Staff Correspondence About Inmates

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

Program Statement	5321.10, Unit Management Manual, Chapter 2 (the standalone PS 5840.04 was rescinded on September 3, 2026)
Subject	Staff Correspondence About Inmates
Current edition	September 3, 2026 (PS 5321.10); PS 5840.04 was dated September 1, 1999
Change notices	None
Supersedes	PS 5321.10 rescinded PS 5840.04, Staff Correspondence About Inmates (09/01/1999), together with PS 5321.09 CN-1 and PS 5050.47, and combined them into one program statement. PS 5840.04 had itself replaced PS 5840.03 (3/3/93).
Governing regulation	None cited for Chapter 2 (the Unit Management Manual’s regulatory citations, 28 C.F.R. §§ 524.10–524.11, cover program reviews). See below on 28 C.F.R. § 513.40, which governs your access to the file this correspondence lands in.
Governing statute	None cited for Chapter 2
Related BP forms	None named in Chapter 2
Official PDF	bop.gov/policy/progstat/5321_010.pdf

Checked against the BOP policy set · 2026-09-19 · How we verify

Chapter 2 of Program Statement 5321.10, the Unit Management Manual, is a two-page rule about who inside a federal prison may write to the outside world about a person in custody — and it exists mainly to stop individual staff members from doing it. Until September 3, 2026 the same rule was a standalone four-page policy, PS 5840.04. If you have asked a counselor, a case manager, a chaplain or a work supervisor for a letter of recommendation and been told they cannot write one, or been told a letter exists but you may not have a copy, this is the policy behind that answer. The wider communication picture for families is on our page on what families should know about federal prison.

Two things to know before the detail. The rule went unrevised from September 1, 1999 until the Bureau folded it into the Unit Management Manual on September 3, 2026; the 2026 text keeps the structure but changes several details, set out below. And its answer to “can I have a copy of what my case manager wrote about me?” is a flat no, stated in one sentence, for a reason the policy gives openly.

The rule itself: staff correspondence

Chapter 2 is short enough that its whole operative core fits on this page. It has two parts: a rule about what staff may not send out and who may authorize it, and a short procedure for what happens to a staff member’s opinion instead.

Artifact 1 — what staff may not release, and who may authorize release

2.1 USE OF OFFICIAL INFORMATION

a. Authorized Persons. The Director or designee, Assistant Director or designee, Regional Director or designee, and Warden or designee are the only staff authorized to release official information. The reasons for limiting the number of staff authorized to release official information are to:

– Avoid implying “official” sanction of an evaluation or recommendation, when in fact, it is one staff member’s opinion. – Avoid implying a staff member’s opinion provides a “total” evaluation of the inmate when the staff member’s knowledge and perspective about the inmate may be limited.

b. Disclosure Restrictions. The Program Statement Standards of Employee Conduct mandates official information regarding an inmate may be disclosed or released only as required in the performance of a staff member’s duties or upon specific authorization.

c. Disclosure Authorities. Without authorization, staff must not release official information or directly correspond with outside agencies or persons regarding non-public information data.

Staff who want to record an observation, express an opinion, or provide a recommendation for an inmate must do so through the inmate’s assigned Unit Management, an Associate Warden, or the Warden.

Unit Management will combine and balance recommendations based on knowledge of the inmate’s history, adjustment, and progress in all areas.

Correspondence may be addressed only to specific agencies or persons.

Reproduced from Program Statement 5321.10, Chapter 2, at p. 10. The bullet glyph in the original is a symbol-font character; it is rendered here as a standard bullet. All wording is verbatim.

Artifact 2 — the procedure

2.2 PROCEDURES

Inmate evaluations must occur through routine channels, such as work reports, program participation reports or medical reports. Except for UNICOR work reference letters, staff wishing to make unique recommendations (e.g., for behavior above and beyond normal work or program expectations) must direct correspondence to the inmate’s assigned Unit Manager, an Associate Warden, or the Warden.

