Examining the effects of psychiatric symptoms, brain injury symptoms, and low self-control on the placement of inmates in administrative segregation and their risk for suicidal ideation

Objective: In this study, we are interested in understanding the predictive effects of psychiatric symptoms, brain injury symptoms, and criminological factors on inmate (N=270) risk for placement in administrative segregation and their expression of suicidal ideation. Methods: Using a case-control design, this study seeks to understand the psychological and behavioral risk-profiles of inmates being placed in administrative segregation and those with suicidal ideation. More specifically, we are trying to understand the magnitude of the effect that psychiatric symptoms, brain injury symptoms, and low self-control characteristics has on the risk of inmates being placed in administrative segregation and their risk for suicidal ideation. Results: We found that factor scores for psychiatric symptoms and low self-control levels significantly increase the risk of inmates expressing suicidal ideation when compared to alternative predictive factors.

Administrative Segregation: A Review of State and Federal Policies

The use of administrative segregation in prison is a controversial correctional policy. Proponents argue this type of housing is necessary for maintaining institutional safety and order, whereas critics contend it is damaging to inmate mental health. Despite the increase in academic attention over the last decade, there is much that remains unknown about the uses and effects of this practice. This study addresses this gap in knowledge by content-analyzing the administrative segregation policies of 48 state and federal prison systems. The results provide evidence of consistency and discrepancy across key elements of these policies, including placement criteria and review procedures. Findings further highlight how basic information regarding mental health provisions and conditions of confinement are missing from a substantial number of policies. This investigation emphasizes a need for more governmental accountability and transparency in the use of this correctional policy and identifies several areas for future research.

Ścisłe odosobnienie skazanego w warunkach restrictive housing w północnoamerykańskich więzieniach – znaczenie, cele i wyzwania

Problematyka dotycząca umieszczania przymusowego skazanych w warunkach ścisłego odosobnienia, określanego w północnoamerykańskiej literaturze przedmiotu jako restrictive housing, solitary confinement, administrative segregation lub supermax budzi liczne kontrowersje. W szczególności kwestionowana jest konstytucyjność rozwiązań prawnych dotyczących restrictive housing, jak i negatywny wpływ tego rodzaju warunków odbywania kary na dobrostan skazanych, którzy jak każda istota ludzka mają naturę społeczną i dążą doutrzymywania normalnych międzyludzkich interakcji. Zarówno wśród teoretyków badających naukowo problem, jak i wśród praktyków (funkcjonariuszy służby więziennej) można znaleźć zarówno zwolenników, jak i przeciwników, ścisłego odosabniania skazanych. Dodatkowo trzeba wskazać, że na płaszczyźnie prawnomiędzynarodowej zabrania się stosowania takich warunków na czas nieoznaczony lub na czas nadmiernie wydłużony (Reguły Mandeli). Aktualnie zdają się przeważać opinie, iż niezbędne jest opracowanie alternatywnych środków i strategii postępowania ze skazanymi, które z jednej strony zapewnią porządek i bezpieczeństwo w jednostkach penitencjarnych Stanów Zjednoczonych, a z drugiej, pozwolą na bardziej humanitarne postępowanie ze skazanymi, bez narażania ich na wysokie ryzyko negatywnych konsekwencji związanych ze stosowaniem warunków restrictive housing.

Prison Classification

Classification processes determine the entire nature of the prison experience, including but not limited to where an inmate is housed, whom he or she is housed with, the programs and work assignments available to or required of an inmate, visitation rights, and the amount or type of movement an inmate has within a facility. In making these important decisions, prisons have long relied on procedures to determine where and how to supervise inmates under their control. These classification processes are designed to maintain prison order, allocate necessary treatment services, and provide a transparent basis for decisions that affect inmate life. Classification decisions can be divided into several types: initial security/facility classification and custody classification (determined by external classification systems), housing program and work assignments (determined by internal classification systems), and re-classifications. Inmates undergo a rigorous classification process upon reception into a corrections department’s custody and are often subject to re-evaluations throughout their time incarcerated. The predominant goal of classification systems is to identify and manage inmate risk, and many studies have focused on classification systems and inmate misconduct, recidivism, and violence. As classification systems are also intended to diagnose inmate needs and provide treatment, and ensure the efficient allocation of correctional resources, scholars have focused classification systems’ impact on adjustment to prison, provision of treatment, and prison crowding. Research has questioned the ability of a single classification system to assess the risk and need of all inmates. Many studies have considered gender equity in classification decisions as well as the additional treatment needs and management considerations for incarcerated individuals with mental illness. Additional research has focused on administrative segregation, or classification decisions that result in the isolation of those who cannot be housed in the general inmate population. Complicating this literature is the changing nature of classification systems over time and the fact that all states and the federal government have adopted unique classification systems. It is therefore difficult to draw conclusions about the state of knowledge on classification practices as a whole. Nevertheless, the past several decades have seen an emphasis on objective classification, or empirically based strategies to make classification decisions. The use of risk assessment tools has become commonplace in this realm. Though past research focused on classification systems as a means to control and monitor inmates, a promising future direction lies in needs assessments and the ability to deliver individualized treatment to incarcerated individuals.

Solitary Confinement in Canada

On January 17, 2018, a historic decision put Canada at the forefront of an international movement against solitary confinement. A trial judge found that administrative segregation is a form of solitary confinement and that it causes some inmates physical harm and places all inmates subject to it in Canada at significant risk of serious psychological harm, including mental pain and suffering, and increased incidence of self-harm and suicide. This chapter describes the Canadian litigation and the findings of the trial judge with respect to the laws’ constitutional invalidity. The decision of the trial judge was largely upheld by the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The Canadian Parliament has now enacted a new law that purports to abolish solitary confinement but the authors are skeptical that the new law will pass constitutional muster because it is still too restrictive of inmate rights. It is expected that the government will seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Management of High-Security Prisoners

This chapter deals with the vexed question, ‘If not solitary confinement, then what?’. The author describes his personal quest to find an answer this question throughout a professional lifetime during which he spent over two decades in the United Kingdom managing high security prisons where he tried to balance the obligations, on the one hand, to maintain security, safety and good order in each prison while, on the other hand, dealing in a decent and human manner with men who had the potential to be violent and dangerous. He recounts his early observations in the United States and Canada on the beginnings of what were to become ‘supermax’ and ‘administrative segregation’. Having spent a further two decades in academia researching this subject at an international level, he links his earlier experiences in North America with recent involvement in court cases in Canada and the United States. He concludes by laying out a series of operational principles which, if properly applied, are likely to lead to a dramatic reduction and eventually to the elimination of the use of solitary confinement.

Colorado Ends Prolonged, Indeterminate Solitary Confinement

When did it become okay to lock someone in a cell that is the size of a parking space, twenty-three hours per day, seven days a week for decades? When did it become okay to lock someone who is mentally ill in a cell the size of a parking space, twenty-three hours per day for years, and let the demons chase him or her around in the cell? And when did it ever become okay to take someone who had spent years in segregation and release them directly to the community? If our mission is public safety, and it is, why are we sending people back to society worse than when they came in? Ninety-five percent of those incarcerated in Colorado will return to their community. In September of 2017, the Colorado Department of Corrections abolished the use of administrative segregation, or as it is now nationally termed by corrections, extended restrictive housing. Currently, Colorado is the only state in the United States that has abolished this practice. In order to see where we are, it is important to see where we were, and the journey that brought us here.