# Fixing the BOP

> Reporting on the Federal Bureau of Prisons: conditions, healthcare, corruption, and the case for rehabilitation over punishment.

Canonical site: https://fixingbop.org/
Publisher: FixingBOP.org, also written Fixing BOP and Fixing the BOP.
Sources: current and former correctional officers, and people in federal custody.
Scope: systemic patterns in the U.S. Federal Bureau of Prisons, not individual facilities. Reporting is published only where it can be independently verified.

This file is the full text of every page on the site, for machine readers and answer engines. https://fixingbop.org/llms.txt is the shorter index. Everything here is free to read, quote, and cite. Cite the page URL and attribute to FixingBOP.org.

## Start here


### Fixing the BOP

URL: https://fixingbop.org/
Type: home page
Summary: Reporting on the Federal Bureau of Prisons: conditions, healthcare, corruption, and the case for rehabilitation over punishment.


Exposing the failures of the U.S. Federal Bureau of Prisons and arguing for a system that rehabilitates instead of just warehousing people.



### Fixing the BOP: What Reform Has and Hasn't Delivered

URL: https://fixingbop.org/fixing-the-bop/
Summary: Fixing the BOP is the case this site makes about the Federal Bureau of Prisons: what two years of reform delivered, what it didn't, and what would change recidivism.


Fixing the BOP is the whole brief, not a slogan. The Federal Bureau of Prisons holds roughly 160,000 people and employs about 40,000, and a good deal of the rulebook it runs on was written before either group was born. This site treats that as a fixable system rather than a permanent disgrace, and it reports from the two vantage points that can tell the difference: officers who work the job and people who live inside it.

Everything here is reporting. The site runs no petitions and endorses no candidates. It records what the Bureau does, sets that next to what the Bureau says, and tracks which reforms survived contact with the institution.

What BOP reform has delivered

More than the agency’s reputation suggests, and almost none of it came from the agency deciding on its own.

Time credits are the clearest case. For years, the Bureau told people in federal custody they could not begin earning First Step Act credits until they arrived at the prison where they would serve their sentence. Courts kept saying the statute contains no such rule. In April 2026 the First Circuit agreed, in Miles v. Bowers, and by August 31 the Bureau had rewritten the regulation rather than keep losing. The old reading burned the average 66 days between sentencing and designation. The Bureau’s own filing prices the change at roughly $54.1 million a year in savings.

Leadership turned over too. Josh Smith, the first formerly incarcerated person to hold senior leadership at the Bureau, resigned on August 25 after fourteen months. He left behind 37 policies finished in 90 days, against an average policy age of about 13 years, a rewritten warden selection process that brought outside evaluators into a job that had run on seniority, and an agency arguing with itself in public for the first time in decades. The facility closures, the tablet contract, and the move to CICLOPS all landed on his watch.

That is the shape of reform inside the Bureau. It arrives after a court ruling, a resignation, or a directive from outside, and it arrives late.

What reform hasn’t delivered

The same window produced the Albarati Act, which doubles the maximum sentence for smuggling a phone into a prison and makes the offense a felony. The Bureau finds something in the range of 20,000 phones a year. Federal prosecutors bring about 81 cases a year. A longer sentence for a crime that is rarely charged changes the number of phones by approximately nothing.

Compassionate release went the other way. A May ruling in Rutherford v. United States stripped the legal basis for releasing thirteen people freed under the First Step Act, among them Matthew Charles, the first person released under that law. By his own account, clemency is the only path he has left.

The buildings are failing faster than they can be emptied. Six facilities are closing, moving about 5,400 people and leaving 500 staff to work out what happens next, against a deferred maintenance backlog the Bureau puts at $4 billion.

Programs, the part that changes what a person does after release, remain the gap. Time credits are earned by completing programming. The new rule starts the clock earlier and adds nothing to do. Someone with nothing available to complete earns nothing, whether the clock starts at sentencing or at arrival.

What fixing the BOP would require

The argument runs through every topic section on this site.

Reentry programs funded at the level the agency claims to care about. Health care delivered by clinicians instead of deferred until a condition becomes an emergency. An oversight structure that can remove someone. Staffing that stops pulling teachers and cooks onto security posts to cover a shift. Technology bought because it works rather than because it photographs well.

Recidivism is where that argument lands. The site’s own call for change puts re-arrest within three years at nearly 70% in the United States, against under 30% in Norway and Germany, and treats the gap as a policy choice rather than a national character trait.

Where to start

BOP History & Decline covers how thirty years of budget cuts and privatization gutted the parts of the system that worked.

Failed Programs documents education, vocational training, and tablets that arrived without the software to use them.

Prison Conditions & Safety covers staffing collapse, violence, and drug policy inside the walls.

Healthcare Neglect follows medical care, the commissary, tobacco and nicotine, and fitness policy.

Statistics & Data holds the numbers, including international comparisons.

Corruption & Accountability covers contraband, officer prosecutions, and the management culture behind both.

Advocacy & Reform Strategies collects the proposals, including the ones the Bureau has already adopted.

Smarter Solutions covers CICLOPS, technology procurement, and data the agency already has.

Legal Battles tracks the court rulings and bills that force the rest.

Systemic Impact covers what all of it costs the people who go back out.

Questions

What does Fixing the BOP mean?

It is the site’s name and its position. The Bureau of Prisons is not broken beyond repair. It is run badly in specific, documentable ways, and the record shows which changes stick and which ones get announced and then quietly dropped. Fixing the BOP is shorthand for that whole case.

Is the Federal Bureau of Prisons fixable?

The record on this site says the parts that improve do so under outside pressure, from courts, Congress, the press, and staff. The 2026 time credits rule exists because the Bureau lost enough cases. That is slower than it should be. It is also not nothing.

Has any BOP reform worked?

Yes, and the site documents it. Time credit expansion, warden selection, the CICLOPS transition, the facilities program, and the reversal on nicotine pouches all moved. The pattern is that reform fails when it depends on programming the Bureau never funds, and holds when a court or a statute removes the Bureau’s discretion to interpret its way out.

Who reports for FixingBOP.org?

Current and former correctional officers, and people in federal custody. The mission page explains why that matters more than proximity to a press office.

Sources

Federal Register, "First Step Act Time Credits—Revisions (interim final rule)," August 31, 2026.

U.S. Government Publishing Office, "S. 736 (ES), Lieutenant Osvaldo Albarati Stopping Prison Contraband Act, as passed by the Senate," June 10, 2026.

Supreme Court of the United States, "Rutherford v. United States, No. 24-820 (slip opinion)," May 28, 2026.

Federal Bureau of Prisons, "Message from the Director: Leadership Staff Update," August 25, 2026.

Federal Bureau of Prisons, "Updated Bureau Policies Signed and Released," March 25, 2026.

Federal Bureau of Prisons, "Federal Bureau of Prisons Announces Facility Closures and Operational Changes," July 1, 2026.

Federal News Network, "Bureau of Prisons to close six institutions, citing 'extreme staffing challenges'," July 2, 2026.



### A Call for Change

URL: https://fixingbop.org/a-call-for-change/
Summary: Welcome to FixingBOP.org: A Call for Change in the Federal Bureau of Prisons The United States incarcerates more people than any other nation in the world, yet our prison system fails in one of its most fundamental missions—rehabilitation. At FixingBOP.org, we shine a light on the deep-rooted


Welcome to FixingBOP.org: A Call for Change in the Federal Bureau of Prisons

The United States incarcerates more people than any other nation in the world, yet our prison system fails in one of its most fundamental missions—rehabilitation. At FixingBOP.org, we shine a light on the deep-rooted problems within the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and advocate for meaningful reform.

Why This Matters

The U.S. prison system isn’t just broken—it’s actively harming those it incarcerates, their families, and society at large. With high recidivism rates, deteriorating living conditions, and a lack of meaningful rehabilitation programs, the BOP has strayed far from its intended purpose.

Decades ago, the BOP operated under a different philosophy—one that, while not perfect, at least recognized the importance of education, vocational training, and mental health support. Today, these programs have been gutted, leaving many incarcerated individuals in worse shape upon release than when they entered.

FixingBOP.org is here to:

Expose the Problems – We document the failures of the BOP, from unsafe conditions to inadequate medical care and staff corruption.

Compare U.S. Prisons to Europe – By contrasting American recidivism rates and rehabilitation efforts with those in European countries, we highlight how the U.S. falls short.

Analyze the Decline – We examine how and why the BOP has deteriorated over the past 30 years, from budget cuts to policy shifts that prioritize punishment over rehabilitation.

Advocate for Solutions – Our goal isn’t just to criticize—it’s to push for reform. We explore evidence-based policies that could reduce recidivism, improve prison conditions, and create a system that actually rehabilitates.

The U.S. vs. Europe: A Stark Contrast

In the U.S., nearly 70% of those released from prison are re-arrested within three years. Meanwhile, European countries like Norway and Germany boast recidivism rates under 30%. What’s the difference?

Rehabilitation vs. Punishment – European prisons prioritize reintegration into society, offering vocational training, therapy, and humane living conditions. The U.S., in contrast, focuses almost entirely on punishment, leading to a cycle of reoffending.

Education & Job Training – Many European prisons provide university courses and job training that prepare individuals for life after prison. The BOP has slashed these programs, leaving incarcerated individuals with few options upon release.

Mental Health & Drug Treatment – While European prisons emphasize rehabilitation for those struggling with addiction or mental health issues, the U.S. prison system often ignores these problems, exacerbating them.

BOP: Then vs. Now

Thirty years ago, while the U.S. prison system was still flawed, the BOP offered more opportunities for rehabilitation:

Educational Programs – College courses and vocational training were widely available, helping incarcerated individuals gain skills for reentry.

Better Medical Care – While not perfect, the quality of healthcare in federal prisons was significantly better than today.

Staffing & Oversight – Prisons were better staffed, and there was greater accountability to prevent corruption and abuse.

Today, budget cuts, privatization efforts, and policies that prioritize cost-cutting over human dignity have led to:

Overcrowded, understaffed prisons

Severe medical neglect

Increased violence and corruption

The near-elimination of meaningful rehabilitation programs

Join the Movement for Change

FixingBOP.org isn’t just about pointing out what’s wrong—we’re about making things right. We believe that change is possible, but only if people are informed and demand action.

Read & Share – Explore our articles, research, and real-life stories from those inside the system.

Advocate for Reform – Contact lawmakers, support prison reform organizations, and push for policy changes that prioritize rehabilitation over punishment.

Stay Informed – Follow us for updates on legislation, lawsuits, and efforts to hold the BOP accountable.

The U.S. can do better. We must do better. Join us in the fight to fix the Federal Bureau of Prisons and create a system that actually works—for those inside and for society as a whole.



### Our Mission

URL: https://fixingbop.org/the-mission/
Summary: The mission of FixBOP.org is not to simply expose the many serious problems within the U.S. Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP). With 40,000 employees and 160,000 incarcerated individuals, these issues are already well known to those within the system—their friends, families, human rights organizations,



The mission of FixBOP.org is not to simply expose the many serious problems within the U.S. Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP). With 40,000 employees and 160,000 incarcerated individuals, these issues are already well known to those within the system—their friends, families, human rights organizations, and even many senators and congressmen. The real challenge isn’t awareness; it’s finding solutions.

At FixBOP.org, we bring together decades of firsthand experience from both former and current correctional officers, as well as inmates. The reality is that no one who hasn’t spent years locked inside a federal prison can fully grasp an inmate’s perspective. Likewise, no one who hasn’t worked within the BOP for years can truly understand the overwhelming sense of hopelessness that correctional officers experience in the workplace.

The situation is dire, but it is not beyond repair. The BOP has a long history of overreacting, implementing short-term fixes without considering the long-term consequences—decisions that echo through the system for decades. This cycle perpetuates mass incarceration, worsens conditions for staff and inmates alike, and ultimately increases recidivism, keeping individuals trapped in the system rather than preparing them for reintegration into society.

FixBOP.org is committed to fostering a meaningful dialogue around real, common-sense solutions. By leveraging modern technology, data-driven analysis, and personal experiences, we seek to drive reforms that not only improve conditions within federal prisons but also reduce recidivism and lessen the societal impact of mass incarceration. A prison system that focuses on rehabilitation, education, and reintegration is not just possible—it is necessary for the well-being of individuals, families, and communities across the nation.



### Our Sources

URL: https://fixingbop.org/our-sources/
Summary: At FixingBOP.org, our mission is to advocate for meaningful reform within the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) by highlighting systemic national issues rather than isolated incidents. While we recognize that individual facilities may face significant challenges, our focus remains on identifying patterns,



At FixingBOP.org, our mission is to advocate for meaningful reform within the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) by highlighting systemic national issues rather than isolated incidents. While we recognize that individual facilities may face significant challenges, our focus remains on identifying patterns, policies, and deficiencies that impact the BOP as a whole.

To be clear, we do not seek to function as a "WikiLeaks" of BOP affairs. Our goal is not to publish every piece of information we receive but rather to ensure that what we report is verifiable and representative of larger, structural problems. The BOP itself does not intend for every clown to run his own circus—meaning that while variations in local practices may occur, the agency does not officially endorse rogue policies at individual facilities. As one Regional Director succinctly put it, "There is no such thing as local policy." This principle underscores our approach: we focus on systemic concerns rather than facility-specific grievances.

Our sources include a diverse and credible network of individuals, including former and current BOP correctional officers, administrative personnel, and incarcerated individuals, all of whom have provided us with substantial and corroborated information. Their insights ensure that our work is grounded in first-hand experience and factual accuracy.

That being said, we maintain rigorous standards for reporting. While we accept information from any source, we will only publish what can be independently verified and what contributes to the broader conversation about national reform.

Ultimately, our objective is clear: to shed light on systemic failures and advocate for policy changes that address the most pressing issues within the federal prison system. By prioritizing national concerns, we aim to be a catalyst for real, lasting reform.



### Topics

URL: https://fixingbop.org/topics/
Summary: Articles on the Federal Bureau of Prisons, grouped by history, conditions, healthcare, corruption, rehabilitation, and reform.


Coverage of the Federal Bureau of Prisons by subject.



### Contact Us

URL: https://fixingbop.org/contact-us/
Summary: Inmates We welcome reports from any BOP facility. Please note that our primary focus is on systemic issues within the Bureau of Prisons, not individual facilities. Our goal is to consolidate this information on our site and eventually provide it to a law firm to initiate litigation aimed at



Inmates

We welcome reports from any BOP facility. Please note that our primary focus is on systemic issues within the Bureau of Prisons, not individual facilities. Our goal is to consolidate this information on our site and eventually provide it to a law firm to initiate litigation aimed at meaningful reform. We’ve received generous funding to support this mission and continue to expand our resources toward that end.

Any photographs you share will not be published on the site without your explicit permission. We strongly advise against submitting photos taken using contraband cell phones unless you are no longer in BOP custody. All submitted materials will be protected as legal "work product" by attorneys and used solely for litigation, unless you grant us permission to publish them.

Correctional Officers

We deeply appreciate any information provided by correctional officers within the BOP. All submissions will be kept strictly confidential. We will never disclose our sources under any circumstances. If you prefer, you are welcome to communicate with us anonymously.

Prison Administration

We welcome any insights that can help improve conditions for both staff and inmates within the BOP. Updates on pending policy changes or feedback in response to the content of this site are also encouraged. Your contributions are valued and will be given thoughtful consideration.

U.S. Federal Government

This site is backed up offshore and secured through multiple alternative domain names to safeguard against censorship. While we believe our work is protected under the First Amendment, we are prepared to persist in reporting on this ongoing humanitarian crisis until substantive change is achieved.



### Privacy Policy

URL: https://fixingbop.org/privacy-policy/
Summary: At FixingBOP.org, we take privacy and confidentiality seriously. We are committed to protecting our sources and ensuring that any information shared with us remains secure. Protection of Sources We understand the sensitive nature of the information we receive. All communications with our team are



At FixingBOP.org, we take privacy and confidentiality seriously. We are committed to protecting our sources and ensuring that any information shared with us remains secure.

Protection of Sources

We understand the sensitive nature of the information we receive. All communications with our team are handled with the utmost discretion. We do not disclose the identities of our sources unless explicitly requested by them and only in cases where it serves their interests.

Data Collection

We do not collect personally identifiable information from visitors unless it is voluntarily provided for a specific purpose, such as subscribing to updates or submitting information through a secure channel. Any data submitted to us is used strictly for its intended purpose and is not stored beyond necessity.

No Third-Party Sharing

We do not sell, share, or distribute any data to third parties. This includes visitor information, submissions, or any other form of communication. We operate independently and do not engage with external organizations regarding private data.

Website Security

We take appropriate security measures to protect our website and any stored information from unauthorized access, alteration, or disclosure. However, users should exercise caution when communicating online and use secure methods whenever possible.

Policy Updates

We may update this privacy policy as necessary to reflect changes in our practices or legal requirements. Any significant changes will be noted on this page.

If you have any questions about this policy or need to report a security concern, please contact us through secure channels.



### Site map

URL: https://fixingbop.org/sitemap/
Summary: Index of FixingBOP.org pages on the Federal Bureau of Prisons, grouped by topic.





## Topic sections


### BOP History & Decline

URL: https://fixingbop.org/topics/bop-history-decline/
Summary: This section explores the transformation of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) over the past 30 years, contrasting its former focus on rehabilitation with today’s punitive, cost-driven model. Articles here detail how budget cuts, privatization, and policy shifts eroded educational programs, healthcare, and oversight, turning prisons into overcrowded, unsafe environments. Historical context helps 


### Rehabilitation Programs: Lost Opportunities

URL: https://fixingbop.org/topics/rehabilitation-programs-lost-opportunities/
Summary: Once a cornerstone of the BOP, rehabilitation programs like college courses and vocational training have been gutted. This category highlights the importance of skill-building for successful reentry, shares data on reduced recidivism rates linked to past initiatives, and critiques the short-sighted policies that prioritize cost savings over human potential.


### Prison Conditions & Safety

URL: https://fixingbop.org/topics/prison-conditions-safety/
Summary: Overcrowding, understaffing, and rising violence define modern federal prisons. Topics here include the physical and psychological toll of unsafe environments, the link between understaffing and unchecked abuse, and firsthand accounts of incarcerated individuals navigating daily risks. This section underscores how degraded conditions harm both prisoners and staff.


### Healthcare Neglect in Prisons

URL: https://fixingbop.org/topics/healthcare-neglect-in-prisons/
Summary: Federal prisons now face crises of medical neglect, including denied treatments, underqualified staff, and preventable deaths. This category exposes systemic failures, compares past healthcare standards to today’s dire reality, and amplifies stories of suffering. It ties neglect to broader dehumanization within the system.


### Statistics & Data: Exposing the Crisis

URL: https://fixingbop.org/topics/statistics-data-exposing-the-crisis/
Summary: This section compiles critical data, research, and statistical trends to quantify the decline of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Topics include incarceration rates, budget allocations, recidivism studies, healthcare outcomes, and demographic disparities (e.g., racial inequities in sentencing). It highlights how underfunding and privatization have worsened conditions, using graphs, comparisons to pa


### Corruption & Lack of Accountability

URL: https://fixingbop.org/topics/corruption-lack-of-accountability/
Summary: From staff misconduct to institutional opacity, this category investigates the erosion of oversight in the BOP. It highlights whistleblower accounts, suppressed grievances, and legal battles to hold the system accountable, advocating for transparency and ethical governance.


### Advocacy & Reform Strategies

URL: https://fixingbop.org/topics/advocacy-reform-strategies/
Summary: Focused on solutions, this section provides tools for activism: contacting lawmakers, supporting reform organizations, and amplifying campaigns. It breaks down policy proposals (e.g., reinstating Pell Grants, ending solitary confinement) and shares victories to inspire collective action.


### Systemic Impact: Prisons & Society

URL: https://fixingbop.org/topics/systemic-impact-prisons-society/
Summary: Prisons don’t exist in a vacuum. This section connects BOP policies to broader societal issues: cycles of poverty, racial disparities, and the economic burden of mass incarceration. It argues that humane prisons benefit everyone, emphasizing rehabilitation as a public good.


### Technology & Data: Smarter Solutions for Reform

URL: https://fixingbop.org/topics/smarter-solutions-for-reform/
Summary: Based on newly available technology, emerging data, and the cumulative experiences of incarcerated individuals and correctional officers, we have compiled solutions to systemic problems within the Federal Bureau of Prisons. These solutions are realistic, actionable, and achievable within the BOP’s existing budget and resource limitations. This section presents a data-driven approach to reform, dem


### Legal Battles & Legislative Updates

URL: https://fixingbop.org/topics/legal-battles-legislative-updates/
Summary: Stay informed on lawsuits against the BOP, pending legislation, and court rulings impacting prison conditions. This category tracks progress and setbacks in the fight for justice, offering analysis of how legal strategies shape systemic reform.


### Corrections

URL: https://fixingbop.org/topics/corrections/
Summary: A big-picture look at the major issues within the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), including overcrowding, lack of rehabilitation programs, declining medical care, and the overall failures of the U.S. prison system compared to global standards.




## Articles


### Compassionate Release Is Quietly Dying in Federal Court

URL: https://fixingbop.org/topics/legal-battles-legislative-updates/compassionate-release-is-quietly-dying/
Published: 16 September 2026
Section: Legal Battles & Legislative Updates

Summary: The Sentencing Commission counted 195 compassionate release grants in nine months. The First Circuit granted half of the motions it decided, the Eighth granted 4 percent, and two Supreme Court decisions in May closed two of the routes that were still working.

The United States Sentencing Commission published its preliminary compassionate release numbers for the third quarter of fiscal 2026 on September 9. In April, May and June the federal courts decided 497 motions under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) and granted 63 of them. For the fiscal year through June 30, the Commission counted 1,432 motions decided and 195 grants.

The Bureau of Prisons held 152,844 people on September 12. That works out to about 22 grants a month, one for roughly every 7,000 people in custody. In the same three months of 2023, the courts decided 940 motions. Volume is down by half in three years, and the grant rate sat between 10 and 18 percent in every month of 2026.

Two decisions in May

On May 28, the Supreme Court decided two cases that narrowed the statute further.

Rutherford v. United States involved the stacking rule under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Daniel Rutherford faced a 32-year mandatory minimum on two counts, and Johnnie Carter, whose case the Court heard with his, faced 57 years, because each additional § 924(c) count carried a consecutive 25-year term at the time they were sentenced. The First Step Act ended that stacking for first-time offenders, but Congress did not make the change retroactive, so neither man qualified. Both asked the sentencing court for a reduction anyway, arguing that the disparity created by the old law was an extraordinary and compelling reason to release them. The Court disagreed: “When Congress declines to make a sentencing amendment retroactive, the fact that a pre-amendment sentence is longer than it would have been post-amendment is not an ’extraordinary and compelling reaso[n]’ that ‘warrant[s]’ a sentence reduction.”

Fernandez v. United States involved a man convicted of murder for hire who argued that his conviction was invalid. The Court held that a prisoner attacking the validity of a conviction has to go through 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and that “the supposed invalidity of a conviction is not among the ’extraordinary and compelling reasons’ that justify compassionate release.”

Both rulings land on the categories judges were using. The Commission’s tally of the reasons cited in the 195 grants this fiscal year lists “unusually long sentence (10 or more years) and change in law” 24 times and “multiple 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) penalties” 15 times, out of 308 reasons total. Those are the two routes Rutherford shut, and both rested on the same fact pattern: a sentence that was lawful when it was imposed and that Congress or the courts later decided was too long for people sentenced after them. The circuits had split on the question, which is why the Court took the case. That split is over now.

The Commission’s policy statement at USSG § 1B1.13(b)(6) still lists an unusually long sentence as a possible reason for relief. The Court said what it thought of that provision: “Insofar as the Commission’s amended policy statement maintains otherwise, it conflicts with the statute.” What is left after May is a guideline provision that the Supreme Court has now called a conflict and a statute that reaches fewer cases every year.

Where you file decides your odds

The same statute produces wildly different results depending on the courthouse.

First Circuit: 51.7 percent granted, 15 of 29 motions.

Second Circuit: 37.0 percent, 20 of 54.

Ninth Circuit: 28.2 percent, 33 of 117.

Fourth Circuit: 16.9 percent, 59 of 350.

Third Circuit: 13.5 percent, 10 of 74.

Tenth Circuit: 13.0 percent, 6 of 46.

Eleventh Circuit: 10.8 percent, 19 of 176.

Fifth Circuit: 9.0 percent, 8 of 89.

Sixth Circuit: 6.3 percent, 8 of 127.

Seventh Circuit: 4.4 percent, 4 of 90.

Eighth Circuit: 4.0 percent, 11 of 276.

A motion filed in the First Circuit is worth thirteen times what the same motion is worth in the Eighth. At the district level the spread gets worse. The Eastern District of North Carolina denied all 52 motions it decided. The Northern District of Iowa denied 36 of 36. The Northern District of Ohio denied 30 of 30, the Eastern District of Kentucky 29 of 29, and Wisconsin’s two districts 29 of 29 between them.

This is the disparity the Sentencing Reform Act was written to reduce. The Commission’s inter-district study found that sentencing outcomes “continue to depend at least in part upon the district in which the defendant is sentenced,” and that the differences grew after the Supreme Court made the guidelines advisory in 2005. Once a sentence is imposed, compassionate release is the only mechanism that sends the case back to the sentencing court.

What keeps a motion from being heard

The Commission also counts the reasons courts gave when they denied motions this fiscal year. The largest was 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the sentencing factors, cited 661 times, or 22.9 percent of the denial reasons. Rehabilitation judged insufficient came next at 368, and “no extraordinary and compelling reason provided” at 272.

One entry stands out for how mechanical it is. Courts denied 214 motions because the person had not exhausted administrative remedies, which under the statute means either appealing a warden’s refusal or waiting out the 30 days after asking the Bureau to file on their behalf. That is 7.4 percent of the denial reasons given for people who had already served years, sometimes decades, and had already been refused by their warden.

Who the tool serves

The Commission reports the original sentence of everyone who received relief. Of the 195 people granted this fiscal year, 40.5 percent had been sentenced to 20 years or more, and another 25.8 percent to between 10 and 20 years. Two-thirds of the grants went to people serving a decade or longer. This is not a program for short-timers angling for an early exit. For a sentence that long, the only ways to cut an imposed term are clemency from the executive branch and this motion in court. Clemency depends on the president’s mood. The motion is a filing any prisoner can make, and it is the one that is closing.

The people holding those sentences are getting older

The Bureau’s own statistics show a population aging in place. Of the 152,844 people in custody on September 12, 21 percent were 51 or older, including 4,907 past 65. The average age is 42. The Inspector General flagged the trend in 2015, when inmates 50 and older were the fastest-growing segment of the population, up 25 percent from fiscal 2009 to fiscal 2013, and when the institutions with the highest share of older inmates spent five times more per person on medical care than the institutions with the lowest share.

