Time-In-Cell The Liman-ASCA 2014 National Survey of 46 Jurisdictions The Liman Program, Yale Law School Association of State Correctional Administrators September 14, 2015
Time-In-Cell
The Liman-ASCA 2014 National Survey of 46 Jurisdictions
The Liman Program, Yale Law SchoolAssociation of State Correctional Administrators
September 14, 2015
2
Critiques of Isolating Confinement
“Years on end of near-total isolation exact a terrible price. . . . In a case that presented the issue, the judiciary may be required . . . to determine whether workable alternative systems for long-term confinement exist, and, if so, whether a correctional system should be required to adopt them.”
Davis v. Ayala, 135 S. Ct. 2187, 2209-10 (2015) (Kennedy, J., concurring)
“[S]olitary confinement can cause prisoners to experience ‘anxiety, panic, rage, loss of control, paranoia, hallucinations, and self-mutilations,’ among many other symptoms . . . .”
Glossip v. Gross, 135 S. Ct. 2726, 2765 (2015) (Breyer, J., dissenting)
Liman-ASCA Administrative Segregation 2014 overview Sep 8, 2015
Liman-ASCA Administrative Segregation 2014 overview Sep 8, 2015 3
Agreements Limiting Isolation
In September 2015, California settled Pelican Bay State Prison litigation, agreeing to changes to administrative segregation
Behavior-based, not status-based classification
No more indeterminate isolation
Two-year, four-level “step down” program
Increased opportunities for programming and social contact
Review of classification of segregated prisoners
Secure alternative to SHU
Ashker v. Gov. of California, C 09-05796CW, Settlement Agmt. (N.D. Cal. Sep. 1, 2015)
Liman-ASCA Administrative Segregation 2014 overview Sep 8, 2015 4
Statutory Limits on Isolation
Except “in exigent circumstances . . . a segregated inmate diagnosed with a serious mental illness . . . shall not be housed in a segregated unit for more than 30 days.”
MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 127, § 39A(b) (2015).
Except in “exigent circumstances,” Colorado precludes placement of a “person with serious mental illness” in long-term isolation.
COLO. REV. STAT. § 17-1-113.8(1)-(2)(2015)
Liman-ASCA Administrative Segregation 2014 overview Sep 8, 2015 5
Proposed Limits on Isolation
“The use of room confinement at a juvenile facility for discipline, punishment, retaliation, or any reason other than as a temporary response to a covered juvenile’s behavior that poses a serious and immediate risk of physical harm to any individual, including the covered juvenile, is prohibited.”
MERCY Act, S. 1965, § 5043(b), Proposed August 5, 2015 by Senators Richard Durbin, Cory Booker, Rand Paul, and Mike Lee.
Placement in restricted housing permitted only when “necessary to protect the inmate or another inmate from physical harm.”
S.R. 1650, § 4(1) 216th Legislature (N.J. 2014)
Liman-ASCA Administrative Segregation 2014 overview Sep 8, 2015 6
ASCA’s Work on Limiting Isolation
“[T]he issues surrounding restrictive housing must be a priority of our organization and . . . we have a clear calling to assist our members in creating an environment of hope and positive transition into the future for those who reside in these settings.”
Gary Mohr, Chair of the ASCA Policy, Resolutions, Legislation andLegal Issues Committee and the Director of the
Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and CorrectionFebruary 25, 2014
“Prolonged isolation of individuals in jails and prisons is a grave problem in the United States. . . . Correctional leaders across the country are committed to reducing the number of people in restrictive housing and altering what it means to be there.”
ASCA Press Release regarding ASCA-Liman ReportSeptember 1, 2015
Liman-ASCA Administrative Segregation 2014 overview Sep 8, 2015 7
International Standards: “Mandela Rules”
Rule 431. In no circumstances may restrictions or disciplinary sanctions amount to
torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The following practices, in particular, shall be prohibited: (a) Indefinite solitary confinement; (b) Prolonged solitary confinement; (c) Placement of a prisoner in a dark or constantly lit cell; (d) Corporal punishment or the reduction of a prisoner’s diet or drinking water; (e) Collective punishment. . . .
