There is a widely held belief that the use of administrative segregation (AS) produces debilitating psychological effects; however, there are also those who assert that AS is an effective strategy for reducing prison antisocial behavior and prison violence. Given these conflicting opinions it is not surprising that the use of segregation in corrections has become a hotly debated and litigated issue. To clarify the competing perspectives, two independent meta-analytic reviews, in an unplanned systematic replication, were undertaken to determine what effect AS has on inmate's physical and mental health functioning, as well as behavioral outcomes (e.g., recidivism). Collectively, the findings from these two meta-analytic reviews indicated that the adverse effects resulting from AS on overlapping outcomes ranged from d ϭ 0.06 -0.55 (i.e., small to moderate) for the time periods observed by the included studies. Moderator analyses from both investigations further reveal considerably smaller effect sizes among studies with stronger research designs compared to those with weaker designs. These results do not support the popular contention that AS is responsible for producing lasting emotional damage, nor do they indicate that AS is an effective suppressor of unwanted antisocial or criminal behavior. Rather, these findings tentatively suggest that AS may not produce any more of an iatrogenic effect than routine incarceration. Coding for these meta-analyses also revealed serious methodological gaps in the current literature. Recommendations for future research that will provide a much better understanding of the effects of AS are offered.

No abstract

No abstract

Proponents of restrictive housing argue that its use is an effective deterrent of antisocial behavior, while its critics maintain that the setting causes serious psychological damage and increases noncompliance with institutional rules and expectations. Unfortunately, few studies exist that examine the influence of restrictive housing on behavioral outcomes. This investigation adds to this gap in knowledge by assessing the impact of time spent in restrictive housing confinement on subsequent measures of institutional adjustment among men in prison. Logistic regression analyses reveal no statistically significant relationships between the number of days spent in restrictive housing and subsequent measures of institutional misconduct, and uncover a small, but significant, negative relationship with subsequent placement in restrictive housing. The research and policy implications of these results are discussed.

This essay considers debate over the extent to which some inmates should be isolated from others within prison, the impact of isolation on psychological well-being during confinement, and the implications for supermax prisons with 23-hour lockdown. The need for administrative segregation and solitary confinement is assessed in the context of improving the safety of individual inmates as well as preventing collective violence. These ideas are contrasted with the downside of isolation, including the possibility of compounding problems with existing mental illnesses, the development of “new” psychological problems during confinement, increased demands for psychological and psychiatric resources, and the problems posed for successful re-entry. However, contrary to some scholarly discourses, evidence to date suggests that administrative segregation does not produce dramatic negative psychological effects unless extreme conditions apply.

Despite the widespread use of restrictive housing in correctional institutions, little is known about the factors associated with placement in this setting. This study advances two theoretical arguments about the use of this practice. The prison system view argues this housing is essential for institutional order and that, accordingly, only inmates who pose an objective risk to safety get placed in such housing. By contrast, the critics’ view argues this housing causes adverse effects and disproportionately targets certain inmates based on their ascriptive characteristics, such as their mental health status or race. The results indicate support for both perspectives.

No abstract

Most correctional scholars and policy makers agree that prison authorities should use restrictive housing less, yet few studies exist to provide guidance on how to do so while also ensuring institutional order. This study advances the idea that proactively providing rehabilitative programming to inmates at the front end of prison sentences will help reduce institutional disorder. In so doing, we create and validate a risk assessment instrument to predict inmate likelihood for placement in restrictive housing during one’s commitment. The findings of this study support the predictive validity of the tool. We argue that authorities can use this assessment to make more informed and targeted programming decisions during the intake process that will help reduce institutional misconduct and the need for restrictive housing.