Disparities in Segregation for Prison Control: Comparing Long Term Solitary Confinement to Short Term Disciplinary Restrictive Housing

Abstract

Following a recent study of disparities in solitary confinement (SC) placements in Florida, we examined related dis­parities in the use of extended restrictive housing in Ohio (SC conditions) while expanding the analysis to short term restrictive housing, a substantially more common prison experience. Analyses of 183,872 incarcerated persons (IPs) revealed substantive disparities in prevalence and incidence of placements in both short- and long-term restrictive housing (RH). Controlling for types of rule violations and other risk indicators, disparities emerged based on an IP’s sex, age, race, education, learning skills, substance abuse risk, and mental health. Many findings are consistent with the Florida study and extend to the more routine short term RH. Similar studies will be critical for generating a body of knowledge that may demonstrate the same types and levels of RH disparities regardless of prison system, contributing greatly to RH policy debates and critical criminological perspectives.

Keywords:

• Prison
• restrictive housing
• solitary confinement
• disciplinary segregation

Acknowledgements

We thank Brian Kowalski and the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction for providing all data for the analysis and for their generous assistance with data management, provision of segregation policies and other related documents, and frequent guidance and feedback throughout the project.

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Notes

1 In Ohio, short term RH placement involves housing an individual in a cell block separate from the general population but within the same facility, and most often in a two-person cell for no more than one month. Extended RH placement involves moving a person out of their facility and into a maximum security or supermax prison, and always into a single-person cell for several months or more. For an ERH placement for someone already housed in an Ohio maximum security unit/prison, they will stay in that facility (unless sent to the supermax prison in Youngstown, OH), in which case they move to a segregation unit within that facility. Privileges permitted to the general population are denied in both SRH and ERH with the exception of up to two visits per month in ERH. Movement outside the cell is limited to 30 minutes (supermax) or from 30 to 120 minutes (all other forms of RH) per day, depending on the facility. Hand and leg restraints are used when a person leaves their cell, unless at recreation. Lighting in the unit is required 24 hours each day and must be adequate enough for staff to make rounds and confirm the individual is safe. The designation “short term” does not always mean “short,” however, even though the average time spent in SRH was 16 days in our sample. + These stays can be extended by weeks in some cases if individuals are deemed by prison personnel to have behaved poorly while in RH.

2 Full information was available for all data fields except CASAS literacy and math scores and TCU substance abuse score. Literacy scores are missing for 1.7% of the sample, and math scores are missing for 2.3%. Predicted values for these scores were computed from regression models with indicators of participation in different reentry approved programs and the specific type(s) of offense(s) for which incarcerated (derived from statutory offense codes), created from additional data provided by ODRC, and these values were imputed for missing cases (Pearson R > .60). Missing values on the TCU score are due primarily to individuals with no documented substance abuse histories and drug offenses (estimated at roughly one-third of the sample by ODRC researchers). However, there are additional cases with missing TCU scores for unknown reasons, and altogether there are 37% missing values on this scale. We were unable to discern whether blank entries for these cases are due to no documented substance abuse histories and prior drug offenses versus “other” reasons. Otherwise, persons without substance abuse histories and drug offenses would have been assigned the lowest value on the TCU scale. Unlike for CASAS scores, predicted values from regression models were not used to replace these missing values because of poor prediction (Pearson R < .40). Instead, the mean TCU score for all available cases was used to replace the missing values. This approach may have weakened the “true” estimates for this variable and so those estimates should be interpreted with caution.

3 Another limitation of the ODRC mental health data is the absence of specific mental illness categories. Simes et al. (2022) examined a similar type of scale used by the Pennsylvania DOC, but with 4 instead of 3 categories. This limitation does not detract, however, from the purpose of our analysis. That is, we are investigating whether the actions of prison staff involving RH placements reflect the information at their disposal, including how a specific prison system defines “mental health.”

Additional information

Funding

This study was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Justice (Award #2016-IJ-CX-0013). Data provided by the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) and from ICPSR 34317. The opinions, findings, and conclusions are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Justice and/or the ODRC.