U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, DC

The Report of the Attorney General Pursuant to
Section 16(b)(i) of Executive Order 14074:

Department of Justice Efforts to Ensure that
Restrictive Housing in Federal Detention Facilities is
Used Rarely, Applied Fairly, and Subject to
Reasonable Constraints, and to Implement Other
Legal Requirements and Policy Recommendations

Department of Justice Efforts to Ensure That Restrictive Housing in Federal Detention
Facilities is Used Rarely, Applied Fairly, and Subject to Reasonable Constraints, and to
Implement Other Legal Requirements and Policy Recommendations
I.

Executive Summary

This report responds to Section 16(b)(i) of Executive Order 14074, which calls for the Attorney
General to publish a report on the steps the Department of Justice (Department or DOJ) has taken
(1) to ensure that restrictive housing in Federal detention facilities is used rarely, applied fairly,
and subject to reasonable constraints; (2) to ensure that individuals in DOJ custody are housed in
the least restrictive setting necessary for their safety and the safety of staff, other prisoners and
detainees, and the public; (3) to ensure the Department’s full implementation of DOJ’s 2016
Report and Recommendations Concerning the Use of Restrictive Housing (2016 DOJ Report)
and the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA); and (4) to house prisoners as close to their
families as practicable.
The Department’s Bureau of Prisons (Bureau or BOP) has long had policies and procedures that
require restrictive housing in Federal detention facilities be used only as necessary and
appropriate. For example, BOP policies and procedures make clear that an individual may be
placed in restrictive housing only following prescribed and impartial investigation and
adjudication processes, and that incarcerated individuals must be given the opportunity to
challenge a restrictive housing placement. BOP policies and procedures also limit the
circumstances in which restrictive housing can be imposed on an individual and cabin the length
of time an individual can be placed in restrictive housing for any particular disciplinary violation.
In 2016, the Department issued a report recommending regulatory and policy changes in the use
of restrictive housing in Federal detention facilities. 1 Following the report, BOP updated affected
policy and took other substantive measures to reduce its use of restrictive housing. Most notably,
BOP updated its Special Housing Units (SHU) policy to discourage the use of restrictive housing.
BOP also decreased the length of certain restrictive housing placements and implemented policy
goals aimed at ensuring individuals are not released directly from restrictive housing to the
community. Additionally, BOP developed a number of alternatives to restrictive housing,
including Reintegration Units and Secure Mental Health Units. Finally, BOP is promulgating
regulations amending the Inmate Disciplinary Program to significantly reduce the use and length
of restrictive housing placements as punishment for disciplinary violations.
Because of these and other initiatives, BOP has successfully reduced its use of certain types of
restrictive housing, including in the Special Management Unit and United States Penitentiary
Administrative Maximum facilities. Notwithstanding those reductions, BOP’s SHU restrictive
housing placements have increased since 2016. BOP leadership has been, and continues to be,
concerned about the increased SHU population. It is actively investigating causes for the increase
to determine the most effective ways to reduce that population.

1

U.S. Department of Justice Report and Recommendations Concerning the Use of Restrictive Housing, (Jan.

2016), https://www.justice.gov/archives/dag/file/815551/download.

1

The BOP and the Department are committed to further addressing and reducing the use of
restrictive housing. The BOP has recently begun work with the National Institute of Justice on a
study to review and provide recommendations regarding the BOP’s use of restrictive housing. In
addition, the BOP recently assembled a task force of senior BOP officials to conduct a nearerterm assessment and provide more immediate recommendations for steps the BOP may take
regarding restrictive housing.
As also required by Section 16(b)(i) of Executive Order 14074, this report describes various steps
the Department has taken to implement PREA. Most notably, BOP implemented its PREA
policy and national standards in 2012, months after the Department passed the final rule on
PREA Standards. BOP educates its inmate population and trains staff regarding PREA and
complies with all PREA auditing requirements. Nonetheless, the Department and BOP
recognize that deeply troubling instances of sexual abuse of individuals in its custody have
occurred. The Department is committed to rooting out and preventing sexual abuse of all kinds
in BOP facilities.
Finally, this report concludes by addressing the Department’s efforts to house prisoners as close
to their families as practicable. BOP has longstanding policy to try, to the extent practicable, to
place individuals within 500 miles of their release residence. The First Step Act of 2018 changed
the way BOP determined designations within 500 miles of release residence and, as a result, BOP
updated internal policy to respond to statutory requirements.
II.

