The http://tpj.sagepub.com/
Prison Journal

Administrative Segregation From Within : A Corrections Perspective
Maureen L. O'Keefe
The Prison Journal 2008 88: 123
DOI: 10.1177/0032885507310999
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://tpj.sagepub.com/content/88/1/123

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:
Pennsylvania Prison Society

Additional services and information for The Prison Journal can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://tpj.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://tpj.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://tpj.sagepub.com/content/88/1/123.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Feb 11, 2008
What is This?

Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at Yale University Library on March 22, 2012

Administrative Segregation
From Within

The Prison Journal
Volume 88 Number 1
March 2008 123-143
© 2008 Sage Publications
10.1177/0032885507310999
http://tpj.sagepub.com
hosted at
http://online.sagepub.com

A Corrections Perspective
Maureen L. O’Keefe
Colorado Department of Corrections, Colorado Springs, Colorado

The growth of the inmate population nationwide has given rise to supermax
prisons over the past two decades. Among the controversial issues that supermax
prisons face are concerns about the types of individuals placed in solitary
confinement and the arbitrary nature of those placements. This study profiled
inmates in administrative segregation, as supermax confinement is called in
Colorado, and the process and reasons for their placement. Evidence of institutional misbehavior, more serious criminal histories, and preexisting mental
health needs were found among segregated inmates.
Keywords:

administrative segregation; corrections; supermax

J

ust as prison is society’s solution to errant citizens, supermax is prisons’
answer to contentious inmates. Born out of the necessity to provide safety
to the public, staff, and inmates, prison systems have expanded the use of
administrative segregation, or supermax, facilities. By 1998, nearly 2% of the
state and federal prisoners were housed in administrative segregation (Human
Rights Watch, 2000; King, 2000). Administrative segregation facilities
provide tight controls to ensure reductions in violence and serious prison
disruptions.
Yet, it has been argued that supermax is an overused management tool
(Human Rights Watch, 2000; Metzner & Dvoskin, 2006; Toch, 2001).
Although institutional behavior may serve as the basis for placements, supermax confinement is an administrative decision rather than a punitive one,
relying on staff to predict an inmate’s propensity to create disturbances and
violence within prison. Herein lies one of the primary concerns—that it is
too readily used for inmates who may be a nuisance rather than dangerous
and violent (Human Rights Watch, 2000; King, 2000; Toch, 2001).

123
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at Yale University Library on March 22, 2012

124

The Prison Journal

Role of Administrative Segregation in Today’s Prisons
Traditionally, prisons have employed the dispersion model (Hershberger,
1998; Riveland, 1999), whereby problem inmates are scattered throughout
the correctional system and the burden is distributed across facilities and
staff. Often, these inmates are moved around the prison system to disrupt their
alliances and provide temporary staff relief (Hershberger, 1998). Conversely,
the concentration or consolidation model centralizes high-risk, dangerous
inmates in a tightly controlled facility (Hershberger, 1998; Riveland, 1999).
The supermax concept is the archetype of this model.
Supermax is known by many names—administrative segregation, security
housing units, intensive management unit, and extended control unit—but is
characterized by long-term solitary confinement regardless of what it is called
(Collins, 2004; Haney, 2003; King, 2000; Riveland, 1999). In addition, a
supermax facility may refer to an entire facility or a distinct unit within a
facility. However, administrative segregation, as it is termed in Colorado, is
differentiated from punitive or disciplinary segregation; these are a timelimited response to a disciplinary infraction after due process hearings
resulting in a finding of guilt.
Unlike punitive segregation, the courts have been reluctant to unilaterally
impose procedural due process on initial placement decisions for administrative segregation (Collins, 2004), demonstrating a judicial awareness that
prison officials should be afforded enough flexibility and latitude to swiftly
manage a volatile environment. Nonetheless, observable behavior should
create the foundation for such placements. Riveland (1999) indicated that
inmates who have demonstrated that they are chronically violent or assaultive,
who present a serious escape risk, or who have demonstrated a capacity to
incite disturbances or otherwise are threatening the orderly operation of the
general population institution may become target populations. (p. 6)

The greater challenge to prison administrators is to identify inmates as a risk
prior to a serious incident, with the understanding that prediction strategies
are unreliable and subjective.
Administrative segregation is characterized as a “minimum privilege,
maximum control facility” (Hershberger, 1998, p. 56) in which solitary
confinement is the primary security measure. In this context, solitary confinement is typically defined as restriction to a single-bunk cell for 23 hr per day,
allowing just 1 hr out of cell for personal hygiene and exercise. Inmate movement is severely restricted, with multiple restraints placed on inmates before
leaving their cell. Personal contact is kept to a minimum. Even contact with

Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at Yale University Library on March 22, 2012

O’Keefe / Administrative Segregation From Within

125

staff is limited; therapy and worship services may be provided through videoconferencing or secure barrier. Visitations are allowed on a limited basis but
are generally no contact, meaning there is a physical barrier between inmates
and visitors.
Even though staff contact and inmate movement are severely restricted,
administrative segregation facilities are equipped with more staff and security devices than typical prison facilities. Many of the supermax facilities
boast state-of-the-art prison technology including increased medical and
dental capacities (Berge, Geiger, & Whitney, 2001; Hershberger, 1998),
thereby circumventing transportation issues and reducing personal contact
even further. Nonetheless, more staff is needed due to multiple-officer escorts,
increased supervision and searches, and individualized services at cell doors
(e.g., meals, programs; Riveland, 1999).
Release procedures vary by supermax facility, but behavioral compliance
with institutional rules generally dictates the conditions under which an
inmate may be released (Riveland, 1999). The conditions of release need to
be explicit so that inmates understand how to move to lower custody situations. Retaining inmates within an extended-control facility should be done
only with adequate rationale provided through periodic reviews (Collins,
2004; Riveland, 1999).

