The Liman Center
at YALE LAW SCHOOL

TIME-IN-CELL 2019:
A SNAPSHOT OF
RESTRICTIVE HOUSING
Based on a Nationwide Survey of U.S. Prison Systems

CORRECTIONAL LEADERS ASSOCIATION
ARTHUR LIMAN CENTER
FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LAW
at YALE LAW SCHOOL

The Arthur

Time-In-Cell 2019:
A Snapshot of Restrictive Housing
based on a Nationwide Survey of
U.S. Prison Systems

The Correctional Leaders Association &
The Arthur Liman Center for Public Interest Law
at Yale Law School

September 2020

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Correctional Leaders Association (CLA)
CLA, formerly the Association of State
Correctional Administrators (ASCA), was
founded in the 1980s and is comprised of the
directors of correction systems throughout the
United States. CLA members lead over 400,000
correctional professionals and supervise
approximately
eight
million
prisoners,
probationers, and parolees. CLA’s mission is to
“promote the profession of corrections, support
CLA members, and influence policy and
practices that affect public safety.”
The Arthur Liman Center for Public
Interest Law at Yale Law School
The Liman Center was endowed in 1997 to honor
one of Yale Law School’s most accomplished
graduates, Arthur Liman. Throughout his
distinguished career, he demonstrated how
dedicated lawyers, in both private practice and
public life, can respond to the needs of
individuals and causes that might otherwise go
unrepresented. The Liman Center continues the
commitments of Arthur Liman by supporting
work, in and outside the academy, dedicated to
public service in the furtherance of justice.
Acknowledgements
This report is based on a survey co-authored by
CLA and the Liman Center at Yale Law School.
The research and report teams were led at CLA
by Restrictive Housing Working Group members
Leann Bertsch, Wayne Choinski, Kevin Kempf,
John Baldwin, Harold Clarke, Bob Lampert, Rick
Raemisch, Stephen Sinclair, and Dean Williams,
and at Yale by Professor Judith Resnik; Anna
VanCleave, Director of the Liman Center; and by
Alexandra Harrington, Zal Shroff, Jonathan
Petkun, and Brian Highsmith, all of whom are
Senior Liman Fellows in Residence. Atticus
Ballesteros, Jaster Francis, Eli Feasley, Molly
Petchenik, Jaclyn Willner, and Arianna Zoghi,
current and former students at Yale Law School,
played major roles in the research, analysis, and
drafting of this report.
Thanks are due to all the jurisdictions that
responded to the survey and provided additional
information, comments, and reviews thereafter.
The authors appreciate the contributions of the
Vera Institute of Justice for data collection about
CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

people in jails and prisons, and for input on the
issues relevant to this report. This research has
been supported by Yale Law School, the Vital
Projects Fund, and the Oscar M. Ruebhausen Fund
at Yale Law School, and Professor Resnik’s work
on this project has also been enabled by the award
of an Andrew Carnegie Fellowship. The analyses
are not to be attributed to these institutions.
Special thanks are due to to Elizabeth Keane,
Program Coorinator of the Liman Center for
assistance in gathering materials; and to Bonnie
Posick of Yale Law School’s staff for expert
editorial advice.
The series of CLA-Liman reports began under the
leadership of George and Camille Camp, and in
this and other collaborative projects, we honor
Camille Camp and mark George Camp’s legacy.
To download copies of this Report, please visit the
Liman Center website at
https://law.yale.edu/liman/solitary2020, or the
CLA website at https://cl.memberclicks.net/claliman-rh-report. This Report may be reproduced
free of charge and without the need for additional
permission. All rights reserved, 2020.

Inquiries:
Leann Bertsch
Restrictive Housing Committee Chair, CLA
Former Director, North Dakota DOCR
Leann.Bertsch@mtctrains.com
Kevin Kempf
Executive Director, CLA
kkempfCLA@gmail.com
Wayne Choinski
Project Manager, CLA
wchoinskicla@gmail.com
Judith Resnik
Arthur Liman Professor of Law
Yale Law School
judith.resnik@yale.edu
Anna VanCleave
Liman Center Director
Yale Law School
anna.vancleave@yale.edu

Time-In-Cell 2019:
A Snapshot of Restrictive Housing
based on a Nationwide Survey of
U.S. Prison Systems
Table of Contents
I.

II.

III.

THE BACKDROP: ONGOING RESEARCH ON
RESTRICTIVE HOUSING

1

Understanding Restrictive Housing Over Time and Across Jurisdictions
The 2019–2020 Survey Design
Research Challenges and Caveats
Preview of the 2019 Survey Results

1
3
4
4

DATA ON RESTRICTIVE HOUSING FROM
THE 2019 CLA-LIMAN SURVEY

6

The Numbers and Percentages of Prisoners in Restrictive Housing:
Counting and Comparing General and Restrictive Populations
Length of Time in Restrictive Housing
The Demographics of Restrictive Housing
Sex / Gender
Race and Ethnicity
Age
Subpopulations
Prisoners with Mental Health Issues
Pregnant Prisoners
Transgender Prisoners

6
11
18
18
23
35
46
46
58
58

DIMENSIONS OF LIVING IN RESTRICTIVE HOUSING:
A 2019 SNAPSHOT

59

Criteria for Placement in Restrictive Housing
Authority to Make Initial Decisions to Place an Individual
in Restrictive Housing and to Review such Decisions
Duration of Confinement and Recurring Review
Policies for Subpopulations
Age-Based Subpopulations
Prisoners with Special Medical Needs
Women in Prison
LGBTI Prisoners
Prisoners with Mental Health Needs

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

59
59
62
63
64
64
64
65
66

Exiting Restrictive Housing: Step-Down Programming, Release
to General Population, and Leaving Prison for the Community
Behavior as a Means of Reducing Time in Restrictive Housing
Education on Handling Transitions
Transitions Out of Restrictive Housing
Living in Restrictive Housing: Activities, Programs, and Sociability
Outside and Inside Cells
Aspiring for More Time Out-of-Cell
Inside the Cells
Sociability
Prison Staff: Qualifications, Training, Schedules, and Paying
for Restrictive Housing Duty

IV.

V.

67
67
67
68
69
72
72
73
74

Implementing the 2016 ACA Restrictive Housing
Performance Based Standards

76

Evaluating the Effects of Policy Changes

77

REDUCING RELIANCE ON RESTRICTIVE HOUSING:
THE 2018-2020 LANDSCAPE

79

Legislative Regulation
In the Courts
Restrictive Housing as a Global Concern

80
83
85

COMPARING THE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE IN RESTRICTIVE
HOUSING IN 2015, 2017, AND 2019

89

Endnotes
Appendices
Appendix A: CLA-Liman 2019 Restrictive Housing Survey
Appendix B: Total Prison Populations for Responding
and Non-Responding Jurisdictions
Appendix C: Definitions of “Serious Mental Illness” by Jurisdiction
Appendix D: How Prisoners are Identified as Transgender by Jurisdiction

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

103

Tables and Figures
Tables
Table 1

Numbers and Percentages of Prisoners in Restrictive Housing (RH)
by Jurisdiction

9

Table 2

Numbers of People/Length of Time in Restrictive Housing
by Jurisdiction

12

Table 3

Distribution of Time Spent in Restrictive Housing
by Jurisdiction

13

Table 4

Year When Regular Tracking of Length of Time in Restrictive Housing
Began by Jurisdiction

14

Male Prisoners Held in Conditions Short of Restrictive Housing
by Jurisdiction

16

Female Prisoners Held in Conditions Short of Restrictive Housing
By Jurisdiction

17

Numbers and Percentages of Male Custodial Population in Restrictive
Housing

20

Numbers and Percentages of Female Custodial Population in Restrictive
Housing

22

Table 9

Numbers of Jurisdictions Reporting on Racial or Ethnic Groups

24

Table 10

Race/Ethnicity of Male Prisoners in Restrictive Housing

28

Table 11

Race/Ethnicity of Male Total Custodial and Restrictive Housing
Populations

29

Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8

Table 12

Race/Ethnicity of Male Total Custodial and Restrictive Housing Populations
by Percentage
30

Table 13

Race/Ethnicity of Female Total Custodial and Restrictive Housing
Populations

32

Race/Ethnicity of Female Total Custodial and Restrictive Housing
Populations by Percentage

33

Race/Ethnicity of Female Prisoners in Restrictive Housing

35

Table 14
Table 15

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Table 16

Male Total Custodial and Restrictive Housing Populations by Age

38

Table 17

Percentage of Male Total Custodial and Restrictive Housing Populations
by Age

40

Table 18

Female Total Custodial and Restrictive Housing Populations by Age

42

Table 19

Percentage of Female Total Custodial and Restrictive Housing Populations
by Age
44

Table 20

Male Prisoners with Serious Mental Illness (SMI, variously defined) in
Restrictive Housing by Jurisdiction

48

Female Prisoners with Serious Mental Illness (SMI, variously defined) in
Restrictive Housing by Jurisdiction

49

Male Prisoners with Serious Mental Illness by Race and Ethnicity
in the Total Custodial and Restrictive Housing Populations

51

Female Prisoners with Serious Mental Illness by Race and Ethnicity
in the Total Custodial and Restrictive Housing Populations

53

Male Prisoners with Serious Mental Illness by Age in the Total Custodial
and Restrictive Housing Populations

55

Table 21
Table 22
Table 23
Table 24
Table 25

Female Prisoners with Serious Mental Illness by Age in the Total Custodial
and Restrictive Housing Populations
57

Table 26

Jurisdiction-by-Jurisdiction Comparisons of Restrictive Housing (RH)
Populations in 2015, 2017, and 2019

Table 27
Table 28
Table 29

91

Comparing the Numbers of Prisoners in Restrictive Housing
by Length of Time in 2015, 2017, and 2019

100

Comparing the Distribution of Prisoners in Restrictive Housing
by Length of Time in 2015, 2017, and 2019

101

Comparing Restrictive Housing Numbers from 2014 to 2020

102

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Figures
Figure 1

Percentage of Prisoners in Restrictive Housing Ordered by Jurisdiction

8

Figure 2

Percentage of Prisoners in Restrictive Housing Ordered by Percentage

9

Figure 3

Prisoners in Restrictive Housing by Length of Time

12

Figure 4

Prisoners in Restrictive Housing by Gender

18

Figure 5

Percentage of Male Prisoners in Restrictive Housing Ordered
by Jurisdiction

19

Percentage of Male Prisoners in Restrictive Housing Ordered
by Percentage

19

Percentage of Female Prisoners in Restrictive Housing Ordered
by Jurisdiction

21

Percentage of Female Prisoners in Restrictive Housing Ordered
by Percentage

22

Race/Ethnicity of Male Prisoners in Total Custodial Population and in
Restrictive Housing Population

24

Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9

Figure 10 Race/Ethnicity of Female Prisoners in Total Custodial Population and in
Restrictive Housing Population

25

Figure 11 Difference in Restrictive Housing and Total Male Custodial Population
for Black Male Prisoners

27

Figure 12 Difference in Restrictive Housing and Total Male Custodial Population
for Hispanic or Latino Prisoners

27

Figure 13 Male Prisoners in Restrictive Housing and Total Custodial Populations
by Age

37

Figure 14 Female Prisoners in Restrictive Housing and Total Custodial Populations
by Age

37

Figure 15 Dimensions of Living in Restrictive Housing

70

Figure 16 Jurisdiction-by-Jurisdiction Comparison of Prisoners in
Restrictive Housing Populations in 2015 and 2017

93

Figure 17 Jurisdiction-by-Jurisdiction Comparison of Prisoners in Restrictive Housing
Populations in 2017 and 2019
94

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Figure 18 Jurisdiction-by-Jurisdiction Comparison of Prisoners in Restrictive Housing
Populations in 2015 and 2019
95
Figure 19 Jurisdiction-by-Jurisdiction Comparison of the Rate of Change in Percentage
of Prisoners in Restrictive Housing Populations from 2015 to 2017
96
Figure 20 Jurisdiction-by-Jurisdiction Comparison of the Rate of Change in Percentage
of Prisoners in Restrictive Housing Populations from 2017 to 2019
97
Figure 21 Jurisdiction-by-Jurisdiction Comparison of the Rate of Change in Percentage
of Prisoners in Restrictive Housing Populations from 2015 to 2019
98
Figure 22 Comparing the Distribution of Prisoners in Restrictive Housing
by Length of Time in 2015, 2017, and 2019

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

102

1

I.

The Backdrop: Ongoing Research on Restrictive Housing

This report provides a picture based on 2019 data from thirty-nine jurisdictions about the
use of restrictive housing. For this analysis, we defined restrictive housing as holding individuals
in a cell for an average of twenty-two hours or more a day for fifteen days or more. Through a
nation-wide survey, we have gathered data enabling an understanding of the number of individuals
held in solitary confinement, their demographic makeup, the duration of time that they spent in
solitary confinement, and aspects of the rules governing that confinement.
The collection of this information is a joint undertaking of the Liman Center at Yale Law
School and the Correctional Leaders Association (CLA), formerly the Association of State
Correctional Administrators (ASCA). Since 2012, the Liman Center and CLA have worked
together on a variety of projects, several of which relate to restrictive housing.
Through a series of nation-wide surveys, we are able to provide longitudinal data since
2014 on the role restrictive housing plays in prison systems around the country. Once a regular
tool of discipline, solitary confinement has become a matter of grave concern. As this volume
details, four jurisdictions have reported that they were no longer placing people in cells twentytwo hours or more a day for fifteen days or more. Those decisions, along with the policy reforms
of many other correctional departments, legislative regulation in more than two dozen states and
the federal system, and judicial rulings all underscore the need to reduce or to end the practice of
holding individuals inside small cells for almost all hours of a day for weeks, months, or years. As
a result, in several jurisdictions, restrictive housing no longer looks as it did a few years ago.
This report was written in the spring and summer of 2020, as the world changed
dramatically because of COVID-19. The data in this volume predates COVID-19, which has had
a profound impact on congregate living spaces, prisons included. The call for social distancing has
required radical reconfigurations of practices in all aspects of daily life. Given the special
challenges faced by people in confinement, public health experts rapidly provided guidance on
how and when to quarantine inside detention facilities in a manner that is humane, medically
sound, and does not return people to conditions associated with restrictive housing, which is the
focus of this report.1
Understanding Restrictive Housing Over Time and Across Jurisdictions
During the past several years, CLA and the Liman Center at Yale Law School have
collaborated on many projects aiming to gain insights into aspects of the interactions among
prisoners, correctional agencies, communities, and courts. Together, we have hosted workshops,
presented at conferences,2 undertaken research, and produced widely-read reports. Our research
has included surveys sent to correctional agencies across the fifty states. The topics of past studies
include policies for visiting people who are incarcerated, rules governing administrative
segregation, and the use of restrictive housing.3
Several CLA-Liman reports focus on the use of restrictive housing in prisons across the
United States. The CLA-Liman national surveys have been conducted biennially since 2014. For
these studies, CLA and the Liman Center reach out to each of the correctional agencies in the fifty

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

2

states, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and in some years to a few jail systems; we ask for responses
to questions about their policies and populations. Given the variety of situations and the varied
nomenclature, we have defined the term “restrictive housing” (often called “solitary confinement”)
as the placement of an individual in a cell for an average of at least twenty-two hours per day for
fifteen or more continuous days.
By conducting this survey every two years, we have been able to obtain a composite picture
of the use of restrictive housing nationwide and to develop longitudinal assessments over time.
These surveys provide a window into changing policies governing restrictive housing and the
impact on prisoners, on staff working in correctional facilities, and on the public.
A brief recap of the research is in order. In 2013, the Liman Center and then-ASCA
produced a first report, Administrative Segregation, Degrees of Isolation, and Incarceration: A
National Overview of State and Federal Correctional Policies.4 The report was based on policies
collected from forty-seven jurisdictions, including forty-six states and the Federal Bureau of
Prisons.5 We learned that correctional officials had broad discretion when deciding to put prisoners
into administrative segregation.6 Policies permitted placement in segregation when individuals
were perceived to be a “threat” to institutional security. Few of the policies provided directions on
limiting the duration and moving prisoners out of administrative segregation.7
We then sought to learn about the impact of the policies by asking jurisdictions about the
number of people held in restrictive housing and the conditions of their confinement. The 2014
ASCA-Liman survey included more than 130 questions on the demographics of people in
restrictive housing, and some of the rules governing these populations. The result was the 2015
Time-In-Cell Report, which compiled data from thirty-four jurisdictions in which 74% of the
prison population was housed. These jurisdictions counted more than 66,000 individuals held in
some form of restrictive housing.8 ASCA-Liman used this data to estimate that, as of the fall of
2014, approximately 80,000 to 100,000 prisoners were in restrictive housing in prison systems in
the United States.9 The U.S. Department of Justice relied on the research results when it revised
rules for federal facilities.10 The report was widely disseminated and discussed in many venues.11
In 2016, the ASCA-Liman Report, Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell,12 provided data on
restrictive housing as of the fall of 2015. The research identified 67,442 people held in restrictive
housing across forty-eight jurisdictions that housed 96% of the prison population in the United
States.13 Of the jurisdictions that provided data on duration, we learned that almost 10,000 people
or 18% of prisoners in reporting jurisdictions were held in restrictive housing for fifteen to thirty
days. At the other end of the spectrum, almost 6,000 people or 11% were held for three years or
more.14 We identified changes underway in policies governing the criteria for placement in
restrictive housing, the degree of oversight of those held, and guidelines for how people could
leave restrictive housing. Like the 2014 volume, Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell was widely
distributed and cited.15
The survey that was the basis for the 2018 report, Reforming Restrictive Housing,16 was
conducted in 2017-2018. Again, we sent questionnaires to the fifty states, the Federal Bureau of
Prisons, the District of Columbia, and four jail systems in large metropolitan areas.17 Responses
came from forty-three prison systems, accounting for 80.6% of the U.S. prison population.18 Of

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

3

these jurisdictions, a reported 49,197 people—or about 4.5% of those in custody—were held in
restrictive housing.19 Based on these numbers, we estimated that, as of the fall of 2017,
approximately 61,000 individuals were in restrictive housing in U.S. prisons.20
The 2017-2018 survey also gathered information on gender, race, ethnicity, age, serious
mental illness, pregnancy, and transgender individuals in solitary confinement.21 Survey responses
demonstrated that men were much more likely than women to be in isolation,22 that Black prisoners
comprised a greater percentage of the restrictive housing population than they did the total
custodial population,23 and that prisoners between the ages of eighteen and thirty-six were more
likely to be placed in restrictive housing than were older individuals.24 Based on jurisdictions’
reporting on isolation of the “seriously mentally ill” (as each jurisdiction defined that category),
we learned that more than 4,000 of such prisoners were then held in restrictive housing.25 Once
again, interest in the information was widespread both within correctional departments and
beyond.
The 2019-2020 Survey Design
Starting in early 2019, the Restrictive Housing Committee of CLA joined with researchers
at the Liman Center to draft, streamline, and clarify the questions for the 2019 CLA-Liman Survey.
A few correctional agencies used the survey as a pilot, and the feedback from that testing of the
questions was incorporated into a revised 81-question survey that was sent to all CLA members
via Qualtrics on July 15, 2019. That questionnaire is reproduced in Appendix A.
Responses came thereafter from forty-one jurisdictions and, from December of 2019
through March of 2020, Liman Center researchers made follow-up inquiries, as needed, for
clarification. Answers from such questions were, with layers of review to ensure accuracy,
integrated into the data set.
For many questions in the 2019 survey, we used the wording of prior surveys to enable
comparisons across the years. Much of the focus was on quantitative information and, in addition,
we continued inquiries about current policies on restrictive housing as well as policy changes. As
in past years, we also added a few questions. The 2019-2020 questionnaire sought to learn more
about the criteria for initial and repeated placements in restrictive housing, and sought to gather
information about individuals returning to prison (recidivism) and about violence in restrictive
housing. As we detail, the variety of responses in some other areas made it difficult to make crossjurisdiction comparisons or aggregations. We aim here to provide an account that is as
comprehensive as possible. To do so required making choices about how to categorize certain
survey responses. Endnotes often add caveats to the textual information provided.
In the summer of 2020, after the results were compiled and analyzed, materials were
circulated to CLA members for comments and corrections, and the report was finalized thereafter.
We received many helpful comments and suggestions that enabled us to finalize this report. In a
few instances, during the summer of 2020, jurisdictions provided different information than had
been given while the survey data was collected. We relied on the original responses and added
footnotes and endnotes with the additional information.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

4

Research Challenges and Caveats
As with our previous reports, the analyses in the 2020 CLA-Liman report draw on
information that is reported by each of the responding jurisdictions. No site visits or other forms
of information are used for analyses of the jurisdictions’ responses. Thus, this compilation, like
the prior surveys, relies on self-reported data. In addition, as we have in other reports, we provide
context for the correctional policies and practices through an overview of recent studies,
legislation, and court decisions addressing restrictive housing.
Sketching, as we do here, a national picture of restrictive housing in the United States is
complex because of the variety of definitions, methods, and types of restrictive housing employed
across the country. To standardize answers across jurisdictions, we provided definitions for some
questions, including what length of time-in-cell constitutes restrictive housing. In some areas, such
as questions addressing “serious mental illness,” we did not provide a definition because, from
prior surveys, we learned of the wide variation across jurisdictions of what falls within that
category. We asked what definitions jurisdictions used and the numbers of people held under their
own definitions of serious mental illness. The list can be found as Appendix C.
As noted, the 2019-2020 questionnaire sought to learn more about the criteria for initial
and repeated placements in restrictive housing and about individuals who were once in restrictive
housing and then returned to prison after their release. The information provided by the limited
number of jurisdictions that responded to these questions and the format of the questions
themselves did not lend itself to easy categorization across jurisdictions. More must be learned
from further surveys to develop an accurate picture of the impact of restrictive housing on
individual and institutional safety and on subsequent returns to prison.
As in past surveys, this account does not include all persons held in restrictive housing.
The focus in this work is on prisons, which, as of the fall of 2019, held 1,435,509, individuals in
state and federal custody.26 Many people are held in other forms of detention. For example, in
2018, about 738,400 people were held in county and city jails in the United States.27 In 2020, Vera
Institute of Justice released a report, Restrictive Housing in U.S. Jails: Results from a National
Survey.28 This study focused on jails and estimated that 6.6% of the people held in jail were in
restrictive housing. Other people were held by immigration or military authorities, or in facilities
for juveniles. Because our surveys were addressed to directors of correctional agencies and
because very few prison systems in the United States include any of those other institutions, this
report does not illuminate the forms of confinement in these settings. Simply put, we do not know
what number of these detainees were held in conditions that meet the definition of restrictive
housing.
Preview of the 2019 Survey Results
By way of a brief overview of the materials that follow, the thirty-nine responding
jurisdictions identified a total of 31,542 individuals held in restrictive housing as of the summer
of 2019. Using the Vera Institute of Justice’s 2019 total population numbers that focused on people
within the “legal responsibility” of systems, the thirty-nine jurisdictions house 65% of the total
United States prison population.29 This survey asked jurisdictions to supply information on people

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

5

under their “direct control” and about whom they had restrictive housing information. Based on
that narrower definition, the thirty-nine jurisdictions confined 57.5% of the total prison population
in the United States. In the subset of the total prison population accounted for in survey responses,
3.8% were in restrictive housing.
The jurisdictions identified nearly 3,000 individuals who had been held in restrictive
housing for more than three years. Within the thirty-two jurisdictions that reported data on the race
and ethnicity of individuals in restrictive housing, the percentage of both male and female prisoners
who were Black, Native American, or Alaskan Native was higher than in the total custodial
population, as was the percentage of male Hispanic prisoners. For both male and female prisoners,
the percentage of individuals between the ages of eighteen and thirty-five was higher in the
restrictive housing population than in the total custodial population. More than 3,000 people with
serious mental illness, as defined by each jurisdiction, were in restrictive housing.
Using the 57.5% percent of the prison population about which we have information as the
basis to estimate a national picture, we estimate that, as of the summer of 2019, between 55,000
and 62,500 prisoners were held in-cell for twenty-two hours or more per day on average for fifteen
days or more. In the chapters that follow, we provide detailed accounts of the data gathered, the
bases for estimations, and overviews of the policies of prison systems and the reform efforts
underway within and beyond corrections.
In addition to aggregate data, this volume provides accounts of some of the dimensions of
the decision-making about restrictive housing and of life in that form of confinement. We gathered
information on the initial decision to put an individual into restrictive housing and the review
processes for continued placement. We asked about access to natural light, to outdoor space, to
mental health care professionals, and about other facets of the daily regime.
Along with the data based on self-reports from jurisdictions, we also provide the broader
context. We sketch the policy changes in correctional agencies and the many efforts at reforms
coming from legislatures and courts. We also offer a glimpse at experiences beyond the United
States, as the use of restrictive housing is a global concern.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

6

II.

Data on Restrictive Housing from the 2019 CLA-Liman Survey

As in past reports, we sought to learn the number of people and the percentage of people
held in restrictive housing, as well as the duration of confinement for these individuals and their
demographics. We supplied the same definition we had provided for the 2017-2018 ASCA-Liman
Survey,30 which is that restrictive housing means “separating prisoners from the general population
and holding them in their cells for an average of twenty-two or more hours per day for fifteen or
more continuous days.”31 Forty-one jurisdictions responded, albeit not to all the questions, and
most of the quantitative data comes from thirty-nine jurisdictions. Through the discussion, tables,
and charts below, we provide a composite picture, based on these responses, of the use of
restrictive housing in U.S. prisons around the country.
The Numbers and Percentages of Prisoners in Restrictive Housing:
Counting and Comparing General and Restrictive Populations
The 2019 CLA-Liman survey asked jurisdictions to report, as of July 15, 2019, both their
total prison populations in facilities under their direct control and the number of prisoners held in
restrictive housing in those facilities. The survey defined “direct control” as when a jurisdiction
“hires and supervises staff and . . . provides the governing rules and policies” at the relevant
facilities, including “facilities where certain services, such as health care or laundry, are performed
by subcontractors.” Almost half (eighteen) of the forty-one jurisdictions reported that at least some
prisoners were housed in a facility that was not under their direct control. The survey defined these
facilities as those “located in your jurisdiction that you do not operate or manage. For example, a
local jail that houses state prisoners or a privately-operated prison.” Some jurisdictions identified
jails, juvenile facilities, mental health facilities, privately-operated facilities, and immigration
detention facilities as outside their direct control.
Thirty-nine jurisdictions provided information on both their total prison population and
their restrictive housing population under the survey definition.32 These jurisdictions reported
housing a total of 825,473 prisoners in facilities under their direct control for which they could
report corresponding restrictive housing data.33 Out of that total population number, 31,542
prisoners—or 3.8%—were in restrictive housing.34
Four of the thirty-nine jurisdictions responded that they no longer hold people in restrictive
housing, as they had ended the practice of confining individuals for twenty-two or more hours on
average and for fifteen consecutive days or more.35 These four jurisdictions may segregate
prisoners and impose degrees of isolation, but not for more than fifteen days, or they may provide
more than two hours of out-of-cell time each day.
This survey asked for jurisdictions to report on the populations about which they had
information on restrictive housing. In some instances, jurisdictions send individuals out of state or
to facilities otherwise not under their direct control. Thus, the total number of people described by
the thirty-nine jurisdictions is somewhat less than the total number of people incarcerated by that
jurisdiction. Moreover, twelve jurisdictions did not provide any numbers on general or restrictive
housing populations. As explained below, we therefore do not have information about 502,873
people held in the non-reporting jurisdictions and some 107,163 people who were under the legal

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

7

authority of reporting jurisdictions (per the Vera Institute numbers from December of 2019) but
about which they did not have restrictive housing information.
We need to explain the sources for the general numbers on people in prison. The United
States Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) has long provided information on people in prison. The
most recent published data comes from December 2018.36 More recent information has been made
available by the Vera Institute of Justice, which reported that as of December 2019, the total state
and federal prison population in the United States was 1,435,509.37 This data relies on the
definition established by the BJS, which includes the total number of people under the legal
authority of a prison system—even if prisoners were housed elsewhere.38 As discussed, because
we sought to learn about the conditions of people under the direct control of a jurisdiction, we used
a narrower definition. Comparing the thirty-nine responding jurisdictions’ information on the
825,473 prisoners fitting that definition with the numbers collected by Vera, the thirty-nine
responding jurisdictions had “legal responsibility” over 932,636 prisoners,39 or an additional
107,163 people.40
Using the 2019 Vera total population numbers, the thirty-nine jurisdictions house 65%
(932,636/1,435,509) of the total United States prison population. Based on a narrower definition
predicated on direct control, the thirty-nine jurisdictions confined 57.5% (825,473/1,435,509) of
the total prison population in the United States. In the subset of the total prison population
accounted for in survey responses, 31,542 prisoners—or 3.8% (31,542/825,473)—were in
restrictive housing.
By assuming that the same average percentage of prisoners (3.8%) were placed in
restrictive housing in the jurisdictions for which we lack data as those for which we have data, and
that the same number of people were held in late summer of 2019 (the time for which the survey
sought information) as those held in December of 2019 (when Vera gathered information), we
estimate that between 55,000 and 62,500 prisoners were in restrictive housing across the United
States in the summer of 2019.
The lower number of 55,000 assumes that an average of 3.8% of all U.S. prisoners held by
non-reporting jurisdictions (502,873),41 as well as 3.8% of the prisoners Vera identified that were
not counted by the reporting jurisdictions (107,163) were placed in restrictive housing. Combined
with the 31,542 prisoners in restrictive housing actually counted by the responding jurisdictions,
the result is an estimated 54,724 prisoners in restrictive housing in the United States. If this
estimate reflects practices, then about 6,000 fewer people were in restrictive housing in the summer
of 2019 than in the ASCA-Liman 2017 Survey, in which we estimated that 61,000 people were
held in isolation.42
On the other hand, the thirty-nine jurisdictions that self-selected to reply to the 2019 CLALiman Survey may, in the aggregate, include more jurisdictions limiting the use of restrictive
housing than the twelve jurisdictions that did not provide data and which have legal authority over
502,873 prisoners. To provide an estimate taking that concern into account, we turned to the 2017
survey, in which seven of those twelve jurisdictions provided information.43 We used an average
of the percentage of people held then in those jurisdictions in restrictive housing, which was
5.1%.44 When 5.1% is applied to the 502,873 prisoners in all non-reporting jurisdictions and the

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

8

107,163 prisoners unaccounted for by the reporting jurisdictions, combined with the 31,542
prisoners actually counted by the responding jurisdictions, the total population in restrictive
housing in the United States would be estimated at 62,654. This higher estimate of people in
restrictive housing is consonant with Vera’s estimate that 6.6% of jail populations in the United
States were in restrictive housing in 2019.45
In Figures 1 and 2 and Table 1, below, we provide jurisdiction-specific data on the numbers
of prisoners in restrictive housing. The numbers are taken from responses to two survey questions
about the restrictive housing population and the total custodial population: “Please indicate the
total population under your DIRECT CONTROL . . . for which you can provide restrictive housing
data”; and “How many people total are in restrictive housing, defined as in cell for an average of
22 or more hours a day for 15 or more continuous days, in the facilities under your direct control?”
Within the reporting thirty-nine jurisdictions, the percentage of prisoners in restrictive
housing—calculated as the number in restrictive housing divided by the total custodial population
reported by each respective jurisdiction—ranged from 0%46 to 11.0%.47 Across the jurisdictions
reporting on restrictive housing, the median percentage of the population held in restrictive
housing was 3.4%; the average was 3.8%. Figure 1 presents the percentages of prisoners in
restrictive housing ordered alphabetically by jurisdiction; Figure 2 presents the same information
organized by percentage.
Figure 1

Percentage of Prisoners in Restrictive Housing Ordered by Jurisdiction
(n = 39)

c, 12.0%
C
Ill

:,
0

:r: 10.0%
QJ
>
u

·. :;

...,

·;::

Ill

QJ

8.0%

a::
C
Ill

.....
QJ

C

6.0%

0

Ill

.....

a..

.....
0

4.0%

QJ
C,

...,ctl
C

QJ

t'

2.0%

QJ

a..

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

9

Figure 2

Cl
C:

Percentage of Prisoners in Restrictive Housing Ordered by Percentage
(n = 39)

U .0%

"iii

:::,
0

;

10.0 %

>

.:;
u
·;::

.....

:fl

c::

8.0%

C:

"',._<IJ
C:

6.0%

0

"'

·;::

a..

0

4.0%

<IJ
Cl
fO
.....

C:

<IJ

~

2.0%

&

Table 1

Jurisdiction
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
Colorado*
Connecticut
Delaware*
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana

Numbers and Percentages of Prisoners in Restrictive Housing (RH)
by Jurisdiction
(n = 39)‡
Total Custodial
Population for
Facilities Reporting
RH Data
20,673
42,312
15,618
14,397
12,942
4,568
44,073
3,561
9,196
38,425
27,182
10,005
11,465
14,269

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Population in
Restrictive
Housing

Percentage in
Restrictive
Housing

670
1,934
1,712
0
106
0
2,147
1
203
1,327
1,574
686
238
679

3.2%
4.6%
11.0%
0.0%
0.8%
0.0%
4.9%
0.0%
2.2%
3.5%
5.8%
6.9%
2.1%
4.8%

10

Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana£
Nebraska
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota*
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina¥
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont*
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total

2,289
19,059
8,424
8,565
9,436
27,924
1,650
5,499
46,066
34,869
1,775
48,887
17,531
14,734
45,174
2,663
18,401
3,858
21,817
143,473
1,479
29,994
17,668
23,539
2,013
825,473

20
1,109
102
255
366
2,258
148
256
2,096
1,654
0
1,068
968
705
918
66
602
55
1,453
4,407
0
521
605
597
36
31,542

0.9%
5.8%
1.2%
3.0%
3.9%
8.1%
9.0%
4.7%
4.5%
4.7%
0.0%
2.2%
5.5%
4.8%
2.0%
2.5%
3.3%
1.4%
6.7%
3.1%
0.0%
1.7%
3.4%
2.5%
1.8%
3.8%

‡ New Hampshire, which provided data subsequent to the time frame for aggregate analysis in this report, stated that 53 of 2,263
(2.3%) of prisoners in that jurisdiction were in restrictive housing as of July 1, 2019.
* These jurisdictions do not have prisoners in restrictive housing as defined by the survey.
£
Montana, which provided different data subsequent to the time frame for aggregate analysis in this report, stated that 101 of 1,975
(5.1%) of prisoners in that jurisdiction were in restrictive housing as of July 15, 2019. Montana reported that the original data
provided and included in Table 1 was over-inclusive because it counted certain prisoners in conditions that were not restrictive
housing as defined by the survey.
¥
South Carolina initially reported the numbers of all prisoners housed in restrictive housing units to be held in restrictive housing.
South Carolina later re-counted its restrictive housing population by “housing bed type” and reported a total of 574 prisoners in
restrictive housing. For purposes of analysis, we relied on South Carolina’s initial count.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

11

Length of Time in Restrictive Housing
The 2019 CLA-Liman survey asked whether jurisdictions “regularly collect information
on how long each prisoner is in restrictive housing.” Thirty-six jurisdictions answered this
question,48 and thirty reported regularly collecting data on length of time in restrictive housing, by
individual, in aggregate, or grouped by the reason for at least some kinds of placement.49 Two of
the jurisdictions that answered that they collected this information regularly did not provide length
of time data.50 Five out of the six jurisdictions that reported not regularly collecting length of time
information reported this data.51
The data on length of time therefore come both from jurisdictions that reported tracking
length of time regularly and from a few jurisdictions that did not do so regularly but answered the
survey questions. Some jurisdictions began to track data on length of time more recently than
others, which have been tracking this data for many years.52 Some jurisdictions included time spent
in restrictive housing before they began formally tracking while other jurisdictions did not. In the
jurisdictions that did not, the numbers reported may reflect the time period for which they gathered
data, rather than the actual length of time that individuals were in restrictive housing.53
The survey specified a series of time intervals that people could spend in restrictive
housing. We asked jurisdictions about how many prisoners were held in-cell for lengths of time
ranging from fifteen to thirty days to six years or more. Answers came from thirty-three
jurisdictions that had data on restrictive housing as the survey defined it.54 In total, these
jurisdictions held 27,084 prisoners in restrictive housing, which means that we have length-oftime information for about 85.9% of the survey’s total reported population of 31,542 prisoners in
restrictive housing. We therefore estimate that we have time-interval information for between
43.3% and 49.2% of the total population in restrictive housing in the United States. (This range is
based on the CLA-Liman approximation that anywhere from 55,000 to 62,500 prisoners were in
restrictive housing in the United States in summer 2019.)
Almost a fifth (5,047 or 18.6% of the 27,084) of all prisoners in this subset of prisoners in
restrictive housing were there for fifteen to thirty days. Over a quarter (7,458 people, or 27.5%)
were in restrictive housing for thirty-one to ninety days. Roughly 16% (4,254 people or 15.7%)
were in restrictive housing for ninety-one to 181 days. Almost 13% (3,432 people or 12.7%) were
held between 181 and 365 days. About 14.5 % (3,930 people) were held for one to three years.
Just under ten percent (2,963 people or 9.6%) were identified as having been held for more than
three years, of which over half (1,555 people or 5.7% of the 27,085) were in restrictive housing
for six years or more.
Figure 3 presents the number of people in restrictive housing by length-of-time intervals.
Table 2 and Table 3 present the raw number and percentage of people in restrictive housing by
length of time, ordered by jurisdiction. Table 4 details responses from the thirty-three jurisdictions
that provided information on when they began to collect length-of-time data.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

12

Figure 3

Prisoners in Restrictive Housing by Length of Time
(n = 33)

7,000

6,000
~

~ 5,000
0

"'

·;;:

~

4,000

0
I..

QJ

..c

E 3,ooo
::::,

z

2,000

1,000

0

Table 2

15 to 30 days

31 to 90 days

91 to 180 days

181 to 365 days

1 to 3 years

3 to 6 years

6 years and over

Numbers of People/Length of Time in Restrictive Housing by Jurisdiction
(n = 33) ‡ £

Jurisdiction
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
Colorado*
Connecticut
Delaware*
Georgia
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Mississippi
Nebraska

15-30
Days
155
177
162
0
8
0
673
250
238
97
55
7
326
26
92
50
53

31-90
Days
232
412
299
0
19
0
939
548
265
79
187
11
408
61
94
73
64

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

91-180
Days
115
338
299
0
27
0
331
331
115
33
164
2
219
14
28
37
40

181-365
Days
119
379
294
0
23
0
161
279
53
22
118
0
107
1
28
66
30

1-3
Years
47
454
445
0
24
0
39
125
15
6
103
0
46
0
13
73
65

3-6
Years
1
144
101
0
5
0
3
33
0
1
34
0
3
0
0
47
4

6 Years
and
Over
1
30
112
0
0
0
1
8
0
0
18
0
0
0
0
20
0

13

New York
North Carolina
North Dakota*
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont*
Washington
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total

653
459
0
227
192
131
210
24
150
7
70
183
0
140
218
14
5,047

1067
520
0
225
264
207
313
10
204
15
73
375
0
249
229
16
7,458

261
429
0
120
178
263
149
12
57
9
158
380
0
85
55
5
4,254

80
191
0
200
141
68
128
11
88
14
218
498
0
64
51
0
3,432

21
38
0
237
165
27
78
9
92
7
485
1236
0
48
32
0
3,930

6
10
0
35
17
8
25
0
11
1
287
611
0
9
12
0
1,408

8
7
0
24
11
1
15
0
0
2
162
1,124
0
10
0
1
1,555

‡
Montana, which provided different data subsequent to the time frame for aggregate analysis in this report, stated that 11 individuals
in restrictive housing were housed there for less than 30 days; 12 individuals were housed between 31 and 90 day; 22 individuals
were housed between 91 and 180 days; 19 individuals were housed between 181 days and a year; 29 individuals were housed there
between one and three years, one individual was housed there between three and six years; and two individuals were housed there
for more than six years.

£
New Hampshire, which provided data subsequent to the time frame for analysis, stated that 17 individuals in restrictive housing
were housed there for less than 90 days, 21 individuals were housed between 91 and 180 days; 12 individuals were housed between
181 days and a year; 3 individuals were housed there between one and three years, and none were housed there more than three
years.

* These jurisdictions do not have prisoners in restrictive housing under the survey’s definition and reported on restrictive housing.

Table 3

Distribution of Time Spent in Restrictive Housing by Jurisdiction
(n = 33) ‡ £

Jurisdiction
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
Colorado*
Connecticut
Delaware*
Georgia
Indiana
Kansas

15-30
Days
23.1%
9.2%
9.5%
0.0%
7.5%
0.0%
31.3%
15.9%
34.7%

31-90
Days
34.6%
21.3%
17.5%
0.0%
17.9%
0.0%
43.7%
34.8%
38.6%

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

91-180
Days
17.2%
17.5%
17.5%
0.0%
25.5%
0.0%
15.4%
21.0%
16.8%

181-365
Days
17.8%
19.6%
17.2%
0.0%
21.7%
0.0%
7.5%
17.7%
7.7%

1-3
Years
7.0%
23.5%
26.0%
0.0%
22.6%
0.0%
1.8%
7.9%
2.2%

3-6
Years
0.1%
7.4%
5.9%
0.0%
4.7%
0.0%
0.1%
2.1%
0.0%

6 Years
and
Over
0.1%
1.6%
6.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.5%
0.0%

14

Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Mississippi
Nebraska
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota*
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont*
Washington
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total

40.8%
8.1%
35.0%
29.4%
25.5%
36.1%
13.7%
20.7%
31.2%
27.8%
0.0%
21.3%
19.8%
18.6%
22.9%
36.4%
24.9%
12.7%
4.8%
4.2%
0.0%
23.1%
36.5%
38.9%
18.6%

33.2%
27.5%
55.0%
36.8%
59.8%
36.9%
19.9%
25.0%
50.9%
31.4%
0.0%
21.1%
27.3%
29.4%
34.1%
15.2%
33.9%
27.3%
5.0%
8.5%
0.0%
41.2%
38.4%
44.4%
27.5%

13.9%
24.2%
10.0%
19.7%
13.7%
11.0%
10.1%
15.6%
12.5%
25.9%
0.0%
11.2%
18.4%
37.3%
16.2%
18.2%
9.5%
16.4%
10.9%
8.6%
0.0%
14.0%
9.2%
13.9%
15.7%

9.2%
17.4%
0.0%
9.6%
1.0%
11.0%
18.0%
11.7%
3.8%
11.5%
0.0%
18.7%
14.6%
9.6%
13.9%
16.7%
14.6%
25.5%
15.0%
11.3%
0.0%
10.6%
8.5%
0.0%
12.7%

2.5%
15.2%
0.0%
4.1%
0.0%
5.1%
19.9%
25.4%
1.0%
2.3%
0.0%
22.2%
17.0%
3.8%
8.5%
13.6%
15.3%
12.7%
33.4%
28.0%
0.0%
7.9%
5.4%
0.0%
14.5%

0.4%
5.0%
0.0%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
12.8%
1.6%
0.3%
0.6%
0.0%
3.3%
1.8%
1.1%
2.7%
0.0%
1.8%
1.8%
19.8%
13.9%
0.0%
1.5%
2.0%
0.0%
5.2%

0.0%
2.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
5.5%
0.0%
0.4%
0.4%
0.0%
2.2%
1.1%
0.1%
1.6%
0.0%
0.0%
3.6%
11.1%
25.5%
0.0%
1.7%
0.0%
2.8%
5.7%

‡
Montana, which provided different data subsequent to the time frame for aggregate analysis in this report, stated that 11% (11/101)
of individuals in restrictive housing were housed there for less than 30 days; 12% (12/101) were housed between 31 and 90 day;
22% (22/101) were housed between 91 and 180 days; 19% (19/101) were housed between 181 days and a year; 29% (29/101) were
housed there between one and three years, 1% (1/101) were housed there between three and six years; and 2% (2/101) were housed
there for more than six years.

£
New Hampshire, which provided data subsequent to the time frame for analysis, stated that 32% (17/53) of individuals in
restrictive housing were housed there for less than 90 days, 39% (21/53) were housed between 91 and 180 days; 23% (12/53) were
housed between 181 days and a year; 6% (3/53) were housed there between one and three years, and 0% (0/53) were housed there
more than three years.

* These jurisdictions do not have prisoners in restrictive housing under the survey’s definition and reported on restrictive housing.

Table 4

Year When Regular Tracking of Length of Time in Restrictive Housing
Began by Jurisdiction55
Year that Jurisdiction
Began Tracking
1950
1970

Jurisdiction
Minnesota
Connecticut

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Length of Time Data
Includes Retrospective
Analysis
Yes
Yes

15

1974
1985
1989
1990
2000
2002
2003
2006
2008
2009
2011
2014
2015

2016

2017

2018
2019

North Carolina
Colorado
Indiana
New York
Kansas
Oklahoma
Massachusetts
Mississippi
Wyoming
Vermont
Georgia
New Hampshire
Louisiana
Wisconsin
South Dakota
Hawaii
Texas
Washington
Kentucky
Nebraska
Oregon
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Arizona
Delaware
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Maine
North Dakota
Arkansas
Ohio

Other56
Other57
No
No
No
Yes
No
Other58
Yes
No
No
No
No
Other59
Yes
Other60
Yes
Yes
Other61
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Other62
Yes
Yes63
No
No
Yes
Yes

Given the changing parameters of segregated housing, the 2019 CLA-Liman survey asked
jurisdictions about the number of prisoners who were held in-cell in restrictive conditions for less
than twenty-two hours a day on average or for less than fifteen days. Twenty-five jurisdictions
provided information about prisoners who were in-cell for twenty-two hours or more but held for
less than fifteen days.64 These jurisdictions reported a total of 7,195 male prisoners and 397 female
prisoners in cell twenty-two hours or more a day for between one and fourteen days. The
percentage of male prisoners in cell for at least twenty-two hours a day and held for less than
fifteen days ranged between 0% and 6.5% of reporting jurisdictions’ total custodial populations,65
with a median of 1.4%. For female prisoners, this number ranged from 0% to 4.5%,66 with a median
of 1.1%.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

16

In addition, seventeen jurisdictions reported information about male and female prisoners
in cell for nineteen to twenty-one hours a day for one to fourteen days.67 The seventeen
jurisdictions reported a total of 1,389 male prisoners and 366 female prisoners in cell for nineteen
to twenty-one hours for fourteen or fewer days. These figures accounted for between 0% and
11.2% of jurisdictions’ male prisoners,68 with a median of 0.0%, and between 0% and 33.2% of
jurisdictions’ female prisoners,69 with a median of 0%.
Eighteen jurisdictions provided figures for prisoners in cell for nineteen to twenty-one
hours for more than fourteen days.70 These eighteen responding jurisdictions reported a total of
4,534 male prisoners and sixty female prisoners in-cell between nineteen and twenty-one hours a
day for more than fourteen days. These numbers accounted for between 0% and 91.0% percent of
jurisdictions’ total male custodial populations,71 with a median of 0.6%, and between 0% and 1.6%
of female prisoners, with a median of 0.2%.72
This additional length of time information is displayed by jurisdiction in Table 5 for male
prisoners and Table 6 for female prisoners.
Table 5

Male Prisoners Held in Conditions Short of Restrictive Housing
by Jurisdiction
Population

Jurisdiction
Arkansas
Colorado*
Connecticut
Idaho73
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Montana
Nebraska
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota*
Oklahoma
Oregon

22 Hours,
1-14 Days
260
257
100
377
0
689
2
396
117
224
0
0
857
791
0
410
45

19-21
Hours,
1-14 Days
27

Percentage
19-21
Hours,
Over 14
Days

50

519
297
489

1,019
0
0
0

679
0
40
0

0
64
20
28
10

1,502
253
17
231
19

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

(n = 26)

22 Hours,
1-14 Days
1.8%
2.0%
1.3%
1.5%
0.0%
6.5%
0.1%
2.2%
1.5%
2.8%
0.0%
0.0%
2.0%
2.5%
0.0%
2.7%
0.3%

19-21
Hours, 114 Days
0.2%

19-21
Hours,
Over 14
Days

0.6%

4.1%
2.5%
6.1%

11.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

7.5%
0.0%
1.9%
0.0%

0.0%
1.3%
0.0%
0.1%
0.6%

91.0%
5.0%
0.0%
0.7%
1.2%

17

Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Texas
Washington
Wisconsin
Wyoming

976
25
236
93
1,061
0
268
11

135

233

1
17
0
9
9

13
210
0
29
3

Total

7,195

1,389

4534

2.3%
1.0%
1.4%
2.8%
0.8%
0.0%
1.2%
0.6%
1.4%
(median)

0.3%

0.5%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.5%
0.0%
(median)

0.4%
0.2%
0.0%
0.1%
0.2%
0.6%
(median)

* These jurisdictions do not have prisoners in restrictive housing as defined by the survey.

Table 6

Female Prisoners Held in Conditions Short of Restrictive Housing
by Jurisdiction
(n = 26)74
Population

Jurisdiction
Arkansas
Colorado*
Connecticut
Idaho
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Nebraska75
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota*
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota

22 Hours,
1-14 Days
32
0

19-21
Hours,
1-14 Days
0
3

28
0
41
1
13
24
16
0
41
38
0
25
12
19
5
24
9

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Percentage
19-21
Hours,
Over 14
Days
9
0
5

344
0
0
0

7
0
0
0

1
0
0
1

3
1
14
1

12

2

2

1

22 Hours,
1-14 Days
2.5%
0.0%

1.1%
0.0%
4.5%
0.5%
1.7%
4.5%
2.7%
0.0%
1.9%
1.3%
0.0%
1.0%
1.0%
0.7%
3.5%
1.8%
1.7%

19-21
Hours, 114 Days

19-21
Hours,
Over 14
Days

0.0%

0.5%

0.2%

0.4%

38.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.4%

0.7%
0.1%
0.5%
0.4%

0.5%

0.1%

0.4%

0.2%

18

Texas
Washington
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total

53
0
16
0

0
0
0
3

11
0
2
4

397

366

60

0.4%
0.0%
1.1%
0.0%
1.1%
(median)

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.2%
0.00%
(median)

0.1%
0.0%
0.1%
1.6%
0.2%
(median)

* These jurisdictions do not have prisoners in restrictive housing as defined by the survey.

The Demographics of Restrictive Housing
As in prior reports, we sought to learn about the people placed in restrictive housing in
terms of their sex/gender, race, and age, and whether they were identified as having serious mental
illness. Below, we provide a composite picture drawn from the jurisdictions that responded about
the populations under their direct control.
Sex/Gender: Thirty-eight jurisdictions provided data on men and women in restrictive
housing. As shown in Figure 4 below, 4.17% of the total male custodial population was in
restrictive housing, and 0.85% of the total female custodial population was in restrictive housing
in these jurisdictions. Four of the reporting jurisdictions did not have any prisoners in restrictive
housing.76 Using only jurisdictions that had prisoners in restrictive housing as the survey defined
it, 4.28% of the total male custodial population and 0.88% of the total female custodial population
was in restrictive housing.
Figure 4

Prisoners in Restrictive Housing by Gender77

I Male

prisoners (n = 38)

4.2% {30,473) in restrictive housing

Median = 3.4%

I Female prisoners (n = 36)
0.8% (542) in restrictive housing

Median = 1.4%

Figure 5, Figure 6, and Table 7 provide jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction information about the
number of men in restrictive housing. Across the thirty-eight jurisdictions reporting this data, a
total of 30,473 men were reported in restrictive housing. The median percentage of male prisoners
in restrictive housing among all reporting jurisdictions was 3.42%.78 The percentage held in
restrictive housing, among jurisdictions that have restrictive housing under our definition, ranged

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

19

from 0% of the male custodial population79 to 11.8% (1,684 out of 14,311 male prisoners).80 To
make the information readily accessible, Figure 5 and Figure 6 provide the same information, first
arranged alphabetically by jurisdiction, and then in decreasing order of the percentage of the male
custodial population in restrictive housing.
Figure 5

Percentage of Male Prisoners in Restrictive Housing Ordered
by Jurisdiction

(n = 38)

Percentage of Male Prisoners in Restrictive Housing Ordered
by Percentage

(n = 38)

12.0%
0\
C

'iii

:, 10.0%
0
J:

<Ii

>
·,:;
u

·5

8.0%

"'QJ
a:
.!: 6.0%

"',_QJ
C

0

·.:::
"'
0..

....C

4.0%

QJ

l:'

QJ
0..

2.0%

Figure 6

12.0%
0\
C

'iii

:, 10.0%
0

J:
QJ

-~
....
u

E

8.0%

"'QJ
a:

.!:

"',_QJ

6.0%

C

0

"'
·.:::
0..

....C

4.0%

QJ

l:'

QJ
0..

2.0%

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

20

Table 7

Numbers and Percentages of Male Custodial Population in Restrictive
Housing
(n = 38)

Jurisdiction
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
Colorado*
Connecticut
Delaware*
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana**
Nebraska
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota*
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas***
Vermont*

Total Custodial
Population for
Facilities Reporting
RH Data
19,216
37,986
14,311
12,726
12,028
4,222
39,447
2,958
7,960
36,206
24,533
9,105
10,551
14,269
2,073
18,283
7,895
7,965
8,496
25,271
1,650
5,073
43,932
32,027
1,550
44,896
15,110
13,522
42,527
2,521
17,097
3,333
19,803
131,430
1,336

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Population in
Restrictive
Housing

Percentage in
Restrictive
Housing

670
1,919
1,684
0
106
0
2,118
1
202
1,285
1,554
679
230
679
18
1,100
101
246
353
2,187
148
253
2,074
1,606
0
1,064
948
687
913
64
575
54
1,434
4,326
0

3.5%
5.1%
11.8%
0.0%
0.9%
0.0%
5.4%
0.0%
2.5%
3.5%
6.3%
7.5%
2.2%
4.8%
0.9%
6.0%
1.3%
3.1%
4.2%
8.7%
9.0%
5.0%
4.7%
5.0%
0.0%
2.4%
6.3%
5.1%
2.1%
2.5%
3.4%
1.6%
7.2%
3.3%
0.0%

21

Washington
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total (All jurisdictions)
Total (Jurisdictions
with RH under
our definition)

16,297
22,039
1,760
731,404

601
558
36
30,473

3.7%
2.5%
2.0%
3.4% (Median)

711,570

30,473

3.6% (Median)

* These jurisdictions do not have prisoners in restrictive housing as defined by the survey.
** Montana, which provided different data subsequent to the time frame for aggregate analysis in this report, stated that 96 male
prisoners out of 1,736 (5.5%) in that jurisdiction were in restrictive housing as of July 15, 2019. Montana reported that the original
data it sent reflected in Table 7 was over-inclusive because it counted certain prisoners in conditions that were not restrictive
housing as defined by the survey.
*** Texas reported a total of 4,332 male prisoners in restrictive housing, but noted that six of these prisoners were not housed
under the jurisdiction’s direct control according to the survey definition. For comparison purposes, we included only those prisoners
in restrictive housing that were under the jurisdiction’s direct control (4,326).

Among the thirty-six jurisdictions that provided data about the number of women in
restrictive housing, and whose reported data included at least one female prisoner,81 a total of 542
women were reported in isolation. The median percentage of female prisoners in restrictive
housing among these thirty-six jurisdictions was 0.7%.82 The percentage of women held in
restrictive housing ranged from 0%83 of the female custodial population to 2.68% (seventy-one
out of 2,187 female prisoners).84 Jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction information is provided in Figure 7
and Figure 8, arranged by jurisdiction and by percentages, and in Table 8.
Figure 7

Percentage of Female Prisoners in Restrictive Housing Ordered
by Jurisdiction

(n = 36)*

3.0% ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~

:?2.5%

·.;;
::J

0

J:
C1I

.::::
..., 2.0%
u

·.::
...,
Ill

(1/

a:

c: 1.5%
~

C1I

C:

0

-~ 1.0%

c..
...,
C:

C1I

~

c..

