Sexually Abusive Behavior Prevention and Intervention Program

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

Program Statement 5333.01 at a glance

Field	Value
Program Statement	5333.01
Subject	Sexually Abusive Behavior Prevention and Intervention Program Manual — the word “Manual” was added by this edition; the prior edition was titled “…Program”
Effective / current edition date	March 19, 2026, approved by William K. Marshall III, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons (OPI listed as “DPI RSD”)
Change notice	None. This is a full reissue
Supersedes / rescinds	PS 5324.12 CN-1, Sexually Abusive Behavior Prevention and Intervention Program (2/18/2025). Note the number change: the policy moved from the 5324 series to 5333
Governing statute	34 U.S.C. § 30307(b): “The national standards referred to in subsection (a) shall apply to the Federal Bureau of Prisons immediately upon adoption of the final rule.” The Program Statement cites the superseded citation, 42 U.S.C. § 15607 — see What changed
Governing regulation (28 C.F.R.)	Part 115, Prison Rape Elimination Act National Standards. The Program Statement states that it “follows the organization of the relevant portions of 28 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) Part 115 …: §§ 115.5, 115.6, Subpart A, and Subpart E.” Subpart A is Standards for Adult Prisons and Jails (§§ 115.11–115.93) — the subpart that governs federal prisons. Subpart E is Auditing and Corrective Action. Sections 115.5 and 115.6 (definitions) sit outside any subpart
Related BP forms	BP-E583, Report of Incident; BP-A1002, Safeguarding of Inmates Alleging Sexual Abuse and/or Harassment; BP-A1175, Staff Retaliation Monitoring; BP-A1176, Inmate Retaliation Monitoring; BP-A1180, PREA Staffing and Workforce Utilization; BP-A1181, Institution PREA Tracking Log
Official PDF	PS 5333.01 (bop.gov)

Checked against the BOP policy set · 2026-09-06.

This Program Statement is how the Bureau of Prisons implements the Prison Rape Elimination Act’s national standards inside federal institutions — it defines what counts as sexual abuse and sexual harassment, sets out every route a report can take, and fixes the time frames staff must meet once a report is made. Unlike most Bureau policy, the rules it applies come from a binding regulation that Congress made applicable to the Bureau by statute, which is why so much of the document is reproduced regulation rather than internal instruction.

If you are trying to understand the human situation rather than the rule set — how these allegations arise, what happens to housing and programming afterward, and what families can realistically do — read violence and sexual assault in prison, the companion to this page. This page is the rule set: the reporting routes, the response levels, the response clocks, and the retaliation-monitoring period. Where an allegation produces an incident report and a hearing, the consequences run through the inmate discipline program (PS 5270.09); where it produces a restrictive-housing placement, through special housing units (PS 5270.12).

If you or someone you love is in immediate danger inside a federal facility, the fastest route is a report to any staff member, at any level, and there is no time limit on making one. The regulation provides that “The agency shall not impose a time limit on when an inmate may submit a grievance regarding an allegation of sexual abuse,” and that no informal step may be required first.

The rule itself: every route a report can take, and what has to happen after it

What matters here is not a single table — it is three: the reporting routes, the response clocks, and the definitions. All three are reproduced below. Text in quotation marks is verbatim, either from the regulation as reproduced in the Program Statement or from the Bureau’s implementing instructions.

