In a time when the public is urging prison reform and budgets are swelling, why does the Bureau of Prisons systematically ignore their authority to use alternatives to prison?

Chris Burke, a Federal Bureau of Prisons spokesman, as quoted by Jay Stapleton and Karen Ali,  in a June 30, 2014 article published in The Connecticut Law Tribune, said it is up to Congress and the courts, not his agency, to decide on sentences. “The Bureau of Prisons’ mission involves only those individuals sentenced to a term of incarceration,” he said. “We don’t play a role in the decision to use non-prison alternatives.”

I am so saddened ( after my anger subsided) at the comment made by BOP spokesperson Chris Burke in this article. The Bureau of Prisons is the ultimate authority on where prisoners serve their sentence. If you view their website, BOP: Designations they acknowledge it and state:
BOP: Designations
The Bureau’s classification and designation functions are centralized at the Designation and Sentence Computation Center (DSCC), located at the Grand Prairie Office Complex in Texas.
“ Upon sentencing in Federal District Court, the Bureau of Prisons has the sole responsibility in determining where an offender will be designated for service of his/her sentence”

Contrary to Mr. Burkes statement statement, offenders are sentenced to a term of imprisonment, not incarceration. The BOP then evaluates the inmate and places them in a facility according to their security and custody levels. Courts in every district reaffirm that the Bureau of Prisons has the authority to designate an inmate to any means available INCLUDING COMMUNITY CONFINEMENT. Mr. Burke’s statement explains why the BOP does not acknowledge this authority at the institution level…. since he doesn’t at the national level. Instead of banking on Congress to pass some real criminal justice reform, we should be urging the Bureau of Prisons to use the authority granted to it to correct overcrowding and overincareration.

I contacted Chris Burke and attempted to have a conversation about this contradiction. I asked why as spokesperson for the Bureau he would say that they are unable to use non-prison alternatives when statutes clearly demonstrate they can. His response that was it isn’t the Bureau of Prisons Policy. When I asked if I could fax him case law and federal statutes that say that they are the ultimate authority on where an inmate is placed, he said he wouldn’t comment.
Prisons are overcrowded, most citizens and members of Congress support using alternatives to prison and there are tons of bills in Congress to address the issue, but they are needed to start reforming the system!

In addition to having the ultimate say in where an inmate spends his/her sentence, the Bureau of Prisons is OBLIGATED to place that inmate in the least restrictive facility possible:

28 USCS 994(q) “The Commission and the Bureau of Prisons shall submit to Congress an analysis and recommendations concerning maximum utilization of resources to deal effectively with the Federal prison population. Such report shall be based upon consideration of a variety of alternatives, including— (2) inmate classification and periodic review of such classification for use in placing inmates in the least restrictive facility necessary to ensure adequate security”

If Congress cant move bills forward to reform the system, the BOP can at least make sure that inmates are in appropriate placement, which can include home confinement and halfway houses. Please contact the Bureau of Prisons and urge them to start acting NOW! Here are some quotes over the years from judges affirming that the Bureau of Prisons can place inmates in non-prison settings.
Elwood v. Jeter 8th Circuit 2004
“We hold … that CCCs are places of imprisonment for the purposes of 18 USCS 3621(b) and that 3621(b) gives the BOP the discretion to transfer prisoners to CCCs at any time during their incarceration.”

Goldings v. Winn 1st Circuit 2004

“While 3624(c) clearly limits the BOP discretion not to consider community confinement or other pre-release alternatives at the end of a prisoners’ prison term, it does not prohibit the BOP from doing so earlier pursuant to a different grant of discretionary authority [3621(b)].”
“We hold that 18 USCS 3621(b) authorizes the BOP to transfer Goldings to a CCC at any time during his prison term. The BOPs discretionary authority under 3621(b) is not subject to the temporal limitations of 18 USCS 3624(c).”

Liggett v. Nash 3rd Circuit 2004

“the BOP retains authority to review and place a prisoner in a CCC at any time during a custodial sentence.”

