Federal Home Confinement

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

What is federal home confinement?

Federal home confinement lets a person serve the last part of a federal sentence in an approved residence under supervision, still in Bureau of Prisons custody. 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(2) limits it to 180 days or 10 percent of the sentence, whichever is shorter — but First Step Act time credits applied under § 3624(g) can extend prerelease custody beyond that limit.

Key takeaways on federal home confinement

• The ordinary limit is 180 days or 10 percent of the sentence, whichever is shorter — § 3624(c)(2), repeated at 28 C.F.R. § 570.21(b). The statute writes those 180 days as “6 months”; it is one figure, not two rules. BOP’s First Step Act FAQ applies it to those “ineligible to earn qualifying time credits.”
• The halfway-house authority next door is different and larger: up to 12 months under § 3624(c)(1). A 31 March 2025 memorandum capping those placements at 60 days was rescinded on 10 April 2025. See residential reentry center.
• The First Step Act added a directive to that same paragraph: BOP “shall, to the extent practicable, place prisoners with lower risk levels and lower needs on home confinement for the maximum amount of time permitted.”
• FSA credits are a separate authority. § 3624(g) lets earned credits push prerelease custody past the § 3624(c)(2) limits, and § 570.21(c) confirms the time-frames “may be exceeded when separate statutory authority allows.”
• CARES Act home confinement is not available to anyone new. 28 C.F.R. § 0.96(u) confines the placement authority to the covered emergency period and leaves only a power to let people already placed remain.
• Only the Community Corrections Manager may approve it — BOP PS 7320.01 § 8, agency policy rather than law — and the same policy directs that the CCM “shall ensure that each appropriate inmate is placed on home confinement as soon as otherwise eligible.”
• Home confinement residents pay no subsistence, unlike residential reentry center residents, who pay 25% of gross income.

What home confinement is, and what it is not

Home confinement is service of sentence at home. The person remains in the legal custody of the Bureau of Prisons, and leaving the residence without authorisation is not a rule violation — it is potentially an escape. PS 7320.01 is direct about it: “An inmate serving a BOP sentence who fails to remain at the specified location may be considered an escapee. All escapes shall be immediately reported to the CCM.”

It is not probation, it is not supervised release, and it is not a suspension of the sentence. It is where the sentence is being served.

The Bureau’s own framing, from the 1995 program statement that still governs: “Home confinement is a time of testing and an opportunity for inmates to assume increasing levels of personal responsibility while providing sufficient restriction to promote community safety and continue the sanction of the sentence.”

Two limits worth stating at the outset. The Bureau “does not have statutory authority to designate a home confinement program for an inmate at the beginning of his or her sentence,” because 18 U.S.C. § 3621 requires designation to a “penal or correctional facility.” And “[a]n inmate may not apply for a particular community program” — the referral goes to the Community Corrections Manager, who selects among the options.

How long can federal home confinement last?

The ordinary limit

18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(2):

“Home confinement authority.— The authority under this subsection may be used to place a prisoner in home confinement for the shorter of 10 percent of the term of imprisonment of that prisoner or 6 months. The Bureau of Prisons shall, to the extent practicable, place prisoners with lower risk levels and lower needs on home confinement for the maximum amount of time permitted under this paragraph.”

The regulation tracks it. 28 C.F.R. § 570.21(b): “Inmates may be designated to home detention as a condition of pre-release custody and programming during the final months of the inmate’s term of imprisonment, not to exceed the shorter of ten percent of the inmate’s term of imprisonment or six months.”

Note which figure controls. It is the shorter of the two, and BOP staff commonly express the six-month half of it as 180 days. On a 60-month sentence, 10 percent is 180 days, and the two halves of the rule meet exactly. On anything longer, 180 days is the limit. On a 24-month sentence, 10 percent is about 72 days, and that is the limit — not 180.

The second sentence of § 3624(c)(2) was added by the First Step Act. It is not a mandate — “to the extent practicable” qualifies it — but it is a congressional instruction to give low-risk, low-need people the maximum time permitted rather than the minimum. Someone at minimum or low PATTERN risk being offered a token placement has a statutory sentence to point at.

