Guidance for Home Confinement and Residential Reentry Center Placements — Federal Bureau of Prisons (Document 66-1)

Record facts

Full text

Transcribed from a scanned image of the original.

Case 9:23-cr-80154-DMM   Document 66-1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2024   Page 1 of 9

[seal]                                    U.S. Department of Justice
                                          Federal Bureau of Prisons

                                          Washington, D.C. 20534

                                          MAY 24 2013

MEMORANDUM FOR REGIONAL DIRECTORS
               WARDENS
               RESIDENTIAL REENTRY MANAGERS

               [signature]
FROM:          Blake R. Davis, Assistant Director
               Correctional Programs Division

SUBJECT:       Guidance for Home Confinement and Residential
               Reentry Center Placements

This memorandum is a compilation of previous guidance memoranda, policy, and practices regarding home confinement and Residential Reentry Center (RRC) placement decisions, as they relate to current policy, practice, and changes which were necessitated by the passage of the Second Chance Act of 2007. The intent of this memorandum is to reemphasize and clarify established policies and practices to facilitate effective community placements.

I.   GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR EFFECTIVE COMMUNITY PLACEMENTS

The Bureau's RRC resources continue to be limited and must be focused on those inmates with the greatest need and the highest risk of recidivism. Program Statement 7310.04, Community Corrections Center Utilization and Transfer Procedures, requires that RRC placements be made based on assessments of inmate needs for services, public safety, and the necessity of the Bureau to manage its inmate population responsibly. The Second Chance Act emphasizes the requirement that all inmates are eligible for pre-release RRC placement consideration and are to be assessed on an individual basis.
Case 9:23-cr-80154-DMM   Document 66-1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2024   Page 2 of 9

  •  Every effort should be made to consider community placements for inmates with manageable medical and mental health needs. A community placement provides more expedient access to resources to address the specialized needs of these populations. Staff must take the steps necessary to facilitate these placements.

Your assistance in maximizing the RRC/home confinement utilization process is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me or have your staff contact Brent Kiser, RRM Administrator, at 202-305-8906.

~ 8 ~
Case 9:23-cr-80154-DMM   Document 66-1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2024   Page 3 of 9

Warden's review of the request and advise the RRM accordingly. Modifications can occur with the Warden's consent.

Conflicts regarding modifications to referrals should be addressed by institution management staff with the applicable Regional RRM Administrator. (Note: RRM Sector Administrators will assume this responsibility once the nationwide consolidation of RRM is completed. Contact information will be disseminated to institutions accordingly.)

If institution staff determine an inmate is not appropriate for RRC placement, the inmate's release should be carefully coordinated with U.S. Probation or Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (for DC Code inmates). Such efforts should include the transmission of pertinent mental health and medical information and any other factors that could impact the effective reentry of the inmate to the supervising authority.

VI.  SUMMARY

  •  Community placements should be driven by the results of an inmate's individual assessment.
  •  RRC placement and length of placement decisions cannot be reduced solely to a classification score or any other type of objective categorization. While staff assessment and analysis of the Custody Classification Form (BP-338) and the ISD Plan are helpful in establishing broad-based groupings, staff must continue to exercise their professional judgment when making individual inmate RRC placement decisions and be prepared to justify those decisions. When making RRC placement decisions, staff should ensure the BP-338 and ISD Assessment have been completed accurately.
  •  All inmates are eligible for home confinement. Direct placement on home confinement should be considered for low and minimum security inmates. In judicial districts where FLM is available, RRM staff should consider this option for appropriate inmates to the maximum extent possible.
  •  RRMs will continue to be required to review home confinement eligible inmates in RRCs on a regular basis as set forth above. In locations where RRC bed space is limited, ensuring an inmate's timely placement on home confinement will help address capacity issues and also ensure more inmates are afforded RRC services.

~ 7 ~
Case 9:23-cr-80154-DMM   Document 66-1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2024   Page 4 of 9

The RRM is required to review home confinement eligible inmates in RRCs every two weeks and follow-up with RRC contractors within three working days (of receipt of the biweekly status report) to ensure RRC staff have (as part of the individualized program plan for the inmate) documented an appropriate plan of action with target dates to achieve home confinement placement. This follow-up time frame is a slight reduction from the June 2010 memorandum referenced above which required a weekly review. In locations where RRC bed space is limited, ensuring an inmate's timely placement on home confinement will help address capacity issues and also ensure more inmates are afforded RRC services. This area will be carefully reviewed for compliance during operational reviews and program reviews.

As previously indicated in the June 2010 memorandum, RRM staff will not unilaterally deny RRC referrals or reduce placement dates unless there are no available RRC beds within a reasonable distance for the specific referral date/length.