1. The reporting routes

Route	What the rule provides	Anonymous?
Any staff member, at any level	“Bureau inmates are encouraged to report allegations to a staff member at any level, including local, regional, and Central Office.” The regulation requires “multiple internal ways for inmates to privately report sexual abuse and sexual harassment, retaliation by other inmates or staff for reporting …, and staff neglect or violation of responsibilities that may have contributed to such incidents”	No, but the report is private
Telephonically to SIS	Inmates “are also provided with avenues of internal reporting, such as telephonically to SIS” (Special Investigative Services)	No
By mail to an outside entity	Inmates are provided an avenue of reporting “by mail to an outside entity”	Depends on the entity
The DOJ Office of Inspector General — the required outside route	§ 115.51(b) requires “at least one way for inmates to report abuse or harassment to a public or private entity or office that is not part of the agency, and that is able to receive and immediately forward inmate reports … allowing the inmate to remain anonymous upon request.” The Bureau’s implementation: “Inmates are provided contact information and access to the Office of Inspector General (OIG) to make such reports”	Yes, on request
Anonymously, in writing	“Staff shall accept reports made verbally, in writing, anonymously, and from third parties and shall promptly document any verbal reports.” The Program Statement defines the term: “information received anonymously refers to ‘drop-notes’ or other written communication.” It also cautions that “Non-investigatory staff do not offer anonymity to inmates”	Yes
Third-party reporting — by anyone outside	§ 115.54: “The agency shall establish a method to receive third-party reports of sexual abuse and sexual harassment and shall distribute publicly information on how to report sexual abuse and sexual harassment on behalf of an inmate.” The Bureau “posts and maintains the third-party reporting avenue on its public website. All institutions also post third-party reporting information in visitation rooms and housing units”	Depends on the route used
Administrative remedy — with no time limit and no informal step	§ 115.52: “The agency shall not impose a time limit on when an inmate may submit a grievance regarding an allegation of sexual abuse,” and “shall not require an inmate to use any informal grievance process, or to otherwise attempt to resolve with staff, an alleged incident of sexual abuse.” Also: “an inmate who alleges sexual abuse may submit a grievance without submitting it to a staff member who is the subject of the complaint,” and “Such grievance is not referred to a staff member who is the subject of the complaint”	No
A third party filing the administrative remedy for the person	§ 115.52(e): “Third parties, including fellow inmates, staff members, family members, attorneys, and outside advocates, shall be permitted to assist inmates in filing requests for administrative remedies relating to allegations of sexual abuse, and shall also be permitted to file such requests on behalf of inmates.” Conditions: the facility “may require as a condition of processing the request that the alleged victim agree to have the request filed on his or her behalf, and may also require the alleged victim to personally pursue any subsequent steps”; if the person declines, “the agency shall document the inmate’s decision”	No
Emergency grievance — imminent risk	§ 115.52(f): after receiving a grievance alleging “a substantial risk of imminent sexual abuse,” the agency “shall immediately forward the grievance … to a level of review at which immediate corrective action may be taken, shall provide an initial response within 48 hours, and shall issue a final agency decision within 5 calendar days”	No
Outside confidential support services	§ 115.53: the facility “shall provide inmates with access to outside victim advocates for emotional support services related to sexual abuse by giving inmates mailing addresses and telephone numbers, including toll-free hotline numbers where available, of local, State, or national victim advocacy or rape crisis organizations.” Caution, stated in the rule itself: the facility “shall inform inmates, prior to giving them access, of the extent to which such communications will be monitored.” The Program Statement adds: “Confidential communications under this section are distinguished from privileged communications, such as in an attorney-client relationship”	Not privileged; monitored
Immigration detainees	§ 115.51(b): those “detained solely for civil immigration purposes shall be provided information on how to contact relevant consular officials and relevant officials at the Department of Homeland Security”	Varies

Source: PS 5333.01 at pp. 36–39, reproducing 28 C.F.R. §§ 115.51–115.54. Sections 115.51 and 115.52 independently verified against the current C.F.R. (source date 2026-08-06).

2. The response clocks

Every number below is stated in the Program Statement or the regulation it reproduces.

