U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
OFFICE OF FAIR HOUSING AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY
Washington, D.C.
March 5, 2008

JOINT STATEMENT OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
REASONABLE MODIFICATIONS UNDER THE
FAIR HOUSING ACT
Introduction
The Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (“HUD”) are jointly responsible for enforcing the federal Fair Housing Act1 (the
“Act”), which prohibits discrimination in housing on the basis of race, color, religion, sex,
national origin, familial status, and disability.2 One type of disability discrimination prohibited
by the Act is a refusal to permit, at the expense of the person with a disability, reasonable
modifications of existing premises occupied or to be occupied by such person if such
modifications may be necessary to afford such person full enjoyment of the premises.3 HUD and
DOJ frequently respond to complaints alleging that housing providers have violated the Act by
refusing reasonable modifications to persons with disabilities. This Statement provides technical
assistance regarding the rights and obligations of persons with disabilities and housing providers
under the Act relating to reasonable modifications.4
1

The Fair Housing Act is codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-3619.

2

The Act uses the term “handicap” instead of “disability.” Both terms have the same legal
meaning. See Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624, 631 (1998) (noting that the definition of
“disability” in the Americans with Disabilities Act is drawn almost verbatim “from the definition
of ‘handicap’ contained in the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988”). This document uses
the term “disability,” which is more generally accepted.
3

4

42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(A).

This Statement does not address the principles relating to reasonable accommodations. For
further information see the Joint Statement of the Department of Housing and Urban

This Statement is not intended to provide specific guidance regarding the Act’s design and
construction requirements for multifamily dwellings built for first occupancy after March 13,
1991. Some of the reasonable modifications discussed in this Statement are features of
accessible design that are required for covered multifamily dwellings pursuant to the Act’s
design and construction requirements. As a result, people involved in the design and
construction of multifamily dwellings are advised to consult the Act at 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(c),
the implementing regulations at 24 C.F.R. § 100.205, the Fair Housing Accessibility Guidelines,
and the Fair Housing Act Design Manual. All of these are available on HUD’s website at
www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/disabilities/index.cfm. Additional technical guidance on the design
and construction requirements can also be found on HUD’s website and the Fair Housing
Accessibility FIRST website at: http://www.fairhousingfirst.org.
Questions and Answers
1.

What types of discrimination against persons with disabilities does the Act prohibit?

The Act prohibits housing providers from discriminating against housing applicants or
residents because of their disability or the disability of anyone associated with them and from
treating persons with disabilities less favorably than others because of their disability. The Act
makes it unlawful for any person to refuse “to permit, at the expense of the [disabled] person,
reasonable modifications of existing premises occupied or to be occupied by such person if such
modifications may be necessary to afford such person full enjoyment of the premises, except
that, in the case of a rental, the landlord may where it is reasonable to do so condition permission
for a modification on the renter agreeing to restore the interior of the premises to the condition
that existed before the modification, reasonable wear and tear excepted.”5 The Act also makes it
unlawful for any person to refuse “to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies,
practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford ... person(s) [with
disabilities] equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” The Act also prohibits housing
providers from refusing residency to persons with disabilities, or, with some narrow exceptions6,
Development and the Department of Justice: Reasonable Accommodations Under the Fair
Housing Act, dated May 17, 2004. This Joint Statement is available at
www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/disabilities/index.cfm and
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/jointstatement_ra.htm. See also 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B).
This Statement also does not discuss in depth the obligations of housing providers who are
recipients of federal financial assistance to make and pay for structural changes to units and
common and public areas that are needed as a reasonable accommodation for a person’s
disability. See Question 31.
5

42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(A). HUD regulations pertaining to reasonable modifications may be
found at 24 C.F.R. § 100.203.
6

The Act contemplates certain limits to the receipt of reasonable accommodations or reasonable
modifications. For example, a tenant may be required to deposit money into an interest bearing
2

placing conditions on their residency, because those persons may require reasonable
modifications or reasonable accommodations.
2.

What is a reasonable modification under the Fair Housing Act?

A reasonable modification is a structural change made to existing premises, occupied or
to be occupied by a person with a disability, in order to afford such person full enjoyment of the
premises. Reasonable modifications can include structural changes to interiors and exteriors of
dwellings and to common and public use areas. A request for a reasonable modification may be
made at any time during the tenancy. The Act makes it unlawful for a housing provider or
homeowners’ association to refuse to allow a reasonable modification to the premises when such
a modification may be necessary to afford persons with disabilities full enjoyment of the
premises.
To show that a requested modification may be necessary, there must be an identifiable
relationship, or nexus, between the requested modification and the individual’s disability.
Further, the modification must be “reasonable.” Examples of modifications that typically are
reasonable include widening doorways to make rooms more accessible for persons in
wheelchairs; installing grab bars in bathrooms; lowering kitchen cabinets to a height suitable for
persons in wheelchairs; adding a ramp to make a primary entrance accessible for persons in
wheelchairs; or altering a walkway to provide access to a public or common use area. These
examples of reasonable modifications are not exhaustive.
3.

Who is responsible for the expense of making a reasonable modification?

The Fair Housing Act provides that while the housing provider must permit the
modification, the tenant is responsible for paying the cost of the modification.
4.

Who qualifies as a person with a disability under the Act?

The Act defines a person with a disability to include (1) individuals with a physical or
mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; (2) individuals who
are regarded as having such an impairment; and (3) individuals with a record of such an
impairment.
The term “physical or mental impairment” includes, but is not limited to, such diseases
and conditions as orthopedic, visual, speech and hearing impairments, cerebral palsy, autism,
epilepsy, muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, cancer, heart disease, diabetes, Human
Immunodeficiency Virus infection, mental retardation, emotional illness, drug addiction (other
account to ensure that funds are available to restore the interior of a dwelling to its previous
state. See, e.g., Question 21 below. A reasonable accommodation can be conditioned on meeting
reasonable safety requirements, such as requiring persons who use motorized wheelchairs to
operate them in a manner that does not pose a risk to the safety of others or cause damage to
other persons’ property. See Joint Statement on Reasonable Accommodations, Question 11.
3

than addiction caused by current, illegal use of a controlled substance) and alcoholism.
The term “substantially limits” suggests that the limitation is “significant” or “to a large
degree.”
The term “major life activity” means those activities that are of central importance to
daily life, such as seeing, hearing, walking, breathing, performing manual tasks, caring for one’s
self, learning, and speaking. This list of major life activities is not exhaustive.
5.

Who is entitled to a reasonable modification under the Fair Housing Act?

Persons who meet the Fair Housing Act’s definition of “person with a disability” may be
entitled to a reasonable modification under the Act. However, there must be an identifiable
relationship, or nexus, between the requested modification and the individual’s disability. If no
such nexus exists, then the housing provider may refuse to allow the requested modification.
Example 1: A tenant, whose arthritis impairs the use of her hands and causes her
substantial difficulty in using the doorknobs in her apartment, wishes to replace the doorknobs
with levers. Since there is a relationship between the tenant’s disability and the requested
modification and the modification is reasonable, the housing provider must allow her to make the
modification at the tenant’s expense.
Example 2: A homeowner with a mobility disability asks the condo association to
permit him to change his roofing from shaker shingles to clay tiles and fiberglass shingles
because he alleges that the shingles are less fireproof and put him at greater risk during a fire.
There is no evidence that the shingles permitted by the homeowner’s association provide
inadequate fire protection and the person with the disability has not identified a nexus between
his disability and the need for clay tiles and fiberglass shingles. The homeowner’s association is
not required to permit the homeowner’s modification because the homeowner’s request is not
reasonable and there is no nexus between the request and the disability.
6.
If a disability is not obvious, what kinds of information may a housing provider
request from the person with a disability in support of a requested reasonable
modification?
A housing provider may not ordinarily inquire as to the nature and severity of an
individual’s disability. However, in response to a request for a reasonable modification, a
housing provider may request reliable disability-related information that (1) is necessary to
verify that the person meets the Act’s definition of disability (i.e., has a physical or mental
impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities), (2) describes the needed
modification, and (3) shows the relationship between the person’s disability and the need for the
requested modification. Depending on the individual’s circumstances, information verifying that
the person meets the Act’s definition of disability can usually be provided by the individual
herself (e.g., proof that an individual under 65 years of age receives Supplemental Security
4

Income or Social Security Disability Insurance benefits8 or a credible statement by the
individual). A doctor or other medical professional, a peer support group, a non-medical service
agency, or a reliable third party who is in a position to know about the individual’s disability
may also provide verification of a disability. In most cases, an individual’s medical records or
detailed information about the nature of a person’s disability is not necessary for this inquiry.
Once a housing provider has established that a person meets the Act’s definition of
disability, the provider’s request for documentation should seek only the information that is
necessary to evaluate if the reasonable modification is needed because of a disability. Such
information must be kept confidential and must not be shared with other persons unless they
need the information to make or assess a decision to grant or deny a reasonable modification
request or unless disclosure is required by law (e.g., a court-issued subpoena requiring
disclosure).
7.
What kinds of information, if any, may a housing provider request from a person
with an obvious or known disability who is requesting a reasonable modification?
A housing provider is entitled to obtain information that is necessary to evaluate whether
a requested reasonable modification may be necessary because of a disability. If a person’s
disability is obvious, or otherwise known to the housing provider, and if the need for the
requested modification is also readily apparent or known, then the provider may not request any
additional information about the requester’s disability or the disability-related need for the
modification.
If the requester’s disability is known or readily apparent to the provider, but the need for
the modification is not readily apparent or known, the provider may request only information
that is necessary to evaluate the disability-related need for the modification.
Example 1: An applicant with an obvious mobility impairment who uses a motorized
scooter to move around asks the housing provider to permit her to install a ramp at the entrance
of the apartment building. Since the physical disability (i.e., difficulty walking) and the
disability-related need for the requested modification are both readily apparent, the provider may
not require the applicant to provide any additional information about her disability or the need
for the requested modification.

