Transfers

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

A transfer between federal prisons is a redesignation, and it is decided by the Designation and Sentence Computation Center (DSCC) in Grand Prairie, Texas — the same office that made the original designation. The request starts at the institution, on a form the unit team completes and the warden approves, and it is granted or denied under Program Statement 5100.08, Inmate Security Designation and Custody Classification. A Program Statement is the Bureau’s own internal policy — agency instruction, not law — but it is what staff actually apply, and the transfer rules quoted throughout this page come from it and from the Bureau’s transportation and property manuals.

There is no right to a transfer. 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) gives the Bureau of Prisons the authority to designate a place of imprisonment and provides, in terms, that “a designation of a place of imprisonment under this subsection is not reviewable by any court.” That sentence is the single most important fact on this page. Any person or company that tells you they can get someone moved is describing an outcome nobody controls.

What can be done is understood, documented, and worth doing well: know which of the eleven-odd transfer types you are actually asking for, know the criteria the Bureau applies to each, get the underlying scoring right, and put the supporting facts in front of the people who route the request. This page covers the decision — how transfers are classified, what drives them, and how a request travels — and then the journey: what happens physically once a transfer is approved, how the Bureau moves people, what a holdover is, and what happens to property.

---

Designation and transfer are two different decisions

Designation is the first placement — the assignment made before a person ever arrives, by DSCC, off a score computed on the BP-337 form. Transfer, formally redesignation, is every move after that. Both are DSCC decisions under the same Program Statement, but they run on different information and different triggers.

The initial designation is built almost entirely from the paper file: the judgment, the presentence report, the criminal history, any detainer, the sentencing court’s recommendation. Nobody at the Bureau has met the person yet. We cover that decision in full — including the complete BP-337 point table and the security-level cutoffs — on our federal prison designation page.

A transfer decision is different in kind. By the time someone is eligible to be considered for most transfers, the Bureau has its own record: a custody classification form scored at the institution, a disciplinary history, work and program evaluations, and a documented adjustment. Program Statement 5100.08 sets out what a transfer referral has to contain, and the list is revealing — “a brief description of the inmate’s adjustment during this period of incarceration with emphasis on recent adjustment”; “a complete, specific justification and support for the requested action”; “any past or present behavior and/or management concerns which may affect placement”; and “a brief description of any scoring changes between the BP-337 and BP-338” (PS 5100.08 at pp. 84–85).

In other words: the initial designation asks what does this record say about this person. A transfer asks what has this person done since.

One structural rule flows from that difference and defeats a great many transfer requests before they start. “Redesignations between same security level institutions are discouraged, except for CIM purposes, nearer release purposes, or other unusual circumstances” (PS 5100.08 at p. 85). A lateral move from one low-security institution to another low-security institution, simply because the second one is preferred, is the request the policy specifically disfavours. A request that fits one of the named exceptions — a Central Inmate Monitoring separation issue, or moving closer to the release destination — is a request the policy contemplates.

The transfer codes: what kind of move is actually being requested

The Bureau does not have one thing called “a transfer.” It has a coded list, and the code determines the criteria, the approval route, and often the answer. Naming the right one is the difference between a request that gets reviewed on its merits and one that is misrouted.

Code	Transfer type	What it is
276	Furlough transfer	Unescorted furlough transfer to a community corrections center
307	Institution classification — greater security	Move to a higher-security institution (e.g. low to medium)
308	Institution classification — lesser security	Move to a lower-security institution (e.g. high to medium)
309	Disciplinary	Transfer following documented misconduct and poor institutional adjustment
313	Nearer release	Move to an institution nearer the release destination, or to facilitate the release process
316	Temporary transfer	To the custody of the U.S. Marshals or a local authority
317	Relieve overcrowding	Move to relieve population pressure at a facility
318	Increase population	Move to build a population, usually on activation of a new facility
319	Drug abuse program	Move to participate in a specialized drug abuse program
321 / 322	To / from Control Unit	Movement into or out of a Control Unit
323	Close supervision case	Following an investigation showing a safety, security or escape risk; includes verified and unverified protection cases
324 / 325	Program participation / completion	Move for a parole hearing or specialized program, and the return afterwards
326 / 327 / 328	Non-federal facility	Concurrent service, boarding, and return from a non-federal facility
330	Adjustment purposes	New setting due to poor institutional adjustment or CIM concerns, without an SIS investigation
331–335, 338, 339	Medical and psychiatric	Transfer to or from a Medical Referral Center; change in medical care level

