Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 25, 2024 Mon
Time: 8:20 pm
Time: 8:20 pm
Results for administrative segregation
23 results foundAuthor: Metcalf, Hope Title: Administrative Segregation, Degrees of Isolation, and Incarceration: A National Overview of State and Federal Correctional Policies Summary: This report provides an overview of state and federal policies related to long-term isolation of inmates, a practice common in the United States and one that has drawn attention in recent years from many sectors. All jurisdictions in the United States provide for some form of separation of inmates from the general population. Prison administrators see the ability to separate inmates as central to protecting the safety of both inmates and staff. Yet many correctional systems are reviewing their use of segregated confinement; as controversy surrounds this form of control, its duration, and its effects. The debates about these practices are reflected in the terms used, with different audiences taking exceptions to each. Much of the recent public discussion calls the practice “solitary confinement” or “isolation.” In contrast, correctional facility policies use terms such as “segregation,” “restricted housing,” or “special management,” and some corrections leaders prefer the term “separation.” All agree that the practice entails separating inmates from the general population and restricting their participation in everyday activities; such as recreation, shared meals, and religious, educational, and other programs. The degree of contact permitted — with staff, other inmates, or volunteers — varies. Some jurisdictions provide single cells and others double; in some settings, inmates find ways to communicate with each other. The length of time spent in isolation can vary from a few days to many years. This report provides a window into these practices. This overview describes rules promulgated by prison officials to structure decisions on the placement of persons in “administrative segregation,” which is one form of separation of inmates from the general population. Working with the Association of State Correctional Administrators (ASCA), the Arthur Liman Program at Yale Law School launched an effort to review the written policies related to administrative segregation promulgated by correctional systems in the United States. With ASCA’s assistance, we obtained policies from 47 jurisdictions, including 46 states and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. This overview provides a national portrait of policies governing administrative segregation for individuals in prisons, outlines the commonalities and variations among jurisdictions, facilitates comparisons across jurisdictions, and enables consideration of how and when administrative segregation is and should be used. Because this review is of written policies, it raises many questions for research – about whether the policies are implemented as written, achieve the goals for which they are crafted, and at what costs. Information is needed on the demographic data on the populations held in various forms of segregated custody, the reasons for placement of individuals in and the duration of such confinement, the views of inmates, of staff on site, and of central office personnel; and the long-term effects of administrative segregation on prison management and on individuals. Without such insights, one cannot assess the experiences of segregation from the perspectives of those who run, those who work in, and those who live in these institutions. Details: New Haven, CT: Liman Public Interest Program at Yale Law School, 2013. 64p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 6, 2013 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2286861 Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2286861 Shelf Number: 129265 Keywords: Administrative SegregationCorrectional AdministrationCorrectional ManagementPrisonersSolitary Confinement |
Author: Hastings, Allison Title: Keeping Vulnerable Populations Safe Under PREA: Alternative Strategies to the Use of Segregation in Prisons and Jails Summary: Incarcerated people at risk for sexual victimization need to be housed safely without losing access to programming, mental and medical health services, and group activities. The National Standards to Prevent, Detect, and Respond to Prison Rape emphasize that isolation be used to protect at-risk populations only when no other alternatives are available and all other options have been explored. To help agencies achieve compliance with these standards, Vera's Center on Sentencing and Corrections, in conjunction with the National PREA Resource Center, has developed guidelines to provide prison and jail administrators and staff with promising strategies for safely housing inmates at risk of sexual abuse without isolating them. This guide includes approaches for managing the housing of populations at particularly high risk for sexual abuse in confinement: women; youthful inmates in adult facilities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex (LGBTI) individuals; and people who are gender nonconforming. Details: New York: National PREA Resource Center, Vera Institute of Justice, 2015. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 15, 2015 at: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/housing-vulnerable-populations-prea-guide-april.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/housing-vulnerable-populations-prea-guide-april.pdf Shelf Number: 135217 Keywords: Administrative SegregationCorrectional AdministrationPrison RapePrisoners (U.S.)Sexual Victimization |
Author: Baumgartel, Sarah Title: Time-In-Cell: The ASCA-Liman 2014 National Survey of Administrative Segregation in Prison Summary: Prolonged isolation of individuals in jails and prisons is a grave problem drawing national attention and concern. Commitments to lessen the numbers of people in isolated settings and to reduce the degrees of isolation have emerged from across the political spectrum. Legislators, judges, and directors of correctional systems at both state and federal levels, joined by a host of private sector voices, have called for change. In many jurisdictions, prison directors are revising their policies to limit the use of restricted housing and the deprivations it entails. Although a few in-depth reports and litigation have provided detailed accounts of specific systems, relatively little nationwide information exists about the number of people held in restrictive housing, the policies determining their placement, how isolated the settings are, and whether the rules governing social contact, activities, and length of stay vary from place to place. Therefore, in 2012, the Liman Program at Yale Law School joined with the Association of State Correctional Administrators (ASCA), which is the national organization of the directors of all the U.S. prison systems, to gather information. We asked the directors of state and federal corrections systems to provide their policies governing administrative segregation, defined as removing a prisoner from general population to spend 22 to 23 hours a day in a cell for 30 days or more. The result, Administrative Segregation, Degrees of Isolation, and Incarceration: A National Overview of State and Federal Correctional Policies (2013), based on responses from 47 jurisdictions, analyzed the criteria for placement in and release from administrative segregation. What we learned is that the criteria for entry were broad, as was the discretion accorded correctional officials when making individual decisions about placement. Many jurisdictions provided very general reasons for moving a prisoner into segregation, such as that the prisoner posed "a threat" to institutional safety or a danger to "self, staff, or other inmates." Some but not all jurisdictions provided notice to the prisoner of the grounds for the placement and an opportunity for a hearing. The kind of notice and what constituted a "hearing" varied substantially. In short, at the formal level, getting into segregation was relatively easy, and few policies focused on how people got out. In 2014, to understand the impact of these policies, the Liman Program and ASCA developed a survey of more than 130 questions, again sent to the directors of all the prison systems. Responses came from 46 jurisdictions, although not all jurisdictions answered all the ASCA-Liman questions. The result is this report, providing a unique inter-jurisdictional analysis of the use of administrative segregation around the United States. A basic question is the number of prisoners in isolation. Commentators have relied on estimates dating back ten years or more; the figures cited range from 25,000 to 80,000 prisoners. This Report is the first to update those figures; thirty-four jurisdictions, housing about 73% of the 1.5 million people incarcerated in U.S. prisons, provided numbers, totaling more than 66,000 prisoners in some form of restricted housing - whether termed "administrative segregation," "disciplinary segregation," or "protective custody." If that number is illustrative of the whole, some 80,000 to 100,000 people were, in 2014, in segregation. And none of the numbers include people in local jails, juvenile facilities, or in military and immigration detention. Having current information is one contribution of this Report. So is the documentation of the commitments of correctional officials, nationwide, to reduce these numbers dramatically. Thus, directors of prison systems believe that these numbers are "wrong" in the sense that they are or will soon be out-of-date, based on their plans to cut back on the use of isolation and to change the conditions in it. This Report focused on a subset of people in restricted housing - the 31,500 male prisoners held in administrative segregation. In terms of the demographics, 21 jurisdictions provided comparative information on general population and the administrative segregation population and, in those systems, Blacks and Hispanics were over-represented in administrative segregation. As for living conditions, the cells were small, ranging from 45 to 128 square feet, sometimes for two people. In many places, prisoners spent 23 hours in their cells on weekdays and 48 hours straight on weekends. Details: New Haven, CT: Liman Program, Yale Law School, 2015. 96p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 30, 2015 at: http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/Liman/ASCA-Liman_Administrative_Segregation_Report_Sep__2_2015.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/Liman/ASCA-Liman_Administrative_Segregation_Report_Sep__2_2015.pdf Shelf Number: 136890 Keywords: Administrative SegregationPrisonersProtective CustodyRestrictive HousingSolitary Confinement |
Author: Beck, Allen J. Title: Use of Restrictive Housing in U.S. Prisons and Jails, 2011-12 Summary: Presents data on the use of restrictive housing in U.S. prisons and jails, based on inmate self-reports of time spent in disciplinary or administrative segregation or solitary confinement. The report provides the percentage of prison and jail inmates who were currently held in restrictive housing, those who had spent any time in restrictive housing in the last 12 months or since coming to the facility if shorter, and the total time spent in restrictive housing. It provides prevalence rates for inmates by selected demographic characteristics, criminal justice status and history, current and past mental health status, and indicators of misconduct while in the facility. It also describes the relationship between the use of restrictive housing and facility-level characteristics, including measures of facility disorder and facility composition. Data are from the National Inmate Survey (NIS), 2011-12, conducted in 233 state and federal prisons and 358 local jails, with a sample of 91,177 inmates nationwide. Highlights: Younger inmates, inmates without a high school diploma, and lesbian, gay, and bisexual inmates were more likely to have spent time in restrictive housing than older inmates, inmates with a high school diploma or more, and heterosexual inmates. Inmates held for a violent offense other than a sex offense and inmates with extensive arrest histories or prior incarcerations were more likely to have spent time in restrictive housing than inmates held for other offenses and inmates with no prior arrests or incarcerations. Use of restrictive housing was linked to inmate mental health problems: 29% of prison inmates and 22% of jail inmates with current symptoms of serious psychological distress had spent time in restrictive housing in the past 12 months. More than three-quarters of inmates in prisons and jails who had been written up for assaulting other inmates or facility staff had spent time in restrictive housing in the past 12 months. Among inmates who had spent 30 or more days in restrictive housing in the last 12 months or since coming to the facility, 54% of those in prison and 68% of those in jail had been in a fight or had been written up for assaulting other inmates or staff. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2015. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 27, 2015 at: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/urhuspj1112.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/urhuspj1112.pdf Shelf Number: 137148 Keywords: Administrative SegregationInmatesJailsPrisoner MisconductRestrictive HousingSolitary Confinement |
