Source: bop.gov

USP Lewisburg
Special Management Unit
District of Columbia
Corrections Information Council

April 6, 2018

District of Columbia Corrections Information Council
Charles Thornton, Board Chair
Phylisa Carter, Board Member
Katharine A. Huffman, Board Member
Calvin Woodland Jr., Board Member

About the District of Columbia Corrections Information Council
The District of Columbia Corrections Information Council (CIC) is an independent oversight body
mandated by the United States Congress and the Council of the District of Columbia to inspect,
monitor, and report on the conditions of confinement in correctional facilities where inmates from
the District of Columbia are incarcerated. This includes facilities operated by the Federal Bureau of
Prisons (BOP), the District of Columbia Department of Corrections (DOC), and private
contractors.
The CIC reports its observations and recommendations to the District of Columbia Representative
in the United States Congress, the Mayor of the District of Columbia, the Council of the District of
Columbia, the District of Columbia Deputy Mayor for Public Safety and Justice, the Director of the
BOP, the Director of the DOC, and the community.
Although the CIC does not handle individual complaints or provide legal representation or advice,
individuals are still encouraged to contact the CIC. Reports, concerns, and general information from
incarcerated DC residents and the public are very important to the CIC, and they greatly inform our
inspection schedule, recommendations, and reports. However, unless expressly permitted by the
individuals or required by law, names and identifying information of incarcerated residents,
corrections staff not in leadership, and members of the general public will be kept anonymous and
confidential.
DC Corrections Information Council
2901 14th Street, NW
Ground Floor
Washington, DC 20009
Phone: (202) 478-9211
Email: dc.cic@dc.gov

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
USP Lewisburg – Special Management Unit (SMU)
February 10, 2017
Lewisburg, Pennsylvania
185 Miles from DC
3.3 Hours by Car /
Not Accessible by Bus or Public Transit

Date of Inspection:
Location:
Distance from DC:
Transportation:

USP Lewisburg
(as of January 2017)

Security Level: High
Rated Capacity: 931
Total SMU Inmates: 667

Average Age of SMU Inmates: 44.3 years old

(as of December 2016)

DC SMU Inmates: 83 (12.44% of total population)

(Phase One: 302; Phase Two: 129; Phase Three: 236)

(Phase One: 40; Phase Two: 15; Phase Three: 28)

FINDINGS
No Significant Changes to Conditions of Confinement: The BOP significantly decreased the
length of the SMU program from 18 to 24 months to 9 to 13 months. However, there have not been
significant changes to the conditions of confinement for SMU inmates, such as use of and injuries
from restraints, no access to emergency call buttons, lack of programming, and lack of access to
mental health services.
Inmates Still in SMU Over 24 Consecutive Months: Inmates in SMU prior to August 2016 may
still be housed for an indefinite amount of time, despite the recommendations provided in the DOJ
Report to limit the maximum time an inmate may spend in SMU to 24 consecutive months. Six DC
SMU inmates reported being in the SMU for three to five years
Release from SMU to Community: SMU inmates may still be released directly from SMU to the
community if there for the total allowed designation time of 24 months as well as inmates who were
housed in SMU prior to the effective date of the policy revision. The facility did not identify any
targeted re-entry programming.
No Emergency Call Buttons: DC SMU inmates reported the cells did not have any emergency call
buttons for life-threatening situations.
Failure to Respond to Cellmate Concerns: Individuals commented on notifying staff of potential
problems, but staff failed to take action.
Staff Response to Inmate Complaints: DC SMU inmates reported instances of staff retaliation in
response to inmates’ use of the administrative remedy process, Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA)
complaints, and litigation. DC SMU inmates reported that staff frequently destroy administrative
remedy requests by throwing them in the trash; consequently, the requests are never submitted.
Injuries From Restraints: DC SMU inmates reported injuries from restraints occurring after CIC’s
2014 inspection, including bruises, cuts, keloids, and extreme swelling around their waists and wrists.
Opportunity to Use the Toilet In Restraints: DC SMU inmates reported not being provided the
opportunity to use the toilet while placed in four-point restraints for periods ranging between 48 to
120 hours.
Lack of Access to Mental Health Services: Nine out of 10 DC SMU inmates responding to survey
questions reported that they did not have adequate access to mental health services. As reported by

USP Lewisburg in response to CIC’s document request, inmates who have been diagnosed with a
mental illness represent 19.5% of the SMU population. However, the Office of Inspector General
found that the BOP could not accurately determine the number of inmates with mental illness
because staff does not always document inmates’ mental illnesses.
Changes to Mental Health Care Level Assignments: Three DC SMU inmates reported a change
in their mental health care level (MHCL) assignment upon arrival to USP Lewisburg to the lowest
care level (MHCL I); and they did not receive treatment for their prior mental health diagnoses.
Lack of Private Mental Health Sessions: DC SMU inmates reported not having the opportunity
for private sessions with mental health staff unless they attempt suicide, only communicating through
a cell door, and only being handed puzzles as a form of mental health treatment.
Responding to Mental Illness Through Use of Restraints: CIC reviewed records showing an
inmate being placed in restraints in response to his outbursts in SMU. Despite his requests for
psychotropic medication to help control such outbursts, the inmate was placed in restraints to
control his behavior. Records did not show subsequent mental health treatment.
Salmonella Outbreak: The Warden reported a Salmonella outbreak between Nov. to Dec. 2016
potentially caused by a contaminated food tray. The facility replaced all food trays in response to the
outbreak.
Missing Mail: DC SMU inmates reported never receiving special mail from the CIC that was sent
on at least five separate occasions between March to June 2017.
Multi-Year Denial of Privileges: One DC SMU inmate reported a 37-year denial of telephone and
visitation privileges, despite only having 18 years left on his sentence.
Disproportionate Representation: DC inmates represented 2.6% of the total federal prison
population, but 12% of the SMU population.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Revise Program Statement 5217.02 to require individual assessments of SMU inmates housed prior
to the effective date of the policy revision to include a limitation of 24 months as of August, 9
2016.
2. Formally develop and implement interactive educational, vocational, and mental health
programming for all SMU inmates in all phases.
3. Revise Program Statement 5217.02 to require inmates housed in SMU during the final 180 days (6
months) of his incarceration be individually assessed by a multi-disciplinary team including
Executive Staff, the inmate’s Unit Team, Health Services, and Psychology Services, to determine if
individual can safely be placed in a less restrictive setting to prepare for successful reentry into
society.
4. Formally develop and implement a targeted re-entry programming for inmates being released
directly to the community from the SMU program.
5. Provide additional guidance to all BOP staff on referral procedures, with a specific focus on postdecision appeal decisions made by the Office of General Counsel (OGC) after transfer to the SMU.
6. In addition to reviewing CDR and rate of assaults to assess the relative safety of USP Lewisburg,
the BOP should consider significant incidents and concerns raised through inmate grievances,
complaints, and third-party reports to better assess the safety of the SMU program for both
inmates and staff.
7. Ensure each cell at USP Lewisburg has an operable emergency call button.
8. Formally develop and implement an expedient alternative practice to assigning cellmates that
requires input from mental health staff and inmates.
9. Pursuant to 287 C.F.R. § 115.33, ensure inmate education on how to report incidents or suspicions
of sexual abuse or sexual harassment is effectively performed.

10. Revise Program Statement 5566.06, CN-1 to require staff obtain a video camera and record all
restraints check, including two-hour Lieutenant Checks, 24-hour Health Services Staff Review, and
24-hour Psychology Staff Check.
11. Revise Program Statement 5566.06, CN-1 to develop and implement protections against being
placed in restraints as punishment.
12. Hire an independent Qualified Mental Health Professional (QMHP) to provide evaluations of
inmates’ current level of functioning for SMU inmates at USP Lewisburg. If, in the clinical
judgment of this independent evaluator, the inmate requires a higher level of care, the BOP should
make arrangements for their transfer to a more appropriate facility.
13. Revise Program Statement 5310.16 to require inmates in the SMU to sign a document
acknowledging receiving a clinical interview for all mental health evaluations.
14. Revise Program Statement 5310.16 to require all staff to document the location of critical contacts
with inmates in the SMU.
15. Develop and implement diversion and mitigation interventions for all SMU inmates as required in
Program Statement 5310.17 to prioritize alternatives to placing inmates in restraints in response to
symptoms of mental illness.
16. Increase staff training on recent BOP policy revisions affecting operations of SMU.
17. Require Executive Staff to frequently monitor special mail procedures, including tracking all
incoming & outgoing special mail and requiring SMU inmates to sign a document acknowledging
receiving special mail opened in the inmate’s presence.
18. Reinstate in-person visitation for all SMU inmates in addition to offering video visitation, with
capability for family members to connect remotely from DC.
19. Identify and develop alternatives to imposing sanctions that reduce the use of multi-year denial of
telephone and visitation privileges.
20. Require each SMU cell to have blank copies of all administrative remedy forms inside the cell.
21. Require Executive Staff to regularly monitor administrative remedies, including tracking
submissions of both informal resolution attempts and initial filings.
22. Revise Program Statement 1330.18 to require inmates in the SMU to sign a document
acknowledging submitted informal complaints, initial filings, and appeals with the date and provide
a copy to the inmate.
23. Regularly monitor trends of significant incidents, including use of force and placement in restraints,
for inmates who choose to use the administrative remedy process to ensure inmates are provided
meaningful access to resolve issues relating to their confinement without fear of staff retaliation.
24. Monitor requests for transfer to SMU, placement of inmates in SMU Program, and treatment of
inmates for disproportionate treatment based on DC Criminal Code Offender status (indicated by
“007, 016, 000).

Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................... 3
I.

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 7
A. DOJ Reports Addressing the USP Lewisburg SMU Program .................................................. 7
B. Updated BOP Policy Revisions Affecting the SMU Program ................................................... 8

II.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
M.

CIC 2017 Inspection Findings & Recommendations ............................................................... 8
Conditions of Confinement, Generally ...................................................................................... 9
SMU Program............................................................................................................................. 9
Referral Procedures ................................................................................................................... 13
Safety of the SMU Program....................................................................................................... 14
Use of Force & Restraints ......................................................................................................... 16
Mental Health Care ................................................................................................................... 18
Medical Care .............................................................................................................................22
Salmonella Outbreak .................................................................................................................23
Recreation .................................................................................................................................24
Communication & Visitation ....................................................................................................24
Discipline ..................................................................................................................................26
Administrative Remedy Program..............................................................................................27
Disproportionate Representation & Treatment of DC SMU Inmates .....................................29

III.
A.
B.
C.
D.

Appendix ................................................................................................................................... 31
Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 31
Declining Numbers in SMU Table ........................................................................................... 31
Administrative Remedy Filings & Appeals ..............................................................................32
Significant Incidents .................................................................................................................34

6|Page

I.

