Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 10:36 pm
Time: 10:36 pm
Results for inmate discipline
19 results foundAuthor: McLemore, Megan Title: Barred from Treatment: Punishment of Drug Users in New York State Prisons Summary: This report by Human Rights Watch found that New York prison officials sentenced inmates to a collective total of 2,516 years in disciplinary segregation from 2005 to 2007 for drug-related charges. At the same time, inmates seeking drug treatment face major delays because treatment programs are filled to capacity. When sentenced to segregation, known as the "box", inmates are not allowed to get or continue to receive treatment. Conditions in the box are harsh, with prisoners locked down 23 hours a day and contact with the outside through visitors, packages, and telephone calls severely restricted. Details: New York: Human Rights Watch, 2009. 53p. Source: Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 113905 Keywords: Drug OffendersInmate DisciplineInmates (New York State)Prisons (New York State)SegregationSolitary Confinement |
Author: Chapman, Steven F. Title: Evaluation of the Behavior Modification Unit Pilot Program at High Desert State Prison Summary: The Behavior Modification Unit (BMU) Pilot Program was implemented at High Desert State Prison (HDSP) on November 21, 2005. This program was developed and implemented to respond to disruptive inmate behavior that was not serious enough to warrant placement in the Administrative Segregation Unit (ASU) or Security Housing Unit (SHU), but was disruptive to the general population. The BMU was designed to provide alternative general population housing and programming for inmates deemed program failures. The goals of the BMU program are to: • modify recalcitrant inmate behavior, • eliminate and reduce the opportunity to repeat the behavior, and • provide non-disruptive inmates the ability to participate in programming without continual interruptions. Inmates are eligible for placement into the BMU if they fall into any of the five following categories: 1. Program failure, 2. SHUable offense per California Code of Regulations, Title 15, Section 3341.5, 3. Organized criminal activity, 4. Refusal to double cell or participate in the department’s racial integration program, or 5. Indecent exposure. The Institutional Classification Committee (ICC) or Unit Classification Committee (UCC) has the responsibility of placing inmates into the BMU program who meet placement criteria. Inmates are initially placed in Work Group C, in which inmates receive zero work credit, and Privilege Group C, in which inmates’ personal privileges are limited, for at least 90 days. Subsequent BMU placements are for a minimum of 180 days. Upon placement in the BMU, inmates forfeit most personal property, including appliances. A total of 164 inmates were placed in the BMU program at HDSP during the period between November 21, 2005, and July 31, 2007. The findings indicate that the BMU program was associated with a reduction in the recalcitrant behavior of the 76 inmates who successfully completed the program and were present at HDSP for at least one month before entering and one month after completing the program. Specifically, the inmates who completed the BMU program had almost six times fewer Rules Violation Reports after completing the BMU program than before entering it. However, the results also suggest that, for the 137 inmates who were placed in the BMU and were present at HDSP for at least one month before and one month after entering the program, it was not effective in reducing recalcitrant behavior. Although these findings are encouraging, it is important to note that, due to the quasi-experimental nature of the research design, it is not possible to attribute the observed positive effects to participation in the BMU program. Because it was not feasible to randomly assign inmates to the program, the observed effects might have been due to events unrelated to it (e.g., changes in institution policy, correctional staff behavior toward inmates, or inmate behavior not directly related to the BMU program). Details: Sacramento: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Office of Research, Adult Research Branch, 2008. 81p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 15, 2011 at: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Documents/Behavior%20Modifcation%20Unit%20Evaluation%20July%202008.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Documents/Behavior%20Modifcation%20Unit%20Evaluation%20July%202008.pdf Shelf Number: 121360 Keywords: Correctional InstitutionsCorrectional Programs (California)Inmate BehaviorInmate DisciplinePrisoners |
Author: Blomberg, Thomas G. Title: Correctional Operations Trend Analysis System (COTAS): An Independent Validation Summary: This report provides research findings and recommendations from the Florida State University (FSU) Center for Criminology and Public Policy’s validation of the Florida Department of Corrections (DOC) Correctional Operations Trend Analysis System (COTAS). COTAS is designed to serve as a tool for DOC staff to aid in the prevention of violent events at institutional facilities. Using DOC’s large collection of historical and real-time data regarding characteristics about individual inmates, violent and non-violent incidents, and environmental characteristics of institutions, COTAS provides correctional administrators with trend analysis and risk assessment of inmates’ involvement in violent events. COTAS provides the regional and facility administrators with two types of statistics, namely descriptive and predictive. Descriptive statistics from COTAS provide a summary of violent and non-violent events that occurred within DOC regions or administrative areas within the prior 30 days. This data can be “drilled down” to examine the prevalence of events