Working to Limit Restrictive Housing:
Efforts in Four Jurisdictions
to Make Changes

The Association of State Correctional Administrators
The Liman Center for Public Interest Law
at Yale Law School

October 2018
The Arthur

Liman
Center
Yale Law School

for Public Interest Law at

LCY

 Working to Limit Restrictive Housing:
Efforts in Four Jurisdictions to Make Changes

The Association of State Correctional Administrators
The Liman Center for Public Interest Law
at Yale Law School

October 2018

ASCA-Liman 2018 Restrictive Housing - Efforts in Four Jurisdictions to Make Changes revised September 25 2018

 1

Working to Limit Restrictive Housing:
Efforts in Four Jurisdictions to Make Changes
Table of Contents
The Context: Nationwide Efforts to Limit Time-in-Cell ...........................................................2

Colorado Reforms: What Do You Mean “Culture”?
Rick Raemisch, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Corrections ..................3

Idaho: Efforts to Reform Restrictive Housing
Henry Atencio, Director, Idaho Department of Correction and
Keith Yordy, Warden, Idaho State Correctional Institution ..........................................5

Reflections on North Dakota’s Sustained Solitary Confinement Reform
Leann Bertsch, Director, North Dakota Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation ..............................................................................................8

Restrictive Housing: The Challenge of Reforming the Fabric of an Agency
Gary Mohr, Director, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction..................11

A National Shift in Perspective................................................................................................18

ASCA-Liman 2018 Restrictive Housing - Efforts in Four Jurisdictions to Make Changes revised September 25 2018

 2

The Context: Nationwide Efforts to Limit Time-in-Cell
This monograph provides excerpts from the ASCA-Liman Report, Reforming Restrictive
Housing: The 2018 ASCA-Liman Nationwide Survey of Time-in-Cell. That Report is the fourth in
a series of ASCA-Liman research projects focused on restrictive housing – or what is popularly
known as “solitary confinement” – defined in this Report as placement of an individual in a cell
for 22 hours or more on average for fifteen days or more.
Over the course of the past several years, ASCA and the Liman Center have asked each of
the correctional departments in the fifty states, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and a few jail
systems to answer survey questions and provide policies to understand the use of restrictive
housing. Our goal is to enable longitudinal, evidence-based assessments of the use of restrictive
housing by providing a composite picture at particular intervals. As detailed in the Report, we
gathered information about the numbers and demographics of people held in restrictive housing.
We asked questions about sex/gender, race and ethnicity, and age. We also sought to learn about
the subpopulations of the seriously mentally ill, pregnant prisoners, and transgender individuals.
In addition, the ASCA-Liman survey included requests for information on the length of time that
people spent in restrictive housing and about whether, how, and why policies governing restrictive
housing were changing.
Forty-three jurisdictions provided information in response to the 2017-2018 survey on the
numbers of people in restrictive housing. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, those 43
jurisdictions housed about 80.5% of the total prison population. The 43 jurisdictions reported a
total of 49,197 prisoners in restrictive housing, which was 4.5% of the prisoners confined across
this set. Correctional directors around the country also reported that they were making changes to
reduce and, in some instances, to abolish holding people in cell for 22 hours or more on average
for fifteen days or more.
Below, we provide first-hand accounts by correctional leaders describing their efforts to
make major changes in the use of restrictive housing in Colorado, Idaho, North Dakota, and Ohio.
These prison administrators explain the ways in which they have revised policies, the challenges
that they have faced, and the impact of their efforts.

ASCA-Liman 2018 Restrictive Housing - Efforts in Four Jurisdictions to Make Changes revised September 25 2018

 3

Colorado Reforms: What Do You Mean “Culture”?
Rick Raemisch,
Executive Director, Colorado Department of Corrections

During the fall of 2017, Colorado became the first, and thus far, the only state in the United
States to limit the use of Restrictive Housing to 15 days maximum, and this use is only for the
most serious violations. Extended Restrictive Housing, the former Administrative Segregation, has
been abolished. Following the United Nations Mandela Rules, this change means that a person in
the Colorado prison system who was involved in a serious violation will be in Restrictive Housing
for 22 hours per day, 7 days per week for a maximum of 15 days. Violations are not to be “stacked.”
In other words, no one will be placed in Restrictive Housing for 15 days, removed, then
immediately placed back in.
This change comes on top of others. Through the Department’s policy and then by statute,
Colorado had already ended Restrictive Housing for seriously mentally ill prisoners. In fact,
Colorado developed the policy that, if a person is involved in a disciplinary incident, and it is
determined by a team consisting of correctional officers and clinicians that mental illness was the
cause of the incident, the offender is taken out of the disciplinary process and given treatment. In
addition, Colorado policies prohibit placing pregnant females and juveniles in Restrictive Housing
under any circumstances.
When we initially started our reforms we adopted the philosophy “just open the door.” We
control it. Open it. Of course many discussions, debates, committee work, and staff input were
completed in order to develop the proper procedures and programs to allow us to open the door.
As I have explained elsewhere, when we went in the direction of abolishing extended restrictive
housing, there was no map, and there was no road. Dedicated staff were challenged to complete
the reforms, and they not only accepted the challenge but excelled at it.
When the decision was made to finally go to the 15 day maximum Restrictive Housing, we
adopted a new philosophy: “You can restrain, but you don’t have to isolate.” We were unable to
find proper restraint tables, and we have never used cages, nor would we. Once again, staff
answered the challenges, and we built our own furniture to fit our needs. Formerly dangerous,
restrictive housing prisoners are now out of their cells for a minimum of four hours per day, at
restraint tables with up to four other inmates, for programing and other activities.
We have all heard the adage: “You can lead a horse to water, but can’t make them drink.”
I don’t believe that. I believe that: “If you throw the horse in the pond they are going to get some
water just trying to get the hell out of the pond.” The point is to give them programming regardless
of whether they want it or not. Although this practice is new, it appears to be working. The goal
of course is first to get them at the table, then give programming, and work towards safely
removing the restraints. The goal is to have the programming be successful to the point where they
can be back in general population.
ASCA-Liman 2018 Restrictive Housing - Efforts in Four Jurisdictions to Make Changes revised September 25 2018