Credits go past the limit

The § 3624(c)(2) figures are the ceiling on that authority. They are not the ceiling on how long someone can be at home.

28 C.F.R. § 570.21(c) says so: “These time-frames may be exceeded when separate statutory authority allows greater periods of community confinement as a condition of pre-release custody.”

The separate authority is 18 U.S.C. § 3624(g), the First Step Act’s provision for applying earned time credits. Under 28 C.F.R. § 523.44, credits are applied first toward early transfer to supervised release, capped at 365 days — and everything beyond that goes toward earlier prerelease custody. BOP’s implementing policy states it plainly: “Pre-release placement in a Residential Reentry Center (RRC) or Home Confinement (HC) will be based on FTCs other than those credits already applied to early transfer for supervised release” (PS 5410.01 CN-2).

Federal home confinement: the authorities, the limits, and how they stack

Authority	What it permits	The limit	Who it reaches
18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(2)	Home confinement as prerelease custody	180 days or 10% of the sentence, whichever is shorter	Everyone eligible for prerelease custody — BOP’s FSA FAQ applies it to those “ineligible to earn qualifying time credits”
First Step Act directive in the same paragraph	—	BOP “shall, to the extent practicable, place prisoners with lower risk levels and lower needs on home confinement for the maximum amount of time permitted”	Minimum and low PATTERN risk
18 U.S.C. § 3624(g)	Application of earned FSA time credits to prerelease custody	No fixed cap on the prerelease-custody portion; up to 365 days may instead go to early supervised release	Those eligible to earn and apply credits — minimum or low risk through the last two assessments, or a Warden’s petition
28 C.F.R. § 570.21(c)	Confirms the time-frames “may be exceeded when separate statutory authority allows”	—	The bridge between the two above
34 U.S.C. § 60541(g)	Elderly and terminally ill pilot — home detention until the term expires	Not limited by § 3624(c)(2); requires 2/3 of the term served (elderly)	Age 60+, non-violent, or terminally ill. Statute says “fiscal years 2019 through 2023” — see below
CARES Act § 12003(b)(2)	Lengthening home confinement beyond § 3624(c)(2)	Only “during the covered emergency period” — 28 C.F.R. § 0.96(u)(1)	Nobody new. The period has ended
28 C.F.R. § 0.96(u)(2)	Letting people already on CARES home confinement stay there	For the remainder of the sentence, if compliant with all conditions of supervision	Only people placed under the CARES Act

Program Statements are agency policy, not law. The § 3624(c)(2) figures are limits on that authority, not on total time at home.

Working the arithmetic

Take a hypothetical 48-month sentence, no disqualifying offense, minimum PATTERN risk throughout, continuous programming.

Under § 3624(c)(2) alone, 10 percent of 48 months is about 146 days — shorter than 180, so roughly 146 days is the ceiling on that authority.

With First Step Act credits, the picture changes. Credits are applied when the balance equals the remaining term. Up to 365 days can move the transfer to supervised release earlier; anything past that pushes prerelease custody earlier under § 3624(g). Those extra days are not capped by the 10-percent rule, because § 570.21(c) says the time-frames “may be exceeded when separate statutory authority allows.”

That is the method. We are not going to run it on your sentence, and you should be wary of any page that offers to. The number that governs is the FSA Conditional Placement Date on the Bureau’s own time-credit worksheet, and since 21 October 2025 BOP staff have been directed to use it as the anchor for placement decisions. Ask for it.

Who qualifies for home confinement?

The starting point is broad

PS 7320.01 § 6: “All inmates referred to community corrections are eligible to be considered for home confinement placement.”

And the policy imposes a duty phrased in mandatory terms: “The Community Corrections Manager (CCM) shall ensure that each appropriate inmate is placed on home confinement as soon as otherwise eligible.”

That sentence is worth having. It is not a promise of placement — “appropriate” and “otherwise eligible” do the limiting — but it is a directive to place promptly, not to delay.

The factors that trigger a second look

The same section lists circumstances in which the CCM “can consult with the Community Corrections Regional Administrator” before placing someone:

• a Public Safety Factor as defined in the security designation manual;
• a Central Inmate Monitoring case (except “pure” separation cases);
• a “[s]ensitive, or high profile case or one who might generate undue public concern”;
• a “[h]istory of escape or prior CCC failure”; or
• being “[u]nlikely to be employed.”

