U.S. Department of Justice
Report and Recommendations
Concerning the Use of Restrictive Housing

FINAL REPORT
January 2016

Table of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1
Overview of Restrictive Housing ............................................................................................................. 3
Subcategories of Restrictive Housing ...................................................................................................... 3
A Short History of Restrictive Housing.................................................................................................. 6
Data and Research on Restrictive Housing ............................................................................................ 9
PART ONE
Restrictive Housing in the Federal Bureau of Prisons
Overview ............................................................................................................................... 14
Special Housing Units (SHU) .............................................................................................. 17
Disciplinary Segregation ..........................................................................................................................18
Protective Custody ...................................................................................................................................23
Preventative Segregation .........................................................................................................................25
Transitional Segregation ..........................................................................................................................28
Conditions of Confinement ....................................................................................................................28
Staffing .......................................................................................................................................................30
Data Collection .........................................................................................................................................31
Special Management Units (SMU) ...................................................................................... 34
Conditions of Confinement ....................................................................................................................36
Staffing .......................................................................................................................................................36
USP Administrative Maximum (ADX)................................................................................. 38
ADX Conditions of Confinement .........................................................................................................39
General Population and Step-Down Unit Program........................................................................41
Control Unit Program .........................................................................................................................43
Special Security Unit (SSU) Program ................................................................................................43
High Security Adult Alternative Housing Program ........................................................................45
ADX Special Housing Unit (ADX SHU).........................................................................................45
Bureau Inmates Requiring Special Consideration............................................................... 46
Inmates with Serious Mental Illness (SMI).......................................................................... 46
Secure Mental Health Units ....................................................................................................................48
Mental Health Services in Restrictive Housing (SHU, SMU, ADX) ................................................49
Baseline Mental Health Services for All Restrictive Housing Inmates ........................................49
Enhanced Mental Health Screening; Diverting SMI Inmates to Other Housing ......................50
Mental Health and the Bureau’s Disciplinary Program ..................................................................51

Mental Health Treatment at the ADX ..............................................................................................52
Bureau’s Mental Health Services, Generally .........................................................................................53
Inmates with Medical Needs ............................................................................................... 58
Young Adults (Age 18-24 at Time of Conviction) ................................................................ 59
Juveniles (Under 18 at Time of Adjudication) ...................................................................... 61
Audits of the Bureau’s Restrictive Housing Programs ........................................................ 63
CNA Audit ................................................................................................................................................63
GAO Report .............................................................................................................................................65
Bureau Internal Audits ............................................................................................................................66
PART TWO
Restrictive Housing in Other Correctional and Detention Systems
United States Marshals Service (USMS) .............................................................................. 70
Restrictive Housing in the States ......................................................................................... 72
State-Level Reforms .................................................................................................................................72
Colorado ................................................................................................................................................74
Washington State..................................................................................................................................75
New Mexico ..........................................................................................................................................76
Virginia (Red Onion State Prison) .....................................................................................................77
Hampden County, Massachusetts......................................................................................................77
Federal Support for State and Local Efforts ......................................................................... 79
National Institute of Corrections (NIC) ...............................................................................................79
Office of Justice Programs (OJP) ..........................................................................................................81
Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) ....................................................................................................81
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP).................................................82
National Institute of Justice (NIJ) .....................................................................................................82
Federal Civil Rights Litigation ............................................................................................. 83
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)................................................................... 88
PART THREE
Guiding Principles and Policy Recommendations
Guiding Principles ................................................................................................................ 94
Restrictive Housing, Generally ...............................................................................................................94
End-of-Term Placement .........................................................................................................................95
Disciplinary Segregation ..........................................................................................................................95

Pre-Adjudication (Investigative Segregation) ...................................................................................96
Post-Adjudication (Disciplinary Segregation) ..................................................................................96
Protective Custody ...................................................................................................................................97
Preventative Segregation .........................................................................................................................98
Conditions of Confinement ....................................................................................................................99
Inmates with Serious Mental Illness ......................................................................................................99
Juveniles (Under 18 at Time of Adjudication) .................................................................................. 101
Young Adults (Age 18-24 at Time of Conviction) ........................................................................... 102
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Intersex (LGBTI) Inmates ......................................... 102
Pregnant and Post-Partum Inmates.................................................................................................... 102
Inmates with Medical Needs ............................................................................................................... 103
Data Collection & Transparency......................................................................................................... 103
Policy Recommendations ................................................................................................... 104
Federal Bureau of Prisons .................................................................................................................... 104
U.S. Marshals Service ............................................................................................................................ 117
National Institute of Corrections ........................................................................................................ 118
Office of Justice Programs................................................................................................................... 118
Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) ................................................................................................. 118
National Institute of Justice (NIJ) .................................................................................................. 119
Additional Policy Recommendation ................................................................................... 121
Diverting Inmates with Serious Mental Illness from Incarceration............................................... 121

Acknowledgments
The Working Group that prepared this Report was supported by multiple components of the U.S.
Department of Justice, including the Federal Bureau of Prisons, led by former Director Charles E.
Samuels, Jr., and Acting Director Thomas Kane; the Civil Rights Division, led by Principal Deputy
Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta; the Office of Justice Programs, led by Assistant
Attorney General Karol V. Mason; the United States Marshals Service, led by Acting Director
David L. Harlow; the Executive Office of United States Attorneys, led by Director Monty
Wilkinson; and the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee, led by John F. Walsh, U.S. Attorney
for the District of Colorado.
The Working Group gratefully acknowledges the substantial contributions of Dr. Gerry Gaes,
former Director of Research at the Federal Bureau of Prisons, who served as a consultant to the
Department during this review.

Use of this Report
This Report was drafted to provide an overview of restrictive housing in the American criminal
justice system and propose recommendations for safely reducing the use of this practice. The
Report is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural,
enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or
entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
Nothing in this Report, including the policy recommendations and the “Guiding Principles”
included in Part Three, should be construed to impair or otherwise affect the authority granted by
law to a department or agency, or the head thereof, or the functions of government officials
relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals. Recommendations will be
implemented only as consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of
appropriations. Both implementation and application of policy recommendations and Guiding
Principles involve the exercise of judgment of relevant Department officials.

Introduction
In a July 14, 2015, speech at the NAACP National Convention, President Barack Obama
announced that he had asked Attorney General Loretta Lynch to conduct a review of “the overuse
of solitary confinement across American prisons.” The President directed that the purpose of the
review be not simply to understand how, when, and why correctional systems isolate certain
prisoners from the general inmate population, but also to develop strategies for reducing the use
of this practice across our nation’s criminal justice system. Over the past several months, a team
of senior officials at the U.S. Department of Justice met regularly to study the issue of solitary
confinement—or “restrictive housing,” to use the more general corrections term—and formulate
policy solutions. This Report is the culmination of that review.
The Justice Department embraced this opportunity to think deeply about the use of restrictive
housing in America. The issue strikes at some of the most challenging questions facing
correctional officials and criminologists: How should prisons and other correctional facilities
manage their most violent and disruptive inmates? How can they best protect their most
vulnerable and victimized ones? And what is the safest and most humane way to do so? These
questions are of particular importance to the Justice Department. Not only does the Department
oversee the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the nation’s largest prison system, but it also provides
funding and technical assistance to other correctional systems, through the National Institute of
Corrections (NIC) and the Office of Justice Programs (OJP), and enforces the constitutional and
statutory rights of state and local inmates through the Department’s Civil Rights Division.
After completing this review, we have concluded that there are occasions when correctional
officials have no choice but to segregate inmates from the general population, typically when it is
the only way to ensure the safety of inmates, staff, and the public and the orderly operation of the
facility. But as a matter of policy, we believe strongly this practice should be used rarely,
applied fairly, and subjected to reasonable constraints. The Department believes that best
practices include housing inmates in the least restrictive settings necessary to ensure their own
safety, as well as the safety of staff, other inmates, and the public; and ensuring that restrictions on
an inmate’s housing serve a specific penological purpose and are imposed for no longer than
necessary to achieve that purpose. When officials determine that an inmate must be segregated
from the general population, that inmate should be housed in safe, humane conditions that,
ideally, prepare the individual for reintegration into both the general prison population and society
at large.
The stakes are high. Life in restrictive housing has been well-documented—by inmates, advocates
and, on occasion, correctional officials themselves. 1 In some systems, the conditions can be
severe; the social isolation, extreme. At its worst, and when applied without regard to basic
See, e.g., Rick Raemisch, My Night in Solitary, N.Y. TIMES, Feb. 20, 2014, at A25; Leslie
Linthicum, New Mexico Prison Boss Does Solitary, ALBUQUERQUE J., Jun. 8, 2014, at A1.
1

1

standards of decency, restrictive housing can cause serious, long-lasting harm. It is the
responsibility of all governments to ensure that this practice is used only as necessary—and never
as a default solution.
But just as we must consider the impact on inmates, so too must we consider the impact on
correctional staff. These public servants work hard, often for long hours and under difficult
conditions, and we must protect them from unreasonable danger. Correctional officers need
effective tools to manage the most challenging inmates and protect the most vulnerable.
We do not believe that the humane treatment of inmates and the safety of correctional staff are
mutually exclusive; indeed, neither is possible without the other. In recent years, numerous
correctional systems have succeeded in safely reducing the number of inmates in restrictive
housing, including the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Over the past four years, the total number of
inmates in the Bureau’s restrictive housing units has declined by nearly a quarter. Under the
leadership of its outgoing Director, Charles E. Samuels, Jr., the Bureau has also developed a range
of progressive alternatives to restrictive housing—and has done so while supporting and
enhancing staff safety. This Report includes a number of additional policy proposals that would
help continue the downward trends in the Bureau’s restrictive housing population, while also
ensuring that those placed in segregation receive the support and rehabilitative services they need.
Some of the recommendations in this Report will be implemented in the near future; others will
take additional resources or may be subject to collective bargaining. As this Report makes clear,
the current budget environment complicates efforts to undertake widespread changes, especially at
the Bureau. Over the past three decades, the federal prison population has expanded considerably,
without commensurate increases in the number of correctional staff to manage prison facilities.
For years, the Bureau has been asked to do more and more, putting strain on its officers and other
staff. The inmate populations most affected by restrictive housing—the violent, the disruptive,
the vulnerable, and those with mental illness—often require the greatest resources, and many new
programs for these high-risk inmates will require money and manpower.
The Report proceeds in several parts. It begins with an overview of restrictive housing, including
a definition of terms, a short history of the practice in America, and a summary of data collection
and research issues. The bulk of the Report then focuses on the use of restrictive housing within
the Bureau, with a description of its segregation units and alternatives to segregation. The Report
then turns to other correctional systems at the federal, state, and local level. It starts by examining
the Department’s other detention program: the pre-trial housing of federal criminal defendants,
overseen by the United States Marshals Service (USMS). The Report then considers a number of
state and local jurisdictions that have implemented innovative reforms to reduce their reliance on
restrictive housing, and examines how the Justice Department can spur widespread adoption of
these practices. For comparison purposes, the Report also examines the use of restrictive housing
in the immigration detention system, overseen by the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS)
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The Report concludes with a statement of
aspirational principles to guide the use of restrictive housing within the criminal justice system, as
2

well as a list of specific policy changes that the Justice Department is prepared to undertake to put
those principles into effect.

Overview of Restrictive Housing
Although virtually every correctional system in America segregates prisoners from the general
inmate population under certain circumstances, there is little agreement on the terms used to
describe the practice. 2 One of the goals of this document is to create a uniform set of definitions
that permit cross-system comparisons.
The most recognizable term for inmate segregation—“solitary confinement”—is disfavored by
correctional officials, in part because it conjures a specific, and in some cases misleading, image of
the practice. Not all segregation is truly “solitary,” at least in the traditional sense of the word.
Many prison systems, including the Bureau, often house two segregated inmates together in the
same cell, a practice known as “double-celling.” To avoid this confusion, the Report adopts the
more general terms, “restrictive housing” and “segregation.”
For the purposes of this Report, we define “restrictive housing” as any type of detention that
involves three basic elements:
•
•
•

Removal from the general inmate population, whether voluntary or involuntary;
Placement in a locked room or cell, whether alone or with another inmate; and
Inability to leave the room or cell for the vast majority of the day, typically 22 hours or
more.

Even this definition, however, leaves substantial room for variation. Restrictive housing takes
many forms, and an inmate’s experience in segregation can vary considerably depending on certain
external factors, such as length of stay, conditions of confinement, and degree of social isolation,
as well as factors specific to each inmate, such as age and psychological resiliency. As this Report
makes clear, it is not enough to say that an inmate is in “restrictive housing” (or “solitary
confinement,” for that matter); it is just as important to know the details of the placement.

Subcategories of Restrictive Housing
Practitioners and academics have developed several ways to classify the many types and variations
of restrictive housing. One of the most useful classifications focuses on the purpose of the
segregation, which underscores the importance of linking the use of restrictive housing to a

2

Some commonly—and inconsistently—used terms are: “administrative close supervision,”
“administrative confinement,” “administrative detention,” “administrative maximum,”
“administrative segregation,” “departmental segregation,” “disciplinary segregation,” “inmate
segregation,” “lockdown,” “seclusion,” “security control,” “security housing unit,” and “special
management unit.”
3

specific penological justification. We have identified five “purpose-based” categories of
segregation:
•

Investigative segregation. Most correctional systems allow for the immediate placement
of an inmate in restrictive housing while officials attempt to determine whether longerterm placement is appropriate for one of the reasons discussed below. Investigative
segregation is considered non-punitive, much like pre-trial detention in a criminal
proceeding. An inmate remains in investigative segregation until officials adjudicate the
longer-term need for restrictive housing—at which point the inmate either remains in
segregation for the specified reason or returns to the general population.

•

Disciplinary segregation. Disciplinary segregation is designed to punish an inmate for
violating a specific disciplinary rule. The inmate is typically placed in segregation for a
determinate term—akin to a prison sentence in a criminal proceeding—and then either
released back to general population or transferred to another facility. Disciplinary
segregation is one of several types of punishment typically available in the prison
disciplinary system, along with the revocation of inmate privileges and other sanctions.

•

Protective segregation (or protective custody). Protective segregation is designed to
protect an inmate from a real or perceived threat within the prison. The inmate is typically
placed in segregation for an indeterminate term and returned to the general population
once the threat dissipates.

•

Preventative segregation. Preventative segregation is designed to prevent an inmate
from threatening the safety and order of the institution. Unlike disciplinary segregation,
this form of restrictive housing is not used to punish a specific disciplinary violation, but
instead relies on the belief that an inmate is simply “too dangerous” to be housed in
general population. The inmate is typically placed in preventative segregation for an
indeterminate term, which lasts until prison officials conclude that the inmate can be
housed safely in a less restrictive setting. (Some scholars refer to this practice as
“administrative segregation,” 3 a phrase that we decline to use primarily to avoid confusion
with “administrative detention,” the Bureau’s term for a broader range of non-punitive
restrictive housing.)

•

Transitional segregation. At the end of an inmate’s stay in restrictive housing for one of
the reasons stated above, some institutions will keep the inmate in segregation for a period
of time while waiting to transfer him or her to a new location, often when bed space is not

See, e.g., Hope Metcalf, et al., “Administrative Segregation, Degrees of Isolation, and
Incarceration: A National Overview of State and Federal Correctional Policies,” Liman Public
Interest Program, Yale Law School, June 2013.
3

4

available at the destination facility. Transitional segregation is non-punitive and
indeterminate, although typically relatively brief.
Not all correctional systems use all (or any) of these terms. Most systems draw some sort of
distinction between punitive and non-punitive segregation, although there is substantial variation
in terminology and use. The Bureau, for example, allows the placement of inmates in segregation
for all five of the reasons listed above, although the agency classifies most placements as either
“administrative detention status” (which includes investigative, protective, preventative, and
transitional segregation) or “disciplinary segregation status.” Other detention systems use the term
“administrative segregation” to refer only to long-term, non-punitive segregation (which this
Report calls preventative segregation). As discussed later, this lack of consistent definitions
complicates efforts to collect reliable data about the use of segregation across multiple
jurisdictions.
It is also possible to classify segregation units based on the type and location of the housing. We
have identified three general categories:
•

“On-site” segregation units. Many correctional facilities have dedicated, on-site
restrictive housing units, typically in a wing or pod separated from the rest of the prison
population. Oftentimes, these segregation units are used for multiple forms of restrictive
housing (e.g., investigative, disciplinary, protective, preventative, and transitional
segregation) and often with only minimal differences in the conditions of confinement
based on the reason for segregation. At the Bureau, these units are called “Special
Housing Units” (SHU), which are located at 111 facilities and house the vast majority of
federal prisoners in restrictive housing.

•

Specialized, or “mission-specific,” segregation units. Many correctional systems also
have specialized, or “mission-specific,” segregation units that house certain categories of
inmates who pose particular management challenges within the general population (i.e.,
gang members, law enforcement cooperators, sex offenders, inmates with serious mental
illness). These units typically operate within a larger institution, but are separated from the
general population and offer some degree of specialized services or programming.
 It is important to note, however, that not all mission-specific units qualify as
“restrictive housing.” Some require that inmates remain locked in their cells for 22
hours per day or more, while others impose considerably fewer restrictions and
indeed serve as attractive alternatives to restrictive housing. This Report includes
recommendations to expand several of the Bureau’s mission-specific units as a way
to reduce the number of inmates housed in SHU.

•

“Supermax” facilities. Many correctional systems operate one or more “supermax”
facilities, which typically house the most disruptive and violent inmates in the prison
5

system, and often for longer periods of time than such inmates would normally be placed
in on-site segregation units. Many supermax facilities do not include open, “general
population” units; all inmates are housed in segregation conditions. The Bureau operates
one supermax facility: the United States Penitentiary (USP) Administrative Maximum
(ADX), in Florence, Colorado, which houses less than a quarter of a percent of all Bureau
inmates at any given time.
It is important to distinguish between terms that describe the type of housing and the purpose of
the segregation. Within the Bureau, for example, an inmate subject to “preventative segregation”
could be housed in SHU or the ADX, depending on the circumstances. Similarly, an inmate could
be placed in SHU for any number of punitive or non-punitive reasons.

A Short History of Restrictive Housing
Restrictive housing has long been a feature of America’s prisons. The justifications for its use
have varied over time, as has acceptance of the practice.
Solitary confinement gained popularity in the late 18th and early 19th century, when prison
reformers in Pennsylvania promoted the practice as a pathway to repentance and rehabilitation.
Led by the Quakers, this movement resulted in the opening in 1829 of the Eastern State
Penitentiary in Philadelphia. Prisoners spent their days in silence, with virtually no human contact
and little more than a Bible in their cell. At first, the institution was hailed as a symbol of
progressive religious values, and the model spread to nearby states and to Europe. Over time,
however, critics questioned whether the total isolation of the “Pennsylvania System,” as the
method was called, actually promoted the rehabilitation its adherents promised. 4 Some claimed
that the extreme practices caused mental illness. In 1842, Charles Dickens visited the Eastern
State, writing afterwards that the isolation caused damage “worse than any torture of the body.” 5
Eventually, the Pennsylvania System fell into disfavor, superseded by penal methods that
combined solitude with congregate labor.
In 1890, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion criticizing the harsh methods of the
Pennsylvania System, describing the “serious objections” to solitary confinement that emerged
earlier in the century:
A considerable number of prisoners fell, after even a short
confinement, into a semi-fatuous condition, from which it was next to
impossible to arouse them, and others became violently insane; others
still committed suicide, while those who stood the ordeal better were
Barbara Belbot, Eastern State Penitentiary, in ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PRISONS AND CORRECTIONAL
FACILITIES (Mary Bosworth ed., 2005).
4

5

CHARLES DICKENS, AMERICAN NOTES FOR GENERAL CIRCULATION 297 (Pollard & Moss
1884).
6

not generally reformed, and in most cases did not recover sufficient
mental activity to be of any subsequent service to the community. 6
Even as practice declined in use, some prisons still used segregated housing to isolate the most
difficult and disruptive prisoners. In 1934, the federal government opened Alcatraz in San
Francisco Bay. Most prisoners were permitted to eat and recreate together, although particularly
dangerous inmates were housed in the “Treatment Unit,” better known as “D-Block,” where
inmates were locked in their cells for 24 hours a day, typically with one hour in the recreation yard
per week.
The 1970s and early 1980s marked the beginning of a “modern” era in restrictive housing. Several
factors contributed to the trend. As the inmate population increased, so too did prison
overcrowding. Many institutions were forced to scale back programming for prisoners, creating
more idle time. Newly organized street gangs expanded their influence inside the prison system.
Disturbances erupted into riots, sometimes consuming entire institutions. Correctional officers,
already stretched thin, needed ways to control the inmate population, and placing the most
disruptive inmates in restrictive housing was often considered the quickest and most effective
solution. 7
At the same time, the United States was in the middle of a decades-long transformation in how it
treated people with serious mental illness. Inadequate community-based mental health and
substance abuse treatment services, coupled with a lack of diversion programs, contributed to the
increase in criminal justice involvement for individuals with mental illness. In subsequent years,
correctional systems reported growing numbers of inmates with psychological disorders. 8
Providing intensive mental health services within correctional facilities put additional strain on
limited resources. 9
The various factors that drove the rising use of restrictive housing collided in the early 1980s. In
October 1983, two correctional officers at USP Marion, in Illinois, were murdered in separate
incidents on the same day. Around the same time, the prison experienced a number of inmate
murders, as well as several high-profile escape attempts, including two involving hijacked aircraft.
USP Marion was ultimately placed on permanent “lockdown,” and remained so for twenty-three
years. In the following years, correctional systems across the country began constructing prisons
designed solely to house inmates in long-term segregation. In 1989, California opened Pelican Bay
6

In re Medley, 134 U.S. 160, 168 (1890).

7

CNA ANALYSIS & SOLUTIONS, FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS: SPECIAL HOUSING UNIT
REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT 25-28 (2014) (“CNA AUDIT”).
Rich, J.D., et al., “Medicine and the Epidemic of Incarceration in the United States,” New
England Journal of Medicine, (1991), 364:22, 2081-2083.
8

H. Richard Lamb & Linda E. Weinberger, The Shift of Psychiatric Inpatient Care from Hospitals to
Jails and Prisons, 33 J. AM. ACAD. PSYCHIATRY LAW 529, 532 (2005).
9

7

State Prison, one of the first supermax institutions. In 1994, the Bureau opened the ADX in
Florence, Colorado, designed as a state-of-the-art facility for the “worst of the worst,” thus taking
over the mission of USP Marion. By 1999, more than 30 states operated some form of supermax
facility. 10
In the 1990s and 2000s, correctional systems worked hard to manage their growing inmate
populations. As with many other prison systems, the Bureau experienced a substantial increase in
the total number of inmates—but without a corresponding increase in the number of correctional
staff. The rising inmate-to-officer ratio put additional stress on the Bureau’s operations. Between
1997 and 2007, for example, the total number of inmates in the Bureau’s custody increased by
more than 87,000 (approximately 78%), while the total number of Bureau staff increased by less
than 5,700 (approximately 20%). The chart below demonstrates this trend: 11
Bureau Inmate Population, as Compared to Bureau Staff (1997-present)
240,000
220,000
200,000
180,000
160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

Total S&E Staff On-Board

2009

2011

2013

2015

Total BOP Inmate Population

In the mid-2000s, the Federal Bureau of Prison experienced a spike in prison violence, including
the murder of a correctional officer. In response, the Bureau implemented several additional
measures, including harsher penalties for inmates who violated disciplinary rules. In addition, the
Bureau created a new restrictive housing program, known as “Special Management Units” (SMU),
to house particularly violent inmates, including gang members. By 2012, more than 2,000 inmates
were housed in the SMU program.

10

CHASE RIVELAND, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CORRECTIONS, SUPERMAX PRISONS:
OVERVIEW AND GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS (1999).
11

The chart compares the total number of Bureau employees funded by Congressional
appropriatations for salaries and expenses (“S&E”) with the total number of inmates in Bureau
custody (i.e., both Bureau-operated and private contract facilities).
8

The rising number of American inmates in restrictive housing has attracted the attention of
Congress and the courts. In June 2012 and February 2014, the U.S. Senate Committee on the
Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights, held hearings on
the use of restrictive housing, with Bureau Director Samuels testifying at both. After the second
hearing, Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) asked the Bureau to conduct an independent audit of its
restrictive housing practices, which the Bureau agreed to do. The Bureau retained CNA Analysis
& Solutions, which published its findings and recommendations in December 2014 (the “CNA
Audit,” a copy of which is included in the Appendix to this Report).
In March 2015, while testifying before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on
Appropriations, Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government, U.S. Supreme
Court Justice Anthony Kennedy criticized the use of “solitary confinement” in American prisons,
stating that the practice “literally drives men mad.” 12 Four months later, in June 2015, Justice
Kennedy issued a five-page concurrence in Davis v. Ayala, in which he criticized the practice of
placing inmates in “near-total isolation.” 13 In that opinion, Justice Kennedy also raised the
possibility that the Court could address the issue of restrictive housing more directly in the future,
writing that, “[i]n a case that presented the issue, the judiciary may be required, within its proper
jurisdiction and authority, to determine whether workable alternative systems for long-term
confinement exist and, if so, whether a correctional system should be required to adopt them.” 14
In recent years, a growing chorus of correctional officials, policymakers, and reform advocates has
called for substantial limitations on the use of restrictive housing, in the United States and abroad.
A number of correctional systems have modified their restrictive housing programs, resulting in
significant declines in their segregation populations. (Several of these jurisdictions are discussed in
the “Restrictive Housing in the States” section of this Report.) In the 2010s, the Bureau also
experienced a decline in its restrictive housing population, which coincided with a reduction in
inmate-on-staff assaults at Bureau facilities.

Data and Research on Restrictive Housing
There are significant gaps in what we know about restrictive housing. These gaps begin at the
most basic level, resulting from inconsistent terminology and unreliable methods of data
collection, and extend to broader policy questions about the effectiveness of the practice and its
effects on inmates and staff. Absent any national standards on what constitutes “restrictive
housing,” it is extremely difficult to make the apples-to-apples comparisons necessary to
understand how the practice varies by jurisdiction.

12

Justice Kennedy’s Plea to Congress, Editorial, N.Y. TIMES, Apr. 5, 2015, at SR10.

13

576 U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 2187, 2210 (2015) (Kennedy, J., concurring).

14

Id.
9

One of the simplest questions about restrictive housing is also among the most difficult to answer:
How often is it used? Estimates vary substantially, in part due to differing definitions. Before
discussing recent studies, however, it is helpful to review the various ways one can measure the use
and extent of restrictive housing in American prisons. The most common type of information is
“prevalence” data, which provides a snapshot of the inmate population at a specific moment in
time. But prevalence data alone says little about the number of inmates exposed to segregation
over time; for that information, it is necessary to collect information on the “incidence” of
restrictive housing, as well as data on the “length of stay.” The three are summarized below:
•

Prevalence. Prevalence data refers to the number of inmates in restrictive housing at a
particular moment in time—a “snapshot” of segregation. Prevalence data might show, for
example, that a prison housed 30 inmates in segregation on January 15, and that it also
housed 30 inmates in segregation on July 15. The drawback of prevalence data is that,
absent additional information, it is impossible to know if all 30 of the January 15 inmates
remained in segregation through July 15, or if some of them cycled out of segregation and
were replaced by a new set of inmates.

•

Incidence. Incidence data captures the number of new inmates placed in restrictive
housing during a period of time; the “inflow” and “outflow” of segregation. Incidence
data solves the problem identified above: if a prison knows that no new inmates entered
segregation between January 15 and July 15, then it can conclude that the 30 inmates
housed in segregation on January 15 remained there six months later. Incidence data is
useful because it provides the “turnover” rate, which in turn reveals how often the prison
is placing inmates in restrictive housing. In calculating incidence data, it is also important
to know the number of “unique” placements in restrictive housing. A prison might make
30 segregation “placements” during a six-month period, but that statistic, taken alone, does
not account for repeat offenders.

•

Length of stay. Length of stay describes how long an inmate is continuously housed in
segregation. In calculating this number, it is important that correctional systems account
for changes in an inmate’s status while in segregation. Consider an inmate who gets into a
fight while in general population. The inmate might spend 20 days in “investigative
segregation” while officials attempt to determine responsibility; if the inmate is ultimately
found guilty of the violation, he or she might receive an additional 40-day term of
“disciplinary segregation.” Some prisons might capture this as two, distinct placements in
segregation (20 days and 40 days), but the true length of stay is 60 days.

In August 2015, the Liman Program at Yale Law School partnered with the Association of State
Correctional Administrators (ASCA) to produce one of the most comprehensive estimates in
recent years on the prevalence of restrictive housing nationwide (the “2015 ASCA-Liman
Survey”). Among other things, the survey asked jurisdictions for the total number of prison
inmates in any form of restrictive housing as of a specific date in fall 2014. Thirty-two states, the
10

District of Columbia, and the Bureau of Prisons responded, reporting a combined 66,522 inmates
in restrictive housing, or approximately 6.3% of their combined inmate population. If those
numbers were illustrative of the jurisdictions that did not respond, ASCA-Liman extrapolated,
then the number of inmates in restrictive housing nationwide would be approximately 80,000 to
100,000, not counting jails, juvenile facilities, or immigration and military detention. 15 The survey
also found that approximately 32,000 inmates across 41 jurisdictions were housed in
“administrative segregation,” which ASCA-Liman defined as housing “inmates in a cell (either
alone or with a cellmate) for most of their day (approximately 22-23 hours a day), and lasting thirty
days or more, but excluding those placed in punitive segregation and protective custody.” 16
In October 2015, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) released its own
report on the use of restrictive housing in the United States. The study used data collected from
the most recent National Inmate Survey (NIS), which was administered to more than 91,000
inmates in American jails and prisons between February 2011 and May 2012. Based on the results,
the study estimated that, on an average day in 2011-12, up to 4.4% of inmates in state and federal
prisons and up to 2.7% of jail inmates were held in “administrative segregation or solitary
confinement.” 17
But the BJS survey went further than prevalence rates; it also calculated the percentage of inmates
who had spent any time in restrictive housing during a 12-month period, 18 as well as the amount of
time they spent there. For example, when asked whether they had spent any time in “disciplinary
or administrative segregation, or solitary confinement” during the past 12 months, 18.1% of
prison inmates responded “yes.” More than half of the prisoners responding affirmatively—or
9.5% of the total prison respondents—stated that they had spent 30 days or more in segregation. 19
The survey found that certain categories of prison inmates were particularly likely to have reported
spending time in restrictive housing during the past 12 months, including prisoners who were aged
18-19 (30.9%); who reported suffering from serious psychological distress (28.9%); who identified

15

LIMAN PROGRAM & ASSOCIATION OF STATE CORRECTIONAL ADMINISTRATORS: TIME-INCELL: THE ASCA-LIMAN 2014 NATIONAL SURVEY OF ADMINISTRATIVE SEGREGATION IN PRISON
3 (2015).
16

Id. at 7, 10.

17

ALLEN J. BECK, BUREAU OF JUST. ASSISTANCE, USE OF RESTRICTIVE HOUSING IN U.S.
PRISONS AND JAILS, 2011-12, at 1 (2015). As used throughout this Report, “jail” refers to a locally
operated, short-term facility that hold inmates awaiting trial or sentencing, or for short terms of
incarceration, typically shorter than a year; while “prison” refers to a correctional facility designed
primarily to house inmates for their terms of incarceration, typically a year or longer.
18

Or the total amount of time the inmate had spent in the facility, if less than twelve months.

