CLA-2021 Snapshot of Restrictive Housing-Aug. 2022

• Locations: United States of America • Topics: Confinement in Segregated Housing

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail

Document text

This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.

The Liman Center
at YALE LAW SCHOOL

TIME-IN-CELL 2021

TIME-IN-CELL:
A 2021 SNAPSHOT OF
RESTRICTIVE HOUSING
Based on a Nationwide Survey of U.S. Prison Systems

CORRECTIONAL LEADERS ASSOCIATION
ARTHUR LIMAN CENTER
FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LAW
at YALE LAW SCHOOL

Time-In-Cell:
A 2021 Snapshot of Restrictive Housing
based on a Nationwide Survey of
U.S. Prison Systems

The Correctional Leaders Association &
The Arthur Liman Center for Public Interest Law
at Yale Law School

August 2022

Correctional Leaders Association (CLA)
CLA, formerly the Association of State
Correctional Administrators (ASCA), was
founded in the 1980s and is comprised of the
directors of correction systems throughout the
United States. CLA members lead over 400,000
correctional professionals and are responsible
for approximately eight million people in
prisons and on probation and parole. CLA’s
mission is to “promote the profession of
corrections, support CLA members, and
influence policy and practices that affect public
safety.”
The Arthur Liman Center for Public Interest
Law at Yale Law School
The Liman Center was endowed in 1997 to
honor one of Yale Law School’s most
accomplished graduates,
Arthur Liman.
Throughout his distinguished career, he
demonstrated how dedicated lawyers in both
private practice and public life can respond to
the needs of individuals and causes that might
otherwise go unrepresented. The Liman Center
continues the commitments of Arthur Liman by
supporting work, in and outside the academy,
dedicated to public service in the furtherance of
justice.
Acknowledgements
This Report is based on a survey co-authored by
CLA and the Liman Center. The research and
report teams were led at CLA by Leann Bertsch,
Kevin Kempf, Rick Raemisch, Colby Braun,
Annette Chambers-Smith, Wayne Choinski,
Patricia Coyne-Fague, Harold Clarke, Scott
Crow, Stevyn Fogg, Helen Hanks, James Sayler,
Katie Scott, Stephen Sinclair, Jill Stewart,
Cynthia Thornton, Tim Ward, and Brian
Wittrup; and at the Liman Center by Professor
Judith Resnik; Jennifer Taylor, Director of the
Liman Center; and by Skylar Albertson and
Grace Li, Senior Liman Fellows in Residence.
Sarita Benesch, Darnell Epps, Ali Fraerman,
Wynne Graham, Kalind Parish, Jandee Todd,
and Alejandra Uria, current and former students
at Yale Law School, played major roles in the
research, analysis, and drafting of this report.
Frances Keohane and Caleb Lee, students at
Yale College, provided editing and research
support in the final stages of this project.

Thanks are due to all the jurisdictions that
responded to the Survey and provided additional
information, comments, and reviews thereafter.
The authors appreciate the contributions of the
Vera Institute of Justice for data collection about
people in jails and prisons. 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. Special
thanks are due to Elizabeth Keane, Program
Coordinator of the Liman Center, for assistance
in gathering materials.
The series of CLA-Liman reports began under
the leadership of George and Camille Camp, and
in this and other collaborative projects, we honor
Camille Camp and mark George Camp’s legacy.
To download copies of this Report, please visit
https://law.yale.edu/ centers-workshops/arthurliman-center-public-interest-law/liman-centerpublications or https://cl.memberclicks.net/claliman-rh-report. This Report may be reproduced
free of charge and without the need for additional
permission. All rights reserved, 2022.
Inquiries
Leann Bertsch
Restrictive Housing Committee Chair, CLA
Former Director, North Dakota DOCR
Leann.Bertsch@mtctrains.com
Kevin Kempf
Executive Director, CLA
kkempfCLA@gmail.com
Stevyn Fogg
Director, Governance & Strategic Initiatives,
CLA
stevyn@correctionalleaders.com
Judith Resnik
Arthur Liman Professor of Law
Yale Law School
judith.resnik@yale.edu
Jennifer Taylor
Liman Center Director
Yale Law School
jennifer.taylor@yale.edu
cla.limansurvey@yale.edu

Time-In-Cell:
A 2021 Snapshot of Restrictive Housing
based on a Nationwide Survey of
U.S. Prison Systems
Table of Contents
Overview of Findings .................................................................................................................. vii
I.

CLA-Liman Research on Restrictive Housing ................................................................... 1
Understanding Restrictive Housing over Time and Across Jurisdictions

The 2021 Survey Design and Methodology

Research Challenges and Caveats

II. The Data: People in Restrictive Housing in Prisons as of July 2021 ................................ 5
The Numbers and Percentages of People in Restrictive Housing:
Counting and Comparing General and Restrictive Populations
Duration of Time Individuals Spend in Restrictive Housing

5
8

Categories for Placements in Restrictive Housing

Sex/Gender of People in Restrictive Housing

Race/Ethnicity of People in Restrictive Housing

The Ages of People in Restrictive Housing

People with Serious Mental Illness (SMI) in Restrictive Housing

People Serving Capital Sentences

Estimating the Number of People in Restrictive Housing in State and Federal
Prisons across the United States
III.

Some of the Dimensions of Living in Restrictive Housing .......................................... 62

Lighting

Access to Items In-Cell

Access to Commissary

Time Out-of-Cell

Sociability: Contact with Others

Incidents of Violence

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

ii
Exiting Restrictive Housing: Step-Down Programming, Release to General
Population, and Leaving Prison for the Community or a Halfway House

Unit-Level Staff: Qualifications, Schedules, and Compensation

Research and Policy Changes

IV.

Comparing the Numbers of People in Restrictive Housing
in 2015, 2017, 2019, and 2021 ................................................................................. 93

Policies on Segregation: Analyses of High and Low
Population Jurisdictions ....................................................................................... 107
Entering Segregated Housing: Placement Criteria

108

Leaving Segregated Housing: Step-down Programming

110

Concerns about Release Directly to the Community

113

VI.

Legislative Activity........................................................................................................ 115

State Statutes, Local Regulations, and Data Collection (2019 to 2022)

116

Legislative Activity at the Federal Level

123

VII.

Looking Ahead: Continuing to Build the Data .......................................................... 132

Endnotes
Appendices
Appendix A: CLA-Liman 2021 Restrictive Housing Survey
Appendix B: Total Prison Populations for Responding
and Non-Responding Jurisdictions
Appendix C: Identifying Transgender People
Appendix D: Definitions of “Serious Mental Illness”
Appendix E: Legislative Proposals Introduced in the 117th Congress
(2021-22) Relating to Isolation in Prison

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

132

iii
Tables and Figures
Table 1

People in Restrictive Housing

Table 2

Length of Time in Restrictive Housing

Table 3

Percentages of People in Restrictive Housing by Length of Time

Table 4

When Jurisdictions Began Tracking Length of Time in
Restrictive Housing

Table 5

Categories of Reasons for Placements in Restrictive Housing

Table 6

Men in Restrictive Housing

Table 7

Women in Restrictive Housing

Table 8

Transgender People in Restrictive Housing

Table 9

Pregnant People

Table 10

Numbers of Jurisdictions Reporting Racial/Ethnicity Categories

Table 11

Black and Hispanic or Latino Men in Restrictive Housing

Table 12

Race/Ethnicity of Men in Total Custodial and Restrictive Housing
Populations

Table 13

Race/Ethnicity of Men in Total Custodial and Restrictive Housing
Populations (Percentages)

Table 14

Race/Ethnicity of Men: Differences Between Total Custodial
and Restrictive Housing Populations

Table 15

Black and Hispanic or Latina Women in Restrictive Housing

Table 16

Race/Ethnicity of Women in Total Custodial and
Restrictive Housing Populations

Table 17

Race/Ethnicity of Women in Total Custodial and
Restrictive Housing Populations (Percentages)

Table 18

Men in Total Custodial and Restrictive Housing Populations by Age

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

iv
Table 19

Men in Total Custodial and Restrictive Housing Populations by Age
(Percentages)

Table 20

Women in Total Custodial and Restrictive Housing Populations by Age

Table 21

Women in Total Custodial and Restrictive Housing Populations by Age
(Percentages)

Table 22

People with Serious Mental Illness (SMI) in Total Custodial and
Restrictive Housing Populations

Table 23

Men with Serious Mental Illness (SMI) by Race and Ethnicity
in Total Custodial and Restrictive Housing Populations

Table 24

Women with Serious Mental Illness (SMI) by Race and Ethnicity
in Total Custodial and Restrictive Housing Populations

Table 25

Men with Serious Mental Illness (SMI) by Age in Total Custodial
and Restrictive Housing Populations

Table 26

Women with Serious Mental Illness (SMI) by Age in Total Custodial
and Restrictive Housing Populations

Table 27

Jurisdictions That Reported Permitting Access to Use of Certain Items

Table 28

Access to Commissary Items

Table 29

Access to Educational Programming

Table 30

Reported Incidents of Physical Assault

Table 31

Reported Incidents of Homicide

Table 32

Reported Incidents of Substantiated Sexual Violence

Table 33

Reported Incidents of Substantiated Sexual Misconduct

Table 34

Reported Incidents of Self-Harm

Table 35

People Released from Restrictive Housing,
July 1, 2020 to July 1, 2021

Table 36

Comparisons of Restrictive Housing (RH)
Populations in 2015, 2017, 2019, and 2021

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

v
Table 37A Comparing the Numbers of People in Restrictive Housing
by Length of Time in 2015, 2017, 2019, and 2021

100

Table 37B Comparing the Numbers of People in Restrictive Housing
by Length of Time in 2015, 2017, 2019, and 2021

101

Table 38A Comparing the Distribution of People in Restrictive Housing
by Length of Time in 2015, 2017, 2019, and 2021

102

Table 38B Comparing the Distribution of People in Restrictive Housing
by Length of Time in 2015, 2017, 2019, and 2021

103

Table 39

Comparing Restrictive Housing Numbers from 2014 to 2021

105

Table 40

Federal BOP Restricted Housing Data

124

Figure 1

Percentage of People in Restrictive Housing Ordered by Jurisdiction

Figure 2

Percentage of People in Restrictive Housing Ordered by Percentage

Figure 3

People in Restrictive Housing by Length of Stay

Figure 4

Percentage of People in Restrictive Housing by Sex/Gender

Figure 5

Percentage of Men in Restrictive Housing Ordered by Jurisdiction

Figure 6

Percentage of Men in Restrictive Housing Ordered by Percentage

Figure 7

Percentage of Women in Restrictive Housing Ordered by Jurisdiction

Figure 8

Percentage of Women in Restrictive Housing Ordered by Percentage

Figure 9

Race/Ethnicity of Men in Total Custodial and
Restrictive Housing Populations

Figure 10 Race/Ethnicity of Women in Total Custodial and
Restrictive Housing Populations

Figure 11 Men in Total Custodial and Restrictive Housing Populations by Age

Figure 12 Women in Total Custodial and Restrictive Housing Populations by Age

Figure 13 In-Cell Activities and Out-of-Cell Opportunities
for People in Restrictive Housing

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

vi
Figure 14 Jurisdiction-by-Jurisdiction Comparison of People in
Restrictive Housing: 2015 to 2017

Figure 15 Jurisdiction-by-Jurisdiction Comparison of People in
Restrictive Housing: 2017 to 2019

Figure 16 Jurisdiction-by-Jurisdiction Comparison of People in
Restrictive Housing: 2019 to 2021

Figure 17 Jurisdiction-by-Jurisdiction Comparison of People in
Restrictive Housing: 2015 to 2021

Figure 18 Comparing the Distribution of People in Restrictive Housing by
Length of Time in 2015, 2017, 2019, and 2021

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

104

vii

Overview of Findings
This Overview previews some of the findings in this Report. Before turning to key facets,
the contours and limits of the data collection need to be explained. First, as in the other volumes
in the CLA-Liman series, this Report compiles information that prison systems provided in
response to a survey questionnaire (“the Survey”) and does not rely on other sources, such as
interviews of incarcerated people or research based on public data. Second, the Survey defined
“restrictive housing” as isolation in a cell for an average of twenty-two or more hours per day for
fifteen or more consecutive days. Thus, this data collection cannot inform discussions about
other forms of isolation, such as conditions that restrict incarcerated individuals to their cells for
seventeen to less-than-twenty-two hours per day.
Third, jurisdictions responded to the 2021 CLA-Liman Survey during the global COVID19 pandemic—a public health emergency that upended life around the globe, including within
U.S. prisons. The density of prisons meant that many facilities became “hotspots”; as public
health experts reported, the rates of infections and deaths of incarcerated people and prison staff
due to COVID-19 were higher than for people outside prisons. 1 Concerns have been raised that
COVID-19 prompted greater use of isolation and altered the housing options within facilities. 2
However, the July 2021 timing of the CLA-Liman Survey’s “snapshot” fell outside the “waves”
of high rates of COVID-19 infections that surged in the United States and therefore may not
reflect the impact of the pandemic on isolation in prisons. 3
Fourth, the Survey’s questions were addressed to the statewide correctional officials, very
few of whom oversee jails or other detention facilities besides prisons. As a result, this Report is
about people in prisons, and not about individuals held in jails, immigration facilities, or other
forms of detention.
With these caveats, this Report documents important changes over the course of data
collection. In 2012, the first year the CLA-Liman Survey was conducted, all responding
jurisdictions reported using restrictive housing in their facilities. In contrast, as detailed below,
three of the thirty-five jurisdictions responding to the 2021 Survey reported that they did not hold
any people in conditions matching the Survey definition of restrictive housing. Two more
jurisdictions reported holding fewer than ten people in restrictive housing, and ten
jurisdictions—including these five—reported holding no one in restrictive housing in their
women’s prisons. These reported practices, along with ongoing reforms implemented by
correctional departments and legislative bodies in many states and the federal system,
demonstrate a growing consensus that limiting or ending the use of restrictive housing is a
worthwhile and attainable goal.
This Report also records a major shift in the legislative role in limiting restrictive
housing. When this series began in 2012, few statutes focused on the use of restrictive housing.
Between 2018 and 2020, when the last report was published, legislators in more than twenty-five
states introduced bills to limit the use of restrictive housing, and some fifteen enacted legislation.
This Report provides an update of bills, resolutions, and executive orders introduced and enacted
in more than thirty states. These proposals and enactments address duration of confinement,
2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

viii
subpopulations, staff training, and more. As of this writing, more legislative activity focused on
the use of isolation is underway.
The Numbers and Demographics of People Held in Restrictive Housing
Thirty-four state prison systems and the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) responded to
the 2021 CLA-Liman Survey with information about the number of people in restrictive housing
as of July 2021. Their responses identified 25,083 people in restrictive housing, out of an
aggregate total custodial population of 731,202 people under their direct control. According to
data collected by the Vera Institute of Justice (“Vera”), as of March of 2021, 1,193,934 people
were held in prisons across the United States. The thirty-five responding jurisdictions thus
provided information about approximately 61.2% of the total U.S. prison population. In addition
to these thirty-five jurisdictions, a thirty-sixth jurisdiction answered questions about the number
of people in its total custodial population and rules governing restrictive housing but not about
the number of people in restrictive housing.
Across the thirty-five jurisdictions that provided restrictive housing data, the percentage
of people in restrictive housing ranged from 0% to 14.8% of the total custodial population.
Aggregating these jurisdictions’ responses, 3.4% of people were reported to be held in restrictive
housing (25,083 out of 731,202 people). The median was 3.2% (excluding the three jurisdictions
that reported holding no one in restrictive housing, the median was 3.3%).
The 2021 Survey also sought to learn about how long individuals were held in restrictive
housing. Thirty-four jurisdictions provided such data on 25,029 people. More than 75% of these
individuals were reported to have been held in restrictive housing for between fifteen days and
one year. Specifically, 4,792 people (19.1% of 25,029) were in for fifteen to twenty-nine days;
4,678 (18.7% of 25,029) were in for thirty to sixty days; 6,888 (27.5% of 25,029) were in for
sixty-one to 180 days; and 2,631 (10.5% of 25,029) were in for between six months and a year.
The remaining quarter—6,040 individuals—were reported to have been isolated in
restrictive housing for more than one year. Specifically, 3,595 people (14.4% of 25,029) were in
for one to three years; 996 (4.0% of 25,029) were in for three to six years; 525 (2.1% of 25,029)
were in for six to ten years; and 924 individuals (3.7% of 25,029) were in restrictive housing for
over a decade.
Another set of questions focused on the demographic makeup of the restrictive housing
population in relationship to the total custodial population. A first divide was on gender. In
thirty-five jurisdictions, 3.6% of people in men’s prisons and 0.8% of people in women’s prisons
were in restrictive housing.
Several categories of people, often referred to as subpopulations, have been subjects of
concern with regard to the use of restrictive housing. The thirty-two jurisdictions responding to
whether pregnant people were in restrictive housing indicated that none held a pregnant person in
restrictive housing. More generally, relatively few pregnant people were reported in prisons. Of
thirty-three jurisdictions reporting information about their total custodial populations, six
jurisdictions said that they housed no pregnant people. The other twenty-seven reported holding
a total of 234 pregnant individuals in their custodial populations.
2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

Thirty-two jurisdictions provided information about the number of transgender people in
their restrictive housing and total custodial populations. One jurisdiction reported that it held no
transgender people in its total custodial population. The remaining thirty-one, including the three
jurisdictions reporting no one in restrictive housing, reported a total of 5,822 transgender people
in their custodial populations, and 293 transgender people in restrictive housing.
In terms of race and ethnicity, Black and Hispanic or Latino/a people comprised a
somewhat larger percentage of restrictive housing populations than they did in total custodial
populations. The largest racial and ethnic differences were found in facilities for women. In the
thirty-three jurisdictions that provided data on the race/ethnicity of people in restrictive housing
in women’s prisons, Black people comprised 30.1% of restrictive housing populations, as
compared to 20.0% of total custodial populations. Hispanic or Latina people comprised 16.6% of
the restrictive housing population in women’s prisons, as compared to 16.8% of the total
custodial population. Similarly small percentages of people identified as Asian, Native Hawaiian
or Pacific Islander, or “Other” were reported in the total custodial and restrictive housing
populations. Native American or Alaskan Native people comprised 6.8% of restrictive housing
populations in women’s prisons, as compared to 3.4% of total custodial populations.
Across the thirty-three jurisdictions that provided data on the race/ethnicity of those in
restrictive housing in men’s prisons, Black people accounted for 37.7% of the restrictive housing
population, as compared to 37.2% of the total custodial population. In twenty-two of these thirtythree jurisdictions, the percentage of Black people was higher in restrictive housing than in the
total custodial population. Hispanic or Latino people comprised 23.8% of the people in
restrictive housing in men’s prisons in these jurisdictions, as compared to 22.6% of the
jurisdictions’ total custodial populations. Jurisdictions reported small percentages of Asian,
Native American or Alaskan Native, and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander people in their total
custodial populations and similarly small percentages in restrictive housing. Those categorized as
“Other” appeared to be comparable in percentages both in total custodial and restrictive housing
populations.
Age is another focus of the Survey’s inquiry, as some have voiced growing concern about
the placement of youth and the elderly into restrictive housing. Survey responses indicated that a
higher percentage of younger people were in restrictive housing compared to older age groups.
Aggregating responses from thirty-two jurisdictions, 3.6% of all people in men’s prisons (24,143
of 664,810) were in restrictive housing. In contrast, 4.9% of people in men’s prisons ages
twenty-five and younger (2,928 of 59,430) were in restrictive housing. Thirty-three jurisdictions
provided data indicating that 0.8% of all people in women’s prisons (385 of 46,491) were in
restrictive housing. In contrast, 2.0% of people ages twenty-five and younger in women’s prisons
(81 of 4,150) were in restrictive housing.
Another long-standing concern is the impact of restrictive housing on mental health. The
policies of the American Correctional Association (ACA) and of many jurisdictions call for
limits on the placement of individuals with “serious mental illness” (SMI) in isolation. Because
definitions of “serious mental illness” varied across jurisdictions, the 2021 Survey asked each
responding jurisdiction to provide both its definition of SMI and the number of people in
2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

x
restrictive housing under its own definition. Using their own definitions of SMI, twenty-eight
jurisdictions identified a total of 1,138 seriously mentally ill people in restrictive housing.
As detailed in the Liman Center’s 2016 report, Rethinking “Death Row”, some prison
systems require that officials separate people serving capital sentences from the general
population. Seventeen jurisdictions with at least one capital-sentenced person in their total
custodial populations held 2,817 capital-sentenced individuals in general population settings,
1,254 in restrictive housing, and 1,459 in separated areas (housing units that were not part of
general population) that did not meet the Survey’s definition of restrictive housing.
Ten Years of Collecting Data: Developing the Capacity for
Longitudinal Assessments
Because the surveys have collected data for a decade, the 2022 Report can provide some
comparisons over time. In 2013, the Liman Center and the Association of State Correctional
Administrators (ASCA, the previous name for CLA) produced a first report, Administrative
Segregation, Degrees of Isolation, and Incarceration: A National Overview of State and Federal
Correctional Policies, based on a review of the policies in place in forty-six states and the BOP.
Through this research, ASCA and the Liman Center learned that correctional officials had broad
discretion when deciding to put people into “administrative segregation,” which the report
defined as the practice of isolating a person in a cell for “approximately 23 hours a day,” for “a
non-punitive purpose,” and with “open-ended duration, close confinement, and restricted
activities and social contact.”
Time-In-Cell, published in 2015 with data from 2014, compiled survey responses from
thirty-four jurisdictions holding 74% of the U.S. prison population. Those jurisdictions reported
more than 66,000 individuals in some form of restrictive housing. Time-In-Cell estimated that, in
the fall of 2014, between 80,000 and 100,000 individuals were in restrictive housing in prisons
across the United States.
The next survey, sent in 2015, refined the definition of “restrictive housing” by asking
about the practice of separating an individual from the general population and isolating that
individual in a cell for twenty-two hours or more per day and for fifteen or more continuous
days. As detailed in a third report, Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell, published in 2016, forty-eight
jurisdictions—holding 96.4% of the U.S. prison—responded to this survey and identified a total
of 67,442 people held under that definition of restrictive housing.
For the 2017 ASCA-Liman Survey, forty-three jurisdictions holding 80% of the country’s
incarcerated population responded. That survey clarified the definition of “restrictive housing”
by inquiring about people isolated in a cell for an average of twenty-two hours or more per day,
for fifteen or more continuous days. The resulting report, Reforming Restrictive Housing,
published in 2018, estimated that approximately 61,000 individuals were in restrictive housing.
The 2017 Survey also sought demographic data, inquiring about the gender, ethnicity, and ages
of people held in restrictive housing; the length of stay; and the isolation of those that the
jurisdictions holding them deemed “seriously mentally ill.” Survey responses showed that people
in men’s prisons were much more likely than people in women’s prisons to be in isolation, that
Black people comprised a greater percentage of the restrictive housing population than they did
2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

xi
of the total custodial population, and that people between the ages of eighteen and thirty-six were
more likely to be placed in restrictive housing than were older individuals.
The 2019 CLA-Liman Survey collected data from thirty-nine jurisdictions incarcerating
65% of the U.S. prison population. Time-in-Cell 2019: A Snapshot of Restrictive Housing,
published in 2020, estimated that prisons across the United States were holding between 55,000
and 62,500 individuals in restrictive housing as of the summer of 2019. Within the thirty-two
jurisdictions that reported data on the race and ethnicity of individuals in restrictive housing, the
percentage of people in both men’s and women’s prisons who were Black, Native American, or
Alaskan Native was higher in restrictive housing than in the total custodial population, and the
same was reported for Hispanic people in men’s prisons. In both men’s and women’s prisons, the
percentage of individuals between the ages of eighteen and thirty-five was higher in restrictive
housing than in total custodial populations.
Responses to the 2021 CLA-Liman Survey invite assessment of changes throughout the
past decade. As in past years, this Report uses survey data from responding jurisdictions to
calculate a national estimate of the number of people in restrictive housing in all U.S. prisons.
This Report estimates that, as of July 2021, approximately 41,000 to 48,000 people were in
restrictive housing in prisons across the United States. In addition, this Report compares survey
data from the twenty-five jurisdictions that responded to the full set of 2015, 2017, 2019, and
2021 Surveys. From 2015 to 2021, both the aggregate number and percentage of people these
jurisdictions reported held in restrictive housing decreased: from 27,697 people (4.6% of
606,801) in 2015, to 13,371 people (2.9% of 456,183) in 2021.
Nineteen of these jurisdictions, which provided data on length of time people spent in
restrictive housing, responded to all four surveys. Aggregating their data, the reported numbers
of individuals in restrictive housing across almost all time periods decreased between 2015 and
2021. These decreases were not uniform across the nineteen jurisdictions and the time intervals.
However, the numbers of people in restrictive housing for all lengths of time decreased in more
jurisdictions than it increased between 2015 to 2017, 2017 to 2019, and 2019 to 2021.
A decline in reported numbers invites exploration of the factors that resulted in lowering
the restrictive housing populations. Many potential sources for such a change exist, including
decreases in the overall number of people imprisoned in these jurisdictions; changes in the
facilities used for incarceration; new policies, regulations, legislation, and judicial decisions; the
impact of COVID-19; and staffing within prison systems. In addition, some responding
jurisdictions provided policy documents reflecting multiple forms of isolation. Thus, it is
possible that some of the apparent decrease in the number of people held in restrictive housing
may correspond with increases in the numbers of people held in forms of isolation that closely
approximate restrictive housing—for example, confinement in a cell for an average of twenty or
twenty-one hours per day. Different forms of research are needed to parse the variables and
understand the changes.
Dimensions of Living in Restrictive Housing
As the term implies, living in restrictive housing limits interaction with other people and
activities. The 2021 Survey sought to understand rules governing access to personal items, use of
2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

xii
the commissary, and activities in cell; how out-of-cell time was spent; and opportunities for
interpersonal contact. The Survey also asked about staffing, processes governing release from
restrictive housing, and incidents of violence.
For this category of information, an additional caveat is in order: formal policies do not
necessarily describe the actual experiences of individuals held in restrictive housing. The 2021
Survey focused on the official rules set forth by corrections departments. A different kind of
research is needed to learn what transpires in practice for people in restrictive housing.
Moreover, the 2021 Survey asked each jurisdiction to report the formal rules for its facility with
the largest restrictive housing population, and some jurisdictions indicated that rules varied by
facility. Thus, responses to these survey questions provide a rough, preliminary sketch of the
rules governing life in restrictive housing.
A major concern of this part of the Survey is lighting. Historically, “dark cells” were used
as punishment, while a later form of punishment was to fill cells with artificial light at all times.
Thirty jurisdictions responded to some of the Survey’s questions about artificial and direct
natural lighting in restrictive housing cells. Of those, ten jurisdictions reported that the lights in
restrictive housing cells stayed on at night and that people in restrictive housing did not have
control over cell lighting for all hours of the day.
Another concern is sociability. Twenty-nine jurisdictions reported that they permitted
people in restrictive housing to leave their cells between three and seven times per week to
exercise individually; the median was five times per week. Thirty jurisdictions responded that
they limited the number of showers a person living in restrictive housing could take, and
nineteen capped this number at three per week. Six jurisdictions reported that people in
restrictive housing were not allowed to be in a group during any out-of-cell time.
The Survey also queried jurisdictions about restrictive housing polices related to items
such as books, reading materials, writing materials, worksheets, puzzles, board games, music,
and television. Most jurisdictions reported that they permitted some opportunities to have access
to educational resources such as books (30 jurisdictions), writing materials (29 jurisdictions), and
worksheets (27 jurisdictions); fewer reported making available televisions (16 jurisdictions),
video games (4 jurisdictions), and puzzles and board games (13 jurisdictions). Almost all
jurisdictions reported that staff had the authority to revoke access to any of these items as a
punishment and to permit access as a reward.
Violence within prisons is a grave concern that has been invoked both as a justification
for separating people from general population settings and as a critique of isolation. Federal laws
such as the Death in Custody Reporting Act and the Prison Rape Elimination Act, which address
both state and federal facilities and call for information on deaths and sexual violence
(respectively) require reporting. As a preliminary step toward data collection efforts, the 2021
CLA-Liman Survey asked about incidents of self-harm and interpersonal harm, including sexual
violence. As this set of questions was a new addition to this series, and due to the preliminary
nature of the Survey’s inquiries into violence, this Report does not aggregate the data. Yet, for
the time period between July 1, 2020, and July 1, 2021, nearly a quarter (23.9%, or 188 of 785)
2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

