Posted Picture FIle

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

Program Statement	5513.01
Subject	Posted Picture File
Current edition	May 7, 2026
Change notices	None — this is a new edition
Supersedes	“5510.13 CN-1 Posted Picture File (8/6/2021)”
Governing regulation	None cited in the Program Statement
Governing statute	None cited in the Program Statement
Related BP forms	None named. Entries are made in the Electronic Posted Picture System (EPPS)
Official PDF	https://www.bop.gov/policy/progstat/5513_001.pdf

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

The Posted Picture File (PPF) is an internal Bureau of Prisons list — a photograph plus a reason — identifying people the institution has flagged as escape risks, assaultive, or otherwise a particular threat to staff, other inmates, or the community, and every staff member at the institution is now required to review it quarterly. It is not a disciplinary sanction, not a housing assignment and not a security classification; it is a staff-notification file, and the Program Statement that governs it provides no notice to the person listed, no hearing, and no appeal. Families often first sense it indirectly, in how a visit or a movement is handled — see Inmate Visitation for the visiting-room side.

The rule itself: the Posted Picture File

Section 3 of the Program Statement is the core: the twelve categories that put someone in the Posted Picture File, and the time frames attached to each. It opens with a sentence that controls how the whole list is read — “An inmate is placed in the PPF provided they meet one or more of the conditions listed below. The time frames noted in this section are minimum time frames.”

§ 3	Category	Verbatim criteria as printed
a	Escape Risk	An inmate has: “attempted escape from a secure institution within the past five years, and/or” · “successfully escaped from a secure institution. This PPF placement is maintained for 10 years, upon the inmate’s return to Bureau custody.”
b	History of Assaultive Behavior	An inmate has involvement in: “a serious assault with a weapon within the past three years,” · “a physical assault in which grievous bodily harm was inflicted within the past three years, and/or” · “a record of assault or attempted assault upon a staff member.”
c	Homicide	An inmate has been: “found or determined to have been involved in the homicide of an inmate in an institution within the past 10 years, and/or” · “found or determined to have been involved in the homicide of a staff member.”
d	History of Sexual Offenses	An inmate has involvement in: “a rape, sexual assault, or attempted sexual assault on another person in an institution within the past five years, and/or” · “a history of sexual advances towards staff within the past five years.” Followed by: “At the agency s discretion, other sexual offenses or attempted sexual offenses may be considered for the PPF.”
e	Former Control Unit Inmate	“An inmate who was confined in a Bureau Control Unit in the past five years after transfer from the Control Unit institution, United States Penitentiary Administrative Maximum (ADX), Florence, Colorado.”
f	Disruptive Group Members	“An inmate with a Central Inmate Monitoring (CIMS) assignment as a confirmed member of a Disruptive Group within the applicable Bureau inmate management system.”
g	Introduction of Drugs and Hazardous Contraband	“An inmate with involvement in an incident related to the introduction of drugs or hazardous contraband into a Bureau institution in the past five years.”
h	Advanced Skills	An inmate has a legitimate or illicit history of experience with skills required of a: “locksmith,” · “gunsmith,” · “explosives expert,” · “biochemical and nuclear weapons specialist,” · “security electronics technician,” · “computer hacker,” and/or · “similar security threat skills.”
i	Inmates of Greatest Concern	“Inmates incarcerated within the Bureau who are perceived by a federal law enforcement agency or U.S. Attorney’s Office to pose a potential threat of continuing their criminal activity while incarcerated.”
j	International/Domestic Terrorist Organization	“An inmate identified as an international/domestic terrorist.”
k	Two Hour Watch	“An inmate placed on a two-hour watch program at an institution. Procedures for the two-hour watch program will be developed and implemented locally.”
l	Other	“When staff believe an inmate requires placement in the PPF, but the inmate does not fall within one of the listed categories, they must submit a written justification through the Associate Warden to the Warden. If approved, the Warden’s approval is documented in the EPPS.”

Reproduced from Program Statement 5513.01 at pp. 2–4. Criterion (d) is transcribed exactly as printed, including the missing apostrophe in “agency s.”

The “Other” category carries a limiting rule and an illustrative list that are worth reading closely, because in practice this is the category that produces the most surprise:

“Inmates should not be placed in the PPF based solely on the assignment of Required Monitoring within the applicable Bureau inmate management system. If an inmate is placed on Required Monitoring as a result of an established PPF category, the inmate will be placed on the PPF under that specific category. Examples for the ‘Other’ category may include inmates who:

• have a history of manipulating or compromising staff,
• have led food strikes or work stoppages,
• are former law enforcement or judicial officers,
• have a serious history of fraud,
• have a history of defeating restraints, and/or
• have a serious history of making, possessing, or use of homemade intoxicants.”

Reproduced from Program Statement 5513.01 at p. 4.

