DOJ - Interstate Transfer of Prison Inmates in the United States, 2006

• April 10, 2017 • Locations: United States of America • Topics: Out of State Transfers

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail

Document text

This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.

U.S. Department of Justice
National Institute of Corrections

INTERSTATE TRANSFER OF
PRISON INMATES IN THE UNITED
STATES
Special Issues in Corrections

February 2006

LIS, Inc.

U.S. Department of Justice
National Institute of Corrections
Information Center
Longmont, Colorado

National Institute of Corrections

Morris L. Thigpen
Director

George Keiser
Chief, Prisons/Community Corrections Division

Kermit Humphries
Correctional Program Specialist

National Institute of Corrections
320 First Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20534
(800) 995-6423
(202) 307-3106

NIC Information Center
1860 Industrial Circle
Longmont, Colorado 80501
(800) 877-1461
(303) 682-0213
asknicic@nicic.org

http://www.nicic.org

INTERSTATE TRANSFER OF
PRISON INMATES IN THE UNITED
STATES
Special Issues in Corrections

About This Study
The National Institute of Corrections (NIC) has for
many years been interested in how corrections agencies mutually assist each other. One example is in
states’ reciprocal supervision of probationers and
parolees, a process defined by an interstate compact
and administered by a national commission. The
current Interstate Compact on Adult Offender
Supervision took effect in June 2002, when the 35th
state enacted a bill replacing the 1937 version, and
has since been adopted by all 50 states. NIC
supported the effort to update the compact by
collecting and sharing information on the volume of
cases transferred and on the issues that were creating
challenges for the participating state agencies.
During that period of study, NIC project staff found
very little information about interstate transfer of
prison inmates. Aside from statutes defining related
interstate compacts, such as the national Interstate
Compact for Corrections, there was no literature on
how prison inmate transfers are accomplished, the
volume of cases involved, or the reasons why these
transfers are made.
The NIC Information Center undertook the present
study to address this gap, examining state correctional
agencies’ practices in transferring state-sentenced
inmates to secure facilities outside the state in which
they were sentenced. To begin the research, NIC
contacted departments of correction (DOCs) in the 50
states and invited them to complete a written survey
questionnaire. Responses were received from DOCs
in 48 states.

February 2006

Survey scope. The first set of survey questions
addressed transfers of prison inmates between public
state agencies. Questions explored whether state
DOCs engage in interstate transfers and their legal
authority to do so. Also addressed were compensation
of DOCs that house transferred inmates and whether
transferred inmates are returned to the sending state
when being released from prison. Respondents were
also asked to share their views on current systems for
interstate transfer of prison inmates.
The second section of the survey examined the use of
inmate transfers to both state-run and privately operated facilities, specifically:

The number of men and women inmates who had
been transferred, as of July 1, 2005, to the
custody of other state DOCs, the Federal Bureau
of Prisons (BOP), and private prisons outside the
sending state; and

Reasons why these inmates were transferred.

Limitations. This report does not examine the details
of states’ individual transfer contracts or the processes
DOCs follow to arrange for inmate transfers. Study
data do not include transfers to privately operated
prisons located within the same state as the sending
DOC and therefore do not measure overall use of
private prisons. Further, though transfer of inmates to
private prisons may be a concern of DOC officials in
the destination state who lack notification of these
transfers, the nature of such potential concerns was
not explored.

Debra Biasca, J.D., Ph.D., Analyst. Constance Clem, Editor. Special Issues in Corrections is prepared by staff of LIS, Inc., NIC
Information Center contractor, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections. The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the National Institute of Corrections. Send inquiries to Connie Clem, Senior Editor,
NIC Information Center, 1860 Industrial Circle, Suite A, Longmont, Colorado, 80501; (800) 877-1461. This report is available on the NIC
web site at http://www.nicic.org/library/021242. View more reports in this series at http://www.nicic.org/ BrowseTheLibrary/Topic631.htm

Key Survey Findings

Nearly every state DOC (46 of the 48 agencies
that responded to the survey) does or can transfer
inmates to destinations in other states, though the
number of inmates transferred is sometimes quite
small. As of July 1, 2005, DOCs in at least 43
states had inmates on transferred status in the
custody of other public agencies (42 DOCs) and/
or private providers outside the state (six [6]
DOCs).

At least 4,900 men and women inmates were on
transferred status as of July 1, 2005. Data reported
in this survey totalled 2,089 state-sentenced
inmates transferred between state prison systems,
345 transferred to the Federal Bureau of Prisons,
and 2,466 transferred to privately operated prisons
located outside the sending state.

Inmate protection was the reason for the most
transfers of men in 12 state DOCs. “Other”
reasons, usually family-related, were behind most
transfers in nine (9) DOCs. For both these categories, all transfers were to other public
corrections agencies. For women inmates, the
small number of transfers did not support any
conclusions about the main reasons for transfers.
The largest number of inmates was transferred in
response to crowding (2,610 persons, of whom
nearly 95% were transfered to privately operated
prisons). Security issues were the cause of the
next largest volume of transfers (including transfers to reduce risks posed by or to inmates who
are transferred); these transfers were made exclusively to other public corrections agencies.
Inmates transferred for “other” reasons also made
up a large portion of transfers and were always
transferred to public corrections agencies.
For most transfers to other states’ institutions,
inmate day-to-day expenses are covered on a
reciprocal basis, without billing or reimbursement
of funds. Where transfers are to BOP facilities,
however, state DOCs usually pay a per diem fee.
Extraordinary expenses are most often reimbursed
with prior approval for non-emergency situations

and upon adequate notice and evaluation of
reasonableness for emergency situations.

Inmates transferred to other state DOCs
commonly can be released from prison either
directly within the receiving state or following
their return to custody in the sending state; the
development of a sound re-entry plan can support
either release location. In about one-third of the
responding states, however, inmates must be
returned to the sending state for release.

Feedback was positive on current systems for
interstate transfer of inmates, but some respondents voiced support for more standardization of
processes for interstate transfers between public
agencies.

