Tag Archives: earned time credits

BOP Delivers New Earned-Time Credit Restrictions – Update for September 14, 2022

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY

thegood220914One provision of The First Step Act, signed into law in December 2018, allowed eligible inmates to earn credits toward an earlier release from prison, more halfway house or home confinement. The credits, called “earned time credits” or ETCs, were to be granted to prisoners participating in certain needs-based educational programs and productive activities. For every 30 days of successful participation, the prisoners could earn up to 15 days off their sentence up to a maximum of 12 months (365 days). ETCs could also be used to entitle the inmates to more halfway house or home confinement on a 1-1 basis: 30 days of ETC credit would earn 30 days more of home confinement, for instance.

The challenge for the Bureau of Prisons has been to keep accurate track of the credits earned by inmates. It is a multi-step analysis: First, is the inmate eligible to participate in the earned-time credit program? Second, has the inmate’s needs been properly assessed? Third, has the inmate enrolled in programming that addresses that need? Fourth, how many credits has the inmate earned in any given month?

When the BOP adopted the ETC system in January 2022, the system it enacted was 180 degrees opposed to the Draconian proposal the agency had floated previously. The adoption seems to have caught the BOP flat-footed, because it simply threw up its hands (figuratively speaking) and declared that any inmate eligible for the credits as of January 15th was assumed to have participated in eligible programs for every day since December 21, 2018 (or when the inmate arrived in the system, whichever was later).

Sweet deal. As a result, thousands of inmates were released in the days following the January adoption date.

But every Christmastime ends, and so did the BOP’s ETC giveaway. Since January 15, the agency has struggled with how to quickly calculate inmate ETCs on a rolling basis. In April, the BOP revealed in a court case that it was developing a computer program – an “auto-calculation” system – to update each inmate’s ETC credits continuously. The BOP estimated Auto-Calc would be implemented by about August 1.

The BOP finally delivered its Earned Time Credit “Auto Calculation” system last Thursday. “On time and under budget” is not a mantra at the Bureau. Delivery took about 50% longer than the BOP predicted it would. And, as Walter Pavlo said in Forbes last Friday, it “landed with a thud.”

Why the thud? The Auto-Calc system was accompanied by a memo that announced several interpretative rules the BOP is imposing by fiat. You know, rules that interpret other rules. And unlike the adoption of last January’s formal rules, there was no rulemaking proceeding, no “notice and comment” period, and scant indication the changes were coming.

The First Step Act spelled out prisoner eligibility in detail, But that hasn’t stopped the BOP from adding its own bells and flourishes.

The good news in the memo (such as it is) is that

• the BOP’s official stance is that ETCs will be applied first to reduce sentence length, and second to more halfway house and home confinement. The agency had been doing that since last January, but it had never announced that as BOP policy. Given how arbitrary the BOP can be, the announced adoption of the reduction-first approach as policy is a good thing.

• any halfway house or home confinement awarded using ETCs will be granted “in addition to release needs-based recommendations made under the Second Chance Act.” In other words, if the Second Chance Act would have entitled a prisoner to placement in a halfway house for six months even without ETCs, and you have 120 days of ETC credit applied to halfway house, you would be placed for 10 months.

• the Auto-Calc system will update ETCs monthly.

• the BOP verified that ETCs may be applied toward early release in addition to the early release benefit for RDAP graduates. In other words, RDAP now double counts toward early release, up to 12 months off for successful completion of the program as well as an additional credit of up to 150 days ETC credits for finishing RDAP.

• In order to earn 15 days credit for every 30-day period instead of 10 days for every 30-day period, inmates need to (1) start out with a low- or minimum-risk PATTERN level; OR (2) have dropped to a low- or minimum-risk PATTERN level and maintained it for two consecutive assessment periods. This is good news, because a number of inmates who entered the system with low or minimum scores have been told in the past few months that they have to have two consecutive assessment periods under their belts before getting 15 days of ETC credits in a month.

thebad220914But there is bad news in the memo, too:

• The memo codifies what I first learned last month. The BOP will not credit ETCs toward early release for inmates who are 18 months from release. At 18 months, the BOP says, “the release date becomes fixed, and all additional ETCs are applied toward” halfway house or home confinement.

This is a slight improvement over what the BOP was saying a month ago. In a declaration the BOP filed in Marier v. Bergami, the BOP manager said the cutoff was 24 months. But it still means, practically speaking, no inmates with sentences of less than 42 months will have enough time to collect ETCs entitling them to 12 months off their sentence (the maximum allowed by law).

This also means that unless an inmate can complete the in-custody portion of RDAP with at least 18 months left, the RDAP ETCs will apply to more halfway house or home confinement, not more time off.

Pavlo complained in Forbes last week that “with this more restrictive condition, BOP is even going against the Department of Justice’s intent of FSA which was to ‘transfer eligible inmates who satisfy the criteria in § 3624(g) [awarding of FSA credits] to supervised release to the extent practicable, rather than prerelease custody [halfway house and home confinement]’… In Fiscal Year (FY) 2019, the cost of incarceration fee for a federal prisoner at a federal facility was $107.85 per day; in FY 2020, it was $120.59 per day. It costs less than half that to place a minimum security prisoner on home confinement and it costs nothing if the prisoner is not in custody at all. Thousands of prisoners will be affected by this unilateral decision by the BOP. For many prisoners, their date for returning to society has been prolonged by a memorandum that is both unfair and arbitrary.”

• The memo states that “inmates who refuse or fail to complete any portion of the needs assessment and/or refuse or decline any program recommended to address a specific identified need area, are considered “opted out” and will not earn ETCs.” This hardly seems to be bad news, except that it assumes that the failure to complete needs assessment or refusal or declining to take a program is intentional.

