Report on Use of Administrative Segregation under PREA, National PREA Resource Center, 2015
Download original document:
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
Keeping Vulnerable Populations Safe under PREA: Alternative Strategies to the Use of Segregation in Prisons and Jails Allison Hastings, Angela Browne, Kaitlin Kall, and Margaret diZerega April 2015 Table of Contents Introduction .....................................................................................................................................3 A Brief Look at the Use of Segregated Housing and Protective Custody in the U.S. ....................................5 Why Does Use of Segregation Matter? .................................................................................................5 Managing People Who Screen at Risk for Sexual Abuse in General Population ...........................................7 Managing Particularly High-Risk Populations ....................................................................................... 11 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 18 Endnotes........................................................................................................................................ 20 Acknowledgments The PREA Resource Center (PRC), a project run through a cooperative agreement between the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) and the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD), is working to address sexual safety in confinement, and to assist state and local jurisdictions with implementation of the Department of Justice National PREA Standards. Notice of Federal Funding and Federal Disclaimer – This project was supported by Grant No. 2010-RP-BX-K001 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the Office for Victims of Crime, and the SMART Office. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice nor those of the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD), which administers the National PREA Resource Center through a cooperative agreement with the Bureau of Justice Assistance. Page 2 Introduction Introduction Although there is some overlap, the effects of The purpose of this guide is to provide prison and development and considerations for behavior jail administrators and staff with strategies for (e.g., emotional outbursts) for young people in safely housing inmates at risk of sexual abuse juvenile detention facilities distinguish them from without isolating them. Inmates at risk for sexual adult populations in confinement. The PREA victimization—whether identified through standards for juvenile facilities set specific screening or victimized in confinement—need requirements for limiting the use of isolation for protection from abusers, equal access to youth in juvenile detention and are not included in programming and health and mental health this guide. confinement on physical, mental, and social services, and congregate opportunities. This guide will (a) briefly review the use of segregated housing and protective custody in the United States, (b) note potential outcomes of isolation that motivated the construction of the PREA standards (“standards”) restricting the use of segregation, and (c) present promising strategies for implementing the standards without isolating at-risk populations in prisons and jails. The guide includes discussions of populations at particularly high risk for sexual abuse in confinement: women; youthful inmates in adult facilities; and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex (LGBTI) individuals, and gender nonconforming inmates. Most of the strategies discussed are drawn from practices used by state prison systems. However, these strategies—and the principles behind them—apply to jails. The PREA standards for community confinement facilities and lockups do not address protective custody or other types of segregated housing, since long-term isolating conditions are not considered an issue in those facilities. Community confinement facilities and lockups are not, therefore, discussed here. Page 3 The Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), a federal law enacted in 2003, was created to eliminate sexual abuse in confinement. In addition to providing federal funding for research, programs, training, and technical assistance to address the issue, the legislation mandated the development of national standards. The National Prison Rape Elimination Commission developed recommended national standards for reducing prison rape. The final standards became effective June 20, 2012, when they were published by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in the Federal Register. The standards were added as part 115 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Accordingly, the standards for adult prisons and jails are numbered 115.11 through 115.93. On May 6, 2014, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released final standards for DHS confinement facilities. Applicable PREA Standards other means of separating them from likely The following PREA standards have direct bearing abusers without temporary segregation. on keeping at-risk inmates safe with the least disruption in services, activities, and normalized Post-allegation protective custody (115.68) interactions.1 The requirements outlined in the protective Screening for risk of victimization and custody standard above also apply for abusiveness (115.41) alleged victims of sexual abuse that Under this standard, correctional agencies occurred while in confinement. must assess all inmates in adult facilities for risk of being sexually abused or Youthful inmates (115.14) sexually abusive. Screenings must occur A youthful inmate is a person younger during intake, on transfer to another than 18 years of age who is under adult facility, and when there is new court supervision and incarcerated or information or a sexually abusive incident. detained in an adult prison or jail (115.14). High-quality screenings are key to making Adult facilities confining youthful inmates sound decisions about housing, must not place these inmates in a housing programming, and work assignments. unit where they will have sight, sound, or physical contact with adult inmates Use of screening information (115.42) through use of a shared dayroom, other Information gained during screening must common space, shower area, or sleeping then be used to inform housing, bed, work, area. Facilities must make every effort to education, and program assignments, with avoid placing youthful inmates in isolation the goal of keeping inmates at high risk of in their attempts to meet this standard. sexual victimization separate from those at Youthful inmates may participate in high risk of sexually abusing others. This congregate and other activities with adult standard includes sections on housing inmates if there is direct supervision at all LGBTI individuals and responses to times. transgender and intersex inmates. Protective custody (115.43) This standard emphasizes that individuals deemed at high risk for sexual abuse should not be placed in “involuntary” segregated housing unless all available alternatives have been assessed and a determination made that there are no Page 4 A Brief Look at the Use of Segregated Housing and Protective Custody in the U.S. committing violations in order to protect Since the 1980s, U.S. prisons and jails have relied populations who are often placed in segregated on the use of segregation to manage difficult housing for protection.4 Although they may have populations.2 Originally intended to handle no violations and may not pose a threat to staff or dangerous inmates and