Interstate Compacts Addressing Inmate
Transfers
An interstate compact is a powerful tool for
promoting uniform state procedures for subjects of
mutual interest. Compacts constitute enforceable obligations between states just as if the states were private
parties to a legally binding contract. Two main factors
that must be addressed to enable interstate transfer of
prisoners are: 1) the process for shifting institutional
and jurisdictional authority over inmates, and 2) the
sharing of agencies’ responsibilities and obligations
for inmates who are transferred.
Existing compacts. Three interstate compacts
currently address prison inmate transfers; one is
national in scope, and two are regional arrangements
between geographically proximal states. (See
“Sources” for links to examples of interstate compact
statutes.) None of these compacts has a central administrative office or active governing body. A few states
are party to both a regional compact and the national
compact. Most became party to a regional compact
first, before also joining the national compact.

The national Interstate Compact for Corrections
provides for uniform procedures and treatment of
prisoners who are transferred from the superviInterstate Transfer of Prison Inmates in the U.S.
February 2006

sory agency of one state to that of another. Forty
(40) states are party to this compact. Enactments
of this compact tend to have been more recent
than those of the regional compacts, with most
taking place in the 1970s and early 1980s.

The Western Corrections Compact has 11 signatory states and, according to the Council of State
Governments (2003), “provides for the joint use
of corrections facilities in the West.” States that
are party to this compact include Alaska, Arizona,
California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah,
Washington, and Wyoming. Most enactments took
place from 1959 through 1971.
The New England Corrections Compact “provides
for cooperation in the confinement, treatment, and
rehabilitation of offenders” (ibid). Six (6) northeastern states (Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont,
Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island)
have adopted the New England Interstate
Corrections Compact. Most enactments were
made from 1958 through 1962.

Provisions of the regional compacts are very similar
to those of the national compact. However, both
include a provision (Article III (b)) authorizing
contractual arrangements for enlarging space
earmarked for transferees from a party to the compact
when the receiving state enlarges its facilities. The
provision includes options for reserving a percentage
of the new space and also for inclusion of particular
equipment or structures. This is an example of interstate cooperation that goes beyond the provisions of
the Interstate Corrections Compact to potentially
create economic benefits for cooperating states.
Elements of the Interstate Compact for
Corrections. Statutory language for the national
compact as enacted in most states includes the
following provisions.

Article I—Purpose: To provide for the mutual
development and execution of programs of cooperation for the confinement, treatment, and
rehabilitation of offenders with the most economical use of human and material resources.

Interstate Transfer of Prison Inmates in the U.S.
February 2006

Article II—Definitions: Defines the entities and
individuals (inmates) affected by the compact
provisions, including the sending state (where
conviction was had), the receiving state (state
other than the sending state where the inmate is
sent for confinement), and the institution (in
which the inmate may be confined to serve the
sentence imposed by the sending state).

Article III—Authority: Provides the authority of
compact states to enter into contracts with each
other and sets minimum required provisions for
such contracts, including duration of the contract,
financial obligations between the states, programs
the inmates will participate in, payments or
credits flowing to inmates, handling of extraordinary costs incurred on inmates’ behalf, delivery
and retaking of inmates and any other issues pertinent to the sending and receiving of inmates
between the states. Each contract must be consistent with the provisions of the compact.

Article IV—Procedures and Rights: Specifies
rights and obligations of the parties to the
compact, for example:
~

Right of sending state to continued jurisdiction over the inmate during the time of the
transfer, with receiving state acting as agent
of the sending state in handling the inmate;

Right of sending state to reasonable access to
the receiving institution and the transferred
inmate;

Right of sending state to periodic reports
about the inmate’s condition and progress in
the receiving state;

Financial obligations of the sending state;

Right of the inmate to reasonable and humane
treatment, to be treated equally with similar
inmates of the receiving state;

Right of the inmate to same rights, hearings,
and benefits and subject to same obligations
as if the inmate had been confined in the
sending state;

Rights of inmates’ parents, guardians, and
trustees to be the same as if the inmate had
been confined in the sending state; and

Requirement that release of inmates shall be
in the sending state unless both states and the
inmate agree upon release elsewhere; return
to the sending state shall be at the expense of
the sending state.

Article V—Choice of Law: Provides that the
sending state’s decisions are conclusive as to
matters within their jurisdiction, while the
receiving state has jurisdiction over offenses
which might be committed while the inmate is in
their institution and can retain the inmate until its
proceedings have been completed. In addition, the
inmate may be transported through any states that
are party to the compact. Also describes a uniform
basis for handling escape offenses committed
from the institution in the receiving state.
Article VI—Federal Aid: Provides a uniform
means of dealing with the use of federal aid for
transferred inmates.

Articles VII and VIII—Effective Date and
Termination: Articulates standard provisions for
when the compact takes effect and procedures for
withdrawing from the compact, including the
requirement of 1 year’s notice of withdrawal and
the obligation to return any inmates back to the
sending state before the expiration of the 1-year
notice period.

Articles IX and X—Standard Contract
Interpretation Provisions: Presents contractual
boilerplate provisions including retention of rights
of either state under other laws or contracts, and a
requirement to liberally and severally construe the
compact provisions. Article X also authorizes a
named official (for example, the Commissioner of
Correction) to carry out the provisions of the
compact and to delegate such authority as needed.

Administrative Procedures Under the Interstate
Compact. The terms of the Interstate Compact are
quite general, with the states being required to implement it through contracts and pursuant to procedures
applicable in their jurisdiction. An example of a state
DOC’s administrative procedures for implementing
compact-sanctioned transfers was provided by the
respondent in North Carolina, and its provisions are
discussed below. Details on some other states’ procedures are noted later in this report where they add to
or diverge from the North Carolina example.

Signatory State Serves as Either Sending State
or Receiving State. The Interstate Compact is
administered by North Carolina’s Interstate
Compact Administrator, who has overall responsibility for sending and receiving inmates pursuant
to the Interstate Compact. The Director of Prisons
and the Secretary of Corrections must concur in
the approval of all transfers, whether the transfers
are out of or into North Carolina prison facilities.

