Use Of Restrict Housing As A Management Tool

The Use Of Restrict Housing As A Management Tool

The correctional system’s management of inmates through Restrictive Housing (RH) is a critical aspect affecting safety, security, and inmate well-being. The current scenario involves a maximum-security correctional institution housing 1200 male inmates, with a dedicated secure housing unit containing 100 beds used for various management purposes, including disciplinary sanctions, protective custody, pending investigations, and classification reviews. This paper will examine the current utilization of RH, compare practices with national standards, and explore ways to optimize its use to enhance safety and human rights.

Introduction

Restrictive Housing, often termed solitary confinement, remains a widely debated disciplinary and management tool within correctional facilities worldwide. Its purpose is to control volatile inmates, ensure safety, and manage those facing disciplinary or mental health issues. However, overuse or improper application can have severe psychological and physical consequences. The present context illustrates concerns over overuse, prolonged housing durations, and the associated risks, especially given recent incidents of inmate suicides. This paper discusses the reasons inmates are placed in RH, examines if management aligns with nationally accepted practices, considers differences based on placement reasons, evaluates monitoring and staff management strategies, and explores alternatives for managing inmates with mental health issues.

Reasons for Placement in Restrictive Housing

Inmates are placed in RH for multiple reasons, often categorized as disciplinary infractions, safety needs, or administrative procedures. These include:

• Pending disciplinary review or sanctions following misconduct;
• Protective custody to safeguard inmates at risk of harm;
• Pending investigations related to criminal activities or institutional incidents;
• Classification reviews to determine appropriate housing based on risk assessments.

In this facility, placement criteria are broad, contributing to potential overuse, especially when some inmates remain in RH for extended periods exceeding two years. The reasons for placement significantly influence the conditions and management strategies within the RH unit, and inconsistencies or lack of differentiation can negatively impact inmate outcomes and institutional safety.

Conditions of Confinement in RH

The current conditions impose significant restrictions on inmates, including limited outdoor recreation (one hour, five days a week), minimal visitation (telephone access of 30 minutes per week), no programming or canteen privileges, and restricted access to media like TVs. While some provision for reading material exists, the overall confinement environment likely induces psychological stress, especially when coupled with extended housing durations. The absence of consistent programs and social interaction further exacerbates mental health issues, making mental health care curation critical.

Health and safety are also a concern, especially given recent suicide attempts, highlighting potential shortcomings in monitoring and mental health support. Conditions should be balanced between security needs and human rights considerations, with appropriate distinctions based on the reason for placement, such as protective custody versus disciplinary sanctions.

Differences in Conditions Based on Placement Reasons

Currently, the facility applies similar confinement conditions regardless of reason, which may not align with best practices. For instance, inmates placed for protective custody or mental health reasons might benefit from less restrictive environments and specialized programming. Differentiating conditions—such as increased mental health support, tailored activity programs, or shorter housing durations—can reduce adverse outcomes and improve institutional safety.

Adopting a differentiated approach aligns with national standards, which advocate for restrictions to be proportionate, temporary, and sensitive to mental health needs.

Comparison with National Practices

Nationally, best practices emphasize limiting the use of restrictive housing, especially for mental health reasons, and ensuring that it is used only as a last resort. The US Department of Justice, for example, recommends daily monitoring, mental health assessments, and time limits on confinement durations (The Department of Justice, 2016). Many states have enacted legislation to curb prolonged solitary confinement, mandating case-by-case review and prioritizing alternative management strategies.

Compared to these standards, the current facility's prolonged housing durations, lack of programming, and minimal monitoring suggest a need for policy adjustments to align better with accepted norms, emphasizing transparency, inmate rights, and mental health considerations.

Monitoring of Inmate Behavior, Health, and Mental Health

Effective monitoring protocols include frequent visual checks, mental health assessments, and documenting behavior and health status regularly, ideally by trained mental health professionals. Inmates should be evaluated daily, with additional monitoring for those with mental health issues. Employing technology such as cameras and check-in systems can assist staff in maintaining oversight without invasive measures. Incorporating mental health screenings upon entry and periodic re-evaluations can help identify inmates who require targeted intervention or alternative placement.

Moreover, multidisciplinary teams—including medical, mental health, and correctional staff—need to collaborate to develop individualized management plans, ensuring holistic care and safety.

Staff Selection and Evaluation

Staff working in RH should be carefully selected based on experience, mental resilience, and specialized training in mental health crisis management. Continuous training should include recognizing signs of mental deterioration, de-escalation techniques, and understanding the psychological impact of confinement. Staff evaluations should occur quarterly, with performance assessments emphasizing safety, adherence to protocols, and empathy. Regular refresher courses and psychological support for staff are vital to prevent burnout and maintain a high standard of care.

Alternative Methods to Manage Inmates with Mental Health and Adjustment Issues

Research indicates that segregating inmates with mental health issues in restrictive environments often exacerbates their conditions. As alternatives, correctional facilities should employ community-based treatment programs, therapeutic housing units, and de-escalation strategies. These include:

• Specialized mental health units with reduced security restrictions;
• Intensive case management and outpatient mental health services;
• Use of medication management and psychotherapy;
• Enhanced staff training on mental health issues;
• Transition programs that prepare inmates for reintegration into general population.

Implementing these options requires policy changes, adequate staffing, and resource allocation but offers a humane and effective approach to managing inmates facing mental health challenges.

Conclusion

The management of Restrictive Housing is a complex balancing act between maintaining institutional safety and respecting inmate rights. The current practices at this facility show room for improvement, particularly in differentiating conditions based on placement reasons, implementing rigorous monitoring, and exploring alternatives for inmates with mental health issues. National standards advocate for limiting confinement durations, increasing transparency, and emphasizing rehabilitative rather than purely punitive approaches. By adopting these best practices, correctional institutions can foster safer environments, improved inmate health, and uphold human dignity.

References

• American Correctional Association. (2014). Standards on the Use of Restrictive Housing. Alexandria, VA: ACA.
• Cloud, D., Petrila, J., & Houchin, K. (2014). Managing Mental Illness in Correctional Settings: Challenges and Strategies. Journal of Correctional Health Care, 20(2), 102-111.
• Reiter, K. (2016). Solitary confinement and mental health: The case for reform. The International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 60(5), 510-525.
• American Psychological Association. (2017). Guiding principles for the use of restrictive housing. Washington, D.C.
• Fazel, S., & Danesh, J. (2002). Serious mental disorder in 23,000 prisoners: a systematic review of prevalence studies. The Lancet, 359(9306), 545-550.
• United States Department of Justice. (2016). Report and Recommendations Concerning the Use of Restrictive Housing. Washington, D.C.
• Haney, C. (2018). Restrictive housing and the psychological effects of solitary confinement. Annual Review of Criminology, 1(1), 317-336.
• Reynolds, R. (2020). Alternatives to solitary confinement: Mental health and correctional strategies. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 59(4), 245-265.
• National Institute of Corrections. (2015). Managing Inmate Behavior: Strategies and Best Practices. NIC Reports.
• Wong, K., & Sogaard, A. (2019). Staff training and the impact on management of restrictive housing. Corrections Management Quarterly, 24(3), 3-15.