Author: Children's Commissioner for England Title: Isolation and solitary confinement of children in the English youth justice secure estate Summary: This research was designed primarily to look at practices whereby children in the youth justice secure estate spent 16 hours or more in any 24 hour period without social contact with their peers (i.e. excluding contact with staff and family/social or professional visits). The World Health Organisation lists the following as the most common reasons for imposing isolation during imprisonment (Shalev, 2014): - as a short term-punishment for children who break the rules; - to prevent escape; - for the person's own protection to prevent them from harming themselves or being harmed by others; - as a behaviour management tool for the safe management of difficult and challenging persons, and for the management of children belonging to certain groups (such as gang members); - while awaiting transfer to another establishment or to a hospital, or adjudication; these are temporary measures, but in some cases the child may be isolated for many weeks and sometimes months; - de facto: staff shortages, convenience or as group punishment can mean that children are confined to their cells/ rooms for an entire day or for several days at a time. In literature, isolation can be broadly classed into: - Isolation in dedicated intensive management units, often termed segregation units; - Isolation in the form of "cellular confinement". Isolation can also be a single separation or a group separation (when two or more persons are isolated together from the rest of their peers). It can be imposed by the staff or elected by the child themselves. In March 2015, the number of children in youth justice custody in England and Wales (i.e. sentenced or remanded) stood at 1,004. There are currently: - four YOIs in England housing boys aged 15-17 and some 18 year olds. They are all male establishments; - eight SCHs, which hold children 10-17 years of age. Girls and boys are usually mixed in SCHs. SCHs range in size from six to 40 beds; - three STCs, all run by private companies. STCs hold boys and girls aged 12-17. Young Offenders Institutions are the only type of youth justice establishments which have dedicated segregation units similar to those in adult prisons, where confinement - for example in order to maintain good order and discipline - can exceed 22 hours per day and last for prolonged periods. Visits are allowed by a staff member, nurse, advocacy providers and chaplains. Isolated children are allowed out of their segregation cells in order to shower, exercise or make a phone call although, as this research has shown, this practice tends to vary between establishments. In England and Wales the educational entitlement in custody has recently been increased to 30 hours per week for children (CCE, 2015). Access to education is only sporadically allowed to isolated children and is often conducted on 1:1 basis, as are consultations with the advocacy provider. The length of time spent in isolation typically ought not to exceed 72 hours before a detailed review takes place. This type of isolation is always recorded. Confinement in the child's own cell is also used in YOIs, often as a behavioural management measure following an act of aggression against a peer or a member of staff. Short spells of cell or room confinement are extremely common across the estate as they provide a 'cooling off' or 'time out' periods. The time spent in room confinement ranges from minutes to several days. STCs and SCHs typically use room confinement as a behavioural management measure, and do so for shorter periods of time than YOIs. The time spent in isolation can range from 10-15 minutes to several hours. The children are typically not left alone for prolonged periods of time and a member of staff is likely to accompany them during isolation. A child is not necessarily confined to their room: often they will be isolated in one of the common area rooms where they will have access to personal items and items of leisure. Typically, they will have access to activities/services that they would do if they were not isolated, but will need to access them apart from their peers (for instance education may need to be delivered 1:1). They may also need to miss out on those courses which are only delivered in groups, such as vocational training. Group separations are also common, where two or more children are isolated together from the rest of the group and supervised by a member of staff. When it comes to recording it as isolation, cell/room confinement is often variably understood by different types of establishments. STCs and SCHs are likely to record this information. As found in the present study, in YOIs, this practice can sometimes go unnoticed and unrecorded. This presents itself as a problem when trying to estimate the overall rate of isolation in the youth justice estate. Details: London: Children's Commissioner for England, 2015. 68p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 27, 2015 at: http://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/sites/default/files/publications/Unlocking%20Potential%20-%20supporting%20research_1.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/sites/default/files/publications/Unlocking%20Potential%20-%20supporting%20research_1.pdf Shelf Number: 137153 Keywords: Administrative SegregationIsolationJuvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesSolitary Confinement, Juveniles |
Author: U.S. Department of Justice Title: Report and Recommendations Concerning the Use of Restrictive Housing: Final Report Summary: In a July 14, 2015, speech at the NAACP National Convention, President Barack Obama announced that he had asked Attorney General Loretta Lynch to conduct a review of "the overuse of solitary confinement across American prisons." The President directed that the purpose of the review be not simply to understand how, when, and why correctional facilities isolate certain prisoners from the general inmate population, but also to develop strategies for reducing the use of this practice throughout our nation's criminal justice system. Over the past several months, a team of senior officials at the U.S. Department of Justice met regularly to study the issue of solitary confinement-or "restrictive housing," to use the more general corrections term-and formulate policy solutions. This Report is the culmination of the Department's review. The Justice Department embraced this opportunity to think deeply about the use of restrictive housing in America. The issue strikes at some of the most challenging questions facing correctional officials and criminologists: How should prisons and other correctional facilities manage their most violent and disruptive inmates? How can they best protect their most vulnerable and victimized ones? And what is the safest and most humane way to do so? These questions are of particular importance to the Justice Department. Not only does the Department oversee the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the nation's largest prison system, but it also provides funding and technical assistance to other correctional systems, through the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) and the Office of Justice Programs (OJP), and enforces the constitutional and statutory rights of state and local inmates through the Department's Civil Rights Division. After extensive study, we have concluded that there are occasions when correctional officials have no choice but to segregate inmates from the general population, typically when it is the only way to ensure the safety of inmates, staff, and the public. But as a matter of policy, we believe strongly this practice should be used rarely, applied fairly, and subjected to reasonable constraints. This Report includes a series of "Guiding Principles" that we believe should guide plans for limiting the use of restrictive housing across the American criminal justice system, as well as specific policy changes that the Federal Bureau of Prisons (the Bureau) and other Department components could undertake to implement these principles. The stakes are high. Life in restrictive housing has been well-documented by inmates, advocates, and correctional officials. In some systems, the conditions can be severe; the social isolation, extreme. At its worst, and when applied without regard to basic standards of decency, restrictive housing can cause serious, long-lasting harm. It is the responsibility of all governments to ensure that this practice is used only as necessary-and never as a default solution. But just as we must consider the impact on inmates, so too must we consider the impact on correctional staff. These public servants work hard, often for long hours and under difficult conditions, and we must protect them from unreasonable danger. For years, the Bureau has been asked to do more and more, putting strain on its officers and other staff. Correctional officers need effective tools to manage the most challenging inmates and protect the most vulnerable. We do not believe that the humane treatment of inmates and the safety of correctional staff are mutually exclusive; indeed, neither is possible without the other. In recent years, numerous correctional systems have succeeded in safely lowering the number of inmates in restrictive housing, including the Federal Bureau of Prisons, which has reduced its total restrictive housing population by nearly 25% since January 2012. Under the leadership of its outgoing Director, Charles E. Samuels, Jr., the Bureau has also developed a range of progressive alternatives to restrictive housing-and has done so while supporting and enhancing staff safety. This Report includes a number of proposals that would help continue the downward trends in the Bureau's restrictive housing population, while also ensuring that those placed in segregation receive the support and rehabilitative services they need. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 2016. 128p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 27, 2016 at: http://www.justice.gov/dag/file/815551/download Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.justice.gov/dag/file/815551/download Shelf Number: 137665 Keywords: Administrative SegregationInmatesIsolationJailsPrisoner MisconductRestrictive HousingSolitary Confinement |
Author: Pacholke, Dan Title: More Than Emptying Beds: A Systems Approach to Segregation Reform Summary: Restrictive housing, sometimes referred to as solitary confinement, administrative segregation, or simply segregation, typically consists of placement of an individual in a solitary cell for up to 23 hours a day, with only an hour out of the cell to shower or for solo recreation. It is essentially a prison within a prison, where individuals who presumably cannot safely be housed in the general population are placed for some period of time. Although there are occasions when restrictive housing may be the best tool we have to ensure the safety of inmates, staff, and the public, our experience shows that, with a systems approach, it is possible to reduce the numbers of people going into restrictive housing, create rehabilitative alternatives, ensure an accountable and consistent process for placement and release decisions, improve conditions for those who are placed in restrictive housing and for those who work there, and facilitate successful exit from those placements. Deciding who is kept in these units and for how long has traditionally been at the discretion of each prison facility's administration or disciplinary hearing officers within the parameters established in that system's policies. Practices vary from system to system and from facility to facility. Consistent evidence suggests that segregation can be detrimental to the physical, psychological, and behavioral health of those placed in these conditions. Increasingly, courts, policymakers, media, and advocacy groups are questioning these practices as violations of constitutional and human rights. As a result, federal and state governments are requiring correctional systems to examine their segregation policies, practices, and protocols and calling for its reduced use, or even elimination in certain cases. Correctional systems are challenged in this call to action as, to date, there has been little guidance on how to implement segregation reform while also maintaining safe prisons. Segregation has been and will continue to be a tool that is necessary to manage legitimate safety concerns. Reforms in the use of this practice will only be successful if the safety of inmates and staff is maintained or improved in the process. To impact the health and well-being of people under correctional control, reducing the use of segregation on its own by only "emptying beds" is of limited value. To make an impactful change, a systems approach to this complex issue is essential. This policy brief shares lessons from the systems approach to reform undertaken by the Washington Department of Corrections (WADOC) that began more than a decade ago and continues to the present day. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2016. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 16, 2016 at: https://www.bja.gov/publications/MorethanEmptyingBeds.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.bja.gov/publications/MorethanEmptyingBeds.pdf Shelf Number: 139046 Keywords: Administrative SegregationCorrectional AdministrationPrisonsRestrictive HousingSolitary Confinement |
Author: Heiden, Zachary Title: Change is Possible: A Case Study of Solitary Confinement Reform in Maine Summary: Solitary confinement destroys lives. Over the past four decades, prisons across the country have increasingly relied on solitary confinement - isolating prisoners in small poorly-lit cells for 23-24 hours per day - as a disciplinary tool for prisoners who are difficult to manage in the general population. But research has shown that these conditions cause serious mental deterioration and illness. Prisoners in solitary confinement hallucinate, they deliberately injure themselves, and they lose the ability to relate to other human beings. When these prisoners are eventually released from solitary confinement, they have difficulties integrating into the general prison population or (especially when they are released directly onto the streets) into life on the outside. Because of this, human rights advocates across the country are engaged in a campaign to reduce the use of solitary confinement and to improve conditions in solitary units and facilities. Lawsuits are being filed, bills and regulations are being proposed, and exposes are being written, all with the goal of bringing about a change to this barbaric practice. A number of organizations, including my own - the American Civil Liberties Union - have committed a great deal of thought, time, and money to identifying and deploying successful strategies for reforming solitary confinement. No one approach will get the job done, but advocates are trying multiple approaches, with as much coordination as possible, to bring about significant lasting change. Maine has been one of the success stories of this effort. The number of prisoners in solitary confinement has been cut in half; the duration of stays in Maine's solitary units is generally now measured in days rather than weeks or months; and the treatment of prisoners in these units includes substantially more meaningful human interaction and more opportunity for rehabilitation. For seven years, I have been involved in Maine's campaign to reduce the use of solitary confinement. Many times over those years, it seemed that nothing would ever change. Reform measures were watered down, improved policies were ignored, and legislative proposals were flat-out rejected. Then, at some point, through a combination of will, skill, and luck, reforms began to take hold. While Maine's correction system is far from perfect, the dramatic reduction in the use of solitary confinement and the improvement in the manner in which solitary is employed are almost beyond what I could have imagined seven years ago. The purpose of this report is twofold: first, to document those changes and the processes that led to them; and second, to inspire other prison reform advocates with Maine's example. There are times when every advocate for prison reform feels that change is not possible - that the legal and cultural barriers are too firmly rooted, or that the public's antipathy to prisoners and their families is too powerful. This despondency might lead reformers to settle for superficial measures or, worse yet, to give up the fight in favor of easier targets. It is my great hope that the message of this report - that reform of the use of solitary confinement is both necessary and possible - will provide some measure of encouragement in those difficult moments that every worthwhile campaign experiences. Details: Portland, ME: American Civil Liberties Union of Maine, 2013. 43p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 11, 2016 at: https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/aclu_solitary_report_webversion.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/aclu_solitary_report_webversion.pdf Shelf Number: 136751 Keywords: Administrative SegregationIsolationPrison ReformSolitary Confinement |