INTRODUCTION

The Bureau of Prison’s (BOP) Special Management Unit (SMU) serves as a behavioral modification
program for inmates with unique security and management concerns. Currently, USP Lewisburg houses all
inmates designated to the SMU. The facility also houses approximately 200 general population inmates.
Following changes in policy made by the BOP to the SMU Program in August 2016, the CIC conducted an
inspection of USP Lewisburg in February 2017. This report is intended to serve as a supplemental update of
the CIC’s 2015 USP Lewisburg inspection report.1

A. DOJ Reports Addressing the USP Lewisburg SMU Program
Subsequent to the CIC’s 2015 USP Lewisburg inspection report, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)
issued two separate reports addressing the SMU program: the DOJ Report and Recommendations
Concerning the Use of Restrictive Housing (January 2016, “DOJ Report”), and the DOJ Office of the
Inspector General (OIG) Review of the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ Use of Restrictive Housing for Inmates
with Mental Illness (July 2017, “OIG Report”).
DOJ Report and Recommendations Concerning the Use of Restrictive Housing
In January 2016, the DOJ released its final report to President Barack Obama setting out over fifty guiding
principles to responsibly limit the use of restrictive housing for all correctional systems, as well as providing
specific policy recommendations for the BOP to implement in federal prisons.2 The limitations on use of
restrictive housing recommended by the guiding principles include: using the least restrictive setting
necessary to ensure safety; returning inmates to general population as soon as it is deemed safe to do so;
increasing out-of-cell time from five hours per week; and discouraging using restrictive housing within last
180 days of incarceration.
The following list includes summaries of the DOJ Report policy recommendations made for the BOP,
relating to inmates housed in restrictive housing under the SMU program:3
Expand the BOP’s ability to divert inmates with Serious Mental Illness (SMI) to mental health
treatment programs. As the BOP expands it mental health services, it should update its policies to
require regular screenings of inmates with SMI. The BOP should revise its Program Statements
regarding SMU as necessary, in order to account for these policy changes.
Cut in half the length of the four-phase SMU program, thereby reducing the total time inmates can
spend in the program from approximately 18 to 24 months, to approximately 9 to 12 months.
Establish an incentive program for high-performing inmates to advance through SMU phases on a
shorter timeline than in the proposed timeline above.

In April 2014, the CIC conducted an initial inspection of USP Lewisburg. The report, published November 15, 2015, can be
found online at: www.cic.dc.gov/page/inspection-reports. Please refer to the CIC’s USP Lewisburg Inspection Report for more
general information on the facility and the SMU Program.
2 “FACT SHEET: Department of Justice Review of Solitary Confinement,” Office of the Press Secretary, The White House (Jan.
25, 2016); U.S. Department of Justice Report and Recommendations Concerning the Use of Restrictive Housing: Final Report
(January 2016).
3 A summary of the recommendations can be found online at https://www.justice.gov/archives/dag/report-and-recommendations-concerninguse-restrictive-housing#BOP.
1

7|Page

Limit the maximum time an inmate may spend in SMU to 24 months. Inmates who complete the
SMU program after 24 months would not be returned unless they engage in additional disruptive
behavior warranting a new referral to the SMU program.
DOJ OIG Review of the BOP Use of Restrictive Housing for Inmates with Mental Illness
In July 2017, the DOJ OIG released a report on the BOP’s use of restrictive housing, including the SMU
program, for inmates with mental illness. The OIG found that BOP policies do not adequately address the
confinement of inmates with mental illness in Restrictive Housing Units (RHU), including SMU, and the
BOP does not sufficiently track or monitor such inmates. Furthermore, the OIG found that mental health
staff do not always document inmates’ mental illnesses, leaving the BOP unable to accurately determine the
number of inmates with mental illness and ensure that BOP provides appropriate care to them.4

B. Updated BOP Policy Revisions Affecting the SMU Program
In March 2016, President Barack Obama directed the DOJ in a Presidential Memorandum to implement the
policy recommendations in the DOJ Report.5 On August 9, 2016, the BOP announced changes to the SMU
Program in response to the recommendations made by the DOJ Report to limit the use of restrictive
housing.6
Revisions to the SMU Program
The changes made reflect recommendations in the DOJ Report addressing reducing the length of the SMU
program and diverting inmates with SMI from being placed in the SMU. Specifically:
The SMU program is now a three-level program designed to be nine to 13 months in length.
Furthermore, the BOP established the maximum time an inmate may spend in SMU is 24
consecutive months.
Inmates designated to the SMU Program must have at least 24 months left on his sentence.
Greater review of mental health records prior to placement in a SMU, including sending SMU
referrals to the BOP’s Central Office Psychology Services Branch for review to determine whether
any mental health concerns exist that would preclude the individual from being housed in a SMU
program.
An inmate already placed in a SMU may be removed from the program if his mental health does not
reasonably allow him to complete the program.

II.

CIC 2017 Inspection Findings & Recommendations

As a follow-up from the CIC 2015 USP Lewisburg Inspection Report, the CIC is monitoring the SMU
compliance with BOP program statements and the implementation of recommendations contained in the
2015 CIC report. Furthermore, new findings were made during the CIC’s 2017 inspection and are included
below, along with additional recommendations.
The OIG made 15 recommendations to the BOP to improve screening, treatment, and monitoring of inmates with mental
illness who are housed in RHUs, including the SMU program.
5 “Limiting the Use of Restrictive Housing by the Federal Government,” Presidential Memorandum (March 1, 2016).
6 FED. BUREAU OF PRISONS, U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE, P5217.02, SPECIAL MANAGEMENT UNITS (AUG. 9, 2016); DOJ Report.
4

8|Page

A. Conditions of Confinement, Generally
The CIC is pleased to see the changes made by the BOP in significantly decreasing the length of the SMU
program, and encourages the BOP’s continued efforts to avoid placing inmates in the program. 7 As
observed throughout our report, however, there have not been significant changes to the conditions of
confinement for SMU inmates.
As stated in the DOJ Report’s Guiding Principles, facilities should find ways to increase out-of-cell time to
include opportunities for recreation, education, clinically appropriate treatment therapies, skill-building, and
social interaction with staff and other inmates.8 The Guiding Principles further state units should maintain
adequate conditions for environmental, health, and fire safety.9 The DOJ Report then recommended
changes to the SMU to enhance opportunities for out-of-cell time.10 Given the decreased SMU population,
serious efforts should be taken to address the concerns documented throughout this report to improve the
conditions of confinement at USP Lewisburg.

B. SMU Program
Applicability to Inmates Housed in SMU Before Policy Revisions
Under P5217.02, inmates who were housed in the SMU program as of August 9, 2016, or prior to the
effective date of the updated policy, would be individually assessed and could be housed in the SMU
program for more than 24 consecutive months depending on his program level. Furthermore, on August 10,
2016, the Warden issued a memorandum to all SMU inmates clarifying the applicability of the policy
revisions and individual assessments for those SMU inmates who were housed in SMU prior to the effective
date of the policy revision.
As shown below, the CIC received reports from six DC SMU inmates who had been in the SMU for three
to five years, which was confirmed after checking previous rosters with locations of DC inmates. As clearly
stated in P5217.02, some SMU inmates may still be housed for an indefinite amount of time, despite the
recommendations provided in the DOJ Report to limit the maximum time an inmate may spend in SMU to
24 months.11
Changes to Program Structure
As previously discussed, the SMU program is now a three-level program designed to be nine to 13 months
in length. Furthermore, the BOP established the maximum time an inmate may spend in SMU is 24
consecutive months.
In response to the CIC’s 2017 survey, six DC SMU inmates reported being in the SMU for three to five
years; seven for one to two years; and 11 for less than one year. Of the six DC SMU inmates who reported
being in the SMU for three to five years, two (33%) reported having been diagnosed with a mental health

For further discussion on the decrease in the SMU population, please refer to Section II(L).
DOJ Report, p 99.
9 Id.
10 DOJ Report, p 116.
11 DOJ Report, p 112.
7
8

9|Page

illness. Additionally, out of 23 responses, 15 DC SMU inmates reported being sent to the SMU program
once; seven sent twice; and one sent three times.

Length of Stay
3-5
Years
25%

Less
than 1
1 -2
Year
Years
46%
29%

Number of Times Sent to SMU
Three
4%
Two
31%
One
65%

Programming
In accordance with the changes made to the SMU program, programming at USP Lewisburg is now being
offered as follows:
Phase One
Program Statement 5217.02 states that inmates in Phase One complete their initial programming assessment
and continue their involvement in GED or ESL classes, either individually or in a classroom setting. At USP
Lewisburg, inmates in GED or ESL classes at Phase One take the classes in their assigned cells and are not
allowed to participate via a classroom setting. SMU inmates are offered one hour of recreation in outdoor
recreation cages each weekday. Inmates are expected to complete Phase One between six and eight months.
At the time of the inspection, the CIC interviewed 14 DC SMU inmates who were currently at Phase One in
USP Lewisburg. Of these 14 inmates, nine (64%) reported they were not participating in any academic,
vocational, or mental health programming. One individual explained that in terms of programming he
received work packets, but he did not find them helpful or rehabilitative and only completed them to get
programming points. Another individual also reported that the SMU programming was not rehabilitative
and believed the program only served as “perpetual punitive segregation.”
One individual who was participating in GED classes reported seeing his GED teacher only once every
month. He stated the class only consisted of a two to three page packet. Another individual also
participating in GED classes noted the absence of any educational teachers present in the SMU.
Phase Two
Program Statement 5217.02 states that inmates in Phase Two continue their involvement in GED or ESL
classes, either individually or in a classroom setting. In addition, Psychology staff members are expected to
have frequent contact with inmates and may provide in-cell materials or involve inmates in Evidence Based
Therapy (EBT) groups. Furthermore, the facility may require individuals to participate in individual and/or
small group counseling sessions addressing treatment readiness, fundamental communication skills, criminal
thinking, and improvement of coping/problem-solving skills. At USP Lewisburg, inmates in GED or ESL
classes at Phase Two take the classes in their assigned cells and are not allowed to participate via a classroom
setting. Furthermore, as written in USP Lewisburg’s Admission & Orientation (A&O) Handbook, inmates

