The NYC Jails Action Coalition & the #HALTsolitary Campaign present 

A Blueprint for Ending Solitary Confinement  
in NYC Jails 
October 2019 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 
 
 

 

  

 

Introduction 
This document contains a blueprint for how New York City can and must end solitary 
confinement in all its forms throughout its jails. This blueprint reflects the experiences and 
expertise of people who have endured solitary, family members of people incarcerated, 
mental health, legal, and human rights experts, and other members of the Jails Action 
Coalition and the #HALTsolitary campaign. It is written in the context of growing calls to 
fully ban solitary confinement (including from the Progressive Caucus and Women’s Caucus 
of the New York City Council, as well as leading U.S. Presidential candidates). As such, the 
overall purpose of this blueprint is to provide key mechanisms for how New York City—the 
Mayor, City Council, Board of Correction, Department of Corrections—can effectuate the 
complete elimination of solitary confinement in the city jails, and instead promote 
alternatives that take an opposite approach to the isolation and deprivation of solitary and 
are actually effective for promoting safety and reducing violence, both inside jails and when 
people return to the outside community. 
Particularly in the immediate wake of​ ​Layleen Polanco’s tragic and preventable death​, and 
in recognition of the countless other people who have​ ​lost their lives​ or suffered 
devastating psychological and physical harm, NYC must take immediate action to finally 
and fully end solitary confinement. This blueprint shows the way to reach that goal, 
drawing on proven, evidence-based approaches that are more humane, effective, and safe. 
Specifically, NYC must:  
1. Ensure that the Board of Correction minimum standards for out-of-cell time 
apply to all people in city jails (other than in specified emergencies), by 
removing exceptions to those standards for punitive segregation and 
Enhanced Supervision Housing (ESH) units; 
2. Create minimum standards for emergency individual lock-ins and emergency 
lockdowns; 
3. End punitive segregation and make ESH and any other alternative units 
actually about safety, rehabilitation, and prevention of violence; 
4. Adopt specific mechanisms and time limits for getting out of ESH and any 
other alternatives units; and 
5. Dramatically limit use of restraints with a strong presumption against their 
use. 
While the details of the Blueprint are written specifically for New York City, its overall 
framework and concepts can apply anywhere. No person should be in solitary in pretrial 
detention, in jails anywhere, or for that matter in prisons anywhere in New York or across 
the country. We hope that survivors of solitary, impacted family members, and advocates 
across the country can use the blueprint to end this torture everywhere. 

2 

 

  

 

The Urgent Need to End Solitary 
Solitary confinement is torture. It has long been demonstrated to cause devastating 
physical, psychological, and emotional harm.​ ​The sensory deprivation, lack of normal 
human interaction, and extreme idleness can lead to intense suffering and severe damage. 
A​ ​study of NYC jails​ found people in solitary were nearly seven times more likely to harm 
themselves and more than six times more likely to commit potentially fatal self-harm. A 
new 2019 study​ of hundreds of thousands of people released from prison over a 15 year 
period found that people who had spent time in solitary were significantly more likely to 
both die (including by suicide, homicide, and overdose) and be reincarcerated after release, 
with the risks increasing as the time in solitary increased. We know that some people 
spending even a short number of days in solitary can lead to tragic consequences and even 
death. As one of countless horrific examples,​ ​Bradley Ballard​ spent only six days in solitary, 
endured unconscionable torture and neglect while there, and died as a result. As early as 
2011, the ​United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture​ called for the complete abolition of 
solitary as a means of punishment or discipline and the complete abolition of solitary for, 
among others, all people in pretrial detention (as the vast majority of people in New York 
City’s jails are held), because it amounts to torture.  
Solitary is disproportionately inflicted on Black and Latinx people, as well as on young 
people and people with mental health needs. Research by the New York City Department 
of Health and Mental Hygiene further found that Black and Latinx people incarcerated on 
Rikers Island or in the City’s borough-based jails were​ ​less likely than their white 
counterparts to receive appropriate mental health diagnoses and more likely to experience 
solitary confinement​. 
Solitary is also disproportionately inflicted on queer, transgender and gender 
non-conforming people. A​ ​national survey​ of incarcerated LGBTQIA2S+ people conducted 
by Black & Pink found 85% of respondents had been in solitary confinement. Black, Latinx, 
and Native American/American Indian people were twice as likely as white people to be in 
solitary at the time of the survey. 
Solitary is counterproductive to the purported safety justifications sometimes given for its 
use, as it can cause violence and make prisons, jails, and outside communities​ ​less safe​. 
Moreover, replacing solitary with more effective alternatives will ultimately​ s​ ave money​, 
while more importantly saving human lives and human potential. 
After struggling to treat patients who are suffering the torture of solitary confinement, Dr. 
Homer Venters, the former head of Correctional Health Services for NYC jails, has said 
solitary units​ ​should never have been built​. This blueprint presents New York City with a 
way to ​unbuild​ these torture chambers. 
 

