What Do We Really Know About the Prevalence of Restrictive Housing? Illuminating the “Dark Figure” of the Most Extreme Forms of Incarceration

• DOI: 10.1177/00938548221082075
• Published date: 01 June 2022
• Date: 01 June 2022
• Subject Matter: Articles

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2022, Vol. 49, No. 6, June 2022, 891 –910.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548221082075

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

© 2022 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

891

WHAT DO WE REALLY KNOW ABOUT THE

PREVALENCE OF RESTRICTIVE HOUSING?

Illuminating the “Dark Figure” of the Most Extreme

Forms of Incarceration

JENNIFER M. BROWN

DANIEL P. MEARS

VIVIAN ARANDA-HUGHES

SONJA E. SIENNICK

Florida State University

A signature feature of the get-tough era in American corrections has been the proliferation of restrictive housing (RH).

Although sometimes equated with solitary confinement, this housing encompasses a variety of distinct forms of incarceration.

They are unified by an emphasis on restricted movement and privileges—yet vary in their design and uses. Despite that fact,

little is known about the prevalence of different forms of housing. To address this research gap, we use a case study of Florida

policy and administrative records data to illuminate the variety of RH types and the varying prevalence of each. We then

discuss the implications of the findings for the study of RH uses and impacts and for policy.

Keywords: restrictive housing; solitary confinement; prevalence; variation

Recent decades have been witness to a dramatic turn toward more severe punishment.

That can be seen in the rise of what has been termed “mass incarceration” (Pratt, 2018;

Travis et al., 2014), but it can also be seen in the proliferation of restrictive housing (RH;

Beck, 2015; Garcia, 2016). Definitions and precise prison system terms for different forms

of RH vary. By most accounts, this housing goes beyond traditional maximum-security

housing in having a variety of goals, such as punishment for infractions or management of

individuals deemed to be especially violent or disruptive. It can also impose a range of

AUTHORS’ NOTE: The authors thank the editor and anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful suggestions

in improving this article. This project was supported by Grant No. 2016-IJ-CX-0014 awarded by the National

Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view in this document are

those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice or the Florida Department of Corrections. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed

to Jennifer M. Brown, College of Criminology & Criminal Justice, Florida State University, 112 South

Copeland Street, Tallahassee, FL 32306-1273; e-mail: jmbrown5@fsu.edu.

1082075CJBXXX10.1177/00938548221082075Criminal Justice and BehaviorBrown et al. / WHAT DO WE REALLY KNOW ABOUT THE PREVALANCE OF RH?

research-article2022

892 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

restrictions, including the potential for single-cell confinement, being confined to a cell for

up to 24 hours per day, and having few privileges (Labrecque et al., 2021; Mears et al.,

2019; Shalev, 2009). The United States has always relied on different types of what might

be called RH (N. Morris & Rothman, 1995; Pizarro & Stenius, 2004; Riveland, 1999).

However, the seeming ubiquity of this phenomenon in contemporary times has led to

increased concerns about its use, including whether it is morally or legally appropriate, its

possible harms to the mental and physical well-being of those incarcerated in this housing

and its impacts on successful re-entry (Collins, 2004; Frost & Monteiro, 2016; Labrecque

& Mears, 2019; U.S. Department of Justice, 2016; Wildeman & Andersen, 2020).

One question, though, centers on the extent to which RH in fact is used. Beginning in the

1980s, increased attention focused on estimating the prevalence of super-maximum, or

“supermax,” incarceration, which can be viewed as one type of RH (Mears, 2016; National

Institute of Corrections, 1997; Riveland, 1999). Such work focused primarily on individu-

als who might serve time in isolation for extended periods for management purposes. In the

last decade, increased attention has turned to a wider range of specialized housing that may

or may not include solitary confinement—but that relies on a myriad of restrictions. This

has resulted in attention to prison cells that are described with inconsistent terminology, but

that regardless of terminology, are generally used for protection, punishment, or administra-

tive purposes (Shalev, 2009). It has led to a focus on factors that may predict placement in

this housing as well, though studies primarily focus on long-term segregation (e.g., Mears

et al., 2021) or short-term disciplinary confinement (DC; for example, R. G. Morris, 2016).

Not least, it has led to varying estimates of the extent of RH (e.g., Beck, 2015; Correctional

Leaders Association and the Arthur Liman Center for Public Interest Law [CLA-Liman],

2020; Mears, 2016). These estimates, however, generally do not distinguish between types

of RH or, by extension, provide details about each type.

Accordingly, this study seeks to respond to scholars’ calls to examine the contours of the

get-tough era in contemporary corrections and, in particular, to illuminate the range of RH

and to understand its nature and prevalence (see, generally, Frost & Monteiro, 2016;

Labrecque et al., 2021; Mears et al., 2019; Naday et al., 2008). Shedding light on the “dark

figure” of an extreme housing that has garnered considerable critique can help to highlight

prison system reliance on diverse types of RH, the risks of generalizing from studies of one

housing type to another, and policy considerations that may attend to the housing. Critical

to such an undertaking is a need to directly engage with characterizing unique types of RH

and their function in prison systems. To this end, we discuss prior work and the risks of fail-

ing to distinguish types of RH and the extent of their use. We then provide a case study of

Florida’s prison system, drawing on a discussion of the State’s administrative policies and

on analyses of administrative records data, to highlight variation in the types of RH that

exist and in the extent to which they are used. We then conclude by discussing implications

of the findings for evaluating scholarship on RH and continuing policy debates about its

use.

BACKGROUND

RISE OF RH

The “get tough” era in criminal justice policy led to increasingly punitive responses to

criminal offending, with an attendant emphasis on punitive, control-oriented prison man-

agement practices (Pratt, 2018; Travis et al., 2014). Concerns about potential harms of this