The recidivism data on this population is not close to ambiguous. The Commission’s study of aging found that 13.4 percent of offenders released at 65 or older were rearrested within eight years, against 67.6 percent of those released before 21. In its study of people released in 2010, offenders sentenced for fraud, theft or embezzlement had the lowest rearrest rate of any offense group, 35.5 percent, against 70.6 percent for firearms offenders. Offenders aged 60 and over at release were rearrested at 15.9 percent, against 72.5 percent for those under 21.

Length of sentence carries far less of that weight than people assume. In the Commission’s matched-group study, the odds of recidivism were about 18 percent lower for offenders sentenced to more than 60 months up to 120 months, and about 29 percent lower for those sentenced to more than 120 months, compared with similar offenders who received shorter terms. On raw rates, the Commission has found that recidivism barely moves across sentence lengths at all, running from 50.8 percent for sentences of 6 months to 2 years to 55.5 percent for sentences of 5 to 9 years. A man in his late fifties in his fifteenth year is on the wrong side of both variables. The 35.5 percent figure is an average for an offense group that spans every age and sentence length, and age is the variable that moves it most.

The bill for holding him keeps arriving. The Bureau’s per capita sheet puts the annual cost of incarceration at $42,672, and at $86,798 in the medical referral centers where an aging population ends up. Earlier this year the Commission’s time credits rule and thirteen men facing re-incarceration both showed how narrow the room for relief has become.

What we think should happen

Compassionate release was written to be used. It is the one place in federal sentencing where a court can look at the person in front of it, at the sentence that person is serving, and at what the law and the data now say, then correct a number that no longer matches any of them. The standard is discretionary, so the outcome depends on who is reading the file, and right now that means a 13-fold difference between two circuits applying the same words.

Three changes would move the numbers, and none of them requires new theory.

Congress can make sentencing amendments retroactive when it intends them to reach people already in prison. The disparity the Court refused to treat as extraordinary in Rutherford came out of a drafting choice, not out of anything Rutherford or Carter did. Fix the choice.

The Commission should say in plain language what its own research shows about age and risk. Its studies have found the same pattern for a decade: the oldest release cohorts reoffend least, and fraud offenders reoffend least of all. A policy statement that treats an unusually long sentence as a reason for relief is not an invitation to abuse the statute. It is a response to what the numbers say about housing men in their sixties at $42,672 a year.

The Bureau could stop being the bottleneck. It has to be petitioned before anyone can file, its aging population is growing, the medical bills are concentrated in the same housing units, and warden denials produced 214 more denials this fiscal year.

The Commission publishes the next quarter’s counts in December. Nothing in the statute it measures has changed since May, and nothing in the trend since 2023 suggests December will look any different.

Sources

U.S. Sentencing Commission, "Preliminary Fiscal Year 2026 Compassionate Release Data Report, Cumulative Data through the Third Quarter," September 9, 2026.

Supreme Court of the United States, "Rutherford v. United States, No. 24-820," May 28, 2026.

Supreme Court of the United States, "Fernandez v. United States, No. 24-556," May 28, 2026.

U.S. Sentencing Commission, "The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders," December 2017.

U.S. Sentencing Commission, "Recidivism of Federal Offenders Released in 2010," September 2021.

U.S. Sentencing Commission, "Length of Incarceration and Recidivism," 2022.

U.S. Sentencing Commission, "Inter-District Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices," January 2020.

U.S. Sentencing Commission, "Recidivism Among Federal Offenders: A Comprehensive Overview."

Federal Bureau of Prisons, "Statistics: Average Inmate Age," data updated September 12, 2026.

Federal Bureau of Prisons, "Federal Prison System Per Capita Costs, FY 2022."

U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General, "The Impact of an Aging Inmate Population on the Federal Bureau of Prisons," May 2015.




### Two Forrest City Officers Get Thirty Months for the Contraband Economy

URL: https://fixingbop.org/topics/corruption-lack-of-accountability/two-forrest-city-officers-get-thirty-months-for-the-contraband-economy/
Published: 6 September 2026
Section: Corruption & Lack of Accountability

Summary: Robert Cochran and Tejuana Dillard each got 30 months for smuggling contraband into the Forrest City Federal Correctional Complex. One made $58,775 moving tobacco and sunglasses. The other made $91,788 selling cigarettes to two inmates. These are the cases that get prosecuted. The rest get fired.

Two former correctional officers from the Federal Correctional Complex in Forrest City, Arkansas each got 30 months in federal prison on Wednesday, August 19. U.S. Attorney Jonathan D. Ross for the Eastern District of Arkansas announced the sentences two days later. The two cases were unrelated investigations at the same complex, and together they add up to $150,563 paid to officers to walk contraband through a federal prison’s front door.

Robert Cochran, 37, of Forrest City, worked at the complex and treated it as a delivery route. A federal grand jury indicted him on bribery of a public official on December 5, 2023, and he pleaded guilty on March 11, 2026. Investigators found he received $58,775 from friends and family of inmates to bring in rolling papers, tobacco, Gucci sunglasses, and over-the-counter drugs. The method was about as subtle as it gets: Cochran carried bags of contraband in, left them in an office while on duty, and let an inmate pick them up. Video caught him doing exactly that in February 2023, and he admitted to investigators that he was paid to bring items in.

Tejuana Dillard, 42, spent 13 years at Forrest City, from 2008 to 2021, and ran a cigarette business through the institution. A grand jury indicted her on bribery and on making a false statement to federal agents on June 6, 2024. She pleaded guilty to the false-statements charge on March 11, 2026. The investigation found she smuggled cigarettes into the facility throughout 2020 and was paid $91,788 selling them to two inmates. When agents interviewed her, she said she had only smuggled cigarettes “a couple of times.” That lie cost her as much as the cigarettes did.

Two things stand out. The first is the price. Nobody paid Cochran or Dillard for a few cartons as a favor. Nearly $92,000 flowed to one officer from two inmates buying cigarettes, and $58,000-plus flowed to the other for rolling papers, tobacco, and drugstore items. That is not petty corruption. That is a payroll, and it matches what we have described before: contraband in federal facilities runs at standardized rates because it is a market with reliable demand, and the customers price staff risk into every transaction.

The second is that these officers got prosecuted at all. Most staff caught smuggling get fired, not charged, because the BOP can barely hold its staffing line and has little appetite for eating its own workforce. These two cases went to federal grand juries, produced guilty pleas, and ended with 30 months each. That is a real outcome, and the families who paid and the inmates who sold should notice it. But two sentences in one complex, in two separate investigations that took years to reach a plea, is a sample, not a crackdown.

Dillard’s false-statements plea also shows how these cases actually get made. The government could not prove bribery beyond a reasonable doubt on its own, so it charged the lie she told agents about it. That is the standard tool. It gets a conviction, and it also means the published record understates what moved through the facility, because the charge reflects what an officer admitted, not what an officer carried.

Sources

KATV, "Two Forrest City federal prison guards sentenced in contraband smuggling cases," August 21, 2026.

KAIT, "Two former Forrest City prison guards sentenced for smuggling contraband," August 21, 2026.

NEA Report, "Two Former Forrest City Federal Prison Officers Sentenced in Bribery Cases," August 21, 2026.




### BOP Suspends Its mindSHFT Pouch Deal

URL: https://fixingbop.org/topics/healthcare-neglect-in-prisons/bop-suspends-mindshft-pouch-deal/
Published: 4 September 2026
Section: Healthcare Neglect in Prisons

Summary: The BOP ordered every federal prison to stop buying mindSHFT nicotine pouches after a whistleblower complaint and a CBS News investigation found the product has no FDA authorization. Only two brands have it: ZYN and on!

Last month we wrote that the BOP had started selling nicotine pouches on commissary and picked an unknown supplier to do it (Nicotine Is Back in the BOP). That supplier is now on pause.

A September 3 internal memo, first reported by CBS News, ordered all BOP institutions to stop procuring mindSHFT pouches until further notice. The Bureau confirmed the pause: “BOP has suspended all additional purchasing of these products until further notice while under review.”

What CBS found backs up everything that looked off about this deal from the start.

SHFT Enterprise Holdings LLC, a Florida company, held an exclusive arrangement to stock pouches in the commissaries of all 118 BOP institutions. The company was incorporated one week after the BOP published a May 15 request for information asking for vendors of “FDA-authorized nicotine pouch products.” The brand it ended up selling, mindSHFT, is not authorized by the FDA. It is not sold commercially anywhere else.

There was no formal request for proposals, and the BOP has no signed contract with the company. Instead, the trust fund chief, Adam Morrow, told institutions in a July 21 memo that pouch sales “has been authorized” and named SHFT as the sole approved vendor. A week later, officials suggested institutions order “three tins per inmate.” There are just over 153,000 people in federal custody. Do that math.

The Bureau paid $6.99 per tin and charged inmates $9.10. The product, one source told CBS, was “selling like hotcakes.”

The pause follows a whistleblower complaint sent this week to Attorney General Todd Blanche and DOJ Inspector General Don Berthiaume by an anonymous federal employee, after CBS began investigating the arrangement. “The Bureau of Prisons is responsible for the health and safety of individuals in its custody,” the complaint said. “If an improperly authorized or contaminated product is being purchased and distributed throughout the federal system, the consequences could be extremely serious.”

The suspension came after the BOP consulted with the FDA. A legal review of the existing inventory is still running, and the BOP says no illnesses or adverse effects have been reported.

Under federal law, nicotine products sold without FDA authorization are considered adulterated. Andrew Goldfarb, a former Justice Department attorney and now a partner at Zuckerman Spaeder, told CBS there “has been no determination by FDA that this product is appropriate for the protection of the public health, which is required before the product can be sold.” He added: “There is no basis to think that FDA, let alone anyone who might use the product, knows what is in it, where any of the ingredients are sourced from, or the conditions in the facility where it was made.”

As of last week, exactly two companies hold FDA authorization to sell nicotine pouches in the United States: Swedish Match, a Philip Morris International subsidiary that makes ZYN, and an Altria Group subsidiary that makes on!. That is the entire list. When this rollout started, we figured the Bureau would go with one of the major consumer brands that already carry FDA authorization. Instead it went with a company whose domain name was registered on May 7, whose website promises a trip “From toxic” to “healthy” and “95% less harm,” and whose packaging makes no reference to FDA authorization anywhere.

The corporate trail does not get better. CBS traced SHFT’s listed contacts to Redcon1, a fitness supplement company. Redcon1 was previously led by Aaron Singerman, who served about ten months in federal prison after being convicted of selling unlawful anabolic steroids and other products the FDA had not approved.

Those two authorized brands would have been the better choice even without the legal case. FDA authorization means someone at the agency reviewed the product and its ingredients, and that kind of track record builds trust with the people buying it and with the families sending money in. ZYN and on! also offer real range. The FDA has authorized 20 ZYN products across 10 flavors, including citrus, coffee, cinnamon, and wintergreen, in 3mg and 6mg strengths, plus six on! PLUS products. Federal prisoners spend years picking from the same short commissary list. A program that offers choices in flavor and strength is one people will actually use, and use is what pulls the demand out of the contraband tobacco market. One untested brand at one price point does none of that.

Legal nicotine pouches on commissary are still the right policy. Contraband tobacco funds worse contraband, and a legal alternative takes some of that market away. But the policy only works if the product is one the FDA has actually reviewed. The BOP ran this through its trust fund with no RFP, no contract, and apparently no vendor check. The same solicitation that asked for FDA-authorized products ended up with a vendor that had none.

The memo says “until further notice.” The tins already on commissary shelves are sitting there while the Bureau’s lawyers figure out whether they can be sold.

Sources

CBS News, "Bureau of Prisons faces scrutiny over startup's exclusive deal to sell non-FDA-authorized nicotine pouches to prisoners," September 4, 2026.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration, "Nicotine Pouch Products Authorized by the FDA."

U.S. Food and Drug Administration, "FDA Authorizes 6 Nicotine Pouch Products, Completing Review in Record Time," December 19, 2025.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration, "Swedish Match USA, Inc. Modified Risk Tobacco Product Applications for ZYN Products."

Legal Information Services Associates, "SHFTy Business at the BOP," September 11, 2026.

PPRSUS, "Federal Prisons Suspend Nicotine Pouch Sales Amid Questions Over FDA Authorization," September 5, 2026.




### BOP Expands First Step Act Time Credits After Courts Told It To

URL: https://fixingbop.org/topics/legal-battles-legislative-updates/bop-expands-first-step-act-time-credits-after-courts-told-it-to/
Published: 31 August 2026
Section: Legal Battles & Legislative Updates

Summary: A new BOP rule lets inmates start earning First Step Act time credits at sentencing instead of arrival at a facility, and extends eligibility to treaty-transfer inmates. Courts forced the change. Comments close September 30.

For years, the Bureau of Prisons told federal inmates they could not start earning First Step Act time credits until the day they arrived at the prison where they would serve their sentence. Courts kept ruling that the law says no such thing. On August 31, the BOP gave in.

The Bureau published an interim final rule rewriting two sections of its time credits regulation. It takes effect September 30, and public comments are due the same day.

The first change deletes a clause in 28 CFR 523.42(a) that defined the start of a sentence as “the date the inmate arrives or voluntarily surrenders at the designated Bureau facility.” That one clause did real damage. Sentencing happens in a courthouse. Designation, the process where the BOP decides where a person serves their time, happens later. The Bureau’s own numbers put the average gap at 66 days. Under the old rule, those were dead days for anyone ready to work. No credits accrued during them, no matter what a person did.

The courts saw it plainly. In April 2026, the First Circuit held in Miles v. Bowers that the BOP’s reading “plainly conflicts with the text of the FSA.” District courts in Alabama, Florida, New Jersey, and elsewhere had already said the same. One judge wrote that the regulation “adds a layer of eligibility not found in the statute.” The BOP lost enough of these cases that it rewrote the rule instead of continuing to fight.

The second change opens time credits to people serving foreign sentences in U.S. custody. Treaty transfers allow American citizens and nationals sentenced abroad to serve their time in federal prisons. Under the new language in 28 CFR 523.44(a)(3), those inmates can apply time credits once the U.S. Parole Commission has determined an equivalent U.S. Code sentence, as required under 18 U.S.C. 4106A. The Fifth Circuit had already reached that conclusion in Martinez v. Rosalez in 2024.

The trigger here was not goodwill. It was Executive Order 14219, President Trump’s February 2025 deregulation directive, which ordered agencies to hunt for regulations to revise or repeal. The BOP went looking and came back with a change that helps inmates. The Bureau projects the expansion will save roughly $54.1 million a year because people will move to halfway houses, home confinement, and supervised release sooner. Its own estimate says thousands of inmates will benefit each year.

That number is worth sitting on. In a regulatory filing, the Bureau admits that letting people earn credits earlier saves tens of millions of dollars. For years, the standard answer to every First Step Act proposal has been that programming is a cost the system cannot absorb. The BOP just put a price tag on the other side of that ledger.

The rule does not touch the underlying problem. Time credits are earned by completing programs, and this site has documented how the Bureau treats the First Step Act as an administrative burden rather than a mandate. This rule changes the clock. It adds no programs. An inmate with nothing available to complete earns nothing, whether the clock starts at sentencing or at arrival.

The timing is awkward too. The same administration is defending the rollback of First Step Act compassionate release in court, and thirteen people released under it now face being sent back. The Supreme Court will hear Maxwell v. Dinis next term, a case about how early a prisoner can move to prerelease custody. That is the same pathway time credits feed into. One hand is expanding what Congress wrote. The other is trying to narrow it in litigation.

Comments on the rule close September 30 through regulations.gov, docket BOP-1183-I. The Bureau accepts anonymous comments. Anyone who thinks the BOP should be required to provide the programming that makes these credits earnable can say so in writing while the window is open.

Sources

Federal Register, "First Step Act Time Credits—Revisions (interim final rule)," August 31, 2026.

U.S. Government Publishing Office, "Federal Register, Vol. 91, No. 167: First Step Act Time Credits—Revisions," August 31, 2026.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, "Miles v. Bowers, No. 25-1291," April 27, 2026.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, "Martinez v. Rosalez, No. 23-50406," January 12, 2024.

Executive Office of the President, "Executive Order 14219: Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's Deregulatory Initiative," February 19, 2025.




### One Company, Many Names: Inside the ContactMeASAP and GorillaText Operation

URL: https://fixingbop.org/topics/smarter-solutions-for-reform/one-payment-gateway-many-names/
Published: 31 August 2026
Section: Technology & Data: Smarter Solutions for Reform

Summary: ContactMeASAP and GorillaText sell $20 and $30 monthly plans for services over the BOP's mandatory TRULINCS terminal, take the payment, and in many cases deliver nothing. We traced their shared checkout, their referral network, and the calling platform behind the robocalls families report.

Federal inmates get one official way to message the outside: TRULINCS, the Bureau’s email system, reached through the free CorrLinks portal. Every inmate who wants to message has to use it, because it is the only channel the Bureau allows. That leaves room for companies to sell a convenience layer on top: texting from a family’s own phone, a dedicated number for the inmate, photo prints. In a companion piece we profiled the one company that actually built that layer. This piece is about the other kind. ContactMeASAP and GorillaText charge families $20 to $30 a month for the layer, and in case after case they take the payment and never deliver the service. When families never sign up at all, the same operation calls them anyway.

What they sell

ContactMeASAP relays text messages between a family’s phone and the inmate’s TRULINCS terminal, assigns the inmate a dedicated number, and prints photos. The Basic plan is $20 a month, Premium is $30, with an upsell called AI Assistant Diamond. The site claims to be female owned and operated, “As Seen on TV & People Magazine,” and rated 4.7 stars on Google. We found no trace of the television or magazine coverage anywhere, and the Google rating is not something we could reproduce.

GorillaText sells the same service under a different name at the same prices, with the same promise of unlimited texts. The structured data it hands to search engines describes it as an “Inmate Communication Referral Service.” That turns out to be an accurate description.

One checkout, many brands

GorillaText’s domain was registered on June 24, 2026, through the same registrar as contactmeasap.com and pointed at the same Cloudflare nameservers. We verified the connection electronically rather than by resemblance. The signup code on GorillaText’s site builds its payment link per ContactMeASAP’s own specification, sending the family’s email, phone number, and the inmate’s register number to a Stripe checkout page on contactmeasap.com, tagged ref=gorillatext. There is one payment gateway with several brands standing in front of it.

The brands keep multiplying. GorillaText runs a partner page that recruits other TRULINCS resellers into a referral network at $5 to $50 per completed signup. The complaints reaching FixingBOP describe the brands also being used as masks. Inmates using other virtual assistant and texting platforms report being spammed with fake invoices that pretend to come from the platform they were already using, steering the payment to the ContactMeASAP and GorillaText operation instead. Families and friends report automated calls demanding payment for services, even though the inmate had no account with ContactMeASAP or GorillaText at all.

The complaint file

The Better Business Bureau lists ContactMeAsap under Marketing Programs, not corrections, at an address in Burnsville, Minnesota. Its rating is F, with twelve complaints on file and eight left unanswered. The BBB names Christopher Smith as CEO and owner and records a change of ownership on January 1, 2025. Trustpilot holds two reviews, both describing money taken and no service delivered. On Reddit, in r/PrisonWives and r/ExCons, families describe paying for months of service that never activated and getting the runaround from support. One Trustpilot reviewer connected the brands without any help from us: “dont think about doing gorillatext.com because they own that to.”

Charging for a convenience layer is a fair business when the service works. Here the recurring complaint is that the payment goes through and nothing arrives on the other side. Impersonating a rival platform to redirect a payment is a step beyond that, and the collection calls to people who never opened an account are a step beyond that again.

The back end

Behind the storefronts sits reliadata.io. It started in 2023 as a seller of mobile proxies, “premium USA 4g/5g” connections sold to people who were tired of getting blocked online. Its certificate history shows what it became: phone infrastructure in fall 2025, then device management, WebRTC, and SMS into spring 2026. The application at app.reliadata.io is an outbound calling platform with agent SIP accounts, caller ID groups, voice broadcast, voicemail drops, and AI dialogues, riding on the Bandwidth carrier network. We verified the connection between this platform and the front brands through the same electronic records. It is the kind of kit that produces a call from a new number every time, which is exactly what the BBB reviewers describe: solicitation calls at all hours, always from a different number, impossible to block.

Why this keeps happening

The Bureau created this market. TRULINCS is free and it works, but it is terminal bound and text only, so every family that wants a phone number in the loop becomes a customer for someone. Most inmate texting operations are fly-by-night setups that appear, collect deposits, and vanish. This operation layered a referral network and an outbound dialer on top of that formula, and the fake invoices move it from undelivered service into outright predation. The July 2026 award of the BOP tablet contract to Securus will eventually retire the current messaging stack, and operations like this one will either follow the families onto the next system or dissolve before then.

Until then the advice is simple. The CorrLinks portal is free and it is the baseline. A reseller can add real convenience on top of it, but only if it delivers what it sells, and every message runs through the same monitored TRULINCS channel either way, so no company can claim a faster or more compliant route than the portal itself. Check the complaint file before paying, and anyone receiving a payment call about an account they never opened should treat it the way the complaint files describe it: a collection attempt with no account behind it.

Sources

Better Business Bureau, "ContactMeAsap: BBB Business Profile."

Better Business Bureau, "ContactMeAsap: BBB Complaints."

Namecheap RDAP, "Registration record for gorillatext.com."

Namecheap RDAP, "Registration record for contactmeasap.com."

GorillaText, "How to Text a Federal Inmate."

GorillaText, "Join the GorillaText Provider Network."

ContactMeASAP, "Federal Inmate Text Messaging Service."

ReliaData, "Cloud communications for voice, messaging and contact centers."

Reddit, r/ExCons (via PullPush archive), "Are there legit apps to text a federal inmate," November 21, 2025.

Federal Trade Commission, "FTC Halts Scheme that Falsely Claimed to Offer Unlimited Inmate Calling Plans," October 22, 2020.




### One Real Technology Company in a Fly-by-Night Industry

URL: https://fixingbop.org/topics/smarter-solutions-for-reform/one-real-technology-company-in-a-fly-by-night-industry/
Published: 31 August 2026
Section: Technology & Data: Smarter Solutions for Reform

Summary: CorrLinks gives federal inmates bare text-only email. Open Efforts, a Wyoming technology company, built a whole assistant layer on top of it, and says it is already building for the BOP's move to Securus, with plans to serve Securus-covered institutions including Texas and California.

Federal inmates get exactly one official way to send a message out: TRULINCS, the Bureau’s email system, accessed through the CorrLinks portal. It is text only. It is monitored. There is no web, no news, no texting. That is the entire federal communications stack, and it has been the entire stack for years.

A company called Open Efforts Corporation1 decided that primitive was enough to build on. Open Efforts is a Wyoming corporation that has been serving federal inmates since 2015. It started as a paralegal service for a small base of high-net-worth clients, then added a full-time software development team and grew into what it sells today: CorBot, a virtual assistant that lives on top of CorrLinks.

CorBot is a text-based assistant inmates talk to through the TRULINCS system they already have. On the information side it handles Google and web searches, Wikipedia, Amazon product lookups, IMDb, news channels, RSS feeds, weather, horoscopes, song lyrics, stock and crypto prices, and sports lines and picks. It also includes ChatGPT access. On the communication side it adds SMS texting and email to the outside, which is the feature families actually feel. Higher plans include a personal texting number for the inmate.

The company’s description of its own technology is worth taking at face value only as a description, but the problems it claims to have solved are real ones. No off-the-shelf customer service software fits a client base where thousands of customers share one physical address, get transferred between institutions without notice, or disappear into solitary confinement for months. Open Efforts built its own platform around those realities. The system parses most requests and acts on them automatically; when a human has to step in, the platform records the intervention so similar requests get automated next time. That is a genuine compounding loop, and it runs on an open source AI and machine learning stack.

The compliance posture is the part that matters most in federal custody. CorBot works over the BOP’s existing CorrLinks system and has no business relationship with Advanced Technology Group, the Keefe subsidiary that runs federal messaging and tablets. Open Efforts states plainly that the service “in no way bypasses, impedes, or obfuscates” the Bureau’s ability to monitor, catalog, or block communications. It filters questionable content on its side and honors STOP and BLOCK requests from recipients. Every message still goes through the same monitored channel as regular TRULINCS mail.

Pricing is flat monthly, which is rare in this industry: $11 a month for the Bronze plan with 10 requests a day, up to $41 for Platinum with 40 requests a day and 40 human-assisted “Alfred” requests. Silver and above get the personal texting number. There is a 30-day free trial and 20% off annual payment. Per-message and per-minute fee models are what generate most of the family complaints against prison telecoms in state systems, so a flat subscription is a different animal entirely.

Longevity is the credibility here. Most inmate texting operations are fly-by-night setups that appear, collect deposits, and vanish. Open Efforts has operated for over a decade, holds itself out as a technology company rather than a payment reseller, and publishes real terms of service, a privacy policy, and a staffed help desk. Its terms are blunt too: deposits become gifts to the inmate and are non-refundable, and service stops if the institution restricts TRULINCS access, which the company cannot control.

There are honest limits. The service claims and the testimonials on the site are self-reported and unverified. Request caps mean heavy users are rationed. And until recently, the model looked exposed to one big question: the Bureau awarded its new tablet contract to Securus in July 2026, and that wind-down is supposed to retire the current messaging systems. Open Efforts’ entire product rides on the primitive the BOP currently allows, and primitives in federal custody get swapped out.

We asked Open Efforts directly how the move to Securus affects them. Their answer: they are already building for Securus. The company says it plans to offer its services across the complete set of Securus-covered institutions, which reaches well beyond the Bureau into state systems including the Texas and California departments of corrections. If that holds, the swap that looked like an existential threat is actually their expansion path: the same assistant layer, carried onto the infrastructure replacing their current one, plus markets they could never reach through CorrLinks alone.

For now, federal inmates have one bare messaging system and exactly one company that built anything on top of it. That company intends to be riding the next system too.

Sources

Federal Bureau of Prisons, "Communications (TRULINCS)."

Open Efforts Corporation, "About Open Efforts."

Open Efforts Corporation, "Security."

Open Efforts Corporation, "Corbot Service Plans."

Federal Bureau of Prisons, "Federal Bureau of Prisons Awards Transformational Inmate Tablet Contract to Modernize Communication, Education and Rehabilitation Services," July 8, 2026.

Securus Technologies (via Business Wire), "Federal Bureau of Prisons Selects Securus Technologies to Deliver Communications and Digital Infrastructure," July 10, 2026.

Texas Department of Criminal Justice, "Inmate Technology Services."

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, "Tablets and Telephones."

