first step act 2018 safety valve free sample

The Act requires the submission of several reports to review the BOP"s implementation of the law and assess the effects of the new risk and needs assessment system.

The Act represents a dramatically different and enlightened approach to fighting crime that is focused on rehabilitation, reintegration, and sentencing reduction, rather than the tough-on-crime, lock-them-up rhetoric of the past.

Perhaps the Act’s most far-reaching change to sentencing law is its expansion of the application of the Safety Valve—the provision of law that reduces a defendant’s offense level by two and allows judges to disregard an otherwise applicable mandatory minimum penalty if the defendant meets certain criteria. It is aimed at providing qualifying low-level, non-violent drug offenders a means of avoiding an otherwise draconian penalty. In fiscal year 2017, nearly one-third of all drug offenders were found eligible for the Safety Valve.

Until the Act, one of the criteria for the Safety Valve was that a defendant could not have more than a single criminal history point. This generally meant that a defendant with as little as a single prior misdemeanor conviction that resulted in a sentence of more than 60 days was precluded from receiving the Safety Valve.

Section 402 of the Act relaxes the criminal history point criterion to allow a defendant to have up to four criminal history points and still be eligible for the Safety Valve (provided all other criteria are met). Now, even a prior felony conviction would not per se render a defendant ineligible from receiving the Safety Valve so long as the prior felony did not result in a sentence of more than 13 months’ imprisonment.

Importantly, for purposes of the Safety Valve, prior sentences of 60 days or less, which generally result in one criminal history point, are never counted. However, any prior sentences of more than 13 months, or more than 60 days in the case of a violent offense, precludes application of the Safety Valve regardless of whether the criminal history points exceed four.

These changes to the Safety Valve criteria are not retroactive in any way, and only apply to convictions entered on or after the enactment of the Act. Despite this, it still is estimated that these changes to the Safety Valve will impact over 2,000 offenders annually.

Currently, defendants convicted of certain drug felonies are subject to a mandatory minimum 20 years’ imprisonment if they previously were convicted of a single drug felony. If they have two or more prior drug felonies, then the mandatory minimum becomes life imprisonment. Section 401 of the Act reduces these mandatory minimums to 15 years and 25 years respectively.

These amendments apply to any pending cases, except if sentencing already has occurred. Thus, they are not fully retroactive. Had they been made fully retroactive, it is estimated they would have reduced the sentences of just over 3,000 inmates. As it stands, these reduced mandatory minima are estimated to impact only 56 offenders annually.

Section 403 of the Act eliminates the so-called “stacking” of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) penalties. Section 924(c) provides for various mandatory consecutive penalties for the possession, use, or discharge of a firearm during the commission of a felony violent or drug offense. However, for a “second or subsequent conviction” of 924(c), the mandatory consecutive penalty increases to 25 years.

Occasionally, the Government charges a defendant with multiple counts of 924(c), which results in each count being sentenced consecutive to each other as well as to the underlying predicate offense. For example, a defendant is charged with two counts of drug trafficking and two counts of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i), which requires a consecutive 5 years’ imprisonment to the underlying offense for mere possession of a firearm during the commission of the drug offense. At sentencing, the Court imposes 40 months for the drug trafficking offenses. As a result of the first § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) conviction, the Court must impose a consecutive 60 months (5 years). But what about the second § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) conviction? In such situations, courts have been treating the second count as a “second or subsequent conviction.” As such, the 60-month consecutive sentence becomes a 300 month (25 years) consecutive sentence. In our hypothetical, then, the sentencing court would impose a total sentence of 400 months (40+60+300) inasmuch as the second 924(c) count was a “second or subsequent conviction.”

Now, under the Act, to avoid such an absurd and draconian result, Congress has clarified that the 25-year mandatory consecutive penalty only applies “after a prior conviction under this subsection has become final.” Thus, the enhanced mandatory consecutive penalty no longer can be applied to multiple counts of 924(c) violations.

Finally, Section 404 of the Act makes the changes brought about by the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 fully retroactive. As the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s “2015 Report to Congress: Impact of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010,” explained: “The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (FSA), enacted August 3, 2010, reduced the statutory penalties for crack cocaine offenses to produce an 18-to-1 crack-to-powder drug quantity ratio. The FSA eliminated the mandatory minimum sentence for simple possession of crack cocaine and increased statutory fines. It also directed the Commission to amend the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines to account for specified aggravating and mitigating circumstances in drug trafficking offenses involving any drug type.”

While the Act now makes the FSA fully retroactive, those prisoners who already have sought a reduction under the FSA and either received one, or their application was otherwise adjudicated on the merits, are not eligible for a second bite at the apple. It is estimated that full retroactive application of the FSA will impact 2,660 offenders.

Reducing the severity and frequency of some draconian mandatory minimum penalties, increasing the applicability of the safety valve, and giving full retroactive effect to the FSA signals a more sane approach to sentencing, which will help address prison overpopulation, while ensuring scarce prison space is reserved only for the more dangerous offenders.

Mark H. Allenbaugh, co-founder of Sentencing Stats, LLC, is a nationally recognized expert on federal sentencing, law, policy, and practice. A former staff attorney for the U.S. Sentencing Commission, he is a co-editor of Sentencing, Sanctions, and Corrections: Federal and State Law, Policy, and Practice (2nd ed., Foundation Press, 2002). He can be reached at mark@sentencingstats.com.

On December 21, 2018, President Trump signed into law the First Step Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-391). The act was the culmination of several years of congressional debate about what Congress might do to reduce the size of the federal prison population while also creating mechanisms to maintain public safety.

This report provides an overview of the provisions of the First Step Act. The act has three major components: (1) correctional reform via the establishment of a risk and needs assessment system at BOP, (2) sentencing reform that involved changes to penalties for some federal offenses, and (3) the reauthorization of the Second Chance Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-199). The act also contains a series of other criminal justice-related provisions that include, for example, changes to the way good time credits are calculated for federal prisoners, prohibiting the use of restraints on pregnant inmates, expanding the market for products made by the Federal Prison Industries, and requiring BOP to aid prisoners with obtaining identification before they are released.