Fults v Sanders 8th Circuit 2006

“A BOP decision not to transfer an inmate – or as in this case, a group of inmates- requires the same consideration of the 3621(b) factors as does the decision to transfer an inmate to a CCC.” It is impossible for the BOP to consider all 5 factors on a categorical basis. As such, the BOP’s regulation necessary conflicts with 3621(b) by excluding an entire class of inmates – those not serving the final 10% of their sentences – from the opportunity to be transferred to a CCC.”
“The BOP’s regulation removed the opportunity for the BOP to exercise discretion for all inmates not serving the last 10% of their sentences. Section 3621(b) requires that discretion to be exercised on an individual basis. Thus, the BOP’s regulation (CFR 570.20, 570.21) conflicts with 3621(b) and is INVALID.”

Chaipes v. Rios 9th Circuit 2010
“In Sum, the BOP has discretionary authority to transfer an inmate to an RRC at any time, after considering the factors set forth in 18 USC 3621.”

“It is no wonder that Danbury inmates were not given halfway house recommendations as the Second Chance Act dictates… they had to pay”

After she was informed by family about the latest scandal at The Danbury Federal Correctional Facility, this is her public response she asked to be blogged:

STACEY PETRO on 3/15/2014 9:22:58 PM wrote

“It is no  wonder that Danbury inmates were not given halfway house recommendations as the Second Chance Act dictates… they had to pay”

Hopefully all my criticism of the Federal Prison Camp Danbury will be taken a little more seriously now that Kisha Perkins, the camp counselor was arrested today on federal charges. She was offering to get inmates early release in exchange for $20,000. I have been in the appeal process for requesting 12 months community confinement placement because I wasn’t recommended any despite policy pointing to a 12 month recommendation. Then I came to FDC Philadelphia and my case manager recommends me for 12 months. Now I know why I didn’t get that in Danbury… I would have had to pay for it. This is going to cause ongoing issues, as a large number of inmates were possibly deprived reentry because they weren’t candidates for her scam???
The sad thing is she had a group of inmates who were getting benefits from her… access to computers and phones, etc. I hope they are investigated as they were probably recruiting. I was told by one such inmate that Perkins could have helped me with the recommendation when the inmate heard I was going through the appeal process. I didn’t even pursue it because I told her I didn’t want favor, I wanted the case manager to do her job.Google Kisha Perkins & Danbury… this is only the beginning…

On the Heels of the sentencing THIS WEEK of a former prison corrections officer…now the FBI has exposed a new BRIBERY SCHEME?!

WOW. On the heels of the sentencing to 5 months in prison, ironically, of a male, former prison C.O. who had sexual relations with a female inmate, (i.e. took advantage of a ward of the court), our same facility is now under the microscope of the Federal Bureau of Investigations for a bribery scheme, led by the Camp Counselor?!

When we say “Correctional Facility” or “rehabilitation,” there is truly little credibility left these days. Every example points in the same direction. Mass and excessive incarceration does not work. It costs people’s lives, it costs tax payers, and from a public health perspective, is not a productive nor effective means to correct a wrong when evidence proves that things always get worse! CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM is eminent, and critically needed. What more evidence is needed? We have ENOUGH.

–This article and notation has been posted by a family member, not Ms.Petro

FBI HEADLINE:

FCI Danbury Employee Charged with Participating in Inmate Early Release Bribery Scheme

U.S. Attorney’s OfficeMarch 14, 2014

District of Connecticut(203) 821-3700

Deirdre M. Daly, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, and Patricia M. Ferrick, Special Agent in Charge of the New Haven Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, announced that KISHA PERKINS, a case manager at the Federal Correctional Institution in Danbury (FCI Danbury), was arrested today on a federal criminal complaint charging her with aiding and abetting a scheme to solicit and collect cash bribes from FCI Danbury inmates in exchange for a recommendation that inmates be released early to “halfway houses.”