 4

We have been asked numerous times how we were able to accomplish this. How were you
able to change the culture? When we have responded, we have heard: “That won’t work here, the
culture is too embedded in the way we are doing business now.” Culture was never an issue with
us. Of course our staff was used to using segregation on a regular if not overused basis. It’s not a
question of culture. It’s a question of leadership. There is debate as to whether or not Henry Ford
actually made this famous quote, but he is credited with saying: “If I had asked my customers what
they wanted, they’d have said a faster horse.”
The point obviously is that sometimes the vision needs to come directly from the leader. I
gave the Colorado Department of Corrections the vision of where the Department would go. My
approach was not “should we or would we?” Rather, it was: “This is what we are going to do.” I
put together an executive team that believed in my vision. My other philosophy is that if you have
someone who wants to try something different, and it makes sense, give it a try. I’ve stated many
times that if what we do doesn’t work, we can always go back to the way things were before.
I consider my Executive Team and the other corrections leaders here as jet fighter pilots. I
give them the target and then allow them to figure out how to get there. Not all of our staff believed
in our reforms. Some retired, some transferred, but the results of our reforms have changed a good
number of those who did not think it would work. At our two mental health prisons, where
restrictive housing is completely banned, assaults, self-harm, and suicides have decreased
dramatically. Staff enjoy work more because prisoners are acting in a more positive manner. It is
quiet and safer. Safer facilities mean safer communities when they are released.
In the past, we had a waiting list for people with mental illness to be transferred to our
facility for the seriously mentally ill. Today we have over fifty vacant beds. Our other facility for
those with mental health issues has over 45 empty beds. It is too early to tell if the reason for this
is because we have stopped manufacturing or multiplying mental illness by the overuse of
segregation, but before our reforms there were none.
The bottom line: We have one vacant super max, and one re-purposed super max. We are
back on track with our mission of public safety.

ASCA-Liman 2018 Restrictive Housing - Efforts in Four Jurisdictions to Make Changes revised September 25 2018

 5

Idaho: Efforts to Reform Restrictive Housing
Henry Atencio
Director, Idaho Department of Correction
Keith Yordy
Warden, Idaho State Correctional Institution,
Idaho Department of Correction

Idaho Department of Correction [IDOC] made a decision to reform restrictive housing
because it was the right thing to do for public and for community safety. Given that ninety-eight
percent of prisoners in IDOC will return to the community, it is inconsistent with IDOC’s mission
to keep a prisoner in long-term restrictive housing, which results in no access to programming or
educational opportunities, until they are released back into the community. Moreover, reforming
restrictive housing has many benefits. It encourages safe and humane practices for the prison
population. Reform permits compliance with international and national law, as the United Nations
has declared that being confined in a cell 23 hours a day for more than 15 days is considered
torture. Prison-based reform reduces IDOC’s exposure to litigation regarding restrictive housing.
IDOC’s reform process began in 2016 and was guided by nationwide standards addressing
restrictive housing, which included principles of the U.S. Department of Justice and the thirteen
guiding principles provided by the Association for State Correctional Administrators (ASCA).1
Early on in the process, IDOC made the decision to include staff from multiple disciplines and at
various leadership levels in the command structure. IDOC formed a command staff group
comprised of agency and division leadership and reached out to external entities, who agreed to
provide feedback and guidance to the agency during the reform process. The external partners
included staff from the State Appellate Public Defenders’ Office, the Office of the Federal
Defenders of Idaho, and the Idaho Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. They have been
an integral part of the process, as they have provided feedback on policy revisions, suggested
language to use, and identified areas where the policy was unclear.
IDOC’s path to reform also entailed having individual members of the department attend
trainings and go on site visits to other states. Wardens, joined by correctional and mental health
staff, visited Arizona and Washington Departments of Correction to see firsthand how reforms
were implemented and to have discussions with those jurisdictions’ staff about challenges and
innovative ideas. In addition, several IDOC agency and facility leaders participated in training at
the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) on restrictive housing reform. Idaho was selected as a
pilot for an on-site NIC restrictive housing training that took place in August of 2017. Attendance
at the training by wardens from facilities that housed men and women and that had long-term

1

The ASCA principles are available here: https://www.asca.net/pdfdocs/9.pdf.

ASCA-Liman 2018 Restrictive Housing - Efforts in Four Jurisdictions to Make Changes revised September 25 2018

