Assessing the Impact of Time Spent in Restrictive Housing Confinement on Subsequent Measures of Institutional Adjustment Among Men in Prison

Abstract

Proponents of restrictive housing argue that its use is an effective deterrent of antisocial behavior, while its critics maintain that the setting causes serious psychological damage and increases noncompliance with institutional rules and expectations. Unfortunately, few studies exist that examine the influence of restrictive housing on behavioral outcomes. This investigation adds to this gap in knowledge by assessing the impact of time spent in restrictive housing confinement on subsequent measures of institutional adjustment among men in prison. Logistic regression analyses reveal no statistically significant relationships between the number of days spent in restrictive housing and subsequent measures of institutional misconduct, and uncover a small, but significant, negative relationship with subsequent placement in restrictive housing. The research and policy implications of these results are discussed.

Disciplinary Segregation’s Effects on Inmate Behavior: Institutional and Community Outcomes

“…Our findings replicate other studies showing inmate segregation does not substantively affect inmates' subsequent infractions or reconvictions once in the community (e.g., Clark & Duwe, 2017;Labrecque, 2019;Lucas & Jones, 2017;Morris, 2016).…”

“…Finally, we excluded inmates with a designated mental health condition as their cognitive abilities were potentially mismatched with the rationality assumptions of deterrence theory. While this may have introduced some bias into our findings (recent research shows that inmates with psychological problems comprise up to 30% of inmates in some restrictive Beck, 2015); the results of our study are consistent with those of similar research designs including mentally ill offenders (e.g., Clark & Duwe, 2017;Labrecque, 2019Labrecque, , 2015 as well as those that did not include these offenders (e.g., Lucas & Jones, 2017;Mears & Bales, 2009;Morris, 2016). Prior research indicates that the greater the methodological rigor of study designs assessing solitary confinement and subsequent inmate behavior, the weaker its effects (Morgan et al, 2016) and our results are consistent with this finding.…”

“…Drawing on studies suggesting a deleterious effect on offenders' physical and mental health (Arrigo & Bullock, 2008;Haney, 2018;Haney, 2003;Haney & Lynch, 1997), scholars have initiated new studies to more thoroughly examine the effects of isolation on offenders in correctional institutions (Browne, Cambier, & Agha, 2011). We assessed the short-term and long-term effects of DS on institutional and community outcomes among a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 (Huebner, 2003;Labrecque, 2015Labrecque, , 2019Lucas & Jones, 2017;Morris, 2016). In terms of institutional behavior, being older, African-American, participating in visits with family, and participating in rehabilitation and jobs programming reduced the odds of committing a violent infraction over time; possession of a drug history increased those odds.…”

“…Systematic empirical study of shorter-term stays in SC on subsequent inmate misconduct is also a relatively recent development in the corrections literature (e.g., Huebner, 2003;Labrecque 2019Labrecque , 2015Lucas & Jones, 2017;Morris, 2016). Generally speaking, studies assessing short-term isolation on subsequent inmate misconduct show a null effect.…”

Shedding Light on “the Hole”: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Adverse Psychological Effects and Mortality Following Solitary Confinement in Correctional Settings

“…However, there is a shortage of empirical evidence demonstrating that SC truly accomplishes these aims (4). In fact, studies have shown that SC fails to reduce institutional misconduct in inmates (3,(9)(10)(11)(12)(13) and could even increase said misconduct (3,14). SC has also been associated with an increase in subsequent recidivism or rule-breaking in community (15)(16)(17) and might therefore have adverse effects which outlive incarceration.…”