Content uploaded by Jamelia Morgan
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jamelia Morgan on Mar 14, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
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(Non‐Emergency)Placement......................................................................................................................................11
NoticeandHearings...........................................................................................................................................11
Decision‐makers....................................................................................................................................................12
Evidence......................................................................................................................................................................12
Assistanceof/RepresentativesforInmates.......................................................................................12
Review/AppealofInitial(Non‐Emergency)Placements..........................................................13
PeriodicReview........................................................................................................................................................................................14
InitialPost‐AssignmentReview...............................................................................................................................................15
PeriodicReviewThereafter........................................................................................................................................................15
ProceduresforPeriodicReview..............................................................................................................................................16
Decision‐makers....................................................................................................................................................16
HearingsandAppeals.......................................................................................................................................16
Conditions,Step‐DownPrograms,Visitation,andDegreesofIsolation.........................................................17
Structured(“Step‐Down”)Programs...................................................................................................................................17
VisitationDuringSegregation...................................................................................................................................................18
CategoriesofVisitors........................................................................................................................................18
Contact/Non‐ContactVisits..........................................................................................................................19
AdditionalRequirementsandRestrictions.........................................................................................19
AdditionalResearchAgendas.........................................................................................................................................................20
Endnotes............................................................................................................................... .........................................................................23
Appendices: A.SummaryoftheReport
B.SummaryofPeriodicReviewProcesses
LimanoverviewsegregationJune25,2013final
ADMINISTRATIVESEGREGATION,DEGREESOFISOLATION,ANDINCARCERATION:ANATIONALOVERVIEWOFPOLICIES
LimanoverviewsegregationJune25,2013final 1
TheProjectandItsGoals
Thisreportprovidesanoverviewofstateandfederalpoliciesrelatedtolong‐term
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.Thedegreeofcontactpermitted—withstaff,other
inmates,orvolunteers—varies.Somejurisdictionsprovidesinglecellsandothersdouble;in
somesettings,inmatesfindwaystocommunicatewitheachother.Inotherinstances,the
isolationcanbeprofound.AsJusticeAnthonyKennedydescribedonesystemin2005,it
structuredplacementtomakeit“morerestrictivethananyotherform”ofincarceration
availableinthatstate.5Thecellshad“solidmetaldoorswithmetalstrips...whichprevent
conversationorcommunicationwithotherinmates.Itisfairtosay[thatinmatesinthatfacility]
aredeprivedofalmostallenvironmentalorsensorystimuliandofalmostallhumancontact...
foranindefiniteperiodoftime,limitedonlybyaninmate’ssentence.”6Asreflectedinthis
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
ofinmatesandstaffisenhancedthroughlong‐termseparationpolicies.Whatcannotbeknown
fromthisreviewiswhetherthepoliciesareimplementedaswritten,achievethegoalsfor
whichtheyarecrafted,andatwhatcosts.Aswediscussintheconclusion,moredetailed
informationisneeded,includinganalysisofadditionalfacetsofthepolicies;demographicdata
onthepopulationsheldinvariousformsofsegregatedcustody;reviewofthereasonsfor
placementofindividualsinandthedurationofsuchconfinement;surveysandinterviewsof
inmates,ofstaffonsite,andofcentralofficepersonnel;examinationofthedegreeofisolation
attendanttothevariousformsofadministrativesegregation;andassessmentsofthelong‐term
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’policiesgoverninglong‐termadministrative
segregation,definedastheplacementofinmatesinacell(eitheraloneorwithacellmate)for
approximately23hoursaday,andwhichcanlastforthirtydaysormore.
Thepoliciesreviewedanddetailedheresharethesamebasicfeatures:anon‐punitive
purpose,open‐endedduration,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,becausewefocusedonstate‐wideregulations,thisoverviewdoesnotinclude
institution‐levelpoliciesordailypostordersandspecialdirectives.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,wecirculated—withASCA’sassistance—adraftreporttostatecorrectional
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.
Intermsoftheprocessesfordecision‐making,allthepoliciesauthorizeanimmediate
temporaryplacementinsegregation.Thereafter,somebutnotalljurisdictionsprovidefor
ADMINISTRATIVESEGREGATION,DEGREESOFISOLATION,ANDINCARCERATION:ANATIONALOVERVIEWOFPOLICIES
LimanoverviewsegregationJune25,2013final 5
noticeofthegroundsfortheplacementandanopportunityforahearingtocontinuethe
segregateddetention.Thekindofnoticeandhearingvariessubstantially,asdothedecision‐
makers.Somesystemsleavedecision‐makingattheunit‐level,othersplaceauthorityin
committees,andothersrequireoversightbythewardenorthecentraloffice.
Further,allpoliciesprovideforsomeformofongoingreview,butagain,withagreat
dealofdiversityintermsoftiming,levelofoversight,andcriteria.Moreover,giventhebreadth
ofdiscretion,whetherreviewandoversightimposesconstraintscannotbeknownfromthe
policies.
Jurisdictionsvaryconsiderablyintermsofthedetailprovidedregardingtherestrictions
placeduponindividualsonceinsegregation,intermsoftheconditionsoftheconfinement,
accesstoprogramsandtovisitors,andthecriteriaforreturntothegeneralpopulation
(sometimestermed“step‐down”programs).Ourreviewofonefacet—visiting—documents
thatinmatesinsegregationhavemorerestrictedopportunitiesforvisitsintermsofwhether
contactispermittedandthefrequencyandduration.Further,opportunitiesdependon
inmates’behavior,andinstitutional‐levelactorshavediscretiontolimitvisits.Lawyersare
generallytreateddistinctivelytoenablevisitsbut,likeothervisitors,encounterthechallenges
thatadministrativesegregationimposes,suchasneedingspecialpermissiontovisitclients.
Insum,awidenetofauthoritypermitsinmatestobeplacedinsegregation.Policiesall
outlineprocedurestodoso,andafewjurisdictionsmakeplacementsmoredifficultby
imposingspecificcontrolsonsuchdecisions.Thecriteriaforkeepingindividualsinsegregation
andthedirectivesonhowtoenableinmatestoexitsegregationarelesswell‐defined.The
findingsdetailedinthisreportneedtobeaugmentedbyresearchabouthowthewritten
policiesareimplementedattheinstitutionalandsystemlevels,howthesepoliciesare
experiencedbyinmatesandstaff,thecostsandeffects,andthealternatives.
CriteriaforPlacementinAdministrativeSegregation
Wefoundagreatdealofoverlapinpolicy‐basedreasonsforsegregation.Manystates
defineadministrativesegregationasaformofseparationfromthegeneralpopulationforan
inmatewhorequiresahigherdegreeofsupervisionbecausetheinmateposes“athreat”or“a
seriousthreat”to“thelife,property,security,ororderlyoperationoftheinstitution.”11Many
jurisdictionsalsoprovideauthoritytoseparateaninmatebecauseheorsheposesadangerto
“self,staff,orotherinmates”12orto“protectthepublic.”13Severalstatesfurtherspecifythat
thepurposeofadministrativesegregationisnotpunitive.14
Awindowintothepolicycriteriaforplacement,theirgenerality,andvariabilitycomes
fromlookingfirstatthepolicyofonestate—Nebraska.Thereafter,wehavecompiledspecific
criteriausedinotherpolicies.Wealsoprovideexamplesofgeneralmandatesforplacementin
segregation,ofpoliciestyingplacementtotheapprovalbyawardenortheDirectorofa
department,andofpoliciesaimingtonarrowthebasesforplacement.
THEARTHURLIMANPUBLICINTERESTPROGRAMATYALELAWSCHOOLJUNE2013
LimanoverviewsegregationJune25,2013final6
IllustrativePolicies
AdministrativeSegregation—CriteriaforPlacement: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/organg‐relatedactivity.”
- 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,SOPIIB09‐0001‐1.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.
SOP19‐01‐01(77)
“Theinmateisendingconfinementindisciplinarysegregationstatus,andreturntothe
generalpopulationwouldthreatenthesafety,security,andorderlyoperationofa
correctionalfacility,orpublicsafety.”
- FederalBureauofPrisons,BOP541.23.
ExamplesofPolicieswithFewEnumeratedFactorsandGeneralAuthority
“Non‐punitiveplacementofaninmateinacellwhosecontinuedpresenceinthegeneral
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,DC‐ADM802(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,DOC5A‐20(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,DOC02‐01‐111(II)
“Administrativesegregationadmissionresultsfromadeterminationbythefacilitythat
theinmate’spresenceingeneralpopulationwouldposeathreattothesafetyand
securityofthefacility.”
- NewYork,7NYCRR301.4(b)
“[W]hentheirpatternofconductdemonstratesachronicinabilitytoadjusttothe
generalpopulation;indicatesmaximumpersonalprotectionisrequired;orconstitutesa
seriousthreattotheAdultCorrectionalInstitutions.”
- RhodeIsland,15.11‐3.DOC
ExamplesofDiscretionTiedtoApprovalbyWarden,Director,orCommissioner
“Othercircumstancesmaywarrantplacementinadministrativesegregation.Such
placementwillrequireapprovalbytheDirectorofPrisons.”
