Forensic and Other Mental Health Evaluations

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

Program Statement	5070.12
Subject	Forensic and Other Mental Health Evaluations
Current edition	April 16, 2008
Change notices	None
Supersedes	P5070.11, Study and Observation Report (12/31/97) — rescinded
Governing statute	18 U.S.C. §§ 4241–4247 (chapter 313); 18 U.S.C. § 3552(b); 18 U.S.C. § 5037(e); 18 U.S.C. § 3521(c)
Governing regulation	None — the chapter 313 evaluation process is governed directly by statute
Related BP forms	None prescribed. The Program Statement carries four attachments: a sample extension letter to the court (Attachment A), a sample contact log (Attachment B), transmittal-letter guidelines (Attachment C), and an abbreviated disciplinary-evaluation format (Attachment D)
Official PDF	https://www.bop.gov/policy/progstat/5070_012.pdf

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

Program Statement 5070.12 is the Bureau of Prisons’ internal instruction for producing a court-ordered mental health evaluation — the “study” a federal judge orders when competency, sanity, dangerousness, or a sentencing question turns on someone’s mental condition. The clocks, the report contents, and the qualifications of the examiner do not come from this Program Statement at all: they come from 18 U.S.C. § 4247, and the Bureau’s own policy says so in terms. If you are trying to understand where the study fits in the case as a whole, read this alongside our guide to the complete federal criminal trial process; if the study is happening before sentencing while your loved one is still a pretrial detainee, pretrial inmates in BOP custody covers the conditions side.

One thing to understand before anything else, because families get this wrong and it costs them: a forensic evaluation is not treatment, and it is not confidential. The psychologist is working for the judge. Everything your loved one says can go into a report that is filed with the court.

The rule itself: forensic evaluations

There are two operative rules on this subject, and they sit in different documents. The time limits and the required contents of the report are statutory — they are in 18 U.S.C. § 4247, and neither the Bureau nor the examiner can change them. The Bureau’s own description of what goes in the report is in the Program Statement. Both are reproduced below.

1. The statutory study clock — 18 U.S.C. § 4247(b)

This is the table people come here for. Every row is drawn from the text of § 4247 itself, which sets one clock for one group of study types and a different clock for another.

Verbatim, the operative sentence:

“For the purposes of an examination pursuant to an order under section 4241, 4244, or 4245, the court may commit the person to be examined for a reasonable period, but not to exceed thirty days, and under section 4242, 4243, 4246, or 4248, for a reasonable period, but not to exceed forty-five days, to the custody of the Attorney General for placement in a suitable facility.”

And the extension:

“The director of the facility may apply for a reasonable extension, but not to exceed fifteen days under section 4241, 4244, or 4245, and not to exceed thirty days under section 4242, 4243, 4246, or 4248, upon a showing of good cause that the additional time is necessary to observe and evaluate the defendant.”

Quoted from 18 U.S.C. § 4247(b).

Laid out by study type, with the question each report must answer under § 4247(c)(4):

Study type	Statutory authority	Maximum initial commitment	Maximum extension	The question the report must answer
Competency to stand trial	18 U.S.C. § 4241	30 days	15 days	“whether the person is suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent that he is unable to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him or to assist properly in his defense”
Sanity at the time of the offense	18 U.S.C. § 4242	45 days	30 days	“whether the person was insane at the time of the offense charged”
Post-verdict commitment after a verdict of not guilty only by reason of insanity	18 U.S.C. § 4243	45 days	30 days	“whether the person is suffering from a mental disease or defect as a result of which his release would create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage to property of another”
Hospitalization of a convicted person before sentencing	18 U.S.C. § 4244	30 days	15 days	“whether the person is suffering from a mental disease or defect as a result of which he is in need of custody for care or treatment in a suitable facility”
Hospitalization of a person already serving a sentence	18 U.S.C. § 4245	30 days	15 days	“whether the person is suffering from a mental disease or defect as a result of which he is in need of custody for care or treatment in a suitable facility”
Civil commitment of a person due for release	18 U.S.C. § 4246	45 days	30 days	“whether the person is suffering from a mental disease or defect as a result of which his release would create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage to property of another”
Civil commitment of a sexually dangerous person	18 U.S.C. § 4248	45 days	30 days	“whether the person is a sexually dangerous person”
Examination ordered as part of a presentence investigation	18 U.S.C. § 4247(c)(4)(F)	—	—	“any recommendation the examiner may have as to how the mental condition of the defendant should affect the sentence”

Every value in this table is drawn from 18 U.S.C. § 4247(b) and (c). The “question” column quotes § 4247(c)(4)(A)–(F) verbatim.

Two studies run on different clocks entirely, because they are ordered under different statutes:

• A presentence study by the Bureau under 18 U.S.C. § 3552(b): “The period of the study shall be no more than sixty days,” and it “may, in the discretion of the court, be extended for an additional period of not more than sixty days.” The same subsection provides that the study “shall be conducted in the local community by qualified consultants unless the sentencing judge finds that there is a compelling reason for the study to be done by the Bureau of Prisons or there are no adequate professional resources available in the local community to perform the study.” PS 5070.12 tracks this at p. 4: “The results of the evaluation are to be furnished to the referring court within 60 days, unless the court grants an extension for further study. An extension may not exceed an additional 60 days.”
• A juvenile observation and study under 18 U.S.C. § 5037(e): the results go “to the court and the attorneys for the juvenile and the Government … within thirty days after the commitment of the juvenile, unless the court grants additional time.” That subsection also provides that the study “shall be conducted on an out-patient basis, unless the court determines that inpatient observation and study are necessary,” and that for an alleged delinquent, “inpatient study may be ordered only with the consent of the juvenile and his attorney.”

