ArticlePDF Available

Administrative Segregation, Degrees of Isolation, and Incarceration: A National Overview of State and Federal Correctional Policies

Authors:
  • Abolitionist Law Center

Abstract

This report provides an overview of state and federal policies related to long-term isolation of inmates, a practice common in the United States and one that has drawn attention in recent years from many sectors. All jurisdictions in the United States provide for some form of separation of inmates from the general population. Prison administrators see the ability to separate inmates as central to protecting the safety of both inmates and staff. Yet many correctional systems are reviewing their use of segregated confinement; as controversy surrounds this form of control, its duration, and its effects.The debates about these practices are reflected in the terms used, with different audiences taking exceptions to each. Much of the recent public discussion calls the practice “solitary confinement” or “isolation.” In contrast, correctional facility policies use terms such as “segregation,” “restricted housing,” or “special management,” and some corrections leaders prefer the term “separation.” All agree that the practice entails separating inmates from the general population and restricting their participation in everyday activities; such as recreation, shared meals, and religious, educational, and other programs. The degree of contact permitted — with staff, other inmates, or volunteers — varies. Some jurisdictions provide single cells and others double; in some settings, inmates find ways to communicate with each other. The length of time spent in isolation can vary from a few days to many years.This report provides a window into these practices. This overview describes rules promulgated by prison officials to structure decisions on the placement of persons in “administrative segregation,” which is one form of separation of inmates from the general population. Working with the Association of State Correctional Administrators (ASCA), the Arthur Liman Program at Yale Law School launched an effort to review the written policies related to administrative segregation promulgated by correctional systems in the United States. With ASCA’s assistance, we obtained policies from 47 jurisdictions, including 46 states and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. This overview provides a national portrait of policies governing administrative segregation for individuals in prisons, outlines the commonalities and variations among jurisdictions, facilitates comparisons across jurisdictions, and enables consideration of how and when administrative segregation is and should be used. Because this review is of written policies, it raises many questions for research – about whether the policies are implemented as written, achieve the goals for which they are crafted, and at what costs. Information is needed on the demographic data on the populations held in various forms of segregated custody, the reasons for placement of individuals in and the duration of such confinement, the views of inmates, of staff on site, and of central office personnel; and the long-term effects of administrative segregation on prison management and on individuals. Without such insights, one cannot assess the experiences of segregation from the perspectives of those who run, those who work in, and those who live in these institutions.
LimanoverviewsegregationJune25,2013final
AdministrativeSegregation,
DegreesofIsolation,andIncarceration:
ANationalOverviewofStateand
FederalCorrectionalPolicies
June2013
HopeMetcalf,JameliaMorgan,SamuelOliker
Friedland,JudithResnik,JuliaSpiegel,HaranTae,
AlyssaWork,andBrianHolbrook*
AProjectoftheLimanPublicInterestProgramat
YaleLawSchool
LimanoverviewsegregationJune25,2013final
Theviewsandconclusionsexpressedinthispublicationarethoseoftheauthors
andarenottobeattributedtoYaleLawSchoolortotheindividualsand
organizationsthatprovidedassistanceforthiswork.
Copyright©2013,LimanPublicInterestProgram.
Formoreinformation,contactHopeMetcalf,hope.metcalf@yale.edu.
LimanoverviewsegregationJune25,2013final
TableofContents
TheProjectandItsGoals......................................................................................................................................................................1
TheScopeoftheResearch..................................................................................................................................................................2
TheResearchMethodology................................................................................................................................................................3
OverviewofFindings...............................................................................................................................................................................4
CriteriaforPlacementinAdministrativeSegregation.....................................................................................................5
TheProceduresandProcessesforPlacement...................................................................................................................11
Initial(NonEmergency)Placement......................................................................................................................................11
NoticeandHearings...........................................................................................................................................11
Decisionmakers....................................................................................................................................................12
Evidence......................................................................................................................................................................12
Assistanceof/RepresentativesforInmates.......................................................................................12
Review/AppealofInitial(NonEmergency)Placements..........................................................13
PeriodicReview........................................................................................................................................................................................14
InitialPostAssignmentReview...............................................................................................................................................15
PeriodicReviewThereafter........................................................................................................................................................15
ProceduresforPeriodicReview..............................................................................................................................................16
Decisionmakers....................................................................................................................................................16
HearingsandAppeals.......................................................................................................................................16
Conditions,StepDownPrograms,Visitation,andDegreesofIsolation.........................................................17
Structured(“StepDown”)Programs...................................................................................................................................17
VisitationDuringSegregation...................................................................................................................................................18
CategoriesofVisitors........................................................................................................................................18
Contact/NonContactVisits..........................................................................................................................19
AdditionalRequirementsandRestrictions.........................................................................................19
AdditionalResearchAgendas.........................................................................................................................................................20
Endnotes............................................................................................................................... .........................................................................23
Appendices: A.SummaryoftheReport
B.SummaryofPeriodicReviewProcesses

LimanoverviewsegregationJune25,2013final
ADMINISTRATIVESEGREGATION,DEGREESOFISOLATION,ANDINCARCERATION:ANATIONALOVERVIEWOFPOLICIES
LimanoverviewsegregationJune25,2013final 1
TheProjectandItsGoals
Thisreportprovidesanoverviewofstateandfederalpoliciesrelatedtolongterm
isolationofinmates,apracticecommonintheUnitedStatesandonethathasdrawnattention
inrecentyearsfrommanysectors.AlljurisdictionsintheUnitedStatesprovideforsomeform
ofseparationofinmatesfromthegeneralpopulation.Ascorrectionalpoliciesexplain,prison
administratorsunderstandtheabilitytoseparateinmatesascentraltoprotectingthesafetyof
bothinmatesandstaff.Yetmanycorrectionalsystemsarereviewingtheiruseofsegregated
confinement,ascontroversysurroundsthisformofcontrol,itsduration,anditseffects.
Thedebatesaboutthesepracticesarereflectedinthetermsused,withdifferent
audiencestakingexceptionstoeach.Muchoftherecentpublicdiscussioncallsthepractice
“solitaryconfinement”or“isolation.”Forexample,inJuneof2012,theSubcommitteeonthe
Constitution,CivilRights,andHumanRightsoftheUnitedStatesSenate’sJudiciaryCommittee
heldahearing,“ReassessingSolitaryConfinement:TheHumanRights,Fiscal,andPublicSafety
Consequences.”1AreportfromtheNewYorkCivilLibertiesUnionofferedamoredramatic
description:“BoxedIn:TheTrueCostofExtremeIsolationinNewYork’sPrisons.”2Some
commentatorsusetheshorthandof“23/7.”Incontrast,correctionalfacilitypoliciesuseterms
suchas“segregation,”“restrictedhousing,”or“specialmanagement,”3andsomecorrections
leadersprefertheterm“separation.”A2013reviewoftheFederalBureauofPrisons’policies,
forexample,calledfor“improvements”inthe“monitoringandevaluation”oftheeffectsof
“segregatedhousing.”4
Allagreethatthepracticeentailsseparatinginmatesfromthegeneralpopulationand
restrictingtheirparticipationineverydayactivitiessuchasrecreation,sharedmeals,and
religious,educational,andotherprograms.Thedegreeofcontactpermittedwithstaff,other
inmates,orvolunteersvaries.Somejurisdictionsprovidesinglecellsandothersdouble;in
somesettings,inmatesfindwaystocommunicatewitheachother.Inotherinstances,the
isolationcanbeprofound.AsJusticeAnthonyKennedydescribedonesystemin2005,it
structuredplacementtomakeit“morerestrictivethananyotherform”ofincarceration
availableinthatstate.5Thecellshad“solidmetaldoorswithmetalstrips...whichprevent
conversationorcommunicationwithotherinmates.Itisfairtosay[thatinmatesinthatfacility]
aredeprivedofalmostallenvironmentalorsensorystimuliandofalmostallhumancontact...
foranindefiniteperiodoftime,limitedonlybyaninmate’ssentence.”6Asreflectedinthis
quote,thelengthoftimespentinisolationcanvaryfromafewdaystomanyyears.Onthe
otherhand,somecorrectionssystemsaimtoseparateinmateswhileenablingthemtohave
regularcontactwithavarietyofindividualsandtoreducethedegreeofisolationentailed.
Thisreportprovidesawindowintothesepractices.Thisoverviewdescribesrules
promulgatedbyprisonofficialstostructuredecisionsontheplacementofpersonsin
“administrativesegregation,”whichisoneformofseparationofinmatesfromthegeneral
population.WorkingwiththeAssociationofStateCorrectionalAdministrators(ASCA),the
ArthurLimanProgramatYaleLawSchoollaunchedanefforttoreviewthewrittenpolicies
relatedtoadministrativesegregationpromulgatedbycorrectionalsystemsintheUnitedStates.
THEARTHURLIMANPUBLICINTERESTPROGRAMATYALELAWSCHOOLJUNE2013
LimanoverviewsegregationJune25,2013final2
WithASCA’sassistance,weobtainedadministrativesegregationpoliciesfrom47jurisdictions,
including46statesandtheFederalBureauofPrisons.
Thisoverviewhasfourgoals.First,itprovidesanationalportraitofpoliciesgoverning
administrativesegregationforindividualsinprisons.Second,byoutliningthecommonalities
andvariationsamongjurisdictions,thereportfacilitatescomparisonsacrossjurisdictions.Third,
thecomparisonsenableconsiderationofhowandwhenadministrativesegregationisand
shouldbeused.Fourth,thereportinvitesadiversegroupofreaders,comingfromdifferent
perspectives,toexchangeviewsonhowtocreatedetentionthatissafeandthatfacilitatesthe
reentryofincarceratedindividualsintotheircommunities.
Asthepoliciesdetailedbelowmakeplain,correctionalofficialsbelievethatprotection
ofinmatesandstaffisenhancedthroughlongtermseparationpolicies.Whatcannotbeknown
fromthisreviewiswhetherthepoliciesareimplementedaswritten,achievethegoalsfor
whichtheyarecrafted,andatwhatcosts.Aswediscussintheconclusion,moredetailed
informationisneeded,includinganalysisofadditionalfacetsofthepolicies;demographicdata
onthepopulationsheldinvariousformsofsegregatedcustody;reviewofthereasonsfor
placementofindividualsinandthedurationofsuchconfinement;surveysandinterviewsof
inmates,ofstaffonsite,andofcentralofficepersonnel;examinationofthedegreeofisolation
attendanttothevariousformsofadministrativesegregation;andassessmentsofthelongterm
effectsofadministrativesegregationonprisonmanagementandonindividuals.Withoutsuch
insights,onecannotassesstheexperiencesofsegregationfromtheperspectivesofthosewho
run,thosewhoworkin,andthosewholiveintheseinstitutions.
TheScopeoftheResearch
Severalpreliminarycommentsaboutthescopeofthisoverviewareinorder.
First,mostsystemsseparateprisonersforthreebasicpurposes:toprotectanindividual
fromparticularthreats(generallytermedprotectivecustody);toimposeasanctionfora
discreteact(punitiveordisciplinarysegregation);ortocontrolanindividualperceivedtoposea
currentorfuturerisk(administrativesegregation).Overlapexistsamongthedifferentkindsof
segregation.Forexample,afewpolicieslistaninmate’sownprotectionasareasontoputhim
orherintoadministrativesegregation.
Uponreviewingthepoliciesin48jurisdictionsregardingvariousformsofsegregation,
allbutoneexpresslyaddresssomeformofadministrativesegregation.7Therefore,this
overviewfocusesonthe47jurisdictions’policiesgoverninglongtermadministrative
segregation,definedastheplacementofinmatesinacell(eitheraloneorwithacellmate)for
approximately23hoursaday,andwhichcanlastforthirtydaysormore.
Thepoliciesreviewedanddetailedheresharethesamebasicfeatures:anonpunitive
purpose,openendedduration,closeconfinement,andrestrictedactivitiesandsocialcontact.
ADMINISTRATIVESEGREGATION,DEGREESOFISOLATION,ANDINCARCERATION:ANATIONALOVERVIEWOFPOLICIES
LimanoverviewsegregationJune25,2013final 3
Insomeinstances,statepoliciesaddressmorethanoneversionofadministrativesegregation
andcreatedifferentrulesshapingdifferentkindsofadministrativesegregation.
Despitetheirsimilarities,thepoliciesarenotuniformintheirnomenclatureandrelyon
avarietyofterms:“administrativeclosesupervision,”“administrativeconfinement,”
“administrativemaximum,”“administrativesegregation,”“behaviormodification,”
“departmentalsegregation,”“inmatesegregation,”“intensivemanagement,”“lockedunit,”
“maximumcontrolunit,”“restrictedhousing,”“securitycontrol,”“securityhousingunit,”
“segregatedhousing,”“specialhousingunit,”and“specialmanagement.”Unlikepopular
commentary,thepoliciesdonotusetheterms“solitary”or“isolation.”
Second,ourfocushasbeenoninstitutionsrunbythegovernment,manyofwhich
providetheirpoliciesthroughpublicdatabases.Privateprisonsarebecominganincreasingly
largepercentageofthedetentionfacilitiesintheUnitedStates,buttheirpracticesareless
readilyavailable.Thisoverviewdoesnotincludepoliciesfromprivateprisons.
Third,thechallengesincompilingandcomparingpoliciesaresignificant.Asnoted,
correctionalsystemsdonotstandardizethetermsrelatedtosegregation,norprovidethesame
levelsofdetail,andmanyjurisdictionsemploymorethanonekindofadministrative
segregation.Becauseofthedifferentformsofadministrativesegregation,thedivergent
criteria,thearrayofprocessesfortheinitialandforongoingplacement,andthevarying
conditionsanddegreesofisolation,thisoverviewnecessarilygeneralizesandexcludessome
detailsofpolicies.
Fourth,weselectedcertainaspectsofpoliciestocompare.Welookedatthecriteriafor
entry;theprocessforplacement;theopportunitiesforreviewovertime;andtheavailabilityof
visitors.Manymorefacetsoftherulesneedtobeexplored,includingregulationsrelatedto
physicalandmentalhealth;thespacesinwhichindividualsareconfined;whetheranypersonal
effectsandmaterialsarepermitted;therangeofopportunitiestobeinvolvedinprogramming
whilesegregated;andthedegreeofcontactwithpeopleoutsideprisons.
Fifth,becausewefocusedonstatewideregulations,thisoverviewdoesnotinclude
institutionlevelpoliciesordailypostordersandspecialdirectives.Jurisdictionstypicallyhave
severalfacilities,andmanyjurisdictionsseparateindividualsbygenderandage.Thisreport
doesnotprovideinformationondistinctionsattheinstitutionallevelandinfacilitiesformen,
women,oryoungerinmates.Further,wedidnotcollectdatafromeachjurisdictiononthe
actualuseofthepolicies,nordidweobtainthenumbersofindividualsinsegregation,the
demographicsofthepopulationsegregated,orthedurationoftimespentinsegregation.
TheResearchMethodology
Theinformationinthisreportcomesfromtwowavesofresearch.First,workingwith
studentsandfacultyatColumbiaLawSchool,wereviewedpoliciesthatwereavailablebyway
ofDepartmentsofCorrections’websitesandonWestlaw,aswellastwopoliciesobtained
throughFreedomofInformationActrequests.Thateffortresultedinadraftreportdiscussing
THEARTHURLIMANPUBLICINTERESTPROGRAMATYALELAWSCHOOLJUNE2013
LimanoverviewsegregationJune25,2013final4
43jurisdictions,includingtheFederalBureauofPrisons,buthadthelimitationsofalessthan
fullsetofandvaryingdegreesofdetailsinpolicies.Thosematerialswerepresentedata
conferenceconvenedbyColumbiaLawSchoolinApril2012,atwhichcorrections
administrators,researchers,mentalhealthexperts,practitioners,andscholarsgatheredto
discusssegregationandisolationinprisons.8
Second,workingwiththeAssociationofStateCorrectionsAdministrators(ASCA),we
requestedmaterialsfromallfiftystates.ThroughtheeffortsofASCAanditsresponding
members,41statesprovidedcurrentpoliciesrelatedtosegregation;onepolicywasadraft.9
Therefore,wewereabletoaddanalysesforthosestatesonwhichwehadhadnoprior
information.Inall,thisoverviewreportsonpoliciesfrom47jurisdictions,including46states
andtheFederalBureauofPrisons.10Asnoted,inafewinstances,weanalyzedpoliciesthat
statesreportedwereunderrevision.
InJanuaryof2013,wereportedthefindingsatanannualmeetingofASCA,andin
Februaryof2013,wecirculatedwithASCA’sassistanceadraftreporttostatecorrectional
leadersandaskedeachjurisdictiontoreviewthedraftandtosubmitcomments,corrections,or
supplementalinformation.Bythecloseofthecommentperiod,wehadreceivedcomments
from18states.Theresponsesincludedcorrections,clarifications,andsuggestionsthat
improvedthisreport.
OverviewofFindings
Provisionstoplaceinmatesintoadministrativesegregationorotherwisetoseparate
inmatesandtoisolatethemtosomedegreeexistinallofthepolicieswereviewed.Belowwe
detailtheircommonfeatures,whicharealsosummarizedinAppendixA.
Thepoliciesallexplainthattheirpurposeistoensurethesafetyandsecurityofinmates
andstaff.Inotherwords,aprimarygoalofadministrativesegregationisincapacitation.Many
jurisdictionsalsoemployadditionalgroundsforplacement,suchasthekindofoffensefor
whichapersonisincarcerated,thenumberofinfractionsapersonhashad,orapending
investigation.Afewpolicieslimitthosecriteriabyrequiring,forexample,evidenceofspecific
harms,suchasevidenceoftheimpositionofseriousbodilyharmorattemptsatescape.
Readingthemanypoliciesmakesplainthedegreeofdiscretionaccordedtocorrectional
officials.Attheformalpolicylevel,mostpermitplacementinsegregationbasedonawide
rangeofrationales.Theelasticitysuggeststhatadministrativesegregationmaybeusedfor
goalsotherthanincapacitation.Inexchangesaboutourinquiryintoadministrativesegregation,
severalcommentatorsreferredtothepotentialforitsoverusebasedonwhatiscolloquially
knownasbeing“mad”ataprisoner,ascontrastedwithbeing“scared”ofthatindividual.
Intermsoftheprocessesfordecisionmaking,allthepoliciesauthorizeanimmediate
temporaryplacementinsegregation.Thereafter,somebutnotalljurisdictionsprovidefor
ADMINISTRATIVESEGREGATION,DEGREESOFISOLATION,ANDINCARCERATION:ANATIONALOVERVIEWOFPOLICIES
LimanoverviewsegregationJune25,2013final 5
noticeofthegroundsfortheplacementandanopportunityforahearingtocontinuethe
segregateddetention.Thekindofnoticeandhearingvariessubstantially,asdothedecision
makers.Somesystemsleavedecisionmakingattheunitlevel,othersplaceauthorityin
committees,andothersrequireoversightbythewardenorthecentraloffice.
Further,allpoliciesprovideforsomeformofongoingreview,butagain,withagreat
dealofdiversityintermsoftiming,levelofoversight,andcriteria.Moreover,giventhebreadth
ofdiscretion,whetherreviewandoversightimposesconstraintscannotbeknownfromthe
policies.
Jurisdictionsvaryconsiderablyintermsofthedetailprovidedregardingtherestrictions
placeduponindividualsonceinsegregation,intermsoftheconditionsoftheconfinement,
accesstoprogramsandtovisitors,andthecriteriaforreturntothegeneralpopulation
(sometimestermed“stepdown”programs).Ourreviewofonefacetvisitingdocuments
thatinmatesinsegregationhavemorerestrictedopportunitiesforvisitsintermsofwhether
contactispermittedandthefrequencyandduration.Further,opportunitiesdependon
inmates’behavior,andinstitutionallevelactorshavediscretiontolimitvisits.Lawyersare
generallytreateddistinctivelytoenablevisitsbut,likeothervisitors,encounterthechallenges
thatadministrativesegregationimposes,suchasneedingspecialpermissiontovisitclients.
Insum,awidenetofauthoritypermitsinmatestobeplacedinsegregation.Policiesall
outlineprocedurestodoso,andafewjurisdictionsmakeplacementsmoredifficultby
imposingspecificcontrolsonsuchdecisions.Thecriteriaforkeepingindividualsinsegregation
andthedirectivesonhowtoenableinmatestoexitsegregationarelesswelldefined.The
findingsdetailedinthisreportneedtobeaugmentedbyresearchabouthowthewritten
policiesareimplementedattheinstitutionalandsystemlevels,howthesepoliciesare
experiencedbyinmatesandstaff,thecostsandeffects,andthealternatives.
CriteriaforPlacementinAdministrativeSegregation
Wefoundagreatdealofoverlapinpolicybasedreasonsforsegregation.Manystates
defineadministrativesegregationasaformofseparationfromthegeneralpopulationforan
inmatewhorequiresahigherdegreeofsupervisionbecausetheinmateposes“athreat”or“a
seriousthreat”to“thelife,property,security,ororderlyoperationoftheinstitution.”11Many
jurisdictionsalsoprovideauthoritytoseparateaninmatebecauseheorsheposesadangerto
“self,staff,orotherinmates”12orto“protectthepublic.”13Severalstatesfurtherspecifythat
thepurposeofadministrativesegregationisnotpunitive.14
Awindowintothepolicycriteriaforplacement,theirgenerality,andvariabilitycomes
fromlookingfirstatthepolicyofonestateNebraska.Thereafter,wehavecompiledspecific
criteriausedinotherpolicies.Wealsoprovideexamplesofgeneralmandatesforplacementin
segregation,ofpoliciestyingplacementtotheapprovalbyawardenortheDirectorofa
department,andofpoliciesaimingtonarrowthebasesforplacement.
THEARTHURLIMANPUBLICINTERESTPROGRAMATYALELAWSCHOOLJUNE2013
LimanoverviewsegregationJune25,2013final6
IllustrativePolicies
AdministrativeSegregationCriteriaforPlacement:Nebraska
DepartmentofCorrectionalServices
“Whenconsideringtheassignmentto,continuationof,orremovalfrom
AdministrativeSegregation,thedecisionmaker(s)mustconsider,butisnotlimited
to:
1.Thethreatpotentialtostaffand/orinmatesposedbytheinmate.
2.Thebehaviorsleadingtotheinmate'sreferralorplacementonAdministrative
Segregationstatus.
3.Theinmate'shistoryoforlackofpredatorybehavior.
4.Theinmate'shistoryoforlackofassaultivebehavior.
5.Theinmate'shistoryoforlackofescape/attemptedescapes.
6.Theinmate'shistoryoforlackofmembershipinacriminalthreatgroup.
7.Theinjuriestheinmatemayhavecausedtoothers.
8.Theinmate'suseofweapon(s)inthisorpriorincidents.
9.Theinmate'sdocumentedmentalhealthissues.
10.Theinmate'spriorcriminalhistory.
11.Theinmate'spriordisciplinaryrecord(misconductreports,etc.).
12.Theinmate'shistoryoforlackofillicitdrugusewithintheNebraskaDepartment
ofCorrectionalServices.
13.Theprogrammingthattheinmatehasorhasnotcompleted.
14.Thepriorclassificationdecisionsinvolvingtheinmate’sstatus.
15.Theinmate'sdocumentedbehavior(incidentreports,etc.)andinteractionswith
staffandotherinmates.
16.TheprofessionaljudgmentandrecommendationsofNebraskaDepartmentof
CorrectionalServicesstaffregardingtheclassificationoftheinmate.
17.Therealorperceivedthreatofharmtotheinmatefromotherinmates.
18.Theinmate'sstatementsregardingadmissionofprioractions,acommitmentto
changingbehavior,andaccountabilityforprioracts.
19.Anyotherinformationregardingtheinmatethattheclassificationauthority
deemsappropriate.”
- Nebraska,Admin.Reg.201.05(V)(A)
ADMINISTRATIVESEGREGATION,DEGREESOFISOLATION,ANDINCARCERATION:ANATIONALOVERVIEWOFPOLICIES
LimanoverviewsegregationJune25,2013final 7
ExamplesofAdditionalEnumeratedFactors
“[P]endinginvestigationfortrial...orpendingtransfer.”
- Alaska,DOCPolicy804.01(V)
“[D]isruptivegeographicalgroupand/organgrelatedactivity.”
- FederalBureauofPrisons,P5217.01(2)(SMUs)
“[J]eopardizestheintegrityofaninvestigationofanallegedseriousmisconductor
criminalactivity.”
California,Cal.CodeRegs.tit.15§3335(a)
“Aconvictionofacrimerepugnanttotheinmatepopulation.”
Florida,Fla.Admin.Coder.33
602.220(3)(c)(3)(e)
“Otherfactorssuchasphysicalsize,buildandageproducingariskfromthegeneral
inmatepopulation.”
Florida,Fla.Admin.Coder.33
602.220(c)(3)(g)
“[Inmaterequests]admission.”
- Georgia,SOPIIB0900011.D(manypolicies
addressthisunderprotectivecustody)
“[T]hosewhoreceivedunusualpublicitybecauseofthenatureoftheircrime,arrest,or
trial,orwhoareinvolvedincriminalactivityofasophisticatednature,suchasorganized
crime.”
Montana,MSP4.2.1(IV)(C)(d)
“[T]hosewithspecialneeds,includingthosedefinedbyage,infirmity,mentalillness,
developmentaldisabilities,addictivedisorders,andmedicalproblems.”
Montana,MSP4.2.1(IV)(C)(f);seealsoKentucky
CPP10.2(II)(g)(3)(i)(mentalillness);Maryland,
CaseManagementManual,DOC.100.002
18B(§18)(B)(2)(e)(medicalormentalhealth)
THEARTHURLIMANPUBLICINTERESTPROGRAMATYALELAWSCHOOLJUNE2013
LimanoverviewsegregationJune25,2013final8
“PrisonertestspositiveforHIVinfectionandissubsequentlyfoundguiltyofamajor
misconductforbehaviorwhichcouldtransmitHIVinfection.”
- Montana,04.05120L(6)
“[A]sa'coolingoffmeasure.'”
NorthCarolina,C.1201(A)(4)(e)
“[N]orecordsand/oressentialinformationareavailabletodeterminetheinmate’s
custodylevelorhousingneeds.”
Pennsylvania,DC–ADM802.1(A)(1)(j)
“Thereisahistoryofunresponsivenesstocounselingorconventionaldisciplinary
sanctionsandtheinmateisflagrantlyorchronicallydisruptivetothesecurityand/or
disciplinedoperationoftheinstitution.”
SouthDakota,1.3.D.4(B)(5)
“[Inmateis]pendingprosecutionanddispositionincriminalcourtforfelonycharges
incurredduringincarceration.”
Tennessee,404.10(VI)(A)(d);seealsoMiss.
SOP190101(77)
“Theinmateisendingconfinementindisciplinarysegregationstatus,andreturntothe
generalpopulationwouldthreatenthesafety,security,andorderlyoperationofa
correctionalfacility,orpublicsafety.”
- FederalBureauofPrisons,BOP541.23.
ExamplesofPolicieswithFewEnumeratedFactorsandGeneralAuthority
“Nonpunitiveplacementofaninmateinacellwhosecontinuedpresenceinthegeneral
populationposesaseriousthreattolife,property,securityortheorderlyoperationof
theinstitution.”
- Alabama,AR436(III)(A)
“Anyothercircumstanceswhere,inthejudgmentofstaff,theoffendermayposea
threattothesecurityofthefacility.”
- Arkansas,AR836DOC(VI)(A)(6)
ADMINISTRATIVESEGREGATION,DEGREESOFISOLATION,ANDINCARCERATION:ANATIONALOVERVIEWOFPOLICIES
LimanoverviewsegregationJune25,2013final 9
“[T]heoffender’scontinuedpresenceinthegeneralpopulationposesathreattolife,
property,self,staff,otheroffenders,ortothesafety/securityororderlyoperationof
thefacility.”
- Delaware,DOCPolicy4.3(IV)(A);seealso
Pennsylvania,DCADM802(III);Oklahoma,OP
040204(1)(A)
“[T]hecontinuedpresenceoftheinmateingeneralpopulationwouldposeaserious
threattothecommunity,property,self,staff,otherinmates,orthesecurityorthegood
governmentofthefacility.”
- Hawaii,COR.11.01.2.2(a)(2);seealsoNorth
Dakota,DOC5A20(2)(A);Vermont,DOC
410.03(1)(e)
...[B]asedon:1)thethreatanoffender’scontinuedpresenceinthegeneral
populationposestolife,self,staff,otheroffenders,orproperty;2)threatposedbythe
offendertotheorderlyoperationandsecurityofthefacility;and3)regulationofan
offender’sbehaviorwhichwasnotwithinacceptablelimitswhileinthegeneraloffender
population.”
- Indiana,DOC0201111(II)
“Administrativesegregationadmissionresultsfromadeterminationbythefacilitythat
theinmate’spresenceingeneralpopulationwouldposeathreattothesafetyand
securityofthefacility.” 
- NewYork,7NYCRR301.4(b)
“[W]hentheirpatternofconductdemonstratesachronicinabilitytoadjusttothe
generalpopulation;indicatesmaximumpersonalprotectionisrequired;orconstitutesa
seriousthreattotheAdultCorrectionalInstitutions.”
- RhodeIsland,15.113.DOC
ExamplesofDiscretionTiedtoApprovalbyWarden,Director,orCommissioner
“Othercircumstancesmaywarrantplacementinadministrativesegregation.Such
placementwillrequireapprovalbytheDirectorofPrisons.”
Colorado,AR65003(IV)(b)(6)
“TheWatchCommander,orhigherauthority,mayorderimmediateAdministrative
Segregationwhenitisnecessarytoprotecttheoffenderorothers.Thisactionis
reviewedwithin72hoursbythefacilityWarden.”
- Delaware,DOCPolicy4.3(VI)(A)
THEARTHURLIMANPUBLICINTERESTPROGRAMATYALELAWSCHOOLJUNE2013
LimanoverviewsegregationJune25,2013final10
“AninmatemaybeplacedorretainedinaDSU[DepartmentalSegregationUnit]only
afterafindingbytheCommissionerbasedonsubstantialevidencethat,ifconfinedin
thegeneralpopulationofanystatecorrectionalfacility:(1)Theinmateposesa
substantialthreattothesafetyofothers;or(2)Theinmateposesasubstantialthreatof
damagingordestroyingproperty;or(3)Theinmateposesasubstantialthreattothe
operationofastatecorrectionalfacility.”
Massachusetts,103CMR421.09
AnExampleofNarrowedPlacementCriteria
Virginiareviseditscriteriain2012tonarrowthebasesforplacementinadministrative
segregation.Tocapturethechanges,wehavepreservedtheversionwithtrackchangesthat
showthecriteriathatwereaddedordeleted.
ThefollowingSegregationQualifiersindicatethattheoffendershouldbeconsideredfor
assignmenttoSecurityLevelS:
S1AggravatedAssaultonstaff
S2AggravatedAssaultonInmatew/weaponorResultinginSeriousInjuryw/o
weapon
S3RepeatedorContinuousRefusaltoenterGPataSecurityLevel4or5facility
for12monthsNotUsed
S4‐SeriousEscapeRisk‐requiringmaximumsecuritysupervision
S5‐CommissionofCrimeofExceptionalViolenceand/orNotoriety
S6‐ExcessiveViolentDisciplinaryChargesreflectinginabilitytoadjusttoalower
levelofsupervision
S7‐SettingFireResultinginInjurytoPersonsorExtensiveDamagetoState
Property
S8‐RiotingresultinginInjurytoPersonsorExtensiveDamagetoStateProperty
S9‐SeizingorHoldingHostages
S10‐PossessionofFirearms,Ammunition,Explosives,Weapons
S11‐KnowinglyTransferringHIVorotherDiseasetoAnotherPersonorRefusalto
SubmittoTesting
S12‐GangActivityRelatedtoanyCategoryIOffenseoraDocumentedGang
LeadershipRole
S13StaffManipulator/Predator
S14Behaviorthatrepresentsathreatleveltoogreatforthesafetyandsecurityof
alowerlevelinstitution.
- Virginia,OperatingProcedure830.2,Security
LevelClassification.
ADMINISTRATIVESEGREGATION,DEGREESOFISOLATION,ANDINCARCERATION:ANATIONALOVERVIEWOFPOLICIES
LimanoverviewsegregationJune25,2013final 11
______________
Tosummarize,theadmissioncriteriainmostsystemspermitdiscretiontodecision
makersonthebehaviorsthattriggerplacement.Acommonfeatureacrossjurisdictionsisthat
thesubstantivecriteriaforplacementincludeaninvocationofthesafetyofinmatesandstaffas
wellasofinstitutionalsecurity.Incapacitationistheleitmotif.Manyjurisdictionsalsoemploy
moreparticularizedgroundsforplacement,suchasthekindofoffenseforwhichapersonis
incarceratedorthenumberofinfractionsapersonhasincurred,butthesecriteriaaretypically
inadditiontoratherthaninlieuofthemoregeneralsafetyandsecurityjustifications.In
jurisdictionsseekingtomonitormorecloselytheuseofadministrativesegregation,suchas
Colorado,policiesmayberevisedtorequireashowingofseriousbodilyharmorotherdiscrete
acts.15Virginiaisanexampleofasystemthatreviseditspolicytorequirespecificpredicate
actsforadmissiontolongtermsegregation.16
TheProceduresandProcessesforPlacement
Inadditiontoreviewingcriteriaforentry,welookedathowplacementdecisionswere
madebyexaminingpoliciesattwojuncturesthefirst(nonemergency)placementandthen
whatisgenerallytermed“periodicreview.”Ourquestionsincludedwhetherjurisdictions
providedaprocessthatgavetheinmatenoticeofthereasonsforplacement,aninperson
hearingtoassessinformation,andotherproceduresforreviewandreconsideration.
Whenreadingpolicies,itwassometimesdifficulttodecidewhattoclassifyasa
“hearing.”Somepoliciesappeartoincludeformalopportunitiesforpresentationsbyinmates,
whileotherpoliciesmentionthepossibilityofinmatestatementsbutwereunclearabout
whethersuchinformationwasprovideddirectlytothedecisionmakers.Inthesummarybelow,
wetakeanexpansiveviewofwhatconstitutesa“hearing”and“evidence.”Specifically,as
“hearing”weincludeprocessesbywhichinmatesareaffordedtheopportunitytogivea
statementandtoheartheallegedgroundsforthesegregation.“Evidence”forthesepurposes
includesallformsofdocumentaryortestimonialsubmissions.Becauseourreviewislimitedto
policies,wecannotreportonwhetherthepracticesforexample,thetimingofhearingsand
theinformationrelieduponcomportwiththespecificationsinthepolicies.

