Rick Raemisch
Executive Director

SB 11-176 ANNUAL REPORT:
ADMINISTRATIVE SEGREGATION FOR
COLORADO INMATES
A REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEES OF THE
SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
DUE JANUARY 1, 2016, PURSUANT TO C.R.S. 17-1-113.9(1)

PREPARED BY
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND ANALYSIS
JANUARY 2016

 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ................................................................................................. 1
Background .................................................................................................. 2
Ongoing Efforts to Address the Needs of Offenders with Serious Mental Illness ................. 6
Placements .................................................................................................. 7
Releases ...................................................................................................... 8
Fiscal Year 2015 Restrictive Housing Highlights ......................................................10
Addendum A ................................................................................................11

 INTRODUCTION
This annual report outlines the prior use of administrative segregation, as well as the
current status of on-going administrative segregation reform within the Colorado
Department of Corrections (CDOC) pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 11-176, which states:
On or before January 1, 2012, and each January 1 thereafter, the executive
director shall provide a written report to the Judiciary Committees of the
Senate and House of Representatives, or any successor committees,
concerning the status of administrative segregation; reclassification efforts
for offenders with mental illness or developmental disabilities, including
duration of stay, reason for placement, and number and percentage
discharged; and any internal reform efforts since July 1, 2011.
The purpose of this report is to describe the use of administrative segregation, also
referred to as long term solitary confinement, within the CDOC, since SB 11-176 was
enacted.
In June 2014, the use of administrative segregation was eliminated within CDOC
and replaced with newly developed Restrictive Housing policies and practices that
were implemented in accordance with the 13 guiding “Restrictive Housing”
principles developed by the Association of State Corrections Administrators (ASCA).
Much of this report will show data across this transition; from administrative
segregation to “Restrictive Housing”. Figures that contain data prior to June of 2014
will be labeled using administrative segregation, and data that is exclusively in FY
2015 will be labeled using “Restrictive Housing - Maximum Security” status. All
internal reform efforts are publicly available in the form of the Department's
Administrative Regulations (AR) including: ARs 650-03 - Restrictive Housing, 600-09Management of Close Custody Offenders, and 650-04 - Residential Treatment
Program for Offenders with Mental Illness and Intellectual and Developmental
Disabilities (Please refer to the Residential Treatment Program Legislative report RFI
#1). The data contained in this report is through FY 2015.

1

 BACKGROUND
In April 2011 there were 1,476 offenders (6.8%) of CDOC offender population housed
within administrative segregation. This number climbed to a high of 1,505 offenders
in September 2011. In response to the increase in administrative segregation
population, CDOC began formulating an outcome-based strategic plan with long-term
goals and objectives designed to reduce the reliance upon the use of administrative
segregation. Recognizing the concerns raised by SB 11-176, CDOC identified a
strategic initiative to critically examine the policies, procedures, and practices of
administrative segregation to make improvements consistent with an independent
study 1 and to decrease the number of offenders releasing directly from
administrative segregation to parole or the community. This strategic objective
included high-level Deputy Director reviews of offenders who had been housed in
administrative segregation for longer than one year, and the commission of an
independent analysis of administrative segregation policies, procedures, and
practices with the support of the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) and the U.S.
Department of Justice.
The objective of the NIC analysis was to ensure that administrative segregation
beds were being used to house only the most dangerous and disruptive offenders in
Colorado’s prison system. The recommendations from the NIC review focused on the
criteria for placement of offenders in administrative segregation (e.g., narrower
criteria, use of punitive segregation prior to placement in administrative
segregation, mental health reviews), modifying the quality of life system, and
implementing centralized management of administrative segregation. Policy changes
were made accordingly and are described fully in the January 2013 SB11-176 report.
Effective February 2013, as part of the changes resulting from the NIC study,
administrative segregation became a status separate from custody level. Also
implemented as part of the classification study recommendations, a protective
custody unit was created. This enabled offenders with verified custody issues to be
removed from administrative segregation and placed in a protective custody unit.
While many of the initial reform efforts were successful, in July 2013 there were
still 700 offenders housed within administrative segregation, with 17.2% of the
offenders releasing directly to the community. The newly implemented five levels
of administrative segregation had resulted in a revolving door, with offenders
progressing and then being regressed for minor rule infractions. Administrative
segregation was still long term solitary confinement - as placement into
administrative segregation was not sanction based nor was it set for determinate
periods of time.
Austin, James, and Emmitt Sparkman. Colorado Department of Corrections Administrative
Segregation and Classification Review. National Institute of Corrections, Prisons Division, 2011.
1