3 

 

  

 

The Blueprint for Ending Solitary in NYC Jails
1. Ensure that the Board of Correction minimum standards for out-of-cell time 
apply to all people in city jails (other than in emergencies), by removing 
exceptions to those standards for punitive segregation and ESH units 
Other than in emergency situations (discussed below), the Board of Corrections minimum 
standards for out-of-cell time should apply to all people in the city jails. Section 1-05 of the 
Board’s current standards require that no person should be involuntarily locked in other 
than for eight hours at night and two hours during the day. The current standards allow 
exceptions to those requirements for people in punitive segregation and in Enhanced 
Supervision Housing (ESH) units. Those exceptions should be removed and the basic 
minimum standards generally should apply to everyone in city jails, so that all people in the 
jails have a mandatory allowance of 14 hours out of cell per day. (The medical exception for 
contagious disease units can remain.) 
The reasons for eliminating these exceptions is both that solitary confinement is torture 
that causes devastating harm, and that limiting out-of-cell time does not in any way 
contribute to greater safety or reductions in violence. As discussed in more detail below, 
units that allow for separation from the general jail population without any restrictions on 
out-of-cell time have proven more effective at reducing violence and promoting safety. The 
Clinical Alternatives to Punitive Segregation (CAPS)​ unit on Rikers Island and the former 
Merle Cooper program in New York State prisons are two positive and successful examples 
of units designed to separate people from the general population but not restrict the 
amount of out-of-cell time provided, yielding better outcomes. 
2. Create minimum standards for emergency individual lock-ins and emergency 
lockdowns 
In order to address emergency situations that may arise, there should be the allowance, if 
necessary, for a) emergency short-term mandatory lock-in for individuals, as well as b) 
emergency short-term lockdowns of targeted portions of the jails, with specific and limited 
ways in which each can be implemented as follows. 
a. Emergency individual lock-in 
Drawing from the rules for room confinement in​ ​NYC secure detention youth facilities​ and 
from​ ​other model​ youth secure detention policies, such as those adopted in​ ​Colorado​, 
there should only be allowance for individuals to be involuntarily locked in for immediate 
de-escalation purposes, in emergency situations when absolutely necessary, as a last 
resort, when other mechanisms have failed, but never as punishment, and for the shortest 
duration possible, measured in hours (rather than days, weeks, months, or years). The 
purposes of these lock-ins are not punishment or isolation but instead to immediately and 
temporarily separate people to prevent immediate physical harm, provide brief time and 
4 

 

  

 

space for de-escalation and cooling down, and quickly restore people back to the general 
jail population or if necessary to move them to another housing area to avoid further harm 
or conflict or to ESH to address underlying issues that are resulting in negative conduct. 
The presumption should be that such lock-ins should end within two hours, with the 
possibility that they could be extended for a second two hours if absolutely 
necessary. 
● If the lock-in time is approaching four hours, the chief of department should be 
required to be involved to work toward ending the emergency lock-in. 
● Because of the particularly devastating harm and risk of isolation to young people 
and elderly people, there should be a maximum for any lock-in of six hours for 
these groups. 
● For all other people, because isolation can cause devastating harm to all people, 
there should be a maximum lock-in time of eight hours. 
● In addition, to ensure that people are not repeatedly locked-in day after day (and 
thereby creating another form of extended solitary confinement), there should be a 
total time limit of eight hours in any two-day period and a total limit of 20 hours in 
any seven-day period. 
● In extreme circumstances where the department believes it absolutely necessary to 
exceed the multiple-day time periods, the department must obtain a court order 
permitting a lock-in that exceeds the limit. For each day that the department seeks 
to extend the lock-in, it must obtain a new court order. 
● In order to de-escalate the situation as soon as possible and to avoid people 
decompensating further or even harming themselves while isolated for even 
relatively shorter periods of time, staff should check on and check in with any 
person who is locked in at least every 15 minutes and mental health staff in 
particular should check on a person within an hour, and at least once every 
additional hour a person is in lock-in. 
 