those who had committed others, they are typically housed in units with the very serious infractions, over time, the use of same intensive security procedures, levels of segregated housing expanded to include a high isolation, restricted human interactions, and proportion of individuals with violations that are reduced access to programs and mental health disruptive but not violent. Now inmates may end care.5 This restricts congregate and programming up in segregated housing for infractions such as options and is an ineffective use of security talking back, being out of place, failing to report resources. It also creates barriers to effective to work or school, refusing to participate in service provision due to the high security and programs, or refusing to change housing units or restricted movement practices in segregation. themselves from harm in the general population. Inmates with serious mental illness and those with developmental disabilities are among the cells.3 Although it varies by jurisdiction, segregation or solitary confinement is used most commonly to Why Does Use of Segregation Matter? punish individuals in confinement for rule Conditions of Isolation violations (disciplinary or punitive segregation), Segregated inmates are typically taken out of remove inmates from the general facility their cells for one hour out of every 24, for population who are thought to pose a risk to recreation or a shower, five days a week. Before security or safety (administrative segregation), being released from their cells, inmates are cuffed and protect individuals believed to be at risk in and may be shackled at the waist and placed in the general facility population (protective leg irons. Recreation (exercise) is typically taken custody). Other reasons include ensuring the alone in an empty outdoor caged area or indoor safety of inmates under investigation and holding room. Except when overcrowding requires double those awaiting hearings. Involuntary protective celling, face-to-face human contact with custody occurs when an individual is placed in individuals other than corrections officers is segregated housing against his or her will. virtually eliminated in segregated housing. Voluntary protective custody refers to housing Officers deliver meal trays through a slot in the requested by an individual. Inmates at risk for door, and counselors and mental health staff sexual victimization or physical violence conduct visits through the cell door.6 sometimes request protective custody or put themselves in disciplinary segregation by Page 5 Individuals in segregated housing are typically not development may be especially damaging.10 allowed contact with others in confinement, and During the formative stage of adolescence, when visits with family members are curtailed and may basic developmental needs for interaction and be prohibited. Some individuals stay in guidance are not met, youth may be segregated housing for years, without the developmentally unable to view the isolation as opportunity to engage in the types of human temporary, to self-soothe, to reason with interaction, programming, and education that themselves about delaying relief, or to stabilize would help them adjust when reentering the themselves without support and training. general facility population or society. Youth are particularly vulnerable to depression Impacts of Isolation and agitation when isolated, which may be Increasing evidence suggests that holding people expressed by irritability and acting out, leading to in isolation with minimal human contact for additional segregation time and sometimes to weeks, months, or years can create or exacerbate self-harm. Research on children who were abused serious mental health problems and assaultive or or neglected also provides evidence that past anti-social behavior, and lead to decreases in experiences of trauma increase vulnerability, even physical health and functioning.7 Incidents of self- to mild stressors, and they may respond harm and suicide also are significantly higher in aggressively to control attempts and perceived segregated housing than in general facility threats when memories of past abuse have been housing.8 An additional concern is the chilling triggered.11 effect that fear of being placed in involuntary segregated housing—with the severe conditions and lack of family visits—may have on victims’ reporting of sexual abuse, especially if such placements are the typical response of a facility to reports of sexual abuse and the need for protection is long term.9 If the facility’s typical response to a report of sexual abuse is placing the victim in involuntary segregated housing, this may significantly suppress reporting at the facility. Fiscal Costs of Isolation Holding people in long-term isolation is also expensive. It may cost two-to-three times as much to house an inmate in segregation as in general population units.12 The majority of the higher costs come from the need for additional staff to monitor segregation units and manage the movement of the inmates held in them. For example, escorting inmates one at a time to and from showers, exercise areas, and needed appointments is usually conducted by two officers for each inmate. Procedures in segregation units may necessitate twice as many security staff as in non-restricted housing. For youthful inmates in segregation, effects of isolation and lack of positive programming and Segregated housing units also require staff from congregate opportunities on cognitive and social all disciplines since services must be delivered to Page 6 each individual. The intensive security procedures based on screening, interviews, and other in segregation also make it difficult to provide documentation, corrections professionals— programming, face-to-face mental health including medical and mental health staff—should treatment, and reentry services and planning, review that case, talk to the individual, and make further inhibiting the preparation of these informed decisions (in consultation with others) individuals for successful release back to the about where that person could be housed, work, general population or from custody. Given the and participate in programs within the current pressure on states’ budgets, many confinement setting with the least risk and the stakeholders are exploring the use of alternatives most constructive activities. to segregation. Some of these alternatives, explained in this guide, may reduce financial Some jurisdictions have found ways to burdens on taxpayers and jurisdictions, increase successfully manage individuals who specifically the cost-efficiency of facility operations by screen as vulnerable to sexual abuse within reducing or eliminating practices such as the use general population housing units. Jurisdictions of expensive high-security staff, and enable that do this effectively have three major agencies to focus resources on inmate programs characteristics in common. First, they emphasize and interventions that are more likely to achieve the importance of a strong screening and re- positive outcomes. 