– Colorado,AR650‐03(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:
S‐1–AggravatedAssaultonstaff
S‐2–AggravatedAssaultonInmatew/weaponorResultinginSeriousInjuryw/o
weapon
S‐3–RepeatedorContinuousRefusaltoenterGPataSecurityLevel4or5facility
for12monthsNotUsed
S‐4‐SeriousEscapeRisk‐requiringmaximumsecuritysupervision
S‐5‐CommissionofCrimeofExceptionalViolenceand/orNotoriety
S‐6‐ExcessiveViolentDisciplinaryCharges–reflectinginabilitytoadjusttoalower
levelofsupervision
S‐7‐SettingFireResultinginInjurytoPersonsorExtensiveDamagetoState
Property
S‐8‐RiotingresultinginInjurytoPersonsorExtensiveDamagetoStateProperty
S‐9‐SeizingorHoldingHostages
S‐10‐PossessionofFirearms,Ammunition,Explosives,Weapons
S‐11‐KnowinglyTransferringHIVorotherDiseasetoAnotherPersonorRefusalto
SubmittoTesting
S‐12‐GangActivityRelatedtoanyCategoryIOffenseoraDocumentedGang
LeadershipRole
S‐13–StaffManipulator/Predator
S‐14–Behaviorthatrepresentsathreatleveltoogreatforthesafetyandsecurityof
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.15Virginiaisanexampleofasystemthatreviseditspolicytorequirespecificpredicate
actsforadmissiontolong‐termsegregation.16
TheProceduresandProcessesforPlacement
Inadditiontoreviewingcriteriaforentry,welookedathowplacementdecisionswere
madebyexaminingpoliciesattwojunctures—thefirst(non‐emergency)placementandthen
whatisgenerallytermed“periodicreview.”Ourquestionsincludedwhetherjurisdictions
providedaprocessthatgavetheinmatenoticeofthereasonsforplacement,anin‐person
hearingtoassessinformation,andotherproceduresforreviewandreconsideration.
Whenreadingpolicies,itwassometimesdifficulttodecidewhattoclassifyasa
“hearing.”Somepoliciesappeartoincludeformalopportunitiesforpresentationsbyinmates,
whileotherpoliciesmentionthepossibilityofinmatestatementsbutwereunclearabout
whethersuchinformationwasprovideddirectlytothedecision‐makers.Inthesummarybelow,
wetakeanexpansiveviewofwhatconstitutesa“hearing”and“evidence.”Specifically,as
“hearing”weincludeprocessesbywhichinmatesareaffordedtheopportunitytogivea
statementandtoheartheallegedgroundsforthesegregation.“Evidence”forthesepurposes
includesallformsofdocumentaryortestimonialsubmissions.Becauseourreviewislimitedto
policies,wecannotreportonwhetherthepractices—forexample,thetimingofhearingsand
theinformationreliedupon—comportwiththespecificationsinthepolicies.
Initial(Non‐Emergency)Placement
NoticeandHearings
Thirty‐eightjurisdictionsspecifyahearinguponinitialplacement.17Allbutsevenof
thesejurisdictionsalsorequirethatsomeformofwrittennoticebeprovidedtotheinmatein
advanceofthehearing.Amongstatesthatprovidehearings,nearlyallprovideforhearingsto
beheldwithin14daysofplacement.ConnecticutandOhiocallforhearingswithin30days,18
THEARTHURLIMANPUBLICINTERESTPROGRAMATYALELAWSCHOOLJUNE2013
LimanoverviewsegregationJune25,2013final12
andIowaspecifiesthatafirsthearingbeheldat60days.19Wyomingrequiresschedulinga
hearingwithinfivebusinessdaysofplacement.20Ninejurisdictionshavepoliciesthatauthorize
administrativesegregationanddonotmentionhearings.21
Decision‐Makers
Mostofthepoliciesexaminedprovidethatadiversesetofinstitutionalauthorities—
staff,shiftcommanders,deputywardens,wardens—couldmakeaninitialdecisiontoplacea
personimmediatelyinsegregation.Policiesthencallforadditionalproceduresthereafter.
Thirty‐onejurisdictionsauthorizedecision‐makingbyacommittee.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.22Insome
instances,asinNewJerseyandVirginia,ahearingofficermakesaninitialrecommendationto
thecommittee.
Intwelvejurisdictions,ahearingofficer(oranotherindividualofficial)decideswhether
toplananinmateinadministrativesegregation.Theyare:Alaska,Arizona,California,
Connecticut,Delaware,theFederalBureauofPrisons,Illinois,Michigan,Mississippi,Ohio,
Oregon,andVermont.23Inthreejurisdictions,Hawaii,Kentucky,andTennessee,thewardenor
his/herdesigneeisresponsibleformakinginitialdeterminations.24WestVirginia’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
specifiedcircumstances—suchaslanguagebarriers,illiteracy,ormentalillness—soastohelp
inpreparationforthehearingortoexplaintherightsand/ortheproceedings.Theyare:
California,Colorado,Idaho,Michigan,Nebraska,Nevada,Oregon,Washington,andWyoming.29
TheFederalBureauofPrisonsprovidesthata“non‐probationarystaffmemberwillbeavailable
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(Non‐Emergency)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.35Ninejurisdictionsprovideforautomatic
reviewbythecentraloffice:Arizona,theFederalBureauofPrisons,Maine,Massachusetts,
Minnesota,Mississippi,NewMexico,RhodeIsland,andVirginia.36NorthDakotaandOklahoma
statethatreviewswillbedoneby“theappropriateauthority.”37
Forstatesemployingstructuredor“step‐down”programs,initialdecisionsbyhearing
officersorclassificationcommitteestypicallymustbeapprovedbythewardenorcentral
THEARTHURLIMANPUBLICINTERESTPROGRAMATYALELAWSCHOOLJUNE2013
LimanoverviewsegregationJune25,2013final14
office.38Forexample,Washingtonreliesonatwo‐tieredsystemforshort‐ andlong‐term
separations.39Washingtonhasalsocometouseadistinctivenomenclature—intensive
managementandintensivetreatment—coupledwithdistinctiveprocedures.Forplacementin
administrativesegregationforperiodsupto47days,amulti‐disciplinaryclassificationteam
reviewstheplacementandcontinuation.40After47days,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
processisrequiredorinmate‐initiated.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
individuallikewisevaries—fromtheunititselftothecentraloffice,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
InitialPost‐AssignmentReview
Allofthejurisdictionsanalyzedspecifyprocessesforperiodicreviewofplacementsin
administrativesegregation.Thejurisdictionsvariedconsiderablywithrespecttothetimeframe
forthefirstperiodicreview.
SevenDaysorLess:Themajorityofjurisdictions(30)requireaninitialreviewwithin
sevendays.48Sixstatesrequireaninitialreviewoftheplacementdecisioninthreedaysor
less.49
ThirtytoNinetyDays:Ninestatesrequireaninitialreviewofadministrativesegregation
placementwithin30days.50NewYorkandNewJerseyconductthefirstreviewafter60days,51
andsixstatesreviewplacementeach90‐dayinterval.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:
short‐termsegregationatasegregationunit(oftenreferredtoas“administrativesegregation”
or“facilitysegregation”)andlong‐termsegregationatadedicatedfacility(sometimesreferred
toas“departmentalsegregation,”“administrativecontrol,”“intensivemanagement,”and
colloquiallyknownas“supermax”).54Insuchinstances,periodicreviewforthesecondcategory
isoftensignificantlylater,typicallyaftersixmonthstooneyearofconfinement.InConnecticut,
forexample,inmatesmustcompletea10‐monthprogram;monthlyreviewsaredoneoncethe
inmatehascompletedaminimumtime(90‐120days)ineachphase.55
PeriodicReviewThereafter
Followinganinitialperiodofcloserscrutiny(rangingfromsevento90days),many
statesincreasethetimeintervalsforsubsequentreviews.Themostcommonarrangement
(foundin18states)requiresperiodicreviewofadministrativesegregationstatuseveryseven
daysforthefirsttwomonthsandatintervalsofevery30daysthereafter.
Statesusinganinitialreviewperiodof60daysormoreeitherkeepthesameinterval56
forsubsequentreviewsorincreaseit.57NewJerseyisunusualinusing60‐dayintervalsforthe
firstyearandreviewingeverysixmonthsthereafter.58Washingtonmakesafinaldecision
aboutassignmentstoadministrativesegregationat47days,soonafterwhichtheinmateis
transferredtoanIntensiveManagementUnit(IMU),toanotherfacility,orisreleasedinto
THEARTHURLIMANPUBLICINTERESTPROGRAMATYALELAWSCHOOLJUNE2013
LimanoverviewsegregationJune25,2013final16
generalpopulation;upontransfertotheIMU,reviewsareheldevery180days.59Thechartin
AppendixBsummarizestheperiodicreviewprocessesinthe47jurisdictionsweanalyzed.
ProceduresforPeriodicReview
Decision‐Makers
Allbuttwojurisdictionsthathaveperiodicreviewspecifytheofficialsresponsiblefor
thereview.60Thoseofficialsfallintofourgroups:
(1)staffatafacility,suchasunitmanagers,casemanagers,counselors,and,
occasionally,mentalhealthprofessionals;
(2)warden/superintendent;
(3)classificationteam/committee,generallyincludingsomepersonnelfrom
centraloffice;and
(4)high‐leveladministrators,e.g.,thecommissioner,director,deputy
commissioner,ordeputydirectorofcorrections.
Decisionsaremadeinmanyjurisdictionsbyfacilitystafforbyaspeciallydesignated
committee.Somestatesemployingunit‐levelreviewsprovideforadditionalreviewbyeither
thewardenorcentralclassificationpersonnel.
