U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

Restrictive Housing in the U.S.

Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

810 Seventh St. N.W. 

Washington, DC 20531 

Loretta E. Lynch 

Attorney General 

Karol V. Mason 

Assistant Attorney General 

Nancy Rodriguez, Ph.D. 

Director, National Institute of Justice 

This and other publications and products of the 

National Institute of Justice can be found at: 

National Institute of Justice 

Strengthen Science • Advance Justice 

http://www.NIJ.gov 

Office of Justice Programs 

Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods 

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov 

The National Institute of Justice is the research, development and evaluation agency of the U.S. 

Department of Justice. NIJ’s mission is to advance scientific research, development and evaluation 

to enhance the administration of justice and public safety. 

The National Institute of Justice is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also 

includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance; the Bureau of Justice Statistics; the Office for Victims 

of Crime; the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; and the Office of Sex 

Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking. 

Opinions or conclusions expressed in this volume are those of the authors and do not necessarily 

reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

Photo Source: © Masterfile 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.

Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions

November 2016

NCJ 250315

Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • i 

CONTENTS 

Introduction .................................................................................. iii
 

About the Authors ........................................................................ ix
 

Chapter 1: Administrative Segregation In U.S. Prisons................. 1
 

Chapter 2: The Use of Administrative Segregation and 


Its Function in the Institutional Setting........................................ 49
 

Chapter 3: The Conditions of Confinement in 


Restrictive Housing ..................................................................... 85
 

Chapter 4: Gang Affiliation and Restrictive
 

Housing in U.S. Prisons ............................................................ 117
 

Chapter 5: The Relationship Between Inmate Misconduct, 


Institutional Violence, and Administrative Segregation ............. 165
 

Chapter 6: Mental Health Effects of Restrictive Housing.......... 199
 

Chapter 7: Critical Research Gaps in Understanding 


the Effects of Prolonged Time in Restrictive Housing 

on Inmates and the Institutional Environment........................... 233
 

Chapter 8: The Effect of Administrative Segregation on 


Prison Order and Organizational Culture................................... 297
 

Chapter 9: Toward an Understanding of 


“What Works” in Segregation.................................................... 331
 

Chapter 10: Restricted Housing and Legal Issues.................... 367
 
ii • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • iii 

Introduction 

Nancy Rodriguez, Ph.D. 

For almost 50 years, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) has invested 

in high-quality, high-impact research across disciplines to build 

knowledge that serves the needs of criminal justice professionals. 

Put simply, our mission as the science agency within the Department of 

Justice (DOJ) is to solve real-world crime and justice problems. 

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. As Director of NIJ, I’ve had the privilege of outlining and supporting 

research in key priority areas. Since arriving at NIJ, my commitment has 

remained the same: to make strategic research investments in areas that directly 

address the needs of the criminal justice field. 

Mass incarceration and its impact on individuals, families, and communities will 

continue to be a focus of inquiry as we revisit its role and function in our society. 

NIJ is proud to have supported the National Academies’ report, The Growth of 

Incarceration in the United States: Exploring Causes and Consequences, which 
iv • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

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. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • v 

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. 

The volume begins with Natasha Frost and Carlos Monteiro presenting a 

historical overview of the use and effects of administrative segregation. Frost and 

Monteiro discuss how terminology used to describe administrative segregation 

policies and practices varies greatly across jurisdictions, making it difficult to 

compare and monitor the use and impact of this strategy. The authors point 

to how the increased use of solitary confinement, as opposed to more general 

segregation, has brought the greatest legal and ethical concerns from the 

field, especially as it involves youth, gang members, and the mentally ill. They 

outline the challenges in conducting research on restrictive housing and how to 

overcome them to conduct research in this space. 

The next chapter in the volume, written by Ryan Labrecque, focuses on two 

integral elements of administrative segregation: its use and function within 

correctional institutions. Labrecque conveys that in order to understand whether 

administrative segregation is an effective strategy for reducing crime and violence 

and increasing safety, we need to better understand how this practice is used to 

manage and control individuals in correctional facilities. His chapter presents the 

limitations of the current empirical research and makes recommendations for 

future research. 
vi • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

In the following chapter, Holly Foster presents a thorough synthesis and 

critique of the literature on the conditions of confinement in restrictive 

housing. Foster discusses the role that litigation has played in uncovering and 

addressing concerns raised over the conditions of confinement in restrictive 

housing. She outlines that additional information about the conditions across 

different types of restrictive housing practices (i.e., punitive, administrative, 

and protective segregation) will better inform just and humane policies 

and practices. Foster discusses how the general population of incarcerated 

individuals, their families, and society at large may benefit from further 

research in this area given the spillover effects of restrictive housing as well as 

individuals’ eventual return to communities. 

The volume also includes a chapter by David Pyrooz who places theoretical and 

practical focus on an important element of prison life: gangs. Pyrooz outlines 

the role that gangs play in prison violence and misconduct, and establishes that 

restrictive housing is the most common practice used to remove gang affiliates 

from the general population. While various strategies have been implemented to 

maintain control and order and develop programming as it relates to gangs and 

gang affiliates, Pyrooz notes that there is no evidence that any of these strategies 

are effective. The author highlights the role that hunger strikes at Pelican Bay, 

the Ashker v. California class-action lawsuit in 2012, and the resulting settlement 

in 2015 have played in bringing attention to this important subpopulation of 

incarcerated individuals. 

In Benjamin Steiner and Calli Cain’s chapter, the focus moves to institutional 

violence and misconduct, that is, how acts of violence and misconduct threaten 

the safety and order of an institution and how administrative segregation is used 

to address institutional violence and misconduct. To date, few scholars have 

examined whether administrative segregation is overwhelmingly used to address 

violent or at-risk individuals and whether administrative segregation actually 

achieves its goal of reducing individuals’ problematic behavior. The authors 

present a comprehensive review of the research on the use and behavioral effects 

of administrative segregation. Importantly, they highlight the leading theories 

used to explain why administrative segregation is used and the most common 

elements that predict its use. 

Reena Kapoor and Robert Trestman’s chapter continues the discussion by 

addressing another important element of restrictive housing, that is, the role 

of mental health and the availability of mental health treatment. Kapoor and 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • vii 

Trestman present the latest scientific knowledge on the relationship between 

mental health and restrictive housing from a variety of disciplines, including 

the medical, legal, and social and behavioral sciences. At the core of their review 

is establishing whether restrictive housing causes psychological harm. The 

authors focus on various behavioral outcomes including suicides, psychiatric 

hospitalizations, institutional misconduct, and post-traumatic stress disorder. 

The authors also place this work within the context of consensus statements of 

major mental health professional organizations and provide insight on future 

research directions. 

In the next chapter, Daniel Mears and Mark Stafford review research on the 

effects of prolonged time in restrictive housing on individuals and on the 

institutional environment of correctional systems. The authors argue that any 

policy discussion on restrictive housing centers on understanding (1) under 

which circumstances it is appropriate to use restrictive housing, (2) whether its 

use leads to improved outcomes for individuals and the broader institution, (3) 

and when it is inappropriate and produces adverse effects. Mears and Stafford 

conclude that the evidence base that establishes the effectiveness of restrictive 

housing is very thin. In fact, the lack of consistent findings from existing research 

has shown that there may be benefits to its use, including improved behavioral 

outcomes, as well as harms such as worsened mental health or increased 

recidivism. The authors conclude by identifying prominent gaps in research that 

need attention. 

The chapter by Jody Sundt applies an organizational perspective to examining the 

effects and the use of administrative segregation. The author presents research on 

the effectiveness of administrative segregation as a management strategy as well 

as its effect on prison organizational culture. Sundt outlines a research agenda 

to develop knowledge around how to use this correctional strategy to maintain 

secure and humane institutions. The organizational and management framework 

provides an important theoretical perspective to better understanding the effects 

of this practice. 

Paula Smith’s chapter discusses the availability of programming and re-entryfocused services in restrictive housing. The author presents the challenge in 

balancing the need to provide effective treatment to disruptive individuals in 

crowded settings with maintaining safety and control within the institution. 

Restrictive housing is presented as one of several options in a continuum 

of placement options within institutions. In the end, identifying the most 
viii • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

effective ways to ensure that programming and a long-term treatment plan for 

all individuals who are incarcerated is vital. Guidelines and best practices for 

correctional agencies, such as the one presented in the DOJ’s 2016 Report and 

Recommendations Concerning the Use of Restrictive Housing, provide a start. 

This volume concludes with Fred Cohen’s legal analysis of the use of restrictive 

housing in correctional facilities throughout the country. The analysis includes 

discussions on the due process implications of disciplinary segregation, 

administrative segregation, and protective custody, as well as the Eighth and 14th 

Amendments and how they apply to the use of restrictive housing. Cohen also 

presents the legal implications of the conditions and duration of confinement, 

youth in restrictive housing, and the confinement of the mentally ill. This 

particular chapter thoroughly presents the significant court decisions in this area 

and outlines the impact they have had on the current practice. 

In sum, these chapters provide a comprehensive look at what we currently know 

about the use of restrictive housing in U.S. correctional facilities and the effects 

of this practice on incarcerated individuals, corrections staff, and the institution 

as a whole. Just as important is what this work tells us about what we do not know 

about this practice, its effects, and potential alternatives. As a collection, these 

chapters enable us to develop a future research agenda to further expand our 

knowledge of this important correctional strategy and identify evidence-based 

solutions to the challenges currently presented by restrictive housing. 

A volume of this breadth would not be possible without the concerted effort of 

many people. I want to thank the attendees of NIJ’s two-day restrictive housing 

convening. These experts were generous with their time and knowledge, and 

they helped build the foundation of this effort. My sincere appreciation goes 

to the contributing authors because of their insight, expertise, and dedication 

to this important issue. Finally, this volume would not exist without the steady 

guidance of Marie Garcia. This work was her inspiration, and her hard work and 

dedication made it possible. 

NIJ remains committed to investing in high-quality, multidisciplinary science to 

address the challenges faced by policymakers and criminal justice professionals 

working within corrections. I hope readers find this volume both informative 

and helpful in providing potential ways forward on the use and impact of 

restrictive housing. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • ix 

About the Authors 

Marie Garcia 

Marie Garcia, Ph.D., the editor of this volume, is a social science analyst in the 

Justice Systems Research Division at the National Institute of Justice (NIJ). Dr. 

Garcia earned her doctorate in criminal justice from Temple University, where 

her research focused on the impact of disorganization and crime on levels of 

trust in Philadelphia, communities and crime, and institutional corrections. Dr. 

Garcia’s NIJ research portfolio has focused on justice systems, special offender 

populations, offender re-entry, and institutional and community corrections. 

Prior to NIJ, Dr. Garcia worked as a mental health counselor at Valley State 

Prison for Women in Chowchilla, California. Her writing has appeared in Justice 

Quarterly, Criminology & Public Policy, The Journal of Research on Crime and 

Delinquency, The Journal of Family and Marriage, and Criminology. 

Calli M. Cain 

Calli M. Cain is a graduate student in the School of Criminology and Criminal 

Justice at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. Her primary research interests 

include women and crime, with an emphasis on human trafficking, corrections, 

and juvenile delinquency. 
x • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Fred Cohen 

Fred Cohen is a graduate of Yale Law School and professor emeritus at the State 

University of New York at Albany, School of Criminal Justice, for which he is one 

of the original founders. He is the executive editor of the Correctional Law Reporter 

and the Correctional Mental Health Reporter, and he is the author of A Practical 

Guide to Correctional Mental Health and the Law. Mr. Cohen served as a reporter 

to the American Bar Association (ABA)–Institute of Judicial Administration’s 

Juvenile Justice Standards Project and assisted in drafting the current ABA 

Standards for Corrections. He provided testimony on solitary confinement at 

U.S. Senate hearings in 2012 and 2014 and has testified before other federal 

commissions on solitary confinement. Mr. Cohen is plaintiff ’s expert-monitor in 

Rudisill v. Ryan (a civil rights case in Arizona), overseeing racial and ethnic prison 

integration, and he works with the Jesuit Social Research Institute on bringing 

human rights norms and training to private correction facilities. 

Holly Foster 

Holly Foster, Ph.D., is an associate professor in the Department of Sociology 

at Texas A&M University. Her research focuses on the effects of parental 

incarceration on children, women’s imprisonment, and children’s exposure to 

violence. Dr. Foster’s research interests include crime and deviance, the life 

course, social inequality, families, and children and youth. She teaches courses in 

criminology and gender and crime, as well as a graduate seminar on crime and 

the life course. 

Natasha A. Frost 

Natasha A. Frost, Ph.D., is associate dean of graduate studies in the College 

of Social Sciences and Humanities, and is an associate professor in the School 

of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Northeastern University in Boston, 

Massachusetts. Dr. Frost holds a Ph.D. in criminal justice from the City 

University of New York’s Graduate Center. Her most recent research on mass 

incarceration has focused on the effects of incarceration on individuals, families, 

and communities, and on the well-being of those who work in correctional 

facilities. She is the co-author of The Punishment Imperative: The Rise and Failure 

of Mass Incarceration in America. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • xi 

Reena Kapoor 

Reena Kapoor, M.D., is associate professor of psychiatry at Yale School of 

Medicine’s Law and Psychiatry Division, and serves as associate program 

director for the Yale Forensic Psychiatry Fellowship program. She earned her 

M.D. at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine, completed her 

residency in psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, and was the recipient of a 

forensic psychiatry fellowship at Yale. Dr. Kapoor’s clinical work and scholarship 

is focused on the intersection between serious mental illness and the criminal 

justice system, and she has expertise in correctional psychiatry, community 

treatment of persons with criminal justice involvement, and management of 

problematic sexual behaviors. She has lectured widely on forensic psychiatry 

and holds leadership positions in several professional organizations, including 

serving as Connecticut’s representative to the American Psychiatric Association 

Assembly and president of the Connecticut Psychiatric Society. Dr. Kapoor 

co-founded the Community Forensics committee of the American Academy of 

Psychiatry and the Law and is president-elect of the International Association for 

Forensic Psychotherapy. 

Ryan M. Labrecque 

Ryan M. Labrecque, Ph.D., is an assistant professor in the Criminology and 

Criminal Justice Department at Portland State University. He earned his Ph.D. 

in criminal justice at the University of Cincinnati and was the recipient of a 2014 

Graduate Research Fellowship award from NIJ for his dissertation, “The Effect of 

Solitary Confinement on Institutional Misconduct: A Longitudinal Evaluation.” 

His research interests focus on the evaluation of correctional interventions, 

effects of prison life, development of risk and needs assessments for community 

and institutional corrections settings, and transfer of knowledge to practitioners 

and policymakers. Dr. Labrecque has published a number of articles, book 

chapters, and conference presentations. Prior to undertaking his doctoral studies, 

Ryan was a probation and parole officer in Maine. 

Daniel P. Mears 

Daniel P. Mears, Ph.D., is the Mark C. Stafford Professor of Criminology at 

Florida State University’s College of Criminology and Criminal Justice. He 
xii • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

conducts basic and applied research on crime, criminal justice, and corrections, 

including studies funded by foundations and state and federal agencies. His 

work has appeared in a wide variety of journals and in American Criminal Justice 

Policy, which won the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences’ outstanding book 

award. He also co-authored Prisoner Reentry in the Era of Mass Incarceration. 

Carlos E. Monteiro 

Carlos E. Monteiro, Ph.D., is a senior research associate at the Institute of 

Race and Justice at Northeastern University. Dr. Monteiro earned his Ph.D. 

in criminology and justice policy at Northeastern University. With combined 

expertise in education and criminal justice policy, Dr. Monteiro’s research 

interests center on the factors affecting access to, and quality of, education for 

young adults of color. His scholarly interests are tied to race, ethnicity, and 

educational access, and, in particular, how those factors interact to produce 

disparate outcomes across the criminal justice system. 

David C. Pyrooz 

David C. Pyrooz, Ph.D., earned his doctorate in criminology and criminal 

justice at Arizona State University. He is the recipient of a 2011 graduate research 

fellowship award from NIJ and is the author of Confronting Gangs: Crime and 

Community. His current research projects involve tracking the patterning of gang 

membership across the life course, meta-analyzing the consequences of gang 

membership, and understanding the victim-offender overlap. 

Paula Smith 

Paula Smith, Ph.D., is an associate professor at the University of Cincinnati 

School of Criminal Justice. She received her doctorate in psychology from the 

University of New Brunswick, Saint John. Dr. Smith’s research interests include 

meta-analysis, assessment of offender treatment and deterrence programs, 

development of risk and need assessments for clinicians and managers in prisons 

and community corrections, effects of prison life, and the transfer of knowledge 

to practitioners and policymakers. She has published numerous articles, book 

chapters, and conference presentations on the above topics and has directed 

numerous federal- and state-funded research projects — including studies 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • xiii 

of prisons, community-based correctional programs, juvenile drug courts, 

probation and parole departments, and mental health services. 

Benjamin Steiner 

Benjamin Steiner, Ph.D., is an associate professor of criminology and criminal 

justice at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. He earned his doctorate at the 

University of Cincinnati. Dr. Steiner’s research interests focus on issues related 

to juvenile justice, and institutional and community corrections. Dr. Steiner has 

published more than 50 journal articles and book entries related to these topics 

and is a co-author of Criminal Justice Case Briefs: Significant Cases in Juvenile 

Justice. He has consulted with the Iowa Department of Corrections, the Kentucky 

Department of Corrections, the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services, the 

Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 

and NIJ. Dr. Steiner has testified on evidence-based practices in corrections and the 

deterrent effects of direct file transfer laws to various government entities. 

Jody L. Sundt 

Jody L. Sundt is an assistant professor of criminal justice at Indiana University. 

She earned her Ph.D. at the University of Cincinnati. Dr. Sundt has published 

in the areas of correctional policy, religion in prison, offender change, public 

attitudes toward punishment, and white collar crime. Her work has appeared in 

several journals, including Criminology, Justice Quarterly, Crime and Delinquency, 

Criminal Justice and Behavior, the Journal of Criminal Justice, and The Prison 

Journal. Her current research focuses on the occupational experiences of 

correctional officers, the effectiveness of supermax prisons, and religious coping 

and attribution. 

Robert L. Trestman 

Robert L. Trestman, M.D., Ph.D., is a professor of medicine, psychiatry, and 

nursing and is executive director of Correctional Managed Health Care at 

UConn Health. Dr. Trestman earned his Ph.D. in psychology and his M.D. at 

the University of Tennessee, and trained in psychiatry and neurobiology at the 

Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. He has served as clinical vice-chair 

of psychiatry at the Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York and at UConn 
xiv • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Health. Dr. Trestman has studied the neurobiology and treatment of people with 

severe mood and personality disorders, and conducts translational research on 

correctional health. He has published more than 100 articles and book chapters; 

serves as consultant to the National Institute of Mental Health, the Substance 

Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, and several branches of the 

U.S. Department of Justice; and is chair of the American Academy of Psychiatry 

and the Law research committee. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 1 

CHAPTER 1 

Administrative Segregation 

In U.S. Prisons 

Natasha A. Frost, Ph.D., & Carlos E. Monteiro, Ph.D. 

Northeastern University 

Introduction 

On September 1, 2015, newspapers across the country announced that 

a settlement agreement had been reached between the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and 

inmates incarcerated at Pelican Bay State Prison, one of the most well-known 

supermaximum (supermax) security facilities in the country (St. John, 2015). 

The settlement agreement, which should result in the return of close to 2,000 

inmates from supermax confinement back to the general prison population, is 

expected to end CDCR’s practices of indefinitely housing inmates in supermax 

confinement and of routinely incarcerating those with suspected gang 

affiliations in solitary confinement. Although California’s practice of confining 

gang members in administrative segregation is certainly not the norm around 

the country, long-term segregation in restrictive housing is more common. 

The California settlement was announced amid a more general and growing 

concern about the practice of solitary or near-solitary confinement through 

administrative segregation. 

In a July 2015 speech before the National Association for the Advancement of 

Colored People (NAACP), President Barack Obama questioned the practice of 
2 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

solitary confinement by calling for a Department of Justice investigation into its 

use across the United States: 

I’ve asked my Attorney General to start a review of the overuse of solitary 

confinement across American prisons. The social science shows that an 

environment like that is often more likely to make inmates more alienated, more 

hostile, potentially more violent. Do we really think it makes sense to lock so many 

people alone in tiny cells for 23 hours a day, sometimes for months or even years 

at a time? That is not going to make us safer. That’s not going to make us stronger. 

And if those individuals are ultimately released, how are they ever going to adapt? 

It’s not smart. (White House Office of the Press Secretary, 2015)1 

President Obama is not alone in his reservations about the practice. Supreme 

Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has repeatedly made clear his concern about 

solitary confinement across several venues, including by using largely unrelated 

cases to question the policies of long-term solitary confinement (Liptak, 2015). 

In May 2015, the United Nations (U.N.) passed the Mandela Rules, which 

represent the first modification to the U.N.’s standards for the treatment of 

prisoners in 60 years (United Nations, 2015a). Rule 43 of the Mandela Rules 

prohibits both indefinite solitary confinement and prolonged solitary confinement 

(defined as lasting more than 15 days) (United Nations, 2015b). Human Rights 

Watch, Amnesty International, and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) 

have each published reports condemning the use of solitary confinement for both 

juvenile and adult correctional populations (American Civil Liberties Union, 

2014; Amnesty International, 2012; Human Rights Watch, 2000; Human Rights 

Watch & American Civil Liberties Union, 2012). Individual state ACLU chapters 

have published fairly scathing critiques of more localized practices, for example, 

in Colorado and Texas (Butler & Simpson, 2015; Wallace, 2013). The perspective 

of these advocacy organizations is clear and unapologetic: They seek an end 

to the practice of solitary confinement in juvenile correctional settings and 

extensive restrictions on its use among adult correctional populations. 

There is growing concern across the political spectrum about the efficacy 

and utility of administrative segregation practices — particularly those that 

involve extended solitary confinement — and growing support for finding 

ways to safely reduce its use across correctional systems. In 2006, the bipartisan 

Commission on Safety and Abuse in America’s Prisons, co-chaired by thenchief judge of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, John J. Gibbons, and the 

former U.S. Attorney General, Nicholas de B. Katzenbach, noted that the rapid 

1 Although President Obama has called for a Department of Justice review of solitary confinement practices 

nationally, two recent and substantial inquiries were made into the federal use of administrative segregation 

(Baker & Goode, 2015). In May 2013, the U.S. Government Accountability Office issued its report on the use 

of segregated confinement across the federal prison system (United States Government Accountability Office, 

2013). After the publication of that report, the CNA Institute for Public Research, with the cooperation of the 

Federal Bureau of Prisons, conducted an independent assessment (McGinnis et al., 2014). 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 3 

increase in the use of solitary confinement across the country had outpaced the 

remarkable growth in overall correctional populations (Gibbons & Katzenbach, 

2006). The Commission deemed solitary confinement both expensive and 

counterproductive, and recommended limiting its use. After the publication of 

the Commission’s Confronting Confinement report, research organizations also 

turned their attention to solitary confinement. Researchers at the Vera Institute 

of Justice recently published a report on solitary confinement, identifying 

what they describe as 10 common misperceptions about solitary confinement 

(Shames, Wilcox, & Subramanian, 2015). Among those misconceptions are the 

common beliefs that segregated housing deters violence and misbehavior and 

that segregation helps keep prisons and jails safer. The Vera Institute of Justice 

(Shames, Wilcox, & Subramanian, 2015) has also launched the Segregation 

Reduction Project, partnering with four states (Illinois, Maryland, New Mexico, 

and Pennsylvania) to assess the criteria for placement in segregation with the 

explicit goal of reducing the use of segregation across those states. Several other 

states, including Arizona, California, Colorado, Indiana, Michigan, Nebraska, 

New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Wisconsin, have already begun working to 

reduce the number of inmates in administrative segregation, with more states 

passing reforms related to the use of solitary confinement in 2014 than in the 

previous 16 years combined (Hager & Rich, 2014). 

Although the spotlight seems to be shining especially brightly at this moment, 

the practice of solitary confinement has a long and storied history in corrections. 

Some of the earliest American correctional facilities — the early Quaker-inspired 

penitentiaries in Pennsylvania — were built on a model of extended solitary 

confinement intended to bring about penitence (Rothman, 1971/1990). Although 

the “Pennsylvania model” was abandoned relatively quickly in favor of a model 

based on the more congregate style of confinement that is still prominent, the 

use of solitary confinement — usually for behavioral control and management 

— never went away. All correctional systems (including those for men, women, 

and juveniles) have cells or units and, in some cases, entire facilities designed 

to isolate some inmates in more restrictive housing units for administrative 

purposes. Segregated confinement in restrictive housing units is sometimes 

solitary. Whether they involve complete solitary confinement or not, restrictive 

housing units are intended to offer a more secure housing alternative for those 

who cannot be safe toward others, kept safe, or adequately controlled in the 

traditional congregate correctional setting. 

Within correctional contexts, the terms used to describe segregation policies and 

practices vary greatly across jurisdictions. Although they represent conceptually 

distinct practices, it is difficult to separate the literature on disciplinary 

segregation from the literature on administrative segregation because researchers 

have tended to study solitary confinement without carefully distinguishing 

the various types of restrictive housing units. As a result, this paper does not 

use “administrative segregation” as an umbrella term, instead opting for either 

segregation or segregation in restricted housing. Where possible, the paper 
4 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

distinguishes between solitary confinement through disciplinary segregation and 

solitary confinement through administrative segregation. The former refers to 

short-term confinement after a specific infraction, and the latter refers to longterm classification to a supermax unit or facility within a correctional system. 

Most of the paper’s early discussion focuses on administrative segregation 

(rather than disciplinary segregation), but when the paper begins discussing the 

empirical research, it refers more broadly to the practice of solitary confinement 

(whether in disciplinary or administrative segregation units). Although not all 

units and facilities used for disciplinary and administrative segregation follow 

a strict regimen of solitary confinement, this paper primarily describes the 

empirical research that has been conducted in settings that do follow such a 

regimen, as it is clearly solitary confinement that most troubles those who have 

expressed grave concerns about correctional segregation policies. 

Brief History of Administrative Segregation 

Developed as a strategy for separating problematic inmates from the general 

population, administrative segregation is one of two dominant behavioralcontrol models used by correctional administrators to address any number 

of challenges that accompanied the rapid growth of prison populations 

(Hershberger, 1998; Riveland, 1999). The dispersion and consolidation models 

represent contrasting strategies for handling inmates who are perceived to pose 

significant security challenges to the correctional system. Administrators using 

the dispersion model manage inmates through a divide-and-conquer approach, 

attempting to limit the impact of problematic inmates by dispersing them 

throughout the correctional system. Dispersion avoids the concentration of 

inmates classified as disruptive or unruly in one location, thereby allowing staff 

to control disorder more effectively throughout the system (Pizarro & Stenius, 

2004). Conversely, consolidation, an approach more aligned with contemporary 

administrative segregation practices, consolidates disruptive or unruly inmates 

in highly restrictive settings. The presumed benefits of the consolidation model 

lie in its efficiency in directing resources toward a central location, be it a unit or 

stand-alone facility that can house individuals and groups identified as a threat to 

institutional security (Hershberger, 1998). 

Historical accounts indicate that correctional administrators have alternated 

between these two approaches. The federal prison at Alcatraz, for example, 

operated under the consolidation model, housing some of America’s most 

notorious and disruptive offenders for most of the early 1900s (Pizarro & Stenius, 

2004). When Alcatraz shut its doors in 1963 with no viable alternative location 

for consolidation, the inmates from Alcatraz were dispersed throughout the 

federal prison system. The federal system’s return to the dispersion model, 

however, was short-lived because of increasing violence within the system 

between 1970 and 1980. After the rate of assaults escalated throughout the 

Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) facilities, the federal prison in Marion, 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 5 

Illinois, was modified for increased security and became the first level-6 

supermax facility in the United States (Ward & Werlich, 2003). Intended as a 

replacement for Alcatraz, the high-security prison at Marion gradually became 

the preferred facility not only for BOP’s most problematic inmates but also for 

inmates perceived to represent a grave threat to institutional security across 

state correctional systems. In other words, Marion rapidly became the go-to 

institution for housing the “worst of the worst” (Richards, 2008). 

Although the increase in prison violence troubled correctional administrators, 

correctional historians often point to the 1983 killing of two correctional 

officers at Marion as the trigger for the revival of total lockdown units and 

facilities (King, 1999; Pizarro & Stenius, 2004). In the immediate aftermath of 

those killings, Marion administrators rapidly reintroduced highly restrictive 

procedures, beginning with the immediate removal of inmates’ personal 

property from individual cells, followed by the placement of severe restrictions 

on inmates’ movements within the prison, the use of handcuffs whenever an 

inmate was not in the cell area, and increased use of solitary confinement (King, 

Steiner, & Breach, 2008). Although the conditions at Marion sparked immediate 

pushback from prisoner rights groups, the use of control units received judicial 

endorsement when, in Bruscino v. Carlson, a federal court opined that BOP had 

not violated inmates’ constitutional rights (Olivero & Roberts, 1987). Eventually, 

the U.S. Supreme Court’s denial of the petition for writ of certiorari in Bruscino 

only strengthened the sense among correctional administrators that the courts 

had formally sanctioned the use and expansion of control units similar to those 

at Marion. In the aftermath of these court decisions, supermax-style facilities, 

such as the security housing unit at Pelican Bay that opened in 1989, became 

models for correctional jurisdictions across the country (Bosworth, 2004; King, 

1991; Romano, 1996). 

Contemporary Use of Administrative Segregation 

Since the 1980s, entire facilities in both the state and federal correctional 

systems have been constructed with isolation and segregation as their central 

purposes. Commonly referred to as supermax facilities, these units offer 

enhanced security and control, allowing for only minimal contact between 

inmates and staff. Where construction of a new facility was either not necessary 

or not feasible, entire sections of existing facilities were repurposed to segregate 

the inmates deemed the worst of the worst (Butler, Griffin, & Johnson, 2013). 

Although the clear general consensus is that supermax facilities are designed 

to isolate offenders who require the highest and most restrictive security 

classification, there is no universally accepted definition (Fellner & Mariner, 

1997; Henningsen, Johnson, & Wells, 1999; Riveland, 1999). 

The lack of definitional consensus has made collecting information on this type 

of custody (including data on prevalence, goals, objectives, and associated effects) 

difficult. The National Institute of Corrections (NIC) attempted to provide clarity 
6 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

about the practice of supermax incarceration through its 1997 national survey 

of state departments of corrections that focused on supermax-style housing 

(Riveland, 1999). Although the survey results from all 50 state departments 

of corrections offered a rich source of information by identifying more than 

55 functioning supermax facilities or units in 1997, it also demonstrated the 

significant variation across jurisdictions. Some facilities, for example, were 

stand-alones, whereas others were sections or units within existing correctional 

facilities that had been repurposed and retrofitted to meet the strict control needs 

of the supermax model. 

Moreover, across correctional systems, units classified as supermax might be 

referred to as administrative maximum units, administrative segregation units, 

special housing units, secure housing units, segregation units, isolation units, 

close custody units, control units, management units, and adjustment centers, to 

name but a few (Kupers et al., 2009; Naday, Freilich, & Mellow, 2008; National 

Institute of Corrections, 1997). A national survey of state wardens (Mears & 

Castro, 2006) found that more than 95 percent of the state prison wardens 

surveyed agreed that the following modified definition put forth by the NIC was 

accurate: “[A] supermax is a stand-alone unit or part of another facility and is 

designated for violent or disruptive inmates. It typically involves up to 23-hourper-day, single-cell confinement for an indefinite period of time. Inmates in 

supermax housing have minimal contact with staff and other inmates” (p. 40). 

Supermax units and facilities might house inmates being segregated for both 

administrative and disciplinary purposes (Browne, Cambier, & Agha, 2011). 

The lack of definitional clarity gives rise to the first of many challenges 

to conducting research (or interpreting existing research) on segregation 

and solitary confinement in correctional contexts: the use of overlapping 

terminologies for what are sometimes distinct correctional practices. As an 

umbrella term, “segregation” refers to placement in restricted housing for 

disciplinary segregation or protective custody and temporary or long-term 

supermax housing (McGinnis et al., 2014, 2008b; Shames et al., 2015). The 

primary purpose of this practice is to separate and isolate an inmate or certain 

groups of inmates from the general population primarily for security and safety 

within the facility or across the correctional system. 

There are at least three distinct types of segregation: administrative segregation, 

disciplinary segregation, and protective custody (see Shames et al., 2015, p. 4). 

Some inmates are segregated because they are identified as being at high risk 

for victimization. Inmates in protective custody are segregated for their own 

protection — their placement in segregation is sometimes voluntary. Solitary 

confinement for a specified period to punish misbehavior is generally referred 

to as disciplinary or punitive segregation. Disciplinary segregation is typically 

imposed as a sanction following a disciplinary hearing related to a specific 

instance of misconduct. It is crucial to note that disciplinary segregation is a 

form of punishment, so inmates subjected to it are afforded due-process rights 

(O’Keefe, 2008). Administrative segregation is used to separate inmates deemed 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 7 

to pose a significant threat to institutional security from the general population. 

Inmates are often classified or transferred to administrative segregation based 

on patterns of disruptive behavior, security threat group identifications, or 

designation as high-risk inmates. 

In a recent review of segregation policies, Metcalf and colleagues (2013) noted 

that jurisdictions tend to invoke the safety of inmates and staff as well as overall 

institutional security as the primary criteria for placement in administrative 

segregation. In addition to safety and security, many states included more specific 

placement criteria (typically tied to either the offense that triggered the inmate’s 

initial incarceration or the accumulation of disciplinary infractions). Unlike 

disciplinary segregation, which is time-limited, length of stay in administrative 

segregation is typically indefinite and imposed largely at the discretion of 

correctional administrators. Although placement into this often much longerterm form of segregation does not trigger the same due-process rights and 

protections as does placement in disciplinary segregation (O’Keefe, 2008), 

according to a recent review of correctional policies across the United States, 

almost all correctional systems have procedures for review of placements into 

administrative segregation (Metcalf et al., 2013). With several pathways into the 

various restrictive housing units and different trajectories once there, one could 

anticipate substantial variations not only in prevalence but also in psychological 

and behavioral effects on inmates across restrictive housing types. 

Solitary Confinement Versus Administrative Segregation 

Isolation through solitary confinement is prevalent across both administrative 

and disciplinary segregation. Solitary confinement practices vary across 

correctional systems, but a defining feature of current practice is the isolation 

of inmates for 22-24 hours per day in small cells, with minimal contact with 

others, in areas of the facility designed for the purpose of restricting inmates’ 

movement. Other distinct features include reduced natural light; limited artificial 

lighting; little or no access to programming, classes, reading materials, or radio 

and television; and restrictions on visits from friends and family (American Civil 

Liberties Union, 2014). Although researchers tend to be most interested in this 

type of custody, correctional administrators rarely refer to solitary confinement 

in any context, perhaps seeking to avoid the controversy the phrase often 

invokes.2

 Scholars studying psychological and behavioral effects focus almost 

exclusively on solitary confinement, often with little regard for the varying 

contexts in which it occurs. 

2 A good example is BOP, which has refused to acknowledge that it uses solitary confinement. The recent U.S. 

Government Accounting Office report on the federal use of administrative segregation included the following note: 

“According to BOP officials, the BOP does not hold anyone in solitary confinement because BOP staff frequently 

visit inmates held in single-bunked cells alone” (United States Government Accountability Office, 2013, p. 12). 
8 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Prevalence of Administrative Segregation 

Given the paucity of data on solitary confinement through administrative or 

disciplinary segregation, both types are difficult to quantify with any precision. 

Estimates from studies in individual states may not be representative of trends 

more generally. Prevalence estimates vary widely across sources, and many of 

those estimates are dated. Early estimates suggested that somewhere between 

1 percent and 3 percent of the total correctional population was incarcerated 

in highly restrictive administrative segregation units (King, 1999; O’Keefe 

et al., 2011). These data, however, have been criticized as underestimates, as 

prison systems have been accused of failing to report or of underreporting as a 

strategy for avoiding the controversy associated with solitary confinement and 

administrative segregation policies (Naday, Freilich, & Mellow, 2008).3 

As a result of several recent comprehensive reports on the use of administrative 

segregation in federal prisons, some of our most current and best estimates 

of prevalence and cost come from analyses of its use in the federal system 

(McGinnis et al., 2014; United States Government Accountability Office, 2013). 

At the federal level, administrative segregation covers three distinct types of 

restrictive housing (see Appendix Table A1) which BOP refers to as special 

housing units (SHUs), special management units (SMUs), and administrative 

maximums (ADXs). All three types of administrative segregation share the same 

purpose: to separate inmates identified for their disruptive or violent behavior 

in a controlled setting that emphasizes the safety, security, and orderly operation 

of BOP facilities. In the first report, the U.S. Government Accounting Office 

(GAO) (2013) reviewed the use of administrative segregation across the federal 

system. According to the report, 7 percent of all federal inmates in BOP facilities 

are held in administrative segregation. The report notes that most segregated 

inmates in the federal system were in SHUs (81 percent), slightly less than 2,000 

inmates (approximately 16 percent) were in SMUs, and the ADX facility housed 

approximately 450 inmates. The GAO report found that per-capita cost estimates 

for housing inmates in segregation were higher than in nonsegregated or general 

population housing. Specifically, the GAO report found that, for fiscal year 

2012, the total cost of housing 1,987 inmates in SMUs was $87 million (it would 

have cost approximately $42 million to house those same inmates in a mediumsecurity facility; $50 million in a high-security facility).4 

In addition to prevalence estimates from reviews of the federal system, staff of 

the Liman Program and the Association of State Correctional Administrators 

(ASCA) recently collaborated on a survey of correctional systems directors 

3 The BOP again serves as an example, reporting to the American Correctional Association in 2008 that it had no 

inmates in administrative segregation (cited in O’Keefe et al., 2011). 

4 After the release of the critical GAO report, BOP commissioned an independent evaluation of its operation 

of administrative segregated housing and sought strategies for improving policies, operations, and services 

(McGinnis et al., 2014). 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 9 

across 46 jurisdictions (Liman Program & Association of State Correctional 

Administrators, 2015). In fall 2014, the survey specifically asked jurisdictions 

to account for the number of prisoners held in any form of segregated housing, 

including disciplinary segregation, protective custody, and administrative 

segregation. The recent report to the Department of Justice, Time-In-Cell, offers 

a detailed, current assessment of the prevalence of the use of restrictive housing 

across the country. Only 34 of the 46 responding jurisdictions provided counts 

of inmates across all forms of restricted housing, which included approximately 

66,000 people (Appendix Table A2).5 

The Time-in-Cell report also reported a relatively stable trend in the numbers of 

inmates housed in administrative segregation, noting an average decrease of less 

than 1 percent (0.59) in the percentage of prisoners in administrative segregation 

between 2011 and 2014. With regard to time spent in administrative segregation, 

32 jurisdictions reported no fixed minimum period, and 42 jurisdictions reported 

no maximum duration after which prisoners must be released into the general 

population. The survey also focused on the number of consecutive days spent in 

administrative segregation. Of the 24 jurisdictions reporting system wide data on 

length of stay, 11 reported that most prisoners held in administrative segregation 

were there for fewer than 90 days (Liman Program & Association of State 

Correctional Administrators, 2015). 

A recently published Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) special report also 

provided more recent estimates of the extent of the use of restrictive housing 

across U.S. prisons and jails (Beck, 2015). Using 2011-2012 data from the 

National Inmate Survey, Beck (2015) provided a detailed accounting of the 

housing status of inmates, including measures of time spent in restrictive 

housing during their past 12 months. Beck notes that roughly 20 percent of 

prison inmates and 18 percent of jail inmates had spent time in restrictive 

housing during the past 12 months and that restrictive housing rates correlate 

with common predictors of prison misconduct (such as age and prior criminal 

history). One of the most important findings in this special report is that facilities 

with higher rates of restrictive housing tended to have higher levels of facility 

disorder and a larger proportion of vulnerable inmates (inmates with mental 

health problems; lesbian, gay, and bisexual inmates; and younger inmates) in 

their populations. 

Issues Related to the Use of Solitary Confinement 

Some of the most controversial issues related to the use of solitary confinement 

involve its use among special populations, most notably young people but also 

suspected or known security threat group members and mentally ill inmates. 

5

 It should be noted that California, one of the largest prison systems in the country, did not respond and, therefore, 

is not included in the Liman Program/ASCA report. 
10 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Juveniles and Solitary Confinement 

If research on solitary confinement through administrative segregation among 

adult correctional populations can best be described as scarce, the research on 

the use of solitary confinement among juvenile correctional populations is almost 

nonexistent. Moreover, the limited data we have on the solitary confinement of 

young persons come from just a handful of sources. Within juvenile corrections 

there has been even less empirical research, but more determined efforts have 

been made to end the practice of punitive isolation for young inmates. In juvenile 

corrections, sometimes a distinction is drawn between punitive confinement and 

nonpunitive solitary confinement, where the latter is described as confinement 

for the protection and safety of others (Weiss, Kraner, & Fisch, 2013). Most 

of what is known about juvenile solitary confinement comes from either the 

national Survey of Youth in Residential Placement (SYRP) or reports authored 

by advocacy organizations such as Human Rights Watch and the ACLU (Human 

Rights Watch & American Civil Liberties Union, 2012; Sedlak & McPherson, 

2010). In the recent SYRP, almost one-third of all young persons in custody 

reported having spent time in solitary confinement, with more than half of those 

reporting having spent more than 24 hours there (Sedlak & McPherson, 2010). 

In recent years, legislatures have been particularly active in the issue of 

solitary confinement of young persons (Therolf, 2015). West Virginia became 

the first state to ban the solitary confinement of youth in custody in 1998. 

Alaska, Colorado, Mississippi, and West Virginia followed with bans on 

solitary confinement of young persons in 2012; Nevada and Oklahoma passed 

restrictions on the solitary confinement of young persons in 2013; and a slew of 

states, including New York, banned solitary confinement of young persons in 

2014 (Hager & Rich, 2014). After several scathing critiques of the treatment of 

inmates in New York City’s Rikers Island jail in early 2015, the New York City 

Department of Corrections announced, in one of the most sweeping decisions, 

that it would no longer allow solitary confinement of anyone 21 years of age or 

younger (Winerip & Schwirtz, 2015). 

Solitary Confinement to Control Gangs 

In some jurisdictions, inmates have been isolated in administrative segregation 

simply because of a suspected or known gang affiliation. As noted in the 

Introduction, a settlement agreement between a group of inmates incarcerated at 

Pelican Bay and CDCR is expected to bring about the gradual end to this practice 

in California (St. John, 2015). Although it is based on evidence suggesting that 

prison gangs bear responsibility for much of the prison violence experienced 

in some correctional systems (Griffin & Hepburn, 2006), segregation of 

confirmed or suspected gang members is among the most criticized of practices 

because there is no clear endpoint to the isolation. Some inmates classified to 

administrative segregation for known or suspected gang affiliations have spent 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 11 

decades in isolation units (Baker & Goode, 2015). The decision to release almost 

all gang members currently held in solitary confinement in California will result 

in the release of almost half of inmates incarcerated in secure housing across 

the state. It is not yet clear what impact, if any, the settlement will have on other 

jurisdictions that routinely incarcerate known or suspected gang members in 

administrative segregation. 

Mental Illness and Solitary Confinement 

Although precise numbers are hard to come by, some have argued that most 

inmates who are placed into solitary confinement are mentally ill (Toch, 2001). 

By virtue of their illness, these individuals may have trouble conforming to 

institutional rules and accrue more disciplinary misconduct sanctions (Kurki & 

Morris, 2001). The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) has reported that close to 45 

percent of federal inmates and more than half of all jail and state prison inmates 

suffer from mental health problems as measured by diagnosis and treatment 

of symptoms (James & Glaze, 2006). Earlier estimates, which focused narrowly 

on mental illness, tended to be much lower: approximately 16 percent of prison 

inmates were classified as suffering from serious mental illness (Ditton, 1999; 

Osher et al., 2012). 

Some prevalence estimates of mental illness across populations in administrative 

segregation have been derived from the empirical research (O’Keefe, 2007). 

Lovell and colleagues (2008) have produced several estimates of the levels of 

psychosocial impairment (a construct that includes several measures of mental 

health deterioration) and serious mental illness among the supermax population 

in Washington state. Lovell (2008) randomly sampled inmates from all three of 

Washington’s supermax housing units and found that 45 percent of supermax 

inmates were suffering from serious mental illness. Lovell and colleagues (2000) 

earlier used similar methods to find serious mental illness among approximately 

13 percent of general population inmates (Lovell et al., 2000). Cloyes and 

colleagues (2006) similarly reported that almost 30 percent of inmates in 

supermax units meet the criteria for serious mental illness, and in their study of 

the supermax unit in Washington, they found that 22 percent of the inmates were 

actively experiencing high levels of “psychosocial distress.” Many researchers 

have used similar statistics to argue that inmates with mental illness are more 

likely to be placed in solitary confinement. 

The courts have been particularly active in the issue of confining mentally 

ill inmates in administrative segregation, based in part on the accumulated 

evidence that confinement under such restrictive and isolating conditions is 

especially harmful for this already vulnerable population. 
12 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Court Decisions and Consent Decrees
 

It is beyond the scope of this paper to comprehensively review all court cases 

and legal decisions relative to the use of solitary confinement; therefore, a review 

of only a small sampling of the more significant and directly relevant court 

decisions and consent decrees are presented (for a comprehensive review, see 

Collins, 2004). 

The most notable litigation that addresses administrative segregation has focused 

on supermax confinement or solitary confinement in administrative, rather than 

disciplinary, segregation.6 State and federal cases related to the use of solitary 

confinement have tended to focus on the overall conditions of confinement in 

supermax settings, and several have focused on the placement of mentally ill 

inmates into facilities that use solitary confinement for extended periods. 

An early federal case signaled that the courts were not likely to get involved in 

the administration of facilities used for administrative segregation. In 1984, a 

group of inmates housed at the Marion Federal Penitentiary filed a Section 1983 

complaint alleging that federal prison officials were violating their constitutional 

rights. The primary complaints Bruscino v. Carlson (1988) were related to 

arbitrary placements, conditions of confinement, extended solitary confinement, 

use of force, and cavity searches. The U.S. Supreme Court, in considering both 

the context and the complaint, found that the “ghastly” conditions at Marion, 

although “depressing in the extreme,” did not amount to cruel and unusual 

punishment. After describing Marion’s inmates as “among the most dangerous 

people in this nation,” the Court was “not persuaded that any relaxation in the 

controls instituted in the fall of 1983 [is] constitutionally required, given the 

extraordinary security problems at the prison.” The Court went on to note, 

“The controls are a unitary and integrated system for dealing with the nation’s 

least corrigible inmates; piecemeal dismantling would destroy the system’s 

rationale and impair its efficacy.” The Bruscino decision signaled that the federal 

courts would be unlikely to interfere with the management of administrative 

segregation units. As Feeley and Rubin (1999) noted in the comprehensive 

overview of correctional cases, “Whatever the reasons for the judiciary’s positive 

response to Marion, the correctional establishment chose to interpret it as 

validating the concept of a supermaximum-security prison.” 

A few years later (1990), a group of inmates in Pelican Bay State Prison filed a 

Section 1983 claim against CDCR. In the 1995 Madrid v. Gomez decision, the 

court found in favor of the inmates, ruling that: 

6

 Placements into disciplinary segregation for infractions are subject to the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case 

Wolff v. McDonnell (1974). The Wolff decision established the minimal procedural due-process rights that must 

be afforded to inmates during prison disciplinary hearings, and these rights have since been reaffirmed in Dixon 

v. Goord (2002). The minimum procedural due-process rights during disciplinary hearings include advance 


written notice of charges, an advance written statement of evidence on which the determination will be made,
 

and the right to call witnesses and present evidence.
 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 13 

In particular, defendants have failed to provide inmates at Pelican Bay with 

constitutionally adequate medical and mental health care, and have permitted 

and condoned a pattern of using excessive force, all in conscious disregard of the 

serious harm that these practices inflict. With respect to the SHU, defendants 

cross the constitutional line when they force certain subgroups of the prison 

population, including the mentally ill, to endure the conditions in the SHU, 

despite knowing that the likely consequence for such inmates is serious injury to 

their mental health, and despite the fact that certain conditions in the SHU have 

a relationship to legitimate security interests that is tangential at best (p. 1280). 

Although its concern for inmates with mental illness was clear, the Court was 

less definitive when it came to inmates not suffering from mental illness; it 

noted, “while the conditions in the SHU may press the outer bounds of what 

most humans can psychologically tolerate, the record does not satisfactorily 

demonstrate that there is a sufficiently high risk to all inmates of incurring a 

serious mental illness from exposure to conditions in the SHU to find that the 

conditions constitute a per se deprivation of a basic necessity of life” (p. 1267). 

As a result of the Madrid decision, a special marshal was appointed to work with 

CDCR to develop a plan to remedy the conditions at Pelican Bay (Fathi, 2004). In 

many ways, the Madrid case provided the first in-depth look into the conditions 

of confinement in supermax settings. The Court continued to monitor the 

case for more than a decade until, finally satisfied that the conditions had been 

remedied, it dismissed the case in 2011 (Simon, 2014). 

Other prison systems have drawn the attention of the courts as well. In Ruiz v. 

Johnson (1999), the administrative segregation units of the Texas Department 

of Corrections came under judicial scrutiny, and the federal courts came 

close to declaring that solitary confinement in administrative segregation is 

unconstitutional per se. After describing the conditions of confinement in 

administrative segregation units across the Texas Department of Corrections, the 

court in Ruiz declared: 

Before the court are levels of psychological deprivation that violate the United 

States Constitution’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. It has 

been shown that defendants are deliberately indifferent to a systemic pattern 

of extreme social isolation and reduced environmental stimulation. These 

deprivations are the cause of cruel and unusual pain and suffering by inmates in 

administrative segregation, particularly in Levels II and III (pp. 914-915). 

The Ruiz decision was, in many ways, more sweeping than that of Madrid several 

years earlier. Most subsequent cases have resulted in settlements or consent 

decrees, but it is worth noting that conditions of confinement in administrative 

segregation have been challenged in Connecticut, Indiana, New Mexico, Ohio, 

and Wisconsin, and other states (see Fathi, 2004). 
14 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

 

 

Although the court in Ruiz came close to ruling solitary confinement 

unconstitutional, it can be said with confidence that this country is moving 

toward a general consensus (as illustrated by various court decisions, consent 

decrees, and settlement agreements) that these environments are not appropriate 

for inmates with mental illness and might constitute cruel and unusual 

punishment for this subset of the inmate population. The U.S. Supreme Court has 

regularly denied certiorari in administrative segregation cases, but with Justice 

Anthony Kennedy repeatedly expressing his concern about solitary confinement 

in recent months, it seems likely that there could be some U.S. Supreme Court 

movement on this front in the coming years (Hananel, 2015). 

In addition to court cases and consent decrees, there have been several notable, 

recent congressional and legislative hearings related to the use of solitary 

confinement.7 In June 2012 and February 2014, the U.S. Senate Judiciary 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Human Rights, and Civil Rights held two 

hearings on the use of solitary confinement.8 Several notable legislative hearings 

have also been held in California, where conditions of confinement in general 

and administrative segregation in particular have been the focus of ongoing 

litigation. The California State Assembly and Senate Public Safety Committee 

held two hearings on CDCR’s use of solitary confinement.9 As noted, CDCR 

recently reached a settlement agreement to end a class action lawsuit on behalf of 

inmates at Pelican Bay (500 of whom had been held in solitary confinement for 

more than 10 years at the time the suit was filed). The lawsuit was preceded by a 

series of well-publicized hunger strikes across CDCR facilities that also triggered 

the legislative hearings on the issue. 

The Utility and Effects of Administrative Segregation 

Proponents of administrative segregation and the supermax model argue that 

solitary confinement is necessary for maintaining the safety and security of 

the entire correctional system. Some inmates, it is argued, are so disruptive 

to the orderly running of a facility that they simply cannot or should not be 

maintained among the general population (O’Keefe, 2008; Pizarro & Narag, 

2008; Pizarro & Stenius, 2004; Pizarro, Stenius, & Pratt, 2006). This view, however, 

is far from universal. The most obvious division is between scholars (who 

study either incarceration in general or solitary confinement in particular) and 

7 Written and oral testimony, as well as video recordings of the hearings discussed in this section, can be accessed 

on the advocacy group Solitary Watch’s website (http://solitarywatch.com/). 

8 The hearings, “Reassessing Solitary Confinement: The Human Rights, Fiscal, and Public Safety Consequence,” 

each included oral and written testimony from heads of departments of corrections, researchers who have 

studied solitary confinement, and activists against the practice (Solitary Watch, 2015). See https://www.judiciary. 

senate.gov/imo/media/doc/CHRG-112shrg87630.pdf 

9

 Both hearings before the California Assembly focused on CDCR’s proposed reforms to inmate segregation 

policies and to the use of secure housing units. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 15 

the correctional administrators responsible for drafting and enforcing official 

correctional policies and practices. 

Recent reviews of policies related to placement in administrative segregation also 

emphasize the official view that segregation minimizes threats to institutional 

security (Butler et al., 2013; O’Keefe, 2008). A recently published study that 

reviewed official policies across 42 states reported that 98 percent of the states 

identified the catch-all term “threats to institutional security” as a justification 

for placement in administrative segregation (Butler et al., 2013). The most 

commonly noted threats to institutional security that trigger administrative 

segregation included repeated violent behavior (78 percent), escape risk (67 

percent), riotous behavior (45 percent), and security threat group membership 

(36 percent). Concerns remain about the specific criteria used to determine that 

an inmate represents such a threat, particularly in the absence of full due-process 

rights that typically accompany placement in disciplinary segregation after a 

discrete incident of violent or disruptive behavior (O’Keefe, 2008). 

Despite the dearth of empirical evidence demonstrating effectiveness, those 

charged with running correctional facilities overwhelmingly believe that 

administrative segregation achieves its aims (particularly as related to increasing 

the safety and security of the correctional system). In one of the largest studies 

of practitioner’s views, Mears and Castro (2006) noted that prison wardens, 

who maintain primary responsibility for running the nation’s correctional 

facilities, were not only “largely unanimous in saying that supermax prisons 

serve to increase safety, order, and control throughout the prison system and 

to incapacitate violent and disruptive inmates” (p. 407) but also “strongly 

believe that supermax prisons are effective in achieving these four goals” 

(Mears & Castro, 2006, pp. 407, 409). Those who argue for the effectiveness 

of administrative segregation units and supermax facilities often base their 

arguments on appeals to the self-evident rather than on an evidence base (Sundt, 

Castellano, & Briggs, 2008, p. 115). Noting that these units and facilities house 

the worst of the worst, proponents of the practice argue that these facilities will 

reduce violence in prison systems and assaults on other inmates and staff because 

those who are most likely to engage in such conduct have been isolated and 

further incapacitated (Butler et al., 2013; Lanes, 2011; Mears et al., 2013). 

The public, at least as gauged by opinion in Florida, also overwhelmingly 

supports supermax prisons, even when their utility is less than clear. Mears and 

colleagues (2013) reported that 80 percent of the public supported supermax 

incarceration in general and that 60 percent maintained that support even if 

there was no associated public safety benefit. Moreover, there appears to be 

little public support for the notion that these facilities are inhumane: 70 percent 

of those surveyed said that they did not consider supermax facilities to be 

inhumane (Mears et al., 2013). 
16 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Evaluation Research 

Mears and Watson (2006) identified several of the most frequently cited 

justifications for (and goals of) solitary confinement through administrative 

segregation, including increasing prison safety, increasing systemwide order 

and control of prisoners, improving the behavior of violent and disruptive 

prisoners, reducing gang influence, punishment (of violent and disruptive 

prisoners), increasing public safety, and improving the efficiency of correctional 

system operations. Although some are easier to operationalize than others, 

any of these intended impacts could be evaluated. In their 2006 article, 

Mears and Watson even offered measurable indicators for each “performance 

measure,” (see Appendix Table A3), which may prove useful to those seeking 

an evaluation framework. Mears and Watson also offered observations about 

some unintended potential impacts (both positive and negative). Finally, they 

raised questions related to the mechanisms by which supermax confinement is 

expected to achieve these goals; identified barriers to achieving them; and offered 

some moral, political, and fiscal dimensions that should be considered in any 

comprehensive assessment of supermax prisons. 

When Mears (2008) attempted to apply an evaluation framework to supermax 

incarceration, he struggled to find the research base necessary to answer key 

questions across five domains, ultimately concluding that: 

[T]here is (a) minimal indication that supermax prisons were needed as longterm solutions to any of a range of problems (e.g., order, safety, escapes, public 

safety); (b) no strong or consistent theoretical foundation for anticipating that 

they would exert any substantial effect on a range of outcomes, and, to the 

contrary, strong theoretical grounds to anticipate a worsening of these outcomes; 

(c) minimal documentation of their implementation (including the procedures 

and adherence to these procedures) for admitting and releasing inmates, 

monitoring of inmate behavior, or compliance with state and federal laws as 

well as constitutional requirements, juxtaposed against accounts showing that 

mentally ill and other inmates inappropriate for extended solitary confinement 

reside in supermaxes; (d) minimal evidence of any positive impact on any of a 

range of outcomes, with considerable evidence of harmful, unintended effects; 

and (e) no evidence that they are cost-efficient (Mears, 2008, p. 61). 

If dangerous and violent inmates represent a real threat to others within the 

correctional environment, the options for containing them without resorting to 

isolation in restrictive housing seem to be few. Correctional administrators often 

feel that they are left with no other option than to isolate inmates who represent a 

threat to themselves, other inmates, or to staff. Moreover, the most ardent critics 

of solitary confinement often have little to say about alternatives to the practice 

if and when solitary confinement were to be eliminated on evidence-based 

grounds or outlawed on constitutional grounds. Those charged with running 

prisons — even those who have argued that there are problems with the practice 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 17 

 

of confining inmates in highly restrictive environments for extended periods 

— lament the lack of options at their disposal for those inmates who are truly 

dangerous to both the prison staff and other inmates. Rick Raemisch, executive 

director of the Colorado Department of Corrections, spent 20 hours in solitary 

confinement to understand the experience and has worked to significantly reduce 

its use in the Colorado system but still acknowledges the need for the practice in 

some instances (Goode, 2014; Raemisch, 2014). Raemisch recently argued, “If 

someone has committed a violent assault ... until you can solve that problem, 

that person is going to need to be isolated.” He went on to note, “There are those 

who say this is bad, but when you look around for an alternative, people have left 

the room” (Baker & Goode, 2015, p. A16). 

Violence in Correctional Institutions 

It is difficult to determine with any degree of precision the prevalence of the use 

solitary confinement through administrative or disciplinary segregation across 

U.S. correctional systems (Naday et al., 2008). Perhaps not surprisingly, there are 

few accurate estimates of either the levels of disruptive behavior among those 

sent to administrative segregation or of the impact of administrative segregation 

on reducing levels of violence in prisons. 

Some of the estimates of violence within correctional institutions come from 

victimization surveys and research. Wolff and colleagues, for example, reported 

in their study of inmates incarcerated in 1 of 14 institutions in a mid-Atlantic 

state that more than 20 percent of inmates reported being the victim of physical 

violence in the previous six months (Wolff et al., 2007). It is important to note 

that although rates of victimization were roughly equal for male and female 

inmates, prevalence rates of victimization varied substantially across facilities 

(even within this state’s correctional system). Although there are little hard data 

on the subject, some evidence shows that serious assaults against correctional 

officers are rare but tend to be more — not less — common in administrative 

segregation units (Sorenson et al., 2011). 

One study that provided a profile comparing inmates in administrative 

segregation with general population inmates in Colorado suggested that those 

housed in administrative segregation incurred significantly more disciplinary 

infractions, were significantly more likely to have been previously placed in 

punitive segregation, and were significantly more likely to have been identified as 

having a known or suspected security threat group affiliation (O’Keefe, 2008). In 

his study of supermax inmates in Washington that focused on inmates suffering 

from mental illness, Lovell (2008) found that these inmates had substantially 

higher infraction rates and that many of those infractions were indeed indicative 

of disruptive institutional behavior: 
18 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

These 60 inmates had committed 135 assaults: 45 aggravated and 65 (including 

five aggravated) on staff. Four of them had infractions for homicide. Lessviolent forms of disruptiveness included 220 infractions for threatening, 168 for 

throwing objects (often urine or feces), 83 for destroying property, and 28 for 

flooding cells. Twelve men had been infracted for mutilating themselves, usually 

two or three times (p. 990). 

In addition to the work on levels of violence committed by inmates sent to 

segregated housing, some effort has been made to assess the impact of SHUs on 

levels of correctional system violence. 

Institutional Violence and Administrative Segregation 

In the late 1980s and 1990s, a series of authors offered some (mostly speculative) 

evidence that the expanded use of administrative segregation resulted in 

lower levels of violence across correctional systems. In their discussions of 

the effects of court-ordered changes in the Texas correctional system in the 

wake of the sweeping Ruiz v. Estelle (1980) decision, Marquart and colleagues 

tied reductions in prison violence and inmate murders, as well as increases in 

inmates’ perceptions of safety, to the extensive use of administrative segregation, 

particularly of gang members, across the Texas Department of Corrections 

(Crouch & Marquart, 1989, 1990; Ralph & Marquart, 1991). Austin and Irwin 

(2001) similarly tied declines in prison violence in California’s prison system to 

increased use of segregation. The authors of both studies looked back at declines 

in violence and speculated that increased reliance on segregation might be a 

cause. More recently, researchers have assessed the impact of administrative 

segregation on levels of prison violence by using more sophisticated research 

designs; those researchers have typically reported mixed support for the thesis 

that the increased use of segregation has resulted in decreases in prison violence. 

In a national study of inmate violence that used multilevel data from more than 

4,000 inmates across 185 correctional institutions, Huebner (2003) found that the 

use of solitary confinement for disciplinary purposes, measured as “the percent 

of the total inmate population that received solitary confinement as a disciplinary 

response to the most recent rule infraction,” was unrelated to levels of inmate 

assaults (Huebner, 2003, p. 110). Using data from three states (Arizona, Illinois, 

and Minnesota) and one control state (Utah), and a multiple interrupted timeseries design, Briggs, Sundt, and Castellano (2003) found no evidence that the 

introduction of a supermax facility had any effect on inmate-on-inmate violence 

in any state. Their findings related to inmate-on-staff violence were mixed, with 

no effect found in Minnesota, decreased inmate-on-staff assaults in Illinois, and 

a counterintuitive, temporary increase in staff injuries in Arizona (Briggs, Sundt, 

& Castellano, 2003). Briggs and colleagues (2003) concluded that “the bulk of 

the evidence presented here suggests that supermax is not effective at reducing 

system wide levels of prison violence” (p. 1368). 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 19 

 

Sundt and colleagues (2008) used a quasi-experimental interrupted time-series 

design to examine the effect of the opening of a supermax facility on subsequent 

levels of inmate-on-inmate and inmate-on-staff violence in prisons in Illinois. 

They found that the opening of the supermax facility did not significantly affect 

the number of inmate-on-inmate assaults but did result in a “gradual permanent 

reduction in assaults against staff ” and an “abrupt, permanent reduction in the 

use of system wide lockdowns” (Sundt et al., 2008, pp. 115, 117). These findings 

lend credence to the notion that supermax facilities might increase the safety 

of the entire correctional system. However, because of the unique (and volatile) 

political context in which the Illinois supermax facility was built, the results are 

not particularly generalizable to other states (Sundt et al., 2008). Over all, there 

is little evidence that the introduction of supermax facilities has reduced levels 

of violence across the correctional system. Given the paucity of research in this 

area, however, it seems fair to say that, like so many factors related to the use of 

administrative segregation, this remains an open, empirical question. 

More recently, Wooldredge and Steiner’s (2015) research examined the extent 

to which misconduct levels in prisons are driven by the effects of inmate 

population composition (concentrating the highest risk inmates in particular 

facilities) versus by the prison’s organizational context (tighter institutional 

security and control). In their macro-level analysis of 247 state-operated prisons 

across the country, using both official and self-reported data collected through 

inmate surveys, Wooldredge and Steiner’s (2015) multi-level models revealed 

that compositional effects were more influential than contextual effects in 

shaping behavioral outcomes. The authors reported that inmate population 

composition characteristics (demographics, social demographics, and criminal 

histories) were more important than administrative and contextual controls 

(classification, security, supervision, expenditures, and punishment philosophies) 

for understanding differences in prison misconduct levels. In essence, the results 

suggest that coercive controls do not necessarily promote lower levels of violence 

within facilities, and that the concentration of high-risk populations typically 

drives violence levels. Although this was only a partial test of the authors’ 

full thesis, the results are consistent with other studies that have identified 

compositional effects as more significant indicators of violence levels. 

The Effects of Solitary Confinement 

Psychological Effects of Solitary Confinement 

Two types of studies of the psychological effects of isolation have been used: 

qualitative studies that focused on providing rich descriptions of the effects of 

the experience on inmates who have typically spent considerable time in solitary 

confinement (often having spent many years incarcerated in isolation), and 
20 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

 

quantitative studies of such effects among larger groups of inmates, sometimes 

using matched comparison or control groups, but typically focusing on inmates in 

disciplinary units or those serving shorter terms in administrative segregation.10 

The only clear statement that can be made about the body of literature that 

assesses the psychological effects of solitary confinement is that researchers 

using different methods to study different populations have come to different 

conclusions about the psychological effects on inmates (Arrigo & Bullock, 2008; 

Gendreau & Labrecque, 2015). A fair summary statement would say that there 

is a collection of scholars who have been studying solitary confinement for 

many years; these scholars strongly believe that the experience can have lasting 

and substantial damaging psychological effects. The most well-known findings 

about the impact of extended solitary confinement on the mental health of 

prisoners have come from the accumulated work of Stuart Grassian and Craig 

Haney, both of whom have testified extensively on behalf of inmates in class 

action lawsuits (Grassian, 1983; Grassian & Friedman, 1986; Haney, 2002, 2003, 

2008; Haney & Lynch, 1997). In one of his earliest studies, Grassian conducted 

extensive interviews with 14 prisoners who were in the process of challenging 

the conditions of their confinement in a lawsuit against the Massachusetts 

Department of Corrections. He documented a long list of damaging 

psychopathological effects, including difficulty concentrating and thinking, 

perceptual distortions and affective distortions changes, and problems with 

impulse control (Grassian, 1983). Grassian concluded that the psychopathology 

he documented “strongly suggests that the use of solitary confinement carries 

major psychiatric risks” (p. 1454). 

Many other studies employing a case-study approach across a variety of settings 

have similarly documented far-reaching and long-lasting psychological effects 

(for more comprehensive reviews of studies of the psychological effects, see 

Gendreau & Labrecque, 2015; Labrecque & Smith, 2013; Shalev, 2008; Smith, 

2006). In summarizing the psychological literature in 2002, Haney reported that: 

[D]ocumented negative psychological consequences of long-term solitary-like 

confinement include: an impaired sense of identity; hypersensitivity to stimuli; 

cognitive dysfunction (confusion, memory loss, ruminations); irritability, anger, 

aggression, and/or rage; other directed violence, such as stabbings, attacks on 

staff, property destruction, and collective violence; lethargy, helplessness and 

hopelessness; chronic depression; self-mutilation and/or suicidal ideation, impulses, 

and behavior; anxiety and panic attacks; emotional breakdowns, and/or loss 

of control; hallucinations, psychosis and/or paranoia; overall deterioration of 

mental and physical health (Haney, 2002, pp. 85-86). 

10 Although rarely acknowledged, the research on psychological or psychiatric effects frequently relies on a large 

body of literature on the effects of sensory deprivation (Gendreau & Labrecque, 2015). Reviewing that literature 

is beyond the scope of this review of administrative segregation as a practice, but suffice it to say that it is often 

taken for granted that isolation will have severe and lasting detrimental effects on the psychological well-being 

of all those exposed to it, even though the evidence in this area does not always bear out this assumption (for a 

comprehensive review, see Gendreau & Labrecque, 2015). 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 21 

A substantial body of work has shown that solitary confinement can have 

damaging psychological effects, particularly when that confinement involves 

near-complete isolation and sensory deprivation or when the term of such 

confinement is extended. Moreover, despite the methodological limitations of 

some studies, most agree that extended confinement under extreme conditions 

of isolation in some segregation units is indeed harmful and should be avoided 

where possible. More questionable, however, is whether the populations who 

were the subjects of study across this body of research are representative of 

inmates experiencing administrative segregation more generally. Although 

Haney is confident in his assertions about the psychological effects of long-term 

solitary confinement, other research involving in-depth case studies has reached 

the opposite conclusion in terms of the psychological effects of shorter-term 

solitary confinement. 

In an early study of the experience of just four inmates, Suedfeld and Roy (1975) 

argued that short-term solitary confinement (ranging from one week to 30 days) 

was beneficial to those inmates and resulted in a lower incidence of violence, 

aggression, and self-injurious behavior, as well as improved adjustment. In later 

work involving a much larger group of inmates incarcerated in five facilities 

across the United States and Canada, Suedfeld and colleagues again found 

“no support [for] the claim that solitary confinement ... is overwhelmingly 

aversive, stressful, or damaging to the inmates” (Suedfeld et al., 1982, p. 335). 

Several decades later, Zinger and colleagues (2001) compared inmates held in 

administrative segregation in Canada with those in the general population and 

found that the “segregated prisoners had poorer mental health and psychological 

functioning. There was no evidence, however, that, over a period of 60 days, the 

mental health and psychological functioning of segregated prisoners significantly 

deteriorated” (Zinger et al., 2001, p. 48). Other respected scholars have also been 

less than convinced by the accumulated evidence pertaining to psychological 

effects of segregation. Bonta and Gendreau (1990), for example, argued that there 

is little evidence of deteriorating mental health among inmates, emphasizing 

that “long-term imprisonment and specific conditions of confinement such as 

solitary, under limiting and humane conditions, fail to show any sort of profound 

detrimental effects” (Bonta & Gendreau, 1990, p. 364). 

In another prospective longitudinal study, albeit for a more extended period (one 

year, as opposed to 60 days), O’Keefe and colleagues (2011) sought to improve 

understanding of the psychological effects of solitary confinement on inmates 

in administrative segregation in Colorado. By relying primarily on assertions 

in earlier psychological research about the effects of solitary confinement, the 

authors hypothesized that inmates who had served time in administrative 

segregation would experience aggravated psychological symptoms while in 

administrative segregation, exhibit deteriorating mental health over time (with 

that effect exacerbated among those with preexisting mental health issues), and 

experience greater mental health deterioration than would those in comparison 

groups of inmates who had not served time in segregation. 
22 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

The researchers collected data through a series of interviews with and assessments 

of inmates in administrative segregation, the general population, and a specialized 

mental health unit. To their apparent surprise, none of their initial hypotheses was 

borne out by their data (O’Keefe et al., 2011). Inmates in administrative segregation 

exhibited more mental health issues than did “normative adult samples,” but there 

were few differences between inmates in administrative segregation and those 

in comparison groups. In other words, the researchers documented elevated 

levels of mental health problems across both groups, but those problems were 

not significantly more pronounced among those in administrative segregation. 

Moreover, although inmates in administrative segregation initially exhibited 

signs of elevated psychological distress, those signs tended to dissipate over time. 

Psychological problems tended to decrease between the first and the second testing 

period, which was true across both groups, not just for the group in administrative 

segregation. Finally, the researchers reported that inmates with mental illness 

demonstrated greater psychological impairment across all groups, not just in the 

segregated setting, and did not deteriorate more rapidly than initially predicted 

(O’Keefe et al., 2011). 

Perhaps the most interesting finding of O’Keefe and colleagues’ Colorado study 

was not that time in administrative segregation had no deleterious effect but 

that the deleterious effects experienced by those in administrative segregation 

were no different from those experienced by prison inmates in general. In some 

ways, this finding is equally, if not more, disturbing. O’Keefe and colleagues’ 

findings could as easily be interpreted as demonstrating that incarceration in and 

of itself has damaging effects on the mental health of individuals subjected to it, 

especially initially. Of course, because these findings undercut some of the earlier 

research and call into question the extent to which administrative segregation 

has distinct and distinguishable damaging psychological effects, the research has 

come under enhanced scrutiny (Bulman, Garcia, & Hernon, 2012). 

Shortly after it was published, the Colorado study was subjected to a series of 

methods critiques that called into question the validity of its results, and several 

attempts were made to undermine its impact (Grassian & Kupers, 2011; Rhodes 

& Lovell, 2011; Shalev & Lloyd, 2011). The various critiques had some merit but, 

as Gendreau and Theriault (2011) noted, the type of work represented in the 

Colorado study (with controversial or unpopular findings in a highly contested 

domain) is frequently attacked on methods grounds, adding that “none of the 

work we are aware of that has been cited by those who contend that prisons 

produce serious psychological trauma comes close to the Colorado study in 

terms of its methodological rigor (e.g., repeated measures, comparison group 

design, and the choice of constructs to assess psychopathology)” (Gendreau & 

Theriault, 2011, p. 1). It is also worth noting that the findings in the Colorado 

study are not antithetical — other researchers have reported similar findings on 

the basis of previous research (Suedfeld et al., 1982; Zinger et al., 2001). 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 23 

It should be noted that a key distinction among the separate bodies of 

work related to psychological effects is that those who have found marked 

psychological distress among inmates subjected to solitary confinement have 

tended to study those held in solitary confinement for extended periods; whereas 

researchers who find no convincing evidence of distress have tended to study 

inmates held in solitary confinement for far more abbreviated periods (30, 60 or 

90 days, for example). It should also be noted that those finding excessive harm 

tended to employ an intensive, qualitative, case-study approach, conducting 

extensive interviews with (and assessments of) inmates held, often indefinitely, 

in solitary confinement. In some instances, the researchers have been experts, 

retained on behalf of inmates who were filing claims against departments of 

corrections, preparing for written or oral testimony for cases to be heard in state 

and federal courts. 

Behavioral Effects of Solitary Confinement 

Some researchers have sought to measure the effects of segregation on behavioral 

(rather than psychological) outcomes. Researchers seeking to better understand 

behavioral effects typically rely on deterrence theories to argue that, if effective, 

solitary confinement should reduce levels of institutional misconduct (both 

individual and systemwide) and should be expected to have some effect on 

post-release behavior (where one could argue for effects in either direction). 

These researchers have tended to focus on one of two behavioral outcomes — 

institutional misconduct or post-release recidivism — and have typically studied 

inmates who have experienced solitary confinement, irrespective of the type of 

restrictive housing unit. For the most part, researchers have found that inmates 

who spent time in solitary confinement through administrative or disciplinary 

segregation fare no better or worse than inmates never exposed to it. 

The effects of solitary confinement on institutional misconduct 

Relatively few studies have focused on the effect of solitary confinement on 

subsequent institutional misconduct, a somewhat surprising finding given that 

a primary claim about administrative segregation is that it should restore order 

and lead to greater safety and security in correctional facilities. 

Labrecque (2015) recently provided an assessment of the impact of solitary 

confinement on subsequent institutional misconduct among inmates who were 

incarcerated for at least one year between 2007 and 2010 and experienced at 

least one instance of solitary confinement in an Ohio Department of Corrections 

facility. The study focused solely on inmates who had experienced solitary 

confinement. Those inmates represented approximately 21 percent of the inmates 

in the overall sampling frame covered by the period. Labrecque (2015) employed 

a pooled time-series panel design to “assess whether [the solitary confinement] 
24 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

experience has an influence on being found guilty of subsequent institutional 

misconduct” (p. 76). 

Labrecque (2015) included in his assessment all of the various types of 

misconduct, finding that an experience of solitary confinement had no effect on 

subsequent levels of misconduct, and that the duration of solitary confinement 

also had no effect on subsequent institutional misconduct. Labrecque concludes 

“that neither the experience of [solitary confinement] nor the number of days 

spent in [solitary confinement] had any effect on the prevalence or incidence 

of the finding of guilt for subsequent violent, nonviolent, or drug misconduct” 

(Labrecque, 2015, p. 122). Labrecque’s findings related to institutional outcomes 

suggest that such confinement neither decreases nor increases subsequent 

institutional misconduct and add to the growing body of literature that suggests 

that solitary confinement has few demonstrable effects on behavioral outcomes 

for those exposed to it. 

Morris (2015) recently studied the effect on violence of short periods of 

solitary confinement after misconduct. Acknowledging that short-term solitary 

confinement might be beneficial (reducing subsequent violence through 

deterrence), harmful (exacerbating problem behavior among inmates exposed 

to it), or inconsequential, Morris used a propensity score matching (PSM) 

technique to create treatment and control groups in which the primary difference 

between the groups was exposure to solitary confinement. As Morris noted, 

“PSM approximates the conditions of an experiment by establishing ‘synthetic’ 

treatment and control groups, which are balanced across all available variables 

known or believed to potentially confound the effect of exposure to [solitary 

confinement]” (p. 6).11 Morris hypothesized that inmates exposed to punitive 

solitary confinement (typically of up to 15 days) after an initial act of violent 

misconduct would be more likely to engage in subsequent violence, engage in 

violence more quickly than would those not exposed, and exhibit more antisocial 

tendencies than would those in the control group. Morris’ results indicated 

that “on average, the initial experience with [solitary confinement] alone (as a 

direct and independent effect) may not play a causal role in subsequent physical 

violence, its timing, or its downstream effect on misconduct development. These 

findings suggest neither a positive nor negative relationship between solitary 

confinement and subsequent violent behavior, nor for misconduct in general 

(following initial violence) (Morris, 2015, p. 17). 

Although certainly not without limitations, among studies of solitary 

confinement (and like O’Keefe et al., 2011), Morris’s study represents an 

analytically sophisticated effort to isolate the effect of solitary confinement on 

subsequent behavior (in this case, subsequent violence). The study overcame 

11 The PSM technique is increasingly used when random assignment to treatment and control groups is not 

possible. The technique results in a quasi-experimental counterfactual design and is generally considered to be 

the next-best analytical approach when experimental designs are not feasible. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 25 

many of the methods limitations of earlier work by including a relatively large 

sample from a single state measured over time, incorporating treatment and 

control groups (with controls for selection bias), and assessing effects across 

multiple outcome measures. Of course, Morris’s study focuses on only inmates 

sentenced to solitary confinement in disciplinary segregation for a relatively 

short period; it cannot speak to behavioral effects of longer-term confinement 

or to confinement for purposes other than punishment. That research has yet 

to be conducted. 

The effects of solitary confinement on recidivism outcomes 

Some effort has been made to understand the impact of solitary confinement 

on post-release outcomes, usually recidivism rates. In one of the few studies of 

supermax incarceration in federal prisons, Ward and Werlich (2003) examined 

post-release outcomes for inmates who had been incarcerated at both Alcatraz 

and Marion, and reported the extent to which inmates who had been released 

from restrictive housing were later returned to such custody. They found that 

only 3 percent of prisoners who had returned to the general prison population 

from Alcatraz and 16 percent of prisoners returned to the general prison 

population from Marion were returned to higher custody. Less than half of those 

who returned to higher custody were returned for violent or assaultive behavior. 

The post-release outcomes for inmates incarcerated in federal supermax facilities 

suggest that the reincarceration rate (for inmates who had spent time in Alcatraz 

or Marion) was approximately 49 percent. This study, although interesting, 

was largely descriptive and included no control or comparison group (Ward & 

Werlich, 2003). 

In a more recently published study of recidivism outcomes, Pizarro, Zgoba, and 

Haugebrook (2014) examined the covariates of recidivism among inmates in 

supermax custody in a northeastern state in 2004. They found that the covariates 

for these inmates were almost identical to those for inmates in general. Supermax 

inmates who recidivated tended to be younger, have more extensive criminal 

histories, and were more likely to have histories of disciplinary misconduct 

than were supermax inmates who did not recidivate (Pizarro, Zgoba, & 

Haugebrook, 2014). Although interesting, this study compared supermax 

inmates with other supermax inmates, so it said little about how inmates who 

have served time in supermax facilities compare with inmates never exposed to 

extended solitary confinement. 

Other research on recidivism outcomes has attempted to overcome the effects 

of selection bias inherent in much of the research on the effects of solitary 

confinement in general. In one such study, using a retrospective matched 

control design, researchers examined recidivism outcomes for prisoners 

in Washington state and reported that, although no statistically significant 

differences were found in the recidivism rates of supermax inmates (compared 

with their matched controls), significantly higher recidivism rates were found 
26 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

among inmates released directly from supermax confinement to society (Lovell, 

Johnson, & Cain, 2007). In other words, inmates held in supermax confinement 

until the day of their release offended more quickly and more often than did 

their counterparts who had either never served time in supermax confinement 

or had been returned from supermax confinement to the general population at 

least three months prior to their release. The supermax inmates released directly 

to society also differed from the others in that they tended to be younger and to 

have more extensive criminal histories (beginning at an earlier age). Because age 

and criminal history are among the most significant predictors of recidivism, 

Lovell and colleagues (2007) matched by age and criminal history direct-release 

inmates with those who were returned to the general population at least three 

months prior to release. Although there were differences between the groups, 

when matched on age and criminal history, these differences were not statistically 

significant. The authors attribute the nonsignificance in part to the small sample 

sizes of the two groups. It is equally as plausible that the finding may not be an 

artifact of sampling size, but instead may reflect the lack of an effect of supermax 

exposure on recidivism outcomes when one controls for other relevant factors. 

Although provocative, these findings cannot be considered to be definitive in 

any way because of the nonexperimental retrospective research design and small 

sample size when a matched control group was incorporated. 

A second study that examined the impact of supermax confinement on 

recidivism in Florida added to the evidence that supermax incarceration might 

have negligible effects on post-release recidivism (Mears & Bales, 2009). Mears 

and Bales examined recidivism outcomes for more than 1,200 inmates who had 

been released after having served time in Florida’s supermax prisons and found 

that, when compared with all Florida inmates, those who had served time in 

supermax confinement were much more likely to recidivate were those who 

had not. However, and crucially, when they compared supermax inmates with a 

PSM control group, almost all of the differences in recidivism disappeared (only 

violent recidivism remained elevated), which suggests that the initial differences 

were likely an artifact of selection bias. Like Lovell and colleagues (2007), Mears 

and Bales also examined the potentially differential effects of the duration 

and recency of supermax confinement at the time of release. They concluded 

that “neither the duration nor the recency of supermax incarceration seems 

to be consequential for recidivism” (p. 1153). In other words, although Lovell 

and colleagues had offered some preliminary evidence that inmates who were 

released directly to society might be at elevated risk for recidivism, Mears and 

Bales found no such evidence among Florida supermax populations. 

Meta-Analyses 

Two teams of scholars have recently conducted meta-analyses. Meta-analyses 

quantitatively synthesize research evidence by taking findings from existing 

research and calculating overall effect sizes across studies. In their recent 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 27 

meta-analysis, Smith, Gendreau, and Labrecque (2015) used inclusion criteria 

that required a measure of solitary confinement as an independent variable, a 

research design that included either randomized selection or comparison and 

control groups, and sufficient data to calculate an effect size (Smith, Gendreau, 

& Labrecque, 2015). Of the 150 studies of solitary confinement identified by the 

authors, 70 percent had been published in the past 15 years and only 14 could be 

included in the meta-analysis (in other words, approximately 90 percent of the 

studies did not meet the inclusion criteria). Their meta-analytic review found 

only weak effects of solitary confinement on inmate outcomes (most of which 

were psychological). The team concluded that their meta-analytic review did not 

find support for the long-argued contention that solitary confinement has lasting 

psychological effects on those subjected to it (Smith et al., 2015). Significantly, 

the studies that employed weaker research designs produced stronger effects than 

those employing more rigorous research designs (Gendreau & Labrecque, 2015). 

A second meta-analysis (Morgan et al., 2016)reported similar results, leading 

Labrecque (2015) to conclude that the findings from recent meta-analyses “cast 

some doubts about [solitary confinement] being as devastating to inmates as 

has often been portrayed in the media and by some human rights organizations, 

activists, and scholars who vehemently oppose the practice on moral/ethical 

grounds,” adding, “these findings serve as a caution to reviewers about 

making judgments regarding the effects of [solitary confinement] too hastily, 

especially when they are based on qualitative rather than quantitative evidence” 

(Labrecque, 2015, p. 6). 

The Future of Administrative Segregation 

It may come as a surprise that the research described in the previous three 

sections of this paper represents the bulk of the published empirical research 

related to the use of administrative segregation in U.S. prisons. The research 

findings can be described in a relatively short white paper, which suggests that 

considerable room exists for further research in this area. 

At least three distinct perspectives emerge from a thorough review of the 

literature. Some researchers strongly believe that segregation, with its focus on 

isolation through solitary or near-solitary confinement, is incredibly damaging, 

and not only exacerbates inmates’ existing mental health problems but also 

may create mental illness where there previously was none. These scholars 

find the practice to be morally and ethically objectionable, argue that it causes 

excessive harm, and frequently call for its immediate and absolute abolition. 

Most evidence supporting this perspective has emerged from research 

involving in-depth case studies of a few inmates incarcerated for long periods, 

usually in supermax settings. 

Correctional administrators charged with day-to-day prison operations represent 

a second perspective. Tasked with ensuring safety and security for all of those 
28 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

who live or work in correctional facilities (as well as contributing to the public 

safety mission more broadly), these experts tend to argue that restrictive 

housing is necessary for the safety and security of the entire correctional system. 

Although the evidence supporting enhanced institutional or systemwide 

safety and security as a result of the proliferation of restrictive housing units 

is thin, many correctional administrators strongly believe that segregation has 

had positive effects. The public tends to agree. Recently, as states have begun 

looking for ways to reduce reliance on incarceration more generally, correctional 

administrators have begun taking a critical look at their segregation policies 

and are increasingly seeking ways to safely reduce the use of administrative 

segregation across their systems as well. 

A third group of correctional experts argues that we do not know enough about 

the utility and effects of administrative segregation to conclude with any degree 

of confidence that it is either a harmful or necessary approach. These scholars 

typically point to the lack of an evidence base, noting that contradictory findings 

can largely be explained by differences in methods. They tend to argue that the 

most analytically sophisticated studies, although certainly not perfect, have failed 

to document damaging long-term psychological effects or worse behavioral 

outcomes among those exposed to restrictive housing in all its varieties. It 

is crucial to note that these scholars do not, therefore, argue that solitary 

confinement through administrative or disciplinary segregation is sound, wise, or 

worthwhile correctional policy. Indeed, they argue that evidence that the practice 

achieves its intended or stated goals is equally lacking. 

Although all three perspectives were given consideration, this paper focused on 

describing the empirical evidence, regardless of the perspective from which the 

evidence emerged. To be clear, the authors of this paper were not asked to draw 

conclusions about the harmfulness of the practice of solitary confinement; we 

were asked to review and describe the research on the practice of administrative 

segregation in restrictive housing units across the United States more broadly. 

Throughout this white paper, the authors have remained cognizant of the 

numerous types of confinement that fall under the administrative segregation 

umbrella and have not focused exclusively on the most extreme versions of the 

practice. After a thorough review of the extant literature, it is clear that even 

today, the questions continue to be many and the answers few. It is equally clear 

that when researchers have disagreed — and in this area, they have tended to 

disagree passionately — they have not always been speaking the same language 

or conducting research with equivalent populations. Moreover, for many 

researchers studying solitary confinement, the practice raises not only empirical 

questions but also moral and ethical concerns that will persist regardless of the 

breadth or depth of the evidence base. Across a body of literature replete with 

highly charged emotions, interpreting the evidence and separating research 

evidence from strongly held beliefs have become exceptionally difficult. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 29 

This white paper turns now to some recommendations for future research. These 

recommendations are offered not to provide definitive answers but to launch an 

important conversation about the future of research on segregation in restrictive 

housing units. Developing an agenda for future research is important, given that 

the practice is increasingly facing scrutiny on the national and international stages. 

What We Know — The Empirical Evidence 

This review of the empirical evidence reinforces what many have been arguing 

for many years: We know surprisingly little about the use of solitary confinement 

and its effects, particularly given the speed and extent to which the practice of 

segregating those deemed to be the worst of the worst in restrictive housing units 

has proliferated across correctional systems.12 Indeed, the most concise summary 

would likely say that, although the jury is still out, there may be some potentially 

devastating psychological effects on inmates in restrictive housing (especially for 

those who already suffer from mental illness and for those who are subjected to 

lengthy or indefinite terms of confinement in administrative segregation), but 

that most research suggests that fewer negative effects of solitary confinement 

have been demonstrated when the term of confinement is relatively short. 

Critically, almost no literature documents the utility of the practice or 

demonstrates that the use of these administrative segregation has demonstrably 

achieved specific aims (Mears & Watson, 2006; Mears 2008). It is equally 

important to note that despite a growing body of literature on correctional officer 

stress and wellness, we know almost nothing about the potentially differential 

effects of working in restrictive housing units on health and safety outcomes for 

correctional employees. 

What We Still Don’t Know — Gaps in the Knowledge Base 

There are relatively few well-designed quantitative studies of the effects of 

administrative segregation, and those have tended to produce either null or 

inconclusive findings. It is difficult to design and carry out empirically sound 

research in the restrictive housing environment — the basic issues of access and 

feasibility are difficult to overcome in this context. In an era of evidence-based 

policy and practice, where the gold standard for validating a practice would be the 

implementation of an experimental design, no existing evidence-based research 

12 Although evidence of psychological effects is limited, the lack of a solid, empirical evidence base leads even 

the most highly respected scholars to make assertions based on anecdotal evidence, with many agreeing that 

the experience is likely psychologically damaging in profound ways. For example, after reviewing the research, 

Kurki and Morris (2001) acknowledged that, “[a]lthough hard data and controlled clinical studies are lacking, we 

find it difficult not to believe that prolonged supermax conditions would cause serious psychological and social 

problems for anyone, whether mentally strong, weak, or something between” (p. 415). 
30 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

reaches any definitive conclusions about the wisdom or utility of the practice of 

solitary confinement through administrative (or disciplinary) segregation. 

Therefore, the gaps in the knowledge base are many. Most agree, at least in 

principle, that long-term solitary confinement in administrative segregation 

— for periods of years or decades — is likely detrimental to the individual, 

but it is not as clear that short-term solitary confinement through disciplinary 

or administrative segregation is equally detrimental. The qualitative research 

tells us that long-term segregation in solitary confinement seems to have some 

profound psychological effects, particularly on inmates with mental illness, but 

there is far less evidence that short-term segregation in solitary confinement has 

pronounced or lasting negative effects, either psychologically or behaviorally. 

We do not know how general insights that can be gleaned from the literature 

might apply to different types of inmates across different contexts. Do inmates 

placed in solitary confinement for their protection fare better or worse than those 

placed there for the protection of others? Growing evidence seems to show that 

those who enter solitary confinement with a serious mental illness do not fare 

well, but are those who are not suffering from mental illnesses equally likely to 

deteriorate under such conditions, as some contend? Is it only extended isolation 

that results in negative effects? Are shorter periods of solitary confinement not 

damaging and, perhaps, even beneficial? If differential effects exist, how long is 

too long? Can some inmates develop survival strategies that might help them 

become more resilient, mitigating the potentially damaging effects?13 The list of 

potential questions is endless. The key to the future of research on administrative 

segregation involves generating agreement on the right questions to ask and the 

most appropriate methods for answering those questions. 

Future Directions — Research and Funding Priorities 

Given that some inmates spend months, years, or even decades in administrative 

segregation, it is shocking how little we know about the contemporary use of this 

practice. The solitary confinement model associated with the early American 

penitentiaries was quickly abandoned, in part, as a result of concerns about the 

potential effects on inmates (but also, in no small part, to the far lower cost of 

keeping prison populations in congregate settings). Although concerns about 

costs and effects persist, the most that can be said is that researchers disagree 

about the effects of administrative segregation; they disagree about effects on 

violence levels within institutions and across correctional systems, on individuals 

psychologically, and on inmate outcomes behaviorally. 

13 See O’Donnell (2014, 2016). 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 31 

Establish agreed-upon definitions 

With increasing calls for a hard look at solitary confinement and segregation 

in restrictive housing, initial steps toward formulating a research agenda for 

the future should, at a minimum, include coming to some agreement on terms 

and definitions. It is crucial that the field settle on generally agreed-upon terms 

and definitions so that scholars and practitioners can speak to each other in 

a common language. A review of the voluminous literature makes it clear 

that many of the apparent contradictions in the literature can be attributed 

to differences in what is being characterized, described, and counted as 

administrative segregation. Rarely are those with opposing viewpoints describing 

the same thing. 

Scholars almost exclusively refer to solitary confinement and use the term 

“supermax incarceration” as shorthand to characterize the restrictive housing 

units that use solitary confinement. Practitioners, including those who run 

supermax facilities, rarely use the term “solitary confinement” in either official 

policy or day-to-day practice, preferring to refer to the types of units that 

typically involve 22- to 24-hour isolation. In the correctional world, however, 

the term “administrative segregation” is sometimes used as an umbrella that 

covers many types of confinement — some of which bear little resemblance to 

the solitary confinement that is generally described by scholars who conduct 

research in this area. These issues are not trivial. We invite those who run 

correctional facilities, and those who fund or conduct correctional research, to 

begin a dialogue on how best to characterize and distinguish the various types of 

confinement in restrictive housing units, and to develop definitions that would 

distinguish practices from units and allow for a more refined understanding of 

the effects of varied correctional practices across contexts. 

Collect and analyze data to establish reliable prevalence estimates 

Once definitions are formulated, BJS might be encouraged to begin routinely 

collecting data on the prevalence of confinement in the various types of 

restrictive housing around the country — whether through its annual effort to 

produce statistics related to the prevalence of incarceration or through a separate 

program dedicated to the collection of data related to restrictive housing. State 

correctional systems should be encouraged to develop data systems that could 

track and distinguish placements in disciplinary segregation, administrative 

segregation, and protective custody. Despite a few recent reports offering some 

baseline estimates, we know little about the prevalence of any of these three types 

of confinement. Consider, for example, the federal system. Most in the field are 

familiar with the ADX-Florence facility, the federal supermax facility that houses 

some of the most notorious prisoners in the federal system. Through a review 

of the two recent reports on administrative segregation in the federal system, it 

becomes clear that inmates being held in ADX-Florence, while likely spending 
32 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

the most time in solitary confinement, hardly represent the bulk of inmates 

serving time in highly restrictive administrative segregation settings (McGinnis 

et al., 2014; United States Government Accountability Office, 2013). 

Distinguish differential effects of short-term versus long-term exposure to 

solitary confinement 

Debates over the effects of administrative segregation tend to be so divisive that 

it is difficult to find an objective assessment of the evidence. A hard look at the 

empirical evidence, though, makes clear from the limited studies conducted to 

date that there is little good empirical evidence that time spent in isolation has 

demonstrable negative effects on psychological or behavioral outcomes for most 

inmates subjected to it. As this debate continues, however, a crucial distinction 

must be drawn between time-limited segregation imposed for an infraction or 

series of infractions (typically referred to as disciplinary segregation) and longterm segregation for management of prison populations (typically referred to as 

either supermax incarceration or administrative segregation). 

It seems imperative that future research distinguishes the findings related 

to the effects of short-term solitary confinement (as Morris, 2015, has done 

recently) from those related to long-term solitary confinement in supermax 

units or facilities (as Haney and Grassian have done for many years). There are 

both qualitative and quantitative differences between incarceration in a cell for 

23 hours per day for one to 90 days and being held under such conditions for 

months and years on end. Those who decry the inhumane character of solitary 

confinement typically point to the latter. They present devastating portraits 

of the relentless anguish and serious deterioration suffered by some inmates 

incarcerated for years on end in supermax facilities. However, those effects might 

not be representative — and certainly might not be reflective — of those confined 

for short periods as a more immediate behavioral management approach. That is 

not to say that the short-term solitary confinement of inmates is not harmful, but 

if it is harmful, we do not know to whom it is harmful or the circumstances in 

which it is harmful. Little work has been done in this area, especially for distinct 

populations or in ways that would allow us to assess differences, controlling 

for what might be key explanatory variables such as variations in time spent in 

solitary confinement or variations in the conditions of the confinement. 

Establish standards for research access to populations in segregated housing units 

This paper would be remiss if it did not note that a major reason for the lack of 

an evidence base related to solitary confinement is issues of access. Research 

within prisons is notoriously difficult. Until relationships are formed and trust is 

established between an external research team and correctional administrators, 

independent research is difficult to pursue. Much of what we know about 

supermax prisons and administrative segregation, therefore, comes from official 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 33 

agency reports and statistics or research internal to corrections departments. If 

access to general prison populations has proven difficult for all but a few, access 

to those in isolation is almost, by definition, impossible. Inmates isolated in 

administrative segregation units or supermax facilities are permitted little contact 

with the inside world, let alone with the outside one.14 

Without question, the use of administrative segregation has expanded, with 

limited evidence of its impacts on the operation of prisons or on the inmates 

subjected to it. Many researchers have argued that, given the extreme conditions 

sometimes associated with administrative segregation as it is currently 

practiced, the onus is on those advocating for the maintenance or expansion of 

administrative segregation and on those running such restrictive correctional 

units and facilities to prove their benefit, especially given their substantially 

greater cost. The authors of this paper tend to agree. 

If we are to learn more about administrative segregation, whether it be its 

costs, benefits, or impacts, it is incumbent on the research-funding agencies to 

provide financial support for what will be costly research to conduct, and on the 

departments of corrections around the country to permit the access that would 

facilitate such research. Doing so will require allowing independent researchers 

access not only to data pertaining to use of these units but also unfettered access 

to the inmates being housed within them. This is easier said than done. There are 

legitimate safety and security concerns that will likely be raised in the context of 

facilitating such access; nonetheless, an evidence base will never be established in 

the absence of empirically sound research that requires access. 

Prioritize funding for research that can overcome the methods’ shortcomings 

Access is not the only problem. The only way to escape the criticism that is sure 

to face research on controversial issues is to conduct research that gets as close 

as possible to experimental designs. Unfortunately, experimental designs are 

hard to come by and almost impossible to carry out in correctional settings, for 

both practical and ethical reasons (Clear, 2010). Several more recent quantitative 

studies of administrative segregation have employed PSM because it is not 

possible, nor would it be ethical, to assign inmates randomly to administrative 

segregation. Studies that have used PSM have demonstrated that effects that exist 

with unmatched samples (e.g., prior to creating a matched comparison group) 

tend to diminish (and even disappear) when the potential selection effects are 

controlled for through PSM (Lovell et al., 2007; Mears & Bales, 2009; Morris, 

2015). Therefore, it is highly recommended that funding be reserved for research 

that can control for selection effects. 

14 As Kurki and Morris (2001) concluded at the end of their review of the thin research base for confinement in 

supermax prisons, “like so much else about a supermax prison, the walls of exclusion of knowledge are here, 

too, so much higher” (p. 418). 
34 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Evaluation research, particularly research that includes cost-benefit analyses, 

should also be prioritized. In 2008, when Mears applied an evaluation research 

framework to the emergence and growth in the use of supermax prisons, he 

concluded that there was minimal evidence that such facilities were necessary, 

no evidence that they were designed on a sound theoretical base or were costeffective, and minimal evidence that they were implemented in a consistent, 

principled manner or achieved their intended goals. In other words, the evidence 

was scant. His summary assessment remains relevant seven years later. 

Conclusion 

Few researchers would question that some prisoners being held in isolation are 

exceptionally dangerous and violent and might require some type of segregation. 

At the same time, few researchers would believe that all (or even most) of 

those held in isolation require the type of solitary confinement that is typical of 

such settings, especially for extended periods. Many have more fundamentally 

questioned whether administrative segregation requires the extreme isolation 

and sensory-deprivation characteristics of some of these environments. Virtually 

all agree that any harm associated with extended solitary confinement could and 

should be avoided. 

Notwithstanding the many gaps in the research base, the most important 

research going forward will be that which can lead to a substantial reduction 

in the need for solitary confinement through administrative segregation. It is 

incumbent upon researchers and correctional administrators to work together to 

identify viable alternatives that can ensure institutional and public safety without 

compromising the occupational well-being of correctional employees or the 

psychological well-being of inmates in the care of departments of corrections. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 35 

References 

American Civil Liberties Union. (2014). The dangerous overuse of solitary 

confinement in the United States. New York: ACLU Foundation. 

Amnesty International. (2012). Cruel isolation: Amnesty International’s concerns 

about conditions in Arizona maximum security prisons. London, England: 

Amnesty International. 

Arrigo, B. A., & Bullock, J. L. (2008). The psychological effects of solitary 

confinement on prisoners in supermax units: Reviewing what we know and 

recommending what should change. International Journal of Offender Therapy 

and Comparative Criminology, 52(6), 622-640. 

Baker, P., & Goode, E. (2015, July 21). Critics of solitary confinement are buoyed 

as Obama embraces their cause. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www. 

nytimes.com/2015/07/22/us/politics/critics-of-solitary-confinement-buoyed-asobama-embraces-cause.html. 

Beck, A. J. (2015). Use of restrictive housing in U.S. prisons and jails, 2011–12. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Bonta, J., & Gendreau, P. (1990). Reexamining the cruel and unusual punishment 

of prison life. Law and Human Behavior, 13(4), 347-372. 

Bosworth, M. (Ed.). (2005). Encyclopedia of Prisons & Correctional Facilities. 

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

Briggs, C. S., Sundt, J. L., & Castellano, T. C. (2003). The effect of supermaximum 

security prisons on aggregate levels of insitutional violence. Criminology, 41(4), 

1341-1376. 

Browne, A., Cambier, A., & Agha, S. (2011). Prisons within prisons: The use of 

segregation in the United States. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 24(1), 46-49. 

Bulman, P., Garcia, M., & Hernon, J. (2012). Study raises questions about 

psychological effects of solitary confinement. NIJ Journal. Washington, DC: 

National Institute of Justice. 

Butler, B., & Simpson, M. (2015). A solitary failure: The waste, cost, and harm of 

solitary confinement in Texas. Houston, TX: American Civil Liberties Union of 

Texas & The Texas Civil Rights Project-Houston. 

Butler, H. D., Griffin, O. H., & Johnson, W. W. (2013). What makes you the 

“worst of the worst?” An examination of state policies defining supermaximum 

confinement. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 24(6), 676-694. 
36 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Clear, T. R. (2010). Policy and evidence: The challenge to the American Society of 

Criminology. 2009 Presidential Address to the American Society of Criminology. 

Criminology, 48(1), 1-25. 

Cloyes, K. G., Lovell, D., Allen, D. G., & Rhodes, L. A. (2006). Assessment of 

psychosocial impairment in a supermaximum security unit sample. Criminal 

Justice and Behavior, 33(6), 760-781. 

Collins, W. C. (2004). Supermax prisons and the Constitution: Liability concerns in 

the extended control unit. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections. 

Crouch, B. M., & Marquart, J. W. (1989). An Appeal to justice: Litigated reform of 

Texas prisons. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 

Crouch, B. M., & Marquart, J. W. (1990). Resolving the paradox of reform: Litigation, 

prisoner violence, and perceptions of risk. Justice Quarterly, 7(1), 103-123. 

Ditton, P. (1999). Mental health and treatment of inmates and probationers. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. 

Fathi, D. C. (2004). The common law of supermax litigation. Pace Law Review, 

24(2), 675-690. 

Feeley, M. M., & Rubin, E. L. (1999). Judicial policy making and the modern state: 

How the courts reformed America’s prisons. New York: Cambridge University Press. 

Fellner, J., & Mariner, J. (1997). Cold storage: Super-maximum security 

confinement in Indiana (Vol. 2156). New York: Human Rights Watch. 

Gendreau, P., & Labrecque, R. M. (2015). The effects of administrative 

segregation: A lesson in knowledge cumulation. In J. Wooldredge & P. Smith 

(Eds.), Oxford handbook on prisons and imprisonment. New York: Oxford 

University Press. 

Gendreau, P., & Theriault, Y. (2011). Bibliotherapy for cynics revisited: 

Commentary on “One Year Longitudinal Study of Psychological Effects of 

Administrative Segregation.” Corrections and Mental Health: An Update of the 

National Institute of Corrections. 

Gibbons, J. J., & Katzenbach, N. de B. (2006). Confronting confinement: A report 

of the Commission on Safety and Abuse in America’s Prisons. New York: Vera 

Institute of Justice. 

Goode, E. (2014, March 16). After 20 hours in solitary, Colorado’s prisons chief 

wins praise. New York Times, p. A16. 

Grassian, S. (1983). Psychopathological effects of solitary confinement. American 

Journal of Psychiatry, 140(11), 1450-1454. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 37 

Grassian, S., & Friedman. (1986). Effects of sensory deprivation in psychiatric 

seclusion and solitary confinement. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 

8(1), 49-65. 

Grassian, S., & Kupers, T. (2011). The Colorado Study vs. the reality of solitary 

confinement. Correctional Mental Health Report, 13(1), 1-4. 

Griffin, M. L., & Hepburn, J. R. (2006). The effect of gang affiliation on violent 

misconduct among inmates during the early years of confinement. Criminal 

Justice and Behavior, 33(4), 419-466. 

Hager, E., & Rich, G. (2014, December 23). Shifting away from solitary. Retrieved 

from https://www.themarshallproject.org/2014/12/23/shifting-away-fromsolitary. 

Hananel, S. (2015, August 11). Justice Kennedy provides hope to solitary 

confinement foes. Retrieved from www.businessinsider.com/ap-justice-kennedyprovides-hope-to-solitary-confinement-foes-2015-8. 

Haney, C. (2002). The Psychological impact of incarceration: Implications 

for post-prison adjustment. Paper presented at the From Prison to Home 

Conference, Washington, DC. 

Haney, C. (2003). Mental health issues in long-term solitary and “supermax” 

confinement. Crime and Delinquency, 49(1), 124-156. 

Haney, C. (2008). A culture of harm: Taming the dynamics of cruelty in 

supermax prisons. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(8), 956-984. 

Haney, C., & Lynch, M. (1997). Regulating prisons of the future: The 

psychological consequences of supermax and solitary confinement. New York 

University Review of Law and Social Change, 23, 477-570. 

Henningsen, R. J., Johnson, W. W., & Wells, T. (1999). Supermax prisons: 

Panacea or desperation? Corrections Management Quarterly, 3, 53-59. 

Hershberger, G. (1998). To the max. Corrections Today, 59(1), 54-56. 

Huebner, B. M. (2003). Administrative determinants of inmate violence: A multilevel 

analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31, 107-117. 

Human Rights Watch. (2000). Out of sight: Supermaximum security confinement 

in the United States. New York: Human Rights Watch. 

Human Rights Watch & American Civil Liberties Union. (2012). Growing up 

locked down: Youth in solitary confinement in jails and prisons across the United 

States. New York: Human Rights Watch. 
38 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

James, D. J., & Glaze, L. E. (2006). Mental health problems of prison and jail 

inmates. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

King, K., Steiner, B., & Breach, S. R. (2008). Violence in the supermax: A self-fulfilling 

prophecy. The Prison Journal, 88(1), 144-168. 

King, R. D. (1991). Maximum security custody in Britain and the USA: A study 

of Gartree and Oak Park Heights. British Journal of Criminology, 31(2), 126-152. 

King, R. D. (1999). The rise and rise of supermax: An American solution in 

search of a problem? Punishment & Society, 1(2), 163-186. 

Kupers, T. A., Dronet, T., Winter, M., Austin, J., Kelly, L., Cartier, W., ... McBride, 

J. (2009). Beyond supermax administrative segregation: Mississippi’s experience 

rethinking prison classification and creating alternative mental health programs. 

Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(10), 1037-1050. 

Kurki, L., & Morris, N. (2001). The purposes, practices, and problems of 

supermax prisons. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 28, 385-424. 

Labrecque, R. M. (2015). The effect of solitary confinement on institutional misconduct: 

A longitudinal evaluation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. 

Labrecque, R. M., & Smith, P. (2013). Advancing the study of solitary confinement. 

In J. Fuhrmann & S. Baier (Eds.), Prisons and prison systems: Practices, types, and 

challenges (pp. 57-70). Hauppage, NY: Nova Science Publishers. 

Lanes, E. C. (2011). Are the “worst of the worst” self-injurious prisoners more 

likely to end up in long-term maximum-security administrative segregation? 

International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55(7), 

1034-1050. 

Liman Program & Association of State Correctional Administrators. (2015). 

Time-In-cell: ASCA-Liman 2014 National Survey of Administrative Segregation in 

Prison. New Haven, CT: Yale Law School. 

Liptak, A. (2015, June 19). Supreme Court permits new hearing for mentally 

disabled inmate. New York Times, p. A13. 

Lovell, D. (2008). Patterns of disturbed behavior in a supermax population. 

Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(8), 985-1004. 

Lovell, D., Cloyes, K., Allen, D., & Rhodes, L. (2000). Who lives in supermaximum custody? A Washington State study. Federal Probation, 64(2), 33-38. 

Lovell, D., Johnson, L. C., & Cain, K. C. (2007). Recidivism of supermax 

prisoners in Washington State. Crime & Delinquency, 53(4), 633-656. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 39 

McGinnis, K., Austin, J., Becker, K., Fields, L., Lane, M., Maloney, M., ..., Felix, T. 

(2014). Federal Bureau of Prisons: Special Housing Unit Review and Assessment. 

Arlington, VA: CNA. 

Mears, D. P. (2008). An assessment of supermax prisons using an evaluation 

research framework. The Prison Journal, 88(1), 43-68. 

Mears, D. P., & Bales, W. D. (2009). Supermax incarceration and recidivism. 

Criminology, 47(4), 1131-1166. 

Mears, D. P., & Castro, J. L. (2006). Wardens’ views on the wisdom of supermax 

prisons. Crime & Delinquency, 52(3), 398-431. 

Mears, D. P., Mancini, C., Beaver, K. M., & Gertz, M. (2013). Housing for the 

“worst of the worst” inmates: Public support for supermax prisons. Crime & 

Delinquency, 59(4), 587-615. 

Mears, D. P., & Watson, J. (2006). Towards a fair and balanced assessment 

of supermax prisons. Justice Quarterly, 23(2), 232-270. 

Metcalf, H., Morgan, J., Oliker-Friedland, S., Resnik, J., Spiegel, J., Tae, H., 

... Holbrook, B. (2013). Administrative segregation, degrees of isolation, 

and incarceration: A national overview of state and federal correctional policies. 

Hartford, CT: Liman Public Interest Program, Yale Law School. 

Morgan, R. D., Gendreau, P., Smith, P., Gray, A. L., LaBrecque, R. M., MacLean, 

N., Van Horn, S. A., Bolanos, A. D., Batastini, A. B., Mills, J. F. (2016, Aug 8). 

Quantitative syntheses of the effects of administrative segregation on inmates’ 

well-being. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. Advance online publication. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/law0000089. 

Morris, R. G. (2016). Exploring the effect of exposure to short-term solitary 

confinement among violent prison inmates. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 

32(1), 1-22. 

Naday, A., Freilich, J. D., & Mellow, J. (2008). The elusive data on supermax 

confinement. The Prison Journal, 88(1), 69-93. 

National Institute of Corrections. (1997). Supermax housing: A survey of current 

practice. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections. 

O’Donnell, I. (2014). Prisoners, solitude, and time. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford 

University Press. 

O’Donnell, I. (2016). The survival secrets of solitaries. The Psychologist, 29(3), 

184-187. 
40 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

O’Keefe, M. L. (2007). Administrative segregation for mentally ill inmates. 

Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 45(1-2), 149-165. 

O’Keefe, M. L. (2008). Administrative segregation from within: A corrections 

perspective. The Prison Journal, 88(1), 123-143. 

O’Keefe, M. L., Klebe, K. J., Stucker, A., Sturm, K., & Leggett, W. (2011). One year 

longitudinal study of the psychological effects of administrative segregation. Final 

report to the U.S. Department of Justice. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Justice. 

Olivero, J. M., & Roberts, J. B. (1987). Marion Federal Penitentiary and the 

22-month lockdown: The crisis continues. Crime and Social Justice, 27/28, 234-255. 

Osher, F., D’Amora, D. A., Plotkin, M., Jarrett, N., & Eggleston, A. (2012). 

Adults with behavioral needs under correctional supervision: A shared 

framework for reducing recidivism and promoting recovery. New York: Council 

of State Governments. 

Pizarro, J. M., & Narag, R. E. (2008). Supermax prisons: What we know, what we 

do not know, and where we are going. The Prison Journal, 88(1), 23-42. 

Pizarro, J. M., & Stenius, V. M. K. (2004). Supermax prisons: Their rise, current 

practices, and effect on inmates. The Prison Journal, 84(2), 248-264. 

Pizarro, J. M., Stenius, V. M. K., & Pratt, T. C. (2006). Supermax prisons: Myths, 

realities, and the politics of punishment in American society. Criminal Justice 

Policy Review, 17(1), 6-21. 

Pizarro, J. M., Zgoba, K. M., & Haugebrook, S. (2014). Supermax and recidivism: 

An examination of the recidivism covariates among a sample of supermax exinmates. The Prison Journal, 94(2), 180-197. 

Raemisch, R. (2014, February 21). My night in solitary. New Tork Times, p. A25. 

Ralph, P. H., & Marquart, J. W. (1991). Gang violence in Texas prisons. The 

Prison Journal, 71(2), 38-49. 

Rhodes, L. A., & Lovell, D. (2011). Is “adaptation” the right question? Addressing 

the larger context of administrative segregation. Corrections and Mental Health: 

An Update of the National Institute of Corrections. 

Richards, S. C. (2008). USP Marion: The first federal supermax. The Prison 

Journal, 88(1), 6-22. 

Riveland, C. (1999). Supermax prisons: Overview and general considerations. 

Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 41 

Romano, S. M. (1996). If the SHU fits: Cruel and unusual punishment at 

California’s Pelican Bay State Prison. Emory Law Journal, 45, 1089. 

Rothman, D. J. (1971/1990). The discovery of the asylum: Social order and disorder 

in the new republic (Rev. ed.). Boston: Little, Brown, and Company. 

Sedlak, A. J., & McPherson, K. S. (2010, May). Conditions of confinement: 

Findings from the Survey of Youth in Residential Placement. Bulletin. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Shalev, S. (2008). A sourcebook on solitary confinement. London, England: 

London School of Economics, Mannheim Centre for Criminology. 

Shalev, S., & Lloyd, M. (2011). Though this be method, yet there is madness in’t: 

Commentary on One Year Longitudinal Study of the Psychological Effects of 

Administrative Segregation. Corrections and Mental Health: An Update of the 

National Institute of Corrections. 

Shames, A., Wilcox, J., & Subramanian, R. (2015, May). Solitary confinement: 

Common misconceptions and emerging safe alternatives. New York: Vera Institute 

of Justice. 

Simon, J. (2014). Mass incarceration on trial: A remarkable court decision and the 

future of prisons in America. New York: The New Press. 