Restrictive Housing in Federal Detention Facilities

a. BOP’s Restrictive Housing Policies and Procedures
Consistent with the 2016 DOJ Report, this report defines the term “restrictive housing” to mean
any type of detention that involves three basic elements: (1) removal from the general population,
whether voluntary or involuntary; (2) placement in a locked room or cell, whether alone or with
another individual; and (3) inability to leave the room or cell for the vast majority of the day,
typically 22 hours or more.2 Restrictive housing can take many forms, but there are two basic
restrictive housing statuses in BOP facilities: (1) disciplinary segregation and (2) administrative
segregation.
Disciplinary Segregation. Disciplinary segregation is a punitive housing status imposed as a
sanction for violating a disciplinary rule.3 The incarcerated individual is typically placed on
disciplinary segregation status for a determinate term—akin to a prison sentence in a criminal
proceeding—and then either released back to the general population or transferred to another
facility. Not all disciplinary violations can be punished using disciplinary segregation, and
disciplinary segregation is just one of various types of punishment typically available in the
prison disciplinary system.4 5 An individual can only be placed in disciplinary segregation

2016 DOJ Report at 3.
28 C.F.R. § 541.22(b).
4
BOP program statements are documents that present official BOP policy for the various areas that they cover. All
referenced policy is available on BOP’s public website at www.bop.gov.
5
See Program Statement 5270.09: Inmate Discipline Program, § 1 (2011).
2
3

2

following a hearing, at which the individual is entitled to present evidence and call witnesses. A
Discipline Hearing Officer (DHO), who operates outside traditional reporting lines within the
institution, serves as the impartial adjudicator of an individual’s disciplinary hearing. 6 For each
severity level, BOP policies dictate the maximum term an individual may be placed in restrictive
housing, both for a first offense and for second or subsequent offenses, although DHOs may
exercise their discretion and sentence an individual to a shorter, determinate term of segregation
or, when appropriate, no segregation at all. If an individual commits additional disciplinary
violations while in restrictive housing, he or she could be subject to further disciplinary
sanctions, following the same process described above. 7 Although BOP regulations impose
maximum penalties for individual disciplinary violations, there is currently no limit on the
cumulative amount of time an individual can spend in disciplinary segregation. As elaborated
below, BOP is in the process of amending its Inmate Disciplinary Program regulations to further
cabin the use and length of disciplinary segregation placements.
Administrative Segregation. An individual may also be subject to restrictive housing for
certain non-punitive reasons. Specifically, BOP regulations allow an individual to be placed
on administrative segregation status when (1) his or her presence in the general population
“poses a threat to life, property, self, staff, other incarcerated individual, the public, or to the
security or orderly running of the institution,” and (2) one of the following conditions applies:
•

Investigative Segregation— the inmate is under investigation for violating a BOP
regulation or criminal law;

•

Protective Segregation—the individual requested, or BOP staff determined the
individual needs, protection;

•

Preventative Segregation—the individual is ending confinement in disciplinary
segregation status, and his or her return to the general population would threaten the
safety, security, and orderly operation of the correctional facility or public safety; or

•

Transitional Segregation—the individual is pending transfer to another institution or
location. 8

In addition, an individual may be placed in administrative segregation pending
classification after arriving at a new facility, or if held in “holdover status” during transfer
to a designated institution.9 An individual is typically placed in administrative segregation
for an indeterminate term, which lasts until prison officials determine that the applicable
conditions no longer apply. As with disciplinary segregation, BOP regulations establish

See 28 C.F.R. § 541.8, generally.
See C.F.R. § 541.3, Tables 1 &2, generally.
8
28 C.F.R. § 541.23(c).
9
Id. §§ 541.23(a)-(b).
6
7

3

processes for investigating and adjudicating the need for administrative segregation. 10 For
example, consistent with the 2016 DOJ Report, BOP now has a particularized policy in
place regarding the placement of individuals in investigative segregation. Among other things,
that policy demands that routine investigations be completed promptly, to avoid unnecessarily
extending an individual’s time in investigative segregation.11
For all types of restrictive housing, BOP regulations require that an individual receive notice of
his or her placement in restrictive housing, and all incarcerated individuals in restrictive housing
may submit formal grievances challenging their placement through the BOP’s Administrative
Remedy Program.12 BOP regulations also demand that BOP staff regularly review an
individual’s restrictive housing placement to determine whether continued segregation is
necessary. The review frequency varies by type of segregation, but in most cases, a Segregation
Review Official must review the records supporting the individual’s restrictive housing
placement within three workdays of the placement; hold a hearing within seven calendar days of
the placement; and review the individual’s status at a hearing after every 30 calendar days of
continuous placement.13 BOP regulations also require a psychological evaluation of each
individual held in restrictive housing every 30 days.14 In addition, all BOP facilities conduct
restrictive housing weekly reviews, during which the warden and an interdisciplinary team of
prison officials, including psychological staff, review all incarcerated individuals currently held
in restrictive housing. During the meeting, each individual is reviewed individually to ensure all
staff are aware of the individual’s status, proposed plan of action, recommendation for transfer
or reintegration into the general population, discipline status, and physical and mental health.15
BOP oversees 135 institutions, and the vast majority of those institutions include space
dedicated for restrictive housing. Most BOP inmates placed in segregation are housed in Special
Housing Units (SHU) in their home institution. BOP also operates two additional restrictive
housing programs: (1) the Special Management Unit (SMU), a three-phase unit at United States
Penitentiary (USP) Thomson for individuals with heightened security concerns, and (2) the USP
Administrative Maximum (ADX), in Florence, Colorado, for individuals who require the
tightest controls and supervision because of the nature of their offense or their behavior while in
prison.
Special Management Units. An SMU is a unit with three-stages of confinement for individuals
who present unique security and management concerns.16 BOP created the SMU program in
2009, in response to a series of violent incidents within the federal prison system, including a
staff homicide and a number of inmate homicides and serious assaults. As violence increased, so
too did disciplinary violations, and eventually the number of individuals requiring punitive