PERKINS, 42, of Waterbury, was arrested this morning by FBI special agents at her home. She appeared this afternoon before U.S. Magistrate Judge Joan G. Margolis in New Haven and was released on a $100,000 bond.

“There is no tolerance for corrupt employees within the ranks of the Justice Department,” stated U.S. Attorney Daly. “The allegations contained in this criminal complaint are serious and disturbing. The U.S. Attorney’s Office and our federal investigative partners are committed to rooting out corruption at all levels of government.”

“Plainly and simply, the FBI has zero tolerance for corruption of any kind, at any level of government,” stated FBI Special Agent in Charge Ferrick. “The allegations in the complaint are clearly very serious crimes. And the resulting law enforcement response to committing those crimes should be equally clear. If you put your position of trust with the government up for sale, you will be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”

As alleged in the criminal complaint, in June 2013, PERKINS approached another FCI Danbury employee about an opportunity to participate in a scheme to solicit a cash bribe from an inmate at FCI Danbury in exchange for the inmate’s early release to a halfway house. At that time, PERKINS held the job title of unit counselor at FCI Danbury and did not have administrative authority to recommend inmates for early release. PERKINS explained that the inmate and the inmate’s husband were willing to pay $20,000, and that PERKINS’ co-worker, who would receive half of the money, was needed to complete the scheme because the co-worker had the administrative ability to recommend inmates for early release.

PERKINS’ co-worker declined to participate in the scheme, reported the incident to law enforcement, and agreed to cooperate in the investigation, which included the use of numerous consensually recorded conversations.

In July 2013, PERKINS’ co-worker told PERKINS that he/she had changed his/her mind and wanted to participate in the scheme. It is alleged that PERKINS informed her co-worker that a scheme involving the inmate who had been previously identified was no longer feasible.

As the investigation continued, in February 2014, PERKINS’ co-worker identified a second inmate as a possible candidate for the bribe scheme. Is it alleged that PERKINS agreed to participate and, after extensive planning, on March 8, 2014, PERKINS and her co-worker traveled to a commuter lot off of Exit 28 on Interstate 84 to pick up a partial bribe payment of $5,000 in cash in a fast food bag that, as PERKINS believed, was to be dropped off by an acquaintance of the inmate.

The complaint charges PERKINS with aiding and abetting in a bribery scheme of a public official, an offense that carries a maximum term of imprisonment of 15 years.

U.S. Attorney Daly stressed that a complaint is only a charge and is not evidence of guilt. Charges are only allegations, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

This matter is being investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation with the assistance of the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Susan Wines.

SOURCE: 

http://www.fbi.gov/newhaven/press-releases/2014/fci-danbury-employee-charged-with-participating-in-inmate-early-release-bribery-scheme

3/15/14

Sexual Assault and Female Inmates in Danbury,Connecticut in The News today…More Common than you think!

Sexual Assault and Female Inmates in Danbury,Connecticut in The News today…More Common than you think!

Your Visit to Philadelphia- To the Attention of Director, Charles E. Samuels, Jr., Bureau of Prisons:

March 8, 2014

Director Charles E. Samuels, Jr.

Federal Bureau of Prisons:

This week you are scheduled to visit FDC Philadelphia. It is my hope that while you are visiting you are able to inquire and address issues with the work cadre unit. Females from other institutions and security levels have been transferred to this institution for the benefit of the Bureau of Prisons which has negative effects on the inmates.