Change Notice 2, dated 15 December 2017, changed “shall consult” to “can consult” for that list — a loosening, not a tightening.

The unemployability factor cuts the other way

The last item comes with an instruction that surprises most readers, and it is one of the most useful sentences in the policy for families of older or disabled clients:

“Historically, inmates who were not going to be employed were often excluded from community corrections placements. Examples are inmates who are elderly, retired, disabled, chronically ill, unable to work at paid employment, occupied in caring for their own young children or ill or disabled family members. When such inmates are otherwise eligible, institutions are encouraged to refer them for direct placement on home confinement with special reporting requirements arranged by the CCM.”

Not employable is not a disqualification. Under this policy it is a reason to consider going straight home rather than to a halfway house.

Direct placement, skipping the halfway house

PS 7320.01 § 12(a) sets out when a person can go directly from an institution to home confinement, provided an electronically monitored program is available. Generally, someone is eligible for direct placement if they:

• have no public safety factors;
• had excellent institutional adjustment;
• have a stable residence with a supportive family;
• have confirmed employment (if employable); and
• have little or no need for the services of a CCC.

Section 7(b) says the same from the CCM’s side: “Occasionally, a referral may indicate no obvious risk to the community and no need for CCC services (for example, a supportive family, a stable residence, confirmed employment (if employable), and a positive institutional adjustment). In such cases, the CCM may bypass a CCC and place the inmate directly on home confinement.”

Conversely: “higher risk inmates requiring extensive transition assistance may not be placed on home confinement at all, or placed only briefly following CCC placement.”

If direct placement is right but no electronically monitored program exists in the district, the policy provides for “an initial short placement (approximately two weeks) in a CCC to allow the provider to become acquainted with the inmate, orient him or her to the expectations of the program, and assure that the job and living arrangements are appropriate.”

Declining has consequences

PS 7320.01 § 7(c): “An inmate who declines to participate in a recommended home confinement program may be transferred to a more secure facility.”

That is a materially different consequence from declining a halfway house, where PS 7310.04 § 11 provides that staff “may honor an inmate’s refusal” and lists suitable reasons. Refusing home confinement is not a neutral act, and the reasons a residential reentry center refusal may be honored do not carry across.

Applied Insight — Christopher Zoukis, JD, MBA, Managing Director: The residence is the bottleneck far more often than the person. The policy requires the Community Corrections Manager to obtain written verification of the release plan covering the planned residence and its telephone service, confirmation that “[a]dults sharing the residence with the inmate are aware of, and not opposed to” the plan, and employment where the person is employable — though “[r]elease employment is desirable but not required.” Families routinely lose weeks because nobody asked the other adults in the household to confirm in writing, or because the phone line at the address carries a service the program prohibits. That is a solvable problem, and it is solvable months ahead of time.

What the rules actually are

Two rule sets apply depending on the authority. Both are worth reading before someone comes home, because the surprises are what cause violations.

Under the First Step Act — § 3624(g)(2)(A)

Where placement is under 18 U.S.C. § 3624(g), the statute itself sets the conditions. A person in home confinement shall:

“(I) be subject to 24-hour electronic monitoring that enables the prompt identification of the prisoner, location, and time, in the case of any violation of subclause (II);

(II) remain in the prisoner’s residence, except that the prisoner may leave the prisoner’s home in order to, subject to the approval of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons— (aa) perform a job or job-related activities, including an apprenticeship, or participate in job-seeking activities; (bb) participate in evidence-based recidivism reduction programming or productive activities assigned by the System, or similar activities; (cc) perform community service; (dd) participate in crime victim restoration activities; (ee) receive medical treatment; (ff) attend religious activities; or (gg) participate in other family-related activities that facilitate the prisoner’s successful reentry such as a family funeral, a family wedding, or to visit a family member who is seriously ill; and

(III) comply with such other conditions as the Director determines appropriate.”

That list is the statute’s own list of permitted absences, and it is more generous than most people expect — job-seeking, religious activities, a family funeral or wedding, visiting a seriously ill relative. Every one is “subject to the approval of the Director,” which in practice means the provider and the CCM, and every one should be requested in advance.

