Tag Archives: home confinement

Shocking News from GAO! BOP Has Messed Up FSA Placement! Who’d Have Guessed? – Update for February 17, 2026

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.

GAO PAINTS PICTURE OF DEADBEAT BOP’S CHAOTIC HALFWAY HOUSE MANAGEMENT

The Government Accountability Office painted a bleak picture of the Bureau of Prisons’ halfway house placement program, a chaos of mismanagement that deprives inmates of First Step Act credits they have earned and halfway house operators of payments they are owed.

The 7-year-old First Step Act encourages federal prisoners to complete programs proven to reduce recidivism by promising them earned time credits that can shorten sentences and extend their time in prerelease custody in Residential Reentry Centers or RRCs (which we know as halfway houses) and on home confinement. Writing in Forbes last week, Walter Pavlo said, “Lawmakers understood what correctional professionals have long known. The last months of a sentence should focus on reconnecting people to jobs, housing, and families, not warehousing them in prison.”

Reality, however, is muted. The GAO reports that not only has the BOP not consistently moved eligible inmates into halfway houses on time, but often, the BOP does not even know how many people are eligible for and entitled to placement.

The Report said that “BOP officials said they do not know because the dates individuals are eligible to transfer are not readily available… GAO found that BOP did not apply all the earned time toward placement in RRCs and home confinement for 21,190 of 29,934 individuals reviewed, for reasons such as insufficient RRC capacity and court orders. However, the full scale of this issue is unknown due to the lack of readily available data on eligibility dates.”

The problem has been due in part to limited capacity in BOP-contracted halfway house and home confinement spaces, BOP officials told GAO. However, the Report stated, “BOP does not know the full extent of this shortage because it has not comprehensively assessed its capacity and related budgetary needs. Without these assessments, BOP cannot ensure it has enough space for incarcerated individuals to transfer on time. BOP could also miss opportunities to increase revenues and decrease costs to the federal government.”

As of September 30, 2024, the BOP was using 91% of its contracted halfway house beds and 121% of its contracted home confinement space. A full 38% of halfway houses were at or above 95% capacity, and 62% were at or above the 95% capacity for halfway house slots. In fairness to the BOP, since William K. Marshall III assumed the Director’s slot, the agency has prioritized home confinement through the alternative Federal Location Monitoring program, managed by the US Probation Office instead of halfway house staff.

GAO also found that the BOP has been a deadbeat on a scale that would get a defendant on supervised release sent back to prison. From 2022 through March 2025, the Bureau “made roughly 65,000 late payments to contractors, including to RRCs,” according to the Report. “As a result, the agency paid $12.5 million in interest penalties as part of $2.8 billion in payments to contractors. In addition, GAO found that BOP paid RRCs late about 70% of the time, from fiscal years 2023 through 2024.”

It should be unsurprising that halfway houses would be less than enthusiastic about working with the BOP to expand their businesses: the Report said that as a result of late payments, halfway houses “face hardships due to the late payments — needing private loans to pay staff. One halfway house representative said late payments have made some halfway houses reluctant to bid for new BOP contracts, which can further complicate BOP’s plans to expand capacity.”

Pavlo wrote, “The BOP understands that it has a problem and after years of not addressing it now realize that the solution is going to take time.” A BOP spokesman said, “[T]he Bureau has actively posted Requests for Information… in more than 20 locations nationwide to expand RRC and home confinement services… With respect to home confinement, the Bureau is transferring individuals as quickly as possible once they reach their Home Confinement Eligibility Date and meet all statutory and public safety criteria. We are committed to ensuring individuals are not held longer than necessary when they are appropriate for home confinement placement.”

Government Accountability Office, Bureau of Prisons: Actions Needed Better Achieve Financial and Other Benefits of Moving Individuals to Halfway Houses on Time (February 11, 2026)

Forbes, GAO Critical of Bureau of Prisons Use of Halfway Houses (February 12, 2026)

~ Thomas L. Root

More About the Cheese – Update for June 23, 2025

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 DEVIL’S IN THE DETAILS

Last Friday, I wrote about the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ latest pronouncements on how it would implement the “awards” portion of the First Step Act time credits (FTCs) program.

You recall that federal prisoners may earn FTCs for successful completion of evidence-based recidivism reduction programs (EBRRs), classes and vocational programs and therapy shown to reduce their likelihood to again fall into crime after release.

By and large, the EBRR program is good stuff. The Attorney General’s report last June reported that recidivism among people who had completed recidivism assessment and programming was coming in substantially lower than even the rosy assessments made right after First Step passed. (Note: We should be seeing the AG’s June 2025 update any day now).

To entice inmates to earn FTCs, the First Step Act provided that the credits could reduce the sentence of an eligible prisoner by up to a year, and FTCs left after the sentence reduction could be used for more halfway house and home confinement. But the BOP has been all over the map as to how to implement the awards, leaving a lot of prisoners and their families feeling puzzled, frustrated or betrayed.

The other factor in play is the BOP’s authority under the Second Chance Act of 2007 to place an inmate in a halfway house for up to 12 months at the end of his or her term, with 10% of his or her sentence (up to six months) of the final term being served on home confinement.

