Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 25, 2024 Mon
Time: 8:20 pm
Time: 8:20 pm
Results for solitary confinement
71 results foundAuthor: McLemore, Megan Title: Barred from Treatment: Punishment of Drug Users in New York State Prisons Summary: This report by Human Rights Watch found that New York prison officials sentenced inmates to a collective total of 2,516 years in disciplinary segregation from 2005 to 2007 for drug-related charges. At the same time, inmates seeking drug treatment face major delays because treatment programs are filled to capacity. When sentenced to segregation, known as the "box", inmates are not allowed to get or continue to receive treatment. Conditions in the box are harsh, with prisoners locked down 23 hours a day and contact with the outside through visitors, packages, and telephone calls severely restricted. Details: New York: Human Rights Watch, 2009. 53p. Source: Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 113905 Keywords: Drug OffendersInmate DisciplineInmates (New York State)Prisons (New York State)SegregationSolitary Confinement |
Author: Reiter, Keramet Title: Parole, Snitch, or Die: California’s Supermax Prisons & Prisoners, 1987-2007 Summary: Supermax prisons across the United States detain thousands in long-term solitary confinement, under conditions of extreme sensory deprivation. They are prisons within prisons, imprisoning those who allegedly cannot be controlled in a general population prison setting. Most supermaxes were built in a brief period, between the late 1980s and the late 1990s. In 1988 and 1989, California opened two of the first and largest of the modern supermaxes: Pelican Bay and Corcoran State Prisons. Today, California houses more than 3,300 prisoners in supermax conditions. Each month, between 50 and 100 people are released directly from these supermaxes onto parole. Using statistics obtained from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, this paper explores who these parolees are: what race are these prisoners, how long did they spend in solitary confinement, how frequently are they released, and how frequently are they returned to prison? These supermax-specific statistics are then compared with publicly available state statistics describing the overall race and return-to-prison rates of parolees in California, revealing that supermax prisoners are disproportionately Latinos who have served long prison sentences, under severe conditions. The potential effects of supermax confinement on levels of violence within supermax institutions and throughout the state prison system are also explored, through the lens of prisoner death and assault statistics; no conclusive data establish a direct relationship between supermaxes and reductions in violence. Analysis of interviews with correctional department administrators about the original goals and purposes of the supermaxes further contextualizes these data, revealing that supermaxes today function rather differently than their designers envisioned twenty years ago. In sum, this research provides one of the first evaluations of how supermaxes function, in terms of whom they detain and for how long, and how these patterns relate to their originally articulated purposes. Details: Berkeley, CA: Institute for the Study of Social Change, University of California Berkeley, 2010. 65p. Source: Internet Resource: ISSC Fellows Working Papers: Accessed July 26, 2011 at: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/04w6556f` Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/04w6556f` Shelf Number: 122154 Keywords: GangsInmatesParoleesPrison ViolencePrisonersRecidivismSolitary ConfinementSupermax Prisons (California) |
Author: Magnani, Laura Title: Buried Alive: Long-Term Isolation in California's Youth and Adult Prisons Summary: The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) is launching a national campaign, called STOPMAX, in May 2008, calling for the end of the use of solitary confinement in U.S. prisons. It is the successor of a campaign which Bonnie Kerness, of the New York Metropolitan Region of the AFSC, conducted in the early 1990s, when the development of security housing units was beginning its ascent. In California, the premiere organization to focus on these new maxi maxi prisons has been California Prison Focus (CPF). Under the leadership of Dr. Corey Weinstein, Luis (Bato) Talamantez, Charles Carbone, Georgia Schreiber, Leslie DeBenedetto, Judy Greenspan, and many others, CPF has conducted interviews with prisoners in these units and reported their findings. AFSC owes a great debt to these courageous folks, along with our brothers and sisters inside who are living for years at a time under the extreme conditions described herein. The other debt we owe is to the lawyers and psychiatrists who have challenged prison conditions in California and stuck around for decades to help monitor compliance. That would include the Prison Law Office, Don Specter, Steve Fama, Sara Norman and others, as well as Jane Kahn, of Rosen, Bien & Galvan, and Sarah Chester from the California Appellate Project. On the psychology end of things, Terry Kupers and Craig Haney have both made huge contributions in bringing horrific conditions to light. These folks are our heroes in this work. This is not a story that the public seems to want to hear. However, if we continue to anesthetize ourselves to the horrors being committed in our names, there is no hope for positive change. In May 2007, the AFSC Arizona office published Buried Alive: Solitary Confinement in Arizonas Prisons and Jails. This report is intended to be the California story of isolation in the state prisons and juvenile facilities. Details: Oakland, CA: American Friends Service Committee, 2008. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed on December 7, 2011 at: http://afsc.org/sites/afsc.civicactions.net/files/documents/Buried%20Alive%20%20PMRO%20May08%20.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://afsc.org/sites/afsc.civicactions.net/files/documents/Buried%20Alive%20%20PMRO%20May08%20.pdf Shelf Number: 123504 Keywords: Adult CorrectionsJuvenile CorrectionsPrisons (California)Solitary Confinement |
Author: Amnesty International Title: USA: Cruel Isolation: Amnesty' International's Concerns About Conditions in Arizona Meximum Security Prisons Summary: This report describes Amnesty International’s concerns relating to the conditions under which prisoners are confined in the Special Management Units (SMU) of Arizona State Prison Complex (ASPC)-Eyman and other maximum custody facilities operated by the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADOC). More than 2,900 prisoners are held in Arizona’s highest security maximum custody facilities, the majority in the SMUs at ASPC-Eyman. Most are confined alone in windowless cells for 22 to 24 hours a day in conditions of reduced sensory stimulation, with little access to natural light and no work, educational or rehabilitation programs. Prisoners exercise alone in small, enclosed yards and, apart from a minority who have a cell-mate, have no association with other prisoners. Many prisoners spend years in such conditions; some serve out their sentences in solitary confinement before being released directly into the community. While the Arizona authorities classify maximum security inmates as those posing the highest institutional security risk, Amnesty International’s findings suggest that some prisoners are confined to the units who do not fit this criteria. The organization is further concerned that many of those confined to the units suffer from mental illness or disability and are held in conditions likely to exacerbate their illness or disability. This report focuses mainly on conditions in the SMUs, but also includes information on other isolation units, including the Lumley Unit Special Management Area at the women’s prison at Perryville, and the maximum custody unit at Rincon Minors, a facility for male youths aged 14 to 17 who have been tried and convicted as adults. Amnesty International recognizes that it may sometimes be necessary to segregate prisoners for disciplinary or security purposes. However, all measures must be consistent with international standards for humane treatment. Article 10 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the USA has ratified, provides that “all persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person”, a standard which the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Committee, the treaty monitoring body, has stressed is a “fundamental and universally applicable rule”.1 As described below, Amnesty International considers that conditions in the above facilities fall short of this standard and that the cumulative effects of the conditions, particularly when imposed for a prolonged or indefinite period, constitutes cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, in violation of international law. In recognition of the severe effects of such treatment, international human rights treaty bodies and experts have called on states to limit the use of solitary confinement in prisons so that it is imposed only in exceptional circumstances, for a short period of time. In a recent report on this issue, reviewing the practice internationally, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture defined solitary confinement as the “physical and social isolation of individuals who are confined to their cells for 22 to 24 hours a day”.2 In conducting its research, Amnesty International regrets that its request to tour the SMU units at ASPC-Eyman was denied and that ADOC declined to meet with the organization’s delegates when they were in Arizona in July 2011. As a human rights organization which has visited prisons around the world, Amnesty International is concerned that the department was unwilling to allow it to view the facilities first-hand or to discuss its policies and practice. While the organization has thus not been able to obtain the views of the department regarding the issues raised, its concerns are based on a range of sources, including prisoners and prisoner advocates, present and former prison staff members and ADOC’s written policies and procedures. Details: London: Amnesty International, 2012. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 6, 2012 at: Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 124883 Keywords: Maximum Security PrisonsPrisons (Aricona) Prisoners (Arizona)Solitary Confinement |
Author: Hafemeister, Thomas L. Title: The Ninth Circle of Hell: An Eighth Amendment Analysis of Imposing Prolonged Supermax Solitary Confinement on Inmates with a Mental Illness Summary: The increasing number of inmates with a mental disorder in America’s prison population and the inadequacy of their treatment and housing conditions have been issues of growing significance in recent years. The U.S. Department of Justice estimates that “over one and a quarter million people suffering from mental health problems are in prisons or jails, a figure that constitutes nearly sixty percent of the total incarcerated population in the United States.” Furthermore, a person suffering from a mental illness in the United States is three times more likely to be incarcerated than hospitalized, with as many as forty percent of those who suffer from a mental illness coming into contact with the criminal justice system every year and police officers almost twice as likely to arrest someone who appears to have a mental illness. As a result, the United States penal system has become the nation’s largest provider of mental health services, a “tragic consequence of inadequate community mental health services combined with punitive criminal justice policies.” This growth in the number of inmates with a mental disorder, combined with the recent rise of prolonged supermax solitary confinement and the increasingly punitive nature of the American penological system, has resulted in a disproportionately large number of inmates with a mental disorder being housed in supermax confinement. The harsh restrictions of this confinement often significantly exacerbate these inmates’ mental disorders or otherwise cause significant additional harm to their mental health, and preclude proper mental health treatment. Given the exacerbating conditions associated with supermax settings, this setting is not only ill-suited to the penological problems posed by the growing number of these inmates, but intensifies these problems by creating a revolving door to supermax confinement for many such inmates who may be unable to conform their behavior within the prison environment. Housing inmates with a mental disorder in prolonged supermax solitary confinement deprives them of a minimal life necessity as this setting poses a significant risk to their basic level of mental health, a need “as essential to human existence as other basic physical demands . . . .”, and thereby meets the objective element required for an Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment claim. In addition, placing such inmates in supermax confinement constitutes deliberate indifference to their needs as this setting subjects this class of readily identifiable and vulnerable inmates to a present and known risk by knowingly placing them in an environment that is uniquely toxic to their condition, thereby satisfying the subjective element needed for an Eighth Amendment claim. Whether it is called torture, a violation of evolving standards of human decency, or cruel and unusual punishment, truly “a risk this grave — this shocking and indecent — simply has no place in civilized society.” Details: Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia School of Law; University of Virginia School of Medicine, 2012. 62p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 18, 2012 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2032139 Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2032139 Shelf Number: 125245 Keywords: Conditions of ConfinementInmatesMental HealthPrisoners (U.S.)PunishmentSolitary ConfinementSupermax Prisons |
Author: Heartland Alliance National Immigrant Justice Center Title: Invisible in Isolation: The Use of Segregation and Solitary Confinement in Immigration Detention Summary: Immigrants in detention facilities around the United States often are subjected to punitive and long-term solitary confinement and denied meaningful avenues of appeal, according to an investigation by Heartland Alliance's National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC) and Physicians for Human Rights (PHR). The two human rights groups surveyed conditions in more than a dozen detention centers and county jails that contract with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The result is the first comprehensive examination of the effects of solitary confinement on immigration detainees. While the harm caused by solitary confinement to inmates in prisons and jails has been well documented, Invisible in Isolation: The Use of Segregation and Solitary Confinement in Immigration Detention shows that solitary confinement of immigrants in detention is often arbitrarily applied, inadequately monitored, harmful to their health, and a violation of their due process rights. NIJC and PHR uncovered numerous cases in which detention facilities placed mentally ill immigrants in solitary confinement rather than treating them, or separated sexual minorities against their wishes from the general inmate population. Many immigration detainees in solitary confinement had strict limits placed on such “privileges” as outdoor recreation, reading material, and even access to legal counsel. Overall, investigators found, ICE has failed to hold detention centers and jails accountable for their abusive use of solitary confinement. In the report, NIJC and PHR call on ICE and Congress to end solitary confinement in immigration detention, severely limit other forms of segregation, and implement stricter oversight of the detention system. Details: Chicago: Heartland Alliance National Immigrant Justice Center; Cambridge, MA: Physicians for Human Rights, 2012. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed october 3, 2012 at: http://www.immigrantjustice.org/sites/immigrantjustice.org/files/Invisible%20in%20Isolation-The%20Use%20of%20Segregation%20and%20Solitary%20Confinement%20in%20Immigration%20Detention.September%202012_5.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.immigrantjustice.org/sites/immigrantjustice.org/files/Invisible%20in%20Isolation-The%20Use%20of%20Segregation%20and%20Solitary%20Confinement%20in%20Immigration%20Detention.September%202012_5.pdf Shelf Number: 126547 Keywords: Human RightsIllegal AliensIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant Detention (U.S.)Solitary Confinement |
Author: Kim, Scarlet Title: Boxed In: The True Cost of Extreme Isolation in New York's Prisons Summary: This report, Boxed In: The True Cost of Extreme Isolation in New York’s Prisons, is the product of an intensive, year-long investigation that involved communication with more than 100 people who have spent significant amounts of time – in one case, more than 20 years – in extreme isolation. The authors interviewed prisoners’ family members and corrections staff, and analyzed thousands of pages of Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) records obtained through the state’s open records laws. The report is accompanied by a website – www.nyclu.org/boxedin– featuring excerpts of prisoners’ letters about life in extreme isolation, a library of DOCCS data and records, statistical analyses and a video featuring the voices of family members whose loved ones have been held in extreme isolation. Over the past 20 years, New York has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to build and operate an extensive network of extreme isolation cells, which DOCCS calls “Special Housing Units” or “SHUs” – and prisoners call “the Box.” New York has nearly 5,000 SHU beds located in 39 prisons across the state, including two dedicated extreme isolation prisons – Upstate and Southport Correctional Facilities – that combined cost about $76 million a year to operate. New York practices a unique brand of “solitary confinement.” About half of the 4,500 prisoners in solitary confinement spend 23 hours a day in an isolation cell completely alone. The other half are confined in an isolation cell the size of a parking spot with another prisoner, a practice that forces two strangers into intimate, constant proximity for weeks, months and even years on end. The NYCLU uses the term “extreme isolation” to capture the practice of subjecting one or two people in a cell to the conditions most commonly understood as solitary confinement. Based on a year of study and analysis, the NYCLU found that: •New York’s use of extreme isolation is arbitrary and unjustified. Extreme isolation is too frequently used as a disciplinary tool of first resort. Corrections officials have enormous discretion to impose extreme isolation. Prisoners can be sent to the SHU for prolonged periods of time for violating a broad range of prison rules, including for minor, non-violent misbehavior. •Extreme isolation harms prisoners and corrections staff. It causes grave emotional and psychological harm even to healthy and mentally stable inmates. For the vulnerable, particularly those suffering from mental illness, extreme isolation can be life-threatening. The formal and informal deprivation of human necessities, including food, exercise and basic hygiene, compounds the emotional and psychological harm. Prisoners in extreme isolation often lack access to adequate medical and mental health care. For corrections staff, working in extreme isolation has lasting negative consequences that affect their lives at work and home. •Extreme isolation negatively impacts prison and community safety. The psychological effects of extreme isolation can fuel unpredictable and sometimes violent outbursts that endanger prisoners and corrections staff. Prisoners carry the effects of extreme isolation into the general prison population. They also carry them home. Nearly 2,000 people in New York are released directly from extreme isolation to the streets each year. While in the SHU, prisoners receive no educational, vocational, rehabilitative or transitional programming, leaving them less prepared to successfully rejoin society. Extreme isolation is different than prisoner separation, which has long been an accepted corrections practice. Corrections officials can separate and remove violent or vulnerable prisoners from the general prison population without subjecting them to the punishing physical and psychological deprivation of extreme isolation – a point of consensus among corrections officials in other states, legal scholars and international human rights bodies. The NYCLU recommends that New York end its dependence on extreme isolation by: 1.adopting stringent criteria, protocols and safeguards for separating violent or vulnerable prisoners, including clear and objective standards to ensure that prisoners are separated only in limited and legitimate circumstances for the briefest period and under the least restrictive conditions practicable; and 2.auditing the current population in extreme isolation to identify people who should not be in the SHU, transitioning them back to the general prison population, and reducing the number of SHU beds accordingly. Details: New York: New York Civil Liberties Union, 2012. 72p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 4, 2012 at: http://www.nyclu.org/files/publications/nyclu_boxedin_FINAL.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.nyclu.org/files/publications/nyclu_boxedin_FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 126553 Keywords: Human RightsPrisonersPrisons (New York State)Solitary Confinement |