Open Efforts Corporation — https://openefforts.com ↩︎




### Josh Smith Is Gone. His BOP Reforms Are Still Standing.

URL: https://fixingbop.org/topics/advocacy-reform-strategies/josh-smith-is-gone-his-bop-reforms-are-still-standing/
Published: 29 August 2026
Section: Advocacy & Reform Strategies

Summary: Deputy Director Josh Smith, the first formerly incarcerated person in BOP senior leadership, resigned August 25 with no stated reason. He swapped out 70% of executive staff, rewrote decades-old policy in 90 days, and left the agency arguing about itself in a way it hadn't in decades.

Josh Smith resigned as Deputy Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons on August 25, with no stated reason. Director William Marshall announced it in a short note to staff the next morning, thanked him, and named no successor. Smith’s own farewell was longer and more personal. “Three decades ago, I walked through the gates of a federal prison as an inmate,” he wrote. Years later, pardoned by President Trump in 2021, he walked back in as the number two.

He was the first formerly incarcerated person to hold senior leadership at the Bureau. That was the point of hiring him, and everyone knew it. When Marshall appointed him in June 2025, he said Smith brought “a perspective shaped by lived experience” that the agency had never had at that level. Fourteen months later, the agency he is leaving is not the one he walked into.

What actually changed

The record is thicker than a year usually buys. Smith said himself that the bureaucracy made the job difficult. He also said he was proud of what moved anyway.

Leadership first. The Bureau changed how it picks wardens, bringing outside evaluators into a process that had run on internal seniority for decades. Smith personally asked for the retirement of several senior executives. In his CBS News interview after resigning, he said he helped switch out about 70% of the executive staff, including several top wardens. That is a purge by any name. Whether it was renovation or demolition depends on which side of a retirement letter you stood.

The National Resource Team sent assessment crews into institutions to look at staffing, training, morale, and infrastructure, starting at FCC Victorville. Smith traveled to more than 65 federal prisons, some visits unannounced, and started a podcast called “Transparency Talks.” For an agency whose standard communication style is the press release, a Deputy Director showing up unannounced and talking on camera was a genuine break in behavior.

Then the policy sweep. After the Bureau canceled its master collective bargaining agreement with the Council of Prison Locals, following a Trump executive order on bargaining at national security agencies, the pace changed. In March 2026 the BOP announced it had completed 37 policies in 90 days, calling it the most significant policy modernization in nearly three decades. The average of those policies had gone almost 13 years without an update. The oldest dated to 1997. Anyone who has tried to get a BOP Program Statement updated knows what that means. Those documents are the operating system of daily life inside, and most of them were older than the tablets inmates are about to get.

On infrastructure, the Bureau held its first Facilities Management Industry Day in January, pulling contractors and technical experts into a conversation the agency usually keeps in-house, and created Facilities Management Strike Teams, deployable crews of BOP employees sent to do repairs instead of waiting on outside contracting. That is what a $4 billion deferred maintenance backlog and new funding from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act look like when someone actually tries to spend the money on buildings.

The closures happened on this watch too. On July 1 the Bureau announced the closure of Beaumont FCI Low, Big Spring FCI and its satellite camp, La Tuna FCI and its satellite facilities, Lexington’s satellite camp, Petersburg FCI Low, and Taft FCI. We covered what that does to the 5,400 people displaced by it. Marshall’s line at the time was “We are a Bureau that acts.” That sentence describes the whole year.

The Securus tablet contract, awarded July 8, is part of the same push: a corrections-grade tablet for everyone in custody, messaging and video with family, coursework, career training, reentry tools. We have written about what that contract does not say, and those gaps are real. But the fact that the Bureau is moving at all on technology that every state system adopted years ago counts as a change.

What Smith said the job was for

“I believe we should really care about what kind of people we are turning back out into our neighborhoods,” he told CBS News. “I’m a tough-on-crime person, but I’m restorative in nature because they’re going to be my neighbor.”

His farewell put the same thought in writing: “Our correctional system must hold people accountable. But accountability and redemption are not opposites.” And: “My own life is proof of what can happen when accountability is followed by opportunity.”

That framing, from the man running the system, is the part of this tenure that outlasts the org chart. A BOP Deputy Director saying redemption is not the opposite of accountability is a sentence no previous office holder could have said with a straight face, because none of them had lived it.

Why the staff side applauded

The reaction from FCI Hazelton tells you the other half of the story. Jason Shaffer, a union official at the Preston County complex, called Smith’s appointment “a slap in the face” and told WAJR that his policies drove officers to retire early or transfer to other agencies. “It really affected our staffing, and we lost a lot of officers due to him being appointed,” Shaffer said. Staffing at Hazelton at times fell to 75%, with augmentation, the practice of putting untrained staff like teachers and cooks on security posts, filling the holes.

Union officials elsewhere were blunter. Joe Rojas, a retired corrections worker active in the Southeast region, told CBS News, “Inmates are elevated more than staff.” Fernando Lopez, a retired BOP employee and local union official, said he was forced to retire rather than fired after he criticized Smith on Facebook over a July 6, 2025 prison visit where, Lopez said, Smith ignored employees, spent his time with inmates, and ordered staff out of the room, telling the inmates he was “one of them.” Smith said he did not recall the incident. “I’ve been challenging a lot of processes,” he said. “It’s never going to be comfortable while I’m around.”

The staff anger is real, and some of it has substance. Losing bargaining rights while watching a former inmate direct the retirement of career executives is a lot to absorb in one year. The Hazelton staffing collapse is not an invention, whatever its causes.

The loose ends

Two things follow Smith out the door. First, the contracting questions. In August 2025 the BOP awarded a $183,400 contract to Precythe Sturm Advisory Group, run by Anne Precythe, the former Missouri corrections director, to help with warden hiring. Less than a year later, Prison Life Media, the media company affiliated with Smith’s Fourth Purpose Foundation, released a flattering documentary about Precythe, “Disruptors: Missouri, Anne Precythe.” Smith promoted it on LinkedIn. He says he had no role in the contract and disclosed the documentary when her firm was retained. The appearance is still what it is.

Second, Todd Chrisley. The pardoned reality star was allowed to tour facilities in the Southeast and Mid-Atlantic, spoke at the final Residential Drug Abuse Program graduation at FPC Pensacola, and has used his podcast to name BOP staff he wants fired, claiming he reports them to Smith. “I reported you to Josh Smith,” he told one employee on air. “I want you terminated.” Smith says he had no role in arranging Chrisley’s visits. A pardoned celebrity holding what amounts to a referral line into the Deputy Director’s office is not a governance structure, and the Bureau should say so plainly.

What stays

Smith is going back to Tennessee and the Fourth Purpose Foundation. Marshall, himself an outsider who ran the West Virginia Department of Corrections, stays as Director. The 37 rewritten policies, the warden selection changes, the strike teams, the tablet rollout, the closures: none of those die with a resignation letter. They are already in motion, and whoever takes the deputy chair inherits them.

“I leave proud of the direction we started moving,” Smith wrote. “This chapter has ended. The mission hasn’t.”

That is the honest summary. Whether the direction holds is the only question left, and it will take years to answer.

Sources

Federal Bureau of Prisons, "Message from the Director: Leadership Staff Update," August 25, 2026.

CBS News, "Bureau of Prisons No. 2 official who was pardoned for drug crimes abruptly departs," August 25, 2026.

Corrections1, "Former inmate turned BOP deputy director Joshua Smith steps down," August 25, 2026.

Federal Bureau of Prisons, "Updated Bureau Policies Signed and Released," March 25, 2026.

Federal Bureau of Prisons, "Message from the Director: Warden Selection," August 25, 2025.

Federal Bureau of Prisons, "BOP Launches First-Ever National Resource Team," December 10, 2025.

Federal Bureau of Prisons, "BOP Hosts First Ever Facilities Management Industry Day," January 14, 2026.

Government Executive, "Bureau of Prisons the latest federal agency to cancel its union contracts," September 29, 2025.




### The Albarati Act Won't Stop Contraband Phones. It Will Just Clog the Courts.

URL: https://fixingbop.org/topics/legal-battles-legislative-updates/albarati-act-contraband-phones-clog-the-courts/
Published: 29 August 2026
Section: Legal Battles & Legislative Updates

Summary: S. 736 doubles the maximum sentence for smuggling a cell phone into a federal prison and makes it a felony. Against 20,000 phones a year and about 81 prosecutions, that changes nothing.

S. 736, the Lieutenant Osvaldo Albarati Stopping Prison Contraband Act, is sitting in the House. The Senate passed it by voice vote on June 10. It doubles the maximum sentence for smuggling a cell phone into a federal prison, from one year to two, and turns the offense into a felony. Helen Andujar Albarati, the widow of the lieutenant it’s named for, wrote to Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche on August 3 asking the Justice Department to push it through.

Her husband was murdered for doing his job, and she is right that contraband phones do real damage. This bill still won’t fix the problem. It mistakes sentencing for policy.

The case the bill is built on happened on February 26, 2013, and it happened in Puerto Rico, not at a mainland facility. Osvaldo Albarati, 39, worked the Special Investigations Section at Metropolitan Detention Center Guaynabo, the federal detention center in Guaynabo, Puerto Rico. He was known for aggressive contraband seizures. Gunmen followed him home from a shift and shot him dead on an expressway. According to the Justice Department, an inmate watched Albarati leave the facility and passed word to the hired gunmen using a contraband phone. The plot leader, Oscar Martinez-Hernandez, was convicted in 2019 and sentenced to life in prison. Eight other men pleaded guilty and got between 10 and 33 years.

That is the only killing in more than 13 years tied to a contraband phone in the BOP, and look at what it actually was. It wasn’t a phone doing harm. It was a targeted contract hit on a specific officer who had made himself a problem for a specific inmate. The phone was a communication channel. A visitor, a note, or a corrupt staff member passing a message would have done the same work. And the law already had an answer for what happened next: life in prison. Doubling the penalty on the phone doesn’t touch any of that.

The BOP is now recovering more than 2,000 phones a month, and in over 13 years of that volume there has been exactly one killing tied to a contraband phone. That is the statistical case against the bill all by itself. And the recovered phones are only the ones staff caught. For every phone the BOP recovers, there are probably ten it misses, which means the real population of active contraband phones outnumbers anything the agency counts. Across hundreds of thousands of phone-years of inmate use, one murder was planned with the help of a contraband phone. The odds of any given phone being used to plan a killing are vanishingly small. Phones are used for family calls, relationships, and everyday crime. Planning a murder with one is a statistical outlier, and building federal sentencing policy around a single outlier is not policy. It is a memorial with a penalty attached.

The BOP does not publish a clean annual count of recovered phones. The available figures come from older Inspector General reviews, scattered facility reports, and recent statements from leadership. What they show is a flood. In a February 2026 video address, Director William K. Marshall III said staff had recovered nearly 17,000 cell phones in the roughly 10 months since he took office in April 2025. That is an annual pace well above 20,000 phones. The same remarks counted more than 4,300 weapons and 228 attempted drone drops as part of a broader surge in contraband.

The last solid official count shows how fast the problem grew. A 2016 report from the Justice Department’s Inspector General found the BOP recovered at least 8,700 contraband phones across fiscal years 2012 through 2014, roughly 2,900 a year. The report also noted that BOP’s tracking of recoveries was incomplete and spread across multiple systems, so the real number was likely higher even then. It is several times higher now. Official BOP posts in mid-2026 reported weekly recoveries of 295 phones in one week and 620 in another. Staff at Thomson Federal Prison pulled more than 400 phones in 2024. Against that flood, the difference between a one-year and a two-year sentence is nothing.

It changes nothing about the economics, either. Contraband in federal facilities runs on standardized rates. Anything that fits in a manila envelope, phones included, moves for around $10,000. Phones get in through corrupt staff, visitors, throws over fences, and drones. Federal sentencing guidelines already cap staff phone smuggling at one year, and in practice most staff caught with phones are fired, not prosecuted. A smuggler weighing a $10,000 envelope against a prosecution that almost never happens does not care whether the ceiling is one year or two. Deterrence requires a real chance of getting caught. The BOP can barely staff its facilities, let alone investigate its own.

And most of these cases never reach a courtroom at all. Most recovered phones end in internal discipline, loss of good-time credit and the like, not federal charges. The United States Sentencing Commission counted just 407 people sentenced in federal court for cell-phone contraband offenses across fiscal years 2019 through 2023. About 81 people a year, against roughly 20,000 phones. S. 736 would push more of these cases into federal court, which means more dockets and more federal prosecutors spending time on phone cases. The people most likely to land there are the carriers: family members and low-level staff. The bill doesn’t even raise the penalty for inmates who possess phones. The Congressional Budget Office analysis says so. For inmates already serving effectively life sentences, one more year stacked on top deters no one.

The one part of S. 736 that might matter is buried in it. The bill requires the BOP director to review and update the agency’s policies on inmates who make, possess, or obtain prohibited items. That is the actual lever. Inmates keep paying for phones because the BOP prohibits the thing 156,000 people demonstrably want and provides no substitute. Its own tablets can do everything but connect to a network. You don’t kill a black market by doubling the sentence for supply. You kill it by removing the demand, which means regulated, monitored communication access. We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again: reclassify phone possession, stop treating a phone like an escape tool, and the smuggling economy collapses on its own.

Jon Zumkehr, an advocate who worked on the legislation, said contraband phones are weapons. Helen Albarati wrote that every active contraband phone is a weapon. In the one case that ended in murder, the phone was a tool and the weapon was a gun, and the men who used it are already locked up for it. Honoring Lt. Albarati’s memory deserves a law that works. This one won’t.

Sources

U.S. Government Publishing Office, "S. 736 (ES), Lieutenant Osvaldo Albarati Stopping Prison Contraband Act, as passed by the Senate," June 10, 2026.

Corrections1, "Bill named for BOP lieutenant killed in ambush targets contraband cellphones," August 26, 2026.

U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General, "Oscar Martinez-Hernandez Sentenced to Life in Prison for the Murder of Correctional Officer Osvaldo Albarati-Casanas," October 8, 2019.

U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General, "Review of the Federal Bureau of Prisons' Contraband Interdiction Efforts," June 2016.

Federal Bureau of Prisons, "Growing Threat of Contraband in the Bureau of Prisons," February 17, 2026.

U.S. Sentencing Commission, "Prison Contraband Offenses in the Federal System (data briefing)," 2025.

Federal Bureau of Prisons, "Osvaldo Albarati, Fallen Hero."




### BOP Hands the Tablet Contract to Securus

URL: https://fixingbop.org/topics/rehabilitation-programs-lost-opportunities/bop-awards-securus-tablet-contract/
Published: 20 August 2026
Section: Rehabilitation Programs: Lost Opportunities

Summary: The Bureau awarded Securus the inmate tablet contract on July 8, 2026. It replaces the ATG/Keefe devices sold at commissary. Implementation has not started, and the Bureau has not said what happens to paid music and messages.

The Federal Bureau of Prisons awarded its inmate tablet contract to Securus Technologies on July 8, 2026. The award notice names Securus Technologies, LLC of Plano, Texas, under identifier 15BPCC26D00000029. That is the replacement for the ATG/Keefe tablets that have been in the system since around 2022.

Those older devices were the Score 7c and Score 7T. Inmates bought them at commissary for about $118 to $120. What they got was paid music, a thin movie rental catalog, and not much else. Messaging, phone, and video were mostly off, or never turned on, even when the marketing said otherwise. ATG is a Keefe Group subsidiary. The same family of companies also sat on pieces of TRULINCS, the MP3 players, and a large share of commissary supply.

An RFP for a full tablet program was already moving in late 2025 and early 2026. The target was about 150,000 people in roughly 115 to 120 institutions. The paperwork still named ATG as the incumbent on TRUFONE, TRULINCS, and related systems.

The new contract is supposed to put a corrections-grade tablet in front of everyone in BOP custody, across about 119 active facilities. The award notice does not name a model. We expect the BOP to get some variation of Securus’s EvoTab 8, the 8-inch inmate tablet the company is selling now. The promised list is long: secure messaging and video with family, literacy and academic work, career and technical training, evidence-based programs, faith materials, health and self-care information, and reentry and job-readiness tools. It is also supposed to take commissary orders, request forms, and program sign-ups off paper.

The structure is a four-year base with three one-year options. The Bureau is not putting appropriated money on it. Securus recoups the cost from what people inside buy: phone calls, music, and other paid content. The vendor supplies the tablets, the wireless cabling and kiosks, the software, and the support.

None of that is live yet. Mid-July announcements said implementation had not started. There is no public timeline. Each phase waits on wireless infrastructure, Securus’s backend, and federal IT rules such as FISMA and FedRAMP in GovCloud. Director William K. Marshall III sold it as staff safety, less paper, and more room for rehabilitation and reentry.

The wind-down is the part nobody has explained. The ATG/Keefe tablets, the MP3 players, and the current messaging and phone systems are supposed to come out. When states have made similar swaps, California from ViaPath to Securus, other systems off Keefe or JPay, people often lost music, photos, messages, videos, games, and leftover balances. Proprietary catalogs do not travel. The BOP has not said how it will handle that.

PERA and other advocates see a wider feature set as a possible improvement. They also flag the usual problems. Families will still pay for calls, messages, and entertainment even if the hardware itself is not sold at commissary. It is not clear whether any of that revenue still lands in inmate trust and welfare accounts the way earlier systems claimed. Plenty of cells have no outlet. Battery life, lockdowns, SHU, and network capacity are not side issues. Education content still has to get through BOP approval. Monitoring is part of the product. Securus already has a long record in other jurisdictions on pricing, commissions, and privacy.

Official BOP copy talks about security, modernization, and reentry. It does not talk about how the old tablets die, or whether anyone keeps what they already paid for. The change sits next to the Bureau’s other technology contracts, including AI monitoring tools. For contract updates, SAM.gov and the Bureau’s own notices are still the place to look.

Sources

Federal Bureau of Prisons, "Federal Bureau of Prisons Awards Transformational Inmate Tablet Contract to Modernize Communication, Education and Rehabilitation Services," July 8, 2026.

Correctional News, "Federal Bureau of Prisons Awards Tablet Contract as Part of Broader Modernization Push," July 10, 2026.

MeriTalk, "BOP Awards Inmate Tablet Contract to Drive Digital Modernization," July 8, 2026.

Securus Technologies (via Business Wire), "Federal Bureau of Prisons Selects Securus Technologies to Deliver Communications and Digital Infrastructure," July 10, 2026.

Prison Education and Reform Alliance, "Interactive Tablets? Great! But the Devil Is in the Details," July 11, 2026.

WIRED, "They Bought Tablets in Prison and Found a Broken Promise," May 6, 2024.

CalMatters, "Digital tablets mellowed California prisons. Now a tech migration is riling them," March 2026.




### Nicotine Is Back in the BOP

URL: https://fixingbop.org/topics/healthcare-neglect-in-prisons/nicotine-is-back-in-the-bop/
Published: 20 August 2026
Section: Healthcare Neglect in Prisons

Summary: The Federal Bureau of Prisons has started selling nicotine pouches. Official policy still bans tobacco. It does not ban nicotine. The product is cheap, the purchase cap is tight, and a secondary market is already easy to see coming.

The Federal Bureau of Prisons has started selling nicotine pouches.

That is new. The old commissary had cigarettes and chewing tobacco. It never had pouches. In the early 2000s the BOP pulled those tobacco products off the shelf. Official policy still bans tobacco. What the policy does not ban is nicotine. Contraband tobacco has been a pipeline for harder drugs and other banned items. Apparently somebody finally treated that as a reason to change the menu. Pouches are on it now.

We figured they would go with one of the major consumer brands that already carry FDA authorization. Instead the Bureau went with an “institutional” supplier. The quality is almost certainly lower. The price tells the story: packages are running about $9.50 on the commissary. At that price, volume was the deciding factor. The BOP is about to move millions of dollars’ worth of these pouches.

Before anyone starts dreaming about what that new revenue could do for programming, medical care, or staff retention, look at how the Bureau is already undercutting the upside. Early reports say many institutions are limiting inmates to one package at a time, and a lot of facilities only let inmates shop twice a month. That works out to roughly one pouch a day for anyone who uses them.

Anyone who has spent time inside knows what happens next. Inmates who do not use the product will buy the limit and resell to those who do. A secondary market is inevitable. It is still better than the old tobacco black market that funded more dangerous contraband. It is far from ideal.

If the purchase limit were closer to four packages instead of one, the black-market incentive would largely disappear. We are hoping the current restrictions are temporary, a cautious first step while institutions figure out demand and stock levels. Maybe they are. Time will tell.

The rollout is clumsy. Legal nicotine pouches should still cut into the demand for smuggled tobacco and take some of the violence and debt out of that market. Over time they should also lower the cancer rates that have been climbing in the federal prison population. The BOP rarely gets these things right on the first try. For once the policy is pointed the right way.

Sources

CBS News, "Bureau of Prisons faces scrutiny over startup's exclusive deal to sell non-FDA-authorized nicotine pouches to prisoners," September 4, 2026.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration, "Nicotine Pouch Products Authorized by the FDA."

U.S. Food and Drug Administration, "FDA Authorizes Marketing of 20 ZYN Nicotine Pouch Products after Extensive Scientific Review," January 16, 2025.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration, "FDA Authorizes 6 Nicotine Pouch Products, Completing Review in Record Time," December 19, 2025.

Federal Register, "Smoking/No Smoking Areas (28 CFR Part 551)," December 8, 2014.

GovDash, "FDA-Authorized Nicotine Pouch Products for Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) Commissaries, Request for Information," May 2026.




### Six Federal Prisons Are Closing. La Tuna Could Become a Migrant Detention Center.

URL: https://fixingbop.org/topics/bop-history-decline/six-federal-prisons-closing-la-tuna-migrant-detention/
Published: 20 August 2026
Section: BOP History & Decline

Summary: The Bureau of Prisons is permanently closing six facilities, displacing about 5,400 people in custody and 500 staff, citing extreme understaffing and a $4 billion maintenance backlog. In Anthony, Texas, residents worry La Tuna could become a migrant detention center.

On July 1 the Bureau of Prisons said it would permanently close six facilities, blaming extreme understaffing and what it calls decades of deferred maintenance. About 5,416 people in custody and 500 staff are directly affected.

The six are Beaumont FCI Low, Big Spring FCI and its satellite camp, and La Tuna FCI and its satellite camp, all in Texas; Lexington FMC and its satellite camp in Kentucky; Petersburg FCI Low in Virginia; and Taft FCI in California, which was already emptied but still kept a small staff. A non-operational building on the La Tuna complex closes too.

The Bureau puts its deferred maintenance backlog above $4 billion. It took $5 billion in 2025 meant for staffing and infrastructure, and the One Big Beautiful Bill Act added more for the same purpose. The agency says none of it is enough.

The cost lands on people, not budgets. The First Step Act says prisoners should be housed within 500 miles of home, but only to the extent practicable. Closing three Texas facilities, plus ones in Kentucky, Virginia, and California, pushes thousands of people further from the families and lawyers who visit them. No timeline has been announced. Staff were told they would get 60 days of notice, down from the nine months their old union contract required.

That contract is gone. In September 2025 the Bureau canceled its collective bargaining agreement with the American Federation of Government Employees. The union was not told about the closures and has sued. Its president, Everett Kelley, asked Congress on July 2 to stop the closures and spend the money already appropriated on fixing the buildings instead. He called it a plan to dismantle the federal prison system.

The staffing numbers explain why this is happening. The Bureau has been shedding officers for years. More than 1,400 staff left in 2025, many of them for jobs at Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

In Anthony, Texas, La Tuna is the closure people are watching closest. The town grew up around the prison. Rep. Veronica Escobar, whose district includes it, said she was not notified and believes the closures are a step toward privatizing the system. She has asked the Justice Department to repair La Tuna instead, to save hundreds of jobs, and visited the facility in August. A protest was held outside it.

There is now a new worry. The El Paso Times reported in mid-August that people in the area fear La Tuna could be turned into a migrant detention center. That would swap one locked population for another and would not bring back the jobs the town is losing. The Bureau has not said what the buildings will become.

Sources

Federal Bureau of Prisons, "Federal Bureau of Prisons Announces Facility Closures and Operational Changes," July 1, 2026.

American Federation of Government Employees, "Letter to Members of Congress on Bureau of Prisons Facility Closures," July 2, 2026.

Federal News Network, "Bureau of Prisons to close six institutions, citing 'extreme staffing challenges'," July 2, 2026.

Filter, "BOP to Close Six Prisons, as Trump Pushes Agency Deeper Into Chaos," July 6, 2026.

El Paso Matters, "La Tuna federal prison in Anthony to close, ending nearly a century of operation," July 1, 2026.

KVIA, "Protest against closing of La Tuna prison," August 13, 2026.

Federal News Network, "Federal Bureau of Prisons terminates collective bargaining agreement with AFGE," September 26, 2025.

ProPublica, "As Federal Prisons Run Low on Food and Toilet Paper, Corrections Officers Are Leaving in Droves," November 21, 2025.




### Thirteen Men Freed Under the First Step Act Face Going Back to Prison

URL: https://fixingbop.org/topics/legal-battles-legislative-updates/thirteen-men-freed-under-the-first-step-act-face-going-back-to-prison/
Published: 20 August 2026
Section: Legal Battles & Legislative Updates

Summary: A May Supreme Court ruling in Rutherford v. United States removed the legal basis for the compassionate release of 13 people. Matthew Charles, the first person freed under the First Step Act, says clemency is their only remaining path.

Matthew Charles knows what it is like to walk out of prison and then be ordered back in.

Charles served 22 years for crack cocaine offenses, under mandatory minimums that no longer exist. In 2018 he became the first person released under the First Step Act, the bipartisan law President Donald Trump signed that December. He went back to prison once anyway, after a court reversed that first release, and then got out again. He later joined Trump at the State of the Union as a guest.

Now he is warning that 13 other men are about to be pushed through the same door in the wrong direction.

Those 13 were released through compassionate release, the process that lets a judge cut a sentence short for “extraordinary and compelling” reasons. The reason in these cases was usually the same. Before 2018, federal law stacked mandatory minimums for certain gun offenses, so one conviction could pile on decades of added time. The First Step Act ended that stacking for new cases. Someone sentenced under the old rules can therefore be serving far longer than the same crime would draw today. In the cases the Supreme Court took up, one man’s mandatory minimum would have been 14 years shorter and another’s 21 years shorter had they been sentenced now.

In May the Court closed that door. In Rutherford v. United States, decided with a companion case, the justices ruled that this kind of sentence disparity cannot support compassionate release, because that would make the First Step Act retroactive when Congress meant it to apply only going forward. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, writing that the majority “conjured” limits that neither Congress nor the Sentencing Commission imposed. The same day, in Fernandez v. United States, the Court held that doubt about a conviction’s integrity cannot justify compassionate release either, over a dissent from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

The ruling does not just shape future cases. It pulls the legal ground out from under people who are already free. Charles names two of them. Clifford Darden was recently elected a deacon at his church. Damian Smith was freed after 16 and a half years of a 42-year sentence and now volunteers for his congregation. Their releases rest on the same reasoning Rutherford rejected.