2. What the Program Statement tells staff the report must contain

Reproduced verbatim from Program Statement 5070.12 at p. 6, section 11:

11. FORENSIC EVALUATION. Each evaluation completed pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 4241 through 4246, must, by law, contain the following information according to the format outlined in Title 18 U.S.C. § 4247:

– Personal history and present symptoms. – Description of all psychological, psychiatric, and medical tests performed, as well as results. – The evaluator’s findings. – A current diagnosis in proper DSM multiaxial format. – A prognosis. – The evaluator’s opinion as to the specific questions posed by the court.

Compare that with what the statute actually requires. Under § 4247(c), a report ordered under chapter 313 “shall be prepared by the examiner designated to conduct the psychiatric or psychological examination, shall be filed with the court with copies provided to the counsel for the person examined and to the attorney for the Government, and shall include—”

“(1) the person’s history and present symptoms; (2) a description of the psychiatric, psychological, and medical tests that were employed and their results; (3) the examiner’s findings; and (4) the examiner’s opinions as to diagnosis, prognosis, and—” [the section-specific question set out in the table above].

Quoted from 18 U.S.C. § 4247(c).

Two differences are worth naming, because they matter to a lawyer reading a report. First, the statute contains no formatting requirement of any kind for the diagnosis — the “DSM multiaxial format” language is the Bureau’s own 2008 phrasing, not a statutory command. Second, and more consequentially, § 4247(c) requires that copies go to defense counsel and to the government, while the Program Statement instructs staff at p. 8 to “[c]losely examine the Court Order to determine if copies of the evaluation are to be provided directly to the attorneys, the Office of United States Probation, or the Clerk of the Court,” and, “[w]here these issues are not specifically addressed, provide the original and two additional copies of the evaluation to the Court.” If counsel has not received a copy, the statute — not the Program Statement — is the thing to point the court to.

3. Who may perform the evaluation

The statute is narrow: an examination ordered under chapter 313 “shall be conducted by a licensed or certified psychiatrist or psychologist, or, if the court finds it appropriate, by more than one such examiner,” and “[e]ach examiner shall be designated by the court, except that if the examination is ordered under section 4245, 4246, or 4248, upon the request of the defendant an additional examiner may be selected by the defendant” (18 U.S.C. § 4247(b)).

That last clause is worth reading twice. In a § 4245, § 4246, or § 4248 proceeding, the person being examined can ask for an examiner of their own choosing.

PS 5070.12 at p. 7 states the same limit for staff and adds an internal supervision layer: the Bureau “encourages participation by pre-doctoral psychology interns, post-doctoral fellows, psychiatric residents, and persons pursuing licensure in the forensic process,” but “it is critical that an appropriately licensed psychologist/psychiatrist take full responsibility for the final product and opinion. This person must be fully involved in all aspects of the evaluation and be prepared to testify if called.” The policy adds that trainees “at no time should … be portrayed as the primary evaluator, nor should attorneys ever be encouraged to subpoena them in lieu of the primary evaluator.”

The confidentiality warning — read this before the first interview

This is the single most misunderstood feature of a forensic study, and the Bureau’s own policy is blunt about it. Section 16 of PS 5070.12, at p. 9, reads:

16. CONFIDENTIALITY. Prior to the initial interview, the forensic evaluator must inform the inmate about the limits to confidentiality that exist in a forensic evaluation. The nature of the evaluation and questions raised by the Court must also be explained. The inmate will be told that all things learned from him or her or about him or her may be included in an evaluation to the Court. The inmate will also be informed that staff may be subpoenaed to testify at a later hearing regarding the evaluation. The issue of the confidentiality warning must be documented in the final report.

Conducting telephone interviews with family members, arresting officers, or others with valuable information is encouraged. However, prior to such an interview, these persons must also be informed of the nature of the study and lack of confidentiality described above.

Three practical consequences follow, and none of them is obvious:

1. There is no therapist–patient privilege here. A person in ordinary prison mental health care has one set of expectations; a person under a court-ordered study has another. If you want to understand the difference, Psychology Services (PS 5310.17) and treatment and care of inmates with mental illness describe the treatment side.
2. Family interviews are part of the study. If a psychologist from a federal facility calls you about your son or your husband, you are being interviewed for a report that goes to a judge. The policy directs the evaluator to tell you that first. If nobody told you, say so — in writing, to defense counsel.
3. The warning itself has to be documented in the report. If the report does not record that the warning was given, that is a checkable defect in a document the court is about to rely on.

The Program Statement also addresses the evaluator’s role, at p. 9: “Bureau psychologists and psychiatrists conduct forensic evaluations directly for the Federal Court, not for the U.S. Attorney or for the defense,” and “[n]either attorney will be given a final opinion on a forensic issue prior to the court being notified.” The examiner is not on anyone’s side. That is the design.

What a forensic evaluation means for you

If you are the person inside: designated for a study, not a sentence

You have been designated to a federal facility for a study, not for a sentence. The Bureau’s policy at p. 5 calls the clock “statutorily governed” and tells staff “[i]t is critical that these time limits be adhered to strictly.” Your reckoning period, for the Bureau’s internal purposes, “begins on the date the evaluation case arrives at a Bureau forensic site” — not the date the judge signed the order, and not the date the marshals picked you up. Those can be weeks apart.

Before your first interview, the evaluator is supposed to explain the limits on confidentiality and the questions the court has asked. If that did not happen, tell your lawyer. Ask your lawyer what the court order actually asks — the questions in the order determine what the report can properly address, because the policy directs at p. 6 that “[e]valuators should only offer opinions on the issues specifically raised by the court.”