Ingeneral,thelongeraninmateisinadministrativesegregation,thehigherthelevelof
authoritythatisinvolvedinperiodicreview.FivestatesrequireapprovalbytheCommissioner
forplacementinadministrativesegregationlongerthansixmonths(Maine,NewHampshire,
andOhio)orlongerthanoneyear(MarylandandNorthDakota).61Coloradomandatesthatfor
placementsoveroneyear,thedeputydirectormustmeetpersonallywiththeinmate.62In
Missouri,placementinadministrativesegregationforlongerthan12monthsrequiresapproval
bythedeputydivisiondirector.63TheFederalBureauofPrisonsrequiresapprovalbythe
RegionalDirectorforallcontinuingplacementsintheSMU.64
Fourstatesrequirethatthewardenpersonallyreview(includingaface‐to‐facemeeting
withtheinmate)longerperiodsofsegregation,typicallydefinedassixmonthstooneyear.
Specifically,Arkansas,Colorado,andKansasprovidethatthatnoinmateshallremainin
segregationformorethanayearunlessthewardenhaspersonallyinterviewedtheinmateand
approvedtheclassification.65InMichigan,thewardenmustprovidewrittenapprovalafter30
daysandmustpersonallyinterviewaninmateeverysixmonths.66Ifaninmateisinsegregation
for12months,theMichiganRegionalPrisonAdministratormustprovideapprovalfollowinga
personalinterview,andthatprocessoccursyearlythereafter.67
HearingsandAppeals
Detailsinpoliciesvaryabouthowinformationisgatheredandevaluatedforperiodic
review.Twenty‐ninejurisdictionsauthorizesometypeofhearing,withvaryinglevelsof
formality.68Moststatesdonotspecifythattheinmateistobenotifiedinadvanceofthe
hearing;fourteenstatesrequiresomekindofnotice—rangingfrom24hoursto72hoursin
ADMINISTRATIVESEGREGATION,DEGREESOFISOLATION,ANDINCARCERATION:ANATIONALOVERVIEWOFPOLICIES
LimanoverviewsegregationJune25,2013final 17
advanceofthehearing.69Afewstatesspecificallypermitaninmatetobepresentatahearing
—withthecaveatthatexclusionispermissibleifaninmateisseentoposeathreattosafety
andsecurity.70Manypoliciesdonotdetailthesourcesofinformationused,theinmate’s
opportunitiestosubmitinformation,whetherreasonsareprovided,orhowsubsequent
decision‐makersevaluatethedecisionsmade.
Variationexistsastowhetherandhowperiodicreviewdecisionsarethemselveseither
reviewedorappealed.Twenty‐fourstatesprovidespecificmethodsforrevieworappealsof
decisionsaboutcontinuedplacement,71whileotherstatespermitappealsthroughregular
grievanceprocesses.72Jurisdictionsthatmakeappealsavailablemaylimitappealstoonlythose
inmateswhohaveservedlongerperiodsinsegregation.Forexample,Kentuckyprovides
appealsforcontinuedassignmenttoadministrativecontrolbutnotadministrativesegregation,
whichtendstobeshorter‐term.73Inseveralstates,aninmate’sappealgoestothewarden,and
thosepoliciesdonotspecifyifanycentralizedauthorityreviewsthedecision.
Conditions,Step‐DownPrograms,Visitation,andDegreesofIsolation
Thepoliciesvariedwidelyintheamountofinformationcontainedabouttheday‐to‐day
experiencesoflong‐termconfinementinasegregationunit.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(“Step‐Down”)Programs
Reflectiveofconcernsabouttheeffectsoflong‐termconfinementinsegregationunits,
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“behavior‐drivenprogressiveincentivesystemconsisting
ofstepsthatencouragesappropriatebehavior."82Mississippi’sprogramisunusualinthatit
focusesoninmateswhoarecurrentlyinadministrativesegregationandwhowillbereleased
withinsixmonths.Thoseinmatesreceivereentry‐focusedprogramminginasegregated
setting.83
Washingtonisamongseveralstates,includingColorado,Massachusetts,Mississippi,and
Virginia,thatareexploringwaystoseparateprisonerssafelyincombinationwithgreater
opportunitiesforgroupactivitiesandfortherapy.84WorkinginconjunctionwithDisability
RightsWashingtonandtheVeraInstitute,Washingtonhasdevelopedwhatitterms“intensive
management”or“intensivetreatment”toprovidestructuredgroupactivitiesand/orvarious
therapiesforthoseinsegregation.85Staffassigninmatestospecificprogramsbasedon
individualassessments,intermsofmentalhealthandbehavior.86Toreturntogeneral
population,inmatesarerequiredtoparticipate.87
VisitationDuringSegregation
Contactwithpersonsoutsidethefacilitiesisanotheraspectofsociability,andvisitation
isaddressedbyallthepolicieswereviewed.88Thepoliciesvariedwithrespecttothetypesof
visitorspermitted,whethervisitscouldbecontactornot,whatdiscretiontolimitvisitation
existed,andthefrequencyanddurationofthevisitsallowed.Somepoliciesnotedthatwardens
haddiscretionaboutvisiting,orthatvisitscanbelimitedbasedonsecurityconcernsorin
relationshiptoperformancebyinmates,includingthoseinstep‐downprograms.Asidefrom
suchprovisions,state‐widepoliciesdidnotaddressthecriteriatobeusedtolimitvisitsasa
disciplinarymatter.Inthisarenaasinothers,decisionsatthefacility‐levelbothfillgapsand
maycreatesite‐specificpractices.
CategoriesofVisitors
Thepoliciesvaryagooddealintermsofdetailingvisitationrules.Allappeartoassume
lawyeraccesstoclients,butafewspecifyrequirementsornoteopportunitiesforcontactvisits.
Forexample,severalstatesrequireattorneystoobtainadvanceapprovalfroma
superintendentorwarden.89Mainepermits“professionalvisits”ifapprovedbytheUnit
ManagementTeam.90Tenstatesprovidethatlimitationsoncontactvisitsinsegregationdonot
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
setwhosecompositioncanchangeatsix‐monthintervals.101InNewHampshire,inmateswho
givebirthareallowedtwoadditionalvisitsperweekwiththeirnewbornchildrenforaperiodof
timeafterthebirth.102
Contact/Non‐ContactVisits
Seventeenjurisdictionsdonotspecifywhethervisitsarecontactornon‐contact.103
Twenty‐twostatesbarcontactvisitsforallorpartoftheadministrativesegregation
population.104CaliforniaandNebraskabarcontactvisitsforinmatesinthe“SecuredHousing
Unit”or“IntensiveManagementUnit”butprovideforcontactvisitsinotherformsof
administrativesegregation.105
Elevenstatespermitpersonalcontactvisitsforinmatesinadministrativesegregation.106
Tenofthosestatesauthorizethewardenordesigneetodeterminewhetherthevisitiscontact
ornon‐contact.107Vermonttiescontactvisitstoprogressionthroughthephasesofastep‐down
programforthoseinadministrativesegregation.108Minnesota’sAdministrativeControlUnit
conductsvisitsoveraclosed‐circuittelevisionmonitorforaminimumoffourhoursper
month.109
AdditionalRequirementsandRestrictions
Manystatessetoutpossiblerestrictionsonvisitationbasedonbroadinstitutional
concerns.Aformulationfoundinsixstatesisthat“offendershaveopportunitiesforvisitation
unlesstherearesubstantialreasonsforwithholdingsuchprivileges.”110InFlorida,“those
inmateswhoareathreattothesecurityoftheinstitutionshallbedeniedvisitingprivileges.”111
Massachusettsprovidesthat“thelengthandnumberofvisitsmaybelimitedduetospace,
schedules,personnelconstraints,orwhenthereisasubstantialreasontojustifylimitation."112
Twenty‐fivejurisdictionsexpresslyauthorizethesuperintendent,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.Twenty‐sevenstatesleavethatdecisionto
thefacilityand,typically,thewarden,sometimesunderguidelines.117Forexample,Indiana
authorizesindividualfacilitiestoreducethefrequencyofvisitation,butnotbelowtwovisitsper
month.118Fivestatesexpresslyprovidethatinmatesinadministrativesegregationshallhave
thesamenumberofvisitsasthegeneralpopulation.119Whenvisitationisrestricted,most
policiesprovidesomewherebetweenoneandtwovisits,lastingonetotwohours,eachmonth.
InHawaii’sMaximumControlUnit,one45‐minutenon‐contactvisitevery14daysis
permitted.120NorthCarolinapermitstwonon‐contactvisitseverythirtydays.121Pennsylvania
permitsonevisit,foradurationofonehour,everythirtydays.122
Fivestatespermitincreasingthefrequencyandintervalsofvisitsbasedoninmate
behaviorandasotherrestrictionsaredecreased.123Forexample,inColorado,inmatesinthe
mostrestrictiveplacement,LevelI,mayhaveonehour‐and‐a‐halfnon‐contactvisitper
month.124ForLevelII,visitationaccessincreasestotwohour‐and‐a‐halfnon‐contactvisits,and
soonuptoLevelIV,inwhichinmatesmayhavesixtwo‐hournon‐contactvisitspermonth.125In
Connecticut,phasedvisitationaccessrangesfromone30‐minutenon‐contactvisitperweekfor
PhaseItothree30‐minutenon‐contactvisitsperweekforPhaseIII.126NewJerseypermitsone
60‐minutenon‐contactvisitpermonthinLevel1,andone60‐minutenon‐contactvisitper
weekinLevel2.127
Onestate—Indiana—mentionstheroleofvisitsinrelationtoleavingprison.Indiana
providesthat“considerationshallbeextendedforadditionalvisitingprivilegestoaidinthe
offender’sRe‐Entryplanningandprogramming.”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
segregation—disciplinary/punitivesegregationandprotectivecustody.Inthematerials
currentlyavailabletous,some30jurisdictionsprovidedpoliciesaddressing
punitive/disciplinarysegregation,andaboutadozenspecifiedrulesonprotectivecustody.