The Controversy Over Administrative Segregation
Administrative segregation is inarguably the most restrictive environment
used to incarcerate inmates, giving way to concerns about prisoners’ psychological adaptation to solitary confinement. The decline of the rehabilitation
movement, coupled with inadequate staff training, is believed to be strongly
correlated with the increase in administrative segregation (King, 2000;
Toch, 2001).
The concern exists that correctional authorities use vague or broad placement criteria. Because the full due process afforded for punitive segregation
may not apply in administrative segregation (Collins, 2004), opponents
question the appropriateness of placements. Long-term segregation is suitable for violent, dangerous inmates who present imminent risk rather than
nuisance inmates, inmates with an accumulation of minor, nonviolent disciplinary infractions or those in need of protective custody (Human Rights
Watch, 2000; Kurki & Morris, 2001; Riveland, 1999; Toch, 2001). Mentally
ill inmates may find themselves inappropriately placed in administrative
segregation because of a lack of other suitable placements, protective custody
reasons, or disruptive behavior related to their mental illness. Some contend

Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at Yale University Library on March 22, 2012

126

The Prison Journal

that placement based on gang-member status is inappropriate (Haney, 2003;
Toch, 2001).
Many find the conditions of solitary confinement to be excessively harsh
and inhumane (Haney, 2003; Haney & Lynch, 1997; Human Rights Watch,
1997, 1999, 2000; King, 2000; Kurki & Morris, 2001; Toch, 2001). The list of
objectionable conditions, although not exclusive, includes lack of windows,
24-hr lighting, lack of exercise in general and outdoor recreation in particular,
restricted interpersonal contact, denial of reading materials or other meaningful activity, and limited therapeutic services. It is believed that many of these
conditions are in place for punishment rather than actual security reasons.
The duration of administrative segregation outlasts disciplinary segregation, extending years rather than months. Lengths of stay are determined
solely by correctional staff and may be extended for minor infractions of the
rules, particularly ones that might be overlooked in a less restrictive prison,
thereby resulting in a punishment disproportionate to the seriousness of the
behavior (Human Rights Watch, 2000). Furthermore, extreme solitary confinement with reduced sensory stimulation for long durations leaves an inmate
unprepared to reenter the prison culture or society at large.
Administrative segregation facilities are characterized by the complete
control exerted over inmates by correctional staff (Hershberger, 1998; Human
Rights Watch, 2000). The typical “we-they” dynamic between inmates and
staff is exacerbated in segregated settings where inmates have almost no
control over their environment (Human Rights Watch, 2000; Kurki & Morris,
2001; Riveland, 1999). Prisoner abuses have been discovered and punished
in administrative segregation settings (Kurki & Morris, 2001), but in other
situations Human Rights Watch (2000) found that “management has tacitly
condoned the abuse by failing to investigate and hold accountable those
who engage in it” (p. 4).
In 1983, the same year that the Federal Bureau of Prisons opened the supermax at the Marion, Illinois facility, Grassian described the psychopathological features resulting from solitary confinement that he believed to form
a clinical syndrome. He reported perceptual changes, affective disturbances,
cognitive difficulties, disturbing thought content, and impulse control problems
that immediately subsided following release from such confinement.

Evidence of Harmful Effects
The U.S. Constitution ensures prisoners protection from cruel and unusual
punishment. Cases concerning conditions of confinement, which fall under
the Eighth Amendment, must consider whether conditions harm prisoners

Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at Yale University Library on March 22, 2012

O’Keefe / Administrative Segregation From Within

127

or pose a substantial risk of serious harm and whether officials have been
deliberately indifferent to inmates’ basic human needs (Collins, 2004). It is
on this point that the courts have typically found fault with corrections institutions; the conditions of solitary confinement were found so extreme and
horrific in some states—even in those operating state-of-the-art facilities—
as to violate inmates’ constitutional rights, particularly for the mentally ill
subpopulation (Jones ‘El v. Berge, 2001; Madrid v. Gomez, 1995; Ruiz v.
Johnson, 1999). In California, Texas, and Wisconsin, inmates with serious
mental illness who might deteriorate in administrative segregation are barred
from such a placement. As a practice itself, however, administrative segregation has not been ruled unconstitutional.
Despite the court rulings, there has not been a uniform definition of mental
illness or even severe mental illness. Nor has it ever been deemed that all
mentally ill offenders are excluded from solitary confinement. Various definitions have been used by the prison systems, but it is not known what types
of offenders, if any, suffer psychological pain as a result of long-term solitary
confinement.
Since Grassian’s 1983 study, other qualitative studies using case study
designs and personal accounts have been added to the literature that demonstrate negative psychological consequences of long-term solitary confinement
(Benjamin & Lux, 1975; Haney & Lynch, 1997; Human Rights Watch,
1997, 1999; King, 2000; Kurki & Morris, 2001). However, small sample
sizes, as are the norm in case studies, mean findings may not generalize to all,
or even most, segregated offenders. Of particular concern is that sampling
procedures are often not discussed, and thus it is impossible to know if the
findings were based on a representative sample. Although sampling was
described in Dr. Grassian’s research, the 14 study participants were plaintiffs
involved in a class action lawsuit regarding their conditions of confinement
who might benefit from reporting negative effects, and the author noted how
it was necessary for the interviewer to press the participants into endorsing
negative symptoms after initially denying them. In addition, these approaches
do not provide a relative comparison of the participants’ behavior in other
settings. Inmates who report serious psychological difficulties in segregation might experience those same problems in other prison settings or in the
community at large.
Another group of studies are comparative in nature, equating other types
of participants, settings, or stimuli to the conditions found in administrative
segregation (see Benjamin & Lux, 1975; Pizarro & Stenius, 2004; Suedfeld,
Ramirez, Deaton, & Baker-Brown, 1982; Zinger, Wichman, & Andrews, 2001).
Inmates in supermax settings have been compared to prisoners of war, and

Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at Yale University Library on March 22, 2012

