We analyzed data about formal complaints made by incarcerated people regarding medical care in federal prisons and can only conclude that grievance systems are designed to thwart nearly every one.

by Brian Nam-Sonenstein, March 24, 2026

When incarcerated people face abuse and mistreatment, they can typically file a formal complaint with jail or prison administrators. In federal prisons, the system for resolving these complaints is known as the “Administrative Remedy Program,” but it’s more commonly referred to as a “grievance system” in state prisons and local jails. Grievance systems are supposed to provide incarcerated people with a way to challenge issues they face behind bars — such as inadequate medical care, harassment by corrections officers, or unsanitary living conditions — and (hopefully) receive some kind of relief. In practice, however, incarcerated people who turn to grievance systems are forced to run a gauntlet of rules and regulations just to be heard, and very rarely succeed. This is especially true when it comes to medical complaints: our analysis of a decade of data from the Data Liberation Project finds that, between 2014 and 2024, a startling 98% of medical grievances were rejected for reasons ranging from the bureaucratic (such as using the wrong size sheet of paper) to the substantive (actually being denied on the merits of the complaint). Less than 1% of medical cases ended in a grant of relief.

A functioning grievance system is an important lifeline for incarcerated people, who have very little leverage to affect their circumstances. It’s especially important for health-related matters, given that incarcerated people suffer from illness and disease at rates far exceeding that of the general public, and their access to medical care is highly constrained and notoriously awful. But in the end, a system does what it is designed to do, not what it is intended to do, and the federal grievance system rejects nearly every medical complaint filed by incarcerated people, often for vague or trivial reasons.

In this briefing, we examine the statuses of nearly 66,000 medical grievances from across the Bureau of Prisons to determine what kinds of medical complaints are most common in the federal system and how incarcerated people fare in their pursuit of relief.

The federal prison grievance system is designed to shut down complaints

Major segments of the U.S. population struggle to obtain basic medical care, but incarcerated people face especially challenging barriers and limitations such as the inability to choose doctors, get second opinions, or continue treatments prescribed prior to their incarceration. Conditions are so bad on the inside that since 2000, roughly half of all state prison systems have been court-ordered to improve mental and medical healthcare.

A pie chart showing the outcomes of medical grievances in federal prisons between 2014 to 2024, including that less than 1,000 medical grievances ended in a grant of relief, while nearly 64,000 were rejected, denied, or closed. Our analysis of a decade of data from the Data Liberation Project finds that, between 2014 and 2024, a startling 98% of medical grievances were rejected for reasons ranging from the bureaucratic (such as using the wrong size sheet of paper) to the substantive (actually being denied on the merits of the complaint). Less than 1% of medical cases ended in a grant of relief. See Appendix A for more information.

The sheer volume of correctional healthcare lawsuits reflects how ineffective prison grievance systems are for incarcerated people. After all, grievance systems should help people address their concerns so that neither side has to engage in costly, time-consuming litigation. Instead, grievance systems gatekeep actual opportunities for accountability in the courts.

The federal Bureau of Prisons’ grievance system, in the simplest terms, works like this:

  1. Informal resolution: An incarcerated person must first attempt to resolve their complaint informally by speaking directly to the person with whom they have an issue. As one might imagine, this first hurdle can easily dissuade people from pursuing their complaint for fear of retaliation — especially when that person works for the prison.
  2. Formal resolution: If they can’t informally resolve the issue, an incarcerated person can file a formal complaint with the warden, who is supposed to investigate and respond. To do this, the incarcerated person must overcome tedious administrative hurdles for their complaint to even be considered, including adhering to short deadlines1 and specific requirements like using the correct paper size, attaching the right number of copies, or using the right form (of which there are many).
  3. Appeals: If the warden denies the grievance or fails to resolve it, the incarcerated person can first appeal to the regional office and, if denied or unresolved again, can appeal to the central office.
  4. Lawsuits: Due to restrictions imposed under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, this administrative system must be completely exhausted before an incarcerated person can file a lawsuit in court to compel relief.

So, how far do complaints about medical care make it through this system? Our analysis of federal medical grievance data 2 provides a snapshot (as of May 2024) of the statuses of nearly 66,000 complaints filed between January 2014 and January 2024. 3 At the time the data were exported, nearly one-third (32%) of all medical complaints had been rejected because they were “improperly filed” according to one administrative rule or another; another 51% had been closed upon appeal for administrative reasons. In particular, the dental and mental health grievance categories had the highest rates of these rejections: 78% of dental and 83% of mental health grievances were tossed out for administrative reasons, including cases that had reached the appeals stage.

Cut-rate careThe broken system of “healthcare” behind bars

The data snapshot reveals that just 14% of all medical grievances over the decade made it past these administrative tests only to be denied on the actual merits of the complaint. Here, again, mental health and dental-related categories had the highest percentage (20%) of cases denied relief. Remarkably and disturbingly, zero grievances pertaining to pregnancy, abortion, or childcare in this decade-long dataset were granted relief. Meanwhile, the categories of “other forced medical treatment” and “forced psychotropic medication” had zero cases that were even accepted for consideration.