xiii
of attempted or completed suicides reported in response to the Survey by twenty-one
jurisdictions occurred in restrictive housing.
In order to learn about the rules and procedures for exiting restrictive housing, the Survey
asked about the use of what are termed “step-down” or “transition” programs. Reflecting
concerns that isolation is debilitating and that to resume normal interactions requires help, these
programs are designed to reduce the challenges of reentry and mitigate the adverse physical and
psychological effects of segregated housing. Thirteen of twenty-nine responding jurisdictions
reported using transition programs for exiting restrictive housing and reentering general
population settings. Seven of these jurisdictions reported that such programs could last from a
minimum of one month to a maximum of one year; the median was ninety days. Eleven
jurisdictions reported using transition programs for when people are released directly from
restrictive housing to outside of prisons.
Given the challenges of working in prisons, the Survey asked questions aimed at gaining
a preliminary understanding of qualifications and training for staff working in restrictive housing
units. Sixteen of twenty-nine responding jurisdictions said that working in restrictive housing
units did not require any additional qualifications. Of the thirteen jurisdictions that required
additional qualifications, the specific requirements reflected the challenges of restrictive housing.
Several jurisdictions required special training on mental health; five required training on conflict
management; and six required training on de-escalation techniques.
Correctional Regulations Addressing Restrictive Housing
Another window into restrictive housing is through published correctional policies. This
Report analyzed a subset of materials available as of December 2021 from the ten states with the
largest prison systems, measured as of March 31, 2021, and from the four states that reported in
the 2019 CLA-Liman Survey that they held no one in restrictive housing. The goal was to
analyze published criteria for entering and exiting restrictive housing. Because terminology
varies and the term “restrictive housing” is not always used in correctional policies, this segment
of the Report uses the term “segregated housing” to encompass the range of isolation practices
reviewed.
Nine of the ten jurisdictions with the highest prison populations had a “catch-all
provision,” which appeared to give prison staff broad discretionary authority to place an
individual in segregated housing. For example, one 2021 policy stated that a person could be
placed in segregated housing if deemed a “threat to the orderly operation of the facility.” By
contrast, three of the four states with few or no reported individuals in segregated housing
specified which rule violations or other narrowly defined circumstances could serve as bases for
placement. All fourteen of the jurisdictions had policies that used transition programs to move
individuals from segregated housing to the general prison population or into the community.
Federal and State Legislation Addressing Restrictive Housing
When this series began in 2012, few statutes focused on the use of restrictive housing. A
major change has taken place since then. As chronicled in the 2020 report, between 2018 and
2020, legislators in more than twenty-five states had introduced bills to limit the use of restrictive
housing; some fifteen had enacted legislation. This Report provides an update on bills,
2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

xiv
resolutions, and executive orders introduced and enacted in more than thirty states. These
legislative actions address many topics, including the duration of confinement, subpopulations,
and staff training. As of this writing, more legislative activity on the use of isolation is underway.
Some statutes have been high-profile efforts at broad reform. The 2020 report discussed
examples including Colorado, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, and New Mexico. New York’s
2021 enactment of the HALT Act is another example; effective April 2022, the law defined
“segregated confinement” as “any form of cell confinement for more than seventeen hours a day
other than in a facility-wide emergency or for the purpose of providing medical or mental health
treatment.” The HALT Act prohibits the placement of any person in one of several
subpopulations, such as people “fifty-five years of age or older,” in segregated confinement and
caps the duration of segregated confinement at “no more than fifteen consecutive days or twenty
total days within any sixty-day period.”
Colorado’s recent enactment forbids local jails from placing individuals in “restrictive
housing involuntarily” if they suffer from specified types of impairments, including “serious
mental illness.” In the spring of 2022, as this Report was being finalized, Connecticut enacted the
PROTECT ACT, which limits the number of days a person can spend in “isolated confinement”
to no more than fifteen consecutive days or thirty total days within any sixty-day period. The
PROTECT Act also requires “not less than two hours out of cell per day, including at least one
hour for recreational purposes.”
Several prior statutes imposed reporting requirements. For example, in the federal
system, the First Step Act of 2018 (FSA) requires the BOP to report certain information about
the number of people in “solitary confinement” in federal prisons and jails. A 2022 report
published pursuant to this mandate indicated that the BOP had held 11,703 people “in segregated
housing units at any time during” 2020.
Below, the Report amplifies the bases for this sketch and provides more information
about the use of restrictive housing as of the summer of 2021.

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

CLA-Liman Research on Restrictive Housing

This Report, based on responses from thirty-six jurisdictions to the 2021 CLA-Liman
Survey, sketches a composite picture of restrictive housing practices in prisons across the United
States. The 2021 Survey defined “restrictive housing” as the practice of isolating an incarcerated
person in a cell for an average of twenty-two hours or more per day, for fifteen or more
consecutive days. The Survey sought information on a range of topics including: the number of
people held in restrictive housing; their demographics; the length of time they were confined in
restrictive housing; and prison policies governing conditions in restrictive housing, from lighting
to access to activities. Also included were inquiries on data about incidents of violence in
restrictive housing. Thirty-five jurisdictions responded with information about the number of
people in restrictive housing, and a thirty-sixth jurisdiction answered questions about the number
of people in its total custodial population and the rules governing restrictive housing but did not
report the number of people in restrictive housing. 4
As noted in the Overview, during the past decade, CLA and the Arthur Liman Center for
Public Interest Law at Yale Law School have together conducted a series of nationwide surveys
that yield longitudinal data on restrictive housing’s role in prison systems across the United
States. These reports reflect that, while once a regular tool of discipline, restrictive housing—
also commonly referred to as “solitary confinement” or “segregated confinement”—has become
a matter of grave concern.
The 2020 and this Report exemplify that shift. As of July of 2021, three of the thirty-five
jurisdictions that submitted responses reported holding no one in restrictive housing as defined
by the Survey. Another two jurisdictions reported holding fewer than ten people in restrictive
housing. Ten jurisdictions in total, including the five mentioned, reported holding no one in
restrictive housing in women’s prisons. These reported practices, along with ongoing legal and
policy reforms implemented by correctional departments and legislatures in many states and the
federal system, demonstrate ongoing efforts to reduce and to end the use of restrictive housing.
Another context for this report is that jurisdictions responded to the 2021 CLA-Liman
Survey during the COVID-19 pandemic—a public health emergency. The density of prisons
meant that many became identified as “hotspots”; as public health experts reported, the rates of
infections and deaths of incarcerated people and of prison staff were higher than for people not in
detention. 5 Concerns have been raised that COVID prompted greater use of isolation. 6 The
Survey therefore asked about COVID-19 as a basis for restrictive housing. Thirty-one
responding jurisdictions reported that, as of July 2021, fewer than two dozen total people were in
restrictive housing for COVID-19 isolation or quarantine. That number was less than some
commentators anticipated. It may reflect that the request for data keyed to July 2021 for this
“snapshot” fell outside the waves of high COVID-19 infection rates and did not capture the full
impact of the pandemic on restrictive housing. Further, the types of isolation used in response to
the pandemic may have differed from the Survey definition of restrictive housing. COVID-19
underscored the challenges of health care and of working in prisons. Access to regular and
needed medical assistance was burdened and in some instances cut off, and the crisis exacerbated
staffing shortages. 7
2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

Understanding Restrictive Housing over Time and Across Jurisdictions
Since 2012, the Liman Center and CLA have worked together on a variety of projects
designed to gain insight into interactions among imprisoned people, correctional agencies,
communities, and courts. Together, CLA and the Liman Center have hosted workshops,
presented at conferences, 8 undertaken research, and produced widely-read reports. The research
has included the design and dissemination of a series of surveys to correctional agencies across
the United States. These studies have addressed family and social visiting policies, rules
governing administrative segregation, the use of segregation on people serving capital sentences,
and the use of restrictive housing. 9
To inform discussions of restrictive housing, CLA and the Liman Center have since 2013
conducted national surveys biennially by distributing detailed questionnaires to all fifty states’
correctional agencies, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), and, in some years, a few jail
systems. Given the diverse institutions and varied nomenclature (such as “the SHU” for “special
housing units,” administrative segregation, punitive isolation, and more), the surveys have asked
respondents to rely on a standardized definition, detailed below, of “restrictive housing.”
The results provide a composite picture of the reported use of restrictive housing; by
repeating the surveys, CLA and the Liman Center have built a longitudinal database. When read
together, the surveys provide a window into reported changes in the use of restrictive housing
and enable readers to consider the impact on incarcerated people, correctional staff, and the
public.
The 2021 Survey Design and Methodology
For this effort, CLA’s Restrictive Housing Committee joined with Liman Center
researchers to draft, streamline, and clarify questions for the 2021 CLA-Liman Survey. The
drafting committee ran a pilot, and feedback from correctional agencies was incorporated into a
revised 170-question questionnaire that aimed to make answers simpler through dropdown menu
boxes.
That questionnaire (the 2021 CLA-Liman Survey) was distributed to all CLA members
and the BOP on July 1, 2021, via Qualtrics survey software. The software provided survey
respondents with a link that brought them to an online, fillable version of the questionnaire. Most
respondents answered by typing into the online version of the questionnaire. A few respondents
opted to print out a blank copy of the questionnaire, fill in answers by hand, then scan and email
completed surveys to the research team. Given the need for clarifications in some instances,
Liman Center researchers followed up and integrated answers into the data set; thereafter, layers
of review aimed to ensure an accurate compilation. As was the process for past reports, during
the summer of 2022, after compiling and analyzing the Survey data, the research team circulated
a draft through the CLA for comments and corrections; that feedback contributed to the
published Report.
This research method did not provide direct access to jurisdictions’ internal data and
recordkeeping systems; instead, it relied on self-reports through survey responses from each
jurisdiction. As discussed in Section II, the 2021 Survey asked about how jurisdictions collected
2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

3
the data they reported as well as how they reviewed data on restrictive housing in the course of
regular operations. The full 2021 CLA-Liman Survey is reproduced in Appendix A.
The 2021 Survey asked jurisdictions to report, as of July 1, 2021 (or, in the alternative,
July 15 or another date in July of 2021), both their total custodial populations in prisons under
their direct control and the number of people held in restrictive housing in those facilities. The
Survey defined people under a jurisdiction’s “direct control” as people “sentenced to and
received by” a jurisdiction, meaning that the Survey asked jurisdictions to exclude from their
responses “people who are sent out of the jurisdiction or held under local or county authority.”
This distinction was drawn because jurisdictions have limited or no information about the use of
restrictive housing when people are sent to another place or are held by local authorities, such as
in jails.
Thus, the total number of people described by the thirty-five jurisdictions is less than the
total number of people incarcerated under the legal authority of these jurisdictions. As detailed
in Section II, thirty-five responding jurisdictions reported a total of 731,202 people under their
direct control as of July 2021, while data from the Vera Institute of Justice (“Vera”) indicated
that these jurisdictions had legal authority over 802,821 incarcerated people as of March 2021.
To provide comparisons across years, many questions in the 2021 Survey used the same
wording as prior surveys. Specifically, the 2021 Survey reproduced the “restrictive housing”
definition from the 2017 and the 2019 Surveys:
“Separating prisoners from the general population and holding them in cell for an average
of 22 or more hours per day, for 15 or more continuous days.”
The 2021 Survey defined “total custodial population” as “the total number of people
sentenced to and received by your department.” (As noted above, the Survey specified that
respondents should limit their responses to people under jurisdictions’ “direct control.”)
To be clear, in this report, total custodial population includes all imprisoned people and
is not synonymous with the term “general population.” People in restrictive housing, general
population, and any levels of custody falling between those two settings (e.g., people in cells for
twenty-one hours per day or some other amount of time) are all part of the total custodial
population.
Research Challenges and Caveats
As explained above and as in previous years, this Report’s analysis is drawn from selfreported information that responding jurisdictions submitted. No third-party site visits or surveys
of incarcerated individuals were done. Also, as in the past, responses sometimes made crossjurisdictional comparisons and aggregation challenging. This Report summarizes the answers
provided, and endnotes contain explanatory caveats when needed. As in prior reports, to inform
the national picture, this Report draws on a range of materials including public regulations,
legislation, and other analyses of restrictive housing.

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

4
Another important caveat is that this Report does not account for restrictive housing in
custodial settings other than the state and federal prison systems. Therefore, no information is
provided on local jails, immigration detention, military confinement, and juvenile facilities. By
way of comparison, as of the spring of 2021, Vera estimated that approximately 1,193,930
people were held in state and federal prisons, while some 647,200 people were held in jails
across the United States. 10 Isolation is used in all forms of detention. Vera estimated that, as of
late 2019, 5.64% of people detained in jail across the United States were isolated in cells for at
least twenty-two hours per day. 11
In addition, given the Survey’s definition of “restrictive housing,” this Report cannot
provide a complete picture of isolation within prisons. The 2021 Survey did not seek data about
people held in cells for twenty-two hours or more per day for less than fifteen days, nor did the
Survey ask about people held in cells for an average of less than twenty-two hours per day.
Indeed, one of the three jurisdictions that reported holding no people in restrictive housing under
the Survey’s definition as of July 2021 noted that it held some people in a form of “restrictive
housing/segregation” that allowed up to six hours of out-of-cell time per day. 12
A special note about “serious mental illness” is also in order. Given the variation in
definitions of “serious mental illness” (SMI) used by prison systems, the Survey invited
jurisdictions to provide their own definitions of the term. Appendix D lists those definitions.

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

II.

The Data: People in Restrictive Housing in Prisons as of
July 2021

The 2021 CLA-Liman Survey asked jurisdictions to report the number of people held in
restrictive housing, the duration of their confinement, their demographics, and how jurisdictions
categorized the reasons for placement, such as “safety” or “punishment.” As detailed above, the
2021 Survey defined “restrictive housing” as the practice of “separating prisoners from the
general population and holding them in cell for an average of 22 or more hours per day, for 15 or
more continuous days.” Thirty-six jurisdictions responded, albeit not to all the questions, and the
data on the number of people in restrictive housing comes from thirty-five jurisdictions.
The Numbers and Percentages of People in Restrictive Housing:
Counting and Comparing General and Restrictive Populations
Baselines are critical. As noted above, the 2021 Survey asked jurisdictions to report two
figures: the number of people in their total custodial populations and in their restrictive housing
populations as of July 1, 2021 (or, in the alternative, July 15 or another date in July 2021).
Thirty-five jurisdictions (the “restrictive housing responding jurisdictions”) provided information
on both populations.13 These jurisdictions reported housing a total of 731,202 people in prisons
under their direct control. 14 Out of that total, 25,083 people—or 3.4%—were in restrictive
housing.
Three of these jurisdictions responded that, as of July 2021, they held no people in
restrictive housing. 15 An additional two jurisdictions reported that they held fewer than ten
people in restrictive housing. 16 Ten jurisdictions responded that their women’s prisons held no
one in restrictive housing. 17 Four jurisdictions—the three that reported holding no one in
restrictive housing and one that reported holding four men and no women in restrictive
housing 18—had previously indicated in response to the 2019 CLA-Liman Survey that they held
no one in restrictive housing. 19
Figures 1 and 2 and Table 1 provide jurisdiction-specific data on the numbers of people
in restrictive housing in prison by gathering responses to the questions:
How many people are in your jurisdiction’s total custodial population, including people
who are held in restrictive housing? Total custodial population is defined as all
individuals sentenced to and received by your department.
How many people are in restrictive housing, defined as being in cell for an average of 22
hours or more a day for 15 or more continuous days? Include all individuals in restrictive
housing, whether the placement is provisional pending investigation and decisionmaking, or whether placement has been confirmed for any of a variety of reasons. Note:
these numbers should include individuals held in restrictive housing for whatever
reasons, including COVID-19 concerns.
In the thirty-five responding jurisdictions, the percentage of people in restrictive housing
in prisons ranged from 0% to 14.8%.20 The median percentage of the population held in
2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

6
restrictive housing was 3.2%. When the three jurisdictions that reported holding no people in
restrictive housing are excluded, the median was 3.3%. 21 As noted above, these jurisdictions
collectively reported holding 3.4% (25,083 of 731,202) of people in prisons under their direct
control in restrictive housing. Figure 1 presents the percentages of people in restrictive housing
ordered alphabetically by jurisdiction; Figure 2 presents the same information organized by
percentage.
Figure 1

Percentage of People in Restrictive Housing Ordered by Jurisdiction*
(n = 35)

16%

14%

12%
Ol
C
IJ)

:::,

0 10%

-~u

·.:

0:::

,,:

a..

* Utah is one of a few jurisdictions that has a significant post-conviction population in jails or sent out of state.
These individuals were not under the Utah’s “direct control” and therefore were not counted as part of Utah’s total
custodial population for the 2021 CLA-Liman Survey. If the Survey counted these individuals toward Utah’s total
custodial population, the percentage of people in restrictive housing in Utah would be lower. Moreover, as of July
2022, with a new facility open, Utah’s use of restrictive housing has decreased substantially.

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

7
Figure 2

Percentage of People in Restrictive Housing Ordered by Percentage*
(n = 35)

16%

14%

12%
O>

c::

·;;;
:::,

0 10%

t5
·.:::

t, 8%
Q)

0::

a..

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

8
Table 1
Jurisdiction
Alabama
Federal (BOP)
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Hawaii
Iowa
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Massachusetts
Maine
Minnesota
Montana
North Dakota
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
Nevada
New York
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah*
Vermont
Washington
Wisconsin
West Virginia
Wyoming
TOTAL

People in Restrictive Housing (n = 35)
Total Restrictive Housing Population
879
7,851
1,182
4
96
0
245
562
400
372
1,427
604
47
8
297
47
0
186
64
49
1,059
140
585
266
447
912
600
51
1,134
3,819
640
0
492
594
—
24
25,083

Percentage in Restrictive Housing
4.9%
6%
1.2%
0%
1.1%
0%
5.1%
7.2%
5.2%
1.3%
6%
7%
0.7%
0.5%
4.1%
2.6%
0%
3.4%
3.2%
0.4%
10.1%
0.4%
1.4%
7.2%
3.7%
2.2%
3.9%
1.5%
5.6%
3.2%
14.8%
0%
3.5%
3.1%
—
1.1%
3.4%

Duration of Time Individuals Spend in Restrictive Housing
The 2021 CLA-Liman Survey asked whether jurisdictions “keep length-of-stay data on
the time each individual spends in restrictive housing,” and, if so, how frequently jurisdictions
collect and review this information. Thirty-four jurisdictions answered, 22 and twenty-six reported
2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

9
regularly collecting data on length of time. 23 Eighteen jurisdictions reported collecting this
information daily, 24 including ten that review this information daily. 25 The Survey specified a
series of time intervals in restrictive housing. Answers came from thirty-four jurisdictions. 26 In
total, these jurisdictions held 25,029 people in restrictive housing, 27 or about 99.8% of the
25,083 people in restrictive housing identified by the full set of thirty-five restrictive housing
responding jurisdictions.
A caveat is in order. Some jurisdictions began to track data on length of time more
recently than others, which can affect composite data on lengths of stay. 28 Some jurisdictions
included in their responses time that people spent in restrictive housing before these jurisdictions
formally tracked restrictive housing data (e.g., describing people in restrictive housing for six or
more years in a jurisdiction that began formally tracking data after 2017), while other
jurisdictions did not. In the jurisdictions that did not include time spent in restrictive housing that
predated formal tracking, the reports on duration may be pegged to when data began to be
gathered rather than to the actual length of time that individuals were in restrictive housing.
Out of the 25,029 people counted for length-of-stay data, 19.1% (4,792 of 25,029) were
in restrictive housing for fifteen to twenty-nine days; 18.7% (4,678 of 25,029) were in for thirty
to sixty days; 27.5% (6,888 of 25,029) were in for sixty-one to 180 days; and 10.5% (2,631 of
25,029) were held for between 181 and 365 days. Nearly a quarter were isolated in restrictive
housing for a year or more (24.1%, or 6,040 of 25,029). Within this group, 3,595 people (14.4%)
were held for one to three years, 996 people (4.0%) for three to six years, 525 people (2.1%) for
six to ten years, and 924 people (3.69%) for a decade or more.
Figure 3 presents the numbers of people in restrictive housing by length-of-time intervals.
Tables 2 and 3 present the numbers and percentages of people in restrictive housing by length of
time, ordered by jurisdiction. Table 4 details responses from the twenty-seven jurisdictions that
provided information on when they began to collect length-of-time data.

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

10
Figure 3

People in Restrictive Housing by Length of Stay (n = 34)

7000
6500
6000
5500
5000

4500

0.
0

C.. 4000

3500

E
:::,
Z 3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0

15 to 29 days

30 to 60 days

61 to 180 days

181 to 365 days

1 to 3 years

3 to 6 years

Length of Stay

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

6 to 10 years

10 years and over

11
Table 2
Jurisdiction
Alabama
Federal (BOP)
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Hawaii
Iowa
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Massachusetts
Maine
Minnesota
Montana
North Dakota
Nebraska
New
Hampshire
New Jersey
Nevada
New York
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Washington
Wisconsin
West Virginia
Wyoming
TOTAL*

Length of Time in Restrictive Housing (n = 34)
Total RH

15-29
days

30-60
days

61-180
days

1-3
years

3-6
years

6-10
years

10+
years

286
2,393
373
0
23
0
29
59
37
120
627
212
19
1
98
19
0
65
17

181365
days
116
540
114
0
18
0
54
22
61
41
152
59
2
0
19
5
0
28
13

879
7,851
1,182
4
96
0
245
562
400
372
1,427
604
47
8
297
47
0
186
64

130
1778
261
4
11
0
27
423
75
94
236
135
9
4
80
8
0
27
10

135
2,073
328
0
15
0
32
47
71
86
291
152
17
3
84
11
0
32
19

46
759
100
0
24
0
97
11
123
29
93
46
0
0
16
4
0
18
4

10
116
6
0
3
0
6
0
23
2
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
0

14
68
0
0
1
0
0
0
3
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

142
124
0
0
1
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1

49
1,059
140
585
266
447
912
600
51
1,134
3,819
635
0
492
594
—
24
25,029

—
114
72
49
37
130
211
111
0
229
95
90
0
125
205
—
12
4,792

—
209
47
48
77
97
166
102
7
136
103
21
0
78
185
—
6
4,678

—
381
19
192
133
172
274
187
18
307
317
236
0
148
124
—
2
6,888

—
163
0
139
19
16
128
117
11
171
399
131
0
73
19
—
1
2,631

—
96
2
109
0
32
110
70
13
206
1,356
136
0
56
36
—
3
3,595

—
23
0
26
0
0
18
13
1
64
606
21
0
8
16
—
0
996

—
16
0
19
0
0
1
0
1
15
370
0
0
2
5
—
0
525

—
57
0
3
0
0
4
0
0
6
573
0
0
2
4
—
0
924

*Excludes New Jersey; uses 635 as restrictive housing total for Utah.

Table 3

Length of Time in Restrictive Housing as Percentages (n = 34)

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

Jurisdiction

Total
RH

% 1529 days

% 3060 days

% 181365
days
13.2%
6.9%
9.6%
0%
18.8%
—
22%
3.9%
15.2%
11%
10.7%
9.8%
4.3%
0%
6.4%
10.6%
—
15.1%
20.3%

% 1-3
years

% 3-6
years

15.4%
26.4%
27.7%
0%
15.6%
—
13.1%
8.4%
17.8%
23.1%
20.4%
25.2%
36.2%
37.5%
28.3%
23.4%
—
17.2%
29.7%

% 61180
days
32.5%
30.5%
31.6%
0%
24%
—
11.8%
10.5%
9.2%
32.3%
43.9%
35.1%
40.4%
12.5%
33%
40.4%
—
34.9%
26.6%

Alabama
Federal (BOP)
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Hawaii
Iowa
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Massachusetts
Maine
Minnesota
Montana
North Dakota
Nebraska
New
Hampshire
New Jersey
Nevada
New York
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Washington
Wisconsin
West Virginia
Wyoming
Reporting
Jurisdictions*

879
7851
1182
4
96
0
245
562
400
372
1427
604
47
8
297
47
0
186
64

14.8%
22.6%
22.1%
100%
11.5%
—
11%
75.3%
18.8%
25.3%
16.5%
22.4%
19.1%
50%
26.9%
17%
—
14.5%
15.6%

49
1059
140
585
266
447
912
600
51
1134
3819
635
0
492
594
—
24
25,029

—
10.8%
51.4%
8.4%
13.9%
29.1%
23.1%
18.5%
0%
20.2%
2.5%
14.2%
—
25.4%
34.5%
—
50%
19.1%

% 10+
years

1.1%
1.5%
0.5%
0%
3.1%
—
2.4%
0%
5.8%
0.5%
1.3%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
—
8.6%
0%

% 610
years
1.6%
0.9%
0%
0%
1%
—
0%
0%
0.8%
0%
0.7%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
—
0%
0%

5.2%
9.7%
8.5%
0%
25%
—
39.6%
2%
30.8%
7.8%
6.5%
7.6%
0%
0%
5.4%
8.5%
—
9.7%
6.2%

—
19.7%
33.6%
8.2%
28.9%
21.7%
18.2%
17%
13.7%
12%
2.7%
3.3%
—
15.9%
31.1%
—
25%
18.7%

—
36%
13.6%
32.8%
50%
38.5%
30%
31.2%
35.3%
27.1%
8.3%
37.2%
—
30.1%
20.9%
—
8.3%
27.5%

—
15.4%
0%
23.8%
7.1%
3.6%
14%
19.5%
21.6%
15.1%
10.4%
20.6%
—
14.8%
3.2%
—
4.2%
10.5%

—
9.1%
1.4%
18.6%
0%
7.2%
12.1%
11.7%
25.5%
18.2%
35.5%
21.4%
—
11.4%
6.1%
—
12.5%
14.4%

—
2.2%
0%
4.4%
0%
0%
2%
2.2%
2%
5.6%
15.9%
3.3%
—
1.6%
2.7%
—
0%
4.0%

—
1.5%
0%
3.2%
0%
0%
0.1%
0%
2%
1.3%
9.7%
0%
—
0.4%
0.8%
—
0%
2.1%

—
5.4%
0%
0.5%
0%
0%
0.4%
0%
0%
0.5%
15%
0%
—
0.4%
0.7%
—
0%
3.7%

16.2%
1.6%
0%
0%
1%
—
0%
0%
1.8%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
—
0%
1.6%

*Excludes New Jersey; uses 635 as restrictive housing total for Utah.

Table 4

When Jurisdictions Began Tracking Length of Time in Restrictive Housing
(n = 27) 29

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

Jurisdiction
Alabama
Federal (BOP)
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Iowa
Illinois
Kansas
Massachusetts
Maine
Minnesota
Montana
North Dakota
Nebraska
New Hampshire
Nevada
New York
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Washington
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Year Tracking Began
2017
2013
2013
1985
1970
2003
2020
1980
2002
2020
2019
1985
2018
2017
2008
1990
1985
2016
2016
2016
2014
2015
2016
2018
2015
2011
2015

Categories for Placements in Restrictive Housing
The 2021 CLA-Liman Survey asked jurisdictions to categorize the reasons for
placements in restrictive housing according to the following labels: Administrative, Safety,
Punishment, Personal Choice of the Prisoner, COVID-19 Isolation, or Other. The Survey
instructed jurisdictions to “choose only the primary reason a person is in restrictive housing.”
Thirty-one jurisdictions answered this question. 30 Table 5 details responses from the thirty-one
jurisdictions that provided information on categories of placements in restrictive housing.
In these jurisdictions, the largest group of people was held under the category of
Administrative (60.6%, or 14,587 of 24,074). Almost 17% (16.9%, or 4,069 of 24,074) were
held for Punishment. Another 10.7% (2,580 of 24,074) were confined for Other Reasons, 8.9%
(2,144 of 24,074) for Safety, and 2.8% (669 of 24,074) for Personal Choice of the Prisoner. As
noted above, COVID-19 Isolation was given as a reason for very few people (0.001%, or 25 of
24,074).
A caveat is in order about this account as well. What one jurisdiction called “Safety” may
be what another jurisdiction referred to as “Administrative.” Moreover, several jurisdictions
2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

14
indicated “No Data” in response to certain categories, reflecting differences between
jurisdictions in the categories used. 31
Table 5
Jurisdiction
Alabama
Federal (BOP)
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Hawaii
Iowa
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Massachusetts
Maine
Minnesota
Montana
North Dakota
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
Nevada
New York
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Washington
Wisconsin
West Virginia
Wyoming
TOTAL*

Categories of Reasons for Placements in Restrictive Housing (n = 31) 32
Restrictive
Housing
Total
879
7,851
1,182
4
96
0
245
562
401
372
1,427
604
47
8
297
47
0
186
64
49
1,059
140
585
266
447
912
600
51
1,134
3,819
640
0
492
594
—
24
24,074

Administrative

Safety

Punishment

Personal
Choice

COVID19

Other

127
6,621
203
—
30
0
106
159
277
—
561
380
46
2
28
30
0
0
22
—
387
1
—
37
15
338
400
—
539
3,819
149
0
253
57
—
0
14,587

281
—
126
—
55
0
53
68
124
—
284
1
1
1
—
0
0
156
35
—
230
10
—
16
0
222
185
50
226
0
5
0
0
15
—
0
2,144

302
—
807
—
11
0
55
267
0
—
495
55
0
4
227
16
0
0
0
—
99
106
—
6
432
123
15
—
153
0
386
0
0
487
—
23
4,069

—
—
0
—
0
0
19
68
0
—
—
166
0
0
—
1
0
27
4
—
274
0
—
69
0
19
0
—
—
0
0
0
20
2
—
0
669

—
—
0
—
0
0
12
—
0
—
—
2
0
0
—
0
0
0
3
—
3
5
—
0
0
0
—
—
—
0
0
0
0
—
—
0
25

169
1,230
46
—
0
0
0
—
0
—
87
0
0
1
42
0
0
3
0
—
66
18
—
138
0
210
—
1
216
0
100
0
219
33
—
1
2,580

*Excludes Colorado, Illinois, New Jersey, and Ohio; uses 401 as restrictive housing total for Idaho.