Source: Transfer Codes tables, PS 5100.08 at pp. 103–105. Codes 314, 315, 320, 336 and 337 are discontinued.

The two most commonly requested are 308 (lesser security) and 313 (nearer release), and the policy says they should be combined where they can be: “Nearer release transfers should be incorporated with ‘Lesser Security’ transfers whenever possible” (PS 5100.08 at p. 87). If someone is scoring down into a lower security level and wants to be closer to home, that is one referral, not two.

The one people ask about without knowing its name is 323. Close-supervision transfers cover protection cases, and the policy expressly includes unverified protection cases — meaning a transfer can follow a safety concern that an investigation could not substantiate. See our page on protective custody.

The five factors that actually drive a transfer decision

These are not a checklist and there is no formula. They are the inputs DSCC actually reviews, drawn from what the Program Statement requires a referral to contain and what DSCC is directed to look at when it opens the file.

Custody and classification points

The threshold question on most transfers is whether the score has moved. “When a decrease in the inmate’s security level is indicated by the Custody Classification Form, transfer of the inmate to a lower security level institution should be considered.” The same is true in reverse — the total may rise into a higher range (PS 5100.08 at p. 86).

The policy makes the referral mandatory when the level changes: “If an updated security scoring, combined with Public Safety Factors, indicate that an inmate is rated at a different security level, the inmate must be referred to the DSCC for either transfer or application of a Management Variable.” If the transfer is denied, DSCC applies a Management Variable and a Management Security Level to explain the mismatch. That is why a person can score minimum and stay at a low — the Bureau is required to reconcile the two, not to move them.

A custody change can force a transfer even when the security score has not moved, because institutions are only authorized to hold certain custody levels. The policy’s own example: a medium-security person with OUT custody becomes eligible for COMMUNITY custody; medium institutions do not house COMMUNITY custody, so the case “would normally be referred for redesignation to a Low or Minimum security level facility” (PS 5100.08 at p. 86). The reverse works too — a custody increase to MAXIMUM forces a referral to a high-security institution, because medium facilities are not authorized to hold MAXIMUM custody.

Custody is scored at the institution on the BP-338, at the first program review after initial classification — approximately seven months after arrival — and at least every 12 months thereafter (PS 5100.08 at p. 63). The custody section rewards things a person controls: percentage of time served, program participation, living skills, incident-report history, and family and community ties. The complete BP-338 custody scoring table, with every point value, is on our designation page.

Disciplinary history: frequency and severity

Two separate items on the BP-338 score discipline, and they score it two different ways.

Type and number of the most serious incident report scores severity: any Greatest-severity (100-level) finding in the past ten years scores 0; more than one High-severity (200-level) finding in the past two years scores 1; one 200-level in the past two years scores 2(A); more than one Moderate (300-level) in the past year scores 2(B); one 300-level in the past year scores 3(A); more than one Low Moderate (400-level) in the past year scores 3(B); one 400-level scores 4; none scores 5.

Frequency of incident reports in the past year scores volume: six or more scores 0; two through five scores 1; one scores 2; none scores 3 (PS 5100.08 at p. 82).

On the custody form, higher is better — a high custody total produces a negative custody variance, which subtracts from the base score. So discipline hits twice: once for what the worst report was, once for how many there were. A single 100-level finding suppresses the severity item to zero for ten years.

