Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 3:41 am
Time: 3:41 am
Results for restrictive housing
30 results foundAuthor: American Civil Liberties Union Title: Alone and Afraid: Children Held in Solitary Confinement and Isolation in Juvenile Detention and Correctional Facilities Summary: Every day, in juvenile detention and correctional facilities across the United States, children are held in solitary confinement and other forms of isolation. Solitary confinement is the most extreme form of isolation, and involves physical and social isolation in a cell for 22 to 24 hours per day. In addition to solitary confinement, juvenile facilities frequently use a range of other physical and social isolation practices, many distinguishable from solitary confinement only in their duration (stretching for many - but fewer than 22 - hours). Instead of the terms 'solitary confinement' or 'isolation,' juvenile facilities often adopt euphemisms, including 'time out,' 'room confinement,' 'restricted engagement,' or a trip to the 'reflection cottage.' These terms mask the fact that, whereas a short amount of alone time may sometimes be necessary to defuse a moment of crisis, hours of isolation can be extremely damaging to young people. Physical and social isolation practices can extend for days, weeks, and even months. Isolation cells often have no window or view of the world outside cell walls. While confined, children are regularly deprived of the services, programming, and other tools that they need for healthy growth, education, and development. Sometimes they are not even provided access to school books. Inside this cramped space, few things distinguish one hour, one day, one week, or one month, from the next. Solitary confinement can cause serious psychological, physical, and developmental harm, resulting in persistent mental health problems or, worse, suicide. Lengthy periods of isolation can be equally traumatizing and result in the same serious risks to health. These risks are magnified for children with disabilities or histories of trauma and abuse. Federal government agencies and experts agree that the use of isolation on children can be harmful and counterproductive. The US Department of Justice (DOJ) has stated that the 'isolation of children is dangerous and inconsistent with best practices and that excessive isolation can constitute cruel and unusual punishment.' The US Attorney General's National Task Force on Children Exposed to Violence also recently suggested that 'nowhere is the damaging impact of incarceration on vulnerable children more obvious than when it involves solitary confinement.' The National Research Council of the National Academies of Sciences has also concluded that 'confinement [of children] under punitive conditions may increase recidivism.' Details: New York: ACLU, 2013. 27p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 26, 2013 at: https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/Alone%20and%20Afraid%20COMPLETE%20FINAL.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/Alone%20and%20Afraid%20COMPLETE%20FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 131706 Keywords: IsolationJuvenile Detention (U.S.)Juvenile InmatesRestrictive HousingSolitary Confinement |
Author: McGinnis, Kenneth Title: Federal Bureau of Prisons: Special Housing Unit Review and Assessment Summary: This report provides an independent, comprehensive review of the Federal Bureau of Prisons' operation of restrictive housing and identifies potential operational and policy improvements. Specifically, it provides a comprehensive, detailed evaluation of the Bureau's use of restrictive housing, including the following key areas: national trends and best practices in the management of restrictive housing units; profile of the Bureau's segregation population; Bureau policies and procedures governing the management of restrictive housing; unit operations and conditions of confinement; mental health assessment and treatment within restrictive housing units; application of inmate due-process rights; reentry programming; and the impact of the use of restrictive housing on system safety and security. The report also evaluates the impact of the restrictive housing program on the federal prison system and places the Bureau's use of segregation in context with professional standards and best practices found in other correctional systems. The findings and recommendations contained in this report are based on the information and data collected while conducting site visits to the Bureau's restrictive housing units and facilities from November 2013 through May 2014. Any operational changes or new written policies implemented by the Bureau after completion of the site visits regarding their use of restrictive housing are not reflected in this report. Some such changes were in process or were scheduled for implementation after the completion of the site visits. Details: Arlington, VA: CNA Analysis & Solutions, 2014. 262p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 9, 2015 at: http://www.bop.gov/resources/news/pdfs/CNA-SHUReportFinal_123014_2.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.bop.gov/resources/news/pdfs/CNA-SHUReportFinal_123014_2.pdf Shelf Number: 134770 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationFederal InmatesFederal Prisons Restrictive Housing Solitary ConfinementU.S. Federal Bureau of Prisons |
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: 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: 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: 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: American Civil Liberties Union Title: Caged In: Solitary Confinement's Devastating Harm on Prisoners with Physical Disabilities Summary: Every day, in prisons and jails across America, prisoners with physical disabilities are held in conditions of near-total isolation—also known as solitary confinement. Locked in cages roughly the size of a regular parking space, prisoners held in solitary confinement are kept alone in their cells for approximately 22 hours a day or more. While in solitary, they have little or no human interaction, access to light, rehabilitative programming, or constructive activity. In 2015, the ACLU sought to expose the harms of solitary confinement by investigating the challenges facing prisoners with physical disabilities subjected to this devastating practice. The current and formerly incarcerated people with disabilities who we spoke with described