Administrative Segregation: A Review of State and Federal Policies

• Author: Ryan M. Labrecque,Kayla J. LaBranche,Karma Rose Zavita,Robert D. Morgan,Leah Reddy,Christopher M. Campbell
• Published date: 01 August 2021
• Date: 01 August 2021
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0887403421998440
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403421998440

Criminal Justice Policy Review

2021, Vol. 32(7) 718 –739

© The Author(s) 2021

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0887403421998440

journals.sagepub.com/home/cjp

Article

Administrative Segregation:

A Review of State and

Federal Policies

Ryan M. Labrecque1, Christopher M. Campbell2,

Kayla J. LaBranche2, Leah Reddy3, Karma Rose Zavita4,

and Robert D. Morgan5

Abstract

The use of administrative segregation in prison is a controversial correctional policy.

Proponents argue this type of housing is necessary for maintaining institutional safety

and order, whereas critics contend it is damaging to inmate mental health. Despite the

increase in academic attention over the last decade, there is much that remains unknown

about the uses and effects of this practice. This study addresses this gap in knowledge

by content-analyzing the administrative segregation policies of 48 state and federal

prison systems. The results provide evidence of consistency and discrepancy across

key elements of these policies, including placement criteria and review procedures.

Findings further highlight how basic information regarding mental health provisions

and conditions of confinement are missing from a substantial number of policies. This

investigation emphasizes a need for more governmental accountability and transparency

in the use of this correctional policy and identifies several areas for future research.

Keywords

administrative segregation, solitary confinement, restrictive housing, prison

Introduction

Broadly speaking, restrictive housing—a practice scholars often refer to as solitary

confinement and supermax custody—is a prisoner management strategy that involves

1University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA

2Portland State University, Portland, OR, USA

3Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA

4University of California, Irvine, CA, USA

5Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA

Corresponding Author:

Ryan M. Labrecque, Department of Criminal Justice, University of Central Florida, 12805 Pegasus Drive,

Orlando, FL 32816-1600, USA.

Email: ryan.labrecque@ucf.edu

998440CJPXXX10.1177/0887403421998440Criminal Justice Policy ReviewLabrecque et al.

research-article2021

Labrecque et al. 719

separating problematic inmates from the general prison population into closed cells

with limited access to other people (Frost & Monteiro, 2016). Falling under the

umbrella of restrictive housing, there are three subtypes: disciplinary segregation (i.e.,

isolation as punishment for violating institutional rules), protective custody (i.e., pro-

tection of inmate from harm), and administrative segregation (i.e., separation for the

well order of the facility; see also Labrecque, 2016; Mears, 2016). The use of such

housing, however, is a controversial correctional policy. On one hand, prison officials

and supporters of the practice often note the necessity of these housing options for

maintaining institutional safety and order (see Labrecque & Mears, 2019; Mears &

Castro, 2006), and on the other hand, critics of this practice argue that prison authori-

ties tend to misplace inmates in these settings and that such placements can cause

serious physical and mental health problems (see Haney, 2018; Kupers, 2017; Lobel &

Smith, 2020). Although this debate remains contentious, several recent reviews high-

light how little is known about the uses and effects of restrictive housing (Garcia,

2016; Labrecque & Smith, 2019b; Morgan et al., 2016).

Given the evidence that situational factors in prison environments can influence

one’s behavior generally (Bonta & Gendreau, 1990; Steiner & Wooldredge, 2020;

Wortley, 2002), there is good reason to suspect that variations in the use of restrictive

housing may also produce differential effects among its inhabitants (see also Gendreau

& Bonta, 1984; Gendreau & Labrecque, 2018). There is a gap in the segregation litera-

ture, however, as little research explores the policies regulating the uses, conditions,

and provisions in restrictive housing settings (Foster, 2016). This line of inquiry is

essential for gaining a better understanding of the ways in which these environments

may influence psychological and behavioral outcomes. It is also critical to provide

correctional policymakers with information for modifying their policy standards in

ways that might mitigate the potential negative effects associated with this type of

confinement.

The current study addresses this research gap by systematically examining the

restrictive housing policies of 48 state and federal prison systems. Although all forms

of restrictive housing appear to share some commonalities, scholarship suggests that

its three subtypes differ in many potentially meaningful ways (e.g., rationale, entry

and exit criteria, conditions; see Labrecque, 2016; Mears, 2016). For pragmatic pur-

poses, therefore, this review limits its scope to only administrative segregation poli-

cies. This type of confinement was selected because it is arguably the most controversial

and least understood form of restrictive housing. We begin with a review of the litera-

ture on the uses and effects of restrictive housing generally and then focus on the

administrative segregation research more specifically.

Background

Over the last decade, there has been a notable rise in restrictive housing scholarship.

By far, the majority of this research focuses on the effect this setting has on psycho-

logical functioning measures, including anger, hostility, and depression (see, for

example, the reviews by Kapoor & Trestman, 2016; Morgan et al., 2016). In addition,