Oncesuchinformationiscompiled,onecouldlearnwhetherthevariousformsofsegregation
aregoverneddifferentlyattheformallevel.
Second,questionsaboundaboutthecostsoflong‐termsegregation,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
over‐relianceonsegregationasameansofcontrol?Further,whatimpactdoessegregation
haveoninmates’subsequentperformanceingeneralpopulation,onreentrytothecommunity,
andonrecidivism?
Third,wedonotknowthedistributionoftheuseofsegregationbyage,ethnicity,
genderidentity,race,andreligion.Givenwide‐spreadappreciationofracialdisparitiesinthe
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
bymanyfactors—theinstitutionalsetting,thepopulationdensityofafacility,thestaff‐to‐
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.YaleLawstudentco‐authorsareJameliaMorgan(classof2013),Samuel
Oliker‐Friedland(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
publicinterest‐themedprojectsatorganizationsacrossthecountry.
AparticularfocusoftheLimanProgramisresearchonthelawandpolicyofdetention,and
theLimanProgramhasworkedwithAssociationofStateCorrectionalAdministrators(ASCA)on
projectsofmutualinterest.Forexample,in2010‐2011,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
beganthisresearchin2011‐12:DanielleLang,AlbertMonroe,EsterMurdukhayeva,Katherine
Oberembt,YamanSalahi,andJoanneWright.
1SeeSubcommitteeontheConstitution,CivilRights,andHumanRightsoftheUnitedStates
SenateJudiciaryCommittee,HearingonReassessingSolitaryConfinement:TheHumanRights,
Fiscal,andPublicSafetyConsequences,158CONG.REC.D617‐01,2012WL2326847(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,GAO13‐13‐429(May2013).
5Wilkinsonv.Austin,545U.S.209,214‐15(2005).
6Wilkinson,545U.Sat214‐15.
7Utahprovidedpoliciesspecificallyonsegregationthatdidnotclearlyaddressadministrative
segregation.Utahappearstorelyprimarilyuponclassificationprocedurestodetermineinmate
placementsaswelldisciplinarysegregation.Utah,DIOGO09‐020.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,whichappeartobemadeatthefacility‐level.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,AR650‐03(IV)(A);Connecticut,AD9.4(3)(B);Delaware,
DOCPolicy4.3;Florida,Fla.Admin.Coder.33‐602.220;Hawaii,COR.11.01.2.2(a)(2);Idaho,
DOC319.02.01.001;Illinois,20Ill.Admin.Code§504.660(b)(2);Iowa,IO‐HO‐05(IV)(A)(3)(b);
Indiana,DOC02‐01‐111;Kentucky,PP10.2;Maryland,DOC.100.0002;Massachusetts,103CMR
421;Michigan,DOC04.05.120;Minnesota,DD301.085;Mississippi,SOP19‐01‐01;New
Mexico,CD‐143.000.A;NewYork,7NYCRR301.4(6);NorthDakota,DOC5A‐20;Ohio,DOC
5120:1‐10‐15;Oklahoma,OP040204;Oregon,DOC291‐046‐0030;Pennsylvania,DC‐ADM802;
ADMINISTRATIVESEGREGATION,DEGREESOFISOLATION,ANDINCARCERATION:ANATIONALOVERVIEWOFPOLICIES
LimanoverviewsegregationJune25,2013final 25
RhodeIsland,DOC15.11‐3;Tennessee,DOC404‐10(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,DOC02‐01‐111;Kentucky,PP10.2;Maine,DOC15.1;Maryland,
DOC.100.0002;Minnesota,DD301.085;Mississippi,SOP19‐01‐01;NorthDakota,DOC5A‐20;
Oklahoma,OP040204;Pennsylvania,DC‐ADM802;RhodeIsland,DOC15.11‐3;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,AR650‐03(II);KSIMPP20‐103;Hawaii,
COR.11.01.2.2(a)(2);Iowa,IA‐HO‐05(IV)(A);Illinois,Ill.Admin.Codetit.20,§504;
Massachusetts,103CMR421.09;Mississippi,SOP19‐01‐01;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).
15Colorado650‐03.IV.B.
16Virginia,OperatingProcedure830.2,SecurityLevelClassification.
17Alaska,DOC804.01(VII)(B)(1)(c);Arizona,DO801.10;Arkansas,AS11‐42(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,SOPIIB09‐0001(VI)(B);Hawaii,COR.11.01(3)(1)(b);Idaho,DOC
319.02.01.001(13);Indiana,DOC02‐01‐111(VI)(B)(1)(onlyfordepartment‐wideadministrative
segregation);Iowa,IA‐HO‐05(IV)(A)(after2months);Kansas,IMPP20‐105(I);Kentucky,PP
10.2(H)(3);Maine,DOC15.1.1(VI)(C);Massachusetts,103CMR421.10;Michigan,DOC
04.05.120(O);Mississippi,SOP19‐01‐01(k);Missouri,IS21‐1.2(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,CD‐143.001.4(J);NewYork,7NYCRR301.4(a);NorthCarolina,
DOC.0302(c);Ohio(localcontrol),DOC5120:1‐10‐15(D);Oregon(after30days),OARDOC291‐
046‐0030;Pennsylvania,DC‐ADM802(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.Code5120‐9‐13.1(localcontrol);55SPC‐02(special
management).
19Iowa,IA‐HO‐05(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,DOC5A‐20;Oklahoma,OP‐040204;WestVirginia,PD326.00.Anotherprovision
ofIllinoislaw,Ill.Admin.Code§505.60,outlinesprocessesfortransferstotheTamms
CorrectionalCenter;sincewebeganthisresearch,Illinoishasclosedthatfacility.Thus,wedo
notincludethatprovisioninthisreport.
22Arkansas,AR11‐42(II);Colorado,AR650‐03(B)(2)(e);FloridaAdmin.Coder.33.602.220(2)(c);
Georgia,SOPIIB09‐001(IV)(B);Idaho,319.02.01.001(15);Indiana,Policy02‐01‐0111(VIII);Iowa,
IA‐HO‐05(IV)(A);Kansas,IMPP20‐106;Massachusetts,103C.M.R.421.07;Maine,DOC15.1;
Missouri,MOIS21‐1.2(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)(facility‐levelcommitteereviewsplacementsupto60days);NorthCarolina,
C.0302(d)(“Director’sClassificationCommittee”reviewslonger‐termreferralstointensive
control);Pennsylvania,DC‐ADM802(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,
SOP19‐01‐01;Oregon,DOC291‐046‐0030;andVermont,DOC410.03(3).
24Hawaii,COR.11.01(3)(1);Kentucky,PP10.2(H)(3);andTennessee,DOC404‐10‐(VI)(A)2).
25WestVirginia,PD326.00.
26Alaska,DOC804.01(VII)(C);Arkansas,AD11‐42;FederalBureauofPrisons,BOP
541.439(B)(1);California,Cal.CodeRegs.tit.15§3337(b);Colorado,AR600.02(IV)(K)(2);
Florida,Fla.Admin.Coder.33‐601.800(3)(g);Georgia,SOPIIB09‐001(IV)(B);Hawaii,
COR.11.01(3)(1);Idaho,319.02.01.001;Indiana,02‐01‐111(VI)(B)(allowshearingbutdoesnot
specifyadmissionofevidence);Iowa,IA‐HO‐05(IV)(A);Kansas,IMPP2‐106;Kentucky,PP
10.2(H)(3);Massachusetts,103C.M.R.421.07;Michigan,Mich.Admin.CodeR.791.3315(1)(c);
Missouri,IS21‐1.2(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.5120‐9‐13.1(C);
OregonDOC291‐046‐0030;Pennsylvania,DC‐ADM802(2)(6);RhodeIsland,Procedurefor
ClassificationtoCategoryC;SouthDakota,DOC1.3.D.4(iii);Tennessee,DOC404‐10‐(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)(Table3‐13);Maine,DOC15.1;Mississippi,
SOP19‐01‐01,19‐01‐03;NewMexico,CS143001.4(J);Nevada,AR507.01(2)(E);NewYork,7
NYCRR301.4(a).
28Alaska,DOC804.01(VII)(C);Georgia,SOPIIB09‐001(IV)(B);Iowa,IA‐HO‐05(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,DOC291‐046‐0045;Washington,DOC
320.200(III);Wyoming,P&P3.302(5)(VII).
30FederalBureauofPrisons,P5217.01(3)(b)(1).
31Arizona,DO801.10;Arkansas,AD11‐42;Connecticut,AD9.4(12);Florida,Fla.Admin.Coder.
33‐601.800(3);Hawaii,COR.11.01;Indiana,DOCPolicy02.01.111;Kansas,IMPP2‐106;
Kentucky,PP10.2(H);Maine,DOC15‐1.1;Missouri,IS21‐1.2(III)(B);Mississippi,SOP19‐01‐
01(k);Missouri,IS21‐1.2(III)(B)(4)(a);Montana,DOC4.2.1(IV)(E);NewJersey,
IMM.012.ADSEG.001;NewMexico,CD‐143.001.4(J);NewYork,7NYCRR301.4(a);North
Carolina,DOC0.0302;OhioAdmin.Code5120:1‐10‐15;Pennsylvania,DC‐ADM802(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,AR650‐03(IV)(D)(2)(3);Delaware,DOCPolicy4.3(VI)(A);
Idaho,319.02.01.001(3)(Table3‐13);Indiana,02‐01‐111(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.Code5120‐9‐13.1(B);Oregon,
DOC291‐046‐0075;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.Code5120‐9‐13.1(B).