 6

restrictive housing was crucial, as they both gained insight and learned about the importance and
implementation of the restrictive housing guidelines of the U.S. Department of Justice.
As a result of this process, Idaho wardens began reviewing all prisoners who had been in
long-term restrictive housing to reevaluate them with the goal that placement in restrictive housing
should be reserved only for individuals who posed an imminent threat to the security of the
institution. Doing so entailed taking a comprehensive approach to restrictive housing reform. The
agency decided that two key policies, addressing restrictive housing and the disciplinary process,
had to be updated. As a consequence, a revamped disciplinary policy added an alternative sanction
process and changed the Disciplinary Offense Report (DOR) codes, and the restrictive housing
policy was split into three separate policies—a short-term restrictive housing policy, a long-term
restrictive housing policy, and a protective custody policy. The new policies2 reflect and
implement a shift in the purposes and in the practices, and the result has been that fewer people
are placed in restrictive housing.
A few specifics are in order. The short-term restrictive housing policy begins with a
statement of purpose reflecting IDOC’s mission statement on restrictive housing reform:
“Restrictive housing protects staff and inmates by segregating those who are the most violent or
present the greatest danger to the safe operations of the facilities.” The policy provides that time
spent in short-term restrictive housing is capped at fifteen days. Past that point, prisoners must be
afforded, at a minimum, three hours of out-of-cell time a day and provided with personal property
as they would have in general population. The policy also requires prisoners who have a language
barrier, physical/sight/hearing impairment, or medical or mental health issues to have
accommodations when placed in restrictive housing or an alternative placement, as needed.
Further, IDOC has limited the behaviors that can result in short-term restrictive housing
placement to those that pose an imminent risk to safety. This change in the criteria for entry has
reduced the number of short-term restrictive housing beds at some facilities, and, at others, the
people put into such beds. In addition, some facilities have implemented “calm down” areas for
prisoners to de-escalate, while others have implemented diversionary tiers for those in possession
of drugs or alcohol or who have tested positive on urinalysis tests.
The long-term restrictive housing policy (addressing individuals in such housing for fifteen
days or more) also begins with a statement of purpose, again stemming from IDOC’s mission
statement. “Restrictive housing is a structured program that protects staff and inmates by
segregating those who are the most violent or present the greatest danger to the safe operations of
the facilities.” The policy requires that all prisoners placed into long-term restrictive housing
programs are in Idaho’s “Step Up Program,” which consists of five stages designed to provide
behavioral expectations to prisoners, teach them to identify concepts and skills to assist in behavior
change, and assess their behavior to determine if placement in long-term restrictive housing is
2

Idaho’s policies can be found at www.idoc.idaho.gov.

ASCA-Liman 2018 Restrictive Housing - Efforts in Four Jurisdictions to Make Changes revised September 25 2018

 7

necessary. The policy requires that prisoners identified as having a serious mental illness be
exempted from long-term restrictive housing placement and instead be placed in an alternative
setting, which is usually a mental health unit. Further, the policy adds an administrative review
committee for all long-term restrictive housing placements. That committee is at the prisons’
division leadership level and includes both of the deputy chiefs of prisons and the chief
psychologist, who is a non-voting member.
As of the writing of this report in the spring of 2018, the new disciplinary policy is in effect;
the short-term and long-term restrictive housing and the protective custody policies are in the final
drafting stage. The command staff is doing a policy review, and the goal is to have training in
place during the summer of 2018 to complete a rollout of the reforms. And even before the full
implementation, IDOC has seen the impact in the reduction in the numbers of people in long-term
restrictive housing and new methods of responding to problems. One example comes from Idaho
Maximum Security Institution (IMSI), a facility whose operating capacity was 412 inmates prior
to restrictive housing reform and which had included 320 single-occupancy restrictive housing
cells. IMSI has expanded its capacity to house 564 prisoners and as of the end of June, IMSI has
134 prisoners in long-term restrictive housing and 24 in short-term restrictive housing. The facility
has revised its practices to have more prisoners in close-custody general population.
At Pocatello Women’s Correctional Center (PWCC), the facility operating capacity was
313 prisoners prior to restrictive housing reform, with a total of 20 single-occupancy restrictive
housing cells. The current operating capacity has increased to 333. Today, one prisoner under the
sentence of death is in what is termed long-term restrictive housing status, but, in practice, she is
out of her cell three or more hours per day. At the South Idaho Correctional Institution (SICI), 17
short-term restrictive housing beds were taken off line, which enabled the placement of 34
minimum custody general population prisoners to be housed there. As of the end of June 2018, the
population in restricted housing had declined from 294 long-term restrictive housing prisoners to
134 people held in long-term restrictive housing.

ASCA-Liman 2018 Restrictive Housing - Efforts in Four Jurisdictions to Make Changes revised September 25 2018

 8

Reflections on North Dakota’s Sustained Solitary Confinement Reform
Leann Bertsch
Director, North Dakota Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Since late 2015, the North Dakota Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (ND
DOCR) has maintained an approximately 60–70% reduction in the population of its
Administrative Segregation Unit (renamed the Behavioral Intervention Unit or BIU) at the North
Dakota State Penitentiary (NDSP). The number of people residing in BIU as of April 5, 2018 was
24. The daily count within this unit has remained under 40 people over more than two years, down
from over 100 people in 2015. The average length of stay in BIU has fluctuated between 30 and
60 days, although there are a few people who reside in the unit much longer based on the severity
of violence, their expression of continued risk for violence, or their own preference for the BIU
setting.
This population reduction has been sustained by continuing to adhere to a multi-faceted
screening and assessment process. In fact, NDSP was able to convert one of the tiers within BIU
to a preferred housing tier, which is home to 20 of the most consistently pro-social residents within
the facility. Another 20-cell unit was converted to the Administrative Transition Unit, where
people live when they are in the process of moving from BIU to a general population setting. ND
DOCR continues to focus on those who commit any of 10 of the most serious in-custody offenses
that may make a person eligible for BIU placement, with some exceptions for fighting and other
harmful behaviors when they become severe or chronic. ND DOCR also continues to avoid placing
people diagnosed with serious mental illnesses in BIU when possible and divert them to the Special
Assistance Unit for more individualized services when it is determined that it is not safe to keep
them in general population.
The sustained decrease in the number of people in the BIU setting has allowed for staff to
make much better use of their time and to have a greater impact. Corrections officers engage each
resident in friendly conversation, change-oriented discussion, or practice of a cognitive or
behavioral skill at least twice per day. The unit Sergeant is also tasked with planning one prosocial, structured recreational activity each weekend to increase positive engagement with staff
and out-of-cell socialization. Unit staff also provides reinforcement in the form of tangible
property items, extra recreation time, extra showers, and the like, based on the person’s
participation in therapeutic and social activities, as well as the parameters of individualized
behavior plans. Currently, BIU residents can access up to two hours and 40 minutes of recreation
per day when they engage in skill practices and therapeutic groups, in addition to time spent in
groups, individual sessions, and specially-planned enrichment activities.
Behavioral health staff also provides at least one structured leisure activity each week, such
as an art project, mindfulness practice, or a movie. Three times per week they facilitate a group
that focuses on applying skills to reduce or eliminate the use of violence, manage trauma reactions,