You are entitled to say nothing. Nothing in this Program Statement or in chapter 313 obliges you to answer questions, and what you do say is not private. That is a decision to make with counsel, not alone.

If you are the family: your role during an evaluation

Your role here is smaller than you want it to be and more important than you think. Two things you can actually do:

Get records to the evaluator through counsel. PS 5070.12 lists what the Designation and Sentence Computation Center forwards to the institution at p. 4, and the list includes “[o]ther relevant information provided in written form by family, friends, or supervisors” as well as previous evaluations, the presentence or post-sentence report, the pretrial services report, and law-enforcement reports. Old psychiatric records, school records, military records, hospital discharge summaries — those change a report. Send them to the lawyer, who sends them on. Do not mail them to the psychologist directly.

Expect the phone call, and understand what it is. As set out above, the policy encourages telephone interviews with family and directs that you be told there is no confidentiality. What you say goes in the report.

What you should not do is treat the study as a treatment placement. It is an assessment ordered by a judge, and it ends when the report is filed.

If you are counsel: forensic evaluations

Six things on this page are worth having at hand:

• The clock is § 4247(b), not the Bureau’s calendar. The maximums are 30/15 days for §§ 4241, 4244, 4245 and 45/30 days for §§ 4242, 4243, 4246, 4248. The Bureau’s own internal reckoning starts on arrival at the forensic site, which will not match the order date.
• The extension is the facility director’s application, on good cause shown, and it is granted by the court — not taken by the Bureau. PS 5070.12 supplies a sample extension letter as Attachment A at p. 13; the model letter is written for a § 4241 study and asks the court for “a 15-day extension.”
• Copies to counsel are statutory. § 4247(c) requires the report to be filed with the court “with copies provided to the counsel for the person examined and to the attorney for the Government.” The Program Statement’s default at p. 8 is to send the original and two copies to the court. Specify service in the order.
• An additional examiner of the defendant’s choosing is available in § 4245, § 4246 and § 4248 proceedings on request, under § 4247(b).
• Scope-creep is a policy violation as well as an evidentiary problem. Where “court orders may cite certain statutes, yet the text of the order may refer to other issues,” PS 5070.12 at p. 6 directs the evaluator to “contact the Clerk or the attorneys (assistant U.S. attorney and defense counsel) assigned to the case for clarification before preparing an evaluation.” An evaluator who opined beyond the order did not follow the Bureau’s own instruction.
• Supervision and co-signature leave a paper trail. At pp. 7–8, the policy directs that the Chief Psychologist “must review, at minimum, 10 percent of the evaluations of all forensic psychologists,” must “review and co-sign every evaluation prepared by psychology students, pre-doctoral interns, post-doctoral fellows/residents, or any consultant or contractor,” and must co-sign every evaluation by a new forensic psychologist — “[t]ypically, this intensive review of the new evaluator’s work will last one year.” The parallel rule for psychiatrists puts the 10 percent review with the institution Chief Psychiatrist or a supervisory clinician designated by the Medical Director.

Applied Insight — Christopher Zoukis, JD, MBA, Managing Director: When we look at a forensic report for a family, the first two things we check are not clinical. They are whether the report records that the confidentiality warning was given, and whether the opinions offered match the questions the court actually asked in its order. Those are both stated requirements in the Bureau’s own policy, both checkable from the face of the document, and both are things a busy record can lose. The clinical argument belongs to counsel and to any expert counsel retains; the compliance questions are visible to anyone reading carefully.

Where the study happens

Not every federal facility does this work. PS 5070.12 at p. 6 provides that “[t]he Correctional Programs Division and Health Services Division will identify certain institutions as forensic sites,” and at p. 7 that “[g]enerally, only those inmates requiring hospitalization by statute (§4241(d), §4243(e), §4245, §4246(e)) or clinical condition will be designated to a Medical Referral Center (MRC). All other inmates will be designated to non-MRC forensic sites.”

Designation itself runs through the ordinary machinery: the policy at p. 4 sends staff to the new-commitment chapter of the security designation manual and states that “[d]esignation may be made to any Bureau facility as long as this meets statutory requirements and the facility has the resources necessary to meet the needs of the inmate.” Our explainers on security designation and custody classification, medical designations and care levels and the federal medical centers cover where people actually end up.

Transport is a recurring source of lost weeks. The policy provides at p. 4 that “[i]f the inmate does not arrive within 15 days of designation, the receiving institution should contact the DSCC for assistance,” and at p. 5 that “[t]he final day of the evaluation is the day on which the Bureau must be ready to relinquish the inmate’s custody,” with the Marshals Service to be notified “to transport the inmate within the last portion of the evaluation period.”

Competency inside the prison: disciplinary evaluations

A separate and much less visible use of this policy: when someone who appears mentally ill receives an incident report, the disciplinary process can be paused for a competency or responsibility assessment.

For a person not under a court-ordered study, PS 5070.12 at p. 10 directs that “[i]f at any stage of the disciplinary process an inmate appears to staff to be mentally ill, Unit Discipline Committee (UDC) staff or the Discipline Hearing Officer (DHO) will consult with psychology staff to determine if an evaluation of competency or responsibility is warranted.” The policy is explicit that “[a]lthough disciplinary evaluations are not governed by statute, they follow the same general standards as competency and responsibility (insanity) evaluations, although they may need to be modified to fit the disciplinary situation,” and that psychologists “must make every effort to review all past forensic evaluations on the individual in question and, when relevant, mental health information from the person’s Pre-Sentence Investigation (PSI).”

For a person who is under a court-ordered study, the policy adds a conflict rule at p. 10: the disciplinary assessment “will be assigned by the Chief Psychologist to a psychologist who is not the primary evaluator for an opinion of competence or responsibility prior to initiating any disciplinary procedures.”