Obligation	Time frame
Staff report of any knowledge, suspicion or information of sexual abuse, sexual harassment, retaliation, or staff neglect contributing to either	“immediately and according to agency policy” (§ 115.61(a))
Protection when the agency learns of a substantial risk of imminent sexual abuse	“immediate action to protect the inmate” (§ 115.62)
Psychology Services clinical intervention with the alleged victim	“within 24 hours of the reported allegation,” documented as a Sexual Abuse Intervention in the electronic health record
Sexual Abuse Intervention with an alleged perpetrator	“as soon as is practical but no later than 60 days following the report”
Involuntary segregated housing of a person at high risk of victimization, pending an assessment of alternatives	“less than 24 hours while completing the assessment,” and only where “a determination has been made that there is no available alternative means of separation from likely abusers” (§ 115.43(a))
Emergency grievance — initial response	“within 48 hours” (§ 115.52(f)(2))
Emergency grievance — final agency decision	“within 5 calendar days” (§ 115.52(f)(2))
Notice to another facility where the abuse is alleged to have occurred	“as soon as possible, but no later than 72 hours after receiving the allegation” (§ 115.63(b))
Intake screening for risk of victimization or abusiveness	“ordinarily … within 72 hours of arrival at the facility” (§ 115.41(b))
Follow-up meeting offered after intake screening indicates prior victimization, or prior perpetration	“within 14 days of the intake screening” (§ 115.81(a), (b))
Comprehensive PREA education to the person after intake	“Within 30 days of intake” (§ 115.33(b))
Retaliation monitoring	“For at least 90 days following a report of sexual abuse, the agency shall monitor the conduct and treatment of inmates or staff who reported the sexual abuse and of inmates who were reported to have suffered sexual abuse … and shall act promptly to remedy any such retaliation.” “The agency shall continue such monitoring beyond 90 days if the initial monitoring indicates a continuing need” (§ 115.67(c))
Retaliation monitoring — documentation interval	“Changes to housing, programming, or incident reports received should be documented as they occur, but no less than every 30 days.” Where the person is placed in the SHU in relation to the report, “retaliation monitoring will occur every 30 days until restricted housing is no longer indicated, even if the monitoring period extends beyond 90 days”
Final agency decision on a grievance alleging sexual abuse	“within 90 days of the initial filing,” excluding “time consumed by inmates in preparing any administrative appeal.” An extension “of up to 70 days” may be claimed, with written notice and a date certain (§ 115.52(d))
Executive Team Review after an investigation	“ordinarily … within 30 days of the conclusion of the investigation”

Source: PS 5333.01 at pp. 33–34, 37–38, 41–42, 44–45, 48–49, 58, 60, 62. Sections 115.51, 115.52, 115.67 and the § 115.5 definitions independently verified against the current C.F.R.

3. The three response levels

The 2026 edition renames what the Bureau used to call the Full Response Protocol and sets out three graduated levels.

Level	When it applies	What it includes
Level 1	“when an investigation is conducted at an institution other than the one in which the inmate(s) currently resides” — for example “the inmate reporting sexual abuse at another facility, the inmate is not available to complete a medical evaluation, or the inmate has released from Bureau custody and cannot be interviewed”	“fewer systemic interventions given the limited access to the alleged victims and perpetrators.” Guardrail: “A Level 1 response must never be substituted for a Level 2 or Level 3 response when staff have access to the alleged victim(s) and perpetrator(s).” Logged on the BP-A1181
Level 2	“Most allegations of sexual abuse and sexual harassment will require, at a minimum, a Level 2 response. If the alleged behavior was said to have occurred at the inmate’s current facility at any time in the past, a Level 2 response is required”	“in-person intervention from Psychology Services, Health Services, and Correctional Services; a BP-E583, Report of Incident; an investigative case with a determination; inmate notification; and if appropriate, retaliation monitoring and an Executive Team Review.” Logged on the BP-A1181
Level 3	“the highest level of response intervention following a reported or detected incident of sexual abuse or sexual assault … most likely in the immediate aftermath of a detected or reported sexual assault.” Formerly called the Full Response Protocol	“all actions from Response Level 2 as well as a forensic medical exam and evidence collection. Activation of an Evidence Recovery Team should be considered. Procedures for ensuring crisis intervention victim services and evidence preservation must be prioritized.” Logged on the BP-A1181

The Institution PREA Compliance Manager decides which level applies, “may consult with the Chief Psychologist, Health Services Administrator or Clinical Director, Captain, SIS, or Unit Managers of involved inmates,” and “documents the decision in a memorandum.”