13 Managing People Who Screen at Risk for Sexual Abuse in General Population The standards are particularly concerned with protective custody that is isolating and with “involuntary segregated housing”—placement in protective custody or segregation/isolation screening process administered by trained staff and monitored by high-level supervisors. Second, they manage and deploy their existing staff resources to keep vulnerable inmates safe. Third, all decisions are made on a case-by-case basis. This guide offers instructive examples from several jurisdictions whose correctional agencies have found ways to protect the safety of vulnerable inmates in general population settings. mandate that isolation be used only when no Incorporating PREA Screening Requirements into Internal Classification Systems other alternatives are available and all other In Wyoming, corrections leaders and case options have been explored (115.43). managers collaborated with a consultant starting against the wishes of the inmate or youthful inmate. The standards discussed in this guide in 1991 to design a valid, reliable classification A range of strategies exists to safely maintain system. When the PREA standards were issued, vulnerable people in general population without the Wyoming Department of Corrections resorting to segregation. A key element of these (WYDOC) worked to incorporate the screening strategies is individualized decision making. If requirements into its internal classification someone is flagged as vulnerable to sexual abuse process and housing matrices, which were already Page 7 designed to help identify and manage potentially violent inmates. All inmates in WYDOC have a Using Case Management Systems to Manage Vulnerable Inmates two-part classification label—the first part Oregon also has worked for years to create safer designates their custody level (e.g., maximum, prisons and implement PREA requirements.15 The medium, or minimum), and the second part Oregon Department of Corrections’ (ODOC’s) indicates their aggression level (in Wyoming, this model for keeping vulnerable inmates safe is is denoted as Altus, Medius, and Brevis). 14 based on identifying and tracking indicators of vulnerability and taking a more intensive case Once they have been classified, inmates are management approach to those who screen at assigned to a housing unit based on matrices the highest risk for victimization. In Oregon, those WYDOC developed for each of its prisons. It never considered at highest risk for victimization are houses potentially highly aggressive Altus inmates inmates who were previously sexually abused in with its least aggressive Brevis inmates, and it confinement or who score positive for more than decides how to mix in moderately aggressive three victimization risk factors. During intake, all Medius inmates on a case-by-case basis. These inmates are screened for risk of sexual screening procedures and housing matrices are victimization and abusiveness. A sexual abuse dynamic; they can and do change as facility or liaison (a position that varies from facility to agency needs change. Altus and Brevis inmates facility) reviews cases where inmates score at risk are sometimes assigned to the same programs. In for victimization or abusiveness. If someone is those cases, additional staff are deployed to determined to be at risk for sexual victimization supervise that program. The key to the success of or abusiveness, he or she goes on ODOC’s “PREA this approach is that executive staff make sure all Watchlist.” The PREA Watchlist is a database that case managers and classification staff are well ODOC developed to track individuals who are trained and understand that the WYDOC screens potentially vulnerable or sexually abusive within and houses all inmates in this way to create safe and across ODOC facilities for the duration of their living conditions that do not rely on segregation. incarceration. KEY IDEAS Establish strong screening and rescreening tools and processes Make individualized decisions for vulnerable inmates In ODOC, every facility has an internal Sexual Abuse Response Team (SART), which, at a minimum, consists of three team members who are representatives from medical, mental health, and security disciplines. All SART members volunteer to serve on these teams. The SART is responsible for responding to actual incidents of sexual abuse and does intensive, individualized case management for particularly at-risk inmates. Those inmates who screen at highest risk for Page 8 sexual victimization or abusiveness are assigned a and those with very serious infractions. Although SART member, who acts as a case manager. This some individuals may sleep in single cells, case manager meets privately with the inmate to congregate activities are available during the day check in, ask how things are going, and discuss in dayrooms, classrooms, and recreation areas. any safety or behavioral concerns. Each inmate’s Interactions with service providers and counselors adjustment, status, and concerns are reviewed at are face-to-face rather than through a cell door. SART meetings. This strategy meets PREA standards for access to Over time, check-ins between an individual and the case manager occur less frequently. Eventually the individual may cease to have a PREA designation altogether. Practitioners have found this to be a more effective form of tracking and monitoring than relying solely on a PREA screening checklist for the most at-risk inmates in ODOC. programming and normalized interactions and avoids managing vulnerable and nonviolent individuals with the same high-security restrictive procedures as violent and abusive inmates. Once established, these units are less costly to operate than high-security segregation units. Jurisdictions have demonstrated that this can be done even with a challenging mix of protective custody populations. This type of case management process can be an effective strategy for keeping vulnerable inmates safe in general population. Open Housing Units in General Population Some jurisdictions have created general KEY IDEAS Mix compatible populations Provide in-unit congregate opportunities, services, and programming population settings with careful screening for admission (i.e., no inmates at high risk of abusiveness) that mix compatible populations (e.g., people deemed vulnerable to sexual abuse with those who may be vulnerable for other reasons), creating units large enough to merit self-contained programming, work, and other services and activities. This housing approach also can include LGBTI individuals believed to be at risk for sexual abuse without segregating them based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The emphasis is on increased use of alternatives and decreased use of highly restrictive housing, except for individuals at high risk of abusiveness Page 9 Although it is not used to house people who screen as sexually vulnerable or abusive, New Mexico’s Corrections Department has created a model where male inmates with sex offense convictions, ex-law enforcement officers, and disaffiliated gang members requiring protection are successfully integrated into separate units that operate similarly to general population housing. Inmates eat together, take recreation together, go to school and church together, and participate in a wide range of classroom and group-based programming. Classrooms and dayrooms during congregate activities are quiet, safe, orderly, and interactive. This model could be health, and other aspects (e.g., age, cognitive adapted to combine people who are vulnerable to disabilities) are assessed to identify special sexual abuse with other non-aggressive needs; a more focused PREA risk assessment populations. follows. Decisions on placement in housing, programs, and work assignments are then made Mission-Specific Housing based on the combined findings. Needs for Mission-specific housing, targeted to special needs specialized programs and services are also populations (e.g., those with mental illness, considered. A monitoring plan is established for developmental and intellectual disabilities, or inmates who score at risk for sexual victimization physical disabilities), has also proven successful in or