b. Emergency Lock Down 
●

In situations where it is absolutely necessary to either investigate or de-escalate an 
emergency situation, the city jails should only be able to utilize lockdown procedures in as 
narrowly tailored ways and areas as possible. These lockdowns should never be used as 
punishment and should be used as a last resort, in response to clear violence or imminent 
threats of violence, when more limited interventions would not address the need (including 
individual lock-in above), and should be limited to as few people and as few jail areas as 
necessary and limited to the minimum time necessary. Currently, the department utilizes 
lockdowns f​ ar too frequently​: thousands of lockdowns per year, averaging over five 
lockdowns p
​ er day​, with an average length of time of 11 hours but sometimes 
encompassing multiple days. The emergency lockdown procedures should allow lockdowns 
to be used only when absolutely necessary and should be also regulating lockdowns to 
ensure they are not used for punishment, administrative ease, or other reasons that are 

5 

 

  

 

not intended to prevent imminent and serious harm. Lockdowns should also not be 
allowed to be a substitute for lock-ins (thereby holding more people in isolated conditions 
than necessary), a way to get around the time limits for lock-ins, another form of punitive 
segregation or solitary confinement, nor as any other way around the Board’s other 
minimum standards. As such, the time limits on lockdowns, in particular, and other 
conditions, should mirror the limits on lock-ins. 
●

●

●

●

●

As with individual lock-ins, the presumption should be that any lockdown end within 
two hours, with the possibility that it could be extended for a second two hours if 
absolutely necessary. If the lockdown time is approaching four hours, the chief of 
department should be alerted to work toward ending the emergency lockdown. 
There should be a maximum time of six hours of lockdown in a single day, 8 hours 
total over two days, and 20 hours total over 7 days, unless a court order is obtained 
in any instance in which the department determines it is absolutely necessary to 
exceed these limits. 
Lockdowns should only be allowed—again if they are necessary for investigation or 
de-escalation and individual lock-in of the people involved would not achieve those 
purposes—in extremely serious situations, particularly instances where people 
caused or attempted to cause serious physical injury or death or an imminent 
substantiated threat of such violence or death, compelled or attempted to compel 
sexual acts by force or threats of force, led/organized/incited/attempted to cause a 
riot or violent insurrection, procured deadly weapons or other comparably 
dangerous contraband that poses a threat, escaped or attempted an escape, or 
other conduct of the same magnitude of harm. 
The scope of the lockdown—including which people and which physical areas of the 
jail are affected—should be limited to what is absolutely necessary to effectuate the 
purpose of the lockdown. (​From​ ​BOC Lockdown report recommendations​) 
The department must ensure timely medical and mental health care—particularly 
for emergency or time-urgent medical and mental health care—during any 
lockdowns, and must provide for other delayed or missed services as quickly as 
possible following a lockdown. (​From​ ​BOC Lockdown report recommendations​) 
The department must publicly report all lockdowns, including providing immediate 
information about any restrictions on visits or phone calls so that family members 
know, as well as report the reasons for any lockdown, which areas are affected and 
why, what medical and mental health services are affected, what programs are 
affected, activities taken during the lockdown to resolve/address the reasons for the 
lockdown, and the number of staff diverted for the lockdown. (​From​ ​BOC Lockdown 
report recommendations​) 

  
 

6 

 

  

 
3. End punitive segregation and make ESH and any other alternative units 
actually about safety, rehabilitation, and prevention of violence 