Id. at 3. For jail inmates, 17.4% percent responded that they had spent some time in
restrictive housing during the past 12 months, of which nearly a third reported that the segregation
lasted 30 days or longer.
19

11

as lesbian, gay, or bisexual (27.8%); or who were held for a violent crime other than a sex offense
(24.6%). 20
Although these estimates provide valuable insight into the widespread use of segregation, they
cannot answer important policy questions: Does restrictive housing make prisons safer? Does the
practice facilitate or inhibit an inmate’s rehabilitation? What are the long-term effects on inmates?
What are the practice’s effects on staff?
Researchers have investigated the behavioral and psychological effects of restrictive housing over
the years. We have included a list of frequently cited studies in the Appendix. The purpose of this
Report, however, is not to synthesize the body of scientific research in this area; our goal, instead,
is to identify ways to reduce the use of restrictive housing in American prisons and jails.
In October 2015, the National Institute of Justice—the research, development, and evaluation
agency of the Justice Department—sponsored a two-day meeting on the use of restrictive housing
in America. This meeting brought together stakeholders from across the nation, including leaders
from departments of corrections, criminal justice and correctional scholars, advocacy and special
interest groups, as well as federal partners, to identify key issues in the practice of restrictive
housing. At the conclusion of the meeting, participants identified key research questions:
•
•
•
•
•
•

How do jurisdictions differ in their use of restrictive housing? What are the different
policies and practices?
What data is required to build a prediction/risk assessment tool that can accurately identify
the inmates likely to be placed in segregation?
What factors contribute to the disruptive inmate behaviors that typically trigger placement
in restrictive housing?
What is the impact of segregation on inmates, staff, and society at large?
What is the relative effectiveness of alternatives to segregation?
How can correctional systems better screen inmates for mental illness and divert those
individuals from segregation?

In the coming months, NIJ will issue a solicitation for innovative research proposals relating to
restrictive housing issues, among other issues. NIJ will seek proposals for research that assesses
the use of restrictive housing in prisons and jails, as well as the impact of the practice on inmates
and staff. NIJ anticipates that up to $8 million may become available for awards under this
solicitation. This research will serve an important role as policymakers and correctional officials
consider how to most effectively minimize the use of restrictive housing in American prisons and
jails.
This Report now turns to how the practice is actually used at the nation’s largest correctional
system: the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
20

Id. at 4, 6.
12

Part One
Restrictive Housing in the Federal Bureau of Prisons

13

Restrictive Housing in the Federal Bureau of Prisons
The Bureau oversees 135 institutions, 122 of which are managed by the Bureau, and 13 of which
are run by private contractors. Most Bureau facilities include space dedicated for restrictive
housing. The large majority of Bureau inmates placed in segregation are housed in Special
Housing Units (SHU), although the Bureau also operates two additional restrictive housing
programs: the Special Management Units (SMU), a four-phase program for inmates with
heightened security concerns, and the USP Administrative Maximum (ADX), in Florence,
Colorado.
•

Special Housing Units (SHU). Approximately 84% of all Bureau inmates placed in
segregation are housed in SHUs. Most Bureau institutions have their own SHU, which
houses inmates for both disciplinary and non-disciplinary reasons. There are 111 SHUs
nationwide, with a total capacity of 14,576 beds. Most inmates in SHU are double-celled.

•

Special Management Units (SMU). The SMU is a special-purpose, non-punitive
segregation unit for inmates who present heightened security concerns due their history of
violent prison misconduct and/or gang activity. Inmates proceed through four “levels,”
allowing them to earn greater privileges at each level, with the goal of eventually returning
the inmates to the general population, typically after 18 to 24 months. Currently, the
Bureau houses the majority of its SMU inmates at USP Lewisburg, in Pennsylvania, and
the remainder at USP Allenwood, also in Pennsylvania. Most inmates in SMU are doublecelled.

•

Administrative Maximum Security (ADX). The ADX houses inmates who require the
tightest controls and supervision because of the nature of their offense or their behavior
while in prison. Opened in 1994, it is the Bureau’s only administrative maximum facility
and the Bureau’s only institution where all inmates are single-celled. The rated capacity for
the ADX is 490 inmates, although the ADX’s population of between 400 and 450 inmates
has remained relatively stable over the past two decades, even as the Bureau’s total prison
population has grown considerably.

This section describes the policies and practices associated with each of these three programs.
The section begins by discussing the various ways that the Bureau uses its SHUs—for disciplinary,
protective, preventative, investigative, and transitional segregation—as well as some of the
alternatives the Bureau has developed to reduce the need for such restrictive housing. The section
then reviews the SMU program and the ADX, including the placement criteria for each. Finally,
the section examines several categories of inmates who may require special consideration with
regards to all forms of restrictive housing, namely, inmates with serious mental illness, inmates
with medical needs, young adults (age 18-24 at time of conviction), and juveniles (under 18 at time
of adjudication).
14

As noted throughout this section, the Bureau has recently taken a number of steps to reduce both
the number of inmates placed in restrictive housing and the length of time they stay there. The
chart below compares the number of inmates in segregation to the total prison population, as well
as an illustration of the recent decline.
OVERVIEW OF BUREAU’S RESTRICTIVE HOUSING
(Adapted from Bureau’s SENTRY Recordkeeping System)
Type of Housing

01/28/12

12/05/15

inmates 21

175,733

Total in Restrictive Housing
Special Housing Units (SHU)

Change (01/28/12 to 12/05/15)

Total

% Decline

161,517

13,848 ↓

8.09% ↓

13,196

9,914

3,282 ↓

24.87% ↓

11,106

8,251

2,855 ↓

25.71% ↓

Special Management Unit (SMU)

1,647

1,260

387 ↓

23.50% ↓

Administrative Maximum (ADX)

443

403

40 ↓

9.03% ↓

All Bureau

Before discussing each program, it is helpful to briefly review the legal and policy documents that
govern the Bureau’s restrictive housing programs. Federal law grants the Bureau broad authority
to develop procedures regarding the safety of its facilities and the designation of its inmates, see,
e.g., 18 U.S.C. §§ 3621(b), 4042(a)(2)-(3), which the Bureau implements by promulgating federal
regulations, including rules governing its disciplinary program and its SHU policy, see, e.g., 28
C.F.R. § 541.10, et seq. (Inmate Discipline Program); 28 C.F.R. § 541.20, et seq. (SHU policy). The
Bureau’s primary policy documents are known as “Program Statements,” which codify the
agency’s internal policies on specific issues. Oftentimes, these Program Statements quote relevant
federal statutes or regulations, and include instructions on the interpretation and implementation
of those laws.
Nearly 300 Program Statements are currently in effect, and a number of them either directly
address or indirectly affect the operation of the Bureau’s restrictive housing programs. Examples
include:
•
•
•
•
•
•

PS 5100.08, Inmate Security Designation and Custody Classification
PS 5212.07, Control Unit Programs
PS 5217.01, Special Management Units
PS 5270.09, Inmate Discipline Program
PS 5270.10, Special Housing Units
PS 5310.16, Treatment and Care of Inmates with Mental Illness

21

“All Bureau inmates” refers to inmates housed in the 122 institutions managed by the
Bureau, and not the 13 facilities managed by private contractors. Data on private contractors is
reported separately later in this section.
15

•
•
•

PS 5324.08, Suicide Prevention Program
PS 5330.11, Psychology Treatment Programs
PS 6010.03, Psychiatric Evaluation and Treatment

In addition, individual institutions publish local directives, known as “Institution Supplements.”
Some Program Statements mandate the development of Institution Supplements to specify how
the national requirements will be implemented at the local level. In addition, some Institution
Supplements provide additional guidance due to the unique needs of a particular facility. For
example, the ADX has published several of its own Institution Supplements, including one
governing the treatment and care of inmates with mental illness at the facility. Similarly, USP
Lewisburg has developed an Institution Supplement that addresses, among other things, its
management of the SMU program.
The Bureau’s 13 private contract facilities have instituted restrictive housing policies similar to the
ones in use at Bureau-run facilities. The contract facilities’ policies incorporate the standards of
the American Correctional Association, as well as Bureau directives published in the Code of
Federal Regulations. All policies established by contract facilities must be approved by the
Bureau’s Privatization Management Branch to ensure compliance with the Bureau’s objectives. As
noted later in the Report, as of November 23, 2015, these private contract facilities had a
combined average daily population of 23,083 inmates, of which 924 (approximately 4.0%) were
housed in SHU.

16

Special Housing Units (SHU)
The Bureau’s 111 SHUs serve as the primary mechanism for housing federal prisoners in
segregation. The SHUs are governed by regulation (28 C.F.R. § 541.20, et seq.) and a Program
Statement (PS 5270.10, Special Housing Units), which was most recently updated in July 2011.
The regulations establish two categories of SHU inmates:
•

Disciplinary Segregation (DS) status. DS status applies to inmates who have been
found guilty of violating a Bureau disciplinary rule. An inmate can only be placed in DS
status by a “Discipline Hearing Officer” (DHO), who serves as the impartial adjudicator of
an inmate’s disciplinary hearing.

•

Administrative Detention (AD) status. AD status encompasses investigative,
protective, preventative, and transitional segregation. The Bureau considers all forms of
AD status to be non-punitive, insofar as this status never applies to an inmate serving
punishment for a specific rule violation. The regulations permit placement in AD status
when an inmate’s presence in the general population “poses a threat to life, property, self,
staff, other inmate, the public, or to the security or orderly running of the institution,” and
one of the following conditions applies:
o The inmate is under investigation for violating a Bureau regulation or criminal law;
o The inmate is pending transfer to another institution;
o The inmate requested protection, or Bureau staff determined such protection was
needed; or
o The inmate is ending confinement in disciplinary segregation status, and his or her
return to the general population “would threaten the safety, security, and orderly
operation of a correctional facility, or public safety.”
In addition, AD status can apply to inmates held in SHU pending classification after
arriving at a new facility, or if held in “holdover status” during transfer to a designated
institution. See 28 C.F.R. § 541.23.

Bureau regulations require that an inmate receive notice of his or her placement in SHU, and that
Bureau staff regularly review the placement to determine whether continued segregation is
necessary. These reviews are conducted by a Segregation Review Official, who is assigned to
review the status of each inmate in SHU at the institution. The regulations require the following:
•

3-day review. Within three work days of placement, the Segregation Review Official
reviews the records supporting the inmate’s SHU placement. (This does not apply to
disciplinary cases, and a slightly different policy applies to protective custody inmates.)

17

•

7-day review. Within seven calendar days of placement, the Segregation Review Official
reviews the inmate’s status at a hearing, which the inmate may attend. Subsequent reviews
occur every seven days.

•

30-day review. After every thirty calendar days of continuous placement, the Segregation
Review Official reviews the inmate’s status at a hearing, which the inmate may attend. (In
addition, the Bureau requires a psychological review for SHU inmates every 30 days.)

Additional reviews apply to protective custody inmates, which are described later in this section.
All SHU inmates may submit formal grievances challenging their placement through the Bureau’s
Administrative Remedy Program.
In addition, all Bureau facilities conduct “SHU Weekly Reviews,” during which the warden and an
interdisciplinary team of prison officials, including psychological staff, review all inmates currently
housed in that facility’s SHU. The following staff attend: Warden, Associate Wardens, Captain,
Case Management Coordinators, Unit Managers, Special Investigative Agent/Special Investigative
Supervisor, SHU Lieutenant, Psychologists, Health Systems Administrator, and Discipline Hearing
Officer. During the meeting, each inmate will be reviewed individually to ensure all staff are aware
of the inmate’s status, proposed plan of action, recommendation for transfer or reintegration into
the general population, discipline status, and a review of their current behavior as well as physical
and mental health.

SHU Disciplinary Segregation
Disciplinary segregation is one of several types of sanctions available for inmates who violate the
Bureau’s rules. To understand this form of restrictive housing, it is necessary to summarize the
Bureau’s inmate disciplinary program.
In some ways, the Bureau’s disciplinary system resembles the stages of a criminal proceeding:
after officers learn of an alleged violation, Bureau officials investigate the matter, conduct a factual
hearing to determine responsibility, and then impose a penalty on those deemed responsible. Like
a criminal proceeding, Bureau officials must make two types of detention decisions: during the
investigative phase, usually immediately following the alleged violation, and as a post-adjudication
sanction. Not all disciplinary violations result in segregation, either during the investigative stage
or post-adjudication, and some infractions are resolved informally at the staff-to-inmate level,
without triggering the formal disciplinary process and without resort to restrictive housing.
The Bureau has codified approximately 90 types of disciplinary violations, or “prohibited acts,”
which are divided into four categories based on severity: Greatest (100-level); High (200-level);
Moderate (300-level); and Low (400-level). See Table 1, PS 5270.09, Inmate Discipline Program.
The disciplinary process begins as soon as staff observe or otherwise learn of a potential violation.
If the matter is relatively minor, or if the inmate does not have a history of violations, the officer

18

will typically try to resolve the incident informally. In more serious cases, the officer will draft an
incident report and submit it to his or her lieutenant.
The filing of an incident report triggers several rounds of supervisory review. Once a lieutenant
approves the incident report, Bureau staff assigns an “Investigating Officer,” who conducts an
independent investigation of the case. The Investigating Officer submits his file to a Unit
Discipline Committee, which consists of two or more staff members at the institution. If the
offense is particularly serious (i.e., Greatest or High severity levels), it is then forwarded to a
“Discipline Hearing Officer” (DHO), who conducts a formal hearing on the matter. 22 (To
encourage impartiality, the DHO operates outside traditional reporting lines within the institution,
and instead reports to the Regional Disciplinary Hearing Administrator.) The inmate receives
notice of this hearing and is entitled to present evidence and call witnesses. Once the hearing is
complete, the DHO makes a factual finding and, if necessary, imposes a penalty. In deciding the
appropriate punishment, the DHO relies on a chart of available sanctions, which in most cases can
include (but does not require) a term of disciplinary segregation. Inmates may appeal the factual
finding or the penalty through the Bureau’s Administrative Remedy Program. 23
As noted above, an inmate may be placed in restrictive housing at two stages during this process:
during the investigative stage and as a post-adjudication sanction. The Bureau treats these as
distinct types of restrictive housing—the first is classified as non-punitive AD status, the second,
as DS status. For both, however, the inmate is typically housed in a SHU cell at the institution
where the violation occurred.
The first segregation decision is made shortly after the triggering incident. As soon as Bureau
officers neutralize any immediate threats (e.g., breaking up a fight, confiscating a weapon), they
must decide whether one or more of the inmates involved should be placed in investigative
segregation. In making this decision, staff rely on the general standard that governs non-punitive
SHU placement, namely, whether the inmate’s “presence in the general population poses a threat
to life, property, self, staff, other inmates, the public, or to the security or orderly running of the
institution.” As a matter of practice, the responding officer must obtain approval from a
lieutenant or other supervisor before placing the inmate in investigative segregation, and the
lieutenants are trained on the standards for such placements.
Once in the SHU, the inmate is subject to the protections outlined earlier: the inmate receives
formal notice of placement (via an “administrative detention order”); the Segregation Review
22

In the most serious cases, the Bureau may refer the case to a U.S. Attorney’s Office for
criminal prosecution. When such a referral occurs, the Bureau pauses the internal disciplinary
review.
23

As discussed later in this Report, Bureau policy requires that the DHO refer the matter to a
Bureau psychologist for a competency and responsibility determination if the inmate has a history
of mental health issues, and requires that the DHO take mental health issues into account when
determining what, if any, penalty should apply.
19

Officer conducts three-, seven-, and thirty-day reviews; and the Warden oversees the multidisciplinary “SHU Weekly Reviews.” In some cases, an inmate will remain in AD status until the
time of his or her disciplinary hearing; in other cases, the inmate will be returned to the general
population at some point before the adjudication. Current Bureau policy does not require that
Bureau staff complete disciplinary investigations within a certain amount of time.
The second segregation decision is made after the disciplinary hearing. As noted above, if an
inmate is found guilty of committing the prohibited act, the DHO is responsible for fashioning an
appropriate sanction. Bureau policies outline a list of available sanctions, which vary depending on
severity level and include not only punitive segregation, but also forfeiture of good time credit, loss
of privileges, monetary fines, removal from program or group activity, confiscation of property, or
extra duty. For each severity level, Bureau policies dictate the maximum term an inmate may be
placed in restrictive housing, both for a first offense and for second or subsequent offenses,
although DHOs may exercise their discretion and sentence an inmate to a shorter, determinant
term of segregation or, when appropriate, no segregation at all. The sanctions are codified in PS
5270.09, Inmate Discipline Program.
The chart below summarizes the maximum terms of segregation under current Bureau regulations,
listed by severity level.
MAXIMUM TERMS FOR DISCIPLINARY SEGREGATION
(Adapted from Program Statement 5270.90, Inmate Discipline Program)
Severity Level

Code

First Offense

Subsequent

Greatest

100-level

365 days

545 days

High

200-level

180 days

365 days

Moderate

300-level

90 days

180 days

Low

400-level

Not permitted

30 days

As noted above, however, not all violations result in disciplinary segregation. The chart on the
following page includes a sample list of offenses, along with the frequency that a term of DS status
was imposed for those offenses during fiscal year 2014. (Note that this only includes segregation
imposed following the disciplinary hearing, and not whether the inmate was housed in
investigative segregation immediately following the incident.)

20

% OFFENSES RESULTING IN DISCIPLINARY SEGREGATION
(Sample Offenses; All Bureau-run facilities; FY2014)
Code
--

Offense

Total Guilty
Findings

Resulting
in DS Term

17,398

63.91%

14

100.00%

All 100-Level Offenses

100

Killing

101

Assaulting with Serious Injury

294

74.83%

102

Escape (More than 4 hours)

689

30.04%

103

Setting a Fire

64

67.19%

104

Possessing a Dangerous Weapon

3,463

75.77%

26,521

52.52%

--

All 200-Level Offenses

201

Fighting with Another Person

5,679

71.49%

203

Threatening Bodily Harm

2,097

68.53%

205

Engaging in Sexual Acts

2,052

77.68%

218

Destroying Property ≥ $100

487

45.38%

226

Possessing Stolen Property

1,095

22.47%

228

Tattooing or Self-Mutilation

1,844

32.38%

62,043

6.1%

--

All 300-Level Offenses

300

Indecent Exposure

385

16.62%

302

Misusing Authorized Medication

548

5.66%

303

Possessing Unauthorized Money

90

6.67%

325

Conducting a Gambling Pool

145

6.21%

329

Destroying Property ≤ $100

1,553

6.05%

330

Being Unsanitary/Untidy

1,689

1.78%

332

Smoking in Unauthorized Area

286

22.38%

All 400-Level Offenses

712

0.14%

-402

Malingering/Feigning Illness

50

0.00%

404

Abusive/Obscene Language

198

0.51%

407

Violating Visiting Regulations

137

0.00%

409

Unauthorized Physical Contact

291

0.00%

If sanctioned to a term of disciplinary segregation, the inmate enters DS status. As a practical
matter, DS status is largely indistinguishable from AD status, and the inmate is subject to many of
the same procedural protections that applied during investigative segregation: three-, seven-, and
thirty-day reviews, as well as SHU Weekly Reviews. Under current regulations, inmates serving a
term of disciplinary segregation do not receive credit for any time served in investigative
segregation prior to their DHO hearing.

21

Generally speaking, an inmate sanctioned to a determinant term of disciplinary segregation is likely
to serve most or all of his or her disciplinary sentence in the SHU. In some cases, however,
Bureau staff might conclude that continued segregation is unnecessary, and decide to release the
inmate from the SHU before the end of the sentence term.
If an inmate commits additional disciplinary violations while in the SHU, he or she could be
subject to further disciplinary sanctions, following the same process described above. If a DHO
determines that the additional violations should be punished with a term of segregation, that
sentence will be added onto whatever term the inmate is presently serving, thus extending the total
time in restrictive housing. Although Bureau regulations impose maximum penalties for individual
disciplinary violations, there is currently no limit on the cumulative amount of time an inmate can
spend in disciplinary segregation.
As an inmate’s term of disciplinary segregation nears its end, Bureau officials must decide where to
send the prisoner next. Most of the time, the inmate is returned to the general population of the
facility where he or she was originally housed. In other cases, if officials believe that the inmate is
likely to pose a continuing threat to institutional safety, they might decide to redesignate the
prisoner to a higher-security facility. (Once at the new facility, the inmate would likely be released
into general population, although with the greater restrictions that come with a higher-security
institution.) In other cases, Bureau officials may decide to transfer the inmate to the SMU
program or, in the most extreme cases, to the ADX.
Most of the time, Bureau officials transfer an inmate to his or her new housing unit as soon as the
disciplinary term ends. In other cases, there is a temporary delay, typically due to unavailability of
bed space at the destination facility. When that happens, the inmate remains in the SHU until the
transfer is completed. The Bureau classifies this transitional housing as non-punitive AD status,
because it is not directly tied to the punitive term of disciplinary detention that just completed,
even though the conditions of confinement remain the same. 24 While in transitional segregation,
the inmate is subject to the same procedural protections, including reviews, as described before.

Bureau Alternatives
The Bureau’s disciplinary policy permits the Unit Discipline Committee or DHO to impose a
variety of sanctions other than punitive segregation. Below is a chart of the available sanctions,
according to offense severity level.

24

Thus, it is theoretically possible for an inmate to be classified three different ways over the
course of a single disciplinary violation: first, a period of AD status during the investigation; then,
DS status for the defined term of punishment; and, finally, another round of AD status while the
placement decision is made. Although the classification changes, the inmate remains in the SHU.
22

ALTERNATIVES TO DISCIPLINARY SEGREGATION
(Adapted from Program Statement 5270.90, Inmate Discipline Program)
Greatest
100-level

High
200-level

Moderate
300-level

Low
400-level

Y

Y

Y

N

Forfeit good time and
good conduct time

Up to 100%

Up to 50%
or 60 days

Up to 25%
or 30 days

Up to 12.5%
for year

Monetary restitution

Y

Y

Y

Y

Monetary fine

Y

Y

Y

Y

Loss of privileges (visiting, phone, etc.)

Y

Y

Y

Y

Change housing (quarters)

Y

Y

Y

Y

Remove from program or group activity

Y

Y

Y

Y

Loss of job

Y

Y

Y

Y

Impound inmate’s personal property

Y

Y

Y

Y

Confiscate contraband

Y

Y

Y

Y

Restrict to quarters

Y

Y

Y

Y

Extra duty

Y

Y

Y

Y

Type of Sanction
Rescission/delay of parole date

SHU Protective Custody
The Bureau also uses the SHU to house inmates who require protective custody. An inmate could
face threats for any number of real or perceived reasons, including:
•
•
•
•
•

gang affiliation;
prison conduct, such as unpaid debts;
ties to law enforcement, either as a prison informant or a former law enforcement officer;
notoriety of prior criminal conduct, especially those convicted of child sex abuse; or
gender identity or sexual orientation.

Most inmates in protective custody voluntarily seek removal from the general population; in a
minority of cases, Bureau staff will involuntarily commit an inmate who is unable or unwilling to
seek appropriate protection. In addition, a small number of inmates report a preference for
solitary housing and will occasionally request protective custody to avoid residing in the general
population. To limit long-term placement in protective custody, Bureau staff will often transfer
inmates out of the institution where the threat exists, either to the general population of another
facility or to a special-purpose institution that houses similarly situated inmates under less
restrictive conditions.
As with disciplinary segregation, Bureau regulations establish a process for investigating,
adjudicating, and reviewing the need for protective custody. Following a threat, an inmate can
enter AD status and remain there while officials investigate the matter. Within two working days,
23

the Warden or his or her designee must review the placement to determine whether ongoing
protection is necessary. Within seven days of placement, the inmate receives a hearing, following
the same procedures used when conducting a 7-day review in disciplinary cases. If officials
determine there is no need for protection, the inmate is instructed to return to general population.
If officials determine there is a continuing need for protection, the Warden decides whether to
keep the inmate in AD status (subject to the standard 30-day reviews), or transfer the inmate to
another institution where protection may not be necessary.

Bureau Alternatives
In recent years, the Bureau has developed several alternative housing programs for inmates who
require protective custody. These specialized programs allow the Bureau to divert a number of
protective custody inmates away from the SHU and into facilities where they can live safely and
with fewer restrictions:
•

Reintegration Housing Unit (RHU). The Bureau currently operates one RHU unit,
which opened in February 2014 at FCC Oakdale, in Louisiana. The program is designed
for protective custody inmates with more than six months remaining on their sentence
who are designated for medium- or high-security facilities, do not require substantial
medical or mental health treatment, and consistently refuse to enter general population at
multiple institutions. The goal is to help inmates eventually re-integrate with general
population over the course of a three-phase program, which typically takes six to eight
months. Participants live, work, and program in a residential unit, in which they are
allowed to move freely. Inmates also engage in activities outside the unit—eating in the
dining hall, recreating in the yard, and attending pill lines—albeit separated from the
general population. Inmates participate in biweekly meetings and other programming
designed to improve coping skills and help them interact with other prisoners. The
program is staffed with correctional officers, a psychologist coordinator, and treatment
specialists. The RHU Unit at FCC Oakdale can currently house a maximum of 128
inmates at a time. Inmates housed within the RHU are out of the cell for 16 hours per
day.

•

Sex Offender Management Program (SOMP). SOMP is a multi-component program
designed for inmates convicted of sex offenses, who may be targets of threats from other
prisoners. SOMP comprises risk assessments, treatment programming, and specialized
correctional management services. Unlike the RHU, which is a special-purpose unit that
only houses protective custody inmates, SOMP allows inmates to be housed in general
population, albeit at specific institutions where sex offenders make up a sizeable
percentage (i.e., 40-70%) of the prisoners. Each SOMP offers sex offender treatment for
either “high risk” or “low to moderate risk” individuals, depending on the security level of
the institution. Both forms of treatment involve intensive cognitive behavioral therapy
under the supervision of psychologists and treatment specialists. Participation in the sex
24

offender treatment component of SOMP is voluntary; however, placement at a SOMP
facility is not voluntary. Inmates are placed in these facilities at the discretion of the
Bureau. At present, the Bureau operates 9 SOMPs, with the ability to house approximately
4,500 sex offenders.
•

Security Threat Group Drop-Out Units (STG Drop-Out). The Bureau operates three
STG Drop-Out units, which launched in 2013 and now exist at USP Terre Haute, in
Indiana; USP Coleman, in Florida; and FCI Otisville, in New York. The program allows
gang members to formally “disassociate” from (or quit) their gang, and then move into a
general population unit where everyone else has done the same. The Bureau operates a
rigorous review process to determine the sincerity of each member’s disassociation and
each placement must be approved by the Bureau’s Intelligence Section. Once inside the
program, inmates receive extensive programming on anger management, conflict
resolution, and other life skills that will assist their re-entry into general population.
Approximately 250 inmates are currently housed in the three STG drop-out units, and
approximately 75 more are going through the disassociation process.

SHU Preventative Segregation
In limited cases, the Bureau also uses the SHU for what this Report calls “preventative
segregation.” This phrase refers to segregation based not on a specific disciplinary violation, but
on a determination that an inmate is simply too dangerous or disruptive to be housed in the
general population.
As noted earlier, Bureau regulations allow staff to place an inmate in AD status upon concluding
that the inmate “threaten[s] the safety, security, and orderly operation of a correctional facility, or
public safety.” This policy permits staff to use segregation as a form of short-term incapacitation
—a way of keeping the inmate away from others, before he or she can cause further disruption.
Unlike a disciplinary violation, which results in a determinant term of punishment, preventative
segregation is more open-ended, and so the Bureau must make arrangements to transfer these
inmates to other forms of housing.
The Bureau closely monitors these cases. The Bureau requires, for example, that when an inmate
completes his or her term of disciplinary segregation, staff may not simply continue housing the
inmate in administrative detention without a separate hearing to establish the basis for the ongoing
SHU placement. The justification for post-disciplinary AD status cannot be based solely on the
findings of the disciplinary hearing that resulted in the inmate’s DS status. Even if Bureau staff
conclude that ongoing segregation is necessary, the inmate is subject to the standard reviews
required for those placed in AD status.
Generally speaking, the Bureau requires that any inmate held in post-disciplinary AD status for
more than 90 days must either be transferred to a new facility or returned to the general
population, except in extenuating circumstances. After 90 days, the Regional Director who
25

oversees the institution assumes responsibility for the ongoing SHU placement, and must receive
approval from the Bureau’s Assistant Director of Correctional Programs Division every 60 days.

Bureau Alternatives
The Bureau has developed numerous programs and alternative housing units for particularly
disruptive and violent inmates. In recent years, the SMU program has served as one of the
primary mechanisms for addressing this category of inmates, with its intensive, four-part program
that seeks to correct inmates’ violent behavior and prepare them for a return to the general
population. In addition, in the most extreme cases, the Bureau can designate an inmate to the
ADX, although space is generally limited to those who require the most significant restrictions.
More often, however, the Bureau will return inmates to general population. If a need for further
intervention is noted, inmates may be encouraged to enroll in one of the many available selfimprovement programs. These self-improvement programs serve a preventative function and are
made available to inmates with a need for treatment, regardless of whether they have engaged in
behavior leading to placement in restrictive housing. One objective of these programs is to
prevent inmates from engaging in the type of behavior that will necessitate placement in restrictive
housing. Therefore, inmates may be placed in these programs after a stay in restrictive housing, in
an effort to ensure they do not return. While some programs offer open enrollment, others are
intended for inmates who meet specific diagnostic criteria. Some of the most widely used
programs are listed below:
•

Mental Health Step-Down Program. The Mental Health Step-Down Program offers
residential care for inmates with serious mental illness (typically a psychotic or mood
disorder) who do not require inpatient treatment, but lack the skills to function in a general
population setting and have a history of serious violence. The goals of Step-Down
Programs are to provide evidence-based treatment to inmates with mental illness,
maximize their ability to function, minimize relapse and the need for inpatient
hospitalization, and support their ability to transfer to less restrictive environments, as
appropriate. Step-Down Programs are offered in general population and secure settings,
as discussed in greater depth later in this Report.

•

Steps Towards Awareness, Growth, and Emotional Strength (STAGES). The
STAGES Program is a residential treatment program for male inmates with serious mental
illnesses and a primary diagnosis of personality disorder. The program uses an integrative
model which includes a modified therapeutic community, cognitive behavioral therapies,
and skills training. The program is designed to increase the time between disruptive
behaviors, foster living within the general population or community setting, and increase
pro-social skills. It is offered in both a general population setting and a secure setting, as
discussed in greater depth later in this Report.

26

•

Skills Program. A 12- to 18-month residential treatment program designed to improve
the institutional adjustment of male inmates with intellectual disabilities and social
deficiencies. The program uses an integrative model, which includes a modified
therapeutic community, cognitive-behavioral therapies, and skills training. The goal of the
program is to increase the academic achievement and adaptive behavior of cognitively
impaired inmates, thereby improving their institutional adjustment and likelihood of
successful community reentry.

•

Challenge Program. A cognitive-behavioral, residential psychology treatment program
for high-security inmates with a history of substance abuse and/or mental illness. The
program is designed to increase self-control and problem solving skills, and encourage the
development of pro-social relationships, placing a special emphasis on violence prevention
and the avoidance of negative peer associates.

•

Bureau Rehabilitation and Values Enhancement (BRAVE) Program. A cognitivebehavioral, six-month residential psychology treatment program for young, mediumsecurity inmates serving lengthy terms of incarceration. The program is designed to
support favorable institution adjustment, reduce inmate misconduct, encourage the
development of pro-social relationships, and direct inmates to meaningful selfimprovement opportunities while incarcerated.

•

Drug Abuse Programs (Drug Education, NRDAP, RDAP). A series of outpatient
and residential programs for inmates with a history of substance use. These cognitivebehavioral programs are designed to provide inmates with the necessary skills to refrain
from substance abuse and related criminal conduct.