2

 CDOC initiated a number of on-going administrative segregation reform efforts
focused upon eliminating the use of administrative segregation or long term solitary
confinement, and developing a new determinate Restrictive Housing policy by
implementing and adhering to the 13 guiding "Restrictive Housing" principles
developed by the ASCA, for those offenders who had proven, through their behavior,
to be the most violent, dangerous, and disruptive offenders in CDOC.
In January 2014, several internal working groups of facility staff from throughout
CDOC were convened to assist with the on-going administrative segregation reform
efforts, with the following goals of: 1) Revise current policies to move from an
administrative segregation to a Restrictive Housing policy, and 2) Identify and review
every offender who had been housed in administrative segregation longer than 12
months.
During this process four distinctive groups of offenders were identified:
1. Those offenders who needed to be housed in administrative segregation or
“Restrictive Housing – Maximum Security” status as a result of their
violent, dangerous, and disruptive behaviors.
2. Those offenders who had either real or perceived protective custody
issues.
3. Those offenders who had mental health needs and could be better
managed within one of CODC’s Residential Treatment Programs (RTP) or
Management Control Units (MCU).
4. Those offenders who did not need to be housed in administrative
segregation, yet preferred the environment and the single cell that it
provided.
AR 650-03 – Restrictive Housing, was completely revised eliminating all previous
administrative segregation definitions, terms and practices, and replaced with
Restrictive Housing definitions, terms and practices. Further revisions to AR 650-03
identified a list of punitive offenses to include 13 of the most violent and dangerous
offense types (e.g., murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, assault, rape, arson, escape,
possession of dangerous contraband, engaging in/inciting a riot), for which an
offender could be housed within “Restrictive Housing – Maximum Security” status,
and for how long. With the changes to the new Restrictive Housing policy, offenders
sanctioned to “Restrictive Housing – Maximum Security” status received a specified
time limit. Offenders were previously placed in administrative segregation for an
indeterminate period of time with step down contingent on program compliance.
Under the new policy offenders are placed in “Restrictive Housing – Maximum
Security” status for a maximum of 12 months dependent on their offense and offense
severity, with multidisciplinary reviews being conducted every 30 days.

3

 The revisions reflected the ASCA resolution for Restrictive Status Housing Policy
Guidelines that provide a framework for each correctional agency to develop their
own policies and practices consistent with the 13 ASCA “Guiding Principles”.2
To ensure for the progressive pro-social management, or step-down, of offenders
from “Restrictive Housing – Maximum Security” status back into general population,
AR 600-09 - Management of Close Custody Offenders, was revised to address the
significant public, staff and offender safety concerns that are present when
managing this population. This resulted in the development and implementation of
two new Close custody units; Management Control Units (MCU’s), and Close Custody
Transition Units (CCTU’s).
MCU’s are designed to serve as a progressive, socialization management
assignment for high risk offenders who are progressing out of “Restrictive Housing Maximum Security” status. Offenders assigned to MCUs are allowed out of their cell
for a minimum of four hours per day, seven days per week, with up to eight other
offenders, to participate in small group controlled pro-social pod/day hall,
recreational, and programming activities.
CCTUs are primarily used as a temporary (six month) progressive management
assignment for close custody offenders who are either progressing out of MCUs or for
newly arrived offenders who score close custody on their initial intake classification.
Offenders assigned to CCTUs are allowed out of their cell for a minimum of six hours
per day, seven days per week with up to 16 other offenders, to participate in prosocial group pod/day hall, recreational, and Thinking for a Change cognitive
intervention programming activities.
While the MCUs and CCTUs are more restrictive than the general population, they
are far less restrictive than previous levels of administrative segregation housing or
current “Restrictive Housing – Maximum Security” status.
Figure 1 shows
administrative segregation population trends along with key timeline events, through
June 30, 2015.

