Skip navigation

Aiming to Reduce Time-In-Cell, ASCA, 2016

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
Aiming to Reduce Time-In-Cell:
Aiming to Reduce Time-In-Cell

Reports from Correctional Systems on the Numbers of
Prisoners in Restricted Housing and on the
Potential of Policy Changes to Bring About Reforms

Association of State Correctional Administrators
The Arthur Liman Public Interest Program
Yale Law School

November 2016

November 2016

Embargoed until 3pm on November 30, 2016
Contacts: George or Camille Camp 301-791-2722; gcamp@asca.net
Judith Resnik, 203-432-1447; judith.resnik@yale.edu
Aiming to Reduce Time-In-Cell: Correctional Administrators and Yale Law School’s Liman
Program Release New Report on Efforts to Reduce the Use of Isolation
in State and Federal Prisons
New Information from Prison Officials Reflects the National Consensus
on the Need to Reduce Reliance on Restricted Housing
A new report, jointly authored by the Association of State Correctional Administrators
(ASCA) and the Arthur Liman Program at Yale Law School, reflects a profound change in the
national discussion about the use of what correctional officials call “restrictive housing” and what
is popularly known as “solitary confinement.” Just published, Aiming to Reduce Time-In-Cell
provides the only current, comprehensive data on the use of restricted housing, in which
individuals are held in their cells for 22 hours or more each day, and for 15 continuous days or
more at a time. The Report also documents efforts across the country to reduce the number of
people in restricted housing and to reform the conditions in which isolated prisoners are held in
order to improve safety for prisoners, staff, and communities at large.
The 2016 publication follows the 2015 ASCA-Liman Report, Time-In-Cell, which
documented the use of restricted housing as of the fall of 2014. As ASCA explained then,
“prolonged isolation of individuals in jails and prisons is a grave problem in the United States.”
Today, a national consensus has emerged focused on limiting the use of restricted housing, and
many new initiatives, as detailed in the report, reflect efforts to make changes at both the state
and federal levels.
The 2016 Report is based on survey responses from 48 jurisdictions (the Federal Bureau
of Prisons, 45 states, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands)—that held about 96% of
the nation’s prisoners convicted of a felony. That number excludes people held in most of the
country’s jails (housing hundreds of thousands of people), in most of the country’s juvenile
facilities, and in military and immigration facilities.
Tallying the responses, the new 2016 Report found that 67,442 prisoners were held, in
the fall of 2015, in prison cells for 22 hours or more for 15 continuous days or more. The
percentages of prisoners in restricted housing in federal and state prisons ranged from under 1%

	
  

Page 1

to more than 28%. Across all the jurisdictions, the median percentage of the prison population
held in restricted housing was 5.1%.
How long do prisoners remain in isolation? Forty-one jurisdictions provided information
about the length of stay for a total of more than 54,000 people in restricted housing.
Approximately 15,725 (29%) were in restricted housing for one to three months; at the other end
of the spectrum, almost 6,000 people (11%) across 31 jurisdictions had been in restricted housing
for three years or more.
The Report also chronicles efforts throughout the country and the world to reduce the use
of restricted housing. In August of 2016, the American Correctional Association (ACA) approved
new standards, calling for a variety of limits on the use of isolation, including a prohibition
against placing prisoners in restricted housing on the basis of their gender identity alone. The
standards also included provisions that pregnant women, prisoners under the age of 18, and
prisoners with serious mental illness ought not be placed for extended periods of time in restricted
housing. Further, in some jurisdictions, prison systems (sometimes prompted by legislation and
litigation) have instituted rules to prevent vulnerable populations from being housed in restricted
housing except under exceptional circumstances and for as short an amount of time as possible.
As the Report also details, several jurisdictions described making significant revisions to
the criteria for entry, so as to limit the use of restricted housing, as well as undertaking more
frequent reviews to identify individuals to return to general population, thereby reducing the
number of people in restricted housing by significant percentages.
In short, while restricted housing once was seen as central to prisoner management, by
2016 many prison directors and organizations such as ASCA and the ACA have defined restricted
housing as a practice to use only when absolutely necessary and for only as long as absolutely
required. The goals of ASCA and the ACA are to formulate and to apply policies to improve the
safety of institutions and communities by ensuring that the separation of individuals to promote
safety and well-being need not be accompanied by deprivation of all opportunities for social
contact, education, programming, and other activities.
As Leann K. Bertsch, President of ASCA, explained:
“What we are seeing is that prison systems are motivated to reduce the use of
isolation in prisons and are actively putting into place policies designed to
reduce the use of restrictive housing. Restricted housing places substantial
stress on both the staff working in those settings as well as the prisoners housed
in those units. Our highest priority is to operate institutions that are safe for
staff and inmates and to keep communities to which prisoners will return safe.”
For more information, please contact George and Camille Camp, Co-Executive Directors
of ASCA, at 301-791-2722, and Judith Resnik, Arthur Liman Professor of Law at Yale Law
School, at 203-432-1447. The full report may be downloaded, free of charge, at www.asca.net or
https://www.law.yale.edu/centers-workshops/arthur-liman-public-interest-program/limanpublications.

	
  

Page 2

Aiming to Reduce Time-In-Cell:
Reports from Correctional Systems on the
Numbers of Prisoners in Restricted Housing
and on the Potential of Policy Changes
to Bring About Reforms

Association of State Correctional Administrators
The Arthur Liman Public Interest Program, Yale Law School

November 2016

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-In-Cell November 21, 2016

Association
of
State
Correctional
Administrators (ASCA)
ASCA is the association of persons directly
responsible for the administration of
correctional systems. ASCA includes the
heads of state corrections agencies, the
Federal Bureau of Prisons, the District of
Columbia Department of Corrections, and
some large county jail systems. Founded in
the 1950s, ASCA gained its current
organizational structure in the 1980s. ASCA
is premised on the belief that each
represented correctional jurisdiction is
unique in its own obligations, structures, and
resources and that similarities of purpose,
responsibilities, and challenges among
member jurisdictions unite them in a quest
for public safety, secure and orderly
facilities, and professionalism.

The Arthur Liman Public Interest
Program, Yale Law School
The Arthur Liman Public Interest Program
was endowed to honor one of Yale Law
School’s most accomplished graduates,
Arthur Liman, who graduated in 1957 and
who personified the ideal of commitment to
the public interest. Throughout his
distinguished career, he demonstrated how
dedicated lawyers, in both private practice
and public life, can serve the needs of
people and causes that might otherwise go
unrepresented. The Liman Program was
created in 1997 to continue the
commitments of Arthur Liman by
supporting lawyers, in and outside the
academy, who are dedicated to public
service in the furtherance of justice.
Acknowledgements
This report is based on a survey co-authored
by ASCA and by the Liman Program at Yale
Law School. The research and report teams
were led by George and Camille Camp of

ASCA and by Professor Judith Resnik,
former Director Johanna Kalb and current
Director Anna VanCleave of the Liman
Program, former Senior Liman Fellow in
Residence Sarah Baumgartel and current
Senior Fellow Kristen Bell, all of Yale Law
School. Olevia Boykin, Corey Guilmette,
Tashiana Hudson, Diana Li, Joseph Meyers,
Hava Mirell, and Jessi Purcell, current and
former students at Yale Law School,
conducted the research and drafted this
report.
Thanks are due to all the jurisdictions that
responded to the survey, and for their
thoughtful comments and reviews received
after drafts of the report were circulated in
the winter of 2016 and in the summer of
2016. Yale Law School, the Liman Program,
the Vital Projects Fund, and the Oscar M.
Ruebhausen Fund at Yale Law School have
generously supported this project. Special
thanks are due to Skylar Albertson, Alison
Gifford, and Bonnie Posick for expert
editorial advice.
To download copies of this Report, please
visit the website of the Liman Program at
https://www.law.yale.edu/centers-workshops
/arthur-liman-public-interest-program/limanpublications. This Report may be
reproduced free of charge and without the
need for additional permission. All rights
reserved, 2016.
Inquiries:
George and Camille Camp
Co-Executive Directors of ASCA
gcamp@asca.net; ccamp@asca.net
Judith Resnik
Arthur Liman Professor of Law
Yale Law School
judith.resnik@yale.edu

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-In-Cell November 21, 2016

2
Table of Contents
I.

LEARNING ABOUT ISOLATION IN PRISON
A. Collecting Data to Establish Baselines and Parameters: 2012-2015
B. Looking for Changes: 2015-2016
C. The Context: Demands for Change

4
4
6
8

II. THE 2015 SURVEY’S DESIGN AND PURPOSES
A. Goals and Methods
B. Research Challenges: Various Definitions of Restricted Housing
 
and the Overlaps and Differences between the 2015 and 2016
ASCA-Liman Reports

15
15

III. TYPES OF FACILITIES AND OF CELLS IN THE 2015 SURVEY
A. Types of Facilities for which State-Wide Data Were Available
B. The Use of Single and of Double Cells

17
17
19

IV. THE NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGES OF PRISONERS IN RESTRICTED
HOUSING: THE DATA FROM THE 2015 SURVEY
A. Counting and Comparing General and Restricted Populations
B. The Numbers and Percentages of Prisoners In-Cell for 16 to 21 Hours

20
20
24

16

V. THE DURATION OF TIME INDIVIDUALS SPENT IN RESTRICTED HOUSING 26
A. Length of Time
26
B. Length of Time by Classification of the Type of Restricted Custody
29
VI. THE DEMOGRAPHICS OF RESTRICTED HOUSING
A. Gender
B. Race and Ethnicity
C. Age Cohorts
D. Vulnerable Populations: Mentally Ill, Pregnant, and Transgender Prisoners
1. Prisoners with Serious Mental Health Issues
(according to each jurisdiction’s own definition)
2. Pregnant Prisoners
3. Transgender Prisoners
VII. PLANNED OR PROPOSED POLICY CHANGES
IN RESTRICTED HOUSING: 2013-2016
A. Reducing Placement in Restricted Housing:
Narrowing Criteria for Entry and Creating Alternatives
B. Focusing on Release: Time Caps, Step-Down Programs, and
Increased Oversight of Retention Decisions
C. Mandated Time Out-of-Cell
D. Conditions: The Physical Environment and Programming
E. Staffing: Policies and Training

30
30
35
42
48
48
54
55

55
56
57
58
59
59

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

3
F.

VIII.

Jurisdictions Seeking Substantial Reductions in Restricted Housing Use
1. The Federal Prison System: Changes Recommended in the
2016 Department of Justice Restricted Housing Report
2. Colorado
3. North Dakota
4. Ohio
5. South Carolina
6. Utah

60
60
62
64
65
66
69

REFLECTING ON EFFORTS TO REDUCE TIME-IN-CELL

71

ENDNOTES

APPENDICES
Appendix A:
Appendix B:
Appendix C:

ASCA-Liman Restricted Housing Survey – Fall 2015
List of the Report’s Charts and Tables
Jurisdictions’ Definitions of Serious Mental Illness

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

4

I.

Learning about Isolation in Prison

This Report is the third in a series that examines what correctional officials in the United
States call “restrictive housing” and what is known more generally as “solitary confinement.”
Working together, the Association of State Correctional Administrators (ASCA) and the Arthur
Liman Program at Yale Law School have sought to understand the formal rules governing
aspects of the segregation of prisoners in the United States; the numbers of individuals confined;
the conditions under which they live; and the limits on the use of isolation.
Below, we provide a brief overview of prior ASCA-Liman work in this area, a
description of this study, and a review of initiatives during the last few years aimed at producing
significant reforms to reduce the numbers of people in restricted housing and the degrees of their
isolation.

A.

Collecting Data to Establish Baselines and Parameters: 2012-2015

Prison systems across the United States separate some prisoners from general population
and put them into special housing units, typically with more isolating conditions. The reasons for
doing so include the imposition of punishment (“disciplinary segregation”), protection
(“protective custody”), and incapacitation (often termed “administrative segregation”).
In Administrative Segregation, Degrees of Isolation, and Incarceration: A National
Overview of State and Federal Correctional Policies, published in 2013, we asked directors of
state and federal corrections systems to provide their policies on administrative segregation,
defined as removing a prisoner from general population to spend 22 to 23 hours a day in a cell
for 30 days or more.1 Administrative segregation was the form of confinement that we believed
was the most common basis for segregation.
What we learned, based on responses from 47 jurisdictions, was that correctional policies
made getting into segregation relatively easy, and few systems focused on getting people out.
The criteria for entry were broad. Many jurisdictions permitted moving a prisoner into
segregation if that prisoner posed a threat to institutional safety or a danger to self, staff, or other
inmates. Constraints on decision-making were minimal; the kind of notice provided and what
constituted a “hearing” varied substantially.
In 2014, the Liman Program and ASCA took the next step by asking correctional
administrators more than 130 questions—this time about the numbers of people in restricted
housing and the conditions under which they lived.2 The overall focus was on a subset of
restricted housing—“administrative segregation,” while a few questions focused on all forms of
restricted housing. Responses came from 46 jurisdictions (albeit not all jurisdictions answered all
the questions). Published in 2015, the Time-In-Cell Report provided a unique multi-jurisdictional
window into segregation.
A central question is about the numbers of individuals in segregation, regardless of the
different names under which the practice goes. Before that Report, information on the number of
prisoners held in restricted housing was a decade old or more; the figure often cited was 25,000.3
The 2015 ASCA-Liman Report provided new information. What we learned from the 34

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

5
jurisdictions answering this question and housing about 73% of the more than 1.5 million people
incarcerated in U.S. prisons, was that they reported a total of more than 66,000 people held in
restricted housing as of the fall of 2014. Given that number, ASCA and Liman estimated that
some 80,000 to 100,000 people were, in 2014, in restricted housing (however termed) in U.S.
prisons—or about one in every six or seven prisoners.4 Those figures, in turn, did not include
jails, juvenile facilities, or immigration and military detention.
We also learned that prisoners in many jurisdictions across the country were required to
spend 23 hours in their cells on weekdays and in many, 24 hours in their cells on weekends.5
Jurisdictions reported that cells, sometimes holding two people, ranged in size from 45 to 128
square feet.6
Opportunities for social contact, such as out-of-cell time for exercise, visits, and
programs, were limited, ranging from three to seven hours a week in many jurisdictions.7 Phone
calls and social visits could be as infrequent as once per month. A few jurisdictions provided
more opportunities.8 In most jurisdictions, prisoners’ access to social contact, programs, exercise,
and items kept in their cells, could be cut back as sanctions for misbehavior.9
Moreover, administrative segregation generally had no fixed endpoint, and several
systems did not keep track of the numbers of continuous days that people remained in isolation.
In the 24 jurisdictions reporting on this question, a substantial number indicated that prisoners
remained in segregation for more than three years. As to release and reentry, in 30 jurisdictions
tracking the numbers in 2013, a total of 4,400 prisoners were released directly from the isolation
of administrative segregation to the outside community.10
Running administrative segregation units posed many challenges for prison systems.
These problems—coupled with a surge of concerns about the negative impact of isolation on
individuals—have created incentives for change. Prison directors cited prisoner and staff wellbeing, pending lawsuits, and costs as reasons to revise their practices. Some also commented that
change was important because it was “the right thing to do.”11
When releasing Time-In-Cell, ASCA stated that “prolonged isolation of individuals in
jails and prisons is a grave problem in the United States.”12 As that press release also explained,
“insistence on change comes not only from legislators across the political spectrum, judges, and
a host of private sector voices, but also from the directors of correctional systems at both state
and federal levels.”13
Time-In-Cell provided a window into the prevailing practices and a baseline from which
to assess whether the many efforts to limit isolation would have an impact. That Report made
plain that segregation practices had become entrenched during the past 40 years, that many
correctional systems sought to make changes, and that unraveling the structures producing so
much isolation would require intensive work.
When released in September 2015, the Time-In-Cell Report became front-page news,
reflecting the broad concern about these problems and the need for reform.14 Much commentary
followed, including several essays published by the Yale Law Journal Forum in January of 2016.

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

6
These comments analyzed the data in the Report, the need for reform, and the challenges entailed
in making major changes.15

B.

Looking for Changes: 2015-2016

In early October 2015, ASCA and Liman launched this follow-up study to gather national
information on all forms of restricted housing, to learn what numbers of people were in that form
of detention in the fall of 2015, and to see what changes were underway. The hope was twofold:
that the numbers of people held in such settings were diminishing and that the conditions in
restricted housing were improving by becoming less isolating.
This study relied again on asking the directors of prison systems to respond to questions.
This time, a set of 15 questions focused on the people in any and all forms of what we termed
restricted housing (or what is also termed “restrictive” housing). We queried 53 jurisdictions (all
the states, the federal system, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands), and 52
responded; the one jurisdiction not providing any information was the State of Maine. As
detailed below, a few jurisdictions that did respond did not have answers to all the topics
surveyed. For many questions, 48 jurisdictions had sufficiently detailed and consistent
information on which to report,16 and for each topic, we specify the number of responding
jurisdictions.
We sought to learn about numbers and demographics—including race, gender identity,
age, and mental health status. As the data set forth below reflect, those ambitions were made
complex by the variety of different facilities under the control of state-wide correctional
departments, the many terms used to denote segregating prisoners, the range of data kept, and the
limited amount of data available. The jurisdictions surveyed did not all keep comparable data
about how many hours, over how many days, prisoners were in their cells.
To enable cross-jurisdictional comparisons, we imposed a definition by describing
restricted housing as the separation of prisoners from general population and in detention for 22
hours per day or more, for 15 or more continuous days, in single-cells or in double-cells. This
survey did not inquire into whether jurisdictions regularly audited their facilities to learn if the
parameters were consistently met. For example, we did not ask about what methods were used to
ensure that individual prisoners were out of their cells for the time stipulated in rules, nor did we
learn how often or for how long lockdowns occurred during which no prisoners were permitted
to leave cells.
Further, if a jurisdiction provided for prisoners to spend 14.5 hours a week out-of-cell, or
had no count of whether prisoners were held 15 days or more, that jurisdiction could have
described itself as having no one in restricted housing, even as the jurisdiction understood itself
to have a restricted-housing population. Therefore, and as noted below, in a few instances we
included information provided by jurisdictions that required minor modifications of our 22hour/15-days-or-more definition.

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

7
A preview of some of this Report’s findings is in order. As of the fall of 2015, 67,442
people were held in restricted housing across the 48 jurisdictions that reported their numbers.17
Relying on data on the United States and its territories from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, we
looked at the total number of individuals confined in the 48 jurisdictions, and learned that these
jurisdictions accounted for 96.4% of the total prison population in the United States.18
We then calculated the percentage of prisoners who were held in restricted housing
across all of the jurisdictions which regularly kept data on the number of prisoners in restricted
housing (22 hours a day/15 days or more). The focus was on state prisoners housed under state
(not local) control.  The percentages of prisoners held in different jurisdictions in restricted
housing ranged from 0.5% (Hawaii, in-state only) to 28.3% (the Virgin Islands). The median was
5.1%.19
We also asked about the numbers of people held in segregation between 16 and 21 hours
per day in their cells. Thirty-four jurisdictions responded about those populations. In 23 of those
jurisdictions, we tallied a total of 16,455 additional prisoners in cells for 16 to 21 hours per day
for 15 consecutive days or more.20 In these 23 jurisdictions, the median so confined was 1.6% of
their total populations.21 (Eleven of the responding 34 jurisdictions reported that they did not
hold prisoners in-cell for 16-21 hours per day for 15 consecutive days or more.)
Some of the reporting jurisdictions did not include information on all of the facilities
directly under their control, and very few included information from county and municipal level
facilities at which prisoners or pretrial detainees were held.22 The dearth of information on
county jails is important to underscore because counties were responsible, as of 2016, for 91% of
the jails in the United States, and “11.4 million individuals pass through jail each year.”23 In
short, through this survey, we have accounted for at least 67,442 individuals in restricted
housing (22 hours a day/15 days or more) in the fall of 2015. When adding the 16,455 people
confined 16 to 21 hours, a total of at least 83,897 prisoners were held in their cells for more than
16 hours a day for 15 days or more. Yet, given the data limitations, neither of these numbers
includes all the people held in cell for either 16-hours or more or for 22-hours or more in all of
the types of U.S. prison and jail facilities.
How long, in months and years, did prisoners spend in restricted housing? Forty-one
jurisdictions—holding 54,382 prisoners—provided length-of-stay data. Of those prisoners,
15,725 people—or 29%—were in restricted housing from one month up to three months. Some
15,978 people—or 29%—were in restricted housing for three months up to one year. Another
13,041 prisoners—or 24%—were in restricted housing for a year or more. Of these, 2,976
people—5.5% of 54,382—had spent from three years to six years in restricted housing. Twentysix jurisdictions reported holding some prisoners—a total of 2,933 people, or 5.4% of the
54,382—in restricted housing for six years or more. 24
The survey also asked whether correctional systems were making policy-level changes to
reduce the use of restricted housing. Forty-five jurisdictions reported on their policies, and many
described proposed or recently implemented revisions. Jurisdictions reported policies revising
the criteria for being placed in isolation to limit its use, increasing the oversight of restricted
housing, expanded efforts at programming and rehabilitative services in restricted housing,

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

8
developing exit paths (sometimes called “step-down” programs), and imposing caps on the
length of time spent in restricted confinement.
In addition to summarizing changes in policies, we provide descriptions of efforts
reported by a few jurisdictions seeking to make substantial reductions in the use of restricted
housing. We did not inquire into either the details or metrics of implementation, nor did we
conduct case studies to learn about the effects, in practice, of the new policies described.

C.

The Context: Demands for Change

As this study was underway, concerns about restricted housing intensified. In July 2015,
President Barack Obama announced that he had directed the Attorney General of the United
States to conduct a review of the use of solitary confinement in the federal prison system.25 The
review resulted in a report, U.S. Department of Justice Report and Recommendations
Concerning the Use of Restrictive Housing, published in January of 2016. That monograph
provided an overview of what the Justice Department termed “restrictive housing” practices in
the federal system and proposals for reform.26 In the same month, in a Washington Post op-ed
entitled Why we must rethink solitary confinement and which cited the ASCA-Liman Time-InCell Report, the President stated:
The Justice Department has completed its review, and I am adopting its
recommendations to reform the federal prison system. These include banning
solitary confinement for juveniles and as a response to low-level infractions,
expanding treatment for the mentally ill and increasing the amount of time
inmates in solitary can spend outside of their cells. These steps will affect some
10,000 federal prisoners held in solitary confinement—and hopefully serve as a
model for state and local corrections systems. . . .27
The Justice Department’s Report laid out several “Guiding Principles” and “Policy
Recommendations.” The recommendations included ending “the practice of placing juveniles in
restrictive housing.”28 In addition, the Justice Department recommended against placing pregnant
women in restricted housing, and proposed banning the practice of using the status of LGBTI
and gender non-conforming individuals as the sole basis for placement in restricted housing.
Further, the Justice Department recommended that, absent special circumstances, seriously
mentally ill prisoners ought not to be placed in restricted housing.29 The Justice Department also
urged the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to eliminate the use of disciplinary segregation as a
sanction for “low level” offenses and to reduce the time that prisoners spend in restricted housing
for other offenses.30
Further, the Justice Department recommended that prisoners be housed “in the least
restrictive setting necessary” to ensure the safety of all; that placement be based on specific,
“clearly articulate[d]” reasons; and that the placement of prisoners in restricted housing serve “a
specific penological purpose.”31 The Justice Department further recommended that there be “a
clear plan for returning the inmate to less restrictive conditions as promptly as possible;”32 that
each individual’s placement in restricted housing be reviewed on a regular basis by a committee
that includes medical and mental health professionals;33 and that restricted housing policies

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

9
generally be regularly reviewed by a standing committee that consisted of “high-level
correctional officials.”34 The Justice Department called for the BOP to implement these policies,
to add “opportunities for out-of-cell time” and programming,35 and to increase transparency in
the use of restricted housing.36
In March of 2016, the President issued a Presidential Memorandum, “Limiting the Use of
Restrictive Housing by the Federal Government;” he directed executive departments and
agencies to implement the Justice Department’s recommendations.37 President Obama wrote that
in light of “the urgency and importance of this issue, it is critical that DOJ accelerate efforts to
reduce the number of Federal inmates and detainees held in restrictive housing and that Federal
correctional and detention systems be models for facilities across the United States.”38
These national efforts came in the context of work in many other venues, ranging from
professional associations of correctional and health professionals to state and federal legislatures
and courts, both in the United States and abroad. In 2014, the American Correctional Association
(ACA), an umbrella organization comprised of correctional facilities’ leaders from across the
country, created a Restrictive Housing Ad Hoc Standards Committee to revise its model
standards.39 The co-chairs, Gary Mohr (the Director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation
and Correction) and Rick Raemisch (Executive Director of the Colorado Department of
Corrections) wrote in 2015 of the need for an overall reduction in the use of restricted housing;
as they explained, “lengthy periods of 23 hours per day in confinement multiplies a problem”—
rather than solving it.40
The ACA’s Ad Hoc Committee released a draft report in the winter of 2016 and proposed
precluding the use of restricted housing on the basis of gender identity alone,41 for pregnant
women,42 and for juveniles under 18.43 Further, the ACA Committee proposed heightened
oversight and review of decisions to place and to keep individuals in restricted housing,44 ending
the placement of individuals with serious mental illnesses in restricted housing unless they
presented a “clear and present danger” to staff or other prisoners that was not associated with
their mental illness,45 and avoiding direct release of prisoners into the community.46 In January
of 2016, the ACA held a hearing to discuss its proposed guidelines for the use of restricted
housing.47
In August of 2016, the ACA approved recommendations from a revised report of its Ad
Hoc Committee.48 The ACA’s new standards called for an end to the practice of placing
prisoners in restricted housing on the basis of their gender identity alone.49 The standards also
included provisions that pregnant women,50 prisoners under the age of 18,51 and prisoners with
serious mental illness not be placed in “extended restricted housing.”52
In addition, the ACA’s revised standards set forth provisions for increased oversight of
decisions to place prisoners in restricted housing53 and more frequent opportunities for review.54
The new standards also called for more frequent mental and physical health evaluations and
treatment for all prisoners in restricted housing,55 and specialized training for staff working with
prisoners in restricted housing.56

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

10
In terms of the physical conditions, the ACA 2016 standards stated that restricted housing
should include “living conditions that approximate those of the general inmate population” with
“all exceptions . . . clearly documented.”57 The 2016 Restrictive Housing Standards stated that
facilities should make efforts to move prisoners out of restricted housing through step-down
programs and measures to ensure that restricted housing prisoners not be released directly to the
community.58
The ACA initiative built on ASCA-based reform proposals to make changes in restricted
housing. In 2013, ASCA adopted guidelines on Restrictive Status Housing Policy that aimed to
constrain the use of isolating settings.59 In 2014, ASCA identified administrative segregation as
one of the “top five critical issues” reported by correctional agencies,60 and, as discussed above,
ASCA and the Liman Program have been working for several years on a series of collaborative
research projects on this issue. In addition, as of the fall of 2016, ASCA was revising its
guidelines on restricted housing.
Other voices within corrections and beyond have also insisted on the need for change.
Some of the focus has been on limiting the placement of any person in restricted housing, while
other activities have centered on subpopulations with special needs.
In terms of the use of restricted housing in general, in the summer of 2015, a group of
“correctional directors and administrators with first-hand experience supervising solitary
confinement units in prisons across the United States” joined together to file an amicus brief in
the United States Supreme Court.61 They described the “debilitating” effects of solitary
confinement and argued that the Constitution requires individualized classification before a
person could be placed in such confinement.62 Their views about the effects of isolation were
echoed by a group of psychiatrists and psychologists, also calling for the Supreme Court to step
in; these medical professionals highlighted the “scientific research” establishing the many harms
imposed by prolonged solitary confinement.63
Health professionals, social scientists, and organizations concerned with prisoner wellbeing have likewise detailed the harms of isolating confinement and have argued that the practice
lacks utility.64 In addition, empirical work has found that solitary confinement has not been
effective in reducing violence and promoting safety.65 Reports on specific prison systems also
documented how disabling isolation was for prisoners and for staff, and how it has not ensured
the safety of the communities to which individuals return.66 Certain forms of restrictive housing
have drawn particular attention; for example, in the fall of 2016, The Marshall Project and
National Public Radio published a joint investigative report documenting incidents of violence
and murder between “double-celled” prisoners in restrictive housing.67
This growing body of literature and case law has shifted the understanding of restricted
housing and produced many calls for it to end. One example comes from a report based on a
colloquium that was convened by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in October of 2015 to
discuss ending the over-use of isolation.68 The colloquium’s purpose was to gather corrections
agency heads and advocates together “to determine if consensus might be achievable about ways
to reform the use of social isolation by coming to common agreement rather than resorting to
litigation.”69 The result, Solitary Confinement: Ending the Over-Use of Extreme Isolation in

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

11
Prison and Jail, included a series of recommendations calling for alternatives to segregation such
that segregation should be used only as a last resort; humane conditions in segregation, such as
permission for family contact and programming; due process for admission into segregation and
periodic review for those already in segregation; and limited use of segregation of vulnerable
populations, such as juveniles, the elderly, and people with mental illnesses.70
State legislatures, municipal authorities, and courts have continued to consider, and
sometimes to impose, curbs on restricted housing. In October of 2016, New Jersey enacted a
statute (awaiting the governor’s signature as of this writing) limiting the use of “isolated
confinement” to no more than 15 consecutive days, and no more than 20 days during any 60-day
period.71 The law defined “isolated confinement” as “confinement of an inmate . . . in a cell or
similarly confined holding or living space, alone or with other inmates, for approximately 20
hours or more per day, with severely restricted activity, movement, and social interaction.”72 The
law also prohibited, with a few exceptions, isolated confinement for prisoners who are members
of a vulnerable population, including pregnant women, those 21 or younger, those 65 or older,
those perceived to be lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or intersex, and those with a mental
illness, a developmental disability, a serious medical condition, or an auditory or visual
impairment.73
As of the fall of 2016, other bills pending in Illinois,74 Massachusetts,75 and Rhode
Island76 aimed to limit the use of restricted housing for all prisoners. Settlements approved in
2015-2016 in class actions in California,77 Indiana,78 and New York79 imposed substantial limits
on the use of restricted housing in each of these states.
Other reform efforts have focused specifically on populations with special needs. A
decade ago, the Bureau of Justice Statistics estimated that 56% of people in state prisons had
some form of mental illness.80 Given the research documenting how placing people with
preexisting mental illness in isolating housing can increase the risk of psychiatric deterioration,
violence, self-injury, and suicide,81 the American Psychiatric Association has advised against
segregating individuals with mental illness,82 as has the American Public Health Association,83
and the National Commission on Correctional Health Care.84 Legislation has also called for
screening individuals and imposing limits on isolation for individuals with mental illness.85
Reflecting these concerns, the resolutions of some lawsuits have provided that individuals
with cognitive or mental impairment should not be placed in restricted housing, or only briefly if
exigent circumstances exist.86 Correctional officials have also altered their rules and programs.
For example, in 2015, after a report released by Disability Rights Oregon (DRO) detailed
harmful conditions at its “Behavioral Health Unit,” the Oregon Department of Corrections
announced an agreement with DRO restricting the use of solitary for the mentally ill.87 In
Pennsylvania, after the settlement in another lawsuit also brought by a disability rights group,88
the Secretary of the Department of Corrections created new education programs for staff as part
of a system-wide initiative on mental illness.89
Another area of particular attention is the use of isolation for juveniles. Limits have been
put in place by legislation, court orders, local ordinances, and correctional policies.90 For
example, legislation restricting the placement of juveniles in isolation was enacted in 2016 in

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

12
Colorado,91 and a bill has likewise been enacted in California.92 In the spring of 2016, the Board
of Supervisors of Los Angeles directed that county officials end placement of youth in isolated
housing, except in very rare circumstances.93
In 2015, proposed legislation was before the Congress to curtail isolation for the few
juveniles in the federal system.94 Further, in response to an investigation by the Department of
Justice, Ohio adopted a policy to end the placement of youth in solitary confinement.95 The U.S.
Attorney for the Southern District of New York intervened in a lawsuit, begun by detainees in
2012, against New York City; the case challenged the City’s treatment of youth at Rikers Island.
In 2015, New York City’s mayor announced a plan that would end the use of solitary
confinement for people 21 and younger.96
In addition to the focus on subpopulations, proposals at the federal level sought to
improve information about the use of restrictive housing and to impose oversight across the
various populations in restricted housing. In the fall of 2016, the National Institute of Justice
(NIJ) published a volume on solitary confinement and awarded $1.4 million to the Vera Institute
of Justice to study the use of restricted housing and step-down programs in prisons and jails and
to “assess the impact” of working in restricted housing facilities on “mental, emotional, and
physical well-being.”97 The grant provided for a study to conduct a national survey of state
prison systems, akin to the ASCA-Liman Reports, that would also include a sampling of jails.
Further, NIJ provided Vera with funds to review state administrative data on restricted housing
placement and to do interviews with and surveys of prison administrators and corrections
officers.98 The Bureau of Justice Assistance also announced a grant of $2.2 million to fund the
Vera Institute’s Safe Alternatives to Segregation Initiative, which as of the fall of 2016, assisted
several jurisdictions seeking to reduce their use of restricted housing and to create alternatives to
solitary confinement.99
In the fall of 2016, major legislation was put forth in Congress to limit solitary
confinement. Senator Dick Durbin, joined by Senators Chris Coons, Cory Booker, Patrick
Leahy, and Al Franken, introduced the “Solitary Confinement Reform Act,” a bill that would
“reform the use of solitary confinement and other forms of restrictive housing” in Bureau of
Prisons facilities.100 The legislation seeks to mandate that placement in solitary confinement be
limited to “the briefest term and the least restrictive conditions practicable,” including at least
four hours out-of-cell every day unless a prisoner “poses a substantial and immediate threat.”101
The bill would also prohibit the placement in solitary confinement of juveniles,102 pregnant
women,103 prisoners with serious mental illness,104 and prisoners with intellectual or physical
disabilities,105 unless the prisoner “poses a substantial and immediate threat” and “all other
options to de-escalate” have been exhausted.”106 The proposed legislation would also prohibit the
placement of “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, or gender nonconforming” prisoners
in solitary confinement based solely on their sexual or gender identity.107
Further, the bill would limit placement in administrative segregation to a maximum of 15
consecutive days, and 20 total days in a 60-day period, unless necessary to contain a “substantial
and immediate threat.”108 The legislation would also mandate that correctional facilities allow
prisoners in restricted housing to participate in programming “as consistent with those available
in general population as practicable.”109 In addition, the 2016 Solitary Confinement Reform Act