•

Resolve Program. A cognitive-behavioral program designed to address the traumarelated mental health needs of female offenders. Inmates typically participate in the
program during the first 12 months of incarceration, and it takes approximately 40 weeks
to complete.

•

Criminal Thinking Groups. Outpatient, cognitive-behavioral treatment groups designed
to address criminality and misconduct. In these groups, inmates learn how criminal
thinking errors impact their behaviors and how to effectively change their thinking and, in
turn, change their behaviors.

•

Anger Management Groups. Outpatient, cognitive-behavioral treatment groups
designed to teach participants anger management skills. Inmates learn and practice
cognitive, relaxation, and communication skills to reduce anger, including by learning how
to develop an individualized anger control plan.
27

•

Sexual Self-Regulation Groups. Outpatient, cognitive-behavioral treatment groups
designed to address sexual deviancy and sexual preoccupation in sex offenders. Inmates
learn and practice a set of self-management skills to gain effective control over deviant
sexual urges and behaviors.

•

Core Correctional Communication Program. A program that trains staff to help
inmates to identify, verbalize, and eventually address the consequences of their behavior.

•

Token Economy Programs. A system of behavior modification incorporated into
several of the Bureau’s Psychology Treatment programs. Token economies focus on the
use of positive reinforcement, a powerful behavior change tool, to encourage and support
pro-social behaviors and relationships.

SHU Transitional Segregation
In some cases, inmates will remain in the SHU longer than originally anticipated due to difficulties
finding acceptable housing in general population. There are several reasons for these delays. One
involves the general overcrowding at Bureau facilities: high- and medium-security facilities are
currently above their rated capacities (46 percent and 30 percent, respectively), limiting the number
of empty beds available for inmates exiting SHU.
Another source of delay is “separatee orders,” which limit where the Bureau can house certain
inmates. A separatee order can be submitted by Bureau staff, federal prosecutors, or judges, and
the order prohibits a specific inmate from being housed with certain other individuals, typically
due to gang rivalries or other security concerns. As of November 23, 2015, approximately 5,800
SHU inmates were subject to some type of separatee order. In each one of those cases, Bureau
staff can only return the inmate to an institution that is free of all other individuals listed in the
separatee order. (The Bureau faces similar challenges when progressing inmates through the
multi-level SMU program or housing prisoners at the ADX.)

Conditions of Confinement
By almost any measurement, the conditions of confinement in the SHU are more restrictive than
those afforded to inmates in general population. Although the exact conditions vary, the typical
cell is 60 to 80 square feet, with a bunk, toilet, sink, and a narrow window. Some cells include
small desks bolted to the wall; some include showers. Inmates are typically permitted to possess a
small number of personal items, subject to regular inspection. Most inmates receive their meals on
a tray passed through a small slot in the cell door. When inmates are permitted to leave the cell,
they are usually cuffed or shackled at the wrists, waist, and legs, and escorted by one or more
correctional officers to recreation or group therapy. Recreation typically occurs in confined
spaces, usually alone or in small groups separated from others by fencing.

28

Federal regulations and Bureau policy documents establish baseline conditions of confinement for
all SHUs. As noted earlier, inmates in AD status and DS status are housed under very similar
physical conditions. However, the Program Statement governing SHU operations provides that
those placed in non-punitive AD status receive certain privileges not available to those placed in
DS status. Bureau staff make 30-minute rounds, ensuring that all required conditions are met.
Per Bureau regulations, certain baseline conditions apply, regardless of AD or DS status:
•

Environment. Living quarters are to be well-ventilated, adequately lighted, appropriately
heated, and maintained in sanitary conditions.

•

Cell occupancy. Ordinarily, one or two occupants.

•

Clothing. Each inmate receives adequate institution clothing, including footwear, and
must be provided opportunities to exchange clothing and/or have it washed.

•

Bedding. Each inmate receives a mattress, blankets, a pillow, and linens for sleeping, and
must be provided opportunities to exchange linens. (As a disciplinary sanction, the
UDC/DHO may remove an inmate’s mattress during non-sleeping daytime hours as a
“loss of privilege.”)

•

Food. Each inmate receives nutritionally adequate meals.

•

Personal hygiene. Each inmate has access to a wash basin and toilet, as well as personal
items necessary to maintain an acceptable level of personal hygiene. Inmates normally
have an opportunity to shower and shave at least three times per week.

•

Exercise. Each inmate receives the opportunity to exercise outside his or her individual
quarters at least five hours per week, ordinarily on different days in one-hour periods. The
Warden may limit this opportunity for specific safety reasons, but may not restrict exercise
time as a sanction for disciplinary violations.

•

Reading Materials. Each inmate receives a reasonable amount of non-legal reading
material, and is permitted to possess religious scriptures of the inmate’s faith.

•

Telephone. Each inmate is ordinarily permitted to make one social telephone call per
month. (As a disciplinary sanction, the UDC/DHO may limit telephone access as a “loss
of privilege.”)

•

Legal activities. Each inmate may conduct legal research, file lawsuits, and participate in
legal visits and telephone calls under the same provisions as inmates in general population.
29

•

Social visiting privileges and general (non-legal) correspondence. Each inmate may
have social visits and send social correspondences, unless those privileges have been
restricted.

•

Staff monitoring. Bureau staff will arrange to visit each inmate within a reasonable time
after receiving an inmate request. In addition, inmates are regularly monitored by program
and unit team staff.

•

Programming activities. Each inmate has access to programming activities to the extent
such access does not jeopardize the safety, security, orderly operation of a correctional
facility, or public safety. (Participation in programming activities, such as education
programs, may be suspended to inmates in DS status.) This programming can include
cognitive behavioral interventions, literacy programs, adult continuing education, college
correspondence classes, and parenting classes.

Inmates in AD status receive some privileges not afforded to inmates in DS status. For example:
•

Personal property. Each inmate in AD status is permitted a “reasonable amount” of
personal property and “reasonable access” to the commissary. Personal property may
include religious texts, legal material, magazines, mail, a newspaper, personal hygiene
items, a 25-picture photo album, snack foods, powdered soft drinks, stationary, wedding
band, radio with ear plugs, and a watch. Inmates in DS status may possess mail, purchase
limited commissary items, such as hygiene items and stamps, and receive reading material,
including religious texts.

Bureau regulations also require that inmates receive appropriate medical and mental health care
while in the SHU. This includes daily sick call rounds, daily pill lines (typically in the morning,
noon, and evening), individualized health services (including treatment for chronic diseases,
mental illnesses, dental emergencies, and physical therapy), and immunizations. In addition, after
every 30 calendar days of continuous placement in AD or DS status, mental health staff examines
the inmate, including a personal interview. Inmates in SHU longer than six months receive
comprehensive mental health evaluations, as discussed later in this Report. Emergency medical
and mental health care is always available to SHU inmates.

Staffing
Correctional Services staff are assigned to SHU as a quarterly work assignment. A lieutenant
oversees the overall operations of the unit. Correctional officers supervise and ensure the safety
of inmates, facilitate access of staff from other departments (e.g., warden and associate wardens,
medical, case management, psychology, religious services), and provide routine services and
privileges (e.g., mail, telephone, visits, reading material, meals, recreation, showers). To ensure
around-the-clock, year-round coverage, each SHU employs approximately 18 correctional staff
30

members over the course of three daily shifts (day watch, evening watch, morning watch).
Depending upon the capacity of a SHU, a day watch shift typically involves three to five officers,
who are responsible for supervising as many as 200 inmates.
In comparison to general population living quarters, SHU typically houses a significantly higher
concentration of inmates who recently have engaged in violent (fights; assaults) or seriously
disruptive (drugs; weapons) behavior. While correctional officers assigned to SHU routinely
communicate and interact with inmates in the unit, they face a higher risk of exposure to
dangerous situations presented by inmates who resort to violence when other prisoners would not.
Given the heightened security risks, it typically takes multiple correctional officers to escort even
small numbers of SHU inmates outside of their cells. Seemingly mundane tasks, such as
transporting the inmates to a recreation space or supervising group therapy classes, require careful
coordination among staff members, and these tasks often take much longer to complete than
when performed in general population units.

Data Collection
Prior to January 2013, the Bureau had only limited ability to track inmates housed in SHU.
Among other things, the Bureau’s electronic system could not distinguish between inmates in DS
or AD status, nor could it identify the specific reasons an inmate was placed in SHU. Starting in
early 2013, however, the Bureau implemented a new, automated tracking system, known as the
“SHU Application,” which now operates at all Bureau-operated facilities. In its current form, the
SHU Application can provide Bureau staff with information about the number of inmates placed
in DS status, as well as several “subcategories” of AD status (such as “protective custody” or
“pending transfer”). Staff can obtain this information through a “SHU Dashboard,” which
presents data in an easy-to-read format. The chart on the following page demonstrates some of
the information accessible through the SHU Dashboard.
There are, however, limitations to the data collected by the SHU Application. At present, the
SHU Application can only provide a “snapshot” of all inmates in the SHU at a particular moment
(i.e., incidence data); it cannot track information about individual inmates. As a result, unless
Bureau staff has access to paper files, it is impossible to tell how long a particular inmate has been
housed in segregation, whether an inmate’s status in the SHU has changed over time (for example,
transitioning from investigative AD status to a punitive DS term), or the number of times an
inmate has returned to segregation during the inmate’s entire prison term.
The chart below includes two such “snapshots”: one from May 2013, the first month when the
SHU Application could track the total number of inmates housed in the SHU for longer than 90,
180, and 364 days; and one from November 23, 2015. The right two columns show the change in
SHU population during that time, by total numbers and percentage. Among other things, the
chart reveals a decline in the Bureau’s total SHU population over the two-and-a-half year period
(14.5%), even when compared to the reduction in the Bureau’s overall inmate population (7.9%).
31

The most substantial reductions have been in long-term SHU placements: the number of inmates
housed in SHU more than 180 days have declined nearly 60 percent during this period, and the
number housed more than 364 days have declined by more than 50 percent.
SHU PLACEMENT OVER TIME (BUREAU-RUN FACILITIES)
(Adapted from SHU Application “Dashboard”)
SHU Placement

05/27/13

11/23/15

10,086

Change (05/27/13 to 11/23/15)

Total

% Change

8,625

1,461 ↓

14.48% ↓

1,655

1,071

584 ↓

35.29% ↓

In SHU more than 180 days

778

338

440 ↓

56.56% ↓

In SHU more than 364 days

155

77

78 ↓

50.32% ↓

Disciplinary Segregation (DS) Status

2,041

1,417

624 ↓

30.57% ↓

Administrative Detention (AD) Status

8,045

7,208

837 ↓

10.40% ↓

3,308

3,422

114 ↑

3.45% ↑

AD: Pending Hearing (BOP Violation)

937

782

155 ↓

16.54% ↓

AD: Pending Investigation (Criminal Trial)

110

115

5↑

4.54% ↑

1,600

848

752 ↓

47.00% ↓

254

73

181 ↓

71.26% ↓

1,358

436

922 ↓

67.89% ↓

AD: Pending Transfer/Holdover

676

1,180

504 ↑

74.56% ↑

AD: Terminating DS, Ordered to AD

465

231

234 ↓

50.32% ↓

AD: Pending Classification

573

342

231 ↓

40.31% ↓

6,760

5,838

922 ↓

13.64%↓

176,176

162,339

13,991 ↓

7.93%↓

Total in SHU
In SHU more than 90 days

AD: Pending Investigation (BOP Violation)

AD: Protective Custody (Inmate Requested)
AD: Protective Custody (Involuntary)
AD: Protective Custody (Any over 30 Days)

Separatee Assignment
Average Daily Bureau Population

The current version of the SHU Application has not yet been implemented at any of the Bureau’s
private contract facilities. As a result, it is only possible to electronically track the total number of
inmates in SHU at those institutions (as was the case at all Bureau facilities prior to the roll-out of
the SHU Application).
SHU PLACEMENT OVER TIME (CONTRACT FACILITIES)
(Adapted from Data Provided by Facilities)
SHU Placement
Total in SHU
Average Daily Population

32

05/27/13

11/23/15

1,778
29,303

Change (05/27/13 to 11/23/15)

Total

% Change

924

854 ↓

48.03% ↓

23,083

6,220 ↓

21.23% ↓

The Bureau is currently developing the capacity to track inmates as they move through different
statuses within their restrictive housing units. As part of these efforts, the Bureau is automating its
disciplinary process, which will allow Bureau officials to track a disciplinary violation from the
incident report, to DHO hearing, to final disposition. In addition, in late 2016, the Bureau expects
to release an upgraded version of the SHU Application, which will make it possible to track
inmates as they progress through restrictive housing, including as they transfer from AD status to
DS status or vice versa. Once these efforts are completed, the Bureau will have greater ability to
assess the use of its Special Housing Units, allowing staff to identify potential problems quickly.

33

Special Management Units (SMU)
SMU is a four-phase program for Bureau inmates who present unique security and management
concerns. The program is designed for those who require greater supervision than is typically
available at SHUs, but whose history of violent conduct does not rise to the level required for
designation to the ADX. The goal of the program is to correct inmates’ disruptive and violent
behaviors, while gradually preparing them for return to the general population. The Bureau
considers the program non-punitive, insofar as it is never imposed as an actual sanction for a
disciplinary violation, although the vast majority of inmates selected for the program have a history
of disciplinary violations at their institutions. Many are members or leaders of gangs or other
“security threat groups” (STGs). Policies regarding the SMU are codified in Program Statement
5217.01, Special Management Units.
The Bureau created the SMU program in 2009, in response to a series of violent incidents within
the federal prison system, including a staff homicide and a number of inmate homicides and
serious assaults. As violence increased, so too did the disciplinary violations, and eventually the
number of inmates requiring punitive segregation outpaced the capacity of the Bureau’s SHUs.
In response, the Bureau implemented a number of policies, including the creation of the SMU
program. By 2012, the SMU population reached 2,009 inmates. Over time, as prison violence
subsided, the Bureau reduced the number of prisoners placed in the SMU program. As of
November 25, 2015, 1,235 inmates were participating in the program.
A Warden may refer an inmate for possible designation to a SMU if the inmate:
•
•
•
•
•
•

Participated in “disruptive geographical group/gang-related activity”;
Had a leadership role in disruptive geographical group/gang-related activity;
Has a history of serious or disruptive disciplinary infractions;
Committed any 100-level (“Greatest”) disciplinary violation, after being classified as a
member of a “disruptive group”;
Participated in, organized, or facilitated any group misconduct that “adversely affected the
orderly operation of a correctional facility”; or
Participated in or was associated with activity such that greater management of the
inmate’s interaction with other people is necessary to “ensure the safety, security, or
orderly operation of the Bureau facilities, or protection of the public.”

To refer an inmate to a SMU, the Warden submits a comprehensive referral packet, including all
documents recording the inmate’s misconduct, to the Regional Director. If the Regional Director
determines the referral warrants further review, an impartial “Hearing Administrator” is appointed
to conduct a hearing. The SMU Hearing Administrator must be a trained and certified DHO and
cannot be a witness in a relevant disciplinary action involving the inmate.
34

Inmates receive notice of the SMU hearing, including the reasons for their referral and the
availability of a staff member to assist with gathering documents and written statements. Hearings
may be conducted in person or remotely via telephone or videoconference. Inmates may appear
at the hearing, make an oral statement, and present documentary evidence (e.g., written witness
statements). The SMU Hearing Administrator will determine if the inmate meets the SMU referral
criteria and will prepare a detailed report of his or her findings for the Regional Director.
Additional information, such as a review of the inmate’s mental health history is also provided. If
the Regional Director determines an SMU referral is appropriate, the Regional Director will make
a recommendation to the Bureau’s Designation and Sentence Computation Center for a SMU
designation. At this stage in the referral process, the Bureau’s Psychology Services Branch also
plays a role in reviewing inmates with a mental health history to ensure the inmate’s placement in a
SMU is appropriate. Inmates are provided a copy of the Hearing Administrator’s report and
advised of the opportunity to appeal the SMU designation via an expedited appeal process directly
to the Bureau’s Office of General Counsel.
Once selected, an inmate is transferred from his home institution to USP Lewisburg to begin the
program. All SMU inmates progress through the four-phase program; Bureau staff conduct
regular “SMU Reviews” to determine when an inmate should be advanced to the next phase.
Inmates who violate program rules or fail to meet expected targets can be returned to a previous
level. Inmates who have mental health disorders or cognitive limitations that make it unlikely that
they would progress through the phases are accommodated, so that they may have the same
opportunity as those without disabilities to advance through the phases, or diverted to an
appropriate program to accommodate those limitations. The four phases are described below.
Average completion times are included in parentheses.
•

Level One (4 months). At this level, interaction between inmates is minimal. The
Associate Warden is responsible for determining which inmates may be housed or
participate in activities together. Inmates are ordinarily restricted to their assigned cells.
An initial SMU Review occurs within 28 days, and every 90 days subsequently.

•

Level Two (6-8 months). Level Two largely resembles Level One, except that out-of-cell
activities and programming may be increased on a case-by-case basis. In some instances,
inmates are permitted to have additional personal property. Inmates participate in GED
or ESL programs, either individually or in a classroom setting, as well as individual and
small group counseling sessions, which focus on “treatment readiness skills” (i.e., basic
empathy, respect). During this phase, SMU Reviews occur every 90 days.

•

Level Three (6-8 months). At this level, inmates begin to interact in an open, but
supervised setting, both within a unit and in frequent group counseling sessions. Inmates
who demonstrate good conduct receive increased privileges, such as greater commissary
access and additional personal property. Counseling sessions focus on ways to minimize
35

disruptive behavior, including through cognitive restructuring. SMU Reviews occur every
90 days.
•

Level Four (2-4 months). At this level, inmates must be able to demonstrate their
sustained ability to coexist and interact appropriately with other individuals and groups in
the unit. Inmates may be considered for the same personal property privileges given to
general population inmates. SMU Reviews occur every 30 days. At the completion of this
stage, inmates return to a general population setting, typically at a high-security institution.

Currently, all Level One and Level Two inmates are housed at USP Lewisburg. Level Three and
Level Four inmates are housed either at USP Lewisburg or USP Allenwood. If an inmate has not
completed all four stages after 24 months, a referral for continued SMU designation must be
submitted to the Regional Director, who must authorize continued placement. If the inmate
continues to exhibit disruptive conduct after six additional months, the inmate may be referred for
designation to another appropriate facility, including the ADX.

Conditions of Confinement
Bureau policies establish baseline conditions of confinement for all SMU inmates, as well as the
increased privileges that inmates can earn as they progress through the program. Many of the
baseline privileges are identical to those in the SHU, including those regarding environment
(ventilation, lighting, heating), cell occupancy, clothing, bedding, food, personal hygiene, access to
religious materials, and medical care. Inmates are permitted five hours of out-of-cell exercise per
week. During Level One and Level Two, recreation occurs in individual metal enclosures; in the
final two phases, inmates may recreate together.
All SMU inmates receive mental health evaluations every 30 days, and emergency mental health
and medical care are always available at the institution or in the community. Inmates who remain
in SMU longer than 18 months receive comprehensive mental health evaluations. USP Lewisburg
offers psychology programming on its in-cell radio station. In addition, the Education
Department at Lewisburg offers literacy and secondary education programming. (Among the
Bureau’s high-security institutions, USP Lewisburg has the highest GED completion rate).

Staffing
Correctional Services staff are assigned to SMUs as a quarterly work assignment. A lieutenant
oversees the overall operations of the unit. Correctional officers supervise and ensure the safety
of inmates, facilitate access of staff from other departments, and provide routine services and
privileges. To ensure around-the-clock, year-round coverage, each SMU employs approximately
16 correctional staff members over the course of three daily shifts. Depending upon the capacity
of a SMU, a day watch shift typically involves three to five officers, who are responsible for
supervising approximately 75 to 200 inmates.

36

Much like staff assigned to SHU units, those who work in SMUs face repeated exposure to
dangerous situations, due largely to the high-risk populations placed in SMU. All SMU officers are
trained to address these security risks.

37

USP Administrative Maximum (ADX)
Experienced correctional administrators have long recognized that a small group of extremely
violent and influential inmates can have a disproportionately negative effect on the safe and
orderly operation of an institution. The mission of the United States Penitentiary, Administrative
Maximum (ADX) addresses this concern. The ADX is designed to safely house the Bureau’s most
violent, predatory, disruptive, and escape-prone inmates in an environment providing each inmate
an opportunity to demonstrate improved behavior, and the ability and motivation to eventually
reintegrate into an open population at a different facility. The mission of the ADX also allows the
Bureau’s other penitentiaries to operate safely and openly, permitting the significant percentage of
the Bureau’s inmate population who want to serve their sentences without difficulty to do so
safely.
The ADX houses just over 400 male inmates, which constitutes less than a quarter of a percent of
the total Bureau population. This number has stayed relatively stable despite the growing inmate
population since the ADX opened in 1994. The most common reasons for ADX placement are
serious institutional misconduct, most often involving progressive acts of violent, predatory,
aggressive, intimidating, or extremely disruptive conduct; involvement in conspiracies to, attempts
to, or actual escapes from secure facilities; and unusual security needs based on the nature of an
inmate’s offense (e.g., notoriety, access to vast community and financial resources, or a leader of an
organized crime association or terrorist group). Most inmates “work” their way to the ADX
through progressive acts of predatory violence and/or extremely disruptive behavior,
demonstrating they cannot function in an open population institution without posing a risk to the
safety and security of the institution staff, inmates, and the public. In addition, the ADX accepts a
small number of particularly dangerous or violent inmates from state correctional agencies, when
states believe that their own facilities are insufficient to address the risks that a particular inmate
possesses. (As of November 23, 2015, 15 of the ADX’s 405 inmates were state prisoners,
representing 11 states.) Through regular, careful case reviews, the Bureau ensures that the ADX is
used for only those individuals who need the security and controls available. The chart below
identifies categories of inmates housed at the ADX, as of November 2015:
Sample of ADX Population
(As of November 2015)
Description

Number

Leaders, Members, or Associates of
“Security Threat Group” (STG)

98

Murdered Another Inmate

67

Leaders, Members, or Associates of
“Disruptive Group”

62

International Terrorists

34

Al Qaeda

19

38

Gama’a Al-Islamiyaa

3

Taliban

3

History of Hostage Taking

12

Threatened Members of Federal
Judiciary

12

Domestic Terrorists

10

Murdered Bureau Staff

3

Inmates are afforded multi-level reviews prior to their placement at the ADX. The current policy
sets out a multi-step process, which includes a formal hearing, full clinical psychological evaluation
(which is reviewed by the Bureau’s Central Office), and medical review for determining whether
an inmate is appropriate for placement at the ADX. This process applies to all inmates who are
considered for transfer to the ADX, including those with Special Administrative Measures
(SAMs), which are described in more detail below. Inmates are generally referred to the ADX if
they meet one of two basic criteria: (1) violent, disruptive, or escape-prone conduct in other
correctional institutions; or (2) their status prevents them from being safely housed in the general
population of an open-population correctional facility. Each inmate referred for placement
receives a hearing, during which the inmate may make a statement.
The ADX operates four distinct programs: the General Population and Step-Down Unit
Program; the Control Unit Program; the Special Security Unit (SSU) Program; and the High
Security Adult Alternative Housing Program. Unless an inmate is referred for placement to the
Control Unit or has SAMs, the inmate will ordinarily be placed into General Population and StepDown Program. As an inmate in this program demonstrates periods of clear conduct and positive
institution adjustment, it is possible for the inmate to progress from the general population units,
through the intermediate, transitional, and pre-transfer units, with increasing degrees of personal
freedom and privileges at each stage, and be transferred out of the program to an open population
institution. An inmate’s eligibility for advancement in the program is reviewed, at a minimum,
every six months. His continued placement is then closely scrutinized on a regular basis to ensure
only those inmates who require the security and controls of the institution are housed at the ADX.
The ADX also operates its own Special Housing Unit (ADX SHU) for inmates in administrative
detention or disciplinary segregation status.

ADX Conditions of Confinement
All inmates at ADX are single-celled. Inmates are provided with access to both indoor and
outdoor recreation, with the amount of time varying by unit, as explained below. Inmates who
choose to go to outside recreation have access to sunlight and fresh air. Generally, the areas
contain pull-up and dip bars, and inmates are allowed to play with handballs and soccer balls.
Inmates may request instruction in aerobic exercise from ADX Florence Recreation staff. Inmates
have access to wellness programs, weekly leisure games via the ADX Florence closed circuit
39

television system, weekend “brain teaser” games, arts and crafts, a weekly movie program, and
special holiday activities.
All inmates are given the opportunity to have up to five in-person social visits per month, unless
they are subject to some sort of visitation restriction. These visits are non-contact. Inmates may
also make social telephone calls, the number of which depends on the inmate’s housing unit, as
described below. Inmates may send and receive legal and social correspondence.
With the exception of inmates in disciplinary segregation, each inmate has a 13" television in his
cell, which generally provides channels for closed circuit institutional programming (Recreation,
Education, Religious Services, and Psychology), broadcast channels, radio stations, and digital
music channels. Inmates housed in administrative detention in the Special Housing Unit only
have access to the institutional programming channels on their televisions. One of the television
channels provides bulletins to the inmates and shows the date and time. The costs of the
televisions and select broadcast channels are covered through profits from inmate commissary
purchases.
Inmates may subscribe to periodicals; may borrow leisure reading materials from the institution’s
library; may take GED, Adult Continuing Education, and correspondence classes; may paint,
draw, or crochet; may participate in a weekly bingo game; and may participate in art, essay and
poetry contests. Inmates may make purchases from the commissary, including food items,
toiletries, pens, paper, and religious items.
All ADX inmates have in-person contact with other persons on a daily basis. The Warden,
Associate Wardens, Captain, and Department Heads perform weekly rounds in each unit for the
opportunity to visit with inmates. Correctional Officers perform regular 30 minute rounds
throughout all three shifts on a daily basis. A member of an inmate’s Unit Team visits the inmates
every day. Inmates receive regular visits from medical staff, education staff, religious services staff,
and psychology staff when they perform their rounds, and upon request if needed. Medical and
mental health staff visit each unit daily. In addition, inmates have the ability to communicate with
one another in several ways—they can and do speak to their neighbors in the cells next to, above,
or below them and may speak to one another during out-of-cell recreation.
ADX inmates are able to participate in legal activities, including filing lawsuits. The inmates are
able to have confidential legal visits and calls. Inmates have access to legal research via an
electronic law library located within each unit.
Each cell at the ADX has a light, which the inmate may turn on and off as needed. These lights
have three settings (dim, medium, and bright). The inmate controls the setting of the lights from
inside his cell and can turn the light completely off. The inmate is required to turn the light on
when staff are interacting with him at the front of his cell. Each cell has a bed with a mattress and
bedding, a sink, a desk, a shelf, and a chair. Inmates may have personal items, such as
photographs, reading materials, and legal papers in their cells.
40

The sizes of the cells range from 75 to 87 square feet. The cells in six of the nine housing units (B,
C, D, E, F, and G units) are approximately 87 square feet, which does not include the inner
sallyport area of the cell, which is 17 square feet. Each cell has a solid outer door and an inner
grill. The wall next to the door for each cell also has a window, which is approximately 12” x 48”.
Each cell solid outer door has a window, which looks out on to the housing unit range, which is
approximately 5” x 18”. Each cell also has a window that looks outside, providing the inmate with
natural lighting, which is 5” x 38”, as well as a shower in the cell. The cells in the remaining 3
units (H, J, and K units), have approximately 75.5 square feet of living space and do not have an
inner sallyport or a shower. Each cell has a solid outer door, with a window, which looks out on
to the range, which is 5” x 18”. Each cell also has a window that looks outside, providing the
inmate with natural lighting, which is 5” x 38”.
The following sections describe the conditions at specific units within the ADX.

General Population and Step-Down Unit Program
The ADX has a General Population and Step-Down Unit Program that provides inmates with
incentives to adhere to the standards of conduct associated with a maximum security custody
program. As these inmates demonstrate good conduct and positive institutional adjustment, they
may progress from the General Population Units (D, E, F, and G) to the Intermediate (J/A),
Transitional (which is currently located at USP Florence, adjacent to the ADX on the complex),
and Pre-Transfer Units (also located at USP Florence). Inmates who are successful in the PreTransfer Unit may be transferred to an appropriate Bureau facility. Inmates at the ADX are
encouraged to engage with family and friends in the community through social visits,
correspondence, and telephone calls. All inmates in the General Population and Step-Down Unit
Program may receive up to five social visits per month; they may also send and receive social
correspondence. There is no numeric limit on the number of legal visits and calls they may
receive. The other privileges afforded to the inmates are determined by their housing unit
assignments in this layered program.
Ordinarily, the minimum time period to complete the program is 36 months. The minimum stay
in a general population unit is ordinarily 12 months, the intermediate program is ordinarily 6
months, the transitional program is ordinarily 6 months, and the pre-transfer program is ordinarily
12 months. There is no minimum or maximum time period for completion of the program.
•

General Population. General Population inmates have access to the programming and
opportunities described above, including a television set in each cell. These inmates
receive at least 10.5 hours of out-of-cell recreation per week (alternating between indoor
and outdoor). Meals are provided to the inmates in their cells. General Population
inmates are permitted to have two 15-minute social phone calls per month.

•

Pre-Intermediate Unit. The Pre-Intermediate Unit (K/A Unit) houses those inmates
who have demonstrated they can function in a less secure environment within the ADX,
41

but who have not demonstrated they can function in the Intermediate Step of the StepDown Unit Program. The inmates are assigned to a group with another inmate. These
inmates receive a minimum of 10.5 hours of out-of-cell recreation per week. The inmates
recreate out of their cells in a double-occupancy recreation area either on the range or
outside. Meals are provided to the inmates in their cells, and they eat their meals in their
cells. The inmates receive three 15-minute social telephone calls per month. Shower stalls
are located on the range and the inmates are escorted to shower.
•

Intermediate Step. Inmates in the Intermediate Step receive 20.5 hours of out-of-cell
recreation per week, split between out-of-cell recreation on the range and outdoor
recreation. The inmates are assigned to one of four groups, with as many as eight inmates
in a group. The inmates have indoor and outdoor recreation out of their cells with
inmates in their assigned group. Meals are provided to the inmates by groups, with each
group allowed out of their cells one at a time to come to the front of the range, receive
their meals, and then return to their cells while unrestrained. The inmates eat their meals
in their cells. The inmates are unrestrained when out of their cells on the range. The
inmates receive two 15-minute social telephone calls per month. Shower stalls are located
on the range, and the inmates may shower any time they are out on the range.

•

Transitional Unit and Pre-Transfer Unit. The Transitional and Pre-Transfer Units are
located at USP Florence, in Bravo-B (B/B) Unit. Each cell in B/B Unit has approximately
80 square feet area of living space and does not have a sallyport or a shower. Each cell has
a solid outer door. Each cell’s solid outer door has a window which looks out on to the
range. Each cell also has a window that looks outside, providing the inmate with natural
lighting. The inmates are assigned to a group. The inmates consume their meals on the
range with the other inmates in their assigned group. Showers are located on the ranges,
and inmates may shower at any time they are on the range. The inmates in these units
receive a minimum of 30.5 and 35.5 hours of out-of-cell recreation per week, respectively.
The inmates’ out-of-cell recreation includes recreation in the unit and in the outdoor group
recreation area. The inmates receive four 15-minute calls, and 300 minutes of social
telephone calls per month, respectively.