10 | P a g e

who qualify may participate in limited Vocational Training (VT) preparation courses.12 During the 2017 CIC
Inspection, the facility reported that SMU inmates in Phase Two have the opportunity for out of cell time
over one hour each weekday. Inmates are expected to complete Phase Two between two and three months.
At the time of the inspection, the CIC interviewed three DC SMU inmates who were currently at Phase
Two in USP Lewisburg. Two individuals reported not participating in any vocational or mental health
programming. One individual specifically stated a belief that individuals in the SMU are not allowed to
participate in any programming while in SMU.
Phase Three
Program Statement 5217.02 states that inmates in Phase Three participate in activities with more interaction
in less restrictive environments. Inmates continue to participate in counseling and group counseling sessions
as described in Phase Two. Furthermore, BOP policy states programming will normally occur for three to
five hours Monday through Friday. At USP Lewisburg, inmates in GED or ESL classes at Phase Three may
participate via a classroom setting outside of their assigned cells. SMU Phase Three inmates are offered one
hour and forty minutes of out of cell time daily. In addition, SMU Phase Three inmates may have the
opportunity to watch television in indoor recreation cages. The indoor recreation cages are also used for
group sessions and can accommodate three to four inmates per cell. Inmates are expected to complete Level
Three between one and two months.
At the time of the inspection, the CIC interviewed four DC SMU inmates who were currently at Phase
Three in USP Lewisburg. All four individuals reported that they do not participate in any vocational or
mental health programming.
Resets
If inmates are convicted of disciplinary infractions, or otherwise fail to make satisfactory progress, they
“reset” and begin the program on Day One of Phase One.
In response to the CIC’s 2017 survey, 13 of 22 DC SMU inmates who responded, reported being reset to
Phase One at least once. Of the 22 DC SMU inmates who responded, seven (32%) reported being reset to
Phase One at least three times. Of these seven individuals, four (57%) reported being at USP Lewisburg for
three to five years (as of February 2017). The chart below breaks down the number of times individuals
have been reset to Phase One, for the 22 DC SMU inmates who responded.

Number of Times Reset to Phase One
5 or more
18%
3-4
14%

Never
41%

1-2
27%

Qualifications include: (1) Having a high school diploma or GED; (2) Having 6+ months available to complete the course; and
(3) No 100 or 200 series incident reports or pending incident reports within the last four months in disciplinary record.
12

11 | P a g e

Of the seven individuals who reported being reset to Phase One at least three times, three (43%) reported
being diagnosed with a mental health illness. All three individuals further reported that they have not
received adequate access to mental health care services at USP Lewisburg. Furthermore, of these three DC
SMU inmates with mental health illnesses, one individual reported he was reset to Phase One numerous
times, to such an extent that he “can’t even count on both hands.”
Additionally, three DC SMU inmates reported they were reset to Phase One after already completing the
SMU program and awaiting transfer. Moreover, two DC SMU inmates reported they were reset to Phase
One out of retaliation for filing PREA complaints and lawsuits against the facility.
End of Term Placements
As stated in the DOJ Report’s Guiding Principles, inmates placed in restrictive housing during the final 180
days (6 months) of his incarceration should be safely placed in less restrictive settings. 13 The Guiding
Principles further state that if segregation is determined to still be necessary, targeted re-entry programming
should be provided.14 The DOJ Report then recommended that the BOP draft policy regarding end-of-term
restrictive housing, in an effort to prevent inmates from being involuntarily housed in segregation during the
final 180 days (six months) of his or her sentence. While the BOP policy revisions now require inmates to
have at least 24 months left on his sentence to meet SMU referral criteria, SMU inmates may still be released
directly from the SMU program if he is there for the total allowed designation time of 24 months. 15
Furthermore, as stated above, SMU inmates who were housed in SMU prior to the effective date of the
policy revision are not limited by the total allowed designation time, and may still be released directly from
the SMU program. Finally, at the time of the inspection, the facility did not identify any targeted re-entry
programming.
As of January 1, 2017, out of the 124 DC inmates at USP Lewisburg, four were scheduled for release within
12 months, and nine were scheduled for release within 24 months. As of June 2017, two DC inmates at USP
Lewisburg have since been released from the BOP, with one individual being released directly from
Lewisburg’s SMU program and the other transferred to USP Allenwood within the last two to five months
of his sentence.16
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Revise Program Statement 5217.02 to require individual assessments of SMU inmates housed prior
to the effective date of the policy revision to include a limitation of 24 months as of August, 9 2016.
Formally develop and implement interactive educational, vocational, and mental health
programming for all SMU inmates in all phases.
Revise Program Statement 5217.02 to require inmates housed in SMU during the final 180 days (6
months) of his incarceration be individually assessed by a multi-disciplinary team including
Executive Staff, the inmate’s Unit Team, Health Services, and Psychology Services, to determine if

DOJ Report, p 95.
Id.
15 P5217.02, pp 3 & 13.
16 Except as otherwise noted, the numbers reflect DC population for USP Lewisburg, including those in general population.
However, there still exists the possibility that DC inmates can be released directly from involuntary segregation because the
significant majority of DC inmates are in the SMU program and there was one confirmed instance of a DC inmate being released
directly from the SMU program.
13
14

12 | P a g e

individual can safely be placed in a less restrictive setting to prepare for successful reentry into
society.
Formally develop and implement a targeted re-entry programming for inmates being released
directly to the community from the SMU program.

C. Referral Procedures
When considering designating an inmate to the SMU, a copy of the referral is sent to the BOP’s Central
Office Psychology Services Branch after the Warden at the inmate’s current facility approves of the referral
and the Regional Director determines there is sufficient evidence to warrant a hearing. 17 As stated in the
updated program statement, the Psychology Services Branch reviews the inmate’s mental health record to
determine whether any mental health concerns exist to preclude the individual from being housed in the
SMU. The program statement further directs the BOP to refer to Program Statement 5310.16 (Treatment
and Care of Inmates with Mental Illness) when considering housing an individual with a serious mental
health illness (SMI) in the SMU. If no evidence is found to preclude a hearing, an impartial Hearing
Administrator (trained and certified as a Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO)) is appointed to conduct a
hearing to determine whether the individual meets the criteria for SMU designation.18
Once an inmate’s SMU referral is approved by the Designation and Sentence Computation Center (DSCC),
a copy of the completed report is sent to the referring Warden, who is responsible for delivering the report
to the inmate.19 The inmate is provided the opportunity to appeal the decision and the Hearing
Administrator’s findings directly to the Office of General Counsel (OGC) by using the Administrative
Remedy Program. If an inmate chooses to appeal, he may still be designated and transferred to the SMU
and continue with the appeal while housed in SMU.
Multiple DC SMU inmates reported the SMU referral procedure is being enforced as a form of punishment,
that it is biased against DC inmates, and that the appeals process is a sham. One DC SMU inmate stated
that the Hearing Administrator in his previous facility was the same individual serving as the facility’s DHO,
resulting in a conflict of interest. Another DC SMU inmate reported he was present at his hearing, but was
not provided the opportunity to challenge the findings during the hearing. He appealed the decision while
housed in USP Lewisburg, but had not received any response. Two DC SMU inmates reported never
receiving the Hearing Administrator’s findings and, consequently, they were not afforded the opportunity to
appeal the decision. Of significant concern was a DC SMU inmate who appealed the Hearing
Administrator’s decision to the OGC and had his sanction lifted so that he could be transferred out of the
SMU. However, he was not transferred but was instead told by staff at USP Lewisburg, “Once you’re in the
program (SMU), you have to finish the program.”
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Provide additional guidance to all BOP staff on referral procedures, with a specific focus on postdecision appeal decisions made by the OGC after transfer to the SMU.

P5217.02.
Id.
19 Id.
17
18

13 | P a g e

D. Safety of the SMU Program
As stated by the BOP, the agency assesses the safety of facilities by reviewing (1) Chronological Disciplinary
Records (CDR), including assaults; and (2) Rate of Assaults. 20 From January to December 2016, USP
Lewisburg reported 12 guilty findings for serious assaults (Prohibited Act 101) and 104 guilty findings for
less serious assaults (Prohibited Act 224). The rate of assaults per 5,000 inmates for serious assaults is 47.58
and 412.34 for less serious assaults. A chart of all significant incidents reported by the BOP between January
to December 2016 is available in Appendix D.
In addition to the factors listed above, the CIC looks at additional criteria to assess the safety of facilities for
staff and inmates, including emergency response, sexual abuse allegations, retaliation, and inmate concerns.
Emergency Call Button
Several DC SMU inmates reported the cells at USP Lewisburg did not have any emergency call buttons for
life-threatening situations. One individual described an incident where his cellmate attempted suicide in their
cell; however, because there was no emergency call button in the cell, he could only try to get the attention
of an officer by kicking the cell door.
Failure to Respond to Cellmate Concerns
SMU inmates at USP Lewisburg, ordinarily, are housed two to a cell, for 23-24 hours a day while in Phase
One & Two; and 22-24 hours a day while in Phase Three. As reported in the DOJ and OIG Reports, the
practice of housing two inmates in segregation together in the same cell is commonly referred to as “doublecelling.” In October 2016, National Public Radio (NPR) and The Marshall Project reported, in part, on the
practice & consequences of double-celling at USP Lewisburg’s SMU. The article quoted an anonymous
SMU corrections officer, saying: “I’ve gone to as many as three, four cell fights in a day…”21 As stated in the
DOJ Report’s Guiding Principles, inmates who show signs of psychological deterioration should be
immediately evaluated by mental health staff.22 The Guiding Principles further state that denial of basic human
needs should not be used as a form of punishment.23
Multiple DC SMU inmates reported having issues with current and/or prior cellmates while at USP
Lewisburg. Particularly, DC SMU inmates highlighted instances where they had cellmates with mental health
concerns. Several individuals commented that they notified staff of potential problems, but staff failed to
take action. One DC SMU inmate reported that, over the course of a year, he had several cellmates with
perceived mental health illnesses who had outbursts in the middle of the night and smeared feces on the
wall. Another individual reported that an officer denied him outdoor recreation and showers for two
consecutive weeks, and informed the individual that the only way to get them back was if he would “f*** his
cellie (cellmate) up.”