35Alaska,DOC804.01(VII)(C);Colorado,AR650‐03(IV)(D)(2)(3);Nebraska,AR201.05(VII)(B)(5);
OhioAdmin.Code5120‐9‐13(D);Vermont,410.03(2)(c);andWashington,DOC320.200(I)(B).
36Arizona,DO801.10;FederalBureauofPrisons,BOP541.23(forplacementinspecial
managementunits—SMUs—only);Maine,DOC15.1(B);Massachusetts,103CMR421.10;
Minnesota,DD301.087(forplacementinadministrativecontrolonly);Mississippi,SOP19‐01‐
03;NewMexico,CD‐143001.4(J)(4)(forplacementinLevelVandVIonly);RhodeIsland,
THEARTHURLIMANPUBLICINTERESTPROGRAMATYALELAWSCHOOLJUNE2013
LimanoverviewsegregationJune25,2013final28
ProcedureforClassificationtoCategoryC;Virginia,OP830.1(V)(forplacementinsegregation
facility).
37NorthDakota,DOC5A‐20;Oklahoma,OP‐040204.
38See,e.g.,California,Cal.CodeRegs.tit.15§3341.5(2);Colorado,650‐03.IV;Connecticut,AD
9.4,Connecticut,NorthernCorrectionalInstitutionAdministrativeSegregationProgram;
FederalBureauofPrisons,BOPBOP541.439B;FederalBureauofPrisons,InmateHandbook
FlorenceADX;Indiana,02‐01‐111;Kentucky,CPP10.2;Minnesota,DD301.083and301.087;
Mississippi,SOP19‐01‐01(“AdministrativeSegregationStep‐DownUnit”);NewJersey,
IMM.012.001;NewMexico,CD‐143002.3;Oklahoma,OP‐04204(B);Virginia,OP830.2;
Washington,DOC320.255;Wisconsin,Wis.Admin.CodeDOC§308.04(10).
39Washington,DOC320.220(I)(10).
40Id.
41Id.
42Kansas,IMPP2‐106;Maine,DOC15‐1.1;Mississippi,SOP19‐01‐03;Pennsylvania,DC‐ADM
802(2)(C);SouthDakota,DOC1.3.D.4(iii).
43Pennsylvania,DC‐ADM802(2);SouthDakota,DOC1.3.D.4.
44Arkansas,AD11‐42(III)(D).
45Arizona,DO801.11;Michigan,Mich.Admin.CodeR.791.3315(1);NewYork,7NYCRR
301.4(d);Oregon,DOC291‐046‐0100.
46FederalBureauofPrisons,BOP541.439B.
47See,e.g.,Mississippi,SOP19‐01‐03;Virginia,OP830.1(X).
48Alabama,AR436(V)(A)(1);Arkansas,AD11‐42;FederalBureauofPrisons,BOP541.26;
Colorado,AR650.03(VI)(J)(2);Connecticut,AD9.4(12);Delaware,DOCPolicy4.3(VI)(A);
Georgia,SOPIIB09‐0001(VI)(H);Hawaii,COR.11.01(3);Iowa,IO‐HO‐05(IV)(A);Kansas,IMPP20‐
106(I)(A);Kentucky,DOC10.2(II)(H);Maine,DOC15‐1.1(VI)(C);Massachusetts,103CMR
421.10;Michigan,DOC04.05.120(O);Minnesota,DD301.085;Mississippi,SOP19‐01‐01(k);
Nebraska,AR201.05(VI);NewHampshire,DOC7.49(III);NewMexico,CD‐143001.4.5;North
Carolina,DOC0.0302;NorthDakota,DOC5A‐20(3)(B);OhioAdmin.Code5120:1‐10‐15(D);
Oklahoma,OP040204(III);Pennsylvania,DC‐ADM802(A);Tennessee,DOC404.10(VI)(A)(2);
Vermont,DOC410.03;Washington,DOC320.200(II)(B);WestVirginia,PD326.00(V)(B).
ADMINISTRATIVESEGREGATION,DEGREESOFISOLATION,ANDINCARCERATION:ANATIONALOVERVIEWOFPOLICIES
LimanoverviewsegregationJune25,2013final 29
49Florida,Fla.Admin.Coder.33‐602.220(c);Indiana,02.01.111(V)(A);Maine,DOC15‐1.1(VI)(C)
(72hours);Minnesota,DD301.085(24hours);Mississippi,SOP19‐01‐01(k)(72hours);Nevada,
AR507.01(2)(72hours).
50Arkansas,AD11‐42(III)(D);Idaho,DOC319.02.01.001(15);Maryland,DOC.100.0002(18)(B);
Missouri,DOC1521‐1.2(III)(B);Minnesota,DD301.085;Oregon,DOC291‐046‐0030;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,650‐03.IV;Connecticut,AD9.4,
Connecticut,NorthernCorrectionalInstitutionAdministrativeSegregationProgram;Federal
BureauofPrisons,BOP541.439B;FederalBureauofPrisons,InmateHandbookFlorenceADX;
Indiana,02‐01‐111;Kentucky,CPP10.2;Minnesota,DD301.083and301.087;Mississippi,SOP
19‐01‐01(“AdministrativeSegregationStep‐DownUnit”);NewJersey,IMM.012.001;New
Mexico,CD‐143002.3;Oklahoma,OP‐04204(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,5A‐20(3)(E);Ohio,AR55‐SPC‐02(IV),(VI)(B)(4).
62Colorado,AR650‐03(IV)(J)(4).
63Missouri,IS21‐1.2(III)(A).
64FederalBureauofPrisons,P5217.01.
65Arkansas,AD11‐42(III)(D)(3);Colorado,AR650‐03(IV)(J)(4)(DeputyDirectorofPrison
Operationsmustinterviewandapprove);Kansas,IMPP20‐106(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,IO‐HO‐05(IV)(A)(8);
Kentucky,DOC10.2(II)(H)(3);Maine,DOC15‐1.1(VI);Maryland,DOC100.0002(18)(B)(2);
Massachusetts,103CMR421.18;Michigan,PD04.05.120(EEE)‐(FFF);Mississippi,SOP19‐01‐
01(k),at3;Missouri,IS21‐1.2(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;5A‐20(3)(F);Oklahoma,OP‐O40204(III)(A)(13);Oregon,
AR291‐046‐0025;Pennsylvania,DC‐ADM802,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,PD326.00(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,IS21‐1.2(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,IS21‐1.2(III)(B)(4)(c);Montana,
DOCPolicy4.2.1(IV)(E)(3).
71Alaska,DOC804.01(VII)(E);Arizona,DO801.10;Georgia,SOPIIB09‐0001(VI)(I);Iowa,IO‐HO‐
05(IV)(A)(12);Kentucky,CPP10.2(II)(H)(3);Maine,DOC15‐1.1(VI),at7;Massachusetts,103
CMR421.18;Michigan,PD04.05.120(T);Minnesota,DD301.085;Mississippi,SOP19‐01‐01(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,
AR291‐046‐0030;Pennsylvania,DC‐ADM802,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.
72VirginiaandNorthCarolinaaretwoexamplesofsystemsthatpermittheappealof
classificationdecisionsthroughregulargrievancechannels.See,e.g.,Virginia,OP830.1(X).
73Kentuckyprovidesappealsforadministrativecontrolstatus,butdoesnotspecifywhether
appealsarerequiredforadministrativesegregation.SeeKentucky,CPP10.2(G)(1).
74ThesizeofcellsisdetailedinNewMexico,CD14‐3000(H)(requiring80squarefeet,ofwhich
35mustbeunencumbered)andWyoming,P&P5.302at20(2011)(same).
75StateswithpoliciesthatspecifiedaccesstolightwereConnecticut,AD9.4(4)(A)(requiring
thatcellsbe“adequatelylighted”);Florida,Fla.Admin.Coder.33‐602.220(4)(d)(providingthat
“whensufficientnaturallightisunavailable,interiorcelllightsshallbeleftonduringdayand
eveninghours”);Georgia,SOPIIB09‐0001(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,
SOP19‐01‐01(k),at11(requiring20CandlePowersoflightingineveryadministrative
segregationcell);Montana,DOC3.5.1(III)(C)(2)(requiringthatlockedhousingcellsbe
“adequatelylighted”);Ohio,AR55‐SPC‐02(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,AD11‐42;California,Cal.CodeRegs.tit.15
§3343;Colorado,AR650‐03(F);Connecticut,AD9.4(4);Delaware,DOCPolicy4.3(VI)(C);
Florida,Fla.Admin.Coder.33‐602.220(8);Georgia,SOPIIB0901‐0001(VI)(E);Hawaii,Maximum
ControlUnitHandbook;Idaho,319.02.01.001;Illinois,20Ill.AdminCode§504.620(b)(4);
Indiana,Policy02‐01‐111;Iowa,IA‐HO‐05(IV)(H)(2)(f);Kansas,IMPP12‐133;Maine,DOC
15.1(VI);Maryland,DOC100.0002(18)(F);Massachusetts,103CMR421.20;Michigan,PD
04.05.120;Minnesota,DD301.083;Mississippi,SOP19‐01‐01(k);Missouri,IS21‐1.2(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,CD14‐3001.A(R);NorthCarolina,C.1210,C.1212;NorthDakota,DOC5A‐20(G);Ohio,
THEARTHURLIMANPUBLICINTERESTPROGRAMATYALELAWSCHOOLJUNE2013
LimanoverviewsegregationJune25,2013final32
55‐SPC‐02;Oklahoma,OP‐040204(V);Oregon,AR291‐011‐0005;Pennsylvania,DC‐ADM802;
RhodeIsland,PP15.11‐3;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,AD11‐42(C);California,Cal.CodeRegs.tit.