In addition, the ADX has a privilege incentive program for inmates in the General Population and
Control Unit Programs. The incentive program provides inmates confined in the General
Population and Control Units additional incentives to participate in programs and enhance the
programming opportunities available to them to demonstrate their readiness for release from the
General Population and Control Units. The program encourages progressive development of prosocial behavior and personal skills which enhance successful reentry into both a general population
environment and, ultimately, the community. As inmates in the General Population and Control
Units participate in programs, it is possible for inmates (1) to have restored certain privileges that
were suspended through the discipline process; (2) to participate in additional programs; and (3) to
obtain a reduction in the projected duration of the inmate’s confinement in his unit.
42

Control Unit Program
The Control Unit houses the most dangerous, violent, disruptive and assaultive inmates in the
Bureau’s custody. The Control Unit Program provides housing for inmates who are unable to
function in a less restrictive environment without posing a threat to others or the institution. This
unit typically houses inmates who have assaulted or killed staff or other inmates or who have
escaped or attempted escape from another institution.
Referral to the unit is outlined in Program Statement 5212.07, Control Unit Program, and is
reviewed by the Regional Director in the region which the inmate is housed. If the Regional
Director concurs with the placement, the referral is submitted to the Regional Director of the
North Central region, where the ADX is located. The Regional Director then designates a hearing
administrator to conduct a hearing to review the placement referral. A mental health evaluation is
a required component of the referrals to the Control Unit, and medical, psychological, and
psychiatric concerns are considered during the review. Findings from the mental health
evaluations, along with the full clinical record, are reviewed by the Central Office level by the
Psychology Services Branch. The decision of the hearing administrator is then submitted to the
Executive Panel (consisting of the North Central Regional Director, and Assistant Director of the
Correctional Programs Division) for final review and placement.
Inmates placed in the Control Unit are given a specific term of time that they will serve in the
Control Unit. Inmates placed in the Control Unit are reviewed within four weeks of initial
placement. Subsequent reviews are conducted on a monthly basis by the unit team, while the
Executive Panel reviews each inmate’s status and placement on a quarterly basis. Credit for time
served is granted depending on their adjustment and readiness for release from the Control Unit.
Inmates housed in the Control Unit receive a minimum of 7 hours of out-of-cell exercise per week
and can participate in educational and psychological programming via the closed circuit televisions
within their cells. Inmates receive psychology services and medical services on the same basis as
inmates housed in other units at ADX. The inmates consume their meals in their cells. The
inmates receive one monthly social telephone call and may receive up to five social visits per
month.

Special Security Unit (SSU) Program
The Special Security Unit Program is designed for inmates who are subject to Special
Administrative Measures (SAMs), which are restrictions on communications imposed by the
Attorney General. See 28 C.F.R. §§ 501.2, 501.3. Inmates with SAMs are placed in the Special
Security Unit (H Unit). SAMs may be imposed to prevent disclosure of classified information that
would pose a threat to national security if disclosed or to protect against acts of terrorism and
violence. SAMs include, but are not limited to, placing an inmate in administrative detention and
restricting social visits, mail privileges, phone calls, and access to other inmates and to the media.
Inmates housed in the SSU are reviewed annually by the Attorney General to determine if the
SAM status should be renewed or modified. The Attorney General’s review includes an
43

assessment of information provided by the prosecuting United States Attorney’s Office and
federal law enforcement officials.
The inmates incarcerated in H Unit have the opportunity to participate in a three-phase Special
Security Unit Program (SSU Program), designed especially for SAMs inmates. The purpose of the
SSU Program is to confine inmates with SAMs under close controls, while providing them
opportunities to demonstrate progressively responsible behavior and participate in programs in a
safe, secure environment. The SSU Program balances the interests of providing inmates with
programming opportunities and increased privileges with the interests of ensuring institutional and
national security. The success of the inmate’s participation in the SSU Program provides
information that can be considered in the evaluation of whether SAMs continue to be necessary,
or whether the inmate’s communications can be monitored in a manner that will not compromise
national or institutional security interests.
The inmates housed in the Special Security Unit receive a minimum of 10 hours of out-of-cell
exercise per week. Generally, the inmates recreate individually in secure single recreation areas.
The inmates in Phase 1 and Phase 2 consume all their meals in their cells. The inmates receive up
to four monthly social telephone calls and may receive up to five social visits.
•

Phase 1. The baseline phase of the program, an inmate in this phase may be permitted
two non-legal telephone calls per month, access to a commissary list and art and hobby
craft items, and escorted shower time on the inmate’s range three times each week.

•

Phase 2. Depending upon the inmate’s adjustment, he can move into Phase 2 at
approximately 12 months. In Phase 2 of the Program, an inmate may be permitted three
non-legal telephone calls per month and access to an expanded commissary list and
additional art and hobby craft items. The inmate is allowed to be out of his cell without an
escort five times each week.

•

Phase 3. Placement into Phase 3 typically requires a modification of the SAMs to allow
inmates to have physical contact with one another. Inmates in Phase 3 are allowed to be
out on the range together in groups of up to four. An inmate in Phase 3 gains the ability
to be in physical contact with other inmates in the range area outside his cell, seven days a
week. Phase 3 inmates spend one-and-a-half hours per day on the range with up to three
other inmates, none of whom are escorted by Bureau staff. The inmates in Phase 3 eat
one meal together and engage in recreational activities, including watching television,
reading and playing cards. Phase 3 inmates may shower at any time they are on the range.
In addition, Phase 3 inmates continue to have access to the expanded art and hobby craft
list and a further expanded commissary list.

44

High Security Adult Alternative Housing Program
This is a recently developed program designed for inmates who have generally demonstrated that
they can function in a less-secure environment within the ADX without posing a risk to
institutional security and good order, but whose safety needs prohibit them from advancing
through the Step-Down Unit Program. The recent addition of this programming housing unit
reflects the Bureau’s core values (correctional excellence, respect, and integrity) through a
continual review of the operating procedures to determine if gradual modification is necessary,
first and foremost to reflect sound security practices, and only then to safely expand inmate access
to programming opportunities. This program permits close controls while providing basic
amenities and life enhancing programs that allow inmates to engage socially with one another.
The inmates in this program are housed in K/B Unit. The inmates are assigned to one of four
groups of up to eight inmates. The unit has an enclosed common area with recreation equipment
and leisure materials. These inmates receive a minimum of 24 hours of out-of-cell recreation per
week. The inmates recreate with other inmates in their assigned group on the range, or outdoors,
on a large recreation yard. The inmates consume their meals in their cells. The inmates are
unrestrained when out of their cells. The inmates receive four 15-minute social telephone calls per
month and may receive up to five social visits per month. Shower stalls are located on the range.
The inmates may shower anytime they are out on the range. The inmates in this Program may
leave the unit, unrestrained and under a staff escort, to purchase items from Commissary.

ADX Special Housing Unit (ADX SHU)
The ADX’s Special Housing Unit (C Unit, Range 1) is a short-term housing unit for both inmates
in Disciplinary Segregation, who have been found guilty of prohibited acts while at the ADX, and
those in Administrative Detention, who have pending internal investigations, have been designated
for a transfer, or have other temporary administrative needs. These inmates receive a minimum of
5 hours of out-of-cell exercise per week. The inmates recreate individually in secure single
recreation areas. The inmates consume their meals in their cells. The inmates receive a minimum
of one monthly social telephone call and may receive up to five social visits per month. Shower
stalls are located within the cells. As mentioned, inmates on Administrative Detention status in
the ADX SHU have televisions in their cells that show Bureau programming and inmate bulletin
information. Inmates on Disciplinary Segregation status do not have a television in their cell.

45

Bureau Inmates Requiring Special Consideration
The following sections examine Bureau services for four categories of inmates who may require
special consideration: inmates with serious mental illness, inmates with acute medical needs,
young adults (age 18-24 at time of conviction), and juveniles (under 18 at time of adjudication).
As discussed below, each category possesses certain characteristics that may make the inmates
particularly susceptible to the effects of restrictive housing, and so additional care may be required
in certain circumstances.

Inmates with Serious Mental Illness (SMI)
Inmates with serious mental illness (SMI) who are violent or disruptive pose a special challenge to
the Bureau. Their behavior often requires removal from the general population, and yet
“traditional” forms of restrictive housing (SHU, SMU, and the ADX) present challenges to ensure
that an inmate’s mental health does not deteriorate during restrictive housing placement. The
Bureau is addressing these concerns with a three-pronged approach: (1) by creating specialized
secure mental health units, which allows Bureau staff to divert SMI inmates from long-term
segregation into less restrictive housing; (2) by providing enhanced mental health services for
inmates in SHU, SMU, and the ADX, including screening and intensive psychological
programming; and (3) by offering mental health care to all Bureau inmates, as a way of reducing
and preventing the type of disruptive behavior that often results in segregation. Many of the
Bureau’s policies on mental health treatment are codified in Program Statement 5310.16,
Treatment and Care of Inmates with Mental Illness, which was published in May 2014 and is
included in the Appendix to this Report, along with other Program Statements that relate to
psychiatric and psychological services.
Before describing individual mental health programs, it is helpful to summarize the Bureau’s
system for classifying mental illness. The Bureau has defined four mental health “care levels”
based on the seriousness of an inmate’s mental illness and the associated need for intervention,
which is determined through regular inmate screenings.
•

Care Level One (“CARE1-MH”). Healthy or simple chronic care. An individual is
considered to meet CARE1-MH criteria if he or she (1) shows no significant level of
functional impairment associated with a mental illness and demonstrates no need for
regular mental health interventions; and (2) has no history of serious functional
impairment due to mental illness or, if a history of mental illness is present, has
consistently demonstrated appropriate help-seeking behavior in response to any
reemergence of symptoms.

•

Care Level Two (“CARE2-MH”). Stable, chronic care. An individual is considered
to meet CARE2-MH criteria if he or she has a mental illness requiring (1) routine
46

outpatient mental health care on an ongoing basis; and/or (2) brief, crisis-oriented mental
health care of significant intensity (i.e., placement on suicide watch or behavioral
observation status).
•

Care Level Three (“CARE3-MH”). Unstable, complex chronic care. An individual
is considered to meet the criteria for CARE3-MH if he/she has a mental illness requiring
(1) enhanced outpatient mental health care (i.e., weekly mental health interventions); or (2)
residential mental health care (i.e., placement in a residential Psychology Treatment
Program).

•

Care Level Four (“CARE4-MH”). Inpatient psychiatric care. A mentally ill inmate
may meet the criteria for CARE4-MH and require acute care in a psychiatric hospital if the
inmate is gravely disabled and cannot function in general population in a CARE3-MH
environment.

Inmates who qualify as “seriously mentally ill” are Mental Health Care Level Two, Three or Four,
although all Mental Health Care Level Four inmates are referred to one of the Bureau’s inpatient
Federal Medical Centers. The Bureau classifies “serious mental illness” based on several factors,
including the diagnoses, the severity and duration of symptoms, the degree of functional
impairment, the treatment history, and current treatment needs. Under Bureau policy, the
following diagnoses are generally classified as SMIs:
•
•
•

Schizophrenia Spectrum and Other Psychotic Disorders;
Bipolar and Related Disorders; and
Major Depressive Disorder.

In addition, the following diagnoses are often classified as serious mental illnesses, especially if the
condition is sufficiently severe, persistent, and disabling:
•
•
•
•
•
•

Anxiety Disorders;
Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders;
Trauma and Stressor-Related Disorders;
Intellectual Disabilities and Autism Spectrum Disorders;
Major Neurocognitive Disorders; and
Personality Disorders.

Other types of mental illnesses may be classified as SMI on a case-by-case basis if they result in
significant functional impairment. The chart below identifies the classification of restrictive
housing inmates by mental health care level.

47

MENTAL HEALTH CARE LEVELS
(Data as of November 2015)
Type of Housing

SHU

SMU

ADX

MH Care Level 1

7,429

1,251

369

MH Care Level 2

480

11

35

MH Care Level 3

91

2

0

MH Care Level 4

10

0

0

284

1

0

8,294

1,265

404

Not Available
Total Prisoners

Secure Mental Health Units
In May 2014, the Bureau revised its mental health treatment policy in part to ensure appropriate
mental health services for those in restrictive housing. This policy revision supported the
development of alternative housing units for the Bureau’s most violent and disruptive SMI
inmates. The Bureau now operates two types of “secure mental health units,” as described below.
These programs are designed to help inmates better manage the symptoms of mental illness,
thereby decreasing the risk of violence and allowing inmates to transition back to general
population (and, eventually, the community). Both programs include program incentives for
participants, such as increased privileges for good conduct and limited financial rewards.
•

Secure Mental Health Step-Down Program (SMH-SDP). The SMH-SDP focuses on
inmates with SMI, with the exception of inmates with severe personality disorders (who
are served by the Secure STAGES Program, as described below). SMH-SDP is a
residential, unit-based program that provides treatment for maximum- and high-security
inmates who do not require inpatient treatment but lack the skills to function in general
population. The program incorporates cognitive behavioral treatments, cognitive
rehabilitation, psychoeducational components, psychiatric care, and skills training within
the context of a modified therapeutic community. Inmates receive significant amounts of
out-of-cell and in-cell programming, based on each inmate’s individualized treatment plan.
SMH-SDP typically lasts from 12 to 18 months, depending on the severity of the illness
and course of treatment. Inmates who complete the program typically transfer to a Mental
Health Care Level Three institution, which is an institution designed to provide enhanced
psychological services in an open population setting. SMH-SDP operates in two locations:
the unit at USP Atlanta, in Georgia, opened in October 2013, with a total capacity of 24
inmates; and the unit at USP Allenwood, in Pennsylvania, opened in August 2015, with a
total capacity of 30 inmates. Out-of-cell time varies depending on the inmate’s treatment
needs and level of functioning.

48

•

Secure Steps Towards Awareness, Growth, and Emotional Strength (Secure
STAGES) Program. Secure STAGES focuses on inmates with personality disorders,
primarily those with a history of self-harm behaviors. Like SMH-SDP, it is a residential,
unit-based program for maximum- and high-security inmates, and inmates participate in
significant amounts of out-of-cell and in-cell programming, based on their individualized
treatment plans. The program utilizes Dialectical Behavior Therapy, Rational SelfAnalysis, Supported Employment, Seeking Safety, and other cognitive behavioral
interventions. All participants are assigned one or more Secure STAGES “mental health
companions,” who are other inmates trained to assist the participant through the program.
Inmates typically spend at least 12 months in the Secure STAGES Program, and the total
length will vary depending on treatment. Secure STAGES operates at one Bureau
institution: USP Florence, adjacent to the ADX, which opened in November 2014 and
has a total capacity of 18 inmates. Out-of-cell time varies depending on the inmate’s
treatment needs and level of functioning.

Both programs are led by doctoral-level psychologists, and staff-to-participant ratios are kept low
to ensure effective treatment. Additional treatment staff include psychiatric care providers,
psychologists, social workers, and treatment specialists. Placement decisions for both programs
are made by the Bureau’s Psychology Services Branch, in consultation with Health Services and
the sending and receiving institutions.
As the capacity of SMH-SDP and Secure STAGES increases, the Bureau will have the ability to
divert a larger number of SMI inmates away from traditional restrictive housing, especially longterm SHU placements. Any expansion of these programs is contingent on increased funding, as
discussed later in this Report.

Mental Health Services in Restrictive Housing (SHU, SMU, ADX)
The May 2014 revisions to the Bureau’s mental health policy codified a number of practices for
inmates placed in traditional restrictive housing (i.e., SHU, SMU, ADX). These include: baseline
mental health services for all inmates in restrictive housing, regardless of mental health care level;
enhanced mental health screening, to ensure that SMI inmates are diverted from restrictive
housing; and incorporating an enhanced review of mental health issues into the Bureau’s
disciplinary processes. In addition to these policies, the Bureau also enhanced its mental health
services at the ADX, which are also discussed in greater detail.

Baseline Mental Health Services for All Restrictive Housing Inmates
Bureau policy requires that all inmates receive mental health care commensurate with their needs,
even while in restrictive housing. This includes, where necessary, diagnostic assessments, suicide
risk assessments, crisis intervention contacts, protective custody reviews, sexual assault prevention,
and any other services that address sensitive or high-risk behaviors. The Bureau strives to provide

49

these services in face-to-face, private sessions, to the extent that staff safety and security are not
jeopardized.
To avoid deterioration of an inmate’s mental health while in restrictive housing, Bureau policy
requires that staff provide ongoing support to all segregated inmates:
•

During rounds, all staff make themselves available for brief conversations that
demonstrate concern and their availability to provide assistance.

•

Inmates are removed from their cells for private or extended interviews with Psychology
and Psychiatry Services staff as a standard procedure.

•

In-cell activities (e.g., books, puzzles, games, audio/video entertainment and programming,
where applicable) are provided to inmates.

•

Close attention will be paid to the importance of out-of-cell, unstructured recreation time
specific to inmates’ needs and encouraging inmates to take advantage of out-of-cell
activities.

In addition, at every Bureau institution, psychologists provide SHU staff with a list of inmates with
mental health conditions who may become dangerous, self-destructive, or suicidal if placed in
SHU. If an inmate on this list is placed in SHU, a supervisor immediately notifies Psychology
Services Branch. A psychologist then conducts an assessment to determine if any special
precautions need to be taken, including alternative placement.

Enhanced Mental Health Screening; Diverting SMI Inmates to Other Housing
Bureau policy requires that staff conduct extensive mental screening of inmates before referring
them to long-term restrictive housing (SMU or ADX), as well as additional screening for inmates
who have been housed in any form of segregation (SHU, SMU, or ADX) for an extended period
of time. The policy also sets out criteria for determining when inmates identified as SMI during
these screenings should be diverted or removed from restrictive housing and placed elsewhere.
As noted earlier, Bureau staff place inmates in SMU and the ADX only after conducting a
rigorous, multi-level referral process. Both reviews involve specific screening for mental health
issues. For SMU, the Bureau’s Psychology Services Branch reviews inmates with a history of
mental health issues, including anyone previously identified as Mental Health Care Level Two or
higher, to ensure there are no factors precluding their placement in the program. For the ADX, a
licensed, doctoral-level psychologist conducts a comprehensive mental health evaluation of each
inmate, including a review of the prisoner’s history of medical, mental health, substance abuse,
psychosexual, and psychosocial issues. This evaluation, along with the full clinical record, is then
submitted to the Psychology Services Branch for review and concurrence.

50

The Bureau prohibits the placement of any Mental Health Care Level Four inmates in SMU or the
ADX. Similarly, most Mental Health Care Level Three inmates are also diverted from SMU or
ADX placement, except when the inmate possesses such “extraordinary security needs” that they
cannot be housed anywhere else. 25 (In such cases, the Bureau develops a mental health treatment
plan commensurate with the inmate’s treatment needs.) Moreover, the Psychology Services
Branch will generally recommend against the placement of an inmate in SMU or the ADX if it
appears that such placement would interfere with the inmate’s participation in necessary mental
health treatments, if the inmate’s mental health disorder or cognitive limitations make it unlikely
he or she would progress through the stages of SMU or the ADX, or if documentation suggests
SMU or the ADX is “likely to exacerbate” an inmate’s mental health condition.
Bureau policy establishes similar mental health evaluations for any inmate housed in any form of
segregation for an extended period of time. The policy requires evaluations for inmates in SHU
for 6 months, in a SMU for 18 months, or the ADX for 12 months. As part of these evaluations,
a Bureau psychologist examines the inmate’s records, observes the inmate’s behaviors, conducts a
clinical interview and, when necessary, undertakes additional psychological testing. If the
evaluation reveals that the inmate’s mental health appears to have deteriorated while in restrictive
housing, the Bureau’s mental health staff develops a treatment plan to mitigate the impact or
identify an alternative placement. The Psychology Services Branch reviews these mental health
evaluations for concurrence and collaborates with institution staff when mental health concerns
are noted. In addition, the Psychology Services Branch reviews SMU and ADX inmates for
possible removal at any time if an inmate begins to experience SMI symptoms, requires an
emergency transfer to an in-patient psychiatric facility, or demonstrates other significant mental
health issues or cognitive limitations.

Mental Health and the Bureau’s Disciplinary Program
The May 2014 policy also strengthens the role of Bureau psychologists in the inmate disciplinary
program. The policy recognizes, for example, that an inmate’s mental health symptoms may
contribute to his or her disciplinary violations, which can in turn lead to placement or extension of
placement in SHU. As a result, the Bureau now requires that when a Disciplinary Hearing Office

See Institution Supplement FLM 5310.16A, Treatment and Care of Inmates with Mental
Illness, dated July 22, 2015. Extraordinary security concerns exist in three circumstances: (1)
when an inmate’s communications are limited to prevent disclosure of classified information or to
address a substantial risk that an inmate’s communications could result in acts of terrorism, death,
or serious bodily injury; (2) when an inmate is extremely dangerous and cannot be safely housed in
a less secure setting or a secure mental health unit; for example, when an inmate has committed
serious assaults, murder, or escape while housed in secure environments and continues to pose a
risk of engaging in such conduct; or (3) when an inmate or his or her crimes are of such notoriety
that the inmate cannot be safely housed in a less secure environment with other inmates without a
substantial risk of harm to him or her.
25

51

(DHO) is reviewing a case, he or she must refer the matter to staff psychologists for a competency
and responsibility determination when the alleged violation involves:
•
•
•
•

Any inmates classified as Mental Health Care Levels Three or Four;
Any inmates classified as Mental Health Care Level Two, where there appears to be a
“mental health concern”;
Any violation for Offense Code 228 (“Tattooing or Mutilation”) that involves self-harm;
or
Any violation for Offense Code 302 (“Misuse of Authorized Medication”).

In such cases, psychologists advise the DHO on the inmate’s competency and responsibility. The
May 2014 policy also provides for a psychologist’s input as to whether certain types of sanctions
would be inappropriate based on the inmate’s mental health needs. In particular, sanctions that
limit social interaction and social support—such as disciplinary segregation, loss of visits, or loss
of phone calls—are considered on a case-by-case basis, and DHOs are discouraged from applying
such sanctions in these situations.

Mental Health Treatment at the ADX
In 2012-13, in order to enhance the treatment available to inmates at ADX, the Bureau increased
the mental health staffing at ADX by hiring three additional full-time psychologists, one
psychiatric nurse, and one psychology technician. One of the three additional full-time
psychologist positions facilitates trauma-related psychological programming. The Bureau also
hired a full-time social worker for FCC Florence, whose priority is those inmates housed at ADX
and who provides reentry planning services within one year of release, as appropriate. The Bureau
also added a Deputy Chief Psychologist for the Complex.
The Bureau has also constructed and maintains facilities—secure programming enclosures—for
group therapy at the ADX. These facilities are also used for re-entry services. Examples of the
subject matters for group therapy include criminal thinking, emotional self-regulation, seeking
safety, anger management, basic cognitive skills, and a non-residential drug abuse program. In
addition, the ADX has locations available for private psychological and psychiatric counseling
sessions in each housing unit at the ADX.
The ADX also provides psychiatry services. Psychiatric assessment, treatment, and consultation
generally are provided by the institution psychiatrist, contract psychiatrist, or psychiatric mid-level
provider (such as a psychiatric nurse practitioner). All ADX inmates may receive psychotropic
medications as clinically indicated. In July 2015, the ADX implemented a local policy, which
provides that inmates receiving psychiatric medications at the ADX will be seen by a psychiatrist,
physician, or psychiatric nurse every 90 days, or more often if clinically indicated, for, at a
minimum, the first year of their ADX placement. The ADX local policy also implements
procedures to ensure that Health Services notifies the psychiatrist, psychiatric mid-level provider,
psychiatric nurse, or physician and Psychology Services of inmates who refuse or consistently miss
52

doses of their prescribed psychotropic medications. When in-person psychiatry services are not
available at the facility, tele-psychiatry is provided, in private sessions without the presence of
correctional officers.
In addition to private and group counseling and treatment, ADX inmates ordinarily have access to
in-cell therapeutic and recreation activities, including access to programming through closedcircuit television (e.g., Psychology Services programs), hobby craft provided by Recreational
Services or available through a Special Purchase Order, puzzles provided by Recreational Services,
and leisure reading materials. Inmates are also encouraged to engage in yoga, relaxation
techniques, meditation, deep breathing exercises, mindfulness exercises, and grounding techniques.
A variety of educational and religious in-cell programming is also made available to inmates. ADX
psychologists make weekly rounds in each unit.
As noted above, national policy provides that inmates with a serious mental illness will be
excluded from ADX unless extraordinary security concerns exist that cannot be met elsewhere.
Seriously mentally ill inmates who must remain at ADX due to extraordinary security issues have
an individualized treatment program and are provided with at least 10, and as many as 20, hours of
out-of-cell time per week, consistent with their individualized treatment plan. In particular, those
inmates are eligible for placement in the previously described Adult Alternative Housing Program,
if appropriate.
Finally, the ADX has developed procedures for heightened review of inmate requests related to
mental health issues and referrals for mental health services. In particular, those requests are
treated differently than other written inmate requests to staff. They are classified as requiring a
response within 4 hours, 24 hours, or 3 to 10 business days, and are resolved by a member of the
Psychology Services Branch.

Bureau’s Mental Health Services, Generally
In addition to programs specifically designed for the most violent and disruptive inmates, the
Bureau also provides general mental health services to all inmates. One of the benefits of these
general purpose programs is that they allow Bureau staff to develop early intervention treatment
plans, reducing the likelihood that inmates will engage in the type of disruptive behavior that often
results in segregation.
The Bureau employs more than 1,400 Psychology Services staff, including psychologists, treatment
specialists, and administrative support staff. Bureau psychologists have doctoral degrees in clinical
or counseling psychology, and treatment specialists have bachelor or master’s degrees in social
science fields, such as counseling, psychology, and social work. In addition to Psychology Services
staff, the Bureau employs Health Services staff, including psychiatrists and mid-level psychiatric
practitioners, to provide psychiatric care for inmates with mental health conditions, as well as
social workers to facilitate continuity of care as inmates with mental health needs transition to the
community.
53

Mental health treatment and care is provided in each institution, with close oversight by the
Central Office. At the institution level, Psychology Services departments are staffed with a core
complement which includes a chief psychologist, drug abuse program coordinator, staff
psychologist(s), treatment specialist(s), and a psychology technician or secretary. Departments
may also include additional positions for specialty programs. Psychology Services departments
range from small departments with 5 to 10 staff to larger departments with more than 25 staff,
depending on the mission of the institution.
Within each department, a licensed, doctoral-level psychologist serves as the mental health
treatment coordinator. This psychologist manages the treatment and care of inmates with mental
illness and ensures all provisions of applicable program statements are implemented. In the
institutions, psychiatric services are provided by a “team medicine” model, which can include onsite Bureau psychiatrists, Bureau tele-psychiatrists, or contract psychiatrists. In addition, at some
institutions, physicians, psychiatric mid-level providers, psychiatric clinical pharmacists, and social
workers provide additional and complementary support. The Bureau concentrates mental health
resources at select, special mission institutions to provide more intensive mental health treatment;
however, all institutions are equipped to provide a basic level of care for inmates with mental
illness.
Inmates are initially screened for mental illness prior to their arrival at a Bureau facility. The
Bureau’s Designation and Sentence Computation Center staff review each inmate’s Pre-Sentence
Report to identify any significant mental health history, noting this history in the agency’s
electronic database (SENTRY) and making designations consistent with the estimated level of care
required to address any identified mental health concerns. This screening process matches the
inmate’s estimated level of care with an institution’s resources at the time of initial designation.
Upon arrival at the designated institution, medical staff conduct an initial screening for physical
and mental health concerns, followed by a more detailed mental health intake by a psychologist
within the first two weeks. Inmates also complete a brief Psychology Services Inmate
Questionnaire, noting any self-reported mental health concerns. In conjunction with the
Psychology Services mental health intake, the psychologist identifies the inmate’s mental health
care level, based upon the anticipated level of care required to address his or her current mental
health needs.
The Bureau offers several types of mental health services, as described below:
•

Inpatient Care. In addition to routine mental health care, select Bureau institutions
provide more intensive mental health treatment. Five of the Bureau’s Federal Medical
Centers provide inpatient psychiatric services for the most acutely ill inmates (Mental
Health Care Level Four). This level of care is reserved for inmates with SMIs which
cannot be managed in an outpatient or residential setting due to the severity of their
current symptoms and/or the presence of a co-occurring medical condition requiring
hospitalization.
54

•

Psychology Treatment Programs. Intensive mental health treatment is also available in
the Bureau’s Psychology Treatment Programs (PTPs). PTPs are offered for three key
populations: inmates with SMI, inmates with substance use disorders, and inmates with a
sex offense history. PTPs share several common features: (1) clearly defined admission
criteria; (2) a standardized, evidence-based treatment protocol consisting of cognitivebehavioral interventions—in the case of residential programs, these interventions are
delivered within the context of a modified therapeutic community model; and (3) staff
with specialized expertise. These national programs require significant staff resources and
are targeted to serve inmates with the greatest needs. PTPs serving inmates with SMI
include the SMH-SDP and Secure STAGES discussed earlier, as well as non-Secure
versions of both programs. In addition, PTPs include the Challenge Programs, Skills
Program, Resolve Program, and Dual Diagnosis Residential Drug Abuse Programs, all of
which were cited earlier in this Report as alternatives to SHU placement. (The Bureau has
published a short document summarizing these programs, “A Directory of Bureau of
Prisons’ National Programs,” which is included in the Appendix to this Report.)

•

Evidence-Based Treatment Groups. In addition to these national programs,
institutions offer a series of outpatient, evidence-based treatment groups using existing
resources. Institutions are required to provide a minimum of one outpatient treatment
group per quarter, deemed a “Priority Practice.” Current Priority Practices include: Anger
Management, Basic Cognitive Skills, Criminal Thinking, Dialectical Behavior Therapy,
Emotional Self-Regulation, Illness Management and Recovery, and Seeking Safety. By
offering these Priority Practices, Psychology Services departments provide services for
inmates with mild to moderate programming needs, that is, inmates who do not require
residential or inpatient care.

•

Mental Health Care Level Based Services. Based on an inmate’s mental health care
level, certain services are required, as detailed below. These services may be delivered on
an outpatient basis, in the context of a residential PTP or, for inmates classified as Mental
Health Care Level Four, in an inpatient setting. Inmates may be transferred to a different
institution in order to receive specialized services or participate in a PTP.
o Inmates classified as Mental Health Care Level One are not required to receive any
regular mental health services or to have a treatment plan. When mental health
services are provided to these inmates, they are documented in the Psychology
Data System.
o Inmates classified as Mental Health Care Level Two receive a documented
diagnosis and rationale for the diagnosis and assigned care level; a collaborative,
individualized treatment plan describing problems and goals, and the interventions
55

planned to assist with goal attainment, updated at least every 12 months; and
evidence-based psychosocial interventions on at least a monthly basis.
o Inmates classified as Mental Health Care Level Three receive a documented
diagnosis and rationale for the diagnosis and assigned care level; a collaborative,
individualized treatment plan describing problems and goals, and the interventions
planned to assist with goal attainment, updated at least every 6 months; and
evidence-based psychosocial interventions on at least a weekly basis provided via
enhanced outpatient care or within the context of a residential PTP.
o Inmates classified as Mental Health Care Level Four receive a documented
diagnosis and rationale for the diagnosis and assigned care level; a collaborative,
individualized treatment plan describing problems and goals, and the interventions
planned to assist with goal attainment, updated at least every 90 days; and
evidence-based psychosocial interventions and/or mental health contacts on at
least a weekly basis. This treatment takes place only in a Federal Medical Center.
•

Recovery Model. Consistent with recommendations of the President’s New Freedom
Commission on Mental Health, the Bureau has identified recovery as a guiding principle in
the treatment and care of inmates with mental illness. Mental health recovery refers to the
process by which people are able to live, work, learn, and participate fully in their
communities. For some individuals, recovery is the ability to live a fulfilling and
productive life despite a disability. For others, recovery implies the reduction or complete
remission of symptoms. The Bureau strives to integrate the recovery model into its PTPs
and treatment plans for inmates with mental illness.