abusiveness. some jurisdictions. These housing units have outof-cell programming and provide daily If the risk appears moderate, this is taken into opportunities for individuals with special needs to account in placement decisions, and periodic interact with other inmates and staff during meals check-ins are conducted. Higher levels of and recreation, dayroom, and work activities.16 identified risk result in mental health and medical Scheduled activities (e.g., recreation) occur on referrals, frequent check-ins, and collaboration the unit and disciplinary violations are handled on with unit staff to closely monitor interactions and the unit whenever possible to avoid the circulation well-being. All cases are decided on an individual of inmates through disciplinary segregation. basis and are re-evaluated each time the Housing that meets the needs of these individual is transferred, a concern arises, or an populations reduces the number of vulnerable incident is suspected or reported. WADOC places people held in segregation. For maximum a priority on training staff to work with special effectiveness, these units should be located where populations within the general population based it is easiest to hire and retain mental health and on inmate characteristics and needs. social work staff. The Washington State Department of Corrections (WADOC) describes its approach to placement of KEY IDEAS Housing should be targeted to special needs vulnerable and special needs populations as guided by a “mission-based strategy that Schedule activities on the unit enhances place safety (the process of Handle violations on the unit understanding risks and needs and matching those with housing and procedures that mitigate the risks).”17 As in the previous examples, WADOC relies on screening to take into account multiple characteristics and needs of individuals entering the system. First, medical, mental Page 10 whenever possible After a WADOC study found that at least 12 facility blind spots where abuse might happen; (c) percent of the prison population had significant specially trained staff; and (d) interdisciplinary cognitive impairments, WADOC created the Skill staff decision making, case planning, and Building Unit (unit) to meet the needs of male interactions with inmates on the units. Safety inmates with developmental disabilities (DD), cannot simply be assumed once individuals are in intellectual disabilities (ID), and traumatic brain alternative housing, however. Effective screening injuries (TBI). 18 and re-screening for risk of abuse or abusiveness and changes in risk (115.41) remain essential in The unit is located in repurposed space and maintaining safety. provides specialized general population housing where inmates can receive treatment, participate In addition to implementing promising practices, in supported work and program activities, and be agency policies also need to be revised to protected from abuse. This reduces the need for prioritize housing high-risk populations in need of inmates with DD/ID/TBI to be housed in protection in specialized units in general segregation and consolidates service delivery. population or mission-specific housing whenever Unit staff are trained in responding to individuals possible, rather than in segregation/isolation. with special needs and helping them live safe and Agency and facility staff members also need to healthy lives. WADOC reports that staff training review currently segregated populations and has resulted in safer living conditions for inmates relocate vulnerable individuals to appropriate and safer working conditions for staff. alternative service and program-enriched general population housing, based on risk and needs. Use of alternative strategies to segregation for individuals at high risk of sexual abuse enhances their safety Managing Particularly HighRisk Populations without the debilitation of isolation and Some populations are at particularly high risk of the individualized restraints and escort sexual and physical abuse during confinement. procedures common in segregation units. The following section discusses high-risk groups and presents strategies for housing them while Key Considerations for Managing People Who Screen At Risk for Sexual Abuse in General Population meeting the PREA standards for access to mental Key components to housing vulnerable inmates Women safely without relying on segregation include: (a) health and other services, programming, and congregate opportunities. security presence in congregate areas (not just in Although the PREA standards do not address them bubbles or towers) to assure safety in congregate specifically, women are more likely to screen as activities; (b) attention to unmonitored areas and high risk for sexual abuse related to past histories Page 11 of child and adult trauma. For example, women in One complication faced by agencies is protecting the criminal justice system report more extensive women from potential abusers if there is only one victimization histories—including lifetime histories prison for women in a state or limited jail beds in of sexual and physical abuse—than women who a county, a common occurrence in many smaller have not been incarcerated or men who have jurisdictions. In these agencies, there are fewer 19 been incarcerated. In one study of women in the options for separating women by using different general population of a maximum security prison, facilities. Another challenge in effective responses more than half (59 percent) of women reported to women is the predominance of male-based childhood sexual molestation and 77 percent policies and programming in confinement reported lifetime physical or sexual assaults by settings. Screening and programming may not 20 non-intimates. When all forms of violence were take into account vulnerabilities more common in considered together, only 6 percent did not report women and the lowered risk of severe or lethal experiencing at least one physical or sexual attack injury when they are aggressive. during their lifetime. Confined women are less likely to be in jail or Growing evidence suggests that incarcerated men and boys have been victimized at high rates as well, even though their trauma histories may not be a identified. a Lara Stemple and Ilan Meyer, “The Sexual Victimization of Men in America: New Data Challenge Old Assumptions,” American Journal of Public Health, 104, no. 6: e19-e26. prison for violent offenses than men and more likely to suffer from mental health problems.22 In 2006, a Bureau of Justice Statistics survey indicated that more than half (approximately 54 percent) of men in state prisons were being held for violent offenses, compared with 37 percent of women.23 Nearly a third of women in the nation’s jails (approximately 31 percent) were reported to have a serious psychiatric condition, compared to For women, high scores on risk assessment tools may lead to over-isolation in confinement settings as facilities attempt to protect them from harm. Women with past trauma histories, sexual abuse by others, and abuse in intimate and family relationships may be especially affected by the constant observation and lack of privacy in segregation units, especially when it involves male observers.21 These conditions are inappropriate as a correctional response to minor violations and are especially out of scale when the use of segregation is for the protection of the woman, rather than for the protection of others. Page 12 16 percent of men. Despite these differences, management strategies, programming, and disciplinary and security procedures for women are typically based on models designed to address male behaviors and the greater ability on the part of most men to inflict serious and lethal harm. Application of screening practices without regard to gender differences is changing in some jurisdictions. In Wyoming, women are screened and housed according to the “Altus, Medius, Brevis” model noted above and a corresponding housing matrix. However, staff use a screening tool specifically designed to assess a female cutting them off from congregate activities and population. WYDOC leaders—with the help of an programming. outside consultant—worked with administrators and case managers at the women’s prison to There are two main strategies to safely house create an instrument responsive to and youth who are sentenced to the criminal justice appropriate for women in confinement. system: house them in juvenile facilities until they are at least 18, or provide specialized housing to After implementing this screening tool and keep younger inmates safe in adult facilities. process, they found that 90 to 95 percent of the women scored as “minimum custody-Brevis.” 