at the facility, dorm, and inmate levels. Additionally, COTAS can provide a 12-month trend analysis of facilities’ monthly count of specific violent and non-violent events. Predictive statistics from COTAS provide the predicted probability of individual inmates’ involvement in violent events. Predictions are generated by an algorithm, which uses historical data to examine the relationship between inmate and facility characteristics and inmates’ involvement in violent events. Both descriptive and predictive statistics are reported to the user in a web-based dashboard interface. Based on pre-defined thresholds, the interface (dashboard) displays the degree of concern that a particular administrator should have regarding the likelihood of violent events occurring during the next thirty days. A detailed description of the COTAS system is provided in Chapter 2 of this report. Details: Tallahassee: Center for Criminology and Public Policy Research, College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Florida State University, 2011. 76p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 19, 2012 at: http://www.criminologycenter.fsu.edu/p/pdf/COTAS%20Validation%20Report%20-%20FINAL%20July%2010%202011.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.criminologycenter.fsu.edu/p/pdf/COTAS%20Validation%20Report%20-%20FINAL%20July%2010%202011.pdf Shelf Number: 125688 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationInmate DisciplinePrison AdministrationPrison ViolencePrisonersPrisons (Florida) |
Author: Hoke, Scott Title: Inmate Behavior Management: Guide to Meeting Basic Needs Summary: Violence, vandalism, and other unwanted inmate behaviors prevail in many jails nationwide, and they frustrate jail practitioners who must ensure the safety and security of inmates, staff and the public. Jail environments are one of the few environments in our communities where this type of behavior is expected and accepted. The environment created by these behaviors should not be considered acceptable and it is the jail administrators responsibility to operate their facilities in a way that prevents these behaviors from occurring. Relatively few resources make it challenging to provide assistance and detailed direction to administrators on how best to operate such a complex organization. National Institute of Corrections (NIC) has introduced an initiative designed to: teach administrators, managers, and corrections officers the most effective methods to control inmate behavior and optimize operational efficiency. NIC calls the initiative Inmate Behavior Management or IBM. The comprehensive management system has six identifiable elements that work together to manage inmate behavior and create an efficient and effective organization (Hutchinson, Keller, and Reid 2009): 1 Assessing risks and needs 2 Assigning inmates to housing 3 Meeting inmates basic needs 4 Defining and conveying expectations for inmates 5 Supervising inmates 6 Keeping inmates productively occupied 7 Defining and conveying expectations is one in a series of documents or tools for jails practitioners to use as they implement this management strategy A Guide to Meeting Basic Needs offers practical information and guidance on implementing element three meeting inmates basic needs. One important aspect of managing inmate behavior is to understand what motivates human behavior. Experience has shown that if a jail does not meet the basic human needs of inmates, the inmates will find a way to satisfy their needs in ways that may be unfavorable to the orderly operation of the jail. Understanding what motivates human behavior provides jail administrators with a very useful tool for managing inmates since it helps explain both good inmate behavior and bad. This document not only provides guidance to jail practitioners as they implement this element, but it also provides self-assessment checklists to determine how well the jail is doing in the delivery of basic needs and suggestions for area of improvement. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute of Corrections, 2014. 76p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 1, 2014 at: https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.nicic.gov/Library/027704.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.nicic.gov/Library/027704.pdf Shelf Number: 132577 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationInmate DisciplineInmatesJail AdministrationJailsPrison AdministrationPrison ViolencePrisoners |
Author: New York City Board of Correction Title: Barriers to Recreation at Rikers Island's Central Punitive Segregation Unit Summary: When people confined in New York City's Rikers Island jail complex violate rules the Department of Correction (DOC) has the authority to remove them from the general inmate population and place them in punitive segregation. Often referred to as "the bing," punitive segregation functions as a jail within a jail, where prisoners are locked almost continuously in single-occupancy cells that are roughly 7 feet wide and 12 feet long. Several of the facilities on Rikers Island have punitive segregation units, and the largest is the Central Punitive Segregation Unit (CPSU) at the Otis Bantum Correctional Center, which is reserved for male prisoners. On March 17 of this year, for example, 367 adults - 92.4% of all adult prisoners assigned to punitive segregation - were housed in the CPSU along with 22 adolescent prisoners, representing roughly a quarter (27.8%) of all teens in punitive segregation on that day. Because continuous solitary confinement is detrimental to a person's physical and mental health, the Minimum Standards promulgated by the New York City Board of Correction (BOC), reflecting both national and international standards for the treatment of prisoners, entitle inmates in punitive segregation to at least one hour of