8

Persons who meet the definition of disability for purposes of receiving Supplemental Security
Income (“SSI”) or Social Security Disability Income (“SSDI”) benefits in most cases meet the
definition of a disability under the Fair Housing Act, although the converse may not be true.
See, e.g., Cleveland v. Policy Management Systems Corp, 526 U.S. 795, 797 (1999) (noting that
SSDI provides benefits to a person with a disability so severe that she is unable to do her
previous work and cannot engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work whereas a person
pursuing an action for disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act may
state a claim that “with a reasonable accommodation” she could perform the essential functions
of the job).
5

Example 2: A deaf tenant asks his housing provider to allow him to install extra
electrical lines and a cable line so the tenant can use computer equipment that helps him
communicate with others. If the tenant’s disability is known, the housing provider may not
require him to document his disability; however, since the need for the electrical and cable lines
may not be apparent, the housing provider may request information that is necessary to support
the disability-related need for the requested modification.
8.
Who must comply with the Fair Housing Act’s reasonable modification
requirements?
Any person or entity engaging in prohibited conduct – i.e., refusing to allow an
individual to make reasonable modifications when such modifications may be necessary to
afford a person with a disability full enjoyment of the premises – may be held liable unless they
fall within an exception to the Act’s coverage. Courts have applied the Act to individuals,
corporations, associations and others involved in the provision of housing and residential
lending, including property owners, housing managers, homeowners and condominium
associations, lenders, real estate agents, and brokerage services. Courts have also applied the
Act to state and local governments, most often in the context of exclusionary zoning or other
land-use decisions. See, e.g., City of Edmonds v. Oxford House, Inc., 514 U.S. 725, 729 (1995);
Project Life v. Glendening, 139 F. Supp. 2d 703, 710 (D. Md. 2001), aff’d, 2002 WL 2012545
(4th Cir. 2002).
9.
What is the difference between a reasonable accommodation and a reasonable
modification under the Fair Housing Act?9
Under the Fair Housing Act, a reasonable modification is a structural change made to the
premises whereas a reasonable accommodation is a change, exception, or adjustment to a rule,
policy, practice, or service. A person with a disability may need either a reasonable
accommodation or a reasonable modification, or both, in order to have an equal opportunity to
use and enjoy a dwelling, including public and common use spaces. Generally, under the Fair
Housing Act, the housing provider is responsible for the costs associated with a reasonable
accommodation unless it is an undue financial and administrative burden, while the tenant or
someone acting on the tenant’s behalf, is responsible for costs associated with a reasonable
modification. See Reasonable Accommodation Statement, Questions 7 and 8.
Example 1: Because of a mobility disability, a tenant wants to install grab bars in the
bathroom. This is a reasonable modification and must be permitted at the tenant’s expense.

9

Housing providers that receive federal financial assistance are also subject to the requirements
of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of l973. 29 U.S.C. § 794. Section 504, and its
implementing regulations at 24 C.F.R. Part 8, prohibit discrimination based on disability, and
obligate housing providers to make and pay for structural changes to facilities, if needed as a
reasonable accommodation for applicants and tenants with disabilities, unless doing so poses an
undue financial and administrative burden. See Question 31.
6

Example 2: Because of a hearing disability, a tenant wishes to install a peephole in her
door so she can see who is at the door before she opens it. This is a reasonable modification and
must be permitted at the tenant’s expense.
Example 3: Because of a mobility disability, a tenant wants to install a ramp outside the
building in a common area. This is a reasonable modification and must be permitted at the
tenant’s expense. See also Questions 19, 20 and 21.
Example 4: Because of a vision disability, a tenant requests permission to have a guide
dog reside with her in her apartment. The housing provider has a “no-pets” policy. This is a
request for a reasonable accommodation, and the housing provider must grant the
accommodation.
10.

Are reasonable modifications restricted to the interior of a dwelling?

No. Reasonable modifications are not limited to the interior of a dwelling. Reasonable
modifications may also be made to public and common use areas such as widening entrances to
fitness centers or laundry rooms, or for changes to exteriors of dwelling units such as installing a
ramp at the entrance to a dwelling.
11.
Is a request for a parking space because of a physical disability a reasonable
accommodation or a reasonable modification?
Courts have treated requests for parking spaces as requests for a reasonable
accommodation and have placed the responsibility for providing the parking space on the
housing provider, even if provision of an accessible or assigned parking space results in some
cost to the provider. For example, courts have required a housing provider to provide an
assigned space even though the housing provider had a policy of not assigning parking spaces or
had a waiting list for available parking. However, housing providers may not require persons
with disabilities to pay extra fees as a condition of receiving accessible parking spaces.
Providing a parking accommodation could include creating signage, repainting markings,
redistributing spaces, or creating curb cuts. This list is not exhaustive.

12.
What if the structural changes being requested by the tenant or applicant are in a
building that is subject to the design and construction requirements of the Fair Housing
Act and the requested structural changes are a feature of accessible design that should
have already existed in the unit or common area, e.g., doorways wide enough to
accommodate a wheelchair, or an accessible entryway to a unit.

7

The Fair Housing Act provides that covered multifamily dwellings built for first
occupancy after March 13, 1991, shall be designed and constructed to meet certain minimum
accessibility and adaptability standards. If any of the structural changes needed by the tenant are
ones that should have been included in the unit or public and common use area when constructed
then the housing provider may be responsible for providing and paying for those requested
structural changes. However, if the requested structural changes are not a feature of accessible
design that should have already existed in the building pursuant to the design and construction
requirements under the Act, then the tenant is responsible for paying for the cost of the structural
changes as a reasonable modification.
Although the design and construction provisions only apply to certain multifamily
dwellings built for first occupancy since 1991, a tenant may request reasonable modifications to
housing built prior to that date. In such cases, the housing provider must allow the
modifications, and the tenant is responsible for paying for the costs under the Fair Housing Act.
For a discussion of the design and construction requirements of the Act, and their
applicability, see HUD’s website at: www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/disabilities/index.cfm and the
Fair Housing Accessibility FIRST website at: http://www.fairhousingfirst.org.
Example 1: A tenant with a disability who uses a wheelchair resides in a ground floor
apartment in a non-elevator building that was built in 1995. Buildings built for first occupancy
after March 13, 1991 are covered by the design and construction requirements of the Fair
Housing Act. Because the building is a non-elevator building, all ground floor units must meet
the minimum accessibility requirements of the Act. The doors in the apartment are not wide
enough for passage using a wheelchair in violation of the design and construction requirements
but can be made so through retrofitting. Under these circumstances, one federal court has held
that the tenant may have a potential claim against the housing provider.
Example 2: A tenant with a disability resides in an apartment in a building that was built
in 1987. The doors in the unit are not wide enough for passage using a wheelchair but can be
made so through retrofitting. If the tenant meets the other requirements for obtaining a
modification, the tenant may widen the doorways, at her own expense.
Example 3: A tenant with a disability resides in an apartment in a building that was built
in 1993 in compliance with the design and construction requirements of the Fair Housing Act.
The tenant wants to install grab bars in the bathroom because of her disability. Provided that the
tenant meets the other requirements for obtaining a modification, the tenant may install the grab
bars at her own expense.
13.
Who is responsible for expenses associated with a reasonable modification, e.g., for
upkeep or maintenance?
The tenant is responsible for upkeep and maintenance of a modification that is used
exclusively by her. If a modification is made to a common area that is normally maintained by
the housing provider, then the housing provider is responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of
the modification. If a modification is made to a common area that is not normally maintained by
8

the housing provider, then the housing provider has no responsibility under the Fair Housing Act
to maintain the modification.
Example 1: Because of a mobility disability, a tenant, at her own expense, installs a lift
inside her unit to allow her access to a second story. She is required to maintain the lift at her
expense because it is not in a common area.
Example 2: Because of a mobility disability, a tenant installs a ramp in the lobby of a
multifamily building at her own expense. The ramp is used by other tenants and the public as
well as the tenant with the disability. The housing provider is responsible for maintaining the
ramp.
Example 3: A tenant leases a detached, single-family home. Because of a mobility
disability, the tenant installs a ramp at the outside entrance to the home. The housing provider
provides no snow removal services, and the lease agreement specifically states that snow
removal is the responsibility of the individual tenant. Under these circumstances, the housing
provider has no responsibility under the Fair Housing Act to remove snow on the tenant’s ramp.
However, if the housing provider normally provides snow removal for the outside of the building
and the common areas, the housing provider is responsible for removing the snow from the ramp
as well.
14.
In addition to current residents, are prospective tenants and buyers of housing
protected by the reasonable modification provisions of the Fair Housing Act?
Yes. A person may make a request for a reasonable modification at any time. An
individual may request a reasonable modification of the dwelling at the time that the potential
tenancy or purchase is discussed. Under the Act, a housing provider cannot deny or restrict
access to housing because a request for a reasonable modification is made. Such conduct would
constitute discrimination. The modification does not have to be made, however, unless it is
reasonable. See Questions 2, 16, 21 and 23.
15.