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

15
Sex/Gender of People in Restrictive Housing
Male/Female: Thirty-five jurisdictions provided data on the sex or gender of people in
restrictive housing, using the categories of male or female (in other words, categorizing data by
people in men’s and women’s prisons). 33 As shown in Figure 4 below, 3.6% (24,679 of 683,638)
of the total male custodial population was in restrictive housing, and 0.8% (404 of 47,564) of the
total female custodial population was in restrictive housing in these jurisdictions.
As noted above, three jurisdictions reported that they did not hold any person in
restrictive housing, and another seven (a total of ten jurisdictions) reported holding no women in
restrictive housing. 34 Using only the thirty-two jurisdictions that had people in restrictive housing
as the Survey defined it, the percentage of the total male custodial population reported in
restrictive housing was 3.6% (24,679 of 678,360). Using only jurisdictions that had women in
restrictive housing, the percentage of the total female custodial population reported in restrictive
housing increased to 1.0% (404 of 40,489).
Figure 4

Percentage of People in Restrictive Housing by Sex/Gender (n = 35)

3%
0)

'iii

::,
0

u
·.:::
in

.!= 2%
Q)

a.
0
Q)

0..

0
'E

0..
1%

Figures 5 and 6, and Table 6 provide jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction information about the
number of men in restrictive housing. The thirty-five jurisdictions reporting this data indicated
that a total of 24,679 men were in restrictive housing. The median percentage of men in
restrictive housing among these jurisdictions was 3.3%. 35 The reported percentages of men held
in restrictive housing ranged from 0% 36 of the male custodial population to 16.3%. 37
2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

16
Figure 5

Percentage of Men in Restrictive Housing Ordered by Jurisdiction (n = 35)

18%

16%

14%

-~ 12%

"'0
:::,

> 10%

t5
·.:::
t,

0:: 8%

a..

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

17
Figure 6

Percentage of Men in Restrictive Housing Ordered by Percentage (n = 35)

18%

16%

14%

-~ 12%
(/)

:,
0

:r:
Q)

> 10%

u
·;::
00
Q)
0::

.!:

c..

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

18
Table 6

Men in Restrictive Housing (n = 35)

Jurisdiction
Alabama
Federal (BOP)
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Hawaii
Iowa
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Massachusetts
Maine
Minnesota
Montana
North Dakota
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
Nevada
New York
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Washington
Wisconsin
West Virginia
Wyoming
Reporting Jurisdictions*
*Excludes West Virginia.

Male Total Custodial
Population
16,949
121,833
94,286
13,041
8,566
2,784
4,194
7,160
6,567
26,291
21,580
7,834
6,122
1,483
6,775
1,585
1,455
5,042
1,863
12,074
9,630
30,891
39,662
2,559
11,252
38,961
14,492
2,893
18,427
109,353
3,919
1,039
13,092
18,053
8,681
1,931
683,638

Male Restrictive
Housing Population
874
7,738
1,177
4
90
0
229
546
380
366
1,409
600
47
7
288
40
0
182
62
46
1,027
140
585
261
434
907
558
51
1,113
3,783
640
0
489
582
—
24
24,679

Male Percent in
Restrictive Housing
5.2%
6.4%
1.2%
0%
1.1%
0%
5.5%
7.6%
5.8%
1.4%
6.5%
7.7%
0.8%
0.5%
4.3%
2.5%
0%
3.6%
3.3%
0.4%
10.7%
0.5%
1.5%
10.2%
3.9%
2.3%
3.9%
1.8%
6%
3.5%
16.3%
0%
3.7%
3.2%
—
1.2%
3.6%

The thirty-five jurisdictions that provided data about the number of women in restrictive
housing indicated that a total of 404 women were in restrictive housing. The median percentage
of women in restrictive housing among these jurisdictions was 0.5%. 38 The percentage of women
held in restrictive housing ranged from 0% 39 of the female custodial population to 4.3%. 40 Table
7 lists jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction information, and Figures 7 and 8 arrange this information by
jurisdiction and by percentage.
2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

19
Figure 7
35)

Percentage of Women in Restrictive Housing Ordered by Jurisdiction (n =

c::

·;;;
:::,

·.:::

0::

-~
C

a..

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

Figure 8

Percentage of Women in Restrictive Housing Ordered by Percentage (n = 35)

"iii

u
·c:

0::

_s:;

~
Q)

[l_

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

21
Table 7

Women in Restrictive Housing (n = 35)

Female Total
Custodial Population
1,026
8,358
3,580
869
563
96
626
594
1,105
1,292
2,224
737
170
113
399
203
190
406
137
447
844
1,227
3,313
1,119
816
2,178
967
459
1,908
8,786
399
86
808
1,253
1,444
266
47,564

Female Restrictive
Housing Population
5
113
5
0
6
0
16
16
20
6
18
4
0
1
9
7
0
4
2
3
32
0
0
5
13
5
42
0
21
36
0
0
3
12
—
0
404

*Excludes West Virginia.

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

Female Percent in
Restrictive Housing
0.5%
1.4%
0.1%
0%
1.1%
0%
2.6%
2.7%
1.8%
0.5%
0.8%
0.5%
0%
0.9%
2.3%
3.4%
0%
1%
1.5%
0.7%
3.8%
0%
0%
0.4%
1.6%
0.2%
4.3%
0%
1.1%
0.4%
0%
0%
0.4%
1%
—
0%
0.8%

22
Transgender People: Concerns about the harms of restrictive housing have motivated
corrections officials, legislators, and others to limit or prohibit the use of restrictive housing in
general and for specific subpopulations. For example, the American Correctional Association
(ACA), the accrediting body for correctional agencies in the United States, promulgated
Restrictive Housing Performance Based Standards in 2016. These Standards included measures
to prohibit or limit placements of specific subpopulations in “Restrictive Housing,” which the
ACA defined as “a placement that requires an inmate to be confined to a cell at least 22 hours
per day.” Other measures addressed “Extended Restrictive Housing,” which the ACA defined as
“[h]ousing that separates the offender from contact with general population while restricting an
offender/inmate to his/her cell for at least 22 hours per day and for more than 30 days.” 41
Transgender individuals are one subpopulation on which efforts to limit the use of
isolation have focused, and in some instances, such placements have been explained as
“protective” because transgender individuals can be at risk of injury in the institution. The
ACA’s 2016 Performance Based Standards state that people should not be “placed in Restrictive
Housing on the basis of Gender Identity alone.” 42
The 2021 CLA-Liman Survey asked jurisdictions about how many transgender
individuals were in their total custodial and restrictive housing populations, as well as how
jurisdictions identified people as transgender. Thirty-five jurisdictions responded about how they
identified transgender people. Thirty-one jurisdictions indicated that they relied on selfidentification by imprisoned people. Appendix C details the methods of identification reported
by jurisdictions.
Twenty-nine jurisdictions provided information about the number of transgender people
in both total custodial and restrictive housing populations, 43 and an additional three jurisdictions
reported the number of transgender people within only their total custodial populations. 44 Among
the thirty-two jurisdictions that provided information on their total custodial populations, one
jurisdiction reported holding no transgender people. 45 Aggregating the data, the remaining
jurisdictions (including the three reporting no people in restrictive housing) responded that they
held 5,822 transgender people in their total custodial populations and 293 transgender people in
restrictive housing. The percentage of transgender people in restrictive housing within these
jurisdictions ranged from 0% 46 to 40.0% (18 of 45). 47 Table 8 lists the reported numbers of
transgender people in total custodial and restrictive housing populations by jurisdiction.

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

23
Table 8

Transgender People in Restrictive Housing (n = 29)
Jurisdiction

Alabama
Federal (BOP)
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Hawaii
Iowa
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Massachusetts
Maine
Minnesota
Montana
North Dakota
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
Nevada
New York
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Washington
Wisconsin
West Virginia
Wyoming
Reporting Jurisdictions*

Transgender Total Custodial
Population
78
1,124
1,371
173
35
18
3
40
57
—
67
32
48
9
—
11
6
10
17
26
45
169
—
8
120
291
39
38
71
1,516
0
16
154
189
41
—
5,822

Transgender Restrictive
Housing Population

—
147
6
0
0
0
1
—
12
—
5
6
0
0
—
0
0
0
2
0
18
4
—
0
2
12
0
1
0
54
0
0
11
12
—
—
293

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

24
Pregnant People: As with transgender people, “protection” has sometimes been used as a
basis for holding pregnant people in restrictive housing. The 2016 ACA Performance Based
Standards state that “[f]emale inmates determined to be pregnant” should not be held in
“Extended Restrictive Housing.” 48 As detailed in Section VI, statutes in Arkansas, Colorado,
Kentucky, and New York limit or prohibit the use of isolation for people who are pregnant or
postpartum.
All thirty-two jurisdictions that responded to the question in the 2021 Survey reported
holding no pregnant people in restrictive housing. 49 Thirty-three jurisdictions provided
information on their total custodial populations, 50 and six of these jurisdictions indicated that
they held no pregnant people in prison at all. 51 Collecting all the answers from the other twentyseven jurisdictions, they reported holding 234 pregnant people in their total custodial
populations. 52 Table 9 lists this information by jurisdiction.

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

25
Table 9

Pregnant People (n = 32)
Jurisdiction

Alabama
Federal (BOP)
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Hawaii
Iowa
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Massachusetts
Maine
Minnesota
Montana
North Dakota
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
Nevada
New York
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Washington
Wisconsin
West Virginia
Wyoming
Reporting Jurisdictions

Pregnant Total Custodial
Population

6
13
9
3
6
0
3
—
0
7
17
1
0
0
—
1
1
7
0
1
5
6
13
10
2
7
0
30
12
37
10
2
2
2
21
—
234

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

Pregnant Restrictive Housing
Population
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
—
0
0
0
0
0
0
—
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
—
—
0

26
Race/Ethnicity of People in Restrictive Housing
The 2021 CLA-Liman Survey asked for race and ethnicity data by sex/gender for total
custodial and restrictive housing populations. The Survey asked for data as of July 2021 and did
not request annual admissions data by race. Thirty-three jurisdictions responded to these
questions, providing information about 24,789 people reported in restrictive housing (98.8% of
the Survey’s total reported population of 25,083 people in restrictive housing). 53
The 2021 Survey asked jurisdictions to report numbers of people in the following
categories: White (non-Hispanic or Latino/a), Black or African-American, Hispanic or Latino/a,
Asian, Native American or Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and Other.
Table 10 details the number of jurisdictions that responded with data for each category.
Jurisdictions varied in their approaches to identifying race and ethnicity. Some jurisdictions
relied on self-reports, and others on official records or on appearance. Figure 9 presents the
percentages of men by sex/gender in each race/ethnicity category in total custodial and restrictive
housing populations.
Table 10

Numbers of Jurisdictions Reporting Race/Ethnicity Categories

Category

Number of Jurisdictions
Reporting for Total Custodial
Population
35
35
33
33
34

Number of Jurisdictions
Reporting for Restrictive
Housing Population
33
33
31
31
32

White
Black (African American)
Hispanic or Latino/a
Asian
Native American or Alaskan
Native
Native Hawaiian or Pacific
Islander
Other

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

27
Figure 9

Race/Ethnicity of Men in Total Custodial and Restrictive Housing
Populations (n = 33)

40%

■

% of Restrictive Housing Population

■

% of Total Custodial P opulation

~ 30%
<I)

C:
0
(/)

<I)

ro 20%

<I)

a..

10%

2.7%
0.7%

0.8%

0.1%

0.1 %

0.5%

1.1%

In the thirty-three jurisdictions that provided data on the race/ethnicity of men in
restrictive housing, Black men comprised 37.7% (9,201 of 24,404) of the total male restrictive
housing population, as compared to 37.2% (248,496 of 667,367) 54 of the total male custodial
population. In twenty-two of these thirty-three jurisdictions, the percentage of Black men was
higher in restrictive housing than in the total custodial population. In eight of the thirty-three
jurisdictions, the percentage of Black men was lower in restrictive housing than in the total
custodial population. The remaining three jurisdictions did not have any people in restrictive
housing under the 2021 CLA-Liman Survey definition. This data is depicted in Table 11. Across
jurisdictions, the difference between the percentage of Black men in restrictive housing and total
custodial population ranged from +18.8 percentage points to -10.3 percentage points.
In these thirty-three jurisdictions, Hispanic or Latino men comprised 23.8% (5,803 of
24,404) of the male restrictive housing population, as compared to 22.6% (150,898 of 667,367)
of the total male custodial population. In eighteen of these jurisdictions, the percentage of
Hispanic or Latino men was higher in restrictive housing than in the total custodial population. In
ten of these jurisdictions, the percentage of Hispanic or Latino men was lower in restrictive
housing than in the total custodial population. Two jurisdictions reported that they did not hold
any Hispanic or Latino men in their total custodial or restrictive housing populations.55 The
2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

28
remaining three jurisdictions did not hold any person in restrictive housing under the 2021 CLALiman Survey definition. Across jurisdictions, the difference between the percentage of Hispanic
or Latino men in restrictive housing and total custodial population ranged from +18.6 percentage
points to -12.6 percentage points.
Table 11

Black and Hispanic or Latino Men in Restrictive Housing (n = 33)

% of total custodial population
% of restrictive housing
Median % of total custodial
population
Median % of restrictive housing
Jurisdictions with higher % in
restrictive housing than total
custodial population
Jurisdictions with higher % in
total custodial population than
restrictive housing

Black Men
37.2%
37.7%
29.4%

Hispanic or Latino Men
22.6%
23.8%
12.4%

31.3%
22

14%
18*

8**

10**

*Alabama and Maine indicated “No Data” for Latino/a people in their total custodial populations. Maine tracked
Hispanic or Latino/a ethnicity separate from race, and therefore reported data on race but not Hispanic or Latino/a
ethnicity in order to avoid double-counting. Maine indicated by email that it held a total of nine Hispanic or Latino/a
people in its total custodial population as of July 2021. Alabama did not track data on Hispanic or Latino/a ethnicity.
**Excludes jurisdictions that reported holding no people in restrictive housing (Delaware, North Dakota, Vermont).

In twenty-five of the thirty jurisdictions that responded to the Survey with information
about the race and ethnicity of people in restrictive housing and reported holding at least one
person in restrictive housing, the percentage of White men was lower in restrictive housing than
in the total custodial population. As detailed below, jurisdictions reported a small percentage of
Asian, Native American or Alaskan Native, and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander people in
their total prison populations and a similarly small percentage in their populations in restrictive
housing. Those categorized as “Other” appeared to be comparable in percentages both in the
general and in the restrictive housing populations. Given the small numbers of individuals, this
Report does not include further analysis. Table 12 lists by race/ethnicity the number of men in
total custodial and restrictive housing populations. Table 13 presents this information in
percentages. Table 14 provides the differences between the percentages of Black and Hispanic or
Latino men in total custodial and restrictive housing populations for each jurisdiction.

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

29
Table 12

Race/Ethnicity of Men in Total Custodial and Restrictive Housing Populations (n = 33)
White (nonHispanic or
Latino/a)

Black or
African
American

Hispanic or
Latino/a

Total
6,723
36,282

RH
211
2,240

Total
10,070
48,585

RH
656
3,013

Total
—
32,343

18,388
5,559
2,310
860
—
4,546
4,846
8,144
12,967
4,279
2,504
1,189
3,120
1,160
875
2,522
1,537

188
1
12
0
—
314
274
49
814
315
10
6
89
22
0
74
50

27,128
2,517
3,772
1,786
—
1,876
215
14,369
7,363
2,235
1,802
164
2,545
44
174
1,445
135

218
1
63
0
—
163
11
269
495
183
19
1
137
2
0
50
7

42,575
4,094
2,416
135
—
521
1,039
3,571
982
1,041
1,601
—
374
40
95
745
126

706
2
14
0
—
56
67
45
74
95
17
—
14
0
0
39
4

2,565
3,845
6,882
19,609

—
377
23
209

7,400
3,153
15,489
18,391

—
375
76
347

1,999
2,169
7,472
1,150

—
219
39
23

Asian

RH Total
—
3
2,084 1,694

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

Native
American or
Alaska Native

Native
Hawaiian or
Pacific
Islander
Total RH
—
—
—
—

RH
0
68

Total
3
2,929

RH
0
333

1,073
151
42
3
—
—
29
92
51
66
104
10
178
0
7
44
5

16
0
0
0
—
—
2
0
4
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0

1,090
465
26
0
—
144
250
35
48
213
39
39
546
336
302
241
10

6
0
1
0
—
9
18
1
5
7
0
0
44
16
0
18
1

299
11
0
0
—
—
0
—
8
—
0
1
0
0
2
2
0

86
268
192
61

—
23
0
1

11
178
286
79

—
33
2
1

2
—
0
0

Other

Total
150
—

RH
7
—

5
0
0
0
—
—
0
—
1
—
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

3,733
244
0
—
—
73
188
80
161
—
72
80
12
5
0
43
50

38
0
0
—
—
4
8
2
16
—
1
0
1
0
0
1
0

—
—
0
0

1,995
17
570
372

—
0
0
4

30
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South
Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Washington
Wisconsin
West Virginia
Wyoming
TOTAL*

1,128
8,096
16,120
4,988

150
294
257
175

946
1,089
18,759
8,976

84
43
542
377

242
1,535
3,803
401

13
72
100
5

9
161
100
17

1,546
18
263
5
134
2
23
9,895
579
7975
515
471
19
55
35,211
956
36,618 1,071 36,900 1,744
—
2,330
278
336
65
769
193
127
802
0
92
0
101
0
1
7,138
268
2,344
72
2,067
93
414
7,629
158
7,748
340
1,746
61
214
7,284
—
1,254
—
62
—
5
1,441
18
92
1
240
3
6
244,471 8,429 248,496 9,201 150,898 5,803 5,200

*Excludes Hawaii, New Jersey, and West Virginia.

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

0
4
1
0

219
335
33
14

14
20
1
0

0
34
0
0

0
1
0
0

15
2
146
96

0
0
6
1

0
0
—
33
0
11
5
—
0
171

916
31
—
213
7
837
707
5
140
10,711

26
0
—
48
0
31
18
—
2
655

1
0
—
0
2
163
—
1
6
529

0
0
—
0
0
10
—
—
0
17

10
0
624
144
34
129
9
70
3
7,062

0
0
12
23
0
4
0
—
0
128

31
Table 13

Race/Ethnicity of Men in Total Custodial and Restrictive Housing Populations (Percentages) (n = 33)
White (nonHispanic or
Latino/a)

Black or
African
American

Hispanic or
Latino/a
Total
—
26.5%
45.2%
31.4%
28.2%
4.8%
—
7.3%
15.8%
13.6%
4.6%
13.3%
26.2%
—
5.5%
2.5%
6.5%
14.8%
6.8%

RH
—
26.9%
60%
50%
15.6%
—
—
10.3%
17.6%
12.3%
5.3%
15.8%
36.2%
—
4.9%
0%
—
21.4%
6.5%

Asian

Total
39.7%
29.8%
19.5%
42.6%
27%
30.9%
—
63.5%
73.8%
31%
60.1%
54.6%
40.9%
80.2%
46.1%
73.2%
60.1%
50%
82.5%

RH
24.1%
28.9%
16%
25%
13.3%
—
—
57.5%
72.1%
13.4%
57.8%
52.5%
21.3%
85.7%
30.9%
55%
—
40.7%
80.6%

Total
59.4%
39.9%
28.8%
19.3%
44%
64.2%
—
26.2%
3.3%
54.7%
34.1%
28.5%
29.4%
11.1%
37.6%
2.8%
12%
28.7%
7.2%

RH
75.1%
38.9%
18.5%
25%
70%
—
—
29.9%
2.9%
73.5%
35.1%
30.5%
40.4%
14.3%
47.6%
5%
—
27.5%
11.3%

21.2%
39.9%
22.3%
49.4%
44.1%

—
36.7%
16.4%
35.7%
57.5%

61.3%
32.7%
50.1%
46.4%
37%

—
16.6%
—
0.7% —
36.5% 22.5% 21.3% 2.8% 2.2%
54.3% 24.2% 27.9% 0.6% 0%
59.3% 2.9% 3.9% 0.2% 0.2%
32.2% 9.5%
5%
0.4% 0%

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

Total
0%
1.4%
1.1%
1.2%
0.5%
0.1%
—
—
0.4%
0.3%
0.2%
0.8%
1.7%
0.7%
2.6%
0%
0.5%
0.9%
0.3%

Native
American or
Alaska Native

RH
Total
RH
0%
0%
0%
0.9% 2.4% 4.3%
1.4% 1.2% 0.5%
0%
3.6%
0%
0%
0.3% 1.1%
—
0%
—
—
—
—
—
2%
1.6%
0.5% 3.8% 4.7%
0%
0.1% 0.3%
0.3% 0.2% 0.4%
0%
2.7% 1.2%
0%
0.6%
0%
0%
2.6%
0%
1%
8.1% 15.3%
0% 21.2% 40%
—
20.8%
—
0%
4.8% 9.9%
0%
0.5% 1.6%
0.1%
1.8%
0.9%
0.2%
8.6%

—
3.2%
1.4%
0.2%
5.4%

Native
Hawaiian or
Pacific
Islander
Total
RH
—
—
—
—
0.3% 0.4%
0.1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
—
—
—
—
—
0%
0%
—
—
0%
0.1%
—
—
0%
0%
0.1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0.1%
—
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
—
0%
0%
0%

—
—
0%
0%
0%

Other

Total
0.9%
—
4%
1.9%
0%
—
—
1%
2.9%
0.3%
0.7%
—
1.2%
5.4%
0.2%
0.3%
0%
0.9%
2.7%

RH
0.8%
—
3.2%
0%
0%
—
—
0.7%
2.1%
0.5%
1.1%
—
2.1%
0%
0.3%
0%
—
0.5%
0%

16.5% —
0.2%
0%
1.8%
0%
0.9% 0.7%
0.6%
0%

32
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South
Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Washington
Wisconsin
West Virginia
Wyoming
Reporting
Jurisdictions*

72% 67.7% 9.7% 9.9% 13.6% 16.6% 1.4% 0.9%
41.4% 28.3% 48.1% 59.8% 9.8%
11% 0.3% 0.1%
34.4% 31.4% 61.9% 67.6% 2.8% 0.9% 0.1% 0%
53.4%
53.7%
32.2%
59.5%
77.2%
54.5%
42.3%
83.9%
74.6%

35.3%
52%
25.3%
43.4%
—
54.8%
27.1%
—
75%

9.1%
43.3%
33.5%
8.6%
8.9%
17.9%
42.9%
14.4%
4.8%

9.8%
46.3%
28.3%
10.2%
—
14.7%
58.4%
—
4.2%

4.6%
2.6%
33.7%
19.6%
9.7%
15.8%
9.7%
0.7%
12.4%

3.9%
1.7%
46.1%
30.2%
—
19%
10.5%
—
12.5%

3%
0.1%
0.1%

4.6%
0.1%
0%

0.3%
0%
0%

0.2%
0%
0%

0%
0.4%
0.7%

0%
0.7%
0.2%

0.8% 0% 31.7%
0.3% 0%
0.2%
—
—
—
3.2% 5.2% 5.4%
0.1% —
0.7%
3.2% 2.2% 6.4%
1.2% 0.9% 3.9%
0.1% —
0.1%
0.3% 0%
7.3%

51%
0%
—
7.5%
—
6.3%
3.1%
—
8.3%

0%
0%
—
0%
0.2%
1.2%
—
0%
0.3%

0%
0%
—
0%
—
2%
—
—
0%

0.3%
0%
0.6%
3.7%
3.3%
1%
0%
0.8%
0.2%

0%
0%
0.3%
3.6%
—
0.8%
0%
—
0%

2.7%

0.08% 0.07%

1.1%

0.5%

36.6% 34.5% 37.2% 37.7% 22.6% 23.8% 0.8% 0.7%

*Excludes Hawaii, New Jersey, and West Virginia.

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

1.6%

33
Table 14

Race/Ethnicity of Men: Differences Between Total Custodial and Restrictive Housing Populations (n = 33)

Difference in Black or African American
Prison Populations (% in restrictive
housing - % in total custodial population)
15.6% (75.1% - 59.4%)
-0.9% (38.9% - 39.9%)
-10.3% (18.5% - 28.8%)
5.7% (25% - 19.3%)
26% (70% - 44%)
No RH population
—
3.7% (29.9% - 26.2%)
-0.4% (2.9% - 3.3%)
18.8% (73.5% - 54.7%)
1% (35.1% - 34.1%)
2% (30.5% - 28.5%)
11% (40.4% - 29.4%)
3.2% (14.3% - 11.1%)
10% (47.6% - 37.6%)
2.2% (5% - 2.8%)
No RH population
-1.2% (27.5% - 28.7%)
4% (11.3% - 7.2%)
—
3.8% (36.5% - 32.7%)
4.1% (54.3% - 50.1%)
12.9% (59.3% - 46.4%)
-4.8% (32.2% - 37%)
0.2% (9.9% - 9.7%)
11.6% (59.8% - 48.1%)
5.6% (67.6% - 61.9%)

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

Difference in Hispanic or Latino/a Prison
Populations (% in restrictive housing - %
in total custodial population)
—
0.4% (26.9% - 26.5%)
14.8% (60% - 45.2%)
18.6% (50% - 31.4%)
-12.6% (15.6% - 28.2%)
No RH population
—
3% (10.3% - 7.3%)
1.8% (17.6% - 15.8%)
-1.3% (12.3% - 13.6%)
0.7% (5.3% - 4.6%)
2.5% (15.8% - 13.3%)
10% (36.2% - 26.2%)
—
-0.7% (4.9% - 5.5%)
-2.5% (0% - 2.5%)
No RH population
6.7% (21.4% - 14.8%)
-0.3% (6.5% - 6.8%)
—
-1.2% (21.3% - 22.5%)
3.7% (27.9% - 24.2%)
1% (3.9% - 2.9%)
-4.5% (5% - 9.5%)
2.9% (16.6% - 13.6%)
1.3% (11% - 9.8%)
-1.9% (0.9% - 2.8%)

34
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Washington
Wisconsin
West Virginia
Wyoming

0.7% (9.8% - 9.1%)
3% (46.3% - 43.3%)
-5.2% (28.3% - 33.5%)
1.6% (10.2% - 8.6%)
No RH population
-3.2% (14.7% - 17.9%)
15.5% (58.4% - 42.9%)
—
-0.6% (4.2% - 4.8%)

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

-0.7% (3.9% - 4.6%)
-0.8% (1.7% - 2.6%)
12.4% (46.1% - 33.7%)
10.5% (30.2% - 19.6%)
No RH population
3.2% (19% - 15.8%)
0.8% (10.5% - 9.7%)
—
0.1% (12.5% - 12.4%)

35
In the thirty-three jurisdictions that provided data on the race/ethnicity of women in
restrictive housing, Black women comprised 30.1% (116 of 385) of the female restrictive
housing population, as compared to 20.0% (9,318 of 46,491) of the total female custodial
population. Hispanic or Latina women comprised 16.6% (64 of 385) of the female restrictive
housing population, as compared to 16.8% (7,791 of 46,491) of the total female custodial
population. Table 15 depicts this data. Figure 10 presents the percentages of women by
sex/gender in each race/ethnicity category in total custodial and restrictive housing populations.
Table 16 lists by race/ethnicity the number of women in total custodial and restrictive housing
populations, and Table 17 presents this information in percentages.
Figure 10

60%

Race/Ethnicity of Women in Total Custodial and Restrictive Housing
Populations (n = 33)

57.6%

■

% of Restrictive Housing Population

■

% of Total C ustodial P opulation

50%

<I)

5 4 0%
d:
(/)

0
<I)

g' 30%

<I)

<ii
a..

