Abstract
The use of segregation continues to be at the forefront of debates on the most effective way to address violence in prisons. Concern over the negative impact of these placements has prompted correctional administrators to employ alternative strategies to reduce their segregated populations and address serious misconduct. Few studies, however, have explored the impact that these strategies have on future behavioral outcomes. To address this gap, the current study explores the effectiveness of a disciplinary segregation program reserved for those who engage in violent misconduct during their incarceration. This study employs a quasi-experimental research design to estimate the treatment effects of placement in a disciplinary segregation program on subsequent levels of institutional misconduct during a one-year follow-up. Results from this study reveal that placement in the disciplinary segregation program had no effect on subsequent levels of serious in-prison misconduct amongst participants when compared to their matched counterparts. Our findings suggest that scholars and practitioners should work to build a response to in-prison violence that starts with what is known about the causes of violence and what effectively modifies attitudes and behaviors. Future research should include rigorous measures of both program process and implementation to better identify effective forms of intervention.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
In the U.S., there are three broad types of segregation: administrative segregation, DS, and protective custody (Frost & Monteiro, 2016). Individuals may be placed in these units for their protection or the protection of others, while awaiting transfer or movement to another facility or unit, while awaiting trial, or as punishment for violating facility rules and regulations. The three types of segregated housing vary significantly in their goals and operating procedures. Administrative segregation, for example, may be used to separate those who are deemed a threat to institutional safety and security based on patterns of disruptive or violent behavior for an indefinite period of time (Shames et al., 2015). Protective custody, on the other hand, refers to placement in a segregated unit because the individuals are classified as being at risk for victimization if housed in the general prison population (Gendreau et al., 1985). DS, which is the focus of the current study, is unlike administrative or protective segregation in that it does not typically include indefinite placement.
The original report by O’Keefe et al. (2010) was criticized on a number of grounds by Grassian and Kupers (2011) (see also, Grassian, 2010). Grassian and Kupers (2011) argued that there was bias in the inclusion criteria used for participant selection and that self-reported measures led to questionable validity. In addition, they argued that O’Keefe et al. (2010) overlooked indicators of psychiatric disturbance in the reporting of results.
These terms represent the language and policy used by ADCRR and may not represent person-first language.
The group counseling programs are products of The Change Companies and are described as cognitive and
evidence-based programs that emphasize a writing process that motivates and guides participants toward change. These programs, while described as evidence-based, have not been subject to rigorous empirical evaluation of their effectiveness.
A total of 30 individuals were removed from the comparison group as they had official mental health scores above “3” since placement in the program required an official mental health score of “3 or below” (see intake model in Fig. 1).
This figure includes both physical assaults resulting in injury as well as non-physical assaults such as the throwing of bodily fluids.
Major violations, as defined by ADCRR include Class A violations such as arson, escape, promoting prison contraband, possession of a weapon, participating in a riot, threatening or intimidating, or possession of communication device. Inmate assaults include a physical assault on another inmate a) resulting in serious physical injury to another inmate, or b) discharge, use of or threatening exhibition of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument, or c) resulting in temporary but substantial disfigurement, loss or impairment of any body organ or fracture of any body part. Assault on staff includes assaults that involved serious injury and did not include assaults that involved throwing liquids, blood, waste, chemicals, and/or urine, unless the throwing assault resulted in serious injury. “Serious Injury” requires urgent and immediate medical treatment and restricts the staff’s usual activity, medical treatment should be more extensive than mere first-aid, such as the application of bandages to wounds; it might include stitches, setting of broken bones, treatment of concussion, or loss of consciousness.
Outcomes for both groups were measured over a one-year period, however, those in the treatment group spent, on average, 149 days in the program prior to the start of their evaluation period. The evaluation period for the comparison group began after being found guilty of inmate assault, group assault, or staff assault. This was done for several reasons. First, those in the treatment group were heavily monitored during their placement. A main component of the program was strict compliance with the rules and regulations of not only the institution, but the additional behavioral requirements of the RSHP. As a result, those in the treatment group likely accrued more misconduct than would reasonably be expected if they were in the general prison population. Second, we were unable to collect detailed data on the comparison group in terms of what happened after their commission of a qualifying offense, other than that they were not placed in the program. We also do not have detailed information on the date of their subsequent misconduct (if any), and thus are unable to perform survival analyses for either group.
Few individuals had more than one violation in terms of a history of lifetime inmate or staff assaults and therefore we collapsed this item as a binary indicator. However, analyses using a frequency of the total number of lifetime inmate or staff assaults yielded substantively similar findings.