Contrast this with the victories: Only 1% of cases over the decade had a status indicating they were granted relief. This amounts to a grand total of just 940 cases out of 65,712. While the dataset doesn’t include details on those outcomes, relief is typically specific to the grievance. For example, if a person files a grievance because they were denied a particular medication, they might seek relief in the form of access to that medication.

As one might expect, the most common grievance subjects match what we know about common structural issues with prison healthcare. In terms of raw numbers, the following grievance subjects had the highest numbers of complaints and subsequent denials of relief:

Grievance subjects with the highest number of cases
in which the prison denied relief

To see all case outcomes for each subject, see Appendix B.
Subject category Percentage of all medical grievances Percentage of cases in this category that were denied relief Cases denied relief
Delayed or lack of access to medical care 33% 10% 2,242
Improper or inadequate medical care 17% 14% 1,568
Prescription medication 12% 18% 1,389

Alternatively, we can look at grievance subjects that had the highest proportion of cases in which the prison denied relief. Here, again, we see subjects that match some of the most notorious problems in prison healthcare:

Grievance subjects with the highest proportion of cases
in which the prison denied relief

To see all case outcomes for each subject, see Appendix B.
Subject category Percentage of cases in this category that were denied relief Cases denied relief
Copay issues 35% 350
Psychotropic or other mental health medications 25% 119
Non-medication prescriptions (e.g., walking aids or medical necessity mattresses) 24% 642

Tedious paperwork issues are a leading reason for rejected grievances

As the data show, federal prisons don’t reject most grievances on the merits. Instead, most are rejected because incarcerated people fail to navigate administrative rules for submitting complaints, so their grievances are never actually judged on their merits.

Why are so many complaints rejected on technicalities? Put simply, many of the rules and requirements that govern the grievance process are difficult for incarcerated people to meet. Prison officials control the time and movement of incarcerated people, which can hinder their ability to access the necessary forms and submit complaints to the right person in a timely manner. They also restrict the type and amount of property people can keep in their cells, including writing tools and materials they would need to fill out grievance forms. Add to this the typically lower levels of educational attainment and literacy among incarcerated people compared to the general population, and it becomes obvious that the various confusingly-named forms, rules about single-subject complaints, prohibitions on third-party assistance,4 and other highly specific rules work to thwart most grievances before they’re ever considered on their merits. Other requirements, like requiring attempted informal resolutions as a first step, may sound reasonable in the abstract but can quickly dissuade incarcerated people who might fear retaliation for speaking up, especially in abusive situations. On top of all of this, those filing medical grievances are dealing with unresolved medical issues as they fight to receive basic dignified care.

In the dataset,5 each case can have up to five reasons explaining why it was rejected and/or closed. We tabulated the most common reasons for rejection given across cases to find that:

  • 2 in 5 reasons for rejection pertained to various paperwork issues (such as failing to provide a copy of a particular form, using the wrong size paper, illegible writing or different wordings across forms, failing to write separate appeals for each incident report, or the grievance was filed to the wrong place/person).
  • 1 in 10 reasons claimed the complainant failed to first exhaust all other, informal avenues for resolution.
  • 1 in 12 (8%) reasons pointed to a failure to adhere to time limits for initial complaints and appeals.

The remaining reasons were a mix of withdrawn complaints, repetitive filings, rejections for subjects that are not appealable or “not sensitive issues,” or because the complaint allegedly contained “obscene language.”

Are grievance systems designed to solve problems, or deter lawsuits?

In theory, grievance procedures are an important tool for incarcerated people to pursue fair treatment and defend themselves in a system designed to disempower them. This power is particularly important in the context of medical care, where needs are widespread and urgent, and where failure to meet them can lead to injury, illness, and death. In practice, however, the grievance system is a black hole, a time-waster, and a deterrent to complaining at all. It’s a long and winding maze of rules and technicalities that must be cleared before an incarcerated person can get their complaint to a setting that might actually force a change: the courts.

As we explain in our report, Cut-rate Care, prison healthcare often functions in a similar way, denying and delaying care until the incarcerated person either (1) becomes so frustrated that they give up, (2) pursues their complaint all the way to an improbable success in the courts, or (3) is released or dies. With nearly 100% of medical grievances rejected or denied, it’s hard not to see the federal grievance system as a process designed to block or discourage complaints and lawsuits rather than a meaningful path for relief, protection, or accountability.

At minimum, prison grievance systems should be operated independently, not run by prison administrators,6 and incarcerated individuals’ complaints should carry more weight, be easier to file, and lead to more meaningful and rapidly-delivered relief than they currently do.

Data and Methodology

The data used in this briefing were obtained via the Data Liberation Project. According to the data documentation provided by the Data Liberation Project:

The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP)’s Administrative Remedy Program “allow[s] an inmate to seek formal review of an issue relating to any aspect of his/her own confinement.” BOP tracks those complaints through SENTRY, the agency’s “primary mission support database.”

In October 2022, the Data Liberation Project filed a request to BOP, seeking a copy of all database records stored in SENTRY’s “Administrative Remedy System module.” Through a series of phone calls and emails, BOP indicated that the agency did not have the capacity to export the complete set of requested records, but was able to export a substantial subset of data-points for each case. BOP provided those records to the Data Liberation Project on June 10, 2024.

The raw dataset contains 1,783,999 complaint and appeal filings covering the time period between January 2000 and May 2024. It contains grievances about a range of issues, such as living conditions and work arrangements, in addition to the medical complaints we analyzed.