Charles now advocates for Families Against Mandatory Minimums, or FAMM. His argument is blunt. These men did the work. Judges looked at their records and let them out. The only tool left, he writes, is the president’s clemency power. For 13 people who rebuilt their lives, a commutation is the difference between staying home and returning to a cell to finish a sentence measured in decades.

More is coming. The Court will hear another First Step Act case, Maxwell v. Dinis, next term, on how early a prisoner can move to a halfway house or home confinement. Rep. Jamie Raskin filed an amicus brief in that case in August.

Sources

Supreme Court of the United States, "Rutherford v. United States, No. 24-820 (slip opinion)," May 28, 2026.

Supreme Court of the United States, "Fernandez v. United States, No. 24-556 (slip opinion)," May 28, 2026.

SCOTUSblog, "Rutherford v. United States (24-820)," May 28, 2026.

SCOTUSblog, "Maxwell v. Thomas (25-5930)," November 2, 2026.

U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary, "In New Amicus Brief, Ranking Member Raskin Urges Supreme Court to Enforce First Step Act," August 12, 2026.

FAMM, "FAMM Calls on President Trump, All 50 Governors to Leverage Clemency Power," April 21, 2026.

Georgetown University Law Center, "Professor Shon Hopwood and Matthew Charles: On Sentences and Second Chances," February 2019.




### BOP Begins Transition to CICLOPS: A Long-Overdue Modernization of Its Core Inmate Management System

URL: https://fixingbop.org/topics/smarter-solutions-for-reform/bop-begins-transition-to-ciclops-a-long-overdue-modernization-of-its-core-inmate-management-system/
Published: 15 August 2026
Section: Technology & Data: Smarter Solutions for Reform

Summary: BOP Begins Transition to CICLOPS: A Long-Overdue Modernization of Its Core Inmate Management System Category: BOP History & Decline / Rehabilitation Programs: Lost Opportunities Published: August 2026 For decades, the Federal Bureau of Prisons has relied on SENTRY — an aging,

BOP Begins Transition to CICLOPS: A Long-Overdue Modernization of Its Core Inmate Management System

Category: BOP History & Decline / Rehabilitation Programs: Lost Opportunities

Published: August 2026

For decades, the Federal Bureau of Prisons has relied on SENTRY — an aging, COBOL-and-Assembler-based inmate case management system that has become a symbol of the agency’s technological stagnation. That era is finally beginning to end. The BOP has begun the transition to its long-promised replacement: CICLOPS, the Centralized Inmate Case Logistics Operations and Planning System.

CICLOPS is not a minor upgrade. It is a full modernization of the Bureau’s central nervous system for managing the approximately 150,000+ people in federal custody. The new platform is designed to replace SENTRY’s outdated architecture with a modern JavaEE-compliant application suite, built on a microservices architecture and hosted in the Bureau’s FedRAMP-certified AWS GovCloud environment. The goal is greater flexibility, better data accuracy, improved interoperability with partner agencies, and the ability to finally implement basic functions that SENTRY’s ancient programming language simply could not support.

The Contract Behind the System

In September 2021, the Bureau awarded Delivery Order 15BNAS21FRCA00031 (under the Alliant II government-wide acquisition contract) to International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) for “SENTRY Modernization and Cloud Migration Services.” The contract’s original ceiling was in the range of roughly $49–67 million, with options extending the period of performance into the early 2030s. IBM was tasked with converting the legacy COBOL and Assembler code into modern applications, enabling horizontal and vertical scaling, and migrating the entire system to the cloud.

Public GAO and Department of Justice Office of Inspector General reports have referred to the resulting system simply as CICLOPS. The formal name — Centralized Inmate Case Logistics Operations and Planning System — reflects its intended scope: designations and transfers, sentence computation, risk-and-needs assessments under the First Step Act, Central Inmate Monitoring (CIM) cases, and the broader logistics of inmate movement and case management.

Why This Matters

SENTRY’s limitations have had real-world consequences. One of the most glaring examples involves the First Step Act’s requirement that the Bureau place inmates, to the extent practicable, within 500 driving miles of their primary residence. SENTRY could only calculate straight-line (“as the crow flies”) distances. The result: official reports to Congress systematically undercounted how many people were housed far from home. OIG audits found that roughly 40 percent of the evaluated population sat more than 500 driving miles from their release residences — a figure the old system could not accurately capture.

BOP officials have stated that once CICLOPS is fully operational (targeted for late 2026, with some references pointing to September or December), the new system will finally support driving-mile calculations and other long-needed enhancements. The transition is being rolled out in waves to reduce risk and allow for feedback — a cautious approach that, given the Bureau’s track record with technology projects, is both understandable and concerning.

A Familiar Pattern of Delay and Under-Delivery

Readers of this site will recognize the pattern. The Bureau has repeatedly struggled with technology initiatives that promised modernization and delivered frustration. The tablet program remains a case study in missed opportunities: devices that could have delivered robust educational content, reentry tools, and meaningful family connection instead became limited platforms constrained by bureaucracy and vendor priorities. The First Step Act itself has been treated more as an administrative burden than a mandate for genuine rehabilitation.

CICLOPS arrives against this backdrop. On paper, it addresses critical shortcomings. In practice, success will depend on whether the Bureau treats the new system as a tool for better case management and closer-to-home placements — or simply as another expensive platform that continues to prioritize institutional convenience over the statutory rights and rehabilitation needs of the people in its custody.

The transition has begun. The real test is whether CICLOPS becomes the foundation for a more rational, data-driven, and humane federal prison system — or just the latest chapter in the long story of BOP modernization that never quite materializes.

Sources

U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General, "Audit of the Federal Bureau of Prisons' Efforts to Place Inmates Close to Home (25-083)," September 2025.

U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General, "Audit of the Federal Bureau of Prisons' Efforts to Place Inmates Close to Home (25-083), full report," September 2025.

Federal Bureau of Prisons, "BOP Brings Decades Old Systems Into a Modern Era," August 27, 2026.

USAspending.gov, "SENTRY Modernization and Cloud Migration, Delivery Order 15BNAS21FRCA00031," September 2021.

U.S. Government Accountability Office, "Federal Prisons: Improvements Needed to the System Used to Assess and Mitigate Risks (GAO-26-107268)," January 2026.

FedScoop, "Federal Bureau of Prisons seeks to further update its inmate management system," May 2018.

Federal Bureau of Prisons, "Privacy Impact Assessment for the SENTRY Inmate Management System," July 2012.




### The Cycle of Despair: How Mismanagement in U.S. Federal Prisons Fuels Drug Epidemics and Endangers Staff

URL: https://fixingbop.org/topics/prison-conditions-safety/the-cycle-of-despair-how-mismanagement-in-u-s-federal-prisons-fuels-drug-epidemics-and-endangers-staff/
Published: 10 May 2025
Section: Prison Conditions & Safety

Summary: The U.S. Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) faces an escalating crisis driven by illicit drugs infiltrating its facilities, creating a self-sustaining cycle of despair and hopelessness that impacts inmates and correctional staff alike. Historically, drugs entering prisons were smuggled primarily by

The U.S. Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) faces an escalating crisis driven by illicit drugs infiltrating its facilities, creating a self-sustaining cycle of despair and hopelessness that impacts inmates and correctional staff alike. Historically, drugs entering prisons were smuggled primarily by corrupt staff or visitors, but today, amid a deadly fentanyl epidemic, officers themselves are becoming unintended victims, sometimes fatally, through accidental exposure to potent substances, according to multiple BOP inmate and staff reports.

Correctional officers enter the job with starting pay around $48,000 per year, as per recent Indeed.com postings. Yet, the demanding and often hazardous conditions of working in federal prisons make recruiting and retention increasingly difficult. The job description, informally ranging from "adult babysitter" to "UFC referee," now potentially includes the dangerous role of hazardous materials handler—exacerbating an already serious staffing shortage.

Many correctional officers experience profound stress from their roles. Few derive satisfaction from enforcing confinement, especially when many inmates they oversee are not violent criminals but rather individuals from impoverished backgrounds struggling with addiction or mental illness. White-collar offenders, incarcerated due to complex financial laws, further complicate the emotional toll on staff forced to witness extended sentences that exceed those in virtually all other developed nations.

Recent policy changes have compounded these issues. BOP staff report significant attrition following COVID-19 mask mandates, mandatory vaccinations, and controversial protective gear requirements, including stab vests costing over $1,500 each. Now, the agency is reportedly planning to implement mandatory full-body hazardous material suits, a measure criticized as another ineffective stopgap.

A Self-Perpetuating Crisis

The core of the problem lies in inmate morale, which deteriorates sharply due to poor prison conditions. Inmates with untreated addiction or mental health issues often revert to substance abuse as a coping mechanism, sparking violent incidents and endangering staff safety. The resultant drop in staff morale and job satisfaction increases vulnerability to corruption, making bribery and drug smuggling more common—further fueling inmate drug dependency in a vicious feedback loop.

Conditions reported by inmates from one BOP facility illustrate the severity of the crisis: routine water and air conditioning outages, substandard government-provided meals, arbitrary commissary restrictions enacted collectively by administrators without due process, frequent lockdowns from drug-related incidents, and insufficient medical care. Consequently, access to vital rehabilitation programs and classes is severely restricted, stalling efforts toward reintegration and perpetuating recidivism.

This phenomenon mirrors findings from the Rat Park Experiment, demonstrating how environmental deprivation drives substance abuse. The experiment highlights that enriched, positive environments significantly reduce drug use among populations prone to addiction.

The Human Cost and Staff Morale

Such systemic dysfunction extends beyond inmate populations, creating an unsafe, demoralizing working environment for correctional staff. Officers frequently encounter threats to their physical safety and psychological well-being, fueling high turnover and recruitment difficulties, worsening institutional stability and operational efficiency.

Finding a Balanced Solution

Should we reward inmates for bad behavior by giving them amenities and entertainment? No, of course not. But we can't deny the fact that if you gave every inmate an Xbox, junk food, vapes, air conditioning, hot showers, and microwaves, the drug use and violence would likely drop to nearly zero overnight. Most U.S. state prisons have proven this repeatedly. The problem is that the federal system continues to rely solely on punishment rather than engagement and rehabilitation. The question is: where is the happy medium?

Fortunately, it already exists. The BOP has clear policies regarding air conditioning, hot water, food quality, and commissary access. Inmates can purchase Android tablets to load with games and movies. The infrastructure for a safer, more humane prison environment is already in place. What’s missing is consistent and competent implementation at the facility level. Inmate and staff reports describe a pattern of mismanagement, where leadership has become disengaged and quick to impose lockdowns or collective punishments as a way to reduce their own workload.

Proposed Solutions

Enforce existing BOP regulations regarding inmate living standards (air conditioning, hot water, food quality, commissary access).

End collective punishment practices; target disciplinary actions specifically at offending inmates following due process.

Enhance inmate access to mental health services and drug rehabilitation programs.

Prioritize hiring staff focused on inmate rehabilitation and welfare rather than purely punitive measures.

Implement accountability measures for administrative staff to ensure consistent policy adherence and reduce arbitrary punitive practices.

Regularly evaluate prison environments and staff morale through transparent oversight mechanisms.

Addressing these systemic issues holistically can break the destructive cycle, improving conditions for both inmates and correctional officers and ultimately benefiting society as a whole.




### The Silent Crisis in Federal Prisons: When Healthcare Becomes a Life Sentence

URL: https://fixingbop.org/topics/healthcare-neglect-in-prisons/the-silent-crisis-in-federal-prisons-when-healthcare-becomes-a-life-sentence/
Published: 3 May 2025
Section: Healthcare Neglect in Prisons

Summary: According to official Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) policy, incarcerated individuals are entitled to the same standard of medical care available in the surrounding community. On paper, this sounds equitable. In practice, however, BOP inmates have reported that access to that care is obstructed by

According to official Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) policy, incarcerated individuals are entitled to the same standard of medical care available in the surrounding community. On paper, this sounds equitable. In practice, however, BOP inmates have reported that access to that care is obstructed by chronic understaffing, poor resource allocation, and a system where medical professionals are frequently reassigned to non-medical roles, such as security and custody duties.

The issue is not simply a lack of medical infrastructure—facilities often exist and doctors are on staff—but a matter of ineffective management and restricted access. This systemic dysfunction results in preventable suffering, untreated illnesses, and ultimately, premature death.

The Gauntlet of "Sick Call"

To seek medical attention, inmates must wake at 5:30 a.m., skip breakfast, and report to what is known as "Sick Call." This process involves completing paperwork and waiting, often for hours, in a crowded holding area. They may or may not see a Physician Assistant (PA) that day. These PAs serve as gatekeepers to the limited number of doctors—typically just one or two per 1,600 inmates.

If the PA determines a doctor's visit is warranted, the inmate is placed on a waitlist. While initial appointments are often scheduled within two weeks, actual follow-up care can be delayed for a month or more due to lockdowns, weather interruptions, staff appreciation days, or other security-related events. These administrative bottlenecks frequently discourage inmates from seeking care at all, leading many to suffer in silence.

When Minor Symptoms Hide Major Threats

This delay in diagnosis and treatment can have devastating consequences. Inmates have reported cases where seemingly minor symptoms masked serious, treatable conditions such as:

Chest pain that turned out to be untreated cardiovascular disease

Persistent coughs that were later diagnosed as advanced lung cancer or tuberculosis

Fatigue and weight loss that signaled diabetes or late-stage liver disease

These are not rare occurrences. In fact, the most common causes of death among federal inmates include heart disease, cancer, and complications from infectious diseases—all of which are manageable or even curable with timely care. Chronic illnesses like diabetes and respiratory conditions also contribute significantly to inmate mortality, especially when medication is inconsistent or unavailable.

Life Expectancy: A Data-Backed Indictment

The numbers tell a sobering story. Research indicates that each year spent in prison shortens an individual’s life expectancy by up to two years. In New Jersey, a 2024 report revealed that the average age of death for incarcerated men was just 59—over 15 years younger than the general U.S. male population.

Despite the Department of Justice’s reluctance to acknowledge this reality, the implication is clear: lengthy prison sentences, particularly for non-violent or aging offenders, function as de facto death sentences. The cost of this neglect is not only human—it’s fiscal. End-of-life care for inmates can cost taxpayers millions annually, surpassing the expenses of alternative sentencing or medical parole.

Older Inmates, Lower Risk

Compounding the issue is the fact that recidivism rates among inmates over the age of 55 are strikingly low. Studies consistently show that older individuals pose a minimal risk to public safety. This raises a critical question: why are we incarcerating people well past their prime earning or offending years, particularly when doing so is both inhumane and economically inefficient?

Prevention Is Cheaper Than Neglect

BOP inmates have repeatedly emphasized the potential benefits of systemic reforms: access to healthy food in the commissary and food services, reinstating fitness equipment, and improving mental health resources. These preventive measures could reduce medical emergencies and extend life expectancy at a fraction of the cost of reactive, late-stage care.

Currently, the BOP operates less like a correctional system and more like an underfunded hospice. But the lives being prematurely ended are not merely statistics—they are fathers, mothers, veterans, and citizens, many of whom are serving time for non-violent offenses.

Solutions: A Path Forward

Mandate healthcare access reviews: Require independent audits of inmate healthcare systems across federal facilities.

Expand compassionate release: Streamline eligibility for older, terminally ill, or incapacitated inmates.

Improve medical staffing: Ensure medical professionals are not reassigned to non-medical roles.

Restore health-focused infrastructure: Reintroduce fitness equipment and offer nutritious commissary options.

Reform sentencing laws: Incorporate data on prison-related life expectancy loss into sentencing guidelines.

Invest in preventive care: Provide consistent treatment for chronic conditions and mental health support.

Until systemic changes are made, the Bureau of Prisons will continue to operate as an expensive and ineffective end-of-life facility—failing those in its care, and the society it claims to serve.




### The Rat Park Problem: How the Bureau of Prisons Engineered a Drug Epidemic

URL: https://fixingbop.org/topics/prison-conditions-safety/the-rat-park-problem-how-the-bureau-of-prisons-engineered-a-drug-epidemic/
Published: 5 April 2025
Section: Prison Conditions & Safety

Summary: In the late 1970s, psychologist Bruce K. Alexander conducted a groundbreaking experiment that redefined how addiction is understood. Known as the Rat Park study, the experiment demonstrated that addiction is not simply about chemical dependency, but about environment, connection, and mental health.

In the late 1970s, psychologist Bruce K. Alexander conducted a groundbreaking experiment that redefined how addiction is understood. Known as the Rat Park study, the experiment demonstrated that addiction is not simply about chemical dependency, but about environment, connection, and mental health. Rats isolated in cramped cages consistently consumed morphine-laced water, while those housed in an enriched, social, and stimulating space—"Rat Park"—mostly avoided it. The implication was clear: addiction flourishes in environments of despair and isolation.

Today, conditions within the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) reflect a disturbing parallel. Over the past two decades, numerous inmate and staff accounts confirm that the BOP has significantly reduced rehabilitative programs, recreational opportunities, and social interaction—replacing engagement with punishment, and hope with monotony. The resulting surge in drug use behind bars is not coincidental. It is the inevitable consequence of the system’s design.

Despair by Design

Over 50% of federal inmates have a history of substance use disorders, according to the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics. Despite this, many BOP facilities lack access to consistent or meaningful rehabilitation services. In fact, the only formal drug treatment program available—the Residential Drug Abuse Program (RDAP)—is a 9-month program only accessible to inmates within the final 24 to 36 months of their sentence. As a result, the vast majority of incarcerated individuals have no access to treatment for the vast majority of their years in custody.

BOP inmates have reported that even basic educational and vocational programs are limited or inaccessible, and in some facilities, entirely defunded. Recreation has been stripped down to minimal physical movement in overcrowded yards. Visits are sparse and expensive. Communications with family are time-restricted and cost-prohibitive. There are no treatment units, and proposed models such as specialized recovery units remain theoretical.

In effect, the BOP has constructed the equivalent of an endless solitary experiment. Inmates are given the bare minimum for survival but denied the very conditions that reduce the desire to escape into addiction: purpose, engagement, and human connection. In this context, contraband drug use—whether for relief or profit—becomes not a moral failing, but a rational response to institutionalized hopelessness. In fact, the BOP could not have engineered a more perfect environment to encourage drug use—and thus create opportunity for corrupt officers to profit from supplying contraband—if it had tried.

The Illusion of Reform

Proposed ideas such as tiered rehabilitation models suggest an awareness of the problem, but these remain largely theoretical and unimplemented. While such efforts could potentially treat addiction as a rehabilitative rather than punitive issue, they ignore the environmental factors that underlie the problem. As in the Rat Park study, sobriety is unlikely to emerge from sterile confinement alone. Forced abstinence does not equal recovery, and discipline does not foster dignity.

BOP inmates have reported that, even when drug education or counseling sessions are offered, they are often inconsistent, under-resourced, or led by untrained staff. Behavioral incentives are undermined by the broader deprivation of life quality within the general prison population. Without systemic improvements, these treatment models—if and when implemented—risk functioning more as containment than cure.

Crowding and Its Consequences

The average federal prison operates at over 103% capacity. Overcrowding has been directly linked to increased violence, mental health deterioration, and decreased access to rehabilitative services. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, inmates in less crowded facilities report better mental health outcomes and reduced rates of recidivism. The psychological effects of packed living conditions echo the worst outcomes of Alexander’s isolated lab rats—aggression, apathy, and addiction.

Solutions: Building a Real-World Rat Park

If we accept that environmental enrichment reduces addiction, then we must reimagine incarceration with that principle at its core. Rehabilitation must be rooted in dignity, not deprivation. Below are key reforms that draw directly from both the Rat Park study and BOP stakeholder reports:

Enhanced Access to Digital Engagement: Provide BOP tablets with educational apps, cognitive-behavioral therapy modules, music libraries, documentaries, fitness programs, and interactive games. These tools offer mental stimulation, skill-building, and emotional relief.

Expanded Commissary Options: A broader selection of healthy food, hygiene products, and comfort items fosters autonomy and boosts morale—factors proven to reduce aggression and improve institutional behavior.

Improved Fitness Facilities: Equip facilities with updated workout equipment and provide structured fitness programs. Regular physical activity is a critical element in reducing stress, combating depression, and reinforcing routine.

Restored Social Programs: Reinvest in group education, vocational training, theater, peer mentoring, and family reunification initiatives. Social bonds are essential to recovery and community reintegration.

Reduced Overcrowding: Implement decarceration strategies and transfer non-violent offenders to community-based programs to alleviate housing pressures. Less crowded spaces reduce tension and provide room for programming and movement.

Meaningful Incentives for Progress: Create transparent and attainable goals for inmates to earn privileges, transfers to better units, or early release credits through sustained effort and sobriety.

Environmental Design Reform: Redesign prison spaces to support human dignity—natural light, calming colors, quiet zones, and green space can drastically improve mood and behavior, supported by environmental psychology research.

Ultimately, addiction in prison cannot be solved through surveillance or control alone. As the Rat Park study revealed decades ago, the answer lies in the environment. The question before us now is whether the Bureau of Prisons is willing to make that environment one of rehabilitation—or continue confining people in cages where addiction thrives.

References:

Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice. "Substance Dependence, Abuse, and Treatment of Jail Inmates, 2002." (reaffirmed by later reports)

Federal Bureau of Prisons. "Residential Drug Abuse Program (RDAP)." bop.gov

Alexander, Bruce K. et al. "The Effect of Housing and Gender on Morphine Self-Administration in Rats." Psychopharmacology (1978)

American Psychological Association. "Effects of Overcrowding in Prisons on Inmate Health." APA Monitor




### The Real Catalyst of Prison Suicide Rates: Misguided Policy and Ignored Evidence

URL: https://fixingbop.org/topics/prison-conditions-safety/the-real-catalyst-of-prison-suicide-rates-misguided-policy-and-ignored-evidence/
Published: 3 April 2025
Section: Prison Conditions & Safety

Summary: In the early 2020s, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) began to address a disturbing trend: an increase in inmate suicides. Internal data indicated that suicides occurred more frequently among inmates housed alone. In response, the BOP implemented broad policies aimed at doubling up inmates in

In the early 2020s, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) began to address a disturbing trend: an increase in inmate suicides. Internal data indicated that suicides occurred more frequently among inmates housed alone. In response, the BOP implemented broad policies aimed at doubling up inmates in cells—framing the change as a suicide prevention strategy.

At face value, this appeared to be a proactive, data-driven measure. But as with many institutional reforms, the reality is more complicated—and deeply flawed. The overwhelming majority of suicides do not take place in general population units, but in Special Housing Units (SHUs), often referred to as “the Hole.” These units are designed for disciplinary or administrative segregation and impose extreme isolation, far beyond the conditions of a standard one-man cell.

It’s important to distinguish between solitary confinement in SHUs and single-occupancy cells in general population. For decades, most federal inmates were housed in individual cells—an arrangement that provided personal space and autonomy without the psychological stressors of isolation. Notably, during those decades, suicide rates were significantly lower. This undermines the BOP’s current justification and suggests a misinterpretation—or manipulation—of statistical data to support policies driven more by convenience than concern for inmate welfare.

Segregation by Design

Within prison walls, inmates tend to self-segregate by race, culture, and ideology, often consolidating into prison gangs. Rather than challenge this fragmentation, the BOP has implicitly allowed and, in some cases, encouraged it. The rationale is simple: divided populations are easier to manage. A unified prison population poses a far greater threat to institutional control.

To avoid exacerbating racial tensions, the BOP generally avoids forcing inmates of markedly different backgrounds to share a cell—a tacit acknowledgment that such pairings can be a flashpoint for violence. Historically, to manage these dynamics, prisons maintained occupancy at around 90% of capacity. But that buffer has eroded, replaced by overcrowding justified under the guise of suicide prevention.

Unintended Consequences

What the BOP has failed to do is assess whether this push toward consolidation has resulted in increased violence. Forced cellmate pairings in already stressful environments can lead to fights, assaults, and even homicides—none of which are tracked in relation to the suicide-prevention rationale. It’s a dangerous oversight, one that prioritizes optics over outcomes.

Above is a US Federal Prison Cell in a Low Security Prison designed for 3 men in less than 100 square feet of space

The core issue is not about shared cells versus solitary ones—it’s about chronic overcrowding, under-resourcing, and a lack of institutional accountability. As of 2023, federal prisons were operating at over 100% capacity. Staff shortages, underfunded programs, and deteriorating infrastructure compound the problem. And when violence or death occurs, the blame is invariably placed on the inmates—not on administrative mismanagement or flawed policy decisions.

One-Man Cells: A Model of Stability

Contrary to current trends, there is a growing body of evidence supporting the benefits of single-occupancy cells in general population settings. These are not solitary confinement units, but standard housing where inmates retain access to communal activities, programming, and recreation—while also having personal space for reflection, reading, or education. This structure fosters autonomy and reduces tension.

Many European nations, including Norway and Germany, utilize this model. Inmates often have access to books, classes, and digital tools like tablets. These countries report significantly lower suicide and recidivism rates, demonstrating that humane conditions yield better outcomes for individuals and society alike.

Above is a medium security prison cell in Sweden, designed for one inmate

The Roots of Despair

Inmate suicide is rarely about being alone—it is about hopelessness. U.S. federal prisons have, in many cases, deteriorated to substandard levels. Showers are often unsanitary, harboring mold and bacteria. Meals are nutritionally insufficient and frequently unpalatable. Commissaries are chronically understocked. Phones, email, and video communication systems are unreliable. Recreation and programming are routinely suspended due to lockdowns or staff shortages. Effective addiction treatment—crucial for over 50% of the incarcerated population—is virtually nonexistent.

In these conditions, the BOP's answer has been to further limit personal space—to “pack them tighter.” This policy is not only ineffective; it is inhumane.

Solutions

Reinstate and expand one-man general population cells to promote mental stability, safety, and personal accountability.

Invest in mental health and addiction services with trained professionals delivering consistent, evidence-based care.

Restore access to recreation, education, and vocational training as foundational components of rehabilitation.

Monitor and publicly report data linking housing conditions to incidents of violence, suicide, and inmate well-being.

Modernize infrastructure to provide clean facilities, healthy food, functional communication systems, and basic hygiene.

Reform internal segregation policies by fostering programs that build understanding across racial and ideological lines.

We must stop using manipulated data to justify failed policies. Treating inmates with dignity, providing space to think and grow, and offering genuine opportunities for rehabilitation is not just a moral imperative—it’s a proven strategy for safer prisons and a stronger society.