Smith, P., Gendreau, P., & Labrecque, R. M. (2015). The impact of 

solitary confinement on inmate behavior: A meta-analytic review. Paper 

presented at the North American Correctional and Criminal Justice 

Psychology (N3) Conference, Ottawa, Canada. http://media.wix.com/ 

ugd/7fc458_2efc5654e7ea4d27a9d45a64f331fec5.pdf. 

Smith, P. S. (2006). The effects of solitary confinement on prison inmates: A brief 

history and review of the literature. Crime and Justice, 34(1), 441-528. 

Solitary Watch. (2015). Testimony. Retrieved September 19, 2015, from 

http://solitarywatch.com/resources/testimony/. 

Sorenson, J. R., Cunningham, M. D., Vigen, M. P., & Woods, S. O. (2011). Serious 

assaults on prison staff: A descriptive analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, 

143-150. 

St. John, P. (2015, September 1). California agrees to move thousands of inmates 

out of solitary confinement. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://www. 

latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-california-will-move-thousands-of-inmatesout-of-solitary-20150901-story.html. 
42 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Suedfeld, P., Ramirez, C., Deaton, J., & Baker-Brown, G. (1982). Reactions and 

attributes of prisoners in solitary confinement. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 

9(3), 303-340. 

Suedfeld, P., & Roy, C. (1975). Using social isolation to change the behaviour of 

disruptive inmates. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative 

Criminology, 19(1), 90-99. 

Sundt, J. L., Castellano, T. C., & Briggs, C. S. (2008). The sociopolitical context of 

prison violence and its control: A case study of supermax and its effect in Illinois. 

The Prison Journal, 88(1), 94-122. 

Therolf, G. (2015, May 28). Advocates seek to end solitary confinement options 

for young offenders. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/ 

local/crime/la-me-solitary-juvenile-20150528-story.html. 

Toch, H. (2001). The future of supermax confinement. The Prison Journal, 81(3), 

376-388. 

United Nations. (2015a). “Mandela Rules” passed, standards on the treatment of 

prisoners enhanced for the 21st century. Press release. New York: United Nations 

Office of Drugs and Crime. 

United Nations. (2015b). United Nations standard minimum rules for the 

treatment of prisoners (the Mandela Rules). New York: United Nations. Retrieved 

from http://www.penalreform.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/MANDELARULES.pdf. 

United States Government Accountability Office. (2013). Improvements needed 

in Bureau of Prisons’ monitoring and evaluation of impact of segregated housing. 

Washington, DC: United States Government Accountability Office. 

Wallace, R. (2013). Out of sight, out of mind: Colorado’s continued warehousing 

of mentally ill prisoners in solitary confinement. Denver, CO: American Civil 

Liberties Union of Colorado. 

Ward, D. A., & Werlich, T. G. (2003). Alcatraz and Marion: Evaluating supermaximum custody. Punishment & Society, 5(1), 53-75. 

Weiss, C., Kraner, N. J., & Fisch, J. (2013). 51-jurisdiction survey of solitary 

confinement rules in juvenile justice systems. New York: Lowenstein Center for the 

Public Interest. 

White House Office of the Press Secretary. (2015). Remarks by the President 

at the NAACP conference. Washington, DC: The White House, Office of the 

Press Secretary. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 43 

Winerip, M., & Schwirtz, M. (2015, January 14). Rikers setting stricter limits for 

isolation. New York Times, p. A1. 

Wooldredge, J., & Steiner, B. (2015). A macro-level perspective on prison inmate 

deviance. Punishment & Society, 17(2), 230-257. 

Wolff, N., Blitz, C. L., Shi, J., Siegel, J., & Bachman, R. (2007). Physical violence inside 

prisons: Rates of victimization. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(5), 588-599. 

Zinger, I., Wichmann, C., & Andrews, D. A. (2001). The psychological effects of 

60 days in administrative segregation. Canadian Journal of Criminology 43(1) 

(January), 47-83. 

Cases Cited 

Bruscino v. Carlson, 854 F.2d 162 (7th Cir. 1988). 

Dixon v. Goord, 224 F. Supp. 2d 739 (S.D. N.Y. 2002). 

Madrid v. Gomez, 889 F. Supp. 1146 (N.D. Cal. 1995). 

Ruiz v. Estelle, 503 F. Supp. 1265 (S.D. Tex. 1980). 

Ruiz v. Johnson, 37 F. Supp. 2d 855 (S.D. Tex. 1999). 

Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974). 
 

APPENDIX TABLE A1: Administrative Segregation in the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) 

Special Housing Unit Special Management Unit Administrative 

(SHU) (SMU) Maximum (ADX) 

Referral:	 Inmates placed in 

SHU are in either 

administrative 

detention (AD) 

or disciplinary 

segregation (DS). 

AD is intended to 

be temporary and 

nonpunitive. DS is the 

possible sanction for 

inmates who violate 

the rules. Length 

of stay is based on 

severity of offense. 

BOP may consider 

designating an inmate to an 

SMU who (1) participated 

in or had a leadership role 

in disruptive geographical 

group/gang-related activity; 

(2) has a history of serious 

disruptive disciplinary 

infractions; or (3) committed 

any greatest severity-level 

prohibited acts after being 

classified a member of a 

disruptive group, among 

other reasons. 

Inmates whose 

placement in another 

facility poses a risk to 

the safety of inmates, 

staff, or the public 

or good order of the 

facility and/or inmates 

whose status before 

or after incarceration 

does not allow them 

to be safely housed in 

another facility. 

Population: •	 Number of cells: • Number of cells: 1,270 • Number of cells: 

7,381 • Population: 1,960 623 

•	 Population: 10,050 • 1.1% of BOP inmates • Population: 450 

•	 5.7% of BOP • 0.3% of BOP 

inmates inmates 

Confinement 

conditions: 

•	 Mostly doublebunked. 

•	 5 hours per 

week out-of-cell 

exercise. 

•	 May shower/ 

shave at least 3 

times per week. 

•	 Minimum 1 

completed call per 

month. 

•	 Minimum 4 hours 

of visitation per 

month. 

•	 Inmates eat all 

meals inside cells. 

•	 Conditions are to be made 

less restrictive when an 

inmate progresses from 

level 1 to level 4. 

•	 Mostly double-bunked. 

•	 5 hours per week out-ofcell exercise. 

•	 May shower/shave at 

least 3 times per week. 

•	 Minimum 2 completed 

calls per month. 

•	 Mail and telephone calls 

subject to monitoring for 

intelligence purposes. 

•	 Minimum 4 hours of 

visitation per month. 

•	 Inmates eat all meals 

inside cells. 

•	 Nearly all single cells. 

•	 Inmates eat all meals 

inside cells. 

Compiled from Figures 1 and 2 in the GAO report on segregation in the BOP (United States Government Accountability 

Office, 2013, pp. 7, 9). 

44 • National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 45 

APPENDIX TABLE A2: Percentage of Custodial Population (Both Sexes) in Administrative
 

Segregation (Ad Seg) and Restrictive Housing (Fall 2014) (n = 34) (continues next page)
 

All Restrictive Total Ad Seg % of Total % of Total Housing 

Alabama 24,862 729 2.90% 1,253 5.00% 

BOP 171,868 1,656 1.00% 11,387 6.60%
 

Colorado 20,944 207 1.00% 662 3.20% 

Connecticut 16,564 74 0.40% 592 3.60% 

Delaware 5,977 330 5.50% 847 14.20% 

D.C. 2,067 62 3.00% 174 8.40%
 

Florida 100,869 2,416 2.40% 8,936 8.90% 

Georgia 52,959 1,625 3.10% 1,658 3.10% 

Indiana 28,318 692 2.40% 1,789 6.30% 

Iowa 8,172 142 1.70% 542 6.60% 

Kansas 9,529 557 5.90% 664 7.00% 

Kentucky 12,103 794 6.60% 794 6.60% 

Massachusetts 10,475 313 3.00% 518 4.90% 

Michigan 44,925 1,122 2.50% 2,004 4.50% 

Missouri 31,945 1,277 4.00% 3,929 12.30% 

Montana 2,519 48 1.90% 52 2.10% 

Nebraska 5,162 173 3.40% 685 13.30% 

New 2,714 17 0.60% 270 9.90% Hampshire 

New Jersey 18,968 1,092 5.80% 168 8.90% 

New York 53,613 23 0.00% 4,198 7.80% 

North Carolina 37,695 85 0.20% 3,052 8.10% 

North Dakota 1,632 23 1.40% 63 3.90% 
46 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

APPENDIX TABLE A2: Percentage of Custodial Population (Both Sexes) in Administrative 

Segregation (Ad Seg) and Restrictive Housing (Fall 2014) (n = 34) (continued) 

All Restrictive % of Total Ad Seg % of Total Housing Total 

Ohio 50,554 1,553 3.10% 2,064 4.10% 

Oklahoma 27,488 1,183 4.30% 1,317 4.80% 

Oregon 14,591 239 1.60% 1,025 7.00% 

Pennsylvania 49,051 1,060 2.20% 2,339 4.80% 

South Carolina 21,575 483 2.20% 1,735 8.00% 

South Dakota 3,627 105 2.90% 221 6.10% 

Tennessee 21,030 445 2.10% 2,626 12.50% 

Texas 150,569 6,301 4.20% 6,301 4.20% 

Utah 6,995 95 1.40% 832 11.90% 

Washington 16,554 296 1.80% 806 4.90% 

Wisconsin 21,996 96 0.40% 1,363 6.20% 

Wyoming 2,074 50 2.40% 110 5.30% 

Total 1,049,984 25,363 2.57% 64,976 6.91% 

Source: Liman Program and Association of State Correctional Administrators (2015, Table 1). 
APPENDIX TABLE A3: Goals and Intended Impacts Associated With Supermax Prisons 

Increase prison safety: 

• Fewer murders of staff and inmates. 

• Fewer assaults on staff and inmates. 

• Fewer riots. 

• Less concern and fear among inmates and staff about threats to personal safety. 

Increase systemwide prison order and control of prisoners: 

• Greater compliance with rules by inmates. 

• Greater and more consistent fulfillment of daily routines and obligations by inmates. 

• Fewer disruptions and outbursts. 

• Fewer lockdowns in general-population prisons. 

• Fewer use-of-force incidents by staff. 

• Fewer warning shots fired by staff. 

Improve supermax prisoners’ behavior: 

• More successful reintegration of supermax inmates into other prisons and society. 

• Greater rule compliance following release from supermax prison. 

• Less violence following release from supermax prison. 

• Fewer returns to supermax prison. 

Reduce the influence of gangs: 

• Less gang involvement. 

• Less intimidation by gang members of fellow inmates. 

• Less drug trafficking. 

Punish violent and disruptive prisoners: 

• Increase level of punishment for violent and disruptive inmates. 

• Increase perceived level of punishment among violent and disruptive inmates. 

Increase public safety: 

• Fewer escape attempts. 

• Fewer successful escapes. 

• Lower recidivism rates among supermax and general-population inmates. 

• Less crime. 

• Less fear of crime among residents. 

Improve operational efficiencies: 

• Reduce delays for inmates awaiting placement into some type of segregation. 

• Reduce costs by operating fewer segregation cells and blocks in different facilities. 

• Reduce staff time devoted to transporting inmates between facilities. 

Source: Table reproduced from Mears and Watson (2006, p. 242). 

Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 47 

Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 49 

CHAPTER 2 

The Use of Administrative 

Segregation and Its Function 

in the Institutional Setting 

Ryan M. Labrecque 

Portland State University 

Introduction 

Administrative segregation — often referred to as solitary confinement — 

involves housing an inmate in conditions characterized by substantial 

isolation from other inmates (American Bar Association, 2011). 

Administrative segregation is the prison system’s answer for dealing with serious 

inmate misbehavior within the institution, in the same way that incarceration 

is society’s solution for dealing with dangerous criminals in the community. 

From this perspective, administrative segregation represents a form of detention 

within the institution — a prison within the prison (Browne, Cambier, & Agha, 

2011). The historical origins of this practice trace back to the silent penitentiaries 

in the early 19th century, where inmates were subjected to extreme forms of 

social isolation and sensory deprivation (Rothman, 1998a). The function and 

extent of the use of administrative segregation have since undergone several 

changes in the United States, from serving as the main reformation strategy for 

entire prison populations to being used as a risk-management tool aimed at 

removing select inmates from the general prisoner population (Shalev, 2009). 

There is a widely held belief among policymakers and corrections officials that 
50 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

using administrative segregation makes prisons and communities safer (see 

Mears, 2013). However, those critical of the practice contend that administrative 

segregation is an overused correctional policy, which has many damaging effects 

on inmates (Cloud, Drucker, Browne, & Parsons, 2015; Haney, 2012a) and staff 

(Ferdik, 2015; Haney, 2008). 

Beginning in the mid-1980s, there has been an increased amount of scholarly 

attention given toward the study of administrative segregation (O’Keefe, 2008). 

The majority of the available research is qualitative in nature and includes 

interviews with inmates and mental health professionals in administrative 

segregation settings (Labrecque & Smith, 2013). As a group, these anecdotal 

reports tend to use powerful excerpts from these interviews to suggest that 

administrative segregation violates prisoners’ constitutional rights, contributes 

to psychological problems, increases criminogenic risk, and is used excessively 

in the United States (e.g., Fellner & Mariner, 1997; Haney, 2009; Kupers, 2008; 

Lovell, 2008; Toch, 2003). Subsequently, there is a strong consensus in the 

literature, as well as a growing public sentiment, that administrative segregation 

is responsible for producing these devastating effects (e.g., Bauer, 2013; Gawande, 

2009; Goode, 2012; Guenther, 2012; Keim, 2013). These perceived negative 

effects have helped make this practice an issue of national prominence for 

correctional administrators. 

Although administrative segregation is widely used in many jail and prison 

systems throughout the United States, it also remains an elusive subject of 

scholarly research (Smith, Gendreau, & Labrecque, 2015). From an empirical 

standpoint, very little is known about the extent of the use of this policy or its 

effects on inmates and staff in the correctional environment. Likewise, there is 

a need to better understand if administrative segregation is an effective strategy 

for reducing crime and promoting justice. This white paper aids in this endeavor 

by examining the use and function of administrative segregation in institutional 

settings in the United States. More specifically, this paper synthesizes the 

literature on how administrative segregation is used to manage and control 

inmates in correctional facilities, discusses the limitations of the current 

empirical research, and makes recommendations for future research. The process 

for locating relevant studies for this paper included searching several databases 

(e.g., Criminal Justice Abstracts, Google Scholar, National Criminal Justice 

Reference Service) followed by an ancestry approach, where the reference lists of 

each identified study were used to locate additional studies. 

Definitional Challenges and the Importance of Terminology 

Policy evaluations must begin by defining which specific strategy or intervention 

is being tested (Rossi, Lipsey, & Freeman, 2004). However, there is no 

universally agreed-upon definition of what constitutes segregated confinement 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 51 

(Butler, Griffin, & Johnson, 2013). A review of state and federal administrative 

segregation policies reveals that, in practice, segregation settings are referred to 

by a variety of names, including “Security Housing Units,” “Restricted Housing 

Units,” and “Intensive Management Units.”1 It is likely that correctional agencies 

consciously choose the names of their segregation units to reflect the underlying 

notion of what purpose they believe the practice should serve. This idea 

about terminology and function has been raised elsewhere — under different 

circumstances — for example, when Hans Toch (1978) questioned whether 

or not a “correctional officer” by any other name was still a “screw.” It remains 

unknown, however, whether changing the name of a segregation setting to 

include the terms “management,” “behavioral,” or “modification” — rather than 

the terms “security,” “housing,” or “restricted” — represents a fundamental shift 

in the underlying ideology of the practice and a move toward redefining how 

these units should be used. Do these new labels reflect notions of rehabilitation 

or are they mere semantics? Do these settings still represent more of the same old 

style of segregation under a new name? 

Types of Segregation 

Segregation is used in many jails and prisons throughout the United States, 

ranging from minimum- to supermaximum-security facilities (Browne et al., 

2011). Correctional institutions use segregation for four distinct purposes: 

responding to serious misconduct (disciplinary segregation), ensuring the wellbeing and order of the facility (administrative segregation), protecting the inmate 

from harm (protective segregation), and meeting other institutional needs 

(temporary segregation). 

Disciplinary Segregation 

Disciplinary segregation — also referred to as punitive segregation — is a form 

of punishment for inmates who violate the institution’s rules (Harrington, 2015). 

Whenever an institutional violation occurs, a staff member may write up the 

perpetrator for the misconduct and a hearing before the rule infraction board 

will determine the facts in the case. At the hearing, evidence is presented against 

the accused and he or she can either accept blame (i.e., plead guilty) or defend 

1

 In California, segregation units are called “Security Housing Units” or “SHUs,” and in New York, the same acronym 

stands for “Special Housing Units.” Texas segregation units are called “High Security Units”; in Rhode Island, they 

are “High Security Centers”; in Louisiana, they are “Closed Cell Restricted” or “CCRs”; and in Pennsylvania they 

are called “Restricted Housing Units” or “RHUs.” In the federal prison system, one type of extreme segregation is 

the “Communication Management Unit” or “CMU.” In Washington State, the term “Intensive Management Unit” or 

“IMU” is used, and in Maine these units are called “Special Management Units” or “SMUs.” This is by no means 

a comprehensive list, but even this short review highlights that segregation settings are referred to in many 

different ways within the United States. 
52 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

himself or herself against the charges (e.g., call witnesses). If the inmate is found 

guilty, a range of sanctions may be imposed. These punishments can include 

the removal of specific privileges, loss of good time, or a sentence for a specific 

length of time in disciplinary segregation. The type and severity of the specific 

sanction for any one case depend largely on the nature of the misconduct and the 

perpetrator’s prior behavioral history in the facility. Departmental regulations 

often place limits on the amount of time an inmate may be housed in disciplinary 

segregation (e.g., 30 days). However, if the offender is charged with multiple 

violations, or if he or she accrues new violations while in segregation, the length 

of stay can be extended (Metcalf et al., 2013). 

Administrative Segregation 

Administrative segregation is used for managerial purposes, including as a 

response to an inmate who demonstrates a chronic inability to adjust to the 

general population, or when authorities believe an inmate’s presence in the 

general population may cause a serious disruption to the orderly operation 

of the institution (Shalev, 2008). Administrative segregation is often enforced 

for indeterminate periods of time. In some systems, inmates are not told the 

reason for their transfer to the administrative segregation unit, and options for 

reevaluation or release back to the general prison population are few (Fellner, 

2000). For those inmates considered to be a continued threat to the safety and 

security of the facility, segregation can be imposed for very long periods (Mears 

& Bales, 2010). In more rare cases, some inmates are held in segregation until 

they are discharged to the community at the expiration of their sentence (Lovell, 

Johnson, & Cain, 2007). 

Protective Segregation 

Protective segregation — also referred to as protective custody — is used to 

separate vulnerable inmates from the general inmate population due to personal 

physical safety concerns. These inmates often include sex offenders, police and 

prison informants, former police and correctional officers, and those at risk for 

self-harm (Wormith, Tellier, & Gendreau, 1988). Although inmates in protective 

custody are segregated for their own protection, restrictions on their contact with 

others and the programming they receive are often similar to those inmates held 

in segregation for disciplinary or administrative purposes (Browne et al., 2011). 

Temporary Segregation 

Temporary segregation is the placement of an inmate in restrictive housing that 

can occur for a wide range of institutional needs. For example, it may be used 

as an interim status for inmates pending their transfer to another institution 

or awaiting a judicial proceeding, to facilitate a criminal investigation, or when 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 53 

limited bed space in an institution necessitates the use of an otherwise empty 

segregation cell (Labrecque, 2015a). Due to its nature, temporary segregation is 

usually short in duration, but it can often precede disciplinary or administrative 

segregation placements (Harrington, 2015). 

Although correctional institutions segregate inmates for many reasons, 

the differences in the living arrangements and privileges granted to those 

residing in these settings are described as minimal (see Kurki & Morris, 2001). 

That is, within a particular segregation unit, inmates held for disciplinary, 

administrative, protective, or other purposes are generally exposed to the 

same restrictive conditions and treatment by staff. To an outside observer, 

the type of segregation being imposed on any particular offender may not be 

apparent when walking through the unit. Therefore, the term “segregation” 

is used in this paper to refer to the general practice of isolation in restricted 

environmental settings. However, where appropriate, the specific type of 

segregation being discussed will be acknowledged. 

Conditions in Segregation 

The conditions in segregation are often characterized by intense isolation and 

absolute control (see Shalev, 2008). To assess these conditions, the segregation 

policies from state and federal departments of corrections were collected and 

reviewed.2 For agencies that did not have their policies available online, a written 

copy was requested by email or phone. These policies led to several insights 

regarding the living conditions in segregation. First, prisoners are typically 

confined to a single cell for 22-23 hours a day and are subjected to increased 

cell restrictions and heightened security procedures. Prisoners in segregation 

are granted limited access to education, vocation, visitation, recreation, and 

other services that are available to the general prison population (see also the 

review by Metcalf et al., 2013). Prisoners are often taken out of their cells for 

only one to two hours per day, usually for a shower or exercise. Recreation in 

many segregation units takes place in a small fenced-in area that is exposed to 

the weather. During extreme weather conditions, prisoners must choose between 

going into these areas or remaining in their cells, thereby taking no out-of-cell 

exercise for the day (Browne et al., 2011). Before leaving their cell for any reason, 

inmates are handcuffed, and sometimes even shackled at the waist and placed in 

leg irons. 

Except when overcrowded conditions require double-bunking, virtually all 

forms of social interaction with staff and other inmates are eliminated (Browne 

et al., 2011). Inmates eat, sleep, and use the toilet in their cells. Food is delivered 

2

 Policies were collected from a total of 49 jurisdictions, which include 48 state departments of corrections and the 

Federal Bureau of Prisons. A request was made to Delaware and Louisiana, but their policies were not received 

at the time of this publication. 
54 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

through a slot in the door, meetings with counselors and mental health providers 

are often conducted through the cell door, and exercise is taken alone. Visits 

are often restricted and can be prohibited for a certain period of time when the 

inmate first arrives in the segregation unit. When family visits are allowed, the 

visitor and the inmate often sit on separate sides of a thick glass window and 

must communicate via a telephone. Finally, even mental health and medical 

services are extremely limited for prisoners in segregation, which further reduces 

their opportunity for human contact (Butler, Johnson, & Griffin, 2014). By 

comparison, inmates living in the general prison population have greater access 

to various activities (i.e., programming, recreation), which affords them a degree 

of meaningful social interaction (Gendreau & Labrecque, 2016). 

The Function of Segregation in Institutional Settings 

Since the inception of the penitentiary in the early 19th century, segregation 

has remained an important component of the American penal system. 

Throughout history, the use of segregation has sought to serve many purposes, 

including reformation, punishment, protection, behavior modification, and 

prisoner management and control (Shalev, 2009). These diverse, and at times 

contradictory, objectives make this practice the center of much controversy and 

debate (see Haney, 1997; and Scharff-Smith, 2006). Furthermore, each of these 

goals is rooted in several different theories about human nature, crime, and 

punishment, which make assessing the effectiveness of this correctional policy 

difficult (Mears, 2008). To understand the function that segregation serves in 

modern correctional institutions, it is helpful to recognize the pretenses under 

which the practice was first developed. It is also important to understand how 

various social and political events in society have led to changes in the use of 

segregation and the role it is expected to serve. 

The Penitentiary 

Segregation as a penal strategy first emerged in the United States in the early 19th 

century (Rothman, 1998a). During this time, penal reformers began to view the 

rising national crime rates as evidence that many of the country’s prisons were 

not effective at reducing crime (Kann, 2005). However, despite the perceived 

inadequacies of these institutions, reformers did not give up on the concept 

of prison (Rothman, 1980). For many, imprisonment as a societal response 

to crime still represented a vast improvement over the capital and corporal 

punishments that were used during the colonial era (Foucault, 1995). With no 

ready alternatives to take its place, reformers turned their attention to correcting 

what they perceived to be the defects of these early institutions: the destructive 

nature of the prison environment (Rothman, 1971). In this social context, the 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 55 

penitentiary emerged ready to replace those institutions that were built in the 

previous generation (Ignatieff, 1983). 

Largely influenced by the ideology of evangelical Quakers, penitentiaries were 

built by intent and design to separate inmates from all contact with corruption, 

including staff and other inmates (Cullen & Gilbert, 1982). Initially, two competing 

organizational schemes emerged: the Pennsylvania “solitary” system and the 

Auburn “silent” system. The Pennsylvania model compelled inmates to work alone 

in their cells and demanded absolute isolation (Franke, 1992). By contrast, the 

Auburn model allowed inmates to congregate during the day for meals, work, and 

prayer, but otherwise forced them to remain in their cells alone (McGowen, 1998). 

Whereas the Pennsylvania system used physical barriers to separate inmates from 

interacting with one another, the Auburn system relied on corporal punishments 

(e.g., whipping) to enforce the rule of silence (Rothman, 1980). 

Despite this fundamental difference, both systems emphasized the use of 

isolation, obedience, and a steady routine of labor as an integral part of the 

plan for reformation (Rothman, 1998b). The underlying philosophy of both 

models was that isolation would afford prisoners the ability to repent and reform 

(Rogers, 1993). Correctional administrators were confident in the power of faith 

to reform prisoners and were distinguished in their belief that rehabilitation 

was the only real task of the institution (McGowen, 1998). By removing the 

person from all temptations and substituting a steady and regular regimen, the 

segregation setting would ultimately reform the individual (Lieber, 1838/2010). 

Initially, many state facilities followed the Pennsylvania model of total isolation, 

but it was the Auburn model that became the blueprint for nearly every prison 

built during the mid-19th century (Blomberg & Lucken, 2010). This was, 

perhaps, because congregate living was less expensive than unbroken solitary 

living; and that the Auburn model promised to hold more inmates, and thus 

could bring in more money through convict labor (Rothman, 1998a). The 

congregate model also had to rely on corporal punishments to ensure compliance 

on the rules of silence. As soon as these institutions became crowded and 

corruption became rampant, ensuring silence and isolation simply became 

impossible (Rotman, 1990). In addition, there were growing concerns that 

isolated confinement caused psychological damage and that despite its hype and 

promises, the penitentiary did not eradicate crime (Kann, 2005). Prison officials 

were thus forced to rethink how prisons should operate. 

Throughout the early decades of the 20th century, there was broad optimism that 

prisons could rehabilitate criminal offenders (Allen, 1964). Although much is 

credited to the advancements during this time period (e.g., expansion of parole, 

probation, juvenile court), a number of historians argue that the actual practices 

associated with prisons, despite the rehabilitative rhetoric to the contrary, were 

still largely characterized by punishment and control (e.g., Pisciotta, 1994; 

Rothman, 1980; Rotman, 1998). During this time, prisoners were not universally 
56 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

being placed in solitary cells; however, segregation was still used for those 

inmates for whom other methods of discipline (e.g., corporal punishments) 

proved ineffective (Miller, 1980). 

The Supermax 

Maintaining prison order and safety has long been the primary task for 

correctional administrators (Reisig, 1998; Useem & Reisig, 1999). There are two 

conflicting management strategies for dealing with difficult inmates in the prison 

system: the concentration model and the dispersal model. The concentration 

model seeks to consolidate the most violent and dangerous inmates from the 

entire prison system into one tightly controlled prison (Shalev, 2009). It is a 

selective incapacitation strategy that supports the segregation of subgroups of 

offenders as a means to achieve safety and order throughout the prison system 

(Ward & Werlich, 2003). An example of this approach is the Alcatraz Federal 

Penitentiary. When it opened in San Francisco in 1933, officials boasted that it 

housed the country’s most notorious criminals (Ward, 2009). 

In contrast, the dispersal model argues that the best way to manage difficult 

prisoners is to spread them throughout different institutions to dilute their 

negative influence in populations of generally conforming inmates (Pizarro & 

Stenius, 2004). When Alcatraz was closed in 1963, many of its prisoners were 

initially transferred throughout the federal prison system. Shortly thereafter, 

another federal prison — United States Penitentiary (USP) Marion (Illinois) — 

became known for housing the most violent and disruptive federal and state 

prisoners (Richards, 2008). Initially, prisoners in USP Marion were able to 

congregate for certain activities (e.g., meals, recreation). However, in 1983, 

after several inmates and two officers were killed, the prison declared a state of 

emergency and “locked down,” thus becoming the country’s first supermaximum 

(or supermax) prison (Ward & Werlich, 2003). 

Supermax facilities represent a management style in corrections that focuses 

on providing increased control over inmates who are known (or thought 

to be) violent, assaultive, major escape risks, or otherwise disruptive in the 

general population (Riveland, 1999). Supermax settings seek to hold the most 

serious and chronic troublemakers from the general prison population — the 

so-called “worst of the worst” (Henningsen, Johnson, & Wells, 1999; Shepperd, 

Geiger, & Welborn, 1996). This concentrated approach to managing offenders 

represents a return to the tenants of the strict control practices found in the early 

penitentiaries (Haney, 1993; Toch, 2001). 

In the 1980s, several “get tough” penal policies were enacted in the United 

States that helped contribute to an increase in the number of incarcerated 

offenders (e.g., mandatory minimum sentencing laws, three-strikes laws, truth 

in sentencing laws) (Austin & Irwin, 2012). The coupling of overcrowded living 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 57 

conditions and increased institutional violence led to growing concerns for staff 

and inmate safety throughout the country (Steiner & Wooldredge, 2008; Useem 

& Kimball, 1991). In response, many states constructed their own supermax 

prisons and increasingly relied on segregation to reduce violence throughout the 

prison system (Sundt et al., 2008). 

Contemporary Use of Segregation 

Policymakers often justify the use of segregation — at least in part — on the 

premise that the public demands its use (Pizarro et al., 2006). However, there is 

little research that has assessed public opinion in this area. One notable exception 

is a recent study by Mears and his colleagues (Mears, Mancini, Beaver, & Gertz, 

2013). Their 2006 survey of 1,308 Florida residents found that public support 

for supermax prisons is strong when residents anticipate a safety benefit (82 

percent). Mears et al. (2013) also report that such support diminishes by 21 

percent when no such benefit is expected. These results come with the caveat 

that they are from only one state, and it is unknown if they will generalize to 

other jurisdictions. However, this research is important because it suggests 

that the public prefers correctional practices that reduce recidivism rather than 

those that do not. 

The use of segregation implicitly expresses sentiments of punishment and 

retribution; however, its goals often include incapacitation, deterrence, and 

rehabilitation (see Mears & Watson, 2006). Two recent studies independently 

reviewed the available official segregation policies of state and federal 

jurisdictions in the United States. First, Butler et al. (2013) examined the 

supermax admission criteria in 42 state jurisdictions. They found that 98 percent 

of the state systems they examined had official policies in 2010 that allowed 

officials to place inmates in supermax custody because they were believed to 

pose a threat to institutional safety. Other reasons found for sending inmates to 

supermax include repeat violent behavior (74 percent), escape risk (67 percent), 

riotous behavior (45 percent), and belonging to a group that is deemed a security 

threat (36 percent). In the second study, Metcalf et al. (2013) reviewed 46 state 

and federal segregation policies. They reached a similar conclusion, reporting 

that in 2012, many jurisdictions placed inmates in segregation because officials 

believed they posed a threat to “the life, property, security, or orderly operation 

of the institution” (p. 5). 

These findings, coupled with the current review of segregation policies, indicate 

that the function of segregation in the modern era is to remove inmates who 

pose a threat to the order of the institution from the general prison population, 

which can occur for disciplinary, protective, or administrative reasons (Butler 

et al., 2013; Browne et al., 2011; Metcalf et al., 2013; Shalev, 2009). Furthermore, 

policymakers and corrections officials often justify the use of segregation 

because they believe it is an effective strategy for increasing safety and promoting 
58 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

order throughout the prison system (Mears, 2013). However, among the many 

controversial issues that the practice raises is the contention that segregation 

increases (rather than decreases) the likelihood of subsequent criminal behavior 

and thus makes prisons and communities less safe over time (see Pizarro et 

al., 2006). It has further been widely speculated that long-term durations in 

segregation exacerbate the detrimental effects of the setting on inmate outcomes 

(i.e., leads to even more criminal behavior; Pizarro, Zgoba, & Haugebrook, 2014). 

Before examining the empirical literature on the effects of segregation, this paper 

first examines the research on the use of this practice in the United States. 

The Use of Segregation 

Prevalence of Segregation 

In 1997, the National Institute of Corrections conducted a national survey of 

departments of corrections that focused on the use of supermax-style housing. 

The results of this survey reveal tremendous variation in the supermax facilities 

across the state and federal prison systems. Some supermax institutions are 

stand-alone buildings, whereas others consist of units within an existing 

correctional facility that have been redesigned to meet the strict control needs 

of the supermax model. As of 2004, 44 states are known to operate 57 supermax 

facilities, collectively housing at least 25,000 inmates nationwide (Naday, Freilich, 

& Mellow, 2008). 

In 1999, King supplemented the National Institute of Corrections (1997) data 

with further information acquired from state and federal departments of 

corrections. King (1999) estimates that less than 2 percent of all state and federal 

inmates serving one year or more in prison were held in a supermax setting. 

His assessment also reveals that the extent of the use of supermax varies widely 

among states. For example, some organizations (e.g., Pennsylvania) report 

incarcerating less than 1 percent of inmates in supermax settings, while others 

(e.g., Mississippi) report incarcerating up to 12 percent. 

These studies, while informative, focus specifically on supermax confinement 

and ignore the many other forms of segregation, or segregation-like, settings to 

which inmates may be exposed during their incarceration (Zinger, 2013). More 

broadly, estimates on the prevalence of segregation vary from 25,000 to 100,000 

(Metcalf et al., 2013). Some of the best estimates come from the Federal Bureau 

of Prisons (BOP), where a recent U.S. Government Accountability Office report 

reveals that approximately 6 percent of all federal prisoners are held in some 

form of segregated confinement (McGinnis et al., 2014). This report also shows 

that this percentage has decreased since at least 2011, when the BOP housed 

approximately 7 percent of inmates in segregated confinement. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 59 

More recently, the Liman Program — in conjunction with the Association of 

State Correctional Administrators (ASCA) — conducted a national survey of 

departments of corrections to assess how many inmates were held in segregation 

during the fall of 2014 (Liman Program & ASCA, 2015). This study found that 

approximately 66,000 inmates were under some form of disciplinary, protective, 

and administrative segregation, which equated to an average segregated 

population of approximately 7 percent. These rates also vary greatly from a low 

of 2 percent in Montana to a high of 14 percent in Delaware. However, these 

estimates are derived from only 33 of the state and the federal prison systems. 

Estimating the use of segregation in the United States is a continued challenge, 

particularly because many jails and prisons do not track this information in 

a way that is easily accessed by researchers. The lack of a clear definitional 

consensus on what practices constitute segregation further make estimating its 

use more difficult (Frost & Monteiro, 2016), which is likely a contributing factor 

to the differences found in the previous estimates. Further, some prison systems 

have been accused of failing to report, or underreporting, their use of segregation 

to avoid acknowledging the use of solitary confinement in their department (see 

Naday et al., 2008). If the accusations prove to be true, the current estimates may 

be low. 

Another challenge for determining the extent of the use of segregation is that 

inmates are often held in such settings for varying lengths of time (see Mears & 

Bales, 2010). A problem with relying on prevalence estimates, therefore, is that 

there may be many inmates who occupy a specific segregation cell over a given 

length of time. Likewise, the use of only snapshot assessments — at one point in 

time — may produce estimates that appear much lower than those that include 

the incident counts of all of the inmates held in the setting over a specific time. 

There are two recent studies that address this issue by examining how many 

inmates are held in segregation over an extended period (see Beck, 2015, and 

Labrecque & Smith, 2015). 

Incidence of Segregation 

The first incidence-based estimate comes from Labrecque and Smith (2015), 

who conducted a five-year evaluation of the use of segregation in the state of 

Ohio. Labrecque and Smith (2015) report that 36 percent (or 42,632) of the 

118,447 admitted to the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction 

(ODCR) between 2007 and 2012 experienced some form of segregation within 

the same time frame. It is important to note that this estimate is derived from 

longitudinal information and includes all forms of segregation (i.e., disciplinary, 

administrative, protective, and temporary), something that is not typical in 

estimating the use of segregation. As a comparison, the Liman and ASCA (2015) 

report, which uses a prevalence estimate, reports that approximately 4 percent of 

the ODRC population was held in segregation during the fall of 2014. Although 
60 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

these two investigations are from different years and are not directly comparable, 

this illustration highlights the importance of examining both the prevalence and 

incidence estimates of the use of segregation. 

More recently, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) released a special report 

on the use of restrictive housing that gives a better picture of how the practice 

is used in jails and prisons throughout the United States (see Beck, 2015). The 

BJS study is important because it includes a national representative sample 

of incarcerated persons in both prisons and jails. Information from the latter 

group has been much less discussed in the research literature (see Haney, 

Weill, Bakhshay, & Lockett, 2015). Beck found that on any given day in 2011­

2012, approximately 4 percent of state and federal inmates and 3 percent of jail 

inmates were being held in some form of restrictive housing. Further, this study 

revealed that nearly 20 percent of prison inmates and 18 percent of jail inmates 

spent time in segregation in the previous year. These estimates include inmates 

in segregation for both disciplinary and administrative reasons, but due to the 

nature of the survey questions it was not possible to disaggregate how many were 

in each type separately. 

Continued research is needed in this area. Such work will not only better inform 

how segregation is used throughout the United States but will also be an essential 

component for effectively reducing its use. That is, to develop any knowledgeable 

strategy for reducing the use of segregation, prison officials must first understand 

the basics: how many inmates are held in segregation on any given day and how 

many inmates experience segregation during their incarceration. This will require 

researchers and correctional agencies to continue to work together toward 

overcoming the challenges associated with estimating such use. 

Duration in Segregation 

Many of the criticisms of the use of segregation focus on the perceived 

psychological damage that occurs from spending prolonged durations in such 

settings. However, there is no universally agreed upon length of time that is 

considered an extended period. Those critical of the practice generally argue for 

setting standards that would limit stays in segregation to 90 days (e.g., Jackson, 

1983; Haney & Lynch, 1997). Likewise, the evaluation literature on this topic 

tends to use 90 days as the cut-point for defining long-term segregation (e.g., 

Lovell et al., 2007; Mears & Bales, 2009). Others, however, argue for much 

shorter time caps. More than 30 years ago, Gendreau and Bonta (1984) suggested 

limiting the use of segregation to 14 days. More recently, the United Nations 

(2015) used 15 days to define a prolonged duration. Given these concerns 

about duration in segregation, there is a need to better understand how long 

inmates spend in these settings, how many times they are placed in them, what 

proportion of their total prison sentence is served in segregation, and what 

length of time (if any) is optimal for inmates to spend in segregation settings. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 61 

In a study of the Florida Department of Corrections, Mears and Bales (2010) 

found that approximately 2 percent of the inmates released from custody 

between 1996 and 2001 experienced at least one stay in supermax confinement 

for 30 days or more. Mears and Bales (2010) point out that most accounts 

of supermax housing assume that it is a one-time event; however, their data 

reveal that the average supermax inmate experiences four separate segregation 

placements, and some have more than 10 separate stays. Mears and Bales (2010) 

also show considerable range in the duration of time that inmates are held in 

supermax, extending from one month to more than three years. Finally, the 

authors report that approximately 14 percent of the sample spent half of their 

prison term or more in supermax, 39 percent spent a quarter or more of their 

prison term in supermax, and 15 percent spent less than 5 percent of their prison 

term in supermax. 

In their study of segregation in Ohio, Labrecque and Smith (2015) found that 

more than half of the inmates who spent time in segregation served fewer than 

30 days; however, 9 percent of the sample served 180 days or more. With each 

successive placement in segregation, the mean duration of that segregation 

increased, from an average of 17 days for the first stay to an average of 28 days 

by the fifth stay. Of those experiencing segregation, 45 percent had only one 

stay; however, 16 percent had five or more total placements. Finally, more 

than half of the sample spent less than 5 percent of their total prison time in 

segregation, but 9 percent (or 3,880 inmates) spent more than a quarter of their 

total sentence in segregation. 

The findings from these two studies indicate that the frequency and duration of 

segregation vary widely. These findings are admittedly limited to these two states 

and may not necessarily generalize to other jurisdictions; however, the results from 

the Liman and ASCA (2015) national-level investigation reveal a similar pattern 

in segregation use throughout the United States. Of the 24 jurisdictions reporting 

systemwide data on the length of stay in this study, 11 reported that most prisoners 

were held in segregation for fewer than 90 days and 18 described holding some 

prisoners in segregation for more than three years (Liman & ACSCA, 2015). 

This research indicates that although some inmates remain in segregation 

settings for very long durations, the vast majority of inmates experience much 

shorter stays. What remains a mystery, however, is what is an optimal time for 

being held in segregation? The policy recommendations aimed at placing time 

caps on segregation to date are based on personal opinion and clinical wisdom 

rather than empirical evidence (e.g., Jackson, 1983; Gendreau & Bonta, 1984; 

Haney & Lynch, 1997). An effort should be made to assess if there is a tipping 

point of diminishing marginal returns for time spent in segregation. Such 

research would better inform correctional officials about what limits to place on 

inmate stays in segregation. 
62 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Inmates in Segregation 

Segregation settings are described as targeting the “worst of the worst” inmates, 

which includes those who are escape risks, gang members, predators, and high 

profile or notorious inmates (Shalev, 2009). Some raise concerns, however, that in 

practice these settings actually consist of many “nuisance” inmates (i.e., those who 

do not pose a direct threat to the safety and security of the institution), rather than 

those who are truly violent or dangerous (Kurki & Morris, 2001; Shames, Wilcox, 

& Subramanian, 2015). Given this discrepancy, there is a critical need to better 

understand which types of offenders are being held in segregation settings. 

Recently, Labrecque (2015b) took stock of the empirical literature on 

the predictors of segregation to address the question of “who ends up in 

segregation”? More specifically, his meta-analysis examines the differences in 

key variables between inmates who are held in segregation settings and those 

held in the general prison population. Labrecque (2015b) identified 16 studies 

that met his inclusion criteria: (1) the study must have been conducted on 

prisoners in a custodial setting (i.e., prison or jail), (2) the study must have 

compared the characteristics of inmates in a segregation setting to those in the 

general population, and (3) the study had to have contained sufficient data to 

calculate an effect size (i.e., Pearson’s r or phi coefficient). The segregation and 

non-segregation groups were then compared on a range of available inmate 

characteristics, criminal history, institutional behavior, and criminogenic needs 

variables. 

The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that segregated inmates tend to be 

younger and are more likely to be an ethnic minority, have a mental disorder, 

be a gang member, and be rated as at high risk to recidivate, when compared 

to the inmates from the general prison population. Segregated inmates were 

also more likely to have a violent criminal history, have prior juvenile justice 

involvement, and be higher risk on their initial institutional classification 

rating. Finally, inmates in segregation settings were much more likely to have a 

history of engaging in institutional misconduct and to have previously served 

time in segregation. 

This meta-analysis also examined the differences between the two groups with 

respect to their levels of criminogenic need. Across every domain assessed, the 

inmates in segregation possessed much greater levels of criminogenic needs 

when compared to those in the general prison population. The magnitudes 

of these differences also varied by type of criminogenic need. Specifically, the 

areas of need with the largest magnitude of difference included motivation for 

treatment, education, and antisocial attitudes. The next largest set of differences 

was found in the areas of personal/emotional, substance abuse, and antisocial 

associates. The areas with the smallest magnitude of differences were found in the 

domains of community functioning/leisure, employment, and family/marital. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 63 

The findings of this meta-analysis are important but must be interpreted with 

caution because many of the estimates were derived with small sample sizes and, 

in some cases, with only a few effect sizes. The studies included in the metaanalysis were also limited to investigations from a subset of correctional systems 

that were willing to share their data on this controversial and potentially litigious 

practice. Therefore, these results may not necessarily generalize to all correctional 

systems in the United States. Fortunately, the recent BJS report on segregation 

also examines the differences between prisoners held in segregation and those 

found in the general prison population (see Beck, 2015). 

The findings of the BJS study support those from the Labrecque (2015b) metaanalysis. Specifically, the BJS report found that 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 at least 

a high school diploma, and heterosexual inmates (Beck, 2015). The report also 

found that inmates sentenced for violent offenses (not including sex offenses) 

and inmates with extensive arrest histories or prior incarcerations were more 

likely to spend time in restrictive housing than those held for other offenses and 

with no prior arrests or incarcerations. Finally, inmates who were involved in 

serious institutional violence (i.e., assaulting other inmates or staff) and those 

suffering from serious psychological distress were significantly more likely to 

spend time in restricted housing than those who were well behaved and did not 

have any mental health issues (Beck, 2015). 

This review of the available evidence does not support the contention that 

segregation settings are reserved only for the most highly incorrigible and 

dangerous offenders. Rather, the available evidence indicates that perhaps a 

better way to describe the segregated population is “difficult to manage.” This 

research suggests that the segregated population tends to possess those traits 

that correlate more highly with antisocial behavior. They are mostly younger, 

have more extensive criminal histories, worse institutional behavior, and more 

criminogenic needs. On a positive note, this does indicate that prisons are 

effectively targeting the inmates who are most at risk for engaging in criminal 

behavior for placement in segregation. However, segregation is used under the 

assumption that the setting will improve safety and security within the prison 

system and beyond (Mears, 2013), but there are many theoretical reasons 

that suggest this practice may not be the best strategy for effectively achieving 

these goals (see Gendreau & Labrecque, 2016). Next, the empirical literature is 

reviewed to assess what effect segregation has on subsequent inmate outcomes. 

The Effects of Segregation 

There is a critical need to determine if segregation is an effective strategy for 

making prisons safer and more humane settings (Labrecque, 2015a). This review 
64 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

of the evaluation literature begins by first examining its effect on psychological 

outcomes. Because improving mental health function is not a goal of segregation, 

this literature is only briefly discussed. It is left to other white papers to more 

comprehensively examine the psychological impact of segregated confinement 

(e.g., Frost & Monteiro, 2016). Instead, the current discussion focuses more 

extensively on the effect that segregation has on a variety of criminal behavior 

outcomes (e.g., institutional levels of violence, post-release recidivism, 

institutional misconduct), because one of the often-cited rationales for the 

practice is that it is an effective deterrent of such behaviors (Angelone, 1999; 

Gavora, 1996). 

Psychological Outcomes 

Without a doubt, the most contentious debates in this area involve the 

psychological effects of segregation. The belief that segregated confinement 

causes psychological damage is not new. After visiting some of the early 

United States penitentiaries in the 19th century, several notable European 

contemporaries condemned the practice, suggesting it causes inhabitants undue 

psychological distress (e.g., de Beaumont & de Tocqueville, 1833; Dickens, 

1842/1985). The majority of the research conducted to date, however, has largely 

been limited to qualitative investigations (e.g., Grassian, 1983; Haney, 2003; 

Kupers, 2008; Lovell, 2008). Some scholars insist these anecdotal reports are 

the unequivocal evidence that segregation causes serious mental health issues 

amongst its inhabitants (Haney, 2012b). 

More recently, however, other scholars point out the methodological shortcomings 

in much of the literature that contributes to this conclusion (e.g., selection bias, 

response bias, inadequate or no control groups), which in their estimation limits 

the credibility of their results (Gendreau & Labrecque, 2016; Suedfeld, Ramirez, 

Deaton, & Baker-Brown, 1982; Zinger, Wichmann, & Andrews, 2001). Two recent 

independent meta-analytic reviews on this topic (Labrecque, Smith, & Gendreau, 

2013; Morgan et al., 2014) conclude that not only has segregation been an elusive 

subject of empirical research, but also the effects on inmate physical and mental 

health functioning found from the available studies tend to be in the “small” to 

“moderate” range, rather than “large” as has been predicted by those critical of the 

practice (see also Smith, Gendreau, & Labrecque, 2015). These findings suggest 

that segregation may not produce any more of an iatrogenic effect than do other 

housing options in prison (i.e., general population). 

Although more research is clearly needed in this area before any definitive 

conclusions should be drawn, these findings serve as a caution to reviewers about 

making judgments regarding the effects of segregation too hastily, especially 

when they are based on qualitative rather than quantitative evidence. More 

empirical research is needed on the psychological effects of segregation. It 

should address the number of research design issues that have been identified 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 65 

in this literature base. It should also assess the moderating effects of the quality 

of staff-inmate interactions, conditions of confinement, increased length of time 

in segregation, and other offender-level characteristics (e.g., age, gender, mental 

health status, risk level; see Gendreau & Labrecque, 2016). This type of research 

is important to corrections administrators because it can help them identify 

which inmates to exclude from placement in segregation. It could also serve as 

a guide for improving the conditions in such settings in order to achieve more 

desirable outcomes (e.g., less psychological deterioration, improved behavior). 

Behavioral Outcomes 

Despite the many calls for more empirical evaluations of the effects of segregation 

(e.g., Briggs, Sundt, & Castellano, 2003, p. 1342; Kurki & Morris, 2001, p. 393; 

and Ward & Werlich, 2003, p. 54), a very limited number of behavioral outcome 

studies have been conducted to date. Within this limited research base, three 

types of outcomes are examined: institutional violence, post-release recidivism, 

and institutional misconduct. One of the key reasons that the field lacks sound 

empirical knowledge on the effects of segregation is due, in part, to the type of 

research methodology employed in these investigations. Therefore, the current 

literature base is reviewed and is further separated by the type of research 

methodology used. 

Institutional violence 

One of the often-stated purposes of the use of segregation includes improving 

the systemwide order in prison systems (see Mears & Watson, 2006). Very little 

empirical research has assessed whether segregation is effective in reducing 

aggregate levels of violence. The limited research in this area typically examines 

trends in measures of institutional violence across correctional systems over time. It 

looks specifically for differences before and after changes in the use of segregation 

(e.g., construction of supermax facility) and has produced mixed findings. 

In their discussion on the effects of policy changes in the Texas prison system 

in the late 1980s, Marquart and colleagues attribute the decline in institutional 

violence and inmate murders to the massive lockdown of the state’s gang 

members into segregation settings (Crouch & Marquart, 1989, 1990; Ralph 

& Marquart, 1991). Ralph and Marquart acknowledge that this policy change 

drastically increased the number of inmates held in administrative segregation 

but remain convinced that the concentration strategy is effective in reducing 

levels of violence throughout the prison system. More recently, Useem and 

Piehl (2006) used a similar analytical approach with national-level prison data 

over a longer period. However, they concluded that the decrease in the number 

of prison riots, disturbances, arsons, escapes, assaults, and murders between 

the 1980s and early 2000s did not correlate with the changes in segregation 

practices, which they point out actually declined between 1982 and 2001. The 
66 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

use of segregation, therefore, was not directly responsible for the improvements 

in prison order. It is worth pointing out that this type of research design is 

speculative because it fails to consider the other historical threats to validity 

(i.e., other changes within the system that occurred during the same time). 

More recently, researchers have employed more advanced statistical techniques 

to assess the influence of segregation on institutional violence, which has 

also produced mixed findings. For example, using a multilevel model design 

with a nationally representative sample of 4,168 male inmates from 185 state 

correctional facilities, Huebner (2003) assesses the effect of different types of 

administrative control on inmate assaults. She found segregation use — defined 

as “the percent of the total inmate population that received solitary confinement 

as a disciplinary response to the most recent rule infraction” (p. 110) — was 

ultimately unrelated to levels of inmate-on-inmate or inmate-on-staff assaults. 

Another study conducted by Briggs et al. (2003) uses a multiple interrupted 

time series design to examine whether the emergence of supermax housing 

in three states (Arizona, Illinois, and Minnesota) produced a reduction in 

systemwide levels of violence, when compared to a comparison state that did not 

construct a supermax prison in the same period (Utah). They found supermax 

prisons did not reduce levels of inmate-on-inmate violence but did find mixed 

support for their ability to increase staff safety. Specifically, the implementation 

of a supermax prison had no effect on levels of inmate-on-staff violence in 

Minnesota, temporarily increased staff injuries in Arizona, and reduced assaults 

against staff in Illinois. It is worth noting that only four of the 24 states sampled 

provided the researchers with sufficient data to conduct the time series analysis 

(i.e., monthly violence estimates over the five years before the construction of the 

supermax facility in their state), which “raises concern about the generalizability 

of the sample” (p. 1352). 

The evidence does not support the contention that supermax prisons are 

responsible for reducing systemwide levels of violence. This finding calls into 

question the justification of the practice on the basis that it improves safety and 

order throughout the prison system. However, more research is needed in this 

area, particularly for investigations that can overcome some of the shortcomings 

found in the prior research. 

Recidivism 

Approximately half of the respondents in a national survey of prison wardens 

identify rehabilitation as a goal of segregation (see Mears & Castro, 2006). 

Likewise, several empirical investigations assess the effect of segregation on 

measures of post-release recidivism. These studies, however, vary widely in their 

methodological quality and results. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 67 

In a study from the federal prison system, Ward and Werlich (2003) use a 

nonequivalent comparison group design to examine the differences in the returnto-prison rates between a group of inmates released from Alcatraz (i.e., segregation 

group; n = 1,550) and a random subsample of inmates released from Leavenworth 

(i.e., non-segregation comparison group; n = 257) between 1934 and 1963 (see 

also Ward, 2009). Ward and Werlich (2003) found that inmates released from 

Alcatraz were more likely to be returned to federal custody during follow-up 

(50 percent) compared to those released from Leavenworth (37 percent). However, 

the offenders sent to Alcatraz had more extensive and serious criminal histories 

(Ward, 2009). Likewise, it is reasonable to suspect that differences between these 

two groups may have also had an influence on the results. 

In 2011, Seale and colleagues also conducted a nonequivalent comparison 

group recidivism study in the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation. They found that, of the inmates who were released from custody 

during fiscal year 2006-2007, those who had served time in the Security 

Housing Unit (SHU) had a higher return-to-prison rate during a three-year 

follow-up (70 percent) compared to those who did not spend any time in SHU 

during their commitment (65 percent). However, prior group differences may 

have affected the results. For example, prior research suggests that inmates in 

segregation are more likely than inmates in the general population to possess 

many characteristics (e.g., younger age, greater criminal histories, higher risk 

for recidivism, gang affiliation) that also place them at a greater likelihood for 

recidivating (Lovell, Cloyes, Allen, & Rhodes, 2000). The results from these 

studies should be interpreted cautiously. 

In Washington state, Lovell and colleagues (2007) employed another type 

of research methodology to assess the effects of segregation on recidivism: 

the matched comparison group design. They identified 200 inmates who 

were released from the Washington Department of Corrections in 1997 and 

1998 and who also served at least 12 weeks in a supermax setting during 

their commitment. These supermax inmates were matched one-to-one to a 

comparison group of non-supermax inmates from the larger pool of 6,453 

offenders released during the same time. These two groups were matched based 

on nine demographic and criminal history variables. Lovell and colleagues 

(2007) found that the inmates who experienced supermax were more likely to be 

found guilty of a new felony within three years of release (53 percent) compared 

to the inmates who did not experience supermax (46 percent); however, this 

difference was not statistically significant. They also reported that inmates who 

were released into the community directly from the supermax setting were more 

likely to be found guilty of a new felony (69 percent), compared to those who 

experienced segregation, but spent three or more months in general population 

before being released into the community (46 percent). 

It is worth noting that offenders from the former group were also younger 

and had more extensive criminal histories, compared to those from the latter 
68 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

group. When the direct-release and later-release inmates were matched for age 

and criminal history — two well-known predictors of criminal behavior — the 

significance of the group difference disappeared. Lovell and colleagues (2007) 

argue that this finding may be an artifact of the small sample size in their 

study. However, it is also possible that segregation may not have any effect on 

recidivism once other relevant factors are considered. 

More recently, researchers have started employing more analytically advanced 

matching techniques — most notably propensity score matching — in an attempt 

to reduce the selection group biases in segregation research. In a study of the 

Florida Department of Corrections, Mears and Bales (2009) examined three-year 

recidivism outcomes between a group of supermax inmates who spent more than 

90 days in a supermax setting (n = 1,267) with a comparison group of inmates 

who were propensity score matched from the larger pool of inmates in the Florida 

system during the sampling time frame (n = 58,752). Although the differences 

found between the two groups for any recidivism was not significant (59 percent 

for supermax compared to 58 percent for non-supermax), inmates in the supermax 

group were significantly more likely to violently recidivate during follow-up than 

those in the control group (24 percent for supermax compared to 21 percent for 

non-supermax). Further, Mears and Bales (2009) found no evidence that the 

duration spent in segregation, or the timing of release from segregation (direct or 

later release), had any significant effect on the outcomes examined. 

Another outcome evaluation using propensity score analysis matched 57 inmates 

who had served time in the Ohio supermax prison during select periods in 

2003 and 2005 to a control group of inmates from the general prison population 

who did not serve any time in the supermax setting (n = 1,512) (Butler, Steiner, 

Makarios, and Travis, 2013). Inmates were matched on the characteristics of 

age, race, risk level, sentence type and severity, gang member status, sex offender 

status, education, and time served. The results showed no statistically significant 

difference between the two groups in terms of rearrest or return to prison during 

a seven-year follow-up period. 

It is important to note that the recidivism studies with the weaker methodological 

designs produce much larger effect sizes than those with more scientific integrity. 

The findings from the more methodologically rigorous studies reveal a null effect 

of segregation on recidivism. These findings challenge the use of segregation to 

reduce post-release recidivism. However, much more work is needed in this area. 

In particular, studies are needed that can overcome the challenges of identifying 

appropriate comparison group cases. 

Institutional misconduct 

Increasing prison safety is an often-cited goal of segregation (see Mears & Castro, 

2006). Likewise, researchers have begun to assess what effect segregation has on 

individual levels of institutional misconduct. Recently, Morris (2016) evaluated 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 69 

the effect of short-term exposure to segregation on subsequent misbehavior 

in a sample of male inmates who were admitted into the Texas Department 

of Corrections between 2004 and 2006. He used a multilevel counterfactual 

research design (i.e., propensity score matching) to assess group differences 

between inmates who were sent to segregation as a punishment for an initial act 

of violence (the treatment group) and those who were not sent to segregation as 

a punishment for an initial act of violence (the control group) during the first 

two years of their commitment. He found that the use of short-term disciplinary 

segregation (i.e., 15 days or less) had no statistically significant effect on the 

occurrence or timing of subsequent violent infractions. 

Another recent study conducted by Labrecque (2015a) examined the impact of 

segregation on subsequent misconduct among inmates who were admitted into 

the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction between 2007 and 2010 

and who experienced at least one stay in disciplinary segregation during their 

commitment (n = 14,311). He used a pooled time series design to assess whether 

the experience of segregation in a preceding time wave (and the number of 

days spent in segregation) influenced the probability of engaging in misconduct 

during the next time wave.3

 This research design is particularly useful because it 

takes advantage of the within-individual variation in the exposure to segregation 

to assess whether the experience had an influence on the probability of being 

found guilty of an institutional misconduct charge in the subsequent time wave. 

Labrecque also found that neither the experience of disciplinary segregation, 

nor the number of days spent in such settings, had any significant effect on the 

prevalence or incidence of the finding of guilt for subsequent violent (e.g., assault), 

nonviolent (e.g., damage to property, theft), or drug infractions (e.g., possession of 

drugs and alcohol). 

These two studies — although certainly not without their limitations — represent 

methodologically rigorous tests using sophisticated analytical procedures to 

assess the influence of segregation on subsequent measures of institutional 

behavior. The findings of both studies indicate that the experience of disciplinary 

segregation does not decrease, or increase, institutional misbehavior. Instead, 

they support the contention that segregation has no significant effect on 

criminal behavior. This research is naturally in need of replication, and further 

investigations of institutional behavior should include segregation stays of a 

longer duration and for different reasons (i.e., administrative). 

Discussion 

This white paper explored how segregation is used to manage and control 

inmates within correctional institutions. It shows that definitional and reporting 

3 Time waves were constructed into three-month intervals beginning with the inmate’s initial admission date. 
70 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

challenges make it difficult to determine how this practice is used throughout 

the United States. Despite these obstacles, this investigation revealed several 

important findings on the use of segregation that are important for researchers 

and practitioners alike. Further, these findings help move the National Institute 

of Justice forward in its attempt to advance knowledge on the use and effect 

of segregation in the United States and to help translate research findings so 

criminal justice professionals can make informed decisions regarding the future 

use of this practice (Rodriguez, 2015). 

First, the differences found in the prevalence estimates between studies are likely 

due to the parameters that researchers place on the definition of segregation. 

Estimates derived from only examining the number of inmates in supermax 

settings are much lower than those that also include other forms of segregation 

(e.g., administrative, disciplinary, protective, temporary). Second, estimates 

of the incidence of segregation suggest that many more inmates experience 

such settings during their commitment, when compared to the estimates of the 

prevalence of segregation. This difference is due to the fact that longitudinal 

examinations are able to capture the many inmates who cycle through these 

units over time rather than relying on a one-time snapshot assessment of the 

number of inmates held there on any given day. Third, the use of segregation 

varies considerably not only across jurisdictions but also between inmates. Some 

inmates experience segregation as a one-time event, while others experience it 

many times during their commitment. Fourth, the length of time inmates serve 

in segregation also varies considerably, from days to multiple years, with some 

inmates who spend the large portion of their entire incarceration sentence in 

such settings. 

This white paper also examined the characteristics of the inmates who are sent 

to segregation. Inmates housed in segregation differ significantly from those 

in the general prison population in many easily identifiable factors that are 

routinely collected by many departments of corrections (Beck, 2015; Labrecque, 

2015b). Inmates in segregation settings tend to be younger and are more likely 

to be an ethnic minority, have a mental disorder, be a member of a gang, have 

a more extensive criminal history, and have a record of prior misbehavior in 

the institution. They also are likely to be rated as at high risk to recidivate when 

compared to the inmates from the general prison population. This is important 

information because corrections officials could use it to proactively identify and 

treat inmates with greater propensities toward being placed in segregation settings 

in an effort to reduce the need for segregation. It is worth noting that Helmus 

(2015) recently developed a risk assessment scale — the Risk of Administrative 

Segregation Tool (RAST) — to predict inmate placements in administrative 

segregation in the Canadian federal prison system (see also Helmus, Johnson, & 

Harris, 2014).4 

This work represents a crucial first step in assisting correctional agencies to 

better identify which inmates are at high risk for being sent to segregation. Such 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 71 

 

knowledge could certainly be beneficial to efforts aimed at diverting offenders 

from such placements. A certain amount of caution, however, should be exercised 

before correctional agencies adopt risk instruments like the RAST. As Labrecque 

(2015b) notes, there is an inherent risk in using a segregation risk assessment that 

includes only static (i.e., unchangeable) factors. This information could potentially 

be used to justify isolating inmates based on their risk score. And because of the 

static nature of the items in the assessment, there is nothing the offender could do 

to reduce his or her risk. In short, the use of a static assessment has the potential of 

increasing the need for segregation rather than for reducing it. 

The Labrecque (2015b) meta-analysis reveals that inmates in segregation differ 

from those in the general prison population not only on demographic and criminal 

history variables but also in their criminogenic needs. This finding has important 

implications for treatment because correctional administrators could use this 

information to help identify which criminogenic needs to target with intervention. 

The use of only a static risk assessment would provide no such information. 

Therefore, future efforts should be made to develop segregation assessment tools 

that include both risk and need items.5 The development of such a tool has the 

potential of helping prison officials to improve institutional safety and reduce 

their need for segregation in both the short and long term. 

Finally, the primary function in the contemporary use of segregation is to 

increase systemwide order, safety, and control (see Mears & Castro, 2006). 

However, upon review of the limited outcome evaluation research, it is 

questionable that these settings are capable of effectively achieving these goals. 

The empirical research on the effects of segregation on systemwide levels of order 

reveals mixed findings. Some of the early, largely speculative, research suggests 

that the increased use of administrative segregation in Texas was responsible for 

reducing systemwide levels of institutional violence (Crouch & Marquart, 1989, 

1990; Ralph & Marquart, 1991). However, the studies conducted in this area that 

employ more advanced research designs tend to find much less support for this 

contention (Briggs et al., 2003; Huebner, 2003). Most notably, Briggs et al. (2003) 

found evidence that the emergence of supermax prisons did not reduce levels 

of inmate-on-inmate violence but appeared to reduce inmate-on-staff violence 

in one state (Illinois). In sum, the research does not support the contention that 

segregation is an effective strategy for reducing systemwide levels of disorder. 

Another way researchers have attempted to evaluate the effectiveness of 

segregation is to use subsequent individual-level behavioral outcomes. Although 

there is some evidence that the experience of segregation may increase post4 The RAST includes six static items (age, prior convictions, prior segregation placements, sentence length, criminal 

versatility, and prior violence) and has been found to have a high predictive validity. 

5 It should be noted that Helmus (2015) attempted to include criminogenic needs in her risk assessment. However, 

she was unable to improve the predictive validity of the tool beyond using the six static items alone, so she chose to 

eliminate the dynamic needs factors from her final RAST model. 
72 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

release recidivism, this finding is generally limited to those research studies 

using the weakest type of research methodology: the nonequivalent comparison 

group design. Therefore, these findings should be interpreted cautiously. The 

results from the more methodologically rigorous studies (e.g., propensity score 

matching) reveal no statistically significant differences in recidivism outcomes 

between the inmates who were housed in segregation and a matched sample 

of those who were housed in the general prison population. Further, the 

institutional misconduct literature — while much less extensive — similarly 

suggests that disciplinary segregation has a null effect on subsequent behavior. 

However, before any definitive conclusions are made about the effects of 

segregation on behavioral outcomes, it must be acknowledged that the 

evaluations in this area are few and have limitations that must be addressed by 

future research. 

Recommendations for Research and Practice 

This white paper provided a summary of the existing literature on the use and 

function of segregation, but more importantly, it seeks to serve as a springboard 

for future research. This paper also intends to help inform practitioners who 

work in segregation environments on the current state of research about the 

practice. The following six recommendations are made to help improve the 

state of the segregation research and to assist correctional authorities in making 

informed decisions regarding the use of segregation. 

Obtain better estimates on the use of segregation 

With increasing pressure to reduce the use of segregation throughout the United 

States, it is important to have a solid understanding of how this practice is used 

across the country. Prior estimates vary widely. Moving forward, researchers and 

correctional agencies should work together to obtain more reliable estimates of 

segregation use. Future research should also focus on estimating the prevalence 

and incidence of segregation, as both forms have important policy and practical 

implications. Attempts should also be made to further unpack how the different 

types of segregation are used in correctional institutions. It may be important 

to know, for example, what proportion of inmates is held for administrative 

versus disciplinary purposes. Finally, more research should be conducted on 

the duration, frequency, and proportion of total incarceration time spent in 

segregation. This information will be invaluable to correctional agencies seeking 

to develop alternative strategies for the use of segregation. 

Develop segregation risk/needs assessments 

Differences exist in the characteristics of the inmates who are sent to segregation 

units and those living in the general prisoner population. Researchers should 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 73 

use this information to develop risk/needs assessment tools that can predict the 

probability of an inmate being sent to segregation and identify factors that can 

be targeted with intervention to decrease such risk. Priority should be given 

to research that includes additional information about criminogenic needs, as 

most of the prior group comparisons have been limited to data that correctional 

agencies collect for other purposes (e.g., education, substance abuse). Such a 

research strategy would provide useful knowledge about what types of services 

might have the best effect in helping agencies reduce their use of segregation. 

Conduct case studies of segregation units 

One of the main ways the function of segregation has been estimated is by 

analyzing the available state and federal segregation policies. However, there are 

some limitations to this approach that should be acknowledged. For example, 

some jurisdictions fail to provide their policies to researchers (see Butler et al., 

2013), and some have policies that do not include enough information to be 

analyzed (see Metcalf et al., 2013). There is also the potential that differences may 

exist between what is written in policy and what is done in practice. Another 

approach to assessing the purpose of segregation is to survey correctional 

officials (see Mears & Castro, 2006). This method, while informative, also does 

not take into account differences that may exist between intent and practice. 

Researchers need to go into the prison environment and see firsthand how these 

units operate. These case studies in segregation units will not only help better 

determine what role segregation plays in modern institutions but also may be 

useful for determining which practices are more and less likely to help achieve 

positive outcomes (e.g., improved behavior, decreases in post-release recidivism). 

Increase the number and quality of empirical evaluations of segregation 

More methodologically rigorous empirical evaluations are needed on the effects 

of segregation. Such research should strive to investigate aggregate levels of 

disorder, as well as individual-level behavioral outcomes (e.g., institutional 

misconduct, post-release recidivism). This research should not only include 

violent outcomes but also other less serious and nonviolent measures. It is 

imperative that research in this area addresses concerns related to selection bias, 

as it is well known that inmates who are sent to segregation tend to possess a 

greater pre-existing disposition toward criminal behavior (Lovell et al., 2000). 

Likewise, the failure to appropriately match cases on these characteristics will 

likely lead to biased results. As the review of the prior empirical research shows, 

studies employing weak methodological research designs tend to reveal a large 

negative effect of segregation, whereas those studies with more scientifically 

rigorous designs generally find no statistically significant differences between the 

segregation and non-segregation groups. 

It must be acknowledged that a randomized control trial — the gold standard 

of research designs — is not a reasonable possibility in segregation research 
74 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

because it would simply be unethical to isolate inmates purely for research 

purposes, given the concerns that such placement may have a negative impact 

on their mental health. It is up to researchers to continue to come up with better 

methodologies and statistical techniques to obtain comparable matches for 

evaluation purposes. One technique that has been particularly helpful in this 

area is the use of propensity score matching. Propensity score matching affords 

researchers the ability to ascertain a comparison group that is as close as possible 

to the segregated group on the number of observable covariates (Rosenbaum & 

Rubin, 1983; Rubin, 2006). However, it must also be understood that propensity 

score matching is not a magic bullet and carries its own set of limitations. 

Propensity score analysis, for example, can only make comparisons between 

groups with the information that is available. Thus, this technique cannot 

account for any unobserved factors that may influence placement in segregation, 

which is a problem if those variables also have an impact on the outcome of 

interest. Given what is known about segregation, it is likely that there are some 

predictors of placement that are not captured on official records (e.g., situational 

information). Therefore, obtaining good matches in the future will require not 

only the use of more advanced statistical techniques but also the acquisition of 

more offender and situational information. Funding efforts should be made to 

encourage researchers to enter the institutions and collect this kind of data. 

Prioritize research that investigates moderators 

It has long been observed that the context in which segregation is delivered is 

crucial to its effect on outcomes (Bonta & Gendreau, 1990). However, there is 

very little research available that assesses for any differential effects of segregation 

on behavioral outcomes. Research should therefore be prioritized to include 

the investigation of the influence of moderators, especially for those offender 

characteristics that have been the subject of recent policy changes (i.e., mentally 

ill, juveniles, women). This research should also strive to include other situational 

variables (e.g., physical conditions, officer-prisoner relationships, how inmates 

are treated, institutional climate, reasons for being sent to segregation, health 

care and treatment services, in-cell provisions, access to outside contacts), which 

may also be responsible for mediating the effect of segregation on criminal 

behavior (see Gendreau & Labrecque, 2016). This type of research will provide a 

number of benefits to correctional agencies, including helping them to identify 

which offenders may be more likely to suffer the iatrogenic effects of segregation 

(e.g., young, mentally ill, and female inmates) and what types of modifications 

to these units may help alleviate such negative effects (e.g., ensuring a positive 

culture, increasing out-of-cell time, providing programming). 

Continue to explore and evaluate changes to segregation units 

As correctional systems continue to alter their segregation practices by 

modifying conditions and incorporating treatment options, it is imperative 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 75 

that these strategies are well documented and evaluated. Such information 

will be imperative for establishing “what works” and “what does not work” in 

segregation. This research will be essential for helping correctional agencies 

choose which practices to adopt and which to avoid. 

Conclusion 

This review of the evidence finds very little support for the contention that 

the use of segregated confinement (otherwise known as restrictive housing) is 

responsible for reducing individual or aggregate levels of criminal behavior. The 

finding of a null effect should not be misinterpreted as support for the continued 

use of segregation, however, especially at its current rate in the United States. 

This result, rather, calls into question the logic of relying on an expensive and 

ineffective crime control strategy, when there are other potentially more viable 

options available that may achieve better outcomes (e.g., principles of effective 

intervention; Andrews & Bonta, 2010). 

The best course of action for correctional administrators today is to use 

segregation judiciously and sparingly, while striving to create a system with 

little to no need for the practice in the first place. However, any effort aimed 

at reforming the use of segregation must acknowledge that this practice is a 

management tool that officials rely on for the effective management of jails and 

prisons (Mears, 2006). In fact, many continue to insist that its use is needed to 

ensure the safety and security of these institutions (e.g., Angelone, 1999; Gavora, 

1996). This raises the important question, “If not for segregation, what do 

corrections officials do with difficult prisoners?” 

It is unlikely that any significant progress will be made in reducing the segregated 

inmate population in the United States until correctional officials have alternative 

options available for offenders and until they are confident that their use will not 

affect institutional safety and security in a negative way. As the nation rethinks 

the use and function of segregation in institutional settings, the availability of 

empirical research is crucial for the development of evidence-based policies and 

practices. The recommendations and conclusion reached here are a starting point 

for research in this endeavor. 
76 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

References 

Allen, F. (1964). The borderland of criminal justice: Essays in law and criminology. 

Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 

American Bar Association. (2011). ABA standards for criminal justice: Treatment 

of prisoners (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: American Bar Association. 

Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct (5th ed.). 

Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing. 

Angelone, R. (1999). Why “super-max” prisons work. Richmond, VA: Virginia 

Correctional Security Report. 

Austin, J., & Irwin, J. (2012). It’s about time: America’s imprisonment binge (4th ed.). 

Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. 

Bauer, S. (2013, January 13). Solitary confinement: The cruelest punishment. 

The Week. Retrieved from http://www.theweek.com. 

Beck, A. J. (2015). Use of restrictive housing in U.S. prisons and jails, 2011-12. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. 

Blomberg, T. G., & Lucken, K. (2010). American penology: A history of control 

(2nd ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. 

Bonta, J., & Gendreau, P. (1990). Reexamining the cruel and unusual punishment 

of prison life. Law and Human Behavior, 14(4), 347-366. 

Briggs, C. S., Sundt, J. L., & Castellano, T. C. (2003). The effect of supermaximum 

security prisons on aggregate levels of institutional violence. Criminology, 41(4), 

1341-1376. 

Browne, A., Cambier, A., & Agha, S. (2011). Prisons within prisons: The use of 

segregation in the United States. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 24(1), 46-49. 

Butler, H. D., Griffin III, O. H., & Johnson, W. W. (2013). What makes you the 

“worst of the worst”? An examination of state policies defining supermaximum 

confinement. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 24(6), 676-694. 

Butler, H. D., Johnson, W. W., & Griffin III, O. H. (2014). The treatment of the 

mentally ill in supermax facilities: An evaluation of state supermax policies. 

Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41(1), 1338-1353. 

Butler, H. D., Steiner, B., Makarios, M., & Travis, L. (2013). Assessing the effects of 

exposure to different prison environments on offender recidivism. Presented at the 

annual meeting of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences in Dallas, TX. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 77 

Cloud, D. H., Drucker, E., Browne, A., & Parsons, J. (2015). Public health and 

solitary confinement in the United States. American Journal of Public Health, 

105(1), 18-26. 

Crouch, B. M., & Marquart, J. W. (1989). An appeal to justice: Litigated reform of 

Texas prisons. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 

Crouch, B. M., & Marquart, J. W. (1990). Resolving the paradox of reform: Litigation, 

prisoner violence, and perceptions of risk. Justice Quarterly, 7(1), 103-123. 

Cullen, F. T., & Gilbert, K. E. (1982). Reaffirming rehabilitation. Cincinnati, OH: 

Anderson Publishing Company. 

de Beaumont, G., & de Tocqueville, A. (1833). On the penitentiary system in the 

United States and its application in France. Retrieved from http://www.archive. 

org. 

Dickens, C. (1985) American notes. New York, NY: Fromm International 

Publishing Corporation. (Original work published in 1842). 

Fellner, J. (2000). Out of sight: Supermaximum security confinement in the United 

States. New York, NY: Human Rights Watch. 

Fellner, J., & Mariner, J. (1997). Cold storage: Super-maximum security 

confinement in Indiana. New York, NY: Human Rights Watch. 

Ferdik, F. (2015). The relationship between correctional officer safety and 

wellness and administrative segregation. Presented at the National Institute of 

Justice meeting on the use of administrative segregation in the United States in 

Arlington, VA. 

Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York, NY: 

Random House. 

Franke, H. (1992). The rise and decline of solitary confinement: Socio-historical 

explanations of long-term penal changes. The British Journal of Criminology, 

32(2), 125-143. 

Frost, N. A., & Monteiro, C. E. (2016). Administrative segregation in prison. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. 

Gavora, J. (1996, August 25). Violent offenders should be placed in supermax 

prisons. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com. 

Gawande, A. (2009, March 30). Hellhole. The New Yorker. Retrieved from http:// 

www.newyorker.com. 

Gendreau, P., & Bonta, J. (1984). Solitary confinement is not cruel and unusual 

punishment: Sometimes people are! Canadian Journal of Criminology, 26(4), 467-478. 
78 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Gendreau, P., & Labrecque, R. M. (2016). The effects of administrative 

segregation: A lesson in knowledge cumulation. In J. Wooldredge & P. Smith 

(Eds.), Oxford handbook on prisons and imprisonment. Oxford, UK: Oxford 

University Press. 

Goode, E. (2012, March 30). Fighting a drawn-out battle against solitary 

confinement. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com. 

Grassian, S. (1983). Psychopathological effects of solitary confinement. American 

Journal of Psychiatry, 140(11), 1450-1454. 

Guenther, L. (2012, August 26). The living death of solitary confinement. The 

New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com. 

Haney, C. (1993). “Infamous punishment”: The psychological consequences of 

isolation. National Prison Project Journal, 8(2), 3-7, 21. 

Haney, C. (1997). Psychology and the limits of prison pain: Confronting the 

coming crisis of the Eighth Amendment law. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 

3(4), 499-588. 

Haney, C. (2003). Mental health issues in long-term solitary and “supermax” 

confinement. Crime & Delinquency, 49(1), 124-156. 

Haney, C. (2008). A culture of harm: Taming the dynamics of cruelty in 

supermax prisons. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(8), 956-984. 

Haney, C. (2009). The social psychology of isolation: Why solitary confinement is 

psychologically harmful. Prison Service Journal, 181, 12-20. 

Haney, C. (2012a). Testimony of Professor Craig Haney to the Senate Judiciary 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, civil rights, and human rights hearing on 

solitary confinement. Retrieved from http://www.judiciary.senate.gov. 

Haney, C. (2012b). Prison effects in the era of mass incarceration. The Prison 

Journal. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1177/0032885512448604. 

Haney, C., & Lynch, M. (1997). Regulating prisons of the future: The 

psychological consequences of supermax and solitary confinement. New York 

University Review of Law and Social Change, 23, 477-570. 

Haney, C., Weill, J., Bakhshay, S., & Lockett, T. (2016). Examining jail isolation: What 

we don’t know can be profoundly harmful. The Prison Journal, 96(1), 126-152. 

Harrington, M. P. (2015). Methodological challenges to the study and 

understanding of solitary Confinement. Federal Probation, 79(3), 45-47. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 79 

Helmus, L. (2015). Developing and validating a risk assessment scale to predict 

inmate placements in administrative segregation in the Correctional Service of 

Canada. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON. 

Helmus, L., Johnson, S., & Harris, A. J. R. (2014). Developing the Risk of 

Administrative Segregation Tool (RAST) to predict admissions to segregation. 

Ottawa, ON: Solicitor General Canada. 

Henningsen, R. J., Johnson, W. W., & Wells, T. (1999). Supermax prisons: 

Panacea or desperation? Corrections Management Quarterly, 3(2), 53-59. 

Huebner, B. M. (2003). Administrative determinants of inmate violence: A multilevel 

analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31, 107-117. 

Ignatieff, M. (1983). State, civil society and total institutions: A critique of 

recent social histories of punishment. In S. Cohen & A. Scull (Eds.), Social 

control and the state: Historical and comparative essays. Oxford, UK: Martin 

Robertson & Company. 

Jackson, M. (1983). Prisoners of isolation: Solitary confinement in Canada. 

Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press. 

Kann, M. E. (2005). Punishment, prisons, and patriarchy: Liberty and power in the 

early American republic. New York, NY: New York University Press. 

Keim, B. (2013, July 10). The horrible psychology of solitary confinement. 

Wired. Retrieved from http://www.wired.com. 

King, R. D. (1999). The rise and rise of supermax: An American solution in 

search of a problem? Punishment and Society, 1(2), 163-186. 

Kupers, T. A. (2008). What to do with the survivors? Coping with the long-term 

effects of isolated confinement. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(8), 1005-1016. 

Kurki, L., & Morris, N. (2001). The purposes, practices, and problems of 

supermax prisons. Crime and Justice, 28, 385-424. 

Labrecque, R. M. (2015a). The effect of solitary confinement on institutional 

misconduct: A longitudinal evaluation. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. 

Labrecque, R. M. (2015b). Who ends up in administrative segregation? Predictors 

and other characteristics. Paper presented at the National Institute of Justice 

meeting on the use of administrative segregation in the United States in 

Arlington, VA. 
80 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Labrecque, R. M., & Smith, P. (2013). Advancing the study of solitary confinement. 

In J. Fuhrman & S. Baier (eds.), Prisons and prison systems: Practices, types, and 

challenges (pp. 57-70). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers. 

Labrecque, R. M., & Smith, P. (2015). Unpacking the ‘black box’ of solitary 

confinement: A five-year longitudinal study of inmates in Ohio. Paper presented at 

the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences in Orlando, FL. 

Labrecque, R. M., Smith, P., & Gendreau, P. (2013). The effects of solitary 

confinement on prisoners in custodial settings: A meta-analysis. Paper presented 

at the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences in Dallas, TX. 

Lieber, F. (2010). A popular essay on subjects of penal law and on uninterrupted 

solitary confinement at labor, as contradistinguished to solitary confinement at 

night and joint labor by day, in a letter to John Bacon. Port Chester, NY: Adegi 

Graphics. (Original work published in 1838). 

Liman Program & Association of State Correctional Administrators. (2015). 

Time-in-cell: ASCA-Liman 2014 national survey of administrative segregation in 

prison. New Haven, CT: Yale Law School. 

Lovell, D. (2008). Patterns of disturbed behavior in a supermax prison. Criminal 

Justice and Behavior, 35(8), 985-1004. 

Lovell, D., Cloyes, K., Allen, D., & Rhodes, L. (2000). Who lives in supermaximum custody? A Washington state study. Federal Probation, 64(2), 33-38. 

Lovell, D., Johnson, L. C., & Cain, K. C. (2007). Recidivism of supermax 

prisoners in Washington State. Crime and Delinquency, 53(4), 633-656. 

McGinnis, K., Austin, J., Becker, K., Fields, L., Lane, M., Maloney, M., ..., Felix, 

T. (2014). Federal Bureau of Prisons: Special housing unit review and assessment. 

Arlington, VA: CAN. 

McGowen, R. (1998). The well-ordered prison: England, 1780-1865. In N. Morris 

& D. J. Rothman (Eds.), The Oxford history of the prison: The practice of punishment 

in western society (pp. 71-99). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 

Mears, D. P. (2006). Evaluating the effectiveness of supermax prisons. Washington, 

DC: Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center. 

Mears, D. P. (2008). An assessment of supermax prisons using an evaluation 

research framework. The Prison Journal, 88(1), 43-68. 

Mears, D. P. (2013). Supermax prisons: The policy and the evidence. Criminology 

and Public Policy, 12(4), 681-719. 

Mears, D. P., & Bales, W. D. (2009). Supermax incarceration and recidivism. 

Criminology, 47(4), 1131-1166. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 81 

Mears, D. P., & Bales, W. D. (2010). Supermax housing: Placement, duration, and 

time to re-entry. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(4), 545-554. 

Mears, D. P., & Castro, J. L. (2006). Wardens’ views on the wisdom of supermax 

prisons. Crime and Delinquency, 52(3), 398-431. 

Mears, D. P., Mancini, C., Beaver, K. M., & Gertz, M. (2013). Housing the 

“worst of the worst” inmates: Public support for supermax prisons. Crime and 

Delinquency, 59(4), 587-615. 

Mears, D. P., & Watson, J. (2006). Towards a fair and balanced assessment of 

supermax prisons. Justice Quarterly, 23(2), 232-269. 

Metcalf, H., Morgan, J., Oliker-Friedland, S., Resnik, J., Spiegel, J., Tae, H., Work, 

A. R., & Holbrook, B. (2013). Administrative segregation, degrees of isolation, and 

incarceration: A national overview of state and federal correctional policies. New 

Haven, CT: Liman Public Interest Program. 

Miller, M. B. (1980). At hard labor: Rediscovering the 19th-century prison. In T. 

Platt & P. Takagi (Eds.), Punishment and penal discipline (pp. 79-88). Berkeley, 

CA: Crime and Social Justice Associates. 

Morgan, R. D., Van Horn, S. A., MacLean, N., Bolanos, A., Gray, A. L., Batastini, 

A., & Mills, J. F. (2014). Administrative segregation: Is it a harmful correctional 

practice? Presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychology-Law 

Society in New Orleans, LA. 

Morris, R. G. (2016). Exploring the effect of exposure to short-term solitary 

confinement among violent prison inmates. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 

32(1), 1-22. 

Naday, A., Freilich, J. D., & Mellow, J. (2008). The elusive data on supermax 

confinement. The Prison Journal, 88(1), 69-93. 

National Institute of Corrections. (1997). Supermax housing: A survey of current 

practice. Longmont, CO: U.S. Department of Justice. 

O’Keefe, M. L. (2008). Administrative segregation from within: A corrections 

perspective. The Prison Journal, 88(1), 123-143. 

Pisciotta, A. W. (1994). Benevolent repression: Social control and the American 

reformatory prison movement. New York, NY: New York University Press. 

Pizarro, J. M., & Stenius, V. M. K. (2004). Supermax prisons: Their rise, current 

practices, and effect on inmates. The Prison Journal, 84(2), 248-264. 
82 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Pizarro, J. M., Stenius, V. M. K., & Pratt, T. C. (2006). Supermax prisons: Myths, 

realities, and the politics of punishment in American society. Criminal Justice 

Policy Review, 17(1), 6-21. 

Pizarro, J. M., Zgoba, K. M., & Haugebrook, S. (2014). Supermax and recidivism: 

An examination of the recidivism covariates among a sample of supermax exinmates. The Prison Journal, 94(2), 180-197. 

Ralph, P. H., & Marquart, J. W. (1991). Gang violence in Texas prisons. The Prison 

Journal, 71(2), 38-49. 

Reisig, M. D. (1998). Rates of disorder in higher-custody state prisons: A comparative 

analysis of managerial practices. Crime and Delinquency, 44(2), 229-244. 

Richards, S. C. (2008). USP Marion: The first federal supermax. The Prison 

Journal, 88(1), 6-22. 

Riveland, C. (1999). Supermax prisons: Overview and general considerations. 

Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections. 

Rodriguez, N. (2015). Director’s corner: Setting the agenda for administrative 

segregation research. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. 

Rogers, R. (1993). Solitary confinement. International Journal of Offender 

Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 37(4), 339-349. 

Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score 

in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1), 41-55. 

Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., & Freeman, H. E. (2004). Evaluation: A systemic 

approach (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Rothman, D. J. (1971). The discovery of the asylum: Social order and disorder in 

the new republic. Boston, MA: Little, Brown. 

Rothman, D. J. (1980). Conscience and convenience: The asylum and its 

alternatives in progressive America. Boston, MA: Little, Brown. 

Rothman, D. J. (1998a). The invention of the penitentiary. In T. J. Flanagan, J. W. 

Marquart, & K. G. Adams (eds.), Incarcerating criminals: Prisons and jails in social 

and organizational context (pp. 15-23). London, UK: Oxford University Press. 

Rothman, D. J. (1998b). Perfecting the prison: United States, 1789-1865. In 

N. Morris & D. J. Rothman (eds.), The Oxford history of the prison: The 

practice of punishment in western society (pp. 100-116). New York, NY: Oxford 

University Press. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 83 

 

Rotman, E. (1990). Beyond punishment: A new view of rehabilitation of criminal 

offenders. New York, NY: Greenwood Press. 

Rotman, E. (1998). The failure of reform: United States, 1865-1965. In N. Morris & 

D. J. Rothman (eds.), The Oxford history of the prison: The practice of punishment in 

western society (pp. 151-177). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 

Rubin, D. B. (2006). Matched sampling for causal effects. New York, NY: 

Cambridge University Press. 

Scharff-Smith, P. (2006). The effects of solitary confinement on prison inmates: A 

brief history and review of the literature. Crime and Justice, 34(1), 441-528. 

Seale, L., Atkinson, J., Grealish, B., Fitzgerald, T., Grassel, K., & Viscuso, B. 

(2011). California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation: 2011 adult 

institutions outcome evaluation report. Sacramento, CA: Office of Research, 

Research and Evaluation Branch. 

Shalev, S. (2008). A sourcebook on solitary confinement. London, UK: Mannheim 

Centre for Criminology. 

Shalev, S. (2009). Supermax: Controlling risk through solitary confinement. 

Portland, OR: Willan Publishing. 

Shames, A. Wilcox, J., & Subramanian, R. (2015). Solitary confinement: 

Common misconceptions and emerging safe alternatives. New York, NY: VERA 

Institute of Justice. 

Shepperd, R. A., Geiger, J. R., & Welborn, G. (1996). Closed maximum security: 

The Illinois supermax. Corrections Today, 58(4), 84-87. 

Smith, P., Gendreau, P., & Labrecque, R. M. (2015). The impact of solitary 

confinement on inmate behavior: A meta-analytic review. Paper presented at the 

North American Correctional and Criminal Justice Psychology (N3) Conference, 

Ottawa, Canada. 

Steiner, B., & Wooldredge, J. (2008). Inmate versus facility effects on prison rule 

violations. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(4), 438-456. 

Suedfeld, P., Ramirez, C., Deaton, J., & Baker-Brown, G. (1982). Reactions and 

attributes of prisoners in solitary confinement. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 

9(3), 303-340. 

Sundt, J. L., Castellano, T. C., & Briggs, C. S. (2008). The sociopolitical context 

of prison violence and its control: A case study of supermax and its effect in 

Illinois. The Prison Journal, 88(1), 94-122. 

Toch, H. (1978). Is a “correctional officer,” by any other name, a “screw”? 

Criminal Justice Review, 3(2), 19-35. 
84 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Toch, H. (2001). The future of supermax confinement. The Prison Journal, 81(3), 

376-388. 

Toch, H. (2003). The contemporary relevance of early experiments with 

supermax reform. The Prison Journal, 83(2), 221-228. 

United Nations. (2015) United Nations standard minimum rules for the treatment 

of prisoners (the Mandela rules). New York, NY: United Nations. 

Useem, B., & Kimball, P. (1991). States of siege: U.S. prison riots 1971-1986. 

New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 

Useem, B., & Piehl, A. M. (2006). Prison buildup and disorder. Punishment & Society, 

8(1), 87-115. 

Useem, B., & Reisig, M. D. (1999). Collective action in prisons: Protest, 

disturbances, and riots. Criminology, 37(4), 735-760. 

Ward, D. A. (2009). Alcatraz: The gangster years. Berkeley, CA: University of 

California Press. 

Ward, D. A., & Werlich, T. G. (2003). Alcatraz and Marion. Punishment and 

Society, 5(1), 53-75. 

Wormith, J. S., Tellier, M. C., & Gendreau P. (1988). Characteristics of protective 

custody offenders in a provincial correctional center. Canadian Journal of 

Criminology, 30, 39-58. 

Zinger, I. (2013). Segregation in Canadian federal corrections: A prison 

ombudsman’s perspective. Presented at the International Conference on Human 

Rights and Solitary Confinement in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. 

Zinger, I., Wichmann, C., & Andrews, D. A. (2001). The psychological effects of 60 

days in administrative segregation. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 43(1), 47-83. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 85 

CHAPTER 3 

The Conditions of Confinement 

in Restrictive Housing 

Holly Foster, Ph.D. 

Texas A&M University 

Restrictive Housing: Purpose, Terms, 

and Report Objectives 

Restrictive housing practices are used in American correctional institutions 

to manage and contain perceived threats to the safety of inmates and staff, 

and to keep order in the facility. The process involves segregating some 

inmates from the general prisoner population under specific circumstances, 

including violence and disruption (U.S. Department of Justice, 2016). Other 

than general overviews, however, little systematic and comparative information 

is available on the conditions of confinement involved in restrictive housing. 

This report will cover the following conditions of confinement: (1) physical 

and temporal dimensions, (2) incentives and disciplinary sanctions used, (3) 

social circumstances (e.g., family contacts), (4) psychological conditions, and 

(5) service provision (e.g., medical and educational services for prisoners). The 

absence of information about confinement conditions means that practitioners 

and researchers lack solid data on which aspects are especially influential on 

prisoners in both the short term and over time. More study of this topic would 

provide practitioners and researchers with systematic knowledge of how the 

conditions work to affect prisoner adaptation. This knowledge may assist 

practitioners in reducing the harmful effects that prisoners may incur from 
86 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

 

living in these conditions. This report provides a synthesis of extant research 

on the conditions of confinement in restrictive housing to identify the current 

limitations of the practice and point to ways to address them. 

Court decisions (e.g., Madrid v. Gomez; Simon, 2014) indicate that restrictive 

housing conditions are unconstitutional for mentally ill inmates. Systematic 

reviews are needed of the conditions that inmates face under different forms of 

restrictive housing over time. Some descriptive information on current conditions 

in restrictive housing is found in the U.S. Department of Justice’s recent (2016) 

review, Report and Recommendations Concerning the Use of Restrictive Housing, 

and other key reports (Liman Program/Association of State Correctional 

Administrators [ASCA], 2015; New York Civil Liberties Union [NYCLU], 2015). 

Yet, missing from the literature is systematic research on how prisoners experience 

the conditions described. Such information would better inform the knowledge 

base regarding the levels and types of stress that prisoners face. 

More detailed information is needed on the specific conditions that inmates face 

when placed in restrictive housing and the degree to which these conditions 

are similar or vary across its various forms. There are three major types of 

restrictive housing practices that reflect different correctional intentions (Shalev, 

2009, p. 2) and that may involve both similarities and differences. Punitive 

segregation is used to discipline prisoner misconduct, usually for a period 

following a disciplinary hearing. Protective segregation (and custody) is used to 

house and separate vulnerable prisoners from the general population for their 

own protection. Administrative segregation is imposed for managerial reasons. 

It separates inmates who are deemed to be high risk from the general prison 

population — often for long periods (e.g., perceived gang members, members 

of security threat groups) (Liman Program/ASCA, 2015, p. 1). Additionally, 

supermaximum or “supermax” facilities are those designed to hold prisoners in 

long-term restrictive housing (Shalev, 2009, p. 9). When implemented for these 

three categories, restrictive housing reduces interaction with other inmates, 

limits programming opportunities, and restricts an inmate’s privileges (Beck, 

2015). Myriad terms are used to describe these conditions; this report will use 

“restrictive housing” to refer to all of them. However, the terms in the study’s 

source documents will be used when referring to specific research studies 

when necessary. 

To further synthesize and critique the extant research on conditions of 

confinement in restrictive housing, this white paper adopts Simon’s (2014) 

explanation for the rising rates of incarceration in the United States from the 

1970s to approximately 2009 (Garland, 2001; Clear & Frost, 2013). It also 

evaluates the practice through qualitative research, involving analyses of 

subjective data such as personal stories, and quantitative research, in which 

numerical data are analyzed. As Simon indicates, the qualitative story of mass 

incarceration is revealed through an analysis of major court decisions, with the 

quantitative story revealed through statistical trends and patterns. The qualitative 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 87 

story may also be investigated through interviews with and observations of 

those in restrictive housing. The quantitative story, however, requires testing 

hypotheses and relationships among variables gathered through data collection. 

Criminological and sociological theories should guide the understanding of both 

the qualitative and quantitative information about restrictive housing. For the 

qualitative story, there is a need to list and describe the commonalities and the 

different experiences faced by various groups in restrictive housing, including 

those of overrepresented racial and ethnic minority groups, and often overlooked 

female and transgender prisoners. For the quantitative story, comparative designs 

are needed to more fully understand the frustrations and deprivations faced 

by those living in prison and the types and levels of “pains of imprisonment” 

that arise over time Sykes (1958/2007). Moving beyond description, a more 

empirically based, quantitative approach guided by theory would show how the 

pains of imprisonment affect prisoner outcomes, and adaptations for those living 

in restrictive housing (Agnew, 2001, 2006; Pearlin, Menaghan, Leiberman, & 

Mullan, 1981; Sykes, 1958/2007). 

With very limited information available on restrictive housing conditions, 

this paper will draw on findings from several key reports on the topic (Liman 

Program/ASCA, 2015; NYCLU, 2012). These sources illuminate the conditions in 

restrictive housing; they also highlight the need for more information about these 

conditions and the repercussions they may have for inmates. For example, the 

most systematic resource on conditions of administrative segregation is the data 

gathered from correctional administrators by Yale University’s Liman Program 

and the Association of State Correctional Administrators (ASCA). Although the 

Liman Program/ASCA study is an important source of information, it does not 

include prisoners’ experiences of the conditions of confinement in restrictive 

housing that may be gleaned through the qualitative and quantitative approaches 

proposed here. 

The report further identifies a need for research to explore gender differences 

and similarities pertaining to inmates’ experiences of restrictive housing. 

Arguments are emerging about the need for gender-responsive programming 

in the criminal justice system (Covington & Bloom, 2006), although not yet 

in the realm of restrictive housing. Literature indicates that restrictive housing 

conditions were established to house “dangerous men” (Simon, 2014). However, 

within the limited information about restrictive housing, even less is known 

about how women experience these conditions. A lack of systematic attention 

to gender perpetuates the tendency to overlook the needs of female offenders 

in programming decisions, as criminal justice services are usually designed 

with the needs of men in mind (Covington & Bloom, 2006). This report uses 

data regarding female inmates in administrative segregation made available for 

analysis by the Liman Program, but not published elsewhere, alongside published 

information about the majority of those individuals living in these conditions — men 

(Liman Program/ASCA, 2015). A descriptive look at the conditions of restrictive 

housing for female prisoners suggests further research is needed, in particular, 
88 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

to develop the gendered qualitative stories of restrictive housing. This focus on 

gender also leads to further consideration of other elements of social location 

(e.g., race and ethnicity) that may shape experience. 

Trends and Patterns in Restrictive Housing 

Part of the quantitative story surrounding restrictive housing is revealed by a 

description of trends and patterns regarding who tends to experience them, 

which links further back to trends in mass incarceration. As the National 

Research Council report (2014) documents, increases in incarceration rates 

in the United States are the result of policy changes, such as the War on 

Drugs, and changes from indeterminate to determinate sentencing practices 

constituting more punitive approaches to criminal justice. With these policy 

changes came a concomitant rise in the use of restrictive housing beginning 

in the 1980s. Shalev (2009) reports that all forms of prisoner segregation 

increased in the 1990s. Between 1995 and 2000, in particular, the number of 

prisoners who were isolated from the general prison population rose by 40 

percent (p. 2). The most recent estimates indicate that approximately 80,000 

to 100,000 people are confined in isolated conditions in U.S. prisons (Liman 

Program/ASCA, 2015, p. 3). Estimates across American jurisdictions report 

that the percentage of the custodial population confined in restrictive housing 

ranges from 2.1 percent to 14.2 percent (Liman Program/ASCA, 2015, p. 15). 

Furthermore, using data gathered from inmates as part of the National Inmate 

Survey (NIS), roughly 10 percent of all prison inmates and 5 percent of all jail 

inmates have spent 30 or more days in restrictive housing (Beck, 2015). 

The survey also found race and ethnic disparities among the inmates who 

experience restrictive housing conditions. Black prison inmates were more 

likely than white and Latino prison inmates to have spent time in restrictive 

housing. Furthermore, inmates with lower education levels (i.e., without a high 

school diploma), young inmates, and lesbian, gay, and bisexual inmates were 

more likely to have spent time in restrictive housing than were more educated, 

older, and heterosexual inmates (Beck, 2015, p. 4). However, the NIS data show 

no difference in the percentage of each gender having spent time in restrictive 

housing (Beck, 2015, p. 4). 

Further descriptive statistical information on inmates placed in administrative 

segregation is available by prisoner gender, race, and ethnicity and reflects 

broader demographic trends in mass imprisonment. For example, the data show 

that administrative segregation is more commonly used with male prisoners 

(7.5 percent) than female prisoners (0.1 percent) (Liman Program/ASCA, 

2015, p. 17). The median estimates for female prisoners held in administrative 

segregation is less than 1 percent, although in one jurisdiction, a high of 6.4 

percent of the female custodial population is held in these conditions (Liman 

Program/ASCA, 2015, p. 20). 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 89 

The use of administrative segregation also varies by race and ethnicity. Research 

shows higher percentages of black and Latino men in administrative segregation 

than in the general population of prisons across responding jurisdictions (Liman 

Program/ASCA, 2015, p. 30). Furthermore, black women are overrepresented in 

administrative segregation compared to the general female custodial population 

(Liman Program/ASCA, 2015, p. 36). 

The NIS data also reveal criminal justice status and history among inmates held 

in restrictive housing compared to other inmates. Those in restrictive housing 

are more likely to have been sent to prison for a violent offense than for other 

offenses (Beck, 2015, p. 5). Inmates in restrictive housing are also more likely 

to have been arrested more than once and to have had prior incarcerations as 

juveniles (Beck, 2015, p. 5). 

The use of restrictive housing not only increased in prevalence alongside 

mass incarceration, but it also became increasingly severe with increased 

technological surveillance and more extreme facilities (Shalev, 2009), including 

the development and growth of supermax security prisons involving extended 

periods of isolation. In the 1980s, there were few supermax facilities other 

than those in the two founding locations — Marion, Illinois, and Florence, 

Arizona. However, as of 2005, as many as 44 states had these facilities (Shalev, 

2009; Simon, 2014; Mears, 2005), with roughly 25,000 people held in supermax 

security conditions (Mears, 2013). Mears (2013) and Western (2007) link the 

policy context of mass incarceration with the increase of these facilities. 

During this period, states also moved away from rehabilitative ideals in prison 

programming and toward “total incapacitation,” which emphasizes sending 

people to prison to prevent crime rather than using other approaches (Haney, 

2003; Simon, 2014). Simon argues that the rise of the supermax prison helped 

to legitimize mass incarceration, with an emphasis on locking away “dangerous 

men” (2014, p. 52). 

Despite the considerable variation in the types of restrictive housing used 

in federal and state correctional systems across America, they share some 

common features (Haney, 2009; Liman Program/ASCA, 2015, p. 1). This report 

next provides a synthesis of what is currently known about the conditions 

of confinement in restrictive housing facilities, as well as an assessment 

of the limitations of extant knowledge. Academic books, journal articles, 

and comprehensive reports by research institutes constitute the basis of the 

information for this review. Furthermore, because information continues to 

emerge on proposed changes in restrictive housing practices in some states (e.g., 

California, New York), newspaper coverage is also used to update information on 

the conditions of confinement. 
90 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

How Can Theory Be Used To Understand 

Restrictive Housing Conditions? 

Theory is a powerful tool for guiding research, but it could also be used by 

practitioners as an integrative framework in working with restrictive housing 

practices. Theory may assist in considering the substantive meaning of the 

conditions of confinement in restrictive housing. Furthermore, since theoretical 

propositions can be tested through data analysis, they can, therefore, be found 

by evidence to be false, which occurs when empirical results do not support the 

theorized relationships (Bernard, Snipes, & Gerould, 2010). When theories are 

not supported empirically, they can be refined and subjected to further testing. 

However, if certain theoretical propositions are consistently supported by data, 

practitioners can be confident in the robustness of those results — providing a 

compelling rationale for decision-making with scarce resources. Furthermore, 

theory may provide a framework for how things work in the short and long 

term, with practical implications for when and why to adopt or curtail specific 

programs and practices. 

One such theoretical tool for further synthesizing information on the conditions 

of confinement in restrictive housing is provided by the focus on stressors faced 

in prison, as highlighted by Robert Agnew’s general strain theory (GST) (2001; 

2006) for understanding how strains (or stresses) are associated with criminal 

behavior. Recent directions in GST apply this framework to understanding 

criminal justice settings (Blevins, Listwan, Cullen, & Johnson, 2010; Delisi, 2011; 

Agnew & Delisi, 2012), but not (so far) to the conditions of restrictive housing. 

Theorizing the connections between restrictive housing conditions and GST is 

one objective of this report. 

Further theoretical insights are provided by classic research conducted more 

generally in prisons by Sykes (1958/2007) in his conceptualization of the “pains 

of imprisonment.” GST attends to the implications of stressors and strains or 

events and conditions that are disliked (Agnew, 2006, p. 4). Among myriad 

strains that individuals generally face in prison, two are the most prominent: 

being treated in an aversive manner and losing something of value (Agnew, 

2006). Prisoners in restrictive housing experience loss of privileges and extreme 

isolation resulting in a lack of meaningful human contact (Smith, 2006) — both 

of which qualify as strains or pains of imprisonment. In fact, a recent book 

develops the use of isolation as a contemporary “pain of mass imprisonment” 

(Fleury-Steiner & Longazel, 2014, emphasis added). However, further research 

is needed to understand the specific types of strains experienced by those in 

restrictive housing as well as their totality. 

Sykes’ (1958/2007) classic research in a men’s maximum-security prison 

identified five primary pains of imprisonment: (1) the deprivation of liberty, 

which includes restricted freedom of movement and isolation from friends, 

family, and relatives (p. 65); (2) the deprivation of goods and services; (3) the 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 91 

frustration of sexual desire (originally described in terms of lack of access to 

heterosexual relationships); (4) the deprivation of autonomy or the restricted 

ability to make choices (p. 73); and (5) the deprivation of security, where 

the prisoner may need to fight for safety and possessions. Insight into the 

contemporary pains of imprisonment for prisoners in the United States will be 

enhanced by considering the more extreme circumstances of restrictive housing. 

Moreover, consideration of the pains of imprisonment in restrictive housing 

would best include comparisons to the general prison population. Although the 

conditions of confinement in restrictive housing differ from the circumstances in 

which general population prisoners are held, both entail pains of imprisonment. 

The recent report by the National Research Council (2014) includes an 

overview of conditions of confinement in prisons as environments tasked with 

maintaining order and safety, as well as meeting punishment and reformation 

goals. Conditions of confinement include a range of stressors, such as “material 

deprivations; restricted movement and liberty; a lack of meaningful activity; 

a nearly total absence of personal privacy; and high levels of interpersonal 

uncertainty, danger, and fear” (p. 174). 

Stressors encountered in prison, and those experienced prior to prison, can lead 

to mental health problems, according to criminal justice models of importation 

(taking into account pre-prison influences and experiences) and deprivation 

(taking into account influences and experiences encountered in prison) 

(Goodstein and Wright, 1989). Both importation strains (stressors experienced 

prior to prison) and deprivation strains (stressors experienced in prison) 

influence an inmate’s adjustment to prison, according to criminal justice models 

and the framework of GST (Agnew, 2006; Foster, 2012). The importance of 

further research into deprivation strains is described below. 

General strain theory also includes a key role for coping resources that may 

offset the influences of strains on antisocial behavior (Agnew, 2006; Pearlin 

et al., 1981). Accordingly, although prisoners in the general population are 

subject to stressors and strains, they also have access to some mitigating factors 

that may include sharing a cell; having some contact with other prisoners in 

particular areas at designated times; and being offered some degree of vocational, 

educational, and therapeutic programs (Shalev, 2009). Furthermore, classic 

sociological research on prisoners reveals the importance of social interactions 

with other inmates in mitigating the pains of imprisonment, particularly when 

prisoners take on specific social roles and develop interpersonal relationships 

to contribute to the social order in men’s and women’s prisons (Clemmer, 

1940/1965; Giallombardo, 1966; Heffernan, 1972; Sykes, 1958/2007). These early 

findings suggest that efforts to increase prisoner coping resources in restrictive 

housing may lead to more orderly settings as well, by offsetting the pains of 

imprisonment. Little is known about inmate and institutional coping resources 

available to prisoners held in restrictive housing conditions. Contemporary studies 

of imprisoned men describe how prison gangs have become a means of achieving 
92 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

order in prisons (Skarbek, 2014). Yet, exploring other means of establishing order 

by fostering coping resources, even in extreme circumstances, may be more 

conducive to inmate and staff well-being according to GST premises. 

Furthermore, confinement conditions within restrictive housing vary, from less 

to more restrictive and harsh circumstances regarding the severity of isolation, 

amount of deprivation, number of restrictions, and degree of degradation 

(Haney, 2009; National Research Council, 2014). During the development and 

growth of supermax prisons in the mid-1980s, a continuum from lesser to 

harsher and more restrictive conditions developed, with the harshest conditions 

incorporating intense social isolation and control (Browne, Cambier, and Agha, 

2011, p. 47). A synthesis of what is known about the conditions of confinement 

in restrictive housing will begin to describe some of the pains of imprisonment in 

these circumstances and provide a basis for future comparative research. 

In addition to using GST and the pains of imprisonment framework, another 

theoretical tool for understanding restrictive housing is provided by examining 

critical sociological perspectives focused on the body (Foucault, 1977; Wacquant, 

2004). These perspectives draw attention to “embodied experience,” which 

acknowledges that extreme restrictions enacted over the body, such as those 

used in restrictive housing, also have a direct effect on prisoners’ cognitive and 

emotional health. A connection with more critical sociological perspectives 

provides a basis for interpreting how the pains of imprisonment may vary by 

social location (e.g., across demographic groups). This perspective underpins 

a call for more information on prisoners’ experiences in restrictive housing to 

bring about more just and humane policies and practices. It will also provide 

insight into potentially diverse experiences within restrictive housing. This 

direction of research will begin to fill some of the missing aspects of the 

qualitative story surrounding restrictive housing. 

Synthesis and Critique of Evidence on 

Restrictive Housing Conditions 

Data on the conditions of confinement in restrictive housing are generally 

lacking and are mostly embedded within broader reports and articles, rather 

than being the focus of empirical inquiry. For example, extant resources include 

some detailed observational information on conditions in supermax facilities 

(e.g., Shalev, 2009); however, these findings are often descriptive in nature. The 

most nationally informative and recent data on restricted housing conditions 

are available for conditions in administrative segregation, specifically, where 

comparative, survey-based information has been gathered across jurisdictions 

(Liman Program/ASCA, 2015). These data were gathered through surveys 

administered to correctional officials in 46 responding jurisdictions across the 

United States. That report, Time-In-Cell: The ASCA-Liman 2014 National Survey 

of Administrative Segregation in Prison, follows a systematic review of policies 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 93 

 

covering the conditions of confinement in administrative segregation, which 

was also conducted by the Liman Program (2013). Key findings of the Liman 

Program/ASCA data are synthesized here to provide a rare glimpse into extant 

conditions. New information also will be gleaned from data made available by 

the Liman Program/ASCA on the 10 jurisdictions that reported information 

on administrative segregation conditions for women: Delaware, Georgia, Iowa, 

Kansas, Montana, Nevada, South Carolina, Texas, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. 

The Liman Program/ASCA data pertain to institutionally reported information, 

but they also contain some sparse information from prisoners themselves. 

The prisoner-reported data tend to be based on convenience samples, which 

are samples composed of participants who are accessible but not randomly or 

representatively selected. One key report is based on communication with 100 

prisoners who served time in punitive segregation in New York (NYCLU, 2015). 

However, it is limited to men’s experiences, as 99 percent of the prisoners in 

punitive segregation, or “extreme isolation,” in New York state are male. 

Some sparse qualitative research is also available, the most prominent being 

Rhodes’ (2004) work with incarcerated men. The only available qualitative 

research on the restrictive housing of incarcerated women is embedded in 

a larger (but older) study of a women’s prison in California (Owen, 1998). 

Information about women in restrictive housing was included as an aside and 

was not the purpose of the study. Qualitative research may involve smaller 

numbers of cases, but it yields more nuanced information to add to the 

knowledge base. 

One question that has not been addressed — but should be — is to what 

degree are there similarities and differences across genders? In the Liman 

Program/ASCA data, 26 jurisdictions across the United States answered a 

general question about whether facilities have different staffing, programming, 

or privileges in administrative segregation for women and men, which 

elicited qualitative, text-based responses.1 Most correctional administrators 

indicated that there was no difference in the conditions for men and women in 

administrative segregation. Among the responses that support this point, the 

following were selected as examples: 

•	 Alaska: “Administrative Segregation policy and procedure applies to both 

male and female prisoners, without variance.” 

•	 Connecticut: “There are not any notable differences between how the males 

and females are confined or managed.” 

1 The questionnaire item reads, “If your system also houses female inmates in administrative segregation, please 

describe any differences in the facilities, staffing, programming, privileges, or other aspects of confinement that 

differ from what you have described above” (Liman Program, 2015, Appendix C (Section III): http://www.law.yale. 

edu/system/files/area/center/liman/document/liman-asca_adseg_appendix_cappendix_c.pdf. 
94 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

• Florida: “No differences — same as males.” 

•	 Nebraska: “We have the same policies and physical layout for restrictive 

housing at the men’s and women’s facilities.” 

Yet, other qualitative responses suggest that there are some differences in 

conditions for men and women in administrative segregation: 

•	 Utah: “Restrictive housing is similar to the males. One major difference is the 

step-down process, which is not as extensive or structured. Programming is 

about the same.” 

•	 Nevada: “There is only [one] institution that houses female inmates for 

administrative segregation. Limited housing and there is no other institution 

that the inmate can be transferred to.” 

Therefore, the qualitative data suggest that similarities exist across genders, but 

they also indicate some differences that seem to pertain to women’s smaller 

numbers in administrative segregation conditions. 

Physical and Temporal Dimensions 

Supermax conditions also vary, but there are some commonalities of space 

that adhere to legal standards requiring that cells measure 70-80 square feet 

(Shalev, 2009). In California, Pelican Bay State Prison’s Secure Housing Unit 

(built in 1989) has cells that measure 7.6 feet by 11.6 feet, with some cells 

facing concrete walls (Goode, 2015). Arrigo and Bullock (2008) further explain 

that secure housing units tend to be small cells (6 feet x 8 feet), with solid steel 

doors (p. 624). Pizarro and Narag (2008) synthesize the literature on supermax 

conditions, indicating that inmates tend to be held in 7- by 12-foot cells, often 

without windows. 