More than one inmate has already reported that he or she was marked “refused” for not taking a program that simply was not available at the time. One inmate only saved from being marked “refused” by proving that he had sent the staff member responsible for the program a request to be put on the “wait list.”

• Starting eight months ago, the memo says, “all components of the SPARC-13 needs assessment must be complete to be eligible to earn ETCs. Failing to do so is considered ‘opted out.’ In other words, if an inmate fails to complete a required survey to enroll in a recommended program which addresses a specified need, the inmate will not be eligible to earn FTCs.”

The SPARC-13 is the Standardized Prisoner Assessment for Reduction in Criminality, a battery of surveys mandated by the BOP’s Initial Review of the SPARC-13 Needs Assessment System, issued last March. Judging from inmate reports, few have been given the surveys to complete. Even if they are asked to do so now, it is not clear whether any programs completed between January 15 and September 8 will count if the SPARC-13 was not done prior to that time.

• the memo states that “while inmates continue to earn FTCs, inmates can only apply the FTCs if they have no detainers, unresolved pending charges, and/or unresolved immigration status issues.”

These restrictions do not appear in the First Step Act and make little sense. It is logical that the BOP would not send inmates to detainers to halfway house or home confinement. That is a long-standing limitation. But there is no security issue in letting inmates with detainers benefit from shortened sentences. If an inmate gets a year off, the BOP simply lets the detaining agency know to pick up the inmate on Sep 12, 2022, instead of Sep 12, 2023, for instance.

Pavlo quotes a retired BOP employee as saying of the memorandum, “BOP is creating their own language and leaving the discretion in the hands of case managers to interpret who is eligible and who is not. They have completely disrespected the intent and FSA law states.”

theugly220914Finally, the ugly. The memo notes that “as a reminder, the unit team will determine an inmate’s eligibility to earn FTCs based on the current conviction and prior criminal convictions.” This means that basic decisions applying the statute are decentralized among close to a thousand unit teams. Given some of the errors already made by unit teams unschooled in the FSA, the amount of administrative remedy and judicial review such decision-making decentralization will spawn is likely to be quite significant.

A final thought: The Administrative Procedure Act (5 USC § 552), with its “arbitrary and capricious” standard, governs just about all federal agencies. However, Congress specifically stated in 18 USC § 3625 that the APA does not “apply to the making of any determination, decision, or order under this subchapter.”

The catch here is that § 3625 is specific to 18 USC Chapter 229, Subchapter C. The portion of the FSA establishing ETCs is set out in the newly-created Subchapter D. Congress either decided not to exempt the BOP’s implementation of the ETC from the APA, or it just forgot to do so. Either way, the ETC program appears to be subject to APA challenges, something new for BOP management.

Forbes, Bureau of Prisons’ Interpretation of First Step Act Will Leave Thousands of Inmates Incarcerated (September 9, 2022)

BOP, Memo on Implementation of Auto-Calculation (September 8, 2022)

BOP, Initial Review of the SPARC-13 Needs Assessment System (Mar 2022)

Declaration, ECF 10-1, Marier v. Bergami, Case No 21C50236 (ND Ill, Aug 9, 2022)

– Thomas L. Root

NBC Says DOJ Failing to Assign Earned-Time Credits – Update for July 6, 2022

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

NBC NEWS ACCUSES DOJ AND BOP OF BOTCHING EARNED-TIME CREDITS

screwup191028An NBC report aired last Sunday blasted the Dept of Justice for botching the award of First Step Act earned-time credits. “Thousands of nonviolent federal prisoners eligible for early release under a promising Trump-era law remain locked up nearly four years later because of inadequate implementation, confusion and bureaucratic delays, NBC quoted prisoner advocacy groups, inmates and BOP officials as saying.

Even the Biden administration’s attempt to provide clarity to the First Step Act by identifying qualified inmates and then transferring them to home confinement or another form of supervised release appears to be falling short, according to prisoner advocates familiar with the law.

“It shouldn’t be this complicated and it shouldn’t take this long,” NBC quoted Kevin Ring, president of FAMM, as saying. “Here we are, four years later, and it’s maddening.”

The BOP gave NBC data showing that as of June 18, more than 8,600 inmates have gotten sentence recalculations and are slated for earlier release due to ETCs. But the BOP’s own data identified about 66,600 inmates eligible to receive ETCs.

NBC quoted BOP officials as saying, “We have no data which suggests inmates had their release dates delayed.”

Others are not so sanguine. “We estimate that there are thousands of inmates who will not receive the full benefit — days off of their federal prison sentence — of the First Step Act simply because the agency is uncertain how to calculate these benefits,” Walter Pavlo, president of the consulting firm Prisonology LLC, and a Forbes contributor, told NBC.

funwithnumbers170511Making the logjam worse is the revision to PATTERN a month ago. While the change increase the number of points an inmate could have while still being eligible, the change quietly modified some of the point reductions inmates could earn. Completing a GED used to earn a -4, but now only earns a -2. Completing RDAP fell from a -6 to a -4. Past points for violence increased as well.

The effect of the change was to make some inmates who had been eligible for ETCs suddenly ineligible, further jamming up the calculation works. What’s worse, some inmates who had received adjusted release dates have had those dates rescinded.

NBC, Thousands of federal inmates still await early release under Trump-era First Step Act (July 3, 2022)

DOJ, First Step Annual Report (April 17, 2022)

– Thomas L. Root

ETC-Eligible Inmates May All Be ‘Above Average’ – Update for June 21, 2022

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

BOP FILING IN HABEAS CASE EXPLAINS INTERIM EARNED-TIME CREDIT POLICY

keillor220621Back before Prairie Home Companion humorist Garrison Keillor had not yet been ‘canceled’ for lusting after women in his heart (or whatever the crime might have been), he created Lake Wobegon, a place where all the women were strong, the men were handsome, and the children were above average. The setting gave its name to the “Wobegon Effect,” a prejudice of superiority also known as illusory superiority.