### In the Bureau of Prisons, Every Clown Runs His Own Circus

URL: https://fixingbop.org/topics/corruption-lack-of-accountability/in-the-bureau-of-prisons-every-clown-runs-his-own-circus/
Published: 31 March 2025
Section: Corruption & Lack of Accountability

Summary: Opinion: In the Bureau of Prisons, Every Clown Runs His Own Circus At the national level, it is the Department of Justice’s stated goal that all federal correctional facilities under the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) operate in compliance with standardized policy. In practice, however, that vision is

Opinion: In the Bureau of Prisons, Every Clown Runs His Own Circus

At the national level, it is the Department of Justice’s stated goal that all federal correctional facilities under the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) operate in compliance with standardized policy. In practice, however, that vision is often lost in translation. What exists instead is a fragmented system, where local administrators exercise inconsistent — and at times dangerous — levels of autonomy. The phrase “every clown has his own circus” may seem crass, but for many BOP institutions, it captures the absurdity of decentralized mismanagement all too well.

A Broken Policy Framework

To be fair, many of the BOP’s national policies are outdated, inflexible, and out of step with modern correctional science. Local institutions often have to adapt in real time to fill gaps in leadership and direction. But improvisation can quickly devolve into reckless experimentation. A newly assigned Assistant Warden (AW), for instance, may decide to punish an entire housing unit for the infraction of a single inmate — a misguided move that can lead to violence, retaliation, and even murder. These decisions are not grounded in data or informed by psychology. And perhaps most troubling, they are made without proper oversight or qualification.

Incredibly, there is no formal requirement for AWs or other high-ranking BOP officials to possess degrees in criminal justice, psychology, or behavioral science. There is no mandate that they demonstrate proficiency in using data to inform decisions. And there is no system of assessment to determine if they even understand the basic cause-and-effect relationships their decisions create. The result? A system that allows leaders to wield immense authority — sometimes with fatal consequences — without the training to match.

Systemic Failure, Generational Harm

As FixingBOP.org has documented, the systemic dysfunction in the BOP is deep-rooted and generational. It is a system that fuels recidivism, exacerbates addiction, and returns inmates to society more broken than when they entered. Many return home uneducated, unreformed, and unequipped to contribute to their communities — often further impoverished by their time behind bars.

This cycle of failure is tragically compounded when inexperienced or authoritarian leaders attempt to “fix” institutions by doubling down on punitive approaches that have long been proven ineffective. Instead of addressing root causes — trauma, addiction, lack of education — some administrators resort to blanket punishments and heavy-handed tactics, stoking resentment and instability within already volatile environments.

Accountability Is Nonexistent

Despite the high stakes — lives, both inmate and staff, are on the line — accountability for administrative failure is virtually nonexistent within the BOP. Mismanagement that results in serious consequences is often brushed aside. When something goes wrong, the institutional response is to blame the inmate, not the decision-making that created the conditions for failure. There are no performance reviews tied to outcomes, no internal audits of policy effectiveness, and no public transparency mechanisms.

There is no internal forum, blog, or database where BOP officials can document decisions and their results. In a modern era where data-driven analysis is a cornerstone of nearly every major institution, the BOP remains alarmingly analog. With every new administrator comes a reinvention of the wheel, and too often, the repetition of prior mistakes.

Retaliation, Bureaucracy, and the Slow Road to Justice

When inmates are subjected to unlawful or unreasonable treatment, their only recourse is the Administrative Remedy Program — a bureaucratic process that can take up to a year to navigate. During that time, inmates may face retaliation from vindictive administrators for simply attempting to exercise their constitutional rights. This includes being transferred, harassed, or subjected to further punitive measures — all of which violate BOP’s own written policies, but are rarely enforced.

The national policy position is that “local policy” does not exist. Yet in practice, every institution operates with its own unwritten rules and customs. This unofficial local governance means outcomes are wildly inconsistent across facilities — and often, it takes a lawsuit or external pressure to reverse unjust decisions.

A Cultural Divide Within the Ranks

Perhaps most revealing is the cultural dichotomy that exists within BOP staff itself. Some correctional officers remain staunch believers in the outdated “punish them into compliance” model, even as evidence from decades of research proves it ineffective. Others — typically more experienced staff — recognize the futility of such methods and are more pragmatic, prioritizing safety and long-term stability over short-term shows of force.

The lack of communication between these factions — and between local institutions and national leadership — further entrenches dysfunction. Without a culture of open dialogue and evidence-based reform, even well-intentioned officers are left to navigate a broken system alone.

Solutions: A Path Toward Reform

To break this cycle of mismanagement and ensure a safer, more effective correctional system, the following reforms should be considered:

Professional Standards for Leadership: Require Assistant Wardens and other administrators to hold degrees in psychology, criminal justice, or related fields, and undergo certification in correctional best practices.

Data-Driven Decision Making: Implement analytics tools to monitor outcomes of institutional policies and leadership decisions, allowing for evidence-based reform and accountability.

Internal Transparency: Establish a national database or internal blog for tracking administrative decisions and sharing successful interventions across facilities.

Accountability Mechanisms: Enforce disciplinary measures for gross mismanagement or policy violations, especially when they result in harm.

Whistleblower Protections: Strengthen protections for inmates and staff who report abuse, mismanagement, or policy violations.

Reform Administrative Remedy Program: Expedite the review process and protect inmates from retaliation during the appeals process.

Mandated Training: Require ongoing education in behavioral psychology, conflict de-escalation, and restorative justice for all administrative personnel.

External Oversight: Create independent oversight bodies to monitor BOP institutions, ensuring policies align with human rights and correctional science.

If we are serious about reducing recidivism, rehabilitating offenders, and restoring trust in the criminal justice system, the BOP must move away from arbitrary leadership and toward a modern, accountable, and evidence-based model. Until then, too many prisons will remain personal fiefdoms for poorly trained administrators — and society will continue to bear the cost.




### The Bureau of Prisons Must Embrace Technology to Reduce Recidivism

URL: https://fixingbop.org/topics/advocacy-reform-strategies/the-bureau-of-prisons-must-embrace-technology-to-reduce-recidivism/
Published: 26 March 2025
Section: Advocacy & Reform Strategies

Summary: Every day, hundreds of individuals are released from U.S. federal prisons and reenter a society that has undergone a massive technological transformation. From mobile banking and rideshare apps to online job searches and telehealth, daily life in 2025 is powered by digital literacy. Yet many of

Every day, hundreds of individuals are released from U.S. federal prisons and reenter a society that has undergone a massive technological transformation. From mobile banking and rideshare apps to online job searches and telehealth, daily life in 2025 is powered by digital literacy. Yet many of these returning citizens are emerging from decades-long incarcerations without even the most basic knowledge of how to navigate a smartphone, let alone a computer.

This lack of digital fluency isn’t a mere inconvenience—it’s a systemic failure that undermines public safety, economic opportunity, and the very mission of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP). The Bureau has consistently resisted integrating meaningful technology education into its rehabilitation programs. It neither offers basic classes on smartphone or computer use nor provides access to standard software like Microsoft Office. Meanwhile, society assumes digital competency as a prerequisite for employment, housing, and healthcare access.

A System Frozen in Time

The BOP continues to operate in a mindset that is decades out of date. While the federal prison system is now heavily populated by low-level drug offenders—many of whom will return to society within a few years—the Bureau’s policies remain rooted in Cold War-era fears of criminal ingenuity. The notion that giving inmates computer access might facilitate scams has been used to justify a wholesale ban on tools that are standard in most U.S. households and nearly all state prison systems.

Ironically, these concerns are not borne out by data. The BOP recovers tens of thousands of contraband cell phones each year, according to internal audits and public reporting. If inmates truly wanted to orchestrate sophisticated criminal schemes, they already have the means. Yet incidents involving digital crime from within prisons remain statistically rare. The data suggests that access to supervised, secure educational technology poses minimal risk—and enormous potential benefit.

The Model That Works

California’s Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has demonstrated what's possible through its innovative “The Last Mile” and "Code.7370" programs—initiatives that train inmates in full-stack software development. The result? Graduates of these programs have boasted a zero percent recidivism rate. Participants don’t just find jobs; they build careers. They exit prison with a purpose and skill set that reintegrates them into the economy. This is rehabilitation in the truest sense.

By contrast, federal inmates are still using typewriters—machines so outdated that their parts are increasingly unavailable. Bizarrely, these typewriters are kept in use despite safety concerns; internal components like steel bars have been converted into weapons in the past. The logic is twisted: inmates are denied modern word processors because they might more effectively litigate their cases, even though nearly all state systems allow such access without issue.

Digital Illiteracy is a Barrier to Reintegration

Why aren't federal inmates learning how to set up a Gmail account, build a résumé, apply for jobs on Indeed, or use navigation apps to reach an interview? These are not luxuries; they are necessities for anyone seeking to reintegrate into today’s workforce and society. Yet the BOP offers virtually no structured programming to teach these skills.

Instead, the technology inmates are given is essentially a digital vending machine. The BOP’s contractor-issued tablets—managed by the Keefe Group—offer censored music, PG-13 movies, and low-grade games developed by subcontractors. Unlike the GTL tablets used in many state prisons, these devices are not vehicles for education. They are profit centers. Promised features like access to Khan Academy, educational video content, or GED prep material have never materialized. The tablets are simply another revenue stream dressed up as rehabilitation.

Idle Hands, Missed Opportunities

The consequences of this technological neglect are profound. Studies show that inmate idleness contributes significantly to behavioral problems, violence, and mental health decline. Meanwhile, access to meaningful educational and vocational programming is consistently correlated with lower recidivism. The BOP’s refusal to provide digital tools isn't just outdated—it’s dangerous and counterproductive to its own mission.

It’s time for the Bureau of Prisons to stop using outlier incidents as an excuse to avoid change. Most state systems already provide supervised access to computers and educational content with minimal negative consequences. The data is clear: withholding digital education from incarcerated individuals only increases the likelihood they will reoffend, struggle, or fail upon release.

Solutions: How the BOP Can Embrace Evidence-Based Reform

Implement Basic Digital Literacy Programs: Offer instruction in smartphone setup, email use, app navigation, and online job search tools.

Provide Access to Office Software: Allow supervised use of Microsoft Office or Google Workspace for résumé building, legal filings, and self-improvement.

Adopt Proven Models Like California’s "Code.7370": Partner with tech educators to provide real-world software training programs inside prisons.

Upgrade Tablets with Educational Content: Mandate that contractor tablets include platforms like Khan Academy, GED prep, coding tutorials, and vocational training videos.

Replace Typewriters with Word Processors: Secure word processing stations with printer access, just as many state prisons do safely and effectively.

Monitor and Evaluate: Use data and audits to track inmate progress, recidivism rates, and institutional behavior before and after implementing tech access.

Engage Stakeholders: Include educators, technologists, former inmates, and community organizations in designing modern, rehabilitative programming.

The federal prison system has the tools, data, and models available to drastically improve outcomes. What’s missing is the will. If the BOP is serious about reducing recidivism and improving civil society, it must step out of the past—and plug in to the present.




### The Urgent Need for Transparent Communication Between BOP Staff and Inmates

URL: https://fixingbop.org/topics/smarter-solutions-for-reform/the-urgent-need-for-transparent-communication-between-bop-staff-and-inmates/
Published: 23 March 2025
Section: Technology & Data: Smarter Solutions for Reform

Summary: One of the most overlooked yet critical issues plaguing the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is its failure to establish consistent, transparent communication between staff and inmates. This communication gap is more than a bureaucratic oversight—it fuels misinformation, erodes morale, and undermines

One of the most overlooked yet critical issues plaguing the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is its failure to establish consistent, transparent communication between staff and inmates. This communication gap is more than a bureaucratic oversight—it fuels misinformation, erodes morale, and undermines institutional stability. Without a reliable flow of information, inmates are left to interpret silence, rumors thrive, and tensions escalate. As a result, the BOP's reliance on outdated and often counterproductive practices like collective punishment continues unchecked, largely because inmates are rarely given a clear understanding of what is happening around them and why.

The BOP does possess the tools to fix this. Each facility has an electronic bulletin board system accessible on inmate computers, yet it is vastly underutilized. Designed to deliver official memos, it rarely includes timely or practical information about day-to-day operations, ongoing investigations, or disruptions in programming and services. In an age of digital communication, it’s baffling that a modern correctional system still relies on word of mouth among inmates as the default method of information sharing—especially in a population often segregated by race, language, and gang affiliation.

Prison is not a homogeneous community. Inmates frequently self-segregate along racial, ethnic, or regional lines, with limited communication between groups. A Spanish-speaking inmate may have no access to relevant news in his unit. A white inmate might go years without speaking to a Black inmate due to deeply entrenched social divisions. Assuming that inmates will "pass the word along" is unrealistic at best—and reckless at worst. These divisions make formal communication not just helpful, but essential to institutional safety and functionality.

The Breakdown of Trust

In the absence of consistent communication, the BOP often resorts to collective punishment as a management shortcut. When a fight or incident occurs, instead of conducting a thorough investigation, the entire unit may lose privileges—like commissary access or recreation time. This group punishment is not only contrary to BOP policy, which mandates individual accountability through the disciplinary process, but also profoundly demoralizing to those who follow the rules.

Worse yet, such punitive actions are often imposed with no explanation. Inmates are simply left to wonder what happened, who was involved, and when normal operations might resume. It’s not just unfair—it’s destabilizing. Silence from the administration allows rumors to flourish, leading to finger-pointing, retaliation, and further unrest. For inmates striving to follow the rules and program toward release, the message is clear: your efforts don’t matter.

What Effective Communication Could Look Like

The solution is not revolutionary—it’s common sense. The BOP could dramatically improve conditions by using its existing technology to share regular, clear, and timely updates with inmates. A few simple, honest messages could prevent confusion and build trust. For example:

"The institution is on lockdown due to an external security concern, not inmate behavior. Visitation is canceled this weekend."

"After reviewing security footage, Tyrone Morgan has been charged in connection with the theft of USB-C adapters from C2-Unit computers."

"The fried chicken shortage on Thursday was due to inventory theft during the PM shift. An internal investigation is ongoing."

"We are aware of tension between the Louisiana Crips and Chicago Vice Lords. Please resolve peacefully or face placement in the SHU."

These types of announcements, while direct and even informal, would do more to promote order than disciplinary lockdowns ever could. They would counteract the prison rumor mill, provide clarity, and send a powerful message: the administration is paying attention—and willing to engage.

Inmate Technology is Underutilized

Adding to the irony, inmate tablets already deployed across federal facilities are capable of supporting WiFi connectivity. With minimal upgrades, the BOP could allow inmates to receive these important announcements in real time. Tablets could be used for everything from streaming rehabilitative content during lockdowns to participating in educational programming. Instead, inmates must queue for access to communal computers—many of which have been damaged or are monopolized by those with little regard for institutional rules.

Solutions

If the BOP is serious about reform, reducing violence, and lowering recidivism, it must prioritize transparent and structured communication. The following solutions offer a roadmap:

Implement a daily or weekly bulletin on inmate-accessible platforms to update on policy changes, incidents, and institutional news.

Enable WiFi access on inmate tablets for secure and immediate delivery of notices, memos, and programming materials.

Translate announcements into multiple languages to ensure all inmates receive critical information.

Train staff in communication strategies tailored to diverse populations, promoting clarity and consistency across all units.

Ensure accountability by auditing communication logs and tracking staff follow-through on information dissemination.

Reduce reliance on collective punishment by pairing improved communication with targeted disciplinary processes that hold only the guilty accountable.

Clear, honest, and timely communication is the foundation of any functional institution—prisons included. Until the BOP embraces this principle, it will continue to perpetuate confusion, resentment, and disorder. But with the right tools and the will to use them, federal prisons could become safer, more rehabilitative environments for staff and inmates alike.




### Reforming the Bureau of Prisons' Approach to Drug Abuse

URL: https://fixingbop.org/topics/advocacy-reform-strategies/reforming-the-bureau-of-prisons-approach-to-drug-abuse/
Published: 13 March 2025
Section: Advocacy & Reform Strategies

Summary: The proliferation of drug use within the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) has reached epidemic levels. Yet, while much attention is given to the presence of drugs, the secondary effects—corruption, violence, and recidivism—are often overlooked. The BOP’s response remains a blunt instrument: sweeping

The proliferation of drug use within the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) has reached epidemic levels. Yet, while much attention is given to the presence of drugs, the secondary effects—corruption, violence, and recidivism—are often overlooked. The BOP’s response remains a blunt instrument: sweeping prohibitions and punitive measures that fail to address the root causes of substance abuse. The current system is ineffective, and worse, it perpetuates the very cycle it aims to break.

Instead of rehabilitation, the demand for contraband fuels an underground economy where correctional officers, lured by the potential to earn several times their official salary, participate in smuggling operations. Some officers, content with their illicit earnings, do only the bare minimum required to keep their positions. Meanwhile, incarcerated individuals caught with drugs face sanctions that do little to curb their addiction or deter future use. The system, as it stands, is broken.

A Model for Effective Drug Treatment Within the BOP

Despite the failures of the BOP during the COVID-19 pandemic, one concept that emerged—the Recovery Unit—could serve as the foundation for a more effective approach to drug treatment. Initially designed to isolate individuals with active COVID cases, a similar model could be applied to those struggling with drug addiction.

Currently, the only significant drug treatment program within the BOP is the Residential Drug Abuse Program (RDAP). While RDAP provides structured treatment, it is limited to individuals with three years or less remaining on their sentence. Further restrictions, such as excluding those with violent offenses, significantly reduce participation. As a result, many incarcerated individuals with substance use disorders receive no meaningful intervention.

How the Recovery Unit Model Would Work

Under this proposed system, any individual who fails a urinary analysis (UA), is found intoxicated, or is caught in possession of drugs would be immediately transferred to a designated recovery unit. This unit would function as a controlled environment, operating under lockdown conditions but allowing for structured rehabilitation.

Upon arrival, individuals would undergo thorough searches, be issued standard-issue clothing, and be placed in solitary confinement for the first 48 hours. Following this period, they would progress to a tiered recovery program:

Level 1: No commissary access, no TV, no phone, and no computer privileges. Family members would be notified of the individual’s placement in recovery, ensuring they are aware of potential manipulative requests for money.

Level 2-4: Gradual reintroduction of privileges, contingent on class attendance, passing weekly drug tests, and abstaining from any form of drug use.

Level 5: Eligibility for transfer back to the general population, based on demonstrated progress.

Key to this model’s success is the complete restriction of outside influence. Meals, laundry, and all supplies would be delivered under strict oversight. Staff would be responsible for thoroughly searching all incoming goods, ensuring that drugs do not enter the unit. While maintaining a fully drug-free environment in a large prison may be difficult, securing one controlled unit is a far more achievable goal.

Addressing Logistical Challenges

Allocating a 128-bed unit for this initiative poses challenges, but the benefits far outweigh the logistical difficulties. Individuals completing the program may need to wait for an available bunk in general population, but this delay serves as an additional deterrent against drug use. By keeping drug users separated for an extended period, the BOP would naturally reduce the consumer base for prison drug dealers, weakening the contraband economy.

Moreover, individuals transferred for drug-related disciplinary issues could be placed directly into the recovery unit upon arrival, reinforcing its role as both a deterrent and a pathway to rehabilitation. The uncertainty surrounding an individual’s length of stay would make the recovery unit an undesirable destination, further discouraging drug use.

Solutions

Implement Recovery Units Nationwide: Designate a specific unit in each federal facility for immediate drug rehabilitation and forced sobriety.

Enforce Strict Contraband Policies: Ensure all meals, laundry, and supplies are meticulously searched to maintain a drug-free environment.

Institute a Tiered Rehabilitation System: Require individuals to earn their way back to general population through abstinence, class participation, and drug testing.

Increase Family Awareness: Notify family members of an individual’s placement in the recovery unit to prevent manipulation for financial gain.

Direct Disciplinary Transfers to Recovery Units: Automatically place individuals arriving due to drug-related infractions into the program.

Strengthen Oversight and Accountability: Implement stringent monitoring of correctional staff to reduce corruption and contraband smuggling.

By consolidating drug treatment efforts into a single, controlled environment, the BOP can move beyond ineffective blanket prohibitions and punitive measures. This model not only forces sobriety but also provides a structured path to rehabilitation—one that could drastically reduce drug use, curtail prison corruption, and ultimately lead to better post-release outcomes for those struggling with addiction.




### Reforming the Inmate Disciplinary System: A Call for Fairness and Justice

URL: https://fixingbop.org/topics/advocacy-reform-strategies/reforming-the-inmate-disciplinary-system-a-call-for-fairness-and-justice/
Published: 10 March 2025
Section: Advocacy & Reform Strategies

Summary: One of the most significant factors contributing to prolonged incarceration in the federal prison system is the loss of Good Conduct Time (GCT). This penalty is supposed to be reserved for the most serious infractions, such as drug possession, weapons violations, or failed drug tests. However, it is

One of the most significant factors contributing to prolonged incarceration in the federal prison system is the loss of Good Conduct Time (GCT). This penalty is supposed to be reserved for the most serious infractions, such as drug possession, weapons violations, or failed drug tests. However, it is often applied even for minor infractions like possession of a cell phone. The underlying issue lies in the deeply flawed standard of evidence used by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP).

A Lower Standard of Evidence

In the American legal system, the standard of evidence required to deprive someone of their freedom is “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.” This principle is a bedrock of due process. However, within the BOP, disciplinary hearings are conducted by Disciplinary Hearing Officers (DHOs), who are neither legally trained nor consistently knowledgeable about BOP policy.

In these hearings, the standard of proof is alarmingly low—relying only on "Some Evidence." This vague threshold allows for the arbitrary extension of sentences, exclusion from rehabilitative programs for a decade, and an overall increase in an inmate’s custody classification score, making early release far less likely.

When conflicting evidence arises, the DHO is tasked with weighing it and determining the “Greater Weight.” In practice, this nearly always means favoring the testimony of the reporting staff member, regardless of inconsistencies or the credibility of the inmate’s defense. This process resembles a Kangaroo Court, a mere performance of due process rather than an actual safeguard of justice.

Abuse of the System

The absence of robust evidentiary standards opens the door to widespread abuse. A common example involves the discovery of contraband, such as a cell phone in a communal area. Rather than conducting a thorough investigation, staff members often issue identical incident reports to every inmate nearby. Even if one inmate takes full responsibility, the others are still routinely found guilty.

This approach is not just unfair—it is deeply flawed. The assumption that correctional officers are inherently honest is no longer valid. Two decades ago, the indictment of a federal correctional officer was a rarity. Today, hundreds of BOP staff members are arrested and charged with corruption every year. The potential for abuse is staggering. A corrupt officer could easily plant contraband near an inmate targeted for removal, fabricating evidence with little to no oversight. The risk of inmate-on-inmate retaliation through corrupt staff further compounds this issue, making the system vulnerable to manipulation by those with power and influence behind bars.

A Flawed Punishment Model

The BOP’s disciplinary system is inherently biased against inmates. The DHO cannot be truly impartial, correctional staff are not always trustworthy, and inmate informants are often incentivized to lie. Yet, the BOP operates on a “Punishment First” model, prioritizing punitive measures over fairness, rehabilitation, or factual accuracy.

Phones, for example, should not be classified as a "Greatest Severity" offense. An inmate caught with a contraband phone has already suffered a serious consequence—the financial loss of thousands of dollars. Similarly, weapons are so frequently discovered during mass shakedowns that incident reports are often disregarded. The reality is that punishing inmates without direct evidence of wrongdoing serves no legitimate purpose.

Technology Can Offer Solutions

With nearly every area of BOP facilities under video surveillance, there is no excuse for lazy investigative practices. Yet, DHOs often issue guilty verdicts without requiring staff to review security footage. AI-powered video management systems could revolutionize this process by making it easier to retrieve relevant footage through simple text-based searches, eliminating the excuse of tedious manual review.

Further, applying AI-driven decision-making models could introduce fairness into the disciplinary process. Imagine a scenario where both the DHO and the inmate submit evidence to an impartial AI system—such as ChatGPT—tasked with analyzing all available data and providing a probability-based assessment of guilt. Such a system would be exponentially more objective than the current flawed process and would significantly reduce wrongful disciplinary actions.

Solutions for a Fairer Disciplinary System

Raise the standard of evidence for inmate disciplinary hearings to “Preponderance of Evidence” or higher.

Require the review of all available video footage before issuing disciplinary sanctions.

Implement AI-based video search tools to streamline incident investigations.

Remove non-violent contraband offenses, such as cell phones, from the “Greatest Severity” classification.

Hold DHOs and correctional staff accountable for biased or wrongful disciplinary actions.

Introduce third-party oversight into the BOP disciplinary process to ensure fair and impartial hearings.

The BOP’s current disciplinary system is broken. By prioritizing punishment over justice, it undermines rehabilitation, increases recidivism, and erodes trust in the criminal justice system. Reform is not just necessary—it is urgent.




### The Federal Prison Commissary: A Failing Business Model That Harms Inmates and Wastes Resources

URL: https://fixingbop.org/topics/healthcare-neglect-in-prisons/the-federal-prison-commissary-a-failing-business-model-that-harms-inmates-and-wastes-resources/
Published: 5 March 2025
Section: Healthcare Neglect in Prisons

Summary: Few aspects of federal prison life impact inmates as significantly as the commissary. This small store inside each facility is more than just a place to buy snacks—it’s the financial engine that funds all inmate amenities. The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) commissary system generates hundreds of thousands

Few aspects of federal prison life impact inmates as significantly as the commissary. This small store inside each facility is more than just a place to buy snacks—it’s the financial engine that funds all inmate amenities. The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) commissary system generates hundreds of thousands of dollars per month per facility, fueling the Inmate Trust Fund. This fund covers everything from recreational programs and hygiene products to clothing and even the salaries of inmates and staff who run laundry and commissary services. Taxpayers do not contribute a single dollar to these inmate amenities.

Despite its financial importance, the prison commissary system is plagued by inefficiency, poor management, and a lack of accountability. While BOP policy allows for a 20% markup to ensure profitability, commissaries are not run like a business. Instead of maximizing revenue and providing inmates with essential goods, BOP staff often limit inventory, reduce shopping days, and fail to manage vendor relationships effectively. These problems, driven by bureaucratic indifference rather than necessity, have led to a steady decline in commissary quality and inmate well-being.

The Decline of the Federal Prison Commissary

In the 1990s, inmates had access to the commissary daily, with even a designated “10 items or less” line for quick purchases. Today, most federal inmates are only permitted to shop once every two weeks—sometimes even less. If a scheduled shopping day coincides with bad weather or a facility lockdown, inmates may not be able to shop for a month or more.