The dataset provided by the Bureau of Prisons is best understood as a snapshot of case statuses at the time the data were pulled to fulfill the Data Liberation Project’s request. Grievances moving through the federal system are fluid and subject to change. The dataset only provides the most recent status for each case, which eliminates many duplicate records but also prevents us from seeing a historical view of how cases made their journey through the system. Furthermore, some cases may be incompletely represented — for example, if a case’s initial filing(s) were submitted prior to the start date of the dataset and later appealed, only the appeal would appear in the dataset.

Additionally, a given complaint can have multiple entries in the dataset, for example when someone’s case is rejected on a technicality and must be resubmitted. To analyze the data, we deduplicated these cases to isolate entries with the most recent case status update and narrowed the time series to between the years 2014 and 2024.

The data are organized on two levels:

  1. Primary subjects are the general topic (for example, Dental Care).
  2. Secondary subjects are a narrower subset of the primary subject (for example, Dental appliances).

We tabulated the number of cases for each primary and secondary subject and their statuses. There are five case statuses:

  1. Accepted: Grievance was properly filed and will move toward resolution.
  2. Rejected: Grievance was improperly filed or the process was not properly exhausted at lower levels; it’s rejected without consideration of the merits.
  3. Closed – Denied: Requested relief was denied on the merits.
  4. Closed – Granted: Requested relief was granted on the merits.
  5. Closed – Other: The case was closed on appeal.

In addition to case subject categories and statuses, the dataset provides “reason codes” that provide the Bureau of Prisons’ reasoning for particular statuses. Each case can have up to five reason codes. Some entries had blank fields for their reason codes, while others had codes that were too opaque to be meaningful (for example, “see remarks,” “information/explanation only,” and “resubmit appeal”). For our analysis, we aggregated all reason codes across cases and discarded these vague codes to isolate only those that shed some light on the reasoning behind particular decisions.

Read the entire methodology

Appendices

The following data were obtained by the Data Liberation Project following a Freedom of Information Act request for grievance records from the Bureau of Prisons. See their data documentation resources for details and access to the full dataset.

Appendix A: Federal medical grievances by primary subject and status (2014–2024)
Primary subject Case status Number of grievance cases Percent of cases with this status within primary subject Percent of all cases with this status and primary subject
Dental care Accepted 25 1% 0%
Dental care Closed Denied 475 14% 1%
Dental care Closed Granted 78 2% 0%
Dental care Closed Other 1,952 57% 3%
Dental care Rejected 898 26% 1%
Dental total 3,428 5%
Medical treatment – forced Accepted 2 2% 0%
Medical treatment – forced Closed Denied 18 14% 0%
Medical treatment – forced Closed Granted 2 2% 0%
Medical treatment – forced Closed Other 50 38% 0%
Medical treatment – forced Rejected 61 46% 0%
Treatment-forced total 133 0%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Accepted 674 1% 1%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Closed Denied 8,286 14% 13%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Closed Granted 833 1% 1%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Closed Other 30,408 51% 46%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Rejected 19,311 32% 29%
Medical excluding forced total 59,512 91%
Mental health care Accepted 33 1% 0%
Mental health care Closed Denied 533 20% 1%
Mental health care Closed Granted 27 1% 0%
Mental health care Closed Other 988 37% 2%
Mental health care Rejected 1,058 40% 2%
Mental health total 2,639 4%
all records total 65,712

See Appendix A

 