The BOP – due to sloth, being overwhelmed by events, or by design – may have instituted its own version of the phenomenon. Let’s call it the ‘ETC Effect.”

Recall that the First Step Act mandated that the BOP assess all inmates for their likelihood of recidivism and programming needs.  Prisoners would then complete evidence-based recidivism reduction programming (EBRRs) that would address their needs and make them less likely to reoffend.

To encourage inmates to complete the programming, the BOP would award eligible inmates (and Congress exempted about half of all inmates from the program, probably to look good to those criminal-hating voters back home), First Step directed the BOP to issue ETCs. An inmate can earn from 10 to 15 days a month in ETCs for each 30 days spent in an EBRR or in pursuit of specified “productive activities.” The first 365 days’ worth of ETCs will reduce an eligible inmate’s sentence by up to a year.  Any ETCs beyond that can be used for extra home confinement or halfway house.

Jailbreak done right.
Early release through ETCs – a jailbreak done right.

When the BOP announced its final rules on EBRRs and ETCs in January, it specified that ETCs could be earned from the day First Step became law (December 21, 2018). This meant that a thundering herd of inmates who were close to their release date probably should already be home once their ETCs were applied. In fact, the BOP released a lot of inmates in the days and weeks following adoption of the rules.  But since then, those still in prison have been complaining loudly that their ETC credits have not been applied.

Which brings us to Bob Stewart. Bob got his ETC calculation from the BOP last January, learning he had 75 days of credit as of Christmas Day 2021. But his release falls in October 2022. He argued that this imminent date makes continuous updating of his credits necessary.  The BOP, which has been calculating ETCs inmate-by-inmate in a manual process, told Bob that he would not get an update until sometime in the future when the agency implemented a new “auto-calculation” programming.

Bob brought a habeas corpus action in federal court, arguing that had another 60 days coming as of the filing date in March 2022, and that he was continuing to earn days on a rolling basis until his release date.

The BOP moved to dismiss the action, arguing essentially that Bob would just have to wait for “auto-calc” like everyone else. Included with its filing was a fascinating declaration from Susan Giddings, a BOP official, explaining BOP interim policy.

Susan said that everyone got one manual calculation, and Bob had gotten his. After that, everyone had to wait until the BOP completed installation of its “auto-calculation application to BOP’s real-time information system (known as SENTRY) and full integration between SENTRY and BOP’s case management system (known as INSIGHT).” She estimated that  “auto-calc” would be live by about August 1.

participation220621As interesting was her revelation that every ETC-eligible inmate was getting ETC credit from the day First Step passed or the inmate’s first day in prison, whichever was later. The grant appears to be independent of whether the inmate completed any programming during that time or not.

Bob’s district court was not impressed by the BOP’s reasoning that the law would just have to wait for the agency’s programmers. It ordered the BOP to recalculate Bob’s ETCs every 60 days, whether the “auto-calculation application” was working or not.

The Magistrate’s Report, adopted in full by the District Judge, said,

it is unclear when the automated system will be up and running. While it could be within the next 90 days, that is not guaranteed, and Respondent even hedges this statement with the caveat ‘absent unforeseen circumstances.’ Thus, the assertion that Stewart will receive these credits within the next couple months, i.e., in time for them to impact the remainder of his sentence, is speculative

Now for the interesting part. Susan revealed that the BOP is granting ETCs to every eligible inmate from the day First Step passed or the inmate’s first day in prison (whichever was later), whether any programs have been completed or not.  I have had several inmates confirm this. One disgustedly told me, “There’s this guy in the unit who is asleep in his bunk all day and night, except for meals. He got the same number of ETCs – like 540 or so – everyone else got.”

musicstops220623What this means, in other words, is that every eligible inmate is successfully reducing his or her recidivism risk, every eligible inmate is excelling in productive activities, and – in fact – every eligible inmate is not only eligible, but above average.

Far be it from me to complain when any BOP program works to the benefit of inmates, but still, this is not how it is supposed to work. Someday, maybe someday soon, the music will stop.  That will undoubtedly be an unpleasant jolt to the guy asleep in the top bunk… and to everyone else.

Stewart v. Snider, Case No. 1:22cv294, 2022 US Dist. LEXIS 100512 (N.D. Ala, May 10, 2022) (Magistrate’s Report)

Stewart v. Snider, Case No. 1:22cv294, 2022 US Dist. LEXIS 100482 (N.D. Ala, June 6, 2022( (District Court order)

Giddings Declaration, ECF 11-14, Case No. 1:22cv294, (N.D. Ala, filed Apr 29, 2022)

– Thomas L. Root

ETC FUBAR at BOP, As New Director Search Finally Over – Update for June 16, 2022

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

BOP: DON’T CALL US, WE’LL CALL YOU ON EARNED TIME CREDIT CALCULATION

If there is a common refrain in emails coming into this Newsletter in the past several months, it is that inmates are not getting their earned-time-credit calculations from their Unit Teams.

don'tcallus220616A recap: The First Step Act authorized the award of credits to inmates who successfully complete programs that have been found to reduce recidivism. The acronym-crazy government calls them “EBRRs,” that is, “evidence-based recidivism reduction” programs. Inmates could receive “earned time credits” (ETCs) that will reduce their prison time up to a year, grant them more halfway house or home  confinement, and even get them more phone time and commissary.

(Confusingly, the government called ETCs “FTCs” for awhile – “federal time credits” – but seems to have settled on the preferred terminology now).