Last week, I only had the BOP’s press release to work from, but over the weekend, I obtained a copy of the new memo – entitled “Use of Home Confinement As A Release Option.” The 4-page memorandum from BOP Director William K. Marshall III to wardens suggests a bold, new pro-release mindset at the BOP, but – as with everything in this world – the devil’s in the details.

The memo’s highlights:

• The BOP will treat its authorizations under the First Step Act and Second Chance Act as cumulative. BOP staff shall and apply those in sequence to maximize prerelease time in community custody, including home confinement.

• Halfway house “bed availability/capacity shall not be a barrier to home confinement when an individual is statutorily eligible and appropriate for such placement.”

• If a First Step Act or Second Chance Act eligible prisoner does not require the services of a halfway house, the inmate “shall be referred directly from an institution to home confinement.” Halfway house “placement should be prioritized for those in our custody with the most need for services available at a [halfway house].”

• Referrals shall proceed with the understanding that so long as prisoners meet First Step Act and Second Chance Act eligibility requirements, “they shall receive the forecasted credits and ordinarily should not experience delays in prerelease placement based on administrative timing, presumed [halfway house] capacity limits or placement constraints, or pending credit accrual.”

• Under the Second Chance Act, inmates may be placed in prerelease custody for a period of up to 12 months (halfway house) or 6 months or 10 pct of their sentence (home confinement), whichever is less. “The Second Chance Act Conditional Placement Date reflects the window under 18 USC § 3624(c) —up to 12 months (halfway house) or 6 month or 10% of the sentence (home confinement)—for which the individual is expected to qualify, subject to a five-factor review. “There is no restriction concerning how many FTCs may be applied toward home confinement. For individuals only eligible under the Second Chance Act, referrals must comply with 18 USC § 3624(c), including a five-factor review and documentation of eligibility based on sentence length (12 months [halfway house] or 6 month or 10% (home confinement), whichever is less).”

• For prisoners “who have earned less than 365 days of FTCs, staff must also consider adding up to an additional 12 months of prerelease time under the Second Chance Act, based on the five-factor review.”

• Home confinement candidates must be able to show a verified and stable home environment that supports monitoring, appropriate supervision, and safe community reentry and integration, and that they pose no public safety or placement disqualification. Employment history shall not be required. For individuals at or near working age, potential for employment may be considered positively, but is not mandatory.

Note what has not changed: Second Chance Act placement is still based on the BOP’s “five-factor” review, found in 18 USC § 3621(b):

(1) the resources of the halfway house;

(2) the “nature and circumstances of the offense;”

(3) the history and characteristics of the prisoner;

(4) any statement by the court that imposed the sentence about “the purposes for which the sentence to imprisonment was determined to be warranted; or recommending a type of penal or correctional facility as appropriate;” and

(5) any pertinent Sentencing Commission policy statement.

The memo and the “five factor” review contain enough wiggle room to enable the BOP to justify disqualifying Mother Teresa from halfway house or home confinement placement. Home confinement will be allowed for “qualified individuals,” but the memo directs that “placement decisions should prioritize public safety and the overall stability of the release plan.” Second Chance Act halfway house time is subject to review that is broad enough to let the BOP cut or take away halfway house on the basis of the crime or what it thinks of the prisoner.

Those persons who recall that in the late months of CARES Act home confinement placement, the BOP began asking inmates’ prosecutors for their views on sending a prisoner home, may have good cause question what may happen in the latest opaque review process.

BOP, Memorandum on Use of Home Confinement as a Release Option (June 17, 2025)

BOP, Bureau of Prisons Issues Directive to Fully Implement First Step Act and Second Chance Act (June 17, 2025)

– Thomas L. Root

Enticing But Evanescent BOP Cheese – Update for June 20, 2025

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 DANGLES THE FIRST STEP CHEESE AGAIN

So, let’s see… the Federal Bureau of Prisons first proposed that a prisoner would have to spend eight hours in one of its program classrooms in order to earn one day of First Step Act time credit (FTC) to reduce her sentence or get an extra day of halfway house. Then it reversed course, holding that an inmate would receive one day of FTC credit for every day she was enrolled in the course.

Then the BOP said that when a prisoner’s FTC credits equaled the number of days left his sentence, he would be sent to a halfway house. But wait, that was only when the halfway house finally said he could come, however long that delay might be.

The BOP said that a prisoner was entitled to as much halfway house or home confinement time as she could earn in FTCs, and on top of that, she could get up to a full year in halfway house under the Second Chance Act. But then the agency said that no one could get more than 60 days in halfway house under the SCA, no matter what the law said. But then, the BOP said that was wrong, and prisoners could get a full year under the SCA. After that, the BOP decided that any prisoner with a full year’s worth of FTCs was ineligible to get any SCA time in a halfway house.

Got it?

Not yet, because in its latest policy reversal/about face/ tweak, the BOP this week decided that its last pronouncement was “inoperative,” as Nixon White House spokesman Ron Ziegler famously said. Now, BOP Director William K. Marshall III has announced “the dawn of a new era,” a restoration of “integrity and fiscal responsibility to the federal prison system.” This of course is a tacit admission that integrity and fiscal responsibility have been wanting at the BOP, akin to the emperor acknowledging that yes, indeed, he is naked as a jaybird.