128

The Prison Journal

college students or inmates who volunteer for time-limited segregation stays
do not depict the typical inmates placed in modern-day segregation against
their will for indeterminate stays. Furthermore, studies conducted in field or
laboratory settings that try to emulate a segregation unit, particularly sensory
deprivation and isolation studies, have more severe conditions than those
found in today’s supermax settings.
Direct studies of solitary confinement conducted with inmates in administrative segregation are more valuable for understanding the population but
are not without their limitations. Haney (2003) randomly selected 100 security housing unit prisoners at Pelican Bay Prison for assessments by interview. He found elevated symptoms of psychological trauma (e.g., anxiety,
headaches, impending nervous breakdown, lethargy) as compared to a national
probability sample. This study also demonstrated a greater prevalence rate of
psychopathological features (e.g., ruminations, social withdrawal, irrational
anger) than the population at large. However, it has been shown that prisoners
in general differ from standardized samples across multiple measures such as
anxiety, depression, hostility, and socialization (Suedfeld et al., 1982).
Several studies have compared segregated to nonsegregated inmates. In
one study, no differences were found between the groups (Seudfeld et al.,
1982). In a study of Canadian offenders, however, the segregated group had
more criminal justice system involvement, poor education, skills deficits,
family dysfunction, antisocial attachments, chemical dependencies, thinking
problems, and antisocial attitudes than randomly selected nonsegregated
offenders (Motiuk & Blanchette, 2001). Furthermore, segregated offenders
had a higher recidivism rate than the nonsegregated offenders. A third study
found that severe mental disorders were higher among segregation populations than the general population, particularly schizophrenia and bipolar
disorder (Hodgins & Côté, 1991). Major depression was lower in segregation
than the general population, and suicide attempts were of equal proportion
between samples.
Danish inmates in solitary confinement were compared to nonsegregated
offenders using a longitudinal research design (Andersen et al., 2000), and
the results indicated that psychiatric disorders were higher among offenders
in solitary confinement than those not segregated. However, those disorders
included primarily adjustment and depressive disorders rather than psychotic
disorders. Because of releases and transfers from solitary confinement, the
228 participants at the beginning of the study declined to 14 within 3 months.
In another longitudinal study, Zinger and his colleagues (2001) found that
mental health and psychological functioning did not deteriorate over time in
Canadian offenders, although segregated offenders had psychological indices

Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at Yale University Library on March 22, 2012

O’Keefe / Administrative Segregation From Within

129

that were often elevated over nonsegregated offenders. This study was limited
to a 60-day period, and it suffered a 40%-44% refusal rate (depending on
group) and a 56% attrition rate. The short durations in these two studies,
coupled with high attrition from segregation, suggest that the setting in these
foreign countries is perhaps more akin to punitive segregation found in the
United States than administrative segregation.

This Study
The extensive interviews and qualitative analyses into inmates’ experiences
in solitary confinement have informed and shaped the direction of subsequent
research, but the empirical data in this area are limited and heavily flawed
(Glancy & Murray, 2006; Mears & Watson, 2006; Metzner & Dvoskin, 2006).
Moreover, Mears and Watson (2006) noted that “almost no studies have
tapped into the experiences and views of corrections staff” (p. 239), which
lends itself to an unbalanced perspective of supermax confinement. In fact,
there is a void of even basic statistics on supermax prisons. For example, in
a carefully crafted survey that used clear definitions, King (2000) found that
2% of all inmates were imprisoned in supermax settings, whereas an annual
directory of the American Correctional Association (2005) reported less than
a half percent of all state and federal inmates were in such settings. It is
doubtful that this decline was a true reduction in supermax usage but rather
suggests data-reporting problems and lack of uniform terms and definitions.
The present study seeks to narrow the gap that exists surrounding the inmates
in one state’s administrative segregation and the reasons for their confinement.
Administrative segregation began in Colorado with the opening of Colorado
State Penitentiary in 1993, as many other states were bringing similar facilities on line. Further expansion of this security level occurred when the
Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC) included administrative segregation units with the construction of three multicustody facilities. These
additional facilities expanded the overall capacity and provided female and
mentally ill offender segregation units.

Method
Participants
Two cohorts were used in this study, one to examine placement reasons
and one for population comparisons. Prior to midyear 2003, reasons for

Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at Yale University Library on March 22, 2012

130

The Prison Journal

administrative hearings were not recorded consistently and therefore are not
available for many of the administrative segregation inmates in the profile
sample. Also, this methodology better represents all placements, given that
inmates with less serious behaviors may cycle in and out of segregation more
quickly and might otherwise be underrepresented, by profiling a snapshot
sample of administrative segregation inmates.
Placement reasons. All administrative segregation hearings from January
2004 through December 2005 were used to analyze placement decisions;
1,614 hearings were held during this time. Participants included 1,459
inmates, during which time 135 had two hearings and 10 had three hearings.
Inmates were 95% male (n = 1,391), ranging in age from 17 to 63 (M = 30.94,
SD = 7.99). The ethnic composition was 41% Hispanic, 38% Caucasian, 18%
African American, 2% Native American, and 1% Asian.
Population comparisons. The CDOC incarcerated population at the end
of fiscal year 2005 was used in the profile analyses. Administrative segregation inmates were identified among the population through their classification
levels. There were 1,210 inmates classified as administrative segregation,
representing 7% of the adult incarcerated population (N = 17,483). This
number exceeded the 992 beds available, effectively dispersing 218 throughout the prison system occupying a punitive segregation bed until an administrative segregation bed opened.
Incarcerated offenders were 92% males and 8% females ranging in age
from 16 to 85 with a mean of 35.75 (SD = 10.59). Ethnicities were predominantly Anglo (46%) followed by Hispanic (31%) and African American
(20%); the remaining 3% reported Native American or Asian descent. At the
time of this study, Colorado was operating 25 state facilities that housed
81% of the inmate population and contracting with 5 private facilities for the
remainder.
Materials
The Test of Adult Basic Education (TABE) is designed to measure adult
proficiency in reading, mathematics, language, and spelling in order to
place learners in the appropriate lessons for their particular skill level
(CTB/McGraw-Hill, 1994). Scoring of the tests can be done using different
systems, one of which generates grade equivalent (GE) scores used in this
study. Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 reliabilities of the TABE ranged from
.71 to .94 (Bauernfeind, 1992), and the correlation between the TABE total

Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at Yale University Library on March 22, 2012

O’Keefe / Administrative Segregation From Within

131

score and the General Equivalency Diploma (GED) average score was .63
(CTB/McGraw-Hill, 2004).
The Culture Fair Intelligence Test (CFIT; Cattell & Cattell, 1973) is a nonverbal measure designed to assess general mental capacity in terms of fluid
ability, meaning the ability to perceive relationships, to analyze, and to reason
in abstract or novel situations. The goal of this measure is to use items that are
free of cultural bias usually associated with language, cultural background,
and educational level. Internal consistency reliability estimates vary between
high .70s to .90s depending on the scale. Test-retest reliabilities run in the
low .80s, and equivalent-forms reliabilities range from .58 to .72 (Koch, 1992;
Tannenbaum, 1965). The CFIT’s convergent validity with other intelligence
tests has an average correlation of .70 (Koch, 1992).
The Level of Supervision Inventory–Revised (LSI-R; Andrews & Bonta,
1995) is a 54-item assessment conducted in a semistructured interview format.
It measures offender recidivism risk and can be utilized to determine the
amount of supervision necessary for offenders in the community. The LSI-R
is administered to all prison intakes as part of the diagnostic assessment and
showed moderate predictive validity (r = .31) for 1-year recidivism rates with
Colorado parolees (O’Keefe, Klebe, & Hromas, 1998). Using norms established for Colorado offenders, scores between 0 and 12 designate offenders
as low risk, 13 to 25 as medium risk, and 26 to 54 as high risk.
The Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory–III (MCMI-III; Millon, Davis, &
Millon, 1997) consists of 175 true or false items. The inventory provides
diagnostic information in the areas of personality disorders and clinical syndromes. Internal consistency for the clinical scales ranges from .66 to .90,
with 20 of the 26 scales having alpha coefficients in excess of .80. Test-retest
reliability coefficients for the subscales ranged from .82 to .96 (Millon et al.,
1997). The MCMI-III was only administered to inmates admitted to prison
between 1995 and 2003.
The Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS; Overall & Gorman, 1962) is a
24-item scale most commonly used to assess patients with psychiatric disorders. It is designed to allow for the rapid review of changing symptoms
(Lukoff, Nuechterlein, & Ventura, 1986; Ventura et al., 1993). An 18-item version of the BPRS administered to supermaximum inmates in Washington produced a reliability coefficient of .75 and correctly identified inmates meeting
criteria for serious psychosocial impairment (Cloyes, Lovell, Allen, & Rhodes,
2006). Research has also indicated that there are five factors to which the individual items are associated: thinking disorder, withdrawal, anxiety/depression,
hostility/suspicion, and activity (Burger, Calsyn, Morse, Klinkenberg, &
Trusty, 1997; Cloyes et al., 2006; Hedlund & Vieweg, 1980).

Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at Yale University Library on March 22, 2012

132

The Prison Journal

Procedure
Administrative segregation hearings and reasons for placement were
tracked by high-security management specialists within a centralized classification unit that provides the final review for all hearings and coordinates
interfacility transfers. Hearings data were entered into a database designed
for ongoing research with this population.
Participant data were obtained from administrative information in the
CDOC database. Inmates are routinely processed through the diagnostic
unit, and data are gathered through various sources including official records,
diagnostic interviews, and pencil-and-paper tests. During this time, the TABE,
CFIT, LSI-R, and MCMI-III are administered to inmates. Data obtained
during the diagnostic process are used to rate different needs areas, including
academic, vocational, sex offender, substance abuse, medical, psychological,
assaultiveness, self-destruction, and developmental disabilities. Each level
is rated on a 5-point scale, where scores of 3 and higher indicate moderate
to high needs for services. Levels may be reevaluated during offenders’
incarceration.
The psychological needs level has two parts—the 5-point rating scale as
well as a qualifier code. Similar to the other scales, a rating of 3 or greater
indicates the need for mental health services. The qualifier code clarifies
whether a qualifying mental illness exists. Qualifying disorders include bipolar mood disorders, major depressive disorder, depressive disorder not otherwise specified, dysthymia, paranoid/delusional disorders, schizophrenic
disorders, schizophreniform disorder, schizo-affective disorder, psychotic
disorder not otherwise specified, induced psychotic disorder, brief reactive
psychosis, dissociative identity disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder
(PTSD), and cluster A personality disorders (schizoid, schizotypal, and paranoid). These disorders, selected from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual
of Mental Disorders–Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR; American Psychiatric
Association, 2000), characterize individuals who experience the greatest
perceptual distortions or mood disorders, which require more frequent monitoring and treatment than other psychiatric diagnoses.
Psychological data, such as the BPRS and psychological needs level, are
updated periodically during an offender’s incarceration. The BPRS is administered only to diagnosed mentally ill offenders, ideally at 6-month intervals or
more often as warranted. Assessment information is used in placement decisions and management of mentally ill offenders. Institutional behavior, such
as disciplinary violations and involvement in security threat groups, are also
recorded electronically over the course of an offender’s incarceration.

Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at Yale University Library on March 22, 2012

O’Keefe / Administrative Segregation From Within

133

Descriptive statistics were generated for the entire prison population and
for the administrative segregation subpopulation. One-way chi-square and
t tests were conducted between the administrative segregation sample and the
general population, using an alpha level of .001.

