amendment and free speech.

Is this fair or even effective policy?

What I wonder is just how many group emails have contained radicalizing messages, compared to those sent to individuals? No data or comparisons were offered. There also is no discussion of the downsides of a blanket ban on group emails:

Staff at FAMM, the largest of the prison-reform organizations, report that they have responded to the ban by resorting to the postal service instead, consuming many hours of labor. So, rather than eliminate such communications, the mail to BOP prisons that must be screened and copied (to eliminate concerns about drugs being sprayed on the paper) has now increased.
An individual who uses a prison e-newsletter to solicit legal business is contracting with a company that has developed a hack that takes over a user’s CorrLinks account and automates the dissemination of emails, one by one. In return, he includes an ad for the company’s text-messaging app at the top of every newsletter. I have no doubt that other people like this lawyer are using the same service. The problem is, use of text messaging by inmates violates BOP rules. So how does this workaround serve the overall good?
Lisa Legal, another provider of prison newsletters, says it has stopped its service altogether. Instead, readers are asked to copy the content and send it in on their own. The newsletters contain highly useful summaries of recent court and other rulings. The withholding of this information certainly doesn’t serve inmates and their families.
And then you have small nonprofits like More Than Our Crimes; we can’t stop our newsletters because they are core to our mission. But we don’t have the access to labor that FAMM has and we also don’t want to violate BOP rules. We will likely have to pay to use an outside service to address, stuff and mail our envelopes – using financial resources that we should be using on other services.

The OIG team recommended in the 2020 report that “the BOP establish controls that mitigate the risk of inmates communicating with unknown and un-vetted parties.” Then why doesn’t the BOP implement a process to vet organizations and parties that need to send mass emails? Wouldn’t this accomplish the same desired end? Emery Nelson from the BOP’s Office of Public Affairs told me in an email that the new policy still “encourages and allows appropriate contact between inmates and pro-social organizations.” How? In reality, the policy is like using a sledgehammer for a nail – splintering the wood and weakening the foundation at the same time.

This same principle is obvious in a lot of other BOP actions — try to reduce risk to zero (an impossible goal), while sacrificing benefits without due consideration. For example, the Hazelton prison complex in West Virginia doesn’t allow any food from vending machines during visits. That may reduce the risk of visitor-introduction of contraband to some small degree, but it also makes visits by children for any length of time uncomfortable and tedious. It’s already hard for many family members to travel the necessary distance to visit; this restriction makes visits even more difficult. There is ample evidence that maintaining family contact is critical to rehabilitation. But it seems that the BOP only thinks about security, rather than factoring in long-term benefits as well (as they do in many European countries).

Update: I communicated with BOP Deputy Director Joshua Smith about this issue and he said a solution is in progress. Stay tuned.