Author: Amnesty International Title: The Edge of Endurance: Prison Conditions in California's Security Housing Units Summary: More than 3,000 prisoners in California are held in high security isolation units known as Security Housing Units (SHUs), where they are confined for at least 22 and a half hours a day in single or double cells, with no work or meaningful rehabilitation programs or group activities of any kind. Over 1,000 are held in the SHU at Pelican Bay State Prison, a remote facility where most prisoners are confined alone in cells which have no windows to the outside or direct access to natural light. SHU prisoners are isolated both within prison and from meaningful contacts with the outside world: contact with correctional staff is kept to a minimum, and consultations with medical, mental health and other staff routinely take place behind barriers; all visits, including family and legal visits, are also non-contact, with prisoners separated from their visitors behind a glass screen. Under California regulations, the SHU is intended for prisoners whose conduct endangers the safety of others or the security of the institution. Around a third of the current population are serving fixed SHU terms of SHU confinement (ranging from a few months to several years) after being found guilty through the internal disciplinary system of specific offences while in custody. However, more than 2,000 prisoners are serving “indeterminate” (indefinite) SHU terms because they have been “validated” by the prison authorities as members or associates of prison gangs. According to figures provided by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) in 2011, more than 500 prisoners serving indeterminate SHU terms had spent ten or more years in the Pelican Bay SHU; of this number, more than 200 had spent over 15 years in the SHU and 78 more than 20 years. Many had been in the SHU since it opened in 1989, held in conditions of extreme isolation and environmental deprivation. No other US state is believed to have held so many prisoners for such long periods in indefinite isolation. The main route out of the SHU for prisoners with alleged gang connections has been to “debrief”, a process requiring them to provide information on other gang members which many decline to undertake because of the threat of retaliation. Although prisoners may also be released from the SHU if they have been “inactive” as a gang member or associate for six years, many prisoners have been held long beyond this period. Until now, these prisoners have had no means of leaving the SHU through their own positive behaviour or through participating in programs. Many prisoners have spent decades in isolation despite reportedly being free of any serious rule violations and - if they are serving a “term to life” sentence – without any means of earning parole. Prisoner advocates and others have criticized the gang validation process as unreliable and lacking adequate safeguards, allowing prisoners to be consigned to indefinite isolation without evidence of any specific illegal activity, or on the basis of tenuous gang associations, on evidence often provided by anonymous informants. In March 2012, the CDCR put forward proposals which, for the first time, would provide a “step-down program” (SDP) for prisoners serving indeterminate SHU terms, using what the department has called a “behaviour-based model” to enable them to earn their way back to the general prison population. Amnesty International welcomes in principle plans to provide a route out of isolation through prisoners’ own behaviour. However, the SDP – which would take place in four stages, each lasting a minimum of one-year – does not allow any group interaction for at least the first two years. No changes to the physical conditions of confinement are proposed for the Pelican Bay SHU, where prisoners would spend at least two years in the same isolated conditions of cellular confinement as they are now. Prisoners could still be held in indefinite isolation if they fail to meet the criteria for the SDP. In continuing to confine prisoners in prolonged isolation – albeit with shorter minimum terms than under the present system – California would still fall short of international law and standards for humane treatment and the prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment. Amnesty International does not seek to minimize the challenges faced by prison administrators in dealing with prison gangs and individuals who are a threat to institutional security and recognizes that it may sometimes be necessary to segregate prisoners for disciplinary or security purposes. However, all measures must be consistent with states’ obligation under international law and standards to treat all prisoners humanely. In recognition of the negative effects of such treatment, international and regional human rights bodies and experts have called on states to limit their use of solitary confinement, so that it is imposed only in exceptional circumstances for as short a period as possible. As described below, Amnesty International considers that the conditions of isolation and other deprivations imposed on prisoners in California’s SHU units breach international standards on humane treatment. The cumulative effects of such conditions, particularly when imposed for prolonged or indefinite periods, and the severe environmental deprivation in Pelican Bay SHU, in particular, amounts to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, in violation of international law. Amnesty International’s recommendations to the California authorities, developed in more detail at the end of the report, include: Limiting the use of isolation in a SHU or similar environment so that is it imposed only as a last resort in the case of prisoners whose behaviour constitutes a severe and ongoing threat to the safety of others or the security of the institution. Improving conditions for all prisoners held in SHUs, including better exercise provision and an opportunity for more human contact for prisoners, even at the most restrictive custody levels. Allowing SHU prisoners to make regular phone calls to their families. Reducing the length of the Step down Program and providing meaningful access to programs where prisoners have an opportunity for some group contact and interaction with others at an earlier stage. Immediate removal from isolation of prisoners who have already spent years in the SHU under an indeterminate assignment. Details: London: Amnesty International, 2012. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 7, 2012 at: http://www.amnestyusa.org/sites/default/files/california_solitary_confinement_report_final.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.amnestyusa.org/sites/default/files/california_solitary_confinement_report_final.pdf Shelf Number: 127135 Keywords: Pelican Bay State PrisonPrison ConditionsPrisonersPrisons (California, U.S.)Solitary Confinement |
Author: Kerness, Bonnie, ed. Title: Torture in United States Prisons: Evidence of Human Rights Violations. 2nd Edition Summary: When prison doors close behind men and women they become our prisoners. If we are their family and friends, we may visit, write, call, and advocate on their behalf. If they are anonymous, we will likely dismiss them with the thought, “they broke the law—that was their choice— and now they must pay the penalty.” And we proceed about our daily lives without looking over the prison wall. It is time we did just that; prisons reflect the societies that create them. International treaties, conventions, and declarations provide basic guidelines for the treatment of prisoners. These guidelines are often ignored by the U.S. criminal justice system. Meanwhile, the United States continues to criticize other countries for violations of prisoners’ human rights. “Torture in United States Prisons” (Second Edition) provides primary evidence of such human rights violations. Its goal is to cast light on the torture and abuse of prisoners. For over three decades, the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) has spoken out on behalf of prisoners. Since 1975 AFSC has operated a Criminal Justice Program in Newark, New Jersey. During that time AFSC has received thousands of calls and letters of testimony of an increasingly disturbing nature from prisoners and their families about conditions in prison. The list of abuses is long and horrifying: use of stun guns and restraint devices, rape, prison chain gangs, inadequate medical care, isolation, “no touch torture” (lights on 24/7, deliberately startling sounds, menacing dogs), use of force, and other egregious violations of international human rights standards, including the Convention Against Torture, ratified by the United States in 1994. The concepts of human rights law must be upheld by the United States police, court, and prison justice systems. One way to foster this change is for prisoners, their families and loved ones, and prisoner rights advocates to weave the language of international standards and treaties into their arguments for humane prison conditions and treatment of prisoners. To that end, this document presents prisoners’ testimonies in five sections—Isolation, Health and Medical Services and Conditions, Use of Force and Devices of Torture, Racism, and Women in Prison—and introduces each section with a relevant international standard as stipulated in international human rights agreements. For example, Article 1 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture prohibits “physical or mental pain and suffering, inflicted to punish, coerce or discriminate for any reason.” Yet practices such as the indefinite use of shackles and other mechanical restraints, the administration of dangerous chemical treatments, and the practice of extended isolation continue in the United States. The practice of extended isolation in particular is of growing concern to many prison activists, both inside and outside the walls. The reports that come to AFSC about prisoners subjected to devices of torture have largely been from isolation cells—often called management control units or special management units—in which there are few witnesses. Ojore Lutalo is one such prisoner, and you can find his full story in the Appendix. There are thousands of similar stories as well, some of which are included here. Details: Newark, NJ: American Friends Service Committee, Northeast Region, Healing Justice Program, 2011. 100p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 22, 2013 at: http://afsc.org/sites/afsc.civicactions.net/files/documents/torture_in_us_prisons.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://afsc.org/sites/afsc.civicactions.net/files/documents/torture_in_us_prisons.pdf Shelf Number: 128082 Keywords: Human Rights ViolationsIsolationPrison ConditionsPrisonersPrisoners' Rights (U.S.)Solitary ConfinementTorture |
Author: Metcalf, Hope Title: Administrative Segregation, Degrees of Isolation, and Incarceration: A National Overview of State and Federal Correctional Policies Summary: This report provides an overview of state and federal policies related to long-term isolation of inmates, a practice common in the United States and one that has drawn attention in recent years from many sectors. All jurisdictions in the United States provide for some form of separation of inmates from the general population. Prison administrators see the ability to separate inmates as central to protecting the safety of both inmates and staff. Yet many correctional systems are reviewing their use of segregated confinement; as controversy surrounds this form of control, its duration, and its effects. The debates about these practices are reflected in the terms used, with different audiences taking exceptions to each. Much of the recent public discussion calls the practice “solitary confinement” or “isolation.” In contrast, correctional facility policies use terms such as “segregation,” “restricted housing,” or “special management,” and some corrections leaders prefer the term “separation.” All agree that the practice entails separating inmates from the general population and restricting their participation in everyday activities; such as recreation, shared meals, and religious, educational, and other programs. The degree of contact permitted — with staff, other inmates, or volunteers — varies. Some jurisdictions provide single cells and others double; in some settings, inmates find ways to communicate with each other. The length of time spent in isolation can vary from a few days to many years. This report provides a window into these practices. This overview describes rules promulgated by prison officials to structure decisions on the placement of persons in “administrative segregation,” which is one form of separation of inmates from the general population. Working with the Association of State Correctional Administrators (ASCA), the Arthur Liman Program at Yale Law School launched an effort to review the written policies related to administrative segregation promulgated by correctional systems in the United States. With ASCA’s assistance, we obtained policies from 47 jurisdictions, including 46 states and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. This overview provides a national portrait of policies governing administrative segregation for individuals in prisons, outlines the commonalities and variations among jurisdictions, facilitates comparisons across jurisdictions, and enables consideration of how and when administrative segregation is and should be used. Because this review is of written policies, it raises many questions for research – about whether the policies are implemented as written, achieve the goals for which they are crafted, and at what costs. Information is needed on the demographic data on the populations held in various forms of segregated custody, the reasons for placement of individuals in and the duration of such confinement, the views of inmates, of staff on site, and of central office personnel; and the long-term effects of administrative segregation on prison management and on individuals. Without such insights, one cannot assess the experiences of segregation from the perspectives of those who run, those who work in, and those who live in these institutions. Details: New Haven, CT: Liman Public Interest Program at Yale Law School, 2013. 64p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 6, 2013 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2286861 Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2286861 Shelf Number: 129265 Keywords: Administrative SegregationCorrectional AdministrationCorrectional ManagementPrisonersSolitary Confinement |
Author: American Civil Liberties Union Title: A Death Before Dying: Solitary Confinement on Death Row Summary: We know that the death penalty system is broken. Racial bias, junk science, underfunded public defense, and other serious breakdowns in our legal system can mean that people – sometimes innocent people – will languish on death rows for years while pursuing appeals. Spending these years in extreme isolation can erode mental health to the point that some will “volunteer” to die rather than continue to live under such conditions. Many prisoners die a slow and painful psychological death before the state ever executes them. Using the results of an ACLU survey of death row conditions nationwide, this briefing paper offers the first comprehensive review of the legal and human implications of subjecting death row prisoners to solitary confinement for years. Details: New York: ACLU, 2013. 14p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 5, 2013 at: http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/deathbeforedying-report.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/deathbeforedying-report.pdf Shelf Number: 129534 Keywords: Capital PunishmentDeath PenaltyDeath RowSolitary Confinement |
Author: U.S. Department of Justice. Civil Rights Division Title: Investigation of the State Correctional Institution at Cresson and Notice of Expanded Investigation Summary: The Civil Rights Division has completed its investigation into the conditions of confinement at Pem1sylvania State Correctional Institution at Cresson ("Cresson"), conducted pursuant to the Civil Rights ofInstitutionalized Persons Act ("CRIPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 1997. CRIP A authorizes the Department of Justice to seek equitable relief where prison condition~ violate the constitutional rights of prisoners in state correctional facilities. Consistent with the statutory requirements of CRIP A, we write to inform you of our findings. After carefully reviewing the evidence, we conclude that the maill1er in which Cresson uses isolation on prisoners with serious mental illness violates the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. We also conclude that Cresson uses isolation in a way that violates the rights of prisoners with serious mental illness, as well as prisoners with intellectual disabilities, under Title II ofthe Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12134. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, 2013. 39p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 7, 2013 at: http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/cresson_findings_5-31-13.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/cresson_findings_5-31-13.pdf Shelf Number: 129566 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationMental Health ServicesMentally Ill OffendersPrisoners (Pennsylvania, U.S.)Solitary Confinement |
Author: 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: American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado Title: Out of Sight, Out of Mind: Colorado's continued warehousing of mentally ill prisoners in solitary confinement Summary: This report examines past and continued use of solitary confinement by the Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC) to manage mentally ill prisoners; considers the moral, fiscal, safety and legal implications of CDOC's continued warehousing of mentally ill prisoners in solitary confinement; and makes recommendations to bring Colorado's prisons in line with modern psychiatric, correctional and legal standards. The report draws on 18 months of research by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Colorado, which included correspondence with mentally ill prisoners housed in solitary confinement by CDOC; analysis of data provided by the CDOC in response to over a dozen public records requests by the ACLU, as well as other publicly available CDOC records; in-depth review of several prisoner mental health files; extensive written and in-person dialogue with CDOC's executive team; on site visits to CDOC; and multiple consultations with correctional and psychiatric experts. Details: Denver: ACLU of Colorado, 2013, 25p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 28, 2014 at: http://aclu-co.org/wp-content/uploads/files/imce/ACLU-CO%20Report%20on%20Solitary%20Confinement_2.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://aclu-co.org/wp-content/uploads/files/imce/ACLU-CO%20Report%20on%20Solitary%20Confinement_2.pdf Shelf Number: 132013 Keywords: Mentally Ill InmatesMentally Ill OffendersSolitary Confinement |