See 28 C.F.R. §§ 541.26, 541.27, 541.28.
Program Statement 5270.11: Special Housing Unit § 5 (2016); see 2016 DOJ Report at 108.
12
28 C.F.R. §§ 541.25; 541.26(d).
13
Id. § 541.26.
14
Id. § 541.32(b).
15
Program Statement 5270.11: Special Housing Unit § 7 (2016).
16
Program Statement 5217.02: Special Management Units § 1 (2016).
10
11

4

segregation outpaced the capacity of the Bureau’s SHUs. When the 2016 DOJ Report was
published, there were 1,235 individuals in SMUs in various institutions. As a result of BOP’s
efforts to limit the use of SMUs, today BOP has only one SMU (at USP Thomson), with only 558
individuals. Consistent with the 2016 DOJ Report’s recommendations, BOP policy now holds
that an inmate may only be referred to an SMU if he has at least two years left on his or
sentence. 17 To refer an individual to a SMU, a warden must submit a comprehensive referral
packet, including all documents recording the individual’s misconduct, to the relevant Regional
Director. If the Regional Director determines the referral warrants further review, an impartial
Hearing Administrator is appointed to conduct a hearing. Incarcerated individuals receive notice
of the SMU hearing, including the reasons for their referral, and a staff member is made available
to assist the individual with gathering documents and written statements. Individuals may appear
at the hearing, make an oral statement, and present documentary evidence. The Hearing
Administrator determines if the individual meets the SMU referral criteria and prepares a detailed
report of his or her findings for the Regional Director. Additional information, such as a review of
the individual’s mental health history, is also provided. If the Regional Director determines an
SMU referral is appropriate, the Regional Director will make a recommendation to BOP’s
Designation and Sentence Computation Center for an SMU designation. At this stage in the
referral process, the Psychology Services Branch, Central Office, reviews every incarcerated
individual and precludes any with serious mental illness from SMU placement. Individuals are
provided a copy of the Hearing Administrator’s report and advised of the opportunity to appeal
the SMU designation via an expedited appeal process directly to the Bureau’s Office of General
Counsel. 18 Once selected for SMU, an individual is transferred from his home institution to USP
Thomson to begin SMU’s three-phases of confinement, which, consistent with the 2016 DOJ
Report’s recommendations, typically last nine to 13 month, and a maximum of 24 consecutive
months, in total.19
USP Administrative Maximum. Experienced correctional administrators have long recognized
that a small group of extremely violent and influential incarcerated individuals can have a
disproportionately negative effect on the safe and orderly operation of an institution. The mission
of the USP Administrative Maximum (ADX) responds to this concern. ADX is designed to safely
house the Bureau’s most violent, predatory, disruptive, and escape-prone individuals in an
environment providing each with an opportunity to demonstrate improved behavior, and the
ability and motivation to eventually reintegrate into an open population at a different facility. The
mission of ADX also allows the Bureau’s other penitentiaries to operate safely and openly,
permitting the significant percentage of the Bureau’s population who want to serve their
sentences without difficulty to do so safely. ADX houses just over 335 male individuals,
constituting less than a quarter of one percent of BOP’s total population. This number has stayed
relatively stable despite the overall population increasing significantly since ADX opened in
1994. Through regular, careful case reviews, the Bureau ensures that ADX is used for only those
individuals who need the security and controls available there. Incarcerated individuals are
afforded multi-level reviews prior to their placement at ADX. BOP’s current policy sets out a

