New Policies at the Federal Bureau of Prisons Help to Reduce Rehabilitation

Directory Mark Inch had a very short tenure at the Federal Bureau of Prisons yet within four months he was able to sign a minimum of 9 new policies known as Program Statements. Some of them had to do with staff human resources, however, there was one policy that was issued in March known as the Inmate Trust Fund/Deposit Fund Manual (P.S. 4500.12).

In this new Program Statement there are two revisions that will substantially affect inmates and is a change from the previous policy issued in 2015.

1. All language that had to do with microwaves for inmate use had been deleted. In the previous policy this section authorized purchase of microwaves for inmate use from the Inmate Trust Fund (Inmate Trust Fund is tax payer money from the Federal Budget, but money collected from inmates from a 30% markup on all commissary purchases, purchase orders, etc.)
2. The current markup for any inmate purchases has been changed. In the 2015 policy it says that 30% will be added to all items purchased by inmates. In this 2018 revised policy it now says “30-40% markup on all items purchased and to be determined by the Central Office”.

Common procedure in the past was to post any new or revised policy either in paper on a central bulletin board or as an electronic copy on the Corrlinks electronic bulletin board (inmate access computers) for inmates to read. This was not done in this case. In fact other new or revised policies have been posted since March, the latest being the “Transgender Offender Manual” issued and posted on May 11, 2018. In addition, every new policy has a summary of revisions, although other revisions in the Program Statements were listed no mention of the above two items were included in this summary. It seems that the BOP wants to keep this particular policy and revisions in the dark.

The microwave issue had been an ongoing rumor for a few years eventhough there were denials from the BOP’s Central Office and now with the issuance of the Program Statement it proves to be a fact. Thomas M. Susman, the Director of Governmental Affairs of the American Bar Association has come to the defense of maintaining microwaves in BOP facilities. In a letter to the Bureau of Prisons he points out that the removal of microwaves are not in line with the ABA’s “Standards for Criminal Justice Treatment of Prisoners” and makes the argument that, “[N]umerous documentaries and studies (based on prisons in the United States as well as in other countries) have been published showing the value in providing prisoners with some sort of a feeling of normalcy that can be found with cooking or heating up one’s food. This, in turn, becomes critical to their smooth reentry. . . .approximately 95% of BOP inmates will someday return to society. Accordingly, providing inmates with microwaves in their units is not just about eating food; it is about feeling in some small sense like a normal human being. Further, it is a step in the wrong direction to remove from BOP commissaries prepared meals (like TV dinners) that need to be heated in a microwave.”

Susman further refutes the position that there are security concerns. “First, if safety is the concern, then why are microwaves allowed to remain in the units until they break? If they are a legitimate threat, then they should all have been removed immediately. It thus appears that there may be other considerations in play here that only contribute to dehumanizing the inmates.”, he continues, “. . .just because there are rare instances of certain items being used for harmful purposes does not mean they should be unilaterally removed from the entire prison population. We believe the same applies in this instance with the microwaves in the units.”

In addition, Susman is challenging the proposed hot water dispenser alternative. “. . .[D]ispite this potential for abuse, hot water dispensers are made available to the inmates. It would seem obvious that the hot water provided for coffee and tea may be just as hot as the hot water heated in a microwave. It would be useful to know, for example, how many officers have been injured by an inmate throwing hot oil or water at an officer in the last year in the entire BOP?”

Susman is not the only person who feels that it is a bad idea to get rid of the microwaves. Both former and current wardens of BOP facilities say the following:

“Removing the microwaves would lead to unrest among the inmates, which could escalate into violence. In addition, inmates fashion weapons out of nearly anything including toothbrushes, combs, shaving razors, and other hygiene items if prisons would remove all items that inmates have used to create weapons, inmates would be deprived of even basic hygiene supplies. Removing the microwaves, which in my experience are not easily or often used in inmate altercations, is unnecessary. After balancing safety and security needs, as well as institutional resources, I decided that microwave ovens should not be removed from housing units merely because they can be used to heat liquids that, in turn, can be used as weapons.” –Declaration of Warden J.M. Killian, see: David Winters v. The United States of America, Case 1:10-cv-07571-JMF-RLE: No. Civ 1010 (CBA) (JC) U.S. District Court Eastern District of New York.

“I’m not sure of the logic concerning removal of microwaves throughout the BOP. . . . Having retired from the BOP as warden of several prisons, I can’t recall one instance when a microwave was abused. In my opinion, the BOP will pay far more money to address inmate reactions this this news. Without providing a valid alternative, inmates will design heaters constructed of contraband materials. Food service and maintenance department inmates will start charging $$$ [sic] for heating items. Alternative: When a microwave is mistreated, and the offender is not identified, remove it from the unit for a duration of time (month for first abuse). Microwaves have become part of the inmates’ culture and lifestyle — to remove it without appropriate justification will put staff safety at risk. I am surprised union officials are not appealing this decision. –Colorado-CURE member and former BOP warden www.coloradocure.org

The BOP has continued to increase the markup of commissary items and inmate purchase orders apparently to counter the loss that they are feeling from forced lower phone rates and from a much lower purchase rate at commissary. In regards to commissary what the BOP fails to see is they are fixated on buying mostly or exclusively from the so called “prison commissary vendors” such as Keefe, Union Supply, among others. These vendors are mostly 3rd party operations that sell only to prisons who select certain items that are common to prisons. They sell to the BOP at or above retail prices, then in turn the BOP charges between 30-40% on top of this. Unfortunately, the prices for common food items are much higher than identical food items that you can buy from a grocery store or even a convenient store such as Kroger’s or 7-11. Its just not affordable. Not to mention that the selections are often not that healthy. They are all shelf stable foods high in preservatives, chemicals, sugars, fats, sodium, etc. Usually single serve items. If the BOP commissaries were to go to vendors that all grocery stores use and purchase at wholesale prices and larger items, it will in turn be more affordable for inmates to buy items which will increase sales, not reduce them. At the current model most inmates’ simply do not purchase due to the high prices.

All money collected from the markups are then deposited into the Inmate Trust Fund. The Inmate Trust Fund in turn purchases many items for inmate use, such as microwaves, common area TV’s, sporting equipment, and other items or services that are used for the inmates. But, Inmate Trust Fund does not only pay for these things, it is believes that one of the biggest expenditures is paying the BOP Trust Fund Staff. This includes the Trust Fund manager (A GS-13 or higher position), all commissary staff workers, and all laundry workers. These are BOP employees being paid out of the Inmate Trust Fund that is directly funded by the inmates.

Simple things that most people, who are not incarcerated, take for granted in life can enhance a prisoners’ quality of life and chances for rehabilitation. Its not about luxury or eating, its about not being desensitized to common daily normal human behavior. Part of the rehabilitation process for inmates should not only include education and guidance, but it also should include helping the inmate attune to natural human behavior. This is done by their daily routines. Studying, exercise, wellness, and productive routine.