For additional information regarding UNICOR reference letters, refer to the Program Statement Federal Prison Industries Inmate Work Program. Inmates should contact the Factory Manager for criteria and additional information.

Inmate evaluations must be incorporated into the next progress report by Unit Management staff prior to purging. A recommendation will then take the form of an official evaluation, sanctioned by the Warden or designated authority which carries more credence than a staff member’s opinion. Refer to the Program Statement Progress Reports.

Official correspondence, which includes staff recommendations about inmates, will be prepared for the Warden’s signature. If necessary, this signature authority may be delegated to an Associate Warden.

Staff must not give copies of evaluations or letters of recommendation to an inmate but may inform them of their content. This prevents inmates from using copies of such correspondence for unauthorized purposes.

Correspondence generated through routine channels becomes part of the Inmate Central File, which the inmate may view. Correspondence the Case Manager determines to be improper for release and not yet incorporated into a progress report must be removed from the Inmate Central File prior to the inmate’s review.

Letters verifying dates of incarceration, and other public information data, will be prepared for the Associate Warden’s signature. This signature authority may not be delegated below Unit Manager.

Reproduced from Program Statement 5321.10, Chapter 2, at pp. 10–11.

The policy closes with one sentence that matters more than its length suggests: “This chapter does not limit or negate any other Bureau policy delegating specific authority to a staff member to correspond about inmates” (PS 5321.10 at p. 11). Other policies grant staff their own authority to correspond — medical staff, records staff, the Designation and Sentence Computation Center — and this one does not take that away.

What the old four-category list covered

PS 5840.04 spelled out the scope of the rule as four categories: without authorization, staff could not release official information or directly correspond about an inmate’s background, institutional behavior, progress, or anticipated community adjustment. PS 5321.10 replaces that list with a single phrase, barring unauthorized correspondence “regarding non-public information data” (PS 5321.10 at p. 10). That is at least as broad, and the four old categories remain a useful guide to what it covers in practice:

Category	What it covers in practice
background	Offense conduct, criminal history, family and social history, anything drawn from the presentence report or the central file
institutional behavior	Conduct, incident reports, disciplinary history, work performance, how a person is doing on the compound
progress	Program participation, education, treatment, unit team and program review assessments
anticipated community adjustment	The forward-looking judgment — whether someone is likely to succeed on release, the substance of most recommendation letters

That last category is why the policy bites. Almost every letter anyone actually wants from a staff member — to a sentencing judge, a parole authority, a treatment program, an employer, a landlord, an immigration officer, a clemency office — is a prediction about community adjustment. Under this policy, an individual staff member may not write it directly. The route runs through the unit team, the Associate Warden or the Warden, and it comes out the other end as an institutional document over the Warden’s signature, not as one person’s letter.

Program Statement, not regulation — and what that means here

Chapter 2 cites no regulation and no statute. The Unit Management Manual as a whole lists 5 U.S.C. § 6127, 18 U.S.C. § 3632, 18 U.S.C. § 4042(b)–(c) and 28 C.F.R. §§ 524.10–11 among its references (PS 5321.10 at p. 20), but none of them concerns staff correspondence, and Chapter 2 itself points only to another Program Statement, Standards of Employee Conduct. That is the honest answer to the question “what law backs this up?” The answer is: none is cited for this rule.

That matters for what you can do about it. The Supreme Court described a BOP Program Statement as an “internal agency guideline” rather than a “published regulation[] subject to the rigors of the Administrative Procedure[] Act, including public notice and comment,” holding that such a guideline “is akin to an ‘interpretive rule’ that ‘do[es] not require notice and comment,'” while still being “entitled to some deference” as a permissible construction of the statute it implements. Reno v. Koray, 515 U.S. 50, 61 (1995). Here there is no statute being construed at all — the correspondence rule is a housekeeping instruction about who may speak for the agency.

