Administrative Segregation: A Review of State and Federal Policies

Problem

The problem the study aimed to address: 

The study focused on the lack of comprehensive understanding regarding the use and effects of administrative segregation (a subset of restrictive housing in prisons). This practice remains controversial due to its potential implications for safety, order, and inmate mental health.

General impact on the system and/or public: 

Administrative segregation impacts institutional operations, inmate mental health, and public perception of justice system practices. Critics argue it is often misused and may result in psychological harm, raising ethical and policy concerns.

Research Questions:

1. What are the key elements in administrative segregation policies across state and federal systems?
2. Are there discrepancies in placement criteria, mental health provisions, and confinement conditions?
3. How do these policies reflect governmental accountability and transparency?
    

Method and Analysis

Program Evaluated/Gaps Addressed: 

The research evaluated 48 administrative segregation policies from state and federal jurisdictions, addressing gaps in knowledge about the regulatory framework, mental health provisions, and conditions of confinement in such settings.
 

Data and Sample Size: 

Policies from 48 jurisdictions were analyzed (92.2% of all state and federal prison systems), excluding Delaware, Louisiana, and Utah due to unavailability of their policies.
 

Analysis Used:

The researchers used descriptive content analysis, coding the policies based on placement criteria, review procedures, mental health provisions, and conditions of confinement. Themes were analyzed for consistency and variability across jurisdictions.
 

Outcome

Key Findings:

• Consistency and variation: All jurisdictions used administrative segregation for institutional safety and order. However, other criteria, such as mental health reviews and personal protection measures, varied widely.
• Mental health provisions: One-third of the policies lacked detailed mental health requirements, and over 40% did not mandate initial psychological screenings for segregated inmates.
• Conditions of confinement: While most policies met basic standards (e.g., hygiene and recreation), specifics about cell conditions and available services varied significantly.
• Review procedures: Review schedules ranged from weekly to every six months, with significant variation in responsible authorities.
   

Implications or Recommendations: 

• The findings emphasize the need for greater transparency and standardization in administrative segregation policies.
• Policymakers should include detailed guidelines on mental health services and conditions of confinement.
• Recommendations for future research include evaluating actual policy adherence, the impact of segregation on psychological outcomes, and the development of evidence-based policy standards.

This study underscores the importance of reforming administrative segregation practices to ensure they are humane, effective, and aligned with correctional objectives.