Double-celling can also occur in restrictive housing conditions (NYCLU, 2015, 

p. 34). Some inmates have a “bunkie” or cellmate in these small spaces, which 

can lead to tension and has the potential for violence (p. 34, endnote 115). The 

NYCLU report describes cellmates sharing “roughly 100 square feet — about 

the size of a parking space — that includes a toilet, open shower stall, writing 

platform, and bunk beds” (p. 35). A key issue, according to prisoners in these 

confined conditions, is the lack of privacy. This finding points to how the physical 

dimensions of restrictive housing cells may well constitute deprivation strains. 

Regarding time-in-cell, a common feature of restrictive housing includes the 

“physical isolation of individuals in which they are confined in their cells 

for around twenty-three hours each day (typically twenty-two to twentyfour hours)” (Smith, 2006, p. 448). Jurisdictions report that most men in 

administrative segregation spend 23 hours per weekday in their cells. In roughly 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 95 

half of the jurisdictions, prisoners spend 23 hours per weekend day in their cells, 

as well (Liman Program/ASCA, 2015, p. 37). 

Reporting jurisdictions state that prisoners can stay in administrative segregation 

for less than 90 days but that stays can range up to three or more years (Liman 

Program/ASCA, 2015, p. 28). In supermax facilities, this means long-term 

isolation for indeterminate terms (Haney, 2003); however, legal settlements in 

California and New York have called for ending the use of indeterminate stays in 

restrictive housing (Canon, 2015; Schwirtz & Winerip, 2015). 

Some sources indicate that the cells in restrictive housing units lack windows 

and are often illuminated by artificial light 24 hours per day, where “prisoners 

have no means of controlling the brightness or dimness of their units” (Arrigio & 

Bruce, 2008, p. 625). Conditions can include isolation cells that have no windows, 

as at Pelican Bay (Lovett, 2015). Some supermax units have skylights in the 

hallways (Shalev, 2009). Most jurisdictions indicate that both men and women in 

administrative segregation have access to natural light (Liman Program/ASCA, 

2015, p. 39), and two-thirds of jurisdictions for men report that prisoners can 

control their in-cell lights (Liman Program/ASCA, 2015, p. 39). Sixty percent of 

jurisdictions report that female inmates can control in-cell lighting. However, 

these results do not address the quality or duration of inmates’ exposure to light, 

which is part of inmates’ sensory experiences — their embodied experience of 

restrictive housing. 

Other physical conditions of restrictive housing include air conditioning and 

noise levels. Among both men and women in administrative segregation, most 

jurisdictions report having air conditioning (Liman Program/ASCA, 2015, p. 39), 

although whether it is functioning is an open question. Some literature about 

noise suggests an “eerie silence” in supermax conditions (Shalev, 2009), while 

other reports indicate uncontrollable noise levels, with prisoners banging their 

fists against cell doors and yelling. Descriptive reports of prisoner frustration and 

yelling are also indicated by Owen (1998) for women in secure housing (p. 163). 

Additionally, the NYCLU (2015) report describes the noise conditions in the 

recreation pen as catcalls, “guys screaming like crazy people” (2015, p. 39), and 

pens filled with men “yelling and screaming about nothing” (p. 39). 

Another physical concern is access to showers in restrictive housing. In most 

supermax conditions, both male and female inmates leave their cells for showers 

approximately three times per week (Pizarro & Narag, 2008), although some 

reported less-frequent showering (Liman Program/ASCA, 2015, p. 43). 

Physical conditions may also encompass recreation and exercise provisions. 

Under supermax conditions, prisoners exercise alone, with no recreational 

equipment, in a cage or concrete exercise yard outdoors for one hour per day 

(Shalev, 2009). Sometimes, the exercise yard is indoors with an open, barred top. 

Prisoners describe the exercise “pen” as being surrounded by concrete walls or 

heavy metal grating that obstructs their view of the sky (NYCLU, 2015, p. 39). 
96 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

 

The vast majority of jurisdictions report that men’s administrative segregation 

facilities have outdoor exercise areas and that 60 percent have indoor exercise 

areas (Liman Program/ASCA, 2015, p. 41). For women, 90 percent of the 10 

reporting jurisdictions indicate that outdoor exercise facilities are available, 

while 50 percent report indoor exercise facilities. 

Some jurisdictions report similar access to group exercise activities among men 

(37 percent) (Liman Program/ASCA, 2015, p. 42) and women (40 percent). 

Roughly 20 percent of jurisdictions reporting on conditions for men in 

administrative segregation indicate that inmates can receive more hours of 

exercise as they progress through a step-down classification system (Liman 

Program/ASCA, 2015, p. 41). For men, most jurisdictions report a median of 

five hours of exercise per week. Among reporting jurisdictions for women, 

hours allotted for exercise range from three to 10 hours per week, with the 

median similar to that estimated for men — about five hours per week. The 

Liman Program/ASCA report indicates that group exercise tends to be offered 

as part of the final stages of a step-down classification system in administrative 

segregation conditions (2015, p. 42). Inmates in administrative segregation 

in general can skip their exercise periods. They can also be denied exercise 

privileges due to inclement weather, as punishment for rule violations, and if 

they are considered a threat to security. 

Meals also constitute part of the physical conditions of confinement in supermax 

custody. Inmates eat meals in their cells (Pizarro & Narag, 2008), their food often 

passed through slots in the door (Browne et al., 2011). 

Furthermore, inmates in restrictive housing are generally permitted no physical 

contact. The touch of another human being tends to happen only when 

correctional officers place handcuffs and other restraints on inmates, such as 

shackling them at the waist or placing them in leg irons (Browne et al., 2011). 

This finding speaks to the distinctive feature that human contact is generally 

lacking for prisoners held in restrictive housing (Smith, 2006). For example, 

in supermax conditions, inmates may experience cell extractions (the forceful 

removal of a prisoner from a cell) (Pizarro & Narag, 2008). Extractions are 

employed when inmates cover the glass windows of their cell doors or refuse to 

come out of their cells. Other physical conditions of confinement include fourpoint restraint, which can include strapping an inmate to a bed. When inmates 

become violent or refuse to follow orders, guards can place them in special cells 

that have no amenities — including no beds or toilets. Food delivery and other 

services can also be denied (Pizarro & Narag, 2008, p. 26). 

Finally, technology and surveillance are part of the physical conditions that 

inmates in restrictive housing face (Shalev, 2009). Supermax units include 

surveillance by video cameras pointed at cells and intercom systems in the 

recreational yard, for example, to reduce contact between prisoners and staff. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 97 

Descriptive information indicates that at Pelican Bay, not only do doors open and 

close electronically but corrections officers speak to inmates through intercoms 

(Goode, 2015). 

Limitations and Recommendations 

The data show that the physical conditions in restrictive housing are consistent 

with guiding standards. However, there is little information about what these 

conditions mean for prisoners, how conditions are experienced, and how 

these conditions affect prisoners’ adaptation to prison life, including wellbeing and antisocial behavior. Systematic research is needed on prisoners’ 

embodied experiences in restrictive housing, which must be generated with 

in-depth approaches filling in the qualitative story of what it is like to live in 

restrictive housing. For example, the present literature notes that the cells are 

small. However, it is not known how a small cell with a view of a concrete 

wall, or no windows, or a steel door combine to affect those who live in them. 

Prisons help ameliorate the constraints of small, general-population cells 

with out-of-cell time, recreation, and other programming (National Research 

Council, 2014). These mitigating factors, or coping resources, are generally not 

available in restrictive housing, where, for example, out-of-cell time is greatly 

limited. A key recommendation for future research is that prisoners who have 

experienced restrictive housing should be asked directly and systematically 

about their experiences of these physical conditions. Although the descriptive 

data on the physical conditions in administrative segregation show similarities 

among men and women, little is known about their respective experiences of 

these conditions. 

Totality Versus Separate Strains 

Each of these conditions alone may induce deprivation strain, but considering 

the totality of physical deprivations that inmates encounter in restrictive housing 

may be especially important in making an overall assessment. The National 

Research Council report describes some of the conditions in restrictive housing 

under the title, “extreme conditions of confinement” (p. 178). However, how the 

totality of these conditions is experienced by inmates and how they may together 

constitute extreme conditions is lost when research focuses on each specific 

dimension separately. New surveys of inmates are needed to systematically 

measure these deprivations to provide an overall index of the deprivation strains 

that inmates encounter. This effort would be similar to the research conducted on 

“cumulative burden,” the total stress load faced in general community population 

samples (Turner, Wheaton, & Lloyd, 1994). Such a research direction will yield 

comparative, empirical assessments of how stressful various conditions of 

restrictive housing are for prisoners. Comparisons could then be made across 

prisoner groups, such as comparing men’s and women’s experiences. 
98 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Control of the Body and Coping Resources 

Sociological theory is informative in underlining that the body is, ultimately, 

the site at which the physical conditions of restrictive housing are experienced 

(Foucault, 1977; Wacquant, 2004). As Haney observes, “in most of these units in 

the United States prisoners cannot come out of their cells without being cinched 

up in elaborate ways — handcuffs, leg irons, restraint chains and the like” (2009, 

p. 19). This perspective draws attention to the aspects of restrictive housing 

that control prisoners’ bodies through the cell conditions imposed and use of 

restraints. Coates’ (2015) recent work on being a black male in America, Between 

the World and Me, sensitizes audiences to pay attention to race and the body. His 

work, along with reports on demographic trends in restrictive housing (Beck, 

2015), suggests that it is especially important to acknowledge that the restrictive 

physical conditions of confinement are disproportionately experienced by black 

bodies. Inequities are seen not only in the demographic patterns of restrictive 

housing but also through inquiry into prisoners’ embodied experience. The lack 

of qualitative research on this topic obscures this key point, as well as what it 

means for the well-being of racial and ethnic minority groups. 

According to GST, coping resources can offset strains and stressors — which 

have been described as the pains of imprisonment in restrictive housing (Agnew, 

2001; 2006; Pearlin et al., 1981; Sykes, 1958/2007). While touring a men’s prison, 

the author of this paper observed a prisoner in restrictive housing shadow boxing 

in his cell through a small window in its steel door. He was creatively passing 

his time in restrictive housing with extremely limited resources at his disposal. 

This boxing example and the throwing of bodily substances (Rhodes, 2004) 

demonstrate that prisoners may also use their bodies to act out some degree of 

resistance. More information is needed on institutional efforts that try to help 

prisoners cope with restrictive housing conditions and how prisoners themselves 

cope with these conditions — if at all. 

Routines, Sanctions, and Incentives 

Regarding the sanctions used in restrictive housing, NYCLU describes a “culture 

of deprivation,” where deprivation orders may be imposed for seven days, but 

there is no cap on the amount on the total time such orders can span (2015, p. 37). 

However, the Liman Program/ASCA’s (2015) systematic overview of the use 

of both sanctions and incentives in administrative segregation provides more 

specific information and also includes some data about women (Figure 1). The 

most common sanctions include limiting inmates’ social telephone calls, time 

spent listening to the radio, commissary privileges, social visits, possession of 

personal property, and exercise time. Sanctions are also imposed that limit 

reading material, group programming, individual out-of-cell programming, incell programming, social correspondence, verbal exchanges between prisoners, 

and showers. Taken together, the data most often show that the sanctions used 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 99 

0 20 40 60 80 100 

Social Phone Calls 

Radio 

Commissary 

Social Visits 

Personal Property 

Television 

Exercise 

Reading Material 

Group Programming 

Individual Out-of-Cell 

Programming 

In-Cell Programming 

Social Correspondence 

Verbal Exchanges 

Between Prisoners 

Showers 

■ Men ■ Women 

Figure 1. Percentage of Jurisdictions Reporting Activities as Disciplinary 

Sanctions Among Men and Women. 

Sources: Data on men (n = 43) from Liman Program/ASCA (2015, p. 50); data on women (n = 10) 

made available by Liman Program/ASCA. 

are similar across gender. However, data also indicate that some sanctions (e.g., 

regarding social visits) are experienced more often by men than women in 

administrative segregation. 

More details about how sanctions are implemented are embedded in the 

literature, including those that affect recreation and food. In New York state, 

when prisoners first arrive in secure housing units, they must wear handcuffs 

secured to a waist chain during recreation (NYCLU, 2015, p. 38). Prisoners find 

that these restraints severely limit exercise options within the already confined 

conditions of a recreational cage. After 30 days, if they do not have a disciplinary 

infraction, prisoners may go to the recreation cage without the restraints. 

Of course, this privilege can be revoked if the inmate incurs a disciplinary 

infraction. Food restrictions also constitute sanctions for disciplinary 

infractions in restrictive housing (NYCLU, 2015). In New York, there is a recent 

recommendation to eliminate “nutraloaf,” a dry, flavorless, 1,100 calorie product 

sometimes given to inmates as a sanction in place of the standard meal (McKinley, 

2015; The Economist, 2015). Prisoners also report mealtime “drive-bys,” during 

which a correctional officer passes their cells without delivering food. Other 
100 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

0 10 20 30 40 50 

Commissary 

Personal Property 

Social Phone Calls 

Social Visits 

Television 

Exercise 

Radio 

Reading Material 

Group Programming 

Individual Out-of-Cell 

Programming 

In-Cell Programming 

Showers 

Verbal Exchanges 

Between Prisoners 

Social Correspondence 

■ Men ■ Women 

Figure 2. Percentage of Jurisdictions Reporting Activities as Incentives Among 

Men and Women. 

Sources: Data on men (n = 41) from Liman Program/ASCA (2015, p. 50); data on women (n = 10) 

made available by Liman Program. 

descriptive information from prisoners reveals that a tray may be delivered 

with a cover, as is shown on security cameras, but with no food under the cover 

(NYCLU, 2015, p. 39). 

The Liman Program/ASCA data (2015) also provide an overview of the 

incentives that are available in administrative segregation across jurisdictions 

(Figure 2). The most common incentives are access to the commissary, personal 

property allowed in cell, and social telephone calls and visits. A comparative 

assessment by gender on the use of incentives in administrative segregation 

shows that fewer programs offer incentives to female inmates than do programs 

for men. 

Limitations and Recommendations 

Some of the descriptive information about sanctions is derived from convenience 

samples; more systematic data are available on administrative segregation. 

However, more systematic data are still needed pertaining to sanctions and 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 101 

incentives used across the various living conditions in restrictive housing and 

gender similarities and differences in their use. The quantitative, descriptive 

results tend to show similarities in the provision of sanctions and incentives to 

women and men. This finding is in keeping with the qualitative data reported by 

the responding administrators in jurisdictions involved in the Liman Program/ 

ASCA report. However, the quantitative data also support other findings that 

there are some differences. Specifically, this report finds that more sanctions 

are used with men than with women in administrative segregation, and fewer 

incentives to illicit good behavior are provided to women. Further comparative 

inquiry would increase the knowledge base regarding how gender, as one example 

of social location, shapes inmates’ experiences with the conditions of confinement 

in restrictive housing. More information on this topic is needed to better 

understand and address prisoners’ embodied experiences of restrictive housing. 

Social Conditions of Confinement 

Social relationships in prison include those with family members, staff, and 

other inmates, but restrictive housing precludes most of these social contacts. 

For example, Browne and colleagues (2011) reported that family visits are 

reduced, or may be completely prohibited, for a year or more. They further 

note that when family visits are allowed, they are conducted by speaker or 

telephone through a thick glass window, with no opportunity for human touch 

(Browne et al., 2011, p. 47). In some facilities, visits even occur over closedcircuit television (Arrigo & Bullock, 2008, p. 625). 

The Liman Program/ASCA report and data (2015) indicate that all reporting 

jurisdictions permit social visits for both men and women. The jurisdictions also 

reported that 20 percent of women’s visits are contact visits, but no jurisdictions 

reported contact visits for men. The research indicates that, for prisoners in 

restrictive housing units, approximately 5 percent of visits to male prisoners 

occur only via video. No facilities reported restricting female inmates to videoonly visits; however, a combination of contact, non-contact, and video are used 

for women (10 percent) and men (7 percent). Whether these patterns have 

differential meanings to inmates by gender is unknown. 

Both male and female inmates in administrative segregation are allowed social 

telephone calls (in addition to calls for legal or religious purposes) (Liman 

Program/ASCA, 2015). The vast majority of these telephone calls are monitored, 

as are calls by general population prisoners. However, it may be important 

to consider the influence of such monitoring as part of the totality of other 

circumstances and restraints that inmates face in restrictive housing. 

Limitations and Recommendations 

Research is needed on the social effects of solitary confinement on families in 

the community. Prisoners’ perceptions that their families are also affected by 
102 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

their incarceration may add to the pains of imprisonment they experience. The 

issue is relevant to practitioners, in that it may be a heretofore unacknowledged 

form of strain for prisoners in restrictive housing. Investigating this area would 

contribute to research on the collateral consequences of incarceration or 

“spillover effects” (Comfort, 2007). Literature pertaining to incarcerated men 

indicates that female spouses and partners are deeply affected by their loved ones’ 

circumstances (Comfort, 2007; Wildeman, Schnittker, & Turney, 2012). There 

is a notable lack of information about how a family fares while a family member 

is in restrictive housing (Smith, 2006, p. 497). The recent NYCLU report (2015, 

p. 28) indicates that families also suffer when prisoners are sent to restrictive 

confinement. More systematic research designs would yield further insight. 

Drawing on GST (Agnew, 2006), given the severity of conditions in restrictive 

housing, it would seem that the effects of having a loved one in these conditions 

may be even more acute for families on the outside; however, only comparative 

research would shed light on that issue. 

Social conditions in restrictive housing also include contacts with other 

prisoners and staff. Those in restrictive housing tend to be excluded from 

normal prison programming, routines, and collective activities, greatly 

reducing social interaction (Haney, 2003). Although prisoners can yell to those 

in the next cell or pass notes, and must interact with guards, Haney argues that 

these personal exchanges do not constitute normal social interaction. Smith 

(2006) goes on to pinpoint harm in solitary confinement: “The central harmful 

feature is that it reduces meaningful social contact to an absolute minimum: a 

level of social and psychological stimulus that many individuals will experience 

as insufficient to remain reasonably healthy and well-functioning” (p. 503). 

More information about how prisoners experience the social conditions of 

restrictive housing — or the lack of them — would illuminate whether the 

conditions of confinement used in supermax facilities today are serving 

society’s best interests over the long term. 

Furthermore, little information on staff-inmate interactions has been gathered in 

a systematic fashion. Given the constraints of restrictive housing, some inmateto-staff communication in restrictive housing occurs through their bodies, in 

the form of cutting, suicide attempts, and throwing bodily substances (Rhodes, 

2004). Inmate contact with prison staff also occurs in the course of routine 

activities in restrictive housing, such as being escorted to the exercise yard or 

the toilet, or through brief encounters when meals are delivered to the cell door 

(Smith, 2006, p. 448). Ethnographies that expand on staff-inmate interactions are 

extremely rare in the literature. However, they are needed given that staff-inmate 

interactions constitute part of the social conditions of confinement. 

Gender Similarities or Differences? 

The Liman Program/ASCA data provide further survey-based information on 

gender and the degree of communication among prisoners. All jurisdictions 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 103 

report that male and female prisoners can talk with one another, but the quality 

of those contacts is not revealed by the findings. The data show that more men 

than women are allowed to talk via group programming, but it is not clear 

whether that is due to more restrictions on women or less group programming 

for women. The data also indicate that more women than men talk during 

recreation-yard activities; therefore, qualitative differences may exist by gender in 

how social contacts occur in prison. 

Some insight about women in restrictive conditions, and their social contacts, is 

embedded in a broader view of Owen’s (1998) work in California. Her research 

includes conditions in the prison’s general population and shows that women 

form “play families” as part of their social relations. A family member’s stay 

in restrictive housing conditions affects her prison family. Owen’s descriptive 

research suggests that women find it painful to be cut off from play-family 

relationships in the prison, wondering, for example, if partners on the inside 

will wait for them while they are in restrictive housing (Owen, 1998, pp.134­

137). This research then suggests that perceived impact on within-prison ties is a 

pain of imprisonment for women in restrictive housing. These play- or pseudofamily ties can also lead to time in secure housing (e.g., as punishment for 

violence against a partner). This insight raises new questions about how women 

experience restrictive housing when it separates them from their in-prison 

partner or other in-prison family members. However, more updated research is 

needed on both men’s and women’s social relationships in prison. 

Although Owen’s (1998) qualitative research on women includes only a few 

cases of those in restrictive housing, it also raises some questions about staffprisoner relationships. As part of her overall study, Owen interviewed some 

staff and prisoners in restrictive housing. One striking finding comes from the 

comments of a prison guard about the degree of perceived physical threat from 

the prisoners. The guard reports that “[t]here is no danger for staff in here, not 

even in the Seg unit. The danger in here is getting manipulated” (Owen, 1998, 

p. 165). This perception contrasts with the extremes of supermax conditions 

that focus on constraining “dangerous men” (Simon, 2014). However, in a visit 

to a restrictive housing component in a women’s prison, the author found that 

staff were highly concerned about perceived threats to their safety and that of 

visitors. Visitors were given protective vests to wear and instructed to not walk 

too close to the cells (which had steel bars) to prevent being spit upon. The 

message conveyed throughout the visit was that these were “dangerous women.” 

This message conflicts with the prison guard’s perception in Owen’s research. 

Therefore, more research is needed to clarify how both women and men are 

perceived as threats to prison functioning and the reasons they are placed in 

restrictive housing. 
104 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Psychological Conditions 

Even with variations in the conditions of confinement, Smith states that “the 

overall conclusion must be that solitary confinement — regardless of specific 

conditions and regardless of time and place — causes serious health problems 

for a number of inmates” (2006, p. 503). It is estimated that about 45 percent 

of supermax prisoners suffer from psychosocial impairments (Lovell, 2008). 

Another study shows that two-thirds or more of those in supermax conditions 

suffer from psychological and emotional trauma, and the psychopathological 

effects of isolation (Haney, 2003). Furthermore, a recent review of extant 

literature by the National Research Council (2014) states that “the overwhelming 

majority of studies document the painful and potentially damaging nature of 

long-term prison isolation. Occasional studies have found little or no harm ... 

[h]owever numerous methodological concerns have been expressed that limit 

any straightforward interpretation of these counterintuitive results” (pp.186-187). 

Haney and Lynch’s review from 1997 discusses some studies that found no 

adverse psychological effects of restricted housing and suggest that this is a 

problematic conclusion of some early literature. Smith (2006) reviews this 

research as well, mentioning, in particular, some studies on sensory deprivation 

that found no negative effects. His review notes that this research was based 

on a voluntary sample of college students in an experimental setting for 10 

days or less (Kurki and Morris, 2001, p. 431), which is not comparable to the 

involuntary conditions of confinement. However, a more recent longitudinal 

study in Colorado examined 270 male inmates with and without mental illness 

in administrative segregation and in the general prison population. They found 

no adverse mental health effects from exposure to administrative segregation 

during a one-year period (O’Keefe, Klebe, Metzner, Dvoskin, Fellner, & Stucker, 

2013). As the authors themselves note, more research is needed on these findings 

because they are from one state and conditions of confinement vary across 

jurisdictions. In addition, mental health effects may emerge after the one-year 

interval in which they were studied. 

Limitations and Recommendations 

On the whole, studies tend to show adverse psychological conditions for inmates 

living in restrictive housing (Mears, 2008, p. 691), although evidence is mixed. 

More research is needed to clarify the psychological conditions that may arise 

in restrictive housing and to evaluate how variations in these conditions of 

confinement (e.g., level and types of deprivation strains) are associated with 

mental health outcomes. This research would be further enhanced by considering 

the potentially offsetting role of coping resources, when available. The GST 

framework provides a rationale for future research on processes that may explain 

how strains and coping resources in these circumstances work to affect the 

mental health of inmates in restrictive housing. This type of empirical research 

may suggest policy-relevant points of prevention and intervention. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 105 

Service Provision in Restrictive Housing 

Some information on the services provided to prisoners in restrictive housing is 

embedded in the recent Liman Program/ASCA report (2015) and in studies of 

supermax prisons (Shalev, 2009). Concerns about service provision in restrictive 

housing have emerged from the court case in California regarding the quality 

of health care and therapeutic programming in Madrid v. Gomez at the Pelican 

Bay Secure Housing Unit (Arrigo & Bullock, 2008, p. 625). The consensus in 

the limited extant literature is that mental health and medical services are very 

limited for those in restrictive housing (Browne et al., 2011). 

Supermax facilities such as Pelican Bay often can provide more in-depth 

information about service provision in restrictive housing. Programming for 

inmates in supermax conditions is provided within cells due to safety concerns 

(Pizarro & Narag, 2008). Educational services may be provided, as they are at 

Pelican Bay, by placing inmates in a row of educational cells that face computer 

monitors, through which the instructors teach the lesson (Shalev, 2009). Other 

information on supermax conditions suggests that when education is provided, 

it is by teachers talking to inmates through openings in the cell doors (Pizarro 

and Narag, 2008). In some cases, prisoners may sign up for in-cell study packets 

(e.g., for GED, substance use, aggression management) (NYCLU, 2015, p. 32). 

However, extant literature generally points to an absence of programming. 

The literature pertaining to services also indicates that mental health and 

medical services are extremely limited for prisoners in restrictive housing 

conditions (Browne et al., 2011), where visits with mental health counselors 

and staff are conducted through the cell door. However, cell-front therapy 

allows other inmates to hear the prisoner-therapist discussion. If out-of-cell 

treatment is provided, the inmate is led to treatment in shackles and remains 

shackled throughout the session. Shalev (2009) provides some information on 

other medical services in supermax conditions. For example, the Pelican Bay 

Secure Housing Unit has on-site medical and dental clinics, but more systematic 

information on medical services across jurisdictions is needed. Telemedicine is 

also used in supermax facilities, with medical examinations performed via video 

conferencing links between the prison and medical centers. One 10-minute 

telemedicine conference requires roughly two hours of preparation, which 

involves a strip search of the prisoner, an escort to and from the telemedicine 

clinic, and two guards who remain with the prisoner during the examination 

(Shalev, 2009). 

Prisoners in secure housing units in New York state explain that medical 

staff come to a cell when the inmate submits a sick-call slip; the inmate talks 

with staff through a locked cell door and the food slots, affording no privacy 

(NYCLU, 2015, p. 40). Visits with a psychiatrist are sometimes conducted 

via teleconferencing (p. 41). Over all, prisoners report difficulty in receiving 

attention from medical personnel and social workers; when they do receive 

medical services, issues of privacy remain a concern. 
106 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Finally, the literature shows an overall dearth of programming for prisoners in 

supermax conditions, drawing attention to the idleness often observed among 

these inmates (NYCLU, 2015; Haney, 2009) — who live a deeply monotonous 

existence with pronounced deprivations (Haney, 2009). Restrictions on 

programming and services also likely amplify the overall pains of imprisonment 

experienced by prisoners. 

Limitations and Recommendations 

Information in extant literature on the availability of legal, medical, educational, 

and mental health services in restrictive housing is sparse. However, service 

provision is potentially very pertinent in terms of the GST framework, as services 

represent a programmatically modifiable form of coping resources for prisoners. 

More information is needed, as well, about the effectiveness of the services 

provided, including, for example, different modes for providing medical services 

in these circumstances. 

Gender Similarities or Differences? 

Data on women made available by the Liman Program and the Liman Program/ 

ASCA report (2015) were synthesized to provide insight into gender similarities 

and differences in service provision for those in administrative segregation. This 

information indicates that in-cell programming is the most common for both 

men and women, whereas out-of-cell programming is less common. In-cell 

programming includes mental health care, GED, and education services. Outof-cell programming includes mental health groups, education, and visits with 

a counselor. Although important in understanding the parameters of service 

provision in restrictive housing, this information is limited — the data do not 

speak to the quality of the programming or how it is experienced by prisoners. 

Information pertaining to legal visits is available for both men and women in 

administrative segregation. All jurisdictions permit legal visits for both, but 

these meetings are a mix of contact and non-contact visits that are monitored. 

Therefore, the information about legal visits by gender shows similarities, but 

more information is needed about the quality of these visits and how they are 

experienced by inmates. In addition, the monitoring of legal visits should be 

viewed within the totality of constraints that these prisoners face. Is it yet another 

form of deprivation strain that prisoners must endure? 

Systematic Research on Step-Down Programs 

Step-down programs allow inmates to alter the extreme conditions of 

confinement in restrictive housing and regain certain privileges or coping 

resources by reaching specific milestones. By establishing step-down programs, 

states “tie an inmate’s departure from segregation to the completion of certain 

goals, such as behavioral plans and classes” (Liman Program, 2013, p. 18). Some 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 107 

states — including Connecticut, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Jersey, New 

York, and Virginia — have structured programs that target behavior in some 

way. Of the states listed above, Massachusetts, Mississippi, and Virginia — like 

Washington and Colorado — are working to find ways to hold prisoners in 

restrictive housing while allowing for more opportunities for group activities 

and therapy in those circumstances (Liman Program, 2013, p. 18). Without 

such measures, inmates serving the remainder of their sentences in restrictive 

housing cannot access the transitional programs for community re-entry that are 

available to the general prison population (e.g., assistance with acquiring letters 

of recommendation and in developing post-release plans, a resume, and cover 

letter) (NYCLU, 2015, p. 33). In fact, one survey found that 4,400 prisoners in 

2013 were released directly from secure housing to the community (p. 29). In 

some of the jurisdictions listed above, transition release programs are part of the 

step-down programs offered in restrictive housing (Liman Program/ASCA, 2015, 

p. 30). Information on the effects and workings of step-down programs is not 

widely available; however, these programs should be the basis of research inquiry 

because they may reduce the deprivation strains that prisoners encounter and 

help prepare prisoners for re-entry. 

Finally, changes in the confinement conditions in some restrictive housing 

circumstances are either in place or are being recommended. In California, for 

example, prisoners will no longer be held in isolation indefinitely (Ford, 2015; 

Lovett, 2015; Schwirtz & Winerip, 2015). The implementation of these changes 

should be monitored and studied for the benefit of practitioners and prisoners 

throughout the nation. 

Considering Conditions for Subgroups 

Much of what is known about the conditions of confinement in restrictive 

housing practices pertains to adult male prisoners. To further consider 

diversity in prisoner experiences of the conditions of confinement, this 

report features women as a group of inmates that tend to be overlooked 

when considering restrictive housing. To move toward an even deeper 

understanding of embodied experience, other overlooked groups must also be 

included in research and policy considerations. In fact, information is needed 

on a range of subgroups, including racial and ethnic minorities, transgender 

inmates (Sylvia Rivera Law Project, 2007), juveniles (ACLU, 2012; Birckhead, 

2015), and mentally ill prisoners (American Civil Liberties Union Colorado 

(ACLUC), 2013; Rodriguez, 2013). 

Research shows that transgender women in men’s prisons are 13 times more 

likely than non-transgender inmates to be sexually assaulted by other inmates 

(Jenness, Maxon, Sumner, & Matsuda, 2010; Jenness & Fenstermaker, 2014). 

Given high rates of sexual victimization, New York’s Rikers Island Jail has created 

a special housing unit for transgender inmates (Mathias, 2014). Other responses 
108 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

to the elevated threat of sexual victimization among transgender inmates involve 

placing those inmates in protective custody (Sylvia Rivera Law Project, 2007). 

Therefore, it is important to consider the degree to which transgender inmates 

are differentially exposed to these conditions compared to non-transgender 

(cisgender) inmates. The experiences of transgender women in restrictive housing 

also need further research (Sylvia Rivera Law Project, 2007). For example, as 

reported by a transgender female prisoner in a larger study in California, the 

likelihood of being moved to restrictive housing serves as a deterrent to reporting 

sexual assault (Jenness, personal communication, January 12, 2016). 

Discussion and Conclusions 

This report brings together information on the conditions of confinement in 

restrictive housing. Although some details pertaining to physical conditions, 

sanctions and incentives, social conditions, psychological conditions, and 

service provision are synthesized in this report, there is an overwhelming lack of 

systematic information on the topic. This lack of information stems from a gap in 

the research — prisoners’ personal experiences of the conditions of confinement. 

The Liman Program/ASCA data provide some of the most informative, nationally 

representative data on these conditions across jurisdictions in the United States 

and are used extensively in this report. However, many issues raised by the current 

synthesis and critique point to areas that require further empirical inquiry. 

The majority of the information available describes the basic physical conditions 

in some forms of restrictive housing, but systematic information about restrictive 

housing is lacking. The most comprehensive information available tends to 

come from descriptions of supermax facilities, but very little is known about the 

social conditions and services provided in restrictive housing. Even when these 

elements are present in the literature, their coverage is sometimes inconsistent 

(e.g., total isolation or whether family contact is permitted), which may reflect the 

myriad conditions encompassed by the term “restrictive housing.” As is shown in 

this report, there are also some differences in conditions labeled “administrative 

segregation” for men and women (e.g., regarding sanctions and incentives), 

although there are also similarities. Furthermore, details are also lacking about 

the effects of restrictive housing conditions over an extended period of time. 

Nationally representative, descriptive information is available on the demographic 

and criminal justice history patterns of groups of inmates who experience 

restrictive housing (Beck, 2015). Most important, however, is that very little is 

known about their experiences in these conditions of confinement. Research 

also must move beyond trace mentions of the conditions of restrictive housing 

embedded in other studies and further address the nuances and workings of these 

conditions. Such efforts may be of considerable benefit to practitioners; they may 

help them to better monitor prisoners’ behavior and provide effective conditions 

when and if restrictive housing is absolutely necessary. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 109 

Quantitative Story of Restrictive Housing 

The quantitative story of restrictive housing addresses the trends and patterns 

surrounding who experiences it and descriptive information on the prevalence 

of particular conditions of confinement. Given recently available information 

on the criminal justice histories of those in restrictive housing (Beck, 2015), it is 

clear that prisoners often bring some importation strains (pre-prison stressors) 

with them to restrictive housing. However, a review of evidence covered in this 

report suggests that inmates endure considerable deprivation strains (stressors 

experienced while living in these conditions). More research on these deprivation 

strains is needed to better flesh out the quantitative story of restrictive housing. 

General strain theory (Agnew, 2001; 2006) and the pains of imprisonment 

concept (Sykes, 1958/2007) offer theoretical tools to better systematically 

detail the deprivation strains involved in restrictive housing. This framework 

points not only to detailing the types and levels of strains that prisoners face 

in restrictive housing but also leads to a consideration of the totality of strains 

that they endure in these conditions (Turner, Wheaton, & Lloyd, 1994). 

Developing the quantitative story of restrictive housing would entail creating 

questionnaires requiring inmate feedback, which would systematically measure 

strains in prisons and different conditions within them. Furthermore, using 

a comprehensive theoretical framework will help to move research from 

description to empirical analyses of how these conditions affect prisoner 

outcomes, including health. Inquiry along these lines may also offer theoretically 

guided and empirically based recommendations for ways to reduce the 

deprivation strains that prisoners endure in restrictive housing. General strain 

theory may be further used to consider instituting programming to modify the 

coping resources available to incarcerated individuals living in these conditions. 

It predicts that mitigating those strains should reduce antisocial behavior in 

keeping with rehabilitative goals, and in considering the future re-entry of these 

inmates to the general population of prisoners and, eventually, to society. The 

development of coping resources, according to GST, should also foster order 

within restrictive housing conditions in keeping with the managerial goals of 

correctional institutions. Investment in coping resources, therefore, may be 

particularly justified when restrictive housing conditions are imposed. More 

information is particularly needed on programs that are effective in reducing 

deprivation strains and on the potential of step-down programs. 

Furthermore, a number of questions remain about the conditions of confinement 

considered to be deprivation strains. For example, if deprivation strain is 

experienced in restrictive housing, as suggested by the conditions described, how 

does it spill over to inmates’ families? How does that affect prisoners? What are 

the long-term effects of exposure to restrictive housing conditions for inmates 

and their families? For practitioners, further inquiry along these lines may lead 

to the development of effective policies and programs when and if restricted 

housing is needed. 
110 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Qualitative Story on Restrictive Housing 

The qualitative story of restrictive housing points to the body as a site of 

deprivation. In line with critical sociological theories (Foucault, 1979; Wacquant, 

2004), a focus on embodied experience may illuminate why different social 

locations may matter in restrictive housing conditions. As an example of moving 

toward embodied experience, this report has touched on gender similarities 

and differences in restrictive housing. Most of the research (although sparse) 

has been conducted with men; even less information is available about female 

inmates living under these circumstances. Although the data show that men 

and women face fairly similar conditions in solitary confinement (e.g., types 

of physical conditions and a lack of services), there are differences that must 

be understood. For example, fewer incentives are provided to women in 

administrative segregation, and more sanctions are provided to men in these 

circumstances. Such differences may have implications for inmates’ adjustment 

to living in restrictive housing. This limited inquiry into gender and restrictive 

housing suggests a need for more systematic research on embodied experience. 

Further development of this concept will yield insight into how different 

subgroups experience strains in restrictive housing and may inform better policy 

and practice. 

Conclusions 

This report begins to synthesize what is known about the conditions of 

confinement in restrictive housing. It offers some initial insights based on extant 

research. Due to a lack of information, both the quantitative and qualitative stories 

of restrictive housing presented here are limited — and are in dire need of more 

research. Taken as a whole, the conditions of confinement present for inmates 

living in restrictive housing are extremely challenging across all the dimensions 

considered (physical, sanctions and incentives, social, psychological, and service 

provision). These conditions suggest that the use of restrictive housing needs to be 

avoided as much as possible. Fleshing out these qualitative and quantitative stories 

will lead to ways to make the conditions of confinement as humane as possible, and 

to use restrictive housing only when absolutely unavoidable. 

Further empirical information is needed to systematically understand how 

the conditions and processes of restrictive housing affect the inmates who live 

there. One pressing area of research involves the systematic investigation of the 

conditions that constitute the pains of imprisonment; their types and levels; 

and how they work together, separately, and as a totality in affecting prisoner 

experiences. The GST and pains of imprisonment frameworks may be used to 

illuminate the types of strains that inmates endure in restrictive housing and 

the role of coping resources in these conditions. Research is urgently needed 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 111 

on services, programs, and opportunities for social interaction (e.g., visits from 

inmates’ family members). Such areas may be clear points at which programming 

can be modified to be more responsive to prisoner needs. Another area that is 

amenable to change through policy may informed by more empirical research 

on the promise of step-down programs for reintegrating those held in restrictive 

housing into both the general population of prisoners and society at large. 

Research with implications for programming will be useful to practitioners in 

shaping safer and more humane practices as they conduct their vital work. 

Finally, future research may consider the promise of mixed research methods, 

which involve using both qualitative and quantitative approaches to understand 

a social problem (Creswell & Plano-Clark, 2011). A systematic program of 

research may begin with qualitative studies that may fill in missing information 

on the meaning of myriad conditions that inmates face in restrictive housing and 

yield new insight into inmates’ embodied experience in these circumstances. As 

a next step, a program of research could build on the qualitative information by 

generating systematic questionnaires to quantify the strains, coping resources, 

and psychological outcomes among a representative sample of inmates living 

in restrictive housing and in the general prison population. A mixed-methods 

program of research on restrictive housing would then yield comparative 

assessments of the conditions of confinement. By investigating the processes 

involved, this program of research would also inform practitioners about 

promising areas of intervention and prevention — grounded in experience and 

theory — for problems that arise among inmates when restrictive housing cannot 

be avoided. 
112 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

References 

Agnew, R. (2001). Building on the foundation of general strain theory: Specifying 

the types of strain most likely to lead to crime and delinquency. Journal of 

Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38, 319-361. 

Agnew, R. (2006). Pressured into crime: An overview of General Strain Theory. 

Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury. 

Agnew, R., & Delisi, M. (2012). General Strain Theory, the criminal justice system 

and beyond: Introduction to the special issue. Crime and Justice, 40, 174-175. 

American Civil Liberties Union (2012). Growing up locked down: Youth in solitary 

confinement in jails and prisons across the United States. Human Rights Watch. 

http://www.aclu.org. 

American Civil Liberties Union Colorado (2013). Out of sight, out of mind: 

Colorado’s continued warehousing of mentally ill prisoners in solitary confinement. 

http://aclu-co.org/wp-content/uploads/files/imce/ACLU-CO%20Report%20 

on%20Solitary%20Confinement_2.pdf. 

Arrigo, B. A., & Bullock, J. L. (2008). The psychological effects of solitary 

confinement on prisoners in supermax units. International Journal of Offender 

Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 52, 622-640. 

Beck, A. J. (2015). Use of restrictive housing in U.S. prisons and jails, 2011-12. 

NCJ 249209. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Bernard, T. J., Snipes, J. B., & Gerould, A. G. (2009). Vold’s theoretical criminology: 

6th edition. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 

Birckhead, T. R. (2015). Children in isolation: The solitary confinement of youth. 

Wake Forest Law Review, 50(1). Forthcoming: UNC Legal Studies Research Paper 

No. 2512867. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2512867. 

Blevins, K. R., Listwan, S. J., Cullen, F. T., & Johnson, C. L. (2010). A General 

Strain Theory of prison violence and misconduct: An integrated model of inmate 

behavior. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 26, 148-166. 

Browne, A., Cambier, A., & Agha, S. (2011). Prisons within prisons: The use of 

segregation in the United States. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 24, 46-49. 

Canon, G. (2015). Inside the landmark court case that will end indefinite solitary 

confinement in California. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/09/ 

california-limits-solitary-confinement. 

Clear, T. A., & Frost, N. L. (2013). The punishment imperative: The rise and failure 

of mass incarceration in America. New York, NY: New York University Press. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 113 

Clemmer, D. (1940/1965). The prison community. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart 

and Winston. 

Coates, T. N. (2015). Between the world and me. New York, NY: Spiegel & Grau. 

Comfort, M. (2007). Punishment beyond the legal offender. Annual Review of 

Law and Social Science, 3, 271-296. 

Covington, S. S., & Bloom, B. E. (2006). Gender-responsive treatment and 

services in correctional settings. Women and Therapy, 29, 9-33. 

Creswell, J. W., & Plano-Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed 

methods research. 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Delisi, M. (2011). How general is general strain theory? Journal of Criminal 

Justice 39, 1-2. 

Fleury-Steiner, B. & Longazel, J. (2014). The pains of mass imprisonment. 

New York: Sage. 

Ford, M. (2015). The beginning of the end for solitary confinement? The Atlantic. 

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/scaling-back-solitary/403441/. 

Foster, H. (2012). The strains of maternal imprisonment: Importation and 

deprivation stressors for women and children. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 

221-229. 

Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline & punish. New York, NY: Vintage Books. 

Garland, D. (2001). Introduction: The meaning of mass imprisonment. In D. 

Garland (ed.), Mass imprisonment: Social causes and consequences (pp. 1-3). 

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Goode, E. (2015, August 4). Solitary confinement: Punished for life. New York 

Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/04/health/solitary-confinementmental-illness.html?_r=2. 

Goodstein, L., & Wright, K. N. (1989). Inmate adjustment to prison. In L. 

Goodstein and D. Layton MacKenzie (eds.), The american prison: Issues in research 

and policy (pp. 229-251). New York, NY: Plenum Press. 

Giallombardo, R. (1966). Society of women: A study of a women’s prison. 

New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. 

Haney, C., & Lynch, M. (1997). Regulating prisons of the future: A psychological 

analysis of supermax and solitary confinement. New York University School of 

Law and Social Change, 23, 477-570. 
114 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Haney, C. (2003). Mental health issues in long-term solitary and “supermax” 

confinement. Crime & Delinquency, 49, 124-156. 

Haney, C. (2009). The social psychology of isolation: Why solitary confinement is 

psychologically harmful. Prison Service Journal, 181, 12-20. 

Heffernan, E. (1972). Making it in prison: The square, the cool, and the life. New York, 

NY: Wiley-Interscience. 

Jenness, V., & Fenstermaker, S. (2014). Agnes goes to prison: Gender authenticity, 

transgender inmates in prisons for men, and pursuit of “The Real Deal.” Gender 

& Society, 28, 5-31. 

Jenness, V., Maxon, C. L., Sumner, J. M., & Matsuda, K. N. (2010). Accomplishing 

the difficult but not the impossible: Collecting self-report data on inmate-oninmate sexual assault in prison. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 21, 3-30. 

Kurki, L. & Morris, N. (2001). The purposes, practices, and problems of supermax 

prisons. Crime and Justice, 28. 385-424. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 

Liman Program, Yale Law School & the Association of State Correctional 

Administrators. (2015). Time-in-cell: The ASCA-Liman 2014 National Survey of 

Administrative Segregation in Prison. New Haven, CT: Yale University. https:// 

www.asca.net/system/assets/attachments/9195/*asca-liman_administrative_ 

segregation_report_sep_2_2015.pdf?1450213204 or http://www.asca.net. 

Liman Program, Yale Law School. (2013). Administrative segregation, degrees of 

isolation, and incarceration: A national overview of state and federal correctional 

policies. New Haven, CT: Yale University. https://www.law.yale.edu/system/files/ 

area/center/liman/document/Liman_overview_segregation_June_25_2013_TO_ 

POST_FINAL%281%29.pdf. 

Lovell, D. (2008). Patterns of disturbed behavior in a supermax population. 

Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 985-1004. 

Lovett, I. (2015). California agrees to overhaul use of solitary confinement. 

The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/02/us/solitaryconfinement-california-prisons.html. 

McKinley, J. (2015). New York prisons take unsavory punishment off the table. 

The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/18/nyregion/new-yorkprisons-take-an-unsavory-punishment-off-the-table.html. 

Mathias, C. (2014, November 18). New York’s largest jail to open housing 

unit for transgender women. Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost. 

com/2014/11/18/rikers-transgender-women_n_6181552.html. 

Mears, D. P. (2005). Evaluating the effectiveness of supermax prisons. Washington, DC: 

The Urban Institute Justice Policy Center. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 115 

Mears, D. P. (2008). An assessment of supermax prisons using an evaluation 

research framework. The Prison Journal, 88, 43-68. 

Mears, D. P. (2013). Supermax prisons: The policy and the evidence. 

Criminology & Public Policy, 12, 681-719. 

National Research Council. (2014). The growth of incarceration in the United 

States: Exploring the causes and consequences. Committee on Causes and 

Consequences of High Rates of Incarceration. J. Travis, B. Western, and S. 

Redburn (eds.). Committee on Law and Justice, Division of Behavioral and 

Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 

New York Civil Liberties Union. (2015). Boxed in: The true cost of extreme 

isolation in New York’s prisons. New York, NY: New York Civil Liberties Union. 

http://www.nyclu.org. 

O’Keefe, M. L., Klebe, K. J., Metzner, J., Dvoskin, J., Fellner, J., & Stucker, A. 

(2013). A longitudinal study of administrative segregation. Journal of the 

American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 41, 49-60. 

Owen, B. (1998). In the mix: Struggle and survival in a women’s prison. 

Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. 

Pearlin, L., Menaghan, E., Leiberman, M. A., & Mullan, J. T. (1981). The stress process. 

Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 22, 337-356. 

Pizarro, J. M., & Narag, R. E. (2008). Supermax prisons: What we know, what we 

do not know, and where we are going. The Prison Journal, 88, 23-42. 

Rhodes, L. A. (2004). Total confinement: Madness and reason in the maximum 

security prison. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 

Rodriguez, S. (2013, April 13). Lawsuit filed against solitary confinement of 800 

“seriously mentally ill” prisoners in Pennsylvania. Prison Legal News. https:// 

www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2013/apr/15/lawsuit-filed-against-solitaryconfinement-of-800-seriously-mentally-ill-prisoners-in-pennyslvania/. 

Shalev, S. (2009). Supermax: Controlling risk through solitary confinement. 

Portland, OR: Willan. 

Schwirtz, M., & Winerip, M. (2015, December 16). New York State agrees to 

overhaul solitary confinement in prisons. The New York Times. http://www. 

nytimes.com/2015/12/17/nyregion/new-york-state-agrees-to-overhaul-solitaryconfinement-in-prisons.html?_r=0. 

Skarbek, D. (2014). The social order of the underworld: How prison gangs govern 

the American penal system. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 
116 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Simon, J. (2014). Mass incarceration on trial: A remarkable court decision and the 

future of prisons in America. New York, NY: The New Press. 

Smith, P. S. (2006). The effects of solitary confinement on prison inmates: A brief 

history and review of the literature. Crime and Justice, 34, 441-528. 

Sykes, G. (1958/2007). The society of captives: A study of a maximum security 

prison. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 

Sylvia Rivera Law Project. (2007). “It’s a war in here”: A report on the treatment 

of transgender and intersex people in New York state men’s prisons. New York, NY: 

Sylvia Rivera Law Project. http://www.srlp.org. 

The Economist. (2015, December 21). Solitary confinement is cruel — but 

soon it will at least be more unusual. http://www.economist.com/blogs/ 

democracyinamerica/2015/12/american-prisons. 

Turner, R. J., Wheaton, B., and Lloyd, D. A. (1995). The epidemiology of social 

stress. American Sociological Review, 60, 104-125. 

U.S. Department of Justice (2016). Report and recommendations concerning the 

use of restrictive housing. Final Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Justice. http://www.justice.gov/restrictivehousing. 

Wacquant, L. (2004). Body & soul: Notebooks of an apprentice boxer. New York, 

NY: Oxford University Press. 

Western, B. (2007). Introduction to the Princeton classic edition. The society 

of captives: A study of a maximum security prison. Princeton, NJ: Princeton 

University Press. 

Wildeman, C., Schnitkker, J., and Turney, K. (2012). Despair by association? 

The mental health of mothers with children by recently incarcerated fathers. 

American Sociological Review, 77, 216-243. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 117 

CHAPTER 4 

Gang Affiliation and Restrictive 

Housing in U.S. Prisons 

David C. Pyrooz 

University of Colorado Boulder 

Introduction 

Prison gangs came to the forefront of issues faced by correctional 

authorities toward the end of the 20th century. Gang activity has been 

documented in U.S. prisons as early as the 1940s but was not linked in 

a major way to prison violence (Camp & Camp, 1985; Crouch & Marquart, 

1989; DiIulio, 1990; Irwin, 1980). Emerging in the 1970s was a gang dynamic 

responsible for producing an unprecedented amount of disorder and violence 

in U.S. prisons. Between 1975 and 1979, there were 124 gang-related homicides 

in California prisons (Crouch & Marquart, 1989, p. 204; Porter, 1982). Texas 

prisons witnessed 52 homicides during the “war years” of 1984 and 1985, with 90 

percent being gang-related (Ralph & Marquart, 1991). Gangs are also implicated 

in orchestrating prison riots (Goldstone & Useem, 1999; Useem & Reisig, 

1999), such as the 1993 Lucasville riot in Ohio that left nine inmates and one 

correctional officer dead (Huff & Meyer, 1997). Although homicide and violence 

in contemporary prisons are at historically low levels (Mumola, 2005; Useem 

& Piehl, 2008), gangs remain disproportionate contributors to violence and 

misconduct in prisons (e.g., Griffin & Hepburn, 2006; Huebner, 2003; Shelden, 

1991). They are one of the more challenging issues correctional officials face in 

managing prisons. 
118 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

One response to combat the influence of gangs in U.S. prisons involves moving 

affiliates of gangs out of general population housing and into restrictive housing 

facilities or units. National surveys of correctional officials indicate that this 

response is not only practiced at a high rate (Knox, 2012) but also viewed as the 

most effective solution for countering the role of gangs in facilitating misconduct 

and prison disorder (Winterdyk & Ruddell, 2010). Indeed, the use of restrictive 

housing has been described as a “silver bullet” for addressing gang activity in 

prisons (Vigil, 2006, p. 33). From this standpoint, segregating the affiliates of 

gangs from the general population could reduce prison violence and disorder 

systemwide as well as reducing misconduct among individual gang members 

(Fischer, 2002; Ralph & Marquart, 1991). 

Critics challenge the use of restrictive housing on gang affiliates on legal 

(Tachiki, 1995), humanitarian (Toch, 2007), and empirical (Mears & Reisig, 

2006) grounds. One of the most vexing issues involves the wholesale placement 

of the members or associates of entire gangs into restrictive housing for 

indeterminate periods. Gang affiliates can be subjected to restrictive housing 

conditions based not on their behavior, but on their status, which runs contrary 

to traditional notions of restrictive housing (King, 1999; Kurki & Morris, 2001). 

It is not uncommon to learn of gang affiliates who spend more than a decade 

in isolated conditions that restrict them from the basic privileges provided to 

the general prison population (Reiter, 2012). The longer gang affiliates stay in 

restrictive housing, the more likely they are to misbehave when they return to 

general prison population (Labrecque, 2015a). Moreover, a recent review of 

the literature regarding restrictive housing concluded that it may have some 

potentially devastating psychological consequences (Frost & Monteiro, 2016). 

This raises serious questions about its use on gang populations, who already 

maintain elevated levels of depression and suicidal tendencies (Watkins & Melde, 

2016). The conditions associated with this practice have led to unrest in states 

like California, where an uprising led to a hunger strike involving 30,000 inmates 

(Rodriguez, 2013) along with a class action lawsuit — Ashker v. Governor of 

California. The lawsuit was settled recently, leading to sweeping changes in how 

restrictive housing is used on those who affiliate with gangs (St. John, 2015). In 

light of these events, any short-term benefits to prison management may not be 

worth the long-term consequences (Griffin, 2007). 

This white paper examines key issues related to gang affiliation and restrictive 

housing in U.S. prisons. It was commissioned by the National Institute of Justice 

of the U.S Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs to synthesize 

what is known about these topics and to identify knowledge gaps that should 

be addressed in future research. It begins by addressing the wide range of 

terminology and definitions applied to restrictive housing, gangs, and gang 

members. Here, the focus is on how these topics are measured and how they are 

used in correctional practice. Next, a brief overview of the extent, magnitude, 

and nature of gangs, gang affiliation, and restrictive housing is provided to 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 119 

 

document their emergence and trends as central issues in correctional policy and 

practice. The core of this white paper examines how gang affiliation is related to 

restrictive housing by focusing on five areas: 

1. The logic behind segregating gangs and gang affiliates. 

2. Gang affiliation as a correlate of restrictive housing. 

3. Pathways into restrictive housing among gang affiliates. 

4. Pathways out of restrictive housing among gang affiliates. 

5. Gang affiliation, restrictive housing, and the reduction of misconduct and disorder. 

This white paper makes several conclusions based on a synthesis of the literature 

in these focus areas. It also identifies aspects of these areas that need further 

attention from the practitioner, policymaking, and research communities. It 

offers recommendations for future research to advance the understanding of the 

relationship between gang affiliation and restrictive housing. It should be noted 

that much of what is known about the focus areas synthesized in this white paper 

is derived from a small number of states, particularly California and Texas, which 

might not represent common policies or practices in corrections generally. 

Terminology and Definitions: Restrictive Housing, 

Gangs, and Gang Affiliation 

Restrictive Housing 

One of the challenges in surveying the current state of the evidence on the 

relationship between gang affiliation and restrictive housing is terminology. Fred 

Patrick, Director of the Vera Institute’s Center on Sentencing and Corrections, 

noted that the practice of placing inmates in restrictive housing goes by many 

names, including “isolation, restricted housing, administrative segregation, 

protective custody, special housing, disciplinary segregation, etc.” (Shames, 

Wilcox, & Subramanian, 2015, p. 2). A 2010 review of 42 state correctional 

policies revealed more than 20 variations in the terminology used for longterm segregated housing alone (Butler, Griffin, & Johnson, 2013); however, 

a consensus on terminology is unfolding. The executive committee of the 

American Correctional Association (ACA) (2014) recently passed a resolution to 

adopt “restrictive housing” as the terminology used to apply to the broad practice 

of separating inmates from the general prison population. 

Additional factors are essential to characterizing restrictive housing, as outlined 

in the joint report of Yale University’s Liman Program and the Association of 
120 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

State Correctional Administrators (Baumgartel, Guilmette, Kalb, Li, Nuni, Porter, 

& Resnik, 2015, pp. 1-2), including — 

1.	 Discretion: the latitude prison staff maintain for placing an inmate in 

restrictive housing. 

2.	 Duration: short- versus long-term placement of inmates in restrictive housing. 

3.	 Isolation: the amount of human contact and interaction, particularly with 

fellow inmates. 

4.	 Time-in-cell: the daily length of time an inmate is confined to a cell. 

Overall, it is generally agreed that restrictive housing constitutes the 

discretionary practice of housing inmates in cells separate from the general 

population with extended physical and social isolation over fixed or 

indeterminate sentences (Baumgartel et al., 2015; Frost & Monteiro, 2016; 

Shames et al., 2015; Smith, 2006). 

This white paper follows the ACA standards and uses “restrictive housing” to 

refer broadly to these practices.1

 There are several “pathways” into restrictive 

housing, reflecting its various purposes, including “safety, punishment, or 

protection” (American Corrections Association, 2014). When the purpose 

is protecting inmates, restrictive housing is commonly known as “protective 

segregation.” Examples of inmates found in this type of housing include 

celebrities, former law enforcement officers, gang dropouts, and inmates with 

other types of sensitive needs. Restrictive housing for the purpose of punishment 

is commonly termed “disciplinary segregation,” and for many agencies, 

placement is based on custody levels that elevate with inmate misconduct. 

Finally, when restrictive housing is used to manage threats and safety, it is 

commonly known as “administrative segregation.” In this context, safety 

generally refers to the safety of the institution — broadly construed — due to 

the threat or risk posed by the inmate. Administrative segregation is especially 

relevant when it comes to discussing the relationship between restrictive housing 

and gang affiliation. As described in a later section, administrative segregation 

is commonly used on gang affiliates. This use attracts the greatest concern from 

advocacy groups, such as Solitary Watch and the American Civil Liberties Union, 

because it often involves both independent and cumulative increases in staff 

discretion, isolation, time-in-cell, and indeterminate placement. Distinguishing 

these pathways into restrictive housing is critical to understanding the 

relationship between gang affiliation and restrictive housing. 

1 In reviewing the literature, terminology consistent with its original usage is reflected in this white paper if it more 

appropriately represents the work of the authors, particularly for research on long-term placement in administrative 

segregation or supermax housing. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 121 

 

 

Gangs 

Unlike restrictive housing, the terminology applied to gangs in prison settings 

is much more universal across agencies. “Security threat group” (STG) is a term 

commonly applied to gangs, although it is not uncommon for agencies to use 

“street gangs,” “prison gangs,” “disruptive groups,” “cliques,” and “unauthorized 

organizations,” among other terms. It is beyond the scope of this white paper 

to delve into the complexities of gang definitions. Drawing from the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (2014, p. 2) definition,2

 the 

essential features of STGs are — 

1.	 Group: a formal or informal organization or association of three or more inmates. 

2.	 Collective identity: a common name or identifying signs or symbols. 

3.	 Durability: ongoing or durable across time. 

4.	 Criminal activity: multiple acts of organization, threats, finance, soliciting, 

or misconduct are conducted by its affiliates, individually or collectively, on 

behalf of the group. 

These factors distinguish STGs from fleeting associations as well other groups 

(e.g., religious) found in prison settings. It is worth noting that agencies have 

developed terminology and definitions for STGs that are not exclusive to gangs 

in theory but are in practice. Any cursory review of the names of STGs that 

agencies have recognized reveals that they are overwhelmingly street or prison 

gangs. Accordingly, this white paper will use “gangs” as the terminology applied 

to groups such as those described above unless referring to a specific policy 

where “STG” is used. 

Many agencies identify two tiers of gangs (e.g., STG-I and STG-II). This is a 

critical distinction because it has implications for the potential placement of 

inmates into restrictive housing. Although this issue will be addressed in more 

detail in later sections, in some agencies the gang tier may dictate a specific set of 

restrictive housing policies and procedures, among other responses. Generally, 

three important, although interrelated, factors are used to distinguish between 

tiers of gangs, including — 

2 Because of recent reforms to gang management policies, finalized in 2014, the definition provided by the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation includes changes to the definition of STGs. The author is unaware of 

any comprehensive investigation into either academic or administrative gang definitions in prison settings. The works 

of Camp and Camp (1985), Lyman (1989), and the National Institute of Corrections (1991) are often referenced for 

providing the essential features of prison gangs, and Hill (2009) provided the only comparison in documentation 

practices across agencies. 
122 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

 

1. Whether the origins and activities of the group are primarily in street or 

prison settings. 

2. If a group maintains an organizational structure that involves established 

procedures, hierarchy, bylaws, and collective behavior. 

3. Perhaps most importantly, the level of threat posed by the group to inmates, 

correctional officers and staff, and facilities, especially the propensity for 

violence and the disruption of institutional security. 

Some states (e.g., the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 

[CDCR]) refer to both tiers as STGs,3

 while other states (e.g., the Texas 

Department of Criminal Justice [TDCJ])4 distinguish STGs from other 

collectives that are termed street gangs or disruptive groups. And, some agencies 

(e.g., the Federal Bureau of Prisons) use alternative language such as “disruptive 

groups” rather than STGs or gangs for the upper tier while recognizing that 

there are additional gangs and gang members present in their facilities. Agencies 

typically conduct threat assessments to determine the status of groups (appendix 

A identifies the criteria the CDCR uses to certify associations or groupings of 

inmates as STGs). 

Gang affiliation 

While corrections officials use threat assessments to certify when a grouping 

or association of inmates is a gang, the determination of gang affiliation for 

individual inmates is based on what is commonly termed “validation” (Camp 

& Camp, 1985, p. 132; Tachiki, 1995). Validation refers to a fact-finding process 

where knowledgeable prison employees — usually in a classification or STG unit 

3 For example, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (2014, pp. 31-32) identifies STG-I as follows: 

“groups, gangs, and/or historically based prison gangs that the CDCR has determined to be the most severe threat to 

the security of the institutions and communities based on a history and propensity for violence and/or influence over 

other groups.” Alternatively, STG-II is defined as: “other groups or gangs such as street gangs or disruptive groups 

comprised of members and associates who may be determined to be in a subservient role to the more dominant 

STG-I groups.” 

4 The Texas Department of Criminal Justice recognizes 12 STGs and monitors numerous disruptive groups. The 

case of the Tangos may provide readers with a useful way to distinguish between gang tiers. The Tangos are a 

Latino “hometown” gang (e.g., Tangos of Houston, Tangos of El Paso) that has maintained a presence in Texas 

prisons for more than two decades, yet departs from the traditional Latino prison gang structure of groups like 

the Texas Syndicate and the Texas Mexican Mafia (Tapia, 2014). The Tangos also have the largest gang presence 

in Texas as well as the TDCJ prisons and “represent the greatest statewide gang threat” (Texas Department of 

Public Safety, 2015, p. 17). However, the TDCJ classifies the Tangos as a disruptive group and not an STG, given 

that the group — regardless of its size in numbers — lacks the strong organizational structure that is found in 

STGs such as the Texas Mexican Mafia or Aryan Brotherhood. For example, unlike top-tier STGs, gang member 

“rank” (e.g., status, shot-calling) among Tangos in TDCJ is localized to units or pods and does not transfer 

when a Tango gang member moves to a different facility. Overall, the TDCJ threat assessment deems that the 

threat associated with the Tangos is lesser than the more established STGs, which in turn, warrants a lower 

classification as a disruptive group. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 123 

— review evidence regarding an inmate’s history and association with recognized 

gangs to make an official determination of gang affiliation.5 Gang affiliation 

is determined based on criteria commonly used by law enforcement agencies 

to document and record street-gang members (Huff & Barrows, 2015). These 

criteria focus on gang signs and symbols in written documents or photographs, 

socializing with known gang members, activity on behalf of the gang, and other 

forms of gang intelligence. How inmates score on an explicit list of criteria, often 

termed “source items,” are entered into what some agencies call a “validation 

packet” to determine gang affiliation (e.g., Arizona Department of Corrections; 

see Fischer, 2002). Some agencies apply equal weighting to all source items, 

while others apply smaller or larger weights depending on the source item 

(see appendix B for CDCR’s 14 source items and their associated weights). 

There is a great deal of overlap across prison systems in how gang members are 

documented and recorded, but some variation remains (Hill, 2009, documents 

the similarities and differences in 43 prison systems). 

Similar to how agencies recognize tiers for different gangs, they also recognize 

different levels in the status of individual gang members. These determinations 

are equally important in understanding the relationship between gang affiliation 

and restrictive housing because the level of gang affiliation may trigger specific 

restrictive housing policies and practices. Inmates with non-zero levels of 

involvement in gangs are considered “gang affiliates,” which is the operational 

definition used in this white paper. A study of the patterns and correlates of 

violence and misconduct in the Federal Bureau of Prisons (Gaes, Wallace, 

Gilman, Klein-Saffran, & Suppa, 2002, pp. 362-363) compared a three-tier 

gang member classification system with the street gang literature on gang 

“embeddedness” (see Klein, 1971; Pyrooz, Sweeten, & Piquero, 2013) and 

reported the following tiers: 

1. A member is a “full-fledged, core gang member.” 

2. A suspect is “thought to be a gang member whose credentials have not been 

fully established.” 

3. An associate refers to an inmate whose “actions indicate he is conducting 

business or looks out for the interests of a gang” but has not or cannot join for a 

variety of reasons (e.g., race or ethnicity, residence, or cultural background). 

There is the fourth, or non-embedded, level that includes inmates who are 

unaffiliated or unassociated with gangs altogether (i.e., zero level). This bottom 

5 Although an inmate can be validated as a gang member at any point while incarcerated, the most active phase of 

intelligence gathering occurs at intake or reception (Goodman, 2008; Hatcher, 2006). This concerted focus on gang 

affiliation and status at intake is due to the need for finding appropriate housing for inmates. Wrongly housing gang 

dropouts or rival gang affiliates could have deadly consequences for inmates or staff. 
124 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

level represents the largest group of inmates, as it is well known that most 

inmates are not embedded in gangs (Hill, 2009; Winterdyk & Ruddell, 2010). 

The notion of gang embeddedness has been likened to a bulls-eye (Esbensen, 

Winfree, He, & Taylor, 2001), where members would be at the center of the 

target, suspects at the inner ring, associates at the outer ring, and the nonembedded would not be located on the target at all. These distinctions can be 

found in the validation process used to determine gang affiliation, where the 

number of points an inmate accumulates dictates whether he or she is considered 

a member, suspect, associate, or nonmember. 

This section has provided an overview of the terminology and definitions of 

restrictive housing, gangs, and gang members. There are several types of restrictive 

housing, gangs, and gang affiliations, each of which is important to distinguish, and 

the associated terminology is used throughout this white paper. Understanding 

the distinctions across each of these concepts is critical to understanding their 

interrelationship. Some gangs and some gang affiliates are subject to some forms 

of restrictive housing. However, gangs are not monolithic to restrictive housing, 

nor is restrictive housing monolithic to gangs. It is important to understand the 

relationship between restrictive housing and gang affiliation, and to determine why, 

when, where, and how restrictive housing is used. 

A Brief Overview of Restrictive Housing, Gangs, and Gang 

Affiliation in U.S. Prisons 

The use of restrictive forms of housing has a long tradition in U.S. prisons 

(Haney & Lynch, 1997; Hinds & Butler, 2015; King, 1999). Recent events such as 

the Pelican Bay hunger strikes in 2011 and 2013 have propelled the practice of 

restrictive housing into a national spotlight (Lovett, 2015). Moreover, national 

leaders have expressed both interest and concern about the practice — recent 

high-publicity examples include President Obama’s speech to the National 

Association for the Advancement of Colored People (Baker, 2015) and U.S. 

Supreme Court Justice Kennedy’s concurring opinion in Davis v. Ayala (Ford, 

2015). Several U.S. legislative bills have been proposed and hearings held on 

restrictive housing in the past couple of years. Although corrections issues 

occasionally spill outside of prisons and into the public discourse, rarely has 

there been such a concerted interest in restrictive forms of housing. 

The practice of restrictive housing has grown considerably over the past several 

decades (Butler et al., 2013; King, 1999; Naday, Freilich, & Mellow, 2008). In 

1984, only one state (Illinois) maintained a supermax prison facility (Kurki & 

Morris, 2001). In 1996, that figure increased to 32 states (National Institute of 

Corrections, 1997). By 2004, 44 states had supermax prison facilities (Mears, 

2005). No single source of data has systematically tracked the number of inmates, 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 125 

beds, or facilities using restrictive housing over an extended period, but several 

studies have produced estimates of the scope of restrictive housing. 

Naday and colleagues (2008) reported the number of U.S. prison inmates housed 

in administrative segregation annually between 1997 and 2002. They examined 

data from The Corrections Yearbook, a report produced by the Criminal Justice 

Institute based on surveys of correctional agencies and 51 agencies with at least 

one valid data point during the six-year period (excluding the Bureau of Prisons). 

An average of 26,177 inmates were housed in administrative segregation each 

year. When paired with state-level figures of incarceration over the same sixyear period (Harrison & Beck, 2003), this translates to a 2.2 percent rate of 

administrative segregation. These findings indicate that, on any given day, the 

vast majority of inmates are not segregated from the general population. 

Baumgartel and colleagues (2015) and Beck (2015) report the most recent data 

on the scope of restrictive housing in U.S. prisons. The Baumgartel team’s findings 

are based on the national survey conducted jointly by the Liman Program and 

the Association of State Correctional Administrators, in which 40 state and 

federal agencies reported on their custodial population in fall 2011 and fall 2014. 

They found that 6.4 percent of the custodial population in 34 jurisdictions was 

in restrictive housing in 2014. In terms of administrative segregation, where 

40 agencies had valid data, Baumgartel and colleagues’ findings reveal that 

29,848 inmates were housed in administrative segregation, or 2.6 percent of the 

custodial population. There was a 19 percent reduction in the number of inmates 

in administrative segregation between 2011 and 2014. The majority of states 

(62 percent) reported a decline, with the Colorado Department of Corrections 

observing an 86 percent reduction. When comparing the findings with Naday and 

colleagues (2008), it is clear that there remains a continued — and an apparently 

increased — reliance on administrative segregation in U.S. prisons. 

Beck (2015) examined restrictive housing using data from the 2011-12 National 

Inmate Survey, which consists of a sample of 38,251 inmates in 233 state 

and federal prisons. The survey had inmates self-report the time they spent 

in restrictive housing in the 12 months prior to the interview. This is a key 

distinction from the work of Naday and colleagues (2008) and the Baumgartel 

team (2015), both of whom relied on administrative data. Approximately 4.4 

percent of inmates reported spending “last night” in restrictive housing, which 

would be equivalent to the “on hand” or daily snapshot of the population housed 

in restrictive housing. This number is twice that of the findings reported by 

Naday and colleagues (2008), but it is important to recognize that this figure 

includes restrictive housing broadly defined.6

 Beck also found that nearly 20 

percent of inmates reported spending at least one day in restrictive housing in 

the past year, a figure that reveals a much greater exposure to restrictive housing 

than daily snapshots do. 

6

 Baumgartel and colleagues (2015) did not report the 2011 estimates of restrictive housing, so a comparison to 

Beck (2015) is not possible. 
126 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

The rise in the use of restrictive housing has coincided with the growth of prison 

gangs. This growth may be the reason for the increased use of restrictive housing 

in states like California and Texas (DiIulio, 1990; Mears, 2005, p. 33). There are 

reports of prison gangs as early as the 1940s (e.g., DiIulio, 1990, p. 132), although 

what is contemporarily viewed as prison gangs — large, racially and ethnically 

homogenous, organized and structured, and violent groups (see Pyrooz, Decker, 

& Fleisher, 2011) — did not emerge until the latter half of the 20th century. 

The U.S. prison population underwent large-scale demographic changes in the 

1970s, including the incarceration of more youthful, violent, and racial or ethnic 

minority offenders, which has been identified as a source of the growth of prison 

gangs (Skarbek, 2014). Street gangs proliferated during this era as well (Klein & 

Maxson, 2006). 

The state of the evidence on the landscape of prison gang activity is based 

on a collection of one-off studies. Camp and Camp (1985) documented the 

emergence of prison gangs in a survey of administrators from 49 prison systems 

in 1984. They found that two-thirds of prison administrators reported prison 

gangs in their institutions. Among the 29 agencies that reported information on 

gangs, there were a total of 114 gangs in the United States. The Camp and Camp 

study also provided the first national estimate of prison gang members. Although 

based only on 23 agencies, they found that the number of gang members totaled 

12,634, with California (2,050), Illinois (5,300), and Pennsylvania (2,400) 

recording the largest numbers of gang members. Overall, states reported that an 

average of 3 percent of the prison population were gang members. The findings 

from Camp and Camp are important because they provided much-needed 

baseline information about the nature and extent of gang activity in prisons. 

Several studies have been conducted to update the estimates found in Camp and 

Camp (1985), including Knox (2012), the National Gang Intelligence Center 

(2011), Wells, Minor, Angel, and Carter (2002), Hill (2009), and Winterdyk 

and Ruddell (2010). Since 1991, Knox has conducted several surveys of chief 

administrators of jails and prisons. Between 133 and 323 institutions and 

anywhere from 39 to 50 states were included in Knox’s surveys. It is unclear if 

the sample of institutions in the studies were representative of the United States, 

and whether the institutions included in the sample were jails or prisons cannot 

be distinguished. The surveys covered a wide range of general issues, but also 

included several measures relevant to gangs. Knox found much higher rates of 

gang membership than Camp and Camp, and that the rate of gang membership 

rose steadily throughout the 1990s and the turn of the century. However, Knox 

found this dramatic increase only among the male prison population.7

 The 

remaining contemporary estimates of the rate of gang membership range from 

12 to 15 percent, which stands in sharp contrast to the findings reported by 

7

 For example, Knox’s surveys revealed that the rates of gang membership for males increased from 9.3 percent 

in 1995 to 29.5 percent in 2012. Rates of gang membership for females hovered around 4 to 8 percent. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 127 

Knox. In particular, Winterdyk and Ruddell extrapolated their findings to the 

federal and state prison population and reported 189,000 validated and 208,000 

affiliated gang members. Drawing together these estimates, it is safe to conclude 

that roughly one in seven U.S. prisoners are members of gangs in prison, and it is 

likely that an even larger number maintain an affiliation with gangs. 

The aforementioned studies verify that gangs and gang affiliates have an 

established presence in U.S. prisons, although they constitute a minority of the 

population. The problems associated with gangs are greatly disproportional 

to their composition of the prison population, however. This is not a new 

observation. In Illinois, Jacobs (1974, p. 399) held that “the ‘gang thing’ is the 

most significant reality behind the walls.” Gangs present serious challenges 

in managing prisons, including inmate and staff safety, programming, and 

institutional quality of life (Fleisher & Decker, 2001). And, in prison systems 

like California, DiIulio (1990, p. 130) noted that “the question of how to manage 

prisons has resolved itself into the question of how to manage prison gangs.” 

While many correctional responses to gangs have been introduced,8

 the next 

section of this white paper focuses on one particular response: segregating 

gang members from the general population to counter the disruptive problems 

associated with gangs. 

The Relationship Between Gang Affiliation and 

Restrictive Housing 

This section reviews the research on the relationship between gang affiliation and 

restrictive housing. It examines the logic underlying restrictive housing and its 

application to gangs and gang affiliates, whether there are disparities in the use 

of restrictive housing among gang members, the unique policies and practices 

leading gang members into and out of restrictive housing, and the empirical 

evidence supporting or countering the use of this practice on gangs. 

The Logic Behind Segregating Gangs and Gang Affiliates 

Mears and colleagues (Mears & Reisig, 2006; Mears & Watson, 2006) have outlined 

the logic of placing inmates in restrictive housing. There are three different theories 

explaining why restrictive housing should result in greater systemwide safety, order, 

and control in prisons: deterrence, incapacitation, and normalization theories. 

Mears and colleagues called these theories “pathways” because they establish 

8

 Strategies include (1) out-of-state transfers to dilute the gang population, (2) enhanced prosecution of 

criminal activities, (3) inmate informants, (4) interrupting communications, (5) facility lockdowns, (6) restricting 

privileges such as contact visits and programming, (7) gang renunciation and debriefing, and (8) gathering 

gang intelligence (Carlson, 2001; Fleisher & Decker, 2001; National Institute of Corrections, 1991; Winterdyk & 

Ruddell, 2010). 
128 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

the ways in which placing an inmate into restrictive housing should lead to the 

intended beneficial outcome. These theories are important because they are often 

cited as justification for segregating gang affiliates. 

Deterrence theory contains two distinct pathways: specific and general 

deterrence. The “specific deterrence” pathway refers to the sanctioning of 

individual offenders via placement in restrictive housing for violating rules 

and engaging in misconduct. Upon return to the general population, offenders 

who have experienced the restrictions and loss of privileges will therefore 

avoid repeating such behaviors in the future. The “general deterrence” pathway, 

alternatively, emphasizes the message that is communicated to the prison 

population at large when an offender is placed in restrictive housing. Greater 

systemwide compliance with prison rules should be achieved because offenders 

will refrain from disruptive behavior out of fear that they, too, could end up in 

restrictive housing. 

Incapacitation theory also contains specific and general pathways. “Specific 

incapacitation” contends that removing disruptive inmates from the general 

population will lead to greater order in prisons by virtue of high-rate offenders 

being placed in restrictive housing. The key to specific incapacitation is 

identifying and placing the most disruptive inmates in restrictive housing, 

while also ensuring that these offenders are not replaced by equally disruptive 

inmates. “General incapacitation” also adheres to the principle of selecting 

specific inmates for restrictive housing, but the reason for this approach instead 

emphasizes the social aspects in removing disruptive inmates. Given that 

problematic inmates are likely to disrupt the everyday routines of prisons and 

instigate problems with other inmates that lead to conflict and misconduct, their 

removal may lead to a general improvement in prison order. 

Normalization theory offers three pathways that overlap. Mears and colleagues 

labeled these pathways “opportunities,” “prison staff,” and “bad apples.” The 

logic from these normalization pathways is as follows: once prisons are free 

from the “bad apples” who disproportionately cause problems, prisons will 

operate differently under a “new normal,” which will create opportunities for 

better programming and allow prison staff to focus their energies elsewhere. 

Normalization theory bears some similarity to the general forms of deterrence 

and incapacitation theories but emphasizes a combination of programming, 

targeting the most disruptive inmates, and staff involvement in prison order. 

The logic of these theories extends to gangs and gang members. Indeed, gang 

members have long been considered the “bad apples” in prisons. Just as law 

enforcement agencies focus their policing strategies on street gangs (e.g., 

specialized gang units, civil gang injunctions, focused deterrence), correctional 

agencies target the gang population operating in prisons (Trulson, Marquart, & 

Kawucha, 2006). 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 129 

Shelden (1991) provided the first empirical study that established gang members 

as a problematic population in prison. Sixty gang members were demographically 

matched to 60 non-gang members in a medium-security institution in Nevada, and 

disciplinary records from their current term of incarceration were compared. Gang 

members committed more disciplinary offenses than other inmates, particularly 

drug and fighting offenses. Indeed, 90 percent of the gang members committed 

three or more disciplinary offenses, compared to 50 percent of the non-gang 

inmates. And, 80 percent of the gang members committed a fighting offense, 

compared to 42 percent of the non-gang members. Camp and Camp’s (1985, 

p. 52) survey of prison systems revealed 20 gang-related homicides in 1983. These 

homicides were concentrated in nine of the 33 prison systems reporting that gangs 

were active in their facilities. These figures might appear small, but they translate 

into a gang-related homicide victimization rate of 71 per 100,000 persons — much 

higher than the overall homicide rates in state prisons (Noonan & Ginder, 2013) 

and in the U.S. generally (National Research Council, 2008). In a study of 298 

state prisons, Reisig (2002) found that rates of inmate homicide increased with the 

percentage of inmates in a facility participating in prohibited groups such as gangs. 

Altogether, the findings from the above studies suggest an explicit connection 

between gangs and gang members and serious violence in U.S. prisons. 

Numerous studies have since investigated the extent to which gang members 

disproportionately engage in prison misconduct, particularly assaults on inmates 

and staff. A recent meta-analysis (Pyrooz, Turanovic, Decker, & Wu, 2016) on 

the relationship between gang membership and offending included 179 empirical 

studies, with 42 of them focused on incarcerated samples. The results indicate 

that gang membership maintains a robust — moderately strong and stable — 

relationship with offending. They also reveal that the relationship between gang 

membership and offending is just as strong among incarcerated samples as it is 

among non-incarcerated samples.9 This indicates that the consequences associated 

with gang members in prison settings extends beyond serious violence to other 

forms of institutional misconduct. 

These findings are part of the justification for responding to gangs and gang 

members in prison through the use of restrictive housing. The theories outlined 

by Mears and colleagues (Mears & Reisig, 2006; Mears & Watson, 2006) explicitly 

call for targeting the right inmates when developing policies for restrictive 

housing. The disproportionate rates of institutional misconduct by gang 

members and the disorder associated with gangs make them prime targets of 

such practices. Correctional officials have overwhelmingly endorsed the use of 

segregation on gangs and gang members for the past 30 years (Camp & Camp, 

1985, p. xvi). Knox’s (2005, 2012) surveys of gangs and STGs in U.S. jails and 

9

 Supplemental analysis of the data used in the meta-analysis was conducted for this white paper. The 42 studies 

based on incarcerated samples produced 151 effect sizes; that is, instances where the relationship between 

gang membership and misconduct was quantified. Nearly two-thirds of the effect sizes were statistically 

significant, or differed from zero, which means that gang affiliates were rather consistently involved in more 

misconduct than non-gang inmates. 
130 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

prisons revealed that between 55 and 67 percent of correctional officials reported 

segregation as a strategy for controlling gangs.10 

Restrictive housing is not only a common strategy that staff use to manage prison 

gangs; it is also viewed as an effective strategy by correctional leaders. Winterdyk 

and Ruddell’s (2010) survey of officials in 37 prison systems overseeing 1.19 

million prison inmates confirmed this viewpoint. The survey listed a series 

of gang and STG management strategies and asked respondents to rate their 

effectiveness. Respondents identified segregation and isolation as the most 

effective strategy: 75 percent reported segregation was “very effective” and 

another 19 percent reported that it was “somewhat effective.” And, prison officials 

also reported additional privilege restrictions — such as access to community, 

communication, and visits — as effective ways to manage gangs. Finally, Mears 

(2005) found agreement among nearly 600 wardens on the use of supermax 

placement for gang members. Nearly half agreed or strongly agreed that gang 

members should be placed in supermax housing, while 83 percent of wardens 

endorsed its use for gang leaders. 

The characteristics of gangs and gang affiliates are consistent with the logic 

underlying restrictive housing — removing part or all of this problem group 

from the general population could produce benefits consistent with deterrence, 

incapacitation, and normalization theories. The majority of correctional officials 

have endorsed the use of restrictive housing on gang affiliates and have viewed 

it as an effective tool for managing this challenging population. This does not 

guarantee that restrictive housing is used disproportionately or wantonly on 

gangs or gang affiliates. It is therefore necessary to take a closer look at how 

restrictive housing is used in prison systems to determine if gang affiliation 

operates as a correlate of restrictive housing, and, if so, whether the sources of 

any disparities are disciplinary, protective, or administrative. The latter practice, 

which often involves considerable discretion and indeterminate placement, is the 

source of much controversy that is inextricably linked with gangs. 

Gang Affiliation as a Correlate of Restrictive Housing 

What are the characteristics of inmates in restrictive housing? Are they different 


from the general prison population? Despite such intense interest in the practice, 


there remains a severe lack of knowledge about the demographic, psychological, 


behavioral, and social correlates of placement into restrictive housing, 


especially among social factors like gang affiliation. Indeed, a recent systematic 


10 Unfortunately, Knox did not distinguish between jails and prisons or report the prison systems that were 

represented in the study, which would be needed to determine the extent to which prison systems rely on 

restrictive housing. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 131 

review of the research contained 16 studies, and only three of them included 

information relevant to the relationship between gang affiliation and restrictive 

housing (Labrecque, 2015b). There remain no national-level, comprehensive 

investigations into the segregation practices used by correctional agencies on 

gang affiliates, which is a major shortcoming of this literature. Nonetheless, there 

are several streams of research that can shed light on this relationship. 

It is also possible to examine the relationship between gang affiliation and 

restrictive housing by drawing on the official reports of correctional agencies, 

including California, Colorado, and Texas (California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation, 2013; O’Keefe, 2005; Texas Department of 

Criminal Justice, 2014a, 2014b).11 In all three states, gang affiliates constitute 

a minority of the prison population (table 1). Comparing the percentage of 

gang affiliates in restrictive housing to that of non-gang inmates in restrictive 

housing reveals a major disparity. The relative risk of placement in restrictive 

housing is much greater for gang affiliates in all three states: 5.5 times greater 

in Colorado, 16 times greater in Texas, and 71 times greater in California. 

O’Keefe provided further analysis of the relationship between gang affiliation 

and restrictive housing in Colorado. When other predictors of administrative 

segregation were accounted for — such as violent offender, ethnicity, mental 

health issues, prior punitive segregation — the risk associated with gang 

affiliation reduced to 4.5, although it remained the best predictor of placement 

in administrative segregation. However, the risk for placement in restrictive 

housing was not even across gangs or gang affiliates. O’Keefe’s results indicated 

that STG associates were just as likely to be in administrative segregation as in 

the general population, while STG members were nearly eight times as likely as 

non-members (including STG associates, suspects, and non-STG inmates) to be 

in administrative segregation. 

Caution should be exercised in interpreting these findings. First, the estimates 

are dated. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (2014) 

has changed its policy regarding the mandatory placement of gang associates in 

security housing units (SHUs), and the administrative segregation practices of 

the Colorado Department of Corrections have changed dramatically in recent 

years (Baumgartel et al., 2015), with Executive Director Raemisch calling for 

sweeping changes in its use (Mohr & Raemisch, 2015). Indeed, a recent report by 

the Colorado Department of Corrections (2016) shows that the total population 

in administrative segregation reduced from 1,505 in 2011 to 141 in 2015. Second, 

the number of gang affiliates is likely underestimated, especially in California 

11 The author conducted supplemental analyses to produce these findings, including prevalence and relative risk 

statistics. Relative risk was computed as follows: 

Risk Ratio = (RHgang/GPgang)/(RHnon-gang/GPnon-gang) 

where RH represents the number of gang and non-gang inmates in restrictive housing and GP represents the 

number of gang and non-gang inmates in the general population. 
 

Table 1. Gang Affiliation as a Correlate of Restrictive Housing in Three States 

California1 Colorado2 Texas3 

Year 2013 2003 2014 

Number of inmates 134,160 16,171 150,361 

Percent of gang-affiliated inmates 3% 26% 6.6% 

in prison system 

Percent of gang affiliates in 76% 15% 35% 

restrictive housing 

Percent of non-gang inmates 1.1% 2.8% 2.2% 

housed in segregation 

Relative risk of restrictive housing 71 5.5 16 

(gang vs. non-gang) 

1

 Includes only inmates in security housing units (California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 2013).
 

2

 Includes only inmates in administrative segregation (O’Keefe, 2005).
 

3

 Includes only inmates who are confirmed (not associated) members of the 12 recognized security threat groups 


(Texas Department of Criminal Justice, 2014a, 2014b). 

and Texas. In California, as the prison system with the “dubious distinction of 

holding the largest group of gang-affiliated offenders” (Carlson, 2001, p. 16), 

more than 3 percent of the prison population is likely to be a gang affiliate. If 

this is the case, it would likely drive down the risk ratio. In Texas, the estimates 

are based only on members of the 12 STGs recognized in the prison system; the 

associates of these groups and affiliates of disruptive groups are not included, 

which, like California, would likely lower the risk ratio. Nonetheless, table 1 

represents the current state of the evidence on the relationship between gang 

affiliation and restrictive housing using inmate-level administrative data, and 

together the three states represent more than one-fifth of the inmate population 

in the United States. 

Facility-level data also shed light on this relationship, as illustrated in the 

findings reported in Beck (2015) and the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation 

and Correction (2014). Beck reported results based on the 2011-2012 National 

Inmate Survey. While the survey did not include a measure of gang membership, 

it did ask the 38,251 inmates included in the survey about the amount of gang 

activity in the 233 facilities where they were housed over the past 12 months. 

Approximately one in six inmates reported that there was “a lot” of gang activity 

in their facility. Beck was then able to conduct a facility-level analysis of the 

concentration of inmates who reported gang activity and the concentration of 

inmates who reported spending time in restrictive housing. He found that gang 

activity in facilities was strongly related to both the concentration of inmates 

132 • National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 133 

who have spent any time in restrictive housing as well as those who have 

spent prolonged periods (30 days or more) in restrictive housing. To be sure, 

if a facility has greater levels of gang activity, it is also expected to have higher 

concentrations of inmates in restrictive housing. These findings are important 

because they establish a link between gang activity and restrictive housing, and 

do so using research methods that are entirely independent of official data. 

The Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (2014) reported that 

inmates with gang affiliations constitute 16.2 percent of its 50,000 prison 

inmates. Although it is not possible to compute risk ratios comparable to those of 

California, Colorado, and Texas, it is possible to compare the prevalence of gang 

affiliation across the custody levels of 21 institutions. In 13 low-security facilities 

(level 1 or 2), gang affiliates comprised no more than 15.8 percent of inmates. 

In six medium-security facilities (level 3), gang affiliates comprised between 

21 and 42 percent of inmates. In two high-security facilities (level 4 or 5), gang 

affiliates comprised between 49 percent and 63 percent of inmates. Paralleling the 

findings reported by Beck (2015), the concentration of gang members in a facility 

increases with the custody or security level. 

The last source of information on the relationship between gang affiliation 

and restrictive housing is found in more sophisticated analyses of inmate-level 

administrative data, which examine the characteristics of inmates in restrictive 

housing to those in the general population (Labrecque, 2015a, 2015b). The 

three studies included in Labrecque’s meta-analysis reveal that gang affiliation 

constitutes a reliable predictor of administrative segregation, which is consistent 

with his conclusion that “difficult to manage” inmates are those who end up 

in segregation. Labrecque’s study of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation 

and Correction between 2007 and 2012, which was focused on the effects of 

solitary confinement on institutional misconduct, also shed light about gang 

affiliation as a correlate of restrictive housing. He found a modest relationship 

between maintaining any past or present affiliation with a gang and placement 

in restrictive housing, as well as a relationship with the duration an inmate 

remained in restrictive housing.12 

Based on the research presented above, there is ample evidence to suggest a 

relationship between gang affiliation and restrictive housing and little evidence to 

the contrary. This conclusion is based on the following: (1) inmates who affiliate 

with gangs were clearly overrepresented in restrictive housing in California, 

Colorado, and Texas; (2) a facility-level relationship between gang affiliation 

and restrictive housing — as the concentration of gang affiliates and gang 

12 Much like the meta-analytic findings, these results are bivariate; they do not take into account alternative factors 

that could explain why gang affiliates might end up in restrictive housing (e.g., gang members are younger, have 

greater criminogenic risks and needs, more violent criminal histories, see: Davis & Flannery, 2001). It would be 

premature to draw firm conclusions based on this research, but it represents among the soundest analyses to 

date, especially when the evidence is combined with the aforementioned studies. 
134 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

activity increased, so too did the custody levels and restrictive housing rates in 

facilities; and (3) studies that compare the characteristics of inmates in restrictive 

housing to inmates in the general population revealed that gang affiliation was a 

reliable predictor of placement in restrictive housing. These findings may not be 

representative of all U.S. prison systems, but they demonstrate rather consistently 

that gang affiliation is related to placement in restrictive housing. This evidence 

is important to those concerned with correctional policies and practices. What 

these findings conceal, however, is how and why gang affiliates end up in 

restrictive housing at disproportionately high rates. Accordingly, it is necessary 

to examine the pathways that could lead inmates who affiliate with gangs into 

restrictive housing. 

Pathways Into Restrictive Housing Among Gang Affiliates 

Inmates are generally placed in restrictive housing for protection, discipline, 

or the threat they pose. There is good reason to suspect that much of the 

overrepresentation of gang affiliates in restrictive housing is due to protective and 

disciplinary reasons. Numerous scenarios reveal why current and former gang 

members require placement in protective custody — being housed in a facility 

where they are outnumbered by gang rivals, gang dropouts with outstanding 

“debts” to the gang or who have violated gang codes of conduct, or gang affiliates 

who have a personal conflict with fellow or ally gang members in the same 

facility. In fact, it is not uncommon for gang members to request protective 

custody (Fong & Buentello, 1991) or to be placed in protective custody upon 

debriefing (Fischer, 2002). And, as discussed above, given the large disparity 

between gang and non-gang inmates in their rates of institutional misconduct, 

there is an obvious pathway into restrictive housing for disciplinary purposes. In 

both instances, there is a clear explanation for the segregation of gang members: 

they have either “earned” or “need” restrictive housing. 

One of the most controversial issues surrounding the use of restrictive housing 

is the segregation of inmates from the general population based solely on the 

threat or safety risk they pose to prison staff, other inmates, or the institution at 

large. This pathway is especially controversial for gang affiliates for at least two 

reasons. First, placement into restrictive housing is usually indeterminate, that 

is, until the threat wanes or is eliminated. Because gang affiliation is the primary 

determinant of the threat, release to the prison’s general population requires 

that gang members convince authorities that they are no longer affiliated with 

a gang. This is a risky or uncertain endeavor. Second, the decision to place an 

inmate into restrictive housing is made administratively, which often entails wide 

discretionary latitude. In cases of gang affiliation, the discretion that poses the 

greatest concern involves the validation of gang members (Toch, 2007). Both of 

these issues will be addressed in more detail in the following sections. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 135 

There is little evidence on these issues, which suggests that the extent to which 

the use of restrictive housing on gang members was “earned” (disciplinary), 

“needed” (protective), or based on “status” (administrative) remains unclear. In 

her review of the literature on this topic, Burman (2012) observed — 

It is unknown, however, how many validated prison gang members are 

segregated as a result of convictions for violent and assaultive offenses 

— indicating a greater propensity for violence — as opposed to in-prison 


investigations that revealed only membership with the overt behavior
 

(p. 125). 

Several reports have addressed this issue by reviewing prison system policies 

and practices, including Butler and colleagues (2013) and Jacobs and Lee (2012). 

These reports provide important information about the potential for the use of 

restrictive housing on gang affiliates based on an inmate’s social status rather 

than the inmate’s problem behavior. 

Butler and colleagues (2013) reviewed the policies of 42 state prison systems in 

2010 to determine the admission criteria for inmates to be eligible for “longterm administrative segregation” in supermax facilities or units.13 They identified 

five primary factors that lead to administrative segregation, including (1) repeat 

violent behavior, (2) escape risk, (3) riotous behavior, (4) threat to institutional 

safety, and, most importantly, (5) STG. Affiliation with a gang or STG was an 

adequate reason for placement in supermax confinement in 15 of the 42 (36 

percent) states (see table 2). Although gang affiliation constituted a key form of 

admission criteria for many states, it was the least identified category and under 

no circumstances was it the only category that states used to determine who 

is eligible for long-term segregation. Nonetheless, the findings from this study 

indicate that, as of 2010, membership in a gang or STG alone was sufficient 

to warrant placement in supermax facilities or units. Butler and colleagues 

concluded that the low rate of identifying STG affiliation as an admission 

criterion was unexpected, but they held that the conduct of gang members 

would likely soon qualify them for supermax placement. This is not a subtle 

distinction, as it emphasizes the “behavior” of gang affiliates over the “status” of 

gang affiliation. 

As part of their investigative reporting for Mother Jones magazine, Jacobs and Lee 

(2012) obtained information about the gang validation and segregation practices 

of 44 state correctional agencies throughout the United States. Their approach 

differed from that of the Butler team (2013) in that, rather than review policies, 

they surveyed agencies about their practices. There can be wide divergence 

13 Eight states either declined to share their non-public policies related to this practice or indicated that they did 

not employ the practice. 
 

Table 2. Gang Affiliation as a Segregation Determinant, 2010 and 2012 

Authors: Butler et al. (2013) Jacobs and Lee (2012) 

Year of data collection: 2010 2012 

Question content: Membership in a gang Membership in a gang 

or STG was included as or STG was a possible 

admission criterion for determinant of placement 

long-term segregation in segregation 

California Yes Yes 

Indiana Yes Yes 

Ohio Yes Yes 

Pennsylvania Yes Yes 

Tennessee Yes Yes 

West Virginia Yes Yes 

Hawaii Missing Yes 

Texas Missing Yes 

Connecticut Yes Missing 

Illinois Yes Missing 

New Mexico Yes Missing 

Colorado Yes No 

Kentucky Yes No 

Mississippi Yes No 

Nebraska Yes No 

Washington Yes No 

Florida No Yes 

New Hampshire No Yes 

New York No Yes 

South Carolina No Yes 

Wyoming No Yes 

Alabama . No No 

136 • National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 137 

Alaska No No 

Arkansas No No 

Kansas No No 

Maine No No 

Massachusetts No No 

Minnesota No No 

Montana No No 

New Jersey No No 

North Carolina No No 

Oklahoma No No 

Oregon No No 

Rhode Island No No 

South Dakota No No 

Vermont No No 

Virginia No No 

Arizona No Missing 

Georgia No Missing 

Idaho No Missing 

Louisiana No Missing 

Michigan No Missing 

Missouri No Missing 

Nevada No Missing 

Delaware Missing No 

Iowa Missing No 

Maryland Missing No 

North Dakota Missing No 

Utah Missing No 

Wisconsin Missing No 
138 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

between policy and practice.14 The Jacobs and Lee survey included a question 

that asked respondents: “Are validated gang/security threat group members or 

associates placed in segregation as a result of validation (or only, for example, as 

a result of rule violations)?” Among the 40 states that responded to this question, 

Jacobs and Lee found that gang affiliation was a determinant of segregation in 13 

of them (see table 2). Similar to the results of Butler and colleagues (2013), this 

represents a minority of agencies. 

Determining if the findings reported by Jacobs and Lee (2012) and the Butler 

team (2013) are consistent with one another is important because if the results 

show no overlap across the policies and practices of agencies, it would diminish 

confidence in these findings. Alternatively, if there were consistent findings 

using different methods among independent sources (journalists versus 

researchers), it would offer strong confidence in the results. Table 2 shows that 

there were convergent results 69 percent of the time, which reveals a good rate of 

agreement between the two studies. However, there were 10 discrepancies. In five 

states — Colorado, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nebraska, and Washington — gang 

membership was not a determinant of segregation in the Jacobs and Lee study, 

but it was in the Butler team’s study. Likewise, in five other states — Florida, 

New Hampshire, New York, South Carolina, and Wyoming — gang membership 

was a determinant of segregation in the Jacobs and Lee study, but it was not in 

the Butler and colleagues’ study. Some of the discrepancy may be the result of 

differences in the study methods and possible changes in restrictive housing 

policies that occurred over the two-year period (e.g., Colorado). But the Jacobs 

and Lee study also provided additional details about how respondents answered 

the question. In Colorado, for example, a respondent told Jacobs and Lee that 

inmates are placed in segregation “only for rule violations.” Alternatively, in New 

Hampshire, inmates could be placed in segregation due to gang status “if the 

offender is deemed to be a threat to the institution based on our investigation.” 

Another take on this issue is found in Wyoming, where the respondent indicated 

that “inmates are not automatically put in segregation due to gang/STG status” 

but “engaging in recruitment or participating in STG-related activities” could 

result in segregation. 

Herein lies the complexity of correctional practices and policies as they apply to 

the placement of gang affiliates in restrictive housing: 

1. There is a set of rules that apply only to gangs (e.g., recruitment, gang 

paraphernalia) and not to other types of inmate associations that, if violated, 

could result in restrictive housing; and 

2. There is a set of contingencies, such as affiliation in certain types of gangs 

or leadership positions within a gang, for gang members to be placed in 

restrictive housing. 

14 A survey is limited to the institutional memory of the respondent, whereas a policy is systematic across the 

agency. Jacobs and Lee received information from public information officers, or in some cases, prison wardens 

(personal communication, November 17, 2015). 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 139 

The remainder of this section will emphasize these contingencies, which are 

especially important in the context of indeterminate placement in restrictive housing. 

States where gang status is used as a determinant for placing inmates into 

restrictive housing typically use this management strategy selectively. Not all 

gangs and gang members are equal security risks, as demonstrated by Gaes and 

colleagues (2002) in their study of the effect of gang affiliation status (inmates) 

and gang affiliation type (gangs as groups) on institutional misconduct. For 

example, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice automatically places certain 

affiliates of certain gangs in administrative segregation. Among the 12 STGs 

recognized and numerous disruptive groups monitored in the Texas system, 

only seven of the STGs are automatically placed in administrative segregation. 

Members of the remaining STGs may be placed in administrative segregation at 

the discretion of correctional officials, while members of disruptive groups are 

not automatically segregated. 

The decision to segregate members of certain gangs highlights an important 

distinction: Prison systems generally reserve administratively based restrictive 

housing for inmates who are members of gangs that pose the greatest threat to 

the institution. This threat is inextricably linked to a group’s level of organization 

and, by extension, the persistent threat the group poses to prison operations. 

Indeed, if the Texas Department of Criminal Justice were to segregate gangs 

based on their sheer volume of misconduct, they would target the Tangos, as 

discussed above (see footnote 5). The Tangos, however, are considered only a 

disruptive group and lack the organizational structure to warrant management 

beyond monitoring — for example, their leadership is localized to separate 

facilities rather than to the entire prison system. The downgrading of the 

Texas Mafia in the summer of 2015 from automatic segregation is also a telling 

example. The threat assessment determined that the organizational structure of 

the gang had weakened to the point of dysfunction, which in turn translated into 

a weaker threat to the prison system. 

Not all gang affiliates are placed in restrictive housing. In Texas, for example, 

after a confirmation process, only members of STGs are automatically placed in 

administrative segregation. Suspected and associated affiliates of these groups — 

including the seven groups that are automatically segregated — are not placed 

in administrative segregation unless they engage in violent behavior. This speaks 

to the complexity of restrictive housing in the context of gangs across prison 

systems: Decisions are based on status in some cases, behavior in others, and 

sometimes a combination of the two. 

A similar contingency existed previously for the California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation (2014). In the wake of the Ashker v. Governor of 

California lawsuit in 2012, gang associates were no longer automatically placed 

in restrictive housing (i.e., SHUs). The Ashker settlement, however, included 

explicit language indicating that inmates are no longer placed “into a SHU, 
140 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Administrative Segregation, or Step Down Program solely on the basis of their 

validation status” (p. 4). Regardless of whether an inmate is a member or an 

associate of an STG-I or STG-II, behavior, not status, is the primary determinant 

of SHU placement. Concerns remain about the behavior-based, gang-related 

pathway into SHUs in California. For example, a review of the STG disciplinary 

matrix reveals that lower-level violations — particularly sections 6 “serious” and 

7 “administrative” — could be argued as representing status more than behavior 

(California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 2014). 

There is little information about the duration of placement in restrictive housing 

among gang affiliates. Labrecque (2015a) found that gang affiliates remained in 

restrictive housing for longer periods in the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation 

and Correction. About half of the 1,100 inmates in the Pelican Bay SHU spent 10 

or more years in restrictive housing, and 78 of them had spent 20 or more years 

(Rodriguez, 2015). Now, gang affiliates found guilty of SHU-eligible offenses 

are placed in step-down programs that aim to offer a pathway — separate from 

debriefing — out of gangs and SHUs. The Texas Department of Criminal Justice, 

and other correctional agencies, also offer segregation diversion and gang 

disengagement programs as well. 

Pathways Out of Restrictive Housing Among Gang Affiliates 

Historically, the only way out of long-term segregated housing for gang affiliates 

is to “snitch (or debrief), parole or die” (Tachiki, 1995, p. 1128; see also Reiter, 

2012; Hinds & Butler, 2015). Gang members held in restrictive housing for 

disciplinary or protective purposes follow alternative routes to segregation — 

usually fixed sentences for the former, indeterminate placement (until the safety 

risk wanes) for the latter. One chief criticism of restrictive housing practices 

based on threat and safety risk is that it is almost impossible to exit. Gang 

members who want to exit restrictive housing find themselves in a challenging 

predicament: Inform on the gang or remain in segregation. Hunt and colleagues 

(1993) identified this among offenders recently released from a California prison: 

[I]f for example a prisoner was in a high security unit, he often found himself 

unable to get out unless he “debriefed”; i.e., provided information on other gang 

members. Many respondents felt that this was an impossible situation because if 

they didn’t snitch their chances of getting out were minimal. As one respondent 

remarked: “They [the guards] wanted some information on other people ... [s]o 

I was put between a rock and a hard place. So I decided I would rather do extra 

time, than ending up saying something I would later regret” (p. 402). 

The issues associated with debriefing are especially sensitive because inmates who 

debrief earn the label of a “snitch” and become instant targets (see, e.g., Kurki & 

Morris, 2001, p. 42; Blatchford, 2008). These issues are especially magnified for 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 141 

inmates incorrectly classified as gang members or those merely on the fringe 

of the gang, as detailed in Madrid v. Gomez, who are unable to provide 

convincing information about the inner workings of the gang (Tachiki, 1995). 

The path out of restrictive housing has changed in recent years. A recent report 

by The Marshall Project revealed that more than 30 states have developed 

step-down programs leading inmates out of restrictive housing (Chammah, 

2016), and Baumgartel and colleagues (2015) report 33 agencies with step-down 

programs. For example, the Michigan Department of Corrections’ Incentives in 

Segregation step-down program has been in place since 2009 and outlines six 

stages that inmates pass through on their way from segregation to lower custody 

levels. With each step, inmates earn additional privileges, such as phone calls, 

visits, commissary access, and other previously banned activities or items. 

The department does not include gang affiliation as a segregation determinant 

(see table 2), but other states have created comparable programs tailored to their 

gang population. 

Both Texas and California, the two states with the largest and arguably most 

violent gang populations, provide gang-affiliated inmates with pathways out 

of restrictive housing. In each state, there are two ways that inmates can either 

avoid or exit restrictive housing. Texas recently introduced its Administrative 

Segregation Diversion Program (ASDP), which gives members of STGs returning 

to prison the opportunity to avoid segregation by participating in a six-month 

program. The programming — cognitive intervention, substance abuse 

treatment, anger management, and treatment for criminal addictive behavior — 

is very similar to the Gang Renouncement and Disassociation (GRAD) program, 

which was introduced in 1999 and modeled after a program in the Connecticut 

Department of Corrections (Burman, 2012). One of the key differences between 

these two voluntary programs is that enrollment in ASDP is a one-time deal 

made available to gang affiliates at intake who would be placed automatically 

in administrative segregation, while GRAD is made available to all members of 

STGs post-intake.15 Regardless of entrée, these programs offer viable alternatives 

to segregation. ASDP allows inmates to be housed in the general population after 

six months, although there is a three-month period of monitoring. The GRAD 

program allows inmates to be housed in the general population after six months, 

and allows for social interaction in less than half of that time, followed by three 

months of monitoring in the general population. 

Nearly 200 inmates have completed the ASDP program and more than 4,600 

have completed GRAD. However, there is little evidence for determining the 

effectiveness of these programs. Burman (2012) reported that “approximately 

11-12 offenders who successfully completed the GRAD process since 2000 have 

15 Burman (2012, pp. 234-241) reported that release date, time in segregation, and position in a gang all factor 

into the decision to allow gang members into the GRAD program. 
142 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

 

been reconfirmed as [STG] members” (p. 260). More recently, Texas reported 

that 19 program participants have been reconfirmed as STG members (Pinkerton, 

2014). The short existence and small sample size associated with ASDP means 

that the program is at least a year away from a formal evaluation, but the GRAD 

program — now operating for 15 years — is ripe for determining its efficacy in 

leading inmates away from gangs. Although there are numerous outcomes in 

need of evaluation, a gang member reconfirmation rate of 0.004 percent would 

deem the GRAD program to be extremely successful, and, potentially, a national 

model for prison systems with complex gang problems. 

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation recently expanded 

the pathways out of restrictive housing. Previously, debriefing constituted the 

primary way out of SHUs. Gang affiliates also underwent six-year inactivity 

reviews by the Departmental Review Board. If found inactive (i.e., no STGrelated activity for six years), the inmate was transferred to general population 

and then monitored for one year. In the aftermath of the Ashker v. Governor of 

California case, debriefing remains a viable pathway out of SHUs while a new 

pathway — the Step Down Program — replaces the inactivity review. Unlike 

debriefing, the Step Down Program does not require inmates to complete 

autobiographies or inform on their gang. Originally, it was proposed as a fiveyear, five-step process. After completing the first four steps — 12 months per 

step — inmates transition into a year of “monitored” status in general population, 

which is step 5. Due to the Ashker settlement, the duration of each step was cut in 

half and step 5 was eliminated. The program can now be completed in two years, 

or six months per step. 

The Step Down Program shares some similarities with the Texas GRAD program. 

There is an initial 12-month period of monitoring — steps 1 and 2 — where 

inmates remain in standard SHU-like conditions. With each step, inmates earn 

increasing privileges — the number of photographs allowed, the portion of 

monthly canteen draw, the frequency of phone calls, receipt of personal packages, 

social contact, and programming. The latter two become very apparent in steps 

3 and 4, where programming occurs in small groups and inmates may interact 

on the yard. California has not released much in the way of public statistics on 

its Step Down Program. A brief report from September 2013 indicated that 

there have been 543 case-by-case reviews of validated gang members in SHU 

or administrative segregation units; of those, 65 percent were approved for (at 

the time) step 5 or general population and another 28 percent placed in lower 

steps in the Step Down Program. In term of debriefing, there is little systematic 

information in the way of disengagement in California.16 It is therefore difficult 

to determine how well California’s Step Down Program and other routes out of 

restrictive housing have been implemented and whether they are successful. 

16 In fact, only data from the Arizona Department of Corrections reveals information about disassociation from 

gangs via debriefing (Fischer, 2002). About 14 percent of the inmates validated as gang members were 

debriefed. Fischer found some positive results, but overall the findings were mixed in terms of whether 

renouncement led to changes in misbehavior. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 143 

Regardless of whether the behavior or status of gang affiliates leads them into 

restrictive housing, and whether programs are useful in getting them out, one 

of the most fundamental questions of this practice is whether it achieves its 

intended goals of reducing misconduct and disorder in prisons. 

Gang Affiliation, Restrictive Housing, and the Reduction of 

Misconduct and Disorder 

The practice of segregating gang affiliates is both highly endorsed by correctional 

authorities, who see it as a most effective solution to prison gang activity, and 

highly criticized by activists and scholars, who claim the practice is empirically, 

legally, or morally unsupported. Neither side has much in the way of evidence to 

back their claims. In fact, despite such intense interest in the topic, to the best of 

the author’s knowledge there have been only three studies to assess the effectiveness 

of restrictive housing in reducing misconduct among inmates and disorder in 

prisons (Fischer, 2002; Labrecque, 2015a; Ralph & Marquart, 1991). It is curious 

that a practice as controversial and widespread as restrictive housing — particularly 

segregation based on threat and safety — has not been subject to more formal 

evaluations. Determining if restrictive housing is achieving its intended goals of 

reducing misconduct, disrupting gang activity, increasing staff and inmate safety, 

and decreasing prison disorder should be a high priority for correctional officials, 

advocacy groups, and researchers interested in correctional practice. 

Ralph and Marquart (1991) examined system-level trends in inmate violence 

before, during, and after the “war years” in Texas prisons. In 1984 and 1985, there 

were more murders in Texas prisons than in the prior 20 years combined. The 

initial attempts of prison officials to regain control by targeting gang leadership 

through segregation and transfers were ineffective. Prison officials then made 

a drastic change: They moved all gang members into segregated housing in 

September 1985. The prison system then witnessed a large-scale, immediate 

decline in homicide along with a delayed, albeit substantively meaningful, 

decline in assault. Ralph and Marquart concluded, “Although this method of 

control seems to have eliminated many problems experienced by prison officials, 

it is unknown what impact this has on the inmate and the community” (p. 48). 

Others remained skeptical. Mears (2005) held that any firm conclusions about 

the role of segregation in reducing violence in Texas prisons is premature. The 

outcomes studied were narrow (limited to homicide and assault) when there 

needed to be a broader range of determinants of success, and the data were of 

“questionable utility” (Mears, 2005, p. 34). The findings of Ralph and Marquart 

are largely descriptive and do not account for alternative explanations for the 

decline of violence. It would require nonetheless a very convincing explanation to 

contend that factors other than segregation were responsible for triggering such a 

major decline in violence. 
 

 

 

Table 3. Pathways Out of Restrictive Housing in California and Texas 

Texas California 

Administrative 

Segregation 

Diversion 

Program (ASDP) 

Gang 

Renouncement 

and 

Disassociation 

(GRAD) 

Step Down 

Program 

Debriefing 

Implementation year 2014 2000 2012 ~1980s 

Target population Members of 

STGs returning 

to Texas 

facilities who 

want to exit 

gangs and avoid 

administrative 

segregation 

Members of 

STGs who 

want to 

exit gangs 

and leave 

administrative 

segregation 

STG affiliates 

(members and 

associates) 

sentenced 

to security 

housing unit 

terms 

STG affiliates 

(members and 

associates) who 

want to exit 

gangs and leave 

the security 

housing unit 

Early stage monitoring 

Program phases/steps 

Admission into 

the ASDP occurs 

at intake 

Six months 

of classroom 

setting, 

group-based 

programming 

immediately 

after admission 

into Texas 

Department of 

Criminal Justice 

Offenders 

undergo a 

disassociation 

monitoring 

period of 12 

months prior to 

entry into the 

GRAD program 

Phase I: 3 

months, 

singlecelled, in-cell 

programming,

recreation with 

other offenders 

Phase II: 

3 months, 

double-celled, 

classroom 

programming,

less restricted 

movement 

Phase III: 

general

population,

general

programming,

and work 

assignments 

Steps 1 and 

2: "primarily 

intended as 

periods of 

observation," 

restricted 

movement, 

in-cell 

programming; 

12 months 

total (6 months 

per step) 

Step 3: 6 

months, 

programming 

in small 

groups, 

movement in 

restraints 

Step 4: 6 

months, 

programming 

in small 

groups, 

recreation 

with other 

offenders, 

less restricted 

movement 

None 

Interview phase: 

gathering 

information 

about STGs 

to determine 

if offender 

has dropped 

out, including 

autobiography 

Observation 

phase: 6 months, 

transitional 

housing unit with 

other debriefing 

offenders 

144 • National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov 
Table 3. Pathways Out of Restrictive Housing in California and Texas (continued) 

Texas California 

Administrative 

Segregation 

Diversion 

Program (ASDP) 

Gang 

Renouncement 

and 

Disassociation 

(GRAD) 

Step Down 

Program 

Debriefing 

Implementation year 2014 2000 2012 ~1980s 

General population Last 3 months in 

the program 

Last 3 months 

in the program 

Upon 

completion 

of Steps 1-4 

Upon completion 

of observation 

phase 

Total time 6 months of 

programming 

12 months of 

monitoring, 

9 months of 

programming 

24 months Varies 

Participants 187 4,607 150 n/a 

Sources of information Burman (2012) 

Personal communication 

(December 3, 2015) 

Texas Department of Criminal 

Justice (2014) 

Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 145 

Ashker v. Governor of California 

(2015) 

California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation 

(2013, 2014) 

Tachiki (1995) 
146 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Fischer (2002) conducted the most comprehensive study on gang affiliation, 

restrictive housing, and misconduct. His work was based on data gathered from 

Arizona Department of Corrections prisons and focused on two factors relevant 

to the question at hand. First, the study determined if there was an incapacitation 

effect for nine forms of violent and disruptive behavior associated with placing 

431 validated gang members in a supermax unit. The results of the inmate-level 

analysis confirm such an incapacitation effect: Violations fell by 30 percent, and 

assault, drug, threat, fighting, and rioting violations fell anywhere from 53 to 

97 percent. Other violations increased, however, including possessing weapons, 

destroying property, tampering with equipment, and “other” violence. These 

incapacitation findings from Fischer’s study remain the most convincing results to 

date that segregation can reduce problematic behavior among members of gangs. 