The correctional reform component of the First Step Act involves the development and implementation of a risk and needs assessment system (system) at BOP.

The act requires DOJ to develop the system to be used by BOP to assess the risk of recidivism of federal prisoners and assign prisoners to evidence-based recidivism reduction programsdetermine the risk of recidivism of each prisoner during the intake process and classify each prisoner as having a minimum, low, medium, or high risk;

reassign prisoners to appropriate recidivism reduction programs or productive activities based on their reassessed risk of recidivism to ensure that all prisoners have an opportunity to reduce their risk classification, that the programs address prisoners" criminogenic needs, and that all prisoners are able to successfully participate in such programs;

conduct ongoing research and data analysis on (1) evidence-based recidivism reduction programs related to the use of risk and needs assessment, (2) the most effective and efficient uses of such programs, (3) which programs are the most effective at reducing recidivism, and the type, amount, and intensity of programming that most effectively reduces the risk of recidivism, and (4) products purchased by federal agencies that are manufactured overseas and could be manufactured by prisoners participating in a prison work program without reducing job opportunities for other workers in the United States;

annually review and validate the risk and needs assessment system, including an evaluation to ensure that assessments are based on dynamic risk factors (i.e., risk factors that can change); validate any tools that the system uses; and evaluate the recidivism rates among similarly classified prisoners to identify any unwarranted disparities, including disparities in such rates among similarly classified prisoners of different demographic groups, and make any changes to the system necessary to address any that are identified; and

Under the act, the system is required to provide guidance on the type, amount, and intensity of recidivism reduction programming and productive activities to which each prisoner is assigned, including information on which programs prisoners should participate in based on their criminogenic needs and the ways that BOP can tailor programs to the specific criminogenic needs of each prisoner to reduce their risk of recidivism. The system is also required to provide guidance on how to group, to the extent practicable, prisoners with similar risk levels together in recidivism reduction programming and housing assignments.

The act requires BOP, when developing the system, to take steps to screen prisoners for dyslexia and to provide programs to treat prisoners who have it.

Within 180 days of DOJ releasing the system, BOP is required tocomplete the initial risk and needs assessment for each prisoner (including for prisoners who were incarcerated before the enactment of the First Step Act);

begin to expand the recidivism reduction programs and productive activities available at BOP facilities and add any new recidivism reduction programs and productive activities necessary to effectively implement the system; and

BOP is required to expand recidivism reduction programming and productive activities capacity so that all prisoners have an opportunity to participate in risk reduction programs within two years of BOP completing initial risk and needs assessments for all prisoners. During the two-year period when BOP is expanding recidivism reduction programs and productive activities, prisoners who are nearing their release date are given priority for placement in such programs.

BOP is required to provide all prisoners with the opportunity to participate in recidivism reduction programs that address their criminogenic needs or productive activities throughout their term of incarceration. High- and medium-risk prisoners are to have priority for placement in recidivism reduction programs, while the program focus for low-risk prisoners is on participation in productive activities.

Prisoners who successfully participate in recidivism reduction programming or productive activities are required to be reassessed not less than annually, and high- and medium-risk prisoners who have less than five years remaining until their projected release date are required to have more frequent reassessments. If the reassessment shows that a prisoner"s risk of recidivating or specific needs have changed, BOP is required to reassign the prisoner to recidivism reduction programs or productive activities consistent with those changes.

The First Step Act requires the use of incentives and rewards for prisoners to participate in recidivism reduction programs, including the following:additional phone privileges, and if available, video conferencing privileges, of up to 30 minutes a day, and up to 510 minutes a month;

Under the act, prisoners who successfully complete recidivism reduction programming are eligible to earn up to 10 days of time credits for every 30 days of program participation. Minimum and low-risk prisoners who successfully completed recidivism reduction or productive activities and whose assessed risk of recidivism has not increased over two consecutive assessments are eligible to earn up to an additional five days of time credits for every 30 days of successful participation. However, prisoners serving a sentence for a conviction of any one of multiple enumerated offenses are ineligible to earn additional time credits regardless of risk level, though these prisoners are eligible to earn the other incentives and rewards for program participation outlined above. Offenses that make prisoners ineligible to earn additional time credits can generally be categorized as violent, terrorism, espionage, human trafficking, sex and sexual exploitation, repeat felon in possession of firearm, certain fraud, or high-level drug offenses. Prisoners who are subject to a final order of removal under immigration law are ineligible for additional earned time credits provided by the First Step Act.

Prisoners cannot retroactively earn time credits for programs they completed prior to the enactment of the First Step Act, and they cannot earn time credits for programs completed while detained pending adjudication of their cases.

The act requires BOP to develop guidelines for reducing time credits prisoners earned under the system for violating institutional rules or the rules of recidivism reduction programs and productive activities. The guidelines must also include a description of a process for prisoners to earn back any time credits they lost due to misconduct.

the prisoner has been determined to be a minimum or low risk to recidivate based on his/her last two assessments, or has had a petition to be transferred to prerelease custody approved by the warden, after the warden"s determination that the prisoner (1) would not be a danger to society if transferred to prerelease custody, (2) has made a good faith effort to lower his/her recidivism risk through participation in recidivism reduction programs or productive activities, and (3) is unlikely to recidivate.

Prisoners who are placed on prerelease custody on home confinement are subject to a series of conditions. Per the act, prisoners on home confinement are required to have 24-hour electronic monitoring that enables the identification of their location and the time, and must remain in their residences, except togo to work or participate in job-seeking activities,

When monitoring adherence to the conditions of prerelease custody, BOP is required, to the extent practicable, to reduce the restrictiveness of those conditions for prisoners who demonstrate continued compliance with their conditions.