Initial(NonEmergency)Placement
NoticeandHearings
Thirtyeightjurisdictionsspecifyahearinguponinitialplacement.17Allbutsevenof
thesejurisdictionsalsorequirethatsomeformofwrittennoticebeprovidedtotheinmatein
advanceofthehearing.Amongstatesthatprovidehearings,nearlyallprovideforhearingsto
beheldwithin14daysofplacement.ConnecticutandOhiocallforhearingswithin30days,18
THEARTHURLIMANPUBLICINTERESTPROGRAMATYALELAWSCHOOLJUNE2013
LimanoverviewsegregationJune25,2013final12
andIowaspecifiesthatafirsthearingbeheldat60days.19Wyomingrequiresschedulinga
hearingwithinfivebusinessdaysofplacement.20Ninejurisdictionshavepoliciesthatauthorize
administrativesegregationanddonotmentionhearings.21
DecisionMakers
Mostofthepoliciesexaminedprovidethatadiversesetofinstitutionalauthorities
staff,shiftcommanders,deputywardens,wardenscouldmakeaninitialdecisiontoplacea
personimmediatelyinsegregation.Policiesthencallforadditionalproceduresthereafter.
Thirtyonejurisdictionsauthorizedecisionmakingbyacommittee.Thesestatesare:
Alabama,Arkansas,Colorado,Florida,Georgia,Idaho,Indiana,Iowa,Kansas,Maryland,
Massachusetts,Maine,Minnesota,Missouri,Montana,Nebraska,Nevada,NewHampshire,
NewJersey,NewMexico,NewYork,NorthCarolina,NorthDakota,Oklahoma,Pennsylvania,
RhodeIsland,SouthDakota,Virginia,Washington,Wisconsin,andWyoming.22Insome
instances,asinNewJerseyandVirginia,ahearingofficermakesaninitialrecommendationto
thecommittee.
Intwelvejurisdictions,ahearingofficer(oranotherindividualofficial)decideswhether
toplananinmateinadministrativesegregation.Theyare:Alaska,Arizona,California,
Connecticut,Delaware,theFederalBureauofPrisons,Illinois,Michigan,Mississippi,Ohio,
Oregon,andVermont.23Inthreejurisdictions,Hawaii,Kentucky,andTennessee,thewardenor
his/herdesigneeisresponsibleformakinginitialdeterminations.24WestVirginia’spolicydoes
notspecifythedecidingauthority.25