Beyond the reduction in access, the selection of goods has deteriorated. Fresh vegetables and unprocessed foods are no longer available, and nutritional supplements are limited to a basic multivitamin. The result is a declining standard of health for incarcerated individuals. While staff blame supply chain issues, the real problem lies in the inefficiencies of their purchasing system. Unlike a typical retail operation, the BOP uses a no-bid vendor system, leading to frequent stock shortages. Staff will claim that suppliers are out of basic items—such as Doritos—when any local warehouse club store clearly has them in stock. This mismanagement stems from a lack of business training and a culture of apathy among those responsible for procurement.

A Multi-Million Dollar Fund, Mismanaged

The inmate trust fund is not just fed by commissary sales. It also includes revenue from MP3s, video games, and other digital purchases made via inmate tablets. At any given time, the fund holds hundreds of millions of dollars. With this kind of financial power, a well-run commissary system could easily generate ten times its current revenue while simultaneously improving the quality of goods and services for inmates. Instead, each facility operates independently, making inefficient purchasing decisions that fail to leverage the collective buying power of the federal prison system.

Compare this to any small-town convenience store, which is run with a focus on profitability and efficiency. These stores maintain consistent inventory, negotiate supplier contracts effectively, and ensure customers have regular access to desired products. The federal prison commissary, by contrast, is a model of inefficiency, failing both its customers (the inmates) and the broader goal of effective institutional management.

Consequences: Morale, Health, and Recidivism

The failure to run the prison commissary system effectively has direct consequences on inmate morale and health. A lack of food variety and nutritional choices contributes to poor diet-related health outcomes, while the irregularity of shopping days creates unnecessary stress. When inmates feel like even their most basic needs are neglected, it reinforces a sense of institutional failure and increases resentment toward the system. This does not contribute to rehabilitation or successful reintegration into society upon release.

Solutions: Reforming the BOP Commissary System

Addressing these inefficiencies requires systemic reform. Here are several steps that could transform the prison commissary system into a functional, profitable, and fair operation:

Centralized Purchasing: Instead of each facility making independent purchases, the BOP should negotiate bulk contracts with national suppliers to secure better prices and consistent inventory.

Private Sector Management: Partnering with private-sector retail experts could optimize inventory, streamline purchasing, and increase efficiency—much like military base commissaries.

Expanded Product Selection: Offering fresh produce, healthier options, and basic nutritional supplements would improve inmate health and reduce long-term medical costs.

Increased Shopping Access: Returning to more frequent commissary days would ensure inmates have regular access to necessary goods, reducing tension and logistical problems.

Performance-Based Incentives for Staff: Creating financial incentives for staff based on commissary efficiency and customer satisfaction could eliminate the indifference that currently plagues the system.

The prison commissary is not just a convenience store—it is a fundamental part of prison life that impacts health, morale, and rehabilitation outcomes. By running it like a business, rather than a bureaucratic afterthought, the federal prison system could improve conditions for inmates while simultaneously increasing revenue. The solutions are clear; what remains to be seen is whether the Bureau of Prisons is willing to implement them.




### The BOP’s Backward Ban on Fitness: A Policy That Harms More Than It Helps

URL: https://fixingbop.org/topics/healthcare-neglect-in-prisons/the-bops-backward-ban-on-fitness-a-policy-that-harms-more-than-it-helps/
Published: 4 March 2025
Section: Healthcare Neglect in Prisons

Summary: In the past, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) recognized the importance of physical fitness, providing inmates with access to exercise equipment, including free weights. The rationale was simple: healthier inmates equate to reduced healthcare costs, which, in turn, lessens the financial burden on

In the past, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) recognized the importance of physical fitness, providing inmates with access to exercise equipment, including free weights. The rationale was simple: healthier inmates equate to reduced healthcare costs, which, in turn, lessens the financial burden on taxpayers. However, at some point, the policy shifted based on an unfounded fear—that inmates were using strength training to become more physically threatening to staff.

The reality, however, contradicts this narrative. Violence against correctional officers has always been relatively rare, and today’s officers are far better equipped than in previous decades. Stab-resistant vests and pepper spray, which were unavailable when the BOP first removed weights, provide substantial protection. Yet, despite these advancements, the BOP still enforces policies that actively discourage upper-body exercises, a restriction that may even conflict with federal law.

A Policy That Defies Science and Common Sense

Remarkably, BOP policy explicitly discourages upper-body exercise. In contrast, the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) and numerous medical studies emphasize that maintaining upper-body strength is essential for injury prevention and long-term health, particularly for aging adults. As the prison population grows older, restricting access to safe and effective fitness options is not only counterproductive but also medically negligent.

While fictional portrayals in television and film often depict inmates using weights as weapons, actual data does not support this claim. The reality is that when inmates intend to harm one another, they have numerous alternative means at their disposal. But even if the BOP insists that free weights pose a risk, why does the agency refuse to install safer, fixed-position fitness equipment such as pull-up bars?

The Dangers of a Fitness-Free System

Despite the restrictive policy, inmates find ways to train. Without access to proper exercise equipment, they resort to riskier alternatives. Some use door frames or fixtures as makeshift pull-up bars, performing exercises at precarious heights, oblivious to the potential for severe injury. Others create weighted bags filled with water or books to mimic resistance training—methods that are far less controlled and significantly more hazardous than supervised weightlifting.

Correctional officers are well aware of the futility of banning exercise. While no one is writing incident reports for inmates doing push-ups, the lack of structured fitness options only pushes them toward more dangerous improvisations. Instead of preventing potential harm, the BOP’s approach inadvertently increases the likelihood of injuries, ultimately leading to higher medical costs and greater taxpayer expenditure.

A Practical, Cost-Free Solution

There is a simple fix: reintroduce fixed, non-mechanical exercise stations that allow inmates to maintain their health without introducing security risks. It is important to note that fitness equipment has historically been funded through the Inmate Trust Fund, meaning its implementation would not cost taxpayers a single cent.

Recommended Fixed Fitness Equipment

Roman Chair – Supports back and core strengthening.

Chin-Up Bar – Enhances upper body and grip strength.

Dip Rack – Strengthens triceps, chest, and shoulders.

Power Tower – Combines pull-up, dip, and push-up functions.

Parallel Bars – Allows for dips, L-sits, and bodyweight workouts.

Wall-Mounted Pull-Up Bar – A secure bar for bodyweight exercises.

Plyometric Box – Improves agility, coordination, and lower-body strength.

Ballet Barre – Supports flexibility and balance training.

Stall Bars – A multi-functional apparatus for stretching and calisthenics.

Parallettes – Small parallel bars ideal for push-ups and dips.

Monkey Bars – Encourages climbing and endurance training.

Climbing Rope – Enhances upper body and grip strength.

Peg Board – Develops upper-body power and coordination.

Glute Ham Developer (GHD) – Strengthens hamstrings and core.

Battle Rope Anchors – Facilitates full-body conditioning workouts.

Agility Ladder – Improves footwork and cardiovascular endurance.

Gymnastics Rings – Supports functional strength training.

Suspension Trainer – Allows for versatile bodyweight exercises.

Parkour Vault Box – Enhances agility and explosive power.

Wall Climbing Holds – Provides controlled climbing for fitness.

Solutions

Implement Fixed, Non-Mechanical Exercise Equipment – Introduce pull-up bars, dip stations, and other safe alternatives to replace risky improvised exercises.

Reinstate Fitness as a Health Priority – Ensure BOP policies align with medical and aging research that underscores the importance of physical strength.

Leverage the Inmate Trust Fund – Utilize existing inmate-funded resources rather than relying on taxpayer dollars.

Reevaluate Security Concerns – Review incident data to assess whether fitness equipment truly poses a risk or if its removal was an overcorrection.

Promote Rehabilitation Over Restriction – Encourage programs that prioritize physical and mental well-being as part of a broader effort to reduce recidivism.

Now, more than ever, inmates need structured physical activity to maintain their health, particularly as the prison population continues to age. The BOP’s refusal to acknowledge this necessity not only disregards scientific evidence but also places unnecessary strain on an already burdened correctional healthcare system. It's time to correct this misguided policy and implement rational, evidence-based solutions.




### Broken Windows Policing in Federal Prisons: A Policy Failure Ignoring the Real Issues

URL: https://fixingbop.org/topics/advocacy-reform-strategies/broken-windows-policing-in-federal-prisons-a-policy-failure-ignoring-the-real-issues/
Published: 1 March 2025
Section: Advocacy & Reform Strategies

Summary: A Misguided Approach to Prison Management In the broader criminal justice system, the theory of 'Broken Windows Policing'—which emphasizes cracking down on minor infractions to prevent larger crimes—has faced mounting criticism. While initially hailed as a success in cities like New York,

A Misguided Approach to Prison Management

In the broader criminal justice system, the theory of "Broken Windows Policing"—which emphasizes cracking down on minor infractions to prevent larger crimes—has faced mounting criticism. While initially hailed as a success in cities like New York, deeper analysis has revealed its flaws, including crime displacement and increased violence in surrounding areas. Unfortunately, it appears that the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) has not received the memo.

Instead of addressing systemic issues such as rampant drug use, gang violence, and staff corruption, the BOP has opted to police dress codes, nuisance contraband, and whether beds are properly made. This approach is not only ineffective but actively undermines inmate morale and institutional stability.

The Dangers of Prioritizing Minor Infractions

Applying Broken Windows-style policies in a prison setting creates a host of new problems while failing to resolve the core issues. Consider the following consequences:

Ignoring the Real Problems: By focusing on minor infractions rather than dismantling gang hierarchies, investigating drug trafficking networks, or addressing staff misconduct, BOP officials signal misplaced priorities.

Erosion of Morale: Inmates already struggling in a hostile environment see these policies as petty harassment, further alienating them and reducing any hope for rehabilitation.

Loss of Trust: When prison leadership prioritizes beds being made over preventing gang-related assaults, it reinforces the perception that they do not genuinely care about inmate safety.

Potential for Increased Violence: Rising frustration among inmates, especially organized groups, can lead to unrest, riots, or targeted retaliation against staff and fellow prisoners.

Failure to Address Recidivism: Over-policing minor infractions does nothing to address the root causes of criminal behavior, such as addiction, lack of education, or untreated mental health conditions.

Real Reform Requires Systemic Change

If the goal is to create a safer, more rehabilitative correctional environment, the BOP must move away from ineffective disciplinary measures and embrace evidence-based reforms. Meaningful change would include:

Targeting Corruption: A significant percentage of drugs and weapons in prisons originate from staff corruption. Tackling this issue is a prerequisite for any real change.

Prioritizing Serious Crime Prevention: Instead of fixating on dress codes, officials should focus on dismantling violent prison gangs and drug distribution networks.

Expanding Rehabilitation Programs: Education, vocational training, and addiction treatment programs have been repeatedly shown to reduce both prison violence and recidivism rates.

Implementing Restorative Justice Practices: Behavioral incentive programs and restorative justice initiatives provide




### Analyzing U.S. Federal Prison Recidivism: The Need for Evidence-Based Reform

URL: https://fixingbop.org/topics/statistics-data-exposing-the-crisis/analyzing-u-s-federal-prison-recidivism-the-need-for-evidence-based-reform/
Published: 17 February 2025
Section: Statistics & Data: Exposing the Crisis

Summary: The United States has long grappled with high rates of incarceration and recidivism, posing significant challenges for the criminal justice system and society at large. While state prison recidivism rates have been extensively studied, the recidivism trends within the federal prison system remain

The United States has long grappled with high rates of incarceration and recidivism, posing significant challenges for the criminal justice system and society at large. While state prison recidivism rates have been extensively studied, the recidivism trends within the federal prison system remain less frequently analyzed. However, emerging data suggest that targeted reforms and evidence-based policies could significantly improve post-release outcomes and reduce recidivism.

Understanding Recidivism in the Federal System

Recidivism rates vary widely based on the population studied, definitions used (rearrest, reconviction, or reincarceration), and the length of the follow-up period. For federal offenders, these numbers tend to be lower than those for state prisoners, largely due to differences in offense types, sentencing structures, and supervision upon release.

According to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, approximately 49.3% of federal offenders released in 2005 were rearrested within eight years. This includes not only new criminal offenses but also violations of supervision conditions, a significant factor in federal recidivism.

Comparatively, a Bureau of Justice Statistics study found that 71% of state prisoners were rearrested within five years, highlighting a stark contrast between federal and state systems.

The Impact of Supervised Release on Federal Recidivism

One critical factor affecting federal recidivism rates is the structure of post-release supervision. Unlike state systems, where parole violations often result in rearrest and reincarceration, federal inmates are placed under "Supervised Release," a system designed to monitor reintegration while reducing the likelihood of reoffending. However, violations of supervised release do not always lead to new arrests but rather administrative sanctions or reimprisonment.

This key distinction makes direct comparisons between state and federal recidivism rates complex. While many state prisoners are counted as recidivists due to technical violations, federal prisoners may not appear in re-arrest statistics unless they commit new crimes.

Lessons from Low-Recidivism Countries

Globally, countries such as Norway (20% recidivism rate), Singapore (24%), and Iceland (27%) have demonstrated that investment in rehabilitation, education, and post-release support significantly reduces reoffending. These nations prioritize reentry programs, vocational training, and mental health support—policies that the U.S. could expand within its own system to achieve similar reductions.

In comparison, the United States’ fragmented approach to reentry often lacks consistency, leading to higher recidivism rates in state systems and preventable failures within the federal system. While progress has been made through programs like the First Step Act, more comprehensive reforms are necessary.

The Need for Data-Driven Prison Reform

The path to reducing federal recidivism lies in adopting data-driven, evidence-based policies that focus on rehabilitation and reintegration rather than punitive reincarceration. Expanding vocational training, mental health care, and structured post-release programs can create lasting change and lower the burden on taxpayers while improving community safety.

At FixingBOP.org, we advocate for a justice system that moves beyond outdated punitive models and embraces modern, research-backed solutions. By recognizing the nuances of federal recidivism and implementing policies that reflect best practices worldwide, we can build a system that truly fosters second chances and reduces reoffending.

Sources:

U.S. Sentencing Commission - Recidivism Study

Bureau of Justice Statistics - State Prison Recidivism

Federal Bureau of Prisons Overview




### Fixing the Federal Bureau of Prisons: A Necessary Step for Public Safety

URL: https://fixingbop.org/topics/systemic-impact-prisons-society/systemic-impact-prisons-society-featured/
Published: 17 February 2025
Section: Systemic Impact: Prisons & Society

Summary: The criminal justice system in the United States impacts every aspect of society, but no branch has a more far-reaching effect than the federal system. Federal laws apply to every citizen, and violations often lead to long-term incarceration in the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP). Today, more than

The criminal justice system in the United States impacts every aspect of society, but no branch has a more far-reaching effect than the federal system. Federal laws apply to every citizen, and violations often lead to long-term incarceration in the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP). Today, more than 168,000 individuals are held within the BOP’s facilities.

How these inmates are treated during their incarceration plays a critical role in determining their path after release. Unfortunately, the U.S. holds the worst recidivism rate in the world. The data is clear: the current approach is failing. Instead of fostering rehabilitation, the system is designed to ensure former inmates remain trapped in the cycle of crime and imprisonment.

The Reality of Recidivism: A Public Safety Crisis

Recidivism isn’t just a statistic—it represents new crimes being committed. When an individual leaves prison without the tools for reintegration, they do not reenter society as productive citizens. Instead of becoming the electrician, plumber, or HVAC technician a community needs, many return to criminal activity out of desperation and lack of opportunity. A failing BOP doesn’t just harm inmates; it endangers the public.

The solution does not require additional funding or sweeping legislative changes. What is needed is competent management. The BOP must overhaul its approach and shift its focus toward rehabilitation. The evidence is overwhelming: punitive models do not reduce crime—rehabilitative models do.

Ending the "Punishment First" Model

The BOP operates under a deeply flawed philosophy that prioritizes punishment over rehabilitation. Rather than treating individuals with dignity and fostering an environment that encourages personal growth, the agency imposes widespread collective punishment. When a handful of inmates engage in misconduct, the response is often sweeping and indiscriminate, punishing all. This not only fails as a deterrent but actively breeds resentment, despair, and hostility—fueling the very behaviors the system aims to prevent.

The BOP's policies are reactive, lacking foresight into their long-term consequences. Over the years, prison amenities that once offered constructive outlets—such as education, job training, and even basic recreational activities—have been stripped away. Deprived of positive engagement, inmates are left with nothing to lose, often turning to gangs and contraband for survival. This environment of hopelessness is not accidental; it is the predictable outcome of decades of mismanagement.

Fixing the BOP: A Call to Action

Reforming the BOP is not about being lenient on crime—it is about ensuring that individuals who leave the system are less likely to commit new offenses. This is a matter of public safety, fiscal responsibility, and basic human dignity.

Solutions:

Implement Rehabilitation-Based Policies: Shift away from punitive measures and focus on evidence-based rehabilitation programs that reduce recidivism.

End Collective Punishment: Hold individuals accountable for their actions without imposing blanket sanctions that harm rehabilitating inmates.

Restore Educational and Vocational Training: Provide inmates with skills and certifications that translate into real employment opportunities upon release.

Improve Mental Health and Addiction Treatment: Address the underlying issues driving criminal behavior through proper counseling and medical support.

Increase Transparency and Oversight: Establish independent reviews and accountability measures to ensure BOP policies prioritize public safety over bureaucratic inertia.

Encourage Family and Community Ties: Facilitate visitation, correspondence, and transitional programs to strengthen support systems post-release.

The cost of inaction is too great. Every failure of the BOP translates into more crime, more victims, and a heavier burden on taxpayers. It is time to demand a justice system that works—for inmates, for communities, and for the future of our society.




### Global Incarceration: A Data-Driven Call for Reform

URL: https://fixingbop.org/topics/statistics-data-exposing-the-crisis/statistics-data-exposing-the-crisis-featured/
Published: 17 February 2025
Section: Statistics & Data: Exposing the Crisis

Summary: As societies worldwide grapple with the complexities of criminal justice, new data on global incarceration rates underscore the urgent need for evidence-based reforms. While much focus has been placed on incarceration rates per capita, an examination of absolute prison populations presents an even

As societies worldwide grapple with the complexities of criminal justice, new data on global incarceration rates underscore the urgent need for evidence-based reforms. While much focus has been placed on incarceration rates per capita, an examination of absolute prison populations presents an even starker picture of mass incarceration.

Top 10 Countries by Total Prison Population

RankCountryTotal Prison PopulationIncarceration Rate (per 100,000)

1

United States

1,800,000

531

2

China

1,690,000

119

3

Brazil

811,707

320

4

India

478,600

41

5

Russia

471,490

320

6

Thailand

309,282

445

7

Turkey

291,198

355

8

Indonesia

266,259

96

9

Mexico

220,866

174

10

Iran

189,000

228

The United States Leads in Incarceration

With an estimated 1.8 million individuals behind bars, the United States remains the global leader in absolute incarceration numbers. Despite housing only 4% of the world’s population, the U.S. imprisons over 20% of the world’s incarcerated individuals. This stark disparity raises pressing questions about the effectiveness of punitive justice policies and their impact on recidivism.

A Global Crisis of Mass Incarceration

While the United States often receives criticism for its prison system, other nations, including China, Brazil, and Russia, also maintain substantial prison populations. China, the second-highest incarcerator, holds an estimated 1.69 million prisoners, despite a significantly lower incarceration rate per capita. Meanwhile, Brazil, facing a long-standing crisis of prison overcrowding, now imprisons over 800,000 individuals, exacerbating concerns about human rights violations and inadequate rehabilitation programs.

Reforming the Approach to Justice

The high levels of incarceration worldwide indicate that punitive approaches alone fail to address the root causes of crime. Instead, investing in evidence-based reforms—such as restorative justice, rehabilitation, and alternative sentencing—offers a more effective path toward reducing recidivism and improving civil society.

Countries like Norway, which prioritizes rehabilitation over punishment, have seen significantly lower recidivism rates and crime reductions. In contrast, systems that rely heavily on prolonged imprisonment tend to perpetuate cycles of crime and economic disenfranchisement.

A Data-Driven Path Forward

Fixing mass incarceration requires a commitment to data-driven policies that prioritize rehabilitation and reintegration over punitive measures. Governments worldwide must reconsider their reliance on imprisonment and instead invest in education, mental health services, and economic opportunities as long-term solutions to crime.

For policymakers, advocates, and citizens alike, these statistics serve as a clarion call: true justice lies not in the number of prisons built but in the opportunities provided to prevent incarceration in the first place.

FixingBOP.org remains committed to advocating for prison reform grounded in evidence-based policies, reduced recidivism, and a fairer, more just society.




### Prison Conditions & Safety

URL: https://fixingbop.org/topics/prison-conditions-safety/prison-conditions-safety-featured/
Published: 17 February 2025
Section: Prison Conditions & Safety

Summary: The Crisis in Federal Prisons: A System in Decline More than a decade ago, synthetic marijuana was developed to mimic the effects of cannabis while avoiding detection in standard drug tests. In response, new testing protocols were introduced, and the manufacturers adapted by altering the chemical

The Crisis in Federal Prisons: A System in Decline

More than a decade ago, synthetic marijuana was developed to mimic the effects of cannabis while avoiding detection in standard drug tests. In response, new testing protocols were introduced, and the manufacturers adapted by altering the chemical composition. This cat-and-mouse game has continued, and today’s versions—known as K2, Spice, Toochi, or Deuce—are barely recognizable from their original formulations.

Modern synthetic drugs are designed with one goal: to maximize intoxication while evading detection. They are engineered to be as addictive as possible, with little to no regard for human health. The result is a substance that turns users into incoherent, hallucinating shells of their former selves. It is particularly rampant in federal prisons, where it is smuggled in by being sprayed onto paper and then smoked.

Even a minuscule amount—a speck the size of a pinhead—can push an otherwise stable individual into a state of psychosis, convinced they are burning alive, being consumed by insects, or hunted by invisible demons. It is the single most destructive force within the prison system today. Because Deuce often does not register on drug tests, prison staff often dismiss visibly high inmates as merely experiencing a "deuce episode" without considering the possibility of other drug use. The result? A drug epidemic that is both widespread and largely ignored.

The Economics of Addiction Behind Bars

The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) exacerbated this crisis in 2019 when it slashed inmate wages by 75% to manage its budget shortfalls. Instead of addressing the rampant waste and mismanagement within the system, the BOP shifted the financial burden onto inmates, many of whom relied on their modest earnings—often no more than $60 a month—to afford basic hygiene products, food, and phone calls.

With little legitimate income, many turned to drug dealing. A single sheet of Deuce sells for $800 to $1,100. Dealers break it down into credit card-sized portions for $250, smaller strips for $25, and tiny fragments—measuring just one millimeter—selling for $5 to $10. It is the most lucrative prison hustle, and its prevalence has created an environment where addiction and violence are rampant.

A System in Disrepair

While synthetic drugs ravage the inmate population, the physical infrastructure of federal prisons is crumbling. Maintenance is often deferred for months, with work orders languishing for 90 days or more. Plumbing systems are clogged and deteriorating because inmates, lacking access to trash cans, flush their waste—everything from food to contraband. HVAC systems, crucial for preventing the spread of disease, are neglected until they fail. Electrical systems are stripped for parts by inmates forced to resort to makeshift cooking solutions after the BOP removed microwaves.

Ironically, the BOP employs hundreds of skilled inmate workers in its Commercial Maintenance Services (CMS) departments. These individuals, paid mere pennies an hour, have the expertise to repair the failing infrastructure. Yet, because they require staff supervision to check out tools, their labor goes largely unused. The reason? BOP staff are too preoccupied with pilfering and reselling repair equipment and parts to oversee any actual repairs.

The Cost of Neglect

Drugs in prison lead to drug debts, and addiction fosters poor financial decisions. Those who cannot pay their debts face violent reprisals, forcing them to seek protective custody in Special Housing Units (SHU), also known as “the hole.” With a limited number of beds—often just 200 in a facility housing 1,600 inmates—the system is overwhelmed. As a result, those who commit actual acts of violence often serve only a brief SHU sentence before being released due to space constraints.

Meanwhile, educational and rehabilitation programs—meant to reduce recidivism—are repeatedly sidelined. Any excuse is enough to suspend programming: staff shortages, weather conditions, or even minor security concerns. The BOP’s failure to prioritize rehabilitation ensures that inmates are released no better—and often worse—than when they arrived.

Breaking the Cycle

Every systemic failure outlined here is solvable. The BOP has the budget and the means to address these issues, yet it remains paralyzed by bureaucratic inertia and a punitive mindset. The belief that harsher conditions will force compliance has never been more misguided. The adage “the beatings will continue until morale improves” could not be more fitting.

Ironically, the BOP’s relentless drive to strip inmates of everything in the name of punishment has created an opportunity for change. If the agency shifted its focus from punishment to rehabilitation, even a small percentage of inmates could successfully reintegrate into society. But this requires a fundamental shift in approach—more incentives, fewer deterrents, and a commitment to genuine reform.

The Bureau of Prisons must abandon its policy of neglect and take responsibility for its role in perpetuating crime, addiction, and recidivism. The goal should not be merely to warehouse human beings but to equip them with the skills and mindset necessary to return to society as productive citizens. The time to act is now.




### Punishment Without Purpose: Why the Bureau of Prisons’ Disciplinary Approach Fails

URL: https://fixingbop.org/topics/advocacy-reform-strategies/punishment-without-purpose-why-the-bureau-of-prisons-disciplinary-approach-fails/
Published: 17 February 2025
Section: Advocacy & Reform Strategies

Summary: To a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. That adage perfectly encapsulates the Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP) approach to inmate management—punishment as the universal solution. 'The beatings will continue until morale improves' is not just a cynical joke; it’s an accurate depiction of the

To a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. That adage perfectly encapsulates the Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP) approach to inmate management—punishment as the universal solution. "The beatings will continue until morale improves" is not just a cynical joke; it’s an accurate depiction of the BOP's disciplinary philosophy. But before delving into why this strategy is fundamentally flawed, it’s worth understanding why the BOP leans so heavily on it.

The reality is that the BOP doesn’t know what else to do. No one has provided them with modern psychological research, no one has systematically studied the challenges within federal prisons, and no one in the agency is applying data science to optimize correctional outcomes. The result? Staff members walk into work each day, quickly become disillusioned, and simply try to get through their shifts with minimal incident. Meaningful reform and proactive problem-solving are rarely on the agenda.

The Ineffectiveness of Punishment: A Spectrum of Inmates

To illustrate the failure of punitive discipline, consider two distinct types of inmates. While every individual is different, these scenarios highlight why BOP’s sanctions fail to achieve their intended effect.

Scenario A: The Addict

Doug is a third-generation drug addict. Raised in poverty, with parents who prioritized substances over basic necessities, Doug never finished high school and has never held steady employment. His life has been defined by a single pursuit: chasing the next high, regardless of the cost.