Discipline also drives transfers directly, under code 309. “An act(s) of documented institution misconduct may result in an inmate’s transfer to another institution, normally of greater security, for disciplinary reasons.” Wardens may recommend a same-security-level disciplinary transfer “only when placement at a greater security level institution is not possible or other overriding circumstances exist” (PS 5100.08 at p. 88). Because of how much rides on it, the defense of an incident report is a classification issue and not only a sanctions issue — see incident reports and inmate discipline proceedings.

Time at the current institution

For the nearer-release transfer — code 313, the one most people actually want — the Program Statement states a hard threshold: “Inmates may be considered for a nearer release transfer only after serving 18 consecutive months of clear conduct in a general population” (PS 5100.08 at p. 87).

Read that carefully. It is not eighteen months at the institution; it is eighteen consecutive months of clear conduct in general population. An incident report resets it. Time in a Special Housing Unit is not time in general population. And “may be considered” is the operative verb — satisfying the threshold makes a person eligible for consideration, not entitled to a move.

Time also matters through the Management Variable expiration dates, which govern how long a placement inconsistent with someone’s score can be maintained: Population Management up to 18 months; Program Participation up to 18 months at the Regional Director’s discretion; Medical or Psychiatric 6 months; Greater Security up to 24 months. Where no expiration date is entered, the Bureau’s system defaults to 12 months (PS 5100.08 at p. 55). Those dates are review points. When a variable expires, case management staff review whether it still applies — which is a natural moment to revisit placement.

Time remaining on the sentence

Time remaining works against a transfer in one direction and for it in another.

Against: the Sentence Length Public Safety Factor sets a security floor for men based on time left to serve. More than ten years remaining means housing in at least a low-security institution; more than twenty years, at least medium; more than thirty years — including non-parolable life sentences — high security, unless the factor is waived (PS 5100.08 at p. 58). No amount of clear conduct moves someone below that floor while the time remaining keeps the factor in place. As the sentence runs down and time remaining crosses a threshold, the floor drops, and that crossing is the classic moment for a lesser-security referral.

For: proximity to release opens options. The Release Residence Management Variable “may also apply to inmates who are within 36 months of release” (PS 5100.08 at p. 52). Criminal aliens are redesignated to the ICE-coordinating institution “no later than seven months from a firm projected release date” (PS 5100.08 at p. 100). And release-preparation and community-placement planning is its own track — see release preparation, halfway houses, and home confinement.

Note what the Bureau counts as time remaining. On the BP-337, months to release is “the total number of months remaining, less 15% (for sentences over 12 months), and credit for any jail time served” — an approximation that builds in good conduct time (PS 5100.08 at p. 39). It is recorded on the form but is not itself scored; it exists to drive the Sentence Length factor.

Release destination and the 500-mile rule

The First Step Act rewrote this factor, and the Bureau implemented the change on September 4, 2019 in change notice CN-1 to PS 5100.08.

Section 3621(b) now directs the Bureau to place a prisoner “as close as practicable to the prisoner’s primary residence, and to the extent practicable, in a facility within 500 driving miles of that residence” — subject to bed availability, security designation, programmatic needs, mental and medical health needs, faith-based requests, the sentencing court’s recommendations, and other security concerns of the Bureau. Seven qualifiers precede the mileage. It is a directive to try, not a guarantee.

The statute goes further than most summaries acknowledge. It also provides that the Bureau “shall, subject to consideration of the factors described in the preceding sentence and the prisoner’s preference for staying at his or her current facility or being transferred, transfer prisoners to facilities that are closer to the prisoner’s primary residence even if the prisoner is already in a facility within 500 driving miles of that residence.” The prisoner’s own preference is a listed consideration.

CN-1 conformed the Program Statement to that. The old rule read: once transferred within 500 driving miles of the release residence, “no further referrals will be made for nearer release transfer consideration.” CN-1 struck it and substituted: further referrals can be considered, subject to the same statutory conditions (PS 5100.08 at p. 5, p. 87). If you are reading a guide that still says a person gets one nearer-release transfer and then no more, it predates September 2019.