Evidence
Ofthe38jurisdictionsthatspecifyhearingprocedures,30jurisdictionsauthorize
inmateseithertopresentevidence(byoralstatements,writtensubmissions,ordocuments)
and/ortocallwitnesses,subjecttosecurityconsiderations.Thosestatesare:Alaska,Arkansas,
California,Colorado,theFederalBureauofPrisons,Florida,Georgia,Hawaii,Indiana,Iowa,
Kansas,Kentucky,Massachusetts,Michigan,Missouri,Montana,Nebraska,NewJersey,North
Carolina,Ohio,Oregon,Pennsylvania,RhodeIsland,SouthDakota,Tennessee,Vermont,
Virginia,Washington,Wisconsin,andWyoming.26
Eightstatepoliciesdonotspecifythatinmatescanpresentevidence.ThoseareArizona,
Connecticut,Idaho,Maine,Mississippi,Nevada,NewMexico,andNewYork.27
Assistanceof/RepresentativesforInmates
Ofthe38jurisdictionsthatspecifyhearingprocedures,eightjurisdictionsauthorize
inmatestohavearepresentative,advocate,assistant,orcounselortoassistwithhearing
proceedings.ThosestatesareAlaska,Georgia,Iowa,Massachusetts,SouthDakota,Vermont,
Virginia,andWisconsin.28
ADMINISTRATIVESEGREGATION,DEGREESOFISOLATION,ANDINCARCERATION:ANATIONALOVERVIEWOFPOLICIES
LimanoverviewsegregationJune25,2013final 13
Nineadditionaljurisdictionsprovideforassistanceorappointrepresentativesin
specifiedcircumstancessuchaslanguagebarriers,illiteracy,ormentalillnesssoastohelp
inpreparationforthehearingortoexplaintherightsand/ortheproceedings.Theyare:
California,Colorado,Idaho,Michigan,Nebraska,Nevada,Oregon,Washington,andWyoming.29
TheFederalBureauofPrisonsprovidesthata“nonprobationarystaffmemberwillbeavailable
tohelptheinmatecompiledocumentaryevidenceandwrittenwitnessstatementstopresent
atthehearing,”andtheresponsibilityis“limited”tohelpingobtainrelevantcopiesof
documents.30
Twentyjurisdictionsdonotspecifythatinmatescanberepresentedbyindividualssuch
asanadvocate,assistant,orcounselorathearings.Theyare:Arizona,Arkansas,Connecticut,
Florida,Hawaii,Indiana,Kansas,Kentucky,Maine,Mississippi,Missouri,Montana,NewJersey,
NewMexico,NewYork,NorthCarolina,Ohio,Pennsylvania,RhodeIsland,andTennessee.31
Mostpoliciesdonotmentionlawyersasparticipants.Onestate,Vermont,expressly
banslawyers;twoothers,AlaskaandMassachusetts,expresslypermitattendancebylawyers.32
Review/AppealofInitial(NonEmergency)Placements
Inanalyzingopportunitiesforreview,weconsideredspecificpoliciesrelatedto
administrativesegregation,andwedonotexaminegeneralproceduresthatinmatescanuseto
filegrievances.
Statesemployseveralmeanstoreviewtheinitialdecisiontoplaceinmatesin
administrativesegregation.Inadditionto“periodicreview,”discussedinthenextsection,many
statesprovideforpromptreview(requiredasaninstitutionalpolicymatter)orforanoptional
appealbytheinmate.Belowwedistinguishbetweenautomaticreviewandinmateappeals,as
wellasbetweenreviewattheinstitutionallevelandthatdoneatthejurisdiction’scentral
office.Asreflectedbelow,thepoliciesvaryagooddeal,andambiguitiesmakesomedifficultto
categorize.Aswiththediscussionsofnotice,evidence,andhearings,wereportonthepolicy
provisions,andnotonhowoftentheyareusedinpracticeoronwhatoutcomesresultwhen
reviewsareundertaken.
Fifteenjurisdictionsauthorizeautomaticreviewbythewarden(ordesignee):Alaska,
Colorado,Delaware,Idaho,Indiana,Maryland,Missouri,NewHampshire,NorthCarolina,
Nebraska,Ohio,Vermont,Washington,Wisconsin,andWyoming.33Forexample,inOhio,a
hearingofficerissuesareporttothewarden,whodecideswhetherplacementisappropriate.34
Sixofthesestates(Alaska,Colorado,Nebraska,Ohio,Vermont,andWashington)providefor
anotherlevelofreview,typicallyatthecentraloffice.35Ninejurisdictionsprovideforautomatic
reviewbythecentraloffice:Arizona,theFederalBureauofPrisons,Maine,Massachusetts,
Minnesota,Mississippi,NewMexico,RhodeIsland,andVirginia.36NorthDakotaandOklahoma
statethatreviewswillbedoneby“theappropriateauthority.”37
Forstatesemployingstructuredor“stepdown”programs,initialdecisionsbyhearing
officersorclassificationcommitteestypicallymustbeapprovedbythewardenorcentral
THEARTHURLIMANPUBLICINTERESTPROGRAMATYALELAWSCHOOLJUNE2013
LimanoverviewsegregationJune25,2013final14
office.38Forexample,Washingtonreliesonatwotieredsystemforshort‐ andlongterm
separations.39Washingtonhasalsocometouseadistinctivenomenclatureintensive
managementandintensivetreatmentcoupledwithdistinctiveprocedures.Forplacementin
administrativesegregationforperiodsupto47days,amultidisciplinaryclassificationteam
reviewstheplacementandcontinuation.40After47days,theclassificationteammusteither
returntheinmatetogeneralpopulationorreferhimorherfor“IntensiveManagementStatus”
(IMS)or“IntensiveTreatmentStatus,”(ITS)wheretheinmatewouldstayforaminimumperiod
of6months.Followingahearing,theclassificationmayrecommendtransfertoITS/IMS;any
suchtransfermustbeapprovedbytheAssistantSecretaryforPrisons(orhisorherdesignee).41
Afewernumberofstatesspecifyanappealprocessthatinmatesmayinitiateto
challengeplacementinadministrativesegregation.Fivestatespermitinmatestoappeal
placementdecisionstothewarden:Kansas,Maine,Mississippi,Pennsylvania,andSouth
Dakota.42Twoofthosestates,PennsylvaniaandSouthDakota,provideforanotherlevelof
review.43Arkansasprovidesforadditionalreviewbythewarden,butitisunclearwhetherthat
processisrequiredorinmateinitiated.44Fourjurisdictions,Arizona,Michigan,NewYork,and
Oregon,permitinmatestoappealtothecentraloffice.45TheFederalBureauofPrisonspermits
aninmatetoappealplacementsintheSpecialManagementUnit(SMU)totheBureau’sOffice
ofGeneralCounsel.46Severaljurisdictions,includingMississippi,Virginia,andNorthCarolina,
specifythatinmatesmayseekreviewofplacementdecisionsthroughregulargrievance
channels.47
Ninejurisdictionsdonotspecifythatrevieworappealoftheinitialplacementdecision
isavailable.Theyare:California,Connecticut,Georgia,Hawaii,Illinois,Kansas,NewMexico,
Tennessee,andWestVirginia.
PeriodicReview
Inallofthepoliciesexamined,someformofongoingevaluationisrequiredtocontinue
housinganinmateinadministrativesegregation.“Periodicreview”isthegeneralterm,andit
entailsanautomaticreviewatspecifiedintervalsofthecontinuingplacement.Theintervals
rangefromweeklytoyearlyreviews.Thelocationoftheauthoritytocontinuetoholdan
individuallikewisevariesfromtheunititselftothecentraloffice,andinafewinstances,the
Commissioner.Insomejurisdictions,inmatesmayappealperiodicreviewdecisions.
Theprovisionsforperiodicreviewprovideinsightintohowjurisdictionsuse
administrativesegregation.Somestatesstructurethetimeinadministrativesegregationand
imposeobligationsoninmatestocompleteparticularprograms,whileotherstatesdonot
detailstructuredcriteriafordeterminingwhether,uponperiodicreview,totransferinmates
outofsegregation.Thelessstructuredprogramstendtocorrelatewithobligationsformore
frequentperiodicreviews.Whetherandhowthefrequencyofreviewsandthestructureofthe
programscorrelatewiththelengthoftimespentinsegregationareadditionalquestionsin
needofresearch.
ADMINISTRATIVESEGREGATION,DEGREESOFISOLATION,ANDINCARCERATION:ANATIONALOVERVIEWOFPOLICIES
LimanoverviewsegregationJune25,2013final 15
InitialPostAssignmentReview
Allofthejurisdictionsanalyzedspecifyprocessesforperiodicreviewofplacementsin
administrativesegregation.Thejurisdictionsvariedconsiderablywithrespecttothetimeframe
forthefirstperiodicreview.
SevenDaysorLess:Themajorityofjurisdictions(30)requireaninitialreviewwithin
sevendays.48Sixstatesrequireaninitialreviewoftheplacementdecisioninthreedaysor
less.49
ThirtytoNinetyDays:Ninestatesrequireaninitialreviewofadministrativesegregation
placementwithin30days.50NewYorkandNewJerseyconductthefirstreviewafter60days,51
andsixstatesreviewplacementeach90dayinterval.52
SixMonthsorMore:Statesthatemploystructuredprograms(variouslycalled
“intensivetreatment,”“specialmanagement,”or,simply,“administrativesegregation”)
typicallyattachanobligationforreviewtocompletionofaparticularprogramoraftera
minimumperiodofconfinement.Arizonaconductsaninitialreviewofadministrative
segregationaftersixmonths.53
Somejurisdictions(California,Colorado,Connecticut,Connecticut,theFederalBureau
ofPrisons,Indiana,Kentucky,Minnesota,Mississippi,NewJersey,NewMexico,Oklahoma,
Virginia,Washington,andWisconsin)employtwoormorelevelsofadministrativesegregation:
shorttermsegregationatasegregationunit(oftenreferredtoas“administrativesegregation”
or“facilitysegregation”)andlongtermsegregationatadedicatedfacility(sometimesreferred
toas“departmentalsegregation,”“administrativecontrol,”“intensivemanagement,”and
colloquiallyknownas“supermax”).54Insuchinstances,periodicreviewforthesecondcategory
isoftensignificantlylater,typicallyaftersixmonthstooneyearofconfinement.InConnecticut,
forexample,inmatesmustcompletea10monthprogram;monthlyreviewsaredoneoncethe
inmatehascompletedaminimumtime(90120days)ineachphase.55
PeriodicReviewThereafter
Followinganinitialperiodofcloserscrutiny(rangingfromsevento90days),many
statesincreasethetimeintervalsforsubsequentreviews.Themostcommonarrangement
(foundin18states)requiresperiodicreviewofadministrativesegregationstatuseveryseven
daysforthefirsttwomonthsandatintervalsofevery30daysthereafter.
Statesusinganinitialreviewperiodof60daysormoreeitherkeepthesameinterval56
forsubsequentreviewsorincreaseit.57NewJerseyisunusualinusing60dayintervalsforthe
firstyearandreviewingeverysixmonthsthereafter.58Washingtonmakesafinaldecision
aboutassignmentstoadministrativesegregationat47days,soonafterwhichtheinmateis
transferredtoanIntensiveManagementUnit(IMU),toanotherfacility,orisreleasedinto
THEARTHURLIMANPUBLICINTERESTPROGRAMATYALELAWSCHOOLJUNE2013
LimanoverviewsegregationJune25,2013final16
generalpopulation;upontransfertotheIMU,reviewsareheldevery180days.59Thechartin
AppendixBsummarizestheperiodicreviewprocessesinthe47jurisdictionsweanalyzed.
ProceduresforPeriodicReview
DecisionMakers
Allbuttwojurisdictionsthathaveperiodicreviewspecifytheofficialsresponsiblefor
thereview.60Thoseofficialsfallintofourgroups:
(1)staffatafacility,suchasunitmanagers,casemanagers,counselors,and,
occasionally,mentalhealthprofessionals;
(2)warden/superintendent;
(3)classificationteam/committee,generallyincludingsomepersonnelfrom
centraloffice;and
(4)highleveladministrators,e.g.,thecommissioner,director,deputy
commissioner,ordeputydirectorofcorrections.
Decisionsaremadeinmanyjurisdictionsbyfacilitystafforbyaspeciallydesignated
committee.Somestatesemployingunitlevelreviewsprovideforadditionalreviewbyeither
thewardenorcentralclassificationpersonnel.
Ingeneral,thelongeraninmateisinadministrativesegregation,thehigherthelevelof
authoritythatisinvolvedinperiodicreview.FivestatesrequireapprovalbytheCommissioner
forplacementinadministrativesegregationlongerthansixmonths(Maine,NewHampshire,
andOhio)orlongerthanoneyear(MarylandandNorthDakota).61Coloradomandatesthatfor
placementsoveroneyear,thedeputydirectormustmeetpersonallywiththeinmate.62In
Missouri,placementinadministrativesegregationforlongerthan12monthsrequiresapproval
bythedeputydivisiondirector.63TheFederalBureauofPrisonsrequiresapprovalbythe
RegionalDirectorforallcontinuingplacementsintheSMU.64
Fourstatesrequirethatthewardenpersonallyreview(includingafacetofacemeeting
withtheinmate)longerperiodsofsegregation,typicallydefinedassixmonthstooneyear.
Specifically,Arkansas,Colorado,andKansasprovidethatthatnoinmateshallremainin
segregationformorethanayearunlessthewardenhaspersonallyinterviewedtheinmateand
approvedtheclassification.65InMichigan,thewardenmustprovidewrittenapprovalafter30
daysandmustpersonallyinterviewaninmateeverysixmonths.66Ifaninmateisinsegregation
for12months,theMichiganRegionalPrisonAdministratormustprovideapprovalfollowinga
personalinterview,andthatprocessoccursyearlythereafter.67
HearingsandAppeals
Detailsinpoliciesvaryabouthowinformationisgatheredandevaluatedforperiodic
review.Twentyninejurisdictionsauthorizesometypeofhearing,withvaryinglevelsof
formality.68Moststatesdonotspecifythattheinmateistobenotifiedinadvanceofthe
hearing;fourteenstatesrequiresomekindofnoticerangingfrom24hoursto72hoursin
ADMINISTRATIVESEGREGATION,DEGREESOFISOLATION,ANDINCARCERATION:ANATIONALOVERVIEWOFPOLICIES
LimanoverviewsegregationJune25,2013final 17
advanceofthehearing.69Afewstatesspecificallypermitaninmatetobepresentatahearing
withthecaveatthatexclusionispermissibleifaninmateisseentoposeathreattosafety
andsecurity.70Manypoliciesdonotdetailthesourcesofinformationused,theinmate’s
opportunitiestosubmitinformation,whetherreasonsareprovided,orhowsubsequent
decisionmakersevaluatethedecisionsmade.
Variationexistsastowhetherandhowperiodicreviewdecisionsarethemselveseither
reviewedorappealed.Twentyfourstatesprovidespecificmethodsforrevieworappealsof
decisionsaboutcontinuedplacement,71whileotherstatespermitappealsthroughregular
grievanceprocesses.72Jurisdictionsthatmakeappealsavailablemaylimitappealstoonlythose
inmateswhohaveservedlongerperiodsinsegregation.Forexample,Kentuckyprovides
appealsforcontinuedassignmenttoadministrativecontrolbutnotadministrativesegregation,
whichtendstobeshorterterm.73Inseveralstates,aninmate’sappealgoestothewarden,and
thosepoliciesdonotspecifyifanycentralizedauthorityreviewsthedecision.
Conditions,StepDownPrograms,Visitation,andDegreesofIsolation
Thepoliciesvariedwidelyintheamountofinformationcontainedaboutthedaytoday
experiencesoflongtermconfinementinasegregationunit.Forexample,somepoliciessetout
specificconditionssuchasminimumsquarefootage,74standardsforamountandtypeoflight
(artificialornatural),75thenumberandtypeofpersonaleffectspermitted,76accesstolibrary
services,77andphoneprivileges.78Anotherapproach,takenbyanumberofstates(Floridaisan
example),providesthat“administrativeconfinementstatusmaylimitconditionsandprivileges
...[but]treatmentofinmates...shallbeasneartothatofthegeneralpopulation”asthe
separation“shallpermit.”79
Howisolatingsegregationisdependsinpartonwhetherandunderwhatcircumstances
personssoconfinedcanspeakwithandinteractwithotherpeople.Ingeneral,policiesdidnot
detailthedegreeofsocialinteractionpermitted,eitherwithotherinmatesand/orwithstaffor
thirdparties.
Structured(“StepDown”)Programs
Reflectiveofconcernsabouttheeffectsoflongtermconfinementinsegregationunits,
somestatesareseekingtoreducethenumberdetainedinsuchsettings.Inaddition,some
effortsareunderwaytoincreaseopportunitiesforcontact.Commonlyreferredtoas“Step
Down,”“IntensiveManagement,”or“BehavioralManagement”programs,thesesystemstiean
inmate’sdeparturefromsegregationtothecompletionofcertaingoals,suchasbehavioral
plansorclasses.Generallyspeaking,thesesystemsusefairlyrobustentryproceduresbut
requirethatinmatesstayforaminimumofsixmonthstoayear.Somesystemsexplicitlystate
thatdisciplinaryinfractions,ofanykind,canextendthelengththetimeinsegregation.80
THEARTHURLIMANPUBLICINTERESTPROGRAMATYALELAWSCHOOLJUNE2013
LimanoverviewsegregationJune25,2013final18
Severalstates,includingConnecticut,Massachusetts,Mississippi,NewJersey,New
Mexico,Virginia,havedevisedstructuredprogramsdescribedtotargetbehaviorissuesinsome
way.81Forexample,NewMexicohasa“behaviordrivenprogressiveincentivesystemconsisting
ofstepsthatencouragesappropriatebehavior."82Mississippi’sprogramisunusualinthatit
focusesoninmateswhoarecurrentlyinadministrativesegregationandwhowillbereleased
withinsixmonths.Thoseinmatesreceivereentryfocusedprogramminginasegregated
setting.83
Washingtonisamongseveralstates,includingColorado,Massachusetts,Mississippi,and
Virginia,thatareexploringwaystoseparateprisonerssafelyincombinationwithgreater
opportunitiesforgroupactivitiesandfortherapy.84WorkinginconjunctionwithDisability
RightsWashingtonandtheVeraInstitute,Washingtonhasdevelopedwhatitterms“intensive
management”or“intensivetreatment”toprovidestructuredgroupactivitiesand/orvarious
therapiesforthoseinsegregation.85Staffassigninmatestospecificprogramsbasedon
individualassessments,intermsofmentalhealthandbehavior.86Toreturntogeneral
population,inmatesarerequiredtoparticipate.87

VisitationDuringSegregation
Contactwithpersonsoutsidethefacilitiesisanotheraspectofsociability,andvisitation
isaddressedbyallthepolicieswereviewed.88Thepoliciesvariedwithrespecttothetypesof
visitorspermitted,whethervisitscouldbecontactornot,whatdiscretiontolimitvisitation
existed,andthefrequencyanddurationofthevisitsallowed.Somepoliciesnotedthatwardens
haddiscretionaboutvisiting,orthatvisitscanbelimitedbasedonsecurityconcernsorin
relationshiptoperformancebyinmates,includingthoseinstepdownprograms.Asidefrom
suchprovisions,statewidepoliciesdidnotaddressthecriteriatobeusedtolimitvisitsasa
disciplinarymatter.Inthisarenaasinothers,decisionsatthefacilitylevelbothfillgapsand
maycreatesitespecificpractices.
CategoriesofVisitors
Thepoliciesvaryagooddealintermsofdetailingvisitationrules.Allappeartoassume
lawyeraccesstoclients,butafewspecifyrequirementsornoteopportunitiesforcontactvisits.
Forexample,severalstatesrequireattorneystoobtainadvanceapprovalfroma
superintendentorwarden.89Mainepermits“professionalvisits”ifapprovedbytheUnit
ManagementTeam.90Tenstatesprovidethatlimitationsoncontactvisitsinsegregationdonot
applytolegalcounsel.91
Twentystatesspecificallyprovideinmatesinadministrativesegregationunitswith
accesstoreligiouspersonnel.92Insomeinstances,thefocusisoninstitutionalemployees,such
aschaplains.Arkansas,forexample,specifiesthatchaplainsvisit“regularlyandonrequest.”93
Iowaprovidesthatreligiouspersonnelmayvisit“uponrequest.”94Illinois,Indiana,Kentucky,
Maine,andNewYorkadvisethatthechaplainistovisitatleastonceaweek.95Minnesota
ADMINISTRATIVESEGREGATION,DEGREESOFISOLATION,ANDINCARCERATION:ANATIONALOVERVIEWOFPOLICIES
LimanoverviewsegregationJune25,2013final 19
authorizesafacility’sreligiouscoordinatortomakevisitsonceamonth.96Nevadaprovidesthat
visitationbyreligiouspersonnel“willbeencouragedandallowed.”97
Allofthejurisdictionsreviewedalsoprovideforinmatestohavepersonalvisitswhilein
administrativesegregation.Ahandfulofjurisdictionsprovidethatvisitationregulationsarethe
sameforprisonersinadministrativesegregationasforthoseingeneralpopulation.98
Intermsofthetypeornumberofvisitorsforinmatesinadministrativesegregation,a
fewstatesspecifycategoriesofpermissiblevisitors.Connecticut,NewJersey,Tennessee,and
Washingtonlimitvisitors,forsomekindsofsegregation,to“immediatefamily”or“relatives.”99
Oregonlimitsaninmatetotwopeopleonthevisitationlistatanygiventime,whileMississippi
limitsaninmatetotenvisitors.100
Twostateshavespecialprovisionsforvisitsbetweeninmatesandtheirchildren.In
Oregon,aninmate’schildrenareexemptfromthetotalofthetwolistedvisitorspermitted,a
setwhosecompositioncanchangeatsixmonthintervals.101InNewHampshire,inmateswho
givebirthareallowedtwoadditionalvisitsperweekwiththeirnewbornchildrenforaperiodof
timeafterthebirth.102
Contact/NonContactVisits
Seventeenjurisdictionsdonotspecifywhethervisitsarecontactornoncontact.103
Twentytwostatesbarcontactvisitsforallorpartoftheadministrativesegregation
population.104CaliforniaandNebraskabarcontactvisitsforinmatesinthe“SecuredHousing
Unit”or“IntensiveManagementUnit”butprovideforcontactvisitsinotherformsof
administrativesegregation.105
Elevenstatespermitpersonalcontactvisitsforinmatesinadministrativesegregation.106
Tenofthosestatesauthorizethewardenordesigneetodeterminewhetherthevisitiscontact
ornoncontact.107Vermonttiescontactvisitstoprogressionthroughthephasesofastepdown
programforthoseinadministrativesegregation.108Minnesota’sAdministrativeControlUnit
conductsvisitsoveraclosedcircuittelevisionmonitorforaminimumoffourhoursper
month.109
AdditionalRequirementsandRestrictions
Manystatessetoutpossiblerestrictionsonvisitationbasedonbroadinstitutional
concerns.Aformulationfoundinsixstatesisthat“offendershaveopportunitiesforvisitation
unlesstherearesubstantialreasonsforwithholdingsuchprivileges.”110InFlorida,“those
inmateswhoareathreattothesecurityoftheinstitutionshallbedeniedvisitingprivileges.”111
Massachusettsprovidesthat“thelengthandnumberofvisitsmaybelimitedduetospace,
schedules,personnelconstraints,orwhenthereisasubstantialreasontojustifylimitation."112
Twentyfivejurisdictionsexpresslyauthorizethesuperintendent,warden,orother
designeetolimitvisitationathis/herdiscretionoruponadeterminationthatvisitswouldbea
THEARTHURLIMANPUBLICINTERESTPROGRAMATYALELAWSCHOOLJUNE2013
LimanoverviewsegregationJune25,2013final20
securityrisk.113Twelveofthosestatesfurtherrequirethat,forinmatesinadministrative
segregation,advancepermissionforpersonalvisitsberequestedfromthewarden,
superintendent,orothercorrectionalofficer.114Thosepoliciestypicallydonotprovide
guidelinesformakingsuchdecisions.

Somepoliciesfocusoninmatebehaviorasacriterionforvisiting,andsomespecify
presumptionsforvisits.InAlaska,forexample,thewardenmayrestrictaccesstovisitation
“onlyifanindividualizeddeterminationismadethataninmate’sparticipationthreatensthe
orderandsecurityofthefacility.”115Kentuckyprovidesthatinmateswhoposeasecuritythreat
mayberequiredtohavevisitsinadifferentandmoresecurevisitingarea.116
Allpoliciesaddressthefrequencyofvisits.Twentysevenstatesleavethatdecisionto
thefacilityand,typically,thewarden,sometimesunderguidelines.117Forexample,Indiana
authorizesindividualfacilitiestoreducethefrequencyofvisitation,butnotbelowtwovisitsper
month.118Fivestatesexpresslyprovidethatinmatesinadministrativesegregationshallhave
thesamenumberofvisitsasthegeneralpopulation.119Whenvisitationisrestricted,most
policiesprovidesomewherebetweenoneandtwovisits,lastingonetotwohours,eachmonth.
InHawaii’sMaximumControlUnit,one45minutenoncontactvisitevery14daysis
permitted.120NorthCarolinapermitstwononcontactvisitseverythirtydays.121Pennsylvania
permitsonevisit,foradurationofonehour,everythirtydays.122
Fivestatespermitincreasingthefrequencyandintervalsofvisitsbasedoninmate
behaviorandasotherrestrictionsaredecreased.123Forexample,inColorado,inmatesinthe
mostrestrictiveplacement,LevelI,mayhaveonehourandahalfnoncontactvisitper
month.124ForLevelII,visitationaccessincreasestotwohourandahalfnoncontactvisits,and
soonuptoLevelIV,inwhichinmatesmayhavesixtwohournoncontactvisitspermonth.125In
Connecticut,phasedvisitationaccessrangesfromone30minutenoncontactvisitperweekfor
PhaseItothree30minutenoncontactvisitsperweekforPhaseIII.126NewJerseypermitsone
60minutenoncontactvisitpermonthinLevel1,andone60minutenoncontactvisitper
weekinLevel2.127
OnestateIndianamentionstheroleofvisitsinrelationtoleavingprison.Indiana
providesthat“considerationshallbeextendedforadditionalvisitingprivilegestoaidinthe
offender’sReEntryplanningandprogramming.”128
AdditionalResearchAgendas
Anyreviewofformalpoliciesalwaysraisesquestionsofimplementationandvariation.
Writtenrulesareoftenimplementeddifferently,andthecontextinwhichtheyoperateinforms
theirmeaning.Thus,ourdiscussioncannotcapturetheexperiencesofinmatessubjectedto
rules,staffchargedwithadministeringandimplementingtherules,andtheinstitutional
contextsinwhichtheseindividualsoperate.Ourhopeisthatthisoverviewinvitesmore
analysesofsegregationinprisons.
ADMINISTRATIVESEGREGATION,DEGREESOFISOLATION,ANDINCARCERATION:ANATIONALOVERVIEWOFPOLICIES
LimanoverviewsegregationJune25,2013final 21
Wethoughtithelpful,bywayofconclusion,tosketchafewofthemanyresearchareas
thatremaintobeexplored.First,researchisneededtoanalyzetwoothercommonformsof
segregationdisciplinary/punitivesegregationandprotectivecustody.Inthematerials
currentlyavailabletous,some30jurisdictionsprovidedpoliciesaddressing
punitive/disciplinarysegregation,andaboutadozenspecifiedrulesonprotectivecustody.
Oncesuchinformationiscompiled,onecouldlearnwhetherthevariousformsofsegregation
aregoverneddifferentlyattheformallevel.
Second,questionsaboundaboutthecostsoflongtermsegregation,thedegreesto
whichitisolatesindividuals,anditsutilities.Dollarsandcentsareonefacet.Howmuch
investmentbycorrectionalinstitutionsisrequiredtomaintainsegregationfacilities,andhow
doesthesizeandscaleaffecttheexpense?Whateffectdoesworkinginsegregationunitshave
onstaff?Howdoesstaffunderstandtheutilityofsegregation,thedegreeofisolationentailed,
thekindsoftrainingneeded,andtheeffectofsuchenvironmentsonprisonmanagement?
Otherareastoexplorearetheeffectsofsegregationoninmatesandoninstitutions.For
example,howdoindividualsfunctioninsegregation?Howisolatingisit?Whatlevelsof
stimulation,contact,andformsofsociabilityareprovided,whatcontactisnecessarytoprevent
deterioration,andwhatactivitiesfacilitatereentrytothepopulationand/orthecommunity?
Doessegregationofsomeinmatesmakeaninstitutionsaferforothers,servetoheighten
tensions,orboth?Whatimpactongeneralinstitutionalbehaviordoesthepracticeof
segregationhave?Doconditionsinthegeneralpopulation,suchasovercrowding,produce
overrelianceonsegregationasameansofcontrol?Further,whatimpactdoessegregation
haveoninmates’subsequentperformanceingeneralpopulation,onreentrytothecommunity,
andonrecidivism?
Third,wedonotknowthedistributionoftheuseofsegregationbyage,ethnicity,
genderidentity,race,andreligion.Givenwidespreadappreciationofracialdisparitiesinthe
criminaljusticesystemandtheongoingeffortsbycorrectionalauthorities(suchastheRacial
DisparityCommitteeofASCA),understandingthedemographicsisanimportantaspectof
evaluatingtheimpactofsegregation.
Fourth,wealsodonotknowthenumbersofinmateswithidentifiedcognitiveormental
healthissues,orphysicalhealthissues,whoareinsegregation.Theinteractionofmentalhealth
andofsegregationpoliciesisanimportantareaforfurtherevaluation,and,asnoted,some
jurisdictions,suchasMassachusetts,aredevisingspecialprogramstoprovidetreatmentin
settingsthataresafeforinmatesandforstaff.