Signatory State Serves as Sending State. In
North Carolina, requests for transfers under the
Interstate Compact may be made for a fairly
broad set of reasons, including protecting the
safety of a inmate subject to an identifiable threat
of harm, in furtherance of pre-release programs
for inmates within 3 years of their anticipated
release date, and in the “best interests” of “the
state, the Department, the inmate, and criminal
justice objectives.”
The directive permits requests for transfers to be
made by the inmate, an official of the institution,
or by “other sources.” If the request is approved
at the inmate’s facility, appropriate documentation
is provided to the Director of Prisons and the
Secretary of Corrections who must concur in the
approval of all transfers.
If a receiving state denies the transfer, the
Compact Administrator notifies the inmate of this
action. If the transfer is accepted by the receiving
state, several procedural steps must be taken by
the sending state prior to the transfer, including:
~

Holding a parole review, if applicable;
Interstate Transfer of Prison Inmates in the U.S.
February 2006

Notifying the appropriate individuals and
institutions concerning the transfer details,
such as date of transfer, and notifying the
facility in the receiving state that will house
the inmate;

Obtaining a waiver of extradition from the
inmate; and

Arranging for transfer of inmate funds and
records.

Signatory State Serves as a Receiving State. The
Director of Prisons and the Secretary of
Corrections must concur in approving inmates for
transfer to North Carolina facilities. When a
transfer to North Carolina has been accepted, the
directive requires appropriate documentation to be
provided to North Carolina correction officials
and for appropriate identification and classification of the inmate.

Post-Transfer Rights and Responsibilities. After
the transfer has occurred, the Compact
Administrator monitors all subsequent transfers of
the inmate within the receiving state. The inmate’s
sentence cannot be altered without prior approval
of the sending state. The inmate is required to
abide by North Carolina’s rules, and North
Carolina is to treat the inmate as any other inmate
within its prison system. The directive requires
North Carolina to conduct hearings upon the
request of the sending state (in accordance with
the Interstate Compact guarantee of an inmate’s
rights to all hearings that would have been available in the sending state) and to provide
documentation of such hearings as may be held in
the receiving state. In addition, North Carolina’s
policy directives include provisions to protect
inmate privacy, authorizing release of an inmate’s
sentence and similar public record information or
information pertaining to an escape only, and
limiting the authorization to photograph the
inmate to identification purposes only.

Handling Escape Situations. The directive sets
up a procedure for handling escape situations and
for notifying the sending state.

Interstate Transfer of Prison Inmates in the U.S.
February 2006

Premature Return to Sending State. An inmate
might be returned prematurely to the sending
state. The directive sets up a 30-day notice for the
return and prescribes the conditions for such a
return, which include a change in circumstances
such that the initial reasons (for example, security
concerns) are no longer valid but are broad
enough to include any other appropriate reason.

Expenses for Sending and Receiving States. All
routine expenses related to inmates in the sending
or receiving state are to be reciprocally handled
on a bookkeeping-only basis. That is, no funds
change hands for day-to-day expenses related to
transfers between state systems. For inmates transferred to the BOP, however, per diem expenses are
billed and paid. In addition, for BOP transferees,
the federal government is responsible for reimbursing the receiving state for costs related to an
escape. (See 18 USC Sec. 4007 [01/19/04].)

Authority for Interstate Transfer of Prison
Inmates
Survey respondents were asked what source(s)
authorize their agency to transfer prison inmates to the
custody of another publicly managed prison system.

Most of the agencies that transfer inmates to the
institutions of other states (45 of 46 DOCs) do so
under the authority of an interstate compact
statute. Forty (40) states are party to the national
Interstate Compact for Corrections. Seventeen
(17) states are party to regional interstate
compacts for corrections, either as their sole
compact (five [5] states) or, more often, in addition to the national compact. Often, compactdefined authority is supplemented by authority
provided by other statutes and/or formal DOC
policy.

In 16 states, other statutes define the DOC’s
authority to engage in inmate transfers. In some
states, these statutes stand on their own, but more
commonly they supplement the state’s separate
Interstate Compact legislation.

Agency policy was cited as a source of authority
for inmate transfers by respondents in 13 states.

Judicial precedent and court orders were cited by
respondents in fewer than 5 states as providing
authority for interstate transfers of inmates.

Authority through interstate compacts. Most of the
46 responding state DOCs that transfer inmates to the
institutions of other states do so under the authority of
a national or regional interstate compact. In states that
are party to one or more interstate compacts and have
also enacted statutes or developed official DOC policies that address transfers, the statutes and policies
generally implement compact provisions, provide
context and conditions for inmate transfers, or provide
details of transfer process requirements.
For example, transfer policies in the Connecticut
DOC promote intergovernmental and interagency
cooperation to improve DOC operations. One section
instructs the DOC to cooperate with law enforcement
authorities in the implementation of witness protection initiatives through, for example, inmate transfer
in accordance with Administrative Directives and/or
interstate compact provisions. A further section on
interstate compacts and federal treaties specifies that
“[t]he Department shall be linked with correctional
agencies in other states and the federal government in
order to transfer, receive and exchange prisoners
within these systems … Whenever feasible, the
Department shall seek to accommodate the needs of
other corrections agencies through these compacts and
contracts.”
Authority through other state statute. In one state
(Mississippi), inmate transfers are authorized by
statute which is not a an interstate compact statute.
Respondents in 15 other states indicated that additional statutes exist that supplement the provisions of
the state’s compact legislation.
For example, California statutes require that inmate
transfer contracts under the interstate compacts to
which California is party provide the following additional rights and obligations:

1. For inmates sentenced under California law:
a. A prohibition against transfer without the
inmate’s written consent.
b. The right to counsel concerning inmate rights
and obligations under the Compact.
c. The right to revoke consent to the transfer
after 5 years and to be returned to a California
institution in that case within 30 days.
d. The right to hearings (standard in the
Interstate Compact) within 120 days (not
mentioned in the Interstate Compact) of the
time required to persons similarly sentenced
but confined in institutions in California.
2. Requirement of inspection by the Department of
the interstate facility prior to contracting for the
transfer and at least annually thereafter to ensure
suitability of the receiving state’s facility.
3. Duty to inspect the receiving state’s correctional
facility premises specifically includes a duty to
ensure nondiscrimination of transferred inmates
on the basis of race, religion, color, creed, or
national origin.
4. Extension of compact provisions to apply to the
transfer of county jail prisoners.
5. Rights to benefits upon release, including money
and tools, on the same basis as prisoners released
from California.
6. Procedures in cases where transferred inmates are
called as witnesses in California proceedings.
(This provision protects the rights of defendants
on the proceedings in which transferred inmates
might be called by requiring notice and opportunity to interview the transferred inmate and has no
bearing on an inmate’s duty to testify or be interviewed.)
Authority through formal DOC policy. Respondents
in 12 states noted that official agency policy provides
authority to engage in the interstate transfer of prison
inmates. Each of these states also is party to at least
one interstate compact for inmate transfers. Policy
statements provided by respondents include the
Interstate Transfer of Prison Inmates in the U.S.
February 2006

following specific provisions.

inmates and discretionary transfer for families of
former Missouri DOC employees and former law
enforcement and justice system personnel.
Another provision excuses offenders from
sentencing obligations that become impossible to
meet by reason of the transfer (such as participating in a particular state-sponsored drug
rehabilitation program).

