Subscribe
Donate

Reset, Reform or the Same Old Song and Dance?

Jack Donson on May 22, 2025

Aside from the regular BOP chaos, including increasing lockdowns and continuing First Step Act issues, it’s been relatively quiet since William Marshall was named the new director. I truly hope he brought some of his own staff from outside the agency (he previously headed the West Virginia Department of Corrections). Otherwise, his fate will likely be the same as the two others hired from the outside (Colette Peters, from the Oregon system, and Mark Inch, who was chosen from the military corrections and investigation branch). 

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

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

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

Rein in the wardens

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

Get serious about accountability

The administrative remedy process is fundamentally failing at its mission to provide incarcerated residents a fair and reliable method of seeking redress. Complaints range from being refused the necessary forms, to frivolous rejections, to failure to even respond – even after a receipt is issued with a due date. The new director could gain some instant credibility by tackling the first step of that process, an attempt at informal resolution that requires the filing of a BP-8 form. Many of the incarcerated people I correspond with tell me they sometimes must beg for the BP-8 (and BP-9) forms for days before the counselor will provide it. Then it’s rejected for timeliness, no reply is received, etc. A simple solution would be to use the Trulincs email system for submitting a BP-8, similar to cop-outs. This would allow them to be tracked. Tracking and setting a time frame for informal resolutions would greatly reduce rejections and disappearances.  

Where are the policies?

One of the most egregious examples of outdated policy is PS No. 7310.04, “Community Correction Center Utilization and Transfer Procedures,” which has not been updated since before the Second Chance Act was adopted by Congress in 2007. That act made significant changes to halfway house placement and it is unacceptable that such a critical policy has been ignored. At least part of the confusion and missed opportunities for early release to the community is the growing practice of “governing via internal memoranda.” It lacks transparency and does not comply with the Directives Management Manual, which lays out how policies are supposed to be developed and maintained. 

Answer the phone!

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

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

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

Needed: leadership and money

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

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

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.

Confusion over FSA Implementation Continues to Reign Within BOP

Jack Donson on August 27, 2024

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

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

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

Subscribe

* indicates required