3. Disciplinary sanctions or restrictive measures shall not include the prohibition of family contact. The means of family contact may only be restricted for a limited time period and as strictly required for the maintenance of security and order.
U.N. Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Mandela Rules),U.N. ESC Committee on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, May 22, 2015
Liman-ASCA Administrative Segregation 2014 overview Sep 8, 2015 8
International Standards: “Mandela Rules”
Rule 44For the purpose of these rules, solitary confinement shall refer to the confinement of prisoners for 22 hours or more a day without meaningful human contact. Prolonged solitary confinement shall refer to solitary confinement for a time period in excess of 15 consecutive days.
Rule 451. Solitary confinement shall be used only in exceptional cases as a last resort,
for as short a time as possible and subject to independent review, and only pursuant to the authorization by a competent authority. It shall not be imposed by virtue of a prisoner’s sentence.
2. The imposition of solitary confinement should be prohibited in the case of prisoners with mental or physical disabilities when their conditions would be exacerbated by such measures. The prohibition of the use of solitary confinement and similar measures in cases involving women and children, as referred to in other United Nations standards and norms in crime prevention and criminal justice, continues to apply.
Liman-ASCA Administrative Segregation 2014 overview Sep 8, 2015 9
Getting In and Out of Administrative Segregation
2013 Liman Report analyzing 47 prison systems’ policies:Broad criteria for entry Discretion in applicationLimited focus on release
For example, as of 2013 “Continued presence in the general population poses a threat to life, property, self, staff, other offenders or to the safety/security or orderly operation of the facility.”
Delaware, DOC IV.2 4A
“Any other circumstances where, in the judgment of staff, the offender may pose a threat to the security of the facility.”
Arkansas, AR836 DOC 4.6
“Presence of the inmate in general population would pose a serious threat to the community, property, self, staff, other inmates, or the security or the good government of the facility.”
Hawaii, COR.11.01.2.2.a.2
Liman-ASCA Administrative Segregation 2014 overview Sep 8, 2015 10
Liman-ASCA Methodology, 2014 Study
Summer 2014: 5-state pilot survey
Oct.–Mar. 2014- 2015: Circulation to all jurisdictions
130 questions about male and female prisoners in restricted housing populations, time in cell, length of stay, social opportunities, programming, administration
March–July 2015: Supplemental responses
46 jurisdictions responding (not all for all questions) California, Idaho, Maine, Maryland, New Mexico, and Vermont did not respond. As of Dec. 31, 2013, these jurisdictions together had an estimated prison population of more than 170,000 people.
Liman-ASCA Administrative Segregation 2014 overview Sep 8, 2015 11
Total in Restricted HousingSupreme Court, Amnesty International, Vera Institute, others estimate between 25,000-80,000 based on data from 10 years ago
As of 2014, 34 jurisdictions reported more than 66,000
34 reporting represent 73% of those in prison and do not include large jurisdictions, like California, Maryland, New Mexico, and others
Liman-ASCA Administrative Segregation 2014 overview Sep 8, 2015 12
Defining Administrative Segregation
For the purpose of this report, Administrative Segregation refers to separating prisoners from the general population and holding them in their cells for most hours of the day, for 30 days or more.
This does not include separation for protective custody or disciplinary reasons.
Liman-ASCA Administrative Segregation 2014 overview Sep 8, 2015 13
Administrative Segregation as a Subset of Restricted Housing
34 jurisdictions reported the total number of men and women in both forms as of 2014: 66,495 people
Prisoners in all forms of restricted housing, as contrasted with total prison population
Range: 2.1% to 14.2%
Median: 6.6%
In some jurisdictions, the population of Administrative Segregation and Restrictive Housing were comparable; in other jurisdictions, Administrative Segregation populations were a small subset of those in Restricted Housing
14
Percentage of Custodial Population (Both Sexes) in Administrative Segregation Compared to Percentage of Custodial Population in Any Form of Restrictive Housing (Fall 2014) (n = 34)
Liman-ASCA Administrative Segregation 2014 overview Sep 8, 2015
15
Percentage of Custodial Population (Both Sexes) in Administrative Segregation Compared to Any Restrictive Housing (Fall 2014) (n = 34)
Liman-ASCA Administrative Segregation 2014 overview Sep 8, 2015
16
Percentage of Male Custodial Population in Administrative Segregation(Fall 2014) (n = 41)
Liman-ASCA Administrative Segregation 2014 overview Sep 8, 2015
Liman-ASCA Administrative Segregation 2014 overview Sep 8, 2015 17
Difference in Percentage of Male Prisoners inAdministrative Segregation:
Comparing Fall 2011 and Fall 2014
36 jurisdictions reported
In many, the numbers were comparable
Smaller numbers in 2014 were reported in, for example, Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, North Dakota, Texas, Virginia, and Washington.
