Did Changes to Disciplinary Segregation Policy Affect Rates of Institutional Misconduct?

• Published date: 01 October 2023
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00938548231187420
• Author: Susan McNeeley
• Date: 01 October 2023
• Subject Matter: Articles

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2023, Vol. 50, No. 10, October 2023, 1547 –1564.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548231187420

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

© 2023 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

1547

DID CHANGES TO DISCIPLINARY

SEGREGATION POLICY AFFECT RATES OF

INSTITUTIONAL MISCONDUCT?

SUSAN MCNEELEY

Minnesota Department of Corrections

Due to concerns about the harmful effects of restrictive housing, the Minnesota Department of Corrections reduced the

maximum disciplinary segregation sentence length from 720 days (about 2 years) to 90 days in September 2016. Then, in

response to a perceived increase in violence within the facilities, the policy was changed again in July 2019 to allow for

maximum segregation sentences of nearly a year for the most serious offenses. This study employs a quasi-experimental

design to empirically test whether and how these changes affected total misconduct, violent misconduct, and incarcerated-

person-on-staff assault within Minnesota prisons. The results of interrupted time series analyses showed a moderate, statisti-

cally significant initial increase in violent misconduct after the reduction in segregation sentence length in September 2016.

There were also statistically significant and larger initial increases in both violent and total misconduct after the July 2019

increase in segregation sentence length for serious infractions.

Keywords: corrections; inmates; misconduct; prison; prison misconduct

INTRODUCTION

Nearly all prison and jail systems in the United States utilize restrictive housing, usually

in the form of a unit reserved for those who require closer supervision or isolation because

they pose a threat to themselves or others (Baumgartel et al., 2015). Restrictive housing has

been a feature of American prisons since Pennsylvania’s Eastern State Penitentiary, one of

the United States’ earliest prisons, opened in 1829. Eastern State housed incarcerated peo-

ple in isolation to encourage introspection and quiet reflection that would result in behav-

ioral change (Dolan, 2007; Rothman, 1971). Although Eastern State discontinued the broad

practice of confinement with solitude in 1913, practices similar to restrictive housing con-

tinued to be used widely. This increased in the 1980s, when “supermax” prisons that hold

all or most incarcerated people in isolation were introduced (Mears, 2006).

Many critics of restrictive housing argue that those exposed to segregation experience

adverse medical and psychological effects, including high blood pressure, cognitive dys-

function, self-mutilation and suicide, anxiety and panic, paranoia, hallucinations, and

AUTHORS’ NOTE: The contents of this article reflect the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect

the views of the Minnesota Department of Corrections. Correspondence concerning this article should be

addressed to Susan McNeeley, Minnesota Department of Corrections, 1450 Energy Park Drive, Suite 200, Saint

Paul, MN 55108; e-mail: susan.mcneeley@state.mn.us.

1187420CJBXXX10.1177/00938548231187420Criminal Justice and BehaviorMcNeeley / DISCIPLINE POLICY AND INSTITUTIONAL MISCONDUCT

research-article2023

1548 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

changes in appetite and sleep (e.g., Haney, 2003, 2012, 2018; Haney & Lynch, 1997;

Jackson, 1983; Kapoor & Trestman, 2016; Kupers, 2008; Kurki & Morris, 2001; J. Pizarro

& Stenius, 2004; Shalev, 2009). For example, a recent study of people housed in segrega-

tion in Washington State found that rates of mental illness and self-harming behavior were

higher than in the general prison populations (Reiter et al., 2020). Similarly, a meta-analysis

of 13 studies concluded that solitary confinement was associated with an increase in psy-

chological problems, self-harm, general mortality, and suicide (Luigi et al., 2020). It is

important to note that much of the existing studies demonstrating these negative effects

have suffered from a lack of an equivalent comparison group, and some other studies have

suggested that these negative consequences may not be a concern unless extreme conditions

apply (e.g., Gendreau & Labrecque, 2018; O’Keefe et al., 2010). Still, concerns regarding

the negative consequences of isolation have led to calls to end the practice of segregation in

correctional settings (Mears et al., 2019).

Disciplinary segregation—in which incarcerated people who are found guilty of violat-

ing prison rules are confined in restrictive housing for a fixed time period—is widely used

in correctional facilities in the United States (Frost & Monteiro, 2016). According to the

Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) National Inmate Survey (NIS), approximately 4% of

people incarcerated in federal and state prisons during 2011 to 2012 were confined to some

type of restrictive housing on an average day (Beck, 2015). The use of restrictive housing is

concentrated within a small percentage of incarcerated people; while 80% of NIS partici-

pants were not housed in restrictive housing in the year preceding the survey, about 10%

spent 30 days or longer in restrictive housing. This concentration has also been observed in

Minnesota: A recent study found 65% of individuals released from Minnesota prisons spent

no time in restrictive housing; those who did spend at least 1 day in restrictive housing spent

an average of 15% of their prison stay there (Clark & Duwe, 2019).

Despite its popular use as a tool to control incarcerated people’s behavior, there is not

much evidence for the effectiveness of disciplinary segregation at reducing misbehavior.

Rather, several studies have concluded that segregation is unrelated to institutional miscon-

duct or related to higher levels of misconduct (Briggs et al., 2003; Huebner, 2003; Labrecque

& Smith, 2019; Lucas & Jones, 2019; Meyers et al., 2023; Morris, 2016; Motz et al., 2021;

Steiner & Cain, 2016; Toman, 2022; Wooldredge & Steiner, 2015; but see Steiner, 2009;

Sundt et al., 2008). This study seeks to add to our understanding of the relationship between

disciplinary segregation and misconduct by empirically testing whether and how miscon-

duct varied after changes were made to Minnesota Department of Corrections’ (MnDOC)

policies regarding the use of disciplinary segregation. In particular, the study examines dif-

ferences in total misconduct, violent misconduct, and incarcerated-person-on-staff assaults

after changes in the allowed length of disciplinary segregation sentences.

In addition, the literature on restrictive housing suggests gender may be important in

understanding its effect on future misbehavior. For example, Wolff et al. (2013) found that

the number of days spent in segregation increased aggressive attitudes among men, but not

among women. Consistent with their findings, Labrecque et al. (2020) and Toman (2022)

found that disciplinary segregation was related to higher increases in misconduct among

men. Therefore, the current study examines gender differences by separately modeling the

trends in misconduct for Minnesota Correctional Facility (MCF)-Shakopee, Minnesota’s

only women’s prison, and comparing these results to those for the remaining facilities that

house men.