When and how should an individual request permission to make a modification?

Under the Act, a resident or an applicant for housing makes a reasonable modification
request whenever she makes clear to the housing provider that she is requesting permission to
make a structural change to the premises because of her disability. She should explain that she
has a disability, if not readily apparent or not known to the housing provider, the type of
modification she is requesting, and the relationship between the requested modification and her
disability.
An applicant or resident is not entitled to receive a reasonable modification unless she
requests one. However, the Fair Housing Act does not require that a request be made in a
particular manner or at a particular time. A person with a disability need not personally make
the reasonable modification request; the request can be made by a family member or someone
else who is acting on her behalf. An individual making a reasonable modification request does
9

not need to mention the Act or use the words “reasonable modification.” However, the requester
must make the request in a manner that a reasonable person would understand to be a request for
permission to make a structural change because of a disability.
Although a reasonable modification request can be made orally or in writing, it is usually
helpful for both the resident and the housing provider if the request is made in writing. This will
help prevent misunderstandings regarding what is being requested, or whether the request was
made. To facilitate the processing and consideration of the request, residents or prospective
residents may wish to check with a housing provider in advance to determine if the provider has
a preference regarding the manner in which the request is made. However, housing providers
must give appropriate consideration to reasonable modification requests even if the requester
makes the request orally or does not use the provider's preferred forms or procedures for making
such requests.
16.
Does a person with a disability have to have the housing provider’s approval before
making a reasonable modification to the dwelling?
Yes. A person with a disability must have the housing provider’s approval before
making the modification. However, if the person with a disability meets the requirements under
the Act for a reasonable modification and provides the relevant documents and assurances, the
housing provider cannot deny the request.
17.
What if the housing provider fails to act promptly on a reasonable modification
request?
A provider has an obligation to provide prompt responses to a reasonable modification
request. An undue delay in responding to a reasonable modification request may be deemed a
failure to permit a reasonable modification.
18.
What if the housing provider proposes that the tenant move to a different unit in
lieu of making a proposed modification?
The housing provider cannot insist that a tenant move to a different unit in lieu of
allowing the tenant to make a modification that complies with the requirements for reasonable
modifications. See Questions 2, 21 and 23. Housing providers should be aware that persons
with disabilities typically have the most accurate knowledge regarding the functional limitations
posed by their disability.
Example: As a result of a mobility disability, a tenant requests that he be permitted, at
his expense, to install a ramp so that he can access his apartment using his motorized wheelchair.
The existing entrance to his dwelling is not wheelchair accessible because the route to the front
door requires going up a step. The housing provider proposes that in lieu of installing the ramp,
the tenant move to a different unit in the building. The tenant is not obligated to accept the
alternative proposed by the housing provider, as his request to modify his unit is reasonable and
must be approved.
10

19.
What if the housing provider wants an alternative modification or alternative
design for the proposed modification that does not cost more but that the housing provider
considers more aesthetically pleasing?
In general, the housing provider cannot insist on an alternative modification or an
alternative design if the tenant complies with the requirements for reasonable modifications. See
Questions 2, 21 and 23. If the modification is to the interior of the unit and must be restored to
its original condition when the tenant moves out, then the housing provider cannot require that
its design be used instead of the tenant’s design. However, if the modification is to a common
area or an aspect of the interior of the unit that would not have to be restored because it would
not be reasonable to do so, and if the housing provider’s proposed design imposes no additional
costs and still meets the tenant’s needs, then the modification should be done in accordance with
the housing provider’s design. See Question 24 for a discussion of the restoration requirements.
Example 1: As a result of a mobility disability, a tenant requests that he be permitted, at
his expense, to install a ramp so that he can access his apartment using his motorized wheelchair.
The existing entrance to his dwelling is not wheelchair accessible because the route to the front
door requires going up a step. The housing provider proposes an alternative design for a ramp
but the alternative design costs more and does not meet the tenant’s needs. The tenant is not
obligated to accept the alternative modification, as his request to modify his unit is reasonable
and must be approved.
Example 2: As a result of a mobility disability, a tenant requests permission to widen a
doorway to allow passage with her wheelchair. All of the doorways in the unit are trimmed with
a decorative trim molding that does not cost any more than the standard trim molding. Because
in usual circumstances it would not be reasonable to require that the doorway be restored at the
end of the tenancy, the tenant should use the decorative trim when he widens the doorway.
20.
What if the housing provider wants a more costly design for the requested
modification?
If the housing provider wishes a modification to be made with more costly materials, in
order to satisfy the landlord’s aesthetic standards, the tenant must agree only if the housing
provider pays those additional costs. Further, as discussed in Questions 21 and 23 below,
housing providers may require that the tenant obtain all necessary building permits and may
require that the work be performed in a workmanlike manner. If the housing provider requires
more costly materials be used to satisfy her workmanship preferences beyond the requirements
of the applicable local codes, the tenant must agree only if the housing provider pays for those
additional costs as well. In such a case, however, the housing provider’s design must still meet
the tenant’s needs.
21.
What types of documents and assurances may a housing provider require regarding
the modification before granting the reasonable modification?
11

A housing provider may require that a request for a reasonable modification include a
description of the proposed modification both before changes are made to the dwelling and
before granting the modification. A description of the modification to be made may be provided
to a housing provider either orally or in writing depending on the extent and nature of the
proposed modification. A housing provider may also require that the tenant obtain any building
permits needed to make the modifications, and that the work be performed in a workmanlike
manner.
The regulations implementing the Fair Housing Act state that housing providers
generally cannot impose conditions on a proposed reasonable modification. For example, a
housing provider cannot require that the tenant obtain additional insurance or increase the
security deposit as a condition that must be met before the modification will be allowed.
However, the Preamble to the Final Regulations also indicates that there are some conditions that
can be placed on a tenant requesting a reasonable modification. For example, in certain limited
and narrow circumstances, a housing provider may require that the tenant deposit money into an
interest bearing account to ensure that funds are available to restore the interior of a dwelling to
its previous state, ordinary wear and tear excepted. Imposing conditions not contemplated by the
Fair Housing Act and its implementing regulations may be the same as an illegal refusal to
permit the modification.
22.
May a housing provider or homeowner’s association condition approval of the
requested modification on the requester obtaining special liability insurance?
No. Imposition of such a requirement would constitute a violation of the Fair Housing
Act.
Example: Because of a mobility disability, a tenant wants to install a ramp outside his
unit. The housing provider informs the tenant that the ramp may be installed, but only after the
tenant obtains separate liability insurance for the ramp out of concern for the housing provider’s
potential liability. The housing provider may not impose a requirement of liability insurance as a
condition of approval of the ramp.
23.
Once the housing provider has agreed to a reasonable modification, may she insist
that a particular contractor be used to perform the work?
No. The housing provider cannot insist that a particular contractor do the work. The
housing provider may only require that whoever does the work is reasonably able to complete
the work in a workmanlike manner and obtain all necessary building permits.
24.
If a person with a disability has made reasonable modifications to the interior of the
dwelling, must she restore all of them when she moves out?
The tenant is obligated to restore those portions of the interior of the dwelling to their
previous condition only where “it is reasonable to do so” and where the housing provider has
requested the restoration. The tenant is not responsible for expenses associated with reasonable
12

wear and tear. In general, if the modifications do not affect the housing provider’s or subsequent
tenant’s use or enjoyment of the premises, the tenant cannot be required to restore the
modifications to their prior state. A housing provider may choose to keep the modifications in
place at the end of the tenancy. See also Question 28.
Example 1: Because the tenant uses a wheelchair, she obtained permission from her
housing provider to remove the base cabinets and lower the kitchen sink to provide for greater
accessibility. It is reasonable for the housing provider to ask the tenant to replace the cabinets
and raise the sink back to its original height.
Example 2: Because of a mobility disability, a tenant obtained approval from the
housing provider to install grab bars in the bathroom. As part of the installation, the contractor
had to construct reinforcements on the underside of the wall. These reinforcements are not
visible and do not detract from the use of the apartment. It is reasonable for the housing provider
to require the tenant to remove the grab bars, but it is not reasonable for the housing provider to
require the tenant to remove the reinforcements.
Example 3: Because of a mobility disability, a tenant obtained approval from the
housing provider to widen doorways to allow him to maneuver in his wheelchair. In usual
circumstances, it is not reasonable for the housing provider to require him to restore the
doorways to their prior width.
25.
Of the reasonable modifications made to the interior of a dwelling that must be
restored, must the person with a disability pay to make those restorations when she moves
out?
Yes. Reasonable restorations of the dwelling required as a result of modifications made
to the interior of the dwelling must be paid for by the tenant unless the next occupant of the
dwelling wants to retain the reasonable modifications and where it is reasonable to do so, the
next occupant is willing to establish a new interest bearing escrow account. The subsequent
tenant would have to restore the modifications to the prior condition at the end of his tenancy if it
is reasonable to do so and if requested by the housing provider. See also Question 24.
26.
If a person with a disability has made a reasonable modification to the exterior of
the dwelling, or a common area, must she restore it to its original condition when she
moves out?
No. The Fair Housing Act expressly provides that housing providers may only require
restoration of modifications made to interiors of the dwelling at the end of the tenancy.
Reasonable modifications such as ramps to the front door of the dwelling or modifications made
to laundry rooms or building entrances are not required to be restored.
27.
May a housing provider increase or require a person with a disability to pay a
security deposit if she requests a reasonable modification?
13