Inmates are classified using a system called PATTERN according to their likelihood of recidivism.  As they complete programs, age, and behave, their PATTERN score decreases, increasing the number of ETCs they may receive.

So all is roses in the BOP. Inmates are happily earning ETCs, the staff is contentedly helping prisoners forsake their prior evil ways…

FUBAR220616Right. In fact, implementation of ETCs (and awarding time off) is becime a FUBAR.

Last week, Walter Pavlo reported in Forbes on an internal BOP memo acknowledging the frustration:

Institutions are likely getting a lot of calls from outside family members and/or questions from the inmates themselves. We ask that you refrain from referring inmates or their family members to the DSCC or Central Office. As we move toward a fully automated auto-calculation process for the calculating and awarding of FTCs, neither the DSCC nor the Corrections Programs Branch are directly involved in the process.

Forbes said the memo directed institutions to give inmates and their family members a “canned response” asking “for their patience” during the implementation of an automated credit calculation system:

While all eligible inmates are able to earn credits, the Agency is prioritizing those inmates who are within 24 months of their Statutory Release date and eligible to both earn and apply Federal Time Credits. The Agency is in the final stages of development and testing of an auto-calculation app, and once finalized all eligible inmates will have their records updated and the Federal Time applied consistently with the Federal Rules language.

Late breaking news: The BOP has finally found someone who will admit to being considered for the director’s slot, replacing Michael Carvajal (whom Sen. Richard Durbin [D-IL] wants to usher into retirement as quickly as possible). 

Could MIke Carvajal finally be leaving the building?
Could MIke Carvajal finally be leaving the building?

The Oregon Capital Chronicle reported yesterday that Colette Peters, director of Oregon’s prison system, confirmed to the paper that she is a finalist for the BOP Director’s job.

She has been director of the Oregon Department of Corrections since 2012, where she is in charge of  4,400 employees and 12,124 prisoners.

As director of the Oregon prison system, she changed the agency’s reference to “inmates.” Oregon’s prisoners became “adults in custody.”

Forbes, As Biden Touts Action On First Step Act, Federal Prisoners Await Action From Bureau Of Prisons (June 4, 2022)

Oregon Capital Chronicle, Oregon’s prison director a finalist to lead federal prison system (June 15, 2022)

– Thomas L. Root

Earned Time Credits Just Got Easier to Spend – Update for June 7, 2022

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

PATTERN CHANGES MAKE MANY MORE ELIGIBLE FOR CREDITS

In April, the Dept of Justice told Congress that it would roll out a new version of the PATTERN recidivism risk measurement system in May, one that contained adjustments it said would improve accuracy and possibly benefit up to 33,000 federal prisoners.

Nothing has been publicly announced since, although a lot of inmates have reported that their categories were changing while their PATTERN point scores were not. A hard-to-find report by the Attorney General I obtained last week confirmed that while no scoring categories have changed in the revised PATTERN system – known as PATTERN 1.3 – the cut points did.

PATTERNsheet220131Cut points are crucial, being the level at which an inmate’s recidivism rating changes from “minimum” to “low,” from “low” to “medium,” and from “medium” to “high.” Because the First Step Act generally does not let anyone with a “medium” or higher risk level cash in earned time credits (ETCs), a prisoner’s level can make a difference of up to a year on sentence length, and enhanced home confinement or halfway house.

It is now harder for a male to be a PATTERN “minimum” – the former cut point of “8 or less” fell to a new cut point of “5 or less” – although the female “minimum” cut point rose from “5 or less” to “7 or less.” But the big change is from “low” to “medium.”

The former male cut point between “low” and “medium” rose from 30 to 39. The women’s “low to medium” cut point jumped from 31 to 38. The former “medium to high” cut point went from 44 to 55 for males and 31 to 53 for females.

Under the old PATTERN, 40% of males were “minimum” or “low.” Under PATTERN 1.3, that number jumped to 68%. Female “minimums” and “lows” increased from 78% to 86%. The PATTERN 1.3 changes made 33,070 more inmates eligible to use their ETCs.

cutpoints220607PATTERN is still criticized by some commentators for being insufficiently dynamic, meaning that too much of what goes into scores – like age and criminal history – cannot be changed despite a prisoner’s best efforts. The DOJ report asserted that “PATTERN 1.3 displays dynamic validity… Across the four gender/recidivism tools examined, approximately 25 to 35% of individuals had a lower [risk] designation during their last assessment compared to their first, and between 3 and 5% had a higher risk designation.” The DOJ position suggests that category changes in future PATTERN amendments are unlikely.

PATTERN 1.3 is a welcome change, but real problems with the First Step Act earned time credits remain. Writing in Forbes last week, Walter Pavlo reported that “according to insiders at the BOP, prisoners and former executive staff with connections to the current state of the BOP as it relates to the FSA, there is ‘mass confusion at every institution,”’ and that the Designation and Sentence Computation Center, the entity ultimately responsible for calculating sentence duration, is backed up and the programming is not in place for FSA. The result is that thousands of prisoners are incarcerated beyond their legal release date.”

bureaucrat200421Pavlo wrote that “BOP staff who have no official program statement to work from are spreading misinformation to prisoners. Many prisoners are being told that they do not qualify for FSA credits for a variety of reasons, [and] many those reasons are just not true. As a result, prisoners are not only confused but have no place to go to get clarification. Now, some are going to Court.”

DOJ, First Step Act Annual Report – April 2022

Forbes, First Step Act Inaction Keeps Federal Inmates In Prison (May 30, 2022)

– Thomas L. Root

Balancing Accounts For Unused ETC Credits – Update for June 2, 2022

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

DYER STRAITS

Three and a half years ago, the First Step Act became law amid great fanfare. One of the many provisions that held great promise for all concerned was the incentive-based programming scheme, that would let federal inmates earn credits that reduced their sentences for successful completion of programs designed to address their needs.