Results
Placement Reasons
Colorado uses a system of due process for administrative segregation
placements that includes multiple points of review. Inmates are given written notice of their impending hearing and have the right to be present with
witnesses. The burden of proof rests with CDOC staff and, following the decision, each case is reviewed by the warden, who has the authority to reverse
a decision. Every case is again reviewed by a centralized high-security
management division.
In this study, 89% of the 1,614 hearings resulted in an initial decision to
place the inmate in administrative segregation (n = 1,432). Six decisions to
segregate and 14 decisions to return to general population were reversed by
reviewers. Ultimately, 1,440 of the 1,614 hearings resulted in administrative segregation placements. Typically, it is a combination of behaviors that
result in an offender’s placement; therefore, in the examination of reasons,
percents do not total 100%.
Although institutional misbehavior serves as the primary basis for segregation, infrequently placements occur for reasons not related to their
incarceration in Colorado. Twenty offenders (1%) were placed directly into
administrative segregation upon intake because of their high-profile crime.
Of these, 10 were interstate transfers due to extreme violence, such as murder
of a correctional officer.
Administrative segregation inmates in Colorado release to general population through a transitional unit, but failure in the program results in return
to solitary confinement. There were 110 inmates who failed in the transitional
unit and returned to administrative segregation following a due process hearing, composing 8% of all placements. In addition, offenders who parole from
administrative segregation and subsequently violate their parole violation
may have a new hearing to determine whether segregation is still warranted;
71 parole violators were returned to segregation (5%).
Escapes and riots constitute immediate security threats. Over the 2-year
study period, 46 placements were for escapes (3%), of which 12 were

Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at Yale University Library on March 22, 2012

134

The Prison Journal

forceful attempts or completions, 14 were escapes without force from minimum security prisons or community placements, and 20 were serious threats
of escape. There were 211 inmates involved in riotous activity (15%), which
often comprised large-scale yard fights.
Staff safety is paramount; 156 placements (11%) were for staff assaults,
of which 47 involved a weapon or resulted in serious injury. In addition,
87 incidents of staff intimidation (6%) and 61 threats against staff (4%)
resulted in administrative segregation. Violence among inmates is much more
common than inmate-on-staff assaults. There were 703 placements made
for inmate assaults or fighting (49%), half of which were reported to have
security threat group involvement. In addition, weapon possession was listed
as a reason for 178 hearings (12%).
Opponents of administrative segregation have voiced a valid concern that
placements may occur for nuisance behaviors, such as accumulating minor
disciplinary infractions. This study examined the remaining 217 placements
(15%) for a reason other than those listed above. Reasons for these included
multiple disciplinary infractions, which averaged 16 per inmate, possession
of drugs or drug paraphernalia, security threat group activity or recruitment,
and refusing housing assignment. Sixteen of the 19 inmates refusing an
assignment as their only reason gave as the reason that they feared for their
safety in general population.

Population Comparisons
Demographic characteristics. The administrative segregation group was
98% male and 32.08 years old (SD = 8.37) on average. Anglos represented
37% of the subpopulation, Hispanics 43%, and African Americans 16%.
Statistical comparisons revealed that administrative segregation inmates
were more likely to be younger, t(1,209) = –15.26, p < .001; male, χ2(1, N =
1,210) = 56.71, p < .001; and Hispanic, χ2(3, N = 1,210) = 89.87, p < .001,
than the population as a whole.
Offenders’ highest grade level, TABE scores, and CFIT IQ results are
presented in Table 1. Administrative segregation inmates were more likely to
terminate their formal education prior to completing high school than was
the population at large. They also had lower TABE scores for reading, math,
and total scales than the population; the differences were slight even though
statistically significant, with administrative segregation inmates scoring
within half of a grade level of the population on each scale.

Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at Yale University Library on March 22, 2012

O’Keefe / Administrative Segregation From Within

135

Table 1
Comparisons Across Academic Achievements
and Intelligence Testing
Population

TABE Reading
TABE Math
TABE Language
TABE Total
CFIT IQ
Highest grade
Grade school, %
Some high school, %
High school diploma, %
College, %

Ad Seg

μ

(σ)

M

(SD)

Comparison

9.21
7.52
7.92
8.25
101.15

(3.30)
(2.87)
(3.74)
(3.31)
(13.22)

8.84
7.13
7.55
7.78
100.38

(3.31)
(2.80)
(3.67)
(3.21)
(13.32)

t(1011) = –3.59**
t(1012) = –4.46**
t(991) = –3.15
t(911) = –4.46**
t(904) = –1.73
χ2 = (3, N =
1,080) = 113.84**

11
61
17
11

18
68
9
5

Note: Ad Seg = administrative segregation; TABE = Test of Adult Basic Education; CFIT =
Culture Fair Intelligence Test.
*p < .001.

Criminal history and institutional behavior. Administrative segregation
inmates were more likely to be serving a sentence for a violent crime (61%)
than the population at large (48%), χ2(1, N = 1,210) = 84.60, p < .001. They
were no more likely to have served a prior incarceration in Colorado (29%)
than the population (28%), χ2(1, N = 1,210) = 0.62, p =.43, but they had
been institutionalized for longer periods (M = 6.19 years, SD = 4.85) than
the population (μ = 4.31 years, σ = 4.88) under their current incarceration,
t(1210) = 13.51, p < .001. Indeed, 13% of the administrative segregation
sample were serving life sentences versus 9% of the population. LSI-R
scores provide a gross measure of criminal risk and recidivism potential, and
administrative segregation inmates had higher scores (M = 32.95, SD = 7.03)
than the population (μ = 29.88, σ = 7.74), t(866) = 12.88, p < .001. These data
show that administrative segregation inmates are among the most serious
offenders in Colorado based on their criminal history.
Disciplinary infractions, punitive segregations, and security threat group
involvement are measures of institutional behavior that were analyzed.
Inmates in the population at large had a median of 3 (SD = 14.73) disciplinary
violations over their entire incarceration as compared to 21 (SD = 29.22) for
the administrative segregation sample, t(1209) = 23.27, p < .001. Similarly,
administrative segregation inmates were 7 times more likely to have punitive

Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at Yale University Library on March 22, 2012

