Cost of Incarceration Fee (COIF)

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

Program Statement	5380.06
Subject	Cost of Incarceration Fee (COIF)
Current edition	August 11, 1999 (rules effective 8/11/1999)
Change notices	None
Supersedes	PS 5380.03, Cost of Incarceration Fee (6/2/1995) — rescinded
Governing regulation	28 C.F.R. part 505 (§§ 505.1–505.7); delegation at 28 C.F.R. § 0.96c
Governing statute	18 U.S.C. § 4001 note (Pub. L. 102-395, tit. I, § 111, Oct. 6, 1992, 106 Stat. 1842)
Where the dollar figure comes from	An annual notice in the Federal Register — not from the Program Statement
Most recent published notice	90 FR 58059 (Dec. 15, 2025), reporting FY 2024
Related BP forms	BP-546 / BP-S546.053 (Cost of Incarceration Fee Worksheet); BP-114 (Cash Receipt); BP-A0189 (Release & Gratuity Information)
Official PDF	https://www.bop.gov/policy/progstat/5380_006.pdf

Checked against the BOP policy set · 2026-09-07 · How we verify

The Cost of Incarceration Fee is a one-time charge the Bureau of Prisons may assess against a sentenced federal prisoner to recover roughly what it costs to hold one person for a year — but only when the sentencing judge neither imposed nor waived a fine, and only up to the value of that person’s assets above the federal poverty level. It is not a bill for the cost of the sentence, and if you are trying to understand how it fits alongside restitution and court-ordered fines in the payment queue, read this page together with our guide to inmate restitution, which covers the court-ordered obligations that get paid before this one.

Two things about this page are worth stating up front, because almost everything written about the COIF gets them wrong.

First, the dollar figure you have probably seen quoted is a ceiling, not a charge. The widely circulated number — the “average annual cost of incarceration” — is the maximum the Bureau may assess. What an individual is actually assessed is capped by that figure but set by their own assets above the poverty line. Someone whose assets are at or below the poverty level is assessed nothing under the formula.

Second, that figure changes every year and lives somewhere other than the policy. Program Statement 5380.06 has not been revised since 1999. It does not contain a current dollar amount and never will. The number is published separately, as a notice in the Federal Register, and the most recently published notice is described below.

The rule itself: the cost of incarceration fee

Three separate regulations do the work here, and they answer three different questions. The Program Statement is the Bureau’s staff instruction for applying them; the regulations are what bind the agency.

Where the annual figure comes from

The Attorney General’s authority to set and collect the fee is delegated to the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, and the same regulation states the arithmetic and the publication requirement:

(a) The Attorney General is required to establish and collect a fee to cover the cost of one year of incarceration.

(b) The fee to cover the costs of incarceration shall be calculated by dividing the number representing the obligation encountered in Bureau of Prisons facilities (excluding activation costs) by the number of inmate-days incurred for the year, and by then multiplying the quotient by 365.

(c) The Director of the Bureau of Prisons is delegated the authority to collect the fee to cover the cost of incarceration from inmates committed to the custody of the Attorney General and to promulgate all regulations concerning the collection of the fee.

(d) The Director shall review and determine the amount of the fee not less than annually in accordance with the formula set forth in paragraph (b) of this section. The Director shall publish each year’s fee as a Notice in the Federal Register.

Reproduced verbatim from 28 C.F.R. § 0.96c.

The Program Statement carries the same publication rule as its own paragraph 7, reproducing the text of the regulation:

[ANNUAL DETERMINATION OF AVERAGE COST OF INCARCERATION § 505.2. Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.96c, the Bureau of Prisons staff is responsible for calculating the annual average cost of incarceration. This calculation is reviewed annually and the revised figure is published as a notice in the Federal Register.]

Reproduced from Program Statement 5380.06 at p. 3. The bracketed text is the regulation, now codified at 28 C.F.R. § 505.2; the Program Statement’s own typographic key marks bracketed text as “Rules” and regular type as “Implementing Information.”

How an individual’s fee is calculated

This is the provision that determines what a particular person is assessed, and it is the one most often misread:

Bureau of Prisons Unit Team staff are responsible for computing the amount of the fee to be paid by each inmate who has not been exempted from fee assessment. The inmate will only be assessed an amount once for the cost of incarceration for each separate period of incarceration.

(a) Unit Team staff are to rely exclusively on the information contained in the Presentence Investigation Report and findings and orders of the sentencing court in order to determine the extent of an inmate’s assets, liabilities and dependents.

(b) The fee is assessed in accordance with the following formula: If an inmate’s assets are equal to or less than the poverty level, as established by the United States Department of Health and Human Services and published annually in the Federal Register, no fee is to be imposed. If an inmate’s assets are above the poverty level, Unit Team staff are to impose a fee equal to the inmate’s assets above the poverty level up to the average cost to the Bureau of Prisons of confining an inmate for one year.