2

See Addendum A

4

 Figure 1. Administrative segregation population trends with timeline of key reform
initiatives

5

 ON-GOING EFFORTS TO ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF OFFENDERS
WITH SERIOUS MENTAL ILLNESSES
As required under AR 650-03, offenders with a serious mental illness cannot be
placed into “Restrictive Housing – Maximum Security” status. To determine who
these individuals are, CDOC uses a coding process to identify and track offenders
who have mental health treatment needs. Because the P code identifies broad need
levels, a definition was created in February 2013 to identify those with a major
mental illness. Major mental illness was defined by clinical diagnoses; qualifying
disorders included schizophrenia, bipolar disorders, major depressive disorders, and
delusional or psychotic disorders. Beginning in April 2013, an M qualifier was used to
designate offenders with major mental illness. In FY 2014, CDOC determined that
the definition of major mental illness was too exclusive and began using the term
serious mental illness. Furthermore, qualifying disorders were expanded. An M
qualifier continues to identify those offenders recognized as having a serious mental
illness.
In June 2014, the newly implemented “Restrictive Housing – Maximum Security”
status policy was put in place. Furthermore, in response to policy and SB 14-064,
which prohibits offenders diagnosed with a serious mental illness from being placed
in long-term isolated confinement, offenders with serious mental illness were no
longer placed in “Restrictive Housing – Maximum Security” status.

6

 PLACEMENTS
Offender files are reviewed monthly by researchers to code reasons for placement of
offenders into “Restrictive Housing – Maximum Security” status. During this review,
the primary reason for placement is obtained for each offender, even if there were
multiple factors affecting the placement decision. Because a brief narrative cannot
provide enough detail to convey the seriousness of the incident, a placement
severity rating is coded for each offender. For example, a less serious assault could
entail throwing an item at staff versus a more serious assault which might result in
serious bodily injury to or death of staff or offender. It should be noted that
placement severity ratings of 1 are serious, just less serious than those with higher
severity ratings. For FY 2015, Table 1 shows placement reasons for all offenders
entering administrative segregation and “Restrictive Housing – Maximum Security”
status.
Table 1. Placements into “Restrictive Housing – Maximum Security” status during FY
2015.
Placement Reason

Placement Severity
1

2

3

Assault on inmate

3

81

Assault on staff

6

10

Escape

1

Inciting a riot

4

2
14

Murder/manslaughter

4

Other

2

Possession of dangerous contraband

110

2

Rape

1

STG activity

3

7

38

 RELEASES
Two performance outcome measures were identified for FY 2012 as part of CDOC’s
strategic plan. These measures were intended to evaluate the success of CDOC’s
reform efforts: 1) to reduce the rate of offenders in administrative segregation and
2) to reduce the percent of offenders who release directly from administrative
segregation to parole/community. The FY 2012 goals were exceeded for both
measures, and therefore, the measures were discontinued for FY 2013. However,
due to renewed efforts to reform administrative segregation, new targets were set
on these same measures for FY 2014 and carried on into FY 2015. Figures 2 and 3
present the FY 2012 and 2014 targets along with actual performance on each
measure.
Figure 2: Percentage of total prison population
in administrative segregation / Restrictive
Housing – Maximum Security

Figure 3: Releases directly to community
from administrative segregation /
Restrictive Housing – Maximum Security

Figure Note: During FY15, one offender was
released from Restricted Housing-Maximum
Security directly to a detainer. Due to the
circumstances, the offender was approved for
RH-Max because he was being released directly
to a jail.

8

 As a result of the continued and on-going efforts to limit the use of long-term
solitary confinement/administrative segregation, the average length of stay in
months for offenders releasing from administrative segregation increased during FY
2013 and FY 2014. As offenders who were in administrative segregation for extended
periods of time released, the average length of stay increased. However, in FY 2015
the average length of stay decreased for offenders in “Restrictive Housing –
Maximum Security” status by more than half. The sharp decrease in FY 2014 into FY
2015 is a result of changes regarding maximum length of stay in restrictive housing.
Figure 4: The average length of stay for offenders in administrative segregation / Restricted
Housing-Maximum Security – Total Population

9

 FISCAL YEAR 2015 RESTRICTIVE HOUSING HIGHLIGHTS
 The number of offenders housed within administrative segregation (now referred
to as “Restrictive Housing –Maximum Security” status) has been reduced to a monthly
average of 158 offenders.
 The average length of stay in administrative segregation or “Restrictive HousingMaximum Security” status has been reduced from 28 months to 8 months.
 Previous practices of releasing offenders directly from administrative segregation
environments to the community have been eliminated, thereby enhancing public
safety.
 FY 2012 = 188 offenders were released directly from administrative segregation
 FY 2013 = 91 offenders were released directly from administrative segregation.
 FY 2014 = 40 offenders were released directly from administrative segregation
 Since March 2014 – There have been zero offenders released directly to the
community from administrative segregation or “Restrictive Housing – Maximum
Security” status.
The Department believes that our staff, our institutions and ultimately our
communities will be safer as a result of these on-going administrative segregation reform efforts.