Author: Parker, Barbara Pierce Title: Reshaping Restrictive Housing at South Dakota State Penitentiary Summary: Across the United States, the use of restrictive housing has come under intense scrutiny by the public, courts, and policymakers. The concerns focus on the potentially damaging effects of segregation on a person's physical and mental health, public safety risks posed by incarcerating people in restrictive housing for extended periods, and the sometimes subjective criteria used by corrections staff to determine the placement, length of stay, and conditions imposed on inmates in restrictive housing. With funding from the Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Crime and Justice Institute (CJI) project team, which included a diverse group of restrictive housing experts, and South Dakota Department of Corrections (SD DOC) partnered to develop a plan to safely and securely reform of restrictive housing within the maximum-security South Dakota State Penitentiary (SDSP). CJI's Model for Reshaping Restrictive Housing guided the work. At its most basic level, the model ensures that - appropriate placements are made into restrictive housing using a fair and objective process; activities and interactions during inmates' restrictive housing placement are geared towards behavior change; inmates are prepared for their transition to general population; and the process used to retain or release an individual from restrictive housing is fair, objective, and based on behavioral indicators. In 1-year's time the South Dakota State Penitentiary reduced its restrictive housing population drop by 18 percent, while the violent incident rate in restrictive housing is now at its lowest point-lower than the rate in general population The report provides additional detail describing how the model was implemented within SDSP. Foundational supports for the restrictive housing reform effort are also discussed, including: clear policies and procedures; professional standards and state examples; staff engagement, buy-in, and training; performance measurement and quality assurance; and technical assistance. The report concludes with lessons learned: keys to restrictive housing reform, and time needed for implementation. Details: Boston: Crime and Justice Institute, 2015. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 3, 2016 at: http://www.crj.org/page/-/publications/Reshaping%20Restrictive%20Housing%20-%20South%20Dakota.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.crj.org/page/-/publications/Reshaping%20Restrictive%20Housing%20-%20South%20Dakota.pdf Shelf Number: 140157 Keywords: Administrative SegregationPrisonersRestrictive HousingSolitary Confinement |
Author: Association of State Correctional Administrators Title: Aiming to Reduce Time-In-Cell: Reports from Correctional Systems on the Numbers of Prisoners in Restricted Housing and on the Potential of Policy Changes to Bring About Reforms Summary: A new report, jointly authored by the Association of State Correctional Administrators (ASCA) and the Arthur Liman Program at Yale Law School, reflects a profound change in the national discussion about the use of what correctional officials call "restrictive housing" and what is popularly known as "solitary confinement." Just published, Aiming to Reduce Time-In-Cell provides the only current, comprehensive data on the use of restricted housing, in which individuals are held in their cells for 22 hours or more each day, and for 15 continuous days or more at a time. The Report also documents efforts across the country to reduce the number of people in restricted housing and to reform the conditions in which isolated prisoners are held in order to improve safety for prisoners, staff, and communities at large. The 2016 publication follows the 2015 ASCA-Liman Report, Time-In-Cell, which documented the use of restricted housing as of the fall of 2014. As ASCA explained then, “prolonged isolation of individuals in jails and prisons is a grave problem in the United States.” Today, a national consensus has emerged focused on limiting the use of restricted housing, and many new initiatives, as detailed in the report, reflect efforts to make changes at both the state and federal levels. The 2016 Report is based on survey responses from 48 jurisdictions (the Federal Bureau of Prisons, 45 states, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands)—that held about 96% of the nation’s prisoners convicted of a felony. That number excludes people held in most of the country’s jails (housing hundreds of thousands of people), in most of the country’s juvenile facilities, and in military and immigration facilities. Tallying the responses, the new 2016 Report found that 67,442 prisoners were held, in the fall of 2015, in prison cells for 22 hours or more for 15 continuous days or more. The percentages of prisoners in restricted housing in federal and state prisons ranged from under 1% to more than 28%. Across all the jurisdictions, the median percentage of the prison population held in restricted housing was 5.1%. How long do prisoners remain in isolation? Forty-one jurisdictions provided information about the length of stay for a total of more than 54,000 people in restricted housing. Approximately 15,725 (29%) were in restricted housing for one to three months; at the other end of the spectrum, almost 6,000 people (11%) across 31 jurisdictions had been in restricted housing for three years or more. The Report also chronicles efforts throughout the country and the world to reduce the use of restricted housing. In August of 2016, the American Correctional Association (ACA) approved new standards, calling for a variety of limits on the use of isolation, including a prohibition against placing prisoners in restricted housing on the basis of their gender identity alone. The standards also included provisions that pregnant women, prisoners under the age of 18, and prisoners with serious mental illness ought not be placed for extended periods of time in restricted housing. Further, in some jurisdictions, prison systems (sometimes prompted by legislation and litigation) have instituted rules to prevent vulnerable populations from being housed in restricted housing except under exceptional circumstances and for as short an amount of time as possible. As the Report also details, several jurisdictions described making significant revisions to the criteria for entry, so as to limit the use of restricted housing, as well as undertaking more frequent reviews to identify individuals to return to general population, thereby reducing the number of people in restricted housing by significant percentages. In short, while restricted housing once was seen as central to prisoner management, by 2016 many prison directors and organizations such as ASCA and the ACA have defined restricted housing as a practice to use only when absolutely necessary and for only as long as absolutely required. The goals of ASCA and the ACA are to formulate and to apply policies to improve the safety of institutions and communities by ensuring that the separation of individuals to promote safety and well-being need not be accompanied by deprivation of all opportunities for social contact, education, programming, and other activities. Details: New Haven, CT: Yale University, School of Law, 2016. 127p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 7, 2016 at: https://www.law.yale.edu/system/files/area/center/liman/liman.new.combined.113016.mf.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.law.yale.edu/system/files/area/center/liman/liman.new.combined.113016.mf.pdf Shelf Number: 147928 Keywords: Administrative SegregationPrison ReformRestricted HousingSolitary Confinement |
Author: Hastings, Allison Title: The Safe Alternatives to Segregation Initiative: Findings and Recommendations for the Oregon Department of Corrections Summary: In recent years, a diverse range of international and national bodies, advocates, policymakers, the U.S. Department of Justice, and corrections practitioners have called for prisons and jails to reform their use of segregation, also known as solitary confinement or restrictive housing. Whether citing the potentially devastating psychological and physiological impacts of spending 23 hours per day alone in a cell the size of a parking space, the cost of operating such highly restrictive environments, or the lack of conclusive evidence that segregation makes correctional facilities safer, these voices agree that change and innovation are essential endeavors. In 2015, with funding from the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Vera Institute of Justice partnered with the Oregon Department of Corrections to help the agency reduce its use of segregation. That assistance included conducting an assessment of Oregon’s use of segregation and identifying opportunities for reform and innovation. This report presents the findings and recommendations from Vera’s assessment, offering Oregon strategies for safely reducing its use of segregation.1 Key Findings Six of the 14 prisons run by the Oregon Department of Corrections hold the vast majority of Oregon’s population in segregation.2 On April 1, 2015 (the snapshot date used by Vera to describe the makeup of the population on a given day), the total population in Oregon’s prisons was 14,934. 1,114 of these people were housed in some form of segregation on that date, which represents 7.5 percent of the total prison population. Vera’s key findings not only touch on Oregon’s use of different types of segregation—such as disciplinary and administrative segregation—but also examine racial, ethnic, and gender disparities as well as the use of segregation for people with mental health needs. Disciplinary segregation is overused, overly long, and characterized by isolating conditions. Vera found that disciplinary segregation, which is imposed as a sanction for rule violations, accounts for the majority of Oregon’s use of segregation: 63 percent (702 people) of people in segregation on April 1, 2015 were living in disciplinary segregation, and 90 percent of adults overall who had contact with some type of segregated housing entered through these units. Vera also found that people often cycle through disciplinary segregation for nonviolent rule violations; in fact, the top rule violation resulting in a disciplinary segregation sanction was disobedience of an order. Further, people can stay in disciplinary segregation for long periods of time—up to six months—and conditions in these units are marked by extreme isolation, idleness, and sensory deprivation. Stays in administrative segregation can be long, isolating, and unproductive for adults in custody. Oregon also has multiple units and processes for housing people in administrative segregation, a type of housing used for people whose notoriety, actions, or threats jeopardize institutional safety. These units vary in terms of average length of stay, reasons for placement, and availability of programming, with most people being housed in intensive management units. One of the goals of intensive management units is to provide cognitive behavioral programming to these men and women, so they can successfully transition back to general population or community settings. However, at the time of Vera’s assessment, the only programs available to people in these units were packet-based programs, which individuals were expected to complete alone in their cells. Vera also found that people who had contact with these units tended to spend over a year total in some form of segregation. People of color and people with mental health needs are over-represented in segregation. Echoing trends identified by researchers regarding America’s use of incarceration overall, African-American and Latino adults are over-represented in Oregon’s segregation units. People of color comprise 26 percent of the total prison population, but 34.3 percent of its segregated population. Similarly, people with mental health needs are over-represented in disciplinary segregation, and women with significant mental health needs are overrepresented in all types of segregated housing. On Vera’s snapshot date of April 1, 2015, 53 percent of the total female population was designated as having significant mental health needs, while 84 percent of the women in segregated housing had that designation. Key Recommendations The Oregon Department of Corrections is a progressive agency that has a well-documented commitment to reform and dedication to staff safety and wellness. Vera acknowledges its many innovations and reform efforts, but also sees room for improvement and offers recommendations in this report that, if implemented, would further Oregon’s reputation as a leader in corrections. Some of the key recommendations include: § Reducing the number of disciplinary infractions eligible for segregation sanctions and reducing the maximum length of stay in disciplinary segregation; § Strengthening informal mechanisms and alternative responses for responding to lowlevel infractions without using segregation; § Enhancing supports, structured activities, and programming in the general prison population, to help keep people from going into disciplinary segregation; § Improving conditions of confinement in all segregated housing units; § Implementing instructor-led, out-of-cell programming in intensive management units; § Creating structured reentry processes for adults in custody transitioning out of long-term segregation, so no one is ever released directly to the community from segregation; § Prohibiting placing adults in custody with serious mental illness, severe developmental disability, or neurodegenerative diseases in any form of extremely isolating segregation; § Creating a committee to study and address disproportionate minority contact with segregated housing; and § Increasing training for all staff on mental health issues, crisis response, communication, and responding to gender differences and gender identity. As the Oregon Department of Corrections moves forward with implementation of reform efforts, Vera has every confidence that the agency will learn from its peers in the field, capitalize on its own strengths, and use these recommendations as a springboard for improving the lives of the men and women who live and work in Oregon’s prisons. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2016. 77p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 7, 2016 at: http://www.oregon.gov/doc/OC/docs/pdf/VERA.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.oregon.gov/doc/OC/docs/pdf/VERA.pdf Shelf Number: 140326 Keywords: Administrative SegregationCorrectional AdministrationInmate DisciplineIsolationRestrictive HousingSolitary Confinement |