20%

10%

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

0.1%

0.8%

1.2%

36
Table 15

Black and Hispanic or Latina Women in Restrictive Housing (n = 33)

% of total custodial population
% of restrictive housing
population
Median % of total custodial
population
Median % of restrictive housing
population
Jurisdictions with higher % in
restrictive housing than total
custodial population
Jurisdictions with higher % in
total custodial population than
restrictive housing

Black Women
20.0%
30.1%

Hispanic or Latina Women
16.8%
16.6%

16.3%

6.4%

25.7%

10.0%

12*

9**

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

37
Table 16

Race/Ethnicity of Women in Total Custodial and Restrictive Housing Populations (n = 33)
White (nonHispanic or
Latino/a)

Black or
African
American

Hispanic or
Latino/a

Asian

Native
American or
Alaska Native

Total
685
3,844
1,087
436
285
57
—
431
793
711
1,872
569
103
96
225
116
98
252
124

RH
4
38
1
0
0
0
—
7
12
0
7
4
0
1
3
2
0
2
1

Total
340
1,360
911
108
146
35
—
92
25
431
288
114
31
6
66
2
12
63
5

RH
1
29
4
0
3
0
—
7
0
4
9
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
1

Total
—
2,647
1,297
252
124
4
—
30
106
116
39
30
15
—
23
17
3
45
3

RH
—
39
0
0
3
0
—
2
2
1
2
0
0
—
0
0
0
1
0

Total
0
197
65
11
4
0
—
—
2
8
2
4
3
0
12
0
0
1
0

RH
0
1
0
0
0
0
—
—
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Total
0
310
61
37
4
0
—
35
75
7
4
20
0
7
73
67
74
30
0

RH
0
6
0
0
0
0
—
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
3
5
0
1
0

168
465
580
2,458
618

—
10
0
0
4

211
196
418
765
235

—
13
0
0
0

64
130
180
42
79

—
6
0
0
1

8
29
9
7
3

—
0
0
0
0

0
22
12
8
181

—
3
0
0
0

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

Native
Hawaiian or
Pacific
Islander
Total
RH
—
—
—
—
13
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
—
—
—
—
0
0
—
—
2
0
—
—
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
—
0
0
1

—
—
0
0
0

Other

Total
1
—
146
24
0
—
—
6
104
19
17
—
18
4
0
1
0
15
5

RH
0
—
0
0
0
—
—
0
2
1
0
—
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

60
2
28
33
2

—
0
0
0
0

38
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South
Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Washington
Wisconsin
West Virginia
Wyoming
TOTAL*

678
1,446
649

11
4
35

37
532
284

1
1
5

39
139
16

0
0
1

14
14
1

0
0
0

45
6
6

1
0
1

3
0
0

0
0
0

0
41
11

0
0
0

179
1,517
4,542
275
72
484
815
1,339
214
26,776

—
16
6
0
0
1
6
—
0
175

14
351
2,086
16
0
80
262
87
7
9,318

—
4
26
0
0
1
4
—
0
116

14
25
2,106
69
5
110
69
4
17
7,791

—
1
4
0
0
1
0
—
0
64

3
7
—
12
0
35
15
0
1
459

—
0
—
0
0
0
0
—
0
1

249
8
—
24
2
80
92
2
25
1,564

—
0
—
0
0
0
2
—
0
26

0
0
—
0
0
5
—
1
1
29

—
0
—
0
0
0
—
—
0
0

0
0
52
3
7
14
0
11
1
554

—
0
0
0
0
0
0
—
0
3

*Excludes Hawaii, New Jersey, and West Virginia. New Jersey disaggregates race and ethnicity into two separate categories of data. As a result, New Jersey
counted some individuals twice for the purposes of this table (for example, a person identified both as White and as Hispanic or Latino/a).

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

39
Table 17

Race/Ethnicity of Women in Total Custodial and Restrictive Housing Populations (Percentages) (n = 33)
White (nonHispanic or
Latino/a)

Black or
African
American

Hispanic or
Latino/a

Asian

Native
American or
Alaska Native

Total
RH
66.8% 80%
46% 33.6%

Total
33.1%
16.3%

RH
20%
25.7%

Total
RH Total
—
—
0%
31.7% 34.5% 2.4%

RH
0%
0.9%

30.4%
50.2%
50.6%
59.4%
—
72.6%
71.8%
55%
84.2%
77.2%
60.6%
85%
56.4%
57.1%
51.6%
62.1%
90.5%

20%
—
0%
—
—
43.8%
60%
0%
38.9%
100%
—
100%
33.3%
28.6%
—
50%
50%

25.4%
12.4%
25.9%
36.5%
—
15.5%
2.3%
33.4%
12.9%
15.5%
18.2%
5.3%
16.5%
1%
6.3%
15.5%
3.6%

80%
—
50%
—
—
43.8%
0%
66.7%
50%
0%
—
0%
33.3%
0%
—
0%
50%

36.2%
0%
1.8%
29%
—
1.3%
22%
50% 0.7%
4.2%
—
0%
—
—
—
5.1% 12.5% —
9.6%
10% 0.2%
9%
16.7% 0.6%
1.8% 11.1% 0.1%
4.1%
0%
0.5%
8.8%
—
1.8%
—
—
0%
5.8%
0%
3%
8.4%
0%
0%
1.6%
—
0%
11.1% 25% 0.2%
2.2%
0%
0%

0%
—
0%
—
—
—
0%
0%
0%
0%
—
0%
0%
0%
—
0%
0%

1.7%
0%
4.3%
—
0.7%
0%
0%
—
—
—
5.9%
0%
6.8%
20%
0.5%
0%
0.2%
0%
2.7%
0%
0%
—
6.2%
0%
18.3% 33.3%
33% 71.4%
38.9%
—
7.4%
25%
0%
0%

32.9%
—
55.1% 31.2%
47.3%
—
74.2%
—

41.3%
23.2%
34.1%
23.1%

—
40.6%
—
—

12.5%
—
1.6%
15.4% 18.8% 3.4%
14.7%
—
0.7%
1.3%
—
0.2%

—
0%
—
—

0%
2.6%
1%
0.2%

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

Total
0%
3.7%

RH
0%
5.3%

—
9.4%
—
—

Native
Hawaiian or
Pacific
Islander
Total
RH
—
—
—
—

Other

Total
0.1%
—

0.4%
0.1%
0%
0%
—
—
0%
—
0.1%
—
0%
0%
0%
0%
1.6%
0%
0%

0%
—
0%
—
—
—
0%
—
0%
—
—
0%
0%
0%
—
0%
0%

4.1%
0%
2.8%
—
0%
0%
—
—
—
—
1%
0%
9.4%
10%
1.5% 16.7%
0.8%
0%
—
—
10.6%
—
3.5%
0%
0%
0%
0.5%
0%
0%
—
3.7%
0%
3.6%
0%

0%
—
0%
0%

—
—
—
—

11.7%
0.2%
2.3%
1%

RH
0%
—

—
0%
—
—

40
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South
Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Washington
Wisconsin
West Virginia
Wyoming
Reporting
Jurisdictions*

55.2% 80%
83.1% 84.6%
66.4% 80%
67.1% 83.3%

21%
4.5%
24.4%
29.4%

0%
7.7%
20%
11.9%

7.1%
4.8%
6.4%
1.7%

20%
0%
0%
2.4%

0.3%
1.7%
0.6%
0.1%

0%
0%
0%
0%

16.2%
5.5%
0.3%
0.6%

0%
7.7%
0%
2.4%

0.1%
0.4%
0%
0%

0%
0%
0%
0%

0.2%
0%
1.9%
1.1%

0%
0%
0%
0%

39%
—
79.5% 76.2%
51.7% 16.7%
68.9%
—
83.7%
—
59.9% 33.3%
65%
50%
92.7%
—
80.5%
—

3.1%
18.4%
23.7%
4%
0%
9.9%
20.9%
6%
2.6%

—
19%
72.2%
—
—
33.3%
33.3%
—
—

3.1%
—
0.7%
1.3% 4.8% 0.4%
24% 11.1% —
17.3%
—
3%
5.8%
—
0%
13.6% 33.3% 4.3%
5.5%
0%
1.2%
0.3%
—
0%
6.4%
—
0.4%

—
0%
—
—
—
0%
0%
—
—

54.2%
—
0.4%
0%
—
—
6%
—
2.3%
—
9.9%
0%
7.3% 16.7%
0.1%
—
9.4%
—

0%
0%
—
0%
0%
0.6%
—
0.1%
0.4%

—
0%
—
—
—
0%
—
—
—

0%
0%
0.6%
0.8%
8.1%
1.7%
0%
0.8%
0.4%

—
0%
0%
—
—
0%
0%
—
—

57.6% 45.5% 20.0%

30.1%

16.8% 16.6% 1.0%

0.3%

3.4%

0.06% 0.0%

1.2%

0.8%

6.8%

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

41
The Ages of People in Restrictive Housing
Some statutes and correctional policies limit or prohibit the placement of younger or
older people in restrictive housing. For example, the federal First Step Act of 2018 (FSA) states
that “the involuntary placement of a covered juvenile alone in a cell, room, or other area” for
“any reason other than as a temporary response to a covered juvenile’s behavior that poses a
serious and immediate risk of physical harm to any individual, including the covered juvenile, is
prohibited.” 56 In the event of “a serious and immediate risk of physical harm,” the FSA permits
short-term isolation for youths in federal custody but limits any such isolation to no more than
three hours. 57
Older adults are another category of concern. As discussed in Section VI, some statutes
bar the placement of older adults in isolation. For example, New York’s HALT Act, enacted in
2021 and effective April 2022, prohibits the placement of any person “fifty-five years of age or
older” in “segregated confinement.” 58
To understand the age distribution in restrictive housing, the 2021 Survey asked about
age groups under eighteen; eighteen to twenty-five; twenty-six to fifty; fifty-one to seventy; and
over seventy. Thirty-two jurisdictions responded about age cohorts in both total custodial and
restrictive housing populations. 59 One jurisdiction responded with numbers of women in the
respective age cohorts in both total custodial and restrictive housing populations but did not
provide information about the ages of men in restrictive housing. 60 In total, these jurisdictions
provided data on the ages of 24,528 people in restrictive housing (97.8% of the Survey’s total
reported population of 25,083 people in restrictive housing). 61
The thirty-two jurisdictions reported a total of 664,810 men in their total custodial
populations, 62 delineated by age cohorts. Collecting the totals of their numbers, these
jurisdictions reported that 0.02% (135 of 664,810) of men in total custodial populations were
under the age of eighteen; 8.9% (59,295 of 664,810) were between the ages of eighteen and
twenty-five; 69.0% (458,821 of 664,810) were between the ages of twenty-six and fifty; 20.5%
(135,990 of 664,810) were between the ages of fifty-one and seventy; and 1.6% (10,569 of
664,810) were over the age of seventy.
These thirty-two jurisdictions reported holding a total of 24,143 men in restrictive
housing, delineated by age cohorts. Two jurisdictions identified nine people in restrictive
housing who were under the age of eighteen. 63 Collectively, the thirty-two jurisdictions reported
that 12.1% (2,919 of 24,143) of men in restrictive housing were between the ages of eighteen
and twenty-five; 77.0% (18,590 of 24,143) were between the ages of twenty-six and fifty, 10.5%
(2,527 of 24,143) were between the ages of fifty-one and seventy, and 0.4% (98 of 24,143) were
over the age of seventy.
Younger men were in restrictive housing at higher than the average rate. The thirty-two
jurisdictions reported that 3.6% (24,143 of 664,810) of all men were in restrictive housing. By
contrast, these jurisdictions reported holding 4.9% (2,928 of 59,430) of men ages twenty-five
and younger in restrictive housing.

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

42
Thirty-three jurisdictions provided information about the ages of women in both total
custodial and restrictive housing populations. 64 Collectively, these jurisdictions reported that
0.01% (5 of 46,491) of women in total custodial populations were under the age of eighteen;
8.9% (4,145 of 46,491) were between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five; 75.3% (35,023 of
46,491) were between the ages of twenty-six and fifty; 15.0% (6,987 of 46,491) were between
the ages of fifty-one and seventy; and 0.7% (331 of 46,491) were over the age of seventy.
No jurisdiction reported holding women under the age of eighteen or over the age of
seventy in restrictive housing. Totaling the numbers from the thirty-three jurisdictions, 21.0%
(81 of 385) of women in restrictive housing were reported to be between the ages of eighteen and
twenty-five; 72.7% (280 of 385) were between the ages of twenty-six and fifty; and 6.2% (24 of
385) were between the ages of fifty-one and seventy.
Younger women were in restrictive housing at higher than the average rate. The thirtythree jurisdictions reported that 0.8% (385 of 46,491) of all women were in restrictive housing.
By contrast, these jurisdictions reported holding 2.0% (81 of 4,150) of women ages twenty-five
and younger in restrictive housing.
Figures 11 and 12 provide aggregate information about age cohorts in total custodial and
restrictive housing populations. Tables 18, 19, 20, and 21 report jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction data.

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

43
Figure 11

Men in Total Custodial and Restrictive Housing Populations by Age (n = 32)

80% -r-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,
77%

70%

■
■

% of Restrictive Housing Population
% of Total Custodial Popula tion

60%
C
0

<J)

it 50%
-~
Q)

0.
0

if_ 40%
0
Q)

~ 30%

<ii
a..
20%

10%

0.4%

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

1.6%

44
Figure 12

Women in Total Custodial and Restrictive Housing Populations by Age
(n = 33)

80% ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~

% of Restrictive Housing Population

70%

% al Total Custodial Population

60%
C

(/)

ct 50%
-~
Q)

C.
0

a.. 40%
0
Q)

~ 30%

a..

20%

15%
10%

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

0.7%

45
Table 18
Jurisdiction
Alabama
Federal (BOP)
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Hawaii
Iowa
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Massachusetts
Maine
Minnesota
Montana
North Dakota
Nebraska
New
Hampshire
New Jersey
Nevada
New York
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South
Carolina

Men in Total Custodial and Restrictive Housing Populations by Age (n = 32)
<18
2
0
0
6
45
0
—
6
0
0
—
0
0
0
6
0
0
10
0

Total Custodial Population
18-25
26-50
51-70
829
11,302
4453
6,817
92,217
21,520
7,781
62,006
22,455
1,274
8,961
2,585
1,131
5,849
1,467
276
1,826
622
—
—
—
1,057
4,702
1,267
774
4,595
1,105
2,695
18,098
5,135
2,196
15,292
3,824
827
5,446
1,431
345
3,855
1,678
105
1,059
294
774
4,900
1,027
163
1,000
375
214
1,031
194
714
3,475
783
138
1,186
452

5
11
0
18
0
0
6
2

1,478
1,114
2,970
4,748
334
1,065
3,442
1,507

8,192
6,369
21,087
26,691
1,715
7,472
26,505
9,839

2,223
1,955
6,408
7,542
462
2,429
8,270
2,946

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

70+
363
1,279
2,044
215
74
60
—
128
93
363
268
130
244
25
68
47
16
60
87

<18
0
0
0
0
0
0
—
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

176
181
426
663
48
286
738
198

—
0
0
0
—
0
7
0

Restrictive Housing Population
18-25
26-50
51-70
69
668
135
527
6,359
817
190
883
100
2
1
1
26
63
1
0
0
0
—
—
—
136
375
33
59
267
53
59
290
17
152
1,092
158
61
453
82
7
37
3
1
6
0
60
216
12
11
26
3
0
0
0
41
131
10
9
47
6
—
169
20
116
—
95
162
75

—
712
103
439
—
302
666
449

—
131
15
30
—
37
71
34

70+
2
35
4
0
0
0
—
0
1
0
7
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
—
15
2
0
—
0
1
0

46
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Washington
Wisconsin
West Virginia
Wyoming
TOTAL*

0
6
16
0
0
0
0
142
1
135

394
1,360
10,808
370
95
1,211
1,937
771
164
59,295

1,976
13,257
72,990
2,646
763
8,921
12,232
6,247
1,273
458,821

*Excludes Hawaii, New Jersey, Oklahoma, and West Virginia.

Table 19
Jurisdiction
Alabama
Federal (BOP)
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Hawaii
Iowa
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Massachusetts
Maine
Minnesota
Montana
North Dakota

478
3,553
24,045
815
161
2,666
3,616
1,414
439
135,990

45
251
1,494
88
20
294
268
107
53
10,569

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
—
0
9

16
176
377
126
0
56
118
—
3
2,919

33
867
2,821
484
0
373
408
—
19
18,590

2
70
569
27
0
54
54
—
2
2,527

0
0
16
3
0
6
2
—
0
98

Men in Total Custodial and Restrictive Housing Populations by Age (Percentages) (n = 32)
<18
0%
0%
0%
0%
0.5%
0%
—
0.1%
0%
0%
—
0%
0%
0%
0.1%
0%
0%

Total Custodial Population
18-25
26-50
51-70
4.9%
66.7%
26.3%
5.6%
75.7%
17.7%
8.3%
65.8%
23.8%
9.8%
68.7%
19.8%
13.2%
68.3%
17.1%
9.9%
65.6%
22.3%
—
—
—
14.8%
65.7%
17.7%
11.8%
70%
16.8%
10.3%
68.8%
19.5%
10.2%
70.9%
17.7%
10.6%
69.5%
18.3%
5.6%
63%
27.4%
7.1%
71.4%
19.8%
11.4%
72.3%
15.2%
10.3%
63.1%
23.7%
14.7%
70.9%
13.3%

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

70+
2.1%
1%
2.2%
1.6%
0.9%
2.2%
—
1.8%
1.4%
1.4%
1.2%
1.7%
4%
1.7%
1%
3%
1.1%

<18
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
—
—
0.4%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
—

Restrictive Housing Population
18-25
26-50
51-70
7.9%
76.4%
15.4%
6.8%
82.2%
10.6%
16.1%
75%
8.5%
50%
25%
25%
28.9%
70%
1.1%
—
—
—
—
—
—
24.9%
68.7%
6%
15.5%
70.3%
13.9%
16.1%
79.2%
4.6%
10.8%
77.5%
11.2%
10.2%
75.5%
13.7%
14.9%
78.7%
6.4%
14.3%
85.7%
0%
20.8%
75%
4.2%
27.5%
65%
7.5%
—
—
—

70+
0.2%
0.5%
0.3%
0%
0%
—
—
0%
0.3%
0%
0.5%
0.7%
0%
0%
0%
0%
—

47
Nebraska
New
Hampshire
New Jersey
Nevada
New York
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South
Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Washington
Wisconsin
West Virginia
Wyoming
Reporting
Jurisdictions*

0.2%
0%

14.2%
7.4%

68.9%
63.7%

15.5%
24.3%

1.2%
4.7%

0%
0%

22.5%
14.5%

72%
75.8%

5.5%
9.7%

0%
0%

0%
0.1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%

12.2%
11.6%
9.6%
12%
13.1%
9.5%
8.8%
10.4%

67.8%
66.1%
68.3%
67.3%
67%
66.4%
68%
67.9%

18.4%
20.3%
20.7%
19%
18.1%
21.6%
21.2%
20.3%

1.5%
1.9%
1.4%
1.7%
1.9%
2.5%
1.9%
1.4%

—
0%
0%
0%
—
0%
0.8%
0%

—
16.5%
14.3%
19.8%
—
21.9%
17.9%
13.4%

—
69.3%
73.6%
75%
—
69.6%
73.4%
80.5%

—
12.8%
10.7%
5.1%
—
8.5%
7.8%
6.1%

—
1.5%
1.4%
0%
—
0%
0.1%
0%

0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1.6%
0.1%

13.6%
7.4%
9.9%
9.4%
9.1%
9.2%
10.7%
8.9%
8.5%

68.3%
71.9%
66.7%
67.5%
73.4%
68.1%
67.8%
72%
65.9%

16.5%
19.3%
22%
20.8%
15.5%
20.4%
20%
16.3%
22.7%

1.6%
1.4%
1.4%
2.2%
1.9%
2.2%
1.5%
1.2%
2.7%

0%
0%
0%
0%
—
0%
0%
—
0%

31.4%
15.8%
10%
19.7%
—
11.5%
20.3%
—
12.5%

64.7%
77.9%
74.6%
75.6%
—
76.3%
70.1%
—
79.2%

3.9%
6.3%
15%
4.2%
—
11%
9.3%
—
8.3%

0%
0%
0.4%
0.5%
—
1.2%
0.3%
—
0%

0.02%

8.9%

69.0%

20.5%

1.6%

0.04%

12.1%

77.0%

10.5%

0.4%

*Excludes Hawaii, New Jersey, Oklahoma, and West Virginia.

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

48
Table 20
Jurisdiction
Alabama
Federal (BOP)
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Hawaii
Iowa
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Massachusetts
Maine
Minnesota
Montana
North Dakota
Nebraska
New
Hampshire
New Jersey
Nevada
New York
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South

Women in Total Custodial and Restrictive Housing Populations by Age (n = 33)
<18
0
0
0
0
0
0
—
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0

Total Custodial Population
18-25
26-50
51-70
27
746
236
534
6,479
1,306
347
2,500
682
100
652
110
84
404
71
10
70
15
—
—
—
75
431
81
142
843
117
108
962
206
210
1,734
268
76
576
82
15
108
42
5
93
14
33
312
53
16
158
29
40
143
7
60
304
39
5
114
18
57
73
98
344
81
87
206
86

314
645
935
2,570
851
593
1,587
717

73
119
181
381
176
129
368
159

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

70+
17
39
51
7
4
1
—
7
3
16
12
3
5
1
1
0
0
3
0

<18
0
0
0
0
0
0
—
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

3
7
13
16
11
7
17
5

—
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Restrictive Housing Population
18-25
26-50
51-70
0
3
2
13
91
9
1
4
0
0
0
0
3
3
0
0
0
0
—
—
—
7
9
0
7
12
1
0
6
0
2
15
1
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
3
6
0
2
5
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
2
0
—
10
0
0
1
1
0
9

—
22
0
0
3
12
5
30

—
0
0
0
1
0
0
3

70+
0
0
0
0
0
0
—
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
—
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

49
Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Washington
Wisconsin
West Virginia
Wyoming
TOTAL*

0
0
3
0
0
0
0
32
0
5

79
94
852
37
5
73
120
121
23
4,145

360
1,506
6,526
320
71
567
940
1,175
206
35,023

*Excludes Hawaii, New Jersey, and West Virginia.

Table 21
Jurisdiction
Alabama
Federal (BOP)
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Hawaii
Iowa
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Massachusetts
Maine
Minnesota
Montana

20
297
1,357
38
10
157
183
114
36
6,987

0
11
48
4
0
11
10
2
1
331

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
—
0
0

0
5
13
0
0
1
1
—
0
81

0
16
19
0
0
2
10
—
0
280

0
0
4
0
0
0
1
—
0
24

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
—
0
0

Women in Total Custodial and Restrictive Housing Populations by Age (Percentages) (n = 33)
<18
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
—
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%

Total Custodial Population
18-25
26-50
51-70
2.6%
72.7%
23%
6.4%
77.5%
15.6%
9.7%
69.8%
19.1%
11.5%
75%
12.7%
14.9%
71.8%
12.6%
10.4%
72.9%
15.6%
—
—
—
12.6%
72.6%
13.6%
12.9%
76.3%
10.6%
8.4%
74.5%
15.9%
9.4%
78%
12.1%
10.3%
78.2%
11.1%
8.8%
63.5%
24.7%
4.4%
82.3%
12.4%
8.3%
78.2%
13.3%
7.9%
77.8%
14.3%

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

70+
1.7%
0.5%
1.4%
0.8%
0.7%
1%
—
1.2%
0.3%
1.2%
0.5%
0.4%
2.9%
0.9%
0.3%
0%

<18
0%
0%
0%
—
0%
—
—
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
—
0%
0%
0%

Restrictive Housing Population
18-25
26-50
51-70
0%
60%
40%
11.5%
80.5%
8%
20%
80%
0%
—
—
—
50%
50%
0%
—
—
—
—
—
—
43.8%
56.2%
0%
35%
60%
5%
0%
100%
0%
11.1%
83.3%
5.6%
0%
50%
50%
—
—
—
0%
100%
0%
33.3%
66.7%
0%
28.6%
71.4%
0%

70+
0%
0%
0%
—
0%
—
—
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
—
0%
0%
0%

50
North Dakota
Nebraska
New
Hampshire
New Jersey
Nevada
New York
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South
Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Washington
Wisconsin
West Virginia
Wyoming
Reporting
Jurisdictions*

0%
0%
0%

21.1%
14.8%
3.6%

75.3%
74.9%
83.2%

3.7%
9.6%
13.1%

0%
0.7%
0%

—
0%
0%

—
50%
0%

—
50%
100%

—
0%
0%

0%
0%
0%
0.1%
0%
0%
0%
0%

12.8%
8.6%
8%
10.4%
7.2%
10.7%
9.5%
8.9%

70.2%
76.4%
76.2%
77.6%
76.1%
72.7%
72.9%
74.1%

16.3%
14.1%
14.8%
11.5%
15.7%
15.8%
16.9%
16.4%

0.7%
0.8%
1.1%
0.5%
1%
0.9%
0.8%
0.5%

—
0%
—
—
0%
0%
0%
0%

—
31.2%
—
—
20%
7.7%
0%
21.4%

—
68.8%
—
—
60%
92.3%
100%
71.4%

—
0%
—
—
20%
0%
0%
7.1%

—
0%
—
—
0%
0%
0%
0%

0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
2.2%
0%
0.01%

17.2%
4.9%
9.7%
9.3%
5.8%
9%
9.6%
8.4%
8.6%
8.9%

78.4%
78.9%
74.3%
80.2%
82.6%
70.2%
75%
81.4%
77.4%
75.3%

4.4%
15.6%
15.4%
9.5%
11.6%
19.4%
14.6%
7.9%
13.5%
15.0%

0%
0.6%
0.5%
1%
0%
1.4%
0.8%
0.1%
0.4%
0.7%

—
0%
0%
—
—
0%
0%
—
—
0.0%

—
23.8%
36.1%
—
—
33.3%
8.3%
—
—
21.0%

—
76.2%
52.8%
—
—
66.7%
83.3%
—
—
72.7%

—
0%
11.1%
—
—
0%
8.3%
—
—
6.2%

—
0%
0%
—
—
0%
0%
—
—
0.0%

*Excludes Hawaii, New Jersey, and West Virginia.