V. COORDINATION BETWEEN INSTITUTION STAFF AND RRM/CTS STAFF

As the subject matter experts for their assigned location, RRM and Community Treatment Services (CTS) staff assist institution staff in making community placements. They provide information regarding available resources and discuss specific cases with institution staff as needed during the referral process and prior to the inmate's transfer to the RRC or placement on direct home confinement. It is important for institution and RRM staff to collaborate with CTS staff to ensure inmates with drug, mental health, or sex offender treatment needs have community-based treatment available in the vicinity of the placement.

If RRM staff have concerns regarding a referral and/or the recommended placement, they will communicate these concerns to the referring institution, typically the Case Management Coordinator (CMC).

If the RRM determines a modification to a referral is needed or that other placement options are available (such as direct home confinement for an inmate with low needs/risk or placement in a work release program for a higher security inmate), the change must be approved by the Warden. The RRM will contact the referring institution's CMC and request the recommended modification be considered. The CMC will facilitate the

~ 6 ~
Case 9:23-cr-80154-DMM   Document 66-1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2024   Page 5 of 9

III. MAKING AN APPROPRIATE REFERRAL FOR DIRECT HOME CONFINEMENT
     (PRE-RELEASE)

As outlined in P7320.01, Home Confinement, and per 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(1), all inmates are eligible for home confinement consideration at their six-month or 10 percent date. When considering an inmate for pre-release community placement, the unit team should pay special attention to reviewing low and minimum security inmates for possible direct placement on home confinement as allowed under P7320.01, Home Confinement. Higher security inmates may be considered if deemed appropriate following an individual assessment. The basic criteria for home confinement includes:

  1) Appropriate release residence (e.g., positive environment free from criminal/drug use activity and a reasonable distance from the RRC, typically less than 100 miles);
  2) No recent major disciplinary issues. This should be based on sound correctional judgment;
  3) Any medical or mental health needs that can be met in the community and funded by the inmate or other documented resources, and
  4) Secured employment is not required for placement on home confinement.

Placement should occur as close to the home confinement eligibility date as possible. The direct home confinement referral is not contingent upon USPO residence approval. A site visit should be requested during the referral process, but should not delay the submission of the referral to the RRM.

As part of their routine duties in processing inmate referrals, RRM staff will determine if placement will be via an RRC contract or FLM. In judicial districts where FLM is available, RRM staff should consider this option for appropriate inmates to the maximum extent possible.

IV.  RRM STAFF REVIEW OF RRC/HOME CONFINEMENT REFERRALS

RRM staff will continue to thoroughly review referral documents and other pertinent information for each community placement referral. RRM staff are encouraged to maximize resources to include recommending direct placement on home confinement for appropriate inmates.

~ 5 ~
Case 9:23-cr-80154-DMM   Document 66-1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2024   Page 6 of 9

concerns, and the need to responsibly manage the Bureau's inmate population.

Staff should also continue to thoroughly assess inmates' individual reentry needs when considering the appropriate duration of an RRC placement as outlined in the above referenced memoranda, current policy, and practice. A placement less than 90 days is typically not considered sufficient to address multiple reentry needs. In many cases, a placement of several months up to the maximum of one year² may be needed to accomplish an inmate's reentry goals. For example, an inmate with no recent employment, no GED, and poor family ties would benefit more from a one year placement than an inmate who has a short sentence, employment prospects, a high school diploma, and frequent family contacts. The number of placement days should be driven primarily by the inmate's needs and risk level (as determined by the BP-338 Custody Classification assessment or BP-337 Security Designation assessment if a BP-338 has not been completed).

The BP-338 is the Bureau's primary risk prediction instrument. Ordinarily, the lower the BP-338 score, the lower the inmate's risk; conversely, the higher the score, the higher the inmate's risk. Those with lower risks should be considered for home confinement placement and those with higher risks should be considered for RRC placement.

It is important to note that in many areas, the Bureau continues to have contracting options available to utilize the more secure environment of a Work Release Center (e.g., county jail/detention center) as a community placement. This may be the most appropriate placement option for inmates who may require closer supervision than an RRC. Institution staff should contact the applicable RRM to determine if this option is available in the area where the inmate is releasing for cases that may be deemed inappropriate for a traditional RRC.

If an inmate is truly not suitable for transfer to an RRC prior to release, staff have the option of contacting the USPO to discuss a possible public law placement wherein the judge places the individual in an RRC after their release from Bureau custody as a condition of supervised release.