There is a carve-out for monitoring: “If the electronic monitoring of a prisoner described in clause (i)(I) is infeasible for technical or religious reasons, the Director of the Bureau of Prisons may use alternative means of monitoring.”

And there is a provision worth quoting to any provider applying a rigid rule. § 3624(g)(4): “In determining appropriate conditions for prisoners placed in prerelease custody pursuant to this subsection, the Director of the Bureau of Prisons shall, to the extent practicable, provide that increasingly less restrictive conditions shall be imposed on prisoners who demonstrate continued compliance, so as to most effectively prepare such prisoners for reentry.”

Under the Bureau’s home confinement policy

PS 7320.01 Attachment B sets the operating requirements, which apply whichever authority governs:

Requirement	The rule
Curfew	“Inmates on home confinement shall maintain a 9:00 P.M. to 6:00 A.M. curfew each day, unless an exception is recommended by the provider and approved by the CCM”
Location	Remain at the residence “at all times except when he is at work, when traveling to and from work or when engaging in other approved activities”
Drug and alcohol testing	“Drug and alcohol testing and counseling requirements shall apply to inmates on home confinement”
Telephone	Maintain a home telephone “without ‘call forwarding’, a modem, ‘Caller ID’ or portable cordless telephones”; the provider reviews the monthly bill to confirm payment and that no prohibited service is active
Contact — no electronic monitoring	Staff telephone the person at random hours daily; visit the home and the workplace at least weekly; the person returns to the facility at least twice weekly for reviews, counseling and urine testing
Contact — with 24/7 monitoring	At least one in-person contact per week, with at least one contact each month at the residence and one at the workplace
Subsistence	None. “Home confinement residents are not required to pay subsistence” — § 8(c)(2), as amended 1 August 2016
Medical costs	The person’s own responsibility; if unable or unwilling, they “may be returned to a federal institution for evaluation and possible treatment”
Meals, clothing, laundry	The provider is not required to supply them
Escape exposure	Failing “to remain at the specified location may be considered an escapee”
Earning less restriction	“The provider’s plan may include some opportunity for the offender to earn a reduction in the hours during which activity is restricted”

Conditions can be relaxed. PS 7320.01 § 10 allows the CCM, after consulting the provider and the U.S. Probation Office, to modify the contact requirements — typically where “distance or travel time make it impractical,” or where the person “has successfully demonstrated the ability and willingness to conform to all program requirements for a reasonable period (ordinarily two weeks minimum).” The floor: absent continuously signaling monitors, “the home confinement monitor must initiate telephone contact with the inmate no less than once each day at random times of the day.”

Violations

PS 7320.01 § 9 requires the CCM to ensure each provider “develops a system for handling violations of program rules which meets the ‘due process’ criteria of Wolff v. McDonnell,” with provisions for minor infractions and for “major violations that could result in the inmate’s termination from the program.” Every violation must be reported to the CCM within 24 hours.

That is BOP policy expressly importing Wolff‘s protections — advance written notice, a written statement of the evidence relied on and the reasons, and a qualified right to call witnesses — into the home confinement setting. Where a termination happened without them, the policy itself is the argument.

A return to custody also resets other things. PS 5410.01 CN-2 provides that “[i]f an inmate is removed from prerelease custody for a violation, and is returned to a BOP institution, the inmate’s recidivism risk level will be reassessed,” and that projected time credits “may be adjusted depending on any failure to remain in earning status.” Loss of good conduct time requires a Discipline Hearing Officer, and the appeal route is on our bop sentence computation page.

The CARES Act era, dated correctly

Section 12003(b)(2) of the CARES Act let the Director of the Bureau of Prisons lengthen home confinement beyond the § 3624(c)(2) limits when the Attorney General found that emergency conditions would materially affect the Bureau’s functioning. Tens of thousands of people were placed on home confinement under it.

The authority was always time-bound. The Justice Department’s final rule, published at 88 FR 19830 on 4 April 2023, records that § 12003(b)(2) “authorizes the Director to place inmates in home confinement, notwithstanding the time limits set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3624(c)(2), during and for 30 days after the termination of the national emergency declaration.”

