family ties Archives

The Consequences of Too Much Self-Improvement

Jack Donson on October 6, 2025

In the never-ending saga of the BOP’s First Step Act implementation, it is difficult to keep up with the myriad issues being reported from around the prison system. This blog post focuses on non-time credit incentives – specifically, free phone minutes in return for completing eligible programming. We are now receiving reports from people who have programmed like rock stars, and thus no longer have a documented need for such self-improvement. Consider this email received by our partner organization, More Than Our Crimes:

Come December 13, I will have been incarcerated 18 years. On January 3, the BOP began offering 300 phone minutes a month in return for programming based on the needs identified by your unit team. I am not receiving them because I no longer have needs!

I have programmed constantly throughout my time in prison. To date, I have completed over 3,000 hours of educational and psychological programming. I even requested a transfer to a Virginia institution, on the other side of the country from my home, so I could participate in a residential program unit solely focused on lowering recidivism. I am prioritizing my own rehabilitation.

Yet I have been told by staff that because I have met all my “needs”, I am not eligible for the incentive/free phone minutes. A staff member informed me that because of the way the system is set up, I would literally have to do something to get myself sent to the hole (SHU) — like punching someone in the face and thus needing anger management classes – to qualify for the incentive. What sense does this make?

I have a life sentence (which I am working on changing), but I continue to program and follow the rules. I am a mentor and role model for others. It’s frustrating that the BOP is discouraging my good behavior, while limiting my ability to stay in contact with my family.

To fully explain this situation, I need to get a bit technical. When a person arrives at a designated federal prison facility, they meet with their unit staff within the first four weeks. At that meeting, staff identify evidenced-based recidivism-reduction (EBRR) programs and productive activities (PAs) the individual would benefit from. Their recommendation is based on assessments from various departments of 13 risk/need areas* related to reducing their criminality profile (a tool called the SPARC-13). For each inmate, a “Y” (yes) or “N” (no) is keyed into the computer for each of the 13 factors. For instance, drug treatment would be recommended for the “substance abuse” need if the inmate has a history or active practice of misuse. (Note that the data for much of this assessment comes from the individual’s pre-sentence report.)

What has long been our concern is that the BOP has the discretion to only award incentives for inmates with at least one “Y” from the unit team. So, as inmates complete programming, staff have the discretion to change the “Ys” to “Ns”.

While it sounds counter-intuitive to penalize people who address their risk/need areas, the rule was probably intended to reduce program waiting lists. Anyone who remembers the implementation of early-release incentives for the Intensive Confinement (ICP) and Residential Drug Abuse Treatment (RDAP) programs understands the disastrous consequences of extensive waiting lists, including reduced early-release benefits (because of not getting into the program soon enough) as well as the manipulation of the queue by the chosen few.

Academics, politicians and beltway organizations who are disassociated from the reality of prison sub-culture probably don’t understand that people without means will indeed commit infractions, if necessary, to create a new need and allow greater family communication. If they can’t get the free phone minutes, they may also turn to illegal cell phones. While we haven’t yet received complaints about the inability to earn FSA time credits for the same reason, I expect we will.

Meanwhile, a problem that gets lost in all of this is the BOP’s misrepresentation that people with the greatest risk of recidivism (those in high- and medium-security prisons) are prioritized for program placement. I continue to see individuals in high-risk penitentiaries sit on waiting lists for years. Likewise, people who are ineligible for early release spend nearly 85% of their time in violent environments (USPs) with minimal access to programming due to the frequent lockdowns. How does that make correctional sense?

It was during the failed “tough on crime” era that the government created carveouts that differentiated by charge and imposed sentence that created the impression that they were “taking action.” The length of the sentence itself is the punishment and is based on the totality of the criminogenic circumstances. Once incarcerated, people should be treated equally from a sentence-structure perspective.

PERA’s position: Once entering the carceral system, everyone should be treated equally — including the eligibility to earn early-release benefits.

* The 13 areas include: • anger/hostility • antisocial peers • cognitions • dyslexia • education • family/parenting • finance/poverty • medical • mental health • recreation/leisure/fitness • substance use • trauma • work. Both EBRR programs and productive activities that correspond with the specific risk/needs can be found on pages seven through 10 in the approved programs directory.

The unit team is required to recommend programs and productive activities that match these areas of risk/need. However, the team also can changed needs to no needs.

Death by a Thousand Cuts

Pam Bailey on May 21, 2025

“Death by a thousand cuts” seems to be the federal Bureau of Prisons’ SOP these days. From the creeping frequency of “modified” (partial) lockdowns, to ineffective policy implementation that is causing many prisoners to pay for phone calls that should be free, to reduced visiting hours, the BOP seems intent on fraying already fragile family bonds.

Here’s a snapshot of how this behavior is manifesting itself across the network of 122 federal prisons. (To explore what other issues are being reported at the various prisons, visit the Prison Pulse Report.)