24 Oregon and Indiana have enacted legislation and agency policies to prohibit youthful inmates from Based on that information, they redesigned the being housed in adult facilities. For example, housing matrix at the women’s prison to create Multnomah County, Oregon, passed a resolution more minimum-custody housing and tailored that requires youth under the age of 18 to be practices to be appropriate for the predominance housed in juvenile detention, even if they are of Brevis inmates. tried as adults. In the rare cases where the sheriff and corrections commissioner believe a young KEY IDEAS Women’s crime and relational patterns are different Tools and processes should reflect gender differences person cannot be appropriately cared for in juvenile detention, they are to find an alternative placement in an adult facility. A transfer agreement between the agencies facilitates these moves when necessary.25 At the statewide level in Oregon, legislation Youthful Inmates passed in 1995 permits youth who are convicted Because of the vulnerability of young people and as adults to serve their time in juvenile facilities the impacts of sexual abuse on their development up to age 25. Indiana passed a bill in 2013 that and long-term well-being, the PREA standards enables judges to suspend an adult sentence of a mandate that youth under the age of 18 confined youthful inmate and order that the youth serve in adult settings are not to have sight, sound, or his or her time in a juvenile facility. When the physical contact with adult inmates in housing youth turns 18, the court reviews his or her areas (115.14). In places outside of the housing progress and determines what correctional setting area, sight and sound separation or direct staff is most appropriate going forward and whether supervision is to be maintained at all times. the youth can be discharged. Efforts like these provide different options for moving youth into The challenge for facilities—especially when there are only a few juveniles—is to meet the standard for separation without isolating these youth and Page 13 juvenile settings. This is a particularly effective strategy for Importantly, the standards also specify that jurisdictions that may only have one or two youthful inmates may participate in congregate youthful inmates in the adult system. Moving and other activities with adult inmates if there is youth to juvenile settings allows for better use of direct supervision at all times. Direct supervision scarce resources like classrooms, teachers, and is usually understood to mean supervision by security staff. It also meets the PREA standards corrections officers where staff are in the same regarding separation and allows for more room or are in close enough proximity to hear normalized congregate activities. While safety conversations.27 This is an important condition concerns may arise for other youth in the facility, that offers options for youthful inmates to Oregon found that the number of fights in their participate in congregate activities if security juvenile detention facilities actually decreased supervision is provided. after youthful inmates moved into those facilities.26 When it is not possible to move youthful inmates KEY IDEAS juvenile facilities until age 18 into juvenile settings, jurisdictions can create dedicated housing units within adult facilities. At programming when youthful Women, youthful inmates are housed in a inmates are housed in adult separate wing of the facility that was formerly a area, offices, and recreational space. Young Create dedicated housing units with age-appropriate the North Carolina Correctional Institution for medical unit. This wing has classrooms, a dining House youthful inmates in facilities Provide supervised opportunities for youthful inmates in adult women are chaperoned when they need to travel facilities to participate in to other areas of the facility. congregate activities This approach is applicable when agencies have an appropriate space to repurpose for youthful In addition to the strategies in use in Oregon, inmates and enough youthful inmates so this Indiana, and North Carolina, there are a number housing strategy does not itself result in isolation. of other approaches that promote the sexual As with other types of mission-specific housing, safety of youthful inmates. A facility could meet units dedicated to youthful inmates can focus on the standard by housing youthful inmates in age and developmentally appropriate group single locked cells at night but allowing them programming, including education, leadership opportunities for congregate activities during the training for youth, and other congregate day with direct supervision. Alternatively, a group activities. of facilities could form a cooperative agreement to place all youthful inmates at one facility in the region that is best suited to serve this population. Page 14 LGBTI Inmates DEFINITIONS AND TERMSa Research studies document that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people are significantly more vulnerable to sexual abuse than others in confinement. For example, a Department of Justice survey of sexual victimization in state prisons in the United States found that 3.5 percent of heterosexual male inmates reported being sexually victimized by an inmate. In contrast, 39 percent of gay men and 34 percent of bisexual men reported being victimized by another inmate.28 Lesbians and bisexual women in prison reported twice the rate of sexual abuse by staff members as did heterosexual women (8 percent for lesbians and 7.5 percent for bisexual women versus 3.7 percent for straight women). 