Attachment D at p. 17 sets out the abbreviated format used, including the criteria the evaluator is pointed to for incompetence in the disciplinary setting — “[u]nderstanding of charges against him/her,” “[u]nderstanding of the disciplinary process/proceedings,” and “[c]an they participate in his/her own defense?” — and notes that the completed form is filed in the Central File as FOI-exempt.

If a family member with serious mental illness has been through a disciplinary hearing and nobody raised competence, that is worth taking up. Start with the inmate discipline program and how disciplinary proceedings actually run.

What changed when the Study and Observation Report was rescinded

This edition rescinded the Bureau’s old “Study and Observation Report” statement. The Directives Affected block at p. 2 rescinds P5070.11, Study and Observation Report (12/31/97).

What the 2008 edition added, in its own words at pp. 1–2:

– In addition to earlier types of court-ordered evaluations referenced, this Program Statement describes procedures used to complete pretrial and post-trial evaluations governed by Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 4241 through 4247. – Requirements clarifying the Chief Psychologist’s supervision of reports are added. – A section clarifies evaluation requirements pertaining to inmates who are mentally ill and receive a disciplinary report. – The policy specifies evaluation requirements in cases where the United States Parole Commission or other entities request an evaluation to assist in determining parole suitability.

And here is the part no competitor page carries: nothing has changed since. PS 5070.12 has carried an April 16, 2008 date for more than eighteen years and no change notice. During the Bureau’s 2026 policy work — including a mass reissue of program statements effective 22 June 2026 — 5070.12 was not among the statements reissued or retired. It stands as written.

That matters because of what has moved around it. The 2008 statement points staff at a set of directives that have since been replaced. Its Directives Referenced list at p. 2 names P5270.07, Inmate Discipline and Special Housing Units (12/29/87); P5310.12, Psychology Services Manual (8/13/93); P6010.02, Health Services Administration (1/15/05); and P6270.01, Medical Designations and Referral Services for Federal Prisoners (1/15/05). The Bureau’s current policy set carries later editions in each of those series — inmate discipline at 5270.09 and 5270.12, the Psychology Services Manual at 5310.17, health services administration at 6010.05, and medical designations at 6270.02. When PS 5070.12 sends a reader to “Chapter 1, Page 2” of the 1987 discipline statement, that cross-reference no longer lands anywhere current.

The same is true of the statutes. Section 4248 — civil commitment of a sexually dangerous person — is not mentioned anywhere in PS 5070.12, even though § 4247(b) and (c) both cover it and it carries the 45-day clock. The Bureau administers § 4248 certifications; the evaluation policy simply predates the practice built around them. If that is your issue, it is covered separately at civil commitment of sexually dangerous persons.

Section 19 of the policy, at pp. 10–11, addresses evaluations requested by the U.S. Parole Commission and states plainly that the governing statute, 18 U.S.C. § 4205, “was repealed (along with others pertaining to parole) in 1987; however, some inmates sentenced prior to 1987 (‘old law’) may be eligible for parole.” That is accurate as far as it goes: §§ 4201 through 4218 were repealed by Pub. L. 98–473, title II, § 218(a)(5), Oct. 12, 1984, and the sections survive only as a repeal notice in the Code. The policy also supplies model disclaimer language for any prediction of future behavior, warning that “[t]here are no consistent means by which to accurately predict an individual’s future behavior.”

Where people get stuck waiting for the evaluation report

The report is late and nobody will say why. This is the most common complaint, and it usually has a mundane cause: the study clock the Bureau tracks internally starts on arrival at the forensic site, and transport can eat weeks before that. The route is through counsel and the court, not through the prison — the extension in § 4247(b) belongs to the court to grant on the facility director’s application. Ask counsel to check whether an extension was applied for and, if so, when. If the delay is in getting your loved one to the site, PS 5070.12 at p. 4 directs the receiving institution to contact the DSCC when arrival slips past 15 days from designation.

Nobody explained the confidentiality limits. The Bureau’s policy requires the warning before the initial interview and requires that the warning be documented in the final report. If the report is silent on it, that is an issue for counsel to raise with the court — the report is the court’s document, and the objection belongs there, not in a grievance.

Counsel never received a copy of the report. Point to § 4247(c), which requires copies to counsel for the person examined and to the attorney for the Government. Where the court order was silent, the Bureau’s own default was to send everything to the court. This is fixed by motion, not by administrative remedy.

Something went wrong with conditions, records, or care during the study — not with the report. That is the one branch of this that does run through the prison grievance system. Under 28 C.F.R. § 542.13, an inmate “shall first present an issue of concern informally to staff” — the BP-8 or “cop-out” stage — before filing formally. 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 follow under 28 C.F.R. § 542.15: a BP-10 to the Regional Director “within 20 calendar days of the date the Warden signed the response,” then a BP-11 to the General Counsel “within 30 calendar days of the date the Regional Director signed the response.” The deadlines are short and they run. Our administrative remedy program explainer and the guide to how to file a BP-9 walk through the mechanics. Note the split: the content of a forensic report is a court matter; the conditions under which the study was conducted may be a remedy matter.

Related BOP policy on forensic evaluations

• Psychology Services (PS 5310.17) — the treatment-side manual, and the successor to the 1993 statement PS 5070.12 still references.
• Psychiatric services — psychiatry, medication and the psychiatrist’s role.
• Treatment and care of inmates with mental illness — care levels and treatment obligations, which are distinct from evaluation.
• Secure mental health units — where the most acute cases are housed.
• Civil commitment of sexually dangerous persons — the § 4248 track this Program Statement does not address.
• Pretrial inmates — conditions and rules for people not yet sentenced, which is who most study cases are.
• Suicide prevention program — the crisis-intervention track that runs alongside evaluation.
• Medical designations and care levels and federal medical centers — where medical referral centers sit in the system.
• Mental health programs for inmates — the plain-language companion to the treatment side.
• The complete guide to the federal criminal trial process — where a competency or sanity study fits in the case.
• The full BOP policy library — every program statement we have mapped.