Two of those examples describe people who have done nothing violent and broken no rule. “[F]ormer law enforcement or judicial officers” is a status, not conduct — and a former officer is typically listed for their own protection rather than as a threat. “[S]erious history of fraud” reaches a great many white-collar defendants. If you are trying to work out why someone with a clean institutional record is on the file, category (l) is usually the answer.

Who decides, and how fast

The approval chain is short and is set out at p. 2. The Associate Warden responsible for Correctional Services is the approving official for placing an inmate in the PPF. The one exception runs higher: “The Warden is the approving official for inmates placed in PPF status under the ‘Other’ category” — so the open-ended category is the one that requires the Warden personally, on a written justification routed through the Associate Warden.

The Special Investigative Supervisor (SIS) runs the file day to day. The Program Statement directs that the SIS and the designated Associate Warden “approve each inmate before they are entered into the Electronic Posted Picture System (EPPS),” and that the SIS institute procedures to ensure all inmates meeting the criteria are entered, that newly arrived inmates meeting the criteria are “submitted for the review process within five working days,” that submissions are “approved/denied within five working days,” that the system is kept current, and that inmates are removed “upon transfer, release, or decision to discontinue their placement in the PPF.”

The deadlines, gathered in one place:

Step	Time frame	Source
Newly arrived inmate meeting criteria submitted for review	Within five working days	PS 5513.01 at p. 2
Submission approved or denied	Within five working days	PS 5513.01 at p. 2
All staff notified of a newly added PPF inmate	Within three business days of the approved addition, by email to all staff	PS 5513.01 at p. 5
PPF updated	At least quarterly	PS 5513.01 at p. 1
PPF reviewed by every institution staff member	At least once quarterly, certified in EPPS	PS 5513.01 at pp. 2, 4
Escape placement maintained	10 years from return to Bureau custody	PS 5513.01 at p. 2

Note what the notification provision means concretely. Under section 7, “[w]henever an inmate is added to the institution PPF, the SIS will notify all staff at the institution of the newly added PPF inmate,” within three business days, “via an electronic mail message to all staff.” Every staff member at the institution learns the person has been added. The person added is told nothing by this policy.

What the Posted Picture File means for you

If you are the person inside: you will most likely not be told

You will most likely not be told. Read the Program Statement end to end and there is no provision for notifying the inmate, no hearing, no opportunity to respond before placement, and no appeal mechanism within the policy. The decision is made by the Associate Warden for Correctional Services — or by the Warden under “Other” — on a submission from the SIS, and it is recorded in EPPS.

Be precise about what the file is and is not. It is not a disciplinary sanction: nothing in this Program Statement imposes loss of good conduct time, disciplinary segregation, or any of the sanctions that run through the Inmate Discipline Program. It is not your security or custody classification, and it is not the Central Inmate Monitoring assignment — though criterion (f) shows the two can overlap, since a confirmed Disruptive Group member under CIMS meets a PPF criterion. The Program Statement also notes the overlap with SIS files at p. 4: someone who qualifies for PPF status “often qualifies for placement in the SIS computer system as a Security Threat Profile (STP) or Security Threat Group (STG) inmate and vice versa.”

The one durable number to know is the escape figure. A successful escape from a secure institution carries a PPF placement “maintained for 10 years, upon the inmate’s return to Bureau custody” — and the section’s opening sentence makes clear these are minimum time frames, not expiry dates.

If you are the family: when things feel different after a transfer

If your loved one has been transferred and things feel different at the new institution — different handling at movements, a different tone from staff who have never met him — the Posted Picture File is one possible explanation among several, and it is worth understanding rather than guessing at. On transfer, the Program Statement provides at p. 5 that “the SIS at the receiving institution can review the PPF in the EPPS and determine their appropriateness for that institution.” The listing does not automatically follow; the receiving institution makes its own judgment.

What you should not do is assume the file explains everything, or that it is a punishment. There are many reasons institutional treatment changes. And because every staff member at the institution is emailed within three business days of an addition and must certify a review each quarter, the practical footprint of a listing is wide even though its formal consequences are unstated.

If you are counsel: the Posted Picture File

Start with the record, because the Program Statement creates one. Placement is documented in EPPS, approvals under “Other” are documented there with the Warden’s approval, and staff review is certified with a quarterly report the system generates. That is a paper trail, and it is reachable through the Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act route and through central file review — see Central File and Records.

On due process, set expectations carefully. Our research located no published decision addressing the Posted Picture File by name. The nearest developed analogue is the Central Inmate Monitoring line, where in Pugliese v. Nelson, 617 F.2d 916 (2d Cir. 1980), the Second Circuit held that “a prisoner’s interest in avoiding CMC classification does not entitle him to due process protections,” reasoning that classification lies within the Attorney General’s broad discretion and that “a prisoner’s mere expectation of benefits associated with non-CMC status does not amount to a statutory or constitutional entitlement sufficient to trigger due process protections.” That is a 1980 decision about a different designation, and the liberty-interest framework has been reworked since; it is offered as the closest signpost, not as a holding about the PPF.