Source: PS 5333.01 at pp. 41–43.

4. What the regulation defines as sexually abusive behavior

These are the enumerated definitions from 28 C.F.R. § 115.6, reproduced in the Program Statement. They are clinical by design; they are quoted here because the exact boundary is what determines whether a report is investigated as sexual abuse, as sexual harassment, or not at all.

Sexual abuse by another incarcerated person — the acts below, “if the victim does not consent, is coerced into such act by overt or implied threats of violence, or is unable to consent or refuse”:

1. “Contact between the penis and the vulva or the penis and the anus, including penetration, however slight”;
2. “Contact between the mouth and the penis, vulva, or anus”;
3. “Penetration of the anal or genital opening of another person, however slight, by a hand, finger, object, or other instrument”; and
4. “Any other intentional touching, either directly or through the clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or the buttocks of another person, excluding contact incidental to a physical altercation.”

Sexual abuse by a staff member, contractor, or volunteer — the acts below, “with or without consent of the inmate”:

1. “Contact between the penis and the vulva or the penis and the anus, including penetration, however slight”;
2. “Contact between the mouth and the penis, vulva, or anus”;
3. “Contact between the mouth and any body part where the staff member, contractor, or volunteer has the intent to abuse, arouse, or gratify sexual desire”;
4. “Penetration of the anal or genital opening, however slight, by a hand, finger, object, or other instrument, that is unrelated to official duties or where the staff member, contractor, or volunteer has the intent to abuse, arouse, or gratify sexual desire”;
5. “Any other intentional contact, either directly or through the clothing, of or with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or the buttocks, that is unrelated to official duties or where the staff member, contractor, or volunteer has the intent to abuse, arouse, or gratify sexual desire”;
6. “Any attempt, threat, or request by a staff member, contractor, or volunteer to engage in the activities described in paragraphs (1) through (5) of this definition”;
7. “Any display by a staff member, contractor, or volunteer of his or her uncovered genitalia, buttocks, or breast in the presence of an inmate, detainee, or resident”; and
8. “Voyeurism by a staff member, contractor, or volunteer.”

Sexual harassment —

1. “Repeated and unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or verbal comments, gestures, or actions of a derogatory or offensive sexual nature by one inmate, detainee, or resident directed toward another”; and
2. “Repeated verbal comments or gestures of a sexual nature to an inmate, detainee, or resident by a staff member, contractor, or volunteer, including demeaning references to gender, sexually suggestive or derogatory comments about body or clothing, or obscene language or gestures.”

The Program Statement adds the Bureau’s investigative gloss: “the ‘repetitive’ standard can be met through comments, gestures, or actions occurring on more than one occasion, and/or a combination of a single statement and non-verbal behavior,” and “An investigation is required for reports of repeated sexual harassment.” It also distinguishes, for investigative purposes, “a sexually abusive act,” which “involves penetration of any bodily orifice, however slight,” from “sexually abusive contact,” which “involves any touching for sexual gratification without penetration.”

The three possible findings, from § 115.5: a substantiated allegation “was investigated and determined to have occurred”; an unfounded allegation “was investigated and determined not to have occurred”; an unsubstantiated allegation “was investigated and the investigation produced insufficient evidence to make a final determination as to whether or not the event occurred.”

Source: PS 5333.01 at pp. 8–11; 28 C.F.R. §§ 115.5 and 115.6.