Frequently Asked Questions About Forensic Mental Health Evaluations

---

Program Statement 5070.12 — full text

The full text below is the Bureau of Prisons’ own document, reproduced in full and without edit from its published PDF. Source: Program Statement 5070.12 (PDF).

Program Statement U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Prisons OPI: CPD/PSB NUMBER: P5070.12 DATE: 4/16/2008 SUBJECT: Forensic and Other Mental Health Evaluations 1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE. To describe the procedures the Bureau of Prisons (Bureau) shall follow to prepare a psychological or psychiatric evaluation on an inmate committed to its custody for pretrial and post-trial detention pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 4241 through 4247 and the pre-sentence stage of trial under Title 18 U.S.C. § 3552(b). These procedures also apply to a defendant committed by the court for an evaluation during their pre-release parole eligibility “old law” stage of confinement under Title 18 U.S.C. § 4205 (c), and to a defendant committed by the court for an evaluation pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C. § 5037(e). 2. PROGRAM OBJECTIVES. The expected results of this program are:

a. Information concerning an inmate’s mental health status and

recommendations will be provided to the court upon request.

b. Forensic Evaluators will provide timely and accurate

responses to referral questions and concerns addressed by the court.

c. All psychological or psychiatric evaluations will be

forwarded to the courts in a timely manner. 3. SUMMARY OF CHANGES. This Program Statement expands or modifies earlier policy in the following ways:

a. In addition to earlier types of court-ordered evaluations

referenced, this Program Statement describes procedures used to complete pretrial and post-trial evaluations governed by Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 4241 through 4247.

b. Requirements clarifying the Chief Psychologist’s

supervision of reports are added.

4/16/2008 Page 2

c. A section clarifies evaluation requirements pertaining to

inmates who are mentally ill and receive a disciplinary report.

d. The policy specifies evaluation requirements in cases where

the United States Parole Commission or other entities request an evaluation to assist in determining parole suitability.

4. DIRECTIVES AFFECTED

a. Directive Rescinded

b. Directives Referenced

Manual (9/12/06)

(3/17/99)

(12/29/87)

Federal Prisoners (1/15/05)

5. STANDARDS REFERENCED

a. American Correctional Association 4th Edition Standards for

Adult Correctional Institutions: 4-4372.

b. American Correctional Association 4 Edition Performanceth

Based Standards for Adult Local Detention Facilities: 4-ALDF-4C- 31. 6. INSTITUTION SUPPLEMENTS. None required. 7. DEFINITION OF TERMS. For the purpose of this program statement, the following definitions apply.

a. Forensic Evaluator – A licensed psychologist or licensed

psychiatrist assigned to complete an evaluation for the Federal Court System.

b. Non-Study Inmates – All inmates in the Bureau for whom a

Federal judge has not ordered a psychological or psychiatric evaluation

4/16/2008 Page 3

c. Study Inmates – Inmates for whom a psychological or

psychiatric evaluation has been ordered by a Federal Court. 8. TRAINING MANUAL “HOW TO CONDUCT A THOROUGH AND PROFESSIONAL FORENSIC EVALUATION” – FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS. Psychologists and psychiatrists in the Bureau who engage in any type of evaluation need to become familiar with the best practice standards and expectations in the Bureau’s Forensic Training Manual. 9. EVALUATIONS UNDER TITLE 18 § 3552(B)- PRE-SENTENCE. The sentencing court may order a local community psychologist/psychiatrist (LCPP) to complete the evaluation. Evaluations can be conducted while the defendant is on bail by a LCPP or in a local facility (Federal or non-Federal) by a LCPP – Title 18 § 3552(b). If the sentencing judge finds that there is a compelling reason for the Bureau to do the study or there are no adequate professional resources available in the community to perform the study the order may direct the Bureau to complete an evaluation on a defendant who has been found guilty. The purpose of this evaluation is to provide additional information that will aid the court in imposing a final sentence. Ordinarily, the court will specify what information it requires to assist in the final determination of sentence. The evaluator will inquire into those matters specified by the court and any other information the Bureau evaluator believes is important concerning Bureau policy and the application of sentencing guidelines issued by the Sentencing Commission. Since the determination of a sentence under the guidelines is the province of the Court, recommendations ordinarily focus on identifying psychological or psychiatric factors pertinent to the sentencing guidelines to help the Court make its determination. Examples of factors for consideration include, but are not limited to: # Diminished Capacity as defined by the Sentencing Commission Guidelines. # Mitigating and aggravating factors in the form of mental or behavioral disorders. # Unusual characteristics of the defendant. # Additional information that may affect the application of guidelines. Recommendations provided in the evaluation shall not specifically address or make recommendations as to numerical calculations or recalculations of sentencing guideline elements.