First of all, BOP policy states that re-designation procedures should follow the same initial designation procedure with the added variable of institutional adjustment. How then are camp status inmates who have noted excellent institutional adjustment able to transfer to a detention center for the sole purpose of providing a labor force with duties that are janitorial in nature?
Management variables, per definition, are to allow for staff judgment in designation when an inmates custodial or security level does not accurately reflect the inmates needs. The most recent 5 inmates that transferred from the Danbury, CT camp were in appropriate work placements for their medical needs, were highly active in programs, and had no discipline problems who so ever. Despite this, they were transferred to FDC Philadelphia because they were eligible for “gate passes” which enable them to work beyond the secure areas of the prison (i.e., janitorial services in lobby, warden s complex, and around the building performing cleaning services and snow removal). Two of those five women are over the age of 60 and had medical restrictions which were mysteriously wiped out by the FDC medical staff requiring them to perform job duties exceeding their physical capabilities. There was a similar transfer last year and one inmate then required a walker. So why was BOP policy violated and how is the BOP truly justifying this questionable practice of manipulating management variables to offset a financial burden of the BOP (i.e., to merely provide cheap labor)? This practice also violates federal statutes that make it a duty of the BOP to ensure than an inmate is in the least restrictive facility possible for their security level. This is not happening in these cases.

There are other viable options if a work cadre is necessary. In a building with over 900 males, why is there not a work cadre from that population? The women forced to work in this building are also subjected to sexual gestures and indecent exposure by male inmates when they work on a male unit. Frequently the men yell at the women and put their penises up to the cell windows. Subjecting women to this type of behavior on a routine basis is demeaning and also a violation of the BOPs duty to protect women from sexual advancements and further trauma. This would be eliminated if a male cadre was implemented.

Some very basic women’s needs are also not addressed, contrary to the 1997 establishment of the Management of Female Population initiative. First of all, this program statement notes that more minimum and low security facilities would be used to keep women close to their families. Nearly twenty years later the BOP is ignoring this initiative and chose to close the FCI Danbury, forcing more women to be placed in facilities not commensurate with their security level. The BOP is moving in a direction of causing more harm to their female population despite efforts in writing to ensure that their needs are met. The commissary in this institution is even eliminating basic female products like panty liners, doesn’t provide vitamins geared for women, and females are fed a diet high in carbs, more suitable to males. Females are also given the same scarce amount of toilet tissue. As you must know, women have three bodily functions over males having just one, for which toilet paper is necessary for basic hygiene.

Please use this opportunity this week to address these important correctional issues. A few months back in a judiciary hearing, you reportedly stated that you were not aware of any issues affecting the female population. Now I am making you aware of just a few of the serious issues in the prison system that are clearly visible in Philadelphia, and hope that you put a stop to these discriminatory and damaging practices… 

There are many inmates, particularly those whose overall wellbeing and security also have been jeopardized by being transferred from the low and minimum security facilities in Danbury that would be able to discuss these issues in person this week.

Sincerely,

STACEY PETRO
REG # 17986-014
FDC PHILADELPHIA
FEDERAL DETENTION CENTER
P.O. BOX 562
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19105

Women in the Criminal Justice System…

Women in the Criminal Justice System….

STACEY PETRO on 2/17/2014 6:12:22 PM wrote

The past few weeks I have been overwhelmed, adjusting from the transfer from a minimum security camp to a higher security detention center. I have been researching Bureau of Prisons policy, which doesn’t support such a transfer, and contemplating the causes and effects of such a practice. The recent sentencing of H. Ty Warner, Beanie Baby mogul, to 2 years of probation for hiding $25 million from US tax authorities has also been on my mind. The attitude towards women from courts to prison is most definitely one of inferiority. That may sound like a leap, but in what I have observed in the past 19 months in custody of the Bureau of Prisons and a total of 4 years in the criminal justice system, that is the only conclusion I can make.

When Warner was sentenced on January 14th to a period of probation, Judge Cares Kocoras not only expressed admiration for Mr. Warner, but praised him for his charity work… This felt like a kick in the gut.  I am a mother of two small boys and have meet many women who are caregivers to their children, nieces, nephews, etc. and are serving lengthy sentences that were handed out with no regard for the irreplaceable role they played in those children’s lives. Where is the value in that?  This is a pattern, and not isolated instances where a women’s role as a caregiver is ignored, even though courts are allowed to consider that role when fashioning a sentence. Unfortunately when you have mostly older white men making the decisions, they tend to favor other older white men. I have written before about sociological reports of a possible explanation that wheeling and dealing is a character trait admired in men, but seen as criminal behavior in women. The question becomes how can this change so that women truly have a chance at fair sentencing?