29 Transgender people face an especially high risk in confinement. A study of California prisons found that transgender women housed in a men’s facility were 13 times more likely to have been sexually abused by other inmates than nontransgender people.30 Comparable research does not exist for intersex people, but the PREA standards include protections for them. A number of agencies respond to these vulnerabilities by placing people who identify as, or who are perceived to be, lesbian, gay, Asexual refers to a person who is not sexually attracted to any sex and/or gender. Bisexual refers to a man or woman who is emotionally, romantically, and sexually attracted to both men and women. Gay refers to a man who is emotionally, romantically, and sexually attracted to other men. Gender Expression refers to how people express their gender identity through their manner of dress, speech, behavior, and/or other physical expressions of themselves (masculine, feminine, androgynous, other). Gender Identity refers to how people understand their own gender (man, woman, other). Gender Nonconforming means a person whose appearance or manner does not conform to traditional societal gender expectations. Intersex means a person whose sexual or reproductive anatomy or chromosomal pattern does not seem to fit typical definitions of male or female. Lesbian refers to a woman who is emotionally, romantically, and sexually attracted to other women. Sexual Orientation refers to how people identify their emotional, sexual, or romantic attraction to, other people and can be described as lesbian, gay, bisexual, straight, asexual, or other. Straight/Heterosexual refers to a person who is emotionally, romantically, and sexually attracted to another person who is of a different sex and/or gender. bisexual, transgender, intersex (LGBTI), or gender nonconforming in segregation. This housing severely limits opportunities for programming, exercise, education, face-to-face mental health interventions, and other activities and services available to individuals in the general population. Policies and practices that routinely Page 15 Transgender means a person whose gender identity (i.e., internal sense of feeling male or female) is different from the person’s assigned sex at birth. Most transgender people will identify as the gender they transitioned to and not use the “trans-” prefix. a National Council on Crime and Delinquency, PREA Auditor Training, September 2014. place LGBTI people in segregated housing for and gender nonconforming individuals who screen protection thus penalize these individuals for their at risk for sexual victimization include: vulnerability and significantly worsen their conditions of confinement. Prioritizing and streamlining intake processes to ensure they are interviewed and placed in safe housing and safe The PREA standards prohibit placing LGBTI programming as soon as possible.33 Staff inmates in dedicated units or wings based only on should be trained to ask all inmates about their sexual orientation or gender identity sexual orientation, gender identity, and (115.42(g)), unless such placement is in a gender expression in a respectful manner dedicated unit or wing established in connection and to consider transgender and intersex with a consent decree, legal settlement, or legal inmates’ own views of their safety. They judgment for the purpose of protection. The should also review intake materials, standards also specifically require that including pre-sentence investigation transgender and intersex inmates be given special reports or medical records for indicators of protections related to housing (115.42(c)), LGBTI identity.34 program placement (115.42(d)), showering (115.42(f)), and pat-down searches (115.15(f)). Fostering an environment that encourages people to feel comfortable discussing sexual orientation, gender identity, and Correctional facilities throughout the United gender expression. In addition to training States are beginning to implement alternatives to staff, screenings should be conducted in avoid isolating vulnerable LGBTI individuals in private or quiet settings. Some segregated housing and revising their policies and jurisdictions have posted information about 32 procedures. The following approaches are PREA in spaces where inmates are likely to applicable to all types of confinement settings and be detained before the classification echo strategies discussed earlier in this guide. processes occur to let them know that Given the increased vulnerability of LGBTI and everyone’s safety, regardless of sexual gender nonconforming inmates to sexual orientation or gender identity, is taken victimization, agencies need to make sure their seriously. Such materials should be posted policies and practices are tailored to protect this in the languages most common to the population. population. Re-screening when necessary (115.41). Targeted Intake and Screening The PREA standards require that, within a High-quality screening and classification practices time period not to exceed 30 days from an are essential first steps toward keeping those who individual’s arrival at a facility, the facility identify as LGBTI safe without relying on the use will reassess risk of victimization or of segregation. Strategies for protecting LGBTI abusiveness based upon any additional, Page 16 relevant information received by the facility since the intake screening. placement serious consideration. The PREA 35 standards mandate this for transgender and intersex inmates (115.42). Through facility practices and policies, staff can KEY IDEAS implement this standard and review the Conduct targeted screening as degree to which they act on each inmate’s soon as possible stated preference.36 Consider transgender and intersex inmates’ own views of different facility if this would allow the their safety inmate to be safe without being housed in Provide increased monitoring and a segregated unit. This includes housing an security as needed Considering transferring an individual to a inmate in a facility with inmates of a Re-screen when necessary different gender from the one assigned at the inmate’s birth. For instance, a Housing and Programming Placement transgender woman might be considered It is important to remember that many LGBTI and most safe in a women’s facility. gender nonconforming people function well in the general prison population. Decisions about placement in protective housing should be made based on results of screening and evaluations of promising alternatives by trained multidisciplinary teams, in combination with conversations and follow-up with individuals who screen high risk for sexual victimization. Promising practices include: Placing an LGBTI inmate in a single cell if possible.37 Of course, placement in special housing does not guarantee safety, and conditions may change over time. Even when all these steps have been taken, housing and programming placements for individuals identified as vulnerable to sexual abuse or abusiveness need to be routinely reviewed. The PREA Using a case-by-case approach when standards require that transgender and deciding program and housing placement intersex inmates’ placements are re-evaluated for LGBTI individuals (115.42). at least twice a year (115.42). Transgender and intersex individuals, in particular, have varying needs based on gender identity, including whether they have transitioned from one gender to another with medical and/or surgical assistance. Giving the perceptions of individuals about their safety, housing, and facility Page 17 transgender and intersex individuals be Use of Transgender Review Committees Agencies across the United States— including the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, Denver Sheriff Department, and Miami-Dade Corrections and Rehabilitation Department—have established transgender review committees.a These teams typically consist of administrators; the PREA coordinator; classification, medical, and mental health staff; and often outside advocates or community members. Review committees are charged with making classification, screening, programming, and housing decisions that take into account the unique needs of transgender and intersex individuals. These committees ask transgender and intersex individuals which gender they would prefer to be housed with and what gender staff they would prefer conduct pat-downs and strip-searches. To be effective, committee members should be trained and well-versed in PREA and LGBTI policies. provided with an opportunity to shower separately (115.42). Using corrections officers to accompany especially at-risk inmates when moving