Disciplinary Segregation’s Effects on Inmate Behavior: Institutional and Community Outcomes

• Author: Michael Campagna,Xiaohan Mei,Elizabeth Thompson Tollefsbol,Youngki Woo,Zachary K. Hamilton,Laurie Drapela,Mary K. Stohr
• DOI: 10.1177/0887403419862338
• Published date: 01 August 2020
• Date: 01 August 2020
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403419862338

Criminal Justice Policy Review

2020, Vol. 31(7) 1036 –1058

© The Author(s) 2019

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0887403419862338

journals.sagepub.com/home/cjp

Article

Disciplinary Segregation’s

Effects on Inmate Behavior:

Institutional and Community

Outcomes

Youngki Woo1, Laurie Drapela2,

Michael Campagna3, Mary K. Stohr4,

Zachary K. Hamilton4, Xiaohan Mei5,

and Elizabeth Thompson Tollefsbol4

Abstract

Disciplinary segregation (DS) is practiced in a variety of correctional settings and

a growing body of research explores its subsequent effects among offenders. The

present study contributes to this literature by analyzing the impact of short-term

DS on violent infractions and community recidivism among a sample of inmates in

Washington State. We assessed the impact of DS on these outcomes from deterrence

and stain theory perspectives while controlling for social support variables such as

visitations and correctional programming. Mentally ill offenders were excluded, as

their abilities to make rational choices may be inconsistent with deterrence theory.

Results show DS does not significantly affect post-DS infractions. Social supports

significantly reduced inmates’ odds of violent infractions while incarcerated.

Community models indicate no substantive differences between the DS and non-DS

groups on post-prison convictions 3 years after release. Overall, DS exhibited limited

effects on offenders’ institutional or community outcomes.

Keywords

disciplinary segregation, violent infractions, recidivism, deterrence, strain, social

support

1The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, Brownsville, TX, USA

2Washington State University, Vancouver, WA, USA

3University of Nebraska at Omaha, NE, USA

4Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA

5School of Criminal Justice and Criminalistics, California State University Los Angeles, CA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Laurie Drapela, Washington State University, Vancouver, 14204 NE Salmon Creek Avenue, Vancouver,

WA 98686-9600, USA.

Email: ldrapela@wsu.edu

862338CJPXXX10.1177/0887403419862338Criminal Justice Policy ReviewWoo et al.

research-article2019

Woo et al. 1037

Corrections personnel across the United States use inmate isolation techniques to

maintain or reestablish institutional security (Labrecque & Mears, 2019; Mears et al.,

2019; Morgan et al., 2016; Shames, Wilcox, & Subramanian, 2015). Most prisons and

jails in the United States utilize some type of solitary confinement (SC) to achieve this

objective. Recent institutional “snapshot” data indicate approximately 80,000 prison-

ers are in SC on any given day (Shames et al., 2015; Stephan, 2008), and use of SC

increased by 42% between 1995 and 2005 (Shames et al., 2015). In 2010, the VERA

Institute initiated research partnerships with selected state correctional authorities to

more closely study the implementation of SC policy among selected U.S. prisons

(VERA Institute of Justice, n.d.). These research efforts articulated two areas of con-

cern among prisoners’ rights advocates and scholars, namely, the overreliance of an

extreme form of punishment—isolation—to maintain institutional control and the

negative consequences of isolation on offenders after completing SC.

Such concerns underscore distinct areas of scholarship on the effects of inmate

isolation within correctional facilities. Consistent with the abovementioned themes,

one area emphasizes the negative psychological effects of extreme applications of this

isolation technique (e.g., Grassian & Friedman, 1986; Haney, 2003, 2018; Haney &

Lynch, 1997; Rhodes, 2004; Shalev, 2009). While the implications of such intensive

isolation on inmates prompt legitimate cause for concern, drawing broad conclusions

from such cases is not warranted on scientific grounds. Some of these works are quali-

tative studies relying on small samples of individuals isolated from others for years or

even decades in a few instances.

Recent research suggests that the impact of inmate isolation on mental health is

modest at best when studies evaluating this relationship possess a high degree of

methodological rigor (Morgan et al., 2016). In addition, criminal justice scholars’

renewed interest in investigating the effects of inmate isolation on inmates’ subsequent

behaviors within prison and in the community has generated recent work on the topic.

The simplicity of such an exercise belies its complexity. Inmate isolation ranges from

24 hours or less to 23 hours of isolation per day with limited physical activity (e.g.,

supermaximum confinement). Recent evidence indicates that correctional authorities

typically segregate inmates away from the general prison population for considerably

briefer periods of time than “supermax” confinement (e.g., Barak-Glantz, 1983; Beck,

2015; Labrecque & Mears, 2019; Mears, 2013; Mears & Bales, 2010); yet academic

studies assessing supermax’s effects on inmates have outpaced that of more routine

applications of SC (e.g., Butler, Steiner, Makarios, & Travis, 2017; Lovell, Johnson, &

Cain, 2007; Mears & Bales, 2009; Mears & Reisig, 2006; Morgan et al., 2016; Pizarro

& Narag, 2008; Smith, 2006).

An emerging body of scholarship shows that limited durations of inmate isolation

from the general population do not significantly affect subsequent inmate misconduct

(Huebner, 2003; Labrecque, 2015, 2019; Lucas & Jones, 2017; Morris, 2016). Other

evidence indicates that longer term stays in SC have limited (Lovell et al., 2007;

Mears & Bales, 2009) or null effects (Clark & Duwe, 2018) on recidivism in the com-

munity after release. The present study contributes to this growing body of literature

by assessing the effects of short-term inmate isolation on these two outcomes. We