Is Reduced Visitation a Collateral Consequence of Restrictive Housing?

• Author: Claudia N. Anderson,Joshua C. Cochran,John Wooldredge
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00938548221105238
• Published date: 01 October 2022
• Date: 01 October 2022
• Subject Matter: Articles

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2022, Vol. 49, No. 10, October 2022, 1495 –1515.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548221105238

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

© 2022 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

1495

IS REDUCED VISITATION A COLLATERAL

CONSEQUENCE OF RESTRICTIVE HOUSING?

CLAUDIA N. ANDERSON

JOSHUA C. COCHRAN

JOHN WOOLDREDGE

University of Cincinnati

Theory and logic suggest that placement in restrictive housing (RH) may affect prison visitation, which may be counter-

productive given the potential benefits of visitation. The goal of this paper is to examine the potential correspondence

between RH and visitation. We use data on incarcerated people in Ohio to conduct two related analyses. One analysis assesses

whether the first incident of short-term disciplinary segregation impacts prison visits shortly after segregation. The second

analysis examines longitudinal patterns of RH stays and visits to understand the interplay of the two throughout a prison term.

Findings suggest that disciplinary segregation might reduce the odds of visitation immediately. RH early in a prison term may

also operate to “cut off” future visitation. These results highlight an important knowledge gap and suggest that more research

is needed that disentangles how RH may lead to the dissolution of social ties. Implications for research are discussed.

Keywords: restrictive housing; solitary confinement; incarceration; visitation

INTRODUCTION

Prison scholarship suggests that maintaining contact with outside social ties during

incarceration can counteract certain collateral harms of prison and improve behavior

(Cochran, 2012; Jiang & Winfree, 2006; Lahm, 2008; McNeeley & Duwe, 2020; Mears

et al., 2012; Mitchell et al., 2016). As such, scholars have turned attention to factors that

may decrease an incarcerated person’s (IP’s) likelihood of receiving visits (Cochran et al.,

2017; Rubenstein et al., 2021). This work suggests that visitation is tenuous and thus poten-

tially vulnerable to disruptions (Christian, 2005; Comfort, 2003, 2008; Dixey & Woodall,

2012; Pierce, 2015; Tewksbury & DeMichele, 2005). Prison visitation is challenging, for

AUTHORS’ NOTE: We very much appreciate the close consultation provided by Brian Kowalski and Brian

Martin at the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections (ODRC). This research is part of the

Restrictive Housing in Ohio (RHO) Project and was conducted with support from the National Institute of

Justice (#2016-IJ-CX-0013). It was also supported by the National Science Foundation 2019 Graduate

Research Fellowship Program. Views expressed in the paper are those of the authors and not representative of

those of ODRC. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Correspondence concerning

this article should be addressed to Claudia N. Anderson, School of Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati,

P.O. Box 210389, Cincinnati, OH 45221-0389; e-mail: ander3u@mail.uc.edu.

1105238CJBXXX10.1177/00938548221105238Criminal Justice and BehaviorAnderson et al. / Restrictive Housing and Visitation

research-article2022

1496 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

example, because it requires travel and can be emotionally daunting for visitors (Christian,

2005; Comfort, 2008; Rubenstein et al., 2021; Tewksbury & DeMichele, 2005). Prison

systems may exacerbate these barriers by creating additional challenges and inconve-

niences for visitors (Comfort, 2003; Dixey & Woodall, 2012). Research has yet to explore

the possibility that the proliferated use of restrictive housing (RH) is one such policy that

reduces the visitation prospects of IPs.

Examining this possibility is important for advancing a growing body of research on the

“unintended” consequences of RH (e.g., Arrigo & Bullock, 2008; Butler et al., 2020;

Chadick et al., 2018; Gendreau & Labrecque, 2018; Haney, 2003; Haney & Lynch, 1997;

Kapoor & Trestman, 2016). One potential but overlooked consequence is that it might sever

contact between IPs and outside ties. It may do so by restricting visits while an IP is in RH

and by impeding the ability of people to maintain visitation routines. We suspect that such

impacts may be especially salient if an individual receives RH frequently or early in their

prison term.

The goal of this paper is to assess whether placement in RH is associated with less visita-

tion and, by extension, whether RH placements are linked to individuals’ abilities to main-

tain contact with their outside social networks. To this end, we examine the relationship

between placement in RH and individuals’ visitation over the course of a prison term among

IPs in Ohio state prisons. First, we examine the extent to which an individual’s first stay in

disciplinary segregation has immediate, short-term impacts on future visitation. Second, we

examine how RH placements over the course of a prison term, including both short and

extended versions of it, might shape an individual’s trajectory of visitation.

RH IN OHIO

RH as punishment takes the form of disciplinary segregation. This entails a short-term

stay in a segregated unit inside an IP’s current facility. In Ohio, disciplinary segregation

involves moving individuals to a cell block in their facility, but separate from the general

population. Individuals in disciplinary segregation are typically housed with one other per-

son. These individuals are denied nearly all privileges, including visitation, and movement

outside the cell is limited to 1 to 2 hours per day.

Supermax placement is far less prevalent but still the next most common form of RH in

Ohio. Supermax placement, also known as “extended RH,” occurs due to security re-clas-

sification, which is assessed using information pertaining to behavior in lower security set-

tings (e.g., violence, escape attempts, security threat group associations; see, generally,

ODRC 53-CLS-06). A small portion of individuals are directly placed in supermax, includ-

ing those convicted of first-degree murder or especially violent offenses. Supermax housing

entails a long-term stay in a separate prison with heightened security measures. Individuals

in supermax are also restricted from privileges and are placed in single-person cells.

RH policies attempt to improve social order in prisons (Shalev, 2009). However, these

practices might have adverse effects (e.g., increased recidivism, increased misconduct,

mental deterioration; see Arrigo & Bullock, 2008; Chadick et al., 2018; Haney, 2003; Haney

& Lynch, 1997; Kapoor & Trestman, 2016; Mears & Bales, 2009), which may be, in part,

because they restrict IPs from social supports such as visitation.

We found that roughly 35% of IPs in Ohio served at least one “stint” of RH—either dis-

ciplinary segregation or a supermax stay—during their sentence. The bulk of these stays