Second, Fischer also conducted a prison systemwide analysis of changes to 

Arizona’s STG policies in 1995 and 1997. The gang policy initiative of July 

1995 expanded the scope of the STG program (including documenting and 

validating gangs) and intensified the penalties for STG behavior. The gang 

policy of 1997 resulted in greater specification in the STG program (including 

monitoring processes) and expanded the sanctions for membership in such a 

group to include segregation for gang members who did not renounce their gang 

affiliation and debrief with intelligence officers. Fischer examined violations 

across three periods: (1) July 1994 to September 1995, (2) October 1995 to 

September 1997, and (3) October 1997 to December 2000. By isolating the 

periods in which the gang policies were implemented, Fischer was able to assess 

whether the intended changes were achieved. 

With each successive STG policy change, the Arizona Department of Corrections 

observed an overall, systemwide 16 percent and 27 percent reduction in 

violations for gang inmates, and 15 percent and 29 percent reduction in 

violations for non-gang inmates in subsequent periods. These results are 

encouraging, but it is important to note that gang members were higher-rate 

offenders to begin with. Focusing on absolute violation rates shows that the 

effects of changes to STG policies were especially strong for validated gang 

members — the drop was four times greater for them than non-gang inmates 

(p. 63). Fischer held that the implementation of these policies resulted in 21,984 

fewer total violations, including 5,716 fewer among gang members. He concluded 

that there was a systemwide benefit associated with the implementation of both 

gang policies, one that was strongest among gang members but carried over 

to non-gang members as well, which was predicted by the theories discussed 

above. Fischer tempered his conclusion, however, by noting that there were many 

security-related changes taking place in Arizona prisons, and those changes also 

could have explained some of the overall reductions in violations. 

Finally, Labrecque (2015a) conducted an individual-level, longitudinal study 

of the effects of restrictive housing on subsequent misconduct in Ohio prisons 

between 2007 and 2012. He examined both the placement of inmates in restrictive 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 147 

housing and the duration of time inmates spent there, then determined if the 

effects of restrictive housing were worse for gang affiliates (among other factors) 

than non-gang inmates. Labrecque’s findings, while not uniform across the 

prevalence and incidence of violent, nonviolent, and drug misconduct, generally 

point in the same direction: Gang affiliates fared worse in terms of misconduct 

when returning to the general population. Spending any time and spending 

more time in restrictive housing corresponded with higher incidences of violent 

and nonviolent misconduct among gang affiliates than non-gang inmates. These 

findings are generally consistent with what is known about the effects of gang 

affiliation on misconduct, but they also refute the notion that restrictive housing 

may have specific deterrent effects for a problematic population such as gang 

affiliates. Alternative theories — incapacitation and normalization — might 

prove to be more defensible when subject to solid empirical investigations such 

as those provided by Labrecque. 

Gang Affiliation and Restrictive Housing — A Look Toward 

the Future 

The findings from the preceding sections constitute the empirical knowledge 

base on the relationship between gang affiliation and restrictive housing. This 

knowledge base remains meager in volume, with little empirical research to guide 

the dialogue, which is unfortunate given how amplified this debate has become. 

This section summarizes the key findings of this white paper, identifies critical 

gaps in the field’s knowledge of gang affiliation and restrictive housing, and offers 

productive directions for future research. 

What Do We Know About Gang Affiliation and Restrictive Housing? 

Several conclusions are possible — some preliminary, others firm — from 

the available literature. First, as high-rate offenders and disproportionate 

contributors to violent misconduct in prison, gangs and gang members fit 

squarely into the logic — deterrence, incapacitation, and normalization theories 

— underlying the use of restrictive housing in prison systems. To the extent that 

the correlates of restrictive housing are based on discipline, protection, and safety 

and threat risks, it would be remarkable if the affiliates of gangs were not the 

targets of segregation policies and practices in prison systems. 

Second, evidence suggests that inmates who affiliate with gangs are 

overrepresented in restrictive housing. The evidence base to support this 

assertion remains confined to select states, but there is also no evidence to 

the contrary indicating that gang affiliation is not a correlate of placement in 

restrictive housing, particularly for validated gang members. 

Third, at least some of the overrepresentation of gang affiliates in restrictive 

housing can be attributed to correctional policies and practices that automatically 
148 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

segregate certain types of gangs and gang members. Not all agencies employ 

these practices, and no formal analysis has been conducted to differentiate 

agencies that employ these practices from those that do not. It remains unclear 

how much of the overrepresentation of gang affiliates in restrictive housing is due 

to disciplinary, protective, or administrative segregation. 

Fourth, the most controversial aspects of the relationship between gang affiliation 

and restrictive housing pertain to the purported arbitrariness and lack of due 

process in validating gang affiliates, the policies that automatically segregate gang 

affiliates based on status and not behavior, and the indeterminate placement of 

gang affiliates in restrictive housing. 

Finally, the emergence of programs aiming to remove gang affiliates from 

restrictive housing and encourage disengagement from gangs — particularly in 

states such as California and Texas — reveals a shift from more punitive policies 

to those that encourage integration into the general prison population housing. 

However, there is very little evidence to determine if these programs are effective 

at achieving their intended goals. 

What Do We Need to Know About Gang Affiliation and 

Restrictive Housing? 

There are several aspects of the relationship between gang affiliation and 

restrictive housing that are in need of concerted attention from policymakers, 

practitioners, and researchers. This section identifies four key gaps in our 

knowledge. Some of them will require substantial and sustained investment in 

research infrastructure, while others may be accomplished more swiftly by using 

archival data. In both cases, researcher-practitioner partnerships are key for 

advancing this agenda. 

Collect and analyze data that will establish an empirical foundation on the use 

of restrictive housing among gangs and gang affiliates 

Does segregating the affiliates of gangs from the general inmate population 

reduce disorder in prisons and misconduct among inmates? This question is 

directed toward prison systems that segregate gang affiliates based on their status. 

It is equally important for prison systems that segregate gang affiliates based 

on their behavior, especially if the violations involve actions unique to gangs 

(e.g., possessing gang paraphernalia, participating in gang roll call). The recent 

changes that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation made 

to its SHU-eligible offense policy illustrate the importance of the latter. 

To date, there is scant evidence to support either status- or behavior-based 

arguments for segregating gang affiliates. In fact, only three studies have 

evaluated this line of inquiry — a macro, system-level study in Texas (Ralph 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 149 

& Marquart, 1991); an individual- and system-level study in Arizona (Fischer, 

2002); and an individual-level study in Ohio (Labrecque, 2015a). These studies 

indicated that segregating gang affiliates reduces homicide, assault, and other 

forms of violence, but that restrictive housing could introduce problems when 

gang affiliates return to the general population. These findings provide a strong 

foundation for future research. Archival data could be used to conduct betweeninmate and within-inmate effects of segregation on misconduct among gang and 

non-gang groups. 

Research on this topic should track a wide range of activities among inmates as 

they move into and out of restrictive housing to isolate the independent effects of 

this practice on inmates. This analytic logic can extend to facility-level analyses 

as well, although detecting and isolating effects at aggregate units of analysis 

might be difficult because of simultaneous changes that could undermine causal 

relationships, such as those observed by Ralph and Marquart in Texas and 

Fischer in Arizona. In addition to homicides and assaults, the research should 

be concerned with a broad spectrum of outcomes, including contraband use 

and seizures, yard disturbances, security incidents, and seemingly minor forms 

of gang-related activities. In addition, this research should be a priority for 

understanding how restrictive housing practices influence the gang affiliates 

themselves, particularly their criminogenic risks and needs, as it relates to 

institutional programming and re-entry success. This will provide the best 

picture of the effects of placing gang affiliates in restrictive housing. In an era 

when prison violence is at historically low levels, the push for policy changes 

should be based on sound, empirical evidence. Whether or not gang status- or 

behavior-based restrictive housing practices produce the intended effects, this 

research should offer a blueprint for future correctional decision-making on this 

highly charged issue. 

Document national practices and trends on segregating gangs and gang 

affiliates to understand and explain its use 

When interested parties seek information about gang activity in prisons, there 

are few places they can turn. Fleisher and Decker (2001, p. 2) described prison 

as the “final frontier” in research on gangs. Indeed, the volume of the literature 

on gangs in incarcerated settings pales in comparison to the street gang literature 

(Pyrooz & Mitchell, 2015). Unlike national data sources on issues pertaining 

to street gangs and gang membership, such as the National Youth Gang Survey 

among law enforcement agencies or a variety of national-level surveys among 

youth and young adults, “there is no centralized repository of data on prison 

gang membership” (Gaston & Huebner, 2015, p. 329). As this white paper has 

made clear, the literature on this topic is a collection of one-off studies rather 

than an organized and systematic effort to document gang activity and restrictive 

housing practices in U.S. prisons. 
150 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Against this backdrop, it is impossible to paint a national portrait of the 

relationship between gang affiliation and restrictive housing. Surveys such as 

those conducted independently on restrictive housing (e.g., Baumgartel et al., 

2015) and those conducted on gangs (e.g., Winterdyk & Ruddell, 2010) are one 

pathway forward. This is a reluctant recommendation, as these studies are not 

easy to conduct. Well-developed surveys with methodologically sound research 

designs require substantial resources to both design and administer. They 

would also require negotiating the research policies of 51 prison systems, along 

with wide and often conflicting terminology and definitions of gangs and gang 

affiliates (Trulson et al., 2006). 

An alternative pathway forward is to either develop or integrate repeated and 

standardized surveys of (1) the population of prison systems, (2) nationally 

representative samples of prison facilities, or (3) nationally representative 

samples of prison inmates. These surveys would include a range of measures 

related to restrictive housing, gangs, and gang affiliation. Rather than launching 

a project of this scope from the ground up, a more feasible solution would be 

to integrate measures of gangs and gang affiliation into the suite of existing 

Bureau of Justice Statistics projects. For example, a single item added to the 

2011-12 National Inmate Survey asking inmates about gang affiliation could 

have provided the definitive evidence needed to reach conclusions about the 

relationship between gang affiliation and restrictive housing. Other projects 

could be used as well (e.g., National Prisoners Statistics). This approach would 

yield foundational information about the frequency and trends in the use of 

restrictive housing on gang affiliates. Such information would not only permit 

the explanation of different practices and policies across prisons and prison 

systems but would also allow these prisons and prison systems to learn from 

each other — both the successes and failures — in managing a very challenging 

population of inmates. 

Subject gang and gang affiliate validation practices to independent scientific 

assessments to establish their reliability and validity 

There are many controversial issues associated with restrictive housing in U.S. 

prisons, and the wholesale placement of gang affiliates in restrictive housing is 

among the most pressing. Indeed, this practice contributed to the uprising that 

led to the 2013 Pelican Bay hunger strike involving 30,000 inmates in California. 

Therefore, this issue shines a bright light on the policies and practices followed to 

validate gangs and gang affiliates in prison, which have been criticized by many 

because of their implications for housing, programming, and other consequences 

(Kassel, 1998; Shaiq, 2013; Sowa, 2012; Tachiki, 1995). Toch (2007) likened the 

validation process to a witch hunt, suggesting that — 

... a striking parallel to traditional inquisitorial tribunals can be found in [gang] 

‘classification’ systems (such as those used in Arizona and California and by the 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 151 

Federal Bureau of Prisons) deployed for gang members who are being considered 

for consignment to ‘supermax’ control units (p. 274). 

The issues are magnified when the validation process involves evidence derived 

from gang debriefing — as illustrated in Madrid v. Gomez, debriefing is an 

imperfect process. Gang affiliates in restrictive housing may inaccurately name 

snitches, gang dropouts, rival gang members, or other vulnerable populations to 

facilitate their return to general population. Incorrectly classified gang affiliates 

then have no recourse through which to challenge the validation because 

the information is confidential, nor can they debrief because they lack gang 

intelligence. Validation can come across as arbitrary, yet it can have serious 

consequences, opening up correctional agencies to costly litigation (Austin & 

Irwin, 2011, pp. 134-135). 

The practice of gang validation itself needs to be “validated.” Are the various 

source items (see Hill, 2009) used to determine gang affiliation internally 

consistent? Are these items related to each other? Do independent raters of the 

source items similarly validate inmates as gang or non-gang affiliates? The source 

items clearly have face validity, but there are serious questions about the criterionrelated validity of the gang affiliate validation. Do the source items predict other 

forms of gang-related activity or future gang-related activity? And, do the source 

items correlate with indicators that they should be related to theoretically? 

California’s movement to a weighted validation system, where source items are 

assigned different weights, represents an important shift in policy. Nonetheless, it is 

unclear if there is an empirical basis for the weights linked to this new approach (or 

the approach where source items are weighted equally). 

More accurate determinations of gang affiliation will not only improve the 

legitimacy of the practice but may also reduce institutional conflict. False 

positives (i.e., wrongly classifying an inmate as a gang affiliate) and false 

negatives (i.e., wrongly classifying an inmate as a non-gang affiliate) represent 

serious threats to the safety of institutions. This applies to determining not only 

who is a gang affiliate but also who has disengaged from gangs. A productive 

start would involve subjecting gang validation practices to independent scientific 

assessments of reliability and validity. Given just how great of an impact gang 

validation can have on inmates’ lives, these practices must be open to rigorous 

scientific scrutiny, and a threshold must be established if these practices are to 

dictate placement in restrictive housing. 

Evaluate the effectiveness of programs and policies that promote 

disengagement from gangs and exit from restrictive housing to establish 

best practices 

Do programs designed to facilitate desistance from gangs and exits from 

restrictive housing actually work? With programs in as many as 30 states, 
152 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

including gang-targeted programs in states like California and Texas, step-down 

processes and impacts must undergo rigorous scientific evaluation. Randomized 

control trials should be the standard used to determine a program’s effectiveness. 

Practitioners often find themselves uncomfortable withholding needed 

programming from control groups. However, there are often more candidates 

than there is funding and space for programming (e.g., Burman, 2012). In 

instances where randomized control trials are impractical, quasi-experimental 

designs can be attractive alternatives. Program participants can be matched on 

a range of characteristics with inmates who are eligible for the program but, for 

one reason or another, decline to participate. 

When possible, natural experiments should be exploited for their intellectual 

yields. California’s shift in 2012 to no longer automatically segregate STG-I 

gang associates, and then in 2015 to no longer segregate STG-I gang members, 

represents a natural experiment ripe for scientific investigation. Following the 

logic of deterrence, incapacitation, and normalization theories, there are many 

ways to assess if this policy shift has had positive or negative impacts on inmates 

and institutions. 

Researcher-practitioner partnerships are needed to foster knowledge on 

restrictive housing (Frost & Monteiro, 2016). This is especially true with gang 

research. Skarbek (2014, p. 10) noted that “the same walls that keep inmates 

locked in also keep researchers out,” a point others have recognized for more 

than two decades (Fong & Buentello, 1991). Although archival data are often 

rich with information that could help evaluate programs, these data are 

inflexible regarding specific items that are essential for determining program 

efficacy. Especially for process evaluations, researchers need access to facilities 

to interview prison staff and inmates. All data have limitations, but the luxury 

of triangulating information on programs is not one to pass up. Researchers 

can sometimes conduct analyses that are tangential to the goals of correctional 

research departments overloaded with other tasks, thus revealing important 

information about agency practices and the inmate population. 

A final point to be made about program evaluations is that not conducting them, 

or withholding their results, is a disservice to the correctional landscape. The 

results of scientifically rigorous research must be made public and disseminated 

widely. This is especially true for step-down and diversion programs designed 

for gang affiliates. Information must be shared if researchers and stakeholders 

are to learn what is and is not working in responding to gangs in prisons. Gang 

research reveals that most programs in street settings fail to find any positive 

effects, and some find programs backfire in unanticipated ways (Gravel, 

Bouchard, Descormiers, Wong, & Morselli, 2013; Klein & Maxson, 2006). When 

programs are successful, they have the potential to translate across contexts 

(e.g., Operation Ceasefire); when they are not, they have the potential to retool 

under more scientifically sound principles (e.g., Gang Resistance Education and 

Training). Either way, establishing the legitimacy of a program is important to 

the day-to-day activities of correctional staff and inmates in these programs. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 153 

Conclusions 

Gangs are especially challenging populations to manage. The problems associated 

with gangs in prison have not abated, and restrictive housing is one of the few 

practices that correctional officials see as viable for managing the population. 

This solution, however, has come under heightened scrutiny in recent years, due 

in no small part to the vocal stand that gang affiliates have taken in places like 

California. Restrictive housing is an imperfect solution to a complex problem. 

Neither the wholesale placement of gang affiliates into restrictive housing based 

merely on their status, nor the wholesale removal of gang populations from 

restrictive housing, are practical solutions to this impasse. The limited empirical 

knowledge base, unless addressed, will only allow these issues to fester and 

grow. Much has been learned about the relationship between gang affiliation 

and restrictive housing over the past three decades. What is needed is a dialogue 

that is informed not by rhetoric or anecdote but by empirical evidence to guide 

decisions about the future of restrictive housing and gangs in U.S. prisons. 

References 

American Corrections Association. (2014). Standards committee meeting 

minutes. Presented at the ACA Winter Conference, Tampa, FL. Retrieved 

from http://www.aca.org/ACA_PROD_IMIS/Docs/Standards%20and%20 

Accreditation/SC%20Minutes_Tampa_Jan2014.pdf. 

Austin, J., & Irwin, J. (2011). It’s about time: America’s imprisonment binge. 

Boston, MA: Cengage Learning. 

Baker, P. (2015, July 14). Obama calls for effort to fix a “broken system” of 

criminal justice. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes. 

com/2015/07/15/us/politics/obama-calls-for-effort-to-fix-a-broken-system-ofcriminal-justice.html. 

Baumgartel, S., Guilmette, C., Kalb, J., Li, D., Nuni, J., Porter, D. E., & Resnik, 

J. (2015). The ASCA-Liman 2014 national survey of administrative segregation 

in prison. New Haven, CT: The Liman Program, Yale Law School, and the 

Association of State Correctional Administrators. 

Beck, A. J. (2015). Use of restrictive housing in U.S. prisons and jails, 2011–12. 

NCJ 249209. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from 

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/urhuspj1112.pdf. 

Blatchford, C. (2008). The black hand: The story of Rene “Boxer” Enriquez and his 

life in the Mexican Mafia. New York: Harper. 

Burman, M. L. (2012). Resocializing and repairing homies within the Texas 

prison system: A case study on security threat group management, administrative 
154 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

segregation, prison gang renunciation and safety for all. Austin, TX: The University 

of Texas at Austin. 

Butler, H. D., Griffin, O. H., & Johnson, W. W. (2013). What makes you the 

“worst of the worst?” An examination of state policies defining supermaximum 

confinement. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 24(6), 676-694. http://dx.doi.org/ 

org/10.1177/0887403412465715. 

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (2013). Security 

housing units. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation. Retrieved from http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/stg/docs/Fact%20SheetSHU%20with%20photos.pdf. 

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (2014). Security threat 

group (STG) information. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Corrections 

and Rehabilitation. Retrieved from http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/stg/docs/Final_Text_ 

of_Adopted_Regulations_STG.pdf. 

Camp, G. M., & Camp, C. G. (1985). Prison gangs: Their extent, nature, and 

impact on prisons (pp. 1-259). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. 

Carlson, P. M. (2001). Prison interventions: Evolving strategies to control 

security threat groups. Corrections Management Quarterly, 5(1), 10. 

Chammah, M. (2016, January 7). How to get out of solitary — one step at a 

time. The Marshall Project (with The Atlantic). Retrieved January 14, 2016, from 

https://www.themarshallproject.org/2016/01/07/how-to-get-out-of-solitary-onestep-at-a-time. 

Colorado Department of Corrections. (2016). SB 11-176 annual report: 

Administrative segregation for Colorado inmates. Colorado Springs, CO: Colorado 

Department of Corrections, Office of Planning and Analysis. Retrieved from 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8WLSXAb0Mg8Wkw2T2FBelRzOTA/ 

view?pref=2&pli=1&usp=embed_facebook. 

Crouch, B. M., & Marquart, J. W. (1989). An appeal to justice: Litigated reform of 

Texas prisons. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 

Davis, M. S., & Flannery, D. J. (2001). The institutional treatment of gang 

members. Corrections Management Quarterly, 5(1), 37-46. 

DiIulio, J. J. (1990). Governing prisons: A comparative study of correctional 

management. New York: Free Press. 

Esbensen, F.-A., Winfree, L. T., He, N., & Taylor, T. J. (2001). Youth gangs and 

definitional issues: When is a gang a gang, and why does it matter? Crime & 

Delinquency, 47(1), 105-130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0011128701047001005. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 155 

Fischer, D. R. (2002). Arizona Department of Corrections: Security threat group 

(STG) program evaluation. Final report. Washington, DC: National Institute of 

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. 

Fleisher, M. S., & Decker, S. H. (2001). An overview of the challenge of prison 

gangs. Corrections Management Quarterly, 5(1), 1-11. 

Fong, R. S., & Buentello, S. (1991). The detection of prison gang development: An 

empirical assessment. Federal Probation, 55(1), 66-70. 

Ford, M. (2015, June 18). Justice Kennedy denounces solitary confinement. The 

Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/ 

kalief-browder-justice-kennedy-solitary-confinement/396320/. 

Frost, N. A., & Monteiro, C. E. (2016). Administrative segregation in U.S. prisons. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National 

Institute of Justice. 

Gaes, G. G., Wallace, S., Gilman, E., Klein-Saffran, J., & Suppa, S. (2002). The 

influence of prison gang affiliation on violence and other prison misconduct. The 

Prison Journal, 82, 359-385. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/003288550208200304. 

Gaston, S., & Huebner, B. M. (2015). Gangs in correctional institutions. In S. H. 

Decker & D. C. Pyrooz (Eds.), The handbook of gangs (pp. 328-344). Chichester, 

West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons. 

Goldstone, J. A., & Useem, B. (1999). Prison riots as microrevolutions: An 

extension of state-centered theories of revolution. American Journal of Sociology, 

104(4), 985-1029. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/210134. 

Goodman, P. (2008). It’s just Black, White or Hispanic: An observational study 

of racializing moves in California’s segregated prison reception centers. Law & 

Society Review, 42(4), 735-770. 

Gravel, J., Bouchard, M., Descormiers, K., Wong, J. S., & Morselli, C. (2013). 

Keeping promises: A systematic review and a new classification of gang control 

strategies. Journal of Criminal Justice, 41(4), 228-242. 

Griffin, M. L. (2007). Prison gang policy and recidivism: Short-term management 

benefits, long-term consequences. Criminology & Public Policy, 6(2), 223-230. 

Griffin, M. L., & Hepburn, J. R. (2006). The effect of gang affiliation on violent 

misconduct among inmates during the early years of confinement. Criminal 

Justice and Behavior, 33(4), 419-466. 
156 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Haney, C., & Lynch, M. (1997). Regulating prisons of the future: A psychological 

analysis of supermax and solitary confinement. NYU Review of Law & Social 

Change, 23, 477. 

Harrison, P. M., & Beck, A. J. (2003). Prisoners in 2002. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Retrieved from http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/abstractdb/AbstractDBDetails. 

aspx?id=200248. 

Hatcher, L. D. (2006). Security threat groups: It is more than managing gangs in a 

local facility. Corrections Today, 68(2), 54-58. 

Hill, C. (2009). Gangs/security threat groups. Corrections Compendium, 34(1), 23-37. 

Hinds, M., & Butler, J. (2015). Solitary confinement: Can the courts get inmates 

out of the hole? Stanford Journal of Civil Rights & Civil Liberties, 11, 331-372. 

Huebner, B. M. (2003). Administrative determinants of inmate violence: A 

multilevel analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31(2), 107-117. http://dx.doi. 

org/10.1086/21013410.1016/S0047-2352(02)00218-0. 

Huff, C. R., & Barrows, J. (2015). Documenting gang activity: Intelligence 

databases. In S. H. Decker & D. C. Pyrooz (Eds.), The handbook of gangs. 

Chichester, West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons. 

Huff, C. R., & Meyer, M. (1997). Managing prison gangs and other security threat 

groups. Corrections Management Quarterly, 1(4), 10-18. 

Hunt, G., Riegel, S., Morales, T., & Waldorf, D. (1993). Changes in prison culture: 

Prison gangs and the case of the “Pepsi generation.” Social Problems, 40(3), 398-409. 

Irwin, J. (1980). Prisons in turmoil. Boston, MA: Little, Brown. 

Jacobs, J. B. (1974). Street gangs behind bars. Social Problems, 21(3), 395-409. 

Jacobs, R., & Lee, J. (2012). Maps: Solitary confinement, state by state. Retrieved 

October 15, 2015, from http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/10/mapsolitary-confinement-states. 

Kassel, P. (1998). The gang crackdown in Massachusetts’ prisons: Arbitrary and 

harsh treatment can only make matters worse. New England Journal on Criminal 

& Civil Confinement, 24, 37. 

King, R. D. (1999). The rise and rise of supermax: An American solution 

in search of a problem? Punishment & Society, 1(2), 163-186. http://doi. 

org/10.1177/14624749922227766. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 157 

Klein, M. W. (1971). Street gangs and street workers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: 

Prentice-Hall. 

Klein, M. W., & Maxson, C. L. (2006). Street gang patterns and policies. New York: 

Oxford University Press. 

Knox, G. W. (1991). Findings from the 1991 Adult Corrections Survey: A 

preliminary report from the National Gang Crime Research Center. Chicago, IL: 

National Gang Crime Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.ngcrc.com/ 

ngcrc/page91w.htm. 

Knox, G. W. (1995). A national assessment of gangs and security threat groups 

(STGs) in adult correctional institutions: Results of the 1995 adult corrections 

survey. Chicago, IL: National Gang Crime Research Center. Retrieved from 

http://www.ngcrc.com/ngcrc/page95w.htm. 

Knox, G. W. (1999). A national assessment of gangs and security threat groups 

(STGs) in adult correctional institutions: Results of the 1999 adult corrections 

survey. Chicago, IL: National Gang Crime Research Center. Retrieved from 

http://www.ngcrc.com/ngcrc/page7.htm. 

Knox, G. W. (2005). The problem of gangs and security threat groups (STG’s) in 

American prisons today: Recent research findings from the 2004 Prison Gang 

Survey. Chicago, IL: National Gang Crime Research Center. Retrieved from 

http://www.ngcrc.com/ngcrc/corr2006.html. 

Knox, G. W. (2012). The problem of gangs and security threat groups (STG’s) in 

American prisons and jails today: Recent findings from the 2012 NGCRC National 

Gang/STG Survey. Chicago, IL: National Gang Crime Research Center. Retrieved 

from http://www.ngcrc.com/corr2012.html. 

Kurki, L., & Morris, N. (2001). The purposes, practices, and problems of 

supermax prisons. Crime and Justice, 28, 385-424. 

Labrecque, R. M. (2015a). Effect of solitary confinement on institutional 

misconduct: A longitudinal evaluation. Cincinnati, OH: University of 

Cincinnati. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract. 

aspx?ID=271153. 

Labrecque, R. M. (2015b, October). Who ends up in administrative segregation? 

A meta-analytic review. Presented at the National Institute of Justice Topical 

Working Group on the Use of Administrative Segregation in the United States, 

Arlington, VA. 
158 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Lovett, I. (2015, September 1). California agrees to overhaul use of solitary 

confinement. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes. 

com/2015/09/02/us/solitary-confinement-california-prisons.html. 

Lyman, M. D. (1989). Gangland. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas. 

Mears, D. P. (2005). Evaluating the effectiveness of supermax prisons. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute 

of Justice. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/Publications/abstract. 

aspx?ID=233437. 

Mears, D. P., & Reisig, M. D. (2006). The theory and practice of supermax 

prisons. Punishment & Society, 8(1), 33-57. 

Mears, D. P., & Watson, J. (2006). Towards a fair and balanced assessment of 

supermax prisons. Justice Quarterly, 23(2), 232-270. 

Mohr, G. C., & Raemisch, R. (2015, February 13). Restrictive housing: Taking 

the lead. Corrections Today, March/April. Retrieved from http://www.aca.org/ 

ACA_PROD_IMIS/Docs/Corrections%20Today/2015%20Articles/March%20 

2015/Guest%20Editorial.pdf. 

Mumola, C. J. (2005). Suicide and homicide in state prisons and local jails. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau 

of Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/bjs/shsplj.pdf. 

Naday, A., Freilich, J. D., & Mellow, J. (2008). The elusive data on supermax 

confinement. The Prison Journal, 88(1), 69-93. 

National Gang Intelligence Center. (2011). 2011 National Gang Threat 

Assessment: Emerging trends. Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Investigation, 

National Gang Intelligence Center. Retrieved from https://www.fbi.gov/statsservices/publications/2011-national-gang-threat-assessment/2011-nationalgang-threat-assessment-emerging-trends. 

National Institute of Corrections. (1991). Management strategies in disturbances 

and with gangs/disruptive groups. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. 

National Institute of Corrections. (1997). Supermax housing: A survey of current 

practice. Longmont, CO: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 

National Institute of Corrections Information Center. 

National Research Council (2008). Understanding crime trends: Workshop report. 

A. S. Goldberger & R. Rosenfeld (Eds.). (Vol. 10). Washington, DC: The National 

Academies Press. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12472. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 159 

Noonan, M., & Ginder, S. (2013). Mortality in local jails and state prisons, 2000­

2011. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 

Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/ 

Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=264348. 

Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. (2014). DRC Security Threat 

Groups Correctional Institution Inspection Committee. Columbus, OH: Ohio 

Department of Corrections. Retrieved from http://www.ciic.state.oh.us/docs/ 

STG%20Brief%202014.pdf. 

O’Keefe, M. L. (2005). Analysis of Colorado’s administrative segregation. Colorado 

Springs, CO: Colorado Department of Corrections, Office of Planning and 

Analysis. Retrieved from http://www.exdoc1.state.co.us/sites/default/files/opa/ 

AdSegReport.pdf. 

Pinkerton, J. (2014). Prisons study ways to reduce solitary confinement. 

Houston Chronicle. Retrieved from http://www.houstonchronicle.com/ 

news/houston-texas/houston/article/Prisons-study-ways-to-reduce-solitaryconfinement-5321117.php. 

Porter, B. (1982). California prison gangs: The price of control. Corrections 

Magazine, 8(6), 6-19. 

Pyrooz, D. C., Decker, S. H., & Fleisher, M. S. (2011). From the street to the 

prison, from the prison to the street: Understanding and responding to prison 

gangs. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 3(1), 12-24. http:// 

dx.doi.org/10.5042/jacpr.2011.0018. 

Pyrooz, D. C., & Mitchell, M. M. (2015). Little gang research, big gang research. 

In S. H. Decker & D. C. Pyrooz (Eds.), The handbook of gangs (pp. 28-58). 

Chichester, West Sussex, England: Wiley-Blackwell. 

Pyrooz, D. C., Sweeten, G., & Piquero, A. R. (2013). Continuity and 

change in gang membership and gang embeddedness. Journal of Research 

in Crime and Delinquency, 50(2), 239-271. http://dx.doi.org/10.5042/jac 

pr.2011.001810.1177/0022427811434830. 

Pyrooz, D. C., Turanovic, J. J., Decker, S. H., & Wu, J. (2016). Taking stock of the 

relationship between gang membership and offending: A meta-analysis. Criminal 

Justice & Behavior, 43(3), 365-397. 

Ralph, P. H., & Marquart, J. W. (1991). Gang violence in Texas prisons. The Prison 

Journal, 71(2), 38-49. 

Reisig, M. D. (2002). Administrative control and inmate homicide. Homicide 

Studies, 6(1), 84-103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1088767902006001005. 
160 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Reiter, K. A. (2012). Parole, snitch, or die: California’s supermax prisons and 

prisoners, 1997-2007. Punishment & Society, 14(5), 530–563. http://dx.doi. 

org/10.1177/1462474512464007. 

Rodriguez, S. (2013). As 30,000 join California prison hunger strike, corrections 

officials issue guidelines on starvation. Retrieved from http://solitarywatch. 

com/2013/07/09/as-30000-join-california-prison-hunger-strike-correctionsofficials-issue-guidelines-on-starvation/. 

Rodriguez, S. (2015). In California prisons, hundreds removed from solitary 

confinement — and thousands remain. Retrieved from http://solitarywatch. 

com/2015/01/27/in-california-hundreds-have-been-removed-from-solitaryconfinement-and-thousands-remain/. 

Shaiq, Z. (2013). More restrictive than necessary: A policy review of secure 

housing units. Hastings Race and Poverty Law Journal, 10, 327. 

Shames, A., Wilcox, J., & Subramanian, R. (2015). Solitary confinement: Common 

misconceptions and emerging safe alternatives. New York, NY: Vera Institute. 

Retrieved from http://www.vera.org/pubs/solitary-confinement-misconceptionssafe-alternatives. 

Shelden, R. G. (1991). A comparison of gang members and non-gang members 

in a prison setting. The Prison Journal, 71(2), 50-60. 

Skarbek, D. (2014). The social order of the underworld: How prison gangs govern 

the American penal system. Oxford University Press. 

Smith, P. S. (2006). The effects of solitary confinement on prison inmates: A brief 

history and review of the literature. Crime and Justice, 34(1), 441-528. 

Sowa, J. L. (2012). Gods behind bars: Prison gangs, due process, and the first 

amendment. Brooklyn Law Review, 77, 1593. 

St. John, P. (2015). California’s solitary settlement. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 

January 15, 2016, from http://documents.latimes.com/californias-solitarysettlement/. 

Tachiki, S. N. (1995). Indeterminate sentences in supermax prisons based 

upon alleged gang affiliations: A reexamination of procedural protection and 

a proposal for greater procedural requirements. California Law Review, 83(4), 

1115-1149. 

Tapia, M. (2014). Texas Latino gangs and large urban jails: Intergenerational 

conflicts and issues in management. Journal of Crime and Justice, 37(2), 256-274. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2013.768179. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 161 

Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (2014a). Administrative segregation. 

Huntsville, TX: Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Retrieved from https:// 

assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2089812/texas-adseg-programming.pdf. 

Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (2014b). Annual report for fiscal year 2014. 

Huntsville, TX: Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Retrieved from https:// 

www.tdcj.state.tx.us/documents/Annual_Report_2014.pdf 

Texas Department of Public Safety. (2015). Texas gang threat assessment: A state 

intelligence estimate. Huntsville, TX: Texas Joint Crime Information Center, 

Intelligence & Counterterrorism Division. 

Toch, H. (2007). Sequestering gang members, burning witches, and subverting 

due process. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(2), 274-288. http://dx.doi. 

org/10.1177/0093854806296663. 

Trulson, C. R., Marquart, J. W., & Kawucha, S. K. (2006). Gang suppression and 

institutional control. Corrections Today, 68(2), 26. 

Useem, B., & Piehl, A. M. (2008). Prison state: The challenge of mass incarceration. 

New York: Cambridge University Press. 

Useem, B., & Reisig, M. D. (1999). Collective action in prisons: Protests, 

disturbances, and riots. Criminology, 37(4), 735-760. http://dx.doi. 

org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1999.tb00503.x. 

Vigil, D. A. (2006). Classification and security threat group management. 

Corrections Today, 68(2), 32-34. 

Watkins, A. M., & Melde, C. (2016). Bad medicine: The relationship between 

gang membership, depression, self-esteem, and suicidal behavior. Criminal Justice 

and Behavior, 43(8), 1107-1126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0093854816631797. 

Wells, J. B., Minor, K. I., Angel, E., & Carter, L. (2002). A study of gangs and 

security threat groups in America’s adult prisons and jails. Indianapolis, IN: 

National Major Gang Task Force. 

Winterdyk, J., & Ruddell, R. (2010). Managing prison gangs: Results from a 

survey of U.S. prison systems. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(4), 730-736. http:// 

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.04.047. 
162 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Appendix A. California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation criteria used to certify security threat 

groups (STGs) 

1. Criteria used as part of an official threat assessment conducted by the Office of 

Correctional Safety to certify a group: 

2. Information from any federal, state, county, or city correctional or law 

enforcement agency, identifying the propensity for violence or the disruptive 

nature of the potential STG being considered for certification. 

3. Consideration with regard to whether the group meets the definition of an STG. 

4. History of STG behavior in the community. 

5. Evidence that the group presents a potential threat to the security of the 

institution and safety of staff and offenders. 

6. History of threatening behavior to staff or offenders safety involving acts 

such as riots, group disturbances, possession or manufacture of weapons, 

assault/battery, trafficking of narcotics, extortion, and coercion of other 

individuals or groups. 

7. Documentation of violent and illegal activities, which may also include 

planning, organizing, threatening, financing, soliciting, or committing 

unlawful acts. 

8. Group evolution, structure, formalized procedures or bylaws, and 

membership characteristics. 

9. Information concerning group meetings and membership criteria. 

10. Chronology of events or other information evidencing a threat to 

institutional security or safety of staff and offenders through group activities, 

associations, and potential security alignments. 

11. Tattoo, symbol, and graffiti documentation. 

12. Group association evidence, including offender and staff interviews. 

13. Information concerning the group’s philosophy and affiliations. 

Based on a review of the evidence available at intake of the overall severity 

of the threat that the group poses, groups are either “certified” as STG-Is or 

“recognized” as STG-IIs. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 163 

Appendix B. California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation source items and weights for validating 

gang affiliates 

The following, in descending order of significance, along with the points 

associated with the source item in parentheses, is used by the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR, 2014) for security threat 

group (STG) validation: 

1. Legal documents (7 points) evidencing STG conduct, including court 

transcripts, probation officer reports, or other legal documents. 

2. Tattoos/body markings (6 points) related to STGs. 

3. Offenses (6 points) committed for the “benefit or promotion of, at the 

direction of, or in association with an STG.” 

4. Self-admission (5 points), written or verbal, of STG involvement. 

5. Communications (4 points), written or verbal, involving STG activity. 

6. Visitors (4 points) with whom the offender engages in “promoting, furthering, 

or assisting” STG activities. 

7. Information from non-CDCR agencies (4 points) indicating STG activity, 

such as police or crime reports. 

8. Staff information (4 points) that reasonably indicates STG activity, including 

observations, rule infractions, and misconduct. 

9. Photographs (4 points) with STG connotations, such as insignia, symbols, or 

gang members, taken in the past four years. 

10. Written materials (4 points/2 points) “evidencing STG activity,” such 

as membership or enemy lists, in personal possession or not in 

personal possession. 

11. Debriefing reports (3 points) that include references to specific STG-related 

behavior. 

12. Informants (3 points), whether or not confidential, that provide reliable and 

specific knowledge “evidencing STG affiliation.” 

13. Association (3 points) with validated STG members that constitutes a 

“pattern or history of encounters,” not just by chance, involving STG behavior 

or business. 

14. Symbols (2 points) with STG connotations, such as hand signs, clothing, graffiti. 
All inmates with non-zero points are considered gang affiliates. To be 

documented as a member, an offender must meet three independent source 

items, the items must sum to a combined value of 10 or more, and there must 

be a direct link to an STG affiliate (current or former member, or associate). The 

same procedures apply to being documented as an associate, the only difference 

being that associates are involved “periodically or regularly” with members or 

other associates. An STG investigator makes this distinction. Finally, suspects 

have scored at least two points of validation but have not reached the combined 

total of points or necessary number of source items. There are also gang dropouts, 

a distinction that elicits a different gang classification status. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 165 

CHAPTER 5 

The Relationship Between 

Inmate Misconduct, Institutional 

Violence, and Administrative 

Segregation: A Systematic 

Review of the Evidence 

Benjamin Steiner, Ph.D.
 

University of Nebraska, Omaha
 

Calli M. Cain, M.A.
 

University of Nebraska, Omaha
 

Introduction 

Maintaining safe and orderly institutions is a high priority for prison 

and jail administrators, but institutional misconduct and violence 

often threaten the safety and order of an institution (DiIulio, 1987; 

Gendreau, Goggin, & Law, 1997; Steiner & Wooldredge, 2009; Steiner, Butler, 

& Ellison, 2014; Toch, Adams, & Grant, 1989). Segregation — transferring an 

inmate from the general prison population to an isolation cell in a more secure 

area of the prison — is a common response to inmate misconduct or violence 

that corrections officials use to regulate inmate behavior and promote order and 
166 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

safety within their institutions (Browne, Cambier, & Agha, 2011; DiIulio, 1987; 

Reassessing Solitary Confinement II, 2014). However, the practice has recently 

drawn the attention of civil rights advocates, the U.S. Congress, and President 

Obama, who want to ensure that it is used equitably and that it is effective as 

both a deterrent and a consequence of prisoner misconduct and violence (e.g., 

Amnesty International, 2014; Obama, 2015; U.S. Senate Committee on the 

Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights, 

2014). Yet, despite the increased national attention on segregation and the 

frequency with which it is used (Reassessing Solitary Confinement II, 2014; 

Riveland, 1999), few researchers have examined the factors that influence who 

is placed in segregation (e.g., inmates with a history of violence) or whether it is 

effective in reducing subsequent problem behaviors. 

This white paper reviews the evidence pertaining to the use of segregation and 

its effects on offenders’ subsequent behavior, and provides critical information 

about the evidence for researchers and practitioners. It also identifies gaps in the 

extant research that should be useful for expanding the evidence base related to 

the use of segregation and its behavioral effects. The paper begins by discussing 

the extent of misconduct, violence, and the use of segregation in correctional 

facilities. Next, it reviews the leading theories about predictors that indicate when 

corrections officials use segregation and its effects on offender behavior. The 

study methodology and its results follow. The paper concludes with a discussion 

of the implications of the findings and identifies directions for future research 

related to the relationship between inmate misconduct, institutional violence, 

and segregation. 

The Extent and Predictors of Inmate Misconduct and 

Violence in U.S. Correctional Facilities 

Inmate misconduct includes deviations from the formal rules that govern and 

regulate an inmate’s behavior in a correctional institution. Violence in a prison 

or jail can take several forms: intrapersonal (e.g., self-harm), interpersonal 

(e.g., offending, victimization), or collective violence (e.g., riots). The Bureau of 

Justice Statistics (BJS) routinely collects national-level data from inmates and 

correctional administrators to assess the extent of misconduct and violence in 

U.S. correctional facilities. Based on data from its most recent assessments — the 

2005 Census of Adult State and Federal Correctional Facilities (BJS, 2010) and 

the 2014 Annual Survey of Jails (BJS, 2015a) — correctional facilities typically 

experience high rates of misconduct (about 949 incidents of misconduct per 

1,000 prison inmates). Average rates of inmate-on-inmate assaults are also two to 

three times higher than arrest rates for assaults among adults in the U.S. general 

population (compare to Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2006, 2015). 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 167 

Incidents of misconduct and assault are not distributed randomly across 

facilities, however. In most prisons and jails, rates of misconduct and assault are 

below the national average for these facilities. An assault against a staff member 

occurs in only 30 percent of prisons and 5 percent of jails. Less than 6 percent 

of prisons experience a major disturbance — an incident involving serious 

injury, property damage, or loss of control of a portion of the facility, requiring 

extraordinary measures to regain control. 

Based on self-report data from the 2004 Survey of Inmates in State and Federal 

Correctional Facilities (BJS, 2007) and the 2002 Survey of Inmates in Local Jails 

(BJS, 2012a), about 50 percent of prison inmates and 16 percent of jail inmates 

engage in misconduct during their incarceration. Twelve percent of prison 

inmates and 3 percent of jail inmates physically assault another inmate, while 

3 percent of prison inmates and less than 1 percent of jail inmates physically 

assault a staff member. These data also show that 15 percent of prison inmates 

and 7 percent of jail inmates are intentionally injured by another person during 

their incarceration. Other researchers have found that from 7 percent to 20 

percent of prison inmates report that they were violently victimized in the 

past six months (Wolff, Blitz, Shi, & Bachman, 2007; Wooldredge, 1994, 1998; 

Wooldredge & Steiner, 2014). In addition, data collected during the 2011-2012 

National Inmate Survey (BJS, 2015b) show that approximately 4 percent of 

prison inmates and 3 percent of jail inmates were sexually victimized in the 

past year (Beck, Berzofsky, Caspar, & Krebs, 2013). Although these estimates 

reflect the prevalence of events over different periods of time, it is worth noting 

that less than 2 percent of the U.S. population age 12 and older experienced a 

physical assault in the past year, and less than 1 percent were sexually assaulted 

(Catalano, 2005, 2006; Rand, 2009). 

Despite the tenuous nature of some of the comparisons made above, the rate 

of violence and the likelihood of experiencing violent victimization appear 

to be higher in correctional facilities than in the U.S. population.1

 The data 

also suggest that rates of misconduct and institutional violence vary across 

facilities. Researchers have also found that the likelihood of engaging in 

misconduct, perpetrating violence, and experiencing violent victimization varies 

across inmates (e.g., Beck & Harrison, 2010; Camp, Gaes, Langan, & Saylor, 

2003; Steiner, 2009; Steiner & Wooldredge, 2008a, 2008b; Wolff et al., 2007; 

Wooldredge, 1998; Wooldredge & Steiner, 2014). This finding suggests that 

misconduct and violence are not random processes. That is, differences between 

inmates and their facility environments contribute to variation in institutional 

misconduct and violence. 

1 An exception to this conclusion is the likelihood of being a homicide victim. The U.S. homicide rate was 5.6 

homicides per 100,000 persons in 2002 (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2003), while the homicide rate in state 

prisons was four homicides per 100,000 inmates (Mumola, 2005). 
168 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Considerable research has focused on understanding the various individualand facility-level sources of institutional misconduct and violence. Findings 

from two recent systematic reviews show that the background characteristics 

of inmates, their institutional routines and experiences, and the characteristics 

of the facilities in which they are confined are each relevant to an explanation 

of misconduct and violence (Steiner et al., 2014; Steiner & Cain, in press). The 

factors associated with an increased risk of misconduct and violence perpetration 

are age (younger), a history of antisocial behavior (e.g., drug use, prior criminal 

justice involvement), antisocial peers or gang involvement, and mental health 

problems. Other factors include a history of victimization (except for sexual 

victimization) prior to incarceration, a higher security risk classification, and 

a sentence of five years or less. Inmates with low self-control and inmates from 

disadvantaged neighborhoods are at higher risk for misconduct, while inmates 

incarcerated for a sex offense are less at risk. An inmate’s gender (male) and 

incarcerating offense (i.e., a property offense) also are risk factors for violence 

perpetration (Steiner et al., 2014; Steiner & Cain, in press). 

The institutional routines and experiences linked to a higher risk of misconduct 

and violence perpetration include a history of misconduct and a greater amount 

of time served, whereas involvement in prison work is associated with less risk 

of misconduct and violence. Inmates involved in religion-based programs also 

are at lower risk for misconduct, but inmates involved in a prison program are at 

higher risk (Steiner et al., 2014; Steiner & Cain, in press). 

Regarding the predictors that an inmate may become a victim of violence while 

incarcerated, pre-incarceration employment, a higher security risk classification, 

and a history of victimization prior to incarceration (both physical and sexual) 

are associated with increased risk for victimization in prison and jail. Some 

institutional routines and experiences can reduce an inmate’s risk. Inmates 

involved in recreational activities and housed in the general population — and 

who perceive the institution to be safer and view the institutional staff more 

favorably — are at lower risk of becoming victims of violence. However, inmates 

with a history of misconduct are generally at greater risk of victimization (Steiner 

& Cain, in press). 

Facilities that are at risk for higher rates of institutional misconduct and violence 

(both perpetration and victimization) among inmates include higher-security 

institutions, those with larger populations, and those with higher densities of black 

inmates or inmates younger than age 25. Minimum-security facilities typically have 

lower levels of misconduct and violence. Institutions with higher concentrations 

of inmates incarcerated for violent offenses have lower misconduct rates. In 

addition, facilities with a higher density of inmates classified as maximum security, 

a higher percentage of officers who perceive the facility’s rules as underenforced, 

and facilities in the southern region of the U.S. typically have higher levels of 

institutional violence (Steiner et al., 2014; Steiner & Cain, in press). 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 169 

Taken together, the findings from these two reviews of predictors of inmate 

misconduct and institutional violence highlight that there are numerous inmate 

background characteristics (e.g., age, criminal history), institutional routines and 

experiences (e.g., history of misconduct, time served), and facility characteristics 

(e.g., inmate population, higher security level) that explain variation in 

institutional misconduct and violence. The relevant background characteristics 

could be useful in risk- or needs-assessment instruments. Institutional routines 

and experiences reflect inmates’ behavior after incarceration or interventions 

by correctional officials. Facility characteristics represent either structural 

characteristics or characteristics of the inmate or staff population (e.g., 

proportion of black inmates). Information regarding an institution’s structural 

characteristics (e.g., facility security level) might be used by officials involved 

in facility planning and design. Officials could use information about the 

composition of inmate or staff populations to help them place particular types of 

inmates or staff appropriately within a facility. 

The Extent of Segregation Use in U.S. Correctional Facilities 

Segregation and solitary confinement are terms that describe different types of 

restrictive housing used in prisons and jails (Browne et al., 2011). Disciplinary 

segregation, for instance, is typically a short-term punishment for inmates who 

violate the institution’s rules (misconduct). Inmates are sometimes housed in 

segregation prior to a hearing about a rule violation or while officials determine the 

best placement for an inmate who is new to the facility (temporary confinement). 

Inmates deemed a threat to an institution’s security are often placed in longterm administrative segregation to remove them from the institution’s general 

population. Protective custody is segregated housing used to keep inmates 

considered at risk for victimization or self-harm in the general population. Finally, 

supermax confinement is long-term, restrictive housing typically used for inmates 

who are deemed a threat to other inmates or staff (Browne et al., 2011). Conditions 

of confinement in segregated housing vary across states and across types of 

restrictive housing, but often include placement in cells that are more sterile than 

those of the general prison population. These conditions may include limited time 

outside the cell (e.g., one hour per day), restricted social contact with other inmates 

or staff, limited access to recreational or program opportunities, and restricted 

opportunities for visitation or telephone calls (Baumgartel, Guilmette, Kalb, Li, 

Nuni, Porter, & Resnik, 2015; Browne et al., 2011). 

Results from a national survey of state departments of corrections conducted by 

the Liman Program at Yale Law School, in collaboration with the Association 

of State Correctional Administrators, revealed that 2.5 percent of the custodial 

population within each state (range = 0.1 percent-7.5 percent) is typically held 

in segregation for administrative reasons, not including protection or discipline, 

whereas 6.6 percent of the custodial population within each state is held in some 
170 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

form of segregation (range = 2.1 percent-14.2 percent) (Baumgartel et al., 2015). 

Other studies have yielded estimates indicating that from 5 percent to 8 percent 

of the state prison population is held in some form of segregation (Shames, 

Wilcox, & Subramanian, 2015). 

Data from the 2011-2012 National Inmate Survey (BJS, 2015b) show that nearly 

20 percent of prison inmates and 18 percent of jail inmates have lived in some 

form of segregated housing in the past year (or since coming to their current 

facility, if less than one year ago). Approximately 10 percent of prison inmates 

and 5 percent of jail inmates spend 30 days or longer in segregation; however, 

there is significant variability in the use of segregation across facilities. Less than 

10 percent of inmates spend time in segregation in 39.6 percent of prisons and 

24.8 percent of jails, whereas more than 25 percent of inmates spend time in 

segregation in 28.1 percent of prisons and 24.2 percent of jails (Beck, 2015). 

The evidence suggests that prison officials use segregation with some frequency, 

and that a notable percentage of all prison and jail inmates spend time in some 

form of segregation during their incarceration. Just as the extent of misconduct 

and institutional violence varies among facilities, the use of segregation also 

varies across facilities. Several theories, discussed below, reveal why prison and 

jail officials impose segregation more frequently in response to certain rule 

violations, for particular inmates, or in particular facilities. An understanding 

of these theories contributes to a more reasonable explanation of why particular 

incident, inmate, and facility characteristics may influence officials’ use of 

segregation. Such understanding also may help to curb disparate treatment of 

inmate groups that may result from officials’ decision-making regarding the use 

of segregation. In addition, two competing theories, described below, address the 

effects of segregation on inmates’ subsequent behavior. They also highlight why 

particular behavioral consequences may result from placement in segregation. 

Theories About How Corrections Officials Use Segregation 

Violations of the rules of conduct (misconduct) in a correctional facility are 

subject to disciplinary procedures that determine guilt and impose punishment 

(Howard, Winfree, Mays, Stohr, & Clason, 1994; Flanagan, 1982). Disciplinary 

hearings are closed to the public. Inmates are afforded only minimal procedural 

protections during the adjudicatory stage of the disciplinary process (Crouch, 

1985). Few inmates succeed in challenging the allegations against them 

(Flanagan, 1982; Thomas, Mika, Blakemore, & Aylward, 1991). The punishment 

phase within prisons and jails, however, is similar to criminal sentencing. 

Much like criminal court judges, prison and jail officials can impose a range 

of sanctions (including segregation) once an inmate has been found guilty of 

misconduct. The severity of the misconduct typically determines the range of 

sanctions that can be imposed (Metcalf, Morgan, Oliker-Friedland, Resnik, 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 171 

Spiegel, Tae, Work, & Holbrook, 2013). Given the similarities between the 

punishment process within correctional facilities and criminal sentencing, it 

seems reasonable to discuss the use of disciplinary segregation by considering 

the theoretical and empirical literature on decision-making during the criminal 

sentencing process. 

Researchers often use two theories to explain why certain factors affect judicial 

decision-making: causal attribution theory (e.g., Albonetti, 1991; Farrell & 

Holmes, 1991; Hawkins, 1987) and focal concerns theory (Steffensmeier, Ulmer, 

& Kramer, 1998). Both are also used to explain the sanctioning decisions of 

other justice system officials during administrative proceedings (e.g., parole 

revocation), where offenders have fewer rights than criminal defendants (e.g., 

Huebner & Bynum, 2006; Lin, Grattet, & Petersilia, 2010; Steiner, Travis, 

Makarios, & Meade, 2011). 

Causal Attribution Theory 

Some scholars theorize that justice system officials base sanctioning decisions 

on their beliefs regarding individuals’ prospects for reform (e.g., Albonetti, 

1991; Bridges & Steen, 1998). Yet, these officials rarely have all the necessary 

information regarding individuals’ risk of future criminality. To reduce the 

uncertainty involved in these decisions, officials develop patterned responses 

shaped by their preconceptions of the personal and environmental causes of 

criminal behavior (Albonetti, 1991; Bridges & Steen, 1998; Hawkins, 1987), an 

approach known as causal attribution theory. They may sanction individuals 

more harshly if they perceive the individuals’ actions as more the result of 

personal, rather than environmental, factors because officials consider these 

individuals more culpable and, therefore, at higher risk of reoffending (Bridges 

& Steen, 1998). For instance, the more misconduct — and sanctions received 

for misconduct — in inmates’ pasts, the more culpable they seem because 

they have demonstrated an unwillingness to respond to previous sanctions. 

Similarly, the overrepresentation of minorities, men, and younger individuals 

in the incarcerated population may lead correctional officials to perceive these 

individuals as more culpable, leading to harsher sanctions for this population 

(see Wooldredge, Griffin, & Rauschenberg, 2005, for a parallel argument 

pertaining to judges). 

Focal Concerns Theory 

Butler and Steiner (in press) applied the focal concerns theory to disciplinary 

decision-making in prison; this perspective recognizes that, although justice 

system officials have an interest in controlling crime, they make sanctioning 

decisions with limited information about offenders’ prospects for reform 

(Steffensmeier et al., 1998; Ulmer & Johnson, 2004; Wooldredge et al., 2005). 
172 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

To reduce the uncertainty involved in these decisions, officials develop a perceptual 

shorthand based on stereotypes that they associate with specific individuals and 

cases (Johnson, 2006; Steffensmeier et al., 1998). However, the focal concerns 

perspective further theorizes that three domains of reference guide officials: (1) an 

offender’s blameworthiness, (2) an offender’s risk to the community, and (3) the 

practical consequences of the punishment imposed for both the individual and the 

justice system (Lin et al., 2010; Steffensmeier et al., 1998). 

Blameworthiness is associated with the retributive philosophy of punishment, 

such that an offender’s punishment corresponds directly to his or her culpability 

for the crime and the degree of injury inflicted (Johnson, 2006; Steffensmeier & 

Demuth, 2000; Steffensmeier et al., 1998). Blameworthiness might be reflected by 

the severity of the rule violation and the inmate’s experience with the disciplinary 

process. Offenses designated as more severe, for example, generally involve a 

greater level of culpability and the potential for more significant harm to the 

victim or the institution (e.g., assault, possession, or manufacture of dangerous 

contraband) (Flanagan, 1982). 

Justice system officials’ concerns about an offender’s risk to the community 

are linked to the incapacitation and deterrent functions of punishment, and 

involve predictions about future dangerousness based on attributions associated 

with characteristics of the case and the offender (Steffensmeier et al., 1998). 

The perceptions of prison and jail officials regarding which inmates are at risk 

for subsequent misbehavior could be shaped by case characteristics such as 

the nature of offense(s) for which inmates are convicted (e.g., violent versus 

nonviolent) and individual characteristics such as their violation history, 

criminal history, and social (e.g., gang involvement) and demographic (e.g., age) 

background. For instance, corrections officials might consider inmates involved 

in gangs to be at higher risk of reoffending (e.g., Bales & Miller, 2012; Griffin & 

Hepburn, 2006). 

Practical consequences and constraints associated with the organization and 

individuals also influence officials’ sanctioning decisions (e.g., Johnson, 2006; 

Steffensmeier et al., 1998; Ulmer & Johnson, 2004). Corrections officials must 

maintain working relationships in an interdependent justice system (e.g., Dixon, 

1995; Eisenstein, Flemming, & Nardulli, 1988; Johnson, 2006; Ulmer & Johnson, 

2004), and they also understand the consequences of imposing segregation on 

particular individuals (e.g., those with dependent children) (Daly, 1987; Griffin 

& Wooldredge, 2006; Koons-Witt, 2002). For example, they may be less likely 

to place inmates who are parents in segregation because its more restrictive 

visitation policies would further disrupt any remaining bond between an 

incarcerated parent and his or her children (see Cochran & Mears, 2013, for a 

discussion of the effect of incarceration on the parent-child bond). 

Although the perspectives discussed above apply to disciplinary proceedings 

in prisons and jails, they may also be relevant to decision-making related to 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 173 

long-term administrative segregation or supermax housing. Inmates are housed 

in segregation based on the threat they pose to the general prison population. 

However, these decisions are often made with limited information about the 

actual threat that an inmate poses to the facility. Prison and jail officials may 

manage their uncertainty by developing patterned responses — a perceptual 

shorthand — based on their preconceptions of higher-risk inmates. The practical 

consequences and constraints of a specific prison or jail bureaucracy may also 

affect placement decisions. 

Theories About the Effects of Time in Segregation on 

Inmates’ Subsequent Behavior 

Two opposing theories frame discussions about segregated housing: deterrence 

theory and labeling/deviance amplification theory. Officials use punitive 

segregation to punish inmates by isolating them and restricting privileges, 

believing that time spent in segregation will deter inmates from engaging 

in misbehavior when they return to the general prison population. Officials 

expect administrative segregation to both incapacitate inmates and deter them 

from subsequent misbehavior (Mears, 2013). However, some theorists would 

predict that sanctions such as punitive or administrative segregation might 

amplify inmates’ tendencies to misbehave (Lemert, 1951; Marx, 1981; Smith & 

Paternoster, 1990; Wilkins, 1964). 

Deterrence Theory 

Segregation is, essentially, a prison or jail within a correctional institution (Browne 

et al., 2011) where inmates are isolated in a single cell, unable to participate in 

programming, and offered limited social and recreational opportunities (Pizzaro 

& Stenius, 2004; Riveland, 1999). It is an unpleasant experience that should 

deter inmates from reoffending (see Nagin, Cullen, & Jonson, 2009, for a parallel 

discussion pertaining to imprisonment). Deterrence theorists emphasize the 

importance of the certainty, celerity, and severity of sanctions such as segregation. 

Individuals’ estimates of the certainty of sanctions (such as segregation) and 

the severity of those sanctions form the basis for their calculation of the costs of 

offending (Becker, 1968; Grasmick & Bursik, 1990; Nagin & Paternoster, 1993). 

The celerity with which sanctions are applied affects individuals’ associations of 

sanctions with related behavior (Taxman, Soule, & Gelb, 1999). 

Formal policy in most prisons and jails mandates that sanctions be applied with 

similar certainty and celerity, regardless of the type of rule violated or sanction 

imposed (Metcalf et al., 2013). However, segregation is more severe than other 

sanctions, and longer sentences in segregated housing are more severe than 

shorter terms. Thus, imposing segregation and longer periods of segregation 
174 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

 

are expected to deter inmates from misconduct after they return to the general 

prison population (see Nagin et al., 2009, for a parallel argument regarding 

imprisonment), and could also deter offenders from reoffending when they are 

released from prison and return to their home communities (Mears, 2013). 

Labeling/Deviance Amplification Theory 

In contrast to deterrence theory, proponents of the labeling/deviance 

amplification perspective (hereafter, deviance theory) would expect exposure 

to segregation to increase offenders’ likelihood of future misbehavior. Inmates 

often cannot participate in prison programming such as self-help programs 

while in segregated housing and are often labeled troublesome or problematic 

(King, Steiner, & Breach, 2008; Riveland, 1999). In turn, inmates may begin to 

identify with this label, associate with other problematic inmates, and ultimately 

engage in subsequent misconduct (secondary deviance). The official response to 

inmates who have served time in segregation may also intensify, increasing the 

likelihood of subsequent misconduct (Lemert, 1951; Marx, 1981; Wilkins, 1964). 

Thus, sending an inmate to segregation could increase his or her subsequent 

misbehavior in prison or jail. 

Long-term consequences also may result from the labeling and isolation 

experienced by inmates exposed to segregation (Haney, 2003; Haney, Weill, 

Bakhshay, & Lockett, 2016; Smith, 2006; Toch, 2001). In fact, prolonged 

isolation may result in increased anger, frustration, mental health problems, 

and an adaptive response to isolated conditions, each of which could amplify 

the likelihood that offenders will recidivate (Haney, 2003; Haney et al., 2016; 

Kupers, 2008; Smith, 2006). Such effects also may be particularly evident among 

offenders exposed to longer periods of segregation. 

An Examination of Existing Studies 

The preceding discussion underscores the finding that rates of violence are 

higher in correctional institutions than in the general U.S. population, and that 

corrections officials often use segregation to control violence and misconduct. 

Causal attribution theory and focal concerns theory provide explanations for 

why prison and jail officials may impose segregation for certain rule violations, 

for particular inmates, or in certain facilities. However, evidence about the 

applicability of these theories to disciplinary or administrative proceedings in 

prisons and jails is limited. Officials who use segregation assume that it deters 

inmates’ subsequent misbehavior in prison and jails and may reduce recidivism, 

but labeling theory would suggest the opposite effects. Few studies have 

investigated which (if either) of these theories is empirically supported. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 175 

To synthesize the existing literature on these topics and identify gaps in the 

extant research into the use and behavioral effects of segregation, a systematic 

review of the scientific evidence follows, focusing on four areas: 

•	 Predictors of officials’ use of segregation in correctional institutions. 

•	 Effects of segregation on offenders’ subsequent behavior (e.g., misconduct). 

•	 Gaps in the research pertaining to the relationship between inmate 

misconduct, institutional violence, and segregation. 

•	 Directions for future research into the relationship between inmate 

misconduct, institutional violence, and segregation. 

Research Design and Method 

As discussed above, segregation describes several types of restrictive housing 

used in prisons and jails (Browne et al., 2011). This study focuses on the 

following types of segregation: disciplinary segregation, long-term and 

temporary administrative segregation, protective custody, and supermax 

confinement. Distinctions between the types of confinement are made when 

possible because their goals differ (Browne et al., 2011). 

Keyword searches were used to find relevant studies in databases such as 

the National Criminal Justice Reference Service, PsychInfo/PsychLit, and 

Sociological Abstracts. The National Institute of Corrections and the National 

Institute of Justice libraries were searched for technical reports that have not 

been published in peer-reviewed journals or books. Finally, the references of the 

relevant articles and reports were examined to determine whether there were 

additional studies that should be included. 

The review was restricted to studies of segregation administered in correctional 

institutions for adults. The literature review was further restricted to only 

those studies that focused on offenders’ subsequent behavior as it related to 

the effects of segregation. The criteria excluded studies of segregation used 

in juvenile facilities and those that examined the effects of segregation on 

nonbehavioral outcomes, such as mental health. The review also excluded studies 

that provided only a description of the population sent to segregation or the 

extent of a particular behavior found among individuals exposed to segregation 

(e.g., McGinnis, Austin, Becker, Fields, Lane, et al., 2014). Finally, the review 

was restricted to studies published after 1974, when the U.S. Supreme Court’s 

decision in Wolff v. McDonnell altered the disciplinary process in most state and 

federal correctional facilities (Babcock, 1981). 
176 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

 

Findings 

The review revealed 26 studies, 10 of which focused on the predictors of officials’ 

use of segregation; the remaining 16 studies examined its behavioral effects. 

Among the studies of the predictors of officials’ use of segregation, eight focused 

on the use of disciplinary segregation. Of the remaining two, one study examined 

the predictors of placement in long-term administrative segregation; the other 

focused on supermax confinement. 

Three studies examined the effect of disciplinary segregation on subsequent inmate 

behavior, and three others assessed the relationship between the rate at which 

disciplinary segregation is used and rates of misconduct and violence. Seven 

studies focused on the effects of supermax confinement: four examined the effects 

of supermax confinement on offender behavior and three focused on the effects 

of supermax confinement on levels of violence. Finally, three studies assessed the 

effects of any type of administrative segregation on offender behavior. 

Predictors of How Corrections Officials Use Segregation 

Disciplinary segregation is used in correctional facilities to respond to 

inmates who commit a violent act or chronically violate the institutions’ rules 

(misbehave), whereas long-term administrative segregation is for inmates who 

cannot live in the general prison population because they pose a threat to the 

safety of other inmates, staff, and the institution (Browne et al., 2011; Riveland, 

1999). Ten studies focused on the predictors for placement in segregation, but 

many of these studies are dated, and their samples and analytical techniques 

vary considerably. Although the findings are discussed here, the literature base 

is not sufficient to determine whether the appropriate factors, such as violent 

misconduct, affect corrections officials’ decisions to place inmates in segregation 

or whether these officials administer segregation equitably. 

Most researchers discovered that inmates found guilty of more serious offenses 

and inmates with longer histories of misconduct are more likely to be placed 

in segregation (e.g., Butler & Steiner, in press; Crouch, 1985; Flanagan, 1982; 

Lindquist, 1980; Schafer, 1986), although Howard and colleagues (1994) did not 

find such effects. Some researchers found that younger inmates are placed in 

segregation more frequently than are older inmates (Butler & Steiner, in press; 

Flanagan, 1982; Lindquist, 1980), but Howard and colleagues (1994) found a 

nonsignificant age effect. Butler and Steiner (in press), Lindquist (1980), and 

Stephan (1989) found that women are less likely to be placed in segregation than 

are men, whereas McClellan (1994) found the opposite to be true — that women 

are more likely to be placed in segregation. Howard and colleagues (1994) 

found a nonsignificant gender effect. No studies of disciplinary segregation 

have uncovered significant race effects (Butler & Steiner, in press; Crouch, 1985; 

Flanagan, 1982; Howard et al., 1994; Lindquist, 1980; Stephan, 1989). No other 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 177 

variables were examined frequently enough to draw meaningful conclusions. It is 

also worth reiterating that there was considerable variability in the samples and 

analytical techniques used across these studies. Howard and colleagues (1994), 

for instance, examined cases processed in a federally operated prison, whereas 

Butler and Steiner (in press) and others examined cases from state-operated 

prisons (Crouch, 1985; Flanagan, 1982; Lindquist, 1980; McClellan, 1994; 

Stephan, 1989. Some analyses involved only one control variable (Flanagan, 1982; 

Lindquist, 1980; McClellan, 1994), whereas Butler and Steiner (in press), Crouch 

(1985), and Howard and colleagues (1994) included at least 10 variables in their 

multivariate analyses. 

O’Keefe (2007) examined the factors associated with placement in long-term 

administrative segregation in Colorado. She found that men, Hispanic inmates, 

those incarcerated for a violent offense, inmates with a mental illness, members 

of security threat groups, those with a higher number of disciplinary infractions, 

and those often placed in disciplinary segregation were more likely to be placed 

in administrative segregation. Neither inmates’ risk/need scores nor their 

education levels predicted segregation placement. 

When Mears and Bales (2010) assessed the predictors of placement in supermax 

confinement in Florida, they found that certain inmates were more likely to be 

confined: younger inmates, those incarcerated for a violent offense, those with a 

higher number of prior violent convictions or a higher number of prior escape 

convictions, those who had served more time, and those with a higher number 

of disciplinary infractions for violent behavior, defiant behavior, or contraband. 

Inmates’ race, ethnicity, and number of prior convictions and disciplinary 

infractions for threat behavior had no effect on supermax placement. 

Although it is difficult to draw substantive conclusions from the limited 

number of studies available, a few general patterns emerge. First, regardless of 

the type of segregation used, officials base their decisions on inmates’ criminal 

histories and institutional misbehavior. Inmates convicted of more serious 

offenses (e.g., violent), those with more significant prior records, and those 

with a history of serious (e.g., violent) or chronic institutional rule violations 

are more likely to be placed in segregation. Second, most studies found that 

racial and ethnic minorities are no more likely to be placed in segregation 

than are white inmates. Taken together, these findings suggest that corrections 

officials use segregation for inmates with a history of serious or chronic 

institutional misbehavior, or for inmates who pose a risk to the safety of an 

institution. However, some extralegal factors (e.g., age, mental illness) also 

affect corrections officials’ use of segregation. 

Effects of Segregation on Offenders’ Subsequent Behavior 

The 16 studies of the effects of segregation on offenders’ behavior differ 

significantly by research design and in the participants and outcomes examined. 
178 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Although a number of studies are methodologically strong, the paucity of 

research on this topic prevents any determination of whether segregation deters, 

amplifies, or has no effect on offenders’ subsequent misbehavior (e.g., violence). 

Nonetheless, the relevant findings are reviewed here. 

Wolff, Morgan, and Shi (2013) examined the effect of disciplinary segregation 

on aggression among men and women in prisons in a single state who would 

be released within the next 24 months. They found that the more days that men 

spent in segregation, the more their aggression increased; however, there was no 

significant effect on aggression in women. Labrecque (2015) assessed the effect of 

disciplinary segregation and its duration on different types of misconduct (e.g., 

violent, drug) among Ohio inmates who had spent at least one year in prison and 

served time in disciplinary segregation. He found that neither placement nor 

length of time in segregation affected inmates’ subsequent misconduct. He also 

found that gang members and inmates with mental health problems who were 

placed in segregation — or spent more time there — were more likely to commit 

subsequent misconduct and to do so more frequently. Morris (2016) found that 

when Texas inmates who had served at least three years in prison were placed in 

disciplinary segregation for violent misconduct, the placement had no effect on 

subsequent violent misconduct or the amount of time to their next violent act. 

Other scholars have examined the effect of an institution’s rate of disciplinary 

segregation use on its rates of misconduct and violence (Huebner, 2003; Steiner, 

2009; Wooldredge & Steiner, 2015). For the most part, these studies show that 

using disciplinary segregation does not have a significant effect on inmates’ rates 

of misconduct or violence. 

Researchers who have examined the effect of supermax confinement on 

recidivism have found that placement in supermax confinement has no effect 

on recidivism (Lovell & Johnson, 2004; Lovell, Johnson, & Cain, 2007; Mears & 

Bales, 2009; Butler & Steiner, in press). However, Lovell and Johnson (2004) and 

Mears and Bales (2009) found that offenders placed in supermax confinement in 

Washington and Florida had higher rates of violent recidivism than did offenders 

who did not spend time in segregation. Offenders released from prison directly 

from supermax confinement in Washington were more likely to reoffend than 

were offenders not exposed to supermax confinement (Lovell et al., 2007), but 

offenders in Florida were not (Mears & Bales, 2009). 

Briggs, Sundt, and Castellano (2003) examined the effect of opening supermax 

prisons in Arizona, Illinois, and Minnesota on rates of systemwide inmateon-inmate and inmate-on-staff assaults. They found that opening the new 

facilities had no effect on rates of inmate assaults on other inmates. Briggs and 

colleagues (2003) found that the rate of inmate assaults on staff did not change 

in Minnesota, whereas Arizona experienced a temporary increase and Illinois 

experienced a permanent decrease. A subsequent study by Sundt, Castellano, 

and Briggs (2008) revealed no change in the rate of inmate-on-inmate assaults in 

Illinois, but the rate of inmate-on-staff assaults decreased. Dye (2010) examined 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 179 

data collected from state and privately operated prisons via the 2000 Census of 

State and Federal Correctional Facilities. She found that supermax prisons had a 

greater number of suicides than did minimum-security prisons. 

Motiuk and Blanchette (2001) assessed the effect of placement in any type of 

administrative segregation on recidivism among Canadian offenders. They found 

that those with time in administrative segregation were more likely to return 

to custody after they were released. They were also more likely than offenders 

not placed in segregation to return for a new offense. Lanes (2009) examined 

the effects of protective custody and long-term administrative segregation 

on self-injuring among Michigan inmates. He found that protective custody 

had no effect on inmates’ self-injuring behavior, but that inmates housed in 

administrative segregation were more likely to self-harm. When Kaba and 

colleagues (2014) assessed self-harm among inmates in a New York jail, they 

found that the likelihood of self-harm, and potentially fatal self-harm, was higher 

among inmates exposed to solitary confinement. 

In conclusion, the limited evidence suggests that exposure to any type of 

segregation does not affect offenders’ misbehavior while in correctional facilities 

(e.g., misconduct), and has little to no effect on their behavior after release from 

prison (e.g., recidivism). A greater use of segregation (e.g., disciplinary housing, 

supermax housing) is not associated with reductions in facility or systemwide 

misconduct and violence. However, exposure to segregation increases the risk of 

self-harm among inmates, and supermax facilities experience more suicides than 

do minimum-security facilities. 

Discussion 

Institutional safety is a high priority for correctional administrators, but 

inmate misconduct and violence threaten the safety and order of an institution 

(DiIulio, 1987; Gendreau et al., 1997; Steiner & Wooldredge, 2009). Segregation 

is an intervention used by correctional administrators in response to inmate 

misconduct or violence. Administrators also use segregation to isolate violenceprone or problematic inmates from an institution’s general population (Browne 

et al., 2011; Riveland, 1999). Yet, few studies have examined the factors that affect 

the use of segregation or whether it is effective in reducing offenders’ subsequent 

problem behaviors (e.g., misconduct, violence). To synthesize the extant research 

pertaining to these topics and provide direction for future research, the reviewers 

systematically assessed the evidence pertaining to the use of segregation and to 

the effects of segregation on offenders’ subsequent behavior. 

The reviewers found 26 studies: 10 focused on the predictors of officials’ use of 

segregation, and 16 examined segregation’s effects on offender behavior. These 

studies reveal that, regardless of the type of segregation used (e.g., disciplinary, 

administrative), corrections officials place inmates convicted of more serious 
180 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

offenses (e.g., violent), those with more significant criminal records, and those 

with more rule infractions in segregation more frequently than inmates with less 

significant criminal histories and fewer institutional infractions. The evidence 

also showed that inmates who are members of racial and ethnic minority 

groups are no more likely than white inmates to be placed in segregation. Thus, 

corrections officials are using segregation primarily for inmates with histories 

of serious or chronic institutional misbehavior and those who pose a risk to the 

safety or security of an institution. 

It is important to reiterate that these conclusions are derived from only 10 studies 

that focused on different types of segregation. Moreover, many of the studies are 

dated (e.g., Crouch, 1985; Flanagan, 1982; Howard et al., 1994; Lindquist, 1980; 

McClellan, 1994; Schafer, 1986; Stephan, 1989) and are limited to relatively small 

samples of men or women processed in one or two facilities (e.g., Crouch, 1985; 

Lindquist, 1980; McClellan, 1994; Schafer, 1986). Prison and jail populations 

have increased dramatically over the past several decades, and the percentage of 

minority and female inmates is notably higher today than in the 1970s, 1980s, or 

1990s (Blumstein & Beck, 2005). Therefore, it may no longer be appropriate to 

generalize results gleaned from earlier work to inmates processed in contemporary 

correctional environments. Examination of data collected from small samples 

from one or two facilities also limits the ability to generalize study results and has 

prevented researchers from including adequate control variables in their statistical 

models. Moreover, some of the samples examined were selected for other purposes 

(e.g., behavior patterns of long-term inmates); therefore, they are not representative 

of the inmates who violated prison rules in the respective facilities. Finally, no 

studies have examined the predictors of officials’ use of segregation in jails; all 10 

studies have focused on prison officials’ decision-making. 

The primary implication of the findings from this review of the research on 

the predictors of officials’ use of segregation is that there simply have not been 

enough studies related to this topic to draw any meaningful conclusions. As 

noted above, only 10 studies of the predictors of officials’ use of segregation have 

been conducted in the past 40 years. Many studies are outdated, lack scientific 

rigor, and have limited generalizability. An understanding of the relationship 

between institutional misconduct, violence, and segregation requires an 

evidence base of the factors that influence corrections officials’ decisions to use 

segregation. Although segregation is designed for inmates who have a history 

of serious or chronic institutional misbehavior, or inmates who pose a risk to 

the safety or security of an institution (Browne et al., 2011; Riveland, 1999), 

it is unclear whether segregation is being used for only these inmates. The 

equitable use of segregation is of high importance to correctional administrators, 

civil rights advocates, the U.S. Congress, and President Obama, but it is 

unclear whether corrections officials use it equitably. If corrections officials 

use segregation inappropriately, or if disparate treatment of offender groups 

results from its use, some offender groups may endure a harsher confinement 

experience than others. This unfair treatment can also undermine the legitimacy 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 181 

of a prison organization, which could influence inmates’ willingness to defy 

prison rules and those of other legal authorities (Liebling, 2004; Sparks, Bottoms, 

& Hay, 1996; Useem & Kimball, 1989). 

This review finds that, for the most part, placement in any type of segregation 

does not affect offenders’ likelihood of institutional misconduct or their 

recidivism after their release from prison. In addition, using segregation 

at a higher rate or opening a supermax facility has little effect on rates of 

misconduct and violence across facilities or state prison systems. However, 

placement in segregation does increase inmates’ risk for self-harm (e.g., 

mutilation), and supermax facilities tend to have more suicides than do 

minimum-security facilities. 

It is also worth noting that the conclusions drawn here were based on only 16 

studies. These studies focused on different types of segregation (e.g., disciplinary 

segregation versus supermax confinement), different outcomes (e.g., misconduct 

versus self-harm), and different levels of analysis (e.g., individual versus facility). 

In addition, some of the samples were collected for other purposes (e.g., offenders 

under post-release supervision), so they may not accurately represent the inmate 

populations needed for these studies. Moreover, only one study examined the 

effects of segregation on jail inmates’ behavior. 

Once again, 16 studies across 40 years is too small an evidence base to inform 

practice. In particular, these studies were conducted at different levels of analysis, 

focused on different types of segregation, and examined different outcomes. An 

understanding of the relationship between institutional misconduct, violence, and 

segregation requires an evidence base related to the behavioral effects of exposure 

to different types of segregation. Corrections officials use segregation to reduce 

inmates’ problem behaviors (e.g., misconduct), but it is unclear whether it achieves 

this objective. The frequency with which segregation is used in prisons and jails 

— coupled with the desire of correctional administrators, civil rights advocates, 

the U.S. Congress, and President Obama for it to be used effectively — requires a 

knowledge base of the behavioral effects of the different types of segregation. 

The limited research into the factors that affect corrections officials’ use of 

segregation or the effects of segregation on offender behavior means that it is 

difficult to draw conclusions regarding the empirical support for the theories 

discussed above. Some study findings of corrections officials’ decision-making 

regarding the use of segregation seem to support both causal attribution theory 

and the focal concerns perspective discussed in this paper. Offenders with more 

significant criminal and misconduct histories, for example, would be considered 

more blameworthy and a greater risk to institutional safety. On the other hand, 

the findings regarding the effect of an inmate’s race and ethnicity would not 

support these perspectives. Findings pertaining to the nonsignificant effects of 

segregation on subsequent misbehavior also do not support deterrence theory 

or labeling/deviance amplification perspectives. There are simply too few studies 

of either the use or behavioral effects of segregation to draw any meaningful 
182 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

conclusions about the applicability of these theories. However, these perspectives 

may be useful for guiding future research. 

Several limitations of this study should be noted. Each potential limitation stems 

from differences between the studies reviewed herein. Some limitations of the 

studies included in the review are compounded by a synthesis of the findings 

from those studies. First, some researchers who examined the predictors of 

corrections officials’ use of segregation included a large number (e.g., “more 

than 10”) of variables in their final models, while others examined only the 

relative effects of a few variables. Differences in the number of variables included 

in models could contribute to study differences in scientific rigor (e.g., tenthorder partial correlation versus a third-order partial correlation). Second, some 

researchers who studied the effects of segregation on offender behavior used 

rigorous, quasi-experimental designs to match segregated inmates to inmates 

not exposed to segregation, while other researchers relied on multivariate 

regression analysis to control for observed differences between these two groups. 

Differences in the scientific rigor between these two types of studies may have 

influenced the findings. Finally, the findings were derived from the results of 

studies that involved different sample sizes and, occasionally, samples of different 

subpopulations (e.g., men) of the relevant inmate population (jail or prison). 

However, the findings from each study were evaluated equally in this review. 

Setting aside the limitations discussed above, this white paper is the most 

comprehensive review to date of the evidence related to the use and behavioral 

effects of segregation. Although the review uncovered some consistent patterns 

across the results of the studies included here, the data are not sufficient to 

place much faith in the findings. To be sure, the most important finding is the 

dearth of rigorous scientific research on these topics. The gaps in the research 

pertaining to the use of segregation and its effects on offender behavior are clear; 

additional research should be devoted to each of these topics. An understanding 

of the link between institutional misconduct, violence, and segregation requires 

knowledge of the types of offenses (e.g., violent) and offenders (e.g., those with 

more significant criminal histories) that influence corrections officials’ decisions 

regarding their use of segregation, and whether segregation affects inmates’ 

likelihood of perpetrating subsequent misconduct or violence. Once an evidence 

base related to the predictors of the use and behavioral effects of segregation 

is developed, future studies might pursue more nuanced topics related to the 

practice. Some avenues for future research are discussed below. 

Conclusions and Directions for Future Research 

Prison and jail officials are responsible for protecting society from the 

incarcerated population, but they are also legally responsible for protecting the 

individuals confined in their institutions (Park, 2000). Incarcerating people in 

prisons and jails, however, essentially gathers together people and property that 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 183 

 

are potential targets and persons who are likely to offend (Wooldredge & Steiner, 

2014). Indeed, rates of violence and violent victimization are higher in correctional 

facilities than in the general U.S. population, and corrections officials often 

respond to this violence and misconduct (or the threat of it) by using segregation 

to maintain order and safety. At any time, between 5 percent and 8 percent of the 

state prison population is held in some form of segregation (Baumgartel et al., 

2015; Shames et al., 2015). At least 20 percent of prison inmates and 18 percent of 

jail inmates spend time in segregation during their incarceration (Beck, 2015), yet 

scholars know very little about the incidents, inmates, and facility characteristics 

that affect the use of segregation or whether segregation is effective in reducing 

problem behaviors (e.g., misconduct, recidivism). 

This systematic review of the evidence found that, regardless of the type of 

segregation designated (e.g., disciplinary, administrative), corrections officials 

use segregation primarily for inmates with a history of serious (e.g., violent) or 

chronic institutional misconduct or those who pose a risk to the institutions’ 

safety or security. The researchers also found evidence that placement in 

segregation has no effect on offenders’ subsequent misbehavior (e.g., misconduct, 

recidivism), but that offenders placed in segregation are more at risk for selfharm. These findings should be interpreted with caution, however, given the 

relatively small number of studies conducted on these topics. The researchers also 

observed numerous limitations of these studies and between-study differences in 

the research methods used, which further lessens any confidence in the results. 

However, the review did uncover some important gaps in the evidence base from 

which the following questions were identified for future research. 

1. What are the predictors of corrections officials’ use of segregation? 

Over the past 40 years, only 10 studies have examined the factors that influence 

corrections officials’ decisions to use segregation; eight of those studies focused 

on disciplinary segregation. Most of this research is dated and has limited 

generalizability.2

 This review finds a clear need for research into the factors that 

influence corrections officials’ decision-making related to the use of segregation. 

The equitable use of segregation is of high importance to correctional 

administrators, civil rights advocates, the U.S. Congress, and President Obama, 

2

 Prison and jail populations have increased dramatically over the past several decades (Blumstein & Beck, 

2005; Western, 2006), so it may no longer be appropriate to generalize the results to inmates processed in 

contemporary prison and jail environments. Many of the studies also involved analysis of data collected from 

small samples drawn from one or two facilities, which limits the generalizability of study results and prevents 

researchers from including adequate control variables in their statistical models or from examining potential 

facility-level effects. Furthermore, some samples were selected for other purposes (e.g., the examination of 

behavior patterns of long-term inmates), so they do not represent the population of inmates who violated prison 

rules in the respective facilities. 
184 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

but it is unclear whether corrections officials use segregation equitably. For 

instance, segregation is designed for inmates who have a history of serious or 

chronic institutional misbehavior or inmates who pose a risk to institutional 

safety (Browne et al., 2011; Riveland, 1999), but there is not enough evidence to 

determine whether segregation is being reserved for these inmates. If corrections 

officials use segregation improperly, or if disparate treatment of offender groups 

results from its use, then some inmate groups may endure a harsher confinement 

experience than will others. This unfair or disparate treatment can also 

undermine the legitimacy of a correctional organization, which could influence 

inmates’ willingness to defy institutional rules and those of other legal authorities 

(Liebling, 2004; Sparks et al., 1996; Useem & Kimball, 1989). 

Moving forward, researchers should focus on the factors that affect corrections 

officials’ use of each type of segregation: disciplinary segregation, long-term 

administrative segregation, protective custody, temporary confinement, and 

supermax confinement. Researchers should also collect reasonably sized, 

representative samples of inmates who violate the rules of a corrections facility. 

Existing research should guide the selection of predictor variables to be 

considered in future studies, but given the parallels between the disciplinary 

process in correctional facilities and the criminal sentencing process, researchers 

might also draw on the theories discussed above, which have often been 

applied to criminal sentencing (e.g., focal concerns theory). Furthermore, these 

perspectives have already been used to explain sanctioning decisions made by 

other justice system officials during administrative proceedings (e.g., parole 

revocation) where offenders enjoy fewer rights than criminal defendants, 

including prison disciplinary proceedings (e.g., Butler & Steiner, in press; 

Huebner & Bynum, 2006; Lin et al., 2010; Steiner et al., 2011). Applying causal 

attribution theory or the focal concerns perspective to the punishment process 

in correctional institutions permits an assessment of whether these theories are 

general to decision-making related to criminal punishment. The theories also 

contribute to a more reasonable explanation of why particular incidents, inmates, 

and facility characteristics may influence officials’ use of segregation. Such an 

understanding could lead to strategies designed to curb disparate treatment of 

inmate groups that may result from officials’ decision-making regarding the use 

of segregation. 

Finally, researchers might consider conducting multisite studies to increase the 

generalizability of their results and to permit analysis of facility-level effects, 

but only if inmates from enough facilities are included. Research on criminal 

courts has uncovered various sentencing outcomes across court organizations 

(Eisenstein et al., 1988; Ulmer, 2012; Ulmer & Johnson, 2004; Wang & Mears, 

2010), and similar variation in case outcomes may exist across prisons (Butler & 

Steiner, in press). 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 185 

2. Do an inmate’s gender, race, or ethnicity moderate the effects of 

predictors of corrections officials’ use of segregation? 

Prison and jail populations have increased dramatically over the past several 

decades. The percentage of racial and ethnic minorities and female inmates is 

notably higher today than in the 1970s, 1980s, or 1990s (Blumstein & Beck, 2005; 

Western, 2006). Yet, no studies have examined the moderating effects of gender, 

race, and ethnicity on the influences of corrections officials’ use of segregation, 

even though such examinations are relatively common in studies of judicial 

sentencing decisions (e.g., Baumer, 2013; Brennan, 2006; Brennan & Spohn, 

2009; Griffin & Wooldredge, 2006; Steffensmeier & Demuth, 2006; Wooldredge 

et al., 2005). There may be race, ethnic, or gender group differences in the 

effects of particular case (e.g., violent offense) or individual characteristics (e.g., 

misconduct history) on officials’ decisions to use segregation. Indeed, researchers 

of criminal sentencing outcomes have uncovered these hidden disparities (e.g., 

Griffin & Wooldredge, 2006; Steffensmeier & Demuth, 2006; Wooldredge et al., 

2005). However, evidence that an inmate’s gender, race, and ethnicity can have a 

moderating effect on corrections officials’ use of segregation is nonexistent. 

The equitable use of segregation is of high importance to correctional 

administrators, civil rights advocates, the U.S. Congress, and President Obama. 

An examination of whether an inmate’s gender, race, or ethnicity moderates the 

effects of the predictors of segregation use would shed light on possible hidden 

disparities in corrections officials’ use of segregation. Determining whether 

these disparities exist is important for understanding the relationship between 

institutional misconduct, violence, and segregation. For instance, if committing 

a violent misconduct is associated with placement in segregation, then this 

relationship should be similar in magnitude for men and women, and across 

different racial and ethnic groups. If the magnitude of the violent misconductsegregation relationship differs across these groups, then there are unwanted 

disparities in the treatment of some inmate groups. Such unfair or disparate 

treatment of inmate groups can undermine the legitimacy of a correctional 

organization, which could influence inmates’ willingness to defy institutional 

rules and those of other authorities (Sparks et al., 1996; Useem & Kimball 1989). 

3. What are the effects of segregation on inmate behavior? 

Over the past four decades, only 16 studies were conducted regarding the effects 

of segregation on inmate behavior. They examined the effects of different types 

of segregation (e.g., disciplinary, long-term administrative segregation), different 

outcomes (e.g., recidivism, self-harm), and different levels of analysis (e.g., 

individual, state). In some, the samples were collected for other purposes, so they 

do not accurately represent the inmate populations needed for these studies. 
186 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

 

Institutional misconduct and violence threaten the safety and order of a 

correctional institution. Corrections officials frequently respond to these 

behaviors by placing inmates in segregation. A notable percentage of inmates are 

held in segregation at any given time, and a significant number of inmates spend 

some time in segregation during incarceration (Baumgartel et al., 2015; Beck, 

2015; Shames et al., 2015); yet, few studies have assessed whether segregation 

is effective in reducing offenders’ problem behaviors. There is a clear need for 

studies that examine the effects of different types of segregation (e.g., disciplinary 

segregation, long-term administrative segregation) on offender behavior. 

An experimental design for such a study is not possible for ethical reasons — 

inmates cannot be randomly assigned to segregation (Mears, 2008, 2013; O’Keefe, 

2008). Instead, researchers should examine large samples of inmates who are 

eligible for segregation, and should consider using rigorous quasi-experimental 

designs that involve matching techniques (e.g., propensity score matching) to 

estimate the effects of segregation on offender behavior. Researchers should also 

focus on different behavioral outcomes, including those that tap subsequent 

criminality (e.g., misconduct, recidivism), along with other measures of 

institutional violence (e.g., self-harm). 

An understanding of the behavioral effects of segregation would help to determine 

whether the theories discussed above (e.g., deterrence) could be applied to its use 

in prisons and jails. Knowledge about whether segregation — or different lengths 

of segregation — will deter or amplify an offender’s problem behaviors (e.g., 

misconduct, violence) would be immediately useful to corrections officials who 

rely on segregation to regulate inmate behavior in their facilities. If segregation 

is effective in curbing inmate misconduct, for example, then corrections officials 

might use it more often. Similarly, if five days in segregation has the same 

misconduct-reducing effect as 10 days, then corrections officials might reduce the 

time that inmates spend in segregation. These are critical questions for both theory 

and practice, but the current evidence base is insufficient for drawing conclusions. 

4. Are there inmate and facility characteristics that moderate the 

effects of segregation on inmate behavior? 

Labrecque (2015) observed that the effects of disciplinary segregation and length 

of time spent there were affected by inmate mental health and gang involvement. 

That is, inmates with mental health problems and inmates involved with 

gangs who were placed in segregation, or spent longer periods in segregation, 

were more likely to commit subsequent misconduct and to do so with greater 

frequency. Other studies of possible moderating effects are nonexistent, however. 

Researchers who have examined the effects of criminal justice sanctions (e.g., 

arrest, prosecution) on recidivism have discovered that sanctions are more 

effective with individuals who are good risks or those who have a greater stake 

in conforming (e.g., Berk, Campbell, Klap, & Western, 1992; Dejong, 1997; 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 187 

Sherman, Smith, Schmidt, & Rogan, 1992; Thistlethwaite, Wooldredge, & Gibbs, 

1998; Wooldredge & Thistlethwaite, 2002). It seems reasonable, therefore, that 

particular groups of inmates (in addition to those with mental health problems 

and gang involvement) may be at higher risk for subsequent misbehavior or 

maladjustment from being placed in segregation. However, inmates with other 

characteristics may have a lower risk of misbehavior or maladjustment after time 

in segregation. In addition, a multisite study could uncover facility characteristics 

that influence the effects of segregation on inmate behavior. All of these avenues 

are fruitful areas for future inquiry. Researchers might begin by examining the 

potential moderating effects of the causes and correlates of inmate misconduct 

and violence identified by the recent systematic reviews of the literature 

discussed above (Steiner et al., 2014; Steiner & Cain, in press). 

Information pertaining to differential effects of segregation on inmate behavior 

could be important for informing both theory and practice. From a theoretical 

perspective, a finding that inmate or facility characteristics moderate the 

behavioral effects of segregation would align with researchers’ findings related to 

conditional deterrent effects in the broader criminological literature 

(e.g., Berk et al., 1992; Dejong, 1997; Sherman et al., 1992; Thistlethwaite et 

al., 1998; Wooldredge & Thistlethwaite, 2002). Practitioners could use this 

information to determine which inmates might be more suitable for segregation, 

rather than an alternative sanction. The importance of institutional safety to 

corrections officials underscores the need for research that not only identifies 

whether sanctions such as segregation are effective in curbing misconduct and 

violence, but also whether these sanctions are more effective or less effective for 

particular inmates or in particular facility environments. 

5. What are the predictors of officials’ use of segregation in jails, and 

of the effects of jail segregation on individuals’ subsequent behavior? 

Although each of the questions for future research identified above applies to 

prisons, each also applies to jails, and the need for this research in jails merits 

additional discussion (see also Haney et al., 2016). This is not to say that research 

in jails should take priority over research in prisons. It is only to reiterate that 

the findings from this review suggest that research into segregation use in jails 

is considerably more scarce than similar research into its use in prisons. In fact, 

only one study included in this review focused on jail inmates. 

Approximately one-third of the U.S. incarcerated population is confined in 

local jails. The volume of people who enter jails each year is far greater than 

the number who enter prisons (Glaze & Kaeble, 2014). Nearly one-fifth of jail 

inmates spend time in some form of restrictive housing during incarceration 

(Beck, 2015); yet, this review uncovered no studies of the predictors of officials’ 

use of segregation in jails and only one study of the behavioral effects of jail 

segregation. To paraphrase Haney and colleagues (2016:131), segregated housing 
188 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

in jails is among the least-studied components of the criminal justice system, 

even though jails affect more people per year than do prisons and segregation 

is experienced by a significant percentage of people incarcerated in jails. More 

research on this topic is clearly needed. Study findings pertaining to the use of 

segregation in jails and the effects of jail segregation on individuals’ subsequent 

behavior (e.g., misconduct, violence) could provide useful insights for 

practitioners working within jails. 

In conclusion, institutional misconduct and violence threaten the safety and 

order of a correctional facility, making both behaviors high priorities for 

correctional administrators (DiIulio, 1987; Gendreau et al., 1997; Steiner & 

Wooldredge, 2009; Steiner et al., 2014; Toch & Grant, 1989). Corrections officials 

often use segregation in response to inmate misconduct and violence, expecting 

the experience to regulate inmate behavior and promote order and safety 

within their institutions (Browne et al., 2011; DiIulio, 1987; Reassessing Solitary 

Confinement II, 2014). If segregation is used in response to serious (e.g., violent) 

or chronic institutional misconduct and is effective in curbing institutional 

misconduct and violence, then there is a logical relationship when an inmate’s 

misconduct and violence (or a propensity to engage in these behaviors) initiates 

the use of segregation, which in turn reduces these problem behaviors. If other 

factors (e.g., age, mental health) initiate the use of segregation or exposure to 

segregation amplifies an inmate’s risk for perpetrating misconduct or violence, 

then the relationship is less straightforward. 

This systematic review of the literature finds that corrections officials use 

segregation primarily for inmates who have a history of serious (e.g., violent) or 

chronic institutional misconduct, or for those who pose a risk to the safety or 

security of an institution. It also reveals that exposure to segregation has no effect 

on offenders’ subsequent misbehavior (e.g., misconduct, violence, recidivism), 

but does increase their risk for self-harm. It is also clear that very few studies 

have examined the factors that affect the use of segregation or its effectiveness in 

reducing inmates’ problem behaviors (e.g., misconduct). These are clear gaps in 

the knowledge base related to the relationship between institutional misconduct, 

violence, and segregation. This review identifies important questions for future 

research in light of the emphasis that correctional administrators place on 

institutional safety (Gendreau et al., 1997; Steiner & Wooldredge, 2009; Steiner 

et al., 2014), how frequently segregation is used to promote safety (Beck, 2015), 

and how much additional cost is involved in housing inmates in segregation 

relative to housing the general prison population (e.g., American Civil Liberties 

Union of Texas, 2015; Briggs et al., 2003; Butler, Steiner, Makarios, & Travis, in 

press; Metcalf, Resnik, & Quattlebaum, 2015; Shames et al., 2015). The equitable 

and effective use of segregation is also a high priority for civil rights advocates, 

the U.S. Congress, and President Obama (e.g., Amnesty International, 2014; 

Reassessing Solitary Confinement II, 2014; Obama, 2015; U.S. Senate Committee 

on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human 

Rights, 2014), and so the need for this research is great. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 189 

References 

Albonetti, C. A. (1991). An integration of theories to explain judicial discretion. 

Social Problems, 38(2), 247-266. 

American Civil Liberties Union of Texas. (2015, February). A solitary failure: The 

waste, cost and harm of solitary confinement in Texas. 

Amnesty International. (2014). Entombed: Isolation in the U.S. federal prison system. 

Babcock, W. (1981). Due process in prison disciplinary proceedings. Boston 

College Law Review, 22(5), 1009-1096. 

Bales, W. D., & Miller, C. H. (2012). The impact of determinate sentencing on 

prisoner misconduct. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(5), 394-403. 

Baumer, E. P. (2013). Reassessing and redirecting research on race and 

sentencing. Justice Quarterly, 30(2), 231-261. 

Baumgartel, S., Guilmette, C., Kalb, J., Li, D., Nuni, J., Porter, D., Resnik, J. (2015). 

Time-in-cell: The ASCA-Liman 2014 national survey of administrative segregation 

in prison. Public Law Research Paper No. 552. Yale Law School 1(3). Available at 

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2655627 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2655627. 

Beck, A. J. (2015). Use of restrictive housing in U.S. prisons and jails, 2011–12. 

NCJ 249209. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Beck, A., Berzofsky, M., Caspar, R., Krebs, C. (2013). Sexual victimization in 

prisons and jails reported by inmates, 2011-12. NCJ 241399. Washington, DC: 

Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Beck, A., & Harrison, P. M. (2010). Sexual victimization in prisons and jails reported 

by inmates, 2008-09. NCJ 231169. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Beck, A., & Johnson, C. (2012). Sexual victimization reported by former state 

inmates, 2008. NCJ 237363. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Becker, H. S. (1968). On labeling outsiders. Deviance: The Interactionist 

Perspective, 13-17. 

Berk, R. A., Campbell, A., Klap, R., & Western, B. (1992). The deterrent effect 

of arrest in incidents of domestic violence: A Bayesian analysis of four field 

experiments. American Sociological Review, 57(5), 698-708. 

Blumstein, A., & Beck, A. J. (2005). Reentry as a transient state between liberty 

and recommitment, 56. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 

Brennan, P. K. (2006). Sentencing female misdemeanants: An examination of the 

direct and indirect effects of race/ethnicity. Justice Quarterly, 23(1), 60-95. 
190 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Brennan, P. K. (2009). The joint effects of offender race/ethnicity and sex on 

sentencing outcomes. In M. Krohn, A. Lizotte, & G. Penly Hall (Eds.), Handbook 

on crime and deviance (pp. 319-347). New York, NY: Springer. 

Brennan, P. K., & Spohn, C. (2009). The joint effects of offender race/ethnicity 

and sex on sentence length decisions in federal courts. Race and social problems, 

1(4), 200-217. 

Bridges, G. S., & Steen, S. (1998). Racial disparities in official assessments of 

juvenile offenders: Attributional stereotypes as mediating mechanisms. American 

Sociological Review, 63(4), 554-570. 

Briggs, C. S., Sundt, J. L., & Castellano, T. C. (2003). The effect of supermaximum 

security prisons on aggregate levels of institutional violence. Criminology, 41(4), 

1341-1376. 

Browne, A., Cambier, A., & Agha, S. (2011). Prisons within prisons: The use of 

segregation in the United States. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 24(1), 46-49. 

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2007). Survey of inmates in state and federal 

correctional facilities, 2004, ICPSR-4572. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Justice. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social 

Research (distributor). 

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2010). Census of adult state and federal correctional 

facilities, 2005, ICPSR-24642-v2. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. 

Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research 

(distributor). 

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2012a). Survey of inmates in local jails, 2002, ICPSR04359-v2. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Ann Arbor, MI: InterUniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research (distributor). 

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2015a). Annual survey of jails, 2014, ICPSR-36274-v1. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University 

Consortium for Political and Social Research (distributor). 

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2015b). National inmate survey, 2011-2012, ICPSR35009-v1. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Ann Arbor, MI: InterUniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research (distributor). 

Butler, H. D., & Steiner, B. (in press). Examining the use of disciplinary 

segregation within and across prisons. Justice Quarterly. 

Butler, H. D., Steiner, B., Makarios, M., & Travis, L. (in press). Assessing the 

effects of exposure to supermax confinement on offender post-release behaviors. 

The Prison Journal. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 191 

Camp, S. D., Gaes, G. G., Langan, N. P., & Saylor, W. G. (2003). The influence 

of prisons on inmate misconduct: A multilevel investigation. Justice Quarterly, 

20(3), 501-533. 

Catalano, S. (2005). Criminal victimization, 2004. Special report. NCJ 210674. 

Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Catalano, S. (2006). Criminal victimization, 2005. Special report. NCJ 214644. 

Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Cochran, J. C., & Mears, D. P. (2013). Social isolation and inmate behavior: A 

conceptual framework for theorizing prison visitation and guiding and assessing 

research. Journal of Criminal Justice, 41(4), 252-261. 

Crouch, B. M. (1985). The significance of minority status to discipline severity in 

prison. Sociological Focus, 18(3), 221-233. 

Daly, K. (1987). Discrimination in the criminal courts: Family, gender, and the 

problem of equal treatment. Social Forces, 66(1), 152-175. 

DeJong, C. (1997). Survival analysis and specific deterrence: Integrating 

theoretical and empirical models of recidivism. Criminology, 35(4), 561-576. 

DiIulio, Jr., J. J. (1987). Governing prisons: A comparative study of correctional 

management. New York, NY: The Free Press. 

Dixon, J. (1995). The organizational context of criminal sentencing. American 

Journal of Sociology, 100(5), 1157-1198. 

Dye, M. H. (2010). Deprivation, importation, and prison suicide: Combined 

effects of institutional conditions and inmate composition. Journal of Criminal 

Justice, 38(4), 796-806. 

Eisenstein, J., Flemming, R. B., & Nardulli, P. F. (1988). The contours of justice: 

Communities and their courts. Boston, MA: Little, Brown. 

Farrell, R. A., & Holmes, M. D. (1991). The social and cognitive structure of legal 

decision-making. The Sociological Quarterly, 32(4), 529-542. 

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2003). Crime in the United States, 2002. 

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2006). Crime in the United States, 2005. 

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2015). Crime in the United States, 2014. 

Flanagan, T. J. (1982). Discretion in the prison justice system: A study of 

sentencing in institutional disciplinary proceedings. Journal of Research in Crime 

and Delinquency, 19(2), 216-237. 
192 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

 

Glaze, L. E., & Kaeble, D. (2014). Correctional populations in the United States, 

2013. NCJ 248479. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Grasmick, H. G., & Bursik Jr., R. J. (1990). Conscience, significant others, and 

rational choice: Extending the deterrence model. Law and Society Review, 24(3), 

837-861. 

Gendreau, P., Goggin, C. E., & Law, M. A. (1997). Predicting prison misconducts. 

Criminal Justice and Behavior, 24(4), 414-431. doi: 10.1177/0093854897024004002. 

Griffin, M. L., & Hepburn, J. R. (2006). The effect of gang affiliation on violent 

misconduct among inmates during the early years of confinement. Criminal 

Justice and Behavior, 33(4), 419-466. 

Griffin, T., & Wooldredge, J. (2006). Sex-based disparities in felony dispositions 

before versus after sentencing reform in Ohio. Criminology, 44(4), 893-923. 

Hawkins, D. F. (1987). Beyond anomalies: Rethinking the conflict perspective on 

race and criminal punishment. Social Forces, 65(3), 719-745. 

Haney, C. (2003). Mental health issues in long-term solitary and “supermax” 

confinement. Crime and Delinquency, 49(1), 124-156. 

Haney, C., Weill, J., Bakhshay, S., & Lockett, T. (2016). Examining jail isolation: What 

we don’t know can be profoundly harmful. The Prison Journal, 96(1), 126-152. 

Howard, C., Winfree, L. T., Mays, G. L., Stohr, M. K., & Clason, D. L. (1994). 

Processing inmate disciplinary infractions in a federal correctional institution: 

Legal and extralegal correlates of prison-based legal decisions. The Prison 

Journal, 74(1), 5-31. 

Huebner, B. M. (2003). Administrative determinants of inmate violence: A 

multilevel analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31(2), 107-117. 

Huebner, B. M., & Bynum, T. S. (2006). An analysis of parole decision making using a 

sample of sex offenders: A focal concerns perspective. Criminology, 44(4), 961. 

Johnson, B. D. (2006). The multilevel context of criminal sentencing: Integrating 

judge- and county-level influences. Criminology, 44(2), 259. 

Kaba, F., Lewis, A., Glowa-Kollisch, S., Hadler, J., Lee, D., Alper, H, Selling, D. 

... Venters, H. (2014). Solitary confinement and risk of self-harm among jail 

inmates. American Journal of Public Health, 104(3), 442-447. 

King, K., Steiner, B., & Breach, S. R. (2008). Violence in the supermax: A selffulfilling prophecy. The Prison Journal, 88(1), 144-168. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 193 

Koons-Witt, B. A. (2002). The effect of gender on the decision to incarcerate before 

and after the introduction of sentencing guidelines. Criminology, 40(2), 297-328. 

Kupers, T. A. (2008). What to do with the survivors? Coping with the long-term 

effects of isolated confinement. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(8), 1005-1016. 

Labrecque, R. (2015). The effect of solitary confinement on institutional 

misconduct: A longitudinal evaluation. Doctoral dissertation. University of 

Cincinnati, Division of Criminal Justice. 

Lanes, E. C. (2009). The association of administrative segregation placement 

and other risk factors with the self-injury-free time of male prisoners. Journal of 

Offender Rehabilitation, 48(6), 529-546. 

Lemert, E. (1951). Social pathology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. 

Liebling, A. (2004). Prisons and their moral performance: A study of values, 

quality, and prison life. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 

Lin, J., Grattet, R., & Petersilia, J. (2010). Back-end sentencing and 

reimprisonment: Individual, organizational, and community predictors of parole 

sanctioning decisions. Criminology, 48(3), 759-795. 

Lindquist, C. A. (1980). Prison discipline and the female offender. Journal of 

Offender Counseling, Services and Rehabilitation, 4(4), 305-318. 

Lovell, D., & Johnson L. C. (2004). Felony and violent recidivism among 

supermax prison inmates in Washington state: A pilot study. Seattle, WA: 

University of Washington. 

Lovell, D., Johnson, L. C., & Cain, K. C. (2007). Recidivism of supermax 

prisoners in Washington state. Crime and Delinquency, 53(4), 633-656. 

Marx, G. T. (1981). Ironies of social control: Authorities as contributors to deviance 

through escalation, nonenforcement and covert facilitation. Social Problems, 28(3), 

221-246. 

McClellan, D. S. (1994). Disparity in the discipline of male and female inmates in 

Texas prisons. Women & Criminal Justice, 5(2), 71-97. 

McGinnis, K., Austin, J., Becker, K., Fields, L., Lane, M., Maloney, M., Marcial, 

M., ... Felix. T. (2014). Federal Bureau of Prisons: Special housing unit review and 

assessment. Arlington, VA: CNA Analysis and Solutions. 

Mears, D. P. (2008). An assessment of supermax prisons using an evaluation 

research framework. The Prison Journal, 88(1), 43-68. 
194 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Mears, D. P. (2013). Supermax prisons: The policy and the evidence. Criminology 

and Public Policy, 12(4), 681-719. 

Mears, D. P., & Bales, W. D. (2009). Supermax incarceration and recidivism. 

Criminology, 47(4), 1131-1166. 

Mears, D. P., & Bales, W. D. (2010). Supermax housing: Placement, duration, and 

time to reentry. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(4), 545-554. 

Metcalf, H., Morgan, J., Oliker-Friedland, S., Resnik, J., Spiegel, J., Tae, H., Work, 

A. R., & Holbrook, B. (2013). Administrative segregation, degrees of isolation, and 

incarceration: A national overview of state and federal correctional policies. New 

Haven, CT: Liman Public Interest Program. 

Metcalf, H., Resnik, J., & Quattlebaum, M. (2015, January). Isolation and 

reintegration: Punishment circa 2014. New Haven, CT: The Seventeenth Annual 

Liman Colloquium. 

Morris, R. G. (2016). Exploring the effect of exposure to short-term solitary 

confinement among violent prison inmates. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 

32(1), 1-22. 

Motiuk, L. L., & Blanchette, K. (2001). Characteristics of administratively 

segregated offenders in federal corrections. Canadian Journal of Criminology and 

Criminal Justice, 43(1), 131-143. 

Mumola, C. J. (2005). Suicide and homicide in state prisons and local jails. Special 

report. NCJ 210036. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Nagin, D. S., Cullen, F. T., & Jonson, C. L. (2009). Imprisonment and reoffending. 

In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 38, pp. 115-200. 

Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 

Nagin, D. S., & Paternoster, R. (1993). Enduring individual differences and 

rational choice theories of crime. Law and Society Review, 27(3), 467-496. 

Obama, B. (2015, July 14). Remarks by the President at the NAACP conference 

in Philadelphia. 

O’Keefe, M. L. (2008). Administrative segregation from within: A corrections 

perspective. The Prison Journal, 88(1), 123-143. 

Park, J. J. (2000). Redefining Eighth Amendment punishments: A new standard 

for determining the liability of prison officials for failing to protect inmates from 

serious harm. Quinnipiac Law Review, 20, 407-807. 

Pizarro, J. M., & Stenius, V. M. K. (2004). Supermax prisons: Their rise, current 

practices, and effect on inmates. The Prison Journal, 84(2), 248-264. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 195 

Rand, M. R. (2009). Criminal victimization, 2008. NCJ 227777. Washington, DC: 

Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Reassessing solitary confinement II: The human rights, fiscal, and public 

safety consequences. Hearings before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on 

the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights, 113th Congress (2014) 

(Testimony of G. Mohr on behalf of the Association of State Correctional 

Administrators, Feb. 25, 2014). 

Riveland, C. (1999). Supermax prisons: Overview and general considerations. 

Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections. 

Schafer, N. E. (1986). Discretion, due process, and the prison discipline 

committee. Criminal Justice Review, 11(2), 37-46. 

Shames, A., Wilcox, J., & Subramanian, R. (2015). Solitary confinement: Common 

misconceptions and emerging safe alternatives. New York, NY: Vera Institute of Justice. 

Sherman, L. W., Smith, D. A., Schmidt, J. D., & Rogan, D. P. (1992). Crime, 

punishment, and stake in conformity: Legal and informal control of domestic 

violence. American Sociological Review, 57(5), 680-690. 

Smith, P. S. (2006). The effects of solitary confinement on prison inmates: A brief 

history and review of the literature. Crime and Justice, 34, 441-528. 

Smith, D. A., & Paternoster, R. (1990). Formal processing and future 

delinquency: Deviance amplification as selection artifact. Law and Society 

Review, 24(5), 1109-1131. 

Sparks, J. R., Bottoms, A. E., & Hay, W. (1996). Prisons and the problem of order. 

Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 

Steffensmeier, D., & Demuth, S. (2000). Ethnicity and sentencing outcomes in 

US federal courts: Who is punished more harshly? American Sociological Review, 

65(5), 705-729. 

Steffensmeier, D., & Demuth, S. (2006). Does gender modify the effects of race– 

ethnicity on criminal sanctioning? Sentences for male and female white, black, 

and Hispanic defendants. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 22(3), 241-261. 

Steffensmeier, D., Ulmer, J., & Kramer, J. (1998). The interaction of race, gender, 

and age in criminal sentencing: The punishment cost of being young, black, and 

male. Criminology, 36(4), 763-798. 