(c) If the amount of time that the inmate is in custody is less than 334 days (including pretrial custody time), the maximum fee to be imposed is to be computed by prorating the fee on a monthly basis.

Reproduced verbatim from 28 C.F.R. § 505.4. The same rule appears at Program Statement 5380.06 at pp. 5–6, where the 1999 wording reads “shall be computed” rather than the regulation’s current “is to be computed.”

Read that formula slowly, because the structure matters:

• The starting point is assets above the HHS poverty level — not income, not the sentence length, not a flat rate.
• The cap is one year’s average cost of confinement. That is where the published annual figure enters. It limits the assessment; it does not set it.
• The source of the asset figures is the Presentence Investigation Report and the sentencing court’s findings and orders — exclusively. Staff are told not to conduct their own fact-finding.
• 334 days is the proration threshold, and it counts pretrial custody. The number is not arbitrary: the statute directs the Attorney General to “credit or rebate a prorated portion of the fee with respect to any such person incarcerated for 334 days or fewer in a given fiscal year,” and to count “time served prior to conviction” (18 U.S.C. § 4001 note). The Program Statement explains the arithmetic: “An inmate sentenced to 12 months, 1 day, spends approximately 334 days incarcerated” (PS 5380.06 at p. 7).

Who is exempt

Inmates who began service of sentence before January 1, 1995, or who have had a fine either imposed or expressly waived by the United States District Court, pursuant to Section 5E1.2 (e) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, or any successor provisions, are exempt from fee assessment otherwise required by this part.

Reproduced verbatim from 28 C.F.R. § 505.3.

Separately, the Bureau’s own instruction to staff spells out the circumstances in which it treats itself as barred from assessing the fee at all. This is staff guidance rather than regulation, but it is the operational list that determines what happens at a Program Review:

a. The Bureau of Prisons may not impose a COIF in the following circumstances:

– Judge waives the fine – Judge imposes a fine which includes an additional amount to cover costs of incarceration – Fine amount and/or cost of incarceration amount is entered as zero on the Judgment and Commitment (J&C) – Judge imposes a fine but determines that the defendant does not possess sufficient funds to pay, and therefore, waives the fine – Inmate was sentenced on or after November 1, 1997, and a fine has been imposed (including zero amount)

b. Situations in which the Bureau may impose a COIF include the following:

– Judge neither imposed nor waived a fine; there is no indication on the J&C that a fine and/or cost of incarceration had been considered during sentencing

OR

– The inmate entered Bureau custody on or after January 1, 1995, and was sentenced prior to November 1, 1997, and the Judge has imposed a fine; however, the J&C does not indicate that the fine amount includes the cost of incarceration, (nor has an additional amount been specified to cover cost of incarceration)

Reproduced from Program Statement 5380.06 at pp. 4–5. This is the Program Statement’s implementing text — the Bureau’s instruction to its own staff — not regulatory text.

The practical upshot of that list is narrow and worth saying plainly: the Bureau-imposed COIF reaches a shrinking population. The Program Statement itself explains why the November 1, 1997 line exists — “Fines imposed on or after November 1, 1997, have already taken into consideration costs to the government, including terms of imprisonment. Therefore, the Bureau is not in a position to further assess a COIF” (PS 5380.06 at p. 4). The Sentencing Guidelines direct the court, in setting a fine, to consider “the expected costs to the government of any term of probation, or term of imprisonment and term of supervised release imposed” (USSG §5E1.2(d)(7), Guidelines Manual (Nov. 1, 2025)). Where the judge has done that work, the Bureau does not repeat it.

Waiver by the Warden

The Warden may reduce or waive the fee if the inmate establishes that:

(a) He or she is not able and, even with the use of a reasonable installment schedule, is not likely to become able to pay all or part of the fee, or

(b) Imposition of a fee would unduly burden the inmate’s dependents.

Reproduced verbatim from 28 C.F.R. § 505.5. The 1999 Program Statement reproduces an earlier wording — “if the person under confinement establishes” and “the defendant’s dependents” — at PS 5380.06 p. 7.

Two features of this provision deserve emphasis. It is discretionary — “may reduce or waive,” not “shall.” And the burden is on the person confined: the Program Statement states that “[t]he burden is on the inmate to demonstrate to the Warden’s satisfaction that it is unlikely that he or she would be able to pay such fee, or that it would unduly burden his or her dependents” (PS 5380.06 at p. 7). Nobody can tell you in advance how a Warden will exercise that discretion, and this page does not try.