their experiences of enduring extreme isolation for days, months, and even years. They shared the pain and humiliation of being left to fend for themselves in solitary confinement without wheelchairs, prosthetic limbs, or other necessary accommodations to carry out life’s basic daily tasks. Without these vital accommodations, many of them were left without the means to walk, shower, clothe themselves, or even use the toilet. Deaf and blind prisoners reported that prison officials failed to provide them with access to hearing aids, Braille materials, certified sign language interpreters, or other auxiliary aids and services that are necessary to facilitate meaningful communication. As a result, many prisoners reported being left completely isolated without any ability to communicate with other prisoners, staff, family members, and other visitors. The devastating psychological and physical harms of solitary confinement are well known. Mental health experts studying the issue agree that solitary confinement is psychologically harmful. People subjected to solitary confinement may experience hallucinations, depression, paranoia, anxiety, and thoughts of suicide, among other negative reactions. In fact, prisoners held in solitary confinement account for nearly 50 percent of all completed suicides by incarcerated people. Beyond this, solitary confinement can also be physically debilitating. Stress, enforced idleness, and limited access to health care, including medically necessary prescriptions and physical therapies, among other factors, can lead to severely diminished health outcomes for prisoners. Details: New York: ACLU, 2017. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 25, 2017 at: https://www.aclu.org/files/caged-in/010916-ACLU-SolitaryDisabilityReport-Accessible.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.aclu.org/files/caged-in/010916-ACLU-SolitaryDisabilityReport-Accessible.pdf Shelf Number: 147824 Keywords: DisabilityIsolationRestrictive HousingSolitary Confinement |
Author: American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada Title: Unlocking Solitary Confinement: Ending Extreme Isolation in Nevada State Prisons Summary: In several states, including Colorado, New Mexico, New York, and Texas, advocates have released comprehensive reports on state use of solitary confinement. These reports enable advocates and lawmakers to better understand and reform the often hidden practice of solitary confinement. In Colorado, for example, a report contributed to the ban on isolation among juveniles as well as reforms that drastically decreased the use of solitary confinement on adults. For several years, the ACLU of Nevada (ACLUNV) and other advocates worked with lawmakers to end the use of isolation in Nevada. In 2013, Nevada lawmakers passed Senate Bill (SB) 107, a reform bill that limited the segregation of children and mandated a legislative study of its use on adults. The ACLUNV brought in leading forensic psychiatrist and solitary confinement expert Dr. Terry Kupers to offer the state some guidance on the issue. However, the resulting study was incomplete, due to the NDOC’s datakeeping practices. In 2015, the ACLUNV, Solitary Watch, and the Nevada Disability Advocacy & Law Center reached out directly to those who could speak most intimately on the use of solitary in Nevada—the incarcerated themselves. We mailed surveys to 749 people in prison and received 281 complete responses from individuals currently serving a sentence in a correctional facility or conservation camp in Nevada. Over 40 percent of the completed surveys were from men held in Ely State Prison (ESP). Those held in Northern Nevada Correctional Center (NNCC) and Lovelock Correctional Center (LCC) each constituted 11 percent of the surveys, and 15 percent of the surveys came from High Desert State Prison (HDSP). The vast majority of respondents were male, with responses from just twenty incarcerated women. On average, respondents were 42 years old, ranging in age from 21 to 72. Over half (55 percent) indicated that they were currently in segregation and almost all others had once been in segregation. On average, respondents reported that they spent 2.6 years in segregation and 47.7 percent reported that they had been in segregation three or more times during their current prison stay. The majority reported that their segregation was administrative (68.2 percent) or disciplinary (66.2 percent) and the majority were in maximum custody (47 percent). Twenty-nine percent of respondents indicated they had some type of disability. Of those who did indicate a disability, 27 percent did not specify a type of disability, 21 percent specified a type of mental health disability, 12 percent indicated they had a mental health disability but did not specify what type, one individual indicated a neurological disability (epilepsy), almost 30 percent indicated a physical disability, and 8.5 percent indicated that they had both a physical and mental disability Details: Las Vegas: ACLU of Nevada, 2017. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 15, 2017 at: https://www.aclunv.org/sites/default/files/aclunv_unlocking_solitary_confinement_report.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.aclunv.org/sites/default/files/aclunv_unlocking_solitary_confinement_report.pdf Shelf Number: 145778 Keywords: DisabilityIsolationRestrictive HousingSolitary Confinement |
Author: American Civil Liberties Union Title: Worse than Second-Class: Solitary Confinement of Women in the United States Summary: Solitary confinement - locking a prisoner in isolation away from most, if not all, human contact for twenty-two to twenty-four hours per day for weeks, months, or even years at a time-is inhumane. When used for longer than fifteen days, or on vulnerable populations such as children and people with mental illness, the practice is recognized by human rights experts as a form of torture. Prisons and jails across the United States lock prisoners in solitary confinement for a range of reasons-punitive, administrative, protective, medical-but whatever the reason, the conditions are similarly harsh and damaging. Experts in psychology, medicine, and corrections agree that solitary confinement can have uniquely harmful effects; this consensus has led experts to call for the practice to be banned in all but the most extreme cases of last resort, when other alternatives have failed or are not available, where safety is a concern, and for the shortest amount of time possible. Across the United States, jails and prisons hold more than 200,000 women. These prisoners are routinely subjected to solitary confinement. Yet the use of solitary on women is often overlooked. Although the negative psychological impacts of solitary confinement are well known, the unique harms and dangers of subjecting women prisoners to this practice have rarely been examined or considered in evaluating the need for reforms in law or policy. As the number of incarcerated women climbs at an alarming pace, women and their families and communities are increasingly affected by what happens behind bars. It is critical to address the treatment of women in prison-especially those women subjected to the social and sensory deprivation of solitary confinement. Details: New York: ACLU, 2014. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 1, 2017 at: https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/worse_than_second-class.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/worse_than_second-class.pdf Shelf Number: 132384 Keywords: Female InmatesHuman RightsIsolationRestrictive 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: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Evaluation and Inspections Division Title: Review of the Federal Bureau of Prisons' Use of Restrictive Housing for Inmates with Mental Illness Summary: Introduction The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is responsible for confining offenders in environments that are safe, humane, cost-efficient, and appropriately secure. To do so, the BOP utilizes various forms of Restrictive Housing Unit (RHU) to confine certain inmates, including those with mental illness. However, according to recent research and reports, as well as the BOP's own policy, confinement in RHUs, even for relatively short periods of time, can adversely affect inmates' mental health and can be particularly harmful for inmates with mental illness. As of June 2016, of the 148,227 sentenced inmates in the BOP's 122 institutions, 9,749 inmates (7 percent) were housed in its three largest forms of RHU: Special Housing Units (SHU) in 111 institutions; 2 Special Management Units (SMU) at the U.S. Penitentiaries (USP) in Lewisburg and Allenwood, Pennsylvania; and the USP Administrative Maximum Security Facility (ADX) in Florence, Colorado. The Office of the Inspector General conducted this review to examine the BOP's use of RHUs for inmates with mental illness, including trends in the use of restrictive housing and the screening, treatment, and monitoring of inmates with mental illness who are housed in RHUs. We found significant issues with the adequacy of the BOP's policies and its implementation efforts in this critical area. Results in Brief BOP Policies Do Not Adequately Address the Confinement of Inmates with Mental Illness in RHUs, and the BOP Does Not Sufficiently Track or Monitor Such Inmates BOP guidance and policies do not clearly define "restrictive housing" or "extended placement." Although the BOP states that it does not practice solitary confinement, or even recognize the term, we found inmates, including those with mental illness, who were housed in single-cell confinement for long periods of time, isolated from other inmates and with limited human contact. For example, at the ADX, we observed an RHU that held two inmates, each in their own cell, isolated from other inmates. The inmates did not engage in recreation with each other or with other inmates and were confined to their cells for over 22 hours a day. Also, in five SHUs, we observed single-celled inmates, many with serious mental illness. One inmate, who we were told was denied ADX placement for mental health reasons, had been single-celled for about 4 years. Although the BOP generally imposes a minimum amount of time that inmates must spend in RHUs, it does not limit the maximum amount of time and does not monitor inmates' cumulative time in RHUs. The BOP also does not track its housing of inmates in single-cell RHU confinement, nor does it account for their confinement in all RHUs throughout BOP institutions. As a result, inmates, including those with mental illness, may spend years and even decades in RHUs. For example, we learned of an inmate with serious mental illness who spent about 19 years at the ADX before being transferred to a secure residential mental health treatment program. In addition, our sample of inmates with mental illness showed that they had been placed in the ADX for an average of about 69 months. Similarly, we found that between fiscal years (FY) 2008 and 2015, inmates with mental illness averaged about 896 consecutive days, or about 29 months, in the SMU. We further found that inmates with mental illness spend disproportionately longer periods of time in RHUs than their peers. Equally concerning, our review showed that 13 percent of the inmates with mental illness in our sample were released by the BOP directly into the community after spending nearly 29 months in the SMU prior to their release. By contrast, officials in six of the eight state departments of corrections told us that they limit the length of time inmates with mental illness can be placed in restrictive housing. In 2015, three states (Massachusetts, Mississippi, and New York) had at least a 30-day limit, while three other states (Colorado, Maine, and Pennsylvania) no longer placed inmates with serious mental illness in RHUs at all. Mental Health Staff Do Not Always Document Inmates' Mental Disorders, Leaving the BOP Unable to Accurately Determine the Number of Inmates with Mental Illness and Ensure that It Is Providing Appropriate Care to Them BOP data showed that, as of 2015, only 3 percent of the BOP's sentenced inmate population was being treated regularly for mental illness. Yet, the BOP's FY 2016 Performance Budget Congressional Submission cited an internal BOP study, which suggested that approximately 19 percent of federal inmates had a history of mental illness. Moreover, a 2006 Bureau of Justice Statistics report concluded that 45 percent of federal inmates had symptoms or a recent history of mental illness. We found that the BOP cannot accurately determine the number of inmates who have mental illness because institution staff do not always document mental disorders. The BOP's FY 2014 data estimates that approximately 12 percent of inmates have a history of mental illness; however, in 2015, the BOP's Chief Psychiatrist estimated, based on discussions with institutions' Psychology