Alaska. Alaska is not party to the national
Interstate Corrections Compact but is a signatory
of the Western Interstate Corrections Compact.
Alaska’s policy provides for requests initiated by
inmates or facilities and specifies considerations
for the transfer determination, which include
inmate initiation of the request, medical or mental
health needs that cannot be met within the Alaska
system, length of time left to serve (7.5 years or
more), lack of significant family ties to Alaska
and more than 2 years of the sentence remaining,
need for protective custody for the inmate, or an
undue escape risk presented by the inmate.
Alaska’s policy mandates a non-transfer determination for Alaskan native inmates who have
maintained a traditional or rural Alaska lifestyle.
Policies also include a requirement that a classification review be completed yearly for all
prisoners held out of state.
Minnesota. Formal DOC policy limits inmate
transfers to exchanges that do not engender additional costs to either the sending or the receiving
state; funds are exchanged only for pre-approved
extraordinary medical expenses. When a transfer
request is received, staff review the balance of the
agency’s exchanges with the requested state. A
directive details the procedures for interstate
transfers, including factors to consider in granting
the transfer, management of communication about
the transfer, and records that must be provided
concerning the inmate. If the transfer request is
initiated by the inmate, the directive requires that
the inmate meet certain behavioral and sentencelength conditions, and the inmate must pay
associated travel costs. If the transfer request is
initiated by the facility, security and institutional
“best interests” standards apply, and the DOC
funds the travel. The directive also addresses
return of the inmate, including the reasons for
such returns and procedural requirements.
Missouri. The Missouri DOC’s institutional services manual includes provisions for mandatory
transfer of any former Missouri Department of
Corrections (DOC) employees who become

Interstate Transfer of Prison Inmates in the U.S.
February 2006

Missouri’s formal policy specifically prevents
using the Interstate Compact to sidestep extradition procedures by prohibiting transfer of an
inmate to a jurisdiction in which the inmate is
subject to criminal prosecution. It also prohibits
consideration of Interstate Compact offenders for
placement in private, leased prison beds.
The Missouri policy offers protections of inmate
property, money, and privacy, expressing particular consideration for the inmates who are
transferred for their own protection. The policy
also requires sending state approval for any
actions by the receiving state which would result
in work-release participation or early release of
the Missouri offender. The Missouri policy
requires semi-annual program reports on transferred inmates, which is more specific than the
Interstate Compact’s non-time-limited requirement for reporting.

Ohio. Formal DOC policy in Ohio includes
serveral provisions addressing the need for
privacy and confidentiality surrounding the
transfer. For example, the agency maintains dual
files for the transferred inmates it receives. (One
file includes the inmate’s state of origin, and the
other is free of such references.) The inmate’s file
is hand-carried to the sending state.
Like Missouri, Ohio requires semi-annual
reporting of the inmates’ progress, but the DOC
also requires notification upon the occurrence of
incidents involving Interstate Compact transferees, such as serious medical issues and escape
attempts. Ohio’s regulations are very specific in
terms of the records incident to interstate transfers. The Ohio policy also includes provisions
concerning inmate property, limiting the items an

inmate can physically take to the receiving state
and requiring compliance with property rules in
the receiving state.

Rhode Island. The survey respondent provided a
copy of the DOC’s standard Interstate Compact
contract. Of note is a somewhat broadened definition of “institution” to include sending state
facilities “whether or not such facilities are
owned, operated or under the exclusive control of
the respective state agency.” Like California,
Rhode Island also includes a provision that
protects its inmates from discrimination on the
basis of race, religion, color, creed, or national
origin while in the receiving state.
South Dakota. South Dakota policy defines an
accounting system for reciprocal inmate transfers
based upon “Man Day” credits and debits. A manday credit is the “total number of inmate days that
another correctional system owes to the State of
South Dakota,” and a debit is “the total number of
inmate days owed to another correctional system
by the State of South Dakota.” The balance in
these accounts is a factor in determining whether
or not to approve a transfer. If it prevents a
request from being approved, relaxed time limits
apply to subsequent requests for transfer.
The South Dakota policy also provides for teleconferenced parole hearings that may be
conducted in the receiving state to avoid transportation costs that would otherwise be involved.
Several forms were also attached to the South
Dakota survey response:
1. Inmate Interstate Compact Request
2. Inmate Interstate Compact Transfer Request
Response
3. Application for Transfer Pursuant to the
Interstate Corrections Compact
4. Acknowledgement of Parole Hearing Process
and Waiver of Personal Appearance
5. Interstate Compact Medical Review
6. Interstate Compact Transfer Review.

Utah. The Utah DOC policy addresses the
process, but not the factual considerations, for
compassionate transfers. Under this policy, the
inmate is responsible for travel costs. The policy
sets up a procedure for timely payment, failing
which the transfer is denied and the inmate
becomes ineligible for transfer for a period of
2 years. Inmates awaiting execution for capital
offenses and sex offenders who have no parole
date are ineligible for compassionate transfers.

Other authority for interstate transfers. Court cases
were cited by two (2) survey respondents as providing
a basis for interstate transfers of inmates. In West
Virginia, as previously noted, court precedent has
been interpreted to prohibit interstate transfers. In
California, court precedent was cited as requiring
transfer to the BOP of an inmate convicted in
California, in order to preserve the state judgment
prescribing that the California sentence run concurrent
with the federal sentence. Without this transfer, the
sentences would have been consecutive (and substantially longer) (In re Stoliker, 29 Cal. 2d. 75 [1957]).
The Texas respondent noted that interstate transfers
have been initiated in response to court order.
Other respondents indicated that specific authority for
transfers is made through intergovernmental agreements, memoranda of understanding, and contracts.