Two years after the enactment of the First Step Act, and each year thereafter for the next five years, DOJ is required to submit a report to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees and the House and Senate Subcommittees on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies (CJS) Appropriations that includes information onthe types and effectiveness of recidivism reduction programs and productive activities provided by BOP, including the capacity of each program and activity at each prison and any gaps or shortages in capacity of such programs and activities;

the recidivism rates of prisoners released from federal prison, based on the following criteria: (1) the primary offense of conviction; (2) the length of the sentence imposed and served; (3) the facility or facilities in which the prisoner"s sentence was served; (4) the type of recidivism reduction programming; (5) prisoners" assessed and reassessed risk of recidivism; and (6) the type of productive activities;

any budgetary savings that have resulted from the implementation of the act, and a strategy for investing those savings in other federal, state, and local law enforcement activities and expanding recidivism reduction programs and productive activities at BOP facilities.

Within two years of the enactment of the First Step Act, the Independent Review Committee is required to submit a report to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees and the House and Senate CJS Appropriations Subcommittees that includesa list of all offenses that make prisoners ineligible for earned time credits under the system, and the number of prisoners excluded for each offense by age, race, and sex;

the number of prisoners ineligible for earned time credits under the system who did not participate in recidivism reduction programming or productive activities by age, race, and sex; and

whether BOP is offering the type, amount, and intensity of recidivism reduction programs and productive activities that allow prisoners to earn the maximum amount of additional time credits for which they are eligible;

The First Step Act authorizes $75 million per fiscal year from FY2019 to FY2023 for DOJ to establish and implement the system; 80% of this funding is to be directed to BOP for implementation.

The First Step Act makes several changes to federal sentencing law. The act reduced the mandatory minimum sentences for certain drug offenses, expanded the scope of the safety valve, eliminated the stacking provision, and made the provisions of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-220) retroactive.

The act adjusts the mandatory minimum sentences for certain drug traffickers with prior drug convictions. The act reduces the 20-year mandatory minimum (applicable where the offender has one prior qualifying conviction) to a 15-year mandatory minimum and reduces the life sentence mandatory minimum (applicable where the offender has two or more prior qualifying convictions) to a 25-year mandatory minimum.serious drug felonyserious violent felonyfelony drug offense.

The act makes drug offenders with minor criminal records eligible for the safety valve provision, which previously applied only to offenders with virtually spotless criminal records.

The act eliminates stacking by providing that the 25-year mandatory minimum for a "second or subsequent" conviction for use of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime or a violent crime applies only where the offender has a prior conviction for use of a firearm that is already final.

The First Step Act authorizes courts to apply retroactively the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, which increased the threshold quantities of crack cocaine sufficient to trigger mandatory minimum sentences, by resentencing qualified prisoners as if the Fair Sentencing Act had been in effect at the time of their offenses.

The Second Chance Reauthorization Act of 2018 (Title V of the First Step Act) reauthorizes many of the grant programs that were initially authorized by the Second Chance Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-199). The Second Chance Reauthorization Act also reauthorized a BOP pilot program to provide early release to elderly prisoners.

The Second Chance Reauthorization Act amends the authorization for the Adult and Juvenile State and Local Offender Demonstration Program so grants can be awarded to states, local governments, territories, or Indian tribes, or any combination thereof, in partnership with interested persons (including federal correctional officials), service providers, and nonprofit organizations, for the strategic planning and implementation of reentry programs. The Second Chance Reauthorization Act amended the authorization for this program to allow grants to be used for reentry courts and promoting employment opportunities consistent with a transitional jobs strategy in addition to the purposes for which grants could already be awarded.

The act also amended the Second Chance Act authorizing legislation for the program to allow DOJ to award both planning and implementation grants. DOJ is required to develop a procedure to allow applicants to submit a single grant application when applying for both planning and implementation grants.

providing a plan for analyzing the barriers (e.g., statutory, regulatory, rules-based, or practice-based) to reentry for ex-offenders in the applicants" communities;

Under the amended program, applicants for implementation grants would be required to develop a strategic reentry plan that contains measurable three-year performance outcomes. Applicants would be required to develop a feasible goal for reducing recidivism using baseline data collected through the partnership with the local evaluator. Applicants are required to use, to the extent practicable, random assignment and controlled studies, or rigorous quasi-experimental studies with matched comparison groups, to determine the effectiveness of the program.

As authorized by the Second Chance Act, grantees under the Adult and Juvenile State and Local Offender Demonstration program are required to submit annual reports to DOJ that identify the specific progress made toward achieving their strategic performance outcomes, which they are required to submit as a part of their reentry strategic plans. Data on performance measures only need to be submitted by grantees that receive an implementation grant. The act repeals some performance outcomes (i.e., increased housing opportunities, reduction in substance abuse, and increased participation in substance abuse and mental health services) and adds the following outcomes:increased number of staff trained to administer reentry services;

The act allows applicants for implementation grants to include a cost-benefit analysis as a performance measure under their required reentry strategic plan.

The Second Chance Act authorized DOJ to make grants to states, local governments, and Indian tribes to develop, implement, and expand the use of family-based substance abuse treatment programs as an alternative to incarceration for parents who were convicted of nonviolent drug offenses and to provide prison-based family treatment programs for incarcerated parents of minor children.

The Second Chance Reauthorization Act amends the authorization for the program to allow grants to be awarded to nonprofit organizations and requires DOJ to give priority consideration to nonprofit organizations that demonstrate a relationship with state and local criminal justice agencies, including the judiciary and prosecutorial agencies or local correctional agencies.

The Second Chance Act authorized a grant program to evaluate and improve academic and vocational education in prisons, jails, and juvenile facilities. This program authorizes DOJ to make grants to states, units of local government, territories, Indian tribes, and other public and private entities to identify and implement best practices related to the provision of academic and vocational education in prisons, jails, and juvenile facilities. Grantees are required to submit reports within 90 days of the end of the final fiscal year of a grant detailing the progress they have made, and to allow DOJ to evaluate improved academic and vocational education methods carried out with grants provided under this program.