Information can be found on BOP website at https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_prison_safety.jsp.
“Inside Lewisburg Prison: A Choice Between A Violent Cellmate or Shackles,” Published Oct. 26, 2016; NPR News. Available
online
at
https://www.npr.org/2016/10/26/498582706/inside-lewisburg-prison-a-choice-between-a-violent-cellmate-orshackles.
22 DOJ Report, p 101.
23 DOJ Report, p 99.
20
21

14 | P a g e

Sexual Abuse
The Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) requires the BOP to implement the national standards to prevent,
detect, and respond to sexual abuse and sexual harassment.24 Some of the standards include:
All inmates are required to receive information explaining how to report incidents or suspicions of
sexual abuse or sexual harassment (287 C.F.R. § 115.33).
Following allegations of sexual abuse made by inmates, the BOP is required to protect against
retaliation by using multiple protection measures, such as housing changes or transfers and
removing alleged staff abusers from contact with victims (287 C.F.R. § 115.67(b)).
Inmate victims of sexual abuse are required to receive timely, unimpeded access to crisis
intervention services; the facility will also offer a mental health evaluation and treatment (287 C.F.R.
§§ 115.82 & 115.83)
In response to the 2017 CIC inmate survey, a majority stated they had not been informed of PREA
reporting options. Out of a total of 18 respondents, thirteen DC SMU inmates (72%) stated that they were
not told how to report sexual abuse at USP Lewisburg.
Two DC SMU inmates surveyed indicated that they filed PREA complaints for sexual abuse. Both inmates
indicated experiences of retaliation as a result of filing those complaints. The inmates explained that multiple
correctional officers were made aware of the retaliatory abuses but appropriate safety measures were not
subsequently followed. One DC SMU inmate indicated that following an incident where he was sexually
abused by a staff member, he sought and received a no-contact order. He further reported that despite the
no-contact order, he continued to be under the regular supervision of the alleged abuser.
Furthermore, both DC SMU inmates who reported filing PREA complaints indicated that they were not
given access to mental health care. Specifically, the individuals reported they did not have the opportunity to
meet with a psychologist after filing PREA complaints.
Staff Retaliation
An overwhelming majority of DC SMU inmates surveyed as part of the February 2017 inspection reported
instances of staff retaliation in response to inmates’ use of the administrative remedy process, PREA
complaints, and litigation. Of the 63% of DC SMU inmates surveyed in 2017 who have used the
administrative remedy process at USP Lewisburg, the most common reason why respondents have used the
process is for filing complaints against staff. Furthermore, staff retaliation was the most common response
as to why DC SMU inmates have chosen not to use the administrative remedy process at USP Lewisburg.
Multiple individuals reported instances of excessive use of force and placement in restraints after trying to
submit complaints using the administrative remedy process.
In addition, DC SMU inmates reported that inmates are transferred to the D-Block Housing Unit if they file
administrative remedy requests or litigate in court. As stated by DC SMU inmates, D-Block is used as a
punitive/disciplinary housing unit. Several DC SMU inmates reported the Unit Team on D-Block frequently
tampers with inmate mail & documents, including administrative remedy requests and appeals, and engages
in abusive staff use of force.

Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-79; Sept. 4, 2003); 28 CFR Part 115, National Standards To Prevent,
Detect, and Respond to Prison Rape, Final Rule (June 20, 2012).
24

15 | P a g e

RECOMMENDATIONS:
In addition to reviewing CDR and rate of assaults to assess the relative safety of USP Lewisburg, the
BOP should consider significant incidents and concerns raised through inmate grievances,
complaints, and third-party reports to better assess the safety of the SMU program for both inmates
and staff.
Ensure each cell at USP Lewisburg has an operable emergency call button.
Formally develop and implement an expedient alternative practice to assigning cellmates that
requires input from mental health staff and inmates.
Pursuant to 287 C.F.R. § 115.33, ensure inmate education on how to report incidents or suspicions
of sexual abuse or sexual harassment is effectively performed. In addition to providing information
at orientation, via video, in handbook, and on posters, the facility should obtain acknowledgement
from each inmate that they have received and understand the various ways of reporting sexual abuse
and sexual harassment.

E. Use of Force & Restraints
In 2015, the CIC found that USP Lewisburg was in non-compliance with the BOP’s policy on Use of Force
And Application of Restraints.25 Based on observations and inmate reports in 2017, the CIC finds that USP
Lewisburg continues to be in non-compliance with BOP policy. Furthermore, the CIC finds that USP
Lewisburg is in non-compliance with federal regulations on use of force and four-point restraints, including
providing individuals the opportunity to use the toilet while in restraints.26 In response to the CIC’s 2017
survey, seven DC SMU inmates reported being placed in restraints at USP Lewisburg.27
Significant Incidents
As shown in the chart below, the total number of incidents involving use of chemicals, force, and restraints
declined between 2013 to 2016. The CIC encourages the BOP’s continued efforts to promote the safety and
security of staff and inmates.
Significant Incident History –
Use of Chemicals, Force, and Restraints
Uses of Chemicals
Use of Force
Use of Restraints
Total Number of Significant Incidents –
Use of Chemicals, Force, and Restraints

201328
143
137
195
475

2016
94
81
118
293

Source: BOP. Statistics for 2013 dated 01/2013 to 12/2013. Statistics for 2016 dated 01/2016 to 12/2016.

FED. BUREAU OF PRISONS, U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE, P5566.06, CN-1, USE OF FORCE AND APPLICATION OF RESTRAINTS (AUG.
29, 2014).
26 28 C.F.R. § 552.24(e).
27 Refer to II(E) for further discussion on the duration of restraints used on inmates with mental illness.
28 The initial publication of CIC’s 2015 USP Lewisburg Inspection Report erroneously stated “No data provided” for the
following numbers. The information was received by the BOP in response to the CIC’s inspection request. A corrected version of
the 2015 Report is now available on our website, as well as provided in this report.
25

16 | P a g e

Use of Chemicals After Restraints
Two DC SMU inmates reported being maced before being placed in restraints and were not given the
opportunity to rinse off the chemicals. One individual specifically reported being placed back in his cell after
being maced and did not receive any soap or washcloth for three days, and in that time could not clean
himself or his bed, which was covered in the chemical.
Harassment, Threats, & Assaults By Staff and Other Inmates
In response to the CIC’s 2017 survey, approximately 48% of DC SMU inmates surveyed reported being
harassed, threatened, or abused by staff at USP Lewisburg; and 14% reported being harassed, threatened, or
abused by other inmates.29 When asked to share the most negative aspects of USP Lewisburg, a majority of
DC SMU inmates reported problems with staff, specifically corrections officers, and physical assaults. In
addition, DC SMU inmates continued to report staff-on-inmate assaults occurring in areas where there are
no cameras, including showers and back hallways.
Duration of Restraints
In response to the CIC’s 2017 survey, five DC SMU inmates reported the maximum time they had been
kept in restraints at USP Lewisburg as follows: five days; four days; two days; and two individuals reported
spending 24 hours in restraints.30
Injuries From Restraints
In response to the CIC’s 2017 survey, four DC SMU inmates reported injuries from the use and application
of restraints at USP Lewisburg, including bruises, cuts, keloids, and extreme swelling around their waists and
wrists. Two individuals also noted permanent nerve damage in their hands. One individual who was
diagnosed with a mental health illness reported that he experienced mental and emotional damage as a result
of the use and application of restraints.
Reporting & Videotape Requirements of Use of Force & Restraints Incidents
Staff are required to obtain a video camera immediately and record any use of force incident, unless it would
endanger the inmate, staff, or others, or would result in a major disturbance or serious property damage.31
After an individual is placed in restraints, staff are required to document the two-hour Lieutenant checks,
24-hour Health Services Staff Review, and 24-hour Psychology Staff Check. Restraints checks currently are
not required to be videotaped by staff.
In response to the CIC’s 2017 survey, two DC SMU inmates reported staff at USP Lewisburg do not use
video cameras while being restrained. The CIC received additional concerns from community partners who
said frequently there are discrepancies between staff and inmates as to whether the restraints checks are
occurring and what is said during the checks.
Documentation of Injuries by Health Services
Program Statement 5566.06, CN-1, states that staff are required to document all incidents of use of
restraints, including medical reports. In response to the CIC’s 2017 survey, DC SMU inmates reported
instances where Health Services at USP Lewisburg failed to document injuries.
When asked, “Have you ever been harassed, threatened, or abused by staff here?”: 10 reported Yes, and 11 reported No. When
asked, “Have you ever been harassed, threatened, or abused by other inmates here?”: 3 reported Yes, and 18 reported No.
30 Refer to II(E) for further discussion on the duration of restraints used on inmates with mental illness.
31 P5566.06, CN-1.
29

17 | P a g e

Opportunity to Use the Toilet
Pursuant to federal regulation 28 C.F.R. § 552.24(e), while an inmate is placed in four-point restraints, he
will be afforded the opportunity to use the toilet at every two-hour review, unless he continues to actively
resist or becomes violent. In response to the CIC’s 2017 survey, three DC SMU inmates reported not being
provided the opportunity to use the toilet while placed in four-point restraints for periods ranging between
48 to 120 hours. One individual commented, “They play torture mind-games with the urinal.”
Application of Restraints as Form of Retaliation
Pursuant to federal regulation 28 C.F.R. § 552.24(e), use of force may not be used as a way to punish
inmates. In response to the CIC’s 2017 survey, three DC SMU inmates reported being placed in restraints
out of retaliation for filing complaints against the facility, including Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA)
complaints, lawsuits, and incident reports to the BOP Office of Internal Affairs (OIA). Additionally, a DC
SMU inmate stated that he chooses not to report any incidents because then “you run into a lot of
problems” with staff at USP Lewisburg.
Of particular concern was a DC SMU inmate who said that two SMU inmates who were celled together had
set themselves on fire in May 2016 in their cell on D-Block protesting their conditions of confinement. The
CIC received additional letters from two different SMU inmates regarding the same incident. Reports
received indicated that the SMU inmates informed staff they were going to set themselves on fire and were
ignored by staff. After the SMU inmates set themselves on fire, they were placed in restraints.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Revise Program Statement 5566.06, CN-1 to require staff obtain a video camera and record all
restraints check, including two-hour Lieutenant Checks, 24-hour Health Services Staff Review, and
24-hour Psychology Staff Check.
Revise Program Statement 5566.06, CN-1 to develop and implement protections against being
placed in restraints as punishment.