Such a program would reduce recidivism by ex-felons, thus benefitting both them and society.

mismanagement210419Trust the Federal Bureau of Prisons to turn a high-minded program into a furball. The BOP required almost two years to propose detailed rules for the implementation of the “earned time credit” program, rules which – by the way – were draconian in their application and reasonably calculated to strangle the ETC program before it began.

It took another 14 months (and a new Administration) for the BOP to finally adopt the rules, which rules – mercifully enough – did an about-face from what was proposed. But those rules, which among other things retroactively credited inmates with credit back to the day the First Step Act passed, created a whole new raft of problems.

Problems for people like Doug Dyer.  Doug was on CARES Act home confinement in December 2021 when he filed a petition for habeas corpus, demanding immediate release due to the application of First Step Act earned-time credits to which he claimed entitlement. The BOP had not yet adopted the new rules, and predictably, told the judge that Doug had nothing coming.

nothingcoming181018But a month after Doug’s filing the BOP adopted the final ETC rules. Doug (and thousands of other inmates) were credited with 540 ETC days. The same day the rules were adopted, the BOP granted Doug immediate release from home confinement (51 days before his normal release date). The government then moved to dismiss the habeas corpus as being moot, because Doug had gotten what he wanted.

Doug opposed the government’s motion, arguing that because only he could only use 51 days of credit out of the 540 he was awarded, he should get to use the balance to reduce his supervised release time.

The district court agreed, reducing his supervised release by 489 days. The court ruled “the relevant statutory provision provides that ‘[t]ime credits earned under this paragraph by prisoners who successfully participate in recidivism reduction programs or productive activities shall be applied toward time in… supervised release’. 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(C). Therefore, the unambiguous, mandatory language of the statute provides that earned-time credits may be applied to a term of supervised release.”

So Doug got a year and a half off his supervised release time (about half of what he was to serve).

I generally don’t criticize a good pro-prisoner decision like this one, but Doug’s court is just plain wrong. The Court hung its hat on 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(C), which says

Time credits earned under this paragraph by prisoners who successfully participate in recidivism reduction programs or productive activities shall be applied toward time in prerelease custody or supervised release. The Director of the Bureau of Prisons shall transfer eligible prisoners, as determined under section 3624(g), into prerelease custody or supervised release.

There's nothing like getting your facts straight, Your Honor ...
There’s nothing like getting your facts straight, Your Honor… or the law, for that matter.

The District Court read this to mean that ETCs could be used to reduce the period of incarceration or supervised release. But the remainder of the subsection not only makes it clear that the term “supervised release” is being used as the alternative to “prerelease custody,” and that the subsection is to be read with reference to 18 U.S.C. § 3624(g).

And here’s the problem. Subsection 3624(g)(3) authorizes the Director of the BOP to “transfer the prisoner to begin any such term of supervised release at an earlier date, not to exceed 12 months, based on the application of time credits under section 3632.”  It does not authorize the Director to reduce the term of supervised release at all.

Read in conjunction with § 3624(g)(3), it’s pretty clear that § 3632(d)(4)(C)’s reference to “shall be applied toward time in prerelease custody or supervised release” is intended to mean the three options the BOP has for applying ETC credits: more halfway house or home confinement (the “prerelease custody” option) or release from custody up to 12 months early to begin one’s supervised release.

puzzled171201Given that no statute authorizes the BOP to reduce a prisoner’s supervised release, it’s hard to figure how a district court can grant habeas corpus to in essence demand that the BOP do so.

No matter. Doug’s supervised release was cut in half. But I strongly doubt that this decision will influence any other district court to do the same for the small subset of inmates in Doug’s position.

The opinion has not been picked up by LEXIS.

Order (ECF 16), Dyer v. Fulgam, Case No. 1:21-cv-299 (E.D. Tenn. May 20, 2022)

– Thomas L. Root

PATTERN Changes Coming Next Month – Update for April 26, 2022

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

PATTERN AMENDMENTS COULD BENEFIT THOUSANDS

The Dept. of Justice told Congress last week that it will soon roll out a new version of the PATTERN recidivism risk measurement system containing adjustments it says will improve accuracy, possibly benefitting up to 33,000 federal prisoners.

PATTERNsheet220131The modifications, which come after criticism was leveled at PATTERN last January for implicit racial bias, are intended to significantly increase the number of black and Hispanic men in prison who are eligible to take classes or productive activities that will result in them getting earn time credits (ETCs).

DOJ estimated that 36% more black men and 26% more Hispanic men might qualify as minimum or low risk under the change, with smaller increases for black and Hispanic women.

Even with the changes, DOJ admitted in last week’s report, it is still unable to resolve other racial disparities (such as continued overestimating the number of black women compared to white women who will commit new offenses after release).

DOJ told Congress that even after the anticipated release of a modified PATTERN early next month, it would continue to work “to ensure that racial disparities are reduced to the greatest extent possible.” That could be difficult. Most of that disparity, according to Melissa Hamilton, a law professor at the University of Surrey, results from what happens before prison and application of the PATTERN metrics. “When using factors with criminal history, prison discipline and education, the tool is almost inevitably going to have disparities — unless they correct for systemic biases in policing, prosecution, corrections, and education,” she said.

Hamilton told a House oversight committee last January that up to 11% of male and 10% of female inmates have been assigned wrong risk categories due to errors in PATTERN:

• PATTERN was designed to score risk factors at release instead of at the time of assessment. For example, if a 39-year-old man comes in for a 15-year sentence, he has an age risk factor of 21. But PATTERN should assess his age at release (52 years old), which is only 7. The difference is 14 points.