0.5%

* Figure includes jurisdictions that reported having at least one woman in their total custodial population.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

22

Figure 8

Percentage of Female Prisoners in Restrictive Housing Ordered
by Percentage

(n = 36)*

g,2.5%

·;;;
::,
0

J:
QI

.:::
.., 2.0%
u

·.:::
..,

"'

~
C

1.5%

"'...QI
C
0

·.:::
"' 1.0%
c..
..,
C
QI

li; 0 .5%
c..

* Figure includes jurisdictions that reported having at least one woman in their total custodial population.

Table 8

Jurisdiction
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
Colorado*
Connecticut
Delaware*
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky

Numbers and Percentages of Female Custodial Population in Restrictive
Housing
(n = 36)‡
Total Custodial
Population for
Facilities Reporting
RH Data
1,457
4,326
1,307
1,671
914
346
4,626
603
1,236
2,219
2,649
900
914

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Population in
Restrictive
Housing

Percentage in
Restrictive
Housing

0
15
28
0
0
0
29
0
1
42
20
7
8

0.0%
0.3%
2.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.6%
0.0%
0.1%
1.9%
0.8%
0.8%
0.9%

23

Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota*
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont*
Washington
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total (All jurisdictions)
Total (Jurisdictions
with RH under
our definition)

216
776
529
600
940
2,653
426
2,134
2,842
225
3,991
2,421
1,212
2,647
142
1,304
525
2,014
12,043
143
1,371
1,500
253
64,075

2
9
1
9
13
71
3
22
48
0
4
20
18
5
2
27
1
19
75
0
4
39
0
542

0.9%
1.2%
0.2%
1.5%
1.4%
2.7%
0.7%
1.0%
1.7%
0.0%
0.1%
0.8%
1.5%
0.2%
1.4%
2.1%
0.2%
0.9%
0.6%
0.0%
0.3%
2.6%
0.0%
0.7% (Median)

61,690

542

0.8% (Median)

‡

Montana, which provided different data subsequent to the time frame for aggregate analysis in this report, stated that 5 female
prisoners out of 239 (2.1%) in that jurisdiction were in restrictive housing as of July 15, 2019.
* These jurisdictions do not have prisoners in restrictive housing under the survey’s definition but reported on restrictive housing
use.

Race and Ethnicity: The 2019 CLA-Liman survey asked about race and ethnicity data by
sex/gender for the total custodial and the restrictive housing populations. Thirty-two jurisdictions
responded to questions about the racial and ethnic composition of male and female prisoners in
restrictive housing.85 The survey asked for data for the summer of 2019 and did not request annual
admissions data by race. Figure 9 and Figure 10 describe the number of prisoners by sex/gender
in each racial group in the total custodial population and in restrictive housing.86
We asked jurisdictions about the categories white, Black (African-American), Hispanic or
Latino, Asian, Native American or Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and
Other. Table 9 details the number of jurisdictions that used and/or recorded data for each category.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

24

In terms of how individuals were identified as falling within those categories, some jurisdictions
relied on self-reports, and others relied on correctional records or on appearance.
Table 9

Numbers of Jurisdictions Reporting on Racial or Ethnic Groups
(n = 40)

Category
White
Black (AfricanAmerican)
Hispanic or Latino
Asian
Native American or
Alaskan Native
Native Hawaiian or
Pacific Islander
Other
Figure 9

Number of Jurisdictions
Reporting Race Data for Total
Custodial Population
40
40

Number of Jurisdictions
Reporting Race Data for
Restrictive Housing Populations
32
32

38
38
39

32
32
32

20

17

34

27

Race/Ethnicity of Male Prisoners in Total Custodial Population and in
Restrictive Housing Population
(n = 32)

50% , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,

43.4%

-

% of Restrictive Housing Population

-

% of Total Custodial Population

40%

...

Ill
(1J

C:

0
Ill
·.:::

30%

c..

.....0
(1J

0,
10

c 20%
(1J

l:'.
~
10%

2.1%
0%

0.3%
.,,_e

.#'

~~o

'f><f ~

(,<.;

'l>~

-...,'l>

.;; ~,<.;
'l>~

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

0.0%
0\

,r,~ ,,.e
~

.p'

z,G

e ~

.,.~,. 'I>~

.,c.,

-?-~q

1.7%

0\

'l>~

0\

,._'-le

~f.f'