•

Suicide Prevention Program. The Bureau operates a comprehensive suicide prevention
program to assist staff in identifying and managing potentially suicidal inmates. The
Bureau maintains a relatively low suicide rate, approximately 10 per 100,000, suggestive of
the effectiveness of this comprehensive program. Additional information about the
program can be found in the Suicide Prevention Program policy contained on the Bureau’s
public website.

•

Care Coordination and Reentry (CCARE) Teams. CCARE Teams are
multidisciplinary teams that use a holistic approach to ensure that critical aspects of care
for inmates with mental illness are considered and integrated. The CCARE Team is
responsible for identifying potential concerns affecting inmates with mental illness in a
correctional environment. It is a required component at all Mental Health Care Level
Two, Three, and Four institutions.

56

•

Mental Health Training for Bureau Staff. Basic mental health training is provided to
all Bureau staff as a part of Introduction to Correctional Techniques (initial Bureau
training) and Annual Training. Mental health and suicide prevention training guides are
made available to all staff as an ongoing point of reference. More advanced mental health
training is provided to select Bureau staff, based on their assigned duties. For example, on
a quarterly basis additional mental health training is provided to staff working in restrictive
housing settings; specialized suicide prevention training is provided to health care
providers, lieutenants, chaplains, and correctional counselors; and mental health providers
are offered a wide range of in person and web-based training courses. A 24-hour Mental
Health Specialty Training is made available in select institutions to support the
development of an optimal environment for effective treatment and care of inmates with
mental illness, in which mental health professionals and other staff work collaboratively to
support treatment.

•

Mental Health Companions. Mental Health Companions are trained inmates who
provide assistance and support to inmates with mental illness under the direction of the
Psychology Services department. Mental Health Companion Programs are initiated at the
discretion of the Warden. They may take a variety of forms, including a cadre residing on
a mental health treatment unit, supporting a drop-in center, or participating in individual
pairings with inmates who need additional support. The institution’s Mental Health
Treatment Coordinator is responsible for the selection, training, assignment, and removal
of individual companions. Inmates selected as companions are considered to be on an
institution work assignment when they are on their scheduled shift and receive
performance pay for time spent providing support to inmates with mental illness.

•

Reentry Services. As inmates with mental illness transition to the community, the Bureau
provides a variety of reentry services, including mental health treatment summaries (which
contain recommendations for inmates’ ongoing care) and community-based support for
inmates participating in Residential Reentry Centers. Bureau social workers create
comprehensive release plans for those with significant mental health vulnerabilities, and
especially for those without a community placement.

57

Inmates with Medical Needs
Inmates placed in restrictive housing may experience acute medical conditions or have some level
of chronic disease that requires ongoing medical attention. This section covers the procedures the
Bureau of Prisons uses to insure appropriate medical care under those conditions.
Similar to the four levels of mental health care, the Bureau has adopted a classification procedure
for medical care. These levels are used to place inmates in institutions where the services are
commensurate to their medical need. The four levels of care are:
•

Care Level One. Inmates are generally healthy but may have limited medical needs that
can be easily managed by every 6 to 12 month clinician evaluations. Needed subspecialty
care is limited (not regularly required and completed in less than 3 months).

•

Care Level Two. Inmates are stable outpatients that have chronic illnesses that require
clinician evaluations no more frequently than monthly and are independent in activities of
daily living (ADLs), such as dressing and eating.

•

Care Level Three. Inmates are fragile outpatients with conditions that require frequent
clinical contacts (daily to monthly). Inmates may require assistance in performing some
ADLs, but do not require daily nursing care. Such assistance may include the regular
services of inmate companions. Stabilization of the inmate's medical health condition may
periodically require hospitalization.

•

Care Level Four. Inmates require inpatient medical facilities and may require daily
nursing care. Current symptomology or treatment requires 24-hour skilled nursing care or
nursing assistance.

Inmates with severe chronic medical needs are designated to one of the Bureau’s Federal Medical
Centers. If their behavior necessitates a placement in SHU, their medical needs can be addressed
in that setting. Generally, inmates in Medical Care Level Three or lower who are placed in
restrictive housing can be managed in the institution. Restrictive housing units in all institutions
have cells that provide some capability to accommodate inmates with moderate mobility
concerns/physical limitations (e.g., wheelchair access toilets/sinks) for those who require such
access.

58

Young Adults (Age 18-24 at Time of Conviction)
While most jurisdictions use the age of 18 as the cutoff between juvenile and adult criminal court
adjudication, developmental research shows this is a somewhat arbitrary demarcation. This
section discusses the role of restrictive housing as a response to misconduct by young adults—
which is defined here as inmates between the age of 18 and 24. However, to provide context, this
section briefly reviews scholarship on the relationship between brain and psychosocial
development extending from adolescence to young adulthood.

Brain Development and Young Adult Behavior
Recent scientific advances have shown that the human brain, particularly the prefrontal cortex
region that regulates impulse control and reasoning, continues to develop well into a person’s 20s.
In addition, psychosocial capacities continue to mature even further into adulthood. This gap
between cognitive and psychosocial capacities has been characterized as the “maturity gap,” where
cognitive function develops in advance of executive function. Studies also suggest that the part of
the brain that controls pleasure-seeking behavior is hyperactive from adolescence until the mid20s. Because of these factors, young adults are more likely to engage in risk-seeking behavior,
have difficulty moderating their responses in emotionally charged situations, or have not fully
developed a future-oriented method of adult-quality decision-making. 26
Young adulthood is also distinct, though less so, from adolescence. Despite the increased
cognitive development, young adults are more likely to engage in risk-seeking behavior than
juveniles, which places them at higher risk for physical injury and at greater risk for becoming
justice-involved. The period of young adulthood is particularly challenging for young men and
women who are involved in crime, as they are more likely than the general population to have
experienced traumatic incidents during childhood, which has been shown to disrupt or delay
psychosocial development. In addition, justice-involved youth and young adults have a higher
likelihood of parental incarceration, poverty, foster care, substance abuse, mental health needs and
learning disabilities, all of which have been linked to impeding psychosocial maturity. 27
However, in addition to the challenges that young adults present, this age range is also a period of
time when rapid brain development occurs. As such, there is a significant opportunity to
positively influence decision making and help get this age group back on track by implementing
policies and practices that incorporate their developmental needs.

Vincent Schiraldi, et al., Community-Based Responses to Justice-Involved Adults, NEW THINKING IN
COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS 3-4 (2015).
26

27

Id.
59

Young Adults & the Bureau
Bureau data indicates that young adults constitute slightly less than 5% of the total inmate
population, but more than 8% of the SHU population. The share of young adults in SMU is
slightly smaller than in the total inmate population, while less than 1% of inmates in the ADX are
young adults.
RESTRICTIVE HOUSING DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
(Adapted from SENTRY Data as of 11/21/2015)
Type of Housing

Total

SHU

SMU

ADX

161,886

8,418

1,268

404

18 to 24

4.93%

8.11%

4.65%

0.25%

25 to 34

29.09%

39.88%

43.69%

14.85%

35 to 44

34.32%

33.40%

35.02%

31.68%

45 to 54

20.09%

14.33%

13.25%

27.48%

55 to 64

8.62%

3.40%

3.15%

19.55%

65 and Older

2.96%

0.88%

0.24%

6.19%

Total Prisoners

Young inmates who commit misconduct within the Bureau are subject to the same array of
sanctions and due process procedures as older inmates; however, the Bureau recognizes the
developmental delay among its incarcerated young adults and has incorporated programming
services to try to prevent the misconduct that triggers a restrictive housing placement. For
example, the Bureau Rehabilitation and Values Enhancement (BRAVE) Program is a cognitivebehavioral, six-month residential psychology treatment program for young, medium-security
inmates serving lengthy terms of incarceration. The program is designed to support favorable
institution adjustment, reduce inmate misconduct, encourage the development of pro-social
relationships, and direct inmates to meaningful self-improvement opportunities while incarcerated.

60

Juveniles (Under 18 at Time of Adjudication)
As used here, the term “juvenile” encompasses two categories of individuals: those who were
adjudicated as juveniles, and those under the age of 18 who were convicted and sentenced as
adults. Federal law requires that adjudicated juveniles be housed separately from adults until their
21st birthday, and that those convicted and sentenced as adults must be housed separately until
their 18th birthday (at which point they are transferred to an adult facility).
The Department of Justice prosecutes very few juveniles, and so the Bureau is only responsible for
the custody of a very small number of juveniles. As of December 5, 2015, the Bureau was
responsible for 71 juvenile inmates, of which 45 were serving a term of incarceration, and 26 were
under the supervision of the U.S. Probation Office. Approximately 70% of the Bureau’s juveniles
are convicted of violent offenses, with almost half convicted of homicide or aggravated assault,
and over a quarter convicted of sexual assault. The Bureau does not house any incarcerated
juveniles in its own facilities, but instead contracts or enters into intergovernmental agreements
with state or municipal juvenile facilities to house these individuals.
The Bureau currently maintains 12 agreements or contracts with facilities housing juveniles. Seven
of these facilities are “secure” (meaning that the facilities include direct supervision of inmates and
no unsupervised access to the community), and five are non-secure, community-based facilities.
The majority of these facilities are located in the Western United States, given that many of the
juveniles in federal custody committed their crimes in Indian country in the western half of the
United States. The Bureau’s agreements with these facilities require that the institution provide a
minimum of 50 hours of programming per week for each juvenile, which includes educational and
vocational training, independent living preparation, specialized treatment goals and objectives,
counseling and psychological services, structured recreational activities, religious and cultural
services, financial responsibility classes, and opportunities for family visitation.
Currently, juveniles in federal custody are rarely placed in restrictive housing, and when they are,
the placement is typically brief. From September 1, 2014 to September 25, 2015, the Bureau was
notified of 13 juveniles placed in restrictive housing at its contract facilities.
The Bureau has established a “Statement of Work” (SOW) for juvenile inmates, which outlines
policies regarding the management and treatment of juveniles in contract facilities. The SOW
includes written guidelines regarding appropriate disciplinary procedures, including when and how
restrictive housing may be used. The policy also outlines the use of “room restriction,” which is
the practice of placing a juvenile in an unlocked room, typically his or her cell, for a period not to
exceed one hour.
Per the SOW, juveniles who commit a “minor rule violation” or require a “cooling off period”
may be placed on room restriction; however, the time period must not exceed one hour in an
unlocked room. For “major rule violations,” juveniles may be placed in a secure unit or a special
61

management unit, which triggers a number of notification requirements and additional protections
for the juvenile. Staff must regularly monitor the juvenile, with required reviews every 15 minutes.
The Bureau must be notified as soon as the inmate is placed in restrictive housing, and this
notification is relayed to the Central Office. Within 24 hours of the triggering incident, the
juvenile must receive a written copy of the alleged rule violation, and must be seen by a licensed
mental health professional to ensure that the juvenile’s behavior is not the result of mental illness
or a medical condition.
If confinement goes beyond 24 hours, the facility administrator must review the continued
confinement every 24 hours. If confinement continues beyond 5 consecutive days, the
administrator must provide written justification for continued confinement and ensure that a
licensed mental health professional conducts another review to ensure that the juvenile is not
experiencing any deterioration of his or her medical or mental health. An interdisciplinary team
must develop a “Special Behavior Management Program Plan” for the juvenile. In addition,
Bureau staff review the need for continued placement every 24 hours.

62

Audits of the Bureau’s Restrictive Housing Programs
In recent years, several outside organizations have reviewed the Bureau’s restrictive housing
practices and published their findings. This Report summarizes two high-profile reviews: a 2014
analysis by CNA Analysis and Solutions, a private consulting firm (the “CNA Audit”), and a 2013
report by the Government Accountability Office (the “GAO Report”). Both the CNA Audit and
the GAO Report are included in the Appendix to this Report, along with the Bureau’s responses.
This section also discusses the Bureau’s internal auditing procedures, which includes reviews of
each facility’s SHU.

CNA Audit
In February 2014, the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil
Rights, and Human Rights heard testimony regarding the Bureau’s use of restrictive housing.
Following that hearing, the Bureau retained CNA Analysis and Solutions to conduct an
independent audit of its policies and practices, which included multiple site visits by a team of
experienced correctional experts. The final report, Federal Bureau of Prisons: Special Housing Unit
Review and Assessment, was released in December 2014. The Bureau published a response to the
CNA Audit in February 2015, concurring with many of the report’s findings and
recommendations, but taking issue with some findings, especially those relating to the Bureau’s
mental health services.
The “key findings” of the CNA Audit are quoted in full below:
•

The general conditions of confinement in restricted housing units are consistent with national regulations
and standards.

•

Management of the SHUs is complicated by the high percentage of inmates that have requested protection
from other inmates, often due to gang related issues.

•

The Bureau does not have adequate non-punitive protective custody housing units that have equivalent levels
of programs and privileges as general population inmates.

•

Backlogs in inmates awaiting transfer to the next program level negate the intent of the [SMU] program
design and decrease the motivation to change behavior.

•

Mental health services in restrictive housing require improvement in three specific areas: 1) proper mental
health diagnoses; 2) more effective treatment; and 3) providing sufficient psychiatric staffing.

63

•

The lack of time parameters for completion of disciplinary hearings results in substantial variation among
facilities in the amount of time served in segregation for similar offenses, and can result in disproportionately
long sanctions.

•

There is no formal Bureau-wide reentry preparedness program specific to restrictive housing and inmates in
these settings have very limited access to reentry programming.

•

Bureau information systems do not effectively track the number and movement of inmates within the
restrictive housing units.

In addition, the CNA Audit proposed several recommendations to further reduce the Bureau’s
restrictive housing population. Those proposals are quoted in full below.
•

Establish a time limit on the amount of time that an inmate can be held in investigative status.

•

Allow credit for time served in SHU upon determination of disciplinary sanction;

•

Establish a housing option separate from SHU for inmates in protection status (protective custody);

•

Continue rigorous review of referrals to restrictive housing;

•

Reduce the time period for completion of the SMU program from the present 18 to 24 months to 12
months and compress the four levels to three levels by combining Level 3 and Level 4 and allowing more
differentiation between the conditions of confinement between the levels; and

•

To ensure appropriate treatment for seriously mentally ill inmates, the Bureau should complete a review of
all inmates assigned to ADX, SMU, and SHU to identify all inmates who should be transferred to a
secure mental health program similar to the ones being developed at USP Atlanta and USP Allenwood.

The Bureau generally concurs with these recommendations and is prepared to implement them, as
discussed in the “Guiding Principles and Policy Recommendation” section of this Report.
The primary area of disagreement between the CNA auditors and the Bureau involved mental
health treatment. The CNA audit concluded that restrictive housing inmates with mental health
needs were routinely underdiagnosed or misdiagnosed, resulting in insufficient treatment for
mentally ill inmates. The CNA audit criticized the Bureau’s methods for assessing mental illness,
and repeatedly stated that the Bureau lacked sufficient psychiatric staff to provide adequate mental
health treatment to all inmates who require it. In its response, the Bureau rejected many of these
findings. The Bureau argued, among other things, that CNA based its conclusions on a small
sampling of cases that was not representative of the Bureau’s full restrictive housing population
and that the sampled cases were not thoroughly reviewed by CNA auditors.
64

GAO Report
In December 2011, Representative Bobby Scott requested that GAO initiate an audit of the
Bureau’s monitoring and evaluation of its restrictive housing programs. The GAO’s final report,
Improvements Needed in Bureau of Prisons’ Monitoring and Evaluation of Impact of Segregated Housing (GAO13-249), was released in May 2013. The GAO Report identified four questions it sought to
answer, which are quoted in full below:
•

What were the trends in BOP’s segregated housing unit population and number of cells from fiscal year
2008 through February 2013?

•

To what extent does BOP centrally monitor how individual facilities document and apply policies guiding
segregated housing units?

•

To what extent has BOP assessed the costs to operate segregated housing units and how do the costs to
confine an inmate in a segregated housing unit compare with the costs of confine an inmate in a general
inmate population housing unit?

•

To what extent does BOP assess the impact of segregated housing on institutional safety and the impacts of
long-term segregation on inmates?

In sum, GAO found the following:
•

While the Bureau had a mechanism to centrally monitor many of its segregated housing unit policies, the
Bureau did not centrally monitor the policies specific to the ADX. As a result, the Bureau had less
assurance that ADX staff consistently followed ADX-specific policies to the same degree that these
requirements are followed for SHUs and SMUs.

•

Prison officials were not consistently documenting that inmates’ conditions of confinement, such as food and
exercise privileges, were being met. While the Bureau had implemented new software to track the
monitoring of SHUs and SMUs, the Bureau had not developed a plan to clarify the objectives and goals of
the new software program, with time frames and milestones that explain the extent to which it will address
documentation issues that were identified.

•

The Bureau had not studied the impact of segregated housing on inmates, staff, and institutional safety.
GAO proposed that, as the Bureau considered options for conducting a study of segregated housing, the
agency might want to consider lessons learned from some state initiatives that reduced the number of inmates
held in segregation without significant, adverse impacts on violence or assault rates.

•

The Bureau’s own policies recognized that long-term segregation may have a detrimental effect on inmates.
While the Bureau regularly checked the mental health of inmates in segregated housing, BOP had not
conducted an assessment of the long-term impact of segregation on inmates.
65

The GAO Report issued four recommendations, which are quoted in full below:
•

Develop ADX-specific monitoring requirements;

•

Develop a plan that clarifies the objectives and goals of the new software program [SHU Application],
with time frames and milestones, and other means, that explains the extent to which the software program
will address documentation concerns we identified[;]

•

Ensure that any current study to assess segregated housing units also includes an assessment of the extent
that segregated housing contributes to institutional safety, and consider key practices that include local and
state efforts to reduce reliance on and the number of inmates held in segregated housing;

•

Assess the impact of long-term segregation on inmates in SHUs, SMUs, and ADX.

The Bureau has taken the necessary steps and responded to each of these recommendations, and
is now awaiting closure of the audit.

Bureau Internal Audits
To monitor compliance with policy, the Bureau has developed procedures for auditing all areas of
services and security through its Program Review Division located in the Central Office. Program
Review Guidelines have been developed to audit the Bureau’s operations. The Bureau has
organized these review policies around specific operational disciplines such as the one developed
for Correctional Services procedures. This particular Program Review includes specific
procedures to monitor the degree to which SHU operations are in compliance with Bureau policy.
For each discipline in which the audit has been developed, Program Review Guidelines set forth
responsibilities of the reviewers and specific requirements for each review.
The Correctional Services Program Review Guidelines (G5500I.11) establish many procedures for
reviewing institution SHUs. For example, the guidelines require members of the program review
team to visit SHUs to review documents to see if staff have made the required rounds on each
shift. The review also has procedures for interviewing SHU staff to see if they understand
appropriate entrance and exit procedures, correct handling of keys, appropriate use of restraints,
correct use of escort procedures, and proper searches of the cells. Some of the procedures cover
documentation review. Others cover observations and interviews of staff.
Correctional Services program reviews are comprehensive, and occur every six months to three
years, depending on the rating the institution received during its last review. Institutions receiving
an “at risk” rating will be reviewed again in six months; institutions receiving a “good” or
“superior” rating will be reviewed again in three years.
Regardless of the scheduled review timeframe for Correctional Services, a Reviewer-In-Charge of
every other program review occurring at the institution throughout the year will visit every range
66

of an institution’s SHU to assess noise level, sanitation, cell crowding, and inmate complaints
among other factors. These supplemental reviews occur, on average, five times a year. All SHU
findings are reported to the Warden and, if significant, to the Regional Director. In FY 2015, the
Bureau conducted 506 Program Reviews.
Program Reviews are not only used to insure compliance with policy at the institution level, they
are also collated by the Program Review Division to track nationwide patterns in institution
reviews to identify and correct systemic problems.

67

RESTRICTIVE HOUSING DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
(Adapted from SENTRY Data as of 11/21/2015)
Type of Housing

Total

SHU

SMU

ADX

161,886

8,418

1,268

404

1.47%

0.89%

0.24%

1.73%

40.01%

37.43%

47.56%

35.89%

1.94%

3.72%

5.52%

3.71%

White

29.29%

27.89%

23.82%

43.32%

Hispanic

27.28%

30.07%

22.87%

15.35%

Under 25

4.93%

8.11%

4.65%

0.25%

25 to 34

29.09%

39.88%

43.69%

14.85%

35 to 44

34.32%

33.40%

35.02%

31.68%

45 to 54

20.09%

14.33%

13.25%

27.48%

55 to 64

8.62%

3.40%

3.15%

19.55%

65 and Older

2.96%

0.88%

0.24%

6.19%

Care Level 1

94.53%

90.85%

98.90%

91.83%

Care Level 2

2.54%

5.91%

0.87%

8.17%

Care Level 3

0.36%

1.16%

0.16%

0.00%

Care Level 4

0.41%

0.13%

0.00%

0.00%

Not Available

2.16%

1.95%

0.07%

0.00%

Total Prisoners
By Race
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
American Indian

By Age

Mental Care Level

(Excludes private facilities)

68

Part Two
Restrictive Housing in Other Correctional and
Detention Systems

69

United States Marshals Service (USMS)
Although this Report focuses largely on the Bureau’s restrictive housing policies, it also examines a
second detention system operated by the Department of Justice: the U.S. Marshals Service’s
(USMS) program for housing and transporting federal pre-trial detainees. There are several
significant differences between the Bureau’s correctional system, which primarily houses inmates
convicted of criminal offenses and sentenced to terms of incarceration, and USMS’s detention
program, which typically houses detainees during the course of their criminal proceedings.
The USMS detention program is overseen by its Prisoner Operations Division (POD). In 2014,
the USMS received into custody 155,500 prisoners who were ordered detained by the federal
courts; these prisoners were held in custody an average of 97 days pending adjudication and
release from USMS custody. On January 1, 2015, 56,584 prisoners were in the custody of the
USMS and housed in 698 facilities nationwide. 28 USMS houses detainees in several types of
facilities: 29
•

State and Local “IGA” Facilities. Approximately 60% of USMS detainees are housed
in detention space provided to USMS through “intergovernmental agreements” (IGA)
with approximately 1,800 state, county, or local agencies. Not all of these facilities house
USMS inmates on a regular basis, and many will only house a handful of inmates at any
given time. Many of the facilities are county jails or similar short-term detention facilities
operated by sheriffs, and given that each locality is responsible for the day-to-day
operations of their facility, there is some variation in their services, programs, operating
procedures, and conditions of confinement. IGAs are at-will agreements, and the locality
is responsible for the day-to-day supervision and care of the inmate. Either party may
terminate the agreement without any legal consequences.

•

Private Detention Facilities. Approximately 20% of USMS detainees are housed in
private detention facilities under performance-based contracts. Under federal law, these
facilities are required to comply with American Correctional Association standards. See 18
U.S.C. § 4013(c)(2)(C).

•

Bureau Facilities. Approximately 20% of USMS detainees are housed by the Bureau,
which receives direct appropriations to cover the cost. The Bureau manages its own
facilities and operations.

28

The population count excludes prisoners housed in local medical facilities.

29

USMS also operates cell blocks, usually inside or adjacent to federal courthouses, for
processing defendants and housing detainees awaiting court appearances or attorney visits.
Inmates are rarely housed in USMS cell blocks longer than a few hours, and so they are not
addressed in this Report.
70

The cost of detaining pre-trial detainees varies considerably between facilities. Contracts with
private sector providers are of fixed duration, while IGAs typically have no expiration.
Historically, USMS has required that its private detention facilities adhere to the Federal
Performance-Based Detention Standards (FPBDS), which include baseline standards on a variety
of issues, including 27 standards relating to the operation and management of Special Housing
Units. USMS enforces the contract terms through a rigorous auditing and compliance program,
and reserves the right under its performance contracts to sanction facilities that fall short of their
obligations.
USMS does not require that IGA facilities comply with FPBDS. Instead, USMS requires that
IGAs comply with the laws of the relevant jurisdiction, as well as any other standards required by
an authorized agency. In addition, USMS has limited enforcement remedies against IGAs, insofar
as all IGA agreements are at will and subject to cancellation at any time. However, all IGA
agreements include some basic reporting requirements, including requirements that facilities
immediately notify USMS of a significant event related to USMS prisoners, such as the death,
assault, medical emergency, attempted escape, or escape of a federal detainee.
We note that USMS detainees, as federal criminal defendants, possess certain procedural
protections that safeguard against excessive use of restrictive housing. Unlike most Bureau
inmates, USMS detainees are typically represented by an attorney for the entirety of their
detention, and these attorneys are well-positioned to identify and report concerns about their
clients’ housing to the judge overseeing their case. (The same is true for inmates who demonstrate
symptoms of serious mental illness.) In addition, it is important to note that most detainees
remain in USMS custody for a relatively short period of time, limiting the likelihood of long-term
placement in restrictive housing.

71

Restrictive Housing in the States
Virtually all correctional systems in America employ restrictive housing in some manner, although
inconsistent definitions and practices complicate efforts to quantify its prevalence across
jurisdictions.
The 2015 ASCA-Liman Survey, described earlier in the “Data and Research” section of this
Report, provides the most comprehensive recent accounting of restrictive housing at the state and
federal level. 30 The survey organizers asked states (along with the Bureau and the District of
Columbia) to provide data on two categories of segregation: inmates in any form of restrictive
housing, and inmates in “administrative segregation,” which ASCA-Liman defined as restrictive
housing for 30 days or more, excluding punitive segregation and protective custody. Thirty-two
states, the District of Columbia, and the Bureau of Prisons responded with both numbers. The
data, which appear on the next page, provide a snapshot of the prevalence of restrictive housing at
a particular moment in fall 2014.
The survey results, which appear in the chart on the following page, indicated substantial variation
between jurisdictions. Delaware reported the highest percentage of inmates in any form of
restrictive housing, at 14.2%; Montana reported the lowest, at 2.1%. The Bureau reported that
approximately 6.6% of its inmates were housed in some form of restrictive housing, near the 34jurisdiction average of 6.3%. The survey revealed similar variations in the use of long-term
“administrative segregation.” Five states reported that less than 1% of its inmate population was
housed in administrative segregation (New York, North Carolina, Connecticut, Wisconsin, New
Hampshire), while Kentucky reported the highest percentage in such housing, at 6.6%. The
Bureau reported that 1.0% of its inmates were this status, somewhat below the 34-jurisdiction
average of 2.6%.

State-Level Reforms
In recent years, a number of states have reformed their restrictive housing policies, resulting in
significant decreases in their segregation populations. Several states have credited these changes
for other improvements within their correctional facilities, including reduced prison violence,
higher officer morale, and substantial cost savings.
The reforms, which vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, fall into several broad categories:
•

30

Prevention. These reforms are designed to prevent the type of disruptive behavior that
often results in segregation. The policies make it easier for correctional staff to identify
inmates who are prone to violence, victimization, and/or mental health issues, facilitating
early intervention. Among other things, these policies include behavioral and contingency
management tools, as well as risk assessment programs.
See 2015 ASCA-LIMAN SURVEY, supra note 15.
72

2015 ASCA-Liman Survey
Use of Restrictive Housing in 34 Jurisdictions (as of Fall 2014)
States
Alabama
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Federal Bureau of
Prisons (BOP)
Florida
Georgia
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Massachusetts
Michigan
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Washington State
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total

Custodial
Population
24,862
20,944
16,564
5,977
2,067

All RH
Total
Percent
1,253
5.0%
662
3.2%
592
3.6%
847
14.2%
174
8.4%

“Administrative” 31
Total
Percent
729
2.9%
207
1.0%
74
0.4%
330
5.5%
62
3.0%

171,868

11,387

6.6%

1,656

1.0%

100,869
52,959
28,318
8,172
9,529
12,103
10,475
44,925
31,945
2,519
5,162
2,714
18,968
53,613
37,695
1,632
50,554
27,488
14,591
49,051
21,575
3,627
21,030
150,569
6,995
16,554
21,996
2,074
1,049,984

8,963
1,658
1,789
542
664
794
518
2,004
3,929
52
685
270
1,687
4,198
3,052
63
2,064
1,317
1,025
2,339
1,735
221
2,626
6,301
832
806
1,363
110
66,522

8.9%
3.1%
6.3%
6.6%
7.0%
6.6%
4.9%
4.5%
12.3%
2.1%
13.3%
9.9%
8.9%
7.8%
8.1%
3.9%
4.1%
4.8%
7.0%
4.8%
8.0%
6.1%
12.5%
4.2%
11.9%
4.9%
6.2%
5.3%
6.3%

2,416
1,625
692
142
557
794
313
1,122
3,290
48
173
17
1,092
23
85
23
1,553
1,183
239
1,060
483
105
445
6,301
95
296
96
50
27,376

2.4%
3.1%
2.4%
1.7%
5.8%
6.6%
3.0%
2.5%
10.3%
1.9%
3.4%
0.6%
5.8%
0.0%
0.2%
1.4%
3.1%
4.3%
1.6%
2.2%
2.2%
2.9%
2.1%
4.2%
1.4%
1.8%
0.4%
2.4%
2.6%

31

For the purposes of this survey, ASCA-Liman defined “administrative segregation” as
housing “inmates in a cell (either alone or with a cellmate) for most of their day (approximately 2223 hours a day), and lasting thirty days or more, but excluding those placed in punitive segregation
and protective custody.” 2015 ASCA-LIMAN SURVEY, supra note 15, at i.
73

•

Specialized, or “mission-specific,” housing units. These reforms involve the creation
of specialized housing units for categories of inmates that require removal from the
general population, but typically do not require the type of restrictions typically found in a
“traditional” segregation unit. These mission-specific programs include units for inmates
with serious mental illness and those requiring protective custody.

•

Stricter rules for placement and length of stay. These reforms limit when, why, and
for how long an inmate can be placed in restrictive housing, especially in cases involving
disciplinary or preventative segregation. Some jurisdictions have narrowed the list of
offenses that are punishable by restrictive housing. Some have also imposed limits on the
amount of time inmates can be held in restrictive housing, which can apply to specific
categories of inmates (e.g., juveniles and inmates with serious mental illness), or to certain
types of segregation (such as maximum penalties for disciplinary violations). Some
jurisdictions have effectively eliminated restrictive housing for certain populations, such as
juveniles.

•

Regular status reviews. Several states have instituted regular reviews of inmates in
restrictive housing, to help ensure that those who do not belong in segregation will be
promptly moved to a more appropriate setting. Oftentimes, these reviews are conducted
by multi-disciplinary committees of prison officials, which include mental health staff.

•

Re-entry programming. These reforms focus on rehabilitation while in restrictive
housing, thus increasing the likelihood that the prisoner can safely return to the general
inmate population and, eventually, society at large.

In addition to making specific policy changes, many of the reform-minded states have also
reported a “cultural” shift within their correctional systems—one where restrictive housing
becomes a last resort, rather than a default solution for officers and staff. This cultural shift has
been particularly pronounced in locations where state leaders have not just developed far-reaching
reforms, but also engaged the entire correctional workforce in the implementation of these
policies.
This Report highlights five jurisdictions that have undertaken particularly significant reforms in
recent years: Colorado, Washington State, New Mexico, Virginia (at the Red Onion State Prison),
and Hampden County, Massachusetts.

