Donate
Subscribe
Newsletters

BOP Explores Privatization on Multiple Fronts 

Jack Donson on June 2, 2026

The BOP appears to be betting on privatization to solve some of its money and staffing woes. It recently published RFPs looking for contractors willing to take over the prison network’s health care (including psychology services), food serviceand commissary.

This raises concerns for me, because 1) the very few companies large enough to take on the BOP often don’t have good track records (think Aramark), 2) private contractors means less accountability (think RRCs!). It’s also ironic that the BOP included in its next year’s budget proposal (see below) money for retention and recruitment bonuses to attract and keep health care personnel. What medical professional would want to join an agency that may privatize that function? 

We will be watching the progress on the RFPs carefully.

Meanwhile, we took a closer look into the BOP’s FY 2027 Performance Budget Congressional Submission. This is an annual process and this year’s request includes a narrative with an overview of the administration’s thought process on salaries and expenses, referred to as “S & E.”  Some of the inclusions are telling:

Highlights that caught my eye include an increase of $766 million for program costs, allocated to some of the more controversial and (too often) dysfunctional aspects of the BOP. These include an expansion of RRCs (halfway houses-$106 million), outsourcing of mail processing to cut down on drug introduction ($46 million); greater use of telehealth ($4 million); and the replacement of the out-of-date medical records system (BEMR-$81.7 million). The latter request doesn’t make sense considering the recent RFP to outsource medical services. 

It will be interesting to see if this administration’s stated prioritization of the First Step Act and its professed commitment to transparency are matched in how the monies are actually spent, which is often not the case. Comments from rank-and-file staff in closed BOP Facebook groups are predominately negative. The common theme is that things at ground zero are even worse than under Director Collette Peters: There is more staff augmentation (the use of all staff to cover correctional officer posts to make up for gaps), and less attention paid to management accountability than to line staff. And, of course, many staff members are still griping about being led by a former inmate (Deputy Director Joshua Smith). Remember, culture eats strategy for breakfast! With the win of the 

Meanwhile, the BOP is reportedly continuing to hemorrhage medical and psychology personnel. I zoomed with a BOP psychologist who recently resigned from a federal complex. He described pressure from the central office to misrepresent clinical treatment notes to bring them into compliance with external audits. He said the financial incentives he was offered to stay was not worth the stress. 

Here are some specific questions and thoughts that came to mind when I reviewed the BOP’s budget request:

RRC expansion

The BOP is not the only culprit in the First Step Act implementation disaster when it comes to the shortage of pre-release custody options (RRC/HC). The FSA was passed in 2018 and was not properly funded from its inception. Shame on the legislators for repeating the same mistake they made in 2007 when they passed the Second Chance Act. That law increased maximum RRC eligibility to 12 months but the BOP ran out of contract beds almost immediately.  Lessons not learned! 

Mail scanning and legal communication

Directly related to one of our other areas of focus is the $46 million allocated for offsite inmate mail-scanning and attorney-client emails.  This allocation attempts to solve the persistent flow of contraband by following in the footsteps of many states and sending all inmate mail to a for-profit company that will scan and send a digital copy of each piece of mail to inmates’ tablets – when they are eventually delivered. As Smith visits prisons, he seems to be creating an expectation that all these tablets are just sitting in a warehouse ready to be delivered as soon as tomorrow. However, I am not holding my breath; the services he is promising – email, video visits, educational content – are complex. Still, the addition of tablets that can be used for communication purposes would be a positive game changer, provided the necessary bandwidth and infrastructure are available and reliable. The BOP has fallen so behind in technology in general, compared to even some state and private systems. I hope the BOP sets strict limitations on when staff can impose use can be taken away as punishment, especially for low and moderate incident reports. 

What concerns me about the mail-scanning allocation is that these third-party services often further delay mail delivery and deprive inmates of the tactile pleasure of physical mail – while not reducing the flow of contraband. You can’t tack a letter or photo that comes in via tablet onto the wall.

As for the proposed special email channel for attorneys and their clients, the cryptic proposal for a secure online platform raises a lot of questions and concerns. We train federal defenders around the country and one of the most frequent complaints is indifference to unmonitored legal communication. While the BOP does an average job at facilitating legal calls in pre-trial detention centers, the agency’s handling of legal calls in post-conviction facilities is obstructive, inconsistent and indifferent.  While unmonitored legal email communication seems like a practical solution at first glance, the attorneys I speak with question the confidentiality, given the BOP’s lack of integrity. The agency is ignoring the increased need for post-conviction communication created by the First Step Act, such as compassionate release litigation and 2241s (given the violations in implementation of the law regarding time credits). 

Updating the agency’s electronic medical records system (BEMR) is long overdue, but will be a difficult undertaking, given the lengthy and burdensome government procurement processes. And expanding telehealth to “emergency room specialty services” is a slippery slope and a bit concerning if it prevents prisoners from getting comprehensive care available at a local hospital. 

On the Alcatraz front, we’d like to suggest that the $152 million dollars for the environmental impact study could be spent better elsewhere. Spending money to investigate using Alcatraz for a prison once again demonstrates a blind allegiance to presidential whims at the expense of common sense! 