0.5%

~,,.e'?",r,t.;
~'l>

. ,r,~ oq}

~

'I>~

,r,~,~

~ -!i,f

-~e 0
~~~'l>

0.0%

0 .4%
~

<Y'

0 .5%

25

Figure 10

Race/Ethnicity of Female Prisoners in Total Custodial Population and in
Restrictive Housing Population
(n = 32)

70% ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~

63.5%

-

% of Restrictive Housing Population

-

% of Total Custodial Population

60%

VI

50%

Qi
C

0

Vl

·it

40%

.....
0
<I)

Cl
~ 30%

C

<I)

l:
<I)
tl.

20%

10%
4.0%
0.0%

0%
,,._ll-

.#

z,~,,,<>;:..
1>(:-

f i'(J
q)f .f'
,..~ fl,

·,$-0

0

§
~v

0.6%

,p'I>"'

o<

,,,<::- .~e

J'(J~~
•l',..,,,."'

·,<-

~,.,q,,,'<-

0.0%

o<

~~e~'l>c;

~'I>

-~1>"'-5/>
~,,,.,,_,,,
x:-"'
,<;
e .~,t..,

0 .0%

0.4%

0.7%

-5-

<Y'

~o

~~
<l

~1>

In terms of the numbers of individuals for which we have demographic information, thirtytwo jurisdictions reported on race and ethnicity for men in both total custodial population and in
restrictive housing.87 In total, these jurisdictions held 28,155 prisoners in restrictive housing, or
89.3% of the 31,542 prisoners in restrictive housing reported by all responding jurisdictions. We
therefore estimate that the survey results present race and ethnicity data for between 45.0% and
51.2% of the total population in restrictive housing in the United States.88
Among the thirty-two jurisdictions that reported on race and ethnicity among male
prisoners in the total custodial population and in restrictive housing, Black men comprised 43.4%
of the total male restrictive housing population, as compared to 40.5% of the total male custodial
population in those jurisdictions. In nineteen of these thirty-two jurisdictions, the male restrictive
housing population had a greater percentage of Black prisoners than did the total male custodial
population in each of those jurisdictions. In nine of the thirty-two jurisdictions, the male restrictive
housing population had a lower percentage of Black prisoners than did the total male custodial
population in each of those jurisdictions. The remaining four jurisdictions did not have any
prisoners in restrictive housing under the 2019 CLA-Liman Survey definition.89 This data is
depicted in Table 10.
Across all jurisdictions, the difference between the percentage of the male restrictive
housing population that was Black and the percentage of the total male custodial population that
was Black ranged from +16.3 percentage points to -10.4 percentage points. Figure 11 maps those
spreads in the twenty-eight jurisdictions that reported housing individuals in restrictive housing

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

26

conditions under the survey definition. The four responding jurisdictions that did not have any
prisoners in restrictive housing were excluded from Figure 11.
Among the jurisdictions reporting race and ethnicity data on male prisoners, all but one
reported having at least one Hispanic or Latino male prisoner in their total custodial population.90
Across all reporting jurisdictions, Hispanic or Latino prisoners comprised 16.9% of the male
restrictive housing population, as compared to 15.4% of the total male custodial population. In
fifteen of the twenty-seven reporting jurisdictions, the male restrictive housing population had a
greater percentage of Hispanic or Latino prisoners than did the total male custodial population in
each of those jurisdictions. In twelve of the twenty-seven jurisdictions, the male restrictive housing
population had a lower percentage of Hispanic prisoners than did the total male custodial
population in each of those jurisdictions. This data is also depicted in Table 10.
Across all jurisdictions, the difference between the percentage of the male restrictive
housing population that was Hispanic or Latino and the percentage of the total male custodial
population that was Hispanic or Latino ranged from +15.80 percentage points to -2.68 percentage
points. Figure 12 maps those spreads in the jurisdictions that reported having Hispanic or Latino
prisoners in restrictive housing according to the survey’s definition.
In twenty-four of the reporting jurisdictions with restrictive housing as the survey defined
it, the male restrictive housing population contained a smaller percentage of white prisoners than
the total white male custodial population. As detailed below, jurisdictions reported a small
percentage of Asian, Native American or Alaskan Native, and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
prisoners in their general prison populations and a similarly small percentage in their populations
in restrictive housing. Those categorized as “Other” appeared to be comparable in percentages
both in the general and in the restrictive housing populations. Given the small numbers of
individuals, we do not provide details.
Table 11 lists by race/ethnicity the number of male prisoners in the general population
and in restrictive housing for all of the thirty-two reporting jurisdictions. Table 12 compares the
percentages by race and ethnicity of all male prisoners with those in restrictive housing.
Table 13 lists by race/ethnicity the number of women prisoners in the general population
and in restrictive housing for all thirty-one reporting jurisdictions. Table 14 compares the
percentages by race and ethnicity of all female prisoners with those in restrictive housing. Across
reporting jurisdictions, Black prisoners comprised 42.1% of the female restrictive housing
population, as compared to 21.5% of the total female custodial population. Hispanic or Latina
prisoners comprised 9.3% of the female restrictive housing population, as compared to 10.3% of
the total female custodial population. Table 15 depicts this data. Due to the smaller numerical
sample size, this report does not provide jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction charts mapping the difference
between total custodial populations and restrictive housing populations by race for female
prisoners.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

27

Figure 11

Difference in Restrictive Housing and Total Male Custodial Population for
Black Male Prisoners
(n = 28)

Connecticut
Arkansas
Wisconsin
Rhode Island
Massachusetts
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
Louisiana
Ohio
Georgia
Missouri

North Carolina
Oklahoma
New York
Oregon
Mmnesota

Arizona
Kansas
Indiana
Nebraska
Wyoming
Mississippi
washington
South Dakota
Kentucky

Total Male Restrictive Housing Population
•
800
e 1600
•
2400
•
3200
•
4000

Tennessee

Texas
Maryland

-15.0%

Figure 12

-10.0%

-5.0%

0.0%

5.0%

15.0%

20.0%

Difference in Restrictive Housing and Total Male Custodial Population for
Hispanic or Latino Prisoners
(n = 27)91

Texas
South Dakota
Wyoming
washington
Arizona
Nebraska
Kansas
Maryland
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Kentucky
Wisconsin
New York
Indiana
Louisiana
Ohio
Georgia
North Carolina
Mississippi
Tennessee
Oregon
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Arkansas
Missouri
Massachusetts
Connecticut

- 5.0%

10.0%

Total Male Restrictive Housing Population
•
800
1600
2400
3200
4000

•••

0.0%

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

5.0%

10.0%

•

15.0%

20.0%

28

Table 10

Race/Ethnicity of Male Prisoners in Restrictive Housing
(n = 32)

% of Total Custodial
Population
% of Restrictive Housing
# of jurisdictions with overrepresentation in segregated
housing as compared to the
general population.
# of jurisdictions with underrepresentation in segregated
housing as compared to the
general population.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Black Prisoners

Hispanic Prisoners

40.5%

15.4%

43.4%
19

16.9%
15

9

12

29

Table 11

Race/Ethnicity of Male Total Custodial and Restrictive Housing Populations
Total Custodial Population
Am.
Hisp. Asian
NHPI
Ind.
15,108
168
1,970

Jurisdiction

White

Black

Arizona

14,344

5,779

Arkansas

7,538

6,167

485

55

40

Colorado*

5,599

2,426

4,111

157

433

Connecticut

3,341

5,307

3,273

72

35

Delaware*

1,382

2,614

218

4

0

Georgia

13,648

24,175

1,427

125

18

Indiana

14,537

8,338

1,058

60

47

Kansas

5,025

2,620

1,191

80

194

Kentucky

7,359

2,795

213

0

8

0

Louisiana

4,032

10,169

43

13

13

0

Maryland

4,048

13,169

717

49

84

13

Massachusetts

3,280

2,253

2,137

110

49

0

Minnesota

3,993

3,078

0

224

659

Mississippi

2,979

5,407

74

26

9

Missouri

15,609

9,202

501

54

70

Nebraska

2,590

1,434

748

42

216

New York

10,393

21,781

10,210

257

North Carolina

12,174

17,211

699

North Dakota*

961

173

22,237

Oklahoma
Oregon

(n = 32)‡

Restrictive Housing Population
Am.
Black Hisp. Asian
NHPI Other
Ind.
328
968
4 158
18

Other

Total

White

617

37,986

443

19

14,311

677

969

31

2

3

0

12,726

0

0

0

0

0

12,028

14

64

26

1

1

4

4,222

0

0

0

0

0

1

53

39,447

583

1,458

74

2

0

12

128

24,533

920

537

77

4

3

9,105

326

204

133

6

10

10,551

175

46

7

0

0

0

14,269

134

542

3

0

0

0

203

18,283

322

678

80

2

7

1

10

1,100

66

7,895

34

39

25

1

0

0

2

101

11

7,965

81

101

0

5

57

2

246

1

8,496

142

210

1

0

0

0

353

36

25,271

1,218

956

0

3

6

4

2,187

39

5,073

110

67

56

0

19

1

253

397

894

43,932

396

1,128

496

4

17

33

2,074

99

1,701

143

32,027

548

946

33

2

73

4

1,606

103

5

302

1,550

0

0

0

0

0

20,887

1,311

57

84

320

44,896

443

584

31

0

0

8,386

3,889

1,086

63

1,626

19

41

15,110

439

292

91

3

116

9,622

1,336

1,906

190

424

41

3

13,522

462

94

91

8

30

Pennsylvania

17,466

20,556

4,188

109

31

177

42,527

278

530

101

1

Rhode Island

1,015

753

662

37

15

39

2,521

20

28

16

0

South Carolina

5,969

10,517

459

20

21

111

17,097

157

409

8

0

0

Ohio

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

7

0
4

176

6

0

0

Total
1,919

2

1,684

0

0
106

0

0

0

1

2,118

1

12

1,554
679

0
0

2

230
679

0

0
6

1,064

3

4

948

2

0

687

0

3

913

0

0

64

1

575

0

30
South Dakota

1,851

282

133

25

1,035

2

Tennessee

10,550

8,682

480

57

34

0

Texas

41,853

44,027

44,822

481

63

0

Vermont*

1,133

135

2

4

Washington

9,506

2,926

2,226

Wisconsin

9,771

9,399

Wyoming

1,307
273,498

Total

5

3,333

21

2

9

0

21

0

19,803

887

514

24

5

4

0

184

131,430

1,061

1,101

2,159

6

0

0

12

50

1,336

0

0

0

0

644

794

201

16,297

321

80

147

1,778

254

825

12

22,039

166

317

93

221

6

122

8

0

1,760

18

267,580

101,590

3,547

11,331

113

3,533

661,341

10,396

1

54
1,434

5

4,326

0

0

0

10

38

5

601

50

4

21

0

558

1

9

0

8

0

0

36

12,225

4,746

73

592

7

116

28,149

‡

Montana, which provided different data subsequent to the time frame for aggregate analysis in this report, stated that its total male custodial population (1,736) comprised 1,316
white males, 45 Black males, 27 Hispanic males, 369 Native American males, and 6 Asian males. Its male population in restrictive housing (96) comprised 67 white males, 3 Black
males, one Hispanic male, 26 Native American males, and 0 Asian males.
* These jurisdictions do not have prisoners in restrictive housing as defined by the survey, which defined restrictive housing as being confined to a cell for an average of twenty-two
hours per day for fifteen consecutive days or more.

Table 12

Race/Ethnicity of Male Total Custodial and Restrictive Housing Populations
by Percentage 92

Jurisdiction

White

Arizona

37.8%

Total Custodial Population
Am.
Black
Hisp.
Asian
Ind.
15.2%
39.8%
0.4%
5.2%

Arkansas

52.7%

43.1%

3.4%

0.4%

0.3%

Colorado*

44.0%

19.1%

32.3%

1.2%

3.4%

Connecticut

27.8%

44.1%

27.2%

0.6%

0.3%

Delaware*

32.7%

61.9%

5.2%

0.1%

0.0%

Georgia

34.6%

61.3%

3.6%

0.3%

0.0%

0.0%

Indiana

59.3%

34.0%

4.3%

0.2%

0.2%

Kansas

55.2%

28.8%

13.1%

0.9%

2.1%

Kentucky

69.7%

26.5%

2.0%

0.0%

Louisiana

28.3%

71.3%

0.3%

Maryland

22.1%

72.0%

3.9%

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

(n = 32)

Other

White

1.6%

23.1%

Restrictive Housing Population
Am.
Black
Hisp.
Asian
NHPI
Ind.
17.1%
50.4%
0.2%
8.2%

0.1%

40.2%

57.5%

1.8%

0.1%

0.2%

13.2%

60.4%

24.5%

0.9%

0.9%

0.1%

27.5%

68.8%

3.5%

0.1%

0.0%

0.5%

59.2%

34.6%

5.0%

48.0%

30.0%

0.1%

0.0%

1.7%

76.1%

20.0%

0.1%

0.1%

0.0%

19.7%

0.3%

0.5%

0.1%

29.3%

NHPI
0.0%

Other
0.9%

0.0%

0.1%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.3%

0.2%

0.1%

0.8%

19.6%

0.9%

1.5%

3.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.9%

79.8%

0.4%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

61.6%

7.3%

0.2%

0.6%

0.1%

0.0%
0.1%

1.1%

0.9%

31
Massachusetts

41.5%

28.5%

27.1%

1.4%

0.6%

Minnesota

50.1%

38.6%

0.0%

2.8%

8.3%

Mississippi

35.1%

63.6%

0.9%

0.3%

0.1%

Missouri

61.8%

36.4%

2.0%

0.2%

0.3%

Nebraska

51.1%

28.3%

14.7%

0.8%

4.3%

New York

23.7%

49.6%

23.2%

0.6%

North Carolina

38.0%

53.7%

2.2%

North Dakota*

62.0%

11.2%

Ohio

49.5%

46.5%

Oklahoma

55.5%

Oregon

0.0%

0.8%

33.7%

38.6%

24.8%

1.0%

0.0%

0.1%

32.9%

41.1%

0.0%

2.0%

23.2%

0.0%

40.2%

59.5%

0.3%

0.0%

0.0%

0.1%

55.7%

43.7%

0.0%

0.1%

0.3%

0.8%

43.5%

26.5%

22.1%

0.0%

7.5%

0.9%

2.0%

19.1%

54.4%

23.9%

0.2%

0.8%

1.6%

0.3%

5.3%

0.4%

34.1%

58.9%

2.1%

0.1%

4.5%

0.2%

6.6%

0.3%

19.5%

2.9%

0.1%

0.2%

0.7%

41.6%

54.9%

2.9%

0.0%

0.0%

0.6%

25.7%

7.2%

0.4%

10.8%

0.1%

0.3%

46.3%

30.8%

9.6%

0.3%

12.2%

0.3%

0.4%

71.2%

9.9%

14.1%

1.4%

3.1%

0.3%

0.0%

67.2%

13.7%

13.2%

1.2%

4.4%

0.3%

0.0%

Pennsylvania

41.1%

48.3%

9.8%

0.3%

0.1%

0.4%

30.4%

58.1%

11.1%

0.1%

0.0%

0.3%

Rhode Island

40.3%

29.9%

26.3%

1.5%

0.6%

1.5%

31.2%

43.8%

25.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

South Carolina

34.9%

61.5%

2.7%

0.1%

0.1%

0.0%

0.6%

27.3%

71.1%

1.4%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.2%

South Dakota

55.5%

8.5%

4.0%

0.8%

31.1%

0.1%

0.2%

38.9%

3.7%

16.7%

0.0%

38.9%

0.0%

1.9%

Tennessee

53.3%

43.8%

2.4%

0.3%

0.2%

0.0%

61.9%

35.8%

1.7%

0.3%

0.3%

0.0%

Texas

31.8%

33.5%

34.1%

0.4%

0.0%

0.0%

24.5%

25.5%

49.9%

0.1%

0.0%

0.0%

Vermont*

84.8%

10.1%

0.1%

0.3%

0.9%

3.7%

Washington

58.3%

18.0%

13.7%

4.0%

4.9%

1.2%

53.4%

13.3%

24.5%

1.7%

6.3%

0.8%

Wisconsin

44.3%

42.6%

8.1%

1.2%

3.7%

0.1%

29.7%

56.8%

9.0%

0.7%

3.8%

0.0%

Wyoming

74.3%

5.3%

12.6%

0.3%

6.9%

0.5%

0.0%

50.0%

2.8%

25.0%

0.0%

22.2%

0.0%

0.0%

Median

46.9%

35.2%

5.9%

0.4%

0.6%

0.0%

0.4%

36.5%

42.4%

9.3%

0.1%

0.5%

0.0%

0.4%

0.0%
0.1%

0.0%

2.0%
0.8%

0.0%

0.0%
0.2%

0.0%

0.4%

0.4%

0.1%

0.1%

* These jurisdictions did not have prisoners in restrictive housing as defined by the survey, which defined restrictive housing as being confined to a cell for an average of twentytwo hours per day for fifteen consecutive days or more.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

32

Table 13

Race/Ethnicity of Female Total Custodial and Restrictive Housing Populations
(n = 31)‡

Jurisdiction

Total Custodial Population
Am.
Hisp. Asian
NHPI
Ind.

White

Black

2,245

352

1,216

36

351

Arkansas

949

315

28

6

9

Colorado*

860

172

534

19

86

Connecticut

493

235

174

9

3

Delaware*

188

143

14

1

0

Georgia

2,915

1,624

68

12

1

Indiana

2,135

379

53

5

10

Arizona

Restrictive Housing Population
Am.
Black Hisp. Asian
NHPI Other
Ind.

Other

Total

White

126

4,326

4

4

7

0

0

0

1,307

8

17

2

0

1

0

1,671

0

0

0

0

0

914

0

0

0

0

0

0

346

0

0

0

0

0

0

6

4,626

15

14

0

0

0

2

24

2,649

13

7

0

0

0

900

3

4

0

0

0

0

0

Total

0

15

0

28

0

0
0

0

0

0

0

29

0

0

20

Kansas

650

160

58

4

23

Kentucky

791

100

7

0

1

0

15

914

7

1

0

0

0

0

0

8

Maryland

381

361

12

1

3

2

16

776

3

5

0

0

1

0

0

9

Massachusetts

358

85

43

3

2

1

37

529

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

Minnesota

361

108

0

20

109

2

600

4

2

0

0

3

0

9

Mississippi

549

385

4

0

2

0

940

7

6

0

0

0

0

13

Missouri

2,196

389

85

8

22

0

2,653

43

26

0

0

1

1

71

Nebraska

282

55

43

1

38

6

426

0

0

0

0

3

47

2,134

14

7

1

0

5

2,842

24

20

1

225

0

0

36

3,991

3

New York

1,052

732

266

14

0
1

23

3

0

0

22

0

3

0

48

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

1,964

747

56

7

63

North Dakota*

133

9

7

0

74

Ohio

2,947

966

29

8

5

Oklahoma

1,391

394

156

6

462

6

6

2,421

7

11

1

0

1

993

65

68

23

58

5

0

1,212

10

5

1

0

2

Pennsylvania

1,735

673

168

15

11

45

2,647

3

2

0

0

Rhode Island

96

19

17

1

4

5

142

2

0

0

0

11

1,304

14

8

2

0

2

0

525

1

0

0

0

0

Oregon

South Carolina
South Dakota

913
212

353
11

20
8

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

0
1

7
291

0
2

0

0

North Carolina

2

7

0

0

0
0

4

0

0

20

0

0

18

0

0

5

0

0

2

0

1

27

0

0

1

33
Tennessee

1,565

412

24

6

7

0

Texas

6,499

2,832

2,645

43

14

0

Vermont*

131

9

0

0

Washington

917

127

155

Wisconsin

980

333

Wyoming

193
37,074

5
12,550

Total

2,014

10

9

0

0

0

0

10

12,043

8

38

29

0

0

0

0

3

143

0

0

0

0

60

98

14

1,371

2

0

1

49

14

123

1

1,500

14

22

22
6,029

2
325

26
1,926

4
419

253

0
220

0
209

1
22

58,344

19
0

75

0

0

0

0

1

0

4

1

0

2

0

39

0
46

0
0

0
20

0
2

0

0
0

497

‡
Montana, which provided different data subsequent to the time frame for aggregate analysis in this report, stated that its total female custodial population (239) comprised 139
white females, 3 Black females, 20 Hispanic females, 97 Native American females, and 4 Asian females. Its female population in restrictive housing (5) comprised one white female,
0 Black females, 0 Hispanic females, 4 Native American females, and 0 Asian females.

* These jurisdictions did not have prisoners in restrictive housing as defined by the survey, which defined restrictive housing as being confined to a cell for an average of twentytwo hours per day for fifteen consecutive days or more.

Table 14

Race/Ethnicity of Female Total Custodial and Restrictive Housing Populations
by Percentage93

Jurisdiction

White

Arizona

51.9%

Total Custodial Population
Am.
Black
Hisp.
Asian
Ind.
8.1%
28.1%
0.8%
8.1%

Arkansas

72.6%

24.1%

2.1%

0.5%

0.7%

Colorado*

51.5%

10.3%

32.0%

1.1%

5.1%

Connecticut

53.9%

25.7%

19.0%

1.0%

0.3%

Delaware*

54.3%

41.3%

4.0%

0.3%

0.0%

Georgia

63.0%

35.1%

1.5%

0.3%

0.0%

0.0%

Indiana

80.6%

14.3%

2.0%

0.2%

0.4%

0.1%

Kansas

72.2%

17.8%

6.4%

0.4%

2.6%

Kentucky

86.5%

10.9%

0.8%

0.0%

0.1%

0.0%

1.6%

Maryland

49.1%

46.5%

1.5%

0.1%

0.4%

0.3%

Massachusetts

67.7%

16.1%

8.1%

0.6%

0.4%

0.2%

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

NHPI
0.0%

(n = 31)

Other

White

2.9%

26.7%

Restrictive Housing Population
Am.
Black
Hisp.
Asian
NHPI
Ind.
26.7%
46.7%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%

28.6%

60.7%

7.1%

0.0%

3.6%

0.0%

0.0%

0.1%

51.7%

48.3%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.9%

65.0%

35.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

42.9%

57.1%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

87.5%

12.5%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

2.1%

33.3%

55.6%

0.0%

0.0%

11.1%

0.0%

0.0%

7.0%

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

Other
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%

34
Minnesota

60.2%

18.0%

0.0%

3.3%

18.2%

0.3%

44.4%

22.2%

0.0%

0.0%

33.3%

Mississippi

58.4%

41.0%

0.4%

0.0%

0.2%

0.0%

53.8%

46.2%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

Missouri

82.8%

14.7%

3.2%

0.3%

0.8%

0.0%

60.6%

36.6%

0.0%

0.0%

1.4%

Nebraska

66.2%

12.9%

10.1%

0.2%

8.9%

1.4%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

100.0%

New York

49.3%

34.3%

12.5%

0.7%

1.1%

2.2%

63.6%

31.8%

4.5%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

North Carolina

69.1%

26.3%

2.0%

0.2%

2.2%

0.2%

50.0%

41.7%

2.1%

0.0%

6.2%

0.0%

North Dakota*

59.1%

4.0%

3.1%

0.0%

32.9%

Ohio

73.8%

Oklahoma

57.5%

24.2%

0.7%

0.2%

0.1%

0.9%

75.0%

25.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

16.3%

6.4%

0.2%

19.1%

0.2%

0.2%

35.0%

55.0%

5.0%

0.0%

5.0%

0.0%

0.0%

Oregon

81.9%

5.4%

5.6%

1.9%

4.8%

0.4%

0.0%

55.6%

27.8%

5.6%

0.0%

11.1%

0.0%

0.0%

Pennsylvania

65.5%

25.4%

6.3%

0.6%

0.4%

1.7%

60.0%

40.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

Rhode Island

67.6%

13.4%

12.0%

0.7%

2.8%

3.5%

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

South Carolina

70.0%

27.1%

1.5%

0.0%

0.5%

0.0%

0.8%

51.9%

29.6%

7.4%

0.0%

7.4%

0.0%

3.7%

South Dakota

40.4%

2.1%

1.5%

0.2%

55.4%

0.4%

0.0%

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

Tennessee

77.7%

20.5%

1.2%

0.3%

0.3%

0.0%

52.6%

47.4%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

Texas

54.0%

23.5%

22.0%

0.4%

0.1%

0.0%

10.7%

50.7%

38.7%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

Vermont*

91.6%

6.3%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

2.1%

Washington

66.9%

9.3%

11.3%

4.4%

7.1%

1.0%

50.0%

0.0%

25.0%

0.0%

25.0%

0.0%

Wisconsin

65.3%

22.2%

3.3%

0.9%

8.2%

0.1%

35.9%

56.4%

2.6%

0.0%

5.1%

0.0%

Wyoming

76.3%

2.0%

8.7%

0.8%

10.3%

0.4%

1.6%

Median

66.2%

17.8%

3.3%

0.3%

0.8%

0.1%

0.8%

51.9%

35.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
0.2%

0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
1.4%

0.0%

0.0%

0.9%

0.1%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

* These jurisdictions did not have prisoners in restrictive housing as defined by the survey, which defined restrictive housing as being confined to a cell for an average of twentytwo hours per day for fifteen consecutive days or more.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

35

Table 15

Race/Ethnicity of Female Prisoners in Restrictive Housing
(n = 31)

% of Total Custodial Population
% of Restrictive Housing
# of jurisdictions with overrepresentation in segregated
housing as compared to the
general population.
# of jurisdictions with underrepresentation in segregated
housing as compared to the
general population.

Black Prisoners

Hispanic Prisoners

21.5%
42.1%
19

10.3%
9.3%
6

6

19

Age: Some correctional policies address age, including juvenile status, as a distinct
consideration when individuals are considered for restrictive housing. The question of the
placement of juveniles has come to the fore in a variety of contexts. For example, the American
Correctional Association (ACA), the accrediting body for U.S. corrections departments,
promulgated Restrictive Housing Performance Based Standards in 2016. The ACA stated that
“Confinement of offenders under the age of eighteen in Extended Restrictive Housing is
prohibited.”94 The ACA defined “Extended Restrictive Housing” as holding prisoners in cell “for
at least 22 hours per day and for more than 30 days.”95
Individuals over age sixty, now also in focus because of COVID-19, are another category
of concern. Moreover, as discussed in a subsequent section, several states have limited or banned
the placement of juveniles, sometimes defined to include people twenty-two or under, as well as
regulated the placement of older adults in restrictive housing.
To understand the age distribution in restrictive housing, we asked jurisdictions to provide
information about prisoners under the age of eighteen and then by age groups through fifty and
older. Thirty-two jurisdictions responded with the numbers of male and female prisoners in the
respective age cohorts. 96
These thirty-two jurisdictions housed a total of 661,546 male prisoners in their total
custodial populations,97 delineated by age cohorts. Collecting their numbers, these jurisdictions
identified 0.1% of total male prisoners in custody who were under the age of eighteen (866); 11.8%
(77,925) who were reported to be between the ages eighteen and twenty-five; 31.8% (210,256)
reported to be between the ages of twenty-six and thirty-five; 35.8% (237,072) reported to be
between the ages of thirty-six and fifty; and 20.4% (135,157) reported to be over the age of fifty.
Within these thirty-two jurisdictions, four jurisdictions reported holding a total of eight
males under the age of eighteen in restrictive housing;98 5.9% (4,562) of male prisoners between
the ages of eighteen and twenty-five in the total custodial population were in restrictive housing;
5.6% (11,717) of male prisoners between the ages of twenty-six and thirty-five were in restrictive

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

36

housing, 3.9% (9,117) of male prisoners between the ages of thirty-six to fifty were in restrictive
housing, and 2.0% (2,752) of male prisoners over the age of fifty were in restrictive housing. As
noted above, in the reporting jurisdictions, an average of 4.2% of all males were incarcerated in
restrictive housing (see Figure 4). Thus younger males were in restrictive housing at higher than
that average rate.
These 32 jurisdictions also provided information about 58,388 female prisoners in their
total custodial populations, delineated by age cohorts.99 Collecting their numbers, these
jurisdictions reported that 0.1% (68) of the total female prisoners in custody were under the age of
18; 10.8% (6,305) were reported to be between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five; 38.3%
(22,356) were between the ages of twenty-six to thirty-five; 37.7% (22,006) were reported to be
between the ages of thirty-six and fifty; and 13.1% (7,653) were reported to be over the age of
fifty.
No jurisdiction reported female prisoners under the age of eighteen in restrictive housing.
Taking the numbers reported together, jurisdictions reported that 1.9% (120) of women between
the ages of eighteen to twenty-five in the total custodial population were in restrictive housing;
1.0% (223) of women between the ages of twenty-six to thirty-five were in restrictive housing;
0.6% (121) of women between the ages of thirty-six to fifty were in restrictive housing; and 0.4%
(33) of women over the age of fifty were in restrictive housing. As noted above, in the reporting
jurisdictions, an average of 0.8% of all females were incarcerated in restrictive housing (see Figure
4). Thus, younger females were in restrictive housing at higher than that average rate.
Below in Figure 13 and Figure 14, we provide aggregate information about the proportions
of the total custodial population and restrictive housing populations that these cohorts make up.
We provide jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction data in Table 16, Table 17, Table 18, and Table 19.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

37

Figure 13

Male Prisoners in Restrictive Housing and Total Custodial Populations
by Age
(n = 32)

50% ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~

-

% of Restrictive Housing Population
% of Total Custodial Population

41.6%
40%

~

(IJ

C

0

-~ 30%

a:

0

(IJ

en

ro

°l::

20.4%
20%

(IJ

~

&
10%

0.0%
0.1%
Q% L--- - - -. - - - -- Under 18

Figure 14

18-25

36-50

so+

Female Prisoners in Restrictive Housing and Total Custodial Populations
by Age
(n = 32)

50% ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~

44.9%

40%

-

% of Restrictive Housing Populati on

-

% of Total Custodial Population

37 .7%

~

(IJ

C

0

Ill

3Qo/o

~
0

(IJ

en

ro

'c 20%
(IJ

~

&

13.1%
10%

0.0%
0.1%
Q% L - - --"-- ' - - ' - ~ - - - - Under 18

18- 25

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

26-35

36-50

50+

38

Table 16

Male Total Custodial and Restrictive Housing Populations by Age

Jurisdiction
Arizona
Arkansas
Colorado*
Connecticut
Delaware*
Georgia
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota*
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont*

<18
43
10
8
44
31
68
353
0
0
8
41
0
6
0
2
9
46
51
0
36
34
0
9
2
16
0
8
26
1

Total Custodial Population
18-25
26-35
36-50
4,222
12,876
14,050
1,861
4,471
5,289
1,330
4,137
4,751
1,861
4,075
3,956
618
1,369
1,342
5,568
12,996
13,181
3,027
7,743
9,273
1,143
2,950
3,280
987
3,312
4,076
901
3,171
5,486
2,352
6,446
5,666
586
2,287
2,831
981
2,848
2,907
1,002
2,558
3,070
2,879
8,147
9,120
833
1,675
1,718
5,704
14,500
15,170
2,922
9,327
12,284
186
599
533
6,109
14,906
15,362
1,413
4,302
5,718
1,409
4,184
4,711
4,417
14,230
14,737
436
835
808
2,154
5,496
6,110
551
1,149
1,084
1,981
6,323
7,867
15,312
39,918
48,181
172
500
436

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

50+
6,795
2,680
2,500
2,092
862
7,634
4,137
1,735
2,176
4,704
3,778
2,191
1,223
1,866
5,324
838
8,512
7,443
232
8,483
3,643
3,218
9,134
440
3,321
549
3,624
27,993
227

<18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0

Restrictive Housing Population
18-25
26-35
36-50
271
874
633
277
687
568
0
0
0
42
45
16
0
0
0
362
969
623
203
616
565
139
340
159
33
124
67
61
195
273
205
540
284
18
49
28
45
115
68
33
161
135
398
880
656
79
111
55
561
857
532
271
736
482
0
0
0
234
526
251
105
330
380
130
294
194
150
419
266
19
24
15
126
273
142
18
21
13
132
579
542
392
1,448
1,833
0
0
0

(n = 32) ‡
50+
141
152
0
3
0
164
170
41
6
150
71
6
18
24
252
8
124
118
0
51
132
69
78
6
34
2
177
659
0

39

Washington
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total

0
14
0
866

1,704
3,091
213
77,925

5,471
7,174
551
210,526

5,891
7,602
582
237,072

3,231
4,158
414
135,157

0
0
0
8

117
128
13
4,562

258
231
15
11,717

177
155
5
9,117

49
44
3
2,752

‡

Montana, which provided different data subsequent to the time frame for aggregate analysis in this report, stated that its total male custodial population (1736) comprised 0 males
under age 18, 170 between 18 and 25 years old, 510 between 26 and 35 years old, 616 between 36 and 50 years old, and 440 over 50 years old. Its male restrictive housing population
(96) comprised 0 males under age 18, 13 between 18 and 25 years old, 43 between 26 and 35 years old, 26 between 36 and 50 years old, and 14 over 50 years old.

* These jurisdictions did not have prisoners in restrictive housing as defined by the survey, which defined restrictive housing as being confined to a cell for an average of twentytwo hours per day for fifteen consecutive days or more.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

40

Table 17

Percentage of Male Total Custodial and Restrictive Housing Populations by Age
(n = 32)

Jurisdiction
Arizona
Arkansas
Colorado*
Connecticut
Delaware*
Georgia
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota*
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont*

<18
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.4%
0.7%
0.2%
1.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.2%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.1%
0.2%
0.0%
0.1%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%

Total Custodial Population
18-25
26-35
36-50
11.1%
33.9%
37.0%
13.0%
31.2%
37.0%
10.5%
32.5%
37.3%
15.5%
33.9%
32.9%
14.6%
32.4%
31.8%
14.1%
32.9%
33.4%
12.3%
31.6%
37.8%
12.6%
32.4%
36.0%
9.4%
31.4%
38.6%
6.3%
22.2%
38.4%
12.9%
35.3%
31.0%
7.4%
29.0%
35.9%
12.3%
35.8%
36.5%
11.8%
30.1%
36.1%
11.4%
32.2%
36.1%
16.4%
33.0%
33.9%
13.0%
33.0%
34.5%
9.1%
29.1%
38.4%
12.0%
38.6%
34.4%
13.6%
33.2%
34.2%
9.4%
28.5%
37.8%
10.4%
30.9%
34.8%
10.4%
33.5%
34.7%
17.3%
33.1%
32.1%
12.6%
32.1%
35.7%
16.5%
34.5%
32.5%
10.0%
31.9%
39.7%
11.7%
30.4%
36.7%
12.9%
37.4%
32.6%

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

50+
17.9%
18.7%
19.6%
17.4%
20.4%
19.4%
16.9%
19.1%
20.6%
33.0%
20.7%
27.8%
15.4%
22.0%
21.1%
16.5%
19.4%
23.2%
15.0%
18.9%
24.1%
23.8%
21.5%
17.5%
19.4%
16.5%
18.3%
21.3%
17.0%

<18
0.0%
0.0%

Restrictive Housing Population
18-25
26-35
36-50
14.1%
45.5%
33.0%
16.4%
40.8%
33.7%

50+
7.3%
9.0%

0.0%

39.6%

42.5%

15.1%

2.8%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

17.1%
13.1%
20.5%
14.3%
9.0%
18.6%
17.8%
18.3%
9.3%
18.2%
31.2%
27.0%
16.9%

45.8%
39.6%
50.1%
53.9%
28.7%
49.1%
48.5%
46.7%
45.6%
40.2%
43.9%
41.3%
45.8%

29.4%
36.4%
23.4%
29.1%
40.2%
25.8%
27.7%
27.6%
38.2%
30.0%
21.7%
25.7%
30.0%

7.7%
10.9%
6.0%
2.6%
22.1%
6.5%
5.9%
7.3%
6.8%
11.5%
3.2%
6.0%
7.3%

0.2%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
0.0%

22.0%
11.1%
18.9%
16.4%
29.7%
21.9%
33.3%
9.2%
9.1%

49.4%
34.8%
42.8%
45.9%
37.5%
47.5%
38.9%
40.4%
33.5%

23.6%
40.1%
28.2%
29.1%
23.4%
24.7%
24.1%
37.8%
42.4%

4.8%
13.9%
10.0%
8.5%
9.4%
5.9%
3.7%
12.3%
15.2%

41

Washington
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Median

0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.1%

10.5%
14.0%
12.1%
12.2%

33.6%
32.6%
31.3%
32.5%

36.1%
34.5%
33.1%
35.8%

19.8%
18.9%
23.5%
19.4%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

19.5%
22.9%
36.1%
18.3%

42.9%
41.4%
41.7%
42.9%

29.5%
27.8%
13.9%
28.7%

8.2%
7.9%
8.3%
7.5%

* These jurisdictions did not have prisoners in restrictive housing as defined by the survey, which defined restrictive housing as being confined to a cell for an average of twentytwo hours per day for fifteen consecutive days or more.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

42

Table 18

Female Total Custodial and Restrictive Housing Populations by Age

Jurisdiction
Arizona
Arkansas
Colorado*
Connecticut
Delaware*
Georgia
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota*
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont*

<18
3
0
0
2
2
3
41
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0

Total Custodial Population
18-25
26-35
36-50
423
1,759
1,626
140
513
484
192
710
598
114
344
336
56
156
106
582
1,709
1,760
302
1,034
1,033
123
342
335
64
348
377
0
0
0
79
301
262
54
204
198
70
240
230
76
372
374
278
1,078
1,060
55
173
156
292
780
735
215
1,010
1,164
40
108
65
478
1,640
1,447
238
991
902
136
451
430
273
1,011
937
25
53
50
147
476
487
99
238
168
153
661
766
1,241
4,326
4,776
15
56
58

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

50+
515
170
171
118
26
572
239
97
125
0
133
73
60
118
284
42
324
452
12
426
284
195
426
14
194
20
434
1,694
14

<18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Restrictive Housing Population
18-25
26-35
36-50
7
7
1
9
15
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
14
3
2
13
4
1
3
3
0
5
3
0
0
0
3
3
3
0
1
0
2
5
2
1
6
4
13
34
20
1
2
0
5
9
7
11
23
12
0
0
0
3
1
0
3
5
9
2
9
5
4
1
0
0
1
1
4
11
9
0
0
1
4
7
4
24
29
17
0
0
0

(n = 32) ‡
50+
0
0
0
0
0
4
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
4
0
1
2
0
0
3
2
0
0
3
0
4
5
0

43

Washington
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total

0
0
0
68

128
186
31
6,305

576
598
98
22,356

475
519
92
22,006

192
197
32
7,653

0
0
0
0

2
11
0
120

2
17
0
223

0
9
0
121

0
2
0
33

‡

Montana, which provided different data subsequent to the time frame for aggregate analysis in this report, stated that its total female custodial population (239) comprised 0 females
under age 18, 25 between 18 and 25 years old, 103 between 26 and 35 years old, 81 between 36 and 50 years old, and 30 over 50 years old. Its female restrictive housing population
(5) comprised 0 females under age 18, 1 between 18 and 25 years old, one between 26 and 35 years old, 3 between 36 and 50 years old, and 0 over 50 years old.
* These jurisdictions did not have prisoners in restrictive housing as defined by the survey, which defined restrictive housing as being confined to a cell for an average of twentytwo hours per day for fifteen consecutive days or more.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

44

Table 19

Percentage of Female Total Custodial and Restrictive Housing Populations
by Age

Jurisdiction
Arizona
Arkansas
Colorado*
Connecticut
Delaware*
Georgia
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Maryland
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota*
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont*
Washington

<18
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.6%
0.1%
1.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

Total Custodial Population
18-25
26-35
36-50
9.8%
40.7%
37.6%
10.7%
39.3%
37.0%
11.5%
42.5%
35.8%
12.5%
37.6%
36.8%
16.2%
45.1%
30.6%
12.6%
36.9%
38.0%
11.4%
39.0%
39.0%
13.7%
38.0%
37.2%
7.0%
38.1%
41.2%
10.2%
38.8%
33.8%
10.2%
38.6%
37.4%
11.7%
40.0%
38.3%
8.1%
39.6%
39.8%
10.5%
40.6%
40.0%
12.9%
40.6%
36.6%
13.7%
36.6%
34.4%
7.6%
35.5%
41.0%
17.8%
48.0%
28.9%
12.0%
41.1%
36.3%
9.8%
40.9%
37.3%
11.2%
37.2%
35.5%
10.3%
38.2%
35.4%
17.6%
37.3%
35.2%
11.3%
36.5%
37.3%
18.9%
45.3%
32.0%
7.6%
32.8%
38.0%
10.3%
35.9%
39.7%
10.5%
39.2%
40.6%
9.3%
42.0%
34.6%

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

50+
11.9%
13.0%
10.2%
12.9%
7.5%
12.4%
9.0%
10.8%
13.7%
17.1%
13.8%
10.0%
12.6%
10.7%
9.9%
15.2%
15.9%
5.3%
10.7%
11.7%
16.1%
16.1%
9.9%
14.9%
3.8%
21.5%
14.1%
9.8%
14.0%

<18
0.0%
0.0%

(n = 31)

Restrictive Housing Population
18-25
26-35
36-50
46.7%
46.7%
6.7%
32.1%
53.6%
14.3%

50+
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

27.6%
10.0%
14.3%
0.0%
33.3%
0.0%
22.2%
7.7%
18.3%
33.3%
22.7%
22.9%

48.3%
65.0%
42.9%
62.5%
33.3%
100.0%
55.6%
46.2%
47.9%
66.7%
40.9%
47.9%

10.3%
20.0%
42.9%
37.5%
33.3%
0.0%
22.2%
30.8%
28.2%
0.0%
31.8%
25.0%

13.8%
5.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
15.4%
5.6%
0.0%
4.5%
4.2%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

75.0%
15.0%
11.1%
80.0%
0.0%
14.8%
0.0%
21.1%
32.0%

25.0%
25.0%
50.0%
20.0%
50.0%
40.7%
0.0%
36.8%
38.7%

0.0%
45.0%
27.8%
0.0%
50.0%
33.3%
100.0%
21.1%
22.7%

0.0%
15.0%
11.1%
0.0%
0.0%
11.1%
0.0%
21.1%
6.7%

0.0%

50.0%

50.0%

0.0%

0.0%

45

Wisconsin
Wyoming
Median

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

12.4%
12.3%
11.3%

39.9%
38.7%
39.0%

34.6%
36.4%
37.0%

13.1%
12.6%
12.6%

0.0%

28.2%

43.6%

23.1%

5.1%

0.0%

22.2%

46.7%

23.1%

0.0%

* These jurisdictions did not have prisoners in restrictive housing as defined by the survey, which defined restrictive housing as being confined to a cell for an average of twentytwo hours per day for fifteen consecutive days or more.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

46

Subpopulations
We have discussed some demographic distinctions. In addition, given the concerns about
the harms of placement in restrictive housing, other specific subpopulations have garnered
attention. Here, we provide an overview of data on incarcerated people identified as having a
serious mental illness as well as data on the use of restrictive housing for pregnant women and
transgender individuals.
Prisoners with Mental Health Issues: Reports identify a significant number of incarcerated
people who have mental health issues, with a 2017 estimate as high as one-third of the prison
population.100 Even as debate exists as to what level of distress should create buffers to placement
in restrictive housing, a consensus has emerged that individuals identified as having serious mental
illness (SMI) should not be placed into restrictive housing.
Illustrative of these concerns are the ACA Restrictive Housing Performance Based
Standards, which call for regular “behavioral health assessments” for individuals placed in
restrictive housing.101 Standard 4-RH-0010 provides that corrections agencies should have written
policies to ensure that “a mental health practitioner/provider” evaluates and files written reports
on prisoners “placed in restrictive housing within 7 days of placement.”102 If an individual is held
“beyond 30 days, a behavioral health assessment by a mental health practitioner/provider” is to be
completed “at least every 30 days” for individuals diagnosed with a “behavioral health disorder
and more frequently if clinically indicated.”103 If an assessment concludes that a person has no
“behavioral health disorder,” reassessments are to occur “every 90 days and more frequently if
clinically indicated.” Those evaluations are to take place in “a confidential area.”104
Further, the ACA Standards detail that, “at a minimum,” the mental health provider is to
inquire into whether a person has a present “suicide ideation” or a “history of suicidal behavior,”
is on “prescribed psychotropic medication,” has a current “mental health complaint,” is being
treated for “mental health problems,” has “a history of inpatient and outpatient psychiatric
treatment,” or has a history of “treatment for substance abuse.” The mental health provider must
also observe an individual’s “general appearance and behavior” and look for “evidence of abuse
and/or trauma” or “current symptoms of psychosis, depression, anxiety, and/or aggression.”105 The
provider is then to conclude whether a referral to mental health care is necessary and whether
“emergency treatment” is needed.106
The ACA Standards also provide that once a person is placed in restrictive housing, both
written policies and practices should require that prisoners are “personally observed by a
correctional officer twice per hour, but no more than 40 minutes apart, on an irregular schedule.”107
Individuals who are “violent or mentally disordered or who demonstrate unusual or bizarre
behavior or self-harm” are to be observed more often.108 Prisoners who are “suicidal” are to be
under continuous observation, all of which is to be logged.109 The need for observation is a decision
for a “qualified mental health professional.”110 Unless “medical attention is needed more
frequently,” each person in restrictive housing is to be visited daily by health care personnel in an
announced and recorded visit111 and weekly by a “mental health staff” member, unless more
frequent visits are called for by health personnel.112

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

47

The ACA Standards state that “the agency will not place a person with serious mental
illness in Extended Restrictive Housing,” defined as “housing that separates the offender from
contact with the general population while restricting an offender/inmate to his/her cell for at least
22 hours per day and for more than 30 days for the safe and secure operation of the facility.”113
The ACA defines serious mental illness as “Psychotic Disorders, Bipolar Disorders, and Major
Depressive Disorder; any diagnosed mental disorder (excluding substance use disorders) currently
associated with serious impairment in psychological, cognitive, or behavioral functioning that
substantially interferes with the person’s ability to meet the ordinary demands of living and
requires an individualized treatment plan by a qualified mental health professional(s).”114
To gather information about the use of restrictive housing for persons identified as facing
mental health challenges, the 2019 CLA-Liman survey asked each jurisdiction about people whom
it deemed to have “serious mental illness” (SMI), including the total number as well as the genders,
races, and ages of the seriously mentally ill population both in the total custodial population and
in restrictive housing.115 Thirty-three jurisdictions provided data on both the total custodial
population with SMI and the population with SMI in restrictive housing for male prisoners, and
thirty for female prisoners.116
An additional word of explanation is needed about this aspect of the questionnaire. As
noted in previous reports, and as again reflected in jurisdictions’ responses to this survey,
definitions of serious mental illness vary substantially across jurisdictions, as do the policies
governing placement of individuals with mental health issues—classified as “serious” or
otherwise—in restrictive housing. In addition to correctional agency rules, some legislatures
provide statutory direction and, in some jurisdictions, litigation has resulted in specified definitions
and constraints.117
Some jurisdictions have adopted ACA’s definition of serious mental illness.118 Some also
limit their definition to certain diagnoses, though the scope of included diagnoses range;119 other
jurisdictions rely heavily on mental health professionals’ individual assessments of how serious
prisoners’ diagnoses are.120 Still other jurisdictions have more detailed descriptions, such as
applying to anyone “[e]xhibiting impaired emotional, cognitive, or behavioral functioning that
interferes seriously with an individual’s ability to function adequately except with supportive
treatment or services. The individual also must: a) currently have or have had within the past year
a diagnosed mental disorder, and b) currently exhibit significant signs and symptoms of a mental
disorder.”121 Some also have several paragraphs or pages of descriptions.122
Given this variation in scope and detail, a person could be classified as seriously mentally
ill in one jurisdiction but not in another. We therefore have neither aggregated nor scaled the data
but rather provide, in Table 20 and Table 21, the numbers of persons in the general population
with serious mental illness and the numbers placed in restrictive housing, as provided by each
jurisdiction’s own account. We provide the definitions used in thirty-nine jurisdictions in
Appendix C.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

48

Table 20

Jurisdiction
Arizona
Arkansas
Colorado*
Connecticut
Delaware*
Georgia
Hawaii**
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota*
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont*
Washington
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total (All
jurisdictions)

Male Prisoners with Serious Mental Illness (SMI, variously defined) in
Restrictive Housing by Jurisdiction
(n = 33)
Total Male
Custodial
Population
37,986
14,311
12,726
12,028
4,222
39,447
2,958
24,533
9,105
10,551
14,269
2,073
18,283
7,895
7,965
8,496
25,271
5,073
43,932
32,027
1,550
44,896
15,110
13,522
42,527
2,521
3,333
19,803
131,430
1,336
16,297
22,039
1,760

Male
Custodial
Population
with SMI
1,780
303
823
399
689
2,050
253
39
1,550
324
1,990
160
1,934
2,074
431
10
5,196
1,380
2,137
17,305
363
3,785
5,249
1,032
3,366
138
117
423
1,304
47
1,750
1,370
74

649,275

59,845

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

% Male
Custodial
Population
with SMI
4.7%
2.1%
6.5%
3.3%
16.3%
5.2%
8.6%
0.2%
17.0%
3.1%
13.9%
7.7%
10.6%
26.3%
5.4%
0.1%
20.6%
27.2%
4.9%
54.0%
23.4%
8.4%
34.7%
7.6%
7.9%
5.5%
3.5%
2.1%
1.0%
3.5%
10.7%
6.2%
4.2%
6.5%
(median)

Male
Population
with SMI in
RH
71
22
0
3
0
187
12
25
209
9
145
0
234
40
14
1
757
77
15
39
0
81
765
56
0
9
0
40
0
0
119
80
0
3,010

% Male
Population
with SMI in
RH
4.0%
7.3%
0.0%
0.8%
0.0%
9.1%
4.7%
64.1%
13.5%
2.8%
7.3%
0.0%
12.1%
1.9%
3.2%
10.0%
14.6%
5.6%
0.7%
0.2%
0.0%
2.1%
14.6%
5.4%
0.0%
6.5%
0.0%
9.5%
0.0%
0.0%
6.8%
5.8%
0.0%
4.0%
(median)

49

Total
(Jurisdictions
with RH under
our definition)

629,411

57,923

6.2%
(median)

3,010

5.4%
(median)

* These jurisdictions did not have prisoners in restrictive housing as defined by the survey, which defined restrictive housing as
being confined to a cell for an average of twenty-two hours per day for fifteen consecutive days or more.
**Hawaii reported having one male prisoner in restrictive housing across its total custodial population, and reported that twelve
(12) male prisoners with SMI were in restrictive housing. We were not able to reconcile the differences.

Table 21

Jurisdiction
Arizona
Arkansas
Colorado*
Connecticut
Delaware*
Georgia
Hawaii**
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
New York
North Dakota*
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont*

Female Prisoners with Serious Mental Illness (SMI, variously defined) in
Restrictive Housing by Jurisdiction
(n = 30)
Total
Female
Custodial
Population
4,326
1,307
1,671
914
346
4,626
603
2,649
900
914
216
776
529
600
2,653
426
2,134
225
3,991
2,421
1,212
2,647
142
525
2,014
12,043
143

Female
Custodial
Population
with SMI
311
54
292
88
120
53
74
3
213
179
40
69
355
72
953
148
167
76
1,174
1,640
223
416
13
42
48
87
5

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

% Female
Custodial
Population
with SMI
7.2%
4.1%
17.5%
9.6%
34.7%
1.1%
12.3%
0.1%
23.7%
19.6%
18.5%
8.9%
67.1%
12.0%
35.9%
34.7%
7.8%
33.8%
29.4%
67.7%
18.4%
15.7%
9.2%
8.0%
2.4%
0.7%
3.5%

Female
Population
with SMI in
RH
5
1
0
0
0
4
5
1
3
3
1
0
1
1
36
1
0
0
2
29
8
0
0
1
1
0
0

% Female
Population
with SMI in
RH
1.6%
1.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
7.5%
6.8%
33.3%
1.4%
1.7%
2.5%
0.0%
0.3%
1.4%
3.8%
0.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
1.8%
3.6%
0.0%
0.0%
2.4%
2.1%
0.0%
0.0%

50

Washington
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total
(All Jurisdictions)
Total
(All Jurisdictions
With Restrictive
Housing Populations)

1,371
1,500
253

152
448
22

54,077

7,537

51,692

7,044

11.1%
29.9%
8.7%
12.1%
(Median)
11.5%
(Median)

1
30
0

0.7%
6.7%
0.0%

134

1.0%

134

1.5%

* These jurisdictions did not have prisoners in restrictive housing as defined by the survey, which defined restrictive housing as
being confined to a cell for an average of twenty-two hours per day for fifteen consecutive days or more.
**Hawaii reported having no female prisoners in restrictive housing across its total custodial population, and reported that five
female prisoners with SMI were in restrictive housing. We were not able to reconcile the differences.

We also sought to learn about the intersection of gender and mental illness with race and
with age. Thirty jurisdictions provided information about male prisoners with serious mental
illness by race and ethnicity, and twenty-eight jurisdictions provided information about female
prisoners with serious mental illness by race and ethnicity.123 Tables 22 and 23 provide the
information, jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction. In addition, thirty-one jurisdictions provided information
by age about male prisoners with serious mental illness, and twenty-nine jurisdictions provided
information by age about female prisoners with serious mental illness. This information is
provided by jurisdiction in Tables 24 and 25. Jurisdictions that reported having no prisoners with
serious mental illnesses in restrictive housing were included only if they also delineated the total
prison population with a serious mental illness by race/ethnicity or age.124 Additionally, in terms
of serious mental illness data by age, some jurisdictions reported data only for prisoners in
restrictive housing.125 For these jurisdictions, total male or female prisoners populations are not
distinguished by age group.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

51

Table 22

Male Prisoners with Serious Mental Illness by Race and Ethnicity in the Total
Custodial and Restrictive Housing Populations
Total Custodial Population
Am.
Hisp. Asian
NHPI
Ind.

(n = 30)

Restrictive Housing Population
Am.
Black Hisp. Asian
NHPI Other
Ind.

Other

Total†

White

28

1,780

29

13

25

1

3

0

303

8

14

0

0

0

0

823

0

0

0

0

0

399

0

2

1

0

0

1

689

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

2,050

49

136

2

0

0

2

88

15

253

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

39

13

10

2

39

9

39

1,550

116

60

82

3

0

0

0

1,375

3

1

2

0

1,213

39

3

19

2

1,046

521

456

0

0

0

251

138

0

8

34

4

6

0

0

0

Nebraska

840

324

134

7

63

New York

561

1,038

460

16

22

North Carolina

9,755

6,805

254

45

382

North Dakota*

251

37

15

2

57

Ohio

2,302

1,367

84

3

9

Oklahoma

3,234

1,212

232

12

541

782

110

75

18

44

Pennsylvania

1,469

1,600

272

8

Rhode Island

69

38

29

South Dakota

75

10

3

Jurisdiction

White

Black

Arizona

834

394

459

8

57

Arkansas

134

162

5

1

1

Colorado*

402

194

190

9

28

Connecticut

145

147

97

6

4

Delaware*

304

358

24

2

0

Georgia

731

1,267

40

10

1

Hawaii

66

21

5

56

Indiana

21

15

3

Kansas

971

492

Kentucky

234

Louisiana

609

Maryland

638

Massachusetts
Minnesota
Mississippi

Oregon

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

0

5

0

Total†

0

71

0

22

0

0
3

0

0

0

0

187

1

0

0

12

0

0

0

0

25

28

1

4

209

324

8

1

0

0

0

0

1,990

33

111

1

0

0

0

20

1,934

83

135

11

0

3

0

2

234

51

2,074

21

9

10

0

0

0

0

40

0

431

4

5

0

0

5

0

14

0

0

10

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

11

1,380

41

21

11

0

3

0

1

77

40

2,137

5

10

0

0

0

0

15

64

17,305

12

24

0

0

2

1

39

363

0

0

0

0

0

20

3,785

45

34

1

0

0

4

14

5,249

284

165

33

1

51

2

1

1,032

36

11

3

3

3

3

14

3,366

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

138

3

3

3

1

28

0

117

0

0

0

1

0

0

9
145

0

0
1

81

2

3

539

0

0

56

0

0

0

0

0

0

9

0

0

0

0

0

52

Tennessee

268

146

8

0

0

Vermont*

42

3

0

0

1

Washington

423

17

22

1

0

0

0

40

1

47

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1,097

352

151

56

70

24

1,750

70

25

12

1

9

2

119

Wisconsin

866

545

113

10

65

1

1,370

35

31

11

1

2

0

80

Wyoming

57

9

5

0

3

0

0

74

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

28,058

19,981

3,198

293

1,475

99

311

53,185

912

843

155

8

86

2

10

2,027

TOTAL
†

1

Totals include all prisoners reported to have SMI within a jurisdiction, whether or not the jurisdiction had race information for all prisoners with SMI.

* These jurisdictions did not have prisoners in restrictive housing as defined by the survey, which defined restrictive housing as being confined to a cell for an average of twentytwo hours per day for fifteen consecutive days or more.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

53

Table 23

Jurisdiction

Female Prisoners with Serious Mental Illness by Race and Ethnicity in the Total
Custodial and Restrictive Housing Populations
Total Custodial Population
Am.
Hisp. Asian
NHPI
Ind.

White

Black

Arizona

160

58

57

3

22

Arkansas

34

17

2

0

1

Colorado*

0

(n = 28)

Restrictive Housing Population
Am.
Black Hisp. Asian
NHPI Other
Ind.

Other

Total†

White

11

311

1

2

2

0

0

0

54

1

0

0

0

0

0

292

0

0

0

0

0

88

0

0

0

0

0

0

120

0

0

0

0

0

154

38

82

5

13

Connecticut

38

29

20

0

1

Delaware*

69

46

5

0

0

Georgia

23

27

2

1

0

0

0

53

2

2

0

0

0

Hawaii

26

5

3

10

0

26

4

74

1

0

0

0

Indiana

0

3

0

0

0

0

0

3

0

1

0

Kansas

138

41

24

2

8

213

0

3

Kentucky

148

25

2

0

0

0

4

179

3

Maryland

37

30

1

0

0

0

1

69

0

249

52

28

0

0

0

26

355

Minnesota

39

19

0

3

11

0

Nebraska

99

22

16

0

11

New York

53

87

22

0

North Carolina

4,147

2,839

168

North Dakota*

47

2

Ohio

859

Oklahoma

0

Total†

0

5

0

1

0

0
0

0

0

0

0

4

0

3

0

5

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

72

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

148

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

2

3

167

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

11

76

7

7,248

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

2

0

25

76

0

0

0

0

0

293

6

4

2

10

1,174

1

1

0

0

0

977

257

79

3

317

3

4

1,640

3

7

1

0

0

Oregon

188

13

8

3

10

1

0

223

5

2

0

0

1

Pennsylvania

246

131

25

2

3

9

416

0

0

0

0

Rhode Island

10

3

0

0

0

0

13

0

0

0

0

South Dakota

23

0

1

0

18

0

0

42

1

0

0

0

0

0

Tennessee

32

16

0

0

0

0

48

1

0

0

0

0

0

Massachusetts

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

0

0

3

0

0

0
0

2

0

0

11

0

0

8

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1
1

54

Vermont*

†

4

0

0

0

0

1

5

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Washington

107

14

16

6

6

3

152

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

Wisconsin

311

103

19

6

35

0

448

14

13

0

0

3

0

30

Wyoming
Total

17

1

2

0

1

0

1

22

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

8,236

4,171

590

59

562

30

84

13,705

36

32

3

0

5

3

0

79

Totals include all prisoners reported to have SMI within a jurisdiction whether or not the jurisdiction had race information for all prisoners with SMI.

* These jurisdictions did not have prisoners in restrictive housing as defined by the survey, which defined restrictive housing as being confined to a cell for an average of twentytwo hours per day for fifteen consecutive days or more.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

55

Table 24

Male Prisoners with Serious Mental Illness by Age in the Total Custodial
and Restrictive Housing Populations

Jurisdiction
Arizona
Arkansas
Colorado*
Connecticut
Delaware*
Georgia
Hawaii
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota*
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Vermont*
Washington

<18
1
0
0
1
0
0
0

Total Custodial Population
18-25
26-35
36-50
85
513
702
8
81
142
61
237
327
75
132
114
84
193
256
200
652
720
21
63
96

50+
479
72
198
77
156
478
73

0
0
0
0
0
0
0

170
16
67
164
144
32
2

525
71
352
726
582
134
3

604
126
805
659
815
175
2

342
111
766
385
533
90
3

1
1
0
0
0
16
0
1
0
0
0
0
0

177
151
0
37
300
441
62
181
16
8
44
5
111

472
554
775
137
1,063
1,557
266
818
51
36
98
11
504

514
811
7,377
121
1,447
2,130
409
1,265
50
46
158
14
677

216
620
9,153
68
975
1,105
295
1,101
21
27
123
17
458

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Total†
1,780
303
823
399
689
2,050
253
39
1,641
324
1,990
1,934
2,074
431
10
5,196
1,380
2,137
17,305
363
3,785
5,249
1,032
3,366
138
117
423
47
1,750

<18

(n = 31)

Restrictive Housing Population
18-25
26-35
36-50
50+
0
3
29
30
9
0
1
10
9
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
89
63
19
0
0
1
5
0
0
1
13
8
3
0
36
93
66
14
0
1
1
7
0
0
11
24
62
48
0
27
125
66
16
0
5
21
11
3
0
0
7
7
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
118
314
232
93
0
16
35
23
3
0
0
6
6
3
0
0
4
24
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
41
27
3
0
54
171
235
79
0
6
20
20
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
5
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
14
13
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
51
38
16

Total†
71
22
0
3
0
187
6
25
209
9
145
234
40
14
1
757
77
15
39
0
81
765
56
0
9
0
40
0
119

56

Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total
†

0
0
21

98
2
2,762

380
22
11,008

638
25
21,225

484
25
18,451

1,370
74
58,472

0
0
0

9
0
333

31
0
1,106

29
0
987

11
0
352

80
0
3,004

Totals include all prisoners reported to have SMI within a jurisdiction whether or not the jurisdiction had age information for all prisoners with SMI.

* These jurisdictions did not have prisoners in restrictive housing as defined by the survey, which defined restrictive housing as being confined to a cell for an average of twentytwo hours per day for fifteen consecutive days or more.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

57

Table 25

Female Prisoners with Serious Mental Illness by Age in the Total Custodial
and Restrictive Housing Populations

Jurisdiction
Arizona
Arkansas
Colorado*
Connecticut
Delaware*
Georgia
Hawaii
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Maryland
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota*
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Vermont*
Washington
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total

<18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Total Custodial Population
18-25
26-35
36-50
24
87
138
3
18
19
22
112
135
14
31
29
12
49
46
3
12
22
5
25
27

50+
62
14
23
14
13
16
17

0
0
0
0
0

22
13
2
40
5

90
79
30
135
19

61
66
24
136
36

16
21
13
44
12

0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3

12
7
0
9
116
157
14
34
3
5
3
1
6
44
2
578

59
40
162
40
451
658
75
127
4
21
6
0
51
182
5
2,568

59
69
2,931
24
466
640
88
169
4
14
28
3
65
179
14
5,492

18
51
4,155
3
141
182
46
86
2
2
11
1
30
69
1
5,063

†

Total†
311
54
292
88
120
53
74
3
213
179
69
355
72
953
148
167
7,248
76
1,174
1,640
223
416
13
42
48
5
152
448
22
14,658

<18

(n =29)

Restrictive Housing Population
18-25
26-35
36-50
50+
0
1
3
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
1
0
1
3
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
6
17
12
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
2
5
2
0
0
6
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
8
11
8
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
22
53
32
8

Total†
5
1
0
0
0
4
4
1
3
3
0
1
1
36
1
0
1
0
2
29
8
0
0
1
1
0
1
30
0
133

Totals include all prisoners reported to have SMI within a jurisdiction whether or not the jurisdiction had age information for all prisoners with SMI.
* These jurisdictions did not have prisoners in restrictive housing as defined by the survey, which defined restrictive housing as being confined to a cell for an average of twentytwo hours per day for fifteen consecutive days or more.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

58

Pregnant Prisoners: Restrictive housing has sometimes been used as a placement for
prisoners identified as “different” or in need of protection on various metrics, including being
pregnant. Current ACA Standards provide that “female inmates determined to be pregnant” should
not be housed in extended restrictive housing.126 We sought to learn how many pregnant prisoners
were in the custodial population as a whole and how many were placed in restrictive housing.
Thirty-one jurisdictions reported information on the total number of pregnant prisoners
both in their general custodial and in their restrictive housing populations.127 In addition, two
jurisdictions provided the number of pregnant prisoners among one of these populations.128 Of the
thirty-one jurisdictions that provided information on both populations, two reported that, as of the
summer of 2019,129 they housed no pregnant prisoners in their total custodial populations.130 The
other twenty-nine jurisdictions reported that they counted a cumulative total of 361 pregnant
women prisoners in their total custodial populations.131 One jurisdiction reported having one
pregnant prisoner held in restrictive housing;132 the rest reported having none.
Transgender Prisoners: As with pregnancy, “protection” has been a basis for putting other
persons with specific needs in restrictive housing. Concerns about the misuse of restrictive housing
as a placement for transgender individuals prompted the ACA in 2016 to promulgate a Standard
that prisoners not be “placed in Restrictive Housing on the basis of Gender Identity alone.”133 The
2019 survey sought to learn about transgender prisoners in the total custodial population and in
restrictive housing.
Thirty-five jurisdictions responded about how they identify transgender prisoners, of which
one indicated that it did not track transgender prisoners.134 For the majority of jurisdictions, a
prisoner is identified as transgender by self-report; other avenues may also be available for
identifying transgender prisoners.135 A few jurisdictions require a gender dysphoria diagnosis for
prisoners to be identified as transgender after the individual has self-identified.136 Three
jurisdictions identified medical determinations or procedures that were not explicitly initiated by
a prisoner’s self-identification as means of identifying transgender prisoners.137 In Appendix D,
we detail the methods of identification.
Twenty-seven jurisdictions provided information about the number of transgender
prisoners in total custodial population and restrictive housing,138 an additional four jurisdictions
reported the number of transgender prisoners only within total custodial population,139 and one
was able to report the number only within restrictive housing.140 Among the twenty-seven
jurisdictions that provided information on their total custodial populations, one jurisdiction
reported having no transgender prisoners in its total custodial population.141 The remaining
jurisdictions, which include three that do not have restrictive housing using this survey’s definition,
reported a total of 2,371 transgender prisoners in their total custodial populations and 112
transgender prisoners in restrictive housing.142 The percentage of transgender prisoners in
restrictive housing within these jurisdictions ranged from 0%143 to 14.3%144 of transgender
prisoners.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

59

III. Dimensions of Living in Restrictive Housing:
A 2019 Snapshot
As we have recounted in prior reports in this series, dozens of departments of corrections
have revised their policies to reduce or eliminate the practice of holding people in cells an average
of twenty-two hours or more per day for fifteen days or more. For the 2019 data collection, we
again asked about policies and reforms. In addition to questions focused on entry, oversight,
programs, release, and the impact of the 2016 ACA Performance Based Standards, we included
new questions about time out-of-cell, mental health care, and subpopulations. The survey also
asked jurisdictions about what they would like to do, if resources were available, in terms of time
out-of-cell.
Four jurisdictions reported that they did not have any individuals in restrictive housing as
we defined it.145 These four were part of the thirty-nine jurisdictions that responded to some
questions on policies.146 Several jurisdictions provided copies of their restrictive housing
regulations, policies, or additional materials. Because not all jurisdictions responded to every
question, the total number of responding jurisdictions differs for many of the questions discussed
in this section.
Criteria for Placement in Restrictive Housing
The survey asked jurisdictions to specify the criteria for placement in restrictive housing.
Thirty-four jurisdictions provided data.147 All thirty-four jurisdictions reported that they put
prisoners in restrictive housing if they pose a threat to others, if they engage in “physical violence
against staff,” or if they engage in “physical violence against another prisoner.”
The survey also asked whether prisoners were placed in restrictive housing on the basis of
“drug or alcohol use,” “self-harm,” “attempted escape,” “escape,” a prisoner’s “underlying offense
of conviction or sentence,” and other criteria. Of the criteria listed in the survey, some of the bases
for placement in restrictive housing that spanned the jurisdictions were posing “a threat to the
security or orderly operation of the institution” (thirty-three jurisdictions),148 escape149 and
attempted escape150 (thirty-three jurisdictions each) and possession of a weapon (thirty-one
jurisdictions). 151
The survey also sought information about the numbers of individuals placed in restrictive
housing for each of the criteria used by the jurisdictions. Because individuals could be placed in
restrictive housing on multiple grounds, as well as for reasons that did not fit the categories listed
in the survey, this question did not yield information beyond the appreciation of the difficulties of
obtaining cross-jurisdictional, clear comparisons on the drivers of individual decisions to use
restrictive housing.
Authority to Make Initial Decisions to Place an Individual in Restrictive
Housing and to Review Such Decisions
Who has authority to make an initial decision about the placement of a person in
segregation? We sought to learn about whether that decision was made by individuals or groups

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

60

and whether levels of review existed. Thirty-three jurisdictions responded to a question that asked
which staff members or administrators were authorized to place a prisoner in some form of
restrictive housing and what levels of review were involved.152 Twenty jurisdictions reported that
a shift supervisor, shift captain, watch commander, or lieutenant was authorized to place a prisoner
in immediate restrictive housing.153 Two of those jurisdictions added that the decision to put a
prisoner with serious mental illness into restrictive housing required approval of a qualified mental
health staff member154 or a physician.155
Four jurisdictions described multi-member teams authorized to make an initial placement
in restrictive housing.156 Three jurisdictions wrote that a captain, unit administrator, or unit
manager was authorized to place a prisoner in restrictive housing,157 sometimes in consultation
with mental health practitioners prior to making a placement.158 A few jurisdictions did not permit
line staff but instead reported that the decision required a deputy or assistant warden, the warden,
or the superintendent.159
In one jurisdiction, the authority to place individuals in restrictive housing intersected with
the duration of time a person could be put into restrictive housing. That jurisdiction explained that
“[a]ll staff can place someone into temporary restrictive housing. Within four hours of placement,
the shift supervisor is required to review and agree with all placements into restrictive housing or
disagree and release the inmate from restrictive housing.”160 Another jurisdiction described the
levels of review built-in and that the person authorized to oversee the decision varied based on the
reason for segregation. As that jurisdiction explained, “[a]ny correctional supervisor can approve
placement into a detention unit pending investigation,” and “[f]or immediate placement based on
a violent act, the Warden can request placement through the Regional Operations Directors who
will then approve or deny the request.”161
Moreover, all thirty-eight of the jurisdictions that discussed this question explained that
review of immediate placement in restrictive housing was mandatory.162 We sought to learn which
staff were involved in the review process and received responses from twenty-eight
jurisdictions.163 Thirteen responded that a facility warden, chief of security, superintendent,
administrative head, or warden designee may alone review the initial placement decision.164 Seven
jurisdictions reported that a multidisciplinary team, comprised of staff of the facility, were charged
with review of the initial placement decision.165 For example, one jurisdiction reported that “the
shift commander, deputy warden, warden, and if mental health related, the behavioral staff”
reviewed the initial placement decision.166 As another example, one jurisdiction described an
“Institutional Segregation Review board” comprised of the warden, a classification supervisor,
chaplain, and department psychologist or psychological associate or contract mental health
professional, which was “responsible for reviewing the status of every inmate confined to the
restrictive housing unit.”167
Many jurisdictions had an individual conduct the review. In one, a watch commander was
charged with determining “if the misbehavior supports the charges, and . . . if restrictive housing
placement is appropriate.”168 Two jurisdictions responded that a unit manager or captain reviews
a prisoner’s initial placement into restrictive housing.169 One jurisdiction stated that the “Warden,
Facilities Director, and Tier Manager review” initial placement decisions together.170 Another

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

61

jurisdiction reported that a facility warden reviews the initial placement and then “contact[s] the
appropriate Deputy Director or the Duty Director, requesting final authorization.”171
In addition to asking about layers of decision-making, we also asked about the timing of
the reviews of the initial placement decision. Thirty-three jurisdictions responded,172 and thirtytwo reported that review must take place within a certain time period, generally twenty-four hours
to thirty days. Eleven jurisdictions reported that the initial review must occur within twenty-four
hours of initial placement.173 One jurisdiction said that review must occur within forty-eight hours
of initial placement.174 Nine jurisdictions reported that review must occur within seventy-two
hours of initial placement.175 Two jurisdictions indicated that review must occur within five
days,176 and three jurisdictions reported that review must occur within seven days.177 One
jurisdiction reported that review should occur within thirty days of initial placement.178
Three jurisdictions reported that the timeline for mandatory initial review depends on the
type of restrictive housing.179 For example, one jurisdiction reported that initial placement in
administrative custody must be reviewed within a week while initial placement within disciplinary
custody must be reviewed within seventy-two hours.180 One jurisdiction responded that it provided
no time within which review must take place.181
Turning from the institutional perspective to learn something about an individual’s
experience, we asked about what information jurisdictions provided to people when they were
placed into restrictive housing. Thirty-five jurisdictions answered.182 Thirty-two jurisdictions
stated that, whether verbally during an orientation or in written form, prisoners were provided with
rules and expectations about their behavior during the time when they were placed in restrictive
housing.183 Three jurisdictions did not report providing rules or expectations at the time prisoners
were placed in restrictive housing.184
Eight of these jurisdictions specified telling prisoners the expected length of placement in
restrictive housing.185 An additional seven jurisdictions reported providing prisoners with a
behavior modification plan, case management plan, or information on how to reduce time in
restrictive housing, in addition to any other rules, expectations, or expected duration of
placement.186 For example, one jurisdiction explained that prisoners
are advised of the reason for placement and the duration of placement. Restrictive
housing rules are reviewed with them, including time out-of-cell, phone usage,
mail, etc. They are advised of their ability to reduce their time in restrictive housing
based on their behavior and compliance with their individualized case plan. Case
managers . . . respond[] to any questions or safety concerns the inmate may have.187
Five jurisdictions also explained that prisoners were informed of the timeline for review of
their placement, or the process by which the prisoner can appeal their placement.188 One
jurisdiction reported that prisoners were not provided with any materials or rules upon entry into
restrictive housing, but that “agency policy is made available for review.”189 One jurisdiction
responded that information about restrictive housing came during the hearing on placement and
that, in 2019, it had initiated a pilot project

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

62

to better train staff on the purposes of administrative segregation, meaningful hearings
while assigned to segregation, and increased use of program plans. During these
meaningful hearings, the reason an offender was placed in segregation and what steps the
offender can take to be released from segregation are discussed.190
Duration of Confinement and Recurring Review
Few jurisdictions reported time-limited placements. In contrast, many jurisdictions
indicated that they periodically reviewed whether continued restrictive housing confinement was
appropriate.
Thirty-eight jurisdictions responded to the query of whether the decision to keep or place
a prisoner in restrictive housing was for a predetermined or indeterminate amount of time.191 Six
jurisdictions responded that placements were determinate,192 and twelve stated that duration was
indeterminate.193
In terms of an absolute cap on the amount of time that an individual may serve in restrictive
housing, four of thirty-eight responding jurisdiction stated that the time was limited.194 The range
was from fifteen days195 to twenty-three months.196 In between, a jurisdiction stated that its caps
depended on prisoner classification, and ranged from thirty days to one year.197
Seventeen jurisdictions reported that they have no absolute cap on the amount of time a
prisoner can spend in restrictive housing, whether consecutively, concurrently, or successively,198
but that a cap existed under certain circumstances.199 In one jurisdiction for example, “No inmate
shall remain in a restrictive housing [unit] for more than one year unless the Warden has personally
interviewed him/her at the end of the year and approves the assignment.”200 Another jurisdiction
set a cap only for those placed on administrative segregation status; that cap was forty-seven days,
after which point “the individual must be released to general population or assigned to maximum
custody.”201 A new policy implemented in the jurisdiction as of March 6, 2020 reduced that cap to
thirty days.202 Some jurisdictions indicated that placement in restrictive housing could continue
beyond a set period due to factors such as prisoner behavior. For example, one jurisdiction wrote
that “other factors such as continued assaultive behavior may extend that time” indefinitely. 203
In addition to caps, we asked about determinate as contrasted with indeterminate