136

The Prison Journal

segregation sanctions imposed prior to their placement, t(1209) = 24.35,
p < .001. The population had a median of 1 (SD = 5.94) punitive segregation
sanction, whereas the sample had a median of 7 (SD = 8.81).
Whether inmates are involved in a security threat group is tracked along
with their level of involvement, where members play the biggest roles and
suspects have the smallest ones. Among the population, 71% have no security
threat group involvement, 12% are members, 5% are associates, and 12%
are suspects. Within administrative segregation, only 31% have no known
security threat group affiliation, and 38% are members, 7% associates, and
24% suspects. This difference is statistically significant, χ2(3, n = 1,209) =
1174.29, p < .0001, and demonstrates Colorado’s zero-tolerance policy for
security threat group activities.
Need levels and psychological profile. The percentage of inmates scoring
with moderate to high needs across 10 areas is presented in Figure 1. The
administrative segregation group did not differ from the population on academic, χ2(1, n = 1,209) = 8.80, p = .003; vocational, χ2(1, n = 1,209) = 0.25,
p = .618; substance abuse, χ2(1, n = 1,148) = 0.21, p = .644; sex offender,
χ2(1, n = 1,208) = 0.58, p = .448; or developmental disabilities, χ2(1, n = 1,170)
= 0.23, p = .633. Segregated inmates presented greater psychological,
χ2(1, n = 1,209) = 98.32, p < .001; self-destruction, χ2(1, n = 1,088) =
44.25, p < .001; and assaultiveness, χ2(1, n = 1,181) = 312.74, p < .001,
concerns. The percentage of inmates in segregation with a qualifying disorder (25%) exceeded the rate found in the population (16%) by a substantial
margin, χ2(1, n = 1,209) = 79.33, p < .001. Contrarily, medical needs were
found to be significantly lower in segregation than those found in the population, χ2(1, n = 1,209) = 70.23, p < .001.
The results of the needs level comparisons speak to the necessity of
extensive mental health services that address not only offenders’ mental illness
but also suicidal and assaultive propensities. Additional tests were examined
to better understand the areas of psychological functioning where administrative segregation inmates are different. Over the years, CDOC has used
several psychological tests at prison intake. The greatest number of offenders
had MCMI-III data as opposed to other assessments, with valid profiles
present for 8,513 inmates in the population and 663 inmates in administrative segregation. Offenders scoring a base rate score greater than 75 were
selected so as to identify the presence of symptoms for each disorder.
MCMI-III scores are presented in Table 2. One-way chi-square tests
were conducted with the 663 sample participants who had MCMI-III data.
Administrative segregation inmates were elevated on eight scales, seven of

Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at Yale University Library on March 22, 2012

O’Keefe / Administrative Segregation From Within

137

Figure 1
Inmate Needs Levels
Percent Rated 3 - 5
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Academic
Vocational
Sex offender

Needs Level

Substance abuse
Medical *
Psychological *

Qualifying mental illness *
Devlopmental disability
Assaultive *
Self-destruction *
*p < .001

Population

Ad Seg

Note: Ad Seg = administrative segregation.

which were personality scales, and one was a clinical syndrome. These scores
indicate that even upon intake into prison, inmates with schizoid, narcissistic,
antisocial, aggressive, passive-aggressive, schizotypal, and borderline personality characteristics or delusional thoughts had a greater propensity for later
placement in administrative segregation.
Unlike the MCMI-III that is administered at intake, the BPRS is administered on a regular basis to inmates with a qualifying mental illness.
Administrative segregation inmates had higher BPRS total scores (M = 36.90,
SD = 8.31) than the population, t(369) = 5.49, p < .001. Using the BPRS subscales described by Burger et al. (1997), sample inmates were also elevated
on thought disorder, t(369) = 4.48, p < .001; hostility suspicion, t(369) = 6.31,

Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at Yale University Library on March 22, 2012

138

The Prison Journal

Table 2
Percentage Scoring Greater Than 75 on Millon Clinical
Multiaxial Inventory-III Base Rate Scores
Personality
Pattern
1 Schizoid*
2a Avoidant
2b Depressive
3 Dependent
4 Histrionic
5 Narcissistic*
6a Antisocial**
6b Aggressive**
7 Compulsive
8a Passiveaggressive**
8b Self-defeating
s Schizotypal*
c Borderline**
p Paranoid

% Pop

% Ad
Seg

14
26
20
15
9
17
23
15
6
24

18
28
18
12
7
21
29
22
4
31

9.26
1.19
0.64
4.02
2.77
7.32
11.13
26.81
3.19
18.93

12
6
9
8

11
9
12
10

1.78
7.27
10.29
6.52

χ2

Clinical
Syndrome
a Anxiety
h Somatoform
n Bipolar: manic disorder
d Dysthymic disorder
b Alcohol dependence
t Drug dependence
r Post-traumatic stress
ss Thought disorder
cc Major depression
pp Delusional
disorder**

% Pop

% Ad
Seg

χ2

35
2
4
17
23
17
8
3
5
4

36
1
4
17
27
18
9
4
5
7

0.17
0.74
0.80
0.03
5.45
1.04
0.92
0.26
0.00
21.65

Note: Pop = population; Ad Seg = administrative segregation.
*p < .01. **p < .001.

p < .001; and activity, t(369) = 5.08, p < .001. These data correspond to scale
elevations on the MCMI-III delusional disorder, antisocial, aggressive, and
passive-aggressive scales.

Discussion
This study revealed an administrative segregation profile that was quite
discernable from that of the prison population in general. As a whole, administrative segregation housed inmates with more disruptive institutional behavior than the general prison population. Very rarely were inmates placed in
segregation solely on the basis of their crime, and only for the most egregious
crimes. In Colorado, all offenders have a hearing to determine whether
placement is warranted, and all offenders are expected to progress back to
general population by completing recommended treatment programs and
complying with the rules. Death row inmates are the notable exception,
however, even those cases whose sentences were commuted to life have the
same opportunities to transition into population.

Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at Yale University Library on March 22, 2012

O’Keefe / Administrative Segregation From Within

139

Although administrative segregation inmates clearly delineate themselves
from the general population as a more disruptive, difficult-to-manage group
of offenders, the question of whether Colorado sets its bar too low remains.
Colorado admits to exceeding the best national estimates by a factor greater
than three, although underreporting of this security level appears to be problematic (King, 2000). In the absence of a national standard or guideline, it is
unclear how disruptive is enough to warrant segregation. Nor can this study
suggest that some of these offenders could be safely managed in a less restrictive environment. Nonetheless, research is subject to its own limitations, and
it is important to remember that statistics examine groups, averages, and
sample distributions. A court of law, on the other hand, looks at individual
cases. For this reason, it is not enough to say that on average administrative
segregation placements are justified—even one inappropriate placement is
too many.
Concerns regarding placement of inmates who are nuisances and management problems into segregation reflect systemic issues that extend beyond
what is often perceived as low tolerance by correctional staff for disruptive
behaviors. Administrative segregation facilities have expanded nationally
as overcrowding has become commonplace and the use of private prisons
increased. Capital construction has slowed, even given the influx of felons
into prison. More beds in a limited number of facilities not only means that
our most disorderly citizens are living together in still closer quarters but
that there are fewer and fewer opportunities to deploy traditional dispersion
methods among inmates who have disputes with each other or are in rival
gangs. Private prisons, as they are implemented in Colorado, cost less than
many state prisons but have limited capacity for security and treatment.
Therefore, they house the most desirable inmates, concentrating the most
difficult ones even more tightly in state-run facilities.
Demographically, inmates in administrative segregation possess qualities
(e.g., male, younger) that are known to correspond to higher risk. In fact, it
appears as though this group may have early histories of nonconforming
behavior by dropping out of school without a high school diploma. Although
their academic skills may be slightly lower than those of the prison population, they are of equal intelligence. This suggests that their achievements
were more likely affected by their behavior or other influences than their
actual abilities.
This study was specifically interested in psychological functioning and
found a disproportionately high rate of offenders with mental health needs
in administrative segregation, many of which appeared to be preexisting upon
entry into prison. For the most part, inmates in administrative segregation

Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at Yale University Library on March 22, 2012

140

The Prison Journal

have higher rates of personality disorders that are both difficult to treat and
characterize individuals who may have greater adjustment difficulties in
interacting with their peers and correctional staff.
Several measures indicated that not only was there a higher prevalence
of individuals with psychiatric needs in segregation, but those needs may be
more acute than among the general prison population. These represent serious
implications for operating such a facility. It is the responsibility of staff to
monitor mentally ill offenders and ensure that they do not decompensate,
particularly in regards to suicidal behavior. Solely by definition, this population requires more rigorous programming and treatment services than most.
The trend of incarcerating more and more offenders with mental illness
in solitary confinement has even greater implications for nonadministrative
segregation facilities. With recent economic downturns in Colorado, already
limited mental health resources have further diminished. Whether the
prevailing perspective that prison mental health services are ancillary reverts
to one where they are accepted as integral or mental health training is brought
to the front lines (i.e., security staff), prisons need to learn how to better
manage their mentally ill inmates and protect them. Optimally, both scenarios
would be in effect, where mental health clinicians work closely with line staff
to employ the best management strategies.
Ensuring the quality of prisons should include process evaluations that
take into account actual operations as compared to policy. As demonstrated
in Ruiz v. Johnson (1999), clearly written policies and procedures are not
nearly enough; a court of law will examine actual practices. In fact, even
accreditation by the American Correctional Association did little to assist the
corrections officials’ position in the Texas lawsuit when a paper review was
deemed an inadequate substitute for a thorough on-site evaluation. Process
evaluations conducted by an agency or unit external to the prison program,
where there are not repercussions for either the prison or the researchers, is
essential to obtain an unbiased perspective that might reveal program features
not obvious to those working there every day and to promote positive change.
The need persists for researchers to empirically tackle the question of
whether administrative segregation inflicts psychological harm on inmates,
both for mentally ill and emotionally stable subgroups. However, as opponents
and proponents search for a middle ground on the supermax issues, the
research question may become, For whom is solitary confinement harmful?
In all likelihood, some inmates do better in segregation, even for long durations, whereas others experience serious psychological distress. Our prisons
and inmates will benefit from rigorously conducted research that informs
correctional practice.

Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at Yale University Library on March 22, 2012