Phone calls to family

The BOP announced last fall that beginning this year, its incarcerated residents would no longer be able to make 510 minutes of free phone calls each month. Instead, only individuals who have an identified programming need and are at least on a waiting list for a matching program can make calls for free – and only up to 300 minutes per month. At least, that’s what the policy says. Five months after the change, we are still hearing that many eligible people are having to pay for their minutes—a charge many cannot afford. Combined, the reduced minutes and the cost are making it difficult for many incarcerated individuals to maintain consistent family ties.

PERA partnered with More Than Our Crimes to provide a list of individuals and who were being forced to pay for minutes that should be free to the BOP’s regional “family support coordinators.” The response we received suggested, in part, that the individuals contact the executive assistants for the facilities involved, as well as file administrative remedies. “The Administrative Remedy Program provides an inmate with a detailed response in writing after review is completed, along with any further documentation for their inquiries.” What that response doesn’t say is that relief is rarely granted via the remedy process, and retaliation for filing them is common. What is also not acknowledged in the response is our report that every channel possible had already been tried by the individuals we cited. Said one person at FCI Sheridan in Oregon:

“Five people had the free phone time taken from them. Then we finally got it, but we’re not sure how. We talked to everyone up the ladder: the Unit Manager, Case Manager, Counselor, Psychology Staff and the CMC. But now what’s happening is that if you complete all of your FSA programming needs then your phone time is taken from you.”

Another individual at Forrest City Low in Arkansas wrote,

I should get them [the free minutes] and do not. My case manager said it’s the trust fund, the trust fund said it’s the region and it goes on without an answer.”

Perhaps this is why some people call the BOP “Backwards on Purpose.”

Lockdowns

If you’re locked down while incarcerated, that means you’re confined to your cell. It can last for a couple of hours, several days or even weeks. In the latter case, you’re only allowed out for a shower a couple of times a week. That means no phone calls, no visits. Reports received recently from members of the More Than Our Crimes network indicate that lockdowns of all forms are increasing, and increasingly rather kneejerk. Consider these examples:

We just came off a two-week lockdown, supposedly to save on overtime costs. Now we are being told we will be locked down one week each month (FCI Waseca, Minnesota)

They are locking us in every Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursday at 6 p.m. for the rest of the evening, supposedly because they are short of staff. (FCI Thomson, Illinois)

We are just now coming out this week after a month behind the door. Some guy checked in and told the captain that a weapon was in one of the units. So, they tore the whole compound up, with no success. They didn’t find anything. (FCI McDowell, West Virginia)

The prison has been on lockdown since February 19 [written March 31]. Every time I call the facility, there is no answer at all, or when I make a selection from the automated menu, there is a silent pause and then it hangs up. All visitation has been cancelled, and we have no contact with our loved one! (FCI Allenwood, Pennsylvania)

William Marshall, the new BOP director, said on Fox News that he wants to add programming to the tablets incarcerated people can buy, so that education won’t be interrupted during lockdowns. While that is a great idea, we also want to see lockdowns become rare, not routine like they are now.

Visits

At the same time that calls are more expensive and people are locked in more, we are hearing stories about greater barriers to in-person visits. Consider:

At both USP Coleman 1 in Florida and FCI Sheridan in Oregon, visitors have recently been turned away after traveling long distances when an ion scanner erroneously detected the presence of heroin. Ion scanners are so sensitive they can detect minuscule amounts of substances – which can be good but also leads to false positives. In addition, even accidental or incidental contact with drugs (such as touching currency containing trace drug residue) can trigger a false positive.
FCI Sheridan has further discouraged visits by allowing them on only one weekend a month, and never on holidays.
At FCI Allenwood in Pennsylvania, families recently reported that physical contact is no longer allowed during visits. Family members are separated from loved ones by a plastic barrier. They must talk through holes drilled in the plastic! Supposedly this COVID-like practice is due to short staffing and it will stay in place until at least November.
At the Hazelton complex in West Virginia, the visiting area contains no vending machines – making it very difficult for young children to stay for more than a couple of hours. And at USP Lee in Virginia, if the incarcerated person must use the toilet, the visit is terminated.

Mail

We receive many reports of letters not received at all, or that arrive weeks after they were sent. Family members tell us they have resorted to numbering their letters so that they have some way to tell what has gone missing. Mail tampering is illegal, but is very hard to prove.

Connections to the outside world, especially with family members, is extremely important to prisoners’ mental health and social skills. They should be prioritized and protected, not sacrificed due to inconvenience or the little extra work they require to maintain.

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.

Family and Legal Visits Increasingly Treated as Expendable

Jack Donson on August 26, 2024

August 16: All visitation at FCI Cumberland has been suspended until further notice; however, officials for the facility did not provide a reason.

In response to a Cumberland Times-News request for information about a report of a lockdown at the prison, Emery Nelson at BOP’s public affairs office said that “for privacy, safety, and security reasons,” it does not comment on conditions of confinement for any incarcerated individual. He went on to say that the BOP also does not discuss internal guidance or security practices, such as reasons for suspending visitation or making changes to movement schedules at any specific facility. “The decision to limit or suspend visitation for a variety of reasons is made by the warden at each institution on a case-by-case basis.”