Author: John Marshall Law School. International Human Rights Clinic Title: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's New Directive on Segregation: Why We Need Further Pretections Summary: The United States relies on solitary confinement more than any other democratic nation in the world. Immigrants housed in detention facilities are not supposed to be punished for their immigration status; they are only held to ensure that they appear for administrative hearings. One of these immigrants, Rashed, sought asylum in the United States because he saw this country as a symbol of freedom and opportunity. Instead, he was placed in solitary confinement in Dodge County Detention Center in Wisconsin where he witnessed detention at its worst. He saw first-hand how the detention conditions and treatment of detainees shook individuals to their core. After hearing people incessantly talk to themselves, Rashed considers himself lucky to have won his case and to have escaped the nightmare of solitary confinement. Like Rashed, Delfino Curos, a Mexican immigrant, was placed in solitary confinement, allegedly to protect him from other inmates who might harass him for being homosexual. Delfino spent four months locked up in a cell where he remained isolated for almost twenty-four hours every single day. His requests to get copies of the Bible, books, or any other kind of reading material were denied. He was left in silence, with nothing but the inescapable sounds of individuals around him attempting suicide. There are still hundreds of thousands of immigrant detainees that are currently in detention facilities across the country that could be subject to the same fate. Details: Chicago: John Marshall Law School, 2014. 19p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 14, 2014 at: http://www.jmls.edu/clinics/international-human-rights/pdfs/customs-segregation-report.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.jmls.edu/clinics/international-human-rights/pdfs/customs-segregation-report.pdf Shelf Number: 132353 Keywords: Criminal Aliens (U.S.) Illegal Aliens Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Solitary 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 17, 2014 at: https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/worse_than_second-class.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/worse_than_second-class.pdf Shelf Number: 132384 Keywords: Female Inmates (U.S.)Female PrisonersIsolationSolitary Confinement |
Author: American Civil Liberties Union Title: Warehoused and Forgotten: Immigrants Trapped in Our Shadow Private Prison System Summary: In rural Texas, 3,000 men are locked inside a "tent city," sleeping in bunk beds spaced only a few feet apart. The tents are crawling with insects and the smell of broken, overflowing toilets. This is Willacy County Correctional Center: a physical symbol of everything that is wrong with enriching the private prison industry and criminalizing immigration. More than 25,000 low-security non-U.S. citizens languish at thirteen private prisons like Willacy under Criminal Alien Requirement (CAR) contracts. For years, these for-profit prisons have been able to operate in the shadows, effectively free from public scrutiny. That ends now. Our report documents the ACLU's multi-year investigation into the five CAR facilities in Texas. We uncovered evidence of shocking abuse and mistreatment, families torn apart, and the excessive use of solitary confinement. The second-class prisoners in CAR facilities are trapped at the intersection of three disturbing trends: the national mass incarceration crisis, prison privatization, and the criminalization of immigration. This is the story of how and why things have gotten so bad. Details: New York: ACLU, 2014. 104p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 17, 2014 at: https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/060614-aclu-car-reportonline.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/060614-aclu-car-reportonline.pdf Shelf Number: 132496 Keywords: Illegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionPrison ConditionsPrivate PrisonsPrivatizationSolitary ConfinementUndocumented Immigrants |
Author: Amnesty International Title: Entombed: Isolation in the U.S. Federal Prison System Summary: The USA incarcerates thousands of prisoners in long-term or indefinite solitary confinement. This report describes Amnesty International's concerns about conditions of severe isolation at the United States Penitentiary, Administrative Maximum (ADX) facility in Colorado, currently the only super-maximum security prison operated by the federal government. It also examines conditions in Special Management Units (SMUs) and Security Housing Units (SHUs) operated at other federal prison facilities. Since Amnesty International toured ADX prison in 2001 subsequent requests to return to the facility have been denied. The organisation is concerned that as conditions of isolation within federal prisons have become more severe, external oversight of the facilities has declined. With prisoners held in their cells for 22-24 hours a day in severe physical and social isolation, Amnesty International believes the conditions described in this report breach international standards for the humane treatment of prisoners. Many have been held in isolation for prolonged or indefinite periods - without a means to change their circumstances - amounting to a violation of the prohibition against cruel inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under international law. The report also details disturbing evidence of prisoners with serious mental illness being detained in harsh isolated conditions without adequate screening, treatment or monitoring. Details: London: AI, 2014. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 16, 2014 at: http://www.amnesty.org/sites/impact.amnesty.org/files/P4384USAEntombedReportFinalWeb15072014.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.amnesty.org/sites/impact.amnesty.org/files/P4384USAEntombedReportFinalWeb15072014.pdf Shelf Number: 132691 Keywords: Federal PrisonsMaximum Security PrisonsPrisonersPunishmentSolitary ConfinementSupermax Prisons |
Author: California. Office of the Inspector General Title: Special review: Female Inmates Serving Securing Housing Unit Terms in the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Summary: From July 8, 2013, to September 5, 2013, inmates in the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's (CDCR or department) security housing units (SHUs) staged a hunger strike to protest, among other issues, California's use of solitary confinement. As part of the monitoring duties of the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), the agency dispatched inspectors and attorneys to the institutions to ensure that CDCR staff were following policies and procedures, and to monitor conditions of confinement, medical and mental health checks, and the medical and dietary procedures for food consumption. The hunger strike ended on September 5, 2013. With the end of the hunger strike, the Chairpersons of both the Assembly and Senate Committees on Public Safety convened a joint public hearing on October 9, 2013, on issues relating to segregated housing in California's prisons. At the joint legislative hearing, the Inspector General gave testimony on the current policies and procedures and conditions within CDCR's security housing units. As a direct result of testimony at the aforementioned joint legislative hearing, on October 31, 2013, the Senate Committee on Rules requested the Office of the Inspector General further examine the conditions specifically related to female inmates serving security housing unit terms. This review and assessment evaluates the terms and conditions of confinement for the 160 inmates who were serving SHU terms between October 9, 2013 (the date of the legislative hearing), and October 31, 2013 (the date of the Senate's request for review), in the California Institution for Women (CIW) security housing unit and the CIW psychiatric services unit (PSU), and also the administrative segregation unit (ASU) at the Central California Women's Facility (CCWF). This report includes an overview of female security housing units; an overall assessment of the conditions of confinement for female inmates serving SHU terms, including, housing, programs, and privileges; and a review and assessment of the disciplinary actions and SHU terms imposed. Details: Sacramento: Office of the Inspector General, 2013. 38p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 2, 2014 at: http://www.oig.ca.gov/media/reports/Reports/Reviews/Special%20Review%20-%20Female%20Inmates%20Serving%20Security%20Housing%20Unit%20Terms%20in%20CDCR.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.oig.ca.gov/media/reports/Reports/Reviews/Special%20Review%20-%20Female%20Inmates%20Serving%20Security%20Housing%20Unit%20Terms%20in%20CDCR.pdf Shelf Number: 133544 Keywords: Female InmatesFemale Prisoners (California)PrisonsSolitary Confinement |
Author: Thompson, Jennie Title: A profile of women in segregation Summary: Consistent with the findings of previous research, the current study found that women who have been segregated have higher risk, poorer institutional adjustment, and greater challenges associated with reintegration than those who have not been segregated. Furthermore, the results suggest that these differences, along with those in demographic and incarceration characteristics and program participation may shed light on factors that could be used to minimize the potential for segregation through the development of interventions. What we found Although the use of segregation is growing, it is not increasing at the same rate as the population growth. The majority of segregations were involuntary in nature (89%), with voluntary (8%) and disciplinary segregation (3%) being used infrequently. Most segregation events were under 10 days in length and involuntary segregation occurred much earlier in a sentence than voluntary or disciplinary segregation. Most regions used segregation similarly, although some variation was found. Compared to women who had not been in segregation, women who had been in segregation were more likely to have a higher level of security and ratings of high static and dynamic risk, higher rates of involvement in institutional incidents and charges, lower rates of successful completion of correctional programs, and to have a revocation of their supervision period. Additionally, women who have been in segregation were less likely than those who had not to be rated as having high reintegration potential or motivation to participate in their correctional plan, to have completed some programming and to be granted discretionary release. Aboriginal women were more likely than non-Aboriginal women to be involuntarily segregated and have longer segregations. The scope of the current study did not allow for an examination of factors that may be associated with differences in the use and length of segregation. Why we did this study Segregation is among the most restrictive measures available in correctional institutions. Given this, some argue that segregation should not be used, while others argue that it is an operational necessity. Previous research indicates that women who have been segregated have greater criminogenic risks and needs at intake, poorer institutional adjustment, and greater challenges associated with reintegration than those who have not been segregated. The current study aims to update knowledge regarding the characteristics and experiences of women in segregation and provides an opportunity to understand the risk factors that may lead to segregation. What we did This study included 844 women who had been segregated and 1,858 who had not been segregated between April 2002 and March 2012. We examined demographic and incarceration characteristics, security classification information, intake assessment results, institutional adjustment and release outcomes. We focused on the event of segregation as well as the differences between women who were and were not segregated. Details: Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada, 2013. 1p. (Full report available upon request) Source: Internet Resource: 2013 No. R-320: Accessed March 4, 2015 at: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/005/008/092/r320-eng.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Canada URL: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/005/008/092/r320-eng.pdf Shelf Number: 134751 Keywords: Aboriginal Women Female Inmates (Canada) Prisoner Segregation Solitary 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: Birckhead, Tamar R. Title: Children in Isolation: The Solitary Confinement of Youth Summary: Every day in prison settings around the world, young people are held in solitary confinement. They are alone for up to twenty-three hours a day in unfurnished cells. They do not see, have physical contact with, or speak to other people. The cells are small, often no larger than a horse's stable, and are illuminated by artificial light. Food is passed through narrow openings in heavy metal doors. These adolescents are denied education, counseling, and other services that are necessary for their growth, rehabilitation and well-being. If a parent were to confine her child under similar conditions, it would be abuse; yet when the government does so, often for weeks and months without due process, it is condoned. The paradox of solitary confinement is that it is not reserved only for the most culpable offenders. Juvenile and immigration detention centers as well as adult jails and prisons place adolescents in isolation to protect them - arguably - from each other or from adults; when they are perceived to be a threat; and to punish them for misconduct and rule-breaking. These rationales for the solitary confinement of youth fail to recognize, however, that prolonged isolation harms young people in ways that are often more profound than its impact on adults. This Article is the first to provide a comprehensive comparative analysis of the solitary confinement of youth in the United States and across the globe. The Introduction describes a typical scenario under which an adolescent may be subjected to isolation and explores why the practice persists today despite widespread condemnation. Part I reviews the literature detailing the varieties of harm that young people suffer as a result of solitary confinement. Part II discusses the rationales that correctional facilities use to justify solitary confinement and the prevalence of the practice internationally. Part III analyzes the history of solitary confinement and the legal response within the U.S. and the international community. Part IV addresses strategies for reform, including legislation, federal regulations, and litigation; the adoption of best practice standards; and the role of the juvenile defender and other advocates for incarcerated youth. The Appendix presents the author's original research documenting the current practices of the fifty-seven countries that legally condone or employ the solitary confinement of youth. Details: Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2014. 71p. Source: Internet Resource: UNC Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2512867 : Accessed March 20, 2015 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2512867 Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2512867 Shelf Number: 134988 Keywords: IsolationJuvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesPrison ConditionsSolitary Confinement |
Author: Shames, Alison Title: Solitary Confinement: Common Misconceptions and Emerging Safe Alternatives Summary: Segregated housing, commonly known as solitary confinement, is increasingly being recognized in the United States as a human rights issue. While the precise number of people held in segregated housing on any given day is not known with any certainty, estimates run to more than 80,000 in state and federal prisons - which is surely an under-count as these do not include people held in solitary confinement in jails, military facilities, immigration detention centers, or juvenile justice facilities. Evidence mounts that the practice produces many unwanted and harmful outcomes - for the mental and physical health of those placed in isolation, for the public safety of the communities to which most will return, and for the corrections budgets of jurisdictions that rely on it for facility safety. Yet solitary confinement remains a mainstay of prison management and control in the U.S. largely because many policymakers, corrections officials, and members of the general public still subscribe to some or all of the common misconceptions and misguided justifications addressed in this report. This publication is the first in a series on solitary confinement, its use and misuse, and ways to safely reduce it in our nation's correctional facilities made possible in part by the Robert W. Wilson Charitable Trust. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2015. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 13, 2015 at: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/solitary-confinement-misconceptions-safe-alternatives-report_1.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/solitary-confinement-misconceptions-safe-alternatives-report_1.pdf Shelf Number: 135556 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationPrisonersSegregationSolitary Confinement |
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: Berkovitz, Melody Title: Rethinking Rikers: Moving from a Correctional to a Therapeutic Model for Youth Summary: "Children are not little adults . . . neurological research has made that clear." Consequently, a different system, or a different set of responses, is necessary to address the needs of young adults in the criminal justice system. Yet, New York City has lagged behind other jurisdictions, including New York State, in modernizing its treatment and punishment of youth offenders. Significantly, New York remains one of only two states in the country to treat 16 and 17-year olds as adults in its courts. More than 500 youth languish in New York City's Department of Correction facility on Rikers Island and over 75% of them are awaiting trial. Such a system of large-scale youth correctional facilities provides little benefit for long-term public safety. On the contrary, it wastes vast sums of taxpayer dollars, and more often than not, harms the well-being and dampens the future prospects of the youth behind bars. Each year, the United States invests 6 billion dollars to incarcerate youth, and within two to three years of their release, 70-80% of these youth are rearrested on a new offense. New York City spends $167,000 per year to hold a young person on Rikers Island. Instead of existing costly and ineffectual practices, policymakers should be working towards narrowing the pipeline of youth entering the criminal justice system. For those that do enter, New York City should adopt effective charging and bail policies, change case processing methods, and increase alternatives to incarceration and other services to improve outcomes for individuals. These practices would significantly reduce the number of youth in detention. Implementation of these necessary practices, however, is not within the control of the Board of Correction and is beyond the scope of this report. This report addresses effective practices for those youth who will be detained in secure facilities. Effective policy requires a fundamental shift to a therapeutic approach with practices that are specialized for and dedicated to youth rehabilitation. This begins with the pressing need to eliminate the use of solitary confinement. Solitary confinement for incarcerated youth across the United States has increasingly captured public attention. Although the definition varies, for purposes of this report, solitary confinement consists of extreme isolation for 22-24 hours a day with minimal human contact. The severe emotional, mental and physical harm caused by such practices is well documented. While isolation might be sparingly utilized for short periods of time in some circumstances, solitary confinement for lengthy periods is detrimental. Moreover, the practice itself has proven to be unnecessarily costly and a substantial contributor to increased recidivism rates. Some states have eliminated solitary confinement altogether. Others, including New York, continue to utilize solitary confinement for adults and children alike, irrespective of the burgeoning scientific data highlighting its harmful effects. Research in the past three decades demonstrates that heavy reliance on solitary confinement and more generally, on punitive-based models for incarceration of youth, is counterproductive. It does not work to reduce aggressive, violent, impulsive, or disobedient behaviors. In fact, solitary confinement increases these behaviors. Overall, the Rikers Island correctional model is damaging and in need of significant change. Solitary confinement is but the most extreme of the harmful practices. New York's current political climate provides an ideal opportunity to redesign the current youth detention system on Rikers Island. New York City should look to the flourishing success of models and practices in other jurisdictions and follow a fundamentally different approach to its treatment of youth in detention. We must embrace a shift from the traditional and oft-ineffective correctional facility model to the proven success of a residential treatment facility model. This report examines the emerging research and the characteristics and models adopted by other states that are effective in the treatment of youth. It makes recommendations to change existing practices for youth on Rikers Island. These include placement of youth into closely supervised small groups, access to group therapy and positive behavioral management, extensive staff training and reorientation of staff to a therapeutic approach, alternatives to discipline, procedural safeguards and methods to carefully assess and evaluate the programs. Details: New York: Yeshiva University, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, 2014. 70p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 22, 2015 at: https://cardozo.yu.edu/sites/default/files/YJCFeb2_1.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://cardozo.yu.edu/sites/default/files/YJCFeb2_1.pdf Shelf Number: 137050 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionRikers IslandSolitary ConfinementYoung Adult OffendersYouth DetentionYouthful Offenders |