Fifth,thepoliciescannotbeunderstoodwithoutgaininginformationontheir
implementation.Gapsareinevitablebetweenpoliciesandactualpractice.Somepolicy
directivesmaybemorereadilyimplementablethanothers.Theuseofsegregationisaffected
bymanyfactorstheinstitutionalsetting,thepopulationdensityofafacility,thestaffto
inmateratio,themakeupoftheinmatepopulation,andthephysicalplantanditsproximityto
outsideservices.Manydocumentsreportthatsomeindividualsarekeptinsegregationfor
THEARTHURLIMANPUBLICINTERESTPROGRAMATYALELAWSCHOOLJUNE2013
LimanoverviewsegregationJune25,2013final22
decades.Whatisnotknowniswhethersuchlongperiodsofsegregationarecommonandwhat
thedegreeofisolationinsuchconditionsis.Nordoweknowhowsystemsmonitortheirown
programs,bothtoensurethatinmatesreceivebasicservices,nutrition,andexerciseandto
evaluatetheimpactoftheirprograms.
Casestudiesareneededtolearnabouttheactualwaysinwhichsegregationfunctions.
Specificquestionsincludethebasesinpracticeforplacement,duration,actualconditionsof
confinement(i.e.,space,singleordoublecells,personaleffects,accesstocontactvia
telephones,thekindandnatureofprogramsavailable),degreesofisolation,transferand
return,releaseopportunities,andsupportforreentry,allofwhichwouldneedtobeanalyzed
inrelationshiptothedemographicvariationofprisonpopulations.Alsorequiredisinformation
onthemanydimensionsofconditionswithinsegregationaswellasaccesstoprogrammingand
provisionsrelatedtomentalhealth.
Further,aswenotedattheoutset,thisreviewhasfocusedonpoliciesprovidedbystate
andfederalgovernments.Theshiftofmanyprisonerstothecustodyofprivatecorporations
providingservicesundercontractsrequiresanothersetofinquiries,focusedonprivateprison
management.Thequestionsincludewhetherrulesaredifferentwhenaprisonismanaged
privately,whetherrulesoughttovarybasedonwhethertheinstitutionispubliclyorprivately
run,andhowrulesofeitherthepublicorprivatesectorsinfluenceeachother.
Inshort,wehavemuchmoretolearn. 
ADMINISTRATIVESEGREGATION,DEGREESOFISOLATION,ANDINCARCERATION:ANATIONALOVERVIEWOFPOLICIES
LimanoverviewsegregationJune25,2013final 23
Endnotes

*Allrightsreserved,June2013.TheprojectandreportonisolationissponsoredbytheArthur
LimanPublicInterestProgramatYaleLawSchool.HopeMetcalfisDirectoroftheLiman
ProgramandLectureratYaleLawSchool.JudithResnikistheArthurLimanProfessorofLawat
YaleLawSchool.YaleLawstudentcoauthorsareJameliaMorgan(classof2013),Samuel
OlikerFriedland(classof2014),JuliaSpiegel(classof2013),HaranTae(classof2014),Alyssa
Work(classof2013),andBrianHolbrook(classof2012).
 Foundedin1997,theLimanProgramatYaleLawSchoolwascreatedtoforwardthe
commitmentsofArthurLimanasanexemplarylawyerdedicatedtopublicserviceinthe
furtheranceofjustice.TheProgramsupportstheworkoflawstudents,lawschoolgraduates,
andstudentsfromsixuniversities,allofwhomworktorespondtoproblemsofinequalityand
toimproveaccesstojusticeforthosewithoutresources.TheProgramoffersfellowshipsfor
YaleLawSchoolgraduatestospendayearworkingonissuessuchaswelfarerights,elderlaw,
indigentcriminaldefense,immigration,andjuvenilejustice.TheProgramawardssummer
fellowshipstostudentsatBarnard,Brown,Harvard,Princeton,Spelman,andYaletopursue
publicinterestthemedprojectsatorganizationsacrossthecountry.
AparticularfocusoftheLimanProgramisresearchonthelawandpolicyofdetention,and
theLimanProgramhasworkedwithAssociationofStateCorrectionalAdministrators(ASCA)on
projectsofmutualinterest.Forexample,in20102011,theLimanProgramexamined
correctionalpoliciesonvisitationinstatefacilities.SeeChesaBoudin,AaronLittman,and
TrevorStutz,PrisonVisitationPolicies:A50StateSurvey(2012),availableat
http://www.law.yale.edu/intellectuallife/limanpubs.htm.
ThanksareduetoA.T.Wall,GeorgeCamp,WayneChoinski,andPatriciaHardymanof
ASCA;toBrettDignamandJeffFaganofColumbiaLawSchool;andtoDennisE.Curtis,Nina
Rabin,andTomTylerofYaleLawSchool,aswellastocurrentandpastYaleLawstudents
AndrewHammond,AaronLittman,ChesaBoudin,andTrevorStutz.Wealsobenefittedfrom
theguidanceandinputofSiaSanneh,SeniorLimanFellow,andthegroupofstudentswho
beganthisresearchin201112:DanielleLang,AlbertMonroe,EsterMurdukhayeva,Katherine
Oberembt,YamanSalahi,andJoanneWright.
1SeeSubcommitteeontheConstitution,CivilRights,andHumanRightsoftheUnitedStates
SenateJudiciaryCommittee,HearingonReassessingSolitaryConfinement:TheHumanRights,
Fiscal,andPublicSafetyConsequences,158CONG.REC.D61701,2012WL2326847(Cong.Rec.)
(June19,2012),availableat
http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=6517e7d97c06eac4ce9f60b09625eb
e8.
2NewYorkCivilLibertiesUnion,BoxedIn:TheTrueCostofExtremeIsolationinNewYork’s
Prisons(2012),http://www.boxedinny.org/.
3See,e.g.,California,Cal.CodeRegs.tit.15§3335(a)(“administrativesegregation”);Kansas,
501KAR6:020(“specialmanagement”);Massachusetts,103CMR423(“specialmanagement”);
Vermont,DOC410.03(“restrictedhousing”).
THEARTHURLIMANPUBLICINTERESTPROGRAMATYALELAWSCHOOLJUNE2013
LimanoverviewsegregationJune25,2013final24

4U.S.GovernmentAccountingOffice,BureauofPrisons:ImprovementsNeededinMonitoring
andEvaluationofImpactofSegregatedHousing,GAO1313429(May2013).
5Wilkinsonv.Austin,545U.S.209,21415(2005).
6Wilkinson,545U.Sat21415.
7Utahprovidedpoliciesspecificallyonsegregationthatdidnotclearlyaddressadministrative
segregation.Utahappearstorelyprimarilyuponclassificationprocedurestodetermineinmate
placementsaswelldisciplinarysegregation.Utah,DIOGO09020.Theclassificationprocess,
whichconsidersarangeoffactorssuchasoffense,lengthofsentence,criminalhistory,and
mentalhealthneeds,isperformedatintakeandatleastyearlythereafter.Utah,FC04/04.01,
FC04/06.04.Thesystempermits“overrides”forspecifiedreasons,suchaswhatistermed
“severemanagement.”Thatoverride,whichmayresultinrestrictedhousingplacement,
includesposing“anunduethreattoselforothers.”FC04/05.03.Thepolicydoesnotreference
ahearingfororopportunitytoappealsuchdecisions.Inpracticethe“severemanagement”
policymaysharecommonfeatureswithadministrativesegregationpoliciesinotherstates.
Giventheapparentdivergenceindefinitionsandprocedures,wehaveexcludedUtahfromthis
study.Seealsonote10,aboutthethreeotherstatesnotincludedinthisanalysis.

8TheLimanProgramjoinedProfessorsBrettDignamandJeffreyFaganatColumbiaLawSchool
inconveningthesession,entitled“IncarcerationandIsolation,AColloquium.”
9ThepolicywereceivedfromIowawaslabeled“draft.”
10WedidnothavesufficientinformationonadministrativesegregationpoliciesforLouisiana,
SouthCarolina,Texas,andUtah.SouthCarolinaneitherprovidedpoliciesinresponsetoASCA’s
requestnormakesthemavailablepublicly.Texasmakespublicwhatittermsaninmate
“handbook,”whichreferencesan“administrativesegregationplan”thatwasnotavailable.
Louisiana’sprovisionofpoliciestoASCAfocusedondisciplinebutwithoutspecifying
administrativesegregationpolicies,whichappeartobemadeatthefacilitylevel.Utah’spolicy
doesnotspecifythatitgovernsadministrativesegregationand,asnotedabove(seenote7),
wedidnotincludeit.
11See,e.g.,Alaska,DOC804.01(v);Alabama,AR436;Arizona,DO801.09.1.2.3;California,Cal.
CodeRegs.tit.15§3335(a);Colorado,AR65003(IV)(A);Connecticut,AD9.4(3)(B);Delaware,
DOCPolicy4.3;Florida,Fla.Admin.Coder.33602.220;Hawaii,COR.11.01.2.2(a)(2);Idaho,
DOC319.02.01.001;Illinois,20Ill.Admin.Code§504.660(b)(2);Iowa,IOHO05(IV)(A)(3)(b);
Indiana,DOC0201111;Kentucky,PP10.2;Maryland,DOC.100.0002;Massachusetts,103CMR
421;Michigan,DOC04.05.120;Minnesota,DD301.085;Mississippi,SOP190101;New
Mexico,CD143.000.A;NewYork,7NYCRR301.4(6);NorthDakota,DOC5A20;Ohio,DOC
5120:11015;Oklahoma,OP040204;Oregon,DOC2910460030;Pennsylvania,DCADM802;
ADMINISTRATIVESEGREGATION,DEGREESOFISOLATION,ANDINCARCERATION:ANATIONALOVERVIEWOFPOLICIES
LimanoverviewsegregationJune25,2013final 25

RhodeIsland,DOC15.113;Tennessee,DOC40410(VI)(A)(1);Vermont,DOC410.03(1)(e);
Wisconsin,Wis.Admin.CodeDOC§308.04(2);Wyoming,P&P3.302(II)(A).
12See,e.g.,Alaska,DOC804.01(v);Arizona,DOC804.01(1.1.1);California,Cal.CodeRegs.tit.15
§3335(a);Delaware,DOCPolicy4.3(IV)(A);Hawaii,COR.11.01.2.2(a)(2);Idaho,DOC
319.02.01.001;Indiana,DOC0201111;Kentucky,PP10.2;Maine,DOC15.1;Maryland,
DOC.100.0002;Minnesota,DD301.085;Mississippi,SOP190101;NorthDakota,DOC5A20;
Oklahoma,OP040204;Pennsylvania,DCADM802;RhodeIsland,DOC15.113;Vermont,DOC
410.03(1)(d);Washington,DOC320.200;Wisconsin,Wis.Admin.CodeDOC§308.04(2).
13FederalBureauofPrisons,BOP541.23.
14See,e.g.,Alabama,AR436(III)(A);Colorado,AR65003(II);KSIMPP20103;Hawaii,
COR.11.01.2.2(a)(2);Iowa,IAHO05(IV)(A);Illinois,Ill.Admin.Codetit.20,§504;
Massachusetts,103CMR421.09;Mississippi,SOP190101;Nebraska,AR201.05(II)(E);
Nevada,AR507.01(I)(D);SouthDakota,DOCI.3.D.4(III);Wisconsin,DOC308.04,Note;
Wyoming,P&P3.302(II)(A).
15Colorado65003.IV.B.
16Virginia,OperatingProcedure830.2,SecurityLevelClassification.
17Alaska,DOC804.01(VII)(B)(1)(c);Arizona,DO801.10;Arkansas,AS1142(III)(A)(1);California,
Cal.CodeRegs.tit.15§3338(a);Colorado,AR650.03(4)(D);Connecticut(within30days),AD
9.4(12)(A);FederalBureauofPrisons,BOP541.439(b);Florida,Fla.Admin.Coder.33
601.800(3)(g);Georgia,SOPIIB090001(VI)(B);Hawaii,COR.11.01(3)(1)(b);Idaho,DOC
319.02.01.001(13);Indiana,DOC0201111(VI)(B)(1)(onlyfordepartmentwideadministrative
segregation);Iowa,IAHO05(IV)(A)(after2months);Kansas,IMPP20105(I);Kentucky,PP
10.2(H)(3);Maine,DOC15.1.1(VI)(C);Massachusetts,103CMR421.10;Michigan,DOC
04.05.120(O);Mississippi,SOP190101(k);Missouri,IS211.2(III)(A);Montana,DOC
4.2.1(IV)(E);Nebraska,AR201.05(VII)(B);Nevada,AR507.01(2)(C);NewJersey,
IMM.012.001(III);NewMexico,CD143.001.4(J);NewYork,7NYCRR301.4(a);NorthCarolina,
DOC.0302(c);Ohio(localcontrol),DOC5120:11015(D);Oregon(after30days),OARDOC291
0460030;Pennsylvania,DCADM802(2);RhodeIsland,ProcedureforClassificationtoCategory
C;SouthDakota,DOC1.3.D.4(IV);Tennessee,DOC404.10(2)(c);Vermont,DOC410.03(3);
Virginia,OP861.3(IV);Washington,DOC320.200(III);Wisconsin,Wis.Admin.CodeDOC§
308.04(3);WyomingP&P3.302(IV)(B)(4).
18Connecticut,AD9.4(12)(A);OhioAdmin.Code5120913.1(localcontrol);55SPC02(special
management).
19Iowa,IAHO05(IV)(A)(8)(aftertwomonths).
THEARTHURLIMANPUBLICINTERESTPROGRAMATYALELAWSCHOOLJUNE2013
LimanoverviewsegregationJune25,2013final26

20Wyoming,P&P3.302(IV)(B)(4).
21Alabama,AR436;Delaware,DOCPolicy4.3(VI)(A);Illinois,20Ill.Admin.Code§504.660;
Maryland,DOC.100.0002(18)(B)(2);Minnesota,DD301.085;NewHampshire,DOC5.89,7.49;
NorthDakota,DOC5A20;Oklahoma,OP040204;WestVirginia,PD326.00.Anotherprovision
ofIllinoislaw,Ill.Admin.Code§505.60,outlinesprocessesfortransferstotheTamms
CorrectionalCenter;sincewebeganthisresearch,Illinoishasclosedthatfacility.Thus,wedo
notincludethatprovisioninthisreport.

22Arkansas,AR1142(II);Colorado,AR65003(B)(2)(e);FloridaAdmin.Coder.33.602.220(2)(c);
Georgia,SOPIIB09001(IV)(B);Idaho,319.02.01.001(15);Indiana,Policy02010111(VIII);Iowa,
IAHO05(IV)(A);Kansas,IMPP20106;Massachusetts,103C.M.R.421.07;Maine,DOC15.1;
Missouri,MOIS211.2(III)(B);Nebraska,AR201.05(IV)(A);Nevada,AR507.01(2)(E);NewJersey,
IMM.012.001;NewMexico,CD143001.4(J)(3)(a);NewYork,7NYCRR301.4(a);NorthCarolina,
C.0302(d)(facilitylevelcommitteereviewsplacementsupto60days);NorthCarolina,
C.0302(d)(“Director’sClassificationCommittee”reviewslongertermreferralstointensive
control);Pennsylvania,DCADM802(3)(A)(1);SouthDakota,DOC1.3.D.4(iii);Virginia,OP
830.2(G)(3);Washington,DOC320.220(I)(A);Wisconsin,DOC308.04(3);Wyoming,P&P3.302.
23Alaska,DOC804.01(VII)(C);Arizona,DO801.10;California,Cal.CodeRegs.tit.15§3337;
Connecticut,AD9.4(12)(A);Delaware,DOCPolicy4.3(VI)(A);FederalBureauofPrisons,BOP
541.23(administrativedetention);Michigan,Mich.Admin.CodeR.791.3315(5)(F);Mississippi,
SOP190101;Oregon,DOC2910460030;andVermont,DOC410.03(3).
24Hawaii,COR.11.01(3)(1);Kentucky,PP10.2(H)(3);andTennessee,DOC40410(VI)(A)2).
25WestVirginia,PD326.00.
26Alaska,DOC804.01(VII)(C);Arkansas,AD1142;FederalBureauofPrisons,BOP
541.439(B)(1);California,Cal.CodeRegs.tit.15§3337(b);Colorado,AR600.02(IV)(K)(2);
Florida,Fla.Admin.Coder.33601.800(3)(g);Georgia,SOPIIB09001(IV)(B);Hawaii,
COR.11.01(3)(1);Idaho,319.02.01.001;Indiana,0201111(VI)(B)(allowshearingbutdoesnot
specifyadmissionofevidence);Iowa,IAHO05(IV)(A);Kansas,IMPP2106;Kentucky,PP
10.2(H)(3);Massachusetts,103C.M.R.421.07;Michigan,Mich.Admin.CodeR.791.3315(1)(c);
Missouri,IS211.2(III)(B)(4)(a);Montana,DOC4.2.1(IV)(E);Nebraska,AR201.05(VII)(B);New
Jersey,IMM.012.ADSEG.001;NorthCarolina,C.302(d);Ohio,Admin.Code.5120913.1(C);
OregonDOC2910460030;Pennsylvania,DCADM802(2)(6);RhodeIsland,Procedurefor
ClassificationtoCategoryC;SouthDakota,DOC1.3.D.4(iii);Tennessee,DOC40410(VI)(A)2);
Vermont,DOC410.03;Virginia,OP830.1(V);Washington,DOC320.200(III)(I);Wisconsin,DOC
30604(4)(e);Wyoming,P&P3.302(5).
ADMINISTRATIVESEGREGATION,DEGREESOFISOLATION,ANDINCARCERATION:ANATIONALOVERVIEWOFPOLICIES
LimanoverviewsegregationJune25,2013final 27

27Connecticut,AD9.4(12);Idaho,319.02.01.001(3)(Table313);Maine,DOC15.1;Mississippi,
SOP190101,190103;NewMexico,CS143001.4(J);Nevada,AR507.01(2)(E);NewYork,7
NYCRR301.4(a).
28Alaska,DOC804.01(VII)(C);Georgia,SOPIIB09001(IV)(B);Iowa,IAHO05(IV)(A);
Massachusetts,103C.M.R.421.10;SouthDakota,DOC1.3.D.4(iii);Vermont,DOC410.03(3)(d);
Virginia,OP830.1(V);Wisconsin,DOC30604(4)(e).
29California,Cal.CodeRegs.tit.15§3336(b);Colorado,AR600.02(IV)(K)(2);Idaho,
319.02.01.001(13);Michigan,Mich.Admin.CodeR.791.3315(1)(c);Nebraska,AR
201.05(VII)(B)(5);Nevada,AR507.01(2)(E)(4);Oregon,DOC2910460045;Washington,DOC
320.200(III);Wyoming,P&P3.302(5)(VII).
30FederalBureauofPrisons,P5217.01(3)(b)(1).
31Arizona,DO801.10;Arkansas,AD1142;Connecticut,AD9.4(12);Florida,Fla.Admin.Coder.
33601.800(3);Hawaii,COR.11.01;Indiana,DOCPolicy02.01.111;Kansas,IMPP2106;
Kentucky,PP10.2(H);Maine,DOC151.1;Missouri,IS211.2(III)(B);Mississippi,SOP1901
01(k);Missouri,IS211.2(III)(B)(4)(a);Montana,DOC4.2.1(IV)(E);NewJersey,
IMM.012.ADSEG.001;NewMexico,CD143.001.4(J);NewYork,7NYCRR301.4(a);North
Carolina,DOC0.0302;OhioAdmin.Code5120:11015;Pennsylvania,DCADM802(2);Rhode
Island,ProcedureforClassificationtoCategoryC;Tennessee,DOC404.10.
32Alaska,DOC804.01;Massachusetts,103C.M.R.421.16;Vermont,DOC410.03(3)(d)(i).
33Alaska,DOC804.01(VII)(C);Colorado,AR65003(IV)(D)(2)(3);Delaware,DOCPolicy4.3(VI)(A);
Idaho,319.02.01.001(3)(Table313);Indiana,0201111(VI)(B);Maryland,
DOC.100.0002(18)(B)(2);Missouri,IS21.1.2(III)(B)(9);NorthCarolina,C.0302(b);Nebraska,AR
201.05(VII)(C);NewHampshire,DOC5.89,7.49;OhioAdmin.Code5120913.1(B);Oregon,
DOC2910460075;Vermont,410.03(2)(c);Virginia,OP830.1(V);Washington,DOC
320.200(I)(B);Wisconsin,DOC308.04(8)(c)(onlyifcommittee’srulingisnotunanimous);
Wyoming,P&P3302(5)(IV).
34OhioAdmin.Code5120913.1(B).
35Alaska,DOC804.01(VII)(C);Colorado,AR65003(IV)(D)(2)(3);Nebraska,AR201.05(VII)(B)(5);
OhioAdmin.Code5120913(D);Vermont,410.03(2)(c);andWashington,DOC320.200(I)(B).
36Arizona,DO801.10;FederalBureauofPrisons,BOP541.23(forplacementinspecial
managementunitsSMUsonly);Maine,DOC15.1(B);Massachusetts,103CMR421.10;
Minnesota,DD301.087(forplacementinadministrativecontrolonly);Mississippi,SOP1901
03;NewMexico,CD143001.4(J)(4)(forplacementinLevelVandVIonly);RhodeIsland,
THEARTHURLIMANPUBLICINTERESTPROGRAMATYALELAWSCHOOLJUNE2013
LimanoverviewsegregationJune25,2013final28