• PATTERN disproportionately predicts higher. Hamilton said, “a choice has been made to design PATTERN to perform far less accurately when predicting those who are at higher risk… placing too many individuals into the higher risk groupings.”

• PATTERN “overpredicts the general risk for African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Asian Americans, while it underpredicts for Native Americans.”

Hamilton told the Subcommittee in January that “the various errors meant that 37 out of the possible 60 items (almost two-thirds of them) had been incorrectly weighted” in the PATTERN risk assessment. NPR previously reported that “about 14,000 men and women in federal prison… wound up in the wrong risk categories. There were big disparities for people of color.” As well, NPR uncovered sloppy math mistakes and other flaws that put thousands of prisoners in the wrong risk category and treated them differently in part because of their ethnic backgrounds.

recid160321The DOJ’s report to Congress last week puts the best face on PATTERN possible. It said, for example, that “individuals are capable of changing risk scores and levels during confinement. And importantly, these changes relate to recidivism outcomes (i.e., individuals who reduced their risk scores and levels from first to last assessment were generally less likely to recidivate).” Yet the PATTERN scorecard assigns big scores for age and criminal history, scores that either never change or change only with the passage of years. A 21-year-old with one prior felony conviction starts out with a PATTERN score of 38 (a “medium” score). Wrestling that score down by taking programs is not easy.

While admitting that some minority groups are “overpredicted,” DOJ nonetheless crowed that the new PATTERN adjustments “show relatively high predictive accuracy across racial and ethnic groups. That is, the risk scores predict recidivism well for white, Black, Hispanic, Native American, and Asian individuals.”

Of course, that’s what DOJ said when PATTERN was first unveiled in July 2019.

NPR said last week that “only low and minimum-risk prisoners are eligible for those programs, so how the Bureau of Prisons assesses risk has major consequences for their lives and their release plans.” In fact, tucked into 18 USC § 3624(g)(1)(B) is a provision that would let a medium or high PATTERN inmate use credits if he or she “has shown through the periodic risk reassessments a demonstrated recidivism risk reduction… during the prisoner’s term of imprisonment.”

bureaucrat200421But the BOP would have to exercise bureaucratic discretion to grant a medium or high PATTERN inmate early release or more halfway house/home confinement. God forbid a bureaucrat would risk such a thing. Given that no one has even talked about this alternative award of credit, the chance that any BOP employee would argue for giving a medium/high inmate the right to case in credits is pretty remote.

DOJ told Congress it would make no changes to how it evaluates violent recidivism risks, saying that measure provided an essential check for “public safety.” Instead, the department says it will be shifting the boundaries between other risk levels for its general recidivism algorithm.

In the new report to Congress, DOJ again expressed support for the Senate to advance the EQUAL Act (S.79), legislation that would equalize sentencing penalties for crack and powder cocaine.

NPR, Justice Department works to curb racial bias in deciding who’s released from prison (April 19, 2022)

National Institute of Justice, Predicting Recidivism: Continuing To Improve the Bureau of Prisons’ Risk Assessment Tool, PATTERN (April 19, 2022)

Sentencing Law and Policy Blog, Justice Department tweaking prison PATTERN risk tool “to ensure that racial disparities are reduced to the greatest extent possible” (April 19, 2022)

Legal Information Services Associates, Is PATTERN Dooming First Step Programming? – Update For January 31, 2022

– Thomas L. Root

Is PATTERN Dooming First Step Programming – Update for January 31, 2022

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

DOES PATTERN HAVE IT ALL WRONG?

One of the jewels in the First Step Act tiara has finally started to sparkle…. and it may turn out to have just been a rhinestone all along.

tiara220131First Step had as a goal the reduction of recidivism – the prison revolving door – by assessing each federal prisoner’s likelihood of recidivism, identifying the prisoner’s needs (anger management, substance abuse education, vocational training, and the like), and then offering programming that met those needs and was based on evidence that it would reduce recidivism (called “evidence-based recidivism reduction” or “EBRR” programming). The system is called PATTERN.

To encourage inmates to participate in EBRR programs to address their needs, First Step offered earned time credits (called by the acronym-loving bureaucracy ETCs, or FTCs – federal time credits – or just TCs) to inmates who successfully complete EBRR programs or – after their needs are met – stay busy with productive activities (called PAs, of course). TCs are awarded on a daily basis – every day on which a prisoner takes a class is one day’s credit, and each day equals a third to a half of a TC. Inmates could trade in their TCs for up to a year off their sentence, or for more home confinement or more halfway house.

People with medium and high PATTERN scores can collect TCs, but only those with low and minimum PATTERN scores can spend them. Plus, the mediums and highs get one TC for every three days of programming. Lows and minimums get a half TC per day. In First Step parlance, a month of programming gets an inmate with a medium and high 10 TC days, but the prisoner with a low or minimum PATTERN scores gets 15.

TCs are sort of like airline miles: everyone can collect them, but using them can be tough.

The program only began on January 19, three years and a month after First Step enacted it. And it started with a bang, as the Bureau of Prisons retroactively awarded TCs for programs completed since December 2018. Currently, as Forbes noted a week ago, the BOP appears to be “prioritizing the release of those prisoners on home confinement or at halfway houses. Over the past 2 weeks, populations of those on home confinement and halfway house show thousands of people released from custody while the BOP populations have remained steady.”

The media have been excitedly reporting the releases, crediting the First Step Act, but Forbes poured some water on the fire: “Many advocates may be giving one another high-fives, but, as history has demonstrated, the BOP somehow finds a way to mess up a good thing.”