Administration of Inmate Transfers
Among the various operational issues that relate to
interstate transfers of inmates, the current study
focused on two aspects: compensation of receiving
states, and requirements to return inmates to the
sending state at the conclusion of the prison sentence.
Compensation for general costs to house inmates.
Requirements to compensate receiving states are not
specified in the Interstate Compact for Corrections. In
practice, compensation to the receiving state for dayto-day inmate expenses is usually achieved through
reciprocal transfers of inmates between state agencies.
This minimizes the need for accounting and budgeting
efforts and is an important and positive result of interInterstate Transfer of Prison Inmates in the U.S.
February 2006

state cooperation in the corrections arena.

All but three (3) responding DOCs indicated that
they regularly handle ordinary inmate expenses
on a reciprocal basis.

Of these agencies, 11 indicated that compensation
for transfers on a per diem basis also takes place.
Some respondents noted that their per diem
compensation is related specifically to transfers to
the BOP, which does not accept reciprocity for
expenses related to transfers. Some per diem
payments are also made in relation to state-tostate transfers.

A few other states noted that compensation is
arranged on a case-by-case basis or negotiated per
contract.

Compensation for extraordinary expenses. In
general, services that are routinely provided at the
receiving state’s correctional facility are considered
ordinary expenses and are covered by the receiving
state. Other costs for special inmate management situations or health care are considered extraordinary, as
defined by individual agencies, and the sending state
can be compensated for these expenses.
Most examples of extraordinary expenses relate to
medical care. Items specified by respondents include
surgery, MRI, and prostheses (Alabama); radiation
and chemotherapy for cancer patients, HIV and hepatitis treatment, and major surgery (Oklahoma); and
kidney transplant and burial expenses for an inmate
leaving no next-of-kin (Virginia).
A small number of jurisdictions include as extraordinary expenses the transportation costs incurred to
return the inmate to the sending state, whether for
release or for hearings. New Jersey includes costs of
extradition if the offender escapes to a third jurisdiction, expenses related to death of an offender, clothing
and transportation upon release of the offender, and
legal costs incurred in defending challenges to the
legality of confinement while the offender is housed
outside the sending state.

Interstate Transfer of Prison Inmates in the U.S.
February 2006

Most respondents indicated that their agencies cover
extraordinary costs incurred in relation to transferred
inmates. In some jurisdictions, however, extraordinary
costs are divided into emergency and non-emergency
categories, which have different requirements for
compensation. Non-emergency expenses must usually
be approved in advance for compensation to be
provided, while emergency costs generally require
notice and approval after the fact. No respondent cited
any difficulties in obtaining reimbursement.
Respondents in four (4) state DOCs indicated their
agencies do not cover extraordinary costs. One state
seems to carve out a pre-existing condition exception
and does not pay extraordinary costs incurred as a
result of medical issues that develop after the transfer
or “due to an incident at the receiving agency.”
Another state does not permit transfers of inmates
with known “medical issues,” and one state often
returns a transferred inmate who requires extraordinary medical care back to the sending state.
Return of transferred inmates for release from
prison sentence. The provisions of the Interstate
Compact for Corrections require that the transferred
inmate be returned to the sending state unless there is
agreement to the contrary among the sending state,
the receiving state, and the inmate. The survey asked
about agencies’ actual practices in this regard.

Eighteen (18) state DOCs require that inmates
whom they transfer to other situations be returned
to the sending state for release. One state’s
respondent noted that the DOC is required by
statute to return inmates to their state for release.

In three (3) states, however, inmates are typically
released in the receiving state rather than being
returned to the sending state prior to release.

In the majority of states (27 DOCs), the site of
release varies between the sending state and the
receiving state. Some of these DOCs noted that
they generally bring the transferred inmate back
prior to release but have discretion to approve
release from the receiving state. Savings in transportation costs were cited as one advantage of

release from the receiving state; other respondents
noted that they approve release in the receiving
state if family ties are still maintained there.

ferred, subject to requests to continue the
transferred status;

Among the DOCs which permit release in the
receiving states, this most commonly occurs
under the following conditions:
~

Release in receiving state is appropriate to the
reason for the transfer (for example, if an
inmate was transferred to preserve family ties
and family ties have been maintained);

Family ties or a permanent residence have
been maintained in the receiving state;

There is an approved parole compact case or
approved release plan in the receiving state;

The inmate is being released to a halfway
house in the receiving state pursuant to a prerelease plan;

The inmate initiates a request that is granted
after appropriate review;

Request by receiving state (without reference
to inmate’s position on the request although
inmate request may be implied);

After maximum sentence served, receiving
state grants approval; or

Decision is made within the discretion of the
parole board.

Among these “variable return” states, inmates are
returned to the sending state under the following
conditions:

Additional sentence or parole violation
pending;

Inmate request to transfer is revoked after a 5year time limit imposed by DOC policy;

Discretionary parole is granted prior to the
original release date;

Inmate is to serve a consecutive sentence or a
concurrent sentence that is longer than the
sentence under which the inmate was trans-

Receiving state prohibits release there;

There is a local community supervision
requirement in the release plan;

The inmate is being released from federal
status with an open warrant in the sending
state;

The offender has no funds or family/friends to
provide transportation; or

The sending state funds transportation to its
diagnostic center for release.

Finally, one jurisdiction specifically permits
release to states other than the sending state or the
receiving state, provided the receiving state
concurs and an appropriate transportation plan
and parole plan are in place.

Incidence of Interstate Inmate Transfers
Most of the responding state DOCs indicated that they
can and do engage in interstate transfers of prison
inmates. As defined in this survey question, these
transfers excluded temporary transfers for brief legal
proceedings, medical treatment, or other short-term
purposes as well as transitional transfers to work
release, halfway houses, or other similar programs or
facilities. Transfers could be to other state DOCs, to
the BOP, or to private providers located in states other
than that of the sending DOC. Agencies were asked to
provide data on cases that were on transferred status
as of July 1, 2005.

Of the 48 state DOCs that responded to the
survey, 46 confirmed that they engage in longterm transfers of inmates to the custody of other
publicly-managed prison systems. Among these
state systems, however, three (3) DOCs had no
cases on active transfer status as of the survey
date. Five (5) agencies reported having fewer than
five inmates on transferred status.

