Purpose. This study expands upon existing research on the psychological impact of administrative segregation on inmates by addressing several methodological limitations in this body of literature.Methods. Using a pre-post design, this study compared male general population (GP) inmates in the United States to those with up to 4 years in segregated placement across scores on the MCMI-III.Results. While segregated inmates reported higher levels of distress (particularly on measures of anxiety, depressed mood, post-traumatic stress, and somatic complaints) compared to the GP at post-assessment, scores did not reach the clinical cut-off. Further, inmates generally did not deteriorate as time in restrictive housing increased.Conclusions. Thus, compared to the GP, who showed some improvement in functioning, segregated inmates remained largely the same. Rather than causing significant psychological damage, it is more likely that segregation is a barrier to opportunities for continued growth. Study limitations and recommendations for reforms in the use of segregation are presented.

Objective: We examined efforts by a Mississippi court to base pretrial release decisions on risk assessment rather than primarily on bond. Hypotheses: (a) Pretrial detention will be shorter than that associated with prevailing bond practices in the same counties. (b) Rearrest rates will be lower than a similar pretrial population in a nearby southern state. (c) False positive rates for predicting rearrests will be higher for African American than Caucasian participants. (d) Pretrial detention will be longer for African American participants because of higher risk scores or assessment overrides. Method: Pretrial defendants (N = 521) completed the Risk and Needs Triage (RANT) within 2 weeks of arrest, and outcomes examined included the length of pretrial detention, index case dispositions, and rearrest rates. Results: (a) Pretrial detention averaged approximately 60 days compared with prevailing detentions averaging approximately 90 and 180 days in the same counties. (b) Pretrial rearrest rates were 17 percentage points higher than a similar pretrial population; however, representative comparison data are unavailable to confidently measure recidivism impacts. (c) Positive predictive power did not differ by race in predicting pretrial rearrests, SE = .04, 95% CI [.11, −.06], z = .61, p = .54, d = .08. (d) Despite comparable risk scores, African American participants were detained significantly longer than Caucasian participants (M = 60.92 vs. 45.58 days), p = .038, d = .18, 95% CI [.01, .36], and were less likely to receive a diversion opportunity (11% vs. 23%), p = .009, V = .17. Conclusion: The observational design precludes causal conclusions; however, risk assessment was associated with shorter pretrial detention than prevailing bond practices with no racial disparities in risk prediction. Greater attention to risk assessment may reduce racial inequities in pretrial conditions. Representative comparison data are needed to measure the recidivism impacts of pretrial reform initiatives.