Marshall said in a press release that henceforth

• FTCs and SCA eligibility will be treated as cumulative and stackable, “allowing qualified individuals to serve meaningful portions of their sentences in home confinement when appropriate.”

• The BOP’s Conditional Placement Dates — “based on projected credit accrual and statutory timelines — will drive timely referrals, not bureaucratic inertia.”

• Stable housing and “community reintegration readiness, not past employment,” will guide placement decisions.

• Halfway house bed capacity will not be a barrier to home confinement placement when a prisoner is statutorily eligible and “appropriate for such placement.”

The press release quotes Marshall as saying the new policies “mark[] a bold shift from years of inaction toward a policy rooted in public safety, fiscal responsibility, and second chances. By empowering the agency to release more people who are ready to return to society, we not only save taxpayer dollars, we strengthen families, ease overcrowding, and build safer communities.”

The latest policy flip-flop comes on the heels of Marshall’s appointment, the week before, that BOP veteran Richard Stover has been appointed “to serve in furthering the implementation of the First Step Act.”

That announcement did not specify Stover’s title, place in the chain of command, or precise duties. Nevertheless, in the six plus years since passage of First Step, the BOP has not designated any management-level employee as being responsible for BOP compliance with the law. Marshall said that appointment of Stover to oversee First Step implementation and Josh Smith as Deputy Director “reflect a critical investment in strengthening our leadership infrastructure to better support staff, improve operations, and fully implement the First Step Act—the cornerstone of our path to safer facilities and stronger outcomes.”

Stover has 28 years with the Bureau, starting as a case manager, rising to Warden and ultimately serving as a Senior Deputy Assistant Director. Most recently, Stover ran the Designation and Sentence Computation Center in Grand Prairie. Marshall said in his announcement of the appointment that Stover’s “work developing the First Step Act Time Credits policy and his leadership at institutions like FCI Danbury demonstrate his deep expertise in executing complex reforms with clarity and precision.”

All of this is great stuff, but like Charlie Brown with Lucy holding the football, we’ve been here before. It has always been baffling to me that the BOP, chronically broke and understaffed, wasn’t hustling people with accumulated FTCs into inexpensive home confinement as quickly as possible under 18 USC 3624(g)(2). Under the SCA, the BOP can only place a prisoner in home confinement for 10% of an inmate’s sentence (up to six months maximum). But 100% of a prisoner’s FTCs can be used for home confinement.

Skeptics (and heaven knows I am one) note that even the press release contains just enough wiggle room to let the BOP take away everything it has given. Home confinement will be allowed for “qualified individuals,” but who is “qualified” and under what criteria (and decided by whom) is opaque. After all, prisoners must be “appropriate for such placement,” whatever that means.

For that matter, promising that statutory eligibility “will drive timely referrals, not bureaucratic inertia,” has a chicken-in-every-pot flavor to it. Just like no one asked where all those chickens were going to come from, the idea that people are going to go to halfway houses that won’t accept them has a delusional quality to it that matches its lofty blandishment.

Walter Pavlo, writing in Forbes, observes:

The memorandum is going to be well received by inmates and their families. However, the BOP has a history of slowly implementing programs that favor inmates but quickly adopting restrictions that keep them in prison longer. The Trump administration continues to be one that looks for results among those appointed to serve and it will be up to BOP leadership to deliver on this one as the directive is clear. It is the implementation of this directive that will be the next challenge.

Challenge, indeed. My take on it is a little less diplomatic: The cheese has been dangled in front of the inmate mice again. Let’s see how soon it is moved this time.

BOP, Bureau of Prisons Issues Directive to Fully Implement First Step Act and Second Chance Act (June 17, 2025)

Forbes, Bureau of Prisons Retracts Rule, Truly Expands Halfway Houses (June 17, 2025)

BOP, Message from the Director (June 5, 2025)

– Thomas L. Root

Class Action FSA Credit Lawsuit Against the BOP Case Dismissed – Update for June 16, 2025

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.

DC COURT DISMISSES CHALLENGE TO BOP FSA CREDIT HALFWAY HOUSE PLACEMENT

You may recall that last December, the Criminal Law Reform Project, ACLU and mega law firm Jenner & Block sued the Bureau of Prisons for denying prisoners placement in halfway house or home confinement for the full term earned by their FSA time credits (FTCs).

Last week, the case died an ignominious death.

The case sought to certify a class action – the class being defined as anyone who now or in the future would be eligible to use FTCs for prerelease custody – to win a judicial holding that BOP rules sending a prisoner to halfway house only when the halfway house said it had space available violated 18 USC §§ 3624(g)(1) and (2). That statute says that when a prisoner has earned FTCs “in an amount that is equal to the remainder of the prisoner’s imposed term of imprisonment… [he or she] shall be placed in prerelease custody.” (Emphasis is mine).

BOP rules and policies, however, let the agency delay placement until space is available at a preferred halfway house, no matter how long that might be.

The suit argued that the BOP’s rules and policies violated 5 USC § 706(1) (contending that the BOP’s application of FTCs is “unlawfully held or unreasonably delayed”) and § 706(2) (the BOP’s rule on application of FTCs is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law”). In its ruling, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held that the plaintiffs could not justify establishing a class for litigating the 706(1) claim, because whether placing an FTC inmate in halfway house was “unreasonably delayed” past the eligibility date depended on the length of the delay and reasons for it, both questions that were individual to the inmate in question.