Id. at § 2.
Id.at § 3.
19
Id. at § 6; 2016 DOJ Report at 111.
17
18

5

multi-step process, which includes a formal hearing, full clinical psychological evaluation (which
is reviewed by the Bureau’s Central Office), and medical review, for determining whether an
individual is appropriate for placement at ADX.20 Most ADX individuals are placed into the
facility’s general population and participate in its Step-Down Program. As an individual in this
program demonstrates periods of clear conduct and positive institution adjustment, it is possible
for the individual to progress from the general population units, through the intermediate,
transitional, and pre-transfer units, with increasing degrees of personal freedom and privileges at
each stage, and be transferred out of the program to another, open population institution. An
individual’s eligibility for advancement in the program is reviewed, at a minimum, every six
months. His continued placement is then closely scrutinized on a regular basis to ensure only
those individuals who require the security and controls of the institution are housed at ADX. 21
BOP also recently developed the ADX Release Preparation Program Unit, which seeks to prepare
ADX individuals, if and when appropriate, to transition to less secure housing, a Residential
Reentry Center, or their communities upon release; the Unit seeks to do so through, for example,
privilege incentive programming.22
b. BOP’s Efforts to Limit the Use and Length of Restrictive Housing
Placements, Including Through Implementation of the 2016 DOJ Report
BOP has long had numerous policies and procedures meant to ensure that restrictive housing in
Federal detention facilities is used only as necessary and appropriate. For example, as explained
above, it is well established than an individual may be placed in restrictive housing only
following prescribed and impartial investigation and adjudication processes, and that individuals
must be given the opportunity to challenge a restrictive housing placement. BOP policies and
procedures also limit the circumstances in which restrictive housing can be imposed on an
individual and cabin the length of time an individual can be placed in restrictive housing for any
particular disciplinary violation.
In recent years, BOP also has taken various steps to improve its restrictive housing policies and
procedures, including by working to adopt and implement the recommendations set forth in the
2016 DOJ Report, aimed at decreasing BOP’s restrictive housing population. As previously
mentioned, the initiatives undertaken by the Department and BOP have resulted in the successful
reduction of certain types of restrictive housing, including in the Special Management Unit and
United States Penitentiary Administrative Maximum facilities. Specifically, BOP’s Special
Management Unit population has decreased 69% since DOJ’s 2016 Report (from 1,260 on
12/5/2015 to 392 on 1/25/2023), and BOP’s ADX population has decreased by 20% since the
report (from 403 on 12/5/2015 to 323 on 1/25/2023). BOP has also taken numerous steps to
reduce its use of Special Housing Unit (SHU) placements. Despite those efforts, however, SHU
restrictive housing placements have increased by 29% since the 2016 DOJ Report (from 8,251
on 12/5/2015 to 10,635 on 1/25/2023). Preliminarily, it appears that the increase is likely due, in

Program Statement 5100.08: Inmate Security Designation and Custody Classification, § 21 (2006).
Institutional Supplement FLM 5321.08(1)A, General Population and Step-Down Unit Operations (Aug. 2021).
22
Institutional Supplement FLM 5321.08(5)A, Release Preparation Program Unit Operations (June 2022).
20
21

6

part, to COVID mitigation measures that slowed the movement of all incarcerated individuals,
which had a corresponding impact on the number of individuals in SHU waiting transfer to their
designated facility. BOP believes that, once substantive regulatory changes to the Inmate
Disciplinary Program mentioned above are finalized and implemented, it will be able to
successfully reduce its SHU population. BOP continues to work diligently to promulgate those
regulations and, more broadly, to review and improve its restrictive housing policies and
procedures and thereby ensure that restrictive housing in Federal detention facilities is used only
as necessary and appropriate.
Consistent with the 2016 DOJ Report’s recommendations,23 BOP recently updated its restrictive
housing policies and procedures to expressly require that individuals be “housed in the least
restrictive setting necessary to ensure their own safety, as well as the safety of staff, other
incarcerated individuals, and the public.”24 BOP also revised its policies and procedures to
mandate that the “specific reason[s]” for an individual’s placement in restrictive housing “must
be supported by objective evidence and clearly articulated” in writing,25 and that an individual’s
placement in restrictive housing “always serve a specific penological purpose.”26 And BOP
policies and procedures now strive to avoid releasing an individual directly from restrictive
housing to the community and, where that is unavoidable, to ensure that the individual receives
targeted reentry programming to prepare for his or her return home.27
In addition, BOP policies and procedures require that an individual’s initial and ongoing
placement in restrictive housing be regularly reviewed by a multidisciplinary staff committee,
including not only the leadership of the institution where the individual is housed, but also
medical and mental health professionals.28 BOP has also implemented the 2016 DOJ Report’s
recommendation requiring that correctional staff develop a clear plan for returning each
individual in restrictive housing to less restrictive conditions as promptly as possible, and that
they share that plan with the individual unless doing so would jeopardize the safety of the
individual, staff, other incarcerated individuals, or the public.29 And BOP has adopted the 2016
DOJ Report’s proposals for improving BOP’s regular training for correctional staff on restrictive
housing policies.30
Moreover, BOP has established standing committees, consisting of high-level correctional
officials, to regularly evaluate BOP’s restrictive housing policies and develop safe and effective
alternatives to restrictive housing.31 Those committees have been hard at work, and their efforts
remain ongoing. BOP has recently taken steps to implement task force recommendations aimed at
reducing restrictive housing populations and reducing the practice of assigning only one

2016 DOJ Report at 105.
Program Statement 5270.11: Special Housing Unit § 1(a) (2016).
25
Id. § 6; see 2016 DOJ Report at 105.
26
Program Statement 5270.11: Special Housing Unit § 1 (2016); see 2016 DOJ Report at 106.
27
Program Statement 5270.11: Special Housing Unit § 14 (2016); see 2016 DOJ Report at 106.
28
Program Statement 5270.11: Special Housing Unit § 7 (2016); see 2016 DOJ Report at 106.
29
Program Statement 5270.11: Special Housing Unit § 14 (2016); see 2016 DOJ Report at 106.
30
Program Statement 5270.11: Special Housing Unit § 15(1)-(2) (2016); see 2016 DOJ Report at 106.
31
See 2016 DOJ Report at 95.
23
24