What the PREA policy means for you

If you are the person inside: there is no deadline to report

There is no deadline on reporting sexual abuse, and no one can make you try to work it out informally first. Section 115.52(b) removes both barriers, and it also provides that you may file “without submitting it to a staff member who is the subject of the complaint,” and that the grievance “is not referred to a staff member who is the subject of the complaint.” If the risk is immediate, the emergency-grievance route carries a 48-hour initial response and a five-calendar-day final decision.

Choose the route that fits the situation. If the person you are afraid of is staff, the outside route exists precisely for that: § 115.51(b) requires a way to report “to a public or private entity or office that is not part of the agency,” and the Bureau’s implementation is contact information and access to the DOJ Office of Inspector General, with anonymity available on request. If you want emotional support rather than an investigation, § 115.53 requires that you be given mailing addresses and telephone numbers, including toll-free hotline numbers where available, for outside victim advocacy or rape crisis organizations — but read the rule’s own caution: those communications are monitored, and the Program Statement is explicit that they are “distinguished from privileged communications, such as in an attorney-client relationship.” Only a lawyer is privileged.

Know what is supposed to follow. Psychology Services is to see you in person within 24 hours. Retaliation monitoring runs at least 90 days, documented no less than every 30, and continues past 90 days if the initial monitoring shows a need — and if you are in the SHU in relation to the report, it runs every 30 days for as long as that lasts, and follows you if you transfer. When the investigation closes, you are to be told the result: § 115.73(a) provides that the agency “shall inform the inmate as to whether the allegation has been determined to be substantiated, unsubstantiated, or unfounded,” and the Program Statement adds that this notification “must occur whenever that inmate is under Bureau jurisdiction, regardless of current housing location.”

If you are the person accused, the same document is the one to read closely, because it is what governs the process being run on you. A Level 2 response produces a BP-E583 Report of Incident and an investigative case with one of three findings; the findings drive an incident report and a hearing under the inmate discipline program, and can drive a housing change, a Public Safety Factor, a management variable, a transfer, or a referral for prosecution. Get the process right from the start: ask in writing, by cop-out (BP-A0148), what you are alleged to have done and under which definition, and say nothing about the substance to investigators before you have spoken to counsel.

If you are a family member: how you can report

The most useful thing you can do is often the thing you did not know you were allowed to do: you can report on your loved one’s behalf, and you can help file the paperwork. Section 115.54 requires the Bureau to “establish a method to receive third-party reports of sexual abuse and sexual harassment” and to “distribute publicly information on how to report … on behalf of an inmate,” and the Bureau “posts and maintains the third-party reporting avenue on its public website.” Separately, § 115.52(e) provides that “Third parties, including fellow inmates, staff members, family members, attorneys, and outside advocates, shall be permitted to assist inmates in filing requests for administrative remedies relating to allegations of sexual abuse, and shall also be permitted to file such requests on behalf of inmates.” That is a narrow exception to the general rule — 28 C.F.R. § 542.10 otherwise bars filing on another person’s behalf — and it exists for exactly this subject.

Two limits, stated plainly. The facility “may require as a condition of processing the request that the alleged victim agree to have the request filed on his or her behalf,” and “may also require the alleged victim to personally pursue any subsequent steps.” And if your loved one does not want the request processed, “the agency shall document the inmate’s decision.” That is not the Bureau brushing you off; it is a deliberate feature of the standard, designed so that the person’s own choice controls.

Be careful about telephone and email. Those communications are monitored, and pressing for detail on a recorded line can create real problems for someone who is not ready to report. Better: tell them the routes exist, that there is no deadline, and that they can report to a staff member at any level, anonymously in writing, or to an office outside the Bureau. Then write down what you were told, with dates. If retaliation is the fear, the 90-day monitoring obligation under § 115.67(c) is the specific thing to name in any letter you send.

