Gender and the Effect of Disciplinary Segregation on Prison Misconduct

• Published date: 01 October 2020
• DOI: 10.1177/0887403419884728
• Date: 01 October 2020
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403419884728

Criminal Justice Policy Review

2020, Vol. 31(8) 1193 –1216

© The Author(s) 2019

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0887403419884728

journals.sagepub.com/home/cjp

Article

Gender and the Effect of

Disciplinary Segregation

on Prison Misconduct

Ryan M. Labrecque1, Daniel P. Mears2,

and Paula Smith3

Abstract

Scholars and policymakers have advanced different arguments for why restrictive

housing may improve or worsen inmate behavior, yet few studies exist that assess

the impact of this housing on such outcomes. This study draws upon prior theory

and research to hypothesize that inmate adjustment will worsen after placement in

disciplinary segregation among a 3-year admission cohort of inmates from a large

Midwestern state department of corrections (N = 40,979), and further that this effect

will be more harmful to men. The results of our propensity score matching analyses

reveal the use of disciplinary segregation is associated with a greater probability of

misconduct among men and has no appreciable effect on women. These findings

challenge the view that disciplinary segregation is an effective strategy for improving

inmate behavior in prison. This work further highlights the need for continued

research on the utility of restrictive housing.

Keywords

restrictive housing, disciplinary segregation, institutional misconduct, prison

Introduction

During the era of mass incarceration, prison officials have been left with few options

for managing inmates in overburdened facilities. As a result, many prison systems

across the United States have expanded their use of restrictive housing, a practice that

1University of Central Florida, Orlando, USA

2Florida State University, Tallahassee, USA

3University of Cincinnati, OH, 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

884728CJPXXX10.1177/0887403419884728Criminal Justice Policy ReviewLabrecque et al.

research-article2019

1194 Criminal Justice Policy Review 31(8)

is often referred to as solitary confinement (Frost & Monteiro, 2016; Labrecque &

Smith, 2013). In general, this specialized housing involves isolation in a single cell for

22 to 24 hr per day with limited opportunities for meaningful interactions with staff or

other inmates (Browne, Cambier, & Agha, 2011). Correctional authorities place

inmates in restrictive housing for one of three primary reasons (Mears, 2016). First, it

is used for managerial purposes, such as isolating an inmate who fails to appropriately

adjust in the general population, or when it is believed one’s presence in the general

population will disrupt the orderly operation of the prison system (i.e., administrative

segregation). Second, it is used to separate vulnerable inmates from the general popu-

lation due to personal safety concerns (i.e., protective custody). Finally, it is used as a

formal punitive sanction in response to an act of unwanted institutional misbehavior

(i.e., disciplinary segregation).

Broadly speaking, the use of restrictive housing has been justified by many policy-

makers and justice officials on the assumption that it is necessary for ensuring safety

and order throughout the prison system (see Mears & Reisig, 2006; Pizarro, Zgoba, &

Haugebrook, 2014). Current estimates indicate that this practice is used commonly in

U.S. prisons; approximately 64,000 inmates are held in this type of setting on any

given day, and more than 320,000 are placed in restrictive housing over the course of

a given year (Beck, 2015). Aside from the ethical and legal issues that the use of

restrictive housing raises (see, for example, American Civil Liberties Union, 2014;

Amnesty International, 2012), a critical question remains: Does this correctional pol-

icy achieve one of its central goals, namely, that of improving the behavior of those

who are placed in it?

To date, there has been limited empirical research that examines the role that restric-

tive housing plays in shaping inmate behavior in prison (see, however, Labrecque &

Smith, 2019a; Lucas & Jones, 2019; Morris, 2016). The scant amount of scholarship

is notable given that restrictive housing represents one of the most severe punishments

that can be imposed on inmates (Butler & Steiner, 2017; Mears, Mancini, Beaver, &

Gertz, 2013). It is notable, too, given the concerns that have been raised about the pos-

sibility that certain groups of inmates, women in particular, might suffer unique harms

in this type of housing (see, for example, American Civil Liberties Union, 2014; Dell,

Fillmore, & Kilty, 2009; Martel, 2001). It is notable, not least, because restrictive

housing constitutes a policy whose benefits have been largely assumed and whose

logic—incapacitate certain violent and disruptive inmates and deter both these and the

general population of inmates—are increasingly being questioned (Frost & Monteiro,

2016; Mears, 2016).

The goal of this work, then, is to assess if the use of restrictive housing for punitive

purposes (i.e., disciplinary segregation) improves or worsens inmate behavior and if

this effect varies among men and women. To this end, drawing on prior research, we

test hypotheses that inmates who experience stays in disciplinary segregation will

engage in more institutional misconduct and that this effect will be more pronounced

for men than it is for women. To test these hypotheses, we use a 4-year admission

cohort of inmates incarcerated in a large Midwestern State Department of Corrections.

In what follows, we begin with a discussion of prior research and the theoretical work