No. The housing provider may not require an increased security deposit as the result of a
request for a reasonable modification, nor may a housing provider require a tenant to pay a
security deposit when one is not customarily required. However, a housing provider may be able
to take other steps to ensure that money will be available to pay for restoration of the interior of
the premises at the end of the tenancy. See Questions 21 and 28.
28.
May a housing provider take other steps to ensure that money will be available to
pay for restoration of the interior of the premises at the end of the tenancy?
Where it is necessary in order to ensure with reasonable certainty that funds will be
available to pay for the restorations at the end of the tenancy, the housing provider may negotiate
with the tenant as part of a restoration agreement a provision that requires the tenant to make
payments into an interest-bearing escrow account. A housing provider may not routinely require
that tenants place money in escrow accounts when a modification is sought. Both the amount
and the terms of the escrow payment are subject to negotiation between the housing provider and
the tenant.
Simply because an individual has a disability does not mean that she is less creditworthy
than an individual without a disability. The decision to require that money be placed in an
escrow account should be based on the following factors: 1) the extent and nature of the
proposed modifications; 2) the expected duration of the lease; 3) the credit and tenancy history
of the individual tenant; and 4) other information that may bear on the risk to the housing
provider that the premises will not be restored.
If the housing provider decides to require payment into an escrow account, the amount of
money to be placed in the account cannot exceed the cost of restoring the modifications, and the
period of time during which the tenant makes payment into the escrow account must be
reasonable. Although a housing provider may require that funds be placed in escrow, it does not
automatically mean that the full amount of money needed to make the future restorations can be
required to be paid at the time that the modifications are sought. In addition, it is important to
note that interest from the account accrues to the benefit of the tenant. If an escrow account is
established, and the housing provider later decides not to have the unit restored, then all funds in
the account, including the interest, must be promptly returned to the tenant.
Example 1: Because of a mobility disability, a tenant requests a reasonable
modification. The modification includes installation of grab bars in the bathroom. The tenant
has an excellent credit history and has lived in the apartment for five years before becoming
disabled. Under these circumstances, it may not be reasonable to require payment into an
escrow account.
Example 2: Because of a mobility disability, a new tenant with a poor credit history
wants to lower the kitchen cabinets to a more accessible height. It may be reasonable for the
housing provider to require payment into an interest bearing escrow account to ensure that funds
are available for restoration.
14

Example 3: A housing provider requires all tenants with disabilities to pay a set sum
into an interest bearing escrow account before approving any request for a reasonable
modification. The amount required by the housing provider has no relationship to the actual cost
of the restoration. This type of requirement violates the Fair Housing Act.
29.
What if a person with a disability moves into a rental unit and wants the carpet
taken up because her wheelchair does not move easily across carpeting? Is that a
reasonable accommodation or modification?
Depending on the circumstances, removal of carpeting may be either a reasonable
accommodation or a reasonable modification.
Example 1: If the housing provider has a practice of not permitting a tenant to change
flooring in a unit and there is a smooth, finished floor underneath the carpeting, generally,
allowing the tenant to remove the carpet would be a reasonable accommodation.
Example 2: If there is no finished flooring underneath the carpeting, generally,
removing the carpeting and installing a finished floor would be a reasonable modification that
would have to be done at the tenant’s expense. If the finished floor installed by the tenant does
not affect the housing provider’s or subsequent tenant’s use or enjoyment of the premises, the
tenant would not have to restore the carpeting at the conclusion of the tenancy. See Questions 24
and 25.
Example 3: If the housing provider has a practice of replacing the carpeting before a
new tenant moves in, and there is an existing smooth, finished floor underneath, then it would be
a reasonable accommodation of his normal practice of installing new carpeting for the housing
provider to just take up the old carpeting and wait until the tenant with a mobility disability
moves out to put new carpeting down.
30.
Who is responsible for paying for the costs of structural changes to a dwelling unit
that has not yet been constructed if a purchaser with a disability needs different or
additional features to make the unit meet her disability-related needs?
If the dwelling unit is not subject to the design and construction requirements (i.e., a
detached single family home or a multi-story townhouse without an elevator), then the purchaser
is responsible for the additional costs associated with the structural changes. The purchaser is
responsible for any additional cost that the structural changes might create over and above what
the original design would have cost.
If the unit being purchased is subject to the design and construction requirements of the
Fair Housing Act, then all costs associated with incorporating the features required by the Act
are borne by the builder. If a purchaser with a disability needs different or additional features
added to a unit under construction or about to be constructed beyond those already required by
the Act, and it would cost the builder more to provide the requested features, the structural
changes would be considered a reasonable modification and the additional costs would have to
15

be borne by the purchaser. The purchaser is responsible for any additional cost that the
structural changes might create over and above what the original design would have cost.
Example 1: A buyer with a mobility disability is purchasing a single family dwelling
under construction and asks for a bathroom sink with a floorless base cabinet with retractable
doors that allows the buyer to position his wheelchair under the sink. If the cabinet costs more
than the standard vanity cabinet provided by the builder, the buyer is responsible for the
additional cost, not the full cost of the requested cabinet. If, however, the alternative cabinet
requested by the buyer costs less than or the same as the one normally provided by the builder,
and the installation costs are also the same or less, then the builder should install the requested
cabinet without any additional cost to the buyer.
Example 2: A buyer with a mobility disability is purchasing a ground floor unit in a
detached townhouse that is designed with a concrete step at the front door. The buyer requests
that the builder grade the entrance to eliminate the need for the step. If the cost of providing the
at-grade entrance is no greater than the cost of building the concrete step, then the builder would
have to provide the at-grade entrance without additional charge to the purchaser.
Example 3: A buyer with a mobility disability is purchasing a unit that is subject to the
design and construction requirements of the Fair Housing Act. The buyer wishes to have grab
bars installed in the unit as a reasonable modification to the bathroom. The builder is
responsible for installing and paying for the wall reinforcements for the grab bars because these
reinforcements are required under the design and construction provisions of the Act. The buyer
is responsible for the costs of installing and paying for the grab bars.

31.
Are the rules the same if a person with a disability lives in housing that receives
federal financial assistance and the needed structural changes to the unit or common area
are the result of the tenant having a disability?
Housing that receives federal financial assistance is covered by both the Fair Housing
Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Under regulations implementing Section
504, structural changes needed by an applicant or resident with a disability in housing receiving
federal financial assistance are considered reasonable accommodations. They must be paid for
by the housing provider unless providing them would be an undue financial and administrative
burden or a fundamental alteration of the program or unless the housing provider can
accommodate the individual’s needs through other means. Housing that receives federal
financial assistance and that is provided by state or local entities may also be covered by Title II
of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Example 1: A tenant who uses a wheelchair and who lives in privately owned housing
needs a roll-in shower in order to bathe independently. Under the Fair Housing Act the tenant
would be responsible for the costs of installing the roll-in shower as a reasonable modification to
his unit.
16

Example 2: A tenant who uses a wheelchair and who lives in housing that receives
federal financial assistance needs a roll-in shower in order to bathe independently. Under
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the housing provider would be obligated to pay
for and install the roll-in shower as a reasonable accommodation to the tenant unless doing so
was an undue financial and administrative burden or unless the housing provider could meet the
tenant’s disability-related needs by transferring the tenant to another appropriate unit that
contains a roll-in shower.
HUD has provided more detailed information about Section 504’s requirements. See
www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/disabilities/sect504.cfm.
32.
If a person believes that she has been unlawfully denied a reasonable modification,
what should that person do if she wants to challenge that denial under the Act?
When a person with a disability believes that she has been subjected to a discriminatory
housing practice, including a provider’s wrongful denial of a request for a reasonable
modification, she may file a complaint with HUD within one year after the alleged denial or may
file a lawsuit in federal district court within two years of the alleged denial. If a complaint is
filed, HUD will investigate the complaint at no cost to the person with a disability.
There are several ways that a person may file a complaint with HUD:
•

By placing a toll-free call to 1-800-669-9777 or TTY 1-800-927-9275;

•

By completing the “on-line” complaint form available on the HUD internet
site: http://www.hud.gov; or

•

By mailing a completed complaint form or letter to:
Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity
Department of Housing & Urban Development
451 Seventh Street, S.W., Room 5204
Washington, DC 20410-2000

Upon request, HUD will provide printed materials in alternate formats (large print, audio
tapes, or Braille) and provide complainants with assistance in reading and completing forms.
The Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department brings lawsuits in federal courts
across the country to end discriminatory practices and to seek monetary and other relief for
individuals whose rights under the Fair Housing Act have been violated. The Civil Rights
Division initiates lawsuits when it has reason to believe that a person or entity is involved in a
“pattern or practice” of discrimination or when there has been a denial of rights to a group of
persons that raises an issue of general public importance. The Division also participates as
amicus curiae in federal court cases that raise important legal questions involving the application
17

and/or interpretation of the Act. To alert the Justice Department to matters involving a pattern or
practice of discrimination, matters involving the denial of rights to groups of persons, or lawsuits
raising issues that may be appropriate for amicus participation, contact:
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
Housing and Civil Enforcement Section – G St.
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530
For more information on the types of housing discrimination cases handled by the Civil
Rights Division, please refer to the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section’s website at
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/hcehome.html.
A HUD or Department of Justice decision not to proceed with a Fair Housing Act matter
does not foreclose private plaintiffs from pursuing a private lawsuit. However, litigation can be
an expensive, time-consuming, and uncertain process for all parties. HUD and the Department
of Justice encourage parties to Fair Housing Act disputes to explore all reasonable alternatives to
litigation, including alternative dispute resolution procedures, such as mediation. HUD attempts
to conciliate all Fair Housing Act complaints. In addition, it is the Department of Justice’s
policy to offer prospective defendants the opportunity to engage in pre-suit settlement
negotiations, except in the most unusual circumstances.

