Managing Violence: In-Prison Behavior Associated with Placement in an Alternative Disciplinary Segregation Program

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.

Did Changes to Disciplinary Segregation Policy Affect Rates of Institutional Misconduct?

“…Rather, significant increases in the rates of violent misconduct as well as total misconduct were also observed after this second policy change in July 2019. This is in line with work showing that the use of segregation may not have substantive or consistent effects on institutional misconduct (e.g., Briggs et al, 2003;Huebner, 2003;Labrecque & Smith, 2019;Lucas & Jones, 2019;Meyers et al, 2023;Morris, 2016;Motz et al, 2021). Therefore, the results presented here do not show much support for the presumptions of incapacitation or deterrence as they relate to punishment for prison rule violations, as neither the severity of punishment nor the length of time individuals were removed from the general prison population seemed to directly affect misbehavior among incarcerated people in the expected ways.…”

“…Rather, significant increases in the rates of violent misconduct as well as total misconduct were also observed after this second policy change in July 2019. This is in line with work showing that the use of segregation may not have substantive or consistent effects on institutional misconduct (e.g., Briggs et al, 2003; Huebner, 2003; Labrecque & Smith, 2019; Lucas & Jones, 2019; Meyers et al, 2023; Morris, 2016; Motz et al, 2021).…”

“…No significant differences were found. A similar study conducted in Arizona also found no difference in subsequent major violations or assaults against incarcerated people or staff when comparing rule violators placed in disciplinary segregation to those who received a different punishment (Meyers et al, 2023). Motz et al (2021) found that time spent in disciplinary segregation was not related to the likelihood of committing subsequent misconduct among individuals incarcerated in a Midwestern state, regardless of gang affiliation.…”

“…Despite its popular use as a tool to control incarcerated people’s behavior, there is not much evidence for the effectiveness of disciplinary segregation at reducing misbehavior. Rather, several studies have concluded that segregation is unrelated to institutional misconduct or related to higher levels of misconduct (Briggs et al, 2003; Huebner, 2003; Labrecque & Smith, 2019; Lucas & Jones, 2019; Meyers et al, 2023; Morris, 2016; Motz et al, 2021; Steiner & Cain, 2016; Toman, 2022; Wooldredge & Steiner, 2015; but see Steiner, 2009; Sundt et al, 2008). This study seeks to add to our understanding of the relationship between disciplinary segregation and misconduct by empirically testing whether and how misconduct varied after changes were made to Minnesota Department of Corrections’ (MnDOC) policies regarding the use of disciplinary segregation.…”

A longitudinal examination of stepping up, stepping out with incarcerated men in restrictive housing: An expansion of the 2021 pilot.

“…SUSO addresses mental health and criminogenic needs using a flexible format such that it could be used in conjunction with step-down programs or as a largely self-directed program (meaning individuals receive and complete handouts on their own supplemented by verbal or written feedback from a provider when available). The availability of at least some specialized treatment material is likely to prove more beneficial than relying on isolation itself as the intervention, which has no significant effect on curbing misconduct (Labrecque & Smith, 2019; Meyers et al, 2023). The SUSO protocol, which includes 45 interactive handouts across the following nine modules, is detailed in Batastini et al (2021): Understanding change and making it happen: an introductionSurviving segregation: what to expect and how to copeSuicide and self-injurious behavior: protecting you from youUnderstanding my emotions: identifying and dealing with anger, fear, and other frustrating feelingsExploring my mental distress and criminalness: where it comes from, what it looks like, and how to recognize itManaging my mental distress and criminalness: improving functioning and preventing relapseSeeking supportive allies: finding helpful others among the crowdIntegrating “us” and “them”: improving inmate-staff relationsRoad map to recovery: creating your relapse prevention plan…”