7

individual to a cell (referred to as “single celling”). Some of those steps include improving the
quality of employee training, including de-escalation and transgender training, for all staff, and
prioritizing secure housing policies.
The 2016 DOJ Report further recommended that BOP eliminate restrictive housing as an
available sanction for various low-level prohibited acts, reduce the maximum time an individual
can be placed in segregation as a sanction for violating other disciplinary rules, and DHOs
impose a sanction of disciplinary segregation only after concluding that the other available
sanctions are insufficient to serve the purposes of punishment. 32 BOP policies and procedures
already empower BOP officials to release individuals from disciplinary segregation if they
determine that a restrictive housing placement no longer serves a specific penological purpose. 33
The other recommended changes to BOP’s Inmate Disciplinary Program, however, can only be
made via formal regulatory amendment. BOP began the amendment process shortly after the
2016 DOJ Report was issued. That process was halted for a time in light of Executive Order
13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs (Jan. 30, 2017), which required
that executive agencies withdraw pending regulations. But, since that Executive Order’s
rescission in 2021, BOP has again been diligently working to promulgate the suggested
regulatory amendments.
All told, BOP has adopted essentially all of the 2016 DOJ Report’s recommendations, and BOP is
working diligently to implement the Report’s remaining suggestions in a timely fashion and
consistent with regulatory requirements. The Department believes that the policy
recommendations proposed in the 2016 DOJ Report, when fully adopted, will result in substantial
additional reductions in BOP’s restrictive housing population overall.
Highlighting the importance of this issue, BOP recently initiated additional efforts to address and
reduce the use of restrictive housing. The BOP is working with the DOJ’s National Institute of
Justice to identify and hire an outside entity to conduct a study and provide recommendations
regarding the BOP’s use of restrictive housing. The evaluation will include data analyses, site
visits, staff interviews, and policy examination. In close coordination with the BOP, the reviewers
will use these four information sources to develop long- and short-term recommendations to
reduce the use of restrictive housing in BOP.
In addition to the outside entity study, the BOP has also recently assembled a task force made up
of senior BOP officials. This task force will conduct a nearer-term assessment and provide
recommendations for steps the BOP may take regarding restrictive housing by identifying
appropriate and effective modalities and practices to help guide the agency restrictive housing
practices
BOP’s most relevant policies, procedures, and ongoing regulatory efforts are described below.

32
33

2016 DOJ Report at 109.
Program Statement 5270.11: Special Housing Unit § 541.33 (2016).

8

Programming Designed to Prevent or Reduce the Need for Restrictive Housing Placements.
In recent years, BOP has intentionally expanded its use of mental health and other programming
in an effort to minimize the need for restrictive housing placements ex ante. These programs
broadly seek to promote rehabilitation and to prevent individuals from engaging in behaviors that
necessitate placement in restrictive housing.34 While some programs offer open enrollment to all
individuals, others are intended for individuals who meet specific diagnostic criteria. For
instance, BOP’s Mental Health Step-Down Programs offer residential care for individuals with
serious mental illness (typically a psychotic or mood disorder) who do not require inpatient
treatment, but who lack the skills to function in a general population setting and have a history of
serious violence. 35 The Step-Down Programs seek to provide evidence-based treatment to
individuals with serious mental illness, maximize their ability to function, minimize relapse and
the need for inpatient hospitalization, and support the individuals’ ability to transfer to less
restrictive environments, as appropriate.36 Also illustrative are BOP’s Steps Towards Awareness,
Growth, and Emotional Strength (STAGES) Programs. These unit-based, residential programs
offer an intermediate level of care to individuals with serious mental illness, typically borderline
and/or antisocial personality disorder, and recent histories of violence, who do not require
inpatient treatment, but who lack the skills to function in non-secure settings. 37
Alternatives to Restrictive Housing. BOP regularly seeks to use alternatives to restrictive
housing where possible, as well. For instance, to limit long-term placement in protective custody,
BOP staff will often transfer individuals out of the institution where the threat exists to the
general population of another facility, rather than placing them in the institution’s own restrictive
housing. In recent years, BOP also has developed several alternative housing units for individuals
who require protective custody. These specialized units allow BOP to divert protective custody
individuals away from restrictive housing and into separate facilities where they can live safely
and with fewer restrictions. For example, BOP currently operates Reintegration Units (RUs) at
USP Atwater, USP Coleman, USP Lewisburg, FCI Oakdale, and USP Thomson that are designed
to temporarily house protective custody individuals in residential units and to provide them
certain targeted programming, with the goal of helping the individuals eventually reintegrate with
the general population. 38 Additionally, for nearly a decade, BOP has utilized a gang
disassociation process, through which gang members can formally disassociate from their gang
and move into a general population unit with other individuals who have done the same. BOP’s
Intelligence and Counter Terrorism Branch undertakes a debriefing process to determine the
sincerity of the disassociation, as well as the individual’s security needs. The disassociation
process has resulted in a decrease in the use of SHU to house individuals in administrative
detention. With the help of these and other alternative housing programs, BOP has reduced the
number of individuals in protective custody by half (from 921 to 465) since the 2016 DOJ Report
was issued.