Appendix B: Federal medical grievances by secondary subject and status (2014–2024)
Primary subject Secondary subject Case status Number of grievance cases Percent of cases with this status within secondary subject Percent of all cases with this status and secondary subject
Dental care Dental appliances (braces, bridges, crowns, etc.) Accepted 6 1% 0%
Dental care Dental appliances (braces, bridges, crowns, etc.) Closed Denied 125 16% 0%
Dental care Dental appliances (braces, bridges, crowns, etc.) Closed Granted 19 2% 0%
Dental care Dental appliances (braces, bridges, crowns, etc.) Closed Other 463 58% 1%
Dental care Dental appliances (braces, bridges, crowns, etc.) Rejected 185 23% 0%
total 798 1%
Dental care Dental care – delay or access to Accepted 11 1% 0%
Dental care Dental care – delay or access to Closed Denied 176 12% 0%
Dental care Dental care – delay or access to Closed Granted 37 2% 0%
Dental care Dental care – delay or access to Closed Other 938 62% 1%
Dental care Dental care – delay or access to Rejected 349 23% 1%
total 1,511 2%
Dental care Dental care – improper or inadequate Accepted 6 1% 0%
Dental care Dental care – improper or inadequate Closed Denied 124 16% 0%
Dental care Dental care – improper or inadequate Closed Granted 14 2% 0%
Dental care Dental care – improper or inadequate Closed Other 397 51% 1%
Dental care Dental care – improper or inadequate Rejected 237 30% 0%
total 778 1%
Dental care Other dental matters Accepted 2 1% 0%
Dental care Other dental matters Closed Denied 50 15% 0%
Dental care Other dental matters Closed Granted 8 2% 0%
Dental care Other dental matters Closed Other 154 45% 0%
Dental care Other dental matters Rejected 127 37% 0%
total 341 1%
Medical treatment – forced Forced psychotropic medication Accepted 0 0% 0%
Medical treatment – forced Forced psychotropic medication Closed Denied 1 8% 0%
Medical treatment – forced Forced psychotropic medication Closed Granted 0 0 0%
Medical treatment – forced Forced psychotropic medication Closed Other 3 25% 0%
Medical treatment – forced Forced psychotropic medication Rejected 8 67% 0%
total 12 0%
Medical treatment – forced Hunger strikes and forced feeding Accepted 2 2% 0%
Medical treatment – forced Hunger strikes and forced feeding Closed Denied 11 12% 0%
Medical treatment – forced Hunger strikes and forced feeding Closed Granted 1 1% 0%
Medical treatment – forced Hunger strikes and forced feeding Closed Other 36 39% 0%
Medical treatment – forced Hunger strikes and forced feeding Rejected 42 46% 0%
total 92 0%
Medical treatment – forced Other forced medical treatment Accepted 0 0% 0%
Medical treatment – forced Other forced medical treatment Closed Denied 6 21% 0%
Medical treatment – forced Other forced medical treatment Closed Granted 1 3% 0%
Medical treatment – forced Other forced medical treatment Closed Other 11 38% 0%
Medical treatment – forced Other forced medical treatment Rejected 11 38% 0%
total 29 0%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Consultant referrals, recommendations Accepted 32 1% 0%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Consultant referrals, recommendations Closed Denied 573 18% 1%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Consultant referrals, recommendations Closed Granted 50 2% 0%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Consultant referrals, recommendations Closed Other 1,925 59% 3%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Consultant referrals, recommendations Rejected 693 21% 1%
total 3,273 5%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Medical care – delay or access to Accepted 223 1% 0%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Medical care – delay or access to Closed Denied 2,242 10% 3%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Medical care – delay or access to Closed Granted 322 1% 0%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Medical care – delay or access to Closed Other 11,915 55% 18%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Medical care – delay or access to Rejected 6,942 32% 11%
total 21,644 33%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Medical care – improper or inadequate Accepted 59 1% 0%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Medical care – improper or inadequate Closed Denied 1,568 14% 2%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Medical care – improper or inadequate Closed Granted 86 1% 0%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Medical care – improper or inadequate Closed Other 5,185 48% 8%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Medical care – improper or inadequate Rejected 3,977 37% 6%
total 10,875 17%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Medical matters – copay issues Accepted 6 1% 0%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Medical matters – copay issues Closed Denied 350 35% 1%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Medical matters – copay issues Closed Granted 64 6% 0%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Medical matters – copay issues Closed Other 355 35% 1%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Medical matters – copay issues Rejected 235 23% 0%
total 1,010 2%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Medical records Accepted 20 1% 0%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Medical records Closed Denied 154 8% 0%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Medical records Closed Granted 45 2% 0%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Medical records Closed Other 1,054 57% 2%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Medical records Rejected 570 31% 1%
total 1,843 3%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Medication assisted treatment Accepted 74 8% 0%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Medication assisted treatment Closed Denied 76 8% 0%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Medication assisted treatment Closed Granted 3 0% 0%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Medication assisted treatment Closed Other 495 54% 1%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Medication assisted treatment Rejected 261 29% 0%
total 909 1%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Non-medication prescriptions – bed boards, idles, etc. Accepted 20 1% 0%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Non-medication prescriptions – bed boards, idles, etc. Closed Denied 642 24% 1%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Non-medication prescriptions – bed boards, idles, etc. Closed Granted 69 3% 0%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Non-medication prescriptions – bed boards, idles, etc. Closed Other 1,294 48% 2%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Non-medication prescriptions – bed boards, idles, etc. Rejected 647 24% 1%
total 2,672 4%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Other medical matters Accepted 116 1% 0%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Other medical matters Closed Denied 1,134 13% 2%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Other medical matters Closed Granted 81 1% 0%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Other medical matters Closed Other 3,554 42% 5%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Other medical matters Rejected 3,536 42% 5%
total 8,421 13%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Other women’s medical issues Accepted 2 2% 0%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Other women’s medical issues Closed Denied 12 14% 0%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Other women’s medical issues Closed Granted 3 3% 0%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Other women’s medical issues Closed Other 44 51% 0%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Other women’s medical issues Rejected 26 30% 0%
total 87 0%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Pregnancy, abortion, childbirth Accepted 1 5% 0%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Pregnancy, abortion, childbirth Closed Denied 1 5% 0%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Pregnancy, abortion, childbirth Closed Granted 0 0% 0%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Pregnancy, abortion, childbirth Closed Other 14 64% 0%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Pregnancy, abortion, childbirth Rejected 6 27% 0%
total 22 0%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Prescriptions, medication Accepted 98 1% 0%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Prescriptions, medication Closed Denied 1,389 18% 2%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Prescriptions, medication Closed Granted 99 1% 0%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Prescriptions, medication Closed Other 4,022 52% 6%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Prescriptions, medication Rejected 2,068 27% 3%
total 7,676 12%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Sick call procedures Accepted 12 2% 0%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Sick call procedures Closed Denied 72 12% 0%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Sick call procedures Closed Granted 2 0% 0%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Sick call procedures Closed Other 328 54% 0%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Sick call procedures Rejected 196 32% 0%
total 610 1%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Transgender concerns/issues Accepted 11 2% 0%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Transgender concerns/issues Closed Denied 73 16% 0%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Transgender concerns/issues Closed Granted 9 2% 0%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Transgender concerns/issues Closed Other 223 47% 0%
Medical – excluding forced treatment Transgender concerns/issues Rejected 154 33% 0%
total 470 1%
Mental health care Mental health treatment – delay or access to Accepted 12 1% 0%
Mental health care Mental health treatment – delay or access to Closed Denied 216 19% 0%
Mental health care Mental health treatment – delay or access to Closed Granted 12 1% 0%
Mental health care Mental health treatment – delay or access to Closed Other 455 40% 1%
Mental health care Mental health treatment – delay or access to Rejected 435 38% 1%
total 1,130 2%
Mental health care Other mental health matters Accepted 18 2% 0%
Mental health care Other mental health matters Closed Denied 198 19% 0%
Mental health care Other mental health matters Closed Granted 11 1% 0%
Mental health care Other mental health matters Closed Other 358 35% 1%
Mental health care Other mental health matters Rejected 445 43% 1%
total 1,030 2%
Mental health care Psychotropic or other mental health medications Accepted 3 1% 0%
Mental health care Psychotropic or other mental health medications Closed Denied 119 25% 0%
Mental health care Psychotropic or other mental health medications Closed Granted 4 1% 0%
Mental health care Psychotropic or other mental health medications Closed Other 175 37% 0%
Mental health care Psychotropic or other mental health medications Rejected 178 37% 0%
total 479 1%