Author: Greenberg, Joel Title: Behind the Eleventh Door: Solitary Confinement of Individuals with Mental Illness in Oregon's State Penitentiary Behavioral Health Unit Summary: The corrections system has become the nation's largest provider of mental health services. The Oregon Department of Corrections (ODOC) has determined that more than half of Oregon's prison population has been diagnosed with a mental illness. Many of the prisoners who are most profoundly impacted by their mental illnesses are held in solitary confinement in the Behavioral Health Unit (BHU) at the Oregon State Penitentiary. These men spend months and sometimes years in an approximately 6 x 10 foot cell, with no natural light, no access to the outdoors or fresh air, and very limited opportunities to speak with other people. While ODOC policy requires these prisoners to be offered regular opportunities to shower and "go to rec," our investigation revealed that few BHU prisoners are actually able to access these opportunities more than once or twice a week. Stated more simply, BHU prisoners are subjected to long periods of solitary confinement. The stress, angst, and boredom of solitary confinement are extremely harmful to an individual's mental health. As one court concluded: "the record shows, what anyway seems pretty obvious, that isolating a human being from other human beings year after year or even month after month can cause substantial psychological damage, even if the isolation is not total." For individuals with serious mental illness, solitary confinement is widely acknowledged to be detrimental and clinically contra-indicated. The American Bar Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the United Nations oppose solitary confinement for people with mental illness. Beginning with the U.S. Supreme Court in 1890 and continuing in recent years, courts across the country have decried the practice. By 1995, a federal judge compared placing an individual with a serious mental illness in solitary confinement to putting an asthmatic in a place with little air to breathe. In recent years, this problem is being addressed across the country. Some of our recommendations are modeled after a 2014 settlement with the state of Arizona. The desperation and exacerbation of symptoms resulting from isolation can significantly decrease a person's ability to conform his actions to rules and behavioral norms, thus creating a cycle of lashing out and increased penalties that further reduce mental health. That sort of cycle is not only a disaster for the prisoners who cannot escape it; it is an endless source of danger for the correctional officers who have to maintain order in an already difficult environment. Originally, the BHU was designed to break this cycle by better addressing the unmet mental health needs of prisoners with serious mental illness. In recent years, however, clinical staff and mental health treatment have been marginalized in favor of an ever-increasing deference to the safety and convenience of correctional staff. This shift has created an environment in which individuals are deprived of basic human rights. BHU prisoners and the past and present BHU mental health employees who spoke with us were consistent in their belief that many BHU prisoners have been subjected to the practical equivalent of torture during their often very long stays in the unit. The conditions that they describe undermine the health and well-being of the prisoners. In addition, they expose ODOC to legal liability and jeopardize utility of the unit within the ODOC system. We have learned that there are many serious problems at the BHU, but have focused on identifying a limited set of primary concerns that must be corrected if the BHU is to fulfill its mission and meet constitutional standards of care. Details: Portland, OR: Disability Rights Oregon, 2015. 65p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 22, 2015 at: https://droregon.org/wp-content/uploads/Behind-the-Eleventh-Door-Electronic-Version.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://droregon.org/wp-content/uploads/Behind-the-Eleventh-Door-Electronic-Version.pdf Shelf Number: 137051 Keywords: Correctional InstitutionsMental Health ServicesMentally Ill OffendersSolitary Confinement |
Author: Lyubarsky, Andrew Title: 23 Hours in the Box: Solitary Confinement in New Jersey Immigration Detention Summary: While solitary confinement is a practice widely used in both civil detention and criminal incarceration, current practices by state and federal facilities have received significant criticism for over reliance on solitary confinement and excessive disciplinary sanctions. The State of New Jersey has a long history of using solitary confinement in its state prisons as a system of control and intimidation. In 1975, after the Civil Rights Movement, the Vietnam War and the prisoners' rights movement, Trenton State Prison (now New Jersey State Prison) established an administrative isolation unit for politically dissident prisoners. Management Control Units (MCUs), which were characterized by "no-touch isolation" and severe restrictions on visits and telephone contact with family members, recreation, as well as the denial of work, education, law library access, and collective religious practice - imposed nearly complete sensory deprivation on those subjected to it. Individuals who had not broken institutional rules were isolated because they belonged to radical political groups, particularly Afro-American nationalist organizations. Some people were subject to this treatment for years; Ojore Lutalo, a member of one such group, was held in isolation for 16 years. The American Friends Service Committee and other New Jersey civil society groups have actively monitored the use of isolated confinement in the state for decades, and fought to secure dignity for many of those subjected to prolonged isolated confinement. The present report continues this tradition of advocacy by focusing exclusively on immigration detainees in civil detention. Though the deprivations immigrant detainees subject to solitary confinement in New Jersey county institutions may not be as prolonged, they are a particularly vulnerable population which suffers lasting psychological damage from isolation. Though such conditions are extremely troubling in the case of confined individuals generally, these problems are of special concern in the context of immigrant detainees. Although immigration detention has always been characterized as non-punitive, and the rhetoric from the Obama Administration has emphasized a reform of the civil immigration detention system, this report finds that immigrant detainees are subject to an unnecessarily harsh system that applies the drastic punishment of solitary confinement too often and for too long. Because immigrants are held in penal facilities they are subjected to the same heavy-handed tactics as criminal inmates, and minor incidents which could easily be handled with non-punitive conflict resolution techniques or, if needed, less restrictive sanctions, immediately trigger solitary confinement. Detainees are confined, often for prolonged periods of time, even when no threat exists to the safety or the functioning of the facilities. Moreover, the current system raises serious due process concerns regarding the policies and practices of disciplinary systems and non-compliance with state regulations in several important respects. Our focus on disciplinary systems and sanctions proceeds from an increased clinical consensus about the severe effects of prolonged solitary confinement on an individual's psychological and physical well-being. Studies have cataloged a series of unique psychiatric symptoms commonly associated with solitary confinement. Taken together, these symptoms rise to the level of a formal psychiatric diagnosis of trauma referred to as "prison psychosis." These harmful effects can be compounded by pre-existing mental health problems that the detainee may have experienced prior to his or her solitary confinement. Since many individuals in immigration detention are likely to have been the victims of life traumas, such as human trafficking, domestic violence, torture, and persecution, solitary confinement poses a unique threat to this population. Details: New York: New Jersey Advocates for Immigrant Detainees, 2015. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 22, 2015 at: http://afsc.org/sites/afsc.civicactions.net/files/documents/23%20Hours%20in%20the%20Box.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://afsc.org/sites/afsc.civicactions.net/files/documents/23%20Hours%20in%20the%20Box.pdf Shelf Number: 137052 Keywords: Immigrant DetentionImmigrantsImmigration EnforcementIsolationSolitary ConfinementUndocumented Immigrants |
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: Harris, Kristine Title: 'A Secret Punishment' - the misuse of segregation in immigration detention Summary: This report reveals that a disturbing number of sick immigration detainees are put in segregation indiscriminately. Medical Justice are calling for an immediate halt to the use of segregation in immigration detention. Immigration detainees may be detained indefinitely despite not having committed any crime - putting them in segregation adds to their trauma. Between 1,200 and 4,800 detainees are segregated each year in immigration detention. Alarmingly there is little central monitoring of the use of segregation. This dossier draws on the cases of 15 detainees assisted by Medical Justice. One woman became mentally ill as a result of being detained for 17 months. During this time she was handcuffed and held in segregation on many occasions to prevent her self-harming. The High Court found her detention amounted to 'inhuman and degrading treatment'. This dossier reveals that the damaging physical and psychological impact of segregation is widely recognised. Its misuse has been repeatedly criticised by official inspectorates yet the abuses continue. It is overused, applied inappropriately and often contravenes the rules. Findings include: - One detainee held in segregation for 22 months - One schizophrenic detainee died in segregation - One person was segregated eight times during 800 days of detention - One detainee was segregated for nine days purely because they were a child - One woman was assaulted with a riot shield while being taken to segregation Details: London: Medical Justice, 2015. 116p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 5, 2015 at: http://www.medicaljustice.org.uk/images/stories/reports/SecretPunishment.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.medicaljustice.org.uk/images/stories/reports/SecretPunishment.pdf Shelf Number: 137197 Keywords: Immigrant DetentionImmigrantsImmigrationImmigration EnforcementIsolationMental Health ServicesMentally IllSegregationSolitary Confinement |
Author: Shalev, Sharon Title: Deep Custody: Segregation Units and Close Supervision Centres in England and Wales Summary: Segregation units and close supervision centres (CSCs) are complex places, where some of the prison's most challenging individuals are confined alongside some of its most vulnerable people, within a small, enclosed space. These units may house a combination of people with multiple and complex needs, including some who are at risk of self harm, some who pose a risk to others, and some who are both a risk and at risk, and people with literacy problems, particular mental health needs or physical illness. Under the Prison Rules, prisoners can be removed from the main prison population and housed in a segregation unit or a close supervision centre (CSC) for a variety of reasons, with periods of confinement in them ranging from a single evening in a segregation unit while facing a charge of breaking a prison rule, to years of indefinite confinement in a close supervision centre. In this sense, segregation units and close supervision centres function as a 'continuum of exclusion'. - In January, 2015 the total segregation capacity in England and Wales was 1586 cells. Close supervision centres had a capacity of 54. - In the first three months of 2014, almost 10% of the prison population spent at least one night in segregation. The CSC population averaged 50 people. - Of those segregated, 71% spent less than 14 days in segregation, 20% spent between 14 and 42 days, and 9% were segregated for longer than 84 days. The average stay in CSCs was 40 months. - The majority (95%) of those segregated were adult males. Their average age was 29. This study set out to: examine how segregation units and CSCs are used; describe the skills and views of staff who work there; and to explore prisoners' perceptions of fair processes and their treatment. We also wanted to profile good practice. The study, supported by the Barrow Cadbury Trust, was carried out by Dr Sharon Shalev of the Centre for Criminology at the University of Oxford and Dr Kimmett Edgar of the Prison Reform Trust. Its findings are based on a survey, distributed to all prisons in January 2014, and on visits to 15 prisons, including 14 segregation units and four close supervision centres. On the visits, we interviewed 25 managers, 49 officers and 67 prisoners (50 in segregation units and 17 in CSCs). Details: London: Prison Reform Trust, 2015. 170p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed January 13, 2016 at: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/deep_custody_111215.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/deep_custody_111215.pdf Shelf Number: 137563 Keywords: Inmate DisciplinePrisoner MisconductPrisonersSegregation UnitsSolitary Confinement |
Author: American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska Title: Growing Up Locked Down: Juvenile Solitary Confinement in Nebraska Summary: Before they are old enough to get a driver's license, enlist in the armed forces, or vote, some children in Nebraska are held in solitary confinement for days, weeks - and even months. This practice occurs in every Nebraska juvenile justice facility, to varying degrees, but the overarching theme of over-use is consistent throughout the state. On any given day in Nebraska, juvenile justice facilities routinely subject the kids in their care to solitary confinement. Like adult prisons, juvenile facilities sometimes employ the most counterproductive and inhumane correctional practices - including extended periods of solitary confinement, room restriction, isolation, segregation, and seclusion. Isolation practices frequently involve placing a youth alone in a cell for several hours, sometimes for multiple days; restricting contact with family members; limiting access to reading and writing materials; and providing limited educational programming, recreation, drug treatment, or mental health services. Throughout this report, "solitary confinement" refers to any physical and social isolation of children in juvenile detention facilities. It does not refer to short intervention "time out" practices used to help a juvenile manage current acting out behavior. While temporary use of seclusion for a youth may be necessary to maintain the safety and security of that youth or other people, the use of solitary confinement on children in Nebraska is clearly overused, and can cause much more serious problems than those it is supposedly employed to solve. Additionally, our research has uncovered that frequently the reasons why young people are placed in solitary confinement can be for even relatively minor offenses, such as talking back to staff members, having too many books, or refusing to follow directions. This research gives rise to the concern that juvenile facilities in Nebraska are not utilizing best practices for the use of solitary confinement and thus are risking serious mental health impacts for vulnerable youth. Details: Lincoln, NE: ACLU of Nebraska, 2016. 17p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 26, 2016 at: https://www.aclunebraska.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/juvenile_solitary_report_final.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.aclunebraska.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/juvenile_solitary_report_final.pdf Shelf Number: 137745 Keywords: Juvenile DetentionJuvenile Detention CentersJuvenile InmatesSolitary 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: Rovner, Laura Title: Dignity and the Eighth Amendment: A New Approach to Challenging Solitary Confinement Summary: The use of solitary confinement in U.S. prisons and jails has come under increasing scrutiny. Over the past few months, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy all but invited constitutional challenges to the use of solitary confinement, while President Obama asked, "Do we really think it makes sense to lock so many people alone in tiny cells for 23 hours a day for months, sometime for years at a time?" Even some of the most notorious prisons and jails, including California's Pelican Bay State Prison and New York's Rikers Island, are reforming their use of solitary confinement because of successful litigation and public outcry. Rovner suggests that in light of these developments and "the Supreme Court's increasing reliance on human dignity as a substantive value underlying and animating constitutional rights," there is a strong case to make that long-term solitary confinement violates the constitutional right to freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. Details: Washington, DC: American Constitution Society for Law and Policy, 2015. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Issue Brief: Accessed May 6, 2016 at: Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 138961 Keywords: Conditions of ConfinementCruel and Unusual PunishmentInmatesMental HealthPunishmentSolitary 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: American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio Title: Shining a Light on Solitary Confinement: Why Ohio Needs Reform Summary: Imagine you are locked inside a prison cell the size of your bathroom for 23 hours a day. You are released from this cell for one hour a day, when you are escorted to a different cage the size of a walk-in closet meant for recreation. Sometimes, perhaps on a weekend or when the weather is bad, you don't get out at all. You eat your meals in this room, just a few feet away from your toilet; you have limited access to books and televisions. This is solitary confinement in Ohio. Details: Columbus: ACLU of Ohio, 2016. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 7, 2016 at: http://www.acluohio.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/ShiningALight-Report2016.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.acluohio.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/ShiningALight-Report2016.pdf Shelf Number: 139290 Keywords: Correctional ReformIsolationPrisonersPrisonsSolitary Confinement |