See generally Program Statement 5330.11: Psychology Treatment Programs (2016).
Id. at § 6.
36
Id. at § 6.
37
See id., generally.
38
See id., generally.
34
35

9

Further, BOP has implemented enhanced mental health screenings to ensure that individuals with
serious mental illness are diverted from restrictive housing, particularly SMU or ADX, wherever
possible, and instead receive other intensive mental health treatment and programming. For
instance, for individuals with a history of mental health issues referred for placement in an SMU,
BOP’s Psychology Services Branch reviews the individual’s file pre-placement to ensure there
are no factors precluding their placement in the program. 39 For ADX, a licensed, doctoral-level
psychologist similarly conducts a comprehensive mental health evaluation of each individual,
including a review of the prisoner’s history of medical, mental health, substance abuse,
psychosexual, and psychosocial issues. This evaluation, along with the full clinical record, is then
submitted to the Psychology Services Branch for review and concurrence. BOP prohibits the
placement of any Mental Health Care Level Three and Four individuals in SMU or ADX, except
when the individual possesses such “extraordinary security needs” that they cannot be housed
anywhere else. 40 (In such cases, BOP develops a mental health treatment plan commensurate with
the individual’s treatment needs for implementation in SMU or ADX.) Moreover, the Psychology
Services Branch will preclude the placement of an individual in SMU or ADX if it appears that
such placement would interfere with the individual’s participation in necessary mental health
treatments, if the individual’s mental health disorder or cognitive limitations make it unlikely he
or she would progress through the stages of SMU or ADX, or if documentation suggests SMU or
ADX is “likely to exacerbate” an individual’s mental health condition. 41
Baseline Conditions of Confinement. BOP policies and procedures establish baseline conditions
of confinement for all individuals held in restrictive housing. For example, all restrictive housing
individuals—regardless of whether they are in disciplinary or administrative segregation and
regardless of whether they are held in a SHU, SMU, or ADX—must have well-ventilated,
adequately lighted, appropriately heated, and sanitary living quarters, and BOP regulations
require that the individuals receive all appropriate medical care. 42 They must receive a mattress,
blankets, a pillow, and linens for sleeping, as well as opportunities to exchange those linens. 43
They must be given nutritionally adequate meals and access to a wash basin, toilet, and personal
items necessary to maintain an acceptable level of personal hygiene. 44 They must receive the
opportunity to exercise outside their individual quarters at least five hours per week, ordinarily on
different days in one-hour periods.45 They must receive a reasonable amount of non-legal reading
material and be permitted to possess religious scriptures of their faith.46 They must be permitted
to conduct legal research, file lawsuits, and participate in legal visits and telephone calls under the
same provisions as individuals in the general population. 47 They generally must have certain
telephone, social visiting, and correspondence privileges. 48 And they typically have access to a

Program Statement 5310.16: Treatment and Care of Inmates With Mental Illness, § 8 (2014).
Id.
41
Id.
42
28 C.F.R. 541.32; Program Statement 5217.02: Special Management Units § 5 (2016).
43
Id.541.31(d); Program Statement 5217.02: Special Management Units § 5 (2016).
44
Id.541.31(f); Program Statement 5217.02: Special Management Units § 5 (2016).
45
Id.541.31(g); Program Statement 5217.02: Special Management Units § 5 (2016)
46
Id.541.31(h)(2); Program Statement 5217.02: Special Management Units § 5 (2016).
47
Id.541.31(l); Program Statement 5217.02: Special Management Units § 5 (2016).
48
Id.541.31(i-k); Program Statement 5217.02: Special Management Units § 5 (2016).
39
40

10

variety of programming activities, which can include cognitive behavioral interventions, literacy
programs, adult continuing education, college correspondence classes, and parenting classes. 49
Mental Health Services in Restrictive Housing. Consistent with the 2016 DOJ Report’s
recommendations, BOP has also implemented policy changes to ensure that all individuals in
restrictive housing, in particular, receive mental health programming and comprehensive mental
health evaluations commensurate with their needs. For instance, in 2017, BOP launched the
Psychology Services Restrictive Housing Enhanced Mental Health Program to provide focused
cognitive-behavioral programming in SHUs to create improved adjustment outcomes for
individuals. 50 The program has four specific goals: (1) decrease the duration of SHU stays;
(2) increase successful post-SHU adjustment; (3) increase voluntary program participation within
SHUs and upon return to the general population; and (4) improve SHU climate and individual
engagement, ultimately resulting in fewer disruptive behaviors in SHUs. The program seeks to do
so by ensuring that restrictive housing psychologists carry a caseload of 12-24 individuals in
SHU and delivering a combination of individual, group, and cell-side interventions to those
individuals, among other things.
Particularized Rules for Individuals Who May Require Special Consideration. BOP
recognizes that certain categories of incarcerated individuals—including those with serious
mental illness, individuals with acute medical needs, young adults (those aged 18 to 24 at the
time of conviction), pregnant and post-partum women, and juveniles (under 18 at the time of
adjudication)—possess characteristics that may make them particularly susceptible to the effects
of restrictive housing. BOP accordingly has specific policies and procedures in place for each of
these categories of individuals so as to ensure that they are only placed in restrictive housing
where necessary and appropriate in light of their particular circumstances and that, when they are
so placed, they receive the additional care and programming required.
Individuals with Serious Mental Illness. Individuals with serious mental illness (SMI) and who
are violent or disruptive pose a special challenge to BOP. Their behavior often requires removal
from the general population, and yet traditional forms of restrictive housing (SHU, SMU, and
ADX) present challenges to ensuring that an individual’s mental health does not deteriorate
during restrictive housing placement. BOP has addressed these concerns with a three-pronged
approach: (1) creating specialized secure mental health units, which allow BOP staff to divert
SMI individuals from long-term segregation into less restrictive housing; 51 (2) providing
enhanced mental health services for individuals in SHU, SMU, and ADX, including screening
and psychological programming;52 and (3) offering mental health care to all BOP individuals,
which, as discussed above, more broadly helps prevent and reduce the disruptive behaviors that
often result in segregation.53

