Sex Offender Programs

By Elizabeth Franklin-Best, Esq., and Christopher Zoukis, JD, MBA

Program Statement 5324.10 at a glance

Field	Value
Program Statement	5324.10, CN-1
Subject	Sex Offender Programs
Effective / current edition date	Change Notice CN-1 dated February 18, 2025 (approved by William W. Lothrop, Acting Director; OPI RSD/PSB), sitting in front of base Program Statement 5324.10 dated February 15, 2013 (approved by Charles E. Samuels, Jr., Director; OPI CPD/PSB)
Change notice	CN-1 (2/18/2025). It edits one bullet in section 4.6.1 and nothing else
Supersedes / rescinds	The base 2013 Program Statement lists no rescinded directive; CN-1 amends rather than replaces it
Governing statute	18 U.S.C. § 3621(f) (Sex Offender Management). The Program Statement itself cites no statute for its program authority
Governing regulation (28 C.F.R.)	None cited for the programs. The one regulatory cross-reference in the eligibility criteria is to 28 C.F.R. §§ 544.40–544.44 (English-as-a-Second-Language), with 18 U.S.C. § 3624(f)(4)
Related BP forms	BP-A0957, Agreement to Participate in Sex Offender Treatment Program; BP-A0148, Inmate Request to Staff (the self-referral vehicle)
Official PDF	PS 5324.10 CN-1 (February 18, 2025)

Checked against the BOP policy set · 2026-09-06.

Program Statement 5324.10 is the Bureau of Prisons policy that creates two voluntary sex offender treatment programs — a moderate-intensity non-residential program and a high-intensity residential one — and sets out who psychology staff screen for them, how long each runs, and how referrals move through the Designation and Sentence Computation Center. The same policy also authorizes a separate, non-voluntary tool called a Correctional Management Plan, which can restrict personal property, visiting, mail and telephone contact for a person the Bureau identifies as having engaged in “risk-relevant behavior.”

Read this page with our plain-English guide to sex offender treatment programs in federal prison, which covers what daily participation actually looks like, what the SOMP designation means for where a person is housed, and the questions families ask most. This page is the policy itself: the enumerated program set, the screening criteria in the Bureau’s own words, and the restriction categories.

The rule itself: the program set, the screening criteria, and the restriction categories

Program Statement 5324.10 contains three discrete, quotable rule sets. The first is the two-level program structure and its numbers. The second is the enumerated list of criteria psychology staff apply when screening a referral. The third is the list of areas in which a Correctional Management Plan may impose restrictions. All three are reproduced below in the Bureau’s own words. Nothing here decides any individual case: every determination described is one the Bureau makes in the first instance, through institution psychology staff and designated staff at the Designation and Sentence Computation Center (DSCC).

The two program levels

The Bureau’s sex offender treatment programs “are stratified into two levels of intensity” (PS 5324.10 at p. 15). Both are components of a Sex Offender Management Program (SOMP), which the policy describes as provided “at designated institutions.” Every SOMP institution offers the non-residential program; only designated SOMP institutions also run the residential one.

	Non-residential — SOTP-NR	Residential — SOTP-R
Intensity	“a moderate-intensity program designed for low- to moderate-risk sexual offenders” (p. 15)	“a high-intensity program designed for high-risk sexual offenders” (p. 15)
Housing	Participants “reside in the general population”; “there is no modified therapeutic community” (p. 15)	“unit-based”; “[t]he SOTP-R Unit is to be separated from the general population” (pp. 15, 24)
Programming hours	“Ordinarily, SOTP-NR entails 4 to 6 hours of programming per week over 9 to 12 months” (p. 23)	“Ordinarily, SOTP-R entails 10 to 12 hours of programming per week over 12 to 18 months” (p. 24)
Minimum total contact hours	“to achieve a total of no less than 144 hours of direct contact with treatment staff” (p. 23)	“totaling no less than 400 hours” (p. 24)
Staffing ratio	“A maximum caseload of 24 treatment participants per SOMP staff member will be maintained” (p. 23)	“A ratio of no more than 14 inmates per treatment staff member will be maintained” (p. 24)
Where offered	“All SOMPs offer the Non-Residential Sex Offender Treatment Program (SOTP-NR)” (p. 5)	“Designated SOMP institutions also offer the high-intensity Residential Sex Offender Treatment Program (SOTP-R)” (p. 5)
Risk tool named	“the Static-99R or another risk instrument standardized for use with sexual offenders” (p. 23)	“the Static-99R or another risk instrument standardized for use with sexual offenders” (p. 24)

Source: PS 5324.10 at pp. 5, 15, 23–24.