Once a women is in the prison system, typically longer than their male counterparts, they must suffer the effects of preferential treatment to men. I have personally witnessed this in the Danbury facility. The only low security facility for women was being changed to a male facility, forcing hundreds of women to be transferred to facilities far from their families or transferred to higher security facilities close to their residence. I was one of 29 women transferred to a detention center, although I was from the camp which is supposedly still remaining a female facility. The BOP reason for my transfer was to participate in a work cadre. Facilities with no satellite camp (aka cheap labor) can house a population of minimum security inmates with the custody level that enables them to work outside the prison perimeter. FDC Philadelphia has over 1000 inmates, only approximately 120 are women and about a dozen of them can be a part of the work cadre. So basically all BOP policy for security and custody classification was thrown out the window in order to have workers. Men are deemed too much of a public safety risk to work outside the perimeter. Many of those men, however, are released from this facility, so what does that say to the BOPs confidence that they are not a public safety risk.

What I witnessed in Danbury with mission change to a men’s facility is what underscored the attitude of the BOP towards women. Both the FCI and FPC are older facilities, with many repairs in terms of plumbing, electrical, and structure needed in the 19 months I was housed in the camp. Mold, including black mold, was visible as well as cracking asbestos insulation over where we slept. The inmates had one dorm area that had insufficient heat in the winter and leaked with rain or melting of snow. Many inmates put in requests for repairs, but the work was not done. That was until it was decided that the Puppies Behind Bars programs would over to the camp. Once it was determined that dogs would be housed in that dorm, the work was priority and all facilities foreman were put to work on that project, ignoring areas where the women are housed.

In the FCI, despite Director Charles Samuels stating no repairs were needed for the mission change, nearly a complete rehabilitation of the building was occurring… new bathrooms, flooring, etc. The dorms were being equipped with new mattresses, bed frames, lockers and ice machines… items the women were in need of. To add insult to injury, the inmates forced to transfer from the FCI were forced to do the work to prepare the building for the men and such work included removal of asbestos tile.

The first step in changing these circumstances for women the justice system to be hold the courts and prisons accountable for being fair and just. Only public scrutiny can help… so please do your part to advocate for us! The Senators in the Northeast for a short time were involved in some of these issues, but their support faded after Election Day. Only the public can urge them to proceed with action to ensure this system is fair for all.

Stacey Petro

Reg# 17986-014

FDC PHILADELPHIA
FEDERAL DETENTION CENTER
P.O. BOX 562
PHILADELPHIA, PA  19105

Open Letter to Congress: 2/17/14

February 6, 2014

Dear Member of Congress:

Earlier this week I mailed you a detailed request to investigate the use of “management variables” by the Bureau of Prisons in order to justify the transfer of 5 camp status women housed in the Danbury Federal Prison Camp to the Federal Detention Center. This letter is to following up with additional information regarding this questionable transfer.

As we were apparently scheduled to depart for FDC Philadelphia on Tuesday February 4, 2014, we did not due to the weather. I am hoping that this delay afforded you an opportunity to review my issues. I noted in my letter that I had requested a transfer on January 27, 2014 to the CAMP in Lexington KY, and was told by Mr. Marske that I would be submitted for a transfer. On January 30 I was told by a correctional officer that I needed to pack all of my belongings and have them at Receiving & Delivery on January 31, 2014. I asked my case manager, Ms. Bshara, if I was going to Kentucky and she said no, but that my kids would be 7 hours away instead of 9 hours from where they recently moved- Columbus OH. I must point out that I am in the process of an administrative remedy for the lack of individual assessment from Ms. Bshara in respect to my reentry paperwork. 

On January 31, 2014 I approached Mr. Marske and asked him why I was being sent to medium security detention center instead of a camp closer to my family. He told me that “every effort” was made to place me in a camp closer to Ohio, but  that there was an institutional need for camp status inmates in the FDC in order to leave the perimeter to perform work duties in Philadelphia.