placements. Twenty jurisdictions (overlapping with the jurisdictions imposing caps) responded
that setting a duration depended on certain factors.204 Within these twenty, fifteen reported that
whether the placement was indeterminate or predetermined was based on the type of restrictive
housing classification or the reason a prisoner was placed in restrictive housing.205 For example,
one jurisdiction reported that the duration of disciplinary custody (DC) depended “on the sanction
imposed by the hearing examiner based upon the severity of the misconduct charge. AC
[administrative custody] is indeterminate based upon the needs/case.”206
The survey also asked about recurring reviews of status for prisoners in restrictive housing.
Thirty-three jurisdictions responded to queries about which individuals or groups were responsible
for conducting such reviews.207 Twenty-six described a review by a multi-disciplinary team within
the facility and explained that the review could include members from classification or security

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

63

staff, or staff involved in treatment, mental health, or social work.208 Nine jurisdictions mentioned
that mental health staff participated in the recurring review process.209
Other jurisdictions described various processes. For example, one jurisdiction reported that
reviews were conducted by the “Corrections Program Supervisor or Security Supervisor assigned
to [the restrictive housing unit], [a] Health Service Manager or Health Service staff member, [a]
Psychology staff member, Social worker, Unit staff, other staff as designated by the Warden such
as [a] Psychiatrist, [a] Program Escort Officer or Security Staff, [and] Administrators and/or
Central Office staff for specific cases.”210 Another jurisdiction stated that its recurring reviews
were conducted by a facility team comprised of a “case manager, unit sergeant, deputy warden”
and warden, which makes recommendations to a central office team consisting of the “Deputy
Chief of Prisons and Chief Psychologist.”211
We also sought to learn the frequency of placement reviews, and thirty-five jurisdictions
responded.212 Again, we learned of a variety of decisions about that timing, from as often as three
times a week213 to intervals of a few months. The most common response came from seven
jurisdictions that reported weekly reviews.214 One of these jurisdictions explained: “By policy an
offender’s placement in restrictive housing is reviewed once every 7 days for the first 60 days and
once every 30 days thereafter. In practice, every offender is reviewed every 7 days by a
multidisciplinary team.”215
Six jurisdictions reported that placement in restrictive housing is reviewed monthly.216
Four jurisdictions responded that placement is reviewed every three months.217 Four jurisdictions
reported that review occurs once every seven days for the first sixty days and once every thirty
days thereafter.218 Twelve other jurisdictions reported that the frequency of review depends on the
type of classification and/or the amount of time spent in segregation.219 In one jurisdiction, for
example, “disciplinary confinement” prisoners are reviewed “every 45 days” while “administrative
confinement” prisoners are reviewed “every 90 days.”220 One jurisdiction reported that the
frequency of review depends on whether the facility is ACA accredited: “Facilities with ACA
accreditation review[] every 7 days for the first two months, then every 30 days thereafter. Nonaccredited facilities review every 30 days.”221
Policies for Subpopulations
Thus far, we have discussed policies that governed entire systems. We also sought to learn
whether jurisdictions had developed policies, or changed existing policies, for certain
subpopulations, including juveniles, older prisoners, women, pregnant prisoners, transgender
prisoners, prisoners with serious mental illness, and prisoners with special medical needs.
Responses to questions about at least one of the subpopulations came from 29 jurisdictions.222
We learned that some jurisdictions treated subpopulations, such as individuals with special
medical needs, distinctly at some points in time, such as when making initial placement decisions.
Some jurisdictions reported that they had gender-responsive policies related to programs available
to people in restrictive housing. In addition to reporting on the substance of these policies, ten
jurisdictions stated that they had changed their restrictive housing policies in regard to at least one
of these groups since January 1, 2018.223

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

64

Age-Based Subpopulations: Nineteen jurisdictions had specific restrictive housing policies
for juveniles.224 The majority defined juveniles as anyone under the age of eighteen.225 Eight
jurisdictions reported that they did not place juveniles in restrictive housing.226 One jurisdiction
reported measuring restrictive housing time for juveniles in hours rather than days.227 Another
responded that, in the facility designated to accept juveniles, prisoners were not ordinarily placed
in restrictive housing:
[Juveniles are placed] in a general population environment. However, there are instances
where a juvenile may be a risk to others or have had a disciplinary issue and placed in a
restrictive housing status. [The department] does not routinely place them in restrictive
housing but behavior may cause this to occur as with any other offender.228
Six jurisdictions had policies that modifed restrictive housing practices specifically for
older prisoners,229 but five did not provide how. One jurisdiction explained that it placed older
prisoners in an “Aged and Infirmed ward” instead of in restrictive housing.230
Prisoners with Special Medical Needs: Twelve jurisdictions reported policies on restrictive
housing specific to prisoners with special medical needs.231 Several jurisdictions indicated that, if
clinically necessary, prisoners would be placed in an infirmary unit rather than in restrictive
housing.232 One jurisdiction explained,
Screening by medical staff shall include a determination of any medical contraindications
to Restrictive Housing, including the existence of a permanent physical disability that
precludes placement in Restrictive Housing, in which the inmate shall not be placed in
Restrictive Housing. This screening shall be documented and placed in the inmate's
medical record.233
Others jurisdictions reported having policies to accommodate prisoners with disabilities.234
One jurisdiction specified,
Screening by medical staff shall include a determination of any medical contraindications
to Restrictive Housing, including the existence of a permanent physical disability that
precludes placement in Restrictive Housing, in which the inmate shall not be placed in
Restrictive Housing. This screening shall be documented and placed in the inmate's
medical record.235
One jurisdiction stated it had a policy for “Intellectually and Developmentally Disabled:
IQ 70 or below with functional impairment or physical disability with functional impairment.”236
but offered no details on its provisions.
Women in Prison: Policies specific to women touched on placement decisions, such as
limitations on restrictive housing for pregnant prisoners or a reduced usage of restrictive housing
for women “due to past abuse and victimization.”237 One jurisdiction reported that there was no
restrictive housing for women.238 In addition, thirteen jurisdictions stated that policies related to
programming and conditions varied for women and men in restrictive housing.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

65

Twelve of thirty-three responding jurisdictions reported having gender responsive policies
for women in restrictive housing.239 For example, one jurisdiction noted that “[g]ender responsive
programming focused on trauma, communication, co-dependency, and relationships is offered.”240
Another jurisdiction described that in its restrictive housing unit, “gender specific programming
based on criminogenic needs is offered to inmates. Topic areas include: Cognitive Restructuring,
Healthy Lifestyles, Relationship Management, Pro-Social Activities, and Mental Health.”241 One
jurisdiction reported a higher ratio of mental health staff to prisoners for women than for men.242
Another noted it had “[e]nhanced out-of-cell programming opportunities for women in RH who
are on the mental health caseload.”243
The survey also sought to learn about responsiveness to women’s physical needs. Among
thirty-three responding jurisdictions with restrictive housing as the survey defined it, all
jursdictions reported providing sanitary supplies for women in restrictive housing.244 One
jurisdiction explained,
For women in restrictive housing, sanitary supplies are provided with supplies upon the
cell set up. The inmate can request and receive supplies at any time, however twice a day
during tray pick up on the day shift, the inmates would be afforded the opportunity to
request sanitary tampons, panty liners, and toilet paper from a cart which the officer makes
rounds with. During the afternoon shift this would also be offered during security rounds.245
Eighteen jurisdictions reported having specific policies for pregnant prisoners.246 Of these,
six stated that they did not place pregnant women in restrictive housing.247 Five jurisdictions
reported that pregnant prisoners could only be placed in restrictive housing in limited securityrelated circumstances.248 One jurisdiction explained,
The staff at Women's do all things possible to avoid putting pregnant inmates in Restrictive
Housing (RH): however there are instances where pregnant inmates do pose a threat to
themselves or others and have had to be placed in RH. Except for RH, our only alternative
housing is dormitory housing where the inmates use a common bathroom. Cells are not
self-contained (sink and toilet). We do so only when the threat to safety is imminent and
immediately consult with medical/mental health as appropriate.249
Three jurisdictions specified that they limit use of restraints on pregnant prisoners.250
LGBTI Prisoners: Ten jurisdictions reported having restrictive housing policies
specifically for transgender prisoners.251 Among these, six jurisdictions reported policies stating
that gender identity alone could not be the basis for placement in restrictive housing.252 One
jurisdiction explained that, “search preference is followed” and that transgender prisoners “will
not be placed in RH if they haven't been seen by the initial Transgender Review Board.”253 One
jurisdiction reported a distinct restrictive housing policy for LGBTI and gender non-conforming
prisoners, reporting, “Inmates who are LGBTI or whose appearance or manner does not conform
to traditional gender expectations shall not be placed in restrictive housing solely on the basis of
identification or status.”254

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

66

Prisoners with Mental Health Needs: We asked jurisdictions about their screening,
monitoring, and treatment of the mental health of prisoners in restrictive housing. One set of
questions concerned mental health evaluation prior to placement in restrictive housing. Another
set of questions addressed mental health monitoring and services after individuals had been placed
in restrictive housing. Additional questions addressed policies for prisoners designated as having
severe mental illness. Thirty-four jurisdictions responded to at least one of these questions.255
The survey asked about the role of mental health in evaluating individuals for placement
in restrictive housing and thereafter. Sixteen jurisdictions reported that mental health professionals
screened prisoners in all cases before individuals were placed in restrictive housing.256 An
additional five jurisdictions reported that they screen prisoners before placement in restrictive
housing in some cases,257 such as when the prisoner has been identified as having some sort of
mental health issue.258 In total, twenty-six jurisdictions reported that they conducted mental health
screenings of prisoners in restrictive housing within forty-eight hours of placement at least some
of the time.259
Another set of questions addressed the policies for monitoring mental health of prisoners
once they were placed in restrictive housing. All thirty-four jurisdictions responding to these
questions reported that prisoners in restrictive housing were monitored by mental health
professionals. Within this group, the median ratio of reported mental health professionals to
restrictive housing prisoners was one mental health professional for every nineteen prisoners, and
the range was from 1:1260 to 2:149.261 Jurisdictions reported on mental health visits, which ranged
from daily262 to once every thirty days,263 and the median was once per week.264
What does a mental health visit look like when a person is in restrictive housing? Twentyone reported that at least some visits took place with the prisoner and the mental health professional
in an area other than the person’s restrictive housing cell.265 Twenty-eight jurisdictions stated that
some mental health visits took place with the prisoner inside the cell and the mental health
professional outside.266 Three jurisdictions described mental health visits as sometimes occurring
with the mental health professional joining the prisoner in the restrictive housing cell.267
Nineteen jurisdictions reported that they had some specific policies in place for prisoners
who were designated as having serious mental illness.268 A number of these jurisdictions
stated that their policies required that medical and mental health staff review placements
of such people when placed in restrictive housing.269 Four jurisdictions also indicated
having separate units in which prisoners with serious mental illness would be placed.270
Two jurisdictions reported that they limited the amount of time a prisoner with serious
mental illness could spend in restrictive housing.271 One wrote that keeping prisoners with
serious mental illnesses in restrictive housing “for [an] extended period of time” was
discouraged.272 Another jurisdiction wrote that restrictive housing for prisoners with
serious mental illnesses “is capped at 29 days.”273

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

67

Exiting Restrictive Housing: Step-Down Programming, Release to General
Population, and Leaving Prison for the Community
A major concern is how people who have lived under restrictive housing conditions are
able to function when released either to general population or to the community. The survey
therefore asked about how prisoners exit restrictive housing. One inquiry was whether good
behavior could result in earlier release, and another set of questions focused on programs in place
(often called “step-down programs”) to create a transition from restrictive housing into the prison’s
general population. Such programs may take many forms; the ACA describes such programs as
“includ[ing] a system of review and establish[ing] criteria to prepare an [incarcerated person] for
transition to general population or the community.”274 From the thirty-eight jurisdictions that
responded to these questions,275 we learned that most had policies that allowed for earlier release
based on good behavior, and most had some step-down program in place or had a pilot project
from which to develop such a program.
Behavior as a Means of Reducing Time in Restrictive Housing: Thirty-one responding
jurisdictions reported that a prisoner’s behavior could reduce the amount of time spent in restrictive
housing,276 which some termed “maximum custody.” For example, one jurisdiction wrote that “the
primary factor” was behavior; prisoners were “advised at time of placement and during regular
placement reviews that behavior is acceptable or unacceptable and how that will affect length of
time in maximum custody.”277 Another jurisdiction reported that “staff can recommend reduction
anytime.”278 Another wrote that “nearly all inmates are eligible for a 1-day credit for each day of
good behavior in [restrictive housing]. Thus, many inmates serve only half of their disposition.”279
Another jurisdiction described a program that is designed to help prisoners seek release from
restrictive housing based on behavior:
When individuals are assigned to Maximum (MAX) custody (long term
segregation) they receive a Behavior and Programming Plan (BPP) within 10 days
of assignment. The BPP is developed by a multi-disciplinary team (MDT) and the
individual is encouraged to attend, they are involved in the development of the plan.
Expectations for release are identified and documented in the BPP. . . . When
expectations are met staff are encouraged to request the individual be promoted to
a lower custody.280
Seven jurisdictions reported that good behavior could not reduce the amount of time a
prisoner spent in restrictive housing.281
Education on Handling Transitions: The survey asked about programs for transition to
general population and for release into the community. Thirty jurisdictions responded. Six
jurisdictions282 reported that they did not have policies in place providing for transition/step-down
programming from restrictive housing; one of these reported that such a “policy has been
submitted and [is] under review.”283 Five other jurisdictions responded that they were currently
doing pilot step-down/transition programs.284 One of these jurisdictions wrote:
In December 2018 . . . [we] began a pilot step-down program for maximum custody
inmates. This program began at one facility and in April 2019 was expanded to

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

68

include two other facilities. Maximum custody inmates are required to complete
this step-down program before release from restrictive housing. The step-down
program is a 4-phase program over a 36-week period that includes both in cell and
out-of-cell programming.285
Seventeen jurisdictions reported that they have step-down/transition programs in place for
prisoners moving from restrictive housing to the general population.286 One of these jurisdictions
described their “step down unit” as permitting “a gradual increase in the time out-of-cell, reduction
in restraint requirements while out-of-cell, increased socialization and time out-of-cell with other
prisoners, access to programs in and out-of-cell (including tablets), and on-unit work
opportunities.”287 Another jurisdiction described its transition unit as,
a step-down program to help prepare people who have been living in the behavior
intervention unit for general population. A person may be eligible for transition
based on their placing behavior, assessment of risk, and participation and progress
in the behavior modification wing. Individuals residing in the transition unit have
access to general population activities and the opportunity to attend a regular
treatment group and receive support from unit staff. . . . Opportunities for structured
enrichment activities, development and implementation of success plans . . . exist
while being housed in the transition unit.288
Nineteen jurisdictions reported that they have transition programs or policies in place for
prisoners being released from restrictive housing to the community.289 Some jurisdictions
described general policies against release from restrictive housing into the community. For
example, one jurisdiction said its policy is to “discourage release directly from restrictive housing”
to the community and to require “efforts” to be “made by staff to get the inmate out of restrictive
housing” at some point “prior to discharge.”290 Other jurisdictions reported policies that mandate
release into the general population at some point prior to discharge to avoid release directly to the
community.291 One jurisdiction stated that its prisoners who were to be released “directly back into
the community without first returning to general population” were, while in restrictive housing,
“enrolled into a program that includes pre-release activities.”292 One jurisdiction responded, “We
emphasize step-down programs and try not to release to the street from restrictive housing, but
occasionally it occurs.”293 Another jurisdiction reported that its “Step-down to the Community
Program provides out-of-cell re-entry programming for inmates being released to the community
after restrictive housing confinement in excess of 60 days. The program assists inmates with the
development of [a] comprehensive release plan, incorporating social skills practice, relapse
prevention, family reintegration and employment readiness.”294
Transitions Out of Restrictive Housing: Twenty-nine jurisdictions responded to a question
about the number of prisoners who, without participating in a step-down or transition program,
were returned from restrictive housing to the prison’s general population in 2018.295 Eight
jurisdictions reported that in 2018, they moved some prisoners from restrictive housing into the
prison’s general population without those prisoners participating in a step-down/transition
program.296 Four jurisdictions did not provide numbers, but specified that all or nearly all of their
restrictive housing prisoners who returned to the general population in 2018 did so without
participating in a step-down or transition program.297 Five jurisdictions reported that, in 2018, no

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

69

prisoners who were released from restrictive housing to the general population took part in a
transition program.298 Fourteen jurisdictions either provided information about transition processes
but did not provide the number of individuals released without transition, or indicated that they
did not track these numbers.299
Thirty jurisdictions responded to a question asking how many prisoners in the year 2018
participated in a step-down or transition program before being returned from restrictive housing to
the general population.300 For simplicity, we refer to this array of programs as transition programs.
Three jurisdictions reported that every prisoner who was released from restrictive housing into the
general population in 2018 participated in a transition program.301 Eleven jurisdictions reported
that some prisoners took part in a transition program in 2018 before being moved from restrictive
housing to the prison’s general population.302 Thirteen jurisdictions either provided some
information about their transition processes but did not provide the number of individuals released
to general population with a transition program, or they reported that they did not track these
numbers.303
Thirty-one jurisdictions replied to an inquiry about how many prisoners in 2018 were
released, without participating in a step-down/transition program, from restrictive housing directly
to the community.304 Twenty jurisdictions reported releasing people who did not take part in
transitional programs before they went from restrictive housing to the community.305 The number
across those jurisdictions ranged from one person to 702.306 Three jurisdictions reported that they
did not release anyone directly from restrictive housing into the community in 2018.307 Eight
jurisdictions did not provide data or responded that they did not track these numbers.308
While some individuals are released directly from restrictive housing to the community,
others are released to the community after only a short period of time between their release from
restrictive housing and their release to the community. We asked about whether, in 2018,
individuals had been released to the community within thirty days of their having been in
restrictive housing. We also sought to learn whether jurisdictions provided some transitions for
that group. Thirty jurisdictions replied.309
Twelve jurisdictions reported that in 2018 they released some prisoners to the community
within thirty days of removal from restrictive housing without a transition program.310 Three
jurisdictions reported that no prisoners were released to the community in 2018 within thirty days
of removal from restrictive housing without first participating in a transition program.311 Fifteen
jurisdictions did not provide data or responded that they did not track these numbers.312
Living in Restrictive Housing: Activities, Programs, and Sociability
Outside and Inside Cells
What can people do when held in restrictive housing? What kinds of activities (from
showers to “programming”) were provided, such that out-of-cell options exist? The survey sought
to learn about such opportunities, if any, as well as what jurisdictions would like to provide, if they
could, in out-of-cell time.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

70

We asked about the amount of time provided and the activities available when people were
out-of-cell313 These questions inquired about showering, exercising, eating with other prisoners,
and participating in programming. Thirty-four jurisdictions responded to at least one of the
questions about time spent out-of-cell.314 A summary of aggregate responses to key questions
about in-cell and out-of-cell time is recorded below in Figure 15.
Figure 15 Dimensions of Living in Restrictive Housing
-

Yes

Permitted 3 or more showers
times per week*

Not responding

No

27

Permitted out-of-cell exercise
3 or more t imes per week
Group activity

-

I

5

22

7

I

,-

Out-of-cell group exercise

28

6

Out-of-cell group meals

33

l

Out-of-cell group programming

28

6

In-cell activities

In-cell programming

31

TV, music, internet, or
reading/writing materials

3

-

33

12

Tablets

22

Social contact
One or more social visits per
month*

22

One or more social phone calls
every two weeks*

I

10

Mail (physical
and/or electronic)

I

4

14

-

29

Housing conditions
Artificially lit cells 24 hours
per day

5

24

10
0

l

10

15
20
Number of jurisdictions

25

30

Twenty-eight jurisdictions reported that time out-of-cell varied based on a prisoner’s status,
the prisoner’s needs, the facility in which the prisoner was incarcerated, general availability of
resources of the facility, and other factors.315 Nonetheless, thirty-two jurisdictions provided some
estimate of out-of-cell time.316 Fourteen jurisdictions that had restrictive housing responded to the
survey’s question regarding the total number of times prisoners in restrictive housing were out-ofcell per week.317 Jurisdictions reported between one318 and fourteen times out-of-cell per week;319
the median number of times out-of-cell per week was seven.320 Fifteen jurisdictions that had
restrictive housing responded to the survey’s question regarding the total number of hours
prisoners in restrictive housing were out-of-cell each week.321 Jurisdictions reported allowing
prisoners out-of-cell for between 1.5 hours322 and 22 hours323 per week; the median reported time
out-of-cell was 3.33 hours per week.324

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

71

Thirty-two jurisdictions with restrictive housing responded to the survey’s questions about
time out-of-cell for showering.325 These jurisdictions reported policies that permitted prisoners to
shower once per week on the lower end326 and seven times per week on the higher end;327 the
median was three times per week.328 Of the twenty-four jurisdictions with restrictive housing to
answer the survey’s question regarding how long people have to take showers,329 jurisdictions
reported providing between ten minutes330 and one hour for time out-of-cell to use showers;331the
median time out-of-cell to use the shower was approximately 19 minutes.332 These reports likely
reflect time out-of-cell for the purpose of showering, including transit time, as opposed to time
prisoners in restrictive housing can spend in the shower itself.
Twenty-five jurisdictions reported that prisoners’ time out-of-cell for exercise varied either
by facility,333 the prisoners’ status, behavior, or needs,334 or by the prisoner’s length of time in
restrictive housing.335 Two jurisdictions reported having no hours out-of-cell specifically for
exercise.336 Twenty-nine jurisdictions with restrictive housing gave estimates on the number of
times per week prisoners had time out-of-cell to exercise.337 Jurisdictions reported allowing
restrictive housing prisoners between once per week338 and seven times per week339 for out-of-cell
exercise; the median was five time per week.340 Of the twenty-four jurisdictions with restrictive
housing that answered the survey’s question about exercise duration,341 jurisdictions reported
allowing between 40 minutes of exercise342 and 2 hours and 15 minutes of exercise343 at a time;
the median was one hour of exercise.344
Thirty-four jurisdictions responded to aspects of questions about whether people in
restrictive housing were inside or outside during exercise and about the space allotted for
exercise.345 Nineteen jurisdictions reported both indoor and outdoor exercise areas,346 fourteen
reported only outdoor exercise areas,347 and one reported only an indoor exercise area.348 Of the
nineteen jurisdictions with restrictive housing that answered the survey’s question about an
outdoor exercise area,349 jurisdictions reported allowing exercise in an outdoor area between 17.5
square feet350 and 625 square feet;351 the median outdoor exercise area was 180 square feet.352 Of
the nine jurisdictions with restrictive housing that answered the survey’s question about indoor
exercise area,353 jurisdictions reported allowing exercise in an indoor area between 80 square
feet354 and 900 square feet;355 the median indoor exercise area was 160 square feet.356An additional
two jurisdictions stated that the dimensions of their exercise areas “meet the [American
Correctional Association’s] minimum standards,” which vary based on the number of prisoners
using the area.357
Eleven of the twenty jurisdictions (55%) that had indoor exercise areas for prisoners in
restrictive housing stated that the exercise areas had natural light,358 and one of the twenty
jurisdictions stated that those areas did not have natural light.359 The remaining eight jurisdictions
(45%) reported that natural light in the indoor exercise areas varied by facility.360
Of the thirty-four jurisdictions that responded to at least one of the questions about time
spent out-of-cell,361 fifteen reported that prisoners in restrictive housing were not allowed any
group out-of-cell time each week.362 Fourteen jurisdictions stated that they permit group time outof-cell for at least some subset of restrictive housing prisoners.363 What do people do during such
group times? Six jurisdictions reported that prisoners have group exercise time;364 seven
jurisdictions reported that prisoners have group out-of-cell programming,365 one jurisdiction said

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

72

that prisoners can eat meals together,366 and four jurisdictions reported that prisoners had other
group out-of-cell time, such as mental health programming or GED instruction.367
Aspiring for More Time Out-of-Cell: The survey also sought information on the number of
hours out-of-cell that jurisdictions believed was desirable for prisoners in an “ideal situation”—
i.e., with sufficient resources.368 Thirty-two prison jurisdictions provided answers to this
question,369 and twenty-nine specified a desirable number of hours out-of-cell.370
Most of the jurisdictions responding referenced a certain number of hours per day or per
week. The responses that were given in hours per day ranged from one hour371 to 12 hours per
day372 out-of-cell. The responses given in hours per week ranged from five hours373 to 60-70 hours
per week out-of-cell.374
Three jurisdictions stated that they could not provide a concrete number of ideal hours outof-cell because time out-of-cell depends on a variety of factors.375 One of those jurisdictions
explained:
With adequate resources and staffing, our agency would like to maximize out-ofcell time to [prisoners] while offering meaningful programs and activities. In an
ideal situation out-of-cell time would be balanced with maintaining safety and
security while offering rehabilitative services.376
Other jurisdictions also underscored that time spent out-of-cell should be meaningful. One
jurisdiction explained: “I believe a minimum of 3 hours a day with meaningful out-of-cell time. I
would be good with more as long as it was quality time.”377 Another jurisdiction specified that
daily time out-of-cell should be separated into morning and afternoon time, with additional time
allocated for exercise.378 One jurisdiction responded that time out-of-cell should vary by
institution,379 and two stated that time should depend on the reason the person was placed in
restrictive housing.380
Inside the Cells: We asked about the lighting in cells, the types of programs that are offered
for prisoners in restrictive housing to participate in while in their cells, what items were supplied,
and whether access existed to purchase items from the commissary. Thirty-four jurisdictions
responded to these questions.381
Thirty-one of those jurisdictions reported that cells had natural light;382 three reported
having restrictive housing cells without natural light.383 Ten jurisdictions reported that artificial
lights were on twenty-four hours per day384 and seven reported that artificial light was on sixteen
hours per day.385 The other seventeen jurisdictions reported that the number of hours that artificial
light is turned on per day varied, either by facility or by a prisoner’s status.386 Five jurisdictions
reported that prisoners had at least some control over the light in their cell.387
Another set of questions asked about access to programming in-cell. Thirty-one out of
thirty-four jurisdictions responded that activities in-cell exist.388 The reported programs included
religious studies,389 mental health classes, 390 substance abuse programs,391 anger management
courses,392 cognitive behavioral classes,393 parenting classes,394 vocational classes,395 and step-

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

73

down education.396 Twenty-nine jurisdictions stated that some prisoners had access to a GED or
another diploma program in restrictive housing.397 The modes of programming included a virtual
classroom set-up,398 videos,399 workbooks and handouts,400 one-on-one programming,401 tablets,402
educational packets,403 and self-help journals.404 All but one of thirty-nine responding jurisdictions
reported that prisoners in restrictive housing had access to television, books, music, or internet in
their cells.405 Twelve jurisdictions reported that prisoners had access to tablets.406
All responding jurisdictions stated that prisoners in restrictive housing had some access to
the commissary. Five jurisdictions reported that they have full access.407 The other twenty-nine
jurisdictions reported that they have limited access.408 These limitations varied greatly. Some
jurisdictions reported that prisoners in restrictive housing cannot buy certain items. For example,
in one jurisdiction, they are reportedly barred from purchasing “razors, pencil sharpeners . . . nail
clippers and spicy liquids.”409 Other jurisdictions reported that purchases are limited to a small
number of items. For example, one jurisdiction reported limiting their purchases to “basic
necessities.”410
Thirty jurisdictions reported that they provided general sanitary supplies to prisoners in
restrictive housing,411 and none reported that they did not. As explained elsewhere above, thirtythree responding jurisdictions with restrictive housing as the survey defined it said that they
provided women’s sanitary supplies.412
Sociability: We also sought to learn about prisoners’ access to visits, phone calls, and mail.
The survey asked jurisdictions about the availability of non-legal, social or professional visits and
phone calls. We learned that most jurisdictions reported providing prisoners in restrictive housing
with social visits and phone calls. Further, of the thirty-four jurisdictions that responded to this set
of questions, most said that they did not put limits on mail correspondence. These rules provide
the parameters for sociability, but we did not, for example, collect data on how many visitors, if
any, people in restrictive housing had.
Thirty-three of the thirty-four jurisdictions413 that responded to these questions reported
that prisoners in restrictive housing were allowed social visits.414 These jurisdictions reported
policies allowing between two visits per year415 on the lower end and two visits per week on the
higher end;416 jurisdictions reported allowing social visits a median of once per week.417 Seven
jurisdictions reported permitting visits more than once per week,418 including one jurisdiction that
reported having no limits on the frequency or length of social visits419 and another jurisdiction that
said it permitted visits daily.420 Two jurisdictions reported permitting visits less than once every
two months.421 Sixteen jurisdictions reported that the number and length of social visits allowed
varied by the prisoner’s status422 or by the facility.423 Two jurisdictions reported restricting the
frequency of visitation by visitor (e.g., a certain visitor can visit the prisoner once per month).424
In nineteen jurisdictions, the visits were restricted to non-contact only.425
Thirty-one of the thirty-three jurisdictions426 that responded to the survey’s questions about
social phone calls reported that prisoners in restrictive housing were permitted social phone
calls.427 Three jurisdictions reported having no limit on the frequency and duration of social phone
calls,428 and two other jurisdictions reported limiting them only by requiring that they be made
during designated hours.429

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

74

Of the fifteen jurisdictions that were able to provide estimates of their limitations on the
frequency of phone calls,430 jurisdiction-specific policies allowed between one call every ninety
days on the lower end431 and an unlimited number of daily calls on the higher end.432 Two
jurisdictions said that they allowed phone calls a minimum of more than once per week.433 The
median reported frequency allowed was once every two weeks.
Of the fourteen jurisdictions that provided estimates of their restrictions on the duration of
prisoners’ phone calls,434 jurisdiction-specific policies allowed between five minutes per call435
and an unlimited call duration;436 the median duration was fifteen minutes long. Fourteen
jurisdictions reported that the frequency and duration of phone calls allowed varied by the
prisoner’s status.437 Nine jurisdictions also reported having other restrictions on phone calls, such
as only allowing prisoners to call individuals on an approved list,438 not allowing prisoners to call
victims or people who have non-contact orders,439 and not allowing conference or three-way
calling.440 Two jurisdictions reported that phone use can be suspended as part of a disciplinary
sanction.441
The survey also asked jurisdictions about access to mail, including social correspondence.
Twenty-nine of the thirty-four jurisdictions442 that responded reported that prisoners in restrictive
housing were allowed to send and receive physical mail, electronic mail, or both.443 Twenty-one
jurisdictions reported having no restrictions on the sending and receiving of physical mail.444 Of
those that did report restrictions, the restrictions included prohibitions on the sending/receiving of
all magazines,445 all newspapers,446 and on corresponding with other prisoners.447 Nine
jurisdictions reported that prisoners in restrictive housing were prohibited under their regulations
to send or receive electronic mail.448
Prison Staff: Qualifications, Training, Schedules, and Pay for Duty
on Restrictive Housing Units
Prisoners and staff are inter-dependent, and working in prisons presents many
challenges.449 In some jurisdictions, assignment to restrictive housing units comes with specific
obligations and resources. We therefore asked about the qualifications required of staff, their
training, compensation, and work schedules.
Thirteen out of thirty-three jurisdictions reported that staff working in a restrictive housing
unit had to meet special qualifications.450 Most of those thirteen jurisdictions said that staff in
restrictive housing units needed to be more experienced than staff in other units. For example, one
jurisdiction reported that restrictive housing staff needed to have “tenure, maturity, attendance”
and demonstrate a certain “performance level”451 Another responded that restrictive housing staff
needed to display “accountability/organizational commitment, job knowledge, communication
skills, [and] interpersonal skills.”452 Three of the thirteen jurisdictions wrote that they required at
least one year of working experience as a correctional officer in order to work in restrictive
housing.453 In contrast, twenty jurisdictions reported that no special qualifications were necessary
to work in a restrictive housing unit.454
Twenty-six of thirty-five answering jurisdictions reported that staff working in a restrictive
housing unit were provided additional training or educational opportunities,455 albeit what was

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

75

entailed varied across jurisdictions. One response stated that new staff on the restrictive housing
unit “get a few ‘buddy ride’ shifts where information OJT is conducted. No formal training [is
provided] beyond that.”456 Another jurisdiction reported that it had “a . . . 3-day mental health
training that is required for some types of restrictive status housing.”457 Eight jurisdictions reported
that new staff working in restrictive housing were offered crisis intervention or de-escalation
training.458 One jurisdiction described its training program:
Training should include, but not be limited to, suicide prevention, trauma informed
care, crisis intervention, de-escalation, signs and symptoms of mental illness, cooccurring disorders, emergency response, code 99, fire exits, restraints, IMS
entries, counts, showers, medication, recreation, phones, rounds, pyramid of force,
unit structure/operations, post orders, and interpersonal communications.459
Another jurisdiction’s report of its training focused on use of force and team structure: that
response stated that training included “[c]ell extraction team training, the process and job
responsibilities of each team member, team leader and OIC’s, Stun Shield, shield, types of OC
used, barricades and devices.”460 Another jurisdiction reported that its “department is currently
identifying appropriate additional training and a Field Training Officer program was recently
implemented.”461 Eight jurisdictions told us that no special training or educational opportunities
were afforded new staff assigned to a restrictive housing unit.462
The working hours of staff assigned to restrictive housing units was another inquiry. Most
jurisdictions—thirty-one out of thirty-four answering the question—reported that staff assigned to
restrictive housing units do not work different schedules or hours as compared to other facility
staff.463 One jurisdiction reported that staff in restrictive housing had a different schedule from
other custody staff.464 Another reported that schedules varied “by the type of restrictive housing”465
and one other jurisdiction stated that it “depends on the facility.”466
Fourteen out of thirty-five answering jurisdictions responded that staff in restrictive
housing units were rotated out of restrictive housing on a specified timetable.467 Most of those
jurisdictions described an annual rotation process, or a system of rotations by request. One
jurisdiction wrote:
RHU personnel will normally serve 12 months in the RHU. At the end of 12 months
a review will be held to determine if the staff member needs to be rotated out. If
he/she desires to stay another six (6) months, they will be re-assessed at the end of
18 months. If he/she decides they want to stay longer, approval must be obtained
in writing by the Warden and the Deputy Director of Operations. Each Warden will
be required to maintain an automated roster of RHU employees showing their
length of service in RHU and documentation of these reviews at 12 and 18
months.468
Eighteen responding jurisdictions reported that they did not have a specified timetable for
rotating staff out of restrictive housing.469 Four jurisdictions cited employment or union contract
restrictions that prevent them from implementing rotation timetables.470

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

76

Seven out of thirty-five answering jurisdictions described having policies that limit the
amount of overtime hours staff in a restrictive housing unit could work.471 Twenty-four
jurisdictions said they do not.472 One jurisdiction reported, “we are unionized and cannot do
this.”473 Another said that “hours and selection for” overtime “are in accordance with union
contracts.”474
Thirty-two out of thirty-five answering jurisdictions told us that staff assigned to restrictive
housing units did not receive extra pay or an additional bonus.475 Three jurisdictions reported that
at least some restrictive housing staff received additional pay.476
Implementing the 2016 ACA Restrictive Housing Performance
Based Standards
The ACA, an accrediting body for corrections, probation, parole, and detention centers,477
assesses compliance with its Performance Based Standards by reviewing accredited systems every
three years.478 In 2016, the ACA adopted new Standards on restrictive housing.479 The 2019 CLALiman survey asked whether jurisdictions had reviewed their internal restrictive housing policies
since the ACA revisions and whether jurisdictions relied on the ACA Standards when developing
policies.480 As in the 2018 survey, we focused on four ACA Standards related to release to the
community, mental health, juveniles, and pregnancy, and asked whether jurisdictions had
implemented each policy; “substantially implemented this policy with exceptions;” already had
the policy in place prior to the 2016 ACA revisions; or had not implemented the policy.
Of thirty-seven jurisdictions responding to the questions, thirty reported that they relied on
the ACA Standards when making jurisdiction-specific policies.481 This response was an increase
over the twenty-five of thirty-six responding jurisdictions who reported such efforts in response to
the 2018 survey.482 Thirty-four jurisdictions reported that they had reviewed their restrictive
housing policies since the release of the 2016 ACA Standards.483
A number of jurisdictions elaborated on their use of the ACA Standards.484 For example,
one responded, “Our jurisdiction strives to meet or exceed ACA standards. We have a team
member that reviews policies before they are written or updated to make sure they comply or
exceed current ACA standards.”485 Others explained that they “use ACA policies as one guideline
among several,”486 “take them into consideration along with NIC and ASCA guidelines,”487 or
“use ACA to guide our policies, but they are the minimum standards.”488 Others stated that they
“insert the ACA RH standards into policy verbatim,”489 “adopt ACA standards as best practice,”490
or “incorporate ACA standards into all applicable policies and SOPs.”491
Seven jurisdictions reported that they did not rely on ACA Standards in their policymaking.492 Yet, of these, one jurisdiction indicated that “[m]any ACA standards have been
included in policies relating to restrictive housing”493 and another explained that it “rel[ied] on
surrounding states’ policies and advice from the [state] Department of Justice.”494
Under 2016 ACA Standard 4-RH-0030, a jurisdiction’s “written policy, procedure and
practice require that the agency will attempt to ensure offenders are not released directly into the
community from Restrictive Housing.”495 Thirty-two jurisdictions responded to the survey

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

77

question about this Standard. Nineteen of these jurisdictions reported that they had implemented
this policy.496 Four of the nineteen jurisdictions indicated it had been their policy before the 2016
ACA Standard.497 An additional four jurisdictions reported that they had “substantially
implemented this policy, with exceptions.”498 Six of the jurisdictions that said they adopted the
Standard clarified that they followed the policy to the greatest extent possible given other
considerations, or were in the process of implementing it.499
With regard to mental health, the 2016 ACA Standards defined “serious mental illness” as:
Psychotic Disorders, Bipolar Disorders, and Major Depressive Disorder; any
diagnosed mental disorder (excluding substance use disorders) currently associated
with serious impairment in psychological, cognitive, or behavioral functioning that
substantially interferes with the person’s ability to meet the ordinary demands of
living and requires an individualized treatment plan by a qualified mental health
professional(s).500
ACA Standard 4-RH-0031 states that a jurisdiction’s correctional “agency will not place a
person with serious mental illness in Extended Restrictive Housing.”501 The ACA defines
Extended Restrictive Housing as “[h]ousing that separates the offender from contact with general
population while restricting an offender/inmate to his/her cell for at least 22 hours per day and for
more than 30 days for the safe and secure operation of the facility.”502 Eighteen jurisdictions told
us that they had implemented this Standard.503 Four jurisdictions reported that they had
“substantially implemented this policy, with exceptions.”504
The 2016 ACA Standard 4-RH-0034 stated that confining individuals “under the age of 18
years of age in Extended Restrictive Housing is prohibited.”505 Of the thirty-six jurisdictions
responding to this inquiry, twenty-three reported that they had implemented the Standard,506 and
five jurisdictions reported that they had “substantially implemented this policy, with
exceptions.”507 For example, one jurisdiction indicated that it rarely housed individuals under age
eighteen “for more than a short amount of time.” Those individuals are “managed by a different
agency.”508
With regard to pregnancy, ACA Standard 4-RH-0033 stated that prisoners “determined to
be pregnant will not be housed in Extended Restrictive Housing.”509 Twenty-two of the thirty
jurisdictions that responded to this question said that they had implemented it.510 Two jurisdictions
reported that they had “substantially implemented this policy, with exceptions.”511
We also asked jurisdictions to describe any other changes to their restrictive housing
policies in light of the revised ACA Standards. Twelve of fifteen jurisdictions that responded to
the question indicated that they had or were in the process of making revisions based on the ACA
standards.512
Evaluating the Effects of Policy Changes
The survey asked whether jurisdictions had studied the impact of restrictive housing policy
changes in terms of incidents of prisoner self-harm, incidents of use of force, prisoner and staff

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

78

morale, staff well-being and/or safety, success of prisoners on release to the general population or
in programs and activities, and when prisoners return to their communities.
Of the eleven jurisdictions responding to this question, eight reported that they had
completed or were undertaking studies,513 and several reported studies in more than one area. In
2017, fourteen jurisdictions reported studies underway.514 Responding to the 2019 survey, three
jurisdictions said that they had studied the effects on prisoner self-harm,515 three on use of force,516
two on prisoner morale,517 three on staff morale,518 three on staff well-being and/or safety,519 two
on success of prisoners on release to the general population or in programs and activities,520 and
four on returns by prisoners to communities.521
Several jurisdictions indicated some efforts at analyses through other means. For example,
one jurisdiction explained, “We have looked at overall incidents, grievances and disciplinaries in
the designated housing units over a three year period: Pre-changes (restrictive housing),
implementation period, post implementation.”522 Another jurisdiction noted that it had “a
restrictive housing oversight committee studying these issues currently.”523 One jurisdiction stated
that it was “too soon to measure any impact.”524
The survey also asked about plans for future studies. Of the eighteen jurisdictions
responding, fourteen reported plans of varying levels of specificity to undertake studies.525 Seven
responded that they had plans in place for studies on the effects on prisoner self-harm,526 seven on
use of force,527 six on prisoner morale,528 six on staff morale,529 ten on staff well-being and/or
safety,530 seven on success of prisoners on release to the general population or programs and
activities,531 and seven on success of prisoners in returning to communities.532 Several jurisdictions
also provided information about their plans for future studies.533

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

79

IV. Reducing Reliance on Restrictive Housing:
The 2018-2020 Landscape
In this section, as in prior reports, we provide a brief overview of national and global
initiatives that address the use of isolation in prisons.534 Animating many of these efforts is
documentation of the harms that flow from the deprivations that isolation entails. Social scientists,
joined by correctional and health professionals, continue to analyze the impact of prison conditions
on the people who live and work in prison. One focus is on individuals subjected to isolation,535
some of whom have eloquently chronicled its impact.536 Another is on the staff who work in such
settings.537
Doing research on restrictive housing is complex,538 as the variables include different
degrees and durations of isolation, the level of staffing and the skills of correctional officers, health
resources, activities made available and used, budgets, the opportunities and conditions for those
not in solitary confinement, cell design, the facility itself, and the density and kinds of individuals
housed within both segregated and general populations. Given the range of people and of
situations, a few commentators argue that the “purported negative physiological and psychological
effects” have been overstated.539 In the main, however, most experts in this arena agree that
profound deprivations that radically restrict physical movements and human sociability have
disabling effects.540
In addition to social scientists, recent scholarship has tracked the history of the use of
solitary confinement over the centuries, including eras when solitary confinement was praised for
its redemptive utilities.541 Atop new analyses of a more complex account of the eighteenth and
nineteenth century deployment of solitary confinement comes more research on its rise during the
twentieth century. Ryan Sakoda and Jessica Simes used an extensive data set that detailed patterns
of incarceration in Kansas during three decades.542 They learned that the proportion of prisoners
held in isolation grew significantly with rising numbers of people put in prison. Before that state
expanded its prisons in the 1970s, 13% of its prisoners spent thirty days or more in solitary.543
Between 1987 and 1992, more than 40% of prisoners had spent that amount of time in solitary
confinement. The percentages of people of color were higher, as they were held for longer periods
of time in isolation.544
This research intersects with community mobilizations that have prompted dozens of
legislative initiatives and several lawsuits—all aiming to limit the use of solitary confinement.
Some of these efforts target constraints across the population of people in prison, while others
focus on subpopulations, such as youth under a certain age, pregnant prisoners, individuals with
serious mental illness, and the placement in solitary confinement of people serving capital
sentences.
One question for future research is how COVID-19, which has affected all aspects of
management of congruent housing facilities, impacts these initiatives. As social distancing has
become so important, health care professionals caution against conflating the use of restrictive
housing with medical quarantines.545 Indeed, the concerns of prisoners and staff in light of
COVID-19 makes all the more urgent the need to repurpose and reconfigure spaces formerly used
for isolation to enable more de-densification within facilities.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

80

Legislative Regulation of the Use of Restrictive Housing
Since the publication of Reforming Restrictive Housing in October 2018, legislation to limit
the use of isolation in prison has been introduced in the legislatures of more than half the states
and in the U.S. Congress.546 These proposals have sought to curtail restrictive housing, especially
for pregnant prisoners, youth, and those with serious mental illness, as well as to improve data
collection and reporting on when restrictive housing may be imposed. From October of 2018 to
June of 2020, we tallied twenty-nine jurisdictions in which such bills have been introduced and,
as of the spring of 2020, enactments in fifteen states and in the federal government.547 In addition,
as of the summer of 2020, bills were pending in eight states and in the U.S. Congress.548 Statutory
revisions to limit the use of restrictive housing before October 2018 (the time in focus here) were
discussed in Reforming Restrictive Housing: The 2018 ASCA-Liman Nationwide Survey of Timein-Cell. For example, extensive regulations were put in place in Massachusetts.549
Examples of the kind of reforms underway come from 2019 New Jersey legislation,
effective August 1, 2020, that seeks comprehensive changes to the use of solitary confinement.
This law restricts “isolated confinement” for “vulnerable populations”550 and defines those
populations to include prisoners under age twenty-two; over age sixty-four; with mental illness,
developmental disabilities, or a serious medical condition; who are pregnant or postpartum; who
have a “significant auditory or visual impairment”; or who are “perceived to be” LGBTI. The
legislation requires that, except under certain enumerated circumstances, individuals who are
members of these subpopulations be removed from isolated confinement.551 The legislation also
prohibits placement for “non-disciplinary reasons” unless there is a “substantial risk of serious
harm” to the prisoner or to others. In addition, isolation may not be used under conditions or for
periods of time that “foster psychological trauma,” psychiatric disorders, or “serious, long-term
damage” to the prisoner’s brain.552 New Jersey also provides that a prisoner may not be placed in
restrictive housing for more than twenty consecutive days or for more than thirty days in a sixtyday period.
New Mexico also enacted legislation that limits the use of restrictive housing across
multiple populations; in addition, the new law creates mechanisms for oversight and transparency
in both private and state-run facilities. The New Mexico Corrections Restricted Housing Act of
2019 defines “restricted housing” as “confinement of an inmate locked in a cell . . . for twenty-two
hours each day without daily, meaningful and sustained human interaction.” 553 The law, effective
July 1, 2019, prohibits, without exception, the use of restrictive housing for children (defined to
be people under the age of eighteen) or prisoners who are “known to be pregnant.”554 For people
who have a “serious mental disability,” explained as any “serious mental illness . . . [or] significant
functional impairment . . . or intellectual disability,” restricted housing is prohibited except to
prevent an imminent threat of harm, in which case placement is capped at forty-eight hours.555 The
law also requires that correctional facilities produce quarterly reports on the use of restrictive
housing, which must include the “age, gender, and ethnicity” of all prisoners placed in restrictive
housing that quarter.556 Private correctional facilities must also regularly report all monetary
settlements paid as a result of lawsuits filed by inmates, former inmates, or inmates’ estates against
the private correctional facility or its employees.557

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

81

Montana’s 2019 legislation, effective January 1, 2020, restricts the use of isolation and also
sets minimum requirements for the conditions in restrictive housing. The law requires that
restrictive housing be used only “as a response to the most serious and threatening behavior,” “for
the shortest time possible,” and with the “least restrictive conditions possible.”558 The legislation
bans solitary confinement, absent extenuating circumstances, for pregnant prisoners,559 in youth
facilities if placement is twenty-four hours or more,560 and for prisoners with a serious mental
disorder if placement is for more than fourteen days. Placement in solitary may not exceed twentytwo hours a day, and facilities must provide access to certain resources and activities, like showers,
exercise, educational programs, and commissary.561
Minnesota’s law requires that living conditions in restrictive housing “are approximate to
those offenders in general population, including reduced lighting during nighttime hours.” 562 The
legislation directs the commissioner of corrections to receive reports of all prisoners who are in
restrictive housing for more than thirty consecutive days as well as reports about all those held for
more than 120 days, which must include a reason for the placement and a “behavior management
plan.”563 The new law requires mental health screening and services,564 instructs the commissioner
to develop a system of behavioral incentives,565 and prohibits the direct release to the community
“from a stay in restrictive housing for 60 or more days absent a compelling reason.”566
Among jurisdictions enacting reforms between October 2018 and June 2020, certain trends
have emerged. We identified fifteen enacted statutes that limit or prohibit the use of restrictive
housing for youth, pregnant prisoners, or those with serious mental illness. Such provisions were
enacted at the federal level567 and in fourteen states, including those mentioned above. Those
jurisdictions are Arkansas,568 Colorado,569 Florida,570 Georgia,571 Louisiana,572 Maryland,573
Montana,574 Nebraska,575 New Jersey,576 New Mexico,577 South Carolina,578 Texas,579 Virginia,580
and Washington.581
Of these states, nine laws enacted between October 2018 and June 2020 limit (with some
variation in language) the use of restrictive housing for prisoners who are pregnant, and in some
cases, for prisoners who are postpartum. Specifically and with certain exceptions, Louisiana
prohibits placement in solitary confinement of a prisoner who “is pregnant, or is less than eight
weeks post medical release following a pregnancy, or is caring for a child in a penal or correctional
institution,”582 and, with exceptions, Texas, Virginia, and South Carolina prohibit the use of
restrictive housing for pregnant inmates or inmates who had given birth in the past thirty days
unless there is a reasonable belief of flight risk or that the prisoner will harm themselves, the fetus,
or another person.583 Other states that limit the use of restrictive housing for pregnant prisoners
include: Georgia,584 Maryland,585 Montana,586 New Jersey,587 and New Mexico.588
New laws enacted by the federal government and by six states limit the placement of youth
in restrictive housing. The federal First Step Act of 2018 prohibits “the involuntary placement” of
a juvenile “alone in a cell, room, or area for any reason” other than as a response to “a serious and
immediate risk of physical harm to any individual.”589 New Mexico bans, without exceptions,
restricted housing for youth under the age of eighteen.590 Washington prohibits the use of “room
confinement” for youth under the age of eighteen except to prevent imminent harm, in which case
confinement must be limited at four total hours in a twenty-four hour period.591 Nebraska’s law
prohibits the placement of youth under the age of eighteen in “room confinement” as punishment,

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

82

retaliation, or due to staff shortage, and discourages placement in room confinement beyond one
hour in a twenty-four hour period.592 Nebraska law also provides provisions for documenting and
reporting the use of room confinement for youth under the age of eighteen.593 New Jersey bans,
again with certain exceptions, the use of “isolated confinement” for youth under the age of twentytwo.594 Montana’s law prohibits the use of restrictive housing for individuals in youth facilities
except “when it is necessary to protect the youth or others,” in which case restrictive housing must
be shorter than twenty-four consecutive hours.595 Arkansas’s enactment rules out isolation of
individuals in a juvenile detention facility, except under certain circumstances, such as cases of
“imminent threat,” “physical or sexual assault,” or attempted escape, and requires written
authorization by the director of the facility for every twenty-four hour period that the juvenile
remains in isolation.596
Four enactments address the use of restrictive housing for prisoners with serious mental
illness, a disability, or a substance use disorder. Montana prohibits placement in restrictive housing
for “behavior that is the product of [an] inmate’s disability or mental disorder unless the placement
is after prompt and appropriate evaluation by a qualified mental health professional” and restrictive
housing must be “for the shortest time possible, and with the least restrictive conditions
possible.”597 New Jersey bans placement of prisoners with a mental illness, developmental
disability, auditory or visual impairment, or serious medical condition in isolated confinement
unless there is a “substantial risk of serious harm” to the prisoner or others, in which case mental
and physical evaluations are required daily.598 New Mexico’s law describes that individuals with
“serious mental disability” can be placed in restrictive housing only if they meet certain criteria.599
Restrictive housing may only be used for those with a “serious mental disability” when it is
necessary to “prevent an imminent threat of physical harm to the inmate or another person”; if so,
restrictive housing is limited to forty-eight consecutive hours.600 Colorado Senate Bill 20-007,
signed by the governor on July 13, 2020, prohibits the use of solitary confinement for individuals
receiving evaluation, care, or treatment for substance use.601
In addition to these constraints, seven jurisdictions require data collection and reporting on
the use of restrictive housing. That group includes the federal government,602 Maryland,603
Michigan,604 Minnesota,605 Nebraska,606 New Mexico,607 and Virginia.608 These reporting
requirements seek to document the scope of restrictive housing and the populations placed in
restrictive housing. Minnesota’s law, for example, requires the commissioner of corrections to file
an annual report with the legislature providing “(1) the number of inmates in each institution placed
in segregation during the past year; (2) the ages of inmates placed in segregation during the past
year; (3) the number of inmates transferred from segregation to the mental health treatment unit;
(4) disciplinary sanctions by infraction; (5) the lengths of terms served in segregation, including
terms served consecutively; and (6) the number of inmates by race in restrictive housing.”609 The
first report to the Minnesota legislature under this new statute was due January 15, 2020.610
As we write, more legislation is pending or is on the horizon. Some bills aim for
comprehensive reform, and others target particular issues. For example, a bill has been introduced
in the U.S. House of Representatives which would give preference to states applying for certain
federal grants if a state has restricted the use of juvenile solitary confinement.611

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

83

Several other bills have proposed a variety of formulations to limit the use of restrictive
housing. For example, a bill before the Hawaii Senate would, among other reforms, limit
administrative segregation to a maximum of fourteen consecutive days within a thirty-day
period.612 A set of bills before the New York State Senate and Assembly, known as the HALT Act,
aiming at comprehensive reforms, would cap the use of isolation for all prisoners at fifteen
consecutive days and prohibit solitary confinement for people who are pregnant and individuals
under age twenty-one.613 In Pennsylvania, a proposed bill would also cap the use of restrictive
housing at fifteen consecutive days, and would prohibit solitary confinement for pregnant
prisoners, people under age twenty-one, over age seventy, and LGBTQ individuals.614 A 2019
draft bill in Connecticut calls for the end of solitary confinement and would abolish it by mandating
that “the department [of corrections] shall not hold any person on administrative segregation status
or restrictive housing status.”615
In the Courts
As in years past, courts continue to hear both individual and systemic challenges to the use
of restrictive housing. Several cases address the use of prolonged segregation generally and others
focus on the isolation of individuals with mental illness, juveniles, and people serving capital
sentences.
Federal and state courts have recently approved or extended settlement agreements in class
actions that challenged the constitutionality of long-term placement in isolation. For example, in
May 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia approved a settlement in a
case on behalf of “all prisoners who are or will be assigned to the Special Management Unit (SMU)
at Georgia Diagnostic & Classification Prison” in that state’s Jackson prison. 616 The complaint
alleged that the prison failed to provide meaningful assessments of placement in the SMU in
violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that the conditions of confinement, including
isolation and inadequate food, violated the Eighth Amendment. 617 On May 7, 2019, the federal
court approved a settlement that required at least four hours out-of-cell each weekday, and that
limited a prisoner’s time in the restrictive housing unit to no longer than two years with exceptions.
The categories excepted included voluntary placement or placement for murder committed while
incarcerated, escape “outside the secure fencing of a GDC facility,” causing “serious bodily injury
to another inmate or a GDC employee, contractor or volunteer,” taking another inmate or
employee, contractor, or volunteer hostage, the crime being “so egregious the person was placed
in the Tier III Program immediately, or for posing “such an exceptional, credible, and articulable
risk to the safe operation of the prison system or to the public that no other placement is sufficient
to contain the risk.” The settlement also required quarterly reviews by a panel of senior security,
legal, and mental health professionals and that isolated prisoners were to be given access to
educational programming and materials.
Another consent agreement, Reid v. Wetzel, finalized in April of 2020, responded to claims
on behalf of individuals with capital sentences, whom Pennsylvania had held in solitary
confinement. 618 In November of 2019, the state agreed to provide at least 42.5 hours of out-of-cell
time per week619 and to accord these prisoners the same “rights and privileges” for phone calls and
contact visits that were available in general population.620

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

84

In some cases, litigants have returned to court after settlements were entered. For example,
in January of 2019, a magistrate judge in the Northern District of California ordered a twelvemonth extension of the Settlement Agreement in Ashker v. Newsom.621 That litigation, addressing
Pelican Bay isolation facility in California, had alleged Eighth Amendment violations based on
placement in prolonged solitary confinement with no contact with other prisoners, no phone calls
or visits, no programming, and no good time credits. In 2015, in Ashker v. Governor of California,
the federal court approved a class-wide settlement that required the reduction by hundreds of the
number of people held in isolation and changes in the conditions of those who remained.622 Instead
of relying on the perception that a person was a member of a “security threat group” or gang, the
settlement provided that officials were to evaluate individuals based on their behavior in prison.
As a result, about 2,000 individuals were to be moved to general population, as were individuals
who had spent more than ten years in solitary confinement.623 Furthermore, placements were not
to be indefinite, and the state was to provide step-down programs and social contact.624 In 2018,
the class returned to court and sought an extension of the duration of the settlement, and in 2019,
the magistrate judge agreed based in part on evidence of ongoing due process violations such as
the use of “unreliable gang validations to deny class members a fair opportunity to seek parole.”625
In addition, a few courts have decided the merits of a claim that profound isolation violates
the cruel and unusual punishments clause of the Eighth Amendment. For example, in 2019 the
Fourth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s holding in Porter v. Clarke that the conditions of
confinement on death row violated the Eighth Amendment.626 The complaint, filed in 2014,
alleged that the “permanent, unmitigated segregation” of death row prisoners “subjects them to an
inhumane existence unrelated to any legitimate penological goal, amounting to the imposition of
cruel and unusual punishment violating the Eighth Amendment.”627 The circuit court relied on the
facts that individuals on death row spent years “alone, in a small . . . cell” with “no access to
congregate religious, educational, or social programming” and that such conditions presented “an
objective risk of serious psychological and emotional harm . . . ”.628 The court explained, “The
challenged conditions on Virginia’s death row deprived inmates of the basic human need for
meaningful social interaction and positive environmental stimulation. The undisputed evidence
established that that deprivation posed a substantial risk of serious psychological and emotional
harm and that State Defendants were deliberately indifferent to that risk.”629 To remedy the
constitutional violation, the district court prohibited solitary confinement for twenty-three hours a
day and required the creation of policies “relating to cell time, visitation, and recreation that
defendants, in their professional expertise, believe satisfy both the Eighth Amendment and the
prison’s need for security.”630
In 2019, a federal court in Connecticut found unconstitutional the detention of a prisoner,
deemed by statute to be a “special circumstances high security” individual, in “permanent solitary
confinement without any review of the severity of, or the security justifications for, conditions of
extreme social isolation and sensory deprivation.”631 As the court explained, aside from “two daily
hours of recreation and two fifteen-minute breaks to eat lunch and dinner,”, the prisoner was
“effectively condemned to spend the rest of his life in a cell roughly the size of a parking space.”632
The court held that the conditions violated the Eighth Amendment, and in addition concluded that
the lack of procedure violated the Fourteenth Amendment, and that the statute requiring this form
of confinement was an unconstitutional bill of attainder.633 The injunction, stayed pending appeal,
required the state to stop holding the prisoner in isolation for more than twenty-one hours per day
and to provide an individualized review of the need for isolation.634

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

85

Other courts have considered challenges to restrictive housing for certain categories of
individuals such as those with serious mental illness. For example, in 2019, a federal judge in
Alabama issued a supplemental opinion in Braggs v. Dunn, a class action that began against the
Alabama Department of Corrections (ADOC) in 2014.635 The court held in a 2017 decision that
ADOC violated prisoners’ Eighth Amendment rights in its provision of mental health care,636