Author: Cloud, David Title: The Safe Alternatives to Segregation Initiative: Findings and Recommendations for the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services Summary: In recent years, a wide range of advocates, policymakers, national and international bodies, and corrections practitioners have called for prisons and jails to reexamine their use of segregation, also known as solitary confinement or restrictive housing. Whether citing the potentially devastating psychological and physiological impacts of spending 23 hours per day alone in a cell as small as a parking space, the cost of operating such highly restrictive environments, or the lack of conclusive evidence that segregation makes correctional facilities safer, these voices agree that reform is essential. In 2015, with funding from the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Vera Institute of Justice (Vera) partnered with the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services (NDCS) to help the department reduce its use of segregation. Vera’s assistance included conducting a yearlong assessment of how Nebraska uses segregation and identifying opportunities for change and innovation. While the assessment was still ongoing, NDCS began instituting dramatic reforms. In particular, the department developed and released a comprehensive new rule on restrictive housing in July 2016, in response to the requirements of a 2015 Nebraska law (LB 598). The rule aims to ensure that segregation is used only as a management tool of last resort, in the least restrictive manner possible, and for the least amount of time consistent with the safety and security of staff, inmates, and the facility. NDCS also recently ended the use of segregation as a disciplinary sanction for rule violations. This report presents the findings of Vera’s assessment, which come from a period prior to the enactment of these reforms but provide a useful baseline against which NDCS can measure the impact of recent and future changes. Informed by this assessment, and by a review of the new restrictive housing rule, this report provides recommendations of additional strategies for safely reducing the department's use of segregation. It is Vera's hope that these recommendations will provide helpful guidance for NDCS to successfully build upon the promising steps it has already taken. Key Findings NDCS faces numerous, interrelated challenges that have contributed to the overuse of segregation, including severe overcrowding, a shortage of corrections and mental health staff, and insufficient educational, vocational, and therapeutic programming and mental health treatment for incarcerated people. In recent years, these challenges have attracted significant attention, and NDCS and the Nebraska legislature have been working hard to address them through a series of legislative and regulatory changes, including the new restrictive housing rule. Vera assessed the department's use of segregation before many of these recent reforms and found that during a two-year period ending June 30, 2015, the average daily population in any type of restrictive housing was 13.9 percent of the total NDCS population. To dig deeper, Vera’s assessment examined the various types of segregation in use at the time and looked at differences between genders, age groups, and racial and ethnic groups. Disciplinary Segregation was overused, often for low-level violations, and was characterized by isolating conditions. Vera found that incarcerated people were often sanctioned to Disciplinary Segregation (DS) for minor rule violations. Individuals found guilty of lower-level rule violations (i.e., Class 2 and 3 violations) accounted for 91 percent of all DS sanctions given over the study period. Some of the violations that resulted in the most DS sanctions included “disobeying an order” (Class 2), "swearing, cursing, or use of abusive language or gestures" (Class 3), and "disruption" (Class 3). Nearly half of people incarcerated in NDCS facilities had experienced at least one day in either Disciplinary or Immediate Segregation. People in these types of segregation experienced conditions of extreme isolation, idleness, and sensory deprivation. Administrative forms of segregation were characterized by long stays and restrictive conditions. Fewer incarcerated people experienced other forms of restrictive housing, including Protective Custody (PC), Administrative Confinement (AC), and Intensive Management (IM). However, those who did often spent long periods of time there. The average length of stay in AC was almost six months, in IM it was almost nine months, and in PC it was about ten months. People in AC or IM experienced conditions of extreme isolation, with little access to recreation, programming, or congregate activities. Living conditions in different Protective Custody units varied somewhat, but were generally overly restrictive and also lacked adequate access to constructive programming, recreation, and congregate activity. However, at the time of Vera's assessment, NDCS had begun reforming PC to make conditions more like general population. Certain groups were over-represented in restrictive housing. Men were exposed to all types of segregation at higher rates than women and tended to stay in these conditions for longer durations. On an average day during the study period, almost 15 percent of men were in restrictive housing, compared to an average of 4.8 percent of women. Echoing the fact that racial and ethnic minorities are generally ove-represented throughout the criminal justice system in the U.S., racial and ethnic minorities were disproportionately exposed to restrictive housing in Nebraska. For example, over 50 percent of Black, Hispanic, and Native American individuals in NDCS custody had at least one day of contact with DS, IS, AC, or IM, compared to 39 percent of white people. Additionally, younger males were overrepresented in segregation. On average about 13 percent of males under age 25 in NDCS custody were in the most restrictive types of segregation (not including PC) on any given day, compared to around 6 percent of men 25 and older. Key Recommendations Vera recognizes the many reforms NDCS has begun implementing and offers recommendations that would further the department's efforts to safely reduce the use of segregation. The full report details numerous specific recommendations for NDCS, including: § Support staff as they adjust to a disciplinary process that no longer includes Disciplinary Segregation as a sanction, and ensure that they have adequate alternative tools to respond to misbehavior and incentivize positive behavior; § Identify potential unintended consequences that may arise from the elimination of Disciplinary Segregation—such as the overuse of Immediate Segregation in its place— and implement strong safeguards to protect against them; § Enact firm policies that prohibit placing youth, pregnant women, and people with serious mental illness in any form of restrictive housing that limits meaningful access to social interaction, exercise, environmental stimulation, and therapeutic programming; § Further strengthen procedural safeguards for placement in Longer-term Restrictive Housing (a segregation category established by the new rule), to ensure that it is truly used as a last resort, only when necessary, and for as short a time as possible; § Improve the conditions of confinement in restrictive housing units to reduce the negative effects of segregation, including by increasing out-of-cell time and recreation, minimizing isolation and idleness, and providing opportunities for rehabilitative programming; § Create a step-down program to encourage and facilitate successful transitions from restrictive housing to general population; § Expand the capacity of mental health care services and ensure a therapeutic environment within Secure Mental Health Units; § Continue to explore strategies to address staff vacancies, turnover, and burnout; and § Expand vocational, educational, and therapeutic programming and activities for the entire population, including those in restrictive housing. As the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services continues to move forward with its implementation of current and future reform efforts, Vera has every confidence that the department will capitalize on its own strengths, learn from its peers in the field, and use the recommendations in this report as a springboard for continuing to reduce its use of segregation and improving the lives of the men and women who live and work in Nebraska’s prisons. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2016. 145p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 7, 2016 at: http://www.corrections.nebraska.gov/pdf/Vera%20Institute%20Final%20Report%20to%20NDCS%2011-01-16%20v2.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.corrections.nebraska.gov/pdf/Vera%20Institute%20Final%20Report%20to%20NDCS%2011-01-16%20v2.pdf Shelf Number: 147934 Keywords: Administrative SegregationCorrectional AdministrationInmate DisciplineIsolationRestrictive HousingSolitary Confinement |
Author: U.S. National Institute of Justice Title: Restricting Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions Summary: Given the current environment, it is clear that the work being carried out by officials in law enforcement, courts, and corrections is changing rapidly. This makes our work at NIJ even more critical and vital to the criminal justice community. NIJ is proud to have supported the National Academies' report, The Growth of Incarceration in the United States: Exploring Causes and Consequences, which presents the blueprint for expanding an evidence base in areas such as the impact of incarceration on justice-involved individuals, on their children and families, and on how the incarceration experience shapes their way of life and re-entry process. Consistent with this line of inquiry, institutional corrections, and more specifically restrictive housing and other strategies that facilities use to manage and control incarcerated individuals, have become a national priority for President Obama, DOJ, and corrections administrators at the federal, state, and local levels. Restrictive housing, commonly known as solitary confinement or administrative segregation, is a common practice in corrections. A recent national estimate by the Bureau of Justice Statistics reveals that as many as one in five individuals has spent time in restrictive housing while in jail or prison. Despite its use throughout facilities nationwide, we lack the scientific evidence to convey how corrections administrators use this strategy and its impact on incarcerated individuals, staff, and the organizational climate. While there are claims that this correctional strategy increases the safety and well-being of staff and inmates, there is increasing concern about its potential over-use and its effects on incarcerated individuals, especially those with mental illness. To launch NIJ's dedicated strategic investment in this area, we held a two-day convening on October 22 and 23, 2015, composed of a diverse group of more than 80 experts from federal, state, and local corrections agencies, advocacy groups, academia, and research organizations. This group convened to discuss (1) what we know and don't know about the inmates who are put into this type of housing; (2) the relationship between institutional violence and restrictive housing; (3) issues related to the mental health of inmates, officer and inmate safety and wellness, civil rights, and safe alternatives to restrictive housing; and (4) the gaps in data collection efforts and the existing empirical literature. Throughout the two days, attendees discussed the research gaps in restrictive housing and debated the multiple policy and practice concerns that currently exist. NIJ greatly appreciates these experts' participation as they shared their individual perspectives and contributed to identifying how best to move forward in developing restrictive housing policies and practices that are grounded in science. Certainly, the most comprehensive understanding of restrictive housing can only come when we consider the various facets that characterize its use and impact and consider how these issues affect our theoretical and practical understanding of this correctional practice. With this goal in mind, this volume includes 10 chapters on restrictive housing, each with a distinct focus and written by leading experts from various disciplines including criminology, psychology, sociology, and law. The volume represents the most comprehensive review to date of emerging issues and concerns surrounding restrictive housing, including the roles that gangs, violence, and mental health play in the management of individuals in restrictive housing. Most importantly, readers of this volume will also find a strong focus on the conceptual and empirical challenges we face in addressing restrictive housing. One critical conceptual challenge that readers will notice throughout the volume is the way authors use different, sometimes contradictory, terms to define and discuss this practice. Some authors use terms such as administrative segregation and restrictive housing interchangeably, while other authors carefully differentiate such terms to highlight critical nuances regarding this practice. As a whole, these chapters offer an innovative perspective for guiding future research in this area and ensuring that our efforts have a strong scientific foundation. Individually, the chapters present an in-depth review of the important features that characterize restrictive housing. Details: Washington, DC: NIJ, 2016. 420p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 24, 2017 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/250315.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/250315.pdf Shelf Number: 146368 Keywords: Administrative SegregationIsolationPrison ViolencePrisoner MisconductRestrictive HousingSolitary Confinement |
