Administrative Segregation: A Review of State and Federal Policies

Abstract

The use of administrative segregation in prison is a controversial correctional policy. Proponents argue this type of housing is necessary for maintaining institutional safety and order, whereas critics contend it is damaging to inmate mental health. Despite the increase in academic attention over the last decade, there is much that remains unknown about the uses and effects of this practice. This study addresses this gap in knowledge by content-analyzing the administrative segregation policies of 48 state and federal prison systems. The results provide evidence of consistency and discrepancy across key elements of these policies, including placement criteria and review procedures. Findings further highlight how basic information regarding mental health provisions and conditions of confinement are missing from a substantial number of policies. This investigation emphasizes a need for more governmental accountability and transparency in the use of this correctional policy and identifies several areas for future research.

Views From the Inside: Insights About Restrictive Housing From Prison System Officials, Officers, and Staff

“…At the same time, it underscores that additional study is needed to map the precise nature and prevalence of restrictive housing types nationally, as well as the diversity of inmates who reside in this housing. This implication has been raised in many accounts of supermax prisons (King, 1999;Kurki & Morris, 2001;Mears, 2013;Naday et al, 2008;Riveland, 1999) and reviews of some aspects of restrictive housing (e.g., CLA-ALCPIL, 2020;Garcia, 2016;Labrecque et al, 2021). Nonetheless, the current study illustrates the issues that make it difficult to ensure that discussions of restrictive housing involve apples-to-apples comparisons and appropriate generalizations.…”

What Do We Really Know About the Prevalence of Restrictive Housing? Illuminating the “Dark Figure” of the Most Extreme Forms of Incarceration

“…This situation presents several problems, such as the risk of misgeneralizing about a study of one type of RH to another (Labrecque et al, 2021; Mears et al, 2019). If, for example, a study finds that DC occurs frequently, it would not mean that long-term solitary confinement for management purposes occurs as often.…”

“…One limitation is that many prior prevalence estimates rely on surveys of reported RH use rather than administrative records detailing actual housing practices. A second is that few studies distinguish between types of RH (Labrecque et al, 2021). For example, many accounts mention protective custody and DC when discussing RH (e.g., Garcia, 2016; Shalev, 2009) but blend the two when describing the nature of this housing, its use, and its impacts.…”

“…By most accounts, this housing goes beyond traditional maximum-security housing in having a variety of goals, such as punishment for infractions or management of individuals deemed to be especially violent or disruptive. It can also impose a range of restrictions, including the potential for single-cell confinement, being confined to a cell for up to 24 hours per day, and having few privileges (Labrecque et al, 2021; Mears et al, 2019; Shalev, 2009). The United States has always relied on different types of what might be called RH (N.…”

“…Accordingly, this study seeks to respond to scholars’ calls to examine the contours of the get-tough era in contemporary corrections and, in particular, to illuminate the range of RH and to understand its nature and prevalence (see, generally, Frost & Monteiro, 2016; Labrecque et al, 2021; Mears et al, 2019; Naday et al, 2008). Shedding light on the “dark figure” of an extreme housing that has garnered considerable critique can help to highlight prison system reliance on diverse types of RH, the risks of generalizing from studies of one housing type to another, and policy considerations that may attend to the housing.…”