F. Mental Health Care
Based on DOJ reports, observations, inmate reports, and other information collected in 2017, the CIC finds
that USP Lewisburg continues to be in non-compliance with BOP’s policies on the SMU program and
Treatment and Care of Inmates With Mental Illness. 32
Staffing Levels
As of February 2017, Psychology Services staff at USP Lewisburg consisted of 19 on-site staff, made up of
17 BOP staff members and two U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) staff members, who provide psychology
services to a total of 1,247 inmates at USP Lewisburg. Of the 19 staff in Psychology Services, three
Psychologists are designated for SMU. Therefore, with a SMU population of 618 inmates at the time of the
CIC inspection, USP Lewisburg was operating with one Psychologist per every 206 SMU inmates.33 Despite
the increased ratio of SMU Psychologists to inmates from the OIG report, the CIC continued to receive

P5217.02; FED. BUREAU OF PRISONS, U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE, P5310.16, TREATMENT AND CARE OF INMATES WITH MENTAL
ILLNESS (MAY 1, 2014).
33 As of 2015, USP Lewisburg was operating with 1 Staff Psychologist per every 582 SMU inmates (OIG Report).
32

18 | P a g e

reports of inmates not receiving mental health services at USP Lewisburg, as well as reports of declining
Mental Health Care Levels (MHCL) of individuals while incarcerated at USP Lewisburg (discussed below).
SMU Population of Inmates with Mental Illness & Access to Mental Health Services
USP Lewisburg is a Mental Health Care Level II facility.34 As of January 2017, USP Lewisburg reported
there were 130 SMU inmates overall, including 15 DC inmates, who had been diagnosed with a mental
health illness. As reported by USP Lewisburg in response to CIC’s document request, inmates who have
been diagnosed with a mental health illness represent 19.5% of the SMU population. However, the OIG
found that the BOP could not accurately determine the number of inmates with mental illness because staff
does not always document inmates’ mental illnesses.35 In 2015, a SMU Psychologist reported to OIG that
approximately 90% of SMU inmates have a mental illness (if including personality disorders).36
Without adequate access to mental health services, many inmates may not have the opportunity to be
properly diagnosed, and, consequently, continue to be denied necessary mental health care as required in
P5310.16. In support of this finding, in response to the 2017 survey, several DC SMU inmates with no
diagnosed mental health illnesses reported requesting mental health services on several occasions but never
receiving a response. Out of 10 DC SMU inmates who responded and required mental health services, nine
reported not having adequate access to mental health services, and only one reported having adequate access
to mental health services.
The CIC asked DC SMU inmates who required mental health services to rate their satisfaction with both the
quality and wait times of mental health services at USP Lewisburg. 37 Out of 10 DC SMU inmates who
responded and required mental health services, all 10 reported being very unsatisfied with the quality of
mental health care at USP Lewisburg. Furthermore, out of 10 DC SMU inmates who responded and
required mental health services, eight reported being very unsatisfied and two reported being unsatisfied
with the wait times at USP Lewisburg.
Change of Mental Health Care Level Assignment (MHCL)
BOP policy states that an individual’s MHCL may only be changed by a psychologist, psychiatrist, or
qualified mid-level practitioner after a review of records and a face-to-face clinical interview establishing a
diagnosis or indicating the absence of a diagnosis.38 The BOP policy further states that mental health care
levels are not changed for administrative, designation, or transfer purposes.
The OIG Report stated that, following the adoption of the revised mental health policy in 2014 increasing
the standards of care (P5310.16), there was a 56% decrease in the number of SMU inmates receiving regular
mental health treatment. The OIG concluded that mental health staff may have reduced the number of
inmates who were required to receive regular mental health treatment because they did not have the
necessary staffing to provide the increased treatment standards.

34

For more information about medical care levels, please refer to the CIC Info Sheet – BOP Medical Care Levels. Available
online at https://cic.dc.gov/page/cic-info-sheets
35 OIG Report.
36 Id.
37 Note: responses of “N/A” were not included in the analysis to ensure that levels of satisfaction refer only to those who have
used these services. For instance, analysis of mental health perceptions is based only on responses from inmates who require
mental health services.
38 P5310.16

19 | P a g e

In response to the CIC’s 2017 survey, three DC SMU inmates reported a change in their MHCL assignment
upon arrival to USP Lewisburg. All three individuals reported being dropped to a MHCL One and being
rediagnosed with Antisocial Personality Disorder, despite having previous diagnoses of serious mental
illnesses, including Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), depression, and anxiety.
Evaluations & Private Interviews
As a result of the policy changes made to the SMU Program, additional opportunities were created to review
an inmate’s mental health concerns and designate him to a different facility, if approved by the BOP’s
Central Office Psychology Services Branch.39 In addition to an initial intake screening evaluation, inmates in
the SMU are supposed to be evaluated every 30 days by mental health staff, with additional services for
emergencies or inmates requiring routine/follow-up visits.40 Mental health evaluations in restrictive housing,
including the SMU, is supposed to include a review of an inmate’s records, behavioral observations, a
clinical interview, and psychological testing (if clinically indicated).41
Furthermore, as standard procedure, Psychology Services is supposed to remove inmates from their cells in
restrictive housing units, including the SMU, for private interviews to provide appropriate treatment and
care consistent with the inmate’s MHCL.42 There are exceptions from removing inmates from their cells for
such interviews, including when inmates are behaving aggressively or for safety and security reasons.
BOP policy further states that all critical contacts be conducted in a private area, to the extent possible.43
Critical contacts include diagnostic assessments, suicide risk assessments, crisis intervention, and any other
mental health service addressing potentially sensitive issues.44 As stated in the OIG Report, BOP Psychology
Services Branch officials reported that BOP policy requires inmates to be treated in a private area, but not the
critical contact with psychology staff. Furthermore, the officials noted that documenting where critical
contacts occur is a best practice, but not required by BOP policy. In response, the OIG Report found that
the inconsistent documentation of where critical contacts occur by staff “prevents the BOP from assessing
the extent to which its policy goal to protect inmate privacy has been achieved and limits its ability to
correct practices that are inconsistent with policy, which may limit the appropriate treatment and care
afforded to inmates according to MHCL.”45
When asked if evaluated by mental health staff upon arrival at USP Lewisburg, three DC SMU inmates
(13%) said yes, 18 said no (78.3%), and two said they did not know (8.7%). Several DC SMU inmates
reported that the evaluation only consisted of a paper questionnaire they completed in their cells and slid
through the door. DC SMU inmates did not consider the questionnaire to be an adequate evaluation
process.
When asked if evaluated by mental health staff every 30 days, all 21 DC SMU inmates (100%) who
responded said no. Several DC SMU inmates reported never having the opportunity for private sessions,
only communicating with mental health staff through a cell door, and only being handed puzzles during
rounds. One individual who responded to the survey and required mental health services had been in the
SMU program since 2015 and reported that he had never communicated in a private setting with
P5217.02
P5217.02
41 P5310.16, p 20
42 P5310.16
43 P5310.16
44 P5310.16
45 OIG Report, p 47
39
40

20 | P a g e

Psychology staff, and thus never felt that he could safely talk about his sensitive mental health concerns. He
further reported he was recently taken off his anxiety medication without any warning, and despite never
having a private interview with anyone from Psychology Services.
Of significant concern were two inmate reports describing situations where Psychology staff told inmates
psychological evaluations are based solely off an inmate’s incident reports. Furthermore, both individuals
also reported that inmates are not afforded the opportunity for a private interview with mental health staff
unless they attempt suicide. One individual who requested a private interview at least six times since being at
USP Lewisburg stated: “The only time they provide one-on-one is when you’re hanging from a noose.”
Treating Mental Illness Through Use of Restraints
Of the seven individuals interviewed in 2017 who reported being placed in restraints, three (43%) indicated
they had been diagnosed with a mental health illness. All three individuals further reported they had not
received any mental health care services at USP Lewisburg. One of the DC SMU inmates who was
interviewed by the CIC and provided BOP records, evidenced being placed in restraints after repeated
requests for a private interview with psychology staff and be placed back on his psychotropic medication to
control his behavioral issues. According to documentation, psychology staff responded to his requests for
mental health treatment by contacting corrections staff for the behavioral issues in question, specifically the
reason given was because of his “unwillingness to engage.” Corrections staff then proceeded to place the
inmate in restraints.
Inmates suffering from mental illness who are not provided appropriate treatment and care may be prone to
violent and/or disruptive behavior resulting from symptoms of his mental illness, as evidenced by the
behavioral issues reported by the inmate above. Instead of being provided appropriate mental health
treatment, these individuals suffer from the symptoms of their illnesses and are then further punished by
being placed in restraints, usually for extended periods of time.46
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Hire an independent Qualified Mental Health Professional (QMHP) to provide evaluations of
inmates’ current level of functioning for SMU inmates at USP Lewisburg. If, in the clinical judgment
of this independent evaluator, the inmate requires a higher level of care, the BOP should make
arrangements for their transfer to a more appropriate facility.47
Revise Program Statement 5310.16 to require inmates in the SMU to sign a document
acknowledging receiving a clinical interview for all mental health evaluations.
Revise Program Statement 5310.16 to require all staff to document the location of critical contacts
with inmates in the SMU.
Develop and implement diversion and mitigation interventions for all SMU inmates as required in
Program Statement 5310.17 to prioritize alternatives to placing inmates in restraints in response to
symptoms of mental illness.
Increase staff training on recent BOP policy revisions affecting operations of SMU.48

46

In response to the CIC’s 2017 survey, five DC SMU inmates reported the maximum time they had been kept in restraints at
USP Lewisburg. Of these individuals, two had been diagnosed with a mental health illness, either at USP Lewisburg or elsewhere,
and had been kept in restraints for five days and two days at USP Lewisburg.
47 Dr. Andrea Weisman, Ph.D., expert communication, July 19, 2017.
48 One DC SMU inmate recommended providing training to staff on the recent changes to BOP policy, specifically the changes
made to housing individuals with SMI in the SMU program.