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

51
People with Serious Mental Illness (SMI) in Restrictive Housing
A significant number of imprisoned people experience mental health conditions. A 2021
report by the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) analyzing data from 2016 estimated that
43% of people held in state prisons and 23% of people held in federal prisons had received
diagnoses of mental health conditions. 65 Even as debate exists as to which specific diagnoses or
conditions should preclude the use of restrictive housing, a consensus has emerged that
individuals identified as having “serious mental illness” (SMI) should not be placed into
restrictive housing.
Illustrative of these concerns are the ACA’s 2016 Restrictive Housing Performance
Based Standards, providing that a “[correctional] agency will not place a person with serious
mental illness in Extended Restrictive Housing.” 66 The ACA defines “serious mental illness” as:
Psychotic Disorders, Bipolar Disorders, and Major Depressive Disorder; any
diagnosed mental disorder (excluding substance use disorders) currently
associated with serious impairment in psychological, cognitive, or behavioral
functioning that substantially interferes with the person’s ability to meet the
ordinary demands of living and requires an individualized treatment plan by a
qualified mental health professional(s). 67
As detailed in Section VI, some jurisdictions have statutes addressing these issues. For
example, laws in Colorado and New York limit or prohibit the use of isolation for people with
certain mental health conditions or illnesses. With some exceptions, Colorado’s statute forbids
local jails from involuntarily placing a person in “restrictive housing” if the individual “is
diagnosed with a serious mental illness,” experiences “significant auditory or visual
impairment,” “is significantly neurocognitively impaired,” or “has an intellectual or
developmental disability.” 68 New York’s statute requires mental health assessments upon
placement in “segregated confinement” and prohibits “segregated confinement” for people
diagnosed with “serious mental illness.” 69
To gather information about the use of restrictive housing for people with mental health
conditions, the 2021 CLA-Liman Survey asked about people identified as individuals with SMI.
Twenty-seven jurisdictions provided data on people with SMI in both the total custodial and
restrictive housing populations. 70
As noted in previous reports, and as again reflected in jurisdictions’ responses to the 2021
Survey, definitions of “serious mental illness” vary substantially across jurisdictions. Sources for
definitions include correctional agency rules, sometimes keyed to psychiatric manuals, statutes, 71
and rulings by courts. 72 Thus, some jurisdictions have adopted the ACA’s definition of serious
mental illness. 73 Others define SMI through certain diagnoses, and the terms and scope of
included diagnoses vary. 74 Other jurisdictions relied on mental health professionals’ individual
assessments of the severity of a person’s illness. 75 Given the variation in the scope and detail of
jurisdictions’ definitions, a person could be classified as seriously mentally ill in one jurisdiction
and not in another.

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

Aggregating the numbers reported by twenty-eight jurisdictions, a total of 1,138 people
were, under each jurisdiction’s definition, seriously mentally ill and in restrictive housing. Rather
than compare numbers across jurisdictions that have varied definitions, Table 22 lists the
numbers of people in total custodial and restrictive housing populations by jurisdiction.
Appendix D provides the definitions used in thirty-three jurisdictions.
The 2021 Survey also sought to learn about the intersection of gender and mental illness
with race and with age. Twenty-eight jurisdictions provided information about people in
restrictive housing with serious mental illness by race and ethnicity. Tables 23 and 24 provide
this information by jurisdiction. In addition, twenty-nine jurisdictions provided information by
age about people in restrictive housing with serious mental illness. Tables 25 and 26 report this
information by jurisdiction.

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

53
Table 22

People with Serious Mental Illness (SMI) in Total Custodial and Restrictive Housing Populations (n = 28)

Jurisdiction
Alabama
Federal (BOP)
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Hawaii
Iowa
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Massachusetts
Maine
Minnesota
Montana
North Dakota
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
Nevada
New York
Ohio
Oklahoma 76
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota

Serious Mental Illness in Total Custodial Population
Male
Male %
Female
Female %
2,216
13.1%
373
36.4%
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
727
5.6%
162
18.6%
414
4.8%
85
15.1%
543
19.5%
57
59.4%
—
—
—
—
1,313
18.3%
191
32.2%
51
0.8%
5
0.5%
3,724
14.2%
391
30.3%
45
0.2%
2
0.1%
1,629
20.8%
213
28.9%
1,950
31.9%
133
78.2%
244
16.5%
43
38.1%
—
—
—
—
216
13.6%
5
2.5%
153
10.5%
63
33.2%
1,543
30.6%
182
44.8%
34
1.8%
6
4.4%
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1,765
5.7%
129
10.5%
3,374
8.5%
1,104
33.3%
187
7.3%
190
17%
952
8.5%
193
23.7%
2,967
7.6%
308
14.1%
651
4.5%
197
20.4%
105
3.6%
49
10.7%

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

Serious Mental Illness in Restrictive Housing
Male
Male %
Female
Female %
34
3.9%
2
40%
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
0
0%
0
No RH
7
7.8%
4
66.7%
0
No RH
0
No RH
—
—
—
—
144
26.4%
6
37.5%
22
5.8%
0
0%
147
40.2%
4
66.7%
42
3%
2
11.1%
305
50.8%
4
100%
29
61.7%
0
No RH
1
14.3%
0
0%
—
—
—
—
7
17.5%
0
0%
0
No RH
0
No RH
44
24.2%
3
75%
2
3.2%
0
0%
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
9
6.4%
0
No RH
15
2.6%
0
No RH
6
2.3%
3
60%
74
17.1%
5
38.5%
10
1.1%
0
0%
59
10.6%
8
19%
0
0%
0
No RH

54
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Washington
Wisconsin
West Virginia
Wyoming
Table 23

404
1,316
5
43
539
1,336
—
—

2.2%
1.2%
0.1%
4.1%
4.1%
7.4%
—
—

37
91
1
2
119
485
—
—

1.9%
1%
0.3%
2.3%
14.7%
38.7%
—
—

23
0
1
0
52
58
—
—

2.1%
0%
0.2%
No RH
10.6%
10%
—
—

0
0
0
0
0
6
—
—

0%
0%
No RH
No RH
0%
50%
—
—

Men with Serious Mental Illness (SMI) by Race and Ethnicity in Total Custodial and
Restrictive Housing Populations (n = 28)

Jurisdiction

White

Black

Alabama
Federal (BOP)
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Hawaii
Iowa
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Massachusetts
Maine
Minnesota
Montana
North Dakota
Nebraska
New

1,002
—
—
240
129
235
—
911
34
1,257
27
958
933
214
—
164
96
894
33

1,202
—
—
187
180
289
—
301
2
2,165
17
481
507
14
—
6
24
396
2

Total Custodial Population
Hisp. Asian Am. NHPI
Ind.
—
0
0
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
155
6
36
0
95
5
5
0
17
2
0
0
—
—
—
—
72
—
21
—
7
2
2
0
267
14
11
—
1
0
0
0
134
12
44
—
461
16
13
0
—
1
6
0
—
—
—
—
7
0
37
0
5
0
28
0
156
8
78
1
1
0
0
0

Other

Total

White

12
—
—
3
0
—
—
8
4
10
0
—
20
9
—
2
0
10
0

2,216
—
—
727
414
543
—
1,313
51
3,724
45
1,629
1,950
244
—
216
153
1,543
36

17
—
—
0
2
0
—
100
17
23
24
165
8
1
—
5
0
20
2

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

Restrictive Housing Population
Hisp. Asian Am. NHPI Other
Ind.
17
—
0
0
—
0
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
32
11
—
1
—
0
0
3
0
1
0
1
108
15
0
0
—
1
17
1
0
0
0
0
115
25
0
0
—
—
9
11
0
0
0
1
0
—
0
0
0
0
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
5
0
4
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0

Black

Total
34
—
—
0
7
0
—
144
22
147
42
305
29
1
—
7
0
44
2

55
Hampshire
New Jersey
Nevada
New York
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South
Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Washington
Wisconsin
West Virginia
Wyoming

Table 24

Jurisdiction

Alabama
Federal (BOP)
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Hawaii
Iowa

707
—
433
2,039
110
721
1,336
222

1,190
—
861
1,209
57
104
1,378
418

288
—
398
84
4
72
227
6

11
—
16
3
0
11
10
1

5
—
18
5
15
41
3
1

0
—
0
0
0
3
0
0

295
—
39
34
1
0
13
3

—
—
1,765
3,374
187
952
2,967
651

—
—
1
8
2
54
2
14

—
—
3
6
3
7
8
45

—
—
4
1
1
9
0
0

—
—
0
0
0
1
0
0

—
—
1
0
0
3
0
0

—
—
0
0
0
0
0
0

—
—
9
15
6
74
10
59

58
242
427
3
29
318
708
—
—

9
151
532
0
7
114
472
—
—

6
10
343
0
5
55
97
—
—

1
0
—
0
0
17
10
—
—

31
1
—
2
1
23
48
—
—

0
0
—
0
0
6
—
—
—

0
0
14
0
1
6
1
—
—

105
404
1,316
5
43
539
1,336
—
—

0
14
0
1
0
30
22
—
—

0
9
0
0
0
9
29
—
—

0
0
0
0
0
6
6
—
—

0
0
0
0
0
3
0
—
—

0
0
0
0
0
3
1
—
—

0
0
0
0
0
1
—
—
—

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
—
—

0
23
0
1
0
52
58
—
—

Women with Serious Mental Illness (SMI) by Race and Ethnicity in Total Custodial
and Restrictive Housing Populations (n = 28)
White

Black

249
—
—
79
31
35
—
130

124
—
—
27
33
20
—
35

Total Custodial Population
Hisp. Asian Am. NHPI
Ind.
—
0
0
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
45
3
8
0
18
1
2
0
2
0
0
0
—
—
—
—
12
—
12
—

Other

Total

White

0
—
—
0
0
—
—
2

373
—
—
162
85
57
—
191

2
—
—
0
0
0
—
3

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

Restrictive Housing Population
Black Hisp. Asian Am. NHPI
Ind.
0
—
0
0
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
—
—
—
—
—
3
0
—
0
—

Other

Total

0
—
—
0
0
—
—
0

2
—
—
0
4
0
—
6

56
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Massachusetts
Maine
Minnesota
Montana
North Dakota
Nebraska
New
Hampshire
New Jersey
Nevada
New York
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Washington
Wisconsin
West Virginia
Wyoming

Table 25

5
213
2
160
79
39
—
3
35
111
5

0
132
0
38
26
1
—
0
2
33
1

0
38
0
5
10
—
—
1
0
16
0

0
3
0
3
2
0
—
0
0
0
0

0
1
0
7
0
2
—
1
25
15
0

0
—
0
—
0
0
—
0
1
0
0

0
4
0
—
16
1
—
0
0
7
0

5
391
2
213
133
43
—
5
63
182
6

0
0
2
4
0
0
—
0
0
1
0

0
2
0
0
0
0
—
0
0
0
0

0
1
0
0
0
—
—
0
0
1
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
—
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
—
0
0
1
0

0
—
0
—
0
0
—
0
0
0
0

0
1
0
—
0
0
—
0
0
0
0

0
4
2
4
0
0
—
0
0
3
0

113
—
37
850
109
160
188
125
23
27
38
1
1
73
306
—
—

122
—
61
231
42
14
98
66
2
10
30
0
0
12
112
—
—

36
—
29
13
6
7
11
5
1
0
23
0
0
18
30
—
—

1
—
1
3
1
2
2
0
0
0
—
0
0
3
5
—
—

0
—
0
2
30
10
1
1
23
0
—
0
0
9
32
—
—

0
—
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
—
0
0
1
—
—
—

35
—
1
5
1
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
0
—
—

—
—
129
1,104
190
193
308
197
49
37
91
1
2
119
485
—
—

—
—
0
0
1
5
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
—
—

—
—
0
0
2
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
—
—

—
—
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
—
—

—
—
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
—
—

—
—
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
—
—
—

—
—
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
—
—

—
—
0
0
3
5
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
—
—

Men with Serious Mental Illness (SMI) by Age in Total Custodial and Restrictive Housing Populations (n = 28)

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

Jurisdiction
Alabama
Federal (BOP)
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Hawaii
Iowa
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Massachusetts
Maine
Minnesota
Montana
North Dakota
Nebraska
New
Hampshire
New Jersey
Nevada
New York
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah

<18
0
—
—
0
3
0
—
0
0
0
—
0
0
0
—
0
0
1
0

18-25
95
—
—
50
70
42
—
87
7
351
3
125
102
10
—
34
13
160
4

0
—
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0

324
—
97
251
21
88
108
67
6
14
116
0

Total Custodial Population
26-50
51-70
1,531
556
—
—
—
—
483
183
263
73
372
123
—
—
896
295
31
11
2,611
734
38
4
1,192
279
1,335
462
178
53
—
—
130
50
113
23
1,127
243
21
10
1,482
—
1,117
2,228
150
664
1,838
475
73
246
846
4

379
—
517
853
15
184
956
105
25
136
316
1

>70
34
—
—
11
5
6
—
35
2
28
0
33
51
3
—
2
4
12
1

Total
2,216
—
—
727
414
543
—
1,313
51
3,724
45
1,629
1,950
244
—
216
153
1,543
36

<18
0
—
—
0
0
0
—
0
0
0
—
0
0
0
—
0
0
0
0

24
—
34
42
1
16
65
4
1
8
35
0

2,209
—
1,765
3,374
187
952
2,967
651
105
404
1,316
5

—
—
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

Restrictive Housing Population
18-25
26-50
51-70
>70
0
23
11
0
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
0
0
0
0
2
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
—
—
—
—
9
123
12
0
5
12
5
0
27
116
4
0
3
35
4
0
31
255
19
0
5
21
3
0
0
1
0
0
—
—
—
—
4
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
34
4
0
1
1
0
0
—
—
0
2
2
13
1
8
0
4
0
0

—
—
9
12
4
53
8
47
0
15
0
1

—
—
0
1
0
8
1
4
0
4
0
0

—
—
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Total
34
—
—
0
7
0
—
144
22
147
42
305
29
1
—
7
0
44
2
—
—
9
15
6
74
10
59
0
23
0
1

58
Vermont
Washington
Wisconsin
West Virginia
Wyoming

Table 26
27)
Jurisdiction
Alabama
Federal (BOP)
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Hawaii
Iowa
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Massachusetts
Maine
Minnesota
Montana
North Dakota
Nebraska
New
Hampshire
New Jersey
Nevada

0
0
0
—
—

5
25
73
—
—

27
369
857
—
—

9
134
376
—
—

2
11
30
—
—

43
539
1,336
—
—

0
0
0
—
—

0
2
9
—
—

0
45
41
—
—

0
4
8
—
—

0
1
0
—
—

0
52
58
—
—

Women with Serious Mental Illness (SMI) by Age in Total Custodial and Restrictive Housing Populations (n =

<18
0
—
—
0
0
0
—
0
0
0
—
0
0
0
—
0
0
0
0

18-25
10
—
—
13
8
3
—
17
0
25
0
17
11
3
—
0
17
22
0

0
—

41
—

Total Custodial Population
26-50
51-70
>70
280
80
3
—
—
—
—
—
—
126
20
3
66
11
0
42
12
0
—
—
—
138
33
3
5
0
0
297
66
3
2
0
0
177
18
1
86
33
3
31
9
0
—
—
—
5
0
0
45
1
0
138
21
1
6
0
0
195
—

34
—

1
—

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

Total
373
—
—
162
85
57
—
191
5
391
2
213
133
43
—
5
63
182
6

<18
0
—
—
0
0
0
—
0
0
0
—
0
0
0
—
0
0
0
0

271
—

—
—

Restrictive Housing Population
18-25
26-50
51-70
>70
0
2
0
0
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
—
—
—
—
1
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
3
1
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
—
—
—
—
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
—
—

—
—

Total
2
—
—
0
4
0
—
6
0
4
2
8
0
0
—
0
0
3
0
—
—

59
New York
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Washington
Wisconsin
West Virginia
Wyoming

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
—
—

8
107
20
21
22
18
6
5
14
0
0
8
31
—
—

78
880
134
137
212
143
40
21
52
1
2
79
374
—
—

40
111
35
34
69
35
3
11
26
0
0
31
77
—
—

3
6
1
1
5
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
—
—

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

129
1,104
190
193
308
197
49
37
91
1
2
119
485
—
—

0
0
0
0
0
0
—
0
0
0
0
0
0
—
—

0
0
0
1
0
3
—
0
0
0
0
0
0
—
—

0
0
2
4
0
4
—
0
0
0
0
0
5
—
—

0
0
1
0
0
1
—
0
0
0
0
0
1
—
—

0
0
0
0
0
0
—
0
0
0
0
0
0
—
—

0
0
3
5
0
8
—
0
0
0
0
0
6
—
—

60
People Serving Capital Sentences
As detailed in the Liman Center’s 2016 report, Rethinking “Death Row”, correctional
policies in some jurisdictions require that prisons house people serving capital sentences
separately from other people. 77 The 2021 Survey asked how many capital-sentenced individuals
were in general population, restrictive housing, or areas that were “separated [from general
population] but not . . . restrictive housing.” Seventeen jurisdictions responded to this question
with data indicating that they held at least one capital-sentenced person. 78 These jurisdictions
held 2,817 capital-sentenced individuals in general population settings, 1,254 in restrictive
housing, and 1,459 in separated areas that did not meet the Survey’s definition of restrictive
housing. These seventeen jurisdictions reported holding a total of 21,504 people in restrictive
housing. Thus, 5.8% of the people reported in restrictive housing in these seventeen jurisdictions
were serving capital sentences (1,254 of 21,504).
Estimating the Number of People in Restrictive Housing in State and Federal
Prisons across the United States
As noted in the Overview, this Report used the responding jurisdictions’ reported total of
25,083 people in restrictive housing to estimate that, as of July 2021, 41,000 to 48,000 people
were in restrictive housing in prisons across the United States. To generate this estimate, this
Report extrapolated information about two groups of people: (i) people who were under the
“legal authority” of the thirty-five restrictive housing responding jurisdictions but not under their
direct control; and (ii) people held by jurisdictions that did not provide information on the
number of individuals in restrictive housing.
To do so, the Report relied on data about incarcerated people as of March of 2021 that the
Vera Institute for Justice gathered. As discussed, the 2021 CLA-Liman Survey asked for
jurisdictions to report information about people under their “direct control” because, when
jurisdictions send individuals out of state or to facilities over which they have no direct control,
they generally cannot report on the use of isolation for those individuals. Thus, the number of
people reported through the 2021 CLA-Liman Survey is somewhat less than the total number of
people Vera identified as having been incarcerated by the responding jurisdictions. Vera’s data
indicated that, as of March 2021, the thirty-five restrictive housing responding jurisdictions held
802,821 people under their “legal authority,” 79 or 71,619 more people than the 731,202 people
that these jurisdictions indicated were in their total custodial populations as of July 2021 and
under the “direct control” definition.
As also noted, fifteen jurisdictions did not respond to the 2021 CLA-Liman Survey, 80 and
one jurisdiction responded to the Survey without providing information on the number of people
in restrictive housing. 81 According to Vera, as of March 2021, these sixteen jurisdictions held
391,113 people under their legal authority. This Report combined these 391,113 people with the
71,619 people referenced above to estimate that there were almost a half million people
(462,732) in prisons across the United States for whom the 2021 Survey did not gather restrictive
housing data.
This Report applied two different assumptions to generate the range for the national
estimates. The thirty-five responding jurisdictions reported that 3.4% of people were in
restrictive housing. If the jurisdictions that responded were like those that did not respond, then
2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

61
applying 3.4% to the 462,732 individuals for whom no data was provided produces an estimated
additional 15,733 people in restrictive housing.
Yet, as social scientists term it, “selection bias” may be at work; the thirty-five
responding jurisdictions may use restrictive housing less than those that did not respond. This
Report uses the same method for an estimate as did the 2020 Report. In 2019, eleven of the
sixteen jurisdictions that did not respond in 2021 provided numbers of people in restrictive
housing. 82 This Report calculated the weighted average of the percentage of people in restrictive
housing that these eleven jurisdictions reported in the 2019 Survey, which was 5.0%. 83 (That
estimate is close to Vera’s estimate that 5.64% of jail populations in the United States were
confined in their cells for twenty-two hours or more per day as of late 2019. 84) Applying the rate
of 5.0% to the 462,732 people for whom data was not provided, an estimated additional 23,137
people were in restrictive housing.
In short, through summing the 25,083 people reported in the 2021 Survey data with the
numbers estimated for those about whom information was not provided, this Report estimates
that, as of July of 2021, 41,000 to 48,000 people were in restrictive housing in prisons across the
United States. 85 Using the information collected in 2013 as a starting point and relying on this
estimate as a 2021 figure, United States jurisdictions over the past decade have trended toward
holding fewer people in cells for an average of twenty-two hours or more per day and for fifteen
days or more.
Specifically, the 2014 ASCA-Liman Survey data yielded an estimate that between 80,000
and 100,000 people were in isolation in prisons as of the fall of 2014. 86 The ASCA-Liman 2017
Survey produced an estimate that 61,000 people were held in isolation in prisons as of the fall of
2017. 87 The ASCA-Liman 2019 Survey produced an estimate that between 55,000 and 62,500
people were in restrictive housing as of the summer of 2019. 88 This 2021 survey offers an
estimate of 41,000 to 48,000.
If the numbers of people in restrictive housing are in fact decreasing, several factors may
be contributing to that trend. The total prison population is an important variable. Between the
2014-2015 ASCA-Liman Survey and the 2021 CLA-Liman Survey, the total prison population
in the United States declined from approximately 1.6 million people to 1.2 million people. Some
of the decline has been associated with COVID-19, as prosecutors and judges had to slow their
work. Yet, effects were not equally experienced across race and ethnicity. 89 Another shift, as
illustrated by the ACA’s 2016 Restrictive Housing Performance-Based Standards, has come
through correctional policies. Infrastructure—housing, facilities, staff, and budgets—are also
part of the mix of variables, as are variations in who has been sent to prison. Lawsuits have
addressed the practice, and dozens of statutes do so as well. Also as noted, the Survey has not
developed information about people held between 16 and 21.9 hours in cell; some of the shift in
the number of people in restrictive housing may come for shifting individuals into such settings.

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

III. Some of the Dimensions of Living in Restrictive Housing
The 2021 Survey asked jurisdictions about their rules governing day-to-day life in
restrictive housing. Data collection focused on policies relating to physical space, time out-ofcell, access to items in-cell, how people could spend time in-cell, and interpersonal contact. In
addition, the 2021 Survey included questions about incidents of violence, as well as about
policies addressing staffing and about policies on release from restrictive housing.
As noted in Section II, three of the thirty-six responding jurisdictions reported that they
held no individuals in restrictive housing as of July 2021. Of the other thirty-three jurisdictions,
thirty provided information on restrictive housing policies. 90 Because not all jurisdictions
responded to every question, the number of responding jurisdictions differs for many of the
questions discussed. As in the prior sections, this discussion is based exclusively on the
jurisdictions’ self-reports and not on other sources, such as from people living or working in
restrictive housing.
This Section first summarizes responses to questions about policies governing aspects of
life in-cell, opportunities for use of out-of-cell time, and communication with others. Next, this
Section addresses data concerning reported incidents of violence, and then turns to reported
policies directed at guiding transitions out of restrictive housing into general population or the
community. Also briefly discussed are responses about staffing. This Section concludes with an
overview of reported policy changes.
Lighting
The Survey asked about artificial and direct natural lighting in restrictive housing cells.
Specifically, the questions asked whether “restrictive housing cells ha[d] clear windows through
which individuals held [could] directly see outside”; how many hours each day artificial light in
cells were turned on; whether people held in restrictive housing cells “ha[d] any control over the
use of artificial light,” and for how many hours each day; and whether jurisdictions kept lights
on, off, or dimmed during “nighttime hours.”
Thirty jurisdictions responded to some questions. 91 Ten jurisdictions reported that the
lights in restrictive housing cells stayed on at night and that people in restrictive housing did not
have control over cell lighting for all hours of the day. 92 Of those ten, one jurisdiction reported
that people had no control over lighting whatsoever and that lights were neither dimmed nor
turned off at night. 93 Seven jurisdictions, including the one just mentioned, reported that people
in restrictive housing had no control over the lighting in their cells. 94 Six others reported that
individuals had partial control. 95
Regarding daylight, twenty-six jurisdictions reported that restrictive housing cells had
clear windows offering a view to the outside, 96 and two of these also noted that windows varied
by facility. 97 Four jurisdictions reported that restrictive housing cells did not have clear windows
from which one could see directly outside. 98

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

63
Access to Items In-Cell
The 2021 Survey asked about the availability of books and other reading materials,
writing materials, worksheets, puzzles or board games, music and audio players, television,
videogames, the Internet, and electronic tablets. Table 27 summarizes responses to a question
about what items “all or most prisoners” were “permitted to use.” “Permitted” to be used should
not be translated as used in fact.
Table 27

Jurisdictions That Reported Permitting Access to Use of Certain Items

Item
Books or other reading materials
Writing materials
Worksheets
Music or audio players
Electronic tablets
Television
Puzzles and board games
Videogames
Internet

Restrictive Housing (n = 30)
Number
Percentage
30
100
30
100
27
90.0
18
60.0
17
56.7
16
53.3
13
43.3
4
13.3
1
3.3

General Population (n = 33)
Number
Percentage
33
100
33
100
31
93.9
33
100
29
87.9
33
100
32
97.0
15
45.5
4
12.1

Reading: The 2021 Survey asked whether people in restrictive housing and general
population were “permitted to use” books and reading materials. For jurisdictions that responded
affirmatively, the Survey asked about when people could access reading materials, fees charged
for access, whether access was “used as incentives for behavioral change,” and whether access
could “be taken away from prisoners . . . for disciplinary reasons.” Thirty jurisdictions responded
to some of these questions in terms of people in restrictive housing, 99 and thirty-three responded
to some questions for their general population policies. 100
All thirty responding jurisdictions reported that “all or most prisoners in restrictive
housing [were] permitted to use . . . books or other reading materials.” 101 Twenty-five of these
jurisdictions reported that they did not restrict when a person in restrictive housing could have
access to them. 102 One jurisdiction reported that it limited access to books or other reading
materials in restrictive housing to two hours per day, four days per week. 103 Two jurisdictions
said that people in restrictive housing had to pay a fee to access reading materials. 104 Thirteen
jurisdictions reported that they used reading materials to incentivize behavioral changes, 105 and
nineteen said that access to books or other reading materials could be withdrawn for disciplinary
reasons. 106
All thirty-three responding jurisdictions reported that people in general population had
access to books or other reading materials. 107 Four of these jurisdictions said people in general
population had to pay a fee for access; 108 seven jurisdictions reported that they used reading
materials to “reward . . . certain kinds of behavior;” 109 and nineteen jurisdictions noted that
access could be rescinded for disciplinary reasons. 110

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

64
Writing: The 2021 Survey asked whether people in restrictive housing and general
population were “permitted to use” writing materials. For jurisdictions that responded
affirmatively, the Survey asked about when people could access writing materials, fees charged
for access, whether access was “used as incentives for behavioral change,” and whether access
could “be taken away from prisoners . . . for disciplinary reasons.” Thirty jurisdictions responded
to some questions on restrictive housing, 111 and thirty-three responded to some questions for
their general population policies. 112
Thirty jurisdictions reported that all or most people in restrictive housing were permitted
to use writing materials, 113 including twenty-five that allowed access twenty-four hours per day,
seven days per week. 114 Ten jurisdictions reported using writing materials to incentivize
behavioral changes. 115 Thirteen jurisdictions reported that access to writing materials could be
withdrawn for disciplinary reasons 116 and four said people in restrictive housing had to pay a fee
to use writing materials. 117
All responding jurisdictions reported that people in general population had access to
writing materials, 118 including four that required a fee for access. 119 Seven jurisdictions reported
that they used writing materials to reward certain behaviors, 120 and eight said access could be
rescinded for disciplinary reasons. 121
Worksheets: The 2021 Survey asked whether people in restrictive housing and general
population were “permitted to use” worksheets related to educational and other programming.
For jurisdictions that responded affirmatively, the Survey asked about when people could access
worksheets, fees charged for access, whether access was “used as incentives for behavioral
change,” and whether access could “be taken away from prisoners . . . for disciplinary reasons.”
Thirty jurisdictions responded to some questions regarding their restrictive housing policies,122
and thirty-three responded to some for their general population policies. 123
Twenty-seven jurisdictions reported that people in restrictive housing were permitted to
use worksheets, 124 including nineteen that allowed access at any time of day. 125 Eight
jurisdictions limited when people in restrictive housing could use worksheets, 126 and one
jurisdiction reported that it charged for access. 127 Thirteen jurisdictions reported policies that
used worksheets to reward certain behaviors, 128 and twelve jurisdictions reported policies
withdrawing access to such worksheets to punish certain behaviors; 129 ten of these jurisdictions
reported that they had both policies. 130
Thirty-one jurisdictions reported that all or most people in general population were
permitted to use worksheets, 131 including twenty that allowed people to have access to such
worksheets at any time of day. 132 Two jurisdictions required a fee for worksheets. 133 Twelve
jurisdictions reported that they used access to worksheets to reward or incentivize certain
behaviors, 134 and nine jurisdictions reported that they rescinded access to worksheets as a
disciplinary measure. 135
Music and Audio Players: The 2021 Survey asked whether people in restrictive housing
and general population were allowed to use “radios, mp3 players, CDs, or other audio media
devices.” For jurisdictions that responded affirmatively, the Survey asked about when people
2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