Author: Stanford University. Human Rights in Trauma Mental Health Lab Title: Mental Health Consequences Following Release from Long-Term Solitary Confinement in California Summary: In Spring 2017, members of Stanford University's Human Rights in Trauma Mental Health Laboratory (the Stanford Lab) were invited to consult with attorneys from the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) representing class members in the federal class action lawsuit Ashker v. The Governor of California (Ashker). The Stanford Lab was asked to gather narratives from Ashker class members in order to glean insight into what psychiatric sequelae directly related to prolonged, indefinite isolation in the Security Housing Units (SHU) at California prisons are present, and to determine whether that harm continues to impact prisoners following their release from SHU into the general prison population (GP). As aggregated, the class member narratives indicated that most of the men experienced severe psychological disturbances with lasting detrimental consequences as a result of their experience in SHU. The Stanford Lab's interviews revealed a range of common impairments and adverse consequences associated with long-term, indefinite incarceration. The majority of class members endorsed mood symptoms consistent with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM 5) diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder, including depressed mood, hopelessness, anger, irritability, anhedonia, anger, fatigue, feelings of guilt, loss of appetite, and insomnia. Nearly all class members also endorsed anxiety symptoms characteristic of DSM 5 diagnoses of panic disorder, traumatic stress disorders, and/or obsessive-compulsive disorders, such as nervousness, worry, increased heart rate and respiration, sweating, muscle tension, hyperarousal, paranoia, nightmares, intrusive thoughts, and fear of losing control. Psychiatric symptoms and diminished capacity for socialization continue to cause psychological suffering and problems with social function for most of the men now in GP. Class members cited emotional numbing and desensitization as the some of the most common responses to living in SHU. This sense of emotional suppression and dysregulation continues to be problematic for prisoners following the transition to the general population. Class members also reported significant alterations in cognition and perception. Problems with attention, concentration, and memory were common, and described as persistent and worsening. Some of the most pronounced and enduring effects of long-term isolation appeared to have resulted from relational estrangement and social isolation; interviewees frequently reported losing, over time, the motivation to seek social connection. These psychiatric and social difficulties were reported to have persisted throughout the transition to GP. Class members commonly reported ongoing anxiety and posttraumatic stress symptoms. Specific difficulties endorsed by class members include pervasive hypervigilance, worry, and nervousness; they described experiences of being on constant alert and chronically feeling under threat or danger. Many class members endorsed sensory sensitivity following their transition to GP, noting experiences of distress, anxiety, paranoia, and irritability particularly in response to the "chaotic" environment of GP with an influx of new activities, interactions, and sounds. Furthermore, class members report that periods of lockdown in GP are triggering and retraumatizing, and that they invoke re-experiencing symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder. These social and psychological responses to SHU are consistent with the majority of current literature on prolonged isolation. In considering opportunities to improve post-SHU experience and functioning for prisoners, the Stanford Lab noted that class members generally felt overwhelmed by and underprepared for the post-SHU experience in GP. Class members described the experience of GP as totally foreign and overwhelming; these experiences appeared to stem from the drastic contrast between the physical, social, and sensory environments of SHU and GP, as well as the absence of an effective transition program. The loss of routine and stability in daily functioning, and the related lack of predictability and demand for flexibility, was jarring and distressing for many interviewees, resulting in feelings of anxiety, nervousness, irritability, and a sense of isolation and disconnection, exacerbated by the lack of any transition preparation. The mental health professionals in the Stanford Lab are well versed in treatment modalities and useful interventions for persons with mental health disorders and/or symptoms. Based on the information summarized in this report, the Stanford Lab recommends reparative services in the form educational, occupational, and social programming opportunities to help address the lasting consequence of the long-term SHU experience. Emotional and psychological support services are also needed. For transition, it is clear that improved, earnest access to mental health treatment is necessary, and that such access should come from non-CDCR sources for a number of reasons elucidated in the full report. The Stanford Lab recommends that class members be offered mental health and psychological services in the form of independent psychiatric care and/or peer-led or peer-facilitated support groups. Moreover, interviews indicate that prisoners seem to derive a sense of fulfillment and self-worth from opportunities to mentor their peers; such programming could be helpful in combatting some of the detrimental effects of time in SHU, including by diminishing anxiety and depression. Furthermore, class members' requests for greater access to jobs and other out-of-cell activities, to programs, and to therapeutic groups are wise interventions for their symptom profiles and are likely to improve their transitions and the long-term prospects for functioning and contribution to society. The Stanford Lab found the men interviewed to be resilient, self-educated, intellectually curious individuals, many of whom have implemented therapeutic coping mechanisms on their own. The Stanford Lab recommends that CDCR and other prison authorities seek to offer adequate and enriched programming opportunities as a means of providing reparative services and personal, community, and societal healing following long-term isolation in SHU. Details: New York: Center for Constitutional Rights, 2017. 35p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 28, 2017 at: https://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/attach/2017/11/CCR_StanfordLab-SHUReport.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/attach/2017/11/CCR_StanfordLab-SHUReport.pdf Shelf Number: 148505 Keywords: Administrative SegregationIsolationMental HealthRestrictive HousingSolitary Confinement |
Author: Correctional Association of New York Title: Solitary at Southport: A 2017 Report based upon the Correctional Association's Visits, Data Analysis, & First-Hand Accounts of the Torture of Solitary Confinement from One of New York's Supermax Prisons Summary: Solitary confinement is torture. New York State (NYS) subjects people to solitary confinement and other forms of isolation at rates above the national average and in a racially disparate manner. On any given day, in NYS prisons alone roughly 2,900 people are held in Special Housing Units (SHU) and an additional estimated 1,000 or more people are held in keeplock (KL). In 2015 after limited SHU reforms, the number of people in SHU rose to over 4,100, the highest rate of solitary in the history of NYS prisons, more than a third higher than in the early 2000s and higher than its previous 2012 peak. Even with some reductions in 2016 and 2017, NYS's rate of isolation - nearly 8% including KL and 5.8% if only SHU - is much higher than the national average of 4.4% and four or more times higher than some states - like Colorado, Washington, and Connecticut - that have less than 1% or 2% of incarcerated people in solitary. In the SHU or KL, people are held alone in their cells 23-24 hours a day, without any meaningful human contact or out-of-cell programming, with limited or no access to phone calls, and often with limited, restricted, or no visits. The sensory deprivation, lack of normal human interaction, and extreme idleness have long been proven to cause intense suffering, devastating physical, mental, and emotional effects, and the increased likelihood of self-harm. Solitary - "the Box" - can cause deterioration in people's behavior, while limits on solitary have had neutral or even positive effects on institutional safety. The Mandela Rules - recently adopted by the entire United Nations General Assembly, supported by a US delegation consisting of corrections administrators, and voted for by the US government - prohibit solitary beyond 15 consecutive days. Yet, in New York people are regularly held in solitary for months, years, and even for decades. Southport Correctional Facility is one of the two super-maximum security prisons in NYS with the primary purpose of holding people in solitary or isolated confinement. Southport was originally a regular maximum security prison, but became New York's first prison dedicated entirely to solitary confinement in 1991. The budget to operate this supermax is almost $39 million per year. Southport currently incarcerates about 400 people in solitary in the SHU. Beyond the already racially disproportionate infliction of solitary across prisons statewide, nearly 90% of people in the SHU at Southport are Black (62%) or Latino (27%), while only 2% of Correctional Officers (COs) at Southport are Black (1.4%) or Latino (0.7%). Even more extreme, and reflective of the deeply engrained racism of the prison system, of all people who were held at Southport for the entirety of 2015, 76% of all the people who were held at Southport in 2015 were Black. The Correctional Association of New York (CA) conducted a full monitoring visit of Southport in February 2015 and further investigations of Southport in 2015 and 2016. During the 2015 visit, the CA spoke one-on-one with nearly every person in the SHU while we were there. The CA subsequently received over 190 written surveys from people in Southport's SHU, had repeated correspondence with numerous people incarcerated at Southport, conducted extensive interviews in 2015 and 2016 with nearly 50 people held in the SHU at Southport, and analyzed prison-specific and system-wide data. To even begin to have some understanding of the real experience of solitary at Southport requires learning directly from the people who are living in solitary the details of what they are enduring. The narratives in this publication provide representative examples of the experiences of the hundreds of people the CA communicated with at Southport. Details: New York: The Correctional Association of New York, 2017. 92p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 17, 2018 at: http://www.correctionalassociation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Solitary-at-Southport-Final-Web-12-10-17.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.correctionalassociation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Solitary-at-Southport-Final-Web-12-10-17.pdf Shelf Number: 148783 Keywords: Administrative SegregationIsolationPrisonersRestrictive HousingSolitary ConfinementSupermax Prisons |
Author: Wilcox, Jessa Title: The Safe Alternatives to Segregation Initiative: Findings and Recommendations on the Use of Segregation in the Middlesex County Adult Correction Center Summary: In 2016 the "Isolated Confinement Restriction Act" passed both houses of the New Jersey Legislature. This bill would have restricted the use of segregation, otherwise referred to as restrictive housing or solitary confinement, in New Jersey prisons and jails by, among other things, prohibiting vulnerable populations from being placed into segregation and limiting lengths of stay in solitary confinement to 15 consecutive days or no more than 20 days total in a 60-day period. Although Governor Christie vetoed this bill, a diverse range of international and national bodies, advocates, federal and state policymakers, and corrections practitioners continue to call on prisons and jails to reform their use of segregation in New Jersey and across the nation. Whether citing the potentially devastating psychological and physiological impacts of spending 23 hours per day alone in a cell the size of a parking space or the lack of conclusive evidence that segregation makes correctional facilities or communities safer, these voices agree that change and innovation are necessary. In 2015, with funding from the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Vera Institute of Justice partnered with the Middlesex County Office of Corrections and Youth Services to assist Middlesex County Adult Correction Center's (MCACC) efforts to reduce its use of segregation. Vera's assistance included conducting an assessment of MCACC's use of segregation and recommending ways to decrease this use. Key Reforms During the initiative, MCACC began instituting several remarkable reforms. Some of these have included: - The creation of a committee that meets weekly to review every person in segregation, with the goal of returning them to general population. As a result of the first meeting, roughly one quarter of the people in segregation were transferred to general population; - The creation of Precautionary Security Units (PSU) as an alternative, less-restrictive housing unit to administrative segregation. At a minimum, people in the PSU are able to spend six hours per day of congregate time out of their cells; and - The purchase of a new jail management system that will allow MCACC to conduct electronic, system-wide data collection, tracking, and analysis to, among other things, better understand its use of segregation and the impact of future reforms. Key Findings This report presents the findings of Vera's assessment, which come from a period prior to the enactment of some of these reforms but provide a useful baseline against which MCACC can measure the impact of recent and future changes. Vera's findings were limited by a lack of administrative data, but were based on meetings with MCACC staff, facility tours, a review of MCACC policies, and observations