The Second Chance Reauthorization Act amends the authorizing legislation for this program to require DOJ to identify and publish best practices relating to academic and vocational education for offenders in prisons, jails, and juvenile facilities. In identifying best practices, the evaluations conducted under this program must be considered.

The Second Chance Act authorized DOJ to make grants to states, units of local government, territories, and Indian tribes to provide technology career training for prisoners. Grants could be awarded for programs that establish technology careers training programs for inmates in a prison, jail, or juvenile detention facility.

The Second Chance Reauthorization Act expanded the scope of the program to allow grant funds to be used to provide any career training to those who are soon to be released and during transition and reentry into the community. The act makes nonprofit organizations an eligible applicant under the program. Under the legislation, grants funds could be used to provide subsidized employment if it is a part of a career training program. The act also requires DOJ to give priority consideration to any application for a grant thatprovides an assessment of local demand for employees in the geographic area to which offenders are likely to return,

The Second Chance Act authorized DOJ to make grants to states, units of local governments, territories, and Indian tribes in order to improve drug treatment programs in prisons and reduce the post-prison use of alcohol and other drugs by long-term users under correctional supervision. Grants may be used to continue or improve existing drug treatment programs, develop and implement programs for long-term users, provide addiction recovery support services, or establish medication assisted treatment (MAT) services as part of any drug treatment program offered to prisoners.

The Second Chance Act authorized DOJ to make grants to nonprofit organizations and Indian tribes to provide mentoring and other transitional services for offenders being released into the community. Funds could be used for mentoring programs in prisons or jails and during reentry, programs providing transition services during reentry, and programs providing training for mentors on the criminal justice system and victims issues.

The Second Chance Reauthorization Act amends the authorization for the program to pivot the focus toward providing community-based transitional services to former inmates returning to the community. Reflecting the change in focus, the reauthorization changed the name of the program to "Community-based Mentoring and Transitional Services Grants to Nonprofit Organizations." The act specifies the transitional services that can be provided to returning inmates under the program, including educational, literacy, vocational, and the transitional jobs strategy; substance abuse treatment and services; coordinated supervision and services for offenders, including physical health care and comprehensive housing and mental health care; family services; and validated assessment tools to assess the risk factors of returning prisoners.

The Second Chance Reauthorization Act reauthorized and expanded the scope of a pilot program initially authorized under the Second Chance Act that allowed BOP to place certain elderly nonviolent offenders on home confinement to serve the remainder of their sentences. BOP was authorized to conduct this pilot program at one facility for FY2009 and FY2010. An offender eligible to be released through the program had to meet the following requirements:at least 65 years old;

The Second Chance Reauthorization Act reestablishes the pilot program and allows BOP to operate it at multiple facilities from FY2019 to FY2023. The act also modifies the eligibility criteria for elderly offenders so that any offenders who are at least 60 year old and have served two-thirds of their sentences can be placed on home confinement.

The act also expands the program so that terminally ill offenders can be placed on home confinement. Eligibility criteria for home confinement for terminally ill offenders under the pilot program is the same as that for elderly offenders, except that terminally ill offenders of any age and who have served any portion of their sentences, even life sentences, are eligible for home confinement. Terminally ill prisoners are those who are deemed by a BOP medical doctor to need care at a nursing home, intermediate care facility, or assisted living facility, or those who have been diagnosed with a terminal illness.

The Second Chance Act authorized appropriations for a series of reentry-related research projects, including the following:a study by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) identifying the number and characteristics of children with incarcerated parents and their likelihood of engaging in criminal activity;

studies by BJS to determine the characteristics of individuals who return to prison, jail, or a juvenile facility (including which individuals pose the highest risk to the community);

collecting data and developing best practices concerning the communication and coordination between state corrections and child welfare agencies, to ensure the safety and support of children of incarcerated parents.

The Second Chance Reauthorization Act reauthorizes appropriations for these research projects at $5 million for each fiscal year from FY2019 to FY2023.

Within five years of the enactment of the Second Chance Reauthorization Act, NIJ is required to evaluate grants used by DOJ to support reentry and recidivism reduction programs at the state, local, tribal, and federal levels. Specifically, NIJ is required to evaluate the following:whether the programs are cost-effective, including the extent to which the programs improved reentry outcomes;

NIJ is required to identify outcome measures, including employment, housing, education, and public safety, that are the goals of programs authorized by the Second Chance Act and metrics for measuring whether those programs achieved the intended results. As a condition of receiving funding under programs authorized by the Second Chance Act, grantees are required to collect and report data to DOJ related to those metrics.

NIJ is required to make data collected during evaluations of Second Chance Act programs publicly available in a manner that protects the confidentiality of program participants and is consistent with applicable law. NIJ is also required to make the final evaluation reports publicly available.

The Second Chance Reauthorization Act requires BOP to develop policies for wardens of prisons and community-based facilities to enter into recidivism-reducing partnerships with nonprofit and other private organizations, including faith-based and community-based organizations to deliver recidivism reduction programming.

The Second Chance Reauthorization Act repealed the authorization for the State, Tribal, and Local Reentry Courts program (Section 111 of the Second Chance Act), the Responsible Reintegration of Offenders program (Section 212), and the Study on the Effectiveness of Depot Naltrexone for Heroin Addiction program (Section 244).

In addition to correctional and sentencing reform and reauthorizing the Second Chance Act, the First Step Act contained a series of other criminal justice-related provisions.

The act amended 18 U.S.C. Section 3624(b) so that federal prisoners can earn up to 54 days of good time credit for every year of their imposed sentence rather than for every year of their sentenced served. Prior to the amendment, BOP interpreted the good time credit provision in Section 3624(b) to mean that prisoners are eligible to earn 54 days of good time credit for every year they serve. For example, this means that an offender who was sentenced to 10 years in prison and earned the maximum good time credits each year could be released after serving eight years and 260 days, having earned 54 days of good time credit for each year of the sentence served, but in effect, only 47 days of good time credit for every year of the imposed sentence.