Colorado
In 2011, Tom Clements assumed leadership of Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC),
and identified restrictive housing an area that needed reform. His efforts were cut short in 2013,
when he was murdered by a former inmate—one who had been released directly from segregation
74

to the community. Clements was succeeded as director by Rick Raemisch, who continued and
expanded Clements’ segregation reforms.
A 2011 National Institute of Corrections study for CDOC found that the number of inmates in
long-term segregation was growing, that there was considerable internal confusion as to how this
type of housing should be used, that inmates remained in such housing on average for two years,
and that forty percent of prisoners were released from long-term segregation directly to the
community.
In response, Colorado reviewed all prisoners who were housed in segregation for more than
twelve months, and reassigned those who had been held long-term into step-down units to
prepare them to return to the general population. CDOC developed a sanction matrix,
significantly narrowed the list of violations punishable by segregation, and eliminated
indeterminate sentences to administrative segregation. A residential treatment program was
developed for mentally ill inmates, providing ten hours of out-of-cell treatment and ten hours of
out-of-cell recreation per week, with the goal of returning participants to the general population.
CDOC reports that it has reduced the number of prisoners in “administrative segregation” from
1,505 (approximately 7% of the total inmate population) in November 2011 to 131 (approximately
1% of the population) in May 2015, and has eliminated releases directly from segregation into the
community. Inmates with significant mental illness are now prohibited by statute from being
placed in segregation. CDOC also reports that the average length of stay in administrative
segregation or restrictive housing has been reduced from 28 months to less than eight months.
CDOC reports no increase in assaults on staff by inmates since these reforms have been
implemented.

Washington State
The Washington Department of Corrections (WADOC) reports that in 2010 five percent of
Washington’s prison population was held in restrictive housing. This included prisoners held in
“administrative or disciplinary segregation” (2% of total population), and those assigned to
“intensive management units” with maximum custody status (3% of total population). Around
this time, WADOC leaders began asking whether they were using restrictive housing effectively
and appropriately. Building on the Department’s long history of working on segregation reform,
WADOC worked with the Vera Institute of Justice and Disability Rights Washington to revitalize
their efforts with the twin goals of safely reducing their population in restrictive housing and
creating more productive activities for prisoners who remain in segregation. As of today,
WADOC has made great strides towards achieving both goals.
WADOC reports that it has reduced the number of prisoners assigned to maximum custody by 46
percent, from 581 in calendar year 2010 to 312 in calendar year 2015 (as of November). These
312 prisoners represent roughly two percent of Washington’s prison population. WADOC also
modified its sanctioning guidelines grid and reduced the length of time a prisoner can be held in
administrative segregation from 60 to 47 days. Over the last five years, WADOC has seen a
75

paradigm shift—from using segregated housing to suppress and contain, to encouraging
behavioral change through intensive programming and opportunities for congregate activity. The
Department has instituted and expanded a number of cognitive behavioral and skill-building
programs that target different needs. These include the Motivating Offender Change (MOC)
program at the Washington State Penitentiary, the Reintegration and Progressive Program (RAPP)
at Monroe Correctional Complex, and the Intensive Transition Program (ITP) at Clallam Bay
Corrections Center. With the ITP, WADOC’s longest running cognitive behavioral program, the
Department has seen an eighty percent success rate; of the 131 program graduates, 107 have not
returned to restrictive housing. Since implementing these initiatives, WADOC reports less
violence and fewer staff uses of force at the prisons with intensive management units.

New Mexico
In the years following a high-profile prison riot in 1980, New Mexico Corrections Department
(NMCD) increasingly turned to segregation in response to all manner of threats, resulting in the
greater use of segregation for disciplinary, “administrative,” and protective custody purposes.
Prisoners were routinely released from segregation directly into to New Mexico’s communities. In
2012, Secretary Gregg Marcantel and NMCD partnered with the Vera Institute of Justice to
undertake an evaluation of its use of segregation. Vera found that about eleven percent of New
Mexico’s state prisoners were in segregation and that about 75 percent of those individuals were
inactive gang members in protective custody. Vera also found an overuse of segregation as a
disciplinary sanction and a lack of alternative sanctions.
In response to these findings, NMDC drastically reduced the use of segregation for protective
custody and eliminated long-term protective custody segregation. Prisoners can no longer serve
more than thirty days in disciplinary segregation. Among other reforms, NMCD established the
Restoration to Population Program (RPP), in which inactive gang members are placed in a
separated general population setting where they can participate in programs including drug
treatment, GED, and work skills development. Anecdotally, participants in the RPP program
have reported that they appreciate the opportunity to safely renounce their gang affiliations.
Today, NMCD prisoners are no longer released directly from segregated environments to the
community. Those who have 180 days until their release date are placed in a special management
setting, where they are provided congregate movement and programming to prepare them for
release to the community. NMCD renamed its Level 6 maximum security unit the Predatory
Behavior Management Program (PMP) to more clearly define its purpose to prepare prisoners for
successful return to general population. The PMP incorporates clearly defined steps to address
predatory behavior. In addition, sex offenders are placed in separated general populations where
they receive evidence-based sexual offender treatment, and a Drug Suppression Unit has been
created for prisoners who are guilty of dealing drugs, giving these categories of inmates, who
previously would have been housed in segregation, greater access to programming.

76

Following the implementation of these reforms, NMDC has reported that, as of 2015, it has
reduced its segregated population from eleven percent of the total inmate population to less than
seven percent.

Virginia (Red Onion State Prison)
In 1998, the Virginia Department of Corrections (VADOC) opened Red Onion State Prison to
house the increasing number of inmates the department had been placing into administrative
segregation. At Red Onion, prisoners were confined to their cells 23 to 24 hours per day and had
extremely limited access to programming and out of cell movement. Some inmates remained at
Red Onion for years. VADOC leaders began to recognize many of the challenges created by the
use of long-term administrative segregation such as deterioration of inmates’ ability to interact
with other staff and inmates; negative effects on staff morale and an increase in the use of
employee sick leave; and the higher cost of running an administrative segregation unit.
In October 2011, VADOC began to implement reforms at Red Onion focusing on culture change
within the facility. The warden, his executive team, and all staff completed training to acquire
effective communication and strategies to motivate change. The Department also created new
positions of Cognitive Treatment Officers, uniformed staff who escort and supervise inmates,
who are also trained to provide programming to motivate and support positive change.
The VADOC established a Segregation Step-Down Program as a path for inmates in long-term
administrative segregation to work their way into the general population. The Department
focused on risk reduction strategies, enhancing inmates’ motivation to change problematic
behavior combined with programming to provide new skills. The program includes cognitive
behavioral journaling, the use of therapeutic modules and security chairs to allow inmates to come
out of their cells and join small groups for programming, and increasing performance expectations
and additional privileges at each level.
In 2011, Red Onion State Prison housed 511 men classified as security level S—maximum security
administrative segregation. Since reforms, VADOC reports that there has been a 68 percent
reduction in the number of security level S inmates, a 78 percent reduction in incident reports, a
91 percent decrease in inmate grievances, and an 86 percent reduction in informal complaints.
VADOC is now examining ways to apply the successes of Red Onion to restrictive housing
statewide.

Hampden County, Massachusetts
The Hampden County Correctional Center (HCCC) in Massachusetts reports that prior to
reforms, segregated housing had become an overused “jail within a jail.” Administrators believed
that the segregation unit did not reflect the philosophy of their overall operation, which
emphasized providing avenues for, and reinforcement of, positive behavior. Additionally, staff felt
a constant concern for the elevated potential for mental decompensation in individuals housed in
the segregation unit. In developing reforms, HCCC focused on staff buy-in, in part by forming a
77

multidisciplinary committee to draft and propose changes to the Disciplinary Segregation/Special
Management Unit. After a ten-month process, the committee presented its proposed reforms to
the Sheriff of Hampden County.
HCCC increased the use of alternative sanctions to increase the ability of staff to respond to
infractions without placing prisoners in disciplinary segregation. In segregation units, reforms
included new programming, positive reinforcement for good behavior, preemptive steps to
combat mental decompensation, and supportive re-entry planning for return to the general
housing unit. Additionally, HCCC instituted a good-time policy through which inmates in
disciplinary segregation can reduce their sentences through good behavior; increased out-of-cell
time in the segregation unit through the use of an exercise cell with medicine balls and a stationary
bike; and introduced MP3 players loaded with correctional programs, soundscapes, guided
meditation, and music. HCCC no longer uses segregation as a sanction for behavioral problems
stemming from prisoners’ mental illnesses and has established a separate mental health crisis
intervention short-term unit. Finally, HCCC created step-down units to allow inmates to move
from segregation to general population.
Since the implementation of reforms, HCCC reports that it has seen a 68 percent reduction in the
number of inmates being held in the segregation unit and a more than 70 percent decrease in the
average length of stay on the unit. HCCC has reported no increase in assaults in either the
segregation unit or the general population. HCCC reports a markedly better climate and more
positive attitudes from staff working in the segregation unit.

78

Federal Support for State and Local Efforts
The Justice Department offers substantial support to help state and local jurisdictions develop and
maintain safe, effective, and humane correctional systems. This support is provided primarily
through two mechanisms: the National Institute of Corrections (NIC), a training and technical
assistance center operated by the Bureau, and the Office of Justice Programs (OJP), which
provides grant funding, technical assistance, and other types of support to state, local, and tribal
systems across a range of criminal justice and law enforcement matters.

National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
The mission of the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) is to serve the nation as a center of
learning, innovation, and leadership that shapes and advances effective correctional practice and
public policy. NIC is the only national agency with a legislative mandate (Public Law 93-415) to
provide specialized services to state and local correctional agencies. NIC has long been recognized
nationally for its unique role and high level of excellence in providing services.
NIC also collaborates closely with a number of professional organizations and associations that
have a vested interest in developing and promoting sound correctional practices. These
organizations include the Association of State Correctional Administrators (ASCA), the American
Correctional Association, the American Jail Association, and the American Probation and Parole
Association.
NIC has invested resources in its support to states and localities concerned with best practices in
restrictive housing, recognizing there are many definitions and interpretations of restrictive
housing throughout the field. Highlights of NIC’s restrictive housing efforts are outlined below in
four subsections: technical assistance, training, oversight of the CNA contract to review the
Bureau of Prisons restrictive housing policies and procedures, NIC information resources, and
collaboration with other professional correctional agencies.

Technical Assistance to Requesting Jurisdictions
Through its Technical Assistance (TA) program, NIC responds directly to the needs, problems,
and individual requirements of state and local correctional agencies. NIC’s technical assistance
includes onsite guidance, support, consultation, or training provided by experienced technical
resource providers and/or NIC staff members who serve in an advisory capacity and work with
agency staff.
NIC has engaged in a number of restrictive housing TA events with jurisdictions requesting
assistance. Recent examples include:
•

Comprehensive Reviews including Restrictive Housing and STG’s (2014). NIC conducted
an evaluation of a state DOC’s Security Threat Group (STG) management system as well
79

as a comprehensive assessment of the agency’s policies, procedures and practices of
inmates housed within restrictive housing. The latter included inmates serving Disciplinary
Detention, retention based upon personal safety concerns, and inmates assigned to
restrictive housing that have a mental health diagnosis. Outcomes of this work included:
(1) an overview of national best/promising practices related to the contemporary use of
restrictive housing in various population groups; (2) legal considerations and ramifications
in managing inmates in restrictive housing; (3) STG classification and criteria options
essential for appropriate due process, management, SDP programing, and transition back
to a general population facility or release to a community setting; and (4) methods, options
and applicable tools to develop a vision, goals and a road map for incorporating potential
revisions within existing restrictive housing and STG policies and procedures.
•

Draft Policy Reviews to Incorporate Best Practices (2015). NIC conducted a
comprehensive assessment of a state DOC’s draft policy and procedure for the placement
of Maximum Security designated inmates into a Restricted Housing Unit Program. A
report outlining the assessment outcomes was provided to the agency.

•

Restrictive Housing Operations Review and Use as an Administrative Discipline Tool
(2015). NIC conducted comprehensive evaluation and assessment of a state DOC’s
restrictive housing operations, specifically reviewing its use as an administrative discipline
tool.

Management of Restrictive Housing Populations Training Programs
Previously titled, “Management of High-Risk Offenders,” this NIC training program was updated
after ASCA published the guidelines for restrictive housing. Since 2013, there have been 7
iterations of the program with 41 state agencies, one large jail, and one federal agency attending
with an overall attendance of 205 participants.
Management of Restrictive Housing Populations is a 32-hour training program that focuses on the
management of inmates in restrictive housing within the control and jurisdiction of departments
of corrections throughout the country. The program explores fundamental issues in programs
that attempt to reintegrate inmates back into general populations which preclude releasing them
directly from restrictive housing back to the community and explores the management strategies
for the long-term inmate in restrictive housing. In addition, the program addresses legal issues
surrounding restrictive housing, gang management, prison culture and climate, and classification of
high-risk individuals.

Restrictive Housing Resources at NIC’s Information Center
Located at the National Corrections Academy in Aurora, Colorado, the Information Center assists
correctional policy makers, practitioners, elected officials, and others interested in correctional
issues—including restrictive housing. Information Specialists who have professional experience in
80

corrections provide expert research assistance with full access to materials in the NIC library
collection. Specialists assist with locating and, in many cases, obtaining copies of this information
at no charge.

Office of Justice Programs (OJP)
The Office of Justice Programs partners with jurisdictions and agencies to support a range of
justice programs at the state, local, and tribal level. Many of these partnerships are facilitated
through OJP’s Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), which provides direct grants and technical
assistance to both correctional systems and non-profit organizations that support BJA’s mission.
OJP also oversees, among other entities, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention (OJJDP), and the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), both of which are discussed
below.

Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA)
In fiscal year 2013, BJA awarded approximately $400,000 to support a partnership between the
South Dakota Department of Corrections (SD DOC) and the Crime and Justice Institute (CJI) of
Community Resources for Justice, Inc. The grant funds, awarded through BJA’s “Emerging
Innovation: Field-Initiated Programs” Competitive Grant Program, supported SD DOC’s efforts
to safely reduce the use of restrictive housing in its correctional facilities and share lessons learned
with other states. To date, CJI has published two policy briefs on the project, 32 and a
comprehensive final report is expected in spring 2016.
To further support reform efforts, BJA joined with the Vera Institute of Justice’s (Vera) Center on
Sentencing and Corrections (CSC) in fiscal year 2014 to launch the “Safe Alternatives to
Segregation” Initiative (SAS). The SAS initiative involves partnerships with five state and local
correctional systems to significantly reduce the use of restrictive housing through the development
of safe and effective alternatives, as well as limited technical assistance to a number of additional
jurisdictions upon request. To support the initiative, BJA awarded approximately $500,000 to
Vera, which the organization matched with other sources of funding.
Several of the projects are described below.
•

Five state and local partnerships. In March 2015, after a competitive bidding process,
Vera announced the five participating jurisdictions: the state corrections departments of
Nebraska, North Carolina, and Oregon, and the local departments in New York City and
Middlesex County, New Jersey. In partnership with these sites, Vera is performing a full
review of the corrections departments’ policies and practices and conducting data analysis
to determine the drivers and characteristics of incarcerated people in segregation. In the

32

BARBARA PIERCE PARKER & DARIN YOUNG, RESTRICTIVE HOUSING: ATTRACTING YOUR
BEST STAFF WHERE THEY ARE NEEDED MOST (2015); BARBARA PIERCE PARKER & KEVIN
MCLAIN, RESTRICTIVE HOUSING PERFORMANCE MEASURES: REAL WORLD APPLICATION (2015).
81

spring 2016, Vera will provide recommendations on policy and practice changes that can
safely and effectively reduce the use of segregated housing across the systems and will help
implement these recommendations.
•

Advisory Council. To support the work in the sites, Vera has convened an Advisory
Council comprising practitioners from state and local correctional systems that have
successfully reduced their reliance on segregated housing as well as other experts in
correctional management, criminal justice policy, mental health, and special populations.

•

Resource Center. Through the online Safe Alternatives to Segregation Resource Center,
Vera provides the latest research, reports, policy briefs, webinars, and information on
promising reforms already being implemented in jurisdictions nationwide. These resources
aim to inform correctional officials, policymakers, advocates, the media, and the general
public about the current use of segregation in the U.S., its impact, and what can be done to
address it. Through the resource center, Vera also offers limited technical assistance to
additional jurisdictions upon request.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)
OJJDP provides funding for a broad range of prevention and intervention programs and technical
assistance to states and local communities to appropriately respond to juvenile delinquency and
victimization. In 2015, OJJDP convened a federal interagency working group to explore what is
known about the use of restrictive housing in juvenile justice facilities. To date, the working group
has reviewed available research on the use of restrictive housing, examined recent rulings and cases
and worked to develop an operational definition for categorizing the various forms of restrictive
housing used in juvenile justice facilities. The next steps for the working group are to determine
what activities and resources are needed to better understand current practices at the state and
local level and identify resources to support the implementation of evidence-based practices and
sustainable changes at the local level.

National Institute of Justice (NIJ)
NIJ serves as the research, development and evaluation agency of the U.S. Department of Justice,
and is dedicated to improving knowledge and understanding of crime and justice issues through
science. NIJ provides objective and independent knowledge and tools to reduce crime and
promote justice, particularly at the state and local levels. NIJ funds research on various
institutional correctional issues, including restrictive housing. In 2015, for example, NIJ has
hosted a two-day symposium on the “use of administrative segregation” in the United States and
commissioned several white papers on the subject.

82

Federal Civil Rights Litigation
The Department of Justice is responsible for enforcing a number of civil rights laws pertaining to
individuals confined in restrictive housing, including the Civil Rights of Institutional Persons Act
(CRIPA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973. CRIPA, 42 U.S.C. § 1997a, which Congress passed in 1980, gives the Attorney General the
authority to investigate conditions of confinement in institutions operated by or on behalf of state
and local governments—including juvenile justice facilities, adult jails and prisons, nursing homes,
and facilities for individuals with psychiatric or developmental disabilities—to determine whether
violations of the Constitution or federal law exist. CRIPA enforcement has been delegated to the
Department’s Civil Rights Division, and all CRIPA matters are handled by the Division’s Special
Litigation Section.
Under CRIPA, the Division is authorized to remedy a pattern or practice of unlawful conditions
that deprives individuals confined in the facilities of their constitutional or federal statutory rights.
As required by the statute, the Division engages in negotiations and conciliation efforts to develop
remedies that help jurisdictions correct deficient conditions. If these efforts fail, the Division may
file a lawsuit to correct the violations of rights. At the end of fiscal year 2014, the Division had
active CRIPA matters and cases involving 150 facilities in 27 states, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Territories of Guam and the Virgin Islands.
Title II of the ADA provides that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such
disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of services, programs, or
activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.” 42 U.S.C. §
12132. Title II applies to all state and local governments and their departments, agencies, special
purpose districts, and other instrumentalities. Title II extends to all of a correctional facility’s
services, programs, and activities, including classification, housing, recreation, and medical and
mental health treatment, among others, for which prisoners are otherwise qualified. See 28 C.F.R.
§ 35.151, 35.152. The regulation implementing title II of the ADA requires public entities to
“administer services, programs, and activities in the most integrated setting appropriate to the
needs of qualified individuals with disabilities.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(d). The Division’s Disability
Rights and Special Litigation Sections share enforcement responsibilities under Title II related to
correctional institutions.
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, as amended, prohibits
discrimination on the basis of disability in federally conducted and federally assisted programs and
activities. The Department’s Section 504 implementing regulation for the programs and activities
conducted by the Department are found at 28 C.F.R. part 39 and its Section 504 implementing
regulation applicable to recipients of federal financial assistance from the Department are found at
28 C.F.R. part 42, Subpart G). Section 504 states that no qualified individual with a disability shall
“be excluded from the participation in, denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination
under” any covered program or activity. 29 U.S.C. § 794(a). The Department’s 504 regulations
83

include requirements for program accessibility and effective communication with people who have
hearing or vision disabilities. See 28 C.F.R. § 39.160(a)(1). While the Office of Justice Programs
enforces the Department’s Section 504 regulations with respect to federally assisted programs and
activities, the Disability Rights Section of the Civil Rights Division is charged with coordinating
the consistent application of Section 504 regulations across the federal government.
For decades, a number of the Division’s matters have involved the use of restrictive housing, some
focusing on the treatment of adult prisoners and others specifically focusing on juvenile detention
facilities. Several of the Division’s more recent adult cases are summarized below.
•

State of Pennsylvania. In 2013, the Division published its findings regarding the
Pennsylvania Correctional Institution at Cresson (SCI-Cresson), which found that that
institution’s use of long-term and extreme forms of solitary confinement on adult
prisoners with serious mental illness and/or intellectual disabilities violated the Eighth
Amendment and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Division’s findings
in SCI-Cresson compelled it to expand its investigation statewide. In 2014, the Division
found that throughout the state, adult prisoners with serious mental illness were subjected
to prolonged solitary confinement under harsh conditions, leading to severe mental
deterioration, psychosis, and acts of suicide and self-harm.

•

Columbus, Georgia. In January 2015, the Division entered a supplemental agreement
that will wind down enforcement of the long-standing consent decree involving the
Muscogee County Jail in Columbus, Georgia. The supplemental agreement expands on a
1999 decree by adding safeguards for prisoners with serious mental illness, including
limiting the use and duration of solitary confinement; increasing out-of-cell time; and
requiring the jail to provide secure mental health and step-down units.

•

State of California. In 2013, the Division filed two statements of interest in Coleman v.
Brown, a federal class action in the Eastern District of California challenging the prolonged
isolation of adult prisoners with serious mental illness. The Division affirmed that Title II
of the ADA requires prison officials to make individualized assessments of prisoners with
serious mental illness or intellectual disabilities when making housing determinations to
provide for reasonable modifications that ensure that they are not automatically placed in
solitary for mere convenience. Also in 2013, the Division filed a statement of interest in
Mitchell v. Cate, another statewide class litigation challenging California’s policy and practice
of race-based lockdown as a response to potential security threats. The Division stated that
using race as a proxy for potential gang violence to justify locking down all prisoners of a
racial or ethnic group violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

•

St. Croix, Virgin Islands. After extensive litigation, the federal court in St. Croix
concluded in May 2013 that, among other unconstitutional conditions in the Golden
Grove Adult Correctional Facility, “prisoners with mental illness languish in segregation
84

cells, purportedly for their own protection.” The court also found that the facility failed to
adequately classify prisoners as having serious mental illness, provide specialized mental
health housing, and conduct surveillance rounds in segregation to identify prisoners with
mental illness and refer for treatment. The subsequent settlement agreement prohibits
housing prisoners with serious mental illness in segregation. In addition, it requires regular
review of prisoners in segregation to minimize time in segregation, provision of adequate
opportunities for out-of-cell time, and that qualified mental health providers review
proposed prisoner disciplinary sanctions to evaluate whether mental illness may have
impacted rule violations and ensure that prisoners are not punished for acts that are solely
symptoms of mental illness.
•

St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana. In 2012, the Division published its findings regarding
the St. Tammany Parish Jail, in Covington, Louisiana. The Division found that St.
Tammany’s routine, long-term use of booking cages to house suicidal adult prisoners
deprived prisoners of adequate mental health care and put them at risk of harm.

•

Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Division’s August 2011 findings report on its
investigation of the Miami-Dade County Corrections and Rehabilitation Department
concluded that the facility’s “segregated housing units for prisoners with serious mental
illness and suicidal behaviors are inhumane and unconstitutional.” The report outlined
remedial measures including the implementation of policies and procedures requiring
mental health staff’s review of mentally ill prisoners’ disciplinary charges to ensure that
mentally ill prisoners are not punished for conduct that is symptomatic of mental illness,
and the provision of mental health care housing units, or special needs units, for prisoners
who cannot function in the general population.

•

Robertson County, Tennessee. In August 2011, the Division’s investigation of the
Robertson County Detention Center in Springfield, Tennessee culminated in findings that
the facility’s use of “therapeutic lockdown,” or the practice of placing prisoners with
mental illness in long-term isolation, “is contrary to generally accepted professional
standards of mental health care and the Constitution.” The subsequent settlement
agreement prohibits the use of administrative segregation to supplant crisis services.

•

Columbia, South Carolina. In October 2013, the Division’s investigation of the
segregation of inmates with HIV held by the South Carolina Department of Corrections
(SCDC) resulted in a consent decree ending their segregation in “HIV only” dormitories in
two of SCDC’s highest security prisons. The Department brought the case under Title II
of the ADA and Section 504. This resolution followed a decision in a similar case brought
in 2012 by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) against the Alabama Department
of Corrections (ADOC), regarding ADOC’s segregating prisoners with HIV by housing
them separately from all other prisoners and confining some of its prisoners with HIV in
85

restrictive housing. The district court ruled that placing inmates with HIV in restrictive
housing on the basis of their HIV status, as well as other types of segregation to which
ADOC subjected the inmates, violated their rights under the ADA and Section 504. See
Henderson v. Thomas, 891 F. Supp. 2d 1296 (M.D. Ala. 2012).
In addition, the Division has participated in a number of cases that specifically focus on restrictive
housing as applied to juveniles:
•

Rikers Island, New York. In August 2014, the United States Attorney’s Office for the
Southern District of New York, working in conjunction with the Civil Rights Division,
published its findings regarding the conditions of confinement of adolescent male inmates
on Rikers Islands, in New York City. Under a consent decree approved by the court in
October 2015:
o The City may not “place Inmates under the age of 18 in Punitive Segregation or
Isolation.” See Consent Judgment § XVI(2), United States v. City of New York,
S.D.N.Y. No. 11-5845 (Oct. 21, 2015) (ECF 249);
o Inmates under the age of 19 may be placed “in a locked room or cell as a
temporary response to behavior that poses a risk of immediate physical injury to
the Inmate or others.” Id. § XVI(10); and
o The period of confinement “shall not exceed 24 hours, except in extraordinary
circumstances which shall be documented, approved by the Warden of the Facility,
and approved in writing by the Corrections Health Care Provider supervising
psychiatrist or supervising clinical psychologist.” Id. § XVI(10)(c).

•

Leflore County, Mississippi. In May 2015, the Division filed in federal court a consent
decree with the Leflore County, Mississippi, Board of Supervisors concerning the
conditions at the Leflore County Juvenile Detention Center. The consent decree included
commitments eventually to eliminate disciplinary seclusion and restrict the use of cooldown seclusion to one hour.

•

Contra Costa County, California. In 2014, the Division filed a statement of interest in a
case to protect the rights of youth with disabilities to special education services while in
detention. The youth were placed in solitary confinement for as much as 22 hours a day.
Following the Division’s statement, the parties to that case agreed to reforms that prohibit
the use of seclusion for disciplinary reasons and to limit the use of seclusion imposed as a
temporary response to behavior that threatens immediate harm to no more than four
hours.

86

•

State of Ohio. In 2014, the Division entered into a consent decree resolving allegations
that Ohio unlawfully subjected youth with mental health needs to harmful seclusion in
violation of their constitutional rights. Ohio agreed to eliminate disciplinary segregation,
greatly reduce cool-down seclusion, and ensure youth receive individualized mental health
treatment to prevent and address the violent behaviors that led to seclusion.

•

Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana. In 2011, the Division released its findings regarding the
Terrebonne Parish Juvenile Detention Center, in Houma, Louisiana. The Division found
that isolation and restraints were routinely used at this pre-trial facility when verbal or nonphysical methods would have been adequate. The parties signed a consent decree in 2011,
which among other things imposed limits on the use of isolation. The facility ultimately
came into compliance with the consent decree, and this matter was dismissed in 2014.

•

Los Angeles County, California. Following a 2008 findings letter, the Division and Los
Angeles County entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding
conditions at facilities for youth who have violated the conditions of their probation. A
2012 amendment to the MOU limits the conditions in which isolation can be used, limits
how long youth may be placed in isolation, and examines the use of isolation as a measure
of determining the County’s compliance with the agreement.

87

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
For comparison purposes, this Report also considers the immigration detention system operated
by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). In recent years, ICE has instituted a number of
significant reforms to their restrictive housing practices that serve as a useful guidepost for other
correctional and detention systems.
In some ways, ICE’s immigration detention program resembles the model used by the U.S.
Marshals Service: a mix of federal, state, county, and private facilities that temporarily house
detainees while they await adjudication of their long-term status. (For ICE detainees, they are
awaiting a decision regarding their removal from the United States or execution of a removal
order; for USMS detainees, they are awaiting resolution of their federal criminal proceeding.)
However, ICE also requires that all detention facilities utilized by the agency meet ICE’s national
detention standards, which prescribe minimum conditions of confinement, programs, and services
for ICE detainees at that facility.

Overview of ICE Detention Program
ICE’s detention system is overseen by the Custody Management Division, a part of ICE’s
Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO). In FY 2015, ICE housed a total of 307,310
detainees, although only a fraction of that population was housed by ICE at any single time. The
average length of stay in ICE custody was 34.4 days. On January 1, 2015, for example, ICE had
26,392 detainees in its custody at 177 facilities throughout the United States. 33 ICE houses
detainees in several types of facilities:
•

33

State and Local “IGSA” Facilities. In FY 2015, on average, over half of ICE detainees
were housed in detention space provided to ICE through “intergovernmental agency
service agreements” (IGSA) with approximately 80 state, county, or local agencies; another
15% of ICE detainees were housed in detention space through ICE riders on Marshals
Service “intergovernmental agency agreements” (IGA), with approximately 60 state,
county, or local agencies. 34 Many of the facilities are county jails or similar short-term
detention facilities operated by sheriffs, sometimes with housing units the facility dedicated
for ICE detainees. However, approximately half of the detainees housed in IGSA
facilities—27% of the entire FY 2015 ICE average daily population (ADP)—were housed
in dedicated IGSA facilities (i.e., facilities that exclusively house ICE detainees and that are
typically owned and operated by contractors). Given that each locality is responsible for
the day-to-day operations of their facility, there is some variation in their services,
programs, operating procedures, and conditions of confinement. In almost all cases,
The average daily population (ADP) for FY 2015 was 28,168.

34

This data for total numbers of facilities includes only those with an FY 2015 ADP of 1 or
more, as ICE has a large number of authorized facilities that it rarely, if ever, uses.
88

IGSAs are at-will agreements, and either party may terminate the agreement without legal
consequences.
•

Contract Detention Facilities (CDF). In FY 2015, approximately 18% of the ICE ADP
was housed at dedicated CDFs, which are owned and operated by private sector
contractors pursuant to a performance-based contract with ICE.

•

Service Processing Centers (SPC). In FY 2015, approximately 10% of the ICE ADP
was housed at SPCs, which are owned and administered by ICE but largely staffed by
private sector contractors, pursuant to a performance-based contract with ICE.