15§3343(i);Colorado,AR650‐03(IV)(F);Delaware,DOCPolicy4.3(VI)(B)(12);Florida,Fla.
Admin.Coder.33‐602.220;Hawaii,COR.11.01(3)(l)(h);Idaho,SOP319.01.01.001;Illinois,20Ill.
AdminCode§504.620(s);Indiana,Policy02‐01‐111;Iowa,IA‐HO‐05(IV)(H)(2)(i);;Kansas,IMPP
12‐133;Maine,DOCPolicy15.1(VI);Maryland,DOC.100.0002(18)(F);Massachusetts,103CMR
421.20;Michigan,PD04.05.120(5);Minnesota,DD301.085;Mississippi,SOP19‐01‐01(k);
Missouri,IS21‐1.2(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,CD14‐3000.A(Y);NorthCarolina,C.1221;NorthDakota,
DOC5A‐20(G);Ohio,AR55‐SPC‐02(IV);Oklahoma,OP‐040204(V);Oregon,AR291‐11‐0005;
Pennsylvania,DC‐ADM802;RhodeIsland,PP15.11‐3;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,AD11‐42(c)(18);California,Cal.CodeRegs.tit.15§
3343(j);Colorado,AR650‐03(IV(F);Connecticut,NorthernCorrectionalInstitution
AdministrativeSegregationProgramDescription;Delaware,DOC4.3(VI)(D)(5);Florida,Fla.
Admin.Coder.33‐602.220;Georgia,SOPIIBO901‐001;Hawaii,COR.11.01(3)(1);Idaho,SOP
319.02.01.001(18);Illinois,20Ill.AdminCode§504.620(g);Indiana,IN02‐01‐111(IX)(F);Iowa,
IA‐HO‐05(IV)(H)(2);Kansas,KSIMPP12‐133;Kentucky,CPP10.2(I)(7);Maine,DOC15.1;
Massachusetts,103CMR423.09;Michigan,PD04.05.120;Minnesota,DD301.083;Mississippi,
SOP19‐01‐01(k);Missouri,IS21‐1.2(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,DOC5A‐20(G);Oklahoma,OP‐040204(V);
Oregon,AR291‐130‐0016;Pennsylvania,DC‐ADM802,818;RhodeIsland,PP15.11‐3;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.
79Fla.Admin.Coder.33‐602.220(2)(a).
80NewJersey,IMM.012.ADSEG.03.
81California,Cal.CodeRegs.tit.15§3341.5(2);Colorado,650‐03.IV;Connecticut,AD9.4,
Connecticut,NorthernCorrectionalInstitutionAdministrativeSegregationProgram;Federal
BureauofPrisons,BOPBOP541.439B;FederalBureauofPrisons,InmateHandbookFlorence
ADMINISTRATIVESEGREGATION,DEGREESOFISOLATION,ANDINCARCERATION:ANATIONALOVERVIEWOFPOLICIES
LimanoverviewsegregationJune25,2013final 33
ADX;Indiana,02‐01‐111;Kentucky,CPP10.2;Minnesota,DD301.083and301.087;Mississippi,
SOP19‐01‐01(“AdministrativeSegregationStep‐DownUnit”);NewJersey,IMM.012.001;New
Mexico,CD‐143002.3;Oklahoma,OP‐04204(B);Virginia,OP830.2;Washington,DOC320.255;
Wisconsin,Wis.Admin.CodeDOC§308.04(10).
82NewMexico,CD‐143002.3;seealso,NewJersey,IMM.012.ADSEG.03(“Thistwo‐levelsystem
isdesignedtoencourageinmatestoimprovetheirpatternsofbehaviorthroughgradual
reductionofrestrictions”).
83Mississippi,SOP19‐01‐01.
84See,e.g.,Colorado,650‐03.IV;Mississippi,SOP19‐01‐01(“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(non‐contactvisitation
exceptwhenprecludedbydisciplinarysanctions);Arkansas,AD11‐42(III)(C)(7)‐(8)(stipulating
visitsinaseparatevisitingroomandinthepresenceofanofficer);FederalBureauofPrisons,
BOP540.50(permittingvisitingprivilegesasingeneralpopulationunlessindividualized
disciplinaryfinding);California,Cal.CodeRegs.tit.15§3343(f)(inmatesassignedtosegregated
housingpermittedsamevisitationasgeneralpopulation,exceptforinmatesinsecurityhousing
unitswhoarerestrictedtonon‐contactvisitation);Colorado,AR650‐03(IV)(F)(1)(j)(permitting
opportunitiesfornon‐contactandattorneyvisitingunlesstherearedocumentedsubstantial
reasonsforwithholdingsuchprivileges);Connecticut,NorthernCorrectionalInstitution
AdministrativeSegregationProgramDescription(describingvisitingprivilegesaccordingto
privilegelevel);Delaware,DOCPolicy4.3(VI)(D)(1)(“AdministrativeSegregationoffendershave
opportunitiesforvisitation,unlesstherearesubstantialreasonsforwithholdingsuch
privileges”);Florida,Fla.Admin.Coder.33‐602.220(5)(i)(permittingvisitationuponadvance
approvalbywardenordesignee,andallowingwardenordesigneetodeterminewhethersuch
THEARTHURLIMANPUBLICINTERESTPROGRAMATYALELAWSCHOOLJUNE2013
LimanoverviewsegregationJune25,2013final34
visitwillbecontactornon‐contact;visitationdeniedtoinmates“whoareathreattothe
securityoftheinstitution”)andFla.Admin.Coder.33‐601.820(5)(e)(onlyspecifyinglegalvisits
forinmatesinmaximummanagement);Georgia,SOPIIB09‐0001(VI)(E)(5)(“visitingand
correspondenceprivilegesaccordedthegeneralpopulationshallbeallowedtoinmatesin
AdministrativeSegregation”);Hawaii,MaximumControlUnitFunctions(allowingone45‐
minutepersonalnon‐contactvisitevery14daysformaximumcustodyinmates)and
COR.11.01(3.1)(f)(allowingnon‐contactpersonalvisitsbutcontactofficialvisits);Idaho,SOP
319.02.01.001(18)(allowingonevisitpermonthuponrequest,excludingattorneyvisits,after
twentydaysofdetention);Illinois,Ill.Admin.Codetit.20§505.80(permittingnon‐contact
visitsuponadvanceapprovalforallnon‐attorneyvisitors);Indiana,DOCPolicy02‐01‐111(IX)(E)
(allowingaminimumoftwovisitspermonth,withopportunityforcontactdeterminedby
facility);Iowa,IO‐HO‐05(IV)(H)(2)(o)(i)(specifying“opportunitiesforvisitationunlessthereare
substantialreasonsforwithholdingprivileges”);Kansas,IMPP20‐101(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)(allowingnon‐contactregularvisitsonceperweek
andprofessionalvisitsaspermitted);Maryland,DOC.100.0002(18)(F)(12)(permittingsame
numberanddurationofvisitsasgeneralpopulation,preferablyinseparatevisitingroom,
“consistentwithsecuritystaffingandinstitutionalneeds”);Massachusetts,103CMR421.20(7)
(“inmatesinsegregationshallbeaffordedvisitingprivilegeswhichare,asmuchaspracticable,
thesameasthoseavailabletoinmatesinthegeneralpopulation”);Michigan,PD05.03.140(CC)
(permittingnon‐contactvisitsonlyexceptforwithanattorney);Minnesota,DD301.087(E)(11)
(requiringthatinmatesinadministrativesegregationstatushaveaccesstovisiting,and
specifyingCCTVvisitsfourhourspermonthforOakParkHeightsAdministrativeControlUnit,
withincreasedvisitationopportunitiesatwarden’sdiscretion);Mississippi,SOP19‐01‐01
(permittingnon‐contactvisitsbytenvisitorsunlesstherearesubstantialreasonsfor
withholding);Missouri,IS21‐1.2(III)(E)(10)(a)(permittingtwohournon‐contactvisitswith
possibilityofadditionalprivileges);Montana,MSP3.5.1(III)(G)(2)(l)(socialandlegalvisitsmust
bepermitted“providedtheinmateisnotunderaproperlyimposedvisitingrestriction”);
Nebraska,AR210.01(III)(J)(allowingnon‐contactvisitsforinmatesinintensivemanagement,
contactforadministrativeconfinementunlessinaunitwithtelevisitingcapability);Nevada,AR
507(4)(E)(“administrativesegregationinmateswillbeallowedcontactvisitsunlesssecurityof
theinstitutiondictatesotherwise”);NewHampshire,PPD7.09(IV)(D)(9)(permittingtwovisits
perweekbesidesattorneyandclergyvisits);NewJersey,ACSUAdministrativeSegregation
InmateHandbook(defininglevelsofprogramandcorrespondingnon‐contactvisitprivileges);
NewMexico,CD‐143000(X)(“inmatesinsegregationshallhaveopportunitiesforvisitation
unlesstherearesubstantialreasonsforwithholdingsuchprivileges”);NewYork,7NYCRR
1704.7(d)(permittingonenon‐legalvisitperweek,subjecttofurtherrestriction);North
Carolina,C.1215(permittingtwonon‐contactvisitseverythirtydays);NorthDakota,5A‐
20(3)(H)(2)(permittingadministrativesegregationinmatesonehourofvisitingtimeoneach
authorizeddayandupto10hourspermonth);Ohio,AR55‐SPC‐02(VI)(A)(14)(permitting
ADMINISTRATIVESEGREGATION,DEGREESOFISOLATION,ANDINCARCERATION:ANATIONALOVERVIEWOFPOLICIES
LimanoverviewsegregationJune25,2013final 35
“sameaccesstovisitationasgeneralpopulationunlesssecurityorsafetyconsiderationsdictate
otherwise”);Oklahoma,OP‐040204(V)(A)(12)(permittingvisitingprivilegesinaccordancewith
levelassignment);Oregon,OAR291‐127‐0260(6)(permittingonenon‐contactone‐hour
visit/weekwithtwovisitors);Pennsylvania,DC‐ADM802(§3)(A)(2)(d)(“allvisitsarenon‐
contact”andgovernedbyprogramphases);RhodeIsland,12.02‐2DOC(III)(E)(2)(onevisitper
week,ifdetainee’sbehaviorpermits,excludingvisitwithattorney);SouthDakota,DOCPolicy
1.3.D.4&1.5.D.1(permittingnon‐contactvisits);Tennessee,DOCPolicy506.16(IV)(E)(1)&
507.01.1(allowingvisitsbyfamily,attorney,andministeronly;opportunityforcontactvisits
determinedbyfacility);Vermont,DOCPolicy410.06(permittingonevisitperweek,non‐
contactorcontactaccordingtofacilityandstep‐downstatus);Virginia,OP861.3(V)(D)(16)
(establishingnon‐contactvisitation,oneone‐hourvisitperweekwithnomorethanfive
persons);Washington,DOC320.260(III)(A)(2)(providingforno‐contactvisitswithimmediate
familymembers);WestVirginia,PD326.00(V)(B)(18)(“inmatesinsegregationshallhave
opportunitiesforvisitationunlesstherearesubstantialreasonsforwithholdingsuch
privileges”);Wisconsin,Wis.Admin.CodeDOC§§309.09(4)&DOC309.11(1)(allowingone
hourperweek,permittingwardentoimposenon‐contactvisitingoninmatesinadministrative
segregation);Wyoming,P&P#5.400(IV)(K)(1)(iv)(requiringpre‐arrangedvisitsforinmatesin
long‐termadministrativesegregationandvaryinghoursofnon‐contactvisitationpermonth
dependingonlevelofisolation).