Author: Heiden, Zachary Title: Change is Possible: A Case Study of Solitary Confinement Reform in Maine Summary: Solitary confinement destroys lives. Over the past four decades, prisons across the country have increasingly relied on solitary confinement - isolating prisoners in small poorly-lit cells for 23-24 hours per day - as a disciplinary tool for prisoners who are difficult to manage in the general population. But research has shown that these conditions cause serious mental deterioration and illness. Prisoners in solitary confinement hallucinate, they deliberately injure themselves, and they lose the ability to relate to other human beings. When these prisoners are eventually released from solitary confinement, they have difficulties integrating into the general prison population or (especially when they are released directly onto the streets) into life on the outside. Because of this, human rights advocates across the country are engaged in a campaign to reduce the use of solitary confinement and to improve conditions in solitary units and facilities. Lawsuits are being filed, bills and regulations are being proposed, and exposes are being written, all with the goal of bringing about a change to this barbaric practice. A number of organizations, including my own - the American Civil Liberties Union - have committed a great deal of thought, time, and money to identifying and deploying successful strategies for reforming solitary confinement. No one approach will get the job done, but advocates are trying multiple approaches, with as much coordination as possible, to bring about significant lasting change. Maine has been one of the success stories of this effort. The number of prisoners in solitary confinement has been cut in half; the duration of stays in Maine's solitary units is generally now measured in days rather than weeks or months; and the treatment of prisoners in these units includes substantially more meaningful human interaction and more opportunity for rehabilitation. For seven years, I have been involved in Maine's campaign to reduce the use of solitary confinement. Many times over those years, it seemed that nothing would ever change. Reform measures were watered down, improved policies were ignored, and legislative proposals were flat-out rejected. Then, at some point, through a combination of will, skill, and luck, reforms began to take hold. While Maine's correction system is far from perfect, the dramatic reduction in the use of solitary confinement and the improvement in the manner in which solitary is employed are almost beyond what I could have imagined seven years ago. The purpose of this report is twofold: first, to document those changes and the processes that led to them; and second, to inspire other prison reform advocates with Maine's example. There are times when every advocate for prison reform feels that change is not possible - that the legal and cultural barriers are too firmly rooted, or that the public's antipathy to prisoners and their families is too powerful. This despondency might lead reformers to settle for superficial measures or, worse yet, to give up the fight in favor of easier targets. It is my great hope that the message of this report - that reform of the use of solitary confinement is both necessary and possible - will provide some measure of encouragement in those difficult moments that every worthwhile campaign experiences. Details: Portland, ME: American Civil Liberties Union of Maine, 2013. 43p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 11, 2016 at: https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/aclu_solitary_report_webversion.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/aclu_solitary_report_webversion.pdf Shelf Number: 136751 Keywords: Administrative SegregationIsolationPrison ReformSolitary Confinement |
Author: New Jersey Advocates for Immigrant Detainees Title: Isolated in Essex: Punishing Immigrants through Solitary Confinement Summary: Immigration detention is intended to ensure the appearance of immigrants at removal proceedings and is meant to be civil and non-punitive, yet immigrant detainees are held in penal facilities and subjected to the same conditions as individuals accused or convicted of crimes, including solitary confinement. The troublesome use of solitary confinement in state and federal penal institutions and its severe mental health consequences are often the focus of national discourse, but the specific impact of solitary confinement on immigrant detainee populations has received less attention. In 2015, the New Jersey Advocates for Immigrant Detainees (NJAID) and the New York University School of Law Immigrant Rights Clinic (IRC) published a report describing the use of solitary confinement as a disciplinary measure in two of the three New Jersey county jails that house immigrant detainees. This report completes the picture by presenting an analysis of previously unavailable data regarding the use of disciplinary solitary confinement ("disciplinary segregation") against immigrant detainees in Essex County Correctional Facility (Essex), the third and largest immigration detention facility in New Jersey. Essex produced 446 incident reports for the period covering 2013, 2014, and 2015. An analysis of these reports reveals that the use of solitary confinement in Essex is excessive and disproportionate, implemented in an arbitrary fashion, and lacking in adequate due process and transparency. Essex routinely "stacks" charges, meaning it charges a detainee with multiple offenses for a single incident, thus circumventing New Jersey's 15-day limit on a solitary confinement sentence for a single charge, intended to be for clearly separate discrete acts. Furthermore, detainees regularly face solitary confinement during pre-hearing detention before there has been any finding of guilt. The data also demonstrates that many of the incidents leading to solitary confinement in Essex are related to frustration over the jail's conditions. The conditions in a detention center are inherently stressful for detainees and staff alike, and the data shows that allowing officers the authority to mete out solitary confinement as a disciplinary measure in that context results in excessive and arbitrary punishments. Details: Philadelphia: American Friends Service Committee, 2016. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 15, 2016 at: https://afsc.org/sites/afsc.civicactions.net/files/documents/Isolated%20in%20Essex%20Full%20Report%202016_1.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://afsc.org/sites/afsc.civicactions.net/files/documents/Isolated%20in%20Essex%20Full%20Report%202016_1.pdf Shelf Number: 139641 Keywords: Immigrant DetentionSegregationSolitary ConfinementUndocumented Immigrants |
Author: Howard League for Penal Reform Title: The Carlile Inquiry 10 years on: The use of restraint, solitary confinement and strip-searching of children Summary: The report, The Carlile Inquiry 10 years on, looks at what progress has been made since the Howard League published the findings of the inquiry. In the 10 years since the inquiry concluded, there has been much progress in youth justice, not least the reduction in the number of children in custody in England and Wales. Despite this decrease in the number of children the majority of children are detained in institutions where restraint is routinely used. In relation to the three specific areas that the inquiry looked at - restraint, solitary confinement and strip-searching - there have been some improvement but fundamental concerns remain. The slow and piecemeal progress in implementing the recommendations of the 2006 inquiry means, that 10 years on, children continue to be placed in danger and, because of poor and erratic treatment, they continue to reoffend. Details: London: Howard League for Penal Reform, 2016. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 20, 2016 at: http://howardleague.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Carlile-Inquiry-10-years-on.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://howardleague.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Carlile-Inquiry-10-years-on.pdf Shelf Number: 139747 Keywords: Juvenile DetentionJuvenile OffendersRestraintSolitary 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: Northern Territory. Children's Commissioner Title: Own Initiative Investigation Report Services Provided by the Department of Correctional Services at the Don Dale Youth Detention Centre Summary: JURISDICTION This investigation was conducted in accordance with Section 10(1)(a)(ii) of the Children's Commissioner Act 2013 (the Act) which allows the Commissioner, on his own initiative, to investigate a matter which may form the grounds for a complaint. The grounds for a complaint are defined under Section 21(1)(a)&(b) of the Act which states that the Children's Commissioner can investigate complaints relating to services provided or that might reasonably be expected to be provided, for vulnerable children. . The services investigated must be provided by either 'a public authority', or another person, or body acting for or under an arrangement with a public authority that has taken or is taking action in relation to the child as a vulnerable child. FORMALITIES There are a number of relevant legislative regimes that apply to the young persons referred to in this report. For the sake of convenience, and despite the terminology differing in each piece of legislation, including 'youth' , 'child' , 'vulnerable child' and 'youth detainee' or ' youth prisoner' , this report will use the phrase young person. BACKGROUND TO INVESTIGATION The decision to conduct this self-initiated investigation was made by the former Children’s Commissioner, Dr Howard Bath, and was based on events that occurred at the Don Dale Youth Detention Centre ('Don Dale') in the Behaviour Management Unit ('BMU') between 4 and 21 August 2014. On 12 August 2014, concerns were raised by a professional stakeholder on behalf of five young persons who were in detention. The complaint related to the alleged indefinite nature of the confinement in the BMU, and the unhygienic living conditions of the environment. It was the complainant's opinion that the conditions were 'inhumane' as young persons were being held in solitary confinement in cramped and darkened cells, for up to 23 hours a day. There were also concerns about the long term impact this could have on the five young persons' psychological and physical well-being. Details: Darwin: The Commissioner, 2015. 61p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 11, 2016 at: http://www.childrenscommissioner.nt.gov.au/publications/Childrens%20Commissioner%20DDYDC%20-%20Report%20to%20Minister%20170915.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Australia URL: http://www.childrenscommissioner.nt.gov.au/publications/Childrens%20Commissioner%20DDYDC%20-%20Report%20to%20Minister%20170915.pdf Shelf Number: 147318 Keywords: Detention CentersJuvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesSolitary Confinement |
Author: Mendez, Juan E. Title: Seeing into Solitary: A Review of the Laws and Policies of Certain Nations Regarding Solitary Confinement of Detainees Summary: The report, Seeing into Solitary: A Review of the Laws and Policies of Certain Nations Regarding Solitary Confinement of Detainees was the subject of a UN event on October 17 featuring speakers from the ACLU, National Religious Campaign Against Torture, and Vance Center for International Justice, among others. The report includes within its scope 35 jurisdictions, including eight U.S. states (California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Maine, New York, Pennsylvania, and Texas) and twenty-six countries, including the U.S. federal prison system and immigration detention system. Seeing into Solitary builds on a prior groundbreaking report by Mendez, presented to the UN in 2011, that for the first time declared that solitary confinement may amount to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment and in some cases torture, and may thus, under certain conditions, be prohibited under international law. In that 2011 report, Mendez further called for a categorical ban on subjecting juveniles and people with mental illness to solitary confinement, and to end the practice of prolonged and indefinite solitary confinement. The 2016 report contains six substantive areas of focus: - the ostensible purposes of solitary confinement across jurisdictions, - how the practice is authorized, - whether and how its imposition can be challenged or appealed legally, - what limits are in place, - regulations pertaining to physical conditions such as the use of restraints, and - general trends or developments toward reform. Purpose The report found that seven of the thirty-five jurisdictions analyzed allow for solitary confinement to be used only for disciplinary purposes, one of which is the U.S. state of Colorado. It further found that solitary confinement is often imposed in response to remarkably minor offenses. According to research from the Vera Institute of Justice cited in the report, 85 percent of people held in solitary confinement in Illinois' state prison system were sent there "as punishment for minor infractions, such as abusive language." Mendez has long opposed the use of even short-term solitary for punishment, as opposed to safety reasons. The other thirty-two jurisdictions claim other justifications, usually in addition to discipline, for using solitary confinement. The most common, according to the report, are for "protection of vulnerable people," to maintain security, or"as a method of prison administration and managing cell space." However, consideration of specific policies, many from the United States, prove that these justifications are similarly disproportionate or arbitrary. In both the U.S. immigration detention and federal prison systems, for example, people can be held in solitary confinement for the sole reason that they will be released, removed, or transferred within 24 hours. Also under U.S. federal law, people can be held in solitary confinement if they are HIV-positive and there is "reliable evidence" that they may "pose a health risk" to others. In California, people may be subject to isolation just because they are "a relative or associate of a staff member." In Pennsylvania, people may be subject to solitary confinement, against their will and consent, because they are "at a high risk of sexual victimization" if there exists no "alternative means of separation from the likely abuser." Also in Pennsylvania, people may be subject to solitary confinement simply because "there is no other appropriate bed space." Details: Vienna: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), 2016. 87p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 16, 2016 at: http://www.weil.com/~/media/files/pdfs/2016/un_special_report_solitary_confinement.pdf Year: 2016 Country: International URL: http://www.weil.com/~/media/files/pdfs/2016/un_special_report_solitary_confinement.pdf Shelf Number: 144849 Keywords: Immigrant DetentionIsolationPunishmentSolitary Confinement |
Author: Association of State Correctional Administrators Title: Aiming to Reduce Time-In-Cell: Reports from Correctional Systems on the Numbers of Prisoners in Restricted Housing and on the Potential of Policy Changes to Bring About Reforms Summary: A new report, jointly authored by the Association of State Correctional Administrators (ASCA) and the Arthur Liman Program at Yale Law School, reflects a profound change in the national discussion about the use of what correctional officials call "restrictive housing" and what is popularly known as "solitary confinement." Just published, Aiming to Reduce Time-In-Cell provides the only current, comprehensive data on the use of restricted housing, in which individuals are held in their cells for 22 hours or more each day, and for 15 continuous days or more at a time. The Report also documents efforts across the country to reduce the number of people in restricted housing and to reform the conditions in which isolated prisoners are held in order to improve safety for prisoners, staff, and communities at large. The 2016 publication follows the 2015 ASCA-Liman Report, Time-In-Cell, which documented the use of restricted housing as of the fall of 2014. As ASCA explained then, “prolonged isolation of individuals in jails and prisons is a grave problem in the United States.” Today, a national consensus has emerged focused on limiting the use of restricted housing, and many new initiatives, as detailed in the report, reflect efforts to make changes at both the state and federal levels. The 2016 Report is based on survey responses from 48 jurisdictions (the Federal Bureau of Prisons, 45 states, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands)—that held about 96% of the nation’s prisoners convicted of a felony. That number excludes people held in most of the country’s jails (housing hundreds of thousands of people), in most of the country’s juvenile facilities, and in military and immigration facilities. Tallying the responses, the new 2016 Report found that 67,442 prisoners were held, in the fall of 2015, in prison cells for 22 hours or more for 15 continuous days or more. The percentages of prisoners in restricted housing in federal and state prisons ranged from under 1% to more than 28%. Across all the jurisdictions, the median percentage of the prison population held in restricted housing was 5.1%. How long do prisoners remain in isolation? Forty-one jurisdictions provided information about the length of stay for a total of more than 54,000 people in restricted housing. Approximately 15,725 (29%) were in restricted housing for one to three months; at the other end of the spectrum, almost 6,000 people (11%) across 31 jurisdictions had been in restricted housing for three years or more. The Report also chronicles efforts throughout the country and the world to reduce the use of restricted housing. In August of 2016, the American Correctional Association (ACA) approved new standards, calling for a variety of limits on the use of isolation, including a prohibition against placing prisoners in restricted housing on the basis of their gender identity alone. The standards also included provisions that pregnant women, prisoners under the age of 18, and prisoners with serious mental illness ought not be placed for extended periods of time in restricted housing. Further, in some jurisdictions, prison systems (sometimes prompted by legislation and litigation) have instituted rules to prevent vulnerable populations from being housed in restricted housing except under exceptional circumstances and for as short an amount of time as possible. As the Report also details, several jurisdictions described making significant revisions to the criteria for entry, so as to limit the use of restricted housing, as well as undertaking more frequent reviews to identify individuals to return to general population, thereby reducing the number of people in restricted housing by significant percentages. In short, while restricted housing once was seen as central to prisoner management, by 2016 many prison directors and organizations such as ASCA and the ACA have defined restricted housing as a practice to use only when absolutely necessary and for only as long as absolutely required. The goals of ASCA and the ACA are to formulate and to apply policies to improve the safety of institutions and communities by ensuring that the separation of individuals to promote safety and well-being need not be accompanied by deprivation of all opportunities for social contact, education, programming, and other activities. Details: New Haven, CT: Yale University, School of Law, 2016. 127p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 7, 2016 at: https://www.law.yale.edu/system/files/area/center/liman/liman.new.combined.113016.mf.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.law.yale.edu/system/files/area/center/liman/liman.new.combined.113016.mf.pdf Shelf Number: 147928 Keywords: Administrative SegregationPrison ReformRestricted HousingSolitary Confinement |