Services staffs, that approximately 40 percent of inmates have mental illness, excluding inmates with only personality disorder diagnoses. Similarly, one institution's Deputy Chief Psychologist estimated that 50 percent of that institution's inmates may have Antisocial Personality Disorder; nevertheless, we found that this disorder was documented for only about 3.3 percent of the BOP's total inmate population. Because mental health staffs do not always document inmates' mental disorders, the BOP is unable to ensure that it is providing appropriate care to them. Since the BOP Adopted Its New Mental Health Policy, BOP Data Shows a 30 Percent Reduction in Inmates Who Receive Regular Mental Health Treatment The BOP adopted a new mental health policy in 2014, increasing the standards of care for inmates with mental illness. However, since the policy was issued, the total number of inmates who receive regular mental health treatment decreased by approximately 30 percent, including 56 percent for inmates in SMUs, and about 20 percent overall for inmates in RHUs during the scope of our review. Based on our review, it appears that mental health staff may have reduced the number of inmates, including those in RHUs, who must receive regular mental health treatment because they did not have the necessary staffing resources to meet the policy's increased treatment standards. Indeed, we found that, as of October 2015, the BOP had filled only 57 percent of its authorized full-time Psychiatrist positions nationwide and that it had significant staffing issues with regard to Psychologist positions as well. This treatment trend was particularly pronounced among SMU inmates at USP Lewisburg, which confined over 1,100 SMU inmates as of June 2016. Based on our sample of SMU inmates, we found that, prior to the new policy, the number of inmates (16) whose mental health care level was increased equaled the number of inmates (16) whose care level was decreased. In contrast, after the new policy was adopted, all 27 inmates whose care level changed had a decrease and therefore ostensibly required less treatment. By May 2015, only about 2.5 percent of SMU inmates at USP Lewisburg were categorized as requiring regular treatment, compared to about 11 percent of ADX inmates and 7 percent of SHU inmates nationwide, which we believe raises treatment concerns for inmates in USP Lewisburg's SMU. While the BOP Has Taken Recent Steps to Mitigate Mental Health Concerns for Inmates in RHUs, Additional Actions Can Be Taken The BOP has taken a number of steps to mitigate the mental health concerns for inmates in RHUs. These efforts include diverting inmates with serious mental illness from placement in traditional RHUs (i.e., SHUs, the SMUs, and the ADX) and into alternative programs such as secure residential mental health treatment programs. While these are positive BOP initiatives, limited inmate capacities, slow inmate progression through the programs, high staffing needs, and a lack of formal performance metrics with which to measure the effectiveness of these programs limit their utility and the BOP's ability to expand their use to other institutions. Details: Washington, DC: Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice, 2017. 103p. Source: Internet Resource: Evaluation and Inspections Division 17-05 : Accessed September 20, 2017 at: https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2017/e1705.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2017/e1705.pdf Shelf Number: 147413 Keywords: Federal Bureau of PrisonsIsolationMental Health ServicesMentally Ill InmatesMentally Ill OffendersMentally Ill PrisonersRestrictive HousingSolitary Confinement |
Author: Feierman, Jessica Title: Unlocking Youth: Legal Strategies to End Solitary Confinement in Juvenile Facilities Summary: Despite a growing consensus that solitary confinement harms youth and undermines the rehabilitative goals of the juvenile justice system, the practice remains all too common. At the same time, the field lacks sufficient information on the prevalence of the practice, the alternatives, and the perspectives of affected youth and families. This report uses surveys of public defenders, conversations with youth and families, interviews with correctional administrators, and legal and psychological research to fill these gaps and set forth recommendations for reform. Solitary confinement in juvenile facilities remains too widespread. Almost half of juvenile facilities report that they isolate youth for more than four hours to control behavior, and more than two-thirds of our survey respondents reported that they have clients who spent time in solitary. The conditions these youth experience can be truly appalling - youth are routinely deprived of necessities such as mattresses, sheets, showers, eating utensils, and mental health treatment. Many spend 22-23 hours per day in cells by themselves. Solitary confinement is harmful. Neurological research and sociological studies confirm what common sense tells us: isolating youth for days and weeks at a time has devastating, long-term effects on their health and development. Our interviews with youth highlight these effects. "It was one of the breaking points for me as a young person - Me realizing now, it was one of the first times I really knew I was depressed. I really didn't want to do anything, I didn't have an appetite. I became really frustrated and angry for being in there - As a kid, never been through this, it's a very traumatic experience." - Eddie Ellis Solitary confinement is unfairly applied. Studies suggest that youth of color and LGBTQ youth are at a heightened risk of being placed in solitary confinement. Girls and gender-non-conforming youth are more likely to enter the justice system with histories of sexual abuse or other trauma, which can exacerbate the harms of isolation and increase the risk of placement in solitary due to trauma-related behaviors. Youth with disabilities are too often placed in isolation for their own protection or due to a lack of available services or accommodations. Solitary confinement is unnecessary and counterproductive. Juvenile justice systems can operate safely and effectively without reliance on solitary confinement. We highlight two jurisdictions - Ohio and Massachusetts - that have drastically limited the practice by increasing the amount of quality scheduled activities, training staff on de-escalation and other techniques, and adopting evidence-based therapeutic models. Recommendations for reform: Policy Reforms: Ensure that policies prohibit, rather than alter or ameliorate, solitary confinement. Reform must include a ban on solitary confinement for any reason other than to prevent immediate harm, with clear limits on its use even under emergency circumstances. Details: Philadelphia: Juvenile Law Center, 2017. