Addressing Serious Violent Misconduct in Prison: Examining an Alternative Form of Restrictive Housing
| DOI | 10.1177/0306624X18778451 |
| Author | Kevin A. Wright,Travis J. Meyers,Arynn Infante |
| Published date | 01 October 2018 |
| Date | 01 October 2018 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
research-article2018
Article
International Journal of
Offender Therapy and
Addressing Serious Violent
Comparative Criminology
2018, Vol. 62(14) 4585 –4608
Misconduct in Prison:
© The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
Examining an Alternative
https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X18778451
DOI: 10.1177/0306624X18778451
journals.sagepub.com/home/ijo
Form of Restrictive Housing
Travis J. Meyers1, Arynn Infante1, and Kevin A. Wright1
Abstract
A number of scholars, civil, and human rights activists have expressed concern about
the negative impact restrictive housing may have on the physical and mental well-
being of inmates. Rigorous, theoretically informed outcome evaluations, however,
are virtually nonexistent. Guided by theory and existing empirical evidence, this
study explores the future behavioral and mental health outcomes associated with
completing an alternative approach to restrictive housing in the Arizona Department
of Corrections. To explore program outcomes, we use paired-sample t tests to
determine whether post-program behavior is significantly different from preprogram
behavior. In addition, we use cross tabulations and independent samples t tests to
identify relationships between individual-level inmate and program characteristics and
program outcomes. Results from this study suggest that a more therapeutic restrictive
status housing program has the potential to improve the future behavior of program
graduates; however, future research is needed to build upon these findings.
Keywords
restrictive housing, corrections, institutional misconduct, correctional policy,
program evaluation
Whether it be called administrative segregation, restrictive housing, or solitary con-
finement, it is clear that the effects of isolation are at the forefront of national discus-
sions on crime and punishment. The National Institute of Justice has given significant
1Arizona State University, Phoenix, USA
Corresponding Author:
Travis J. Meyers, School of Criminology & Criminal Justice, Arizona State University, 411 N. Central
Avenue, Suite 600, Phoenix, AZ 85004, USA.
Email: tjmeyers@asu.edu
4586
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 62(14)
attention to the issue (Garcia, 2016), as has the Vera Institute of Justice (Shames,
Wilcox, & Subramanian, 2015), and the Association of State Correctional Administrators
has supported efforts to limit the use of extended isolation (Baumgartel et al., 2015).
The attention is well-deserved, as some have argued that the practice leads to signifi-
cant harm to the mental health of inmates (Cloud, Drucker, Browne, & Parsons, 2015;
Haney, 2003; Haney & Lynch, 1997; Smith, 2006). Indeed, restrictive housing (here-
after referred to as “RH”) may represent the epitome of the “penal harm” movement in
the United States (Clear, 1994).
It is important to note, however, that not all research documents negative outcomes
associated with segregation practices (Morgan et al., 2016; Morris, 2016; O’Keefe et al.,
2013; Suedfeld, Ramirez, Deaton, & Baker-Brown, 1982; Suedfeld & Roy, 1975). It is
likely that individual characteristics of inmates affect the level of distress experienced by
segregation. Furthermore, there is no “one” RH; in practice, RH varies in terms of its
rationale and frequency of use, duration, and facility conditions (Beck, 2015; Morris,
2016; Shames et al., 2015). And, although eliminating the practice entirely might get rid
of any potential damage done to inmate physical and mental health, the simple fact is
that RH represents a critical tool for managing inmate behavior. Many correctional offi-
cials feel that some type of response is needed when inmates engage in serious vio-
lence—the safety and security of staff and other inmates largely depends on it (Mears &
Castro, 2006; O’Keefe, 2008). In that regard, it is notable that alternatives to traditional
RH are largely absent from these national discussions. O’Keefe and colleagues (2013)
recommend that “future research is needed to understand how increased services, privi-
leges, staff, and out-of-cell time may ameliorate the unintended consequences of admin-
istrative segregation” (p. 59). Indeed, altering existing forms of RH to minimize harm
may represent the best bet for corrections moving forward.
