As part of the rise of “get tough” punishment in recent decades, prison systems increasingly have relied on solitary confinement and what many contemporary accounts have termed “restrictive housing.” The latter includes an emphasis on some form of isolation and restrictions on privileges. Use of solitary-like confinement has engendered considerable debate because of differing views about whether it is moral or effective and whether it harms inmates. Despite this debate and the ubiquity of solitary-like confinement, there is much that remains unknown about its uses or effects. A central reason stems from inconsistent operationalizations of such housing in research and policy. This situation creates problems in generalizing the results of studies to diverse settings and populations. The goals of this article are to highlight these points and to advance scholarship and policy debates by presenting a conceptual framework for guiding and assessing research on restrictive housing.
American Correctional Association. (2016). American correctional association restrictive housing performance-based standards. Washington, DC: Author.
2.
Association of State Correctional Administrators. (2013). Restrictive housing status policy guidelines. Hagerstown, MD: Author.
3.
BaumgartelS.GuilmetteC.KalbJ.LiD.NuniJ.PorterD.. . . CampG. (2015). Time-in-cell: The ASCA-Liman 2014 national survey of administrative segregation in prison. New Haven, CT: Yale Law School Liman Program.
4.
BeckA. J. (2015). Use of restrictive housing in U.S. prisons and jails, 2011-12. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
5.
BidnaH. (1975). Effects of increased security on prison violence. Journal of Criminal Violence, 3, 33-46.
6.
BriggsC. S.SundtJ. L.CastellanoT. C. (2003). The effect of supermaximum security prisons on aggregate levels of institutional violence. Criminology, 41, 1341-1376.
7.
ButlerH.SteinerB.MakariosM.TravisL. (2017). Assessing the effects of exposure to supermax confinement on offender post-release behaviors. Prison Journal, 97, 275-295.
8.
ButlerH. D.SteinerB. (2017). Examining the use of disciplinary segregation within and across prisons. Justice Quarterly, 34, 248-271.
9.
CochranJ. C.TomanE. L.MearsD. P.BalesW. D. (2018). Solitary confinement as punishment. Justice Quarterly, 35, 381-411.
10.
CrouchB. M.MarquartJ. W. (1989). An appeal to justice: Litigated reform of Texas prisons. Austin: University of Texas Press.
11.
DigardL.VankoE.SullivanS. (2018). Rethinking restrictive housing: Lessons from five U.S. jail and prison systems. New York, NY: Vera Institute of Justice.
12.
FarringtonD. P. (2003). Methodological quality standards for evaluation research. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 587, 49-68.
13.
FrostN.MonteiroC. (2016). Administrative segregation in U.S. prisons. In GarciaM. (Ed.), Restrictive housing in the U.S (pp. 1-48). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
14.
GaesG. G.CampS. D.NelsonJ. B.SaylorW. B. (2004). Measuring prison performance: Government privatization and accountability. New York, NY: AtlaMira.
15.
GarciaM. (Ed.). (2016). Restrictive housing in the U.S.Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
16.
GendreauP.LabrecqueR. M. (2018). The effects of administrative segregation: A lesson in knowledge accumulation. In WooldredgeJ.SmithP. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of prisons and imprisonment (pp. 340-366). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
17.
HaneyC. (2018). Restricting the use of solitary confinement. Annual Review of Criminology, 1, 285-310.
18.
HelmusL. M. (2015). Developing and validating a risk assessment scale to predict inmate placements in administrative segregation in the correctional service of Canada. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
19.
HuebnerB. (2003). Administrative determinants of inmate violence: A multilevel analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31, 107-117.
20.
KapoorR.TrestmanR. (2016). Mental health effects of restrictive housing. In GarciaM. (Ed.), Restrictive housing in the U.S (pp. 199-232). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
21.
KingR. D. (1999). The rise and rise of supermax: An American solution in search of a problem? Punishment and Society, 1, 163-186.
22.
KingR. D. (2005). Effects of supermax custody. In LieblingA.MarunaS. (Eds.), The effects of imprisonment (pp. 118-145). Portland, OR: Willan Publishing.
23.
KurkiL.MorrisN. (2001). Supermax prisons. Crime and Justice, 28, 385-424.
24.
LabrecqueR. M. (2015). The effect of solitary confinement on institutional misconduct: A longitudinal evaluation. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
25.
LabrecqueR. M.SmithP. (2019a). The impact of restrictive housing on inmate behavior. In HuebnerB.FrostN. A. (Eds.), Handbook on the consequences of sentencing and punishment decisions (pp. 290-310). New York, NY: Routledge.
26.
LabrecqueR. M.SmithP. (2019b). 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.
27.
LoganC. (1993). Criminal justice performance measures for prisons. In L. A. Greenfeld (Ed.), Performance measures for the criminal justice system (pp. 15-59). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
28.