Interstate Transfer of Prison Inmates in the U.S.
February 2006

DOCs in the 43 states with active transfers on
July 1, 2005, had transferred a total of 4,900
inmates to other jurisdictions. This includes 4,275
men and 499 women, plus 126 inmates for whom
data were not available by sex. One other DOC
provided data for a broader reporting period, and
their figures are not included in this total.

DOCs in nine (9) states had men, but no women,
currently transferred to other jurisdictions.

Only two (2) responding state DOCs indicated
that they do not engage in long-term interstate
transfers. Louisiana’s survey response gave no
explanation for this position. The West Virginia
respondent cited a judicial interpretation of a state
constitutional “prohibition against banishment” as
precluding such transfers.

Location of transferred inmates. Table 1 summarizes reported data on where men and women inmates
had been transferred as of July 1, 2005, and gives the
approximate percentages of the male and female

prison population represented by these transfers.
Percentage figures are based on a total prison population on December 31, 2004, of 1,316,301 inmates
(U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2005), comprising
1,223,617 men and 92,684 women.

Privately operated prisons received the largest
number of transferred inmates, but relatively few
DOCs made these transfers. DOCs in just six (6)
states had transferred a total of 2,466 men and
women inmates to the custody of private facilities
located in other states.

Many more state DOCs transferred inmates to
other state systems, but they transferred fewer
individuals. DOCs in 40 states had transferred a
total of 2,089 men and women to prisons operated
by other states.

The BOP was housing 345 state-sentenced
inmates at the request of 28 sending state DOCs.
All but 12 of these transfers involved male
inmates. While more than half of the responding

Table 1. Active Interstate Transfers of Prison Inmates as of July 1, 2005
Transfers to Other State DOCs
Transfers of men:

Number of responding agencies with male inmates housed by other state DOCs:
40
Total men held in other state DOCs:
1,863 (0.15% of U.S. male prison population)

Transfers of women:

Number of responding agencies with women inmates housed by other state DOCs:
29
Total women held in other state DOCs:
101 (0.11% of U.S. female prison population)

Transfers to Federal Bureau of Prisons
Transfers of men:

Number of responding agencies with male inmates housed by BOP:
27
Total state-sentenced men housed by BOP:
332 (0.03% of U.S. male prison population)

Transfers of women:

Number of responding agencies with women inmates housed by BOP:
4
Total state-sentenced women housed by BOP:
12 (0.01% of U.S. female prison population)

Transfers to Private, Out-of-State Facilities
Transfers of men:

Number of responding DOCs with men housed in out-of-state, privately operated facilities:
6
Total men housed at these facilities:
2,080 (0.17% of U.S. male prison population)

Transfers of women:

Number of responding DOCs with women housed in out-of-state, privately operated facilities:
2
Total women housed at these facilities:
386 (0.42% of U.S. female prison population)

* Numbers on this table do not include 126 inmates for whom data are not available by sex. All 126 inmates were transferred to
other states, except for one (1) case transferred to the BOP.

Interstate Transfer of Prison Inmates in the U.S.
February 2006

agencies had at least one inmate being held in
BOP custody, in most of these states the number
of cases transferred to the BOP was very small.
Table 2, page 13, presents state-by-state data on the
number of men and women inmates who were transferred to other states, the BOP, and out-of-state
private prisons as of July 1, 2005.
Methods used for formal transfer of custody. Most
interstate inmate transfers (75% of state-to-state transfers) are formalized through contracts pursuant to
interstate compacts. However, some transfers between
state agencies were described as having been made
outside the auspices of a compact.
Table 3, page 14, presents a breakdown of the mechanisms used to formalize inmate transfers between
state DOCs.

Transfers pursuant to interstate compacts totalled
1,587 inmates who were transferred out from 39
DOCs.

Five (5) DOCs reported that they transferred 502
inmates through non-compact processes.

Four (4) DOCs accomplished some state-to-state
transfers through both compact and non-compact
methods.

Transfers to BOP facilities (345 inmates) and
privately-owned prison facilities (2,466 inmates) were
handled outside of interstate compact auspices.

Why Prison Inmates Are Transferred
Also of interest in this study were reasons why
inmates are transferred from the state DOC where
they were sentenced to secure facilities in other states.
Inmate transfers occur for a fairly limited number of
reasons. The survey instrument asked for data on men
and women inmates who were transferred in six predefined categories and an open-ended “other”
category to be explained by respondents.

Survey categories were:

Facility crowding;

Special program needs;

Special custody or security needs for inmates who
may pose a danger within the sending DOC (i.e.,
inmates who pose actual or potential danger to
themselves, staff, or other inmates);

Special custody or security needs for inmates who
may be in danger within the sending DOC (i.e.,
inmates who are in danger of being victimized by
other inmates).

Post-incident or disturbance cool-down;

Adjudication pending or inmate is serving
sentence imposed by another jurisdiction; and

Other reasons. (As defined by survey respondents,
“other” reasons for inmate transfers center mainly
on compassionate and/or family-related purposes,
though some other purposes were also noted. This
is discussed in more detail on page 15.)

Table 4, page 14, provides a count of state DOCs that
transferred men and women inmates for each of the
reasons identified in the survey. Note that these counts
are for states reporting any transfers in these categories, even if only one inmate was transferred for
that reason.
On this basis, state DOCs were most likely to transfer
inmates when necessary to reduce the risk they pose
to the safety and security of their facility operations
(33 DOCs for men and 16 for women). Following
closely were the numbers of DOCs making transfers
to protect the transferred inmate (31 DOCs for men
and 13 for women) and transfers for “other” reasons
(27 DOCs for men and 15 for women).
When focusing on the numbers of inmates transferred,
however, a different picture emerges. As shown in
Table 5, page 15, the largest numbers of men and
women inmates were transferred because of facility
crowding. Following next for both men and women

Interstate Transfer of Prison Inmates in the U.S.
February 2006

Table 2. Active Transfers of Men and Women Inmates on July 1, 2005, by Receiving Agency
Men Transferred
To other states’
prisons
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
TOTALS