including in its treatment of seriously mentally ill prisoners held in segregated housing.637 On
February 11, 2019, the court issued a supplemental opinion, holding that ADOC had not conducted
adequate periodic mental health evaluations of prisoners in segregation.638 The court found that
the condition of the cells in the segregation unit contributed to a “heightened risk of
decompensation and development of mental illness” making it “more difficult for staff to detect
decompensation.”639 In a subsequent order, the court called for thirty-minute security checks for
prisoners in segregation units; prompt implementation of more protective measures for prisoners
in segregation; and not placing prisoners released from suicide watch into segregation units. 640
In Montana, litigation continues in federal court regarding placement in restrictive housing
of individuals with serious mental illness. A March 2014 complaint alleged Eighth Amendment
violations, including “routinely keeping prisoners with serious mental illness locked in solitary
confinement 22 to 24-hours a day for months, and in some cases years . . .” .641 On July 19, 2019,
the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of defendant’s motion to dismiss and remanded
to a different judge. The appellate court discussed allegations of a “distressing pattern of placing
mentally ill prisoners in solitary confinement” for long periods of time, and “the frequent, improper
use of this punishment for behavior arising from mental illness.”642
Other decisions addressed the particular challenges and harms that solitary confinement
poses to young people. For example, in 2018, a federal judge in the Southern District of Florida
entered a final order approving settlement in a class action filed on behalf of juveniles held or
previously held in solitary confinement at Palm Beach County Jail.643 The settlement required the
Sheriff’s Office to “bring all juveniles out of segregated housing during the regular school day in
order for the School Board to facilitate educational services and programming” and the School
Board to “provide appropriate educational services and programming to juveniles . . . .”644 In New
York, juveniles held in solitary confinement in Broome County reached a settlement in 2018 with
the jail and school district.645 The settlement proscribes placement of juveniles in solitary
confinement “for disciplinary purposes unless the juvenile poses an imminent threat to the safety
and security of the facility and less restrictive measures will not adequately address the threat.”646
Restrictive Housing as a Global Concern
In 2015, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the revised Standard
Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, also known as the “Nelson Mandela Rules,”647
which were drafted with input from CLA members. The 2018 ASCA-Liman Report, Reforming
Restrictive Housing, discussed the growth in concerns worldwide about the use of isolation, as it
sketched some of the many countries addressing the harms of isolating confinement.648 This
section provides a brief overview of global developments since then.
We begin at the transnational level, where calls for reform continue. In March 2020, the
United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

86

or Punishment published the Report on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment. That monograph noted that the definition of torture excludes “pain or
suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions,” but that certain
practices—“indefinite solitary confinement,” placing prisoners “in a dark or constantly lit cell,”
and cutting off “family contacts”—could not be considered “a lawful domestic sanction.”649
According to the Special Rapporteur, subjecting prisoners to solitary confinement for more than
fifteen days is regarded as a form of “psychological torture” in violation of the Nelson Mandela
Rules and the Convention Against Torture.650 The Special Rapporteur’s press release stated that
these “dehumanizing conditions of detention, sometimes euphemistically referred to as
segregation, . . . are routinely used by US correctional facilities” and “voiced alarm at the excessive
use of solitary confinement by correctional facilities in the United States.”651
In October 2019, the World Medical Association (WMA) issued its conclusion that solitary
confinement as defined by the Nelson Mandela Rules “can constitute a form of torture or illtreatment” if it is used “in excess of 15 days.”652 The WMA outlined the harm to health from
solitary confinement, and the particular problems for children and people with mental and physical
disabilities. For these groups, the WMA wrote, “solitary confinement has been documented to
cause serious psychological, psychiatric, and sometimes physiological” harms, the effects of which
can be long-term or permanent.653 The WMA recommended prohibiting solitary confinement
beyond fifteen days, as well as prohibiting any use of solitary confinement for children, young
people, those with physical or mental conditions that would be exacerbated by isolated
confinement, pregnant prisoners, and prisoners up to six months postpartum.654 In all other cases,
the WMA recommended that solitary confinement “be imposed [only] . . . as a last resort and
subject to independent review, and for the shortest period of time possible.”655
Recent litigation and legislation in various international fora have also addressed restrictive
housing. Illustrative are a sequence of events in Canada and in India, two countires that have,
during the last two years, made structural and legal changes in their approaches to restrictive
housing. In Canada, the Court of Appeal for Ontario ruled in March 2019 that placement in federal
administrative segregation for more than fifteen consecutive days violated Section 12 of the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which prohibits “cruel and unusual treatment or
punishment.”656 In June 2019, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia ruled that administrative
segregation in federal facilities violated Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,
which encompasses the right to “life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be
deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.”657 The Attorney
General of Canada initially pursued appeals of these decisions, but in April 2020 the government
withdrew its appeals to the Canadian Supreme Court.658 The government’s response to the
litigation came after the Canadian Parliament had, in June of 2019, ended placing federal prisoners
in administrative segregation for more than twenty-two hours a day for more than fifteen
consecutive days. The legislation, entitled An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional
Release Act and another act, replaces the use of administrative segregation in federal correctional
facilities with “structured intervention units,” which must provide at least four hours of out-of-cell
programming per day and at least two hours of meaningful human contact.659 In implementing this
provision, the Commissioner of Canada’s federal Correctional Service has limited placement in
structured intervention units to five consecutive days maximum, or fifteen days cumulative in a
thirty-day period.660

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

87

In India, two state courts have restricted the use of solitary confinement. In April 2018, the
Uttarakhand High Court declared that prisoners who have more potential routes to contest their
death sentences could not be placed in solitary confinement.661 The court invoked the provision in
the Nelson Mandela Rules that solitary confinement should be used “only in exceptional cases as
a last resort.” 662 In December of 2018, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana also prohibited the
use of solitary confinement for people with capital sentences until such time as “the sentence of
death has become final, conclusive and indefeasible which cannot be annulled or voided by any
judicial process.”663
In addition, a series of reports from Europe, North Africa and the Middle East discuss the
harms of isolation. In Ireland, the Irish Prison Service has implemented a series of reforms to bring
the country into compliance with the Nelson Mandela Rules.664 This initiative initially resulted in
a significant reduction in the number of prisoners in solitary confinement,.665 In 2019, however,
the Irish Penal Reform Trust reported that “this momentum appears to have deteriorated,”666 that
data from that year showed “a rise in the use of solitary confinement, and that [“u]rgent action is
required. Necessary steps include the consistent monitoring and publication of data, in particular
on the number of people held in prolonged solitary confinement (more than fifteen days), given its
severely psychological effects on an individual.”667
Concerns about Norway come from a 2019 report by the Committee for the Prevention of
Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of the Council of Europe (CPT).
That committee criticized Norway for its overuse of solitary confinement.668 The CPT found that
prisoners who “did not pose a security risk” were confined alone “in their cells for twenty-two to
twenty-three hours per day (with only one hour of outdoor exercise), without being offered any
purposeful activities.”669 Some prisoners had been “held for several years in a de facto solitaryconfinement-type regime.”670 The CPT concluded that this “state of affairs is not acceptable,” as
it also noted that “initial steps” had been taken to improve the situation of the prisoners
concerned.”671
In Egypt, Amnesty International released a report on the prevalence of solitary
confinement.672 Amnesty discussed Egypt’s Prison Law and related regulations that authorize
prison wardens to order up to thirty days of solitary confinement, while more senior administration
officials are authorized to order six months of solitary confinement “against any category of
prisoner.”673 To learn about conditions in fourteen facilities there, researchers conducted more than
100 interviews with prisoners, lawyers, and family members of prisoners.674 The 2018 report
concluded that solitary confinement was being used to target political prisoners.675 The cells in
which prisoners were held “were small, had poor lighting and ventilation, and lacked beds and
mattresses.”676 “In 14 cases . . . prisoners had no toilet facilities. . . forcing them to urinate and
defecate in plastic or metal containers.”677
In addition to these accounts related to isolation across detention populations, several
jurisdictions outside the United States have addressed the particular harms faced by youth and
disabled individuals in restrictive housing. For example, in January of 2020, the Chief Inspector
of Prisons for England and Wales reported that some children were being held in cells continually
and permitted not more than fifteen minutes out-of-cell per day.678 The Chief Inspector called for
a “major overhaul” to the segregation policies of “young offender institutions.”679 Needed was “an

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

88

entirely new approach” to “use separation to protect children from harm,” and that would not have
such children be “subjected to impoverished [daily] regimes.”680
In Australia in March of 2020, the Human Rights Law Centre (HRLC) called on the
government to curtail its use of solitary confinement (as defined by the Nelson Mandela Rules) for
youth and those with disabilities.681 The report noted that “broad laws in each jurisdiction” in
Australia lacked consistency and “resulted in a broadening of circumstances in which people [can]
be isolated in a cell without meaningful human contact.”682 Finding that solitary confinement can
cause severe and permanent harms to mental and physical health, HRLC proposed a prohibition
on solitary confinement for youth and disabled individuals, and in all other cases to use isolation
only as a “practice of last resort.”683 Given that the report overlapped with the spread of COVID19, the HRLC warned that “the use of solitary confinement as a means to prevent the spread of
COVID-19 is both inappropriate and ineffective.”684
And, as citations in the footnotes reflect, an effort to provide a world-wide look at solitary
confinement was published in 2019. Jules Lobel and Peter Scharff Smith’s edited volume, Solitary
Confinement: Effects, Practices, and Pathways toward Reform, provides an international
comparative and interdisciplinary lens to analyze the use and consequences of long-term isolation,
as well as to examine the range of efforts aimed at reform and elimination.685
In sum, the many shifts in the United States stemming from decisions by correctional
officials are part of a transnational reevaluation of restrictive housing. Four of the jurisdictions that
responded to this survey reported they no longer use the practice of holding people for twenty-two
hours or more in cells for fifteen days or more, and many others are imposing new constraints.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

89

V.

Comparing the Numbers of People in Restrictive Housing
in 2015, 2017, and 2019

As we noted, we have data about total custodial populations and restrictive housing
populations from thirty-nine jurisdictions that, when their reported numbers are aggregated, house
about 57.5% of the U.S. prison population. These jurisdictions reported 31,542 people in restrictive
housing. We therefore estimated that between 55,000 and 62,500 people were in restrictive
housing in the summer of 2019.686
In this concluding section, we put together materials from the 2015, 2017, and 2019 CLALiman surveys by analyzing some of the data provided by the jurisdictions that responded with
information on restrictive housing populations.687 To be constant in comparisons, we have
identified thirty-three jurisdictions that provided restrictive housing data across all three time
periods. That comparison permits insights into if and how the use of restrictive housing changed
in those jurisdictions during the intervals between the surveys. As detailed below, the numbers of
prisoners in restrictive housing decreased in some jurisdictions and increased in others.688
Table 26 displays the number and percentage of prisoners in restrictive housing across
these jurisdictions for 2015, 2017, and 2019. Among the thirty-three jurisdictions, the aggregate
number of prisoners reported to be in restrictive housing decreased from 2015 to 2017 by 6,642
prisoners, from 42,512 in 2015 to 35,870 in 2019. Between 2017 and 2019, the aggregate number
of prisoners reported to be in restrictive housing decreased by 6,902 prisoners, from 35,870 in
2017 to 28,968 in 2019. Across both time periods the aggregate number of prisoners decreased by
13,544.
In twenty-three of these thirty-three jurisdictions, the number of prisoners reported in
restrictive housing decreased across both timespans.689 Three jurisdictions saw an overall decrease
in their restrictive housing populations in the four years between 2015 and 2019, with an increase
between 2017 and 2019.690 Five jurisdictions saw an overall increase between 2015 and 2019, with
a decrease from 2015 to 2017 or from 2017 to 2019.691 In the last two jurisdictions, the number of
prisoners reported in restrictive housing increased across both time periods.692
Five jurisdictions that had the largest decreases in numbers of prisoners in restrictive
housing between 2015 and 2019 accounted for nearly 63% of the aggregate reduction across
jurisdictions for that time period. These same jurisdictions accounted for less than half of the
reduction in 2017 to 2019, as two jurisdictions reflected increases in their restrictive housing
populations during that time span.693
Across these thirty-three jurisdictions, the aggregate percentage of prisoners in restrictive
housing decreased from 5.0% in 2015 to 4.4% in 2017 and 3.8% in 2019. The largest reduction in
the percentage of prisoners in restrictive housing in a single jurisdiction was from 14.5% in 2015
and 19.0% in 2017 to 4.8% in 2019.694 The largest increase in the percentage of prisoners in
restrictive housing in a single jurisdiction was from 3.5% in 2015 and 6.4% in 2017 to 9.0% in
2019.695 Figures 16-21 detail the percentage of prisoners in restrictive housing by jurisdiction in
two ways: Figures 16, 17, and 18 display the percentages from 2015-2017, 2017-2019, and, finally,
from 2015-2019; and Figures 19, 20, and 21 provide change in percentages across the same time
spans.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

90

A number of factors may influence the variable changes in these numbers. Among these
are changes in policies and practices on restrictive housing, in facilities and budgets, litigation,
statutes, and in the overall numbers of people living in and working in prison systems. In addition,
changes in total prison population and restrictive housing population do not always move in the
same direction.696

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

91

Table 26

Jurisdiction-by-Jurisdiction Comparisons of Restrictive Housing (RH)
Populations in 2015, 2017, and 2019

2015 Total
Custodial
2015
Population Population
for
in
Jurisdiction
Facilities Restrictive
Reporting
Housing
RH Data
Alabama*
24,549
1,402
Arizona
42,736
2,544
Colorado
18,231
217
Connecticut
16,056
128
Delaware*
4,342
381
Georgia
56,656
3,880
Hawaii
4,200
23
Idaho
8,013
404
Illinois
46,609
2,255
Indiana
27,508
1,621
Kansas
9,952
589
Kentucky
11,669
487
Louisiana*
18,515
2,689
Maryland
19,687
1,485
Massachusetts**
10,004
235
Mississippi
18,866
185
Missouri
32,266
2,028
Montana
2,554
90
Nebraska
5,456
598
New York
52,621
4,498
North Carolina
38,039
1,517
North Dakota
1,800
54
Ohio
50,248
1,374
Oklahoma
27,650
1,552
Oregon
14,724
630

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

2015
Percentage
in
Restrictive
Housing
5.7%
6.0%
1.2%
0.8%
8.8%
6.8%
0.5%
5.0%
4.8%
5.9%
5.9%
4.2%
14.5%
7.5%
2.3%
1.0%
6.3%
3.5%
11.0%
8.5%
4.0%
3.0%
2.7%
5.6%
4.3%

2017 Total
Custodial
2017
2017
Population Population Percentage
for
in
in
Facilities Restrictive Restrictive
Reporting
Housing
Housing
RH Data
21,592
855
4.0%
42,146
2,723
6.5%
18,297
10
0.1%
14,137
328
2.3%
4,333
43
1.0%
54,723
3,200
5.8%
3,713
13
0.4%
7,161
310
4.3%
42,177
921
2.2%
26,317
1,741
6.6%
9,886
459
4.6%
12,000
408
3.4%
14,291
2,709
19.0%
21,785
1,417
6.5%
9,047
443
4.9%
12,940
529
4.1%
33,204
2,990
9.0%
1,769
113
6.4%
5,178
328
6.3%
50,764
2,666
5.3%
37,259
1,109
3.0%
1,830
8
0.4%
49,954
1,282
2.6%
26,895
1,368
5.1%
14,574
938
6.4%

(n = 33)
2019 Total
Custodial
2019
2019
Population Population Percentage
for
in
in
Facilities Restrictive Restrictive
Reporting
Housing
Housing
RH Data
20,673
670
3.2%
42,312
1,934
4.6%
14,397
0
0.0%
12,942
106
0.8%
4,568
0
0.0%
44,073
2,147
4.9%
3,561
1
0.0%
9,196
203
2.2%
38,425
1,327
3.5%
27,182
1,574
5.8%
10,005
686
6.9%
11,465
238
2.1%
14,269
679
4.8%
19,059
1,109
5.8%
8,424
102
1.2%
9,436
366
3.9%
27,924
2,258
8.1%
1,650
148
9.0%
5,499
256
4.7%
46,066
2,096
4.5%
34,869
1,654
4.7%
1,775
0
0.0%
48,887
1,068
2.2%
17,531
968
5.5%
14,734
705
4.8%

92
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Washington
Wisconsin*
Wyoming
Totals

50,349
20,978
3,526
20,095
148,365
16,308
20,535
2,128
845,235

1,716
1,068
106
1,768
5,832
274
751
131
42,512

3.4%
5.1%
3.0%
8.8%
3.9%
1.7%
3.7%
6.2%
5.0%

46,920
19,938
3,927
22,160
145,409
17,046
22,589
2,154
816,115

1,498
737
90
1,181
4,272
387
713
81
35,870

3.2%
3.7%
2.3%
5.3%
2.9%
2.3%
3.2%
3.8%
4.4%

45,174
18,401
3,858
21,817
143,473
17,668
23,539
2,013
764,865

918
602
55
1,453
4,407
605
597
36
28,968

2.0%
3.3%
1.4%
6.7%
3.1%
3.4%
2.5%
1.8%
3.8%

* In 2015, the number used for total custodial population was the number of prisoners for which the jurisdiction had restrictive housing data. For the 2017 survey and the current
survey, we used the total custodial population for which the jurisdiction had restrictive housing data and that was under the direct control of the jurisdiction. In 2015, some jurisdictions
had restrictive housing data for facilities that were not under their direct control and included those prisoners in their 2015 survey response. Those jurisdictions are marked with an
asterisk. Differences between the 2015 and 2017 total custodial population for these jurisdictions may therefore result from changes in the calculation of the total custodial population
rather than changes in the jurisdictions’ numbers of prisoners. In addition, the 2015 survey defined restrictive housing as being in-cell for twenty-two or more hours for fifteen or
more continuous days; in 2017 and 2019, the survey defined restrictive housing as being in cell for an average of twenty-two or more hours a day for fifteen or more continuous
days.
** Massachusetts raised concerns that its 2015 and 2017 restrictive housing data was not able to be replicated in 2020. Comparison data presented here and in Figures 16-21 should
be read with this caveat.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

93

Figure 16

Jurisdiction-by-Jurisdiction Comparison of Prisoners in
Restrictive Housing Populations in 2015 and 2017

(n = 33)
-'-

Alabama
Arizona
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Washington
Wisconsin
Wyoming

IL ••

_,
'
,

'r

2015
2017

-

"'

'

,

,

--

-

,

'

.1
~

,
'

,'

,
'

,

'

-

,

'

'
,-

-

'
,-

,'

",
,'
,

,

-

--

'

,
'

_,

"'

..,
""

,
'

",

,

'

,
'
,

",

'

,

'

0 .0%

-

--

,

2.5%

,

-

-5.0%

7.5%

10.0%

12.5%

15.0%

Percentage of Tota l Custodial Population in Restrictive Housing

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

17.5%

1-

94

Figure 17

Jurisdiction-by-Jurisdiction Comparison of Prisoners in Restrictive Housing
Populations in 2017 and 2019
(n = 33)

,

--

Alabama
Arizona
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Georgia
Hawaii

r ~.
I •

-

,
'

,
'
,

'

~

2017
2019 ,..

_j

'

-

,

.

Idaho
Illinois

-

Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky

'
,,

'

,'

_j

'

Louisiana
Maryland

-

-

,
'

j

Massachusetts

~

_L

Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska

---.-

,

--

'
'

-

,

New York
North Carolina

',

'

,

North Dakota
Ohio

'

,'

Oklahoma
Oregon
j

Pennsylvania

'

South Caro ina

,
'

,

South Dakota
Tennessee

'

,'

'r

Texas
Washington

-,

Wisconsin
Wyoming

'
,-

'

j
~

0 .0%

2.5%

5.0%

7.5%

10.0%

12.5%

15.0%

17.5%

Percentage of Total Custodial Population in Restrictive Housing

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

20.0%

95

Figure 18

Jurisdiction-by-Jurisdiction Comparison of Prisoners in Restrictive Housing
Populations in 2015 and 2019
(n = 33)
_J_

Alabama
Arizona
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Kan sas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
Missou ri
Montana
Nebraska
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Washington
Wisconsin
Wyoming

IL ••

.✓

.,

✓

✓

'

-,

'

-

-

✓

'
j

2015
2019

,

'

✓

-,

✓

-

'

-.✓

'

,

-

'

,

-

'

,'

-,
-

✓

,'

'

,',

'

,

-

'

,J
~

'

-

,

.✓

'

.✓

'

,

-

~

,
'
',
.✓

'

0 .0%

2.0%

,-

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

Percentage of Tota l Custodial Populat ion in Restrictive Housing

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

14.0%

1-

96

Figure 19

Jurisdiction-by-Jurisdiction Comparison of the Rate of Change in
Percentage of Prisoners in Restrictive Housing Populations from 2015 to
2017
(n = 33)

Louisiana

-,

Mississippi
Montana
Missouri
Massachusetts
Oregon
Connecticut
Indiana
Washington
Arizona
Ohio
Hawaii
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
Oklahoma
Idaho
South Dakota
Kentucky
Texas
Georgia
North Carolina
Maryland

'r
'

-,
',

-'

'r
'
'

,

,

-

, '
j

'

,

-

, '

',

,

'

,
,'

Colorado
,

Kansas
South Carolina
Alabama
Wyoming
North Dakota
Illinois
New York
Tennessee
Nebraska
Delaware

--

-

,

'

,
,

-

-

'

-

,

,
,

-

-

'

'

,

'

-8 .0%

-6 .0%

-4.0%

-2 .0%

0 .0%

2.0%

4.0%

Change in Percentage of Total Custodial Population in Restrictive Housing from 2015 to 2017

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

97

Figure 20

Jurisdiction-by-Jurisdiction Comparison of the Rate of Change in
Percentage of Prisoners in Restrictive Housing Populations from 2017 to
2019
(n = 33)

Monlana
Kansas
North Carolina

'

r

',

...,

Tennessee
Illinois
Washington
Oklahoma
Texas
Colorado
Mississippi
Hawaii
Ohio
South Carolina

'r
,'

',

,

'

',
_,,.'
-,

North Dakota
Wisconsin
Maryland
New York
Alabama
Indiana
South Dakota
Missouri
Georgia
Delaware
Pennsylvania
Kentucky
Connecticut
Oregon
Nebraska
Arizona
Wyoming
Idaho
Massachusetts
Louisiana

,

-,

_,,.'

.,
,

-,

.,'
',

-,

',
_,,. '

.,

,

--

,

_,,.'

',

--

,

.,'
,'

,

--

'

_,,.

'

-15.0%

-12.5%

-10.0%

-7 .5%

-5 .0%

-2.5%

0 .0%

2.5%

Change in Percentage of Total Custodial Population in Restrictive Housing from 2017 to 2019

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

98

Figure 21

Jurisdiction-by-Jurisdiction Comparison of the Rate of Change in
Percentage of Prisoners in Restrictive Housing Populations from 2015 to
2019
(n = 33)

Monlana
Mississippi
Missouri
Washington
Kansas
North Carolina
Oregon
Connecticut
Oklahoma
Indiana
Hawaii
Ohio
Texas
Wisconsin
Massachusetts
Colorado
Pennsylvania
Arizona
Illinois
South Dakota
Maryland
South Carolina
Georgia
Kentucky
Tennessee
Alabama
Idaho
North Dakota
New York
Wyoming
Nebraska
Delaware
Lou isiana

.'

-,
,'

',

-,
,'

,'

', ,
'
, '
~

,

,'

_,, '
,~

,

_, '
-,

,

~

,

,'

-,
,
~

,
,'

'

.,,
,

,
'

-

~

,

.,, '
,

,
'

-10.0%

'

-8 .0%

-6 .0%

-4 .0%

-2 .0%

0 .0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

Change in Percentage of Total Custod ial Population in Restrictive Housing from 2015 to 2019

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

99

Another window into changes over time comes from the numbers on length of time in
restrictive housing provided by the twenty-four jurisdictions responding to those questions in 2015,
2017, and 2019.697 Table 27 shows that, overall, the numbers of individuals in restrictive housing
across almost all time periods decreased across 2015, 2017, and 2019.698 As shown in Table 27,
the number of prisoners in restrictive housing for all lengths of time decreased in more jurisdictions
than it increased across 2015-2017-2019.
We also calculated the distribution across time intervals—i.e., what percentage of
individuals in restrictive housing were held for each time interval—as Table 28 reflects. From
2015 to 2019, the percentage of prisoners in restrictive housing for fifteen to thirty days and thirtyone to ninety days increased in more jurisdictions than it decreased, while the percentage of
prisoners in restrictive housing for all intervals of time over ninety days decreased in more
jurisdictions than it increased. From 2017 to 2019, the percentage of prisoners in restrictive
housing across all time periods increased in roughly as many jurisdictions as it decreased.
To conclude, Figure 22 provides a summary of the comparison of the lengths of time that
individuals spent in restrictive housing. This graph is one way to capture that the many efforts to
limit the use and duration of restrictive housing are having effects on people’s lives.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

100

Table 27
Jurisdiction
Arizona
Colorado
Delaware
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Massachusetts
Mississippi
Nebraska
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Washington
Wisconsin**
Wyoming
Totals

Comparing the Numbers of Prisoners in Restrictive Housing by Length of Time
in 2015, 2017, and 2019*

(n = 24)

15-30 Days
31-90 Days
91-180 Days
181-365 Days
1-3 Years
3-6 Years
6 Years and Over
140
428
177
472
831
412
530
433
338
809
462
379
488
489
454
34
72
144
71
8
30
I
10
0
65
0
0
64
0
0
23
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
I 64
5
0
99
25
0
84
6
0
76
7
0
67
0
0
12
0
0
18
0
0
I 25
80
121
33
46
115
8
I 212 131 250 224 348 548 388 281 331 496 354 279 175 391 125
125
176
238
146
207
265
87
61
115
105
15
53
94
0
15
22
0
0
10
0
0
I
97
222
130
79
52
45
33
41
14
22
28
1
6
4
0
1
1
0
0
I 139 671
55
551
630
187
334
449
164
302
445
118
450
517
103
221
346
34
0
0
18
I 327 332
2
76
26
3
118
61
12
50
14
65
28
1
71
31
0
24
5
0
43
4
0
I
3
399
50
21
69
73
29
40
37
41
12
66
69
7
73
17
1
47
5
1
20
I
19
53
121
94
64
158
102
40
87
81
30
106
32
65
48
1
4
30
3
0
I 48
80
101
73
21
32
13
6
0
7
8
I 1,615 757 653 1,454 1,218 1,067 671 416 261 257 182
6
459
579
113
520
460
132
429
12
214
191
4
500
38
1
317
10
0
384
7
I 461
8
3
0
13
4
0
12
2
0
17
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
I
43
49
35
22
22
24
I 119 226 227 360 228 225 181 243 120 253 271 200 162 183 237
77
17
17
70
0
11
I 169 384 192 270 481 264 206 224 178 270 156 141 490 106 165
81
41
68
26
30
27
4
7
8
0
1
1
I 90 126 131 152 291 207 277 152 263
349
305
210
524
517
313
288
252
149
156
126
128
157
106
78
52
41
25
190
151
15
I
57
114
131
88
151
102
92
67
12
11
0
42
0
I 238 138 150 370 207 204 128 105
18
7
16
6
15
10
10
9
15
16
14
27
21
7
12
12
1
8
7
2
I 18
70
239
276
73
222
237
158
353
280
218
500
244
485
166
31
287
205
3 162
I 89 110
I 109 141 183 204 263 375 277 326 380 537 474 498 1,840 931 1,236 1,278 811 611 1,587 1,326 1,124
5
140
55
82
249
68
107
85
70
106
64
37
64
48
16
11
9
12
12
10
I 16
88
91
55
60
41
51
36
13
32
4
2
12
0
0
0
I 278 221 218 285 345 229
8
21
14
30
31
16
24
25
5
59
2
0
9
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
I
4,652
4,708
3,600
6,475
6,514
5,446
4,650
3,789
3,221
4,299
3,458
2,689
5,093
3,842
3,307
2,214
1,870
1,295
2,319
2,086
1,441
I

* Dark grey cells contain values from the 2015 survey. Light grey cells contain values from the 2017 survey. Unshaded cells contain values from the 2019 survey.
** Wisconsin noted that in both 2015 and 2017 it did not count prisoners in administrative segregation as placed in restrictive housing. By contrast, Wisconsin’s 2019 restrictive housing totals include
those in administrative segregation. Thus, increases in restrictive housing populations for Wisconsin noted in Table 27 may reflect a change in counting methodology.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

101

Table 28

Comparing the Distribution of Prisoners in Restrictive Housing by Length of
Time in 2015, 2017, and 2019*

Jurisdiction
Arizona
Colorado
Delaware
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Massachusetts
Mississippi
Nebraska
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Washington
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals

15-30 Days
5.5%
15.7% 9.2%
I
I 29.5% 100.0% 0.0%
I 6.6% 11.6% 0.0%
I 13.1% 7.5% 15.9%
I 21.2% 38.3% 34.7%
I 28.5% 77.9% 40.8%
I 15.0% 12.2% 8.1%
I 0.9% 24.4% 25.5%
I 1.6% 75.4% 13.7%
I 8.0% 5.7% 20.7%
I 39.1% 28.4% 31.2%
I 30.4% 0.4% 27.8%
I 14.8% 33.3% 0.0%
I 10.4% 18.5% 21.3%
I 10.9% 28.1% 19.8%
I 14.3% 19.4% 18.6%
I 20.3% 20.4% 22.9%
I 22.3% 18.7% 24.9%
I 17.0% 20.0% 12.7%
I 5.0% 9.3% 4.8%
I 1.9% 3.3% 4.2%
I 5.8% 1.3% 23.1%
I 37.0% 31.0% 36.5%
I 6.1% 25.9% 38.9%
I15.7% 17.9% 17.1%

31-90 Days
18.6% 30.5% 21.3%
30.0% 0.0% 0.0%
26.0% 58.1% 0.0%
13.8% 20.0% 34.8%
24.8% 45.1% 38.6%
45.6% 15.1% 33.2%
25.2% 23.2% 27.5%
1.4% 37.8% 59.8%
11.4% 13.0% 19.9%
20.2% 28.3% 25.0%
35.2% 45.7% 50.9%
38.2% 6.8% 31.4%
24.1% 44.4% 0.0%
31.6% 18.7% 21.1%
17.4% 35.2% 27.3%
24.1% 44.9% 29.4%
30.5% 34.5% 34.1%
34.6% 28.1% 33.9%
15.1% 6.7% 27.3%
13.5% 23.4% 5.0%
3.5% 6.2% 8.5%
20.1% 21.2% 41.2%
37.9% 48.4% 38.4%
22.9% 38.3% 44.4%
21.8% 24.8% 25.9%

91-180 Days
20.8% 15.9% 17.5%
29.5% 0.0% 0.0%
22.0% 14.0% 0.0%
23.9% 16.1% 21.0%
14.8% 13.3% 16.8%
10.7% 5.2% 13.9%
15.3% 16.5% 24.2%
5.5% 16.0% 13.7%
15.7% 7.6% 10.1%
26.4% 30.7% 15.6%
16.2% 15.6% 12.5%
30.3% 7.9% 25.9%
22.2% 22.2% 0.0%
15.9% 19.9% 11.2%
13.3% 16.4% 18.4%
44.0% 23.5% 37.3%
16.8% 16.8% 16.2%
12.0% 14.2% 9.5%
9.4% 11.1% 16.4%
12.5% 20.1% 10.9%
4.7% 7.6% 8.6%
24.8% 27.6% 14.0%
11.7% 12.8% 9.2%
18.3% 30.9% 13.9%
15.7% 14.4% 15.3%

181-365 Days
31.8% 17.0% 19.6%
10.6% 0.0% 0.0%
19.9% 16.3% 0.0%
30.6% 20.3% 17.7%
17.8% 3.3% 7.7%
8.4% 1.6% 9.2%
13.8% 16.4% 17.4%
29.5% 9.0% 1.0%
22.2% 2.3% 18.0%
14.5% 24.4% 11.7%
6.2% 6.8% 3.8%
0.8% 12.8% 11.5%
31.5% 0.0% 0.0%
22.2% 22.2% 18.7%
17.4% 11.4% 14.6%
12.9% 6.3% 9.6%
9.1% 8.4% 13.9%
10.7% 17.8% 14.6%
14.2% 17.8% 25.5%
19.9% 23.7% 15.0%
9.2% 11.1% 11.3%
25.5% 27.4% 10.6%
8.0% 5.8% 8.5%
45.0% 2.5% 0.0%
14.5% 13.2% 12.8%

(n = 24)
1-3 Years
19.2% 18.0% 23.5%
0.5% 0.0% 0.0%
17.6% 0.0% 0.0%
10.8% 22.5% 7.9%
16.0% 0.0% 2.2%
5.7% 0.1% 2.5%
20.6% 19.0% 15.2%
32.3% 9.9% 0.0%
37.3% 1.3% 19.9%
17.7% 9.6% 25.4%
2.4% 2.7% 1.0%
0.3% 30.0% 2.3%
7.4% 0.0% 0.0%
14.2% 15.0% 22.2%
31.6% 7.7% 17.0%
4.1% 4.6% 3.8%
9.1% 7.1% 8.5%
14.1% 13.8% 15.3%
25.5% 23.3% 12.7%
28.2% 20.7% 33.4%
31.6% 21.8% 28.0%
13.5% 16.5% 7.9%
4.8% 1.8% 5.4%
6.9% 1.2% 0.0%
17.1% 14.6% 15.7%

3-6 Years
1.3% 2.6% 7.4%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3.1% 0.0% 0.0%
4.9% 7.0% 2.1%
3.7% 0.0% 0.0%
0.8% 0.0% 0.4%
10.1% 12.7% 5.0%
10.9% 1.6% 0.0%
9.2% 0.2% 12.8%
8.0% 0.3% 1.6%
0.8% 0.5% 0.3%
0.1% 19.0% 0.6%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3.8% 4.0% 3.3%
5.0% 1.2% 1.8%
0.6% 1.1% 1.1%
3.0% 2.7% 2.7%
6.3% 1.6% 1.8%
11.3% 13.3% 1.8%
9.4% 2.6% 19.8%
21.9% 19.0% 13.9%
5.8% 2.8% 1.5%
0.5% 0.3% 2.0%
0.0% 1.2% 0.0%
7.5% 7.1% 6.2%

* Dark grey cells contain values from the 2015 survey. Light grey cells contain values from the 2017 survey. Unshaded cells contain values from the 2019 survey.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

6 Years and Over
2.8% 0.3% 1.6%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4.7% 0.0% 0.0%
2.8% 6.6% 0.5%
1.7% 0.0% 0.0%
0.2% 0.0% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0% 2.7%
19.5% 1.3% 0.0%
2.7% 0.2% 5.5%
5.0% 0.9% 0.0%
0.0% 0.3% 0.4%
0.0% 23.0% 0.4%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
1.9% 1.8% 2.2%
4.5% 0.0% 1.1%
0.0% 0.2% 0.1%
11.1% 10.1% 1.6%
0.0% 5.7% 0.0%
7.5% 7.8% 3.6%
11.6% 0.3% 11.1%
27.2% 31.0% 25.5%
4.4% 3.1% 1.7%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.8% 0.0% 2.8%
7.8% 7.9% 6.9%

102

Figure 22

Comparing the Distribution of Prisoners in Restrictive Housing by
Length Of Time in 2015, 2017, and 2019
(n = 24)

30.0%

-

25.9%

25.0%

2015
2017

~

QJ
C

20.0%

0

·c"'

c..
0

QJ
Cl
f1l

15.0%

.µ

C
QJ

~

10.0%

c..

5.0%

0.0%

15 to 30 days

Table 29

31 to 90 days

91 to 180 days

181 to 365 days

1 to 3 years

3 to 6 years

6 yea rs and over

Comparing Restrictive Housing Numbers from 2014 to 2020

Number of
Jurisdictions
Responding

# Prisoners
Reported in
Restrictive
Housing
Estimated Total
Prisoners in
Restrictive
Housing in all
U.S.
Jurisdictions

2014-2015
2015-2016
2017-2018
2019-2020 CLAASCA-Liman
ASCA-Liman
ASCA-Liman
Liman Survey
Survey
Survey
Survey
34 jurisdictions,
48 jurisdictions
43 jurisdictions
39 jurisdictions
or 73% of prison
or 96.4% of
or 80.5% of
or 58% of prison
population of 1.6 prison population prison population population of 1.4
million people
of 1.5 million
of 1.5 million
million people
people
people
66,000+
67,442
50,422
31,542

80,000-100,000

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

not estimated
given substantial
reporting

61,000

55,000-62,000

103
1

As David Cloud, Cyrus Ahalt, Dallas Augustine, David Sears, and Brie Williams explained in their article, medical
isolation should be structured in a manner that does not rely on the constraints commonplace in restrictive housing. See
Medical Isolation and Solitary Confinement: Balancing Health and Humanity in US Jails and Prisons During COVID19. J. GEN. INTERN MED. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-020-05968-y.

2

See, e.g., The Ninth Circuit Corrections Summit, Sacramento, California, November 4-6, 2015; The Ninth Circuit
Corrections Summit, Santa Ana, California, April 25-27, 2018; Racial Disparities in Prisons: A Seminar, Yale Law
School, 2017.
3

See, e.g., Chesa Boudin, Trevor Stutz & Aaron Littman, Prison Visitation Policies: A Fifty State Survey, 32 YALE LAW
& POLICY REVIEW: 149 (2013), available at
http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1654&context=ylpr; Giovanna Shay, Visiting Room: A
Response to Prison Visitation Policies: A Fifty-State Survey, 32 YALE LAW & POLICY REVIEW 191 (2013), available at
http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/ylpr/vol32/iss1/6/; Ashbel T. Wall II, Why Do They Do It That Way?: A Response to
Prison Visitation Policies: A Fifty-State Survey, 32 YALE LAW & POLICY REVIEW 199 (2013), available at
http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/ylpr/vol32/iss1/7/; David Fathi, An Endangered Necessity: A Response to Prison
Visitation Policies: A Fifty-State Survey, 32 YALE LAW & POLICY REVIEW 205 (2013), available at
http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/ylpr/vol32/iss1/8/; Philip M. Genty, Taking Stock and Moving Forward to Improve
Prison Visitation Practices: A Response to Prison Visitation Policies: A Fifty-State Survey, 32 YALE LAW & POLICY
REVIEW 211 (2013), available at http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/ylpr/vol32/iss1/9/.
4

Hope Metcalf, Jamelia Morgan, Samuel Oliker-Friedland, Judith Resnik, Julia Spiegel, Haran Tae, Alyssa Work, &
Brian Holbrook, Administrative Segregation, Degrees of Isolation, and Incarceration: A National Overview of State and
Federal Correctional Policies (June 2013), available at
https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/area/center/liman/document/Liman_overview_segregation_June_25_2013_TO_P
OST_FINAL(1).pdf [hereinafter ASCA-LIMAN ADMINISTRATIVE SEGREGATION NATIONAL OVERVIEW 2013].
5

Id. at 2.

6

Id. at 4.

7

Id. at 5.

8

ASSOCIATION OF STATE CORRECTIONAL ADMINISTRATORS & ARTHUR LIMAN PUBLIC INTEREST PROGRAM AT YALE LAW
SCHOOL, Time-in-Cell: The ASCA-Liman 2014 National Survey of Administrative Segregation in Prison (Aug. 2015),
available at
https://law.yale.edu/system/files/documents/pdf/asca-liman_administrative_
segregation_report_sep_2_2015.pdf
[hereinafter ASCA-LIMAN ADMINISTRATIVE SEGREGATION 2014].
9

Id. at 3.

10

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Report and Recommendations Concerning the Use of Restrictive Housing (Jan. 2016),
available at https://www.justice.gov/archives/dag/report-and-recommendations-concerning-use-restrictive-housing.

11

See, e.g., Jess Bravin, Large Number of Inmates in Solitary Poses Problem for Justice System, Study Says, THE WALL
STREET JOURNAL, Sept. 2, 2015, available at https://www.wsj.com/articles/large-number-of-inmates-in-solitary-posesproblem-for-justice-system-study-says-1441209772; Timothy Williams, Prison Officials Join Movement to Curb Solitary
Confinement, THE NEW YORK TIMES, Sept. 2, 2015, available at https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/03/us/prisondirectors-group-calls-for-limiting-solitary-confinement.html.: Timothy Williams, Prison Officials Join Movement to
NEW
YORK
TIMES,
Sept.
2,
2015,
available
at
Curb
Solitary
Confinement,
THE
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/03/us/prison-directors-group-calls-for-limiting-solitary-confinement.html.
www.nytimes.com/2015/09/03/us/prison-directors-group-calls-for-limiting-solitary- confinement.html.; Kevin Johnson,
More than a Decade after Release, They All Come Back, USA TODAY, Nov. 4, 2015, available at
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/11/04/solitary-confinement-prisoners-impact/73830286/.
12

ASSOCIATION OF STATE CORRECTIONAL ADMINISTRATORS & ARTHUR LIMAN PUBLIC INTEREST PROGRAM AT YALE
LAW SCHOOL, Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell: Reports from Correctional Systems on the Numbers of Prisoners in
Restricted Housing and on the Potential of Policy Changes to Bring About Reforms (Nov. 2016), available at

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

104
https://law.yale.edu/system/files/area/center/liman/document/aimingtoreducetic.pdf
AIMING TO REDUCE TIME-IN-CELL 2016].
13

Id. at 20

14

Id. at 27-28.

[hereinafter

ASCA-LIMAN

15

See, e.g., Anna Flag, Alex Tatusian, & Christie Thompson, Who’s in Solitary Confinement, THE MARSHALL
PROJECT, Nov. 2016, available at https://www.themarshallproject.org/2016/11/30/a-new-report-gives-the-mostdetailed-breakdown-yet-of-how-isolation-is-used-in-u-s-prisons; Daniel Teehan, What Chris Christie Got Wrong About
MARSHALL
PROJECT,
Dec.
2016,
available
at
Solitary
Confinement,
THE
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2016/12/14/what-chris-christie-got-wrong-about-solitary-confinement;
Juleyka
Lantigua-Williams, More Prisons Are Phasing Out the ‘Box,’ THE ATLANTIC, Dec. 2016, available at
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/more-prisons-are-phasing-out-the-box/509225/; Juleyka LantiguaWilliams, The Link Between Race and Solitary Confinement, THE ATLANTIC, Dec. 2016, available at
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/race-solitary-confinement/509456/; Cassandra Basler, Yale Report
Tries to Count People Held in Solitary Confinement, WSHU, Dec. 2016, available at http://wshu.org/post/yale-reporttries-count-people-held-solitary-confinement#stream/0.
16

ASSOCIATION OF STATE CORRECTIONAL ADMINISTRATORS & ARTHUR LIMAN PUBLIC INTEREST PROGRAM AT YALE
LAW SCHOOL, Reforming Restrictive Housing: The 2018 ASCA-Liman Nationwide Survey of Time-in-Cell (Oct. 2018),
available at
https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/area/center/liman/document/asca_liman_2018_restrictive_housing_released_oct_
2018.pdf [hereinafter ASCA-LIMAN REFORMING RESTRICTIVE HOUSING 2018].
17

Id. at 4.

18

Id.

19

Id.

20

Id.

21

Id. at 5.

22

Id. at 17.

23

Id. at 24.

24

Id. at 36.

25

Id. at 5.

26

Jacob Kang-Brown, Chase Montagnet, Eital Schattner-Elmaleh, & Olivia Hinds, People in Prison in 2019 at 2, Vera
Institute of Justice (May 2020), https://www.vera.org/downloads/publications/people-in-prison-in-2019.pdf [hereinafter
People in Prison in 2019]. As of March 2020, the number of individuals in custody had declined slightly to 1,287,416.
Id.
27
Zhen Zeng, Jail Inmates in 2018,
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ji18.pdf.

BUREAU

28

OF

JUSTICE

STATISTICS

1

(March.

2020),

Restrictive Housing in U.S. Jails: Results from a National Survey, by Chase Montagnet, Jennifer Peirce, and David
Pitts, Vera Institute of Justice (2020).
29

People in Prison in 2019 at 5.

30

ASCA-LIMAN REFORMING RESTRICTIVE HOUSING 2018, at 8.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

105
31
The full survey is set forth in Appendix A. As noted in Table 1, a few jurisdictions state that their information was
based on a definition of restrictive housing different than that provided in the survey.
32

Of the 41 jurisdictions that responded to the survey, one state (West Virginia) did not provide data on the number of
prisoners in restrictive housing. Another state (New Hampshire) provided information subsequent to the timeframe to be
included for the aggregate analysis of this report. When possible, we have added information from that jurisdiction in text
or endnotes. The remaining 39 jurisdictions that responded to the survey were Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado,
Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia,
Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
33

Within the 39 jurisdictions, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, and Oklahoma reported an aggregate of 8,190 people that
were included within the total populations but were not individuals about which the jurisdictions had restrictive housing
data. These 8,190 individuals are not counted in the 825,473 figure cited above.
34
Because not all jurisdictions track restrictive housing in accordance with the survey definition, we included some
reported numbers that varied somewhat but were close enough to the survey definition to warrant inclusion. For example,
Nebraska reported that populations in both Immediate Segregation and Long-Term Restrictive Housing units “have 24 or
fewer hours out of cell per week (around 3.4 hours out of cell per day, or 20.6 hours in-cell per day),” but reported that
“[s]ome may be in cell an average of 22 hours a day or more . . . .” Virginia reported restrictive housing information from
its 2019 Fiscal Report for individuals in restrictive housing “22 hours or more a day.” These counts included people who
may have been in restrictive housing for fewer than 14 days, but may have excluded people who were in isolation for an
average of 22 hours a day. Therefore, the numbers may be over- or under-inclusive of prisoners in restrictive housing
under the CLA-Liman Survey’s definition.
35

These jurisdictions were Colorado, Delaware, North Dakota, and Vermont.

36

See E. ANN CARSON, DEP’T OF JUSTICE, PRISONERS IN 2018, at 5 (2020) [hereinafter Prisoners in 2018]. The Bureau of
Justice Statistic’s 2019 data is anticipated in early 2021. See People in Prison in 2019 at 1.

37

People in Prison in 2019, at 3. Vera collected prison population numbers directly from each state’s department of
corrections and from the Federal Bureau of Prisons either by obtaining materials online or through direct outreach. Id. at
5.

38

See People in Prison in 2019 at 3 (“All prison population counts in this report are estimates of the number of people
under the jurisdiction of the correctional authority, not the number of people in custody”). The Bureau of Justice Statistics
likewise “include[s] all prisoners under the authority of state or federal correctional officers, regardless of where the
prisoner is held.” Prisoners in 2018, at 5.

39

The total December 2019 prison populations for each responding jurisdiction are as follows: Alabama (28,266), Arizona
(42,441), Arkansas (17,759), Colorado (19,714), Connecticut (12,293), Delaware (5,692), Georgia (55,556), Hawaii
(5,179), Idaho (9,437), Illinois (38,259), Indiana (27,268), Kansas (10,177), Kentucky (23,436), Louisiana (31,609),
Maine (2,205), Maryland (18,686), Massachusetts (8,205), Minnesota (9,982), Mississippi (19,469), Missouri (26,0440),
Montana (3,811), Nebraska (5,651), New York (44,284), North Carolina (34,510), North Dakota (1,794), Ohio (49,762),
Oklahoma (25,712), Oregon (15,755), Pennsylvania (45,875), Rhode Island (2,740), South Carolina (18,608), South
Dakota (3,804), Tennessee (26,539), Texas (158,820), Vermont (1,608), Virginia (36,091), Washington (19,160),
Wisconsin (23,956), and Wyoming (2,479). See People in Prison in 2019, at 4.

40

See People in Prison at 5. In light of the relatively small numbers and large amount of bookkeeping to identify prisoners
beyond a jurisdiction’s direct control, including prisoners sent out-of-jurisdiction, we did not ask jurisdictions to account
for any prisoners not within their custody. As such, the disparity between Vera’s total population numbers for each
jurisdiction and their reported population numbers in response to the 2019 CLA-Liman survey are set forth in Appendix
B.
41

The total December 2019 prison populations for each non-responding jurisdiction are as follows: Alaska (4,475),
California (125,507), Florida (96,009), Iowa (9,282), Michigan (38,053), Nevada (12,942), New Hampshire (2,622), New
Jersey (18,613), New Mexico (6,723), Utah (6,731), West Virginia (6,800), Federal Bureau of Prisons (175,116). See
People in Prison in 2019 at 4. New Hampshire, which provided data subsequent to the time frame for aggregate analysis

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

106
in this report, self-reported having 2,263 prisoners under its direct control in the jursidiction’s correctional facilities.
42

ASCA-LIMAN REFORMING RESTRICTIVE HOUSING 2018, at 4.

43

These seven jurisdictions were Alaska, Iowa, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Utah, and the federal Bureau of
Prisons. The remaining five jurisdictions that did not respond to the survey in 2017 and 2019 were California, Florida,
Michigan, New Hampshire, and West Virginia.
44

The reported percentage of the population in restrictive housing for these seven jurisdictions according to their
responses to the 2017 ASCA-Liman survey were as follows: Alaska (8.6%), Iowa (2.0%), Nevada (5.9%), New Jersey
(5.2%), New Mexico (4.2%), Utah (4.7%), and the federal Bureau of Prisons (5.2%).

45

See Chase Montagnet, Jennifer Peirce, and David Pitts. Restrictive Housing in U.S. Jails: Results from a National
Survey, Vera Institute of Justice (2020).

46

These jurisdictions were Colorado, Delaware, North Dakota, and Vermont, which do not have any prisoners in
restrictive housing under our definition. Among jurisdictions that have restrictive housing under our definition, Hawaii
had the smallest percentage of prisoners in restrictive housing (0.0%).
47

This jurisdiction was Arkansas.

48

Of the 41 total responding jurisdictions, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota (which did not have restrictive housing by the
survey’s definition), Virginia, and West Virginia (which did not have restrictive housing data) did not answer this
question. Elsewhere in the survey, Idaho indicated that it could not provide length of time data because its data system
did not allow it to provide that information, and West Virginia indicated that it could not provide length of time data
because it does not collect it.
49

Eighteen jurisdictions answered that they track the information; twelve indicated that they track the information with
some caveats.
50

Illinois answered affirmatively to regularly tracking length of time data with a caveat, but did not report length of time
data, explaining that “[i]nformation is collected regularly, at the facility level, on how long each offender is in restrictive
housing” but “[i]ndividual specific offender information is not readily available when talking about the department and
specific time frames as a whole.” New Hampshire answered affirmatively to regularly tracking this information, but did
not report length of time data, because it was not able to aggregate the data in time for the survey submission.
51

One of these six jurisdictions, Delaware did not have restrictive housing under this survey’s definition, but reported
tracking length of time in its designated housing areas. Hawaii, which was the only jurisdiction to answer both that it did
not regularly track length of time and that it could not provide any length of time data, reported that it “collects weekly
information on when an inmate enters restrictive housing and when an inmate is released from restrictive housing.” The
remaining four jurisdictions (Arkansas, Minnesota, Tennessee, an Wisconsin) reported length of time, which is reflected
in Figure 3. Caveats are in order. For example, Arkansas reported that “Information can be approximately calculated but
data entry errors in historical data make accuracy difficult” and that “[r]egular tracking is not conducted beyond checking
if an assignment exceeds 30 days.” Minnesota reported that “data is available, [but] it is not regularly collected on each
offender.” Tennessee reported that it “does not regularly track this information[;] however, the information can be
requested and compiled if a need arises.” Wisconsin reported that, while “[d]ata is collected in an automatic fashion that
tracks placement status[,] [r]eporting is ad-hoc.”
52

Table 4 identifies when specific jurisdictions began regularly tracking length of time in restrictive housing.

53

Maine, North Dakota, and Arizona reported that they began regularly collecting length of time data in 2017 or 2018,
and that their reported numbers do not include time spent in restrictive housing prior to that date. Even so, Arizona’s
reported numbers for prisoners’ length of time in restrictive housing include reports for all time ranges. North Dakota
reported that it does not have restrictive housing under our definition and did not report length of time numbers.
Additionally, Arkansas and Ohio began tracking restrictive housing data in 2019, but reported that these numbers include
time spent in restrictive housing before that date.
54
Those 33 jurisdictions are identified in Table 2. Four of these states reported having no individuals housed in restrictive
housing under the survey definition. New Hampshire, which subsequent to the time frame for analyses provided data,

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

107
stated that 32% (17/53) of individuals in restrictive housing were housed there for less than 90 days, 39% (21/53) were
housed between 91 and 180 days; 23% (12/53) were housed between 181 days and a year; 6% (3/53) were housed there
between one and three years; and 0% (0/53) were housed there more than three years.
55

The 2017 ASCA-Liman survey asked jurisdictions in what year their jurisdiction “beg[a]n to track length-of-stay data,”
while the 2019 CLA-Liman survey asked jurisdictions in what year they “beg[an] to regularly track length of time.” For
this reason, some jurisdictions’ responses from the 2017 survey do not match the responses from this survey.
56

“No one has remained in restrictive housing since we began collecting data.”

57

“There are no offenders recorded for Q7 [number of prisoners held in restrictive housing].”

58

“The ability to record ‘alerts’ that identify a transaction associated with placing the offender under restrictive housing
in a comprehensive database begin in December 2003. Operationally and per individual, staff can determine length in
restrictive housing and can review other portions of the database system to draw conclusions; however, the data does not
lend itself to programmatically extracting this information and including in aggregate reports.”
59

“No, as no one is still on an episode that far back.”

60

“Hawaii PSD does not break down the numbers by gender.”

61

“If the offender was in restrictive housing when we began tracking we added start date.”

62

“Delaware began tracking cell time and time spent in Restrictive Housing in 2017. We were able to increase out of cell
time through policy and practice, and tracked the changes in order to eliminate Restrictive Housing by definition in
Delaware prisons.”

63

“The answer to this is yes. Although we just started regularly tracking this in 2017, the numbers are based upon data in
the bed management system (BMS) which goes back to 1998, which is the year the BMS was first used. For inmates who
were active at the time of the first use of the BMS, there were historical bed/cell histories entered for them.”
64

These jurisdictions were Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Although Idaho left this portion of
the survey blank, it provided a narrative description sufficient to be included, as explained in the notes to Table 5.

65

Montana, North Dakota, and Washington reported that they had 0% of their total male custodial populations in cell for
at least 22 hours a day for fewer than 15 days. Kansas responded that it had 6.53% of its total male custodial population
in cell for this amount of time.
66
Nebraska and Washington responded that they had 0% of their total female custodial populations in cell for at least 22
hours a day for fewer than 15 days. Massachusetts reported that 4.54% of its total female custodial population was in cell
for this amount of time.
67

These jurisdictions were Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Montana, Nebraska, New York, North
Carolina, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Montana reported
no information about female prisoners in its total custodial population.
68

Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Montana, and Washington reported having zero male prisoners in cell between 19 and 21
hours for 14 or fewer days. Kansas reported having 11.19% of its total male custodial population in cell during this time.

69

Colorado, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, New York, North Carolina, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin reported having
zero female prisoners in cell for 19 to 21 hours for 14 or fewer days. Kansas reported having 38.22% of its female prisoners
in cell during this time. Montana reported no information about female prisoners in its total custodial population.

70

These jurisdictions were Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Montana, Nebraska, New
York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
Montana reported no information about female prisoners in its total custodial population.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

108
71
Kentucky, Maryland, and Washington reported having zero male prisoners in cell between 19 and 21 hours for over 14
days. Montana reported having 91.03% of its male prisoners in cell during this time, which accounts for all of their male
prisoners not in restrictive housing.
72

Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, and Washington reported having zero female prisoners in cell between 19 and 21 hours
for over 14 days. Wyoming reported having 1.58% of its female prisoners in cell during this time. Montana reported no
information about female prisoners in its total custodial population.

73

Although Idaho left blank in the survey the number of individuals housed for an average of 22 hours per day for one to
14 days, it reported: “there are 148 beds designated for 22 hours/day 1-14 days throughout the state. Approximately 100110 of those are filled at any one time.” As such, the results include the smaller reported number.
74

Montana was not included in this table, as it reported no information about female prisoners in its total custodial
population.

75

Nebraska reported, “Per our definition, inmates in restrictive housing have 24 or fewer hours out of cell per week
(around 3.4 hours out of cell per day, or 20.6 hours in-cell per day). Some may be in cell an average of 22 hours a day or
more, but some may be in cell for fewer hours. So we are using the working average of 20.6 hours in-cell per day.”
Accordingly, the number of prisoners that Nebraska reported as in cell between 19 and 21 hours for over 14 days equals
the number of prisoners that they reported as in restrictive housing.
76

These jurisdictions were Colorado, Delaware, North Dakota, and Vermont.

77

This figure includes two jurisdictions, Louisiana and Montana, which did not report data on any female prisoners.

78

Among only the 34 reporting jurisdictions that have restrictive housing under the survey’s definition, the median was
3.62%.

79

These jurisdictions were Colorado, Delaware, North Dakota, and Vermont, which do not have any prisoners in
restrictive housing under our definition. Among jurisdictions that have restrictive housing under our definition, Hawaii
had the smallest percentage of male prisoners in restrictive housing (1 out of 2,958 male prisoners, or 0.0%).
80

This jurisdiction was Arkansas.

81

Louisiana and Montana reported having zero women in facilities under their direct control.

82

Among only the 32 reporting jurisdictions that have restrictive housing under our definition and reported data on female
prisoners, the median percentage of female prisoners in restrictive housing was 0.8%.
83

Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, North Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming reported having no women
in restrictive housing. Colorado, Delaware, North Dakota, and Vermont reported not having any restrictive housing under
our definition.
84

This jurisdiction was Missouri.

85

These jurisdictions were Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, North
Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas,
Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
86

These figures are informed by the total custodial population and total restrictive housing population numbers identified
in Table 12 and Table 14.
87

These jurisdictions were Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, North
Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas,
Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

109
88
This range is based on the CLA-Liman approximation that from 55,000 to 62,500 prisoners were in restrictive housing
in the United States in the summer of 2019.
89

These jurisdictions were Colorado, Delaware, North Dakota, and Vermont.

90

Minnesota reported having zero Hispanic or Latino male prisoners among their total custodial population.

91

Minnesota is not included in this figure, since it reported having no Hispanic or Latino male prisoners in its total
custodial population.
92

Percentages were calculated out of the reported total male custodial and total male restrictive housing populations.
These figures differed slightly from the total of the racial breakdowns reported in Table 12 for certain jurisdictions. Totals
for male custodial population differed for Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, and Wyoming. Totals for male restrictive
housing population differed for Texas. As a result, total percentages range from 98.6% (Indiana) to 100.8% (Missouri).
93

Percentages were calculated out of the reported total female custodial and total female restrictive housing populations.
These figures differed slightly from the total of the racial breakdowns reported in Table 14 for certain jurisdictions. Totals
for female custodial population differed for Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, and Missouri. As a result, total percentages range
from 98.5% (Indiana) to 101.8% (Missouri).
94

AMERICAN CORRECTIONAL ASSOCIATION, Restrictive Housing Performance Based Standards (2016), at 39, ACA
Standard 4-RH-0034 [hereinafter ACA 2016 RESTRICTIVE HOUSING STANDARDS].
95

ACA 2016 RESTRICTIVE HOUSING STANDARDS 3.

96

The 32 responding jurisdictions reporting age data are identified in Table 16.

97

This figure is based on the total number of male prisoners that jurisdictions reported within their total custodial and
restrictive housing populations. The number of prisoners on which jurisdictions reported differed slightly from this figure,
totaling 641,712. Kansas, Louisiana, and Missouri each reported on more prisoners in the general custodial population by
age range than overall, differing by 3, 1, and 201 prisoners, respectively. North Carolina and Texas also reported on more
prisoners in restrictive housing by age than overall, differing by one and six prisoners, respectively.
98
These jurisdictions were Missouri (one prisoner), Ohio (two prisoners), Oklahoma (one prisoner), and Tennessee (four
prisoners).
99

This figure is based on the total number of female prisoners that jurisdictions reported within their total custodial and
restrictive housing populations. The number of prisoners on which jurisdictions reported differed slightly from this figure,
totaling 55,750. Kansas reported on 3 fewer female prisoners in the general custodial population by age range than overall,
and Missouri reported on 47 more female prisoners by age range.
100

A 2017 report from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, analyzing data from 2011 to 2012, found that approximately
fourteen percent of federal prisoners and 26% of jail inmates “reported experiences that met the threshold for serious
psychological distress (SPD) in the 30 days prior to a survey.” Additionally, 37% of prisoners and 44% percent of jail
inmates “had been told in the past by a mental health professional that they had a mental disorder.” According to the
report, only half of prisoners and a third of jail inmates had no indication of a mental health problem. Jennifer Bronson
& Marcus Berzofsky, BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS, U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE, Indicators of Mental Health Problems
Reported by Prisoners and Jail Inmates, 2011-12 (2017), available at
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/imhprpji1112.pdf.
101

ACA Standard 4-RH-0010, ACA 2016 RESTRICTIVE HOUSING STANDARDS 15.

102

Id.

103

Id.

104

Id.

105

Id.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

110
106

Id.

107

ACA Standard 4-RH-0011, ACA 2016 RESTRICTIVE HOUSING STANDARDS 16.

108

Id.

109

Id.

110

Id.

111

ACA Standard 4-RH-0012, ACA 2016 RESTRICTIVE HOUSING STANDARDS 17.

112

Id.

113

Id.

114

Id.

115

ACA Standard 4-RH-0029, ACA 2016 RESTRICTIVE HOUSING STANDARDS 34

116

These jurisdictions were Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, North
Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas,
Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Alabama also provided a response to this question but provided a
number of male prisoners with SMI in restrictive housing (897) that exceeds Alabama’s report of the total number of
male prisoners in restrictive housing total (670). Montana indicated that there were zero male prisoners in restrictive
housing with SMI, but upon review it appears that Montana did not report this data. Neither Alabama nor Montana’s data
was included in Table 20. North Carolina provided a number of female prisoners with SMI (7,248) that exceeds North
Carolina’s report of the total number of female prisoners in custody (2,842). North Carolina’s data was not included in
Table 21.
117

ACA Standard 4-RH-0029, ACA 2016 RESTRICTIVE HOUSING STANDARDS 34; see, e.g., Braggs v. Dunn, 257 F. Supp.
3d 1171, 1246, 1268 (M.D. Ala. 2017) (preventing the placement of seriously mentally ill prisoners in restrictive housing
and identifying the medical conditions that were considered serious mental illnesses).

118

For example, Alabama, Hawaii, Minnesota, North Carolina, and Texas adopted the ACA’s definition for serious mental
illness.

119

For example, Mississippi’s definition of serious mental illness stated that it included individuals with “disorder[s] of
thought, mood or anxiety included under Axis I of the DSM IV (i.e. schizophrenia, major depression, bipolar disorder),”
while North Dakota’s definition applies to those who have significant functional impairment as a result of “Delusional
Disorder, Psychotic Disorders of all types including Schizophrenia, Major Depressive Disorders, Bipolar I and II
Disorders, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD), Panic Disorder, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or Borderline
Personality.”

120

For example, Kansas had a mental health professional diagnose prisoners using the DSM-IV and then determine “a
number to categorize them from 1 to 6” with numbers 4 and above being considered serious mental health disorders.
Pennsylvania allows their Psychiatric Review Team to determine which prisoners have serious mental illness, and
prisoners must “have a current diagnosis or a recent significant history of any of the DSM5 diagnosis.”

121

These words were drawn from Montana’s definition for serious mental illness.

122

For example, the definition in New York is “An inmate has a serious mental illness when he or she has been determined
by a mental health clinician to meet at least one of the following criteria: (i) he or she has a current diagnosis of, or is
diagnosed at the initial or any subsequent assessment conducted during the inmate's segregated confinement with, one or
more of the following types of Axis I diagnoses, as described in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders, and such diagnoses shall be made based upon all relevant clinical factors, including but not
limited to symptoms related to such diagnoses:(A) schizophrenia (all sub-types), (B) delusional disorder, (C)

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

111
schizophreniform disorder, (D) schizoaffective disorder, (E) brief psychotic disorder, (F) substance-induced psychotic
disorder (excluding intoxication and withdrawal), (G) psychotic disorder not otherwise specified, (H) major depressive
disorders, or (I) bipolar disorder I and II; (ii) he or she is actively suicidal or has engaged in a recent, serious suicide
attempt; (iii) he or she has been diagnosed with a mental condition that is frequently characterized by breaks with reality,
or perceptions of reality, that lead the individual to experience significant functional impairment involving acts of selfharm or other behavior that have a seriously adverse effect on life or on mental or physical health;(iv) he or she has been
diagnosed with an organic brain syndrome that results in a significant functional impairment involving acts of self-harm
or other behavior that have a seriously adverse effect on life or on mental or physical health; (v) he or she has been
diagnosed with a severe personality disorder that is manifested by frequent episodes of psychosis or depression, and
results in a significant functional impairment involving acts of self-harm or other behavior that have a seriously adverse
effect on life or on mental or physical health; or (vi) he or she has been determined by a mental health clinician to have
otherwise substantially deteriorated mentally or emotionally while confined in segregated confinement and is
experiencing significant functional impairment indicating a diagnosis of serious mental illness and involving acts of selfharm or other behavior that have a serious adverse effect on life or on mental or physical health.”
123

Maine only had race information for one female prisoner with SMI, but was unable to provide SMI data by race for its
total female prisoner population. As such, Maine was not included in this analysis.

124

As a result, Texas was not included in Tables 22-25.

125

These jurisdictions were Indiana and Missouri.

126

ACA Standard 4-RH-0033, ACA 2016 RESTRICTIVE HOUSING STANDARDS 38.

127

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana,
Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota,
Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Washington,
Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

128

Idaho was only able to provide data on the number of pregnant prisoners in restrictive housing (0), and West Virginia
was only able to provide data on the number of pregnant prisoners in the total custodial population (24).

129

Certain jurisdictions provided data from a different time period. Massachusetts provided information as of July 1,
2019. Rhode Island provided information as of June 30, 2019. Lastly, Wisconsin provided approximate data based on
“the past 12 months.”

130

These jurisdictions were Hawaii and Rhode Island.

131

The other 29 jurisdictions were Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana,
Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota,
Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and
Wyoming.

132

This jurisdiction was Wisconsin.

133

ACA Standard 4-RH-0035, ACA 2016 RESTRICTIVE HOUSING STANDARDS 40. The National Standards under the
Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) also call for careful attention to the needs and safety of transgender individuals,
defined as “a person whose gender identity (i.e., internal sense of feeling male or female) is different from the person’s
assigned sex at birth.” NATIONAL STANARDS TO PREVENT, DETECT, AND RESPOND TO PRISON RAPE UNDER THE PRISON
RAPE ELIMINATION ACT (PREA) 28 C.F.R. § 115.5 (2012); see generally 28 C.F.R. §§ 115.15, 115.31, 115.41, 115.42,
115.86.
134

This jurisdiction was Kansas. The other responding jurisdictions were Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado,
Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi,
Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and
Wyoming. Minnesota and Maryland identified transgender individuals, but did not report how they identified transgender
individuals.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

112
135
For example, Connecticut identified that some avenues “include self-reporting, mental health input, review of medical
records (including community records and other agency documentation).”
136

For example, Nebraska requires transgender inmates to self-identify as transgender and “have a current mental health
diagnosis for Gender Dysphoria.” Idaho “only track[s] Gender Dysphoria,” which is “identified by self-identification
[and] medical considerations.” Mississippi reported that “[t]transgender offenders self identify and medical confirms.”

Other jurisdictions noted that self-identified transgender prisoners would be referred to medical and/or mental
health departments, but it was unclear whether a medical diagnosis was necessary for classification. For example,
Colorado reported that, after self-identifying as transgender, a prisoner must “submit a ‘kite’ to mental health or the
psychiatrist for treatment.” Texas reported that “Once an identification is made, they are identified by a code in the
Institutional Adjustment Record Data System and they referred to the medical and mental health departments for an
evaluation.” Missouri reported that after a prisoner self-identifies as transgender, “[t]he information is forwarded to the
Site PREA Coordinator who sets up a meeting which includes the following staff: Chief of Mental Health Services,
Medical Services Administrator and PREA Staff. They interview the offender and initiate the process.”
137

Arkansas reported that “[t]he Intake Staff will refer any inmate presenting with symptoms of Gender Dysphoria to the
Gender Dysphoria Management and Treatment Committee for determining the appropriate treatment referrals for
identified Gender Dysphoria and Intersex Inmates.” Hawaii reported that it identifies transgender prisoners using
“[m]edical records and birth certificates.” North Dakota reported:
“The diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria will be based on the current diagnostic and statistical manual
of mental disorders criteria and must be recommended by a licensed psychiatrist or psychologist.
The committee may choose to accept the diagnosis or ask for a second opinion from another
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation psychiatrist or psychologist or a contract provider. If
the providers do not reach agreement, the committee may choose to engage a third provider and will
support the decision of the majority.
“A committee-approved Gender Dysphoria diagnosis must be in a place for consideration of specific
medical services associated with treating Gender Dysphoria; however, access to routine and
emergency medical and mental health services will not be withheld in the absence of an approved
diagnosis.
“Adults in custody who identify as gender non-conforming or transgender, but who do not meet
criteria for a Gender D[ys]phoria dia[g]nosis, may be given special property or housing
accommodations based on their individual needs and safety considerations. These may be done
through the committee's development of an individualized plan without creating an individual
treatment plan.”

138

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, and Washington.

139

These jurisdictions were Ohio, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

140

This jurisdiction was Missouri.

141

This jurisdiction was Hawaii.

142

The four jurisdictions that only provided information on transgender prisoners in their total custodial populations—
Ohio, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Wisconsin—housed a total of 361 transgender prisoners. Additionally, Idaho
reported having 39 prisoners with gender dysphoria in their total custodial population, though it classifies these prisoners
separately from transgender prisoners. The one jurisdiction that only provided information on transgender prisoners in
restrictive housing, Missouri, reported 21 transgender prisoners in restrictive housing.

143

Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma,
Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Vermont all reported having no transgender prisoners in
restrictive housing.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

113
144

This jurisdiction was Maine.

145

Those jurisdictions were Colorado, Delaware, North Dakota, and Vermont.

146

In addition to those listed above, the responding jurisdictions were Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Connecticut, Georgia,
Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South
Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

147

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New
York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee,
Texas, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Because Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, North Dakota, and
Vermont said they had no restrictive housing that met the definition in the CLA-Liman survey, they did not respond to
this question.

148

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New
York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas,
Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

149

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New
York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas,
Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