The act requires BOP to provide a secure storage area outside of the secure perimeter of a correctional institution for qualified law enforcement officers employed by BOP to store firearms or allow this class of employees to store firearms in their personal vehicles in lockboxes approved by BOP. The act also requires BOP, notwithstanding any other provision of law, to allow these same employees to carry concealed firearms on prison grounds but outside of the secure perimeter of the correctional institution.

The act prohibits BOP or the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) from using restraints on pregnant inmates in their custody. The prohibition on the use of restraints begins on the date that pregnancy is confirmed by a healthcare professional. The restriction ends when the inmate completes postpartum recovery.

The prohibition on the use of restraints does not apply if the inmate is determined to be an immediate and credible flight risk or poses an immediate and serious threat of harm to herself or others that cannot be reasonably prevented by other means, or a healthcare professional determines that the use of restraints is appropriate for the medical safety of the inmate. Only the least restrictive restraints necessary to prevent escape or harm can be used. The exception to the use of restraints does not permit BOP or USMS to use them around the ankles, legs, or waist of an inmate; restrain an inmate"s hands behind her back; use four-point restraints; or attach an inmate to another inmate. Upon the request of a healthcare professional, correctional officials or deputy marshals shall refrain from using restraints on an inmate or shall remove restraints used on an inmate.

If restraints are used on a pregnant inmate, the correctional official or deputy marshal who used the restraints is required to submit a report within 30 days to BOP or USMS, and the healthcare provider responsible for the inmate"s health and safety, that describes the facts and circumstances surrounding the use of the restraints, including the reason(s) for using them; the details of their use, including the type of restraint and length of time they were used; and any observable physical effects on the prisoner.

The act amends 18 U.S.C. Section 3621(b) to require BOP to house prisoners in facilities as close to their primary residence as possible, and to the extent practicable, within 500 driving miles, subject to a series of considerations. When making decisions about where to house a prisoner, BOP must consider bedspace availability, the prisoner"s security designation, the prisoner"s programmatic needs, the prisoner"s mental and medical health needs, any request made by the prisoner related to faith-based needs, recommendations of the sentencing court, and other security concerns. BOP is also required, subject to these considerations and a prisoner"s preference for staying at his/her current facility or being transferred, to transfer a prisoner to a facility closer to his/her primary residence even if the prisoner is currently housed at a facility within 500 driving miles.

The act amends 18 U.S.C. Section 3624(c)(2) to require BOP, to the extent practicable, to place prisoners with lower risk levels and lower needs on home confinement for the maximum amount of time permitted under this paragraph. Under Section 3624(c)(2), BOP is authorized to place prisoners in prerelease custody on home confinement for 10% of the term of imprisonment or six months, whichever is shorter.

The act amends 18 U.S.C. Section 3582(c) regarding when a court can modify a term of imprisonment once it is imposed. Under Section 3582(c)(1)(A), a court, upon a petition from BOP, can reduce a prisoner"s sentence and impose a term of probation or supervised release, with or without conditions, equal to the amount of time remaining on the prisoner"s sentence if the court finds that "extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction," or the prisoner is at least 70 years of age, the prisoner has served at least 30 years of his/her sentence, and a determination has been made by BOP that the prisoner is not a danger to the safety of any other person or the community. This is sometimes referred to as compassionate release. The amendments made by the act allow the court to reduce a prisoner"s sentence under Section 3582(c)(1)(A) upon a petition from BOP or the prisoner if the prisoner has fully exhausted all administrative rights to appeal a failure by BOP to bring a motion on the prisoner"s behalf or upon a lapse of 30 days from the receipt of such a request by the warden of the prisoner"s facility, whichever is earlier.

The act also requires BOP within 72 hours of a prisoner being diagnosed with a terminal illness to notify the prisoner"s attorney, partner, and family about the diagnosis and inform them of their option to submit a petition for compassionate release on the prisoner"s behalf. Within seven days, BOP is required to provide the prisoner"s partner and family with an opportunity to visit. BOP is also required to provide assistance to the prisoner with drafting and submitting a petition for compassionate release if such assistance is requested by the prisoner or the prisoner"s attorney, partner, or family. BOP is required to process requests for compassionate release within 14 days.

The act also requires BOP to submit annual reports to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees that provides data on how BOP is processing applications for compassionate release.

The act amends the authorization for the federal prisoner reentry initiative (34 U.S.C. Section 60541(b)) to require BOP to assist prisoners and offenders who were sentenced to a period of community confinement

The act also amends 18 U.S.C. Section 4042(a) to require BOP to establish prerelease planning procedures to help prisoners apply for federal and state benefits and obtain identification, including a social security card, driver"s license or other official photo identification, and birth certificate. BOP is required to help prisoners secure these benefits, subject to any limitations in law, prior to being released. The act also amends Section 4042(a) to require prerelease planning to include any individuals who only served a sentence of community confinement.

The act authorizes the Federal Prison Industries (FPI, also known by its trade name, UNICOR) to sell products to public entities for use in correctional facilities, disaster relief, or emergency response; to the District of Columbia government; and to nonprofit organizations.

The act also requires BOP to set aside 15% of the wages paid to prisoners with FPI work assignments in a fund that will be payable to the prisoner upon release to aid with the cost of transitioning back into the community.

The act requires BOP to provide training to correctional officers and other BOP employees (including correctional officers and employees of facilities that contract with BOP to house prisoners) on how to de-escalate encounters between a law enforcement officer or an officer or employee of BOP and a civilian or a prisoner, and how to identify and appropriately respond to incidents that involve people with mental illness or other cognitive deficits.

Within 90 days of enactment of the act, BOP is required to submit a report to the House and Senate Judiciary and Appropriations Committees that assesses the availability of, and the capacity of BOP to provide, evidence-based treatment to prisoners with opioid and heroin abuse problems, including MAT, where appropriate. As a part of the report, BOP is required to provide a plan to expand access to evidence-based treatment for prisoners with heroin and opioid abuse problems, including MAT, where appropriate. After submitting the report, BOP is required to execute the plan it outlines in the report.