89Florida,Fla.Admin.Coder.33‐602.220(5)(i);Maine,DOC15.1(VI)(E)(2)(C);Oregon,OAR291‐
127‐0260;Washington,DOC320.260(III)(A)(2).
90Maine,DOCPolicy15.1(VI)(E).
91Georgia,SOPIIB09‐0001(VI)(E)(5);Hawaii,COR.11.01(3.1)(f);Idaho,SOP319.02.01.001(18);
Illinois,Ill.Admin.Codetit.20,§505.80;Iowa,HO‐05(H)(2)(h)(i),Kansas,IMPP20‐101(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,HO‐05(H)(2)(o)(i);Kansas,IMPP10‐110;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,IS21‐1.2(E)10)(a);Nevada,AR
5074(Q);NewHampshire,PPD7.09(IV)(L);NewJersey,ACSUAdministrativeSegregation
InmateHandbook;NewMexico,CD‐143005(A)(CC);NorthDakota,5A‐20(I)(2);RhodeIsland,
12.02‐2(III)(E)(7);SouthDakota,DOCPolicy1.3.D.4(IV);Tennessee,DOC506.16(VI)(E)(12);
Virginia,OP861.3(V)(D)(22)(a).
93Arkansas,AD11‐42(III)(C)(7).
94Iowa,IADOCHO‐05((IV)(F)(7).
THEARTHURLIMANPUBLICINTERESTPROGRAMATYALELAWSCHOOLJUNE2013
LimanoverviewsegregationJune25,2013final36
95Illinois,20Ill.AdminCode§504.620(m);Indiana,DOCPolicy02‐01‐111(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,SOPIIB09‐0001(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,OAR291‐127‐0260(6);Mississippi,SOP19‐01‐01.
101Oregon,OAR291‐127‐0260.
102NewHampshire,PPD7.09(IV)(A)(2).
103Alabama,AR303(V)(C);FederalBureauofPrisons,P5217.01(5)(a)(10)(“inmatesmaybe
providednon‐contactvisits,throughtheuseofvideoconferencingorothertechnology”);
Delaware,DOCPolicy4.3(VI)(D);Georgia,SOPIIB09‐0001(VI)(E)(5);Idaho,SOP
319.02.01.001(18);Kansas,IMPP20‐101(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,5A‐20(H)(2);
Ohio,AR55‐SPC‐02(VI)(A)(14);Oklahoma,OP‐040204(V)(A)(12);RhodeIsland,12.02‐2(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
650‐03(IV)(F)(1)(j);Connecticut,NorthernCorrectionalInstitutionAdministrativeSegregation
ProgramDescription;Hawaii,MaximumControlUnitFunctions;Illinois,Ill.Admin.Codetit.20,
§505.80;Maine,DOC15.1(VI)(E)(2)(C);Michigan,PD05.03.140(CC);Minnesota,DD
301.087(E)(11);Mississippi,SOP19‐01‐01;Missouri,IS21‐1.2(III)(E)(10)(a);Nebraska,AR
210.01(J)(intensivemanagementonly);NewJersey,ACSUAdministrativeSegregationInmate
Handbook;NewMexico,CD‐143005(D)(5)(A);NorthCarolina,C.1215;NewYork,7NYCRR
1704.7(d);Oregon,OAR291‐127‐0260(6);Pennsylvania,DC‐ADM802(§3)(A)(2)(d);Rhode
Island,15.11‐3DOC(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.33‐602.220(5)(i);Indiana,DOCPolicy02‐01‐111(IX)(E);Iowa,IO‐HO‐
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,atfacilitieswithnon‐contactcapability);Wisconsin,
Wis.Admin.CodeDOC§§309.09(4)&DOC309.11(1).
107Alaska,DOC810.02(VII)(C)(2);Florida,Fla.Admin.Coder.33‐602.220(5)(i);Indiana,DOC
Policy02‐01‐111(IX)(E);Iowa,IO‐HO‐05(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,IA‐HO‐05(IV)(H)(2)(o)(i);Kansas,IMPP20‐101(III)(B);
NewMexico,CD‐143000(X);Virginia,OP861.3(16)(a);Wyoming,P&P5.400(IV)(K).
111Florida,Fla.Admin.Coder.33‐602.220(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,COAR650‐3(F)(1)(j);Connecticut,NorthernCorrectionalInstitution
AdministrativeSegregationProgramDescription;Florida,Fla.Admin.Coder.33‐602.220(5)(i);
Illinois,Ill.Admin.Codetit.20,§525.20;Indiana,DOC02‐01‐111(IX)(E);Iowa,DOCHO‐
05(IV)(H)(2)(o);Kansas,IMPP20‐101(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,SOP19‐01‐01(k);
Montana,DOC3.3.8(IV)(A);Nevada,AR5074(E);NewYork,7NYCRR1704.7(d);Oregon,OAR
291‐127‐0260(3)(c)RhodeIsland,12.02‐2(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.33‐602.220(5)(i);Indiana,DOC02‐01‐111(IX)(E);Illinois,Ill.
Admin.Codetit.20,§505.80;Maine,DOC15.1(E)(2)(C);Minnesota,DD301.087(11)&
301.085(E);Mississippi,MSSOP19‐01‐01(k);NewHampshire,PPD7.09(IV)(I);NewJersey,
IMM.012.001(IV)(I);NewMexico,CD‐143000(X);Oregon,OAR291‐127‐0260;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
11‐42(III)(C)(8);FederalBureauofPrisons,BOP540.50(c);California,Cal.CodeRegs.tit.15§
3343(f);Delaware,DOC4.3(VI)(D)(1);Florida,Fla.Admin.Coder.33‐602.220(5)(i);Georgia,SOP
IIB01‐0005(IV)(c);Illinois,Ill.Admin.Codetit.20,§505.80;Iowa,IA‐HO‐05(H)(2)(o)(i);Indiana,
DOC02‐01‐111(IX)(E);Kansas,IMPP20‐101(III)(B);Kentucky,CPP16.1(G);Maryland,
DOC.100.0002(18)(F)(12);Massachusetts,103CMR421.20(7);Michigan,PD05.03.140;
Mississippi,SOP19‐01‐01(k);Montana,MSP3.5.1(III)(G)(2)(1);Nebraska,AR210.01(J);Nevada,
AR507(4)(E);Ohio,AR55‐SPC‐02(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,INDOC02‐01‐111(IX)(E).
119Maryland,DOC.100.0002(18)(F)(12);Mississippi,MSSOP19‐01‐01(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,DC‐ADM812(1‐4);DC‐ADM801(6).
123Colorado,AR650‐3(H);Connecticut,NorthernCorrectionalInstitutionAdministrative
SegregationProgramDescription;NewJersey,IMM.012.001(IV)(I);NewMexico,CD‐143000,
AttachmentCD‐143002.AandCD‐143002.B;Washington,DOC320.255,Attachment1.
124Colorado,AR650‐03(VI)(H).
125Colorado,AR650‐03(VI)(H)(AdministrativeSegregationPrivilegeLevels).
126Connecticut,NorthernCorrectionalInstitutionAdministrativeSegregationProgram
Description.
127NewJersey,IMM.012.001(IV)(I).