18


U.S. Department of Justice
Federal Bureau of Prisons

Program
Statement

OPI:
NUMBER:
DATE:
SUBJECT:

CPD/CPB
P5264.08
1/24/2008
Inmate Telephone
Regulations

“CORRECTED COPY 2/11/2008"

Boxed Bold - Federal Regulation
Regular Type - Implementing Information
1.

PURPOSE AND SCOPE

§ 540.100 Purpose and Scope.
a. The Bureau of Prisons extends telephone privileges to
inmates as part of its overall correctional management.
Telephone privileges are a supplemental means of maintaining
community and family ties that will contribute to an inmate's
personal development. An inmate may request to call a person
of his or her choice outside the institution on a telephone
provided for that purpose. However, limitations and conditions
may be imposed upon an inmate's telephone privileges to ensure
that these are consistent with other aspects of the Bureau's
correctional management responsibilities. In addition to the
procedures set forth in this subpart, inmate telephone use is
subject to those limitations which the Warden determines are
necessary to ensure the security or good order, including
discipline, of the institution or to protect the public.
Restrictions on inmate telephone use may also be imposed as a
disciplinary sanction (see 28 CFR part 541).

This Program Statement provides national policy and procedure
regarding inmate telephone privileges within Bureau of Prisons
(BOP) institutions and contract facilities.
Maintaining pro-social/legal contact with family and community
ties is a valuable tool in the overall correctional process.
With this objective in mind, the Bureau provides inmates with
several means of maintaining such contacts. Primary among these

P5264.08
1/24/2008
Page 2
is written correspondence, supplemented by telephone and visiting
privileges.
Although there is no constitutional right for inmates to have
unrestricted telephone communication, particularly when
alternate methods of communication are readily available, the
Bureau provides inmates with telephone access consistent with
sound correctional management.
2. SUMMARY OF CHANGES.
following changes:

This Program Statement incorporates the

# References to the Washington v. Reno settlement agreement
have been deleted;
# The provision allowing a special extended time frame of
120 days for inmates to file Administrative Remedies
related to the telephone charges or credits has been
deleted;
# The number of times inmates are allowed to submit
proposed changes to their telephone list has been changed
from three times per month to once per calendar month;
and,
# The requirement that staff forward copies of Institution
Supplements to the Central Office, Office of the General
Counsel, Litigation Branch has been deleted.
# Adds guidance for inmate use of non-ITS telephones.
# Removes the language requiring Unit staff to approve
inmates telephone number request form.
# Provides guidance for inmates administering their own
phone lists via TRULINCS.
3. PROGRAM OBJECTIVES.
are:

The expected results of this program

a. All inmates will be afforded the opportunity to maintain
family and community contact via the telephone consistent with
institution and community safety;
b. Inmates will be responsible for the expense of telephone
use; and,

P5264.08
1/24/2008
Page 3
c. All institutions will establish monitoring procedures to
preserve the institution’s security, orderly management and
safety of the community.
DIRECTIVES AFFECTED

4.

Directive Rescinded

a.

P5264.07

Telephone Regulations for Inmates (1/31/02)

Directives Referenced

b.

P1315.07
P1330.16
P1480.05
P4500.05
P5100.08
P5265.11
P5267.08
P5270.07
P5360.09
P5380.08
P7331.04

Inmate Legal Activities (11/5/99)
Administrative Remedy Program (12/31/07)
News Media Contacts (9/21/00)
Trust Fund/Deposit Fund Manual (1/22/07)
Security Designation and Custody Classification
Manual (9/12/06)
Correspondence (7/9/99)
Visiting Regulations (5/11/06)
Inmate Discipline and Special Housing Units
(12/29/87)
Religious Beliefs and Practices (12/31/04)
Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (8/15/05)
Pretrial Inmates (1/31/03)

c. Rules cited and/or referenced in this Program Statement are
contained in 28 CFR part 540, subparts A-B, D, E, and I;
28 CFR part 541, subparts A-B; 28 CFR part 542, subpart B;
28 CFR part 543, subpart B, 28 CFR part 545, subpart B, 28 CFR
part 548, and 28 CFR part 551, subpart J.
5.

STANDARDS REFERENCED

a. American Correctional Association 4th Edition Standards for
Adult Correctional Institutions: 4-4497, 4-4271, 4-4272, and
4-4273
b. American Correctional Association 4th Edition Standards for
Adult Local Detention Facilities: 4-ALDF-6A-02, 4-ALDF-6A-05,
4-ALDF-2A-65, 4-ALDF-2A-66, 4-ALDF-5B-11, and 4-ALDF-5B-12
c. American Correctional Association 2nd Edition Standards for
the Administration of Correctional Agencies: 2-CO-5D-01
6. INSTITUTION SUPPLEMENT. A local Institution Supplement is
required and must include the following information:

P5264.08
1/24/2008
Page 4
a. The maximum length of telephone calls, ordinarily 15
minutes;
b. The minimum time frames between completed calls and the
maximum number of incomplete call attempts per day;
c. Telephone access procedures for inmates on “days off” or
“evening shift,” workers;
d. Establish procedures for those inmates who exhaust the 300
minutes per calendar month limitation to receive additional
minutes for good cause;
e. Establish procedures when a staff assisted call may be made
for good cause, including procedures for Pretrial and Holdover
inmates.
The institution will involve the Regional Correctional Programs
Administrator in developing the Institution Supplement.
7. PRETRIAL, HOLDOVER, AND/OR DETAINEE PROCEDURES.
The
procedures contained in this Program Statement apply only to
institutions where individual Phone Access Codes (PAC) are
utilized.
a. Pretrial Inmates. The Public Safety Factor (PSF) Serious
Telephone Abuse applies to sentenced inmates and therefore, does
not apply to pretrial inmates. However, if institution staff
receive information about a pretrial inmate that may jeopardize
the security and safety of the institution or community, staff
will follow the procedures outlined in Section 13 of this Program
Statement.
b. Holdover Inmates. Inmates with the PSF Serious Telephone
Abuse will not be permitted access to the Inmate Telephone System
(ITS), except as provided in § 540.101(e) or § 540.105©.
c. Detainee Inmates. A detainee of the Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE), denoted by the Admission/Release
Status (ARS) code of A-INS, who has completed a federal sentence,
may have a PSF of Serious Telephone Abuse. The detainee will not
be permitted access to ITS, except as provided in § 540.101(e) or
§ 540.105(c). If institution staff receive information about an
immigration detainee that may jeopardize the security and safety
of the institution or community, staff will follow the procedures
outlined in Section 13 of this Program Statement.

P5264.08
1/24/2008
Page 5
8. PROCEDURES. The Bureau’s Inmate Telephone System is a
calling system that is available in all institutions operated by
the BOP.
To ensure the safety and security of the institution and
community, inmates must place all personal telephone calls
through the ITS and must not circumvent it via call forwarding,
including automatic electronic forwarding or any similar
telephone function. Additionally toll-free or credit card calls
are not authorized, examples include telephone calls to 1-800, 1888, 1-877, 1-866, 1-900, 1-976, or to credit card access
numbers.
a.

Warden’s Authority.

b. Except as provided in this rule, the Warden shall permit an
inmate who has not been restricted from telephone use as the
result of a specific institutional disciplinary sanction to
make at least one telephone call each month.

Wardens are responsible for implementing and maintaining an
inmate telephone program within their institution. In
establishing an institution telephone program, Wardens should
consider such variables as the size and complexity of the
institution. The Warden has the authority to restrict or suspend
temporarily an inmate’s regular telephone privilege when there is
reasonable suspicion that the inmate has acted in a way that
would indicate a threat to the institution’s good order or
security. Wardens may restrict telephone privileges only in
accordance with Section 13 of this Program Statement.
Reasonable suspicion exists when facts and circumstances
indicate that the inmate is engaged in, or attempting to engage
in, criminal or other prohibited behavior using the telephone.
The Warden has the authority to restrict or suspend temporarily
an inmate’s regular telephone privilege when there is a
reasonable suspicion that the inmate has acted in a way that
threatens the safety, security, or good order of the institution,
or the protection of the public. Reasonable suspicion may be
based on reliable, confidential information gathered through
intelligence that identifies the inmate in question. In
determining reasonable suspicion, the available information
should reasonably lead a person with correctional experience to
suspect the inmate is engaged in criminal or other prohibited
behavior using the telephone system.
b.

Telephone List Preparation and Submission.

P5264.08
1/24/2008
Page 6
§ 540.101.

Procedures.

a. Telephone List Preparation. An inmate telephone call shall
ordinarily be made to a number identified on the inmate's
official telephone list. This list ordinarily may contain up
to 30 numbers. The Associate Warden may authorize the placement
of additional numbers on an inmate's telephone list based on
the inmate's individual situation, e.g., size of family.
(1) During the admission and orientation process, an inmate
who chooses to have telephone privileges shall prepare a
proposed telephone list. At the time of submission, the inmate
shall acknowledge that, to the best of the inmate's knowledge,
the person or persons on the list are agreeable to receiving
the inmate's telephone call and that the proposed calls are to
be made for a purpose allowable under Bureau policy or
institution guidelines.