So write about it accurately. Chapter 2 directs staff not to correspond about non-public information without authorization. It tells staff to route recommendations through the inmate’s assigned Unit Management, an Associate Warden or the Warden. It does not confer a right on anyone, and it is not a rule a reader can enforce as if it were a regulation.

One regulation does bind, and it is the one that decides whether you get to see the letter. 28 C.F.R. § 513.40 provides that “[a]n inmate may at any time request to review all disclosable portions of his or her Inmate Central File by submitting a request to a staff member designated by the Warden,” that staff “are to acknowledge the request and schedule the inmate, as promptly as is practical,” and that before the review “staff are to remove the Privacy Folder which contains documents withheld from disclosure pursuant to § 513.32.” Critically, the regulation adds that “[s]taff shall advise the inmate if there are documents withheld from disclosure and, if so, shall advise the inmate of the inmate’s right under the provisions of § 513.61 to make a FOIA request for the withheld documents,” and that where information is withheld, “staff will provide the inmate with a general description of that information.”

That is the pairing to hold in mind. Section 2.2 of the Unit Management Manual says correspondence that came through routine channels becomes part of the Inmate Central File, “which the inmate may view” (PS 5321.10 at p. 11) — and § 513.40 is the regulation that makes viewing it a documented process with a notice obligation attached when something is held back.

What staff correspondence policy means for you

If you are the person inside: you will not get a copy

You will not be handed a copy of a letter written about you. Section 2.2 is unambiguous: staff “must not give copies of evaluations or letters of recommendation to an inmate but may inform them of their content” (PS 5321.10 at p. 11). The policy states its own reason — “[t]his prevents inmates from using copies of such correspondence for unauthorized purposes.”

So ask for the content, not the copy. A staff member who has written an evaluation is permitted by this policy to tell you what it says. Put that request in writing on an Inmate Request to Staff — a cop-out — and keep a dated copy. If the answer is that the content cannot be shared either, that is a different answer than the policy provides for, and the written record of the request is what makes it possible to raise later.

You can ask to review your central file. Under 28 C.F.R. § 513.40 you may make that request at any time, and staff must schedule it as promptly as practical. Correspondence that came through routine channels should be in there — progress reports, work reports, program participation reports. What you will not see is anything the Case Manager has determined is “improper for release” and not yet folded into a progress report; section 2.2 directs that such correspondence “must be removed from the Inmate Central File prior to the inmate’s review.” You will also not see the Privacy Folder, which § 513.40(b)(1) directs staff to remove before the review.

When something is withheld, you are owed two things by regulation: a general description of what it is, and notice of your right to make a FOIA request for it. If neither is given, that is the concrete, checkable failure to raise — see our page on FOIA and Privacy Act requests.

Ask the unit team, not the individual. This is the practical translation of the whole policy. A correctional officer, teacher, work detail supervisor or chaplain who thinks well of you cannot send that opinion out the gate. What they can do is route it — section 2.1.c directs staff who want “to record an observation, express an opinion, or provide a recommendation for an inmate” to do so “through the inmate’s assigned Unit Management, an Associate Warden, or the Warden.” One exception is new in 2026: UNICOR work reference letters, which are requested through the Factory Manager under the Federal Prison Industries policy (PS 5321.10 at p. 10; PS 8120.04 at pp. 40–41). That is the door. Asking the right person is not a formality here; it is the only path the policy leaves open.

If you are the family: asking staff to write to a judge

If you have asked a staff member to write something for a judge, a program, or an immigration proceeding and been refused, the refusal is probably correct under this policy — and it is not personal. Section 2.1.a limits release authority to “[t]he Director or designee, Assistant Director or designee, Regional Director or designee, and Warden or designee,” and section 2.2 directs that official correspondence containing staff recommendations “will be prepared for the Warden’s signature” (PS 5321.10 at pp. 10–11).