9
4
106
32
360

To the Federal
Bureau of Prisons

Women Transferred
To private prisons
in other states

0
11
0
0
167

4
756
0
0
0

To other states’
prisons

To the Federal
Bureau of Prisons

0
2
0
2
22

To private prisons
in other states

0
0
0
0
8

299
0
0
0
0

(Data not available by sex; 125 inmates transferred to other states and 1 transferred to BOP)

51
19
14
0

8
0
0
1

0
0
0
0

2
3
2
0

0
0
0
0

0
0
0

3
2
3

0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

4
0
2
0
7

2
0
0
1
0

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

1
2
3
6

0
0
0
0

0
0
0

4
0
0

0
0
0

57
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
373
0
406

2
2
5
2
9
3
0
0
2
0
0
1
1
1

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

2
0
101

0
1
12

0
87
386

(No survey response)

(No survey response)
(DOC had no active inmate transfers as of survey date)

31
73
18

7
1
0

(DOC does not engage in interstate transfers of inmates)

18
2
64
0
73

22
0
6
27
5

(DOC had no active inmate transfers as of survey date)

52
23
25
169

2
2
1
0

(DOC had no active inmate transfers as of survey date)

60
81
1

3
0
2

(Data provided for a broader reporting period)

7
20
74
62
22
45
4
24
2
10
36
15
3
181

7
11
1
1
12
5
0
0
0
4
2
4
0
6

(DOC does not engage in interstate transfers of inmates)

32
27
1,863

12
2
332

Interstate Transfer of Prison Inmates in the U.S.
February 2006

0
484
2,080

Table 3. Mechanisms Used for State-to-State Transfers
No. of DOCs Using
This Method
Transfers Via
Interstate Compacts
Non-Compact
Transfers

No. of inmates
transferred

502

Reported data on the number of men and women
transferred were studied to compare the primary
reason for these transfers as it differed from state to
state.

No. of DOCs
That
Transferred
Men

1,587

are “other” reasons. Next highest are the two securityrelated categories: transfers for inmate protection, and
transfers to preserve safe facility operations. These are
reversed for male and female inmates, with movements of inmates in danger being more numerous
among male prisoners, and movements of inmates
posing danger being more numerous among female
prisoners. Special program needs, pending adjudications, and “cool-down” transfers after an incident each
were the reason behind fewer than 5% of reported
transfers.

Table 4. DOCs’ Reasons for Interstate Transfers of
Men and Women Inmates

Protection of inmates was the reason for most
transfers of men in 12 state DOCs. “Other”
reasons were the main reason for men’s transfers
in nine (9) DOCs. Crowding was the primary
reason for transfers of men in six (6) DOCs. In
only four (4) DOCs were men most likely to have
been transferred for reasons of preserving safety
and security in the sending state’s prisons.
For women inmates, it was difficult to rank the
reasons for transfer due to the very low number of
women transferred from any one state. Crowding
and “other” reasons were the primary factor in
one state each, but in other states the small
numbers did not support any conclusions.

No. of DOCs
That
Transferred
Women

Special Custody:
Inmates Posing Danger

Special Custody:
Inmates Needing
Protection

Special Program Needs

Facility Crowding

Adjudication Pending

Post-Incident Cool
Down

Other

Inmate transfers by reason and recipient agency.
The data sets presented as Table 6, page 16, give
details on the numbers of inmates who were sent to
the three types of out-of-state placements and the
reasons for these transfers.

Transfers to states were most often made for
reasons of custody (risk control or protection) or
“other” reasons (mainly family-related).

Transfers to the BOP were made for generally
similar reasons as transfers to other state DOCs.

Transfers to private prisons were made almost
exclusively in response to facility crowding,
except for a few transfers of men and women to
accommodate special program needs.

The largest group of women inmates transferred
out of state were moved to private facilities in
response to facility crowding in the home agency.
These transfers involved only a few state DOCs.

Interstate Transfer of Prison Inmates in the U.S.
February 2006

Table 5. Numbers of Interstate Transfers of Men
and Women Inmates, by Reason for Transfer
Men
Transferred

Women
Transferred

2,228 (52%)

382 (77%)

Special Custody:
Inmates Needing
Protection

608 (14%)

24 (5%)

Special Custody:
Inmates Posing Danger

422 (10%)

31 (6%)

Special Program Needs

161 (4%)

18 (4%)

Adjudication Pending

127 (3%)

2 (0.4%)

Post-Incident Cool
Down

20 (0.5%)

Facility Crowding

Other

709 (17%)

“Other” reasons for inmate transfer. Respondents
volunteered information on several other reasons for
inmate transfers, which totalled 751 men and women.

The largest number of “other” transfers is attributed to a peculiarity of California law (the In re
Stoliker precedent, discussed on page 8), dealing
with serving consecutive and concurrent
sentences in two jurisdictions. This exception
applies to 401 transfers made between California
and other state DOCs.
Two-thirds of the remaining 351 “other” transfers
(237 inmates) were described by respondents as
approved for family or compassionate reasons.
These transfers were made to jurisdictions where
inmates’ family members reside and serve to

Interstate Transfer of Prison Inmates in the U.S.
February 2006

Another type of transfer reported as “other” was
for inmates who had testified for the state or were
former staff of law enforcement agencies or
DOCs (61 inmates). Such transfers could have
been reported in the inmate protection category.

Other reasons for transfers cited in the “other” category affected relatively few inmates:

To allow inmates to maintain a Kosher diet;

To manage high profile cases (another example
related to security);

To respond to inmate management issues and to
provide for separation of inmates (also related to
security);

To manage cases of conflict between staff and
inmates;

To provide for an equitable “exchange” of prisoners; and

To respond to court orders.

42 (8%)

* Numbers on this table do not include 126 inmates for
whom data are not available by sex. Percentages are calculated against the total number of reported transfers of men
and women inmates, less these 126 inmates.

avoid undue hardship on visitors while helping
inmates maintain family ties. The respondent in
one DOC noted that these transfers often take
place as inmates approach the end of their
sentences. Altogether, respondents in 19 state
DOCs noted that transfers had been made for
family and/or compassionate reasons.