(2) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this section,
telephone numbers requested by an inmate ordinarily will be
placed on the inmate's telephone list. When an inmate requests
the placement of numbers for persons other than for immediate
family or those persons already approved for the inmate's
visiting list, staff ordinarily will notify those persons in
writing that their numbers have been placed on the inmate's
telephone list. The notice advises the recipient that the
recipient's number will be removed from the list if the
recipient makes a written request to the institution, or upon
the written request of the inmate, or as provided in paragraph
(a)(3) of this section.
(3) The Associate Warden may deny placement of a telephone
number on an inmate's telephone list if the Associate Warden
determines that there is a threat to institution security or
good order, or a threat to the public. Any disapproval must be
documented in writing to both the inmate and the proposed
recipient. As with concerns about any correctional issue,
including any portion of these telephone regulations, an inmate
may appeal the denial through the administrative remedy
procedure (see 28 CFR part 542). The Associate Warden will
notify the denied recipient that he or she may appeal the
denial by writing to the Warden within 15 days of the receipt
of the denial.

P5264.08
1/24/2008
Page 7
Inmates with access to TRULINCS workstations which provide access
to telephone list updates shall generate and maintain their lists
using TRULINCS. These inmates will not be required to submit a
Telephone Number request form (BP-505). All other inmates shall
follow the process below.
An inmate who wishes to have telephone privileges must submit a
Telephone Number Request form (BP-505) to unit staff. Their
telephone list ordinarily may contain up to 30 telephone numbers.
Inmates may submit telephone numbers for any person they
choose, including numbers for courts, elected officials and
members of the news media. Attorneys may be included on an
inmate’s telephone list with the understanding that such calls
are subject to monitoring.
Unit staff shall sign the Telephone Number Request form
verifying the identity of the inmate that has hand delivered the
form to the staff member. Once an inmate submits a list, it will
be processed within seven calendar days.
Once unit staff sign the BP-505, it must be forwarded to ITS
staff in a secure manner and within the time frames established
by this Program Statement. At no time will the BP-505 be
returned to the inmate or handled by another inmate.
This time frame may be extended if the total number of changes
is so large that unit staff or ITS staff cannot process them and
still perform their normal duties.
c.

Telephone List Modifications.

b. Telephone List Update. Each Warden shall establish
procedures to allow an inmate the opportunity to submit
telephone list changes on at least a quarterly basis.
An inmate may submit proposed changes to his or her telephone
list once per calendar month, unless staff determine that the
inmate has a demonstrated need for more prompt communication.
In determining if a more frequent change is to be permitted due
to a demonstrated need for prompt communication, staff must rely
on their professional judgment and evaluate each request on a
case-by-case basis.
Placing additional numbers (above 30) on an inmate’s telephone
list is within the Associate Warden’s discretion. While 30
numbers should meet the need of most inmates, there may be
isolated situations when additional numbers may be warranted.

P5264.08
1/24/2008
Page 8
For example, an inmate who has a large family may wish to place
additional family members on the telephone list. Additional
numbers may also be warranted for an inmate who wishes to place
both work and home telephone numbers for his or her spouse and
children.
c. Telephone Access Codes. An inmate may not possess another
inmate's telephone access code number. An inmate may not give
his or her telephone access code number to another inmate, and
is to report a compromised telephone access code number
immediately to unit staff.
d. Call Blocking. The Associate Warden has authority to block
a number on an inmate account in a case-by-case determination.
In such cases, the Associate Warden or designee must notify the
inmate of an administrative block, ordinarily within five
calendar days following the denial or removal of the number.
For security reasons, the Associate Warden also has the authority
to block telephone numbers from being called by all inmates at
their institution. Examples of numbers blocked institution wide
include, but are not limited to gambling lines, etc.
Requests for BOP-wide blocking of telephone numbers shall be
approved by the Chief, Intelligence Section or his/her designee.
Telephone numbers for Victims and Witnesses (as defined in 28
C.F.R. § 151-151 a. & b.) that have requested notification
regarding an inmate at a Bureau facility will be blocked at the
facility where the inmate is housed.
e. Call Blocking by Recipient. In ITS, the call recipient has
the capability through his or her home telephone to deny and/or
block further telephone calls from the inmate. A voice prompt
will direct the called party through the process. This
capability is available for direct-dial and collect calls from an
inmate.
Once the recipient blocks a telephone number, the recipient can
unblock the number only when he or she sends a written request
for reinstatement. To ensure the called party’s identity, the
request for reinstatement must include a copy of a recent
telephone bill. Trust Fund staff will process this request
expeditiously.
In the event that staff receive a telephonic request from a
call recipient to have his/her telephone number blocked from an
inmate’s telephone list, unit staff may request that the ITS

P5264.08
1/24/2008
Page 9
technician place a temporary suspension, not to exceed 20
calendar days, on an inmate calling that specific telephone
number. Unit staff should take reasonable steps to verify the
identity of the person making the request (e.g., by calling the
number to be blocked). The call recipient should be informed
that the blocking of the number is temporary, and that he or she
must submit a prompt written request to make it permanent.
Copies of written documentation, blocking or unblocking a
telephone number (at the recipient’s request or the Associate
Warden’s discretion) must be forwarded to Trust Fund staff in the
Financial Management office.
f.

Limitations on Inmate Telephone Calls.

d. Placement and Duration of Telephone Call. The placement
and duration of any telephone call is subject to availability
of inmate funds. Ordinarily, an inmate who has sufficient
funds is allowed at least three minutes for a telephone call.
The Warden may limit the maximum length of telephone calling
based on the situation at that institution (e.g., institution
population or usage demand).
e. Exception. The Warden may allow the placement of collect
calls for good cause. Examples of good cause include, but are
not limited to, inmates who are new arrivals to the
institution, including new commitments and transfers; inmates
confined at Metropolitan Correctional Centers, Metropolitan
Detention Centers, or Federal Detention Centers; pretrial
inmates; inmates in holdover status; inmates who are without
funds (see § 540.105(b)); and in cases of family emergencies.
The Warden will establish the maximum length of telephone calls,
ordinarily 15 minutes. A warning tone ordinarily will be
provided approximately one minute before the call is
disconnected. This applies to both debit and collect telephone
calls. The Warden determines the interval waiting period between
completed telephone calls.
Inmates with ITS accounts are limited to 300 minutes per
calendar month. This applies to all inmates with an ITS account
in Bureau institutions, and may be used for any combination of
collect or direct-dial calls at the inmate’s discretion.
Ordinarily, the inmates will be allowed an extra 100 minutes per
month in November and December.
Inmates who exhaust their 300 minute limitation may be provided
additional minutes, at the Warden’s discretion, for good cause.

P5264.08
1/24/2008
Page 10
The 300 minutes per calendar month limitation does not apply to
an inmate’s ability to place unmonitored legal telephone calls.
g. Hours of Telephone Operation. The hours of telephone
operation begin at 6:00 AM and end no later than 11:30 PM.
Inmate telephones will not be available from at least 11:30 PM to
6:00 AM. Inmate access to telephones will normally be limited
during the following times, Monday through Friday, not including
holidays:
7:30 am until 10:30 am; and,
12:30 pm until after 4:00 pm count.
Inmates are expected to be at their work assignments and must
not use the telephone during their work hours. For inmates who
work varied work shifts, at local discretion, institutions may
leave one telephone per unit available for inmates on “days off,”
or “evening shift” such as food service workers, UNICOR workers,
etc. Staff are encouraged to take disciplinary action if an
inmate leaves his or her work assignment to place a telephone
call(s) without the appropriate institution staff member’s prior
approval.
These restrictions should not be imposed in Pretrial/Holdover
institutions or Pretrial/Holdover Units where inmates are not
required to work and generally have more need for telephone
access during the day to prepare for trial.
h. Complaints. As with any complaint regarding any
correctional issue, an inmate may use procedures outlined in the
Program Statement on the Administrative Remedy Program to resolve
disputes concerning their telephone privileges, e.g. lists,
access, accounts, and services.
9.

MONITORING OF INMATE TELEPHONE CALLS.

§ 540.102 Monitoring of Inmate Telephone Calls.
The Warden shall establish procedures that enable monitoring of
telephone conversations on any telephone located within the
institution, said monitoring to be done to preserve the
security and orderly management of the institution and to
protect the public. The Warden must provide notice to the
inmate of the potential for monitoring. Staff may not monitor
an inmate's properly placed call to an attorney. The Warden
shall notify an inmate of the proper procedures to have an
unmonitored telephone conversation with an attorney.

P5264.08
1/24/2008
Page 11
As part of the admission and orientation process, inmates will be
advised of the procedures for placing monitored and unmonitored
telephone calls.
The notification to inmates will be documented on the
Acknowledgment of Inmate form (BP-408) and then filed in the
inmate Central File.
In addition, a notice will be placed, in both Spanish and
English, at all monitored telephone locations within the
institution advising the user that all conversations from that
telephone are subject to monitoring and that using the telephone
constitutes consent to this monitoring. A notice will advise
inmates to contact their unit team to request an unmonitored
attorney telephone call. The SIS must ensure that the notice(s)
is placed at all monitored telephone locations within the
institution.
Requests for information (e.g., subpoenas) on monitored calls
should be processed in accordance with the Program Statement
Recorded Inmate Telephone Conversations, Requests for Production.
The Bureau does not allow inmates to send or receive facsimile
communications.
10.