A third, shorter track sits after release from the institution. Under section 3.7, a person “who has completed a sex offender treatment program (SOTP-R or SOTP-NR) will be expected to continue treatment upon transfer to a Residential Reentry Center (RRC),” and the Agreement to Participate form signed at application “acknowledg[es] that aftercare will be expected while in an RRC” (PS 5324.10 at p. 27).

The screening criteria, verbatim

Section 3.3.1(b) is the enumerated list. The Program Statement introduces it this way: “Inmates who express a willingness to participate are screened by a psychologist at the inmate’s current institution to determine their eligibility for the program. An inmate must meet the following eligibility criteria to be admitted into a sex offender treatment program.”

Criterion	What PS 5324.10 says, verbatim	Page
Definitional	“The inmate must meet to the definition of a sexual offender, as defined in this Program Statement.”	p. 17
Time remaining	“The inmate must have sufficient time remaining on his/her sentence to complete the program, including time to transfer to the SOMP institution and receive placement in community programs, if eligible. In cases where the inmate’s release date is based on a parole date, the presumptive parole date will be used to determine his/her eligibility.”	p. 17
Time remaining — SOTP-NR	“To complete the SOTP-NR, the inmate must ordinarily have no less than 21 months to his/her projected release date.”	p. 17
Time remaining — SOTP-R	“To complete the SOTP-R, the inmate must ordinarily have no less than 27 months to his/her projected release date.”	p. 17
Discipline history	“Ordinarily, the inmate should have no 100- or 200-level incident reports in the last year. Inmates with three or more 300- and 400-level incident reports may also be precluded from placement in treatment.”	p. 17
Discipline history — exception	“Depending on an inmate’s amenability to benefit from programming despite his/her history of incident reports, exemptions from this criterion may be considered on a case-by-case basis. The psychologist should contact designated staff at the DSCC to determine if an exemption is warranted.”	p. 18
Ability to participate	“The inmate must be able to fully engage in treatment, comprehend treatment expectations, and participate in program activities. (see 18 U.S.C. § 3624(f)(4) and 28 C.F.R. §§ 544.40 – 544.44).” Confirmed by the psychologist as: “The inmate can speak English.”; “The inmate is literate.”; “The inmate does not suffer from a major mental disorder that would prevent him/her from fully participating in program activities.”; “The inmate demonstrates sufficient intellectual ability to participate in program activities or comprehend treatment expectations.”	p. 18
Voluntariness	“The inmate must sign an Agreement to Participate in Sex Offender Treatment Program form, (BP-A0957) indicating that he/she volunteers for participation in a sex offender treatment program.”	p. 18

Source: PS 5324.10 at pp. 17–18. The phrase “must meet to the definition” is reproduced as printed in the Program Statement.

Two timing figures sit alongside those criteria and are the ones families most often need. Referrals for redesignation “should be initiated when an inmate has 36 months to projected release,” and because high-security participants “may be expected to participate in sex offender treatment for a longer duration,” they “should be referred for redesignation at 48 months from release” (PS 5324.10 at p. 18). Placement priority is set by projected release date: “inmates are prioritized for placement based on their Projected Release Date (PRD)” (p. 17).

Where a Correctional Management Plan may impose restrictions

Chapter 4 is a different mechanism, and the distinction matters: treatment is voluntary, a Correctional Management Plan (CMP) is not. The chapter opens by stating that “[i]t is the policy of the Bureau to impose restrictions on mail and telephone communication, visiting privileges, and personal property of sexual offenders, as these areas affect the secure and orderly operations of the institution and the safety of staff, inmates, and the general public” (p. 29). A CMP follows an Initial Risk Assessment and “may be imposed only at SOMP institutions.”