The act places a similar requirement on the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) regarding evidence-based treatment for opioid and heroin abuse for prisoners serving a term of supervised release. AOUSC has 120 days after enactment to submit its report to the House and Senate Judiciary and Appropriations Committees.

The act requires BOP to establish two pilot programs that are to run for five years in at least 20 facilities. The first is a mentoring program that is to pair youth with volunteer mentors from faith-based or community organizations.

The act requires BJS to expand data collected under its National Prisoner Statistics program to include 26 new data elements related to federal prisoners. Some of the data the act requires BJS to collect include the following:the number of prisoners who are veterans;

the number of prisoners enrolled in recidivism reduction programs and productive activities at each BOP facility, broken down by risk level and by program, and the number of those enrolled prisoners who successfully completed each program.

Starting one year after the enactment of the act, BJS is required to submit an annual report to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees for a period of seven years that contains the data specified in the act.

The act requires BOP to provide tampons and sanitary napkins that meet industry standards to prisoners for free and in a quantity that meets the healthcare needs of each prisoner.

The act requires the Attorney General to coordinate with the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, the Secretaries of Labor, Education, Health and Human Services, Veterans Affairs, and Agriculture, and the heads of other relevant federal agencies, as well as interested persons, service providers, nonprofit organizations, and state, tribal, and local governments, on federal reentry policies, programs, and activities, with an emphasis on evidence-based practices and the elimination of duplication of services.

The Attorney General, in consultation with the secretaries specified in the act, is required to submit a report to Congress within two years of the enactment of the act that summarizes the achievements of the coordination, and includes recommendations for Congress on how to further reduce barriers to successful reentry.

The act prohibits juvenile facilities from using room confinement for discipline, punishment, retaliation, or any reason other than as a temporary response to a covered juvenile"s behavior that poses a serious and immediate risk of physical harm to any individual.

Juvenile facilities are required to try to use less restrictive techniques, such as talking with the juvenile in an attempt to de-escalate the situation or allowing a mental health professional to talk to the juvenile, before placing the juvenile in room confinement. If the less restrictive techniques do not work and the juvenile is placed in room confinement, the staff of the juvenile facility is required to tell the juvenile why he/she is being placed in room confinement. Staff are also required to inform the juvenile that he/she will be released from room confinement as soon as he/she regains self-control and no longer poses a threat of physical harm to himself/herself or others. If a juvenile who poses a threat of harm to others does not sufficiently regain self-control, staff must inform the juvenile that he/she will be released within three hours of being placed in room confinement, or in the case of a juvenile who poses a threat of harm to himself/herself, that he/she will be released within 30 minutes of being placed in room confinement. If after the maximum period of confinement allowed the juvenile continues to pose a threat of physical harm to himself/herself or others, the juvenile is to be transferred to another juvenile facility or another location in the current facility where services can be provided to him/her. If a qualified mental health professional believes that the level of crisis services available to the juvenile are not adequate, the staff at the juvenile facility is to transfer the juvenile to a facility that can provide adequate services. The act prohibits juvenile facilities from using consecutive periods of room confinement on juveniles.

More than a year after it was enacted in 2018, key parts of the law are working as promised, restoring a modicum of fairness to federal sentencing and helping to reduce the country’s unconscionably large federal prison population. But other parts are not, demonstrating the need for continued advocacy and more congressional oversight. The way the Justice Department has been handling prisoner releases during the coronavirus pandemic gives some insight into what’s going wrong.

President Trump has bragged about signing the law, which was the first criminal justice reform bill passed in nearly a decade. But simply signing it is not enough. He needs to see it through.

The First Step Act is the product of years of advocacy by people across the political spectrum. Indeed, a very similar bipartisan bill nearly passed in 2015, but was dragged down by election-year politics. The Trump administration began working on its own criminal justice bill in early 2018, and an initial deal was catalyzed by a core group of bipartisan legislators. It was then refined through a series of compromises and, once the Senate decided to pick up the bill, sailed through both houses of Congress with supermajority support.

The law we now know as the First Step Act accomplishes two discrete things, both aimed at making the federal justice system fairer and more focused on rehabilitation.

Its sentencing reformcomponents shorten federal prison sentences and give people additional chances to avoid mandatory minimum penalties by expanding a “safety valve” that allows a judge to impose a sentence lower than the statutory minimum in some cases. These parts of the First Step Act are almost automatic: once the act was signed, judges immediately began sentencing people to shorter prison terms in cases came before them. Similarly, people in federal prison for pre-2010 crack cocaine offenses immediately became eligible to apply for resentencing to a shorter prison term.

The law’s prison reformelements are designed to improve conditions in federal prison in two ways. One is by curbing inhumane practices, such as eliminating the use of restraints on pregnant women and encouraging placing people in prisons that are closer to their families. The other is by reorienting prisons around rehabilitation rather than punishment. That is no small task. Successfully expanding rehabilitative programming in federal prison will require significant follow-through from Congress and the Department of Justice. It’s no surprise, then, that these distinct parts of the act are functioning differently.

Before 2010, an offense involving 5 grams of crack cocaine, a form of the drug more common in the Black community, was punished as severely as one involving 500grams of powder. The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 changed that, reducing this 100:1 disparity to 18:1 — but only on a forward-going basis. People convicted under the now-outdated crack laws were stuck serving the very sentences that Congress had just repudiated.

The First Step Act fixed that by making the Fair Sentencing Act retroactive. According to the Justice Department, as of May, roughly 3,000 people serving outdated sentences for crack cocaine crimes had already been resentenced to shorter prison terms. Shortened or bypassed mandatory minimums mean that every year another estimated 2,000 people will receive prison sentences 20 percent shorter than they would have.

Another 3,100 people were released in July 2019, anywhere from a few days to a few months early, when the First Step Act’s “good time credit fix” went into effect. This simple change allowed people in federal prison to earn approximately an extra week off their sentence per year — and it applied retroactively, too. For some people it meant seeing their friends and family months earlier than expected.

