I received an email from a journalist with the BBC in London. She’s reporting on prison conditions and asked about a specific person in federal custody who has a high global profile. She inquired about my thoughts on “preferential treatment,” from pre-trial detention in a New York facility, to placement and transfers within various prisons in the Bureau of Prisons.
I prefer not to comment on any one person’s case, especially when I don’t know anything about the person. Still, such questions reflect a broader reality:
The public has very little visibility into how federal prisons operate.
That lack of transparency creates confusion, suspicion, and often misinformation. If we want better outcomes, we need to offer more information that brings a better understanding. By sharing what I know about the system, Prison Professors can help members of our community develop better tools that they can use to prepare for the best possible outcomes.
Below is the framework I use when responding to questions from journalists.
What I know and don’t know
I cannot speak to the specific facts of any individual’s custody file. I don’t work for the Bureau of Prisons and I do not have access to anyone’s file, unless the person sends it to me.
The Bureau of Prisons makes decisions using internal records that include prior criminal history, medical information, security scoring, separation needs, program needs, and population management considerations. Those details are not public.
Staff members gather information from a person’s Presentence Investigation Report (PSR), which a federal probation officer prepared before the judge imposed sentence, and also the judge’s Statement of Reasons, that the judge writes after sentencing.
The Bureau of Prisons is a policy-driven, government bureaucracy. Staff members who work in the Bureau of Prisons are, by nature, conservative. They will rely upon those documents, together with a person’s disciplinary record and progress reports, to make decisions regarding custody and classification.
As with any other system, more knowledge about how the system works can lead to better outcomes. If a person is going into the system, the person should spend time learning about policies and procedures and the lived experiences of others.
It may be helpful to explain the BOP’s published policies and how they generally operate in practice. I base the information below on the 26 years I served in federal prison, and on the insight I’ve gained from visiting more than 40 federal prisons to advocate for reforms that would encourage staff members to incentivize productive adjustments.
Determining Security Levels
A common misunderstanding is that a person’s offense label automatically determines where they “should” be housed. In reality, the Bureau uses an objective classification system. In theory, the policy places people in an institution that fits their security level, custody classification, and program needs. The framework is gender specific, set out in the following Program Statement:
People who don’t understand the system may assume that the criminal charge alone determines the facility where a person serves the sentence. That isn’t accurate. The program statement takes into account many factors, and a person’s classification may change over time, frequently for institutional need.
Transfers
Transfers are a routine part of the prison experience, particularly for those serving long sentences. Ongoing classification and review process can lead to different placements over time based on changing needs, assessments, or administrative factors. As far as staff are concerned, transfers are a normal part of population management. A move may relate to safety, medical needs, separation requirements, security, bed space, programming, or operational considerations. A person may work to engineer a transfer to a facility that is more suitable. I did that many times.
Ultimately, staff members will decide where a person serves the sentence. But a person can sometimes work to influence that decision. In chapter four of Earning Freedom: Conquering a 45-Year Prison Term, I shared a story of how I influenced my transfer from a high-security federal prison in Atlanta, to a medium-security prison in McKean, Pennsylvania.
Privileges and Context
The journalist who asked me to participate in an interview wanted to know about accommodations, specifically, access to service animals or other disability-related supports.
As a bureaucracy, the Bureau has many policies that are all publicly available. One policy offers guidance on people with disabilities, including procedures for identifying needs and addressing barriers to access.
Under policy, staff members consider circumstances, and make decisions that they believe align with policies and the needs of the community.
Service Dogs
The “service dog” program has become very popular in prisons. I have interacted with leaders in the agency who had a role at introducing this program for service dogs. My understanding is that administrators in local institutions contract with animal shelters and organizations that try to rescue dogs that have been abused.
The administrators bring the dogs into the prison. They also work with people serving sentences so they can develop skills to train the dogs, or rehabilitate them. The goal is to make the dogs suitable to help people in the community who need service dogs.
The people serving the sentence often get to keep the dog near them, in a cubicle or dorm. It’s a program that keeps the prison more calm, while simultaneously providing a service to the community. After a few months of training, the community-based organization places the service dog with a family who may not have been able to afford a trained service dog. This program is available in both male and female prisons across the United States.
To qualify for the dog program, a person serving a sentence would have to meet the institution’s criteria. Typically, they would need a clean disciplinary record. A person may have to go through a waiting list to get access to the program. But a person with a long sentence would eventually get to participate, provided the person doesn’t have any disciplinary infractions.
Phone Access and Attorney Calls
The journalist also asked about a recording that shows a person who was inside a cell talking on a cell phone. She wanted to know if that was normal. I would say it is not “normal,” but I would need more context.
As with everything else in the Bureau of Prisons, staff members in the BOP rely upon policy to make decisions. They are constantly thinking about needs to preserve the security of the institution. Below is a link to the policy on telephone use:
For legal access specifically, the Bureau’s policy on inmate legal activities states that inmates must have reasonable access to legal materials and counsel.
BOP guidance materials also explain that inmates may place unmonitored legal calls to attorneys when properly arranged through staff procedures, and that pretrial inmates may have more frequent attorney contact as institutional resources allow. Since staff members are not allowed to monitor properly arranged legal calls, I do not think it would be abnormal for them to reserve a cell phone for people who have a legal call. And they may take photographs to show that the call was made in accordance with policies.
I did not see the recording of the person using the cell phone to make a phone call from a cell, but I would not jump to conclusions about whether it was a special privilege. In a high profile case, I would be more inclined to believe that staff members considered the policy, and made a decision that they could defend if they were questioned by higher authorities. If staff members violate policy, they may lose their job or even face criminal prosecution.
Staff members have discretion. Effective advocacy can lead to better outcomes, though I wouldn’t necessarily call it “preferrential” treatment. As with any other system, those who understand may be more successful at architecting strategies to get better results.
Discretion
When it comes to high-profile people in prison, journalists want insight on the possibility of “preferential treatment.” I would argue that prison is a microcosm of any other society. The people who staff prisons are human beings, and in Western Society, people who have a high profile can draw attention. Similarly, a staff member in a commercial enterprise may give more attention to a beautiful actress, or a person of influence, than they would to someone who is unknown. That’s called reality.
In a large government bureaucracy, such as the Bureau of Prisons, a policy statement will prohibit favoritism or preferential treatment toward anyone:
Despite such policy statements, people who are going into the system, or who have experience in the system, can leverage opportunities to engineer better outcomes. That is human nature. For example, people who have better information, or better communication skills, may succeed in getting more influential advocates on their side. While going through 26 years in prisons of every security level, I learned to accept that there are always more opportunities in the future, and a person should always prepare to work toward the best possible outcomes.
Our Mission
Prison Professors exists to help as many people as possible learn about the system, and how to engineer the best possible outcomes. We offer all our resources free of charge, and we encourage people to learn.
If the public, families, and stakeholders had clearer ways to see preparation, progress, and institutional adjustment, the conversation would shift away from rumor and toward measurable evidence. That is why we built profiles, dashboards, leaderboards, and self-directed courses—tools that document effort and help us advocate for consistent, merit-based pathways to higher levels of liberty.
Transparency reduces speculation.
Documentation strengthens credibility.
And credibility is what moves policy.
I hope the journalist finds value in the information I provided in response to her questions. I based my responses on published policy, lived experience, and a commitment to fairness for everyone in the system.