In the absence of a risk score available to us for matching, we balance on several static risk indicators that are typically used in the creation of these scores (e.g., demographics, prior criminal justice involvement, prior history of prison violence). The ADCRR does not currently collect accessible information on dynamic risk indicators.
All analyses were also conducted using a doubly robust estimation procedure which further adjusts for all covariates used to generate the propensity score and uses the propensity score as an analytic weight in logistic regression models for the binary violations outcome and negative binomial regression for the frequency of violations outcome (Schafer & Kang, 2008). The results of these models remain substantively similar to those presented in the main analysis.
Models using alternative caliper specifications ranging from .01 to .05 yielded similar findings.
Covariate balance was generally achieved with alternative matching procedures. However, in the case of 2:1 and 3:1 matching procedure, the lifetime history of staff assault variable remained slightly out of balance. Accordingly, these models were re-estimated while controlling for the lifetime history of staff assault and other covariates in subsequent multivariate analyses (Muftić et al., 2016). The results of these models remained substantively similar.
Two other types of violations were also available in the data: drug violations and minor violations. Supplemental analyses showed that there were not differences between the treatment and control group in terms of drug violations in the twelve-month follow up period. However, results did demonstrate that assignment to the treatment was associated with significantly more minor violations.
References
Andersen, H. S., Sestoft, D., Lillebæk, T., Gabrielsen, G., Hemmingsen, R., & Kramp, P. (2000). A longitudinal study of prisoners on remand: Psychiatric prevalence, incidence and psychopathology in solitary vs. non-solitary confinement. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 102(1), 19–25.
Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Hoge, R. D. (1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17(1), 19–52.
Arizona State Prison Complex-Florence (ASPC-F). (2014). Restrictive status housing program: Program manual. Arizona Department of Corrections.
Armstrong, G. S., & Griffin, M. L. (2004). Does the job matter? Comparing correlates of stress among treatment and correctional staff in prisons. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32(6), 577–592.
Beck, A. J. (2015). Use of restrictive housing in U.S. prisons and jails, 2011–12. Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Bottoms, A. (1999). Interpersonal violence and social order in prisons. In M. Tonry & J. Petersilia (Eds.), Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 26, pp 205–281). University of Chicago Press.
Browne, A., Cambier, A., & Agha, S. (2011). Prisons within prisons: The use of segregation in the United States. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 24(1), 46–49.
Butler, H. D., & Steiner, B. (2017). Examining the use of disciplinary segregation within and across prisons. Justice Quarterly, 34(2), 248–271.
Butler, H. D., Solomon, S., & Spohn, R. (2018). Programming in restrictive housing: Considerations for improving outcome evaluations. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 45(8), 1174–1191.
Butler, H. D., Steiner, B., Makarios, M. D., & Travis III, L. F. (2020). An examination of the influence of exposure to disciplinary segregation on recidivism. Crime & Delinquency, 66(4), 485–512.
Cid, J. (2009). Is imprisonment criminogenic? A comparative study of recidivism rates between prison and suspended prison sanctions. European Journal of Criminology, 6(6), 459–480.
Clark, V. A., & Duwe, G. (2018). From solitary to the streets: The effect of restrictive housing on recidivism. Corrections: Policy, Practice and Research, 4(4), 302–318.
Cullen, F. T., Jonson, C. L., & Nagin, D. S. (2011). Prisons do not reduce recidivism: The high cost of ignoring science. The Prison Journal, 91(3), 48S–65S.
Cunningham, M. D., & Sorensen, J. R. (2007). Predictive factors for violent misconduct in close custody. The Prison Journal, 87(2), 241–253.
Digard, L., Vanko, E., & Sullivan, S. (2018). Rethinking restrictive housing: Lessons from five U.S. jail and prison systems. Vera Institute of Justice.
Eichenthal, D. R., & Blatchford, L. (1997). Prison crime in New York State. The Prison Journal, 77(4), 456–466.
Frost, N. A., & Monteiro, C. E. (2016). Administrative segregation in U.S. prisons. In M. Garcia (Ed.), Restrictive housing in the U.S.: Issues, challenges, and future directions (pp. 1–48). U.S. Department of Justice.
Gaes, G. G., & Camp, S. D. (2009). Unintended consequences: Experimental evidence for the criminogenic effect of prison security level placement on post-release recidivism. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 5(2), 139–162.
Gendreau, P., & Keyes, D. (2001). Making prisons safer and more humane environments. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 43(1), 123–130.
Gendreau, P., & Listwan, S. J. (2018). Contingency management programs in corrections: Another panacea? Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 34(1), 35–46.