ASCA-Liman 2018 Restrictive Housing - Efforts in Four Jurisdictions to Make Changes revised September 25 2018

 9

and cope with segregation. Each resident completes an individualized Success Plan, detailing how
he plans to apply skills in high-risk future situations, prior to or soon after moving to the
Administrative Transition Unit. Once the person has moved to the Administrative Segregation
Unit, he has the opportunity to continue to participate in group two times per week to work on
skills application as the amount of time spent in general population settings increases. These group
curricula and the Success Plan served as the foundation to inform a curriculum developed by Dr.
Paula Smith for a Bureau of Justice Assistance Encouraging Innovation Grant related to applying
interventions in restrictive housing settings, which ND DOCR will continue to implement as a data
collection site related to that grant project.
Over the past two and a half years, ND DOCR has sustained a substantial reduction in the
use of the Special Operations Response Team within the BIU (no use of the team at all in this unit
since October 2017), along with a reduction in overall uses of force. The prevalence of negative
behaviors by residents of the unit has also dramatically decreased. ND DOCR believes the focus
on reinforcement of positive change, building friendly relationships between staff and residents,
and allowing residents access to pro-social coping skills (music, television, puzzle books, etc.) are
collectively responsible for these changes. Perhaps our most exciting outcome to date is the fact
that, of the 149 residents placed on BIU program status from October of 2015 to February of 2018,
only 26 have returned to BIU program status. That is a 17% “recidivism” rate into the BIU
program. ND DOCR is working to collect more precise data regarding these outcomes, but we are
very encouraged by these initial results.
These changes, while overwhelmingly positive, have not been without challenges. NDSP
did see a significant increase in physical fights between residents in mid-2016 to mid-2017. This
increase occurred at the same time that our overall prison population was the highest it has ever
been and we have some suspicions that this may be correlated more strongly with the population
increase than the changes in the use of restrictive housing. As the population has slowly stabilized
and begun to decrease, the prevalence of fighting has decreased as well. While most staff members
have been supportive of the changes, there has been a perception that the overall safety of the
facility has been compromised. Factually, there has been no increase in assaults on staff, assaults
on residents by peers, or the overall level of violence perpetrated within the institution. There has
also been a perception that residents are not “held accountable” for rule violations. In reality,
residents continue to receive significant sanctions—the only difference is those sanctions are much
less likely to include lengthy placements in restrictive housing, especially for non-violent offenses.
In order to address the problem of institutional violence more thoroughly, ND DOCR is
excited to begin assessing people entering prison using the Risk of Administrative Segregation
Tool (Labrecque & Smith, 2017) in order to identify those at highest risk for displaying
institutional violence resulting in placement in restrictive housing. A copy of the tool is below.

ASCA-Liman 2018 Restrictive Housing - Efforts in Four Jurisdictions to Make Changes revised September 25 2018

 10

Those identified as high risk will then be offered a 10-session group intervention program
focused on establishing a pro-social adjustment to prison and managing high-risk situations for
violence in an effective, non-violent manner. This program will begin in April 2018. Dr. Paula
Smith and Dr. Ryan Labrecque will evaluate the effectiveness of this intervention in preventing
future violence as compared to a no-treatment control group. Another future direction is to develop
a peer support specialist certification program for prison residents, with the goal of providing
additional support to those at risk for placement or placed in BIU.
One way to provide an overview of the outcomes, as of the spring of 2018, is by the chart
below.
Type of Seg.

Investigative

Disciplinary

BIU Program

Total Unit

Avg. # of days

5.55

7.63

18.97

32.14

Type of Seg.

Investigative

Disciplinary

BIU Program

Total Unit

Total # Stays
Over 14 Days

30

38

60

128

ASCA-Liman 2018 Restrictive Housing - Efforts in Four Jurisdictions to Make Changes revised September 25 2018

 11

Restrictive Housing: The Challenge of Reforming the Fabric of an Agency
Gary Mohr,
Director, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction

Restrictive housing reform represents one of the most extensive reforms in the history of
corrections in the United States. The use of restrictive housing to respond to prisoner misbehavior
has been the foundation of correctional management philosophy for over a century. The practice
is embedded in the philosophy and logic of nearly all agency staff and is interwoven into the fabric
of any correctional agency’s culture.
The use of restrictive housing remains an essential part of managing safe and secure
prisons. Changing the way a correctional organization uses restrictive housing requires a delicate
balancing act of improving conditions of confinement for prisoners who are more conducive to
rehabilitative ends, while simultaneously ensuring we protect our staff and prisoners from
individuals whose behavior indicates they are poised to harm others. Further, for most of my 44
years in this work, restrictive housing has been used as the default penalty for all types of rule
violations, whether violent or not. Changing practices associated with the use of restrictive housing
is a delicate operation because our staff, those who work in the trenches of our prisons, firmly
believe the use of restrictive housing as a default disciplinary sanction is tied directly to their
safety. Reforming the system to use restrictive housing only when there is a threat to safety and
security, rather than as punishment, often becomes viewed as an attempt to jeopardize safety.
Today, that cultural belief has been reinforced by the horrific incidents in prisons
throughout our country from North and South Carolina, to Pennsylvania, Arizona and many other
jurisdictions including Ohio. In 2018, an Ohio Correctional Officer was stabbed 32 times by two
prisoners who were in extended restrictive housing; miraculously, he survived. This event not only
magnified the challenge of continuing to reform restrictive housing, but also changed my life, as
it was a vivid reminder of how precious life is and how we as leaders carry the heavy responsibility
for the welfare of so many. As we continue the much-needed reform regarding the practice of
placing prisoners in confined settings, an area where there is still much work to be done, the
realities and images of individuals who have experienced serious, life-changing incidents cannot
be ignored. The impact on their lives, as well as on the lives of their loved ones and fellow staff
members, must be of paramount concern.
Ohio can clearly report success in reducing prisoners in restrictive housing as evidenced
by data comparing the use of restrictive housing between 2013 to 2017. In fact, there has been a
45% reduction in the number of prisoners in restrictive housing during that time period. While this
reduction is meaningful and significant, it is also a reminder of the need for restrictive housing
now and in the future. The reality is that there are people in prison who pose a serious and direct
threat to others, and we have a duty to protect others from these prisoners. As agency leaders, we
count on our staff in all correctional systems to carry out post orders and follow our directives 24