21 | P a g e

G. Medical Care
Staffing Levels
As of February 2017, Health Services staff at USP Lewisburg consisted of 29 on-site staff, made up of 26
BOP staff members and 3 PHS staff members, who provide health care services to a total of 1,247 inmates
at USP Lewisburg (including inmates in the Camp).
Medical Care Levels
USP Lewisburg is a Medical Care Level II facility.49 At the time of the CIC inspection, the facility reported
that zero inmates at the facility were designated with a Medical Care Level higher than the facility
designation. However, one DC SMU inmate interviewed by the CIC reported being a Medical Care Level
III. Any inmate arriving to USP Lewisburg who is designated with a Medical Health Care Level III or IV is
supposed to be transferred to an appropriate facility within two weeks.
Chronic Care
Inmates with ongoing medical needs are tracked in the BOP by being assigned the status “chronic care.”50
As stated in P6031.04, chronic care inmates are seen by a physician at least every 12 months. If illness is
properly controlled by treatment, chronic care inmates can be designated as low as Medical Care Level I. In
April 2014, USP Lewisburg had 429 inmates on chronic care status. As of January 31, 2017, the facility
reported 41 DC SMU inmates on chronic care status. As of February 2017, USP Lewisburg reported having
one to two diabetic inmates in the SMU. During the onsite inspection, staff reported that inmates are
allowed to self-carry chronic care medications, such as medications for high blood pressure and diabetes.
However, pain medications are not typically dispensed for self-carry.
The CIC interviewed nine DC SMU inmates who reported to be on chronic care status. When asked to
provide the medical condition for which they were placed on chronic care, inmates gave the following
responses: HIV-positive; 51 Hepatitis B; Glaucoma; High Blood Pressure; High Cholesterol; Chronic
Asthmatic; and Type 2 Diabetes. Five of the nine DC SMU inmates who were assigned as chronic care
(56%) reported receiving timely follow-ups at USP Lewisburg.
Access to Medically Necessary Care
As stated in BOP policy, health services staff are to visit SMU inmates daily to provide necessary medical
care.52 Emergency medical care is also to be available to SMU inmates. Medical staff reported seeing an
average 200-250 inmates per week in February 2017.

For more information about medical care levels, please refer to the CIC Info Sheet – BOP Medical Care Levels. Available
online at
https://cic.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/cic/page_content/attachments/BOP%20Medical%20Care%20Levels%205.17.17.
pdf.
50 FED. BUREAU OF PRISONS, U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE, P6031.04, PATIENT CARE (JUNE 3, 2014).
51 HIV stands for the human immunodeficiency virus.
52 P5217.02. Medically necessary care is divided into two separate levels of care and defined as follows: Medically Necessary – Acute or
Emergent: Medical conditions that without care would cause rapid deterioration of the individual’s health, significant irreversible
loss of function, or may be life-threatening; Medically Necessary – Non-Emergent: Medical conditions not immediately life-threatening,
but without care could not be maintained without significant risk of (1) serious deterioration leading to premature death; (2)
significant reduction in the possibility of repair later without present treatment; or (3) significant pain or discomfort impairing the
individual’s participation in activities of daily life. Examples of this include chronic conditions, such as diabetes, heart disease, and
HIV. P6031.04.
49

22 | P a g e

The CIC asked DC SMU inmates to rate their satisfaction with the wait times of medical care at USP
Lewisburg. Approximately 21% reported being “very satisfied” or “satisfied” with the wait times for medical
care at USP Lewisburg.53 As for whether medical care responds to sick call slips within 48 hours, 59% of
respondents answered “rarely.”54 Specifically, one individual reported that he requested an appointment with
health services approximately nine months prior to the time of the survey (February 2017), but had yet to
receive a visit from Health Services.
Access to Dental Care
As stated in BOP policy, all inmates are entitled to sick call and urgent care for dental services; inmates
detained for more than 12 months are also eligible for comprehensive dental care.55 Inmates may request
urgent dental care on a 24-hour basis for severe dental pain, traumatic injuries, and severe infections
showing basic signs of infection.56
The CIC asked DC SMU inmates to rate their satisfaction with the quality of dental care and wait times at
USP Lewisburg. Approximately 33% of DC SMU inmates surveyed reported being “very satisfied” or
“satisfied” with the quality of dental care at USP Lewisburg; 7% reported being “very satisfied” or
“satisfied” with the wait times for dental care at USP Lewisburg. 57 DC SMU inmates reported waiting
anywhere between one and four months to receive urgent dental care for wisdom teeth extractions and
filling cavities. One individual who exhibited difficulty speaking reported he required dental plates, but was
told by the dentist at USP Lewisburg he would have to complete the SMU program to get treatment.

H. Salmonella Outbreak
At the time of the CIC inspection, the Warden reported a Salmonella outbreak at USP Lewisburg between
November and December 2016. The facility informed the CIC that Health Services treated everyone and
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) was notified. The Warden reported the outbreak
was not foodborne, and the facility believes the outbreak was potentially caused by a contaminated food
tray. Furthermore, the Warden informed the CIC that, in addition to inmates, three staff members at USP
Lewisburg got sick from the Salmonella outbreak. In addition to providing medical treatment to affected
individuals, the facility reported that it replaced the food trays to prevent another outbreak.
Several DC SMU inmates reported getting sick from the Salmonella outbreak. DC SMU inmates reported
receiving varying levels of treatment, from getting Gatorade to being placed on intravenous (IV) fluids.

Out of a total of 19 responses, when asked “Overall, how satisfied are you with the wait times to see medical?”: 9 selected Very
Unsatisfied; 6 Unsatisfied; 4 Satisfied; and 0 Very Satisfied. Note: responses of “N/A” were not included in the analysis to ensure
that levels of satisfaction refer only to those who have used these services. For instance, analysis of medical health perceptions is
based only on responses from inmates who require medical health services.
54 Out of a total of 17 responses, when asked “Does health services respond to sick call slips within 48 hours?”: 10 selected
Rarely; 5 Sometimes; and 2 Usually. Note: responses of “N/A” were not included in the analysis to ensure that levels of
satisfaction refer only to those who have used these services.
55 FED. BUREAU OF PRISONS, U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE, P6400.03, DENTAL SERVICES (JUNE 10, 2016).
56 Id.
57 Regarding quality of care, out of 15 responses: 0 reported being very satisfied, 5 satisfied, 3 unsatisfied, and 7 very unsatisfied.
Regarding wait times, out of 14 responses: 0 reported being very satisfied, 1 satisfied, 3 unsatisfied, and 10 very unsatisfied. Note:
responses of “N/A” were not included in the analysis to ensure that levels of satisfaction refer only to those who have used these
services. For instance, analysis of dental care perceptions is based only on responses from inmates who require dental.
53

23 | P a g e

I. Recreation
The Recreation Department offers packets to SMU inmates including puzzles and Sudoku every two
months. This department also facilitates outdoor recreation for all phases SMU. (See Sec. II.B. of this
report.)
When asked to rate their satisfaction regarding recreation, eight DC SMU inmates (44%) reported being
very unsatisfied; five (28%) unsatisfied; three (17%) satisfied; and one (6%) very satisfied. Several DC SMU
inmates reported that they were frequently denied the opportunity to exercise in outdoor recreation cages,
including denials as a form of disciplinary action. One DC SMU inmate stated that he had not had one week
with at least five hours in the outdoor recreation cages since arriving to USP Lewisburg (approximately
seven months). In addition, DC SMU inmates reported being housed up to six inmates per cage for outdoor
recreation. DC SMU inmates also reported that inmates with separatees are placed together in outdoor
recreation cages, and reported witnessing inmate-on-inmate assaults.

J. Communication & Visitation
Telephone Calls
Program Statement 5217.02 states that inmates in the SMU program may have a minimum of two calls per
month, which may be increased as they progress through the program, unless telephone restrictions are
placed as result of a disciplinary sanction. SMU inmates in Phase One are allowed to make two 15-minute
telephone calls per month; Phase Two can make four 15-minute telephone calls; and Phase Three can make
15 telephone calls per month not to exceed 150 minutes.58 In response to CIC’s document request, USP
Lewisburg reported that the cost of a 15-minutete telephone call to DC was $3.50 per minute.59
When asked if they have had any problems accessing the telephone within the past six months, 17 DC SMU
inmates (71%) reported yes and seven (29%) reported no. Of the 18 DC SMU inmates who responded to
the question, the most common problem regarding telephone use was loss of telephone privileges:60

If you have had problems accessing the telephone,
why?
Cannot afford calls
12%

Broken phones
Other 6% Not enough
6%
phones
6%

Loss of phone
privileges
70%

USP Lewisburg, Special Management Unit Population – SMU, Institution A&O Handbook (Nov. 2016).
Data received January 31, 2017.
60 For further discussion on loss of privileges, specifically multi-year denials, please refer to Section II(J).
58
59

24 | P a g e

Unauthorized Monitoring & Destruction of Legal Mail and Non-Legal Mail by Staff
DC SMU inmates noted problems with both legal and non-legal mail. In response to the CIC’s 2017 survey,
approximately 45% of DC SMU inmates who answered the question indicated they had problems sending
or receiving legal mail at USP Lewisburg.61 Specifically, multiple DC SMU inmates reported instances of
violations of federal regulation 28 C.F.R. § 540.18 (2009), which requires incoming special mail, including
legal mail, to be opened in the inmate’s presence, as well as allowing outgoing special mail to be sealed by
the inmate and not subject to inspection. DC SMU inmates further reported instances of attempting to send
legal mail that is not received by intended recipients.
Following the onsite inspection in February 2017, the CIC encountered several instances of missing mail
where two DC SMU inmates reported never receiving special mail from the CIC that was sent on at least
five separate occasions between March to June 2017. The CIC also received similar reports from community
partners providing legal services who have attempted to send legal mail to SMU inmates.
A long-term DC SMU inmate reported that litigious inmates and inmates who choose to use the
administrative remedy process are sent to the D-Block Housing Unit, where the Unit Team reportedly
confiscates and destroys all incoming and outgoing special mail.62
Video Visitation
Visitation for all SMU inmates at USP Lewisburg occurs remotely through video visitation and is only
available for immediately family members.
When asked if they have had any problems receiving visits within the past six months, 16 DC SMU inmates
(70%) reported yes, six (26%) reported no, and one (4%) reported N/A. Of the 19 DC SMU inmates who
responded to the question, the most common problem regarding visitation was loss of visitation privileges:63

If you have had problems receiving visits, why?
Other
5%

Loss of visitation
privileges
53%

Distance for
visitors
16%

Approval
process for
visitors
26%

In addition to loss of privileges, many DC SMU inmates noted family members were reluctant to spend
resources and finances to travel to USP Lewisburg because the facility only offers video visitations to
immediate family members for one hour on Saturdays and Sundays.
Out of a total of 22 responses, when asked “Have you had any problems within the past six months sending or receiving legal
mail”: 10 selected Yes; 11 No; 1 N/A.
62 For further discussion on placement in the D-Block Housing Unit, please refer to Section II(C).
63 For further discussion on loss of privileges, specifically multi-year denials, please refer to Section II(J).
61

25 | P a g e

RECOMMENDATIONS:
Require Executive Staff to frequently monitor special mail procedures, including tracking all
incoming & outgoing special mail and requiring SMU inmates to sign a document acknowledging
receiving special mail opened in the inmate’s presence.
Reinstate in-person visitation for all SMU inmates in addition to offering video visitation, with
capability for family members to connect remotely from DC.