What that rule settled was a different question: whether people already at home had to go back. The Office of Legal Counsel “concluded that section 12003(b)(2) does not require the Bureau to return to secure custody inmates in CARES Act home confinement following the end of the covered emergency period,” and the rule gave the Director discretion to let them stay.

The result is codified at 28 C.F.R. § 0.96(u), effective 4 May 2023 and still the current text:

“(1) During the ‘covered emergency period’ as defined by the CARES Act, when the Attorney General determines that emergency conditions will materially affect the functioning of the Bureau of Prisons, lengthening the maximum amount of time for which the Director is authorized to place a prisoner in home confinement under 18 U.S.C. 3624(c)(2)…

(2) After the expiration of the ‘covered emergency period’… permitting any prisoner placed in home confinement under the CARES Act who is not yet otherwise eligible for home confinement under separate statutory authority to remain in home confinement under the CARES Act for the remainder of the prisoner’s sentence, as the Director determines appropriate, provided the prisoner is compliant with all conditions of supervision…

(3) This paragraph (u) concerns only inmates placed in home confinement under the CARES Act. It has no effect on any other inmate, including those placed in home confinement under separate statutory authorities.”

BOP announced the same position on 5 April 2023, reporting that then-Director Colette Peters had instructed Residential Reentry Managers “that any individual placed on home confinement under the CARES Act will remain on home confinement under the CARES Act for the remainder of their sentence, provided that they are compliant with the rules and regulations of community placement.”

So, plainly: nobody is being placed on CARES Act home confinement today. People placed during the covered emergency period may still be on it. If a page tells you to ask about CARES Act home confinement as a route out, that page is several years out of date. The live authorities are § 3624(c)(2), § 3624(g) — the first step act time credits provision — and, subject to the caveat below, the elderly offender pilot.

The elderly and terminally ill pilot

34 U.S.C. § 60541(g), reauthorised and modified by the First Step Act, directs the Attorney General to “conduct a pilot program to determine the effectiveness of removing eligible elderly offenders and eligible terminally ill offenders from Bureau of Prisons facilities and placing such offenders on home detention until the expiration of the prison term to which the offender was sentenced.”

Release may follow “upon written request from either the Bureau of Prisons or an eligible elderly offender or eligible terminally ill offender” — meaning the person can ask.

An “eligible elderly offender” must be at least 60 years of age; serving a non-life term for offenses that include no crime of violence, sex offense, terrorism offense under 18 U.S.C. § 2332b(g)(5)(B), or espionage offense under chapter 37; and must have served two-thirds of the term of imprisonment to which the offender was sentenced. They must also have no prior conviction for such an offense, no BOP-determined history of violence or sex offending, no escape or attempted escape, a Bureau determination that release “will result in a substantial net reduction of costs to the Federal Government,” and a determination that they are “at no substantial risk of engaging in criminal conduct or of endangering any person or the public.”

An “eligible terminally ill offender” must meet the same offense and history criteria and be “determined by a medical doctor approved by the Bureau of Prisons to be — (I) in need of care at a nursing home, intermediate care facility, or assisted living facility… or (II) diagnosed with a terminal illness.”

Two practical points from BOP’s own First Step Act FAQ. The two-thirds calculation is done on the sentence imposed: “This is calculation does not include the application of Good Conduct Time.” And the placement can be direct: “Inmates approved by the BOP for the Second Chance Act Home Confinement Pilot program provisions of the FSA may be transferred directly from the institution to home confinement. They do not need to release first to an RRC prior to transitioning to home confinement.” The FAQ says to apply “when they are within six months of eligibility (i.e. have served two-thirds of their sentence). Applications made earlier than that date will be returned.”

One thing we must flag rather than smooth over. Section 60541(g)(3) states that the pilot “shall be conducted through Bureau of Prisons facilities designated by the Attorney General as appropriate for the pilot program and shall be carried out during fiscal years 2019 through 2023.” On the face of the statute, that authorized period has passed. As of 2 September 2026, BOP’s public First Step Act FAQ still describes the program as available and gives instructions for applying to it. We report both facts because both are true, and we do not know which way a court would resolve the tension. Anyone relying on this route should raise the question with counsel rather than assume it is settled. The second chance act page covers the pilot’s statutory history in more detail.