Restriction area	Categories the Program Statement lists	Page
Personal property (4.6.1)	“Items that may be used as sexual paraphernalia (e.g., photographs, pictures, or drawings depicting adults or children in sexually explicit or suggestive poses or situations)”; “Materials that promote the sexual exploitation of children (e.g., written materials that romanticize adult-child sex; literature from pedophile organizations)”; “Written correspondence in which individuals are discussed in a sexualized way”; “Written or pictorial materials that promote violence or reflect a degrading attitude to persons based on … sex”; “Any other personal property deemed inappropriate by the SOMP Coordinator due to its association with the inmate’s risk to engage in sexually offensive behavior”	pp. 30–31
Visitation (4.6.2)	“Prior child or adult victims of sexual offenses committed by the inmate”; “Children who are being groomed by the inmate for sexual assault or other predatory behavior involving children and/or the caregivers of those children”; “Children who will not be adequately supervised by an accompanying visiting adult”; “Any other visitors deemed inappropriate by the SOMP Coordinator due to the inmate’s risk to engage in sexually offensive behavior”	p. 31
Correspondence and telephone (4.6.3)	“Prior child or adult victims of sexual offenses committed by the inmate”; “Children who are being groomed by the inmate for sexual assault or other predatory behavior involving children and/or the caregivers of those children”; “Other sexual offenders”; “Any other contact with the general public deemed inappropriate by the SOMP Coordinator due to its association with the inmate’s risk to engage in sexually offensive behavior”	p. 31

Source: PS 5324.10 at pp. 29–31.

The procedural spine of a CMP is short and worth knowing by heart. A CMP “may be initiated at the discretion of the Warden or designee based on evidence that a sexual offender may have engaged in risk-relevant behavior”; a SOMP psychologist conducts the Initial Risk Assessment and drafts the plan “ordinarily in conjunction with staff from Correctional Services and/or the Unit Team”; the plan goes “to the Warden or designee for approval prior to issuance”; a psychologist then meets with the person, discusses it, and “[t]he inmate will be offered a copy of the CMP.” A CMP “may be modified by the psychologist with the concurrence of the Warden or designee” and “may be terminated if the Warden determines there is no further need” (PS 5324.10 at p. 30).

What the sex offender programs policy means for you

If you are the person inside: treatment is voluntary

Participation in treatment is voluntary, and the Program Statement says so in two places: the screening list ends with the requirement that you sign the BP-A0957 “indicating that he/she volunteers for participation,” and the referral section states that “[i]nmates may self-refer for sex offender treatment services by submitting an Inmate Request to Staff (BP-A0148) to the Chief Psychologist at the inmate’s current institution” (PS 5324.10 at p. 17). The statute behind the programs uses the same word — 18 U.S.C. § 3621(f)(1)(B) directs the Bureau to establish residential programs “to provide treatment to sex offenders who volunteer for such programs.”

Timing is the variable you have the most control over. The policy directs that referrals for redesignation “should be initiated when an inmate has 36 months to projected release,” and 48 months for high-security placement, while the minimum time-remaining figures are 21 months for the SOTP-NR and 27 months for the SOTP-R (at pp. 17–18). Waiting until you are close to release is the single most common way a request becomes untimely. Whether any of these criteria are met in your case is a determination for Bureau psychology staff and the DSCC — nothing on this page decides it.

If a Correctional Management Plan is imposed, ask for the copy the policy says you will be offered, and read what it actually restricts. A CMP restricts property, visiting, mail and telephone; it is not a disciplinary sanction and it is not an incident report. Keep it separate in your mind and in your paperwork from anything running through the Inmate Discipline Program.

If you are a family member: two facts that reduce fear

Two facts do the most to reduce fear. First, treatment is voluntary — nobody is placed into the SOTP-R or SOTP-NR without signing an agreement to participate. Second, a SOMP designation is a housing and services designation, not a punishment: the policy states that a primary goal of SOMP institutions “is to reduce the need to place sexual offenders in protective custody, and to create an institution climate conducive to voluntary participation in treatment” (PS 5324.10 at p. 5).

What you may notice first is a change in contact. A Correctional Management Plan can restrict who may visit, write, or be called — including, in the categories the policy lists, children who “will not be adequately supervised by an accompanying visiting adult.” If a name disappears from a visiting or telephone list without explanation, the CMP is the first thing to ask about, and our visiting regulations and telephone regulations pages explain the ordinary approval process a CMP overrides.