A few weeks ago, we published an updated report card on the new BOP administration and despite the stream of press releases issued by agency heads, the system appears to be getting worse based on the complaints we receive from around the country. The rank-and-file staff are the backbone of the agency, so when you lose them, you lose the agency. Like the previous administrations, there’s been little progress in addressing incompetent management that seems to get a pass at the expense of line staff. The reality on the ground doesn’t coincide with all the polished reform rhetoric.  

BOP Finally Begins Updating Ancient Policies

Jack Donson on April 7, 2026

Ever since BOP Director William Marshall terminated the agency’s collective bargaining contract with the union, I’ve been waiting for a barrage of policy updates. After all, the union allegedly was one of the most significant barriers to new and updated policies. However, there was minimal movement on the issue until early March, when 10 policies dated February 26 hit the agency’s public website. Another 23 were dropped several weeks later, all dated March 19.  

Reintegration Units

Of the first 10 revised policies, there are only two of interest from a correctional programs perspective. The first is an update to PS 52801.01 Reintegration Units. Previously, there had only been an operations memorandum (which expired in 2017), not a formal policy. As one RU resident at USP Atwater told us, “The rules are now pretty much the same as how they were running it. But now it’s in black and white so they can’t just make up things as they go along. And if they don’t do something that’s in the rules, such as putting us in for transfers to medium-level facilities at 24 months, we can file and quote the program statement chapter and verse.” He added that he likes that the new program statement makes it clear that the captain and SIS officer are authorized to remove people removed from the RU if they repeatedly cause problems. “We had a guy that kept going to the SHU for having a knife but they would just let him come right back to the unit,” he wrote. “Now he’s being sent to another facility, so he won’t cause problems for the inmates here who are trying to do the right thing.”

Employee Misconduct

Another policy change that is significant, but in a potentially negative way, is PS 1210.06 Office of Internal Affairs. This one is a bit comical to read at first, since staff has always been required to report any misconduct by other staff members that they observe. Yet based on the nature of many emails sent to our organization, it does not appear most BOP staff members are adhering to the reporting rules. If they did, I’m certain augmentation would grow exponentially given the exodus of staff – both voluntarily and by termination.

What is worrisome is that a section labeled “Alternatives to Investigation” allows wardens the option to informally resolve Classification 3 allegations of staff misconduct themselves, without referring them to the OIA for investigation. [The new policy calls it a “misconduct diversion program.”] Although Class 3 allegations are considered as “ordinarily having a lesser impact on the institution,” these types of misconduct include failure to follow policy, inattention to duty and unprofessional conduct – all of which can be serious. While this change could mean that problems are resolved more quickly than under the previous policy, it also means that no public record or higher-office notice will exist for the issues reported and the employees involved may not be disciplined or learn the required lesson. 

‘Director’s Discretion’ and FSA credits

In the most recent list of updated policies, I’m disappointed in PS 5162.06 Categorization of Offenses. The revised policy updates the list of statutory offenses considered violent, based on the First Step Act. Unfortunately, it also continues to include the controversial “Director’s Discretion” exemption, which – if used – will preclude early release from prison after completion of RDAP under 18 USC 3621(e). When “director’s discretion” is applied, the BOP is allowed to deny early-release benefits for uncharged behavior associated with an individual’s conviction. For example, if a person’s pre-sentence report states that someone possessed a gun at the time of his crime, but he was not charged with gun possession and his sentence wasn’t even enhanced, he could still be denied early release after completing RDAP. 

Note that unlike the Second Chance Act, the FSA does not reference the director’s discretion authority. However, I have long been concerned that the BOP would invoke it to make it difficult for inmates with medium and high recidivism risk to receive FSA time credits. That concern led me to reach out to BOP staff; I received the disturbing email below on April 6.  Be forewarned! 

Mr. Donson: 

It is our understanding that the section regarding “Director’s Discretion” MAY affect FSA credits. Once DSCC updates the FSA-disqualifying offenses, those deemed appropriate, based on Section 4, will be ineligible for FSA. FSA eligibility based on current offense utilizes offense codes for automatic exclusion.  We will not know how this affects discretion cases until the ineligible offenses are updated. Currently, if an offense is ambiguous or does not match the exclusionary offense codes, it is sent for a second review by Legal. Our office expects this to continue, as well as to include the Director’s discretionary factors.  

 I hope I’m actually answering your question.  This is as much as we know, at this point.

Other updated policies of interest included those for Secure Mental Health Units, Suicide Prevention Program, Sexually Abuse Behavior Prevention and Intervention Program,  Life Connection and Threshold Programs, Records and Information Management Programs, Physical Capacity for Bureau Facilities and Request To Staff, Inmate.

The BOP actually has many sound policies that merely need an updated review and a public posting, for the sake of transparency. The real problem is for management to figure out a way to force staff to follow them! That can only happen with staff accountability, transparency and leadership. I’m not holding my breath.   

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. 

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.”

Subscribe

* indicates required