ASCA-Liman 2018 Restrictive Housing - Efforts in Four Jurisdictions to Make Changes revised September 25 2018

 12

hours a day, 7 days a week. Those dedicated public servants must acknowledge and trust their
leaders, even though they will not always agree, or the overall agency goals will not be achieved.
Leaders cannot merely issue edicts directing a course of action when those directives are contrary
to the will of the workforce if they expect the vision of the policy to be realized. In matters that
challenge the foundational beliefs and values of the staff, change must occur over time through
consistent reinforcement of the philosophy underlying the policy direction.
Operational Challenges to Restrictive Housing Reform: The Ohio Department of
Rehabilitation and Corrections (DRC) began restrictive housing reform in late 2013 by conducting
wide-ranging discussions on how and why correctional supervisors/executives use restrictive
housing. In 2014 and 2015, the DRC examined all policies and procedures, even hiring external
consultants to provide insight into current practices, assess areas for improvement, and recommend
a pathway for reform. In 2015, it became apparent restrictive housing reform was intrinsically
linked to discipline reform. As such, the DRC needed to re-examine the entire way prisoner rule
violations were addressed. Below, I outline our reforms.
Reform Initiative A: Prison Disciplinary Reform (Swift, Certain, and Fair): In late 2015 and
early 2016, the DRC began to change the philosophy associated with the offender disciplinary
system to encourage sanctions that adhere to swift, certain, and fair (SCF) principles of discipline.
Most importantly, this change included using alternative sanctions to reduce the use of restrictive
housing. Implementation required, and continues to require, ongoing changes to organizational
culture.
Challenge 1: Operationalizing the changes in sanctioning practices remains an ongoing challenge by trying to achieve consistency, fairness, and immediacy of
application across all prisons.
Reform Initiative B: Alternatives to Restrictive Housing—Limited Privilege Housing: The
DRC has the option in Ohio’s Administrative Regulations to use limited privilege housing. Limited
privilege housing is a condition of confinement that significantly limits a prisoner’s privileges, so
it can be used to respond to low-to-moderate severity rule violations. Limited privilege housing is
not restrictive housing. It is, however, a meaningful sanction that adheres to swift, certain, and fair
principles of sanctioning. It also removes prisoners from the housing area where they committed
their offense. In late 2015 and lasting until today, the DRC greatly expanded the use of limited
privilege housing and encouraged staff to not use restrictive housing as the default placement for
prisoners who have misbehaved unless they posed a danger to the prison or to others.
Challenge 2: Proper utilization of the limited privilege housing sanction has been a
challenge. DRC continues to experience under-utilization and over-utilization of
the sanction as an alternative to restrictive housing, and there is inconsistency in
the security practices between areas.

ASCA-Liman 2018 Restrictive Housing - Efforts in Four Jurisdictions to Make Changes revised September 25 2018

 13

Challenge 3: One of the greatest cultural challenges was passive resistance by staff
who, in frustration over being asked not to use “segregation” for many offenses,
assumed an “all or nothing” stance towards security. Simply put, if they could not
place a prisoner in segregation (restrictive housing), then they just had to let
prisoners do “whatever they wanted” and could take no meaningful action. Others
felt a limited privilege housing unit could have a “relaxed” security posture when
in reality limited privilege housing units can be just as secure as a restrictive
housing unit if the type/kind of prisoner needs such levels of supervision. The
critical difference is the out of cell time and access to programming and services
which require all staff to change the way they work.
Challenge 4: A cultural myth developed that restrictive housing reform’s goal was
to reduce the use of restrictive housing regardless of the prisoner’s behavior. DRC
leadership was compelled to constantly remind staff that restrictive housing reform
never meant prisons could not use restrictive housing to address violence or
seriously disruptive behavior. This myth was persistent and remains even when
policies were released providing staff the option of stronger and lengthier
disciplinary sanctions. The written words contained in the policy, as well as emails
sent to all staff, were overshadowed by this mythology that is still persistent five
years into reform.
Reform Initiative C: Widespread Training/Communication on Restrictive Housing:
Throughout 2016 and carrying into 2018, the DRC has revised dozens of policies, lesson plans,
and in-service training on restrictive housing Reform and its related components within the DRC.
Challenge 5: Communication of the “why” behind restrictive housing Reform
remains our prevailing challenge. A significant number of staff still report they do
not understand the reasons for reform despite training, memos, policies, and emails
that have tried to explain all aspects of the reform effort. More importantly, many
of them do not understand the permanence of these changes and are “waiting to go
back to the way it was.” Finally, it cannot be ignored that there are some staff who
simply believe prisoners should be severely restricted while in prison and especially
when they commit any rule violations. It is reasonable to say that when an
organization operates for nearly a century in one manner, it will take a very long
time to change the fundamental beliefs of the staff who operate that organization.
These individuals who, regrettably, exist at all levels in our agency continue to
passively, or sometimes actively, resist restrictive housing reform, likely in the
hope the reform will fail and the DRC will have to return to the status quo which
existed in 2013.
Challenge 6: The volume and pace of change is a significant, on-going challenge
for staff at all levels. Change for any organization is difficult, but the root nature of