The Program Statement offers three examples of what it treats as an undue burden on dependents:

(1) non-elective medical expenses for a dependent’s mental or physical health;

(2) accidents or random events (automobile, natural disasters, etc.) that involve serious personal harm or damage to an inmate’s family or property and result in a major financial burden impacting the dependent(s); or

(3) the dependent(s) would otherwise be deprived of basic subsistence requirements (food, transportation to school, etc.).

Reproduced from Program Statement 5380.06 at p. 7. The Program Statement frames this section as intended “to apply where the inmate’s financial situation has changed subsequent to the PSI’s preparation” — which tells you what a submission has to show: not that the original PSR was wrong, but that circumstances moved after it.

The whole of part 505, in order

Section	Heading	What it settles
§ 505.1	Purpose and scope	Establishes the assessment-and-collection procedure; treats revocation of parole or supervised release as a separate period of incarceration for which a fee may be imposed
§ 505.2	Annual determination of average cost of incarceration	The figure is reviewed annually and published as a notice in the Federal Register
§ 505.3	Inmates exempted from fee assessment	Pre–January 1, 1995 service of sentence; fine imposed or expressly waived under USSG §5E1.2(e)
§ 505.4	Calculation of assessment by unit staff	Assets above poverty level, capped at one year’s average cost; prorated under 334 days
§ 505.5	Waiver of fee by Warden	Two discretionary grounds: inability to pay, or undue burden on dependents
§ 505.6	Procedures for payment	Due after notice of Unit Team action; paid first within “other federal government obligations”; may be subject to interest
§ 505.7	Procedures for final disposition	Pre-release review; unpaid balance referred for collection under the Federal Claims Collection Standards

Part 505 ends at § 505.7. See 28 C.F.R. part 505.

What the published figure actually is

The Bureau has not published a Cost of Incarceration Fee notice in 2026. The most recent one appeared on December 15, 2025, and it reports fiscal year 2024 — the figure is therefore two fiscal years behind the calendar as this page is written. That lag is normal for this notice, and it is the reason a number quoted without its fiscal year and publication date is close to meaningless.

Here is what the two most recent notices actually say:

Notice	Published	Fiscal year reported	Bureau or non-Bureau facility	Residential Reentry Center
90 FR 58059 (official PDF)	Dec. 15, 2025	FY 2024	$47,162 ($129.21 per day)	$43,703 ($119.73 per day)
89 FR 97072 (official PDF)	Dec. 6, 2024	FY 2023	$44,090 ($120.80 per day)	$41,437 ($113.53 per day)

The FY 2024 notice states the figures this way, verbatim:

Based on FY 2024 data, the average annual COIF for a Federal inmate housed in a Bureau or non-Bureau facility in FY 2024 was $47,162 ($129.21 per day). The average annual COIF for a Federal inmate housed in a Residential Reentry Center for FY 2024 was $43,703 ($119.73 per day). (Please note: There were 366 days in FY 2024.)

90 FR 58059 (Dec. 15, 2025).

These figures will be superseded. When the Bureau publishes the next notice, the numbers above become historical. Before relying on any COIF figure — in a filing, a submission to a Warden, or a conversation with a Unit Team — check the current notice rather than a secondary source. The notices are published by the Bureau of Prisons under the Department of Justice, and each one states the fiscal year it reports in its own summary.

The cadence has not been strictly annual. The notice published September 22, 2023 reported two fiscal years at once (FY 2021 and FY 2022), and the notice published September 1, 2021 likewise covered FY 2019 and FY 2020. Anyone reconstructing a year-by-year history from the notices should expect gaps and doubled-up years.

Applied Insight — Christopher Zoukis, JD, MBA, Managing Director: The single most common misuse of this number is treating it as the amount owed. It is not. Under 28 C.F.R. § 505.4(b) the assessment equals assets above the poverty level, and the published figure only caps it. When we review a COIF assessment, the first document we ask for is the Presentence Investigation Report — because the regulation says staff are to rely on it “exclusively,” and an assessment that does not trace back to the PSR’s asset findings and the court’s orders is the kind of arithmetic that can be shown to be wrong on the face of the record.

Court-imposed fine versus Bureau-imposed fee

The Program Statement is emphatic that these are two different obligations, and confusing them is the most common source of error in a Trust Fund account. Its own note states:

The Bureau’s Cost of Incarceration FEE (COIF-BOP) is separate and distinct from the Cost of Incarceration FINE imposed by the Court (COIF-Court). The Court has judicial authority to impose a fine which is punitive in nature and part of the individual’s sentence. Funds collected in this category (COIF-Court) are transmitted by the Business Office to the U.S. Treasury Department.

