Over the years, federal prison camps have evolved, but chronic staffing shortages, insufficient funding for facility repairs, and limited programming have made life inside increasingly challenging. These camps, the least restrictive within the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), are paradoxically among the most expensive to operate. The BOP recently announced the closure of seven prison camps, yet there are strong arguments for shutting down more. One viable alternative is expanding prerelease custody—such as halfway houses and home confinement—which provides greater oversight of minimum-security prisoners while significantly reducing costs.
Minimal Security at Federal Prison Camps
The Allenwood Federal Prison Camp was once dubbed a “country club” for federal inmates, in part due to a nearby road sign pointing toward a golf course. While the golf course was not part of the prison, the nickname stuck, fueled by the presence of high-profile white-collar criminals like G. Gordon Liddy of the Watergate scandal. Allenwood closed in 2005, but its legacy underscores a longstanding reality: federal prison camps operate with minimal security.
Unlike higher-security prisons, many camps lack perimeter fencing or have fences that are neither patrolled nor closely monitored. The front lobby gate is often unlocked, and prisoners routinely leave the facility for assigned jobs. At camps like FPC Pensacola and FPC Montgomery, located on military bases, inmates work across the base performing tasks for both the prison and the base. Some camps even have a position known as the”Town Driver”—a prisoner assigned to transport other inmates to medical appointments, bus stations, or even hardware stores for supplies.
The Rising Contraband Crisis
Contraband, particularly cell phones, is rampant in prison camps. While violence and gang activity dominate higher-security prisons, cell phone smuggling has become the most severe disciplinary issue in camps. These phones facilitate unmonitored communication, internet access, and even entertainment.
Initially, the BOP responded by imposing harsh penalties—confiscating phones, placing violators in solitary confinement, and transferring them to higher-security facilities. However, as violations surged, enforcement weakened. Today, many prisoners caught with phones simply lose Good Conduct Time—days deducted from their sentence for good behavior—before finding another phone.
Corrections officers, already stretched thin, struggle to control the flow of contraband. With just one or two officers overseeing 200-300 inmates, enforcement is sporadic. Other prison staff—secretaries, chaplains, and food service workers—can issue disciplinary infractions, but it is correctional officers who bear the brunt of enforcement. Shakedowns often result in prisoners’ belongings being scattered or confiscated, leading to further resentment and fueling the cycle of contraband smuggling.
Corrections Officers Are Outnumbered
Preventing contraband in camps is nearly impossible. Daily warehouse deliveries, off-site work assignments, and corrupt staff all provide avenues for smuggling. The most coveted item? Cell phones.
Phones are not just a luxury; they are a necessity for prisoners seeking contact with family, legal resources, and even business opportunities. Each camp has an underground system for distributing phones, with strict usage rules. Phones are often rented in shifts, with premium pricing for weekends and holidays. Prisoners purchase SIM cards, pay “rental fees” via CashApp, and even fund a network of “lookouts” who warn of approaching officers. This illicit business generates tens of thousands of dollars per month, enriching a small group of inmates while keeping phones in circulation.
If a prisoner is caught with a phone, they are required to purchase a replacement for the supplier—further perpetuating the cycle. Many prisoners accept this risk, considering cell phone access essential for surviving their sentence.
Disciplinary Infractions Extend Sentences
Rule violations carry consequences, ranging from restricted visitation and commissary access to the loss of Good Conduct Time—which can significantly extend a prison sentence.
By law, prisoners can earn 54 days off per year for good behavior. However, each cell phone violation typically results in the loss of 27 days—meaning thousands of infractions across the BOP translate to tens of thousands of additional days of incarceration and millions in extra taxpayer costs.
Recently, Savannah Chrisley, a social media influencer and podcaster with 2.5 million Instagram followers, highlighted the cell phone crisis in prison camps. Her father, Todd Chrisley, is serving a 12-year sentence at FPC Pensacola, where, according to her posts, officers are accusing him of running a cell phone operation.
Home Confinement and Halfway Houses: A Better Alternative
Under the Second Chance Act, prisoners can serve up to a year in community-based prerelease custody. However, due to halfway house capacity constraints, few receive the full benefit. The First Step Act allows prisoners with longer sentences to earn even more time in community custody, but the BOP has struggled to implement it effectively.
What is considered contraband inside prison—cell phones, internet access, and even outside food—is permissible in community custody. In halfway houses and home confinement, prisoners can use phones and computers for job searches, housing applications, and maintaining family connections—without violating prison rules or facing additional punishment.
Home confinement Is Not Freedom
Despite misconceptions, home confinement is far from unrestricted living. Prisoners must wear GPS ankle monitors, submit to random identity verification calls, and adhere tostrict curfews.
While work is encouraged, prisoners must report their location when traveling between home and their job. Recreation, vacations, and even casual visits to relatives’ homes areprohibited. The restrictions are rigorous, and any violation often results in an immediate return to prison.
Bipartisan Support For Smarter Incarceration
Both the First Step Act and the Second Chance Act were enacted under Republican administrations with strong bipartisan support. These laws were designed to reduce incarceration costs and reinforce rehabilitation, yet the BOP has been slow to maximize their benefits.
Ironically, the CARES Act, enacted during COVID-19, provided the most effective proof that community-based supervision works. Nearly 50,000 prisoners—many elderly or immunocompromised—were transferred to home confinement, and the program was a success. In December 2025, President Biden commuted the sentences of nearly 1,500 CARES Act prisoners on home confinement, acknowledging the program’s effectiveness.
As the Trump administration, led by Elon Musk as head of the Department of Government Efficiency, faces scrutiny for proposed federal cuts, expanding home confinement could be a politically popular move. Unlike controversial staffing reductions, this policy shift would align with existing bipartisan laws, reduce incarceration costs, and enhance public safety.
Shutting down more prison camps and shifting eligible prisoners to supervised community custody could be one of the most effective—and widely supported—criminal justice reforms in years.
Read the full article here