through general population and less secured areas of the facility. Providing direct supervision to those at risk for sexual victimization and abusiveness when they congregate, such as in education classes or self-help groups. Keeping in mind that bullying, teasing, or demeaning someone because of his or her actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression is considered sexual harassment and is prohibited by the PREA standards (115.6). Commitment and Training Committing to the safety and equitable treatment of LBGTI individuals and instituting practices that a Jody Marksamer and Harper Jean Tobin, Standing with LGBT Prisoners: An Advocate’s Guide to Ending Abuse and Combating Imprisonment (Washington, DC: National Center for Transgender Equality, 2013). promote their safety and treatment, should be an agency-wide effort. Designing, implementing, and reinforcing staff training that helps improve staff understanding of definitions, terms, and risks for LGBTI individuals in confinement settings are key Monitoring and Safety Although many LGBTI inmates and others who screen at risk for sexual victimization can be safely housed in general population or other congregate housing units, some require additional steps to achieving successful outcomes and lasting culture change (115.31). The National Institute of Corrections and the National PREA Resource Center have developed several resources that agencies might find helpful.38 monitoring and security. Promising practices include: Conclusion Allowing individuals identified at risk for Innovations by an increasing number of sexual victimization to shower separately. jurisdictions now demonstrate that agencies can The PREA standards mandate that safely reduce their use of segregation—while meeting the PREA standards, improving Page 18 conditions of confinement, and resulting in sometimes dramatic cost reductions—by removing vulnerable, nonviolent individuals from segregation and considering alternative strategies as an initial response for those screened at risk of sexual victimization or abusiveness. 39 For this shift to be effective, however, safety for and equality of inmates of all ages, gender identities, and sexual orientations must move beyond policy and become a part of the institutional culture. Key components in culture change include: Recognizing that protecting sexually vulnerable inmates has a positive impact on overall facility safety and can be accomplished through the use of alternatives to segregation; Creating a zero-tolerance culture that takes all forms of sexual abuse and sexual harassment seriously; Providing ongoing staff training on policies and practices, and strategies to communicate effectively and respectfully with a diverse group of inmates; and Educating volunteers, contractors, and other individuals who might interact with inmates about agency policies and their responsibilities to uphold them. Page 19 For more information on implementing the PREA Standards for vulnerable populations and promising practices for screening, placement, and follow up, see Screening for Risk of Sexual Victimization and Abusiveness: Guidelines for Administering Screening Instruments and Using the Information to Inform Housing Decisions. a a Allison Hastings, Peggy McGarry, and Margaret diZerega. Screening for Risk of Sexual Victimization and for Abusiveness: Guidelines for Administering Screening Instruments and Using the Information to Inform Housing Decisions (New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2013). Endnotes 6 1 For the full text of PREA standards, see http://www.prearesourcecenter.org/trainingtechnical-assistance/prea-101/prisons-and-jailstandards 2 A variety of terms are used to describe restricted housing: segregation, solitary confinement, isolation, intensive management, closed custody, restricted housing, and others. Since the standards discuss “segregated housing,” this guide will use segregation and segregated housing. Regarding the use of segregation, since the early 1980’s, most prison systems in the United States have built specially designed facilities, either stand-alone or connected to larger prisons, that keep selected inmates in lockdown status. See David Lovell, L. Clark Johnson, and Kevin C. Cain, “Recidivism of Supermax Prisoners in Washington State,” Crime & Delinquency 53, no. 4 (2007) 633-656, at 633. 3 See Leena Kurki and Norval Morris, “The Purposes, Practices, and Problems of Supermax Prisons,” Crime and Justice 28 (2001): 385-424; Jean Casella and James Ridgeway, “New York’s Black Sites,” The Nation (July 30-August 6, 2012); Angela Browne, Alissa Cambier, and Suzanne Agha, “Prisons Within Prisons: The Use of Segregation in the United States,” Federal Sentencing Reporter 24, no. 1 (2011): 46-49. For a recent example, in South Carolina 16 inmates were sentenced to more than a decade in disciplinary segregation for “social networking” – using Facebook – one inmate was sentenced to more than 37 years in disciplinary segregation. Dave Maas, “Hundreds of South Carolina Inmates Sent to Solitary Confinement Over Facebook,” Electronic Frontier Foundation, February 12, 2015. 4 David Lovell, “Patterns of Disturbed Behavior in a Supermax Population,” Criminal Justice and Behavior 35, no. 8 (2008): 985-1004. 5 Craig Haney, “Mental Health Issues in LongTerm Solitary and ‘Supermax’ Confinement,” Crime & Delinquency 49, no. 1 (2003): 124-156, at 135. Page 20 See Caroline Isaacs and Matthew Lowen, Buried Alive: Solitary Confinement in Arizona’s Prisons and Jails (Arizona: American Friends Service Committee: 2007), 10-11; Craig Haney, “Mental Health Issues in Long-Term Solitary and ‘Supermax’ Confinement,” Crime & Delinquency 49, no 1 (2003): 124-156, at 126; Eric Lanes, “The Association of Administrative Segregation Placement and Other Risk Factors with the SelfInjury-Free Time of Male Prisoners,” Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 48 (2009): 529 – 546, at 532; Fred Cohen, “Isolation in Penal Settings: The Isolation-Restraint Paradigm,” Washington University Journal of Law & Policy, 22 (2006): 295-324, at 297-299. 7 David Lovell, 2008. 8 Homer Venters et al., “Solitary Confinement and Risk of Self-Harm Among Jail Inmates,” American Journal of Public Health 104, no. 3 (2014) 442447; Eric Charles Lanes, “Are the ‘Worst of the Worst’ Self-Injurious Prisoners More Likely to End Up in Long-Term Maximum-Security Administrative Segregation” International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 55, no 7 (2011): 1034-1050; Kevin Johnson, “Inmate Suicides Linked to Solitary,” USA Today, December 27, 2006; American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, Texas Civil Rights ProjectHouston, A Solitary Failure: The Waste, Cost and Harm of Solitary Confinement in Texas (Houston: ACLU, 2015), 10. For an examination of suicides from 1993-2003, see Bruce Way, et al, “Inmate Suicide and Time Spent in Special Disciplinary Housing in New York State Prison,” Psychiatric Services 58, no 4 (2007). 9 Kristine Levan Miller, “The Darkest Figure of Crime: Perceptions of Reasons for Male Inmates to Not Report Sexual Assault,” Justice Quarterly 27, no. 5 (2010), 692-712. 10 Jeff Mitchell and Christopher Varley, “Isolation and Restraint in Juvenile Correctional Facilities,” Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 29, no. 2 (1990): 251-255. For additional information on young people in segregated housing see American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights Watch, Growing Up Locked Down: Youth in Solitary Confinement in Jails and Prisons Across the United States (New York: ACLU & HRW, 2012) Endnotes https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/us1012webwco ver.pdf. 11 Caelan Kuban, Oppositional Defiant Disorder and Trauma (The National Institute for Trauma and Loss in Children, 2011). Michael D. Cohen, Larry Burd, and Marty Beyer, “Health Services for Youth in Juvenile Justice Programs,” Clinical Practice in Correctional Medicine (Second Edition), edited by Michael Puisis (Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier, Inc., 2006). 