After asking the Warden for documentation of “every effort” that was made to place me close to my family, I was told by her to contact my Unit Team. On February 6 I did just that and was provided with the Request for Transfer to Philadelphia dated January 23, 2014. This shows that no effort was made to place me close to my anticipated release residence and that my transfer is not related to my request, which was made 4 days after. Mr. Marske said nothing to me on Jan 27 about a transfer request already being submitted. Because my relocation has yet to be approved (the paperwork was mailed from this institution on January 27th, ironically), Connecticut is still my release residence. Either way it is clear that I was hand-picked for this transfer with no regard for my family or the commitment this institution made to keeping me close to my family.

I have been very vocal and provided those outside of this institution with information when the BOP gave inaccurate statements justifying the change of mission to a men’s facility. Even though media attention was highest in the summer months, my activism is ongoing. Unfortunately Congress was pacified by the responses and solutions to the transfers offered by Director Charles Samuels. I have also written to him for clarification on statements made and what I actually see happening in this very institution. I strongly believe it is my commitment to showing the reality of what is occurring here is why I am being transferred. Because of this retaliation, I am happy to be leaving this facility, but I should be close to my children and husband.

Sadly there are 4 other women who are camp status who are being transferred as well, and not for retaliation. This is why we are urging you to investigate this practice of manipulating security levels. Inmates from the FCI have had management variables added which allow them, despite their custody classification, to transfer to the Camp in Danbury. Now myself and 4 others are having the opposite done, a manipulation to get us into a higher security facility to fill a need for a work force. Either way this is an unsafe practice that does not support the mission or purposes of incarceration. It only supports a financial agenda, which should not be tolerated.

The women involved in this questionable transfer appreciate any assistance you can provide.  Letters have been sent to Tri-State Senators. We also ask that you join with other concerned Members of Congress to work on these issues of reform.

Thank you.

 Sincerely,

Stacey Petro Reg # 17986-014 

FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION CAMP (as of 2/6/14* and Philadelphia FDC once transferred)

ROUTE 37

DANBURY, CT 06811

United States of America

 

My Prison Transfer & My Open Letter to Congress Who Care

Open Letter:February 2, 2014
Dear Member of Congress: 

My name is Stacey Petro and I am originally from Connecticut. I have been an inmate at the Danbury Federal Prison Camp since July 16, 2012. In order to be classified in a camp, a federal inmate must score between 0 and 15 points on the scale of security and custody classification. Factors that are used to calculate this score include the crime that was committed , programming since incarceration, and other public safety factor assessments. I am writing to bring attention to how this institution is manipulating this point system in order to carry out financial goals of the institution, not based on inmates security needs. This point system has recently been manipulated to adjust the point level of inmates housed in the FCI, a low security facility, so they can be placed in the camp , a minimum security facility, to give the appearance of keeping as many inmates as close to their region as possible. Unfortunately this is being done without regard for safety , as higher risk inmates are being introduced into a population of inherently non- violent low risk offenders in the camp. I have recently become personally involved in a more controversial use of this manipulation, which is to increase my security level so that I can be placed in the Federal Detention Center in Philadelphia. On Thursday January 30th myself and 4 other inmates were called to the correctional officers station and told to pack out our stuff and bring it down to Receiving and Delivery on Friday. I found out from my case manager that I was being transferred to FDC Philly. When the Camp Administrator was asked by the affected inmates why this is being done, he used the terms “institutional need” and to fulfill “head count”. 