So what could possibly go wrong with such a wonderful program? PATTERNsheet220131We’re 12 days into the programs, and warts are already starting to appear. Let’s start with the PATTERN score.

At a House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security hearing 10 days ago, law professor Melissa Hamilton told legislators that as many as 10.9% of male and 9.8% of female prisoners have been assigned wrong risk categories due to errors in the PATTERN system. “The BOP has no plans to correct these errors,” she said in her written statement, “until a new version of PATTERN… is formally approved by the Attorney General.”

PATTERN errors include

•  PATTERN was designed to score one’s risk factors as of the date of release, not the date of assessment. For example, if a 39-year-old man comes to prison for a 15-year sentence, he has a PATTERN age risk factor of 21. But PATTERN was designed to assess his age at release, which would be age 52. The risk factor for age 52 is only 7. The difference is 14 points. “Because the empirical models were estimated using different versions of these variables,” Professor Hamilton said, “it may have influenced the coefficients obtained and the item weights assigned. In other words, this definitional discrepancy across risk factors called into question the efficacy of the entire scoring system.”

• PATTERN operates with significant rates of error and disproportionately prefers false positives over false negatives. A false positive is the incorrect prediction of higher risk, while a false negative is the incorrect prediction of lower risk. This means that “a choice has been made to design PATTERN to perform far less accurately when predicting those who are at higher risk which means placing too many individuals into the higher risk groupings than necessary,” Hamilton told the subcommittee.

• PATTERN does not perform equally based on race and ethnicity. It “overpredicts the general risk for African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Asian Americans, while it underpredicts for Native Americans.”

• Some BOP personnel are counting disciplinary infractions occurring when prisoners are in pretrial and holdover stages. A National Institute of Justice report last December said, “This means that as BOP is implementing PATTERN, they are currently scoring these infraction variables differently than were modeled in the report… which may have an impact on the utility of these two measures.”

Hamilton told the Subcommittee that “the various errors meant that 37 out of the possible 60 items (almost two-thirds of them) had been incorrectly weighted” in the PATTERN risk assessment. Due to these errors, according to the NIJ Report, overall, 11% of the BOP population was placed in the wrong risk category. This proportion may be on the low end.”

Last week, NPR reported that “about 14,000 men and women in federal prison… wound up in the wrong risk categories. There were big disparities for people of color. Criminal history can be a problem, for example, because law enforcement has a history of overpolicing some communities of color. Other factors such as education level and whether someone paid restitution to their victims can intersect with race and ethnicity, too.” At the same time, it also underpredicted the risk for some inmates of color when it came to possible return to violent crime.

The NIJ Report concluded that some of the racial disparities could be reduced, “but not without tradeoffs” such as less accurate risk predictions. The department also said using race as a factor in the algorithm could trigger other legal concerns. Still, it is consulting with experts about making the algorithm fairer and another overhaul of Pattern is already underway.”

screwup191028And it’s not only the errors inherent in PATTERN. Those exist even if the BOP staff follows the PATTERN scoring instructions to the letter. But they don’t: The NIJ Report also indicated a significant problem with reliability. “BOP personnel incorrectly scored and classified more than 20% of the BOP population,” Hamilton testified. “An automated system has been developed to improve reliability. However, it is unclear when/if the misclassifications from manual scoring will be remedied.”

“Case managers, who have been keying in classes that prisoners have taken over the past two years, seem to have a liberal way of calculating ETC,” the Forbes writer said, “and those who I have spoken to about their release have no idea how their release date was calculated. As one man told me, ‘I was just happy to be released and don’t care how they calculated it’. However, for the man or woman sitting in prison, it makes a huge difference.”

Added to that is the fact that First Step included a number of offenses which will exempt an inmate from earning TCs. “The significance of this risk assessment tool is that it divides all federal prisoners essentially into two groups: people who can get credit for doing this programming and get out early, and people who can’t,” said Jim Felman, an attorney in Tampa, Florida, who has been following the First Step Act for years. Forbes said, “The law already has flaws as there are a number of exceptions carved out to prevent some offenses from being ineligible from earning ETC. Look for those to be challenged in court.”

The problem is worsened by BOP confusion in interpreting the 60-odd exceptions. Reports are rife of BOP staff errors – such as declaring an inmate ineligible over a prohibited conviction that occurred in the past rather than as the current offense, or advising inmates one that any drug trafficking offenses would exclude inmates only to withdraw the advice later. Many of the mistakes seem to be coming from the Designation and Sentence Computation Center at Grand Prairie.

As Forbes darkly predicted, “Look for those to be challenged in court.”

puzzled171201Finally, the law failed to establish any standards for assessing what needs an inmate might have. A case manager must find a prisoner has a need (such as a need for anger management) before the inmate can earn TCs for completing a program addressing the need. Hamilton pointed out that “PATTERN is not itself a needs system. Instead, the BOP is relying, and purportedly improving, upon its preexisting policies and practices of identifying individual needs. This means that to date there has been no (publicly known) validation of the needs aspect of the broader system.”

“The BOP states that it is working to identify appropriate programs,” Hamilton testified, “At this time, though, a significant divide exists between program availability and individual demand in many BOP facilities. The result is a sort of lottery system whereby the luck of the draw in facility placement means some individuals will have a greater access to achieving earned time credits than others.”

The House Subcommittee will grill outgoing BOP Director Michael Carvajal at an oversight hearing this Thursday. Expect some pointed questions about PATTERN and TCs at that time.