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

13
proposed to ensure that “time served” during the investigation of an alleged offense be “credited”
for disciplinary segregation and that “concurrent sentences” be imposed where more than one
disciplinary violation arises from a single episode.110 The bill also proposed “timely, thorough,
and continuous” reviews of confinement, which would include “private, face-to-face interviews
with a multidisciplinary staff committee,” to determine if the conditions comply with the
provisions and if continued confinement is necessary.111
The proposed Solitary Confinement Reform Act also would create a “Civil Rights
Ombudsman” within the Bureau of Prisons.112 The Ombudsman position, to be filled by the
Attorney General of the United States, would have unrestricted access to the federal prison
facilities and contract facilities.113 The Ombudsman would meet regularly with the Director of
the Bureau of Prisons to address civil rights concerns and to raise issues regarding solitary
confinement policies and practices.114 The bill would also require that prisons offer multiple
internal mechanisms for prisoners to report violations of this legislation and any other civil rights
violations.115 Specifically, prisons would be required to offer at least two procedures for
reporting violations to an entity outside of the facility and at least two procedures for
confidentially reporting violations to the Ombudsman.116 Each year, under the bill, the
Ombudsman would be required to submit reports to both houses of Congress on its findings, the
problems relating to civil rights violations, violations of the bill’s provisions, and
recommendations for change.117 The Federal Bureau of Prisons, in turn, would be required to
keep extensive data on solitary confinement, including its costs and the number of assaults in the
general population and in the isolated population.118 The legislation also proposed the creation of
a national resource center that would coordinate activities among state, local, and federal prison
systems to centralize research and data related to reducing the population of prisoners in solitary
confinement.119
In short, what commentators have termed a “national consensus” in the United States to
end the “over-use of extreme isolation in prisons”120 has emerged. That consensus comports with
recent developments in legal systems other than the United States and in international law that
also aim to limit the use of isolation. In December 2015, the United Nations General Assembly
unanimously adopted the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of
Prisoners, commonly known as the “Nelson Mandela Rules.”121 The Rules defined solitary
confinement as being held for 22 hours or more a day for longer than 15 days without
“meaningful human contact,”122 and stated that “[s]olitary confinement shall be used only in
exceptional cases as a last resort, for as short a time as possible and subject to independent
review, and only pursuant to the authorization by a competent authority,” and “shall not be
imposed by virtue of a prisoner’s sentence.”123 In addition, the rules provided that “solitary
confinement should be prohibited in the case of prisoners with mental or physical disabilities
when their conditions would be exacerbated by such measures.”124 Further, the rules stipulated
that “indefinite” and “prolonged solitary confinement”125 should not be used, and that women
and children should not be held in solitary confinement.126
Solitary confinement has also been the subject of several decisions by the European
Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), which has analysed degrees of isolation and the duration in
specific instances.127 The ECtHR has considered whether such treatment violates Article 3 of the
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which prohibits

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

14
subjecting any person to “torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,” or
violates Article 8’s protection of family and private life.128 In 2014, the Court found that
although “a prisoner’s segregation from the prison community does not in itself amount to
inhuman treatment . . . substantive reasons must be given when a protracted period of solitary
confinement is further extended.”129 In Norway in 2016, a lower court judge held that, under
European and Norwegian law, a person convicted of killing dozens of people could not be placed
in “social isolation” that cut off his contact with all others, aside from staff.130
During the past few years, several research initiatives have documented the use of
restricted housing around the world. In 2008, for example, Sharon Shalev published A
Sourcebook on Solitary Confinement, which examined the health effects of solitary confinement.
She also discussed professional, ethical and human rights guidelines and codes of practice
relating to the use of solitary confinement.131 In 2011, Juan E. Méndez, the United Nations
Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment, issued a report and called for general principles to minimize the use of solitary
confinement and to abolish the practice under certain circumstances.132 The Special Rapporteur
emphasized that “[t]he practice should be used only in very exceptional circumstances, as a last
resort, for as short a time as possible.” In 2015, the Prison Reform Trust, based in the U.K.,
published Deep Custody: Segregation Units and Close Supervision Centres in England and
Wales,133 which detailed the use of isolation there.
In 2016, U.N. Special Rapporteur Méndez, working with other institutions, published a
report, Seeing into Solitary: Review of the Laws and Policies of Certain Nations around the
World with Regard to Solitary Confinement of Detainees, written in collaboration with other
organizations.134 The report included results from surveys and a comparative analysis of solitary
confinement practices in 34 jurisdictions; information came from Argentina, Austria, Brazil,
China, the Czech Republic, England and Wales (“England”), Ethiopia, Finland, France,
Germany, Guatemala, Hungary, Japan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway,
Poland, Russia, South Africa, Turkey, Uganda, the United States of America, Uruguay, and
Venezuela, as well as eight states within the United States: California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois,
Maine, New York, Pennsylvania, and Texas.
Seeing into Solitary found that “the practice of solitary confinement appears to be an
established fixture of the prison systems in all the countries examined, with few signs that it will
disappear from those systems any time soon.”135 The report identified a significant gap in many
jurisdictions between “the law and the practice of solitary confinement,” in that solitary
confinement was imposed more often than the law authorized.136 The reasons for placement in
solitary confinement were found to be varied, and included both disciplinary and nondisciplinary reasons. The report noted that safeguards, access to legal counsel, and mandatory
medical examinations that were available in many disciplinary segregation units were often
lacking in non-disciplinary segregation units.137 The report also noted that “some countries
which have made the most consequential improvements on solitary confinement regimes, such as
England and the United States, also tend to authorize some of the longest periods of solitary
confinement for inmates.”138

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

15
Seeing into Solitary also detailed efforts of some jurisdictions to improve conditions in
solitary confinement, of other jurisdictions to establish appeals processes to challenge decisions
to impose solitary confinement, and of many jurisdictions to prohibit or limit the use of solitary
confinement for juveniles, women (mostly pregnant women), and mentally ill or disabled
people.139 The most common limitation that the report identified was on the length of time that a
person may be placed in solitary confinement. Many jurisdictions permitted 30 days or less,
although the limit was at times extended or ignored.140 Further, “some countries, including
highly developed nations with what may be viewed as enlightened approaches to certain aspects
of solitary confinement, allow such confinement, whether for disciplinary or non-disciplinary
purposes, and in theory or practice, to be extended either for extremely long periods, including
years in some cases, or indefinitely.”141
In sum, demands for change can be found around the world. Commitments to reform and
efforts to limit or abolish the use of isolating confinement come from stakeholders and actors in
and out of government. Documentation of the harms of isolation, coupled with its costs and the
dearth of evidence suggesting that it enhances security, has prompted prison directors,
legislatures, executive branch officials, and advocacy groups to try to limit reliance on restricted
housing. Instead of being cast as the solution to a problem, restricted housing has come to be
understood by many as a problem in need of a solution.142

II.

The 2015 Survey’s Design and Purposes

Three additional introductory comments are in order. First, we sketch the research
methodology used in the questionnaire, which is reproduced in Appendix A. Second, we discuss
the challenges of defining and of gathering data on restricted housing. Third, we explain the
relationship of this study to the report, Time-In-Cell, published by ASCA and Liman in 2015.

A.

Goals and Methods

ASCA and the Liman Program jointly developed a survey that was sent to the directors of
state and federal correctional systems in the United States to learn about the use of restricted
housing as of the fall of 2015. The goal was to understand as much as possible about the
numbers of people separated from general prison populations and held for 22 hours or more, for
15 continuous days or more, in single or double cells.
To do so, the survey’s 15 questions requested information on all forms of restricted
housing within each of the jurisdictions. To understand the information provided, we sought to
learn about the types of facilities—prisons, jails, juvenile or other specially organized
institutions—a jurisdiction had, as well as for which facilities the jurisdiction could provide
information on restricted housing. We also asked about the number of people in restricted
housing; demographic information, including gender, race, and age; whether prisoners with
serious mental illness were held in restricted housing; how long individuals were confined in
restricted housing; and whether reforms were underway.

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

16
As in prior reports by ASCA and the Liman Program, the survey was distributed through
ASCA to the 50 states, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the District of Columbia and, in the
summer of 2016, the Virgin Islands which requested that it also be included and then promptly
provided information that was integrated thereafter.143 We received responses from 52
jurisdictions (as noted, Maine did not respond). For a few questions, we compiled information
from all the responses; more of the data come from the 48 jurisdictions providing detailed
responses. Of these, not every jurisdiction responded to all questions.
Previews of this report were provided twice at ASCA meetings. After receiving initial
responses in the fall of 2015, we presented an overview in January of 2016 at the ASCA midyear meeting. We then followed up in the spring of 2016 to clarify responses as needed. At the
summer 2016 ASCA meeting, a draft report was circulated and discussed. Thereafter, many
jurisdictions offered comments, prompting additional revisions. Unless otherwise noted, all data
provided come from the answers given by each jurisdiction, reporting about itself.

B.

Research Challenges: Various Definitions of Restricted Housing
and the Overlaps and Differences between the 2015
and 2016 ASCA-Liman Reports

As the introduction explained, several caveats are in order about the goals, the data
gathered, and the limits of this Report. The first concerns the focus of this work on “restricted
housing” or “restrictive housing.” As noted, the primary rationales relied upon by correction
systems for using restricted housing are the perceived needs to protect, to discipline, or to
prevent future harm. In addition to terms such as protective custody, disciplinary segregation,
and administrative segregation, different systems use an array of other terms, such as “special
housing units (SHU),” “security housing units (SHU),” and “special management units (SMU).”
In an effort to develop nationwide data that focused on all forms of restricted housing, the
2015 survey defined “restricted housing” as:
separating prisoners from the general population and holding them in their cells
for 22 hours per day or more, for 15 or more continuous days. The definition
includes prisoners held in both single or double cells, if held for 22 hours per day
or more in a cell, for 15 or more continuous days.144
Yet some jurisdictions indicated that the information they routinely collected did not
easily fall within the parameters that we provided. Seven jurisdictions reported being unable to
identify whether prisoners were in restricted conditions for more or less than the 15-day
benchmark.145 Other jurisdictions did not have clear information about the 22-hour measure; they
described some forms of restricted housing that reduced the number of hours within cells to
below 22 for at least one day of a week, or they had other questions about the definition.146 We
did as much follow-up as time would permit to enable this Report to be completed, we included
as much of the information provided to us as we could, and we noted when information could
include variations related to the specific questions asked.

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

17
Second, when gathering data on restricted housing and administrative segregation in
2014-2015 for the Time-In-Cell Report, we asked jurisdictions to tell us about the number of
individuals in all forms of restricted housing, but did not provide a specific and separate
definition in that question, except to indicate that it included disciplinary segregation, protective
custody, and administrative segregation.147 Further, the Time-In-Cell Report focused most of the
130 questions on the practices governing administrative segregation, and we instructed:
For the purposes of this questionnaire, the term “administrative segregation”
refers to separating prisoners from the general population, typically in cells (either
alone or with cellmates), and holding them in their cells for most of the hours of
the day for 30 days or more. Common terms for this type of confinement include
administrative detention, intensive management, and restrictive housing. Please
note that administrative segregation does not include punitive/disciplinary
segregation or protective custody.148
In contrast, the 2015 survey focused specifically on restricted housing of all kinds. We
asked about the numbers of prisoners held for at least 22 hours a day in their cells, and used
those responses for our overall tallies.
When responding to the general question on restricted housing in the 2015 Time-In-Cell
Report, 34 jurisdictions reported that, as of the fall of 2014, 66,000 people were held in restricted
housing. Because those jurisdictions housed 73% of the country’s prison population, ASCA and
Liman estimated that 80,000 to 100,000 people were housed in isolation in the fall of 2014.
In short, the 2014 and 2015 surveys differed on a few dimensions. While in 2014, we did
not specify the number of hours held in-cell beyond saying “most hours of the day,” we did learn
that in many jurisdictions individuals in restricted housing were held for 22-24 hours per day incell. In contrast, this 2015 survey gave the 22-hour benchmark. Further, in 2014, we asked about
prisoners held in-cell for 30 days or more; in this 2015 survey, we asked about people held incell for 15 days or more. This 15-day marker was selected because it is used in many
jurisdictions149 as well as internationally as identifying what is considered to be prolonged or
extended solitary confinement.150 Moreover, because we learned in the Time-In-Cell Report that
all of the jurisdictions reporting on administrative segregation held prisoners in cells for 19 hours
or more and that 89% of the prisoners were in-cell 22 hours or more on weekdays and on
weekends,151 we used 22 hours as the marker for restricted housing and additionally sought more
information on individuals placed in restricted housing for time intervals short of 22 hours.

III.

Types of Facilities and of Cells in the 2015 Survey
A.

Types of Facilities for which State-Wide Data Were Available

As discussed above, based on information provided in prior surveys, we knew that not all
state-level correctional systems had information regarding the number of people held in
restricted housing in every type of confinement facility within their state. Further, most state
level agencies did not have authority over all of the detention facilities within their jurisdiction.

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

18
For example, while state governments most commonly operate prisons, separate local
government agencies typically operate jails.152
Therefore, we asked jurisdictions to explain what they did know: we asked which types
of facilities were included within their state-level correctional systems and if they had data
regarding individuals held in restricted housing in each of the types of facilities under their
control. 153 Some states had significant numbers of prisoners in county jails. Data about such
prisoners has generally only been included if that jurisdiction had information about those held in
the fall of 2015 in restricted housing and if that state’s policies on restricted housing governed
the local facilities.
In the survey, we asked if each jurisdiction’s correctional system included prisons, jails,
juvenile facilities, mental health facilities, privately-contracted facilities, special facilities for
death sentenced prisoners, or any other types of facilities. Of the 52 jurisdictions responding, all
ran prison systems except the District of Columbia, which administers its own jail system and
relies on federal and privately-contracted facilities to house its prison population.154 In total, 12
of the 52 responding jurisdictions reported that their correctional systems included jails, while 40
jurisdictions’ correctional systems did not include jails.155 As we learned from the responses, the
relationship of jails to state prison systems is varied; some systems used jails in the sense of
contracting to house prisoners in jails but did not have direct authority over them. Our focus was
on rules imposed at the state-wide level.
In Table 1, we summarize the information from the 52 jurisdictions responding by type of
facility.
Table 1 – Types of Facilities Within State and Federal Corrections Systems (n = 52)
Facilities

Jurisdictions

Prisons
Jails
Juvenile Facilities
Mental Health Facilities
Privately-Contracted Facilities
Special Housing for Death-Sentenced Prisoners

51
12
4
7
21
2

Jurisdictions Collecting
Restricted Housing Data
49
7156
3
4
15
2

As Table 1 indicates, we also asked jurisdictions if they had information on restricted
housing for each category of facility that they identified as within their control in their
systems.157 Of the 51 jurisdictions with prisons in their correctional system, 49 reported on
individuals in restricted housing in the prisons that they run directly, as distinguished from those
run by private providers. Of the 12 jurisdictions whose systems included jails (nine states, the
Virgin Islands, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and the District of Columbia), seven had data on
the use of restricted housing in their jails.158
The information provided on privately-contracted facilities was also limited. Nonetheless,
we did identify 2,425 prisoners held in 15 jurisdictions in restricted housing in private facilities.
Specifically, 21 reported that they have privately-contracted facilities in their correctional

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

19
system, and 15 provided information on restricted housing within those facilities. As of the fall
of 2015, those 21 jurisdictions housed 942,248 prisoners in their total custodial population across
all types of facilities, and 96,487—or about 10%—were housed in privately-contracted facilities.
The 15 jurisdictions reporting on the use of restricted housing in privately-contracted facilities
housed 85,701 prisoners, and 2.8% of that number—2,425 individuals—were reported to be in
restricted housing.
The information provided on juveniles held in custody was minimal. Four responding
jurisdictions indicated that their correctional systems included juvenile facilities.159 Of these four
jurisdictions, three provided data on the use of restricted housing in these juvenile facilities.
We also asked about other specialized facilities for subsets of prisoners. Some
jurisdictions indicated that they had distinct facilities, while others referenced special units
within facilities. Seven jurisdictions responded that they had separate institutions for the
mentally ill.160 Six jurisdictions reported that their data included facilities that they denoted as
“Other” because they did not fall into the named categories we provided.161
In short, most of the information on restricted housing provided in this Report is about its
use in prisons. Further, the “total” numbers provided in this Report do not include all the people
who were, in the fall of 2015, held in restricted housing. For example, the numbers discussed in
the demographic section on age cohorts in restricted housing were based almost entirely on
information about adult prisons. As discussed, we have almost no information on juvenile
facilities around the country.162 Also, we know that millions of people are incarcerated in jails,
that some jails have restricted housing, and that more than 90% of the jails are run at the county
level. Yet, this Report has very little information on the number of individuals held in restricted
housing within jails.

B.

The Use of Single and of Double Cells

As noted, the survey’s definition of restricted housing included individuals held for 22
hours or more, for 15 days or more, in single and double cells. The inclusion of double-celling
mirrors the views of the Department of Justice, which noted in its 2016 Report that “[n]ot all
segregation is truly ‘solitary,’ . . . . Many prison systems, including the [Federal Bureau of
Prisons], often house two segregated inmates together in the same cell, a practice known as
‘double-celling.’”163
For this survey, we asked jurisdictions, “How many prisoners, if any, (including both
male and female, of every age)” in restricted housing “are housed in double cells?”164 Among the
47 jurisdictions that responded to this question, 26 housed prisoners in double cells. Twenty-one
of the 26 jurisdictions provided the number of prisoners confined in double cells, which totaled
17,460 prisoners. Five jurisdictions reported that they housed prisoners in double cells but were
not able to provide a number.

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

20

IV.

The Numbers and Percentages of Prisoners in Restricted Housing:
The Data from the 2015 Survey
A.

Counting and Comparing General and Restricted Populations

The survey asked jurisdictions to report on the number of men and women held in any
form of restricted housing as of October 1, 2015. As noted, 48 jurisdictions described a total of
67,442 prisoners in restricted housing.165 These 48 jurisdictions housed 96.4% of the total prison
population in the United States and its territories,166 as calculated by using data provided in a
2014 report by the Bureau of Statistics (BJS), which regularly provides the numbers of prisoners
by jurisdiction.167
We also sought to gather baseline general population data directly from each jurisdiction,
so as to understand what percent of prisoners within a jurisdiction were held in restricted
housing. The 2015 survey asked each jurisdiction for its total custodial population, including
prisoners in restricted housing and in the general population. In addition, we asked about the
numbers of prisoners housed in different types of facilities, as detailed above.
First, we asked for the total number of prisoners housed in each jurisdiction. On this
question, 52 jurisdictions provided information; the total custodial population reported by was
1,452,691 prisoners.168 Forty-eight jurisdictions provided information on restricted housing
populations; the total custodial population for the 48 jurisdictions for which we have restricted
housing data was 1,437,276. This total accounts for prisoners held in-state (as compared to being
sent to another jurisdiction); our operative assumption was that most states house almost all of
their prisoners in-state. We know of exceptions, of which Hawaii is a prominent example.169 For
Hawaii, we used the in-state population when calculating the percentage of people held in
restricted housing.
Second, we asked for the total number of prisoners housed in facilities for which the
jurisdiction also had information on restricted housing. When we totaled the numbers from those
answers, the custodial population in facilities for which restricted housing data was reported—at
1,387,161 prisoners—was slightly lower than the answers by these jurisdictions to the question
of total custodial population—specifically, by 65,530 fewer individuals. That lower number
reflects that some jurisdictions reported that they did not track data on individuals in restricted
housing in all of their facilities.170
More details are in order to explain both the Table and Chart with asterisks and two
double entries. In the 41 jurisdictions in which the total population numbers were the same for
both inquiries, we used that number as the baseline to calculate the percentage of prisoners in
restricted housing. In the seven jurisdictions that had some facilities for which they could not
provide restricted housing information (i.e. jurisdictions for which the total population in
facilities with restricted housing data was less than the total custodial population), we used the
total population in facilities with restricted housing data to calculate the percentage of prisoners
in restricted housing. In Table 2, below, we use an asterisk to note those jurisdictions.
Directors at the two jurisdictions that were (before the Virgin Islands reported its data) at
the highest end—Louisiana and Utah—reached out to us after we had circulated a draft report in

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

21
the summer of 2016 to describe how calculations about their states could be different. Louisiana
staff suggested that we should include state prisoners held in local jails—some 18,000—in the
denominator and that we could extrapolate the number held in parish jails in restricted housing
from a special audit conducted in August of 2016 that identified 314 people held in such
confinement. Using those numbers, Louisiana would have had 8.2% of its prison population in
restricted housing. Further, as discussed in more detail in Part VII, Utah reported making
significant changes in how it authorized the use of restricted housing. As of August of 2016, the
number of people in restricted housing in Utah was reported to have dropped from 912 (14% of
the state prison population) to 380 (6% of the state prison population). The focus of our data was
on the fall of 2015, but because these jurisdictions reached out specially to provide extra
information, we included an added layer of data for Louisiana and Utah in Table 2 and Chart 1.
We provide a summary of the findings in Table 2 and Chart 1 below. The percentage of
prisoners in restricted housing ranged from 0.5% (Hawaii, in-state only) to 28.3% (Virgin
Islands). The Virgin Islands was also the jurisdiction reporting the smallest absolute number of
prisoners in the total custodial population (491 prisoners). Across all the jurisdictions, the
median percentage of the population held in restricted housing was 5.1%.

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

22
Table 2 – Numbers and Percentages of Men and Women in Custodial Population in
Restricted Housing by Jurisdiction (15 Consecutive Days or Longer, 22 Hours or More
per Day) (n = 48)171

Alabama

Total Custodial
Population
25,284

Alaska
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
D.C.
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana

4,919
42,736
128,164
18,231
16,056
5,824
1,153
99,588
56,656
4,200
8,013
46,609
27,508
8,302
9,952
11,669
36,511

Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio

19,687
10,004
42,826
9,321
18,866
32,266
2,554
5,456
2,699
20,346
7,389
52,621
38,039
1,800
50,248

Total Custodial
Population for
Facilities
Reporting RH
Data
24,549*

Population in
Restricted
Housing
1,402

Percentage in
Restricted
Housing
5.7%

4,919
42,736
117,171*
18,231
16,056
4,342*
1,153
99,588
56,656
4,200
8,013
46,609
27,508
8,302
9,952
11,669
18,515*
(36,511)
19,687
10,004
42,826
9,321
18,866
32,266
2,554
5,456
2,699
20,346
7,389
52,621
38,039
1,800
50,248

352
2,544
1,104172
217173
128
381
95
8,103
3,880
23
404
2,255
1,621
247
589
487
2,689
(3,003)
1,485
235
1,339
622
185
2,028
90
598
125
1,370
663
4,498
1,517
54
1,374

7.2%
6.0%
0.9%
1.2%
0.8%
8.8%
8.2%
8.1%
6.8%
0.5%
5.0%
4.8%
5.9%
3.0%
5.9%
4.2%
14.5%
(8.2%)
7.5%
2.3%
3.1%
6.7%
1.0%
6.3%
3.5%
11.0%
4.6%
6.7%
9.0%
8.5%
4.0%
3.0%
2.7%

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

23
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virgin Islands
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin
Wyoming
BOP
Across Jurisdictions

27,650
14,724
50,349
20,978
3,526
20,095
148,365
6,497
1,783
491
30,412
16,308
22,965
2,128
205,508
1,437,276

27,650
14,724
50,349
20,978
3,526
20,095
148,365
6,497
(6,112)174
1,783
339*
30,412
16,308
20,535*
2,128
189,181*
1,387,161

1,552
630
1,716
1,068
106
1,768
5,832
912
(380)
106
96
854
274
751
131
8,942
67,442

5.6%
4.3%
3.4%
5.1%
3.0%
8.8%
3.9%
14.0%
(6%)
5.9%
28.3%
2.8%
1.7%
3.7%
6.2%
4.7%
4.9%

Chart 1 – Percentages of Men and Women in Custodial Population in Restricted Housing
by Jurisdiction (15 Consecutive Days or Longer, 22 Hours or More per Day) (n = 48)175
30.00%

25.00%

20.00%

15.00%

10.00%

0.00%

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
D.C.
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virgin Islands
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin
Wyoming
BOP

5.00%

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

24

B. The Numbers and Percentages of Prisoners In-Cell for 16 to 21 Hours
As noted, our general definition of restricted housing was focused on people held in-cell
for 22 hours or more per day for 15 continuous days or more. Given ongoing efforts to lower the
number of hours in cells, we asked jurisdictions to provide information on prisoners who were
held in their cells for less than 22 hours a day but nonetheless for most of each day. For example,
California reported that it used forms of segregation that permit prisoners 10 hours per week outof-cell, and distributed those 10 hours throughout the week such that on some days in a week,
prisoners were allowed more than three hours out-of-cell. As a consequence, prisoners in these
forms of segregation would not be included in California’s restricted housing numbers.
Therefore, in addition to the 22 hours or more question, we inquired about two subsets:
individuals in-cell for 20 to 21 hours per day and those in-cell for 16 to 19 hours per day. Thirtyfour jurisdictions with a total custodial population (in facilities for which they tracked restricted
housing data) of 788,871 prisoners responded to the questions about prisoners in cells in these
different time periods. Eleven of the 34 jurisdictions answered that, in addition to the prisoners
held in restricted housing for 22 or more hours, they held no prisoners in cell for 16-21 hours.
Of those responding, 23 jurisdictions reported an additional 11,827 prisoners held in-cell
for 20 to 21 hours per day and 4,628 prisoners were held in-cell for 16 to 19 hours per day. In
this subset of 23 jurisdictions, a total of 16,455 prisoners were held in-cell for 16 to 21 hours per
day. Within these 23 jurisdictions, the percentage of prisoners held in-cell for 16 to 21 hours
ranged from 0.03% (New Jersey) to 6.2% (California). In these 23 jurisdictions holding prisoners
for 16 to 21 hours, a median of 1.6% of the total custodial population was held in-cell for 16 to
21 hours, as well as prisoners held in-cell for 22 hours or more.
In short, in addition to the 67,442 prisoners held in-cell 22 hours or more across the 48
responding jurisdictions represented in Table 2 and Chart 1, another 16,455 prisoners in 23 of
those 48 jurisdictions were held in conditions that were also restricted, but not as limiting as the
22 hours reflected in Table 2 and Chart 1. When these two numbers are combined, a total of at
least 83,897 prisoners were held in-cell for more than 16 hours per day, for 15 days or more.

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

25
Table 3 – Numbers and Percentages of Men and Women in Custodial Population In-Cell
for 16 or More Hours per Day and for 15 Consecutive Days or Longer by Jurisdiction (n =
34)176

Alaska

Total
Custodial
Population
4,919

22 Hours or
More
352
7.2%

20-21 Hours
0
0.0%

16-19 Hours
0
0.0%

Total 16-24
Hours
352
7.2%

California177
Colorado
Connecticut
D.C.
Hawaii

117,171
18,231
16,056
1,153
4,200

1,104
217
128
95
23

0.9%
1.2%
0.8%
8.2%
0.5%

6,628
202
186
0
0

5.7%
1.1%
1.2%
0.0%
0.0%

597
99
381
0
0

0.5%
0.5%
2.4%
0.0%
0.0%

8,329
518
695
95
23

7.1%
2.8%
4.3%
8.2%
0.5%

Idaho
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Louisiana
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Dakota
Texas
Utah178
Virgin Islands
Virginia
Washington
Wyoming

8,013
27,508
8,302
9,952
18,515
19,687
10,004
42,826
18,866
32,266
2,554
5,456
2,699
20,346
7,389
52,621
38,039
1,800
27,650
14,724
50,349
3,526
148,365
6,497
339
30,412
16,308
2,128

404
1,621
247
589
2,689
1,485
235
1,339
185
2,028
90
598
125
1,370
663
4,498
1,517
54
1,552
630
1,716
106
5,832
912
96
854
274
131

5.0%
5.9%
3.0%
5.9%
14.5%
7.5%
2.3%
3.1%
1.0%
6.3%
3.5%
11.0%
4.6%
6.7%
9.0%
8.5%
4.0%
3.0%
5.6%
4.3%
3.4%
3.0%
3.9%
14.0%
28.3%
2.8%
1.7%
6.2%

0
246
213
392
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
44
6
0
347
815
0
20
22
226
0
1,063
122
0
1,289
0
0

0.0%
0.9%
2.6%
3.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
1.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.7%
2.1%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.4%
0.0%
0.7%
1.9%
0.0%
4.2%
0.0%
0.0%

0
640
0
0
0
0
29
0
0
222
0
0
0
0
175
245
0
0
0
34
0
5
2,183
0
1
0
0
17

0.0%
2.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.4%
0.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.1%
1.5%
0.0%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.8%

404
2,507
460
981
2,689
1,485
264
1,339
185
2,250
96
598
169
1,376
838
5,090
2,332
54
1,572
686
1,942
111
9,078
1,034
97
2,143
274
148

5.0%
9.1%
5.5%
9.9%
14.5%
7.5%
2.6%
3.1%
1.0%
7.0%
3.8%
11.0%
6.3%
6.8%
11.3%
9.7%
6.1%
3.0%
5.7%
4.7%
3.9%
3.1%
6.1%
15.9%
28.6%
7.0%
1.7%
7.0%

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

26
Chart 2 – Percentage of Men and Women in Custodial Population In-Cell for 16 or More
Hours per Day and for 15 Consecutive Days or Longer by Jurisdiction (n = 34)
35.0%

30.0%

25.0%

20.0%
16-19 hours
15.0%

20-21 hours
22 or more hours

10.0%

0.0%

Alaska
California
Colorado
Connecticut
D.C.
Hawaii
Idaho
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Louisiana
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Dakota
Texas
Utah
Virgin Islands
Virginia
Washington
Wyoming

5.0%

V.

The Duration of Time Individuals Spent in Restricted Housing
We asked whether jurisdictions regularly gather, collect, or report information on each
prisoner’s length of stay in restricted housing. Fifty of the 53 jurisdictions we queried responded
to this question.179 Thirty-three jurisdictions stated that they did regularly gather information on
length of stay.180 The following 17 jurisdictions stated that they do not regularly track
information on length of stay: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Illinois,
Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.181

A.

Length of Stay

We also asked jurisdictions how many prisoners, as of October 1, 2015, had been in
restricted housing for the following intervals: 15 days to one month; one month to three months;
three months to six months; six months to one year; one year to three years; three years to six
years; and over six years. Forty-one of the 53 jurisdictions we queried provided sufficiently
detailed data on which to report.182 The data are summarized in Table 4,183 and endnotes indicate
jurisdictions that reported length-of-stay data for some, but not all prisoners in restricted housing.

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

27

Table 4 – Numbers of Prisoners in Restricted Housing by Length of Time and by
Jurisdiction (n = 41)

184

Alaska
Arizona
California185
Colorado
Connecticut186
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Hawaii
Idaho187
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana188
Maryland
Massachusetts189
Minnesota190
Mississippi
Montana191
Nebraska
New Jersey
New York192
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio193
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee194
Texas
Utah
Vermont195
Virgin Islands
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin
Wyoming
BOP
Across Jurisdictions

15 days1 mo.
124
140
23
64
19
25
33
2,026
21
55
212
97
125
139
327
201
2
102
3
58
48
54
1,615
461
8
119
169
90
349
238
18
89
109
233
17
14
219
16
278
8
1,690
9,638

1-3 mo.
74
472
106
65
20
99
51
3,254
2
91
224
80
146
222
551
725
3
308
21
0
121
247
1,454
579
13
360
270
152
524
370
16
239
204
169
3
12
306
55
285
30
3,802
15,725

3-6 mo.
49
530
177
64
23
84
6
1,327
0
49
388
30
87
52
334
357
12
103
29
67
158
295
671
460
12
181
206
277
288
128
10
222
277
173
2
15
119
68
88
24
1,449
8,891

6 mo.1 year
60
809
181
23
17
76
5
741
0
55
496
24
105
41
302
136
65
47
41
2
87
354
257
12
17
253
270
81
156
114
15
353
537
125
0
23
89
70
60
59
929
7,087

1-3
years
43
488
270
1
22
67
0
401
0
21
175
16
94
28
450
56
71
7
69
4
106
184
101
4
4
162
490
26
157
151
27
500
1,840
166
0
17
101
37
36
9
731
7,132

3-6
years
5
34
168
0
7
12
0
195
0
3
80
0
22
4
221
8
24
0
17
0
48
128
32
1
0
43
77
4
52
67
12
166
1,278
35
0
10
20
16
4
0
183
2,976

6+ years
0
71
154
0
13
18
0
159
0
1
46
0
10
1
0
2
43
0
5
3
30
108
0
0
0
22
70
0
190
0
8
205
1,587
11
0
5
0
12
0
1
158
2,933

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

28
The 41 responding jurisdictions provided length-of-stay data for 54,382 prisoners in
restricted housing. We therefore identified length-of-time spent in restricted housing for 81% of
the total restricted housing population described in this report.
According to the 41 responding jurisdictions, 18% of prisoners were in restricted housing
for 15 days up to 30 days. Twenty-nine percent of the 54,382 prisoners—15,725 people—were
in restricted housing for one month up to three months. Another 29% of the 54,382 prisoners—
15,978 people—were in restricted housing for three months up to one year. Twenty-four percent
of the 54,382 prisoners—13,041 people—were in restricted housing for one year or more.
Almost 6,000 people, comprising 11% of the population on which we have duration data
for the length of time spent in restricted housing, were held in restricted housing three years or
more, and about half of these were held in restricted housing for six years or more. Specifically,
32 jurisdictions reported housing 2,976 people for three years up to six years; this population
constitutes 5.5% of the restricted housing population on which we have length-of-time data.
Twenty-six jurisdictions reported holding 2,933 prisoners for six years or more, which is 5.4% of
the population for which we had this kind of data. Chart 3 details this distribution.
Chart 3 – Prisoners in Restricted Housing by Length of Time and by Percent of the 54,382
Prisoners for Which Length-of-Stay Data Were Provided (n = 41)
18,000
29%

16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000

18%

16%
13%

8,000

13%

6,000
4,000

5.5%

5.4%

3-6 years

6+ years

2,000
0
15 days-1 mo.

1-3 mo.

3-6 mo.

6 mo.-1 year

1-3 years

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

29

B. Length of Time by Classification of the Type of Restricted Custody
For each time period, we asked jurisdictions about prisoners held in protective custody,
disciplinary custody, administrative segregation or any other classification that met our definition
of restricted housing—prisoners separated from the general population and held in-cell for 22
hours per day or more, for 15 or more continuous days. If jurisdictions included prisoners under
some “other” restricted housing classification, we asked for information about this classification;
jurisdictions reported classifications such as death row, medical classifications, and intensive
management units.196
Thirty-seven jurisdictions were able to provide data on prisoners’ length of stay by
classification.197 These jurisdictions reported type-of-custody data for 50,036 prisoners in
restricted housing and thus comprised roughly 74% of the 67,442 population that were reported
to be in restricted housing as of the fall of 2015.
The majority of this subset of 50,036 prisoners were held in disciplinary or administrative
segregation. Of the 50,036 prisoners reported by type of classification that put them into
restricted housing 2,527 (5%) were classified as being held in protective custody; 14,809 (30%)
were classified as being held in disciplinary custody; 23,997 (48%) were classified as being held
in administrative segregation; and 8,681 (17%) were segregated for some other reason.
Prisoners who were held in disciplinary custody stayed there for shorter intervals than did
prisoners held under other classifications. Of the prisoners in restricted housing for 15 days up to
one month, 53% were in disciplinary custody. Of prisoners held for one month up to three
months, 40% were classified as placed into restrictive housing for discipline.
Prisoners who were held for longer periods of time in restricted housing, particularly
longer than six months, were more likely to be held in administrative segregation or “other”
forms of restricted housing. Of prisoners who were in restricted housing for six months or longer
in the jurisdictions providing data, 82%, or 14,847 prisoners, were housed in administrative
segregation or some “other” form of restricted housing. Prisoners in disciplinary and protective
custody accounted for 18% of those who spent longer than six months in restricted housing,
whereas prisoners in administrative segregation accounted for 54% of those who spent longer
than six months, and prisoners in “other” forms of restricted housing accounted for 28%. Chart 4
provides the details.

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

30
Chart 4 – Prisoners in Restricted Housing by Length of Time and by Classification of the
Type of Restrictive Custody (n = 37)
Protective Custody

Disciplinary Custody

Administrative Segregation

Other

8000

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
15-1m

VI.

1 - 3 mo.

3 - 6 mo.