recreation every day. For individuals confined in the CPSU, the only form of recreation available is an hour alone in one of the Unit's 32 outdoor "cages." While the cages are empty of any equipment such as a basketball hoop and ball or pull-up bar that would facilitate exercise, this hour nevertheless represents a prisoner's only access to fresh air and direct sunlight and only opportunity for social contact with other prisoners in adjacent pens and staff present in the area. This brief interruption of life in solitary confinement is particularly important for a population with a high rate of mental illness and instability and, as a result, one that is difficult to supervise safely. According to snapshot data provided by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, more than half of prisoners in CPSU either came to Rikers Island with a diagnosed mental illness or received mental health services during their current period of incarceration. Details: New York: New York City Board of Correction, 2014. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 12, 2014 at: http://www.nyc.gov/html/boc/downloads/pdf/reports/CPSU_Rec_Report.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.nyc.gov/html/boc/downloads/pdf/reports/CPSU_Rec_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 132998 Keywords: Correctional ProgramsInmate DisciplineIsolationRikers IslandSolitary Confinement (New York City) |
Author: Hoke, Scott Title: Inmate Behavior Management: Northampton County Jail Case Study Summary: Violence, vandalism, and other unwanted inmate behaviors prevail in many jails nationwide, and they frustrate jail practitioners who must ensure the safety and security of inmates, staff and the public. Jail environments are one of the few environments in our communities where this type of behavior is expected and accepted. The environment created by these behaviors should not be considered acceptable, and it is jail administrators' responsibility to operate their facilities in a way that prevents these behaviors from occurring. Effectively managing inmate behavior creates a safer environment for the inmates and staff and allows the jail to provide a valuable service to the public. Community safety is enhanced by strong jail management and facilities should aspire to create environments where compliance, respect, and cooperation are fostered. In an attempt to create a system of strong management, the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) introduced an initiative that was designed to teach administrators, managers, and corrections officers the most effective methods to control inmate behavior and optimize operational efficiency. NIC calls the initiative Inmate Behavior Management or IBM. The comprehensive management system has six identifiable elements that work together to control inmate behavior and create an efficient and effective organization (Hutchinson, Keller, and Reid 2009): 1 Assessing risks and needs 2 Assigning inmates to housing 3 Meeting inmates' basic needs 4 Defining and conveying expectations for inmates 5 Supervising inmates 6 Keeping inmates productively occupied Inmate Behavior Management: Northampton County Jail Case Study provides an example of how one facility planned and implemented the IBM management system and transitioned to a philosophy that refused to accept negative behavior as a natural result of the process of confinement. The experiences and results detailed in this report can be considered a valuable resource for any jail administrator who wants to make similar changes. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute of Corrections, 2013. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 12, 2014 at: https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.nicic.gov/Library/027702.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.nicic.gov/Library/027702.pdf Shelf Number: 133014 Keywords: Correctional Administration Inmate Discipline Inmates Jail Administration JailsPrison Administration Prison Violence Prisoners |
Author: Hoke, Scott Title: Inmate Behavior Management: Brazos County Jail Case Study Summary: Violence, vandalism, and other unwanted inmate behaviors prevail in many jails nationwide, and they frustrate jail practitioners who must ensure the safety and security of inmates, staff, and the public. Jail environments are one of the few environments in our communities where this type of behavior is expected and accepted. The environment created by these behaviors should not be considered acceptable, and it is jail administrators' responsibility to operate their facilities in a way that prevents these behaviors from occurring. Effectively managing inmate behavior creates a safer environment for inmates and staff and allows the jail to provide a valuable service to the public. Community safety is enhanced by strong jail management, and facilities should aspire to create environments where compliance, respect, and cooperation are fostered. In an attempt to create a system of strong management, the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) introduced an initiative that was designed to teach administrators, managers, and corrections officers the most effective methods to control inmate behavior and optimize operational efficiency. NIC calls the initiative Inmate Behavior Management or IBM. The comprehensive management system has six identifiable elements that work together to control inmate behavior and create an efficient and effective organization (Hutchinson, Keller, and Reid 2009): 1 Assessing risks and needs 2 Assigning inmates to housing 3 Meeting inmates' basic needs 4 Defining and conveying expectations for inmates 5 Supervising inmates 6 Keeping inmates productively occupied Inmate Behavior Management: Brazos County Jail Case Study provides an example of how one facility planned and implemented the IBM management system and transitioned to a philosophy that refused to accept negative behavior as a natural result of the process of confinement. The experiences and results detailed in this report can be considered a valuable resource for any jail administrator who wants to make similar changes. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute of Justice, 2014. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 12, 2014 at: https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.nicic.gov/Library/027703.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.nicic.gov/Library/027703.pdf Shelf Number: 133021 Keywords: Correctional Administration Inmate Discipline Inmates Jail Administration JailsPrison Administration Prison Violence Prisoners |