of various MCACC meetings and hearings related to segregation. During Vera's assessment and prior to reforms, MCACC's population in segregation remained fairly constant at around six percent of the population, or roughly 50-60 people. People in segregation were held in conditions of isolation and sensory deprivation. At the time of the assessment, people in the primary segregation unit, C Pod, spent a minimum of 23 hours a day in their cell with severely limited interaction with other people. Out-of-cell time consisted primarily of individual recreation in a small secure enclosure in the unit for one hour a day, five days a week. There was no opportunity to go outside or participate in congregate activity. Staff reported that segregation was used frequently as a sanction in the formal disciplinary process for low-level, non-violent infractions. Hearing officers reported that the most common infraction they adjudicated at the Disciplinary Board was "conduct which disrupts," and while administrative data was not available, officers reported that segregation was the primary sanction given at disciplinary hearings. Staff, however, did report use of on-the-spot corrections-such as verbal reprimands, loss of recreation privileges, and extra work duty-as a way to divert some low-level infractions from the formal disciplinary process. Some people placed in protective custody were housed in the restrictive conditions of C Pod. Incarcerated people in disciplinary segregation, administrative segregation, or protective custody could all be housed in C Pod. On March 26, 2016, 20 percent of the people in segregation were in protective custody in C Pod. While people were placed in protective custody to "provide protection to the inmate from injury or harm," conditions for these people were analogous to individuals in C Pod for administrative segregation. At the time of the assessment, a person's placement in protective custody was reviewed every 30 days. A few people had been in protective custody for years. There was a lack of therapeutic housing for people with mental health treatment needs who also required additional security. On February 15, 2016, a substantial proportion of people in segregation had mental health treatment needs. Many of these people were housed in C Pod. For people who were not cleared for C Pod by the mental health clinicians, MCACC placed them on administrative segregation status in the medical unit. These people would be placed on a "Low Visibility Psychiatric Watch," where they would receive one additional hour of out-of-cell time a day, but still no ability to recreate outdoors, congregate with other people, or receive programming. Key Recommendations Vera commends MCACC on the steps it has already taken to reform its use of restrictive housing and offers recommendations that will further its efforts to safely reduce that use. The full report details numerous specific recommendations, including: - Improve conditions of confinement in segregation by allowing opportunities for out-of-cell time and congregate activity, providing daily outdoor recreation time, and creating more opportunities for productive in-cell activities; - Limit the number of violations that are eligible for a disciplinary segregation sanction; - Ensure that all incarcerated people who are on protective custody status have similar privileges, out-of-cell time, and opportunities for safe congregate activity as people in general population; - Explore ways to make the medical unit more therapeutic, by allowing for more out-of cell time and congregate activity, while still ensuring greater observation, security, and access to mental health clinicians, and by considering the importance of the environment and physical plant of the medical unit, which can foster or hinder a therapeutic environment; - Provide staff with all necessary training to effectively communicate with incarcerated individuals and de-escalate situations; and - Use the new jail management system to track and share individual-level data and establish a set of performance indicators to assess the use of segregation. As MCACC continues to implement current and future reforms, Vera is confident that Warden Cranston and his staff will build on the remarkable changes already underway, continue to learn from the experiences of others in the field, and use the findings and recommendations in this report to facilitate continued reforms to the use of segregation. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2017. 45p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 23, 2018 at: https://storage.googleapis.com/vera-web-assets/downloads/Publications/safe-alternatives-segregation-initiative-findings-recommendations/legacy_downloads/safe-alternatives-segregation-initiative-findings-recommendations-mcacc.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://storage.googleapis.com/vera-web-assets/downloads/Publications/safe-alternatives-segregation-initiative-findings-recommendations/legacy_downloads/safe-alternatives-segregation-initiative-findings-recommendations-mcacc. Shelf Number: 149520 Keywords: Administrative SegregationInmate DisciplineIsolationRestrictive HousingSolitary Confinement |
Author: Wilcox, Jessa Title: The Safe Alternatives to Segregation Initiative: Findings and Recommendations for the North Carolina Department of Public Safety Summary: In recent years, a diverse range of international and national bodies, advocates, federal and state policymakers, and corrections practitioners have called for prisons and jails to reform their use of segregation, also known as solitary confinement or restrictive housing. Whether citing the potentially devastating psychological and physiological impacts of spending 23 hours per day alone in a cell the size of a parking space, the cost of operating such highly restrictive environments, or the lack of conclusive evidence that segregation makes correctional facilities or communities safer, these voices agree that change and innovation are necessary. In 2015, with funding from the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Vera Institute of Justice partnered with the North Carolina Department of Public Safety (DPS) to help DPS reduce its use of segregation. Vera's assistance included conducting an assessment of DPS's use of segregation and providing ways to decrease its use. Key Reforms During the initiative, DPS began instituting several remarkable reforms, including: - A prohibition on the use of segregation for youth under 18 years of age; - The establishment of Therapeutic Diversion Units as an alternative to restrictive housing for people with greater mental health treatment needs; - The creation of a Rehabilitative Diversion Unit to help transition people from segregation to regular population; and - Mandated staff training on communication and de-escalation tools, to help limit the use of restrictive housing. Key Findings This report presents the findings of Vera's assessment, which come from a period prior to the enactment of many of these reforms but provide a useful baseline against which DPS can measure the impact of recent and future changes. In conducting its assessment, Vera adopted a broad definition of "restrictive housing" to include any housing unit which satisfies two conditions: it (1) holds incarcerated people separately from regular population and (2) places greater restrictions on out-of-cell time, congregate activity, and access to programming than in regular population. Therefore, housing units such as Death Row, which separated people from regular population but did not place greater restrictions on them, were not included in our assessment. Modified Housing (MODH) units, however, were included since Vera observed a range of practices in various MODH units, including some units where people received only two hours of out-of-cell time per day. At the time of Vera's assessment, 44 of DPS's 56 prisons held people in restrictive housing. On June 30, 2015, 3,432 people-just over 9 percent of the prison population-were in some form of restrictive housing. Excluding people held in MODH from the count would give a restrictive housing population of 2,952 on that date, or 7.9 percent of the incarcerated population. Vera's findings not only touch on DPS's use of different types of restrictive housing, but also examine differences in its use between genders, age groups, racial and ethnic groups, and people with different levels of mental health treatment needs. People housed in almost all restrictive housing units were held in conditions of isolation and sensory deprivation. At the time of the assessment, DPS housed 7.9 percent of the prison population in restrictive housing units characterized by conditions of extreme isolation and sensory deprivation. People in these units spent a minimum of 23 hours a day in their cell with severely limited interaction with other people. Out-of-cell time consisted primarily of individual recreation in a small secure enclosure for one hour a day, five days a week. There was very little, if any, opportunity for programming or congregate activity. Disciplinary Segregation was used frequently as a sanction, even for low-level infractions. On June 30, 2015, almost 30 percent of the people in restrictive housing were there as a sanction for a disciplinary infraction. Disciplinary segregation was given as a sanction for 99 percent of incidents with a guilty finding, although for one-third of these incidents, the sentence was suspended and then lifted if the person remained infraction-free for 180 days. The top three infractions resulting in a disciplinary segregation sanction were "disobey an order," "profane language," and "unauthorized tobacco use." These three infractions accounted for 40 percent of all disciplinary segregation sanctions. Other types of restrictive housing were characterized by long stays. DPS had three different housing classifications for incarcerated people held in restrictive housing with an indeterminate length of stay: Intensive Control (ICON), Maximum Control (MCON), and High Security Maximum Control (HCON), with HCON being the most restrictive. On June 30, 2015, 37 percent of all people in restrictive housing were in any of these types of Control housing. Reasons for placement in Control housing ranged from repeatedly disruptive behavior to posing an imminent risk to the life or safety of others. The average length of stay in ICON was approximately nine months; it was twenty-one months for MCON, and almost five years for HCON. During the initiative, DPS enacted several reforms to Control housing, including the creation of a Rehabilitative Diversion Unit (RDU) designed to help people transition from Control to regular population through the provision of targeted behavioral programming and increasing privileges, congregate activity, and out-of-cell time. Certain groups were overrepresented in restrictive housing. Youth, young adults, people with mental health needs, and racial minorities were overrepresented in DPS's restrictive housing units. On June 30, 2015, 32 percent of youth (under 18 years of age) and 17 percent of young adults (18-25 years old) were in restrictive housing, compared to 8 percent of people 26 and older. Incarcerated people who required mental health treatment involving psychotropic medication and therapy, but who did not require placement in a designated mental health unit, made up 8 percent of the regular population but 14 percent of the population in disciplinary segregation and 24 percent of Control housing. Echoing the fact that racial and ethnic minorities are generally overrepresented throughout the criminal justice system in the United States, racial minorities were disproportionately exposed to restrictive housing. For example, while 35 percent of white incarcerated people had spent at least one night in restrictive housing during the year prior to Vera's assessment, this was true of 47 percent of black individuals and 50 percent of Native American incarcerated people. DPS released some people from segregation directly to the community. Releasing people directly from restrictive housing to the community can make an already difficult transition even more challenging. During the 12 months ending on June 30, 2015, DPS released 1,832 incarcerated people directly from restrictive housing to the community. Fortyfive percent of these people had spent over one month in segregation directly prior to being released; 15 percent had spent over six months. Key Recommendations Vera commends DPS on the steps it has already taken to reform its use of restrictive housing and offers recommendations that will further its efforts to safely reduce that use. The full report details numerous specific recommendations for DPS, including: - Reduce the number of disciplinary infractions eligible for segregation sanctions and reduce the maximum length of segregation sanctions; - Expand available alternative sanctions to disciplinary segregation, expand and track the current practice of pre-disciplinary counseling, and encourage other informal ways to resolve minor offenses; - Maintain and enhance beneficial programming, supports, and structured activities in regular population, to help prevent people from engaging in behaviors that may lead to their placement in restrictive housing; - Strengthen procedural safeguards around Control housing to ensure that it is truly used as a last resort, only when necessary, and for as short a time as possible, with a cap on the length of time permitted in Control; - Enact policies that prohibit people with serious, persistent mental illness from being placed in any form of restrictive housing that limits meaningful access to social interaction, environmental stimulation, and therapeutic programming; - Take individuals' release dates into account when using restrictive housing; use alternative disciplinary sanctions, or placement into housing units with both greater security and a structured reentry process, to ensure that people are not released directly from restrictive housing to the community; - Improve the conditions of confinement in all restrictive housing units to reduce the negative effects of segregation, including by increasing out-of-cell time and recreation, minimizing isolation and idleness, and providing opportunities for rehabilitative programming; and - Continue and expand the provision of staff training on de-escalation and communication skills, and expand trainings on mental decompensation and mental health needs. As the North Carolina Department of Public Safety continues implementation of current and future reforms, Vera is confident that the department will capitalize on its strengths, learn from the experience of others in the field, and use this report to facilitate continued reforms to the use of restrictive housing, in order to improve the lives of those who live and work in North Carolina's prisons and the broader community. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2016. 90p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 23, 2018 at: https://ncdps.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/documents/files/Vera%20Safe%20Alternatives%20to%20Segregation%20Initiative%20Final%20Report.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://ncdps.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/documents/files/Vera%20Safe%20Alternatives%20to%20Segregation%20Initiative%20Final%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 148916 Keywords: Administrative Segregation Inmate DisciplineIsolationRacial DisparitiesRestrictive Housing Solitary Confinement |