Agencies’ views on the benefits of interstate inmate
transfers. Survey respondents noted that having the
ability to transfer inmates to other jurisdictions offers
many advantages. Some benefits mentioned include:

The ability to address problems such as cooldown for inmates following a disturbance and
provision of dialysis treatment that could not be
provided onsite in the sending state, at a savings
of considerable transportation costs;

Enhancement of inmates’ family relationships;

Table 6. Outside Placements Receiving Inmates Transferred Out of State, by Reason for Transfer
a) Facility Crowding

e) Special Program Needs
Men
Transferred

Women
Transferred

Men
Transferred

Women
Transferred

Transfers to Other State
DOCs

152

Transfers to Other State
DOCs

157

Transfers to the Federal
Bureau of Prisons

2,076

381

Transfers to Privately
Operated Prisons in
Other States

b) Custody Needs: Inmates in Danger
Men
Transferred

f) Post-Incident/Disturbance Cool-Down
Men
Transferred

Women
Transferred

Transfers to Other State
DOCs

547

Transfers to Other State
DOCs

Transfers to the Federal
Bureau of Prisons

c) Custody Needs: Inmates Posing Danger
Men
Transferred

g) Adjudication Pending

Women
Transferred

Men
Transferred

Women
Transferred

Transfers to Other State
DOCs

347

Transfers to Other State
DOCs

125

Transfers to the Federal
Bureau of Prisons

d) Other Reasons
Men
Transferred

Women
Transferred

Transfers to Other State
DOCs

518

Transfers to the Federal
Bureau of Prisons

191

* Numbers in Table 6 do not include 126 inmates for whom
data are not available by sex.

Interstate Transfer of Prison Inmates in the U.S.
February 2006

Management of inmates who are gang members
by moving them to regions where their power
base can be neutralized;

Difficulties in obtaining required documentation
from the receiving state in time for duly scheduled parole hearings in the sending state;

Overall enhancement of the security at and
orderly operation of the sending state’s facilities;

Preserving the rights of transferred inmates when
these rights differ from those of inmates in the
receiving state;

Increasing program opportunities for inmates;

The need for consistent reporting systems;

Means of accommodating what would be high
profile prisoners in the sending state; and

An overall lack of timeliness in the exchange of
information;

Separating inmates who create security or
management problems.

A lack of reciprocity in accepting inmates, which
could disturb the balance of costs to house
inmates exchanged between state systems; and

A lack of effectiveness of the Interstate Compact
between states located beyond a 1-day’s drive
from each other.

Agencies’ Satisfaction with Processes for
Interstate Transfer of Inmates
The general response to a survey question concerning
effectiveness of current systems was favorable. One
respondent indicated that the interstate transfer
process was “simple and easy to use” and another that
“the interstate officers of other states have been very
helpful and cooperative.” One western state respondent expressed a great deal of satisfaction with the
system which had served that agency’s needs particularly well and often. Another respondent commended
the system specifically for the flexibility exhibited by
Interstate Compact coordinators in the face of
differing policies, procedures and laws in their respective jurisdictions.
Respondents also identified some problem areas that
could be addressed to improve interstate transfer
procedures:

The need to accommodate differences in
sentencing structures across states;

Gaps in notification procedures to track inmate
movement following hearings in the sending state
and in the event of the receiving state’s need to
move the inmate within the receiving state after
the initial placement;

Interstate Transfer of Prison Inmates in the U.S.
February 2006

Respondents provided a number of suggestions for
system improvement.

Standardization. A number of respondents
voiced interest in the benefits that could result
from further standardization in procedures, forms,
and sharing information common to the majority
of Interstate Compact transfers. Examples
include:
~

Medical expenses compensation;

Information included in transfer referral
packets;

Review and information-sharing on gangrelated activity;

Position of officials who are responsible for
transporting inmates;

Specifications for what property can accompany the inmate to the receiving state (e.g.,
medications);

Inmate privacy rights, especially as related to
transfers for an inmates’ own protection;

Sharing of transportation costs when significant numbers of inmates are being transferred
at the same time;

Access to legal materials specific to the
sending state;

Development of an inmate handbook to
discuss issues that commonly affect inmates
who are transferred, such as requests to return
to the sending state, help in maintaining
secrecy as to the identity of the sending state,
sentencing information and good time calculation, and choice of law for classification,
inmate property ownership, release programs,
and grievances.

National organization. One respondent called for
the creation of a national organization of compact
states to achieve streamlining and standardization
goals. Models could be found in the Interstate
Commission for Adult Offender Supervision,
supporting the supervision of offenders on parole
and probation through the Interstate Compact for
Adult Offender Supervision, or the National
Association of Extradition Officials. This respondent noted that more standardization has been
provided for the parties to the New England
Interstate Corrections Compact, a concept which
could provide additional benefit if extended
beyond the New England states.

modate both institutional inmate management issues
and some very important inmate concerns for safety
and family. From the perspective of the facility staff
and operational security, the problems that the transfers alleviate are significant and often life-threatening.
State DOC staff who responded to the survey generally are satisfied with current systems for interstate
transfers of inmates. It is commendable that agencies
have formed workable methods for cooperating to
make these transfers an effective tool for those who
manage America’s prisons.
Sources
Council of State Governments, National Center for Interstate
Compacts. Web site: http://www.csg.org/CSG/Programs/
National+Center+for+Interstate+Compacts/default.htm. To view
examples of interstate compacts cited in this report, click on
“statutes” link.
Harrison, Paige M., and Allen J. Beck, “Prisoners in 2004,” U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of
Justice Statistics Bulletin, October 5, 2005, NCJ-210677.
Available online at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/p04.pdf
Interstate Commission for Adult Offender Supervision. Web site:
http://www.interstatecompact.org/
Voit, William Kevin, et al., “Interstate Compacts and Agencies:
2003.” Lexington, Kentucky: The Council of State Governments.

Conclusions
The results of this survey have been summed up by
one respondent, who commented:
Each state operates in a different manner, using
different rules and procedures as well as using a
variety of forms and language. It is important that
we remain flexible and willing to take a number of
extra steps to assist the transfers. I have been
extremely pleased with how well the coordinators
work together.
Survey findings create a strong impression of a
system that operates to the mutual benefit of many
states. While the numbers may not be particularly
large for any one state, corrections officials are clearly
using interstate transfers of prison inmates to accom-

Interstate Transfer of Prison Inmates in the U.S.
February 2006