Steiner, B. (2009). Assessing static and dynamic influences on inmate violence 

levels. Crime and Delinquency, 55(1), 134-161. 
196 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Steiner, B., Butler, H. D., & Ellison, J. M. (2014). Causes and correlates of prison 

inmate misconduct: A systematic review of the evidence. Journal of Criminal 

Justice, 42(6), 462-470. 

Steiner, B., & Cain, C. M. (in press). Assessing the predictors and consequences of 

institutional violence: A systematic review of the evidence. White Paper submitted 

to the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. 

Steiner, B., Travis III, L. F., Makarios, M. D., & Meade, B. (2011). Short-term 

effects of sanctioning reform on parole officers’ revocation decisions. Law and 

Society Review, 45(2), 371-400. 

Steiner, B., & Wooldredge, J. (2008a). Comparing state versus facility effects on 

crowding in U.S. correctional facilities. Crime and Delinquency, 54(2), 259-290. 

Steiner, B., & Wooldredge, J. (2008b). Inmate versus facility effects on prison rule 

violations. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(4), 438-456. 

Steiner, B., & Wooldredge, J. (2009). The relevance of inmate race/ethnicity 

versus population composition for understanding prison rule violations. 

Punishment and Society, 11(4), 459-489. 

Stephan, J. (1989). Prison rule violators. NCJ 120344. Washington, DC: Bureau of 

Justice Statistics. 

Sundt, J. L., Castellano, T. C., & Briggs, C. S. (2008). The sociopolitical context of 

prison violence and its control: A case study of supermax and its effect in Illinois. 

The Prison Journal, 88(1), 94-122. 

Taxman, F. S., Soule, D., & Gelb, A. (1999). Graduated sanctions: Stepping into 

accountable systems and offenders. The Prison Journal, 79(2), 182-204. 

Thistlethwaite, A., Wooldredge, J. D., & Gibbs, D. (1998). Severity of dispositions 

and the likelihood of domestic violence recidivism. Crime and Delinquency, 

44(3), 388-398. 

Thomas, J., Mika, H., Blakemore, J., & Aylward, A. (1991). Exacting control 

through disciplinary hearings: “Making do” with prison rules. Justice Quarterly, 

8(1), 37-57. 

Toch, H. (2001). The future of supermax confinement. The Prison Journal, 81(3), 

376-388. 

Toch, H., Adams, K., & Grant, J. D. (1989). Coping: Maladaptation in prisons. 

New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. 

Ulmer, J. T. (2012). Recent developments and new directions in sentencing 

research. Justice Quarterly, 29(1), 1-40. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 197 

Ulmer, J. T., & Johnson, B. (2004). Sentencing in context: A multilevel analysis. 

Criminology, 42(1), 137-178. 

Useem, B., & Kimball, P. (1989). States of siege: U.S. prison riots, 1971-1986. New 

York, NY: Oxford University Press. 

Wang, X., & Mears, D. P. (2010). A multilevel test of minority threat effects on 

sentencing. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 26(2), 191-215. 

Western, B. (2006). Punishment and inequality in America. New York, NY: Russell 

Sage Foundation. 

Wilkins, L. T. (1964). Social deviance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 

Wooldredge, J. D. (1994). Inmate crime and victimization in a southwestern 

correctional facility. Journal of Criminal Justice, 22(4), 367-381. 

Wooldredge, J. D. (1998). Inmate lifestyles and opportunities for victimization. 

Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 35(4), 480-502. 

Wooldredge, J., Griffin, T., & Rauschenberg, F. (2005). (Un)anticipated effects 

of sentencing reform on the disparate treatment of defendants. Law and Society 

Review, 39(4), 835-874. 

Wooldredge, J., & Steiner, B. (2014). A bi-level framework for understanding 

prisoner victimization. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 30(1), 141-162. 

Wooldredge, J., & Steiner, B. (2015). A macro-level perspective on prison inmate 

deviance. Punishment and Society, 17(2), 230-257. 

Wooldredge, J., & Thistlethwaite, A. (2002). Reconsidering domestic violence 

recidivism: Conditioned effects of legal controls by individual and aggregate 

levels of stake in conformity. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 18(1), 45-70. 

Wolff, N., Blitz, C. L., Shi, J., Siegel, J., & Bachman, R. (2007). Physical violence inside 

prisons: Rates of victimization. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(5), 588-599. 

Wolff, N., Morgan, R. D., & Shi, J. (2013). Comparative analysis of attitudes 

and emotions among inmates: Does mental illness matter? Criminal Justice and 

Behavior, 40(10), 1092-1108. 

Case Cited 

Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974). 

Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 199 

CHAPTER 6 

Mental Health Effects of 

Restrictive Housing 

Reena Kapoor, M.D.
 

Yale School of Medicine
 

Robert Trestman, M.D., Ph.D.
 

University of Connecticut School of Medicine
 

Introduction 

The practice of housing prisoners in solitary confinement — typically 

defined as 23 hours a day of in-cell restriction with minimal social 

contact — has come under increased scrutiny in recent years. Human 

rights advocates have described the practice as torture (United Nations, 

2011), while corrections officials have historically asserted that the practice is 

necessary to maintain the safety and security of prisons. The debate has become 

so contentious that opponents cannot even agree about what term to use to 

describe the practice, with prison officials preferring “segregation” to the more 

emotionally charged term “solitary confinement.” In practice, correctional 

systems throughout the U.S. use many terms to describe the same phenomenon: 

“administrative segregation,” “enhanced supervision,” “behavior modification,” 

“secure housing,” “special housing,” “restrictive housing,” “supermax,” “intensive 

management,” “close supervision,” and several others (Liman & Association of 

State Correctional Administrators, 2015, p. 1). In this paper, “restrictive housing” 
200 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

will be used to include all circumstances in which prisoners are removed from 

the general population of the institution and confined to their cells for more than 

22 hours per day. 

A recent report on administrative segregation practices estimates that 80,000 to 

100,000 prisoners are in restrictive housing settings in the U.S. on any given day 

(Liman & ASCA, 2015). Prisoners are generally placed in restrictive housing 

for one of three reasons: (1) for their own protection (protective custody), (2) 

because they pose an ongoing security threat (administrative segregation), or 

(3) as a disciplinary sanction for violating prison rules (disciplinary custody). 

Each of these categories is theoretically distinct, but they are all used to enhance 

institutional safety, and the prisoners’ conditions of confinement are often very 

similar. A typical restrictive housing cell is approximately 6 feet by 10 feet and 

includes a bed (or two), sink, toilet, and desk. The cell may or may not have a 

window, and prisoners may or may not be able to control conditions such as 

lighting, temperature, and noise. Outside recreation occurs in a small, fencedin area. Prisoners have minimal face-to-face contact with each other but often 

communicate by yelling or passing notes under doors. 

The debate about the effects of restrictive housing is wide-ranging, but a central 

focus in recent years has been on whether the practice is psychologically harmful 

to prisoners. Popular media sources have documented numerous biographical 

accounts of prisoners’ harrowing experiences in solitary confinement (Gawande, 

2009; Guenther, 2012). In addition, mental health professionals and historians 

have written several reviews about the psychological effects of solitary 

confinement, concluding that the practice causes psychological harm (Grassian, 

2006; Haney, 2003; Shalev, 2008; Grassian & Friedman, 1986; Scharff-Smith, 

2006). Some scholars and advocates have considered this body of evidence 

conclusive, stating that there is no longer any question that solitary confinement 

causes serious and long-lasting psychological damage (Arrigo & Bullock, 

2008; Haney, 2003; Grassian, 2006; Human Rights Watch, 2015; ACLU, 2014). 

However, other scholars have been more circumspect (O’Keefe, 2007; Bonta 

& Gendreau, 1990; Gendreau & Labrecque, 2015), pointing to the dangers of 

drawing conclusions from studies with imperfect scientific methods (e.g., small 

sample sizes, lack of control groups), questionable applicability to modern 

prisons (e.g., sensory deprivation experiments in laboratories), and potential for 

bias (e.g., conducting studies in the context of litigation). 

Indeed, restrictive housing is a notoriously difficult practice to study. Restrictive 

housing units all have some characteristics in common — social isolation, 

changes in sensory stimulation, and confinement beyond the experiences of the 

general prison population (Zubek, Bayer, & Shephard, 1969) — but the degree 

to which each of these characteristics is present in a given facility or housing 

unit varies greatly between institutions. Therefore, scientific studies conducted 

in different housing units around the country — let alone the world — may 

actually be studying very different conditions, and extrapolating the results from 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 201 

one setting to another may be erroneous. These differences make it challenging 

for scholars, administrators, or legislators to draw broad-based conclusions 

with certainty. Currently, there is simply no way to standardize conditions 

in restrictive housing units and conduct the type of large-scale, randomized 

controlled studies that would be optimal from a scientific perspective. Thus, we 

are left with imperfect data from which to draw conclusions and make decisions 

about the appropriate management of prisoners. 

This white paper will review the current state of scientific evidence about the 

psychological effects of restrictive housing. First, it describes the method by 

which the review was conducted. Second, it discusses critiques of the literature 

and the challenges that face researchers attempting to conduct rigorous scientific 

investigations of restrictive housing. It examines the evidence about several 

factors relevant to mental health in restrictive housing: 

• The purpose, duration, and conditions of confinement. 

• Access to mental health care. 

• Development or exacerbation of psychiatric symptoms. 

• The influence of age, gender, intellectual disability, and mental illness. 

• Rates of self-injury, psychiatric hospitalization, and institutional misconduct. 

It then reviews the consensus statements of major mental health professional 

organizations. Finally, it identifies gaps in the current knowledge and 

recommends future research and policy changes. 

Method of Review 

This review includes articles in English-language, peer-reviewed medical, legal, 

and social science journals; book chapters; and published dissertations that 

present empirical data related to mental health and restrictive housing. Studies 

were first identified using PubMed, the Social Science Research Network (SSRN), 

and Google using combinations of the search terms “solitary confinement,” 

“administrative segregation,” “supermax,” “psychological effect,” “psychiatric 

effect,” and “mental health.” Bibliographies of key articles (Haney, 2003; Grassian, 

2006; Scharff-Smith, 2006; Shalev, 2008; Gendreau & Labrecque, 2015; Frost & 

Monteiro, 2016) were examined to identify additional relevant studies. Papers 

were excluded from the review if — 

• No original data were presented. 

• Only biographical or anecdotal evidence was presented. 

• The research was not conducted in a prison setting. 
202 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

• The research was not conducted on humans. 

•	 The findings were published only in lay media or in advocacy group literature. 

To examine evidence that applies to modern American prisons, this review 

includes studies conducted in prisons and published after 1980. However, older 

studies were included if no modern studies existed in a particular content area 

(e.g., a 1972 study that showed electroencephalogram (EEG) changes in the 

brains of subjects held in solitary confinement). 

This type of narrative review has its limitations. Some have argued that metaanalysis of the scientific data is a more reliable method of interpreting the 

existing literature (Gendreau & Labrecque, 2015). However, only two such 

meta-analytic studies about the effects of administrative segregation have been 

performed (Gendreau & Labrecque, 2015; Morgan, 2016), and several areas of 

inquiry related to mental health and restrictive housing deserve consideration 

but have not been assessed using meta-analysis. Thus, this paper includes a 

descriptive review of some studies in addition to the results of meta-analyses. 

Research and Data Limitations 

Research about the psychological effects of restrictive housing follows a common 

pattern of scientific inquiry; that is, the quality of research studies improves 

over time. Early scholars in the 1950s and 1960s relied on clinical observations 

of prisoners and research in related areas (e.g., sensory deprivation or prisoners 

of war) to generate hypotheses about the effects of solitary confinement. To 

test these hypotheses, small-scale studies were conducted from the 1980s to 

2000s, often generating conflicting results based on research design (Suedfeld, 

Ramirez, Deaton, & Baker-Brown, 1982; Grassian, 1983; Zinger, Wichmann, & 

Andrews, 2001; Andersen et al., 2000). Over the past five years, due in part to 

increased litigation and popular interest in solitary confinement, larger and more 

methodologically rigorous studies have been conducted (O’Keefe et al., 2013; 

Kaba et al., 2014; Gendreau & Labrecque, 2015). These more recent studies have 

not always clarified the specific effects of restrictive housing on mental health, 

but they have significantly increased the amount of information available about 

restrictive housing practices. 

The limitations of the current scientific data have been well documented 

elsewhere (Gendreau & Labrecque, 2015; O’Keefe, 2007; Scharff-Smith 2006; 

Zinger et al., 2001; Metzner, 2015), so this paper states them only briefly here: 

•	 Policies, procedures, and conditions of confinement vary widely between 

institutions. No two restrictive housing units are exactly alike, so scientific 

conclusions in one setting may not apply to other settings, even when both 

are called, for example, “administrative segregation.” Further complicating 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 203 

matters, many published studies of restrictive housing do not specifically 

describe the conditions of confinement, so it is impossible for a reader to 

know how the results of one study compare to another’s. 

•	 There are no standard definitions in the literature for terms such as mental 

illness, harm, benefit, short term, and long term. For example, when one 

study concludes there is no evidence of harm from short-term isolation 

to inmates with mental illness, another could conclude just the opposite, 

depending on the definitions used. Unfortunately, most of the published 

studies do not define the terms they use, leaving the reader to speculate on the 

authors’ intended meaning. When the terms are defined, the definitions vary. 

For example, some studies base inclusion criteria on psychiatric symptoms 

or diagnosis, while others include any prisoner who receives mental health 

services in the correctional institution. Similarly, “short term” might refer to 

seven days, or it might refer to periods as long as three months. Finally, harm 

can be conceptualized broadly — the development of any new psychological 

symptoms — or narrowly, such as psychiatric hospitalization or serious 

suicide attempts. 

•	 In many cases, study designs are limited. Many studies of restrictive housing 

have small sample sizes (Suedfeld & Roy, 1975; Brodsky & Scogin, 1988), high 

attrition rates (Zinger et al., 2001; Miller, 1994), and use volunteer prisoners 

(Gendreau, Freedman, Wilde, & Scott, 1972). Some studies do not include 

control groups (Jackson, 1983; Grassian, 1983), which prevents comparison 

to the potential effects of other relevant conditions of confinement. Other 

studies were conducted on prisoners involved in class-action litigation against 

the prison at the time of examination (Grassian, 1983), posing inevitable 

concerns about report bias. While none of these limitations render the studies’ 

conclusions invalid, they do necessitate the use of caution when generalizing 

their results. 

•	 Correlation can be confused with causation. Studies that use a crosssectional design or do not include control groups have the potential to 

conflate correlation and causation. For example, if a study finds that 

individuals with lung cancer own cigarette lighters at a much higher rate 

than those without lung cancer, this does not mean that lighters cause lung 

cancer. In the case of restrictive housing, if individuals in restrictive settings 

exhibit higher rates of mental illness, this does not necessarily mean that the 

housing placement itself caused the symptoms. To reach that conclusion, 

symptom rates in control groups must be compared, and intervening factors 

must be considered. 

•	 Prisons and mental health treatment have both changed substantially over 

the relevant period of study. Many of the relevant studies about restrictive 

housing were conducted from the 1980s to 2010s, a period when American 

prisons experienced massive growth (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2014). At the 
204 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

same time, psychiatry underwent two major revisions of its diagnostic criteria 

as presented in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 

taking the manual from its third edition (DSM-III) (American Psychiatric 

Association, 1980) to its fifth edition (DSM-V) (American Psychiatric 

Association, 2013). These changes call into question the relevance of older 

studies conducted in prisons, particularly when the exact conditions of 

confinement or definitions of mental disorders were not delineated. 

•	 The political and social context surrounding solitary confinement is highly 

charged. When considering important social and political questions, such as 

how our society treats prisoners, a fair and thorough examination of scientific 

evidence is both essential and difficult to achieve. Parties tend to be polarized, 

and scholars can be tempted to align with one side or the other, potentially 

introducing unintended bias into what should be an objective inquiry. 

Literature Review 

This review begins by examining the prevalence of mental illness in inmates 

who live in restrictive housing. Next, it considers the psychological effects of 

restrictive housing by examining data about the effect of specific characteristics 

of confinement, such as the length of confinement and single versus shared 

cells, and characteristics of the individual, such as age, gender, or pre-existing 

mental illness. It also examines behavioral outcomes in restrictive housing, such 

as suicide rates and institutional misconduct. Finally, it considers the long-term 

effects of isolation, including the persistence of psychological symptoms or the 

development of new disorders such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). 

Prevalence of Persons With Mental Illness 

in Restrictive Housing 

Research has consistently demonstrated that prisoners in restrictive housing 

settings have higher rates of diagnosed mental disorders, higher rates of 

psychiatric symptoms (as measured by symptom rating scales), and more severe 

psychiatric symptoms than inmates in the general prison population. In contrast 

to the 10 percent to 15 percent prevalence of mental illness in prisons generally 

(Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2002; Lamb & Weinberger, 1998), the prevalence of 

serious mental illness in restrictive housing has been estimated at approximately 

30 percent in several different studies. Estimates range from 15 percent to 

62 percent, depending on the definition of mental illness and the assessment 

method used (Hodgins & Côté, 1991; Lovell, Cloyes, Allen, & Rhodes, 2000; 

Andersen et al., 2000; Zinger et al., 2001; Wynn & Szatrowski, 2004; O’Keefe, 

2007; Labrecque, 2015). Lower rates are associated with more restrictive 

definitions, such as serious mental illness, while higher rates are associated 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 205 

with more inclusive definitions such as “on the mental health caseload.” Some 

diagnoses are overrepresented in restrictive housing populations, such as 

schizophrenia and bipolar disorder (Hodgins & Côté, 1991), depression and 

adjustment disorders (Andersen et al., 2000), and attention-deficit hyperactivity 

disorder (O’Keefe, 2007). Lanes (2011) demonstrated that prisoners who 

engage in self-injury are likely to be placed in restrictive housing; the likelihood 

increased in tandem with the severity of the self-injury. 

Studies also indicate that prisoners in restrictive housing demonstrate high rates 

of symptoms beyond just the diagnosis of serious mental illness. Grassian (1983) 

and Haney (2003) have both described prisoners in restrictive housing settings as 

having high levels of anxiety, anger, sleep problems, perceptual distortions, and 

somatic symptoms. Although these studies were qualitative and based on clinical 

interviews, other studies have found similar results using different methods. 

Lovell (2008) found that 20 percent of the restrictive housing prisoners had a 

serious mental illness, but an additional 25 percent had evidence of “marked 

psychological dysfunction, psychological breakdowns, or brain damage.” Cloyes 

and colleagues (2006) administered a structured rating scale of psychiatric 

symptoms and concluded that prisoners in restrictive housing displayed evidence 

of “moderate psychosocial dysfunction,” with a significant portion of the 

study sample displaying evidence of serious dysfunction. After administering 

structured rating scales, the O’Keefe team (2013) also found that prisoners in 

restrictive housing demonstrated higher rates of psychological symptoms than 

general population prisoners. 

Several studies have also examined the personality characteristics of prisoners 

in restrictive housing. Comparing inmates in restrictive housing and the general 

prison population, Motiuk and Blanchette (1997) found those in restrictive 

housing had significantly more cognitive and personality problems. For example, 

compared to prisoners in general population settings, the restrictive housing 

prisoners were more impulsive, had difficulty solving interpersonal problems, 

set unrealistic goals, demonstrated low frustration tolerance and disregard for 

others, and had narrow and rigid thinking. Similarly, O’Keefe (2007) found that 

prisoners in administrative segregation displayed more thinking disorders and 

suspicious hostility than general population prisoners. 

Taken together, the research clearly indicates that prisoners in restrictive housing are 

a disturbed group, with disproportionately high rates of diagnosed mental illness, 

psychological symptoms (whether diagnosed or not), and maladaptive personality 

traits. As described below, the degree to which these problems pre-existed the 

inmate’s placement in restrictive housing is unclear, but the high prevalence of 

individuals with significant mental health concerns in restrictive housing has 

been amply demonstrated. 
206 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Effect of Particular Characteristics of Confinement 

Purpose of Confinement 

Does it matter why an individual is placed in restrictive housing? For example, 

are individuals who volunteer for protective custody healthier and less 

symptomatic than those who are placed in restrictive housing for disciplinary 

purposes? And does the prisoner’s knowledge and attitude about the 

confinement, such as knowing how long it will last and perceiving the placement 

as legitimate, make a difference? 

No published studies have directly addressed these questions, but a few provide 

relevant data for consideration. For example, the literature about sensory 

deprivation demonstrates that individuals’ expectations about what they will 

experience in confinement can significantly alter the symptoms they report; 

individuals who are not told that confinement can cause distress will report fewer 

negative psychological experiences (Gendreau & Labrecque, 2015; Grassian & 

Friedman, 1986). Conversely, if individuals believe the experience is likely to 

be benign, one early study found evidence that they may enjoy it (Goldberger, 

1966). Although far from conclusive, these studies indicate that a prisoner’s 

perception of restrictive housing may significantly affect his or her psychological 

experience. Most prisoners have heard colloquial descriptions of “solitary,” “the 

hole,” and “the box,” all of which have negative connotations and can possibly 

lead to more negative perceptions of the experience of restrictive housing. 

A few studies have examined differences between voluntary (i.e., protective 

custody) and involuntary (i.e., disciplinary or administrative) prisoners in 

restrictive housing. No differences were found in the psychological functioning 

of voluntary and involuntary prisoners (Zinger et al., 2001). Motiuk and 

Blanchette (1997) found that prisoners in voluntary restrictive housing were 

more likely to report prior victimization, but their psychological characteristics 

were no different from involuntary prisoners in restrictive housing. Miller 

and Young (1997) compared prisoners in administrative custody, disciplinary 

custody, and general population, finding that those in disciplinary custody most 

frequently reported feelings of withdrawal, anger, and hostility. Brodsky and 

Scogin (1988) interviewed 69 men in two different protective custody units. 

They found that two-thirds of them had significant psychopathology, and the 

psychological symptoms were worse in the unit without adequate space, light, 

and programming. Although they did not compare their subjects with those 

in administrative or disciplinary segregation, their findings indicated that the 

conditions of confinement may be just as (or more) important than the purpose 

of confinement in determining psychological outcomes. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 207 

Duration of Confinement 

There are two theories about how the duration of restrictive housing relates 

to mental health. In the first theory, individuals experience the greatest 

psychological discomfort — anxiety, fear, depression, anger — in the first few 

days of confinement. Over time, they adjust to the conditions and display fewer 

symptoms. In the second theory, individuals are “driven mad” by isolation, 

becoming more anxious, aggressive, and delirious the longer they are kept in 

restrictive housing. Although anecdotal reports tend to support the latter theory, 

the empirical evidence is much more mixed. 

Most researchers have not found that individuals developed increased 

psychological symptoms or significant behavioral changes during short-term 

placement in restrictive housing. Prisoners who volunteered to spend seven 

days in solitary confinement showed EEG changes, but no behavioral differences 

(Gendreau et al., 1972). Another study found no changes in psychological 

testing results during five days of confinement (Weinberg, 1967, as reported in 

Suedfeld et al., 1982). Walters, Callagan, and Newman (1963) found no mental 

deterioration when volunteer prisoners spent four days in isolation. Ecclestone, 

Gendreau, and Knox (1974) studied physiological markers of stress, such as heart 

rate, blood pressure, and plasma cortisol levels, finding no significant changes 

in levels during 10 days of isolation. Zinger and colleagues (2001) studied 

prisoners in restrictive housing and general population for a longer period — 60 

days — and found that psychological symptoms decreased in both groups, with 

no differences in suicidal ideation. Labrecque (2015) examined institutional 

misconduct rates, comparing those who spent less than 15 days in segregation 

with those who spent more than 15 days and found no differences between 

the groups. The Colorado study (O’Keefe et al., 2013) found that psychological 

symptoms decreased over the first 90 days of confinement in isolated prisoners 

with and without mental illness. 

In contrast, data from well-designed studies on the long-term effects of restrictive 

housing are sparse and conflicting. Several researchers have each described 

compelling case studies of prisoners whose psychological functioning severely 

deteriorated over time (Grassian, 1983; Haney, 2003; Jackson, 1983). However, 

without control groups or standardized measures, their findings came under 

scrutiny (O’Keefe, 2007; Bonta & Gendreau, 1990). Andersen and colleagues 

(2000) did lend empirical support to the case reports, using a longitudinal study 

design and finding that prisoners developed more depression and adjustment 

disorders over the four-month study period. The O’Keefe team (2013) evaluated 

prisoners prospectively over one year and found an overall decrease in 

psychological symptoms. In their meta-analysis, Gendreau and Labrecque found 

a small but statistically significant increase in psychological symptoms over time, 

but the duration of the prisoners’ stay in solitary confinement varied. Overall, 
208 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

the data are mixed, and there is currently no clear answer to the question of 

whether any particular duration of restrictive housing is safe or harmful from a 

psychological standpoint. 

Degree of Social Isolation 

No modern studies have examined questions such as, “Does placing two inmates 

together in a double cell cause less psychological distress than isolating one 

inmate in a single cell?” Humans are undoubtedly social creatures, and historical 

accounts of 19th-century penitentiaries that routinely used solitary confinement 

(i.e., the Pennsylvania and Auburn models) provide a compelling narrative about 

prisoners driven insane by isolation (Scharff-Smith, 2006). However, modern 

restrictive housing units differ significantly from the conditions of 19th-century 

prisons and it is unclear to what extent historical findings are relevant to modern 

correctional practice. 

It is clear, however, that the risk of suicide in single cells in restrictive housing is 

substantial. Reeves and Tamburello (2014) found that all but one of the suicides 

in the New Jersey Department of Corrections over a five-year period occurred 

in a single cell, concluding that placement in a single cell in restrictive housing 

carries 400 times greater risk of suicide than a general population double cell. 

A study of the California prison system found that 73 percent of the completed 

suicides in a six-year period occurred in a single cell, with 45 percent occurring 

in administrative segregation (Patterson & Hughes, 2008). The issue of suicide 

is discussed in more detail below (see “Rates of Self-Injury and Suicide”); the 

data are mentioned here merely to indicate that the degree of social isolation 

in restrictive housing units may be an important variable in predicting 

psychological outcomes. Further study is needed to assess this question. 

Physical Plant Characteristics 

Physical plant characteristics, such as cell size, recreation yard size, food quality, 

amount of natural light, and noise levels each have a potential impact on 

psychological functioning in restrictive housing settings. For example, despite 

being called “solitary,” many restrictive housing units are actually very noisy 

because prisoners yell back and forth between cells to communicate with each 

other. Anecdotal reports indicate that this type of constant background noise has 

a detrimental effect on mental health (Childress, 2014). To date, no published 

studies have systematically examined the issue of how particular physical plant 

characteristics affect psychological functioning in restrictive housing settings. 

Brodsky and Scogin (1988) did find greater levels of psychological distress in a 

group of prisoners isolated in a unit without adequate light or space, providing 

preliminary data that these conditions may be important determinants of 

psychological health. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 209 

Degree of In-Cell Activity 

Many prisoners in restrictive housing units are allowed to keep televisions, 

radios, books, and other sources of sensory stimulation in their cells (Metzner, 

2002), presumably because such items are thought to keep prisoners occupied 

and decrease emotional distress. No systematic studies have been conducted 

to determine whether access to such items has an effect on psychological 

functioning in restrictive housing. Likewise, no studies have assessed the 

impact of physical stimulation (exercise in the recreation yard or in cell) on 

psychological functioning. One small study of a Kentucky prison did examine 

three groups of prisoners with varying degrees of restriction: general population, 

administrative segregation, and disciplinary segregation (Miller, 1994). The study 

found that psychiatric symptoms were proportional to the degree of restriction, 

with the most symptoms found in the disciplinary custody group housed in 

single cells, not allowed to smoke, and with the least access to commissary items. 

Access to Mental Health or Other Programming 

Correctional facilities vary widely in the amount of programming and mental 

health services provided to prisoners in restrictive housing, which likely reflects 

the divergent views of corrections professionals about the role of mental health 

problems in restricted prisoners’ behavior. In a 2014 survey of state correctional 

systems, some jurisdictions reported that mental health concerns for segregated 

prisoners are “significant” or “100 percent,” while others reported that mental 

health plays a “minimal” role in segregated prisoners’ behavior (Liman & ASCA, 

2015, p. 57). Similarly, the survey found that some systems divert prisoners who 

have a diagnosed mental illness out of administrative segregation, while others 

indicated that grouping such prisoners together in administrative segregation 

improves access to mental health staff (Liman & ASCA, 2015, p. 57). 

Given the lack of consensus about the role of mental illness in problematic 

behavior that occurs during restrictive housing placement, it is not surprising 

that access to mental health care in that setting varies greatly, ranging from 

essentially none to more than 20 hours a week of structured or unstructured 

activity. Mental health involvement in restricted prisoners’ care can include — 

•	 Prescreening by a nurse or mental health professional to exclude prisoners 

with medical or mental health contraindications from placement in 

restrictive housing. 

•	 Cell-side “wellness checks” by medical or mental health staff, conducted with 

varying frequency (daily to weekly, depending on correctional policies and 

degree of isolation). 

•	 Cell-side administration of psychotropic medication by a nurse. 
210 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

 

•	 In-cell mental health programming, typically consisting of workbook 

assignments, journals, or other reading materials. 

•	 Out-of-cell individual evaluations by a mental health professional (ranging 

from several times per week to every two to three months), depending on the 

clinical status of the prisoner and institutional policies. 

•	 Group activities with a social or nontherapeutic purpose (unstructured activity), 

such as watching movies or playing games. 

•	 Group activities with a therapeutic purpose (structured activity), such as 

group psychotherapy or interacting with a therapy animal, typically conducted 

using either shackles or “therapeutic modules” (telephone booth-sized cages) 

to secure prisoners. 

In some jurisdictions, prisoners with mental illness have access to these services 

but remain in the same physical location as other restricted prisoners. Their daily 

routines, including access to recreation, showers, commissary items, and phone 

calls, remain unchanged. However, some large correctional systems have developed 

specialized residential programs for prisoners with significant mental health 

concerns and repeated disciplinary infractions. These programs use principles of 

cognitive behavioral therapy or dialectical behavioral therapy to provide tangible, 

short-term incentives for prosocial behavior to improve outcomes for prisoners 

who have failed to progress through traditional disciplinary custody programs. 

One example is the Secure Residential Treatment Units in the Pennsylvania 

Department of Corrections (Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 2015). Rather than 

relying solely on sanctions for bad behavior, the specialized programs provide 

positive reinforcement for good behavior, such as the ability to earn daily “points” 

that can be spent on rewards at the end of the week. Common rewards include 

snack foods, hygiene products, and extra phone time. 

Although most mental health clinicians would recommend greater access to 

programming for prisoners in restrictive housing, no published studies have yet 

examined whether access to any particular type of mental health treatment has 

an impact on psychological health. Similarly, no studies have examined whether 

other types of programming — educational, religious, vocational, recreational — 

have any impact. Some scholars have raised concerns that, even when out-of-cell 

programming is offered in administrative segregation, in most jurisdictions less 

than 25 percent of inmates actually participate (Liman & ASCA, 2015, p. 48). 

These knowledge gaps leave us with two important areas for future study: 

(1) how best to design mental health programming for restricted prisoners, and 

(2) how the policies and programs are being implemented at the ground level. 

Some preliminary data do indicate that improving mental health services 

for restricted prisoners has positive outcomes. Kupers and colleagues (2009) 

reported substantial reductions in the use of force and inmate assaults after the 

Mississippi Department of Corrections improved its mental health services and 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 211 

revised its restrictive housing practices. These results are promising, but they 

must be interpreted with caution. The authors did not measure psychological 

functioning as an outcome, and the changes implemented were much 

more sweeping than simply providing access to mental health services for 

restricted prisoners. 

Relationship Between Staff and Prisoners 

Scholars have documented that correctional employees assigned to restrictive 

housing units often have negative attitudes toward segregated prisoners (Wormith, 

Tellier, & Gendreau, 1988; Carriere, 1989). Prisoners are aware of this. They 

complain just as much about staff attitudes, such as lack of respect and the 

humiliation it can lead to, as they do about sensory deprivation or social isolation 

in restrictive housing (Suedfeld et al., 1982). Although the issue has not been 

systematically studied, some scholars postulate that treating prisoners fairly and 

humanely, even in conditions of relative isolation, may have a significant mitigating 

effect on the psychological harms of restrictive housing (Gendreau & Bonta, 1984; 

Suedfeld et al., 1982; Gendreau & Labrecque, 2015). 

Effect of Individual Characteristics 

Individuals Without Pre-Existing Mental Illness 

Many studies about the psychological effects of restrictive housing report their 

findings without distinguishing individuals with pre-existing psychiatric illness 

from those without. This, of course, makes it difficult to assess the question of 

whether psychologically healthy individuals respond differently to segregated 

confinement than those with mental illness. Common sense and clinical judgment 

would lead to the belief that differences in response could be significant, but the 

small amount of existing data do not allow definitive conclusions. 

Early studies of restrictive housing excluded individuals with pre-existing 

mental or physical disorders, providing some information about how “normal” 

individuals respond to confinement. These studies (Suedfeld et al., 1982; 

Ecclestone et al., 1974; Gendreau & Bonta, 1984) found no adverse effect of 

solitary confinement for healthy individuals over relatively short periods. 

The Colorado study results (O’Keefe et al., 2013) were similar, finding that 

individuals without pre-existing mental illness who were placed in administrative 

segregation had higher initial rates of psychological symptoms than those in 

general population, but the symptoms decreased over time. When scholars 

interviewed men in the community who had spent time in restrictive housing 

during their incarcerations in New York, they found that 70 percent said they 

felt safer in confinement than in general population, though they still viewed the 

experience negatively (Valera & Kates-Benman, 2015). 
212 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

By contrast, others who performed clinical assessments of prisoners described 

a distinct psychiatric syndrome, , secure housing unit (SHU) syndrome, that 

can affect individuals regardless of a pre-existing mental illness diagnosis 

(Grassian, 1983; Haney & Lynch, 1997). Individuals with this syndrome will 

become progressively more anxious, irritable, confused, aggressive, and selfinjurious over time, but their symptoms will dissipate rapidly after release from 

segregated confinement. Andersen and colleagues (2000) studied a similar 

question, assessing prisoners without known psychiatric illness who were placed 

in restrictive housing immediately upon entering the correctional facility. Using 

repeated symptom assessments over four months, the study found that prisoners 

in solitary confinement were more likely to develop psychiatric disorders than 

those in general population (28 percent compared to 15 percent). A follow-up 

study (Andersen et al., 2003) found that psychiatric symptoms decreased over time 

in the control group but remained stable in the restrictive housing group. Kaba 

and colleagues (2014, 2015) examined rates of self-injury and suicide in isolated 

prisoners, finding that individuals without mental illness were more likely than 

those with serious mental illness to engage in non-lethal acts of self-injury. The 

authors hypothesized that inmates who did not have a diagnosed mental illness 

engaged in self-injury as a means to change housing conditions, not that the 

confinement caused new psychiatric problems. 

Taken together, these conflicting results do not lead to a clear picture of how a 

“normal” person responds to restrictive housing. In 2015, scholars attempted to 

use rigorous scientific methods to shed light on the question, performing two 

meta-analyses of the effects of restrictive housing. After narrowing a sample of 150 

studies to just 15 (Gendreau & Labrecque, 2015) or 14 (Morgan, 2016) that met 

inclusion criteria, both meta-analyses concluded that administrative segregation 

has a small but significant negative impact on psychological functioning, with 

the greatest changes being in the domains of anxiety and depression. The metaanalyses did not comment specifically on differences between populations with 

and without mental illness, but they do provide a useful baseline from which to 

compare outcomes in individuals with mental illness. 

Individuals With Pre-Existing Mental Illness 

As described in the “Prevalence of Mental Illness” section above, individuals 

with serious mental illness are overrepresented in restrictive housing 

populations, likely because they engage in disruptive behaviors and accrue 

institutional misconduct reports. In some correctional institutions, particularly 

those without well-developed systems of mental health care, individuals with 

mental illness may be viewed as unmanageable or particularly dangerous in 

general population. Additionally, some prisoners genuinely seem to prefer 

being in restrictive housing, finding general population too stimulating or 

threatening. These prisoners will sometimes deliberately commit infractions 

when they are nearing release from restrictive housing, seemingly for the sole 

purpose of remaining in confinement. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 213 

Given the widespread consensus among mental health professionals and human 

rights advocates that individuals with serious mental illness should be excluded 

from prolonged solitary confinement, there is surprisingly little empirical evidence 

that demonstrates an exacerbation of psychiatric symptoms in restrictive housing 

for individuals with a mental illness diagnosis. A few studies have concluded that 

most inmates displaying symptoms of mental illness in restrictive housing were 

diagnosed prior to entry. For example, Hodgins and Cote (1991) found that 86 

percent and 64 percent of prisoners diagnosed with mental illness in two different 

restrictive housing units were diagnosed prior to placement. Andersen et al. 

(2000) also found high rates of psychiatric symptoms at the time of placement in 

solitary confinement. Inmates with mental illness diagnoses spend much longer 

in restrictive housing than those without such a diagnosis; one study found that 

prisoners with serious mental illness spent an average of 38 months in isolation, 

compared to 5 months for prisoners who did not have a diagnosed mental illness 

(Correctional Association of New York, 2004). 

The data about how persons with mental illness respond after being placed in 

confinement are mixed. An early study found positive behavioral change in 

four inmates with schizophrenia who were placed in restrictive housing for 

seven to 10 days. The inmates displayed decreased aggression, violence, selfinjury, and psychotic symptoms for two years after release from confinement 

(Suedfeld & Roy, 1975). Of course, a study with such a small sample size must be 

interpreted with caution. A much larger study was conducted in the New York 

City jails (Kaba et al., 2015). It examined the relationship between the timing 

of mental illness diagnosis and restrictive housing placement and hypothesized 

that more diagnoses would be made over time. However, the findings did not 

support this hypothesis; the diagnoses clustered in a normal distribution around 

“Day 0” of restrictive housing placement. Prisoners were most often diagnosed 

with adjustment disorders and antisocial personality disorders, suggesting that 

they came to mental health attention because they were distressed about being 

placed in restrictive housing, not because psychotic or mood symptoms were 

exacerbated by confinement. The findings of the Colorado study (O’Keefe et al., 

2013) were similar, concluding that inmates with mental illness experienced the 

greatest severity of symptoms just after placement in administrative segregation, 

with a decrease in symptoms over 12 months. 

The case studies of Grassian (1983) and Haney (2003) reach the opposite 

conclusion, stating that restrictive housing places prisoners with mental illness at 

great risk of decompensation over time. The empirical literature does lend some 

support to this theory. Kaba and colleagues (2014) determined that placement 

in solitary confinement increases the risk of suicide attempts and self-injury for 

all prisoners, even after release from confinement. Prisoners with serious mental 

illness are at particular risk of engaging in potentially lethal acts of self-injury 

while in solitary confinement (9.8 times the general prison risk). Despite finding 

that psychological symptoms decreased overall in prisoners with serious mental 
214 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

illness, O’Keefe and colleagues (2013) noted that 7 percent of the group with 

serious mental illness experienced an increase in symptoms. Another study that 

examined institutional infractions committed by inmates in restrictive housing 

found that a smaller percentage of the inmates with serious mental illness 

committed infractions, but those who did, did so repeatedly (Smith, Labrecque, 

& Gendreau, 2015). Overall, these findings suggest that some prisoners with 

mental illness adapt well to restrictive housing, but a significant minority may 

experience catastrophic results, including additional disciplinary infractions and 

potentially lethal suicide attempts. 

Age 

Prisoners in restrictive housing settings average approximately 30 years of age, 

compared to 35 years for the general prison population (O’Keefe, 2007; Lovell, 

Cloyes, Allen, & Rhodes, 2000; Cloyes et al., 2006), suggesting that young age 

and psychological immaturity are risk factors for such placement. Kaba and 

colleagues (2015) support this theory, finding that prisoners under age 21 are 

five times as likely to be placed in solitary confinement as prisoners over age 21. 

Younger prisoners, particularly those 18 years and younger, have a significantly 

higher risk of suicide in prison, though it is not clear whether restrictive housing 

elevates this risk (Kaba et al., 2014). 

Experts in child mental health agree with the prohibition on placing juveniles 

in solitary confinement endorsed by the United Nations (United Nations 

General Assembly, 1990), the U.S. Department of Justice (2016), and President 

Obama (2016), as set forth in the “United Nations Rules for the Protection of 

Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty, 1990, Section 67.” The American Academy 

of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP, 2012) recommends that, except 

in extraordinary circumstances, juveniles should not be placed in restrictive 

housing. Although the data are limited, they support the theory that, the younger 

the child, the greater the potential harm from placement in restrictive housing. 

Gender 

The majority of research on the effects of restrictive housing has been conducted 

on men. Qualitative reviews of women in restrictive housing (Korn, 1988; 

Martel, 1999) are similar to those documented by Grassian (1983), describing 

depression, anger, hallucinations, and withdrawal. Women placed in restrictive 

housing do share some traits in common with men, particularly their high rates 

of institutional maladjustment and criminogenic risk (Thompson & Rubenfeld, 

2013). However, a small number of quantitative studies point to potentially 

significant differences in the way men and women experience restrictive 

housing. O’Keefe (2007) found that women make up a disproportionately small 

percentage of the prisoners in restrictive housing. Although women are more 

likely than men to have psychiatric diagnoses, they are less likely to be placed 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 215 

in restrictive housing, indicating that women prisoners with mental illness may 

be offered treatment, while men are punished. Suedfeld and colleagues (1982) 

studied women in a quasi-restricted setting (they ate meals together and spent 

some time out of their cells) and concluded that women use different coping skills 

than men to tolerate the experience. They fantasize, daydream, and recall books 

they have read and movies they have seen. When examining outcomes for women 

in restrictive housing, Labrecque (2015) found that, in contrast to men, rates of 

institutional misconduct for women decreased by more than 20 percent after they 

were placed in confinement. These data are preliminary, and further investigation 

of women in restrictive housing is needed before conclusions can be drawn. 

Intelligence and Cognitive Functioning 

Some evidence suggests that individuals in restrictive housing have lower 

intelligence scores and more cognitive problems than prisoners in general 

population. One small study (Zinger et al., 2001) found that prisoners in restrictive 

housing had a mean IQ score (89.70) that was 8 points lower than the general 

prison population, though still within the normal range. Studies have also shown 

that prisoners in restrictive housing display less flexible thinking and are less able to 

solve problems than non-restricted prisoners (Motiuk & Blanchette, 1997; O’Keefe, 

2007). A review of medical charts found that 30 percent of prisoners in restrictive 

housing had documented evidence of traumatic brain injuries (Lovell, 2008). These 

studies suggest that individuals with intellectual disabilities may be overrepresented 

in restrictive housing, and they may be less able to cope with the conditions of 

confinement than the average prisoner. However, no published studies have 

systematically examined this issue. 

Prior Experience in Restrictive Housing 

Studies have shown that, on any given day, many of the prisoners in restrictive 

housing settings have been there before, because the same individuals tend to 

commit rule violations repeatedly (Lovell, 2008; Zinger et al., 2001). One could 

hypothesize that experienced prisoners find restrictive housing less distressing, 

but one could also hypothesize that the effects of isolation are cumulative and 

cause more problems over time. No published studies have addressed this issue. 

Behavioral Outcomes 

Self-Injury and Suicide 

Research clearly indicates that restrictive housing placement, particularly in 

a single cell, is significantly correlated with prisoner suicide. Studies from 

large correctional systems have shown that a disproportionate number of 

suicides occur in restrictive housing units (Way, Miraglia, Sawyer, Beer, & 
216 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Eddy, 2005; White, Schimmel, & Frickey, 2002; Patterson & Hughes, 2008; 

Reeves & Tamburello, 2014), with estimates ranging from 30 percent to 65 

percent. Another study found that 14 percent of men who had been placed in 

restrictive housing reported attempting suicide while there (Valera & KatesBenman, 2015), and a large-scale meta-analysis concluded that placement 

in administrative segregation has a moderate effect on self-injury (Morgan, 

2016). Kaba and colleagues (2014) found that the risk of suicide while in 

restrictive housing is more than six times greater than in general population, 

but the risk was also increased after the prisoner had been released (two times 

greater than those who had never been placed in restrictive housing). Reeves 

and Tamburello (2014) concluded that placement in a single cell in restrictive 

housing carries a risk of suicide that is more than 400 times higher than that of 

the general prison population. 

In another study conducted in New York, scholars reported that suicides in 

restrictive housing units occurred, on average, after 63 days of confinement 

(Way, Sawyer, Barboza, & Nash, 2007). The authors advocate for enhanced 

observation of prisoners during the first eight weeks of confinement in 

restrictive housing, when most suicides occurred. There is also some evidence 

that suicide rates increase incrementally as the degree of isolation increases. In 

Italy, suicide rates in short-term restrictive housing were 239 percent higher 

than in the general prison population and 439 percent higher in long-term 

restrictive housing (such as an American supermax facility) (Roma, Pompili, 

Lester, Girardi, & Ferracuti, 2013). Of course, risk factors other than restrictive 

housing placement per se can contribute to the elevated incidence of suicide 

in that setting. Mental illness, history of suicide attempts, and young age 

are all associated with increased risk of prison suicide (Fazel, Cartwright, 

Norman-Nott, & Hawton, 2008; Kaba et al., 2014), and they are also associated 

with increased risk of placement in restrictive housing. Some authors have 

attempted to disentangle these factors, finding that placement in restrictive 

housing does independently increase suicide risk (Kaba et al., 2014). 

Psychiatric Hospitalization 

Very little evidence about psychiatric hospitalization rates for prisoners placed 

in restrictive housing has been published. One Danish study (Sestoft, Andersen, 

Lilleback, & Gabrielsen, 1998) found that individuals who remained in restrictive 

housing longer than four weeks were 20 times more likely to be hospitalized 

for psychiatric reasons, compared with non-restricted prisoners. A study of 

prisoners in Marion, Illinois, found a much different result; only 3.1 percent of 

the prisoners in restrictive housing were transferred to a psychiatric hospital over 

a 10-year period (Ward & Werlich, 2003). 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 217 

Institutional Misconduct 

A comprehensive review of the relationship between restrictive housing and 

institutional misconduct has recently been published (Labrecque, 2015). It is 

mentioned briefly here because misconduct in prisoners can sometimes be a 

proxy for psychological health. When experiencing symptoms of mental illness, 

some prisoners turn inward, exhibiting withdrawal and self-injury. Others 

turn outward, becoming hostile, aggressive, or violent. If restrictive housing 

worsens prisoners’ psychological health, one would expect rates of institutional 

misconduct after placement in restrictive housing to increase. Labrecque’s study 

did not support this hypothesis, finding no increase in the rates of violent, 

nonviolent, or drug-related misconduct after placement in restrictive housing. 

Morris (2016) reached a similar conclusion using a different method, finding no 

difference in the rates of violent misconduct between prisoners who had been 

placed in short-term (15 days) restrictive housing and a control group. 

Long-Term Psychological Effects 

Most of the literature about the long-term psychological effects of restrictive 

housing is descriptive or biographical, painting compelling portraits of 

individuals who were fundamentally altered by solitary confinement and bear 

deep scars from the experience long after it has ended. Few published studies 

have systematically addressed this topic. Grassian’s sample of 14 prisoners (1983) 

reported that their symptoms resolved rapidly after release from confinement, 

but Grassian has also described longer lasting effects from restrictive housing 

(2006). Valera and Kates-Benman (2015) performed a qualitative study of men 

in the community who had spent time in restrictive housing, finding that most 

of them described “getting used to it” over time. Presently, there are no published 

studies that answer such important questions as whether prisoners who spent 

time in restrictive housing develop PTSD as a result of the experience. Likewise, 

no studies address whether restrictive housing prisoners experience long-term 

changes in psychosocial functioning following release into the community (e.g., 

getting a job, reconnecting with friends and family, finding stable housing). 

However, some authors have examined criminal justice outcomes, finding 

preliminary evidence that prisoners who were placed in restrictive housing have 

higher rates of recidivism (Motiuk & Blanchette, 2001; Lovell, Johnson, & Cain, 

2007; Smith, Gendreau, & Labrecque, 2015). 

Consensus of Mental Health Professional Organizations 

Several organizations of healthcare professionals have published position 

statements on the placement of prisoners with mental illness in restrictive 

housing. These include the American Psychiatric Association (APA, 2012), 

American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP, 2012), American 
218 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

College of Correctional Physicians (ACCP, 2013) (formerly the Society of 

Correctional Physicians), and American Public Health Association (APHA, 

2013). In addition, the APA updated its guidelines, Psychiatric Services in 

Correctional Facilities, in 2015, and included a section on mental illness and 

segregation. The National Commission on Correctional Health Care (NCCHC) 

published a position statement on solitary confinement in April 2016 that 

expands on its Standards for Mental Health Services in Correctional Facilities 

(2015), the Commission’s guidelines for managing segregated prisoners. 

The position statements and guidelines address different aspects of restrictive 

housing, but they all agree that the practice places prisoners at risk, and care must 

be taken to protect their health and well-being. Notably, the statements do not 

call for abolishing restrictive housing altogether. They are fairly conservative in 

their approach, focusing on the exclusion of particularly vulnerable populations 

— juveniles and those with serious mental illness — and limiting the amount of 

time prisoners spend in isolation. The American Psychological Association and 

National Association of Social Workers (NASW), the professional organizations 

whose members perform the bulk of prison mental health care, have not published 

official positions on restrictive housing, though they have provided testimony 

before Congress and published articles raising concerns about its use (American 

Psychological Association, 2012; NASW, 2014). Some scholars have suggested that 

mental health professionals have not gone far enough (Appelbaum, 2015), and they 

should join the numerous advocacy groups involved in the movement to abolish 

solitary confinement. To date, no mental health organizations have done so, though 

the NCCHC comes close, stating that placement in isolation for more than 15 days 

is cruel, inhumane, and degrading (2016). 

Current recommendations from mental health professional organizations’ 

position statements and published guidelines include the following: 

•	 Mental health professionals should have input into the prison disciplinary 

process. ACCP (2013) and APA (2016) agree that prisoners should not be 

placed in isolation as a punishment for behavior that is solely the result of 

mental illness. Mental health professionals can inform the disciplinary process 

about mitigating factors and, in some cases, divert prisoners from entering 

disciplinary segregation by referring them instead to mental health housing or 

other therapeutic settings. 

•	 All prisoners being considered for restrictive housing placement should 

be screened for mental health conditions that contraindicate placement 

or require accommodation. The NCCHC takes somewhat contradictory 

positions on this issue. The mental health standards it published in 2015 

recommend reviewing the prisoner’s medical record prior to placement in 

restrictive housing. However, a more recent position statement from the 

organization indicates that “health staff must not be involved in determining 

whether adults or juveniles are physically or psychologically able to be placed 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 219 

in isolation” (NCCHC, 2016). APA (2016), on the other hand, states that acutely 

suicidal or psychotic prisoners should not be placed in restrictive housing, and 

APHA (2013) recommends that isolating prisoners for therapeutic purposes 

should occur only when ordered by a health care professional. 

•	 Individuals with serious mental illness should be excluded from prolonged 

confinement in restrictive housing. Of the mental health organizations, APHA 

and NCCHC take the most expansive position, with both calling for exclusion 

of individuals with a serious mental illness from solitary confinement. APA 

and ACCP are more restrained, allowing for some individuals with a serious 

mental illness to be placed in restrictive housing but stating that, except in 

rare cases, they should not be kept in that setting beyond four weeks. ACCP 

(2013) and APA (2016) define serious mental illness to include prisoners with 

all psychotic disorders (schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, delusional 

disorder, brief psychotic disorder, schizophreniform disorder, substanceinduced psychotic disorder, and unspecified schizophrenia-spectrum 

disorder), bipolar disorders, and major depressive disorder. Other illnesses, 

such as PTSD, dementia, and personality disorders, may be considered serious 

if they cause significant functional impairment. 

•	 Individuals with intellectual disabilities should be excluded from prolonged 

confinement in restrictive housing. ACCP (2013) includes intellectual disability 

(called by its older name, “mental retardation”) in its list of conditions that 

should exclude an inmate from restrictive housing longer than four weeks. The 

other organizations do not specifically comment on this population. 

•	 Juveniles should be categorically excluded from prolonged restrictive 

housing. NCCHC, APHA, and AACAP (2012) recommend that individuals 

younger than age 18 should not be placed in restrictive housing. The other 

organizations do not comment on this population. 

•	 Individuals in restrictive housing should have access to necessary mental 

health treatment. APA and NCCHC make clear that correctional facilities 

remain responsible for meeting the serious medical and mental health needs 

of prisoners held in restrictive housing. This includes access to medication, 

psychiatric assessments, and counseling. NCCHC provides guidelines (2015) 

about how significant mental health findings should be documented and 

conveyed to custody officials (when necessary). If prisoners with a serious 

mental illness are kept in restrictive housing, APA (2016) recommends that 

they be provided with 10 hours a week of unstructured activity in addition 

to the necessary out-of-cell therapeutic activities. The NCCHC position 

statement (2016) indicates that inmates in isolation are entitled to health care 

that is consistent with community standards. 

•	 All individuals in restrictive housing should be monitored closely by mental 

health professionals. APA (2016) recommends regular rounds by a qualified 
220 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

mental health professional (generally defined as a psychologist, psychiatrist, 

psychiatric nurse, or social worker). NCCHC (2015) recommends that this 

monitoring should occur at a frequency based on the degree of isolation: 

daily for inmates in extreme isolation (those with little or no contact with 

other individuals), every three days for those with limited contact with other 

individuals, and weekly for those allowed routine social contact with other 

inmates while remaining separated from the general population (e.g., inmates 

in protective custody). NCCHC (2016) recommends monitoring at least on a 

daily basis. 

•	 Restrictive housing policies and procedures should allow prisoners with 

acute mental health needs to be transferred to an appropriate treatment 

setting. NCCHC (2015, 2016) and APA (2016) recommend that, when mental 

health professionals identify signs of deteriorating mental health in prisoners, 

they should communicate these findings to custody officials promptly. They 

should also take steps to meet the prisoner’s therapeutic needs, including 

transfer to a different setting if necessary. 

•	 Correctional systems should develop alternatives to prolonged restrictive 

housing. APA (2016) recognizes that alternatives to restrictive housing are 

limited at this time, and the scientific data about its psychological effects 

are rapidly evolving. NCCHC (2015) recommends that mental health 

professionals should keep custody officials informed about the latest scientific 

information and work with them to develop and evaluate alternatives to 

restrictive housing, particularly for prisoners with a serious mental illness. 

Knowledge Gaps 

As noted in the “Literature Review” section above, the current literature 

about mental health and restrictive housing leaves many important questions 

unanswered. In fact, there are very few areas in which the data are clear and 

compelling. It is clear that prisoners in restrictive housing are more disturbed 

than the general prison population, with higher rates of diagnosed mental illness 

and more severe symptoms. It is also clear that suicides occur disproportionately 

in restrictive housing settings, both because higher-risk prisoners are placed 

there and because of additional risks conferred by the setting. Finally, there is no 

convincing evidence that restrictive housing provides any therapeutic benefit, 

with many studies finding psychological harm and the Colorado study (O’Keefe 

et al., 2013) concluding that prisoners with mental illness in that setting may 

recover less rapidly than their peers in general prison population. 

The finer points of the harm-vs.-benefit debate about restrictive housing are 

still a gray area. For example, even if one accepts that restrictive housing has a 

small but significant negative psychological impact (as the recent meta-analyses 

suggest), it is not known which particular conditions of confinement are most 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 221 

implicated: social isolation? noise and light levels? poor staff attitudes? The 

relationship between these individual factors and psychological outcomes simply 

has not been studied systematically, leaving a major gap in our understanding 

about restrictive housing. 

Another significant area for future study is the effect that access to mental health 

programming has on psychological outcomes in restrictive housing. Some states, 

such as Mississippi, Michigan, and Maine (Kupers et al., 2009; Chammah, 2016), 

have created step-down programs for prisoners transitioning between restrictive 

housing and general population, but the psychological impact of these programs 

has not been systematically assessed. Likewise, some states are beginning to 

implement the American Psychiatric Association’s recommendation to provide 

prisoners who have a serious mental illness with at least 10 hours a week of 

out-of-cell programming, but the effect has not yet been evaluated. This is a key 

component for future research, as data about outcomes will help guide future 

policy decisions. 

Finally, further study of the long-term psychological effects of restrictive housing 

is necessary. There is essentially no data about how prisoners released from 

restrictive housing fare once they are released into the community. Do they have 

difficulty, as the anecdotal literature suggests, reintegrating with society? Do 

they develop higher rates of PTSD than prisoners who were not in restrictive 

housing? And does release from restrictive housing straight into the community 

— as one might hypothesize — cause greater psychological distress than a 

gradual transition from restrictive housing to general population and then to the 

community? All of these questions should be studied, as discussions about risks 

and benefits of restrictive housing should not be limited to its immediate effects. 

Policy Implications: Reconciling Research With Real Life 

The national debate about the psychological effects of solitary confinement is 

sometimes framed as a “chicken and egg” question: Are people with mental 

illness preferentially placed in solitary confinement, or does solitary confinement 

cause mental illness? This question does not necessarily have one answer; both 

statements can be true. Indeed, with more knowledge about restrictive housing, 

the corrections and mental health fields are beginning to see that both statements 

are true. Individuals with mental illness break institutional rules and engage 

in disruptive behaviors, causing them to be placed in isolation at greater rates 

than individuals without mental illness. Once in isolation, they may deteriorate 

further, developing increased symptoms of anxiety, aggression, and self-injury. 

Of course, not all individuals react the same way to the conditions of restrictive 

housing. Human beings display great variation in their responses to any 

environmental stimulus, so why would restrictive housing be any different? Some 

prisoners may prefer to be in the less-stimulating conditions of confinement, 
222 • National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov 

 

 

 

 

 

finding the decreased interpersonal contact comforting. Others will crave human 

contact and seek it out, sometimes in maladaptive ways such as self-injury or 

destruction of property. It should come as no surprise that researchers using 

different study groups and different methods have reached different conclusions 

about how prisoners respond to restrictive housing, as they may simply be 

accurately reporting about one small part of a complex whole. 

When considering how individuals respond to restrictive housing, it is helpful to 

conceptualize prison coping skills in a hierarchical manner. Figure 1 illustrates 

some examples of how inmates cope with being in prison, moving from healthy 

skills (top of figure) to unhealthy skills (bottom). 

When prisoners are placed in restrictive housing, it is often because they are 

using coping strategies in the middle of the hierarchy: engaging in sexual 

relationships, maintaining gang affiliations, or using illicit drugs. They no 

longer have access to those coping mechanisms after being placed in restrictive 

housing. Under their new circumstances, some are able to move up in the 

hierarchy of coping by writing letters, drawing, or working on legal challenges 

to their conditions of confinement. Other prisoners are not able to muster 

Figure 1. Hierarchy of Coping Skills in Prison 

Preparing for reentry, 

maintaining connections 

with outside world 

Changing conditions 

of confinement 

Easing the time, 

creating relationships 

inside prison 

Masochism, 

provocation, sadism 

Regression into 

primitive behaviors 

Self-annihilation 

Suicide 

Feces smearing 

Cutting Flooding 

Inserting 

Exposing 

Sexual relationships Commissary 

Gang affiliation Television 

Illicit drug use 

Lawsuits 

Organized protests 

Hunger strikes 

School Jobs Therapy Vocational training 

Creative arts Religion 

Visits and letters to family Prison journalism 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 223 

the psychological resources they need. Instead, they move downward in the 

hierarchy to much more regressed behaviors: cutting themselves, flooding their 

cells, inserting objects into body cavities, and making suicide attempts. 

Unfortunately, neither mental health clinicians nor prison officials have a 

reliable method of determining in advance which prisoners will do well in 

isolation and which will not. The risk created by this limitation is substantial, 

and prisoners may be harmed. This risk of harm, combined with the lack of 

convincing evidence that restrictive housing achieves greater safety and security, 

requires serious consideration about whether solitary confinement (at least for 

the purpose of administrative segregation or punishment) serves any useful 

purpose. Changes to restrictive housing practices will not happen overnight, but 

substantial reform is encouraged. 

Research Directions 

As described in the “Knowledge Gaps” section above, further study of many 

aspects of restrictive housing is necessary. Several high-priority areas are 

suggested below: 

•	 Future research about restrictive housing should be conducted in accordance 

with established scientific principles, with clearly delineated methods, 

variables, and outcome measures. 

•	 Once outcome measures are defined, the characteristics of prisoners and 

characteristics of confinement that result in particular outcomes (both 

positive and negative) should be studied and delineated. 

•	 The effect of mental health treatment and out-of-cell programming on 

the psychological symptoms and psychosocial functioning of prisoners in 

restrictive housing should be studied systematically. 

•	 Prisoners placed in restrictive housing should be evaluated for any long-term 

psychological and functional outcomes of this housing. 

Clinical Practice 

The practice guidelines established by the American Psychiatric Association, 

American College of Correctional Physicians, National Commission on 

Correctional Health Care, American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 

and American Public Health Association should be supported. In addition, 

numerous factors not raised in the professional organization guidelines but 

supported by research are also important: 
224 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

•	 Efforts should be made to ensure that interactions between staff and prisoners 

in restrictive housing settings are fair and respectful. Humiliation and 

degradation should not be part of the experience. 

•	 Restrictive housing programs should include both positive and negative 

incentives for prisoners who change their behavior in positive ways; 

such programs should not rely solely on punishment and deprivation as 

management tools. 

Systems Change 

Restrictive housing units often serve as the “treatment setting” of last resort 

in correctional systems without adequately developed mental health systems. 

Therefore, the following changes to correctional systems are recommended: 

•	 Alternatives to restrictive housing units should be developed, particularly for 

prisoners with mental illness. Adequate funding should be allocated for their 

design, implementation, and evaluation. 

•	 Prison systems should implement evidence-based affirmative programming 

that develops prosocial skills in prisoners. 

•	 Correctional staff should be trained in techniques for preventing or defusing 

critical situations that would otherwise lead to placing prisoners into 

restrictive housing. 

•	 Access to mental health services should be expanded for all prisoners, as 

providing proactive treatment has the potential to decrease behaviors that 

result in restrictive housing placement. 

Conclusion 

The relationship between restrictive housing and mental health is complex, 

with many more nuances than are initially apparent to the casual reader of the 

solitary confinement literature. Many questions remain unanswered. However, 

this literature review has raised enough questions about the psychological 

effects of restrictive housing to warrant a large-scale reassessment of our current 

correctional practices. In particular, the disproportionate number of prisoners 

with mental illness who are placed in restrictive housing is troubling, and the 

setting itself confers significant risk of suicide and self-injury. Even if scholars 

disagree about how and why these poor outcomes occur, no one can deny 

that they do occur. To move forward, corrections officials and mental health 

professionals must work together to create systems of care that improve the 

health of prisoners while also maintaining institutional safety. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 225 

To their credit, a number of state correctional systems have begun the difficult 

process of developing and implementing alternatives to traditional restrictive 

housing practices, particularly for individuals with mental illness. Systematic 

assessment of these new programs is critical. Using established scientific methods 

to conduct the assessments is essential to minimize the potential for bias or 

error, particularly in an area as controversial as restrictive housing. Through 

this combination of clinical innovation and rigorous scientific investigation of 

outcomes, real progress in the field is possible. 

References 

American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. (2012). Solitary
 

confinement of juvenile offenders. Retrieved January 10, 2016, from http://www.
 

aacap.org/AACAP/Policy_Statements/2012/Solitary_Confinement_of_Juvenile_
 

Offenders.aspx.
 

American Civil Liberties Union. (2014). Briefing paper: The dangerous overuse of
 

solitary confinement in the United States. Retrieved January 16, 2016, from https://
 

www.aclu.org/report/dangerous-overuse-solitary-confinement-united-states.
 

American College of Correctional Physicians. (2013). Restricted
 

housing of mentally ill inmates. Retrieved January 16, 2016, from http://
 

societyofcorrectionalphysicians.org/resources/position-statements/restrictedhousing-of-mentally-ill-inmates.
 

American Psychiatric Association. (1980). Diagnostic and statistical manual of 


mental disorders (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
 

American Psychiatric Association. (2012). Position statement on segregation of
 

prisoners with mental illness. Retrieved January 10, 2016, from http://www.dhcs.
 

ca.gov/services/MH/Documents/2013_04_AC_06c_APA_ps2012_PrizSeg.pdf.
 

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of 


mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
 

American Psychiatric Association. (2016). Psychiatric services in correctional
 

facilities (3rd ed.). Arlington, VA: APA. 


American Psychological Association. (2012, October). Psychologist testifies on 


the risks of solitary confinement. Monitor on Psychology, 43, 10. 


American Public Health Association. (2013). Solitary confinement as a public
 

health issue. Retrieved January 10, 2016, from http://apha.org/policies-andadvocacy/public-health-policy-statements/policy-database/2014/07/14/13/30/
 

solitary-confinement-as-a-public-health-issue.
 
226 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Andersen, H. S., Sestoft, D., Lillebaek, T., Gabrielsen, G., Hemmingsen, R., & Kramp, 

P. (2000). A longitudinal study of prisoners on remand: Psychiatric prevalence, 

incidence, and psychopathology in solitary vs. non-solitary confinement. Acta 

Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 102, 19-25. 

Andersen, H. S., Sestoft, D., Lillebaek, T., Gabrielsen, G., Hemmingsen, R. 

(2003). A longitudinal study of prisoners on remand: Repeated measures of 

psychopathology in the initial phase of solitary versus nonsolitary confinement. 

International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 26, 165-177. 

Appelbaum, K. (2015). American psychiatry should join the call to abolish 

solitary confinement. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 

43, 406-15. 

Arrigo, B. A., & Bullock, J. L. (2008). The psychological effects of solitary 

confinement on prisoners in supermax units: Reviewing what we know and 

recommending what should change. International Journal of Offender Therapy 

and Comparative Criminology, 52(6), 622-640. 

Bonta, J., & Gendreau, P. (1990). Reexamining the cruel and unusual punishment 

of prison life. Law and Human Behavior, 14(4), 347-372. 

Brodsky, S. L., & Scogin, F. R. (1988). Inmates in protective custody: First data on 

emotional effects. Forensic Reports, 1, 267-280. 

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2002). Mental health and treatment of inmates and 

probationers. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. 

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2014, September). Prisoners in 2012: Trends in 

admissions and releases, 1991-2012 (revised). Retrieved January 10, 2016, from 

http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4842. 

Carriere, K. D. (1989). Protective custody in Canada: A review of research and 

policy responses. Canadian Criminology Forum, 10, 17-25. 

Chammah, M. (2016, January 6). Stepping down from solitary confinement. 

The Atlantic. Retrieved January 17, 2016, from http://www.theatlantic.com/ 

politics/archive/2016/01/solitary-confinement-reform/422565/. 

Childress, S. (2014). The disturbing sounds of solitary confinement. Frontline. 

Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/the-disturbingsounds-of-solitary-confinement/. 

Cloyes, K. G., Lovell, D., Allen, D. G., & Rhodes, L. A. (2006). Assessment of 

psychosocial impairment in a supermaximum security unit sample. Criminal 

Justice and Behavior, 33(6), 760-781. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 227 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. (2015). Access 

to mental health care (Policy 13.8.1). Retrieved from http://www.cor.pa.gov/ 

Administration/Documents/DOC%20Policies/13.08.01%20Access%20to%20 

Mental%20Health%20Care.pdf. 

Correctional Association of New York. (2004). Mental health in the house of 

corrections. Retrieved from http://www.correctionalassociation.org/wp-content/ 

uploads/2004/06/Mental-Health.pdf. 

Ecclestone, C. E. J., Gendreau, P., & Knox, C. (1974). Solitary confinement of 

prisoners: An assessment of its effects on offenders’ personal constructs and 

andrenocortical activity. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 6, 178-191. 

Fazel, S., Cartwright, J., Norman-Nott, A., & Hawton, K. (2008). Suicide in prisoners: 

A systematic review of risk factors. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 69, 1721–1731. 

Frost, N. A. & Monteiro, C. E. (2016). Administrative segregation in prison. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. 

Gawande, A. (2009, March 30). Hellhole. New Yorker, 36-45. Retrieved from 

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/03/30/hellhole. 

Gendreau, P., Freedman, N. L., Wilde, G. J. S., & Scott, G. D. (1972). Changes in 

EEG alpha frequency and evoked response latency during solitary confinement. 

Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 79, 54-59. 

Gendreau, P., & Bonta, J. (1984). Solitary confinement is not cruel and unusual 

punishment: People sometimes are! Canadian Journal of Criminology, 26, 467-478. 

Gendreau, P., & Labrecque, R. M. (2015). The effects of administrative 

segregation: A lesson in knowledge cumulation. In J. Wooldredge & P. 

Smith (Eds.), Oxford handbook on prisons and imprisonment. New York, NY: 

Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://media.wix.com/ugd/7fc458_ 

edb83bc086d64e3bb8cb21f56e8ce98a.pdf. 

Goldberger, L. (1966). Experimental isolation: An overview. American Journal of 

Psychiatry, 122, 774-782. 

Grassian, S. (1983). Psychopathological effects of solitary confinement. American 

Journal of Psychiatry, 140, 1450-1454. 

Grassian, S. (2006). Psychiatric effects of solitary confinement. Journal of Law & 

Policy, 22, 325-383. 

Grassian, S., & Friedman, N. (1986). Effects of sensory deprivation in psychiatric 

seclusion and solitary confinement. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 

8, 49-65. 
228 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Guenther, L. (2012, August 12). The living death of solitary confinement. New 

York Times. Retrieved from http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/ 

the-living-death-of-solitary-confinement/?_r=0. 

Haney, C. (2003). Mental health issues in long-term solitary and “supermax” 

confinement. Crime and Delinquency, 49(1), 124-156. 

Haney, C., & Lynch, M. (1997). Regulating prisons of the future: A psychological 

analysis of supermax and solitary confinement. New York University Review of 

Law and Social Change, 23, 477-570. 

Hodgins, S., & Cote, G. (1991). The mental health of penitentiary inmates in 

isolation. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 33, 175-182. 

Human Rights Watch. (2015, May). Callous and cruel: Use of force against inmates 

with mental disabilities in U.S. jails and prisons. Retrieved January 16, 2016, from 

https://www.hrw.org/sitesearch/Callous%20and%20cruel%3A%20Use%20of%20 

force%20against%20inmates. 

Jackson, M. (1983). Prisoners of isolation: Solitary confinement in Canada. 

Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press. 

Kaba, F., Lewis, A., Glowa-Kollisch, S., Hadler, J., Lee, D., Alper, H., Selling, D., 

MacDonald, R., Solimo, A. A., & Venters, H. (2014). Solitary confinement and 

risk of self-harm among jail inmates. American Journal of Public Health, 104, 

442-447. 

Kaba, F., Solimo, A., Graves, J., Glowa-Kollisch, S., Vise, A., MacDonald, R., 

Waters, A., ... Venters, H. (2015). Disparities in mental health referral and 

diagnosis in the New York City jail mental health service. American Journal of 

Public Health, 105(9), 1911-1916. 

Korn, R. (1988). The effects of confinement in the high security unit at 

Lexington. Social Justice, 15(1), 8-19. 

Kupers, T. A., Dronet, T., Winter, M., Austin, J., Kelly, L., Cartier, W., Morris, T. 

J., Hanion, S. F., Sparkman, E. L., Kumar, P., Vincent, L. C., Norris, J., Nagel, K., 

& McBride, J. (2009). Beyond supermax administrative segregation: Mississippi’s 

experience rethinking prison classification and creating alternative mental health 

programs. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 1037-1050. 

Lamb, H. R., & Weinberger, L. E. (1998). Persons with severe mental illness in 

jails and prisons: A review. Psychiatric Services, 49, 483-492. 

Labrecque, R. L. (2015). The effect of solitary confinement on institutional 

misconduct: A longitudinal evaluation (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from 

http://media.wix.com/ugd/7fc458_1e24bb04be834ad2ab0368b06448f7a0.pdf. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 229 

Lanes, E. C. (2011). Are the “worst of the worst” self-injurious prisoners more 

likely to end up in long-term maximum-security administrative segregation? 

International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55(7), 

1034-1050. 

Liman Program & Association of State Correctional Administrators. (2015). 

Time-in-cell: ASCA-Liman 2014 National Survey of Administrative Segregation in 

Prison. New Haven, CT: Yale Law School. 

Lovell, D. (2008). Patterns of disturbed behavior in a supermax prison. 

Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 985-1004. 

Lovell, D., Cloyes, K., Allen, D. G., & Rhodes, L. A. (2000). Who resides in 

supermax prisons? A Washington state study. Federal Probation, 64(2), 33-38. 

Lovell, D., Johnson, L. C., & Cain, K. C. (2007). Recidivism of supermax 

prisoners in Washington state. Crime & Delinquency, 53(4), 633-56. 

Martel, J. (1999). Solitude and cold storage: Women’s journeys of endurance in 

segregation. Edmonton, AB, Canada: ACI Communication. 

Metzner, J. L. (2002). Class action litigation in correctional psychiatry. Journal of 

the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 30, 19-29. 

Metzner, J. L. (2015). Mental health considerations for segregated inmates. 

Retrieved from www.ncchc.org. 

Miller, H. (1994). Reexamining psychological distress in the current conditions 

of segregation. Journal of Correctional Health Care, 1, 39-53. 

Miller, H. A., & Young, G. R. (1997). Prison segregation: Administrative 

detention remedy or mental health problem? Criminal Behaviour and Mental 

Health, 7(1), 85-94. 

Morgan, R. D., Gendreau, P., Smith, P., Gray, A. L., Labrecque, R. M., MacLean, 

N., ... Mills, J. F. (2016, August 8). Quantitative syntheses of the effects of 

administrative segregation on inmates’ well-being. Psychology, Public Policy, and 

the Law. Advance online publication. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ 

law0000089. 

Morris, R. G. (2016). Exploring the effect of exposure to short-term solitary 

confinement among violent prison inmates. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 

32(1), 1-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10940-015-9250-0. 

Motiuk, L. L. & Blanchette, K. (1997). Case characteristics of segregated prisoners 

in federal corrections. Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service of Canada. 
230 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Motiuk, L., L. & Blanchette, K. (2001). Characteristics of administratively 

segregated offenders in federal corrections. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 43, 

131-143. 

National Association of Social Workers. (2014). A social work response to solitary 

confinement. Retrieved from http://www.socialworkblog.org/advocacy/2014/11/ 

a-social-work-response-to-solitary-confinement/. 

National Commission on Correctional Health Care. (2015). Standards for mental 

health services in correctional facilities. Chicago, IL: NCCHC. 

National Commission on Correctional Health Care. (2016, April 10). Solitary 

confinement (isolation). Retrieved from http://www.ncchc.org/solitary-confinement. 

Patterson, R., & Hughes, K. (2008). Review of completed suicides in the 

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 1999 to 2004. 

Psychiatric Services, 59, 676–682. 

Obama, B. (2016, January 25). Why we must rethink solitary confinement. 

The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com. 

O’Keefe, M. L. (2007). Administrative segregation for mentally ill inmates. 

Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 45, 149-165. 

O’Keefe, M. L., Klebe, K. J., Metzner, J., Dvoskin, J., Fellner, J., & Stucker, A. 

(2013). A longitudinal study of administrative segregation. Journal of the 

American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 41, 49-60. 

Reeves, R., & Tamburello, A. (2014). Single cells, segregated housing, and suicide 

in the New Jersey Department of Corrections. Journal of the American Academy 

of Psychiatry and the Law, 42, 484-488. 

Roma, P., Pompili, M., Lester, D., Girardi, P., & Ferracuti, S. (2013). Incremental 

conditions of isolation as a predictor of suicide in prisoners. Forensic Science 

International, 233(1), e1-e2. 

Scharff-Smith, P. (2006). The effects of solitary confinement on prison inmates: 

A brief history and review of the literature. Crime and Justice, 34(1), 441-528. 

Sestoft, D. M., Andersen, H. S., Lillebaek, T., & Gabrielsen, G. (1998). Impact 

of solitary confinement on hospitalization among Danish prisoners in custody. 

International Journal of Law & Psychiatry, 21, 99-108. 

Shalev, S. (2008). A sourcebook on solitary confinement. London, England: 

London School of Economics, Mannheim Centre for Criminology. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 231 

Smith, P., Labrecque, R., & Gendreau, P. (2015). An evaluation of the impact of 

solitary confinement on offenders with mental illness. Paper presented at the 

International Association of Law and Mental Health XXXIVth Congress, July 

2015. Retrieved from http://www.ryanmlabrecque.com/#!presentations/c14lj. 

Suedfeld, P., Ramirez, C., Deaton, J., Baker-Brown, G. (1982). Reactions and 

attributes of prisoners in solitary confinement. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 

9(3), 303-340. 

Suedfeld, P., Roy, C. (1975). Using social isolation to control the behavior of 

disruptive inmates. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative 

Criminology, 19, 90–99. 

Thompson, J., & Rubenfeld, S. (2013). A profile of women in segregation. Research 

report R-320. Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service of Canada. 

United Nations General Assembly. (1990). Rules for the protection of juveniles 

deprived of their liberty. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/45/ 

a45r113.htm. 

United Nations General Assembly. (2011). Torture and other cruel, inhuman or 

degrading treatment or punishment. Retrieved from http://solitaryconfinement. 

org/uploads/SpecRapTortureAug2011.pdf. 

United States Department of Justice. (2016). Report and recommendations 

concerning the use of restrictive housing. Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov/ 

dag/file/815551/download. 

Valera, P., & Kates-Benman, C.L. (2015, March 10). Exploring the use of 

special housing units by men released from New York correctional facilities: A 

small mixed-methods study. American Journal of Men’s Health. http://dx.doi. 

org/10.1177/1557988315569880. 

Walters, R. H., Callagan, R. H., & Newman, A., F. (1963). Effect of solitary 

confinement on prisoners. American Journal of Psychiatry, 19(8): 771-773. 

Ward, D. A., & Werlich, T. G. (2003). Alcatraz and Marion: Evaluating supermaximum custody. Punishment & Society, 5(1), 53-75. 

Way, B. B., Miraglia, R., Sawyer, D., Beer, R., & Eddy, J. (2005). Factors related 

to suicide in New York state prisons. International Journal of Law & Psychiatry, 

28, 207-221. 
232 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Way, B. B., Sawyer, D. A., Barboza, S., & Nash, R. (2007). Inmate suicide and 

time spent in special disciplinary housing in New York State prison. Psychiatric 

Services, 58(4), 558-560. 

White, T. W., Schimmel, D. J., & Frickey, R. (2002). A comprehensive analysis of 

suicide in federal prisons: A fifteen-year review. Journal of Correctional Health 

Care, 9(3), 321-343. 

Wormith, J. S., Tellier, M., & Gendreau, P. (1988). Characteristics of protective 

custody offenders in a provincial correctional center. Canadian Journal of 

Criminology, 30, 39-58. 

Wynn, J. R., & Szatrowski, A. (2004). Hidden prisons: Twenty-three-hour 

lockdown units in the New York state correctional facilities. Pace Law Review, 

24(2), 497-525. 

Zinger, I., Wichmann, C., & Andrews, D. A. (2001). The psychological effects of 60 

days in administrative segregation. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 43(1), 47-83. 

Zubek, J. P., Bayer, L., & Shephard, J. M. (1969). Relative effects of prolonged 

social isolation and confinement: Behavioral and EEG changes. Journal of 

Abnormal Psychology, 74, 625-631. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 233 

CHAPTER 7 

Critical Research Gaps in 

Understanding the Effects of 

Prolonged Time in Restrictive 

Housing on Inmates and the 

Institutional Environment 

Daniel P. Mears, Ph.D.
 

Florida State University College of Criminology and Criminal Justice
 

Introduction 

This white paper reviews the state of research on the effects of prolonged 

time in restrictive housing on inmates and the institutional environment 

of prison systems. It then identifies prominent research gaps that warrant 

attention in efforts to guide future policy. The summary assessment is that 

there exists too little credible research to state with confidence the effectiveness 

of restrictive housing. The practice may produce benefits, such as improved 

inmate behavior and reduced recidivism. It also may produce harms, including 

worsened inmate behavior and mental health and higher rates of recidivism. 

Additional benefits and harms may exist, but extant research has not provided a 

consistent scientific basis for establishing them. 
234 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

What is the context for evaluating the effects of restrictive housing? Prison 

systems seek to incapacitate and rehabilitate individuals who have committed 

crimes and to do so in a way that protects society, prison personnel, and inmates. 

Achieving these goals is challenging. Those who go to prison do not want to 

be there and may be prone to violence and violating rules. They also may act 

violently or break rules in response to prison conditions. How prisons are run 

may affect inmates as well. In addition, the prison system may implement rules, 

programs, services, vocational training, educational training, and other measures 

that may decrease or increase misconduct. When prison systems work well, 

inmates, officers, and other staff are safe; programming, services, and treatment 

are provided; and inmates returned to society are less likely to reoffend. When 

these systems do not work well, inmates and officers are harmed; programming, 

services, and treatment are minimal; and recidivism rates are high. 

Corrections officials employ different strategies for promoting safety and order. 

One strategy is restrictive housing, which typically involves confining inmates 

who may pose a threat to prison safety and order alone in a single cell for 

varying periods of time. Various terms have been used to capture this idea — 

supermaximum (“supermax”) housing, administrative segregation, extended 

isolation, restrictive housing, and so on. Inmates housed in this way may be 

confined to their cells for up to 23 hours per day and have few privileges. This 

housing is costly to build and operate, and yet may be critical to maintaining 

safety and order. Alternatively, it may be ineffective, harmful, or less cost-efficient 

than alternative strategies for managing inmates and prison systems. 

The use of restrictive housing increased dramatically in recent decades. Its use 

was justified in part by the idea that it would help manage disruptive and violent 

inmates (King, 1999; Riveland, 1999; Briggs et al., 2003; Neal, 2003; Bruton, 2004; 

Browne et al., 2011; Mears, 2013; Ross, 2013; Baumgartel et al., 2015; Richards, 

2015). In this time, concerns have been raised about the need, effectiveness, or 

appropriateness of this type of housing. These concerns have escalated in recent 

years, centering on its potential harms and overuse. A recent national estimate 

indicates that as many as one in five inmates in prison or jail spend time in 

restrictive housing (Beck, 2015:1). Members of the U.S. Supreme Court and 

Congress have called for reforms, as have the President and the Federal Bureau of 

Prisons. In response, state departments of corrections have begun reviewing their 

policies for placing inmates in restrictive housing (Durbin, 2012, 2013; Goode, 

2012; Mears, 2013; U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2013; McGinnis 

et al., 2014; Baker & Goode, 2015; Baumgartel et al., 2015; Obama, 2016; U.S. 

Department of Justice Work Group, 2016). Central to discussions about this 

type of prison housing are questions about the conditions under which it is 

appropriate (leading to improved outcomes) and the conditions under which 

it is inappropriate (potentially leading to adverse outcomes). 
 

Table 1. The State of Research on Restrictive Housing’s Impact on Inmates, Prisons, and Society 

Question 

1. Definition? 

2. Goals? 

3. Need? 

4. Theory? 

5. Implementation? 

6. Impacts? 

7. Cost-efficiency? 

8. Critical research gaps? 

Answer
 

Varied; no clear consensus.
 

Varied; no clear consensus.
 

Unclear.
 

Unclear and varied.
 

Largely unknown.
 

Largely unknown; adverse effects on 


inmate mental health seem likely.
 

Unknown relative to various other 

approaches for achieving system goals. 

Many. 

The limited evidence of restrictive housing’s effectiveness stems from the fact 

that few credible studies of impact exist. It also stems from more fundamental 

issues — a lack of consensus about the definition of such housing, ambiguity 

about its goals, a lack of coherent theory underlying its use, and limited 

assessment of how it is used. Clarity and information about each of these 

dimensions is essential for understanding and evaluating the impact of 

restrictive housing (e.g., goals dictate which outcomes matter). Accordingly, 

this paper discusses these topics before reviewing what is known about the 

impacts of restrictive housing and, in turn, the cost-efficiency of such housing relative 

to other strategies for managing prisons and inmates. It then identifies critical gaps 

in the present research and addresses questions that remain unanswered. Table 1 

summarizes the state of research across all of these dimensions. 

To arrive at this assessment, the paper discusses the following topics: 

1. Definitional challenges associated with discussions of and research on 


restrictive housing and, by extension, with evaluations of its impacts.
 

2. The goals of restrictive housing and their importance for conducting and 


interpreting research on it.
 

3. The need for restrictive housing and the relevance of need for assessing impact. 

Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 235 
236 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

4. The theory behind such housing and its relevance for anticipating and 


identifying its impact on inmates and their families, as well as on officers, 


prisons, and communities.
 

5. The implementation of restrictive housing and its relevance for creating 


beneficial or harmful impacts.
 

6. The impacts of restrictive housing on inmates and their families, as well as on 

officers, prisons, and communities. 

7. The cost-efficiency of restrictive housing. 

8. Critical research gaps and questions that ideally will be addressed to advance 


science, promote accountability, and place prison system management 


strategies on a more evidence-based foundation for achieving a variety of 


prison system goals.
 

The first five topics to be discussed dictate the outcomes that are relevant for 

evaluating the impact of restrictive housing. When research is limited or absent for 

any of these factors, there is a direct ripple effect for interpreting impact evaluation 

findings. For example, if a study shows that a prison system consistently employs 

restrictive housing for “nuisance” inmates, it would raise questions about how to 

interpret a finding that such housing reduces prison system violence. With the 

final three topics, the paper turns to discussing impacts, cost-efficiency, gaps in the 

research, and questions that remain unanswered. 

The methodology for the literature review was guided by several considerations. 

First, given the broad scope, the paper focused on identifying general findings, 

patterns, and issues that have been identified in the empirical literature on 

restrictive housing. To this end, published empirical research, as well as reviews 

of research, on various aspects of restricted housing were reviewed (e.g., who is 

sent to such housing, its effects on recidivism). Second, primary emphasis was 

given to works published in peer-reviewed academic journals, though reports 

published by public and private research organizations were also reviewed. Third, 

works were consulted that may not have specifically used the term “restrictive 

housing” but nonetheless focused on what amounts to such housing. Fourth, the 

review primarily examined empirical research that emphasized the long-term 

effects of restrictive housing on inmates. 

Definitions 

Discussions of restrictive housing are plagued by inconsistencies in defining 

exactly what constitutes such housing. This issue is described here to establish the 

foundation on which any account of restrictive housing descriptions, estimates, 

uses, goals, or impacts rests. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 237 

What Is Restrictive Housing? 

“Restrictive housing” does not refer to a single type of correctional housing 

design. Broadly, it involves the isolation of some inmates in single-cell 

confinement with little or no access to services, programming, privileges, or 

other people, regardless of the particular goal of such confinement. Additionally, 

a variety of terms are used to describe that situation. In some cases, one term 

appears to describe different types of housing and goals, while in other cases, 

different terms may describe similar housing and goals. In addition, there can 

be considerable variation in the precise conditions or experiences that constitute 

restrictive housing. 

Accordingly, before discussing the state of empirical evidence on restrictive 

housing, this paper reviews the variation in terminology, goals, and the “nuts and 

bolts” of what counts as restrictive housing. The bottom-line assessment, though, 

is that differences in terminology make it difficult to arrive at clear or definitive 

statements about the state of empirical research on restrictive housing. 

The Problem of Varying Terminology 

One source of confusion in discussing restrictive housing is the varying 

terminology used by federal and state governments to describe what appears to 

be the same thing — extended isolation in single-cell confinement with limited 

access to programming, services, treatment, visitation, or the like, which has been 

a mainstay of prison systems for many decades (National Institute of Corrections, 

1997; Henningsen et al., 1999; King, 1999; Naday et al., 2008; Mears, 2013; Ross, 

2013; Frost & Monteiro, 2015; Richards, 2015). This variation in terminology 

may indicate important differences in the goals or design of specific housing. It 

may also mask similarities. For example, a study undertaken at the behest of the 

National Institute of Corrections found that states used the following terms to 

describe what appeared to be similar housing: “special housing unit, maxi-maxi, 

maximum control facility, secure housing unit, intensive management unit, and 

administrative maximum penitentiary” (Riveland, 1999:5). That report described 

all such housing as “supermax housing.” In the past two decades, increased 

attention has turned to supermaximum (supermax) security housing, in large 

part because many states used this terminology (Mears, 2006). 

More recently, however, attention has centered on the term “solitary 

confinement,” in part because of calls by some legislators for reforms in the 

use of inmate isolation (Sen. Dick Durbin 2012, 2013; Shames et al., 2015). 

Despite this shift toward “solitary confinement” and “isolation” terminology, 

many policymaker, advocacy, and scholarly accounts appear to refer to the same 

underlying phenomenon of extended stays in single-cell confinement for up to 23 

to 24 hours per day. At the same time, there continue to be widespread references 

to supermax housing and to various other terms, such as “administrative 
238 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

segregation” and “segregated housing,” that denote extended isolation in such 

confinement for months or years. The terms segregation, solitary confinement, 

and isolation all underscore that a central feature of this type of housing 

experience is that inmates typically reside alone in a cell, rarely leaving it except 

for an hour or two each day, depending on the inmate’s behavior. 

Most recently, another term — restrictive housing — has come into use (Kane 

et al., 2013; McGinnis et al., 2014; Baumgartel et al., 2015; Beck, 2015). It, too, 

is defined as an extended stay in, typically, single-cell confinement with limited 

access to programming, services, treatment, and so on. However, this term has 

the potential virtue of avoiding some ideological connotations that other terms, 

such as supermax housing, may convey. In addition, the Association of State 

Correctional Administrators (ASCA) uses this term and has emphasized that it 

covers a range of housing conditions captured by various prison classification 

systems, though it states that the term should not be used to include protective 

custody (Association of State Correctional Administrators, 2013:1). Other 

reports use restrictive housing to refer to administrative segregation but not to 

segregation that is used for punishment or protective custody (Baumgartel et al., 

2015:11). 

This definitional ambiguity is amplified by the lack of clear operational 

definitions and by state administrators and researchers who use the different 

terms interchangeably. It is amplified, too, by the fact that inmates may 

experience lengthy stays in single-cell housing regardless of whether they were 

placed there for protective custody, punishment, or management goals. 

The Problem of Varying Goals 

Another source of confusion is that the goals associated with restrictive housing 

(or analogous terms) vary. The following three-category typology, based on 

different goals, is frequently used to distinguish different types of restrictive 

housing (Mears & Watson, 2006; Shalev, 2009; McGinnis et al., 2014; Shames 

et al., 2015). 

The first goal is restrictive housing to protect an inmate, which is known as 

protective custody housing. It provides temporary protection of an inmate. 

Typically, inmates would not be housed for an extended stay in isolation merely 

for their protection; however, inmates may well serve many months in such 

housing for this purpose. 

The second goal is restrictive housing to punish an inmate, which is known as 

punishment or disciplinary custody. Here, again, lengthy stays in isolation should 

be unusual, but lengthy stays may occur. Prison system rules may prohibit stays 

of more than a set period of time (e.g., 30 days), but exceptions exist. Inmates, 

for example, might violate rules or act violently while in punitive segregation, 

thereby activating a new or extended stay. Alternatively, inmates’ status might 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 239 

change; they may transition from punitive segregation to segregation for the 

purpose of achieving some management goal. Once again, the frequency of such 

extended stays is largely unknown. 

The third goal is restrictive housing to isolate inmates for some management 

reason. There is no specific naming convention for this sort of isolation beyond 

suggesting that it serves managerial purposes. Restrictive housing may be used, 

for example, to manage the “worst of the worst” inmates (Henningsen et al., 

1999; King, 1999; Riveland, 1999; Mears, 2006, 2008b, 2013; Mears & Watson, 

2006; Shalev, 2009; Butler et al., 2012; Richards, 2015). The meaning of “manage” 

frequently is not clear. The term might refer to any of a range of possible goals. One 

national study of supermax housing, for example, asked corrections officials and 

wardens for their views of the goals of such housing. The respondents reported that 

the goals included (Mears & Castro, 2006; Mears & Watson, 2006) — 

• Increasing prison safety systemwide. 

• Increasing prison order systemwide. 

• Reducing the likelihood of prison riots. 

• Incapacitating violent inmates. 

• Improving the behavior of inmates who experience supermax confinement. 

• Reducing the influence of gangs in prisons. 

• Increasing public safety. 

The Problem of Varying Designs 

Yet another source of confusion in discussions about restrictive housing is 

variation in the nuts-and-bolts design of the housing (National Institute of 

Corrections, 1997; Riveland, 1999; King, 1999; Toch, 2003; Pizarro & Stenius, 

2004; Naday et al., 2008; Shalev, 2009; Butler et al., 2012; Ross, 2013). The 

following questions illustrate this confusion. What building structures are 

considered restrictive housing — a separate housing unit, a wing of a building, a 

set of designated restrictive housing cells? Is technology of some type required? 

Does such housing always entail single-cell confinement or can it include 

housing two inmates in the same cell for extended periods? Does the duration 

of the stay matter? Does the inmate need to spend 23 hours per day in the cell, 

or would 16 or 22 hours per day suffice? Does an individual need to be held 

in such housing for a minimum number of days? Does the precise goal matter 

in identifying housing? For example, does confining an inmate in isolation 

for 36 hours to help him or her to “cool down” count as restrictive housing? Is 

it necessary that inmates have limited privileges, including limited access to 
240 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

programming, services, treatment, visitation, and so on? Just how intense do the 

limitations need to be to create conditions that amount to restrictive housing? 

No agreement exists about such issues. The reality is that restrictive housing 

refers to a highly heterogeneous set of conditions. In many cases, the 

heterogeneity may mask a core commonality: extended isolation with little or 

no access to programming, services, treatment, or visitation. In other cases, the 

heterogeneity may signal important nuances that differentiate the experience of 

restrictive housing from one facility or state to another. 

The Relevance of Varying Definitions, Goals, and Design 

These sources of confusion have compromised the ability of different parties 

— policymakers, practitioners, advocates, researchers, and so on — to talk 

meaningfully or accurately about restrictive housing. In some cases, these groups 

may be discussing the same phenomenon, but in others they may be discussing 

different phenomena. Conversely, it may appear that the same phenomenon is 

under discussion when in reality different phenomena are being compared. The 

situation is unfortunate because definitions, goals, and prison design matter. 

First, definitions — If different housing types are being compared using similar 

terminology, then the risk is that incorrect inferences will be drawn about the 

effects of a given housing type. Similarly, if two types of housing share important 

similarities, then differing terminology may create the impression that the two 

types are fundamentally different from one another. 

Second, goals — Goals matter greatly for evaluating the need, theory, use, 

impact, and efficiency of restrictive housing. If the goal is to punish inmates, then 

an assessment of the extent to which punishable behavior warrants restrictive 

housing should be undertaken. An assessment of the extent to which the 

punishment in fact constitutes punishment, on theoretical grounds, also should 

be undertaken. In addition, an assessment of impact is needed. (Some inmates 

may seek to be placed in restrictive housing, which highlights the fact that such 

housing is not intrinsically punishment (Lovell et al., 2000; Mears & Watson, 

2006; Mears, 2013). Not least, the extent to which restrictive housing results in 

greater benefits than costs — ideally more so than some alternative strategy — 

should be assessed. Similar assessments are needed for each goal of restrictive 

housing. 

Third, design — The conditions of restrictive housing also matter for evaluating 

its impact. Different combinations of restrictive housing features or experiences 

may result in varying effects on inmates or prisons. For example, a prison system 

in which restrictive housing involves stays of four to six months with as much 

programming, services, and treatment as can be provided may well result in 

different effects on inmate mental health, misconduct, or recidivism compared to 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 241 

a system where restrictive housing involves much longer stays and limited or no 

programming, services, or treatment. 

Restrictive Housing Defined 

For this white paper, restrictive housing is defined as single-cell confinement for 

relatively extended periods with limited or no access to programming, services, 

treatment, visitation, and the like. Goals for its use are protective custody, 

punishment, or any of a range of specific management objectives. This definition 

recognizes that lengthy stays in restrictive housing may occur regardless of 

whether inmates are placed there for protective custody, punishment, or a 

managerial reason. It also recognizes that some restrictive housing may allow for 

two inmates per cell. The primary commonality in discussions about extended 

isolation is that inmates are isolated from others, so this paper defines restrictive 

housing as single-cell confinement. 

An advantage of this definition is that it accords with many sorts of restrictive 

housing — administrative segregation, supermax prisons, extended isolation, 

and so on — as well as with the 2015 Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) national 

study of restrictive housing (see, generally, National Institute of Corrections, 

1997; Beck, 2015; Riveland, 1999; King, 1999; Rhodes, 2004; Naday et al., 2008; 

Shalev, 2009; Association of State Correctional Administrators, 2013; Mears, 

2006, 2013; U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2013; Kane et al., 2013; 

Ross, 2013; Gendreau & Labrecque, 2015; Labrecque, 2015a; Morris, 2015). In 

addition, it recognizes that restrictive housing may begin for one purpose (e.g., 

management) but continue to be used for another (e.g., punishment). Even so, a 

disadvantage of this definition is that it obscures the fact that extended isolation 

may vary greatly with respect to factors such as goals, design, and operations. The 

only alternative to consistently using “restrictive housing” or some other term is 

to standardize a typology of housing that all prison systems might agree to use 

and follow. Such a typology does not currently exist (Beck, 2015). 

In the end, the general concern appears to center around extended isolation, 

regardless of the particular goals or characteristics of facilities, and the need to 

ensure that it is used only when necessary. 

Restrictive Housing Inmate Estimates 

Prior to the 2015 BJS study, estimates of the prevalence of inmates in restrictive 

housing varied considerably and did so based on less credible sources of 

information than the data obtained from the large survey sample of inmates 

who were interviewed for the study. Before discussing the BJS estimates, several 

previous sources of information warrant discussion. 
242 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

In 1996, the National Institute of Corrections examined the prevalence of 

supermax housing. The Institute’s definition of supermax housing was as follows: 

In this survey, ‘supermax’ housing is defined as a free-standing facility, or a 

distinct unit within a facility that provides for the management and secure 

control of inmates who have been officially designated as exhibiting violent or 

serious and disruptive behavior while incarcerated. Such inmates have been 

determined to be a threat to safety and security in traditional high-security 

facilities, and their behavior can be controlled only by separation, restricted 

movement, and limited direct access to staff and other inmates (National 

Institute of Corrections, 1997:2). 

The Institute excluded from consideration protective custody and disciplinary 

segregation. Even so, it found that supermax housing is sometimes used for 

“routine segregation purposes (e.g., discipline, protective custody, and program 

segregation)” (National Institute of Corrections, 1997:3). The Institute provided 

no national estimate, though its report indicated that “there are at least 57 

supermax facilities/units nationwide . . . providing a total of more than 13,500 

beds” (National Institute of Corrections, 1997:3). 

In 1999, Roy King used the Institute’s information to estimate that in 1998 there 

were 20,000 inmates — approximately 2 percent of all state and federal inmates 

— serving time in supermax housing (King, 1999). Two-thirds of states had such 

housing and others had plans for building it (King, 1999; Riveland, 1999). 

In 2006, drawing on a national survey of prison wardens, an Urban Institute 

study undertaken by Daniel P. Mears estimated that, in 2004, 44 states had 

supermax housing. The definition used was similar to that used in the National 

Institute of Corrections study: 

For the purposes of this survey, a supermax is defined as a stand-alone unit or 

part of another facility and is designated for violent or disruptive inmates. It 

typically involves up to 23-hour-per-day, single-cell confinement for an indefinite 

period of time. Inmates in supermax housing have minimal contact with staff 

and other inmates (Mears, 2005:49). 

Using this information and that of the King estimate, the Mears study 

estimated that approximately 25,000 inmates served time in such housing, and 

emphasized both that the number was a rough approximation and that it likely 

underestimated the true prevalence of supermax incarceration (Mears, 2005:40). 

In 2008, Alexandra Naday and colleagues estimated that the number of inmates 

in supermax housing nationally ranged from a low of 5,000 to a high of 

100,000, with the most frequently cited estimate being around 20,000 (Naday 

et al., 2008:77). In recent years, the 2004 estimate of 25,000 from the Urban 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 243 

Institute study has prevailed and, for example, surfaced in the Davis v. Ayala 

2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision.1 Naday and colleagues examined the basis 

for the counts of supermax housing provided in these sources and argued “that 

disagreements about definitions, changing policies and court decisions, reporting 

and recording errors, and different counting procedures have led to a lack of 

reliable and valid data on supermax” housing (Naday et al., 2008:69). They 

noted, for example, that the National Institute of Corrections study expressly 

excluded any segregation housing used for protective custody or disciplinary 

segregation (Naday et al., 2008:72). They also observed that the count estimates 

provided by the American Correctional Association and the Criminal Justice 

Institute stemmed from a definition that focused on the conditions of supermax 

housing and largely ignored the various uses for solitary confinement, thus 

creating a discrepancy between this definition and that of the National Institute 

of Corrections (Naday et al., 2008:72). The authors then identified marked 

inconsistencies in the security-level status of many facilities throughout the 

country, noting that various studies used operational capacity rather than actual 

utilization rates, thereby creating different estimates. The authors concluded that 

such variation, as well as inconsistent definitions across states and in studies, 

made it difficult to arrive at a valid estimate of the number of inmates who 

experienced supermax housing. 

In 2014, Yale Law School, in conjunction with ASCA, conducted a survey of 

state and federal corrections administrators about the use of administrative 

segregation (Baumgartel et al., 2015). The results suggested that 66,000 prisoners 

in the 34 jurisdictions that provided counts were “in some form of restricted 

housing — whether termed ‘administrative segregation,’ ‘disciplinary segregation,’ 

or ‘protective custody’” (Baumgartel et al., 2015:ii). The report then noted, “If 

that number is illustrative of the whole, some 80,000 to 100,000 people were, 

in 2014, in segregation.” The numbers did not include individuals in restrictive 

housing in jails or juvenile custodial facilities (Baumgartel et al., 2015:ii). This 

estimate was based on self-reports from corrections administrators, so its 

accuracy is unknown (Baumgartel et al., 2015:12). 

The BJS study was published in 2015. Based on a national survey sample of 

91,177 inmates in state and federal prisons and jails, the study provides, arguably, 

the most accurate current estimate of restrictive housing prevalence nationally. 

It bears emphasizing, however, that prior studies used varying definitions and 

data sources. As a result, anyone comparing the estimates should be aware of 

1 Davis v. Ayala, 135 S. Ct. 2187, decided on June 18, 2015, concerned a case involving peremptory challenges 

that were alleged by Ayala to have been race-based; the Court reversed the judgement of the Court of Appeals 

for the Ninth Circuit. The legal aspects of the case did not involve restrictive housing. However, Justice Kennedy, 

in a concurring opinion, took note of the fact that the respondent, Ayala, had spent the bulk of his term of 

incarceration, since receiving a death penalty sentence in 1989, in solitary confinement. Justice Kennedy then 

noted that 25,000 inmates were estimated to be serving their sentence in solitary confinement and criticized the 

use of such confinement, arguing that it was overused and caused harms to inmates. 
244 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

those differences. The National Institute of Corrections study and the Mears/ 

Urban Institute study, for example, used supermax terminology and thus focused 

primarily on the subset of inmates placed in restrictive housing for managerial 

purposes. Accordingly, the studies underestimated prevalence for all forms of 

restrictive housing. Conversely, the Yale/ASCA study focused on restrictive 

housing, defined as segregation that might include managerial purposes 

but also protective custody and punishment. The BJS survey asked inmates 

directly whether they were, or had spent time, in disciplinary or administrative 

segregation or solitary confinement (Beck, 2015:16). 

According to the BJS study, the following prevalence estimates can be generated 

from its National Inmate Survey: 

•	 An estimated 4.4 percent of state and federal inmates and 2.7 percent of jail 

inmates were in restrictive housing on an average day in 2011-2012. 

•	 An estimated 20 percent of prisoners and 18 percent of jail inmates spent 

time in such housing in the prior year or since arriving at the facility where 

they were surveyed. 

•	 An estimated 10 percent of prisoners and 5 percent of jail inmates spent 30 

days or longer in some form of restrictive housing (Beck, 2015:1). 

BJS did not include counts of inmates. If the percentages above were applied 

to the year-end 2013 prison and jail population counts nationally, they would 

suggest the following:2 

•	 An estimated 90,000 inmates (70,000 prisoners and 20,000 jail inmates) 

reside in restrictive housing on an average day. 

•	 An estimated 447,000 inmates (315,000 prisoners and 132,000 jail inmates) 

spent time in restrictive housing in the past year or since arriving at their 

current facility. 

•	 An estimated 195,000 inmates (158,000 prisoners and 37,000 jail inmates) 

spent 30 days or longer in restrictive housing. 

Several observations about these estimates warrant discussion. First, the 

percentages suggest that restrictive housing is used far more frequently than past 

estimates indicate. Given that prison populations have greatly increased in recent 

decades, restrictive housing is used for many more inmates than in prior years, 

and thereby may have greater effects on prisoners than previously thought. 

Second, the fact that in one 10 inmates reports having spent at least 30 days in 

restrictive housing suggests that prior studies substantially undercounted inmates 

2

 Glaze and Kaeble (2015:2) reported that, at year-end 2013, 1,574,700 individuals were incarcerated in state or 

federal prisons and that 731,200 individuals were incarcerated in jails. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 245 

in supermax housing. Inmates might well serve 30 days or more for protective 

custody or disciplinary confinement; however, this confinement may well be 

restricted primarily to situations in which an inmate is placed in isolation for a 

broader managerial purpose, which would fit more with the goal of supermax 

housing. If so, the estimate is, again, substantially greater than what has been 

suggested in prior studies of supermax incarceration. 

Third, restrictive housing is common in jails. Accordingly, national discussions 

about restrictive housing should focus on both prisons and jails. 

Fourth, if the percentages identified in 2011-2012 hold for current prison and 

jail populations, then prior counts of inmates in restrictive housing — including 

those held for protective custody, disciplinary segregation, and managerial 

segregation — are substantially underestimated. Upper-end estimates have 

indicated that 100,000 inmates are in solitary confinement. The estimates based 

on applying the BJS percentages to current (year-end 2013) prison and jail 

populations suggest that 195,000 inmates spent 30 days or more in restrictive 

housing, and that 447,000 inmates spent some time in such housing. 

Fifth, restrictive housing exists in many other countries, but the United States 

appears to employ it more than other countries. However, little is known 

empirically about country-by-country differences in the design, uses, or effects of 

such housing (Ross, 2013; Richards, 2015). 

Finally, it is unlikely that agreement about whether such housing is ever 

appropriate on moral grounds will occur (Mears & Castro, 2006; Mears & 

Watson, 2006; Mears et al., 2013). Regardless, it may be possible to garner 

agreement about its appropriateness based on whether its benefits exceed its 

costs and do so to a markedly greater degree than other approaches to achieving 

prison and jail goals. 

Goals 

Evaluation of a policy’s impacts begins with clarity about its goals. There is, 

in fact, little clarity about the precise goals of restrictive housing. Instead, a 

range of goals for its use can be and have been articulated, which has greatly 

impeded progress in evaluating the impacts of restrictive housing. The lack of 

consistent, precise goals across studies is one reason that so little is known about 

its effectiveness. The different goals, and their implications for research on and 

discussions about restrictive housing, are discussed below. 

Diverse Goals 

Accounts of restrictive housing consistently identify that it can serve three goals: 

to protect some inmates, to punish others, or to achieve management goals, such 
246 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

as incapacitating out-of-control inmates or creating more systemwide safety and 

order. Although protection and punishment appear to be straightforward goals, 

they are not. For example, it is not clear that isolation provides better protection 

than some other strategy or that it achieves some desired level of retribution. In 

addition, the management goals that might be achieved through segregation vary. 

The following goals associated with restrictive housing were identified by drawing 

on prior studies, particularly the Urban Institute study of supermax housing.3 

Goal 1 — Increased systemwide prison safety, including fewer riots, murders, 

and assaults. 

This requires improved conduct among inmates living in or released from 

restrictive housing and among general population inmates. 

Goal 2 — Increased systemwide prison order. 

Although safety and order are often viewed as a single concept, the two words 

represent distinct phenomena.4 Whereas safety involves preventing violence or 

injury, order centers on the extent to which inmates adhere to rules, procedures, 

policies, and everyday routines. Disorder in a prison system might contribute 

to violence, but it need not do so. Conversely, an orderly prison system might 

experience violence. In any case, prison systems view order as a priority, one that 

they hope improves safety. Greater order may stem from inmates who experience 

restrictive housing, from all other inmates, or both. 

Goal 3 — Increased control of prisoners. 

Many accounts observe that restrictive housing serves to control certain 

prisoners. The meaning of control varies. For example, control can mean 

incapacitating an inmate who poses an immediate and pressing threat to safety, 

reducing an inmate’s ability to instigate others, or providing an inmate with a 

setting in which to cool down before potentially harming themselves or others 

(Burt, 1981; DiIulio, 1987; Logan, 1993; Sparks et al., 1996). 

3 Analysis indicates that restrictive housing serves many different goals in other countries as well (Ross, 2013; 

Richards, 2015). 

4

 Full discussion of the results is provided in Mears (2005, 2006), Mears and Castro (2006), and Mears and 

Watson (2006). The identified goals are not necessarily prioritized by each state, and some states may 

prioritize one or more of them. They are ones that the Urban Institute study identified from interviews with state 

legislators and corrections officials and staff, a survey of state prison wardens, and from articles and reports on 

supermax housing (e.g., National Institute of Corrections, 1997; Stickrath & Bucholtz, 2003; Pizarro & Stenius, 

2004; Shalev, 2009; Richards, 2015). Some states may prioritize one or more or all of the goals. In the Urban 

Institute study, supermax housing was defined in such a way as to include protective custody, punishment, and 

management goals. Analysis indicates that restrictive housing serves many different goals in other countries as 

well (Ross, 2013; Richards, 2015). 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 247 

Goal 4 — Improved behavior of violent and disruptive prisoners (Stickrath & 

Bucholtz, 2003). 

Improved behavior among this population should contribute to greater prison 

safety. With restrictive housing, however, the emphasis is on safety that results 

from rehabilitation or some other change in the inmate, as opposed to safety that 

results solely from incapacitating the inmate. Corrections officials in the Urban 

Institute study who emphasized this goal also emphasized the goal of successfully 

reintegrating inmates from restrictive housing back into the general prison 

population (Atherton, 2001). From this perspective, success includes not only 

incapacitating the inmate from engaging in or inciting violence or misconduct 

but also promoting successful reentry into general population facilities. 

Goal 5 — Reduced gang influence. 

Many accounts point to restrictive housing as a way to reduce gang influence in 

prisons (Mears & Watson, 2006; see also Ward & Werlich, 2003). This outcome 

can be viewed as a goal in and of itself or as a means to achieve other goals, such 

as improved systemwide prison safety or order. 

Goal 6 — Protection of certain inmates. 

Some inmates may be at risk of victimization and may warrant special housing 

to protect them. In such cases, such housing would not necessarily need to be 

restrictive (e.g., 23 hours per day in solitary confinement) unless a particular 

need for certain restrictions existed. Stays in such housing typically would not 

be extended, though it is possible that inmates placed in restrictive housing for 

protection may reside there for extended periods. Such circumstances may stem 

from the need for further protection, misconduct committed while in restrictive 

housing, or some other reason. 

Goal 7 — Punishment. 

Restrictive housing may be used to punish inmates. Punishment can be viewed 

as a goal in and of itself — in such cases, it constitutes retribution. How much 

retribution is appropriate within prisons for various infractions or crimes is 

not well-established. Since no clear consensus exists, prison systems institute 

sanctions, within legal limits, that become established practice. Punishment can 

also implicate several related goals. It can be viewed as a means to other ends, 

such as public safety. For example, it can serve to deter an inmate from engaging 

in problem behavior again. It can also serve as a general deterrent that reduces 

the likelihood that other inmates will engage in violent or disruptive behavior. 
248 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Goal 8 — Increased public safety. 

Restrictive housing can be viewed as a strategy for increasing public safety. 


A legislator in one study commented, for example, that a low escape rate 


might serve to show a supermax prison’s effectiveness (National Institute of 


Corrections, 1997; Austin et al., 1998; Grann, 2004; Pizarro & Stenius, 2004; 


Reiter, 2012). Recidivism is, in general, a metric that has been used to measure 


the effectiveness of corrections.
 

Goal 9 — Improved correctional system efficiency. 

There are several strategies for achieving various prison system goals. Restrictive 

housing can be viewed as a cost-effective strategy for achieving these goals 

(Mears & Watson, 2006). For example, instead of dispersing violent or disruptive 

inmates throughout the prison system, concentrating them in one place creates 

potential economies of scale, including reduced transportation and staff training 

costs (Hershberger, 1998). 

Evaluating Restrictive Housing — Need, Theory, Use, Impact, 

and Efficiency 

Identification of relevant goals is essential for evaluating the need for restrictive 

housing, the theory that guides its use, whether its use is appropriate, its impacts, 

and its efficiency. These dimensions — need, theory, use, impact, and efficiency 

— collectively constitute what Peter Rossi and colleagues call “evaluation 

hierarchy,” which provides a foundation on which to systematically assess a 

policy (Mears & Reisig, 2006; Mears & Watson, 2006). 

Some examples might illustrate how evaluation hierarchy might work. If the 

goal is to punish certain inmates using restrictive housing, then information is 

needed about how many inmates engage in punishable behavior that warrants 

placement in such housing. Research is also needed on the theory underlying 

restrictive housing as punishment, the extent to which restrictive housing is used 

appropriately, and whether it in fact achieves a desired level of retribution. 

By contrast, if the goal is to reduce prison riots, a parallel set of questions arises 

that center not on punishment but on riots. For example, to what extent do riots 

occur and to what extent are they caused by individual inmates? How many such 

inmates exist? By what logic will restrictive housing reduce their ability to cause 

riots? Are the inmates most at risk of inducing riots placed in restrictive housing, 

or are nuisance inmates placed in such housing instead? Does restrictive housing 

reduce riots? If so, does it do so more cost-efficiently than some other alternative? 

These questions — those focused on need, theory, use, impact, and efficiency — 

are all specific to the particular goals associated with restrictive housing (Rossi 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 249 

et al., 2004; Mears 2010). For example, if restrictive housing is used to improve 

systemwide prison safety and order, then evaluations that address each of these 

dimensions must be undertaken (Mears & Reisig, 2006). How much violence 

and disorder exists? What causes violence and disorder? Are a select few inmates 

the primary cause? How exactly will brief, intermediate, or long-term stays in 

restrictive housing improve safety and order? Are the inmates who contribute 

most to violence and disorder in fact in restrictive housing? How much 

systemwide safety and order result from the use of restrictive housing? What is 

the cost-benefit ratio? Is it greater than what might arise from other strategies for 

improving systemwide safety and order? 