Taken together, these changes represent an important decrease in incarceration. One year after the First Step Act was signed, the federal prison population was around 5,000 people smaller, continuing several years of declines. It has continued to shrink amidst the coronavirus pandemic.

To be sure, there’s still a long way to go: the federal prison population remains sky-high. And the Department of Justice does not appear to be in complete lockstep with the White House’s celebration of the law. In some old crack cocaine cases, federal prosecutors are opposing resentencing motions or seeking to reincarcerate people who have just been released. Prosecutors in these cases argue that any motions for resentencing must also consider the (often higher) amount of the drug the applicant possessed according to presentence reports. Other technical disputes are also cropping up, with the Department of Justice often arguing for a narrow interpretation of the First Step Act.

The First Step Act calls for the Bureau of Prisons to significantly expand these opportunities. Within a few years, the BOP must have “evidence-based recidivism reduction programs and productive activities” available for allpeople in prison. That means vocational training, educational classes, and behavioral therapy (to name a few options recommended in the act) should be staffed and broadly available. Participating in these programs will in turn enable imprisoned people to earn “time credits” that they can put toward a transfer to prerelease custody — that is, a halfway house or even home confinement — theoretically allowing them to finish their sentence outside of a prison.

Rolling out this system as intended will be a challenge, however, in part because BOP programs are already understaffed and underfunded. Around 25 percent of people spending more than a year in federal prison have completed zeroprograms. A recent BOP budget document described a lengthy waiting list for basic literacy programs. And according to the Federal Defenders of New York, the true extent of the BOP’s programming shortfall isn’t even known, because the BOP won’t share information on programming availability or capacity. The bureau offered little insight into its existing capacity and needs at a pair of congressional oversight hearings last fall. Worse, a recent report from the First Step Act’s Independent Review Committee, made up of outside experts to advise and assist the government with implementing the law, casts doubt on the quality of the BOP’s existing programming.

The BOP’s lack of transparency also makes it hard to know how “time credits” are being awarded — and thus, whether the BOP is permitting people to make progress toward prerelease custody as Congress intended. The First Step Act provides that most imprisoned people may earn 10 to 15 days of “time credits” for every 30 days of “successful participation” in recidivism-reduction programming. But a recent report suggests the BOP will award a specific number of “hours” for each program. How many “hours” make up a “day,” for the purpose of awarding credits? This highly technical issue may appear trivial, but could significantly affect the reach of the First Step Act.

People with inside knowledge of the system point to other concerns, too. The law excludes some imprisoned people from earning credits based on the crime that led to their incarceration or their role in the offense, and some advocates report that the BOP has applied those exclusions broadly, disqualifying a much larger part of the imprisoned population than Congress intended. Advocates also have heard that program availability in prisons is much spottier than the BOP has suggested, rendering illusory the DOJ’s claim that people are already being assigned to programs and “productive activities” tailored to their needs.

Any expansion of programming also won’t be free. Knowing that, the First Step Act authorized $75 million per year for five years for implementation. But authorization is only the beginning of the budgeting process. Congress must also formally appropriate money to the BOP to fund the First Step Act for each year that it is authorized.

Thankfully, in December 2019, Congress passed and the president signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act, which included full funding for the First Step Act through the end of the current fiscal year. That makes up for a bumpy start: last year, Congress failed to appropriate anything at all, forcing the DOJ to use $75 million from elsewhere in its budget to cover the temporary shortfall.

While this new funding is good news, it still might not be enough. According to a member of the Independent Review Committee, full implementation may cost closer to $300 million. After factoring in “training, staffing, [and] building things like classrooms,” he says, $75 million simply may not be enough. But any more substantial funding seems unlikely to materialize: in a recent budget, the White House sought nearly $300 million to fund improvements related to the law, of which only $23 million was earmarked for programming.

The DOJ prioritized transfers for people deemed to pose a “minimum” risk of recidivism under a new system developed for the First Step Act. But that system, called “PATTERN,” has never been perfect, and appears to have been quietly revised to make it more difficult to reach a “minimum” score — and by extension, that much harder to win a transfer to home confinement. This revelation offers the latest example of how the First Step Act’s implementation has proceeded in fits and starts.

Before imprisoned people can use “time credits” they’ve earned from prison programming, two conditions must be met. First, if they’re seeking a transfer to a halfway house, there must be a bed available. That’s not a sure thing, especially after a round of budget cuts by the Trump administration. Second, an incarcerated person must demonstrate that their risk of committing a new crime is low, as calculated by PATTERN.

The process of developing that tool has not gone smoothly. The first version unveiled by the DOJ, in July 2019, appeared to use a method for calculating “risk” that overstated the actual risk of re-offending among formerly incarcerated people, exaggerated racial disparities, and gave people only marginal credit for completing education, counseling, and other programs while in prison. Taken together, the tool gave short shrift to the idea that people can change while in prison — the very premise of the First Step Act.

Early this year, the DOJ shared what seemed like good news: PATTERN, it said, had been improved to partially address some of the concerns raised by the Brennan Center and others. But the tool continued to use an overly broad definition of recidivism. And while the DOJ claimed it introduced changes to reduce racial disparities, it did not release data on the revised tool’s actual effect on racial disparities. As a result, imprisoned people, families, lawyers, and advocates were all concerned when the DOJ announced it would use PATTERN to help determine who would be transferred out of federal prison during the pandemic.

Those concerns were justified. It now seems that the BOP changed PATTERN more significantly than they initially disclosed to make it much harder to qualify as a “low” or “minimum” risk. (A DOJ report, released a week after ProPublica’s story, suggests that the impact of these changes was relatively small, but offers limited data, and — still — provides no analysis of racial disparities.) This change will certainly narrow the effect of the First Step Act. But more urgently, it seems likely to keep more people in federal prison, exposed to a heightened risk of catching a deadly disease.