The District Judge held that a class action had been justified on the § 706(2) “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion” question, but the Court nonetheless granted the BOP’s motion to dismiss the count. The prisoners’ suit argued that § 3624(g)’s language that eligible prisoners “shall be placed in prerelease custody” means that the BOP must place them in halfway house as soon as they are eligible. But the Court disagreed. It held that the prisoners’

“shall-means-shall” argument overlooks that § 3632(d)(4)(C) does not specify when a prisoner must be transferred to prerelease custody. Instead, it provides that the BOP “shall transfer eligible prisoners, as determined under section 3624(g), into prerelease custody or supervised release.” 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(C). Section 3624(g), in turn, establishes the criteria for eligibility. Neither § 3632(d)(4)(C) nor § 3624(g) says that the BOP must transfer a prisoner immediately upon achieving eligibility. Section 3632(d)(4)(C) is best read as a directive that identifies what group of prisoners the BOP must transfer into prerelease custody, not as establishing an immutable date by which the BOP must effectuate individual transfers.

The Court acknowledged that “some district courts have held in the habeas context that the FSA requires the BOP to transfer an individual prisoner to prerelease custody once they become eligible… None of these cases, however, presented the argument made here by Plaintiffs, which is that the FSA compels the BOP to transfer every prisoner on the date of eligibility.”

The 48-page decision is detailed and fairly well reasoned. While not slamming the door on lawsuits to force BOP compliance with timely placement of FTC prisoners, Judge Amit Mehta’s ruling highlights the procedural and substantive obstacles to doing so. As such, it should be required reading for those seeking to force the Bureau to send them to prerelease custody on their FTC eligibility date.

Crowe v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, Case. No 24-cv-3582, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109052 (D.D.C., June 9, 2025)

– Thomas L. Root

Things Are Seldom What They Seem – Update for June 2, 2025

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 OL’ SWITCHEROO

buttercup250602Unless you’re my age (and I am not telling you what that age might be), you’re probably not familiar with Gilbert and Sullivan’s light opera, 19th-century musicals that parodied British life. In H.M.S. Pinafore – perhaps their best-known work – low-class Buttercup pines for the high-born captain of the Royal Navy warship HMS Pinafore. At one point, she tries to hint to the Captain that despite their difference in societal status, they might be able to hook up.

She sings,

Things are seldom what they seem, skim milk masquerades as cream, black sheep dwell in every fold, all that glitters is not gold…

Remember two months ago, when the BOP said no one would get more than 60 days of Second Chance Act halfway house time, only to recant a week or so later? It seemed that the problem had been solved. Unfortunately, as the Bureau of Prisons proved last week, the fix was illusory, as “storks turn out to be but logs” or “Bulls are but inflated frogs.”

A new BOP memorandum issued last week at first seemed to be a wonderful expansion of home confinement, but it in fact strips away SCA rights from prisoners who have been serving the longest sentences.

We have not seen the memo, just a press release. The release provides that home confinement will be “a priority for individuals who are eligible and do not require the structured support of an RRC. RRC placement will be reserved for those with the greatest need.” What’s more, unit teams are directed to “use FSA and SCA Conditional Placement Dates—based on projected Earned Time Credits (FTCs) expected to earn—to guide prerelease planning and ensure accurate and timely referrals.”

More home confinement? Great news, right?

Not really. The new policy does not expand the BOP’s authority to place people on home confinement by even one day. Ever since 2008, the BOP has had the authority to place inmates in home confinement for the final 10% of their sentences (up to a maximum of 6 months) under 18 USC § 3624(c)(2). Six years ago, the First Step Act amended § 3624(c)(2) to direct that the BOP, “to the extent practicable, place prisoners with lower risk levels and lower needs on home confinement for the maximum amount of time permitted under this paragraph.”

Just like Dorothy always had the power to go back to Kansas, the BOP has had the power to send prisoners to home confinement.
Just like Dorothy always had the power to go back to Kansas, the BOP has had the power to send prisoners to home confinement.

However, none of the BOP’s authority meant much up to now. BOP staff largely did not send people directly to home confinement. It was easier to send them to halfway house and then let the halfway house send them on to home confinement and do the monitoring. The halfway houses were glad to do it, because it freed up a bed they could sell for another inmate, and they still got some payment for the inmate they were continuing to monitor.

Suddenly, the BOP has figured out that it can better use the limited number of halfway house beds it has under contract (and save money) by sending low-risk inmates directly to home confinement. It’s the right call, but it doesn’t expand the availability of home confinement one bit. The BOP has no more power to put people on home confinement today than it had a week ago, a month ago, a year ago, or even as of December 21, 2018.

What’s worse is what the memo does NOT say. On Saturday, Walter Pavlo reported in Forbes that “[w]hen asked whether inmates are still eligible for Second Chance Act placement up to 12 months prior to their FSA conditional placement date, as has been the case, the BOP responded, ‘Due to statutory restrictions found in 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(1), an individual who has earned 365 days (12 months) of First Step Act credits to be applied to prerelease custody cannot receive additional prerelease time under the Second Chance Act.’”

