time-in-cell the liman-asca 2014 national survey of 46 jurisdictions the liman program, yale law...

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)


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)


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)


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


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


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.


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 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.


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


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.


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)


15

Percentage of Custodial Population (Both Sexes) in Administrative Segregation Compared to Any Restrictive Housing (Fall 2014) (n = 34)


16

Percentage of Male Custodial Population in Administrative Segregation(Fall 2014) (n = 41)



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.


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


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


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


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)


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)


3.7% 3.7%3.7%

7.4%

51.9%

29.6% 19 Hours20 Hours21 Hours22 Hours23 Hours24 Hours


Cell Size

40 jurisdictions reported cell size

Range: 45 sq. ft. to 120 sq. ft. (single cells)Median: 84 sq. ft.


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)


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


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


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


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


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



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


Incentives to Change

40 of 43 jurisdictions reviewed policies within last 3 years


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

time-in-cell the liman-asca 2014 national survey of 46 jurisdictions the liman program, yale law...

Documents