Author: Anthony-North, Vedan Title: The Safe Alternatives to Segregation Initiative: Findings and Recommendations for the New York City Department of Correction Summary: In recent years, a diverse range of international and national organizations, advocates, policymakers, corrections practitioners, and the U.S. Department of Justice have called for prisons and jails to reform their use of segregation, also known as solitary confinement or restrictive housing. Whether citing the potentially devastating psychological and physiological impacts of spending 23 hours per day alone in a cell the size of a parking space; the cost of operating such highly restrictive environments; or the lack of conclusive evidence that segregation makes correctional facilities safer, these voices agree that change and innovation are essential endeavors. Over the past few years, the New York City Department of Correction (the Department) has made it a priority to reduce the use of punitive segregation-one form of restrictive housing-in its jails, implementing a number of notable reforms that have helped the Department achieve major reductions. These existing efforts have laid the groundwork for further work. In 2015, with funding from the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Vera Institute of Justice partnered with the Department to assist the agency in its efforts to reduce its use of segregation. Through this partnership, Vera conducted an assessment of New York City's use of segregation in its jail facilities and recommends policy and practice changes to continue to reduce punitive segregation and reduce other types of restrictive housing. In addition to describing reforms to punitive segregation to date that demonstrate New York City's commitment to reform, this report presents the findings from Vera's assessment, and recommendations that offer the Department strategies to further its efforts to reduce reliance on segregation and explore other opportunities for reform. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, Center on Sentencing and Corrections, 2017. 92p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 13, 2018 at: https://storage.googleapis.com/vera-web-assets/downloads/Publications/safe-alternatives-segregation-initiative-findings-recommendations/legacy_downloads/safe-alternatives-segregation-initiative-findings-recommendations-nycsas.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://storage.googleapis.com/vera-web-assets/downloads/Publications/safe-alternatives-segregation-initiative-findings-recommendations/legacy_downloads/safe-alternatives-segregation-initiative-findings-recommendations-nycsas Shelf Number: 149113 Keywords: Administrative SegregationInmate DisciplineIsolationRestrictive HousingSolitary Confinement |
Author: Digard, Leon Title: Rethinking Restrictive Housing: Lessons from Five U.S. Jail and Prison Systems Summary: After decades of misuse and overuse, the tide appears to be turning on the role of solitary confinement in U.S. jails and prisons. In recent years, this practice-also known as restrictive housing or segregation-has been the subject of increased scrutiny from researchers, advocates, policymakers, media, and the government agencies responsible for people who are incarcerated. In restrictive housing, a person is held in a cell, typically 22 to 24 hours a day, with minimal human interaction or sensory stimuli. Since the 1980s, the rise in its use has mirrored the exponential rise of incarceration. Originally intended to manage people who committed violence within jails and prisons, restrictive housing has become a common tool for responding to all levels of rule violations, from minor to serious; managing challenging populations; and housing people considered vulnerable, especially those living with mental illness. Also reflecting incarceration trends, evidence suggests that in a substantial number of jurisdictions, younger people, people of color, and those living with mental illness are held in restrictive housing at higher rates. In light of this information and growing evidence that restrictive housing may harm people without improving safety in facilities, a number of departments of corrections are taking steps to reduce their reliance on this type of housing. The effects of being held in restrictive housing can be significant. An extensive body of research in psychiatry, neuroscience, epidemiology, and anthropology spanning more than 150 years has documented the potential detrimental effects of restrictive housing on the health and well-being of incarcerated people. This evidence confirms what is perhaps understood intuitively: the practice can result in physical and psychological damage whose negative repercussions can persist well after release, making the transition to life in a prison's general population or in the community considerably more difficult. Social isolation, sensory deprivation, and enforced idleness are a toxic combination that can result in psychiatric symptoms, including anxiety, depression, anger, difficulties with impulse control, paranoia, visual and auditory hallucinations, cognitive disturbances, obsessive thoughts, hypersensitivity to stimuli, posttraumatic stress disorder, self-harm, suicide, and psychosis. At an institutional level, restrictive housing is extremely resourceintensive, although research provides no conclusive evidence that it makes facilities or communities safer. Attention has also turned toward the impact restrictive housing has on staff. Studies have demonstrated that corrections officers working in general-population units face stressors that can negatively affect their mental and physical health and family relationships. Researchers have recently started to explore whether working in the unique conditions found in restrictive-housing units is associated with depression, stress, or trauma-or with other markers of safety and well-being, such as injury and sick leave. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2018. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed may 23, 2018 at: https://storage.googleapis.com/vera-web-assets/downloads/Publications/rethinking-restrictive-housing/legacy_downloads/rethinking-restrictive-housing-report.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://storage.googleapis.com/vera-web-assets/downloads/Publications/rethinking-restrictive-housing/legacy_downloads/rethinking-restrictive-housing-report.pdf Shelf Number: 150339 Keywords: Administrative SegregationInmate DisciplineIsolationRestrictive HousingSolitary Confinement |
Author: Vail, Eldon Title: Sacramento County Jail. Mentally Ill Prisoners and the Use of Segregation: Recommendations for Policy, Practice and Resources Summary: The use of segregation in the Sacramento County Jails is dramatically out of step with emerging national standards and practices and with what the research tells us about the dangers of segregation regarding placing mentally ill inmates in segregated housing. The SCSD jails make no provision to exclude the mentally ill from segregation despite the mounting evidence that this population is particularly vulnerable to serious risk of significant harm from such placement. The SCSD overuses segregation both for the mentally ill and the non-mentally ill. Because of the lack of sufficient out of cell time and programming opportunities, conditions in the jails for segregated inmates are very stark and unlikely to meet constitutional standards. Jail Psychiatric Services (JPS) provide mental health services in the SCSD jails. While JPS staff are dedicated and hard working, the authorized staffing levels are so meager that little treatment of the incarcerated mentally ill actually takes place. Services are primarily limited to medication management and crisis intervention. There is a near total lack of individual or group therapy, elements that in my experience as a correctional administrator over a state prison system are critical for the care of this vulnerable population. The level of custody staffing for both jails is startlingly and dangerously low for even their current operation and as a result they operate in a state of near perpetual emergency. Absent a significant reduction in the population of the jail, there is no way they could achieve compliance with the applicable standards for managing the mentally ill and segregated inmates with their current staffing levels. There must be a sizable increase in both mental health and custody staffing to properly provide treatment to the mentally ill and avoid what would likely be successful litigation should this matter go before the Federal court. The jail is in need of an updated Housing Plan. Currently, inmates with different custody levels and mental health needs are housed in units or pods that are not clearly defined by these important factors. It is possible that some of the recommended increases in custody staffing (included later in this report) could be reduced with a Housing Plan that houses maximum inmates with maximum inmates, medium with medium, etc. in the same pods or units. The same is true for levels of mental health acuity. Not all mentally ill inmates require maximum custody or restrictive housing. Some can do quite well in medium or minimum custody treatment units. It is recommended that the jail's classification system be reviewed and updated as part of establishing an improved Housing Plan. A complete list of recommendations is at the end of this report. Details: Sacramento: Disability Rights California, 2016. 45p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 1, 2018 at: https://www.disabilityrightsca.org/system/files/file-attachments/%5B001-2%5D_Exhibit_B-Vail_Report_2018-07-31.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.disabilityrightsca.org/system/files/file-attachments/%5B001-2%5D_Exhibit_B-Vail_Report_2018-07-31.pdf Shelf Number: 150997 Keywords: Administrative SegregationJail InmatesJailsMentally Ill InmatesRestrictive Housing |
Author: Association of State Correctional Administrators Title: Reforming Restrictive Housing: The 2018 ASCA-Liman Nationwide Survey of Time-in-Cell Summary: This Report is the fourth in a series of research projects co-authored by the Association of State Correctional Administrators (ASCA) and the Arthur Liman Center at Yale Law School. These monographs provide nationwide data on "restrictive housing," defined in this Report as separating prisoners from the general population and holding them in their cells for an average of 22 hours or more per day for 15 continuous days or more. This practice is often termed "solitary confinement." Reforming Restrictive Housing documents the changes underway as prison administrators aim to limit the use of segregation and find alternatives to the isolation of restrictive housing. In 2013, the first report of the series, Administrative Segregation, Degrees of Isolation, and Incarceration, analyzed the restrictive housing policies of 47 jurisdictions. The 2013 Report found that the criteria for placement in isolation were broad. Getting into segregation was relatively easy, but few policies addressed release. In contrast, in 2018, directors around the country reported narrowing the bases for placement in restrictive housing, increasing oversight, and limiting time spent in isolation. In some places, behaviors that once put people into restrictive housing - from "horse play" to possession of small amounts of marijuana - no longer do. And for those people in restrictive housing, efforts are reportedly underway in some jurisdictions to create more out-of-cell time and more group-based activities. Since 2013, ASCA and the Liman Center have conducted national surveys of the number of people in restrictive housing. The 2015 report, Time-in-Cell, estimated that 80,000 to 100,000 prisoners were in segregation across the country. The 2016 report, Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell, identified almost 68,000 people held in isolation. For the 2017-2018 data collection, ASCA-Liman sent surveys to the 50 states, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (FBOP), the District of Columbia, and four jail systems in large metropolitan areas. The 43 prison systems that provided data on prisoners in restrictive housing held 80.6% of the U.S. prison population. They reported that 49,197 individuals - 4.5% of the people in their custody - were in restrictive housing. Across all the reporting jurisdictions, the median percentage of the population held in restrictive housing was 4.2%; the average was 4.6%. The percentage of prisoners in restrictive housing ranged from 0.05% to 19%. Extrapolating from these numbers to the systems not reporting, we estimate that some 61,000 individuals were in isolation in prisons in the fall of 2017. Thirty jurisdictions reported when they began to track how long people had been in restrictive housing. Some jurisdictions began tracking this information as recently as 2017. Within the responding jurisdictions, most people were held in segregation for a year or less. Twenty-five jurisdictions counted more than 3,500 individuals who were held for more than three years. Almost 2,000 of those individuals had been there for more than six years. The 2017-2018 survey also gathered information about gender, race and ethnicity, and age. Men were much more likely than women to be in solitary confinement. Black prisoners comprised a greater percentage of the restrictive housing population than they did the total custodial population. The reverse was true for White prisoners. Likewise, in the jurisdictions reporting on ethnicity, Hispanic male prisoners represented a greater percentage of the restrictive housing population than they did the total custodial population. Prisoners between the ages of 18 and 36 were more likely to be segregated than were older individuals. Reforming Restrictive Housing also documents the many and varying definitions of "serious mental illness." Using each jurisdiction's own definition, we learned that more than 4,000 people