4/16/2008 Page 4 The results of the evaluation are to be furnished to the referring court within 60 days, unless the court grants an extension for further study. An extension may not exceed an additional 60 days.

a. Designation. Designations will be completed as outlined in

Chapter 3, Security Designation Procedures for New Commitments, of Program Statement 5100.07, Security Designation and Custody Classification Manual. Designation may be made to any Bureau facility as long as this meets statutory requirements and the facility has the resources necessary to meet the needs of the inmate. Following the designation, the Designation and Sentence Computation Center (DSCC) shall forward to the institution all available documents that may include, but are not limited to:

essential background information (e.g., copies of previous evaluations), and Statement of Reasons (SOR).

family, friends, or supervisors.

specific objectives of the study.

reports pertaining to the instant offense. This information is essential in completing the background sections of psychological and psychiatric evaluations, as well as giving an indication of the defendant’s behavioral pattern in the community. If the inmate does not arrive within 15 days of designation, the receiving institution should contact the DSCC for assistance. The Warden will designate a staff member, ordinarily the Case Management Coordinator, to be responsible for initiating such contact, as necessary. The psychologist or psychiatrist assigned the evaluation will be responsible for requesting extensions (see Attachment A for an extension letter example), and monitoring progress and due dates of the evaluation.

b. Evaluation Cases With Referral Questions. The primary

report prepared by the forensic evaluator is the psychological or psychiatric evaluation (see the Forensic Evaluation Training Manual for an example). Psychological evaluations will be prepared by a licensed psychologist and psychiatric evaluations

4/16/2008 Page 5 should be prepared by a licensed psychiatrist. Clinical interns may be involved in the process, but their work will be closely supervised by a licensed psychologist or licensed psychiatrist. Other assessments that may be part of an evaluation include an educational, medical, vocational, or other assessment prepared by the appropriate discipline. The need for, and content of, such assessments will depend on the objectives of the evaluation and the nature of the court’s questions. The psychologist or psychiatrist responsible for completing the evaluation shall summarize the consultants’ findings in the evaluation, or include written consultations in their entirety. If written consultations are included, the consultant(s) shall also sign the evaluation, specifying which sections they authored.

c. Pre-Sentence Evaluation With No Referral Questions. When the

court has no specific referral questions for the evaluation, and efforts to secure referral questions have been unsuccessful, the Bureau will provide the court an evaluation that includes any information the evaluator believes is pertinent to the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). This may include:

in further criminal conduct.

other treatment.

10. PRETRIAL AND POST-TRIAL FORENSIC EVALUATIONS

(a) Time Frames and extensions for evaluations are statutorily governed. It is critical that these time limits be adhered to strictly. These time frames and any allowable extensions are stated in the United States Code Title 18 Crimes and Criminal Procedures. For internal monitoring purposes the evaluation reckoning period begins on the date the evaluation case arrives at a Bureau forensic site. Forensic sites should implement a procedure for notifying the court of the date of arrival and to request reasonable adjustments to and extensions in the forensic evaluation time frames when necessary. The final day of the evaluation is the day on which the Bureau must be ready to relinquish the inmate’s custody. The U.S. Marshals Service should be notified by a staff person, usually the Case Management Coordinator, via the DSCC, to transport the inmate within the last portion of the evaluation period.

4/16/2008 Page 6 The standard for evaluation of competency to stand trial is found at 18 U.S.C. § 4241 (a) and (d): “Whether the defendant is presently suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent that he is unable to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him or to assist properly in his defense.” The standard for evaluation of criminal responsibility is found at 18 U.S.C. § 17: “It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution under any Federal statute that, at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts. Mental disease or defect does not otherwise constitute a defense.” 11. FORENSIC EVALUATION. Each evaluation completed pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 4241 through 4246, must, by law, contain the following information according to the format outlined in Title 18 U.S.C. § 4247:

medical tests performed, as well as results.

posed by the court. The Psychology Services Administrator will provide guidance for the standards and formats for forensic evaluations completed by contract and forensic psychologists. The Medical Director will provide guidance for the standards and formats for forensic evaluations completed by contract and forensic psychiatrists.

Evaluators should only offer opinions on the issues specifically raised by the court. In some instances, court orders may cite certain statutes, yet the text of the order may refer to other issues. Whenever the actual intent of the court is unclear, the forensic evaluator will contact the Clerk or the attorneys (assistant U.S. attorney and defense counsel)assigned to the case for clarification before preparing an evaluation. 12. FORENSIC SITES. The Correctional Programs Division and Health Services Division will identify certain institutions as forensic sites. Cases committed to the custody of the Attorney General for evaluation under Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 4242 – 4247 will be designated as noted in section 7 of this Program Statement. Generally, only those inmates requiring hospitalization by

4/16/2008 Page 7 statute (§4241(d), §4243(e), §4245, §4246(e)) or clinical condition will be designated to a Medical Referral Center (MRC). All other inmates will be designated to non-MRC forensic sites. 13. FORENSIC EVALUATOR QUALIFICATIONS. Federal law stipulates that only licensed psychologists or licensed psychiatrists can perform forensic evaluations ordered pursuant to Chapter 313, Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 4241-4246. The Bureau encourages participation by pre-doctoral psychology interns, post-doctoral fellows, psychiatric residents, and persons pursuing licensure in the forensic process. However, it is critical that an appropriately licensed psychologist/psychiatrist take full responsibility for the final product and opinion. This person must be fully involved in all aspects of the evaluation and be prepared to testify if called. The possibility always exists that persons other than the licensed psychologist/psychiatrist could be subpoenaed. However, at no time should they be portrayed as the primary evaluator, nor should attorneys ever be encouraged to subpoena them in lieu of the primary evaluator.