ProcedureforClassificationtoCategoryC;Virginia,OP830.1(V)(forplacementinsegregation
facility).
37NorthDakota,DOC5A20;Oklahoma,OP040204.
38See,e.g.,California,Cal.CodeRegs.tit.15§3341.5(2);Colorado,65003.IV;Connecticut,AD
9.4,Connecticut,NorthernCorrectionalInstitutionAdministrativeSegregationProgram;
FederalBureauofPrisons,BOPBOP541.439B;FederalBureauofPrisons,InmateHandbook
FlorenceADX;Indiana,0201111;Kentucky,CPP10.2;Minnesota,DD301.083and301.087;
Mississippi,SOP190101(“AdministrativeSegregationStepDownUnit”);NewJersey,
IMM.012.001;NewMexico,CD143002.3;Oklahoma,OP04204(B);Virginia,OP830.2;
Washington,DOC320.255;Wisconsin,Wis.Admin.CodeDOC§308.04(10).
39Washington,DOC320.220(I)(10).
40Id.
41Id.
42Kansas,IMPP2106;Maine,DOC151.1;Mississippi,SOP190103;Pennsylvania,DCADM
802(2)(C);SouthDakota,DOC1.3.D.4(iii).
43Pennsylvania,DCADM802(2);SouthDakota,DOC1.3.D.4.
44Arkansas,AD1142(III)(D).
45Arizona,DO801.11;Michigan,Mich.Admin.CodeR.791.3315(1);NewYork,7NYCRR
301.4(d);Oregon,DOC2910460100.
46FederalBureauofPrisons,BOP541.439B.
47See,e.g.,Mississippi,SOP190103;Virginia,OP830.1(X).
48Alabama,AR436(V)(A)(1);Arkansas,AD1142;FederalBureauofPrisons,BOP541.26;
Colorado,AR650.03(VI)(J)(2);Connecticut,AD9.4(12);Delaware,DOCPolicy4.3(VI)(A);
Georgia,SOPIIB090001(VI)(H);Hawaii,COR.11.01(3);Iowa,IOHO05(IV)(A);Kansas,IMPP20
106(I)(A);Kentucky,DOC10.2(II)(H);Maine,DOC151.1(VI)(C);Massachusetts,103CMR
421.10;Michigan,DOC04.05.120(O);Minnesota,DD301.085;Mississippi,SOP190101(k);
Nebraska,AR201.05(VI);NewHampshire,DOC7.49(III);NewMexico,CD143001.4.5;North
Carolina,DOC0.0302;NorthDakota,DOC5A20(3)(B);OhioAdmin.Code5120:11015(D);
Oklahoma,OP040204(III);Pennsylvania,DCADM802(A);Tennessee,DOC404.10(VI)(A)(2);
Vermont,DOC410.03;Washington,DOC320.200(II)(B);WestVirginia,PD326.00(V)(B).
ADMINISTRATIVESEGREGATION,DEGREESOFISOLATION,ANDINCARCERATION:ANATIONALOVERVIEWOFPOLICIES
LimanoverviewsegregationJune25,2013final 29

49Florida,Fla.Admin.Coder.33602.220(c);Indiana,02.01.111(V)(A);Maine,DOC151.1(VI)(C)
(72hours);Minnesota,DD301.085(24hours);Mississippi,SOP190101(k)(72hours);Nevada,
AR507.01(2)(72hours).
50Arkansas,AD1142(III)(D);Idaho,DOC319.02.01.001(15);Maryland,DOC.100.0002(18)(B);
Missouri,DOC15211.2(III)(B);Minnesota,DD301.085;Oregon,DOC2910460030;Rhode
Island,ProcedureforClassificationtoCategoryC;Wyoming,P&P3.302(IV)(E)(4).
51NewYork,7NYCRR301.4(d);NewJersey,DOCIMM.012.001(III).
52California,Cal.CodeRegs.tit.15§3335(d);Illinois,Ill.Admin.Codetit.20,§504.660;
Massachusetts,103CMR421.10;RhodeIsland,ProcedureforClassificationtoCategoryC;
SouthDakota,DOC1.3.D.4(IV)(reviewsmustoccurwithin90daysorsooner);Virginia,OP
861.3(9).
53AZDO801.10.1.8.
54California,Cal.CodeRegs.tit.15§3341.5(2);Colorado,65003.IV;Connecticut,AD9.4,
Connecticut,NorthernCorrectionalInstitutionAdministrativeSegregationProgram;Federal
BureauofPrisons,BOP541.439B;FederalBureauofPrisons,InmateHandbookFlorenceADX;
Indiana,0201111;Kentucky,CPP10.2;Minnesota,DD301.083and301.087;Mississippi,SOP
190101(“AdministrativeSegregationStepDownUnit”);NewJersey,IMM.012.001;New
Mexico,CD143002.3;Oklahoma,OP04204(B);Virginia,OP830.2;Washington,DOC320.255;
Wisconsin,Wis.Admin.CodeDOC§308.04(10).
55Connecticut,NorthernCorrectionalInstitutionAdministrativeSegregationProgram;seealso
NewJersey,IMM.012.ADSEG.001(providingforreviewonsixmonthincrementsifassignment
toadministrativesegregationisforaperiodgreaterthanoneyear).
56California,Cal.CodeRegs.tit.15§3335(d);Illinois,Ill.Admin.Codetit.20,§504.660(c);
Massachusetts,103CMR421.18;NewYork,7NYCRR301.4(d);RhodeIsland,Procedurefor
ClassificationtoCategoryC;SouthDakota,DOCpolicy1.3.D.4;Virginia,OP861.3;Washington,
DOC320.250(V)(B)(forIntensiveManagementandTreatmentUnits).
57NewJersey,IMM.012.ADSEG.02(IV)(5).
58NewJersey,IMM.012.ADSEG.001.
59Washington,DOC320.200(III)(C).
60Thetwothatdonotspecifytheofficialsresponsibleforperiodicrevieware:Minnesota,DD
301.085(C)(UnitAd.Seg.);andMontana,MSP3.5.1(H)(1).
THEARTHURLIMANPUBLICINTERESTPROGRAMATYALELAWSCHOOLJUNE2013
LimanoverviewsegregationJune25,2013final30

61Maine,DOC15.1;Maryland,DOC.100.0002(5)(F)(9);NewHampshire,PPD7.14;North
Dakota,5A20(3)(E);Ohio,AR55SPC02(IV),(VI)(B)(4).
62Colorado,AR65003(IV)(J)(4).
63Missouri,IS211.2(III)(A).
64FederalBureauofPrisons,P5217.01.
65Arkansas,AD1142(III)(D)(3);Colorado,AR65003(IV)(J)(4)(DeputyDirectorofPrison
Operationsmustinterviewandapprove);Kansas,IMPP20106(IV).
66Michigan,04.05.120(GGG).
67Michigan,PD04.05.120(GGG).
68Alaska,DOC804.01(VII)(D),Arizona,DO801.10;California,Cal.CodeRegs.Tit.15§3338;
Connecticut,AD9.4(12);Idaho,SOP319.02.01.001(15);Illinois,Iowa,IOHO05(IV)(A)(8);
Kentucky,DOC10.2(II)(H)(3);Maine,DOC151.1(VI);Maryland,DOC100.0002(18)(B)(2);
Massachusetts,103CMR421.18;Michigan,PD04.05.120(EEE)(FFF);Mississippi,SOP1901
01(k),at3;Missouri,IS211.2(III)(B);Minnesota,DD301.085;Nebraska,AR201.05(VI)(C);
Nevada,AR507.01(2)(E);NewHampshire,PPD7.14(III)(M);NewYork,7NYCRR301.4(d)(2);
NorthCarolina,C.0302;NorthDakota;5A20(3)(F);Oklahoma,OPO40204(III)(A)(13);Oregon,
AR2910460025;Pennsylvania,DCADM802,Sec.2(D);SouthDakota,DOCPolicy1.3.D.4(IV);
Tennessee,DOCPolicy404.10(VI)(B)(3);Vermont,410.03(6);Virginia,OP861.3(V)(B)(3);
Washington,DOC320.200(III);Wyoming,P&P3.302(IV)(E).Somestates,suchasWestVirginia,
provideforreview,butnotahearing.WestVirginia,PD326.00(V)(B)(4).
69Arizona,DO801.10.1.1;California,Cal.CodeRegs.Tit.15§3339(b)(1)(48hours);Kentucky,
CPP10.2(II)(H)(3)(A)(48hours);Maine,DOCPolicy15.1(VII)(48hours);Maryland,
DOC.100.0002(18)(B)(2)(a)(24hours);Massachusetts,103CMR421.10(2)(72hours);Michigan,
Mich.Admin.Code.R.791.3315(1)(24hours);Missouri,IS211.2(III)(B)(24hours);Minnesota,
DD301.087(B)(2)(48hoursforadministrativecontrol);Nebraska,AR201.05(VII)(A)(3)(48
hours);NewHampshire,PPD7.14(III)(M)(48hours);Oklahoma,(III)(A)(13)(48hours);South
Dakota,DOCPolicy1.3.D.4(24hours);Washington,DOC320.200(III)(C)(2)(48hours).
70See,e.g.,Alabama,AR436;Maine,DOCPolicy15.1;Missouri,IS211.2(III)(B)(4)(c);Montana,
DOCPolicy4.2.1(IV)(E)(3).
71Alaska,DOC804.01(VII)(E);Arizona,DO801.10;Georgia,SOPIIB090001(VI)(I);Iowa,IOHO
05(IV)(A)(12);Kentucky,CPP10.2(II)(H)(3);Maine,DOC151.1(VI),at7;Massachusetts,103
CMR421.18;Michigan,PD04.05.120(T);Minnesota,DD301.085;Mississippi,SOP190101(k);
Nebraska,AR201.05(VI)(C);NewHampshire,PPDb7.14(III)(O);NewJersey,
ADMINISTRATIVESEGREGATION,DEGREESOFISOLATION,ANDINCARCERATION:ANATIONALOVERVIEWOFPOLICIES
LimanoverviewsegregationJune25,2013final 31

IMM.012.ADSEG.03(IV)(B);NewYork,7NYCRR301.4(d);Nevada,AR507.01(2)(H)(I);Oregon,
AR2910460030;Pennsylvania,DCADM802,Sec.2(D);SouthDakota,DOCPolicy1.3.D.4(IV);
Tennessee,DOCPolicy404.10(IV)(B)(3);Vermont,410.03(6);Wisconsin,Wis.Admin.CodeDOC
§308.04(9);Wyoming,P&P3.302(VI)(E).Includedinthislistarestatesthatprovideautomatic
reviewofplacementinadministrativesegregationafterspecifiedintervalsofperiodicreview
notedabove.Forexample,inWyomingautomaticreviewbysupervisingofficerswithinthe
facilityispermitted,butsuchreviewisnotspecificallycalledan"appeal."SeeWyoming,P&P
3.302(VI)(E).SeealsoIdaho,SOP319.02.01.001;Tennessee,DOCPolicy404.10.
72VirginiaandNorthCarolinaaretwoexamplesofsystemsthatpermittheappealof
classificationdecisionsthroughregulargrievancechannels.See,e.g.,Virginia,OP830.1(X).
73Kentuckyprovidesappealsforadministrativecontrolstatus,butdoesnotspecifywhether
appealsarerequiredforadministrativesegregation.SeeKentucky,CPP10.2(G)(1).
74ThesizeofcellsisdetailedinNewMexico,CD143000(H)(requiring80squarefeet,ofwhich
35mustbeunencumbered)andWyoming,P&P5.302at20(2011)(same).
75StateswithpoliciesthatspecifiedaccesstolightwereConnecticut,AD9.4(4)(A)(requiring
thatcellsbe“adequatelylighted”);Florida,Fla.Admin.Coder.33602.220(4)(d)(providingthat
“whensufficientnaturallightisunavailable,interiorcelllightsshallbeleftonduringdayand
eveninghours”);Georgia,SOPIIB090001(VI)(E)(1)(requiringcellbe“adequatelylighted”);
Hawaii,MaximumControlUnitHandbookII(d)(mandatingthatlightandairfixturesshallnotbe
obstructed);Illinois,20Ill.AdminCode§504.620(b)(4)(“Adequatelightingforreadingand
observationpurposes”);Maine,DOC15.1(VI)(specifying“livingconditionsthatapproximate
thoseofgeneralpopulationprisoners”regardinglight,amongotherconditions);Mississippi,
SOP190101(k),at11(requiring20CandlePowersoflightingineveryadministrative
segregationcell);Montana,DOC3.5.1(III)(C)(2)(requiringthatlockedhousingcellsbe
“adequatelylighted”);Ohio,AR55SPC02(IV)(12)(requiringadequatelightingforreading);
Tennessee,DOCPolicy506.16(IV)(B)(1)(requiring“adequatelighting”);Virginia,OP861.3
(requiringspecialhousingunitstobe“adequatelylighted”);Washington,DOC320.260(I)(e)(1)
(requiringan“adequatelylighted”environment).
76Alaska,DOC804.1(G);Arizona,DO909;Arkansas,AD1142;California,Cal.CodeRegs.tit.15
§3343;Colorado,AR65003(F);Connecticut,AD9.4(4);Delaware,DOCPolicy4.3(VI)(C);
Florida,Fla.Admin.Coder.33602.220(8);Georgia,SOPIIB09010001(VI)(E);Hawaii,Maximum
ControlUnitHandbook;Idaho,319.02.01.001;Illinois,20Ill.AdminCode§504.620(b)(4);
Indiana,Policy0201111;Iowa,IAHO05(IV)(H)(2)(f);Kansas,IMPP12133;Maine,DOC
15.1(VI);Maryland,DOC100.0002(18)(F);Massachusetts,103CMR421.20;Michigan,PD
04.05.120;Minnesota,DD301.083;Mississippi,SOP190101(k);Missouri,IS211.2(III)(E);
Montana,DOC3.5.1(III)(C)(4);Nebraska,AR210.01(III)(C);Nevada,AR507.01(4)(F)&(H);New
Hampshire,PPD7.49(IV)(D)(4);NewJersey,ACSUAdministrationSegregationHandbook;New
Mexico,CD143001.A(R);NorthCarolina,C.1210,C.1212;NorthDakota,DOC5A20(G);Ohio,
THEARTHURLIMANPUBLICINTERESTPROGRAMATYALELAWSCHOOLJUNE2013
LimanoverviewsegregationJune25,2013final32

55SPC02;Oklahoma,OP040204(V);Oregon,AR2910110005;Pennsylvania,DCADM802;
RhodeIsland,PP15.113;Tennessee,DOCPolicy506.16(VI(D)(1);Vermont,DOCPolicy410.06
(Attachment1);Virginia,OP802.1;Washington,DOC320.260(IV)(D)(3);WestVirginia,OP
326.00(I)(V)(B)(12);Wisconsin,Wis.Admin.CodeDOC§308.04(1)(12)(a);Wyoming,P&P
3.302.
77Alaska,DOC804.1(F);Arizona,ADC909;Arkansas,AD1142(C);California,Cal.CodeRegs.tit.
15§3343(i);Colorado,AR65003(IV)(F);Delaware,DOCPolicy4.3(VI)(B)(12);Florida,Fla.
Admin.Coder.33602.220;Hawaii,COR.11.01(3)(l)(h);Idaho,SOP319.01.01.001;Illinois,20Ill.
AdminCode§504.620(s);Indiana,Policy0201111;Iowa,IAHO05(IV)(H)(2)(i);;Kansas,IMPP
12133;Maine,DOCPolicy15.1(VI);Maryland,DOC.100.0002(18)(F);Massachusetts,103CMR
421.20;Michigan,PD04.05.120(5);Minnesota,DD301.085;Mississippi,SOP190101(k);
Missouri,IS211.2(III)(E)(12);Montana,MSP3.5.1;Nebraska,AR210.01(III)(M);Nevada,AR
507(4)(J)(L);NewHampshire,PPD7.49(IV)(D)(13);NewJersey,ACSUAdministrative
SegregationHandbook;NewMexico,CD143000.A(Y);NorthCarolina,C.1221;NorthDakota,
DOC5A20(G);Ohio,AR55SPC02(IV);Oklahoma,OP040204(V);Oregon,AR291110005;
Pennsylvania,DCADM802;RhodeIsland,PP15.113;SouthDakota,DOCPolicy1.3.D.4(IV);
Tennessee,TDOC506.16(VI)(E)(B);Vermont,DOC410.06(Attachment1);Virginia,OP861.3;
WestVirginia,PD326.00(1)(B)(2));Wyoming,P&P3.304(II)(A).
78Alabama,AR431;Alaska,DOC804.1(F);Arizona,DO809(AttachmentB:IncentiveMatrix
Store,PhoneandVisitation);Arkansas,AD1142(c)(18);California,Cal.CodeRegs.tit.15§
3343(j);Colorado,AR65003(IV(F);Connecticut,NorthernCorrectionalInstitution
AdministrativeSegregationProgramDescription;Delaware,DOC4.3(VI)(D)(5);Florida,Fla.
Admin.Coder.33602.220;Georgia,SOPIIBO901001;Hawaii,COR.11.01(3)(1);Idaho,SOP
319.02.01.001(18);Illinois,20Ill.AdminCode§504.620(g);Indiana,IN0201111(IX)(F);Iowa,
IAHO05(IV)(H)(2);Kansas,KSIMPP12133;Kentucky,CPP10.2(I)(7);Maine,DOC15.1;
Massachusetts,103CMR423.09;Michigan,PD04.05.120;Minnesota,DD301.083;Mississippi,
SOP190101(k);Missouri,IS211.2(III)(E)(11);Montana,MSP3.5.1(III)(G);Nebraska,AR
205.03(IV)(B);Nevada,AR507.01(4)(I);NewHampshire,PPD7.49;NewMexico,CD14
3000.A(AA);NorthCarolina,C.1214(b);NorthDakota,DOC5A20(G);Oklahoma,OP040204(V);
Oregon,AR2911300016;Pennsylvania,DCADM802,818;RhodeIsland,PP15.113;South
Dakota,DOC1.5.D.1(IV);Tennessee,DOCPolicy506.16(VI)(E)(3);Vermont,DOC410.06
(Attachment1);Virginia,OP861.3;Washington,DOC320.060(I)(B)(6);WestVirginia,PD
326.00(I)(V)(B)(22);Wisconsin,Wis.Admin.CodeDOC§309.39;Wyoming,P&P5.402.
79Fla.Admin.Coder.33602.220(2)(a).
80NewJersey,IMM.012.ADSEG.03.
81California,Cal.CodeRegs.tit.15§3341.5(2);Colorado,65003.IV;Connecticut,AD9.4,
Connecticut,NorthernCorrectionalInstitutionAdministrativeSegregationProgram;Federal
BureauofPrisons,BOPBOP541.439B;FederalBureauofPrisons,InmateHandbookFlorence
ADMINISTRATIVESEGREGATION,DEGREESOFISOLATION,ANDINCARCERATION:ANATIONALOVERVIEWOFPOLICIES
LimanoverviewsegregationJune25,2013final 33