However, when the Court has not considered a Cost of Incarceration FINE, the Bureau is responsible for evaluating the inmate’s financial resources by completing the Cost of Incarceration Fee Worksheet (BP-546). Those inmates determined to have the financial resources available are to be assessed the Bureau’s Cost of Incarceration FEE. This is a one-time-only fee, not to exceed the yearly cost of housing an inmate. Monies collected in this category remain in a special fund at the local institution.

At no time will both a Court COIF and a Bureau COIF be imposed on the same inmate.

Reproduced from Program Statement 5380.06 at p. 2.

The Program Statement’s Attachment B sets out the distinction in a table, and the operationally useful contrast is this:

	Court-imposed FINE (COIF-Court)	Bureau-imposed FEE (COIF-BOP)
Obligation type code	Code 14 — COIF COURT	Code 39 — COIF BOP
Maximum amount	Specified amount on J&C dedicated to COIF	Current year COIF figure (a one-time obligation)
Payment period	As agreed upon by Unit Staff and inmate	One lump sum (negotiable to 12 months)
Funds disbursement	U.S. Treasury Department	Held at local institution
Purpose	“Punitive in nature as part of an inmate’s overall sentence”	To “recoup the administrative costs of confinement and to improve institutional programs”

Reproduced from Program Statement 5380.06, Attachment B, at p. 13.

If your Judgment and Commitment order names a dollar figure for cost of incarceration, you are looking at a court-imposed fine — a piece of the sentence, enforceable as such, and money that goes to the Treasury. If it does not, and the judge said nothing about a fine, the Bureau may run the worksheet. Those are different documents with different consequences, and the SENTRY obligation code (14 versus 39) is where the difference shows up in a printout.

Where the fee sits in the payment queue

A COIF assessment does not jump the line. It is collected through the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program, and the IFRP regulation fixes the order in which obligations are ordinarily paid:

The financial plan developed shall be documented and will include the following obligations, ordinarily to be paid in the priority order as listed:

(1) Special Assessments imposed under 18 U.S.C. 3013; (2) Court-ordered restitution; (3) Fines and court costs; (4) State or local court obligations; and (5) Other federal government obligations.

Reproduced verbatim from 28 C.F.R. § 545.11(a).

The COIF falls in category (5) — and within that category it is paid first. 28 C.F.R. § 505.6 provides that “fees are to be included under the category ‘other federal government obligations’ and are to be paid before other financial obligations included in that same category.” The Bureau’s current IFRP statement says the same thing and names the company that category keeps: judgments in favor of the United States, student loans, Veterans Administration claims, tax liabilities, and Freedom of Information/Privacy Act fees (PS 5380.08 at p. 6).

The practical consequence is that restitution and court-ordered fines are satisfied before the COIF is touched. The Program Statement says so directly: “An inmate does not begin payment of a fee under this part until he or she has completed payment on any other financial obligations which are a higher priority under IFRP” (PS 5380.06 at p. 8). If restitution is substantial, the COIF may sit at the back of the queue for the length of the sentence. Our page on inmate restitution covers what sits ahead of it.

On timing, once higher-priority obligations are cleared, the Program Statement instructs that the person “ordinarily must pay the COIF either in one lump sum or using a multiple payment installment plan, not to exceed 12 months,” and that an extension beyond 12 months requires the Warden to “request and receive approval from the Assistant Director, Administration Division, Central Office” on a showing of “extraordinary or compelling circumstances” — which the Program Statement says “ordinarily refer to a period of time to allow an inmate the opportunity to sell his or her assets in order to pay the COIF” (PS 5380.06 at p. 8). On interest, the regulation permits it (“Fees may be subject to interest charges,” 28 C.F.R. § 505.6) while the Program Statement tells staff that “[o]rdinarily, interest charges will not be levied against an inmate for non-payment or partial payment of an assessed fee,” with any exception requiring Central Office authorization (PS 5380.06 at p. 8).

What the Cost of Incarceration Fee means for you

If you are the person inside: the COIF assessment at classification

You should learn about a COIF assessment at initial classification. The Program Statement instructs staff that “the inmate is to be notified at initial classification through the Program Review Report form,” that “[a] copy of the BP-546 should also be provided to the inmate at such time,” and that this notification is required “even when the inmate has other higher priority financial obligations under the IFRP” (PS 5380.06 at p. 11). If a COIF obligation appears on your SENTRY record and you were never handed a worksheet, that gap is documentable and it is worth documenting immediately.

The regulation gives you two distinct routes, and they answer different questions. If you think the calculation is wrong — the asset figures do not match the PSR, dependents were not counted, pretrial custody was not credited against the 334-day proration — that is a challenge to the Unit Team’s arithmetic, and the Program Statement expressly contemplates it: “An inmate may appeal the unit team’s decision through the Bureau’s Administrative Remedy Program” (PS 5380.06 at p. 5). If instead you accept the calculation but your circumstances have changed since the PSR was written, that is a waiver request to the Warden under 28 C.F.R. § 505.5, and the burden of proof is yours.