See Appendix B

 

Appendix C: Reasons given for rejecting federal medical grievances (2014–2024)
Reason for rejection Number of times reason appeared Percent of all reasons given
Request or appeal denied substantially in full. 18,295 24%
You did not attempt informal resolution prior to submission of administrative remedy, or you did not provide the necessary evidence of your attempt at informal resolution. 6,926 9%
You did not provide a copy of your institution administrative remedy request (BP-9), or a receipt, or you did not provide a verified photocopy. 5,795 8%
You must first file a BP-9 request through the institution for the warden’s review and response before filing an appeal at this level. 4,457 6%
Withdrawn at inmate’s request. 4,444 6%
You submitted your request or appeal to the wrong level or wrong office. 3,749 5%
Concur with rationale of regional office and/or institution for rejection. Follow directions provided on prior rejection notices. 2,599 3%
Your appeal is untimely. Regional appeals must be received within 20 days of the warden’s or CCM’s response. This time limit includes mail time. 2,479 3%
Your request is untimely. Institution and CCC requests must be received within 20 days of the event complained about. 2,359 3%
All four pages of your (BP-9) (BP-10) (BP-11) form must be legible and worded the same. Photocopies of the form will not be accepted. 2,305 3%
The issue you raise is not a sensitive issue. Your request/appeal is not being returned to you in accordance with policy. 2,131 3%
You may only submit up to one letter-size (8 1/2″ x 11″) continuation page. 2,026 3%
Provide staff verification stating reason untimely filing was not your fault. 1,999 3%
You must provide more specific information about your request/appeal so that it may be considered. 1,984 3%
You did not submit your request or appeal on the proper form (BP-9, BP-10, BP-11). 1,790 2%
You did not sign your request or appeal. 1,610 2%
You are appealing more than one incident report (incident number) on a single appeal form. You must file a separate appeal for each incident report (incident number) you wish to appeal. 1,369 2%
You did not submit the proper number of continuation pages. You must submit one copy at the warden’s level; two copies at the regional director’s level; and three copies at the central office level. 1,303 2%
You did not submit your request through your counselor, or other authorized person. 1,227 2%
You did not provide a copy of the regional appeal, or a receipt, or you did not provide a verified photocopy. 1,166 2%
Tequest or appeal denied as repetitive of previous filing. 931 1%
You did not submit a complete set (4 carbonized copies) of the request or appeal form. 902 1%
Request or appeal granted substantially in full. 859 1%
You did not submit the correct number of copies of the attachments (new documentation not considered by lower levels). 2 at institution; 3 at region; and 4 at central office. 612 1%
Your appeal is untimely. Central office appeals must be received within 30 days of the regional director’s response. This time limit includes mail time. 598 1%
Request or appeal partially granted. 537 1%
Your appeal of the rejection is untimely. Resubmissions are due within: 5 days (institution); 10 days (CCM or regional office); 15 days (central office). Submit staff memo on BOP letterhead stating reason untimely filing wasn’t your fault. 407 1%
Your issue is not appealable to the BOP. You must use the grievance procedures at your facility. 374 0%
Other 342 0%
Request or appeal is moot. 138 0%
You did not provide a copy of the attachment(s) to your institution administrative remedy request (BP-9). 115 0%
Your request contains gratuitous obscene or abusive language. 101 0%
Due to your allegations, your appeal is being forwarded to another department for review; however, your appeal was retained in accordance with policy. 79 0%
You may request staff assistance in preparing your request or appeal in english. 38 0%
Request or appeal previously granted. 14 0%
You did not provide a copy of the DHO report; or you did not otherwise identify the charges and date of the DHO action you are appealing. 14 0%
You did not provide a copy of the attachment(s) to your regional appeal. 6 0%
total 76,080 100%