A Balanced Assessment of the Impact of Restrictive Housing 

A balanced assessment of the impact of restrictive housing requires evaluation of 

the extent to which it contributes to its different goals. It also requires subjective 

assessments about which particular goals are most important. States may vary, 

for example, in the extent to which they use restrictive housing for one goal 

rather than another (Mears & Castro, 2006; Mears & Watson 2006). Accordingly, 

impact evaluations should assess how well restrictive housing achieves various 

goals and weight these goals against a state’s stated goals for the housing. 

In addition, even if restricted housing seeks to achieve only one goal, unintended 

impacts, whether positive or negative, should be considered in arriving at a 

balanced assessment of impact (Mears & Watson, 2006). For example, no state 

uses restrictive housing with the intended goal of worsening inmate mental 

health or recidivism outcomes, yet such housing may do so. 

Need 

Restrictive housing may be needed and may serve a critical role in achieving 

prison system goals. Alternatively, it may not be needed, and some other strategy 

may be more appropriate for achieving these goals or addressing specific 

problems. Accordingly, clarity about the need for restrictive housing is critical for 

understanding the extent to which it achieves various goals. The state of evidence 

to date provides little credible empirical basis for knowing whether or how much 

restrictive housing has been or is needed. 

The Need for Restrictive Housing Depends on the Goal 

Is restrictive housing needed? The answer depends on the goal. If restrictive 

housing serves to control especially dangerous, violent, or disruptive inmates, 

then there may be a need if such inmates exist. They assuredly do, and so need 

would be based on assessing how many such inmates warrant restrictive housing. 
250 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

However, the situation is complicated by other goals that exist for restrictive 

housing. For each goal, a prison system will want to understand the prevalence 

of a particular problem that restrictive housing is intended to address. For 

example, if restrictive housing serves to punish inmates, how many individuals 

commit the kinds of acts that warrant placement in restrictive housing? How 

long can inmates be expected to reside in restrictive housing? By answering such 

questions, prison system officials might begin to determine how many restrictive 

housing beds it needs. Whatever the final answer may be, it will differ from the 

number arrived at if the focus is on a different goal, such as protecting inmates or 

reducing gang influence in prisons. 

The Need for Restrictive Housing Depends on the Causes of 

Particular Problems 

Whether restrictive housing is needed depends on the causes of the problems 

it is intended to address — perhaps an inmate cannot be protected through any 

other approach, perhaps an inmate committed an act that warrants punishment, 

or perhaps an inmate engaged in activities that somehow created problems 

that posed a risk to the prison system. In each instance, many facilities might 

determine that restrictive housing is needed. Typically, their focus would then 

shift to how many inmates fit these different profiles to determine how much 

restrictive housing should be built. However, this straightforward approach 

would be inappropriate for several reasons. Two examples illustrate why. 

First, the need may not be for restrictive housing; rather, it may be for efforts that 

target the causes of the inmate behaviors. Poor staff professionalism or limited 

rehabilitative programming at a given facility, for example, might result in some 

inmates not receiving the protection they may need. These conditions also might 

contribute to other problems such as violence and infractions. Accordingly, 

in such situations, the need is not for restrictive housing. Instead, the facility 

may need to institute efforts that improve staff professionalism and increase 

rehabilitative programming opportunities (Sykes, 1958; DiIulio, 1987; Cooke, 

1989; Sparks et al., 1996; Kassel, 1998; Reisig, 1998; Bottoms, 1999; Toch, 2003; 

Rhodes, 2004; French & Gendreau, 2006; Mears & Reisig, 2006; Mears, 2008a, 

2013; Useem & Piehl, 2008; Browne et al., 2011; Cullen et al., 2014). 

Second, the need may not be for restrictive housing; rather, it may be for first 

employing a continuum of alternative and less costly strategies. Restrictive housing 

has been described by corrections officials as a “last resort” option (Mears, 

2013) — the equivalent of an emergency room in a hospital. Long before 

using this option, other, less costly options — such as promoting greater staff 

professionalism, ensuring fair and consistent enforcement of rules, improving 

officer and inmate culture, providing targeted programming that addresses 

each inmate’s individual risks and needs, relying on evidence-based behavioral 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 251 

 

interventions, and so on — should be considered (Sykes, 1958; DiIulio, 1987; 

French & Gendreau, 1996; Sparks et al., 1996; Reisig, 1998; Bottoms, 1999; 

Riveland, 1999; Gendreau & Keyes, 2001; Briggs et al., 2003; Mears & Watson, 

2006; Shalev, 2009). In many instances, there may not be a need for restrictive 

housing but instead for more and better implementation of other options. If such 

options have been exhausted and behavior still falls short, then there may be a 

need for restrictive housing as another tool for addressing a particular problem. 

In short, empirical assessment of the need for restrictive housing requires going 

well beyond identifying a certain number of inmates for protection, punishment, 

or some management goal. It requires explicit description of the precise problems 

that restrictive housing is intended to address and the goals that it is intended to 

achieve. It also requires empirical evaluation of the causes of these problems and 

the extent to which those causes can be addressed through less costly options. Not 

least, it requires evaluating the extent to which such options have been pursued in 

sufficient doses, or with sufficient fidelity, to reduce a particular problem. If they 

have not, then attention presumably should focus on improving the options, not 

in taking recourse in a more expensive one. With such analyses in place, the focus 

logically would turn to examining the need for restrictive housing. 

Although there is little empirical evidence in the published literature that 

restrictive housing is needed, it appears likely that prisons do need some such 

housing. What is lacking, however, are empirically based evaluations that 

document the need for restrictive housing relative to the need for a range of 

other approaches that address the problems that restrictive housing is supposed 

to address. Instead, states by and large appear to have focused on forecasting 

based on current use. For example, if 500 inmates were in restrictive housing in 

a given year, a state might assume that the use was needed and would continue 

to incarcerate these inmates in restrictive housing. The state then might forecast 

a need to increase the number of restrictive housing beds based on an expected 

increase in the general inmate population. This approach largely sidesteps the 

issues of whether the actual use was needed in the first place or what the current 

need may be.5 

The Need for and Impact of Restrictive Housing Depends on the 

Point of Comparison 

Restrictive housing, especially when used for management purposes, may be 

viewed from at least two vantage points. The first is that such housing is rarely 

5 An illustration of the potential problems with this approach can be found in a National Public Radio (2012) 

interview with Walter Dickey, who was the director of the Wisconsin Division of Corrections from 1983-1987 and 

subsequently the Federal Monitor for the supermax prison at Boscobel, Wisconsin: “I think one of the things that’s 

happened, at least in a lot of states, Wisconsin’s one of them, is I think we grossly exaggerated the need for the 

supermax prison and overbuilt it, and I think, not surprisingly, when you’ve got empty cells in a crowded prison 

system, you tend to fill them up.” 
252 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

used. This characterized most state prison systems in the United States in the 

1970s and early 1980s. When restrictive housing was rarely used, the question 

for many states would have been, “To what extent is restrictive housing needed 

in a context where it rarely is used?” Given the marked growth in restrictive 

housing in subsequent decades, states clearly viewed restrictive housing as greatly 

needed. However, there is little evidence that states systematically and empirically 

assessed the need for this growth. 

The second vantage point is that such housing is used relatively frequently. 

This characterizes most states in contemporary America. The question for 

many such states is, “To what extent is the current level of restrictive housing 

needed?” Without a needs evaluation of the various problems that such housing 

is intended to address, as well as the options available to address them, it will 

remain difficult to answer that question. 

Distinguishing between these scenarios is important, primarily to highlight 

that current use should not necessarily be viewed as appropriate or needed. 

Indeed, it may well be that past use consistently well exceeded the need or, 

in some states, fallen short of the need. In both scenarios, research would 

document the need empirically. 

Theory 

Theory, whether explicitly articulated or not, guides any policy or program.6 

Restrictive housing is no different (Mears & Watson, 2006; Mears, 2013.) It 

involves a causal logic: By changing some set of conditions or factors, restrictive 

housing creates improvement in outcome. Any policy or program that lacks 

a clear causal logic built on credible theory and research risks failure. A welldesigned policy or program that builds on credible theory is more likely to 

provide clear guidance about implementation and to be effective. This axiom 

applies to all social policy arenas, including criminal justice and corrections 

(Rossi et al., 2004; Mears, 2010; Latessa et al., 2014). As discussed below, the 

theory guiding restrictive housing is unclear; ambiguity in the theory complicates 

evaluation of implementation and impact. It is a central reason why so little is 

known about the impacts of restrictive housing or what contributes, in extant 

studies, to any identified impact. 

Ambiguity in the Theoretical Foundations of Restrictive Housing 

Several ambiguities lie in the theoretical foundations of restrictive housing. The 

diverse goals associated with such housing create ambiguity because a single 

6 Theory guides research as well. Ideally, researchers and policymakers explicitly articulate the theory that guides 

their efforts. Doing so identifies potentially problematic assumptions as well as important information about how 

exactly a given phenomenon, or policy, contributes to a given outcome (Rossi et al., 2004; Mears, 2010). 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 253 

treatment — restrictive housing — is unlikely to achieve each goal through the 

same causal pathways. Another source of ambiguity is the lack of clarity about 

how restrictive housing might achieve any particular goal. This paper describes 

prominent ambiguities in the theoretical or causal logic of restrictive housing. 

First, with rare exception, the causal logic for restrictive housing has not been 

formally articulated. Exceptions exist, such as a theoretical analysis of supermax 

housing and how it might affect prison system safety and order (Mears & Reisig, 

2006). However, states have not undertaken such analyses for particular housing 

goals that they seek to achieve through restrictive housing (e.g., increasing prison 

system safety or order, increasing control of prisoners, improving behavior 

of violent or disruptive inmates, reducing gang influence, protecting certain 

inmates, punishing certain inmates, increasing public safety, and improving 

correctional system efficiency) (Mears & Reisig, 2006). 

Second, the theory by which restrictive housing might achieve certain goals rests on 

questionable assumptions. Several examples illustrate this issue. 

Increasing systemwide safety and order. Restrictive housing has been viewed 

as a primary strategy for increasing systemwide safety and order. One theory is 

that inmates in restrictive housing, as well as those in the general population, 

will be deterred from misconduct. However, any such effect depends on 

restrictive housing meeting certain conditions required for deterrence to occur, 

including objective and perceived certainty, celerity, and severity of punishment 

(Paternoster, 2010). For example, inmates in restrictive housing must view it 

as punishment; the fact that inmates sometimes seek to be placed in restrictive 

housing suggests that it is not always viewed as punishment (Suedfeld, 1974; 

Suedfeld et al., 1982; Lovell et al., 2000; Singer, 2003; Mears & Watson, 2006; 

Richards, 2015). At the same time, inmates in the general prison population 

may take stock of precisely what behaviors must occur to be placed in restrictive 

housing and engage in only those that stop short of what is likely to result in such 

placement (Pizarro & Stenius, 2004). In addition, perceived prison system misuse 

or abuse of restrictive housing may engender ill will among inmates directly 

or indirectly exposed to it. From the perspective of defiance theory, restrictive 

housing may contribute to more rather than less violence and disorder (Sherman, 

1993; see also Ward & Werlich, 2003, regarding the “rage hypothesis”). 

Decreasing prison riots. In a number of states, restrictive housing increased 

in response to prison riots; in turn, its use was justified on the grounds that 

it could prevent riots from occurring. Riots in fact may stem from many 

causes, only one of which is a set of violent or disruptive inmates (Martin & 

Zimmerman, 1990; Boin & Rattray, 2004; Mears, 2008a). Officer professionalism 

and interactions with inmates, consistent rule enforcement, provision of various 

types of programming, and so on, all may contribute to reducing riots, while 

their absence may contribute to increasing riots (Useem & Kimball 1991; Sparks 

et al., 1996; Reisig, 1998; Bottoms, 1999; Gendreau & Keyes, 2001; Mears, 2008a; 
254 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Useem & Piehl, 2008; Morris et al., 2012). Restrictive housing does little to 

address these root causes of riots. Instead, its use proceeds from the assumption 

— one not supported by research — that a certain group of inmates constitutes 

the primary if not exclusive cause of riots. 

Punishment. When the goal of restrictive housing is retribution, the assumption 

is often that inmates experience placement in such housing as punishment. 

However, it is unclear precisely which theory of punishment suggests that 

isolation constitutes a sanction that individuals experience as punishment or 

that agrees with societal views about appropriate levels of punishment. This 

observation underscores a more general issue: Punishment can consist of any 

of a wide range of possibilities in prisons (e.g., restricted privileges, transfer to a 

less desirable work assignment, fines, transfer to another facility). The manner in 

which restrictive housing fits within this range of possibilities, or which theory 

guides these possibilities, typically has not been articulated by prison systems. 

More generally, systems tend not to address the following questions: How 

does restrictive housing result in a desired level of retribution? What level of 

retribution is desired? How much time in restrictive housing achieves that level 

of retribution? A theory might shed light on such questions. The absence of such 

a theory implies that restrictive housing does not achieve in any obvious way 

intended levels of retribution for society or correctional systems. 

The theoretical logic for how restrictive housing might achieve these and any of 

its other intended goals remains uncertain. Also uncertain is the extent to which 

the different assumptions underlying the logic are correct. For example, to what 

extent does incarcerating security threat group (gang) leaders prevent them 

from communicating with other gang members? If they are able to communicate 

despite segregation, then a central theoretical argument for restrictive housing 

would be undermined (Grann, 2004; Preer, 2004; Mears & Watson, 2006). 

Conversely, if restrictive housing does inhibit communication, and if no 

members “step up” to replace a gang leader placed in such housing, then it may 

be reasonable to expect gang violence to decline. In a related vein, placing an 

inmate in protective custody might reduce opportunities for victimization, but 

doing so depends on at least two factors: credible information about the risk to 

inmates, and other inmates not viewing protective custody as a negative signal 

about that inmate’s character. In addition, protective custody itself does not target the 

prison conditions that might contribute to victimization of certain inmates. 

Third, credible theoretical arguments that restrictive housing worsens a range 

of outcomes can be and have been articulated. A theoretical argument that 

restrictive housing worsens outcomes is not necessarily accurate, any more than 

the argument that restrictive housing improves outcomes. An ideal scenario for 

any policy, however, is when the theoretical arguments for it rest on credible 

theory and research, while the arguments against it do not. That scenario does 

not characterize restrictive housing. For example, restrictive housing does little 

to address known causes of inmate misconduct, recidivism, riots, or the like. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 255 

It potentially diverts resources and attention away from approaches that may 

be more effective and may create conditions that worsen inmate behavior. It 

reduces opportunities for inmates in restrictive housing to receive effective drug 

or mental health treatment and to maintain ties with family or friends. Use 

of restrictive housing also largely precludes provision of cognitive-behavioral 

counseling and other interventions that can improve inmate behavior and 

reduce recidivism. In addition, the sensory deprivation and isolation from others 

that occurs with restrictive housing may contribute to mental illness. In these 

instances and in others, scholars have traced theoretical mechanisms through 

which restrictive housing may create adverse outcomes (Sykes, 1958; McCorkle 

et al., 1995; Bottoms, 1999; Kurki & Morris, 2001; Haney, 2003; Rhodes, 2004; 

Irwin, 2005; King, 2005; Cloyes et al., 2006; Mears & Watson, 2006; Smith, 2006, 

2008; Kupers, 2008; Kupers et al., 2009; Gawande, 2009; Shalev, 2009; Haney et 

al., 2015). 

Fourth, restrictive housing does not address a variety of potential causes of inmate 

violence, prison disorder, gang influence, victimization of certain inmates, and 

so on. Focusing in particular on systemwide safety and order, Richard Sparks 

and colleagues noted that “what [special prison units] cannot do is magically 

to unlock the problem of order for a prison system as a whole” (Sparks et 

al., 1996:313). Some accounts depict state prison wardens as enthusiastically 

embracing restrictive housing because of the control that it affords over some 

inmates.7

 Others, however, suggest that wardens’ views about the appropriateness 

and effectiveness of restrictive housing vary (Mears, 2006; Mears & Castro, 2006; 

Mears & Watson, 2006). Support for and perceptions of restrictive housing as a 

solution to prison problems8 may stem from the fact that wardens often confront 

and must manage extremely dangerous individuals. Yet, restrictive housing 

in and of itself does not directly address the causes of a particular individual’s 

behavior or, more generally, the causes of systemwide operations, safety, and 

order. Accordingly, on theoretical grounds, it is unclear whether restrictive 

housing can achieve many of the goals associated with it (King, 1999, 2007; 

Mears & Reisig, 2006). 

Theory and Its Relevance for Evaluating Implementation and Impact 

Advances in the theory underlying restrictive housing are directly relevant to 

evaluating its implementation and impact. For example, if restrictive housing 

is expected to achieve systemwide safety and order through specific deterrence, it 

should be used in such a way that this goal is achieved. That might include using 

restrictive housing only for those inmates who in fact may be deterred from bad 

behavior by placement in it. Similarly, if restrictive housing is expected to reduce 

7 Ward and Werlich (2003:59) reported that state prison wardens who visited the federal supermax facility at 

Marion, Illinois, indicated that they “had died and gone to heaven” because of the extensive control that the staff 

had over inmates. 

8

 Lorna Rhodes (2004:36) has noted, for example, that “the dream of the perfect prison has deep historical roots.” 
256 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

gang influence, then it is important that only the most influential gang members are 

placed in it. Theory identifies, too, the intermediate outcomes that may be relevant to 

evaluating impact. In these and other instances, appropriate implementation requires 

clarity about the goals of restrictive housing, the types of inmates for whom it is 

appropriate, the “dose” of restrictive housing that may be most efficacious, and the 

treatment and services that may achieve the intended goals. 

Credible theory is also relevant for increasing intended benefits and reducing 

unintended harms. For example, general deterrence does not require specific 

lengths of stay. Accordingly, it may be that placing more inmates in restrictive 

housing for short durations may be more effective than segregating fewer 

inmates for longer durations. Crime theories suggest that severing inmates’ social 

ties and failing to address their criminogenic needs may contribute to more 

offending rather than less (Latessa et al., 2014; Mears & Cochran, 2015). From 

this perspective, greater gains in reducing misconduct or recidivism may arise 

either from not using restrictive housing or from combining its use with a variety 

of rehabilitative interventions. 

Similar illustrations exist for the other goals associated with restrictive housing. 

In each instance, theory is needed that can guide evaluation of implementation 

and impact. Such theory can be used to identify aspects of restrictive housing that 

might be modified to maximize its beneficial impacts and minimize its harms. 

Implementation 

A necessary condition for restrictive housing to achieve its intended goals is that 

it house appropriate inmates and be operated according to design. Typically, 

full and quality implementation should be established prior to evaluating 

policies and programs and estimating their impact. Otherwise, failure to achieve 

intended goals may be due to poor implementation rather than poor program 

design (Rossi et al., 2004; Mears, 2010). To date, however, there are no systematic 

empirical accounts, by year, that document the extent to which the housing 

is used according to design (King, 1999; Kurki & Morris, 2001; Shalev, 2009; 

Mears & Bales, 2010; Browne et al., 2011; Katel, 2012; Mushlin, 2012; Reiter, 

2012; Mears, 2013; U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2013; McGinnis et 

al., 2014). It is therefore not possible at present to know how (if at all) restrictive 

housing has contributed to the benefits or harms that have been ascribed to it. 

Appropriate Implementation Depends on Goals 

Determining the appropriate inmate population and operations of restrictive 

housing depends entirely on the goals associated with it. The ambiguity about the 

precise goals of restrictive housing — or the weighting of multiple goals — makes 

such determinations difficult. In addition, many states lack clear restrictive 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 257 

housing designs or blueprints that detail the theory or causal logic that guides 

its use. Such blueprints would include information about the following: specific 

goals, types of inmates who warrant placement in restrictive housing, the length 

of time in restrictive housing necessary to achieve the goals, and the precise 

operations, services, and treatment that are collectively expected to achieve these 

same goals. Ambiguity about the goals, theory, or design of restrictive housing 

creates ambiguity about assessing implementation. By extension, ambiguity in 

assessing the extent to which restrictive housing is used appropriately — that is, 

as intended — creates ambiguity in determining how to interpret its estimated or 

assumed impacts (Mears, 2006, 2008b, 2013). 

Appropriate Implementation of Protocols, Rules, and Procedures 

The federal government and states have protocols, rules, and procedures for 

restrictive housing (National Institute of Corrections, 1997; Austin et al., 1998; 

Riveland, 1999; Neal, 2003; Bruton, 2004; Collins, 2004; Mears, 2006; Shalev, 

2009; Butler et al., 2012; Association of State Correctional Administrators, 2013; 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2013; McGinnis et al., 2014; Richards, 

2015). A review by Kenneth McGinnis and colleagues, for example, provided 

an extensive description of the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ special housing units 

(McGinnis et al., 2014). They found substantial gaps in documentation assessing 

whether the Bureau’s housing is used appropriately and with fidelity to its design. 

The review also found that although the “general conditions of confinement in 

restricted housing units are consistent with national regulations and standards, 

the Bureau does not have adequate non-punitive protective custody housing 

units that have equivalent levels of programs and privileges as general population 

inmates.” They also found that “backlogs in inmates awaiting transfer to the 

next program level negate the intent of the program design and decrease the 

motivation to change behavior.” In addition, the team found that “mental health 

services in restrictive housing require improvement in three specific areas: 

(1) proper mental health diagnoses, (2) more effective treatment, and (3) 

providing sufficient psychiatric staffing.” The team concluded that “the lack of 

time parameters for completion of disciplinary hearings results in substantial 

variation among facilities in the amount of time served in segregation for similar 

offenses, and can result in disproportionately long sanctions” (McGinnis et al., 

2014). It is likely that comparable reviews of state prison systems would identify 

similar gaps between intended and actual operations of restrictive housing 

(Riveland, 1999; Briggs et al., 2003; Pizarro & Stenius, 2004; Mears, 2006, 2013; 

Mears & Watson, 2006; Reiter, 2012; Labrecque, 2015b; Richards, 2015). 

Appropriate Dose of Restrictive Housing 

The proper amount, or dose, of any intervention or policy requires an explicit 

articulation of the theory and research that justify a given level of treatment. 
258 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Too little intervention may result in no improvement, and too much may be 

unnecessary and harmful. What dose of restrictive housing is required to 

protect or punish an inmate? What dose is required to deter both inmates who 

experience restrictive housing (specific deterrence) and general population 

inmates (general deterrence)? Finally, what dose is required to improve 

systemwide safety and order, reduce gang influence, or improve correctional 

system efficiency or public safety? 

To date, few studies have documented the precise lengths of stay that inmates in 

restrictive housing experience, the frequency of their placement in such housing, 

or the percentage of all prison system inmates placed in restrictive housing at some 

point or another. Those few studies suggest that terms of confinement in restrictive 

housing can range from days, weeks, or months to 10 or more years; that inmates 

can cycle into and out of restrictive housing repeatedly; and that prison systems 

devote widely varying percentages of bed space to restrictive housing (BarakGlantz, 1983; National Institute of Corrections, 1997; King, 1999, 2007; Mears & 

Bales, 2010; Reiter, 2012; U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2013; Beck, 2015; 

Shames et al., 2015). However, no clearly articulated theory exists that establishes 

the precise durations needed in restrictive housing, or the number of inmates who 

need to be placed in it, to achieve its various intended goals. 

Appropriate Inmates for Restrictive Housing 

Whether an inmate is an appropriate candidate for restrictive housing depends 

first on the goals and design of the housing. For example, if it is used for 

protective custody, then inmates should be placed in restrictive housing when 

they meet a predefined set of criteria that indicate they need protection that 

cannot be provided through less costly or intrusive strategies. If punishment is 

the goal, then only those inmates who engage in acts that warrant punishment 

should be placed in restrictive housing. Not least, if restrictive housing serves 

any of a range of more general managerial goals, then these goals — and the 

types of inmates whose placement in restrictive housing could achieve these 

goals — must be explicitly articulated . As discussed above, the varying goals 

and the ambiguity in the theory or design of restrictive housing complicate 

any assessment of its implementation. Some studies have described random 

(representative) samples or non-random (nonrepresentative) samples of inmates in 

restrictive housing, as well as reports about the characteristics of individuals in such 

housing (Suedfeld, 1974; Suedfeld et al., 1982; Haney, 2003; Mears & Castro, 2006; 

Mears & Watson, 2006; Shalev, 2009; Mears & Bales, 2010; Reiter, 2012; O’Keefe et 

al., 2013; McGinnis et al., 2014; Baumgartel et al., 2014; Beck, 2015; Helmus, 2015; 

Labrecque, 2015; Richards, 2015). These studies do not, however, establish clearly 

whether appropriate inmates have been placed into restrictive housing. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 259 

Perhaps the only clear area of agreement in the literature is that nuisance inmates 

and the seriously mentally ill should not reside in restrictive housing. Yet, 

nuisance inmates clearly can and do get placed in restrictive housing (Riveland, 

1999; Lovell et al., 2000; Kurki & Morris, 2001; Pizarro & Stenius, 2004; Mears, 

2006, 2013; O’Keefe, 2008; Shalev, 2009; Browne et al., 2011; Richards, 2015), as 

do seemingly large numbers of inmates with serious mental disorders (Kurki & 

Morris, 2001; Haney, 2003; Cloyes et al., 2006; Mears, 2006; Smith, 2006, 2008; 

Kupers, 2008; Lovell, 2008; O’Keefe, 2008; Kupers et al., 2009; Shalev, 2009; 

O’Keefe et al., 2011; Beck, 2015; Richards, 2015). The precise prevalence of 

nuisance inmates or the seriously mentally ill in restrictive housing — by state 

and over time — is unknown. However, a large number of studies and reviews 

have found that many inmates who are not appropriate for restrictive housing 

reside in it and may do so for extended periods of time, suggesting that facilities 

may not be using restrictive housing as an option of last resort (Riveland, 1999; 

Lovell, et al., 2000; DeMaio, 2001; Kurki & Morris, 2001; Haney, 2003; Pizarro & 

Stenius, 2004; Cloyes et al., 2006; Mears, 2006, 2013; Smith, 2006; Kupers, 2008; 

Lovell, 2008; Kupers et al., 2009; Shalev. 2009; Mears & Bales, 2010; Browne et al., 

2011; O’Keefe et al., 2011; Baumgartel et al., 2015; Beck, 2015; Labrecque, 2015a; 

Richards, 2015; Shames et al., 2015). 

Implementation and Impact 

Appropriate implementation can be viewed as an important goal in its own 

right. From this perspective, state and federal prison systems ideally can provide 

empirical research that documents fidelity to the protocols, rules, and procedures 

for restrictive housing. Full and appropriate implementation is important, too, 

for determining whether restrictive housing can or is likely to produce intended 

outcomes. Accordingly, the absence of systematic empirical research on the 

implementation of restrictive housing means, by extension, that it will remain 

difficult to determine whether restrictive housing can be credited with achieving 

the goals set forth for it. 

Impacts 

Research on restrictive housing impacts can be summarized briefly. First, 

extant research does not provide a credible foundation on which to assert 

with confidence the impacts of restrictive housing in general or in specific 

prison systems. Second, few empirical studies of restrictive housing impacts 

have been undertaken. Third, extant studies examine only a small number of 

relevant outcomes. Fourth, these studies typically have not relied on strong 

methodological designs — including the use of relevant comparison groups or 

conditions — which makes it difficult to know whether restrictive housing causes 

observed outcomes. Fifth, even if many credible evaluations of impacts across a 
260 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

range of outcomes existed, questions would remain about how to interpret them 

because the need for and the theory and implementation of restrictive housing 

have not been well established empirically. For example, if an evaluation found 

that restrictive housing failed to improve systemwide safety and order, that failure 

might be due to faulty design (e.g., restrictive housing simply does not work) or 

poor implementation (e.g., the inmates most appropriate for such housing were 

not placed in it). 

Collectively, these limitations underscore the considerable need for caution in 

drawing conclusions about the impacts of restrictive housing. The discussion 

below identifies potential impacts, intended or not, of restrictive housing (Mears 

& Watson, 2006). Because impact assessments hinge entirely on identifying the 

appropriate counterfactual — that is, what would have happened had restrictive 

housing not been used — this issue is discussed first. The discussion then 

turns to the potential impact of restrictive housing on prison safety and order, 

inmates during and after release (including re-entry to society), retribution, gang 

influence, society, and prison system operations. The discussion also describes 

potential impacts of not using restrictive housing when it may be needed and, 

conversely, of using it when it may not be needed. 

Impacts and Counterfactuals 

A valid evaluation of the impact of restrictive housing requires information 

about what a prison system would have done instead of using restrictive housing. 

Unfortunately, it frequently is not clear what the counterfactual condition entails. 

Would a prison system have continued to employ its typical array of strategies for 

addressing a particular problem? Invested more in one particular strategy, such 

as strategically dispersing inmates throughout the prison system? Built a new 

maximum security prison? Increased treatment and rehabilitative programming? 

Improved officer training? Promoted cultural change among officers and inmates? 

In each instance, what the prison system would have done likely depends on 

which problem it sought to solve. There might have been a greater need for 

punishing inmates, protecting them, or reducing gang violence or prison riots. 

Each need entails different potential sets of responses. 

To further complicate the situation, researchers typically do not know what 

would have happened had restrictive housing not been an option. Identifying 

the relevant counterfactual requires guidance from corrections officials about 

what they would have done. Consider a situation in which inmates released from 

restrictive housing are compared with inmates from a prior time period who 

seem to be similar in all respects but could not be placed in such housing. The 

assumption here is that the prison system would have continued in a businessas-usual mode had it not built restrictive housing. That assumption might be 

correct. However, officials might have invested in other strategies to address a 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 261 

particular perceived problem if they could not rely on restrictive housing. Here, 

then, using “matched” inmates from a prior time period would be inappropriate. 

The lack of clarity about the most appropriate or relevant counterfactual to use 

when estimating restrictive housing impacts undermines almost all extant empirical 

studies of the effects of restrictive housing. These studies still can and do offer 

insight into the impacts of restrictive housing, but the insight ultimately is about 

potential impacts as compared to a largely unknown counterfactual. This issue 

also confronts any attempt to estimate the impact of reducing restrictive housing. 

What is the impact of reducing the use of restrictive housing? The answer 

depends greatly on what the prison system otherwise would do. 

Impacts on Prison System Safety and Order 

Few studies have empirically examined the effects of restrictive housing on 

systemwide safety and order. A study by Howard Bidna in the 1970s found little 

evidence that a lockdown of many of California’s maximum-security prisons 

affected stabbings in high-security units but some evidence that it reduced 

stabbings in other units (Bidna, 1975). Research by Ben Crouch and James 

Marquart suggested that Texas’ use of supermax housing may have reduced 

prison system homicides in the 1980s (Crouch & Marquart, 1989). Neither study 

included comparison sites or examined a diverse range of measures of violence 

or disorder. In what remains the strongest evaluation of supermax prison effects 

to date, Chad Briggs and colleagues compared three experimental sites (Arizona, 

Illinois, and Minnesota) and one comparison site (Utah) and then sought to 

determine whether systemwide levels of inmate-on-inmate and inmate-on-staff 

assaults declined more in the experimental sites (Briggs et al., 2003; see also 

Sundt et al., 2008). Little evidence of a consistent or appreciable beneficial impact 

of supermaxes surfaced; most of the analyses identified null effects, some pointed 

to modest reductions in violence, and one pointed to an increase. Beyond such 

studies, there exist primarily anecdotal accounts (including interviews with nonrandom samples of staff or inmates) that suggest a range of possible benefits and 

possible harms (Kurki & Watson, 2001; Briggs et al., 2003; Haney, 2003; Bruton, 

2004; Rhodes, 2004; Mears, 2006; Mears & Watson, 2006; Shalev, 2009; Mears, 

2013; Richards, 2015; Valera & Kates-Benman, 2015). 

In short, there remain almost no strong evaluations of the systemwide impacts 

of restrictive housing on inmate or staff safety or on the orderly operations of 

prison systems. Indeed, there are virtually no methodologically rigorous studies 

that examine the effects of restrictive housing on order alone; that is, the extent 

to which restrictive housing improves the amount and quality of inmate rule 

compliance and the day-to-day operations of prison systems. 

Some qualitative research accounts suggest that restrictive housing may be 

helpful in managing a crisis, such as a prison riot (Crouch & Marquart, 1989; 
262 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Ward & Werlich, 2003; Mears, 2008a; Austin & Irwin, 2012). However, there 

remains little methodologically rigorous empirical research to support that claim 

or to suggest that restrictive housing prevents riots. 

Restrictive housing may seem to incapacitate inmates from contributing to 

violence or disorder. However, inmates can and do affect both while in such 

housing (Austin et al., 1998; Preer, 2004; Mears & Watson, 2006; Mears, 

2013). On theoretical grounds, restrictive housing might contribute to 

improved systemwide safety and order through incapacitation, deterrence, 

and normalization of prison environments, but it might as easily worsen these 

outcomes. For example, use of restrictive housing might divert resources from 

more effective strategies and better prison management, and it may antagonize 

inmates in restrictive housing and in other prison facilities (Briggs et al., 2003; 

Mears & Reisig, 2006). Such possibilities remain largely unexamined empirically. 

Impacts on Inmates While in Restrictive Housing 

Considerably more research has focused on the impact of restrictive housing on 

individuals while they reside in restrictive housing rather than after they leave it. 

This research has tended to focus almost exclusively on mental health. A range of 

outcomes is relevant to assessing the impact of restrictive housing on inmates. 

Protection — Less Victimization 

A goal of restrictive housing is to protect inmates from victimization. Any 

such benefit depends on placing individuals most at risk of victimization in the 

housing. It also depends on the duration of the placement. A temporary stay in 

restrictive housing might prevent victimization during that stay, but it would do 

nothing to protect the inmate upon release. Little systematic empirical research 

has been undertaken to document the prevalence of restrictive housing for 

the purpose of protecting an inmate, the extent to which only highly at-risk 

individuals experience protective custody housing, the extent to which they are 

victimized upon release, and whether the rate of victimization declined after such 

custody. It may be safe to assume that certain inmates are victimized less often 

while in restrictive housing. However, it is possible, if not likely, that protective 

custody placement may increase victimization once the inmate is released back 

into general population facilities. It is also possible that some inmates are placed 

in restrictive housing under the auspices of seeking to protect them when in 

reality the primary goal is to remove nuisance inmates from these facilities 

(Lovell et al., 2000; Richards, 2015). 

Misconduct 

Inmates can and do engage in misconduct while in restrictive housing; indeed, 

some accounts suggest that housing design may directly induce violent behavior 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 263 

(Austin et al., 1998; Bruton, 2004; Preer, 2004; Rhodes, 2004; Mears & Watson, 

2006; King et al., 2008; Richards, 2015). The precise prevalence of misconduct 

among inmates in restrictive housing is not known. It also is not known how 

much the type or rate of misconduct decreases when an inmate is placed in 

restrictive housing. 

Mental Health 

Since the 1970s, a large number of studies have suggested that restrictive housing 

may harm inmates’ mental health. In fact, mental illness is substantially more 

prevalent in the inmate population than in society at large (Mears, 2004; Mears & 

Cochran, 2012, 2015; Prins, 2014). Accordingly, inmates with mental illness can 

and do get placed in restrictive housing, despite legal challenges to this practice 

(Haney, 2003; Smith, 2006; Kupers et al., 2009; Beck, 2015; Haney et al., 2015). 

Whether restrictive housing causes mental illness or exacerbates existing mental 

illness is less clear. On the one hand, numerous studies document that inmates 

in restrictive housing have a mental illness and report that restrictive housing 

appears to contribute to the illness. This view is supported by the argument 

that humans fundamentally are social beings and that depriving them of social 

contact for extended periods contributes to mental illness, self-harm, and 

possibly suicide (Grassian, 1983; Haney, 2003; Smith, 2006; Dye, 2010; Kaba et 

al., 2014; Lanes, 2015; Shames et al., 2015). On the other hand, few studies exist 

that include appropriate, matched comparison groups to document the effect 

of restrictive housing on inmates with mental illness relative to what otherwise 

would happen to these inmates (Smith, 2006; Mears, 2008b, 2013; Gendreau & 

Labrecque, 2015). An exception is a study by Maureen O’Keefe and colleagues 

that found little evidence that restrictive housing caused mental illness (O’Keefe 

et al., 2011, 2013). This finding was echoed by a meta-analysis of prior published 

work (Gendreau & Labrecque, 2015). 

The effect of restrictive housing on an inmate’s mental health likely varies 

depending on a variety of factors. These factors include the extent to which 

inmates actively seek placement in restrictive housing, the duration of exposure 

to it, the ability of certain individuals to cope with isolation, and the conditions 

of confinement, such as the availability of treatment and programming and 

the quality of inmate and staff relationships (Lovell et al., 2000; Kurki & 

Morris, 2001; Mears & Watson, 2006; O’Keefe et al., 2011, 2013; Mears, 2013; 

O’Donnell, 2014; Gendreau & Labrecque, 2015; Morris, 2015; Richards, 2015; 

Valera & Kates-Benman, 2015). The effect likely varies, too, depending on the 

counterfactual condition, such as transfer to or placement in a maximumsecurity prison or mental health facility. Such possibilities have not been 

subjected to empirical analysis. 
264 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Physical Health 

No systematic empirical research has been undertaken to document changes 

in the physical health of individuals placed in restrictive housing. However, 

confinement to a small cell likely contributes to minimal active movement or 

exercise and, by extension, associated harms (Booth et al., 2012). 

Participation in Rehabilitative Programming 

Studies show that inmates receive little or no rehabilitative programming, and 

services and treatment more generally, while in restrictive housing, and such 

programming is or may be of low dose and quality (Kurki & Morris, 2001; Haney, 

2003; Mears & Watson, 2006; O’Keefe et al., 2011; Gendreau & Labrecque, 2015; 

Haney et al., 2015; Richards, 2015). However, the precise magnitude of difference 

between programming, or its effects, in restrictive housing and the general prison 

population is unknown and has not been documented for individual states or 

over time. 

Ties to Family, Friends, and Communities 

Inmates typically fear the loss of ties to family, friends, and their home 

communities (Adams, 1992). The fear is justified — few inmates receive visitors 

or sustain contact with their social networks outside the prison walls (Bales & 

Mears, 2008; Cochran & Mears, 2013). This separation may weaken ties to family 

and contribute to inmate misconduct, recidivism, and poor re-entry outcomes 

(Mears & Bales, 2008; Cochran, 2012; Mears et al., 2012; Cochran & Mears, 

2013; Cochran et al., 2014; Siennick et al., 2013). Inmates in restrictive housing 

typically cannot or do not receive visits or telephone calls. However, the precise 

effect of restrictive housing, and its varying duration, on social ties to others 

remains largely unstudied. 

Risk of Misconduct and Reoffending 

While inmates reside in restrictive housing, they may change in ways that 

contribute to the likelihood of a specific deterrent effect upon release from 

the housing. At the same time, they are unlikely to receive rehabilitative 

programming, services, or treatment, which means that restrictive housing 

does little to address criminogenic factors that contribute to misconduct and 

recidivism. To date, however, no studies have systematically examined the change 

in an inmate’s propensity to engage in misconduct from the time of entry into 

restrictive housing to release from it. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 265 

Impacts on Inmates During Re-entry Into General Population Prisons 

Restrictive housing may affect inmates while they are confined to it, but it also may 

affect them after they return to the general prison population. Here, again, a range 

of outcomes may be relevant to evaluating the impacts of restrictive housing. 

Protection — Less Victimization 

There are no systematic or rigorous research studies that have documented the 

effect of restrictive housing on victimization of inmates after they leave it. Some 

research indicates that inmates may seek to be placed in restrictive housing 

for their own safety (Lovell et al., 2000; Mears & Watson, 2006; Gendreau & 

Labrecque, 2015). Indeed, it is also possible that placement in restrictive housing 

may signal to other inmates that a particular inmate is vulnerable or a problem. 

One inmate’s account indicates, for example, that “convicts look down on ‘checking 

in [to restrictive housing]’” for protection or to detox, avoid paying a gambling 

debt, or to “take a break” (Ferranti, 2015:55). It is also possible that placement 

in restrictive housing may give an inmate a reputation as someone who is tough 

and warrants challenging, or it may reduce the inmate’s ability to cope with other 

people, thereby increasing the risk of victimization (Haney, 2003; Mears & Watson, 

2006). However, no studies yet have empirically evaluated possibilities. 

Misconduct 

A stay in restrictive housing may deter inmates from future misconduct. 

Conversely, it may antagonize them — what has been referred to as the “rage 

hypothesis” (Ward & Werlich, 2003) — or increase their risk of misconduct. 

Few studies have tested this idea. One study of inmates, which used a matching 

design, found that short-term stays in solitary confinement as punishment did 

not appear to increase infractions (Morris, 2015). The study has its limitations; 

it focused on one large southern state, did not examine protective custody or 

administrative management segregation, and excluded gang members and 

inmates sentenced to capital punishment or life without parole. Accordingly, its 

generalizability to other states or other uses of restrictive housing is unknown. 

A separate study examined adult inmates in Ohio who were serving at least one 

year in prison and were placed in solitary confinement for punishment. This 

study, too, found no robust evidence that restrictive housing contributed to 

subsequent misconduct (Labrecque, 2015).9

 There was, however, some evidence 

that, among mentally ill inmates and gang members, solitary confinement might 

be associated with subsequent nonviolent or drug misconduct (Labrecque, 

2015:113). Both studies stand out because they constitute the only studies to 

9 The motivation for the Morris (2015) paper stemmed in part from the fact that no published empirical study had 

examined the impact of restrictive housing, among the individual inmates exposed to it, on their subsequent inprison behavior. Labrecque’s (2015) study was undertaken after the Morris (2015) study was published. 
266 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

date to employ strong research designs to examine restrictive housing effects on 

misconduct. Their generalizability to other populations (e.g., inmates in restrictive 

housing for non-punitive reasons or for extended periods) or states is unknown. 

Mental Health 

The inference from extant research is that restrictive housing may adversely 

affect inmate mental health prior to and after release from restrictive housing. 

However, recent work and a meta-analysis raise questions about such claims 

(O’Keefe et al., 2011; Gendreau & Labrecque, 2015). Research on the effects of 

restrictive housing on inmate mental health has focused primarily on the period 

of time in which the inmates reside in the housing. Many studies proceed from 

the assumption that restrictive housing creates near-instantaneous effects on 

mental health (O’Keefe et al., 2011; Gendreau & Labrecque, 2015). The effect 

of restrictive housing on subsequent in-prison mental health outcomes has not 

been systematically evaluated using “apples to apples” comparisons between 

inmates exposed to restrictive housing and similar inmates who were not. 

Some researchers have suggested that, though restrictive housing may have 

harmful effects on inmate mental health, longer exposure to restrictive housing 

is required (Kupers, 2008; O’Keefe et al., 2013). Research has not examined the 

range of restrictive housing stays and conditions across different populations and 

prison systems using matched comparison groups to assess such possibilities. 

Physical Health 

Studies have not systematically evaluated the effects of restrictive housing on 

inmates’ physical health during or after release from it. Some commentaries and 

qualitative accounts involving nonrepresentative samples suggest that placement 

in restrictive housing might lead to a greater risk of victimization after release. 

For example, an inmate may have acquired or reinforced an affiliation as a gang 

member while in restrictive housing, or alternatively, that inmate may have 

denounced an affiliation and so exposed himself or herself as a potential snitch 

(Hunt et al., 1993; Kassel, 1998; Kurki & Morris, 2001; Briggs et al., 2003; Mears 

& Watson, 2006; King et al., 2008; Richards, 2015). 

Participation in Rehabilitative Programming 

Little is known about the extent to which inmates released from restrictive 

housing engage in or receive rehabilitative programming and whether receipt 

of programming varies from what it otherwise would be if inmates had not 

been placed there. To the extent that restrictive housing adversely affects mental 

health, there would seem to be a need for more such programming. To the 

extent that it contributes to increased misconduct, inmates may be more likely 

to be returned to restrictive housing, thereby reducing their opportunities for 

rehabilitative intervention even more. This possibility, however, remains largely 

unexamined empirically. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 267 

Ties to Family, Friends, and Communities 

Restrictive housing — particularly lengthy stays — may weaken or sever inmates’ 

ties to other inmates and to family members, friends, and others in their home 

communities. To the extent that social ties are helpful in navigating and coping 

with prison life, and that restrictive housing stays degrade these ties (Adams, 

1992; Bottoms, 1999; Cochran, 2012; Mears & Cochran, 2015), inmates may 

be more likely to experience adverse outcomes when they return to general 

population facilities. This possibility, too, has not been examined empirically. 

Risk of Reoffending 

An inmate’s risk of recidivism might increase or decrease as a result of time in 

restrictive housing, and this change might be greater among inmates who have 

greater exposure — whether through total duration or frequency of placement — 

to restrictive housing. Although several studies have examined restrictive housing 

and recidivism, none has estimated changes in the risk of reoffending at the point 

of release from restrictive housing to general population facilities or to society. 

Impacts on Inmates During Re-entry Into Society 

Recidivism 

Few studies exist that use methodologically strong research designs, such as 

matching analyses, to examine restrictive housing impacts on recidivism.10 One 

exception is a study of supermax inmates in Washington state. David Lovell 

and colleagues found that supermax incarceration was not associated with 

recidivism; however, inmates released directly from supermax incarceration 

were more likely to recidivate compared to inmates with supermax stays that 

entailed first returning to a general inmate population facility before release 

(Lovell et al., 2007). A related study of Washington state inmates that employed 

a weaker research design found that restrictive housing was associated with a 

greater likelihood of violent recidivism (Lovell & Johnson, 2004). Another study 

examined supermax incarceration among Florida inmates. Using propensity 

score matching, the study found a positive effect of supermax incarceration on 

violent recidivism but no effect on general recidivism (Mears & Bales, 2009). It 

also found no evidence that time in supermax housing or direct-release from it 

to society exerted a greater effect on reoffending. Finally, a study by Daniel Butler 

and colleagues found no significant effect of supermax housing on recidivism 

(Butler et al., forthcoming, as reported in Steiner & Beard, 2015). 

10 The motivation for the Morris (2015) paper stemmed in part from the fact that no published empirical study had 

examined the impact of restrictive housing, among the individual inmates exposed to it, on their subsequent inprison behavior. Labrecque’s (2015) study was undertaken after the Morris (2015) study was published. 
268 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Collectively, these few studies suggest that restrictive housing may increase 

violent recidivism. Whether the total duration in or timing of release from 

restrictive housing matters is unclear. Indeed, the main conclusion mirrors 

that for other outcomes — too few methodologically strong studies have been 

conducted to state with confidence the effect of restrictive housing. Extant 

studies not only are few in number, but they also do not systematically evaluate 

the impact of various dimensions of restrictive housing, such as the effects of 

using restrictive housing for protective custody or punishment or the potential 

for effects to vary according to the characteristics of inmates or the conditions in 

restrictive housing. 

Employment 

Prison may adversely affect the employment prospects of individuals (Mears 

& Cochran, 2015). Empirical research has not systematically examined how 

different types of prison experiences may differentially influence employment 

outcomes upon release. Short-term stays in restrictive housing would appear, 

on the face of it, to exert little appreciable effect on such outcomes. Longerterm stays, however, might do so by limiting participation in vocational and 

educational programming as well as in re-entry planning. Restrictive housing 

also might affect employment outcomes by adversely affecting inmates’ mental 

health. Regardless, to date only one study has examined restrictive housing’s 

effect on employment; it found no evidence that such housing harmed 

employment after an inmate is released into society (Butler et al., forthcoming, as 

reported in Steiner & Beard, 2015). It is presently unknown what would be found 

in state-by-state studies of varying doses of restrictive housing and of different 

approaches to the design and operation of restrictive housing. 

Mental Health 

Research that examines mental health outcomes among inmates during their 

stays in restrictive housing has been hampered by methodological limitations, 

and few studies have examined mental health outcomes among inmates after 

they leave restrictive housing and return to general population facilities. No 

methodologically rigorous studies have examined the long-term effects of 

restrictive housing on inmate mental health during incarceration and after reentry into society. 

Physical Health 

No empirical research has used strong study designs to systematically examine 

the impacts of restrictive housing on the physical health outcomes of inmates 

when they return to society. The accounts of gang members suggest the 

possibility, one not evaluated empirically, that placement in restrictive housing 

may increase the risk of victimization when inmates return to society (Hunt 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 269 

et al., 1993; Kassel, 1998; Kurki & Morris, 2001; Briggs et al., 2003; Mears & 

Watson, 2006; King et al., 2008; Richards, 2015). 

Ties to Family, Friends, and Communities 

Here, again, there is no empirical research that draws on strong methodological 

research designs to estimate the effect of restrictive housing on ties to family, 

friends, and communities. 

Impacts on Punishment (Retribution) 

One of the central justifications for, or goals of, restrictive housing is to punish 

inmates (King, 1999; Riveland, 1999; Lovell et al., 2000; Kurki & Morris, 2001; 

Neal, 2003; Shalev, 2009; Browne et al., 2011; Mears, 2013; Beck, 2015; Morris, 

2015). Such punishment can be viewed as instrumental in promoting specific or 

general deterrence. However, it also clearly has been and is viewed as a goal in 

and of itself. Whether restrictive housing achieves a desired level of retribution 

has not, to date, been empirically evaluated by researchers. To do so would 

require an empirically based, explicitly articulated calculus of a given set of 

sanctions, including restrictive housing. This type of “science of punishment” — 

or, more specifically, science of retribution — has not been developed (Mears et 

al., 2015:706). If applied to restrictive housing, any such science would need to 

examine the amount of perceived punishment among those sent to restrictive 

housing as well as the amount of perceived punishment among other inmates 

and the prison administration. In so doing, it would need to take into account 

the fact that some inmates may seek placement in restrictive housing, while 

others may be greatly harmed by it. Without such information, the extent to 

which restrictive housing achieves the goal of retribution will remain unclear — 

both conceptually and empirically. 

Impacts on Gang Influence 

Some prison systems have used restrictive housing as a means by which to control 

gangs and reduce their influence on prison operations and violence (Ralph & 

Marquart, 1991; National Institute of Corrections, 1997; Ward & Werlich, 2003; 

Pizarro & Stenius, 2004; Mears & Castro, 2006; Mears & Reisig, 2006; Shalev, 2009; 

Mears & Watson, 2006; Naday et al., 2008; Sundt et al., 2008; Butler et al., 2012; 

Reiter, 2012; Mears, 2013; McGinnis et al., 2014; Richards, 2015). To date, there 

are no methodologically rigorous evaluation of the impact of restrictive housing 

on gang influence. Such studies would need to examine rates of misconduct before 

and after the use of restrictive housing or in relation to changes in how much it is 

used, and they should address potential confounding from other strategies that 

prison systems simultaneously employed to address gang activity. The latter issue is 

critical because when prison systems face a crisis of any kind — such as riots or a 
270 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

dramatic increase in violence or disorder — they will employ a range of strategies. 

That approach is understandable but makes it difficult to isolate the unique effects 

of restrictive housing. 

Existing accounts point to ways in which restrictive housing may decrease or 

increase gang influence and violence. Beneficial effects may arise when restrictive 

housing allows prison officials to inhibit gang leadership. Harmful effects may 

arise when the leadership is replaced, new gangs emerge to fill a void, reliance on 

restrictive housing distracts officials from focusing on potential root causes of 

gang problems or prison violence, and so on. However, extant research has not 

addressed these methodological issues and, therefore, provide little credible basis 

on which to claim that restrictive housing affects gang activity in either the short 

term or long term.11 

Impacts on Society 

Restrictive housing might benefit society by improving re-entry outcomes 

and by enabling the prison system to operate more effectively and efficiently. 

For example, if staff can better perform their roles and obligations and 

rehabilitative programming can be better implemented, an improvement might 

occur in aggregate inmate behavior and recidivism, as well as housing, mental 

health, and employment outcomes (Mears & Reisig, 2006). Such benefits might 

arise from improvements among inmates sent to restrictive housing or general 

population inmates. 

Conversely, restrictive housing may harm society by worsening outcomes for 

segregated housing and general population inmates and officers.12 It might 

distract officials and divert funding from the causes of the problems that 

restrictive housing seeks to address such as violence, disorder, and gangs. 

11 Thoughtful attempts to study restrictive housing impacts on gang activity exist and paint a mixed portrait. Ward 

and Werlich’s (2003) account suggests that prison wardens view restrictive housing as effective in controlling 

gangs (see also Mears & Castro, 2006). Paige Ralph and James Marquart (1991) examined whether use 

of Texas supermax facilities to house gang leaders affected gang violence; they found little evidence that it 

did so (as compared to Austin et al., 1998). Geoffrey Hunt and colleagues (1993) interviewed ex-prisoners 

who reported ways in which placing gang members in restrictive housing might increase prison violence. 

One mechanism is that doing so may create a “vacuum” of power in the inmate culture that allows new and 

potentially more dangerous prison gangs to emerge. The study did not directly examine systemwide effects 

of restrictive housing on gang-related activity. Other empirical accounts that rely on non-random samples or 

qualitative research methodologies exist and identified mixed findings (see, generally, Kassel, 1998; Bottoms, 

1999; Briggs et al., 2003; Mears & Watson, 2006; Pizarro & Narag, 2008; Austin & Irwin, 2012; O’Donnell, 

2014; Richards, 2015). 

12 “[Solitary confinement] is not solely a corrections issue; the overwhelming majority of people incarcerated will be 

released, and the impact of long periods of isolation on their health, employability, and future life chances will be 

felt in the families and communities to which they return. It is important to understand the health impacts of the 

widespread use of segregation at the population level, in addition to assessing the effect of time spent in solitary 

confinement on individual health outcomes” (Cloud et al., 2015:21; see also Mears, 2013). 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 271 

It also might engender a culture of abuse among officers and of defiance among 

inmates. In addition, it might harm inmates’ families by eliminating or greatly 

reducing contact between families and inmates. Finally, use of restrictive housing 

might harm society by releasing inmates to communities who are less equipped 

to succeed than they otherwise might be. 

These potential benefits and harms are speculative. No systematic, methodologically 

rigorous evaluations have examined their existence or magnitude. What is known 

is that prison-based behavioral programs can reduce inmate misconduct and that 

this benefit can be sustained during their transition into the community (French & 

Gendreau, 2006). Accordingly, the benefits or harms of restrictive housing may have 

effects on inmates that also extend into the community. 

Impacts of Not Using Restrictive Housing When Needed 

When restrictive housing may be needed but is not used, the clear risk of 

harm arises. For example, if such housing serves as the only viable option for 

preventing or halting a prison riot, the failure to use it — or to have it available 

to use — may enable a riot to happen or lead to longer riots. Presently, there is 

no clear empirical basis for establishing when or how much restrictive housing 

is needed to achieve various goals. Accordingly, there is no clear basis on which 

to estimate the harms that may arise from having no — or enough — restrictive 

housing, or from failing to use it at all or using it in an insufficient dose to 

achieve a particular goal. 

This situation applies to virtually all of the goals associated with restrictive 

housing. For example, if the goal is to punish inmates, there may be a 

consequence of not using restrictive housing, but that consequence is not clear. 

Many options exist for punishing inmates. In such a context, the only basis on 

which to estimate the impacts of not having restrictive housing is to determine 

precisely which punishments are available and which are appropriate for various 

acts of misconduct. Prison systems may designate and follow a hierarchy 

of sanctions, but that practice merely affirms a policy; it does not establish 

empirically the extent to which restrictive housing is needed or, in turn, the 

impacts of not employing the housing. 

Similarly, if the goal is to protect certain inmates, there may be a consequence of not 

having or using restrictive housing. However, the consequence cannot be established 

empirically without first knowing what factors contributed to the need to protect 

inmates and what other approaches can be adopted to address the problem. 
272 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Impacts of Using Restrictive Housing When It May Not Be Needed 

When restrictive housing is used but not needed, a range of potential harms may 

arise, including the diversion of resources from more cost-effective approaches 

to managing prison systems and inmates, creation of a culture of abuse among 

officers, and emergence of a culture of inmate hostility and defiance. Other 

possibilities include greater harm to officers, higher rates of mental illness among 

inmates, more inmate misconduct, and worse re-entry outcomes for all inmates, 

especially for those who have experienced restrictive housing. There is no 

empirical research that directly identifies the extent of such harms or the extent 

to which restrictive housing is not used as an option of last resort (Mears, 2013). 

Studies have documented potential harms of restrictive housing, but they have 

not systematically and simultaneously evaluated the range of benefits and harms 

associated with its use. Accordingly, those studies primarily draw attention to a 

particular benefit or harm without demonstrating the net benefit or harm relative 

to a particular counterfactual (Mears & Watson, 2006). 

Cost-Efficiency 

Impacts alone are irrelevant if they are small, are offset by substantial financial 

costs, or could be achieved more effectively through alternatives. To date, no 

research documents the effect of the cost-efficiency of restrictive housing on 

the overall efficiency of jails and prison systems (Lawrence & Mears, 2004; 

Pizarro & Stenius, 2004; Mears, 2006, 2008b, 2013; Shalev, 2009). Two important 

conceptual issues, discussed below, bear on evaluating cost-efficiency. 

Restrictive Housing as Presumptive Policy or as Alternative 

In the early 1980s, prior to the expansion of restrictive housing, a central policy 

question was “What is the effect of increasing the use of restrictive housing?” That 

question remains relevant in contemporary times. However, the widespread use of 

restrictive housing also raises a related question: “What is the effect of decreasing 

the use of restrictive housing?” The first question examines the effects of increasing 

restrictive housing in a context where such housing is little used; the second 

examines the effects of decreasing restrictive housing in a context where it is widely 

used. Two implications flow from these opposing circumstances. 

First, in both instances, research on the effectiveness of restrictive housing is 

lacking. Second, the most relevant research question is not necessarily whether 

restrictive housing should be retained until evidence emerges that more effective 

and cost-efficient alternatives exist. That question makes restrictive housing 

appear to constitute the presumptive policy. The equally relevant question 

begins with presuming that restrictive housing constitutes an alternative to other 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 273 

policies for protecting, punishing, and managing inmates, and for achieving 

prison system goals. 

The Cost-Efficiency of Restrictive Housing and Other Approaches 

Prison systems seek to achieve a range of goals (e.g., protecting, punishing, and 

managing inmates, and creating a safe and orderly environment) that not only 

minimizes harms to inmates and staff but also prepares inmates for re-entry into 

society. Prison systems can employ a wide range of approaches to achieve these 

goals. Approaches include — 

•	 Better inmate classification. 

•	 Dispersing certain inmates strategically throughout the prison system. 

•	 Increasing and improving staff training, education, and professionalism. 

•	 Improving inmate culture. 

•	 Improving officer culture. 

•	 Ensuring fair and consistent enforcement of rules. 

•	 Implementing and using incentives to motivate inmates to comply with prison rules. 

•	 Providing evidence-based cognitive-behavioral treatment and rehabilitative, 

vocational, and educational programming. 

•	 Structuring the prison environment and activities in ways that reduce 

opportunities for misconduct and promote rule conformity and participation in 

programming (DiIulio, 1987; Logan, 1993; Sparks et al., 1996; Gendreau et al., 

1997; Reisig, 1998; Bottoms, 1999; Gendreau & Keyes, 2001; Kurki & Morris, 

2001; Briggs et al., 2003; Irwin, 2005; French & Gendreau, 2006; Mears, 2008a, 

2008b, 2013; Pizarro & Narag, 2008; Sundt et al., 2008; Useem & Piehl, 2008; 

Cullen et al., 2014; Browne et al., 2015; Wooldredge & Steiner, 2015). 

How cost-efficient is each approach, or combination of approaches, to achieving 

prison system goals? That question remains largely undetermined. Instead, 

research documents that some approaches effectively improve certain outcomes 

in certain contexts. No rigorous comparative empirical analyses of the effects of 

the different approaches exist. Yet, the fact that such a diversity of approaches 

exists highlights the problem of assuming that restrictive housing is needed or 

that it is more effective and cost-effective than other approaches at achieving 

various prison system goals. 
274 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Critical Research Gaps and Questions 

An abundance of research gaps and questions on restrictive housing have been 

identified by researchers.13 Addressing them presents many opportunities to 

advance science and policy. For example, knowledge about the conditions that 

create safe and orderly prisons would contribute to theory and scholarship 

aimed at understanding how organizations operate. It also would contribute to 

corrections officials’ efforts to improve safety and order in their prison systems. 

Below are some of the most critical empirical research gaps and questions that 

bear directly or indirectly on efforts to understand the impacts of restrictive 

housing on inmates and the institutional environment of prison systems. The 

gaps and questions can be organized broadly into five categories: need, theory, 

implementation, impacts, and cost-efficiency. They include, however, additional 

areas that relate to restrictive housing impacts and efforts to improve the science 

and policy on this housing. 

Restrictive Housing Classification 

Restrictive housing discussions are severely hampered by inconsistent definitions 

of the housing and its design and goals. Definitions and classifications are not 

correct or incorrect, but rather more or less useful. Which definitions and 

classifications are most useful in ensuring that appropriate inmates are sent to 

restrictive housing to achieve particular goals? 

Clarification of the Goals and Need for Restrictive Housing 

The goals relate directly to the need for restrictive housing. Clear goals have 

ripple effects along many dimensions, including identifying appropriate inmates 

for restrictive housing, the design of the housing, and its impacts. Thus, what are 

the precise goals of restrictive housing? Which goals should be weighted more 

heavily than others? For each goal, how many inmates fit the profile of those who 

require restrictive housing? 

13 A non-exhaustive listing includes the following: Cooke (1989); Ward (1995); King (1999, 2005, 2007); Rivel& 

(1999); Lovell & colleagues (2000); Kurki & Morris (2001); Briggs & colleagues (2003); Henningsen & colleagues 

(2003); Haney (2003); Neal (2003); Toch (2003); Ward & Werlich (2003); Pizarro & Stenius (2004); Mears 

(2005, 2006, 2008a, 2008b, 2013); Cloyes et al. (2006); Mears & Castro (2006); Mears & Reisig (2006); Mears 

& Watson (2006); Smith (2006, 2008); Lovell & colleagues (2007); King & colleagues (2008); Kupers (2008); 

Naday & colleagues (2008); Pizarro & Narag (2008); Sundt & colleagues (2008); Kupers & colleagues (2009); 

Mears & Bales (2009, 2010); Shalev (2009); Browne & colleagues (2011); Butler & colleagues (2012); Reiter 

(2012); Mears & colleagues (2013); McGinnis & colleagues (2014); O’Donnell (2014); Pizarro & colleagues 

(2014); Baumgartel & colleagues (2015); Cloud & colleagues (2015); Frost & Monteiro (2015); Gendreau & 

Labrecque (2015); Labrecque (2015a); Morris (2015); Richards (2015); Valera & Kates-Benman (2015); U.S. 

Department of Justice Work Group (2016). 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 275 

Effective Use of Steps to Reduce the Need for Restrictive Housing 

Inmates do not act in isolation. Their behavior typically derives from their 

individual characteristics and the settings in which they reside. Ignoring the 

effects of these settings — including the composition of the inmate population 

and prison conditions, programming, staffing, and management — contributes 

to inmate misconduct. This in turn creates an apparent need to seek recourse 

with incapacitating measures, such as restrictive housing. For any given goal 

associated with restrictive housing, to what extent have other approaches for 

achieving the goals been pursued? Have they been implemented well? If they have 

not been pursued or implemented well, then there is likely a need for improvements 

that target these approaches, rather than a need for restrictive housing. 

The Theory of Restrictive Housing 

The theory underlying the use of restrictive housing for any of a variety of goals 

remains poorly developed, which creates missed opportunities to use, design, 

and modify restrictive housing to maximize benefits and minimize harms. 

What, then, are the most credible theoretical grounds on which to anticipate 

that restrictive housing — or a particular design (e.g., duration, deprivations, 

programming) — will improve any given outcome (e.g., reduced gang influence, 

reduced violence among the most violent inmates, improved systemwide safety 

and order)? 

Adherence to Protocols, Rules, and Procedures 

Numerous protocols, rules, and procedures guide restrictive housing operations, 

in part to protect against lawsuits (Collins, 2004; Naday et al., 2008; Baumgartel 

et al., 2015). To what extent do states and the federal government — and various 

prison facilities — administer restrictive housing in ways that fulfill these 

different operational requirements and that comport with the Constitution and 

court rulings (King et al., 2008; Reiter, 2012; Mears, 2013)? 

Amount and Quality of Services, Treatment, and Privileges in 

Restrictive Housing 

Prison systems typically purport to offer services, treatment, and some privileges 

to inmates in restrictive housing. To what extent do these systems actually do so? 

What is, and what affects, the amount and quality of such amenities? What is the 

amount and quality of mental health counseling and treatment? 
276 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Admissions to and Releases From Restrictive Housing 

Restrictive housing operates largely in the equivalent of a black box (Mears, 2005, 

2006, 2013; Butler et al., 2012). Little systematic or comprehensive empirical 

analysis exists — by state or federal prison system and over time — in the 

actual use of restrictive housing. Some exceptions exist. For example, a study of 

Washington state inmates in restrictive housing found that they varied greatly in 

their characteristics. Some had extensive histories of violence and others did not. 

Approximately one-third had a serious mental illness. Many younger inmates 

appeared to behave in ways that would result in their placement in intensive 

management housing as a way to protect themselves. Some inmates spent little 

time in restrictive housing while others spent most of their total prison stay in it 

(Lovell et al., 2000). 

A study of Florida supermax inmates found that 55 percent had experienced 

three or more stays in supermax housing (Mears & Bales, 2010). For 44 percent 

of supermax inmates, their time in restrictive housing constituted less than 15 

percent of their total term of incarceration. Fourteen percent of the supermax 

inmates spent more than half of their incarceration in supermax housing. One 

inmate in four (28 percent) had been in supermax housing within three months 

of their release to society. The study also found that younger inmates and black 

inmates were more likely to be placed in supermax housing; this difference 

stemmed primarily from these groups engaging in more of the behaviors that 

lead to such confinement. (The study did not examine whether these inmates 

were differentially managed and treated by the prison system, which could 

contribute to such behavioral differences.) 

A study of California supermax inmates identified similar variations and patterns 

(Reiter, 2012). These included widely variable durations — ranging from months 

to 10 years or more — spent in supermax housing. Other findings included 

a greater likelihood that Hispanic inmates resided in restrictive housing, 

approximately one-third or more of inmates being released directly from 

supermax housing to the streets, and considerable variability in patterns across 

supermax facilities. 

In 2015, BJS released its national study of restrictive housing, which provided 

a one-time snapshot of restrictive housing in 2011-2012. The report provided 

more representative and extensive details about restrictive housing inmates than 

has ever been published (Beck, 2015). As with the 2014 Yale/ASCA survey of 

corrections administrators, the study documented considerable heterogeneity 

in the inmate population in restrictive housing and the use of restrictive 

housing across facilities (Baumgartel et al., 2015). Inmates who spent time in 

restrictive housing were more likely to be young, lesbian, gay, or bisexual; to have 

committed a violent offense; and to have a mental illness. Other studies point to 

additional factors associated with restrictive housing placement, such as gang 

membership, infractions, and prior stays in segregation (Motiuk & Blanchette 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 277 

2001; O’Keefe et al., 2011; McGinnis et al., 2014; Helmus, 2015). Some prisons 

rarely place inmates in restrictive housing, while others do so frequently (King, 

1999; Mears, 2006; Baumgartel et al., 2015). 

These studies have advanced understanding about the use of restrictive housing 

— including who is admitted to and released from it — but they provide only 

one-time snapshots and leave many questions unaddressed. For states and the 

federal government, critical questions remain to be answered. In every instance, 

data are needed by year to establish changes in patterns and to explain what 

accounts for variations in the use of restrictive housing over time. For example, 

to what extent are policies for restrictive housing fully implemented? What are 

the demographic, social, criminal, and mental and physical health characteristics 

of individuals in restrictive housing? What characteristics or behaviors lead 

to such confinement? What other strategies or options are pursued with these 

inmates? How frequently and how long do individuals spend time there? To what 

extent are admission and release processes fair? Which facilities use restrictive 

housing more than others? Which inmates in restrictive housing experience 

more benefits and which experience higher rates of self-injury or harm? What 

factors explain variation across these different dimensions? For example, 

if minorities are more likely to be in restrictive housing, what explains the 

difference? How have patterns of restrictive housing use changed over time, and 

what factors explain such variation? 

Impacts of Restrictive Housing 

For state or federal prison systems, what are the impacts of restrictive housing 

for a range of outcomes? Few credible studies of impact exist, and those that do 

focus on one state, point in time, or outcome. What is needed are studies that 

employ rigorous research methodologies, including appropriate comparison 

groups or conditions identified through matching or related procedures, that 

estimate restrictive housing impacts on a range of outcomes. These include 

systemwide prison safety and order, gang influence, inmate protection, perceived 

and objective severity of punishment, and inmate outcomes during and after 

restrictive housing (e.g., misconduct, self-injury, mental and physical health, 

family ties). Also needed are reviews of inmate outcomes upon release from 

restrictive housing to society (e.g., recidivism, employment, reunification with 

family), as well as restrictive housing’s effects on the inmates’ families and on 

public health and safety. Other outcomes to be examined include prison system 

operations and staff (e.g., effects on available programming or on staff), the 

effects of not using restrictive housing when it is needed, and the effects of using 

restrictive housing when it is not needed. 

In each instance, information is needed on the magnitude of the impacts and the 

features, including the dose and timing, of restrictive housing that create them. 

For example, does release directly from restrictive housing affect recidivism? 
278 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

If so, is the effect greater than that on inmates who are first transitioned from 

restrictive housing to general population prison facilities before release into the 

community (Lovell et al., 2007; Mears & Bales, 2009; Reiter, 2012)? Research is 

also needed on how inmates perceive the experience of restrictive housing. What 

aspects of the experience — such as duration, staff-inmate interactions, treatment 

and services, re-entry preparation — might be changed to maximize benefits and 

minimize harms (Cooke, 1989; Crouch & Marquart, 1989; Bottoms, 1999; Kurki 

& Morris, 2001; Mears, 2008a, 2008b, 2013; Gendreau & Labrecque, 2015)? 

Conditions Under Which Restrictive Housing Achieves Intended Goals 

Impact evaluations provide an estimate of the effect of a given policy on one 

or more outcomes. They do not necessarily provide insight into why exactly 

the impacts arose. The more general research question, then, is: Under what 

conditions does restrictive housing achieve its various intended goals? For 

example, are there certain durations of exposure to restrictive housing that 

must occur for inmates to be protected or for systemwide safety and order to 

be increased? What percentage of inmates must be placed in restrictive housing 

to halt a riot or to prevent one? Under what conditions does litigation improve 

restrictive housing use and its impacts? 

Conditions Under Which Unintended Harms Can Be Minimized 

Restrictive housing may contribute to any of a range of unintended harms. 

For example, it may worsen inmate mental health and possibly contribute to 

recidivism and systemwide violence and disorder. A related question, then, is: 

Under what conditions can all appreciable unintended harms be minimized 

while maximizing any potential benefits? 

Impacts of Duration, Frequency, and Recency of Restrictive Housing 

The effect of time served in restrictive housing has gone largely unexamined. 

Time served constitutes a critical issue because it directly relates to cost. Holding 

inmates longer than necessary wastes scarce resources. If lengthier stays create 

more benefits, then longer stays may be warranted. Conversely, if they cause 

more harm, then two negative conditions occur — scarce resources are wasted 

and their expenditure causes more harm than benefit. 

No clear theoretical basis exists for establishing a precise amount of time in 

restrictive housing that must occur to create particular outcomes. Accordingly, this 

lack of theoretical basis, along with the apparent heterogeneity in time served, gives 

rise to a series of questions. How long must individuals reside in restrictive housing 

to achieve a particular benefit or to produce harm? What are the minimum 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 279 

durations necessary to achieve benefits? What are the effects of repeated restrictive 

housing placement? What are the effects on re-entry of the recency of placement 

in restrictive housing? From a more macro-level perspective, what prison-specific 

or systemwide numbers or percentages of inmates must be placed in restrictive 

housing to achieve particular impacts? What are the effects of dramatic increases or 

decreases in the use of restrictive housing? 

Cost-Efficiency of Restrictive Housing Compared to Other Approaches 

Restrictive housing stands as but one of myriad approaches that prison systems 

can use to achieve various goals (DiIulio, 1987; Sparks et al., 1996; Reisig, 1998; 

Bottoms, 1999; Gendreau & Keyes, 2001; Toch, 2003; French & Gendreau, 2006; 

King, 2007; Mears, 2008a, 2008b, 2013; Useem & Piehl, 2008; Shalev, 2009; 

Browne et al., 2011; Association of State Correctional Administrators, 2013; Ross, 

2013; Baumgartel et al., 2014; Browne et al., 2015; Frakes, 2015; Shames et al., 

2015). How cost-efficient is restrictive housing relative to the other approaches? 

Ideally, prison systems would have credible answers to this question prior to 

investing in any particular approach, including restrictive housing. When they 

already have these approaches and the housing, the relevant comparison can 

be challenging. What in fact is a prison system willing or able to implement? 

Can it build a new maximum-security facility? Hire more staff? Invest in more 

rehabilitative programming? Answers to such questions may be dictated by 

political considerations or management philosophies. In such instances, costefficiency analyses should focus on comparisons to approaches or changes that 

are most likely to be implemented. 

Special Populations, Prison Contexts, and Restrictive Housing 

Programs and policies may have different effects on certain groups or in certain 

contexts (Gendreau et al., 1997; Mears, 2010, 2013; Browne et al., 2015; Morris, 

2015). The same possibility holds for restrictive housing, which may have more 

beneficial or harmful effects for certain groups (e.g., female inmates, inmates 

with mental illness, very young or older inmates). It also may have variable 

effects in different prison systems. For example, in a prison system where 

inmates view correctional administrators as wielding authority in a legitimate 

manner, restrictive housing may serve as a useful tool for improving safety and 

order. In a system where inmates view administrators as lacking in legitimacy, 

restrictive housing may serve primarily to antagonize inmates and reinforce their 

unwillingness to comply with rules. In short, what are the uses and effects of 

restrictive housing for different populations and prison system contexts? 
280 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Juveniles and Restrictive Housing 

The extent to which the juvenile justice system uses restrictive housing or 

analogous housing is largely unknown. A study in California estimated that 

“between 10-12 percent of wards were housed in units in which they were 

confined to their rooms for 23 hours a day” (Krisberg, 2003:51; see, generally, 

Richards, 2015). The prevalence of restrictive housing since the time of that study 

or in other states, and the impact of restrictive housing on young people, their 

families, or the juvenile justice system, remains largely unknown. 

Jails and Restrictive Housing 

The above-identified research gaps apply even more to the use of restrictive 

housing in jails, about which almost no empirical research exists. One national 

study found that the jail inmate population is as likely as the prison population 

to be placed in restrictive housing and that inmates in jail segregation or prison 

segregation share many characteristics (Beck, 2015). A study of Rikers Island, 

one of the largest jails in the country, found that restrictive housing was widely 

used and that its use often appeared to be inappropriate and harmful (Haney 

et al., 2015). In general, though, restrictive housing in jails has not been well 

studied, and it warrants attention because of the large numbers of individuals in 

jails and the unique challenges that jails face. 

Views and Opinions From Corrections Officers and Administrators, 

Policymakers, and the Public 

Restrictive housing is used in part because of the belief that the public supports 

it and that correctional system officers and administrators find it necessary and 

effective. Its use, too, stems from policymaker support. However, few studies have 

systematically examined the views and opinions of these groups. Extant studies 

suggest that uniform support for restrictive housing should not be assumed. 

Corrections administrators and wardens, for example, can and do disagree about 

the need for restrictive housing, its goals or effectiveness, and the conditions 

under which it is needed and helpful (Wells et al., 2002; Mears & Castro, 2006; 

Mears & Watson, 2006; Ferdik & McKee, 2015). Legislators, too, have varied 

understandings and opinions about it (Mears, 2005, 2006; Pizarro & Narag, 2008; 

Goode, 2012; Baumgartel et al., 2015). Similarly, public opinion varies. In a public 

opinion study of Floridians, 80 percent of adults expressed support for supermax 

housing (Mears et al., 2013). However, this support declined to 60 percent when 

respondents were asked whether they supported its use if no public safety benefit 

would occur. Approximately 30 percent of respondents viewed restrictive housing 

as inhumane, but most (70 percent) disagreed. Views about supermax housing 

varied among groups; for example, whites, men, political conservatives, and 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 281 

 

individuals who strongly adhered to a philosophy of punishment as retribution 

were more likely to support the use of supermax incarceration. 

The salience of examining the opinions of the public, prison officers and 

administrators, and policymakers stems from several considerations. Since 

restrictive housing constitutes an extreme form of incarceration that many view 

as inhumane, public opinion should perhaps be considered (Mears et al., 2013). 

Prison officers and wardens work “on the ground” and may have unique insights 

about particular inmates, the factors that contribute to particular problems, and 

how best to address them. Not least, policymakers may correctly or incorrectly 

understand public views and the problems that prison systems face; taking 

stock of the public’s or practitioner’s views thus provides a platform on which to 

ensure that policymakers more fully appreciate and understand the diverse set of 

considerations that attend the use of restrictive housing. 

In short, how do the public, policymakers, and corrections officers and 

administrators view restrictive housing? What are their opinions about the causes 

of particular correctional system problems and how best to address them? What 

explains variation among these groups in their support for restrictive housing, 

their views about the conditions under which it may be used appropriately, and 

their opinion about its effectiveness in achieving various goals? 

Ethical Concerns and How They Might Be Addressed 

Restrictive housing has been criticized by many different groups and 

organizations, domestic and international, for being inhumane and for being 

operated in a procedurally unjust manner and in ways that harm inmates 

(Grassian, 1983; Kurki & Morris, 2001; Haney, 2003; Mears & Watson, 2006; 

Smith, 2006; King, 2007; King et al., 2008; Shalev, 2009; Katel, 2012; Mears et 

al., 2013; Amnesty International, 2014; O’Donnell, 2014; Baumgartel et al., 

2015; Cloud et al., 2015; Haney et al., 2015; Richards, 2015; Valera & KatesBenman, 2015). Although it has withstood legal scrutiny for several decades, 

lawsuits continue to be filed that challenge its use on constitutional grounds and 

as violating human rights (Collins, 2004; Amnesty International, 2014; Haney 

et al., 2015). Research is needed that systematically takes stock of the empirical 

grounds on which the ethical concerns exist. Some individuals may view restrictive 

housing as fundamentally unacceptable; conversely, others may view it as a moral 

imperative when inmates engage in certain activities. It is possible, however, that 

such views derive from misunderstandings about the need for restrictive housing; 

the theory, uses, impacts, and cost-efficiency of restrictive housing; and the variety 

of alternative sanctioning and management strategies available to corrections 

officials. What views, then, do various groups — the public, corrections officials, 

policymakers, advocacy organizations, and so on — hold about restrictive housing? 

Are their assumptions about it empirically supported? What steps can state or 

federal jails or prison systems take to address objective and perceived concerns 
282 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

about the potential misuse, abuse, or harms of restrictive housing? How can they 

address disparities in its use among racial and ethnic minorities or other social 

and demographic groups (Mears & Bales, 2010; Reiter, 2012; Schlanger, 2013)? 

How to Improve Research on Restrictive Housing 

Conducting research on restrictive housing is not easy (Ward, 1995; Ward & 

Werlich, 2003; Mears, 2006; Baumgartel et al., 2014; Agha, 2015). A significant 

barrier to undertaking empirical studies and monitoring restrictive housing is 

the limited research infrastructure in jail and prison systems. Typically, research 

divisions in these settings are small and over-extended. They lack the time or 

resources required to regularly monitor restrictive housing or evaluate its uses, 

impacts, and efficiency; to conduct financial audits and case studies; or to survey 

officers, wardens, or inmates about their views of and experiences with restrictive 

housing. When outside researchers attempt to access jail or prison system data, 

they frequently confront closed doors. Even when data are made available, 

researchers typically confront a difficult situation — no codebook exists and the 

data are complicated to understand and use. 

These and other barriers create a situation in which studies of restrictive housing 

necessarily either do not occur or occur rarely. In the latter instance, the studies 

typically have limited usefulness because they apply to only one prison or state at 

one point in time and illuminate only one particular issue. This situation can be 

remedied in part through federal funding for research. However, the only longterm viable solution for regular monitoring and assessment of the uses, impacts, 

and cost-efficiency of restrictive housing is to significantly increase the research 

capacity of states or state correctional systems. 

The situation stands out in part because of longstanding calls for greater 

government accountability and evidence-based policy. Neither can occur 

without empirical research that continuously monitors and evaluates jail and 

prison operations. There are examples of states using the results of empirical 

research to modify their approaches to restrictive housing (Goode, 2012; Agha, 

2015; Browne, 2015; Frakes, 2015), and, in general, corrections officials appear 

to embrace research that assists them in better understanding their facilities 

and how to improve their operations and effectiveness. These examples and the 

receptiveness to (useful) research, along with calls for government accountability 

and evidence-based corrections, lead to the question: Why have states not 

invested more in the kinds of research and research infrastructure necessary 

to create and support accountability and evidence-based practice in the use of 

restrictive housing? 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 283 

A “Top 10” List of Critical Research Questions That Should Be and Can Be Addressed 

Few, if any, of the research gaps and questions discussed in this paper can be justified in an era 

in which government accountability and evidence-based practice are promoted. Few, too, can 

be investigated without a substantial infusion of funds to create the research infrastructure 

necessary for monitoring and evaluating prison system operations. Even so, some research 

questions can be prioritized on the basis that (1) they involve a critical concern, (2) they can 

be evaluated, and (3) study results may be actionable in the near term. Any prioritization of 

research questions necessarily involves subjective judgment. Even so, the importance of these 

questions is reflected in the broader literature on restrictive housing. 

Here, then, are 10 critical research questions that meet the above criteria and that hold 

considerable potential for improving accountability and creating more effective and efficient 

prison systems. 

1. To what extent do states employ effective strategies for managing their prison systems and 


limiting the use of restrictive housing to situations in which it is most needed?
 

2. What factors determine which inmates are placed in restrictive housing? To what extent is 

restrictive housing placement affected by variation in officer-, warden-, or facility-specific use 

of such housing? To what extent is such variation explained by inmate behavior? 

3. What are the most important causes of prison violence and disorder? Compared to these 


causes, what is the relative contribution of certain inmates to violence and disorder?
 

4. To what extent do restrictive housing placements result from a propensity among some 


inmates to act violently or from poor administrative management practices or operations?
 

5. How effective and cost-efficient is restrictive housing relative to other approaches to managing 

prisons and inmates? 

6. How effective and cost-efficient is restrictive housing relative to other approaches to
 

punishing inmates?
 

7. What frequency and duration of restrictive housing create the most benefits and harms for 

inmates? Which aspects of or experiences in restrictive housing contribute to these outcomes? 

8. What are the characteristics of inmates who most benefit from restrictive housing? Which 


inmates are most harmed by it? Why do these differences exist?
 

9. What are the short-term effects of restrictive housing on inmates while they are incarcerated? 

What are the longer-term effects during re-entry? What is the cost-efficiency of these effects 

relative to other prison management strategies or inmate sanctions? 

10. To what extent do policymakers, the public, and prison administrators, staff, and officers 


support the use of restrictive housing? Which factors influence their support?
 
284 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Conclusion 

Although research on restrictive housing has increased in recent decades, the 

overarching finding of this paper is that too little credible empirical research 

exists to state with confidence the need for such housing, its effects on inmates 

or prison systems, or its cost-efficiency. A balanced evaluation of the impacts of 

restrictive housing requires carefully examining the need for such housing, its 

implementation, its effects on inmates and other groups, its effects on the prison 

system at large, and its cost-efficiency. 

Many critical research gaps exist along precisely these dimensions. Indeed, there 

is little about restrictive housing that has been consistently evaluated or wellevaluated using rigorous research methodologies, such as quasi-experimental 

designs that identify appropriate comparison groups or conditions. If the gaps 

remain unaddressed, jail and prison systems risk wasting their resources and 

missing opportunities to improve inmate, staff, and public safety. If appropriately 

addressed, restrictive housing policies — and jail and prison management 

policies, more generally — have the potential to rest on an evidence-based 

foundation. Doing so would help correctional systems to be more accountable, 

effective, and efficient. 

References 

Adams, K. (1992). Adjusting to prison life. Crime and Justice, 16, 275-359. 

Agha, A. (2015). Partnering with corrections systems to assess segregation/isolation in 

confinement. Washington, DC: American Society of Criminology Annual Meeting. 

Amnesty International. (2014). Entombed: Isolation in the U.S. federal prison 

system. London, England: Amnesty International. 

Association of State Correctional Administrators. (2013). Restrictive housing status 

policy guidelines. Hagerstown, MD: Association of State Correctional Administrators. 

Atherton, E. (2001). Incapacitation with a purpose. Corrections Today 63(4), 100-103. 

Austin, J., & Irwin, J. (2012). It’s about time: America’s imprisonment binge. (4th ed.) 

Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. 

Austin, J., Repko, S., Harris, R., McGinnis, K., & Plant, S. (1998). Evaluation of 

the Texas Department of Criminal Justice administrative segregation population. 

Washington, DC: National Council on Crime and Delinquency. 

Baker, P., & Goode, E. (2015). Critics of solitary confinement are buoyed as 

Obama embraces their cause. New York Times, July 22, p. A16. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 285 

Bales, W. D., & Mears, D. P. (2008). Inmate social ties and the transition to 

society: Does visitation reduce recidivism? Journal of Research in Crime and 

Delinquency, 45, 287-321. 

Barak-Glantz, I. L. (1983). Who’s in the hole? Criminal Justice Review 8, 29-37. 

Baumgartel, S., Guilmette, C. Kalb, J., Li, D., Nuni, J., Porter, D., Resnik, J., Camp, 

C., & Camp, G. 2015. Time-in-cell: The ASCA-Liman 2014 National Survey of 

Administrative Segregation in Prison. New Haven, CT: Yale Law School Liman 

Program and the Association of State Correctional Administrators. 

Beck, A. J. (2015). Use of restrictive housing in U.S. prisons and jails, 2011-12. 

Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Bidna, H. (1975). Effects of increased security on prison violence. Journal of 

Criminal Violence, 3, 33-46. 

Boin, A., & Rattray, W. A. R. (2004). Understanding prison riots: Towards a 

threshold theory. Punishment and Society, 6, 47-65. 

Booth, F. W., Roberts, C. K., & Laye, M. J. (2012). Lack of exercise is a major 

cause of chronic diseases. Comprehensive Physiology, 2, 1143-1211. 

Bottoms, A. E. (1999). Interpersonal violence and social order in prisons. Crime 

and Justice, 26, 205-282. 

Briggs, C. S., Sundt, J. L., & Castellano, T. C. (2003). The effect of supermaximum 

security prisons on aggregate levels of institutional violence. Criminology, 41, 

1341-1376. 

Browne, A. (2015). A systems approach to reducing the use of segregation in 

confinement. Washington, DC: American Society of Criminology Annual Meeting. 

Browne, A., Cambier, A., & Agha, S. (2011). Prisons within prisons: The use of 

segregation in the United States. Federal Sentencing Reporter 24, 46-49. 

Browne, A. Hastings, A., Kall, K., & diZerega, M. (2015). Keeping vulnerable 

populations safe under PREA: Alternative strategies to the use of segregation in 

prisons and jails. New York, NY: National PREA Resource Center. 

Bruton, J. H. (2004). The big house: Life inside a supermax security prison. 

Stillwater, MN: Voyageur Press. 

Burt, M. (1981). Measuring prison results: Ways to monitor and evaluate 

corrections performance. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. 
286 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Butler, H., Griffin, D. O. H., III, & Johnson, W. W. (2012). What makes you the 

‘worst of the worst’? An examination of state policies defining supermaximum 

confinement. Criminal Justice Policy Review 24, 676-694. 

Butler, H. D., Steiner, B., Makarios, M., & Travis, L. (Forthcoming.) Assessing the 

effects of exposure to supermax confinement on offender post-release behaviors. 

The Prison Journal. 

Cloud, D. H., Drucker, E., Browne, A., & Parsons, J. (2015). Public health and solitary 

confinement in the United States. American Journal of Public Health, 105, 18-26. 

Cloyes, K. G., Lovell, D., Allen, D. G., & Rhodes, L. A. (2006). Assessment 

of psychosocial impairment in a supermaximum security unit sample. 

Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33, 760-781. 

Cochran, J. C. (2014). Breaches in the wall: Imprisonment, social support, and 

recidivism. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 51, 200-228. 

Cochran, J. C. (2012). The ties that bind or the ties that break: Examining the 

relationships between visitation and prisoner misconduct. Journal of Criminal 

Justice, 40, 433-440. 

Cochran, J. C., & Mears, D. P. (2013). Social isolation and inmate behavior: A 

conceptual framework for theorizing prison visitation and guiding and assessing 

research. Journal of Criminal Justice, 41, 252-261. 

Collins, W. C. (2004). Supermax prisons and the Constitution: Liability concerns in 

the extended control unit. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections. 

Cooke, D. J. (1989). Containing violent prisoners: An analysis of the Barlinnie 

Special Unit. British Journal of Criminology, 29, 129-143. 

Crouch, B. M., & Marquart, J. W. (1989). An appeal to justice: Litigated reform of 

Texas prisons. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 

Cullen, F. T., Jonson, C. L., & Stohr, M. K. (Eds.) (2014). The American prison: 

Imagining a different future. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

DeMaio, J. R. (2001). If you build it, they will come: The threat of overclassification 

in Wisconsin’s supermax prison. Wisconsin Law Review 2001, 207-248. 

DiIulio, J. J., Jr. (1987). Governing prisons. New York, NY: Free Press. 

Durbin, D. (2013). Durbin statement on Federal Bureau of Prisons assessment of 

its solitary confinement practices. Washington, DC: United States Senate. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 287 

Durbin, D. (2012). Reassessing solitary confinement: The human rights, fiscal 

and public safety consequences. Opening Statement of Senator Dick Durbin 

for the hearing before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights, June 19. 

Dye, M. H. (2010). Deprivation, importation, and prison suicide: Combined 

effects of institutional conditions and inmate composition. Journal of Criminal 

Justice, 38, 796-806. 

Ferdik, F. V., & McKee, K. T. (2015). The relationship between correctional officer 

safety and wellness and administrative segregation. White paper. Washington, 

DC: National Institute of Justice. 

Ferranti, S. (2015). The realities of special housing units in the Federal Bureau 

of Prisons. In S. C. Richards (Ed.), The Marion experiment: Long-term solitary 

confinement and the supermax movement (pp. 35-58). Carbondale, IL: Southern 

Illinois University Press. 

Frakes, S. (2015). Reforming segregation by redefining prisons. Washington, DC: 

American Society of Criminology Annual Meeting. 

French, S. A., & Gendreau, P. (2006). Reducing prison misconducts: What works! 

Criminal Justice and Behavior 33, 185-218. 

Frost, N., and Carlos Monteiro, C. (2015). Administrative segregation in U.S. 

prisons. White paper. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. 

Gawande, A. (2009). Hellhole: The United States holds tens of thousands of 

inmates in long-term solitary confinement. Is this torture? The New Yorker, 

March 30, 36-45. 

Gendreau, P., Goggin, C. E., & Law, M. A. (1997). Predicting prison misconducts. 

Criminal Justice and Behavior 24, 414-431. 

Gendreau, P., & Keyes, D. (2001). Making prisons safer and more humane 

environments. Canadian Journal of Criminology 43, 123-130. 

Gendreau, P., & Labrecque, R. M. (2015). The effects of administrative 

segregation: A lesson in knowledge cumulation. In J. Wooldredge & P. Smith 

(Eds.), Oxford handbook on prisons and imprisonment. New York, NY: Oxford 

University Press. 

Glaze, L. E., & Kaeble, D. (2014). Correctional populations in the United States, 2013. 

Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Goode, E. (2012). Prisons rethink isolation, saving money, lives and sanity. 

The New York Times, March 11, p. A1. 
288 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Grann, D. (2004). The brand: How the Aryan Brotherhood became the most 

murderous prison gang in America. The New Yorker, February 16, LXXX, 157-171. 

Grassian, S. (1983). Psychopathological effects of solitary confinement. American 

Journal of Psychiatry, 140, 1450-1454. 

Haney, C. (2003). Mental health issues in long-term solitary and ‘supermax’ 

confinement. Crime and Delinquency, 49, 124-156. 

Haney, C., Weill, J., Bakhshay, S., & Lockett, T. (2015). Examining jail isolation: 

What we don’t know can be profoundly harmful. The Prison Journal, 96(1), 126­

152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0032885515605491. 

Helmus, L. M. (2015). Developing and validating a risk assessment scale to 

predict inmate placements in administrative segregation in the Correctional 

Service of Canada. White paper. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. 

Henningsen, R. J., Johnson, W. W., & Wells, T. 1999. Supermax prisons: Panacea 

or desperation? Corrections Management Quarterly 3, 53-59. 

Hershberger, G. L. (1998). To the max: Supermax facilities provide prison 

administrators with more security options. Corrections Today 60, 54-57. 

Hunt, G., Riegel, S., Morales, T., & Waldorf, D. (1993). Changes in prison culture: 

Prison gangs and the case of the ‘Pepsi Generation.’ Social Problems 40, 398-409. 

Irwin, J. (2005). The warehouse prison: Disposal of the new dangerous class. 

Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury. 

Kaba, F., Lewis, A., Glowa-Kollisch, S., Hadler, J., Lee, D., Alper, H., Selling, 

D., MacDonald, R., Solimo, A., Parsons, A., & Venters, H. (2014). Solitary 

confinement and risk of self-harm among jail inmates. American Journal of 

Public Health, 104, 442-447. 

Kane, M., Pierce, B., & Haynes, M. (2013). Restrictive housing FAQ. Boston, MA: 

The Crime and Justice Institute. 

Kassel, P. (1998). The gang crackdown in Massachusetts’ prisons: Arbitrary and 

harsh treatment can only make matters worse. New England Journal on Criminal 

and Civil Confinement, 24, 37-63. 

Katel, P. (2012). Solitary confinement: Is long-term isolation of prisoners 

inhumane? Congressional Quarterly 22, 767-788. 

King, K., Steiner, B., & Breach, S. R. (2008). Violence in the supermax: A selffulfilling prophecy. The Prison Journal, 88, 144-168. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 289 

King, R. D. (2007). Imprisonment: Some international comparisons and the 

need to revisit panopticism. In Y. Jewkes (Ed.), Handbook of prisons (pp. 95-102). 

Portland, OR: Willan Publishing. 

King, R. D. (2005). Effects of supermax custody. In A. Liebling & S. Maruna (Eds.), 

The effects of imprisonment (pp. 118-145). Portland, OR: Willan Publishing. 

King, R. D. (1999). The rise and rise of supermax: An American solution in 

search of a problem? Punishment and Society, 1, 163-186. 

Krisberg, B. (2003). General corrections review of the California youth authority. 

Oakland, CA: National Council on Crime and Delinquency. 

Kupers, T. A. (2008). What to do with the survivors? Coping with the long-term 

effects of isolated confinement. Criminal Justice and Behavior 35, 1005-1016. 

Kupers, T. A., Dronet, T., Winter, M., Austin, J., Kelly, L., Cartier, W., Morris, T. 

J., Hanlon, S. F., Sparkman, E. L., Kumar, P., Vincent, L. C., Norris, J., Nagel, K., 

& McBride, J. (2009). Beyond supermax administrative segregation: Mississippi’s 

experience rethinking prison classification and creating alternative mental health 

programs. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 1037-1050. 

Kurki, L., & Morris, N. (2001). Supermax prisons. Crime and Justice: A Review of 

Research 28, 385-424. 

Labrecque, R. M. (2015a). The effect of solitary confinement on institutional 

misconduct: A longitudinal evaluation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. 

Labrecque, R. M. (2015b). Who ends up in administrative segregation? A metaanalytic review. White paper. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. 

Lanes, E. C. (2011). Are the ‘worst of the worst’ self-injurious prisoners more 

likely to end up in long-term maximum-security administrative segregation? 

International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55, 

1034-1050. 

Latessa, E. J., Listwan, S. J., & Koetzle, D. (2014). What works (and doesn’t) in 

reducing recidivism. Waltham, MA: Anderson Publishing. 

Lawrence, S., & Mears, D. P. (2004). Benefit-cost analysis of supermax prisons: 

Critical steps and considerations. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. 

Neal, D. (Ed.). (2003). Supermax prisons: Beyond the rock. Lanham, MD: 

American Correctional Association. 

Logan, C. H. (1993). Criminal justice performance measures for prisons. In 

J. J. DiIulio, Jr., and James Q. Wilson (Eds.), Performance measures for the 

criminal justice system (pp. 15-59). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. 
290 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Lovell, D. (2008). Patterns of disturbed behavior in a supermax population. 

Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 985-1004. 

Lovell, D., Cloyes, K., Allen, D., & Rhodes, L. (2000). Who lives in super-maximum 

custody? Federal Probation, 64, 33-38. 

Lovell, D., Johnson, L. C., & Cain, K. C. (2007). Recidivism of supermax 

prisoners in Washington State. Crime and Delinquency, 53, 633-656. 

Martin, R., & Zimmerman, S. (1990). A typology of the causes of prison riots 

and an analytical extension to the 1986 West Virginia riot. Justice Quarterly 7, 

711-737. 

McCorkle, R. C., Miethe, T. D., & Drass, K. A. (1995). The roots of prison 

violence: A test of the deprivation, management, and not-so-total institution 

models. Crime and Delinquency, 41, 317-331. 

McGinnis, K., Austin, J., Becker, K., Fields, L., Lane, M., Maloney, M., ... Felix, 

T. (2014). Federal Bureau of Prisons: Special housing unit review and assessment. 

Arlington, VA: CNA Analysis and Solutions. 

Mears, D. P. (2004). Mental health needs and services in the criminal justice system. 

Houston Journal of Health Law and Policy, 4, 255-284. 

Mears, D. P. (2005). A critical look at supermax prisons. Corrections 

Compendium 30, 6-7, 45-49. 

Mears, D. P. (2006). Evaluating the effectiveness of supermax prisons. Washington, DC: 

The Urban Institute. 

Mears, D. P. (2008a). Accountability, efficiency, and effectiveness in corrections: 

Shining a light on the black box of prison systems. Criminology and Public Policy, 7, 

143-152. 

Mears, D. P. (2008b). An assessment of supermax prisons using an evaluation 

research framework. The Prison Journal, 88, 43-68. 

Mears, D. P. (2009). Supermax incarceration and recidivism. Criminology, 47, 801-836. 

Mears, D. P. (2010). American criminal justice policy: An evaluation approach to 

increasing accountability and effectiveness. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 

Mears, D. P. (2013). Supermax prisons: The policy and the evidence. Criminology 

and Public Policy 12, 681-719. 

Mears, D. P., & Bales, W. D. (2010). Supermax housing: Placement, duration, and time 

to reentry. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 545-554. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 291 

Mears, D. P., & Castro, J. L. (2006). Wardens’ views on the wisdom of supermax prisons. 

Crime and Delinquency 52, 398-431. 

Mears, D. P., & Cochran, J. C. (2012). U.S. prisoner reentry health care policy in 

international perspective: Service gaps and the moral and public health implications. 

The Prison Journal, 92, 175-202. 

Mears, D. P., & Cochran, J. C. (2015). Prisoner reentry in the era of mass incarceration. 

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

Mears, D. P., Cochran, J. C., & Cullen, F. T. (2015). Incarceration heterogeneity and its 

implications for assessing the effectiveness of imprisonment on recidivism. Criminal 

Justice Policy Review 26, 691-712. 

Mears, D. P., Cochran, J. C., Greenman, S. J., Bhati, A. S., & Greenwald, M. A. (2011). 

Evidence on the effectiveness of juvenile court sanctions. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, 

509-520. 

Mears, D. P., Cochran, J. C., Siennick, S. E., & Bales, W. D. (2012). Prison visitation and 

recidivism. Justice Quarterly, 29, 888-918. 

Mears, D. P., Mancini, C., Beaver, K., & Gertz, M. (2013). Housing for the ‘worst of 

the worst’ inmates: Public support for supermax prisons. Crime and Delinquency 59, 

587-615. 

Mears, D. P., & Reisig, M. D. (2006.) The theory and practice of supermax prisons. 

Punishment and Society, 8, 33-57. 

Mears, D. P., & Watson, J. (2006). Towards a fair and balanced assessment of supermax 

prisons. Justice Quarterly, 23, 232-270. 

Morris, R. G. (2015). Exploring the effect of exposure to short-term solitary 

confinement among violent prison inmates. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 32(1). 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10940-015-9250-0. 

Morris, R. G., Carriaga, M. L., Diamond, B., Piquero, N. L., & Piquero, A. R. 

(2012). Does prison strain lead to prison misbehavior? An application of General 

Strain Theory to inmate misconduct. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 194-201. 

Motiuk, L. L., & Blanchette, K. (2001). Characteristics of administratively segregated 

offenders in federal corrections. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 43, 131-143. 

Mushlin, M. B. (2012). Unlocking the courthouse door: Removing the barrier of 

the PLRA’s physical injury requirement to permit meaningful judicial oversight of 

abuses in supermax prisons and isolation units. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 24, 

268-275. 
292 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Naday, A., Freilich, J. D., & Mellow, J. (2008). The elusive data on supermax 

confinement. The Prison Journal, 88, 69-93. 

National Institute of Corrections. (1997). Supermax housing: A survey of current 

practice. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections. 

National Public Radio. (2012). The grim realities of life in supermax prisons. 

Talk of the Nation, hosted by Neal Conan, June 21. Washington, DC: National 

Public Radio. 

Neal, D. (Ed.). (2003). Supermax prisons: Beyond the rock. Lanham, MD: 

American Correctional Association. 

Obama, B. (2016). Why we must rethink solitary confinement. The Washington 

Post, January 25, p. A15. 

O’Donnell, I. (2014). Prisoners, solitude, and time. New York, NY: Oxford 

University Press. 

O’Keefe, M. L. (2008). Administrative segregation from within: A corrections 

perspective. The Prison Journal, 88, 123-143. 

O’Keefe, M. L., Klebe, K. J., Metzner, J., Dvoskin, J., Fellner, J., & Stucker, A. 

(2013). A longitudinal study of administrative segregation. Journal of the 

American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 41, 49-60. 

O’Keefe, M. L., Klebe, K. J., Stucker, A., Sturm, K., & Leggett, W. (2011). One 

year longitudinal study of the psychological effects of administrative segregation. 

White paper. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. 

Paternoster, R. (2010). How much do we really know about criminal deterrence? 

Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 100, 765-824. 

Pizarro, J. M., & Narag, R. E. (2008). Supermax prisons: What we know, what we 

do not know, and where we are going. The Prison Journal, 88, 23-42. 

Pizarro, J. M., & Stenius, V. M. K. (2004). Supermax prisons: Their rise, current 

practices, and effect on inmates. The Prison Journal, 84, 248-264. 

Pizarro, J. M., Zgoba, K. M., & Haugebrook, S. (2014). Supermax and recidivism: 

An examination of the recidivism covariates among a sample of supermax 

ex-inmates. The Prison Journal, 94, 180-197. 

Preer, R. (2004). The solitary men. The Boston Globe Magazine, April 4, pp. 30-37. 

Prins, S. J. (2014). Prevalence of mental illnesses in U.S. state prisons: A 

systematic review. Psychiatric Services, 65, 862-872. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 293 

Ralph, P. H., & Marquart, J. W. (1991). Gang violence in Texas prisons. 

The Prison Journal, 71, 38-49. 

Reisig, M. D. (1998). Rates of disorder in higher-custody state prisons: A 

comparative analysis of managerial practices. Crime and Delinquency 44, 229-244. 

Reiter, K. A. (2012). Parole, snitch, or die: California’s supermax prisons and 

prisoners, 1997-2007. Punishment and Society 14, 530-563. 

Rhodes, L. A. (2004). Total confinement: Madness and reason in the maximum 

security prison. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. 

Richards, S. C. (Ed.). (2015). The Marion Experiment: Long-term solitary 

confinement and the supermax movement. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois 

University Press. 

Riveland, C. (1999). Supermax prisons: Overview and general considerations. 

Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections. 

Ross, J. I. (Ed.). (2013). The globalization of supermax prisons. New Brunswick, 

NJ: Rutgers University Press. 

Rossi, P. H., Freeman, H. E., & Lipsey, M. W. (2004). Evaluation: A systematic 

approach. 7th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Schlanger, M. (2013). Prison segregation: Symposium introduction and 

preliminary data on racial disparities. Michigan Journal of Race and Law, 18, 1-12. 

Shalev, S. (2009). Supermax: Controlling risk through solitary confinement. 

London, England: Willan Publishing. 

Shames, A., Wilcox, J., & Subramanian, R. (2015). Solitary confinement: Common 

misconceptions and emerging safe alternatives. New York, NY: Vera Institute of Justice. 

Sherman, L. W. (1993). Defiance, deterrence and irrelevance: A theory of the 

criminal sanction. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 30, 445-473. 

Siennick, S. E., Mears, D. P., & Bales, W. D. (2013). Here and gone: Anticipation 

and separation effects of prison visits on inmate infractions. Journal of Research 

in Crime and Delinquency 50, 417-444. 

Singer, P. (2003). Warden: Inmates volunteer to stay at ‘supermax’ prison.” 

Associated Press, March 3. 

Smith, P. S. (2008). ‘Degenerate criminals’: Mental health and psychiatric studies 

of Danish prisoners in solitary confinement, 1870-1920. Criminal Justice and 

Behavior, 35, 1048-1064. 
294 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Smith, P. S. (2006). The effects of solitary confinement on prison inmates: A brief 

history and review of the literature. Crime and Justice, 34, 441-528. 

Sparks, R., Bottoms, A. E., & Hay, W. (1996). Prisons and the problem of order. 

Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. 

Steiner, B., & Beard, J. (2015). The relationship between institutional violence and 

administrative segregation. White paper. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. 

Stickrath, T. J., & Bucholtz, G. A. (2003). Supermax prisons: Why? In D. Neal 

(Ed.), Supermax prisons: Beyond the rock (pp. 1-14). Lanham, MD: American 

Correctional Association. 

Suedfeld, P. (1974). Solitary confinement in the correctional setting: Goals, 

problems, and suggestions. Corrective Social Psychiatry, 141, 10-20. 

Suedfeld, P., Ramirez, C., Deaton, J., & Baker-Brown, G. (1982). Reactions and 

attributes of prisoners in solitary confinement. Criminal Justice and Behavior 9, 

303-340. 

Sundt, J. L., Castellano, T. C., & Briggs, C. S. (2008). The sociopolitical context of 

prison violence and its control: A case study of supermax and its effect in Illinois. 

The Prison Journal, 88, 94-122. 

Sykes, G. M. (1958). The society of captives. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 

Toch, H. (2003). The contemporary relevance of early experiments with 

supermax reform. The Prison Journal, 83, 221-228. 

U.S. Department of Justice Work Group. (2016). U.S. Department of Justice report 

and recommendations concerning the use of restrictive housing. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Justice Work Group on Restrictive Housing. 

U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2013). Improvements needed in Bureau 

of Prisons’ monitoring and evaluation of segregated housing. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Accountability Office. 

Useem, B., & Kimball, P. (1991). States of siege. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 

Useem, B., & Piehl, A. M. (2008). Prison state: The challenge of mass incarceration. 

New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 

Valera, P., & Kates-Benman, C. L. (2015). Exploring the use of special housing 

units by men released from New York correctional facilities: A small mixedmethods study. American Journal of Men’s Health, March 10. http://dx.doi. 

org/10.1177/1557988315569880. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 295 

Ward, D. A. (1995). A corrections dilemma: How to evaluate super-max regimes. 


Corrections Today, 57, 104-108.
 

Ward, D. A., & Werlich, T. G. (2003). Alcatraz and Marion: Evaluating super-


maximum custody. Punishment and Society, 5, 53-75.
 

Wells, T. L., Johnson, W. W., & Henningsen, R. J. (2002). Attitudes of prison
 

wardens toward administrative segregation and supermax prisons. In L. F.
 

Alarid & P. F. Cromwell (Eds.), Correctional perspectives (pp. 171-180).
 

Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.
 

Wooldredge, J., & Steiner, B. (2015). A macro-level perspective on prison inmate 


deviance. Punishment and Society, 17, 230-257.
 

Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 297 

CHAPTER 8 

The Effect of Administrative 

Segregation on Prison Order 

and Organizational Culture 

Jody Sundt, Ph.D.
 

Indiana University — Purdue University Indianapolis
 

Introduction 

Order is the central challenge of the well-managed prison, and the use of 

separation, in varying degrees of restrictiveness, features prominently 

in efforts to control the institution and its inhabitants. Indeed, how to 

classify, isolate, organize, and discipline prisoners to the “habits of order” (de 

Beaumont & de Tocqueville, 1833) has preoccupied correctional officials for 

centuries (Rothman, 1971). Early penitentiaries placed great faith in the ability 

of social isolation — enforced by austere architecture and authoritarian regimes 

— to impose a physical order even in the absence of an inmate’s moral reform. 

Experiments with solitary confinement during the 1800s soon revealed, however, 

the inhumanity and ineffectiveness of isolation, and the practice was largely 

abandoned (Toch, 2003). Today, we again confront questions about the appropriate 

role of segregation and search for the lines of demarcation between its legitimate 

use as a management strategy, its overuse, and its potential to cause harm. 

Managing the risks that prisoners pose and maintaining order are the primary 

purposes of classification decisions to place individuals in prison facilities 
298 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

that differ by security level and organizational regime. “The very nature of our 

prisons,” observes Cohen (2008), “means we must have some means by which 

to separate prisoners on the basis of those who are at risk from those who create 

those risks” (p. 1017). Thus, prisoners who present little risk to others and are 

unlikely to attempt escape are placed in minimum-security prisons; high-risk 

prisoners are placed in maximum-security prisons. Administrative segregation 

is a security classification for managing prisoners who are considered too 

dangerous or too disruptive to be housed among the general inmate population. 

We can distinguish administrative segregation from other types of separation and 

isolation by its purpose: to control individuals who may pose a current or future 

threat (Metcalf, Morgan, Oliker-Friedland, Resnik, Spiegel, Tae, ... Holbrook, 

2013). In contrast, the purpose of disciplinary (or punitive) segregation is to 

punish inmates who engage in misconduct; protective custody is used to isolate 

inmates for their own safety.1

 A supermax facility is a stand-alone prison or a 

unit within a prison built or retrofitted specifically for the purpose of segregation 

(King, 1999; Riveland, 1999b). 

Inmates held in segregation are typically confined to a cell for 23 to 24 hours per 

day, often behind solid doors. Segregation cells are austere. Inmates are allowed 

one hour of exercise five times per week, typically alone in small pens with 

metal fencing. Access to such personal items as family photographs and reading 

material is often restricted or denied. When inmates must be moved, they are 

shackled, chained, and escorted by two or more correctional officers. Meals are 

delivered within the cell, as are religious and educational services, sometimes 

via closed-circuit television. Visits and phone calls are sharply limited and 

closely monitored, or disallowed completely (see Cohen, 2008; U.S. Government 

Accountability Office, 2013; Kurki & Morris, 2001; Metcalf et al., 2013; Reiter, 

2012; Toch, 2001). 

The primary objective of administrative segregation is to improve prison order 

and safety by removing dangerous inmates from the general population and more 

effectively managing them in isolation (Metcalf et al., 2013; also see Mears & 

Watson, 2006). For this reason, administrative segregation and supermax units are 

sometimes referred to as “prisons within prisons.” They are intended to serve a dual 

purpose: to incapacitate inmates and to deter them from future misconduct. 

The number of inmates housed outside of the general prisoner population in 

some type of segregated housing has increased precipitously in the past decade. 

A recent study conducted by the Yale University Liman Program and the 

1

 In practice, these distinctions may lose their meaning. Inmates may seek safety in administrative and punitive 

segregation, without the stigma of protective custody. Inmates in distress who harm themselves or attempt 

suicide may be punished for their actions, which violate prison rules. They also may be put in administrative 

segregation because they are disruptive and may harm themselves. Rumors that an inmate “snitched” may result 

in placement in protective custody. Regardless of why inmates are in segregated housing, the living conditions 

are similar, such as keeping inmates in a cell for 23 hours per day. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 299 

Association of State Correctional Administrators (ASCA) (2015) estimates that 

between 80,000 and 100,000 inmates were held in restricted housing in 2014. 

These numbers — coupled with longstanding concerns about the legal and 

ethical dimensions of the practice — have contributed to an emerging consensus 

that segregated housing is overused (Liman Program & ASCA, 2015; Mohr & 

Raemisch, 2015). 

Despite the sense that there are too many inmates housed in isolation units, 

observers disagree about which inmates require segregation, when segregation 

is appropriate, whether it is an effective tool, or whether viable alternatives exist. 

This paper, commissioned by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice 

Programs, United States Department of Justice, assesses the research on the 

effectiveness of administrative segregation as a management strategy, including 

its effect on prison order and organizational culture. The paper also outlines a 

broad research agenda to help fill knowledge gaps and to learn how best to use 

this controversial strategy to maintain secure, humane correctional institutions 

that serve the public safety goals of our nation. These issues are relevant to 

anyone interested in better understanding the organizational effects 

of administrative segregation. 

Corrections officials have argued that administrative segregation improves prison 

safety. The review of the research discussed below demonstrates, however, that its 

effects are inconsistent: sometimes improving order (Sundt, Castellano, & Briggs, 

2008), sometimes making it worse (Briggs, Sundt, & Castellano, 2003; Labrecque, 

2015; Wooldredge & Steiner, 2015), but mostly having no effect (Briggs et al., 2003; 

Huebner, 2003; Sundt et al., 2008; also see Labrecque, 2015; Morris, 2015). 

Scholars also question how reliance on administrative segregation affects the 

organizational culture of prisons and shapes correctional employees’ roles and 

work experience. Haney (2008), for example, warns of the deleterious effects 

that a “culture of harm” has on prison staff and their ability to work effectively 

and humanely with inmates in segregation. Correctional employees who work 

in segregation may be exposed to high levels of stress and trauma, which may 

contribute to destructive attitudes, the loss of professional skills, excessive use 

of force, and burnout. Some correctional leaders question whether the focus 

on isolating disruptive inmates detracts from the prisons’ public safety mission 

(Mohr & Raemisch, 2015). More broadly, scholars caution that coercive strategies 

that rely on the use or threat of force may erode the legitimacy of prison 

management and lead to more, not less, prison disorder (Colvin, Cullen, & 

Vander Ven, 2002; Liebling, 2004; Sparks & Bottoms, 1995). 