Forbes, Bureau Of Prisons Begins Implementing First Step Act With Release Of Thousands In Custody (January 22, 2022)

Testimony of Law Professor Melissa Hamilton, before the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security (January 21, 2022)

NPR, Flaws plague a tool meant to help low-risk federal prisoners win early release (January 26, 2022)

House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland, Scheduled Hearing on Oversight of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (scheduled for February 3, 2022)

– Thomas L. Root

Did the BOP’s New ETC Rules Get Hijacked By Biden? – Update for January 18, 2022

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

THE UNSEEN HAND WRITES NEW BOP EARNED TIME RULES?

The Federal Bureau of Prisons last week announced final rules for granting federal time credits (“FTCs”) to inmates who successfully complete specified programs designed to reduce recidivism or engage in what the statute calls “productive activities.”

In November 2020, the BOP finally got around to proposing rules for granting FTCs under the incentives program authorized two years before in the First Step Act. The agency proposed a rule that would require 240 classroom hours of successful programming in order for an inmate to receive a mere 15 days credit on his or her sentence. At the time, I said, “In the BOP, a 500-hour program takes 12-18 months to complete. That may seem like a fairly substantial commitment for a month more of home confinement. But it is consistent with what we’ve come to expect from the BOP: given a chance to interpret the extent of its authority to be lenient, it invariably interprets that authority in the most chary way possible.”

[Editor’s note: Yes, I said “most chary.” My wife the grammarian, has since pointed out that the superlative of “chary” is “chariest.” I’d fire her, but she’s been right too many times before.]

icecreamsundae210118In my experience practicing administrative law back in the day, when an agency rolled out proposed rules in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for public comment, the final product looked a lot like what had been proposed, perhaps with a tweak here and there. Once in a blue moon, an agency might back off after an especially loud and sustained hue and cry from the industry and public, but rulemaking was a lot like ordering an ice cream sundae – you could specify which sprinkle, nuts, sauce, and cherry you wanted on it, but the 95% of it that was ice cream was fixed and was not going to change.

The history of agency rulemaking since the passage of the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 makes what happened to the FTC rules so puzzling. It’s like the BOP specified an ice cream sundae, but delivered a cup of mashed potatoes and gravy instead.

The new rules, already being applied to hundreds if not thousands of inmates, represent a total repudiation of the BOP’s proposed rules announced a year ago.

I reported on the changes in the rules – the “what” – last Friday. What I didn’t talk about was the “why.” Even now, I am unsure of what caused the sea change at the BOP, but there are some hints. Traditionally, the BOP director has scrambled to imprint any favorable program with his or her initials. Yet, last week, BOP Director Michael Carvajal was strangely silent, while Attorney General Merrick Garland took a victory lap in a press release. The fact that the Attorney General issued a statement supporting the new rules, but Carvajal did not, suggests that the Biden DOJ grabbed hold of the FTC process after the BOP sought to impose Draconian limitations on the program.

sycophant220118Several members of Congress – such as Richard Durbin (D-IL), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), John Cornyn, (R-TX) and Cory Booker (D-NJ), on the Senate side, and Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), on the House side – criticized the proposed rules in public comments. That may have played a factor as well. The BOP’s report adopting the final rule mentioned their comments, such as this excerpt from Sens. Whitehouse’s and Cornyn’s filing:

The proposed rule’s definition of a “day” of program participation does not adequately reward engagement with [EBBR programs] and PAs consistent with the First Step Act. . . Because BOP programs do not run for eight hours per day, the proposed rule would require individuals to attend an EBRR or PA for several calendar days before they earned a full “day” of time credit. . . It was not our intent as drafters of the legislation that BOP define a “day” in this way. Nor did Congress ever consider it. . . The proposed rule’s narrow definition of a “day” does not adequately incentivize program participation and reduce recidivism as intended by the First Step Act.

The fact that the legislators’ comments were singled out approvingly – maybe even fawningly – in the report would permit a reasonable person to infer that the BOP was sending the two Judiciary Committees a message that their concerns were being addressed.

The Hill noted that the new rules were announced “just one week after the DOJ revealed that BOP Director Michael Carvajal would be resigning from his post. He had faced criticism during his time as chief of the bureau.” Fox News said “the Biden administration has faced increased pressure from both Democratic and Republican lawmakers to do more to put in place additional aspects of the First Step Act, and the bureau has been accused of dragging its feet.” Associated Press observed that the final rules came “about two months after the department’s inspector general sounded an alarm that the Bureau of Prisons had not applied the earned time credits to about 60,000 federal inmates who had completed the programs.”

It seemed strange that several media outlets connected the Director’s departure with the release of the rules. It is fair to note that there is no logical reason for his announcing the retirement on January 6th, especially when the actual date was left open (he said he would stay on until a new director is appointed). The timing, as The Hill implied, may be linked to the dramatic turn in the BOP’s approach to FTCs.

bidensuperman210201

Likewise, Fox News may have settled on another reason. President Biden has taken a lot of heat recently for doing nothing on criminal justice reform. Probably because he has done nothing. Hijacking the rules and rewriting them the way Congressional Democrats would love and Congressional Republicans would accept may have been seen by the White House as a cheap fix: liberal FTC rules did not require Congressional approval and conservatives could hardly complain, because all Biden was doing was carrying forward a program President Trump proudly owned, the First Step Act.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not complaining that the BOP did the right thing. I’m puzzled, that’s all.

Associated Press, Thousands of federal inmates to be released under 2018 law (January 13, 2022)

Dept of Justice, Justice Department Announces New Rule Implementing Federal Time Credits Program Established by the First Step Act (January 13, 2022)

BOP, Final Rules for Federal Time Credits Program (January 13, 2022)

BOP, FSA Time Credits (January 13, 2022)

The Hill, Thousands of federal inmates being released this week under law signed by Trump (January 13, 2022)

Fox News, Federal inmates to be released under ‘time credits’ program (January 13, 2022)

– Thomas L. Root