O’Keefe / Administrative Segregation From Within

141

References
American Correctional Association. (2005). Adult and juvenile correctional departments,
institutions, agencies, and probation and parole (66th ed.). Lanham, MD: Author.
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders
(4th ed. text rev.). Washington, DC: Author.
Andersen, H. S., Sestoft, D., Lillebaek, T., Gabrielsen, G., Hemmingsen, R., & Kramp, P. (2000).
A longitudinal study of prisoners on remand: Psychiatric prevalence, incidence, and psychopathology in solitary vs. non-solitary confinement. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavia,
102, 19-25.
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta J. L. (1995). LSI-R: The Level of Service Inventory–Revised. Toronto,
Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
Bauernfeind, R. H. (1992). Tests of Adult Basic Education: Forms 5 and 6. In D. J. Keyser &
R. C. Sweetland (Eds.), Test critiques (Vol. IX, pp. 591-596). Austin, TX: Pro-ed.
Benjamin, T. B., & Lux, K. (1975). Constitutional and psychological implications of the use of
solitary confinement: Experience at the Maine state prison. Clearinghouse Review, 9, 83-84.
Berge, G., Geiger, J., & Whitney, S. (2001). Technology is the key security in Wisconsin supermax. Corrections Today, 63, 105-113.
Burger, G. K., Calsyn, R. J., Morse, G. A., Klinkenberg, W. D., & Trusty, M. L. (1997). Factor
structure of the expanded Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology,
53, 451-454.
Cattell, R. B., & Cattell, H. E. P. (1973). Measuring intelligence with the Culture Fair Tests.
Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.
Cloyes, K. G., Lovell, D., Allen, D. G., & Rhodes, L. A. (2006). Assessment of psychosocial
impairment in a supermaximum security unit sample. Criminal Justice and Behavior,
33(6), 760-781.
Collins, W. C. (2004). Supermax prisons and the Constitution: Liability concerns in the extended
control unit. Longmont, CO: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections.
CTB/McGraw-Hill. (1994). Tests of Adult Basic Education (TABE): Version 7-8. Monterey,
CA: Author.
CTB/McGraw-Hill. (2004). Tests of Adult Basic Education (TABE): TABE Form 7 to the 2002
GED linking report. Retrieved July 6, 2004, from http://www.ctb.com/media/articles/pdfs/
AdultEducation/TABE_Form7_2002_GED_Linking_Report.pdf?FOLDER<>folder_id=
59997&bmUID=1089131925485
Glancy, G. D., & Murray, E. L. (2006). The psychiatric aspects of solitary confinement. Victims
and Offenders, 1, 361-368.
Grassian, S. (1983). Psychopathological effects of solitary confinement. American Journal of
Psychiatry, 140, 1450-1454.
Haney, C. (2003). Mental health issues in long-term solitary and “supermax” confinement.
Crime and Delinquency, 49, 124-156.
Haney, C., & Lynch, M. (1997). Regulating prisons of the future: A psychological analysis of
supermax and solitary confinement. New York University Review of Law and Social Change,
23, 477-570.
Hedlund, J. L., & Vieweg, B. W. (1980). The Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS): A comprehensive review. Journal of Operational Psychiatry, 11, 48-62.
Hershberger, G. L. (1998). To the max: Super-max facilities provide prison administrators
with more security options. Corrections Today, 60, 54-57.

Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at Yale University Library on March 22, 2012

142

The Prison Journal

Hodgins, S., & Côté, G. (1991). The mental health of penitentiary inmates in isolation. Canadian
Journal of Criminology, 33, 175-182.
Human Rights Watch. (1997). Cold storage: Super-maximum security confinement in Indiana.
New York: Author.
Human Rights Watch. (1999). Red Onion State Prison: Super-maximum security confinement
in Virginia. Human Rights Watch, 11, 1-24.
Human Rights Watch. (2000). Out of sight: Super-maximum security confinement in the United
States. Human Rights Watch, 12, 1-9.
Jones ‘El v. Berge, 164 F. Supp. 2d 1096 (W.D. Wisc. 2001).
King, R. (2000). The rise and rise of super-max: An American solution in search of a problem?
Punishment and Society, 1, 163-186.
Koch, W. R. (1992). Culture Fair Intelligence Test. In D. J. Keyser & R. C. Sweetland (Eds.),
Test critiques (Vol. I., pp. 233-238). Austin, TX: Pro-ed.
Kurki, L., & Morris, N. (2001). The purposes, practices, and problems of supermax prisons.
Crime and Justice, 28, 1-21.
Lukoff, D., Nuechterlein, K., & Ventura, A. (1986). Manual for the expanded Brief Psychiatric
Rating Scale. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 13, 261-276.
Madrid v. Gomez, 889 F. Supp. 1146 (N.D. Cal. 1995).
Mears, D. P., & Watson, J. (2006). Towards a fair and balanced assessment of supermax prisons.
Justice Quarterly, 23(2), 232-270.
Metzner, J., & Dvoskin, J. (2006). An overview of correctional psychiatry. Psychiatric Clinics
of North America, 28, 761-772.
Millon, T., Davis, R. D., & Millon, C. (1997). Manual for the Millon Clinical Multiaxial
Inventory-III (MCMI-III) (2nd ed.). Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems.
Motiuk, L. L., & Blanchette, K. (2001). Characteristics of administratively segregated offenders
in federal corrections. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 43, 131-144.
O’Keefe, M. L., Klebe, K. J., & Hromas, C. S. (1998). Validation of the Level of Supervision
Inventory (LSI) for community based offenders in Colorado. [Technical report]. Colorado
Springs, CO: Department of Corrections.
Overall, J. E., & Gorham, D. R. (1962). The Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale. Psychological
Reports, 10, 799-812.
Pizzaro, J. & Stenius, V. M. K. (2004). Supermax prisons: Their rise, current practices and
effect on inmates. The Prison Journal, 84, 248-264.
Riveland, C. (1999). Supermax prisons: Overview and general considerations. Longmont,
CO: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections.
Ruiz v. Johnson, 37 F. Supp. 855 (S.D. Tex. 1999).
Suedfeld, P., Ramirez, J., Deaton, J., & Baker-Brown, G. (1982). Reactions and attributes of
prisoners in solitary confinement. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 9, 303-340.
Tannenbaum, A. J. (1965). Culture Fair Intelligence Test. In O. K. Buros (Ed.), The sixth
mental measurements yearbook (pp. 721-723). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Toch, H. (2001). The future of supermax confinement. The Prison Journal, 81, 376-388.
Ventura, J., Lukoff, D., Nuechterlein, K. H., Liberman, R. P., Green, M. F., & Shaner, A. (1993).
Training and quality assurance with the BPRS. Los Angeles: University of California Los
Angeles, Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences.
Zinger, I., Wichman, C., & Andrews, D. A. (2001). The psychological effects of 60 days in
administrative segregation. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 43, 47-88.

Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at Yale University Library on March 22, 2012

O’Keefe / Administrative Segregation From Within

143

Maureen L. O’Keefe has worked as a researcher for the Colorado Department of Corrections
since 1992. She has primarily focused her research efforts on instrument validation studies and
program evaluations of intensive treatment modalities, particularly therapeutic communities.
She has been involved with administrative segregation research since 2003 and is currently the
principal investigator for a National Institute of Justice–funded project to evaluate the psychological effects of administrative segregation (2006-IJ-CX-0015).

Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at Yale University Library on March 22, 2012