The request that can work is a written one, addressed to the Warden or through the unit team, asking for an institutional letter rather than a personal one. What comes back — if anything comes back — is an official document, and the policy says why the Bureau prefers it that way: to avoid a single staff member’s opinion being read as the agency’s, and to avoid one person’s limited view being taken as a complete picture of someone.

Understand also what this policy does not restrict. It governs staff correspondence. It says nothing about your correspondence, or your relative’s. Ordinary inmate correspondence rules are separate, and so are the visiting regulations. If what you actually need is a document about someone’s record rather than someone’s opinion of them, the central file and records route and the FOIA route are the ones to look at.

If you are counsel: staff correspondence

Three points.

A staff member’s letter is not available to you either, and asking for it directly puts the staff member at risk. Section 2.1.c’s prohibition is on releasing official information or corresponding “with outside agencies or persons,” and counsel is an outside person for this purpose absent authorization. The correct channel is a written request to the Warden, or a request routed through the unit team, for an institutional letter. Where records rather than opinion are wanted, the FOIA and Privacy Act route and the client’s own § 513.40 file review are the mechanisms.

Section 2.2 creates a document-retention problem worth knowing about. It directs that inmate evaluations “must be incorporated into the next progress report by Unit Management staff prior to purging” (PS 5321.10 at p. 11); the 1999 text said “and then destroyed.” The underlying observation therefore has a limited life; what survives is the progress report. If a client’s account of what a staff member wrote matters — for a sentencing memorandum, a compassionate-release motion, a clemency petition, an administrative remedy about a program decision — the progress report is what will exist later, and the timing of a request matters.

The policy itself has now been superseded, and so have its old cross-references. See the next section. Any argument built on PS 5840.04 or its internal citations has to be re-anchored to PS 5321.10 and the current editions.

Applied Insight — Christopher Zoukis, JD, MBA, Managing Director: When a client tells us a case manager or a work supervisor is willing to “write something,” the first thing we do is redirect the ask. A personal letter from line staff is a policy violation waiting to happen for that staff member and a document nobody outside will ever receive. What we ask for instead is a progress report and, where the record supports it, a written request to the Warden through the unit team. A progress report signed at the right level is worth more to a court than a personal letter that never leaves the institution — and it is the document that actually exists.

What changed — and what has not

September 3, 2026. PS 5321.10, the Unit Management Manual, rescinded PS 5840.04 and moved its content into Chapter 2, “Staff Correspondence About Inmates” (PS 5321.10 at pp. 1, 3, 10–11). Its Summary of Changes describes this as adding “procedures related to staff correspondence about inmates” and combining the policies “into one program statement.” Comparing the two texts, the substantive changes are: the four listed subjects (background, institutional behavior, progress, anticipated community adjustment) became “non-public information data”; the Assistant Director was added to the officials who may release official information; recommendations now route through “the inmate’s assigned Unit Management, an Associate Warden, or the Warden”; UNICOR work reference letters are carved out of the routing rule; evaluations are incorporated into the next progress report “prior to purging” rather than “and then destroyed”; delegation of the Warden’s signature is limited to an Associate Warden; and a new paragraph puts letters verifying dates of incarceration and other public information over the Associate Warden’s signature, not delegable below Unit Manager.

The 1999 history: PS 5840.04 rescinded PS 5840.03, Staff Correspondence About Inmates (3/3/93). Its own Summary of Changes says the 1999 revision “incorporates pretrial/holdover instructions, updates ACA Standards, and includes Program Objectives” (PS 5840.04 at p. 1). The pretrial/holdover instruction is a single sentence extending the policy to everyone: “[t]he procedures outlined in this Program Statement apply to all inmates confined within the Bureau” (PS 5840.04 at p. 2).

From 1999 until 2026 nothing changed. The statement carried no change notices and was not touched in the Bureau’s June 2026 mass reissue, in which twenty-three Program Statements were replaced on a single date and twenty-four superseded statements were retired; it was the September 3, 2026 Unit Management Manual that absorbed it.