Author: Hastings, Allison Title: The Safe Alternatives to Segregation Initiative: Findings and Recommendations for the Oregon Department of Corrections Summary: In recent years, a diverse range of international and national bodies, advocates, policymakers, the U.S. Department of Justice, and corrections practitioners have called for prisons and jails to reform their use of segregation, also known as solitary confinement or restrictive housing. Whether citing the potentially devastating psychological and physiological impacts of spending 23 hours per day alone in a cell the size of a parking space, the cost of operating such highly restrictive environments, or the lack of conclusive evidence that segregation makes correctional facilities safer, these voices agree that change and innovation are essential endeavors. In 2015, with funding from the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Vera Institute of Justice partnered with the Oregon Department of Corrections to help the agency reduce its use of segregation. That assistance included conducting an assessment of Oregon’s use of segregation and identifying opportunities for reform and innovation. This report presents the findings and recommendations from Vera’s assessment, offering Oregon strategies for safely reducing its use of segregation.1 Key Findings Six of the 14 prisons run by the Oregon Department of Corrections hold the vast majority of Oregon’s population in segregation.2 On April 1, 2015 (the snapshot date used by Vera to describe the makeup of the population on a given day), the total population in Oregon’s prisons was 14,934. 1,114 of these people were housed in some form of segregation on that date, which represents 7.5 percent of the total prison population. Vera’s key findings not only touch on Oregon’s use of different types of segregation—such as disciplinary and administrative segregation—but also examine racial, ethnic, and gender disparities as well as the use of segregation for people with mental health needs. Disciplinary segregation is overused, overly long, and characterized by isolating conditions. Vera found that disciplinary segregation, which is imposed as a sanction for rule violations, accounts for the majority of Oregon’s use of segregation: 63 percent (702 people) of people in segregation on April 1, 2015 were living in disciplinary segregation, and 90 percent of adults overall who had contact with some type of segregated housing entered through these units. Vera also found that people often cycle through disciplinary segregation for nonviolent rule violations; in fact, the top rule violation resulting in a disciplinary segregation sanction was disobedience of an order. Further, people can stay in disciplinary segregation for long periods of time—up to six months—and conditions in these units are marked by extreme isolation, idleness, and sensory deprivation. Stays in administrative segregation can be long, isolating, and unproductive for adults in custody. Oregon also has multiple units and processes for housing people in administrative segregation, a type of housing used for people whose notoriety, actions, or threats jeopardize institutional safety. These units vary in terms of average length of stay, reasons for placement, and availability of programming, with most people being housed in intensive management units. One of the goals of intensive management units is to provide cognitive behavioral programming to these men and women, so they can successfully transition back to general population or community settings. However, at the time of Vera’s assessment, the only programs available to people in these units were packet-based programs, which individuals were expected to complete alone in their cells. Vera also found that people who had contact with these units tended to spend over a year total in some form of segregation. People of color and people with mental health needs are over-represented in segregation. Echoing trends identified by researchers regarding America’s use of incarceration overall, African-American and Latino adults are over-represented in Oregon’s segregation units. People of color comprise 26 percent of the total prison population, but 34.3 percent of its segregated population. Similarly, people with mental health needs are over-represented in disciplinary segregation, and women with significant mental health needs are overrepresented in all types of segregated housing. On Vera’s snapshot date of April 1, 2015, 53 percent of the total female population was designated as having significant mental health needs, while 84 percent of the women in segregated housing had that designation. Key Recommendations The Oregon Department of Corrections is a progressive agency that has a well-documented commitment to reform and dedication to staff safety and wellness. Vera acknowledges its many innovations and reform efforts, but also sees room for improvement and offers recommendations in this report that, if implemented, would further Oregon’s reputation as a leader in corrections. Some of the key recommendations include: § Reducing the number of disciplinary infractions eligible for segregation sanctions and reducing the maximum length of stay in disciplinary segregation; § Strengthening informal mechanisms and alternative responses for responding to lowlevel infractions without using segregation; § Enhancing supports, structured activities, and programming in the general prison population, to help keep people from going into disciplinary segregation; § Improving conditions of confinement in all segregated housing units; § Implementing instructor-led, out-of-cell programming in intensive management units; § Creating structured reentry processes for adults in custody transitioning out of long-term segregation, so no one is ever released directly to the community from segregation; § Prohibiting placing adults in custody with serious mental illness, severe developmental disability, or neurodegenerative diseases in any form of extremely isolating segregation; § Creating a committee to study and address disproportionate minority contact with segregated housing; and § Increasing training for all staff on mental health issues, crisis response, communication, and responding to gender differences and gender identity. As the Oregon Department of Corrections moves forward with implementation of reform efforts, Vera has every confidence that the agency will learn from its peers in the field, capitalize on its own strengths, and use these recommendations as a springboard for improving the lives of the men and women who live and work in Oregon’s prisons. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2016. 77p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 7, 2016 at: http://www.oregon.gov/doc/OC/docs/pdf/VERA.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.oregon.gov/doc/OC/docs/pdf/VERA.pdf Shelf Number: 140326 Keywords: Administrative SegregationCorrectional AdministrationInmate DisciplineIsolationRestrictive HousingSolitary Confinement |
Author: Cloud, David Title: The Safe Alternatives to Segregation Initiative: Findings and Recommendations for the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services Summary: In recent years, a wide range of advocates, policymakers, national and international bodies, and corrections practitioners have called for prisons and jails to reexamine their use of segregation, also known as solitary confinement or restrictive housing. Whether citing the potentially devastating psychological and physiological impacts of spending 23 hours per day alone in a cell as small as a parking space, the cost of operating such highly restrictive environments, or the lack of conclusive evidence that segregation makes correctional facilities safer, these voices agree that reform is essential. In 2015, with funding from the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Vera Institute of Justice (Vera) partnered with the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services (NDCS) to help the department reduce its use of segregation. Vera’s assistance included conducting a yearlong assessment of how Nebraska uses segregation and identifying opportunities for change and innovation. While the assessment was still ongoing, NDCS began instituting dramatic reforms. In particular, the department developed and released a comprehensive new rule on restrictive housing in July 2016, in response to the requirements of a 2015 Nebraska law (LB 598). The rule aims to ensure that segregation is used only as a management tool of last resort, in the least restrictive manner possible, and for the least amount of time consistent with the safety and security of staff, inmates, and the facility. NDCS also recently ended the use of segregation as a disciplinary sanction for rule violations. This report presents the findings of Vera’s assessment, which come from a period prior to the enactment of these reforms but provide a useful baseline against which NDCS can measure the impact of recent and future changes. Informed by this assessment, and by a review of the new restrictive housing rule, this report provides recommendations of additional strategies for safely reducing the department's use of segregation. It is Vera's hope that these recommendations will provide helpful guidance for NDCS to successfully build upon the promising steps it has already taken. Key Findings NDCS faces numerous, interrelated challenges that have contributed to the overuse of segregation, including severe overcrowding, a shortage of corrections and mental health staff, and insufficient educational, vocational, and therapeutic programming and mental health treatment for incarcerated people. In recent years, these challenges have attracted significant attention, and NDCS and the Nebraska legislature have been working hard to address them through a series of legislative and regulatory changes, including the new restrictive housing rule. Vera assessed the department's use of segregation before many of these recent reforms and found that during a two-year period ending June 30, 2015, the average daily population in any type of restrictive housing was 13.9 percent of the total NDCS population. To dig deeper, Vera’s assessment examined the various types of segregation in use at the time and looked at differences between genders, age groups, and racial and ethnic groups. Disciplinary Segregation was overused, often for low-level violations, and was characterized by isolating conditions. Vera found that incarcerated people were often sanctioned to Disciplinary Segregation (DS) for minor rule violations. Individuals found guilty of lower-level rule violations (i.e., Class 2 and 3 violations) accounted for 91 percent of all DS sanctions given over the study period. Some of the violations that resulted in the most DS sanctions included “disobeying an order” (Class 2), "swearing, cursing, or use of abusive language or gestures" (Class 3), and "disruption" (Class 3). Nearly half of people incarcerated in NDCS facilities had experienced at least one day in either Disciplinary or Immediate Segregation. People in these types of segregation experienced conditions of extreme isolation, idleness, and sensory deprivation. Administrative forms of segregation were characterized by long stays and restrictive conditions. Fewer incarcerated people experienced other forms of restrictive housing, including Protective Custody (PC), Administrative Confinement (AC), and Intensive Management (IM). However, those who did often spent long periods of time there. The average length of stay in AC was almost six months, in IM it was almost nine months, and in PC it was about ten months. People in AC or IM experienced conditions of extreme isolation, with little access to recreation, programming, or congregate activities. Living conditions in different Protective Custody units varied somewhat, but were generally overly restrictive and also lacked adequate access to constructive programming, recreation, and congregate activity. However, at the time of Vera's assessment, NDCS had begun reforming PC to make conditions more like general population. Certain groups were over-represented in restrictive housing. Men were exposed to all types of segregation at higher rates than women and tended to stay in these conditions for longer durations. On an average day during the study period, almost 15 percent of men were in restrictive housing, compared to an average of 4.8 percent of women. Echoing the fact that racial and ethnic minorities are generally ove-represented throughout the criminal justice system in the U.S., racial and ethnic minorities were disproportionately exposed to restrictive housing in Nebraska. For example, over 50 percent of Black, Hispanic, and Native American individuals in NDCS custody had at least one day of contact with DS, IS, AC, or IM, compared to 39 percent of white people. Additionally, younger males were overrepresented in segregation. On average about 13 percent of males under age 25 in NDCS custody were in the most restrictive types of segregation (not including PC) on any given day, compared to around 6 percent of men 25 and older. Key Recommendations Vera recognizes the many reforms NDCS has begun implementing and offers recommendations that would further the department's efforts to safely reduce the use of segregation. The full report details numerous specific recommendations for NDCS, including: § Support staff as they adjust to a disciplinary process that no longer includes Disciplinary Segregation as a sanction, and ensure that they have adequate alternative tools to respond to misbehavior and incentivize positive behavior; § Identify potential unintended consequences that may arise from the elimination of Disciplinary Segregation—such as the overuse of Immediate Segregation in its place— and implement strong safeguards to protect against them; § Enact firm policies that prohibit placing youth, pregnant women, and people with serious mental illness in any form of restrictive housing that limits meaningful access to social interaction, exercise, environmental stimulation, and therapeutic programming; § Further strengthen procedural safeguards for placement in Longer-term Restrictive Housing (a segregation category established by the new rule), to ensure that it is truly used as a last resort, only when necessary, and for as short a time as possible; § Improve the conditions of confinement in restrictive housing units to reduce the negative effects of segregation, including by increasing out-of-cell time and recreation, minimizing isolation and idleness, and providing opportunities for rehabilitative programming; § Create a step-down program to encourage and facilitate successful transitions from restrictive housing to general population; § Expand the capacity of mental health care services and ensure a therapeutic environment within Secure Mental Health Units; § Continue to explore strategies to address staff vacancies, turnover, and burnout; and § Expand vocational, educational, and therapeutic programming and activities for the entire population, including those in restrictive housing. As the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services continues to move forward with its implementation of current and future reform efforts, Vera has every confidence that the department will capitalize on its own strengths, learn from its peers in the field, and use the recommendations in this report as a springboard for continuing to reduce its use of segregation and improving the lives of the men and women who live and work in Nebraska’s prisons. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2016. 145p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 7, 2016 at: http://www.corrections.nebraska.gov/pdf/Vera%20Institute%20Final%20Report%20to%20NDCS%2011-01-16%20v2.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.corrections.nebraska.gov/pdf/Vera%20Institute%20Final%20Report%20to%20NDCS%2011-01-16%20v2.pdf Shelf Number: 147934 Keywords: Administrative SegregationCorrectional AdministrationInmate DisciplineIsolationRestrictive HousingSolitary Confinement |
Author: 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: New York City Board of Correction Title: Three adolescents with mental illness in punitive segregation at Rikers Island Summary: The adolescents featured in this report were diagnosed with mental illness and were each sentenced to more than 200 days in solitary confinement at Rikers Island. The report documents the punitive nature of the RHU, the inadequacies in mental health care, and the failure to provide appropriate educational services to these young people. Details: New York: The Board of Correction, 2013. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 13, 2017 at: http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/boc/downloads/pdf/Three_Adolescents.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/boc/downloads/pdf/Three_Adolescents.pdf Shelf Number: 148154 Keywords: Adolescents Mentally Ill Offenders Restrictive Housing Rikers Island Segregation Solitary 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: Anthony-North, Vedan Title: The Safe Alternatives to Segregation Initiative: Findings and Recommendations for the New York City Department of Correction Summary: In recent years, a diverse range of international and national organizations, advocates, policymakers, corrections practitioners, and the U.S. Department of Justice have called for prisons and jails to reform their use of segregation, also known as solitary confinement or restrictive housing. Whether citing the potentially devastating psychological and physiological impacts of spending 23 hours per day alone in a cell the size of a parking space; the cost of operating such highly restrictive environments; or the lack of conclusive evidence that segregation makes correctional facilities safer, these voices agree that change and innovation are essential endeavors. Over the past few years, the New York City Department of Correction (the Department) has made it a priority to reduce the use of punitive segregation-one form of restrictive housing-in its jails, implementing a number of notable reforms that have helped the Department achieve major reductions. These existing efforts have laid the groundwork for further work. In 2015, with funding from the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Vera Institute of Justice partnered with the Department to assist the agency in its efforts to reduce its use of segregation. Through this partnership, Vera conducted an assessment of New York City's use of segregation in its jail facilities and recommends policy and practice changes to continue to reduce punitive segregation and reduce other types of restrictive housing. In addition to describing reforms to punitive segregation to date that demonstrate New York City's commitment to reform, this report presents the findings from Vera's assessment, and recommendations that offer the Department strategies to further its efforts to reduce reliance on segregation and explore other opportunities for reform. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, Center on Sentencing and Corrections, 2017. 92p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 13, 2018 at: https://storage.googleapis.com/vera-web-assets/downloads/Publications/safe-alternatives-segregation-initiative-findings-recommendations/legacy_downloads/safe-alternatives-segregation-initiative-findings-recommendations-nycsas.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://storage.googleapis.com/vera-web-assets/downloads/Publications/safe-alternatives-segregation-initiative-findings-recommendations/legacy_downloads/safe-alternatives-segregation-initiative-findings-recommendations-nycsas Shelf Number: 149113 Keywords: Administrative SegregationInmate DisciplineIsolationRestrictive HousingSolitary Confinement |
Author: Digard, Leon Title: Rethinking Restrictive Housing: Lessons from Five U.S. Jail and Prison Systems Summary: After decades of misuse and overuse, the tide appears to be turning on the role of solitary confinement in U.S. jails and prisons. In recent years, this practice-also known as restrictive housing or segregation-has been the subject of increased scrutiny from researchers, advocates, policymakers, media, and the government agencies responsible for people who are incarcerated. In restrictive housing, a person is held in a cell, typically 22 to 24 hours a day, with minimal human interaction or sensory stimuli. Since the 1980s, the rise in its use has mirrored the exponential rise of incarceration. Originally intended to manage people who committed violence within jails and prisons, restrictive housing has become a common tool for responding to all levels of rule violations, from minor to serious; managing challenging populations; and housing people considered vulnerable, especially those living with mental illness. Also reflecting incarceration trends, evidence suggests that in a substantial number of jurisdictions, younger people, people of color, and those living with mental illness are held in restrictive housing at higher rates. In light of this information and growing evidence that restrictive housing may harm people without improving safety in facilities, a number of departments of corrections are taking steps to reduce their reliance on this type of housing. The effects of being held in restrictive housing can be significant. An extensive body of research in psychiatry, neuroscience, epidemiology, and anthropology spanning more than 150 years has documented the potential detrimental effects of restrictive housing on the health and well-being of incarcerated people. This evidence confirms what is perhaps understood intuitively: the practice can result in physical and psychological damage whose negative repercussions can persist well after release, making the transition to life in a prison's general population or in the community considerably more difficult. Social isolation, sensory deprivation, and enforced idleness are a toxic combination that can result in psychiatric symptoms, including anxiety, depression, anger, difficulties with impulse control, paranoia, visual and auditory hallucinations, cognitive disturbances, obsessive thoughts, hypersensitivity to stimuli, posttraumatic stress disorder, self-harm, suicide, and psychosis. At an institutional level, restrictive housing is extremely resourceintensive, although research provides no conclusive evidence that it makes facilities or communities safer. Attention has also turned toward the impact restrictive housing has on staff. Studies have demonstrated that corrections officers working in general-population units face stressors that can negatively affect their mental and physical health and family relationships. Researchers have recently started to explore whether working in the unique conditions found in restrictive-housing units is associated with depression, stress, or trauma-or with other markers of safety and well-being, such as injury and sick leave. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2018. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed may 23, 2018 at: https://storage.googleapis.com/vera-web-assets/downloads/Publications/rethinking-restrictive-housing/legacy_downloads/rethinking-restrictive-housing-report.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://storage.googleapis.com/vera-web-assets/downloads/Publications/rethinking-restrictive-housing/legacy_downloads/rethinking-restrictive-housing-report.pdf Shelf Number: 150339 Keywords: Administrative SegregationInmate DisciplineIsolationRestrictive HousingSolitary Confinement |