In December my husband was transferred for his job from Connecticut to Ohio. Given the focus on the Bureau of Prisons mission to keep inmates close to home, I submitted a relocation request so my release address would be updated to Ohio, in hope that would prompt a transfer. Given the delays in that paper work, on January 27th I requested to be transferred to the Lexington KY camp and I was told by the Camp Administrator, Mr. Marske, that my transfer would be submitted. Two days later I was notified that I was not being sent to Kentucky, but to Philadelphia to an administrative facility. I have never had an incident report or any disciplinary action. I have continuously involved myself in available programming and work hard to make the most of my incarceration. It makes me wonder if this move for me has to do with the fact that I advocate for myself and others who are subjected to unjust actions in this very institution. I have also been reaching out to bring attention to the many health and environment violations occurring in this building and in the FCI. I have even started a blog at http://www.whoistoblame.wordpress.com to bring attention not only to my case, but aspects of the camp itself. Mr. Marske told me “every effort” was made to place me close to my family. I doubt this given that only two days passed, but I have requested such documentation from Warden Maureen Baird. My family is very concerned for my safety and welfare given this questionable transfer. As of Friday January 31, I had to pack up all my belongings and have nothing to meet my daily living needs. Not only that, but rather than get a furlough to transfer I will be forced to be transported in handcuffs and shackles. If I warranted this type of security, I would have been designated to such a facility originally. 

The administration is able to present a security change through the use of a “Management Variable” ( MGTV). The definition of a MGTV is given in the “Inmate Security Designation and Custody Classification Program Statement” as follows: 

“A MANAGEMENT VARIABLE” reflects and supports the professional judgment of the Bureau staff to ensure the inmates placement in the MOST APPROPRIATE level institution. A MGTV is required when the placement has been made and/or maintained at an institutional level INCONSISTENT with the inmates security score- a score which may not completely/accurately reflect his or her security needs.” 

This definition does not reflect the spirit in which the MGTV is being used for the inmates being taken out of a camp environment and into a maximum security facility such as FDC Philadelphia. The Camp environment is inherently more free because the inmates housed there score low on risk score. Most inmates are “out” custody , which is defined as the second lowest custody level which requires the second lowest security, less secure housing, and may be eligible to work outside of the perimeter. Federal Prison Camp Danbury has no cells or locking doors, inmates are housed in a dormitory environment, and are free to go outside between sunrise and sunset into a recreation yard that is not surrounded by any physical barriers such as fencing. FDC Philadelphia is an administrative facility which accommodates all security levels, but they are governed per policy under the same guidelines as a medium security facility. Since I have been in the camp I have not been able to interact with low security inmates housed at the FCI on the same property where I am now, but for “institutional need” I can be among similar and higher risk inmates. 

The scoring system is in place to ensure that inmates are appropriately placed. By manipulating that score for a reason not connected to an inmates profile is damaging the physical, mental and emotional well being of an inmate. Those included in this round of transfers to FDC Philadelphia have no disciplinary issues, are involved in programming, and have excellent work histories. Some of the inmates have release addresses closer to the facility, but clearly they were not designated there to begin with because the facility does not reflect the security and custody level which we were originally designated – prior to administration manipulation. Per the BOP Program Statement, ‘redesignations are considered in much the same manner using many of the same factors used at the time of initial designation. In addition, the inmates institutional adjustment and program performance are also carefully reviewed when redesignation is considered.” Rather than review our needs, these management variables were used to support a Bureau need. 

I am writing to you asking that you please investigate the use of management variables and this specific transfer of camp status females in to a higher security facility. The Bureau of Prisons Program Statement confirms that “Members of Congress may be advised of designation in response to official inquiries for their official use.” Even though we are inmates, we are your constituents as are our families who are devastated by this change of environment. They are worried for our safety and well being. I have personally seen over the past months your involvement in the mission change and how you advocated for us during the summer months. The Bureau of Prisons is not living up to their promise of maintaining safety or keeping us close to our families in the most appropriate environment for our risk level. 

Please help ensure that we are not further punished by being in an environment for the sole purpose of being an appropriate statistic for the Bureau of Prisons. 

Stacey Petro 17986-014 
FDC Philadelphia 
PO Box 562 
Philadelphia, PA 19106

* Note address change as of the week of 2/2/14 unless the transfer is ceased!

Blowing the Cover off Prison

Blowing the Cover of Prison