ADX;Indiana,0201111;Kentucky,CPP10.2;Minnesota,DD301.083and301.087;Mississippi,
SOP190101(“AdministrativeSegregationStepDownUnit”);NewJersey,IMM.012.001;New
Mexico,CD143002.3;Oklahoma,OP04204(B);Virginia,OP830.2;Washington,DOC320.255;
Wisconsin,Wis.Admin.CodeDOC§308.04(10).
82NewMexico,CD143002.3;seealso,NewJersey,IMM.012.ADSEG.03(“Thistwolevelsystem
isdesignedtoencourageinmatestoimprovetheirpatternsofbehaviorthroughgradual
reductionofrestrictions”).
83Mississippi,SOP190101.
84See,e.g.,Colorado,65003.IV;Mississippi,SOP190101(“AdministrativeSegregationStep
DownUnit”);Virginia,OP830.2;Washington,DOC320.255.
85Thediscussionoftheseprogramscomesfrommaterialsinadditiontothepoliciesofthe
state.SeeWashington,DOC320.200,DOC320.255;seealso,WashingtonState,Departmentof
Corrections,ProgramOverview,
http://www.asca.net/system/assets/attachments/5452/Secretary_Warner_ASCA%203.pdf?136
0688604.
86Id.
87Id.
88InstitutionalprovisionsforvisitingingeneralaresummarizedinPrisonVisitationPolicies:A
50StateSurvey.ChesaBoudin,AaronLittman,andTrevorStutz,PrisonVisitationPolicies:A50
StateSurvey(2012),availableathttp://www.law.yale.edu/intellectuallife/limanpubs.htm.The
specificrulesforindividualsinadministrativesegregationarefoundinAlaska,DOC
804.01(VII)(F)(1)(accesstovisitationrestrictedonlyafterindividualizeddeterminationthat
participationthreatensorderandsecurity);Arizona,DO804.01.1.2.13(noncontactvisitation
exceptwhenprecludedbydisciplinarysanctions);Arkansas,AD1142(III)(C)(7)(8)(stipulating
visitsinaseparatevisitingroomandinthepresenceofanofficer);FederalBureauofPrisons,
BOP540.50(permittingvisitingprivilegesasingeneralpopulationunlessindividualized
disciplinaryfinding);California,Cal.CodeRegs.tit.15§3343(f)(inmatesassignedtosegregated
housingpermittedsamevisitationasgeneralpopulation,exceptforinmatesinsecurityhousing
unitswhoarerestrictedtononcontactvisitation);Colorado,AR65003(IV)(F)(1)(j)(permitting
opportunitiesfornoncontactandattorneyvisitingunlesstherearedocumentedsubstantial
reasonsforwithholdingsuchprivileges);Connecticut,NorthernCorrectionalInstitution
AdministrativeSegregationProgramDescription(describingvisitingprivilegesaccordingto
privilegelevel);Delaware,DOCPolicy4.3(VI)(D)(1)(“AdministrativeSegregationoffendershave
opportunitiesforvisitation,unlesstherearesubstantialreasonsforwithholdingsuch
privileges”);Florida,Fla.Admin.Coder.33602.220(5)(i)(permittingvisitationuponadvance
approvalbywardenordesignee,andallowingwardenordesigneetodeterminewhethersuch
THEARTHURLIMANPUBLICINTERESTPROGRAMATYALELAWSCHOOLJUNE2013
LimanoverviewsegregationJune25,2013final34

visitwillbecontactornoncontact;visitationdeniedtoinmates“whoareathreattothe
securityoftheinstitution”)andFla.Admin.Coder.33601.820(5)(e)(onlyspecifyinglegalvisits
forinmatesinmaximummanagement);Georgia,SOPIIB090001(VI)(E)(5)(“visitingand
correspondenceprivilegesaccordedthegeneralpopulationshallbeallowedtoinmatesin
AdministrativeSegregation”);Hawaii,MaximumControlUnitFunctions(allowingone45
minutepersonalnoncontactvisitevery14daysformaximumcustodyinmates)and
COR.11.01(3.1)(f)(allowingnoncontactpersonalvisitsbutcontactofficialvisits);Idaho,SOP
319.02.01.001(18)(allowingonevisitpermonthuponrequest,excludingattorneyvisits,after
twentydaysofdetention);Illinois,Ill.Admin.Codetit.20§505.80(permittingnoncontact
visitsuponadvanceapprovalforallnonattorneyvisitors);Indiana,DOCPolicy0201111(IX)(E)
(allowingaminimumoftwovisitspermonth,withopportunityforcontactdeterminedby
facility);Iowa,IOHO05(IV)(H)(2)(o)(i)(specifying“opportunitiesforvisitationunlessthereare
substantialreasonsforwithholdingprivileges”);Kansas,IMPP20101(III)(B)(“visitationshallbe
allowedonarestrictedbasisunlesstherearesubstantialreasonsforwithholdingthe
privilege”);Kentucky,CPP10.2(II)(I)(6)(providingvisitation“unlessadocumentedreasonfor
withholdingexists”),16.1(II)(G)(2)(“inmatesinSpecialManagementmaybeallowednormal
visitinghoursbutmayberestrictedtoamoresecurevisitingarea”ifathreattosecurityor
orderexists);Maine,DOC15.1(VI)(E)(2)(C)(allowingnoncontactregularvisitsonceperweek
andprofessionalvisitsaspermitted);Maryland,DOC.100.0002(18)(F)(12)(permittingsame
numberanddurationofvisitsasgeneralpopulation,preferablyinseparatevisitingroom,
“consistentwithsecuritystaffingandinstitutionalneeds”);Massachusetts,103CMR421.20(7)
(“inmatesinsegregationshallbeaffordedvisitingprivilegeswhichare,asmuchaspracticable,
thesameasthoseavailabletoinmatesinthegeneralpopulation”);Michigan,PD05.03.140(CC)
(permittingnoncontactvisitsonlyexceptforwithanattorney);Minnesota,DD301.087(E)(11)
(requiringthatinmatesinadministrativesegregationstatushaveaccesstovisiting,and
specifyingCCTVvisitsfourhourspermonthforOakParkHeightsAdministrativeControlUnit,
withincreasedvisitationopportunitiesatwarden’sdiscretion);Mississippi,SOP190101
(permittingnoncontactvisitsbytenvisitorsunlesstherearesubstantialreasonsfor
withholding);Missouri,IS211.2(III)(E)(10)(a)(permittingtwohournoncontactvisitswith
possibilityofadditionalprivileges);Montana,MSP3.5.1(III)(G)(2)(l)(socialandlegalvisitsmust
bepermitted“providedtheinmateisnotunderaproperlyimposedvisitingrestriction”);
Nebraska,AR210.01(III)(J)(allowingnoncontactvisitsforinmatesinintensivemanagement,
contactforadministrativeconfinementunlessinaunitwithtelevisitingcapability);Nevada,AR
507(4)(E)(“administrativesegregationinmateswillbeallowedcontactvisitsunlesssecurityof
theinstitutiondictatesotherwise”);NewHampshire,PPD7.09(IV)(D)(9)(permittingtwovisits
perweekbesidesattorneyandclergyvisits);NewJersey,ACSUAdministrativeSegregation
InmateHandbook(defininglevelsofprogramandcorrespondingnoncontactvisitprivileges);
NewMexico,CD143000(X)(“inmatesinsegregationshallhaveopportunitiesforvisitation
unlesstherearesubstantialreasonsforwithholdingsuchprivileges”);NewYork,7NYCRR
1704.7(d)(permittingonenonlegalvisitperweek,subjecttofurtherrestriction);North
Carolina,C.1215(permittingtwononcontactvisitseverythirtydays);NorthDakota,5A
20(3)(H)(2)(permittingadministrativesegregationinmatesonehourofvisitingtimeoneach
authorizeddayandupto10hourspermonth);Ohio,AR55SPC02(VI)(A)(14)(permitting
ADMINISTRATIVESEGREGATION,DEGREESOFISOLATION,ANDINCARCERATION:ANATIONALOVERVIEWOFPOLICIES
LimanoverviewsegregationJune25,2013final 35

“sameaccesstovisitationasgeneralpopulationunlesssecurityorsafetyconsiderationsdictate
otherwise”);Oklahoma,OP040204(V)(A)(12)(permittingvisitingprivilegesinaccordancewith
levelassignment);Oregon,OAR2911270260(6)(permittingonenoncontactonehour
visit/weekwithtwovisitors);Pennsylvania,DCADM802(§3)(A)(2)(d)(“allvisitsarenon
contact”andgovernedbyprogramphases);RhodeIsland,12.022DOC(III)(E)(2)(onevisitper
week,ifdetainee’sbehaviorpermits,excludingvisitwithattorney);SouthDakota,DOCPolicy
1.3.D.4&1.5.D.1(permittingnoncontactvisits);Tennessee,DOCPolicy506.16(IV)(E)(1)&
507.01.1(allowingvisitsbyfamily,attorney,andministeronly;opportunityforcontactvisits
determinedbyfacility);Vermont,DOCPolicy410.06(permittingonevisitperweek,non
contactorcontactaccordingtofacilityandstepdownstatus);Virginia,OP861.3(V)(D)(16)
(establishingnoncontactvisitation,oneonehourvisitperweekwithnomorethanfive
persons);Washington,DOC320.260(III)(A)(2)(providingfornocontactvisitswithimmediate
familymembers);WestVirginia,PD326.00(V)(B)(18)(“inmatesinsegregationshallhave
opportunitiesforvisitationunlesstherearesubstantialreasonsforwithholdingsuch
privileges”);Wisconsin,Wis.Admin.CodeDOC§§309.09(4)&DOC309.11(1)(allowingone
hourperweek,permittingwardentoimposenoncontactvisitingoninmatesinadministrative
segregation);Wyoming,P&P#5.400(IV)(K)(1)(iv)(requiringprearrangedvisitsforinmatesin
longtermadministrativesegregationandvaryinghoursofnoncontactvisitationpermonth
dependingonlevelofisolation).
89Florida,Fla.Admin.Coder.33602.220(5)(i);Maine,DOC15.1(VI)(E)(2)(C);Oregon,OAR291
1270260;Washington,DOC320.260(III)(A)(2).
90Maine,DOCPolicy15.1(VI)(E).
91Georgia,SOPIIB090001(VI)(E)(5);Hawaii,COR.11.01(3.1)(f);Idaho,SOP319.02.01.001(18);
Illinois,Ill.Admin.Codetit.20,§505.80;Iowa,HO05(H)(2)(h)(i),Kansas,IMPP20101(II)(b);
NewHampshire,PPD7.09(IV)(A)(1);NewYork,7NYCRR302.2(i)(1)(i);RhodeIsland,12.02
2(III)(E)(2);Tennessee,DOC506.16(VI)(E)(1).
92Alaska,DOCPolicy804.01(VII)(G)(2)(b)(4);Arizona,AR911.05.1.4;Arkansas,AD11
42(III)(C)(7)(8);Iowa,HO05(H)(2)(o)(i);Kansas,IMPP10110;Kentucky,CPP10.2(II)(O);Maine,
DOC15.1(VI)(E)(2)(O);Maryland,DOC.100.0002(18)(F)(13)(a);Massachusetts,103CMR
421.20(7);Minnesota,DD301.087(E)(18),301.085(E);Missouri,IS211.2(E)10)(a);Nevada,AR
5074(Q);NewHampshire,PPD7.09(IV)(L);NewJersey,ACSUAdministrativeSegregation
InmateHandbook;NewMexico,CD143005(A)(CC);NorthDakota,5A20(I)(2);RhodeIsland,
12.022(III)(E)(7);SouthDakota,DOCPolicy1.3.D.4(IV);Tennessee,DOC506.16(VI)(E)(12);
Virginia,OP861.3(V)(D)(22)(a).
93Arkansas,AD1142(III)(C)(7).
94Iowa,IADOCHO05((IV)(F)(7).
THEARTHURLIMANPUBLICINTERESTPROGRAMATYALELAWSCHOOLJUNE2013
LimanoverviewsegregationJune25,2013final36

95Illinois,20Ill.AdminCode§504.620(m);Indiana,DOCPolicy0201111(IX)(N);Kentucky,CPP
10.2(II)(O);Maine,DOC15.1(E)(2)(C);NewYork,NYCRR304.9.
96Minnesota,DD301.087(E)(8).
97Nevada,AR5074(Q).
98FederalBureauofPrisons,BOP540.50;Georgia,SOPIIB090001(VI)(E)(5);Massachusetts,
103CMR421.20(7);Maryland,DOC.100.0002(18)(F)(12).
99Connecticut,NorthernCorrectionalInstitutionAdministrativeSegregationProgram
Description;NewJersey,ACSUAdministrativeSegregationInmateHandbook;Tennessee,DOC
506.16(VI)(E)(1);Washington,DOC320.260(III)(A)(2).
100Oregon,OAR2911270260(6);Mississippi,SOP190101.
101Oregon,OAR2911270260.
102NewHampshire,PPD7.09(IV)(A)(2).
103Alabama,AR303(V)(C);FederalBureauofPrisons,P5217.01(5)(a)(10)(“inmatesmaybe
providednoncontactvisits,throughtheuseofvideoconferencingorothertechnology”);
Delaware,DOCPolicy4.3(VI)(D);Georgia,SOPIIB090001(VI)(E)(5);Idaho,SOP
319.02.01.001(18);Kansas,IMPP20101(III)(B);Kentucky,CPP10.2(II)(I)(6),16.1(II)(G)(2);
Massachusetts,103CMR421.20(7);Maryland,DOC.100.0002(18)(F)(12);Montana,MSP
3.5.1(III)(G)(2)(l);NewHampshire,PPD7.09&PPD7.49(IV)(Q);NorthDakota,5A20(H)(2);
Ohio,AR55SPC02(VI)(A)(14);Oklahoma,OP040204(V)(A)(12);RhodeIsland,12.022(III)(E)(2);
WestVirginia,PD326.00(V)(B)(18).
104Arizona,DO911.05.1.3.1;California,Cal.CodeRegs.tit.15§3343(f)(SHUonly);Colorado,AR
65003(IV)(F)(1)(j);Connecticut,NorthernCorrectionalInstitutionAdministrativeSegregation
ProgramDescription;Hawaii,MaximumControlUnitFunctions;Illinois,Ill.Admin.Codetit.20,
§505.80;Maine,DOC15.1(VI)(E)(2)(C);Michigan,PD05.03.140(CC);Minnesota,DD
301.087(E)(11);Mississippi,SOP190101;Missouri,IS211.2(III)(E)(10)(a);Nebraska,AR
210.01(J)(intensivemanagementonly);NewJersey,ACSUAdministrativeSegregationInmate
Handbook;NewMexico,CD143005(D)(5)(A);NorthCarolina,C.1215;NewYork,7NYCRR
1704.7(d);Oregon,OAR2911270260(6);Pennsylvania,DCADM802(§3)(A)(2)(d);Rhode
Island,15.113DOC(III)(D)(CategoryCinmates);SouthDakota,DOCPolicy1.3.D.4&1.5.D.1;
Virginia,OP861.3(V)(D)(16);Vermont,DOC410.06(PhaseI,”wherefacilitydesignallows”);
Washington,DOC320.260(III)(A)(2);Wyoming,P&P5.400(IV)(K)(1)(iv).
105California,Cal.CodeRegs.tit.15§3343(f);Nebraska,AR210.01(J)
ADMINISTRATIVESEGREGATION,DEGREESOFISOLATION,ANDINCARCERATION:ANATIONALOVERVIEWOFPOLICIES
LimanoverviewsegregationJune25,2013final 37

106Alaska,DOC810.02(VII)(C)(2);California,Cal.CodeRegs.tit.15§3343(f)(unlessSHU);
Florida,Fla.Admin.Coder.33602.220(5)(i);Indiana,DOCPolicy0201111(IX)(E);Iowa,IOHO
05(IV)(H)(2)(o)(ii);Kentucky,CPP16.1;Nebraska,AR210.01(J)(unlessintensive
management/SMU);Nevada,AR507(4)(E);Tennessee,DOCPolicy506.16(Procedures)(E)(1)&
507.01.1;Vermont,DOC410.06(PhaseII,atfacilitieswithnoncontactcapability);Wisconsin,
Wis.Admin.CodeDOC§§309.09(4)&DOC309.11(1).
107Alaska,DOC810.02(VII)(C)(2);Florida,Fla.Admin.Coder.33602.220(5)(i);Indiana,DOC
Policy0201111(IX)(E);Iowa,IOHO05(IV)(H)(2)(o)(ii);NewYork,7NYCRR302.2(i)(1)(ii);
Nevada,AR507(4)(E);Tennessee,DOCPolicy506.16(E)(1)&507.01.1;Vermont,DOCPolicy
410.06(PhaseIIonly);Wisconsin,Wis.Admin.CodeDOC§§309.09(4)&DOC309.11(1).
108Vermont,DOC410.06(Attachment1).
109Minnesota,DD301.087(E)(11).
110Delaware,DOC4.3(VI)(D)(1);Iowa,IAHO05(IV)(H)(2)(o)(i);Kansas,IMPP20101(III)(B);
NewMexico,CD143000(X);Virginia,OP861.3(16)(a);Wyoming,P&P5.400(IV)(K).
111Florida,Fla.Admin.Coder.33602.220(5)(i).
112Massachusetts,MA423.09(1)(e).
113Alaska,DOC804.1(VII)(F)(1);FederalBureauofPrisons,BOP540.50(c);Arizona,DOC
911.04.1.2.1;Colorado,COAR6503(F)(1)(j);Connecticut,NorthernCorrectionalInstitution
AdministrativeSegregationProgramDescription;Florida,Fla.Admin.Coder.33602.220(5)(i);
Illinois,Ill.Admin.Codetit.20,§525.20;Indiana,DOC0201111(IX)(E);Iowa,DOCHO
05(IV)(H)(2)(o);Kansas,IMPP20101(III)(B);Kentucky,CPP16.1(G)(2);Louisiana,VisitorsCode
ofConductandGeneralInformation;Massachusetts,103CMR421.20(7);Maryland,
DOC.100.0002(18)(F)(12);Michigan,PD05.03.140(CC)(EE);Mississippi,SOP190101(k);
Montana,DOC3.3.8(IV)(A);Nevada,AR5074(E);NewYork,7NYCRR1704.7(d);Oregon,OAR
2911270260(3)(c)RhodeIsland,12.022(E)(2);TennesseeDOC507.1(VI)(B)(6)(h);Virginia,
DOCOP861.3(16);WestVirginia,PD326.00(V)(B)(18);Wyoming,P&P5.400(IV)(B)(1).
114Florida,Fla.Admin.Coder.33602.220(5)(i);Indiana,DOC0201111(IX)(E);Illinois,Ill.
Admin.Codetit.20,§505.80;Maine,DOC15.1(E)(2)(C);Minnesota,DD301.087(11)&
301.085(E);Mississippi,MSSOP190101(k);NewHampshire,PPD7.09(IV)(I);NewJersey,
IMM.012.001(IV)(I);NewMexico,CD143000(X);Oregon,OAR2911270260;Washington,DOC
320.260(III)(A)(2);Wyoming,DOC5.400(IV)(K).
115Alaska,DOC804.1(VII)(F).
116Kentucky,CPP16.1(G)(2).
THEARTHURLIMANPUBLICINTERESTPROGRAMATYALELAWSCHOOLJUNE2013
LimanoverviewsegregationJune25,2013final38

117Alabama,AR303(V)(A)(4);Alaska,DOC804.1(VII)(F);Arizona,DOC911.04.1.12;Arkansas,AD
1142(III)(C)(8);FederalBureauofPrisons,BOP540.50(c);California,Cal.CodeRegs.tit.15§
3343(f);Delaware,DOC4.3(VI)(D)(1);Florida,Fla.Admin.Coder.33602.220(5)(i);Georgia,SOP
IIB010005(IV)(c);Illinois,Ill.Admin.Codetit.20,§505.80;Iowa,IAHO05(H)(2)(o)(i);Indiana,
DOC0201111(IX)(E);Kansas,IMPP20101(III)(B);Kentucky,CPP16.1(G);Maryland,
DOC.100.0002(18)(F)(12);Massachusetts,103CMR421.20(7);Michigan,PD05.03.140;
Mississippi,SOP190101(k);Montana,MSP3.5.1(III)(G)(2)(1);Nebraska,AR210.01(J);Nevada,
AR507(4)(E);Ohio,AR55SPC02(IV);Oklahoma,OP040204(IV)(A)(12);SouthDakota,DOC
1.5.D.1;Tennessee,507.1,506(16)(E);Wisconsin,Wis.Admin.CodeDOC§309.11(1);Wyoming,
P&P5.400(Wyominghasnotedthatinpractice,inmatesareaffordedvisitationperthelimitsin
thepolicyassuminggoodbehavior.Thepolicy,however,doesnotrequirethefacilitytoallow
visitation.)
118Indiana,INDOC0201111(IX)(E).
119Maryland,DOC.100.0002(18)(F)(12);Mississippi,MSSOP190101(k);Montana,MTDOC
3.3.8;NewHampshire,PPD7.09(IV)(D)(9),Wis.Admin.CodeDOC§308.04(12)(c).
120HawaiiMaximumControlUnitHandbook,at5.
121NorthCarolina,C.1215.
122Pennsylvania,DCADM812(14);DCADM801(6).
123Colorado,AR6503(H);Connecticut,NorthernCorrectionalInstitutionAdministrative
SegregationProgramDescription;NewJersey,IMM.012.001(IV)(I);NewMexico,CD143000,
AttachmentCD143002.AandCD143002.B;Washington,DOC320.255,Attachment1.
124Colorado,AR65003(VI)(H).
125Colorado,AR65003(VI)(H)(AdministrativeSegregationPrivilegeLevels).
126Connecticut,NorthernCorrectionalInstitutionAdministrativeSegregationProgram
Description.
127NewJersey,IMM.012.001(IV)(I).
128Indiana,DOC0201111(IX)(E).
ADMINISTRATIVESEGREGATION,DEGREESOFISOLATION,ANDINCARCERATION:ANATIONALOVERVIEWOFPOLICIES
LimanoverviewsegregationAppendixAJune25,2013 AppendixApage1
AppendixA
SummaryoftheReport
AdministrativeSegregation,DegreesofIsolation,and
Incarceration:ANationalOverviewofStateandFederal
CorrectionalPoliciesintheUnitedStates
TheGoals
Provideanationalportraitofpoliciesontheusesofadministrativesegregation
Understandcommonalitiesandvariationsacrossjurisdictions
Inviteconsiderationabouthow,when,andwhethertouseisolatingsettings
Encourageconversationsacrossperspectivesonthesepractices
Methodology:CollectingPolicies
PhaseI:Reviewpubliclyavailablepolicies
43reviewed,includingviaFOIA
PhaseII:SolicitpoliciesviaASCA;
42receivedasofDecember31,2012
CurrentStatus:
Policiesfrom50jurisdictions,includingFederalBoP
47policiesonadministrativesegregation
ChallengesofComparisons
Var iousterms:
administrativeclosesupervision,administrativeconfinement,administrativesegregation,
behaviormodification,departmentalsegregation,inmatesegregation,intensive
management,lockedunit,maximumcontrolunit,restrictedhousing,securitycontrol,
securityhousingunit,segregatedhousing,specialhousingunit,andspecialmanagement
Differinglevelsofspecificity
Interstateandintrajurisdictionvariation
THELIMANPUBLICINTERESTPROGRAMATYALELAWSCHOOL JUNE2013
LimanoverviewsegregationAppendixAJune25,2013 AppendixApage2
DefiningAdministrativeSegregation
Separationofprisonersfromgeneralpopulationtypicallyinacell(doubleorsingle),for23
hours/day
Generallylongterm:notfixed,eitherindefiniteorrenewable,and30daysormore
Notpunitive,disciplinary,orprotective
PolicieswithGeneralAuthority/FewEnumeratedFactors
“Nonpunitiveplacementofaninmateinacellwhosecontinuedpresenceinthegeneral
populationposesaseriousthreattolife,property,securityortheorderlyoperationofthe
institution.
‐Alabama,AR436.3A
“Anyothercircumstanceswhere,inthejudgmentofstaff,theoffendermayposeathreatto
thesecurityofthefacility.
Arkansas,AR836DOC4.6
“Continuedpresenceinthegeneralpopulationposesathreattolife,property,self,staff,other
offendersortothesafety/securityororderlyoperationofthefacility.
‐Delaware,DOCIV.24A;seealsoPennsylvania,DCADM802,III;
Oklahoma,OP040204.1
“Presenceoftheinmateingeneralpopulationwouldposeaseriousthreattothecommunity,
property,self,staff,otherinmates,orthesecurityorthegoodgovernmentofthefacility.
‐Hawaii,COR.11.01.2.2.a.2;seealsoNorthDakota,DOC
5A20.2.a;Vermont,DOC410.03
“Basedon:1)threatanoffender’scontinuedpresenceinthegeneralpopulationposestolife,
self,staff,otheroffenders,orproperty;2)threatposedbytheoffendertotheorderly
operationandsecurityofthefacility;and3)regulationofanoffendersbehaviorwhich
wasnotwithinacceptablelimitswhileinthegeneraloffenderpopulation.
‐Indiana,DOC0201111–II
Administrativesegregationadmissionresultsfromadeterminationbythefacilitythatthe
inmate’spresenceingeneralpopulationwouldposeathreattothesafetyandsecurityof
thefacility.
‐NewYork,7NYCRR301.4(b)