150

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New
York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas,
Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

151

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New York, North Carolina,
Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, West Virginia,
Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

152

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New York, North Dakota, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Wisconsin,
Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming. In addition to these 33 jurisdictions, three other jurisdictions—Colorado,
Mississippi, and Missouri—responded. These three jurisdictions did not specify which staff members are authorized to
make an initial placement in restrictive housing but specified that initial placements are reviewed by higher officials.

153

These jurisdictions were Arkansas, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, New
York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Washington, and
Wisconsin.
154

This jurisdiction was Minnesota.

155

This jurisdiction was Vermont.

156

Idaho wrote, “Inmate is referred to Restrictive Housing Placement Committee for consideration in placement to AdSeg (generally by Investigations Office). RHPC (group) consists of three-person panel (Case Manager, Unit Sergeant,
Deputy Warden). They make a recommendation for placement in Ad-Seg or not. Warden makes their recommendation.
Forwards to Central Office. Headquarters Administrative Review Committee (HARC) makes final decision. Group
consists of Deputy Chief of Prisons and Chief Psychologist.” Louisiana described a “disciplinary board,” comprised of
“2 trained members, Security and Classification/Administrative” and a “classification board,” comprised of a “security
officer (Captain or above) and [a] mental health professional or classification.” South Dakota wrote that a “[h]earing is
held with inmate. Board members include two Unit Managers and either a Major or Captain. Recommendation is made

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

114
to Deputy Warden. He approves or denies placement in RH. If board recommendation and DW decision does not match
then the Warden has final say whether inmate is placed or not.” Tennessee wrote, “Disciplinary hearing boards can place
inmates in restrictive housing of 30 or less duration. These hearing boards can also recommend inmates for administrative
segregation. If a recommendation is made the Warden then reviews and approves or disapproves. The Warden may initiate
placement in administrative segregation for the safe and secure operation of the facility. This placement is brought before
a disciplinary hearing board for due process purposes. Protective custody placements are determined by a hearing
committee and approved/disapproved by the Warden.”
157

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Connecticut, and Oregon.

158

This jurisdiction was Alabama.

159

These jurisdictions were Georgia, Massachusetts, Montana, and West Virginia.

160

This jurisdiction was Wyoming.

161

This jurisdiction was Arizona.

162

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois,
Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana,
Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South
Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

163

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode
Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and
Wyoming.

164

These jurisdictions were Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Texas, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
165

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and West Virginia.

166

This jurisdiction was Rhode Island.

167

This jurisdiction was Alabama. In addition to the 25 jurisdictions whose responses are described here, three other
jurisdictions answered this question: “The Unit administrator makes an initial recommendation and it is reviewed by the
director of Offender Classification and Population Management. Inmates have hearings and the ability to present their
case. They are also able to appeal classification decisions” (Connecticut); “a staff [member] not involved in the original
placement and of higher authority must review within 24 hours of placement” (Minnesota); “The Unit Case Manager
conducts a classification hearing requesting restrictive housing [then] all pertinent documents are forwarded to the
Director of Classification for review and approval or disapproval” (Mississippi).

168

This jurisdiction was New York.

169

These jurisdictions were Maine and North Dakota.

170

This jurisdiction was Georgia.

171

This jurisdiction was Arkansas.

172

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and
Wyoming. Indiana and Mississippi responded affirmatively but did not specify a timeframe. Kentucky and South Carolina
added that their policy to review initial placement within 72 hours is being reconsidered.
173

These jurisdictions were Colorado, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, North Dakota, Ohio,
Rhode Island, Texas, and Vermont.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

115
174

This jurisdiction was Wisconsin.

175

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, Oregon, South Carolina Washington, and
Wyoming.

176

These jurisdictions were Maryland and South Dakota.

177

These jurisdictions were Arkansas, Tennessee, and Texas.

178

This jurisdiction was Missouri.

179

These jurisdictions were Georgia, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania.

180

This jurisdiction was Pennsylvania.

181

This jurisdiction was Arizona.

182

These jurisdictions were Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas,
Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New York, North
Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas,
Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

183

These jurisdictions were Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas,
Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina,
North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia,
Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

184

These jurisdictions were Missouri, Oklahoma, and Rhode Island.

185

These jurisdictions were Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, New York, Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota, and Vermont.

186
These jurisdictions were Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Maine, Nebraska, Rhode Island, and Wyoming. Nebraska provides
Behavior and Programming plans specifically for those prisoners housed in “Longer-Term Restrictive Housing.”
187

This jurisdiction was Wyoming.

188

These jurisdictions were Georgia, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Rhode Island, and Washington.

189

This jurisdiction was Oklahoma.

190

This jurisdiction was Missouri.

191

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois,
Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana,
Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South
Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

192

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Georgia, Massachusetts, Montana, and Rhode Island.

193

These jurisdictions were Arizona, Idaho, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, North Dakota, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and West Virginia.

194

These jurisdictions were Colorado, Georgia, Montana, and Vermont. Both Colorado and Vermont noted that their
definitions of restrictive housing do not conform with the definition used in the CLA-Liman survey. Of the four
jurisdictions, Colorado reported that consecutive placements—that is, “placement in restrictive housing for two or more
time periods with no time out of restrictive housing in between” counted toward the cap. None of the jurisdictions reported
that “repeated” placements—“placement in restrictive housing for two or more time periods with 48 hours or less outside
of restrictive housing in between placement” counted toward the cap.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

116
195

This jurisdiction was Colorado.

196

This jurisdiction was Montana.

197

This jurisdiction was Georgia.

198

These jurisdictions were Arizona, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri,
New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

199

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Arkansas, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska,
North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Washington, and Wisconsin.

200

This jurisdiction was Arkansas.

201

This jurisdiction was Washington.

202

Washington’s new administrative segregation policy was implemented on March 6, 2020, reducing the cap to 30
days. See DOC 320.200(G)(2).

203

This jurisdiction was Minnesota.

204

These jurisdictions were Arkansas, Connecticut, Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri,
Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Vermont, Wisconsin, and
Wyoming.

205

These jurisdictions were Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Vermont, and Wisconsin.

206

This jurisdiction was Pennsylvania.

207

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North
Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont,
Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming, and West Virginia. West Virginia responded that the “Segregation Commander”
conducts recurring reviews of placement. Connecticut reported the “Unit administrator or designees in the facility”
conduct recurring reviews of placement. Maryland responded, “Case Management.” Hawaii reported that the “Warden or
designee” conducts recurring review of placement.

208

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

209

These jurisdictions were Arizona, Idaho, Minnesota, Missouri, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

210

This jurisdiction was Wisconsin.

211

This jurisdiction was Idaho.

212

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Arizona, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho,
Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana,
Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas,
Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

213

This jurisdiction was Massachusetts.

214

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Kentucky, Minnesota, North Dakota, Ohio, and Wyoming.

215

This jurisdiction was Minnesota.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

117
216

These jurisdictions were Arizona, Indiana, Montana, South Dakota, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

217

These jurisdictions were Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Missouri.

218

These jurisdictions were Arkansas, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas.

219

These jurisdictions were Arizona, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Nebraska, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
220

This jurisdiction was Rhode Island.

221

This jurisdiction was Georgia.

222

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois,
Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, New York, North
Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

223

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Idaho, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana,
Nebraska, and Rhode Island.

224

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Louisiana,
Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Wisconsin, and
Wyoming. Arkansas and Montana indicated a change in their policies since January 1, 2019, for use of restrictive housing
based on age of prisoner. Arkansas stated that it implemented a policy for Youthful Inmates placed in restrictive housing
in order to comply with state law (Ark. Code 12-29-117). In addition to its policies on juveniles, Wyoming reported a
policy for young adults: “For young adults ages 18-24, facility staff shall limit the use of restrictive housing as much as
possible; limit the length of stay in restrictive housing as much as possible; and identify enhanced opportunities for
unstructured out-of-cell time and in-cell or out-of-cell services, including group, educational and therapeutic services,
that they can safely participate in while in restrictive housing.”
225

Those jurisdictions were Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Nebraska defines juveniles as “individuals under the age of 19, who have been tried
and found guilty in an adult court and sentenced to reside in a Nebraska state prison.” Ohio explained that juveniles
“cannot be placed in Extended Restrictive Housing.” Tennessee defined juveniles as those “age 16-18 convicted as
adults.”

226

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and
Wisconsin. Arizona stated that “there is no maximum custody for juveniles.” Pennsylvania elaborated, “Inmates under
the age of 18 (juveniles) when receiving disciplinary confinement, serve time in a Diversionary Treatment Unit (DTU).
They are given 20 hours of out-of-cell activities (10 hours structured/10 hours unstructured). This is found in the 13.8.1
Section 4 policy (attached).” New York reported that juveniles were “[p]recluded from Special Housing (23 hours).” Ohio
noted that juveniles “[c]annot be in ERH.” Nebraska reported that its policies required review by the warden or designee
within eight hours of placement, and that “[s]ight and sound separation, as required in general population still applies
during restrictive housing assignment.”
227

That jurisdiction was Minnesota. Minnesota did not specify a limit on hours in restrictive housing.

228

That jurisdiction was Tennessee. Similarly, Wyoming reported that it does not place juveniles in extended restrictive
housing, but that,
1. In rare situations juveniles may be separated from others as a temporary response to behavior that
poses a serious and immediate risk of physical harm to any person.
2. In such cases the placement should be brief, designed as a cool down period and done only in
consultation with a mental health professional.
3. These placements shall be reviewed at a minimum of once every twenty-four (24) hours.

229

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and Wyoming. Of these, Colorado
and Wyoming defined older prisoners as over 55, and Pennsylvania defined older prisoners as over 50.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

118
230

That jurisdiction was Alabama.

231

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Wyoming.

232

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Arizona, and Massachusetts. Oregon reported that it has a restrictive housing cell
within its infirmary for these individuals.

233

That jurisdiction was Massachusetts. Two other jurisdictions, Arizona and Rhode Island, explained that the designation
of special medical need was determined by medical staff. Oregon and Wyoming noted that special medical needs were
identified on a case-by-case basis.

234

Those jurisdictions were Massachusetts and Rhode Island.

235

That jurisdiction was Massachusetts.

236

That jurisdiction was North Carolina. For these individuals, “IDD are offered staff assistance during DHO process.”
Delaware also reported policies for prisoners with intellectual disabilities.

237

That jurisdiction was Alabama.

238

That jurisdiction was Colorado. In addition, Georgia reported that “[w]e do not put them in restrictive housing that
meets the definition for this study.
239

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Connecticut, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, Texas,
Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Alabama and Wyoming stated that all of their programs were gender responsive.

240

That jurisdiction was Maine.

241

That jurisdiction was Wisconsin.

242

This jurisdiction was Alabama.

243

This jurisdiction was Wisconson.

244

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana,
Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, North
Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas,
Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Colorado, which no longer has restrictive housing as defined by the
survey, reported that it did not provide sanitary supplies to females in restrictive housing.

245

That jurisdiction was New York.

246

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Wyoming. In addition to
these restrictive housing policies, Idaho added, “Pregnant offenders are not to be in leg restraints and only waist restraints
when either transporting or escorting.” Three jurisdictions—Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Montana—reported changing
their policies since January 1, 2019. Minnesota noted that it changed its policy in response to ACA standards and state
legislation.

247

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Tennessee. In addition, New
York reported that pregnant prisoners are “[p]recluded from Special Housing (23 hours)” and Ohio reported that pregnant
prisoners cannot be placed in extended restrictive housing.

248

These jurisdictions were Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Wyoming. Minnesota specified that
prisoners who were pregnant or postpartum, or had recently miscarried or terminated a pregnancy, “should not be placed
in RH unless pose a serious and immediate risk of harm to others.” Nebraska reported that “placement on immediate
segregation status must be reviewed by the Warden or designee within 8 hours” and that it restricted use of restraints on

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

119
prisoners in their second and third trimester except “in the event of an immediate and serious security risk and only with
the approval of” the warden or assistant warden. Oregon reported that it limits restrictive housing for pregnant prisoners
to situations involving immediate threats to themselves or others, and caps restrictive housing placements at 30 days per
incident. Wyoming noted that it only places pregnant prisoners in restrictive housing if “all other alternatives have been
exhausted or are inappropriate based on the behavior of the inmate[,]” as “a temporary response to behavior that poses a
serious and immediate risk of physical harm to any person.” These placements require approval every 24 hours by the
warden, senior medical or mental health staff, and other prison administrators, and are to be “as brief as possible.”
249

That jurisdiction was Rhode Island.

250

Those jurisdictions were Arizona (“The difference for pregnant prisoners and inmates with medical needs is restraint
requirements for movement”) and Idaho (“Pregnant offenders are not to be in leg restraints and only waist restraints when
either transporting or escorting”); and Nebraska (“A facility shall not use restraints on an inmate pregnant, including
during labor, delivery, or postpartum recovery, during transport to a medical facility or birthing center or for use inside
the facility, unless the Director of the NDCS or his designee makes an individualized determination that there are
extraordinary circumstances (substantial flight risk or extraordinary security circumstances...”).

251

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska,
Rhode Island, and Wyoming.

252

Those jurisdictions were Arkansas, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Wyoming. Connecticut
was the only jurisdiction to report a change in its policy since January 1, 2018. As of February 13, 2018, its policy states
that “no inmate shall be subjected to the provisions of [the Administrative Directives, Restrictive Status, Code of Penal
Discipline, and Protective Management] directives based solely on being diagnosed as having Gender Dysphoria,
identifying as gender non-conforming or having an intersex condition.” Alabama reported having different shower
accommodations for transgender prisoners in restrictive housing, although it did not specify its policies. Delaware states
that it imposes “the least restrictive levels of security and custody needed to promote the health and safety” of transgender
prioners. Louisiana noted a differing policy for transgender individuals in restrictive housing but did not specify its policy.
253

That jurisdiction was Rhode Island.

254

That jurisdiction was Wyoming.

255

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New
York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee,
Texas, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. (This excludes Colorado, Hawaii, North Dakota, and
Vermont, who provided us with data, but who do not have restrictive housing as defined in this survey).

256

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana,
Massachusetts, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New York, South Dakota, and Texas.

257

Those jurisdictions were Maine (sometimes), Ohio (sometimes), Oklahoma (for disciplinary segregation and for those
being placed on suicide watch), Pennsylvania (for their mental health roster), and Wyoming (only for prisoners with a
diagnosed serious mental illness).

258

For example, Oklahoma screens people being placed on suicide watch, Pennsylvania screens those on their mental
health roster, and Wyoming screens those with a diagnosed serious mental illness.

259

Those jurisdictions were Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Maine,
Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

260

That jurisdiction was Wyoming (“As little as 1:1 up to 3:1 depending on the number on inmates in restrictive housing”).

261

That jurisdiction was Montana.

262

Those jurisdictions were New York (“At facilities with mental health staff, rounds of restrictive housing are completed
daily”), Vermont, and Wyoming.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

120
263

Those jurisdictions were North Carolina (“Mental health staff round on all offenders in restrictive housing every 30
days. Some facilities have behavioral specialists who round at least weekly”), Rhode Island, and Tennessee.

264

Those jurisdictions that indicated that mental health visits were typically weekly or at least once a week were Colorado,
Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, Maryland, New
Hampshire, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

265

Those jurisdictions were Connecticut, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri,
Nebraska, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, West
Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

266

Those jurisdictions were Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

267

Those jurisdictions were Massachusetts, Montana, and Pennsylvania.

268

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont,
Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Arkansas reported that prisoners with serious mental illness could not be placed in “extended
restrictive housing.” Six jurisdictions—Alabama, Idaho, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, and Rhode Island—reported
changes in their restrictive policies for people with serious mental illness since January 1, 2018. Idaho stated that it
“established a definition and criteria for seriously mentally ill.” Its change was motivated by new treatment practices and
the need for “more humane treatment of this population.” Further, it reported that its changes “[s]tarted in 2016 with our
agency looking at Suicide Prevention, PREA compliance, Transgendered Offenders, and Gender Dysphoria. We were
able to bring on a Chief Psychologist that had been vacant for quite a while and he brought new ideas and insights into
our system.” Rhode Island established a Residential Treatment Unit for this population. New Hampshire has a policy in
place to monitor and review restrictive housing placement for those who are prescribed psychotropic medications.

269

Illinois responded: “A MHP shall review any mentally ill offender promptly after initial placement in Restrictive
Housing. At least once every seven calendar days, a MHP shall visit restrictive housing units and conduct mental health
rounds on all disciplinary segregation offenders.”

Massachusetts stated: “Before placement in Restrictive Housing, an inmate shall be screened by a Qualified
Mental Health Professional to determine if the inmate has a serious mental illness (SMI) or to determine if Restrictive
Housing is otherwise clinically contraindicated based on clinical standards adopted by the Department of Correction, with
said standards adopted in consultation with the Department of Mental Health, and the Qualified Mental Health
Professional's clinical judgment.”
North Carolina specified: “[O]ffenders with mental illness housed in residential or inpatient treatment are
provided staff representation during DHO process. Also, all offenders diagnosed with mental illness are assessed each 30
days, or more frequently if needed, while placed in restrictive housing. The multidisciplinary team meets weekly to
determine if restrictive housing is causing detrimental effects for offenders with mental illness. If so, alternative housing
is considered.”
Rhode Island explained that prisoners with mental illness were “seen by mental health per policy. [R]eviewed
by social worker, behavioral health, input as to behavior and reduction of RH time. [S]een by behavioral health staff who
assess the offender to determine if the conduct was related to mental illness. [I]f so, the BH staff advises the hearing
officer of this. Where misconduct is based on the person’s mental illness they are not placed in disciplinary confinement.
[I]f the conduct was not based on MH then the discipline process will continue. [I]f placed in Disciplinary Confinement
the BH staff will evaluate the offender periodically to ensure the person does not decompensate during DC. [I]f
decompensation is seen, the individual is removed from DC.”
Vermont stated, “Prisoners with serious mental illness must be screened by mental health professional before (to
approve segregation) and within 24 hours of being placed in segregation; seen by mental health services regularly (either
qualified mental health professional or qualified health care provider); cannot be in segregation for 15 continuous days
for disciplinary segregation.”

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

121
Wisconsin responded, “There is a psychology evaluation within 1 working day of placement, written psychology
input to the disciplinary process to identify mitigating factors after any major conduct report, psychology rounds at least
once per week, and a written Behavior Management Plan for any RH disposition over 60 days.”
270

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Maine, Oregon, and Pennsylvania.

271

Alabama wrote: serious mental illness inmates “are not to remain in restrictive housing for an extended period of time.”
Ohio wrote: “For SMI and juvenile inmates it is capped at 29 continuous days.”

272

This jurisdiction was Alabama.

273

This jurisdiction was Ohio.

274

Elena Vanko, Step-Down Programs and Transitional Units: A Strategy to End Long-Term Restrictive Housing, VERA
INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE, at 2 (June 2019), at https://www.vera.org/downloads/publications/step-down-programs-andtransitional-units-strategy-to-end-long-term-restrictive-housing-policy-brief.pdf (citing AMERICAN CORRECTIONAL
ASSOCIATION (ACA), Restrictive Housing Expected Practices (Alexandria, VA: ACA, 2018), 4,
http://www.aca.org/ACA_Prod_IMIS/ACA_Member/Standards___Accreditation/Standards/Restrictive_Housing_Com
mittee/ACA_Member/Standards_and_Accreditation/Restrictive_Housing_Committee/Restrictive_Housing_Committee.
aspx?hkey=458418a3-8c6c-48bb-93e2-b1fcbca482a2).
275

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana,
Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Missouri, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska,
New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South
Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
276

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota,
Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia,
Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

277

This jurisdiction was Tennesssee.

278

This jurisdiction was Rhode Island.

279

This jurisdiction was Wisconsin.

280

This jurisdiction was Washington.

281

These jurisdictions were Georgia, Kansas, Minnesota, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and South Dakota.
Oklahoma specified that time in restrictive housing “cannot be reduced for disciplinary . . . or protective custody” based
on good behavior; however, time spent in medical/psychiatric segregation can be reduced as determined by “medication
adherence.”
282

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, and Kentucky. Colorado highlighted that it has
a 15-day cap on continuous placement in restrictive housing. Idaho reported, “We do not have a policy that prevents
release from Ad-seg to the community. However, we do all we can to avoid it.”

283

This was Kentucky.

284

These jurisdictions were Missouri, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Washington.

285

This was Tennessee.

286

These jurisdictions were Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Montana, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
287

This was Maine.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

122
288

This jurisdiction was North Dakota.

289

These jurisdictions were Arkansas, Connecticut, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, Wisconsin, and
Wyoming. South Carolina reported that a forthcoming, revised RHU policy “will include this concern.”

290

This jurisdiction was Wyoming.

291

Kansas is one example: “They are released to general population prior to release to community.”

292

This jurisdiction was Texas.

293

This jurisdiction was Indiana.

294

This jurisdiction was New York.

295

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

296

From the jurisdictions that were able to provide the number of individuals released from restrictive housing to general
population without a transition program in 2018, we received the following responses: 47 by Nebraska, 230 by Texas,
428 by South Dakota, 1,597 by North Carolina, 2,578 by Oregon, 4,652 by Alabama, 5,319 by Oklahoma, and 18,084 by
New York.

297

These jurisdictions were Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, and North Carolina. North Carolina wrote: “All are released
to general population unless going to RDU/TDU.” Maine wrote that “95%” are returned without participating in a stepdown or transition program. Massachusetts wrote: “The DOC did not have a step down or transition unit in 2018.”

298

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Maryland, Massachusetts, North Dakota, and Oregon.

299

These jurisdictions were Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, and Wisconsin. Idaho specified: “[We] don’t track this. However,
beginning in 2020, the vast majority will be released from the step-up program. The rare exception will be those who
can’t do the programming as it will be at a sixth grade reading level.”

300

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
301

These jurisdictions were Connecticut, North Dakota, and Wyoming.

302

From the jurisdictions that were able to provide absolute numbers of individuals released from restrictive housing to
general population after participating in a transition program in 2018, we received the following responses: 5 from
Oklahoma, 7 from Arkansas, 16 from Wyoming, 24 from South Carolina, 29 from Minnesota, 37 from South Dakota, 41
from Nebraska, 100 from Connecticut, 325 from New York, 378 from North Carolina, and 954 from Texas.

303

These jurisdictions were Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Maine, Mississippi, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, Tennessee, Vermont, and Wisconsin. Maine specified that “5%” of its restrictive housing prisoners were returned
to the general population after participating in a step-down or transition program in 2018. Idaho noted: “Our step-up
program started as a pilot program in the summer of 2019 and we had about 12 graduate to general population.”

304

These jurisdictions were Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont,
Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

305

From the jurisdictions that were able to provide absolute numbers of individuals released from restrictive housing to
the community without a transition program in 2018, we received the following responses: 1 from Maine, 6 from North

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

123
Dakota, 9 from South Dakota, 16 from Texas, 16 from Idaho, 45 from Tennessee, 46 from Washington, 48 from Louisiana,
54 from Connecticut, 63 from Nebraska, 124 from Arkansas, 148 from South Carolina, 287 from Maryland, 288 from
Oregon, 334 from Pennsylvania, 390 from Oklahoma, 402 from Wisconsin, 431 from Minnesota, 492 from New York,
and 702 from North Carolina.
306

These jurisdictions were Maine (1) and North Carolina (702).

307

These jurisdictions were Colorado, Vermont, and Wyoming.

308

These jurisdictions were Arizona, Hawaii, Indiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Montana, Ohio, and Rhode Island.

309

These jurisdictions were Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South, Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Wisconsin,
and Wyoming.
310

From the jurisdictions that were able to provide absolute numbers of individuals released from restrictive housing to
the community within 30 days of their release from restrictive housing, we received the following responses: Arkansas
(87), Connecticut (5), Louisiana (32), Maine (2), Maryland (351), Minnesota (284), Nebraska (75), North Carolina
(5,477), Oklahoma (51), Oregon (630), South Carolina (86), and South Dakota (30).

311

These jurisdictions were North Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming.

312

These jurisdictions were Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Montana, New York,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin. Pennsylvania specifically noted that “[t]his data is
not centrally maintained but will be in the future.”
313

Questions 47-47g asked about this topic.

314

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New
York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee,
Texas, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. This excludes Colorado, Hawaii, North Dakota, and
Vermont, who provided us with data, but who do not have restrictive housing as defined in this survey. Arizona, Delaware,
New Hampshire, and Virginia did not respond to this series of questions.

315

These jurisdictions included Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and
Wyoming.

316

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New York, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, West
Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. This excludes Colorado, Hawaii, North Dakota, and Vermont, who provided us with
data, but who do not have restrictive housing as defined in this survey.

317

Those jurisdictions were Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Rhode Island,
South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia, and Wyoming. This excludes Colorado, Hawaii, North Dakota, and
Vermont, who provided us with data, but who do not have restrictive housing as defined in this survey.

318

That jurisdiction was Montana.

319

That jurisdiction was Louisiana.

320

The jurisdictions allowing the median number of seven times out-of-cell per week were Idaho, Illinois, and Wyoming.
The following jurisdictions allowed more than seven times per week out-of-cell: Louisiana, Maine, Nebraska, Oklahoma,
South Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia. The following jurisdictions allowed fewer than seven times per week outof-cell: Connecticut, Montana, Rhode Island, and Texas.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

124
321

Those jurisdictions were Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Nebraska, New York, Oklahoma,
Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia, and Wyoming. This excludes Colorado, Hawaii, North
Dakota, and Vermont, who provided us with data, but who do not have restrictive housing as defined in this survey.

322

That jurisdiction was Rhode Island.

323

That jurisdiction was Idaho.

324
The jurisdiction allowing the median of 3.33 hours out-of-cell per week was West Virginia. The following jurisdictions
allowed more than 3.33 hours per week out-of-cell: Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Nebraska, New York,
Oklahoma. The following jurisdictions allowed fewer than 3.33 hours per week out-of-cell: Louisiana, Maine, Rhode
Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming. New York identified that it permitted between one and two
hours out of cell each day. For purposes of the median calculation, New York was therefore identified as permitting a
minimum of one hour out of cell per day, or seven hours per week.
325

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New York, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, West
Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. This excludes Colorado, Hawaii, North Dakota, and Vermont, who provided us with
data, but who do not have restrictive housing as defined in this survey.

326

That jurisdiction was Pennsylvania.

327

These jurisdictions were Louisiana, Texas, and Wyoming.

328

Those jurisdictions that allowed showering at the median of three times per week were Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia,
Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana,
Nebraska, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Missouri
allowed showers twice per week; Alabama allowed showers four times per week; Ohio allowed showers five times per
week. South Dakota identified that showering was available during weekdays (5 days per week) for individuals in
disciplinary restrictive housing. Both New York and Oregon identified a range in their response. New York reported
allowing between three and four showers per week. Oregon reported allowing between three and seven showers per week.
For purposes of the median calculation, both New York and Oregon were therefore identified as permitting a minimum
of three showers per week.

329

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
South Carolina, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. This excludes Colorado, Hawaii, North Dakota,
Vermont, who provided us with data, but who do not have restrictive housing as defined in this survey.

330

That jurisdiction was New York.

331

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, and Oklahoma.

332

Those jurisdictions adjacent to the median were Massachusetts and West Virginia (20 minutes) and Idaho (18 minutes).
The following jurisdictions permitted 30 minutes of time out-of-cell for showers: Indiana, Maine, Rhode Island, and South
Carolina. The following jurisdictions allowed 15-minute showers: Kentucky, Louisiana. Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska,
Pennsylvania, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Oregon identified a range of 10 minutes to one hour for time outof-cell to use the shower. For purposes of the median, calculation, Oregon was identified as permitting a minimum shower
time of 10 minutes.
333

The jurisdictions that reported that time out-of-cell to exercise varied according to this factor were Arkansas, Indiana,
Louisiana, Massachusetts, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, and Wisconsin.
334

The jurisdictions that reported that time out-of-cell to exercise varied according to this factor were Alabama, Arizona,
Georgia, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, Rhode
Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

125
335

The jurisdiction that reported that time out-of-cell to exercise varied according to this factor was Wyoming.

336

Those jurisdictions were Maryland and Minnesota.

337

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
(This excludes Colorado, Hawaii, North Dakota, and Vermont, who provided us with data, but who do not have restrictive
housing as defined in this survey).

338

That jurisdiction was Georgia.

339

Those jurisdictions were Idaho, Maine, New York, Pennsylvania, and Wyoming.

340

Those jurisdictions allowing exercise at the median of five times per week were Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and West Virginia. Illinois allowed exercise four times per week; Connecticut, Missouri,
Montana, and Wisconsin allowed exercise three times per week. Both Oregon and Wisconsin identified a range in their
response. Oregon reported providing time out-of-cell for exercise five to seven times per week. Wisconsin reported
providing time out-of-cell for exercise three to four times per week. For purposes of the median calculation, both Oregon
and Wisconsin were therefore identified as providing the lower number of hours identified.
341

Those jurisdictions were Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine,
Massachusetts, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming. (This excludes Colorado, Hawaii, North Dakota, and
Vermont, who provided us with data, but who do not have restrictive housing as defined in this survey).

342

That jurisdiction was Oregon.

343

That jurisdiction was Kentucky.

344

Those jurisdictions that allowed exercise at the median of one hour at a time were Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana,
Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Washington, and West Virginia. Those jurisdictions that allowed exercise for two hours at a time
were Illinois, Texas, and Wyoming. Idaho permitted 1.5 hours of exercise at a time. New York indicated a range between
one and two hours of exercise at a time depending on a prisoner’s custodial status. For purposes of the median calculation,
New York was identified as permitting a minimum of one hour of exercise at a time.

345

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New
York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee,
Texas, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. (This excludes Colorado, Hawaii, North Dakota, and
Vermont, who provided us with data, but who do not have restrictive housing as defined in this survey).

346

Those jurisdictions are Arizona, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota,
Mississippi, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
347

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,
New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Tennessee.

348

That jurisdiction is West Virginia.

349

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Maryland, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Washington, Wisconsin, and
Wyoming. For those jurisdictions that identified multiple sizes for outdoor exercise spaces, the smallest area was selected
for comparison across jurisdictions. We excluded Colorado, Hawaii, North Dakota, and Vermont, who provided us with
data, but who do not have restrictive housing as defined in this survey. We likewise excluded all jurisdictions that
responded that the size of outdoor exercise space varied, but did not provide more specific information.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

126
350

That jurisdiction was Alabama. However, Alabama noted that outdoor exercise area in restrictive housing varies from
site to site and can be as large as 121 square feet.

351

That jurisdiction was Montana.

352

Those jurisdictions that allowed outdoor exercise in the median area of 180 square feet were Indiana, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Maryland, and South Carolina. The jurisdictions that permitted outdoor exercise in an area less than 180 square
feet were Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, North Carolina, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. The jurisdictions
that allowed outdoor exercise in an area greater than 180 square feet were Connecticut, Kansas, Oklahoma, Tennessee,
South Dakota, and Montana.

353

Those jurisdictions were Arizona, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Dakota, Washington, West
Virginia, and Wyoming. For those jurisdictions that identified multiple sizes for indoor exercise spaces, the smallest area
was selected for comparison across jurisdictions. We excluded Colorado, Hawaii, North Dakota, and Vermont, who
provided us with data, but who do not have restrictive housing as defined in this survey. We likewise excluded all
jurisdictions responding that the size of indoor exercise space varied, but did not provide more specific information.

354

Those jurisdictions were Kansas and North Carolina.

355

That jurisdiction was Louisiana.

356

The jurisdiction that allowed indoor exercise in the median area of 160 square feet was South Dakota. The jurisdictions
that allowed indoor exercise in an area less than 160 square feet were Kansas, North Carolina, Washington, and West
Virginia. The jurisdictions that allowed indoor exercise in an area greater than 160 square feet were Arizona, Indiana,
Wyoming, and Louisiana.

357

Those jurisdictions were Massachusetts and Ohio.

358

The jurisdictions in which the indoor exercise areas do have natural light are Arizona, Connecticut, Kansas, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

359

The jurisdiction in which the indoor exercise areas do not have natural light is Wyoming.

360

The natural light in indoor exercise areas varies in Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, North Carolina,
and Ohio, and Texas.

361

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New
York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee,
Texas, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. (This excludes Colorado, Hawaii, North Dakota, and
Vermont, who provided us with data, but who do not have restrictive housing as defined in this survey).

362

Jurisdictions that reported providing no group out-of-cell time were Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas,
Kentucky, Mains, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wyoming.
The following jurisdictions provided answers that did not make clear whether group activity out-of-cell was available:
Minnesota, Ohio, Texas, and Wisconsin.
363

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Connecticut, Indiana, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New York, North
Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and West Virginia.

364

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, and Oregon.

365

Those jurisdictions were Indiana, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and West Virginia.

366

That jurisdiction was Rhode Island.

367

Those jurisdictions were Massachusetts, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Tennessee.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

127
368

The question asked, “In an ideal situation, if your jurisdiction had the necessary resources, what number of hours per
day or week do you believe prisoners should be out-of-cell?” It directed jurisdictions to answer for both hours per day
and hours per week. Some jurisdictions provided answers for one or the other, some provided answers to both, and others
provided narrative answers without specifying numbers of hours.

369

The jurisdictions that responded to this question were Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii,
Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New York, North
Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

370

The jurisdictions that specified a certain number of hours were Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois,
Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New York, North Carolina, North
Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, West
Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

371

Those jurisdictions were Indiana and Texas. Indiana responded that one hour per day would be desirable. Texas
responded, “Out-of-cell time should depend on the behavior of the offender and the risk imposed on other offenders and
staff. TDCJ policy directs that offenders should be provided a minimum of one hour of exercise outside their cells, five
days per week, unless security or safety considerations dictate otherwise.” Arkansas, Mississippi, Montana, North
Carolina, and Wisconsin all responded that a minimum of two hours per day was desirable.

372

Those jurisdictions were North Dakota and Oklahoma. Oklahoma responded that more than 12 hours a day would be
desirable, depending on the reason for placement.

373

That jurisdiction was Indiana.

374

Those jurisdictions were North Dakota, Tennessee, and Wyoming. North Dakota indicated 60 hours per week would
be desirable. Tennessee responded that 56-70 hours per week was desirable. Wyoming responded that 70 hours per week
would be desirable.

375

Those jurisdictions were Colorado, Connecticut, and Ohio.

376

That jurisdiction was Connecticut. In response to this question, Ohio stated, “We strive to get inmates out of cells as
much as we can safely within the resources and infrastructure we are allotted.” Colorado responded, “It depends on the
classification and risks offenders pose. All offenders need to be offered out-of-cell opportunities to promote pro social
interaction and programs to promote behavioral changes.”
377

That jurisdiction was Idaho.

378

That jurisdiction was New York.

379

That institution was Kentucky, which indicated a range from 2.25 to 5 hours per day was desirable.

380

Those jurisdictions were Oklahoma and Texas.

381

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New
York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee,
Texas, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. (This excludes Colorado, Hawaii, North Dakota, and
Vermont, who provided us with data, but who do not have restrictive housing as defined in this survey).

382

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New York, North
Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington,
West Virginia, and Wyoming. The jurisdictions that reported restrictive housing cells do not have natural light were
Georgia, Oregon, and Wisconsin.
383

These jurisdictions were Georgia, Oregon, and Wisconsin.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

128
384

These jurisdictions were Arizona, Indiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas,
Washington, and West Virginia.

385

Those jurisdictions were Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Wyoming.

386

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota,
Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Wisconsin.

387

Those jurisdictions were Connecticut, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, and New York.

388

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New York, North
Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, West Virginia,
Wisconsin, and Wyoming. The jurisdictions that reported prisoners do not have in-cell programming were Illinois, Rhode
Island, and South Carolina.

389

Arkansas, Louisiana, and Missouri reported providing these programs.

390

Arkansas, Connecticut, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, and Minnesota reported providing
these programs.

391

Nebraska, New York, West Virginia, and Wisconsin reported providing these programs.

392

Arkansas, Connecticut, Nebraska, New York, West Virginia, and Wisconsin reported providing these programs.

393

Connecticut, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New York, Washington, and Wisconsin reported providing these programs.

394

Arkansas and Nebraska reported providing these programs.

395

Massachusetts reported providing this program.

396

Indiana, Kentucky, Minnesota, and Nebraska reported providing these programs.

397

The twenty-nine jurisdictions in which prisoners had access to a GED or other diploma program in restrictive housing
were Alabama (prisoners were provided materials and visits from an instructor and may work toward a GED, and special
education continues), Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut (only if required by state education regulations), Idaho, Indiana,
Georgia (GED and some correspondence college classes), Kansas (only for special education prisoners), Kentucky (varies
by institution: some can access the GED, others get packets from teachers and can attend class once released), Louisiana
(prisoners in restrictive housing can only take the actual GED test in medium custody status, but they can have study
materials in other custody statuses), Maine, Massachusetts (geared toward HiSET), Minnesota (only if under an IEP),
Mississippi (receive the study materials via correspondence and instructions from a certified instructor), Missouri (varies
by site and program plan but can access correspondence classes including HiSET), Montana, Nebraska, New York (if
they meet the criteria after academic testing), North Carolina (offered academic testing and, if qualified, can take TASC
and HSE tests), Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania (only for special education prisoners), South Dakota, Tennessee,
Texas (available for individuals eligible under IDEA; correspondence courses open to others), Washington, Wisconsin
(varies by institution: some do not allow GED access; others allow prisoners to continue with self-study packets and
testing if they were enrolled before entering restrictive housing; some allow certain study materials but not testing, as
testing is done on computers and study materials can be completed on paper; others proceed on a case-by-case basis if a
prisoner expresses interest in continuing their education), and Wyoming (through tablets if enrolled prior to restrictive
housing placement). The jurisdictions in which prisoners do not have access to a GED or other diploma program in
restrictive housing are Maryland and South Carolina (although they will have such access when they have tablets).

398

For example, Texas’s “[p]re-release programs offer virtual classrooms in which participants are provided with
workbooks that allow them to follow along with curriculum instruction.”

399

For example, Idaho and Maryland reported offering self-help books or packets and videos.

400

Louisiana offered “[p]re-release booklets, education handouts, mental health programming . . . handouts. . . .”
Massachusetts reported that “[c]urrently, in cell programming is conducted via handbooks however we have recently

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

129
conducted a procurement to implement programming tablets in [restrictive housing.]”
401

For example, Mississippi reported, “Mental Health provides one-on-one classes. Limitations are contingent upon
offender behavior, space, and available security.”
402

For example, Arkansas reported, “Tablets for in-cell programming Education (GED), Mental Health (Anger
Management, Parenting Class, etc.).” Oregon reported, “some [in-cell programming] is done with packets reviewed
weekly with a programmer, others are delivered by electronic tablets.”
403

West Virginia reported, “The programming is educational packets based on substance abuse and anger management.”
New York, Maine, and Wisconsin also reported offering workbooks.
404

Wyoming provides self-help journals for prisoners to complete on their own time.

405

The jurisdiction in which prisoners do not have access to television, music, internet, or reading is Maine.

406

These jurisdictions are Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Massachusetts, Montana, New York, Ohio, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

407

These jurisdictions are Idaho, Massachusetts, South Dakota, Tennessee, and West Virginia.

408

These jurisdictions are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

409

This jurisdiction was Arkansas.

410

This jurisdiction was Maine.

411

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, AConnecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas,
Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina,
Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, and
Wyoming. The question did not clarify whether sanitary supplies were provided free of charge.
412

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas,
Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina,
North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont,
Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Colorado, which no longer has restrictive housing as defined by the survey,
reported that it did not provide sanitary supplies to females in restrictive housing.
413

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New
York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee,
Texas, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. (This excludes Colorado, Hawaii, North Dakota, and
Vermont, who provided us with data, but who do not have restrictive housing as defined in this survey).

414

The jurisdictions in which prisoners in restrictive housing are allowed social visits are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas,
Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South
Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.. The jurisdiction in
which prisoners in restrictive housing are not allowed social visits is Pennsylvania. However, prisoners in disciplinary
segregation in Alabama are also not allowed social visits.

415

That jurisdiction was Alabama, which reported allowing two social visits per year for prisoners in close custody
restrictive housing, and four social visits per year for prisoners in preventive custody restrictive housing.

416

This jurisdiction was South Dakota. Maryland also allows two social visits per week specifically for those prisoners
in administrative segregation housing.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

130
417

This does not include jurisdictions that allow a certain number of hours of visitation per week/month because it was
not clear how many visits that would amount to. The jurisdictions that reported using this metric were Washington, West
Virginia, and Wyoming.

418

Those jurisdictions were Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Massachusetts, Missouri, and South Dakota. As
previously noted, Maryland also allows two social visits per week specifically for those prisoners in administrative
segregation housing.

419

That jurisdiction was Kansas.

420

That jurisdictions was Indiana.

421

Those jurisdictions were Alabama and Mississippi.

422

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Arizona, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon,
South Carolina, Texas, and Washington.

423

Those jurisdictions were Arkansas, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Wisconsin.

424

Those jurisdictions were Ohio and South Dakota.

425

These jurisdictions are Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana,
Missouri, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

426

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas,
Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New York, North
Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas,
Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. (This excludes Colorado, Hawaii, North Dakota, and Vermont,
who provided us with data, but who do not have restrictive housing as defined in this survey).

427

These jurisdictions are Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, West Virginia,
Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Prisoners in restrictive housing cannot make social phone calls in Alabama and Illinois.
428

Those jurisdictions were Hawaii, Indiana (except no phone calls after lights out), and West Virginia.

429

Those jurisdictions were South Dakota (prisoners may make phone calls on their tablets during designated hours) and
Washington (prisoners may only use the phone when in the yard).

430
Those jurisdictions were Connecticut, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, New York,
Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
431

That jurisdiction was Texas.

432

Those jurisdictions were Hawaii, Indiana (except no phone calls after lights out), and West Virginia.

433

Those jurisdictions were Connecticut and Maryland.

434

Those jurisdictions were Connecticut, Georgia, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, Ohio,
South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

435

That jurisdiction was Texas.

436

Those jurisdictions were Hawaii, Indiana (except no phone calls after lights out), and West Virginia.

437

Those jurisdictions were Arizona, Connecticut, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New York, Ohio,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Wisconsin.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

131
438

The jurisdictions that reported having this restriction were Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New York, and
Pennsylvania.

439

The jurisdictions that reported having this restriction were Connecticut and Washington.

440

The jurisdiction that reported having this restriction was Massachusetts.

441

Those jurisdictions were Massachusetts and Kentucky.

442

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New
York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee,
Texas, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. (This excludes Colorado, Hawaii, North Dakota, and
Vermont, who provided us with data, but who do not have restrictive housing as defined in this survey).

443

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
The jurisdictions in which prisoners in restrictive housing cannot send or receive physical or electronic mail are Illinois,
Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, and South Carolina.

444

Those jurisdictions were Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri,
Montana, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, and
Wyoming.

445

The jurisdiction that reported having this restriction was Alabama.

446

The jurisdiction that reported having this restriction was Arkansas.

447

The jurisdiction that reported having this restriction was West Virginia.

448

Those jurisdictions were Ohio, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Rhode Island, Texas, Wisconsin, and
Wyoming. In Ohio and Wisconsin, email access was a privilege and varied by site. In Louisiana, Rhode Island, and Texas,
all prisoners in restrictive housing were denied email access. In Minnesota and Nebraska, any electronic mail received by
prisoners in restrictive housing was provided in hardcopy. In Missouri, electronic mail access depended on the availability
of electronic tablets; otherwise, any electronic mail received by prisoners in restrictive housing was provided in hardcopy.
In Wyoming, electronic mail access could be denied based on the reasons for placement in restrictive housing.

449

See, e.g., Colette Peters, Putting Staff First: Wellness As A Strategic Priority, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CORRECTIONS
CONFERENCE (June 10, 2015), available at https://info.nicic.gov/virt/node/3.

450

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Dakota, South
Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

451

This jurisdiction was Mississippi.

452

This jurisdiction was Colorado.

453

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Kentucky, and Vermont.

454

These jurisdictions were Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and
Wisconsin. North Carolina and Tennessee specified that all staff are trained to work in restrictive housing and therefore
hold equal qualifications.

455

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Kentucky, Maine,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

132
456

This jurisdiction was Alabama.

457

This jurisdiction was Arizona.

458

These jurisdictions were Colorado, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and
Tennessee.

459

This jurisdiction was Massachusetts.

460

This jurisdiction was North Carolina.

461

This jurisdiction was Washington.

462

These jurisdictions were Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Maryland, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

463

These jurisdictions were Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota,
Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia,
Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

464

This jurisdiction was South Dakota. South Dakota wrote, “officers on unit work 12hr shifts during the week and 10hr
shifts on the weekends.”
465

This jurisdiction was Oregon.

466

This jurisdiction was Alabama.

467

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Indiana, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

468

This jurisdiction was South Carolina.

469
These jurisdictions were Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, New York,
North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, Washington, and Wyoming.
470

These jurisdictions were Hawaii, Idaho, Massachusetts, and Ohio.

471

Arizona wrote, “There is a limit of 32 hours of overtime for all staff regardless of the type of unit.” Arkansas wrote,
“No overtime is allowed.” Kentucky wrote, “Varies by institution—limit is 16 hours per day.” Oklahoma wrote, “Not
outlined in policy, but must rotate after a 12 hour shift.” South Carolina wrote, “Staff in RHU or GP shall not work more
than 16 hours in a day, work more than 72 hours in a 7 day period, or work more than 6 days in a row.” Tennessee
answered this question in the affirmative but did not provide further details. Wisconsin wrote, “Same as staff who work
in general population—no more than 16 hours in a row.”

472

These jurisdictions were Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

473

This jurisdiction was Ohio.

474

This jurisdiction was Connecticut.

475

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota,
Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Washington, West
Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

133
476

Arizona wrote that in some situations restrictive housing staff “receive a high risk pay.” Arkansas wrote, “All officers
at the Maximum Security Units receive extra pay; and those assigned to the Varner Super Max Unit receive a higher
amount.” South Dakota wrote that restrictive housing staff receive “$1 extra.”

477

AMERICAN CORRECTIONAL ASSOCIATION, Seeking Accreditation, available at
http://www.aca.org/ACA_Prod_IMIS/ACA_Member/Standards_and_Accreditation/Seeking_Accreditation_Home.aspx

478

AMERICAN CORRECTIONAL ASSOCIATION, MANUAL OF ACCREDITATION POLICY & PROCEDURE 6, 9–10 (Mar. 15,
2017), available at http://www.aca.org/ACA_Prod_IMIS/docs/standards%20and%20accreditation/ALM-1-3_15_17Final.pdf.

479

ACA 2016 RESTRICTIVE HOUSING STANDARDS. In 2018, the ACA Committee on Restrictive Housing released updated
standards, Restrictive Housing Expected Practices, AMERICAN CORRECTIONAL ASSOCIATION (2018), available at
http://www.aca.org/ACA_Prod_IMIS/ACA_Member/Standards___Accreditation/Standards/Restrictive_Housing_Com
mittee/ACA_Member/Standards_and_Accreditation/Restrictive_Housing_Committee/Restrictive_Housing_Committee.
aspx?hkey=458418a3-8c6c-48bb-93e2-b1fcbca482a2. The survey continued to refer to the 2016 standards.

480

The ASCA-Liman Survey asked: “Has your jurisdiction reviewed its policies since then on restrictive housing?” “Does
your jurisdiction rely on these standards to make policies?” We also asked about whether jurisdictions had implemented
the ACA Standards regarding juveniles, pregnant women, and individuals diagnosed with serious mental illness and
regarding the release of prisoners from restrictive housing directly into the community. We further sought to learn whether
any other policies had been “revised in light of the 2016 ACA restrictive housing standards.”

481

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota,
Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Washington,
Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

482

ASCA-LIMAN REFORMING RESTRICTIVE HOUSING 2018, at 64.

483

The 34 jurisdictions that reported that they reviewed their policies since the release of the ACA Standards were
Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina,
Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Washington,
Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Both Connecticut and Hawaii responded that they had not revised their policies since 2016.
Illinois elaborated that it conducted a full review in February 2016 and “[c]ontinually reviewed and updated as needed.”

484

Vermont provided an extensive description of its policy-making process:
The DOC’s administrative segregation is informed by national best practice standards and evidencebased research. To meet these standards, the DOC’s administrative segregation adheres to the
following:
a. To provide a medical and mental health screening to all inmates placed in administrative
segregation;
b. To conduct real-time reviews of inmates in administrative segregation, including evaluating their
conditions of confinement and their continued appropriateness for placement in segregation;
c. To conduct multi-disciplinary reviews of inmates in administrative segregation at both the facility
and central level;
d. To ensure that administrative segregation is never used for punishment;
e. To promote the least restrictive conditions of confinement that supports the safety and security
needs of the inmate and the facility; and
f. To ensure that each inmate placed in administrative segregation has a segregation plan created.
This plan shall include goals to mitigate the risk that resulted in segregation placement, outline
obligations and expectations for the inmate, and provide a road map to move the inmate into a less
restrictive housing environment when appropriate.
g. Recognizes the potential for elevated negative impacts of segregation on all individuals,
particularly vulnerable populations and provides additional procedural steps for inmates who are
designated seriously functionally impaired (SFI), pregnant and postpartum women, and inmates
under the age of twenty-five.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

134
485

That jurisdiction was Delaware.

486

That jurisdiction was Wisconsin.

487

That jurisdiction was Idaho.

488

That jurisdiction was Ohio.

489

That jurisdiction was Wyoming.

490

That jurisdiction was Kentucky.

491

That jurisdiction was Mississippi.

492

Those jurisdictions were Arizona, Connecticut, Hawaii, Kansas, Minnesota, Oregon, and Texas.

493

That jurisdiction was Minnesota.

494

That jurisdiction was Oregon.

495

ACA Standard 4-RH-0030, ACA 2016 RESTRICTIVE HOUSING STANDARDS 35.

496

Those jurisdictions were Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas,
and Washington.

497

Those jurisdictions were Colorado, Connecticut, Louisiana and Washington.

498

Those jurisdictions were Georgia, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Wyoming. Alabama, Arizona, Hawaii, Kansas,
Maryland, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Wisconsin reported that they had not implemented this Standard.

499

Massachusetts indicated that with its most recent policy update in March 2019,
An inmate with an anticipated release date (release from the custody of the Department) of less than
120 days shall not be held in Restrictive Housing unless: (a) the placement in Restrictive Housing
is limited to not more than five days; or (b) the inmate poses a substantial and immediate threat.
When an inmate in Restrictive Housing is expected to be released to the community within 40 days,
any continued retention of the inmate in Restrictive Housing must be authorized by the Deputy
Commissioner of Prisons or designee. When the inmate is released to the community directly from
Restrictive Housing, the release shall be documented in an incident report indicating the approving
authority for the continued placement in Restrictive Housing, the detailed release plan, and the
required notifications provided in accordance with 103 DOC 493: Reentry Policy, 103DOC 407:
Victim Service Unit, and 103 DOC 404: Inmate Release Policy. The requirements of this paragraph
do not apply to immediate court-ordered releases.

Minnesota indicated that it complied with the Standard “[a]bsent a compelling reason” to the contrary.
Mississippi reported that it “seeks to transition offenders from restrictive housing through a step down/less restrictive
housing assignment prior to releasing to the community.” Ohio explained that it perceived ambiguity:
There is a lack of clarity in the standard, wherein it says Extended Restrictive Housing in the opening
and then switches to Restrictive Housing. Changes to the standard indicating it was intended for
ERH only were approved at the ACA Congress of Corrections in early 2019. Standard is 5-4B00305-4B-0030. Written policy, procedure and practice require that the agency will attempt to
ensure offenders are not released directly into the community from Extended Restrictive Housing.
In the event that the release of an offender directly from Extended Restrictive Housing into the
community is imminent, the facility will document the justification and receive agency level or
designee approval (does not apply to immediate court order release). In addition to required release
procedures (see 5-4446) the following must be taken at a minimum: development of a release plan

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

135
that is tailored to specific needs of the offender (does not apply to immediate court order release),
notification of release to state and local law enforcement, notify releasing offender of applicable
community resources, victim notification (if applicable/there is a victim).
Rhode Island indicated reported,
[E]very attempt is made to step an inmate down from Administrative Confinement if they meet the
requirements; step down to Transitional Confinement is always considered before release and done
if possible. 2 two particular facilities with the use of Administrative Restrictive Status and []
Transitional Confinement, in most cases offenders do not expire their sentence from Restrictive
Housing. Transitional Confinement (TC) gives offenders the opportunity to be transferred from
higher levels facilities to lower level to assist with acclimating back to general population.
South Dakota indicated that it makes “all attempts to not release an inmate from RH directly to the community.”
Tennessee initiated a pilot step-down program in December 2018.
500

ACA Standard 4-RH-0033, ACA 2016 RESTRICTIVE HOUSING STANDARDS at 9.

501

ACA Standard 4-RH-0031, id. at 36.

502

Id. at 3.

503

Thirty-three jurisdictions responded to this question. Thirteen jurisdictions reported that they had implemented the
Standard after the ACA Standards were issued. Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Hawaii, Indiana,
Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Wyoming. Ohio also noted its
disagreement with the survey’s interpretation of the Standard. Kentucky clarified that its “existing practice was to have a
representative of the warden and a representative of the Mental Health Authority consult prior to making a housing
assignment for an inmate diagnosed as seriously mentally ill. This is being reviewed for compliance with ACA 5th
edition.” Five jurisdictions indicated that it was their policy before the ACA Standards. Those jurisdictions were Colorado,
Georgia, New York, Oregon, and Texas. Among the jurisdictions that answered that they had not implemented this
standard, Connecticut reported that “[a]ll inmates with mental health score of a 4-5 are continually monitored by mental
health providers.” Wisconsin elaborated on its “no” answer: “In the near future, though, we are likely to change policy
and limit RH dispositions to 30 days for most offenses for inmates with serious mental illness.”

504

Those jurisdictions were Mississippi, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee. Mississippi reported that “[t]here
is one offender in this category whose file is reviewed every 90 days per policy and SOP.” North Carolina reported using
extended restrictive housing as a safety measure when no alternative was available. It reported that it considered placement
in a less-restrictive therapeutic diversion unit (TDU). It also reported taking into account whether confinement will have
a “detrimental impact” on individuals with mental illness and that a “multidisciplinary team” reviewed placements of this
population in restrictive housing every 30 days “to determine if continuation of RH is indicated based on safety and