6 mo. - 1 year

1 - 3 years

3 - 6 years

6 years +

The Demographics of Restricted Housing
The survey asked jurisdictions to provide demographic data for their total custodial and
restricted housing populations. Forty-three responding jurisdictions provided some information
about gender, race, ethnicity, and age. A smaller number of jurisdictions provided information on
people identified as transgender, as pregnant women, and as individuals labeled with mental
health issues.

A.

Gender

Forty-three jurisdictions provided sufficiently detailed data on men and 40 did so about
women. Across the 40 jurisdictions that provided data on both genders, a higher number of men
than women prisoners were confined in restricted housing.
The percentage held in restricted housing ranged from 29.3% of the male custodial
population (95 out of 324 male prisoners) in the Virgin Islands and 14.7% of the male custodial
population (2,583 out of 17,577 prisoners) in Louisiana198 to approximately 0.6% of the male
custodial population (22 out of 3,989) held in-state in Hawaii.199 Across the 43 jurisdictions
providing data, the median percentage of male prisoners in restricted housing was 5.3%.
Jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction information is provided in Chart 5 and Table 5, below.

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

0.0%
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
D.C.
Florida
Hawaii
Idaho
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virgin Islands
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin
Wyoming
B.O.P
Total

31

Chart 5 – Percentage of Male Custodial Population in Restricted Housing (n=43)200

35.0%

30.0%

25.0%

20.0%

15.0%

10.0%

5.0%

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

32

Table 5 – Number and Percentage of Male Custodial Population in Restricted Housing
(n=43)201

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
D.C.
Florida
Hawaii
Idaho
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virgin Islands
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin
Wyoming
BOP
Across Jurisdictions

Total Custodial
Population
23,062
4,360
38,764
111,996
16,719
14,993
4,119
1,153
92,679
3,989
7,001
24,937
7,575
9,132
10,664
17,577
18,736
9,313
40,625
8,674
17,516
29,028
2,345
5,018
17,027
50,189
35,228
1,582
46,115
24,722
13,451
47,551
19,575
3,132
18,630
135,580
5,960
324
28,059
15,172
19,221
1,877
177,451
1,180,821

Restricted Housing
Population
1,382
345
2,452
1,079
214
120
378
95
7,863
22
389
1,579
242
581
362
2,583
1,454
447
1,321
602
180
1,968
83
589
1,316
4,410
1,476
53
1,363
1,519
609
1,701
1,045
101
1,716
5,726
852
95
824
273
692
121
8,827
59,049

Percentage in
Restricted Housing
6.0%
7.9%
6.3%
1.0%
1.3%
0.8%
9.2%
8.2%
8.5%
0.6%
5.6%
6.3%
3.2%
6.4%
3.4%
14.7%
7.8%
4.8%
3.3%
6.9%
1.0%
6.8%
3.5%
11.7%
7.7%
8.8%
4.2%
3.4%
3.0%
6.1%
4.5%
3.6%
5.3%
3.2%
9.2%
4.2%
14.3%
29.3%
2.9%
1.8%
3.6%
6.4%
5.0%
5.0%

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

33
As the table and chart above reflect, a total of 59,048 men were reported confined in
restrictive housing in the fall of 2015. As we detail below, smaller numbers and percentages of
women prisoners were placed in restrictive housing. Specifically, across the 40 jurisdictions
providing data for female prisoners that reported some numbers other than zero,202 the
jurisdiction reporting the highest percentage of female prisoners in restricted housing was
Louisiana, where approximately 11.3% of its female custodial population (106 out of 938
prisoners) was in restricted housing.203 The jurisdiction reporting the lowest percentage was
Washington, where approximately 0.1% of the female custodial population (1 out of 1,136
prisoners) was in restricted housing. The total number of women reported in the data were
83,749, of whom 1,458 were in restrictive housing. The median percentage of female prisoners
in restricted housing across these 40 jurisdictions was 1.6%. Jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction
information is reported in Chart 6 and Table 6 below.
Chart 6 – Percentage of Female Custodial Population in Restricted Housing (n=40)204
12.0%

10.0%

8.0%

6.0%

4.0%

0.0%

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Hawaii
Idaho
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virgin Islands
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin
Wyoming
B.O.P
Total

2.0%

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

34
Table 6 – Number and Percentage of Female Custodial Population in Restricted Housing
(n=40)

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Hawaii
Idaho
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virgin Islands
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin
Wyoming
BOP
Across Jurisdictions

Total Custodial
Population
1,487
559
3,972
1,512
1,063
223
6,909
738
1,012
2,571
727
820
1,005
938
951
691
2,201
647
1,350
3,238
438
722
2,432
2,811
218
4,133
2,928
1,273
2,798
1,403
394
1,465
12,785
537
15
2,353
1,136
1,313
251
11,730
83,749

Restricted Housing
Population
20
10
92
3
8
3
240
1
15
42
5
8
20
106
31
16
18
20
5
60
9
54
88
41
1
11
33
21
15
23
5
52
106
60
1
30
1
59
10
115
1,458

Percentage in
Restricted Housing
1.3%
1.8%
2.3%
0.2%
0.8%
1.3%
3.5%
0.1%
1.5%
1.6%
0.7%
1.0%
2.0%
11.3%
3.3%
2.3%
0.8%
3.1%
0.4%
1.9%
2.1%
7.5%
3.6%
1.5%
0.5%
0.3%
1.1%
1.6%
0.5%
1.6%
1.3%
3.5%
0.8%
11.2%
6.7%
1.3%
0.1%
4.5%
4.0%
1.0%
1.7%

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

35

B.

Race and Ethnicity

The survey asked for race and ethnicity data for both the total custodial and the restricted
housing populations of men and women. Jurisdictions were asked to provide information in five
categories: White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, and Other.205
Among the 43 jurisdictions reporting on men, Black prisoners comprised 45% of the
restricted housing population, as compared to comprising 40% of the total of all of the male
custodial population in those jurisdictions. In 31 of the 43 reporting jurisdictions, the male
restricted housing population contained a greater percentage of Black prisoners than did the total
male custodial population in each of those jurisdictions.
Hispanic prisoners comprised 21% of the restricted housing population, as compared to
20% of all of the total custodial population. In 22 of 43 reporting jurisdictions, the male
restricted housing population contained a greater percentage of Hispanic prisoners than did the
total male custodial population in each of those jurisdictions.206 In 36 of the 43 jurisdictions, the
male restricted housing population contained a smaller percentage of White prisoners than in the
total male custodial population. As detailed below, jurisdictions reported a small percentage of
Asian prisoners in their general prison population and a smaller percentage in their population in
restricted housing. The “Other” category (which could include members of Indian Tribes,
American Samoans, and other groups) was small and comparable in size in the general and in the
restricted housing populations.
Chart 7 displays and compares these percentages; Table 7 lists by jurisdictions the
number of male prisoners in the general population and in restrictive housing by race/ethnicity.
Table 8 compares the percent of all male prisoners to those by race and ethnicity in restrictive
housing.

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

36

Chart 7 – Demographic Percentage Composition of Total Male Custodial Population and
Male Restricted Housing Population (n = 43)

Total Custodial
Population
Asian
0.7%

Other
2.8%

Hispanic
19.9%

Black
40.1%

Restricted Housing
Population
Other
2.8%

Asian
0.3%

White
36.5%

Hispanic
20.6%

White
31.0%

Black
45.3%

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

37
Table 7 – Demographic Composition of Total Male Custodial Population and of Male
Restricted Housing Population (n = 43)

8,901
2,011
14,762
24,486
7,551
4,735
1,538
24
35,474
934
5,243
14,750
4,894
5,073
7,446
4,679
4,075
4,002
17,509
3,930
5,533
17,512
1,758
2,757
3,805
12,138
12,881
1,051
23,364
13180
9,859
18,879
6,427
1,888
9,338
41,626
3,881
5
9,884
9,083
8,487
1,415
44,695

Total Male Custodial Population
Black
HisAsian Other
Total
panic
14,063
0
2
96
23,062
464
128
38
1,719
4,360
5,431
15,932
152
2,487
38,764
32,905 46,508 1,200 6,897 111,996
3,137
5,357
176
498
16,719
6,322
3,826
73
37
14,993
2,404
167
7
3
4,119
1,041
64
3
21
1,153
45,122 11,770
13
300
92,679
175
99
755
2,026
3,989
198
1,095
33
432
7,001
8,800
1,160
49
178
24,937
1,978
513
64
126
7,575
2,802
1,005
82
170
9,132
2,890
187
24
117
10,664
12,826
39
22
11
17,577
11,443
605
47
2,566
18,736
2,655
2,417
127
112
9,313
22,006
322
112
676
40,625
3,154
585
231
774
8,674
11,763
152
36
32
17,516
10,810
539
55
112
29,028
60
0
6
521
2,345
1,362
634
41
224
5,018
10,160
2,689
95
278
17,027
25,097 11,321
235
1,398
50,189
19,586
1,697
109
955
35,228
125
97
8
301
1,582
21,276
1,189
60
226
46115
6893
1889
75
2,685
24,722
1,270
1,787
193
342
13,451
23,322
5,032
128
190
47,551
12,551
408
19
170
19,575
236
140
10
858
3,132
8,785
438
43
26
18,630
46,765 46,460
434
295
135,580
404
1,116
183
376
5,960
227
92
0
0
324
17,314
730
107
24
28,059
2,815
1,960
539
775
15,172
8,068
1,871
194
601
19,221
104
242
7
109
1,877
64,576 62,669 2,523 2,988 177,451

431,463

473,385

White
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
D.C.
Florida
Hawaii
Idaho
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virgin Islands
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin
Wyoming
BOP
Across
Jurisdictions

234,931

8,310

32,732

1,180,821

White
423
165
647
95
81
27
110
2
2,181
5
285
831
132
253
253
586
408
167
383
171
37
1,011
51
306
244
765
378
23
536
647
430
498
254
37
1,034
1,427
418
4
274
135
223
72
2,280
18,289

Male Restricted Housing Population
Black
HisAsian Other
panic
955
0
0
4
28
9
5
138
388
1,210
7
200
34
931
0
19
31
92
0
10
68
23
2
0
249
19
0
0
89
3
0
1
4,639
1,021
0
22
0
0
2
15
11
64
3
26
645
96
0
7
70
35
1
4
220
86
2
20
100
6
0
3
1,991
4
2
0
966
52
2
26
157
110
7
6
912
8
0
18
271
41
8
111
143
0
0
0
916
32
2
7
4
0
0
28
135
108
6
34
827
227
5
13
2,459
1,052
4
130
992
48
4
54
9
8
0
13
781
41
1
4
529
148
3
192
70
78
3
28
1,024
169
2
8
769
10
2
10
7
4
0
53
643
32
4
3
1,418
2,866
3
12
57
288
27
62
72
19
0
0
530
16
2
2
41
82
7
8
354
88
3
24
9
20
0
20
3,154
3,015
57
321
26,767

12,161

178

1,666

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

Total
1,382
345
2,452
1,079
214
120
378
95
7,863
22
389
1,579
242
581
362
2,583
1,454
447
1,321
602
180
1,968
83
589
1,316
4,410
1,476
53
1363
1,519
609
1,701
1,045
101
1,716
5,726
852
95
824
273
692
121
8,827
59,049

38
Table 8 – Demographic Percentage Composition of Total Male Custodial Population and of
Male Restricted Housing Population (n = 43)

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
D.C.
Florida
Hawaii
Idaho
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virgin Islands
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin
Wyoming
BOP
Across
Jurisdictions

Total Male Custodial Population
Male Restricted Housing Population
White Black Hispanic Asian Other White Black Hispanic Asian Other
39%
61%
0%
0%
0%
31%
69%
0%
0%
0%
46%
11%
3%
1%
39%
48%
8%
3%
1%
40%
38%
14%
41%
0%
6%
26%
16%
49%
0%
8%
22%
29%
42%
1%
6%
9%
3%
86%
0%
2%
45%
19%
32%
1%
3%
38%
14%
43%
0%
5%
32%
42%
26%
0%
0%
23%
57%
19%
2%
0%
37%
58%
4%
0%
0%
29%
66%
5%
0%
0%
2%
90%
6%
0%
2%
2%
94%
3%
0%
1%
38%
49%
13%
0%
0%
28%
59%
13%
0%
0%
23%
4%
2%
19% 51%
23%
0%
0%
9%
68%
75%
3%
16%
0%
6%
73%
3%
16%
1%
7%
59%
35%
5%
0%
1%
53%
41%
6%
0%
0%
65%
26%
7%
1%
2%
55%
29%
14%
0%
2%
56%
31%
11%
1%
2%
44%
38%
15%
0%
3%
70%
27%
2%
0%
1%
70%
28%
2%
0%
1%
27%
73%
0%
0%
0%
23%
77%
0%
0%
0%
22%
61%
3%
0%
14%
28%
66%
4%
0%
2%
43%
29%
26%
1%
1%
37%
35%
25%
2%
1%
43%
54%
1%
0%
2%
29%
69%
1%
0%
1%
45%
36%
7%
3%
9%
28%
45%
7%
1%
18%
32%
67%
1%
0%
0%
21%
79%
0%
0%
0%
60%
37%
2%
0%
0%
51%
47%
2%
0%
0%
75%
3%
0%
0%
22%
61%
5%
0%
0%
34%
55%
27%
13%
1%
4%
52%
23%
18%
1%
6%
22%
60%
16%
1%
2%
19%
63%
17%
0%
1%
24%
50%
23%
0%
3%
17%
56%
24%
0%
3%
37%
56%
5%
0%
3%
26%
67%
3%
0%
4%
66%
8%
6%
1%
19%
43%
17%
15%
0%
25%
51%
46%
3%
0%
0%
39%
57%
3%
0%
0%
53%
28%
8%
0%
11%
43%
35%
10%
0%
13%
73%
9%
13%
1%
3%
71%
11%
13%
0%
5%
40%
49%
11%
0%
0%
29%
60%
10%
0%
0%
33%
64%
2%
0%
1%
24%
74%
1%
0%
1%
60%
8%
4%
0%
27%
37%
7%
4%
0%
52%
50%
47%
2%
0%
0%
60%
37%
2%
0%
0%
31%
34%
34%
0%
0%
25%
25%
50%
0%
0%
65%
7%
19%
3%
6%
49%
7%
34%
3%
7%
2%
70%
28%
0%
0%
4%
77%
20%
0%
0%
35%
62%
3%
0%
0%
33%
64%
2%
0%
0%
60%
19%
13%
4%
5%
49%
15%
30%
3%
3%
44%
42%
10%
1%
3%
32%
51%
13%
0%
3%
75%
6%
13%
0%
6%
60%
7%
17%
0%
17%
25%
36%
35%
1%
2%
26%
36%
34%
1%
4%
37%

40%

20%

1%

3%

31%

45%

21%

0%

3%

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

39
As noted, 40 jurisdictions responded on gender, and that group also provided information
about race for their female custodial populations. Among these 40 responding jurisdictions,
Black prisoners constituted 24% of the total female custodial population and 41% of the female
restricted housing population. In 33 of the 40 reporting jurisdictions, the female restricted
housing population contained a greater percentage of Black prisoners than were in each of the
jurisdictions reporting on the total female custodial population.
In 16 of 40 reporting jurisdictions, the female restricted housing population contained a
greater percentage of Hispanic prisoners than the total female custodial population.207 In 34 of
the 40 jurisdictions, the female restricted housing population contained a smaller percentage of
White prisoners than the total female custodial population. Again, the percentages of Asian and
of prisoners termed “Other” were small and roughly comparable in both general and restricted
housing populations. Chart 8 and Tables 9 and 10 provide the details.
Chart 8 – Demographic Percentage Composition of Total Female Custodial Population and
Female Restricted Housing Population (n = 40)

Total Custodial
Population
Asian
0.8%

Other
4.0%

Asian
0.5%

Other4.0
%

Hispanic
11.9%

Hispanic
12.6%

Black
24.3%

Restricted Housing
Population

White
42.0%
White
58.3%

Black
41.4%

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

40
Table 9 – Demographic Composition of Total Female Custodial Population and Female Restricted
Housing Population (n = 40)
White
964
286
2,109
810
579
140
4,456
201
807
2,082
549
551
866
475
389
460
1,272
380
768
2,567
293
289
1,160
1,820

Total Female Custodial Population
Black Hispanic Asian Other
517
0
0
6
30
10
1
232
353
1,097
21
392
217
407
14
64
291
179
5
9
76
6
1
0
2,078
352
2
21
19
10
116
392
14
106
1
84
395
54
3
37
126
29
6
17
153
80
9
27
123
5
0
11
461
0
1
1
355
10
0
197
103
56
0
72
877
5
5
42
107
30
10
120
566
9
4
3
545
88
13
25
66
39
2
38
316
99
10
8
886
291
13
82
852
51
6
82

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Hawaii
Idaho
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
New Jersey
New York
North
Carolina
North Dakota
137
5
Ohio
3,050 1,022
Oklahoma
1,856
470
Oregon
1,065
94
Pennsylvania
1,822
766
South
875
490
Carolina
South Dakota
207
8
Tennessee
1,052
381
Texas
6,159 3,495
Utah
389
15
Virgin Islands
0
13
Virginia
1,438
883
Washington
726
127
Wisconsin
885
305
Wyoming
200
9
BOP
4,650 2,756
Across
48,784 20,365
Jurisdictions

Total
1,487
559
3,972
1,512
1,063
223
6,909
738
1,012
2,571
727
820
1,005
938
951
691
2,201
647
1,350
3,238
438
722
2,432
2,811

Female Restricted Housing Population
White Black Hispanic Asian Other Total
10
10
0
0
0
20
7
1
0
0
2
10
33
20
31
0
8
92
2
1
0
0
0
3
3
5
0
0
0
8
0
3
0
0
0
3
103
121
15
0
1
240
0
0
0
0
1
1
12
1
0
0
2
15
22
15
4
0
1
42
3
2
0
0
0
5
0
3
3
0
2
8
17
3
0
0
0
20
45
61
0
0
0
106
15
13
0
0
3
31
9
4
2
0
1
16
10
8
0
0
0
18
10
6
0
1
3
20
1
4
0
0
0
5
31
29
0
0
0
60
3
3
2
0
1
9
13
33
8
0
0
54
25
45
18
0
0
88
17
22
0
0
2
41

10
37
133
58
182
18

0
10
7
15
8
0

66
14
462
41
20
20

218
4,133
2,928
1,273
2,798
1,403

0
7
7
15
3
15

0
4
10
1
10
8

0
0
5
2
1
0

0
0
0
0
0
0

1
0
11
3
1
0

1
11
33
21
15
23

8
20
3,057
80
2
19
146
38
21
3,738

1
5
28
19
0
10
46
8
1
279

170
7
46
34
0
3
91
77
20
307

394
1,465
12,785
537
15
2,353
1,136
1,313
251
11,730

3
29
18
38
0
12
0
29
7
39

0
22
55
0
1
18
1
22
0
39

0
1
33
12
0
0
0
4
2
31

0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
2

2
0
0
5
0
0
0
4
1
4

5
52
106
60
1
30
1
59
10
115

10,580

680

3,340 83,749

613

604

174

8

59

1,458

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

41
Table 10 – Demographic Percentage Composition of Total Female Custodial Population
and Female Restricted Housing Population (n = 40)

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Hawaii
Idaho
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virgin Islands
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin
Wyoming
BOP
Across
Jurisdictions

Total Female Custodial Population
Female Restricted Housing Population
White Black Hispanic Asian Other White Black Hispanic Asian Other
65%
35%
0%
0%
0%
50%
50%
0%
0%
0%
51%
5%
2%
0%
42%
70%
10%
0%
0%
20%
53%
9%
28%
1%
10%
36%
22%
34%
0%
9%
54%
14%
27%
1%
4%
67%
33%
0%
0%
0%
54%
27%
17%
0%
1%
38%
63%
0%
0%
0%
63%
34%
3%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
64%
30%
5%
0%
0%
43%
50%
6%
0%
0%
27%
3%
1%
16% 53%
0%
0%
0%
0% 100%
80%
1%
10%
0%
8%
80%
7%
0%
0%
13%
81%
15%
2%
0%
1%
52%
36%
10%
0%
2%
76%
17%
4%
1%
2%
60%
40%
0%
0%
0%
67%
19%
10%
1%
3%
0%
38%
38%
0%
25%
86%
12%
0%
0%
1%
85%
15%
0%
0%
0%
51%
49%
0%
0%
0%
42%
58%
0%
0%
0%
41%
37%
1%
0%
21%
48%
42%
0%
0%
10%
67%
15%
8%
0%
10%
56%
25%
13%
0%
6%
58%
40%
0%
0%
2%
56%
44%
0%
0%
0%
59%
17%
5%
2%
19%
50%
30%
0%
5%
15%
57%
42%
1%
0%
0%
20%
80%
0%
0%
0%
79%
17%
3%
0%
1%
52%
48%
0%
0%
0%
67%
15%
9%
0%
9%
33%
33%
22%
0%
11%
40%
44%
14%
1%
1%
24%
61%
15%
0%
0%
48%
36%
12%
1%
3%
28%
51%
20%
0%
0%
65%
30%
2%
0%
3%
41%
54%
0%
0%
5%
63%
2%
5%
0%
30%
0%
0%
0%
0% 100%
74%
25%
1%
0%
0%
64%
36%
0%
0%
0%
63%
16%
5%
0%
16%
21%
30%
15%
0%
33%
84%
7%
5%
1%
3%
71%
5%
10%
0%
14%
65%
27%
7%
0%
1%
20%
67%
7%
0%
7%
62%
35%
1%
0%
1%
65%
35%
0%
0%
0%
53%
2%
2%
0%
43%
60%
0%
0%
0%
40%
72%
26%
1%
0%
0%
56%
42%
2%
0%
0%
48%
27%
24%
0%
0%
17%
52%
31%
0%
0%
72%
3%
15%
4%
6%
63%
0%
20%
8%
8%
0%
87%
13%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
61%
38%
1%
0%
0%
40%
60%
0%
0%
0%
64%
11%
13%
4%
8%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
67%
23%
3%
1%
6%
49%
37%
7%
0%
7%
80%
4%
8%
0%
8%
70%
0%
20%
0%
10%
40%
23%
32%
2%
3%
34%
34%
27%
2%
3%
58%

24%

13%

1%

4%

42%

41%

12%

1%

4%

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

42

C.

Age Cohorts

The survey asked jurisdictions to provide age data for their male and female total
custodial and restricted housing populations. We asked about individuals in three cohorts: under
18 years old, between 18 and 49 years old, and 50 years and older. We sought to understand the
distribution of age cohorts within restricted housing populations and to compare the age of
individuals in restricted housing to the age of those in the general population.
Across the 43 responding jurisdictions, males under 18 years old made up approximately
0.1% of both the total custodial and the restricted housing populations. Among reporting
jurisdictions, males between the ages of 18 and 49 comprised 79.6% of the total custodial
population and 89.1% of the restricted housing population. Males 50 and older comprised 20.3%
of the total custodial population and 10.7% of the restricted housing population.
In the 43 responding jurisdictions, approximately 5.9% (78 of 1,326) of male prisoners
under 18 years old were in restricted housing. Approximately 5.6% (52,636 of 939,886) of male
prisoners 18-49 were in restricted housing, while 2.6% (6,335 of 239,609) of male prisoners 50
and older were in restricted housing. We provide the jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction information in
Chart 9 and Tables 11 and 12.
Chart 9 – Age Cohorts of Male Total Custodial Population and of Male Restricted Housing
Population (n = 43)

Total Custodial
Population

Restricted Housing
Population

Under 18
0.1%

Under 18
0.1%
50+
10.7%

50+
20.3%

18-49
79.6%

18-49
89.1%

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

43
Table 11 – Age Cohorts of Male Total Custodial Population and of Male Restricted
Housing Population (n = 43)
Total Male Custodial Population
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
D.C.
Florida
Hawaii
Idaho
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virgin Islands
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin
Wyoming
BOP
Across
Jurisdictions

Under 18
11
67
75
0
1
91
4
22
138
0
13
6
6
111
0
13
3
0
86
10
27
7
0
12
5
85
348
0
31
7
0
19
30
0
9
44
1
0
8
0
35
1
0

18-49
17,748
3,418
32,005
86,179
13,302
12,768
3,217
968
71,814
3,212
5,616
20,601
6,179
7,263
8,433
12,584
15,356
6,875
31,761
7,370
14,491
23,310
1,704
4,118
14,215
40,455
28,056
1,339
37,771
19,851
10,483
37,878
16,004
2,559
15,037
107,071
4,732
236
21,858
12,152
15,613
1,422
142,862

50+
5,303
875
6,684
25,817
3,416
2,134
898
163
20,727
777
1,372
4,330
1,390
1,758
2,231
4,980
3,377
2,438
8,778
1,294
2,998
5,711
641
888
2,807
9,649
6,824
243
8,313
4,864
2,968
9,654
3,541
573
3,584
28,465
1,227
88
6,193
3,020
3,573
454
34,589

Total
23,062
4,360
38,764
111,996
16,719
14,993
4,119
1,153
92,679
3,989
7,001
24,937
7,575
9,132
10,664
17,577
18,736
9,313
40,625
8,674
17,516
29,028
2,345
5,018
17,027
50,189
35,228
1,582
46,115
24,722
13,451
47,551
19,575
3,132
18,630
135,580
5,960
324
28,059
15,172
19,221
1,877
177,451

1,326

939,886

239,609

1,180,821

Male Restricted Housing
Population
Under
18-49
50+
Total
0
1,204
178
1,382
15
262
68
345
N/A
2,228
224
2,452
0
962
117
1,079
0
199
15
214
0
102
18
120
0
333
45
378
0
84
11
95
34
6,931
898
7,863
0
22
0
22
1
344
44
389
0
1,440
139
1,579
0
228
14
242
0
533
48
581
0
341
21
362
2
2,172
409
2,583
0
1,368
86
1,454
0
401
46
447
0
1,207
114
1,321
3
563
36
602
0
169
11
180
2
1,769
197
1,968
0
71
12
83
1
529
59
589
0
1,186
130
1,316
0
4,101
309
4,410
4
1,364
108
1,476
0
50
3
53
0
1,297
66
1,363
1
1,380
138
1,519
0
571
38
609
0
1,464
237
1,701
1
976
68
1,045
0
94
7
101
7
1,472
237
1,716
3
4,854
869
5,726
1
767
84
852
0
76
19
95
0
692
132
824
0
246
27
273
3
622
67
692
0
115
6
121
0
7,847
980
8,827
78

52,636

6,335

59,049

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

44
Table 12 – Age Cohorts by Percentage of Male Total Custodial Population and of Male
Restricted Housing Population (n = 43)

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
D.C.
Florida
Hawaii
Idaho
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virgin Islands
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin
Wyoming
BOP
Across
Jurisdictions

Total Male Custodial Population
Under 18
18-49
50+
0%
77%
23%
2%
78%
20%
0%
83%
17%
0%
77%
23%
0%
80%
20%
1%
85%
14%
0%
78%
22%
2%
84%
14%
0%
77%
22%
0%
81%
19%
0%
80%
20%
0%
83%
17%
0%
82%
18%
1%
80%
19%
0%
79%
21%
0%
72%
28%
0%
82%
18%
0%
74%
26%
0%
78%
22%
0%
85%
15%
0%
83%
17%
0%
80%
20%
0%
73%
27%
0%
82%
18%
0%
83%
16%
0%
81%
19%
1%
80%
19%
0%
85%
15%
0%
82%
18%
0%
80%
20%
0%
78%
22%
0%
80%
20%
0%
82%
18%
0%
82%
18%
0%
81%
19%
0%
79%
21%
0%
79%
21%
0%
73%
27%
0%
78%
22%
0%
80%
20%
0%
81%
19%
0%
76%
24%
0%
81%
19%
0%

80%

20%

Male Restricted Housing Population
Under 18
18-49
50+
0%
87%
13%
4%
76%
20%
0%
91%
9%
0%
89%
11%
0%
93%
7%
0%
85%
15%
0%
88%
12%
0%
88%
12%
0%
88%
11%
0%
100%
0%
0%
88%
11%
0%
91%
9%
0%
94%
6%
0%
92%
8%
0%
94%
6%
0%
84%
16%
0%
94%
6%
0%
90%
10%
0%
91%
9%
0%
94%
6%
0%
94%
6%
0%
90%
10%
0%
86%
14%
0%
90%
10%
0%
90%
10%
0%
93%
7%
0%
92%
7%
0%
94%
6%
0%
95%
5%
0%
91%
9%
0%
94%
6%
0%
86%
14%
0%
93%
7%
0%
93%
7%
0%
86%
14%
0%
85%
15%
0%
90%
10%
0%
80%
20%
0%
84%
16%
0%
90%
10%
0%
90%
10%
0%
95%
5%
0%
89%
11%
0%

89%

11%

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

45
As noted above, we sought to understand the percentage of each age cohort in the
restricted housing population and to compare the numbers by age cohort in the general
population and in the restricted population. Among the 40 jurisdictions providing data for female
prisoners in restricted housing, none reported any female prisoners under the age of 18 in
restricted housing. These jurisdictions reported that female prisoners between the ages of 18 and
49 comprised 84.4% of the total custodial population and 92.2% of the restricted housing
population. Jurisdictions reported that women 50 years and older comprised 15.4% of their total
custodial populations, and 7.8% of the restricted housing population. Across the 40 responding
jurisdictions, 1.9% (1,345 of 70,710) of female prisoners 18-49 were held in restricted housing;
0.9% (113 of 12,895) of female prisoners 50 and older were held in restricted housing. Chart 10
and Tables 13 and 14 provide the details.

Chart 10 – Age Cohorts of Female Total Custodial Population and of Female Restricted
Housing Population (n = 40)

Total Custodial
Population

Restricted Housing
Population

Under 18
0.2%

Under 18
0.0%
50+
7.8%

50+
15.4%

18-49
84.4%

18-49
92.2%

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

46
Table 13 – Age Cohorts of Female Total Custodial Population and of Female Restricted
Housing Population (n = 40)

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Hawaii
Idaho
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
New Jersey
New York
North
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virgin Islands
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin
Wyoming
BOP
Across
Jurisdictions

Total Female Custodial Population
Under
18-49
50+
Total
0
1,231
256
1,487
49
468
42
559
3
3,461
508
3,972
0
1,327
185
1,512
2
917
144
1,063
0
192
31
223
5
5,683
1,221
6,909
0
638
100
738
2
893
117
1,012
0
2,286
285
2,571
1
631
95
727
15
705
100
820
0
878
127
1,005
0
733
205
938
0
797
154
951
0
584
107
691
2
1,809
390
2,201
0
567
80
647
0
1,157
193
1,350
1
2,856
381
3,238
0
379
59
438
0
605
117
722
3
2,028
401
2,432
44
2,355
412
2,811
0
202
16
218
1
3,678
454
4,133
2
2,512
414
2,928
0
1,071
202
1,273
1
2,317
480
2,798
1
1,181
221
1,403
0
360
34
394
3
1,267
195
1,465
6
10,954
1,825
12,785
0
494
43
537
0
11
4
15
0
1,960
393
2,353
0
970
166
1,136
3
1,095
215
1,313
0
213
38
251
0
9,245
2,485
11,730
144

70,710

12,895

83,749

Female Restricted Housing Population
Under
18-49
50+
Total
0
19
1
20
0
10
0
10
N/A
87
5
92
0
3
0
3
0
8
0
8
0
3
0
3
0
227
13
240
0
1
0
1
0
11
4
15
0
37
5
42
0
4
1
5
0
8
0
8
0
18
2
20
0
93
13
106
0
31
0
31
0
13
3
16
0
15
3
18
0
17
3
20
0
5
0
5
0
57
3
60
0
9
0
9
0
52
2
54
0
84
4
88
0
39
2
41
0
1
0
1
0
11
0
11
0
32
1
33
0
19
2
21
0
14
1
15
0
21
2
23
0
5
0
5
0
38
14
52
0
100
6
106
0
56
4
60
0
1
0
1
0
27
3
30
0
1
0
1
0
58
1
59
0
10
0
10
0
100
15
115
0

1,345

113

1,458

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

47
Table 14 – Age Cohorts by Percentage of Female Total Custodial Population and of Female
Restricted Housing Population (n = 40)

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Hawaii
Idaho
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
New Jersey
New York
North
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virgin Islands
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin
Wyoming
BOP
Across
Jurisdictions

Total Female Custodial Population
Under 18
18-49
50+
0%
83%
17%
9%
84%
8%
0%
87%
13%
0%
88%
12%
0%
86%
14%
0%
86%
14%
0%
82%
18%
0%
86%
14%
0%
88%
12%
0%
89%
11%
0%
87%
13%
2%
86%
12%
0%
87%
13%
0%
78%
22%
0%
84%
16%
0%
85%
15%
0%
82%
18%
0%
88%
12%
0%
86%
14%
0%
88%
12%
0%
87%
13%
0%
84%
16%
0%
83%
16%
2%
84%
15%
0%
93%
7%
0%
89%
11%
0%
86%
14%
0%
84%
16%
0%
83%
17%
0%
84%
16%
0%
91%
9%
0%
86%
13%
0%
86%
14%
0%
92%
8%
0%
73%
27%
0%
83%
17%
0%
85%
15%
0%
83%
16%
0%
85%
15%
0%
79%
21%
0%

84%

15%

Female Restricted Housing Population
Under 18
18-49
50+
0%
95%
5%
0%
100%
0%
0%
95%
5%
0%
100%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
95%
5%
0%
100%
0%
0%
73%
27%
0%
88%
12%
0%
80%
20%
0%
100%
0%
0%
90%
10%
0%
88%
12%
0%
100%
0%
0%
81%
19%
0%
83%
17%
0%
85%
15%
0%
100%
0%
0%
95%
5%
0%
100%
0%
0%
96%
4%
0%
95%
5%
0%
95%
5%
0%
100%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
97%
3%
0%
90%
10%
0%
93%
7%
0%
91%
9%
0%
100%
0%
0%
73%
27%
0%
94%
6%
0%
93%
7%
0%
100%
0%
0%
90%
10%
0%
100%
0%
0%
98%
2%
0%
100%
0%
0%
87%
13%
0%

92%

8%

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

48

D. Vulnerable Populations: Mentally Ill, Pregnant, and Transgender Prisoners
Concerns have been raised about especially vulnerable individuals. The information that
we obtained about juveniles (described as individuals under 18 years of age) is discussed above,
in the context of age cohorts. Here, we turn to other vulnerable populations, specifically the
mentally ill, pregnant women, and transgender individuals.208

1. Prisoners with Serious Mental Health Issues (according to each
jurisdiction’s own definition)
The view that the “seriously mentally ill” (SMI) ought not to be in restricted housing is
widely shared and longstanding. In 1995, a federal judge concluded that placing seriously
mentally ill prisoners into what he termed “solitary confinement” violated their Eighth
Amendment rights.209
In the last few years, legislation in some jurisdictions, class action settlements, and
policies in the federal prison system210 and in some states have prohibited or limited correctional
facilities’ authority to put seriously mentally ill individuals in restricted housing.211 As discussed
above, the American Correctional Association (ACA) approved new standards on restricted
housing,212 including recommendations that prisoners with serious mental illness not be placed in
“Extended Restrictive Housing.”213 The 2016 ACA Standards also called for all prisoners to be
evaluated by a mental health provider within seven days of their placement in restricted
housing.214 Further, the ACA standards stated that prisoners with diagnosed behavioral health
disorder in restricted housing for 22 hours a day or more be assessed by a mental health provider
“at least every 30 days,” and prisoners without such a diagnosis be assessed every 90 days.215 In
addition, the ACA standards call for all prisoners in restricted housing to be visited by mental
health staff weekly and by health care personnel daily.216 The Department of Justice has
similarly altered its standards to make it clear that seriously mentally ill individuals should
generally not be placed in restricted housing.217
Yet how jurisdictions defined what constituted “serious mental illness” varied widely.
The 2015 survey made plain that correctional agencies do not have a uniform definition of either
“mental illness” or “serious mental illness.” We did not impose a definition when surveying but
instead invited each jurisdiction to provide its own definition of a “serious mental health issue”
and to provide data on the numbers of people with such mental health issues in restricted
housing.
Forty jurisdictions provided definitions. Five other jurisdictions provided data on the use
of restricted housing for prisoners with mental health issues without providing a corresponding
definition of “serious mental health issue.”218 Seven of the 40 jurisdictions that provided a
definition did not provide data on prisoners with mental health issues.219
Some jurisdictions’ definitions had a narrower range than others. A sense of the variation
is apparent from a few examples. The District of Columbia limited its definition to Axis I
diagnoses under the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-4).220 Iowa
included “chronic and persistent mental illnesses in the following categories: § Schizophrenia

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

49
§ Recurrent Major Depressive Disorders § Bipolar Disorders § Other Chronic and Recurrent
Psychosis § Dementia and other Organic Disorders.” Mississippi defined “serious mental illness”
as “a diagnosable disorder of thought, mood, perception, orientation, or memory that
significantly impairs a person’s judgment, behavior, capacity to recognize reality, and/or ability
to meet the ordinary demands of life currently or at any time during the past year.” Vermont’s
definition included a “disorder of thought, mood, perception, orientation, or memory as
diagnosed by a qualified mental health professional, which substantially impairs judgment,
behavior, capacity to recognize reality, or ability to meet the ordinary demands of life and which
substantially impairs the ability to function within the correctional setting or any developmental
disability, traumatic brain injury or other organic brain disorder, or various forms of dementia or
other neurological disorders, as diagnosed by a qualified mental health professional, which
substantially impairs the ability to function in the correctional setting.” In Appendix C, we
provide additional details of the various definitions for “serious mental health issue” or “serious
mental illness” that were provided by the responding jurisdictions.
Seeking to understand the placement of mentally ill people in restricted housing, we
asked jurisdictions to provide the number of people in the total population with mental illness, as
well as the number of prisoners with mental illness in restricted housing, by race and gender.
Jurisdictions varied in their ability to provide data in this detail. Thirty-four jurisdictions221
provided data about male prisoners with mental illness. These jurisdictions reported a total of
54,025 male prisoners with serious mental health issues in their general prison populations, and a
total of 5,146 male prisoners with serious mental health issues held in restricted housing. The 32
jurisdictions responding on women prisoners reported a total of 9,573 female prisoners with
serious mental health issues, and a total of 297 female prisoners with serious mental health issues
in restricted housing. We provide the jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction information in Tables 15 and 16
below.
Given the variation in definitions, we did not create a chart comparing percentages of
mentally ill prisoners in restricted housing; any variation may reflect broader or narrower
definitions of “serious mental health issue.” Rather, we report on the total number of men and of
women (with information on race and ethnicity where available) whom jurisdictions identified as
of the fall of 2015 as having such mental health issues and whether these individuals were
housed in general population or in restricted housing.