K. Discipline
The Inmate Discipline Program allows BOP staff to impose sanctions on inmates who commit prohibited
acts. 64 Disciplinary measures may include revocation of an inmate’s visiting privileges, revocation of
telephone privileges, forfeiture of good time credit, or placement in disciplinary segregation within the SHU,
among others.
Fairness of Disciplinary Decisions
As stated in 28 CFR § 541.7(b), the UDC is ordinarily made up of two or more staff members who were not
victims, witnesses, investigators, or otherwise significantly involved in the incident. The DHO must be an
impartial decision maker who was not a victim, witness, investigator or significantly involved in the
incident.65 Furthermore, the DHO must be certified and receive specialized training to conduct hearings.
Regarding discipline, the CIC asked DC SMU inmates about the fairness of disciplinary decisions by the
DHO and the UDC. Out of 16 DC SMU inmates who responded to the question, four reported that the
UDC’s decisions are fair, eight that they are unfair, and four did not know. Out of 17 DC SMU inmates
who responded to the question, four reported that the DHO’s decisions are fair, eleven that they are unfair,
and two did not know. Specifically, seven DC SMU inmates reported the DHO’s findings at USP Lewisburg
was biased against inmates.
Multi-Year Denial of Telephone and Visitation Privileges
If an inmate is found to have committed a prohibited act, he is then subject to a list of available sanctions,
the severity of which corresponds to the prohibited act committed.66 For all listed prohibited acts, regardless
28 CFR § 541.1; see also FED. BUREAU OF PRISONS, U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE, PROGRAM STATEMENT NO. 5270.09, INMATE
DISCIPLINE PROGRAM (Aug. 1, 2011). If a staff member observes or reasonably believes an inmate has committed a prohibited
act, staff prepare an incident report describing the incident and deliver the report to the inmate within 24 hours of becoming
aware of the incident. Then, the Investigating Officer, an BOP supervisory level staff member not involved in the incident, begins
investigating the incident and either: (1) suspends the investigation if it appears likely there may be criminal prosecution; (2)
informally resolves the incident report, only for moderate or low level prohibited acts; or (3) completes the investigation and
forwards the incident report to the Unit Disciplinary Committee (UDC). Next, the UDC must review the incident report and hold
an initial hearing within five working days after the incident report was issued, for moderate or low level prohibited acts.
Extensions over five days must be approved by the Warden. After reviewing the incident report and holding an initial hearing, the
UDC then determines that either: (1) the inmate committed the prohibited act and sanctions may be imposed; (2) the inmate did
not commit the prohibited act; (3) refer the incident report to the Discipline Hearing Officer (DHO) for further review based on
the seriousness of the prohibited act; or (4) automatically refer the incident report to the DHO if the inmate is charged with a
Greatest or High severity prohibited act. Finally, the DHO conducts a hearing on the incident report referred by the UDC no less
than 24 hours after the inmate receives written notice. After the DHO hearing is conducted, the DHO then determines that
either: (1) the inmate committed the prohibited act and sanctions may be imposed; (2) the inmate did not commit the prohibited
act; or (3) refer the incident report back to the UDC for further investigation, review, and disposition.
65 28 CFR § 541.8(b).
66 28 CFR § 541.3; P5270.09.
64

26 | P a g e

of severity, an inmate is subject to loss of privileges (e.g., visitation, telephone, e-mail, commissary, movies,
recreation) even when the committed act was not connected to that privilege. 67 In the BOP Program
Statement on discipline, loss of recreation privileges are explicitly excluded for Special Housing Unit (SHU)
inmates, but does not specifically exclude SMU inmates.68 However, the BOP Program Statement on SMU
states that recreation privileges may not be limited as part of a disciplinary sanction.69
In response to the CIC’s 2017 survey, 13 of the 18 DC SMU inmates who answered the question indicated
they had problems accessing the telephone because their telephone privileges were suspended. Of those 13,
seven reported multi-year denial of these privileges. Furthermore, 12 of the 19 DC SMU inmates who
answered the question indicated they had problems receiving visits because their visitation privileges were
suspended. Of those individuals without visitation privileges, six reported multi-year denial of these
privileges. Of most concern was a DC SMU inmate who reported a 37-year denial of both telephone and
visitation privileges, despite only having 18 years left on his sentence. Another DC SMU inmate reported
that the problems surrounding access to communication causes feelings of “extreme alienation” and
deteriorates his mental health.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Identify and develop alternatives to imposing sanctions that reduce the use of multi-year denial of
telephone and visitation privileges.

L. Administrative Remedy Program
The Administrative Remedy Program in BOP facilities, commonly referred to as the grievance process,
allows inmates to seek formal review of complaints related to their confinement. For more information
about administrative remedies, please refer to the CIC Info Sheet – BOP Administrative Remedies (aka
“Grievance”) Process.70 Based on observations, inmate reports, and findings made in 2017, the CIC finds
that USP Lewisburg is in non-compliance with federal regulations on the administrative remedy program.71
In the year prior to the inspection, the most common categories of administrative remedy submissions at
USP Lewisburg were medical, staff, and mental health care. A chart of all submissions from January 2016 to
December 2016 is available in Appendix C.
Inadequate Access to Administrative Remedy Forms
The CIC received reports from community partners of SMU inmates stating they frequently did not have
access to administrative remedy forms, and are required to request the forms directly from staff.
Unsent and Unanswered Administrative Remedy Requests
In response to the CIC’s 2017 survey, DC SMU inmates largely reported that staff frequently destroy
administrative remedy requests by throwing them in the trash; consequently, the requests are never
U.S.P. LEWISBURG, SPECIAL MANAGEMENT UNIT POPULATION – SMU: INSTITUTION ADMISSION AND ORIENTATION
HANDBOOK (NOVEMBER 2016).
68 “Loss of recreation privileges (exercise periods) may not be imposed on inmates in a Special Housing Unit (SHU), but may be
used for general population inmates.”
69 P5217.02
70 Available online at
https://cic.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/cic/page_content/attachments/BOP%20Administrative%20Remedies%2011.15.
17%20REVISED.pdf
71 28 C.F.R. § 542.
67

27 | P a g e

submitted and inmates do not receive responses to requests. Additionally, DC SMU inmates commented
that many times staff destroy the informal complaint, written by inmates on a scrap piece of paper, and then
are denied when submitting their formal complaint for failure to complete the informal resolution.
Thorough Investigation of Administrative Remedy Requests and Appeals
In response to the CIC’s 2017 survey, DC SMU inmates commented that their problems are not being
rectified through the administrative remedy process. A majority of respondents reported that they do not
believe the process worked or that the process was dealt with fairly at USP Lewisburg. Many individuals
further reported a belief that the administrative remedy process is corrupt. Specifically, when asked whether
the administrative remedy process was fair or unfair, one individual articulated his belief that the process
was unfair, “Because the system is designed to protect and serve employees at all costs,” and not designed to
bring about fair results.
Staff Retaliation For Submitting Administrative Remedies
In response to the CIC’s 2017 survey, staff retaliation was the most common response as to why DC SMU
inmates have chosen not to use the administrative remedy process at USP Lewisburg. Multiple individuals
reported instances of excessive use of force and placement in restraints after trying to submit complaints
using the administrative remedy process. Staff retaliation is discussed further below in Section II(C).
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Require each SMU cell to have blank copies of all administrative remedy forms inside the cell.
Require Executive Staff to regularly monitor administrative remedies, including tracking submissions
of both informal resolution attempts and initial filings.
Revise Program Statement 1330.18 to require inmates in the SMU to sign a document
acknowledging submitted informal complaints, initial filings, and appeals with the date and provide a
copy to the inmate.
Regularly monitor trends of significant incidents, including use of force and placement in restraints,
for inmates who choose to use the administrative remedy process to ensure inmates are provided
meaningful access to resolve issues relating to their confinement without fear of staff retaliation.

28 | P a g e

M. Disproportionate Representation & Treatment of DC SMU Inmates
Since its initiation in 2009, the SMU population throughout the BOP has been steadily decreasing. As
shown below, the SMU population has continued to decrease through June 2017.72

Total BOP SMU Population (2012 - 2017)
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1/28/2012

1/28/2013

1/28/2014

1/28/2015

1/28/2016

1/28/2017

In June 2015, the BOP reported a total of 1,159 SMU inmates, of which 124 were from DC. At that time,
DC inmates represented 11% of the SMU population. In January 2017, the BOP reported a total of 667
SMU inmates, of which 83 were from DC. At that time, DC inmates represented 12% of the SMU
population. While the CIC is encouraged by the steady decrease of inmates in the SMU population, DC
inmates continue to be disproportionately represented.73
As stated in BOP policy, inmates can be sent to the SMU program if he meets certain criteria, including
participating in “disruptive geographical group/gang-related activity.”74Individuals processed into the federal
system, who were convicted and sentenced in DC Superior Court, are assigned a federal register number
ending in “007.” The majority of individuals surveyed by the CIC commented that DC inmates are
frequently targeted and considered to be part of a gang, based on their common geographic location.
Specifically, individuals reported being targeted based on their federal register number ending in “007.” One
individual stated: “It seems like when officers see 007, you become a target.” Some individuals further noted
staff refer to DC inmates as the “DC Blacks” or “007s (pronounced [double-oh sevens],” a fictitious gang
name placed upon individuals with a federal register number ending in “007.”
Other comments received related to racist attitudes and comments. One DC SMU inmate reported a recent
increase in racial diversity of staff members at USP Lewisburg. The CIC encourages the BOP’s continued
efforts to address staff diversity and is pleased to learn the facility has relocated more diverse staff members
to USP Lewisburg.

Refer to Appendix A for exact SMU population numbers reported between 2012 to 2017.
DC inmates currently represent approximately 2.6% of the federal prison population. As of 4/1/2017, the BOP housed a total
of 4,884 DC inmates. On 5/27/2017, the BOP reported a total population of 187,910 inmates.
74 P5217.02.
72
73

29 | P a g e

Furthermore, as part of the 2017 CIC survey, DC SMU inmates were asked to answer how they feel they are
treated by both staff and other inmates, in comparison to the treament of other inmates. The responses are
noted below.

Compared to other inmates,
how are DC inmates treated
by staff ?

Compared to other inmates,
how are DC inmates treated
by other inmates?