A few states reported increases for 2014, for example, Kansas, Mississippi, and Pennsylvania.
Liman-ASCA Administrative Segregation 2014 overview Sep 8, 2015 18
Boundaries of Administrative Segregation:Minimums, Maximums, and Continuous Days
Minimum and Maximum Stay – 44 jurisdictions reported 32: no fixed minimum 12: from 30 days – 14 months 2 state maximums: Colorado (12 months) and Georgia
Length of Stay in Continuous Days, System Wide (n = 24) 1% - 44% of the Administrative Segregation population have
been in 1-3 years
1% - 83% have been in more than 3 years
Liman-ASCA Administrative Segregation 2014 overview Sep 8, 2015 19
Direct Release From Administrative Segregation to the Community
30 of 41 jurisdictions tracked and estimated that, in 2013, 4,400 prisoners were released directly to the community
34 of 46 jurisdictions reported no specific policy related to direct release
10 jurisdictions had policies
4 provided notice to law enforcement or the community
Others placed in less restrictive status or provided programs to ease transition
Liman-ASCA Administrative Segregation 2014 overview Sep 8, 2015 20
Demographics of Men inAdministrative Segregation, Fall 2014
21 jurisdictions reported race/ethnicity data for adult men in total population and Administrative Segregation
18: higher percentage of Black prisoners in Administrative Segregation than total custodial population
12: higher percentage of Hispanic prisoners in Administrative Segregation than total population
On average among 21 jurisdictions, more Black and Hispanic prisoners in Administrative Segregation as compared to total custodial population
Liman-ASCA Administrative Segregation 2014 overview Sep 8, 2015 21
Time-in-CellWeekdays
23 jurisdictions: 23 hours 5 jurisdictions: 19-23 hours
Weekends
8 jurisdictions: 24 hours14 jurisdictions: 23 hours5 jurisdictions: 19-23 hours
22
Hours per Day in Administrative Segregation Cells (Weekdays, Fall 2014) (n = 28)
Hours per Day in Administrative Segregation Cells (Weekdays)
Liman-ASCA Administrative Segregation 2014 overview Sep 8, 2015
3.6% 3.6%3.6%
7.1%
82.1%
19 Hours20 Hours21 Hours22 Hours23 Hours
23
Hours per Day in Administrative Segregation Cells(Weekends, Fall 2014) (n = 27)
Liman-ASCA Administrative Segregation 2014 overview Sep 8, 2015
3.7% 3.7%3.7%
7.4%
51.9%
29.6% 19 Hours20 Hours21 Hours22 Hours23 Hours24 Hours
Liman-ASCA Administrative Segregation 2014 overview Sep 8, 2015 24
Cell Size
40 jurisdictions reported cell size
Range: 45 sq. ft. to 120 sq. ft. (single cells)Median: 84 sq. ft.
Liman-ASCA Administrative Segregation 2014 overview Sep 8, 2015 25
Possessions Permitted in Cells
45 jurisdictions permitted books, religious and writing materials
42 permitted photographs
35 permitted radios (5 free of charge)
16 permitted digital or CD players
25 permitted televisions (7 free of charge)
Liman-ASCA Administrative Segregation 2014 overview Sep 8, 2015 26
Exercise and Showers
45 jurisdictions reported exercise options
Time ranges from 3 – 7.5 hours per week
(increasing in some “step” programs)
Median 5 hours/week
Data needed on actual use
43 jurisdictions reported shower schedules
21: 3 times per week
13: 5 per week
Some jurisdictions link showers to step levels
Liman-ASCA Administrative Segregation 2014 overview Sep 8, 2015 27
Possible Phone Calls per Month
Range: From 1 every 90 days to no specified limits
Phone Calls per Month JurisdictionsOnly for “verified serious family emergencies”
Michigan
1 per 90 days Texas
1 Colorado, Missouri, Tennessee
2 Louisiana
4Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Mississippi, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina
8 Arizona, Massachusetts
12 Arkansas, Minnesota
20 D.C.
Daily Alaska, New Hampshire, Oregon, Wyoming
Not specifically limited South Dakota, Washington, West Virginia
Depends on Prisoner ClassificationAlabama, Bureau of Prisons, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Montana, North Dakota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Virginia, Wisconsin
28
Possible Social Visits Per Month
Range: From 1 every 90 days to daily
Visits Per Month Jurisdiction
1 per 90 days Mississippi
1 Colorado, Wyoming
2 Iowa, Louisiana, Ohio, South Carolina
4 Arizona, Hawaii, Kansas, Michigan, Nevada, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Wisconsin
5 Bureau of Prisons
8 D.C., Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, Tennessee
Daily Alaska, Indiana
Depends on PrisonerClassification
Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia
Liman-ASCA Administrative Segregation 2014 overview Sep 8, 2015
29
Snapshot of Program Participation in 13 Jurisdictions
Jurisdiction Individual In-Cell Programming
IndividualOut-of-Cell Programming
GroupProgramming
Total Ad Seg Population in Facility
Alabama 31 Not Applicable 18 161Alaska 6 Not Applicable 6 35Bureau of Prisons 354 215 11 404
Connecticut 40 No Data 34 40District of Columbia 3 Not Applicable Not Applicable 62
Nebraska No Data Not Applicable 24 96Nevada 114 Not Applicable Not Applicable 394New York 1 Not Applicable Not Applicable 5North Dakota Not Applicable 0 8 63Ohio 39 0 24 457Oklahoma 12 Not Applicable Not Applicable 144Virginia 11 10 61 255Wisconsin 21 7 6 66
Liman-ASCA Administrative Segregation 2014 overview Sep 8, 2015
30
Activities as Disciplinary Sanctions (n = 42)
Sanction Number of Jurisdictions
Showers 4
Verbal Exchanges between Prisoners 5
Social Correspondence 7
In-Cell Programming 10
Individual Out-of-Cell Programming 14
Group Programming 15
Reading Material 16
Exercise 18
Television 30
Personal Property 33
Social Visits 33
Commissary 35
Radio 35
Social Phone Calls 36
Liman-ASCA Administrative Segregation 2014 overview Sep 8, 2015
31
Incentives (n = 41)
Incentive Number of Jurisdictions
Social Correspondence 0
Verbal Exchanges Between Prisoners 0
Showers 3
In-Cell Programming 5
Individual Out-of-Cell Programming 5
Group Programming 5
Reading Material 6
Radio 9
Exercise 9
Television 12
Social Visits 12
Social Phone Calls 12
Personal Property 13
Commissary 18
Liman-ASCA Administrative Segregation 2014 overview Sep 8, 2015
Liman-ASCA Administrative Segregation 2014 overview Sep 8, 2015 32
Challenges of Staffing Administrative Segregation
29 of 45 reported extra staff training
5 reported extra benefits
2/3rd reporting jurisdictions rotate staff
33
Reviewing Administrative Segregation Policies
26 Concerns about prisoner well-being25 Staff safety concerns24 Prisoner safety concerns22 Concerns about staff well-being
18 Pending or potential litigation17 Space/facility constraints12 Possible cost savings
Liman-ASCA Administrative Segregation 2014 overview Sep 8, 2015
Incentives to Change
40 of 43 jurisdictions reviewed policies within last 3 years
Liman-ASCA Administrative Segregation 2014 overview Sep 8, 2015 34
2015 ASCA-Liman Survey
Numbers in all forms of restrictive housing
Demographics of restrictive housing:age, race, ethnicity, gender
Length of stay
New policies on admission and release