with serious mental illness are in restrictive housing. Other sub-populations counted were pregnant prisoners and transgender individuals. Responses indicated a total of 613 pregnant prisoners, none of whom were in restrictive housing. Prison systems reported incarcerating roughly 2,500 transgender individuals, of whom about 150 were reported to be in segregation. In addition to the prison systems responding, the jail systems in Los Angeles County and Philadelphia provided restrictive housing data. In these two systems, the restrictive housing population ranged from 3.6% to 6.2 % of the total jail population. Both jurisdictions described revising their restrictive housing policies, including by limiting its use for people with serious mental illness. One of the jail systems explained that, given the turnover in some jail populations, the administrators faced challenges in avoiding direct release from restrictive housing into the community. The 2018 Report tracks the impact of the 2016 American Correctional Association's (ACA) Restrictive Housing Performance Based Standards. Thirty-six prison systems reported reviewing their policies since the release of the ACA Standards. More than half had implemented one or more reforms to align with the ACA. Those Standards reflect the national consensus to limit the use of restrictive housing for pregnant women, juveniles, and seriously mentally ill individuals, as well as not to use a person's gender identity as the sole basis for segregation. In this Report and the related 2018 ASCA-Liman monograph, Efforts in Four Jurisdictions to Make Changes, the directors of the prison systems in Colorado, Idaho, Ohio, and North Dakota detail how they were limiting and, in Colorado, abolishing holding people in cells 22 hours or more for 15 days or more. These individual accounts reflect the broader trend of policy changes. This Report puts the data collected from the 2017-2018 survey in the context of national and international actions regulating the use of restrictive housing. Correctional systems around the country are engaging in targeted efforts to reform their practices of isolating prisoners. Examples of such efforts are contained in the Vera Institute of Justice's 2018 monograph, Rethinking Restrictive Housing. In other instances, reforms have come from state legislatures. Some statutes now place limits on the length of time individuals can be held in segregation, require reviews of placement decisions, and ban the use of isolation for juveniles and other sub-populations. Litigation has also resulted in decisions that highlight the harms of restrictive housing and, in some cases, prohibit its use. Parallel efforts and mandates can be found outside the United States - from implementation of the Nelson Mandela Rules to litigation and reform through policy changes. The ASCA-Liman surveys provide a longitudinal database to enable evidence-based analysis of the practice of holding people in isolation. This Report compares the responses of the 40 prison systems that answered the ASCA-Liman surveys in both 2015 and 2017. In those 40 systems, we learned about 56,000 people in restrictive housing in 2015. The number of prisoners reported to be in restrictive housing decreased by almost 9,500 to 47,000 people in 2017. The percentage of individuals in isolation decreased from 5.0% to 4.4%. The changes are not uniform. In more than two dozen states, the numbers of people in restrictive housing decreased. In 11 states, the numbers went up. What accounts for the changing numbers is unclear. Variables include new policies and practices, litigation, legislation, fluctuations in the overall prison population, and staffing patterns. For example, in 20 of the 29 jurisdictions in which restrictive housing numbers declined, so too did the total prison population. In two of the 11 jurisdictions that had an increase in restrictive housing numbers, the total prison population increased as well. The amount of time spent in restrictive housing is of increasing concern. Not all correctional systems track length of confinement. Nineteen jurisdictions reported that they began tracking in 2013 or thereafter. In 31 jurisdictions responding to questions about length of time in both 2015 and 2017, the number of individuals in restrictive housing for three months or less increased. The number of people in isolation for longer than three months decreased. The decreases were greatest for time periods longer than six months. Correctional administrations' efforts to reduce the numbers of people in restrictive housing are part of a larger picture in which legislatures, courts, and other institutions are seeking to limit holding people in cells 22 hours or more for 15 days or more. These endeavors reflect the national and international consensus that restrictive housing imposes grave harms on individuals confined, on staff, and on the communities to which prisoners return. Once solitary confinement was seen as a solution to a problem. Now prison officials around the United States are finding ways to solve the problem of restrictive housing Details: New Haven, CT: Yale University, School of Law, 2018. 197p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 12, 2018 at: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4999225/ASCA-Liman-2018-Restrictive-Housing-Revised-Sept.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4999225/ASCA-Liman-2018-Restrictive-Housing-Revised-Sept.pdf Shelf Number: 152906 Keywords: Administrative SegregationCorrectional AdministrationIsolationMentally Ill OffendersRestrictive HousingSolitary Confinement |
Author: Tasca, Melinda Title: Examining Race and Gender Disparities in Restrictive Housing Placements Summary: Placement into restrictive housing is a controversial practice experienced by some inmates during incarceration. Nevertheless, little is known about who is placed in restrictive housing and under what conditions. Although this correctional management tool is used to isolate inmates who pose a risk to the operation and security of an institution, assessments underlying placement decisions are often racialized and gendered. Coupled with the seclusion of prisons from public scrutiny and the wide discretion afforded to prison officials, there are ample opportunities for extralegal factors to influence treatment. In an effort to generate a broader understanding of racial and gender disparities in conditions of confinement, this study-supported through NIJ's W.E.B. DuBois Research Fellowship Program- examined restrictive housing placement decisions. Using administrative records on all inmates released from prison in one large state between 2011 and 2014 (N = 33,143), this study assessed racial and ethnic disparities in men and women's: 1) placements into any segregation; 2) placements into particular types of segregation (i.e. administrative segregation, disciplinary and mental health segregation); 3) the length of time spent there; and 4) the reasons provided for these placements. Descriptive, bivariate, and multivariate analyses were estimated to assess these relationships. Given that multiple housing placements were recorded for each inmate (N = 124,942), multilevel modeling procedures were used (i.e. hierarchical logistic regression, hierarchical negative binomial regression). Overall, results indicated significant racial and ethnic disparities in restrictive housing placements among men and women, net of legally- and administratively-relevant factors and other inmate characteristics. To be sure, Native American men were more likely than Whites to experience placements into any segregation, disciplinary segregation, and administrative segregation (ad-seg). Latinos and Black men had lower odds of placement into any segregation and also disciplinary segregation relative to Whites. At the same time, Native American men and Latinos spent more days in any segregation and ad-seg when placed there compared to Whites. Latinos in disciplinary segregation also experienced longer placements, while Blacks' disciplinary segregation placements were shorter than Whites. For women, racial disparities were observed in placements into ad-seg and mental health segregation. Native American, Latina, and Black women had increased odds of placement into administrative segregation relative to their White counterparts. Latinas were less likely than Whites to experience placement into mental health segregation. Routine operations (e.g., custody reclassification, lateral transfers, inmate population adjustments) was the most commonly cited reason for restrictive housing placements across race/ethnicity and sex. This project informs research and policy alike. First, this study extends empirical knowledge on disparities in criminal justice decision-making to the correctional setting. Second, this project responded directly to calls for research regarding the use of segregation and whether it is applied fairly. Our work offers insight into the experiences of diverse and understudied groups, particularly Native Americans. And finally, this work can be useful for correctional departments when navigating and implementing decisions and practices pertaining to restrictive housing. Details: Report to the U.S. National Institute of Justice, 2018. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 22, 2018 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/252062.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/252062.pdf Shelf Number: 153056 Keywords: Administrative SegregationEthnic DisparitiesInmate DisciplineIsolationRacial DisparitiesRestrictive HousingSolitary Confinement |
Author: Solitary Watch Title: Louisiana on Lockdown: A Report on the Use of Solitary Confinement in Louisiana State Prisons, With Testimony From the People Who Live It Summary: Te use of solitary confinement in the state of Louisiana has penetrated the broader public consciousness largely through the story of the Angola 3. Over the past decade, the harrowing saga of three African American men-all likely innocent of the prison murders that were used to justify confining them in solitary for up to 43 years-sparked media attention and public outcry as the ultimate expression of harsh, racist, Southern injustice. But there is another story to be told about solitary confinement in Louisiana. Like the story of the Angola 3, it is deeply rooted in the history of racial subjugation and captivity in the South, which begins with slavery and stretches through convict leasing and Jim Crow to the modern era of mass incarceration. However, it extends far beyond the lives of just three men. This is the story of a prison system where, on any given day, nearly one in five people is being held in isolation, placed there by prison staff, often for minor rule violations or "administrative" reasons. When it conducted a full count in the fall of 2017, the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections (LADOC) reported that 19 percent of the men in its state prisons - 2,709 in all - had been in solitary confinement for more than two weeks. Many had been there for years or even decades. The Vera Institute of Justice, which released its own report on solitary confinement in Louisiana earlier this year, similarly found over 17 percent of the state's prison population in solitary in 2016. These rates of solitary confinement use were more than double the next highest state's, and approximately four times the national average. Given that Louisiana also has the second highest incarceration rate in the United States, which leads the world in both incarceration and solitary confinement use, it is clear that Louisiana holds the title of solitary confinement capital of the world. Te state has this dishonorable distinction at a time when a growing body of evidence offers proof of the devastating psychological and social harms caused by prolonged solitary confinement, as well as its ineffectiveness as a tool to reduce prison violence. In 2015, when it revised its Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (known as the Mandela Rules), the United Nations acknowledged that solitary confinement of 15 days or more is cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment that often rises to the level of torture. Taken together, these facts indicate that the state of Louisiana is abusing and at times torturing thousands of its citizens for no legitimate purpose whatsoever. Te numbers, however, still tell only part of the story. Just as Albert Woodfox's memoir "Solitary" powerfully conveys what it is like to live for decades in conditions that are designed "to break people," the words of individuals living in solitary confinement are vital to understanding the reality of what is happening today in Louisiana's prisons. For this report, we collected information directly from those men and women. The bulk of the report is based on detailed responses from more than 700 lengthy surveys completed by individuals in solitary, whose names and identifying information have been changed to protect their safety and privacy. Their descriptions paint a grim picture of long stretches of time spent in small cells that are often windowless, filthy, and/or subject to extreme temperatures, where they are denied basic human needs such as adequate food and daily exercise, and subject to many forms of abuse as well as to unending idleness and loneliness, resulting in physical and mental deterioration. Since surveys were returned voluntarily, the results cannot be viewed as a comprehensive or representative sampling. Yet with more than 700 responses from all nine of the state's prisons, which provided personal narratives as well as quantitative data, we believe our report complements, builds upon, and adds an even greater sense of urgency to previous recommendations for reform of solitary confinement in Louisiana, including those included in the recent report by the Vera Institute of Justice. At a moment when LADOC has, for the first time, shown willingness to reconsider and reduce its use of solitary confinement, the findings in this report offer vital insights-and illuminate a path toward the sweeping changes that must be made if Louisiana is to create a prison system that succeeds in both advancing public safety and preserving the human rights of incarcerated people. Details: New York: Authors, 2019. 135p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 26, 2019 at: https://solitarywatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Louisiana-on-Lockdown-Report-June-2019.pdf Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: https://solitarywatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Louisiana-on-Lockdown-Report-June-2019.pdf Shelf Number: 156632 Keywords: Administrative SegregationHuman Rights Imprisonment Isolation Restricted Housing Solitary Confinement |