See Appendix C

Footnotes

  1. In the federal system, the timeframes for incarcerated peoples’ filings and appeals are as follows:

    1. Initial filing: 20 days from incident
    2. Regional appeal: 20 days from warden’s response
    3. Central office appeal: 20 days from regional response

    There is one exception in the federal system, which is sexual abuse. According to policy, grievances pertaining to such conduct can be filed at any time after it occurs (though other time limits remain in place).  ↩

  2. See the appendices for a full accounting of federal medical grievances  ↩

  3. It’s important to note that these figures are specific to the moment the data was pulled by the Bureau of Prisons on behalf of the Data Liberation Project. Given the fluid nature of prison grievance systems, a specific complaint can have different statuses at different points in time. For example, a medical grievance could initially have a status of “rejected” due to a paperwork issue, but later have a status of “approved” once the complainant updated and refiled their grievance. This is what we mean when we say the data provided is only a “snapshot” — our analysis reflects case statuses as they were captured at the moment the federal Bureau of Prisons exported their database. See the methodology for more information.  ↩

  4. Unlike many other prison systems, the BOP does allow third party support in the preparation of grievances.  ↩

  5. See Appendix C for a full accounting of reason codes for rejecting federal medical grievances.  ↩

  6. In the federal system, the grievance system is operated by prison administrators at various levels. Grievance systems in state prisons, however, are operated in a variety of ways. In New York, for example, grievances are reviewed by a committee that includes incarcerated people and staff. Regardless, having people who work for the prison judge complaints against other people who work for the prison is a conflict of interest.  ↩

See all footnotes

SB 503 would include people in their early 20s in important sentencing and parole provisions that consider age and maturity.

by Sarah Staudt, March 24, 2026

On March 18, 2026, the Prison Policy Initiative submitted written testimony in the Connecticut Legislature in support of SB 503, “An Act concerning the sentencing of and parole eligibility for individuals whose offense was committed when such individual was under the age of twenty-six years.”

This bill extends important parole eligibility and sentencing provisions that apply to people who were under 21 at the time of their offense to people who were under 26, reflecting scientific research that shows that brain development continues during people’s early 20s.

If you are a criminal legal system reform advocate or legislator who would like to talk to our Advocacy department about providing testimony for a bill, please reach out to us using our contact form.

Alpha will work with the Prison Policy Initiative team to create social videos that expose the harms of mass incarceration in America.

by Regan Huston, March 18, 2026

Alpha Jalloh

Prison Policy Initiative is excited to announce that Alpha Jalloh will join us as our first Creator-in-Residence.

With more Americans turning to social video content for their news and information, the Prison Policy Initiative created this residency to empower and support creators producing videos that expose the harms of the carceral system. For the next four months, Alpha will produce videos that break down complex problems in the U.S. criminal legal system, with the Prison Policy Initiative providing data and research support.

Alpha is a filmmaker, educator, and policy-focused storyteller whose work explores incarceration, surveillance, and structural inequality. Formerly incarcerated, he is an alumnus of the Yale Prison Education Initiative and now a double major in Political Science and American Studies at Yale University, Class of 2029, while serving as president of the Yale Undergraduate Prison Project. Previously, he was a Justice Through Code Fellow at Columbia University and an Education Fellow with the Bard Prison Initiative, and he worked as a career specialist at a New Haven nonprofit supporting people navigating reentry and employment.

Videos will be published as collaborative posts on both his and the Prison Policy Initiative social media accounts. Be sure to follow Alpha on Instagram and TikTok. And also follow Prison Policy Initiative on Instagram and TikTok.

We hope this residency uplifts and grows the ranks of creators producing content about the harms of mass incarceration in the U.S.

SB 497 would change Connecticut law to allow people on probation to access Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits even if they have a probation violation.

by Sarah Staudt, March 17, 2026

On March 17, 2026, the Prison Policy Initiative submitted written testimony in the Connecticut Legislature in support of SB 497, “An Act Protecting Food Security for Veterans and Others and Mitigating Federal Cuts to Nutritional Assistance”. In particular, our testimony focused on improving a section of Connecticut law that denies Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits to people who have probation violations.

This bill removes the requirement that someone be “satisfactorily” serving a sentence of probation in order to receive nutrition assistance. It also requires that SNAP application forms to remove references to probation violations, so that people are not deterred from applying for benefits because they are afraid their probation status will exclude them.

If you are a criminal legal system reform advocate or legislator who would like to talk to our Advocacy department about providing testimony for a bill, please reach out to us using our contact form.

The increase in the number of people behind bars since last year's report is almost entirely attributable to immigration enforcement.

March 11, 2026

The number of people held in ICE detention on any given day grew 58% between 2025 and 2026, increasing the total number of people behind bars in the U.S., a new report shows. The latest edition of the Prison Policy Initiative’s report Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie — which pieces together the most recent data on different confinement systems to provide the big-picture view of incarceration in this country — shows that the rise in immigration detention has driven up overall incarceration numbers.