Everything around it had changed as well. PS 5840.04’s “Directives Referenced” block at p. 1 named three Program Statements, and all three were reissued after 1999 — two of them more than once, and one of them in May 2026.

Directive as cited in PS 5840.04 (1999)	Current edition
PS 1351.04 Release of Information (FOIA & Privacy Act) (12/5/96)	PS 1351.05, Release of Information — CN-2 dated March 9, 2016, amending the edition dated April 2, 2015
PS 3420.09 Standards of Employee Conduct (2/5/99)	PS 3420.14, Standards of Employee Conduct, dated May 15, 2026
PS 5800.11 Inmate Central File, Privacy Folder and Parole Mini-Files (9/8/97)	PS 5800.17, Inmate Central File, Privacy Folder, and Parole Mini-Files, dated April 3, 2015 (corrected copy, replacing a version dated January 9, 2015)

Each current edition verified in the BOP policy set on 2026-09-07 by reading the header block of the mirrored Program Statement.

The cross-reference that matters most is the disclosure-restriction sentence, carried into PS 5321.10 as section 2.1.b: “The Program Statement Standards of Employee Conduct mandates official information regarding an inmate may be disclosed or released only as required in the performance of a staff member’s duties or upon specific authorization” (PS 5321.10 at p. 10). The statement it points to is now PS 3420.14, five editions further on. Section 11 of the 2026 edition carries the same rule and names the same three-tier release authority — “In the Central Office, the Assistant Director or designee. In a Regional Office, the Regional Director or designee. In other locations, the CEO or designee” (PS 3420.14 at p. 15) — where the 1999 text of PS 5840.04 said “Director… Regional Directors… and Wardens,” and Chapter 2 of PS 5321.10 now names “[t]he Director or designee, Assistant Director or designee, Regional Director or designee, and Warden or designee” (p. 10). The structure survived twenty-seven years and five reissues; the job titles moved.

PS 3420.14 also carries something neither PS 5840.04 nor Chapter 2 of PS 5321.10 does: a disciplinary consequence. Its Standard Schedule of Disciplinary Offenses and Penalties lists “Unauthorized dissemination of official information” as offense 57, with a first-offense range of “Official reprimand to removal” and a five-year reckoning period, and “Use of official information for private purposes” as offense 58 with an indefinite reckoning period (PS 3420.14 at p. 40). A staff member who writes the letter anyway is not just outside the correspondence rule; they are inside the penalty schedule.

The ACA standards in 5840.04’s own reference block were also dated: third-edition and second-edition standards, where PS 5321.10 cites the fifth edition (p. 21). That was not a legal problem — ACA standards are accreditation criteria, not law — but it was a fair marker of the old document’s age.

Where people get stuck waiting for a promised staff letter

“My counselor said they’d write a letter and then didn’t.” Almost always this is the policy, not the person. Section 2.1.c bars an individual staff member, without authorization, from corresponding directly with outside agencies or persons about non-public information. The route that stays open is the inmate’s assigned Unit Management, an Associate Warden or the Warden (PS 5321.10 at p. 10). If the promised letter is a UNICOR work reference letter, the route is different: ask the Factory Manager about the Federal Prison Industries Inmate Reference Letter Initiative (PS 8120.04 at pp. 40–41). Put the request in writing on an Inmate Request to Staff addressed to the unit manager, ask specifically for a progress report or an institutional letter, say what it is for and by when, and keep a dated copy. If the written request goes unanswered, the informal-resolution step under 28 C.F.R. § 542.13(a) is what precedes a formal filing.

