DOI: 10.3886/icpsr37851
title: Altering Administrative Segregation for Inmates and Staff: A Mixed-Methods Analysis of the Effects of Living and Working in Restrictive Housing, Arizona, 2017-2019
title: Archival Version

description: The Arizona Working and Living in Prison (AZWLP) project examined the impact of living and working in restrictive status housing, with a particular focus on the impact of restrictive housing on prisoner and staff well-being. The prisoner data represents three waves of data: baseline (within 3 weeks of placement in permanent housing), six months, and twelve months across medium, close, and maximum security custody levels. The critical measure of well-being is the Symptom Checklist-90 Revised (SCL-90-R). Prisoners were assessed at all three time points to determine whether placement in maximum custody impacted well-being as compared to placements in close or medium custody. The staff data represents cross-sectional data of staff working in medium, close, and maximum security custody levels and asked staff to report on the emotional and physical impacts of the job, psychosomatic symptoms, organizational commitment, and social support.
description: The purpose of this project was to understand the impact of restrictive housing on the mental health of prisoners and the staff who supervise them. A second purpose was to investigate how a prisoner's life and an officer's work in restrictive housing varies from that of being or working in the general prison population.
description: Eligible prisoners were brought to the visitation area by unit staff so as to be approached by a team member for the interview. Prisoners who consented to the interview sat down with the interviewer to complete the survey which took between 30 to 60 minutes. The prisoners were told that they would be invited to be re-interviewed at 6 months, and 12 months. The same procedures again took place by unit staff and the interview team.
description: The Inmate Survey (DS1) consists of 736 variables and 326 cases across three waves of data collection (baseline, 6-month, and 12-month). There is substantial overlap in questions asked across the three waves which includes sections on background information, a 90-item physical and mental health assessment, 28-items on stressful events and coping, and a 15-item procedural justice and legitimacy section. There are computed scale scores at the end of wave of variables within the data file. Each new wave introduced two additional sections of questions. The Staff Survey (DS2) consists of 130 variables and 225 cases. The data file consists of the officer's demographic background and details about their position and work history along with experiences of work-place assault. Other sections in the survey ask about their work-place stress and the effects of that stress on their life. The end of the data file consists of scores computed by the Principal Investigator of 11 constructed scale sums and means.
description: Response Rates: A total of 1,602 inmates were screened for participation in the study. Of those only 483 were found to be eligible based upon various factors. For the baseline survey a total of 326 inmates participated (67.5%). At 6-months 288 of those 326 participated (88.3%). Then at 12-months there were 266 of the original 326 who completed that survey (81.6%). There were 255 inmates who participated and completed all 3 waves of data collection. Officers were required to have daily contact with prisoners at their respective custody level to participate in the survey. A list of all correctional officers at each unit was compiled and a randomized list was created. A total of 231 officers were approached with 225 completing the survey (97.4%).
description: Presence of Common Scales: Symptom Checklist-90 Revised (SCL-90-R) Brief COPE Inventory Ten-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI)
description: For the inmate file an entire list of prisoners entering into one of the eight selected prison units in three prison complexes was collected every week for 10 months. All individuals were screened for participation criteria and all who qualified were approached. Eligible men needed to have at least one year left on their sentence, have a custody level designation of medium, close, or maximum, and had arrived within the unit within three weeks of the baseline interview. Approximately one-third of the sample belongs to each of the three custody levels. The sample of staff consisted of a stratified random sampling of all Correctional Officers, men and women, working in the same eight prison units of the three prison complexes. To be eligible a person had to have the rank of security officer who was involved in the day-to-day operations of the unit (have direct prisoner contact) and work either the day or swing shift (those working nights / graveyards were excluded). There were 75 individuals selected (225 total) for each of the three custody levels - medium, close, and maximum security.
description: Datasets: DS0: Study-Level Files DS1: Inmate Survey DS2: Staff Survey
description: Incarcerated men and staff in the state of Arizona's Department of Corrections. Smallest Geographic Unit: None
description: face-to-face interview; on-site questionnaireFor disclosure purposes the three prison complexes and eight units that were used to sample inmates and staff from were de-identified in the inmate data file. Complex and unit variables are not present in the staff file. Please note that inmates may have transferred between complexes and/or units (or even out of state) during the follow-up waves of data collection.Conditions of confinement are classified into four levels of placement - minimum, medium, close, and maximum (restrictive housing). For this study eligible inmates had to start in at least the medium custody level. These levels are defined as: <strong>Minimum</strong>: is used for individuals who pose a low risk to the facility and public, who do not require controlled movement and reside in open-style housing, and who are permitted to go to and from meals, programs, recreation and other activities on their own throughout the day. <strong>Medium</strong>: is used for individuals who pose a moderate risk to the facility and public, who are not permitted to work outside the facility, and who require limited controlled movement and open-style housing. <strong>Close</strong>: is used for individuals who pose a high risk to the facility and public, who are not permitted to work outside the facility, and who require controlled movement and cell-style housing, and share a cell with someone of the same classification. <strong>Maximum</strong>: is used for individuals who pose the highest risk to the facility and public, who are not permitted to work outside the facility and have limited access to work opportunities that require supervision, and who require controlled movement, often in restraints, throughout the facility.