Progress is reviewed at every Program Review, and refusal has consequences that reach beyond the money: the Program Statement notes that “any inmate who refuses to satisfy his or her assessed fee may be subject to a loss of privileges,” cross-referencing the IFRP (PS 5380.06 at p. 9). Those consequences are set out in the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program policy, and they touch work and performance pay, commissary spending, and housing.

If you are the family: the published figure is not the assessment

The number you have read about is almost certainly the published annual average — the ceiling — and not what your loved one has been assessed. Before you assume a five-figure obligation, ask for two documents: the BP-546 worksheet, which the Program Statement says should be filed “in section one of the Inmate Central File” and provided to the inmate (PS 5380.06 at p. 5, p. 11), and the Judgment and Commitment order. Between them you can usually tell within minutes whether the Bureau was permitted to assess a fee at all.

Money you send does not go to the COIF automatically. Deposits land in the Trust Fund account and are drawn against the IFRP payment plan in the priority order set by 28 C.F.R. § 545.11(a) — special assessment, restitution, fines and court costs, state or local obligations, then federal obligations including the COIF. If you are trying to work out where a deposit actually went, start with how to send money to federal inmates and then the restitution page.

An outside payment aimed at the COIF specifically has to be labeled. The Program Statement directs that a check or money order be made payable to the Federal Bureau of Prisons and reference the person’s name, register number, and “reason for payment (COIF),” and it instructs that “[f]or outside payments, the inmate must provide a copy of the receipt to the Unit Team so that they may adjust the inmate’s SENTRY obligation balance” (PS 5380.06 at p. 8). A payment made without that follow-up can sit uncredited on the SENTRY balance.

If you are counsel: the cost of incarceration fee

The exemption analysis is a records question, and it usually resolves on the J&C alone. Under 28 C.F.R. § 505.3, a fine “either imposed or expressly waived” under USSG §5E1.2(e) exempts the client, as does having begun service of sentence before January 1, 1995. The Bureau’s own instruction adds that a fine imposed on or after November 1, 1997 — “including zero amount” — takes the Bureau out of it (PS 5380.06 at p. 4). A sentencing record that is silent on fines is the fact pattern that leaves the door open.

At sentencing, the cleanest protection is an express record. Where the client cannot pay, USSG §5E1.2(e) allows the court to “impose a lesser fine or waive the fine,” and an explicit waiver on the record does double duty — it resolves the fine and it triggers the § 505.3 exemption. A judgment that says nothing does neither.

Post-assessment, exhaustion runs through the Administrative Remedy Program: informal resolution, then BP-9 to the Warden, BP-10 to the Regional Director, BP-11 to the Office of National Inmate Appeals. Build the record at the BP-9 with the PSR asset findings, the J&C, and the BP-546 attached — the regulation confines staff to those sources, so a discrepancy between them and the assessment is the argument. Where the client is also disputing how time is being counted, our page on challenging a BOP sentence computation covers the parallel track.

What has not changed in PS 5380.06

Program Statement 5380.06 has not been revised since August 11, 1999. It survived the Bureau’s mass Program Statement reissue of June 22, 2026 untouched, and remains the current edition. That stability is the page’s central fact and its central problem: the policy text is more than a quarter-century old, while the regulations it reproduces and the documents it cross-references have moved on.

What the 1999 edition itself changed. PS 5380.06 rescinded PS 5380.03, Cost of Incarceration Fee (6/2/1995). Its own Summary of Changes states that the revision “modifies Rules language in order to remove redundant provisions and make organizational/editorial changes,” incorporates “changes commensurate with the most recent U.S. Sentencing Guidelines,” and works “to define clearly the difference between the court-imposed COIF (Fine) and the Bureau-imposed COIF (Fee).” It also removed the requirement for an Institution Supplement (PS 5380.06 at pp. 1–2).

The regulations were reworded after the Program Statement was written. Every section of 28 C.F.R. part 505 currently carries an effective date of December 29, 2016. The differences are stylistic rather than substantive, but they are visible: § 505.4(c) now reads “is to be computed” where the Program Statement has “shall be computed”; § 505.5 now says “if the inmate establishes” and “the inmate’s dependents” where the Program Statement has “if the person under confinement establishes” and “the defendant’s dependents”; and § 505.6 now carries an internal cross-reference to “28 CFR part 545, subpart B” that the Program Statement’s version does not. Where this page quotes a regulation, it quotes the current text from eCFR.