65
could access audio players, fees charged for access, whether access was “used as incentives for
behavioral change,” and whether access could “be taken away from prisoners . . . for disciplinary
reasons.” Thirty jurisdictions responded regarding their restrictive housing policies, 136 and thirtythree responded for their general population policies. 137
Eighteen jurisdictions reported that they allowed people in restrictive housing to use
audio players, 138 all but one of which permitted their use twenty-four hours a day, seven days a
week. 139 Three jurisdictions said people in restrictive housing had to pay a fee to use audio
players. 140 All eighteen jurisdictions reported that they revoked access to audio players in
restrictive housing as a form of punishment, and nine of the jurisdictions also said that they used
access to reward or incentivize certain behaviors. 141
All thirty-three responding jurisdictions reported that people in general population could
use audio players, 142 thirty-one of which said people could use them any time they wanted. 143
Eight jurisdictions reported that people in general population were required to pay a fee to have
access to audio players, 144 and twenty-six said that access could be taken away in response to
disciplinary issues. 145
Tablets: The 2021 Survey asked whether people in restrictive housing and general
population were permitted to use electronic tablets. For jurisdictions that responded
affirmatively, the Survey asked about availability, where and when tablets could be used, fees
charged for use, whether access was “used as incentives for behavioral change,” and whether
access could “be taken away from prisoners . . . for disciplinary reasons.” Thirty jurisdictions
responded to some of these questions regarding their restrictive housing policies, 146 and thirtythree responded to some for their general population policies. 147
Eighteen jurisdictions reported that they permitted people in restrictive housing to use
electronic tablets. 148 Fourteen of these jurisdictions said they charged people in restrictive
housing for access to some content, 149 including one jurisdiction that charged for all tablet
content 150 and another that charged for all content on personal tablets but explained that
“educational tablets [were] available with educational material free from charge.” 151 Eleven
jurisdictions reported that they had enough tablets to provide one to every person in restrictive
housing. 152 Six jurisdictions reported that people in restrictive housing could use their tablets
twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week; 153 the other ten jurisdictions described policies
limiting access from one hour per week to thirteen hours daily. 154 People in restrictive housing in
three jurisdictions were allowed to keep their tablets in their cells at all times. 155 A fourth
jurisdiction allowed tablets to be kept in cells by people with certain privilege levels, 156 and a
fifth allowed tablets in cells during the day but collected them at night. 157 Eleven jurisdictions
required people living in restrictive housing to request tablets, 158 including one that allowed them
only for educational purposes 159 and another that allowed them to be used for video visits
only. 160 Eight jurisdictions reported that they used tablets to incentivize behavioral changes in
restrictive housing, 161 and sixteen said they withdrew access to tablets for disciplinary
purposes. 162
Of the twenty-nine jurisdictions that reported they permitted electronic tablets to be used
in general population, 163 twenty-one said that they had tablets available for every person in
2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

66
general population, 164 and two others said that they had enough tablets for every two people.165
Nine jurisdictions reported that people in general population had to pay a fee to use jurisdictionowned tablets. 166 Additionally, twenty-seven jurisdictions charged for access to some content on
tablets, such as “games, video calls, texting”; movies, [and] music”; and “sending emails.”167
Nine jurisdictions reported that they used access to tablets to incentivize behavioral changes. 168
Twenty-five of the twenty-nine jurisdictions allowing electronic tablets in general population
reported that access could be rescinded for disciplinary purposes. 169 Twenty-one jurisdictions did
not restrict when people in general population could have access to tablets, 170 and seventeen let
people keep tablets in their cells. 171
Television: The 2021 Survey asked whether people in restrictive housing and general
population were allowed to watch television. For jurisdictions that responded affirmatively, the
Survey asked about when people could watch television, fees charged, whether access was “used
as incentives for behavioral change,” and whether access could “be taken away from
prisoners . . . for disciplinary reasons.” Thirty jurisdictions responded to some of these questions
on restrictive housing policies, 172 and thirty-three responded to some for their general population
policies. 173
Sixteen jurisdictions reported that they allowed people in restrictive housing to watch
television. 174 Eleven jurisdictions reported that they did not limit when people in restrictive
housing could watch television, 175 four reported that they permitted between two and nine hours
of television per day, 176 and one indicated that access was “possible” and depended on
behavior. 177 Three jurisdictions reported requiring a fee to watch television. 178 Ten jurisdictions
reported that they used television to incentivize certain behaviors. 179 All but one jurisdiction said
that access to television could be rescinded for disciplinary reasons. 180
All thirty-three responding jurisdictions reported that people in general population could
watch television eight hours or more per day, seven days per week, 181 and twenty-five said they
placed no restrictions on when people could watch TV. 182 Twenty-eight jurisdictions said they
could withdraw access to television as punishment, 183 twelve of which also reported using access
to television as a reward. 184 Seven jurisdictions reported that they required a fee to watch
television. 185
Puzzles and Board Games: The 2021 Survey asked whether people in restrictive housing
and general population were “permitted to use” puzzles or board games. For jurisdictions that
responded affirmatively, the Survey asked about when people could access puzzles or board
games, fees charged for access, whether access was “used as incentives for behavioral change,”
and whether access could “be taken away from prisoners . . . for disciplinary reasons.” Thirty
jurisdictions responded to some of these questions regarding their restrictive housing policies,186
and thirty-three responded to some of them for their general population policies. 187
Thirteen jurisdictions reported that they permitted puzzles and/or board games in
restrictive housing, 188 including one that limited access to one hour per week 189 and three that
charged for access. 190 Four jurisdictions reported using puzzles and/or board games to
incentivize behavioral change, 191 and nine said that access to puzzles and/or board games could
be rescinded as a disciplinary measure. 192
2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

Of the thirty-two jurisdictions permitting puzzles and board games in general
population, 193 thirty allowed people to have access to them for eight hours or more per day, 194
and thirty-one permitted puzzles and board games on all days of the week. 195 Two jurisdictions
charged a fee for access. 196 Nine jurisdictions said that they used board games and puzzles to
reward or incentivize certain behaviors in general population, 197 and eighteen jurisdictions
reported that access to puzzles and board games could be taken away for disciplinary reasons. 198
Videogames: The 2021 Survey asked whether people in restrictive housing and general
population were allowed to use “handheld video games for entertainment, programming, or
education.” For jurisdictions that responded affirmatively, the Survey asked about when people
could access videogames, fees charged for access, whether access was “used as incentives for
behavioral change,” and whether access could “be taken away from prisoners . . . for disciplinary
reasons.” Thirty jurisdictions responded to some of these questions regarding their restrictive
housing policies, 199 and thirty-three responded to some of these questions for their general
population policies. 200
Four jurisdictions reported that they permitted people in restrictive housing to use
handheld videogames for entertainment, programming, or education. 201 Three of these four did
not restrict when a person could have access to videogames. 202 Two jurisdictions reported that
they required a fee. 203 One jurisdiction reported that it used access to videogames as an incentive
for desired behavior, 204 and all of the four jurisdictions reported that access to videogames could
be revoked for disciplinary reasons.
Fifteen jurisdictions reported that they allowed people in general population to use
handheld videogames, 205 including eleven that reported they did not restrict when handheld
videogames could be accessed. 206 Five jurisdictions charged a fee to have access to
videogames. 207 Twelve jurisdictions reported that videogame access could be revoked as
punishment, 208 and five of these jurisdictions also said they used videogames as incentives or
rewards for certain behavior. 209
Internet: The 2021 Survey asked whether people in restrictive housing and general
population were permitted to access the Internet. For jurisdictions that responded affirmatively,
the Survey asked about when people could access the internet, fees charged for access, whether
access was “used as incentives for behavioral change,” and whether access could “be taken away
from prisoners . . . for disciplinary reasons.” Thirty jurisdictions responded to some of these
questions regarding their restrictive housing policies, 210 and thirty-three responded to some of
these questions for their general population policies. 211
One out of thirty responding jurisdictions reported that people living in restrictive
housing were permitted to have access to the Internet. 212 That jurisdiction reported that people
“in restrictive housing [could] use the tablets to send/receive emails and video visits utilizing the
internet” if they paid a fee, and that there were “a few [people] in restrictive housing currently
enrolled in college courses that utilize tablets with the internet.” This jurisdiction reported
allowing Internet access up to eight hours per day, seven days per week, and said that access to
the Internet could be used to incentivize or punish certain behaviors.
2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

Four jurisdictions reported that they allowed people in general population to have access
to some websites on the Internet. 213 Three jurisdictions reported that they allowed Internet access
in general population for up to eight hours or more per day, seven days a week, including one
jurisdiction that did not place time restrictions on Internet access for people in general
population. 214 Two jurisdictions reported that they charged a fee for Internet access. 215 Three
jurisdictions reported that they could revoke Internet access as punishment, 216 and two of these
jurisdictions also used Internet access as a reward for certain behavior. 217
Access to Commissary
The 2021 Survey asked about access to commissary items, including whether people in
restrictive housing could “purchase items from the commissary”; “what restrictions on
commissary exist for prisoners in general population and restrictive housing,” including “how
much [could] be spent on commissary per month” and “how many times per month . . . someone
[could] access commissary”; and “which items are available to prisoners . . . through
commissary.” Thirty jurisdictions responded to some of these questions regarding their
restrictive housing policies, 218 and thirty-three reported information about their policies for
general population. 219
Twenty-seven jurisdictions reported that people in restrictive housing could purchase
items from the commissary, 220 and three said they could not. 221 Table 28 displays the number
and percentage of responding jurisdictions permitting access to various commissary items for
restrictive housing and general population. Most responding jurisdictions reported that they
allowed people in restrictive housing access to commissary to purchase writing and mailing
materials; 222 personal hygiene products, 223 including dental products; 224 food; 225 and basic
medications. 226 Fewer than a quarter of responding jurisdictions reported that they allowed
people in restrictive housing to purchase recreation items, 227 blankets, 228 or laundry products 229
from the commissary. The Survey did not collect information on the specific charges for such
materials.

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

69
Table 28

Access to Commissary Items

Commissary Item
Cards, other writing materials
Postage stamps, envelopes
Soap, shampoo, deodorant
Toothbrushes, toothpaste, etc.
Food
Medication (e.g., Tums, aspirin)
Reading materials
Games (e.g., playing cards)
Headphones
Beverages
Clothing (e.g., sweaters, shoes)
Batteries, electronic charging devices
Mp3 players, radios
Shaving tools
Cosmetics (e.g., blush, eye liner)
Laundry items (e.g., detergent)
Blankets
Recreation items (e.g., tennis balls)

Restrictive Housing* (n = 30)
Number
Percentage
25
83.3
25
83.3
25
83.3
22
73.3
18
60.0
17
56.7
15
50.0
14
46.7
13
43.3
12
40.0
12
40.0
11
36.7
11
36.7
9
30.0
7
23.3
6
20.0
4
13.3
1
3.3

General Population (n = 33)
Number
Percentage
33
100
33
100
33
100
32
97.0
33
100
31
93.9
22
66.7
29
87.8
30
90.0
33
100
29
87.9
29
87.9
30
90.0
32
97.0
25
75.8
23
69.7
10
30.3
10
30.3

*The Survey did not ask whether any of these categories of items, such as blankets, were provided to people in
restrictive housing free-of-charge (in other words, provided through means other than by commissary).

All thirty-three responding jurisdictions reported that people in general population
generally had access to commissary. 230 Three jurisdictions indicated that they provided the same
level of access to commissary for both people in restrictive housing and general population, 231
and twenty-two jurisdictions reported providing less access for people in restrictive housing. 232
Two jurisdictions did not respond to enough questions for a comparison of access between
general population and restrictive housing. 233
Reported commissary restrictions for restrictive housing varied by jurisdiction. Nineteen
jurisdictions reported that they placed greater limitations on how much money a person in
restrictive housing could spend on commissary items each month when compared with a person
in general population, 234 and five jurisdictions permitted people to access commissary fewer
times per month if they were in restrictive housing. 235 Twenty-three jurisdictions reported that
people in restrictive housing could not buy certain items that were available for purchase in
general population. 236 For example, sixteen of the jurisdictions that permitted commissary access
in both restrictive housing and general population permitted people in general population to
purchase shaving materials while prohibiting people in restrictive housing from doing so. 237
Jurisdictions also reported that they allowed people in general population but not people in
restrictive housing to purchase from commissary food and/or beverages (fourteen
jurisdictions), 238 games and/or other recreation items (fourteen jurisdictions), 239 certain
electronics and/or batteries (thirteen jurisdictions), 240 cosmetics (twelve jurisdictions), 241 laundry
items (eleven jurisdictions), 242 clothing (ten jurisdictions), 243 medications (seven
jurisdictions), 244 personal hygiene products (four jurisdictions), 245 blankets (four
2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

70
jurisdictions), 246 writing and/or mailing materials (two jurisdictions), 247 and reading materials
(two jurisdictions). 248
Educational Programming: The 2021 Survey asked about access to degree- or certificategranting educational programs. Specifically, jurisdictions were asked what degrees and
certifications people in restrictive housing and general population could “obtain” and whether
people in general population and enrolled in an education program would be “removed from the
program” if they were moved to restrictive housing. The Survey did not ask about how these
programs were delivered (i.e., whether the programs involved forms of instruction other than
worksheets). The ever-present reminder is that access did not necessarily mean that people took
advantage of the programs, or that they were easily accessible. Twenty-seven jurisdictions
responded to the questions about restrictive housing, 249 and thirty-two jurisdictions responded to
the questions about general population policies. 250 Their responses are summarized in Table 29.
Table 29

Access to Educational Programming

Education Programming
GED or other high school equivalency
Associate’s degree
Bachelor’s degree
Vocational certifications

Restrictive Housing (n = 27)
Number
Percentage
25
92.6
9
33.3
8
29.6
3
11.1

General Population (n = 32)
Number
Percentage
32
100
26
81.3
26
81.3
32
100

According to survey responses, people in restrictive housing had access to a GED or
other high school equivalency program in twenty-five jurisdictions, 251 an associate degree
program in nine jurisdictions, 252 a bachelor’s degree program in eight, 253 and vocational
certifications in three. 254 One jurisdiction reported that people living in restrictive housing could
pursue a master’s or a doctoral degree. 255
All thirty-two responding jurisdictions said that people could earn their GED (or another
high school equivalent) and vocational certifications while in prison. 256 Twenty-six jurisdictions
said people could also earn an associate degree and a bachelor’s degree, 257 and some
jurisdictions noted that these degrees would be earned through external organizations. 258 Three
jurisdictions added that people in their facilities could earn master’s degrees or higher. 259
Several jurisdictions qualified their responses by noting barriers to education, especially
for people in restrictive housing. Two jurisdictions clarified that they did not offer education
programs leading to degrees, but that people living in restrictive housing were permitted to
complete degrees via correspondence programs. 260 Other jurisdictions reported that their
educational programming leading to degrees was available in restrictive housing in women’s
prisons but not men’s, 261 that postsecondary degrees were available only from colleges allowing
independent study, 262 and that educational programming was offered only if mandated by the
state due to a person’s age. 263
As noted above, formal access did not necessarily mean that people took advantage of the
programs, or that they were easily accessible. Referring to all people living in its facilities, one
2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

71
jurisdiction stated that it was “only aware of one inmate who received a higher education
degree.” 264
Twenty-nine jurisdictions reported policies for what happens when people enrolled in
educational programming were removed from general population and placed in restrictive
housing. 265 Of these, seven reported that people were automatically removed from their enrolled
program upon entering restrictive housing. 266 Twenty-one jurisdictions said students were
sometimes removed, but sometimes not, 267 and ten of these jurisdictions explained that students
who transitioned to restrictive housing were removed from their educational programs if they
could no longer meet the program requirements. 268 For example, jurisdictions explained that
withdrawal depended on “whether the program [could] be provided one-on-one or via
worksheets” 269 or whether the person would be able to meet the program’s attendance
requirements or deadlines, considering the length of their stay in restrictive housing. 270 Five
jurisdictions described policies that differentiated among education programs. 271 For example,
three noted that people who were transferred to restrictive housing were not removed from
programs leading to a high school equivalency diploma, but were removed from other
programs. 272 Another five jurisdictions indicated that they removed students from programs if
students were moved to restrictive housing for disciplinary reasons but not if the transfer was for
other reasons, 273 and two jurisdictions said it depended on the person’s individual circumstances,
such as age or other criteria. 274
Time Out-of-Cell
The 2021 Survey asked about what activities were permitted during the two or fewer
hours per day that people in restrictive housing were permitted to be out-of-cell. These questions
inquired about eating, exercising, showering, attending religious observances, accessing mental
and physical health services, and participating in programming. Thirty-one jurisdictions provided
some data on time spent out-of-cell in general population, 275 and thirty jurisdictions did the same
for restrictive housing. 276 Twenty-four jurisdictions noted that the amount of time allowed outof-cell or the types of out-of-cell opportunities varied based on factors such as a person’s
classification; 277 the person’s medical, psychological, or religious needs; 278 the facility in which
the person was imprisoned; 279 and/or staffing levels. 280 The responses reported below describe
general policies. Figure 13 provides a summary of aggregate responses to questions about
physical space, in-cell activities, and out-of-cell time, discussed below.

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

Figure 13

In-Cell Activities and Out-of-Cell Opportunities for People
in Restrictive Housing
■

Yes

■

Not responding

Artificially lit cells 24 _ :g
hours per day ~

"tJ

Windows offer view to outside - §

u
In-cell programming -

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Reading and/or writing
~
materials · ~

TV, music, and/or games Internet -

Tablets Out-of-cell group _

exercise
Out-of-cell group _

meals

z:~

Jil
g-

====================30=====================

Out-of-cell group _ E!
programming

One or more social visits
per month

One or more social phone _
calls every two weeks
Personal physical mail -

'-'

8
1lj
0

(/J

Personal email -

3 or more showers
per week
Out-of-cell exercise 3

----

<.!l ~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~

"'
C:

or more times per week - ~

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------■■■

-----------------------------------------------

Out-of-cell mental health services _ ~

once or more per week
Out-of-cell physical health services _

once or more per week
0

Number of jurisdictions

Meals: The Survey asked jurisdictions how many times per week people in restrictive
housing and general population were “allowed out of their cell” for “individual meals out-ofcell,” “group meals out-of-cell with security chairs,” and “group meals out-of-cell without
security chairs.” Thirty jurisdictions provided some data on their restrictive housing policies,281
and thirty-one jurisdictions did the same for their general population policies. 282
Twenty-eight jurisdictions reported that people living in restrictive housing units could
not eat any meals out-of-cell. 283 One jurisdiction reported that people in restrictive housing could
eat twenty-one meals per week (i.e., three meals per day) in individual out-of-cell settings. 284
Thirty jurisdictions reported that people in general population were permitted to eat all or
most of their meals out-of-cell. 285 Sixteen of these reported that people in general population

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

73
were permitted to eat all meals in individual out-of-cell settings, 286 and fourteen said people in
general population could eat all meals in group settings. 287
Showers: The Survey asked how many times per week people in restrictive housing and
general population were allowed out-of-cell for showers. Thirty jurisdictions reported policies
for people in restrictive housing, 288 and thirty-one reported policies for general population. 289
Thirty jurisdictions responded that they limited the number of showers a person living in
restrictive housing could take, 290 and eighteen capped the number at three showers per week. 291
In contrast, twenty-nine jurisdictions reported that people in general population were allowed
seven or more out-of-cell showers each week (an average of one per day), 292 fifteen of which
said they did not limit the number of showers permitted for people in general population. 293
Exercise: Several survey questions asked about exercise facilities, opportunities for outof-cell exercise, and access to exercise equipment. The Survey asked about the presence of
indoor and outdoor exercise areas, whether the sky was visible to people exercising in these
areas, whether the facilities met ACA requirements, and who decided “if exercise [would] be
indoors or outdoors.” Thirty jurisdictions provided information about exercise facilities available
to people in restrictive housing, 294 and thirty-three did the same for exercise facilities available in
general population. 295
For people in restrictive housing, twenty-six jurisdictions reported having outdoor
exercise areas with a view of the sky available, 296 and fifteen reported that they had indoor
exercise areas with the same view. 297 Fifteen jurisdictions reported that they had both indoor and
outdoor exercise areas for people in restrictive housing. 298 Most of these fifteen jurisdictions
reported that weather was a determining factor for where people in restrictive housing could
exercise. 299 All but two jurisdictions stated that their outdoor exercise areas met exercise area
dimension standards set by the American Corrections Association (ACA) for restrictive
housing. 300 These guidelines permit up to five people in restrictive housing to exercise in a group
module, and require group modules to have “330-square feet of unencumbered space” for the
first two people plus “150-square feet of unencumbered space” for every additional person. 301
For individual exercise areas, the guidelines require “180-square feet of unencumbered space.”302
All thirty-three responding jurisdictions reported that they had outdoor exercise areas
with a view of the sky for people in general population. 303 Twenty-nine reported that indoor
exercise areas were also available for general population, 304 including nine that said the sky was
visible from these areas. 305
According to survey responses, nine jurisdictions provided people in restrictive housing
with access to equipment supporting body weight exercises, 306 and eight provided them with
sports equipment, such as basketballs. 307 Four jurisdictions permitted people in restrictive
housing to use free weights or other weightlifting equipment. 308 In contrast, all thirty-three
responding jurisdictions reported that their general populations had access to free weights and/or
other weightlifting equipment, 309 and twenty-seven provided access to cardio machines. 310
Sports equipment was also commonly reported as available. 311
2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

74
Twenty-nine jurisdictions 312 reported that they permitted people in restrictive housing to
leave their cells between three 313 and seven 314 times per week to exercise individually; the
median was five times per week. 315 Seven jurisdictions said that people in restrictive housing
could exercise out-of-cell in group settings,316 and twenty-one jurisdictions reported that they did
not permit any group out-of-cell exercise for people living in restrictive housing. 317
Twenty-nine jurisdictions reported that people in general population could exercise
individually out-of-cell seven or more times per week, or once per day on average, 318 and most
did not place any restrictions on such exercise. 319 Twenty-five reported that people in general
population could exercise out-of-cell in group settings seven or more times per week, or once per
day on average, 320 including fifteen that said they did not limit access to group out-of-cell
exercise in general population. 321
Health Services: The U.S. Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice has
documented that people living in restrictive housing typically “have higher rates of diagnosed
mental disorders, higher rates of psychiatric symptoms . . ., and more severe psychiatric
symptoms than [people] in the general prison population.” 322 Thus, the Survey’s questions about
out-of-cell opportunities included questions about health services. Specifically, the Survey asked
how many times per week people in restrictive housing and general population were allowed out
of their cells for “mental health services” and for “doctor visits and other physical health
services.” 323 Twenty-eight jurisdictions responded to these questions with their restrictive
housing policies, 324 and thirty-one provided their general population policies. 325
Fourteen jurisdictions reported that they did not limit the number of times people in
restrictive housing could access out-of-cell mental health services, 326 and six others allowed
people in restrictive housing to leave their cells up to seven times per week for mental health
services. 327 Six jurisdictions reported that they limited access to out-of-cell mental health
services to less than three times per week, 328 and one jurisdiction said that it did not allow people
living in restrictive housing to leave their cells to access mental health services. 329 For general
population, thirty jurisdictions reported that people were permitted to access out-of-cell mental
health services five or more times per week, 330 twenty of which did not place any limitations on
the number of times people in general population could leave their cells to access such
services. 331
Responses to the question about out-of-cell physical health access largely mirrored those
about mental health services. Fourteen jurisdictions reported no limitations on the number of
times people living in restrictive housing could leave their cells for physical health services, 332
and eight jurisdictions provided policies allowing people in restrictive housing to leave their cells
up to seven times per week for physical health services. 333 Four jurisdictions reported that they
limited access to out-of-cell physical health services to less than three per week. 334 For general
population, thirty jurisdictions reported that people were permitted to access out-of-cell physical
health services five or more times per week, 335 and twenty did not set any such limitations.336
Religious Observances: The 2021 Survey asked jurisdictions “how many times per
week” people in restrictive housing and general population were “allowed out of their cell” for
“religious observances.” Twenty-four jurisdictions reported data regarding their restrictive
2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

75
housing policies, 337 and thirty-one responded to the question with their general population
policies. 338
Thirteen jurisdictions reported that people in restrictive housing could attend one or more
out-of-cell religious observances per week, 339 and six of these jurisdictions allowed one such
event per week. 340 Six jurisdictions permitted people in restrictive housing to attend seven or
more out-of-cell religious observances per week, 341 including four jurisdictions that reported
they did not place a limit on such activity. 342 Eleven jurisdictions reported that they did not
permit people in restrictive housing to leave their cells for religious observances. 343
All thirty-one responding jurisdictions reported that people in general population were
permitted to attend out-of-cell religious observances weekly or more frequently. 344 Twenty-five
of these jurisdictions allowed people in general population to leave their cells for religious
observances seven or more times per week, including seventeen jurisdictions that reported they
did not limit how many out-of-cell religious observances people in general population could
attend. 345
Programming: The 2021 Survey asked jurisdictions “how many times per week” people
in restrictive housing and general population were “allowed out of their cell” for “individual outof-cell programming,” “group out-of-cell programming with security chairs,” and “group out-ofcell programming without security chairs.” Programming may include educational classes,
substance abuse programs, anger management courses, cognitive behavioral classes, and
parenting classes. Twenty-four jurisdictions responded to some of these questions for restrictive
housing, 346 and twenty-nine provided some data on out-of-cell programming for people in
general population. 347
Twelve jurisdictions reported that they permitted some access to individual programming
each week for people in restrictive housing, 348 and the other twelve responding jurisdictions
reported that people in restrictive housing had no access to individual out-of-cell
programming. 349
Twenty-seven jurisdictions provided data on the number of times per week people in
general population could attend out-of-cell individual programming, and one of these
jurisdictions did not permit any out-of-cell individual programming. 350 Twenty jurisdictions
reported that they allowed attendance seven or more times per week, 351 including fourteen that
did not place any limit on when people could leave their cells for programming. 352
With one exception, jurisdictions reporting data on group out-of-cell programming for
people in restrictive housing required the use of security chairs, in which individuals are
confined through restraints on various parts of their bodies. 353 Twenty-three jurisdictions
reported the number of times per week people in restrictive housing were permitted to leave their
cells for group programming with security chairs, 354 and ten of these jurisdictions reported that
they did not permit any out-of-cell group programming for people in restrictive housing. 355 Of
the remaining thirteen jurisdictions, seven permitted people in restrictive housing to attend five
or more group programming activities per week. 356
2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

76
Twenty-seven jurisdictions provided data on out-of-cell group programming policies for
people in general population. 357 Twenty-one permitted people in general population to attend
group programming. 358 Twenty-one jurisdictions allowed people in general population out of
their cells for five or more group programming activities per week. 359
Other Time Out-of-Cell: The 2021 Survey also asked about the weekly frequency of
other individual and group “unstructured time out-of-cell (not designated for showers, exercise,
meals, formal programming).” For people in restrictive housing, seven jurisdictions reported that
they allowed individual out-of-cell time for activities not addressed by other survey questions, 360
and four said the same about other group out-of-cell time. 361
Twenty-seven jurisdictions reported that they allowed individual out-of-cell time for
people in general population for activities not addressed by other survey questions, 362 and
twenty-five reported that they allowed such group out-of-cell time. 363 Most responding
jurisdictions did not describe what this unstructured individual or group time looked like; those
that did mentioned “TV,” a “computer room,” a “dayroom,” and general “recreation.” 364
Sociability: Contact with Others
Group Activities: The 2021 Survey asked jurisdictions how many times per week people
in restrictive housing were “allowed out of their cell” for group activities, such as exercise,
programming, meals, and unstructured time, and this inquiry overlapped with some of those
made under other categories. Thirty jurisdictions responded to some questions. 365
Six jurisdictions reported that people in restrictive housing were not allowed any group
out-of-cell time. 366 Seven other jurisdictions reported some data on out-of-cell opportunities, but
not enough to determine whether people in restrictive housing were permitted to attend any
group out-of-cell activities per week. 367
Phone Calls: The 2021 Survey asked jurisdictions about phone call policies, including
how many legal and non-legal calls people were allowed to make, how many people could be on
their call lists, and how much phone calls cost. Twenty-nine jurisdictions responded to some
questions about their restrictive housing policies, 368 and thirty-one responded to some questions
on their general population policies. 369
All twenty-nine responding jurisdictions that reported holding people in restrictive
housing indicated that people in restrictive housing were allowed to make legal phone calls. One
reported that it did not permit people in restrictive housing to make any non-legal phone calls.370
Sixteen jurisdictions permitted people in restrictive housing to make one hundred or more legal
phone calls per month, 371 and nine said the same for non-legal calls. 372
Thirty jurisdictions reported that people in general population could make calls to their
lawyers, 373 twenty of which allowed one hundred or more calls per month. 374 Thirty-one
jurisdictions reported the same for non-legal phone calls, 375 and twenty-one reported that they
permitted one hundred or more such calls per month. 376