Two limits sit on this factor. First, a transfer to somewhere other than the legal residence or sentencing district “may be considered by the inmate’s Unit Team provided the inmate can provide strong evidence of community and/or family support” — so a request to move toward where family has actually relocated needs documentation of that, not an assertion. Second, “inmates with an Order for Deportation, an Order of Removal, an ICE detainer for an unadjudicated offense(s) or an ICE detainer for a hearing will not be transferred for nearer release purposes since they will be returning to the community outside, rather than inside, the United States upon release” (PS 5100.08 at p. 87).

Program participation: what it does, and what it does not

Program participation is worth up to two points on the BP-338 custody section, alongside living skills, and it feeds the “institution adjustment” narrative every transfer referral must contain. It is genuinely useful. It is not a transfer mechanism.

Where it becomes one is narrow and specific. Code 319 exists for transfer to participate in a specialized drug abuse program, and code 324 for transfer to a specialized program more generally, with code 325 for the return afterwards. The Residential Drug Abuse Program is only offered at designated institutions, so RDAP placement can itself generate a move — see the Residential Drug Abuse Program and the underlying psychology treatment programs policy.

Program participation can also cut the other way. The Management Variable “N — Program Participation” exists because “occasionally, inmates become involved in specialized programs which are only available on a limited basis, or at specific institutions; in such instances, it might be appropriate to delay transfer pending completion of the program.” It also covers the case where a person’s security level changes during a program not available elsewhere, causing placement outside normal guidelines (PS 5100.08 at p. 53). Being in a program someone needs can be a reason to keep them where they are.

The honest framing is this: programming builds the record a referral is written from, and it is the part of the file a person can change. It does not create an entitlement to move, and the Bureau does not treat completion certificates as transfer currency. Education, work and vocational training all serve the same function — see prison education, vocational training and inmate work assignments.

How to actually request a transfer

The route is fixed and it runs entirely through the institution. There is no application a family member can file, no form that goes directly to Grand Prairie, and no way to bypass the unit team.

1. Raise it with the unit team. In practice this begins with an Inmate Request to Staff — the “cop-out” — or at a scheduled program review. Since PS 5511.08 took effect on 19 March 2026, that request goes through the electronic Request to Staff Service in TRULINCS, one per department per day, with a response ordinarily completed within 30 calendar days if warranted; the paper BP-A0148 is now the exception, for people the Warden exempts and for anyone housed in a Protective Custody Unit (PS 5511.08 at p. 2). The unit team, not the person, prepares the referral.
2. The referral is written. PS 5100.08 requires it to address: any factor that might affect redesignation; institution adjustment with emphasis on recent adjustment; a complete, specific justification; whether a parole hearing is scheduled; past or present behavior and management concerns, including any Security Threat Group associations and any Central Inmate Monitoring concerns; and any scoring differences between the BP-337 and the BP-338 (PS 5100.08 at pp. 84–85).
3. It is routed for approval. “Complete all required information, then route the request through normal institutional review channels for approval by the CEO” — the warden. Only after that approval may it go to the DSCC Administrator.
4. The institution flags it in the system. Unit staff enter a destination assignment as confirmation the request was submitted: “W REDES R” for a routine transfer, “W REDES M” for one requiring review by the Medical Designator.
5. DSCC reviews the file. At a minimum, DSCC reviews the CIM Clearance and Separatee Data, Inmate Load Data, Inmate Profile, Custody Classification Form, Security/Designation Data Form, and the Chronological Disciplinary Record (PS 5100.08 at p. 85).
6. Approval or denial is recorded. If approved, DSCC enters the destination and the transfer code. If denied, DSCC notes the denial on the “Update Inmate Remarks” screen and deletes the pending flag — and the policy tells unit staff to “closely monitor SENTRY for deletions of the ‘W REDES’ transaction” (PS 5100.08 at p. 86). There is no denial letter. The pending flag simply disappears.

That last point matters practically. A person waiting on a transfer decision should ask the unit team to check whether the pending request is still open, because the way a denial is communicated is by removal, not by notice.

