Archival Notice
This item in our library has been archived due to its date. You have reached this
page though a link from a search engine, a different website, or from a bookmark.
You may find the information on this page to be dated or no longer available. We
are keeping it temporarily available only for archival purposes.
The Federal Bureau of Prisons' Monitoring of Mail for High-Risk Inmates: Report Number I-2006-009
Publication year:
2006
| Cataloged on:
Dec. 04, 2006
ANNOTATION: The effectiveness of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons (BOP) in preventing imprisoned terrorists and other high-risk individuals from continuing their criminal activities through the mail is examined. Sections comprising this report are; background; scope and methodology; results of the review -- the BOP does not read a sufficient amount of inmate mail, the BOP’s capability to translate foreign language mail does not sufficiently support monitoring needs, and intelligence capability to analyze the content of terrorist inmates’ mail is not well developed; additional issues -- the BOP does not monitor a sufficient amount of inmate telephone calls, audio recording of cellblock conversations of SAMs (Special Administrative Measures) inmates occurs at only one institution, the BOP has limited capability to monitor conversations of terrorist and other high-risk inmates during social visits, the BOP does not have a mandatory review process to require that all international terrorist inmates are considered for SAMs upon initial incarceration and after conviction, the FBI’s intelligence gathering on terrorist inmates and information sharing with BOP institutions are inconsistent, and MCC (Metropolitan Correctional Center) New York does not receive adequate information about newly incarcerated terrorist inmates to determine required monitoring; and conclusion. Appendixes include: BOP Programs Statement 5265.11, Policy for Rejecting Inmate Correspondence; job duties of SIS (Special Investigator Supervisor) positions; inmate restrictions and FBI responsibilities related to SAMs; the BOP’s response; OIG’s (Office of the Inspector General) analysis of the BOP’s response; the FBI’s response; and the OIG’s analysis of the FBI’s response.