ASCA-Liman 2018 Restrictive Housing - Efforts in Four Jurisdictions to Make Changes revised September 25 2018

 14

this change coupled with the fact the change requires a shift in personal,
organizational, and leadership philosophy, makes it incredibly challenging.
Challenge 7: Staff perceptions exist by some at all levels (line, supervisor, and
executive staff) that are less than supportive of/favorable to restrictive housing
reform efforts thus far. There is a strong feeling these policies are making people
less safe and reform values prisoners over staff safety. The serious incident of the
stabbing of our correctional officer mentioned earlier has kept this belief alive.
Challenge 8: There is substantial message dilution in training and communication.
As information is passed down from each level of leadership and supervision, the
message gets changed and altered, greatly affected by the cultural resistance
outlined in previous challenges. As such, the DRC must continually improve the
content and delivery of the restrictive housing Reform “communication plan.”
Reform Initiative D: Serious Misconduct Panels and External Oversight of Extended
Restrictive Housing: Prior to reform, local wardens possessed the authority independently to place
prisoners into restrictive housing for six months, and in some cases, for a year or more. There was
no centralized oversight for these two review processes. Wardens applied this power based on their
individual perspective about misbehavior rather than an organizational view. In response, the DRC
established the “serious misconduct panel” (SMP) as the only process by which offenders can be
referred to “extended restrictive housing” and implemented centralized oversight of all placements
and releases. The SMP referral is still made by a warden but is approved by a regional director and
the panel is comprised of two exempt employees from a prison other than the one where the offense
occurred.
Challenge 9: There have been concerns expressed that the use of the SMP implies
a mistrust of the professional judgment of local teams who know the prisoners best.
The delicate balancing act of ensuring consistency across all prisons while
respecting local decision makers becomes interpreted as a form of heavy-handed
oversight. In addition, prison leaders believe the new policies curtailed their ability
to control violence and disruption at their prisons.
Challenge 10: The procedural aspects of the SMP are cumbersome and time
consuming. The ongoing challenge is to streamline the SMP process without
hindering the objectivity, due process, or thoroughness of the review.
Reform Initiative E: Conditions of Confinement and Programming for Extended Restrictive
Housing: The DRC examined the conditions of confinement for offenders in extended restrictive
housing and implemented additional programming, meaningful activities, and out-of-cell time.
This process includes enhanced release preparation programs as best exemplified by the Ohio State
Penitentiary [OSP] reversion program. This program introduces pro-social elements such as

ASCA-Liman 2018 Restrictive Housing - Efforts in Four Jurisdictions to Make Changes revised September 25 2018

 15

employer engagement, family activities/events, and meals in group settings, including meals with
the warden, into our highest security setting.
Challenge 11: The physical plant and infrastructure of all DRC facilities were not
designed to provide a lot of out-of-cell time for prisoners in restrictive housing. The
facilities were designed according to the philosophy of corrections in the United
States at the time. The last prisons constructed were designed in the mid-1990s,
almost a quarter of a century ago. The only way to offset some of these design
issues is with significant staffing resources, which are very costly and difficult to
appropriate in challenging budgetary environments.
Challenge 12: Self-imposed isolation, even when out-of-cell opportunities are
granted, remains a considerable challenge. Prisoners choose these environments in
a significant number of circumstances.
Challenge 13: It is a continuing challenge to ensure conditions of confinement
differ between restrictive housing, limited privilege housing, and general
population in a meaningful way that sufficiently deters prisoners from engaging in
misbehavior. The more you give prisoners in restrictive housing/extended
restrictive housing/limited privilege housing, the less appealing rule compliant
behavior becomes for prisoners in general population. Over-compensating to assist
restrictive housing/extended restrictive housing prisoners can exacerbate the
problems associated with Challenge 12 and, as has been proven by some cases in
Ohio, actively encourage prisoner misbehavior to achieve a placement into
extended restrictive housing.
Reform Initiative F: Limiting Extended Restrictive Housing for Seriously Mentally Ill
Prisoners and Enhanced Monitoring: The DRC recognizes the potential effects of restrictive
housing on the seriously mentally ill. However, seriously mentally ill prisoners, like others, can
commit very serious acts of violence and disruption unrelated to their mental illness. Furthermore,
even if the violence is related to their mental illness, the threat to the safety of others cannot be
ignored. Therefore, the DRC has implemented practices to closely monitor the utilization of
extended restrictive housing for prisoners with serious mental illness, and placement in extended
restrictive housing for a person with serious mental illness must be approved at the departmental
level. We also use and have expanded high security Residential Treatment Units [RTUs] as an
assessment/diversion opportunity to avoid placement in extended restrictive housing for some
people with serious mental illness.
Challenge 14: The single greatest challenge in this effort is to develop and
implement a “space between” restrictive housing and general population for
dangerous, disruptive, and violent seriously mentally ill prisoners. Efforts to
operate a “secure adjustment unit” for violent, seriously mentally ill offenders were

ASCA-Liman 2018 Restrictive Housing - Efforts in Four Jurisdictions to Make Changes revised September 25 2018