The cost of detaining individuals in ICE custody varies considerably between facilities, as do the
terms and conditions of the IGSAs and contracts. At some locations, ICE pays for every bed,
regardless of whether it is occupied. At other locations, the per diem is reduced when a certain
occupancy level is achieved. The majority of contracts with private prison providers are short in
duration, whereas most IGSAs with county sheriffs have no expiration.
Over the past 15 years, ICE has developed three sets of “national detention standards,” which
apply to all non-Bureau facilities that house its detainees. The first and second sets of standards
were released in 2000 and 2008, respectively. The third and most recent iteration, released in
February 2012, is known as the “Performance-Based National Detention Standards 2011”
(PBNDS 2011), and was drafted to improve medical and mental health services; increase access to
legal services, religious opportunities, recreation, and visitation; improve communication with
detainees with limited English proficiency; and improve the process for reporting and responding
to complaints, among other things. All ICE-affiliated detention facilities (IGSA, CDF, and SPC)
are subject to one of the three sets of detention standards. Several factors determine which
standard applies to which facilities, including when ICE last negotiated its agreement with a
particular facility. ICE generally requests a facility to adopt the revised standards upon
renegotiation or renewal of any contract. PBNDS 2011 currently applies to facilities housing
approximately 66% of ICE’s ADP, excluding family residential facilities, which do not utilize
segregated housing. All dedicated facilities (SPCs, CDFs, and dedicated IGSAs) are covered by
PBNDS 2011.
ICE also requires all facilities that house its detainees to adhere to certain policies regarding the
use of segregation. All versions of ICE national detention standards establish detailed
requirements with respect to facility segregation practices, including with respect to permissible
grounds for placement in segregation, procedural requirements for making initial placement
decisions and for conducting regular ongoing reviews of the necessity of continued segregation,
health and safety monitoring and documentation requirements, as well as minimum detainee
access to a range of facility programs and services.
ICE’s policies establish two types of restrictive housing: “disciplinary segregation,” which is
punitive, and “administrative segregation,” which covers all non-punitive forms of restrictive
89

housing (e.g., investigative, protective, preventative, transitional). ICE policies regarding
permissible disciplinary segregation sanctions are codified in the national detention standards,
including PBNDS 2011. In some ways, the disciplinary scale is similar to the Bureau’s: the
PBNDS establishes four levels of offenses—“Greatest,” “High,” “High Moderate,” and “Low
Moderate” —which closely track the offense levels established in the Bureau’s disciplinary system.
For each offense level, the policy describes a variety of available sanctions, including punitive
segregation. The maximum segregation penalties are as follows:
ICE MAXIMUM TERMS
(Adapted from PBNDS 2011)
Severity Level

Any Offense

Greatest

60 days

High

30 days

High Moderate

3 days

Low Moderate

Not permitted

Reporting Requirements
In 2013, ICE conducted a review of its restrictive housing policies, and issued a directive titled
“Review of the Use of Segregation for ICE Detainees” (ICE Segregation Directive), which
complements whatever detention standards apply to a particular facility. The ICE Segregation
Directive imposes several reporting requirements, both to regional ERO field offices and to ICE
Headquarters in Washington, D.C.
•

Regional reporting. Each facility must report in writing to a regional ERO supervisor
(the “Field Office Director,” or FOD) whenever a detainee has been held continuously in
segregation for 14 days, 30 days, and at every 30-day interval thereafter, or has been held in
segregation for 14 days out of any 21-day period. Once notified, the regional field office
conducts a review of the segregation case, to ensure that proper procedures were followed,
and to ensure that ongoing segregation is appropriate. As part of this review, the regional
field office must evaluate the appropriateness of potential housing or custodial alternatives,
such as return of the detainee to the general population, transfer to another facility where
the detainee can be housed in the general population or in an environment better suited to
his or her needs, or release from custody (consistent with requirements of mandatory
detention under the Immigration and Nationality Act, public safety, and other immigration
enforcement considerations).
An even more stringent policy applies when the detainee meets criteria that might make
him or her more vulnerable in segregation and therefore require more intensive
monitoring. The Directive requires that a facility must notify the regional ERO office no
90

later than 72 hours after placement in segregation when the detainee: (1) has a mental
illness, serious medical illness, or serious physical disability, regardless of the reason for the
placement; or (2) was placed in administrative segregation because of a special
vulnerability, 35 or because the detainee is an alleged victim of sexual assault, is an identified
suicide risk, or is on a hunger strike. Regional field offices must conduct a similar review
of the segregation placement in these cases once notified, at this shorter interval.
•

Headquarters reporting. The Directive requires the regional ERO office to notify ICE
Headquarters regarding any detainee held longer than 30 days, as well as certain detainees
held in segregation for more than 14 days, including those subject to the 72-hour regional
notification process described above. ICE Headquarters components then provide a
second layer of review concerning the appropriateness of the segregation placement, and
work with regional field offices to effectuate any less restrictive housing or custodial
options as available and appropriate.

These reporting requirements allow ICE to closely scrutinize segregation decisions at its facilities.
In October 2013, the agency deployed a web-based program, the Segregation Review and
Management System (SRMS), to track detainees in restrictive housing and to facilitate the
reporting and multi-level review requirements described above. SRMS allows ERO regional field
offices to submit notifications about segregation placements to ICE Headquarters in real time, and
automatically prompts field offices to furnish information required by the Directive whenever a
segregation case has reached requisite notification or re-evaluation intervals (14 days, 30 days, etc.).
ICE Headquarters components are able to jointly review cases in the system and share comments
within each case, in order to reach a coordinated recommendation as to the appropriateness of
continued segregation and any available alternative housing options. SRMS allows tracking and
trend analysis based on a wide variety of factors, such as placement reason, security threat, or any
of the special criteria included in the ICE Segregation Directive. The program allows officials to
calculate the average and median amount of time detainees spend in each of these subcategories,
as well as evaluate statistical trends for facility segregation practices more generally. SRMS also
serves as a centralized historical record of all segregation cases entered into the database, and
subsequent field office and Headquarters level reviews.
In addition, ICE also operates a rigorous, multi-layered oversight program to ensure compliance
with its detention standards, regardless of which version governs at a particular facility. The
35

The Directive identifies detainees with “special vulnerabilities,” as those,
who are known to be suffering from mental illness or serious medical illness;
who have a disability or are elderly, pregnant, or nursing; who would be
susceptible to harm in general population due in part to their sexual orientation
or gender identity; or who have been victims – in or out of ICE custody – of
sexual assault, torture, trafficking, or abuse. [Part 3.3, at 2.]
91

agency’s On-Site Detention Compliance Oversight Program is comprised of more than 40 federal
detention site monitors posted at each of ICE’s major detention facilities who, on a full-time and
consistent basis, inspect to ensure that ICE’s contractors meet requirements, respond to and
report on problems, and collaborate with contracting officers regarding cost adjustments as
appropriate. This program currently covers facilities housing over 80% of ICE’s ADP. In
addition, ICE’s Detention Standards Compliance Unit (DSCU) administers annual contract
inspections of all over-72 hour detention facilities with an average daily population of more than
10 detainees. ICE has also established an independent Office of Detention Oversight (ODO),
which provides in-depth examinations of compliance with applicable national detention standards
at select facilities based on risk analyses or specific identified concerns. These levels of oversight
complement the additional review mechanisms established by the ICE Segregation Directive with
respect to segregation issues in particular.

92

Part Three
Guiding Principles and Policy Recommendations

93

Guiding Principles
This section includes a series of “Guiding Principles,” which are intended as best practices for
correctional facilities within the American criminal justice system. 36 These aspirational principles
should serve as a roadmap for correctional systems seeking direction on future reforms. When a
correctional system possesses the resources, staffing, and legal authority to fully implement these
principles, it should do so. When a correctional system lacks the resources, staffing, or legal
authority, it should develop a clear plan for building the necessary capacity and then proceed
expeditiously toward that goal. Officials at prisons and jails should work with policymakers,
correctional officer labor unions, advocacy organizations, and other stakeholders to develop
responsible and humane restrictive housing policies that both protect inmates and enhance officer
safety.

Restrictive Housing, Generally
•

Inmates should be housed in the least restrictive setting necessary to ensure their own
safety, as well as the safety of staff, other inmates, and the public.

•

Correctional systems should always be able to clearly articulate the specific reason(s) for an
inmate’s placement and retention in restrictive housing. The reason(s) should be
supported by objective evidence. Inmates should remain in restrictive housing for no
longer than necessary to address the specific reason(s) for placement.

•

Restrictive housing should always serve a specific penological purpose. When drafting or
implementing policy authorizing the use of restrictive housing, correctional systems should

36

These Guiding Principles do not have the force of law and do not create or confer any
rights, privileges, or benefits to past, current, or future inmates or detainees housed by federal,
state, or local correctional or detention systems, including the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The
Guiding Principles were developed for correctional systems that detain or incarcerate inmates in
connection with criminal proceedings in civilian courts. Other correctional or detention systems
may wish to review these Guiding Principles to determine which are applicable to their unique
circumstances and to make appropriate changes accordingly.
Both implementation and application of these Guiding Principles involve the exercise of
judgment of relevant Department officials, including those at the Federal Bureau of Prisons and
the U.S. Marshals Service. Nothing in these Guiding Principles should be construed to limit the
authority of the Attorney General to impose Special Administrative Measures pursuant to 28
C.F.R. §§ 501.2-501.3. Nor should they be construed to limit the Department’s ability to
implement administrative detention for any inmate or detainee as imposed by the Attorney
General pursuant to 28 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(a) or 501.3(a), or as needed to implement any Special
Administrative Measure or any court order issued pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(d).
94

clearly articulate the purpose(s) for employing restrictive housing in the authorized
circumstances.
•

An inmate’s initial and ongoing placement in restrictive housing should be regularly
reviewed by a multi-disciplinary staff committee, which should include not only the
leadership of the institution where the inmate is housed, but also medical and mental
health professionals.

•

For every inmate in restrictive housing, correctional staff should develop a clear plan for
returning the inmate to less restrictive conditions as promptly as possible. This plan
should be shared with the inmate, unless doing so would jeopardize the safety of the
inmate, staff, other inmates, or the public.

•

All correctional staff should be regularly trained on restrictive housing policies.
Correctional systems should ensure that compliance with restrictive housing policies is
reflected in employee-evaluation systems.

•

Correctional systems should establish standing committees, consisting of high-level
correctional officials, to regularly evaluate existing restrictive housing policies and develop
safe and effective alternatives to restrictive housing.

End-of-Term Placement
•

Absent a compelling reason, prison inmates should not be released directly from restrictive
housing to the community.

•

During the final 180 days of an inmate’s term of incarceration, officials should avoid
placing the inmate in involuntary restrictive housing. If an inmate is housed in involuntary
segregation 180 days out from the end of his or her sentence, officials should consider
releasing the inmate to a less restrictive setting if this can be done without endangering the
safety of the inmate, staff, other inmates, or the public. If segregation becomes necessary
during this time, officials should provide targeted re-entry programming to prepare the
prisoner for his or her return to the community.

Disciplinary Segregation
•

Correctional systems should develop clear, specific policies for determining under what
conditions an inmate can be placed in segregation in response to an alleged disciplinary
violation—both during the investigative stage and after an adjudication of guilt—as
discussed below.

95

•

Correctional systems should work with prosecutors and other law enforcement officials to
ensure that inmates who engage in serious criminal activity while incarcerated—especially
those who assault or kill correctional staff—face criminal prosecution when appropriate.

Pre-Adjudication (Investigative Segregation)
•

An inmate should not be placed in restrictive housing pending investigation of a
disciplinary offense unless the inmate’s presence in general population would pose a
danger to the inmate, staff, other inmates, or the public. In making this determination,
officials should consider the seriousness of the alleged offense, including whether the
offense involved violence, involved escape, or posed a threat to institutional safety by
encouraging others to engage in such misconduct. Policy and training should be crafted
carefully to ensure that this principle is not interpreted overly broadly to permit the
imposition of restrictive housing for infrequent, lower-level misconduct.

•

Except in emergency situations, an inmate should not be initially placed in investigative
segregation without prior approval by a supervisory official. This supervisor should
carefully scrutinize the proposed placement to determine whether segregation is necessary
at this stage.

•

An inmate’s initial placement in investigative segregation should be reviewed within 24
hours by an appropriate, high-level authority who was not involved in the initial placement
decision.

•

Correctional staff should complete their disciplinary investigation as expeditiously as
possible. Any time that an inmate spends in investigative segregation should be credited
towards the term he or she ultimately serves in disciplinary segregation for that offense.
Absent compelling circumstances, such as a pending criminal investigation, an inmate
should not remain in investigative segregation for a longer period of time than the
maximum term of disciplinary segregation permitted for the most serious offense charged.

•

An inmate who demonstrates good behavior during investigative segregation should be
considered for release to the general population while awaiting his or her disciplinary
hearing. Similarly, if an inmate is ultimately adjudicated guilty, the inmate’s good behavior
should be given consideration when determining the appropriate penalty.

Post-Adjudication (Disciplinary Segregation)
•

Inmates who violate disciplinary rules should be placed in restrictive housing only as
necessary, and only after officials have concluded that other available sanctions are
insufficient to serve the purposes of punishment.

96

•

Disciplinary sanctions, regardless of whether they involve a period of segregation, should
be applied in a manner that is swift, certain, and fair.

•

Correctional systems should establish maximum penalties for each level of offense. These
penalties should always include alternatives to disciplinary segregation. The maximum
penalties should be graded based on the seriousness of the offense. If used for
punishment, restrictive housing should be reserved for offenses involving violence,
involving escape, or posing a threat to institutional safety by encouraging others to engage
in such misconduct. Policy and training should be crafted carefully to ensure that this
principle is not interpreted overly broadly to permit the imposition of restrictive housing
for infrequent, lower-level misconduct.

•

An inmate should be sentenced to a term of disciplinary segregation only after officials
conduct a disciplinary hearing and the inmate is adjudicated guilty of the alleged violation.
The hearing should be conducted by a correctional official outside the regular chain of
command at the institution where the inmate is housed.

•

When a disciplinary hearing officer is confronted with an inmate who demonstrates
symptoms of mental illness, the officer should refer the inmate to a qualified mental health
professional to provide input as to the inmate’s competence to participate in the
disciplinary hearing, any impact the inmate’s mental illness may have had on his or her
responsibility for the charged behavior, and information about any known mitigating
factors in regard to the behavior. The disciplinary hearing officer should also consult a
mental health professional, preferably the treating clinician, as to whether certain types of
sanctions, (e.g., placement in disciplinary segregation, loss of visits, or loss of phone calls)
may be inappropriate because they would interfere with supports that are a part of the
inmate’s treatment or recovery plan. Disciplinary hearing officers should take the
psychologist’s findings into account when deciding what if any sanctions to impose.

•

Ordinarily, disciplinary sentences for offenses that arise out of the same episode should be
served concurrently.

•

To incentivize conduct that furthers institutional safety and security, inmates who
demonstrate good behavior during disciplinary segregation should be given consideration
for early release from segregation, where appropriate.

Protective Custody
•

Generally, inmates who require protective custody should not be placed in restrictive
housing.

97

•

When an inmate faces a legitimate threat from other inmates, correctional officials should
seek alternative housing, by transferring the threatened inmate either to the general
population of another institution or to a special-purpose housing unit for inmates who
face similar threats, with conditions comparable to those of general population. There are
two exceptions to this general principle:
o When the inmate poses such extraordinary security risks that even a specialpurpose housing unit is insufficient to ensure the inmate’s safety and the safety of
staff, other inmates, and the public. In such cases, the inmate may be housed in
more restrictive conditions. The inmate’s placement should be regularly reviewed
to monitor any medical or mental health deterioration and to determine whether
the extraordinary security risks have subsided.
o During a brief investigative period while correctional staff attempt to verify the
need for protective custody or while the inmate is awaiting transfer to another
facility.

•

When transferring an inmate to another institution for protective custody reasons,
correctional officials should give consideration to an inmate’s release residence, including a
desire to be housed close to family.

•

Correctional systems should identify the most common reasons that inmates request
protective custody (e.g., prior cooperation with law enforcement, conviction for sex
offense, gang affiliation, sex or gender identification) and develop strategies for safely
housing these inmates outside traditional restrictive housing units.

Preventative Segregation
•

Inmates should not be placed in long-term preventative segregation unless correctional
officials conclude, based on evidence, that no other form of housing will ensure the
inmate’s safety and the safety of staff, other inmates, and the public. This determination
should be guided by clearly articulated procedural protections, including the use of a
multidisciplinary review team.

•

Officials should regularly review those in preventative segregation with the goal of
transitioning inmates back to less restrictive housing as soon as it is safe to do so.

•

Inmates in preventative segregation should be given the opportunity to participate in
incentive or step-down programs that allow them to progress to less restrictive housing.

98

Conditions of Confinement
•

Correctional systems should seek ways to increase the minimum amount of time that
inmates in restrictive housing spend outside their cells and to offer enhanced in-cell
opportunities. Out-of-cell time should include opportunities for recreation, education,
clinically appropriate treatment therapies, skill-building, and social interaction with staff
and other inmates.

•

As correctional systems reduce the number of inmates in restrictive housing, they should
devote resources towards improving the conditions of those remaining in segregation. In
particular, correctional systems should take advantage of lower staff-to-inmate ratios
within restrictive housing units by providing the remaining inmates with increased out-ofcell time.

•

Correctional systems should provide out-of-cell, confidential psychological assessments
and visits for inmates whenever possible, to ensure patient privacy and to eliminate
barriers to treatment.

•

Restrictive housing units should maintain adequate conditions for environmental, health,
and fire safety.

•

The denial of basic human needs—such as food and water—should not be used as
punishment, whether alone or in conjunction with the use of restrictive housing.

Inmates with Serious Mental Illness
•

Generally, inmates with serious mental illness (SMI) should not be placed in restrictive
housing.

•

An inmate with SMI should not be placed in restrictive housing, unless:
o The inmate presents such an immediate and serious danger that there is no
reasonable alternative; 37 or
o A qualified mental health practitioner determines:


That such placement is not contraindicated; 38

37

“Immediate and serious danger” might arise during an emergency, such as a large-scale
prison riot, but would only last as long as emergency conditions are present. “Immediate and
serious danger” also includes the “extraordinary security needs” described in Institution
Supplement FLM 5310.16A, Treatment and Care of Inmates with Mental Illness, dated July 22,
2015. See supra note 25.
99



That the inmate is not a suicide risk;



That the inmate does not have active psychotic symptoms; and



In disciplinary circumstances, that lack of responsibility for the misconduct
due to mental illness or mitigating factors related to the mental illness do
not contraindicate disciplinary segregation.

•

Inmates with SMI who are diverted from restrictive housing should be placed in a clinically
appropriate alternative form of housing, such as a secure mental health unit or other
residential psychology treatment program.

•

If an inmate with SMI is placed in restrictive housing:
o Mental health staff should conduct a mental health consultation at the time of the
inmate’s placement in restrictive housing;
o The inmate should receive intensive, clinically appropriate mental health treatment
for the entirety of the inmate’s placement in restrictive housing;
o The inmate should receive enhanced opportunities for in-cell and out-of-cell
therapeutic activities and additional unstructured out-of-cell time, to the extent
such activities can be conducted while ensuring the safety of the inmate, staff,
other inmates, and the public;
o At least once per week, a multidisciplinary committee of correctional officials
should review the inmate’s placement in restrictive housing;
o At least once per week, a qualified mental health practitioner, assigned to supervise
mental health treatment in the restrictive housing unit, should conduct face-to-face
clinical contact with the inmate, to monitor the inmate’s mental health status and
identify signs of deterioration; and
o After 30 days in restrictive housing, the inmate should be removed from restrictive
housing, unless the warden of the facility certifies that transferring the inmate to an
alternative housing is clearly inappropriate. 39 In making this determination, the

38

A qualified mental health practitioner might conclude that placement in restrictive housing is
not contradicted, when, for example, the practitioner determines that the inmate is stable,
responding well to medication, unlikely to remain in restrictive housing for more than a short
period of time, and likely to decompensate if transferred away from the inmate’s current mental
health treatment team.
39

In determining the appropriateness of the inmate’s continuing placement, wardens should be
guided by the principles outlined above regarding the placement of inmates with SMI in restrictive
housing.
100

warden should consult with mental health staff, who should conduct a
psychological evaluation of the inmate beforehand.
•

Inmates in restrictive housing should be screened for signs of SMI. Correctional systems
should implement policies, procedures, and practices to ensure that:
o Prior to an inmate’s placement in restrictive housing (or when that is infeasible, as
soon as possible and no later than within 24 hours of placement), staff can
promptly determine whether the inmate has been previously designated as
seriously mentally ill or at risk of developing SMI; 40
o Multiple times per day, correctional officers, trained in identifying signs of mental
health decompensation, conduct rounds of the restrictive housing unit;
o At least once per day, medical staff conduct medical rounds of the restrictive
housing unit;
o After 30 days in restrictive housing, and every 30 days thereafter, all inmates in
restrictive housing receive a face-to-face psychological review by mental health
staff; and
o If at any point an inmate shows signs of psychological deterioration while in
restrictive housing, the inmate should be immediately evaluated by mental health
staff. At the conclusion of this review, mental health staff should recommend
whether the inmate requires immediate transfer to a medical facility or other
treatment center, as well as whether the inmate should receive enhanced mental
health services and/or should be referred to a clinically appropriate alternative
form of housing.

Juveniles (Under 18 at Time of Adjudication)
•

Juveniles should not be placed in restrictive housing.

•

In very rare situations, a juvenile may be separated from others as a temporary response to
behavior that poses a serious and immediate risk of physical harm to any person. Even in
such cases, the placement should be brief, designed as a “cool down” period, and done
only in consultation with a mental health professional.

40

A correctional system could make this determination by, for example, creating an index, or
“hot list,” of inmates previously designed as seriously mentally ill. When a correctional system
lacks this capacity, staff should conduct a psychological review of the inmate at the time of
placement to make this determination.
101

Young Adults (Age 18-24 at Time of Conviction)
•

All correctional staff should receive training on young adult brain development, and
appropriate de-escalation tactics. Training should incorporate reliable, evidence-based
science.

•

Correctional systems should incorporate developmentally responsive policies and practices
for young adults, and as resources allow, implement modified therapeutic housing
communities with wrap-around programming in order to reduce the number of incidents
that result in placement in restrictive housing.

•

Correctional officials should strive to limit the use of restrictive housing whenever
possible, and to the extent used, to limit the length of inmates’ stay and to identify
services—including group educational and therapeutic services—that they can safely
participate in while in restrictive housing.

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex (LGBTI) and Gender
Nonconforming Inmates
•

Inmates who are LGBTI or whose appearance or manner does not conform to traditional
gender expectations should not be placed in restrictive housing solely on the basis of such
identification or status.

•

When an inmate who is LGBTI or a gender nonconforming inmate faces a legitimate
threat from other inmates, correctional officials should seek alternative housing, with
conditions comparable to those of general population to the extent possible.

•

Correctional officials can sometimes avoid the unnecessary use of restrictive housing for
protective custody reasons by making different classification assignments. In deciding
whether to assign a transgender or intersex inmate to a facility or program for male or
female inmates, correctional officers must consider on a case-by-case basis whether a
placement would ensure the inmate’s health and safety, giving serious consideration to the
inmate’s own views.

Pregnant and Post-Partum Inmates
•

Women who are pregnant, who are post-partum, who recently had a miscarriage, or who
recently had a terminated pregnancy should not be placed in restrictive housing.

•

In very rare situations, a woman who is pregnant, is postpartum, recently had a
miscarriage, or recently had a terminated pregnancy may be placed in restrictive housing as
a temporary response to behavior that poses a serious and immediate risk of physical
102

harm. Even in such cases, this decision must be approved by the agency’s senior official
overseeing women’s programs and services, in consultation with senior officials in health
services, and must be reviewed every 24 hours.

Inmates with Medical Needs
•

All inmates in restrictive housing should have access to appropriate medical care, including
emergency medical care.

•

When an institution lacks the capacity to provide appropriate medical care to an inmate in
restrictive housing, that inmate should be transferred to an appropriate facility where he or
she can receive necessary treatment.

Data Collection & Transparency
•

Prison systems should collect data about several aspects of their use of restrictive housing:
o System-wide data. This data should describe the incidence and prevalence of
restrictive housing, including the total number of inmates in each type of restrictive
housing, restrictive housing recidivism rates, and the average length of stay. This
information should be publicly available on corrections websites. It should include
demographic information for inmates, including race, national origin, religion,
gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability status, and age, to the extent
that the collection and publication of such information complies with all applicable
laws.
o Inmate-level data. This data should allow correctional systems to track individual
inmates throughout their incarceration. This will allow facilities to determine
whether, how often, and how long a particular inmate has been placed in
segregation, including as the inmate changes status (i.e., from investigative
segregation to disciplinary segregation). This information should be available to
correctional officers, to the extent consistent with applicable law, as a way to
identify strategies to treat disruptive inmates, and should not be released publicly.
o Officer data. Correctional systems should consider implementation of an early
intervention system, a management tool that promotes supervisory awareness and
helps officials identify trends, revise policy as needed, and deploy additional
training where necessary. This information should not be released publicly.

103

Policy Recommendations
The U.S. Department of Justice is prepared to use the full range of its powers and authorities to
safely reduce the use of restrictive housing in the United States. 41 The Department is prepared to
change its own policies and practices, and to use the many tools at its disposal to encourage other
correctional systems to do the same.
But to make lasting change, we must think boldly and broadly—not just about restrictive housing,
but about the many factors that drove the decades-long rise in America’s restrictive housing
population. As a nation, we must be willing to tackle difficult issues, from prison overcrowding to
the persistent underfunding of community mental health clinics. We must invest in treatment and
preventative services for high-risk populations, both in our correctional systems and society at
large. By treating the conditions and behaviors that most often trigger an inmate’s placement in
restrictive housing, we can create safer and less crowded prisons—and a safer and more
productive country.

Federal Bureau of Prisons
This Report outlines several specific policy recommendations that would help continue the
downward trends in the Bureau’s restrictive housing population. In many cases, these proposals
build on recent changes implemented by the Bureau, especially regarding the treatment of inmates
with mental illness at the ADX and elsewhere.
There are, however, a number of practical and budgetary constraints that might limit the Bureau’s
ability to quickly implement some of these proposals. The most important involves staffing. Over
the past several decades, the Bureau’s inmate population has increased dramatically, without
commensurate increases in the number of correctional officers and other Bureau staff. The rising
inmate-to-officer ratio has placed tremendous stress on the Bureau’s employees, who often work
long hours under challenging conditions. These staffing constraints have a particular impact on
the operation of the Bureau’s SHU and SMU units. Restrictive housing units often contain some
of the most challenging inmates in a correctional system, including those who are violent,
vulnerable, and/or seriously mentally ill, which in turn requires additional officers to assist with
escorting inmates, delivering meals, and providing a range of other individualized services under
heightened security conditions. But the high inmate-to-officer ratios limit the Bureau’s ability to
41

Both implementation and application of these Proposed Actions involve the exercise of
judgment of relevant Department officials, including those at the Federal Bureau of Prisons and
the U.S. Marshals Service. Nothing in these Proposed Bureau Actions should be construed to
limit the authority of the Attorney General to impose Special Administrative Measures pursuant to
28 C.F.R. §§ 501.2-501.3. Nor should they be construed to limit the Department’s ability to
implement administrative detention for any inmate or detainee as imposed by the Attorney
General pursuant to 28 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(a) or 501.3(a), or as needed to implement any Special
Administrative Measure or any court order issued pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(d).
104

assign additional staff to SHU and SMU units; every officer assigned to restrictive housing unit is
one less officer available in another area of the facility.
The Department believes that reducing the total number of restrictive housing inmates will lessen
the intense demands currently placed on officers assigned to SHU and SMU units, freeing up staff
to provide additional programming and services for the remaining inmates in restrictive housing.
Over time, as the restrictive housing population decreases, the Bureau may be able to reassign
some officers from SHU and SMU units to other housing units with lower staff-to-inmate ratios.
The actual cost-savings from these changes are likely to be small (since most expenses associated
with operating SHU and SMU units are fixed, regardless of the number of inmates housed), but a
reduction in the overall restrictive housing population should allow for a more efficient allocation
of staff resources across Bureau facilities.
Since January 2012, the Bureau has reduced the total number of inmates in restrictive housing by
nearly 25 percent. The Department estimates that the policy recommendations proposed in this
Report, if fully adopted, will result in additional substantial reductions in the Bureau’s restrictive
housing population. Although it is impossible to quantify the exact size of the future reductions,
the Department notes that other state and local correctional systems implementing reforms,
including those jurisdictions discussed in earlier in this Report, have reported reductions in their
restrictive housing populations in recent years by nearly 50 percent or more, depending on the
metrics used.
The Department notes that many of the Bureau’s restrictive housing policies are codified in federal
regulations and/or its internal policy documents, known as “Program Statements.” Revisions to
either type of document may be subject in some cases to collective bargaining.

Restrictive Housing, Generally
The Department recommends that the Bureau revise its written policies regarding restrictive
housing to incorporate the Guiding Principles outlined in this Report, to the extent feasible based
on appropriations and staffing.
•

This Report recommends that the Bureau revise its Program Statements regarding Special
Housing Units (PS 5270.10), the Inmate Discipline Program (PS 5270.09), and Special
Management Units (PS 5217.01), to incorporate the following principles:
o Inmates should be housed in the least restrictive setting necessary to ensure their
own safety, as well as the safety of staff, other inmates, and the public.
o Correctional staff should be able to clearly articulate the specific reason(s) for an
inmate’s placement and retention in restrictive housing. The reason(s) should be
supported by objective evidence. Inmates should remain in restrictive housing for
no longer than necessary to address the specific reason(s) for placement.
105

o Restrictive housing should always serve a specific penological purpose.
o An inmate’s initial and ongoing placement in restrictive housing should be regularly
reviewed by a multi-disciplinary staff committee, which should include not only the
leadership of the institution where the inmate is housed, but also medical and
mental health professionals.
o For every inmate in restrictive housing, correctional staff should develop a clear
plan for returning that inmate to less restrictive conditions as promptly as possible.
This plan should be shared with the inmate, unless doing so would jeopardize the
safety of the inmate, staff, other inmates, or the public.
•

This Report recommends that the Bureau incorporate these principles, as well as the new
policies described below, into existing training classes and curriculum (e.g., Introduction of
Correctional Techniques; quarterly SHU training; and training for lieutenants, captains,
disciplinary hearing officers, psychologists, and reentry affairs coordinators). In addition,
the Bureau should regularly train all correctional staff on its restrictive housing policies.
This training should incorporate reliable, evidence-based science on the potential effects of
restrictive housing on vulnerable populations, including young adults (ages 18-24) and
inmates with serious mental illness.

End-of-Term Placements
Whenever possible, the Bureau seeks to avoid releasing inmates directly from restrictive housing
back to the community. In some cases, these releases are inevitable—for example, if a judge
unexpectedly grants an inmate’s request for post-conviction relief, the Bureau might have no
choice but to immediately release the inmate, regardless of his or her current housing status. In
addition, the Bureau reports that a small number of inmates request protective custody during the
final months of their prison terms, sometimes as a way to “stay out of trouble.”
•

This Report recommends that the Bureau revise its Program Statements regarding SHU
(PS 5270.10) and SMU (PS 5217.10) to discourage the placement of inmates in restrictive
housing nearing the end of their prison terms, whenever practicable.

•

This Report recommends that the Bureau draft written policy regarding end-of-term
restrictive housing. This policy should:
o Provide guidance that, if an inmate is involuntarily housed in segregation 180 days
out from the end of his or her sentence, Bureau staff should consider releasing the
inmate to a less restrictive setting, if this can be done safely. Similarly, the policy
should provide guidance that, during the final 180 days of an inmate’s prison term,
106

Bureau staff are directed to make every effort to avoid placing the inmate in
involuntary restrictive housing.
o Establish procedures to ensure that, if an inmate is placed in restrictive housing
during the final 180 days of his or her prison term, the inmate receives targeted reentry programming to prepare for his or her return to the community.