What a family can actually do

Almost everything that determines a home confinement placement is documentary, and most of it can be assembled long before the decision.

Verify the residence in writing. The CCM needs written verification covering the address, telephone service without prohibited features, and confirmation that the other adults in the household know about and do not object to the plan. Get that in writing early.

Check the phone line. Call forwarding, a modem line, Caller ID, and cordless handsets are all prohibited under the agreement. This is a mundane thing that delays placements.

Document employment, or document why there is none. Employment is “desirable but not required,” and the policy expressly contemplates placing people who cannot work. What matters is that the file explains the situation rather than leaving a blank.

Plan for medical costs. Residents are responsible for their own medical and dental care, and inability or refusal to cover it can mean return to an institution. Evidence of insurance or a payment plan belongs in the packet.

Ask about the referral timeline. Under PS 5410.01 CN-2, RRC and home confinement referrals go to the Residential Reentry Management office “12 months in advance of the inmate’s PRD or at least 60 days prior to the projected RRC/HC placement date, whichever is greater” — and “[t]here is no expectation the RRC/HC placement date will be modified once the referral has been submitted.” Everything useful happens before that packet leaves.

Ask for the PATTERN risk assessment level too. It is the gate on applying credits at all.

Ask for the FCPD. Since October 2025, the FSA Conditional Placement Date is the number BOP itself steers by, and it now combines First Step Act and second chance act time.

If home confinement is denied

Applied Insight — Elizabeth Franklin-Best, Esq., Principal Attorney: Pick the right argument. 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) makes a designation “not reviewable by any court,” and 18 U.S.C. § 3625 removes the Administrative Procedure Act from Bureau determinations under this subchapter. A claim that home confinement was the better call will not survive either. What can survive is a claim that the Bureau never made the individualized determination § 3624(c)(6)(B) requires; that it applied the § 3624(c)(2) limits to a placement that credits under § 3624(g) had already lifted; or that it failed to apply credits the statute says shall be applied. Those are legal errors, not disagreements about judgment, and they are the ones worth building from the first BP-9.

The route is the administrative remedy program at 28 C.F.R. Part 542. Informal resolution and the BP-9 to the Warden within 20 calendar days of the event; BP-10 to the Regional Director within 20 days of the Warden’s signed response; BP-11 to the General Counsel within 30 days of the Regional Director’s. If nobody responds within the allotted time including any extension, § 542.18 permits treating the silence as a denial and moving on.

After exhaustion, the route to court is a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the district of confinement. Timing matters more here than in almost any other area, because the remedy expires with the release date. Our bop sentence computation page sets out the whole sequence.

Working with a federal prison early release lawyer

We work on home confinement placement in every federal district — building release plans that survive verification, correcting the first step act time credits and pattern risk assessment inputs that drive the referral, resolving detainers that block application of credits, and pursuing administrative remedies where a denial rests on something the regulations do not support.

Elizabeth Franklin-Best, P.C. is a boutique federal criminal defense and appellate firm founded in 2019, with offices in Columbia and Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, serving clients nationwide on an intentionally small caseload. Elizabeth Franklin-Best is admitted to the U.S. Supreme Court and twelve of the thirteen U.S. Courts of Appeals, and has handled more than 330 federal proceedings, over 100 of them appeals. Christopher Zoukis, JD, MBA, leads the firm’s federal prison consulting work and is the author of the Federal Prison Handbook.

Placement is discretionary and depends on resources we do not control. We will not promise it.

Schedule a consultation

If a home confinement date is later than the credits support, if a referral has not been made when policy says it should have been, or if a placement was denied for a reason worth examining, we can review the file.

Schedule a consultation with Elizabeth Franklin-Best, P.C. Our practice is nationwide.

For the full map of routes, start at our federal prison early release lawyer hub. For the alternative placement, see residential reentry center. For the treatment program that can shorten a sentence further, rdap eligibility. For what happens after the sentence ends, early termination of supervised release.

Frequently Asked Questions About Federal Home Confinement

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