“They wrote something about me and I can’t see it.” Two different problems live here. If the document is in the central file, ask to review the file under 28 C.F.R. § 513.40 — you may make that request at any time. If something is withheld, staff must give you a general description of it and tell you about your FOIA right; get that in writing. If the document was a staff-inmate evaluation that has already been folded into a progress report, section 2.2 contemplates that the original is purged once it has been incorporated — the progress report is the surviving document, and that is what to request. If the Case Manager has determined the correspondence is “improper for release” and it has not yet been incorporated, section 2.2 directs its removal before your review, and the FOIA route is the one that remains.

“A letter I never saw is being used against me.” This is the sharpest version of the problem, and the route is the Administrative Remedy Program. Informal resolution first (§ 542.13(a)), then the formal BP-9 within 20 calendar days of the date the basis for the request occurred (§ 542.14(a)), then a BP-10 appeal to the Regional Director within 20 calendar days of the Warden’s signed response and a BP-11 to the General Counsel within 30 calendar days of the Regional Director’s (§ 542.15(a)). Appeal to the General Counsel is the final administrative appeal. The remedy to ask for is specific: identify the document, ask for the § 513.40 review and the withholding notice the regulation requires, and ask that any document not properly in the file be removed. A remedy that asks for a general reconsideration of a decision usually goes nowhere; one that names a document and a regulation is a different filing.

“An outside agency wants a letter from the prison and won’t accept a progress report.” This comes up with immigration proceedings, treatment programs, licensing boards and probation offices. The policy anticipates it: section 2.1.c closes with “[c]orrespondence may be addressed only to specific agencies or persons” (PS 5321.10 at p. 10). An institutional letter can be written to a named recipient. A general “to whom it may concern” letter is what the policy does not accommodate. Naming the recipient and the deadline in the written request is often the difference between a request that can be processed and one that cannot.

Related BOP policy on staff correspondence

• Standards of Employee Conduct (Program Statement 3420.14) — the statement Chapter 2 of PS 5321.10 points to for the underlying disclosure rule, and the schedule that penalizes unauthorized dissemination.
• Release of Information (Program Statement 1351.05) — the current edition of the FOIA/Privacy Act statement the 1999 PS 5840.04 cited in its 1996 form.
• Inmate Central File, Privacy Folder and Parole Mini-Files (Program Statement 5800.17) — the current edition of the central-file statement the 1999 PS 5840.04 cited in its 1997 form.
• Central file and records — where routine-channel correspondence lands, and how to review it.
• Progress reports — the document staff-inmate evaluations are folded into under section 2.2 of PS 5321.10.
• Unit team and program review — the Unit Management Manual (PS 5321.10), whose Chapter 2 is now the home of this rule.
• FOIA and Privacy Act requests — the route for anything withheld from a file review.
• Inmate Request to Staff and the Administrative Remedy Program — the two written routes named throughout this page.
• News media contact (Program Statement 1480.06) — the parallel rule for what the Bureau tells reporters about a person in custody.
• What families should know about federal prison — the general orientation page for families.
• Where a records or documentation problem is affecting a placement, a program or a release decision, our federal prison consulting page describes the kinds of institutional problems the firm works on; legal work is handled by the firm’s attorneys.

Frequently Asked Questions About Staff Correspondence

---

Program Statement 5840.04 (rescinded) — full text

PS 5840.04 was rescinded on September 3, 2026, when its content moved, with changes, into Chapter 2 of PS 5321.10, the Unit Management Manual, published at bop.gov/policy/progstat/5321_010.pdf. The 1999 text below is kept for reference only. It is the Bureau of Prisons’ own, reproduced in full; wording and spelling are the Bureau’s. The Bureau no longer posts it on its website.

Program Statement U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Prisons OPI: CPD NUMBER: 5840.04 DATE: 9/1/99 SUBJECT: Staff Correspondence About Inmates 1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE. To outline procedures for staff recommendations and correspondence to agencies and persons about Bureau inmates. 2. SUMMARY OF CHANGES. This revision incorporates pretrial/holdover instructions, updates ACA Standards, and includes Program Objectives. 3. PROGRAM OBJECTIVE. The expected result of this program is: The proper procedures will be followed by staff when preparing inmate evaluations and/or letters of recommendation to outside agencies and persons.