________________
2 See Title 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(1).
~ 4 ~
Case 9:23-cr-80154-DMM   Document 66-1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2024   Page 7 of 9
[page scanned upside down]

This is normally accomplished via two home confinement options - placement under the supervision of an RRC or placement in the Federal Location Monitoring (FLM) program operated by U.S. Probation, where available. We must make a concerted effort to utilize these effective community placement options for appropriate inmates. In addition to reintegrating inmates more quickly into their communities, maximizing the use of home confinement for appropriate inmates will help mitigate our critical population/capacity issues.

Residential Drug Abuse Program (RDAP) graduates who successfully complete the institution-based portion of the RDAP will continue to be assessed for pre-release RRC placements according to the guidance in P7430.02, Community Transitional Drug Abuse Treatment.

Wardens and Residential Reentry Managers (RRMs) play a vital role in ensuring an effective assessment process for inmates' community placements. This memorandum highlights the major elements of an effective RRC and home confinement utilization strategy.

II.  MAKING AN APPROPRIATE RRC REFERRAL

As clarified in the June 2010 memoranda noted above, the Second Chance Act states that while all inmates are statutorily eligible for pre-release community placement, not all will be appropriate. Inmates must continue to be individually assessed for their appropriateness for and the length of pre-release RRC placements using the following five factors from 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) and outlined in the April 2008 and June 2010 memoranda:

     (1) The resources of the facility contemplated;
     (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:
          (a) concerning the purposes for which the sentence to imprisonment was determined to be warranted; or
          (b) recommending a type of penal or correctional facility as appropriate, and
     (5) Any pertinent policy statement issued by the U.S. Sentencing Commission.

When reviewing the above factors, staff should continue to consider the inmate's need for reentry services, public safety

~ 3 ~
Case 9:23-cr-80154-DMM   Document 66-1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2024   Page 8 of 9

An individual inmate assessment is the primary means by which we determine an inmate's need and risk level. Research indicates that inmates with low needs and a low risk of recidivating who are placed in an RRC do not benefit from the placement and could become more likely to recidivate than if they received no placement.

In accordance with the Bureau's mission to ensure public safety, each inmate must be thoroughly evaluated based upon their need for reentry services, as well as perceived risk for recidivism and risk to the community. This was previously outlined in the June 24, 2010, memorandum "Revised Guidance for Residential Reentry Center Placements," and the April 14, 2008, memorandum "Pre-Release Residential Reentry Center Placements following the Second Chance Act of 2007."¹ When contemplating an inmate's appropriateness for community placement, staff should continue to follow current policy and practice and consider public safety while determining an inmate's need for reentry services. This will help determine whether or not receiving reentry services might mitigate those public safety concerns in the long run. For example, some higher risk inmates may initially appear to be inappropriate for referral to an RRC. However, when you thoroughly weigh the potential for increased risk of recidivism of a street release versus release through an RRC, it may in fact be in the best interest of public safety to refer the inmate to the RRC.

Accordingly, every effort should be made to consider community placements for inmates with manageable medical and mental health needs. These placements can help mitigate the potential increased recidivism risk of sending an inmate with these needs directly to the community. A community placement provides more expedient access to resources to address the specialized needs of these populations. Staff must take the steps necessary to facilitate these placements.

For low need/low risk inmates, home confinement is the preferred pre-release option. This option is currently under-utilized. Program Statement 7320.01, Home Confinement, states supervision under home confinement may be provided by contract halfway house services, U.S. Probation or other government agencies.

________________
1 See Sallyport, Correctional Programs Division, Correctional Programs Branch, CPB Topics "RRC"
~ 2 ~
Case 9:23-cr-80154-DMM   Document 66-1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2024   Page 9 of 9

JAILTIME CONSULTING LLC

THESE ARE THE INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PRO SE MOTION TO THE COURT

September 12, 2024

Gregory,

     I am enclosing the completed Pro Se Motion for a maximum RRC placement to your sentencing Judge. Sign this. Make one copy of the original motion after signing it to keep for yourself and then mail the original signed motion and any exhibits to the Clerk of Court in the Southern District of Florida.

Paul G. Rogers Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse
701 Clematis Street, Room 202
West Palm Beach, FL 33401

     Send this certified, return-receipt requested. In this way, you are following all the correct rules and procedures.

     When you get back the return receipt in the mail, keep a copy for yourself. Please have your rep email us when you get this packet and when the Motion goes out.

Sincerely,

Jail Time Consulting LLC

Mailing Address:
15 Paradise Plaza Suite 205
Sarasota, Florida 34239

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flsd.653009.66.1.pdf

Size

1,754,077 bytes

SHA-256

a5420216dbd3bbd718d7513c5893b6493a5d0c1bc8b0512f011ed88a6027adef

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flsd.653009.66.1.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)