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 15, 2017 at: http://jlc.org/sites/default/files/publication_pdfs/JLC_Solitary_Report-FINAL_0.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://jlc.org/sites/default/files/publication_pdfs/JLC_Solitary_Report-FINAL_0.pdf Shelf Number: 148178 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice ReformRestrictive 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: Human Rights Watch Title: "I Needed Help, Instead I Was Punished": Abuse and Neglect of Prisoners with Disabilities in Australia Summary: Prisoners with disabilities are overrepresented in prisons across Australia; it is estimated that over half the prison population has a physical, sensory, psychosocial (mental health), or cognitive disability. Within this group, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people with disabilities are even more likely to end up behind bars. "I Needed Help, Instead I Was Punished" is based on visits to 14 prisons across Western Australia and Queensland and 275 interviews with prisoners with disabilities, as well as prison staff, health and mental health professionals, activists, lawyers, and government officials. The report examines how prisoners with disabilities, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander prisoners, routinely experience physical, verbal, and sexual abuse from fellow prisoners or staff, and endure difficult conditions of confinement. Inadequate staff sensitivity and training contributes to frequent punishment of prisoners with disabilities for behaviour that is linked to a lack of support and accommodation of their disability not disobedience. Prisoners with disabilities are disproportionately represented in detention units and solitary confinement, where lack of social contact and meaningful mental health services can be particularly damaging for them. Human Rights Watch calls on the federal government to end the use of solitary confinement for prisoners with disabilities. State and Territory governments should ensure regular and independent monitoring of all prisons and ensure that all prison staff receive effective, regular, gender and culturally sensitive training on how to interact with people with disabilities. It should further guarantee that prisons accommodate the needs of prisoners with disabilities and provide access to adequate support services. Details: New York: HRW, 2018. 107p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 7, 2018 at: https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/australia0218_web.pdf Year: 2018 Country: Australia URL: https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/australia0218_web.pdf Shelf Number: 149018 Keywords: Correctional Administration Disabilities Inmate Maltreatment Prisoner Maltreatment Prisoners with Disabilities Restrictive HousingSolitary 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: Rushchenko, Julia Title: Prison Management of Terrorism-Related Offenders: Is Separation Effective? Summary: - In the European Union, many states do not have any terrorist prisoners in their jails, and most of the countries house only a handful of terrorism-related offenders. When such prisoners appear in the correctional system, they can have a powerful effect on other inmates. The presence of violent extremist offenders in the criminal justice system generates unique challenges for most states worldwide, and this issue has prompted an ongoing debate concerning the rehabilitation and reintegration strategies, and on the successes and failures of the prison policies. - According to Europol, in recent years there has been an increase in terrorism-related arrests in the UK, France and Spain. The largest proportion of arrests in the EU in 2013- 2015 was linked to Islamist terrorism, compared to smaller numbers of arrests for separatist, left-wing and right-wing terrorism. The phenomenon of returning foreign fighters is yet another concern for criminal justice systems worldwide, including the processes of prosecution and incarceration. In October 2017, the BBC reported that 121 British foreign fighters have been convicted, but little information is available about how exactly inmates with foreign military training are managed in the UK prison system. - British prisons have a long history of coping with terrorists and political and religious extremists. Most recently, the increase in legislative scope and security responses in the wake of 7/7 led to a significant increase in conviction rates for terrorist offences. As of June 2015, there were 182 offenders convicted of, or on remand for, offences linked to terrorism and extremism in prisons in England and Wales, including people who hold neo-Nazi views and Islamist extremists. Current trends of returning foreign fighters suggest that the number of people to be prosecuted is likely to increase. - Most of those who appear to be radicalised in prisons begin their incarceration with not particularly strong religious affiliation. Radicalisation in prisons has been mentioned repeatedly by academics and practitioners as one of the most pressing security concerns, particularly in the context of Islamist ideology. While both prison and probation are supposed to be strong partners in deradicalisation and resettlement, instead of promoting disengagement from violence, these systems frequently facilitate extremism because of the push and pull factors discussed in this report. - Unlike traditional criminals whose illicit activities are often disrupted in prisons, violent extremists might be comfortable with their convictions because of opportunities to preach in correctional institutions. According to an inquiry carried out by Ian Acheson in 2016, Islamist ideology in prisons could be threatening in various ways, including Muslim gang culture, charismatic prisoners acting as self-styled "emirs" and exerting a radicalising influence on Muslim inmates, aggressive encouragement of conversions to Islam, availability of educational materials promoting Islamist extremism, exploitation of staff's fear of being labelled racist, and so on. - Following the above-mentioned inquiry, the government announced