Applied Insight — Christopher Zoukis, JD, MBA, Managing Director: The referral is written by a case manager who is carrying a caseload and summarizing years of history in a few paragraphs. What we can do is make that paragraph easier to write and harder to deny — a clean, dated record of clear conduct; documentation of the family circumstance or the medical need rather than a description of it; the correct transfer code named; and any scoring discrepancy between the BP-337 and BP-338 identified in advance rather than discovered at Grand Prairie. None of that produces an outcome. All of it produces a better-documented request, and a better-documented request is the only part of this process anyone outside the Bureau can affect.

What the law does and does not give you

This is the section most competing pages skip, and it is the one that protects a reader from being sold something.

There is no judicial review of a designation. 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) provides: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a designation of a place of imprisonment under this subsection is not reviewable by any court.” That is the statute’s own language, and it covers transfers, because a transfer is a redesignation under the same subsection.

A court’s recommendation is a factor, not an order. The statute directs the Bureau to consider “any statement by the court that imposed the sentence,” and PS 5100.08 tracks judicial recommendations as Management Variable code “B.” But for community corrections placement the statute is explicit: an order, recommendation or request by a sentencing court “shall have no binding effect on the authority of the Bureau under this section to determine or change the place of imprisonment of that person.”

Status does not help. Both the statute and the policy say so. “In designating the place of imprisonment or making transfers under this subsection, there shall be no favoritism given to prisoners of high social or economic status.” PS 5100.08’s opening section repeats it: “All classification, designation and redesignation decisions are made without favoritism given to an inmate’s social or economic status” (PS 5100.08 at p. 2).

What is left is the administrative route. A scoring error is raised with the unit team and the Case Management Coordinator, who takes it to DSCC with the presentence report; if the CMC and DSCC agree there is an error, DSCC corrects it, and if they disagree, the Central Office Correctional Programs Administrator decides (PS 5100.08 at pp. 27–28). Beyond that, there is the administrative remedy program — an informal resolution attempt, then a BP-9 to the warden within 20 calendar days of the event, 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 (PS 1330.18 at p. 4, pp. 7–8). See prison grievances.

Correcting a factual error in the scoring is a materially more productive use of that process than disputing the Bureau’s judgment about where to send someone.

Once a transfer is approved: how the Bureau moves people

Approval and movement are separate events, sometimes weeks apart, and the second one is deliberately opaque to the person being moved.

Nobody will tell you when you are leaving. The Receiving and Discharge Manual is explicit: “Inmate movement is sensitive information and must be limited to staff involved in the process. This information must not be discussed in the presence of inmates or other staff not involved in the movement process” (PS 5800.19 at p. 8). The May 2026 reissue of that manual added, as a listed change, “language limiting the dissemination of sensitive information regarding designations, redesignations, and transfer of inmates to staff not involved with the movement process” (PS 5800.19 at p. 1). This is a security measure, and it means a family will normally learn of a move after it happens, by checking the inmate locator.

The Warden chooses the mode. “The method of transportation is at the discretion of the Warden” (PS 5100.08 at p. 86).

Medical clearance comes first. “All inmates must have the appropriate medical clearance prior to transfer” (PS 5800.15 at p. 62). People with medical or security concerns “may require special movement by Bureau personnel,” directed by the warden.

The paperwork travels with the person. For a designated inmate moving by bus, van or airlift, the file must include the In-Transit Data Form (BP-A0175), Central Inmate Monitoring clearance, the Transfer Order (BP-A0399), the medical exit summary (BP-A0659), an envelope containing religious items with the religious property inventory (BP-633) where applicable, and a disposable head covering where applicable. For a holdover or pretrial inmate the list substitutes the judgment and commitment order, parole violator warrant, or warrant of removal (PS 5800.19 at pp. 31–32). Central-file records travel with the person “or at the latest, within 72 hours” (PS 5800.15 at p. 61).

Custody transfers on a signature. Movement is documented on receipts, and “the receipt transfers direct responsibility for the inmate to the person and agency who signs it. By signing, the receiving official accepts full custody.” The Transfer Receipt (BP-A0821) may cover multiple people traveling on the same conveyance, with each person’s file in an envelope marked with committed name, register number, final destination and transfer date (PS 5800.19 at pp. 27, 33).