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

50
Table 15 – Male Prisoners with a Serious Mental Health Issue (Variously Defined) in
Restricted Housing (n = 34)

Alabama
Colorado
Connecticut
District of Columbia
Florida
Idaho
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virgin Islands
Washington
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Male
Custodial
Population

Male
Custodial
Population
with Serious
Mental
Health
Issues

23,062
16,719
14,993
1,153
92,679
7,001
7,575
9,132
10,664
17,577
18,736
9,313
8,674
17,516
29,028
5,018
17,027
6,613
50,189
35,228
1,582
46,115
24,722
13,451
47,551
19,575
3,132
18,630
135,580
5,960
324
15,172
19,221
1,877

573
1,302
419
89
10,442
525
1,972
1,999
1,849
1,583
435
677
874
274
4,191
1,455
217
111
2,087
320
83
3,288
1,618
2,764
3,468
2,632
128
490
1,275
2,646
25
2,458
1,388
368

Percentage
of Male
Custodial
Population
with
Serious
Mental
Health
Issues
2.5%
7.8%
2.8%
7.7%
11.3%
7.5%
26.0%
21.9%
17.3%
9.0%
2.3%
7.3%
10.1%
1.6%
14.4%
29.0%
1.3%
1.7%
4.2%
0.9%
5.2%
7.1%
6.5%
20.5%
7.3%
13.4%
4.1%
2.6%
0.9%
44.4%
7.7%
16.2%
7.2%
19.6%

Male
Custodial
Population
with Serious
Mental
Health
Issues in
Restricted
Housing
53
8
11
1
1,283
71
87
294
98
612
69
21
98
7
600
250
1
0
59
34
3
97
141
163
23
319
14
27
0
486
22
82
90
22

Percentage of
Male
Custodial
Population
with Serious
Mental Health
Issues in
Restricted
Housing
9.2%
0.6%
2.6%
1.1%
12.3%
13.5%
4.4%
14.7%
5.3%
38.7%
15.9%
3.1%
11.2%
2.6%
14.3%
17.2%
0.5%
0.0%
2.8%
10.6%
3.6%
3.0%
8.7%
5.9%
0.7%
12.1%
10.9%
5.5%
0.0%
18.4%
88.0%
3.0%
6.5%
6.0%

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

51

Table 16 – Female Prisoners with a Serious Mental Health Issue (Variously Defined) in
Restricted Housing (n = 32)

Alabama
Colorado
Connecticut
Florida
Idaho
Iowa
Kansas
Louisiana
Maryland
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virgin Islands
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Female
Custodial
Population

Female
Custodial
Population
with Serious
Mental
Health
Issues

Percentage of
Female
Custodial
Population
with Serious
Mental
Health Issues

1,487
1,512
1,063
6,909
1,012
727
820
938
951
691
647
1,350
3,238
438
722
776
2,432
2,811
218
4,133
2,928
1,273
2,798
1,403
394
1,465
12,785
537
15
2,353
1,136
1,313
251

93
565
28
2,258
100
294
435
274
14
83
95
2
979
216
34
0
199
62
19
707
387
659
681
540
17
38
80
375
1
0
274
387
112

6.3%
37.4%
2.6%
32.7%
9.9%
40.4%
53.0%
29.2%
1.5%
12.0%
14.7%
0.1%
30.2%
49.3%
4.7%
0.0%
8.2%
2.2%
8.7%
17.1%
13.2%
51.8%
24.3%
38.5%
4.3%
2.6%
0.6%
69.8%
6.7%
0.0%
24.1%
29.5%
44.6%

Female
Custodial
Population
with Serious
Mental
Health Issues
in Restricted
Housing
5
0
0
69
4
3
8
36
0
3
2
0
30
7
0
0
1
3
0
4
6
19
3
18
2
2
0
52
0
0
1
23
4

Percentage of
Female
Custodial
Population with
Serious Mental
Health Issues in
Restricted
Housing
5.4%
0.0%
0.0%
3.1%
4.0%
1.0%
0.2%
13.1%
0.0%
3.6%
2.1%
0.0%
3.1%
3.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.5%
4.8%
0.0%
0.6%
1.6%
2.9%
0.4%
3.3%
11.8%
5.3%
0.0%
13.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.4%
5.9%
3.6%

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

52
We also sought to learn about the intersection of race, ethnicity, gender, and mental
health. Thirty-three jurisdictions provided information about male prisoners, and 30 jurisdictions
provided information about women prisoners. 222 The jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction information is
detailed in Tables 17 and 18 below.
Table 17 – Male Prisoners with a Serious Mental Health Issue by Race and Ethnicity
(n = 33)
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
District of Columbia
Florida
Idaho
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Utah
Virgin Islands
Wisconsin
Wyoming

White
225
807
2,259
683
181
2
4,211
439
0
1,452
1,217
1,330
549
159
506
90
2,969
973
63
26
559
153
60
2,007
966
2,291
1,677
1,128
83
1,912
3
692
284

Black
343
334
3,053
281
153
83
5,010
21
0
394
583
421
1,032
252
267
182
1,156
297
116
5
1,037
134
6
1,209
434
230
1,485
1,455
7
151
16
528
18

Hispanic
0
433
1,976
286
82
3
1,193
37
0
88
155
14
1
8
0
0
46
113
36
74
427
10
0
53
51
146
282
24
2
402
6
117
44

Asian
0
6
75
7
1
0
2
1
0
5
10
2
1
0
19
0
4
6
0
0
11
4
2
3
2
29
7
3
0
57
0
9
1

Other
5
72
499
45
2
1
26
27
0
33
34
82
0
16
82
2
16
66
2
6
53
19
15
16
165
68
17
22
36
124
0
42
21

Total
573
1,652
7,862
1,302
419
89
10,442
525
0
1,972
1,999
1,849
1,583
435
874
274
4,191
1,455
217
111
2,087
320
83
3,288
1,618
2,764
3,468
2,632
128
2,646
25
1,388
368

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

53

Table 18 – Female Prisoners with a Serious Mental Health Issue by Race and Ethnicity
(n = 30)
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
District of Columbia
Florida
Idaho
Iowa
Louisiana
Maryland
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Utah
Virgin Islands
Wisconsin
Wyoming

White
60
196
71
291
13
0
1,509
82
215
151
8
52
2
785
141
17
0
62
37
17
510
246
554
432
366
12
283
0
242
92

Black
33
54
76
81
11
0
630
0
59
123
6
22
150
35
12
0
111
23
0
187
82
49
201
161
0
8
1
108
5

Hispanic
0
70
62
162
4
0
116
11
13
0
0
0
0
34
20
2
0
22
0
0
8
11
23
37
6
0
52
0
12
8

Asian
0
1
4
5
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
4
0
2
0
2
0
0
1
1
8
2
0
0
7
0
0
0

Other
0
29
17
26
0
0
3
7
5
0
0
20
0
6
20
1
0
2
2
2
1
47
25
9
7
5
25
0
25
7

Total
93
350
230
565
28
0
2,258
100
294
274
14
95
2
979
216
34
0
199
62
19
707
387
659
681
540
17
375
1
387
112

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

54

2. Pregnant Prisoners
We asked specifically about pregnant women in general prison populations and in
restricted housing. Of the 33 jurisdictions that had sufficiently detailed and consistent
information on which to report,223 10 said that, as of the fall of 2015, no pregnant prisoners were
in their total custodial population.224 The remaining 23 jurisdictions, listed below in Table 19,
reported that within their general populations as of the fall of 2015, they counted a total of 396
pregnant women prisoners. Nineteen jurisdictions reported that they had no pregnant prisoners in
restricted housing. The remaining four jurisdictions—Delaware, Florida, Kentucky and North
Carolina—reported holding a total of five pregnant prisoners in restricted housing.
Table 19 – Pregnant Prisoners in Restricted Housing (n = 23)

Alabama
Arizona
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Hawaii
Kansas
Kentucky
Maryland
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Wyoming

Women in Total
Custodial Population
1,487
3,972
1,512
1,063
223
6,909
738
820
1,005
951
722
2,432
2,811
4,133
2,928
1,273
2,798
1,403
394
12,785
537
2,353
251

Pregnant Women in Total
Custodial Population
9
27
18
23
6
52
2
4
34
2
3
11
35
14
8
9
16
16
8
88
5
3
3

Pregnant Women in
Restricted Housing
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

55

3. Transgender Prisoners
We asked about transgender prisoners in the general population and in restricted housing.
Of the 33 jurisdictions providing data on transgender prisoners,225 10 reported having no
transgender prisoners in their total custodial population. The remaining 23 jurisdictions reported
a total of 754 transgender prisoners in their prison systems. Of these, eight jurisdictions reported
that no transgender prisoners were in restricted housing. In the 15 jurisdictions that had
transgender prisoners in their restricted housing population, we tallied a total of 55 transgender
prisoners in restricted housing.226 In sum, of the 754 transgender prisoners reported by 33
jurisdictions, 55 (7.3%) were reported to be housed in restricted housing.

VII.

Planned or Proposed Policy Changes in Restricted Housing: 2013-2016

In ASCA-Liman’s prior 2015 Time-In-Cell Report, 40 jurisdictions reported that they had
reviewed their policies and practices of administrative segregation within the prior three years,
that is, between 2011 and 2014. Many discussed efforts to make changes, including by reducing
isolation, using less restrictive means of confinement, improving mental health services, and
adding staff training.227
For this 2016 Report, we asked jurisdictions to report policies implemented or plans to
revise policies on restricted housing, and we focused on the time period between 2013 and the
fall of 2015. Thereafter, at the request of some correctional administrators, ASCA-Liman
circulated a follow-up questionnaire in March of 2016 to inquire about any more recent changes.
Some jurisdictions provided additional information, including after the August meeting, and thus
this discussion includes materials received through the early fall of 2016.
We specifically inquired about changes in policies regarding restricted housing related to
the “criteria for entry to restricted housing,” “criteria for release to restricted housing,”
“oversight in restricted housing,” “mandated time out-of-cell for restricted housing prisoners,”
“programming in restricted housing,” “opportunities for social contact in restricted housing,”
“physical environment of restricted housing,” “programming for mentally ill prisoners who have
been in restricted housing,” “policies or training related to staffing of restricted housing,” and
“other.” We also asked jurisdictions to send the underlying policies related to placement in
restricted housing. We did not ask questions about the reasons for changes, but as reflected in
answers, some revisions to policies have come in the wake of litigation and legislative mandates.
Jurisdictions’ responses to these policy questions included varying levels of detail.
Further, we did not provide or ask for measures of implementation, such as whether revised entry
criteria had resulted in a decline in the number of entrants or whether increased out-of-cell time
opportunities were used in practice. Thus, we know how correctional systems described their
efforts, but we do not have independent metrics of the impact of changes made.
Of the 53 jurisdictions surveyed, 45 provided responses to these questions.228 Twelve of
these 45 jurisdictions provided copies of policies or court-based settlement agreements as
well.229 A few jurisdictions responded with reports of reduced populations in restricted housing
or with other kinds of information. Several jurisdictions that reported policy changes later

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

56
provided additional information.
Most of the responding corrections departments reported making or considering policy
changes. Areas of revision included narrowing the criteria for entry; creating different forms of
restricted housing; developing alternative housing options that removed individuals from the
general population, but without such restrictive conditions; increasing oversight over the process
of deciding who is to be placed in restricted housing; and creating pathways for release or limits
on the time to be spent in restricted housing. Several jurisdictions reported that, for those people
remaining in segregation, they sought to diminish the degrees of isolation by increasing out-ofcell time; improving access to programs, education, work, and exercise; and creating
opportunities for social interaction with people in and outside of prison. In terms of the process
for making changes, some jurisdictions reported that they had consulted with outside
institutions—from prisoner and disability advocacy groups to organizations such as the Vera
Institute of Justice—in their planning efforts.230
Below, we first provide an overview of what correctional systems reported they were
trying to do to reduce their use of long-term isolation. We then describe changes underway in the
federal system at the direction of the U.S. Department of Justice and in five states, all of which
were putting into place new policies focused on reducing the use of restricted housing. We detail
the proposals in the DOJ report on restricted housing that the March 2016 Presidential order
indicated should be implemented within 180 days.231 Thereafter, we provide information from
five states—Colorado, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, and Utah—that indicated that they
were making substantial changes in restricted housing policies and procedures.

A.

Reducing Placement in Restricted Housing: Narrowing Criteria for
Entry and Creating Alternatives

Many jurisdictions reported changing the criteria for placement in restricted housing. For
example, Colorado stated that it no longer allowed “female or youthful offenders” to be placed
into “Restricted Housing – Maximum Security Status.”232 Texas reported that members of what
it called the “Texas Mafia” were “no longer placed in restrictive housing based solely on their
affiliation.” California reported many changes in restricted housing policies, including no longer
placing prisoners in restricted housing “solely based” on gang membership.233 Pennsylvania
reported that it had “eliminated self-injurious behaviors, self-mutilation, other forms of selfinjury, and behaviors associated with these sentinel events from the list of rule violations that
could lead to segregation or other types of informal sanctions.”234 A few of these states have also
been involved with litigation regarding restricted housing prisoners, and some of the changes
interact with provisions of settlement agreements.
Other jurisdictions described taking steps to alter criteria for placement in restricted
housing. North Dakota said that it was in the “process of [a] policy review related to using
restrictive housing as a last resort.” South Dakota stated that it was revising the criteria for
placement in restricted housing “to be based on more clearly defined violent/dangerous
behaviors.” Utah, as detailed below in Part VII, changed both the criteria for placement and
created an individualized review process for each prisoner in restricted housing.

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

57
Along with narrowing criteria for entry to restricted housing, some jurisdictions
explained that they were seeking ways to divert prisoners from restricted housing, while also
removing prisoners from the general population. Ohio, for example, reported that it planned to
expand what it termed “Limited Privilege Housing,” described as “a non-restrictive housing
alternative” for some individuals who would otherwise have been placed in restrictive housing.
Oregon stated that it was revising policies to allow “low level” misbehavior to be addressed
through some alternative to restricted housing. New York (another jurisdiction in which major
litigation related to these issues was resolved in 2016) stated that it was planning “[a]lternative
programming units,” including drug and alcohol treatment programs and step-down programs,
“to reduce the number of inmates being held in restrictive housing.” Pennsylvania related that it
had recently developed several diversionary treatment units. Texas reported expanding its
“Mental Health Therapeutic Diversion Program” to 420 beds.

B.

Focusing on Release: Time Caps, Step-Down Programs, and
Increased Oversight of Retention Decisions

Many jurisdictions reported having implemented or planning to change criteria and
procedures for release from restricted housing or to the oversight of decisions to continue to
house individuals in restricted housing. Reported efforts included placing limits on the amount of
time in segregation, implementing structured programs to transition prisoners back to the general
population (“step-down” or “step-up” programs), and increasing oversight or reviews of
prisoners who were placed in segregation.
A few jurisdictions reported imposing a limit on the total time prisoners could spend in at
least some forms of restricted housing. For example, Colorado described a 12-month limit on
placement in Maximum Security restricted housing, which could be extended if “approved by the
director of Prisons as well as the deputy executive director, and . . . based upon documented
exigent circumstances.” South Dakota stated that it has made changes to “Disciplinary
Segregation to reduce maximum duration in disciplinary segregation.”235 Ohio reported that it
had adopted a policy under which prisoners in “long-term restrictive housing (Level 5 or 4B)”
were to be presumptively released after a set period of time unless they were found to “have
committed an offense so dangerous it exempts them from this policy.” Under Ohio’s plan,
prisoners in the most restrictive housing environment were presumptively downgraded to a lower
level of restriction after 90 days, after which they were presumptively released to a lower
restriction level after 15 months.
Several jurisdictions referenced implementing step-down or similar programs that create
a series of stages to facilitate the transition of individuals from restricted housing back to the
general population.236 For example, South Carolina (discussed in greater detail below) reported
that it had implemented a minimum year-long step-down program for prisoners requiring
“intensive management,” and a minimum six-month-long step-down program for prisoners who
commit less serious infractions. The Virginia Department of Corrections described its efforts at
implementing “Steps to Achieve Reintegration” (STAR), a program for prisoners who refused to
leave segregated housing “because of their fear of living with others”237 so as to equip prisoners
with “skills to safely enter [general] population housing.”238 Utah (also detailed below) created a

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

58
tiered program aimed at moving people from restricted housing to general population within a
year or less.
Several jurisdictions reported adding reviews of decisions to keep individuals in
restricted housing. For example, New Jersey described the formation of a committee to conduct
“a formal review of each inmate” housed in a management control unit (MCU) every three
months “to determine whether an inmate’s release from MCU is appropriate.”239 Oregon stated
that it was implementing a “90-day review process” to ensure prisoners do not remain segregated
longer than necessary.
A few jurisdictions described adding new administrative positions at various levels to
oversee their restricted housing programs and units. New York said that it had “added an
Assistant Commissioner position for oversight.”240 South Dakota reported that it added the
position of “Restrictive Housing Manager” in order “to oversee the development and
maintenance of the level program and to ensure institutional compliance with new policy
changes regarding restrictive housing.” Pennsylvania reported “many systemic changes to the
ways mental health services are provided to state inmates housed in various types of restricted
housing units,” including reorganizing the central office responsible for mental health care and
augmenting oversight to enhance “the delivery of mental health services.” Utah added a new
committee, the Placement/Advancement Review Board, to consider each prisoner in restricted
housing on a regular basis.
Another form of oversight can come from improving data collection. A few jurisdictions
described changing their information tracking systems. For example, Illinois explained that its
Department of Corrections regulations were revised to require creation of a new file for each
person in restricted housing to track “all relevant documentation pertaining to the administrative
detention placement.”241
Jurisdictions have also sought to prevent the release of individuals from segregation
directly to the community. Time-In-Cell described 30 jurisdictions that, as of 2013, reported that
4,400 people had been released to their communities without any transition from isolation.242 A
few jurisdictions responding to the 2015 survey described taking steps to prohibit or discourage
the direct release of individuals from restricted housing to the outside world. Connecticut stated
that it prohibited release of prisoners to the community directly from administrative segregation.
Similarly, Colorado policy required the Department to “make every attempt to ensure offenders
will not release directly to the community from Restrictive Housing Maximum Security Status”
and to do so by considering transition in the 180 days preceding release to the community.

C.

Mandated Time Out-of-Cell

Another strategy described by several jurisdictions was mandating a certain number of
hours per day or week that prisoners in segregation would spend outside of their cells. Several
jurisdictions reported reforming policies to increase time out-of-cell for prisoners removed from
the general population.243

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

59
For example, Ohio stated that it had a pilot program to provide “10 hours out-of-cell time
for structured activity and 10 hours out-of-cell time for unstructured activity for severely
mentally ill prisoners who must be held in restrictive housing for safety reasons.” Pennsylvania
stated that prisoners in particular segregated units were scheduled for a minimum of 20 hours of
out-of-cell activity per week. California noted that certain segregated prisoners were granted
either 15 or 20 hours out-of-cell per week. Utah related increasing mandated time out-of-cell per
week.

D.

Conditions: The Physical Environment and Programming

In addition to criteria for entry to and release from restricted housing, jurisdictions
reported revisiting conditions within restricted housing. Oregon, for example, reported that it
created a “blue room” in its Intensive Management Unit in one prison, where images of nature
were projected onto the walls. South Dakota described several changes, including building
“outdoor recreation enclosures,” installing windows to provide additional natural light to
prisoners, and installing televisions outside of cells, so that segregated prisoners could watch
“news/weather channel” during “the daytime hours.”
Other jurisdictions described efforts to increase programming opportunities for prisoners
in restricted housing, sometimes in groups. New Jersey stated that it planned to build modules
for programming in administrative segregation units. Missouri described its new “reintegration
unit” for people in restricted housing, which had additional programming. Texas reported on
programs allowing administratively segregated prisoners to “participate in group recreation and
group treatment.”
Several jurisdictions mentioned using “security desks” or “security chairs,” which
physically restrain prisoners to enable them to sit together in small groups and share in programs
or activities. For example, South Dakota described its step-down program as incorporating “outof-cell group programming.” Some jurisdictions, including South Dakota, related installing
security desks to permit small group activities. Washington reported that security chairs installed
in its Intensive Management Unit classrooms enabled “up to eight offenders at a time [to]
interact with other offenders and staff facilitators while participating in programming.” Nebraska
planned to install such chairs to allow some segregated prisoners to have congregate
programming.

E.

Staffing: Policies and Training

As the Time-In-Cell Report detailed, the staffing of restricted housing units poses
challenges for both institutions and individual correctional officers.244 In the 2015 survey, we
returned to these issues to learn about policy changes focused on staff, and several jurisdictions
described focusing on these issues. For example, New Jersey reported that it had established a
special training module for restricted housing staff. Pennsylvania stated that it had added training
for employees who work with seriously mentally ill prisoners and for employees who staff
restricted housing units. Utah said that it had completed a new policy to direct particular training
for officers working in restricted housing facilities. The District of Columbia reported that it did
not permit officers with less than 18 months of experience to work in these special units.

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

60
Wisconsin stated that it rotated staff out of restricted housing units every 14 weeks and that
restricted housing staff received special training in subjects including suicide prevention and
professional communication.

F.

Jurisdictions Seeking Substantial Reductions in
Restricted Housing Use

We asked all jurisdictions to provide additional information on efforts to reform restricted
housing. Below, we provide brief descriptions of changes, drawn from reports provided by the
Department of Justice (DOJ) and from five states—Colorado, North Dakota, Ohio, South
Carolina, and Utah—all of which describe themselves as seeking to achieve major shifts in the
use of restricted housing.
 

1. The Federal Prison System: Changes Recommended in the 2016
Department of Justice Restricted Housing Report
As noted at the outset, the Justice Department issued a report in January of 2016 that
included numerous specific recommendations for changes in how the federal government
handles restricted housing.245 That month, the President discussed the findings of the report and
the harms of “solitary confinement,” and called for the practice to be “limited, applied with
constraints and used only as a measure of last resort.”246 In March of 2016, the President issued a
Presidential Memorandum, “Limiting the Use of Restrictive Housing by the Federal
Government,”247 that directed prompt implementation of the DOJ’s recommendations by the
Justice Department, which was required to rewrite many of its policies. Below we summarize
some of the major changes recommended by the DOJ report.248
The DOJ organized its mandates under certain “Guiding Principles” followed by “Policy
Recommendations.”249 Central changes included limiting the placement of juveniles, pregnant
women, and seriously mentally ill individuals in restricted housing, absent exigent
circumstances, and banning the use of restricted housing for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender,
intersex, and gender nonconforming individuals, where such placement is based solely on sexual
or gender identity. The Justice Department also mandated the use of the least restrictive
alternative, revised the in-prison infractions that could result in placement in restricted housing,
and lowered the numbers of days individuals could spend in restricted housing. Thus, the DOJ
called for the BOP to end the practice of placing juveniles (defined as “those adjudicated as
juveniles, and those under age 18 who were convicted and sentenced as adults”) in restricted
housing, except as a “temporary response to a behavioral issue that poses a serious and
immediate risk to any individual.”250
A change with a wider application was the goal that all prisoners be housed “in the least
restrictive setting necessary” to ensure their safety and that of others.251 The DOJ stated that
correctional systems “should always be able to clearly articulate the specific reason(s)” for
placement in restricted housing, that these reasons should be supported by “objective evidence,”
and that prisoners should remain in restricted housing “no longer than necessary to address the
specific reason(s) for placement.”252 The DOJ also called for initial and ongoing reviews of any
placement in restricted housing and recommended that, for every prisoner, correctional staff
develop “a clear plan for returning the inmate to less restrictive conditions as promptly as
possible.”253 Further, to divert individuals placed in protective custody, the DOJ recommended

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

61
that the Bureau of Prisons expand its use of “Reintegration Housing Units,” which allow certain
prisoners to be removed from the general population but continue to live in conditions less
restrictive than solitary confinement.254
The DOJ recommended that prisoners not be sent to restricted housing as sanctions for
certain kinds of misbehaviors, organized in the federal system by “levels.” Thus, a low level
offense would no longer result in a sanction of disciplinary segregation, and a moderate level
offense would not result in a sanction of disciplinary segregation for a first violation or more
than 15 days of segregation for a subsequent violation. Previously, moderate offenses could have
resulted in 90 days for the first violation or 180 days for a subsequent violation.255
The DOJ also called for significant reductions to the time prisoners could be held in
restricted housing for disciplinary infractions. For example, the DOJ urged that the maximum
time a prisoner be placed in disciplinary segregation for the most serious category of offense be
reduced from 365 days for a first offense and 545 days for a subsequent offense to 60 days for a
first offense and 90 days for a subsequent offense.256
The DOJ also urged that, whenever possible, the BOP seek “to avoid releasing inmates
directly from restrictive housing back to the community.”257 To implement this goal, the DOJ
recommended revising policies to discourage placing prisoners in restricted housing near the end
of their prison terms and to consider releasing prisoners from segregation beginning 180 days
before the end of their sentences, if that movement could be done safely.258
Like some other jurisdictions, the DOJ recommended changes that would increase total
time out-of-cell for individuals in restricted housing. According to the DOJ’s recommendations,
wardens should be directed to “develop individualized plans for maximizing out-of-cell time for
restrictive housing inmates.”259 The DOJ also reported that the BOP was revising its rules
governing the use of “secure programming chairs” and “intends to purchase 610 of these chairs”
to allow “in-person educational and mental health programming in a less restrictive manner than
currently used.”260
For mentally ill prisoners, the DOJ recommended additional investment to hire mental
health staff and expand diversion programs. Under these recommendations, the BOP would
create “108 additional psychology positions,” which would allow the BOP to “dedicate at least
one staff psychologist to each” restricted housing unit.261 The DOJ also recommended expanded
use of “secure mental health units” to divert seriously mentally ill prisoners from solitary
confinement into “less restrictive housing.”262 To this end, the DOJ recommended that the BOP
“expand its network of residential mental health treatment programs” with the goal of “building
sufficient capacity to divert inmates with [serious mental illness] from all forms of restrictive
housing . . . whenever it is clinically appropriate and feasible to do so.”263
The DOJ recommended some measures to increase oversight of the use of restricted
housing, including initial and ongoing reviews of a prisoner’s placement in restricted housing by
“a multi-disciplinary staff committee” which would include institutional leadership and medical
and mental health professionals.264 The DOJ also recommended that the BOP publish monthly
system-wide restricted housing data on its external website (to allow the public to track the

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

62
number of prisoners in federal restricted housing) and upgrade its data-collection software.265
(As noted in the introductory materials, in the fall of 2016, several senators introduced a Solitary
Confinement Reform Act which, if enacted, would have requirements additional to those
outlined above.

2. Colorado
According to an article by Rick Raemisch, Director of the Colorado Department of
Corrections (CDOC) and Kellie Wasko, Deputy Director of the CDOC, efforts to reduce the use
of profound isolation were initiated in Colorado by Tom Clements, who served as the Executive
Director of the CDOC from 2011 until 2013. Director Clements was murdered by a person who
was released into the community directly from a CDOC restricted housing unit. In 2011, about
1,500 people (7% of the state’s prison population) were in restricted housing. Under Director
Clements, the population was reduced to 700 people.266 At that time, 49% of those released went
directly to the outside community.
When Rick Raemisch, who had previously served as the Director of Corrections in
Wisconsin, assumed the leadership of Colorado’s correction system in 2013, he sought to
continue to limit the use of isolation. Raemisch and Wasko reported that, as of the spring of
2016, policy changes had produced a 67% reduction in CDOC’s restricted housing population.
As the data in Section IV indicated, in the fall of 2015, Colorado recorded 217 people, or 1.2%
of its population, in restricted housing.
CDOC reported that it used what it termed a “progressive Management (Step down)
Process,” to provide prisoners with social contact within a highly structured and controlled close
custody environment.267 New units—the Close Custody Management Control Unit (MCU) and
Close Custody Transition Unit (CCTU)—were “designed specifically to assist offenders with
pro-social stabilization and cognitive intervention programming” before these individuals could
enter the general population.268 The CDOC system required that prisoners in these two units have
Behavior Modification Plans, designed, implemented, and monitored by a multidisciplinary
team.269
CDOC stated that individuals assigned to the MCU were allowed out of their cells for a
minimum of four hours per day, seven days per week and that prisoners could be in groups along
with several other prisoners when out-of-cell.270 MCU prisoners could participate in recreational,
social, and programming activities, including a minimum of three hours of indoor or outdoor
recreation each week. Every 30 days, CDOC reviewed the mental health and management plans
for such individuals.271 According to Raemisch and Wasko, CCTU prisoners were permitted
outside their cells six hours per day, seven days per week, in a group of 16 or fewer prisoners.272
CCTU prisoners were required to participate in the program “Thinking for a Change,” described
as aiming to increase awareness of and alter criminal thought processes, promote positive peer
interactions, and improve problem-solving skills.273
Raemisch and Wasko described the most restrictive offender management status—
Maximum Security Status (MSS)—as reserved for prisoners who had “demonstrated through
their behavior that they pose a significant risk to the safety of staff and other offenders.”274 The
length of time spent in the Maximum Security unit was reported not to exceed 12 months.275

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

63
Those prisoners were permitted one hour a day, five days a week out of their cells and monthly
out-of-cell “meaningful contact” visits with case managers and mental health clinicians.276
Further, CDOC described installing restraint tables (which, as noted, some jurisdictions
describe as “security chairs”) to facilitate group programming in the Maximum Security Units.277
After three months of good behavior, CDOC stated that Maximum Security prisoners could earn
a television in their cell.278 In the fall of 2015, CDOC reported three women in restricted
housing. In its spring 2016 report, CDOC stated that it has adopted policies prohibiting the
placement of female or youthful offenders into Maximum Security Restrictive Housing status.279
The question of the treatment of the mentally ill has drawn attention from the state
legislature as well as from CDOC, which helped to shape legislation reducing isolation for
mentally ill offenders. In June 2014, Governor John Hickenlooper signed Senate Bill 14-064,280
which prohibits the placement of seriously mentally ill prisoners (SMI) in “long-term isolated
confinement except when exigent circumstances are present.”281 Before this legislation was
enacted, CDOC reported that in 2014 all prisoners with SMI had been evaluated and “moved out
of administrative segregation to either a Residential Treatment Program or a general population
setting.”282 SMI prisoners in the residential treatment units were, according to Colorado,
permitted to leave their cells for 10 hours of structured therapeutic interventions and 10 hours of
non-structured recreational programming each week.283 Again, CDOC said it relied on restraint
tables, which accommodate up to four prisoners, for group interactions with therapists and
clinicians.284
CDOC described using screenings of prisoners upon entry to prison in order to identify
individuals with serious mental illness.285 Further, if prisoners violated prison rules, assessing
committees were charged with determining whether mental illness contributed to the person’s
committing a violation; if so, the person was to be assigned to a Residential Treatment Program
that entailed significant restrictions on time out-of-cell but was not the same kind of management
control unit to which non-mentally ill violators were assigned.
Like other departments, CDOC reported that some individuals who had been in profound
isolation had difficulty leaving it.286 CDOC described its Divisions of Clinical Services and
Prison Operations staff as developing programs to encourage individuals to leave their cells;
initiatives including having dogs in treatment groups, constructing de-escalation rooms with
soothing music, and art therapy classes.287
CDOC characterized these policy changes as successful, reporting that the two facilities
with Residential Treatment Programs have experienced significant declines in forced cell entries
and in prisoner-on-staff assaults.288 CDOC explained that its senior executives provided weekly
messages to the entire department to describe ongoing reforms, explain their rationale, and invite
feedback. Further, Raemisch and Wasko described giving management teams at the facility level
the autonomy to determine what methods to use to engage staff in and gain their commitment to
change.289 CDOC also reported that there were no suicides in restricted housing in 2015.290 The
average length of time spent in restricted housing by CDOC prisoners was approximately 7.5
months.291