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

77
Twenty-seven jurisdictions provided their call list policies for restrictive housing, each of
which reported they had the same policy for both restrictive housing and general population. 377
Every jurisdiction allowed ten or more non-legal contacts on call lists for people in restrictive
housing, 378 and fourteen allowed thirty or more. 379
Twenty-seven jurisdictions reported the costs of non-legal phone calls for people in
restrictive housing, and all of these jurisdictions also reported that costs did not differ between
calls made from restrictive housing or general population. 380 Most reported that they charged by
the minute, 381 while others charged for every fifteen minutes. 382 The costs of one fifteen-minute
phone call from restrictive housing ranged from $0.10 383 to $4.50, 384 with a median of $1.50. 385
Legal phone calls in most jurisdictions cost the same as non-legal phone calls. Ten jurisdictions
reported that they did not charge for legal phone calls made from restrictive housing, 386 and an
eleventh did not charge for legal calls that were court-ordered or requested by an attorney. 387
Mail: The 2021 Survey asked jurisdictions whether people in restrictive housing and
general population could “send and receive non-legal mail,” how many non-legal letters they
could send and receive, and whether people were “provided with writing materials and stamps
without charge.” Twenty-nine jurisdictions responded to some questions about access to mail in
restrictive housing, 388 and thirty-two responded about access for people in general population. 389
All responding jurisdictions reported that people could send and receive mail, including social
correspondence. No jurisdiction reported that it had different policies for general population and
restrictive housing. Twenty-one jurisdictions reported that people in restrictive housing could
send more than one hundred non-legal letters per month, 390 and the other eight reported that
people could send “Unlimited/More than 100” letters per year. 391 No jurisdiction reported a
different policy for people in general population.
Fifteen of the twenty-nine responding jurisdictions reported that they provided stamps at
no charge for people in restrictive housing, 392 including seven that reported they only provided
stamps to people considered indigent. 393 All responding jurisdictions reported that they permitted
people to keep writing materials and stamps with them in their cells.
Email: The 2021 Survey asked jurisdictions whether people in restrictive housing and
general population could “send and receive personal email,” how email was accessed (i.e., by
“tablet,” “paper printed by correctional staff,” or “other”), how many emails could be sent and
received each week, “how much it cost prisoners . . . to send and receive emails,” and about
“restrictions on personal email correspondences." Twenty-nine jurisdictions responded to some
questions about access to email in restrictive housing, 394 and thirty-three responded to some
questions about their general population email policies. 395
Nine jurisdictions reported that people in restrictive housing did not have access to
personal email. 396 The twenty jurisdictions that reported they permitted access to email said that
they limited the number of emails that could be sent or received by people in restrictive housing
beyond any limitations already placed on people in general population. 397 Four noted that people
in restrictive housing were permitted less time to access email. 398 In six jurisdictions, emails
2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

78
were generally printed on paper and delivered by correctional staff and not accessed directly via
tablet or kiosk. 399
Twenty-seven jurisdictions reported that they allowed people in general population to
send or receive personal emails. 400 Fourteen jurisdictions said that they did not limit the number
of emails that a person in general population could send or receive, 401 and two others reported
that they permitted up to one hundred emails to be sent and one hundred to be received each
week. 402 Most jurisdictions reported that they allowed people to send or receive emails from
tablets, kiosks, or similar devices, 403 but three reported that emails were printed by correctional
staff or via JPay. 404
Eighteen jurisdictions described restrictive housing policies limiting what could be sent
in email correspondence and to whom, 405 one of which reported no such restrictions for people in
general population. 406 These policies included screening for inappropriate content 407 and
restrictions on whom people could email. 408 Two said that they had no restrictions on personal
email correspondence for people in restrictive housing. 409
Twenty-two responding jurisdictions provided general population policies on email
correspondence that included screening for inappropriate content 410 and restrictions about whom
people could email. 411 Five jurisdictions reported that they had no such restrictions on personal
email correspondence for people in general population. 412
Twenty-two jurisdictions described fees for sending an email, 413 and twenty-four
reported the same for receiving an email. 414 Fees were generally reported to be the same in both
general population and restrictive housing. 415 Fifteen jurisdictions reported that it did not cost
anything for people to receive an email, 416 including two jurisdictions that reported that they did
not charge for emails sent or received. 417 One jurisdiction said that it charged people for emails
received but not to send emails. 418 Reported email fees ranged from 20–50 cents per email
received, 419 with a median of 25 cents, 420 and 10–50 cents per email sent, 421 with the same
median. 422
Visits: The Survey designated three categories of visits: visits by lawyers, visits related to
religion, and social visits not otherwise covered by the other categories. Jurisdictions were asked
to report the number of these “lawyer visits,” “religious visits,” and “social visits” people in
restrictive housing and general population were allowed each month; whether any of these visits
were required to be “non-contact”; and whether “opportunities for visits [could] be withdrawn as
punishment.” Twenty-nine jurisdictions answered some of these questions for people in
restrictive housing, 423 and thirty-two answered some regarding their general population
policies. 424
Twenty-five jurisdictions provided data about the number of legal visits permitted for
people living in restrictive housing, 425 including twenty-one jurisdictions that did not limit the
number of legal visits allowed each month. 426 All responding jurisdictions reported that access to
legal visits could not be revoked as punishment. 427 Most jurisdictions required legal visits in
restrictive housing to be no-contact. 428
2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

79
Twenty-five of the twenty-seven responding jurisdictions reported that they did not place
any limits on the number of legal visits for people in general population, 429 and two jurisdictions
permitted up to twenty legal visits per month.430 Most jurisdictions allowing legal visits reported
that they permitted physical contact, 431 and all responding jurisdictions indicated that they did
not withdraw opportunities for legal visits as punishment. 432
Twenty-one jurisdictions reported data on the number of religious visits allowed each
month for people in restrictive housing, 433 including eight that did not limit these
opportunities. 434 Nine jurisdictions reported allowing four or fewer religious visits per month for
people in restrictive housing, 435 including one that did not permit any. 436 Most jurisdictions
required religious visits for people in restrictive housing to be no-contact 437 and said they could
not be withheld for disciplinary purposes. 438 The Survey did not ask how many visitors people
living in restrictive housing could receive in a given time period.
Of the twenty-five jurisdictions reporting on religious visits,439 fourteen indicated that
they did not have any limits on such visits 440 and three others permitted twenty or more religious
visits per month.441 One jurisdiction reported that it did not permit any religious visits. 442 Most
jurisdictions allowing religious visits reported that they allowed physical contact 443 and did not
withdraw access to religious visits as punishment.444
Twenty-six jurisdictions reported the number of social visits permitted per month for
people in restrictive housing, 445 including three that reported that they did not allow any social
visits for people living in restrictive housing. 446 Twenty-two jurisdictions required social visits to
be non-contact, 447 and twenty-three said they could be suspended as part of a disciplinary
sanction. 448
Thirty jurisdictions reported data on the number of social visits permitted each month for
people in general population, 449 including eight that reported allowing at least twenty such
visits 450 and five that allowed four or fewer social visits per month. 451 The median number of
permitted social visits was eight per month. 452 Most jurisdictions reported permitting physical
contact during social visits, 453 and said that social visits could be rescinded in response to
disciplinary issues. 454
When asked under what circumstances visits could be withdrawn as punishment, most
jurisdictions referenced “rule violations, “disruptive behavior,” or “disciplinary reasons.”455
Seven jurisdictions specified violations of visiting rules, 456 and two provided examples including
“sexual behavior,” “assaultive behavior, [and] damage to property.” 457 Jurisdictions reported that
their policies varied regarding the length of suspensions of religious and social visits. Twelve
jurisdictions said that the length of suspensions varied by factors such as the infraction or a
person’s security classification. 458 Five said suspensions could be “indefinite” or made
“permanent,” 459 and another five reported that the limit for suspending visits for both general
population and people in restrictive housing was one year. 460
Incidents of Violence
Violence within prisons is a core concern of people living in, working in, and studying
prisons. It is the subject of federal and state statutory requirements as well as investigations by
2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

80
corrections systems and research organizations. 461 In relation to isolation, violence has been
invoked both as a justification for separating people from general population settings and as a
critique of isolation, with a focus on self-harm and interpersonal violence. 462 Federal statutes
requiring data reporting include the Death in Custody Reporting Act and the Prison Rape
Elimination Act, which cover both state and federal facilities and govern information on deaths
and sexual violence, respectively. 463 These requirements have produced reports, such as the
National Inmate Survey, conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), which identified
roughly 57,900 people who “reported experiencing one or more incidents of sexual
victimization” in U.S. prisons during 2011. 464
As a preliminary step toward illuminating the issues and contributing to the data
collection efforts, the 2021 CLA-Liman Survey asked about incidents of self-harm and
interpersonal harm, including sexual violence. This set of questions was new to the Survey, and a
preliminary step toward unpacking facets of isolation and forms of violence.
Specifically, the Survey asked each jurisdiction to report the number of violent incidents
that occurred in restrictive housing and general population from July 1, 2020, to July 1, 2021.
Categories pertaining to “sexual violence” or “sexual misconduct” included a note stating that
“[i]ncidents must be substantiated by a finding of guilt through disciplinary process, a court of
law, or formal investigation.” The Survey asked about physical assaults (“including minor
physical contact with no injury”), homicides, sexual misconduct (“substantiated by a conviction
through disciplinary process, a court of law, or formal investigation”), sexual violence
(“including completed and attempted acts . . . substantiated by a finding of guilty through
disciplinary process, a court of law, or formal investigation”), suicides (“including self-injury
behavior determined by a medical or mental professional as an attempt to kill oneself”), and selfinjury (“excluding attempted or completed acts of suicide”). Aside from suicides and self-injury,
responding jurisdictions were asked to disaggregate incidents by the parties involved—namely,
whether the incidents were considered “prisoner-on-prisoner,” “prisoner-on-staff,” or “staff-onprisoner.” They were also asked to report numbers of incidents for the total custodial populations
and for restrictive housing. Responses are represented in Tables 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34.
Twenty-one jurisdictions reported some data on incidents of violence in restrictive
housing. 465 Twenty provided some data on homicides, 466 eighteen on physical assaults,467
eighteen on sexual misconduct, 468 eighteen on sexual violence, 469 eighteen on suicides and
attempted suicides, 470 and seventeen on non-suicidal self-injuries. 471 Eight jurisdictions reported
that they did “not have data” to report on any violent incidents in restrictive housing. 472
Thirty jurisdictions reported some data on incidents of violence in their total custodial
populations. 473 Of these, twenty-eight reported some data on physical assaults, 474 twenty-eight
on homicides, 475 twenty-eight on attempted and completed suicides, 476 twenty-two on nonsuicidal self-injuries, 477 twenty-two on sexual violence, 478 and twenty-one on sexual
misconduct. 479
A good deal of research has focused on the connection between being held in isolation
and harming oneself. 480 Responses from twenty-one jurisdictions indicated that nearly a quarter
(23.9%, or 188 of 785) of all reported attempted or completed suicides occurred in restrictive
2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

81
housing. 481

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

82
Table 30
Jurisdiction
Alabama
Federal
(BOP)
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Maine
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New
Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South
Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Reported Incidents of Physical Assault
Total custodial population
PrisonerPrisonerStaff-ononon-staff
prisoner
prisoner
1,074
595
—
—
—
—

Restrictive housing population
PrisonerPrisonerStaff-ononon-staff
prisoner
prisoner
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
418
232
150
—
418
1,244
—
754
34
134
683
—
128
344
208
129

—
509
234
67
—
34
701
—
174
29
65
293
—
58
91
37
58

—
0
0
0
—
0
—
—
0
0
—
—
—
0
0
—
0

—
—
17
—
—
0
—
—
26
0
1
—
—
0
5
126
23

—
—
25
—
—
12
—
—
14
0
17
—
—
6
56
18
14

—
—
0
—
—
0
—
—
0
0
—
—
—
0
0
0
0

480
1,062
56
—
56
1,428
347
246

200
1,078
32
—
35
322
193
337

—
—
0
—
0
0
0
4

—
4
2
—
—
591
21
17

—
51
8
—
—
154
43
153

—
—
0
—
—
0
1
2

548
435
1,150
—
290
705
1,071
—
0

32
696
119
—
80
104
703
230
0

1
—
0
—
0
0
—
—
0

22
—
24
—
—
0
—
—
0

1
—
19
—
—
17
—
142
0

0
—
0
—
—
0
—
—
0

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

83
Table 31
Jurisdiction
Alabama
Federal
(BOP)
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Maine
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New
Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South
Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Reported Incidents of Homicide
Total custodial population
PrisonerPrisonerStaff-ononon-staff
prisoner
prisoner
2
0
—
—
—
—

Restrictive housing population
PrisonerPrisonerStaff-ononon-staff
prisoner
prisoner
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
1
0
0
—
0
0
—
0
0
0
0
—
0
1
1
0

—
0
0
0
—
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
—
0
0
0
0

—
0
0
0
—
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
—
0
0
0
0

—
—
0
—
—
0
0
—
0
0
0
0
—
0
0
1
0

—
—
0
—
—
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
—
0
0
0
0

0
2
0
—
—
0
2
5

0
0
0
—
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
—
—
0
0
0

0
4
7
—
0
0
1
—
0

0
0
0
—
0
0
0
—
0

0
—
0
—
—
0
—
—
0

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

84
Table 32
Jurisdiction
Alabama
Federal
(BOP)
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Maine
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New
Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South
Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Reported Incidents of Sexual Violence
Total custodial population
PrisonerPrisonerStaff-ononon-staff
prisoner
prisoner
325
11
—
—
—
—

Restrictive housing population
PrisonerPrisonerStaff-ononon-staff
prisoner
prisoner
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
0
0
—
0
—
—
13
12
3
1
—
3
—
0
1

—
—
0
0
—
0
—
—
—
0
—
—
—
0
—
2
0

—
—
0
0
—
0
—
—
3
3
—
0
—
0
—
—
0

—
—
0
—
—
0
—
—
3
1
0
0
—
0
—
0
0

—
—
0
—
—
0
—
—
—
0
—
—
—
0
—
0
0

—
—
0
—
—
0
—
—
0
0
—
0
—
0
—
—
0

2
2
0
—
—
57
7
5

—
—
0
—
—
0
0
0

1
4
0
—
—
0
6
9

0
—
0
—
—
3
0
—

—
—
0
—
—
0
0
0

0
—
0
—
—
0
2
—

0
1
23
—
—
6
5
—
0

0
0
0
—
—
1
0
—
0

0
0
24
—
—
9
20
—
0

0
—
0
—
—
0
—
—
0

0
—
0
—
—
1
—
—
0

0
—
0
—
—
0
—
—
0

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

85
Table 33
Jurisdiction
Alabama
Federal
(BOP)
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Maine
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New
Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South
Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Reported Incidents of Sexual Misconduct
Total custodial population
PrisonerPrisonerStaff-ononon-staff
prisoner
prisoner
—
—
—
—
—
—

Restrictive housing population
PrisonerPrisonerStaff-ononon-staff
prisoner
prisoner
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
10
1
—
0
—
—
21
12
6
0
—
4
—
4
20

—
—
0
0
—
3
—
—
—
0
—
—
—
0
—
0
0

—
—
0
0
—
2
—
—
1
3
1
0
—
0
—
—
0

—
—
3
—
—
1
—
—
3
1
0
0
—
0
—
0
4

—
—
0
—
—
4
—
—
—
0
—
—
—
0
—
0
0

—
—
0
—
—
0
—
—
0
0
—
0
—
0
—
—
0

5
3
1
—
—
2
55
3

—
—
0
—
—
0
0
0

—
10
0
—
—
16
6
0

0
—
0
—
—
0
9
—

—
—
0
—
—
0
0
0

—
—
0
—
—
0
2
0

0
0
28
—
—
15
10
—
0

0
1,073
0
—
—
130
0
—
0

0
0
5
—
—
4
20
—
0

0
—
0
—
—
0
—
—
0

0
—
0
—
—
18
—
—
0

0
—
0
—
—
0
—
—
0

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

86
Table 34

Reported Incidents of Self-Harm

Total custodial population
Suicide
Self-injury
(completed and
(excluding
attempted)
suicide)
3
—
—
—
—
—
3
721
4
83
0
0
—
—
40
370
1
73
3
—
—
—
6
0
58
588
59
157
—
—
23
49
4
0
16
30
1
245
50
—
60
—
187
50
—
—
8
6
—
—
49
0
8
384
0
0
66
159
49
720
—
—
2
4
21
122
205
1,333
8
—
0
0

Restrictive housing population
Suicide
Self-injury
(completed and
(excluding
attempted)
suicide)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
0
0
0
0
—
—
1
11
1
34
—
—
—
—
0
0
—
—
9
34
—
—
2
44
0
0
6
4
1
15
0
27
31
—
8
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
78
0
5
167
0
0
—
—
6
86
—
—
0
0
1
3
39
404
—
—
0
0

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

87
Research on Incidents of Violence: Much of the research into violence within prisons is
conducted by corrections systems. Thus, the 2021 Survey also asked jurisdictions whether they
had “done research on incidents of violence in general population or in restrictive housing.” For
those that responded affirmatively, the Survey asked when “the last research [was] completed on
incidents of violence” and “what was the research on? (i.e., what was asked and answered).”
Twenty-nine jurisdictions with people in restrictive housing responded to some questions. 482
Four of the jurisdictions with people in restrictive housing report that they had done
research during the surveyed year on incidents of violence within their prison populations,483
while twenty-five reported that they had not.484 Three of the jurisdictions that conducted research
described it as tracking incidents based on who was involved, the type of incident, and/or the
location. 485 Two jurisdictions reported that they conducted predictive analytics, including “a risk
assessment for incidents” 486 and research “to predict assaults.” 487
Exiting Restrictive Housing: Step-Down Programming, Release to General
Population, and Leaving Prison for the Community or a Halfway House
The 2021 Survey asked about how people exit restrictive housing. Questions focused on
programs in place to aid the transition from restrictive housing to general population or
communities outside prison, often called “step-down programs.” Given the various labels used
for these types of efforts, this Report uses the term “transition programs.” Such programs may
take many forms; the ACA describes them as “includ[ing] a system of review and establish[ing]
criteria to prepare an [incarcerated person] for transition to general population or the
community.” 488 This Section reports on jurisdictions’ responses to survey questions about
transition programs. Section V analyzes the text of some correctional policies addressing
transition programs.
Thirty-two jurisdictions responded to questions about transition programs, including
jurisdictions that reported they did not hold any people in restrictive housing as of July 1,
2021. 489 Their responses regarding the number of people released from restrictive housing are
summarized in Table 35.

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

88
Table 35

People Released from Restrictive Housing, July 1, 2020 to July 1, 2021
Released to General Population

Jurisdiction 490

Alabama
Federal (BOP)
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Maine
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New
Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma 491
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

After
Completing a
Transition
Program
—
—
—
—
90
—
—
—
—
18
—
1
—
—
48
—
—
—

Without
Completing a
Transition
Program
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
372
—
64
—
—
134
—
—
—

—
—
0
—
—
0
—
32
34
108
1,241
103
460
—
—
0

—
3,559
0
—
475
2,086
—
3,137
70
0
768
—
—
—
—
0

Released to the Community or a Halfway
House

Total
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
390
—
65
—
—
182
833
—
561

After
Completing a
Transition
Program
—
—
—
—
0
—
—
—
—
3
—
0
—
—
1
—
—
—

Without
Completing a
Transition
Program
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2
—
2
—
—
0
—
—
—

Total
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
60
5
—
2
—
—
1
17
—
32

—
—
0
—
—
—
—
—
104
108
2,009
—
—
—
637
0

—
—
0
—
—
0
—
0
0
0
619
—
37
—
—
0

—
105
4
—
12
4
—
104
4
0
75
—
—
—
—
0

—
—
4
—
—
4
—
104
4
0
694
—
—
—
—
0

Transitioning to General Population: The 2021 Survey asked jurisdictions whether
people went “to a step-down/transition program when leaving restrictive housing” for general
population and, if so, how long the program was and whether a person who did “not complete
the step-down/transition program successfully” would “return to restrictive housing.”
Jurisdictions were also asked how many people over the course of the surveyed year “were
2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

89
released from restrictive housing to general population” “after completing a transition program”
or “without completing a transition program.” Twenty-nine jurisdictions responded to some of
these questions. 492
Thirteen jurisdictions indicated that they had step-down programs in place for people
transitioning from restrictive housing to general population. 493 Another reported that it did not
have “a formalized transition program,” and described how “a controlled movement unit [could]
sometimes be used as a transition/step-down program” for return to general population. 494 Seven
of the thirteen jurisdictions reported data on the length of such transition programs. They
described them as lasting one month, at a minimum, to over a year, 495 with a median of ninety
days. 496
Ten jurisdictions with transition programs provided estimates of the number of people
who, between July 1, 2020, and July 1, 2021, returned to general population from restrictive
housing after completing a transition program or without completing a transition program.497
One other jurisdiction reported they did not collect data on the number of people who were
released from restrictive housing to general population, 498 and another did not collect data
differentiating between people who returned to general population after successfully completing
a step-down program and those who returned without having completed a transition program.499
The rate of people completing a transition program among the ten jurisdictions reporting data
ranged from 1.0% 500 to 100% 501 of all people returning to general population from restrictive
housing. Five jurisdictions reported that more than half of people who returned to general
population from restrictive housing had completed a transition program, 502 and three reported
that less than 5% had done so. 503
Four jurisdictions reported that their transition programs were mandatory and that people
who did not complete the transition program were returned to restrictive housing. 504 Three of
these jurisdictions also reported that some people had returned to general population from
restrictive housing without having completed such a program. 505 Three jurisdictions noted that
people who did not complete a transition program were evaluated on a case-by-case basis and
were returned to restrictive housing dependent on factors such as behavior. 506
Transitioning Out of Prison: The 2021 Survey asked jurisdictions whether people went
“to a step-down/transition program when leaving restrictive housing” to return to communities
outside prison and, if so, how long the program was and whether a person who did “not complete
the step-down/transition program successfully” would “return to restrictive housing.”
Jurisdictions were also asked how many people over the course of the surveyed year “were
released from restrictive housing to the community or halfway house” “after completing a
transition program” or “without completing a transition program.” Twenty-nine jurisdictions
responded to some questions. 507
Eleven jurisdictions reported that they had transition programs in place for people
released from restrictive housing to the community or halfway houses, 508 nine of which also had
a step-down program for transitions from restrictive housing to general population. 509 One
jurisdiction reported that its step-down program was mandatory. 510 Three jurisdictions described
programs lasting 90 days 511 or 180 days. 512
2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

Seven jurisdictions with transition programs for exiting prison provided estimates of the
number of people who, between July 1, 2020, and July 1, 2021, were released to the community
or a halfway house from restrictive housing after completing a transition program or without
completing a transition program; 513 one noted that no one had been released from prison directly
from restrictive housing during that time. 514 Four jurisdictions reported that some of their people
in restrictive housing completed a transition program before release into the community or a
halfway house. 515 Of those, two reported that every prisoner who was released from restrictive
housing into the community or a halfway house had completed a step-down/transition
program, 516 and the other two reported that most had completed a step-down/transition
program. 517 Three jurisdictions that reported having transition programs said that no people held
in restrictive housing had completed it before returning to the community or moving into a
halfway house over the course of the surveyed year. 518
Two jurisdictions described general policies against release directly from restrictive
housing into the community. 519 One reported, “No inmates are removed from Administrative
Segregation to the community,” 520 and the other noted that its staff makes efforts to return people
held in restrictive housing to general population prior to release, but that it has no specific
transition program in place. The latter added, “Once their sentence has expired, we have no
choice but to immediately release them from custody regardless of their program completion
status.” 521
Unit-Level Staff: Qualifications, Schedules, and Compensation
As noted, the COVID-19 pandemic underscored the challenges of working in prisons,
and staffing shortages exist in some jurisdictions. The 2021 Survey sought to develop a
preliminary understanding of qualifications and training for staff working in restrictive housing
units. As in other aspects of this report, more research is needed.
Qualifications and Training: Jurisdictions were asked whether “working in the restrictive
housing unit require[d] different qualifications than working in general population units.”
Twenty-nine jurisdictions that reported holding people in restrictive housing responded to this
question. 522 For those jurisdictions that responded affirmatively, the 2021 Survey asked “what
qualifications [were] required to work with the restrictive housing population that [were] not
required for general population.”
Sixteen jurisdictions said that working in restrictive housing did not require any
additional qualifications as compared to working in general population. 523 Of the thirteen
jurisdictions that did require additional qualifications, 524 seven required special training on
mental health, 525 five required special training on conflict management, 526 and six required
special training on de-escalation techniques. 527 Jurisdictions also reported requiring additional
special training on cell extraction, 528 behavior modification, 529 stress management, 530 crisis
intervention, 531 fire safety, 532 staff wellness, 533 and the housing unit policies of a jurisdiction or
specific facility. 534
Work Schedules: The 2021 Survey asked jurisdictions to provide the average number of
hours worked by restrictive housing and general population staff “not including overtime” and
2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

91
the percentage of staff that “had overtime” over the course of the surveyed year. It also asked
jurisdictions to describe any “limits for restrictive housing staff overtime” and the same for
general population staff. Twenty-six jurisdictions responded to some of these questions for
restrictive housing, 535 and thirty responded to some about their general population policies. 536
Twenty-three jurisdictions with restrictive housing units provided data on non-overtime
hours, and each of them reported that the average number of non-overtime hours worked per
week was the same for general population and restrictive housing staff. 537 Their responses
described non-overtime work week averages ranging from thirty-six to fifty hours per week, 538
and most reported forty hours. 539
Eight jurisdictions with restrictive housing reported the percentage of restrictive housing
staff that worked overtime over the surveyed year, ranging from 68.3% to 100% of staff. 540
Although the 2021 Survey asked about overtime worked for restrictive housing staff and general
population staff separately, each of these jurisdictions reported the same percentage in response
to both questions. These responses may indicate that people in these jurisdictions generally work
in both general population and restrictive housing units, or that these jurisdictions did not
differentiate between restrictive housing and general population when recording hours worked.
Twenty-four jurisdictions with restrictive housing described policies governing restrictive
housing staff overtime, all of which reported that their policies were the same for general
population staff. 541 Three jurisdictions reported that there were no restrictions on how much
overtime staff could work, 542 and a fourth reported that overtime policies were “based on fitness
for duty.” 543 Nineteen jurisdictions reported that they limited the number of hours an employee
could work in a day; 544 most reported the maximum as sixteen hours. 545 Four jurisdictions
described policies requiring one or more days off per week and/or setting a maximum number of
work hours allowed per week. 546
Rotations: The 2021 Survey asked whether “staff in restrictive housing [were] rotated out
of restrictive housing to other units after a specified time period.” Twenty-nine jurisdictions
responded to this question. 547 Nineteen jurisdictions reported that they rotated staff out of
restrictive housing to other units after a specified time period or based on employee requests. 548
Thirteen jurisdictions reported that they routinely rotated restrictive housing staff to other
units, 549 including eight that noted that the rotations were not required. 550 Responding
jurisdictions reported rotating restrictive housing staff to other units every fifty-six days to every
two years; 551 the median length of assignment before rotation was six months. 552
Compensation: Jurisdictions were asked whether restrictive housing staff were “paid
more” or “given more time off” and whether they “receive[d] other benefits.” Twenty-nine
jurisdictions responded to this question.553 Twenty-eight jurisdictions reported that staff assigned
to restrictive housing units did not receive extra pay, additional time off, or other additional
benefits. 554 The one jurisdiction that did provide special compensation described it as extra pay
and “additional training.” 555