On arrival, the clock is short. The receiving institution must complete the load and admit transaction “within two hours of the inmate’s arrival at the institution” (PS 5800.19 at p. 9). That is when the inmate locator updates.

Bus, van and air: how the movement actually happens

Federal prisoner transport is run by the Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation System (JPATS), based in Kansas City, Missouri — a U.S. Marshals Service operation, not a Bureau of Prisons one. It moves people by ground and by air, and the Bureau’s own manuals describe both under the same set of rules.

JPATS schedules the movement. “The Justice Prisoner Air Transportation System (JPATS) schedules the movement and transfer of inmates. Trips are normally authorized in advance on a manifest report issued by JPATS.” The manifest “includes the names, register numbers, and destinations of inmates being moved, as well as approved holdover points,” and it doubles as the confirmation of delivery and pickup (PS 5800.19 at p. 8).

You cannot be added to a trip informally. “Ordinarily, inmates not listed on the JPATS issued manifest report may not be moved without prior approval from JPATS or the Prisoner Transportation Chief” (PS 5800.19 at p. 8). At the institution end, “institutions may add or delete an inmate to a trip list only if the placement will not result in the deletion of another inmate scheduled for the trip, if there is a seat available, and if it has been approved by JPATS” (PS 5800.15 at p. 62). Seats are finite and they are allocated centrally.

Scheduling runs about a week ahead. “Lists of the inmates scheduled to be moved, their destinations, and the itinerary of the bus trip are issued by JPATS the week preceding the trip, if possible” (PS 5800.15 at p. 62). Immediately after departure, the institution sends the final transfer receipt to JPATS.

Air and ground follow the same rules. “All procedures relating to the movement of inmates via bus also apply to airlift movements” (PS 5800.15 at p. 62). The Bureau does not maintain a separate rulebook for the aircraft. And to answer the question directly, because it is asked often: federal prisoners in Bureau custody are moved on JPATS-scheduled ground and air transport coordinated through Kansas City, not booked onto ordinary commercial flights.

Van movements are governed by the escorted-trips policy. “Inmate movement from institution to institution by means other than a bus (e.g., van movements), is conducted as outlined in this program statement. Staffing requirements for an escorted trip apply to inmate movements” (PS 5538.09 at p. 13). That policy also governs restraints in transit, and it authorizes Electronic Custody Control Belts only for MAXIMUM custody inmates and people with a Special Management Unit designation, and only where “the Warden or designee” has approved their use after determining the person “requires greater security than is afforded through conventional restraints and has no medical condition precluding its use.”

The one place a 12-hour limit appears in the Bureau’s transportation rules is not the length of a bus ride. It is in the furlough policy, which provides that “ordinarily, immediate family transportation will not be considered if travel cannot be completed within 12 hours of departure” (PS 5280.09 at p. 6). The Bureau publishes no maximum duration for a transport leg, and a journey that involves holdovers can take weeks. We have not been able to source a 12-hour cap on transport time to any current Program Statement, and we do not state one.

Holdover: the part nobody prepares you for

A holdover is an interruption in transit — a stop at another Bureau institution, a contract facility, or a county jail, sometimes for days, sometimes considerably longer, while the next leg of the route is scheduled. Holdover points are built into the JPATS manifest itself (PS 5800.19 at p. 8).

Two rules make holdovers harder than people expect.

Your property may not be with you. Personal property “ordinarily is mailed/shipped to the designated institution within 72 hours after the inmate’s departure” (PS 5800.19 at p. 35). It is shipped to the destination, not carried along the route. Someone in holdover for three weeks is living out of what the institution issues.

Your classification does not update. “Holdovers will retain their initial custody level assignments until their first regularly scheduled custody review at their designated facility for service of sentence” (PS 5100.08 at p. 63). Time in transit does not advance the classification clock.