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

64

3. North Dakota
Reports of reforms in the North Dakota Department of Correction and Rehabilitation
(ND-DOCR) come from its director, Leann Bertsch, whose essay, The History of Restricted
Housing at the ND-DOCR, details the evolution of using segregation from the era of “dark cells”
where no light could reach prisoners to modern-day segregation.292 She described the expanding
use of segregation despite the absence of any “apparent correlation between institutional
violence, escapes, weapons, or riots that would account for” that increase.293 Thus, North Dakota
has identified segregation as a problem to be solved and outlined how the Department aimed to
reduce dramatically its reliance on isolation.294 In a March 2016 discussion of “strategic
planning” to reduce segregation, the Department listed what segregation “can’t do,” (improve
institutional behavior, reduce violence or recidivism) and what segregation had been “proven to
do” (increase violence, aggression, self-harm, psychosis, and other physical and mental health
harms in men who have spent time there).295
Thus, the aim was to use the least “restrictive housing level,”296 and the new “goal of
segregation” was “to separate, assess, and equip people to function at a reduced risk to
themselves, the institution, and others.”297 ND-DOCR’s strategy was to “divert people from
segregation and strictly limit the types of behaviors that can result in segregation.”298
At the front end, ND-DOCR reported that it had limited the behaviors that could result in
placement299 and had encouraged alternative interventions, such as increasing monitoring in
general population or restricting prisoners within their general population cells, so as to use
segregation as a last resort.300
The ND-DOCR also implemented reforms to reduce the population in their restricted
housing units. Leadership identified over 30 people in the Administrative Segregation Unit who
no longer required restricted housing, and moved them into a new Administrative Transition Unit
(ATU) to prepare them for the transition to general population.301 People housed in the new ATU
were permitted more opportunities for social interaction and special programming to help them
prepare for the return to general population.302 The Special Assistance Unit (SAU), the housing
unit for people with mental illness, also expanded opportunities for socialization by allowing its
residents to engage in group treatment and to spend days visiting the general population floor.303
The SAU also created a new transition floor, with supportive services, to help improve reentry
outcomes for this population.304
In addition, through a psychological assessment process, the ND-DOCR identified the
“most acutely impulsive and dangerous people” in their restricted housing units.305 These people
were assigned behavior management plans to help them develop the skills and behaviors needed
to transition out of restricted housing. For those remaining in restricted housing, these plans
“have increased the amount of interaction, out-of-cell time, enrichment, and reinforcement . . . .”
All new admissions to Administrative Segregation are assessed immediately by a multidisciplinary team and provided with a personalized behavior management plan that indicates
what progress is necessary to begin the transition out of restricted housing.306
Like Colorado, North Dakota indicated that it sought to engage correctional officers in all
stages of program development, which included surveying staff to identify perceived problems,

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

65
educating correctional officers about the psychological and physical harms of solitary
confinement, and stressing rehabilitation as a means of achieving security within facilities.307
Since implementing these reforms, North Dakota’s DOCR reported that it has reduced its
segregated population from 82 prisoners in April 2015 to 27 in April 2016.308 Director Bertsch
highlighted staff support309 and prisoner reports of more positive exchanges with staff.310 North
Dakota also reported a reduction in the use of force311 and no increase in incidents of violence
since shifting its approach.312

4. Ohio
In the fall of 2015, ODRC described a “[m]ajor overhaul of the entire system as part of a
comprehensive reform.” In a May 2016 Executive Briefing by staff to Director Gary Mohr, the
ODRC outlined reforms at three facilities—the Grafton Correctional Institution (GCI), the
Belmont Correctional Institution, and the Ohio State Penitentiary.313 Those efforts were part of
making “a substantive change to our entire disciplinary process and the types/kinds of sanctions
we use to address inmate misbehavior.”314
According to the Department, the GCI has converted half of its Special Management Unit
(SMU) cells into Limited Privilege Unit (LPU) cells, for use by prisoners who are deemed not to
pose “a significant threat to the safety and security of the facility.”315 These prisoners are given
“more out-of-cell time, access to telephones and email, as well as additional recreational time
activities.”316 Most significantly, prisoners on LPU were offered the opportunity to gain early
release from restricted housing by participating in pro-social structured and unstructured
activities.317 The Department reported that these activities included programming on problemsolving, community service, recovery, anger management, and mental and physical wellness.
The Department enabled LPU prisoners to attend these programs in general population
classrooms and to leave the unit for mental health and medical appointments.318
Ohio reported that, at its Belmont Correctional Institution (BeCI), it launched a pilot
program on “alternative disciplinary sanctions” adapted from the HOPE Model (Hawaii
Opportunity Probation with Enforcement).319 The premise of the model, which Ohio adapted to
fit the corrections environment, is that violations should result in sanctions that are prompt,
proportionate to the severity of the offense, and take into consideration the individual behavioral
history of the prisoner.320
In addition to adopting the HOPE Model, BeCI introduced other reforms intended to
reduce the population in restricted housing, including new pro-social programming, congregate
activities, and targeted case planning.321 BeCI also introduced new programming to address the
specific needs of prisoners with mental illness, including group psychotherapy, medication
education, and programs promoting adjustment.322
BeCI also introduced alternative sanctions to reduce reliance on restricted housing, such
as imposing bunk restrictions, commissary restrictions, and personal electronics restrictions.323
Like North Dakota, Ohio’s BeCI has reassessed its response to certain offenses that previously
would have led to placement in restricted housing.324 Instead of placing “Rule 39” violators in
restricted housing—that is, prisoners who use or possess drugs and alcohol—BeCI has created

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

66
special “Rule 39 Unit” dormitories.325 No individual is placed in restricted housing until a third
positive drug test.326 Ohio also explained that, while at first it put all prisoners who tested
positive for substance use in the same unit, concerns emerged that placing casual users with
addicts encouraged drug use. As a result, BeCI redesigned the unit to create two different tracks:
a disciplinary track for more addicted users, and a programming track for casual users.327
The Department described efforts at Ohio State Penitentiary (OSP) to alter criteria for
releasing prisoners from restricted housing. OSP houses the system’s most dangerous prisoners,
and as of April 1, 2016, there were 335 prisoners in this facility housed in extended restricted
housing.328 Ohio reported that in the fall of 2015, it instituted a new policy, under which each
prisoner’s security level is presumptively reduced within a set time period, with the exception of
prisoners who committed “very serious” offenses such as “murdering another inmate” or “taking
a staff member hostage.”329 Absent such circumstances, however, Ohio reported that each
prisoner is given an individually-tailored Behavior Management Plan (BMP) that specifies the
maximum time that the prisoner will spend in each restricted housing status.330 Each status
brings increased privileges and prisoners can accelerate their progress through the levels by
demonstrating pro-social behaviors and participating in programs.331
For those prisoners who were ineligible for presumptive reduction, the Department
reported that OSP had “developed a separate management strategy based on good conduct,
increased quality of life, and social interaction.”332 For these prisoners, Ohio reported increasing
out-of-cell time by 30 minutes, five days a week; increasing telephone access from 30 minutes a
month to two hours per month; and increasing the number of permitted visits from two to three
per month.333 In addition, OSP reported that it offered prisoners the ability to have a tablet in-cell
and to email and download games through a kiosk in the unit; the ability to purchase a keyboard
for in-cell and congregate programming; and the opportunity to participate in a monthly
incentive program to earn more privileges.334 Ohio reported that these prisoners are evaluated
annually for release, with consideration given to recent behavior and programmatic
involvement.335
Ohio also reported efforts to update its data collection system to monitor its prisoners’
placements. As of May 2016, Ohio was seeking weekly updates from its facilities on prisoners in
restricted housing.336 Ohio reported that it had reduced the use of restricted housing and that
violence had likewise fallen. Belmont Correctional Institution described a 90% reduction in the
use of restricted housing since 2010, coupled with a 25% reduction in the violence rate since
2014.337 Ohio’s leadership reported that “there is cause to believe that these reforms have made
[their] prison[s] safer.”338

5. South Carolina
South Carolina provided policies on entry into, activities in, and oversight of restricted
housing.339 To reduce the use of restricted housing, South Carolina’s Department of Corrections
(SCDC) adopted a Step-Down Program (SDP) “to create a pathway for offenders to ‘step down’
from the Restricted Housing Unit (RHU) to general population in a manner that maintains
public, staff, and offender safety, while also reducing their criminogenic risk factors.”340

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

67
Director Bryan Stirling provided materials tracking the number of prisoners in Restricted
Housing from 2012 to March of 2016. The total “lockup” numbers in 2012 were 1,691
(including 1,251 individuals described as non-mentally ill and 420 people termed “mentally ill”).
In March of 2016, the total number was 755, of which 266 were “mentally ill.”341
SCDC launched its Step-Down initiative at McCormick Correctional Institution in June
2015 and, by March of 2016, reported that the program had expanded to 17 of the state prison
system’s 26 facilities.342 SCDC explained that prisoners accepted into the Step-Down program
are divided into two categories: Intensive Management (IM) and Restrictive Management (RM).
IM prisoners were those with “the potential for extreme and deadly violence that have been a
threat to the physical safety of other inmates or staff at one time.”343 RM prisoners, by contrast,
were individuals who were “continually” placed in restricted housing due to “poor adjustment in
general population” but who “do not pose a deadly threat to staff or inmates.”344
SCDC reported that prisoners in the IM program had to complete a minimum yearlong,
three-phase program before rejoining the general population.345 The program’s timeframe could
be extended if the individual had “disciplinary infractions or poor adjustment.”346 Like most
step-down programs, prisoners received incremental privileges as they progressed. In the most
restrictive Phase I, prisoners were granted certain privileges, referred to as “Phase I incentives,”
which include out-of-cell time each day from 8:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m.; lunch in the cafeteria
(breakfast and dinner were provided in-cell); and recreation time in the gym twice a week.347
Phase I was designed to span at least three months, during which time prisoners were
required to participate in programming.348 To advance to Phase II, prisoners could not be
involved in assaultive behavior during the time they were in Phase I.349 In Phase II, incentives
included out-of-cell time from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.; lunch and dinner in the cafeteria; and the
ability to have one visit per month even if on visitation restriction.350 To advance from Phase II,
prisoners were required to meet all Phase I requirements, complete an additional 90 days of
programming, demonstrate “openness to constructive feedback” and “[d]emonstrate management
and control of impulsive behavior.”351 Prisoners who successfully completed Phase II could
move to Phase III. In Phase III, incentives included out-of-cell time from 5:30 a.m. to 8 p.m.; job
assignments outside of their dorm; all meals in the cafeteria; and two visits per month, if on
visitation restriction.352 After six months in Phase III, prisoners were to be considered for
placement in general population.353
As South Carolina staff also explained, the Phase I incentives were automatic when a
prisoner entered the program; if a prisoner misbehaved repeatedly, that prisoner would be
required to repeat the first phase or be returned to restricted housing, and thereafter, be able to
start the step-down program again.
SCDC explained that the RM program was similar to the IM program, but ran for six
months rather than a year.354 RM prisoners had more incentives earlier, more recreation time
each week, more visitation opportunities, and more out-of-cell opportunities.355 For example, in
Phase I, incentives in the RM program included schooling for prisoners who did not have their
high school diploma, three visits per month, and job assignments.356

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

68
SCDC’s Step-Down Program also included educational programming. If accepted to the
SDP, prisoners were to be screened for completion of a GED or high school diploma. Prisoners
who had not obtained either were enrolled in education courses beginning in Phase III (IM) or
Phase II (RM).357 If prisoners had not completed educational requirements by the end of the
SDP, they continued their education upon return to general population.358
SCDC described its Step-Down Program as including a wide array of classes, such as art
and music, philosophy, creative writing, foreign languages, and some other life-skills programs,
as well as anger management, managing anxiety and depression, and budgeting for individuals
and families.359 Upon graduation from the Step-Down Program, prisoners had restrictions on
canteen, telephone, and visitation privileges lifted.360 Further, prisoners were given the option of
transferring to other programs within SCDC or remaining to become a facilitator for incoming
prisoners in the Step-Down Program.361
In terms of program administration, decisions on prisoner movement through the steps
were made by the SDP Review Team, which consisted of a Warden or his/her designee, the SDP
unit manager, the SDP caseworker, and a mental health counselor.362 SCDC reported that for
prisoners who did not advance, the team informed them of what was required to do so.363
Further, if any prisoner was found to have committed a serious, major disciplinary
infraction or refused to participate in any part of the program, that prisoner could be returned to
the previous phase, as decided by the SDP Review Team. Consideration was given to time spent
in restricted housing, the reason the prisoner was originally placed in restricted housing, the
prisoner’s mental health status, his/her risk level, his/her willingness to participate in the
program, and the safety and security of staff and other prisoners.364
Issues of mental illness have been a part of the concerns of the SCDC, which on January
12, 2015, entered into a settlement with Protection and Advocacy for People with Disabilities,
Inc., and agreed to improve conditions for mentally ill prisoners incarcerated at the SCDC.365 In
2015, the Department agreed to seek $8.6 million in funding for three years to increase the
number of mental health personnel and to improve facilities. Some planned facility
improvements included adding a recreation yard to the Behavioral Management Unit, cordoning
off a Crisis Intervention Unit for prisoners arriving with or developing a condition that warrants
an immediate response, and adding cameras in cells for monitoring/surveillance.366 The
Department was also developing a program for screening and evaluating prisoners to identify
those in need of mental health care, as well as a training curriculum that included crisisintervention training for staff.367
The Step-Down Program operated in the context of the SCDC policies governing
restricted housing. For example, prisoners classified as “Level 1” Substantiated Security Risk
(SSR), who were permitted to exercise outside of cells five days a week, one hour per day,368
were to be “restrained according to their status; and “strip-searched prior to being removed from
their cell and at the conclusion of exercise,” for most levels.369 SCDC policy also encourages an
“in-cell exercise program”—providing directions on forms of exercise inside cells and to be
distributed to prisoners in any form of restricted housing.

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

69

6. Utah
Utah revised its rationale for restricted housing in 2016, according to the Director of the
Division of Institutional Operations, Jerry Pope, who was charged by Executive Director Rollin
Cook to oversee changes but, prior to the adoption of its 2016 policy, Director Pope described,
restricted housing was a way to warehouse people whom the prison viewed as problems. In
contrast, Utah has changed that approach to limit the reasons for placement in restricted housing
and to develop a program for those placed in restricted housing to move back to the general
population as soon as possible. As Director Pope explained, this new approach was “the right
thing to do,” especially because most people in restricted housing would eventually be released
back into the community.370
The 2016 policy, promulgated in January,371 was finalized after consultation with the
American Civil Liberties Union of Utah (ACLU), the Disability Law Center of Utah, and Utah
Prisoners Advocate Network.372 The 2016 policy statement explained that its purpose was to
provide the “procedure, rationale and guidelines for the management and operation of Restricted
Housing,” which was that “when circumstances make it necessary to place an inmate in
Restricted Housing that a structured, progressive program be available that creates an
opportunity for an inmate to progress out of Restricted Housing to general population within 12
months.”373
The policy’s “Vision Statement” described a commitment to “becoming industry leaders
in restricted housing management” that fostered “positive change.”374 The “Mission Statement”
explained that the “team will provide inmates with opportunities for education, mental health,
programming, recreation, religious services, and visiting in a safe, secure, and cost-effective
environment,” that encouraged “transition to less restrictive housing through a structured and
progressive program.”375 Director Pope reported that staff posted the Mission Statement and
Vision Statement on placards in each unit in order to raise and maintain awareness about changes
to restricted housing.376
Central to the new policy was an individualized review of decisions to move people in
and out of restricted housing. This review also narrowed the criteria for placement in restricted
housing. To do so, the 2016 policy created an “Objective Review Panel” to conduct an initial
review of each individual placed in restricted housing.377 Thereafter, a multi-disciplinary team
(the Placement/Advancement Review Board) was to have a weekly review of each person placed
in restricted housing to determine whether he or she met—and continued to meet—specified
criteria for restricted housing.378
The Placement/Advancement Review Board was initially planned to include several
correctional officials, including the Division Director, the Director of Inmate Placement
Programs, wardens, deputy wardens, and captains from the Central Utah Correctional
Facility and Utah State Prison, as well as a “qualified health professional,” a representative of the
ACLU, and a representative of the Utah Disability Law Center.”379 Thereafter, the staff
determined that confidentiality concerns precluded the outside organizations from having
relevant information, and decided instead to conduct an “annual policy review” with those
organizations.380

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

70
The criteria for placement were revised to provide that the bases for placement in
restricted housing included, but were not limited to, “Security Threat Group activity,” “riot,”
“serious safety concerns,” and “involvement in a serious threat to life, property, staff or to the
orderly operation of a unit or facility.”381 The policy provided that if the
Placement/Advancement Review Board deemed that an individual was inappropriately housed in
restricted housing, the individual “shall be referred to his/her respective Offender Management
Review for reassessment and proper housing.”382
Further, under the 2016 policy, individuals placed in restricted housing were to have a
mental health assessment within 72 hours, and receive a review by the Placement/Advancement
Review Board within 10 days.383 Further, if a prisoner was found to have a serious mental
illness, that person “shall be moved to a mental health treatment unit.”384
As Director Pope reported to us, Utah’s first step was to complete an evaluation of every
prisoner in restricted housing. After that review, the Department concluded that many individuals
should be moved out or, for those with serious mental health needs, transferred to a mental health
unit. As of the fall of 2016, implementation was underway to provide for what has come to be
known as “ten and ten” in the mental health unit—10 hours of time out-of-cell for mental health
treatment and an additional 10 hours out-of-cell per week for other activities.
In addition to reviewing why a person was initially placed in restricted housing, Utah’s
2016 policy provided means, through its “Step-Up Tier Program,” for people to leave restricted
housing. As its title reflected, the policy was designed to return people to general population
within one year; it also allowed for an earlier return if an individual successfully completed the
steps earlier.385
Under this policy, a prisoner in restricted housing was to begin at Tier 1, with a
“minimum of 5 hours out-of-cell each week,” as well as “in-cell programming, in-cell education,
volunteer work, . . . [and] individual mental health counseling.”386 Further, prisoners “on Tier 1
with little or no contact with other individuals” were to be “monitored daily by medical staff and
at least once a week by mental health staff.”387
After 45 days, a prisoner so confined could, after a review, be advanced to Tier 2, where
he or she would become eligible for two-cell recreation at 5-10 hours per week, as well as work
opportunities, “group education,” and “group programming.”388 After another review at 120
days, a prisoner could advance to Tier 3, in which “quad cell recreation” is permitted out-of-cell
for 10 to 14 hours per week.389 Security desks were installed for education and group therapy,
and recreation center enclosures were also added to allow more time out-of-cell.390 The policy
permitted visiting and phone privileges based on a reward system, and provided that all visits be
conducted through a barrier.391 After another 150 days, another review could make a prisoner
eligible for a return to the general population.392
The 2016 policy also included a provision that prioritized staff working in Restricted
Housing units for “Crisis Intervention Training.”393 Utah reported that all custody staff received
two hours of in-service training on restricted housing.394 In addition, Utah revised its data
collection system to track information on restricted housing. Those changes were underway as of

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

71
this writing. The state’s Research and Planning Bureau was identifying metrics based on the
guiding principles of the new restricted housing policy in order to generate quarterly reports that
would help determine the effectiveness of the restricted housing program and provide bases for
modifying the program as well.395
Utah further explained that, had it answered the 2015 survey with data from the summer
of 2016, its numbers would have been different. Rather than 14% of its population in restricted
housing, 6% were in-cell for 22 hours or more (380 out of 6,112, of whom seven (1.6%) were
women). Further, 268 people were in-cell for 20-21 hours, resulting in a total of 648 or 10.6% of
the population confined in those settings.396 In addition, Utah had detailed information on the
demographics of the populations.397 In short, as a result of these substantive policy changes, the
number of prisoners in restricted housing dropped from 912 in the fall of 2015 to 380 in August,
2016, with another 268 prisoners in-cell for 20-21 hours.

VIII.

Reflecting on Efforts to Reduce Time-In-Cell

In the course of conducting this research and writing this Report, correctional
administrators repeatedly contacted us to discuss their efforts to reduce the numbers of persons
confined in restricted housing. In addition, many Directors stressed the efforts to shift from the
22 or more hours in-cell model to forms of restrictions that provided more time out-of-cell.
Indeed, as this Report was circulated in draft, system administrators sought us out to explain how
the numbers detailed were out of date, for they had succeeded in reducing restricted housing
prison populations from the levels described here.
These efforts reflect the profound shift that has occurred in the last few years, since
ASCA and Liman began this series of research projects. While once restricted housing was seen
as central to prison management, by 2016 many prison directors and organizations such as the
ACA and ASCA had defined restricted housing as a practice to use as little as possible for as
short a duration as possible. Moreover, the large numbers of people in restricted housing are
enduring conditions that are harmful not only to them, but also to staff and the communities to
which prisoners will return. Indeed, some prison administrators are “abolitionists,” in the sense
that they would—if they could—end solitary confinement and find methods to ensure that no
person remain for more than 15 days in 22-in-cell hours continuously.
Yet, as the data in this Report reflect, unraveling the practices of isolation requires
sustained work. This Report identified 67,442 prisoners in restricted housing and that number, as
noted at the outset, excludes most jails in the United States. Some 5,909 prisoners in 32
jurisdictions have been kept in-cell for 22 hours a day or more for three years or more. Yet the
Nelson Mandela Rules—formulated with input from U.S. correctional officials—call more than
15 days a form of prolonged isolation that should be understood as degrading and inhumane
treatment.
Moreover, a question emerges about why 22 hours or more should be definitional of
isolation. The question is whether a move to 21 (rather than 22) hours in-cell responds to
alleviate the harms of isolation. Equally important is the length of time a person is subjected to
isolating conditions, and how to assess the number of hours in-cell within the context of the

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

72
length of time confined in that manner. How many hours in continual confinement in a cell for
how many days should be seen as impermissible? Moreover, prisoners may be held in their cells
for days (if not 15 consecutive days) for 22 hours or more. Further, in many systems, the small
amount of time out-of-cell that is permitted is spent in enclosed cubicles, sometimes without any
natural light.
In short, neither a shift to 21 hours nor time out-of-cell in very tight spaces responds to
the goals—expressed by ASCA, the ACA, among many others—of changing the conditions of
confinement in significant ways. Thus, at its core, the issue is whether—as the proposed 2016
Senate solitary confinement reform legislation reflects—the isolation denoted by solitary
confinement should be ended. Doing so would reflect that the separation of individuals to
promote safety and well-being need not be accompanied by deprivation of all opportunities for
social contact, education, programming, and other activities.
We return as we began—to the larger context. From the inception of this joint work by
ASCA and Liman, we have always understood that isolation ought not itself be understood “in
isolation.” Restricted housing practices are on a continuum with the placement of prisons in rural
settings, far from the homes of many of the prisoners and imposing difficulties in having both
able staff and volunteers, as well as regular visits by family members.
As the nation revisits its decades of over-incarceration, it must address restricted housing
in the context of prison policies and criminal justice practices in general. This Report makes
plain that correctional leaders in many jurisdictions are reconsidering their own systems, and
joining with prisoners, their families, advocates, and members of all branches of government, the
academy, and many others—who are seeking to achieve lasting changes in the use of
incarceration itself.

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

73
Endnotes

1

Hope Metcalf, Jamelia Morgan, Samuel Oliker-Friedland, Judith Resnik, Julia Spiegel, Haran Tae,
Alyssa Work & Brian Holbrook, Administrative Segregation, Degrees of Isolation, and Incarceration: A
National Overview of State and Federal Correctional Policies, YALE LAW SCHOOL ARTHUR LIMAN
PUBLIC INTEREST PROGRAM (June 2013) [hereinafter ASCA-Liman 2013 Administrative Segregation
Policies], https://www.law.yale.edu/system/files/area/center/liman/document/Liman_overview_segregation_
June_25_2013_TO_POST_FINAL(1).pdf.
2

Sarah Baumgartel, Corey Guilmette, Johanna Kalb, Diana Li, Josh Nuni, Devon Porter & Judith Resnik,
Time-In-Cell: The ASCA-Liman 2014 National Survey of Administrative Segregation in Prison, YALE
LAW SCHOOL ARTHUR LIMAN PUBLIC INTEREST PROGRAM 54-57 (Aug. 2015) [hereinafter Time-InCell], https://www.law.yale.edu/system/files/documents/pdf/asca-liman_administrative_segregation_report_
sep_2_2015.pdf.
3

Daniel P. Mears, Evaluating The Effectiveness of Supermax Prisons, URBAN INSTITUTE (March 2006),
http://www.urban.org/research/publication/evaluating-effectiveness-supermax-prisons; see also Davis v.
Ayala, 135 S. Ct. 2187, 2210 (2015) (Kennedy, J., concurring).
4

Time-In-Cell, supra note 2, at 3.

5

Id. at 37-38.

6

Id. at 39.

7

Id. at 43-49.

8

Id. at 44-46.

9

Id. at 49.

10

Id. at 29-30.

11

The ASCA-Liman Report relied on answers from those who run prisons. In the fall of 2015, the Bureau
of Justice Statistics (BJS) released a survey drawn from another source—prisoners. See Allen J. Beck,
Use of Restrictive Housing in U.S. Prisons and Jails, 2011-12, BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS (Oct.
2015), http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/urhuspj1112.pdf [hereinafter Beck, Use of Restrictive
Housing]. Based on responses during 2011-2012 from 91,177 prisoners in 233 state and federal prisons
and in 357 jails, BJS found that almost 20% of those prisoners and detainees had been held in restricted
housing within the prior year. The individuals more likely to have been placed in restricted housing were
younger, lesbian, gay, bisexual, or mentally ill, and without a high school diploma. The BJS study found
that expansive use of restricted housing correlated with institutional disorder, such as gang activity and
fighting, rather than with calmer environments. Id. at 1.
12

New Report on Prisoners in Administrative Segregation Prepared by the Association of State
Correctional Administrators and the Arthur Liman Public Interest Program at Yale Law School,
ASSOCIATION
OF
STATE
CORRECTIONAL
ADMINISTRATORS
(Sept.
2015),
http://www.asca.net/system/assets/attachments/8895/ASCA%20LIMAN%20Press%20Release%208-2815.pdf?1441222595.

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

74

13

Id.

14

See, e.g., Jess Bravin, Study Fuels Doubts Over Solitary Jailing, WALL STREET JOURNAL, A3 (Sept. 3,
2015); Ray Hardman, New Yale Survey Estimates Nearly 100,000 in Solitary Confinement in the U.S.,
WNPR (Sept. 2, 2015), http://wnpr.org/post/new-yale-survey-estimates-nearly-100000-solitaryconfinement-us#stream/0; Timothy Williams, Prison Officials Join Movement to Curb Solitary
Confinement, N.Y. TIMES (Sept. 2, 2015), http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/03/us/prison-directors-groupcalls-for-limiting-solitary-confinement.html; Dana Liebelson, 97 Percent of DC’s Prisoners in One Type
of
Solitary
Confinement
are
Black,
HUFFINGTON
POST
(Sept.
2,
2015),
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/solitary-confinement-prison-report_us_55e71effe4b0aec9f3556937;
Tony Mauro, Prison Officials Push to Reduce Number of Inmates in Isolation, THE NATIONAL LAW
JOURNAL (Sept. 2, 2015), http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202736243843/Prison-Officials-Pushto-Reduce-Number-of-Inmates-in-Isolation?slreturn=20160924232512; Simon McCormack, Even Prison
Officials Want to Curb Solitary Confinement, HUFFINGTON POST (Sept. 3, 2015),
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/prison-officials-solitary-confinement_us_55e8530ce4b0 c818f61ace30;
Gregory Korte, Obama Restricts Use of Solitary Confinement, USA TODAY (Jan. 25, 2016),
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/01/25/obama-restricts-use-solitary-confinement/79327230/;

Daniela Altimari, Report: Fewer State Prisoners Held in Solitary Confinement, HARTFORD COURANT
(Sept. 4, 2015), http://www.courant.com/politics/hc-solitary-confinement-0905-20150904-story.html.
15

See Collection of Reactions to Time-In-Cell, YALE LAW JOURNAL FORUM, Vol. 125 (Jan. 15, 2016).
Essays include Reginald Dwayne Betts, Only Once I Thought About Suicide,
http://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/only-once-i-thought-about-suicide; Alex Kozinski, Worse than
Death, http://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/worse-than-death; Jules Lobel, The Liman Report and
Alternatives to Prolonged Solitary Confinement, http://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/alternatives-toprolonged-solitary-confinement; Ashbel T. (A.T.) Wall, Time-In-Cell: A Practitioner’s Perspective,
http://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/Time-In-Cell-a-practitioners-perspective; Marie Gottshalk, Staying
Alive:
Reforming
Solitary
Confinement
in
U.S.
Prisons
and
Jails,
http://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/reforming-solitary-confinement-in-us-prisons-and-jails; and Judith
Resnik, Sarah Baumgartel, and Johanna Kalb, Time-In-Cell: Isolation and Incarceration,
http://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/Time-In-Cell-isolation-and-incarceration.
16

The four jurisdictions whose reports were limited in many areas were Arkansas, Nevada, Rhode Island,
and West Virginia. Additional details are provided infra note 165.
17

Unless otherwise indicated, data about jurisdictions came from jurisdictions’ responses to the initial
ASCA-Liman survey and follow-up questions. The initial report was circulated in the fall of 2015. States
responded and provided follow-up information through the summer of 2016. All data reflects the prison
population as of October 1, 2015 unless otherwise noted.
18

See infra Section IV.A.

19

Id.

20

See infra Section IV.B.

21

Id.

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

75

22

A few jurisdictions did provide information on jail facilities. For example, the information from the
District of Columbia exclusively concerns the municipal facility that it operated. As noted, Louisiana
asked for inclusion of parish jail population numbers on some measures. See infra Section IV.A.

23

Sallie Clark, Five Voices on Reforming the Front End of Justice: Where the Buck—$93 Billion a Year—
Stops, MARSHALL PROJECT (July 18, 2016), https://www.themarshallproject.org/2016/07/17/five-voiceson-reforming-the-front-end-of-justice?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter&utm_source=ope
ning-statement&utm_term=newsletter-20160717-542#.LaAES0RVz. Clark wrote in her capacity as
President of the National Association of Counties.
Jails also have restricted housing; the 2015 report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, relying on
surveys from more than 90,000 prisoners in 233 state and federal prisons and 357 jails, found that almost
20% of the respondents described being held in restricted housing within the year before the survey. See
Beck, Use of Restrictive Housing, supra note 11, at 1.

24

See infra, Section V.A and Chart 3.

25

Peter Baker & Erica Goode, Critics of Solitary Confinement Are Buoyed as Obama Embraces Their
Cause, N.Y. TIMES (July 21, 2015), http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/22/us/politics/critics-of-solitaryconfinement-buoyed-as-obama-embraces-cause.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FSolitary%20
Confinement.
26

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING THE USE OF RESTRICTIVE
HOUSING
(Jan.
2016)
[hereinafter
DOJ
RESTRICTIVE
HOUSING
2016
REPORT],
https://www.justice.gov/dag/file/815551/download. That work relied for some aspects of its discussion on
data from the ASCA-Liman Report, Time-In-Cell.
27

Barack Obama, Why We Must Rethink Solitary Confinement, WASH. POST (Jan. 25, 2016),
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/barack-obama-why-we-must-rethink-solitary-confinement/2016.
01/25/29a361f2-c384-11e5-8965-0607e0e265ce_story.html.
28

DOJ RESTRICTIVE HOUSING 2016 REPORT, supra note 26, at 114.

29

Id. at 99-102.

30

Id. at 109-10.

31

Id. at 94.

32

Id. at 95.

33

Id.

34

Id. at 95.

35

Id. at 116.

36

Id. at 117.

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

76

37

Presidential Memorandum on Limiting the Use of Restrictive Housing by the Federal Government from
President Barack Obama to the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies (Mar. 1, 2016) [hereinafter
Presidential 2016 Memorandum on Limiting Restrictive Housing], https://www.whitehouse.gov/thepress-office/2016/03/01/presidential-memorandum-limiting-use-restrictive-housing-federal.

38

Id.

39

Gary Mohr & Rick Raemisch, Restrictive Housing: Taking the Lead, 77 CORRECTIONS TODAY (Mar.
2015), ttp://www.aca.org/aca_prod_imis/Docs/Corrections%20Today/2015%20Articles/March%202015/
Guest%20Editorial.pdf. Other correctional leaders shared this concern. See, e.g., Jeri Zeder, Thinking
Outside the Box: How a prison manager changed his mind about solitary confinement. NORTHEASTERN
LAW MAGAZINE (Summer 2016).
40

Mohr & Raemisch, Restrictive Housing: Taking the Lead, supra note 39, at 2.

41

New Standard 7, in ACA RESTRICTIVE HOUSING PROPOSED STANDARDS, AMERICAN CORRECTIONAL
ASSOCIATION (Approved Aug. 2016),
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/Restrictive_housing.pdf.
42

Id., New Standard 5.

43

Id., New Standard 6.

44

ACA Restrictive Housing Standard 4-4250 & 4-4253, STANDARDS FOR ADULT CORRECTIONAL
INSTITUTIONS, AMERICAN CORRECTIONAL ASSOCIATION (4th ed. 2003).
45

ACA RESTRICTIVE HOUSING PROPOSED STANDARDS, supra note 41, New Standard 2.

46

Id., New Standard 1.

47

Restrictive Housing Standards Open Hearing, AMERICAN CORRECTIONAL ASSOCIATION (Jan. 19,
2016), http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/Restrictive_housing.pdf. Individuals and
organizations providing comments included the Liman Program, the American Civil Liberties Union, and
law professors; these statements commended the work that has been done and called for more specificity.
See Letter from American Civil Liberties Union to American Correctional Association Standards
Committee (Jan. 15, 2016), http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/Restrictive_housing.pdf;
Letter from Judith Resnik, Sarah Baumgartel & Johanna Kalb, Arthur Liman Public Interest Program,
Yale Law School, to American Correctional Association Standards Committee (Jan. 19, 2016),
https://www.law.yale.edu/system/files/area/center/liman/liman_comments_on_aca_restrictive_housing_st
andards_jan_19_2016_final.pdf; Letter from Margo Schlanger, Professor, University of Michigan, on
behalf of Law Professors, to American Correctional Association Standards Committee (Jan. 15, 2016),
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/Restrictive_housing.pdf. In addition, several people
spoke at the hearing, including Sarah Baumgartel and Judith Resnik, on behalf of the Liman Program.
48

ACA RESTRICTIVE HOUSING STANDARDS, AMERICAN CORRECTIONAL ASSOCIATION (Approved Aug.
2016), ttp://www.aca.org/ACA_Prod_IMIS/ACA_Member/Standards___Accreditation/Standards/Restrictive_
Housing_Committee/ACA_Member/Standards_and_Accreditation/Restrictive_Housing_Committee/Rest
rictive_Housing_Committee.aspx?hkey=458418a3-8c6c-48bb-93e2-b1fcbca482a2 [Hereinafter ACA
Restrictive Housing Standards 2016.]

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

77

49

Id., ACA Restrictive Housing Standards 2016, 4-RH-0035; id., ACA Restrictive Housing Standards

2016, 4-ALDF-RH-027.
50

Id., ACA Restrictive Housing Standards 2016, 4-RH-0033; id., ACA Restrictive Housing
Standards 2016, 4-ALDF-RH-024.

51

Id., ACA Restrictive Housing Standards 2016, 4-RH-0034; id., ACA Restrictive Housing Standards
2016, 4-ALDF-RH-025.

52

Id., ACA Restrictive Housing Standards 2016, 4-RH-0031; id., ACA Restrictive Housing Standards
2016, 4-ALDF-RH-028. Extended Restrictive Housing was defined as “[h]ousing that separates the
offender from contact with general population while restricting an offender/inmate to his/her cell for at
least 22 hours per day and for more than 30 days for the safe and secure operation of the facility.” Id. at 3.
Serious Mental Illness was defined as “Psychotic Disorders, Bipolar Disorders, and Major Depressive
Disorder; any diagnosed mental disorder (excluding substance use disorders) currently associated with
serious impairment in psychological, cognitive, or behavioral functioning that substantially interferes with
the person’s ability to meet the ordinary demands of living and requires an individualized treatment plan
by a qualified mental health professional(s)” Id. Additional discussion of the 2016 ACA Restrictive
Housing Standards related to mental illness is provided below. See infra note 55.

