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.
AgnewR. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology, 30, 47-87.
2.
AkersR. (1973). Deviant behavior: A social learning approach. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
3.
AustinJ.RepkoS.HarrisR.McGinnisK.PlantS. (1998). Evaluation of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice administrative segregation population. Washington, DC: National Council on Crime and Delinquency.
4.
BidnaH. (1975). Effects of increased security on prison violence. Journal of Criminal Justice, 3, 33-46.
5.
BontaJ.AndrewsD. A. (2017). The psychology of criminal conduct (6th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
6.
BraithwaiteJ. (1989). Crime, shame and reintegration. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
7.
BriggsC. S.SundtJ. L.CastellanoT. C. (2003). The effect of supermaximum security prisons on aggregate levels of institutional violence. Criminology, 41, 1341-1376.
8.
BrowneA.CambierA.AghaS. (2011). Prisons within prisons: The use of segregation in the United States. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 24, 46-49.
9.
ButlerH. D.GriffinO. H.IIIJohnsonW. W. (2013). What makes you the “worst of the worst”? An examination of state policies defining supermaximum confinement. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 24, 676-694.
10.
ButlerH. D.SolomonS.SpohnR. (2018). Programming in restrictive housing: Considerations for improving outcome evaluations. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 45, 1174-1191.
11.
ChadickC. D.BatastiniA. B.LevulisS. J.MorganR. D. (2018). The psychological impact of solitary: A longitudinal comparison of general population and long-term administratively segregated male inmates. Legal and Criminal Psychology, 23, 101-116.
12.
ClemmerD. (1940). The prison community. New York, NY: Rinehart.
13.
CochranJ. C.TomanE. L.MearsD. P.BalesW. D. (2018). Solitary confinement as punishment: Examining in-prison sanctioning disparities. Justice Quarterly, 35, 381-411.
14.
CrouchB. M.MarquartJ. W. (1989). An appeal to justice: Litigated reform of Texas prisons. Austin: University of Texas Press.
15.
FischerD. R. (2002). Arizona Department of Corrections: Security Threat Group (STG) program evaluation, final report. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
16.
FrostN. A.MonteiroC. E. (2016). Administrative segregation in prison. In GarciaM. (Ed.), Restrictive housing in the U.S.: Issues, challenges, and future directions (pp. 1-47). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
17.
GarciaM. (Ed.). (2016). Restrictive housing in the U.S.: Issues, challenges, and future directions. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
18.
GendreauP. (1996). The principles of effective intervention with offenders. In HarlandA. T. (Ed.), Choosing correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply (pp. 117-130). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
19.
GendreauP.GogginC. (2018). Solitary confinement and punishment: Effects on misconducts and punishment. In PolascheckD. L.DayA.HollinC. R. (Eds.), The handbook of psychology and corrections. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
20.
GendreauP.LabrecqueR. M. (2018). The effects of administrative segregation: A lesson in knowledge cumulation. In WooldredgeJ.SmithP. (Eds.), Oxford handbook on prisons and imprisonment (pp. 340-366). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
21.
HaneyC. (2003). Mental health issues in long-term solitary and “supermax” confinement. Crime and Delinquency, 49,124-156.
22.
HirschiT. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press.
23.
HuebnerB. M. (2003). Administrative determinants of inmate violence: A multilevel analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31, 107-117.
24.
IrwinJ.CresseyD. (1962). Thieves, convicts and the inmate culture. Social Problems, 10, 142-155.
25.
KapoorR.TrestmanR. (2016). Mental health effects of restrictive housing. In GarciaM. (Ed.), Restrictive housing in the U.S.: Issues, challenges, and future directions (pp. 199-232). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
26.
KupersT. A. (2008). What to do with the survivors? Coping with the long-term effects of isolated confinement. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 1005-1016.
27.
LabrecqueR. M. (2015). The effect of solitary confinement on institutional misconduct: A longitudinal evaluation. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
28.
LabrecqueR. M. (2016). The use of administrative segregation and its function in the institutional setting. In GarciaM. (Ed.), Restrictive housing in the U.S.: Issues, challenges, and future directions (pp. 49-84). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
29.
LabrecqueR. M. (2018a). Special or segregated housing units. In DodsonK. D. (Ed.), Handbook of offenders with special needs (pp. 69-83). New York, NY: Routledge.
30.