Commissary access, phone access and correspondence at a holdover facility follow that facility’s rules, which may be a county jail’s rules rather than the Bureau’s. Money in the trust account travels with the register number, but access can lag — see how to send money to federal inmates. Practically, the most useful thing a family can do during an unexplained silence is check the inmate locator regularly, because the locator updates when the person is admitted somewhere.

What happens to your property on a transfer

The Bureau reissued its personal property policy on 7 May 2026. PS 5580.10 Inmate Personal Property rescinded PS 5580.08, which had been in force since 22 August 2011 — a fifteen-year-old policy, now replaced. Among the listed changes: the Inmate Personal Property List – National Limits was updated and moved into the body of the Program Statement (PS 5580.10 at p. 1).

That National Limits list is the operative document: it “includes all personal property approved for transfer between institutions.” Four rules follow from it, and the cost allocation is the part people get wrong.

• Items not approved for retention at the receiving institution are shipped out at the Bureau’s expense. “In cases where items are not approved for retention the items will be shipped to a non-Bureau destination of the inmate’s choice, at the Bureau’s expense” (PS 5580.10 at p. 6).
• Items sold as “local use only” are shipped out at the inmate’s expense. Property approved only for local use “will be mailed to a non-Bureau destination of the inmate’s choice, at the inmate’s expense upon transfer or release.” Such items must be “clearly identified when sold at Commissary as ‘for local use only'” (PS 5580.10 at pp. 6–7).
• Medical devices travel. “A medical device issued or approved by the Health Services Unit (HSU) is authorized for transfer between institutions,” either retained by the person or packed with their property.
• Sealed commissary goods travel. “Non-perishable commissary items unopened and in original sealed containers may be transported or shipped between bureau facilities” — the policy’s examples are oil, shampoo, conditioner, mouthwash, tuna and peanut butter.

The inventory is recorded on the BP-A0383, Inmate Personal Property Record, and a copy “will be provided to the inmate at the conclusion of the initial property inventory or any subsequent inventory.” The policy is candid about what that form proves: it “and/or a commissary receipt constitutes proof of ownership, not proof of value” (PS 5580.10 at p. 7). Anyone who has lost property in a move should keep every BP-A0383 they are handed. Separately, items valued at more than $100 may not be possessed and are stored in a locked, fire-retardant vault or safe until they can be mailed out (PS 5800.19 at p. 35).

If property goes missing, the route is a claim, not a grievance — see inmate property claims and our page on federal tort claims. The policy explainer is at inmate personal property.

Transfers that are not classification transfers

Several kinds of movement run on entirely separate authority, and asking for one under the wrong heading wastes months.

Medical and psychiatric transfers are approved not by DSCC but by the Central Office Medical Designator in the Office of Medical Designations and Transportation. They come in three grades: emergency, requiring immediate direct transport by air ambulance, air charter or ground ambulance for someone not capable of routine bus, commercial air, or Marshals airlift transport; routine/urgent, requiring direct transport to a Medical Referral Center (the older two-to-three-week time frame was removed by PS 6270.02 on 7 May 2026); and routine (PS 5100.08 at pp. 88–89). There is a protection worth knowing: “If an inmate objects, either in writing or through his or her attorney, to a transfer for psychiatric/mental health treatment, the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 4245 may apply. Staff will suspend transfer action in such cases and refer the matter to their Regional Counsel for review.” See medical designations and care levels and care levels.

Transfer to state custody before the federal sentence ends runs under PS 5140.44, dated 16 February 2024 — see transfer to state custody before release.

Designation of a state institution for service of a federal sentence — including the retroactive designation people call a nunc pro tunc request — runs under PS 5160.06 (3 September 2026), which gives the DSCC Sentence Computation Section Chief the Bureau’s authority to make those designations (PS 5160.06 at p. 3). See nunc pro tunc state designation.

Production on a state writ temporarily moves someone out of Bureau custody without changing the designation — see state writs and transfers.