53

Removal from general population “will be approved, denied, or modified within 24 hours by an
appropriate and higher authority who is not involved in the initial placement.” Id., ACA Restrictive
Housing Standards 2016, 4-RH-0002; Id., ACA Restrictive Housing Standards 2016, 4-ALDF-RH-002.

54

“The purpose for placement of inmates in Restrictive Housing is reviewed by a supervisor every seven
days for the first 60 days and at least every 30 days thereafter.” Id., ACA Restrictive Housing Standards
2016, 4-ALDF-RH-004.

55

The amended standards now recommend that prisoners be evaluated by a mental health care
professional at least every 30 days, considerably increasing the frequency of mental health assessments
from the previous policy, which only provided for an evaluation once every three months. Id., ACA
Restrictive Housing Standards 2016, 4-RH-0010. The amended standards also called for all prisoners in
restricted housing to be visited by mental health staff weekly and by health care personnel daily. Id., ACA
Restrictive Housing Standards 2016, 4-RH-0012; Id. ACA Restrictive Housing Standards 2016, 4-ALDFRH-0029.

56

Id., ACA Restrictive Housing Standards 2016, 4-RH-0013.

57

Id., ACA Restrictive Housing Standards 2016, 4-RH-0004. Further, Standard 4-RH-0006 detailed that
cells should measure at least 80 square feet. Additionally, Standard 4-RH-0005 states that restrictive
housing units should provide outdoor exercise areas. Id.
58

The new standards recommend that prisoners be offered step-down programs, including opportunities
for increasing out-of-cell time, group interaction, and programming opportunities in order “to facilitate
the reintegration of the inmate into general population or the community.” Id., ACA Restrictive Housing
Standards 2016, 4-RH-0032. The ACA also now recommends that detention facilities “attempt to ensure
offenders are not released directly into the community from Restrictive Housing” and take precautions

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

78

when direct release is imminent, including developing an individualized “release plan” and notifying local
law enforcement. Id., ACA Restrictive Housing Standards 2016, 4-RH-0030.
59

Restrictive Status Housing Policy Guidelines, ASSOCIATION OF STATE CORRECTIONAL
ADMINISTRATORS (Aug. 9, 2013), http://www.asca.net/system/assets/attachments/6145/B.%20ASCA%20
Restrictive%20Status%20Housing%20Policy%20Guidelines-Final%2008092013.pdf.
The
thirteen
guidelines, endorsed August 9, 2013, can also be found in the Liman volume, Isolation and
Reintegration: Punishment Circa 2014, YALE LAW SCHOOL ARTHUR LIMAN PUBLIC INTEREST PROGRAM
88 (Jan. 6, 2015), https://www.law.yale.edu/system/files/area/center/liman/document/Liman_Colloquium_201
4_Isolation_and_Reintegration_Punishment_Circa_2014_revised_Jan_8_2015.pdf.
60

Agencies’ Top Five Critical Issues, 2014, ASSOCIATION OF STATE CORRECTIONAL ADMINISTRATORS
(June
2014),
http://www.asca.net/system/assets/attachments/7363/ASCA-Critical%20issues-6-142014%20V4.pdf.

61

See Brief of Amici Curiae Corrections Experts in Support of Petitioner at 6-7, Prieto v. Clarke, 136 S.
Ct. 319 (2015) (No. 15-21). The group included Reginald A. Wilkinson, the former director of Ohio’s
Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections and of both ASCA and the American Correctional
Association.

62

Prieto v. Clarke, 780 F.3d 245 (4th Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 319 (2015).

63

See Brief of Amici Curiae Professors and Practitioners of Psychiatry and Psychology in Support of the
Petitioner at 3, Prieto v. Clarke, 136 S. Ct. 319 (2015) (No. 15-21).

64

See, e.g., Cyrus Ahalt & Brie Williams, Reforming Solitary-Confinement Policy—Heeding a
Presidential Call to Action, 374 NEW ENG. J. MED. 1704 (2016). A recent review of two meta-analyses of
various studies challenged the view that isolation has been demonstrated to be especially harmful. Robert
D. Morgan, Paul Gendreau, Paula Smith, Andrew L. Gray, Ryan M. Labrecque, Nana MacLean,
Stephanie A. Van Horn, Angelea D. Bolanos, Ashley B. Batastini & Jeremy Mills, Quantitative Syntheses
of the Effects of Administrative Segregation on Inmates’ Well-Being, 22 PSYCHOLOGY, PUBLIC POLICY,
AND LAW, 439 (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/law0000089. That paper argued that its review of several
studies of administrative segregation (defined as 23 hours or more in a cell but without a duration
specified) did not produce solid evidence of that population suffering “lasting emotional damage.” Rather,
the analysis argued that the population was as harmed as were prisoners held in “routine incarceration.”
Id. The paper argued that a lack of data on prisoners in general and on individuals’ mental and physical
health before incarceration, as well as questions about how to measure over-reporting and under-reporting
of injuries, hampered the ability to identify particular harms (if imposed) by restricted housing. Id.
65

Andrea D. Lyon & Mark D. Cunningham, “Reason Not the Need”: Does the Lack of Compelling State
Interest in Maintaining a Separate Death Row Make It Unlawful?, 33 AM. J. CRIM. L. 1, 4-5 (2005); see
also Mark D. Cunningham, Thomas J. Reidy & Jon R. Sorensen, Wasted Resources and Gratuitous
Suffering: The Failure of a Security Rationale for Death Row, 22 PSYCHOL. PUB. POL’Y & L. 185 (2016);
Marah Stith McLeod, Does the Death Penalty Require Death Row? The Harm of Legislative Silence, 77
OHIO STATE L.J. 525 (2016). See also Celina Aldape, Ryan Cooper, Katie Haas, April Hu, Jessica
Hunter, Johanna Kalb, Shelle Shimizu & Judith Resnik, Rethinking “Death Row”: Variations in the
Housing of Individuals Sentenced to Death, YALE LAW SCHOOL ARTHUR LIMAN PUBLIC INTEREST
PROGRAM (July 2016). That report discussed the experiences in three jurisdictions where individuals

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

79

sentenced to death row were not housed in isolation but placed either in a separated but shared area with
others who had capital sentences or with other prisoners.
66

See, e.g, Burke Butler, Matthew Simpson & Rebecca L. Robertson, A Solitary Failure: The Waste, Cost
and Harm of Solitary Confinement, ACLU of TEX. (2015), http://www.aclutx.org/2015/02/05/a-solitaryfailure; Boxed In: The True Cost of Extreme Isolation in New York’s Prisons, N.Y. CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION (2012), http://www.nyclu.org/files/publications/nyclu_boxedin_final.pdf.
67

Joseph Shapiro & Christine Thompson, The Deadly Consequences of Solitary with a Cellmate, THE
MARSHALL PROJECT (March 24, 2016), https://www.themarshallproject.org/2016/03/24/the-deadlyconsequences-of-solitary-with-a-cellmate#; Joseph Shapiro & Christine Thompson, Doubling Up
Prisoners in ‘Solitary’ Creates Deadly Consequences, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO (March 24, 2016),
http://www.npr.org/2016/03/24/470824303/doubling-up-prisoners-in-solitary-creates-deadly-consequences.
68

See Martin Horn & Ann Jacobs, Solitary Confinement: Report on a Colloquium to Further a National
Consensus on Ending the Over-Use of Extreme Isolation in Prisons, JOHN JAY COLLEGE OF CRIM.
JUSTICE (2016) [hereinafter “Solitary Confinement Report 2016”].
69

Id. at 1.

70

Id. at 30-33.

71

S.B. 51, 217th Leg. Sess. (N.J. 2016), “An Act concerning restrictions on isolated confinement in
correctional facilities and supplementing Title 30 of the Revised Statutes,” § (4) (a) (9). The limit on
isolated confinement to no more than 15 consecutive days, and to no more than 20 days during any 60day period, does not apply during a facility-wide lock down. Id.

72

Id. at § 3.

73

Id. at §§ 3, 4b.

74

H.B. 5417, 99th G.A. (Ill. 2016). The proposed bill would limit solitary confinement to no more than
five consecutive days and five total days during a 150-day period. The bill was introduced on February 9,
2016 and, as of October 2016, remained pending.

75

S. 1255, 189th Gen. Ct. (Mass. 2015). The bill was introduced on April 15, 2015 and accompanied a
study order in the Senate on June 23, 2016, when it was replaced by S.2362, which remained pending as
of October 2016.

76

H.B. 7481, Jan. 2016 Leg. Sess. (R.I. 2016). The bill would limit solitary confinement to no more than
15 consecutive days, with no more than 20 days within a 60-day period. The bill was introduced on
February 5, 2016 and remained pending as of October 2016.
77

Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Agreement, Ashker v. Governor of
California, No. C09-05796 CW (N.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2016), ECF No. 488.
http://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/PC-CA-0054-9001.pdf. The settlement imposed limits on
the amount of time that prisoners may be confined in the Security Housing Unit at Pelican Bay State
Prison, one of the state’s maximum security prisons; provided for review of prisoners then in security
housing units on the basis of gang affiliation within 12 months of the settlement agreement; and set forth

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

80

a presumption that all prisoners detained in Security Housing Units for more than 10 years would be
moved into the general population. See also Ian Lovett, California Agrees To Overhaul Use of Solitary
Confinement, N.Y. TIMES (Sept. 1, 2015), http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/02/us/solitary-confinementcalifornia-prisons.html.
78

Indiana Prot. & Advocacy Servs. Comm’n v. Comm’r, Indiana Dep't of Correction, No. 1:08-CV01317-RLYJMS, (S.D. Ind. Mar. 24, 2016), ECF No. 508; Stipulation To Enter into Private Settlement
Agreement Following Notice to the Class and Fairness Hearing, Indiana Prot. & Advocacy Servs.
Comm’n v. Comm’r, Indiana Dep’t of Correction, No. 1:08-CV-01317-RLYJMS (S.D. Ind. Jan. 27,
2016), ECF No. 496. The agreement prohibited, with some exceptions, the placement of mentally ill
prisoners in restricted housing and provided standards for the minimum adequate treatment of those
prisoners, including provision of recreation, showers, additional out-of-cell time, and therapeutic
programming.

79

Opinion and Order, Peoples v. Anthony Annucci, No. 11-cv-2694 SAS (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2016), ECF
No. 329. The court wrote, “Solitary confinement is a drastic and punitive designation, one that should be
used only as a last resort and for the shortest possible time to serve the penal purposes for which it is
designed.” The Settlement Agreement included reforms to limit the frequency and duration of solitary
confinement, including a detailed modification of the Department’s guidelines for restricted housing
sentencing aimed at limiting the length of restricted housing sentences, alternatives to restricted housing
programs designed to address causes of disciplinary issues, and increased opportunities for prisoners to
earn sentence reductions and lesser restricted housing sanctions.
The settlement also provided greater protections for vulnerable populations such as prisoners with
special needs, juvenile prisoners, and prisoners in need of substance abuse treatment, while continuing a
“presumption against restricted housing for pregnant inmates.” The settlement also mandated
improvements to the conditions of confinement in restricted housing, including the abolishment of the
“loaf,” a food product previously served to those in solitary; increased movement privileges based on
good behavior; increased phone privileges; improved library services; access to correspondence courses
and radio programing; and increased access to mental health consultations and treatment.

80

Doris J. James & Lauren E. Glaze, Mental Health Problems of Prison and Jail Inmates, BUREAU OF
JUSTICE STATISTICS (2006), http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/mhppji.pdf.
81

See, e.g., Ahalt & Williams, supra note 64; Craig Haney, Mental Health Issues in Long-Term Solitary
and “Supermax” Confinement, 49 CRIME & DELINQUENCY 124, 130 (2003); Craig Haney, The Social
Psychology of Isolation: Why Solitary Confinement Is Psychologically Harmful, 181 PRISON SERVICE
JOURNAL 12 (2009); Arthur J. Lurigio, Craig Haney, Joanna Weill, Shirin Bakhshay & Tiffany Lockett,
Examining Jail Isolation: What We Don’t Know Can Be Profoundly Harmful, 96 PRISON JOURNAL 126
(Jan. 2016); see also Callous and Cruel: Use of Force Against Inmates with Mental Disabilities in US
Jails
and
Prisons,
HUMAN
RIGHTS
WATCH
(May
12,
2015),
https://www.hrw.org/report/2015/05/12/callous-and-cruel/use-force-against-inmates-mental-disabilitiesus-jails-and.
82

“Prolonged segregation of adult inmates with serious mental illness, with rare exceptions, should be
avoided due to the potential for harm to such inmates. If an inmate with serious mental illness is placed in
segregation, out-of-cell structured therapeutic activities (i.e., mental health/psychiatric treatment) in
appropriate programming space and adequate unstructured out-of-cell time should be permitted.
Correctional mental health authorities should work closely with administrative custody staff to maximize

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

81

access to clinically indicated programming and recreation for these individuals.” Position Statement on
Segregation of Prisoners with Mental Illness, AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION (Dec. 2012),
http://www.dhcs.ca.gov/services/MH/Documents/2013_04_AC_06c_APA_ps2012_PrizSeg.pdf. See also
Solitary Confinement (Isolation), NATIONAL COMMISSION ON CORRECTIONAL HEALTH CARE (Apr. 2016)
[hereinafter NCCHC, Solitary Confinement] (stating that it is “well established that persons with mental
illness are particularly vulnerable to the harms of solitary confinement” and that “[j]uveniles, mentally ill
individuals, and pregnant women should be excluded from solitary confinement of any duration”).
83

See Solitary Confinement as a Public Health Issue, AMERICAN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATION,
https://www.apha.org/policies-and-advocacy/public-health-policy-statements/policy-database/2014/07/14/
13/30/solitary-confinement-as-a-public-health-issue; see also Psychiatric Services in Correctional
Facilities, 3d ed. 2016, https://www.appi.org/Psychiatric_Services_in_Correctional_Facilities_Third_Edition.
84

See NCCHC, Solitary Confinement, supra note 82.

85

See, e.g., MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 127, § 39A(b) (2015) (requiring the Department of Corrections to
screen for mental illness and prohibiting the segregation of an individual diagnosed with a serious mental
illness for more than 30 days absent exigent circumstances).

86

See, e.g., Stipulation, Peoples v. Fischer, No. 11-CV-2694 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 19, 2014), ECF No. 124, at
3-4 § 2(C)(1) (providing that cognitively impaired individuals were not to be put in isolation); Parsons v.
Ryan, 754 F.3d 657, 690 (9th Cir. 2014) (affirming the district court’s order that the Arizona Department
of Corrections be required to develop and implement a plan to remedy, among other things, its
constitutionally deficient solitary confinement policy governing prisoners with serious mental illness).
The revised ADC policy required that prisoners with mental illness had a minimum of 19 hours a week
outside the cell, and this time was to include mental health treatment and other programming. Stipulation,
Parsons v. Ryan, No. 12-00601-PHXDJH (D. Ariz. Oct. 14, 2014), ECF No. 1185; see also Arizona
Agrees to Major Improvements in Health Care, Crucial Limits on Solitary Confinement in Landmark
Settlement, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION (Oct. 14, 2014), https://www.aclu.org/news/arizonaagrees-major-improvements-prison-health-care-crucial-limits-solitary-confinement.

In January of 2016 the Indiana Department of Corrections announced a settlement with the
ACLU regarding the treatment of mentally ill individuals; included was a prohibition on the use of
solitary confinement for people with mental illness. The settlement came in response to an order from the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to create a policy to improve conditions for
mentally ill individuals. Stipulation, Indiana Prot. & Advocacy Servs. Comm’n v. Comm’r, Indiana Dep’t
of Correction, No. 1:08-CV-01317-TWP, (S.D. Ind. Dec. 31, 2012), ECF No. 496.
87

Memorandum of Understanding Between the Oregon Department of Corrections and Disability Rights
Oregon, OREGON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (2016), http://media.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwestnews/other/DRO-DOC-MOU-2016.pdf.

88

JH v. Dallas, No. 1:15-cv-02057-SHR (M.D. Pa. Oct. 2016).

89

Pennsylvania Corrections Department Reaches Milestone in Crisis Intervention Team Training,
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (May 02, 2016), http://www.prnewswire.com/newsreleases/pennsylvania-corrections-department-reaches-milestone-in-crisis-intervention-team-training-3002602
60.html. See also Settlement Agreement, Disability Rights Network of Pennsylvania v. Wetzel, No. 1:13CV-00635-JEJ (M.D. Pa. Jan. 9, 2015), ECF No. 59.

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

82

In New Mexico, a previously incarcerated man suffering from bipolar disorder reached a
settlement of $750,000 with a county facility that, he alleged, had denied him medication and neglected
him when he was placed in solitary confinement. See Stipulated Order Granting Unopposed Motion to
Dismiss All Claims With Prejudice, Faziani v. Sierra County Board of County Commissioners, No.
1:2014cv00592 (D.N.M. Dec. 2015), ECF No. 122; Dan Schwartz, $750K Settlement Reached in Solitary
Confinement Suit, SANTA FE NEW MEXICAN (Dec. 23, 2015), http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news
/local_news/k-settlement-reached-in-solitary-confinement-suit/article_67a5526e-a992-11e5-8656-0f0b22
5140de.html.
90

See Model Juvenile Justice Stop Solitary Act, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION,
https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/6%20Model%20Juvenile%20Justice%20Stop%20Solitary%20Act.pdf;
see also Mikah Owen & Jeffrey Goldhagen, Children and Solitary Confinement: A Call to Action, 137
PEDIATRICS (Apr. 5, 2016).
91

An Act Concerning the Use of Seclusion on Individuals, H.B. 16-1328 (Colo. May 2016).

92

An Act To Add Section 208.3 to the Welfare and Institutions Code, Relating to Juveniles, S.B. 1143,
(Cal. Mar. 29, 2016, enacted August 25, 2016 and signed by the Governor September 27, 2016),
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB1143.

93

Statement of Proceedings, LOS ANGELES BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
http://file.lacounty.gov/bos/sop/cms1_243824.pdf.

94

(May

03,

2016),

S. 2123, 114th Cong. § 212 (2015).

95

Justice Department Settles Lawsuit Against State of Ohio To End Unlawful Seclusion of Youth in
Juvenile Correctional Facilities, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (May 21, 2014),
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-settles-lawsuit-against-state-ohio-end-unlawful-seclusion
-youth-juvenile.
96

A group of detainees filed a class action against New York City alleging a “pattern of brutality" at
Rikers Island. Amended Complaint at 2, Nunez v. City of New York, No. 11-cv-5845 (S.D.N.Y. May 24,
2012). In December 2014, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York intervened in the class
action. United States’ Proposed Complaint-in-Intervention, Nunez v. City of New York, No. 11-cv-5845
(S.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2014).
In October of 2015, the parties entered into a consent decree which had included a prohibition on
solitary confinement for people under the age of 18 and restrictions on the use of solitary confinement for
18-year-olds; the consent judgment did not include a ban on solitary confinement for people ages 21 and
under. Consent Judgment at 44, Nunez v. City of New York, No. 11-cv-5845 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 2015).

In January 2015, New York City’s mayor announced a plan to end—by January of 2016—the use
of solitary confinement for people ages 21 and younger. See Michael Winerip & Michael Schwirtz, Rikers
TIMES
(Jan.
13,
to
Ban
Isolation
for
Inmates
21
and
Younger,
N.Y.
2015),
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/14/nyregion/new-york-city-to-end-solitary-confinement-forinmates-21-and-under-at-rikers.html. However, in July 2016, the New York Times reported that the New
York City Department of Correction continued to hold 21-year-olds in solitary confinement. Michael
Winerip & Michael Schwirtz, “Time in the Box”: Young Rikers Inmates, Still in Isolation, N. Y. TIMES
(July 8, 2016), http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/08/nyregion/rikers-island-solitary-confinement.html.

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

83

97

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE, Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future
Directions (2016), https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/250315.pdf;  Projects Funded Under Fiscal Year
INSTITUTE
OF
JUSTICE
(September,
2016),
2016
Solicitations.
NATIONAL
http://www.nij.gov/funding/awards/Pages/2016.aspx#.
98

Id.

99

Justice Department Awards Over $6.3 Million to Study Effects of Incarceration, DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS, OFFICE OF COMMUNICATIONS (September 26, 2016),
http://ojp.gov/newsroom/pressreleases/2016/ojp09262016_2.pdf.
100

Solitary Confinement Reform Act, S.3432, 114th Cong. (2d Sess. 2016) [hereinafter SCRA 2016].

101

SCRA 2016, S.3432, § 2(b)(1)(A)

102

SCRA 2016, S.3432, § 2(b)(4)(A)

103

SCRA 2016, S.3432, § 2(b)(4)(B)

104

Id.

105

Id.

106

SCRA 2016, S.3432, § 2(b)(1)(A)(i)-(ii); S.3432(b)(4)(A)(i)-(ii)

107

SCRA 2016, S.3432, § 2(b)(4)(C)

108

SCRA 2016, S.3432, § 2(b)(5)(A)(ii)(I)-(II)

109

SCRA 2016, S.3432, § 2(b)(1)(C)

110

SCRA 2016, S.3432, § 2(b)(5)(C)-(D)

111

SCRA 2016, S.3432, § 2(b)(8)(B)(i)-(iii)

112

SCRA 2016, S.3432, § 2(e)(1)

113

SCRA 2016, S.3432, § 2(e)(6)

114

SCRA 2016, S.3432, § 2(e)(8)

115

SCRA 2016, S.3432, § 2(e)(3)

116

SCRA 2016, S.3432, § 2(e)(3)(A)-(B)

117

SCRA 2016, S.3432, § 2(e)(7)(A)-(B)

118

SCRA 2016, S.3432, § 5(d)(2)

119

SCRA 2016, S.3432, § 6(b)

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

84

120

Solitary Confinement Report 2016, JOHN JAY COLLEGE OF CRIM. JUSTICE, supra note 68.

121

United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Nelson Mandela Rules),
U.N. ESC Committee on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, 24th Sess., U.N. Doc.
E/CN.15/2015/L.6/Rev.1 (May 22, 2015) [hereinafter Nelson Mandela Rules], http://www.unodc.org/doc
uments/commissions/CCPCJ/CCPCJ_Sessions/CCPCJ_24/resolutions/L6_Rev1/ECN152015_L6Rev1_e
_V1503585.pdf; see also General Assembly Adopts 64 Third Committee Texts Covering Issues Including
Migrants, Children’s Rights, Human Rights Defenders, UNITED NATIONS (Dec. 17, 2015),
http://www.un.org/press/en/2015/ga11745.doc.htm.

122

Nelson Mandela Rules, supra note 121 (Rule 44).

123

Id. (Rule 45(1)).

124

Id.

125

Id. (Rule 43(1)).

126

Id. (Rule 45(2)).

127

Factsheet on Detention Conditions and Treatment of Prisoners, EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
(Apr. 2016), http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Detention_conditions_ENG.pdf.

128

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Nov. 4, 1950, 213
U.N.T.S. 221 (entered into force Sept. 3, 1953).

129

Öcalan v. Turkey (No. 2), App. No. 462221/99, Eur. Ct. H.R. (2005).

130

Breivik v. Ministry of Justice, Oslo District Court (Nor.), No. 15-107496TVl-OTIR/02 (Apr. 20, 2016)
(appeal pending), https://www.domstol.no/contentassets/cd518ea4a48d4f8fa2173db1b7a4bd20/dom-isaken-om-soningsforhold---15-107496tvi-otir---abb---staten-eng.pdf.
Other national initiatives included the proposal by the Prime Minister of Canada to implement a
series of recommendations banning solitary confinement for prisoners in federal detention. See Trudeau
Calls for Ban on Long-Term Solitary Confinement in Federal Prisons, GLOBE & MAIL (Nov. 15, 2015),
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/trudeau-calls-for-implementation-of-ashley-smithinquest-recommendations/article27256251.
131

Sharon Shalev, A Sourcebook on Solitary Confinement, MANNHEIM CENTRE FOR CRIMINOLOGY,
LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS (2008), www.solitaryconfinement.org/sourcebook.
132

Juan E. Méndez, Interim report of the Special Rapporteur of the Human Rights Council on torture and
other
cruel,
inhuman
or
degrading
treatment
or
punishment
(Aug.
2011),
http://solitaryconfinement.org/uploads/SpecRapTortureAug2011.pdf.

133

Sharon Shalev & Kimmett Edgar, Deep Custody: Segregation Units and Close Supervision Centres in
England
and
Wales,
PRISON
REFORM
TRUST
(Oct.
2015),
http://solitaryconfinement.org/uploads/DeepCustodyShalevAndEdgar.pdf

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

85

134

Seeing into Solitary: Review of the Laws and Policies of Certain Nations around the World with
Regard to Solitary Confinement of Detainees (2016), on behalf of Professor Juan E. Méndez, United
Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment; in collaboration with Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, the Cyrus R. Vance Center for
International Justice, and the American University Washington College of Law Center for Human Rights
& Humanitarian Law’s Anti-Torture Initiative, http://www.weil.com/~/media/files/pdfs/2016/un_special_
report_solitary_confinement.pdf. [hereinafter Seeing into Solitary (2016)].
135

Id. at 21.

136

Id.

137

Id.

138

Id. at 22.

139

Id. at 22.

140

Id.

141

Id.

142

See Leann K. Bertsch, The History of Restricted Housing at the ND-DOCR (Mar. 15, 2016)
(unpublished manuscript).

143

In the original distribution of the survey, the only territory included was the District of Columbia.
When we presented a draft of the report at the 2016 ASCA summer meeting, the Virgin Islands requested
to participate. We then sent questionnaires to Guam and Puerto Rico, which are the other territories that
are members of ASCA; these jurisdictions did not respond.

144

See Appendix A, ASCA-Liman Survey of Extended Restricted Housing (Fall 2015).

145

For example, seven jurisdictions (Alabama, Arizona, Idaho, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Montana, and
Vermont) told us that, while they tracked whether prisoners were held in a cell for 22 hours per day or
more, they did not track the numbers of days for which a person was held under those conditions.
Vermont indicated that the changes to its database system made it difficult to retrieve this data but that
moving forward, it will be able to determine the length of days in-cell that average 22 hours per day.
In five of these seven (Alabama, Idaho, Kentucky, Montana, and Vermont), we included
responses with the caveat that numbers from these jurisdictions may include prisoners who were in-cell
for 22 or more hours a day but for less than 15 days. Responses from Arizona and Massachusetts to
questions about prisoners’ length of stay enabled us to derive the number of individuals falling within the
22-hour/15-day definition.

146

For example, California reported that most of its segregated environments permitted prisoners at least
10 hours per week out-of-cell and distributed those 10 hours throughout the week such that several days a
week, prisoners were allowed more than three hours out-of-cell at a time. Therefore, on some days, these
prisoners were in-cell for less than 22 hours. California did not include prisoners in these units when
tallying the number in the category of 22 hours or more for 15 or more consecutive days. After exchanges

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

86

with that state’s correctional staff, we have identified and grouped prisoners in categories that are detailed
in Table 3. See also infra note 177.
A few other states also raised questions about the definition while responding. Iowa indicated that
it could not confirm that all of the prisoners included in its reported total number of prisoners in restricted
housing were in cells for 22 hours or more. Washington also said it could not confirm that the definition it
used matched the one that we provided. With these caveats, we included information as reported from
these states.
147

Time-In-Cell, supra note 2, at 14.

148

Id. at 11.

149

At least one jurisdiction reported that it defined restricted housing as 22 hours or more in-cell for 30
days or more, rather than 15 days or more. Colorado stated:
“Although the submission of the survey applies the LIMAN-ASCA definition of ERH of
15 or more continuous days, Colorado’s definition of Extended Restricted Housing
matches that of ASCA-PBMS: Extended Restrictive Housing—Placement in housing that
separates the offender from contact with general population while restricting an
offender/inmate to his/her cell for 22 hours per day and for 30 days or longer for the safe
and secure operation of the facility. Colorado does not consider 15 days being the window
for extended restrictive housing. All offenders under policy and direction from executive
staff are required to be removed from disciplinary segregation or removal from population
by the 30th day, regardless of the reason for placement in the restrictive housing
environment. The only exceptions are those offenders that are placed in our Restrictive
Housing Maximum Security Status (formerly known as Administrative segregation).”

ASCA-Liman Survey: Colorado Follow-up Response, March 2016 at 8. 
150

The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners which are, as noted,
known as the “Nelson Mandela Rules,” defined “prolonged solitary confinement” as the placement of
“prisoners for 22 hours or more a day without meaningful human contact” for “a time period in excess of
15 consecutive days.” Nelson Mandela Rules, supra note 121.

151

Time-In-Cell, supra note 2, at 38.

152

Typically, prisons house sentenced prisoners, serving one year or more for a felony conviction, while
jails house pretrial detainees or people sentenced pursuant to misdemeanor convictions. However,
variation exists. For example, Louisiana reported that “nearly 18,000 state prisoners” were held in “local
jails in Louisiana” (and that the state did “not have access to specific numbers” of those prisoners held in
restricted housing.) Conversely, some states such as Rhode Island operate unified systems, which include
both jails and prisons. The numbers that California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
provided were for prisons only. California’s Realignment policy has expanded the number of people held
in county jails rather than in state prisons.
153

We asked: Please indicate the facilities for which you have data on the use of Extended Restricted
Housing (check all that apply). We did not define “types of facilities” but provided the list included in
Table 1 and a category of “Other” where responders could specify any other type of facility.

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

87

154

According to the website of the Department of Corrections for the District of the Columbia, the
majority of male inmates housed in the D.C. jail “are awaiting adjudication of cases or are sentenced for
misdemeanor offenses.” Correctional Facilities, D.C. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
http://doc.dc.gov/page/correctional-facilities. Individuals convicted in D.C. and serving longer sentences
are housed at the Correctional Treatment Facility, a private facility operated by the Corrections
Corporation of America that is an annex to the jail, while sentenced felons are transferred to the Federal
Bureau of Prisons. Id.
155

Those 12 jurisdictions were Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Rhode Island, Vermont, the Virgin Islands, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
Vermont indicated that it operates a combination of prisons for sentenced prisoners and jails for detainees,
in which offenders are housed jointly.

156

As discussed, Louisiana data were not included in this number; in August of 2016 that jurisdiction
obtained information on the number of prisoners in restrictive housing in local jails, but in response to the
survey as noted in the fall of 2015, Louisiana replied that it did not collect such information routinely.

157

We did not define control.

158

Those seven jurisdictions that had restrictive housing data on the jails in their correctional system were
Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Vermont, and the Virgin Islands. Vermont
reported that information on restricted housing prior to 2016 was limited, but that it was making changes
and would be better able to provide more detailed information about restricted housing in the future. In
the meantime, Vermont reported that it was maintaining and aggregating manual reports.
In the follow-up exchanges in the summer of 2016, Louisiana reported that it housed some 18,000
prisoners in state jails and that it had done a special audit in the summer of 2016, and identified 314
people in restricted housing as of that date. Louisiana also indicated that it did not control conditions in
jails but that if its prisoners were in need of restricted housing conditions, those prisoners would be
returned to the state prisons.

159

These jurisdictions were Arizona, Kansas, North Carolina, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The
Federal Bureau of Prisons reported that juveniles are housed in a special facility that is a “community
contract facility,” which is not a prison. According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons website, 58 juveniles
are housed in this facility. Generate Inmate Population reports, FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,
https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/population_statistics.jsp. The Federal Bureau of Prisons did not
provide information on the use of restricted housing in its juvenile facilities. The other three jurisdictions
with juvenile facilities did.
Section VI of this Report discusses in greater detail the number of individuals under the age of 18
reported to be held in restricted housing. The number of juveniles held in restricted housing reported by
Arizona, Kansas, and North Carolina in that section reflect the total number in both juvenile and adult
correctional facilities, while other jurisdictions’ reported totals do not include juvenile facilities.

160

Those seven jurisdictions reporting separate facilities for the mentally ill were Arizona, California,
Colorado, Kansas, Texas, Wisconsin, and the Virgin Islands. Both Montana and the Federal Bureau of
Prisons have special units within facilities for mentally ill and for death-sentenced prisoners. The majority
of federal death-sentenced prisoners are housed at Terre Haute USP, a high security penitentiary. Find an

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

88

Inmate, FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc. Arizona and Oklahoma also
reported specialized facilities for death-sentenced prisoners.
161

Examples of “other” types of facilities that jurisdictions reported include county correctional facilities,
jail contracting facilities, medical facilities, and transitional work programs.

162

For information on juvenile facilities, see Sarah Hockenberry, Juveniles in Residential Placement,
2013,
JUVENILE
JUSTICE
STATISTICS
NATIONAL
REPORT
SERIES
(May
2016),
http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/249507.pdf. For information on the use of restricted housing in juvenile
facilities, see Growing Up Locked Down: Youth in Solitary Confinement in Jails and Prisons Across the
United
States,
HUMAN
RIGHTS
WATCH
&
ACLU
(2012),
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/us1012webwcover.pdf.
163

See DOJ RESTRICTIVE HOUSING 2016 REPORT, supra note 26, at 3. That report “define[d] ‘restrictive
housing’ as any type of detention that involves three basic elements: removal from the general inmate
population, whether voluntary or involuntary; placement in a locked room or cell, whether alone or with
another inmate; and inability to leave the room or cell for the vast majority of the day, typically 22 hours
or more.” Id.

164

Due to the way we phrased the survey question, we did not obtain information about how many of
these prisoners had bunkmates and how many were alone in a double cell. Nor did we gather information
on the sizes and conditions of the double cells in any given jurisdiction as compared with the sizes and
conditions of single cells. For articles on the practice of double-celling, see supra note 67.

165

Arkansas, Rhode Island, and West Virginia did not provide information about the number of prisoners
in restricted housing. Nevada provided information that was facility-specific; that information is not
included in this section because the answers to sub-numbers for each facility did not match the total for
that facility.

As noted earlier, Rhode Island gave us the following clarification about its data: “Currently the
structure of our data systems does not allow for us to extract data on the Restrictive Housing population
in an aggregate manner. In some cases, this data is tracked manually which allows us to determine the
status of individual inmates, but makes it impossible to aggregate data on all inmates in this status.
Therefore we are unable to provide data on our restrictive housing population at this time. RIDOC is
working to rectify this problem but it requires significant IT programming changes which will take some
time to complete.”
166

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), the five jurisdictions not included in our data for
this section accounted for 42,908 prisoners, or 2.7% of the total custodial population in the United States
in 2014. E. Ann Carson, Prisoners in 2014, BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS 3 Tbl.2 (Sept. 2015),
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p14.pdf. Specifically, Arkansas housed 17,874 prisoners; Rhode
Island housed 3,359 prisoners; West Virginia had 6,896 prisoners; Nevada housed 12,537 prisoners; and
Maine housed 2,242 prisoners. Id. Additionally, the four territories not included in our data for this
section accounted for 13,468 prisoners. Id. at 32 app. tbl.7. Specifically, American Samoa housed 212
prisoners; Guam housed 754 prisoners; the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands housed 175
prisoners; and Puerto Rico housed 12, 327 prisoners. Id.
167

Id. at 3 tbl.2. The most recent available BJS data, as of October 2016, were gathered in 2014; our
survey asked about total custodial and restricted housing populations as of the fall of 2015.