12 Daniel P. Mears, “Supermax Prisons: The Policy and the Evidence,” Criminology & Public Policy 12, no. 4 (2013): 681-719; and Daniel P. Mears and Jamie Watson, “Towards a Fair and Balanced Assessment of Supermax Prisons,” Justice Quarterly 23, no. 2 (2006): 232-270. 13 Angela Browne, Alissa Cambier, and Suzanne Agha, 2011. 14 To view the tools used in Wyoming and learn more about the WYDOC’s screening and housing procedures, see National PREA Resource Center, “Implementing the Screening Standards,” http://www.prearesourcecenter.org/training-andtechnicalassistance/webinars/1740/implementing-thescreening-standards-emerging-lesson. 15 Ericka Sage, interview by author, November 28, 2014; for more information on Oregon’s PREA efforts, see National PREA Resource Center, “PREA Readiness: The Oregon Department of Corrections,” http://www.prearesourcecenter.org/trainingtechnical-assistance/prea-in-action/preareadiness/odoc-profile-page. 16 Washington State Department of Corrections (WADOC), Skill Building Unit – Cedar Hall, WCC for Offenders with Cognitive Disabilities (Olympia, WA: WADOC). 17 Bernie Warner and Dan Pacholke, interview by author, Washington, DC, August 6, 2014. 18 WADOC, Skill Building Unit – Cedar Hall, WCC for Offenders with Cognitive Disabilities. 19 Barbara Owen et al., Gendered Violence and Safety: Improving Security in Women’s Facilities Page 21 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 2008); and Angela Browne, Brenda Miller, and Eugene Maguin, “Prevalence and Severity of Lifetime Physical and Sexual Victimization Among Incarcerated Women,” International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 22, no. 3-4 (1999) 301-322. 20 Angela Browne, Brenda Miller, and Eugene Maguin, 1999. 21 American Civil Liberties Union, Worse than Second Class: Solitary Confinement of Women in the United States (New York: ACLU, 2014). 22 In a survey from the mid-2000s, an estimated 73 percent of women compared to 55 percent of men in state prisons were diagnosed with mental health problems. In federal prisons, the rate was 61 percent of women compared to 44 percent of men. See Doris J. James and Lauren E. Glaze, Mental Health Problems of Prison and Jail Inmates (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2006); E. Ann Carson and William J. Sabol, Prisoners in 2011 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2012); and Dora M. Dumont et al., “Public Health and The Epidemic of Incarceration,” Annual Review of Public Health 33 (2012), 325-339. 23 Doris J. James and Lauren E. Glaze, Mental Health Problems of Prison and Jail Inmates (U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, 2006). 24 To view the tools used in Wyoming and learn more about the WYDOC’s screening and housing procedures, see National PREA Resource Center, “Implementing the Screening Standards,” http://www.prearesourcecenter.org/training-andtechnicalassistance/webinars/1740/implementing-thescreening-standards-emerging-lesson. 25 For more detail on Oregon’s policies including links to the county resolution and transfer agreement, see National PREA Resource Center, “Youthful Inmate Implementation,” http://www.prearesourcecenter.org/trainingtechnical-assistance/prea-in-action/youthfulinmate-implementation. Endnotes 26 For more detail, see the table titled “Fights and Assaults since the 2008 Multnomah County Resolution,” http://www.prearesourcecenter.org/trainingtechnical-assistance/prea-in-action/youthfulinmate-implementation. Creating a Culture of Safety,” http://nicic.gov/library/027998; and National PREA Resource Center, “Committing to Safety and Respect for LGBTI Youth and Adults in Correctional Settings: Lessons from the Field,” http://www.prearesourcecenter.org/training-andtechnical-assistance/archived-webinars. 27 Department of Justice (DOJ), National Standards to Prevent, Detect, and Respond to Prison Rape; Final Rule (Washington, DC: DOJ, 2012). 28 Allen J. Beck and Candace Johnson, Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2012). 29 Allen J. Beck and Candace Johnson, 2012. 30 Valerie Jenness et al., Violence in California Correctional Faculties: An Empirical Examination of Sexual Assault (Irvine, CA: University of California Irvine, Center for Evidence-Based Corrections, 2007). 31 National Council on Crime and Delinquency, PREA Auditor Training, September 2014. 32 For a review of the law, PREA standards, and a guide to policies and procedures that take into account the needs of LGBTI individuals for all types of custodial settings, see Morris Thigpen et al., Policy Review and Development Guide: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Intersex Persons in Custodial Settings (Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections, 2013). 33 National Institute of Corrections (NIC), “LGBTI Populations: Their Safety, Your Responsibility,” http://nicic.gov/library/026763; National Institute of Corrections (NIC), “LGBTI Populations: Intake– Creating a Culture of Safety,” http://nicic.gov/library/027998; and National PREA Resource Center, “Committing to Safety and Respect for LGBTI Youth and Adults in Correctional Settings: Lessons from the Field,” http://www.prearesourcecenter.org/training-andtechnical-assistance/archived-webinars. 34 National Institute of Corrections (NIC), “LGBTI Populations: Their Safety, Your Responsibility,” http://nicic.gov/library/026763; National Institute of Corrections (NIC), “LGBTI Populations: Intake– Page 22 38 The PREA standard 115.41 provides the following guidance on re-screening: Within a set time period, not to exceed 30 days from the inmate’s arrival at the facility, the facility will reassess the inmate’s risk of victimization or abusiveness based upon any additional, relevant information received by the facility since the intake screening (f). An inmate’s risk level shall be reassessed when warranted due to a referral, request, incident of sexual abuse, or receipt of additional information that bears on the inmate’s risk of sexual victimization or abusiveness (g). 36 For more information on specific resources, see National PREA Resource Center, “Committing to Safety and Respect for LGBTI Youth and Adults in Confinement: Lessons from Two Agencies,” http://www.prearesourcecenter.org/training-andtechnical-assistance/archived-webinars. 37 Jody Marksamer and Harper Jean Tobin, Standing with LGBT Prisoners: An Advocate’s Guide to Ending Abuse and Combating Imprisonment (Washington, DC: National Center for Transgender Equality, 2013). 38 “LGBTI Populations: Their Safety, Your Responsibility”; “LGBTI Populations: Intake– Creating a Culture of Safety”; Communicating Effectively and Professionally with LGBTI Offenders (online course), http://nic.learn.com/learncenter.asp?id=178409; and “Committing to Safety and Respect for LGBTI Youth and Adults in Correctional Settings: Lessons from the Field,” http://www.prearesourcecenter.org/training-andtechnical-assistance/archived-webinars. 39 For more information on cost reductions associated with reducing the use of segregation, see Current Thinking Blog, “Mississippi DOC's Emmitt Sparkman on Reducing the Use of Segregation in Prisons,” October 31, 2011, http://www.vera.org/blog/mississippi-docs- Endnotes emmitt-sparkman-reducing-use-segregationprisons. Page 23