INMATE TELEPHONE CALLS TO ATTORNEYS.

§ 540.103 Inmate Telephone Calls to Attorneys.
The Warden may not apply frequency limitations on inmate
telephone calls to attorneys when the inmate demonstrates that
communication with attorneys by correspondence, visiting, or
normal telephone use is not adequate.

The Bureau provides each inmate with several methods to maintain
confidential contact with his or her attorney. For example:
# inmate-attorney correspondence is covered under the
special mail provisions;
# private inmate-attorney visits are provided; and,
# the inmate is afforded the opportunity to place an
occasional unmonitored call to his or her attorney.
Based on these provisions, frequent confidential inmateattorney calls should be allowed only when an inmate demonstrates
that communication with his or her attorney by other means is not
adequate. For example, when the inmate or the inmate's attorney
can demonstrate an imminent court deadline (see the Program
Statements Inmate Correspondence or Inmate Legal Activities).

P5264.08
1/24/2008
Page 12
Staff are to make reasonable efforts to verify unmonitored calls
placed on an inmate's behalf are to an attorney’s office.
Inmates are responsible for the expense of unmonitored attorney
telephone calls. When possible, it is preferred that inmates
place unmonitored legal calls collect. Third-party or three-way
calls are not authorized.
11. INMATE USE OF NON-ITS TELEPHONES (Non-attorney calls). On
rare occasion, during times of crisis, staff designated by the
Warden may find the need to allow inmates to place telephone
calls outside the Inmate Telephone System. These calls should be
placed on telephones that are set to record the conversation and
shall follow the guidelines detailed below.
a. Additional monitored non-ITS telephones must be operated as
follows:
(1) Inmates using the telephones must have read and signed
the Acknowledgment of Inmate form (BP-408) indicating their
understanding that telephone calls on that device are subject to
monitoring;
(2) A notice must be placed, in both English and Spanish,
above or near the telephone indicating that all calls are subject
to monitoring, and that using the telephone constitutes consent
to such monitoring. The notice should also indicate that the
telephone is for inmate use only. Staff are not permitted to use
the telephone because staff telephone calls may not be monitored;
(3) The telephone must be placed in a secure area (e.g., a
locked office);
(4)

The telephone must be set to record telephone calls;

(5) Staff coordinating the call shall notify the SIS staff in
writing via email that telephone call was placed and shall
include the following; and
# The date/time, telephone number, and name of the person
being called
# The name and register number of the inmate placing the
call
# A brief reason for the call.
(6) SIS staff shall be responsible for inputting this data
into the recording system to ensure the call recording can
identify the inmate on the telephone. This data must be entered
within seven calendar days.

P5264.08
1/24/2008
Page 13
b. Institutional Authorization Procedures for Additional
Monitored Non-ITS Telephones (Non-ITS)
PS 5360, expressly provides for an additional monitored inmate
telephone located in the Chapel area. As such, the procedures in
this document for authorizing that single telephone do not apply.
These procedures apply, rather, to additional monitored inmate
telephones beyond the single additional telephone permitted by
the religious policy (e.g., telephones located in the
Lieutenant’s office, the Unit Team office).
The following procedures must be followed when requesting
additional monitored inmate telephones:
(1) The Warden shall send a request to the Regional Director
for consideration and identify the extraordinary reasons
justifying the need for additional telephones; and
(2) If approved by the Regional Director, written
notification of approval shall be provided to the Warden and the
Administration Division’s Trust Fund Branch (TFB) staff for
processing.
12.

RESPONSIBILITY FOR INMATE MISUSE OF TELEPHONES.

§ 540.104 Responsibility for inmate misuse of telephones.
The inmate is responsible for any misuse of the telephone. The
Warden shall refer incidents of unlawful inmate telephone use
to law enforcement authorities. The Warden shall advise an
inmate that violation of the institution's telephone
regulations may result in institutional disciplinary action
(See part 541, subpart B)
Inmates violating this policy may be subject to disciplinary
action pursuant to 28 CFR part 541, subpart B, and the policy on
Inmate Discipline.

P5264.08
1/24/2008
Page 14
§540.105 Expenses of Inmate Telephone Use.
a. An inmate is responsible for the expenses of inmate
telephone use. Such expenses may include a fee for
replacement of an inmate's telephone access code that is used
in an institution which has implemented debit billing for
inmate calls. Each inmate is responsible for staying aware of
his or her account balance through the automated process
provided by the system. Third party billing and electronic
transfer of a call to a third party are prohibited.

b. The Warden shall provide at least one collect call each
month for an inmate who is without funds. An inmate without
funds is defined as an inmate who has not had a trust fund
account balance of $6.00 for the past 30 days. The Warden may
increase the number of collect calls based upon local
institution conditions (e.g., institution population, staff
resources, and usage demand). To prevent abuses of this
provision (e.g., inmate shows a pattern of depleting his or
her commissary funds prior to placing collect calls), the
Warden may impose restrictions on the provisions of this
paragraph b.
c. The Warden may direct the government to bear the expense
of inmate telephone use or allow a call to be made collect
under
compelling circumstances such as when an inmate has lost
contact with his family or has a family emergency.
13. TELEPHONE RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY THE WARDEN. Inmates may
be subject to telephone restrictions imposed by the Warden to
protect the safety, security, and good order of the institution,
as well as to protect the public. Telephone restrictions imposed
under the authority of this section are separate and apart from
telephone restrictions imposed by the UDC or DHO following formal
and completed inmate discipline proceedings.
Inmates with telephone restrictions are still entitled to place
at least one telephone call per month, unless also under a
sanction of telephone restriction the UDC or DHO imposed.
a. Authorized Circumstances. Inmates may be subject to
telephone restrictions under this section in the following two
circumstances:

P5264.08
1/24/2008
Page 15
(1) Public Safety Factor (PSF). An inmate whose current
offense, prior history, or threat characteristics indicate a
propensity to abuse telephone privileges will be assigned the
PSF - Serious Telephone Abuse. If an inmate is assigned the PSF
for Serious Telephone Abuse (see the Security Designation and
Custody Classification Manual), a telephone restriction is
authorized. Telephone restrictions imposed under these
circumstances are discretionary and necessary to ensure the
institution’s safety, security, good order and/or to protect the
public. When deemed necessary, the inmate’s Unit Manager will
ordinarily recommend this type of restriction to the Warden for
final decision making.
Upon his/her initial commitment or redesignation, an inmate
with a PSF for Serious Telephone Abuse will not be authorized use
of the ITS until classified by the unit team. Inmates identified
at their initial classification as requiring telephone
restrictions will not be permitted access to the ITS until after
the final review by the Warden.
(2) Pending Investigation or Disciplinary Action for Possible
Telephone Abuse. If an inmate is pending an investigation or
disciplinary action for possible telephone abuse, a partial or
total telephone restriction is authorized. Telephone
restrictions imposed under these circumstances are discretionary
and necessary to ensure the institution’s safety, security, or
good order, and/or to protect the public. When deemed necessary,
the Special Investigative Supervisor’s office will ordinarily
recommend this type of restriction. Any telephone restriction
recommended by the SIS office may only be imposed with the
Warden’s approval, in accordance with the procedures outlined in
this section.
b. Procedures for Imposing or Removing Telephone Restrictions.
The following procedures must be followed when imposing,
removing, or renewing, a telephone restriction under this
section:
(1) The appropriate staff member recommends a telephone
restriction to the Warden by completing the Request for Telephone
Restriction form (BP-740.052). The recommending staff member
should describe briefly the reason for recommending a telephone
restriction, as well as the extent of the proposed restriction.
For example, staff may recommend reducing an inmate’s telephone
use to 100 minutes per month rather than a total restriction, if
such a restriction would sufficiently protect the safety,
security, or good order of the institution, or protect the
public;

P5264.08
1/24/2008
Page 16
(2) The Warden will review the recommendation and either
approve, modify, or deny the restriction. If the Warden approves
a restriction, such decision must be based on the conclusion that
it is necessary to protect the institution’s safety, security, or
good order, or to protect the public;
(3) If the Warden approves a telephone restriction, a copy of
the completed form should be provided to the inmate, the Trust
Fund Office, and placed in Section 3 of the inmate’s Central
File;
(4) Telephone restrictions imposed by the Warden due to a PSF
for Serious Telephone Abuse must be reviewed at least every six
months, ordinarily in conjunction with the inmate’s Program
Review, to determine if the restriction should continue or
be modified. A decision to continue a current telephone
restriction imposed under this section requires no further
action, but must be documented in the Program Review Report.
Any proposed change to a current telephone restriction must be
made according to these procedures, and requires the Warden’s
approval. If appropriate, an inmate’s telephone privileges can
be gradually restored, based on demonstrated responsibility
documented by the inmate’s Unit Team or other staff;
(5) Telephone restrictions imposed pending an investigation
or pending disciplinary action for possible telephone abuse are
limited to a period of 30 days. If an additional 30 day period
is required to complete either the investigation or disciplinary
process, the Warden must re-authorize the restriction using these
procedures. Specifically, the Warden’s approval must be obtained
on another Request for Telephone Restriction form (BP-740.052).
Unless re-authorized in this manner, Trust Fund staff will obtain
the Warden’s approval for reinstatement or continued restrictions
every 30 days.
Each subsequent restriction period is limited to 30 days.
Staff should make every effort to complete investigations and
disciplinary proceedings for possible telephone abuse within the
first 30 day period of the telephone restriction;
(6) Inmates with telephone restrictions under this section
are still entitled to place at least one telephone call per
month, unless also under a sanction of telephone restriction the
UDC or DHO imposed following formal, and completed, inmate
discipline proceedings. Ordinarily, such telephone calls are
placed through the inmate telephone system, not by staff; and,

P5264.08
1/24/2008
Page 17
(7) Inmates may challenge telephone restrictions imposed
under this section through the Administrative Remedy Program.