Better
0%

Better
0%

The
Same
27%

Worse
73%

Worse
37%
The
Same
63%

RECOMMENDATIONS:
DC Criminal Code Offenders made up 2.6% of BOP population, and 12.6% of SMU Program
population in February 2017. Monitor requests for transfer to SMU, placement of inmates in SMU
Program, and treatment of inmates for disproportionate treatment based on DC Criminal Code
Offender status (indicated by “007, 016, 000).

30 | P a g e

III.

Appendix

A. Methodology
In accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the CIC and the BOP that requires at least
30 days’ notice of an inspection, the CIC notified the BOP on June 20, 2017, of its request to inspect USP
Lewisburg’s SMU program, including a tour of all areas to which inmates have access, discussions with staff, and
confidential interviews with DC inmates. Prior to the on-site inspection, the CIC communicated with DC inmates at
USP Lewisburg, informing them of the upcoming inspection and offering them the opportunity for a confidential
interview with a member of the CIC.
The CIC conducted an on-site inspection of USP Lewisburg on February 10, 2017. The CIC representatives on the
inspection were Executive Director Michelle Bonner and Program Analyst Laura de las Casas. The CIC was escorted
during the tour by members of the executive staff. The onsite inspection consisted of an opening session with
executive staff, a tour of the facility, dialogue with facility staff, and private interviews in the attorney-client visiting
rooms at USP Lewisburg with DC SMU inmates. After the onsite inspection, USP Lewisburg arranged additional
telephone calls, akin to attorney-client legal calls, between the CIC and additional DC SMU inmates. The CIC also
sent letters with a survey to DC Code Offenders who were transferred out of USP Lewisburg between January and
February 2017. In total, the CIC interviewed 24 DC SMU inmates.
The CIC inspected two SMU housing units during the onsite inspection: J Block & X Block. J Block houses SMU
Phase One inmates. The X block houses SMU Phases One, Two, and Three inmates who require protective custody,
as well as inmates who completed the SMU program and are awaiting transfer to another facility.
After the inspection, the survey responses were compiled using Survey Monkey, a business intelligence tool, with
unique identifiers used instead of individual names to protect confidentiality. Data was exported to Microsoft Excel,
and charts were created on Microsoft Word. Extended responses from the surveys were compiled with comments
from other forms of communications with DC inmates at the facility, including correspondence, and were used to
inform analysis and provide context in applicable sections. Between January 2016 to October 2017, the CIC received
15 letters from DC SMU inmates. The CIC also received information regarding conditions of confinement from
community partners and family members of incarcerated individuals who were housed in USP Lewisburg’s SMU
program during the time of the inspection.
In addition to the on-site inspection, survey data, and communication with individuals incarcerated at the facility, the
CIC reviewed general inmate and facility data related to inmate population and demographics, facility staffing,
significant incidents, urine surveillance, and disciplinary records. The CIC also reviewed an education report, dining
menus, commissary lists, the Admissions and Orientation Handbook, the most recent American Correctional
Association (ACA) audit report, the most recent PREA audit report, and administrative remedy filings and responses
at the facility, Regional Office, and Central Office levels. Additionally, the CIC reviewed reports issued by the DOJ
and Office of Inspector General specifically addressing SMU and use of restrictive housing in BOP facilities.
The CIC provided the BOP with a draft version of the report for review of factual information and an opportunity to
respond to follow-up questions and any other information in the report. The BOP response to the CIC draft report is
included at the end of this report.

B. Declining Numbers in SMU Table
As of Date

SMU
Population

1/28/2012
12/30/2013
6/29/2015

1647
1680
1150

Source
DOJ Restrictive Housing Report (2016)
CNA Report: BOP SHU Review and Assessment (2014)
CIC 2015 Inspection Report – BOP Response
31 | P a g e

12/5/2015
1/31/2017
2/10/2017
2/14/2017
2/20/2017
2/28/2017
3/7/2017
3/21/2017
4/24/2017
5/9/2017
5/30/2017
6/20/2017
6/22/2017
6/28/2017

1260
667
618
624
627
599
579
565
565
565
565
508
530
530

DOJ Restrictive Housing Report (2016)
CIC 2017 Inspection
CIC 2017 Inspection
BOP Inmate Statistics (online) - Restricted Housing
BOP Inmate Statistics (online) - Restricted Housing
BOP Inmate Statistics (online) - Restricted Housing
BOP Inmate Statistics (online) - Restricted Housing
BOP Inmate Statistics (online) - Restricted Housing
BOP Inmate Statistics (online) - Restricted Housing
BOP Inmate Statistics (online) - Restricted Housing
BOP Inmate Statistics (online) - Restricted Housing
BOP Inmate Statistics (online) - Restricted Housing
BOP Inmate Statistics (online) - Restricted Housing
BOP Inmate Statistics (online) - Restricted Housing

C. Administrative Remedy Filings & Appeals
The table below provides an overview of the administrative remedies tracking data at USP Lewisburg from January
2016 to December 2016. The information was provided by the facility as part of CIC’s document request.

Facility Level (BP-9s)
Medical (excl. forced treatment)
Staff/Others - Complaints
Mental Health Care
Institutional Operations
Classification Matters
Institutional Programs
Transfer – Request/Objection
Food
Jail Time Credit
Mail Communication
Legal Matters
Dental Care
Education, Recreation, Leisure
DHO/CDC/Cont. Housing Appeals
Records Management
Searches and Use of Restraints
Sentence Computation
UDC/RRC Actions
Community/Pre-Release Programs
Disability – Physical or Mental
Visiting
Communication – Other Than Mail
Other Statutorily-Mandated
Procedures

Submitted Rejected
147
38
91
30
43
11
36
20
27
7
26
7
23
6
17
4
17
3
17
4
14
6
12
4
11
3
10
7
10
2
9
2
8
3
8
3
6
2
5
2
4
2
3
0
2
1

Filed
109
61
32
16
20
19
17
13
14
13
8
8
8
3
8
7
5
5
4
3
2
3
1

Answered
94
58
32
15
19
18
17
7
14
13
8
8
8
3
8
7
4
5
4
3
2
3
1

Granted
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
32 | P a g e

Special Housing Units
Medical Treatment - Forced
PREA

2
1
1

1
1
0

1
0
1

1
0
1

0
0
0

Filed
121
30
33
16
7
16
12
8
4
7
4
10
3
3
4
4
1
3
3
3
3
3
2
0

Answered
116
29
30
16
7
14
12
7
4
7
4
10
3
3
3
4
1
3
3
3
3
1
2
0

Granted
9
0
1
3
0
0
0
3
0
1
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0

Filed
56
15
22
21
9
9
10
5
6
3
8
2
2
1
0
1

Answered
11
12
19
20
8
6
10
1
3
2
7
2
1
1
0
0

Granted
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Regional Office (BP-10s)
DHO/CDC/Cont. Housing Appeals
Staff/Others - Complaints
Medical (excl. forced treatment)
Classification Matters
Institutional Operations
Mental Health Care
Institutional Programs
Jail Time Credit
Legal Matters
Transfer – Request/Objection
Special Housing Units
PREA
Searches and Use of Restraints
Disability – Physical or Mental
Food
Sentence Computation
Mail Communication
Records Management
Dental Care
UDC/RRC Actions
Community/Pre-Release Programs
Education, Recreation, Leisure
Visiting
Communication – Other Than Mail

Submitted Rejected
315
194
113
83
55
22
37
21
32
25
26
10
23
11
18
10
14
10
14
7
13
9
11
1
9
6
7
4
7
3
7
3
5
4
5
2
4
1
4
1
3
0
3
0
2
0
1
1

Central Office (BP-11s)
DHO/CDC/Cont. Housing Appeals
Staff/Others - Complaints
Institutional Programs
Medical (excl. forced treatment)
Mental Health Care
Classification Matters
Jail Time Credit
Institutional Operations
Legal Matters
Special Housing Units
PREA
Disability – Physical or Mental
Records Management
Sentence Computation
Education, Recreation, Leisure
Searches and Use of Restraints

Submitted Rejected
130
74
57
42
43
21
27
6
18
9
13
4
13
3
10
5
10
4
9
6
8
0
4
2
3
1
3
2
2
2
2
1

33 | P a g e

Transfer – Request/Objection
Visiting
Communication – Other Than Mail
Community/Pre-Release Programs
Food
Other Statutorily-Mandated
Procedures
UDC/RRC Actions

2
2
1
1
1
1

0
0
0
0
0
0

2
2
1
1
1
1

2
1
0
0
0
1

0
0
0
0
0
0

1

1

0

0

0

D. Significant Incidents
The table below provides an overview of the significant incidents at USP Lewisburg for 2013 and 2016. The
information was provided by the facility as part of CIC’s document request. The average daily SMU population at
USP Lewisburg between March 2013 to February 2014 2013 was 883. As of December 2016, USP Lewisburg had 787
SMU inmates.

Significant Incident History
Institution Locked Down
Inmate Suicides
Inmate Homicides
Inmate Deaths From Natural Causes
Assault On Inmate, With Weapon
Assault On Inmate, No Weapon
Assault On Staff, With Weapon
Assault On Staff, No Weapon
Attempted Assault On Inmate, With Weapon
Attempted Assault On Inmate, No Weapon
Attempted Assault On Staff, With Weapon
Attempted Assault On Staff, No Weapon
Escape from Secure Facility
Sexual Act, Non-Consensual on Inmate
Sexual Assault on Staff
Sexual Contact, Abusive on Inmate
Uses Of Chemicals
Use of Force
Use of Restraints
Total Number of Significant Incidents
Form 583 Reports Filed (Reports To Central Office)75
Total Number of Significant Incidents Not Reported Electronically to
Central Office

2013
0
0
0
0
6
71
0
80
0
3
0
31
0
0
0
1
143
137
195
667
428
239

2016
0
0
0
0
4
69
1
20
0
0
1
13
0
0
0
1
94
81
118
333
313
20

Source: BOP. Statistics for 2013 dated 01/2013 to 12/2013. Statistics for 2016 dated 01/2016 to 12/2016.

Form 583 is used to report significant incidents to the BOP Central Office. The form is an electronic version of the Report of
Incident form. Issues reported to the Central Office generally include deaths, suicides, escapes, serious assaults and other serious
acts of misconduct by inmates, and uses of force, chemicals, or restraints by staff.
75

34 | P a g e

District of Columbia
Corrections Information Council
The electronic version of this report
is available on the CIC website:

https://www.cic.dc.gov/

35 | P a g e