New York City should (a) end punitive segregation entirely and (b) ensure that Enhanced 
Supervision Housing (ESH) and (c) any other alternative units in the jails are actually about 
safety, rehabilitation, and prevention of violence. Punitive segregation causes devastating 
harm and actually increases violence rather than reducing violence or promoting safety. As 
renowned mental health jail administrator and expert Dr. James Gilligan has​ ​written​, "far 
from preventing violence, p
​ unishment is the most powerful stimulus to violent behavior that we 
have yet discovered​” (emphasis in original). If people are engaging in conduct that poses a 
real and serious threat to others, then they can be separated from the general jail 
population. But if the City is truly serious about safety and violence reduction/prevention, 
then that separation should be the opposite of isolation and punishment. It should involve 
opportunities for more intensive human engagement and programs to address the 
reasons for the separation and prevent future violence or harm. 
The City and the Board have many powerful examples to draw from in creating effective 
programs that are the opposite of isolation and actually are effective at promoting safety 
and reducing harm. One of the strongest examples and what the proposed policies herein 
attempt to use as a key model is the​ ​Resolve to Stop the Violence Project (RSVP)​ in San 
Francisco​ ​jails​. This well-studied and documented project immerses residents in an 
intensive program including most of the day out-of-cell, group discussions, classes, 
counseling, and meetings with victims of violence. During the time period reported on, 
RSVP resulted in a 25-fold reduction in violent incidents, five-fold reduction in rearrests for 
violent crimes, six-fold reduction in jail time, and cost savings. As a replacement for solitary 
confinement, if it is serious about increasing safety and reducing violence, New York City 
should implement a program akin to RSVP in the city jails. 
There are also effective examples to draw from right in New York City and New York State 
itself. The​ ​Clinical Alternatives to Punitive Segregation (CAPS)​ unit in New York City is a 
much more program-intensive, treatment supported, and empowerment-based alternative 
to solitary confinement that does not restrict the amount of out-of-cell time provided, 
utilizes de-escalation of difficult situations, and has greatly reduced the amount of violence 
and self-harm. 
The Merle Cooper program in New York State prisons—now closed purportedly due to 
resource constraints—also provided a successful program-intensive, empowerment-based 
unit that involved complete separation from the rest of the prison population but no 
isolation of individual people. For people deemed at high risk of recidivism, the Merle 
Cooper program provided group sessions, intensive programming, peer-led initiatives, 
increased autonomy and responsibility, most of the day out of cell, and the ability to earn 
unlocked cells. Even though Clinton Correctional Facility is considered one of the most 
violent prisons in NY, while it was open (1977 to 2013) Merle Cooper had high levels of 

7 

 

  

 

reported safety, and near universal praise from correction officers, participants, and 
administrators. 
Many​ ​European​ countries​ ​rarely utilize solitary confinement​, and if used only for very short 
periods, and instead have an intense focus on programming, connections to family and 
community, granting people autonomy and responsibility, creating conditions akin to life 
outside of incarceration, and preparation for returning home. 
Again, if New York City actually wants to reduce violence and improve safety, it should stop 
using a method that is not only inhumane but counterproductive to those goals - solitary 
confinement - and instead utilize proven evidence-based mechanisms. 
●

●

●
●

●

●

●

8 

ESH and any other units should have comparable congregate human interaction, 
comparable amenities (TVs, etc.), and comparable congregate programming as in 
the general jail population, in settings that are conducive to congregate interactions 
and congregate programming with at least several people. 
These units should also have additional/alternative quality programming aimed at 
addressing the reasons for separation, including therapeutic/anti-violence 
programming, and restorative justice and​ ​cure violence​ health programs (BOC 
recommended​ ​here​ and​ ​here​). The RSVP program mentioned above should serve as 
a model.  
The department must also ensure opportunities for mental health and substance 
use treatment (BOC recommended​ ​here​ and​ ​here​). 
In total, people in ESH or any other alternative units should have access to at least 
seven hours of out-of-cell congregate programming per day (with, as described 
above total out-of-cell time of 14 hours in line with the Board’s minimum standards 
for all people in the jails). 
There should be additional meaningful, substantial, and repeated training for staff 
working in ESH and other alternative units on topics including conflict resolution, 
mediation, de-escalation, restorative justice, and use of force​ ​(BOC recs​). 
De-escalation and meaningful use of positive incentives, rather than the use of 
disciplinary sanctions, must be the primary methods for addressing issues that arise 
in the general jail population and in alternative units. 
The current criteria for placement into ESH should be narrowed and the department 
should no longer be able to utilize past conduct to justify placement in ESH or 
another alternative unit (currently the department can justify placement based on 
conduct that occurred five years prior if it occurred while the person was 
incarcerated anywhere, or two years prior if it occurred outside of incarceration). 
People should only be separated if actually necessary to address ​current​ serious 
harm/threats of harm and only as a response to a current act (as opposed to 
something a person committed in a different jail or prison, on a different time 
incarcerated, or while still in the outside community). 