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

89

168

The total custodial population of the 52 responding jurisdictions rises to 1,470,687 if we include the
nearly 18,000 state prisoners that Louisiana, as noted, asked that we count, although they were held in
jails. We have separately noted this request and incorporated it in several parts with the caveat that
Louisiana did not regularly track information on the use of restricted housing in the parish jails over
which it had no direct control.

169

Hawaii reported a total of 4,200 prisoners in-state, and an additional 1,388 prisoners out-of-state. The
out-of-state prisoners were not included in this report, as Hawaii did not provide information on restricted
housing for its out-of-state prison population.
170

See supra note 165.

171

Alabama indicated that it was unable to provide restricted housing data for privately-contracted
facilities, which accounted for 735 prisoners. Thus, Alabama reported a total custodial population of
25,284 prisoners, but a total of 24,549 prisoners in facilities for which the state could provide data in
response to the survey. California reported a total custodial population of 128,164 prisoners, but a total of
117,171 prisoners for which it could provide data. Delaware stated that it was unable to provide restricted
housing data for “detentioners,” which it defined as individuals detained while awaiting sentencing;
Delaware reported a total custodial population of 5,824 prisoners, but a total of 4,342 prisoners for which
it could provide data.

Louisiana indicated in the fall of 2015 that it was unable to provide restricted housing data for
prisoners housed in local jails, which accounted for almost 18,000 prisoners. Thus, Louisiana reported a
total custodial population of 36,511 prisoners, and a total of 18,515 prisoners for which it could provide
data. As noted above, in the late summer of 2016, Louisiana conducted an audit and identified 314
prisoners in those local jails that were in restricted housing, and asked that we assume the same number of
people were held in restricted housing in the fall of 2015 and include that number in the percentage
calculation. Utah likewise reached out to us in the late summer of 2016. Utah provided updated
information for the summer of 2016 because it had revised its policies to change the way placements in
restricted housing were made and to review those so confined. We describe these changes in Part VII; we
also have added a second bar in Chart 1 for Louisiana to reflect different denominators and for Utah to
reflect the decline in numbers. See also infra note 178.
Wisconsin indicated that it was unable to provide restricted housing data for prisoners in mental
health facilities or minimum-security correctional centers. Thus, Wisconsin reported a total custodial
population of 22,965 prisoners and a total of 20,535 prisoners for which it could provide data. The
Federal Bureau of Prisons stated that the total custodial population included prisoners housed in
“community corrections” facilities, such as halfway houses and home confinement. Excluding these
facilities, BOP reported a total custodial population of 205,508 prisoners, but a total of 189,181 prisoners
for which restricted housing data would be relevant.
Arkansas, Rhode Island, West Virginia, and Nevada are not included in Table 2 and Chart 1. See
note 165, supra. For instance, as noted there, Rhode Island gave us the following clarification about its
data: “Currently the structure of our data systems does not allow for us to extract data on the Restrictive
Housing population in an aggregate manner. In some cases, this data is tracked manually which allows us
to determine the status of individual inmates, but makes it impossible to aggregate data on all inmates in
this status. Therefore we are unable to provide data on our restrictive housing population at this time.
RIDOC is working to rectify this problem but it requires significant IT programming changes which will
take some time to complete.”

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

90

In addition, some jurisdictions provided answers to a few questions that did not match up
completely with others, and hence there are minor variations between this section and discussions of other
questions in the survey. In two states, the number provided for the total restricted housing population and
the numbers provided regarding demographic composition differed slightly. Alaska reported 352
prisoners in restricted housing when asked for the total restricted housing population, but in response to
later questions about the demographic composition and length of time spent by prisoners in restricted
housing, Alaska provided numbers that totaled to 355 prisoners. Kentucky reported 487 prisoners in
restricted housing when asked for the total restricted housing population; in response to demographic
questions, Kentucky provided numbers that totaled more than 100 less—382 prisoners. Montana also
presented a difference in the total numbers and the demographic composition, but indicated that seven
prisoners were housed in “off-site” detention, for which the jurisdiction was unable to provide
demographic data. We included the data as reported for each segment, and we flagged these limitations
throughout.
172

In September of 2016, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) corrected
this number from 1,079 to 1,104 prisoners in restricted housing as of September 30, 2015. CDCR also
reported that as of August of 2016, the number had decreased to 427 prisoners. In addition to these 1,104
prisoners who were held in-cell for 22 or more hours for 15 consecutive days or more, California held
7,225 prisoners in other types of segregated housing. These prisoners are counted in Table 3 in response
to our question for the numbers of prisoners held between 16-19 and 20-21 hours.

173

Colorado reported using “restricted housing” to describe prisoners housed under two conditions, which
were formerly known as punitive segregation and administrative segregation; prisoners in both conditions
are included in its restricted housing number. Colorado reported that more than 50 of the prisoners in its
total number of prisoners in restricted housing referred to those in punitive segregation, which meant that
such individuals were held for a maximum of 15 to 30 days.

174

As noted, Utah provided updated information reflecting policy changes that went into effect in 2016.
Thus, it gave new data on its total custodial population and on its new rules aimed at lowering the number
of prisoners held in-cell for 22 hours or more.
175

As noted for Table 2, in the summer of 2016, Louisiana requested that the numbers and percent be
recalculated because the denominator should include prisoners held in local jails – which were not
directly under the control of the state level department. Earlier, Louisiana had noted that about 18,000
people were in held in local jails and also noted that the state did not have information on the numbers in
those jails held in restricted housing. Thus, we have retained the original data from the fall and have as
well, at the request of the jurisdiction, also revised the equation through adding a second bar to include
the nearly 18,000 people held in the summer of August 2016 in jails, as well as the 314 prisoners that the
state identified as in restricted housing through a special audit of those jails in August 2016.
Utah likewise reached out to us and provided updated information for the summer of 2016
because it had revised its policies to change the way placements in restricted housing were made and to
review those so confined. We describe these changes in Part VII; also added is a second bar for Utah to
reflect how the numbers decreased.
176

Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Minnesota, Nevada,
Ohio, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and the Federal
Bureau of Prisons participated in the survey, but are not included in Table 2 and Chart 2 because they did
not provide information about the number of prisoners in-cell for 16-19 or for 20-21 hours. As noted

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

91

earlier in footnote 165, Rhode Island gave us the following clarification about their data: “Currently the
structure of our data systems does not allow for us to extract data on the Restrictive Housing population
in an aggregate manner. In some cases, this data is tracked manually which allows us to determine the
status of individual inmates, but makes it impossible to aggregate data on all inmates in this status.
Therefore we are unable to provide data on our restrictive housing population at this time. RIDOC is
working to rectify this problem but it requires significant IT programming changes which will take some
time to complete.”
Iowa is included because it reported numbers for those in-cell from 20-21 hours; Iowa later
indicated that it was unable to confirm that the numbers it provided for restricted housing were limited to
prisoners who had been in-cell for more than 22 hours per day.
177

California informed us that it had a total of 8,329 prisoners in its eight forms of segregated housing.
These eight forms include the Administrative Segregation Unit, “Condemned” Housing, Enhanced
Outpatient Program ASU Hub, Long-Term Restricted Housing, Non-Disciplinary Segregation Unit,
Psychiatric Services Unit, Security Housing Unit, Security Housing Unit at Pelican Bay State Prison, and
Short-Term Restricted Housing. Of these, the 1,104 prisoners in the Security Housing Unit at Pelican Bay
State Prison meet our definition of restricted housing. The 597 prisoners categorized as “condemned” are
housed in two forms of housing, Grade A and Grade B. The history of Pelican Bay State Prison is detailed
in Keramet Reiter, 23/7: PELICAN BAY PRISON AND THE RISE OF LONG-TERM SOLITARY CONFINEMENT
(2016)
Using definitions of housing categories provided by the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR), prisoners in Grade A housing would fall under the 16-19 hours category. In
Grade B housing, some prisoners would fall under the 16-19 hours category while others would fall under
the 20-21 hours category. Because CDCR did not provide a breakdown of how many of the 597
condemned prisoners were in each grade, we included all 597 prisoners in the 16-19 hours per day
category. We included the 6,628 prisoners in the remaining six forms of housing in the 20-21 hours
category. In some of these forms of housing, prisoners are held in-cell for 22 or more hours a day at least
some days of the week. For example, in the Administrative Segregation Unit, Non-Disciplinary
Segregation Unit, and Security Housing Unit (not in Pelican Bay), CDCR reported: “Inmates . . . are
offered a minimum of 10 hours of outside exercise per week. The 10 hours of outside exercise are
distributed throughout the week such that at least three days a week, inmates are allowed more than three
hours out-of-cell at a time.” Thus, during the remaining days of the week, the prisoners in these housing
units may be in-cell for 22 or more hours a day.

178

As noted, we reflected how Utah’s numbers would have looked, were data reported as of the summer
of 2016, in Table 2 and in Chart 1. Here and elsewhere in this Report, we note the efforts Utah has
undertaken to make changes. Utah informed us that as of the summer of 2016, it had 380 people in-cell
for 22 hours or more, 268 in-cell for 20-21 hours, and 648 people in-cell for 16-24 hours, for a total of
10.6% (of the 6,112 prisoners in its total custodial population at the time) in restricted housing.

179

Maine, Georgia, and New Hampshire did not respond to the question of whether they regularly gather
information on length-of-stay in restricted housing.

180

In responding to whether it regularly tracked the amount of time that prisoners spend in restricted
housing, the Federal Bureau of Prisons stated that it keeps monthly reports, and that “[t]here is a
publication that tracks aggregate reports at the individual facility level. They can compile this type of data

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

92

and did for the data in this report, but this is not something they regularly do." ASCA-Liman Survey:
Federal Bureau of Prisons Follow-up Response, May 2016 at 9.
181

Oregon and Wisconsin indicated that they planned to begin regularly tracking the amount of time that
prisoners spend in restricted housing.  Further, as noted earlier, Rhode Island asked we provide the
clarification that: “Currently the structure of our data systems does not allow for us to extract data on the
Restrictive Housing population in an aggregate manner. In some cases, this data is tracked manually
which allows us to determine the status of individual inmates, but makes it impossible to aggregate data
on all inmates in this status. Therefore, we are unable to provide data on our restrictive housing
population at this time. RIDOC is working to rectify this problem but it requires significant IT
programming changes which will take some time to complete.”
182

New Mexico and Nevada provided numbers of people who spent various periods of time in restricted
housing, but we did not report these numbers due to inconsistencies in the information provided. Ten
states did not provide numbers on the amount of time that prisoners spent in restricted housing: Alabama,
Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and West
Virginia.

183

Of the 17 jurisdictions that did not regularly track length-of-stay data, the following nine jurisdictions
did provide length-of-stay data based on a specific review in Fall, 2015: Alaska, Florida, Delaware,
Louisiana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. All 34 jurisdictions that did
regularly track length-of-stay data, provided length-of-stay data for Fall, 2015, but one of those
jurisdictions (New Mexico) is not reported here due to different kinds of information inconsistencies.

184

The total number of prisoners (355) that Alaska reported to be in restricted housing was greater than
the number of prisoners (352) for which Alaska provided length-of-stay data.

185

The numbers reported here for California included only prisoners housed in Security Housing Units in
Pelican Bay State Prison and did not include prisoners housed in other types of segregation. See supra
note 177. Further, the total number of prisoners (1,104) that California reported to be in the Security
Housing Unit in Pelican Bay was greater than the number of prisoners (1,073) for which California
reported length-of-stay data. See supra note 172.

186

The total number of prisoners (128) that Connecticut reported to be in restricted housing was greater
than the total number of prisoners (121) for which Connecticut reported length-of-stay data. The
difference was likely due to the fact that Connecticut reported length-of-stay data for male prisoners in
restricted housing and not for female prisoners in restricted housing.

187

The total number of prisoners (404) that Idaho reported to be in restricted housing was larger than the
total number of prisoners (275) for which Idaho provided length-of-stay data.

188

As noted, Louisiana reported that it had begun keeping length-of-stay information in May 2012, and
thus information was not available for prisoners held in restricted housing for more than three years.
Further, the total number of prisoners (2,689) that Louisiana reported to be in restricted housing was
larger than the total number of prisoners (2,185) for which Louisiana provided length-of-stay data.

189

The total number of prisoners (235) that Massachusetts reported to be in restricted housing was greater
than the total number of prisoners (220) for which Massachusetts provided length-of-stay data.

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

93

190

The total number of prisoners (622) that Minnesota reported to be in restricted housing was larger than
the total number of prisoners (567) for which Minnesota provided length-of-stay data. Minnesota
provided length-of-stay information for only those prisoners held in disciplinary segregation and reported
that length-of-stay data for administrative segregation was not available electronically.
191

The total number of prisoners (134) that Montana reported to be in restricted housing was greater than
the total number of prisoners (90) for which Montana provided length-of-stay data. Montana reported that
it could not provide information on prisoners held in “off-site” facilities.

192

New York provided the number of people who were in restricted housing for zero days up to 30 days
(rather than 15 up to 30 days), and the number of people who were in restricted housing for three years or
more (rather than distinct categories for three up to six years, and for six years or more). Further, the
numbers provided by New York for length of stay excluded 368 prisoners, whom the state reported were
kept in separate “Keep Lock” units for which it reported that it could not retrieve length-of-stay data.

193

The total number of prisoners (1,374) that Ohio reported to be in restricted housing was greater than
the total number of prisoners (1,140) for which Ohio had length-of-stay data. Ohio added explanations
about its reported numbers, including that it had excluded data from the Offender Tracking System used
by the state due to its concern about accuracy. Ohio also reported that it did not house prisoners in
protective custody in restricted housing and that it did not have “disciplinary custody.” Instead Ohio
provided data from its Local Control Units for the disciplinary custody section; those units were “a form
of extended restricted housing which may be used for disciplinary or pre-transfer detention to a higher
security level when the inmate’s continued presence in general population is likely to disrupt orderly
operations.” See ASCA-Liman Survey: Ohio Follow-up Response, November 4, 2015 at 4.

194

The total number of prisoners (1,768) that Tennessee reported to be in restricted housing was greater
than the total number of prisoners for which Tennessee reported it had length-of-stay data (1,774). 

195

The total number of prisoners (106) that Vermont reported to be in restricted housing was greater than
the total number of prisoners (22) for which Vermont reported it had length-of-stay data. 
196

“Other” was a category that jurisdictions noted and had varied responses to what it referenced. In
several jurisdictions, “Other” referred to maximum security units or death row. In Florida, “Other”
referred to Close Management I, Close Management II, Maximum Management, and Death Row. In
Louisiana, “Other” referred to Death Row and Medical Segregation. In Montana, “Other” referenced
Maximum Security. In Nebraska, “Other” was noted for prisoners sentenced to death. In Oklahoma,
“Other” referred to death-sentenced prisoners. In Washington, “Other” referred to “max custody”
prisoners.
In addition, “Other” was used for special housing units, specific administrative segregation units,
or special handling units for safety and security concerns. For the Federal Bureau of Prisons, “Other”
referred to Florence ADMAX and SMU Units. In Indiana, “Other” referred to Department Wide
Administrative Segregation. In Oregon, “Other” referred to the Intensive Management Unit, the
Behavioral Housing Unit, and the Special Housing Unit. In Texas, “Other” referred to a Special Housing
Unit at the women’s prison that combined administrative segregation, the behavioral management unit,
and an intensive management unit. In the District of Columbia, “Other” referred to High Profile, Total
Separation, Special Handling, and Risk of Abusiveness. In New Jersey, “Other” referred to MCU and
Rule 30 prisoners. Rule 30 prisoners are prisoners from county jails transferred to State Correctional
Facilities due to medical or security reasons. In Pennsylvania, “Other” referred to an Intensive

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

94

Management Unit, a maximum-custody program unit that housed prisoners who have demonstrated
behaviors that present serious management concerns. In New York, “Other” referred to pending
protective custody, pending disciplinary hearing, special watches (contraband and/or mental health), and
pending investigation. In Virginia, “Other” referred to intensive management and special management. In
Wisconsin, “Other” referred to Temporary Lock-up and controlled separation. In Wyoming, “Other”
referred to the Reintegration Program.
197

The 37 jurisdictions that provided length of stay data by type of custody were: Alaska, California,
Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North
Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming, Federal Bureau of Prisons, and
the Virgin Islands. 

198

The percentage of men held in restricted housing in Louisiana was calculated from the data that
Louisiana provided in the fall of 2015. The information provided subsequently by Louisiana in the
summer of 2016 did not include data delineating populations by gender.

199

The total custodial population (male and female) of 4,727 provided by Hawaii described in this section
did not match the total custodial population of 4,200 provided by Hawaii for other sections of this report.

200

For Chart 5 and Table 5, the “Total” category was calculated by adding the numbers for the total
population in restricted housing in all of the responding jurisdictions and dividing that by the numbers for
the total custodial population added together from all of the responding jurisdictions. Thus, this number is
the percentage of the total prisoners in all 43 responding jurisdictions who were in restricted housing.
201

The data provided in Table 5 require explanation. Some jurisdictions provided numbers for the total
custodial population in response to the questions on demographic information that were not consistent
with numbers provided in other segments. Other jurisdictions included individuals relying on a somewhat
different definition of restricted housing.

Specifically, the total custodial population (male and female) of 17,749 provided by New Jersey
in response to the questions on demographic information did not match the total custodial population
provided by New Jersey for other sections of this report. The same was true for Hawaii. See supra note
199. Additionally, both Arizona and Massachusetts reported that they could not provide race and ethnicity
data based on the restricted housing definition of the survey, which asked about prisoners in cells for 22
hours or more a day for more than 15 continuous days. The data these two jurisdictions provided on race
and ethnicity included individuals housed in-cell for 22 hours or more per day, some of whom may have
been held in restricted housing for less than 15 days. In terms of age, California did not provide data
about prisoners under the age of 18 in their numbers for the total custodial population and in the restricted
housing population.
202

We discuss only jurisdictions that reported at least one woman in restricted housing. Thus, for
example, California was not listed because it reported it had no women in-cell for 22 hours or more for 15
consecutive days or more. California reported that it held 186 women in-cell for 20-21 hours.

203

The data about the number of women in restricted housing in Louisiana comes from data that
Louisiana provided in the fall of 2015, which included gender delineations. Once again, these data are

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

95

from materials focused on prisons provided by Louisiana, as the data given in the summer of 2016 about
state prisoners housed in jails did not delineate the numbers by gender.
204

As noted for the purposes of Chart and Table 6, we included only jurisdictions that reported a non-zero
number of women in restricted housing.

205

The survey did not define the “Other” category, but jurisdictions were asked to specify what they
included, and often listed in the “Other” category were Alaskan Native, Hawaiian, Native American,
Pacific Islander, as well as a description of “Unknown.”

206

Alabama was not included for the Hispanic category for men because it did not use Hispanic as a
category for tracking individuals.

207

Alabama was not included for the Hispanic category for women because it did not use Hispanic as a
category for tracking individuals.
208
This list is not an exhaustive list of the vulnerable populations in prison. For example, there are also
elderly prisoners, prisoners with mental or physical disabilities, prisoners with serious medical conditions,
and prisoners with auditory or visual impairments.
209

See Madrid v. Gomez, 889 F. Supp. 1146, 1265 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (“[P]lacing [certain mentally ill
prisoners] in the SHU [or solitary] is the mental equivalent of putting an asthmatic in a place with little air
to breathe. The risk is high enough, and the consequences severe enough, that we have no hesitancy in
finding that the risk is plainly unreasonable.”) (internal quotations omitted). More recently, Justice
Kennedy discussed the literature on solitary confinement causing mental illness. See Davis v. Ayala, 135
S. Ct. 2187, 2208-2210 (2015) (Kennedy, J., concurring).
210

DOJ RESTRICTIVE HOUSING 2016 REPORT, supra note 26, at 46.

211

See COLO. REV. STAT. ANN. § 17-1-113.8(1) (West 2015); MASS. GEN. LAWS ANN. ch. 127 § 39A(b)
(West 2015). See also Settlement Agreement, Disability Rights Network of Pennsylvania v. Wetzel, No.
1:13-CV-00635 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 5, 2015).
212

See ACA Restrictive Housing Standards 2016, supra note 48.

213

Id., ACA Restrictive Housing Standards 2016, 4-RH-0031; id., Standard 4-ALDF-RH-028.

214

Id., ACA Restrictive Housing Standards 2016, 4-RH-0010.

215

Id.

216

Id., ACA Restrictive Housing Standards 2016, 4-ALDF-RH-0029

217

DOJ RESTRICTIVE HOUSING 2016 REPORT, supra note 26, at 99-101.

218

The five jurisdictions that provided data about prisoners with “serious mental illness” but did not
include a definition of “serious mental illness” were Idaho, New Mexico, North Carolina, the Virgin
Islands, and Washington.

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

96

219

Georgia, Hawaii, Montana, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, West Virginia, and the Federal Bureau of
Prisons were the seven jurisdictions that provided a definition of “serious mental health issue” but did not
provide data on mentally ill prisoners. Illinois and Massachusetts each provided a total number of
prisoners with serious mental health issues, but did not provide data on prisoners with serious mental
health issues by race. Rhode Island provided the total number of male and female prisoners with serious
mental health issues, but did not provide numbers of prisoners with serious mental health issues by race
or provide data on the number of prisoners with serious mental health issues in restricted housing. As
noted earlier, Rhode Island asked us to note: “Currently the structure of our data systems does not allow
for us to extract data on the Restrictive Housing population in an aggregate manner. In some cases, this
data is tracked manually which allows us to determine the status of individual inmates, but makes it
impossible to aggregate data on all inmates in this status. Therefore, we are unable to provide data on our
restrictive housing population at this time. RIDOC is working to rectify this problem but it requires
significant IT programming changes which will take some time to complete.”

220

The American Psychiatric Association updated the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) in 2013
and published DSM-5 to replace DSM-4. Some of the language in the DSM-4 was changed, and some
terms were no longer used in DSM-5.
As noted, our survey did not specify a definition of serious mental illness. In response to our
question asking for each jurisdiction’s own definition of a “serious mental health issue,” some
jurisdictions referenced DSM-4 and others DSM-5. Specifically, the District of Columbia, Pennsylvania,
and South Dakota referred to DSM-4, and Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Nebraska referred to
DSM-5. A few jurisdictions (Colorado, Illinois, Montana, New York, Ohio, Tennessee, and Utah)
mentioned “DSM” but did not specify an edition. The remaining jurisdictions that reported definitions did
not refer directly to the DSM.

221

Jurisdictions were excluded from Table 15 (Male Prisoners with a Serious Mental Health Issue) and
Table 16 (Female Prisoners with a Serious Mental Health Issue) if those jurisdictions provided no data
about prisoners with “serious mental illness” either in their total custodial population, in restricted
housing, or both. The two jurisdictions that provided no data about prisoners with “serious mental illness”
in their total custodial population were Hawaii and New Hampshire. The four jurisdictions that provided
no data about prisoners with “serious mental illness” in restricted housing were Arizona, California,
Indiana, and Rhode Island. California informed us that it did not do so because it did not segregate such
persons in “Restricted Housing.” The nine jurisdictions that provided no data about prisoners with
“serious mental illness” in both their total custodial population and their restricted housing population
were Alaska, Arkansas, Delaware, Georgia, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, and West Virginia, and the
Federal Bureau of Prisons. As noted earlier, Rhode Island asked us to note: “Currently the structure of our
data systems does not allow for us to extract data on the Restrictive Housing population in an aggregate
manner. In some cases, this data is tracked manually which allows us to determine the status of individual
inmates, but makes it impossible to aggregate data on all inmates in this status. Therefore, we are unable
to provide data on our restrictive housing population at this time. RIDOC is working to rectify this
problem but it requires significant IT programming changes which will take some time to complete.”
Vermont noted that changes in its database system prevented it from being able to report on this measure.
As of the summer of 2016, Vermont had resumed data collection and aimed to be able to answer
questions such as this in the future.
In several other instances, number mismatches resulted in exclusion from tables. For example,
Vermont was excluded from Tables 15 and 16 because of number mismatches concerning its total

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

97

custodial population. The District of Columbia was excluded from Table 16 (Female Prisoners with a
Serious Mental Health Issue) because it did not provide data regarding female prisoners with serious
mental illness. Illinois was excluded from Table 15 (Male Prisoners with a Serious Mental Health Issue)
and Table 16 (Female Prisoners with a Serious Mental Health Issue) because the state did not provide
data on the total custodial population in the demographics section of the report. Kentucky was excluded
from Table 16 (Female Prisoners with a Serious Mental Health Issue) because they reported more women
with “serious mental illness” in restricted housing than total women in restricted housing. Kentucky
reported 34 women with serious mental illness in restricted housing and 20 women with serious mental
illness in its total restricted housing population.
222

The jurisdictions excluded from Table 17 (Male Prisoners with a Serious Mental Health Issue by Race
and Ethnicity) and Table 18 (Female Prisoners with a Serious Mental Health Issue by Race and Ethnicity)
were those that did not provide data about prisoners with “serious mental illness” intersecting with
race/ethnicity. That group of 19 included Alaska, Arkansas, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii,
Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, Nevada, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas,
Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

Indiana was excluded from Table 18 (Female Prisoners with a Serious Mental Health Issue by
Race and Ethnicity) because the number of prisoners with mental illness by race that it reported did not
match the total number of prisoners with mental illness that the state provided. Indiana reported that it
detained two prisoners with serious mental illness and had data by race, but gave a total number of zero.
Kansas and Kentucky were excluded from Table 18 because these two jurisdictions reported more women
with “serious mental illness” in restricted housing than total women in restricted housing. Kansas reported
16 women with serious mental illness in restricted housing and eight women with serious mental illness
in its total restricted housing population. Kentucky reported 34 women with serious mental illness in
restricted housing and 20 women with serious mental illness in its total restricted housing population.
Vermont indicated that due to its database changes, it was unable to provide demographic
information in response to the survey. However, with the new database system, Vermont reported that it
would be able to provide information on gender, medical and mental health status, race, and ethnicity, as
well as on self-harming behaviors in the future.
223

Seven jurisdictions provided some data about pregnant prisoners but were not included because the
data was not sufficiently detailed to report. Specifically, Illinois, Montana, New Mexico, and Vermont
provided mismatched numbers concerning the number of women in their total custodial population.
Massachusetts did not provide the number of pregnant prisoners in its total custodial population.
Minnesota provided an average number of pregnant prisoners, but did not provide the exact number of
pregnant prisoners in its total custodial population. Wisconsin reported that it housed five pregnant
prisoners in its total custodial population, but it did not provide the number of pregnant prisoners held in
restricted housing. 
224

The ten jurisdictions that reported no pregnant prisoners in their total custodial population were the
District of Columbia, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Tennessee,
Washington, and the Virgin Islands.
225

Illinois reported 10 transgender prisoners in restricted housing but reported that they do not track the
number of transgender prisoners in their total custodial population. Massachusetts reported one

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

98

transgender prisoner in restricted housing but did not report the number of transgender prisoners in its
total custodial population.
226

The jurisdictions that reported transgender prisoners in restricted housing were: Arizona (5 prisoners),
Colorado (1 prisoner), the District of Columbia (1 prisoner), Florida (1 prisoner), Kentucky (1 prisoner),
Louisiana (2 prisoners), Maryland (1 prisoner), New Hampshire (1 prisoner), New Jersey (1 prisoner),
New York (10 prisoners), Ohio (2 prisoners), Oregon (3 prisoners), Pennsylvania (5 prisoners), Texas (19
prisoners), and Washington (2 prisoners).

227

Time-In-Cell, supra note 2, at 55-56.

228

The jurisdictions that did not reply to this set of questions were Arkansas, Louisiana, Maine,
Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, the Virgin Islands, and West Virginia.

229

Alaska, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Montana, North Dakota, Washington, Wisconsin, Ohio, D.C., and
Virginia provided some policies governing the use of restricted housing. New York directed us to a
recently approved settlement agreement.

230

For example, Oregon reported that in “March 2015, we were selected as one of five correctional
systems across the country to participate in the Vera Institute’s Safe Alternatives to Segregation Initiative.
As part of the grant, we are receiving up to two years of technical assistance focused on analyzing our use
of segregated housing and developing recommendations for its safe reduction, as well as initial assistance
with implementation of those recommendations.” Washington stated that it had consulted a national
expert on solitary confinement. In its update in the summer of 2016, Louisiana’s Director also indicated
the state had been working with The Pew Charitable Trusts on issues related to incarceration.

231

Presidential 2016 Memorandum on Limiting Restrictive Housing, supra note 37.

232

Rick Raemisch & Kelli Wasko, Open the Door—Segregation Reforms in Colorado, Part 2 of 3,
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (Jan. 11, 2016), http://www.corrections.com/news/article/
42046-open-the-door-segregation-reforms-in-colorado.

233

See also Settlement Agreement, Ashker v. Governor of California, No: 4:09-cv-05796-CW (N.D. Cal.
Sept. 1, 2015) at *4.
234

These changes were also related to litigation involving a challenge to the use of isolation for the
seriously mentally ill. See Disability Rights Network of Pennsylvania v. Wetzel, Civil Case No. 1:13-CV00635 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 5, 2015).

235

This limit on duration appeared to apply to disciplinary segregation, but not to other forms of restricted
housing.

236

Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina,
Virginia, and Washington, among others, reported implementing or modifying a form of step-down
program for return from segregation to the general prison population.

237

Virginia Department of Corrections, Local Operating Procedure 830.A, effective December 1, 2013.

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

99

238

Id. Virginia stated that the program had included 485 individuals since it began in 2013, and that it had
an 85% success rate, measured in people returned to the general population.

239

New Jersey Survey response to Question 14, May 12, 2016.

240

New York Survey response to Question 14, May 12, 2016.

241

Illinois Department of Corrections, Administrative Directive 05.12.101, effective May 1, 2014, at 2.

242

Time-In-Cell, supra note 2.

243

Jurisdictions that reported adopting or planning policies that required a certain number of hours out-ofcell per day or week included California, Colorado, Ohio, Utah, and Washington.

244

Time-In-Cell, supra note 2, at 50-51.

245

The report also included 50 “Guiding Principles” intended to serve as “best practices for correctional
facilities within the American criminal justice system.” DOJ RESTRICTIVE HOUSING 2016 REPORT, supra
note 26, at 94.

246

Obama, Why We Must Rethink Solitary Confinement, (Jan. 25, 2016), supra note 27.

247

Presidential 2016 Memorandum on Limiting Restrictive Housing, supra note 37.

248

The DOJ also recommended various procedural changes for investigating and reporting alleged
disciplinary violations and for segregation of prisoners during disciplinary investigations. DOJ
RESTRICTIVE HOUSING 2016 REPORT, supra note 26, at 96-97.
249

DOJ RESTRICTIVE HOUSING 2016 REPORT, supra note 26, at 94, 104.

250

Id. at 114 (internal quotations omitted). The federal prison system has few juveniles within the system.

251

Id. at 105.

252

Id. at 94-95.

253

Id. at 95.

254

Id. at 110. In one such unit in Louisiana, for example, prisoners live, work, and receive programming
in their unit, while spending approximately 16 hours out of their cells per day. Id.
255

Id. at 109-10.

256

Id. at 110.

257

Id. at 106-07.

258

Id.

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

100

259

Id. at 116.

260

Id.

261

Id. at 113.

262

Id. at 112.

263

Id. at 113.

264

Id. at 95.

265

Id. at 117.

266

Raemisch & Wasko, supra note 232, at 2.

267

Id. at 4.

268

Id.

269

Id. at 9.

270

Id. at 5.

271

Id. at 5.

272

Id. at 6.

273

Id. at 6.

274

Id. at 4.

275

Id. at 5.

276

Id. at 5.

277

Id. at 12.

278

Id. at 5.

279

Id. at 9. In June of 2016, Colorado enacted a bipartisan bill, HB 1328, which limited the placement of
juveniles in solitary confinement to four hours, except in emergency situations and with the approval of a
physician and a mental health professional. A court order was required to keep a child in solitary
confinement for more than eight hours. The bill further required the Colorado Department of Youth
Corrections to document its use of solitary confinement and to make regular reports to an oversight board.
HB 16-1328 (Colo. 2016).
280

COLO. REV. STAT. § 17-1-113.8 (2014).

281

Id. The law did not define long-term isolated confinement.

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

101

282

Raemisch & Wasko, supra note 232, at 6.

283

Id. at 7.

284

Id.

285

Id. at 5.

286

Id. at 8.

287

Id.

288

Id. at 9. At San Carlos Correctional Facility, forced cell entries in the last year declined by 77%, while
offender-on-staff assaults declined by 46%. In Centennial Correctional Facility, forced cell entries in the
last year declined by 81%, while offender-on-staff assaults were reduced by 50%. Id.

289

Id. at 10-11.

290

Id. at 12.

291

Id. at 12.

292

Bertsch, History of Restricted Housing, supra note 142.

293

Id. at 3.

294

Administrative Segregation Unit Redesign 1 (March 8, 2016).

295

Id.

296

Id.

297

Bertsch, History of Restricted Housing, supra note 142, at 4.

298

Id.

299

Leann K. Bertsch, Humanity in North Dakota: Learning from Norway to Make Better Neighbors, Not
Better Prisoners, presented at the conference, International and Interdisciplinary Perspectives on
Prolonged Solitary Confinement, University of Pittsburgh School of Law (Apr. 16, 2016) (unpublished
manuscript) [hereinafter Bertsch, Humanity in North Dakota]. According to Director Bertsch and
reflected in the policies provided, North Dakota revised the list of behaviors that permitted placement in
administrative segregation to “Level III infractions,” which included (1) homicide; (2) escape from a
maximum- or medium-custody facility; (3) taking hostages; (4) “assault or battery on staff which causes
significant bodily injury or exposure to a biological contaminate, to include aggravated assault or
predatory behavior resulting in sexual assault;” (4) “assault or battery on an inmate which causes
significant intentional bodily injury or exposure to a biological contaminate, to include aggravated sexual
assault or predatory behavior resulting in sexual assault;” (5) arson; (6)“inciting or participation in riots,
work strikes, or disturbances;” and (7) “trafficking/smuggling contraband” into a maximum- or mediumsecurity facility. See ASCA-Liman Survey: North Dakota Response with Statement of Policy,

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

102

Segregation Placement Strategic Planning at 1-2 (March 8, 2016). In addition, those policies also noted a
few other offenses, including possession of guns or knives, and of behaviors that could put someone into
segregation but only if evidence existed of the need to do so and the reasons for doing so. Discussed were
“24 hour placements,” and efforts to understand tiered options. Id.
300

Id. at 15.

301

Id. at 4.

302

Id.

303

Id.

304

Id.

305

Id.

306

Id.

307

Bertsch, Humanity in North Dakota, supra note 299, at 20.

308

Id. at 21.

309

According to Director Bertsch, staff described more friendly interactions with prisoners, reportedly
saying things like: “I used to hate working down here when all we did was fight with these guys—this is
so much better,” and “I actually feel like we are rehabilitating people, not just locking them up and hoping
they don’t do the same thing again.” Id. at 23.

310

Prisoners have had similar reactions: “Staff just used to rush past my door. Now they stop and talk and
I’m seeing they’re kind of like us, I mean, we’re the same,” and “I’m learning to be more understanding
of the officers, like, I don’t take it so personal when they forget something I asked for.” See id. at 22-26
(describing results and reactions from staff, wardens, and prisoners).
311

Id. at 27.

312

Bertsch, History of Restricted Housing, supra note 142, at 4.