4. DIRECTIVES AFFECTED

a. Directive Rescinded

PS 5840.03 Staff Correspondence About Inmates (3/3/93)

b. Directives Referenced

PS 1351.04 Release of Information (FOIA & Privacy Act)(12/5/96) PS 3420.09 Standards of Employee Conduct (2/5/99) PS 5800.11 Inmate Central File, Privacy Folder and Parole Mini-Files (9/8/97)

5. STANDARDS REFERENCED

a. American Correctional Association 3rd Edition Standards for Adult

Correctional Institutions: 3-4092, 3-4095

b. American Correctional Association 3rd Edition Standards for Adult

Local Detention Facilities: 3-ALDF-1E-01, 1E-04

PS 5840.04

9/1/99 Page 2

c. American Correctional Association Standards for Adult Correctional

Boot Camp Programs: 1-ABC-1E-01, 1E-07

d. American Correctional Association 2nd Edition Standards for

Administration of Correctional Agencies: 2-CO-1E-06 6. PRETRIAL/HOLDOVER/DETAINEE PROCEDURES. The procedures outlined in this Program Statement apply to all inmates confined within the Bureau.

7. USE OF OFFICIAL INFORMATION

a. Disclosure Restrictions. The Program Statement on Standards of

Employee Conduct mandates that official information regarding an inmate may be disclosed or released only as required in the performance of an employee’s duties or upon specific authorization.

b. Disclosure Authorities. Without authorization, staff must not

release official information or directly correspond with outside agencies or persons regarding an inmate’s: ! background, ! institutional behavior, ! progress, or ! anticipated community adjustment. Staff who want to record an observation, express an opinion, or provide a recommendation for an inmate must do so through the inmate’s unit team, Associate Warden, or Warden. The unit team is able to combine and balance recommendations based on a knowledge of the inmate’s history, adjustment, and progress in all areas. Correspondence may be addressed only to a specific person or agency.

c. Authorized Persons. The Director, or designee; Regional Directors,

or designees; and Wardens, or designees, are the only persons authorized to release official information. The reasons for limiting the number of staff authorized to release official information are to:

PS 5840.04

9/1/99 Page 3 ! avoid implying “official” sanction of an evaluation or recommendation, when, in fact, it is one staff member’s opinion. ! avoid implying that a staff member’s opinion provides a “total” evaluation of the inmate when that staff member’s knowledge and perspective about the inmate may be quite limited.

8. PROCEDURES

a. Inmate evaluations must be made through routine channels, such as

work reports, program participation reports, medical reports, etc. Staff wishing to make unique recommendations (for behavior above and beyond normal work or program expectations) must direct correspondence to the unit team, Associate Warden, or Warden.

b. Staff – Inmate evaluations are to be incorporated into the next

progress report and then destroyed. A recommendation will then take the form of an official evaluation, sanctioned by a delegated authority which carries more credence than a staff member’s opinion.

c. Official correspondence which includes staff recommendations about

inmates, will be prepared for the Warden’s signature. This signature authority may be delegated to other staff as prescribed by applicable directives.

d. Staff members must not give copies of evaluations or letters of

recommendation to an inmate, but may inform him or her of their content. This prevents inmates from using copies of such correspondence for unauthorized purposes.

e. Correspondence generated through “routine” channels becomes part of

the Inmate Central File which the inmate may view. However, correspondence the Case Manager determines to be improper for release, and not yet incorporated into a progress report, must be removed from the Inmate Central File before inmate review.

PS 5840.04

9/1/99 Page 4 9. OTHER DELEGATED AUTHORITY TO CORRESPOND ABOUT INMATES. This Program Statement does not limit or negate any other Bureau directive delegating specific authority to a staff member. /s/ Kathleen Hawk Sawyer Director

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