The more promising angles are usually accuracy and category fit rather than process: whether the underlying incident occurred within the stated window, whether a listing under “Other” carries the written justification and Warden approval the policy requires, and whether the placement rests solely on a Required Monitoring assignment, which the policy says it should not. Those are factual questions with documentary answers.

What changed in the new Posted Picture File edition

This is a genuinely new edition, and unusually for Bureau policy it changed its own number. The Program Statement’s Summary of Changes, printed on its first page, states:

Program Statement Rescinded: 5510.13 CN-1 Posted Picture File (8/6/2021)

Changes:

• Removes references to the SIA as a responsible party for the Posted Picture File Program.
• Updates the program statement number to 5513.01.
• Mandates all institution staff now review the Posted Picture File quarterly.

Reproduced from Program Statement 5513.01 at p. 1.

Three points follow. First, the number moved. If you are working from anything written before May 2026 — an older institution supplement, a form, a prior filing, a note in a file — it will refer to PS 5510.13, and the current instrument is PS 5513.01. Anyone citing 5510.13 today is citing a rescinded edition. This is precisely the sort of change that leaves stale citations circulating for years.

Second, the review obligation broadened. The predecessor’s review duty is described in the Summary of Changes as having been extended so that “all institution staff now review the Posted Picture File quarterly,” and section 4 implements it: staff log into EPPS, “must review each PPF individually,” and complete the process by clicking a confirm button, which “constitutes a certified review of the PPF.” The policy adds that “[e]ach institution will have a computer available for staff that do not have computer access at their worksite to review the PPF.” The file is no longer something a specialist unit consults; it is something every employee at the institution is required to look at four times a year.

Third, the SIA — the Special Investigative Agent — was removed as a responsible party, consolidating responsibility in the SIS and the Associate Warden.

PS 5513.01 was approved by Director William K. Marshall III and sits within the broad wave of Bureau reissues in 2026, which included a mass reissue of twenty-three Program Statements effective 22 June 2026 and dozens more issued between February and May 2026. Its predecessor edition is not part of the mirrored June 2026 superseded tranche, so the concrete account of what changed on this page comes from the Program Statement’s own Summary of Changes rather than from a comparison against the retired text.

Where people get stuck not knowing whether they are listed

“I don’t know whether I’m on it.” The Program Statement provides no notification route, so the practical first step is a written question rather than an assumption. An Inmate Request to Staff (cop-out) to the SIS or the Associate Warden asking whether you are listed in the Posted Picture File, and under which category, creates a dated written record either way. If it goes unanswered, that non-response is itself the basis for the next step.

“I’m listed for something that happened years ago.” Most categories carry a look-back window — three years for the assault categories, five years for attempted escape, sexual offenses, former Control Unit confinement and drug or hazardous contraband introduction, ten years for inmate homicide, and ten years from return to custody for a successful escape. Some categories carry no window at all: assault on a staff member, homicide of a staff member, advanced skills, terrorist identification. Work out which category applies before arguing the date, because the answer differs sharply between them.

“Nobody will tell me why.” Ask under the correct category structure rather than in general terms, and use the records route in parallel. Where informal requests stall, the administrative remedy process applies: an informal resolution attempt first, then under 28 C.F.R. § 542.14, “[t]he deadline for completion of informal resolution and submission of a formal written Administrative Remedy Request, on the appropriate form (BP-9), is 20 calendar days following the date on which the basis for the Request occurred.” Appeals run under 28 C.F.R. § 542.15 — BP-10 to the Regional Director “within 20 calendar days of the date the Warden signed the response,” then BP-11 to the General Counsel “within 30 calendar days of the date the Regional Director signed the response.” See How to File a BP-9 and the Administrative Remedy Program.

“I transferred and it followed me.” It does not follow automatically. The receiving institution’s SIS “can review the PPF in the EPPS and determine their appropriateness for that institution,” and the sending institution is directed to remove the inmate from EPPS on transfer. A transfer is therefore a natural moment to raise category fit and currency, because someone new is making the assessment.

Related BOP policy on inmate flags and monitoring

The Posted Picture File sits close to several other Bureau flags, and confusing them is the most common error we see. Central Inmate Monitoring and Separatees is a separate designation system — criterion (f) of this policy expressly turns on a CIMS assignment, so the two interact but are not the same thing. The Inmate Discipline Program is where sanctions actually come from, and the incidents underlying several PPF categories usually originate in a disciplinary record — see Inmate Discipline Proceedings and the BP-A0288 Incident Report. To see what the Bureau holds about you, go to Central File and Records and FOIA and Privacy Act Requests. Because staff notification touches how visits are staffed and handled, families should also read Visiting Regulations alongside Inmate Visitation. Where a listing is affecting daily life and internal requests are not resolving it, Prison Grievances and Federal Prison Consulting Services set out the escalation options.

Frequently Asked Questions About the Posted Picture File

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