Id.541.31(n); Program Statement 5217.02: Special Management Units § 5 (2016).
See generally Restrictive Housing Enhanced Mental Health Program (2017).
51
Program Statement 5330.11: Psychology Treatment Programs, § 6 (2016).
52
Id.
53
Id.
49
50

11

BOP operates two types of secure mental health units: the Secure Steps Towards Awareness,
Growth, and Emotional Strength (Secure STAGES) Program (for individuals with severe
personality disorders) and the Secure Mental Health Step-Down Program (SMH-SDP) (for all
other individuals with SMI). 54 Both are residential, unit-based programs for maximum- and highsecurity individuals designed to help them better manage the symptoms of mental illness, thereby
decreasing the risk of violence and allowing individuals to transition back to general population
(and, eventually, the community). The programs incorporate cognitive behavioral treatments,
psychoeducational components, psychiatric care, and skills training. Both programs are led by
doctoral-level psychologists, and staff-to-participant ratios are kept low to ensure effective
treatment. Additional treatment staff include psychiatric care providers, psychologists, and
treatment specialists. Placement decisions for both programs are made by BOP’s Psychology
Services Branch, in consultation with the sending and receiving institutions.
As the capacity of Secure STAGES and SMH-SDP has increased, BOP has diverted a large
number of SMI individuals away from traditional restrictive housing, especially long-term SHU
placements, as well as from SMU and ADX. And consistent with the 2016 DOJ Report,55 BOP
has approved the expansion of its specialized mental health unit programs, much of which is
slated for completion in FYs 2023 and 2024. Specifically, the Secure Administration Unit and the
Secure STAGES and Secure Skills programs will activate at the Federal Correctional Center in
Allenwood Pennsylvania.
Incarcerated Individuals with Medical Needs. BOP likewise has policies and procedures in place
to ensure that individuals placed in restrictive housing receive all necessary and appropriate
medical care, whether they are suffering from acute medical conditions or have some level of
chronic disease that requires ongoing medical attention.56 All individuals in restrictive housing
receive regular clinical evaluations, with the frequency of those evaluations depending on the
individual’s particular medical condition. Individuals with severe chronic medical needs are
designated to one of BOP’s Federal Medical Centers, and if their behavior necessitates a
placement in SHU, their medical needs can be addressed in that facility’s SHU setting. Generally,
the medical needs of individuals who require only lower levels of care can be managed by their
home institutions, even when they must be placed in restrictive housing. 57
Young-Adult Individuals. Younger incarcerated individuals who commit misconduct while in
BOP custody are subject to the same array of sanctions and due process procedures as older
incarcerated individuals. BOP recognizes, however, that young adults may still be developing,
cognitively, emotionally, and otherwise, and accordingly has incorporated young-adult-specific
programming services to try to prevent the misconduct that triggers a restrictive housing
placement for younger individuals. For example, since 1998, BOP has operated the Rehabilitation
and Values Enhancement (BRAVE) Program, a cognitive-behavioral, six-month residential
psychology treatment program for young, medium-security individuals serving lengthy terms of

See generally Program Statement 5330.11: Psychology Treatment Programs (2016).
See 2016 DOJ Report at 113.
56
28 C.F.R. §§ 541.32; Program Statement 5217, Special Management Units, § 5 (2016).
57
See Program Statement 6031.04, Patient Care, § 15 (2014).
54

55 55

12

incarceration. 58 The program is designed to support favorable institution adjustment, reduce
misconduct, encourage the development of pro-social relationships, and direct individuals to
meaningful self-improvement opportunities while incarcerated. 59
Juvenile Incarcerated Individuals. BOP policies and procedures mandate that juveniles
(individuals who have not attained their 18th birthday) cannot be placed in a BOP facility unless
the institution can ensure that the juvenile will not have regular contacts with adults. 60 As a result,
juveniles are always housed in contract juvenile facilities, not in BOP-run institutions. Consistent
with the 2016 DOJ Report’s recommendation and the First Step Act, BOP prohibits facilities with
which it contracts to house juveniles in restrictive housing, except in strictly limited
circumstances related to imminent safety concerns.
III.