Gendreau, P., Freedman, N. L., Wilde, G. J., & Scott, G. D. (1972). Changes in EEG alpha frequency and evoked response latency during solitary confinement. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 79(1), 54–59.
Gendreau, P., Tellier, M. C., & Wormith, J. S. (1985). Protective custody: The emerging crisis within our prisons. Federal Probation, 49, 55–63.
Gendreau, P., Goggin, C. E., & Law, M. A. (1997). Predicting prison misconducts. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 24(4), 414–431.
Gendreau, P., Listwan, S. J., Kuhns, J. B., & Exum, M. L. (2014). Making prisoners accountable: Are contingency management programs the answer? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41(9), 1079–1102.
Grassian, S. (2010). “Fatal flaws” in the Colorado solitary confinement study. Solitary watch. Retrieved from: https://solitarywatch.org/2010/11/15/fatal-flaws-in-the-colorado-solitary-confinement-study/
Grassian, S., & Kupers, T. (2011). The Colorado study vs. the reality of supermax confinement. Correctional Mental Health Report, 13(1), 1–4.
Guo, S., & Fraser, M. W. (2015). Propensity score analysis: Statistical methods and applications. Sage.
Haney, C. (2003). Mental health issues in long-term solitary and “supermax” confinement. Crime & Delinquency, 49(1), 124–156.
Labrecque, R. M. (2015). The effect of solitary confinement on institutional misconduct: A longitudinal evaluation (Doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinnati). Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/249013.pdf
Labrecque, R. M., & Smith, P. (2019a). Assessing the impact of time spent in restrictive housing confinement on subsequent measures of institutional adjustment among men in prison. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 46(10), 1445–1455.
Labrecque, R. M., & Smith, P. (2019b). The impact of restrictive housing on inmate behavior: A systematic review of the evidence. In B. M. Huebner, & N. A. Frost (Eds.), Handbook on the consequences of sentencing and punishment decisions (pp. 290–310). Routledge.
Lambert, E. G., Minor, K. I, Gordon, J., Wells, J. B., & Hogan, N. L. (2018). Exploring the correlates of perceived job dangerousness among correctional staff at a maximum security prison. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 29(3), 215–239.
Latessa, E. J. (2018). Does treatment quality matter? Of course it does, and there is growing evidence to support it. Criminology & Public Policy, 17(1), 181–188.
Listwan, S. J., Sullivan, C. J., Agnew, R., Cullen, F. T., & Colvin, M. (2013). The pains of imprisonment revisited: The impact of strain on inmate recidivism. Justice Quarterly, 30(1), 144–168.
Lucas, J. W., & Jones, M. A. (2017). An analysis of the deterrent effects of disciplinary segregation on institutional rule violation rates. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 30(5), 765–787.
Mears, D. P., & Castro, J. L. (2006). Wardens' views on the wisdom of supermax prisons. Crime & Delinquency, 52(3), 398–431.
Mears, D. P., Hughes, V., Pesta, G. B., Bales, W. D., Brown, J. M., Cochran, J. C., & Wooldredge, J. (2019). The new solitary confinement? A conceptual framework for guiding and assessing research and policy on “restrictive housing”. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 46(10), 1427–1444.
Medrano, J. A., Ozkan, T., & Morris, R. (2017). Solitary confinement exposure and capital inmate misconduct. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 42(4), 863–882.
Meyers, T. J., Infante, A., & Wright, K. A. (2018). Addressing serious violent misconduct in prison: Examining an alternative form of restrictive housing. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(14), 4585–4608.
Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2012). Motivational interviewing: Helping people change. Guilford Press.
Miller, H. A., & Young, G. R. (1997). Prison segregation: Administrative detention remedy or mental health problem? Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 7(1), 85–94.
Morgan, R. D., Gendreau, P., Smith, P., Gray, A. L., Labrecque, R. M., MacLean, N., Van Horn, S. A., Bolanos, A. D., Batastini, A. B., & Mills, J. F. (2016). Quantitative syntheses of the effects of administrative segregation on inmates’ well-being. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 22(4), 439–461.
Morris, R. G. (2016). Exploring the effect of exposure to short-term solitary confinement among violent prison inmates. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 32(1), 1–22.
Motz, R. T., Labrecque, R. M., & Smith, P. (2021). Gang affiliation, restrictive housing, and institutional misconduct: Does disciplinary segregation suppress or intensify gang member rule violations? Journal of Crime and Justice, 44(1), 49–65.