Now incarcerated, Doug continues to do what he has always done. He borrows money he’ll never repay, steals to support his habit, and trades anything of value for drugs. Inevitably, he faces disciplinary action, but the BOP’s available sanctions mean nothing to him:

Loss of Good Conduct Time (GCT): Doug doesn’t care about release dates. He lives in the present, often unaware of when he’s even scheduled to get out. The difference between serving 87% or 100% of his sentence is irrelevant.

Loss of Commissary Privileges: Doug doesn’t have money to shop at the commissary, so revoking access is meaningless.

Loss of Email/Messaging: He has no funds to use these services anyway.

Loss of Phone Privileges: He can’t afford calls, and even if he could, the monitored nature of BOP phones prevents him from using them to sustain his drug habit.

Loss of Visitation: His family has long since abandoned him, and travel costs would prevent visits even if they hadn’t.

Disciplinary Segregation (SHU): Theoretically, SHU should be a deterrent, but drugs are still available there—at a premium. Some inmates even smuggle in drugs intentionally to sell them at higher prices.

Doug has no reason to care about BOP rules. No available punishment changes his circumstances or behavior.

Scenario B: The Career Criminal

Scott, on the other hand, is a career drug dealer with significant financial resources. He owns properties, maintains outside connections, and continues running criminal enterprises from prison. His situation differs greatly from Doug’s, but BOP’s sanctions are just as ineffective against him.

Loss of Good Conduct Time (GCT): While Scott values an earlier release, the profits from his continued drug trade outweigh the downside of serving extra time.

Loss of Commissary Privileges: He simply funnels money through another inmate’s account and pays them a small fee to make purchases on his behalf.

Loss of Email/Messaging: Scott can rent a contraband cell phone for under $20 an hour or buy one outright for a few thousand dollars, allowing him to communicate freely without oversight.

Loss of Phone Privileges: He circumvents this sanction the same way, using illicit cell phones.

Loss of Visitation: Even if BOP fully implemented video visitation (which it has failed to do), Scott would simply use a smartphone to FaceTime friends and family.

Disciplinary Segregation (SHU): While more of a hardship than for Doug, it can also be a business opportunity—concentrated inmate populations mean more customers for his trade.

In short, BOP’s disciplinary system lacks real leverage over inmates like Scott. He has the resources to work around every restriction.

A System That Encourages Hopelessness

The federal prison system was not always defined by despair. Decades ago, correctional facilities provided inmates with meaningful incentives to maintain good behavior. Weightlifting equipment, pool tables, and microwaves were common in prison recreation areas. Some facilities even had bowling alleys and movie theaters. Local bands were invited to perform, and special events like car and bike shows were organized on prison yards. Ice cream socials in the chow hall offered a rare but powerful reminder of normalcy. These privileges weren’t just luxuries—they were tools for instilling a sense of purpose and discipline.

Many inmates once embraced bodybuilding as a means of personal growth, focusing on their health and self-discipline. Others found solace in music or took pride in small but meaningful community events. These activities provided a reason to comply with institutional rules. They reinforced the idea that good behavior could lead to positive experiences, however limited they might be within the confines of incarceration.

But today, nearly all of these opportunities have been stripped away. The BOP has systematically removed every positive incentive, replacing them with a one-size-fits-all system of punitive sanctions that fail to deter misconduct. The result? A prison environment where general population units are barely distinguishable from the Special Housing Unit (SHU), where inmates are locked away in near isolation. Without anything to lose, many inmates simply resign themselves to a future of recidivism, knowing that their time in prison offers nothing but punishment.

By eliminating every constructive outlet, the BOP has robbed itself of its most effective tool—leverage. Instead of encouraging rehabilitation, the system fosters resentment, disengagement, and a sense of inevitability that inmates will return to crime upon release. In doing so, it virtually guarantees failure, both for the individual and for society as a whole.

A Path Forward

There is a better way. FixingBOP.org is dedicated to outlining evidence-based reforms that can break this cycle, improve inmate outcomes, and enhance public safety. Solutions exist—even within the BOP’s current budget constraints—but they require a shift in mindset. Until the Bureau moves beyond its punitive-only approach, it will continue to fail both inmates and society at large.




### Reevaluating BOP’s Harsh Stance on Mobile Phones: A Call for Sensible Reform

URL: https://fixingbop.org/topics/advocacy-reform-strategies/reevaluating-bops-harsh-stance-on-mobile-phones-a-call-for-sensible-reform/
Published: 17 February 2025
Section: Advocacy & Reform Strategies

Summary: Why Mobile Phone Possession Should Be Reclassified as a Moderate Severity Offense The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) currently categorizes inmate possession of mobile phones as a 'Greatest Severity' offense under Incident Code 108, placing it alongside truly dangerous contraband like

Why Mobile Phone Possession Should Be Reclassified as a Moderate Severity Offense

The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) currently categorizes inmate possession of mobile phones as a "Greatest Severity" offense under Incident Code 108, placing it alongside truly dangerous contraband like weapons and escape tools. This classification comes with severe penalties, including a 10-year mark on an inmate’s record, restrictions on rehabilitative programs, and potentially prolonged incarceration. However, as technology evolves and prison policies around the world adapt to new realities, it’s clear that the BOP’s rigid stance on mobile phones is outdated, counterproductive, and in urgent need of revision. Rather than treating phone possession as a major security breach, BOP should adopt a more nuanced approach, reclassifying it as a "Moderate Severity" offense—akin to circumvention of monitoring policies—so that penalties are proportionate to the actual risks involved.

A Flawed Classification: Are Mobile Phones Really “Hazardous Tools”?

BOP policy defines a hazardous tool as something that could aid in escape or pose a serious security threat. Yet, when we compare mobile phones to the WiFi-enabled tablets that BOP already permits within facilities, the distinction becomes blurred. The only real difference between a contraband phone and an authorized BOP tablet is the ability to make unmonitored calls. But inmates in many minimum and low-security facilities already have access to relatively unmonitored communication methods, such as outgoing mail. In fact, the act of circumventing monitoring is already classified under a lesser, 200-series offense. This raises an important question: why is possessing a phone penalized more severely than the actual act of bypassing BOP surveillance?

Lasting Consequences: How a 100-Series Incident Report Derails Rehabilitation

The classification of phone possession as a "Greatest Severity" offense comes with lasting consequences. A 100-series incident report stays on an inmate’s record for a decade, influencing their custody classification and limiting access to educational, vocational, and rehabilitative programs. This punitive approach runs counter to the goal of reducing recidivism. By blocking inmates from programs that help them successfully reintegrate into society, BOP’s policies contribute to longer incarceration times and missed opportunities for rehabilitation.

International Precedents: A Smarter Approach to Prison Technology

The United States lags behind other nations in recognizing the potential benefits of controlled access to technology for incarcerated individuals. In some European prison systems, mobile phones and even laptops are legally available for purchase by inmates. The United Nations has even declared internet access a human right, and many countries have reformed prison policies accordingly. By contrast, BOP’s outdated classification of mobile phones reflects a refusal to acknowledge both global trends and the practical realities of modern incarceration.

Staff Acknowledgment and Policy Inconsistencies

Contraband cell phones are ubiquitous in federal prisons, with an estimated 20,000 seized annually. The sheer prevalence suggests that neither staff nor inmates genuinely view phone possession as a severe security breach. Moreover, BOP’s chronic understaffing and systemic corruption issues have led to arbitrary enforcement of Code 108, making its application inconsistent and unfair. With such widespread noncompliance, it’s worth asking whether the policy itself is the problem.

BOP Tablets vs. Mobile Phones: The Arbitrary Divide

BOP currently allows inmates to purchase and use WiFi-enabled Android tablets for entertainment, education, and communication. The only difference between these devices and a mobile phone is GSM network capability. If security concerns stem from unmonitored calls, then why not regulate phone access rather than impose extreme penalties for possession? Moreover, BOP already classifies "circumventing monitoring" as a moderate, 200-series offense. Given that the primary justification for banning mobile phones is their ability to bypass monitoring, logic dictates that possession of such a device should fall under the same classification.

Communication Barriers: A Necessity, Not a Luxury

As of 2025, BOP no longer provides randomly monitored landline calls free of charge. With a limited number of communal prison phones—sometimes just a few per 120 inmates—access to legal and family communication is often severely restricted. The inability to maintain meaningful contact with loved ones has real consequences. Studies show that strong family ties reduce recidivism and improve post-release outcomes. If the system fails to provide adequate communication channels, inmates will inevitably seek alternatives, including contraband phones.

The Case for Reclassification: Phones as a Tool for Rehabilitation

Unlike BOP-issued tablets, which offer little in the way of substantial educational resources, mobile phones provide access to self-improvement opportunities. Many inmates use phones to complete online coursework, access legal research, and stay in touch with potential employers—critical steps toward successful reintegration. Banning mobile phones doesn’t prevent their use; it merely drives up their black-market value and fuels corruption among prison staff. Instead of enforcing an impractical zero-tolerance policy, BOP should consider a regulated system for controlled phone access that balances security with rehabilitation.

Policy Proposal: A Rational and Fair Approach

Given the realities outlined above, we urge the BOP to: 1. Reclassify mobile phone possession as a 200-series Moderate Severity offense, aligning it with the already-existing category of "Circumventing Monitoring." 2. Acknowledge that the primary distinction between BOP tablets and contraband phones is GSM communication, which can be regulated rather than strictly prohibited. 3. Recognize that BOP staff already selectively enforce Code 108, further demonstrating its impracticality. 4. Consider global prison policies that allow for controlled mobile phone use as a means of rehabilitation. 5. Prioritize inmate education, communication, and reintegration efforts, which research shows are key factors in reducing recidivism.

Conclusion: A Sensible Reform for a Broken System

The BOP’s current approach to mobile phones is neither practical nor aligned with modern correctional best practices. By reclassifying phone possession as a moderate offense, the BOP can maintain security while removing unnecessary barriers to rehabilitation. Prison reform is about more than punishment—it’s about creating pathways to successful reintegration. A policy shift on mobile phones isn’t just a step in the right direction; it’s an essential move toward a more just and effective correctional system.




### Reforming the Federal Prison System: A Call for Rehabilitation Over Punishment

URL: https://fixingbop.org/topics/bop-history-decline/bop-history-decline-featured/
Published: 17 February 2025
Section: BOP History & Decline

Summary: The United States Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) was once a system that, at least at its Minimum and Low-security levels, emphasized rehabilitation over mere incapacitation. Inmates had access to recreational activities like tennis courts and putting greens, the food was tolerable, and individuals

The United States Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) was once a system that, at least at its Minimum and Low-security levels, emphasized rehabilitation over mere incapacitation. Inmates had access to recreational activities like tennis courts and putting greens, the food was tolerable, and individuals were treated with a level of dignity. However, a sensationalized segment on the news program 20/20 altered public perception, portraying an exaggerated version of prison conditions that was far from representative of the entire system.

Following public outrage sparked by that broadcast, policymakers capitalized on the moment, pushing for harsher prison conditions under the guise of being "tough on crime." This marked the beginning of a systemic decline in federal prison conditions, shifting the focus from rehabilitation to punitive measures.

The U.S. Federal Criminal Code explicitly states that the punishment for a crime is the deprivation of freedom itself. Yet, lawmakers have continuously overlooked the profound consequences of long-term incarceration. The emotional toll of missing decades of family life, the impact on children who grow up without a parent, and the irreparable loss of important life moments—these realities are rarely acknowledged in sentencing discussions.

Today, with the power of big data and artificial intelligence, we have the ability to analyze the true impact of extended sentences. The data is clear: there is little difference between a 10-year sentence and a 20-year sentence in terms of public safety, but the latter significantly diminishes an individual’s ability to reintegrate into society. Decades behind bars lead to institutionalization, ensuring that many who enter prison for minor offenses emerge unable to function in the outside world.

Federal prisons, once an opportunity for rehabilitation, have devolved into environments rife with drug addiction, violence, and corruption. Instead of fostering personal growth, they have become breeding grounds for criminal behavior. The lack of individualized treatment and assessment further exacerbates the issue, reducing inmates to mere numbers rather than addressing their potential for reform.

It is time for meaningful change. America must embrace the opportunity to modernize its prison system, adopting strategies that emphasize rehabilitation, education, and reintegration. European countries have demonstrated that a focus on rehabilitation leads to lower recidivism rates and a more productive society. The United States must follow suit, ensuring that federal prisons serve as pathways to reintegration rather than warehouses of despair.

The call to action is clear: reform the BOP, implement data-driven sentencing policies, and provide incarcerated individuals with the tools they need to succeed post-release. The time for change is now.




### Systemic Impact: Prisons & Society

URL: https://fixingbop.org/topics/systemic-impact-prisons-society/systemic-impact-prisons-society/
Published: 17 February 2025
Section: Systemic Impact: Prisons & Society

Summary: The Urgent Need for Reform in Federal Prisons It's a critical yet often overlooked truth: the vast majority of individuals incarcerated in the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) will eventually return to their communities. Despite long sentences and substandard access to healthcare—which in some

The Urgent Need for Reform in Federal Prisons

It's a critical yet often overlooked truth: the vast majority of individuals incarcerated in the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) will eventually return to their communities. Despite long sentences and substandard access to healthcare—which in some cases may amount to a de facto life sentence—most inmates will one day walk free. The question is, what kind of person will be coming back?

The answer hinges on how the BOP manages inmate rehabilitation. Done correctly, a formerly incarcerated individual could reenter society as a certified plumber, a skilled electrician, or a trained carpenter. Handled poorly, that same individual might return as a hardened felon, equipped only with gang affiliations and a deepened criminal skill set.

By the Numbers: A Broken System

The United States leads the world in incarceration rates, with roughly 2 million people behind bars as of 2023. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the U.S. recidivism rate hovers around 68% within three years of release and over 76% within five years. This rate is significantly higher than in other developed countries.

Despite the poor outcomes, the U.S. spends more on its prison system than any other nation—an estimated $80 billion annually. Factor in indirect costs like lost productivity, family disruption, and increased law enforcement, and that number swells into the hundreds of billions. Yet, the return on this investment remains dismal, with negligible improvements in public safety.

Prisons as Opportunity or Danger

In theory, incarceration could serve as a transformative period—a time-out that provides structure, education, and a second chance. In practice, BOP inmates have reported that time in federal prison is more likely to expose individuals to gang recruitment, drug abuse, and radicalization. Instead of rehabilitation, prison becomes a crash course in criminal advancement.

According to multiple reports from inmates and BOP staff, basic educational and vocational programs are underfunded or inconsistently offered. Rehabilitation is often sidelined in favor of punitive measures. Without positive outlets, inmates may instead turn to violence, addiction, or ideological extremism.

The Root of the Problem: A Flawed Philosophy

The current prison culture is entrenched in a punitive mindset. Many correctional officers and administrators, worn down by daily exposure to misconduct, have grown skeptical—if not outright dismissive—of the possibility of rehabilitation. This attitude, however, fails to account for the systemic and generational issues that underlie criminal behavior: poverty, trauma, lack of education, and social disenfranchisement.

BOP staff are often unequipped or unsupported in addressing the deeper, more complex needs of inmates. As a result, the broader system neglects the long-term consequences of its short-term solutions. Simply put, the prison system is stuck in a cycle of failure, and no one is stepping back to see the whole picture.

The Bigger Picture: What’s at Stake

What happens behind prison walls doesn't stay there. Eventually, those who have been incarcerated return to the community. If they leave prison more broken than they entered, the community bears the cost—through increased crime, strained public resources, and fractured families. On the other hand, if prisons are used as places of learning and transformation, they can become powerful engines for public safety and social improvement.

At FixingBOP.org, we are committed to challenging outdated narratives and proposing evidence-based solutions. But meaningful change requires community involvement, policy reform, and a renewed commitment to the humanity of all people—inside and outside prison walls.

Solutions

Expand vocational and educational programs: Fund and scale programs that teach practical job skills with real-world certifications.

Implement trauma-informed care: Train staff to understand and respond appropriately to the psychological needs of inmates.

Reform sentencing and healthcare access: Ensure that inmates receive adequate medical care and reevaluate sentences that become life terms due to neglect.

Invest in reentry support: Provide transitional housing, job placement services, and counseling to help inmates reintegrate successfully.

Shift the cultural mindset: Encourage a rehabilitative, not punitive, approach at all levels of prison management.

Hold institutions accountable: Require transparency and third-party audits to evaluate the effectiveness of rehabilitation programs.




### The Bureau of Prisons: Sabotaging Its Own Reform Efforts

URL: https://fixingbop.org/topics/rehabilitation-programs-lost-opportunities/rehabilitation-programs-lost-opportunities-featured/
Published: 17 February 2025
Section: Rehabilitation Programs: Lost Opportunities

Summary: The First Step Act (FSA) was the most significant attempt at reforming the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) in recent history. Passed with bipartisan support, its intent was clear: to incentivize rehabilitation and reduce recidivism. However, the BOP’s resistance to these changes has been evident

The First Step Act (FSA) was the most significant attempt at reforming the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) in recent history. Passed with bipartisan support, its intent was clear: to incentivize rehabilitation and reduce recidivism. However, the BOP’s resistance to these changes has been evident from the start. Rather than embracing the reform, the agency has viewed it as an administrative burden, reinforcing its long-standing practice of treating the prison population as a monolith rather than recognizing individual efforts at rehabilitation.

Although the BOP has introduced numerous FSA programs, their implementation is secondary to the agency’s persistent staffing shortages, frequent lockdowns, and the general disorder that plagues the system. Inmates striving for self-improvement often find their progress thwarted by bureaucratic inefficiencies—classes are postponed indefinitely, schedules shift without notice, and the motivation to reform erodes under the weight of uncertainty.

Flawed Implementation and Bureaucratic Indifference

The BOP’s interpretation of the FSA is unnecessarily convoluted, leading to ongoing legal battles. Inmates who have accumulated enough credits for early release remain incarcerated simply because their case managers fail to update their records in a timely manner. These delays—sometimes stretching for a year—result in individuals languishing in prison despite having met the statutory requirements for release.

Under the FSA, an inmate who diligently participates in rehabilitative programs can earn up to 15 days of credit per month. However, this credit is capped at one year. This limitation leads to a perverse inequity: an individual who spends two decades immersed in education and personal growth receives the same benefit as someone with a history of violence and gang involvement. The policy fails to distinguish between those who have genuinely reformed and those who have not.

An Antiquated Classification System

The BOP’s outdated custody classification system further compounds the problem. Only inmates housed in minimum-security facilities are considered for early release under the FSA. Yet a single disciplinary infraction—such as possession of a contraband phone—can alter an inmate’s custody level for a decade. The evidentiary standard for such infractions is alarmingly low, requiring merely “some evidence,” far from the rigorous “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard used in criminal courts.

Instead of conducting thorough investigations, BOP officials often default to collective punishment. When contraband is discovered in a common area, every nearby inmate is penalized, regardless of actual culpability. Rather than utilizing the hundreds of security cameras at their disposal, staff opt for mass disciplinary actions, further eroding trust in the system.

Demotivating the Will to Reform

By erecting systemic barriers to FSA participation and imposing arbitrary disciplinary actions, the BOP discourages inmates from pursuing rehabilitation. When incarcerated individuals witness peers dedicate years to self-improvement, only to see their early release hopes dashed due to bureaucratic incompetence, it sends a clear message: programming is a futile endeavor. This sentiment spreads through the general population, undermining the very goal of the FSA—successful reintegration into society.

The BOP’s Self-Defeating Approach

The BOP’s dismal recidivism statistics are, in part, self-inflicted. Despite possessing the tools to effect meaningful change, the agency remains trapped in a cycle of inefficiency and resistance to reform. Institutional inertia prevents the BOP from acknowledging that collective punishment and rigid policies are counterproductive strategies in modern corrections.

While the FSA provides a modest one-year sentence reduction, it lacks meaningful incentives for continued good behavior. Promises of enhanced commissary privileges remain unfulfilled, largely due to the BOP’s inability to manage its existing infrastructure effectively.

The Path Forward: Automation and Transparency

The solution is clear: automation and real-time transparency. Inmates should have access to their FSA credits, scores, and projected release dates through digital platforms, such as secure prison tablets and kiosks. The gamification principles widely used in modern applications could be leveraged to create a system that rewards progress and encourages sustained rehabilitation efforts.

Yet the BOP remains firmly entrenched in outdated methodologies, resistant to technological advancements that could streamline its processes and improve outcomes. Until the agency acknowledges the need for systemic change, the First Step Act will remain a hollow promise—another reform effort undermined by the very institution it was designed to improve.




### The Bureau of Prisons’ Tablet Debacle: A Case Study in Missed Opportunities

URL: https://fixingbop.org/topics/rehabilitation-programs-lost-opportunities/rehabilitation-programs-lost-opportunities/
Published: 17 February 2025
Section: Rehabilitation Programs: Lost Opportunities

Summary: The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) has finally followed the lead of county jails and state prisons by introducing tablets for inmates. To secure approval, BOP promised educational applications, including full access to Khan Academy and other basic learning tools. Many county jails even provide streaming

The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) has finally followed the lead of county jails and state prisons by introducing tablets for inmates. To secure approval, BOP promised educational applications, including full access to Khan Academy and other basic learning tools. Many county jails even provide streaming media services, with variations of Netflix and Spotify, and access to thousands of eBooks through subscription models. But BOP’s implementation has been nothing short of a disappointment.

A Monopoly That Fails to Deliver

BOP's tablet provider is Advanced Technology Group (ATG), a subsidiary of Keefe Group. Keefe operates as the sole vendor, awarded contracts without competitive bidding. They control the inmate messaging system, Corrlinks, the MP3 players, and now the tablets, in addition to supplying approximately 80% of commissary items under various brand names. The tablets themselves—the Score7C and Score7T—are basic 7-inch Android devices, likely costing around $40 to manufacture, yet sold to inmates for a staggering $120. Out of the box, they come with little more than a calculator and a rudimentary puzzle game, "2042." Every other function requires additional payment. Renting a movie costs around $3.50, though the selection is limited to G and PG-13 films, most of which are already available on basic television.

Wasted Potential: The Gaming and Education Shortfall

The tablets run on Android 11, an operating system that once supported thousands of quality games on the Google Play Store. Instead of negotiating with existing developers to repackage offline versions of these games, Keefe opted to commission offshore contractors to build proprietary games from scratch. The result? Poorly developed, short, and buggy games that cost inmates $3.50 each—hardly a meaningful alternative to boredom or a constructive pastime. More troubling is the complete absence of educational applications. Despite the existence of numerous free educational apps compatible with Android 11, BOP has chosen not to provide access. What could have been a powerful tool for rehabilitation and self-improvement has been reduced to a cynical cash grab.

A Logistical Nightmare

Even the basic functionality of these tablets is severely limited. BOP has disabled WiFi, requiring inmates to sync their devices via one of five Corrlinks computers per housing unit, serving approximately 120 inmates. These computers receive maintenance only twice a year, and at any given time, some may be non-functional. The situation is further exacerbated by the use of low-quality USB-C cables that quickly wear out due to frequent use. To make matters worse, when these cables are stolen—often sold for drugs—BOP staff refuse to replace them, opting instead to issue memos blaming inmates collectively. This approach not only fosters resentment but also highlights the institutional inefficiency that plagues the system. Holding an entire population accountable for the actions of a few is not a solution; it is an excuse to avoid meaningful intervention.

Entertainment as a Tool for Stability

The potential for these tablets extends beyond education. Entertainment has long been recognized as a method of reducing inmate violence, drug use, and behavioral issues. In decades past, federal inmates could subscribe to magazines like *Penthouse* and *Playboy*, and TV rooms had HBO and Showtime—funded by inmates themselves through commissary profits. Today, inmates are barred from accessing music with explicit lyrics or R-rated movies, despite living in an environment where real-life violence far surpasses anything seen in *Game of Thrones*. If the BOP were to allow access to popular television series, classic films, or even unrestricted music, the impact would be immediate and measurable. Every hour spent engaged in entertainment is an hour not spent engaging in violence or destructive behavior. The math is simple, yet BOP clings to outdated policies that fail to acknowledge the realities of prison life.

A System Set Up to Fail

In its current state, the tablet program represents another squandered opportunity by BOP. Rather than investing in a solution that could improve inmate well-being, reduce idleness, and even foster rehabilitation, the agency has opted for a cost-driven approach that prioritizes profit over progress. The technology exists. The infrastructure exists. Hundreds of companies could have created an ecosystem of educational tools and quality entertainment for a captive audience of 160,000 inmates. Instead, BOP handed the contract to a single vendor notorious for overpricing subpar products, ultimately ensuring that the tablets serve as yet another symbol of bureaucratic incompetence. With better decision-making, these devices could be powerful instruments of change. But for now, they remain just another reminder of a system that refuses to evolve.




### The Contraband Crisis

URL: https://fixingbop.org/topics/corruption-lack-of-accountability/the-contraband-crisis/
Published: 17 February 2025
Section: Corruption & Lack of Accountability

Summary: How Corruption Undermines Federal Prisons The politics of contraband within the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is a complex and deeply entrenched issue. The problem isn't just about illicit goods finding their way into facilities—it’s about systemic corruption, mismanagement, and a workforce

How Corruption Undermines Federal Prisons

The politics of contraband within the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is a complex and deeply entrenched issue. The problem isn't just about illicit goods finding their way into facilities—it’s about systemic corruption, mismanagement, and a workforce that, in many cases, has little incentive to operate with integrity.

A Staffing Crisis with Dangerous Consequences

In 2018, amid the COVID-19 pandemic, the BOP attempted to mandate vaccines for its staff while enforcing strict lockdowns on inmates. This move exacerbated already dire working conditions, forcing officers into extended shifts and multiple roles. Those eligible for retirement took the opportunity to leave, creating a staffing shortage that led the BOP to lower its hiring standards, bringing in many officers with backgrounds in state prisons.

The result was predictable: an influx of undertrained staff, a rise in corruption, and a facility structure ill-equipped to manage the pandemic’s toll. Federal prisons rely heavily on inmate labor to maintain daily operations, but when lockdowns removed this workforce, officers were suddenly tasked with actual operational duties—an adjustment many struggled to handle.

The Business of Smuggling

For some officers, working at BOP is less about public service and more about financial opportunity—specifically, the chance to earn an extra $10,000 per month, tax-free, by smuggling contraband. In fact, some officers are actively recruited by street gangs with the sole purpose of infiltrating the BOP for illicit trade.

The contraband economy operates at shockingly standardized rates: whatever fits in a manila envelope costs around $10,000, whether it’s tobacco, cell phones, or fentanyl. Some officers opt to traffic only “low-risk” contraband like phones and tobacco, as federal sentencing guidelines limit their maximum penalty to one year in prison. In most cases, they are merely fired rather than prosecuted. Those who smuggle hard drugs face up to 20 years in prison, but given the difficulty of detection, many consider the risk worthwhile.