This means that no one with 730 or more FSA credits will get any SCA halfway house or home confinement. Pavlo wrote, “The BOP’s current stance contradicts its position from just a few months ago, when it stated that stacking First Step Act and Second Chance Act benefits was permissible. Now, without addressing its previous position, the BOP asserts that home confinement under the Second Chance Act is only allowed by law during the final 12 months of a prison sentence.

home210218Additionally, the BOP claims that home confinement under the First Step Act can only be applied when the First Step Act time credits earned are equal to the remaining length of the prison term. This means an inmate cannot apply First Step Act credits to home confinement while also receiving up to 12 months of prerelease custody (6 months in a halfway house and 6 months in home confinement) under the Second Chance Act. For many inmates, this change means they will have to remain in prison for up to a year longer than they had initially expected.”

In the press release, BOP Director William K. Marshall III boasted that “President Trump said he would fight for the forgotten men and women of this country, and the First Step Act proved he meant it. Now, we are ensuring that this reform continues to work—not just as a policy, but as a promise to Americans seeking redemption and a path forward.”

BOP Press Release, Federal Bureau of Prisons Issues Directive to Expand Home Confinement, Advance First Step Act (May 28)

Forbes, Prisoners Set Back By Bureau Of Prisons Home Confinement Expansion (May 31)

– Thomas L. Root

Mythbusters – Update for May 23, 2025

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.

NO, CAMPERS ARE NOT BEING SENT HOME (AND OTHER MYTHS)

twain250523Mark Twain once said, “A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.”

Oh, the sweet irony! Because it appears that Mark Twain (whose name wasn’t really “Mark Twain,” another lie) did not really say that. In other words, it’s a lie that Twain (the name itself being another lie) said that “a lie can travel half way around the world…”

Fitting for today’s post, because it’s hard to say how a lie like that can take flight. That leads us to two whoppers spreading through the Federal Bureau of Prisons like flu in a housing unit.

home210218Myth 1 – All minimum-security federal inmates with fewer than five years left are being sent to home confinement.  I get at least a dozen emails a week on this one: Is it true that Trump signed an executive order sending campers home? Is it true that it will all happen in September? Is it true that all the camps will close?

The answers are no, no, and no.

Trump has signed about 200 executive orders since January 20th, but not a one relates to the Bureau of Prisons (except the order to re-open Alcatraz). Nothing has been scheduled for September. BOP Director William K. Marshall III will not be personally driving everyone home. The camps will not close. It’s all a myth.

Here are the facts: The BOP is only allowed to send people to home confinement in one of two cases. Either the prisoner is in the last six months (or 10%, whichever’s less) of his or her sentence, or the prisoner is eligible to use FSA credits. For the former, 18 USC § 3624(c)(2) lets the prisoner go to home confinement. For the latter, 18 USC § 3624(g)(2)(A) permits spending those FSA credits on home confinement.

Congress has dictated when and how home confinement can be designated. Other Congressional home confinement programs (CARES Act and Elderly Offender Home Detention) expired two years ago. The President cannot order the BOP to send people to home confinement where Congress has passed laws expressly limiting it.

methuser161128Myth 2 – Send me a copy of the new meth law: I get nearly as many emails from people asking me to send them a copy of the “new meth law.” Do I look like a lending library? No matter, the response is straightforward. There is no new meth law.

In January, the Sentencing Commission said it was considering a change in the methamphetamine guidelines to do away with the purity enhancement, an increase in punishment where the meth was especially pure (or was “ice”). The change made great sense: these days, virtually all meth met the higher purity threshold, and so the old supposition – that very pure meth suggested the defendant was a high-level dealer – no longer had any legs.

In April, the USSC adopted proposed amendments that will take effect in November. The meth purity proposal was not among them. To this day, no one knows what happened to the idea.

yogi250523A few points: First, a Guideline is not a law. Judges must follow laws but not guidelines. Laws can be passed that trample guidelines, but guidelines cannot negate laws. Second, the drug trafficking sentence statute (21 USC § 841(b)) contains enhanced penalties for pure meth, and any guidelines change would not change the law and therefore have limited effect. Third, no one in the Republican majority Congress has any interest in easing the drug laws right now, even if fentanyl is the drug bad-boy-of-choice right now.

Recap: Home confinement for campers is a fantasy. A new meth law is a myth. And Mark Twain was not Mark Twain, and he probably never said most of the things he said.

– Thomas L. Root

Home Confinement Authority Gathers Dust – Update for November 8, 2024

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.

HOME CONFINEMENT AUTHORITY AS ‘SHELFWARE’

shelfware241108ABack in the days of the dinosaurs, when computer programs came on CD-ROMs or (even more antediluvian), on stacks of mini-floppies, many of us were familiar with the concept of “shelfware.”

Writing in Forbes last week, Walter Pavlo reminded us that the Federal Bureau of Prisons has its own version of “shelfware,” a provision in 18 USC § 3624(g)(3) that lets prisoners spend their First Step Act credits – days earned for successful completion of programming under 18 USC § 3632 – on sentence reduction, halfway house or home confinement.