 16

unsuccessful. We have added a significant number of Residential Treatment Unit
[RTU] beds for the seriously mentally ill. There remain prisoners who are seriously
mentally ill and violent/disruptive, but do not meet the standard of our mental health
staff for an RTU level of care.
Challenge 15: DRC has expanded the number of high security RTUs, but there
remains a substantial need for more beds and staff.
Challenge 16: Although philosophically we understand the need to treat seriously
mentally ill prisoners differently, if one lessens the sanctions on prisoners solely
because they are seriously mentally ill, other prisoners may perceive a tremendous
injustice. This can cause disruption in housing units where both seriously mentally
ill and non-caseload prisoners are held. In addition, as we attempt to grant more
out-of-cell time and increased staff engagement for seriously mentally ill prisoners
even after they have committed serious acts of violence against staff, we experience
a growing cultural resistance to reform. Staff who are victimized, sometimes
repeatedly, by these prisoners perceive these acts as being unfair and proof there is
lack of care for staff and for the impact that violence by prisoners has on them.
Thus the challenge continues.
Reform Initiative G: Tracking and Data Collection: The DOTS system, our tracking
system, in present form, cannot effectively track people placed in restrictive housing or limited
privilege housing. Since 2013, the DRC has continually developed new methods for measuring
restrictive housing, primarily by using snapshots. Currently, Operations and IT staff are developing
a restrictive housing/limited privilege housing Disciplinary Tracking System integrated into the
DOTS system that, once completed, will provide a comprehensive system for examining
disciplinary sanctions and their utilization, as well as profiles and real-time data on prisoners in
restrictive housing/limited privilege housing. It will track the work flows associated with major
job processes which may affect length of stay in restrictive housing/limited privilege housing
including, but not limited to:
1) Hearing Officer and RIB Decisions
2) SMP referrals, extended restrictive housing placements, and extended restrictive
housing reviews
3) Investigations regarding prison administrative functions such as misbehavior,
protective control, separations, and staff nexus
4) Security Classification Reviews and Increases/Decreases
5) Prisoner Movement and Transfers

ASCA-Liman 2018 Restrictive Housing - Efforts in Four Jurisdictions to Make Changes revised September 25 2018

 17

Challenge 17: While waiting for these changes, it is not acceptable to forgo efforts
to track restrictive housing. Reporting mechanisms have changed somewhat over
time and to get accurate data is a cumbersome process that is very labor-intensive.
Conclusion: On December 27, 2010, when I met with Governor Kasich and decided to
accept this journey to oversee the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, he asked me
to do two things. First, we could not afford another Lucasville, the riot that lasted 11 days and
resulted in 10 deaths. Secondly, “Go reform the most unreformed part of government.” While we
have made some very progressive changes in creating reintegration environments, expanded
programming including treatment of the addicted both in and outside our prison walls, expanded
residential treatment beds for the mentally ill, employment partnerships with employers with
experiences both inside the prisons and out in the communities, and engagement with community
faith partners, the challenge of reforming restrictive housing is at the core of that challenge.
Restrictive housing reform remains a challenge to us in Ohio and many other jurisdictions around
our great country.

ASCA-Liman 2018 Restrictive Housing - Efforts in Four Jurisdictions to Make Changes revised September 25 2018

 18

A National Shift in Perspective
These four narrative accounts are illustrative of a significant change in restrictive housing
policies. As ASCA-Liman reported in 2013, the rules promulgated by corrections departments
then gave wide discretion to correctional staff to place individuals in restrictive housing. The
policies had broad criteria for putting people into isolation, and little focus on moving people out
of restrictive housing. In contrast, in 2018, directors around the country are revisiting their rules
on restrictive housing and, in many instances, seeking to narrow the bases for entry, to increase
time out-of-cell, and to expand opportunities for sociability. Moreover, time-based categories of
restrictive housing have emerged. Correction policies distinguish between “restrictive housing”
(defined as requiring a prisoner “to be confined to a cell at least 22 hours per day”) and “extended
restrictive housing” (defined as separating a prisoner “from contact with general population while
restricting” the prisoner to his cell “for at least 22 hours per day and for more than 30 days”).3
One illustration of the revised approaches to limiting the use of restrictive housing comes
from the American Correctional Association (ACA), which in 2016 issued new Performance
Based Standards on Restrictive Housing. The ACA called on jurisdictions to ensure that prisoners
not be released directly to the community from restrictive housing. Further, the ACA Standards
placed a prohibition on assigning individuals under the age of 18 or pregnant females to extended
restrictive housing. The ACA Standards also stated that prisoners “will not be placed in Restrictive
Housing on the basis of gender identity alone.”4 In addition, the Standards provided that
correctional departments “not place a person with serious mental illness in Extended Restrictive
Housing.”5
The ASCA-Liman 2018 survey mapped the impact of these ACA Standards. Thirty-six
jurisdictions reported that they had reviewed their restrictive housing policies since the release of
the 2016 Standards, and 25 described relying on the ACA Standards when making policies. For
example, 21 jurisdictions reported that they had implemented the ACA Standard that persons with
serious mental illness not be placed in extended restrictive housing.
More generally, in the larger monograph from which these materials are excerpted, we
report on responses from 43 jurisdictions discussing a range of policy changes, including
narrowing the criteria for entry into restrictive housing. For example, in one jurisdiction,
infractions such as “horse play” or possession of small amounts of marijuana, which previously
could have formed the basis for placement in restrictive housing, would no longer lead to isolation.
3

AMERICAN CORRECTIONAL ASSOCIATION RESTRICTIVE HOUSING PERFORMANCE BASED STANDARDS (Aug. 2016),
p. 3, available at https://www.asca.net/pdfdocs/8.pdf.
4

Id. at Standard 4-RH-0035, p. 40.

5

Id. at Standard 4-RH-031, p. 46

ASCA-Liman 2018 Restrictive Housing - Efforts in Four Jurisdictions to Make Changes revised September 25 2018