security factors.” Pennsylvania stated that “[p]rocedures have changed to meet the standards but policy is pending
approval from the Department's Legal Office.” Tennessee explained that “[f]ormal policy for this mandate is in
development.” We should note that it is not clear if jurisdictions used the ACA definition of serious mental illness or their
own definitions, which varied widely. See Appendix C. The data described in Section II of this report (discussing
placement of those with serious mental illness in restrictive housing) relied on each jurisdiction’s own definition of serious
mental illness.

505

ACA Standard 4-RH-00004, ACA 2016 RESTRICTIVE HOUSING STANDARDS 9.

506

Fifteen of these 23 jurisdictions implemented the policy after the ACA Standards were issued or did not indicate a date
for commencement of the policy. Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine,
Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Idaho
does not place individuals under 18 in restrictive housing for more than 29 days. It explained, “We generally don't get
those offenders but when we have, we have separated (non-restrictive housing) from the general population until they
turn 18. We then evaluate them for the best housing based on their need and maturity level.” Kentucky and South Dakota
do not house individuals under 18 in their jurisdictions. North Carolina entirely eliminated the use of restricted housing
for individuals under 18 in 2016. Ohio indicated its disagreement with the survey’s interpretation of the Standard. Another
eight jurisdictions stated that this was their policy before 2016. Those jurisdictions were Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware,
Georgia, Maryland, New York, Texas, and Vermont.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

136
507

Those jurisdictions were Louisiana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Washington. Louisiana did not specify
its exceptions. Oklahoma reported that it had “[d]esignated specific facility and housing unit assignments for those under
18 that are consistent with PREA standards.” Pennsylvania explained, “Procedures have changed to meet the standards
but policy is pending approval from the Department's Legal Office.” Tennessee noted that its “[f]ormal written policy is
not yet written and approved.” Eight jurisdictions responded that they had not implemented this Standard. Those
jurisdictions were Arizona, Hawaii, Kansas, Massachusetts, Missouri, North Dakota, Oregon, and South Carolina.

508

That jurisdiction was Washington.

509

ACA 2016 RESTRICTIVE HOUSING STANDARDS 3. The survey results regarding the placement of pregnant prisoners in
restrictive housing are discussed in Section II of this Report.
510

Twelve jurisdictions said they had implemented the policy after the ACA Standards were issued or did not indicate a
date for commencement of the policy. Those jurisdictions were Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota,
Mississippi, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Wyoming. Ohio indicated its disagreement
with the survey’s interpretation of the Standard. Ten jurisdictions reported that this was their policy before 2016. Those
jurisdictions were Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Maine, Maryland, New York, Oklahoma, Texas, Vermont, and
Washington.
511

These jurisdictions were Louisiana, which did not specify its exceptions, and Pennsylvania, which explained that the
Standard “is not in official policy as of yet.” Six jurisdictions indicated that they had not implemented this Standard.
Those jurisdictions were Connecticut, Hawaii, Kansas, Missouri, South Carolina, and Wisconsin. Connecticut clarified
that “[a]lthough it is not in this policy, the CTDOC would carefully review any placement of a pregnant female on a
restrictive status and would explore other options.” Similarly, Idaho indicated that it had “not adopted that requirement
but ha[d] not had a pregnant female in long-term segregation.” Mississippi confirmed that it “does not place pregnant
female offenders in long term segregation for more than 29 continuous days.” Tennessee also reported that “[p]regnant
females are not housed in restrictive housing[,]” and Wyoming also does not place pregnant women “in restrictive housing
unless no other alternative is available for her safety or the safety of the institution.”

512

Those jurisdictions were Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Idaho, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina,
Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin. In addition, Oklahoma noted that it had not made other changes in response
to the ACA Standards, but that “OP-090601 is specific to Max inmates Step Down Program. 9-18-2017 published, revised
in 2019.” Arkansas listed a number of policies: “Administrative Directive 2017-02 Restrictive Housing, Administrative
Directive 2017-03 Step Down Program, Administrative Directive 2017-31 Restrictive Housing, Administrative Directive
2018-19 Protective Custody, Administrative Directive 2018-34 Inmate Disciplinary Manual, Administrative Directive
2019-27 Punitive Housing/Restriction, Administrative Directive 2019-28 Restrictive Housing, Administrative Directive
2019-28 Restrictive Housing In-Cell Recreation Handout.” Colorado indicated that it had not made changes since
answering the 2017-2018 survey. At that time it wrote:
The following policies were modified: 100-19 Communication with Offenders 100-40 Prison Rape
Elimination Procedure300-01 Offender Visiting Program 500-02 Library Services 550-11 Offender
Release 600-01 Offender Classification 600-09 Management of Close Custody Offenders 700-03
Mental Health Scope of Service 700-29 Mental Health Interventions 750-01 Legal Access 850-10
Emergency Notification850-12 Telephone Regulations for Offenders 850-07 Offender Reception
and Orientation 1000-01 Recreation and Hobby Work 1350-02 Victim Notification Program 155002 Food Service Menu Planning and Service.
Delaware explained,
Our jurisdiction put in policy that women are allowed sanitary products while in designated housing
unless it poses a security threat or threat to the inmate. We also put into policy that inmates are
offered 17.5 hour of out-of-cell time per week in addition to therapeutic structured time, effectively
eliminating restrictive housing in Delaware by federal definition.
Idaho reported its policy of limiting short-term segregation to 15 days. Kentucky added, “Use of restrictive
housing for transgender prisoners, pregnant prisoners, step-down programs. Many items were taking place in practice;
policy is being updated to reflect this.” Massachusetts had identified recommendations “during the PDCU review of the
new ACA 5th edition in regards to SMI inmates and revisions remain ongoing.” Minnesota reported changes regarding

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

137
“Mental health, Health Services, Offender Discipline, Administrative Segregation, Restrictive Housing Step-Down
management program, pre-hearing detention, administrative control status, restrictive housing management.” North
Carolina reported creating its TDU/RDU housing. Tennessee was “in the process of implementation of ACA 5th Edition
Performance Based Standards.” Texas revised its Restrictive Housing Plan in August 2019.
Oregon and Wisconsin provided comprehensive reports of the changes they made. Oregon wrote,
Since the ACA revised restrictive housing standards, we have conducted reviews of all special
housings throughout the state and have made the following changes: 1. Reduced the number of
segregation eligible infractions in rule. 2. Begun to limit the use of prehearing disciplinary
segregation to the adults in custody who pose a serious threat to safety or security only. 3. Ensure
that disciplinary hearings are held within 10 days or sooner. 4. Removed “For the good of order”
from the rule as a reason for temporary disciplinary sanction. 5. Enhanced supports, structured
activities and programming in general population to keep people from going to DSU, particularly
high risk groups. 6. Developed a risk assessment tool (RASP) in conjunction with Dr. Ryan
Labrecque at Central Florida University designed to predict those adults in custody who are likely
to go to segregation and/or commit violent rule violations. 7. Examined case management practices
to ensure that adults in custody are receiving appropriate levels of contact and supervision from case
managers. 8. Eliminated loss of segregation yard time as a sanction in disciplinary segregation. 9.
Discontinued use of the Adjustment to Final Order form a grid as a tool to initiate reviews and time
reductions from segregation. Reviews are now initiated by staff and/or adults in custody when
correctional program and/or behavior objectives have been achieved. 10. QMHP’s are now
conducting in-person assessments within 24 hours of a person’s placement into segregation. 11.
Move adults in custody to the Intensive Management Unit upon approval of status, as opposed to
making them finish their disciplinary segregation time first. 12. Adults in custody are now reviewed
at 30 day intervals in the Intensive Management Unit. 13. Expanded “blue rooms” (de-escalation
rooms) to most restrictive housing units. 14. Implemented a structured re-entry/step-down unit for
adults in custody transitioning out of long-term segregation (October 2019). 15. Women who are
pregnant, post-partum or who have recently had a miscarriage are diverted from segregated housing.
16. Increased training for staff on responding to gender differences and understanding gender
identity. 17. Discontinued practice of automatic segregation placement for returns from the
community or from county, transitional leaves. 18. Reduced restrictive housing beds (converted 72
bed Intensive Management Unit to 72 bed incentive housing for general population adults in
custody). IMU went from 240 beds to 168 beds. 19. Began the use of “resource teams” at two largest
institutions. These teams work to increase out-of-cell time and socialization activities for adults in
custody who have been in longer term restrictive housing to assist with the transition to general
population or to the community.
Wisconsin explained that since 2016, it has made a number of changes:
We shortened base penalties for most offenses and required dispositions over 120 days to obtain
Deputy Warden approval and central office review. Policies specifically encouraged alternative
sanctions, providing for the least restrictive setting and penalties that were in proportion to the
behavior. Security Director consults with psychology staff prior to approving RH placement for
inmates with serious mental illness. Required written Behavior Management Plans for inmates with
Serious Mental Illness who had a disposition over 60 days. Further defined and standardized our
step programs, positive incentives, RH review process and allowed property.
513

Those jurisdictions were Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, Montana, New York, and North
Dakota. Colorado stated that “CDOC’s Office of Planning and Analysis has not been tasked with studying any effects of
Restrictive Housing policy changes.” Pennsylvania responded, “Informal reviews and analysis have been conducted, but
nothing formal or polished.” Texas stated that “TDCJ remains committed to on-going assessments to ensure the best
correctional practices are used; however, no study has been conducted at this time.”

514

ASCA-LIMAN REFORMING RESTRICTIVE HOUSING 2018, at 65.

515

Those jurisdictions were Arizona, Connecticut, and Maine.

516

Those jurisdictions were Connecticut, Maine, and Montana.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

138
517

Those jurisdictions were Arizona and Montana.

518

Those jurisdictions were Arizona, Connecticut, and Montana.

519

Those jurisdictions were Arizona, Connecticut, and Montana.

520

Those jurisdictions were Montana and New York.

521

Those jurisdictions were Connecticut, Montana, New York, and North Dakota.

522

That jurisdiction was Delaware.

523

That jurisdiction was Massachusetts.

524

That jurisdiction was New York.

525

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri,
Montana, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Washington, and Wyoming. The four jurisdictions that responded they were
not undertaking studies were Colorado, Oklahoma, Texas, and Wisconsin. Colorado reported that “CDOC’s Office of
Planning and Analysis has not been tasked with studying any effects of Restrictive Housing policy changes.” Oklahoma
answered, “After NIC Assessment.” Texas stated that “TDCJ remains committed to on-going assessments to ensure the
best correctional practices are used to manage the population of offenders assigned to restrictive housing; however, no
changes to policy are planned at this time.” Wisconsin explained, “All of these topics are of interest, but no specific
plans/proposals are currently in place to research these topics.”

526

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, Vermont, and Wyoming.

527

Those jurisdictions were Arizona, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, Vermont, and Wyoming.

528

Those jurisdictions were Arizona, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, Vermont, and Wyoming.

529

Those jurisdictions were Arizona, Maine, Massachusetts, Missouri, Vermont, and Wyoming.

530

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana,
Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Wyoming.

531

Those jurisdictions were Arkansas, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Wyoming.

532

Those jurisdictions were Arizona, Arkansas, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, Pennsylvania, and Wyoming.

533

Alabama specified that it was developing both “a Correctional work site wellness program” and “a Post-Crisis Step
Down Unit for inmates being discharged to ensure that they are not placed in restrictive housing and to help them better
transition from crisis.” Massachusetts wrote,
Incidents of prisoner self-harm—For inmates in restrictive housing incidents of self-harm is being
tracked and reported on a quarterly basis. Incidents of use of force—Incidents of use of force is
included as an outcome measure in the implementation of a new unit for emerging adult fathers and
is also being studied in the context of restrictive housing. Prisoner morale—We are developing an
inmate survey to assess morale and climate, as well as impact of staff and inmate mentor training
regarding changes to culture of corrections. Staff morale—We are developing an inmate survey to
assess morale and climate, as well as impact of staff and inmate mentor training regarding changes
to culture of corrections. Staff well-being and/or safety—In addition to above mentioned
statement(s), partnering with Northeastern University on a study of correctional staff suicide and
wellbeing. Prisoner success in the general population, programs, or other activities—Building the
capacity to research prisoner programming and services in relation to prison behavior and climate,
as well as existing post-release measures, such as recidivism. Prisoner success in returning to
communities—See above statement.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

139
Oregon noted, “We are currently conducting research with Dr. Ryan Labreque of Central Florida University into the
effectiveness of our Intensive Management Unit Step-Down Program.” Vermont responded, “The new restrictive housing
policy is supported by a shift from a paper process to an electronic process. Restrictive housing data will be tracked in
the offender management system. This will allow us to conduct more analysis on long term trends related to prisoner selfharm, reasons for stays, lengths of stay, and linking stays in segregation to other outcomes.” Washington explained,
“WADOC is currently developing the scope of a research project around restrictive housing. Some or all of the above
may be considered.” Wyoming elaborated, “We are gathering data on the incidents of violence, use of force, inmate
success after discharge from restrictive housing and inmate success after discharge from prison. At some point, we would
like to conduct an assessment of inmate and staff morale related to restrictive housing implementation.”
534

See SOLITARY CONFINEMENT: EFFECTS, PRACTICES, AND PATHWAYS TO REFORM (Jules Lobel and Peter Scharff Smith
eds., 2020) [hereinafter SOLITARY CONFINEMENT].
535

See, e,g., Fatos Kaba, Andrea Lewis, Sarah Glowa-Kollisch, James Hadler, David Lee, Howard Alper, Daniel Selling,
Ross MacDonald, Angela Solimo, Amanda Parsons, & Homer Venters, Solitary Confinement and Risk of Self-Harm
Among Jail Inmates, 104 AM. J. PUB. HEALTH 442, 445 (2014); Craig Haney, The Psychological Effects of Solitary
Confinement: A Systematic Critique, 47 CRIME & JUST., 365, 371–75 (2018); Craig Haney, Restricting the Use of Solitary
Confinement, 1 ANN. REV. CRIMINOLOGY 285, 297- 298 (2018).
536

See, e.g., Albert Woodfox, SOLITARY (2019).

537

See, e.g., Cyrus Ahalt, Colette S. Peters, Heidi Steward & Brie A. Williams, Transforming Prison Culture to Improve
Correctional Staff Wellness and Outcomes for Adults in Custody “The Oregon Way”: A Partnership Between the Oregon
Department of Corrections and the University of California’s Correctional Culture Change Program, 8 ADV.
CORRECTIONS J. 130 (2019).

538

An analysis of the research challenges comes from Brie Williams & Cyrus Ahalt, First Do No Harm: Applying the
Harm-to-Benefits Patient Safety Framework to Solitary Confinement, in SOLITARY CONFINEMENT, at 153, 158.

539

See Robert D. Morgan, Ryan M. Labrecque, Paul Gendreau, Taylor R. Ramler, and Brieann Olafsson, Questioning
Solitary Confinement: Is Administrative Segregation as Bad as Alleged?, CORRECTIONS TODAY, Sept/Oct. 2017, at 18,
19.

540
One summary concluded that solitary confinement caused “a wide range of harmful psychological effects, including
increases in negative attitudes and affect, insomnia, anxiety, panic, withdrawal, hypersensitivity, ruminations, cognitive
dysfunction, hallucinations, loss of control, aggression, rage, paranoia, hopelessness, lethargy, depression, emotional
breakdowns, self-mutilation, and suicidal impulses.”See Istanbul Statement of the Use and Effect of Solitary Confinement,
adopted Dec. 9, 2007, appended to Manfred Nowak, REPORT OF THE UN SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON TORTURE OF 28 JULY
2008, U.N. Doc A/63/175, 18 and Annex (22). See also Louise Hawkley, Social Isolation, Loneliness, and Health, in
SOLITARY CONFINEMENT at 185-198; Huda Akil, The Brain in Isolation, in SOLITARY CONFINEMENT at 206–10. Animal
studies have provided evidence of the physiological effects of isolation. See Michael J. Zigmond & Richard Jay Smeyne,
Use of Animals to Study the Neurobiological Effects of Isolation, in SOLITARY CONFINEMENT at 221–236.
541

See David M. Shapiro, Solitary Confinement in the Young Republic, 133 HARV. L. REV. 542 (2019). See also Ashley
T. Rubin & Keramet Reiter, Continuity in the Face of Penal Innovation: Revisiting the History of American Solitary
Confinement, 43 L. & SOC. INQUIRY 1604, 1605, 1613–18 (2018).

542

Ryan T. Sakoda & Jessica T. Simes, Solitary Confinement and the U.S. Prison Boom, CRIM. JUST. POL’Y REV. (Dec.
29, 2019).

543

Id. at 14–16.

544

Id.

545

David Cloud, Cyrus Ahalt, Dallas Augustine, David Sears, & Brie Williams, Medical Isolation and Solitary
Confinement: Balancing Health and Humanity in US Jails and Prisons During COVID-19. J. GEN. INTERN. MED. (2020).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-020-05968-y; David Cloud, JD, MPH, Dallas Augustine, MA, Cyrus Ahalt, MPP, & Brie
Williams, MD, MS, The Ethical Use of Medical Isolation—Not Solitary Confinement—to Reduce COVID-19
Transmission in Correctional Settings (April 9, 2020), https://amend.us/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Medical-Isolation-

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

140
vs-Solitary_Amend.pdf; AMEND, COVID-19 in Correctional Facilities: Medical Isolation, https://amend.us/wpcontent/uploads/2020/04/Medical-Isolation-vs-Solitary_Amend.pdf.
546

Information about pending and enacted legislation was drawn from our own research and other sources, including the
ACLU Stop Solitary Campaign and the Vera Institute of Justice. Detailed information regarding legislation enacted or
pending as of July 2019 can be found on the Liman Center website at www.law.yale.edu/liman.
The states in which legislation has been introduced were Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado,
Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana,
Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas,
Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. Specific pending and enacted laws are cited, infra notes 13 and 14. Bills regarding
restrictive housing proposed between October 2018 and June 2020 that failed include: Alabama House Resolution 90,
House Joint Resolution 93, and House Joint Resolution 92, Alabama Legislature, 2020 Session (to recognize the injustice
suffered by Anthony Ray Hinton); Florida House Bill 165, Senate Bill 228, and House Bill 347, 2020 Florida Legislature
(to prohibit solitary confinement for youth under the age of eighteen); Florida Senate Bill 762, 2020 Florida Legislature
(to prohibit solitary confinement and limit restrictive housing of those with serious medical needs); Illinois House Bill
4898, One Hundred and First Illinois General Assembly, 2020 (to prohibit solitary confinement of youth under the age of
21); Illinois House Bill 0892, One Hundred and First Illinois General Assembly, 2020 (to limit solitary confinement to
maximum 10 consecutive days for all state inmates); Kentucky House Bill 147, 2020 Kentucky Legislature (to prohibit
solitary confinement of youth, except to prevent imminent and significant harm); Maryland House Bill 0742, Maryland
General Assembly, 2020 Session (to limit the use of solitary confinement for people with mental illnesses); Mississippi
Senate Bill 2743, Mississippi Legislature, 2020 Session (to establish an ombudsman for the Department of Corrections);
Oregon House Bill 3186, Seventy Ninth Oregon Legislature, 2019 (to prohibit solitary confinement beyond 15
consecutive days); South Carolina Senate Bill 1018, One Hundred and Twenty Third South Carolina General Assembly,
Second Session (to end solitary confinement of children under the age of 18); Tennessee House Bill 1240, One Hundred
and Eleventh Tennessee General Assembly, 2020 (to prohibit solitary confinement of pregnant people and for 8 weeks
postpartum); Wisconsin Assembly Bill 398, Wisconsin Legislature, 2019-2020 Session (to end solitary confinement for
pregnant prisoners); Wisconsin Assembly Bill 825, Wisconsin Legislature, 2019-2020 Session (to require mental health
evaluation for all prisoners prior to placement in solitary confinement, and to limit solitary confinement of those with
serious mental illness to maximum 10 consecutive days).

547

The enacted bills include U.S. Senate Bill 756, One Hundred and Fifteenth U.S. Congress, Second Session (enacted
December 2018)); Arkansas House Bill 1755, Ninety Second Arkansas General Assembly, 2019 Session (enacted April
2019); Colorado Senate Bill 20-007, Seventy Second Assembly, 2020 Session (awaiting Governor’s signature); Florida
House Bill 1259, 2020 Legislative Session (enacted June 2020); Georgia House Bill 345, 2019-2020 Georgia General
Assembly, Regular Session (enacted May 2019); Louisiana House Bill 344, Louisiana State Legislature, 2020 Session
(enacted June 2020); Maryland Senate Bill 809, Maryland General Assembly, 2019 Session (enacted April 2019);
Maryland House Bill 1001, Maryland General Assembly, 2019 Session (enacted May 2019); Minnesota Senate File 8,
Ninety First Minnesota Legislature, 1st Special Session 2019-2020 (enacted May 2019); Montana House Bill 763, Sixty
Sixth Montana Legislature, 2019 Regular Session (enacted May 2019); Nebraska Legislative Bill 230, 2019-2020
Nebraska Unicameral Legislature (enacted February 2020); New Jersey Assembly Bill 3979, New Jersey Legislature
2018-2019 Session, Second Session (enacted January 2020); New Jersey Assembly Bill 314, New Jersey Legislature
2018-2019 Session, Second Session (enacted July 2019); New Jersey Assembly Bill 3979, Two Hundred and Eighteenth
New Jersey Legislature, 2018-2019 Session (enacted January 2020); New Mexico House Bill 364, 2019 New Mexico
Legislature, Regular Session (enacted April 2019); South Carolina House Bill 3967, One Hundred and Twenty Third
Legislative Session (enacted May 2020); Texas House Bill 650, Eighty Sixth Texas Legislature, 2019-2020 (enacted May
2019); Virginia House Bill 1648, 2020 Virginia Legislative Session (enacted March 2020); Virginia Senate Bill 1777,
House Bill 1642, 2020 Virginia Legislative Session (enacted March 2019); Washington Senate Bill 6112, House Bill
2277, 2019-2020 Washington State Legislature (enacted April 2020).
548

House Bill ___, One Hundred and Sixteenth United States Congress, Second Session (prohibiting placement of women
in solitary confinement in their third trimester, introduced July 22, 2020); House Resolution 1893, Senate Bill 697, One
Hundred and Sixteenth United States Congress, Second Session (to provide grant money to states that adopt laws
prohibiting solitary confinement); Senate Bill 719, One Hundred and Sixteenth Congress, Second Session (to prohibit
placement of those with serious mental illness and intellectual or physical disabilities in solitary confinement, to prohibit
placement of LGBTQ and HIV-positive inmates in solitary confinement solely because of their status, to place caps on
the length of solitary confinement, and to prohibit placement of any inmate in solitary confinement who is to be released
within 180 days); Arizona House Bill 2894, Fifty-fourth Arizona Legislature, Second Session (to collect and analyze data
on solitary confinement); Arizona Senate Bill 1374, Fifty-fourth Legislature, Second Session (to prohibit the use of

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

141
solitary confinement for people known to be pregnant or prisoners who are postpartum); California Assembly Bill 732,
California Legislature 2019-2020 Regular Session, 2019 (to prohibit the use of solitary confinement for pregnant
prisoners); Hawai’i Senate Bill 2520, Thirtieth Hawai’i Legislature, 2020 (to limit administrative segregation to 14
consecutive days maximum within a 30-day period); Hawai’i Senate Concurrent Resolution 161, Thirtieth Hawai’i
Legislature, 2020 (to require annual reports to Legislature and Governor with data on solitary confinement, to recommend
against isolation for vulnerable populations, including youth, persons with disabilities, pregnant persons, and LGBTQ
persons); Hawai’i House Bill 1788, Thirtieth Hawai’i Legislature, 2020 (to set a maximum length of stay in isolation at
three hours for youth); Massachusetts Senate Bill 1379, House Bill 2047, One Hundred and Ninety First General Court
of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 2019 (to expand visitation rights for prisoners in restrictive housing to be the
same as for those in the general population); Massachusetts House Bill 1486, Massachusetts Senate Bill 940, One Hundred
and Ninety First General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 2019 (to prohibit the use of restrictive housing
for adults aged 18-24, except in cases of danger to others); Massachusetts House Bill 1539, One Hundred and Ninety First
General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 2019 (to limit restrictive housing for those under the age of 21 to
15 consecutive days for disciplinary infractions and 48 hours for those who pose an immediate danger); Massachusetts
House Bill 2142, One Hundred and Ninety First General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 2019 (to create
a Corrections Oversight Commission that would submit recommendations related to solitary confinement); Massachusetts
Senate Bill 905, House Bill 1341, One Hundred and Ninety First General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
2019 (to increase the reporting frequency and breadth of data collected on restrictive housing, including data related to
LGBTQ prisoners in restrictive housing); Massachusetts Senate Bill 1362, House Bill 2087, One Hundred and Ninety
First General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 2019 (to require regular reports on the number of incidents
of force used in restrictive housing); Nebraska Legislative Bill 786, Nebraska Legislature, 2020 Session (to require
screening for those in solitary confinement for mental illness); New York Assembly Bill 4373, New York Senate Bill
4842, 2019-2020 New York State Assembly, 2020 Regular Session (to create a temporary state commission to study
solitary confinement practices); New York Senate Bill 1623, New York Assembly Bill 2500, 2019-2020 New York State
Assembly, 2020 Regular Session (to prohibit the use of solitary confinement for those under the age of 21 and those who
are pregnant, and to cap solitary confinement for all prisoners at 15 consecutive days); New York Senate Bill 787, 20192020 New York State Assembly, 2020 Regular Session (to prohibit restrictive housing except in cases of highly dangerous
or serious escape-related behavior, to limit restrictive housing to 30 continuous days maximum except in cases of extreme
violence, to require diversion of those with serious mental illnesses from restrictive housing to residential health treatment
units); New York Senate Bill 1696, Assembly Bill 5272, 2019-2020 New York State Assembly, 2020 (to prohibit punitive
isolation, to provide inmates under the age of 21 in restrictive housing with four hours of out-of-cell programming each
day); Ohio Senate Bill 18, One Hundred and Thirty Third Ohio General Assembly, 2020 (to prohibit solitary confinement
for pregnant prisoners in the third trimester, during labor/delivery, and in postpartum recovery); Pennsylvania House Bill
497, 2019-2020 Pennsylvania General Assembly, 2020 (to prohibit solitary confinement for pregnant prisoners, inmates
under 21 and over 70, and LGBTQ individuals; to cap solitary confinement at 15 consecutive days maximum for all
inmates).
549

See ASCA-LIMAN REFORMING RESTRICTIVE HOUSING 2018, at 87.

550

A 314, S 3261, 2018-2019 Leg., Reg. Sess. (N.J. 2019).

551

Circumstances include a temporary, facility-wide, emergency lockdown, a mental health emergency requiring
“medical isolation,” and a request by the individual for protective custody. A 314, S 3261, 2018-2019 Leg., Reg. Sess.
(N.J. 2019). C.30:4-82.8.

552

Id.

553

See New Mexico House Bill 364, 2019 New Mexico Legislature, Regular Session (enacted April 2019).

554

See id. § 3(A)-(B).

555

See id. § 4.

556

See id. § 5.

557

See id. § 6.

558

HB 763, 2019 Leg., Reg. Sess. Section 1 (Mont. 2019).

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

142
559

Id. § 3(6).

560

Id. § 12.

561

Id. §§ 8-10.

562

SF 8, 2019 Leg., 1st Special Sess. Section 10(2) (Minn. 2019).

563

Id. § 10(3).

564

Id. §§ 10(5-6).

565

Id. § 10(7).

566

Id. § 10(8).

567

See U.S. Senate Bill 756, One Hundred and Fifteenth U.S. Congress, Second Session (enacted December 2018).

568

See Arkansas House Bill 1755, Ninety Second Arkansas General Assembly, 2019 (enacted April 2019).

569

See Colorado Senate Bill 20-007, Seventy Second Assembly, 2020 Session (awaiting signature).

570

See Florida House Bill 1259, 2020 Legislative Session (enacted June 2020).

571

See Georgia House Bill 345, 2019-2020 Georgia General Assembly, Regular Session (enacted May 2019).

572

See Louisiana House Bill 344, Louisiana State Legislature, 2020 Session (enacted June 2020).

573

See Maryland Senate Bill 809, Maryland General Assembly, 2019 Session (enacted April 2019).

574

See Montana House Bill 763, Sixty Sixth Regular Session of the Montana Legislature, 2019 (enacted May 2019).

575

See Nebraska Legislative Bill 230, 2019-2020 Nebraska Unicameral Legislature (enacted February 2020).

576

See New Jersey Assembly Bill 3979, New Jersey Legislature 2018-2019 Session, Second Session (enacted January
2020).
577

See New Mexico House Bill 364, 2019 New Mexico Legislature, Regular Session (enacted April 2019).

578

See South Carolina House Bill 3967, One Hundred and Twenty Third Legislative Session (enacted May 2020).

579

See Texas House Bill 650, Eighty Sixth Texas Legislature, 2019-2020 Section 6 (enacted May 2019).

580

See Virginia House Bill 1648, 2020 Virginia Legislative Session (enacted March 2020).

581

See Washington Senate Bill 6112, House Bill 2277, 2019-2020 Washington State Legislature (enacted April 2020).

582

See Louisiana House Bill 344, Louisiana State Legislature, 2020 Session (enacted June 2020), Section 1(B).

583

See Texas House Bill 650, Eighty Sixth Texas Legislature, 2019-2020 (enacted May 2019), Section 501.144(a) (barring
such placement “unless the director or director ’s designee determines that the placement is necessary based on a
reasonable belief that the inmate will harm herself, her unborn child or infant, or any other person or will attempt
escape.”); Virginia House Bill 1648, 2020 Virginia Legislative Session (enacted March 2020), Article 2.2 (barring such
placement “unless an employee of the Department has a reasonable belief that the inmate will harm herself, the fetus, or
any other person or poses a substantial flight risk.”); South Carolina House Bill 3967, One Hundred and Twenty Third
Legislative Session (enacted May 2020) (“Correctional facilities, local detention facilities, and prison or work camps must
not place a known pregnant inmate, or any female inmate who has given birth within the previous thirty days, in restrictive
housing unless there is a reasonable belief the inmate will harm herself, the fetus, or another person, or pose a substantial
flight risk.”).

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

143
584
Georgia House Bill 345, 2019-2020 Georgia General Assembly, Regular Session (enacted May 2019), Section 1(e);
(barring, without exception, the placement “in solitary confinement, in administrative segregation, or for medical
observation in a solitary confinement setting” for any “pregnant woman or woman”).
585

Maryland Senate Bill 809, Maryland General Assembly, 2019 Session (enacted April 2019), Section 9-601.1(B)-(C)
(barring placement of any pregnant woman in restrictive housing unless there is “a serious and immediate risk of physical
harm to the inmate or another” or “an immediate and credible flight risk that cannot be reasonably prevented by other
means” or “a situation that poses a risk of spreading a communicable disease that cannot be reasonably mitigated by other
means.”).

586

Montana House Bill 763, Sixty Sixth Regular Session of the Montana Legislature, 2019 (enacted May 2019), Section
3 (barring placement of any pregnant or postpartum woman in restrictive housing unless an approval has been made by
an administrator based on “exigent circumstances.”).

587

New Jersey Assembly Bill 314, New Jersey Legislature 2018-2019 Session, Second Session (enacted July 2019),
Section 3 (barring the use of restrictive housing, with exceptions, for any prisoner who “is pregnant, is in the postpartum
period, or has recently suffered a miscarriage or terminated a pregnancy”).

588

New Mexico House Bill 364, 2019 New Mexico Legislature, Regular Session (enacted April 2019) (barring the use of
restrictive housing, without exception, for any inmate known to be pregnant).

589

See First Step Act of 2018, § 613, Pub. L. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194, 5248.

590

See New Mexico House Bill 364, 2019 New Mexico Legislature, Regular Session (enacted April 2019), Section 3(A).

591

See Washington Senate Bill 6112, House Bill 2277, 2019-2020 Washington State Legislature (enacted April 2020),
Section 3.

592

See Nebraska Legislative Bill 230, 2019-2020 Nebraska Unicameral Legislature (enacted February 2020), Sections 45 (requiring that “[d]ocumentation of the room confinement shall include the date of the occurrence; the race, ethnicity,
age, and gender of the juvenile; the reason for placement of the juvenile in room confinement; an explanation of why less
restrictive means were unsuccessful; the ultimate duration of the placement in room confinement; facility staffing levels
at the time of confinement; and any incidents of self-harm or suicide committed by the juvenile while he or she was
isolated.”).
593

Neb. Rev. St. § 83-4,134.01(2) (2018).

594

Circumstances include a temporary, facility-wide, emergency lockdown, a mental health emergency requiring
“medical isolation,” and a request by the individual for protective custody. A 314, S 3261, 2018-2019 Leg., Reg. Sess.
(N.J. 2019). Section 4(b).

595

See Montana House Bill 763, Sixty Sixth Regular Session of the Montana Legislature, 2019 (enacted May 2019),
Section 12.

596

See Arkansas House Bill 1755, Ninety Second Arkansas General Assembly, 2019 (enacted April 2019), Sections 1(b),
2(b) (barring placement for youth in solitary unless the placement is due to “[a] physical or sexual assault committed by
the juvenile while in the juvenile detention facility; . . . [c]onduct of the juvenile that poses an imminent threat of harm to
the safety or well-being of the juvenile, the staff, or other juveniles in the juvenile detention facility; or . . . [t]he juvenile
escaping or attempting to escape from the 4 juvenile detention facility,” and the director of the facility provides written
authorization “every twenty-four-hour period during which the juvenile remains in punitive isolation or solitary
confinement after the initial twenty-four (24) hours.”

597

Montana House Bill 763, Sixty Sixth Regular Session of the Montana Legislature, 2019 (enacted May 2019), Section

4.
598
See New Jersey Assembly Bill 314, New Jersey Legislature 2018-2019 Session, Second Session (enacted July 2019),
Section 4(b).

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

144
599

See New Mexico House Bill 364, 2019 New Mexico Legislature, Regular Session (enacted April 2019), Section 4.

600

Id.

601

See Colorado Senate Bill 20-007, Colorado General Assembly, 2019 Session (enacted July 2020).

602

See U.S. Senate Bill 756, One Hundred and Fifteenth U.S. Congress, Second Session (enacted December 2018).

603

See Maryland House Bill 1001, Maryland General Assembly, 2019 Session (enacted May 2019).

604

See Michigan Senate Bill 848, Ninety Ninth Michigan Legislature, 2018 Regular Session (enacted June 2018).

605

See Minnesota Senate File 8, Ninety First Minnesota Legislature, 1st Special Session 2019-2020 (enacted May 2019).

606

Nebraska Legislative Bill 230, 2019-2020 Nebraska Unicameral Legislature (enacted February 2020), in Sections 4
provides,
“The juvenile facility shall submit a report quarterly to the Legislature on the juveniles placed in
room confinement; the length of time each juvenile was in room confinement; the race, ethnicity,
age, and gender of each juvenile placed in room confinement; facility staffing levels at the time of
confinement; and the reason each juvenile was placed in room confinement. The report shall
specifically address each instance of room confinement of a juvenile for more than four hours,
including all reasons why attempts to return the juvenile to the general population of the juvenile
facility were unsuccessful. The report shall also detail all corrective measures taken in response to
noncompliance with this section. The report shall redact all personal identifying information but
shall provide individual, not aggregate, data. The report shall be delivered electronically to the
Legislature. The initial quarterly report shall be submitted within two weeks after the quarter ending
on September 30, 2016. Subsequent reports shall be submitted for the ensuing quarters within two
weeks after the end of each quarter; and (d) The Inspector General of Nebraska Child Welfare shall
review all data collected pursuant to this section in order to assess the use of room confinement for
juveniles in each juvenile facility and prepare an annual report of his or her findings, including, but
not limited to, identifying changes in policy and practice which may lead to decreased use of such
confinement as well as model evidence-based criteria to be used to determine when a juvenile should
be placed in room confinement. The report shall be delivered electronically to the Legislature on an
annual basis.”

607

See New Mexico House Bill 364, 2019 New Mexico Legislature, Regular Session (enacted April 2019).

608

See Virginia Senate Bill 1777, House Bill 1642, 2020 Virginia Legislative Session (enacted March 2019).

609
Minnesota Senate File 8, Ninety First Minnesota Legislature, 1st Special Session 2019-2020 (enacted May 2019),
Article 3, Section 10, Subdivision 9.
610

Id.

611

HR 1893 The Next Step Act, 2019 Leg., Reg. Sess. (U.S. 2019).

612

Hawai’i Senate Bill 2520, Thirtieth Hawai’i Legislature, 2020.

613

New York Senate Bill 1623, New York Assembly Bill 2500, 2019-2020 New York State Assembly, 2020 Regular
Session.

614

Pennsylvania House Bill 497, 2019-2020 Pennsylvania General Assembly, 2020.

615

Connecticut Senate Bill 1109, House Bill 6705, Connecticut General Assembly, 2019 Session (to prohibit solitary
confinement). “Administrative segregation status” is defined as “the Department of Correction's practice of placing an
inmate on restrictive housing status following a determination that such inmate can no longer be safely managed within
the general inmate population of the correctional facility.” “Restrictive housing status” is defined as “the designation of

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

145
an inmate by the Department of Correction that provides for closely regulated management and separation of such inmate
from other inmates.”
616

Gumm v. Ford, No. 5:15-CV-41 (MTT), 2019 WL 2017497 (M.D. Ga. May 7, 2019).

617

Gumm v. Ford, No. 5:15-CV-41 (MTT) (Second Amended Complaint [date]).

618

Final Order of Approval of Class Settlement, Reid v. Wetzel, No. 18-CV-0176 (M.D. Pa. 2020).

619
Settlement Agreement, Reid v. Wetzel, No. 18-CV-0176 (M.D. Pa. 2018), at 13, available at https://live-aclupennsylvania.pantheonsite.io/sites/default/files/field_documents/reid_settlement_agreement__signed_with_exhibits.pdf. [https://perma.cc/3H7P-K8GY]. For the complaint, filed in January 2018 by the ACLU,
Abolitionist Law Center, and pro bono counsel, see Class Action Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, No.
1:18-cv-00176-JEJ,
(M.D.
Pa.
Jan.
25,
2018),
https://live-aclupennsylvania.pantheonsite.io/sites/default/files/field_documents/1_complaint.pdf [perma.cc/9WKZ-8E4H.].
620

See Settlement Agreement at 10, Reid v. Wetzel, No. 18-CV-0176 (M.D. Pa. 2018).

621

Ashker v. Newsom, No. 09-CV-05796-CW (RMI), 2019 WL 330461 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2019), appeal pending (argued
June 2020); Order Granting Mot. to Extend Settlement Agreement, Ashker v. Baker, No. 09-cv-05796-CW (N.D. Cal.
2019),
available
at
https://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/attach/2019/01/1122%202019-0125%20Order%20Granting%20MTN%20to%20Extend%20SA%20for%2012%20Months.pdf.
622

Settlement Agreement, Ashker v. Governor of California, No. C 09-05796 CW (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2015),
https://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/09/2015-09-01-ashker-Settlement_Agreement.pdf. The settlement
limited duration of solitary confinement and changed the process of placement in solitary confinement from status-based
(e.g. based on gang affiliation), to infraction-based. Conflict over implementation remains; see also Plaintiffs’-Appellees’
Answering
Brief
on
Appeal,
Ashker
v.
Brown,
No.
18-cv-16427
(9th
Cir.
2019),
https://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/attach/2019/06/41%20Pltfs%27%20Answering%20Brief%202019-05-31.pdf;
Marisa Endicott, A 2015 Case was Supposed to Overhaul California’s Solitary Confinement. The Reality is Much More
Complicated, MOTHER JONES (Feb. 13, 2019), https://www.motherjones.com/crime-justice/2019/02/california-ashkerbrown-solitary-confinement-status-appeal/ [https://perma.cc/KP5S-QMC5].
623
Settlement Agreement, Ashker v. Baker, No. C 09-05796 CW (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2015),
https://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/09/2015-09-01-ashker-Settlement_Agreement.pdf; see also Paige St.
John, California Agrees to Move Thousands of Inmates Out of Solitary Confinement, L.A. TIMES (Sept. 1, 2015, 8:09
PM), available at https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-california-will-move-thousands-of-inmates-out-ofsolitary-20150901-story.html [https://perma.cc/T92Z-LMMQ].
624

Settlement Agreement at 10-11, Ashker v. Governor of California, No. C 09-05796 CW (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2015),
available at https://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/09/2015-09-01-ashker-Settlement_Agreement.pdf.

625

Ashker v. Newsom, No. 09-CV-05796-CW (RMI), 2019 WL 330461, at *14 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2019), appeal pending
(argued June 2020).

626

Porter v. Clarke, 923 F.3d 348, 353-57 (4th Cir. 2019), as amended (May 6, 2019), reh’g en banc denied (July 26
2019).
627

Porter v. Clarke, 1:14-cv-1588-LMB-IDD, Doc. 1, at 6 (E.D. Va. Nov. 20, 2014).

628

Porter, 923 F. 3d at 356-57.

629

Id. at 368.

630

See Porter v. Clarke, 290 F. Supp. 3d 518, 537–38 (E.D. Va. 2018), aff’d, 923 F.3d 348 (4th Cir. 2019), as amended
(May 6, 2019).

631

Reynolds v. Arnone, 402 F. Supp 3d. 3, 25 (D. Conn. 2019).

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

146
632

Id. at 12-13.

633

Id. at 45.

634

See Brief of Plaintiff-Appellee, Reynolds v. Arnone, 19-2858, Doc. 81, at 1 (2d Cir. Feb. 20, 2020); Brief of
Defendants-Appellants, Reynolds v. Arnone, 19-2858, Doc. 57, at 1 (2d Cir. Jan. 7, 2020).
635

Braggs v. Dunn, 367 F. Supp. 3d 1340 (M.D. Ala. 2019).

636

Braggs v. Dunn, 257 F. Supp. 3d 1171, 1267 (M.D. Ala. 2017).

637

Id. at 1268.

638

Braggs, 367 F. Supp. 3d at 1359.

639

Braggs v. Dunn, 367 F. Supp. 3d 1340, 1344-45 (M.D. Ala. 2019).

640

Braggs v. Dunn, No. 2:14cv601-MHT (WO), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75465 (M.D. Ala. May 4, 2019).

641

Disability Rights Montana v. Opper, 2:14-cv-00025-SHE, No. 1, at 2 (D. Mont. Mar. 31, 2014).

642

Disability Rights Montana, Inc. v. Batista, 930 F.3d 1090, 1098 (9th Cir. 2019).

643

H.C. v. Bradshaw, 9:18-cv-80810-WM, No. 79 (S.D. Fl. Nov. 16, 2018).

644

H.C. v. Bradshaw, 9:18-cv-80810-WM, No. 78-1, at 7, 9 (S.D. Fl. Nov. 15, 2018).

645

A.T. v. Harder, 9:17-cv-00817-DNH-DEP, No. 69-1, at 5 (N.D.N.Y. July 9, 2018).

646

Id. Further, “[s]uch confinement shall be for the minimum period of time necessary to resolve the threat,” and the
Sheriff’s Office is to “promptly notify mental health.” Id. The settlement also limits solitary confinement longer than 24
hours absent a review to determine continuing necessity, with subsequent reviews every eight hours. When confinement
extends beyond eight hours, the juvenile will, within the next eight hours, be seen by a medical or mental health
professional to assess “whether the juvenile poses an imminent threat of bodily harm to self or others because of a mental
health concern or [] whether the juvenile is experiencing serious harm as a result of their cell confinement.” Id. at 6. If
such is found to be the case, the jail will “follow the alternative placement or behavior management recommendations”
of the healthcare professional. Id. at 7.
647

Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 17 December 2015, UNITED NATIONS STANDARD MINIMUM RULES
TREATMENT OF PRISONERS (Nelson Mandela Rules), U.N. GENERAL ASSEMBLY, U.N. Doc. A/Res/70/175
(January 8, 2016), https://cdn.penalreform.org/wp-content/uploads/1957/06/ENG.pdf [hereinafter NELSON MANDELA
RULES].
FOR THE

648

ASCA-LIMAN REFORMING RESTRICTIVE HOUSING 2018, at 92-94.

649

Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Report on Torture
and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, ¶ 41, U.N. Doc A/HRC/43/49 (March 20, 2020).

650

Id. at ¶¶ 41, 57 n.43; see also NELSON MANDELA RULES, Rule 43(1)(b); Note by the Secretary General, Torture and
other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, ¶¶ 26, 80, U.N. Doc A/66/268 (August 5, 2011).

651

United States: prolonged solitary confinement amounts to psychological torture, says UN expert, U.N. OFFICE OF THE
HIGH COMM’R FOR HUMAN RIGHTS (Feb. 28, 2020),
https://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=25633&LangID=E#:~:text=Mr.,of%20the%
20Human%20Rights%20Council.
652

WMA Statement on Solitary Confinement, WORLD MEDICAL ASSOCIATION 1 (Oct.
https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-statement-on-solitary-confinement/ [hereinafter WMA Statement].

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

2019),

147
653

WMA Statement at 1.

654

Id. at 2.

655

Id.

656

See Corporation of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association v. Canada (Attorney General), 2019 ONCA 243(Mar.
28, 2019), at 21, 42, available at https://ccla.org/cclanewsite/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/C64841.rere_.pdf.

657

See British Columbia Civil Liberties Association v. Canada (Attorney General), 2019 BCCA 228 (June 24, 2019), at
42-43, available at https://bccla.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/2019-BCCA-228-British-Columbia-Civil-LibertiesAssociation-v.-Canada-Attorney-General.pdf; see also CANADIAN CONSTITUTION ACT 1982, SEC. 7, available at
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html.
658

See Colin Perkel, Federal government gives up fight against 15 day hard cap on solitary confinement, GLOBAL NEWS
(Apr. 22, 2020 6:18 AM), https://globalnews.ca/news/6851298/solitary-confinement-prison-canada/.

659

Bill C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another Act, Forty-Second Parliament,
First Session (2019) (Royal Assent granted June 21, 2019); see Lyne Casavant & Maxime Charron-Tousignant,
Legislative Summary of Bill C-83: An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another Act,
LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT (Aug. 27, 2019), available at
https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/LegislativeSummaries/421C83E#ftn30.
660

See Commissioner’s Directive 711: Structured Intervention Units, CORRECTIONAL SERV. OF CANADA, Annex C (Nov.
30, 2019), available at https://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/acts-and-regulations/711-cd-en.shtml.
661

State of Uttarakhand v. Hassan, REF/1/2014, ¶¶ 96, 100 (High Court of Uttarakhand, Apr. 27, 2018); see also Vineet
Upadhyay, Abolish solitary confinement of death convicts: HC, THE TIMES OF INDIA (April 28, 2018),
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/dehradun/abolish-solitary-confinement-of-death-convictshc/articleshow/63944418.cms.
662

Id. (quoting NELSON MANDELA RULES).

663
State of Punjab v. Ram, MRC-2-2018, ¶ 71 (High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Dec. 14, 2018); see Ajay Sura, No
solitary confinement of death row convicts in Punjab: Punjab and Haryana high court, THE TIMES OF INDIA (Dec. 16,
2018), https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chandigarh/no-solitary-confinement-of-death-row-convicts-in-punjabpunjab-and-haryana-high-court/articleshow/67111155.cms.
664

See IPS Policy for elimination of solitary confinement, IRISH PRISON SERVICE (Nov. 7, 2017),
https://www.irishprisons.ie/wp-content/uploads/documents_pdf/Elimination-of-solitary-confinement-Policy.pdf.
665

See Behind the Door: Solitary Confinement in the Irish Penal System, IRISH PENAL REFORM TRUST (2018), at 3,
https://www.iprt.ie/site/assets/files/6439/solitary_confinement_web.pdf.

666

Progress in the Penal System (PIPS): A framework for penal reform, IRISH PENAL REFORM TRUST (2019), at 91,
https://pips.iprt.ie/site/assets/files/Progress-in-the-Penal-System-2019.pdf.

667

Id. at 91.

668

See Report to the Norwegian Government on the visit to Norway carried out by the European Committee for the
Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, COUNCIL OF EUROPE (Jan. 17, 2019),
https://rm.coe.int/1680909713.

669

Id. at 5.

670

Id.

671

Id.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

148
672
Crushing Humanity: The Abuse of Solitary Confinement in Egypt’s Prisons, AMNESTY INT’L (2018),
https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/MDE1282572018ENGLISH.PDF.
673

Id. at 14.

674

Id. at 7.

675

Id. at 6.

676

Id. at 8.

677

Id.

678

Chief Inspector calls for major overhaul of harmful separation of children in young offender custody, HM
INSPECTORATE OF PRISONS (Jan. 21, 2020), https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/media/pressreleases/2020/01/chief-inspector-calls-for-major-overhaul-of-harmful-separation-of-children-in-young-offendercustody/; Separation of children in young offender institutions, HM INSPECTORATE OF PRISONS (January 2020),
https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2020/01/Separation-of-childrenthematic-Web-2019.pdf [hereinafter SEPARATION OF CHILDREN REPORT].
679

SEPARATION OF CHILDREN REPORT, at 5.

680

Id.

681
See generally Stopping Solitary Confinement, HUMAN RIGHTS LAW CENTRE (March 31, 2020),
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/580025f66b8f5b2dabbe4291/t/5e82ce8fe958d45ab1480a0a/1585630887751/HRL
C+Submission+-+Disability+Royal+Commission+-+Final.pdf.
682

Id. at 2.

683

Id. at 19.

684

Id. at 3.

685

See generally SOLITARY CONFINEMENT.

686

We provided two estimates using alternative calculation methods in Section II.

687

The thirty-three jurisdictions that provided data for all three years were Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut,
Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi,
Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. An additional three jurisdictions
provided data in both 2015 and 2019. These jurisdictions were Minnesota, Vermont, and Virginia. Two more jurisdictions,
Arkansas and Rhode Island, provided data in 2017 and 2019.
688

We clarified the definition of restrictive housing in the 2017 and 2019 surveys. In 2015, the survey defined restrictive
housing as being in-cell for twenty-two or more hours for fifteen or more continuous days; in 2017 and 2019, the survey
defined restrictive housing as being in cell for an average of twenty-two or more hours a day for fifteen or more continuous
days.

689

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania,
South Carolina, South Dakota, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

690

These jurisdictions were Illinois, Tennessee, and Texas.

691

These jurisdictions were Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, and Oregon.

692

These jurisdictions were Montana and Washington.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

149
693

These jurisdictions were, in order, New York, Louisiana, Georgia, Texas, and Illinois. Between 2017 and 2019, Texas
and Illinois both reflected an increase in their restrictive housing populations.

694

This jurisdiction was Louisiana.

695

This jurisdiction was Montana.

696

For example, Montana’s total custodial population decreased from 2, 554 in 2015 to 1, 769 in 2017 and 1,650 in 2019.
During the same time, however, its restrictive housing population increased from 3.5% of its population in 2015 to 6.4%
of its population in 2017 and 9.0% of its population in 2019. Thus, while the total number of prisoners in restrictive
housing decreased, the percentage of prisoners in restrictive housing increased.

697

These jurisdictions were Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,
South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. In addition, four jurisdictions provided this
data in 2015 and 2019: Connecticut, Maryland, Minnesota, and Vermont. Two jurisdictions, Alabama and Rhode Island,
provided this data in 2017 and 2019.
698

From 2015 to 2017 the number of people reported in restrictive housing for 15-30 days and for 31-90 days increased.
The reported numbers for these time frames decreased overall from 2015-2019.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

A-1

Appendix A: CLA (ASCA)-Liman 2019 Restrictive Housing Survey

ASCA Liman 2019 Restrictive Housing Survey
Introduction
As you know, ASCA and Yale’s Liman Center have since 2012 collected data to understand the
use of restrictive housing. Through our questionnaires we have provided a series of national
pictures detailing the numbers of people housed, the length of their stay, and policy reforms. As
in the past, after responses to this questionnaire are in and a draft report compiled, ASCA
members will receive a copy for comments. After we review comments, suggestions, and
corrections, the report will be revised for publication.
After ASCA-Liman began in 2012, several jurisdictions have enacted statutes requiring reporting
on some aspects of restrictive housing. Much of our survey overlaps with the requirements of
those statutes. In a few areas, we have revised questions to facilitate compliance in jurisdictions
where reporting is required.
Instructions and Definitions
The definition of the term “restrictive housing” in this survey is
separating prisoners from the general population and holding them in cell
for an average of 22 or more hours per day, for 15 or more continuous days.
Please respond with data on all forms of restrictive housing populations, whether called
administrative segregation, disciplinary segregation, protective custody, intensive management,
or another term. Further, please include prisoners held in single and in double cells. Please
provide numbers as of July 15, 2019, if possible. Otherwise, specify the date of the information
provided. PLEASE COMPLETE THE SURVEY BY OCTOBER 1, 2019.
Please either answer the survey in one session or download the attached PDF version, provide
answers, and then input them in one session into Qualtrics. Note: if you have questions before
answering, please contact ASCA-Liman at ascalimansurvey@yale.edu or call us at (203) 4363532. As we sometimes need to clarify information, please answer the question requesting the
name and title of the person we should contact.

Download survey as a PDF

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Page 1 of 63

A-2
Q1 Please select your jurisdiction and provide the date on which data were collected. If
possible, provide data as of July 15, 2019 or specify here the date used for all answers.
▼ Air Force Confinement and Corrections (1) ... Wyoming Department of Correction (63)

Q1a Name of contact person
________________________________________________________________

Q1b Title of contact person
________________________________________________________________

Q1c Contact phone number
________________________________________________________________

Q1d Contact email
________________________________________________________________

Q1e Information current as of what date in 2019?
Month

Day

Please Select:

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Page 2 of 63

A-3
Q2 Please indicate the extent of your jurisdiction’s control over the following types of facilities. By
DIRECT CONTROL, the survey means that your jurisdiction hires and supervises staff and that
your jurisdiction provides the governing rules and policies. Include facilities where certain
services, such as health care or laundry, are performed by subcontractors.
Facilities not under your direct control means facilities located in your jurisdiction that you do not
operate or manage. For example, a local jail that houses state prisoners or a privately operated
prison.
Our jurisdiction has
facilities of this type
under our DIRECT
CONTROL
Prisons
Jails
Juvenile Facilities
Mental Health
Facilities
Special facilities for
death-sentenced
prisoners
Privately operated
facilities
Immigration
detention facilities
Other (please
specify, or select 'our
jurisdiction does not
include this type of
facility')

Our jurisdiction has
facilities of this type
that are NOT under
our direct control

Our jurisdiction does
not include this type
of facility

o
o
o
o

o
o
o
o

o
o
o
o

o

o

o

o
o

o
o

o
o

o

o

o

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Page 3 of 63

A-4
Q3 Please indicate the total custodial population for all facilities under your DIRECT CONROL as
of July 15, 2019 or the date you indicated in answer to Q1.
TOTAL MALE CUSTODIAL
POPULATION for all facilities
of this type under your
DIRECT CONTROL

TOTAL FEMALE
CUSTODIAL POPULATION
for all facilities of this type
under your DIRECT
CONTROL

Prisons
Jails
Juvenile Facilities
Mental Health Facilities
Special facilities for deathsentenced prisoners
Privately operated facilities
Immigration detention
facilities
Other (please specify, or
select 'our jurisdiction does
not include this type of
facility')
Total

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Page 4 of 63

A-5
Q4 Some jurisdictions do not have data on the number of people in restrictive housing for their
total custodial population. For examples, some may not have data for all facilities within their
jurisdiction or all units within every facility. Please indicate the total population under your
DIRECT CONTROL, as of July 15, 2019 or the date you indicated in answer to Q1, for which
you can provide restrictive housing data.
TOTAL MALE CUSTODIAL
POPULATION in facilities
under your DIRECT
CONTROL for which you
CAN PROVIDE
RESTRICTIVE HOUSING
DATA:

TOTAL FEMALE
CUSTODIAL POPULATION
in facilities under your
DIRECT CONTROL for
which you CAN PROVIDE
RESTRICTIVE HOUSING
DATA:

Prisons
Jails
Juvenile Facilities
Mental Health Facilities
Special facilities for deathsentenced prisoners
Privately operated facilities
Immigration detention
facilities
Other (please specify, or
select 'our jurisdiction does
not include this type of
facility')
Total

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Page 5 of 63

A-6
Q5 How many people total are in restrictive housing, defined as in cell for an average of 22
or more hours a day for 15 or more continuous days, in the facilities under your direct
control?
Do NOT count people in cell for less than 15 days.
________________________________________________________________

Q5a How many people, by gender, are in restrictive housing, defined as in cell for an average
of 22 or more hours a day for 15 or more continuous days, in the facilities under your direct
control?
The total of male and female prisoners should match the total number of people in restrictive
housing, just provided.
Do NOT count people in cell for less than 15 days.
Number of MALE prisoners in
RESTRICTIVE HOUSING in
the facilities of this type that
are under your DIRECT
CONTROL:

Number of FEMALE
prisoners in RESTRICTIVE
HOUSING in the facilities of
this type that are under your
DIRECT CONTROL:

Prisons
Jails
Juvenile Facilities
Mental Health Facilities
Special facilities for deathsentenced prisoners
Privately operated facilities
Immigration detention
facilities
Other (please specify, or
select 'our jurisdiction does
not include this type of
facility')

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Page 6 of 63

A-7
Q6 Please answer as of July 15, 2019 or the date you provided in answer to Q1. If you do not
collect this data or the data is otherwise unavailable, please leave the field blank and check the
relevant boxes below.
This question asks about the population in cell for less than 22 hours or for less than 15 days.
Please 1) enter the number of people in cell for the following lengths of time, or 2) enter a zero to
indicate there are no people in cell for that length of time, or 3) leave the space blank to indicate
you cannot provide this information
Male

Female

Number of prisoners in cell
an average of 19-21 hours a
day for 15 days or more
Number of prisoners in cell
an average of 19-21 hours a
day for 1-14 days
Number of prisoners in cell
an average of 22 hours a day
for 1-14 days

Q6a If you left any of the previous categories blank, please explain why.

▢
▢
▢

We do not collect this information.
Our data system does not allow us to provide this information.

Other (please explain)
________________________________________________

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Page 7 of 63

A-8

Q7 Please provide, as of July 15, 2019 or the date you indicated in response to Q1, the number
of prisoners held in restrictive housing, defined as in cell for an average of 22 or more
hours per day for 15 or more continuous days, for the following time periods.
Fill in each box with: 1) the number of people in restrictive housing for that length of time, or 2) a
zero to indicate there were no people in restrictive housing for that length of time. If you do not
collect this data or the data is otherwise unavailable, leave the box blank.
Please provide the total number of days in restrictive housing REGARDLESS of type (whether
called protective, disciplinary, administrative, or other) and include all individuals whether they
were moved from one type to another.
Include individuals housed for 15 days or more in “consecutive” placements, defined as two or
more time periods not separated by an interval outside of restrictive housing. Do not include nonconsecutive or non-continuous placements.
15 days
– 30
days

31 days
– 90
days

91 days
– 180
days

181 days
– 365
days

1 year
and 1
day – 3
years

3 years
and 1
day – 6
years

more
than 6
years

Number
of MALE
prisoners
in
restrictive
housing
Number
of
FEMALE
prisoners
in
restrictive
housing

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Page 8 of 63

A-9
Q7a If you left any of the previous fields blank, please explain why.

▢
▢
▢

We do not collect this information
Our data system does not allow us to provide this information.

Other (please explain)
________________________________________________

Q8 For all facilities for which you can provide data on restrictive housing, do you regularly collect
information on HOW LONG each prisoner is in restrictive housing (length of time)?

o Yes
o Yes, but with the following caveats: ________________________________________
o No (please explain): ________________________________________________
Q9 In what year did your jurisdiction begin to regularly track length of time? Regularly track means
systematically collecting information at regular intervals on how long prisoners are in restrictive
housing, whether the data collection is done on paper or by computer.
▼ 1950 (1) ... 2019 (70)

Q10 Do the numbers you provided in Question 7 include the time that those individuals spent in
restrictive housing before your jurisdiction started regularly tracking length of time? (For example,
if you started regularly tracking in 2008, do the numbers include time spent in restrictive housing
before 2008?)

o Yes.
o No
o Other (please explain)

________________________________________________

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Page 9 of 63

A-10
Q10a [If yes] Please indicate how you determined each person’s length of time in restrictive
housing before you began regularly tracking. (For example, by reviewing individual records).
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Q11 Do you track whether individuals who were released from restrictive housing are returned
to restrictive housing during the same term of incarceration?

o Yes
o No
--------------------------------------------------------------

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Page 10 of 63

A-11
Q11a [If yes] Please provide the numbers of prisoners in restrictive housing who were returned
to restrictive housing in the following time periods.

o
Of the prisoners released from restrictive housing between July 1, 2017 and June 30,
2018, how many were returned within 7 days?
_________________________________

o

Of the prisoners released from restrictive housing between July 1, 2017 and June 30,
2018, how many were returned within 7-29 days?
_________________________________

o
Of the prisoners released from restrictive housing between July 1, 2017 and June 30,
2018, how many were returned within 30-89 days?
_________________________________

o
Of the prisoners released from restrictive housing between July 1, 2017 and June 30,
2018, how many were returned within 90-179 days?
__________________________________

o
Of the prisoners released from restrictive housing between July 1, 2017 and June 30,
2018, how many were returned within 180-365 days?
___________________________________
Q12 What racial and/or ethnic categories do you use to classify prisoners?

▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢

White
Black (African American)
Hispanic or Latino
Asian
Native American or Alaskan Native
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
Other

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Page 11 of 63

A-12
Q13
Explain how you define each category.
White
Black (African American)
Hispanic or Latino
Asian
Native American or Alaskan Native
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
Other

Q14 How are identifications made?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Q15 These questions ask about the total custodial population under your direct control and
for which you can provide restrictive housing data.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Page 12 of 63

A-13
Q15a Provide information on the number of prisoners by gender and age in the TOTAL
CUSTODIAL POPULATION. If you do not collect this data or the data is otherwise unavailable,
leave the box blank.
Male

Female

Under 18 years old
18-25 years old
26-35 years old
36-50 years old
Over 50 years old
Total

Q15b Provide information on the number of prisoners by gender and race/ethnicity in the
TOTAL CUSTODIAL POPULATION. If you do not collect this data or the data is otherwise
unavailable, leave the box blank.
Male

Female

White
Black (African American)
Hispanic or Latino
Asian
Native American or Alaskan Native
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
Other
Total
Q16 These questions ask about the population in restrictive housing, defined as in cell an
average of 22 hours a day for 15 days or more, in facilities under your direct control.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Page 13 of 63

A-14
Q16a Provide information on the number of prisoners by gender and age who are in
RESTRICTIVE HOUSING. If you do not collect this data or the data is otherwise unavailable,
leave the box blank.
Male

Female

Under 18 years old
18-25 years old
26-35 years old
36-50 years old
Over 50 years old
Total

Q16b Provide information on the number of prisoners by gender and race/ethnicity in
restrictive housing. If you do not collect this data or the data is otherwise unavailable, leave the
box blank.
Male

Female

White
Black (African American)
Hispanic or Latino
Asian
Native American or Alaskan Native
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
Other
Total

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Page 14 of 63

A-15
Q16c If you left any of the fields for Questions 15-16 blank, please explain why.

▢
▢
▢

We do not collect this information
Our data system does not allow us to provide this information.

Other (please explain)
________________________________________________

Q17 How does your jurisdiction define serious mental illness? Please provide the definition you
use (specify if using a diagnostic manual from the health sciences and which version).
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Q18 Provide the number of male and female prisoners classified as SERIOUSLY MENTALLY
ILL in 1) the TOTAL CUSTODIAL POPULATION UNDER YOUR DIRECT CONTROL and for
which you can provide restrictive housing data; and 2) the RESTRICTIVE HOUSING
POPULATION UNDER YOUR DIRECT CONTROL.
For all questions regarding serious mental illness, if the number of prisoners in a certain
category is so small that you have concerns about protecting identifying information, please

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Page 15 of 63

A-16
contact us directly at ascalimansurvey@yale.edu.
If you do not collect this data or the data is otherwise unavailable, leave the box blank.
Male

Female

1) Prisoners with Serious Mental Illness
in TOTAL CUSTODIAL POPULATION
under your direct control and for which
you can provide restrictive housing data
2) Prisoners with Serious Mental Illness
in RESTRICTIVE POPULATION under
your direct control

Q19 These questions ask about the total custodial population under your direct control and for
which you can provide restrictive housing data.
Provide the number of prisoners, by race/ethnicity, classified as SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL in
your jurisdiction's TOTAL CUSTODIAL POPULATION. If you do not collect this data or the data
is otherwise unavailable, leave the box blank.
Male

Female

White
Black (African American)
Hispanic or Latino
Asian
Native American or Alaskan Native
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
Other
Total

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Page 16 of 63

A-17
Q19a Provide the number of prisoners, by age, classified as SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL in
your jurisdiction's TOTAL CUSTODIAL POPULATION. If you do not collect this data or the data
is otherwise unavailable, leave the box blank.
Male

Female

Under 18
18 - 25
26 - 35
36-50
Over 50
Total

Q20 These questions ask about the population in restrictive housing, defined as in cell an
average of 22 hours a day for 15 days or more, in facilities under your direct control.
Provide the number of prisoners, by race/ethnicity, classified as SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL in
RESTRICTIVE HOUSING. If you do not collect this data or the data is otherwise unavailable,
leave the box blank.
Male

Female

White
Black (African American)
Hispanic or Latino
Asian
Native American or Alaskan Native
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
Other
Total

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Page 17 of 63

A-18

Q20a Provide the number of prisoners, by age, classified as SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL in
RESTRICTIVE HOUSING. If you do not collect this data or the data is otherwise unavailable,
leave the box blank.
Male

Female

Under 18
18 - 25
26 - 35
36-50
Over 50
Total
Q21 Please provide, as of July 15, 2019 or the date you indicated in response to Q1, the number
of seriously mentally ill prisoners in restrictive housing, defined as in cell for an average of 22 or
more hours per day for at least 15 continuous days, for the following time periods.
Fill in each box with: 1) the number of seriously mentally ill people in restrictive housing for that
length of time, or 2) a zero to indicate there were no seriously mentally ill people in restrictive
housing for that length of time. If you do not collect this data or the data is otherwise unavailable,
leave the box blank.
Provide the total number of days in restrictive housing REGARDLESS of status (disciplinary,
administrative, protective, or other) and include transgender individuals if they were moved from
one status or type to another.
If seriously mentally ill individuals are housed for 15 days or more in “consecutive” placements,
include them in these answers. Consecutive placements means two or more time periods with no

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Page 18 of 63

A-19
time outside of restrictive housing in between. Do not include non-consecutive or non-continuous
placements.
Number of seriously mentally ill prisoners in
restrictive housing
15 days – 30 days
31 days – 90 days
91 days – 180 days
181 days – 365 days
1 year and 1 day – 3 years
3 years and 1 day – 6 years
More than 6 years
Total
Q21a If you left any of the fields in Questions 18-21 blank, please explain why.

▢
▢
▢

We do not collect this information
Our data system does not allow us to provide this information.

Other (please explain)
________________________________________________

Q22 How are prisoners identified as transgender within your system? For example, by selfidentification or medical records.
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Page 19 of 63

A-20

Note: For the questions below, please leave the field blank if you do not track this information.
Enter “0” if you track the information and the answer to the question is zero.

Q23 How many transgender prisoners are in your jurisdiction’s total custodial population?
________________________________________________________________

Q24 How many transgender prisoners in your jurisdiction are in restrictive housing?