LabrecqueR. M. (2018b). Taking stock: A meta-analysis of the predictors of restrictive housing. Victims and Offenders, 13, 675-692.
31.
LabrecqueR. M.MearsD. (2019). Prison system vs. critics’ views on the use of restrictive housing: Objective risk classification or ascriptive assignment?The Prison Journal. Advance online publication. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321598610
32.
LabrecqueR. M.SmithP. (2013). Advancing the study of solitary confinement. In FuhrmanJ.BaierS. (Eds.), Prisons and prison systems: Practices, types, and challenges (pp. 57-70). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
33.
LabrecqueR. M.SmithP. (2018). The impacts of restrictive housing: A systematic review of the evidence. In HuebnerB.FrostN. (Eds.), Handbook on corrections and sentencing (Vol. 3): The collateral consequences of punishment. New York, NY: Routledge.
34.
LabrecqueR. M.SmithP. (2019). Reducing institutional disorder: Using the Inmate Risk Assessment for Segregation Placement to triage treatment services at the front end of prison sentences. Crime and Delinquency, 65, 3-25. doi:10.1177/0011128717748946
35.
LovellD. (2008). Patterns of disturbed behavior in a supermax prison. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 985-1004.
36.
LucasJ. W.JonesM. A. (2017). An analysis of the deterrent effects of disciplinary segregation on institutional rule violation rates. Criminal Justice Policy Review. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0887403417699930
37.
MearsD. P. (2013). Supermax prisons: The policy and the evidence. Criminology and Public Policy, 12, 681-719.
38.
MearsD. P. (2016). Critical research gaps in understanding the effects of prolonged time in restrictive housing on inmates and the institutional environment. In GarciaM. (Ed.), Restrictive housing in the U.S.: Issues, challenges, and future directions (pp. 233-295). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
39.
MorganR. D.GendreauP.SmithP.GrayA. L.LabrecqueR. M.MacLeanN.…MillsJ. F. (2016). Quantitative synthesis of the effects of administrative segregation on inmates’ well-being. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 22, 439-461.
40.
MorrisR. G. (2016). Exploring the effect of exposure to short-term solitary confinement among violent prison inmates. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 32, 1-22.
41.
NaginD. S. (2013). Deterrence in the twenty-first century. Crime and Justice, 42, 199-263.
42.
O’KeefeM. L.KlebeK. J.MetznerJ.DvoskinJ.FellnerF.StuckerA. (2013). A longitudinal study of administrative segregation. The Journal of American Academy Psychiatry and the Law, 41, 49-60.
43.
PaternosterR. (2010). How much do we really know about criminal deterrence?Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 100, 758-823.
44.
RalphP. H.MarquartJ. W. (1991). Gang violence in Texas prisons. The Prison Journal, 71(2), 38-49.
45.
ShermanL. W. (1993). Defiance, deterrence, and irrelevance: A theory of the criminal sanction. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 445-473.
46.
SmithP. (2013). The psychology of criminal conduct. In CullenF. T.WilcoxP. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of criminological theory (pp. 69-88). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
47.
SmithP. (2016). Toward an understanding of “what works” in segregation. In GarciaM. (Ed.), Restrictive housing in the U.S.: Issues, challenges, and future directions (pp. 331-366). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
48.
SteinerB. (2009). Assessing static and dynamic influences on inmate violence levels. Crime and Delinquency, 55, 134-161.
49.
SteinerB.CainC. M. (2016). The relationship between inmate misconduct, institutional violence, and administrative segregation: A systematic review of the evidence. In GarciaM. (Ed.), Restrictive housing in the U.S.: Issues, challenges, and future directions (pp. 165-197). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
50.
SundtJ. L.CastellanoT. C.BriggsC. S. (2008). The sociopolitical context of prison violence and its control: A case study of supermax and its effect in Illinois. The Prison Journal, 88, 94-122.
51.
ThomasC.FosterS. (1973). The importation model perspective on inmate social roles: An empirical test. Sociological Quarterly, 14, 226-234.
52.
WooldredgeJ.SteinerB. (2015). A macro-level perspective on prison inmate deviance. Punishment and Society, 17, 230-257.
53.
ZambleE.PorporinoF. J. (1990). Coping, imprisonment, and rehabilitation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 53-70.
54.
ZimringF. E.HawkinsG. J. (1973). Deterrence: The legal threat in crime control. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