Author: Association of State Correctional Administrators Title: Assessment of Use of Force Policy and Practices within the Florida Department of Corrections Summary: The Florida Department of Corrections today highlighted the completion of a full report by the Association of State Correctional Administrators (ASCA) on the results of their independent audit of the Department's use of force policies and procedures. ASCA reported that at all levels of the agency, it is readily apparent that a thorough review of the use of force policy is welcomed and there exists impressive commitment to improve the policy and practice of using force legally and appropriately. Secretary Julie Jones said, "I would like to thank the Association of State Correctional Administrators for completing this audit on behalf of the Florida Department of Corrections. The information provided in this review reflects the Department's ongoing efforts to increase accountability and safety within our institutions and our goal of becoming a national leader in correctional policy. I look forward to implementing the recommendations provided in this review and further improving and strengthening the operations of this department." The audit took place at Columbia, Dade, Martin, Santa Rosa, Suwannee and Union Correctional Institutions. This use of force audit was requested by DOC in 2014 and is separate from the audit ordered by the Governor in Executive Order 15-134 in July. Auditors selected each facility based on criteria such as the number and nature of use of force incidents, inmate population size, geographical location and predominant custody level. During the review, a team of auditors focused on the following five key areas: use of force policy, facility use of force procedures, facility culture, staffing and security operations. Details: Tallahassee: Florida Department of Corrections, 2015. 83p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 24, 2015 at: http://www.dc.state.fl.us/secretary/press/2015/ASCA%20Use%20of%20Force%20Audit%20(2015).pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.dc.state.fl.us/secretary/press/2015/ASCA%20Use%20of%20Force%20Audit%20(2015).pdf Shelf Number: 136862 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationCorrections OfficersInmate DisciplinePrison AdministrationPrison GuardsPrisoner Misconduct |
Author: Shalev, Sharon Title: Deep Custody: Segregation Units and Close Supervision Centres in England and Wales Summary: Segregation units and close supervision centres (CSCs) are complex places, where some of the prison's most challenging individuals are confined alongside some of its most vulnerable people, within a small, enclosed space. These units may house a combination of people with multiple and complex needs, including some who are at risk of self harm, some who pose a risk to others, and some who are both a risk and at risk, and people with literacy problems, particular mental health needs or physical illness. Under the Prison Rules, prisoners can be removed from the main prison population and housed in a segregation unit or a close supervision centre (CSC) for a variety of reasons, with periods of confinement in them ranging from a single evening in a segregation unit while facing a charge of breaking a prison rule, to years of indefinite confinement in a close supervision centre. In this sense, segregation units and close supervision centres function as a 'continuum of exclusion'. - In January, 2015 the total segregation capacity in England and Wales was 1586 cells. Close supervision centres had a capacity of 54. - In the first three months of 2014, almost 10% of the prison population spent at least one night in segregation. The CSC population averaged 50 people. - Of those segregated, 71% spent less than 14 days in segregation, 20% spent between 14 and 42 days, and 9% were segregated for longer than 84 days. The average stay in CSCs was 40 months. - The majority (95%) of those segregated were adult males. Their average age was 29. This study set out to: examine how segregation units and CSCs are used; describe the skills and views of staff who work there; and to explore prisoners' perceptions of fair processes and their treatment. We also wanted to profile good practice. The study, supported by the Barrow Cadbury Trust, was carried out by Dr Sharon Shalev of the Centre for Criminology at the University of Oxford and Dr Kimmett Edgar of the Prison Reform Trust. Its findings are based on a survey, distributed to all prisons in January 2014, and on visits to 15 prisons, including 14 segregation units and four close supervision centres. On the visits, we interviewed 25 managers, 49 officers and 67 prisoners (50 in segregation units and 17 in CSCs). Details: London: Prison Reform Trust, 2015. 170p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed January 13, 2016 at: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/deep_custody_111215.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/deep_custody_111215.pdf Shelf Number: 137563 Keywords: Inmate DisciplinePrisoner MisconductPrisonersSegregation UnitsSolitary Confinement |