________________________________________________________________

Q24a If you left any of the previous fields blank, please explain why.

▢
▢
▢

We do not collect this information
Our data system does not allow us to provide this information.

Other (please explain)
________________________________________________

Note: For the questions below, please leave the field blank if you do not track this information.
Enter “0” if you track the information and the answer to the question is zero.

Q25 How many pregnant prisoners are in your jurisdiction’s total custodial population?
________________________________________________________________

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Page 20 of 63

A-21
Q26 How many pregnant prisoners in your jurisdiction are in restrictive housing?
________________________________________________________________

-------------------------------------------------------------Q26a If you left any of the previous fields blank, please explain why.

▢
▢
▢

We do not collect this information
Our data system does not allow us to provide this information.

Other (please explain)
________________________________________________

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Page 21 of 63

A-22
Q27 Please check any of the following subpopulations for which your jurisdiction’s restrictive
housing policies vary.
For any subpopulations with text boxes (juveniles, older prisoners, prisoners with special medical
needs, or other), please explain how your jurisdiction defines that subcategory.

▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢

Women
Pregnant prisoners
Juveniles ________________________________________________
Older prisoners ________________________________________________
Transgender prisoners
Prisoners with serious mental illness
Prisoners with special medical needs

_______________________________________

▢

Other (________________________________________________

Q27a For each of the subpopulations checked above, how does the restrictive housing policy
vary?

o Women ________________________________________________
o Pregnant prisoners ________________________________________________
o Juveniles ________________________________________________
o Older prisoners ________________________________________________
o Transgender prisoners ________________________________________________
o Prisoners with serious mental illness ________________________________________
o Prisoners with special medical needs _______________________________________
o Other ________________________________________________

Q27b For women in restrictive housing, are there gender responsive programs or policies?

o Yes (please explain)
o No

________________________________________________

--------------------------------------------------------------

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Page 22 of 63

A-23
Q27c Please upload any relevant policy or program documents regarding gender responsive
programs or policies.
If you have more than one file, please upload a .zip file or email the files to
ascalimansurvey@yale.edu.

--------------------------------------------------------------

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Page 23 of 63

A-24
Q27d For women in restrictive housing, are sanitary supplies provided?

o Yes (please explain)
o No

________________________________________________

Q28 What are the criteria for placement in restrictive housing? Check all that apply. List any
criteria not included.

▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢

Physical violence against staff
Physical violence against another prisoner
Self-harm
Prisoner poses a threat to the security or orderly operation of the institution
Prisoner poses a threat to others
Prisoner poses a threat to themselves
Participation in a fight
Membership in a security risk group
Attempted escape
Escape
Drug or alcohol use
Possession of a weapon
Prisoner requests placement
Nature of underlying offense of conviction or sentence
[Criteria not listed above]

________________________________________________

-------------------------------------------------------------Q28a If you selected 'nature of underlying offense of conviction or sentence' as a criterion for
placement in restrictive housing, list the offenses or sentence that result in restrictive housing
placement.
________________________________________________________________

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Page 24 of 63

A-25
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Q28b If a prisoner is placed in restrictive housing based on the offense or sentence (such as for
a capital crime), are the conditions of restrictive housing the same as those for other people in
restrictive housing?

o Yes
o
No (please explain differences)
________________________________________________
-------------------------------------------------------------Q28c Upload any relevant policy or program documents regarding prisoners placed based on
offense or sentence.
If you have more than one file, upload a .zip file or email the files to ascalimansurvey@yale.edu.

Q29 As of July 15, 2019 or the date provided in answer to Q1, of the people in restrictive housing,
how many are placed there for each of the following reasons? If an individual is placed in
restrictive housing for more than one reason, count that person more than once. If you do not

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Page 25 of 63

A-26
collect this data or the data is otherwise unavailable, please leave the box blank.
Number of male prisoners
currently in restrictive
housing for this reason

Number of female prisoners
currently in restrictive
housing for this reason

Physical violence against staff
Physical violence against
another prisoner
Self-harm
Prisoner poses a threat to the
security or orderly operation of
the institution
Prisoner poses a threat to
others
Prisoner poses a threat to
themselves
Participation in a fight
Membership in a security risk
group
Attempted escape
Escape
Drug or alcohol use
Possession of a weapon
Prisoner requests placement
Nature of underlying offense of
conviction or sentence
[Criteria not listed above]
Q30 As of July 15 2019 or the date provided in answer to Q1, how many prisoners in restrictive
housing, by age, are placed there for each of the following reasons? If an individual is placed in
restrictive housing for more than one reason, count that person more than once. If you do not

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Page 26 of 63

A-27
collect this data or the data is otherwise unavailable, please leave the box blank.
For the following table, please answer for MALE prisoners only.
Under 18

18-25

26-35

36-50

Over 50

Physical violence against staff
Physical violence against
another prisoner
Self-harm
Prisoner poses a threat to the
security or orderly operation of
the institution
Prisoner poses a threat to
others
Prisoner poses a threat to
themselves
Participation in a fight
Membership in a security risk
group
Attempted escape
Escape
Drug or alcohol use
Possession of a weapon
Prisoner requests placement
Nature of underlying offense of
conviction or sentence
[Criteria not listed above]

Q30a As of July 15 2019 or the date provided in answer to Q1, how many prisoners in restrictive
housing, by age, are placed there for each of the following reasons? If an individual is placed in
restrictive housing for more than one reason, count that person more than once. If you do not

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Page 27 of 63

A-28
collect this data or the data is otherwise unavailable, please leave the box blank.
For the following table, please answer for FEMALE prisoners only.
Under 18

18-25

26-35

36-50

Over 50

Physical violence against staff
Physical violence against
another prisoner
Self-harm
Prisoner poses a threat to the
security or orderly operation of
the institution
Prisoner poses a threat to
others
Prisoner poses a threat to
themselves
Participation in a fight
Membership in a security risk
group
Attempted escape
Escape
Drug or alcohol use
Possession of a weapon
Prisoner requests placement
Nature of underlying offense of
conviction or sentence
[Criteria not listed above]

Q31 As of July 15 2019 or the date provided in Question 1, how many prisoners in restrictive
housing, by race, are placed there for each of the following reasons? If an individual is placed in
restrictive housing for more than one reason, count that person more than once. If you do not

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Page 28 of 63

A-29
collect this data or the data is otherwise unavailable, please leave the box blank.
For the following table, please answer for MALE prisoners only.

White

Black
(African
American)

Hispanic
or
Latino

Asian

Native
American
or
Alaskan
Native

Native
Hawaiian
or Pacific
Islander

Other

Physical violence
against staff
Physical violence
against another
prisoner
Self-harm
Prisoner poses a
threat to the
security or orderly
operation of the
institution
Prisoner poses a
threat to others
Prisoner poses a
threat to
themselves
Participation in a
fight
Membership in a
security risk
group
Attempted
escape
Escape
Drug or alcohol
use
Possession of a
weapon

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Page 29 of 63

A-30
Prisoner requests
placement
Nature of
underlying
offense of
conviction or
sentence
[Criteria not listed
above]

Q31b As of July 15 2019 or the date provided in Question 1, how many prisoners in restrictive
housing, by race, are placed there for each of the following reasons? If an individual is placed in
restrictive housing for more than one reason, count that person more than once. If you do not
collect this data or the data is otherwise unavailable, please leave the box blank.
For the following table, please answer for FEMALE prisoners only.

White

Black
(African
American)

Hispanic
or
Latino

Asian

Native
American
or
Alaskan
Native

Native
Hawaiian
or Pacific
Islander

Other

Physical
violence against
staff
Physical
violence against
another prisoner
Self-harm
Prisoner poses a
threat to the
security or
orderly operation
of the institution
Prisoner poses a
threat to others

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Page 30 of 63

A-31
Prisoner poses a
threat to
themselves
Participation in a
fight
Membership in a
security risk
group
Attempted
escape
Escape
Drug or alcohol
use
Possession of a
weapon
Prisoner
requests
placement
Nature of
underlying
offense of
conviction or
sentence
[Criteria not
listed above]

Q31c If you left any of the fields for Questions 29-31 blank, please explain why.

▢
▢
▢

We do not collect this information
Our data system does not allow us to provide this information.

Other (please explain)
________________________________________________

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Page 31 of 63

A-32
Q32 Which staff or administrators make the decision to place someone in restrictive housing?
Please indicate the staff or administrative position or role, NOT the person’s name.
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Q32a How and by whom is the decision to place someone in restrictive housing reviewed?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Q32b Is review mandatory?

o Yes
o No
Q32c Is there a time limit within which the decision to place someone in restrictive housing must
be reviewed?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Page 32 of 63

A-33
Q33 Do mental health professionals screen prisoners before placement in restrictive housing
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Q33a Do mental health professionals screen prisoners within 48 hours of placement?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Q34 Is placement for a predetermined or indeterminate length of time?

o Predetermined length of time
o Indeterminate
o It depends (please explain) ________________________________________________

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Page 33 of 63

A-34
Q35 Is there a cap on length of time in restrictive housing?

o Yes, and it is ________________________________________________
o No
o Sometimes (please explain) ______________________________________________
Q35a In calculating whether the cap on length of time in restrictive housing is reached, do you
include consecutive placements? Consecutive placements mean placement in restrictive housing
for two or more time periods with no time out of restrictive housing in between.
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Q35b In calculating whether the cap is reached, do you include successive or repeated
placements? Repeated placements means placement in restrictive housing for two or more time
periods with 48 hours or less outside of restrictive housing in between placement.
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Page 34 of 63

A-35
Q36 What information is provided to prisoners upon entry into restrictive housing? For example,
rules, duration of placement, available programming?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Q37 Once placed, can prisoners’ behavior reduce the length of time in restrictive housing?

o
Yes (If yes, please explain how. Additionally, please explain how prisoners are informed
of this option, if at all.) _______________________________________________
o No
Q38 How often is the restrictive housing status of a prisoner reviewed?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Q38a Who reviews the status? Indicate the staff position or title NOT the name.
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Page 35 of 63

A-36
Q39 Are prisoners in restrictive housing monitored by mental health professionals?

o Yes
o No
Q39a [If yes] What is the ratio of prisoners in restrictive housing to mental health professionals
who provide services to restrictive housing?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Q39b [If yes] How often do mental health staff visit prisoners in restrictive housing? (specify per
day, week, or month)
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Page 36 of 63

A-37
Q39c How are mental health visits made?

▢
▢
▢

through cell door with prisoner inside and professional outside
both prisoner and professional inside cell

both prisoner and professional outside cell (please explain where):
________________________________________________

▢

other (for example, video, phone, telepsych):
__________________________________

Q40 Of the number of people in restrictive housing (in cell for an average of 22 hours a day or
more for 15 days or more) in facilities under your direct control, how many people are in cells
without a cellmate?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Q41 Of the number of people in restrictive housing (in cell for an average of 22 hours a day or
more for 15 days or more) in facilities under your direct control, how many people are in cells
with one or more other prisoners?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Q42 Is there natural light in each cell?

o Yes
o No
CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Page 37 of 63

A-38
Q42a For how many hours a day is artificial light turned on:

o 24 hours on
o 16 hours on
o Other ________________________________________________
Q43 Is there in-cell programming in restrictive housing?

o Yes
o No
Q43a How many hours of in-cell programming are provided per week?
________________________________________________________________

Q44 Describe the type of in-cell programming and any limitations on participation.
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Q44a
Upload any relevant policy or program documents regarding in-cell programming and limits on
participation.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Page 38 of 63

A-39
If you have more than one file, upload a .zip file or email the files to ascalimansurvey@yale.edu.

Q45 Do prisoners in restrictive housing have access to television, music, internet or reading and
writing materials?

o Yes
o No
Q45a [If yes] What type(s) of television, music, internet or reading and writing materials do they
have access to?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Q45b [If yes] Do they have access to tablets?

o Yes
o No
Q45c [If yes] Are any reading materials provided free of charge? (If yes, please describe what
type and how provided):
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Page 39 of 63

A-40
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Q46 May prisoners in restrictive housing purchase items from the commissary?

o Yes
o Yes, with limitations (please explain) ________________________________________
o No

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Page 40 of 63

A-41
Q47 How many hours per week are prisoners in restrictive housing out of cell for:
times per week

hours allotted for each event

Showers
Individual exercise
Group exercise
Individual out-of-cell
programming
Group out-of-cell programming
Individual meals out-of-cell
Group meals out-of-cell
Other individual, unstructured
time out-of-cell (not designated
for showers, exercise, meals,
formal programming)
Other group, unstructured time
out-of-cell (not designated for
showers, exercise, meals,
formal programming)
TOTAL TIME OUT-OF-CELL

Q47a If time out-of-cell varies for prisoner or for type of restrictive housing, please explain:
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Page 41 of 63

A-42
Q47b Where does the exercise take place?

▢
▢

Outdoors
Indoors

Q47c [If outdoors] Is the area for outdoors exercise designated for restrictive housing use?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Q47d [If outdoors] What are the dimensions of the outdoor exercise area?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Q47e [If indoors] Is the indoors exercise area designated for restrictive housing use?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Q47f [If indoors] What are the dimensions of the indoor exercise area?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Q47g [If indoors] Is there natural light in the indoor exercise area?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Page 42 of 63

A-43

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Page 43 of 63

A-44
Q48 Describe the type of out-of-cell programming available for prisoners in restrictive housing
and any limitations on participation. Include any educational, out-of-cell classes.
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Q48a Upload any relevant programming documents.
If you have more than one file, upload a .zip file or email the files to ascalimansurvey@yale.edu.

Q48b Can prisoners in restrictive housing access a GED or other diploma program? Please
explain.
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Page 44 of 63

A-45
Q49 May prisoners in restrictive housing receive social visits?

o Yes
o No
Q49a How many social visits are allowed? Specify per day, week, month or other time period:
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Q49b Are there any restrictions on social visits? (If yes, please explain):
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Q49c Are restrictions on social visits different for prisoners in restrictive housing than for those
in the general population? (If yes, please explain):
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Page 45 of 63

A-46
Q50 May prisoners in restrictive housing make social phone calls?

o Yes
o No
Q50a How many social calls are allowed? Specify per day, week, month or other time period:
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Q50b Are there any restrictions on phone calls? (If yes, please explain):
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Q50c Are restrictions on phone calls different for prisoners in restrictive housing than for those
in the general population? (If yes, please explain):
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Page 46 of 63

A-47
Q51 May prisoners in restrictive housing send and receive physical or electronic social mail?

o Yes
o No
Q51a Are there any restrictions on social correspondence for prisoners in restrictive housing? (If
yes, please explain):
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Q51n Are restrictions on social correspondence different for prisoners in restrictive housing than
for those in the general population? (If yes, please explain):
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Page 47 of 63

A-48
Q52 What is the policy regarding step-down or transition programs, including whether a prisoner
may be released directly from restrictive housing to the community and/or to the general
population? Step-down or transition programs refers to a process by which prisoners are gradually
returned from restrictive housing to the general population or to the community through some
form of programming or phases of decreasing restriction.
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

These questions ask about release from restrictive housing to the community.
Q53 How many prisoners during calendar year 2018 were released directly from restrictive
housing to the community without completing a step-down or transition program?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Q54 How many prisoners during calendar year 2018 were released into the community not more
than 30 days after having been in restrictive housing, without completing a step-down or transition
program?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Q55 How many prisoners during calendar year 2018 were released from restrictive housing to
the community via a step-down or transition program?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Page 48 of 63

A-49
These questions ask about release from restrictive housing to the general population.

Q56 How many prisoners during calendar year 2018 were released directly from restrictive
housing to the general population without completing a step-down or transition program?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Q57 How many prisoners during calendar year 2018 were released from restrictive housing to
the general population via a step-down or transition program?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Page 49 of 63

A-50
Q58 Do you collect data on the number of individuals (whether in general population or restrictive
housing) who return to prison after being released to the community (recidivism data)?

o Yes
o No
Q58a [If yes] For the following questions, count people who were released from prison during
calendar year 2015 and who returned to prison. Count both returns for new convictions and
returns for technical violations. Count the number of prisoners released, not the number of
releases.
Include only those prisoners who were released from prison because they completed their
sentence, were released on parole or probation, or who received conditional release.
People who returned to prison within 12 months should also be counted among those returned to
prison within 24 months and within 36 months. People who returned to prison within 24 months
should also be counted among those returned to prison within 36 months. The percentage of
people who returned to prison within 36 months should thus be greater than both the other two
percentages.

Q58b What percentage of people released from prison during calendar year 2015 returned to
prison within 12 months?
________________________________________________________________
58c What percentage of people released from prison during calendar year 2015 returned to
prison within 24 months?
________________________________________________________________
Q58d What percentage of people released from prison during calendar year 2015 returned to
prison within 36 months?
________________________________________________________________

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Page 50 of 63

A-51
Q58e [If yes] Do you collect data on the number of individuals who were in restrictive housing
at any point during their incarceration and who return to prison after being released to the
community?

o Yes
o No
Q58f For the following questions, include individuals who were in restrictive housing at any point
during the incarceration from which they were released in 2015. Include individuals whether they
were released directly from restrictive housing to the community or not. Do NOT count individuals
who were never in restrictive housing or who were only in restrictive housing during a previous
term of incarceration that ended before 2015.
Count both returns for new convictions and returns for technical violations. Count the number of
prisoners released, not the number of releases.
Include only those prisoners who were released from prison because they completed their
sentence, were released on parole or probation, or who received conditional release.
People who returned to prison within 12 months should also be counted among those returned to
prison within 24 months and within 36 months. People who returned to prison within 24 months
should also be counted among those returned to prison within 36 months. The percentage of
people who returned to prison within 36 months should thus be greater than both the other two
percentages.

Q58g
What percentage of people who were in restrictive housing and were released
from prison during calendar year 2015 returned to prison within 12 months?
________________________________________________________________

Q58h
What percentage of people who were in restrictive housing and were released
from prison during calendar year 2015 returned to prison within 24 months?
________________________________________________________________

Q58i
What percentage of people who were in restrictive housing and were released
from prison during calendar year 2015 returned to prison within 36 months?
________________________________________________________________

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Page 51 of 63

A-52
The following questions ask about staffing and training for restrictive housing units.

Q59 Do you require different qualifications to work in restrictive housing units than in general
populations? (If so, specify)
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Q60 Do you provide for staff working in restrictive housing additional training or educational
opportunities beyond the training provided to all staff? (If so, specify)
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Q61 Do staff in restrictive housing have schedules for work different than those working in
general population units? (If so, specify)
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Q61a Is there a limit on overtime hours in restrictive housing units? (If so, specify)
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Page 52 of 63

A-53
Q61b Are staff in restrictive housing rotated out of restrictive housing after a specified time
period? (If so, specify the time period)
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Q62 Do restrictive housing staff receive extra pay as salary or bonuses? (If so, specify
parameters or amounts)
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Q63 Are other staffing policies different for restrictive housing?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Q64 In an ideal situation, if your jurisdiction had the necessary resources, what number of hours
per day or week do you believe prisoners should be out of cell?

▢
▢

Hours per day ________________________________________________
Hours per week ________________________________________________

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Page 53 of 63

A-54
Q65 Do you collect data on incidents of violence in the general population and in restrictive
housing?

o Yes
o No
Q65a How many incidents of violence in the general population have you counted in calendar
year 2018?
________________________________________________________________

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Page 54 of 63

A-55
Q65b Types of violence counted and the number of incidents in each category in the general
population in calendar year 2018:
Leave the box blank if you do not count this
type of violence, enter 0 if you do track it and
there were zero incidents
Prisoner-on-prisoner assaults
Prisoner-on-prisoner fights
Prisoner-on-staff assaults
Staff-on-prisoner assaults
Prisoner-on-prisoner sexual violence
Prisoner-on-staff sexual violence
Staff-on-prisoner sexual misconduct
Prisoner-on-prisoner homicides
Prisoner suicides
Prisoner self-harm
Other (Explain)
Q65c How many incidents of violence in restrictive housing have you counted in calendar year
2018?
________________________________________________________________

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Page 55 of 63

A-56
Q65d Types of violence counted and the number of incidents in each category in restrictive
housing in calendar year 2018:
Leave the box blank if you do not count this
type of violence, enter 0 if you do track it and
there were zero incidents
Prisoner-on-prisoner assaults
Prisoner-on-prisoner fights
Prisoner-on-staff assaults
Staff-on-prisoner assaults
Prisoner-on-prisoner sexual violence
Prisoner-on-staff sexual violence
Staff-on-prisoner sexual misconduct
Prisoner-on-prisoner homicides
Prisoner suicides
Prisoner self-harm
Other (Explain)
Q66 Upload any research on incidents of violence in restrictive housing. Include both published
research as well as any internal agency reporting, if available.
If you have more than one file, upload a .zip file or email the files to ascalimansurvey@yale.edu.

Q67 If you have any research on restrictive housing in your jurisdiction generally, please upload
it.
If you have more than one file, upload a .zip file or email the files to ascalimansurvey@yale.edu.
Q68 Upload your restrictive housing policies.
If you have more than one file, upload a .zip file or email the files to ascalimansurvey@yale.edu.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Page 56 of 63

A-57
Q69 Since January 1, 2018 have your jurisdiction’s restrictive housing policies changed for any
of the following?
Please check any of the categories for which policies have changed

▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢

Criteria for placement
Length of time placed
Review of placement
Time out of cell
Programming
Release from restrictive housing
Data collection
Use of restrictive housing based on age of prisoner
Use of restrictive housing for prisoners with serious mental illness
Use of restrictive housing for pregnant prisoners
Use of restrictive housing for transgender prisoners

Q69a [For any of the categories checked] What was the policy on [category] before January 1,
2018?
If you have more than one file, upload a .zip file or email the files to ascalimansurvey@yale.edu.
Alternately, you can paste the text of any policy below.

-------------------------------------------------------------Q69b How did the policy on [category] change?.
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Page 57 of 63

A-58
Q69c Why did you change the policy on [category]?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Q69d When was the change put into place?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Q69e Does the change affect only certain facilities within your jurisdiction?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Page 58 of 63

A-59
Q70 Are there any planned changes to your restrictive housing policy that have not yet been put
into place? If so, please explain, including the reasons for the proposed change and the time
frame for implementation.
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Q71 Has your jurisdiction studied the impact of restrictive housing policy changes on any of the
following in your jurisdiction? Please select all that apply:

▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢

Incidents of prisoner self-harm
Incidents of use of force
Prisoner morale
Staff morale
Staff well-being and/or safety
Prisoner success in the general population, programs, or other activities
Prisoner success in returning to communities

Other (please explain)
________________________________________________

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Page 59 of 63

A-60
Q72 Upload any research on the areas selected.
If you have more than one file, upload a .zip file or email the files to ascalimansurvey@yale.edu.

Q73 Does your jurisdiction have future plans to study policy changes and their impact on any of
the following? If so, please select all that apply.

▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢

Incidents of prisoner self-harm
Incidents of use of force
Prisoner morale
Staff morale
Staff well-being and/or safety
Prisoner success in the general population, programs, or other activities
Prisoner success in returning to communities

Other (please explain)
________________________________________________

Q73a Upload any research proposals regarding the areas selected.
If you have more than one file, upload a .zip file or email the files to ascalimansurvey@yale.edu.

Q73b If you do not have a file to upload regarding any areas selected, please briefly summarize
the proposed research.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Page 60 of 63

A-61
If you have more than one file, upload a .zip file or email the files to ascalimansurvey@yale.edu.
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Q74 In August 2016, the American Correctional Association (ACA) adopted new standards on
restrictive housing. Has your jurisdiction reviewed its restrictive housing policies since August
2016?

o Yes
o No
Q74a Date policies on restrictive housing were last reviewed
________________________________________________________________
Q75 Does your jurisdiction rely on the ACA standards when developing policies?

o Yes (please explain) ________________________________________________
o No (please explain) ________________________________________________
Q76 Since August 2016, has your jurisdiction implemented the requirements of ACA standard
4-RH-0034, which prohibits the use of extended restrictive housing (more than 29 continuous
days) for offenders under the age of 18?

o
Yes (please explain and indicate when the requirements were implemented)
________________________________________________
o No
o
We have substantially implemented this policy, with exceptions (please explain)
________________________________________________
o This was our jurisdiction’s policy before the 2016 ACA revisions

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Page 61 of 63

A-62
Q77 Since August 2016, has your jurisdiction implemented the requirements of ACA standard
4-RH-0033, which prohibits the use of extended restrictive housing (more than 29 continuous
days) for females determined to be pregnant?

o
Yes (please explain and indicate when the requirements were implemented)
________________________________________________
o No
o
We have substantially implemented this policy, with exceptions (please explain)
________________________________________________
o This was our jurisdiction’s policy before the 2016 ACA revisions
Q78 Since August 2016, has your jurisdiction implemented the requirements of ACA standard
4-RH-0031, which prohibits the use of extended restrictive housing (more than 29 continuous
days) for inmates diagnosed as seriously mentally ill?

o
Yes (please explain and indicate when the requirements were implemented)
________________________________________________
o No
o
We have substantially implemented this policy, with exceptions (please explain)
________________________________________________
o This was our jurisdiction’s policy before the 2016 ACA revisions
Q79 Since August 2016, has your agency implemented ACA standard 4-RH-0030, whereby it
attempts not to release inmates from restrictive housing directly into the community?

o
Yes (please explain and indicate when the requirements were implemented)
________________________________________________
o No
o
We have substantially implemented this policy, with exceptions (please explain)
________________________________________________
o This was our jurisdiction’s policy before the 2016 ACA revisions
Q80 Please describe any other policies your jurisdiction has revised since August 2016 in light
of the ACA’s revised restrictive housing standards.
________________________________________________________________

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Page 62 of 63

A-63
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Q81 Warning: this is the last question of this survey. Once you press next, the survey will
complete and you will not be able to submit any more answers.

o I understand, and I have completed the survey.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

Page 63 of 63

B-1
Appendix B: Total Prison Populations for Responding and Non-Responding Jurisdictions

Jurisdiction
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri

Total Population under
Legal Control as of
December 20191
28,266
4,475
42,441
17,759
125,507
19,714
12,293
5,692
96,009
55,556
5,179
9,437
38,259
27,268
9,282
10,177
23,436
31,609
2,205
18,686
8,205
38,053
9,982
19,469
26,044

1

Population under Direct
Control and Reported in the
2019 CLA-Liman Survey
20,673
0 (No Survey Response)
42,312
15,618
0 (No Survey Response)
14,397
12,942
4,568
0 (No Survey Response)
44,073
3,561
9,196
38,425
27,182
0 (No Survey Response)
10,005
11,465
14,269
2,289
19,059
8,424
0 (No Survey Response)
8,565
9,436
27,924

Difference: Incarcerated
Population Not Counted by
the 2019 CLA-Liman Survey
7,593
4,475
129
2,141
125,507
5,317
-649
1,124
96,009
11,483
1,618
241
-166
86
9,282
172
11,971
17,340
-84
-373
-219
38,053
1,417
10,033
-1,880

These data are from the Vera Institute of Justice. See Jacob Kang-Brown, Chase Montagnet, Eital Schattner-Elmaleh, & Olivia Hinds, People in Prison in 2019
at 2 (Vera Institute of Justice May 2020), https://www.vera.org/downloads/publications/people-in-prison-in-2019.pdf.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

B-2

Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Federal Prison System
Total

3,811
5,651
12,942
2,622
18,613
6,723
44,284
34,510
1,794
49,762
25,712
15,755
45,875
2,740
18,608
3,804
26,539
158,820
6,731
1,608
36,091
19,160
6,800
23,956
2,479
175,116
1,435,509

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

1,650
5,499
0 (No Survey Response)
0 (No Survey Response)
0 (No Survey Response)
0 (No Survey Response)
46,066
34,869
1,775
48,887
17,531
14,734
45,174
2,663
18,401
3,858
21,817
143,473
0 (No Survey Response)
1,479
29,994
17,668
0 (No Survey Response)
23,539
2,013
0 (No Survey Response)
825,473

2,161
152
12,942
2,622
18,613
6,723
-1,782
-359
19
875
8,181
1,021
701
77
207
-54
4,722
15,347
6,731
129
6,097
1,492
6,800
417
466
175,116
610,036

C-1
Appendix C: Definitions of “Serious Mental Illness” by Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction
Alabama

Arizona
Arkansas

Colorado

Connecticut
Delaware

Definition of “Serious Mental Illness”
“Psychotic Disorders, Bipolar Disorders, Major Depressive Disorder: any diagnosed mental disorder
(excluding substance use disorders) associated with serious impairment in psychological, cognitive, or
behavioral functioning that substantially interferes with the person's ability to meet the ordinary demands of
living and requires an individualized treatment plan by a qualified mental health professional(s).”
A patient is designated as SMI if according to a licensed mental health clinician or provider, the patient
possesses 1) a qualifying mental health diagnosis; and 2) a severe functional impairment directly relating to
his/her mental illness.
SMI are defined as Psychotic, Bipolar and Major Depressive Disorders and any other diagnosed mental
disorder (excluding substance use disorders) associated with serious behavioral impairment as evidenced by
examples of acute decompensation, self-injurious behaviors and mental health emergencies that require an
individualized treatment plan by a qualified mental health professional.
Serious Mental Illness: The current diagnosis of any of the following DSM diagnoses accompanied by the Pcode qualifier of M, denoting the presence of a major mental disorder: schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder,
delusional disorder, schizophreniform disorder, brief psychotic disorder, substance-induced psychotic disorder
(excluding intoxication and withdrawal), unspecified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder
(previously psychotic disorder not otherwise specified), major depressive disorders, and bipolar disorders.
Offenders, regardless of diagnosis, indicating a high level of mental health needs based upon high symptom
severity and/or high resource demands, which demonstrate significant impairment in their ability to function
within the correctional environment.
CDOC Clinical Services uses the Diagnostic and Strategic Manual of Mental Disorder, Fifth Edition (DSM-5)
An inmate with a Mental Health (MH) score of 4-5 is considered our highest mental health level. This level
can change and be lowered. If an inmate is placed as a MH 4-5 they are usually prescribed a psychoactive
drug. The raising or lowering of a score can only be done by a mental health professional.
Delaware defines serious mental illness (SMI) as:
Serious Mental Illness: Serious Mental Illness (SMI) includes offenders diagnosed with the following:
- Schizophrenia
- Delusional Disorder
- Schizophreniform Disorder
- Schizoaffective Disorder

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

C-2

Georgia

Hawaii
Idaho

Illinois

- Brief Psychotic Disorder
- Substance-Induced Psychotic Disorder (excluding intoxication or withdrawal)
- Other Specified Psychotic Disorder
- Major depressive Disorder
- Bipolar I, II Disorder
- Other Specified Bipolar Disorder
- Anyone who has Significant Functional Impairment (SFI) due to their mental health (including severe
Personality Disorders, Intellectual Disability, Autism Spectrum Disorder), defined as:
• Self-harming behaviors (i.e., cutting, head-banging, suicide attempts, self-strangulation, selfmutilation, swallowing foreign bodies, etc.)
• Demonstrated difficulty in his or her ability to engage in activities of daily living (i.e., eating,
grooming, participation in recreation, etc.)
• Demonstrated a pervasive pattern of dysfunctional or disruptive social interactions (i.e., social
isolation, bizarre behavior, disruptive behavior, etc.).
(Disability Law Center, Inc. v. Massachusetts Department of Correction, et. al., Civil Action No. 07-10463)
A substantial disorder of thought or mood which significantly impairs judgment, behavior, capacity to
recognize reality or cope with the ordinary demands of life within the prison environment and which is
manifested by pain or disability. Serious mental illness requires a mental health diagnosis, prognosis and
treatment by appropriate mental health staff.
We have adopted the definition used by ACA to describe serious mental illness.
Offenders with the two highest levels of mental health care. This Level of Care is for inmates with the most
profound and debilitating impairments in functioning. These inmates may present a serious risk to the safety of
self and others. Inmates at this level of care must be housed in a specialized Acute Mental Health Unit unless
imminent security issues exist, in which case alternative placement must be approved by the chief psychologist
and facility head.
Seriously Mentally Ill (SMI) “shall mean an offender who as a result of a medical disorder as defined in the
current edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) of the American
Psychiatric Association, exhibits impaired emotional, cognitive or behavioral functioning that interferes
seriously with his or her ability to function adequately except with supportive treatment or services. These
individuals also must either currently have, or have had within the past year, a diagnosed mental disorder, or
must currently exhibit significant signs and symptoms of a mental disorder. A diagnosis of alcoholism or drug
addiction, developmental disorders, or any form of sexual disorder shall not, by itself, render an individual
seriously mentally ill. The combination of either a diagnosis or significant signs and symptoms of a mental

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

C-3

Indiana

disorder and an impaired level of functioning, as outlined above, is necessary for one to be considered
Seriously Mentally Ill. Whether a person meets the criteria of Seriously Mentally Ill is initially determined by
a comprehensive professional clinical assessment by an IDOC mental health professional in order to 1)
determine if the individual has a diagnosable mental disorder as defined by the current DSM and 2) to
establish the personal overall level of functioning. The appropriate threshold to establish level of functioning
that equates to a Serious Mental Illness includes serious impairments in capacity to recognize reality, in work
environments, school or learning environments, frequent problems with authority/rules, occasional combative
behavior, serious impairments in relationships with friends and family, serious impairments in judgment,
thinking and mood and serious impairment due to anxiety. These aforementioned disturbances must be
observed in at least one of the areas listed above.”
a. Prisoners determined to have a current diagnosis or recent significant history of schizophrenia,
delusional disorder, schizophreniform disorder, schizoaffective disorder, brief psychotic disorder,
substance-induced psychotic disorder (excluding intoxication and withdrawal), undifferentiated
psychotic disorder, bipolar I or II disorders;
b. Prisoners diagnosed with any other validated mental illness that is clinically severe, based on evidencebased standards, and that results in significant functional impairment; and
c. Prisoners diagnosed with an intellectual or developmental disability or other cognitive disorder that
results in a significant functional impairment.
d. As used above:
i. “Recent significant history” refers to a diagnosis made at any time in the last 12 months.
ii. “Significant functional impairment” includes one of the following as determined by qualified
mental health staff:
o Within the previous 6 months, the prisoner has either made a suicide attempt that mental
health staff considers serious, inflicted self-injury that mental health staff considers
serious, or both;
o The prisoner has demonstrated difficulty in his/her ability to engage in activities of daily
living including:
§ Eating
§ Grooming and/or personal hygiene
§ Maintenance of housing area
§ Participation in recreation
§ Ambulation

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

C-4

Kansas
Kentucky

o The prisoner has demonstrated a pervasive pattern of dysfunctional or disruptive social
interactions, bizarre or disruptive behavior, etc., as a result of mental illness.
iii. A misdiagnosis does not qualify as a diagnosis or determination of mental illness for purposes
of this settlement, once the error has been determined by a qualified mental health professional.
Mental health is diagnosis with mental health professional with use of the DSM-IV then given a number to
categorize them from 1 to 6. 4 thru 6 being serious mental health disorders.
0 - No treatment needs
1 - Mild level mental health treatment needs
2 - Moderat level mental health treatment needs
3 - Serious functional impairment due to mental health
4 - Severe functional impairment due to mental health

Maine

Levels 3 and 4 fall under the definition of SMI.
SMI is defined as a confirmed diagnosis of at least on of the following:
Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), Schizophrenia, Schizoaffective Disorder, Bipolar Disorder, Unspecified
Schizophrenia Spectrum or Severe Anxiety Disorder. A SMI diagnosis shall be made only by a mental health
care practitioner/provider/professional.
Serious mental illness is determined by a clinician, utilizing the DSM V.

Maryland

Diagnoses classified as SMI include all schizophrenia spectrum disorders (schizophrenia, schizoaffective,
other psychotic disorders), severe bipolar disorder, and severe and persistent major depressive disorder
(treatment resistant and/or with psychotic features).
COMAR 10.21.17.02 (76)

Louisiana

(76) "Serious mental illness" means a mental disorder that is:
(a) Manifest in an individual 18 years old or older;
(b) Diagnosed, according to a current diagnostic classification system that is recognized by the Secretary as:
(i) Schizophrenic disorder;
(ii) Major affective disorder;
(iii) Other psychotic disorder; or
(iv) Borderline or schizotypal personality disorder, with the exclusion of an abnormality that is manifested
only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct; and
(c) Characterized by impaired functioning on a continuing or intermittent basis, for at least 2 years, and

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

C-5

Massachusetts

Minnesota

Mississippi
Missouri

includes at least three of the following:
(i) Inability to maintain independent employment;
(ii) Social behavior that results in interventions by the mental health system;
(iii) Inability, due to cognitive disorganization, to procure financial assistance to support living in the
community;
(iv) Severe inability to establish or maintain a personal support system; or
(v) Need for assistance with basic living skills.
A current or recent diagnosis by a qualified mental health professional of one or more of the following
disorders described in the 5th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: (a)
schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders; (b) major depressive disorders; (c) all types of bipolar disorders;
(d) a neurodevelopmental disorder, dementia or other cognitive disorder; (e) any disorder commonly
characterized by breaks with reality or perceptions of reality; (f) all types of anxiety disorders; (g) trauma and
stress or related disorders; or (h) severe personality disorders; or a finding by a qualified mental health
professional that the inmate is at serious risk of substantially deteriorating mentally or emotionally while
confined in Restrictive Housing, or already has so deteriorated while confined in Restrictive Housing, such
that diversion or removal is deemed to be clinically appropriate by a qualified mental health professional.
Serious Mental Illness (SMI)-psychotic disorder, bipolar disorder, and major depressive disorder; and any
other diagnosed mental disorder (excluding substance use disorders) currently associated with serious
impairment in psychological, cognitive, or behavioral functioning that substantially interfered with the
person's ability to meet the ordinary demands of living and requires an individualized treatment plan by a
mental health professional.
A clinical disorder that is a disorder of thought, mood or anxiety included under Axis I of the DSM IV (i.e.,
schizophrenia, major depression, bipolar disorder).
The department does not define “serious mental illness” in policy. All offenders classified MH-3 and above
(Form 931-0730 Classification Analysis-Mental Health Needs) are enrolled in mental health chronic care and
are offenders with a serious mental illness.
Our working definition is that defined by Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration(SAMHSA, Department of Health and Human Services, https://www.samhsa.gov/disorders):
Serious mental illness among people ages 18 and older is defined at the federal level as having, at any time
during the past year,
a diagnosable mental, behavior, or emotional disorder that causes serious functional impairment that
substantially interferes with or limits one or more major life activities.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

C-6

Montana

Nebraska

New York

Mental Disorder- Exhibiting impaired emotional, cognitive, or behavioral functioning that interferes seriously
with an individual’s ability to function adequately except with supportive treatment or services. The individual
also must: a) currently have or have had within the past year a diagnosed mental disorder, and b) currently
exhibit significant signs and symptoms of a mental disorder
Nebraska defines serious mental illness in Nebraska Revised Statute §44-792(5)(b): Serious mental illness
means, on and after January 1, 2002, any mental health condition that current medical science affirms is
caused by a biological disorder of the brain and that substantially limits the life activities of the person with the
serious mental illness. Serious mental illness includes, but is not limited to (i) schizophrenia, (ii)
schizoaffective disorder, (iii) delusional disorder, (iv) bipolar affective disorder, (v) major depression, and (vi)
obsessive compulsive disorder.
An inmate has a serious mental illness when he or she has been
determined by a mental health clinician to meet at least one of the
following criteria:
(i) he or she has a current diagnosis of, or is diagnosed at the
initial or any subsequent assessment conducted during the inmate's
segregated confinement with, one or more of the following types of Axis
I diagnoses, as described in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic
and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, and such diagnoses shall be
made based upon all relevant clinical factors, including but not limited
to symptoms related to such diagnoses:
(A) schizophrenia (all sub-types),
(B) delusional disorder,
(C) schizophreniform disorder,
(D) schizoaffective disorder,
(E) brief psychotic disorder,
(F) substance-induced psychotic disorder (excluding intoxication and
withdrawal),
(G) psychotic disorder not otherwise specified,
(H) major depressive disorders, or
(I) bipolar disorder I and II;
(ii) he or she is actively suicidal or has engaged in a recent,
serious suicide attempt;
(iii) he or she has been diagnosed with a mental condition that is

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

C-7

North Carolina

frequently characterized by breaks with reality, or perceptions of
reality, that lead the individual to experience significant functional
impairment involving acts of self-harm or other behavior that have a
seriously adverse effect on life or on mental or physical health;
(iv) he or she has been diagnosed with an organic brain syndrome that
results in a significant functional impairment involving acts of
self-harm or other behavior that have a seriously adverse effect on life
or on mental or physical health;
(v) he or she has been diagnosed with a severe personality disorder
that is manifested by frequent episodes of psychosis or depression, and
results in a significant functional impairment involving acts of
self-harm or other behavior that have a seriously adverse effect on life
or on mental or physical health; or
(vi) he or she has been determined by a mental health clinician to
have otherwise substantially deteriorated mentally or emotionally while
confined in segregated confinement and is experiencing significant
functional impairment indicating a diagnosis of serious mental illness
and involving acts of self-harm or other behavior that have a serious
adverse effect on life or on mental or physical health.
Psychotic disorders, Bi-Polar, and any diagnosed mental disorder (excluding substance abuse disorder)
currently associated with serious impairment in psychological, cognitive or behavioral functioning that
substantially interferes with the person’s ability to meet the ordinary demands of living and requires an
individualized treatment plan by a qualified Mental Health Processional(s).
M2 and above is inclusive of all inmates diagnosed with a mental illness receiving bother psychological and
psychiatric services.

North Dakota

We use the DSM 5 and ICD-10
People found to have current symptoms or who are currently receiving treatment for the following types of
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Fifth Edition diagnoses that cause or have caused significant functional
impairment: Delusional Disorder, Psychotic Disorders of all types including Schizophrenia, Major Depressive
Disorders, Bipolar I and II Disorders, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD), Panic Disorder, Post Traumatic
Stress Disorder (PTSD) or Borderline Personality.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

C-8

Ohio

Oklahoma

Adults with a serious mental illness are persons who are age eighteen (18) and over, who currently or at any
time during the past year, have a diagnosable mental, behavioral, or emotional disorder of sufficient duration
to meet diagnostic criteria specified within the most current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders and that has resulted in functional impairment which substantially interferes with or limits one or
more major life activities. These disorders have episodic, recurrent, or persistent features; however, they vary
in terms of severity and disabling effects.
OP-140201, Attachment B, November 1, 2006, levels B through D
MH-B (Baker)
• *Requires psychotropic medications.
• *Current major diagnosis of Psychotic Disorder, Bi-Polar, or Major Mood Disorder.
• *Requires scheduled periodic to frequent clinical monitoring. **
• *Requires prescribed, scheduled treatment program or therapy (Which may not
include psychotropic medication). **
• *Suicide attempts/ideation within last twelve months and/or current suicide ideation.
• *Needs exemption from random housing assignment, although may be housed in
regular housing as appropriate. **
• *Self-injurious behavior within the last 12 months.
• Moderate to severe adjustment and/or impulse control problems.
• Can be seen on outpatient basis.
MH-C1 (Charlie 1)
• *Requires special intermediate housing unit with intensive treatment track(s) to be
able to adjust to incarceration. **
• *Adjustment dependent upon special arrangements administrative
overrides/housing. **
• *History of cycling or consistent non-compliance with prescribed treatment with
resultant behavioral and/or mental deterioration.
• *Requires specialized intensive treatment track(s) and release planning to be able to
function upon release to community. **
• Needs exemption from random housing assignment.
MH-C2 (Charlie 2)

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

C-9

• *Developmentally disabled and/or significant cognitive deficits.
• *Requires special intermediate housing unit with intensive treatment tracks to be
able to adjust to incarceration. **
• *Requires specialized intensive treatment track(s) and release planning to be able to
function upon release to community. **
• Needs exemption from random housing assignment.

Oregon

Pennsylvania
Rhode Island

MH-D (Delta)
• *Due to mental illness, is a danger to self or others or is grossly impaired in ability for
self-care, and this situation is predicted to last more than 72 hours.**
• *Requires 24 hour medical monitoring. **
• Needs exemption from random housing assignment.
Serious Mental Illness: An inmate that, in the judgment of the department, because of a mental disorder is one
or more of the following:
(a) Dangerous to self or others;
(b) Unable to provide for basic personal needs and would likely benefit from receiving additional care for the
inmate’s health or safety;
(c) Chronically mentally ill, as defined in ORS 426.495; or
(d) Will continue, to a reasonable medical probability, to physically or mentally deteriorate so to become a
person described in (c) above unless treated.
Inmates are determined to be SMI by the Psychiatric Review Team (PRT). In order to be diagnosed as SMI
the inmate need to have a current diagnosis or a recent significant history of any of the DSM5 diagnosis (using
ICD 10 codes and letter tags).
The Rhode Island Department of Corrections defines serious and persistent mental illness (SPMI) as being a
condition that affects persons aged 18 or older who currently or at any time in the past year, have had a
diagnosed mental, behavioral or emotional disorder of sufficient duration to meet criteria specified within
DSM-V (with the exception of substance use disorders and developmental disorders) that has resulted in
significant functional impairment that has occurred on either a continuous or intermittent basis.
The qualifying diagnoses recognized by our jurisdiction are as follows: Schizophrenia, Schizoaffective
Disorder, Other Specified Schizophrenia Spectrum and other Psychotic Disorders, Bipolar Disorder(s),
Delusional Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder, Panic Disorder, Agoraphobia, Post Traumatic Stress
Disorder, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and Borderline Personality Disorder.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

C-10

There must be evidence of extended impairment in functioning due to the qualifying mental illness. This
includes the following:
1. Extended Impairment in Functioning due to Mental Illness
a. Documentation that the individual has experienced two of the following four functional
limitations due to a designated mental illness over the past 12 months on a continuous or
intermittent basis:
i. Marked difficulties in self-care (personal hygiene, diet, clothing avoiding injuries,
securing health care or complying with medical advice).
ii. Marked restriction of activities of daily living (maintaining a residence, using
transportation, day to day money management, accessing community services).
iii. Marked difficulties in maintaining social functioning (establishing and maintaining
social relationships, interpersonal interactions with primary partner, children or other
family members, friends, neighbors, social skills, compliance with social norms,
appropriate use of leisure time).
iv. Frequent deficiencies of concentration, persistence or pace resulting in failure to
complete tasks in a timely manner (ability to complete tasks commonly found in work
settings or in structured activities that take place in home or school settings, individuals
may exhibit limitations in these areas when they repeatedly are unable to complete
simple tasks within an established time period, make frequent errors in tasks, or require
assistance in the completion of tasks).
v. Required inpatient psychiatric hospitalization and treatment more intensive than
outpatient care at least once in his/her lifetime
vi. Experienced at least one episode of continuous, structured supportive residential care,
lasting for at least 2 months (i.e. group home)
vii. Requires public financial assistance
viii. Shows a severe inability to establish and maintain a personal support system, as
evidenced by extreme withdrawal and social isolation
ix. Exhibits inappropriate social behavior not easily tolerated in the community, which
results in a demand for intervention by mental health or judicial systems
Or
2. Reliance on Psychiatric Treatment, Rehabilitation and Supports
A documented history shows that the individual at some prior time met the threshold for 3 (above), but

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

C-11

South Carolina

South Dakota
Tennessee

Texas

Vermont

the symptoms and/or functioning problems are currently attenuated by medication or psychiatric
rehabilitation and supports. Medication refers to psychotropic medications which may control certain
primary manifestations of mental disorder; e.g. hallucinations, but may or may not affect functional
limitations imposed by the mental disorder. Psychiatric rehabilitation and supports refer to highly
structured and supportive settings (e.g. Congregate or Apartment Treatment Programs) which may
greatly reduce the demands placed on the individual and thereby, minimize overt symptoms and signs
of the underlying mental disorder.
Schizophrenia, Schizoaffective Disorder, Cognitive Disorder, Paranoia, Major Depression, Bipolar Disorder,
Psychotic Disorder, or any other mental condition that results in significant functional impairment including
the ability to perform activities of daily living, extreme impairment of coping skills, or behaviors that are
bizarre an/or dangerous to self or others.
An inmate who meets the criteria for SMI (Seriously Mentally Ill) for the purpose of our policy is defined as
an inmate who has a chronic mental illness by history, diagnosis, or prognosis and requires repeated and
prolonged periods of mental health care, and who exhibits persistent disability or impairment in the prison.
A substantial disorder of thought or mood that significantly impairs judgment, behavior, capacity to recognize
reality or cope with the ordinary demands of life within the correctional environment and is manifested by
substantial impairment or disability. Serious mental illness requires a diagnosable mental, behavioral, or
emotional disorder of sufficient duration to meet diagnostic criteria specified within the most current
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) or International Classification of Disease (ICD) equivalent (and
subsequent revisions) in accordance with an individualized treatment plan.
As defined by the American Correctional Association Adult Correctional Institutions Manual 5th edition.
Serious mental illness is defined as any diagnosed mental disorder (excluding substance abuse disorders)
currently associated with serious impairment in psychological, cognitive, or behavioral functioning that
substantially interferes with person’s ability to meet the ordinary demands of living and requires an individual
treatment plan by a qualified mental health professional(s).
Serious Functional Impairment (SFI) is defined as: a) A substantial disorder of thought, mood, perception,
orientation, or memory, any of as diagnosed by a qualified mental health professional, which grossly
substantially impairs judgment, behavior, capacity to recognize reality, or ability to meet the ordinary demands
of life, and which substantially impairs the ability to function within the correctional setting or b) a
developmental disability, traumatic brain injury or other organic brain disorder, or various forms of dementia
or other neurological disorder as diagnosed by a qualified mental health professional, which substantially
impairs the ability to function in the correctional setting

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

C-12

Washington

West Virginia
Wisconsin

Wyoming

A substantial disorder of thought or mood which significantly impairs judgment, behavior, capacity to
recognize reality or cope with the ordinary demands of life within the prison environment and is manifested by
substantial pain or disability. Serious mental illness requires a mental health diagnosis, prognosis and
treatment, as appropriate, by mental health staff. It is expressly understood that this definition does not include
inmates who are substance abusers, substance dependent, including alcoholics and narcotics addicts, or
persons convicted of any sex offense, who are not otherwise diagnosed as seriously mentally ill.
WVDCR uses NCCHC definition of SMI-which states that those individuals that have basic psychotic or
mood disorders would be classified as having a serious mental illness.
Our definition of serious mental illness includes any of the following:
- A current diagnosis of, or being in remission from, the following conditions: Schizophrenia, Delusional
Disorder, Schizophreniform Disorder, Schizoaffective Disorder, Other Specified (and Unspecified)
Schizophrenia Spectrum and Other Psychotic Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder, Bipolar I Disorder, or
Bipolar II Disorder.
- Current or recent symptoms of the following conditions: Brief Psychotic Disorder, Substance / MedicationInduced Psychotic Disorder, head injury or other neurological impairments that result in behavioral or
emotional dyscontrol, chronic and persistent mood or anxiety disorders, or other conditions that lead to
significant functional disability.
- Primary personality disorder that is severe, accompanied by significant functional impairment, and subject to
periodic decompensation; i.e., psychosis, depression, or suicidality. Excluded from this classification are
inmates who have a primary diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder and whose behavior is primarily the
result of targeted goals rather than impairment from diagnosed mental illness.
Psychotic, Bipolar, and Major Depressive Disorders and any other diagnosed mental disorder (excluding
substance abuse disorders) currently associated with serious behavioral impairment as evidenced by examples
of acute decompensation, self injurious behaviors, multiple major rule infractions and mental health
emergencies that require an individualized treatment plan by a qualified mental health professional.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

D-1

Appendix D: Identifying Transgender Prisoners
Jurisdiction
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
Colorado
Connecticut

Delaware
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Indiana
Kansas
Louisiana
Maine

Maryland

How Prisoners are Identified as Transgender
self-identification
self-identification and medical evaluation and records
The Intake Staff will refer any inmate presenting with symptoms of Gender Dysphoria to the Gender Dysphoria
Management and Treatment Committee for determining the appropriate treatment referrals for identified Gender
Dysphoria and Intersex Inmates.
Offenders must identify themselves as transgender before Clinical Services will be involved. Once they have
identified themselves as such, they submit a “kite” to mental health or the psychiatrist for treatment.
Connecticut has implemented Administrative Directive 8.17, Gender Non-Conforming as the governing policy.
Within this policy there are multiple avenues to identify gender non-conforming needs. Some include selfreporting, mental health input, review of medical records (including community records and other agency
documentation.
Prisoners identify as transgender by self-reporting. See policy 11-E-14.
self-identification
Medical records and birth certificates
By our current policy, we only track Gender Dysphoria. We have 39 in our system. Those are identified by selfidentification medical considerations. Transgendered is self-identified.
self-reported
We don't track them.
A person whose gender identity (i.e., internal sense of feeling male or female)
is different from the persons sex at birth. Transgender status is based on an
individuals self-report of identifying characteristics.
Prisoners are identified as potentially transgender through our intake and assessment process (if documentation or
report indicates such), through our medical processes, or through self-report; If, at any time during any of these
processes, the prisoner self-reports/identifies as transgender, indicates a history of being perceived as transgender,
has accompanying documentation or reports from other CJ agencies, medical services, etc. indicating they are
transgender, or has a condition making gender unclear, they are referred to the Chief Administrative Officer for
an immediate housing decision, and then are reviewed by an assigned multi-disciplinary team to consider facility
housing,medical and mental health needs, and other appropriate/relevant topics.
A person whose gender identity (i.e. internal sense of feeling male or female) is different from a person's assigned
sex at birth.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

D-2

Massachusetts Gender expression is the sole province of the individual. Therefore, self-identification for assessment of needs is
required.

Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri

Montana
Nebraska
New York
North
Carolina

North Dakota

- Gender Identity: A person's identity, appearance or behavior as it relates to gender, whether or not that gender
identity, appearance or behavior is different from that traditionally associated with the person's physiology or
assigned sex at birth. Gender identity may be verified by providing evidence which may include, but is not
limited to, medical history, mental health history, care or treatment of the gender identity, consistent and uniform
assertion of the gender identity, or any other evidence that the gender identity is sincerely held as part of a
person's core identity; provided, however, that gender identity shall not be asserted for any improper purpose.
26 Transgender individuals
Transgender offenders self identify and medical confirms.
Each offender who is transgender should notify staff they identify as a transgender.
The information is forwarded to the Site PREA Coordinator who sets up a meeting
which includes the following staff: Chief of Mental Health Services, Medical Services
Administrator and PREA Staff. They interview the offender and initiate the process.
self identification
Transgender inmates are defined as inmates who have self-identified as transgender and who have a current
mental health diagnosis for Gender Dysphoria
self reported or Gender Dysphoric Diagnosis inmates self-identity during intake processing interviews or through
risk-screening interviews.
During intake diagnostics; self-report; during clinical contact. After being identified transgender offenders are
provided accommodation if requested. Policy outlines accommodation review process both at the facility level
and the Division level.
see transgender policy
The diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria will be based on the current diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorders criteria and must be recommended by a licensed psychiatrist or psychologist.
The committee may choose to accept the diagnosis or ask for a second opinion from another Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation psychiatrist or psychologist or a contract provider. If the providers do not reach
agreement, the committee may choose to engage a third provider and will support the decision of the majority.
A committee-approved Gender Dysphoria diagnosis must be in a place for consideration of specific medical

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

D-3

services associated with treating Gender Dysphoria; however, access to routine and emergency medical and
mental health services will not be withheld in the absence of an approved diagnosis.

Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South
Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont
Washington

Adults in custody who identify as gender non-conforming or transgender, but who do not meet criteria for a
Gender Dsyphoria dianosis, may be given special property or housing accommodations based on their individual
needs and safety considerations. These may be done through the committee's development of an individualized
plan without creating an individual treatment plan.
self-identified
self-identified
OP-030102, Attachment B, January 2018, self-reported orientation as transgender
self-identification and Medical Records
self-identification
Records and Identification nurses ask offenders upon commitment. self identification.
inmates who identify as transgender report it through self-identification during assessments, notification to staff
and/or through medical records if available. Once identified, Transgender inmates are then tracked by the Agency
PREA Coordinator and the Multi-Disciplinary Management Team (MMTT) to ensure services and treatment is
provided as indicated
gender nonconform alert
self identified
Primarily self-identification
Offenders self-identify as transgender. Once an identification is made, they are identified by a code in the
Institutional Adjustment Record Data System and they referred to the medical and mental health departments for
an evaluation.
self-identification
It is based on self-report. An offender can notify staff at any point during their incarceration that they identify as
being transgender/intersex. An offender transgender/intersex status will be maintained as confidential and only
disclosed on a need to know basis. The facility where it is believed the offender is most likely to succeed will be
identified and prior to any transfer staff initiate form “Protocol for Housing Review for Transgender and intersex
offenders” which includes offenders current housing assignment, Facility Review Team members (which
includes classification, health services, mental health and custody staff), housing assignment review factors and a
Facility Review Team recommendation. The document is reviewed and signed by the facility Superintendent and
then forwarded to the Prisons Division Deputy Director for a final housing decision. Monitoring plans are
developed by assigned Classification Counselors as well.

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020

D-4

West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

self identification
Inmates can self-identify as transgender at any time during their incarceration.
self identification

CLA-Liman Time-in-Cell 2019 revised September 4, 2020