Author: 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: American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia Title: Silent Injustice: Solitary Confinement in Virginia Summary: This report describes observed and reported conditions in the Virginia prison system. The intention of this report is to highlight and clarify issues to be considered by state legislators and policy makers, the Vera Institute of Justice and others reviewing the Virginia prison system. This report discusses the negative impacts of solitary confinement as practiced in Virginia, the systemic difficulties prisoners have in escaping it and returning to the general population, and the States failure to exclude individuals with serious mental health problems from solitary confinement despite the existing law and science establishing the especially damaging impacts of isolation on this vulnerable group of people. Moreover, this report explains that there may be solitary conditions of which we are simply unaware. There are no laws governing the way solitary confinement is used in the Virginia prison system, nor any laws that require correctional officials to collect and report data on how it is used. Without such requirements, it is difficult to gather information and accurately assess the status of solitary confinement in the state. We hope that this report sheds light on this broken system, and that it will motivate the Virginia Department of Corrections (VDOC), political leaders and the public to demand and provide better conditions for incarcerated people currently serving time in solitary. Details: Richmond: ACLU of Virginia, 2018. 67p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 12, 2018 at: https://acluva.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/aclu-va_solitary_confinement_report_2018_single-paged_-_final.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://acluva.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/aclu-va_solitary_confinement_report_2018_single-paged_-_final.pdf Shelf Number: 150524 Keywords: Administrative Segregation Isolation Mental Health Restrictive Housing Solitary 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: Gage, Bruce C. Title: Evaluation of Mental Health Services: Sacramento County Jails Summary: The average census at the Main Jail (MJ) for fiscal year 2015 - 2016 (through March 2016) was 2131. The average census at the Rio Consumnes Correctional Center (RCCC) for fiscal year 2015 - 2016 (through March 2016) was 1913.78. RCCC staff reported that for the year 2015 the average census was 2018, 208 of which were women. Women are housed at both the MJ and RCCC. Jail leadership reported there are typically about 250 women at the MJ and 150 at RCCC (there were 173 women at RCCC the day I visited). About 300-400 inmates are ICE or US Marshall detainees. There are between 50,000 and 60,000 annual bookings at the jails. There are male general population mental health residential units referred to as Outpatient Psychiatry (OPP) at both RCCC and the MJ. There is no dedicated mental health residential housing for women. There is a unit within the jail that is certified for Lantermann-Petris-Short (LPS) commitments that serves both men and women. Almost all custody supervision is indirect supervision. Even in dormitory settings, custody is generally in a secure station and is on the living units only for hourly checks and other required functions. The MJ is a large, traditional urban jail. It is generally set up in two-tiered pods with a day room having large glass fronts and keyed entry. Typically, two pods share what is referred to as an indoor recreation area. Above and behind this area with a view into the pods is the control station, typically housing one or two custody staff. Programming space and interview rooms are very limited at the MJ. RCCC serves primarily those who are sentenced, though the number of pretrial detainees has increased and is now about 500. RCCC has a much longer average length of stay than the MJ but I was unable to get clearly accurate statistics. It is divided into numerous smaller units. Programming space and interview rooms are generally much more available at this facility. Many of these units have classrooms (high security) or portables and a recreation hall (low security) available to them. The exception is the medium custody areas which have no dedicated classroom space and provide even less activities than in the high security areas; they house primarily short stay, pretrial males. Most areas have large yards associated with them. Most areas also have day rooms with the exception of the womens maximum area, Ramona, which has no dayroom. Other than those housed in Ramona, inmates eat at a common dining area. Work and program participation are much more emphasized at this facility; most inmates have been sentenced, especially the women, AB 109 has resulted in a substantial increase in length of stay for many inmates. RCCC custody staff reported that there are about 245 AB 109 inmates at that facility with an average length of stay over six years. Inmates at RCCC generally report much more extensive access to yards and day rooms than at the MJ. In higher custody settings such as CBF, inmates report getting out to the yard about three hours per week and into the day room about three hours per day. Those in disciplinary housing on SBF get much less time out. Details: Sacramento: Disability Rights California, 2016. 78p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 1, 2018 at: https://www.disabilityrightsca.org/system/files/file-attachments/%5B001-3%5D_Exhibit_C-Gage_Report_2018-07-31.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.disabilityrightsca.org/system/files/file-attachments/%5B001-3%5D_Exhibit_C-Gage_Report_2018-07-31.pdf Shelf Number: 150998 Keywords: Administrative Segregation Jail Inmates Jails Mental Health Services Mentally Ill Offenders Restrictive Housing Solitary Confinement |
Author: Penn State Law Center for Immigrants' Rights Title: Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention Centers Summary: Project South and the Penn State Law Center for Immigrants' Rights Clinic (on its behalf) have released a report titled "Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigration Detention Centers." The report is focused on the Stewart Detention Center and the Irwin County Detention Center and is based on interviews with scores of detained immigrants as well as immigration attorneys, tours of both facilities, and review of contracts and other relevant documents. The investigation was completed over the course of one year. Stewart and Irwin had previously been identified in national reports as among the worst in the country. "As the accounts in the report demonstrate, little has changed at Stewart and Irwin. Life at these facilities for detained immigrants is still a living nightmare," said Azadeh Shahshahani. "It is high time for Stewart and Irwin to be shut down." As detailed in the report, the conditions in these detention facilities are deplorable and include: threats of force-feeding for participation in hunger strikes, sexual abuse, lack of clean drinking water, lack of adequate access to legal materials or attorneys, and labor for just $1 per day. Additionally, detained immigrants report they are served rotten and spoiled food with occasional foreign particles inside. Further, detained immigrants at both facilities lack adequate medical care and mental health services are minimal. Some detained immigrants also complained of not receiving dietary accommodations for religious beliefs and practices or health concerns. The use of solitary is also rampant. Several detained immigrants reported being put in segregation for expressing suicidal thoughts or as retaliation for complaining about detention conditions. As described by one detained immigrant at Stewart who suffers from mental health issues: "Segregation is like hell. It is total isolation." Details: Atlanta: Project South, 2017. 65p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 15, 2018 at: https://projectsouth.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Imprisoned_Justice_Report-1.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://projectsouth.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Imprisoned_Justice_Report-1.pdf Shelf Number: 151137 Keywords: Human Rights AbusesIllegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Immigration Enforcement Immigration Policy Migrants Solitary ConfinementUndocumented Immigrants |
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: Association of State Correctional Administrators Title: Working to Limit Restrictive Housing: Efforts in Four Jurisdictions to Make Changes Summary: This monograph provides excerpts from the ASCA-Liman Report, Reforming Restrictive Housing: The 2018 ASCA-Liman Nationwide Survey of Time-in-Cell. That Report is the fourth in a series of ASCA-Liman research projects focused on restrictive housing - or what is popularly known as "solitary confinement" - defined in this Report as placement of an individual in a cell for 22 hours or more on average for fifteen days or more. Over the course of the past several years, ASCA and the Liman Center have asked each of the correctional departments in the fifty states, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and a few jail systems to answer survey questions and provide policies to understand the use of restrictive housing. Our goal is to enable longitudinal, evidence-based assessments of the use of restrictive housing by providing a composite picture at particular intervals. As detailed in the Report, we gathered information about the numbers and demographics of people held in restrictive housing. We asked questions about sex/gender, race and ethnicity, and age. We also sought to learn about the subpopulations of the seriously mentally ill, pregnant prisoners, and transgender individuals. In addition, the ASCA-Liman survey included requests for information on the length of time that people spent in restrictive housing and about whether, how, and why policies governing restrictive housing were changing. Forty-three jurisdictions provided information in response to the 2017-2018 survey on the numbers of people in restrictive housing. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, those 43 jurisdictions housed about 80.5% of the total prison population. The 43 jurisdictions reported a total of 49,197 prisoners in restrictive housing, which was 4.5% of the prisoners confined across this set. Correctional directors around the country also reported that they were making changes to reduce and, in some instances, to abolish holding people in cell for 22 hours or more on average for fifteen days or more. Below, we provide first-hand accounts by correctional leaders describing their efforts to make major changes in the use of restrictive housing in Colorado, Idaho, North Dakota, and Ohio. These prison administrators explain the ways in which they have revised policies, the challenges that they have faced, and the impact of their efforts. Details: New Haven, CT: The Liman Center for Public Interest Law at Yale Law School, 2018. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 12, 2018 at: https://law.yale.edu/system/files/documents/pdf/Liman/asca_liman_2018_workingtolimit.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://law.yale.edu/system/files/documents/pdf/Liman/asca_liman_2018_workingtolimit.pdf Shelf Number: 152911 Keywords: Administrative Segregation Correctional Administration Isolation Mentally Ill Offenders Restrictive Housing Solitary Confinement |
Author: Tasca, Melinda Title: Examining Race and Gender Disparities in Restrictive Housing Placements Summary: Placement into restrictive housing is a controversial practice experienced by some inmates during incarceration. Nevertheless, little is known about who is placed in restrictive housing and under what conditions. Although this correctional management tool is used to isolate inmates who pose a risk to the operation and security of an institution, assessments underlying placement decisions are often racialized and gendered. Coupled with the seclusion of prisons from public scrutiny and the wide discretion afforded to prison officials, there are ample opportunities for extralegal factors to influence treatment. In an effort to generate a broader understanding of racial and gender disparities in conditions of confinement, this study-supported through NIJ's W.E.B. DuBois Research Fellowship Program- examined restrictive housing placement decisions. Using administrative records on all inmates released from prison in one large state between 2011 and 2014 (N = 33,143), this study assessed racial and ethnic disparities in men and women's: 1) placements into any segregation; 2) placements into particular types of segregation (i.e. administrative segregation, disciplinary and mental health segregation); 3) the length of time spent there; and 4) the reasons provided for these placements. Descriptive, bivariate, and multivariate analyses were estimated to assess these relationships. Given that multiple housing placements were recorded for each inmate (N = 124,942), multilevel modeling procedures were used (i.e. hierarchical logistic regression, hierarchical negative binomial regression). Overall, results indicated significant racial and ethnic disparities in restrictive housing placements among men and women, net of legally- and administratively-relevant factors and other inmate characteristics. To be sure, Native American men were more likely than Whites to experience placements into any segregation, disciplinary segregation, and administrative segregation (ad-seg). Latinos and Black men had lower odds of placement into any segregation and also disciplinary segregation relative to Whites. At the same time, Native American men and Latinos spent more days in any segregation and ad-seg when placed there compared to Whites. Latinos in disciplinary segregation also experienced longer placements, while Blacks' disciplinary segregation placements were shorter than Whites. For women, racial disparities were observed in placements into ad-seg and mental health segregation. Native American, Latina, and Black women had increased odds of placement into administrative segregation relative to their White counterparts. Latinas were less likely than Whites to experience placement into mental health segregation. Routine operations (e.g., custody reclassification, lateral transfers, inmate population adjustments) was the most commonly cited reason for restrictive housing placements across race/ethnicity and sex. This project informs research and policy alike. First, this study extends empirical knowledge on disparities in criminal justice decision-making to the correctional setting. Second, this project responded directly to calls for research regarding the use of segregation and whether it is applied fairly. Our work offers insight into the experiences of diverse and understudied groups, particularly Native Americans. And finally, this work can be useful for correctional departments when navigating and implementing decisions and practices pertaining to restrictive housing. Details: Report to the U.S. National Institute of Justice, 2018. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 22, 2018 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/252062.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/252062.pdf Shelf Number: 153056 Keywords: Administrative SegregationEthnic DisparitiesInmate DisciplineIsolationRacial DisparitiesRestrictive HousingSolitary Confinement |
Author: American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico Title: Solitary Confinement in New Mexico: A Review of policies, Practices, and Inmate Experience in Isolation Summary: While there is no universally agreed upon definition of solitary confinement, international organizations and national studies have defined this practice as "separating prisoners from the general population and holding them in their cells for 22 hours per day or more, for 15 or more continuous days." In the past decade, the unrestricted use of solitary confinement has gained national and international attention as hundreds of thousands of prisoners around the world have been placed in isolated housing. Studies have estimated that around 80,000 people are in solitary in U.S. prisons. In recent years, the state of New Mexico has been nationally recognized for being one of the US states with the highest rates of inmates in solitary confinement according to the 2016 ASCA-Liman Report, which estimated that about 9 percent of the inmate population in New Mexico was in solitary confinement. While there have been significant attempts to regulate the use of solitary confinement in state-run facilities, no state-wide policy has been enacted to address the challenges and side consequences of solitary confinement in New Mexico such as recent lawsuits and settlements about the lengthy and harsh use of solitary confinement in local jails, suicides and health deterioration of inmates placed in solitary confinement in state-run facilities, and increasing awareness and scrutiny of the high rates of solitary confinement of New Mexico when compared to other US states. This report provides an analysis and evaluation of the current state of solitary confinement in New Mexico. Through an extensive policy review, collection of public documents, and interviews and surveys conducted to inmates that have been placed in solitary confinement, we found the following: - Policies and procedures from the New Mexico Corrections Department do not have specific definitions of solitary confinement and have multiple and constantly-changing terms that refer to the practice of solitary confinement. - There is a lack of uniform policies, practices and procedures on the use of solitary confinement, along with significant limitations on the data collection from the state, which pose a threat to information transparency and institutional accountability related to one of the most vulnerable populations in New Mexico. - We find significant gaps among the rates of solitary confinement calculated by NMCD and our calculations; this occurs because calculations from NMCD have failed to include several security levels and steps in different programs that meet the characteristics of solitary confinement or segregated housing. - There are significant gaps between the use of solitary confinement calculations from NMCD and those of this report: - NMCD reported that the solitary confinement rate across all facilities in January 2010 was about 17 percent, whereas our calculations reveal that the rate in the same period was 22 percent; o Calculations from NMCD have yielded that the rate of solitary confinement in September 4, 2018 was about 4 percent across all facilities whereas our calculations indicate a rate of about 9 percent on the same date; - The greatest reporting gap between NMCD and this study occurs in the Penitentiary of New Mexico (PNM), the facility that houses the highest security classification of offenders in the state. - Regardless of the significant disparities across calculations from this report and those conducted by NMCD, the rate of solitary confinement in the state has decreased across the years, presumably because of increasing public awareness, national scrutiny, and recent policy changes and revisions of existing policies. - One of the most significant recent policy changes has been the creation of the Predatory Behavior Management Program (PBMP) at PNM in 2015. PBMP is a "behavioral based program for inmates requiring enhanced supervision," comprised of four steps, which range from evaluation (step 1), which is the most restrictive step, to re-integration (step 4), in which inmates are prepared to return to the general population. Each step has minimum periods of assignment. - Based on our examination of policies, inmates placed in PBMP spend a minimum of 240 days -the equivalent of eight months in conditions of solitary confinement. First-Hand Experiences: Results from Inmate Survey and Interviews on the Use of Solitary Confinement in New Mexico -- - 4 a.m. shower times conflict with recreation time, forcing inmates to choose between personal hygiene and recreation. - Participants also reported that if they are not up prior to their scheduled recreation time, as early as 4 a.m., and ready to present to prison guards that they are ready to go out for recreation, then they can miss out on their recreation time for that day. - NMCD officer observation Procedure [4-4255] requiring routine 30-minute observations by a correctional officer while in administrative segregation is largely not followed, as reported by 81 percent of participants. - Recreation policies are not followed: 94 percent of participants report recreation cancellation, and 72 percent reveal cancellation either 2 to 3 times a week or daily. - Participants also report that it is common practice for prison guards to offer sack lunches or hygiene products in place of taking them out for their recreation time. This is known as "trading" recreation time. - Roughly 90 percent of participants report a mental health diagnosis. - Participants are approximately two times more likely to report great dissatisfaction with the physical (46%) and mental health care (47%) physicians than care from nurses (25%) and the dentist (28%). - 66 percent of participants feel they do not have adequate access to mental health services, and 79 percent indicate they do not receive timely follow-ups for their mental health condition. - 91 percent or more of participants reported that they experience feelings of loneliness, anxiety, depression, and sleep disturbances. - On occasion, inmates are housed in solitary confinement without formal documentation or a review board decision of segregated housing placement and are often not notified of their right to appeal. - Participants report that the name of the Predatory Behavior Management Program is demeaning in and of itself, creates low morale among inmates, and sends the wrong message to society that their incarceration may be related to a sex crime. Policy Recommendations Based on Data Collection and Inmate Experiences - Revisiting the use and practices of solitary confinement in state-run facilities - Reassessing the use of solitary confinement on vulnerable populations such as juveniles and inmates diagnosed with mental health conditions; and - Increasing institutional transparency and accountability through biannual reports that reveal general treatment of and information about inmates in solitary confinement, such as living conditions and length that inmates are in isolation, as well as demographic characteristics of inmates (e.g., age, levels of educational attainment, ethno-racial background, health status). Details: Albuquerque: Author, 2019. 124p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 16, 2019 at: https://www.aclu-nm.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/solitary_confinement_in_new_mexico_2019_report.pdf Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: https://www.aclu-nm.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/solitary_confinement_in_new_mexico_2019_report.pdf Shelf Number: 155434 Keywords: Human Rights Imprisonment Isolation Restricted Housing Solitary Confinement |
