CNA Assesses the Management of Administrative Segregation Programs

By Ken McGinnis, Director, Corrections Programs, Safety and Security

Since the 1980s, the nation’s prison population has grown, and correctional systems have systematically increased the use and capacity of segregation and administrative segregation units. The U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics reported that between 1995 and 2005, the number of inmates housed in restricted units increased nationally from 57,591 to 81,622, and that by 2004, more than 40 state systems were operating some type of super-max administrative segregation housing facility to remove the most dangerous, difficult-to-manage inmates from the larger prison population to place them in a highly controlled and secure environment.

The growth of these confinement facilities has recently spurred considerable debate on their use and effectiveness. Super-max facilities typically confine inmates in their cells 23 hours per day and attempt to restrict routine human contact with visitors or other inmates. Critics claim that this type of confinement can produce mental breakdowns and that it amounts to cruel and inhumane punishment. In June 2012, the Bipartisan Commission on Safety and Abuse in American Prisons reported to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary that, in their opinion, increasing the use of high-security segregation is counterproductive, often causing violence inside facilities and contributing to recidivism after release. During the Congressional hearing, Senator Durbin of Illinois added that this type of unit can be extremely costly when compared to traditional correctional housing.

On the flip side of the debate, many correctional leaders counter these views by asserting that administrative segregation units are essential to maintaining the safety and security of their correctional institutions by confining inmates who represent the greatest risk of violence and escape. They argue that judicious use of administrative segregation results in a less violent, safer prison system.

CNA has been an active participant in this debate on the usefulness, appropriateness, and effectiveness of these units by leading discussions on the issue among state and national correctional leaders and by leading assessments of these units in several jurisdictions. These assessments help to ensure that administrative segregation units operate consistently with national standards, operate in the most efficient and effective manner possible, house only those inmates who absolutely require such placement, and provide access to mental healthcare and other services. For example, CNA staff worked with the JFA Institute to assess the Parchman Segregation Unit within the Mississippi Department of Corrections. The outcome of this review has been cited by many as a national model for reviewing, assessing, and reforming the administrative segregation function, and on June 12, 2012, Director Chris Epps of the Mississippi Department of Corrections presented a summary of the review to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.

In addition, at the request of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections, CNA recently began assessing the administrative segregation unit at the Oklahoma State Penitentiary. The objective of this project is to ensure that all functions related to the operation of the administrative segregation unit are being performed efficiently and effectively, and that they conform to correctional best practices, national standards, and all related state and federal requirements.

Ultimately, CNA believes that independent assessments of administrative segregation units are critical to ensuring that the units operate safely, efficiently, effectively, and humanely as a tool for managing high-risk offenders in today’s correctional environment.