Three of the cross-references in the Program Statement are stale. The 1999 edition lists its referenced directives at p. 3; the current editions are different documents:

Cited in PS 5380.06 (p. 3)	Current edition
PS 2011.07, Cost of Incarceration Fee, Accounting for (9/2/1997)	PS 2011.12, Accounting for the Cost of Incarceration Fee (12/21/2012)
PS 5380.05, Financial Responsibility Program, Inmate (12/22/1995)	PS 5380.08, Financial Responsibility Program, Inmate (8/15/2005)
PS 1330.13, Administrative Remedy Program (12/22/1995)	Superseded — see the Administrative Remedy Program policy page for the current edition

The terminology is a generation out of date. PS 5380.06 speaks throughout of Community Corrections Centers (CCCs) and Community Corrections Managers (CCMs). The Bureau now uses Residential Reentry Centers and Residential Reentry Managers, and the current accounting statement is written in those terms — PS 2011.12 heads its section 8 “RESIDENTIAL REENTRY MANAGER (RRM) RESPONSIBILITIES” (PS 2011.12 at p. 4). The Federal Register notices likewise report a separate figure for “a Federal inmate housed in a Residential Reentry Center.” If you are reading the 1999 text, translate CCC to RRC and CCM to RRM as you go. Our halfway houses page uses the current vocabulary.

Some of the form numbers have changed too. PS 5380.06 refers to the Release and Gratuity Information form as “BP-S189.051”; the current accounting statement calls it “BP-A0189” (PS 2011.12 at p. 4). The receipt is BP-114 (Cash Receipt) in both.

Where an unpaid balance now goes. Under 28 C.F.R. § 505.7, an unpaid amount “will be referred for collection in accordance with Federal Claims Collection Standards (4 CFR Chapter II).” The current mechanics run through a Claims Collection Litigation Report forwarded to the Department of Justice’s Nationwide Central Intake Facility, which “reviews and forwards the referral package to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for litigation and enforcement” (PS 2011.12 at pp. 4–5). Release does not extinguish the obligation.

Where people get stuck confusing the published figure with the fee

The published figure gets treated as the assessment. This is the recurring one, and it usually surfaces as panic — a family reads that incarceration costs roughly $47,000 a year and concludes that is the bill. It is not. 28 C.F.R. § 505.4(b) assesses assets above the poverty level, capped at that figure. The route: get the BP-546 worksheet, which shows the actual computation, and the PSR asset findings it was supposed to draw on. If the worksheet was never provided, that is an informal-resolution request to the Unit Team first, then a BP-9 if it goes unanswered.

A fee is assessed where the J&C should have exempted the person. The J&C says a fine was imposed, or expressly waived, or entered as zero — and a COIF appears anyway. Or the sentencing date is on or after November 1, 1997 with a fine imposed. The route: this is a documents argument, not a discretion argument. Attach the J&C to an informal resolution, then a BP-9. Under 28 C.F.R. § 505.3 the exemption is categorical, not discretionary, so the question is whether the record shows what the person says it shows.

Pretrial custody is left out of the proration. 28 C.F.R. § 505.4(c) prorates the maximum where custody is “less than 334 days (including pretrial custody time),” and the statute directs that the day count “shall include time served prior to conviction” (18 U.S.C. § 4001 note). Where a person served substantial pretrial detention on a short sentence, omitting it can move the maximum. The route: BP-9 with the sentence computation attached. If the underlying jail-credit figure is itself contested, that is a sentence-computation issue and is addressed on our page about challenging a BOP sentence computation.

A COIF is assessed twice, or alongside a court fine. The Program Statement states flatly that “[a]t no time will both a Court COIF and a Bureau COIF be imposed on the same inmate,” and the regulation says the assessment happens “only … once for the cost of incarceration for each separate period of incarceration” (PS 5380.06 at p. 2; 28 C.F.R. § 505.4). Note the qualifier: 28 C.F.R. § 505.1 treats “revocation of parole or supervised release … as a separate period of incarceration for which a fee may be imposed,” so a second assessment after a revocation is not automatically an error. The route: compare SENTRY obligation codes 14 and 39 against the J&C or Notice of Action, then informal resolution and BP-9.

A waiver request is filed as a grievance, or a calculation dispute is filed as a waiver. These are different instruments with different burdens. A waiver under 28 C.F.R. § 505.5 asks the Warden to exercise discretion on a showing of changed circumstances; a challenge to the arithmetic asks the Bureau to correct an error against the PSR and the court’s orders. The route: file the one that matches the argument, and if both apply, keep them separate so the discretionary request does not swallow the record-based one.