The next section examines the concepts that link the use of administrative 

segregation to prison order and reviews the research on the relationship between 

systemwide prison order and segregation. The latter portion of the review 

explores the relationship between administrative segregation and organizational 
300 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

culture. Finally, the paper considers why so little research exists on this topic and 

concludes by recommending research priorities. 

Administrative Segregation and Systemwide Order 

Administrative segregation may affect prison order through three mechanisms 

(Mears & Reisig, 2006). First, it may incapacitate inmates by removing them 

from the general prison population, thereby reducing their opportunity to 

engage in serious misconduct. Second, administrative segregation may deter 

inmates from serious misconduct because of its promise for swift, certain, and 

severe punishment. Third, segregation may normalize facilities by removing 

troublesome inmates from the general prison population. 

Administrative Segregation as Incapacitation 

Incapacitation is the primary means by which administrative segregation is 

expected to improve systemwide prison safety. Severe restrictions on inmate 

movements and social interactions, the use of technology to control and surveil 

inmates, and stringent limitations on inmate property all reduce opportunities 

for inmates to assault others and engage in serious misconduct. Removing 

disruptive inmates from the general population — limiting their ability to 

interact with others and to access contraband and information — is expected to 

reduce the incidence of serious and violent misconduct. 

Some evidence (Barak-Glantz, 1983; Bennett, 1976; Flanagan, 1983; Porporino, 

1986; Toch, 1997; Toch & Adams, 1986), and much anecdotal information, 

support the theory that a small number of inmates is responsible for the majority 

of prison violence, lending credence to the claim that a policy of selective 

incapacitation may lower overall rates of prison violence. Bennett (1976) found, 

for example, that just 2 percent of the inmates held at San Quentin in 1960 were 

responsible for all the violent incidents that year. In a series of more rigorous 

studies, Toch (1997) and colleagues (Toch & Adams, 1986) demonstrated 

that “disturbed disruptive” inmates often struggle to adapt to prison and are 

responsible for a disproportionate amount of disruption and violence. 

Using segregation less strategically — placing enough inmates in segregation 

for a sustained period in a process analogous to collective incapacitation — may 

reduce systemwide disorder. During the mid-1980s, for example, Texas placed all 

known and suspected gang members in administrative segregation, regardless of 

whether they were involved in an incident of serious misconduct. Although the 

Texas policy was not rigorously evaluated, Ralph and Marquart (1991) observed 

declines in the number of inmate murders and assaults (with and without 

weapons) following this change. Similarly, Irwin and Austin (1997) and Crouch 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 301 

and Marquart (1989) credited the decline in inmate violence in California and 

Texas to these states’ extensive use of segregation (but see Useem & Piehl, 2006). 

In contrast, a number of studies indicate that rather than eliminating 

opportunities to engage in misconduct, administrative segregation may 

exacerbate it (Toch & Kupers, 2007). Rhodes’ (2004) ethnography of segregation 

units in Washington state, for example, documented that “through practices 

that yield more trouble the tighter their hold, the prison tends to secrete the 

very thing it most tries to eliminate.” Extreme control measures may result 

in extreme reactions and acts of resistance. Flooding and setting cells on fire; 

breaking furniture and cell fixtures; throwing and smearing blood, semen, 

urine, and feces; riots; hunger strikes; self-mutilation; and suicide have all been 

documented in segregated housing units, from the earliest penitentiaries (Rubin, 

2015) to contemporary prisons (Edge & Jones, 2014; Human Rights Watch, 1997; 

King, Steiner, & Breach, 2008; Kupers, Dronet, Winter, Austin, Kelly, Cartier, 

... Vincent, 2009; Reiter, 2012; Rhodes, 2004). As Gawande (2009) explained, 

inmates who experience prolonged isolation “begin to see themselves primarily 

as combatants in the world, people whose identity is rooted in thwarting prison 

control” (paragraph 38). Thus, inmates may engage in acts of resistance to 

maintain a sense of purpose and identity in situations of severe social isolation 

(Rhodes, 2004; Toch & Adams, 1986). 

Data from ethnographies, historical documents, and interviews about the high 

levels of violence and disorder found in segregation units are consistent with 

more quantitative reports. Bidna (1975) found rates of stabbings in California’s 

secure housing units higher than in the general prison population, a difference 

that was statistically significant in the 1973-1974 study period, but not in the 

1972-1973 study period. Bidna attributed the increased rate of assaults in secure 

housing units between 1972 and 1974 to a statewide crackdown on prison 

violence that included, among other policy changes, locking down the state’s 

four maximum-security prisons. Similarly, a 1986 California task force report 

noted that rates of violence in “special housing (lockup) units” were particularly 

high. Rates of violence at Folsom State Prison’s special housing unit were more 

than twice the rate for the mainline unit. Rates of violence in San Quentin State 

Prison’s lockup unit were 60 percent higher than in its mainline unit (California 

Department of Corrections, 1986). 

Further research points to a similar pattern. In a study of the Canadian prison 

system, Porporino (1986) found that, between 1980 and 1984, close to onethird of all self-directed violence and one-third of all property damage occurred 

in administrative segregation, even though it held only 5 percent of the total 

inmate population. Rates of assaultive behavior and general disruption were 

also disproportionately high in segregated housing. Similarly, more than half 

of all serious assaults against staff in Texas occurred in segregated housing and 

other close-control environments (Sorensen, Cunningham, Vigen, & Woods, 
302 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

2011). The Sorensen team also found that a large proportion of violent assaults at 

medium-security prisons occurred within segregation cells. 

Commenting on this pattern, Porporino (1984) concluded that the 

“concentration of violent incidents in higher security correctional settings 

suggest a simple, though often overlooked,” fact. 

Efforts to maintain order and control through more restrictive security can 

attain only limited success in curbing the incidence of prison violence. In the 

extreme, such measures may increase the motivation to engage in violence or 

prod the ingenuity of inmates and result in more extreme violence (p. 218). 

Thus, rather than reducing systemwide violence through incapacitation, 

segregation may simply change the location and form of the disorder and 

violence (Bidna, 1975; Sundt, Castellano, & Briggs, 2004) or amplify serious 

misconduct (Toch & Kupers, 2007). 

Administrative Segregation as Deterrence 

The significant deprivations associated with administrative segregation 

may also deter inmate misconduct. Inmates may be generally deterred by 

the threat of administrative segregation. Commenting on the opening of a 

supermax prison, for example, an Illinois prison official argued, “The majority 

of inmates will detest this place. ... How much they detest it is going to be the 

key to how successful it is” (Hallinan, 1995). Similarly, those who are placed 

in administrative segregation may be specifically deterred by the experience, 

persuaded to never again warrant a return to segregation. 

Speculation about the specific deterrent effects of segregation emphasizes the 

severity of conditions, extreme deprivation of social contact and basic amenities, 

and length of stay. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Pennsylvania 

policy that denied inmates in long-term administrative segregation access to 

newspapers, magazines, and personal photographs, holding that the policy was 

reasonably related to the goal of motivating better behavior (see Cohen, 2008). 

Research on the specific deterrent effects of short-term punitive segregation 

and solitary confinement does not support the idea that isolation motivates 

good behavior. In two early studies, Barak-Glantz (1983) found no relationship 

between initial placement in punitive segregation and subsequent placements 

there, and Suedfeld (1974) concluded that punitive isolation was not related to 

“productive change” in inmates. Two recent, methodologically rigorous studies 

by Morris (2015) and Labrecque (2015) confirm these conclusions. 

Using a matched sample of 1,834 inmates from a large southern state, Morris 

(2015) found that punitive segregation had no effect on the probability, timing, 

or trajectory of violent misconduct. Similarly, Labrecque (2015) determined that 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 303 

neither the experience of punitive segregation nor the length of time spent there 

affected subsequent involvement in violent misconduct, nonviolent misconduct, 

or drug use among a sample of Ohio inmates. 

Notably, Labrecque (2015) detected some effect heterogeneity. Gang-affiliated 

inmates who experienced punitive segregation were 10 percent more likely to 

engage in violent misconduct and 14 percent more likely to engage in nonviolent 

misconduct. Inmates with mental illnesses were 23 percent more likely to engage 

in nonviolent misconduct and 24 percent more likely to engage in drug use 

following a term in punitive segregation. In contrast, inmates convicted of a drug 

offense were 28 percent less likely to commit an act of nonviolent misconduct 

after returning to the general prison population than were inmates convicted of a 

nonviolent offense. 

Both Morris (2015) and Labrecque (2015) restricted their analyses to misconduct 

following punitive segregation, which shares some conditions of confinement 

with administrative segregation but likely differs in other important ways. 

Specifically, the length of stay in administrative segregation is much greater 

and inmates may interpret the experience differently. Nevertheless, Morris’s 

(2015) and Labrecque’s (2015) findings are consistent with a well-established 

body of research demonstrating that the severity of punishment has little effect 

on whether someone will reoffend. Instead, deterrence effects are mediated by 

perceptions and other factors such as stakes in conformity (Pratt, Cullen, Blevins, 

Daigle, & Madensen, 2006). To date, there is no empirical evidence that links 

deprivation or the restrictive conditions of confinement to improved inmate 

behavior. There are, however, some hints that the effects of confinement may vary 

among subgroups of inmates. 

Little is known about how consistently punitive segregation or other types of 

restricted housing are used. Doubts about the certainty of punishment are fed by 

complaints that segregation is used arbitrarily and that the criteria for entry and 

exit from segregation are vague or nonexistent (Metcalf et al., 2013; Toch, 2007). 

Correctional officers’ wide discretion in reporting and responding to misconduct 

(Bottoms, 1999) may undermine the certainty of punishment. In the only study 

to examine the effect of certainty of punitive segregation, Huebner (2003) 

found that the proportion of inmates in a prison facility who were punished 

with solitary confinement for a rule violation was not related to the frequency 

of assaults on inmates or on staff. Clearly, much more research is needed to 

understand the risk of punishment for prison misconduct and how the certainty 

of sanctions influences inmate behavior. 

Administrative Segregation as Normalization 

Finally, administrative segregation may normalize the general prison 

population by incapacitating the “bad apples” who instigate misconduct among 
304 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

other inmates: the normalization hypothesis. The practice may also free up 

organizational resources and staff attention to focus on the routine maintenance 

of order and service provision. Officials from the Federal Bureau of Prisons 

maintain, for example, that segregated housing can reduce the use of facility 

lockdowns (locking general population inmates in their cells as a security 

measure), which are costly and require staff to perform custodial duties rather 

than other tasks (GAO, 2013, p. 33). 

Lockdown days may be considered a proxy of disorder — prisons are locked 

down when there is a threat to safety or security. It is also reasonable to assume 

that the fewer days that inmates in general population spend locked in their cells, 

the more likely they are to engage in programs and access services. Sundt and 

colleagues (2008) examined lockdown use in the Illinois prison system, testing 

whether the opening of a supermax prison had a normalizing effect on the state’s 

other prisons. Between 1996 and 1998, Illinois’ 26 prisons were locked down an 

average of 55 times per month. The results of an interrupted time-series analysis 

indicated that opening the supermax prison resulted in 29 fewer lockdown days 

per month, a decline of 52 percent, which lends strong support for the potential 

normalizing effect of administrative segregation. 

Additional research is needed to determine whether Sundt and colleagues’ 

(2008) findings can be generalized and replicated. In addition, their method did 

not allow them to identify the mechanism that linked the use of administrative 

segregation to fewer lockdown days. More direct tests of the predictions derived 

from the normalization hypothesis are needed to reach a conclusion about the 

effect of segregation on systemwide prison operations. 

The Total Effect of Administrative Segregation on Systemwide 

Prison Violence 

Three studies have directly tested the effect of administrative segregation on 

systemwide levels of prison violence: Briggs and colleagues (2003), Sundt and 

colleagues (2008), and Wooldredge and Steiner (2015). Analogous to research 

on imprisonment and crime (Travis, Western, & Redburn, 2014), these studies 

tested the total effect of administrative segregation on prison violence and 

disorder. This strategy has the advantage of capturing simultaneously all 

incapacitating, normalizing, and deterrent effects, and the disadvantage of being 

unable to identify the specific mechanisms that link administrative segregation to 

prison safety and order. 

Briggs and colleagues (2003) evaluated the effect of opening four supermax 

prisons on systemwide levels of prison violence against inmates and staff in 

three states — Arizona, Minnesota, and Illinois — using a quasi-experimental, 

interrupted time-series design. The prisons in these states differed in some 

important respects. Arizona and Illinois built stand-alone facilities for the 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 305 

specific purpose of administrative segregation, and the supermax prisons in 

both states are notoriously punitive and austere (see Reiter, 2012; Kurki & 

Morris, 2001). Minnesota, however, retrofitted a prison to create its supermax 

facility. Inmates at Minnesota’s Oak Park Heights facility were provided more 

opportunities to participate in programs and were less socially and physically 

isolated than were supermax inmates in Arizona and Illinois. The facilities also 

differed in operating capacity, utilization rates, and the proportion of supermax 

beds statewide. Arizona had the greatest supermax confinement capacity and the 

highest certainty of placement, while Illinois had the lowest. Minnesota used its 

supermax prison at a rate slightly higher than Illinois, and its inmates had more 

opportunity to participate in programs. 

The opening of Arizona’s two supermax prisons had no effect on statewide levels 

of inmate safety. Its first supermax facility had no effect on overall staff safety; 

however, a temporary (but significant) increase in assaults against correctional 

staff resulting in injury occurred in the month after Arizona opened its second 

supermax prison. Using Utah as a control to rule out regional effects, the analysis 

confirmed that the spike in serious assaults against staff was unique to Arizona. 

The analysis of Minnesota also found no relationship between the opening of 

its supermax facility and statewide assaults against inmates or staff. In Illinois, 

the statewide level of assault against inmates did not change after the supermax 

facility opened; however, its opening did correspond with a gradual (but sustained) 

improvement in statewide levels of staff safety. The Briggs team (2003) found 22 

fewer assaults per month against staff after Illinois opened its supermax prison. 

Sundt and colleagues (2008) further analyzed the effect of administrative 

segregation on systemwide prison order in Illinois. They first examined a 

security shakedown in 1996 that, among other effects, increased the number 

of segregation cells in the state’s maximum-security prisons by 55 percent and 

converted one of the maximum-security prisons to a segregation housing unit. 

They then tested the effect of opening the Illinois supermax prison, controlling 

for the first set of policy changes in 1996. The team found that the policy 

changes implemented in 1996 resulted in approximately three fewer assaults per 

10,000 inmates per month but had no effect on violence against staff. Sundt and 

colleagues could not determine whether improved inmate safety was attributable 

to the dramatic increase in the use of administrative segregation or to some other 

aspect of the shakedown, such as better property control, drug testing, or better 

security during visitation. The results regarding the effect of Illinois’ supermax 

prison were largely unchanged from those reported by Briggs and colleagues 

(2003). The analysis confirmed that opening the supermax unit at Tamms had 

no effect on inmate safety but was associated with a significant decline in assaults 

against staff. 

Wooldredge and Steiner (2015) analyzed the direct and total effect of the 

proportion of the total inmate population held in administrative and punitive 

segregation on rates of assault and nonviolent misconduct in 247 prisons from 
 

Table 1. Summary of Research on the Effect of Segregation on System-wide Levels 

of Prison Violence 

State Intervention Tested Inmate Staff Safety 

Safety 

Briggs et al. (2003) 

Arizona Opening of 960 Bed Supermax No Effect No Effect 

Opening of 778 Bed Supermax No Effect Temporary (1 month) 

increase of 6.5 

assaults with injury 

Minnesota Opening of 120 Bed Supermax No Effect No Effect 

Illinois Opening of 500 Bed Supermax No Effect Gradual, sustained 

decline of 22 assaults 

per month 

Huebner (2003) 

National % inmate population receiving No Effect No Effect 

Sample of disciplinary segregation for 

185 Prisons most recent rule violation 

40 states, using structural equation modeling. Contrary to expectations and 

controlling for inmate risk and other organizational characteristics, they found 

that segregation had a positive direct effect on rates of assault and nonviolent 

misconduct. Specifically, “A greater use of coercive control actually coincided 

with larger proportions of inmates who engage in assaults” (p. 244). Moreover, 

when examining the pattern of indirect and direct effects, Wooldredge and 

Steiner (2015) found that higher prison security was associated with greater 

use of segregation, which led to more assaults. The use of segregation was also 

positively associated with increased levels of nonviolent misconduct. These 

findings, argue Wooldredge and Steiner, call into question assumptions about the 

ability of security level and coercive controls to bring about prison order. They 

recommend reconsidering the concentration strategy of prison management and 

classification, and reevaluating the use of dispersion strategies to distribute highrisk inmates more evenly among facilities. 

Summary of Results 

It is difficult to draw conclusions from such a preliminary set of studies, most 

of which speak only indirectly to the ability of administrative segregation to 

achieve its objective of improved systemwide levels of prison safety and order. 

Nevertheless, the research reveals some patterns and tentative conclusions about 

the systemwide effect of administrative segregation on prison order. 

306 • National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov 
Table 1. Summary of Research on the Effect of Segregation on System-wide Levels 

of Prison Violence (continued) 

State Intervention Tested Inmate Safety Staff Safety 

Sundt et al. (2008) 

Illinois 55% increase in ad seg. cells Decline of 3 No Effect 

at maximum security prisons; assaults/month 

Pontiac prison converted to per 10,000 

ad seg. facility; statewide inmates 

“shakedown” 

Opening of 500 Bed Supermax No Effect*	 Gradual, 

sustained 

decline of 

25 assaults/ 

month* 

Wooldredge & Steiner (2015) 

National Proportion inmate population Increased rate No Effect 

sample of 247 in ad seg. and disciplinary seg. of assaults 

prisons from 

40 states Increased rate N/A 

of nonviolent 

misconduct 

*

Note: Results replicated findings from Briggs et al. (2003) with controls for 1996 “shakedown.” 

First, although it appears that a small number of inmates are responsible 

for a disproportionate amount of prison disorder, it is not clear whether 

incapacitation can prevent inmate disruption and violence. Inmates incarcerated 

within administrative segregation continue to engage in high rates of violence 

and misconduct (Bidna, 1975; California Department of Corrections, 1986; 

Porporino, 1986; Sorensen et al., 2011). It is possible that administrative 

segregation merely concentrates inmate violence in specific locations within 

the prison system, but there is also evidence that higher levels of security 

exacerbate inmate misconduct and disorder (Gaes & Camp, 2009; Wooldredge 

& Steiner, 2015). Administrative segregation may intensify some types of inmate 

misconduct (Rhodes, 2004; Toch & Kupers, 2007), particularly among certain 

types of offenders. 

Second, there is neither support for the deterrent effect of punitive segregation 

(Huebner, 2003; Labrecque, 2015; Morris, 2015) nor for administrative segregation. 

Third, the effect of administrative segregation on systemwide levels of prison 

violence is mixed (see table 1). Most of the evidence suggests that segregation 

does not improve systemwide safety (Briggs et al., 2003; Huebner, 2003; Sundt 

Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 307 
308 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

et al., 2008) and may contribute to increases in inmate misconduct under 

some circumstances or among certain groups of offenders (Briggs et al., 2003; 

Labrecque, 2015; Wooldredge & Steiner, 2015). The effect of administrative 

segregation on the safety of correctional officers is also inconsistent — sometimes 

improving staff safety, sometimes making it worse, but most frequently having no 

effect (Briggs et al., 2003; Sundt et al., 2008). 

Fourth, Sundt and colleagues (2008) found support for the argument that 

administrative segregation normalizes prison systems. An analysis of Illinois 

prisons found that opening a supermax facility substantially reduced the use of 

lockdown days. More research is needed to determine whether this result can be 

generalized and replicated in other locations. 

Organizational Culture and Coercive Control 

Questions about the effect of culture are woven throughout the canon of research 

on prison violence and order. Early prison scholars were particularly interested in 

the relationship between prison subcultures and the socialization of inmates and 

a set of values and social roles (Clemmer, 1940; Sykes, 1958). A later generation 

of scholars extended this work to examine the socialization of correctional 

officers and the attitudes and occupational experiences that characterize prison 

work (Jacobs & Retsky, 1975; Lombardo, 1981). The 1971 Stanford Prison 

Experiment studied prison life by randomly assigning students to roles as guards 

or prisoners for a 7- to 14-day trial. The results of this experiment (Haney, Banks, 

& Zimbardo, 1973) brought to light the powerful contextual influence that prison 

social roles have on the attitudes and behaviors of student “inmates” and “guards” 

and their interpersonal interactions. In just a few days, the students began to 

create a culture of control and resistance — “us versus them.” 

Organizational culture is difficult to define and measure. “You had to be there,” 

explains the insider, a phrase that captures the intuitive and latent qualities of 

organizational culture (Liebling, 2004). Garland (1990) defined culture as an 

idea that “refers to all those conceptions and values, categories and distinctions, 

frameworks of ideas and systems of belief which human beings use to construe 

their world and render it orderly and meaningful” (p. 194). Contemporary 

theorists posit that culture is socially constructed, dynamic, expressive, and 

relational (for a discussion, see Stowell & Byrne, 2008). 

Organizations form cultures through shared social experiences. Schein (1990) 

describes organizational culture as a pattern of assumptions that tells its 

members the “correct way to perceive, think, and feel” about organizational 

problems. Organizational culture serves an important function, explains Schein: 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 309 

Once a group has learned to hold common assumptions, the resulting automatic 

patterns of perceiving, feeling, and behaving provide meaning, stability, and 

comfort; the anxiety that results from the inability to understand or predict 

events happening around the group is reduced by the shared learning (p. 111). 

These insights help to explain how organizational cultures form, their potential 

effects, and why they emerge and persist. 

Given the importance of the concept of culture to penology, surprisingly 

little research has directly studied organizational culture (Byrne, Hummer, & 

Taxman, 2008). An important exception is the work by Alison Liebling (2004) 

that examined the “moral performance” of prisons. Liebling (2004) identified 

unique organizational cultures in five prisons that could be scored on the 

emphasis they placed on the values of security and harmony. Security values 

included rule enforcement, use of authority, risk management, control practices, 

and removal of privileges. Harmony values included respect, humanity, trust, 

support, relationships, activity or personal development, and contact with family. 

Good prison performance — and, by extension, good organizational cultures 

— achieve balance between the two values, whereas “poor” prison performance 

overly emphasizes either harmony or security. 

Liebling’s (2004) work on the moral performance of prisons shares some 

common ideas with Colvin and colleagues’ (2002) theory of differential coercion 

and social support. As applied to prisons, Colvin (2007) hypothesizes that 

using coercion in the absence of consent and social support increases, rather 

than decreases, compliance and safety. Colvin defines coercion as the “force 

that compels or intimidates an individual to act because of the fear or anxiety 

it creates” (2007, p. 368). He argues that when social support for inmates is low 

and coercion is used inconsistently, prisons will see higher levels of violence 

and disorder as inmates become angry and direct their frustration at others. 

When coercion is used consistently in the absence of low and inconsistent social 

support, Colvin predicts that inmates will direct negative emotions inward, 

engage in acts of self-harm, and experience mental health problems. 

Colvin (2007) analyzed the organizational policies and climate that existed just 

prior to the infamous riot at the New Mexico State Penitentiary in 1980.2

 He 

described an organization that provided low social support and used coercion 

inconsistently (including the arbitrary use of punitive segregation), with an 

organizational culture characterized by hostility between correctional officers 

and inmates. This period of violent unrest is compared with earlier periods when 

prison officials maintained a better balance of social support and coercion. Like 

2 The 1980 riot at the New Mexico State Penitentiary was one of the most deadly, expensive, and violent prison 

riots in U.S. history. Over two days, 33 inmates were killed, 400 were injured, and 12 correctional officers were 

held hostage. Rioting inmates took advantage of serious security lapses to beat, rape, torture, and murder (see 

Useem, 1985). 
310 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Liebling (2004), Colvin (2007) recommends a management strategy that meets 

the “Goldilocks test”: neither too lax nor too severe, but just right. 

Theorists have also identified the importance of legitimacy and fairness in 

achieving prison order (Liebling, 2004; Sparks & Bottoms, 1995; Useem & Piehl, 

2006). Prisons are political communities that rely on cooperation and rest on the 

belief that the authority of correctional officials and prison regimes is legitimate 

and applied fairly. “Prisons cannot operate by force alone,” contend Useem and 

Piehl (2006, p. 90). Moreover, when prisons lose legitimacy and prison regimes 

are viewed as unfair, the results are despair (Liebling, 2011), violence, disorder 

(Beijersbergen, Dirkzwager, Eichelsheim, Van der Laan, & Nieuwbeerta, 2015; 

Carrabine, 2005; Bottoms, 1999; Sparks & Bottoms, 1995; Useem & Piehl, 2006) 

and, occasionally, political resistance (Reiter, 2014). 

The next section considers more fully the organizational cultures found in 

administrative segregation. Haney (2008) warns of a culture of harm found in 

administrative segregation that has deleterious effects on prison staff and their 

ability to work effectively and humanely with inmates. Working in administrative 

segregation exposes correctional staff to high levels of stress and trauma, which 

may contribute to destructive attitudes, high levels of fear, the loss of professional 

detachment and skill, excessive use of force, and burnout. Finally, the potential 

effect of organizational culture on efforts to reform the use of administrative 

segregation is considered. 

The Organizational Culture of Administrative Segregation 

The nature of organizational culture makes it a difficult phenomenon to study. 

Schein (1990) notes that case studies, clinical descriptions, and ethnographies 

are the best tools for its study at the beginning stage of research, because 

these methods are more holistic and better able to capture the complexity of 

assumptions and values. Only a handful of studies considers the organizational 

culture of administrative segregation units. However, some inferences can be 

drawn from official mission statements and analysis of the overt values expressed 

by the characteristics of the organizational regime. Rhodes’ (2004) ethnography 

of Washington state’s administrative segregation unit is a sophisticated and 

carefully documented study of one state’s organizational culture. Court cases 

and investigations provide another glimpse into some of the worst qualities of 

the culture in segregated housing at various times (Cohen, 2008; King et al., 

2008; Simon, 2014). Finally, a handful of scholars has shared and reflected on 

their direct observations of supermax culture (Haney, 2008; King, 1999, 2005; 

Kurki & Morris, 2001). Among them, Haney’s (2008) discussion is a more 

formal description of the causes and effects of the culture of harm inherent in 

administrative segregation. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 311 

Organizational values and language are important makers of culture. An 

overriding concern for maintaining security and managing levels of risk 

and danger are among the most overt organizational values manifested 

by administrative segregation. This aspect of administrative segregation is 

consistent with the set of values that Feeley and Simon (1992) describe as the 

“new penology,” which makes actuarial risk management of dangerous groups a 

priority over individualized treatment or concern for due process. These values 

are also consistent with what Liebling (2004) referred to as security values. 

Rhodes (2004) characterized the administrative segregation prison as a security 

utopia. Like the penitentiaries of the early 1800s, supermax prisons embody an 

overriding faith in the ability of technology and architecture to enforce order and 

protect staff (also see Reiter, 2012). Emphasis on security values is so dominant 

that the supermax prisons in California were built without the physical space 

necessary to meet inmates’ basic health care needs (Reiter, 2012; Simon, 2014). 

The Colorado Department of Corrections constructed a $200 million supermax 

facility that was open for mere months before a court closed it because it lacked 

outdoor recreation areas (Prendergast, 2015). The culture of administrative 

segregation emphasizes a single-minded concern for staff safety and risk control. 

The dominant value of staff safety is institutionalized in ceremonies and rituals 

that memorialize officers who were hurt or killed in the line of duty. It also is 

powerfully communicated and promulgated in organizational stories about riots, 

murders, and horrific acts of inmate brutality — all cited as reasons for needing 

administrative segregation. 

Technological sterility and efficiency are inherent in contemporary segregation 

prisons and are reflected in their names, physical plants, and procedures. 

Older names for penal isolation — the hole, the box, and lockup — have been 

dropped in favor of technocratic names such as administrative maximum, 

intensive management, behavior modification, and, most commonly, 

administrative segregation (Metcalf et al., 2013). Newer segregation units 

rely on computers to open and close doors, closed-circuit monitors to deliver 

educational and other programming, surveillance cameras that constantly 

watch inmates, and computer monitors for conducting “visits.” In these 

units, staff must follow prescribed protocols consisting of detailed, exacting 

procedures. Wall (2016) describes, for example, how canisters of pepper spray 

are weighed in Rhode Island segregation units to monitor whether an excessive 

amount of the chemical was discharged when used. The California Department 

of Corrections and Rehabilitation once required that guards use, as a matter 

of policy, a stun gun every time they forcibly removed an inmate from a cell, 

regardless of the inmate’s behavior (Simon, 2014). These directives describe a 

culture that fixates on technology and formal rules. Rhodes (2007) explains, 

“supermax technology offers the cultural gloss of a ‘high-tech solution’ that 

helps frame problems — some of them caused by supermax confinement in the 

first place — largely in terms of their susceptibility to technical intervention” 
312 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

(p. 549). According to Rhodes, the result is an impression of inevitability and 

necessity — a sense of progress and sophistication. 

The culture of administrative segregation is also embodied in beliefs about 

inmates and correctional staff and the way that these belief systems play out 

through interactions. Rhodes (2004) shows that administrative segregation is 

based on the concept of the hyperrational, irredeemably dangerous inmate. 

Prisoners held in administrative segregation are called the worst of the worst, 

conjuring up archetypal images of convict revolutionaries and calculating serial 

killers (for a discussion, see Reiter, 2012). Rhodes (2004) illustrates how inmate 

behavior is interpreted within this belief system. Acts of serious misconduct and 

self-harm are interpreted as manipulation and malingering and are viewed as 

confirmation that the inmates require isolation and punishment (also see Haney, 

2008). Yet, prisoners’ records of good behavior are interpreted as evidence of 

their superhuman will and calculated rationality. Drawing on Schein’s (1990) 

work, these organizational beliefs can be perceived as strategies for helping staff 

to understand the problem of the dangerous inmate and cope with the moral 

complexity of extreme deprivation and punishment. 

Toughness and hypermasculinity are ascribed to correctional officers who 

work in supermax and segregation facilities (Haney, 2008). Supermax prisons, 

for example, are said to employ the best of the best to control the worst 

of the worst. These attributes are most clearly expressed via uniforms and 

security rituals. Haney (2008) describes the paramilitary insignia exhibited 

on uniforms, officers donning body armor and gas masks, and guards’ use 

of overpowering physical force as examples (also see Rhodes, 2007). Haney 

also discusses the cultural value of seeing action and overpowering resistant 

inmates, experiences that build guards’ status within the organization. 

Irwin (2004) hypothesizes that this type of “us versus them” culture allows 

correctional officers to maintain a sense of morality while participating in 

practices that may degrade and dehumanize prisoners. 

Occupational Roles and Job Performance 

During the 1970s and early 1980s, prison reformers advocated for diversifying 

and professionalizing prison staff. Recruiting more women, minorities, and 

college-educated correctional officers, reformers argued, would enable change 

in negative guard cultures characterized by racism, excessive use of force, 

and resistance to civil rights reforms. Research, however, typically found no 

relationship — or weak and inconsistent relationships — between correctional 

officers’ personal backgrounds and work-related attitudes. Reflecting on these 

findings, one research team hypothesized that the demands of correctional work 

may be “so encompassing and yet so restrictive that all officers, regardless of 

gender, race, social backgrounds, and prior beliefs, will develop similar attitudes 

toward their jobs” (Jurik, Halemba, Musheno, & Boyle, 1987, p. 109). 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 313 

Research on workplace socialization in prisons suggests that the organizational 

cultures of administrative segregation units could affect a variety of workrelated behaviors, attitudes, and emotions. For example, organizational cultures 

create expectations among staff about their responsibilities regarding problem 

management. In a culture of harm, Haney (2008) argues, 

Interventions aimed at de-escalation or compromise may be seen as capitulation, 

signs of weakness, or ‘rewarding bad behavior.’ Guards who violate the norms 

of punishment by routinely seeking compromise, finding ways to express 

encouragement, or showing empathy for the prisoners’ plight face marginalization, 

ostracism, and reassignment (p. 972). 

Thus, culturally proscribed attitudes and organizational expectations are 

likely to shape how employees in segregation units perform their jobs. The 

organizational culture may also shape inmates’ expectations and their reactions 

to correctional officers. 

King (2005) interviewed supermax inmates in Colorado and Minnesota 

about their views on staff. In both locations, inmates said the officers were 

professional, did not abuse inmates, and could articulate a clear institutional 

mission. The officers at Minnesota’s Oak Park Heights facility, however, were 

viewed as more helpful and fair, and less racist than the officers at the Colorado 

State Penitentiary. King (2005) noted that Oak Park Heights offered more 

programming opportunities and that inmates spent more time out of their 

cells, which increased opportunities for inmates and staff to communicate and 

interact informally. In contrast, inmates and officers at the Colorado facility 

rarely interacted, because inmates were locked down and behind barriers. These 

observations led King to hypothesize that “in situations where potential contact 

between staff and prisoners in public settings is higher, staff will experience a 

greater strain towards behaving in helpful, fair, consistent, and nonracist ways” 

(2005, p. 135). 

Furthermore, King (2005) asked whether the use of administrative segregation 

might result in the loss of important skills. For example, the communication, deescalation, and conflict-resolution skills of officers working in segregated housing 

units may atrophy from lack of use. King also questioned whether these skills 

may weaken in all officers who have a greater incentive to move difficult and 

troublesome inmates to administrative segregation rather than engaging with 

them to solve problems. Reliance on administrative segregation may, therefore, 

alter patterns of interaction between officers and inmates throughout a prison 

system. Briggs and colleagues (2003) noted, for instance, that they could not 

determine whether the lower rates of assault against staff members in Illinois 

after the supermax facility opened were due to changes in inmate behavior or 

staff behavior, or to a change in interactions between the two groups. 
314 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Civilian employees are not immune to the effects of working in administrative 

segregation. Doctors, nurses, psychiatrists, and chaplains may experience 

heightened conflict and ambiguity regarding their roles in segregation facilities, 

where the organizational culture and regime are more starkly at odds with 

the orientation and expectations of their professions. “It is hard to imagine a 

clinician anywhere else in society even attempting a therapeutic interaction 

with a patient who is standing or sitting inside a thick metal cage,” notes Haney 

(2008, p. 973). Although he argues that staff cannot alter these security demands, 

Rhodes (2004) maintains that the struggle between treatment and custody ideals 

is an important check on the hegemony of the administrative segregation regime. 

Despite their potential to affect an organization, it is likely that treatment staff 

struggle to maintain standards of professional care and clinical empathy when 

working in administrative segregation, where security dominates every decision. 

Finally, Haney (2008) argues that the culture of harm is particularly vulnerable to 

the escalation of punitive practices. 

Because guards are encouraged to punish, repress, and forcefully oppose — 

by virtue of the fact that they are provided with no alternative strategies for 

managing prisoners — they have no choice but to escalate the punishment when 

their treatment of prisoners fails to produce the desired results (as it frequently 

does). Of course, over time, the correctional staff becomes accustomed to 

inflicting a certain level of pain and degradation — it is the essence of the regime 

that they control and whose mandates they implement. They naturally become 

desensitized to these actions and, in the absence of any alternative approaches 

(both the lack of conceptual alternatives or the means to implement them), they 

deliver more of the same (p. 970). 

U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, dissenting in Beard v. Banks, 

recognized this potential, arguing that the desire to “motivate good behavior” via 

deprivation has no principle of limitation (cited in Cohen, 2008). It is reasonable 

to expect, then, that management philosophies and practices that place a heavy 

emphasis on security and coercion to achieve prison order are vulnerable to 

excessive use of force and abuse (Haney, 2008; Useem & Piehl, 2006). Research 

examining the use of force, and attitudes toward the use of force, is needed to 

learn more about this phenomenon and its relationship to formal and informal 

organizational values. 

The Emotional Consequences of Working in Administrative Segregation 

Haney (2008) describes administrative segregation as operating in an “ecology 

of cruelty” that affects all who work and live there. The stark environment 

of supermax prisons, in particular, exposes people to stress. The bunker-like 

atmosphere, constant vigilance, and wild swings between extreme boredom 

and extreme crisis may take a toll on employees’ health. “[P]risoners and 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 315 

guards — are likely to find the outer limits of their psychological tolerance 

pressed by these places,” Haney observes (2008, p. 969). Recognizing this 

potential, correctional agencies attempt to rotate officers’ assignments within 

segregation units, sometimes even rotating employees to other facilities 

(Riveland, 1999b). However, their efforts are hampered at supermax prisons, 

which are often located in rural locations. Prisons also struggle to manage 

high staff turnover and absenteeism, which make shift rotation difficult and 

unpredictable. It is important that future research considers how the duration of 

an officer’s tenure in segregation may affect work-related outcomes and officer 

well-being. Similarly, it is unclear whether shift and institutional rotation are 

effective strategies for mitigating the effects of working in segregation. 

Researchers and corrections leaders know a great deal about the stresses of 

prison work. A well-established body of research demonstrates both the high 

level of occupational stress experienced by prison employees and the harmful 

effects of chronic occupational stress (Cheek & Miller, 1983; Dowden & Tellier, 

2004). For example, research has found particularly high rates of divorce, heart 

disease, absenteeism, turnover, and burnout among correctional employees 

(Dowden & Tellier, 2004). In interviews with staff working in control units, King 

(2005) observed that “[v]irtually without exception staff dealing with the ‘worst 

of the worst’ prisoners in England and Wales found their job stressful” (p. 135). 

Those who work in administrative segregation may be regularly exposed to 

traumatic events, including suicides and disturbing acts of self-mutilation 

(Edge & Jones, 2014). Rhodes (2004) described the deep visceral disgust and 

anger that staff experience when prisoners engage in dirty protests — throwing 

feces and other body fluids on officers or covering themselves and their cells in 

feces to force officers to conduct cell extractions. Extended exposure to trauma 

and feelings of disgust may contribute to professional detachment and loss of 

compassion, causing employees to become numb to emotions or to act out in 

anger and frustration. 

Vigilance and fear of victimization — feeling constantly on guard for signs 

of danger — may also be especially high among employees who work in 

administrative segregation. Inmates’ rage and desperation are frequently directed 

at the correctional officers who work in segregation units and at the prison 

administrators who place inmates in segregation (Rhodes, 2004; Gawande, 2009). 

As discussed above, physical assaults against correctional staff occur at a high 

rate within segregation units. An exploratory analysis by Sundt and colleagues 

(2004) found that Illinois correctional officers at the supermax prison reported 

substantially higher levels of work stress and fear of victimization than did 

guards working in the general prison population. Supermax officers also were 

less committed to and less satisfied with their jobs than were officers working in 

the states’ other four maximum-security prisons. Although a low response rate 

from the officers working at the supermax prison precludes generalization, the 

lack of participation is, perhaps, another indicator of the officers’ disengagement 

and alienation. 
316 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Cultural Change and Reforming Administrative Segregation 

In the mid-2000s, the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) developed the 

Cultural Change Initiative (CCI) to support corrections officials in their efforts 

to change organizational culture. The initiative was designed to address negative 

prison culture, which NIC opinion leaders believed contributed to breakdowns in 

leadership and problems among staff and inmates such as inadequate responses 

to sexual assaults, racist attitudes, and excessive use of force. The initiative 

provided training and technical assistance with organizational culture, change 

management, and strategic planning (Byrne, Hummer, & Taxman 2008). 

Participants in CCI attended a three-day training, “Promoting Positive Prison 

Culture,” where they learned about organizational culture, assessed the culture 

in their organizations, and began developing workplace improvement plans. 

Participating organizations then received technical assistance in writing 

mission statements for their facilities, identifying desired values and beliefs, 

and developing plans for achieving and monitoring desired outcomes. In a 

multisite evaluation of CCI, Byrne and colleagues (2008) found that, despite 

implementation problems, participating organizations generally showed 

improvement in organizational culture indicators. At one study site that provided 

outcome data, CCI was associated with declines in overall inmate misconduct 

over a 17-month period. Violent incidents also declined, but the change was 

not statistically significant. Although preliminary, the results found by the 

Byrne team are promising and support the need for additional research on 

organizational culture in prisons and for the development of more robust cultural 

change interventions. 

The findings are also consistent with theoretical work that points to the 

important link between culture and organizational effectiveness. As doubts are 

raised about the appropriate use of administrative segregation and its potentially 

harmful effects, it will be important to consider how the organizational culture 

of prisons, generally — and administrative segregation units, specifically — may 

both impede and facilitate change. For example, Mohr and Raemisch (2015) 

suggest that too strong a focus on security or efficiency may detract from other 

important organizational goals and missions such as improving public safety. 

For decades, administrative segregation has been justified as necessary for the 

protection of staff members. Moving away from reliance on administrative 

segregation and reforming its mission from containment to risk reduction, for 

example, will require significant changes in staff culture, belief systems about 

inmates, and assumptions about how best to create orderly and safe prisons. 

Discussions about the need to reform administrative segregation should 

specifically acknowledge the importance of protecting correctional officers from 

the negative effects of high stress and continued exposure to high rates of assault 

within segregated housing. Focusing exclusively on the well-being of inmates and 

abuses documented in administrative segregation could contribute to a hostile 

“us versus them” culture and resistance to needed reforms. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 317 

A. T. Wall (2016), the director of the Rhode Island Department of Corrections, 

advocates for the full participation of correctional staff in efforts to reform 

the use of administrative segregation. “The success of any such venture will 

depend on our ability to win and maintain the trust of corrections personnel,” 

he explains. Rather than the paramilitary, top-down organizational model 

of management traditionally employed in prisons, Wall argues for a more 

horizontal, collaborative approach to reform, wherein employees from all levels 

of the organization work to identify challenges and agree on changes. Such a 

change in the organizational culture of prisons could have far-reaching benefits. 

Toward an Evidence-Based Model of Prison Management 

The evidence-based practices movement is transforming the delivery of 

correctional programs (Taxman & Belenko, 2012). And for good reason: 

theoretically informed and scientifically validated practices deliver better 

outcomes with a higher return on public investment (Drake, Aos, & Miller, 

2009). Institutional corrections, however, has been slower to adopt an evidencebased orientation and there is little empirical research on the nation’s prison 

systems. It is noteworthy that the Department of Justice’s recent Smart on Crime 

Initiative included technical assistance grants to support “smart policing,” “smart 

prosecution,” “smart defense,” “smart probation,” and “smart supervision” (to 

reduce the use of prisons). There was no “smart prison” initiative — there simply 

is no evidence base on which to build such a program. 

It is worth considering why so little scholarship exists on such an important 

public institution. Although this question is worthy of careful evaluation, a few 

preliminary observations are offered here with the hope of identifying barriers 

to success and opportunities for improvement. Four issues seem particularly 

germane: public leadership, data infrastructure, institutional review boards, and 

the need for national reporting standards for corrections. 

Federal and state governments spent billions of dollars to build supermax 

prisons and retrofit other facilities for administrative segregation without a single 

independent study documenting either the need for or the utility of this practice 

(Mears, 2008a). The use of evidence-based practices requires organizations 

to embrace the value of scientific knowledge and incorporate data into their 

decision-making. Although academic scholars and professional associations have 

for decades called for greater transparency, use of research, and performance 

measures, prisons remain a “black box” (Mears, 2008b). Strong leadership at 

every level of government is needed to address the problem. Embracing the value 

of data-driven policies will facilitate positive organizational change and promote 

positive organizational cultures. Promising examples of success in community 

corrections exist, where leaders in states such as Oklahoma and Oregon took 

assertive roles in promoting greater public accountability and organizational 

effectiveness (Latessa, 2004). The political context surrounding incarceration 
318 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

is shifting. This opportunity should be embraced, and public leaders should 

be urged to support research on prisons that will lead to improved quality, 

efficiency, and public safety. 

Given the lack of organizational support for research, it is not surprising that the 

data infrastructures of departments of corrections are grossly underdeveloped. 

As recently as 2012, the Government Accountability Office (2014) found that 

the Federal Bureau of Prisons did not document how long inmates spent in 

administrative segregation and had never evaluated the effect of long-term 

segregation on prison safety or inmate well-being. Although some fault lies with 

the hubris of decision-makers who have failed to subject their policies to study 

or monitoring, there is also a lack of infrastructure to support data collection and 

reporting. There is a tremendous need for technical assistance and funding to 

support the creation of robust, modern information technology systems that can 

support better decision-making to improve outcomes. 

Prisoners are a protected class of research subjects, and scholars who conduct 

research on prisoners understandably have the extra burden of demonstrating 

that their research complies with all ethical and regulatory requirements 

governing research on human subjects. University review boards are often 

ill-informed about prisons and criminal justice and wary of exposing their 

institutions to any risk. In addition, departments of corrections may require 

researchers to submit proposals for research that, if approved, must go through 

another internal review board constituted by the prison system. Review boards 

within departments of correction also have incentives for denying research 

proposals that may expose their organizations to risk by revealing problems 

within the prison system or by questioning policy decisions. Moreover, the 

members of review boards within departments of corrections typically lack the 

scientific credentials and the expertise to make appropriate methodological or 

theoretical recommendations. 

Current regulatory requirements may discourage scientific social research 

on prisons and prisoners. At the least, scholars who engage in research on 

prisons and prisoners need additional support to navigate the difficult and 

time-consuming institutional review board process. Timelines for conducting 

funded research on prisons and inmates, for example, should be more generous 

than those set for other types of research. There is also an opportunity for the 

Department of Justice to conduct a national assessment of institutional review 

boards and recommend best practices to better balance the protection of 

prisoners from unethical research practices and the pressing need to develop 

a scientific knowledge base about prisons and incarceration. States should also 

consider whether departments of corrections have a conflict of interest that 

prevents them from objectively reviewing the merits of proposed research. 

Finally, the lack of national reporting standards makes it difficult to generalize 

from research findings and accumulate knowledge. It is hard to imagine where 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 319 

criminal justice practice and scholarship would be if the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation had not created standards to measure crime in the 1920s. Yet, the 

corrections field has no standards for reporting performance indicators such as 

assaults and recidivism. Similarly, there are no agreed-upon definitions for basic 

organizational indicators such as security level or operating capacity. The Prison 

Rape Elimination Act of 2003 is an exception and an example of progress. It 

created national standards for reporting rape and sexual victimization in prisons. 

The corrections field may also need national legislation to establish additional 

reporting standards. 

Directions for Future Research 

Given the state of the knowledge base about prison management, administrative 

segregation, organizational culture, and prison order in general, a broad set 

of research questions and methodologies is needed. Although experimental 

research produces internally valid results, those results are often not suitable 

for generalization. Experimental research is not well-suited to developing 

new insights and is a poor strategy for describing or understanding complex, 

multivariate phenomena and contextual effects. Prison order is a complex, 

dynamic phenomenon intimately tied to context; thus, it is premature to establish 

a particular methodology or set of research questions. That said, some general 

recommendations are offered below. 

Basic Research Needs 

First, basic research on inmates’ adjustment to incarceration is needed. Too little 

is known about the common patterns and causes of inmate behavior. Until more 

information about these patterns is gathered and assessed, developing effective 

interventions and programs for managing violent and disruptive inmates is 

guesswork. Absent a solid understanding of the cause of a problem, there is 

a tendency to focus too much on managing symptoms. The corrections field 

lacks the research on the etiology of prison violence, victimization, non-serious 

misconduct, suicide, self-harm, fear, gang activity, and mental health necessary 

to develop a solid basis for identifying effective strategies to manage and prevent 

serious and disruptive inmate misconduct. Basic research is the foundation on 

which good theory and good practice are built. 

In a similar vein, the field lacks research on the trajectories of adjustment and 

maladjustment over the course of prisoners’ sentences to better understand 

stability and change in inmate behavior. Studies of inmate behavior patterns 

before, during, and after placement in administrative segregation — and of 

other efforts to manage violent, disturbed, or disruptive inmates — are also 

needed to understand more fully the effect of interventions on prison order and 

inmate well-being (Toch & Kupers, 2007). Longitudinal research designs may be 
320 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

particularly valuable for understanding the dynamic interplay among inmates, 

staff, the prison environment, and prison management. Until a better research 

base is developed, researchers and practitioners alike will continue to puzzle over 

the inconsistent and unpredictable results of efforts to manage and reduce prison 

violence and disorder. 

Organizational Variation in Prison Order 

Second, the field needs research on the causes of variation in institutional order 

from one prison system, prison, or cellblock to the next. Too little is known 

about the factors that distinguish prisons with high rates of disorder from 

those with low rates (Useem & Piehl, 2006). In particular, it is unclear whether 

prison security levels prevent disorder or create contexts that exacerbate and 

concentrate disorder and future offending (Gaes & Camp, 2009; Wooldredge 

& Steiner, 2015). Yet, under the assumption that this fundamental practice is 

critical to creating safer prisons, security classifications are used in every prison 

system. Studies evaluating the relative effectiveness of the “concentration model” 

versus the “dispersion model” are needed, as are studies that examine variation in 

management strategies and organizational cultures. It is particularly important 

that research in this area develop better measures of key concepts and move away 

from general indicators of policies and program participation. 

Deterrence, Justice, and Legitimacy 

Third, the effects of official responses to inmate grievances and formal sanctions 

for misconduct must be better understood. Strong theory and an emerging 

body of research point to the important interplay among the use of authority, 

perceptions of fairness and legitimacy, and compliance (Liebling, 2004; Sherman, 

1993; Sparks & Bottoms, 1995; Tyler, 2003). Research is needed in three areas: 

deterrence, restorative justice, and procedural justice. Studies of the use of 

sanctions and deterrent strategies commonly yield inconsistent results (Sherman, 

1993), such as those seen so far on the use of segregation. Perceptions of fairness, 

justice, and legitimacy appear to influence the effect of sanctions and explain 

some of the inconsistent findings in the literature. The corrections field should 

build on the works of Colvin (2007), Liebling (2004), and Sparks and Bottoms 

(1995) to develop an applied knowledge base of the effective exercise of authority 

in prisons. This may be a particularly important area of inquiry, because coercive 

practices can backfire. 

The rise of supermax prisons and the expanded use of administrative segregation 

emerged, in part, because corrections officials believed that the court reforms 

of the late 1970s and 1980s severely limited their authority and their options for 

responding effectively to inmate violence and misconduct. As the field moves 

away from using segregation to punish and control violent and disruptive 

inmates, it is critical that it develop new options for preventing serious 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 321 

misconduct and responding effectively when it does occur. Corrections officials 

need help from researchers and the National Institute of Justice to identify 

effective alternatives to administrative and punitive segregation. Swift and certain 

deterrence, restorative justice programs, and supervision informed by procedural 

justice are promising areas for beginning this research. 

Studies of Administrative Segregation 

Fourth, more research is needed to understand the effect of administrative 

segregation on prison order and safety and to answer questions about when 

administrative segregation should be used, how many inmates may require 

it, and for how long. Comparative case studies, process evaluations, and 

outcome evaluations can reveal more about administrative segregation’s effect 

on systemwide prison order and the mechanisms that connect this practice to 

various outcomes. Priority should be given to studies that conceptually and 

methodologically distinguish between the effects of separating dangerous or 

disruptive inmates from the general population and the effects of conditions 

of confinement. Studies that systematically examine the various policies and 

practices found in administrative segregation will also be revealing. 

The field also needs better data about the effect of working in administrative 

segregation. Developing and supporting the prison workforce is a longstanding 

priority of the Office of Justice Programs as well as the various professional 

associations that represent corrections officers. The handful of observations 

about how working in supermax prisons affects employees raises concerns about 

the heavy burden and risks borne by staff in these facilities. More information 

is needed about all that staff experience when they work in administrative 

segregation. Then, the field can better consider how to mitigate the potential 

effects of chronic occupational stress, fear, and workplace victimization. It is 

also important to understand more about how the culture of supermax prisons 

affects the use of force, hostility between inmates and staff, and the escalation of 

punishment and resistance. 

Effective Practices of Inmate Supervision 

Fifth, too little is known about how prison employees contribute to inmate 

adjustment, prison order, and rehabilitation. There are hints that the quality of 

interactions between correctional officers and inmates is consequential (Day, 

Brauer, & Butler, 2015; King, 2005; Liebling, 2004). For example, recent research 

on the effectiveness of probation and parole officers indicates that both officers’ 

professional skills and their relationships with the offenders they supervise are 

important (Bonta, Bourgon, Rugge, Gress, & Gutierrez, 2013; Kennealy, Skeem, 

Manchak, & Eno Louden, 2012; Smith, Schweitzer, Labrecque, & Latessa, 2012). 

Research is needed to help the field understand more about interactions between 

inmates and officers and how these interactions contribute to prison order, safety, 
322 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

fear, perceptions of fairness, and inmate behavioral change. The corrections field 

must also learn more about effective (and ineffective) practices for working with 

dangerous and disruptive inmates. 

Organizational Culture and Effectiveness 

Sixth, and finally, additional research is needed to improve the field’s 

understanding of the relationship between organizational culture and 

organizational effectiveness. The National Institute of Justice’s Cultural Change 

Initiative is a promising strategy for developing positive organizational cultures 

and improving outcomes such as prison order and safety. Evaluations of 

efforts to reform administrative segregation should incorporate assessments of 

organizational culture, which may be an important determinant of the Cultural 

Change Initiative’s success. More broadly, additional case studies, histories, 

and ethnographies are needed to better understand prison cultures and what 

distinguishes harmful, destructive prison cultures from just, reintegrative prison 

environments. This research will help correctional leaders to think strategically 

about the relationships among their management practices, culture, and the 

mission of their institutions. 

The Well-Managed Prison 

The appropriate role of administrative segregation in maintaining an orderly 

and safe prison system is not yet known. Certainly, there is very little scientific 

evidence supporting its effectiveness and enough contrary evidence to warrant 

limiting its use. Cohen (2008) argues that the field could concede to the need to 

separate dangerous and disruptive inmates from the general prison population 

without also agreeing that extreme social isolation and the harsh conditions 

of confinement are legitimate strategies for securing prison safety and order. 

Reforms to the regime of administrative segregation are clearly needed, but more 

fundamental doubts remain about the capacity of architectures and technologies 

of control to impose the habits of order. 

In a footnote to his article on trends in prison management, Riveland (1999a) 

commented that prisons are one of the few social institutions that measure 

themselves by their failures. Departments of corrections report rates of 

recidivism, and, occasionally, rates of prison violence, suicide, and major 

disruption. These are critically important elements, but they reveal nothing of 

the other important organizational goals of prisons. They do not help corrections 

officials to understand markers of quality such as inmate productivity, reduction 

in criminal risk, increased fairness, and the improved well-being of staff and 

inmates. Performance measures are not merely indicators of success or failure; 

they also powerfully communicate organizational values and priorities — What 

gets counted tends to count. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 323 

Alison Liebling (2004) wraps up her analysis of prison performance by 

identifying what matters in prisons: the quality of the relationships among 

inmates, staff, and institutional leaders. Liebling concludes that firm, fair, and 

caring relationships are the foundation of moral correctional practices.3 Good 

organizational performance, argues Liebling, is characterized by a value balance 

between security and harmony that is rooted firmly in the concept of a just 

community. Respect, humanity, good and right staff-prisoner relationships, 

fairness, effective security and management systems, and strong leadership are 

the markers of a well-managed prison. 

Improving knowledge about inmate adjustment, prison organizations, and 

effective management strategies will help correctional officials and scholars to 

develop approaches to achieving prison order and developing a set of effective 

practices for inmate supervision. In addition, correctional leaders need data to 

inform and support their decisions about the appropriate use of administrative 

segregation. The United States spent billions of dollars building the capacity to 

incarcerate a large number of inmates in restrictive housing without conducting 

a careful study of either the need for or efficacy of segregation (Mears, 2008a). 

The corrections field should not compound this mistake by investing in other 

unproven strategies. It is time to invest in developing an evidence base to guide 

prison management in the use of strategies such as administrative segregation. 

References 

Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (1994). The psychology of criminal conduct. 

Cincinnati, OH: Anderson. 

Barak-Glantz, I. L. (1983). Who’s in the hole? Criminal Justice Review, 8(1), 29-37. 

Beijersbergen, K. A., Dirkzwager, A. J., Eichelsheim, V. I., Van der Laan, P. H., & 

Nieuwbeerta, P. (2015). Procedural justice, anger, and prisoners’ misconduct: A 

longitudinal study. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42(2), 196-218. 

Bennett, L. (1976). The study of violence in California prisons: A review with 

policy implications. In A. K. Cohen, G. F. Cole, and R. G. Bailey (Eds.), Prison 

violence: A sociological perspective (pp. 149-168). Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath. 

Bidna, H. (1975). Effects of increased security on prison violence. Journal of 

Criminal Justice, 3(1), 33-45. 

3

 Firm and fair officer-offender relationships may also be the foundation of effective correctional practices 

(Andrews & Bonta, 1994; Skeem, Louden, Polaschek, & Camp, 2007). 
324 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

 

Bonta, J., Bourgon, G., Rugge, T., Gress, C., & Gutierrez, L. (2013). Taking the 

leap: From pilot project to wide-scale implementation of the Strategic Training 

Initiative in Community Supervision (STICS). Justice Research and Policy, 15(1), 17-35. 

Bottoms, A. E. (1999). Interpersonal violence and social order in prisons. Crime 

and Justice, 26, 205-281. 

Briggs, C. S., Sundt, J. L., & Castellano, T. C. (2003). The effect of supermaximum 

security prisons on aggregate levels of institutional violence. Criminology, 41(4), 

1341-1376. 

Byrne, J. M., Hummer, D., & Taxman, F. S. (2008). The National Institute of 

Corrections’ institutional cultural change initiative: A multisite evaluation. In J. 

M. Byrne, D. Hummer, & F. S. Taxman (Eds.), The culture of prison violence 

(pp. 137-163). Boston, MA: Pearson. 

Carrabine, E. (2005). Prison riots, social order and the problem of legitimacy. 

British Journal of Criminology, 45(6), 896-913. 

California Department of Corrections. (1986). Task force on violence, 

special housing, and gang management. Sacramento, CA: State of California, 

Department of Corrections. 

Cheek, F. E., & Miller, M. D. S. (1983). The experience of stress for correction 

officers: A double-bind theory of correctional stress. Journal of Criminal Justice, 

11, 105-120. 

Clemmer, D. (1940). The prison community. Boston, MA: Christopher Publishing House. 

Cohen, F. (2008). Penal isolation beyond the seriously mentally ill. Criminal 

Justice and Behavior, 35(8), 1017-1047. 

Colvin, M. (2007). Applying differential coercion and social support theory to 

prison organizations: The case of the Penitentiary of New Mexico. The Prison 

Journal, 87(3), 367-387. 

Colvin, M., Cullen, F. T., & Vander Ven, T. (2002). Coercion, social support, and 

crime: An emerging theoretical consensus. Criminology, 40(1), 19-42. 

Crouch, B. M., Marquart, J. R., & Marquart, J. W. (2010). An appeal to justice: 

Litigated reform of Texas prisons. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 

Day, J. C., Brauer, J. R., & Butler, H. D. (2015). Coercion and social support 

behind bars: Testing an integrated theory of misconduct and resistance in U.S. 

prisons. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42(2), 133-155. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 325 

De Beaumont, G., & De Tocqueville, A. (1833). On the penitentiary system in the 

United States: And its application in France; with an appendix on penal colonies, 

and also, statistical notes. Philadelphia, PA: Carey, Lea & Blanchard. 

Dowden, C., & Tellier, C. (2004). Predicting work-related stress in correctional 

officers: A meta-analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32(1), 31-47. 

Drake, E. K., Aos, S., & Miller, M. G. (2009). Evidence-based public policy 

options to reduce crime and criminal justice costs: Implications in Washington 

state. Victims and Offenders, 4(2), 170-196. 

Edge, D., & Jones, E. C. (2014). Solitary nation. Frontline [Television series]. 

Boston, MA: WBGH Educational Foundation. 

Feeley, M. M., & Simon, J. (1992). The new penology: Notes on the emerging 

strategy of corrections and its implications. Criminology, 30(4), 449-474. 

Flanagan, T. J. (1983). Correlates of institutional misconduct among state 

prisoners. Criminology, 21(1), 29-40. 

Gaes, G. G., & Camp, S. D. (2009). Unintended consequences: Experimental 

evidence for the criminogenic effect of prison security level placement on postrelease recidivism. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 5(2), 139-162. 

Garland, D. (1990). Punishment and modern society: A study in social theory. 

Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 

Gawande, A. (2009, March 30). Hellhole. The United States holds tens of 

thousands of inmates in long-term solitary confinement. Is this torture? The New 

Yorker. Retrieved from http://www.newyorker.com. 

Hallinan, J. (1995, December 10). Supermax prisons: They’re supertough, 

superexpensive and supergood for poor communities. The Sunday Patriot, p. G1. 

Haney, C. (2008). A culture of harm: Taming the dynamics of cruelty in 

supermax prisons. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(8), 956-984. 

Haney, C., Banks, C., & Zimbardo, P. (1973). Interpersonal dynamics in a 

simulated prison. International Journal of Criminology and Penology, 1, 69-97. 

Huebner, B. M. (2003). Administrative determinants of inmate violence: 

A multilevel analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31(2), 107-117. 

Human Rights Watch. (1997). Cold storage: Supermaximum security confinement 

in Indiana. New York, NY: Human Rights Watch. 

Irwin, J. (2004). The warehouse prison: Disposal of the new dangerous class. New 

York, NY: Oxford University Press. 
326 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Irwin, J., & Austin, J. (1997). It’s about time: America’s imprisonment binge (2nd 

ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. 

Jacobs, J. B., & Retsky, H. G. (1975). Prison guard. Journal of Contemporary 

Ethnography, 4, 5-29. 

Jurik, N. C., Halemba, G. J., Musheno, M. C., & Boyle, B. V. (1987). Educational 

attainment, job satisfaction, and the professionalization of correctional officers. 

Work and Occupations, 14(1), 106-125. 

Kennealy, P. J., Skeem, J. L., Manchak, S. M., & Eno Louden, J. (2012). Firm, fair, 

and caring officer-offender relationships protect against supervision failure. Law 

and Human Behavior, 36(6), 496. 

King, K., Steiner, B., & Breach, S. R. (2008). Violence in the supermax: A selffulfilling prophecy. The Prison Journal, 88(1), 144-168. 

King, R. D. (1999). The rise and rise of supermax: An American solution in 

search of a problem? Punishment & Society, 1(2), 163-186. 

King, R. D. (2005). The effects of supermax custody. In A. Liebling & S. Maruna 

(Eds.), The effects of imprisonment (pp. 118-145). Portland, OR: Willian Publishing. 

Kupers, T. A., Dronet, T., Winter, M., Austin, J., Kelly, L., Cartier, W., Morris, 

T.J., ... Vincent, L. C. (2009). Beyond supermax administrative segregation: 

Mississippi’s experience rethinking prison classification and creating alternative 

mental health programs. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(10), 1037-1050. 

Kurki, L., & Morris, N. (2001). The purposes, practices, and problems of 

supermax prisons. Crime and Justice, 28, 385-424. 

Labrecque, R. M. (2015). The effect of solitary confinement on institutional 

misconduct: A longitudinal evaluation Doctoral dissertation, University of 

Cincinnati). Cincinnati. Retrieved from https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_ 

file?accession=ucin1439308329&disposition=inline. 

Latessa, E. J. (2004). The challenge of change: Correctional programs and 

evidence-based practices. Criminology & Public Policy, 3(4), 547-560. 

Liebling, A. (2004). Prisons and their moral performance: A study of values, 

quality, and prison life. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 

Liebling, A. (2011). Moral performance, inhuman and degrading treatment and 

prison pain. Punishment & Society, 13(5), 530-550. 

Liman Program & Association of State Correctional Administrators. (2015). 

Time-in-cell: ASCA-Liman 2014 National Survey of Administrative Segregation in 

Prison. New Haven, CT: Yale Law School. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 327 

Lombardo, L. X. (1981). Guards imprisoned: Correctional officers at work. New 

York, NY: Elsevier. 

Mears, D. P. (2008a). An assessment of supermax prisons using an evaluation 

research framework. The Prison Journal, 88(1), 43-68. 

Mears, D. P. (2008b). Accountability, efficiency, and effectiveness in corrections: 

Shining a light on the black box of prison systems. Criminology & Public Policy, 

7(1), 143-152. 

Mears, D. P., & Reisig, M. D. (2006). The theory and practice of supermax 

prisons. Punishment & Society, 8(1), 33-57. 

Mears, D. P., & Watson, J. (2006). Towards a fair and balanced assessment of 

supermax prisons. Justice Quarterly, 23(2), 232-270. 

Metcalf, H., Morgan, J., Oliker-Friedland, S., Resnik, J., Spiegel, J., Tae, H., 

... Holbrook, B. (2013). Administrative segregation, degrees of isolation, and 

incarceration: A national overview of state and federal correctional policies. 

Hartford, CT: Liman Public Interest Program, Yale Law School. 

Mohr, G. C. & Raemisch, R. (2015, February 13). Restrictive housing: Taking the 

lead. Corrections Today. Retrieved from www.aca.org. 

Morris, R. G. (2015). Exploring the effect of exposure to short-term solitary 

confinement among violent prison inmates. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 

32(1), 1-22. 

Porporino, F. J. (1986). Managing violent individuals in correctional settings. 

Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1(2), 213-237. 

Pratt, T. C., Cullen, F. T., Blevins, K. R., Daigle, L. E., & Madensen, T. D. (2006). 

The empirical status of deterrence theory: A meta-analysis. In F. T. Cullen, J. P. 

Wright, & K. R. Blevins (Eds.), Taking stock: The status of criminological theory, 

Vol. 15, pp. 367-396. 

Prendergast, A. (2015, Dec. 7). Colorado supermax will build rec yards to settle 

prisoners’ lawsuit. Westword. Retrieved from www.westword.com. 

Ralph, P. H., & Marquart, J. W. (1991). Gang violence in Texas prisons. 

The Prison Journal, 71(2), 38-49. 

Reiter, K. A. (2012). The most restrictive alternative: The origins, functions, control, 

and ethical implications of the supermax prison, 1976-2010. Doctoral dissertation, 

University of California, Berkeley. Retrieved from http://digitalassets.lib.berkeley. 

edu/etd/ucb/text/Reiter_berkeley_0028E_12273.pdf. 
328 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Reiter, K. (2014). The Pelican Bay hunger strike: Resistance within the structural 

constraints of a U.S. supermax prison. South Atlantic Quarterly, 113(3), 579-611. 

Rhodes, L. A. (2004). Total confinement: Madness and reason in the maximum 

security prison (Vol. 7). Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. 

Rhodes, L. A. (2007). Supermax as a technology of punishment. Social Research, 

74(2), 547-566. 

Riveland, C. (1999a). Prison management trends, 1975-2025. Crime and Justice, 

26, 163-203. 

Riveland, C. (1999b). Supermax prisons: Overview and general considerations. 

Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections. 

Rothman, D. J. (1971). The discovery of the asylum. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers. 

Rubin, A. T. (2015). Resistance or friction: Understanding the significance of 

prisoners’ secondary adjustments. Theoretical Criminology, 19(1), 23-42. 

Sherman, L. W. (1993). Defiance, deterrence, and irrelevance: A theory of the 

criminal sanction. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30(4), 445-473. 

Simon, J. (2014). Mass incarceration on trial: The remarkable court decision and 

the future of prisons in America. New York, NY: The New York Press. 

Schein, E. H. (1990). Organizational culture. American Psychologist, 45(2), 109-119. 

Skeem, J. L., Louden, J. E., Polaschek, D., & Camp, J. (2007). Assessing 

relationship quality in mandated community treatment: Blending care with 

control. Psychological Assessment, 19(4), 397-410. 

Smith, P., Schweitzer, M., Labrecque, R. M., & Latessa, E. J. (2012). Improving 

probation officers’ supervision skills: An evaluation of the EPICS model. Journal 

of Crime and Justice, 35(2), 189-199. 

Sorensen, J. R., Cunningham, M. D., Vigen, M. P., & Woods, S. O. (2011). Serious 

assaults on prison staff: A descriptive analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39(2), 

143-150. 

Sparks, J. R., & Bottoms, A. E. (1995). Legitimacy and order in prisons. British 

Journal of Sociology, 46(1), 45-62. 

Stowell, J. I., & Byrne, J.M. (2008). Does what happens in prison stay in prison? 

Examining the reciprocal relationship between community and prison culture. In 

J. M. Byrne, D. Hummer, and F. S. Taxman (Eds.), The culture of prison violence 

(pp. 27-39). Boston, MA: Pearson. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 329 

Suedfeld, P. (1974). Solitary confinement in the correctional setting: Goals, 

problems, and suggestions. Corrective and Social Psychiatry and Journal of 

Behavior Technology, Methods and Therapy, 20(3), 10-20. 

Sundt, J. L., Castellano, T. C., & Briggs, C. S. (2008). The sociopolitical context of 

prison violence and its control: A case study of supermax and its effect in Illinois. 

The Prison Journal, 88(1), 94-122. 

Sundt, J. L., Castellano, T. C., & Briggs, C. S. (2004). Modern prison work: 

Organizational and contextual determinates of job quality. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. 

Sykes, G. M. (1958). The society of captives: A study of a maximum security prison. 

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 

Taxman, F. S., & Belenko, S. (2012). Implementation of evidence based community 

corrections and addiction treatment. New York, NY: Springer. 

Toch, H. (1997). Corrections: A humanistic approach. Guilderland, NY: Harrow 

and Heston. 

Toch, H. (2001). The future of supermax confinement. The Prison Journal, 81(3), 

376-388. 

Toch, H. (2003). The contemporary relevance of early experiments with 

supermax reform. The Prison Journal, 83(2), 221-228. 

Toch, H. (2007). Sequestering gang members, burning witches, and subverting 

due process. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(2), 274-288. 

Toch, H., & Adams, K. (1986). Pathology and disruptiveness among prison 

inmates. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 23(1), 7-21. 

Toch, H., & Kupers, T. A. (2007). Violence in prisons, revisited. Journal of 

Offender Rehabilitation, 45(3-4), 1-28. 

Travis, J., Western, B., & Redburn, F. S. (2014). The growth of incarceration in the 

United States: Exploring causes and consequences. Washington, DC: The National 

Academies Press. 

Tyler, T. R. (2003). Procedural justice, legitimacy, and the effective rule of law. 

Crime and Justice, 30, 283-357. 

United States Government Accountability Office. (2013). Improvements needed 

in Bureau of Prisons’ monitoring and evaluation of impact of segregated housing. 

Washington, DC: Author. 
330 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Useem, B. (1985). Disorganization and the New Mexico prison riot of 1980. 

American Sociological Review, 50(5), 677-688. 

Useem, B., & Piehl, A. M. (2006). Prison buildup and disorder. Punishment & 

Society, 8(1), 87-115. 

Wall, A. T. (2016). Time-in-cell: A practitioner’s perspective. Yale Law Journal 

Forum, 125, 246-252. 

Wooldredge, J., & Steiner, B. (2015). A macro-level perspective on prison inmate 

deviance. Punishment & Society, 17(2), 230-257. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 331 

CHAPTER 9 

Toward an Understanding 

of “What Works” in 

Segregation: Implementing 

Correctional Programming and 

Re-Entry-Focused Services in 

Restrictive Housing Units 

Paula Smith, Ph.D.
 

School of Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati
 

Introduction 

I

ssues related to prison management have been the topic of heated debate 

over the years (Gendreau & Keyes, 2001). Within this context, the use of 

“solitary confinement” — also known by terms such as restrictive housing, 

administrative segregation, and disciplinary segregation — has generated special 

attention and controversy, with repeated calls to abolish the practice. It is 

instructive, however, that such housing units have been used since the inception 

of the prison to isolate inmates from the general population of offenders for both 

punitive (i.e., disciplinary) and administrative (i.e., safety) purposes (Labrecque & 

Smith, 2013). In fact, as the incarceration rate increased dramatically between the 

1970s and 2008 in the United States (Glaze & Kaeble, 2014; Simon, 2007), many 
332 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

prison managers felt that they had few options for controlling the institutional 

environment but to place extreme limits on prisoners’ activities (Mears & 

Watson, 2006; Pizarro & Stenius, 2004). Therefore, it is perhaps not surprising 

that several recent studies have indicated that the use of segregation has also 

increased over the past two decades in the United States (Haney, 2008; O’Keefe, 

2008). Coupled with the fact that segregation is a more restrictive and very 

expensive option for housing inmates, it is critical to understand both the utility 

and efficacy of solitary confinement (Frost & Monteiro, 2016). 

At the moment, there is an active debate about the constitutional and 

humanitarian concerns related to the use of segregation, as well as its 

effectiveness as a tool for managing prisons (Labrecque & Smith, 2013). On one 

side, corrections officials underscore the daily challenge of managing disruptive 

inmates in crowded prisons. They cite the very practical reality that segregation 

is a necessary tool in the continuum of placement options within correctional 

institutions, particularly for inmates who pose a threat to themselves or others. 

On the other side, critics assert that segregation is one of the most restrictive 

and stressful settings for offenders to experience (Arbour, 1996; Human Rights 

Watch, 2000). From this perspective, solitary confinement is held to violate basic 

human rights, with harsh conditions that are unduly severe and disproportionate 

to legitimate security and inmate management objectives (Human Rights Watch, 

2000). For these reasons, advocates for prison inmates have characterized the 

practice as “cruel and unusual punishment” (Grassian, 1983), citing a lengthy 

list of objectionable conditions: lack of windows, 24-hour lighting, minimal 

opportunities for exercise and recreation, restricted interpersonal contact, 

removal of privileges, denial of personal items, and limited therapeutic services. 

Support for finding alternatives to managing prisons safely and humanely has 

gained momentum. In fact, several recent legislative changes have been announced 

to limit the use of solitary confinement in adult inmate populations, and 

completely eliminate its use with juvenile inmate populations in the United States 

(e.g., Eilperin, 2016). Recently, the U.S. Department of Justice (2016) released a 

document entitled Report and Recommendations Concerning the Use of Restrictive 

Housing to delineate guidelines, or “best practices,” for correctional agencies to 

consider. In general, there is renewed interest in developing and implementing 

theoretically informed and empirically valid approaches to support rehabilitation 

for inmates in restrictive housing units (Frost & Monteiro, 2016). 

Given concerns over whether solitary confinement constitutes “cruel and 

unusual punishment,” it is not surprising that the vast majority of empirical 

research conducted to date has focused on whether or not segregation produces 

any adverse physiological or psychological effects on inmates (see Gendreau 

& Labrecque, in press; Labrecque & Smith, 2013). Far less attention has been 

paid to the impact of segregation on subsequent institutional behavior and 

post-release recidivism, despite the considerable benefit that such knowledge 

would represent for correctional agencies worldwide (Labrecque & Smith, 2013). 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 333 

Simply put, segregation has historically been viewed as a form of punishment 

and incapacitation within the prison system rather than as a mechanism for 

facilitating rehabilitation. Moreover, there are even fewer evaluations of offender 

rehabilitation programs or services in restrictive housing units. This neglect is 

especially consequential because those receiving what is typically an institution’s 

most severe sanction are often the very inmates in critical need of services to 

support both their short-term compliance with institutional rules and longterm behavioral change. Furthermore, inmates admitted to restrictive housing 

facilities often possess certain characteristics (e.g., mental illness, gang affiliation, 

low self-control) that create significant barriers to managing them in the general 

population of offenders (Gendreau & Thériault, 2011). 

Although some disagreement exists over the short-term effects of brief periods 

of isolation, there is a general consensus that solitary confinement for prolonged 

periods is inhumane and causes long-term harm. Some of the most vulnerable 

inmate populations (e.g., offenders with mental illness) are at the highest risk 

for lengthy periods of incarceration in restrictive housing units. Advocates of 

offender rehabilitation and prison reform contend that solitary confinement 

represents a passive correctional intervention that often reinforces short-term 

solutions to problems with inmates (Gendreau & Labrecque, in press). This is 

especially prescient when administrative policies, clinical assessment protocols, 

and treatment interventions are in place that can limit the use of segregation 

while maintaining institutional safety and promoting behavioral change 

(Gendreau & Thériault, 2011). In short, prisons cannot expect to rehabilitate 

offenders merely by confining and restricting them (Cullen & Gilbert, 1982). 

In fact, segregating inmates may ultimately undermine legitimate attempts 

to rehabilitate them (Rothman, 1980). Moreover, the results of research by 

Lovell, Johnson, and Cain (2007) suggest that inmates released directly from 

administrative segregation into the community have higher recidivism rates 

compared to offenders released from the general prison population. This finding 

is consistent with a handful of other studies that examine the post-release 

outcomes of inmates who are released directly from segregation (e.g., Mears & 

Bales, 2009; Seale, Atkinson, Grealish, Fitzgerald, Grassel, & Viscuso, 2011; Ward 

& Werlich, 2003). 

For all of these reasons, the need for services to assist offenders in segregation 

cannot be understated. Several jurisdictions have applied evidence-based 

correctional practices within the context of administrative segregation to reduce 

subsequent institutional misconduct and post-release recidivism (e.g., North 

Dakota Department of Correction and Rehabilitation, Ohio Department of 

Rehabilitation and Correction, Washington State Department of Corrections). 

Many other prison authorities are engaged in similar initiatives (e.g., The Vera 

Institute of Justice; see Shames, Wilcox, & Subramanian, 2015). 
334 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Within this context, it is important to understand “what works” in solitary 

confinement to improve inmate behavioral outcomes. This white paper addresses 

the issue from an evidence-based perspective. The first section undertakes a brief 

review of what is known about the impact of segregation on inmate institutional 

adjustment.1 The second section summarizes the principles of effective 

intervention and provides a framework for how correctional programming and 

re-entry-focused services might be integrated into restrictive housing units. 

The third section presents specific recommendations to guide the design and 

implementation of evidence-based services in segregation. It provides specific 

examples from select jurisdictions to demonstrate how some of these concepts 

are being implemented. 

As a prelude to this discussion, it is important to define the terminology used 

in this white paper. Within correctional contexts, the terms used to describe 

segregation policies and practices vary greatly across jurisdictions (Frost 

& Monteiro, 2016; Labrecque & Smith, 2013). For example, it is difficult 

to separate the literature on disciplinary segregation from the literature on 

administrative segregation; the former refers to short-term confinement after 

a specific infraction, whereas the latter refers to long-term classification to a 

restrictive housing unit. Furthermore, researchers have tended to study solitary 

confinement without carefully distinguishing the various types of segregation 

(Frost & Monteiro, 2016). There is no universal definition of segregation, nor is 

there consensus about who should be placed in such settings (Frost & Monteiro, 

2016; Riveland, 1999). Nevertheless, most of these units have enough distinctive 

features in common to be analyzed together. For this white paper, the use of the 

term administrative segregation has been avoided in favor of the more general 

term segregation or restrictive housing units. 

The Effects of Solitary Confinement 

As previously mentioned, whether segregation produces any harmful effects 

has been a longstanding debate in the field of corrections (Gendreau & 

Thériault, 2011). The literature reveals two very different perspectives. While 

some researchers have characterized segregation as psychologically harmful 

(Grassian, 1983; Grassian & Friedman, 1986; Haney, 2008, 2009; Jackson, 

2001; Smith, 2006), others have argued that the empirical literature suggests 

that segregation produces minimal, if any, negative psychological effects when 

used for relatively short periods and under reasonable conditions of confinement 

(Bonta & Gendreau, 1995; Ecclestone, Gendreau, & Knox, 1974; Gendreau & 

Bonta, 1984; Gendreau & Thériault, 2011; Gendreau, Freedman, Wilde, & Scott, 

1972; O’Keefe, 2008; O’Keefe, Klebe, Stucker, Sturm, & Leggett, 2010; Suedfeld, 

1984; Zinger, Wichmann, & Andrews, 2001). It is important to emphasize here 

1 This topic is considered in detail by other contributions commissioned by the National Institute of Justice. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 335 

that both perspectives generally agree that prolonged periods of segregation 

should be avoided, and that inmates should be housed in the least restrictive 

setting necessary for maintaining the safety and security of the institution (U.S. 

Department of Justice, 2016). 

It is critical that practitioners understand the short-term effects of segregation, 

as they have important implications for assessing, treating, and delivering 

services in restrictive housing units. If short-term placement in segregation does 

not produce dramatic adverse effects under certain conditions, then it seems 

reasonable to further investigate how this context might be used to deliver more 

individualized and intensive interventions to inmates in need. This white paper 

briefly reviews the available research on the effects of segregation (for a detailed 

review, see Frost & Monteiro, 2016; Gendreau & Labrecque, in press). 

The empirical literature on restricted environmental stimulation (Suedfeld, 1980), 

or sensory deprivation, is relevant to the discussion here about the physiological and 

psychological effects of segregation (Zubek, 1969). The sensory deprivation literature 

was the first to suggest that such environments could be harmful. It also reveals a 

crucial methodological problem that is present when sensory deprivation is enforced. 

Some of the first sensory-deprivation experiments were conducted at McGill 

University in the 1950s, and the researchers reported dramatic cognitive 

deterioration and perceptual impairment in samples of college students 

(e.g., Bexton, Heron, & Scott, 1954). However, subsequent studies failed to 

replicate these findings (e.g., Zubek, Bayer, & Shephard, 1969). The reason for 

this inconsistency was eventually recognized in a landmark study by Orne and 

Scheibe (1964); namely, a strong placebo effect occurred when care was not taken 

regarding how information was elicited from participants (see also Zubek, 1969; 

Hunt & Chefurka, 1976). Specifically, it was noted that, “... subjects’ behavior 

can be differentially manipulated by altering the implicit and explicit clues in the 

experimental situation, and further (they) may react to social cues or demand 

characteristics in such a way as to confound experimental results” (Orne & 

Scheibe, 1964, p. 10). 

In the early 1960s, researchers with the Canadian Penitentiary Service noted that 

solitary confinement cells had some physical resemblance to the conditions of 

sensory deprivation in previous experimental studies. As a result, the researchers 

were interested in how inmates responded to isolation in solitary confinement 

cells. Clearly, the policy implications of this research for the field of corrections 

would be profound. Gendreau, Freedman, Wilde, and Scott (1968, 1972) as 

well as Eccelstone and colleagues (1974) conducted a series of studies in which 

inmates spent between two and eight days in segregation. The results indicated 

that inmates in segregation exhibited lower EEG frequency as measured by 

visually evoked potentials (which is indicative of lowered sensory arousal and 

cortical activity as well as a need for sensory stimulation), and lower stress levels 

as indicated by plasma cortisol levels. Other studies by this group also failed 
336 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

to find adverse effects on inmates’ physical health, auditory functioning, and 

discrimination learning ability (for a review, see Bonta & Gendreau, 1990). 

Subsequently, studies were conducted with greater ecological validity in which 

inmates were admitted to segregation involuntarily (Andersen, Sestoft, Lillebaek, 

Gabrielsen, & Hemmingsen, 2003; Suedfeld, Ramirez, Deaton, & Baker-Brown, 

1982; Wormith, Tellier, & Gendreau, 1988; Zinger et al., 2001). Collectively, these 

studies involved longitudinal assessments, repeated measure comparison group 

designs, multisite replications, different forms of segregation, male and female 

samples, and standardized assessments. The strongest effects were reported for 

increases in hostility and depression, but the effect sizes were still rather small. 

Two decades after the publication of Orne and Scheibe’s (1964) critique of the 

sensory deprivation research, two studies commanded considerable attention in 

the prison literature. First, Grassian (1983) claimed that segregation produced 

psychological harm (e.g., hallucinations, overt psychotic disorganization, massive 

free-floating anxiety, primitive aggressive fantasies, paranoia, and lack of impulse 

control leading to random violence). His assessment protocol consisted of openended interviews and an interview style that actively encouraged disclosure and 

provided reassurance. Second, Haney (2003) generated similar results almost 20 

years later in a sample of 100 inmates in a supermax prison. Again, data were 

collected through interviews, although it is unclear exactly what measures were 

used. Furthermore, there was no indication as to whether the prevalence of the 

symptoms reported by the sample existed prior to incarceration, or how long 

these effects persisted after the assessment. 

More recently, other scholars have noted that the methodological shortcomings 

of the research reporting harmful effects (e.g., selection bias, response bias, 

inadequate or no control groups) has limited the credibility of the results (see 

Gendreau & Labrecque, in press; Labrecque & Smith, 2013; Suedfeld et al., 

1982; Zinger et al., 2001). Several primary studies and two recent independent 

meta-analytic reviews on this topic have been completed (Smith, Gendreau, & 

Labrecque, 2015; Morgan, Van Horn, MacLean, Bolanos, Gray, Batastini, 

& Mills, 2014). Both meta-analytic reviews conclude that the mean effect size for 

psychological outcomes tends to be in the small to moderate range. 

In short, if there are outliers in the empirical literature, they appear to be from 

studies that claim segregation produced dramatic adverse psychological effects 

(Gendreau & Labrecque, in press). The vast majority of the empirical studies on 

segregation point to a similar conclusion: the negative effects associated with 

relatively brief periods of segregation are not nearly as dramatic as once feared 

(Smith et al., 2015; Gendreau & Thériault, 2011; Morgan et al., 2014). At the 

same time, more empirical research is needed on the psychological effects of 

segregation. If the conditions of confinement are humane, however, there is good 

reason to support the idea that restrictive housing units can be managed in a 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 337 

manner that allows for the delivery of intensive interventions to inmates in need 

of services for successful transition into the general population of offenders. 

It is also important to note that a very limited number of studies have been 

conducted to examine the impact of segregation on behavioral outcomes.2 

Within this limited research base, there are three types of behavioral outcomes 

of interest: institutional violence, post-release recidivism, and institutional 

misconduct. Once again, two independent meta-analyses have summarized the 

available studies (Smith et al., 2015; Morgan et al., 2014), and small mean effect 

sizes were reported for behavioral outcomes. The paucity of research on this topic 

is rather alarming given that segregation is often described as an important tool 

in ensuring systemwide order in prison systems (Mears & Watson, 2006). These 

behavioral outcomes must be a priority for future research. This issue will be 

further discussed in a later section of this white paper. 

The Principles of Effective Intervention 

Correctional rehabilitation refers to planned interventions that target for change 

some characteristic of the offender that causes criminality (e.g., attitudes, 

cognitive processes, personality factors or mental health, social relationships, 

educational and vocational skills, and employment), and intend to make 

the offender less likely to recidivate (see Andrews & Bonta, 2010; Cullen & 

Gendreau, 2000).3 This requires the specification of what to target (i.e., dynamic 

risk factors, or criminogenic needs), who to target (i.e., higher-risk offenders), 

and how to target (i.e., cognitive-behavioral and social learning treatment 

modalities). Collectively, these fundamental concepts are referred to as the 

principles of effective intervention. 

Setting the Stage for the Principles of Effective Intervention 

The principles of effective intervention were established as a result of a threestage research agenda. Initially, researchers conducted narrative literature 

reviews, and generated recommendations in consultation with colleagues who 

had conducted successful programs. Second, demonstration projects were 

conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of correctional treatments (e.g., Andrews, 

1979, 1980; Andrews & Keissling, 1980; Gendreau & Ross, 1979, 1987; Ross & 

Fabiano, 1985). Finally, meta-analytic techniques were applied to the corrections 

2

 See, for example, Briggs, Sundt, & Castellano, 2003; Butler, Steiner, Makarios, & Travis, in press; Huebner, 2003; 

Lovell et al., 2007; Labrecque, 2015; Mears & Bales, 2009; Mears & Castro, 2006; Morris, 2015; Seale et al., 

2011; Sundt, Castellano, & Briggs, 2008; Ward & Werlich, 2003. 

3

 Correctional rehabilitation does not include interventions that seek to suppress criminal behavior through specific 

deterrence (i.e., use of punishment and sanctions). 
338 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

literature to generate a more precise estimate of the empirical support for 

the principles of risk, need, and responsivity (RNR). Compared to narrative 

reviews, meta-analysis involves the quantitative synthesis of research, and thus 

yields a more precise estimate of the overall mean effect size (for a review, see 

Gendreau & Smith, 2007). Meta-analysis is the review method of choice for 

many disciplines, including corrections, which has more than 44 meta-analyses 

of correctional treatment effectiveness (see McGuire, 2004; Smith, Gendreau, 

& Swartz, 2009). Taken together, the results of these studies provide strong 

empirical support for the principle of effective intervention. This section presents 

the findings from three categories of meta-analyses: (1) those which affirm 

that, overall, correctional treatment programs reduce recidivism; (2) those that 

identify some general principles of “what works” in reducing offender recidivism; 

and (3) those that search for more specific clinically and psychologically relevant 

criteria (for a detailed review, see Smith, 2013). 

Garrett (1985) and Davidson, Gottschalk, Gensheimer, and Mayer (1984) 

published the first meta-analyses in the field of corrections. Garrett (1985) 

synthesized 433 effect sizes from studies of 13,000 juvenile offenders and reports 

a mean effect size of r = .12. Furthermore, the results indicate that cognitivebehavioral interventions are associated with the largest mean effect size 

(r = .22). Davidson and colleagues (1984) produced similar results in that 

behavioral interventions (e.g., positive reinforcement, token economies, 

behavioral contracts) are associated with the greatest reductions in recidivism. 

Subsequently, Lipsey (1992) analyzed the results of a large database of juvenile 

interventions (i.e., a total of 443 effect sizes). Sixty-four percent of these estimates 

are in the expected direction (i.e., reduced recidivism), and the average reduction 

in recidivism varies from 5 percent to 9 percent depending on statistical 

adjustments. Similarly, Lösel (1995) provides a comprehensive assessment of 13 

meta-analyses of juvenile and adult offenders published between 1985 and 1995, 

and reports that mean effect sizes ranged from r = .05 to .18 with an overall mean 

of about r = .10. This basic pattern of results remains even after controlling for 

the effects of several other factors, including subject attrition, methodological 

quality, length of follow-up, and study publication status. 

In summary, the meta-analyses referenced above identify the most effective 

treatment programs as those which are cognitive-behavioral in nature, have a 

high degree of structure, are demonstration programs (rather than “real world” 

or “routine” correctional programs), and are delivered in the community rather 

than in institutional settings (see also Cleland, Pearson, Lipton, & Yee, 1997; 

Izzo & Ross, 1990; Lipsey, 1999; Lipsey, Chapman, & Landenberger, 2001; Lösel, 

1995; Redondo, Sanchez-Meca, & Garrido, 1999). Although skeptics might argue 

that the 10 percent reduction in recidivism found by Lösel (1995) is of little 

practical value, several authors have demonstrated that the finding represents a 

meaningful and cost-effective reduction in recidivism (Lipsey & Wilson, 1993; 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 339 

Rosenthal & DiMatteo, 2001; Aos, Lieb, Mayfield, Miller, & Pennucci, 2004; 

Cohen, 1998; Welsh & Farrington, 2000). 

Developing the Principles of Effective Intervention 

The next series of meta-analyses searched for more specific “clinically relevant 

and psychologically informed” principles of effective offender treatment 

(Andrews, Zinger, Hoge, Bonta, Gendreau, & Cullen, 1990). A meta-analysis 

conducted by the Andrews team (1990) coded the treatment literature (a total of 

154 effect sizes) along various dimensions that provided the basis for developing 

the RNR framework. This database was subsequently extended to 374 effect sizes 

(see also Andrews & Bonta, 2010, pp. 365-369). In short, the results indicate 

that there was considerable heterogeneity in the effectiveness of correctional 

interventions; that is, correctional programs that have certain characteristics 

yield much larger effect sizes when compared to approaches that do not 

(Andrews et al., 1990). This section reviews the three main principles of effective 

intervention (for a detailed review of the meta-analytic evidence for the RNR 

framework, see Smith et al., 2009). 

The Need Principle 

To develop a comprehensive theoretical framework, it is necessary to first 

identify the covariates of crime — that is, the biological, personal, interpersonal, 

situational, and social variables that are statistically associated with antisocial 

behavior (Andrews & Bonta, 2010). These variables include both static predictors 

(e.g., criminal history) as well as dynamic factors (e.g., antisocial attitudes, 

pro-criminal peers, substance abuse). The latter criminogenic needs are the 

appropriate targets for intervention because they are amenable to change. 

Several meta-analyses have demonstrated that certain criminogenic needs are 

robust predictors of recidivism (Bonta, Law, & Hanson, 1998; Gendreau, Little, 

& Goggin, 1996; Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2004). These predictors include 

(1) an antisocial personality pattern (e.g., aggression, hostility, impulsivity, lack 

of self-control, poor emotion regulation); (2) antisocial attitudes, values, and 

beliefs; (3) the presence of antisocial peers and associates; (4) substance abuse; 

(5) problematic circumstances within family/marital relationships; (6) difficulties 

with education and employment; and (7) lack of prosocial leisure and recreation 

activities. Together with criminal history, the first three criminogenic needs 

identified are referred to as first-tier predictors because the predictive validities 

associated with these covariates are especially robust (Andrews & Bonta, 

2010). The most effective treatment programs target criminogenic needs and 

prioritize the first-tier predictors in this regard — the need principle in the RNR 

framework. In fact, Andrews and Bonta (2010) report that treatment programs 

targeting criminogenic needs reduce recidivism by 20 percent more than 

programs that do not target them. Moreover, these meta-analyses also found that 
340 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

other factors had weak predictive validities (e.g., low self-esteem, depression, 

anxiety, fear of official punishment) and should therefore not be the primary 

targets for intervention (for a detailed review, see Gendreau et al., 1996). 

The predictors of institutional misconduct are very similar to the predictors 

of post-release recidivism (French & Gendreau, 2006). Furthermore, the same 

correctional interventions that are effective in decreasing post-release recidivism 

also lead to meaningful reductions in institutional misconduct (see French 

& Gendreau, 2006). This is particularly relevant for determining how to best 

implement programming in segregation, knowing that the appropriate treatment 

targets for improving institutional adjustment (and therefore post-release 

recidivism) can be identified and targeted through structured interventions 

(French & Gendreau, 2006). 

The Risk Principle 

Research consistently indicates that higher-risk offenders derive the most benefit 

from treatment (Andrews & Bonta, 2010). In fact, treatment programs that target 

higher-risk samples reduce recidivism by 7 percent more than programs that 

target lower-risk offenders. From a theoretical viewpoint, this finding makes 

sense; higher-risk offenders, by definition, are likely to have more criminogenic 

needs and therefore require more intense treatment. In contrast, participation 

in treatment services can increase the failure rates of lower-risk samples by 

disrupting protective factors and exposing them to their higher-risk counterparts 

(see Lowenkamp, Latessa, & Smith, 2006). This is referred to as the risk principle. 

The Responsivity Principle 

Finally, the general responsivity principle describes how to best target criminogenic 

needs. The meta-analyses of earlier studies have consistently found that the most 

effective interventions are those that were cognitive-behavioral in nature. In fact, 

Andrews and Bonta (2010) reported that cognitive-behavioral interventions 

produced 19 percent greater reductions in recidivism when compared to other 

models of offender treatment. 

In addition to the general responsivity principle, Andrews and Bonta (2010) also 

underscore the importance of specific responsivity factors. This refers to the need 

for corrections practitioners to match the mode and style of service delivery with 

key offender characteristics (e.g., offenders with lower IQs derive more benefit 

from behavioral approaches than cognitive strategies; Cullen, Gendreau, Jarjoura, 

& Wright, 1997). 

The Effectiveness of RNR Treatment Programs 

Previous research demonstrates that adhering to the RNR framework has a 

cumulative effect (for a review, see Andrews & Bonta, 2010). When treatment 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 341 

programs are categorized by whether they followed all three RNR principles in 

contrast to those that did not, Andrews and Bonta (2010) report a 23 percent 

difference in recidivism. These principles also apply to a variety of corrections 

populations, including female offenders, minority groups, youthful offenders, 

mentally disordered, violent, and sex offenders (Andrews, Dowden, & Rettinger, 

2001; Dowden & Andrews, 2000). 

Core Correctional Practices 

The clinical skills related to effective service delivery with offender populations 

are referred to as core correctional practices (Andrews & Bonta, 2010; see also 

Gendreau, Andrews, & Thériault, 2010). They include effective reinforcement, 

disapproval, and use of authority; relationship practices; structured skill-building 

(including problem-solving); and cognitive restructuring. These therapeutic 

practices are consistent with the cognitive-behavioral model of treatment, and 

are associated with reductions in recidivism that range from 19 percent to 27 

percent for programs that apply them versus those that do not (Andrews & 

Bonta, 2010). These competencies can be used by all front-line staff members — 

in the daily interactions between officers and inmates — and in clinical sessions, 

group interventions, and case-management meetings (Andrews & Bonta, 2010). 

Each of these competencies is briefly described below. 

Corrections professionals must be capable of using high-level social reinforcement 

to encourage prosocial behaviors, as well as effective disapproval to discourage 

antisocial behaviors (Gendreau et al., 2010). Effective reinforcement involves 

providing specific praise and acknowledgment for desirable behaviors, and 

requires the offender to think about both the short-term and long-term 

benefits associated with its continued use. Effective disapproval involves 

providing statements of non-support for undesirable behaviors, and requires 

the offender to think about both the short-term and long-term costs associated 

with its continued use. Once the undesirable behavior has been corrected 

and the offender engages in an appropriate prosocial behavior, it is important 

that the staff member immediately terminate disapproval and provide social 

reinforcement for the change. 

Most corrections professionals are in positions of power relative to the offender, 

and must use their authority to respectfully guide the offender toward compliance 

(Gendreau et al., 2010). Staff members are encouraged to focus their message 

on the behavior exhibited (and not on the person performing it), to be direct 

and specific concerning their demands, and to specify the offender’s choices and 

attendant consequences in any given situation. The guidelines associated with the 

effective use of authority are particularly important in segregation units where 

inmates are often not compliant with rules and staff requests. 

In addition, staff should adopt several important relationship practices to help 

them develop a collaborative working relationship (also referred to as the 
342 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

therapeutic alliance in the clinical counseling literature) with the offender 

(Gendreau et al., 2010). From this perspective, the most effective front-line 

staff members are open, warm, respectful, nonjudgmental, empathic, flexible, 

enthusiastic, and engaging. Furthermore, it is important for corrections 

professionals to use humor and express optimism, and to be solution-focused, 

structured, and directive. Moreover, front-line staff members should avoid 

arguments and power struggles with offenders, and instead work to enhance 

internal motivation and self-efficacy within the offender (Gendreau et al., 2010). 

Another core correctional practice involves structured skill building (Gendreau et 

al., 2010). Goldstein (1986) identified five main components of this process: 

1. Define the skill to be learned by describing it in discrete steps. 

2. Model or demonstrate the skill for the client. 

3. Have the client practice the new skill by role playing it, and provide 

corrective feedback. 

4. Use homework assignments to generalize use of the skill beyond the 

treatment setting. 

5. Have the offender practice the skill in increasingly difficult situations, and 

provide feedback (i.e., graduated rehearsal). 

Previous research has underscored the importance of problem solving as a specific 

social skill that should be taught to offenders because, once mastered, they can 

apply it to a wide variety of high-risk situations (see Trotter, 1999). 

Finally, corrections professionals should be thoroughly trained in cognitive 

restructuring. Front-line staff members should be able to teach clients how to 

generate descriptions of problematic situations, as well as the associated thoughts 

and feelings that accompany them. Corrections professionals must then help 

offenders identify risky thinking and practice replacing this self-talk with more 

prosocial alternatives. Many correctional programs use thinking reports (e.g., 

Bush, Bilodeau, & Kornick, 1995) to assist clients in identifying risky thoughts 

and feelings and how these affect their behavior. 

In summary, it is important to acknowledge that beyond a theoretical 

understanding of the variation in criminal behavior and the principles of 

effective intervention is a need for a pragmatic “how to do it” that they can teach 

offenders in order to change offenders’ behaviors. Research on the principles 

of effective intervention has led to the development of numerous composite 

offender risk and need assessments, structured treatment interventions, and 

program evaluation instruments. Many of these same tools can be adapted 

for use in restrictive housing units, and will be further discussed in the 

recommendations provided later in this document. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 343 

Understanding the Limits of Deterrence and Punishment 

Despite a plethora of research on the principles of effective intervention, 

corrections practitioners continue to implement strategies that are ineffective — 

and that might even cause greater harm to offenders than good (Latessa, Cullen, 

& Gendreau, 2002).4 The term correctional quackery describes programs that 

are developed without considering the principles of effective intervention, and 

instead rely on common sense, personal experience, and conventional wisdom 

(Latessa et al., 2002). For example, punishment-oriented strategies 

(i.e., intermediate sanctions such as intensive supervision, house arrest, 

electronic monitoring, boot camps, Scared Straight programs) have not been 

determined to be effective in reducing recidivism, and yet continue to be 

frequently implemented (Gendreau, Goggin, Cullen, & Andrews, 2000). 

An increasing amount of research has also challenged the notion that 

incarceration functions as an effective deterrent. To illustrate, the empirical 

literature on offender re-entry has documented high levels of parole failure 

for inmates released from prison (see Hughes, Wilson, & Beck, 2001; Langan 

& Levin, 2002; Petersilia, 2003; Pew Center on the States, 2011). Furthermore, 

a number of methodologically rigorous studies with diverse samples have 

demonstrated that the effect of prison is, if anything, a slight to moderate 

increase in post-release recidivism (Cid, 2009; Jonson, 2010; Nagin, Cullen, 

& Jonson, 2009; Nieuwbeerta, Nagin, & Blokland, 2009; Sampson & Laub, 

1993; Spohn & Holleran, 2002; Villettaz, Killias, & Zoder, 2006). Perhaps 

even more relevant to the segregation debate is a smaller amount of literature 

that has examined the relationship between the conditions of confinement 

and recidivism. Chen and Shapiro (2007) measured the harshness of prison 

conditions by level of security (e.g., minimum versus maximum). Controlling 

for offender risk level, they find that harsher prison conditions do not lead to 

higher levels of deterrence and, “if anything ... may lead to more post-release 

crime” (Chen & Shapiro, 2007, p. 1). Gaes and Camp (2009) report similar results 

with a sample of offenders randomly assigned to higher- versus lower-security 

correctional institutions. Inmates in the higher classification had a hazard rate 

of reincarceration that was 31 percent higher than that for inmates in the lower 

classification. A handful of other studies also find results that are consistent with 

this general pattern that harsher prison conditions are associated with higher 

post-release recidivism rates (Drago, Galbiati, & Vertova, 2008; Listwan, Sullivan, 

Agnew, Cullen, & Colvin, 2013; Windzio, 2006). 

How does this research relate to the restrictive housing units? It can be argued 

that segregation routinely involves two separate but interrelated components: 

(1) isolation (e.g., confinement in a single cell, restriction of social interaction); 

and (2) deprivation (e.g., removal of personal items, denial of privileges). 

4 Several reasons have been offered to explain why ineffective programs are so frequently implemented in the field of 

corrections. See Gendreau, Goggin, and Smith (2001) for a more detailed consideration of the topic. 
344 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Corrections officials often contend that both conditions are necessary to 

maintain the safety and security of the institution. Although this is a legitimate 

consideration in certain cases (e.g., threat of suicide or extreme violence), the 

deprivation inherent in many segregation settings is more often intended as 

punishment (see Mears & Castro, 2006). In other words, the harsh conditions 

introduced in segregation are intended to be aversive, and therefore produce a 

greater deterrent effect.5 In many cases, however, isolated confinement could be 

accomplished with far less deprivation. This is an important point because the 

introduction of deprivation and harsh conditions of confinement might even 

undermine legitimate attempts at rehabilitation, in much the same way that 

institutional climate can create barriers to effective service delivery in the general 

population of inmates (Rothman, 1980). 

Translating Research into Practical Recommendations 

As previously discussed, there is a well-developed literature base on “what 

works” to reduce offender recidivism. The principles of effective intervention 

have now been extensively applied in both institutional and community-based 

settings, and with diverse samples of offenders (for a review, see Andrews & 

Bonta, 2010). Similarly, there is also a substantial literature base on “what doesn’t 

work” to rehabilitate offenders (Gendreau et al., 2000). Taken together, the “what 

works” and “what doesn’t work” discoveries lead to a better solution — the RNR 

framework, which provides a blueprint for how services should be designed and 

delivered in correctional settings. However, attempts to systematically use this 

information to inform policies and practices within restrictive housing units have 

been far less frequent. In fact, it is obvious from this review of the literature that 

the integration of evidence-based practices within the context of segregation is 

still in the very early stages of development, and published outcome evaluations 

of treatment programs based on RNR principles are virtually nonexistent. 

Instead, this section considers how the principles of effective intervention might 

be applied to inmates in restrictive housing units.6

 This does not constitute a 

list of “best practices” given the lack of empirical evidence on the topic, but 

it offers 10 recommendations that are theoretically relevant and grounded in 

the “what works” literature. The recommendations included in this section 

have implications for both research and practice. The reader should note that a 

handful of these guidelines are based on those previously discussed by Gendreau 

and Thériault (2011). Furthermore, all of these recommendations are consistent 

with the recently published guiding principles issued by the U.S. Department of 

Justice (2016) concerning the contemporary use of segregation. 

5 This is further underscored by the term restrictive housing unit, implying the removal of privileges and liberties. 

6 Examples of innovative programs that have piloted components of the recommendations included in this section 

are highlighted. In most cases, formal process and outcome evaluations are ongoing, and the results have not 

been published. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 345 

Recommendation 1: Adopt a meta-analytic perspective to 

encourage knowledge cumulation. 

It is difficult to achieve clarity in a field where scholars are divided (Hunt, 1997). 

This is certainly true in the empirical literature on the short-term effects of 

segregation. Moreover, conflicts within civil rights, moral, and political agendas 

can lead to further confusion (Gendreau & Thériault, 2011; Jackson, 2002; Mears 

& Watson, 2006). Gendreau and Thériault (2011) note that debates and literature 

reviews in the field of corrections have frequently been framed in narrow — and 

often ideological — frames of reference, and convergent validity is compromised 

(see also Gendreau, 1996; Gendreau & Ross, 1979). The discourse that follows 

from this state of affairs is often antithetical to systematic attempts at knowledge 

cumulation (Hunt, 1997). 

The previous section referred to meta-analysis as a quantitative review of the 

literature that is the review method of choice in most disciplines, including 

corrections (Smith et al., 2009). Single studies offer limited information; useful 

policies in the social sciences are based on replication with diverse samples in 

multiple jurisdictions before sound conclusions are reached (Hunter & Schmidt, 

1996; Schmidt, 1992). The importance of meta-analysis in this regard cannot be 

overstated; the results of systematic quantitative reviews can have a significant 

impact on policy and practice. The principles of effective intervention presented 

in the previous section are based on the results of meta-analysis, and the main 

findings have been replicated with remarkable consistency (Smith et al., 2009). 

In comparison, the literature on the effects of segregation has only recently been 

summarized using meta-analytic techniques (see Smith et al., 2015; Morgan 

et al., 2014), and the conclusions drawn were limited by the fact that relatively 

few studies were eligible for inclusion. Furthermore, information on important 

moderators could not be systematically analyzed due to small sample sizes and 

missing data. 

There is an urgent need for research to investigate segregation as a correctional 

policy and rehabilitative practice. Future studies should examine the effects of 

segregation on behavioral outcomes (i.e., institutional violence, post-release 

recidivism, institutional misconduct) and for special populations of offenders 

(e.g., those with mental illness, juvenile offenders) to determine the traits of 

offenders who do not respond well to segregation. Precious few evaluations of 

correctional treatment services in restrictive housing units have been published 

to date (see Batastini, 2015; Pizarro, Zgoba, & Haugebrook, 2014). As the field 

accrues more primary research, it will be exceedingly important to continue to 

support knowledge cumulation and meta-analyses of the empirical literature 

(Gendreau & Thériault, 2011; Labrecque & Smith, 2013). Meta-analysis has 

another important advantage — it allows academics to systematically document 

gaps in the literature to recommend future priorities for research. In short, a 

meta-analytic perspective on topics related to segregation can inform priorities 

for both research and practice. 
346 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Recommendation 2: Monitor the prison environment and institutional 

climate to prevent misconduct and reduce the need for segregation. 

Crime prevention strategies that originate in community settings also can be 

applied to correctional institutions (Gendreau & Thériault, 2011). For example, 

structural features of a prison (e.g., pod designs, lighting, camera surveillance) 

can be used to analyze patterns in the time and location of institutional 

misconduct — to be proactive about the situations and environments where 

incidents are most likely to occur. For example, the systematic analysis of data on 

institutional misconduct might reveal that incidents are more likely to occur in 

certain locations within the prison or during specific shifts under the supervision 

of particular front-line staff members. This information can then provide prison 

administrators with the knowledge they need to prevent these incidents. From 

the perspective of the cognitive-behavioral model, these data allow corrections 

professionals to better understand the risky situations that inmates will likely 

encounter while incarcerated. Specific skills can then be taught to offenders to 

equip them to make prosocial choices. 

Similarly, information gained from analyzing aggregate statistics like inmate 

and staff turnover rates can be used to understand fluctuations in institutional 

misconduct (French & Gendreau, 2006; Porporino, 1986; Wortley, 2002). With 

this information, prison administrators can identify when their institutions 

might be particularly vulnerable to fluctuations in the rate of institutional 

misconducts, and then implement measures to counteract predicted increases 

in incidents. For example, prison administrators might use this information to 

strategically inform staff assignments and inmate placements. 

Perhaps even more significant is the observation that institutional misconduct 

and the use of segregation cannot be understood without considering the 

institutional climate and behavior management practices of the correctional 

facility at large. A correctional institution with a therapeutic environment and 

high-quality programs is much more likely to have lower rates of institutional 

misconduct because its offenders are actively engaged in learning skills that they 

can apply to avoid and manage risky situations (Andrews & Bonta, 2010; French 

& Gendreau, 2006). Similarly, offenders who have privileges and other incentives 

in the general population will be more motivated to comply with institutional 

rules and progress in their treatment — and less motivated to spend time in 

segregation settings. Therefore, prison administrators are advised to design their 

institution’s schedules in a manner that ensures that inmates are consistently 

engaged in meaningful, prosocial activities. For example, it is generally 

recommended that inmates participate in therapeutic tasks for at least 35 hours 

each week, and have access to a wide range of reinforcers to encourage program 

participation and prosocial behavior (Gendreau et al., 2010). 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 347 

Recommendation 3: Screen inmates at intake to determine risk for 

placement in segregation. 

Efforts to prevent or divert offenders from segregation can be greatly enhanced 

by identifying offenders who are at risk of placement in segregation. Although 

there has been little research on the topic, the available literature examining 

individual-level and institutional-level predictors generally suggests that the 

predictors of segregation may be similar to the predictors of other outcomes, 

including institutional misconduct and post-release recidivism. Institutions 

use many different types of risk measures or scales to predict institutional 

adjustment. Some of the noteworthy scales include the Static Factor Assessment 

(SFA; Motiuk, 1993), the Dynamic Factors Identification and Analysis (DFIA/ 

DFIA-R), the Custody Rating Scale (CRS; Solicitor General Canada, 1987), and 

the Statistical Information on Recidivism-Revised (SIR-R1) scale (Nafekh & 

Motiuk, 2002). 

The construction of a new actuarial assessment scale for predicting placement 

in segregation merits special comment here. Using data from the Offender 

Management System maintained by the Correctional Service of Canada, Helmus 

(2015) developed an instrument, the Risk of Administrative Segregation Tool 

(RAST), specifically to predict placement in administrative segregation. The 

study includes both a development sample (n = 11,110) and a validation sample 

(n = 5,591) of offenders incarcerated in Canadian federal institutions. The tool 

contains six static items (age, prior convictions, prior segregation placement, 

sentence length, criminal versatility, and prior violence) with scores ranging 

from 0 to 13. Results indicate that the RAST scale can predict placement in 

administrative segregation for both security concerns and protective custody, 

as well as placements in segregation within periods of one and two years after 

admission. Additionally, the instrument has adequate predictive accuracy for 

both non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal men and women (AUC = 0.80). The tool 

also exhibits superior performance when compared to other risk scales used by 

the Correctional Service of Canada for similar purposes (Helmus, 2015). 

In the process of developing and validating the RAST scale, Helmus (2015) 

provides several options for practitioners to use to designate nominal risk 

categories (e.g., low, moderate, high). The options available depend on the 

agency’s goals or criteria, but the selection of risk categories should be clearly 

articulated, not arbitrary, and related to how the scale will be used in practice 

(Helmus, 2015). Helmus also notes that the RAST scale is useful to correctional 

agencies because all of the information required to score the items is available at 

admission to the institution, and it does not require a significant investment of 

time or resources to administer. 

An important cautionary note is warranted here. The RAST scale is undoubtedly 

an important contribution to the empirical literature because it identifies 

offenders at higher risk for placement in segregation; however, it is a static 
348 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

instrument. Therefore, it cannot be used to measure reductions in risk over time. 

Although it can be applied as a screening tool, research into dynamic predictors 

should continue to help prison officials further understand the criminogenic 

needs that should take priority. 

Recommendation 4: Implement programs and services based on 

RNR principles to prevent misconduct. 

By identifying inmates who are at higher risk for placement in segregation, 

corrections administrators can provide interventions to teach offenders skills that 

might prevent them from engaging in institutional misconduct, and therefore 

reduce subsequent placements in administrative segregation. It is critical that 

such programming and services have a solid basis in the RNR principles — 

integrating cognitive-behavioral and social learning approaches to target the 

known predictors of institutional misconduct. For example, a brief intervention 

module is being developed for this purpose (Smith, 2016a). Through structured 

sessions, inmates learn skills they can use to establish a prosocial support 

network within the correctional institution. They also learn how to interact 

with peers and staff members (including how to deal with authority and avoid 

negative peer pressure). Additional sessions are also included to help offenders 

learn to regulate their emotions (e.g., frustration tolerance) and solve problems. 

Compelling meta-analytic evidence now shows that participation in general 

cognitive-behavioral treatment reduces prison misconduct in addition to postrelease recidivism (French & Gendreau, 2006). Specifically, cognitive-behavioral 

interventions that teach prosocial skills for addressing high-risk situations in 

the community can also be used to enhance skills that offenders can apply in 

correctional institutions. This also underscores the importance of the timing 

of correctional programming, particularly for inmates with an elevated risk for 

placement in segregation. 

Recommendation 5: Transform segregation from a deprivation 

environment to a therapeutic environment. 

As discussed earlier, restrictive housing units have historically been defined 

as environments involving both isolation and deprivation. However, previous 

research has called into question the conventional wisdom that the harshness 

of the prison condition functions as an effective deterrent (for a review, see 

Listwan et al., 2013). Except in circumstances where the removal of personal 

items is demonstrated to be necessary, there is good reason to believe that such 

conditions of deprivation interfere with the delivery of effective correctional 

programs (see Smith & Schweitzer, 2013). Arguably, the instances where there is 

a legitimate concern that requires extreme restriction are relatively rare. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 349 

While most previous evaluations focused on the content of treatment, it is also 

important to consider the context of the intervention (Smith & Schweitzer, 

2013). Correctional officials must devote significant attention to transforming 

segregation from a deprivation environment to a therapeutic environment. 