313

Memorandum from Brian Wittrup, Chief, Bureau of Classification, to Gary Mohr, Director, Ohio
Dep’t of Rehabilitation & Correction 1 (May 12, 2016).

314

Id.

315

Id. at 2.

316

Id.

317

Id.

318

Id.

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

103

319

Id. at 3.

320

Id.

321

Id. at 4.

322

Id.

323

Id. at 5.

324

Id.

325

Id.

326

Id. at 6.

327

Id. at 5-6.

328

Id. at 7.

329

Id.

330

Id.

331

Id. at 8.

332

Id.

333

Id. at 9.

334

Id.

335

Id. at 9-10.

336

Id. at 1.

337

Id. at 6.

338

Id.

339

SCDC, Operating Policy 22.38; South Carolina, Step-Down Program, November 5, 2015,
http://www.doc.sc.gov/pubweb/policy/OP-22-38.htm1479337241122.pdf [hereinafter SCDC, Step-Down
Program].
340

Id. at 1.

341

SCDC, Inmates Housed in Restricted Housing on the Following Dates by Institution and Mental
Health Status, from December 2012-March 2016. In a follow-up in August of 2016, Director Stirling
detailed the 15 subcategories for a “mental health classification,” which included substance abuse and

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

104

major mental illness, and detailed the breakdown of the population of the prisons with various kinds of
mental health problems.
342

Daniel J. Gross, Prisons work to limit use of solitary confinement, HERALD J. OF SPARTANBURG (Apr.
24, 2016), http://www.thestate.com/news/local/crime/article73689037.html.

343

SCDC, Step-Down Program, supra note 339, at 3.

344

Id.

345

Id. at 4.

346

Id.

347

Id. at 4, 7. In a follow-up email with Director Stirling, SCDC explained that the incentives are
automatically provided at each phase, but a prisoner showing “chronic negative behavior” would be
required to repeat the phase or be placed back in restricted housing.

348

Id. at 4.

349

Id.

350

Id. at 6.

351

Id. at 4-5.

352

Id. at 6.

353

Id. at 6-7.

354

Id. at 5.

355

Id. at 7.

356

Id.

357

Id. at 8.

358

Id.

359

Id.

360

Id. at 7.

361

Id.

362

Id.

363

Id.

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

105

364

Id.

365

See Settlement Agreement, T.R. v. South Carolina Department of Corrections, No. 4855-6615-1984
v.8 (May 31 2016), http://www.pandasc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Settlement-Agreement-May-312016.pdf; Term Sheet, T.R. v. South Carolina Department of Corrections, No. 4855-6615-1984 v.8 (Jan.
12, 2015) [hereinafter SCDC Term Sheet], http://ftpcontent4.worldnow.com/wistv/pdf/SCDCtermsheet.pdf;
see also Tim Smith, Agreement Reached to Reform SC Prison Treatment of Mentally Ill, GREENVILLE
NEWS (Jan. 16, 2015),http://www.thestate.com/news/local/article13937666.html.
366

See SCDC Term Sheet, supra note 365, at 12-13.

367

See id. at 1.

368

SCDC, Step-Down Program, supra note 339, § 25.

369

Id.

370

Phone conversation with Utah Director of the Division of Institutional Operations Jerry Pope (Sept. 9,
2016).
371

See General Order No. DIOGO 16-001, FCO7 Restricted Housing, issued by Utah Division of
Institutional Operations (Jan. 19, 2016) [hereinafter Utah FC07 Restricted Housing Order 2016].

372

See Letter from Utah Director of the Division of Institutional Operations Jerry Pope to Co-Executive
Director of ASCA George Camp, Re: Restricted Housing Update (Aug. 25, 2016) [hereinafter Pope
Restrictive Housing Update 2016.]
373

See Utah FC07 Restricted Housing Order 2016, supra note 371, §§ 01.01, 01.03.

374

Id., § 02.01.

375

Id., § 02.02.

376

Phone conversation with Director Pope (Sept. 9, 2016), supra note 370.

377

See Utah FC07 Restricted Housing Order 2016, supra note 371, § 03.01.

378

Id., § 03.02.

379

Id.

380

Phone conversation with Director Pope (Sept. 9, 2016), supra note 370; Pope Restrictive Housing
Update 2016, supra note 372.
381

Section 03.06(B) of the Utah FC07 Restricted Housing Order 2016 provides that “Behaviors that may
result in an inmate being placed in Restricted Housing may include, but are not limited to: 1) involvement
in a serious threat to life, property, staff or other inmates, or to the orderly operation of a unit or facility;
2) escape/attempted escape; 3) riot; 4) fight with serious injuries, weapons used, or group of three or more

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

106

participants; 5) Security Threat Group activity; 6) homicide; 7) assault on staff; 8) serious assault on
inmate; 9) serious safety concerns; and/or 10) scores based on assessment for Level 2 housing.”
382

Id., § 03.01(B).

383

Utah FC07 Restricted Housing Order 2016, supra note 371, § 03.03. In a written summary of the
changes, Utah reported doing such reviews generally within 24 hours. See Pope Restrictive Housing
Update 2016, supra note 372.

384

Utah FC07 Restricted Housing Order 2016, supra note 371, § 03.04.

385

Id., § 04.05.

386

Id., § 04.02.

387

Id., § 03.04, (B)(1).

388

Id., § 04.03.

389

Id., § 04.04.

390

See Pope Restrictive Housing Update 2016, supra note 372.

391

Utah FC07 Restricted Housing Order 2016, supra note 371, § 04.06.

392

Id., §§ 03.03, 04.04.

393

Id., § 06.01.

394

See Pope Restrictive Housing Update 2016, supra note 372.

395

Utah FC07 Restricted Housing Order 2016, supra note 371, § 06.02.

396

See Pope Restrictive Housing Update 2016, supra note 372.

397

Id. Utah reported that of the 380 people kept in-cell 22 or more hours per day, 373 were men and seven
were women. Utah also reported 683 people in units labeled as restricted housing but not necessarily incell 22 hours or more. Of these 683 people, 611 were men between the ages of 18 and 49, 65 were men
over the age of 50, and seven were women between the ages of 18 and 49. Of the men in units labeled as
restricted housing but not necessarily in-cell 22 hours or more, 47% were White, 34% were Hispanic, 7%
were Black, 4% were Asian, and 8% were Other. The total male custodial population was 64% White,
20% Hispanic, 7% Black, 3% Asian, and 6% Other. Of the women in units labeled as restricted housing
but not necessarily in-cell 22 hours or more, 57% were White, 43% were Hispanic, and zero were Black,
Asian, or Other. The total female custodial population was 75% White, 13% Hispanic, 2% Black, 3%
Asian, and 7% Other. Utah also reported that there were 367 men in its custodial population who had a
“serious mental health issue” and that 71 of them were in restricted housing units. There were 57 women
in Utah’s custodial population who had a “serious mental health issue” and none of them were in a
restricted housing unit.

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell December 6, 2016

A-1
Appendix A: ASCA-Liman Restricted Housing Survey – Fall 2015
This survey aims to provide a national picture of the number of people in all forms of
extended restricted housing, the length of their stay, and information on jurisdictions’ policies in
terms of changes underway or recently completed.
For purposes of this survey, “Extended Restricted Housing” is defined as separating
prisoners from the general population and holding them in their cells for 22 hours per
day or more, for 15 or more continuous days. The definition includes prisoners held in
both single- or double-cells, if held for 22 hours per day or more in a cell, for 15 or
more continuous days.
This survey requests information regarding all prisoners in your jurisdiction’s correctional
facilities, including both sentenced prisoners and pre-trial detainees. The goal is to have
information on all of the facilities for which you have data on extended restricted housing,
including facilities operated by private entities on behalf of the State, if that information is
available. Therefore, in the first questions, we ask you to identify all the facilities in your
jurisdiction—and then to identify all the facilities for which you have accessible data on the use
of extended restricted housing.
Please answer all the questions with information about your jurisdiction that is current as of
on or about October 1, 2015.
Please complete and return this survey by October 19, 2015.
1) Please indicate the jurisdiction for which you are filling out the survey:
_______________________
2) Does your correctional system include the following facilities (check all that apply)?
Prisons
Jails
Juvenile facilities
Mental health facilities
Privately-contracted facilities
Separate facilities for death-sentenced prisoners
Other (please specify) ___
3) Please provide the total custodial population for all facilities in your system as
identified in Question 2 (for example, if you indicated in Question 2 that your
system includes prisons, jails, juvenile facilities, and mental health facilities, you
would provide the total custodial population for those four types of facilities).
4) Please indicate the facilities for which you have data on the use of Extended
Restricted Housing (check all that apply).
Prisons
Jails
Juvenile facilities
Mental health facilities
Privately-contracted facilities
Separate facilities for death-sentenced prisoners
Other (please specify) ____

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-In-Cell November 21, 2016

A-2
Below are a series of questions about Extended Restricted Housing for the facilities that you
identified in Question 4. We understand that you may not be able to answer all questions for all
types that you identified in Question 4. (For example, you may have data on demographics or
mental health for people in extended restricted housing in prisons but not in jails.) Please
provide the information that you do have. After each question, you will be asked to indicate
which types of facilities are included in your responses to that question.
5) Please provide the total custodial population (including men and women) in each
type of facility identified in Question 4. (For example, if you indicated in Question 4
that you have data on the use of Extended Restricted Housing in prisons, jails, and
juvenile facilities, you would provide the custodial population in these three types of
facilities.)
Prisons _______

Jails _________

Mental health facilities

Juvenile facilities _________

_____ Privately-contracted facilities ________

Separate facilities for death-sentenced prisoners ______

Other (please specify) ____

6) Please provide the total custodial population (including men and women) in
Extended Restricted Housing for all facilities identified in Question 4 (For example,
if you indicated in Question 4 that you have data on the use of Extended Restricted
Housing in prisons, jails, and juvenile facilities, you would provide the total
custodial population in Extended Restricted Housing for each of these three types of
facilities.)
Prisons _______

Jails _________

Juvenile facilities _________

Mental health facilities

_____ Privately-contracted facilities ________

Separate facilities for death-sentenced prisoners ______

Other (please specify) _____

7) Demographic Information
Part I of the table requests information on the total custodial population for all facilities
that you identified in Question 4.
Part II of the table requests information regarding the number of prisoners in Extended
Restricted Housing in those facilities.

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-In-Cell November 21, 2016

A-3

White

Black

Hispanic

Asian

Other

Total

Specify the
groups
included in
“Other”

I. Total
Prisoners
Male (under 18
years old)
Male (18-49
years old)
Male (50 years or
older)
Female (under 18
years old)
Female (18-49
years old)
Female (50 years
or older)
Total
II. Prisoners in
Extended
Restricted
Housing
Male (under 18
years old)
Male (18-49
years old)
Male (50 years or
older)
Female (under 18
years old)
Female (18-49
years old)
Female (50 years
or older)
Total
8) How many prisoners, if any, (including both male and female, of every age) in
Extended Restricted Housing are housed in double cells?

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-In-Cell November 21, 2016

A-4
9) Mental Health Status

White

Black

Hispanic Asian Other

Total

Specify the
groups
included in
"Other"

I. Total Prisoners
Identified as Having
a Serious Mental
Health Issue
Male
Female
II. Prisoners in
Extended Restricted
Housing Identified
as Having a Serious
Mental Health Issue
Male
Female
10) How many transgender prisoners or pregnant prisoners are in Extended Restricted
Housing?
Pregnant

Identified as
Transgender

I. Total Prisoners
II. Prisoners in Extended
Restricted Housing
11) Please provide the total number of prisoners, if any, who as of October 1, 2015 are
not in Extended Restricted Housing as defined in this survey, but who have been
segregated from the general population and held in cell (either in single- or doublecells) for the following periods:
Number of Male and Female Prisoners
16-19 hours per day
20-21 hours per day
12) Do you regularly gather, collect, or report information on each prisoner’s length of
stay in Extended Restricted Housing?

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-In-Cell November 21, 2016

A-5

13) Types of Extended Restricted Housing— Please provide the number of prisoners
held in each type of Extended Restricted Housing for the specified period. Include
both male and female prisoners.
Other Form
of
Continuous/
Protective Disciplinary Administrative Restricted
Consecutive Days
Custody
Custody
Segregation
Housing
Total
15 days up to 1 month
1 month up to 3 months
3 months up to 6 months
6 months up to 1 year
1 year up to 3 years
3 years up to 6 years
6 year or more
If the data includes prisoners in the “Other” form of Extended Restricted Housing
category, please specify the type of Extended Restricted Housing _____________.
14) Changes to Restricted Housing
From January 1, 2013 through October 1, 2015, has your jurisdiction changed any of its
policies regarding Restricted Housing?
If so, please select the appropriate category. Please explain the change in policy and, if
possible, email a copy of the relevant policies . . . .
Criteria for entry to Extended Restricted Housing ___
Oversight in Extended Restricted Housing ___
Criteria for release from Restricted Housing ___
Mandated time out of cell for Restricted Housing prisoners ___
Programming in Restricted Housing ___
Opportunities for social contact in Restricted Housing ___
Policies or training related to staffing of Restricted Housing ____
Physical environment of Restricted Housing___
Programming for mentally ill prisoners who have been in Restricted Housing ____
Other _____
Please explain _________________________________
15) Proposed Changes to Restricted Housing
Is your jurisdiction planning any changes to its policies regarding Restricted Housing?
If so, please select the appropriate category and explain the contemplated change in policy.
Criteria for entry to Restricted Housing ___

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-In-Cell November 21, 2016

A-6
Oversight in Extended Restricted Housing ___
Criteria for release from Restricted Housing ___
Mandated time out of cell for Restricted Housing Prisoners ___
Programming in Restricted Housing ___
Opportunities for social contact in Restricted Housing ___
Policies or training related to staffing of Restricted Housing ____
Physical environment of Restricted Housing___
Programming for mentally ill prisoners who have been in Restricted Housing
_____________
Other _____
Please explain _________________________________
16) We may have follow-up questions to clarify the information reported in this survey.
Please provide the name, contact information, and title for the person to whom such
questions should be directed.

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-In-Cell November 21, 2016

B-1
Appendix B: List of the Report’s Charts and Tables
Chart 1

CHARTS
Percentages of Men and Women in Custodial Population in Restricted Housing by
Jurisdiction (15 Consecutive Days or Longer, 22 Hours or More per Day)

Chart 2

Percentage of Men and Women in Custodial Population In-Cell for 16 or More
Hours per Day and for 15 Consecutive Days or Longer by Jurisdiction

Chart 3

Prisoners in Restricted Housing by Length of Time and by Percent of the 54,382
Prisoners for Which Length-of-Stay Data Were Provided

Chart 4

Prisoners in Restricted Housing by Length of Time and by Classification of the
Type of Restrictive Custody

Chart 5

Percentage of Male Custodial Population in Restricted Housing

Chart 6

Percentage of Female Custodial Population in Restricted Housing

Chart 7

Demographic Percentage Composition of Total Male Custodial Population and
Male Restricted Housing Population

Chart 8

Demographic Percentage Composition of Total Female Custodial Population and
Female Restricted Housing Population

Chart 9

Age Cohorts of Male Total Custodial Population and of Male Restricted Housing
Population

Chart 10

Age Cohorts of Female Total Custodial Population and of Female Restricted
Housing Population

Table 1

TABLES
Types of Facilities Within State and Federal Corrections Systems

Table 2

Numbers and Percentages of Men and Women in Custodial Population in
Restricted Housing by Jurisdiction (15 Consecutive Days or Longer, 22
Hours or More per Day)

Table 3

Numbers and Percentages of Men and Women in Custodial Population In-Cell for
16 or More Hours per Day and for 15 Consecutive Days or Longer by
Jurisdiction

Table 4

Numbers of Prisoners in Restricted Housing by Length of Time and by
Jurisdiction

Table 5

Number and Percentage of Male Custodial Population in Restricted Housing

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-In-Cell November 21, 2016

B-2

Table 6

Number and Percentage of Female Custodial Population in Restricted Housing

Table 7

Demographic Composition of Total Male Custodial Population and of Male
Restricted Housing Population

Table 8

Demographic Percentage Composition of Total Male Custodial Population and of
Male Restricted Housing Population

Table 9

Demographic Composition of Total Female Custodial Population and Female
Restricted Housing Population

Table 10

Demographic Percentage Composition of Total Female Custodial Population and
Female Restricted Housing Population

Table 11

Age Cohorts of Male Total Custodial Population and of Male Restricted Housing
Population

Table 12

Age Cohorts by Percentage of Male Total Custodial Population and of Male
Restricted Housing Population

Table 13

Age Cohorts of Female Total Custodial Population and of Female Restricted
Housing Population

Table 14

Age Cohorts by Percentage of Female Total Custodial Population and of Female
Restricted Housing Population

Table 15

Male Prisoners with a Serious Mental Health Issue (Variously Defined) in
Restricted Housing

Table 16

Female Prisoners with a Serious Mental Health Issue (Variously Defined) in
Restricted Housing

Table 17

Male Prisoners with a Serious Mental Health Issue by Race and Ethnicity

Table 18

Female Prisoners with a Serious Mental Health Issue by Race and Ethnicity

Table 19

Pregnant Prisoners in Restricted Housing

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-In-Cell November 21, 2016

C-1
Appendix C: Jurisdictions’ Definitions of Serious Mental Illness

Alabama

Definition
“Mental Disorder. A mental disorder is a syndrome characterized by
clinically significant disturbance in an individual’s cognition, emotion
regulation, or behavior that reflects a dysfunction in the psychological,
biological, or developmental processes underlying mental functioning.
Mental disorders are usually associated with significant distress or
disability in social, occupational, or other important activities. An
expectable or culturally approved response to a common stressor or loss,
such as the death of a loved one, is not a mental disorder. Socially
deviant behavior (e.g., political, religious, or sexual) and conflicts that
are primarily between the individual and society are not mental
disorders unless the deviance or conflict results from a dysfunction in
the individual.”

Arizona

“[T]hose inmates who possess a qualifying mental health diagnosis and
a severe functional impairment directly relating to their mental
illness.” It also includes those inmates who were deemed SMI in the
community, but who do not necessarily meet the criteria in our system.
SMI inmates are not housed in detention; they are grouped together in
Restrictive Status Housing using a step program for out of cell time and
privileges.”

Colorado

“The current diagnosis of any of the following DSM diagnoses
accompanied by the P-code qualifier of M, denoting the presence of a
major mental disorder: schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder,
delusional disorder, schizophreniform disorder, brief psychotic disorder,
substance-induced psychotic disorder (excluding intoxication and
withdrawal), unspecified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic
disorder (previously psychotic disorder not otherwise specified), major
depressive disorders, and bipolar disorders. Offenders, regardless of
diagnosis, indicating a high level of mental health needs based upon
high symptom severity and/or high resource demands, which
demonstrate significant impairment in their ability to function within the
correctional environment.” Colorado does NOT allow offenders with
Serious Mental Illness to remain in Restricted Housing over 30 days.

Connecticut

“Inmates that are assessed by Mental health staff as having a mental
health score of level 4 or 5. MH5 Assessment: Crisis level mental
disorder (acute conditions, temporary classification). Requires 24 hour
nursing care. MH4 Assessment: Mental Health disorder severe enough
to require specialized housing or ongoing intensive mental health
treatment; usually on psychotropic medications.”

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-In-Cell November 21, 2016

C-2
District of
Columbia
Florida

“People with DSM 4 Axis I disorders.”

Georgia

“Offenders who have been diagnosed with a serious mental illness by a
mental health professional and have a mental health level 3 or 4
classification profile.”

Hawaii

“A diagnosable mental disorder characterized by alternation in thinking,
mood, or impaired behavior associated with distress and/or impaired
functioning: primarily inclusive of schizophrenia, severe depression and
bipolar disorder, and severe panic disorder, obsessive compulsive
disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder.”

Illinois

“A person shall be considered to be ‘Seriously Mentally Ill’ (‘SMI’) if
he or she, as a result of a mental disorder as defined in the current
edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
(‘DSM’) of the American Psychiatric Association, exhibits impaired
emotional, cognitive, or behavioral functioning that interferes seriously
with his or her ability to function adequately except with supportive
treatment or services. These individuals also must either currently have,
or have had within the past year, a diagnosed mental disorder, or must
currently exhibit significant signs and symptoms of a mental disorder. A
diagnosis of alcoholism or drug addiction, developmental disorders, or
any form of sexual disorder shall not, by itself, render an individual
seriously mentally ill. The combination of either a diagnosis or
significant signs and symptoms of a mental disorder and an impaired
level of functioning, as outlined above, is necessary for one to be
considered Seriously Mentally Ill.”

Iowa

“Serious mental illness is defined as chronic and persistent mental
illnesses in the following categories: § Schizophrenia § Recurrent Major
Depressive Disorders § Bipolar Disorders § Other Chronic and
Recurrent Psychosis § Dementia and other Organic Disorders”

Kansas

“Mental Health Levels 3-7 and anyone under behavioral healthcare with
medication”

“For the purpose of responding to these questions, the following
definitions are provided: S-3 inmates are those that show impairment in
adaptive functioning due to a diagnosed mental disorder. The S-4, S-5,
and S-6 grades indicate severe impairment in adaptive functioning that
is associated with a diagnosed mental disorder and require inpatient
mental health treatment in a transitional care unit (TCU), a crisis
stabilization unit (CSU), or the Correctional Mental Health Treatment
Facility (CMHTF). Admission to a CMHTF requires judicial
commitment.”

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-In-Cell November 21, 2016

C-3

Kentucky

“Serious Mental Illness means a current diagnosis by a Department of
Corrections psychological or psychiatric provider or a recent significant
history of any of the following DSM-V (or most current revision
thereof) diagnoses: Schizophrenia, Delusional Disorder,
Schizophreniform Disorder, Schizoaffective Disorder, Brief Psychotic
Disorder, Substance-Induced Psychotic Disorder (excluding intoxication
and withdrawal), psychotic disorder Not Otherwise Specified, Bipolar I
and Bipolar II disorders or a current diagnosis by a Department of
Corrections psychological or psychiatric provider of a serious
personality disorder that includes breaks with reality and results in
significant functional impairment, or a current diagnosis by a
Department of Corrections psychological or psychiatric providers of
either an intellectual disability, a neurodevelopmental disability, or an
amnestic or neurocognitive disorder that results in significant functional
impairment. Per CPP 13.13”

Maryland

“In our manual, we use SMI to mirror the meaning defined in
COMAR10.21.17.02 and in accordance with the most recent edition of
the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. These diagnoses include
psychotic disorders, major mood disorders, and specifically identified
personality disorders. These disorders would be: Schizophrenic disorder;
Major Affective disorder; Other psychotic disorder; Borderline
schizotypal personality disorder with the exclusion of an abnormality
that is manifested only to be repeat criminal or otherwise antisocial
conduct.”

Massachusetts

“The designation of SMI indicates the presence of nine mental illness
from DSM 5 which are serious psychotic or mood disorders. In addition,
serious character pathology which results in depressive or psychotic
episodes, intellectual disabilities or other disorders that result in
significant functional impairment may be designated as SMI.”

Minnesota

“The adult: (i) has a diagnosis of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major
depression, schizoaffective disorder, or borderline personality disorder;
(ii) indicates a significant impairment in functioning; and (iii) has a
written opinion from a mental health professional, in the last three years,
stating that the adult is reasonably likely to have future episodes
requiring inpatient or residential treatment, of a frequency described in
clause (1) or (2), unless ongoing case management or community
support services are provided”
“Serious mental illness is a diagnosable disorder of thought, mood,
perception, orientation, or memory that significantly impairs a person’s
judgment, behavior, capacity to recognize reality, and/or ability to meet
the ordinary demands of life currently or at any time during the past
year.”

Mississippi

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-In-Cell November 21, 2016

C-4

Missouri

“Serious mental health offenders included all of our MH scores of 3, 4,
and 5 which are defined below. MH5: Offenders requiring frequent
mental health contacts, psychotropic medications and a structured living
unit in a correctional institution. MH4: Offenders requiring intensive or
long-term inpatient or residential psychiatric treatment at a social
rehabilitation unit or special needs unit OR requires frequent
psychological contacts and psychotropic medications to be maintained
in a general population setting. MH3: Offender requires regular
psychological services and/or psychotropic medication (or psychiatric
monitoring).”

Montana

“Serious Mental Illness—a clinical disorder of thought, mood or anxiety
included under Axis I of the DSM, e.g., schizophrenia, major
depression, bi-polar disorder, PTSD, or panic disorder, and inmates who
were previously diagnosed with such mental illness, unless there is
certification in the record that the diagnosis has been changed or altered
as a result of a subsequent mental health evaluation by a licensed mental
health professional. It does not include personality disorders, i.e.,
borderline, antisocial, or paranoid personality disorders.”

Nebraska

“Serious Mental Health Needs—defines patients with basic psychotic
disorders or mood disorders, those who self-injure, the aggressive
mentally ill, those with post-traumatic stress disorders, and suicidal
inmates. The disturbance causes clinically significant distress or
impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of
functioning. Mental Illness (MI)—defined as it is referenced by the
DSM-5. A syndrome characterized by clinically significant disturbance
in an individual's cognition, emotional regulation or behavior that
reflects a dysfunction in the psychological, biological, or developmental
process underlying mental functioning. Mental illness is usually
associated with significant distress or a disability in social, occupational,
or other important activities.”

New Hampshire

“Defined by policy #6.31. This policy can be found on the NH-DOC
website: http://www.nh.gov/nhdoc/policies/documents/6-31.pdf

New Jersey

“NJDOC defines it as any inmate having a mental health problem which
impairs the functioning of the inmate to the extent which the MH
clinical team determines that treatment warrants admission to a mental
health unit. The below mentioned numbers represent the total number of
inmates in the mental health units for both males and females. It
incorporates those on the SU, RTU and TCU units.”

New York
[recheck]

“New York Correction Law states: An inmate has a serious mental
illness when he or she has been determined by a mental health clinician

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-In-Cell November 21, 2016

C-5
to meet at least one of the following criteria: (i) he or she has a current
diagnosis of, or is diagnosed at the initial or any subsequent assessment
conducted during the inmate's segregated confinement with, one or more
of the following types of Axis I diagnoses, as described in the most
recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders, and such diagnoses shall be made based upon all relevant
clinical factors, including but not limited to symptoms related to such
diagnoses: (A) schizophrenia (all sub-types), (B) delusional disorder,
(C) schizophreniform disorder, (D) schizoaffective disorder, (E) brief
psychotic disorder, (F) substance-induced psychotic disorder (excluding
intoxication and withdrawal), (G) psychotic disorder not otherwise
specified, (H) major depressive disorders, or (I) bipolar disorder I and II;
(ii) he or she is actively suicidal or has engaged in a recent, serious
suicide attempt; (iii) he or she has been diagnosed with a mental
condition that is frequently characterized by -s with reality, or
perceptions of reality, that lead the individual to experience significant
functional impairment involving acts of self-harm or other behavior that
have a seriously adverse effect on life or on mental or physical health;
(iv) he or she has been diagnosed with an organic brain syndrome that
results in a significant functional impairment involving acts of self-harm
or other behavior that have a seriously adverse effect on life or on
mental or physical health; (v) he or she has been diagnosed with a severe
personality disorder that is manifested by frequent episodes of psychosis
or depression, and results in a significant functional impairment
involving acts of self-harm or other behavior that have a seriously
adverse effect on life or on mental or physical health; or (vi) he or she
has been determined by a mental health clinician to have otherwise
substantially deteriorated mentally or emotionally while confined in
segregated confinement and is experiencing significant functional
impairment indicating a diagnosis of serious mental illness and
involving acts of self-harm or other behavior that have a serious adverse
effect on life or on mental or physical health.”
North Dakota

“Our psychiatrist determined the below diagnoses for the definition of
‘Serious Mental Health Issue.’
Any psychotic disorder to include references to the below:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Schizophrenia
Schizoaffective
Schizophreniform
Brief Psychotic
Any reference to thought disorder
Any Bipolar Disorder
Major Depressive Disorder, Severe (with or without psychotic
features)

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-In-Cell November 21, 2016

C-6
•

Borderline Personality Disorder”

Ohio

“Adults with a serious mental illness are persons who are age eighteen
(18) and over, who currently or at any time during the past year, have a
diagnosable mental, behavioral, or emotional disorder of sufficient
duration to meet diagnostic criteria specified within the most current
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and that has
resulted in functional impairment which substantially interferes with or
limits one or more major life activities. These disorders have episodic,
recurrent, or persistent features; however, they vary in terms of severity
and disabling effects.”

Oklahoma

“Offenders diagnosed as having mental illness, who require medication
and who cycle in and out of stable functioning and Offenders with
serious cognitive impairment due to developmental disorders, traumatic
brain injury or medical illness and offenders who because of their
mental illness require 24X7 monitoring and special housing.”

Oregon

“We included inmates who are coded as MH2 or MH3 in our system.
The definitions can be found here:
http://www.oregon.gov/doc/OPS/HESVC/docs/policies_procedures/Sect
ion_G/PG04%20Basic%20Mental%20Health%20Services%202014.pdf
”

Pennsylvania

“Inmates determined by the Psychiatric Review Team (PRT) to have a
current diagnosis or a recent significant history of any of the DSM-IVTR diagnoses: a. Schizophrenia (all types) b. Delusional Disorder c.
Schizophreniform Disorder d. Schizoaffective Disorder e. Brief
Psychotic Disorder f. Substance-Induced Psychotic Disorder (excluding
intoxication and withdrawal) g. Psychotic Disorder Not Otherwise
Specified h. Major Depressive Disorders i. Bipolar I and II”

Rhode Island

“Per our Director of Behavioral Health: A serious mental illness is
defined as a mental disorder that causes “substantial functional
impairment (i.e., substantially interfered with or limited one or more
major life activities). Such disorders as Schizophrenia, Paranoid and
other psychotic disorders, Bipolar disorders (hypomanic, manic,
depressive, and mixed), Major Depressive disorders (single episode or
recurrent), Schizoaffective disorders (bipolar or depressive), Borderline
Personality disorder and Schizotypal Personality disorder.”

South Carolina

“For this section we included inmates with any SCDC mental health
classification indicating mental illness which ranges from stable
(mentally ill but not requiring treatment) to hospitalization. Inmates with
a SCDC mental health classification of substance abuse or intellectual
disabilities/delays were not included in this group.”

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-In-Cell November 21, 2016

C-7

South Dakota

“The criteria for participation in the comprehensive assistance with
recovery and empowerment (CARE) program are used to identify
severely mentally ill inmates. 46:20:31:01. Eligibility criteria. To be
eligible for CARE services the client must be 18 years of age or older
and must meet the following SMI criteria: (1) The client must meet at
least one of the following: (a) The client has undergone psychiatric
treatment more intensive than outpatient care and more than once in a
lifetime, such as, emergency services, alternative residential living, or
inpatient psychiatric hospitalization; (b) The client has experienced a
single episode of psychiatric hospitalization with an Axis I or Axis II
diagnosis per the DSM-IV pursuant to subdivision 46:20:18:01(13); (c)
The client has been treated with psychotropic medication for at least one
year; or (d) The client has frequent crisis contact with a community
mental health center, or another mental health provider, for more than
six months as a result of a mental illness; and (2) The client must meet at
least three of the following criteria: (a) The client is unemployed or has
markedly limited job skills or poor work history; (b) The client exhibits
inappropriate social behavior which results in concern by the community
or requests for mental health or legal intervention; (c) The client is
unable to obtain public services without assistance; (d) The client
requires public financial assistance for out-of-hospital maintenance or
has difficulty budgeting public financial assistance or requires ongoing
training in budgeting skills or needs a payee; (e) The client lacks social
support systems in a natural environment, such as close friends and
family, or the client lives alone or is isolated; or (f) The client is unable
to perform basic daily living skills without assistance.”

Tennessee

“According to Tennessee Department of Correction policy: Serious
Mental Illness is a substantial disorder of thought or mood that
significantly impairs judgment, behavior, capacity to recognize reality or
cope with the ordinary demands of life within the correctional
environment and is manifested by substantial impairment or disability.
Serious mental illness requires a diagnosable mental, behavioral, or
emotional disorder of sufficient duration to meet diagnostic criteria
specified within the most current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual
(DSM) or their International Classification of Disease (ICD) equivalent
(and subsequent revisions) in accordance with an individualized
treatment plan.”

Texas

“Serious Mental Health Issue includes offenders receiving inpatient
mental health services.”

Utah

“If the offender had a DSM Axis I or II mental health diagnosis.”

Vermont

“Seriously Functionally Impaired Designation per 28 V.S.A. Subsection

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-In-Cell November 21, 2016

C-8
906(1): (A) A disorder of thought, mood, perception, orientation, or
memory as diagnosed by a qualified mental health professional, which
substantially impairs judgment, behavior, capacity to recognize reality,
or ability to meet the ordinary demands of life and which substantially
impairs the ability to function within the correctional setting. (B) A
developmental disability, traumatic brain injury or other organic brain
disorder, or various forms of dementia or other neurological disorders,
as diagnosed by a qualified mental health professional, which
substantially impairs the ability to function in the correctional setting.”
Virginia

“VADOC uses mental health codes that indicate level of functioning and
not diagnoses—26% of VADOC’s total offender population maintain a
mental health code.”

Washington

“All offenders who meet the criteria for the Active Treatment Group
AND who have had one Mental Health or Psychiatry encounter coded
with a Serious Mental Illness (SMI) diagnosis code in the 6 months prior
to the report end date.”

West Virginia

“WVDOC uses NCCHC definition of SMI which states that those
individuals that have basic psychotic or mood disorders (manic,
depressive, self-injurious, PTSD, suicidal), would be classified as
having Serious Mental Illness.”

Wisconsin

“Our definition of ‘Serious Mental Health Issue’ includes the following:
MH-2A - Inmates with serious mental illness based on Axis I conditions
A. Inmates with a current diagnosis of, or are in remission from, the
following conditions:
• Schizophrenia (all sub types)
• Delusional disorder
• Schizophreniform disorder
• Schizoaffective disorder
• Psychosis NOS
• Major depressive disorders
• Bipolar disorder 1 & 2
B. Inmates with current or recent symptoms of the following conditions:	
• Brief psychotic disorder
• Substance induced psychotic disorder
C. Inmates with head injury or other neurologic impairments that result
in behavioral or emotional control.
D. Inmates with chronic and persistent mood or anxiety disorders or
other conditions that lead to significant functional disability.
MH-2B - Inmates with serious mental illness based on Axis II

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-In-Cell November 21, 2016

C-9
conditions
A. Inmates with a primary personality disorder that is severe,
accompanied by significant functional impairment, and subject to
periodic decompensation (i.e. psychosis, depression, or suicidality).
Note: Those who qualify for both MH-2A and MH-2B are coded MH2A.”
Wyoming

“Schizophrenia (all sub types) • Delusional disorder • Schizophreniform
disorder• Schizoaffective disorder • Psychosis NOS • Major depressive
disorders • Bipolar disorder 1 & 2”

Federal Bureau of
Prisons

“Inmates with current or recent symptoms of the following conditions:
• Brief psychotic disorder
• Substance induced psychotic disorder”

Virgin Islands

“Severe mental illness is characterized by one or more of the following:
• cognitive impairment,
• a break with reality, including hallucinations and/or delusions.
These symptoms may be acute or chronic in their presentation, cause
functional impairment, and could pose a threat to the patients safety in
the general population in a correctional setting.”

ASCA-Liman Aiming to Reduce Time-In-Cell November 21, 2016

 

 

CLN Subscribe Now Ad 450x600
Advertise Here 4th Ad
Federal Prison Handbook - Side