Disciplinary Segregation and Its Effects on In-Prison Outcomes

• Author: Laura M. Salerno,Kristen M. Zgoba
• Published date: 01 January 2020
• Date: 01 January 2020
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0032885519882326
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885519882326

The Prison Journal

2020, Vol. 100(1) 74 –97

© 2019 SAGE Publications

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0032885519882326

journals.sagepub.com/home/tpj

Article

Disciplinary Segregation

and Its Effects on

In-Prison Outcomes

Laura M. Salerno1 and Kristen M. Zgoba2

Abstract

The present study explored the effects of solitary confinement on in-

prison outcomes among inmates housed in disciplinary segregation in a

northeast state (N = 398). The deterrent effects of segregation and program

participation on future in-prison behaviors were examined. Differences

among samples of inmates housed in disciplinary segregation before and

after the enactment of policy revisions were also assessed. Findings from

bivariate and multivariate analyses indicate most inmates did not have a new

infraction; however, certain inmates were more likely to receive a future

discipline. Furthermore, completing programming while in disciplinary

segregation did not have an effect on future infractions or programming

participation. The implications of the research findings are discussed.

Keywords

solitary confinement, disciplinary segregation, disciplinary infractions, in-

prison programming

Introduction

Corrections agencies have developed aggressive approaches for removing

problematic inmates from general population prison settings (Frost & Montiero,

2016; Pizarro, Stenius, & Pratt, 2006; Riveland, 1999). Although names and

1New Jersey Department of Corrections, Trenton, USA

2Florida International University, Miami, USA

Corresponding Author:

Laura M. Salerno, Research & Evaluation Unit, New Jersey Department of Corrections, P.O.

Box 863, Trenton, NJ 08625, USA.

Email: laura.salerno@doc.nj.gov

882326TPJXXX10.1177/0032885519882326The Prison JournalSalerno and Zgoba

research-article2019

Salerno and Zgoba 75

titles vary, the strategies are generally similar: An inmate is separated from the

general population in an effort to discipline, prevent harm, or protect himself or

herself, or others. This practice of sequestering inmates is not an entirely new

concept in our correctional history (Frost & Montiero, 2016). The earliest pris-

ons operated under the Pennsylvania model of secluded confinement, and

although this model has been abandoned in place of congregate housing units,

removing troublesome prisoners from a group setting and placing them in a

more restricted, solitary environment has become a conventional tactic for con-

trolling order and promoting safety within corrections.

In every U.S. state, in nearly every prison in the country, strategies are

used to separate inmates from the general population when necessary. The

most recent estimates of inmates in restrictive housing environments come

from researchers at the Association of State Correctional Administrators

(ASCA) and the Arthur Liman Program at Yale Law School (ASCA-Liman,

2018). Data were collected from 46 jurisdictions, including the Federal

Bureau of Prisons, resulting in a representation of nearly 81% of the U.S.

prison population. A reported 49,197 inmates were in some form of restric-

tive housing, equating to 4.5% of the inmates in custody. Wide variances

exist in the number of inmates housed in restrictive housing settings accord-

ing to jurisdictional responses across states. Colorado reported the lowest

proportion of state inmates isolated (0.5%), whereas Louisiana had the high-

est (19%; see ASCA-Liman, 2018, for more information). Overall, the

median percentage of inmates serving time in restrictive settings was 4.2%.

Although this figure is a decrease from the prior ASCA-Liman (2016) restric-

tive housing survey, there were still 61,000 inmates in a restrictive housing

setting in 2017. Unfortunately, the majority of these prisoners were serving

lengthy sentences in such settings: Approximately 23% of prisoners were in

restrictive housing for 15 to 30 days, 32% for 1 to 3 months, 27% for 3

months to 1 year, and the remaining 18% spending 1 year or more in segrega-

tion. Most surprisingly, of those 18%, nearly 1,950 inmates were in restric-

tive housing for 3 years or more (ASCA-Liman, 2018).

Despite its widespread use, the intended effects of the separation of spe-

cific inmates from the general population of inmates are not well under-

stood. It is well known that solitary confinement and the conditions it

imposes (e.g., confinement to a cell for 23 hr a day with little to no oppor-

tunities for socialization [King, 1999; Mears & Bales, 2010; Riveland,

1999]) have far-reaching, unintended consequences on an individual,

including anger, frustration, and other mental health ramifications (Haney,

2003; Kupers, 2008; Smith, 2006), but what about those consequences that

are intended? Corrections officials unanimously believe that such segrega-

tion serves to “increase safety, order, and control throughout the prison