ADMINISTRATIVESEGREGATION,DEGREESOFISOLATION,ANDINCARCERATION:ANATIONALOVERVIEWOFPOLICIES
LimanoverviewsegregationAppendixAJune25,2013 AppendixApage3
ExampleofEnumeratedCriteria
NebraskaDepartmentofCorrectionalServices,Admin.Reg.201.05
1.Thethreatpotentialtostaffand/orinmatesposedbytheinmate.
2.Thebehaviorsleadingtotheinmate'sreferralorplacementonAdministrative
Segregationstatus.
3.Theinmate'shistoryoforlackofpredatorybehavior.
4.Theinmate'shistoryoforlackofassaultivebehavior.
5.Theinmate'shistoryoforlackofescape/attemptedescapes.
6.Theinmate'shistoryoforlackofmembershipinacriminalthreatgroup.
7.Theinjuriestheinmatemayhavecausedtoothers.
8.Theinmate'suseofweapon(s)inthisorpriorincidents.
9.Theinmate'sdocumentedmentalhealthissues.
10.Theinmate'spriorcriminalhistory.
11.Theinmate'spriordisciplinaryrecord(misconductreports,etc.).
12.Theinmate'shistoryoforlackofillicitdrugusewithintheNebraskaDepartmentof
CorrectionalServices.
13.Theprogrammingthattheinmatehasorhasnotcompleted.
14.Thepriorclassificationdecisionsinvolvingtheinmate’sstatus.
15.Theinmate'sdocumentedbehavior(incidentreports,etc.)andinteractionswithstaff
andotherinmates.
16.TheprofessionaljudgmentandrecommendationsofNebraskaDepartmentof
CorrectionalServicesstaffregardingtheclassificationoftheinmate.
17.Therealorperceivedthreatofharmtotheinmatefromotherinmates.
18.Theinmate'sstatementsregardingadmissionofprioractions,acommitmenttochanging
behavior,andaccountabilityforprioracts.
19.Anyotherinformationregardingtheinmatethattheclassificationauthoritydeems
appropriate.
ExamplesofAdditionalCriteria
“Pendinginvestigationfortrial...orapendingtransfer.”
‐Alaska,804.01
“Disruptivegeographicalgroupand/organgrelatedactivity.
‐BureauofPrisons,P5217.01(2)
“Jeopardizestheintegrityofaninvestigationofanallegedseriousmisconductorcriminal
activity.
‐California,Article7,3335(a)
“Aconvictionofacrimerepugnanttotheinmatepopulation.
‐Florida,Fla.Admin.Coder.33602.220(3)(e)
THELIMANPUBLICINTERESTPROGRAMATYALELAWSCHOOL JUNE2013
LimanoverviewsegregationAppendixAJune25,2013 AppendixApage4
“Thosewhoreceivedunusualpublicitybecauseofthenatureoftheircrime,arrest,ortrial,or
whoareinvolvedincriminalactivityofasophisticatednature,suchasorganizedcrime.
‐Montana,04.05120C(d)
“Thosewithspecialneeds,includingthosedefinedbyage,infirmity,mentalillness,
developmentaldisabilities,addictivedisorders,andmedicalproblems.
‐Montana,04.05120C(f);seealsoKentucky,501KAR6:020;
MarylandDOC.100.00218B(2)(e)
“PrisonertestspositiveforHIVinfectionandissubsequentlyfoundguiltyofamajormisconduct
forbehaviorwhichcouldtransmitHIVinfection.
‐Montana,04.05120L(6)
“Asa‘coolingoff’measure.
‐NorthCarolina,DOCCh.C.1201(A)(4)(e)
“Thereisahistoryofunresponsivenesstocounselingorconventionaldisciplinarysanctionsand
theinmateisflagrantlyorchronicallydisruptivetothesecurityand/ordisciplined
operationoftheinstitution.
‐SouthDakota,1.3.D.4(B)(5)
“Pendingprosecutionanddispositionincriminalcourtforfelonychargesincurredduring
incarceration.
‐Tennessee,VI(d);seealsoMiss.,190101(77)
“Norecordsand/oressentialinformationareavailabletodeterminetheinmate’scustodylevel
orhousingneeds.
‐Pennsylvania,DC–ADM802,Sec.1(A)(1)(j)

ADMINISTRATIVESEGREGATION,DEGREESOFISOLATION,ANDINCARCERATION:ANATIONALOVERVIEWOFPOLICIES
LimanoverviewsegregationAppendixAJune25,2013 AppendixApage5
DiscretionTiedtoApprovalbyWarden,Director,orCommissioner
“Othercircumstancesmaywarrantplacementinadministrativesegregation.Suchplacement
willrequireapprovalbytheDirectorofPrisons.”
‐Colorado,Admin.Reg.65003(IV)(b)(6)
“TheWatchCommander,orhigherauthority,mayorderimmediateAdministrativeSegregation
whenitisnecessarytoprotecttheoffenderorothers.Thisactionisreviewedwithin72
hoursbythefacilityWarden.”
‐Delaware,PolicyNo.4.3(VI)(A)
“AninmatemaybeplacedorretainedinaDSU[DepartmentalSegregationUnit]onlyaftera
findingbytheCommissionerbasedonsubstantialevidencethat,ifconfinedinthegeneral
populationofanystatecorrectionalfacility:(1)Theinmateposesasubstantialthreatto
thesafetyofothers;or(2)Theinmateposesasubstantialthreatofdamagingor
destroyingproperty;or(3)Theinmateposesasubstantialthreattotheoperationofa
statecorrectionalfacility.
‐Massachusetts,PolicyNo.421.09
ExampleofNarrowedCriteria
Virginiareviseditscriteriain2012tonarrowthebasesforplacementinadministrative
segregation.Additionsanddeletionsareshownbelowintrackchanges.
ThefollowingSegregationQualifiersindicatethattheoffendershouldbeconsideredfor
assignmenttoSecurityLevelS:
S1AggravatedAssaultonstaff
S2AggravatedAssaultonInmatew/weaponorResultinginSeriousInjuryw/oweapon
S3RepeatedorContinuousRefusaltoenterGPataSecurityLevel4or5facilityfor12
monthsNotUsed
S4‐SeriousEscapeRisk‐requiringmaximumsecuritysupervision
S5‐CommissionofCrimeofExceptionalViolenceand/orNotoriety
S6‐ExcessiveViolentDisciplinaryChargesreflectinginabilitytoadjusttoalowerlevelof
supervision
S7‐SettingFireResultinginInjurytoPersonsorExtensiveDamagetoStateProperty
S8‐RiotingresultinginInjurytoPersonsorExtensiveDamagetoStateProperty
S9‐SeizingorHoldingHostages
S10‐PossessionofFirearms,Ammunition,Explosives,Weapons
S11‐KnowinglyTransferringHIVorotherDiseasetoAnotherPersonorRefusaltoSubmitto
Test i ng
S12‐GangActivityRelatedtoanyCategoryIOffenseoraDocumentedGangLeadership
Role
S13StaffManipulator/Predator
S14Behaviorthatrepresentsathreatleveltoogreatforthesafetyandsecurityofalower
levelinstitution.
 ‐Virginia,OperatingProcedure830.2,SecurityLevelClassification.
THELIMANPUBLICINTERESTPROGRAMATYALELAWSCHOOL JUNE2013
LimanoverviewsegregationAppendixAJune25,2013 AppendixApage6
InitialPlacementinAdministrativeSegregation
ProcessesforPlacement
DecisionMakers
Committee:  31jurisdictions
Hearingofficer:12jurisdictions
Warden/designee: 3jurisdictions
NoticeandHearings(broadlydefined)
38jurisdictionsspecifyhearings
29jurisdictionsrequirehearingswithin14days
9jurisdictionsdonotspecifythathearingsaretobeprovided
Evidence(broadlydefined)
30jurisdictionsauthorizeinmatepresentationofevidence
8jurisdictionsdonotspecify
InmateAssistance/Representatives
8 jurisdictionsauthorizeassistanceorrepresentatives
10 additionaljurisdictionsprovideforassistanceinspecifiedcircumstances
20 jurisdictionsdonotspecifythatinmatescanhaveassistance
2 jurisdictionsauthorizelawyers/1prohibitslawyers
ReviewandAppeal
Review
Automaticreviewbywarden: 15jurisdictions
Automaticreviewbycentraloffice:9jurisdictions
Appealinmateinitiation
9jurisdictions:inmatesappealeithertocentralofficeortowarden
7jurisdictionsdonotspecifyappealorreviewprocessesspecifictoadministrativesegregation
Somejurisdictionsuseregulargrievanceprocedures
Rateofapproval/reversalunknown
ADMINISTRATIVESEGREGATION,DEGREESOFISOLATION,ANDINCARCERATION:ANATIONALOVERVIEWOFPOLICIES
LimanoverviewsegregationAppendixAJune25,2013 AppendixApage7
PeriodicReview
Everyjurisdictionprovidesperiodicreview
Firstperiodicreview
27jurisdictions:28daysorless 
14jurisdictions:30‐90daysorless
6jurisdictions:6months‐1yearorless 
SubsequentReviews
4jurisdictions:28daysorless 
37jurisdictions:3090daysorless 
6jurisdictions:6months‐1yearorless
2jurisdictions:minimumtimebeforeperiodicreview(120days‐1year)
6jurisdictionsrequireapprovalbycommissioner/deputyfor6months‐1year
4jurisdictionsrequireapprovalbywardenforlongerthan1year
Unknownwhetherthetimingandfrequencyofreviewscorrelatewithdurationin
administrativesegregation
Visitation
Manydecisionsareatfacilitylevel
LegalVisits
Alljurisdictionspermit
10jurisdictionsprovidethatnolimitationsmaybeplacedoncontactwithlawyers
Religiousvisits
20statesexpresslyprovidevisits
PersonalVisits
Alljurisdictionspermitpersonalvisits
4stateslimittoimmediatefamily/relatives
Degreeofcontact:
22barcontactvisits(dependingonkindofsegregation)
11permitcontactvisits
10requirepermissionfromwarden
14policiesdonotspecify
1statetiestoprogressioninprogram
1stateallowsvisitsonlyviaclosedcircuitvideo
THELIMANPUBLICINTERESTPROGRAMATYALELAWSCHOOL JUNE2013
LimanoverviewsegregationAppendixAJune25,2013 AppendixApage8
ResearchQuestionsRaised
Implementation
Basesforplacement
Programopportunities
Durationofsegregation
Degreesofisolation
Mentalhealthimplications
Transferandreturn
Releaseopportunities
Supportforreentry
Recidivism
Demographicdata:age,ethnicity,gender,LGBT,race,religion
Inmates’perspectivesonandexperiencesofisolation
Staffperspectiveson,trainingfor,andexperiencesofimplementingisolation
Utilitiesandcosts
Alternatives
ADMINISTRATIVESEGREGATION,DEGREESOFISOLATION,ANDINCARCERATION:ANATIONALOVERVIEWOFPOLICIES
LimanoverviewsegregationAppendixBJune252013 AppendixBpage1
AppendixB
SummaryofPeriodicReviewProcesses
AdministrativeSegregation,DegreesofIsolation,and
Incarceration:ANationalOverviewofStateandFederal
CorrectionalPoliciesintheUnitedStates
Theintervalslistedbelowarethemaximumdurationspermitted;reviewsmayhappensooner.
StateInterval
No.1
Interval
No.2
Interval
No.3
ReviewingAuthorityReview/
Appeal
AlabamaWeeklyWeekly Weekly InstitutionalSegregation
ReviewBoard,comprisedof
Warden,Chaplain,and
ClassificationSupervisor.1
No
AlaskaMonthlyMonthly Monthly InstitutionalProbation
Officermakesinitial
recommendationto
Superintendent.2
Yes
ArizonaSixmonthsYearly Yearly CorrectionalOfficer,Unit’s
DeputyWarden,and
Warden.Central
ClassificationAdministrator
makesfinaldecision.3
Yes
ArkansasWeekly
(firsttwo
months)
Monthly Monthly “ClassificationCommitteeor
authorizedstaff”.4
No
THELIMANPUBLICINTERESTPROGRAMATYALELAWSCHOOL JUNE2013
LimanoverviewsegregationAppendixBJune25,2013 AppendixBpage2
StateInterval
No.1
Interval
No.2
Interval
No.3
ReviewingAuthorityReview/
Appeal
California180days180days 180days InstitutionalClassification
CommitteeorClassification
StaffRepresentative5
(indeterminateSHU)
No
180days180days 180days InstitutionalClassification
Committee6
(administrativesegregation
toinvestigategang
affiliation)
No
90days90days 90days InstitutionalClassification
Committee;Departmental
ReviewBoardcangrant
release.7
(administrativesegregation
pendinginvestigationof
“nondisciplinaryreasonsfor
segregation”)
No
ColoradoWeekly
(firsttwo
months)
Monthly Monthly InternalClassification
CommitteeandAppointing
Authority,subjectto
approvalfromtheDeputy
DirectorandCentral
ClassificationCommittee8
No
Connecticut Weekly
(firsttwo
months)
Monthly Monthly UnitManager,Classification
CounselorSupervisor,Major
ofProgramsandServices,
andendorsedbytheUnit
No
ADMINISTRATIVESEGREGATION,DEGREESOFISOLATION,ANDINCARCERATION:ANATIONALOVERVIEWOFPOLICIES
LimanoverviewsegregationAppendixBJune252013 AppendixBpage3
StateInterval
No.1
Interval
No.2
Interval
No.3
ReviewingAuthorityReview/
Appeal
10month
minimum
program
MonthlyMonthly Administrator.Removal
mustbeapprovedbythe
DirectorofOffender
ClassificationandPopulation
Management.9
No
Delaware7days30days 30days Warden(beyond30days);
Commissioner(beyond1
year).10
No
FederalBureauof
Prisons
Weekly
(first
month)
Monthly Monthly SegregationReviewOfficer
(AdministrativeDetention)11
Yes
28days90days 90days DisciplinaryHearingOfficer;
mustbeapprovedby
RegionalDirector.12
(SpecialManagementUnit)
Note:entireprogram
expectedtotake1824
months
Yes
FloridaWeeklyMonthly Monthly Weeklyinitialreviewsby
InstitutionalClassification
Team;monthlyreviewsby
StateClassificationOffice.13
No
GeorgiaWeekly
(firsttwo
months)
Monthly Monthly Counselorinformallyreviews
andreportstowardenthe
inmate’swellbeingforfirst
twomonths,while
ClassificationCommittee
reviewseverythirtydays.14
Yes
THELIMANPUBLICINTERESTPROGRAMATYALELAWSCHOOL JUNE2013
LimanoverviewsegregationAppendixBJune25,2013 AppendixBpage4
StateInterval
No.1
Interval
No.2
Interval
No.3
ReviewingAuthorityReview/
Appeal
HawaiiWeeklyWeekly Weekly Wardenwithinfirstfive
days,thenFacility
ClassificationCommittee
thereafter.15
No
IdahoMonthly
(first90
days)
120days 120days RestrictiveHousingReview
Committee,normallythe
CaseManagementTeam.16
No
Illinois90days90days 90days ChiefAdministrative
Officer.17
No
IndianaWeekly
(firsttwo
months)
Monthly Monthly ClassificationCommittee
(facilitylevelsegregation
unit)or“staffdesignatedby
theFacilityHead.”18
No
Unspecifiedfor“DepartmentWideSegregation”
IowaWeekly
(firsttwo
months)
Monthly Monthly Committee,definedas“Unit
ManagementTeam,
ClassificationTeam,
TreatmentTeam,or
SegregationReviewTeam.”19
Yes
ADMINISTRATIVESEGREGATION,DEGREESOFISOLATION,ANDINCARCERATION:ANATIONALOVERVIEWOFPOLICIES
LimanoverviewsegregationAppendixBJune252013 AppendixBpage5
StateInterval
No.1
Interval
No.2
Interval
No.3
ReviewingAuthorityReview/
Appeal
KansasWeekly
(first
month)
Monthly Monthly AdministrativeSegregation
ReviewBoard(oneclinical
staffmember,onesecurity
staffmember,andone
classificationstaffmember).
ProgramManagement
Committeewillreview
inmatesinAdministrative
Segregationevery180days.
Wardensubmitsreporton
allinmatesinAdministrative
Segregationformorethan1
year.20
Yes
(placements
over1year)
KentuckyWeekly
Weekly Weekly ClassificationCommittee.21
(AdministrativeSegregation)
No
90days 30days 30days ClassificationCommittee.22
(AdministrativeControl)
Yes
Maine72hoursWeekly
(firsttwo
months)
Monthly ChiefAdministrativeOfficer
(initialreview);Unit
ManagementTeam
(monthlyreviews);
Commissioner(after6
months).23
Yes
MarylandMonthlyMonthly Monthly CaseManagementTeam
recommendation,and
approvalbymanaging
officialordesignee;
commissioner(morethan1
year).24
No
THELIMANPUBLICINTERESTPROGRAMATYALELAWSCHOOL JUNE2013
LimanoverviewsegregationAppendixBJune25,2013 AppendixBpage6
StateInterval
No.1
Interval
No.2
Interval
No.3
ReviewingAuthorityReview/
Appeal
MassachusettsWeekly
(firsttwo
months)
Monthly Monthly CorrectionalProgram
Officer,approvedby
DirectorofClassification.
(SpecialManagementUnit)25
Yes
90days90days 90days DepartmentalSegregation
Unit(DSU)Boardand
approvalbyCommissioner.26
Yes
MichiganWeekly
(firsttwo
months)
Monthly Monthly SecurityClassification
Committee(includes
consultationwithmental
healthprofessional);
Warden(writtenapproval30
daysormore;personal
interview,6monthsor
more);RegionalPrison
Administrator(personal
interview12monthsor
more).27
Yes
Minnesota24hours
(unitad.
seg.)
Weekly
(firsttwo
months)
Monthly Unspecified28 Yes
6months
(admin.
control
status)
6months 6months AdministrativeControlUnit
QuarterlyReviewCommittee
(includesProgramDirector,
UnitLieutenant,case
manager,mentalhealth
professional,educationstaff
member).29
Yes
ADMINISTRATIVESEGREGATION,DEGREESOFISOLATION,ANDINCARCERATION:ANATIONALOVERVIEWOFPOLICIES
LimanoverviewsegregationAppendixBJune252013 AppendixBpage7
StateInterval
No.1
Interval
No.2
Interval
No.3
ReviewingAuthorityReview/
Appeal
Mississippi72hoursWeekly
(firsttwo
months)
Monthly ClassificationHearing
Officer;30maybeappealedto
Warden
(Segregation)
Yes
90days90days 90days UnitReviewTeam(Warden,
DeputyWarden,Case
Manager,Unit
Administrator)makes
recommendationstoDeputy
Administrator(retention);
Administrator(release).31
(LongtermSegregation)
Yes
Missouri30days90days 90days AdministrativeSegregation
Committee(chairedbythe
FunctionalUnitManager
withacaseworkerand
correctionsofficers);12
monthsormore,Deputy
Director.32
No
MontanaMonthlyMonthly Monthly Notspecified.33Yes
NebraskaWeekly
(firsttwo
months)
14days 14days Warden.34 Yes
Nevada72hoursMonthly Monthly ClassificationCommittee.35No
NewHampshireWeekly
(firsttwo
months)
Monthly Monthly SHUUnitTeam;Warden(3
months);Commissioner(6
months).36
No
THELIMANPUBLICINTERESTPROGRAMATYALELAWSCHOOL JUNE2013
LimanoverviewsegregationAppendixBJune25,2013 AppendixBpage8
StateInterval
No.1
Interval
No.2
Interval
No.3
ReviewingAuthorityReview/
Appeal
NewJerseyEvery2
months
(firstyear)
6months 6months SpecialAdministrative
SegregationReview
Committee.37
No
NewMexicoWeekly
(firsttwo
months)
Monthly Monthly ReviewbyClassification
Committee(Classification
BureauChief,Deputy
ClassificationBureauChief,
andUnitManagement
Team).38
No
NewYork60days60days 60days Committeeconsistingof“a
memberoffacilityexecutive
staff,asecuritysupervisor,
andamemberofthe
guidanceandcounseling
staff.”39
Yes
NorthCarolina7days 30days 60 days CaseManager(7‐and30
dayreviews);Facility
ClassificationCommittee
(60dayreview).After60
daysmaybereferredto
Director’sClassification
Committeefor“intensive
controlassignment.”40
Yes
(standard
grievance
process)
NorthDakotaWeekly
(firsttwo
months)
Monthly Four
Months
AdministrativeSegregation
Committee;Warden(four
months);Director(yearly).41
No
ADMINISTRATIVESEGREGATION,DEGREESOFISOLATION,ANDINCARCERATION:ANATIONALOVERVIEWOFPOLICIES
LimanoverviewsegregationAppendixBJune252013 AppendixBpage9
StateInterval
No.1
Interval
No.2
Interval
No.3
ReviewingAuthorityReview/
Appeal
OhioWeekly
(firsttwo
months)
Monthly 180days UnitTeam(unitmanager,
casemanagers,and
correctionalcounselors
(sergeants));mayconsistof
justonemember.Director
mustapprovepast180
days.42
No
OklahomaWeekly
(firsttwo
months)
Monthly Monthly ClassificationCommittee.43No
OregonMonthlyMonthly Monthly SpecialPopulation
ManagementCommittee
(SPM)(atleastthree
departmentstaffmembers,
toincludearepresentative
fromInstitutionOperations,
BehavioralHealthServices,
andtheOfficeofPopulation
Management)(afterfirst30
days),thenSpecialNeeds
InmateEvaluation
Committee.44
No
PennsylvaniaWeekly
(firsttwo
months)
Monthly Monthly Counselor(interviews
weekly);ProgramReview
Committee(firsttwo
months);UnitManagement
Team(monthly).45
Yes
RhodeIsland90days90days 90days ClassificationBoard.
ClassCinmates46
No
THELIMANPUBLICINTERESTPROGRAMATYALELAWSCHOOL JUNE2013
LimanoverviewsegregationAppendixBJune25,2013 AppendixBpage10
StateInterval
No.1
Interval
No.2
Interval
No.3
ReviewingAuthorityReview/
Appeal
SouthDakota90days90days 90days AdministrativeSegregation
HearingBoard(generallya
Captainandtwounit
managers).47
Yes
TennesseeWeekly
(firsttwo
months)
Monthly Monthly AdministrativeReviewPanel,
approvedbyWarden;
DirectorofClassificationand
AssistantCommissionerof
OperationsreviewifWarden
continuessegregation
againstPanel’s
recommendationforfour
consecutivemonths.48
No
VermontWeekly 30days
60days SegregationReview
Committee,approvedby
Superintendent;approved
byDeputyCommissioner
(after60days).49
No
VirginiaWeekly
(firsttwo
months)
Monthly Monthly SpecialHousingUnit
Supervisor.50
Yes
(standard
grievance
process)
90days90days 90days InstitutionalClassification
Authority.51
(formalreview)
Yes
(standard
grievance
process)
ADMINISTRATIVESEGREGATION,DEGREESOFISOLATION,ANDINCARCERATION:ANATIONALOVERVIEWOFPOLICIES
LimanoverviewsegregationAppendixBJune252013 AppendixBpage11
StateInterval
No.1
Interval
No.2
Interval
No.3
ReviewingAuthorityReview/
Appeal
Washington2days 14days 30days ClassificationTeam.
(AdministrativeSegregation;
limitof47days,thenmaybe
transferredtoIMU)
No
180days180days 180days ClassificationTeam;release
fromIMU/ITUmustbe
approvedbyAssistant
Secretary.
(Intensive
Management/Treatment
Unit)52
No
WestVirginiaWeekly
(firsttwo
months)
Monthly Monthly ClassificationCommittee“or
otherauthorizedstaff
group.”53
No
WisconsinWeeklyMonthly Monthly AdministrativeConfinement
ReviewCommittee;Warden
(morethan12months).54
Yes
WyomingWeekly
(firsttwo
months)
Monthly Monthly UnitManagementTeam,
approvedordeniedby
Warden.CentralOffice
Teamreviewconducted
every180days.55
Yes
THELIMANPUBLICINTERESTPROGRAMATYALELAWSCHOOL JUNE2013
LimanoverviewsegregationAppendixBJune25,2013 AppendixBpage12
APPENDIXB—ENDNOTES