If you are counsel: a PREA matter

Whichever side of the allegation your client is on, the document set is the same and it is unusually well specified in the 2026 edition. Ask for: the BP-A1181 Institution PREA Tracking Log entry, which the Program Statement now requires for every Level 1, Level 2 and Level 3 response; the BP-E583 Report of Incident; the Institution PREA Compliance Manager’s memorandum documenting the response-level decision; the BP-A1002, Safeguarding of Inmates Alleging Sexual Abuse and/or Harassment, which must be completed, signed and dated by the Warden and emailed to the Regional PREA Coordinator for any SHU placement on a PREA-related matter; the BP-A1176 Inmate Retaliation Monitoring form, filed with the investigative case and emailed to the Regional and National PREA Coordinators; and the Executive Team Review, which ordinarily occurs “within 30 days of the conclusion of the investigation.”

For a client facing an allegation, the leverage points are the evidentiary standard and the definitional boundary. The investigation closes with one of three findings — substantiated, unsubstantiated, unfounded — and the definitions in § 115.6 are precise enough to argue about: whether contact was “incidental to a physical altercation,” which is expressly excluded from the inmate-on-inmate definition; whether conduct met the “repetitive” standard for harassment; whether a staff-side allegation rests on conduct “unrelated to official duties” or on intent “to abuse, arouse, or gratify sexual desire.” Discipline consequences run through part 541 and PS 5270.09; collateral consequences — Public Safety Factor, management variable, transfer, Posted Picture File entry, program referral — run through security designation and custody classification (PS 5100.08) and sex offender programs (PS 5324.10).

For a client who reported, exhaustion is easier than usual and the extension rule is the trap. There is no filing deadline and no informal-resolution prerequisite, but the agency owes a final decision on the merits “within 90 days of the initial filing,” may claim an extension “of up to 70 days” with written notice and a date certain, and — as at every level of the Administrative Remedy Program — if no response arrives within the time allotted “including any properly noticed extension, the inmate may consider the absence of a response to be a denial at that level.” Calendar both dates. See administrative remedy program (PS 1330.18), and note the Program Statement’s instruction that “All administrative remedies related to PREA will be processed as outlined in section 16 of the Program Statement Administrative Remedy Program.”

What changed when PS 5324.12 became 5333.01

The 2026 edition is a full reissue that also moved the policy’s number. PS 5333.01, dated March 19, 2026 and approved by Director William K. Marshall III, rescinds PS 5324.12 CN-1, Sexually Abusive Behavior Prevention and Intervention Program (2/18/2025). The subject line changed too — the Bureau added the word “Manual,” so the current title is Sexually Abusive Behavior Prevention and Intervention Program Manual.

The substantive changes cluster in three places. First, response classification: the Bureau replaced the “Full Response Protocol” with a three-level scheme, stating that the change “Provides conceptual clarification of Full Response Protocol, which is now known as a Level 3 Response,” and “Clarifies levels of response and appropriate actions consistent with response level.” Second, retaliation monitoring, which is the change with the most practical bite: the edition “Creates the expectation for staff to use the new BP-A1175, Staff Retaliation Monitoring and BP-A1176, Inmate Retaliation Monitoring forms, as well as new retaliation codes,” and “Clarifies the Institution PREA Compliance Manager is responsible for retaliation monitoring including when staff report sexual abuse or sexual harassment.” Third, tracking: two new forms were created — “a BP-A1180, PREA Staffing and Workforce Utilization form” and “a BP-A1181, Institution PREA Tracking Log form” — and every Level 1, Level 2 and Level 3 incident must now be entered on the BP-A1181. The Institution PREA Compliance Manager is also newly required “to conduct quarterly multidisciplinary meetings for the supervision and monitoring of inmates to ensure sexual safety.”

Also new: updated guidance on the BP-A1002 safeguarding form; clarified duties for Regional PREA Coordinators and the Institution PREA Compliance Manager; “additional guidance concerning the separation of alleged inmate victims and perpetrators”; “additional guidance concerning the reassignment of staff if necessary to protect victims”; annual local training for all staff completing PREA investigations; clarified psychologist documentation for reports of abuse at previous facilities; clarified definitions used by Correctional Services in categorizing abuse on the BP-E583; and “clarification of evidentiary standards applied to investigation conclusions.”