Key findings from this year’s report include:

  • Across all federal agencies for which data are available, including the federal Bureau of Prisons, the U.S. Marshals Service, and the Office of Refugee Resettlement (which holds unaccompanied migrant children), the number of people behind bars for immigration reasons increased 32% since last year.
  • The number of people detained by ICE grew by 25,200 (58%) since last year, remaining near record-high levels.
  • In 2024 (the most recent year for which data are available), people held under local jurisdiction in city, county, and regional jails fell by 17,000.
  • Nearly 10,000 fewer people were incarcerated for federal crimes in 2026 compared to 2025, reflecting changes in federal law enforcement priorities and clemency actions under the second Trump administration.

“Even as we see the number of people in prisons and jails hold relatively steady, immigration detention has exploded,” said report co-author Wendy Sawyer. “What’s more, the number of facilities holding people for ICE grew by 65 percent in the last year. President Trump’s cruel and wasteful policies of mass detention are not only driving up the number of incarcerated people; they are expanding the carceral landscape in this country.”

As in every edition of this report, 2026’s Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie includes sections putting incarceration numbers in important context:

  • A “myth-busting” section addressing ten common misconceptions about mass incarceration and crime, including the impacts of immigration and criminal justice reform on crime and the footprint of the “war on drugs”;
  • Sections taking a closer look at specific sections of the “pie” chart, and explaining how even low-level offenses can spiral into time spent behind bars;
  • A section “zooming out” to show that when systems of community-based punishment — mainly, probation and parole — are included, the total number of people under correctional control grows to over 5 million.
  • Insights about the fiscal costs of mass incarceration, which now total $445 billion per year.

The full report is available at https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2026.html.

Bills in Congress that repeal bail reform, worsen mandatory minimums, and further criminalize youth threaten to undo decades of criminal legal system reform in D.C.

by Sarah Staudt, March 4, 2026

Because it is not a state, Washington D.C.’s criminal legal system operates in a uniquely vulnerable situation. Although historically, D.C. has largely developed and enforced its own laws regarding pretrial practices and sentencing, the federal government retains the ultimate statutory authority to change D.C.’s laws unilaterally, without the input of the people who live there. Recently, about a dozen bills targeting D.C.’s justice system have moved through federal House committees, and several have passed the House. These bills seek to undo decades of successful reform in D.C. and return its justice system to failed 90s-style tough on crime policies that are widely disfavored by D.C. residents.

Federal officials target D.C.’s criminal legal system because for the most part, they don’t have the ability to set local criminal justice policy in states. As the Trump administration and conservatives in Congress seek to turn back the clock on decades of successful criminal legal system reform, D.C. provides a window into which parts of the system are likely to be targeted by conservative forces in the future, including in state legislatures where these kinds of policy changes could impact millions of people.

In this piece, we’ll examine three of the efforts to change D.C.’s criminal legal system: threats to bail reform, reinstatement of mandatory minimums, and efforts to treat more youth as adults. We also take a look at similar efforts in various state legislatures to roll back reforms. The collective impact of these proposed policy changes would be to expand jail and prison populations, along with racial disparities, without any public safety benefit.

Pretrial practices: returning to an ineffective cash bail system

The “District of Columbia Cash Bail Reform Act of 2025” (or HR 5214) would undo one of the most successful and unusual aspects of D.C.’s criminal legal system: the fact that it does not use cash bail. D.C. virtually eliminated the use of cash bail in an overhaul of its criminal system in 1992. Since then, it has replaced cash bail with a risk-based detention system, in which a pretrial services agency assesses a person’s risk level and makes a recommendation regarding release to a judge, who then decides if the person should be released pretrial. HR 5214 would require mandatory pretrial detention for certain crimes, and would require the use of cash bail for others — most notably for various “public safety or order crimes” often associated with protest arrests, like obstruction of justice, rioting, and destruction of property.

D.C.’s current risk-based pretrial system is atypical but successful. Similar systems are in place in the federal courts and New Jersey, which also rarely use cash bail, and Illinois has completely eliminated cash from its pretrial system. In fiscal year 2025, 89% of people charged with crimes were released without cash bail (the remainder were mostly held in D.C.’s jail without the ability to pay to be released). Of the people released, 88% were not re-arrested during their pretrial period and 88% attended all their court dates. Only 0.5% of people were re-arrested for a violent crime. These outcomes hold true even when people charged with violent crimes are released; in 2025, only 9 people initially released for a violent crime were then re-arrested for a new violent crime while on pretrial release.

Pie chart showing 88% of people awaiting trial in D.C. remained arrest-free after their release from jail.

There is no evidence that using cash bail improves public safety or promotes appearance in court. States and municipalities that have eliminated or reduced their use of cash bail have seen their crime rates stay steady or fall, and have not seen a rise in failures to appear. Cash bail causes people to be jailed unnecessarily, which likely reduces public safety in the long run, since jailing someone for any length of time makes it more likely that they will be rearrested in the future.

The federal government has no power to force states and municipalities to use cash bail the way it can in D.C. However, state legislatures around the country have shown a willingness to entrench the failed system of cash bail into their criminal legal systems. Ohio and Wisconsin have both enshrined the use of cash bail in their state constitutions in recent years, despite the lack of evidence that cash bail does anything to ensure public safety. And around the country, states have attacked charitable bail funds, making it harder for poor people to pay cash bonds.