10

 ADDENDUM A

Restrictive Status Housing Policy Guidelines

Purpose
The Association of State Correctional Administrators [ASCA] recognizes the importance and challenges
associated with managing inmates who pose a serious threat to staff, other inmates or to the safe and
orderly operation t o correctional facilities.

The use of restrictive housing is a necessary tool f o r

correctional systems to utilize to ensure a safe environment for staff and inmates. ASCA is committed to
the universal classification principle of managing inmates in the least restrictive way necessary to carry
out its mission.

As a result, ASCA established a sub-committee for the purpose of creating guiding principles that might
be used by member agencies for the purpose of developing policies related to restrictive status
housing. ASCA recognizes that individual jurisdictions have specific issues, unique legislation, judicial
orders, and varying physical plant configurations that must be considered locally and addressed by
policies specific to those individual jurisdictions. Based on the complexity of managing this population,
some universal principles provide this general framework for agencies in the development of their
p o l i c i e s . We hope this document is helpful to jurisdictions in designing policies to safely manage
this population in a manner that promotes their positive transition to less restrictive settings
while supporting an environment where other inmates may safely and actively participate in
pro-social programs and activities.

Defining Restrictive Housing
Restrictive status housing is a term used by correctional professionals to encompass a larger number of
agency specific n o m e n c l a t u r e s . In general terms, restrictive status housing is a form of housing
for inmates whose continued presence in the general population would pose a serious threat to
life, property, self, staff or other inmates, or to the security or orderly operation of a correctional
facility. This definition does not include protective custody. Restrictive status housing is designed to

11

 support a safe and productive environment for facility staff and inmates assigned to general
population as well as to create a path for those inmates in this status to successfully transition to a less
restrictive setting.

12

 Restrictive Status Housing Policy Guidelines

ASCA Administrative Segregation

Sub-Committee

August 9, 2013

ASSOCIATION OF STATE CORRECTIONAL ADMINISTRATORS
The following guiding p r i n c i p l e s for the operation of restrictive status housing a r e recommended
for consideration by correctional agencies for inclusion in agency policy. They are to:
1.

Provide a process, a separate review for decisions to place an offender in restrictive status
housing;

2. Provide periodic c l a s s i f i c a t i o n re views of offenders in restrictive status housing every 180
days or less;
3.

Provide in-person mental health assessments, by trained personnel within 72 hours of
an offender being

placed

in

restrictive status

housing

and

periodic mental

health

assessments thereafter including an appropriate mental health treatment plan;
4.

Provide structured and progressive le vels that i n c l u d e i n c r e a s e d p ri v i le g e s a s an
incentive f o r positive behavior and/or program participation;

5. Determine an offender's length of stay in restrictive status housing on the nature a n d level of
threat to the safe and orderly operation of general population as well as program
participation, rule compliance and the recommendation of the person[s] assigned to conduct
the classification review as opposed to strictly held time periods;
6. Provide appropriate access to medical and mental health staff and services;
7. Provide access to visiting opportunities;
8. Provide appropriate exercise opportunities;
9. Provide the ability to maintain proper hygiene;
10. Provide program opportunities appropriate to support t r a n s i t i o n back to a general
population setting or to the community;
11. Collect sufficient data to assess the effectiveness of implementation of these guiding principles;

13

 12. Conduct an objective
independent

of

the

review of all offenders in restrictive status housing by persons
placement authority

to

determine

the

offenders'

need

for

continued placement in restrictive status housing; and
13. Require all staff assigned to work in restrictive status housing units receive appropriate training
in managing offenders on restrictive status housing status.

14

 FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Office of Planning and Analysis
Department of Corrections
State of Colorado
2862 South Circle Dr.
Colorado Springs, CO 80906

DOC_OPA@state.co.us
719-226-4373

17