Related BOP policy on the cost of incarceration fee

• Inmate Financial Responsibility Program — the collection mechanism the COIF runs through. Read this first if you want to understand why a COIF balance can sit untouched for years while other obligations are paid down, and what “refusing” the program actually costs.
• Inmate restitution — the court-ordered obligations satisfied ahead of the COIF under 28 C.F.R. § 545.11(a), and the paired money page for this one.
• Fines and Costs for “Old Law” Inmates (Program Statement 5882.03) — the separate pre–November 1, 1987 regime for committed fines, which the COIF exemption at 28 C.F.R. § 505.3 never reaches.
• Trust Fund and commissary — the account payments are drawn from, the monthly spending limitation, and the withdrawal rules under the Trust Fund manual reissued May 2026.
• Inmate work and performance pay — the institution earnings most IFRP payment plans are built on.
• Inmate copayment program — the other routine charge against a Trust Fund account, and one of the few withdrawals that does not require a signature.
• Administrative Remedy Program — the informal resolution, BP-9, BP-10 and BP-11 route for disputing an assessment or a missing worksheet.
• How to send money to federal inmates — where a deposit actually goes and how it is applied against the payment plan.
• Halfway houses — Residential Reentry Center placement, for which the Federal Register notices publish a separate, lower COIF figure.
• Challenging a BOP sentence computation — the parallel track where the pretrial-credit figure behind the 334-day proration is itself in dispute.

Frequently Asked Questions About the Cost of Incarceration Fee

---

Program Statement 2011.12 — full text

The full text below is the Bureau of Prisons’ own document, reproduced in full and without edit from its published PDF: Program Statement 2011.12 (PDF).

U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Prisons

PROGRAM STATEMENT

OPI: ADM/FIN NUMBER: 2011.12 DATE: December 21, 2012

Accounting for the Cost of Incarceration Fee

/s/ Approved: Charles E. Samuels, Jr. Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons

1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

This Program Statement establishes procedures for processing and accounting for the Cost of Incarceration Fee (COIF) imposed on Federal inmates.

Public Law 102-395, Section 111, and 18 U.S.C. 4001, require the Attorney General to establish and collect a fee to cover costs associated with the confinement of any person convicted and committed to the Attorney General’s custody. This assessment is equivalent to the average cost of incarcerating a committed person for one year. Fees assessed and collected are used in accordance with the Program Statement Cost of Incarceration Fee.

a. Summary of Changes

Policy Rescinded

This revision eliminates the requirement to scan IFRP contracts into the Trust Fund Accounting and Commissary System (TRUFACS). Instead, the contracts are automatically forwarded through SENTRY.

b. Program Objectives. The expected results of this program are: Cost of Incarceration Fees

will be accurately monitored, collected, and accounted for in accordance with applicable regulations.

2. FEE CALCULATIONS

Unit Management staff calculate the COIF in accordance with provisions in the Program Statement Cost of Incarceration Fee.

Office of Financial Management (OFM) staff prorate fees for inmates incarcerated for less than a year upon request from Unit Management staff. Prorated fees are handled per the Program Statement Cost of Incarceration Fee.

3. SENTRY PROCESSING

The COIF is processed via the SENTRY Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (IFRP) Module. Unit Management staff enter the COIF obligation into SENTRY as explained in the Technical Reference Manual (TRM) SENTRY Inmate Financial Responsibility Program.

4. ESTABLISHING AN ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE

Upon receiving the SENTRY-generated COIF contract, OFM staff establish an accounts receivable in the automated accounting system. The accounts receivable is established as a reimbursement to the current year Salaries and Expenses (S&E) Appropriation. The debt is classified as a non-interest-accruing receivable and entered into the automated accounting system for the full amount of the COIF. If Unit Management advises OFM that the debt should be interest-bearing, OFM establishes the debt as an interest-bearing receivable.

The COIF accounts receivable file must contain the bills establishing the receivables and attached copies of the signed inmate contracts.

5. PAYMENT TYPES AND METHODS

The COIF may be paid as a lump sum for the entire amount or by installments, and may be paid either by the inmate or an outside source. The type of payment plan agreed upon by the inmate is annotated on the front of the SENTRY-generated contract. See the Program Statement Cost of Incarceration Fee for additional information on lump sum and installment payments.

a. Payments From Outside Sources By Check or Money Order. The payment must be

payable to the Federal Bureau of Prisons and reference the inmate’s name, register number, and that it is being made as a COIF.

OFM staff annotate the BP-114 (Cash Receipt) with the name and register number of the inmate for whom the payment was made and the account receivable bill number. A copy is sent to Unit Management staff to adjust the inmate’s SENTRY obligation balance. OFM staff send, via institution mail, the white copy of the receipt to the inmate.

The collection is deposited into the S&E Appropriation and reported on the institution s Statement of Transactions (SF-224). The receipt of payment is recorded in the automated accounting system and posted to accounts receivable in the automated accounting system.

The check or money order must not be deposited into the inmate’s TRUFACS account.

b. COIF Payments Through TRUFACS. If the COIF payment is made by the inmate, funds

are withdrawn from his/her account and collected into the S&E Appropriation.