its plans to crack down on the spread of Islamist ideology in prisons by creating three "separation centres" (HMP Frankland near Durham, HMP Full Sutton near York and HMP Woodhill in Milton Keynes) which are expected to hold the most subversive offenders, including Michael Adebolajo and Anjem Choudary. As of January 2018, HMP Frankland near Durham has been created, and it is the first time the UK government has practised the policy of separating terrorism-related offenders. - At the same time, most of the mass media coverage of the UK experiment with regard to tackling radicalisation in prisons has been negative and focused on drawing parallels between UK separation centres and Guantanamo Bay, labelling the centres "jihadi jails". One of the main points of criticism revolves around the idea that segregation is counterproductive as it could potentially give an elevated status to the most dangerous extremists and intensify the issue of Islamism in prisons. - Currently, a more balanced and nuanced evaluation of the containment policy is absent from UK discourse. Although there is a risk that a new intervention will generate additional safety concerns, this report argues that separating the most dangerous terrorism-related offenders is the only viable solution for mitigating the threat of prison radicalisation. However, it is crucial to develop a comprehensive policy framework that takes into account the recent dynamics of radicalisation threats, including demographic changes such as gender and age. Details: London: Centre for the Response to Radicalisation and Terrorism, Henry Jackson Society, 2018. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 26, 2018 at: http://henryjacksonsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/HJS-Prison-Management-Report.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://henryjacksonsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/HJS-Prison-Management-Report.pdf Shelf Number: 149566 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationIsolationMuslimsRadicalizationRestrictive HousingTerrorist-Related OffendersTerroristsViolent Extremists |
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: New Jersey Parents' Caucus Title: The Solitary Confinement of Youth with Mental Health Disabilities in New Jersey's Adult Prison System Summary: Being housed in solitary confinement has become conducive to the deterioration of my mental health. The things I have witnessed would shock and disgust many people. I have witnessed things like guards depriving inmates of their meals, mentally ill inmates throwing feces and other bodily fluids on each other, and officers spraying mace on inmates and letting them soak in the chemicals. All of these events and many more have in some way traumatized me and has led to me having many panic attacks and mental health issues. Indeed, there is a need for some kind of segregation for those who break the rules of the prison; however, when solitary confinement becomes so harsh and focuses solely on punishing individuals, any possibility of correction and rehabilitation to an inmate's behavior becomes impossible; consequently, the conditions become counterproductive. -DM, 20, NJSP. It is shocking and unacceptable that youth like DM, a New Jersey Youth Caucus Member, have spent over 1,000 days in solitary confinement while in an adult prison in New Jersey. As DM described, solitary confinement is harmful and traumatic. It is defined by isolation in a cell for up to 24 hours a day, as well as deprivation of social interaction, property, and often educational materials. In 2015, the U.S. Department of Justice under the Obama Administration began looking into the use of solitary confinement and the harmful psychological effects on inmates in prisons across the country. In an op-ed for the Washington Post, former President Obama wrote: Research suggests that solitary confinement has the potential to lead to devastating, lasting psychological consequences. It has been linked to depression, alienation, withdrawal, a reduced ability to interact with others and the potential for violent behavior. Some studies indicate that it can worsen existing mental illnesses and even trigger new ones. Those who do make it out often have trouble holding down jobs, reuniting with family, and becoming productive members of society. Imagine having served your time and then being unable to hand change over to a customer or look your wife in the eye or hug your children. As a result of the Department of Justice's review of solitary confinement, President Obama announced a ban on its use for youth in the federal prison system. In August 2015, the New Jersey Legislature passed and Governor Christie signed the Comprehensive Juvenile Justice Reform Bill S. 2003/A. 4299. This legislation eliminated the use of solitary confinement as a disciplinary measure in juvenile facilities and detention centers, as well as limited the time that solitary confinement could be imposed for reasons other than punishment, such as safety concerns. Unfortunately, these limitations on solitary confinement do not apply to youth in the adult prison system. As a result, the needs, stories, and trauma associated with youth placed in solitary confinement in adult prisons remain untold, unaddressed, and, ultimately, forgotten. In 2016, Governor Christie vetoed S. 51, legislation that would have dramatically reformed solitary confinement in New Jersey dictating that isolated confinement should only be used when necessary, and should not be used against vulnerable populations or under conditions or for time periods that foster psychological trauma, psychiatric disorders, or serious, long-term damage to an isolated person's brain. Christie's statement accompanying his veto of S. 51, which would have allowed solitary confinement only as a last resort, repeated his administration's claim that solitary confinement does not exist in our state, despite overwhelming evidence that it is used routinely, including as a form of discipline. In January 2018, Assemblywoman Nancy Pinkin and 19 other co-sponsors reintroduced the solitary reform bill, A. 314. As part of the New Jersey Youth Justice Initiative (NJYJI), we at the New Jersey Parents' Caucus have gathered comprehensive state data from the New Jersey Department of Corrections (NJ DOC) on 556 children tried, sentenced, and incarcerated in the adult prison system. The data largely covers the period of 2007-2016, though some information gathered dates back to 2003. In