Transfer to another country under a prisoner transfer treaty is not a Bureau classification decision at all. It is decided by the Department of Justice, requires the consent of both countries and the prisoner, and is governed by 18 U.S.C. §§ 4100–4115. See our page on the international prisoner transfer treaty program.

Placement in a residential reentry center or on home confinement at the end of a sentence is community corrections, not a classification transfer — see halfway house placement procedures and the Residential Reentry Management offices.

A cautionary note: scams thrive on desperation

Families of federal prisoners are targeted, and transfer requests are the most common hook. The pitch is always some version of the same claim: that for a fee, the speaker can get a person moved, get a Public Safety Factor removed, or place them at a named institution.

Here is why that claim cannot be true, stated from the policy rather than from indignation.

• Only DSCC can approve a redesignation, and only on a referral that originates at the institution. The request must be prepared by unit staff, approved by the warden, and routed to the DSCC Administrator (PS 5100.08 at pp. 84–85). There is no outside channel.
• Only the DSCC Administrator can waive a Public Safety Factor. “Only the DSCC Administrator is authorized to waive a PSF,” on a form 409 submitted through the institution (PS 5100.08 at p. 53). No private party can do it, and no private party can promise the Administrator’s decision.
• Only DSCC or Central Office can apply a Management Variable. Institution staff “may only enter a Management Variable which the DSCC previously approved” (PS 5100.08 at p. 50).
• The Bureau’s own policy forbids the thing being sold. “All classification, designation and redesignation decisions are made without favoritism given to an inmate’s social or economic status” (PS 5100.08 at p. 2), and the statute says the same.
• No court can order it either. Section 3621(b): a designation “is not reviewable by any court.” Anyone promising to sue their way to a specific prison is promising relief the statute withholds.
• The Bureau charges nothing for any of this. A transfer request costs nothing. Administrative remedy forms — the BP-9, BP-10 and BP-11 — cost nothing. The list of prisoner-transfer treaty countries is free in the institution law library and on the inmate email system.

Legitimate help exists and it is worth paying for, but it is help with the record: reviewing the BP-337 and BP-338 for scoring errors, assembling documentation of a medical need or a family circumstance, correcting a presentence report problem that is driving a Public Safety Factor, defending an incident report that would otherwise sit on the custody score for years, or litigating a sentence-computation error. What nobody can sell is the decision. If someone quotes a price for an outcome, that is the tell.

If you have been contacted by someone charging for a guaranteed transfer, do not send money, and tell the institution — see reporting staff misconduct if the approach came from inside the facility.

Where people get stuck waiting on a transfer decision

Waiting for a denial letter that never comes. Denials are recorded by deleting the pending flag in the Bureau’s system, not by written notice (PS 5100.08 at p. 86). Ask the unit team to check the status.

Asking for a lateral move. Same-security-level redesignations “are discouraged, except for CIM purposes, nearer release purposes, or other unusual circumstances” (PS 5100.08 at p. 85). Frame the request as one of the exceptions if it genuinely is one, or wait for the score to move.

Losing the 18-month clock. Nearer-release eligibility requires 18 consecutive months of clear conduct in general population. An incident report resets it; time in the Special Housing Unit is not general population.

Assuming an institution still exists, or is still what its name says. On 1 July 2026 the Bureau announced the closure of Beaumont FCI Low, Big Spring FCI and its satellite camp, La Tuna FCI and its Federal Satellite Low and camp, the Lexington FMC satellite camp, Petersburg FCI Low, and Taft FCI, and the conversion of Morgantown FPC and Duluth FPC from minimum-security camps to Federal Satellite Lows, citing a deferred maintenance backlog exceeding $4 billion. Separately, FCI Yazoo City “Low II” is carried on the Bureau’s own locations roster as medium security while retaining “Low II” in its name — the only such discrepancy across the Bureau’s 118 reconciled institution records. Confirm the current status of a target institution before naming it in a request. We track the estate on our prison closures and deactivations page.

Not knowing the request never left the building. Every step before DSCC happens at the institution. If the unit team has not written the referral, nothing is pending anywhere.

Frequently Asked Questions About Prison Transfers

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