Author: Baird, Janette Title: Victim Impact: Listen and Learn. An Evaluation of the Effects of the Victim Impact: Listen and Learn Program on Prisoner Recidivism and Prisoner Behavior Summary: This is a report of the evaluation study conducted to examine the effects of the Victim Impact: Listen and Learn program on the behaviors of the prisoners who attended this program. The focus of the data we collected and reported on was on the participants' behaviors after attending the program but while still in prison, and upon release from prison. Main findings 1. From the available data on 333 prisoners who had attended the Victim Impact: Listen and Learn program prior to their release back into the community, 118 or 35% re-offended and were re-committed back into prison within the state of Delaware within a three-year period following release. Comparable data provided by a 2013 DELJIS report on prisoner recidivism reported that within three-years of release 67% of prisoners re-offended and were re-committed back into Delaware prisons. 2. Prisoners who attended the program and remained in prisons after attending the program showed a reduction by a third in the frequency of disciplinary charges for the period of imprisonment after attending the program. Details: Providence, RI: Alpert School of Medicine at Brown University, 2015. 27p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 30, 2016 at: https://www.victimsvoicesheard.org/images/pdf/delaware-evaluation-report-2015.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://www.victimsvoicesheard.org/images/pdf/delaware-evaluation-report-2015.pdf Shelf Number: 138480 Keywords: Correctional ProgramsInmate DisciplinePrisoner MisconductRecidivism |
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: 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: Howard League for Penal Reform Title: Out of Control: Punishment in Prison Summary: Research by the Howard League for Penal Reform reveals that prisons are routinely and increasingly resorting to draconian punishments in a counter-productive attempt to regain control. It shows that almost 290,000 additional days of imprisonment were handed down to prisoners during 2016 - a 75 per cent rise in only two years - as jails have been brought to breaking point by overcrowding and staff shortages. The Howard League has calculated that the additional days imposed in 2016 alone will cost the taxpayer about $27million. This report reveals how disciplinary hearings, known as adjudications, are used overly and inappropriately, with even minor infractions such as disobedience and disrespect being punished with additional days of imprisonment. The report calls on England and Wales to follow the example set by Scotland, where the use of additional days of imprisonment was scrapped about 10 years ago. Officials and governors in Scotland could find no evidence that abolishing the use of additional days had a negative impact on behaviour, and Scottish prisons have become safer since the change was made. Scrapping the imposition of additional days of imprisonment in England and Wales would stop a vicious cycle. Punishments pile more pressure on the prison population and worsen overcrowding, which in turn creates conditions for drug abuse, violence and other types of misbehaviour. Details: London: The Howard League, 2017. 6p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 14, 2018 at: https://howardleague.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Out-of-control.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://howardleague.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Out-of-control.pdf Shelf Number: 149129 Keywords: Inmate DisciplineInmatesPrison AdministrationPrison ConditionsPrisoners |
Author: Howard League for Penal Reform Title: Punishment in Prison: The world of prison discipline Summary: - Prisons operate disciplinary hearings called adjudications where allegations of rule breaking are tried - The majority of adjudications concern disobedience, disrespect, or property offences, all of which increase as prisons lose control under pressure of overcrowding and staff cuts - A prisoner found guilty at an adjudication can face a variety of punishments from loss of canteen to solitary confinement and extra days of imprisonment - Almost 160,000 extra days, or 438 years, of imprisonment were imposed in 2014 as a result of adjudications - The number of additional days imposed on children has doubled since 2012, even though the number of children in prison has halved - Since 2010 the number of adjudications where extra days could be imposed has increased by 47 per cent. The running cost of these hearings is significant, at around L400,000 - L500,000 per year - Adjudications are not sufficiently flexible to deal sensitively with the needs of vulnerable children, mentally ill and self-harming people, who may face trial and sentence without any legal representation. The process and punishments often make their problems worse - Two prisoners breaking the same rule can get different punishments depending on whether they are on remand or sentenced, and what category of sentence they have received. - Two children breaking the same rule can get different punishments depending on what type of institution they are detained in. Details: London: PRT, 2015. 6p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed February 14, 2018 at: https://howardleague.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Punishment-in-Prison-briefing.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://howardleague.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Punishment-in-Prison-briefing.pdf Shelf Number: 149147 Keywords: AdjudicationsInmate DisciplinePrison Misconduct |
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: 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 |