14. EVALUATION SUPERVISION.

(a) FORENSIC EVALUATOR SUPERVISION AT FORENSIC SITES. All forensic evaluations completed by staff psychiatrists, residents, fellows, or contract psychiatrists will be reviewed by the institution Chief Psychiatrist, where one is on staff, or, if no Chief Psychiatrist is on staff, then by a supervisory staff clinician designated by the Medical Director. The reviewing Chief Psychiatrist or supervisory staff clinician will co-sign the evaluation of any non-licensed psychiatrist prior to filing with the court. The reviewing Chief Psychiatrist or supervisory staff clinician must review, at minimum, 10 percent of the forensic evaluations completed by a forensic psychiatrist. A documented system of control must be in place to ensure the sample of evaluations and accompanying data have been reviewed. The Chief Psychiatrist or supervising staff clinician must sign a review memorandum to acknowledge that all information in the forensic file is complete and the evaluation follows the statutory guidelines and answers the court’s questions. The Chief Psychologist must review, at minimum, 10 percent of the evaluations of all forensic psychologists. A documented system of control must be in place to ensure the sample of evaluations and accompanying data have been reviewed. The Chief Psychologist must sign a review memorandum to acknowledge that all information in the forensic file is complete and the evaluation follows the statutory guidelines and answers the court’s questions.

4/16/2008 Page 8 The Chief Psychologist, or a designated licensed psychologist, must review and co-sign every evaluation prepared by psychology students, pre-doctoral interns, post-doctoral fellows/residents, or any consultant or contractor. The Chief Psychologist is also required to review and co-sign all evaluations written by any new forensic psychologist until such time as the Chief Psychologist believes this staff member is fully aware of, and responsible for, following Bureau policy and training guidelines. Typically, this intensive review of the new evaluator’s work will last one year. The Chief Psychologist must sign all evaluations completed by non-forensic psychologists. In addition, contacts related to the forensic evaluation at outpatient study sites should be documented in a log (see Attachment B – Sample Contact Log). (b) FORENSIC EVALUATOR SUPERVISION AT MRCs. At MRCs, the evaluation supervision process can be shared with another supervisory psychologist as long as the Chief Psychologist can assure policy and best practices are followed. At MRCs, the medical record and Psychological Data System (PDS) serves as the official, chronological record of services provided. 15. MANAGING THE EVALUATION. The Warden shall assign the evaluation to a staff member, ordinarily an Associate Warden or Psychologist, who is responsible for:

satisfied.

is ready for return to court. Once the evaluation is completed, the Warden signs the transmittal letter and forwards it and the original evaluation to the Court. Closely examine the Court Order to determine if copies of the evaluation are to be provided directly to the attorneys, the Office of United States Probation, or the Clerk of the Court. Where these issues are not specifically addressed, provide the original and two additional copies of the evaluation to the Court. General guidelines for a transmittal letter are specified in Attachment C. All correspondence addressed to a Federal Court shall include the inmate’s register number and docket number(s) pertinent to the inquiry.

4/16/2008 Page 9 A summary of clinically relevant information from each forensic evaluation will be entered by the forensic evaluator (or a designee) in PDS at the conclusion of the study. This will include:

of treatment. 16. CONFIDENTIALITY. Prior to the initial interview, the forensic evaluator must inform the inmate about the limits to confidentiality that exist in a forensic evaluation. The nature of the evaluation and questions raised by the Court must also be explained. The inmate will be told that all things learned from him or her or about him or her may be included in an evaluation to the Court. The inmate will also be informed that staff may be subpoenaed to testify at a later hearing regarding the evaluation. The issue of the confidentiality warning must be documented in the final report. Conducting telephone interviews with family members, arresting officers, or others with valuable information is encouraged. However, prior to such an interview, these persons must also be informed of the nature of the study and lack of confidentiality described above. 17. PROFESSIONAL ROLE RESPONSIBILITIES. Bureau psychologists and psychiatrists conduct forensic evaluations directly for the Federal Court, not for the U.S. Attorney or for the defense. Evaluators must strive to be thorough, unbiased, and to use reasoning that comports with a consensus of professional judgement. Neither attorney will be given a final opinion on a forensic issue prior to the court being notified. Individuals engaged in forensic work should be familiar with the ethical guidelines applicable to their professions. The ethical guidelines published by the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law should be consulted and clinical supervision should be sought when potential ethical conflicts arise. Professional ethics dictate that psychologists completing forensic evaluations make every effort to avoid role conflicts. Whenever possible, the forensic evaluator should not be the person providing therapy or otherwise overseeing the treatment of the person being evaluated. However, in some situations such as crisis intervention the evaluator may find it necessary to

4/16/2008 Page 10 provide time-limited treatment to the person being evaluated. In addition, at MRCs the utilization of a team approach may make the distinction between treatment and evaluation roles less easily separated. In these circumstances, the evaluator may belong to a team which is expected to both evaluate and have some role in treatment.

18. DISCIPLINARY CASES/REPORTS.

(a) Study Inmates. In order to avoid dual role conflicts, when a study inmate incurs a disciplinary report, the need for evaluation of competency or responsibility may arise. If this occurs, it will be assigned by the Chief Psychologist to a psychologist who is not the primary evaluator for an opinion of competence or responsibility prior to initiating any disciplinary procedures. The psychologist completing the disciplinary evaluation should consult with the forensic evaluator assigned to the court case to maintain consistency. (b) Non-Study Inmates. If at any stage of the disciplinary process an inmate appears to staff to be mentally ill, Unit Discipline Committee (UDC) staff or the Discipline Hearing Officer (DHO) will consult with psychology staff to determine if an evaluation of competency or responsibility is warranted. If warranted, the psychological evaluation is guided by both P.S. 5270.07 (Inmate Discipline and Special Housing Policy – Chapter 1, Page 2), and the standards for responsibility and competence addressed in this Program Statement. It is important to note that psychologists must make every effort to review all past forensic evaluations on the individual in question and, when relevant, mental health information from the person’s Pre-Sentence Investigation (PSI). Although disciplinary evaluations are not governed by statute, they follow the same general standards as competency and responsibility (insanity) evaluations, although they may need to be modified to fit the disciplinary situation. When completing an evaluation for disciplinary purposes, on either a study inmate or a non-study inmate, use the abbreviated report format in Attachment D. 19. EVALUATIONS FOR THE U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION. Requests for psychological evaluations to help determine parole eligibility may, on occasion, come from the U.S. Parole Commission (USPC), the District of Columbia Parole Commission, and some State Parole Commissions when a Federal inmate is serving concurrent state and