128Indiana,DOC02‐01‐111(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
Interstateandintra‐jurisdictionvariation
THELIMANPUBLICINTERESTPROGRAMATYALELAWSCHOOL JUNE2013
LimanoverviewsegregationAppendixAJune25,2013 AppendixApage2
DefiningAdministrativeSegregation
Separationofprisonersfromgeneralpopulationtypicallyinacell(doubleorsingle),for23
hours/day
Generallylong‐term:notfixed,eitherindefiniteorrenewable,and30daysormore
Notpunitive,disciplinary,orprotective
PolicieswithGeneralAuthority/FewEnumeratedFactors
“Non‐punitiveplacementofaninmateinacellwhosecontinuedpresenceinthegeneral
populationposesaseriousthreattolife,property,securityortheorderlyoperationofthe
institution.”
‐Alabama,AR436.3A
“Anyothercircumstanceswhere,inthejudgmentofstaff,theoffendermayposeathreatto
thesecurityofthefacility.”
⁸Arkansas,AR836DOC4.6
“Continuedpresenceinthegeneralpopulationposesathreattolife,property,self,staff,other
offendersortothesafety/securityororderlyoperationofthefacility.”
‐Delaware,DOCIV.24A;seealsoPennsylvania,DC‐ADM802,III;
Oklahoma,OP‐040204.1
“Presenceoftheinmateingeneralpopulationwouldposeaseriousthreattothecommunity,
property,self,staff,otherinmates,orthesecurityorthegoodgovernmentofthefacility.”
‐Hawaii,COR.11.01.2.2.a.2;seealsoNorthDakota,DOC
5A‐20.2.a;Vermont,DOC410.03
“Basedon:1)threatanoffender’scontinuedpresenceinthegeneralpopulationposestolife,
self,staff,otheroffenders,orproperty;2)threatposedbytheoffendertotheorderly
operationandsecurityofthefacility;and3)regulationofanoffender’sbehaviorwhich
wasnotwithinacceptablelimitswhileinthegeneraloffenderpopulation.”
‐Indiana,DOC02‐01‐111–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/organg‐relatedactivity.”
‐BureauofPrisons,P5217.01(2)
“Jeopardizestheintegrityofaninvestigationofanallegedseriousmisconductorcriminal
activity.”
‐California,Article7,3335(a)
“Aconvictionofacrimerepugnanttotheinmatepopulation.”
‐Florida,Fla.Admin.Coder.33‐602.220(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.100.002‐18B(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.,19‐01‐01(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.650‐03(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:
S‐1–AggravatedAssaultonstaff
S‐2–AggravatedAssaultonInmatew/weaponorResultinginSeriousInjuryw/oweapon
S‐3–RepeatedorContinuousRefusaltoenterGPataSecurityLevel4or5facilityfor12
monthsNotUsed
S‐4‐SeriousEscapeRisk‐requiringmaximumsecuritysupervision
S‐5‐CommissionofCrimeofExceptionalViolenceand/orNotoriety
S‐6‐ExcessiveViolentDisciplinaryCharges–reflectinginabilitytoadjusttoalowerlevelof
supervision
S‐7‐SettingFireResultinginInjurytoPersonsorExtensiveDamagetoStateProperty
S‐8‐RiotingresultinginInjurytoPersonsorExtensiveDamagetoStateProperty
S‐9‐SeizingorHoldingHostages
S‐10‐PossessionofFirearms,Ammunition,Explosives,Weapons
S‐11‐KnowinglyTransferringHIVorotherDiseasetoAnotherPersonorRefusaltoSubmitto
Test i ng
S‐12‐GangActivityRelatedtoanyCategoryIOffenseoraDocumentedGangLeadership
Role
S‐13–StaffManipulator/Predator
S‐14–Behaviorthatrepresentsathreatleveltoogreatforthesafetyandsecurityofalower
levelinstitution.
‐‐Virginia,OperatingProcedure830.2,SecurityLevelClassification.
THELIMANPUBLICINTERESTPROGRAMATYALELAWSCHOOL JUNE2013
LimanoverviewsegregationAppendixAJune25,2013 AppendixApage6
InitialPlacementinAdministrativeSegregation
ProcessesforPlacement
Decision‐Makers
Committee: 31jurisdictions
Hearingofficer: 12jurisdictions
Warden/designee: 3jurisdictions
NoticeandHearings(broadlydefined)
38jurisdictionsspecifyhearings
29jurisdictionsrequirehearingswithin14days
9jurisdictionsdonotspecifythathearingsaretobeprovided
Evidence(broadlydefined)
30jurisdictionsauthorizeinmatepresentationofevidence
8jurisdictionsdonotspecify
InmateAssistance/Representatives
8 jurisdictionsauthorizeassistanceorrepresentatives
10 additionaljurisdictionsprovideforassistanceinspecifiedcircumstances
20 jurisdictionsdonotspecifythatinmatescanhaveassistance
2 jurisdictionsauthorizelawyers/1prohibitslawyers
ReviewandAppeal
Review
Automaticreviewbywarden: 15jurisdictions
Automaticreviewbycentraloffice:9jurisdictions
Appeal–inmateinitiation
9jurisdictions:inmatesappealeithertocentralofficeortowarden
7jurisdictionsdonotspecifyappealorreviewprocessesspecifictoadministrativesegregation
Somejurisdictionsuseregulargrievanceprocedures
Rateofapproval/reversalunknown
ADMINISTRATIVESEGREGATION,DEGREESOFISOLATION,ANDINCARCERATION:ANATIONALOVERVIEWOFPOLICIES
LimanoverviewsegregationAppendixAJune25,2013 AppendixApage7
PeriodicReview
Everyjurisdictionprovidesperiodicreview
Firstperiodicreview
27jurisdictions:28daysorless
14jurisdictions:30‐90daysorless
6jurisdictions:6months‐1yearorless
SubsequentReviews
4jurisdictions:28daysorless
37jurisdictions:30‐90daysorless
6jurisdictions:6months‐1yearorless
2jurisdictions:minimumtimebeforeperiodicreview(120days‐1year)
6jurisdictionsrequireapprovalbycommissioner/deputyfor6months‐1year
4jurisdictionsrequireapprovalbywardenforlongerthan1year
Unknownwhetherthetimingandfrequencyofreviewscorrelatewithdurationin
administrativesegregation
Visitation
Manydecisionsareatfacilitylevel
LegalVisits
Alljurisdictionspermit
10jurisdictionsprovidethatnolimitationsmaybeplacedoncontactwithlawyers
Religiousvisits
20statesexpresslyprovidevisits
PersonalVisits
Alljurisdictionspermitpersonalvisits
4stateslimittoimmediatefamily/relatives
Degreeofcontact:
22barcontactvisits(dependingonkindofsegregation)
11permitcontactvisits
10requirepermissionfromwarden
14policiesdonotspecify
1statetiestoprogressioninprogram
1stateallowsvisitsonlyviaclosedcircuitvideo
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
“non‐disciplinaryreasonsfor
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
expectedtotake18‐24
months
Yes
FloridaWeeklyMonthly Monthly Weeklyinitialreviewsby
InstitutionalClassification
Team;monthlyreviewsby
StateClassificationOffice.13
No
GeorgiaWeekly
(firsttwo
months)
Monthly Monthly Counselorinformallyreviews
andreportstowardenthe
inmate’swell‐beingforfirst
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
(facility‐levelsegregation
unit)or“staffdesignatedby
theFacilityHead.”18
No
Unspecifiedfor“Department‐WideSegregation”
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
(Long‐termSegregation)
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
(60‐dayreview).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,AD11‐42(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,AR650‐03,(IV)(J)(2).
9NorthernCorrectionalInstitutionAdministrativeSegregationProgram.
10Delaware,DOCPolicyNo.4.3(VI)(A)(3).
11FederalBureauofPrisons,BOP541.23.
12FederalBureauofPrisons,P5217.01.
13Fla.Admin.Coder.33‐602.220.8.
14Georgia,SOPIIB09‐0001(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,Policy02‐01‐111(VII).
19Iowa,IO‐HO‐05(III);IO‐HO‐05(IV)(A)(7).
20Kansas,IMPP20‐106.
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,103CMR421.15‐421.18.
27Michigan,PD04.05.120(BBB)‐(GGG).
28Minnesota,DD301.085(C).
29Minnesota,DD301.087(G).
30Mississippi,SOP19‐01‐01.
31Mississippi,SOP19‐01‐03.
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,CD‐143000.5(I)‐(J).
397NYCRR301.4(d)(1).
40NorthCarolina,C.0302.Thetextstatesthata“designatedstaffmember”willconductthe
reviews;representativesfromNorthCarolinaDOCinformedusthatcasemanagerstypically
performthesereviews.
41NorthDakota,5A‐20(3)(E).
THELIMANPUBLICINTERESTPROGRAMATYALELAWSCHOOL JUNE2013
LimanoverviewsegregationAppendixBJune25,2013 AppendixBpage14
42OhioAdmin.Code5120‐9‐13.1(H,I);55‐SPC‐02(IV),(VI)(B)(4).
43Oklahoma,OP‐O40204(III)(A)(7).
44Oregon,AR291‐046‐0005;291‐046‐0025;291‐046‐0090.
45Pennsylvania,DC‐ADM802(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.Thetwelve‐monthreviewbytheWardenisautomatic.
55Wyoming,P&P3.302(IV)(E)‐(F).NotealsothatincaseswheretheUnitManagementTeam
recommendsreleasebuttheWardendisagrees,thatdisagreementgivestheinmatetherightto
appealtotheWyomingDOCPrisonDivisionAdministrator.Wyoming,P&P3.302(IV)(E)(5)(ii).

