addition to the data retrieved from the NJ DOC, we have received qualitative data from a subset of the same population (163 youth) by means of a survey assessment provided to incarcerated youth and their parents, caregivers, and family members. Ninety-five youth answered questions about their experience in solitary confinement. Dr. Colby Valentine, Ph.D. analyzed NJYJI data, which includes self-reported questionnaires from ninety-two youth waived to the adult prison system, to understand the relationship between mental health and solitary confinement for youth in New Jersey prisons. Her analysis confirms that solitary confinement negatively affects the mental health of youth in New Jerseys adult prisons, adding to prior research that states that prolonged isolation may cause or exacerbate mental health problems in adult inmate populations. It is the position of the New Jersey Parents' Caucus, Inc. (NJPC) and its membership that the State must ban the imposition and use of solitary confinement or restricted housing units - another term for solitary confinement - which were found in either administrative segregation or the Management Control Unit, a form of solitary confinement used at administrators' discretion on youth in adult jails and prisons. Solitary confinement imposes further violence, harm, and psychological damage on youth before they return to their communities. If these youth return home without adequate mental health and rehabilitative care, it negates their ability to become productive members of our society. Their stories and their needs must be addressed through legislation to end this cruel, but unfortunately, common, practice on youth in the adult criminal justice system. Details: Elizabeth, NJ: The Caucus, 2018. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 31, 2018 at: http://newjerseyparentscaucus.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/NJPCSolitaryConfinementBriefFINAL.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: http://newjerseyparentscaucus.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/NJPCSolitaryConfinementBriefFINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 150421 Keywords: IsolationJuvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesJuvenile OffendersMentally Ill InmatesRestrictive HousingSolitary ConfinementYouth in Adult Prisons |
Author: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. New York Advisory Committee Title: The Solitary Confinement of Youth in New York: A Civil Rights Violation Summary: On July 10, 2014, the New York Advisory Committee held a briefing on New York's use of solitary confinement (or extreme isolation, as it is sometimes termed) of youth inmates. The expert presenters included representatives from various state and city agencies and institutions in the State of New York as well as advocates and former inmates. The Committee examined the extent of the use of solitary confinement of youth in the State of New York and the City of New York, and, in particular, the disproportionate assignment of racial minorities to solitary confinement. At the briefing, the presenters discussed (a) the history of solitary confinement within the United States, (b) the conditions of solitary confinement in New York jails, (c) the mental, physical and developmental effects of solitary confinement on youth in New York jails, (d) the primary legal protections related to solitary confinement of youth inmates and (e) the pending legislative, judicial and executive efforts to eliminate or limit the solitary confinement of youth. In addition to the briefing, on June 25, 2014, the Committee conducted an on-site review of Rikers Island Correctional Facility (Rikers). This allowed the Committee to examine the conditions in punitive segregation units at Rikers and to speak with (i) prison officials, (ii) representatives of the New York City Department of Correction (NYC DOC) and the New York City Board of Correction (NYC BOC), and (iii) youth at Rikers who officials selected to speak with the Committee. Lastly, the Committee held a preparatory consultation on July 24, 2014 with experts in various states concerning the implementation of the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA). The Committee consulted with Elissa Rumsey, Compliance Monitoring Coordinator for PREA at the U.S. Department of Justice's (DOJ) Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; Teresa Abreu, Acting Executive Director for the Cook County Juvenile Temporary Juvenile Detention Center; Michael Dempsey, Executive Director of the Indiana Department of Correction's Division of Youth Services; Rick Angelozzi, Superintendent of both Columbia River Correctional Institution and South Fork Forrest Camp within the Oregon Department of Corrections; and Jason Effman, PREA Coordinator for the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS). Based on this record, including the documents referenced herein, the Committee offers 10 findings and makes 7 primary recommendations and 31 total recommendations-found in Chapter 4 of this report-and recommends that the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights call on the Department of Justice and other appropriate federal officials and agencies to use their authority to implement the Committee's recommendations. Details: Washington, DC:The Commission, 2014. 78p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 5, 2018 at: http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/NY-SAC-Solitary-Confinement-Report-without-Cover.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/NY-SAC-Solitary-Confinement-Report-without-Cover.pdf Shelf Number: 150482 Keywords: Civil RightsInmate MisconductIsolationJuvenile InmatesRacial DisparitiesRestrictive HousingSolitary Confinement |