Where you can help most is with the calendar and the paperwork. Referral windows open years before release, waiting lists are maintained on the Bureau’s SENTRY system, and placement priority is set by projected release date. Keeping a written record of every self-referral, every response, and every date is the kind of file that makes a later request or an administrative remedy possible.

If you are counsel: sex offender programs

Three features of this policy are load-bearing in practice. First, almost every decision it describes is committed to Bureau discretion and routed through the DSCC — program level, redesignation approval, discipline-history exemptions, CMP initiation and termination. That shapes what an administrative remedy can realistically ask for: a reasoned application of the stated criteria, not a different outcome.

Second, this is a 2013 Program Statement carrying a single 2025 change notice. It predates the First Step Act entirely. It says nothing about earned time credits, nothing about the risk and needs assessment system, and nothing about whether SOTP completion is an evidence-based recidivism reduction program for credit purposes. Whether a particular sentence is eligible to earn First Step Act time credits at all is governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(D) and 28 C.F.R. § 523.41(d) — not by this policy — and it is a fact question for the Bureau in the first instance.

Third, the CMP is where the litigable questions cluster. It restricts property, mail, visiting and telephone on the basis of an Initial Risk Assessment, it is approved by the Warden or a management-official designee, and the policy provides for modification and termination but describes no hearing. A challenge runs through the Administrative Remedy Program, where the record you want is the Initial Risk Assessment, the CMP document itself, and the Administrative Note describing the risk-relevant behavior that triggered it.

What changed in the February 2025 change notice

Change Notice CN-1, dated February 18, 2025 and approved by Acting Director William W. Lothrop, does one thing. In its own words, it “implements the following changes to Program Statement 5324.10, Sex Offender Programs, dated February 15, 2013 to remove references to any concept that may conflict with the January 20, 2025, Executive Order Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government” (PS 5324.10 CN-1 at p. 1). The CN reprints section 4.6.1 — the personal-property restriction list — and marks additions with highlighting and deletions with strikethrough. The single edit strikes the word “gender” and inserts “sex” in the bullet on materials that “promote violence or reflect a degrading attitude to persons based on … sex.” No program, no criterion, no numeric limit and no procedure was changed.

That makes the substantive policy on this page a 2013 document. The base Program Statement was approved by Director Charles E. Samuels, Jr. on February 15, 2013, and the program design it describes — two intensity levels, the Static-99R, the 144-hour and 400-hour floors, the 21- and 27-month minimums, the 36- and 48-month referral windows — is that 2013 design. When you cite this policy, cite the CN date for currency and the base date for the substance: PS 5324.10 (Feb. 15, 2013), CN-1 (Feb. 18, 2025).

The age shows in the policy’s own references list, and it is worth knowing before you rely on a cross-reference inside it. The 2013 References page names editions that have since been replaced — P5100.08 (9/12/2006), P5267.08 Visiting Regulations (5/11/2006), P5521.05 Searches (6/30/1997), P5580.08 Inmate Personal Property (8/22/2011), P5270.09 Inmate Discipline Program (7/8/2011) (at p. 3). Visiting is now PS 5267.09 CN-1 (8/1/2023), searches PS 5521.06 CN-1 (3/6/2025), personal property PS 5580.10 (5/7/2026), and discipline PS 5270.09 CN-1 (11/18/2020). Cross-references inside a 2013 policy point at editions that no longer exist.

Where people get stuck after a self-referral

A self-referral goes in and nothing happens

The Program Statement puts the first move squarely on the person inside: “[i]nmates may self-refer for sex offender treatment services by submitting an Inmate Request to Staff (BP-A0148) to the Chief Psychologist at the inmate’s current institution,” and “[p]articipants may enroll in the sex offender treatment program at any time during the course of their sentence, provided they have sufficient time to complete the program” (PS 5324.10 at p. 17). What the policy does not do is set a response deadline for the psychologist.

So route it and time it. The request goes to the Chief Psychologist, dated, specific, and naming the program by its acronym. If nothing returns, the next step is informal resolution and then the formal grievance chain — the BP-9 must be submitted within 20 calendar days of the date the basis for the request occurred (28 C.F.R. § 542.14), the BP-10 within 20 calendar days of the Warden’s signed response, and the BP-11 within 30 calendar days of the Regional Director’s (§ 542.15). Our Inmate Request to Staff page covers how the request itself has to be filed since the 2026 reissue.