Advocates facing campaigns to reinstate cash bail can focus on some key points. First, bail reform isn’t driving crime in the states that have eliminated cash bail. Violent crime in Illinois fell 7% and property crime declined 14% after reforms. In New Jersey, violent crime dropped 20% after reforms and court appearance rates remained high. Nationwide studies have found no link between bail reform and rises in crime. Second, Money bail does immense harm to communities. There is no evidence that money bail reduces re-arrest or failure to appear rates. Meanwhile, it extracts money from poor communities while primarily benefitting a $2 billion private bail bonds industry.

Mandatory minimums: resurrecting failed “tough-on-crime” policies

The “Strong Sentences for Safer D.C. Streets Act of 2025” (or HR 5172) would impose a range of mandatory sentences that had previously been removed from D.C.’s criminal legal system. It would require mandatory life without parole sentences for first degree murder, and would remove a provision of D.C. law that prohibits the use of life without parole sentences for juveniles. It also establishes mandatory minimums of at least seven years for a range of serious charges. D.C. already has harsh sentencing structures, and 1 in 5 sentences imposed in D.C. is a mandatory minimum.

More than 30 years of evidence has shown that mandatory minimums do not improve public safety. They fail to reduce crime, gun possession, drug use, or overdoses. They also intensify racial disparities. Mandatory minimum sentences remove a judge’s discretion to consider the individual facts and circumstances of each crime when setting a sentence. By doing so, they place more power in the hands of prosecutors, who can make initial charging decisions that carry mandatory minimums, coercing accused people into pleading guilty. This power imbalance has been shown to result in longer sentences for Black people because they are more likely than white people to be charged with mandatory minimum crimes.

Although efforts around the country to reinstate or extend mandatory minimums are being challenged by organizations like Families Against Mandatory Minimums, some states have recently passed sentencing reforms that have the same effect, requiring that people spend longer in prison. Arkansas, Louisiana, and Tennessee have all enacted punitive “truth in sentencing” laws that are projected to massively grow their prison populations and likely require billions in new spending. Louisiana did so in conjunction with ending parole for most people, vastly extending the amount of time people are likely to spend in prison in the state.

Advocates facing efforts to lengthen sentences are sometimes in a difficult position because the crimes being targeted for longer sentences are often particularly heinous. But they can remind lawmakers that mandatory minimums don’t work, and that they also create a massive waste of government resources imprisoning people who judges did not want to sentence to such long sentences. “Fiscal notes” — analyses of potential criminal legal reform bills’ monetary impact, usually conducted by legislative analysts within the government — regularly conclude that efforts to expand mandatory minimums cost millions. In addition, victims of crime by and large do not support long sentences: a nationwide survey of crime survivors conducted by the Alliance for Safety and Justice found that only 16% agreed with the statement, “When there are longer prison sentences, crime goes down.”

Ignoring science and common sense: treating youth as adults

Crime committed by children and youth is at historic lows in D.C. and elsewhere in the country. Nonetheless, the U.S. House and Senate have advanced a set of three bills that would harshen penalties for youth in D.C., treating more of them as adults:

  • HR 5140 would “lower the age” that a minor may be tried as an adult, from 15 or 16 for serious cases to 14 years of age.
  • S 2815 would repeal D.C.’s youth-focused “Second Look” provision, which allows reconsideration of sentences for people who committed crimes before age 25 after they have been in prison for 15 years.
  • HR 4922 would remove requirements to consider alternatives to incarceration, consider youth brain development in sentencing, and seal records for people between 18 and 24 years old.

Jeanine Pirro, a close Trump ally and the current U.S. Attorney for D.C., defended these laws, claiming, “I know evil when I see it, no matter the age.” This language harkens back to damaging “super predator” rhetoric from the 1990s, which falsely painted the picture of youth — particularly Black youth — who were irredeemably evil or callous toward human life.

These depictions of youth who commit crime are no more true now than they were three decades ago. On the contrary, both common sense and neuroscience show that brain immaturity is the primary driver of delinquent behavior; as people age and their brains mature, their likelihood of committing crime declines. Most youth (63%) who enter the justice system for delinquency never return to court on delinquency charges. Even among youth charged with serious crimes, research shows that only 9% continued to commit serious offenses over the next three years. Incarceration creates a roadblock to outgrowing delinquency, holding youth back from maturing psychologically and making it more likely that children will be rearrested in the future.

The efforts to roll back D.C.’s youth-focused reforms are not unique. Despite youth crime being at all-time lows, Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry called a special legislative session to deal with “out of control” youth crime. It resulted in the repeal of Louisiana’s 2019 “raise the age” law, essentially reverting to the state’s previous practice of treating all 17 year olds as adults, regardless of how minor their charges were. North Carolina also repealed its “raise the age” law and now treats all 16 year olds as adults, despite state-sponsored reports that found that raising the age had not raised recidivism rates.

What is happening in D.C. is relevant to the whole country. Even as state criminal legal systems stay relatively insulated from the policy directives of the Trump administration, the situation in D.C. can give state-level advocates some sobering clues about the full scope of the conservative agenda to roll back decades of successful criminal legal system reforms. We hope that advocates will put pressure on their own congresspeople and senators to resist these harmful changes.

  — Blog Archives —  


Stay Informed


Get the latest updates:



Share on 𝕏 Donate