 

  

 
Before someone is placed in ESH or any other alternative units, the current 
procedural minimum standards should be improved, including that there should be 
a hearing with a n
​ eutral decision-maker​, access to legal representation by a 
lawyer/paralegal/other incarcerated person, increased burden of proof on the 
department, and opportunities to appeal any placement decision to the Board with 
similar procedures as used for appeals to the Board in other contexts. 
● The Board’s minimum standards should specify that there should not be other 
restrictive housing units apart from ESH (which itself should not be restrictive) and 
that any units that are in any way more restrictive than the general jail population 
should comport at least to all of the standards for ESH (in terms of programming, 
criteria, procedures, etc.). 
 
4. Adopt specific mechanisms and time limits for getting out of ESH and any 
other alternative units 
●

To help ensure that ESH and any other alternative units are as effective as they can be, that 
people are not warehoused in these units, and that these units do not become punitive, 
there must be clear mechanisms and processes for people to be discharged from these 
units, including completing programming, release at periodic reviews, and mandatory time 
limits. The mechanisms outlined in the​ ​HALT Solitary Confinement Act​ can serve as a basic 
framework to draw from and apply in the context of a jail setting, where people are held 
for shorter periods and primarily held pre-trial and presumed innocent (and others are 
there for low-level misdemeanor convictions). 
●

●

●
●

Upon entering ESH or any alternative unit, there should be an individual needs 
assessment and realistic and appropriate (in terms of a person's abilities and needs) 
program plan established, including a plan for discharge from the unit. If the person 
significantly completes the plan, they should be discharged. 
The periodic review process needs to be strengthened. Periodic reviews should take 
place at least every 15 days (rather than the current 45). A multidisciplinary team 
should be carrying out the reviews, including program staff and treatment staff, and 
should discharge a person if deemed appropriate for discharge. If not discharged, 
the person should be told what they need to do to be discharged and upon 
completion should be discharged. 
There should be a total maximum time limit of four months in ESH or alternative 
units. 
There should be a BOC appeals process available for decisions related to ESH or 
alternative unit placement and denial of discharge akin to other BOC appeals 
processes for other purposes. 
 

9 

 

  

 
5. Dramatically limit use of restraints with a strong presumption against their 
use 

There should be a strong presumption against the use of restraints, particularly during 
congregate activities and programming, with limited exceptions based only on 
individualized determinations of imminent risk of harm (drawing from​ ​ABA standards​ and 
Mandela Rules​).  
●

●
●

●

The default should be that people are not placed in restraints, and that they are only 
used as a last resort if there is an individualized determination that they are 
absolutely necessary to prevent imminent and serious harm. 
The department must use only the least restrictive restraints necessary. 
If restraints are going to be used on more than one immediate occasion, then there 
needs to at least be a due process hearing with procedural protections and the 
possibility to appeal to the Board. Any decision to continue to use restraints should 
be renewed at least daily. Work should be done to de-escalate to move toward 
removing restraints, and a new full due process hearing should be held at least 
weekly. 
In order to avoid incidents where a restrained person could potentially be attacked 
or harmed by an unrestrained person, there should generally be a prohibition on 
commingling people in restraints and people not in restraints, which in practice 
could mean that congregate programming could take place among unrestrained 
people and separately among restrained people. 

Conclusion 
As a city that aspires to be one of the most progressive in the country, New York City must 
lead the way in ending this cruel, inhumane, and counterproductive practice. At the same 
time, we recognize that ending solitary confinement is only one step. Fundamentally 
shifting away from isolation and deprivation—and from the entire racist and destructive 
punishment paradigm—is necessary to achieve safety and justice. We also believe that 
abolishing solitary confinement—often called a jail within a jail, or a prison within a 
prison—and replacing it with positive human engagement and supportive programming 
can light a path toward ending incarceration. Now is the time to act. 

10