/s/
Harley G. Lappin
Director


Minimum Standards of Training for
Campus Security Personnel and
Campus Disciplinary and Judicial Boards
BACKGROUND
Violence against women -- including domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault,
and stalking -- is a serious problem on campuses, as it is across the nation. On campuses,
however, unique issues arise. To address these particular circumstances, Congress created
the Grants to Reduce Violent Crimes Against Women on Campus Program (Campus
Program). The Campus Program implements certain provisions of the Higher Education
Amendments of 1998, as reauthorized by Congress in the Violence Against Women Act
of 2000 and the Violence Against Women Act of 2005. The primary purposes of the
Campus Program are to develop and strengthen effective security and investigation
strategies to prevent and prosecute domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and
stalking on campuses and to develop and strengthen victim services in cases involving
such crimes against women on campuses.
The Violence Against Women Act of 2005 included a provision stating that grant funds
could be used to “train campus administrators, campus security personnel, and personnel
serving on campus disciplinary or judicial boards to develop and implement campus
policies, protocols, and services that more effectively identify and respond to the crimes
of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking.” In addition, the
provision required the Attorney General to issue and make available minimum standards
of training relating to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking on
campus for all campus security personnel and personnel serving on campus disciplinary
or judicial boards.
The Office on Violence Against Women (OVW), working with the California Coalition
Against Sexual Assault (CALCASA) (the Technical Assistance provider for grantees
under the Campus Program) as well as CALCASA’s National Campus Advisory Board,
has developed guidelines and standards. The following adaptation of these guidelines
and standards is not intended to limit a campus’ ability to develop programming
appropriate for their school. Rather, OVW strongly recommends the proposed activities
outlined in this document be expanded upon as an individual campus deems appropriate
or tailored specifically to meet the needs of an individual campus.
TRAINING FOR CAMPUS SECURITY PERSONNEL
The FY 2007 Campus Program Solicitation requires that all applicants must train campus
police to respond effectively in domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and
stalking cases.” It states that training programs should be developed in collaboration with
campus or community-based victim advocacy programs and should include information
about relevant federal and state laws and arrest protocols; information on enforcement of

1

orders of protection; and instruction on making primary aggressor determinations.
Campuses should carefully coordinate and plan training sessions for campus security
personnel, and should design all trainings in close collaboration with experts on violence
against women issues. The emphasis of the trainings should be that the response to
victims needs to be timely, appropriate, sensitive, and respectful.
Programs should work closely with campus security personnel to schedule convenient
events to ensure attendance by the maximum number of officers. In designing training
programs for campus security personnel, campuses should be flexible and earnestly
consider the following possible challenges:
●

●
●

●
●

●

Recognize that some campuses must work with public safety units, not
campus “police,” and that some public safety officers are “non-sworn.”
As first responders on a case, public safety officers have the ability to
request mutual aid from the jurisdiction of record and the appropriate
investigative law enforcement agency.
Provide training that is Police Officer Standard Training (POST) certified
or training that is required in the jurisdiction in order for officers to
receive credit towards meeting their continued education requirements.
Determine whether a longer training on four broad topics such as domestic
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking is preferable to a
series of shorter, “rollcall” trainings on specific topics such as drugfacilitated rape cases or cyberstalking.
Coordinate training, easing competition for time, by working with other
campus police “trainers” to infuse violence against women issues in other
areas of ongoing and pre-scheduled routine training.
Include, if possible, in every training, a cross section of supervisors,
patrols, and detectives. This will help ensure that the information is given
to all levels of rank and will facilitate the institutionalization of training
protocols and procedures.
Promote effective collaboration and community-wide participation in all
training events addressing violence against women on campus.

General Considerations
OVW recommends that campus security personnel trainings incorporate as many of the
following general topics addressing violence against women as possible:
9
9
9
9
9
9
9

Relevant federal and state laws.
Working with law enforcement officials from neighboring jurisdictions.
Jurisdictional issues.
Confidentially issues.
Risk assessment for victims.
Crime scene preservation and evidence collection.
Interviewing techniques for working with victims and avoiding “victim blaming.”

2

9 Probable cause as it relates to violence against women cases.
9 Review of the student code of conduct and judicial/disciplinary process on
campus.
9 Information on enforcement of orders of protection including full faith and credit
issues.
9 Arrest protocols.
9 Working with advocates and advocacy groups, including clarification of roles and
responsibilities.
9 Availability of local services for victims and local training resources.
Domestic Violence and Dating Violence Considerations
OVW recommends that campus security personnel training on domestic violence and
dating violence include the following specific topics:
9 Officer safety when responding to domestic violence calls.
9 Review of basic domestic violence dynamics, including issues of power and
control.
9 Laws of search and seizure.
9 Avoiding mutual arrests.
9 Relevant federal and state statutory firearms prohibitions and seizure policies
including protection order provisions.
9 Definitions of dating violence and its effects.
9 Making predominant aggressor determinations including, interfacing with and
interviewing primary/predominant aggressors.
Sexual Assault Considerations
Where appropriate, the information provided in “A National Protocol for Sexual Assault
Medical Forensic Examinations” should be available to all instructors. OVW
recommends that campus security personnel training on sexual assault include the
following specific topics:
9 Specific procedures for sexual assault exams and for evidence collection at the
crime scene.
9 “Known” perpetrator investigations.
9 Communicating with victims about the course of the investigation.
9 Appropriate interviewing techniques when questioning sexual assault victims.
9 Appropriate discussion with the victim regarding prosecution decisions.
9 Specifics of rape trauma syndrome and its effects on victims.
9 Relevant rape shield laws.
9 Departmental decisions on how appropriately to handle victims who are facing
issues of other violations in connection with their assault – such, as underage
consumption or marijuana and other illegal substance possession.

3

9 Coordination between campus security personnel and campus health units or local
hospitals working with Sexual Assault Forensic Examiner or Sexual Assault
Nurse Examiner protocols.
Stalking Considerations
OVW recommends that campus security personnel training on stalking include the
following specific topics:
9 Understanding stalking properly as a crime.
9 Methods to help officers/detectives to identify stalking cases more effectively.
9 Orders of protection and their effectiveness or lack of effectiveness in a campus
environment.
9 Issues surrounding cyberstalking as the misuse of campus computers/property.
Officers should be encouraged to be familiar with campus policies on computer
use and what constitutes violations of the student conduct code.
9 Insight on intervention training.
9 How to document stalking violations by keeping notes, tracking phone calls, and
collecting evidence to support the victim’s account of the incidences.
TRAINING FOR CAMPUS DISCIPLINARY OR JUDICIAL BOARDS
Review of Campus Code
Prior to conducting training for campus disciplinary or judicial boards, a campus should
review the current code of student conduct and ensure that the code addresses the
following issues:
9
9
9
9
9

The code is victim-centered over offender-focused.
The code considers offender accountability.
The code defines a clear and concise disciplinary process.
The code defines uniform and consistent penalties.
The code identifies and clearly defines domestic violence, dating violence, sexual
assault, and stalking.
9 The code addresses confidentiality issues.
The FY 2007 Campus Program Solicitation requires that all applicants “establish or
strengthen programs to train members of campus disciplinary boards to respond
effectively to charges of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.”
It states that “[A]ll members of campus disciplinary boards, including faculty, staff,
students, and administrators should receive expert training on these crimes. Training
topics could include information about the causes and effects of violence against women;
a review of the student conduct code; definitions of domestic violence, dating violence,
sexual assault, and stalking; information on the issue of consent in sexual assault cases;
how to judge credibility; drug facilitated sexual assault; and the available range of
sanctions should the charged student be found responsible by the disciplinary board.”

4

General Considerations
The structure of campus disciplinary boards or judicial boards varies widely. Some
boards are made up of faculty and administration officials while others are comprised of
student representatives. Campuses should design all trainings in close collaboration with
experts on violence against women issues. When designing and implementing training
programs, campuses should consider the following issues:
9 The differences between the processes of the criminal justice system and those
involved in the academic judicial/disciplinary system.
9 Ensuring that the training is continuous and on-going so that all new members of
the judicial/disciplinary boards receive information, especially if the board is
appointed on a rotation.
9 Maintaining retention of “trained” board members given the complexities and
difficulties of such cases.
9 Creating training that is effective and does not “promote bias” for either victims
or offenders.
9 Ensuring that all judicial/disciplinary cases are pursued in the same manner,
regardless of “who” the victim and/or offender may be.
9 Confidentiality issues: open or closed hearings.
9 Relevant state and federal laws.
9 Working with law enforcement officials from the local jurisdiction.
Specific Considerations
When developing trainings for disciplinary or judicial boards, campuses should also
address the following specific topics:
9
9
9
9
9

Reasons why victims may or may not choose (and/or wait) to report.
Ways that the disciplinary system can “re-traumatize” victims.
The importance of avoiding victim blaming.
Viewing all information without bias.
Review of general domestic violence information including issues of power and
control.
9 Dating violence as a form of domestic violence, including relevant laws.
9 “Known” perpetrator sexual assault.
9 Stalking in a “closed” campus environment.

5