When Michael Santos visited the federal prison where I was serving an 60-month sentence for violating securities laws, he spoke about the advocacy of his nonprofit. His message inspired the many people who filled the auditorium with me. Today, we’re seeing the results.
I’m Mike, and two weeks ago, I transitioned from federal prison to a halfway house. I won’t finish serving my sentence until I complete my term in the halfway house, but I’m glad to begin working toward my full reintegration to society. This week, I read a new directive from the BOP’s Central Office. It brings clarity to the new Director’s priority: expanding home confinement under the First Step Act and Second Chance Act. I’m looking forward to watching this roll out, and to benefit from it personally. Equally important, I’m happy to know that thousands of others will benefit from the Director’s mandate.
Earning Freedom
Once I transitioned to the halfway house, I reached out to Prison Professors. I wanted to connect with Michael, ask some questions about steps I could take to navigate the halfway house and home confinement with the least resistance. He invited me to participate in an “Ask-me-Anything” course, and he said that he’d write a lesson plan so that others could learn from his responses to the questions I asked.
Following that video, he offered to help me out with a job.
My task would be to continue implementing the mission of the nonprofit–creating digital content that we could use to teach others. With the new message from the BOP’s Director, this job is more important than ever.
The directive, issued on May 28, 2025, by BOP Director William K. Marshall III, instructs staff to prioritize home confinement for eligible individuals who don’t require the structured support of Residential Reentry Centers (RRCs). If a person has built a record showing that society would get a better result from a person transitioning to home confinement from a halfway house, then the person should transition home.
This makes a lot of sense, at least to me. As Michael frequently writes, the system should focus on the result it wants to achieve. It doesn’t make any sense to keep a person in a halfway house if the halfway house obstructs a person’s ability to recalibrate and function as a law-abiding, tax-paying citizen.
For this reason, each person should work hard to build a pathway to success, and memorialize the ways he is preparing. We offer that opportunity through the website we sponsor:
In an earlier essay Michael wrote for the UC Hastings Law Review, he made an argument for creating mechanisms that would incentivize people who pursue excellence. It surprised me that he published this article ten years ago, long before such policies existed in the Bureau of Prisons. It gives me hope on the power of advocacy. The results can come suddenly, as with the new directive, but years of effort must go into the initiative. Advocacy efforts at Prison Professors bring results that change policies and laws, such as the First Step Act.
Under the First Step Act, people who qualify earn “time credits” through participation in rehabilitative programs. The BOP system should apply those credits to advance release dates for people who earn them through merit. Effectively, they encourage people to work toward earlier transitions to society.
The new Directive instructs staff to push people out of prison and back to home confinement, provided they have built a record that merits the transition. While under home confinement, each person would still have to comply with BOP rules. A case manager would oversee compliance with those rules. If a person misbehaves, the individual would return to prison. It’s a privilege that more people would work toward earning, which goes along with our entire project of “Earning Freedom.”
Statistics show that people who transition to home confinement have a significantly lower recidivism rate compared to the national average. In fact, during the COVID pandemic, the Bureau of Prisons transitioned more than 15,000 people to home confinement. Of all those people, fewer than 25 returned to prison for criminal misconduct—not 25 percent, but 25. That is a recidivism rate of .0017%.
Contrast that fractional recidivism rate with more than 40% of the people who recidivate after being released from a traditional prison setting. As Michael has written, “the longer we expose someone to corrections, the less likely that person is to function in society as a law-abiding citizen.”
My Experience
Prior to going to prison, I had earned multiple university degrees and built a successful career. I made a series of bad decisions that led to my criminal conviction. Yet while serving my sentence, I worked hard to reconcile. I participated in several courses, and did my best to contribute to the community by tutoring others, or teaching classes that I put together. Despite those best efforts, staff members didn’t provide any clear guidance on how or when a person could work toward earning higher levels of liberty, at the soonest possible time.
It seems that this new Directive will change the way staff members communicate with people serving time. Due to the pathway to earn freedom through merit, more people will work toward preparing for success upon release.
With the new Directive, people can work to build a bridge to home confinement. It will lead to lower recidivism rates, and more productive citizens. It’s the result that citizens want and deserve from our prison system.