When a prisoner has earned enough FSA credits to where his or her remaining sentence equals the number of FSA credits earned, § 3624(g) requires that the BOP use those credits for one or more of the three options provided. The BOP’s practice is to first apply credits to sentence reduction: up to 365 credits can be used to reduce a sentence by a like number of days. The BOP has been diligent about this, and prisoners have been able to watch their sentences shorten on a monthly basis as FSA credits are earned.

Once the sentence reduction has been maxed out at 365 days, the balance of the credits is to be applied to additional halfway house or home confinement. Pavlo points out that “[t]he First Step Act gives the BOP a lot of discretion to place prisoners in the least restrictive, and least costly, confinement.” While the BOP has sole discretion to decide what that confinement will be, but it must be one of the two.

nobrainer241108A BOP decision to use its home confinement authority should be a no-brainer: The halfway houses are filled, causing prisoners to be denied the use of their credits despite their absolute statutory right to them. Home confinement, however, lacks the space limitations (at least not to the same degree).

Unsurprisingly, the BOP has left it home confinement authority on the shelf. As Pavlo observes, the BOP’s “interpretation of the First Step Act at every turn has been to minimize the use of the law to return prisoners to society sooner. The BOP has the law behind it to move thousands more prisoners into the community and to home confinement, if it only had the will to do so.”

Trust the BOP to mismanage things. Pavlo notes that

[p]risoners with 18 months of First Step Act toward prerelease custody should be sent directly to home confinement but they are languishing in halfway houses using resources they do not need. Other prisoners who are not First Step Act eligible and who have longer prison terms, are being passed over for placement in halfway houses in favor of those on First Step Act. The costs are now higher because a prisoner is staying in a higher security prison because there is no halfway house and a minimum security prisoner is stuck in a halfway house when they could be at home.

What he does not mention is that other prisoners entitled by law to the benefit of FSA credits they have earned are being denied halfway house placement because the places are full, in part with prisoners the BOP could move to home confinement.

The BOP could save money, too. When halfway houses monitor people on home confinement, it charges the BOP about half the cost of keeping them in halfway houses. According to the BOP, an inmate in home confinement cost an average of $55.26 per day as of 2020 —less than half the cost of an inmate in secure custody.

Moneyburn170208President-elect Donald Trump, as one of his plethora of promises made during the campaign, said he would slash federal spending. His disdain for anything related to the DOJ is well known. In a November 7 Forbes article, Pavlo said, “[L]ook for an unhappy Trump look for more ways to cut costs at the BOP. In 2018 when Trump made the cuts the BOP’s budget was $7.1 billion. The BOP has asked for $8.6 billion in FY2025 and another $3 billion to bring its facilities up to date. Spending at these levels is simply not going to happen.”

The BOP is required to let prisoners spend their FSA credits. It may be compelled by circumstances and budget to push FSA credit users, especially those who are minimum security and recidivism risk, to home confinement. Even now, doing so would make good sense, which leads commentators like Pavlo to wonder why the agency hasn’t done so.

Forbes, Bureau of Prisons Could Do More To Send People Home, Why Aren’t They? (October 30, 2024)

Dept of Justice, Home Confinement Under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, 88 FR 19830 (April 4, 2023)

Forbes, The Bureau Of Prisons Under A Trump Administration (November 7, 2024)

– Thomas L. Root

NBC Reports What Prisoners Already Know About FSA Credit Failure – Update for June 4, 2024

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 REPORTS THAT HALFWAY HOUSE CAPACITY INTERFERES WITH FSA CREDITS
Not this kind of halfway house...
Not this kind of halfway house…

NBC News reported Saturday what will come as little surprise to many prisoners who are counting on FSA credits for the additional halfway house/home confinement promised by 18 USC 3624(g)(2): the First Step promise of reward for completing programming is illusory for many people granted more halfway house/home confinement time by the Bureau of Prisons but turned away from halfway houses for lack of space.

Sreedhar Potarazu, who successfully sued the BOP in 2022 over its repeated miscues in calculating FSA credits, alerted NBC to nine cases in which inmates were incarcerated between two and eight months past their “last date inside,” a term that he says denotes when an inmate can be transferred to prerelease custody because of FSA credits they had earned beyond the 365 days that the BOP is allowed to subtract from their sentence.

“Even one life kept in longer is an injustice,” Potarazu told NBC. “The taxpayer should care because they’re footing the bill. You may not have anyone in there, but you’re still paying for it.”

The BOP lists contracts with 145 halfway houses nationwide on its website, and an agency spokesperson told NBC that those halfway houses have more than 10,000 beds. The BOP said more than 8,200 prisoners are designated to halfway houses, but it is not clear how many are in home confinement but supervised by halfway houses.

The BOP is not much help in tracking the problem. The agency admitted to NBC that it keeps no records on how many inmates are losing the benefit of FSA credits already earned because halfway houses are refusing placement.

“Every effort is made to review and adjust available resources within the community so individuals may utilize” time credits, the BOP told NBC News, but that “some areas, specifically populated urban areas, are experiencing capacity concerns.”

bureaucracybopspeed230501The BOP insists that “credits are being calculated as required under the First Step Act.” But NBC said, “As the law has been implemented over the years, concerns have grown about whether time credits are being properly added up and applied as case managers log the information.”