Author: Austin, James Title: Evaluation of the Sacramento County Jail Inmate Classification and T-SEP Systems Summary: Dr. James Austin was asked to assess the Sacramento County Jail inmate classification system and the T-SEP (or Total Separation) housing system. The larger inmate classification system is used to house prisoners within the jail's general population. Inmates are typically scored on a number of objective factors that are related to the current charges/offenses, prior criminal record, escape history, prior institutional conduct, demographic (age and gender), and several stability factors (education, residency, employment). Inmates assigned to the T-SEP status are so assigned based on other security factors that are intended to identify and house inmates who pose a significant and on-going threat to other inmates, staff and perhaps themselves. There are two dominant jail classification systems that are operational within the U.S. One is referred to as the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) Objective Jail Classification system (OJC). It is based on the NIC prison classification system, which is the dominant inmate classification system in the U.S. All but two state prison systems have a version of the NIC objective prison classification system. The NIC Objective Jail Classification is an additive point system that is used for both initial and reclassification purposes. A system of over-rides is used to depart from the scored system. Because the NIC system was developed by NIC, there is no cost to the agency to implement it. A correctional agency is also able to customize the factor's weights, scale, and over-ride factors. Versions can also be developed for male and female inmates based on validation results. The other jail classification system was designed by the Northpointe company and is known as the decision-tree model. While using many of the same factors found in the NIC system, the format for scoring an inmate is much different. As the name implies, rather than using an additive point format, the Northpointe system uses a decision-tree format. The important difference is all the scoring items are not used in each assessment. Rather, only those items needed for each security level are sequentially applied. The early version of the Northpointe system had no reclassification component. Finally, because the system is owned by Northpointe, the user is not allowed to make any changes or customize the instrument. Also, no models have been developed specifically adapted for female inmates. Part of the inmate classification and housing system is what is referred to as the T-SEP (or Total Separation) housing unit where inmates are confined to single cells for extensive periods of time. At the time that study was initiated on January 11, 2017, there were approximately 172 inmates assigned to TSEP at the Main Jail out of 3,948 inmates (or about 4%). Significantly, by the end of April 2017 the T-SEP population had declined to 120. There is a much smaller T-SEP unit at the Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center (RCCC) which houses about 15-16 T-SEP male inmates at any given time The concept of "T-SEP" is unique to Sacramento County. In other jail and prison systems, inmates who are classified as highly disruptive, a threat to other inmates or staff are typically assigned to the status of "administrative segregation". In this status, they are separated from the general population and receive limited access to recreation, showers, services, visits and other aspects afforded other inmates. The remainder of this report summarizes the evaluation results of these two separate, but closely related classification and housing systems. Details: Sacramento: Disability Rights California, 2017. 29p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 1, 2018 at: https://www.disabilityrightsca.org/system/files/file-attachments/%5B001-6%5D_Exhibit_F-Austin_Report_2018-07-31.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.disabilityrightsca.org/system/files/file-attachments/%5B001-6%5D_Exhibit_F-Austin_Report_2018-07-31.pdf Shelf Number: 150993 Keywords: Administration SegregationDisabled InmatesInmate ClassificationIsolationJail InmatesJailsRestrictive HousingSolitary Confinement |
Author: Disability Rights California, Investigations Unit Title: Report on Inspection of the Sacramento County Jail (Conducted April 13-14, 2015) Summary: Disability Rights California (DRC) is the state and federally designated protection and advocacy agency charged with protecting the rights of people with disabilities in California. DRC has the authority to inspect and monitor conditions in any facility that holds people with disabilities. Pursuant to this authority, DRC is conducting inspections of conditions in six county correctional facilities in 2015. One of these April 13 and 14, 2015. We appreciate that Sheriff Department staff were helpful and cooperative during our inspection. We observed many positive practices and programs. Booking was efficient, with a private screening area and procedures to expedite intake for prisoners with acute medical or mental health needs. Health and mental health staff were engaged and followed up immediately on our concerns about individual prisoners. The Main Jail has mental health staff available 24 hours per day, 7 days per week due to the inpatient unit. The Main Jail and the non-dorm areas in Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center are of a podular design, with two tiers of cells opening on to a central dayroom. Custody staff was aware of an accessible route that avoided the stairs between the booking area in which buses unload in the Main Jail, and had also monitored compliance with lower bunk orders in Rio Cosumnes epartment has a strong emphasis on education and re-entry that is apparent from its website. However, we also found evidence of the following violations of the rights of prisoners with disabilities: (a) Undue and excessive isolation and solitary confinement; (b) Inadequate mental health care; and (c) Denial of rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Pursuant to our authority under 42 U.S.C. 10805(a)(1) and 29 U.S.C. 794(f)(3) and as a result of this initial inspection, we find there is probable cause to conclude that prisoners with disabilities are subjected to abuse and/or neglect in the Sacramento County Jail. We are opening an investigation into the treatment of prisoners with disabilities and will be requesting additional documents and information. We are also interested in meeting with you to discuss these findings and the next steps in our investigation. Details: Sacramento: Disability Rights California, 2015. 33p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 1, 2018 at: https://www.disabilityrightsca.org/system/files/file-attachments/%5B001-1%5D_Exhibit_A-DRC_Report_2018-07-31.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://www.disabilityrightsca.org/system/files/file-attachments/%5B001-1%5D_Exhibit_A-DRC_Report_2018-07-31.pdf Shelf Number: 150996 Keywords: Administration Segregation Disabled Inmates Isolation Jail Inmates Jails Mental Health Services Restrictive 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 |