Meanwhile, the BOP, already crippled by staffing shortages, cannot afford to aggressively investigate corruption for fear of further depleting its workforce. The consequences are dire: overdoses, escalating gang influence, and increasing violence within federal institutions. Yet when asked how contraband enters facilities, corrupt officers deflect blame to drones—an excuse that, while plausible in rare cases, is largely a diversion from the real issue.

Looking the Other Way

Not all corrupt officers actively smuggle contraband. Some simply turn a blind eye. Those working in recreation, maintenance, or food services can facilitate smuggling by neglecting their duty to inspect incoming shipments. Every day, prisons receive pallets of goods—food, clothing, toiletries, and supplies—all of which should be rigorously checked against purchase orders. In practice, officers often do the bare minimum, as there is little incentive to be thorough.

The situation is further exacerbated by changes in inmate wages. In 2019, the BOP cut all inmate pay, reducing the incentive to work legitimately and pushing many towards smuggling as a more lucrative alternative. With officers willing to facilitate the trade and inmates in need of income, corruption flourishes.

Exploiting the System for Personal Gain

Theft and fraud within the BOP are not limited to contraband smuggling. Officers in food service may run food trucks on the outside, supplying them with stolen BOP provisions. Staff working in maintenance—plumbing, electrical, HVAC—often own private businesses, siphoning off materials meant for prison use to support their own ventures. Meanwhile, missing materials are conveniently blamed on inmates.

Additionally, some officers deliberately neglect routine maintenance to increase the likelihood of emergency call-ins, which pay double-time. This strategy allows them to profit from the very failures they engineer, all while maintaining plausible deniability.

A System Designed to Protect Corruption

Federal prison staff exploit the presence of inmates to justify their own criminal activities. The BOP, desperate to retain workers, hesitates to question or investigate staff misconduct. Firing federal employees is notoriously difficult, and complicating matters further, the correctional officers’ union is one of the largest in the country, providing additional layers of protection.

The result is a prison system where corruption thrives, reform is nearly impossible, and ethical behavior is neither expected nor rewarded. How can we expect inmates to rehabilitate in an environment where criminality is not just tolerated but ingrained into the very fabric of the institution?




### The Crisis of Healthcare in Federal Prisons

URL: https://fixingbop.org/topics/healthcare-neglect-in-prisons/the-crisis-of-healthcare-in-federal-prisons/
Published: 17 February 2025
Section: Healthcare Neglect in Prisons

Summary: The state of healthcare in the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is nothing short of a catastrophe. Inmates are subjected to poor nutrition, rampant drug addiction, and substandard medical care. Despite BOP policy stating that healthcare within the system should be equivalent to that of the general

The state of healthcare in the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is nothing short of a catastrophe. Inmates are subjected to poor nutrition, rampant drug addiction, and substandard medical care. Despite BOP policy stating that healthcare within the system should be equivalent to that of the general community, the reality is starkly different—many household pets in America receive better medical treatment than incarcerated individuals.

Poor Nutrition and Unhealthy Lifestyles

Prison diets are heavily reliant on high-carbohydrate, low-protein meals, with alternatives available only through the commissary—where options consist almost exclusively of highly processed junk food. Combined with a sedentary lifestyle, this diet exacerbates chronic health issues such as obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease.

Compounding this issue, prisoners have virtually no access to dietary supplements, and even those with financial means struggle to acquire healthy food. This nutritional neglect contributes to the overall decline in inmate health, burdening an already strained medical system.

Widespread Drug Use and Lack of Treatment

Drug addiction runs rampant in federal prisons. Illicit substances—including fentanyl, heroin, and methamphetamine—are readily available, and inmates engage in risky behaviors such as needle-sharing. Hepatitis C is widespread among intravenous drug users, and HIV infection rates remain alarmingly high. While the BOP spends millions treating these conditions, there is little investment in preventative measures or rehabilitation.

The prison system offers a Residential Drug Abuse Program (RDAP), but it is only available to inmates within three years of release. Even when inmates gain access, the program's effectiveness is undermined by the very environment in which it operates—one where drugs are still prevalent, and untreated addiction fuels continued substance abuse.

Despite the well-documented benefits of medication-assisted treatment (MAT) for opioid addiction, the BOP's implementation of Suboxone therapy is severely flawed. Many non-addicted inmates enroll in the program simply to resell the medication, while those in genuine need often remain untreated. Meanwhile, heavy opioid users face an ever-growing risk of overdose.

Neglected Mental Health Needs

A significant percentage of inmates suffer from mental health disorders, yet psychiatric care within federal prisons is woefully inadequate. Many individuals with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) would benefit from medications like Adderall or non-stimulant alternatives such as Strattera, but these treatments are outright banned in the BOP. As a result, some inmates resort to illicit methamphetamine use as a self-medication alternative.

Solitary confinement, which is frequently used as a disciplinary measure, further exacerbates mental health issues, worsening anxiety, depression, and psychosis. Instead of treatment, many mentally ill inmates are left to suffer in silence.

Overburdened and Understaffed Medical Services

Access to medical care within the BOP is a grueling process. Overworked and underfunded, prison healthcare staff must prioritize emergencies over routine care, forcing many inmates to see a physician’s assistant multiple times before being granted access to a doctor. Even when a legitimate medical need is identified, securing outside treatment becomes an arduous battle against bureaucracy and budgetary constraints.

Adding to the challenge, prisons are seeing an increase in medical complications stemming from the use of synthetic drugs like K2 and Spice—substances with poorly understood long-term health effects. This influx of unfamiliar medical conditions only further clogs an already overwhelmed system.

The Physical Toll of Prison Life

Beyond the rampant drug use and medical neglect, the very environment of federal prisons poses a serious risk to inmate health. Facilities are built from unforgiving concrete and steel, maintenance is inconsistent at best, and workplace safety regulations are virtually nonexistent. Inmates frequently suffer injuries from accidents, violence, and hazardous conditions, yet BOP medical services lack the funding and resources to adequately address these emergencies.

Ironically, the BOP spends more money on wrongful death and malpractice litigation than it does on actual healthcare for inmates. The medical staff within the system is not inherently negligent—many doctors genuinely care about their patients—but their ability to provide quality care is stifled by bureaucratic inefficiencies and a system that prioritizes security over rehabilitation.

Solutions for a Broken System

Fixing healthcare in federal prisons requires a fundamental shift in priorities. Rehabilitation should take precedence over mere punishment, and the system must recognize that improving inmate health benefits society as a whole. Key solutions include:

Improved Medical Oversight: Implementing stricter oversight of prison healthcare providers to ensure accountability and quality care.

Comprehensive Drug Treatment Programs: Expanding access to substance abuse treatment, including medically assisted therapy, to address addiction before it leads to further harm.

Expanded Mental Health Services: Increasing access to psychiatric care, including appropriate medications for conditions like ADHD and depression.

Better Nutrition and Wellness Options: Providing healthier meal options and allowing access to dietary supplements to improve overall inmate health.

Reducing Overcrowding and Understaffing: Hiring more medical professionals and reducing prison populations to alleviate strain on healthcare services.

Investing in Preventative Care: Focusing on early intervention for chronic illnesses and infectious diseases to reduce long-term healthcare costs.

Ensuring a Smooth Reentry Process: Establishing transitional healthcare plans for inmates upon release to prevent relapse and recidivism.

Incarceration should not equate to a death sentence through medical neglect. The federal prison system must shift its focus from punishment to rehabilitation, ensuring that inmates receive the care they need to become productive members of society upon release. The evidence is clear—when healthcare improves, recidivism drops, and society as a whole benefits.




### The Federal Bureau of Prisons Has Engineered Economic Chaos Behind Bars

URL: https://fixingbop.org/topics/bop-history-decline/the-federal-bureau-of-prisons-has-engineered-economic-chaos-behind-bars/
Published: 17 February 2025
Section: BOP History & Decline

Summary: The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) has long struggled with balancing security, rehabilitation, and humane treatment. But recent policy changes—particularly those involving inmate compensation and access to basic necessities—have tipped the scale toward dysfunction. By slashing inmate pay by as much

The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) has long struggled with balancing security, rehabilitation, and humane treatment. But recent policy changes—particularly those involving inmate compensation and access to basic necessities—have tipped the scale toward dysfunction. By slashing inmate pay by as much as 80% and failing to provide sufficient work opportunities, the BOP has created a volatile economic vacuum within prison walls, destabilizing the very populations it is charged with managing.

The Collapse of Inmate Wages

For decades, inmates could rely on modest but consistent wages for work assignments, typically earning between $0.12 to $0.40 an hour. These funds were often used to purchase hygiene items, food, and other commissary goods. But since 2020, wages have plummeted—often to less than $0.10 an hour—while the number of available jobs has remained static or declined, despite a growing inmate population. As of 2023, federal prisons held over 158,000 inmates, yet fewer than half held work assignments, according to BOP’s own data.

In theory, indigent inmates—those without any income—can apply for free hygiene items like soap, toothpaste, and razors. In practice, the application process is convoluted and requires a certain level of literacy, bureaucratic fluency, and often English proficiency. Ironically, the very populations that most need this support—illiterate or non-English speaking inmates—are the least equipped to access it.

Moreover, the cost of these basic supplies is not funded by taxpayers, but through the Inmate Trust Fund, which profits from commissary sales. That makes the denial of essentials to indigent inmates not only ethically questionable, but economically unnecessary.

Survival Through Subculture

With little to no official income, inmates turn to informal networks for survival. Upon arrival, new inmates often receive "care packages" from members of their racial, geographic, or gang-affiliated groups—collectively referred to as their "car." These packages contain basic hygiene items and occasionally food, but the support is usually short-lived. After that, inmates are left to fend for themselves.

This economic gap has given rise to a prison “hustle” culture, where inmates engage in unofficial jobs such as cleaning cells, mending clothes, or repairing electronics. While mostly harmless, these roles barely meet subsistence needs. Others engage in informal bartering, leveraging leftovers from food service or excess cleaning supplies to run microbusinesses. These activities, while technically against policy, have long served as stabilizing forces in the prison ecosystem.

From Hustles to Havoc

As job scarcity increases and hustle opportunities dwindle, more inmates find themselves with zero income—setting off a chain reaction of instability. The majority of inmates, particularly in federal facilities, are incarcerated for drug-related offenses. Many come from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds and enter prison with minimal education, job experience, or prospects.

In such a vacuum, selling drugs becomes the default economic strategy for many. With no other viable options, and surrounded by a market of addicts, the prison drug trade flourishes. Addicted inmates often try to front drugs with promises of resale, but inevitably consume the product themselves. The result is a toxic cycle of addiction, debt, and desperation.

The effects ripple outward. Junkies begin to steal anything they can find—wires, outlets, screws, and other infrastructure components—degrading the already crumbling facilities. The cumulative effect is a silent erosion of prison infrastructure and order.

Institutional Apathy and Its Consequences

The BOP saw this coming. The 2020 pay cuts were implemented with the belief that stricter discipline would maintain order, but punishment without incentive is a failing formula. When inmates have nothing left to lose, threats of disciplinary action become hollow. The loss of TV privileges, for example, means little when living conditions already mirror those of a developing nation.

The broader cost of this mismanagement is staggering. Prisons that lack economic structure become breeding grounds for violence, corruption, and recidivism. Without reform, the very purpose of incarceration—rehabilitation and eventual reintegration—becomes an illusion.

Solutions

Reinstate Meaningful Inmate Pay: Restore wages to pre-2020 levels to provide inmates with legitimate economic pathways.

Expand Job Opportunities: Create more internal work assignments and partnerships with external agencies for remote or virtual work.

Simplify Access to Hygiene: Remove bureaucratic barriers that prevent indigent inmates from obtaining basic supplies.

Support Constructive Hustles: Allow and regulate inmate-run services that promote self-sufficiency and community engagement.

Target Drug Abuse Proactively: Increase drug testing and separate treatment populations to reduce the impact of addiction-fueled criminal activity.

Invest in Education and Training: Provide literacy, vocational, and entrepreneurial programs tailored to real-world employment.

Utilize the Inmate Trust Fund Transparently: Ensure that profits from commissary sales are reinvested into programs that benefit the inmate population.

The chaos inside our federal prisons isn’t accidental. It’s a product of deliberate policy decisions and systemic neglect. If we are to reduce recidivism and improve civil society, the BOP must stop treating inmate poverty as a disciplinary tool and start building a sustainable model for correctional economics.




### The Unintended Consequences of Removing Microwaves in Federal Prisons

URL: https://fixingbop.org/topics/prison-conditions-safety/the-unintended-consequences-of-removing-microwaves-in-federal-prisons/
Published: 17 February 2025
Section: Prison Conditions & Safety

Summary: For decades, inmates in the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) had access to microwaves—standard heavy-duty units similar to those found in convenience stores. Then, following a violent incident in a Florida state prison where an inmate used a microwaved bowl of Vaseline as a weapon, the BOP reacted by phasing

For decades, inmates in the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) had access to microwaves—standard heavy-duty units similar to those found in convenience stores. Then, following a violent incident in a Florida state prison where an inmate used a microwaved bowl of Vaseline as a weapon, the BOP reacted by phasing out microwaves nationwide. While this may seem like a common-sense safety measure, it highlights a recurring problem in BOP policy: reactionary decision-making with little foresight.

A Lack of Practical Understanding

One of the major issues at the national level is that many decision-makers in the BOP have never set foot in a federal prison. There is a widespread belief that simply creating policies, laws, or rules is enough to fix a problem. However, prisons house individuals who, by definition, do not always follow rules. Furthermore, after years of restrictions and losses, many inmates feel they have nothing left to lose. The microwave ban is just one more example of a policy that failed to consider broader consequences.

The Real Issue: Health Risks

With microwaves removed, the BOP installed hot water dispensers to allow inmates to prepare coffee and instant meals. While this provides some access to heated food, these machines require continuous maintenance, consume excessive electricity, and are often out of service, with only two dispensers per 120 inmates to begin with.

More concerning is the fact that inmates now heat their food in plastic and foil packaging not rated for high temperatures, instead of microwave safe plastic bowls. Over time, this leads to prolonged exposure to harmful chemicals linked to serious health conditions. These health problems ultimately become the responsibility of taxpayers, who fund the inmates' medical treatments.

Microwaves vs. Hot Water Heating: A Health Perspective

One of the overlooked benefits of microwaves in prison settings was their role in food safety. Microwaves heat food to temperatures that effectively kill bacteria, reducing the risk of foodborne illnesses. In contrast, hot water dispensers, even at their highest temperatures, do not reach the levels necessary to eliminate harmful pathogens. Inmates relying on these dispensers may consume underheated food, increasing their risk of bacterial infections, gastrointestinal issues, and other health complications.

The Dangers of Heating Non-Heat-Rated Food Packaging

When food packaging materials not designed for heat exposure are warmed, they release harmful chemicals. Common offenders include:

Plastic Containers (#3, #6, #7): Release hormone disruptors like phthalates, styrene, and BPA.

Plastic Wrap: Can leach DEHA, which has been linked to hormone disruption.

Styrofoam: Emits styrene, a potential carcinogen.

Canned Food Linings: Often contain BPA-based epoxy, which can leach into food.

Coated Cardboard: Contains PFAS, associated with cancer and hormonal imbalances.

Metallic Foil Linings: Can introduce aluminum into food, which has been linked to neurotoxicity.

Health Risks of Chemical Exposure

These chemicals have well-documented health risks, including:

BPA & BPS: Hormonal imbalances, infertility, increased cancer risk.

Phthalates: Endocrine disruption, birth defects, respiratory issues.

Styrene: Nervous system damage, liver and kidney toxicity.

PFAS: Cancer, immune suppression, thyroid disorders.

DEHA: Liver tumors, reproductive toxicity.

Aluminum: Neurotoxicity, kidney damage, bone disorders.

Unintended Consequences and Added Costs

Instead of prosecuting violent offenders who misuse microwaves, the BOP has created an expensive health crisis. However, the financial burden extends beyond medical costs.

Inmates, unwilling to eat cold food, have turned to makeshift heating methods. They dismantle electrical devices to extract wires, creating primitive immersion heaters. This practice leads to the destruction of valuable equipment, including security and medical devices, costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars annually. Inmates have even suffered fatal electrocutions attempting to heat water using direct 110-volt AC current from wall outlets.

More dangerously, inmates create makeshift deep fryers by placing heating elements in plastic trash cans filled with stolen or commissary-purchased cooking oil. The trash cans, not designed for extreme temperatures, release additional harmful chemicals into food. Instead of addressing the root cause, the BOP’s response was to remove trash cans from facilities.

From Trash Cans to Plumbing Disasters

Without trash cans, inmates resort to flushing all their waste down industrial toilets. This includes clothing, wrappers, and other non-biodegradable materials, leading to frequent plumbing failures in aging prison infrastructure. Every year, prisons spend significant funds addressing preventable plumbing issues—all stemming from the initial decision to remove microwaves.

The True Cost of a Reactionary Policy

What started as a response to a single state-level incident has snowballed into an expensive and counterproductive policy. The BOP has inadvertently increased medical expenses, repair costs, and maintenance efforts while degrading inmate morale and increasing health risks.

For decades, microwaves were a practical and relatively safe solution in federal prisons. Not only did they provide inmates with a reliable method of heating food, but they also helped reduce foodborne illnesses by eliminating harmful bacteria. Rather than removing them altogether, a more effective approach would have been to enforce discipline against individuals who misuse them. Instead, the BOP has replaced a manageable problem with a host of costly, long-term consequences—all at the expense of both taxpayers and inmate well-being.




### The Unseen Consequences of BOP’s Tobacco Policy: Corruption, Health Risks, and a Need for Reform

URL: https://fixingbop.org/topics/healthcare-neglect-in-prisons/the-unseen-consequences-of-bops-tobacco-policy-corruption-health-risks-and-a-need-for-reform/
Published: 17 February 2025
Section: Healthcare Neglect in Prisons

Summary: In the 1990s, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) sold cigarettes and other tobacco products to inmates. However, in the early 2000s, aligning with broader public health initiatives, the agency banned smoking in federal prisons. Given that taxpayers ultimately bear the cost of cancer treatment for

In the 1990s, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) sold cigarettes and other tobacco products to inmates. However, in the early 2000s, aligning with broader public health initiatives, the agency banned smoking in federal prisons. Given that taxpayers ultimately bear the cost of cancer treatment for inmates, the decision was both logical and financially sound. While some prisoners resisted the change, many welcomed the move toward a smoke-free environment.

More than 20 years later, however, smoking remains as prevalent as ever behind bars. Tobacco possession is considered only a moderate-severity infraction under BOP policy, and with an already overwhelming backlog of disciplinary cases, enforcement is inconsistent at best. The reality is that many inmates—stripped of numerous privileges under a distorted punishment model—simply no longer care about minor infractions.

The Economics of Smuggled Tobacco

This lax enforcement has opened the door to a lucrative black market, where corrupt correctional officers exploit the demand for tobacco. Unlike drugs or weapons, tobacco is easy to smuggle—it doesn’t set off metal detectors—and its price inside prison is astronomical. A pound of high-quality rolling tobacco, which costs about $70 in retail stores, can sell for up to $5,000 behind bars.

The consequences are far-reaching. Non-smoking inmates who wish to avoid secondhand smoke have no realistic way to do so without reporting the infractions—a move that could put them at risk of violent retaliation. Additionally, taxpayers remain financially responsible for the treatment of smoking-related illnesses. Meanwhile, corruption among correctional staff continues to fester, exacerbating an already strained prison system.

A Flawed Approach to Smoking Cessation

Ironically, BOP policy technically permits the sale of smoking cessation products through the prison commissary—yet in practice, none are made available. This omission is a major oversight, particularly since many inmates express a desire to quit but struggle to do so when surrounded by pervasive smoking and the boredom of incarceration.

Nicotine itself does not cause cancer; in fact, it is classified as a nootropic, meaning it can enhance cognitive function and may even have longevity benefits. Today, nicotine supplements are widely available in various forms, from lozenges to pouches, yet the BOP has failed to offer any alternative to combustible tobacco.

The Case for Vaping in Federal Prisons

County jails and state prisons across the United States have adapted to the modern landscape by introducing electronic cigarettes and nicotine vaping products. Despite federal claims of uncertainty regarding the long-term health effects of vaping, extensive research now exists on its relative safety. Some vaping ingredients, such as diacetyl and propylene glycol, have been linked to potential health concerns, but numerous brands offer products free from these substances.

More importantly, vaping is unquestionably safer than the status quo in federal prisons, where inmates smoke unfiltered cigarettes rolled in Bible pages. Even more disturbingly, some resort to drying and smoking the remnants of chewing tobacco spit left in discarded soda bottles by correctional officers—a carcinogenic nightmare that underscores the desperation within prison walls.

A Sensible Reform: Harm Reduction and Fiscal Responsibility

The BOP must modernize its approach by following the example set by state and county facilities. Introducing vaping products and smoking cessation aids would not only improve inmate health but also disrupt the tobacco black market, curbing officer corruption in the process.

Furthermore, permitting the sale of these products through the inmate commissary would generate significant revenue for the Inmate Trust Fund, which covers hygiene products, clothing, and other basic necessities. Rather than losing millions of taxpayer dollars treating preventable cancers, the system could redirect funds toward rehabilitation programs and facility improvements.

The federal prison system is long overdue for reform, and harm reduction strategies are a necessary step forward. By adopting policies that prioritize both public health and institutional integrity, the BOP can take a meaningful step toward addressing corruption, reducing smoking-related illnesses, and fostering a more sustainable correctional environment.




### From 'Club Fed' to Chaos:  How Federal Prisons Have Become a Humanitarian Crisis

URL: https://fixingbop.org/topics/corrections/from-club-fed-to-chaos-how-federal-prisons-have-become-a-humanitarian-crisis/
Published: 16 February 2025
Section: Corrections

Summary: In the early 1990s, the image of federal prison largely aligned with public perception. It was a place where mob bosses, corrupt politicians, arms traffickers, and high-level drug kingpins served their sentences. These were individuals with access to financial resources, competent legal

In the early 1990s, the image of federal prison largely aligned with public perception. It was a place where mob bosses, corrupt politicians, arms traffickers, and high-level drug kingpins served their sentences. These were individuals with access to financial resources, competent legal representation, and a degree of education that allowed them to advocate for their own rights. Back then, federal prisons provided a minimal but recognizable standard of rehabilitation—offering Pell Grants, college courses, microwaves, structured athletic programs, and at least a semblance of human rights protections.

Fast forward to today, and the system has undergone a dramatic and devastating transformation. The modern federal prison bears little resemblance to the so-called "Club Fed" of the past. Instead, it increasingly resembles a lawless, neglected encampment akin to a Somali pirate den—overcrowded, underfunded, and rife with violence, corruption, and human suffering.

A New Class of Federal Inmate

Federal prisons were once populated by organized criminals and white-collar offenders, but today, the overwhelming majority of inmates are low-level drug offenders swept up in aggressive federal conspiracy charges. These are not the cocaine traffickers with fleets of planes or cartel-connected heroin suppliers. Instead, they are often addicts themselves—men and women who barely sold enough to sustain their own habit. However, under the broad reach of federal conspiracy laws, a person can be charged with distributing far more than they ever physically handled. If three informants claim an individual sold them an ounce of drugs at separate times over the past year, prosecutors can argue that they must have trafficked at least 10 pounds—whether they ever had access to such quantities or not.

The result? The federal prison system has become a warehouse for America’s most vulnerable—people with little education, mental illness, and lifelong substance abuse issues. These individuals are rarely in a position to fight back against legal injustices, unlike the inmates of the past who had the means and knowledge to challenge mistreatment and policy violations.

The Collapse of Rehabilitation and Basic Services

While prisons once maintained educational programs and reentry initiatives, those have largely vanished. Pell Grants for incarcerated individuals were eliminated in 1994, only reinstated in 2020 after decades of neglect. But in the interim, federal facilities became little more than human storage units, where even basic literacy programs disappeared. Most federal inmates today come from backgrounds of deep poverty, generational addiction, and a lack of formal education. Many have never held a legal job or obtained a high school diploma, and the system does nothing to change that trajectory.

Compounding this decline is the fact that the illicit drug trade inside prisons has flourished rather than diminished. Drugs—ranging from K2 and fentanyl to methamphetamine—are smuggled in with alarming frequency, often by the very corrections officers sworn to uphold the system. Why? Because the economic incentives are overwhelming. With staffing shortages rampant and officer salaries stagnant, the opportunity to make an extra $10,000 per month by sneaking in a single contraband package is simply too enticing for many to resist.

The Crisis in Staffing and Safety

As conditions inside prisons deteriorate, working in these institutions has become increasingly undesirable. Violence is at an all-time high, medical care is woefully inadequate, and staffing shortages have left many facilities operating in chaos. Despite this, new federal prisons are still being built—not in booming urban centers but in economically depressed rural areas where job opportunities are scarce. The thinking is that these communities will embrace the employment opportunities a prison provides. Yet even in these areas, recruitment remains a massive challenge, as few people are willing to risk their lives in dangerous, crumbling facilities for low pay.

The result is a vicious cycle: understaffed prisons become more violent and unmanageable, leading to higher turnover rates among correctional officers, further worsening conditions. Meanwhile, inmates—many of whom should be receiving drug treatment and education—are left in a system that perpetuates their criminality rather than rehabilitating them.

The Need for Urgent Reform

What was once a system designed—at least in theory—to rehabilitate and reintegrate has devolved into a dystopian nightmare. The conditions inside federal prisons today are not just inhumane; they are a direct threat to public safety. When inmates are released from such environments, they are more traumatized, more addicted, and less capable of functioning in society than when they entered.

To reverse this decline, immediate action is needed:

Restoration and Expansion of Education Programs: Pell Grants must be paired with comprehensive vocational training, GED programs, and college-level courses to ensure that incarcerated individuals leave with better opportunities than they had before entering.

Sentencing Reform: The overuse of conspiracy laws and mandatory minimums has flooded the system with individuals who could be better served through drug treatment and supervised release programs.

Improved Staffing and Oversight: Federal prisons must be staffed adequately, and salaries must be competitive enough to attract ethical employees, reducing the incentive for corruption.

Independent Oversight and Transparency: The Bureau of Prisons has been plagued by scandals, and without external accountability, conditions will only worsen. An independent watchdog is necessary to ensure compliance with human rights standards.

The idea that federal prisons are anything more than lawless, dangerous, and utterly neglected is a myth. They are no longer “correctional” facilities in any meaningful sense. If meaningful reform is not enacted soon, they will continue their downward spiral—becoming nothing more than government-sanctioned wastelands of violence, addiction, and despair.

The question is no longer whether reform is necessary. It’s whether the nation has the political will to admit the depth of the crisis and take meaningful action before federal prisons descend even further into anarchy.