The purpose of the current work is to provide an analysis of a restrictive status
housing program (RSHP) that serves as disciplinary segregation for inmates who have
engaged in serious violence. Specifically, the Arizona Department of Corrections
(ADC) has implemented a contingency-management approach that moves beyond tra-
ditional segregation by providing incentives for inmates to complete programming
and remain discipline-free. We determine whether this approach is working by com-
paring inmate outcomes (e.g., major misconducts, assault on staff, mental health
scores) 1 year prior to and 1 year following graduation from the RSHP. Our broader
purpose is to determine whether a more progressive approach to RH serves as a prom-
ising alternative to more traditional forms of segregation.
The Rise of Restrictive Housing in the United States
In the 1970s, a fundamental shift in penal philosophy occurred in the United States.
The ideals of rehabilitation were replaced by philosophies of deterrence and incapaci-
tation as the modus operandi of the correctional system (Cullen, 2005; Garland, 2001).
The shift in penal philosophy led to a massive growth in the rate of imprisonment in
which the use of RH arose as a means to control overcrowded prisons and jails
(Hershberger, 1998; Shalev, 2009).
Meyers et al.
4587
Coupled with the massive growth in the prison population, increasing rates of vio-
lence further advanced the development of RH units within U.S. prisons (Pizarro &
Stenius, 2004; Riveland, 1999). More specifically, the widespread use of RH units in
the United States was revived with the opening of the United States Penitentiary in
Marion, Illinois (USP Marion; R. D. King, 1999; Mears & Reisig, 2006). Following
the killing of two correctional officers at USP Marion in 1983, the facility was modi-
fied to improve security by increasing the reliance on segregation (Richards, 2008;
Ward & Werlich, 2003). Based on the model used by USP Marion, the first high secu-
rity prison, Pelican Bay, was built in 1989 with the explicit purpose of housing prison-
ers in segregation (Bosworth, 2004).
After the establishment of these facilities, the overall use of RH increased rapidly
during the 1990s. By 2004, 40 states had implemented segregation-specific facilities
within their prison systems (Browne, Cambier, & Agha, 2011; Cloud et al., 2015;
Shalev, 2009). According to some estimates, the number of inmates housed in segrega-
tion rose by 40% between 1995 and 2000. Today, it is estimated that between 80,000
and 100,000 inmates were held in segregated units in 2014 (Baumgartel et al., 2015).
On an average day, roughly, 4.4% of state and federal prisoners were held in some
form of segregated confinement in the United States. In addition, nearly 20% of state
and federal prison inmates had spent time in segregated housing (e.g., disciplinary or
administrative segregation) in the past 12 months (Beck, 2015).1
The Current Use of Restrictive Housing in the United
States
The primary purpose for the implementation and continued use of RH is the belief that
the practice increases institutional order, functioning, safety, and control (Pizarro &
Stenius, 2004; Sundt, Castellano, & Briggs, 2008). Proponents of using RH to main-
tain the safety and security of the correctional institution argue that there are some
inmates, or groups of inmates, who present such a risk to the goals of safety and secu-
rity that they cannot be housed in the general prison population (O’Keefe, 2008;
Pizarro & Narag, 2008; Pizarro, Stenius, & Pratt, 2006). For example, Mears and
Castro (2006) found that prison wardens were “largely unanimous” in their belief that
the practice of isolating troublesome inmates continues to be an effective way to
increase safety and order within the prison (p. 407). These opinions were supported in
a recent review of official correctional policies, finding that the majority of states
identify “threats to institutional security” as the primary motivation for placement in
RH (H. D. Butler, Griffin, & Johnson, 2013, p. 688). Collectively, RH, whether for
punitive or other reasons, is characterized by very little out-of-cell time, limited inter-
action with other inmates or staff, and reduced privileges (Beck, 2015; Mears, 2008;
Mears & Watson, 2006).
In the United States, there are at least three different types of RH used: administra-
tive segregation, protective custody, and disciplinary segregation (Cloud et al., 2015;
Morris, 2016; Shames et al., 2015). The varying uses of RH have produced many chal-
lenges for conducting and interpreting research in this area (Frost & Monteiro, 2016).
4588
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 62(14)
Because of the obscurity in the varying definitions used, it is important to clearly
define the three types of segregated housing mentioned above. As a correctional prac-
tice, administrative segregation is used to isolate inmates who are deemed a threat to
the safety and security of the correctional...
To continue reading
Request your trial