The time-remaining math runs out

This is the most common hard stop, and it is arithmetic rather than judgment. The policy sets ordinary minimums of 21 months to projected release for the SOTP-NR and 27 months for the SOTP-R, and it directs referrals to be initiated at 36 months to release — 48 months for high-security placement (PS 5324.10 at pp. 17–18). Those windows have to accommodate a transfer to a SOMP institution and, where applicable, community placement afterward.

The policy does contemplate something for people outside the window. Section 3.4.5 provides that adjunctive services may be offered to those “who do not have sufficient time remaining on their sentence to complete the SOTP-NR … to prepare them for community-based treatment upon release,” and to those “who are too early in their sentence to enter the program” (at p. 23). Adjunctive programming is not the SOTP: the policy states that people who complete pretreatment services “should not receive SOTP-NR or SOTP-R program completion assignments on SENTRY.” If the projected release date itself is wrong, that is a sentence-computation problem, not a programming one, and it should be run down first.

Incident reports block a referral

The discipline criterion is written with two escape valves, and both are worth using. The text is: “Ordinarily, the inmate should have no 100- or 200-level incident reports in the last year. Inmates with three or more 300- and 400-level incident reports may also be precluded from placement in treatment” — followed immediately by “[d]epending on an inmate’s amenability to benefit from programming despite his/her history of incident reports, exemptions from this criterion may be considered on a case-by-case basis,” with the psychologist directed to “contact designated staff at the DSCC to determine if an exemption is warranted” (PS 5324.10 at pp. 17–18). “Ordinarily” and “may” are not “shall.”

There is also an upstream question: was the incident report itself sound? A sanction that should not have been imposed keeps blocking programming for a year. That is a discipline problem with its own route — a DHO appeal goes initially to the Regional Director under 28 C.F.R. § 542.14 — and our Inmate Discipline Program page sets out how those hearings are supposed to run. Discipline is one of the four areas where the consequences compound quietly, and it is worth a consultation rather than a self-help appeal.

A visit, a call or a letter is cut off with no explanation

If contact stops and no incident report was written, a Correctional Management Plan is the likely explanation. Under section 4.5.4 a SOMP psychologist “will meet with the inmate and discuss the Correctional Management Plan,” and “[t]he inmate will be offered a copy of the CMP” (PS 5324.10 at p. 30). Ask for that copy in writing and keep it. Note also the jurisdictional limit: “CMPs may be imposed only at SOMP institutions” (at p. 29) — a restriction imposed at a non-SOMP facility is not a CMP, whatever it is called.

The route is the Administrative Remedy Program, and the argument is usually about fit rather than authority: the policy ties each restriction to what the Initial Risk Assessment actually found, and the CMP is supposed to convey “types of restricted personal property specifically related to an inmate’s sexual risk factors” (at p. 31). Section 4.5.5 provides that a CMP “may be terminated if the Warden determines there is no further need” — which makes a documented change in circumstances, over time, the thing worth building.

Related BOP policy on sex offender programs

Page	What it covers
Sex offender treatment programs in federal prison	The paired plain-English guide: what participation looks like day to day, and what a SOMP designation means
Civil commitment of sexually dangerous persons (PS 5394.01)	The separate certification and commitment process — not covered by PS 5324.10, which never mentions it
PREA and sexual abuse prevention (PS 5333.01)	The Bureau’s policy on sexually abusive behavior in custody — a different policy on a different subject, sometimes confused with this one
Psychology treatment programs and RDAP (PS 5330.11)	The wider psychology treatment set the SOTP sits inside
Security designation and custody classification (PS 5100.08)	How designation and redesignation decisions are actually made, including public safety factors
Visiting regulations (PS 5267.09)	The ordinary visiting-list process a Correctional Management Plan overrides
Inmate telephone regulations (PS 5264.08)	The ordinary telephone-list process, and how numbers are approved and removed
Inmate Request to Staff (PS 5511.08)	How a self-referral has to be submitted since the March 2026 reissue
Federal prison early release	Where a documented institutional programming record becomes part of a filing in court

Frequently Asked Questions About BOP Sex Offender Programs

Reviewed for legal accuracy by Elizabeth Franklin-Best, Esq., Principal Attorney·September 2026