This is a recent news report. But based on the comments we are receiving from adults in custody, family members and attorneys, cancellation of visits (including legal calls/visits) seems to be on the rise at federal prisons around the country – sometimes with no notice until family members arrive.

During my 23 years in various case management capacities, administrators did everything possible to protect family visits because of the importance of social ties to mental health and institutional security. (In fact, one aspect of an AIC’s custody classification (degree of supervision needed) is their “efforts to build, maintain and strengthen family/community ties.”) Yet families of incarcerated people often have low incomes and must spend significant resources to travel out of state to remote locations, frequently an hour or more away from the nearest airport. So, visits can be a financial hardship. Forcing them to wait until the last minute to make their arrangements (thus forgoing the cheapest fares), due to the uncertainty of visits is bad enough. The frequent, last-minute cancellation of visitation is simply unacceptable and must be managed better by thee BOP.

Consider the recent experience of Pam Bailey, co-founder of More Than Our Crimes and PERA’s director of communications. In her words:

I had put off visiting my co-founder, Rob Barton, for several months because family members with loved ones at USP Coleman 1 (Florida) kept reporting cancellations. Finally, word was that visits were going to start being more stable. So, I waited until Wednesday of that week and booked a flight from DC, a hotel room and a rental car (total: ~$800). I arrived Friday evening and immediately checked the Facebook group for families. One of the women reported that at 7 p.m., prison staff had told her that “visits were on.” Staff said the same thing at 7:30 a.m. Saturday. (And yes, it’s necessary to keep checking in, because the answer often changes on a dime.) But at 8:30, when I arrived at the prison, we were told that visits were now cancelled. Why? Not enough staff had showed up to work.

The same steps repeated themselves the next day, Sunday. I was told by others to ‘enjoy your time in Florida.’ But I was not there for a vacation. If I had wanted a vacation – which I couldn’t really afford at the time – I would have gone someplace else, to be frank. And meanwhile, my disappointment was nothing compared to what Rob was experiencing. He literally had been longing for both human touch and real time to talk. (Phone calls are limited to 10 minutes; try conferring about nonprofit matters in 10-minute bursts, much less have intimate conversations with a spouse or try to rebuild a relationship with a child.) I couldn’t talk to him (they are always locked down on the weekends), but I didn’t have to. I knew that if he was the type who cried, he was doing so then.

Sunday afternoon, I called the prison, and after about five tries, I got through to someone. “If you can tell me there will be visits tomorrow,” I said, “I will pay the extra expense to change my arrangements, so I leave on Monday (the final day allocated to visits) instead.” But he replied, “You’ll have to call tomorrow morning to find out.” I couldn’t afford to stay for another day if visits were cancelled again. So, I went home.

And the next day, there were visits. (Update: However, now, Monday visits have been cancelled altogether.)

One cause of cancelled visits: staffing

As with Coleman, many lockdowns across the BOP system are imposed, at the warden’s discretion due to “short of staff.” In fact, a shortage of staff seems to be the go-to justification for most departures from normal operations. Yet a GAO report shows the BOP has nearly 3,000 more staff today than in 2005, when there were more people in federal prison. PERA believes the agency is top heavy, thus compromising the number of line correctional officers. Former BOP Director Mark Inch (who was, like the current agency director Colette Peters, came into his position as an “outsider”) realized this early in his tenure and was considering closing two regional offices when he abruptly resigned less than a year after his appointment. There was a time when the BOP didn’t have any regional offices; it is PERA’s contention that inefficiencies, redundancies and inconsistencies occur because of the six different bureaucracies that now exist.

PERA recently learned that a contractor for the BOP has developed an “automated staffing tool” to “determine the optimal number of positions required in each institution.” We have submitted a FOIA request for all analyses produced to date by the tool. Once received, we will conduct a deeper dive into the findings and report back to our subscribers.

Collective punishment

As for FCI Cumberland (Maryland), we do not know yet what caused the current lockdown. However, an individual who was just released reports that it was imposed when one of the officers was assaulted. If it’s true that the lockdown was imposed of an incident in one unit, then it is another example of collective punishment practices that also seem to be on the rise.

This type of collective punishment is wrong and unnecessary, and wardens should not have this degree of discretion. It is time for lockdowns, as well as abrupt cancellation of visits, to be documented for transparency and governed with clear guidance set at the central office level.

Legal communication

In a related vein, PERA also continues to receive complaints about difficulties and inconsistencies in securing legal calls and visits.

Aside from the usual inability of facility staff to answer the telephone, there has been an increase in complaints from attorneys who are ghosted after setting up legal calls, as well as a refusal of staff to leave the room once the call is connected. A few weeks ago, an attorney arranged a legal visit in advance and flew into Miami, only to be denied entrance due to cancellation of visits. PERA calls on the DOJ to broaden the scope of its Access to Justice initiative to include all BOP institutions rather than only administrative detention facilities , which do not have as many problems with legal communication due to their pre-trial focus.

There has been a lot of talk about reform during the past two years, but these issues and so many others could be alleviated simply with by stronger leadership, from the top.