Previous studies have underscored the importance of normalization within 

the prison setting to create a more humanized environment (e.g., Centen & 

Sampson, 1991). Although this will be challenging for many jurisdictions, such 

efforts can create a context that is more conducive to offender rehabilitation. 

Such initiatives should consider the aspects of the physical milieu, the availability 

of correctional programming and rehabilitative services, access to meaningful 

social interactions and other activities, access to privileges, and the content 

of interactions between staff and inmates. Some departments (e.g., the North 

Dakota Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation) are addressing this issue 

in numerous innovative ways within restrictive housing units. Some of these 

strategies will be discussed in conjunction with later recommendations. 

Recommendation 6: Select the least restrictive option and limit the 

use of segregation for prolonged periods. 

Inmates should be housed in the least restrictive setting necessary to ensure 

safety and security (U.S. Department of Justice, 2016). Correctional agencies 

must be capable of articulating the specific reasons for an inmate’s placement 

and retention in segregation (U.S. Department of Justice, 2016). Furthermore, 

the development of a detailed case plan and regular reviews of inmate progress 

should occur to ensure that this setting remains the most appropriate placement 

option over time. Such reviews should be objective and based on documented, 

observable behaviors. 

In some cases, inmates may spend months or years in restrictive housing units 

without the opportunity to engage in correctional programming or other 

services. These inmates are deprived of human interaction, with the exception 

of limited interaction with correctional officers and other corrections personnel 

(e.g., mental health and medical professionals). To reiterate, there is little debate 

that segregation for prolonged periods is inhumane, counterproductive, and 

should be avoided (see Pizarro et al., 2014). One such initiative to limit the 

use of segregation deserves particular comment here. The Vera Institute of 

Justice is dedicated to developing a fairer, more humane, and more effective 

criminal justice system (Browne, Cambier, & Agha, 2011). One of its efforts 

working toward this goal is the Segregation Reduction Project and the Safe 

Alternative to Segregation Initiative. As part of this initiative, the Vera Institute 

of Justice partners with state departments of corrections to (1) reduce the 

number of inmates in segregation, (2) improve the conditions of confinement 

in segregation, and (3) enhance programming and support for safe transitions 

back to the general prison population. Several recent partnerships have led to 
350 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

the implementation of policies and strategies that have dramatically reduced 

reliance on prolonged periods of segregation.7 Specific strategies include using 

alternative sanctions for minor rule violations, reducing segregation time for 

certain types of rule violations, reducing segregation time as an incentive for 

sustained good behavior, and introducing step-down programs to facilitate the 

inmate’s reintegration into the general population (Browne et al., 2011). Such 

initiatives are critical because they can examine both system-level factors as well 

as individual service delivery variables. 

Recommendation 7: Divert inmates who cannot cope with 

segregation to other placement options to reduce harmful effects. 

Very little is known about the specific traits of inmates who cannot tolerate 

segregation. Although the results are tentative, some examples of offender 

characteristics associated with poor patterns of adjustment include high 

stimulation seeking, impulsivity, low conceptual level, and low adrenal 

functioning (Gendreau & Bonta, 1984; Gendreau & Thériault, 2011; Zubek, 

1969). Collecting this type of data should not be onerous, as most prison systems 

should have considerable information available in client files to determine the 

types of inmates who have exhibited problems in the past (Gendreau & Thériault, 

2011). These data are critical to identifying the specific types of offenders who 

should be diverted from restrictive housing units to other placement options 

within the system (e.g., secure prison hospital wards). 

Inmates with mental health needs merit special consideration here. Correctional 

institutions should use psychiatric screening measures to identify offenders 

with mental health needs (Gendreau & Thériault, 2011). The specific measures 

selected should have demonstrated adequate reliability and validity. Inmates with 

serious mental illness pose unique challenges for restrictive housing units, and 

services must be made available to prevent critical incidents, including self-harm 

and suicide (Gendreau & Thériault, 2011). 

Two views exist as to how inmates with mental illness might react to segregation. 

The traditional criminological perspective (e.g., Mears & Watson, 2006) suggests 

that such inmates are adversely affected by periods of isolation. On the other 

hand, the psychiatric literature suggests that some inmates with mental illness 

might react positively to solitary confinement because of the need for less 

stimulation (Grassian & Friedman, 1986). In fact, corrections professionals 

frequently observe that inmates with mental illness seek out solitary confinement 

(see Scott & Gendreau, 1969). Similarly, previous studies have demonstrated that 

offenders with mental illness often respond best to environments with reduced 

7

 Browne et al. (2011) describe partnerships with agencies in Illinois, Maryland, and Washington that have 

implemented changes to reduce the use of segregation. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 351 

sensory input (Smith, Gendreau, & Goggin, 2008). An understanding of how 

inmates with mental illness respond to segregation can inform the delivery of 

rehabilitation programs and re-entry-focused services. Although more research 

is needed in this area, it remains clear that assessment and services are critical 

considerations for offenders with mental illness who are placed in restrictive 

housing units. 

Recommendation 8: Ensure that all front-line staff members are 

trained and skilled in core correctional practices to facilitate both 

short-term compliance with rules and long-term behavioral change. 

Restrictive housing units are often populated with inmates who are prone to 

behavioral infractions (i.e., misconduct) and institutional violence. Given their 

propensity for rule violations, many are sent to segregation where some will 

continue to exhibit antisocial behaviors. The practical reality is that some inmates 

can be very difficult to manage, and often test the patience of front-line staff 

members (Gendreau & Thériault, 2011). Nevertheless, advocates of offender 

rehabilitation underscore that, “... the guiding principle of any human service 

enterprise is to treat individuals with respect and humane care” (Gendreau & 

Thériault, 2011, p. 7). It is therefore crucial for the front-line staff members who 

work in restrictive housing units to be skilled in core correctional practices 

related to effective service delivery with offender populations. Ideally, corrections 

professionals would be equipped to deliver structured interventions to modify 

target behaviors in a relatively short time. These front-line staff members could 

also take advantage of teachable moments to reinforce and extend inmates’ 

coping skills and prosocial behaviors. For this reason, it is advisable for prison 

authorities to assign dedicated staff (e.g., correctional officers, case managers, 

clinicians, supervisors, and others) to restrictive housing units to ensure better 

communication, consistency, stability, and on-site supervision for implementing 

services and interventions. 

Finally, cross training should be provided in mental health, substance abuse, and 

criminogenic needs for correctional officers working in segregation. Corrections 

professionals who can balance the dual roles of security and rehabilitation 

are particularly valuable in working with offenders (see Skeem, Eno, Louden, 

Polaschek, & Camp, 2007; Soderstrom, 2007). At an even more basic level, all 

correctional staff should receive formal training on restrictive housing policies. 

Furthermore, data on compliance with these policies should be collected and 

analyzed, and the information should be reflected on employee performance 

evaluations, as appropriate (U.S. Department of Justice, 2016). 
352 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Recommendation 9: Develop an individualized treatment plan and 

measure inmate progress. 

Among the more common (and rational) recommendations made for 

segregation settings are improving assessment protocols (Bottos, 2007; Gendreau 

& Thériault, 2011; Human Rights Watch, 2000; Lanes, 2011; Wormith et al., 

1988) and adding more rehabilitative services (Arrigo & Bullock, 2008; Lovell, 

2008; O’Keefe, 2008; Scott & Gendreau, 1969). Although the field does not have 

established criteria for “best practices” in segregation, scholars and correctional 

officials have started to contemplate these issues in an attempt to design and 

implement evidence-based services. This work must involve close partnerships 

between practitioners and researchers. 

In addition to the obvious involvement of psychologists in intervention activities 

in segregation, these professionals could also provide useful contributions to 

several of the research/program evaluations noted in other recommendations 

(Gendreau & Thériault, 2011). One area where this is particularly relevant 

involves the application of applied behavior analysis (ABA) within segregation, 

which involves applying learning theories and behavioral interventions to change 

specific target behaviors (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007). Specifically, it is 

an individualized approach to behavior modification that requires identifying 

individual target behaviors, maintaining conditions to elicit those specific 

behaviors, developing a schedule of reinforcement and punishment, and 

then following that schedule to elicit the desired changes.8

 The North Dakota 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation recently initiated a pilot ABA 

program in one restrictive housing unit to provide a focused, structured 

treatment program to target discrete problem behaviors under the close 

supervision of licensed psychologists. Although preliminary, the initial results are 

very promising (personal communication, K. Wolfer, November 20, 2015). A more 

comprehensive empirical evaluation of the program is currently in progress. 

In addition to using ABA (particularly in the early stages of segregation), 

corrections officials are advised to consider a combination of treatment strategies to 

target the criminogenic needs of offenders by using evidence-based strategies, and 

particularly for those dynamic factors that are linked to problems with institutional 

adjustment. The RNR framework provides clear guidance about the approaches 

most likely to be beneficial in this regard: (1) radical behavioral approaches 

that are based on the principles of classical and operant conditioning; (2) social 

learning approaches that involve modeling and behavioral rehearsal techniques 

that engender self-efficacy; and (3) cognitive approaches that include cognitive 

skills training, problem-solving therapy, self-control procedures, self-instructional 

training, and stress inoculation training (Gendreau & Thériault, 2011). 

8

 The term maintaining conditions refers to the specific antecedents and consequences that cause a person to 

perform a behavior (see Spiegler & Guevremont, 2010, for a detailed discussion). 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 353 

In terms of radical behavioral approaches (including contingency management), 

correctional agencies should develop a range of appropriate reinforcers that 

include, at a minimum, tangible, token, and social reinforcers and activities (see 

Spiegler & Guevremont, 2010).9 It is also advisable for correctional programs to 

identify reinforcers that are most meaningful to offenders by surveying inmates. 

Furthermore, prisons should develop a detailed written protocol to ensure 

that reinforcers and punishers are administered consistently and immediately. 

Similarly, it is important to identify a range of consequences such as fines, loss of 

tokens or points, time out from generalized reinforcers, and social disapproval 

(for a detailed review, see Spiegler & Guevremont, 2010). Finally, front-line 

staff members should assess whether the punishment produces any negative 

effects after administration, including emotional reactions (e.g., anxiety, anger), 

withdrawal or avoidance behaviors, and perpetuation effects (i.e., when an 

inmate learns to use punishment to control others’ behaviors). Punishment 

should never interfere with new learning, lead to response substitution, or 

disrupt social relationships. Although research has suggested that the number 

of reinforcers should far outweigh the number of punishers, it is very common 

for most correctional programs to spend more time and effort on developing 

protocols related to sanctions. It is important to emphasize that the use of 

reinforcers and sanctions applies to both the general population and within the 

context of segregation. 

Group interventions can also be used to teach specific skills to small groups 

of inmates in segregation. In most cases, this treatment involves some form 

of special restraint apparatus to limit physical interactions between inmates. 

Adaptations of structured curricula have also been used in several jurisdictions 

(e.g., Washington State Department of Corrections) to expose inmates to 

treatment concepts prior to increased congregate time and transition back into 

the general population of offenders. Another structured curriculum for use in 

this specific manner is being developed by researchers in collaboration with 

practitioners in the field (e.g., Smith, 2016b). 

Ideally, structured interventions are combined with treatment packages 

to address the individual needs of inmates. The interventions also may be 

organized into a phase or level system in which inmates can progressively earn 

privileges and advance through treatment by demonstrating desired behaviors. 

For example, two correctional institutions operated by the Washington State 

Department of Corrections have developed a contingency management system 

for inmates in segregation to encourage prosocial behaviors in preparation 

for re-entry into the general population of inmates. The phases are then tied 

to the curriculum content and the types of reinforcers that inmates can earn. 

9 A simple definition of reinforcement is the application of a stimulus to increase the likelihood that a behavior will 

occur again. Reinforcers can take several forms, including tangible items and intangible incentives (e.g., activities 

or special privileges). The reader is referred to Spiegler and Guevremont (2010) for a comprehensive discussion 

of the selection and application of reinforcers. 
354 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Preliminary results provide evidence that the contingency management system is 

an important component of motivating offenders to learn the skills they need for 

successful adjustment in the general population. 

Recommendation 10: Implement aftercare and re-entry-focused 

services to improve outcomes for inmates post-release. 

Inmates released directly from segregation into the community have a higher risk 

for recidivism compared to those released from the general population (Lovell 

et al., 2007). For this reason, policies and practices should be developed to 

gradually introduce segregated offenders back into the general population before 

they are released from custody. This finding is consistent with other research 

in the area of corrections that has underscored the importance of re-entryfocused services and phase systems that transition offenders from higher levels 

of supervision and structure to lower levels based on demonstrated progress. 

Developing, implementing, and evaluating such programs in restrictive housing 

settings specifically should be a priority for the field of corrections to improve 

outcomes for inmates. 

Meta-analyses of the treatment literature have found that institutional programs 

consistently produce smaller effect sizes in comparison with community-based 

programs (see Andrews & Bonta, 2010). This is attributable, at least in part, to 

the fact that community-based programs have the distinct advantage of offering 

interventions in vivo, that is, in more naturalistic environments where offenders 

can immediately practice new skills. Prisons, however, are by definition artificial 

environments where inmates have more limited opportunities to use skills in 

their own high-risk situations. Relapse-prevention plans are useful as offenders 

consider how they might immediately apply these skills within the prison context 

(e.g., interactions with staff members and other inmates) as well as post-release. 

To be successfully discharged from the institution, therefore, offenders should 

meet clearly defined completion criteria and be trained to observe and manage 

problem situations. The rehearsal of alternative, prosocial behaviors should 

include initial practice in a safe environment (e.g., treatment group session) 

using relatively simple scenarios. Eventually, offenders should practice their 

newly acquired skills in increasingly difficult situations (e.g., in the housing 

unit with peers). When clients demonstrate a new behavior, their improved 

competency should be rewarded to encourage them to exhibit the response 

again. Participating in aftercare and booster sessions can also improve treatment 

outcomes. For all of these reasons, it is critical for inmates who are nearing the 

end of their sentence and are still in segregation to be re-socialized, whenever 

possible, into the general prison population prior to release into the community. 

Pizarro et al. (2014) followed a sample of inmates released from supermax 

institutions to compare the characteristics of offenders who were successful with 

offenders who recidivated. The results suggest that successful inmates were more 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 355 

likely to have been released on parole, and were more likely to have completed 

behavioral and psychological treatment while incarcerated (Pizarro et al., 2014). 

In North Dakota, inmates in segregation are moved into a transition unit where 

they participate in daily activities with the general population of offenders, but 

then return to the secure unit in the evening. Special group sessions are held 

to discuss and troubleshoot risky situations that might have occurred during 

the day. This allows inmates a more gradual transition back into the general 

population. After inmates have been released from segregation, they are placed on 

a specialized caseload for a period to ensure that adequate services and resources 

are available to them in the general prison population. Such efforts are expected to 

reduce subsequent placements in segregation. Data collection is ongoing, but the 

preliminary results suggest that there is remarkable, measurable change in target 

behaviors (personal communication, K. Wolfer, November 20, 2015). 

Conclusion 

The use of segregation remains a controversial issue in prison management 

literature. It is common practice in prisons nationwide, but significant gaps in the 

empirical literature remain. Future research should further investigate the effects 

of segregation to ensure that correctional institutions are managed safely and 

humanely. Furthermore, the implementation of treatment programs within the 

context of restrictive housing units can be an important component of efforts to 

reduce institutional misconduct and enhance post-release behavioral outcomes. 

Many of the strategies discussed in the recommendations of this white paper 

attempt to reconfigure restrictive housing units into placement options that can 

support the goals of offender rehabilitation. 

References 

Andersen, H. S., Sestoft, D., Lillebaek, T., Gabrielsen, G., & Hemmingsen, R. 

(2003). A longitudinal study of prisoners on remand: Repeated measures of 

psychopathology in the initial phase of solitary versus nonsolitary confinement. 

International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 26(2), 165-177. 

Andrews, D. A. (1979). The dimensions of correctional counseling and 

supervision process in probation and parole. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Ontario 

Ministry of Correctional Services. 

Andrews, D. A. (1980). Some experimental investigations of the principles of 

differential association through deliberate manipulations of the structure of 

service systems. American Sociological Review, 45(3), 448-462. 
356 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct (5th ed.). 

New Providence, NJ: Anderson/LexisNexis. 

Andrews, D. A., Dowden, C., & Rettinger, J. (2001). Special populations within 

corrections. In J. A. Winterdyk (Ed.), Corrections in Canada: Social reactions to 

crime (pp. 170-212). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Prentice Hall. 

Andrews, D. A., & Kiessling, J. J. (1980). Program structure and effective correctional 

practices: A summary of the CaVIC research. In R. R. Ross & P. Gendreau 

(Eds.), Effective correctional treatment (pp. 439-463). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: 

Butterworths. 

Andrews, D. A., Zinger, I., Hoge, R. D., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, 

F. T. (1990). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically-relevant and 

psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28(3), 369-404. 

Aos, S., Lieb, R., Mayfield, J., Miller, M., & Pennucci, A. (2004). Benefits and 

costs of prevention and early intervention programs for youth. Olympia, WA: 

Washington State Institute for Public Policy. 

Arbour, L. (1996). Commission of Inquiry into certain events at the Prison for 

Women in Kingston. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Public Works and Government 

Services of Canada. 

Arrigo, B. A., & Bullock, J. L. (2008). The psychological effects of solitary 

confinement on prisoners in supermax units: Reviewing what we know and 

recommending what should change. International Journal of Offender Therapy 

and Comparative Criminology, 52(6), 622-640. 

Batastini, A. B. (2015). Comparing group psychotherapy via telepsychology and 

in-person service modalities for inmates in long-term segregation (unpublished 

doctoral dissertation). Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University. 

Bexton, W. H., Heron, W., & Scott, T. H. (1954). Effects of decreased variation in 

the sensory environment. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 8(2), 70-76. 

Bonta, J., & Gendreau, P. (1990). Reexamining the cruel and unusual punishment 

of prison life. Law and Human Behavior, 14(4), 347-372. 

Bonta, J., & Gendreau, P. (1995). Reexamining the cruel and unusual punishment 

of prison life. In T.J. Flanagan (Ed.), Long-Term Imprisonment: Policy, Science, 

and Correctional Practice (pp. 75-94). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Bonta, J., Law, M., & Hanson, K. (1998). The prediction of criminal and violent 

recidivism among mentally disordered offenders: A meta-analysis. Psychological 

Bulletin, 123(2), 123-142. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 357 

Bottos, S. (2007). Profile of offenders in administrative segregation: A review of 

the literature (research report No. B-39). Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Correctional 

Service of Canada. 

Briggs, C. S., Sundt, J. L, & Castellano, T. C. (2003). The effect of super-maximum 

security prisons on aggregate levels of institutional violence. Criminology, 41(4), 

1341-1376. 

Browne, A., Cambier, A., & Agha, S. (2011). Prisons within prisons: The use of 

segregation in the United States. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 24(1), 46-49. 

Bush, J., Bilodeau, B., & Kornick, M. (1995). Options: A cognitive change program. 

Longmont, CO: National Institute of Corrections. 

Butler, H. D., Steiner, B., Makarios, M., & Travis, L. (in press). Assessing the 

effects of exposure to supermax confinement on offender post-release behaviors. 

The Prison Journal. 

Centen, G., & Sampson, E. (1991). Architecture, operations, and change. Forum 

on Corrections, 3(2), 27-30. 

Chen, M. K., & Shapiro, J. M. (2007). Do harsher prison conditions reduce 

recidivism? A discontinuity-based approach. American Law and Economic 

Review, 9(1), 1-29. 

Cid, J. (2009). Is imprisonment criminogenic? A comparative study of recidivism 

rates between prison and suspended prison sanctions. European Journal of 

Criminology, 6(6), 459-480. 

Cleland, C. M., Pearson, F. S., Lipton, D. S., & Yee, D. (1997). Does age make a 

difference? A meta-analytic approach to reductions in criminal offending for 

juveniles and adults. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American 

Society of Criminology, San Diego, CA. 

Cohen, M. A. (1998). The monetary value of saving a high-risk youth. Journal of 

Quantitative Criminology, 14(1), 5-33. 

Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007). Applied behavior analysis. 

Columbus, OH: Merrill Publishers. 

Cullen, F. T., & Gendreau, P. (2000). Assessing correctional rehabilitation: 

Policy, practice, and prospects. In J. Horney (Ed.), Criminal Justice 2000, volume 

3: Policies, processes, and decisions of the criminal justice system (pp. 109-175). 

Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. 

Cullen, F. T., Gendreau, P., Jarjoura, G. R., & Wright, J. P. (1997). Crime and the 

bell curve: Lessons from intelligent criminology. Crime & Delinquency, 43(4), 

387-411. 
358 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Cullen, F. T., & Gilbert, K. E. (1982). Reaffirming rehabilitation. Cincinnati, 

OH: Anderson. 

Davidson, W. S., III, Gottschalk, R., Gensheimer, L., & Mayer, J. (1984). Interventions 

with juvenile delinquents: A meta-analysis of treatment efficacy. Washington, DC: 

National Institute of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Dowden, C., & Andrews, D. A. (2000). Effective correctional treatment and 

violent reoffending: A meta-analysis. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 42(4), 

449-467. 

Drago, F., Galbiati, R., & Vertova, P. (2008). Prison conditions and recidivism (IZA 

discussion paper no. 3395). Bonn, Germany: IZA Institute for the Study of Labor. 

Ecclestone, C. E., Gendreau, P., & Knox, C. (1974). Solitary confinement of 

prisoners: An assessment of its effects on inmates’ personal constructs and 

adrenocortical activity. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 6(2), 178-191. 

Eilperin, J. (2016, January 26). Obama bans solitary confinement for juveniles in 

federal prisons. The Washington Post. Available at http://www.washingtonpost.com. 

French, S. A., & Gendreau, P. (2006). Reducing prison misconducts: What works! 

Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33(2), 185-218. 

Frost, N. A., & Monteiro, C. E. (2016). Administrative segregation in prison. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. 

Gaes, G. G., & Camp, S. D. (2009). Unintended consequences: Experimental 

evidence for the criminogenic effect of prison security level placement on postrelease recidivism. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 5(2), 139-162. 

Garrett, C. J. (1985). Effects of residential treatment of adjudicated delinquents: 

A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 22(4), 287-308. 

Gendreau, P. (1996). Offender rehabilitation: What we know and what needs to 

be done. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 23(1), 144-161. 

Gendreau, P., Andrews, D., & Thériault, Y. L. (2010). Correctional program 

assessment inventory-2010. Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada: University of 

New Brunswick. 

Gendreau, P., & Bonta, J. L. (1984). Solitary confinement is not cruel and unusual 

punishment: Sometimes people are! Canadian Journal of Criminology, 26(4), 

467-478. 

Gendreau, P., Freedman, N., Wilde, G. J. S., & Scott, G. D. (1968). Stimulation 

seeking after seven days of perceptual deprivation. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 

26(2), 547-550. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 359 

Gendreau, P., Freedman, N. L., Wilde, G. J., & Scott, G. D. (1972). Changes in 

EEG alpha frequency and evoked response latency during solitary confinement. 

Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 79(1), 54-59. 

Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., Cullen, F. T., & Andrews, D. A. (2000). Effects of 

community sanctions and incarceration on recidivism. Forum on Corrections, 

12(2), 10-13. 

Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., & Smith, P. (2001). Obstacles to effective correctional 

program delivery. In L. L. Motiuk & R. C. Serin (Eds.), Compendium 2000 

on effective correctional programs (pp. 37-46). Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: 

Correctional Service of Canada, Solicitor General of Canada. 

Gendreau, P., & Keyes, D. (2001). Making prisons safer and more humane 

environments. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 43(1), 123-130. 

Gendreau, P., & Labrecque, R. M. (in press). The effects of administrative 

segregation: A lesson in knowledge cumulation. In J. Wooldredge & P. Smith 

(Eds.), Oxford handbook on prisons and imprisonment. Oxford, England: Oxford 

University Press. 

Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of 

adult offender recidivism: What works! Criminology, 34(4), 575-608. 

Gendreau, P., & Ross, B. (1979). Effective correctional treatment: Bibliotherapy 

for cynics. Crime & Delinquency, 25(4), 463-489. 

Gendreau, P., & Ross, R. R. (1987). Revivification of rehabilitation: Evidence 

from the 1980s. Justice Quarterly, 4(3), 349-407. 

Gendreau, P., & Smith, P. (2007). Influencing the “people who count”: Some 

perspectives on the reporting of meta-analytic results for prediction and treatment 

outcomes with offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(12), 1536-1559. 

Gendreau, P., & Thériault, Y. (2011). Bibliotherapy for cynics revisited: 

Commentary on one year longitudinal study of the psychological effects of 

administrative segregation. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections. 

Glaze, L. E., & Kaeble, D. (2014). Correctional populations in the United States, 

2013. NCJ 248479. Available at http://www.bjs.gov. 

Goldstein, A. P. (1986). Psychological skill training and the aggressive adolescent. 

In S. Apter & A. Goldstein (Eds.), Youth violence: Program and prospects (pp. 89­

119). New York, NY: Pergamon Press. 

Grassian, S. (1983). Psychopathological effects of solitary confinement. American 

Journal of Psychiatry, 140(11), 1450-1454. 
360 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Grassian, S., & Friedman, N. (1986). Effects of sensory deprivation in psychiatric 

seclusion and solitary confinement. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 

8(1), 49-65. 

Haney, C. (2003). Mental health issues in long-term solitary and “supermax” 

confinement. Crime and Delinquency, 49(1), 124-156. 

Haney, C. (2008). A culture of harm: Taming the dynamics of cruelty in 

supermax prisons. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(8), 956-984. 

Haney, C. (2009). The social psychology of isolation: Why solitary confinement is 

psychologically harmful. Prison Service Journal, 181(1), 12-20. 

Hanson, R. K., & Morton-Bourgon, K. E. (2004). Predictors of sexual recidivism: 

An updated meta-analysis (report no. 2004-02). Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Public 

Safety and Emergency Preparedness of Canada. 

Helmus, L. M. (2015). Developing and validating a risk assessment scale to 

predict inmate placements in administrative segregation in the Correctional 

Service of Canada (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: 

Carleton University. 

Huebner, B. M. (2003). Administrative determinants of inmate violence: A 

multilevel analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31(2), 107-117. 

Hughes, T., Wilson, D., & Beck, A. (2001). Trends in state parole, 1990-2000. NCJ 

184735. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Human Rights Watch. (2000). Out of sight: Supermaximum security confinement 

in the United States. New York, NY: Human Rights Watch. 

Hunt, M. (1997). How science takes stock: The story of meta-analysis. New York, 

NY: Russell Sage Foundation. 

Hunt, H. T., & Chefurka, C. M. (1976). A test of the psychedelic model of altered 

states of consciousness: The role of introspective sensitization in eliciting unusual 

subjective reports. Archives of General Psychiatry, 33(7), 867-876. 

Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1996). Cumulative research knowledge and social 

policy formulation: The critical role of meta-analysis. Psychology, Public Policy, 

and Law, 2(2), 324-347. 

Izzo, R. L., & Ross, R. R. (1990). Meta-analysis of rehabilitation programs for 

juvenile delinquents. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17(1), 134-142. 

Jackson, M. (2001). The psychological effects of administrative segregation. 

Canadian Journal of Criminology, 43(1), 109-116. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 361 

 

Jackson, M. (2002). Justice behind walls. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: 

Douglas & McIntyre. 

Jonson, C. L. (2010). The impact of imprisonment on reoffending: A meta-analysis 

(unpublished doctoral dissertation). Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati. 

Labrecque, R. M. (2015). The effect of solitary confinement on institutional misconduct: 

A longitudinal evaluation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. 

Labrecque, R. M., & Smith, P. (2013). Advancing the study of solitary confinement. 

In J. Fuhrmann & S. Baier (Eds.), Prisons and prison systems: Practices, types, and 

challenges (pp. 57-70). Hauppage, NY: Nova Science Publishers. 

Lanes, E. C. (2011). Are the “worst of the worst” self-injurious prisoners more 

likely to end up in long-term maximum-security administrative segregation? 

International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55(7), 

1034-1050. 

Langan, P. A., & Levin, D. J. (2002). Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994. 

NCJ 193427. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Latessa, E. J., Cullen, F. T., & Gendreau, P. (2002). Beyond correctional quackery: 

Professionalism and the possibility of effective treatment. Federal Probation, 

66(2). 

Lipsey, M. W. (1992). Juvenile delinquency treatment: A meta-analytic inquiry 

into the variability of effects. In T. D. Cook, H. Cooper, D. S. Cordray, H. 

Hartmann, L. V. Hedges, R. J. Light, T. A. Louis, & F. Mostseller (Eds.), Metaanalysis for explanation: A casebook (pp. 83-127). New York, NY: Russell Sage. 

Lipsey, M. W. (1999). Can rehabilitative programs reduce the recidivism of 

juvenile offenders? An inquiry into the effectiveness of practical programs. 

Virginia Journal of Social Policy and Law, 6(3), 611-641. 

Lipsey, M. W., Chapman, G. L., & Landenberger, N. A. (2001). Cognitivebehavioral programs for offenders. The Annals of the American Academy of 

Political and Social Science, 578(1), 144-157. 

Lipsey, M. W., &, Wilson, D. B. (1993). The efficacy of psychological, educational 

and behavioral treatment. American Psychologist, 48(12), 1181-1209. 

Listwan, S. J., Sullivan, C. J., Agnew, R., Cullen, F. T., & Colvin, M. (2013). The 

pains of imprisonment revisited: The impact of strain on inmate recidivism. 

Justice Quarterly, 30(1), 144-168. 

Lösel, F. (1995). The efficacy of correctional treatment: A review and synthesis of 

meta-evaluations. In J. McGuire (Ed.), What works: Reducing reoffending 

(pp. 79-111). Oxford, England: John Wiley & Sons. 
362 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Lovell, D. (2008). Patterns of disturbed behavior in a supermax population. 

Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(8), 985-1004. 

Lovell, D., Johnson, L. C., & Cain, K. C. (2007). Recidivism of supermax 

prisoners in Washington State. Crime & Delinquency, 53(4), 633-656. 

Lowenkamp, C. T., Latessa, E. J., & Smith, P. (2006). Does correctional program 

quality really matter? The impact of adhering to the principles of effective 

intervention. Criminology and Public Policy, 5(3), 575-594. 

McGuire, J. (2004). Understanding psychology and crime: Perspectives on theory 

and action. Maidenhead, Berkshire, England: University Press. 

Mears, D. P., & Bales, W. D. (2009). Supermax incarceration and recidivism. 

Criminology, 47(4), 1131-1166. 

Mears, D. P., & Castro, J. L. (2006). Wardens’ views on the wisdom of supermax 

prisons. Crime and Delinquency, 52(3), 398-431. 

Mears, P., & Watson, J. (2006). Towards a fair and balanced assessment of 

supermax prisons. Justice Quarterly, 23(2), 232-270. 

Morgan, R. D., Van Horn, S. A., MacLean, N., Bolanos, A., Gray, A. L., Batastini, 

A., & Mills, J. F. (2014). Administrative segregation: Is it a harmful correctional 

practice? Presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychology-Law 

Society in New Orleans, LA. 

Morris, R. G. (2015). Exploring the effect of exposure to short-term solitary 

confinement among violent prison inmates. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 

32(1), 1-22. 

Motiuk, L. L. (1993). Where are we in our ability to assess risk? Forum on 

Corrections Research, 5(2), 14-18. 

Nafekh, M., & Motiuk, L. (2002). The statistical information on recidivism – 

revised 1 (SIR-R1) scale: A psychometric examination (research report no. R-126). 

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Correctional Service of Canada. 

Nagin, D. S., Cullen, F. T., & Jonson, C. L. (2009). Imprisonment and reoffending. 

In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research, vol. 38 (pp. 115-200). 

Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 

Nieuwbeerta, P., Nagin, D. S., & Blokland, A. A. (2009). Assessing the impact of 

first-time imprisonment on offenders’ subsequent criminal career development: A 

matched samples comparison. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 25(3), 227-257. 

O’Keefe, M. L. (2008). Administrative segregation from within: A corrections 

perspective. The Prison Journal, 88(1), 123-143. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 363 

O’Keefe, M. L., Klebe, K. J., Stucker, A., Sturm, K., & Leggett, W. (2010). One 

year longitudinal study of the psychological effects of administrative segregation. 

Colorado Springs, CA: Colorado Department of Corrections. 

Orne, M. T., & Scheibe, K. G. (1964). The contribution of non-deprivation factors 

in the production of sensory deprivation effects: The psychology of the “panic 

button.” Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 68(1), 3-12. 

Petersilia, J. (2003). When prisoners come home: Parole and prisoner re-entry. New 

York, NY: Oxford University Press. 

Pew Center on the States. (2011). State of recidivism: The revolving door of 

America’s prisons. Washington, DC: Pew Charitable Trusts. 

Pizarro, J., & Stenius, V. M. K. (2004). Supermax prisons: Their rise, current 

practices, and effect on inmates. The Prison Journal, 84(2), 248-264. 

Pizarro, J. M., Zgoba, K. M., & Haugebrook, S. (2014). Supermax and recidivism: 

An examination of the recidivism covariates among a sample of supermax exinmates. The Prison Journal, 94(2), 180-197. 

Porporino, F. J. (1986). Managing violent individuals in correctional settings. 

Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1(2), 213-237. 

Redondo, S., Sanchez-Meca, J., & Garrido, V. (1999). The influence of treatment 

programmes on the recidivism of juvenile and adult offenders: A European metaanalytic review. Psychology, Crime and Law, 5(3), 251-278. 

Riveland, C. (1999). Supermax prisons: Overview and general considerations. 

Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections. 

Rosenthal, R., & DiMatteo, M. R. (2001). Meta-analysis: Recent developments in 

quantitative methods for literature reviews. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 59-82. 

Ross, R. R., & Fabiano, E. A. (1985). Time to think: A cognitive model of 

delinquency prevention and offender rehabilitation. Johnson City, TN: Institute of 

Social Science and Arts. 

Rothman, D. J. (1980). Conscience and convenience: The asylum and its 

alternatives in progressive America. Boston, MA: Little, Brown. 

Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning 

points through life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 

Schmidt, F. L. (1992). What do data really mean? Research findings, metaanalysis, and cumulative knowledge in psychology. American Psychologist, 

47(10), 1173-1181. 
364 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Scott, G. D., & Gendreau, P. (1969). Psychiatric implications of sensory 

deprivation in a maximum security prison. Canadian Psychiatric Association 

Journal, 14(4), 337-341. 

Seale, L., Atkinson, J., Grealish, B., Fitzgerald, T., Grassel, K., & Viscuso, B. 

(2011). Adult institutions outcome evaluation report. Sacramento, CA: California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Office of Research. 

Shames, A., Wilcox, J., & Subramanian, R. (2015). Solitary confinement: Common 

misconceptions and emerging safe alternatives. The Vera Institute of Justice. 

Available at http://www.vera.org. 

Simon, J. (2007). Governing through crime: How the war on crime transformed 

American democracy and created a culture of fear. New York, NY: Oxford 

University Press. 

Skeem, J. L., Eno Louden, J., Polaschek, D., & Camp, J. (2007). Assessing 


relationship quality in mandated community treatment: Blending care with 


control. Psychological Assessment, 19(4), 397-410.
 

Smith, P. (2016a). Cognitive-behavioral intervention to support institutional adjustment
 

(unpublished treatment curriculum). Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati.
 

Smith, P. (2016b). Cognitive-behavioral intervention for inmates in segregation
 

(unpublished treatment curriculum). Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati.
 

Smith, P. (2013). The psychology of criminal conduct. In F. T. Cullen & P. Wilcox 


(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of criminological theory (pp. 69-88). New York, NY: 


Oxford University Press.
 

Smith, P., Gendreau, P., & Goggin, C. (2008). What works in predicting 


psychiatric hospitalization and relapse: The specific responsivity assessment 


dimension of effective correctional treatment for mentally disordered offenders. 


In R. K. Ax & T. J. Fagan (Eds.), Corrections, mental health, and social policy: 


An international perspective (pp. 209-233). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas 


Publisher, Limited. 


Smith, P., Gendreau, P., & Labrecque, R. M. (2015). The impact of solitary 


confinement on inmate behavior: A meta-analytic review. Paper presented at the 


North American Correctional and Criminal Justice Psychology Conference, 


Ottawa, Canada.
 

Smith, P., Gendreau, P., & Swartz, K. (2009). Validating the principles of effective 


intervention: A systematic review of the contributions of meta-analysis in the 


field of corrections. Victims and Offenders, 4(2), 148-169.
 

Smith, P., & Schweitzer, M. (2013). The therapeutic prison. In F. T. Cullen & 


C. Lero (Eds.), The American prison (pp. 3-18). 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 365 

Smith, P. S. (2006). The effects of solitary confinement on prison inmates. A brief 

history and review of the literature. Crime and Justice, 34(1), 441-528. 

Soderstrom I. R. (2007). Mental illness in offender populations. Journal of 

Offender Rehabilitation, 45(1-2), 1-17. 

Solicitor General of Canada. (1987). Development of a security classification model 

for Canadian federal offenders: A report to the offender management division. 

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Solicitor General of Canada. 

Spiegler, M. D., & Guevremont, D. C. (2010). Contemporary behavior therapy 

(5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. 

Spohn, C., & Holleran, D. (2002). The effect of imprisonment on recidivism rates 

of felony offenders: A focus on drug offenders. Criminology, 40(2), 329-347. 

Suedfeld, P. (1980). Restricted environmental stimulation: Research and clinical 

applications. New York, NY: John Wiley. 

Suedfeld, P. (1984). Measuring the effects of solitary confinement. American 

Journal of Psychiatry, 141(10), 1306-1308. 

Suedfeld, P., Ramirez, C., Deaton, J., & Baker-Brown, G. (1982). Reactions and 

attributes of prisoners in solitary confinement. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 9(3), 

303-340. 

Sundt, J. L., Castellano, T. C., & Briggs, C. S. (2008). The sociopolitical context of 

prison violence and its control: A case study of supermax and its effect in Illinois. 

The Prison Journal, 88(1), 94-122. 

Trotter, C. (1999). Working with involuntary clients: A guide to practice. Thousand 

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

U.S. Department of Justice. (2016). Report and recommendations concerning the 

use of restrictive housing. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. 

Villettaz, P., Killias, M., & Zoder, I. (2006). The effects of custodial vs. noncustodial 

sentences on re-offending: A systematic review of the state of knowledge. 

Philadelphia, PA: Campbell Collaboration Crime and Justice Group. 

Ward, D. A., & Werlich, T. G. (2003). Alcatraz and Marion: Evaluating supermaximum custody. Punishment & Society, 5(1), 53-75. 

Welsh, B. C., & Farrington, D. P. (2000). Correctional intervention programs and 

cost-benefit analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27(1), 115-133. 
366 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Windzio, M. (2006). Is there a deterrent effect of pains of imprisonment? The 

impact of “social costs” on the hazard rate of recidivism. Punishment & Society, 

8(3), 341-364. 

Wormith, J. S., Tellier, M. C., & Gendreau, P. (1988). Characteristics of protective 

custody offenders in a provincial correctional centre. Canadian Journal of 

Criminology, 30(2), 39-58. 

Wortley, R. (2002). Situational prison control: Crime prevention in correctional 

institutions. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. 

Zinger, I., Wichmann, C., & Andrews, D. A. (2001). The psychological effects of 

60 days in administrative segregation. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 43(1), 

47-83. 

Zubek, J. P. (Ed.). (1969). Sensory deprivation: Fifteen years of research. New York, 

NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts. 

Zubek, J. P., Bayer, L., & Shephard, J. M. (1969). Relative effects of prolonged 

social isolation and confinement: Behavioral and EEG changes. Journal of 

Abnormal Psychology, 74(5), 625-631. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 367 

CHAPTER 10 

Restricted Housing 

and Legal Issues 

Fred Cohen, LL.B., LL.M. 

Introduction 

The conviction of a crime is the legal gateway to punishment by 

government officials. Even the accusation of crime may result in 

punishment-like incidents in jail for the many who cannot obtain 

release on bail. As pretrial detainees, the accused may lawfully be 

incarcerated and therefore subject to the rules of the confining facility. 

The convicted felon sentenced to prison receives a measure of protection from 

the U.S. Constitution’s Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual 

punishment. The pretrial detainee is similarly protected by the 14th Amendment’s 

due process clause, which prohibits punishment simpliciter. For example, in Bell 

v. Wolfish the Court held that absent conviction, detainees might not be punished 

at all. They are, however, subject to rules and regulations required to maintain 

the security and good order of the jail. We must distinguish incarceration-aspunishment from punishment for rule infraction while incarcerated. 

The convicted and merely accused share the same affirmative rights as prisoners: 

the right to adequate food, shelter, and clothing; medical care; and a safe, lifesustaining environment. In Kingsley v. Hendrickson, the Supreme Court drew a 

distinction on the use of force against prisoners favorable to the claims of pretrial 

detainees. A detainee need only show that the force objected to was unreasonable 
368 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

vis-à-vis also showing that the officer was aware that the force applied was 

unreasonable. In the management of a prison or jail, corrections officials are 

extended a variety of tools with which to create an orderly and safe environment. 

The use of extended restrictive housing to separate and isolate inmates is among 

the most extreme measures (short of deadly force) available to prison and jail 

officials. The use of physical force is a singular event, and it may be used only 

in response to the use or imminent threat of force or to prevent an escape.1 

Incarceration in restrictive housing may, and often does, go on for years and may 

not be commensurate with the original rationale for its use.2 

This white paper focuses on the legal issues surrounding restrictive housing, 

a practice that is known by a variety of names and imposed for a variety of 

purposes. It may range from what is termed “keeplock” in New York State (a type 

of in-cell, pretrial detention pending a disciplinary hearing) to the long-term 

incarceration of federal prisoners such as Thomas Silverstein, who has spent 

more than 28 years in the deepest form of restrictive housing available in the 

federal prison system. Thus, we have a range of prisoners being kept in their own 

cells for a few days to a week to those spending 28 years (or far more) — 

[in a] cell so small that I could stand in one place and touch both walls 

simultaneously. The ceiling was so low I could reach up and touch the hot light 

fixture. My bed took up the length of the cell, and there was no other furniture ... . The 

walls were solid steel and painted all white. I was permitted to wear underwear 

but I was given no other clothing. I was completely isolated from the outside 

world and had no way to occupy my time. I was not allowed to have any social 

visits, telephone privileges, or reading materials except a bible. I was not allowed 

to have a television, radio, or tape player. I could speak to no one and there was 

virtually nothing on which to focus my attention (Casella & Ridgeway, 2011).3 

A recent study of segregated housing in the Federal Bureau of Prisons (2014) 

offered the following six categories of segregation: 

1 Corporal punishment may not be used, per Jackson v. Bishop. Force, including deadly force, may be used to 

prevent an escape, quell a riot, or as an act of self-defense; Whitley v. Albers and Kingsley v. Hendrickson held 

that the use of force by officials against a pretrial detainee is subject only to an objectively unreasonable test 

and not an additional requirement that the officer was also subjectively aware that the force complained about 

was unreasonable. The Court left open whether convicted prisoners might benefit from this new rule on staff use 

of force. 

2 Albert Woodfox was held in solitary confinement for 43 years in Louisiana’s Angola prison. He was recently released. 

3 Silverstein committed three murders in prison and is, or certainly was, one of the most feared and dangerous 

inmates in the federal system. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 369 

1.	 Protective custody protects an inmate from threats of violence and extortion 

from other inmates. The inmate remains in this status until the threats have 

been removed or the inmate is released from prison. 

2.	 Segregation due to acute or serious mental health needs provides 

intensive mental health treatment to inmates with serious mental illness. The 

placement of an inmate and the treatment plan are determined by the mental 

health team. 

3.	 Segregation due to acute medical needs provides intensive medical care to 

inmates with life-threatening medical conditions or physical disabilities. The 

placement of an inmate and the treatment plan are determined by medical 

health professionals, including a psychiatrist or a physician. 

4.	 Investigative segregation temporally segregates an inmate until serious 

allegations of misconduct or the need for protective custody are investigated. 

Once the investigative process is completed, the inmate can be assigned to 

restrictive housing or returned to the general population. 

5.	 Disciplinary segregation is placement to punish an inmate for a violation of 

a major disciplinary rule. The inmate is released into the general population 

once the period of disciplinary segregation has been served. 

6.	 Administrative segregation incapacitates an inmate whose presence in the 

general population would pose an ongoing threat to inmates and staff. The 

placement of an inmate in administrative segregation is determined by a 

limited set of criteria established by correctional administrators. 

The three most enduring and legally troublesome categories (or types) of 

segregation are administrative segregation, disciplinary segregation, and 

protective custody, which will be addressed later in this paper. Investigative 

separation, particularly when served in one’s cell or dorm and for only a brief 

period, does not raise the nagging legal or policy issues presented by disciplinary 

and administrative segregation. Placement in administrative segregation does 

not require proof of an infraction; it is essentially an administrative decision with 

some nominal due process and typically has no durational limits. Disciplinary 

segregation, on the other hand, results from a finding — by plea or hearing 

— based on “some evidence” (the constitutional evidentiary requirement) of 

rule violation. A specific term of “solitary” may be imposed and may then be 

extended in the event of additional violations. 

As the fixed term nears its end, it is not uncommon for a committee to inform 

the inmate that a term of administrative segregation has been imposed. There 

is no judicially enforced requirement of proportionality for placement in 

disciplinary segregation, although virtually every correctional system has a 

schedule of sanctions as a matter of policy and procedure. These schedules tend 
370 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

 

to follow a felony–misdemeanor–violation approach linking the most serious 

offenses to the most onerous sanction. 

The author of this paper has written elsewhere, “Let me begin with the obvious: 

The very nature of our prisons [or jails] means we must have some means by 

which to separate prisoners on the basis of those who are at risk from those who 

create those risks” (Cohen, 2008). Indeed, that statement of the obvious translates 

into a constitutional duty imposed on prison and jail officials to provide for the 

“reasonable safety” of prisoners.4 

The preservation of life is the most fundamental obligation of prison and jail 

officials. The provision of food, clothing, exercise, medical care, and shelter share 

the common objectives of the preservation of life and the avoidance of needless 

pain and suffering. The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual 

punishment serves as the guardian of those obligations, though it is not a 

particularly zealous guardian. The Eighth Amendment is not used as a vehicle for 

mandating best practices in correctional settings, nor was it intended to be. The 

operative words of the amendment are “cruel” and “punishment.” Thus, “cruel 

punishment” does not encompass discomfort or even every harm, nor does 

every pain equate with punishment. The U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of 

the Eighth Amendment has been quite conservative and cautious over the years, 

addressing conduct only at the edge of civilized decency in Rhodes v. Chapman 

as antithetical to human decency. On the other hand, the Court held in Helling 

v. McKinney that a remedy for patently unsafe conditions need not await a tragic 

outcome. On multiple occasions, the Court has affirmed the individual belief of 

a number of justices that the right to basic human dignity is at the core of cruel 

and unusual punishment and due process in this context.5 This discussion leads 

us to the door of segregated housing and an important general statement of the 

law on point: No federal court, certainly not the Supreme Court, has found it 

unconstitutional to confine inmates in long-term administrative or disciplinary 

segregation. Where there has been a finding of unconstitutionality, there has 

also been a finding of special vulnerability related to the class of inmate or an 

individual inmate. 

In Madrid v. Gomez, the lower court inveighed against an unconstitutional 

pattern of excessive force and a shockingly deficient system for medical and 

mental health care at California’s Pelican Bay supermax prison. The court 

did not, however, find the overall isolation and idleness of prisoners held at 

this facility to be constitutionally deficient. Indeed, the judge posited that the 

conditions (including isolation) at Pelican Bay will likely inflict some degree 

of psychological trauma upon most of the inmates so confined, but he was 

4 Farmer v. Brennan reiterates that constitutional obligation while expanding on the meaning of deliberate 

indifference (or reckless disregard) by officials for the safety of inmates. 

5 Hope v. Pelzer, Trop v. Dulles, and Brown v. Plata (citing Atkins v. Virginia) are among these decisions. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 371 

not persuaded that the risk of developing an impairment to mental health was 

sufficiently serious for the special housing unit (SHU) population as a whole to 

find that the conditions per se violate the Eighth Amendment. 

However, in Brown v. Plata, the Court found that severe overcrowding in 

California’s prisons was the primary factor in the unconstitutional provision of 

medical and mental health care. The Court upheld a mandated reduction in the 

prison population as the means by which to facilitate acceptable health care. The 

decision, however, is not precedent for ruling that overcrowded jail or prison 

conditions per se are unconstitutional. There must be a connection to a specific 

constitutional right that is severely diminished. 

Early Solitary Confinement 

Philadelphia’s Eastern State Penitentiary opened in 1829. Eastern, with its Quaker 

heritage, was designed to create a humane opportunity for reformative penitence. 

Its key innovation was solitary confinement — prisoners could work alone in 

their 16-foot cells (Benforado, 2016). The silence of such confinement and the 

provision of in-cell work reflected the view that crime was caused primarily by 

the noisy, disorderly outside world and that silence, industry, and reflection were 

the best reformative measures. If inmates experienced pain, it was not the pain 

caused by punishment; it was the pain associated with treatment and the pursuit 

of a reformative ideal. 

Today’s use of extended isolation in restrictive housing settings reflects no theory 

of crime causation, and the absence of industry, recreation, and reformative 

programs reflects no valid theory of reformation. Today, extended isolation is 

a management tool, designed to attain order and security. However misguided 

the 19th-century prison reform-through-isolation concept turned out to be, 

it reflected a crime theory and reformative spirit. Today, restrictive housing 

is used for a variety of purposes, from punishment, to protection, to a type of 

social defense associated with administrative segregation. There is no unifying 

behavioral theory of use or outcome, and yet the consequences are devastating 

for so many inmates. 

The Litigation Highway 

Restrictive housing reform is in the air, but it has not as yet happened. Hundreds 

of articles on the topic are being written. Senate hearings have been held. 

Important professional organizations have issued standards and practices that 

would limit and sanitize restrictive housing. Some have called for a total ban, in 

the nature of the capital punishment reform agenda. 
372 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

The Mandella Rules were adopted on May 22, 2015, by the United Nations 

Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice.6 The rules forbid 

solitary confinement in excess of 15 consecutive days. The practice is viewed 

as a last resort and there are limits on the conditions of cell lighting, diet, and 

drinking water. While these rules are not binding on U.S. corrections facilities or 

practice, they may have a persuasive impact on national reform efforts. 

Federal litigation continues. Any reforms achieved to date have primarily been 

attained through federal court intervention. This is not to say that judicially 

stimulated reform is the most desirable vehicle, but rather that the judiciary, as 

opposed to the executive or legislative branches of government, has conducted 

hearings, issued rulings (including declaratory and injunctive relief), and 

supervised consent decrees or stipulations that bring incremental measures of 

reform to this practice. 

The Vulnerables: Juvenile and Mentally Ill Inmates 

Judicially stimulated reform of restrictive housing began almost a half-century 

ago with juveniles confined in custodial settings in the juvenile system. Young 

inmates treated as adults for the purpose of criminal responsibility and confined 

in adult correctional settings should maintain their adolescent status for 

purposes of restrictive housing. 

This paper focuses considerable attention on juvenile justice, as it was the 

early predicate for contemporary judicially imposed reform. This offers 

the opportunity to discern the early analysis of what constitutes a special 

vulnerability to extended isolation and the initial reformative measures imposed 

by the federal courts. 

In Lollis v. N.Y. State Department of Social Services, the Federal District Court 

voided the two-week room confinement of a 14-year-old girl in a stripped room 

with no recreational outlets or reading material. The court also found it legally 

impermissible to use shackles on a young male inmate held in isolation for 

periods of 40 minutes to two hours. 

The expert consensus of the 1960s and 1970s was that young people did 

not experience time in the same manner as adults. It was argued that to an 

adolescent, two weeks in social isolation could seem like years. Two weeks is, 

in fact, a much greater percentage of the life of a 14-year-old than, say, that of a 

35-year-old adult. What exactly should follow from the “youth experience time 

differently” paradigm was never clarified. It served as a self-justifying statement 

6 This is a revision of the influential 1955 United Nations Standard Minimum Rules on the Treatment of Prisoners. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 373 

of belief with policy attached. However, developmental psychologists have since 

changed this perspective, and a clear shift has occurred. 

Scott and Steinberg (2010) make the case that young people are less competent 

decision-makers than adults. Cognitive maturity approaches adult levels by age 

16, while emotional and psychosocial development lags. Adolescents tend to be 

risk-takers and open to peer influence. Their identities are fluid and not yet fully 

formed. Many consequences follow from debunking the experience assertion, 

including criminal responsibility norms and limits on how a juvenile inmate may 

be subject to control or punished. 

The adjudication of a young person as delinquent is not the equivalent of a 

criminal conviction. A youth held in custody pending an adjudicatory outcome 

is not the equivalent of a pretrial detainee awaiting the outcome of a criminal 

charge. A delinquency proceeding is civil in nature, is based on the best interests 

of the young person, and is premised — although not necessarily functioning — 

on reformative ideals. Thus, for young detainees, there is a complex set of new 

developments in the realm of psychology, with an existing, often inconsistent, 

legal framework that considers them to be entitled to rehabilitation and protected 

from the harsher measures of control that are imposed on adults in adult prison 

settings. If extended restrictive housing is considered the most extreme control 

measure for adults in adult prisons, it follows with even greater force that similar 

measures employed with young inmates would have at least the same ranking. 

Given the psychological plasticity of adolescents, the case against long-term 

restrictive confinement appears even stronger. Thus, young people are considered 

a vulnerable population whose characteristics make them particularly susceptible 

to the rigors of prolonged physical and social isolation. Whereas an adult in 

restrictive housing might retreat into himself and even re-invent himself with 

a trauma-informed identity, the young inmate is more likely to become angry, 

physically violent, and increasingly resistant to educational and reformative 

efforts. Some jurisdictions employ time-out rooms to which a young inmate may 

go for solitude or even to scream, punch pillows, or otherwise let off steam. 

In R.G. v. Koller, three young inmates confined at a state juvenile facility 

brought claims against the facility for a variety of grievances. The detainees’ 

sexual orientation (lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender) formed an important 

backdrop to the decision. The state conceded that it used isolation as a means 

to protect the plaintiffs from abusive conditions. The court held, “The expert 

evidence before the court uniformly indicates that long-term segregation or 

isolation of youth is inherently punitive and is well outside the range of accepted 

professional practices.” There may be some ambiguity in the holding because 

the ruling addresses a type of protective custody while suggesting that the 
374 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

approach to punishing a rule violation might bring a different result. The court 

notes that social isolation is inherently punishing and that punishing young 

inmates to protect them from others is not legally acceptable. Other courts have 

also concluded that the use of isolation with young people, except in extreme 

circumstances, is a violation of due process (see H.C. by Hewett v. Jarrard). 

As early as the 1970s, the Institute of Judicial Administration–American Bar 

Association (ABA) Juvenile Justice Standards Project7 took what was then a 

relatively extreme approach to the isolation of juvenile inmates. In Standards 

Relating to Corrections Administration, 10 days of room confinement was the 

maximum allowed for even a serious infraction.8 

The American Correctional Association (ACA) has taken some relatively strong 

stands on the use of room isolation with juveniles (ACA, 2009). In Standard 

4-JCF-3B-06, time-out or room restriction may be used for minor violations 

or a cooling-off period, but only while the negative behavior is not controlled. 

Standard 4-JCF-3C-04 limits confinement in a “security room” to five days — 

with living conditions and privileges that are available in general population 

— for any offense. It is important to note that this is a representative, not 

comprehensive, picture of the ABA standards. A state’s mandatory education 

laws must be observed, even during brief periods of room confinement. 

President Obama recently announced a ban on holding young inmates in 

solitary confinement in federal prisons, saying that the practice could lead to 

“devastating lasting psychological consequences” (Shear, 2016). The President 

relied on research that focused on the psychological harm and risks of mental 

illness that support the ban. The ban is further evidence of the movement from 

conceptualizing young people as mini-adults who experience time differently to 

the newer evidence of psychological trauma associated with social isolation. 

Dimon (2014) writes: 

One of the reasons that solitary is particularly harmful to youth is that during 

adolescence, the brain undergoes major structural growth. Particularly 

important is the still-developing frontal lobe, the region of the brain responsible 

for cognitive processing such as planning, strategizing, and organizing thoughts 

or actions. One section of the frontal lobe, the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, 

continues to develop into a person’s mid-20s. It is linked to the inhibition of 

impulses and the consideration of consequences. 

7 The 23 original volumes are condensed in Juvenile Justice Standards Annotated: A Balanced Approach. 

8 Standard 8.7 (B). The author of this paper is the co-author of this volume of standards. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 375 

Social isolation soon became the major premise for explaining the harm caused 

by extended isolation on adult prisoners. Constitutional litigation in this area for 

juvenile inmates utilizes the 14th Amendment’s due process clause. In decisions 

involving the death penalty for juvenile inmates sentenced to life without parole 

and the safeguards used during custodial interrogation, the Supreme Court has 

unhesitatingly taken a “kids are different” approach, holding that the state has a 

legitimate interest in detaining young people prior to delinquency proceedings, 

but their conditions of confinement must not amount to punishment (see Roper 

v. Simmons; Graham v. Florida; Miller v. Alabama; J.D.B. v. North Carolina; 

Schall v. Martin; Morgan v. Sproat). Some courts apply both the substantive due 

process protections and the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment 

to conditions claims of post-adjudication youth. Vulnerability to harm and 

overreaching (as with custodial interrogations) are the common denominators in 

those decisions. 

There are generally two pathways to follow on the road to legal reform of 

isolation for juveniles: the empirical pathway, which is strewn with empirical 

evidence (or assertions) of harm, and a human rights approach, which is not 

dependent on (but is receptive to) empirical assertions. Human rights law exists 

as something of a metaphor in our legal structure and, more concretely, at the 

level of international law. As noted earlier, the Supreme Court has interpreted 

the Eighth Amendment’s cruel and unusual punishment clause as safeguarding 

no less than the dignity of man. That interpretation is not likely intended to 

serve as a bridge to the creation of new constitutional rights — rather, it has been 

used to strengthen an existing right, a prohibition against torture. In Hope v. 

Pelzer, Justice John Paul Stevens’ opinion for the majority alludes to the Eighth 

Amendment as a repository for rights associated with the dignity of man. The 

actual holding found that on these facts there was a needless infliction of pain. 

Although this finding is important, it merely added a new set of facts to the 

prison-torture menu (as opposed, for example, to finding that a corrections 

officer’s verbal abuse of a prisoner is such an affront to human dignity as to 

constitute cruel and unusual punishment). 

A report by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU, 2014, p. 10) speaks to human 

rights law and practice. The extended quote on the next page illustrates this.9 

9 The extended quotation on the next page includes the text of the original footnotes. 
376 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

 

 

U.S. courts, including the Supreme Court, have repeatedly relied on 

international law and practice on children’s rights to affirm their reasoning 

that certain domestic practices violate the Constitution.1 International 

human rights law, which identifies anyone below the age of 18 years as 

a child, recognizes that “the child, by reason of his physical and mental 

immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal 

protection, before as well as after birth.” 2 The International Covenant on 

Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), a treaty ratified by the United States, 

acknowledges the need for special treatment of children in the criminal 

justice system and emphasizes the importance of their rehabilitation.3

 The 

Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), a treaty signed by the United 

States, also addresses the particular rights and needs of children who come 

into conflict with the law.4 

A number of international instruments and human rights organizations 

have declared that the solitary confinement of children violates human 

rights laws and standards prohibiting cruel, inhuman or degrading 

treatment and called for the practice to be banned, including: the United 

Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency (the Riyadh 

Guidelines),5 the Committee on the Rights of the Child,6 the United Nations 

Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty (the Beijing 

Rules),7 and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.8 Based 

on the harmful physical and psychological effects of solitary confinement 

and the particular vulnerability of children, the Office of the U.N. Special 

Rapporteur on Torture has repeatedly called for the abolition of solitary 

confinement of persons under age 18.9 

1	 Graham v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. at 2034; Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. at 575 (citing Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 

102-103 (1958)). These cases start from the supposition that, whether a punishment is “cruel and unusual” is a 

determination informed by “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” Trop v. 

Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 101 (1958) (plurality opinion). 

2 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of the Child, G.A. Res. 1386 (XIV), U.N. Doc. A/4354 (Nov. 20, 1959). 

Similarly, The American Convention on Human Rights (“Pact of San José, Costa Rica”), Article 19, states, “Every 

minor child has the right to the measures of protection required by his condition as a minor on the part of his family, 

society, and the state.” Organization of American States, American Convention on Human Rights, Nov. 22, 1969, 

O.A.S.T.S. No. 36, 1144 U.N.T.S. 123 (entered into force July 18, 1978), reprinted in Basic Documents Pertaining 

to Human Rights in the Inter-American System, OEA/Ser.L.V/II.82 doc.6 rev.1 at 25 (1992). 

3 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Arts. 10, 14(4), opened for signature Dec. 16, 1966, S. Exec. 

Rep. 102-23, 999 U.N.T.S. 171 (entered into force Mar. 23, 1976) (ratified by U.S. June 8, 1992) (“ICCPR”). The 

Human Rights Committee has interpreted the ICCPR’s provisions on child offenders to apply to all persons under 

the age of 18. UN Human Rights Comm., 44th Sess., General Comment No. 1, U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.1 at 155 

(1994), available at http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/gencomm/hrcoim20.htm. Treaties signed and ratified by the 

United States are the “supreme Law of the Land.” U.S. CONST. art. VI cl. 2. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 377 

 

4 Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), opened for signature Nov. 20, 1989, 1577 U.N.T.S. 3 (entered into force Sept. 

2, 1990) (“CRC”). The United States signed the CRC in 1995 but has not ratified. 

5 U.N. Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency, G.A. Res. 45/112, Annex, 45 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 

49A), U.N. Doc. A/45/49, at 201 (Dec. 14, 1990) (“The Riyadh Guidelines”). 

6 U.N. Comm. on the Rights of the Child, 44th Sess., General Comment No. 10, Children’s rights in juvenile justice, 

U.N. Doc. CRC/C/GC/10 (2007). 

7 U.N. Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty, G.A. Res. 45/113, Annex, 45 U.N. GAOR Supp. 

(No. 49A), U.N. Doc. A/45/49, ¶ 67 (Dec. 14, 1990) (“The Beijing Rules”). 

8 Press Release, Annex to the Press Release Issued at the Close of the 147th Session (Apr. 5, 2013), available at 

http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/media_center/PReleases/2013/023A.asp (incorporating the definition of the United 

Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, Mr. Juan Mendez, into the IACHR corpus juris). 

9 Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Interim Rep. of 

the Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, ¶¶ 78-85, 

Annex (Istanbul Statement on the Use and Effects of Solitary Confinement), U.N. Doc A/63/175 (July 28, 2008) (by 

Manfred Nowak), available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/48db99e82.pdf; Special Rapporteur on Torture 

and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Interim Rep. of the Special Rapporteur on Torture 

and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, ¶ 77, U.N. Doc. A/66/268 (Aug. 5, 2011) (by 

Juan Mendez), available at http://solitaryconfinement.org/uploads /SpecRapTortureAug2011.pdf. 

What lessons learned from juvenile justice can be applied to the restrictive 

housing of inmates with mental illness? Adolescent inmates and adult inmates 

with serious mental illness share some characteristics. The available scientific and 

psychological research shows that the psychological impact of social isolation 

on members of both groups is often grave. The causative harm factor for an 

adolescent is the plasticity of the brain: Its normal development is altered by the 

lack of social interaction. The causative harm factor for an adult inmate with 

serious mental illness (or an adult who is at risk of developing serious mental 

illness) is the devastating psychological impact of social isolation, particularly of 

the extreme sort described earlier by federal prisoner Thomas Silverstein. Where 

mental illness is at issue, the focus is not the interruption of human development 

but on the serious impairment or destruction of the psyche: loss of reality, 

delusions, or treatment-resistant depression. 

Deprivation may be deemed an unconstitutional condition of confinement — 

whether for adults or adolescents — when it is sufficiently serious and imposed 

with “deliberate indifference” to the inmate’s health and safety. In Farmer v. 

Brennan, the Court interpreted deliberate indifference as a form of subjective 

recklessness where the standard of “should have known of the risks” is not 

sufficient for liability. Officials must be shown to have actual knowledge of the 

serious risks and fail to mitigate or eliminate those risks. 

It is important to note that this paper’s designation of young people and adults 

with mental illness as vulnerable populations is a categorical legal exemption as 

well as an exemption in an individual case of an extended term of isolation. 
378 • National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov

A categorical exemption means that a litigant need show only forbidden 

extended isolation and membership in the particular class. A categorical 

exemption flows most often from a successful class action, whereas individual 

exemption claims are usually characterized as — “I am a juvenile or have a 

mental illness. I was held in isolation for X months and, as a result, have suffered 

severe harm and seek monetary damages.”

This paper turns now to the second important group of vulnerable inmates: 

persons with mental illness. Changes in correctional institutions’ dealings with 

this population will have a broader impact on corrections operations.

Isolation and Mental Illness

The plight of prisoners with mental illness who are placed in various forms 

of restrictive housing has had more impact on legal reform than the similar 

treatment afforded juveniles.10 The data on the number of adults held in such 

housing vary, with estimates ranging from 80,000 to 100,000 per day. 

Although the number of young people held in custodial settings has decreased 

dramatically in the past 10 years, those numbers — even at their peak — never 

approached the millions of adults held daily in jails and prisons. The juvenile 

justice system has language for addressing limited (e.g., “time-out,” “room 

confinement”) isolation, along with a culture that is less accepting of the practice 

and has not used the extraordinarily long terms imposed in the adult system.11

The Department of Justice estimates, based on survey data from 2003, that 35 

percent of youth in custody (approximately 35,000 young people between 10 

years old and 20 years old) at that time had been held in isolation with no contact 

with other residents. The vast majority (87 percent) were held for more than two 

hours, and more than half (55 percent) were held for more than 24 hours. More 

than 17,000 of the approximately 100,000 incarcerated young people have been 

subjected to solitary confinement.

Data gathered from a group of 162 voluntarily participating juvenile detention 

facilities in 29 states in 2012 by the Performance-Based Standards Initiative of 

the Council of Juvenile Corrections Administrators suggest that the average 

duration of isolation was slightly more than 14 hours. The group also reports that 

although the number of children held in solitary confinement for one to five days 

increased between 2010 and 2012, the number of youth who reported being held 

in solitary confinement for more than 11 days and from six to 10 days decreased.

10For a compelling overview of correctional mental illness issues, see Human Rights Watch (2003). For a detailed 

treatment of correctional mental health law and policy, see Cohen and Knoll (2011).

11See Department of Justice Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (2010); PbS Learning Institute 

(2012a, 2012b).
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 379 

A Court Monitor’s View From the Inside 

Imagine that you are walking through a prison’s restrictive housing facilities. You 

experience two starkly different phenomena. In one scenario, the unit is distressingly 

loud — inmates are banging or kicking at their unyielding steel doors, screaming, or 

hysterically laughing. The other unit is deathly silent. You hear your own footsteps on the 

always surgically clean, concrete floor. Peering into the silent cells, you see blankets pulled 

up over bodies; a vagrant hand or visible foot. The cell is utterly disorganized, littered with 

untouched food and scoops of paper. The mattress is on the floor. 

As the federal court monitor for five years in Dunn v. Voinovich, I visited many a 

segregation unit in Ohio. My task during a site visit was to first screen inmates who might 

be mentally ill and then, with my clinical crew, determine the level of mental health care 

they were receiving and needed. 

A mental health caseload chart was always available to me, but I employed a different and, 

for me, more effective approach. I would tell the sergeant in charge that as a lawyer, I was 

not an expert in diagnosing mental illness and could sympathize with his challenges in 

that regard. I would then ask, “Based on what you see on your shift, who are the four or 

five sickest inmates in the unit?” The officer would reply, for example, “Oh, that’s easy. That 

would be Jones, Smith, Terry, and Loomis.” I’d thank him, enter the unit, approach a cell 

in which an inmate was awake (or just not screaming), and introduce myself as the federal 

court monitor. I asked the inmates to tell me who they thought were the “craziest” inmates 

in the unit. A typical reply: “Oh, that’s easy. That’s Jones, Smith, Terry and Loomis.” 

The officers and inmates almost always agreed with each other as to who was mentally 

ill and who was the sickest of the lot. They could also tell me what kind of treatment 

they may have observed. More often than not, the story was of treatment not received. 

I learned that rounds designed to identify inmates who were not on the caseload were 

conducted so quickly that we called them “drive-bys.” I also learned that rounds were 

conflated to include a brief “how are you feeling?” contact with a caseload inmate, which 

defeated the purpose of rounds. 

Wherever I either monitored or conducted a study of correctional mental health care, I 

learned that restrictive housing units by any name were packed with inmates with mental 

illness. Their untreated illness often made them the most difficult and disruptive inmates 

in the facility. They were placed in restrictive housing for a reason, and that reason was not 

treatment — it was to assert control in lieu of providing treatment to these often difficultto-manage inmates. A cell-side treatment session in restrictive housing invariably was a 

medication-management contact conducted on the fly; treatment (if any) was medication. 

If it is accurate to call prisons the new asylums, it is just as accurate to call restrictive 

housing the new asylum lock-down wards. Litigation that addresses confinement in 

correctional lock-down units is, however, bringing change on behalf of inmates with 

mental illness. 
380 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

 

Legal Framework 

Estelle v. Gamble established that prisoners have a constitutional right to adequate 

health care for serious health needs. There is unanimity in the courts and among 

experts that there is no constitutional distinction between inmates’ right to 

treatment for serious medical and for mental health conditions. The threshold 

factors for mandated mental health care are seriousness and the standard of care 

as measured by the awkward term “deliberate indifference.” 

There are two distinct sets of challenges associated with inmates with mental 

illness. First, as illustrated by the sidebar, “A Court Monitor’s View From the 

Inside,” are inmates diagnosed with severe mental illness who are confined in 

restrictive housing. Second is the more fluid challenge posed by inmates who 

appear to function normally but then either begin the long slide or fall quickly 

into mental illness. Prison is a hostile environment for an inmate with mental 

illness. How much more hostile, then, is the imposition of additional social 

isolation on an inmate already struggling with hallucinations, voices in his head, 

a belief that the staff is trying to poison him, alternating between bursts of manic 

conduct and the quiet despair of depression? 

There is an inherent challenge rooted in the constitutional right to treatment 

for severe mental illness: Extended confinement in isolation is argued to be so 

pervasively destructive that extended confinement per se establishes cruel and 

unusual punishment. Extended social isolation, it could be argued, is as much a 

barrier to meaningful treatment as is the withholding of prescribed medication. 

Jones-El v. Berge is a good example of a judge clearly differentiating inmates with 

existing serious mental illness from those who may be at risk. Judge Barbara 

Crabb banned the housing of inmates with serious mental illness at Boscobel, 

Wisconsin’s supermax prison. Judge Thelton Henderson determined that the 

SHU at California’s Pelican Bay prison violated the Eighth Amendment by 

housing inmates who were already mentally ill. However, he declined to reach 

a similar conclusion for inmates who were at an unreasonably high risk of 

developing serious mental illness as a result of the conditions in the SHU. 

The second challenge relates to inmates who are at risk of developing serious 

mental illness, as described by Judge Henderson. Whereas the first challenge 

invites questions related to diagnostic accuracy and to determining a duration 

of confinement that constitutes “extended,” the second at-risk category 

raises a multilayered question involving prevention as a viable aspect of the 

constitutional duty to treat.12 

12During the author’s tenure as monitor in Ohio, a policy was developed that banned the transfer of inmates with 

serious mental illness and those who were at risk to the Ohio State Penitentiary (OSP), Ohio’s supermax facility. 

There was a file review for at-risk inmates at the transferring facility and again at OSP reception that helped 

identify the more vulnerable inmates. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 381 

In addition to the duty to treat serious illness, correctional officials have a 

constitutional duty to provide a reasonably safe environment, which includes 

protecting inmates from assaults by other inmates (see Helling v. McKinney). 

Environmental hazards include fire and exposure to asbestos, toxic fumes, 

polluted water, and environmental tobacco smoke. 

It may reasonably be argued that extended solitary confinement for a cognitively 

impaired or paranoid-type inmate is so likely to cause needless pain and suffering 

that it is deliberately indifferent per se to isolate such a person. By analogy, an 

inmate with asthma who seeks separation from tobacco-smoking cellmates will 

(likely successfully) argue that he or she is especially vulnerable and will likely 

suffer grave harm (see Talal v. White; Kelley v. Hicks). 

In 2011, the U.N. special rapporteur on torture warned that solitary confinement 

of inmates with mental illness and young inmates can constitute torture or cruel, 

inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment when used indefinitely or for a 

prolonged period. Torture is a more exquisite form of forbidden punishment. The 

literature is replete with assertions by individuals and organizations (including 

the American Friends Services Committee and the Center for Constitutional 

Rights) that extended isolation constitutes torture. 

The constitutional duty to treat and to provide a reasonably safe environment is 

based on the cruel and unusual punishment clause in the Eighth Amendment. 

Lobel (2016) notes that the presence or absence of alternatives or legitimate 

penological interests should not be relevant to determining whether the knowing 

infliction of pain is punishment — cruel or otherwise — under the Eight 

Amendment. 

Under the reasonableness test in Turner v. Safley, which calls for the judicial 

balancing of competing interests and the weighing of alternatives, the discretion 

of corrections officials is at its zenith.13 Under the Eighth Amendment, then, 

corrections officials have considerable discretion, but the weighing of alternatives 

when mental illness is a factor is not part of the legal calculus. 

Eighth Amendment jurisprudence goes to the heart of the human condition, 

from assuring necessary health care to safe and tolerable conditions of 

confinement. Dolovich (2009) writes, “If the prohibition on cruel punishment is 

to mean anything in a society where incarceration is the most common penalty 

for criminal acts, it must also limit what the staff can do to prisoners over the 

course of their incarceration.” The long-term isolation of an inmate with serious 

mental illness would seem to be a clear example of the knowing infliction of 

needless pain and suffering — cruel punishment. The consensus on the harm 

13See Mushlin (2009) for a comprehensive discussion of the extensive boundaries of the Turner test, including 

First Amendment issues, marriage, and opening attorney mail. The Turner test ends at the door of the Eighth 

Amendment, which encompasses use of force, treatment, and conditions of confinement. 
382 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

caused by such confinement is so great that a court may well take judicial notice 

of the fact.14 

There are many questions residing just under the surface of labeling a unit as 

“long-term restrictive housing.” There is no obvious point of certainty beyond 

which the duration and conditions of confinement becomes unconstitutional. 

The polar extremes are relatively simple: at one end of the spectrum might be 

the 24-hour observational hold in a stripped cell of a psychiatric inmate in 

crisis, while at the other end is a two-year hold in that same cell without access 

to reading material or television. Another example of polar extremes might be 

hours of weekly out-of-cell time versus no access to programs or congregate 

activity, and treatment consisting only of medication management and 

documentation of a worsening mental condition. The latter would seem to be 

extreme punishment. The former, with its limited duration and an observationprotection motive, may be a poor option, but it is not the intentional infliction of 

needless pain as punishment. 

Glidden and Rovner (2012) note that courts too often credit a prison’s proffered 

“legitimate penological interest” in rejecting Eighth Amendment claims, 

including prolonged penal isolation. Relying on the Americans with Disabilities 

Act (ADA) and Sec. 504 of the older Rehabilitation Act (RA) (511 at 837), 

Glidden and Rovner note that where inmates have a mental illness that rises to 

the level of a disability, ADA and RA section 504 invite challenges to each of the 

defining characteristics of supermax (or solitary) confinement: limited access to 

education, telephone calls, programs, exercise, and books; mobility restraints, 

and so on. 

The tactical advantage for inmates using these disability statutes is that the 

burden is on prison officials to justify the denials. That is difficult to do for books, 

television, education, and real outdoor exercise. In a constitutional challenge, 

the plaintiff (inmate) must show the seriousness of the condition, harm, and 

deliberate indifference in the denial or harsh conditions of confinement. As 

noted, “cruelty amounting to punishment as a result of deliberate indifference” 

ultimately are the key operative words in a constitutional challenge. In Farmer, 

where the Court attempted to clarify the meaning of deliberate indifference, 

the holding stressed that the Eighth Amendment is concerned with cruelty that 

amounts to punishment. “Cruel” here modifies “punishment.” Not all cruelty 

imposed on jail and prison inmates amounts to punishment. If that were not the 

case, then Bell v. Wolfish, which forbids any punishment of a pretrial detainee, 

would make no sense. 

14A rule of evidence that allows a fact to be introduced into evidence if the truth thereof is so notorious or well 

known or authoritatively accepted that it cannot reasonably be doubted. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 383 

If the Eighth Amendment was intended to outlaw the most barbarous, the most 

uncivilized of punishments, then the Supreme Court’s proper role is to patrol 

the outer boundaries of decency — the point at which the culture and ethics of 

our society dictate that government practices must stop. Critics of this viewpoint 

argue that it is far too subjective and gives unelected jurists who are appointed 

for life a power unmatched by any other branch of government. The late Justice 

Antonin Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas, both self-proclaimed literalists and 

originalists, took this view, looking for the meaning of constitutional provisions 

at the time of the document’s adoption. 

The great majority of Supreme Court Justices accept the Eighth Amendment 

as subject to interpretation in light of evolving standards of decency. What 

constitutes uncivilized conduct is not frozen in time: It is to be given a 

contemporary meaning. This approach to judicial decision-making is hardly 

crystal clear. It does, however, allow for a discussion of some of the extreme 

— now rejected — tortures of the past: the public whippings and humiliation, 

branding, cutting off one or both ears, the ducking stool (Hatfield, 1990). These 

relics become points of departure for a contemporary analysis of a challenged 

punishment or “control” mechanism. The Court’s search, then, is for what is 

tolerable today but not necessarily desirable. Desirability as a stand-in for good 

public policy is the purview of the legislative branch of government. As discussed 

earlier, our 19th-century experiment with solitude and penitence was based 

on the then-popular theory of crime causation. Inmates held at Pennsylvania’s 

Eastern State Penitentiary, for example, could work and produce goods in their 

cells. The concepts of interrupted adolescence and the destructiveness caused by 

lack of social intercourse obviously had not yet emerged. 

The highly regarded National Commission on Correctional Health Care 

(NCCHC) issued a position statement in April 2016 saying that prolonged (more 

than 15 consecutive days) solitary confinement is cruel, inhumane, and harmful 

to an individual’s health (NCCHC, 2016). Juvenile inmates and adults with 

mental illness are categorically excluded for any duration. Prolonged isolation 

should be eliminated as punishment, according to NCCHC. This position places 

NCCHC at the forefront of progressive reform in this area. The organization 

also takes the position that correctional health care professionals should not 

be involved in deciding whether adults or young inmates are physically or 

psychologically eligible to be placed in isolation. The health care professional’s 

role is to treat, not to participate in a practice that is now viewed as so damaging 

that its prolonged use is condemned. 

Beyond Vulnerable Inmates 

The movement to reform the use of restrictive housing in jails and prisons is 

occurring within the larger movement to undo the largely failed program of mass 
384 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

incarceration that began in the 1970s. Michelle Alexander’s The New Jim Crow 

(2010), with its emphasis on the racial inequities of the justice system, has been 

a rallying cry for decarceration. Alexander’s argument is that mass incarceration 

in the United States has served as racialized social control in a manner strikingly 

similar to that of Jim Crow. Black men, for example, are admitted to prison 

on drug charges at rates 20 to 50 times greater than those of white men. Once 

in prison, black inmates constitute a greater percentage of inmates held in 

administrative segregation than the total administrative segregation population 

(Liman Program & ASCA, 2015). 

In a metaphorical sense, restrictive housing resembles the use of small boxes for 

confinement in a system where confinement begins in a larger box. In Meachum 

v. Fano, the Supreme Court ruled that a conviction has sufficiently extinguished 

an inmate’s liberty interest to allow authorities to confine him in any prison. 

Thus, a transfer from a minimum-security prison close to an inmate’s home to 

a maximum-security prison hundreds of miles away evokes no procedural or 

substantive protections. Vitek v. Jones imposes some due process requirements 

on a prison-to-mental hospital transfer. Wilkinson v. Austin upheld some 

nominal, internal paper review as all the due process needed for a transfer to 

Ohio’s supermax prison. The minimum-to-maximum-security prison transfer is 

likely to inflict substantial hardship and suffering on the inmate, yet correctional 

discretion is at its peak. 

Moving an inmate from the “big box” of a prison to that prison’s much smaller 

box, whether for disciplinary or administrative purposes, is the focus of today’s 

restrictive housing reform. 

Why is there no such outcry (young people and the mentally ill aside) when 

conviction and a lawful sentence allow wholly discretionary placement of an 

inmate in any prison chosen by the proper authority? Is there any difference 

between ending one’s freedom at the perimeter wall and the encasement of the 

four walls of a restrictive housing cell? Is this not simply a tweak and not an 

incision or surgical excision? 

In Sandin v. Conner, the Supreme Court indicated that where prison authorities 

impose an additional restraint on an inmate’s limited freedom, and where such 

restraint is an “atypical and significant hardship in relation to the ordinary 

incidents of prison life,” then some due process must be afforded. The compound 

of “atypical and significant” hardship has triggered hundreds of appellate 

decisions in search of its meaning. The case initiated a new era for liberty 

interests and the right to some procedural due process. A finding of atypical and 

significant hardship does not relieve an inmate from the deprivation. Rather, a 

small dose of procedural due process on a par with disciplinary proceedings for 

major infractions is available: written notice in advance of a hearing; the right 

to be heard; a limited right to witnesses; confrontation, cross-examination, and 

assistance (not by counsel) in certain instances; and a right of internal appeal. 

The source of these rights is Wolff v. McDonnell. It is important to note that the 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 385 

Court in Wolff did not require that the decision-makers be truly independent, 

nor did it provide for personnel who are trained in the law to assist an inmate. 

Sandin initially raised the question of whether atypical and significant means 

that conditions must be so severe, so close to life-threatening, that the line into 

forbidden cruel and unusual punishment would be crossed. That said, there is 

no procedural solution — cruel and unusual punishment cannot be imposed. 

The case has caused more confusion than anything else. It did not slow down the 

use of prolonged inmate isolation. Had the procedural bar been set sufficiently 

high that corrections officials would pause before seeking extended or openended periods of isolation, Sandin could have been more than an irritant to 

academics and corrections officials.15 Keep in mind that Sandin does not preclude 

an atypical and significant hardship — it requires extra procedural steps before 

imposing that hardship. 

There comes a point where a quantitative difference becomes qualitative. A fall 

while standing on a chair and a fall from the top of the Empire State Building 

are different in degree and category, but the loss of balance, the unsecured 

flight through space, and a sudden termination describe both events. The 

consequences, however, are so obviously different that the distinction becomes 

qualitative. With duration and the conditions of confinement the key variables, 

restrictive housing is open to sufficiently severe empirical and humanistic 

challenges as to be under considerable legal stress. California recently settled 

Ashker v. Governor, in which the plaintiff originally offered the promise of a 

broad judicial ruling on the use of extended SHU confinement for inmates other 

than adolescents and the mentally ill. Once again, the settlement stopped short 

of forbidding extended isolation for inmates who are not juveniles or who have 

serious mental illness. 

Some new version of Ashker, then, would seem inevitable. Such a lawsuit 

would have plaintiffs who are not mentally ill or juveniles; rather, they will be 

relatively normal adults who will liken an extended stay in isolation to housing 

an asthmatic with a smoker and will argue that extended isolation is an unsafe 

condition of confinement precluded by the Eight Amendment. 

This country is on the cusp of significant restrictive housing reform, and federal 

litigation has been the significant catalyst. It is in the very nature of social policy 

reform via the courts that change is incremental. Even the most history-changing 

U.S. Supreme Court decisions – Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade, 

Mapp v. Ohio – did not suddenly appear on the Supreme Court docket. A series 

of lower-court decisions on racial segregation in education, the privacy rights 

of women to contraception and abortion, and the exclusion of illegally seized 

evidence laid the foundation for Brown, Roe, and Mapp. The judiciary inherently 

15See Wilkinson v. Austin, which accepted an internal prison paper review as the due process required for transfer 

to Ohio’s supermax prison. The Ohio Attorney General conceded the existence of the requisite liberty interest. 
386 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

moves cautiously: Only after testing the water and evaluating the impact of the 

first few steps forward might the all-encompassing issue be dealt with head-on. 

The Supreme Court will observe the reception of the incremental steps. Where 

lower courts and state legislatures have fallen in line, the ultimate result is more 

predictable. The march to abolish the death penalty is an example. Obergefell v. 

Hodges, which validated gay marriage, is an even better example. 

Does it violate the Eighth Amendment’s cruel and unusual punishment clause 

to subject any pretrial detainee or convicted prisoner to an extended term of 

extreme isolation? This is the case now waiting in the wings. 

The issues surrounding isolation as cruel and unusual punishment require 

further elucidation. For example, what is meant by “an extended term”? What 

are the conditions that constitute extreme isolation? This paper considers 

extended term to be 15 to 30 consecutive days. The conditions that ultimately 

may be constitutionally prohibited coalesce around the degree of social isolation 

experienced by an inmate. An earlier work by this paper’s author described the 

“dark cells” of the past, in which inmates were completely deprived of access to 

light, sound, fresh air, or congregate activity (Cohen, 2006). A somewhat less 

rigorous form of isolation (restrictive housing), which this author refers to as 

second-degree isolation, is used today. This form of isolation typically houses 

inmates in single cells for 23 hours per day. Inmates have limited access to 

outside light and air, yet are able to hear some movements outside their cells 

and may even yell or tap (in code) as communication. Meals are taken alone in 

the cell; exercise is indoors and highly restricted; and access to programs, visits, 

telephones, radio, television, showers, and reading material is substantially 

limited. These restrictions are characteristic of the isolation or segregation units 

in typical supermax faculties. 

Second-degree isolation conveys a set of circumstances beyond life in a single, 

quiet cell. It includes deprivation of many of the most basic elements that link 

one to social interaction, the rudimentary sights and sounds of life, and basic 

decision-making. As one moves from such isolation to the still-deprived world of 

ordinary prison conditions, an uncertain line divides prohibited isolation from 

the “mere” harsh conditions of penal confinement. The critical factors in this 

environment are out-of-cell time, congregate activity, exercise or “yard time,” 

and access to work and programming. Put another way, the greater the social 

isolation and sensory deprivation, the more a unit qualifies as penal isolation. 

Without regard to the harm of social isolation over time, the vulnerability of 

certain groups, or affronts to human dignity, a prison (or a unit thereof) may lack 

basic shelter, present serious fire hazards, and have health and sanitation deficits. 

Confinement of inmates — of human beings — even for the briefest interludes 

in such circumstances should and would be prohibited as cruel and unusual 

punishment (see Carty v. Farrelly; Johnson v. Lewis). The attachment of a rigorous 

form of isolation to such conditions should be absolutely prohibited, with severe 

penalties available for its use. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 387 

Habitability is not a necessary part of the calculus on the constitutionality 

of restrictive housing. However, to the extent that prison conditions in 

restrictive housing may be so primitive as to be life-threatening, the case for 

unconstitutionality is enhanced. 

Cruel and Unusual Punishment Times Two 

Today, the average time between sentencing and execution is almost 18 years, up 

from 11 years a decade ago. In Moore v. Texas, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked 

to decide whether the execution of a Texas inmate three-and-a-half decades 

after imposition of the death sentence is cruel and unusual punishment. The 

durational question was underscored in Moore’s petition for a writ of certiorari 

(p. 30) by the assertion that the excessive-duration claim is aggravated where a 

death row inmate is held alone in his cell for almost the entire day. 

Justice Anthony Kennedy’s impassioned plea condemning this “dual death 

sentence” in Davis v. Ayala is receiving much attention on the issue of placing 

death row inmates in solitary confinement, whether automatic or not, and 

counsel for Moore certainly relied on it. 

If the federal courts and, ultimately, the Supreme Court, are to resolve essential 

reform questions, they must be willing to accept even more generously the 

findings of psychology and neuroscience research about the mental and 

emotional pain experienced during extended periods in restrictive housing. 

The Supreme Court has indeed, become increasingly receptive to such research 

as a basis for recognizing grave mental or emotional harm.16 However, where 

the harm is not physical, the case may be quite difficult for the complainant 

inmate to prove. The overarching challenge may be to escape the reach of the 

ever-present mantra that prisons were not intended to be comfortable places. 

At what point is “discomfort” replaced by such suffering that an impermissible 

punishment has been inflicted? This is an area where additional empirical 

evidence would be very useful. 

It is easy to accept that food, water, shelter, and clothing are essential for human 

survival and that restricting their availability in a correctional setting is a healthor life-threatening harm. The denial of socialization, however, may suggest that 

the demand for “mere” comfort is as profound a human need as any element of 

basic human sustenance. As Justice Kennedy recently wrote in Davis v. Ayala, 

“Years on end of near-total isolation exact a terrible price.” He cites Grassian’s 

(2006) seminal work on the common side effects of solitary confinement as 

including anxiety, panic, withdrawal, hallucinations, self-mutilation, and suicidal 

thoughts and behaviors. 

16See the excellent law review note, “The Psychology of Cruelty: Recognizing Grave Mental Harm in America’s 

Prisons.” (2015). Harvard Law Review, 128, 1250, 1255-1257. 
388 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

More recently, prominent psychiatrist Terry A. Kupers (2016) reported on his 

discovery of what he terms “SHU post-release syndrome”: disorientation; anxiety 

in unfamiliar places; retreat to small, circumscribed spaces; limitations in social 

interaction; hyperawareness of surroundings; suspicion of others; difficulty 

expressing feelings or trusting others; a belief that one’s personality has changed; 

and substance abuse. 

Not all former SHU inmates experience all of these symptoms, just as not every 

soldier who experiences the horror of the battlefield will experience post-traumatic 

stress disorder. The syndrome itself is not (yet) linked to anything other than 

profound isolation and the denial of the normal attributes of human interaction. 

Moving Forward 

Although the federal judiciary has served as a catalyst for reforms currently in 

place, there is no reason to abandon the legislative process as a change agent. 

Legislative action is less expensive than litigation — the hearing and legislative 

development phases are not constrained by rules of evidence, nor do they require 

a parade of competing experts — and the opportunity for many voices to be 

heard is an attractive benefit. 

It is likely that in a given state system, or even in a jail that is comparable in size 

to the Los Angeles County, Cook County, and Rikers Island facilities, we will not 

know precisely how many inmates are held in isolation, for how long, for what 

reasons, and with what outcomes. Where such doubt exists, consideration should 

be given to retaining outside experts to conduct an independent investigation. A 

study could be ordered by the appropriate legal counsel and be protected from 

unwarranted dissemination by privilege, if desired. It should concentrate on the 

young inmates and inmates with mental illness, and should describe those who 

are outside those areas of vulnerability. Any report should offer conclusions 

that address whether there is deliberate indifference to the safety and health of 

inmates held in extended isolation. 

The ABA Standards for Criminal Justices: Treatment of Prisoners (2011), for which 

this paper’s author served as a member of the drafting task force, are arguably 

the best guidelines and standards in both concept and likelihood of adoption. 

Standard 23-3.8: Segregated Housing is the central standard on point: 

(a) Correctional authorities should be permitted to physically separate prisoners 

in segregated housing from other prisoners but should not deprive them of 

those items or services necessary for the maintenance of psychological and 

physical wellbeing. 

(b) Conditions of extreme isolation should not be allowed regardless of the reasons 

for a prisoner’s separation from the general population. Conditions of extreme 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 389 

isolation generally include a combination of sensory deprivation, lack of contact 

with other persons, enforced idleness, minimal out-of-cell time, and lack of 

outdoor recreation. 

(c) All prisoners placed in segregated housing should be provided with meaningful 

forms of mental, physical, and social stimulation. Depending upon individual 

assessments of risks, needs, and the reasons for placement in the segregated 

setting, those forms of stimulation should include: 

(i) 	 in-cell programming, which should be developed for prisoners who are not 

permitted to leave their cells; 

(ii) 	additional out-of-cell time, taking into account the size of the prisoner’s cell 

and the length of time the prisoner has been housed in this setting; 

(iii) opportunities to exercise in the presence of other prisoners, although, if 


necessary, separated by security barriers; 


(iv) daily face-to-face interaction with both uniformed and civilian staff; and 

(v) 	access to radio or television for programming or mental stimulation, 

although such access should not substitute for human contact described in 

subdivisions (i) to (iv). 

(d) Prisoners placed in segregated housing for reasons other than discipline 

should be allowed as much out-of-cell time and programming participation as 

practicable, consistent with security. 

(e) No cell used to house prisoners in segregated housing should be smaller than 80 

square feet, and cells should be designed to permit prisoners assigned to them to 

converse with and be observed by staff. Physical features that facilitate suicide 

attempts should be eliminated in all segregation cells. Except if required for 

security or safety reasons for a particular prisoner, segregation cells should be 

equipped in compliance with Standard 23-3.3(b). 

(f) Correctional staff should monitor and assess any health or safety concerns 

related to the refusal of a prisoner in segregated housing to eat or drink, or to 

participate in programming, recreation, or out-of-cell activity.17 

17For other relevant standards see ABA, Treatment of Prisoner Standards, 23-2.6 (rationales for segregated 

housing), 23-2.7 (rationales for long-term segregated housing), 23-2.8 (segregated housing and mental health), 

23-2.9 (procedures for placement and retention in long-term segregated housing), 23-3.3 (housing areas), 

23-3.6 (recreation and out-of-cell time), 23-3.7 (restrictions relating to programming and privileges), 23-4.3 

(disciplinary sanctions), 23-5.4 (self-harm and suicide prevention), 23-5.5 (protection of vulnerable prisoners), 

and 23-8.4 (work programs). 
390 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Standard 23-2.8: Segregated Housing and Mental Health states “No prisoner 

diagnosed with serious mental illness should be placed in long-term segregated 

housing” and requires mental health screening and subsequent monitoring. It 

is important to note the use of “serious” to modify “mental illness” as a basis 

for preclusion. 

The ABA concept of segregated housing is to allow the separation of inmates 

from each other while retaining their well-being. Even the most dangerous 

inmates are human beings with the inherent dignity of that status. Extreme 

isolation is banned even for the most dangerous inmates, although appropriate, 

regularly reviewed, and higher degrees of security are accommodated. 

The ABA standards may be compared with the Association of State Correctional 

Administrators (ASCA) Restrictive Status Housing Policy Guidelines (2013): 

The following guiding principles for the operation of restrictive status housing are 

recommended for consideration by correctional agencies for inclusion in agency 

policy. They are to: 

•	 Provide a process, a separate review for decisions to place an offender in 


restrictive status housing;
 

•	 Provide periodic classification reviews of offenders in restrictive status
 

housing every 180 days or less; 


•	 Provide in-person mental health assessments, by trained personnel within 72 

hours of an offender being placed in restrictive status housing and periodic 

mental health assessments thereafter including an appropriate mental health 

treatment plan; 

•	 Provide structured and progressive levels that include increased privileges as 

an incentive for positive behavior and/or program participation; 

•	 Determine an offender’s length of stay in restrictive status housing on 

the nature and level of threat to the safe and orderly operation of general 

population as well as program participation, rule compliance and the 

recommendation of the person[s] assigned to conduct the classification review 

as opposed to strictly held time periods; 

•	 Provide appropriate access to medical and mental health staff and services; 

•	 Provide access to visiting opportunities; 

•	 Provide appropriate exercise opportunities; 

•	 Provide the ability to maintain proper hygiene; 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 391 

•	 Provide program opportunities appropriate to support transition back to a 

general population setting or to the community; 

•	 Collect sufficient data to assess the effectiveness of implementation of these 

guiding principles; 

•	 Conduct an objective review of all offenders in restrictive status housing by 

persons independent of the placement authority to determine the offenders’ 

need for continued placement in restrictive status housing; and 

•	 Require all staff assigned to work in restrictive status housing units receive 

appropriate training in managing offenders on restrictive status housing status. 

Although ASCA offers “guiding principles,” it provides neither categorical 

exemptions nor principles that address when restrictive housing should or 

should not be used, and no delineation of acceptable physical conditions for 

restrictive housing. That said, ASCA’s members are state correctional directors — 

such movement as there is by the organization on this issue is movement in the 

right direction. 

The Path Going Forward 

The current era of solitary confinement appears to be winding down. What 

many have termed torture has existed for decades and has been charged with 

causing immeasurable harm not only to many of the inmates so confined but 

also to the corrections sector itself due to its reflexive reliance on this primitive 

tool. The adoption of procedural solutions for a substantive problem is too often 

a beguiling reform option. Examples of such measures relating to restrictive 

housing include regular review, imposing durational limits without a stringent 

cap on duration, and offering an inmate an explanation of the rationale for 

confinement without providing an opportunity to challenge the rationale. 

Some reforms that should be implemented only as interim or transitional measures 

can become embedded in perpetuity. Examples include a reduction in the grounds 

for imposing restrictive housing, adding limited opportunities for structured and 

unstructured out-of-cell time, and greater certainty of release time. 

Any of these changes, be they procedural, interim, or terminal, will provide some 

measure of relief to inmates who have been confined in tiny cells for 23 hours 

per day (with perhaps an hour of out-of-cell time) five days per week. The critical 

restrictive housing reform measure might be to abandon the use of extended 

periods of isolation, either as punishment or to enhance security. There are many 

options short of “you are going to the hole” that may be less harmful and more 

successful in curbing misconduct in its various guises. 
392 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

The addition of minimal, haphazard staff training may appear reformative, 

but it is likely insufficient. Toch (2014) speaks to the essence of the issue in 

addressing the “we versus they” culture of prison. In his experiment at Scotland’s 

Penninghame Open Prison, he brought inmates and staff together in a model 

in which inmates were considered service consumers and staff were service 

providers. The critical focus of this type of deep reform is the corrections officers: 

who they are and how they see themselves. Toch’s message to them was, “You 

are not working for FedEx (or Amazon) in the delivery of merchandise. You 

are not patrolling a border to keep some in and others out. You are not a night 

club bouncer or personal security guard. You are a provider of services within 

a human services model.” The inmate becomes a consumer who has a voice not 

only in the quality of health care or conditions of confinement but also in what 

should be available. What do inmates want and need in the way of treatment and 

reformative opportunities? The greater the availability of desired amenities, the 

less need there is to consider the use of solitary confinement. For many inmates, 

the loss of some visiting time, access to television or the yard, clothing options, 

and other consequences are powerful inducements to avoid misconduct. Moving 

toward changes in prison culture while simultaneously reducing the worst 

aspects of extended isolation also seems realistic. 

There are, and will be, inmates who are driven by mental illness and act out in 

a dangerous fashion. If residential treatment is the best option for curtailing 

that behavior, the current use of restrictive housing is perhaps the worst. A 

therapeutic, high-to-moderate-security, well-staffed, and well-administered unit 

is the ultimate solution. 

Some inmates, few in number, are predatory, perhaps sociopathic, filled with 

rage, and highly dangerous. These inmates require safe separation from fellow 

inmates and staff. These inmates’ movement and congregate activity should be 

severely restricted and their behavior monitored, but they should also be offered 

every therapeutic opportunity to change. 

It is critical that the system not continue to craft prison or jail isolation responses 

based only on the most dangerous inmates. Of course, there must be a safe 

solution for those inmates, but the overall system of correctional services must 

reflect the vast majority of inmates who will give respect in return for respect, 

who are often self-loathing because of addiction or other conditions, and who 

need therapeutic opportunities. 

The limited scope of this paper precludes the full development of an individual 

empowerment model such as that developed by Toch (2014). In the context of 

the legal issues surrounding restrictive housing, the reform takeaway is that the 

roots of reform will not grow deep without first addressing the organizational 

and cultural issues of jails and prisons and how the staff view themselves vis-à-vis 

those in their charge. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 393 

The recruitment, training, and supervision of the line officer is a good place to 

start as we simultaneously peel back the multilayer issues of restrictive housing. 

Abolition, or even the drastic changes promoted by the ABA standards and the 

NCCHC position statement, will not be achieved with the immediate stroke of 

a jurist’s pen or a progressive governor. Rick Raemisch, director of the Colorado 

Department of Corrections, appears to have embarked on the nation’s most 

ambitious, administratively driven reform in the nation. His Open the Door 

program rolls back the use of solitary confinement by dramatically reducing the 

number of inmates placed in that environment and employing a sensible use of 

transition both to the general prison population and, ultimately, the community. 

His critics say that the residential treatment programs are run so poorly and are 

seen as of such little utility that many prisoners avoid them (Casella & Stahl, 

2016). This situation can and must be altered. 

Authentic efforts to reform penal isolation should at least review the Colorado 

program first, cherry-pick what works, and never confuse an interim measure 

designed to relieve the harm of restrictive housing from the ultimate goal of 

its disappearance. 

Conclusion 

This country is in the midst of intense dialog and calls for reform in our criminal 

sentencing laws and practices as well as our corrections systems (see Silber, 

Subramanian, & Spotts, 2016). The United States comprises 5 percent of the 

world’s population but holds 25 percent of the world’s prisoners. The enhanced 

use of restrictive housing is a significant artifact of this mass incarceration. 

As the proceedings from the John Jay Colloquium on extreme isolation in 

prisons notes, mass incarceration places extreme stress on corrections systems 

(Horn & Jacobs, 2015). Absent adequate resources or political support for 

rehabilitative environments, the increased use of restrictive housing became 

the default solution for many of the complex problems that evolved: inmates 

with mental illness acting out, adolescents who are difficult to control, and 

the nonconforming “regular” inmate. Our early use of solitary confinement 

attracted worldwide attention. The solitude of an Eastern State Penitentiary was 

near total but not viewed as punishment or a management tool. It was meant 

to free inmates from the disorder and temptations of open society and lead to 

redemption through isolation (which included in-cell work opportunities). 

Today’s use of correctional isolation is not based on any theory of crime 

causation or viable theory of reform. It is based on perceived management 

needs and used as a punishment for rule violation. The duration of an inmate’s 

placement in administrative segregation is usually based on an assessment of 

the individual, particularly on an estimate of dangerousness. Some inmates have 

been held in administrative segregation has been known to last for as long as 43 
394 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

years. Stays in disciplinary segregation are generally much shorter and should be 

proportional to the seriousness of the proven infraction. 

The movement to reform the use of extreme isolation has centered on the 

federal courts. The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which 

prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, has been the primary constitutional 

change vehicle for those convicted of crimes. The 14th Amendment applies to 

pre-trial detainees and to young people held in the “rehabilitative” confines of 

the juvenile justice system. 

In contrast to detainees (and young people) who will not be subject to 

punishment, convicted inmates may, indeed, be punished but not in a cruel 

fashion. The legal charges leveled at extended isolation, by whatever name, is 

that it is forbidden punishment. Some refer to extended isolation — beyond 30 

days — as a form of torture. Torture, of course, is punishment taken to its most 

extreme limits. 

No federal court, including the U.S. Supreme Court, has held extended isolation 

per se to be unconstitutional. The earliest federal decisions focused on young 

people and considered their youth as creating a highly vulnerable status. Even 14 

days of room confinement was found to be a due process violation. 

Inmates with serious mental illness were the next to be addressed. This 

class of vulnerable inmates has recorded notable federal court victories. The 

psychological plasticity of youth and the very nature of serious mental illness 

created two groups that are considered by the courts to be particularly vulnerable 

to the harmful effects of enforced, deadening, extended isolation. 

While the courts have been the conspicuous forum for change, professional 

organizations and advocacy groups have been busily at work as well. A legislative 

approach to reform would be more desirable for all of the reasons discussed in this 

paper. The likelihood of such broad legislative reform, however, is not very high. 

The most important — and most realistic — next step would be a well-brought 

constitutional challenge that urges a finding that extended isolation (15 to 30 

days) is an unconstitutional condition of confinement without regard to any 

individual’s or group’s vulnerability. Consider this analogy: If a hypothetical 

prison system were to consider the amputation of an arm as punishment, there 

would be no discussion of the punishment’s usefulness or of the adaptability of 

an inmate so sentenced. The practice would be viewed as a barbaric, medieval, 

unconstitutional punishment. 

That analogy is the path forward. 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 395 

References
 

Association of State Correctional Administrators. (2013). Restrictive status 

housing policy guidelines. Retrieved from http://www.asca.net/system/assets/ 

attachments/6145/B.%20ASCA%20Restrictive%20Status%20Housing%20 

Policy%20Guidelines-Final%2008092013.pdf?1375723019. 

Alexander, M. (1990). The new Jim Crow. New York, NY: The New Press. 

American Bar Association. (2011). Standards for criminal justices: Treatment of 

prisoners (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Author. 

American Civil Liberties Union. (2014, June). Alone & afraid: Children held in 

solitary confinement and isolation in juvenile detention and correctional facilities. 

Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/Alone%20and%20Afraid%20 

COMPLETE%20FINAL.pdf. 

American Correctional Association. (2009). Performance-based standards for 

juvenile correctional facilities (4th ed.). Alexandria, VA: Author. 

Benforado, A. (2015). Unfair: The new science of criminal justice. New York, 

NY: Crown Publishers. 

Casella, J., & Ridgeway, J. (2011, May 5). America’s most isolated federal prisoner 

describes 10,220 days in extreme solitary confinement. Solitary Watch. Retrieved 

from http://solitarywatch.com/2011/05/05/americas-most-isolatd-federalprisoner-describes-10220-days-in-extreme-solitary-confinement/. 

Casella, J., & Stahl, A. (2016, April 29). Opening the door: What will it take 

to end long-term solitary confinement in America’s prisons? Colorado could 

be the first to find out. Solitary Watch. Retrieved from http://solitarywatch. 

com/2016/04/29/opening-the-door/. 

Cohen, F. (2006). Isolation in penal settings: The isolation-restraint paradigm. 

Washington University Journal of Law and Policy, 22(1), 295-297. Retrieved from 

http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_journal_law_policy/vol22/iss1/23. 

Cohen, F. (2008). Penal isolation: Beyond the seriously mentally ill. Criminal Justice 

and Behavior, 35, 1017-1047. DOI: 10.1177/0093854808317569. 

Cohen, F., & Knoll, J. M., IV. (2011). Practical guide to correctional mental health 

and the law. Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute. 

Dimon, L. (2014, June 30). How solitary confinement hurts the teenage brain. 

The Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/06/ 

how-solitary-confinement-hurts-the-teenage-brain/373002/. 
396 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Dolovich, S. (2009). Cruelty, prison conditions and the Eighth Amendment. New 

York University Law Review, 84(4), 881-979. 

Federal Bureau of Prisons. (2010, March). Federal Bureau of Prisons: Special 

housing unit review and assessment. Retrieved from https://www.bop.gov/ 

resources/news/pdfs/CNA-SHUReportFinal_123014_2.pdf. 

Glidden, B., & Rovner, L. (2012). Requiring the state to justify 

supermax confinement for mentally ill prisoners: A disability approach. 

Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/cgi/viewcontent. 

cgi?article=1739&context=pubs. 

Grassian, S. (2006). Psychiatric effects of solitary confinement. Washington 

University Journal of Law and Policy, 22, 325-387. 

Hatfield, S. A. (1990). Criminal punishment in America: From the colonial to the 

modern era. U.S. Air Force Academy Journal of Legal Studies. 

Horn, M., & Jacobs, A. (Eds.). (2015). Report on a colloquium to further a 

national consensus on ending the over-use of extreme isolation in prisons. New 

York, NY: John Jay College of Criminal Justice. 

Hughes, J. C., Brestan, E. V., & Valle, L. A. (2004). Problem-solving interactions 


between mothers and children. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 26(1), 1-16.
 

Human Rights Watch. (2003). Ill-equipped: U.S. prisons and offenders with mental 


illness. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/usa1003/usa1003.pdf.
 

Institute of Judicial Administration & American Bar Association. (1996). Juvenile
 

justice standards annotated: A balanced approach. R. E. Shepherd, Jr. (Ed.). 


Chicago, IL: Author.
 

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. (2013). Annex to the press 


release issued at the close of the 147th Session. Press Release. Retrieved from 


http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/media_center/PReleases/2013/023A.asp.
 

Kupers, T. A. (2016, March/April). The SHU post-release syndrome: 


A preliminary report. Correctional Mental Health Report, 17(6), 81-85. 


Available from http://www.civicresearchinstitute.com/online/article_abstract.
 

php?pid=14&iid=1172&aid=7652.
 

Liman Program & Association of State Correctional Administrators (2015, 


August). Time-in-cell: The ASCA-Liman 2014 National Survey of Administrative 


Segregation in Prison. Retrieved from https://www.law.yale.edu/system/files/
 

documents/pdf/asca-liman_administrative_segregation_report_sep_2_2015.pdf.
 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 397 

Lobel, J. (2016, January 15). The Liman report and alternatives to prolonged 

solitary confinement. Yale Law Journal Forum, 125, 238-241. Retrieved from http:// 

www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/alternatives-to-prolonged-solitary-confinement. 

Mushlin, M. B. (2009). Rights of prisoners (4th ed.). New York, NY: Thomson Reuters. 

National Commission on Correctional Health Care. (2015). Solitary confinement 

(isolation). NCCHC Position Statement. Retrieved from http://www.ncchc.org/ 

solitary-confinement. 

PbS Learning Institute. (2012a). Performance-based standards: Reducing isolation 

and room confinement. Retrieved from http://pbstandards.org/uploads/ 

documents/pbs_reducing_isolation_room_confinement_201209.pdf. 

PbS Learning Institute. (2012b). Performance-based standards: Safety and 

accountability for juvenile corrections and detention facilities. Available at http:// 

pbstandards.org/uploads/documents/pbs_li_marketingpacket.pdf. 

Proceedings of a colloquium to further a national consensus on ending the overuse 

of extreme isolation in prisons. Prisoner Reentry Institute, John Jay College of 

Criminal Justice, New York, NY, September 30 & October 1, 2015. Available 

at https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/media/publications/Ending%20the%20 

Over-Use%20of%20Isolation%20in%20Prisons,%20Prisoner%20Reentry%20 

Institute%20,%202015.pdf. 

The psychology of cruelty: Recognizing grave mental harm in America’s prisons. 

(2015, February 10). Note. Harvard Law Review, 128(4), 1250-1271. Available at 

http://cdn.harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/psychology_of_ 

cruelty.pdf. 

Scott, E. & Steinberg, L. D. (2010). Rethinking juvenile justice. Cambridge, MA: 

Harvard University Press. 

Sedlak, A. J.. & McPherson, K. S. (2010, May). Conditions of confinement: 

Findings From the Survey of Youth in Residential Placement. Juvenile Justice 

Bulletin. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/227729.pdf. 

Shear, M. D. (2016, January 25). Obama bans solitary confinement of juveniles 

in federal prison. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes. 

com/2016/01/26/us/politics/obama-bans-solitary-confinement-of-juveniles-infederal-prisons.html?_r=0. 

Silber, R., Subramanian, R., & Spotts, M. (2016, May). Justice in review: New 

trends in state sentencing and corrections 2014-2015. New York, NY: Vera Institute 

of Justice. Retrieved from https://www.vera.org/publications/justice-in-reviewnew-trends-in-state-sentencing-and-corrections-2014-2015. 
398 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Toch, H. (2014). Organizational change through individual empowerment: 

Applying social psychology in prisons and policing. Washington, DC: American 

Psychological Association. 

U.N. Commission on the Rights of the Child, 44th Session, general comment no. 

10. Children’s rights in juvenile justice. U.N. Doc. CRC/C/GC/10 (2007). 

U.N. Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency, G.A. Resolution 

45/112; annex, 45 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 49A). U.N. Doc. A/45/49, at p. 201 

(December 14, 1990). 

U.N. Human Rights Commission, 44th Session, general comment no. 1. U.N. 

Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.1, at p. 155 (1994). 

U.N. Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty, G.A. Resolution 

45/113; annex, 45 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 49A). U.N. Doc. A/45/49, 

¶ 67 (December 14, 1990). 

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of the Child, G.A. Resolution 1386 

(XIV), U.N. Doc. A/4354 (Nov. 20, 1959). Reprinted in Basic Documents 

Pertaining to Human Rights in the Inter-American System, OEA/Ser.L.V/II.82 

doc.6 rev.1, at p. 25 (1992). 

Cases Cited 

Ashker v. Governor, C-09-05796 CW (N.D. Cal. 2015).
 

Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 311 (2002).
 

Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979). 


Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
 

Brown v. Plata, 131 S. Ct. 1910, 1928 (2011).
 

Carty v. Farrelly, 957 F. Supp. 727, 736 (D. V.I. 1977).
 

Carty v. Farrelly, 957 F. Supp. 727, 736 (D. V.I. 1977).
 

Davis v. Ayala, 135 S. Ct. 2187, 2209 (2015).
 

Dunn v. Voinovich, Case No. C1-93-0166 (S.D. Ohio 1995).
 

Estelle v. Gamble, 426 U.S. 97 (1976). 


Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994).
 
Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions • 399 

Graham v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. (2010), at 2034. 

H.C. by Hewett v. Jarrard, 786 F.2d 1080, 1088 (11th Cir. 1986).
 

Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 (1993).
 

Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 738 (2001).
 

Jackson v. Bishop, 404 F.2d 571 (1958).
 

J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 564 U.S. 261 (2011).
 

Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 732-733 (9th Cir. 2000).
 

Jones-El v. Berge, 164 F. Supp. 2d 1096 (W.D. Wis. 2001).
 

Kelley v. Hicks, 400 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam).
 

Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466 (2015).
 

Lollis v. N.Y. State Department of Social Services (S.D. N.Y. 1971).
 

Madrid v. Gomez, 889 F. Supp. 1146 (N.D. Cal. 1995).
 

Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).
 

Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215 (1976).
 

Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012).
 

Moore v. Texas, 2015 WL 9252271 (U.S.).
 

Morgan v. Sproat, 432 F. Supp. 1130, 1135 (S.D. Miss. 1977).
 

Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015).
 

R.G. v. Koller, 415 F. Supp. 2d 1129 (D. Haw. 2006).
 

Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981).
 

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
 

Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. (2005), at 575.
 

Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995).
 

Schall v. Martin, 467 U.S. 253, 269 (1984).
 

Talal v. White, 403 F.3d 423 (6th Cir. 2005).
 
400 • National Institute of Justice |NIJ.gov 

Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 100 (1958).
 

Turner v. Safley 482 U.S. 78 (1987).
 

Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480 (1980).
 

Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312 (1986). 


Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209 (2005).
 

Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974).
 

*NCJ~250315*