The Department’s Efforts to Comply with PREA

The Department has likewise worked diligently to fulfill its responsibilities under the Prison Rape
Elimination Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-79). PREA was enacted to address sexual abuse in prisons and
jails. PREA sets mandatory standards for the detection, prevention, and punishment of sexual
abuse or rape in prisons. PREA also requires all correctional facilities, including BOP’s, to collect
and report detailed information regarding sexual victimization of individuals to the Bureau of
Justice Statistics (BJS). On June 20, 2012, the Attorney General promulgated regulations
implementing PREA. 61 Those regulations adopt national standards for the detection, prevention,
reduction, and punishment of prison rape. Pursuant to the regulations, DOJ is responsible for the
implementation of the Standards, including compliance with the audit process in which facilities
demonstrate compliance with the Standards to an independent auditor.
On August 20, 2012 (as updated June 4, 2015), BOP published an internal policy document
implementing the Attorney General’s PREA regulations. 62 The policy emphasizes BOP’s zero
tolerance for sexual abuse or harassment of any type by staff or incarcerated individuals in BOP.
The policy also seeks to prevent and detect sexually abusive behavior and to discipline and/or
prosecute perpetrators. 63
BOP’s National and Regional PREA Coordinators and institution PREA Compliance Managers
oversee BOP’s implementation of the law, regulations, and BOP policy.64 BOP also provides
annual training to all staff on PREA generally and to specialized staff on topics specific to their
PREA responsibilities. 65 And BOP regularly collects and reports detailed data about sexual

See Program Statement 5330.11, Psychology Treatment Programs, § 4 (2009).
Id.
60
Title 18 U.S.C. § 5039; Program Statement 5216.06, Juvenile Delinquents, § 3 (2019).
61
28 C.F.R. 115 (2014).
62
Program Statement 5324.12: Sexually Abusive Behavior Prevention and Intervention Program (2015).
63
Id. at § 1.
64
28 C.F.R. § 115.11(c).
65
Program Statement 5324.12: Sexually Abusive Behavior Prevention and Intervention Program, § 115.31, (2015).
58
59

13

victimization of incarcerated individuals to BJS as required by PREA. BOP submitted its most
recent PREA report to BJS, for calendar year 2021, on June 30, 2022. 66
Despite BOP’s compliance with PREA standards, the Department and BOP recognize that deeply
troubling instances of sexual abuse of individuals in its custody have occurred, even in
institutions that passed PREA audits. This problem is systemic, and it is unacceptable. The
Department is committed to rooting out and preventing sexual abuse of all kinds in BOP
facilities. 67 The Deputy Attorney General recently directed a working group to conduct an
expedited top-to-bottom review of the Department’s response to staff sexual misconduct within
BOP. 68 The Department has published the working group’s recommendations, and the Deputy
Attorney General issued a memorandum directing immediate actions in response. DOJ will
continue to oversee BOP’s implementation of those recommendations, which include, among
other things, an anonymous reporting process for victims of sexual abuse in custody, a major
restructure of BOP’s Office of Internal Affairs to resolve staff investigations expeditiously, and a
prioritization of prosecutions for employees that engage in this behavior. DOJ welcomes any
changes to the PREA auditing process that may reform and improve PREA. 69
IV.

The Department’s Efforts to House Prisoners As Close to Their Families As
Practicable

Finally, the Department has taken various steps to ensure that incarcerated individuals are
housed as close to their families as practicable.
BOP recognizes that individuals benefit from maintaining ties with their families and
communities during their terms of imprisonment, and incarcerating individuals close to home
can help promote that connection. BOP has a longstanding policy to place individuals within
500 miles of their release residence, as available and appropriate. 70 BOP refers to these as
“nearer release transfers.” The First Step Act further refined this effort by requiring transfers,
even if the individual is already within 500 miles of their release residence if another facility is
closer and clarifying that the distance should be measured in driving miles. In September 2019,
BOP updated its internal policy to adhere to the First Step Act 500 driving mile requirement. 71
Today, the majority of BOP individuals are housed within 500 miles of their home residence,

66
Federal Bureau of Prisons Annual PREA Report (CY 2021) (June 30, 2022),
(https://www.bop.gov/inmates/custody_and_care/docs/prea_report_2021.pdf).

Memorandum from the Deputy Attorney General to Heads of Affected Components: Review of the Department’s
Approach to Instances of Sexual Misconduct by Federal Bureau of Prisons Employees (July 14, 2022),
https://www.justice.gov/media/1233916/dl?inline=

67

68

Id.
See Report and Recommendations Concerning the Department of Justice’s Response to Sexual Misconduct by
Employees of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (Nov. 2, 2022); https://www.justice.gov/media/1257286/dl?inline=
69

See Program Statement 5100.08: Inmate Security and Custody Classification Manual (2006).
See Program Statement 5100.08: Inmate Security and Custody Classification Manual; see also www.bop.gov,
Designations: https://www.bop.gov/inmates/custody_and_care/designations.jsp.
70

71

14

and the exceptions for reasons consistent with FSA exceptions. For instance, many individuals
held more than 500 miles from home are so housed because a facility with a security level
commensurate with their need is not available within 500 miles of their home residence. The
Department and Bureau will continue to explore ways to maximize the proximity of
incarcerated individuals to their families and communities.

15