The Effects of Administrative Segregation

Abstract

This essay considers debate over the extent to which some inmates should be isolated from others within prison, the impact of isolation on psychological well-being during confinement, and the implications for supermax prisons with 23-hour lockdown. The need for administrative segregation and solitary confinement is assessed in the context of improving the safety of individual inmates as well as preventing collective violence. These ideas are contrasted with the downside of isolation, including the possibility of compounding problems with existing mental illnesses, the development of “new” psychological problems during confinement, increased demands for psychological and psychiatric resources, and the problems posed for successful re-entry. However, contrary to some scholarly discourses, evidence to date suggests that administrative segregation does not produce dramatic negative psychological effects unless extreme conditions apply.

Prison System Versus Critics’ Views on the Use of Restrictive Housing: Objective Risk Classification or Ascriptive Assignment?

“…Knowledge about such use would establish a foundation on which assessments of impact could proceed. It also would facilitate studies that compare the relative effectiveness of restrictive housing to other approaches—such as treatment and counseling—in achieving specific prison system goals, such as protection, punishment, and management of inmates and creation of greater system-wide safety and order (Butler et al, 2017; Gendreau & Labrecque, 2018; Mears, 2013; Shalev, 2009).…”

“…Inmates in restrictive housing, regardless of what these settings are called or why prison officials place inmates in them, typically are confined to a single cell for 22 to 24 hr per day and are further subjected to increased cell restrictions and heightened security procedures (Browne, Cambier, & Agha, 2011; Metcalf et al, 2013). Although these inmates may be granted limited access to education, vocation, visitation, recreation, and other services available to the general prison population (Gendreau & Labrecque, 2018), failure to comply with institutional rules can and does reduce or eliminate such access (Kurki & Morris, 2001; Shalev, 2009).…”

The psychological impact of solitary: A longitudinal comparison of general population and long‐term administratively segregated male inmates

“…Further, Morgan et al . () highlighted two primary limitations in the existing AS literature that prevent any concrete conclusions from being drawn: (1) studies to date examined inmates with limited time spent in AS (i.e., across all included studies inmates spent 1 year or less in AS), and (2) a lack of pre–post testing to rule out the presence of psychological impairment and/or behavioural problems prior to AS placement (see also Gendreau & Goggin, ; Gendreau & Labrecque, ; Suedfeld et al ., ). The purpose of this study, then, was to continue investigating the effects resulting from the use of AS by focusing on inmates who served longer terms in AS and using pre–post measures to provide a pre‐AS baseline from which to examine effects of AS.…”

Ensnarement During Imprisonment

“…Scholars have argued that disciplinary segregation can aggravate psychological problems, which in turn could potentially reduce access to prosocial opportunities upon release from prison (e.g., Fellner and Mariner, ; Haney, ; Kupers, ; Lovell, ; Toch, ). However, some evidence refutes this contention suggesting that the structural characteristics associated with disciplinary segregation do not aggravate psychological problems but potentially result in the inability to maintain employment, peer‐networks, and educational goals upon release into the community as a function of reduced access to rehabilitative programming (Gendreau and Lebreque, ).…”