Trump has repeatedly claimed credit for passing the First Step Act. He did the same in a Super Bowl ad. Now his administration needs to do the hard work of ensuring that the law lives up to its promise.

The First Step Act 2018 Bill Summary: On December 21, 2018, the President signed into law The First Step Act 2018, a bipartisan effort to reform the federal criminal justice system. The Law Office of Brandon Sample has assembled this detailed analysis of the First Step Act 2018 to help the public understand the ins and outs of the bill. If you are looking for a quick answer to your questions about the First Step Act, we suggest you revisit our prior articles.

We want to be crystal clear about our position: the First Step Act 2018 is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. There will be thousands of inmates who are largely ineligible to benefit from many of the reforms contained in this law. But the legislation is, by its name, a FIRST STEP.

Since The First Step Act 2018 is broken out into six separate titles, we will break down the bill using that same organization. We are going to change it up and start from the end and work our way back towards Title I of the bill. If you would like to print a copy of this article for your loved one in prison, you may do so at this link: Law Office of Brandon Sample First Step Analysis.

The First Step Act works to address family separation caused by imprisonment. Under the Section 601 of the bill, the BOP will now be required to “place the prisoner in a facility as close as practicable to the prisoner’s primary residence,” and to the extent possible within 500 driving miles of the inmate’s home.

However, the First Step Act still provides some caveats to the “place inmates no further than 500 miles from home” rule. Placement of an inmate will still be subject to that inmate’s “security designation,” medical needs, bed availability and other security concerns of the BOP.

“Security designation,” is just a different way of saying whether an inmate is eligible to go to a medium security, low security, or high security prison based on factors evaluated by the BOP (more on that below).

One glaring weakness in the First Step act 2018 is that although it says BOP “shall” send inmates as close as practicable to their home, it also specifically provides that no court can review BOP’s placement decision. We believe this is a significant potential problem since inmates will have no way to challenge BOP’s decisions except through the BOP’s administrative remedy program.

At rock bottom, however, The First Step act 2018 will allow thousands of families to be within traveling distance of their loved ones who are in prison. On this point, The First Step act 2018 is a good initial change in the right direction.

This part of the First Step Act changes current law to make clear that Congress intends for low-risk inmates to spend as much time as possible on home confinement. The First Step Act directs BOP to place these lower risk prisoners on home confinement during the end of their sentence “for the maximum amount of time” permitted by law.

Under existing law, inmates can spend up to 10% of their sentence or 6 months (whichever amount of time is less) on home confinement. So, the First Step act 2018 instructs BOP to make sure “to the extent practicable” that all lower risk inmates spend as much as 6 months at the end of their sentence in their own home.

When Congress passed the Second Chance Act of 2007, it authorized an elderly home detention pilot program. 34 U.S.C. 60541(g). The pilot program was only available in a handful of BOP facilities, limited to 2009 and 2010, and eligibility was defined as applying to anyone:

The First Step Act reauthorizes the Elderly Home Detention program for fiscal years 2019-2023, and expands eligibility for the program. Under the expanded eligibility criteria:

Importantly, Section 504(b)(1)(B) of the First Step Act ELIMINATES the prior requirement that prisoners have served 10 years or 75 percent of their sentence, whichever is greater.

Additionally, the First Step Act allows eligible terminally ill offenders to also be placed on home confinement for the duration of their sentences. An eligible terminally ill offender is anyone who:

(i) is serving a term of imprisonment based on conviction for an offense or offenses that do not include any crime of violence (as defined in section 16(a) of title 18, United States Code), sex offense (as defined in section 111(5) of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (34 U.S.C. 20911(5))), offense described in section 2332b(g)(5)(B) of title 18, United States Code, or offense under chapter 37 of title 18, United States Code; ‘‘(ii) satisfies the criteria specified in clauses (iii) through (vii) of subparagraph (A); and ‘‘(iii) has been determined by a medical doctor approved by the Bureau of Prisons to be—

‘‘(I) in need of care at a nursing home, intermediate care facility, or assisted living facility, as those terms are defined in section 232 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715w); or ‘‘(II) diagnosed with a terminal illness.’’

The two biggest limitations to compassionate release prior to the First Step Act were these: 1) only the BOP could bring a motion seeking compassionate release; and 2) if BOP did not want to bring a motion for compassionate release even if you met their criteria there was nothing an inmate could do to have their request reviewed by a court.

The result has been that many eligible inmates never received a sentence reduction despite clearly being eligible for compassionate release. Here is how the First Step Act changes the way compassionate release requests are handled.

In a massive change, the FIRST STEP Act now provides that a motion for compassionate release can be brought by either the inmate or the BOP with the sentencing court. This means that inmates will no longer have to simply accept denial of a compassionate release request by the BOP as the last word.

But before an inmate can request compassionate release from a judge, the prisoner must submit an administrative request to the BOP. If the Warden fails to act within 30 days of the prisoner’s request, the inmate can proceed to court immediately. Alternatively, the prisoner can move for compassionate release with the court 30 days after the prisoner’s grievances have been exhausted.

The First Step Act does not change the statutory standard for receiving compassionate release. Specifically, for compassionate release to be granted, a prisoner must have:

(ii) the defendant is at least 70 years of age, has served at least 30 years in prison, pursuant to a sentence imposed under section 3559(c), for the offense or offenses for which the defendant is currently imprisoned, and a determination has been made by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons that the defendant is not a danger to the safety of any other person or the community, as provided under section 3142(g);

18 U.S.C. 3582(C)(1)(A)(i)-(ii). The “applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission” refers to U.S.S.G. 1B1.13, a provision of the Sentencing Guidelines. In light of the First Step Act, we expect the Commission to amend 1B1.13 to provide district courts with further clarity about what constitutes “extraordinary and compelling reasons.”

The First Step Act contains a number of provisions which also require BOP to inform an inmate’s attorney, family, and partner after an inmate receives a terminal illness diagnosis. The phrase “terminal illness” is defined by the First Step Act as a “disease or condition with an end-of-life trajectory.”

Within 72 hours of an