LovellD.CloyesK.AllenD.RhodesL. (2000). Who lives in super-maximum custody?Federal Probation, 64, 33-38.
29.
LovellD.JohnsonL. C.CainK. C. (2007). Recidivism of supermax prisoners in Washington state. Crime & Delinquency, 53, 633-656.
30.
MayD. C.WoodP. B. (2010). Ranking correctional punishments: Views from offenders, practitioners, and the public. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
31.
MearsD. P. (2013). Supermax prisons: The policy and the evidence. Criminology and Public Policy, 12, 681-719.
32.
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 (pp. 233-295). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
33.
MearsD. P.BalesW. D. (2009). Supermax incarceration and recidivism. Criminology, 47, 1131-1166.
34.
MearsD. P.BalesW. D. (2010). Supermax housing: Placement, duration, and time to reentry. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 545-554.
35.
MearsD. P.CastroJ. L. (2006). Wardens’ views on the wisdom of supermax prisons. Crime and Delinquency, 52, 398-431.
36.
MearsD. P.ReisigM. D. (2006). The theory and practice of supermax prisons. Punishment and Society, 8, 33-57.
37.
MearsD. P.WatsonJ. (2006). Towards a fair and balanced assessment of supermax prisons. Justice Quarterly, 23, 232-270.
38.
MorganR. D.GendreauP.SmithP.GrayA.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.
39.
MorrisR. G. (2016). Exploring the effect of exposure to short-term solitary confinement among violent prison inmates. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 32, 1-22.
40.
MotiukL. L.BlanchetteK. (2001). Characteristics of administratively segregated offenders in federal corrections. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 43, 131-143.
41.
NadayA.FreilichJ. D.MellowJ. (2008). The elusive data on supermax confinement. The Prison Journal, 88, 69-93.
42.
National Institute of Corrections. (1997). Supermax housing: A survey of current practice. Washington, DC: Author.
43.
O’KeefeM. L.KlebeK. J.MetznerJ.DvoskinJ.FellnerJ.StuckerA. (2013). A longitudinal study of administrative segregation. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry & the Law, 41, 49-60.
44.
PizarroJ. M.NaragR. E. (2008). Supermax prisons: What we know, what we do not know, and where we are going. The Prison Journal, 88, 23-42.
45.
PyroozD. (2016). Gang affiliation and restrictive housing in U.S. prisons. In GarciaM. (Ed.), Restrictive housing in the U.S (pp. 117-163). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
ReiterK. A. (2012). Parole, snitch, or die: California’s supermax prisons and prisoners, 1997-2007. Punishment and Society, 14, 530-563.
48.
ReiterK. A. (2016). 23/7: Pelican bay prison and the rise of long-term solitary confinement. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
49.
RhodesL. A. (2004). Total confinement: Madness and reason in the maximum security prison. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
50.
RichardsS. C. (Ed.). (2015). The Marion experiment: Long-term solitary confinement and the supermax movement. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
51.
RivelandC. (1999). Supermax prisons: Overview and general considerations. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.
52.
RogersR. (1993). Solitary confinement. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 37, 339-349.
53.
RossJ. I. (Ed.). (2013). The globalization of supermax prisons. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
54.
RubinA. T.ReiterK. (2018). Continuity in the fact of penal innovation. Law & Social Inquiry, 43, 1604-1632.
ShamesA.WilcoxJ.SubramanianR. (2015). Solitary confinement: Common misconceptions and emerging safe alternatives. New York, NY: The Vera Institute of Justice.
SmithP. (2016). Towards an understanding of “what works” in segregation. In GarciaM. (Ed.), Restrictive housing in the U.S. (pp. 331-366). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
59.
SmithP. S. (2006). The effects of solitary confinement on prison inmates: A brief history and review of the literature. Crime and Justice, 34, 441-528.
60.
SundtJ. L. (2016). The effect of administrative segregation on prison order and organizational culture. In GarciaM. (Ed.), Restrictive housing in the U.S. (pp. 297-330). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
61.
SundtJ. L. (2017). Solitary confinement: Restrictive housing, segregation, and the isolation of inmates. In Hilinski-RosickC. M.WalshJ. P. (Eds.), Issues in corrections: Research, policy, and future prospects (pp. 11-134). New York, NY: Lexington.
62.
TochH. (2003). The contemporary relevance of early experiments with supermax reform. The Prison Journal, 83, 221-228.
63.
U.S. Department of Justice. (2016). Report and recommendations concerning the use of restrictive housing. Washington, DC: Author.
64.
WardD. A.WerlichT. G. (2003). Alcatraz and Marion: Evaluating super-maximum custody. Punishment and Society, 5, 53-75.
65.
WooldredgeJ.SteinerB. (2015). A macro-level perspective on prison inmate deviance. Punishment and Society, 17, 230-257.