Rep David Trone (D-MD), a member of the House Appropriations Committee, complained, “I always refer to the First Step Act as criminal justice lite,” Trone said. “We need to get real savings and give people real second chances. We haven’t executed the First Step Act properly.”

Writing in Forbes last week, Walter Pavlo argued that the BOP could bypass halfway house for a lot of prisoners and instead place them directly in home confinement. “Many inmates report that due to limitations in halfway house capacity that they are not able to utilize those credits for home confinement and they stay in prison… Overall, this issue of housing inmates in prison longer than necessary, and for which the BOP currently has the power to transfer to the community, affects tens of thousands of prisoners, many are minimum or low-security inmates. The BOP has the ability, but it is up to BOP Director Colette Peters to implement change that is within her power… something she has often spoken about.”

Ames Grawert, a senior counsel for the Brennan Center for Justice, acknowledges the capacity problem but argues that it’s up to Congress to ensure the BOP has the funding to implement the First Step Act and the infrastructure is in place. “Implementation is always a challenge in any law, especially when you’re dealing with a system that’s as complex and with so many issues as the Bureau of Prisons.”

Potarazu, an ophthalmic surgeon, spent at least four additional months in prison after his FSA eligibility date due to an admitted BOP error in calculating the credits. He filed a 28 USC § 2241 petition for habeas corpus in 2022 seeking proper calculation of his credits and designation to halfway house by July 31, 2022, the proper date for the transfer.

runoutclock221227Potarazu’s case was finally ruled on last week, dismissed as “moot” because he was no longer in BOP custody. The Court ruled, “Petitioner’s requested relief—immediate placement in pre-release custody and/or supervised release—has already been achieved” because he was transferred to a halfway house on May 18, 2023” (10 months late) and released from custody on December 22, 2023, “Thus, Petitioner does not maintain any redressable claims and does not satisfy the collateral consequences exception.”

Potarazu told NBC he ultimately wants to see others released when the BOP is legally obligated to do so, and that prisoners shouldn’t have to assume they’re going to remain behind bars longer than they should and go to the lengths of litigation that can take years.

“Even when you have the foresight to do so, you’re still trapped,” he said.

NBC News, Despite First Step Act, some federal inmates remain in prison extra months (June 1, 2024)

Potarazu v Warden, Case No MJM-22-1334, 2024 USDist LEXIS 94086 (D.Md, May 28, 2024)

Forbes, Bureau Of Prisons Stumbles On Reducing Costs On Incarceration (May 30, 2024)

– Thomas L. Root

‘You Can Earn Them, Just Not Spend Them,’ Said No One To The Senators – Update for January 22, 2024

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.

JUDICIARY COMMITTEE FIRST STEP ACT HEARING IGNORES HALFWAY HOUSE ELEPHANT

Senate Judiciary Committee leader Richard Durbin (D-IL) presided over a hearing last Wednesday commemorating the 5th anniversary of the First Step Act. The testimony was positive, upbeat, and largely useless.

Cake201130“Five years ago, we wrote the blueprint for reimagining rehabilitation and protecting public safety, and now we know by the numbers that it works,” Durbin said to open the proceeding. “Today, I am looking forward to reflecting on what we can achieve… In order to make our system fairer, we must continue to learn from and [build upon] the proven successes of ‘smart on crime’ policies like the First Step Act. We must provide more opportunities for those who are incarcerated to reenter society successfully, reunite with their families, and contribute to their communities.”

Ja’Ron Smith, former Deputy Assistant for Domestic Policy under Trump, noted that the recidivism rate for First Step releasees is about 37% lower than what it was before the Act passed, used to be. Smith said, “For those released under the First Step Act, the rate is just 125. And technical violations – not new crimes – account for a third of that number.”

J. Charles Smith III, president of the National District Attorneys Assn, said First Step “did a great job of differentiating between good people making bad decisions and bad people making bad decisions. The bad people who make bad decisions stay in jail… The good people who made a bad decision, were convicted for it, [and] went to jail for it, are getting rehabilitated and released earlier as well, as they should.”

Steve Markle, an officer with the National Council Of Prison Locals, lauded the Act but said the Federal Bureau of Prisons 20% staffing shortfall (40% among correctional officers) “not only compromises safety by reducing the number of staff available to respond to emergencies but also hinders the provision of programming for the First Step Act. To fully realize the Act’s potential,” he said, “it is crucial to address the critical staffing crisis within the Bureau. The Council believes that the staffing crisis can only be resolved by addressing the pay band issue.”

Not this kind of halfway house...
Not this kind of halfway house…

It fell to Walter Pavlo, who was not a witness at Durbin’s lovefest, to explain a major glitch in First Step Act’s implementation of the evidence-based programming problem. Inmates are motivated to earn credits because those credits can buy up to a year off their sentences and – if any credits are left after the one-year credit -more halfway house or home confinement. But, writing in Forbes last week, Pavlo observed that inmates are being denied the right to spend those credits because “the BOP does not have room in halfway houses to monitor those who have rightfully earned First Step Act credits. The result, thousands of prisoners languish in expensive institutions rather than being placed in community halfway houses.”