Muftić, L. R., Bouffard, L. A., & Armstrong, G. S. (2016). Impact of maternal incarceration on the criminal justice involvement of adult offspring: A research note. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 53(1), 93–111.
O’Keefe, M. L., Klebe, K. J., Stucker, A., Sturm, K., & Leggett, W. (2010). One year longitudinal study of the psychological effects of administrative segregation. Colorado Department of Corrections.
Obama, B. (2016). Barack Obama: Why we must rethink solitary confinement. The Washington Post.
O'Keefe, M. L., Klebe, K. J., Metzner, J., Dvoskin, J., Fellner, J., & Stucker, A. (2013). A longitudinal study of administrative segregation. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 41(1), 49–60.
Prendergast, M. L., Farabee, D., Cartier, J., & Henkin, S. (2002). Involuntary treatment within a prison setting: Impact on psychosocial change during treatment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29(1), 5–26.
Rosenbaum, P. R. (2002). Observational studies (2nd ed.). Springer.
Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1985). Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. The American Statistician, 39(1), 33–38.
Rothman, D. J. (1980). Conscience and convenience: The asylum and its alternatives in progressive America. Little Brown.
Rubin, A. T., & Reiter, K. (2018). Continuity in the face of penal innovation: Revisiting the history of American solitary confinement. Law & Social Inquiry, 43(4), 1604–1632.
Ryan, C. L. (2014). Corrections at a glance, December 2014. Retrieved from https://corrections.az.gov/reports-documents/reports/corrections-glance.
Ryan, C. L. (2017). Corrections at a glance, January 2017. Retrieved from https://corrections.az.gov/reports-documents/reports/corrections-glance.
Salerno, L. M., & Zgoba, K. M. (2020). Disciplinary segregation and its effects on in-prison outcomes. The Prison Journal, 100(1), 74–97.
Schafer, J. L., & Kang, J. (2008). Average causal effects from nonrandomized studies: A practical guide and simulated example. Psychological Methods, 13(4), 279–313.
Severson, R. E. (2019). Gender differences in mental health, institutional misconduct, and disciplinary segregation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 46(12), 1719–1737.
Shames, A., Wilcox, J., & Subramanian, R. (2015). Solitary confinement: Common misconceptions and emerging safe alternatives. VERA Institute of Justice.
Sherman, L. W. (1993). Defiance, deterrence, and irrelevance: A theory of the criminal sanction. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30(4), 445–473.
Smith, P. (2016). Toward an understanding of “what works” in segregation. In M. Garcia (Ed.), Restrictive housing in the U.S.: Issues, challenges, and future directions (pp. 331–366). National Institute of Justice.
Smith, P., Gendreau, P., & Swartz, K. (2009). Validating the principles of effective intervention: A systematic review of the contributions of meta-analysis in the field of corrections. Victims and Offenders, 4(2), 148–169.
Steiner, B., Butler, H. D., & Ellison, J. M. (2014). Causes and correlates of prison inmate misconduct: A systematic review of the evidence. Journal of Criminal Justice, 42(6), 462–470.
Suedfeld, P., & Roy, C. (1975). Using social isolation to change the behavior of disruptive inmates. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 19(1), 90–99.
Suedfeld, P., Ramirez, C., Deaton, J., & Baker-Brown, G. (1982). Reactions and attributes of prisoners in solitary confinement. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 9(3), 303–340.
U.S. Department of Justice. (2016). Report and recommendations concerning the use of restrictive housing. Department of Justice. Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov/archives/dag/file/815551/download
Vieraitis, L. M., Kovandzic, T. V., & Marvell, T. B. (2007). The criminogenic effects of imprisonment: Evidence from state panel data, 1974-2002. Criminology & Public Policy, 6(3), 589–622.
Wildeman, C., & Andersen, L. H. (2020). Long-term consequences of being placed in disciplinary segregation. Criminology, 58(3), 423–453.
Woo, Y., Drapela, L., Campagna, M., Stohr, M. K., Hamilton, Z. K., Mei, X., & Tollefsbol, E. T. (2020). Disciplinary segregation’s effects on inmate behavior: Institutional and community outcomes. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 31(7), 1036–1058.
Zinger, I., Wichmann, C., & Andrews, D. A. (2001). The psychological effect of 60 days in administrative segregation. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 43(1), 47–83.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
ESM 1
(DOCX 249 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Meyers, T.J., Testa, A. & Wright, K.A. Managing Violence: In-Prison Behavior Associated with Placement in an Alternative Disciplinary Segregation Program. Am J Crim Just 48, 250–272 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-021-09634-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-021-09634-9