 19

In addition, jurisdictions reported expanding the oversight of placement, altering the amount of
time spent in-cell, and offering more opportunities for sociability through programs, recreation
and social interactions. More than half of the 43 responding jurisdictions discussed requiring
consideration of less-restrictive alternatives before placement in restrictive housing.
One of the longstanding goals of the ASCA-Liman surveys has been to build a longitudinal
database to enable evidence-based analysis. The 2015 ASCA-Liman Report found that more than
66,000 prisoners were in restrictive housing in 34 jurisdictions. Based on Bureau of Justice
Statistics (BJS) on prison populations, the 2015 Report estimated that between 80,000 to 100,000
prisoners were in restrictive housing across the country. The 2016 Report found that about 67,500
prisoners were in restrictive housing in 48 jurisdictions, which accounted for 96.4% of the prison
population. The 2018 Report identified a total of about 49,197 prisoners in restrictive housing in
43 jurisdictions which accounted for 80.5% of the U.S. prison population. Thus, the 2018 Report
estimates that 61,000 prisoners were in restrictive housing as of 2017. The caveats on these
numbers are that the definitions of restrictive housing varied somewhat among the three reports,
and that the data do not generally include juveniles or individuals in jails. Further, no inquiries
were made about individuals held in immigration or military detention.
Forty jurisdictions provided restrictive housing data in both 2016 and 2018. The 2018
Report compared this information and identified a reduction in 29 jurisdictions in the numbers of
prisoners in restrictive housing and an increase in 11 jurisdictions. Across the 40 jurisdictions, the
percentage of prisoners in restrictive housing decreased from 5.0% in 2015 to 4.4% in 2017.
Another window into changes over time comes from information about how long people
spend in restrictive housing. Thirty-one jurisdictions responded with information on length of stay
in both the 2015-2016 and in the 2017-2018 surveys. We asked jurisdictions for information on
different lengths of confinement in restrictive housing: 15 days to one month, one to three months,
three to six months, six months to one year, one to three years, three to six years, and longer than
six years. Overall, the numbers of individuals in restrictive housing across most lengths of time
decreased from 2016 to 2018. The number of prisoners in restrictive housing for time periods six
months or less decreased in about as many jurisdictions as it increased. The number of prisoners
in restrictive housing for time periods longer than six months decreased in more jurisdictions than
it increased.
The monograph on the 2017-2018 data and policies, coupled with the narratives from four
jurisdictions, makes plain that many correctional systems around the United States are seeking to
lower the numbers of people in their cells for 22 hours or more on average for fifteen days or more
and to alter the activities and opportunities for those held in restrictive housing. The reports from
correctional officials reflect the national and international consensus that restrictive housing can
impose grave harms on individuals confined, on staff, and on the communities to which prisoners
return.
ASCA-Liman 2018 Restrictive Housing - Efforts in Four Jurisdictions to Make Changes revised September 25 2018

 20

Association
of
State
Administrators (ASCA)

Correctional

ASCA is the most exclusive correctional association
in the world. ASCA members are the leaders of each
U.S. state corrections agency, Los Angeles County,
the District of Columbia, New York City,
Philadelphia, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, U.S.
Military Correctional Services (Army, Navy, Air
Force, Marines), and United States territories,
possessions, and commonwealths. ASCA members
lead over 400,000 correctional professionals and
supervise approximately eight million prisoners,
probationers, and parolees. ASCA’s goal is to
increase public safety by utilizing correctional best
practices, accountability, and providing opportunities
for people to change.

The Arthur Liman Center for Public Interest
Law, Yale Law School
The Liman Center was endowed to honor Arthur
Liman, who graduated from Yale Law School in
1957. Throughout his distinguished career, he
demonstrated how dedicated lawyers, in both private
practice and public life, can respond to the needs of
individuals and of causes that might otherwise go
unrepresented. The Liman Center, which began as the
Liman Program in 1997, continues the commitments
of Arthur Liman by supporting work, in and outside
of the academy, dedicated to public service in the
furtherance of justice.

Acknowledgements
The Report from which these excerpts are taken is
based on a survey co-authored by ASCA and by the
Liman Center at Yale Law School. . The research and
report teams were led at ASCA by Leann Bertsch,
Kevin Kempf, Bob Lampert, Gary Mohr, Rick
Raemisch, A.T. Wall, and Wayne Choinski, and at
Yale by Judith Resnik, Anna VanCleave, Kristen
Bell, and Alexandra Harrington. Yale Law students
Greg Conyers, Catherine McCarthy, Jenny Tumas,
and Annie Wang played major roles in the research,
analysis, and drafting of that Report. Yale Law
students Faith Barksdale, Stephanie Garlock, and
Daniel Phillips reviewed and edited the final drafts.
We also received helpful suggestions from the Vera
Institute of Justice.

Thanks are due to all the jurisdictions that responded
to the survey and provided comments and reviews
thereafter. This research has been supported by Yale
Law School, the Liman Center, the Vital Projects
Fund, and the Oscar M. Ruebhausen Fund at Yale
Law School. This monograph was also made possible
in part by a grant from Carnegie Corporation of New
York to Judith Resnik, who is a 2018–2020 Andrew
Carnegie Fellow. The Vital Projects Fund, the
Ruebhausen Fund, and Carnegie Foundation are not
responsible for the research and views expressed here.
Special thanks are due to Bonnie Posick of Yale Law
School’s staff for expert editorial advice and to
Elizabeth Keane, Program Coordinator of the Liman
Center.
This Report is part of a series of ASCA-Liman and
Liman research projects, which include Prison
Visitation Policies: A Fifty State Survey (2012);
Administrative Segregation, Degrees of Isolation, and
Incarceration (2013); Time in Cell (2014); Aiming to
Reduce Time in Cell (2016); Rethinking Death Row
(2016); and Reforming Restrictive Housing (2018).
To download copies of these reports, please visit the
Liman Center’s website at https://law.yale.edu/
centers-workshops/arthur-liman-center-publicinterest-law/liman-center-publications. These reports
can also be found on ASCA’s website at
http://asca.net/documents/. This Report may be
reproduced free of charge and without the need for
additional permission. All rights reserved, 2018.

Inquiries:
Kevin Kempf
Executive Director, ASCA
kkempf@asca.net
Wayne Choinski
Project Manager, ASCA
wchoinski@asca.net
Judith Resnik
Arthur Liman Professor of Law
Yale Law School
judith.resnik@yale.edu
Anna VanCleave
Liman Center Director
Anna.vancleave@yale.edu

ASCA-Liman 2018 Restrictive Housing - Efforts in Four Jurisdictions to Make Changes revised September 25 2018