Prisoners with many months of First Step halfway house/home confinement credit are being told by halfway houses that they cannot be accommodated. I know of one prisoner awarded his nine months of halfway house/home confinement credit only to be told that the halfway house could only give him a third of that. The Act states in 18 USC 3624(g)(11) that the BOP Director “shall ensure there is sufficient prerelease custody capacity to accommodate all eligible prisoners.” Pavlo writes, “This is a problem that is going to persist unless something is done.”

The BOP’s Residential Reentry Management Branch administrator said in a speech two weeks ago that halfway houses had a “90-day projection of 99% utilization,” meaning, Pavlo said, “that there was no room to place any more prisoners.”

The BOP knew five years ago that it would have to increase halfway house capacity, but doing so is a bureaucratic nightmare. Because the BOP has relied on halfway house staff to monitor home confinement inmates, the capacity crunch has affected home confinement placement as well. A decade ago, the BOP worked with the US Probation Office to get some prisoners monitored on Probation’s Federal Location Monitoring (FLM) to allow some home confinement prisoners to be monitored by Probation rather than halfway houses. But as of now, only 3.6% of home confinement prisoners are on FLM.

The BOP has an Interagency Agreement with Probation which Pavlo says presents “an opportunity to expand FLM in a manner that is both cost-effective and consistent with the evidence-based practices. However, each district court is responsible for participating, or not, in FLM. Getting every district court to coordinate with the BOP has been an issue for years, as the few prisoners in FLM clearly demonstrate.”

release161117FLM costs far less than a halfway house per diem or halfway house-monitored home confinement. However, FLM is managed by each of the 94-odd federal judicial districts. Some participate with the BOP: others do not. Pavlo said a retired BOP executive told him, “I think the BOP would be receptive to expanding the program and it would resolve many of the issues related to capacity for prerelease custody, but the Courts are going to have to help.”

Senate Judiciary Committee, Five Years of the First Step Act: Reimagining Rehabilitation and Protecting Public Safety (January 17, 2024)

Press Release, Durbin Delivers Opening Statement During Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on the Fifth Anniversary of the Landmark First Step Act (January 17, 2024)

Forbes, The Bureau of Prisons’ Halfway House Problem (January 16, 2024)

– Thomas L. Root

Demagoguing Home Confinement – Update for November 16, 2023

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.

SENATE REPUBLICANS SEEK TO CORRAL CARES ACT TERRORISTS

Just when CARES Act prisoners still serving home confinement thought it was safe for them to believe they would remain at home, Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R–TN) has introduced S.J.Res. 47, legislation that would reverse a DOJ rule allowing prisoners on CARES Act home confinement to complete their sentences at home.

caresbear231116On October 30, Blackburn and 26 co-sponsoring Senators introduced the bill under the Congressional Review Act, 5 USC Ch. 8, which would overturn a Justice Department rule allowing some federal offenders to remain under house arrest after the end of the government’s COVID-19 emergency declaration.

“While there are certainly plenty of legitimate issues with the BOP that merit senators focusing oversight on the Bureau, CARES Act home confinement is an example of a program that is working—rehabilitating people while holding them accountable, all while driving down costs and maintaining community safety,” Kevin Ring, vice president of criminal justice advocacy at Arnold Ventures, a private philanthropy group, said.

cotton171226Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) – whose opposition to the First Step Act was responsible for getting those prisoners with 18 USC § 924(c) convictions excluded from obtaining FSA credits for successfully completing recidivism reduction programs written into the law –declared that extending CARES Act home confinement (especially now that every single federal inmate has been vaccinated or offered the vaccine for COVID-19) “betrays victims and law-enforcement agencies that trusted the federal government to keep convicted criminals away from the neighborhoods that the offenders once terrorized.”

There’s nothing quite as easy to demagogue as crime and punishment.

Never mind that the Bureau of Prisons has refused CARES Act home confinement to anyone convicted of sex crimes, terrorism, violent offenses, or even those who had a violent disciplinary report while in prison. CARES Act home confinees had to have low or minimum security status and be at low or minimum risk of recidivism under the Dept. of Justice PATTERN scoring system.

The Congressional Review Act, which was passed 27 years ago, creates a process for Congress to overturn federal agency rules. In 2017, a Republican-controlled Congress used the CRA to invalidate dozens of Obama-era federal rules. Any member of Congress can introduce a CRA joint resolution of disapproval, which is referred to the relevant Senate or House committee. A CRA resolution must be passed by a majority in both the House and Senate and then signed by the president. If the President vetoes the CRA resolution, Congress can override the veto with a two-thirds majority in both houses.

flyelephantgun231116Given that the Biden Administration pushed the new rule and the Senate is controlled by Democrats, passage of S.J.Res. 47 is doubtful. If it would pass both houses, but Biden vetoes it, there is no chance two-thirds of Congress would override it.

Last week, BOP Director Colette Peters told a House subcommittee that “as of August 31, 2023… less than 0.05% of people [on home confinement] have been returned to custody for committing new crimes.” Given that statistic, S.J.Res. 47 seems a lot like shooting a fly with an elephant gun.

S.J.Res. 47, Congressional disapproval of the rule submitted by the Dept of Justice relating to CARES Act (October 30, 2023)

Reason, Senate Resolution Would Send Federal Offenders Back to Prison 3 Years After Being Released to Home Confinement (November  6, 2023)

National Health Law Program, Congressional Review Act (October 2020)

– Thomas L. Root