The withdrawal of the inmate’s funds is processed in TRUFACS. The TRUFACS extract automatically records the withdrawal from the inmate’s account and posts the withdrawal to the SF-224. The collection into the S&E Appropriation is recorded in the automated accounting system, posted to the accounts receivable reducing the amount due, and reported on the institution’s SF-224. These entries must be supported by a Journal Voucher. The payment is also recorded in the SENTRY IFRP module per procedures in the TRM.

6. RETURNED CHECKS

When an outside check for the COIF is returned by the United States Treasury (Treasury) for insufficient funds, OFM staff send the inmate, via Unit Management staff, a copy of the debit voucher received from Treasury. The debit voucher is entered into the automated accounting system and the debt re-established as an accounts receivable. Unit Management staff use the debit voucher to adjust the SENTRY obligation for the returned check amount.

7. TRANSFERRED INMATES

Upon an inmate’s transfer to another institution, OFM staff ensure that the balance remaining on the accounts receivable is equal to the obligation balance in SENTRY. OFM liquidates the balance of the accounts receivable in the accounting system only after receiving written verification (e.g., fax, e-mail, letter) from the gaining institution that the receivable is established at the new location. The written verification is retained as the reason for the liquidation of the debt. The accounts receivable file must be clearly annotated with the reason for the liquidation. If the inmate is temporarily transferred, for medical reasons or writ, and is sent back to that institution, the remaining balance must not be liquidated.

The SENTRY obligation balance transfers in SENTRY with the inmate. Unit Management staff at the receiving institution retrieve outstanding obligation data from SENTRY and generate a new contract. The contract is provided to OFM staff to establish an account receivable for the remaining balance.

8. RESIDENTIAL REENTRY MANAGER (RRM) RESPONSIBILITIES

Inmates transferred to contract facilities are required to continue to pay their COIFs. The institution holding the debt immediately forwards the account receivable information to Regional Correctional Programs staff no later than two weeks before the transfer. Regional staff then notify the Regional Comptroller and RRM of the remaining COIF balance.

The institution holding the debt liquidates the receivable only after receiving written verification from the Regional Comptroller’s office that the receivable has been established at the Region.

The RRMs ensure payments for inmates in their facilities are submitted to the Regional Comptroller for deposit.

9. REGIONAL OFFICE RESPONSIBILITIES

Each Regional Comptroller has oversight and collection responsibility for the COIFs imposed on inmates in contract facilities in that Region. The Regional OFM establishes the accounts receivable upon receipt of the COIF balance information from the Regional Correctional Program Division staff. A BP -114 (Cash Receipt) for each payment received is prepared and forwarded to the inmate at the contract facility.

10. RELEASED INMATES

On request, OFM staff provide Unit Management with the balance of unpaid COIFs for inmates pending release. If an inmate is being released with an unpaid COIF balance, Unit Management staff prepare a Claims Collection Litigation Report (CCLR) and submit it to OFM staff with the Release & Gratuity Information form (BP-A0189) before the inmate’s release date.

If the inmate is released directly to the community, OFM staff fill in the bill number and forwards the CCLR to the Accounting Operations Section, Central Office, which reviews the CCLR and forwards it to:

U.S. Department of Justice Nationwide Central Intake Facility (NCIF) 1110 Bonifant Street, Suite 220 Silver Spring, Maryland 20910

If the inmate is released to a contract facility, OFM staff forward the CCLR to the Regional Comptroller, who follows procedures in this Program Statement.

If the inmate is released from a contract facility with a COIF balance, the RRM informs the Regional Comptroller, who completes the bill number and current amount on the CCLR and forwards it to the Accounting Operations Section, Central Office, which reviews the CCLR and forwards it to the address above.

The NCIF reviews and forwards the referral package to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for litigation and enforcement. Balances for COIFs must remain in accounts receivable until litigation is completed or the balances are authorized to be written off.

11. AGENCY ACA ACCREDITATION PROVISIONS

• Standards for Adult Correctional Institutions, 4th Edition: 4 -4025, 4-4031, 4-4034.
• Performance Based Standards for Adult Local Detention Facilities, 4th Edition: 4-ALDF-7D-10, 4-ALDF-7D-11.
• Standards for Administration of Correctional Agencies, 2nd Edition: 2 -CO-1B-01.

REFERENCES

Program Statements

Other References T2002.01 SENTRY Inmate Financial Responsibility Program Technical Reference Manual (7/5/1995)

BOP Forms BP-114 Cash Receipt BP-A0189 Release & Gratuity Information

Records Retention For guidance on records and information applicable to this program, see the Records and Information Disposition Schedule (RIDS) on Sallyport.

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