4/16/2008 Page 11 Federal sentences. Most of these evaluations will fall under the purview of Title 18 U.S.C § 4205. This statute was repealed (along with others pertaining to parole) in 1987; however, some inmates sentenced prior to 1987 (“old law”) may be eligible for parole. The statute allows for the USPC to receive an evaluation from the Bureau on an inmate’s suitability for parole, including mental and physical health, criminal record, and social background. On occasion, the USPC will ask for predictions about future criminal and/or dangerous behavior. Predictions regarding such acts under specific circumstance should be qualified and appropriate disclaimers given, for example: “The following information concerning the inmate’s behavior and possible future behavior are based upon the inmate’s self-report, test responses, and other information for which the reliability may be unknown. There are no consistent means by which to accurately predict an individual’s future behavior. Some accuracy, however, has been demonstrated by considering past behavior patterns in combination with demographic, personal and possible precipitating factors in conjunction with psychological assessment data.” These evaluations will be in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act (FOIA/PA). The format to be used in preparing these reports should be similar to the one presented in the training manual “How to Conduct a Thorough and Professional Forensics Evaluation.”

20. EVALUATIONS FOR THE WITNESS SECURITY PROGRAM. 18 U.S.C.

§ 3521(c) requires the Attorney General to obtain and evaluate all available information regarding the suitability of any person seeking admission into the Federal Government’s Witness Security Program. A psychological evaluation is required as part of this assessment process. Bureau psychologists have been designated to perform these evaluations. These psychologists work under the supervision of the Chief, Psychological Evaluation Section, Psychology Services Branch, Central Office, or his/her designee.

4/16/2008 Page 12 21. RECORDS RETENTION. Requirements and retention guidance for records and information applicable to this program are available in the Records and Information Disposition Schedule (RIDS) system in BOPDOCS and Sallyport. Information created by this program is also governed by all applicable FOIA/PA laws and regulations. /s/ Harley G. Lappin Director

4/16/2008 Attachment A EXAMPLE Date (fill in) The Honorable______________ United States District Court Western District Of Missouri St. Joseph Division 6672 Charles Evans Whittaker United States Court House 400 East 9 Streetth Kansas City, Missouri 64106 Re: Reg. No. __________ Case No. __________ Dear Judge _____: Your Court Order dated fill in date here committed Mr. X to the custody of the Attorney General for a mental health evaluation pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 4241. The provisions of this statute permit commitment to the custody of the Attorney General for 30 days. Mr. X arrived at fill in name of institution on date. He would normally be approved for a return to court on approximately date. However, fill in the reason why an extension is necessary. Given this new development, we are respectfully requesting a 15-day extension. In accordance with Title 18, United States Code, Section 4241, the Court may grant an additional 15-day period of time to complete the mental health evaluation. If the extension is granted, the evaluation will be completed on or about date, and a written report will be submitted to the Court. If the mental health evaluation is completed prior to the projected completion date, the Court will be notified. If you have any questions or concerns about the proposed extension or the details of the case, please contact me at number. Sincerely, Name of Warden, WARDEN

4/16/2008 Attachment A

4/16/2008 Attachment B Inmate Name: “Sample Contact Log” Register Number: Inmate Contacts Attorney Contacts Collateral Contacts Date, Time, Length Brief Notes Date, Time, Length Brief Notes Date, Time, Length Brief Notes Date, Time, Length Brief Notes Date, Time, Length Brief Notes Date, Time, Length Brief Notes Date, Time, Length

4/16/2008 Attachment C U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Federal Bureau of Prisons

GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR TRANSMITTAL LETTER

Paragraph 1: This paragraph will state that we are forwarding two copies of the evaluation. It will mention the date of the sentence, type of sentence, the offense, arrival date at the facility, and the date the case is due in court (to include any extension information). Paragraph 2 (and additional paragraphs, if needed): This paragraph will briefly respond to the court’s referral questions, highlighting major findings. If no questions were posed by the court, then summarize the findings of the clinical evaluation and any pertinent information from the observation process. Final Paragraph: Inform the court that we will provide any additional information the court may need.

4/16/2008 Attachment D U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Complete in PDS Federal Bureau of Prisons Mental Health Evaluation – “Institution Disciplinary Process” Institution: Date: Name of Inmate: Register Number: Name of Evaluator: REASON FOR REFERRAL AND IDENTIFYING INFORMATION: (source, reason for referral, identifying information) BACKGROUND INFORMATION: (history of mental illness, psychological or psychiatric treatment, prior forensic evaluation) CLINICAL INTERVIEW AND MENTAL STATUS EXAM: (results of brief clinical interview and mental status exam, note limits of confidentiality discussed) CLINICAL IMPRESSION: (diagnosis if rendered, basis for diagnosis) FINDINGS: (conclusions based on general criteria for competence and/or responsibility) The following language may be helpful for explanation: A person is not responsible for his conduct if, at the time of the conduct, the person, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his/her acts. Some key criteria:

wrong.

wrong.

A person is incompetent if he/she lacks the ability to understand the nature of the disciplinary proceedings, or to assist in his/her defense at the proceedings. Some key criteria:

(Note: File in Central File – FOI Exempt – Section 2)

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