One thing the reissue did not update: the statutory citation. The Program Statement’s purpose section states that “Congress required the Attorney General to promulgate regulations concerning sexual abuse prevention. The statute further required that the regulations would be binding upon the Federal Bureau of Prisons (Bureau). Please see 42 United States Code (U.S.C.) § 15607 for more information.” That section no longer exists in title 42. Verified against the current U.S. Code: the provision is now 34 U.S.C. § 30307, and the codification note in the current United States Code states that the “Section was formerly classified to section 15607 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.” The reclassification happened in 2017. The operative language is unchanged — § 30307(b) provides that “The national standards referred to in subsection (a) shall apply to the Federal Bureau of Prisons immediately upon adoption of the final rule under subsection (a)(4)” — but anyone citing the Program Statement’s own reference will cite a repealed title. Use 34 U.S.C. § 30307.

The other thing worth knowing about currency: the regulation has not moved. The PREA National Standards at 28 C.F.R. part 115 carry a current effective date of 2016-12-29 across the sections verified for this page. The 2026 reissue is a change in Bureau practice, not in the binding standard. That distinction matters: the standards themselves — the 90-day retaliation monitoring, the no-time-limit rule, the third-party filing right, the 48-hour and five-day emergency clocks — are regulation. The response levels, the forms and the tracking logs are Bureau instruction, and the Bureau can revise them without rulemaking.

Where people get stuck reporting to the wrong staff

“He is afraid to report because the person he would report to works with the officer”

The standards were written with this exact problem in mind, and there are three separate answers to it. First, the report does not have to go to anyone at the institution: the Program Statement directs that inmates “are encouraged to report allegations to a staff member at any level, including local, regional, and Central Office.” Second, the outside route is mandatory — § 115.51(b) requires a way to report “to a public or private entity or office that is not part of the agency,” with anonymity available on request; the Bureau’s implementation is contact information and access to the DOJ Office of Inspector General. Third, on the administrative-remedy side, § 115.52(c) provides that a grievance may be submitted “without submitting it to a staff member who is the subject of the complaint,” and that it “is not referred to a staff member who is the subject of the complaint.”

There is also a route that does not depend on your loved one acting at all: a third-party report under § 115.54, which the Bureau is required to accept and to publicize. The Program Statement instructs that “Staff must report and respond to allegations of sexually abusive behavior, regardless of the source of the report (e.g., ‘third party’).”

“She reported, and now she is in the SHU”

This happens, and the policy treats it as something that must be justified on paper. Section 115.43(a) provides that people “at high risk for sexual victimization shall not be placed in involuntary segregated housing unless an assessment of all available alternatives has been made, and a determination has been made that there is no available alternative means of separation from likely abusers,” and that where the assessment cannot be done immediately, the facility “may hold the inmate in involuntary segregated housing for less than 24 hours while completing the assessment.” The Program Statement adds the mechanism: the assessment “is completed for any inmate placed in SHU for a PREA-related matter by completing the BP-A1002, Safeguarding of Inmates Alleging Sexual Abuse and/or Harassment form,” which “is signed and dated by the Warden and emailed to the appropriate Regional PREA Coordinator.” Section 115.43(b) adds that people placed there “shall have access to programs, privileges, education, and work opportunities to the extent possible,” and that restrictions must be documented.

Ask for the BP-A1002 by name and by date. And note the retaliation consequence: where a person is in the SHU in relation to a report, retaliation monitoring “will occur every 30 days until restricted housing is no longer indicated, even if the monitoring period extends beyond 90 days.” The general SHU rules run through special housing units (PS 5270.12).