1Alabama,AR436(V)(A)(2).
2Alaska,AKDOC804.01(VII)(D).
3Arizona,AZDO801.10.
4Arkansas,AD1142(III)(D)(1).
5Cal.CodeRegs.tit.15,§3335(e).
6Cal.CodeRegs.tit.15,§§3335(d)(2),3341.5(c)(5).
7Cal.CodeRegs.tit.15,§3335(d)(3).
8Colorado,AR65003,(IV)(J)(2).
9NorthernCorrectionalInstitutionAdministrativeSegregationProgram.
10Delaware,DOCPolicyNo.4.3(VI)(A)(3).
11FederalBureauofPrisons,BOP541.23.
12FederalBureauofPrisons,P5217.01.
13Fla.Admin.Coder.33602.220.8.
14Georgia,SOPIIB090001(VI)(H)(I).
15Hawaii,COR.11.01(3.0)(b);COR.11.04(4.0)(5)(e).
16Idaho,SOP319.02.01.001(10),(15).
17Ill.Admin.Codetit.20,§504.660(c).
18Indiana,Policy0201111(VII).
19Iowa,IOHO05(III);IOHO05(IV)(A)(7).
20Kansas,IMPP20106.
ADMINISTRATIVESEGREGATION,DEGREESOFISOLATION,ANDINCARCERATION:ANATIONALOVERVIEWOFPOLICIES
LimanoverviewsegregationAppendixBJune252013 AppendixBpage13

21Kentucky,CPP10.2(II)(M)(2)(d).
22Kentucky,CPP10.2(II)(M)(3)(a)(5).
23Maine,DOC15.1.
24Maryland,DOC.100.0002(5)(D)(F);DOC.100.0002(18)(B).
25Massachusetts,103CMR423.08;103CMR420.09.
26Massachusetts,103CMR421.15421.18.
27Michigan,PD04.05.120(BBB)(GGG).
28Minnesota,DD301.085(C).
29Minnesota,DD301.087(G).
30Mississippi,SOP190101.
31Mississippi,SOP190103.
32Missouri,IS21.1.2(III)(B).
33Montana,DOC3.5.1(III)(H)(1).
34Nebraska,AR201.05(IV)(C),(VI)(A&B).
35Nevada,AR507.01(2)(I).
36NewHampshire,PPD7.14(III)(1)(H)(1),(VI)(2).
37NewJersey,IMM.012.ADSEG.02(IV).
38NewMexico,CD143000.5(I)(J).
397NYCRR301.4(d)(1).
40NorthCarolina,C.0302.Thetextstatesthata“designatedstaffmember”willconductthe
reviews;representativesfromNorthCarolinaDOCinformedusthatcasemanagerstypically
performthesereviews.
41NorthDakota,5A20(3)(E).
THELIMANPUBLICINTERESTPROGRAMATYALELAWSCHOOL JUNE2013
LimanoverviewsegregationAppendixBJune25,2013 AppendixBpage14

42OhioAdmin.Code5120913.1(H,I);55SPC02(IV),(VI)(B)(4).
43Oklahoma,OPO40204(III)(A)(7).
44Oregon,AR2910460005;2910460025;2910460090.
45Pennsylvania,DCADM802(2)(D).
46RhodeIsland,ProcedureforClassificationtoCategoryC.
47SouthDakota,DOCPolicy1.3.D.4.
48Tennessee,DOCPolicy404.10(VI)(B).
49Vermont,410.03(6).
50Virginia,OP861.3(V)(B)(3).
51Virginia,OP861.3(IX)(A)(5).
52Washington,DOC320.200(III)(C);DOC320.250.
53WestVirginia,DOC326.00(V)(B)(4).
54Wisconsin,Wis.Admin.CodeDOC§308.04(10)(11).Inmatesmayappealtheirplacement
aftersixmonths.ThetwelvemonthreviewbytheWardenisautomatic.
55Wyoming,P&P3.302(IV)(E)(F).NotealsothatincaseswheretheUnitManagementTeam
recommendsreleasebuttheWardendisagrees,thatdisagreementgivestheinmatetherightto
appealtotheWyomingDOCPrisonDivisionAdministrator.Wyoming,P&P3.302(IV)(E)(5)(ii).
... The conditions of confinement in these spaces including few showers, limited recreation time, minimal (if any) programming, and nearly no connections to the general prison population and the outside world, may worsen the already tough conditions of prison life. Existing research in RHU settings underscores how these conditions impact residents' physical and mental health (Cloud et al. 2015;Haney 2003;Metcalf et al. 2013;Wynn and Szatrowski 2003). Although some research purports resident behavior in the general prison population and after release from prison is not significantly impacted by lived experience in solitary confinement or the RHU (Labrecque, Mears, and Smith 2020;Morgan et al. 2016;Morris 2016;Woo et al. 2020), less is known about how these conditions foster, or potentially exacerbate, maladaptive and deviant behaviors while living inside the unit (Kupers 2008;Rocheleau 2015). ...
... Residents are placed on AC status in the RHU if they: (1) are deemed a danger to themselves, other residents, staff, or the safety of the institution (e.g. individuals who are high ranking gang members, those with a history of institutional violence, celebrities); (2) feel unsafe in general population, or (3) completed DC placement time and are now awaiting bed placement in general population (Metcalf et al. 2013). For those living in the RHU under AC status, the time is typically unspecified and may last an entire incarceration term. ...
... For those living in the RHU under AC status, the time is typically unspecified and may last an entire incarceration term. Some state prison systems have a third pathway, or a separate protective custody (PC) status for residents who perceive threats to their safety while living in general population (Metcalf et al. 2013). In these cases, prison administrators may agree to move an individual from general population to the RHU for an indefinite period, or until they are transferred to another prison and separated from their perceived threat. ...
Article
The deprived nature of restricted housing units (RHUs) leaves residents fraught with an innumerable amount of strain. Coupled with a problematic grievance system, the social structure of RHUs can prevent residents from attaining desired goals of basic needs through conventional/formal RHU routines and processes. Framing our data using Merton’s strain theory, we find some residents turn to deviant innovative behaviors as a means of achieving basic goals when they have no legitimate way of attaining them otherwise. Analyzing data from interviews with 44 male residents, our study examines the characteristics of RHU residents’ innovation. Our findings show these innovative behaviors are characterized by the number of actors, the communication style of the behavior, and the degree of violence. These findings begin to unpack how extremely punitive and tightly controlled sanctions may work in counterproductive ways. We also discuss the theoretical and policy implications of this contradictory behavior and what it means for prison administrators.
... Another group of researchers from the Liman Program at the Yale Law School published a review of prison administrative segregation policies in 2013 (see Metcalf et al., 2013). This report largely included qualitative excerpts from the policies in 46 state and federal prison systems, which were discussed along the themes of criteria and procedures for placement, periodic review standards, and the conditions of confinement (see also Baumgartel et al., 2015). ...
... To avoid any confusion, we use the term administrative segregation when referring to this type of housing regardless of what authorities call it among the different jurisdictions. This study expands upon the prior reviews in this area (Butler et al., 2012(Butler et al., , 2014Metcalf et al., 2013) by involving a more recent collection of policies and moving beyond summarizing the language to concentrate on four critical elements in these documents: placement criteria, review procedures, mental health provisions, and the conditions of confinement. ...
Article
The use of administrative segregation in prison is a controversial correctional policy. Proponents argue this type of housing is necessary for maintaining institutional safety and order, while critics contend it is damaging to inmate mental health. Despite the increase in academic attention over the last decade, there is much that remains unknown about the uses and effects of this practice. This study addresses this gap in knowledge by content-analyzing the administrative segregation policies of 48 state and federal prison systems. The results provide evidence of consistency and discrepancy across key elements of these policies, including placement criteria and review procedures. Findings further highlight how basic information regarding mental health provisions and conditions of confinement are missing from a substantial number of policies. This investigation emphasizes a need for more governmental accountability and transparency in the use of this correctional policy and identifies several areas for future research.
... Defined as the separation of an inmate from the general population, all forms of SC generally involve confinement to a single cell within a designated unit with increased security. Inmates remain in these cells for upward of 22 hr a day (Metcalf et al., 2013;Shames et al., 2015) with minimal social contact and reduced programming as well as privileges (Frost & Monteiro, 2016;Haney, 2017;Kurki & Morris, 2001). SC can typically be used as a disciplinary measure (disciplinary segregation [DS]), for the security of the establishment and other inmates (administrative segregation [AS]), or for the protection of segregated inmates themselves (protective custody [PC] or in AS; Shalev, 2008;Shames et al., 2015). ...
Article
Recidivism among released inmates is associated with a substantial societal burden given the financial and medical consequences of victimization. Among incarcerated North Americans, approximately 7% are housed in solitary confinement (SC). Studies show SC can lead to psychological deterioration and dispute it can effectively reduce institutional misconduct or recidivism. This meta-analysis aims to clarify the impact of SC on postrelease recidivism, which we hypothesized would increase following SC. A meta-analysis was conducted using PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases from inception until December 2019. Studies on adult inmates in correctional settings were included if they met an operational definition of SC, measured recidivism, and included a comparison group in general inmate population. Random-effect models were used to assess the impact of SC on multiple types of recidivism. Of the 2,713 identified records, 12 met inclusion criteria (n = 194,078). A moderate association was found between SC and any recidivism (odds ratio [OR] = 1.67, 95% confidence interval [1.41, 1.97]), which persisted in controlled studies (OR = 1.41). This association was replicated across types of recidivism comprising violence (OR = 1.41), rearrests (OR = 1.37), and reincarceration (OR = 1.67). Moreover, a more recent exposure to SC increased recidivism risk (OR = 2.02), and a dose-response relationship was found between days in SC and recidivism. The overall database presented high heterogeneity but no publication bias. Findings show a small to moderate association between SC and future crime/violence. Considering the societal costs associated with antisocial behaviors following SC, mental health and psychosocial programming facilitating inmates' successful reentry into society should be implemented and rigorously evaluated in strong research design.
... being handcuffed and shackled at the waist and placed in leg irons when leaving the cell for any reason). Moreover, they are granted limited access to recreational activities and services that are available to the general correctional population, such as psychological or psychiatric treatment (Metcalf et al. 2013). Meetings with mental health providers are frequently conducted through the cell door (Butler et al. 2014). ...
Article
The aim of this meta‐analysis was to examine the association between any mental health problem and the risk of being placed into solitary confinement in correctional settings. PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science and Google Scholar were searched from each database’s inception date to November 2019. All publications assessing both mental health problems and placement into solitary confinement in a sample of adult inmates in correctional settings were included. The meta‐analysis was performed using random‐effects models. Heterogeneity among study point estimates was assessed with Q statistics and quantified with I2 index. Publication bias was assessed with funnel plots. Guidelines from Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) were followed throughout. After screening 2777 potential studies, 11 studies were included amounting to a total of 163 414 inmates. Included studies comprised of a mix of mental disorders rather than a specific diagnosis per se. The odds ratio (OR) from the pooled studies was 1.62 (confidence interval (CI) = 1.21–2.15). The observed relationship remained unchanged regardless of the removal of outliers (OR = 1.63, CI = 1.47–1.80) and regardless of the adjustment of confounders (OR = 1.58, CI = 1.32–1.88). The present study shows a moderate association between any mental health problem and placement into solitary confinement within a considerable sample of inmates. As more individuals suffering from mental illness enter the correctional system, it is essential that correction officials create new safe interventions to manage these inmates and offer them proper mental health care to limit the use of solitary confinement, which may have deleterious effects.
... Nevertheless, confidence in the results will emerge only with additional studies in other jurisdictions that examine the effect of disciplinary segregation on inmate misconduct as well as studies that examine the extent to which identified effects vary among men inmates and women inmates, respectively. Given policy differences in admission criteria, conditions of confinement, and length of stay restrictions across correctional agencies (see, for example, Metcalf et al., 2013), more research is also needed to assess if the findings in this state system generalize to other jurisdictions or extend to other forms of restrictive housing (e.g., administrative segregation, protective custody) and longer periods of follow-up. In addition, the analyses focused only on disciplinary segregation during the initial months of incarceration. ...
Article
Scholars and policymakers have advanced different arguments for why restrictive housing may improve or worsen inmate behavior, yet few studies exist that assess the impact of this housing on such outcomes. This study draws upon prior theory and research to hypothesize that inmate adjustment will worsen after placement in disciplinary segregation among a three-year admission cohort of inmates from a large Midwestern state department of corrections (N = 40,979), and further that this effect will be more harmful to men. The results of our propensity score matching analyses reveal the use of disciplinary segregation is associated with a greater probability of misconduct among men and has no appreciable effect on women. These findings challenge the view that disciplinary segregation is an effective strategy for improving inmate behavior in prison. This work further highlights the need for continued research on the utility of restrictive housing.
... Most states define SC as the physical isolation of an inmate through segregation from the general population for a specified period of time (Metcalf et al., 2013), with heavily restricted human contact and limited physical activity (Fathi, 2015;Haney, 2003;Pizarro & Narag, 2008;Shalev, 2015;Shames et al., 2015). SC is often used interchangeably with restrictive segregation (RS), administrative segregation (AS), DS, special management unit (SMU), protective custody (PC), and security housing unit (SHU) (Fathi, 2015;Mears et al., 2019;Shames et al., 2015). ...
Article
Full-text available
Disciplinary segregation (DS) is practiced in a variety of correctional settings and a growing body of research explores its subsequent effects among offenders. The present study contributes to this literature by analyzing the impact of short-term DS on violent infractions and community recidivism among a sample of inmates in Washington State. We assessed the impact of DS on these outcomes from deterrence and stain theory perspectives while controlling for social support variables such as visitations and correctional programming. Mentally ill offenders were excluded, as their abilities to make rational choices may be inconsistent with deterrence theory. Results show DS does not significantly affect post-DS infractions. Social supports significantly reduced inmates’ odds of violent infractions while incarcerated. Community models indicate no substantive differences between the DS and non-DS groups on post-prison convictions 3 years after release. Overall, DS exhibited limited effects on offenders’ institutional or community outcomes.
... For example, confinement practices vary across facility type (e.g. federal prisons vs. local jails) as well as geographic location (Metcalf et al. 2013). In addition, numerous studies find that Black and Latino inmates are more likely than Whites to be placed in solitary confinement and for longer periods of time (Reiter 2012;Mears and Bales 2010;Schlanger 2012;Kim et al. 2012; Association of State Correctional Administrators and The Arthur Liman Public Interest Program, Yale Law School 2016). ...
Article
Full-text available
In September 2013, the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) issued a directive regarding the use of solitary confinement for ICE detainees. Among other provisions, the directive mandated reporting on the rationale behind decisions to place a detainee into solitary confinement, with particular emphases on placements lasting more than 14 days and for reasons related to illness and other “special vulnerabilities.” This paper analyzes administrative data from ICE, gathered via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, on the use of solitary confinement per the 2013 ICE directive. The FOIA request covers 1193 incidents of solitary confinement from the beginning of the directive (September 2013) through the date of the FOIA request (September 2016), across six facilities under the jurisdiction of two California Field Offices (Los Angeles and San Francisco). Results reveal significant differences in the use of solitary confinement by gender, mental illness status, whether the confined individual had an attorney, Field Office jurisdiction, and individual facility. In addition, we document the extensive use of solitary confinement for “protective custody” and show that this category is potentially punitive in nature. Given the limited nature of access to information on ICE detainees, this is one of the only analyses of solitary confinement in immigrant detention facilities in the United States.
... Although it may be tempting to conclude from such research that RH has a criminogenic effect, these studies involve nonequivalent comparison groups. Correctional administrators place inmates in RH for chronic or serious misbehavior, or when administrators feel it is unsafe to manage them in the general population (Metcalf et al., 2013). Inmates in RH thus tend to possess more extensive criminal histories and other criminogenic risk factors than the inmates in the general population (Labrecque, 2017). ...
... Restrictive housing-also referred to as solitary confinement, administrative segregation, and supermax custody-involves the isolation of an inmate in a setting that provides little to no opportunity for meaningful contact with other individuals (Journal of Correctional Health Care, 2016). Inmates held in restrictive housing settings are often confined to a single cell for 22-23 hr/day and are provided with minimal cell accommodations (Metcalf et al., 2013). Segregated inmates must eat, sleep, and use the toilet in their cell (Browne et al., 2011). ...
Article
Two competing views on the use of restrictive housing have emerged in the literature. The first position has argued that restrictive housing helps make correctional institutions safer and more secure environments, largely by incapacitating violent and dangerous inmates. In contrast, a second perspective has maintained that restrictive housing not only causes serious psychological damage and increases criminal coping, but also that it has served as a mechanism for officials to punish certain groups of inmates unfairly. This study tests these competing hypotheses by meta-analyzing the literature on the predictors of placement in restrictive housing. The results of this investigation provide support for both perspectives. The implications of the study's findings are discussed.
Article
Inmates who violate prison rules and regulations may be confined in disciplinary segregation as a punishment, which includes a loss of privileges and reduced opportunities to socialize and participate in prison programming. Few studies have explored the relationship between confinement in disciplinary segregation and recidivism. In this study, data collected from offenders released to postrelease supervision in Ohio are used to examine how various types of exposure to confinement in disciplinary segregation influence the odds of recidivism. In addition, confinement in disciplinary segregation in the months preceding release from prison is examined by use of difference of means tests. We found that confinement in disciplinary segregation and the timing of confinement prior to release are associated with increased odds of recidivism.
Another provision of Illinois law, Ill. Admin. Code §505.60, outlines processes for transfers to the Tamms Correctional Center
  • West Virginia
West Virginia, PD 326.00. Another provision of Illinois law, Ill. Admin. Code §505.60, outlines processes for transfers to the Tamms Correctional Center; since we began this research, Illinois has closed that facility. Thus, we do not include that provision in this report.
0302(d) (facility-level committee reviews placements up to 60 days)
  • C North Carolina
North Carolina, C.0302(d) (facility-level committee reviews placements up to 60 days);
0302(d) ("Director's Classification Committee
  • C North Carolina
North Carolina, C.0302(d) ("Director's Classification Committee" reviews longer-term referrals to intensive control);
DO 801.10; California
  • Arizona
Arizona, DO 801.10; California, Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15 §3337;
2(H)(3); and Tennessee
  • Kentucky
Kentucky, PP 10.2(H)(3); and Tennessee, DOC 404-10-(VI)(A)2).
05(VII)(B); New Jersey
  • Nebraska
Nebraska, AR 201.05(VII)(B); New Jersey, IMM.012.ADSEG.001; North Carolina, C.302(d);
Procedure for Classification to Category C
  • Rhode Island
Rhode Island, Procedure for Classification to Category C; South Dakota, DOC 1.3.D.4(IV);
AR 650-03(IV)(J)(4) (Deputy Director of Prison Operations must interview and approve)
  • Colorado
Colorado, AR 650-03(IV)(J)(4) (Deputy Director of Prison Operations must interview and approve);
01(VII)(D), Arizona, DO 801.10; California, Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 15 § 3338
  • Alaska
Alaska, DOC 804.01(VII)(D), Arizona, DO 801.10; California, Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 15 § 3338;
Some states, such as West Virginia, provide for review, but not a hearing. West Virginia
  • Wyoming
Wyoming, P&P 3.302(IV)(E). Some states, such as West Virginia, provide for review, but not a hearing. West Virginia, PD 326.00(V)(B)(4).