Investigative Segregation
In some ways, the Bureau’s disciplinary system resembles the stages of a criminal proceeding:
after learning of an alleged violation, Bureau officials investigate the matter, conduct a factual
hearing to determine responsibility, and then impose a penalty on those deemed responsible. Like
a criminal proceeding, Bureau officials must make two types of detention decisions: during the
investigative phase (usually immediately following the alleged violation), and as a post-adjudication
sanction. Not all disciplinary violations result in segregation, either during the investigative stage
or post-adjudication, and some infractions are resolved informally at the staff-to-inmate level,
without triggering the formal disciplinary process.
The Bureau has codified approximately 90 types of disciplinary violations, or “prohibited acts,”
divided into four categories based on severity: Greatest (100-level); High (200-level); Moderate
(300-level); and Low (400-level). See Table 1, PS 5270.09, Inmate Discipline Program. The
disciplinary process begins as soon as staff observe or otherwise learn of a potential violation. If
the matter is relatively minor, or if the inmate does not have a history of violations, the officer will
typically try to resolve the incident informally. In more serious cases, the officer will draft an
incident report and submit it to his or her lieutenant.
The filing of an incident report triggers an investigation and the Bureau’s formal disciplinary
process. An inmate may be placed in investigative segregation, or “administrative detention” (AD)
status, pending investigation only after Bureau officials conclude that the inmate’s presence in
general population “poses a threat to life, property, self, staff, other inmate, the public, or to the
security or orderly running of the institution.” 28 C.F.R. § 541.23. Upon completion of the
investigation, Bureau officials conduct a factual hearing, adjudicate the inmate’s guilt, and, if
necessary, determine an appropriate sanction. In serious cases, the hearing is conducted by a
“Disciplinary Hearing Officer” (DHO), who operates outside the traditional reporting lines within
the facility. If a DHO decides to impose a sanction of punitive segregation, the inmate enters
“disciplinary segregation” (DS) status and remains in such status until the completion of the
disciplinary term. Of the nearly 8,700 inmates in Bureau-run SHUs as of November 23, 2015,
approximately 40% of those inmates (3,422) were classified as “AD status (pending investigation,
BOP violation)” and another 16% percent (1,417) were classified as “DS status.”
•

This Report recommends that the Bureau revise its Program Statements regarding SHU
(PS 5270.10) and the Inmate Discipline Program (PS 5270.09), as well as 28 C.F.R. § 541.3

107

and any other relevant regulations, to establish certain standards regarding its disciplinary
investigation process, including the use of investigative segregation.
•

This Report recommends that the Bureau draft written policy regarding the placement of
inmates in investigative segregation. This policy should:
o Require that, except in emergency situations, Bureau staff must obtain approval
from a lieutenant or higher-ranking officer before placing an inmate in AD status
pending investigation of a disciplinary violation. The lieutenant should be
responsible for reviewing the request to determine whether the inmate’s presence
in the general population would pose a danger to the inmate, staff, other inmates,
or the public, and if so, whether placement in SHU is appropriate. In making this
determination, the lieutenant should be directed to consider the seriousness of the
alleged disciplinary violation, including whether the offense involved violence,
involved escape, or posed a threat to institutional safety by encouraging others to
engage in such misconduct.


In emergency situations, Bureau staff need not obtain lieutenant approval
before placing the inmate in AD status, although such approval should be
obtained within 24 hours of placement.



In addition, within 24 hours of an inmate’s placement in AD status, the
placement decision should need to be reviewed and approved by a
supervisory Bureau official not involved in the initial placement, such as
the facility’s Institution Duty Officer.

o Establish a written policy that, absent compelling circumstances (such as flagrant,
repetitive violations), Bureau staff should not place inmates in AD status pending
investigation of a prohibited act with a severity level of Moderate (300-level) or
Low (400-level).
•

This Report recommends that the Bureau revise its written policies regarding disciplinary
investigations. These revisions should:
o Require that routine disciplinary investigations, such as those relating to
misconduct directly observed by correctional staff, be completed within 7 working
days of the filing of an incident report.
o Require that, absent compelling circumstances (such as a pending criminal matter),
all other disciplinary investigations be completed within 30 days of the issuance of

108

an incident report. Investigations that last longer than 30 days should be approved
by the Warden of the facility.
o Require that time spent in AD status pending investigation be credited towards any
term of DS status imposed for that violation.
o Require that Bureau staff prioritize investigations involving inmates placed in AD
status pending investigation.
o Provide guidance that, absent compelling circumstances (such as a pending
criminal matter), an inmate ordinarily should not remain in AD status pending
investigation for a longer period of time than the maximum term of DS status
permitted for the most serious act charged.

Disciplinary Segregation
If an inmate is found guilty of committing a prohibited act, the Disciplinary Hearing Officer
(DHO) is typically responsible for determining the appropriate sanction. The Bureau’s Program
Statement on inmate discipline includes a chart of available sanctions, which includes disciplinary
segregation, forfeiture of good time credit, loss of privileges, monetary fines, removal from
program or group activity, confiscation of property, or extra duty. For each severity level, the
Program Statement dictates the maximum term an inmate may be placed in restrictive housing,
both for a first offense and for second or subsequent offenses, although the DHO may exercise
his or her discretion and sentence the inmate to a shorter, determinant term of segregation or,
when appropriate, no segregation at all.
•

This Report recommends that the Bureau revise its Program Statements regarding SHU
(PS 5270.10) and the Inmate Discipline Program (PS 5270.09), as well as 28 C.F.R. § 541.3
and any other relevant regulations, regarding the imposition of disciplinary segregation as a
sanction for committing a prohibited act.

•

This Report recommends that the Bureau reduce the maximum time an inmate can be
placed in segregation as a sanction for violating a disciplinary rule, as per the chart on the
following page. Among other things, these revisions should eliminate restrictive housing
as a permitted sanction for all 400-level prohibited acts, and for an inmate’s first
adjudicated violation of all 300-level prohibited acts. As part of these changes, the Bureau
should consider reclassifying a small number of 300-level prohibited acts as 200-level acts.

109

Offense Type

Proposed Maximum Penalties

First Offense

Subsequent

First Offense

Subsequent

100-Level (Greatest)

365 days

545 days

60 days

90 days

200-Level (High)

180 days

365 days

30 days

60 days

300-Level (Moderate)

90 days

180 days

none

15 days

none

30 days

none

none

400-Level (Low)

•

Current Maximum Penalties

This Report recommends that the Bureau make additional revisions to its written policies
regarding the imposition of disciplinary segregation as a sanction for violating a prohibited
act. These revisions should:
o Provide guidance that DHOs should impose a sanction of disciplinary segregation
only as necessary, and only after concluding that the other available sanctions are
insufficient to serve the purposes of punishment.
o Provide guidance that, ordinarily, DHOs should impose concurrent sentences for
disciplinary violations arising from the same episode.
o Codify existing practices whereby Bureau officials may release inmates from
disciplinary segregation before the completion of their term as a reward for good
behavior. The policy would include guidance that such decisions should be made
in consultation with the institution’s multidisciplinary unit team.

•

This Report recommends that the U.S. Attorney’s Offices and other law enforcement
officials continue to support the Bureau’s efforts to ensure that inmates who engage in
serious criminal activity while incarcerated—especially those who assault or kill
correctional staff—face criminal prosecution when appropriate.

Protective Custody
As of November 23, 2015, the Bureau housed 921 protective custody inmates across 111 SHUs,
with approximately 47% (436) housed for 30 days or more. As a policy matter, the Bureau
believes it can best address this issue by expanding its existing network of special-purpose housing
units (which allow inmates to reside in conditions less restrictive than SHU), and then transferring
all qualifying protective custody inmates to one of these units.
In February 2014, the Bureau opened its first “Reintegration Housing Unit” (RHU) at FCC
Oakdale, in Louisiana. The program is designed for protective custody inmates, with the goal of
helping them eventually re-integrate with the general population over the course of a three-phase
program. Participants live, work, and program in a residential unit, with approximately 16 hours

110

out-of-cell per day. The RHU unit at FCC Oakdale can currently house a maximum of 128
inmates.
•

This Report recommends that the Bureau expand its RHU program, with the goal of
eventually housing all inmates with a verified need for protective custody who cannot be
housed in any other Bureau facilities. The Bureau should revise its Program Statement
regarding SHU (PS 5270.10), as well as 28 C.F.R. § 541.29, to reflect this principle. As part
of this expansion, the Bureau should:
o Open a second wing of the RHU unit at FCC Oakdale, increasing its total capacity.
o As necessary, establish up to three additional RHU units. Potential sites include
USP Atwater, in California; FCC Coleman, in Florida; and MDC Brooklyn, in New
York.
o Undertake substantial efforts to educate inmates about the availability of the RHU
program, with a special focus on inmates who are at high risk of victimization
within the prison system.
o As RHUs become operational at multiple locations, the Bureau should give
consideration to an inmate’s release residence when making assignment decisions.

Special Management Unit (SMU) Program
The Special Management Unit (SMU) is a four-phase program for Bureau inmates who present
unique security and management concerns. The program is designed for inmates who require
greater supervision than is typically available at SHUs, but whose history of violent conduct does
not rise to the level required for designation to the ADX. The goal of the program is to correct
inmates’ disruptive and violent behaviors, while gradually preparing them for return to the general
population. The Bureau considers the program non-punitive, insofar as it is not imposed as an
actual disciplinary sanction, although the vast majority of inmates selected for the program have a
history of disciplinary violations. Many are members or leaders of gangs or other “security threat
groups” (STGs).
•

This Report recommends that the Bureau revise its Program Statement regarding SMU (PS
5217.01), as well as any relevant regulations.

•

This Report recommends that the Bureau shorten the SMU program from four phases to
three, and reduce the overall program to approximately 12 months. The proposed average
timeline is outlined in the chart on the following page.

111

•

Current SMU Schedule

Revised SMU Schedule

Phase

Average mos.

Phase

Average mos.

1

4

1

6-8

2

6-8

2

2-3

3

6-8

3

1-2

4

2

Total

9-13 months

Total

18-24 months

This Report recommends that the Bureau make additional revisions to its written policies
regarding the SMU program. These revisions should:
o Establish an incentive program that permits high-performing inmates to advance
through SMU phases on a shorter timeline than outlined in the schedule above.
o Limit the maximum time an inmate may spend in SMU to 24 months. In revising
this policy, the Bureau would reiterate that inmates who complete the SMU
Program after 24 months will not be returned to the program unless they engage in
additional disruptive behavior that warrants a new referral, which will be subject to
approval as provided in policy.

Inmates with Serious Mental Illness (SMI)
Inmates with serious mental illness (SMI) who are violent or disruptive pose a special challenge to
the Bureau. Their behavior often requires removal from the general population, and yet
“traditional” forms of restrictive housing (SHU, SMU, and the ADX) present challenges to ensure
that an inmate’s mental health does not deteriorate during restrictive housing placement.
The Bureau is addressing these issues with a three-pronged approach: (1) by creating specialized
secure mental health units, which allows Bureau staff to divert SMI inmates from long-term
segregation into less restrictive housing; (2) by providing enhanced mental health services for
inmates in SHU, SMU, and the ADX, including screening and intensive psychological
programming; and (3) by offering mental health care to all Bureau inmates, as a way of reducing
and preventing the type of disruptive behavior that often results in segregation. Many of the
Bureau’s policies on mental health treatment are codified in Program Statement 5310.16,
Treatment and Care of Inmates with Mental Illness, which was published in May 2014. The
Bureau has codified several additional Program Statements regarding its psychological and
psychiatric services.
The Bureau operates two types of “secure mental health units”: the Secure Mental Health StepDown Program (SMH-SDP), and the Secure STAGES Program. The length of the programs
varies by inmate, but typically involves a year or more. In both programs, inmates receive
112

significant amounts of out-of-cell and in-cell programming, based on each inmate’s individualized
treatment plan. In addition, the Bureau operates a number of other secure and non-secure
psychology treatment programs, such as the Skills Program, a 12-to-18-month residential
treatment program for inmates with intellectual disabilities and social deficiencies.
SMH-SDP operates in two locations: USP Atlanta, in Georgia, and USP Allenwood, in
Pennsylvania, with a combined total capacity of 54 inmates. The Secure STAGES Program, which
focuses on inmates with personality disorders, operates at USP Florence, adjacent to the ADX in
Colorado, with a total capacity of 18 inmate participants. Over the past two years, the Bureau has
taken substantial steps to divert the vast majority of SMI inmates from ADX and SMU to these
mental health units.
•

This Report recommends that the Bureau expand its network of residential mental health
treatment programs, including secure mental health units, with the goal of building
sufficient capacity to divert inmates with SMI from all forms of restrictive housing (i.e.,
SHU, SMU, ADX) whenever it is clinically appropriate and feasible to do so.
o In early 2016, the Bureau plans to expand the capacity of the SMH-SDP unit at
USP Allenwood.
o The Bureau should create additional SMH-SDP units in each of the four Bureau
regions that do not currently have one. These units would require approximately
20 additional staff at each of the four locations, for a total of 78 positions, as well
as modernization and repair needs.
o The Department estimates that this expansion would cost in its first year
approximately $5.843 million for staff and $4 million for building and facilities
modernization.

•

This Report recommends that the Bureau increase the capacity of its mental health
services at each of its 111 SHU units, with the goal of expanding the Bureau’s screening,
evaluation, and mental health treatment of inmates in SHU.
o The Bureau should hire 108 additional psychology positions, for a total estimated
cost of $14.157 million, allowing the Bureau to dedicate at least one staff
psychologist to each SHU.

•

This Report recommends that the Bureau expand a variety of psychology treatment
programs, thus increasing the overall capacity of the Bureau’s mental health programs and
potentially reducing the likelihood that high-risk inmates will be placed in SHU later during
their terms of incarceration. Among other important programs, the Bureau should
consider further expansion of: the STAGES Program, for inmates with personality
113

disorder; the Skills Program, for male inmates with intellectual disabilities and social
deficiencies; the Sexual Offender Management Program (SOMP), for inmates convicted of
sex offenses; and the Resolve Program, for female inmates with trauma-related mental
health needs.
•

As the Bureau expands its mental health services, it should update its policies to require
more regular screenings of inmates for SMI. As necessary, the Bureau should revise its
Program Statements regarding Treatment and Care of Inmates with Mental Illness (PS
5310.16), Inmate Discipline Program (PS 5270.09), Special Housing Units (PS 5270.10),
Special Management Units (PS 5217.01), and Psychology Services Manual (PS 5310.12)
regarding the treatment of inmates with serious mental illness, to account for these policy
changes.

Juveniles (Under 18 at Time of Adjudication)
As used here, the term “juvenile” encompasses two categories of individuals: those adjudicated as
juveniles, and those under age 18 who were convicted and sentenced as adults. The Bureau does
not house any juveniles in its own facilities, and instead relies on contracts or intergovernmental
agreements with a network of state, local, and private juvenile facilities. As the Guiding Principles
make clear, the Department of Justice and the Bureau believe that juveniles should not be placed
in restrictive housing, except as a temporary measure in response to an act of serious violence.
•

This Report recommends that the Bureau end the practice of placing juveniles in
restrictive housing. This policy change should be reflected in revisions to the Bureau’s
Program Statement regarding juvenile delinquents (PS 5216.05), and any other relevant
policies or regulations.

•

Under this new policy, juveniles would be placed in a restrictive setting only as a temporary
response to a behavioral issue that poses “a serious and immediate risk to any individual,”
similar to the exception outlined in Section 212 (“Juvenile Solitary Confinement”) of S.
2123, the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act, now pending in the U.S. Senate.

To put this policy into effect, the Bureau should hire a full-time Juvenile Administrator to enhance
oversight of juvenile facilities. In addition, the Bureau should establish new contractual
agreements (or modify existing ones) with facilities housing juveniles.

Pregnant and Post-Partum Inmates
The Bureau provides female inmates with medical and social services related to pregnancy and
child placement. As the Guiding Principles make clear, the Department of Justice and the Bureau
believe that women who are pregnant, who are post-partum, who recently have had a miscarriage,
or who recently have had a terminated pregnancy should not be placed in restrictive housing.

114

•

This Report recommends that the Bureau revise its Program Statements regarding SHU
(5270.10) and pregnancy (6070.05) to address the placement of women who are pregnant,
are postpartum, recently had a miscarriage, or recently had a terminated pregnancy in
restrictive housing. The policy should require that any such placement be approved by the
Bureau’s senior official overseeing women’s programs and services, in consultation with
senior officials in health services, and that the placement decision be reviewed every 24
hours.

Conditions of Confinement
Existing federal regulations and Bureau policies establish baseline standards regarding the
conditions of confinement for inmates in restrictive housing. See, e.g., 28 C.F.R. § 541.31
(Conditions of Confinement in SHU). In recent years, the Bureau has also taken substantial steps
to enhance programming opportunities at the ADX, as discussed in the “USP Administrative
Maximum (ADX)” section of this Report.
The Bureau will continue to identify ways to increase the minimum amount of time that inmates in
SHU and SMU spend outside their cells. As noted earlier, a number of logistical barriers
complicate these efforts. Generally speaking, it takes multiple correctional officers to escort even
small numbers of inmates in restrictive housing units, given the heightened security risks.
Seemingly mundane tasks, such as transporting the inmates to a recreation space or supervising
group therapy classes, require careful coordination among staff members, and these tasks often
take much longer to complete than when performed in general population units. In the Bureau’s
SHU and SMU units, the limited staff spend their shifts managing an ever-increasing number of
tasks, leaving little room for increased out-of-cell time under current conditions.
Currently, inmates in SHU and SMU receive a minimum of 5 hours of out-of-cell recreation per
week, which is typically supplemented with additional out-of-cell group programming. As
discussed below, the Department of Justice hopes to increase this minimum number of hours and
aspires to eventually provide SHU and SMU inmates at least two hours of out-of-cell time per day.
But to do so—and do so safely—there are essentially two options: increase restrictive housing
staff, or reduce the number of restrictive housing inmates.
As part of this review, the Bureau attempted to calculate the cost of increasing out-of-cell time
solely by increasing staff (i.e., without reducing the number of inmates). According to the Bureau’s
calculations, this change would require additional officers and lieutenants at all 111 Bureau
facilities that operate SHUs or SMUs. To increase the minimum of out-of-cell recreation from 5
hours per week to 7, for example, the Bureau estimates that it would need to hire an additional 345
officers and 192 lieutenants, at a total cost of approximately $47.6 million per year.
Given this high cost, the Department believes that, as a policy matter, it would be more prudent to
seek increases in out-of-cell time by seeking to reduce the total number of inmates in restrictive
housing. Such reductions would likely lower inmate-to-staff ratios and free up time to transport
115

and supervise prisoners remaining in SHU. Assuming that the other proposals in this Report are
adopted, the Bureau can expect additional inmate reductions, and it would take advantage of this
declining population by increasing out-of-cell time to the greatest extent possible. The Bureau’s
ability to maximize out-of-cell time would vary somewhat by institution, and this Report
recommends that the Bureau adopt a policy that encourages Wardens to increase out-of-cell time
in a manner consistent with the resources and staffing constraints at their facilities.
•

This Report recommends that the Bureau revise its Program Statements regarding SHU
(PS 5270.10) and SMU (PS 5217.01) to enhance opportunities for out-of-cell time. The
policy should:
o Direct Wardens to develop individualized plans for maximizing out-of-cell time for
restrictive housing inmates at each Bureau institution. When developing these
plans, Wardens should be directed to strive to provide the greatest amount of outof-cell time possible, subject to three general factors:


Inmate-to-staff ratio, both in the restrictive housing unit and at the
institution as a whole;



Total number of inmates in restrictive housing at the facility;



Limitations of the physical plant, especially regarding spaces used for
recreation and group therapy.

o Direct Wardens to review these plans at least once per year and make adjustments
as necessary. In addition, Wardens should be permitted to adjust these plans on a
temporary basis in response to sudden changes regarding any of the three factors
described above.
In addition, the Bureau believes it could enhance its out-of-cell programming for restrictive
housing inmates by changing the way it restrains inmates during these programs. Current
regulations prohibit the Bureau from placing inmates in certain types of restraint equipment,
thereby limiting its ability to purchase “secure programming chairs” for educational and group
therapy programming for restrictive housing inmates.
•

In 2016, the Bureau expects to publish a final rule modifying 28 C.F.R. § 552.22(h)(4),
thereby permitting the use of secure programming chairs. Once the revised rule is
published, the Bureau intends to purchase 610 of these chairs, which would allow inmates
to receive in-person educational and mental health programming in a less restrictive
manner than currently used. The Bureau estimates that the one-time purchase of security
chairs would cost approximately $1.7 million.

116

Data Collection & Transparency
Starting in early 2013, the Bureau implemented a new, automated tracking system, known as the
“SHU Application,” which now operates at all Bureau-operated facilities. In its current form, the
SHU Application can provide Bureau staff with information about the number of inmates placed
in the SHU and the reason for their current placement. Staff can access this information through
a “SHU Dashboard,” which presents data in an easy-to-read format.
The Bureau is currently developing the capacity to track inmates as they move through different
statuses within their restrictive housing units. As part of these efforts, the Bureau is automating its
disciplinary process, which will allow Bureau officials to track a disciplinary violation from the
incident report, to DHO hearing, to final disposition. In addition, the Bureau expects to release
an upgraded version of the SHU Application in late 2016, which will make it possible to track
inmates as they progress through restrictive housing, including as they transfer from AD status to
DS status or vice versa. Once these efforts are completed, the Bureau will likely have greater
ability to assess the use of its Special Housing Units, allowing staff to identify potential problems
as quickly as possible.
•

This Report recommends that the Bureau begin posting monthly data from the SHU
Dashboard on its external website, allowing the public to track the total number of inmates
in restrictive housing Bureau-wide.

•

In late 2016, the Bureau will upgrade its SHU Application, allowing staff members to more
closely track inmate placements over time. This Report recommends that, as the Bureau
develops more sophisticated methods of tracking placement data, including data regarding
average length of stays, the Bureau should post this additional information on its external
website.

U.S. Marshals Service
The U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) houses approximately 20% of its inmates in private detention
facilities, 60% of its inmates in state and local facilities pursuant to intergovernmental agreements
(IGA), and the remainder in Bureau facilities. Historically, USMS has required that its private
detention facilities adhere to its Federal Performance-Based Detention Standards (FPBDS), which
include certain standards regarding the use of restrictive housing.
•

This Report recommends that USMS revise FPBDS to incorporate the principles outlined
this Report, to the extent they exceed the standards currently codified in FPBDS. In doing
so, USMS should require that its private contract facilities adhere to these revised policies
going forward.

On the other hand, USMS does not require that its state and local IGA facilities comply with
FPBDS, instead requiring only that IGAs comply with the laws of the relevant jurisdiction and any
117

other standards imposed by an authorized agency. However, all IGA agreements include some
basic reporting requirements, including requirements that facilities immediately notify USMS of a
significant event related to USMS prisoners, such as the death, assault, medical emergency,
attempted escape or escape of a federal detainee.
•

This Report recommends that USMS require that IGA facilities report basic information
about the placement of federal detainees in restrictive housing, similar to the reporting
requirements that USMS imposes upon the occurrence of significant incidents. These
reporting requirements should not require that USMS take specific action in response to
this information, but instead allow USMS, in its discretion, to determine whether any
remedial steps are appropriate.

National Institute of Corrections
The National Institute of Corrections (NIC) provides training, technical assistance, information
services, and policy development assistance to federal, state, and local correctional agencies. The
Department believes that NIC can serve a crucial role in encouraging correctional agencies to
adopt the policies and principles outlined in this Report. Among other things, NIC organizes a
popular 32-hour, in-person training program for state correctional agencies, titled “Management of
Restrictive Housing Populations,” that helps state officials assess and enhance their restrictive
housing programs.
•

This Report recommends that NIC incorporate the principles outlined in this Report into
its Management of Restrictive Housing Populations training program, thereby encouraging
state agencies to develop plans for safely reducing the number of inmates in restrictive
housing.

•

This Report recommends that NIC provide technical assistance and other support to state
and local correctional agencies seeking to safely reduce their restrictive housing population.

Office of Justice Programs
The Office of Justice Programs partners with jurisdictions and agencies to support a range of
justice programs at the state, local, and tribal level. Many of these partnerships are facilitated
through OJP’s Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), which provides direct grants and technical
assistance to both correctional systems and non-profit organizations that support BJA’s mission.
In addition, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), housed within OJP, supports research on a
variety of topics, including the use and effects of restrictive housing.

Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA)
In 2014, BJA joined with Vera Institute of Justice’s (Vera) Center on Sentencing and Corrections
to launch the “Safe Alternatives to Segregation” Initiative (SAS). The SAS initiative involves
partnerships with five state and local correctional systems to significantly reduce the use of
118

restrictive housing through the development of safe and effective alternatives. To support the
initiative, BJA awarded approximately $500,000 to Vera, which the organization matched with
other sources of funding.
In March 2015, Vera announced the five participating jurisdictions: the state corrections
departments of Nebraska, North Carolina, and Oregon, and the local departments in New York
City and Middlesex County, New Jersey. In partnership with these sites, Vera is performing a full
review of the corrections departments’ policies and practices and conducting data analysis to
determine the drivers and characteristics of incarcerated people in segregation. In the spring 2016,
Vera will provide recommendations on policy and practice changes that can safely and effectively
reduce the use of segregated housing across the systems and will help implement these
recommendations.
BJA’s ability to expand funding for the SAS Initiative depends largely on Congressional
appropriations. If provided additional funding, BJA would work with Vera to develop additional
resources to help state and local jurisdictions reduce their reliance on segregation. This assistance
could include, among other things:
•

Intensive technical assistance to additional jurisdictions (in addition to the 5 announced in
March 2015);

•

Practitioner surveys, to determine what resources are needed in the field;

•

Development of “leaning sites,” to facilitate peer-to-peer learning based on the efforts of
correctional administrators who have successfully and safely reduced reliance on
segregation;

•

New resources to highlight best and promising practices, including a toolkit detailing how
a system can safely reduce its use of segregation, webinars, an online self-assessment tool,
and other online programs; and

•

Evaluations of jurisdictions that have successfully decreased their use of segregation, to
identify the effects of specific policy and program changes.

National Institute of Justice (NIJ)
NIJ funds research on various institutional correctional issues, including restrictive housing. In
October 2015, NIJ sponsored a two-day meeting on the use of restrictive housing in America.
This meeting brought together stakeholders from across the nation, including leaders from
department of corrections, criminal justice and correctional scholars, advocacy and special interest
groups, as well as federal partners, to identify key issues in the practice of restrictive housing. NIJ
has also commissioned a number of white papers from criminologists and other scholars to assist
as NIJ develops a research agenda on the subject of restrictive housing.
119

•

In coming months, NIJ will issue a solicitation for innovative research proposals relating
to restrictive housing issues, among other issues. NIJ will seek proposals for research that
assesses the use of restrictive housing in prisons and jails, as well as the impact of the
practice on inmates and staff. NIJ anticipates that up to $8 million may become available
for awards under this solicitation. This research will serve an important role as
policymakers and correctional officials consider how to most effectively minimize the use
of restrictive housing in American prisons and jails.

120

Additional Policy Recommendation
Diverting Inmates with Serious Mental Illness from Incarceration
Individuals with serious mental illness are overrepresented in American prisons and jails. In the
most recent National Inmate Survey, conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics in 2011-12, an
estimated 37% of prison inmates and 44% of jail inmates reported being told by a mental health
professional that they had a mental disorder, as specified in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders (DSM-IV). 42 The survey data also indicate that 15% of the U.S. prison population
and 26% of the jail population are individuals with serious psychological distress (SPD), 43 as
opposed to only 3.0% of the general adult population. 44
People with mental illness who encounter the police are often incarcerated, rather than connected
with treatment services, for minor or non-violent infractions because of a lack of community
resources. Without adequate community services, courts and prosecutors have few options,
leading judges to sentence individuals to incarceration for what was initially a mental health crisis.
The lack of community-based treatment services for individuals with serious mental illness results
in incarceration in a correctional facility serving as a default “treatment” option for these
individuals. 45

42

ALLEN J. BECK, ET AL., BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS, SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION IN
PRISONS AND JAILS REPORTED BY INMATES, 2011-12 (2012).
43

Based on the K6 screening scale. Although the K6 has been demonstrated to be a good
predictor of serious mental illness in past studies, a recent technical group, convened by the Center
for Mental Health Services at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
(SAMSHA), recommended that it should be supplemented with questions on functional
impairment to improve statistical prediction and validity.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Early Release of Selected Estimates Based on Data
from Surveillance Among Adults in the United States, MORBIDITY & MORTALITY WKLY. REP., 2011; 60
(Suppl. Table 7). January-September 2012, National Health Interview Survey, Figures 13.1-13.3,
March 2013, 2012.
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/prevalence/nsduh_smi_2013_graph_logo_final_1480
00.pdf
44

See Rich, J.D., et al., Medicine and the Epidemic of Incarceration in the United States, 364 NEW
ENGLAND J. OF MED., 2081-2083 (1991); Steinberg, Darrell, David Mills, and Michael Romano,
“When Did Prisons Become Acceptable Mental Healthcare Facilities?,” Stanford Law School
Three Strikes Project (Feb. 2015); Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration,
Municipal Courts: An Effective Tool for Diverting People with Mental and Substance Use
Disorders from the Criminal Justice System, HHS Publication No. (SMA)-15-4929 (2015), 3-4.
45

121

While incarcerated, inmates with serious mental illness have unique behavioral and treatment
needs. According to a BJS report on the Use of Restrictive Housing in U.S. Prisons and Jails
between 2011 and 2012, inmates with a mental health problem are more likely than inmates
without a mental health problem to report they had spent time in restrictive housing. 46 Inmates
with SMI are also more difficult for correctional staff to manage, no matter how well trained and
experienced in crisis intervention they are. Most correctional environments simply were not
designed to provide the appropriate therapeutic environment to address and treat those with
serious mental illness.
To address this issue, the corrections community must work collaboratively with all stakeholders
in the criminal justice community, including mental health and substance abuse providers and nongovernmental partners, to divert individuals with serious mental illness from all stages of criminal
justice involvement. This collaboration should entail identifying critical barriers to community
mental health treatment, which will be unique to each community. For example, many
communities lack affordable housing, and, according to the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services’ Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, there is a severe
shortage of behavioral health professionals within our communities.
Diversion can include preventing further criminal justice involvement following interactions with a
police officer and reducing the length of time individuals are involved with the criminal justice
system. These efforts should be data driven and focused on evidence-based practices and at a
minimum include: (1) training police officers, judges, prosecutors, and public defenders to
recognize the signs of mental illness; (2) developing critical infrastructure and collaboration
between all stakeholders in the criminal justice community to identify and implement diversion
activities; and (3) developing the necessary community based resources to provide alternatives to
incarceration, including mental health services such as Permanent Supported Housing, 47 intensive
case management, peer support, and Assertive Community Treatment. 48
Many communities have already taken positive steps to increase diversion of individuals with
serious mental illness. For example, communities across the country have joined the Stepping Up
Initiative organized by the Council of State Governments Justice Center, the National Association
of Counties, and American Psychiatric Foundation, with support from the U.S. Department of
46

BECK, supra note 17, at 6.

47

Permanent supported housing combines services and housing to successfully support
individuals with severe mental illness in the community. See
http://store.samhsa.gov/product/Permanent-Supportive-Housing-Evidence-Based-PracticesEBP-KIT/SMA10-4510.
48

Assertive Community Treatment is an evidence-based mental health community service for
individuals with the most severe mental illness that improves outcomes and reduces
hospitalization. See http://store.samhsa.gov/product/Assertive-Community-Treatment-ACTEvidence-Based-Practices-EBP-KIT/SMA08-4345.
122

Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance, to increase diversion of individuals with serious mental
illness from the criminal justice system. 49 The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration funds the GAINS Center for Behavioral Health and Criminal Justice
Transformation that provides technical assistance for communities to expand access to behavioral
health services for justice-involved populations. 50
Providing mental health treatment in the community is not only more effective, but also typically
less expensive than providing treatment in criminal justice settings. 51 In addition, there is the
potential for large cost offsets, because diversion from incarceration can prevent further criminal
justice involvement. 52

49

Stepping Up Initiative, Dec. 5, 2015, available at https://stepuptogether.org.

50

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, GAINS Center for Behavioral
Health and Justice Transformation, Dec. 5, 2015, available at http://www.samhsa.gov/gains-center.
51

Cloud, David and Chelsea Davis, “Treatment Alternatives to Incarceration for People with
Mental Health Needs in the Criminal Justice System: The Cost-Savings Implications,” Vera
Institute for Justice (Feb. 2013), p. 2.
Id.; see also Van Dorn, Richard, et al., “Effects of Outpatient Treatment on Risk of Arrest of
Adults with Serious Mental Illness and Associated Costs (Sept. 2013),” Psychiatric Services, Vol. 64,
pp. 856-862, http://ps.psychiatryonline.org/doi/abs/10.1176/appi.ps.201200406
52

123