To understand how prison staff determines the needs of adults in custody (AICs) for various types of programs prior to release, it is useful to read the BOP’s program statement on “Unit Management and Inmate Program Review.” The statement provides guidance on the initial classification and periodic review of AICs’ custody level, recidivism risk and program needs.
To help you understand one of the centerpieces of the BOP’s reentry programs, residential reentry centers (RRCs), we share a rather lengthy document that takes you on a historical tour of the agency’s formal guidance on placement decisions. While the agency officially emphasizes RRC placement for people who have the greatest need for longer transitions, such as people re-entering society from USPs (the highest-security prisons), actual practice has been the opposite – a fact that has repeatedly been flagged by the inspector general’s office.
The historical documents also illustrate how the agency too often operates via internal memos rather than formal policy changes, as required by the BOP.
Two laws govern the two primary forms of pre-release placements in the community: The Second Chance Act of 2007 and the First Step At of 2018. AICs can be placed in either an RRC (commonly called a halfway house) or home confinement. However, due to chronic underfunding and contractual quotas, there is an ongoing shortage of RRC beds and home confinement “slots.”
In fact, a federal prisoner has successfully sued a warden for failing to transfer him to an RRC or home confinement when he was eligible. The Bureau of Prisons claimed there was no room in the closest RRC until September 2024. However, the judge ruled that the agency is required to identify a solution and ordered it to move the plaintiff within 30 days:
“No condition concerning bed availability is included among the requirements for eligibility under Section 3624(g) [of the First Step Act]…Respondent has not argued or provided evidence that there is no available space for petitioner in any RRC.” In addition, the judge noted that the BOP also had the option of assigning the plaintiff to home confinement or even early supervised release.
This issue is currently in front of the Supreme Court (Maxwell v. Dinis No. 25-5930), in which William Maxwell alleges that the BOP failed to apply his earned FSA credits. The court is considering if Maxwell can use a 2241 petition (requiring the government to justify why it is holding a person in custody) to challenge the BOP’s decision.
Under the Second Chance Act, the BOP
place prisoners in a halfway house for up to 12 months before their release dates. However, 12 months is the maximum, not a guarantee. To determine whether to grant this benefit (and for how many months), the BOP conducts an individualized review of a person’s circumstances, including their reentry needs, based on the factors laid out in 18 U.S.C. § 3624 (c)1:
1. The resources of the RRCs being considered. Does the halfway house have the capacity and services to meet the person’s needs? This includes available beds, programming, supervision and other resources.
2. The nature and circumstances of the offense. What was the person convicted of, and what were the circumstances surrounding the offense? The BOP can consider the seriousness and characteristics of the crime.
3. The history and characteristics of the prisoner. This is particularly important because it allows consideration of the person’s individual circumstances, including:
Institutional disciplinary record and behavior.
Participation in educational, vocational, and rehabilitation programs.
Evidence of personal growth and rehabilitation.
Medical or mental health needs.
Family relationships and community support.
Individual reentry needs and circumstances.
4. Any relevant statements or recommendations from the original sentencing judge:
Why imprisonment was necessary.
What type of correctional facility or placement would be appropriate.
5. Any relevant policy statement issued by the U.S. Sentencing Commission.
Most people are unaware that the BOP has the statutory authority to initially designate or transfer an inmate to an RRC at any time under 18USC 3621(b).
Source of confusion: On March 31, 2025, the BOP issued a memorandum limiting most halfway house placements under the Second Chance Act to 60 days because of budget problems. However, the BOP officially rescinded that restriction less than a month later, on April 10, 2025.
In addition, the Second Chance Act allows home confinement as a transitional option but limited to the shorter of six months or 10% of a person’s prison sentence.
Home confinement allows a federal prisoner to serve the final portion of their sentence at an approved residence rather than inside a prison or halfway house. The person remains in BOP custody and must comply with strict supervision requirements, which typically include electronic monitoring, restrictions on leaving the residence, and permission requirements for work, medical appointments, and other approved activities.
18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(2) directs the BOP, to the extent possible, to place prisoners with lower risk levels and lower needs on home confinement for the maximum time allowed under the SCA. However, this often does not happen.
Note that home confinement may be supervised by a private contractor or by the federal probation department.
The First Step Act also facilitates transfers into pre-release community settings. However, unlike the SCA, which gives BOP broad discretion but applies to all its prisoners, the FSA’s requirements are mandatory but excludes up to half of inmates, primarily due to the nature of their charges.
Adults in custody with medium or high PATTERN risk scores earn 10 days of early-release credit for every 30 days of qualifying participation (evidence-based recidivism-reduction programming or “productive activities” like employment with UNICOR). Prisoners with minimum or low PATTERN risk scores earn 15 days.
For the higher earning rate, a prisoner generally must maintain a minimum or low risk level over two consecutive assessments. Thus, someone earning 15 credits every 30 days could accumulate approximately 180 days of credits in a year of qualifying participation.
Currently, the BOP applies the first 365 FSA credits to early supervised release (probation), rather than to a transitional placement in an RRC or home confinement. Any credits over 365 are allocated to earlier transfer to an RRC or home confinement.
It’s useful to think about it this way: From a process standpoint, the BOP considers the first 365 days as statutory and thus applies them in all cases when earned. However, the agency considers the additional, pre-release credits as discretionary – making them the subject of litigation.
An important distinction: These FSA credits are separate from “good conduct time,” which are governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b), as amended by the First Step Act of 2018. Under this provision, federal prisoners earn up to 54 days of true early release for each year of the sentence imposed by the court. Individuals serving life sentences are excluded, and good conduct time can be reduced or withheld for disciplinary violations or failure to satisfy applicable literacy requirements.
A June 2025 memorandum directs BOP staff to apply the two benefits cumulatively and in sequence.
This means that earned FSA credits do not automatically prevent someone from receiving additional SCA prerelease placement consideration.
For example, if a person has 300 days of applicable FSA credits, you may also be considered for additional placement time in an RRC or home confinement under the SCA. The additional SCA time is not guaranteed, however. As stated earlier, SCA benefits are at the BOP’s discretion.
The Bureau of Prisons officially has lofty goals for RRCs. However, both reports from residents and investigations by the Office of Inspector General show just how much actual conditions fall short.