“It has been months and nobody has told him what happened with the investigation”

Two obligations bear on this. The administrative-remedy clock is a hard one: a final agency decision on the merits of any portion of a grievance alleging sexual abuse is due “within 90 days of the initial filing,” with a possible extension “of up to 70 days” that requires written notice and a date by which a decision will be made — and if nothing arrives within the allotted time including a properly noticed extension, “the inmate may consider the absence of a response to be a denial at that level” and move up. Do not sit on that.

The investigation-outcome obligation is separate. Section 115.73(a) requires the agency to “inform the inmate as to whether the allegation has been determined to be substantiated, unsubstantiated, or unfounded,” and the Program Statement assigns it: for inmate-on-inmate allegations, the SIS Lieutenant; for allegations against a staff member, the Special Investigative Agent or the Institution PREA Compliance Manager. It also states that notification “must occur whenever that inmate is under Bureau jurisdiction, regardless of current housing location,” including through United States Probation Officers and Residential Reentry Center management staff. Where an outside agency ran the investigation, “Efforts will be made by SIS or the SIA at least once a quarter to obtain a status update,” which “will be documented, and the alleged victim will be informed of any update or lack thereof.” A quarterly status request is therefore a specific, documented thing to ask about. Route it as a cop-out first.

“He has been accused, and everything is happening at once”

A PREA allegation sets several processes running in parallel, and confusing them costs people badly. The investigation is run by SIS (or the Office of Internal Affairs / DOJ OIG where staff are alleged perpetrators) and ends in one of three findings. The discipline track — incident report, UDC, DHO — is separate, runs under 28 C.F.R. part 541 and PS 5270.09, and carries its own notice and hearing rights. The classification track — separation, housing change, Public Safety Factor, management variable, transfer, program referral — runs under PS 5100.08. And a criminal referral is possible: the Program Statement’s stated objective is that “The perpetrators of sexually abusive behavior will be disciplined and, when appropriate, prosecuted in accordance with Bureau policy and federal law.”

The practical point: statements made to an investigator are not confined to the investigation. Anyone facing an allegation should ask what specific conduct is alleged and under which definition, should not discuss the substance before speaking to counsel, and should preserve every document — the BP-E583, the incident report, the response-level memorandum, the BP-A1181 entry. This is a situation where a call is worth more than a form; the firm handles Bureau disciplinary and classification advocacy directly, and the legal work is handled by Elizabeth Franklin-Best.

Related BOP policy on sexual abuse prevention

Page	What it covers
Violence and sexual assault in prison	The companion page: how these situations arise, what changes afterward, and what families can realistically do
Inmate discipline program (PS 5270.09)	Incident reports, UDC and DHO hearings — the track a substantiated allegation feeds
Special housing units (PS 5270.12)	Protective and administrative placement, review intervals and conditions
Security designation and custody classification (PS 5100.08)	Public Safety Factors, management variables and transfers
Sex offender programs (PS 5324.10)	SOMP designation and treatment programs, where a finding leads to a program referral
Searches of inmates and housing (PS 5521.06)	The search rules, including the cross-sex pat-search limit that comes from the PREA standards
Administrative remedy program (PS 1330.18)	BP-8 through BP-11 and the PREA carve-outs from the ordinary deadlines
Inmate request to staff (PS 5511.08)	The cop-out, BP-A0148 — how to ask for a document in writing
Reporting staff misconduct (PS 1210.26)	The Office of Internal Affairs route for allegations against staff
Female offender manual (PS 5200.09)	Policy specific to women in federal custody
Federal prison consulting services	How the firm works a Bureau-facing problem — records, advocacy letters and administrative remedies

Frequently Asked Questions About PREA and Sexual Abuse Prevention

---

Full text of the Program Statement

The complete statement is reproduced on a companion page: Program Statement 5333.01 — Sexually Abusive Behavior Prevention and Intervention Program (full text). It carries the Bureau’s own wording in full, with bracketed page markers matching the source PDF so any passage can be pin-cited.

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