Author: Southern Poverty Law Center Title: Solitary Confinement: Inhumane, Ineffective, and Wasteful Summary: Around the world and increasingly in the United States, there's a growing consensus that solitary confinement of incarcerated persons is, at best, an ineffective and inhumane practice with little or no carceral benefit and, at worst, outright torture. Yet, on any given day, the Florida Department of Corrections (FDC) holds approximately 10,000 people - more than 10 percent of its population - in solitary. The nationwide average was 4.5 percent in 2018. Numerous studies have shown that solitary confinement harms a person's mental and physical health, as well as the community to which the person eventually returns. People in solitary, in fact, attempt suicide at a much higher rate than those in the general population. What's more, solitary is disproportionately used for people with mental illnesses, people of color, and people with disabilities. In the late 1990s, the FDC was sued by a statewide class of incarcerated people because of its dangerous and inhumane solitary confinement practices. That lawsuit, Osterback v. Moore, resulted in limited reforms. Unfortunately, after the Osterback settlement, solitary confinement in Florida's prisons did not end, it merely evolved. The FDC's failure is compounded by the fact that Florida keeps far too many people in prison in the first place. With one of the highest incarceration rates in the country the state spends more than $2.4 billion a year to imprison more than 96,000 people. That's the third-largest state prison population in the United States. Although the number of people admitted to Florida prisons has trended downward over the last decade, the overall prison population has not decreased at a proportionate rate because of increases in sentence length and rules restricting early release. In addition, the state cut substance abuse and mental health programs for incarcerated people in 2018. The prison system also has experienced chronic staffing shortages. This environment only heightens the prospect that an incarcerated person will be placed in solitary; because the system is strained, prison officials too readily resort to solitary for discipline - or in the case of overcrowded facilities - for housing. Solitary confinement does not improve public safety. Studies show that when people who have been in solitary return to their communities, they are more likely to commit crimes than those who were not subjected to it. Other states have recognized the wasteful and destructive nature of solitary confinement and have adopted more humane and less costly alternatives. It's time for Florida to recognize that solitary confinement is not the answer; rather, it is part of the problem. Details: Montgomery, AL: Author, 2019. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 23, 2019 at: https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/com_solitary_confinement_0.pdf Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/com_solitary_confinement_0.pdf Shelf Number: 155497 Keywords: Human Rights Imprisonment Isolation Restricted Housing Solitary Confinement |
Author: Cloud, David Title: The Safe Alternatives to Segregation Initiative: Findings and Recommendations for the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, and Progress Towards Implementation Summary: Across the United States, corrections leaders, legislatures, advocacy and human rights organizations, faith-based organizations, and healthcare professionals associations have called for an end to the use of prolonged solitary confinement, also known as segregation or restrictive housing, in jails and prisons. Whether citing the detrimental psychological and physiological impacts of spending 23 hours per day alone and idle in a cell the size of a parking space, the fiscal burden of operating highly restrictive environments, occupational health hazards for officers and other staff, or mounting body of research indicating that exposing incarcerated people to segregation makes our communities less safe, these voices collectively agree that bold and sustainable reforms are urgently critical. Since 2010, the Vera Institute of Justice (Vera) has been working with state and local corrections agencies to address the use of solitary confinement in jails and prisons with support from the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) and private philanthropies. The goals of Vera's Safe Alternatives to Segregation (SAS) Initiative include: assisting corrections agencies document drivers and implement reforms to safely reduce segregation; expanding humane, alternative responses to common challenges occurring in correctional settings; and facilitating a professional learning community for correctional systems to share knowledge about promising practices and cutting-edge reform strategies. In 2017, the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections (LADOC) joined Vera's SAS Initiative and kicked off a two-year partnership to analyze current practices, develop a bold vision and set of recommendations for addressing segregation in Louisiana prisons, and implement reforms. This report presents Vera's findings and recommendations for addressing the use of segregation in Louisiana prisons, which were derived from a combination of administrative data analysis; in-depth analysis of department policies; surveys, focus groups, and key stakeholder interviews with incarcerated people, corrections officers, and clinical staff; intensive site visits to maximum security prisons; and regular meetings with agency leadership. It also discusses the department's progress and challenges with implementing early reforms. Vera's main findings and recommendations are highlighted below, with more detail on each in the main body of the report. This is a non-exhaustive list of reforms that prioritize concrete actions within the responsibilities and power of LADOC, while acknowledging challenges related to resource constraints. We hope that lawmakers, advocates, and other stakeholders will also find the information in this report valuable for advancing change and supporting the implementation, improvement, and sustainability of LADOC's early reform efforts. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2019. 109p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 5, 2019 at: https://www.vera.org/publications/safe-alternatives-segregation-initiative-findings-recommendations Year: 2019 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-ldps.p Shelf Number: 156211 Keywords: Corrections Incarceration Jails Louisiana Maximum Security Prisons Prisons Segregation Solitary Confinement |
Author: House of Commons Joint Committee on Human Rights. United Kingdom Title: Youth Detention: Solitary Confinement and Restraint Summary: Around 2,500 children are detained by the state in England and Wales at any one time. Some are detained in hospitals for therapeutic care, and some are detained in custody due to criminal convictions. Although these institutions have different functions, they face many common issues. These children are detained for different reasons, but most are highly vulnerable and many have multiple challenges. They are under the care of the state, and yet they can be subject to practices of restraint and separation from normal human contact that can cause harm and undermine the therapeutic and rehabilitation aims of their detention. These situations engage rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR): Article 2, the right to life; Article 3, the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment; Article 5, the right to liberty and security; Article 8, respect for private and family life. We heard evidence from young people who had been restrained and separated from normal human contact whilst detained in hospital and custody, and from parents of children who have been detained. Their testimony powerfully illustrated to us the damaging impacts upon children when they are restrained or separated, including long-term impacts. We received unanimous evidence from medics, inspectors, lawyers, and staff who work in detention, that restraint and separation are harmful to children and should be avoided if at all possible. Some practices are particularly extreme or controversial. We urge greater monitoring of the use of the controversial 'prone restraint', which is currently being reviewed, and urge its use only in exceptional circumstances when absolutely necessary. The deliberate infliction of pain in Young Offenders' Institutions (YOIs) is unacceptable under any circumstances under rights legislation. The use of restraint for maintaining 'good order and discipline' must be prohibited in all but the most exceptional of circumstances. Separation from normal human contact can take different forms, and several different terms are in use; all of these practices can have negative impacts. They range from segregation into small groups, to isolation from other children but with constant observation by staff, to being totally alone in a childs own cell or in a designated unit. We use the term 'separation from normal human contact' or 'separation' to refer to all of these practices. Where isolation from normal human contact exceeds 22 hours per day, we use the term 'solitary confinement', as defined in international law; where this lasts for over 15 days, it is defined as "prolonged solitary confinement". This is contrary to human rights law in all circumstances. The Government must immediately take steps to ensure that separation of children from human contact never becomes solitary confinement. Decisions, and reviews of decisions, by YOIs and hospitals to extend periods of separation should be reported to the responsible Ministers on a monthly basis. The information must be certified by the Ministers and laid before each House for publication. For all forms of restraint and separation (whether acceptable or not), data collection is incomplete in hospitals and custody, and there is good reason to believe that these practices are under-reported. Data is presented in ways that make it harder to interpret, and the use of different definitions makes it harder to compare between different types of institutions. Data collection must be improved, and we recommend that institutions collect and publish data about all types of restraint and separation. Data from hospitals and custody shows that children are restrained too often, with potentially thousands of unjustified restraints each year, and that separation is also used too often. Rates of restraint and separation are even higher for BAME children. We believe that the high rates of restraint and separation are incompatible with the threshold of 'last resort', and are therefore in breach of the rights of children. The issue is that staff sometimes do not attempt de-escalation methods, and too quickly move to restraint or separation. We recognise that staff face difficult situations, and they must be supported to use better alternatives whenever possible. The excessive use of restraint and separation are partly due to insufficient staffing levels, insufficient staff training and experience, and inappropriate facilities. We recommend increased staffing levels, improved training, and a better mix of staffing and skills, all of which will increase the range of options that can be used instead of restraint and separation. We also conclude that some children are fundamentally in the wrong institutions (although some should not be in institutions at all), due to lack of spaces in more appropriate units. We recommend that the secure estate is reconfigured to ensure that there are sufficient spaces in the correct types of units (for example to provide mental health care to child offenders) and to ensure that all children can be placed close enough to home to allow regular family visits. The rights of children in detention are often not enforced. The systems in hospitals and custody do not do enough to ensure that children are sufficiently aware of their rights and of how to appeal if their rights have been breached. Children and families (and other representatives) often do not have full access to evidence that would help in appeals. Children lack confidence in the appeals systems: they feel that any recompense is not comparable with the impact of restraint or separation; and they are often not made aware of the outcomes of successful appeals by other children. We recommend more more involvement for families in decisions about the children; more proactive roles for independent advocates; more effective debriefs after incidents, and clear communication of disciplinary action against staff. We also recommend the annual publication for each institution of data about appeals and their outcomes. Details: London: House of Commons and House of Lords Joint Committee on Human Rights, 2019. 45p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 17, 2019 at: https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/joint-select/human-rights-committee/inquiries/parliament-2017/youth-detention-solitary-confinement-17-19/ Year: 2019 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt201719/jtselect/jtrights/994/994.pdf Shelf Number: 156367 Keywords: At-Risk Youths Detention Centers Juvenile Detention Juvenile Justice Reform Juvenile Offenders Solitary Confinement |
Author: Solitary Watch Title: Louisiana on Lockdown: A Report on the Use of Solitary Confinement in Louisiana State Prisons, With Testimony From the People Who Live It Summary: Te use of solitary confinement in the state of Louisiana has penetrated the broader public consciousness largely through the story of the Angola 3. Over the past decade, the harrowing saga of three African American men-all likely innocent of the prison murders that were used to justify confining them in solitary for up to 43 years-sparked media attention and public outcry as the ultimate expression of harsh, racist, Southern injustice. But there is another story to be told about solitary confinement in Louisiana. Like the story of the Angola 3, it is deeply rooted in the history of racial subjugation and captivity in the South, which begins with slavery and stretches through convict leasing and Jim Crow to the modern era of mass incarceration. However, it extends far beyond the lives of just three men. This is the story of a prison system where, on any given day, nearly one in five people is being held in isolation, placed there by prison staff, often for minor rule violations or "administrative" reasons. When it conducted a full count in the fall of 2017, the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections (LADOC) reported that 19 percent of the men in its state prisons - 2,709 in all - had been in solitary confinement for more than two weeks. Many had been there for years or even decades. The Vera Institute of Justice, which released its own report on solitary confinement in Louisiana earlier this year, similarly found over 17 percent of the state's prison population in solitary in 2016. These rates of solitary confinement use were more than double the next highest state's, and approximately four times the national average. Given that Louisiana also has the second highest incarceration rate in the United States, which leads the world in both incarceration and solitary confinement use, it is clear that Louisiana holds the title of solitary confinement capital of the world. Te state has this dishonorable distinction at a time when a growing body of evidence offers proof of the devastating psychological and social harms caused by prolonged solitary confinement, as well as its ineffectiveness as a tool to reduce prison violence. In 2015, when it revised its Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (known as the Mandela Rules), the United Nations acknowledged that solitary confinement of 15 days or more is cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment that often rises to the level of torture. Taken together, these facts indicate that the state of Louisiana is abusing and at times torturing thousands of its citizens for no legitimate purpose whatsoever. Te numbers, however, still tell only part of the story. Just as Albert Woodfox's memoir "Solitary" powerfully conveys what it is like to live for decades in conditions that are designed "to break people," the words of individuals living in solitary confinement are vital to understanding the reality of what is happening today in Louisiana's prisons. For this report, we collected information directly from those men and women. The bulk of the report is based on detailed responses from more than 700 lengthy surveys completed by individuals in solitary, whose names and identifying information have been changed to protect their safety and privacy. Their descriptions paint a grim picture of long stretches of time spent in small cells that are often windowless, filthy, and/or subject to extreme temperatures, where they are denied basic human needs such as adequate food and daily exercise, and subject to many forms of abuse as well as to unending idleness and loneliness, resulting in physical and mental deterioration. Since surveys were returned voluntarily, the results cannot be viewed as a comprehensive or representative sampling. Yet with more than 700 responses from all nine of the state's prisons, which provided personal narratives as well as quantitative data, we believe our report complements, builds upon, and adds an even greater sense of urgency to previous recommendations for reform of solitary confinement in Louisiana, including those included in the recent report by the Vera Institute of Justice. At a moment when LADOC has, for the first time, shown willingness to reconsider and reduce its use of solitary confinement, the findings in this report offer vital insights-and illuminate a path toward the sweeping changes that must be made if Louisiana is to create a prison system that succeeds in both advancing public safety and preserving the human rights of incarcerated people. Details: New York: Authors, 2019. 135p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 26, 2019 at: https://solitarywatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Louisiana-on-Lockdown-Report-June-2019.pdf Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: https://solitarywatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Louisiana-on-Lockdown-Report-June-2019.pdf Shelf Number: 156632 Keywords: Administrative SegregationHuman Rights Imprisonment Isolation Restricted Housing Solitary Confinement |