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

92
Research and Policy Changes
One measure of correctional systems’ efforts to reduce the use of isolation is whether
plans are in place to change policies or practices. Accordingly, the 2021 Survey asked: “Is your
jurisdiction altering its practices on restrictive housing,” and, if so, “How is it doing so?”
Twenty-nine jurisdictions with people in restrictive housing responded to aspects of these
questions. 556 Seventeen reported that they were altering their restrictive housing practices or
policies, 557 and fourteen of these jurisdictions reported that planning was underway. 558 Three
others referenced changes without specifying the nature of the changes or research. 559 Eleven
jurisdictions reported that they were not altering their restrictive housing policies or practices. 560
Most of the jurisdictions seeking change said that they were aiming to reduce or eliminate
the use of restrictive housing, 561 increase programming for people in restrictive housing, 562 align
their policies with guidelines from external organizations, 563 revise policies on the amount of
time people could spend outside of their cells, 564 and reduce the length of restrictive housing
stays. 565 Jurisdictions also reported efforts to change their policies on transitions out of restrictive
housing, 566 modify use-of-force policies, 567 improve restrictive housing conditions generally, 568
implement a psychological review for people who have been in restrictive housing for more than
thirty days, 569 ensure tracking procedures were working correctly, 570 and revise classification
systems. Twenty-two jurisdictions reported that their staff would be willing to serve as a
resource for other jurisdictions, 571 including six that said they would share their expertise or
experience generally 572 and four that said they would share specific policies and resources. 573

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

IV. Comparing the Numbers of People in Restrictive Housing
in 2015, 2017, 2019, and 2021
As noted, CLA and the Liman Center’s series of reports and surveys have provided an
opportunity for longitudinal analyses of restrictive housing. Section II detailed how the reports’
estimates of the national restrictive housing population have decreased, from 80,000 to 100,000
in 2015, to 41,000 to 48,000 in 2021. Another way to examine trends over the years is to
compare data from the twenty-five jurisdictions that responded to the full set of surveys sent in
2015, 2017, 2019, and 2021. 574 Further, nineteen of these jurisdictions responded to all four with
information about the duration of restrictive housing. 575 Comparing the data that these
jurisdictions provided allows insights into whether and how these jurisdictions have changed
their use of restrictive housing during the intervals between the surveys. 576
An important reminder is that a number of factors may influence the variable shifts in
these jurisdictions. Among these are changes to policies and practices governing restrictive
housing, variations in the use of facilities and in funding and budgets, decisions in litigation and
new legislation, population density in facilities, and the staffing levels of facilities. As noted,
COVID-19 affected many of these factors. Moreover, as noted earlier, the Survey did not capture
the use of isolation that approximates restrictive housing but falls outside the Survey’s definition
of restrictive housing. For example, a jurisdiction that held people in isolation for no more than
twenty-one hours per day would appear in the Survey data as holding no people in restrictive
housing. Analyses are also made complex because, as the figures and tables illustrate, reported
changes in total custodial and restrictive housing populations do not always move in the same
direction. 577
Table 36 displays the number and percentage of people in restrictive housing in prisons in
the twenty-five responding jurisdictions for 2015, 2017, 2019, and 2021. Aggregating their
responses, both the total number and percentage of people reported to be in restrictive housing
decreased in each interval between surveys. From 2015 to 2017, the decrease was from 27,697
people (4.6% of 606,801) to 20,785 (3.5% of 587,767). Between 2017 and 2019, the decrease
was from 20,785 people to 18,583 (3.3% of 561,458). Between 2019 and 2021, the decrease was
from 18,583 people to 13,371 (2.9% of 456,183). Thus, from 2015 to 2021, the number and
percentage of people in restrictive housing in prisons under the direct control of these twentyfive jurisdictions decreased by 14,326 people and 1.7%—from 27,697 people in 2015 (4.6% of
606,801), to 13,371 in 2021 (2.9% of 456,182).
Including the three jurisdictions that reported holding no people in restrictive housing in
response to both the 2019 and 2021 Surveys, eleven of the twenty-five responding jurisdictions
reported that the number of people in restrictive housing in prison decreased across all four time
periods. 578 Another eleven jurisdictions oversaw increases in their total custodial population at
some point between 2015 and 2021 on the way to overall decreases in their restrictive housing
populations when measured from 2015 to 2021. 579 Three jurisdictions saw an overall increase
between 2015 and 2021, with a decrease from 2015 to 2017, 2017 to 2019, and/or 2019 to
2021. 580

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

94
The four jurisdictions that had the largest decreases in numbers of people in restrictive
housing in their prisons between 2015 and 2021 accounted for 66.6% of the aggregate reduction
across all responding jurisdictions for that time period. These same four jurisdictions accounted
for 79.0% of the reduction from 2019 to 2021. 581 Four jurisdictions oversaw increases in their
restrictive housing populations during that time span. 582 The largest reduction in the percentage
of people in restrictive housing in a single jurisdiction was from 8.8% in 2015 to 0.0% in
2021. 583 The largest increase in the percentage of people in restrictive housing in a single
jurisdiction was from 0.6% in 2015 to 5.1% in 2021. 584 Figures 14, 15, 16 , and 17 display the
changes in the percentages of people in restrictive housing in each jurisdiction from 2015-2017,
2017-2019, 2019-2021, and by way of a summary, from 2015-2021.

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

95
Table 36
Jurisdiction
Alabama
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Massachusetts
Montana
Nebraska
New York
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Washington
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Compared
Jurisdictions
Survey-Year
Totals

Comparisons of Restrictive Housing (RH) Populations in 2015, 2017, 2019, and 2021 (n = 25) 585
Tot. Cust.
Pop.
24,549
18,231
16,056
4,342
4,200
8,013
46,609
27,508
9,952
10,004
2,554
5,456
52,621
1,800
50,248
27,650
14,724
50,349
20,978
3,526
20,095
148,365
16,308
20,535
2,128
606,801
1,387,161
(n = 48)

2015
Rest.
Hou.
Pop.
1,402
217
128
381
23
404
2,255
1,621
589
235
90
598
4,498
54
1,374
1,552
630
1,716
1,068
106
1,768
5,832
274
751
131
27,697
67,442

RH%

Tot. Cust.
Pop.

5.7%
1.2%
0.8%
8.8%
0.6%
5%
4.8%
5.9%
5.9%
2.4%
3.5%
11%
8.6%
3%
2.7%
5.6%
4.3%
3.4%
5.1%
3%
8.8%
3.9%
1.7%
3.7%
6.2%
4.6%

21,592
18,297
14,137
4,333
3,713
7,161
42,177
26,317
9,886
9,047
1,769
5,178
50,764
1,830
49,954
26,895
14,574
46,920
19,938
3,927
22,160
145,409
17,046
22,589
2,154
587,767

4.9%

1,087,671
(n = 43)

2017
Rest.
Hou.
Pop.
855
10
328
43
13
310
921
1,741
459
443
113
328
2,666
8
1,282
1,368
938
1,498
737
90
1,181
4,272
387
713
81
20,785
49,197

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

RH%
4%
0%
2.3%
1%
0.3%
4.3%
2.2%
6.6%
4.6%
4.9%
6.4%
6.3%
5.2%
0.4%
2.6%
5.1%
6.4%
3.2%
3.7%
2.3%
5.3%
2.9%
2.3%
3.2%
3.8%
3.5%
4.5%

Tot.
Cust.
Pop.
20,673
14,397
12,942
4,568
3,561
9,196
38,425
27,182
10,005
8,424
1,650
5,499
46,066
1,775
48,887
17,531
14,734
45,174
18,401
3,858
21,817
143,473
17,668
23,539
2,013
561,458
825,473
(n = 39)

2019
Rest.
Hou.
Pop.
670
0
106
0
1
203
1,327
1,574
686
102
148
256
2,096
0
1,068
968
705
918
602
55
1,453
4,407
605
597
36
18,583
31,542

RH%
3.2%
0%
0.8%
0%
0%
2.2%
3.5%
5.8%
6.9%
1.2%
9%
4.7%
4.6%
0%
2.2%
5.5%
4.8%
2%
3.3%
1.4%
6.7%
3.1%
3.4%
2.5%
1.8%
3.3%
3.8%

Tot.
Cust.
Pop.
17,975
13,910
9,129
2,880
4,820
7,672
27,583
23,804
8,571
6,292
1,788
5,448
32,118
1,645
42,975
3,678
12,068
41,139
15,459
3,352
20,335
118,139
13,900
19,306
2,197
456,183
731,202
(n =35)

2021
Rest.
Hou.
Pop.
879
4
96
0
245
400
372
1,427
604
47
47
186
140
0
585
266
447
912
600
51
1,134
3,819
492
594
24
13,371
25,083

RH%
4.9%
0%
1.1%
0%
5.1%
5.2%
1.3%
6%
7%
0.7%
2.6%
3.4%
0.4%
0%
1.4%
7.2%
3.7%
2.2%
3.9%
1.5%
5.6%
3.2%
3.5%
3.1%
1.1%
2.9%
3.4%

96
Figure 14

Jurisdiction-by-Jurisdiction Comparison of People in
Restrictive Housing: 2015 to 2017 (n = 33)

Alabama

Arizona

-+- 2015

Colorado

-+- 2017

Connecticut

Delaware
Georgia

Hawaii

eE------4

Idaho
Illinois
Indiana

Kansas
Kentucky

Louisiana
Maryland

Massachusetts

Mississippi
Missouri
Montana

Nebraska
New York
oE------◄

North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio

Oklahoma
Oregon

Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota

eE------4

Tennessee
Texas

Washington

......,,.

Wisconsin

._.....

Wyoming
0%

10%

12%

Percent of People in Restrictive Housing

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

14%

16%

18%

97
Figure 15

Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Washington
Wisconsin

Jurisdiction-by-Jurisdiction Comparison of People in
Restrictive Housing: 2017 to 2019 (n = 33)
-+- 2017
-+- 2019

.,..__....,.

I(
I(------.

o<-----

I(--.

___________,.
I(------.

Wyoming 1 - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - ~ - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - <
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%

Percent of People in Restrictive Housing

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

98
Figure 16

Jurisdiction-by-Jurisdiction Comparison of People in
Restrictive Housing: 2019 to 2021 (n = 29)

Alabama
Colorado
Connecticut

Delaware

•

-+- 2019
-+- 2021

Hawaii

Idaho
Illinois

Indiana
Kansas
Massachusetts
Maine

Minnesota
Montana
North Dakota (
Nebraska

•

New Hampshire

New York
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota

Tennessee
Texas
Vermont 'Washington

____,.

Wisconsin
Wyoming
0%

Percent of People in Restrictive Housing

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

99
Figure 17

Jurisdiction-by-Jurisdiction Comparison of People in
Restrictive Housing: 2015 to 2021 (n = 28)
~

Alabama
Colorado

-+- 2015

...,,.

Connecticut

-+- 2021

Delaware

Hawaii
e-,)o

Idaho

Illinois
Indiana

Kansas
Massachusetts
"'

Minnesota

Montana

North Dakota

Nebraska
New Hampshire

New York

Ohio

Oklahoma
~

Oregon
,

Pennsylvania

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee
■E--------4

Texas

Vermont

Washington

Wisconsin
Wyoming
0%

10%

Percent of People in Restrictive Housing

Another window into changes over time comes from the numbers on duration, or “length
of stay,” in restrictive housing. As noted above, nineteen jurisdictions provided this type of data
in 2015, 2017, 2019, and 2021. 586 Tables 37A and 37B show that, overall, the reported numbers
of individuals in restrictive housing across almost all time periods decreased between 2015 and
2021. Tables 37A and 37B also document that, for all lengths of time, the number of people in
restrictive housing decreased in more jurisdictions than it increased between 2015 to 2017, 2017
to 2019, and 2019 to 2021.
This Report also calculated the distribution across time intervals—i.e., what percentage
of the people in restrictive housing were held for each time interval—as Tables 38A and 38B
reflect. From 2015 to 2021, the percentage of people in restrictive housing for fifteen to twentynine or thirty days and for thirty or thirty-one to 180 days increased in more jurisdictions than it
decreased, 587 while the percentage of people in restrictive housing for all intervals of time over
180 days decreased in more jurisdictions than it increased. From 2019 to 2021, the percentage of
people in restrictive housing across all time periods, except for six years and over, increased in
roughly as many jurisdictions as it decreased.
2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

100
Figure 18 provides a summary of the comparison of the lengths of time that individuals
spent in restrictive housing. This graph is one way to illuminate how efforts to limit restrictive
housing are having effects on people’s lives. Table 39 summarizes information about the amount
of jurisdictions that responded to each survey and the total numbers of people they reported holding
in their total custodial and restrictive housing populations.

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

101
Table 37A

Comparing the Numbers of People in Restrictive Housing by Length of Time
in 2015, 2017, 2019, and 2021 (n = 19) 588

Jurisdiction
Colorado
Delaware
Indiana
Kansas
Massachusetts
Nebraska
New York
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Washington
Wisconsin
Wyoming
TOTAL

15-29/30* Days
2015
2017
64
10
25
5
212
131
125
176
2
76
48
19
1,615
757
8
3
119
226
169
384
90
126
349
305
238
138
18
18
89
110
109
141
16
5
278
221
8
21
3,582
2,872

2019
0
0
250
238
26
53
653
0
227
192
131
210
150
7
70
183
140
218
14
2,762

2021
4
0
236
135
9
27
72
0
49
37
130
211
111
0
229
95
125
205
12
1,687

30/31-180** Days
2015
2017
129
0
183
31
612
629
233
268
15
168
279
196
2,125
1,634
25
6
541
471
476
705
429
443
812
769
498
312
26
16
461
513
481
589
123
189
373
436
54
56
7,875
7,431

2019
0
0
879
380
75
104
1,328
0
345
442
470
462
261
24
231
755
334
284
21
6,395

2021
0
0
918
364
36
97
66
0
240
210
269
440
289
25
443
420
226
309
8
4,360

181-365 Days
2015
2017
23
0
76
7
496
354
105
15
65
28
87
81
257
182
17
0
253
271
270
156
81
41
156
126
114
131
15
16
353
280
537
474
70
106
60
41
59
2
3,094
2,311

2019
0
0
279
53
1
30
80
0
200
141
68
128
88
14
218
498
64
51
0
1,913

*The 2021 Survey asked about people held for 15-29 days; prior surveys asked about people held for 15-30 days.
**The 2021 Survey asked about people held for 30-60 days and 61-180 days; prior surveys asked about people held for 31-90 days and 91-180 days.

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

2021
0
0
152
59
2
28
0
0
139
19
16
128
117
11
171
399
73
19
1
1,334

102
Table 37B

Jurisdiction
Colorado
Delaware
Indiana
Kansas
Massachusetts
Nebraska
New York
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South
Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Washington
Wisconsin
Wyoming
TOTAL

Comparing the Numbers of People in Restrictive Housing by Length of Time
in 2015, 2017, 2019, and 2021 (n = 19)
2015
1
67
175
94
71
106
101
4
162
490
26
157
151

1-3 Years
2017
2019
0
0
0
0
391
125
0
15
31
0
32
65
73
21
0
0
183
237
106
165
30
27
106
78
102
92

2021
0
0
93
46
0
18
2
0
109
0
32
110
70

2015
0
12
80
22
24
48
32
0
43
77
4
52
67

3-6 Years
2017
2019
0
0
0
0
121
33
0
0
5
0
1
4
13
6
0
0
49
35
17
17
7
8
41
25
12
11

2021
0
0
18
0
0
16
0
0
26
0
0
18
13

2015
0
18
46
10
43
30
0
0
22
70
0
190
0

27
500
1,840
37
36
9
4,054

21
244
931
64
13
1
2,328

13
206
1,356
56
36
3
2,150

12
166
1,278
16
4
0
1,937

12
31
811
11
2
1
1,134

1
64
606
8
16
0
786

8
205
1,587
12
0
1
2,242

7
485
1,236
48
32
0
2,633

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

1
287
611
9
12
0
1,059

6 Years and Over
2017
2019
0
0
0
0
115
8
0
0
4
0
3
0
7
8
0
0
22
24
0
11
1
1
151
15
42
0
7
3
1,326
12
0
0
1,693

2
162
1,124
10
0
1
1,366

2021
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
22
0
0
5
0
1
21
943
4
9
0
1,015

103
Table 38A

Jurisdiction
Colorado
Delaware
Indiana
Kansas
Massachusetts
Nebraska
New York
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South
Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Washington
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Reporting
Jurisdictions

Comparing the Distribution of People in Restrictive Housing by Length of
Time in 2015, 2017, 2019, and 2021 (n = 19) 589
2015
29.5%
6.6%
13.1%
21.2%
0.9%
8%
35.9%
14.8%
8.7%
10.9%
14.3%
20.3%
22.3%

15-29/30* Days
2017
2019
100%
—
11.6%
—
7.5%
15.9%
38.3% 34.7%
17.2% 25.5%
5.8%
20.7%
28.4% 31.2%
37.5%
—
17.6% 21.3%
28.1% 19.8%
13.4% 18.6%
20.4% 22.9%
18.7% 24.9%

2021
100%
—
16.5%
22.4%
19.1%
14.5%
51.4%
—
8.4%
13.9%
29.1%
23.1%
18.5%

2015
59.4%
48%
37.8%
39.6%
6.4%
46.7%
47.2%
46.3%
39.4%
30.7%
68.1%
47.3%
46.6%

17%
5%
1.9%
5.8%
37%
6.1%
15.7%

20%
9.3%
3.3%
1.3%
31%
25.9%
16.2%

0%
20.2%
2.5%
25.4%
34.5%
50%
14.9%

24.5%
26.1%
8.2%
44.9%
49.7%
41.2%
34.6%

12.7%
4.8%
4.2%
23.1%
36.5%
38.9%
17.1%

20/31-180** Days
2017
2019
0%
—
72.1%
—
36.1% 55.8%
58.4% 55.4%
37.9% 73.5%
59.8% 40.6%
61.3% 63.4%
75%
—
36.7% 32.3%
51.5% 45.7%
47.2% 66.7%
51.3% 50.3%
42.3% 43.4%
17.8%
43.4%
13.8%
48.8%
61.2%
69.1%
41.8%

43.6%
15.9%
17.1%
55.2%
47.6%
58.3%
39.7%

2021
0%
—
64.3%
60.3%
76.6%
52.2%
47.1%
—
41%
78.9%
60.2%
48.2%
48.2%

2015
10.6%
19.9%
30.6%
17.8%
27.7%
14.5%
5.7%
31.5%
18.4%
17.4%
12.9%
9.1%
10.7%

181-365 Days
2017
2019
0%
—
16.3%
—
20.3% 17.7%
3.3%
7.7%
6.3%
1%
24.7% 11.7%
6.8%
3.8%
0%
—
21.1% 18.7%
11.4% 14.6%
4.4%
9.6%
8.4%
13.9%
17.8% 14.6%

2021
0%
—
10.7%
9.8%
4.3%
15.1%
0%
—
23.8%
7.1%
3.6%
14%
19.5%

49%
39.1%
11%
45.9%
52%
33.3%
38.5%

14.2%
20%
9.2%
25.5%
8%
45%
13.6%

17.8%
23.7%
11.1%
27.4%
5.8%
2.5%
13%

21.6%
15.1%
10.4%
14.8%
3.2%
4.2%
11.8%

25.5%
15%
11.3%
10.6%
8.5%
0%
11.9%

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

104
Table 38B

Jurisdiction
Colorado
Delaware
Indiana
Kansas
Massachusetts
Nebraska
New York
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South
Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Washington
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Reporting
Jurisdictions

Comparing the Distribution of People in Restrictive Housing by Length of
Time in 2015, 2017, 2019, and 2021 (n = 19)
2015
0.5%
17.6%
10.8%
16%
30.2%
17.7%
2.2%
7.4%
11.8%
31.6%
4.1%
9.1%
14.1%

1-3 Years
2017
2019
0%
—
0%
—
22.5%
7.9%
0%
2.2%
7%
0%
9.8%
25.4%
2.7%
1%
0%
—
14.3% 22.2%
7.7%
17%
3.2%
3.8%
7.1%
8.5%
13.8% 15.3%

2021
0%
—
6.5%
7.6%
0%
9.7%
1.4%
—
18.6%
0%
7.2%
12.1%
11.7%

2015
0%
3.1%
4.9%
3.7%
10.2%
8%
0.7%
0%
3.1%
5%
0.6%
3%
6.3%

3-6 Years
2017
2019
0%
—
0%
—
7%
2.1%
0%
0%
1.1%
0%
0.3%
1.6%
0.5%
0.3%
0%
—
3.8%
3.3%
1.2%
1.8%
0.7%
1.1%
2.7%
2.7%
1.6%
1.8%

2021
0%
—
1.3%
0%
0%
8.6%
0%
—
4.4%
0%
0%
2%
2.2%

2015
0%
4.7%
2.8%
1.7%
18.3%
5%
0%
0%
1.6%
4.5%
0%
11.1%
0%

25.5%
28.3%
31.6%
13.5%
4.8%
6.9%
17.8%

23.3%
20.7%
21.8%
16.5%
1.8%
1.2%
13.1%

25.5%
18.2%
35.5%
11.4%
6.1%
12.5%
19%

11.3%
9.4%
21.9%
5.8%
0.5%
0%
8.5%

13.3%
2.6%
19%
2.8%
0.3%
1.2%
6.4%

2%
5.6%
15.9%
1.6%
2.7%
0%
6.9%

7.5%
11.6%
27.2%
4.4%
0%
0.8%
9.8%

12.7%
33.4%
28%
7.9%
5.4%
0%
16.3%

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

1.8%
19.8%
13.9%
1.5%
2%
0%
6.6%

6 Years and Over
2017
2019
0%
—
0%
—
6.6%
0.5%
0%
0%
0.9%
0%
0.9%
0%
0.3%
0.4%
0%
—
1.7%
2.2%
0%
1.1%
0.1%
0.1%
10.1%
1.6%
5.7%
0%
7.8%
0.3%
31%
3.1%
0%
0%
9.5%

3.6%
11.1%
25.5%
1.7%
0%
2.8%
8.5%

2021
0%
—
0.7%
0%
0%
0%
0%
—
3.8%
0%
0%
0.5%
0%
2%
1.9%
24.7%
0.8%
1.5%
0%
9%

105
Figure 18

Comparing the Distribution of People in Restrictive Housing by
Length of Time in 2015, 2017, 2019, and 2021 (n = 19)

8000

7,875

2015

■
■
■

7,431

2017
2019
202 1

6000

(/)

&
.£
Q)

4,054

g 4000

Cl.

3,582

0
ai
.0
E

2,242

2000

0
15-30 days

31-180 days

181-365 days

1-3 years

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

3-6 years

6 years and over

106

Table 39

Comparing Restrictive Housing Numbers from 2014 to 2021
2014 ASCALiman Survey

2015 ASCALiman Survey

2017 ASCALiman Survey

2019 CLALiman Survey

Number of
Jurisdictions
Providing
Restrictive
Housing Data

34
jurisdictions or
73% of prison
population of
1.6 million
people

48
jurisdictions
or 96.4% of
prison
population of
1.5 million
people

43
jurisdictions
or 80.5% of
prison
population of
1.5 million
people

39
jurisdictions
or 58% of
prison
population of
1.4 million
people

People
Reported in
Restrictive
Housing
Estimated
Total People
in Restrictive
Housing in
All U.S.
Prisons

66,000+

67,442

50,422

31,542

2021 CLALiman
Survey
35
jurisdictions
or 61% of
prison
population
of 1.2
million
people
25,083

80,000100,000

not estimated
given
substantial
reporting

61,000

55,00062,000

41,00048,000

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

107

Policies on Segregation: Analyses of High and Low
Population Jurisdictions

This Section of the Report explores written policies governing restrictive housing through
reviewing materials from two sources: direct submissions from jurisdictions in response to the
2021 CLA-Liman Survey and policies accessible online as of December 2021. 590 Due to the
volume and variety of policies, directives, and regulations addressing isolation, the analysis
focused on fourteen jurisdictions selected through two criteria: the ten prison systems with the
country’s highest prison populations and the four jurisdictions that reported that no individuals
were held in restrictive housing in response to the 2019 CLA-Liman Survey. Further, because the
policies did not generally specify a number of consecutive days or hours that individuals spent in
isolation and did not therefore mirror the Survey’s definition of “restrictive housing,” this section
uses the term “segregated housing” to reference the practices of isolation governed by the
policies. Illustrative is that the four jurisdictions that reported no people in restrictive housing
under the Survey definition do have policies addressing isolation—likely governing forms of
isolation in which individuals spend less than twenty-two hour per day in cell and/or less than
fifteen consecutive days in isolation.
According to Vera, the ten jurisdictions with the largest prison populations as of March
2021 imprisoned a total of 692,278 people—more than half (58%) of the people imprisoned
throughout the country. 591 These jurisdictions were the Federal Bureau of Prisons (152,259), and
the states of Texas (133,024), California (96,499), Florida (81,168), Georgia (46,315), Ohio
(43,537), Pennsylvania (38,262), Arizona (36,704), Michigan (32,962), and Virginia (31,548). 592
The four jurisdictions reporting no one in restrictive housing as of the summer of 2019
were Colorado, Delaware, North Dakota, and Vermont. 593 Delaware, North Dakota, and
Vermont provided the same in response in 2021, while Colorado reported that it held four people
in restrictive housing as of July 2021. According to Vera, these four jurisdictions held a total of
23,032 people in prison as of March 31, 2021—or 1.9% of all people in prison in the United
States. 594
By way of a brief preview of the analysis, the policies differed with respect to the criteria
used to justify placement in segregated housing. Nine of the ten jurisdictions with the nation’s
highest prison populations had policies that gave prison staff broad discretionary authority to
make that decision. In contrast, in three of the four states reporting no one in restrictive housing
in 2019 and/or 2021, policies used specific placement criteria to narrow the category of
individuals eligible for placement in segregation.
The review also documented that policies provide for step-down programs for individuals
transitioning from segregated housing to general population or back into the community. All
fourteen jurisdictions described some version of such a program, even as they varied in
significant respects. Several step-down programs were focused on groups such as individuals
with records of past gang involvement, mental health concerns, or whose institutional records
reflected repeated acts of violence. Generally, these programs employed behavioral therapy
2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

108
sessions and permitted—but did not guarantee—gradual release from segregation following
successful progression through a program.
Thus, even as jurisdictions differed in size of prison population and reported use of
restrictive housing, their policies overlapped in terms of aiming to design procedures to provide
for release from isolation into general population that was gradual and supported, and to make
rare a release from isolation directly into the community. The policies are borne from an
appreciation that isolation can be debilitating and its effects require mitigation and rehabilitative
efforts. These mitigation efforts at the back-end underscore the importance of front-end entry
criteria that can, if narrowing the number of people entering isolation, avoid the harms that
isolation imposes on a person’s ability to interact with others and function.
Entering Segregated Housing: Placement Criteria
The policies of the ten highest-population prisons and the four with no or little use of
restrictive housing all had criteria for determining whether a person should be placed in
segregated housing. As discussed below, the high-population jurisdictions had general “catchall” provisions that distinguished them from the four no/low use jurisdictions. In addition, all
fourteen had policies providing specific criteria permitting placement in segregation based on
allegations of misconduct, health conditions, classification status, or other circumstances.
Misconduct: All of the policies analyzed authorized a person to be removed from general
population (1) while being investigated for serious offenses including murder, attempted murder,
rape, or other specified allegations; and/or (2) after being found to have committed such an
offense. For example, Florida’s policy specified that placement in Close Management status—
the state’s version of segregated housing—was authorized upon “the taking of a hostage or an
attempt to take a hostage . . . Creating or causing property damage in excess of $1,000 . . . [and]
Trafficking in drugs.” 595 Georgia’s policies authorized segregation when “the offender is
involved in incidents involving excessive destruction of state property.” 596 Arizona permitted
segregated housing for incarcerated individuals found to have “demonstrated physically or
sexually assaultive behavior resulting in: an attempt to sexually assault any person, serious
physical injury, death of any person.” 597 Texas stated that people may be temporarily placed in
segregation “pending the outcome of a formal investigation related to allegations of sexual
abuse, sexual harassment, extortion, violence, or threats of violence.” 598
Misconduct criteria in the four states that reported no use of restrictive housing in the
2019 Survey were similar. North Dakota’s Restrictive Housing policy stated that “adults in
custody may be placed in a form of restrictive housing when awaiting hearing or investigation”
for certain violations such as, “assault and battery on staff,” “sexual abuse,” “taking hostages,” or
“arson.” 599 Under Colorado Department of Corrections Regulation #600-09.6, placement in
“Special Management” was warranted following the commission of specifically-enumerated
disciplinary infractions including murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, rape, or arson.
Medical Reasons: Several jurisdictions authorized segregation in response to diagnosis,
pending tests, or refusal to be tested for infectious diseases. None of the policies analyzed
referenced COVID-19, yet the listed medical criteria could be applied to situations like COVID.
For example, in Michigan, a “prisoner may be classified to administrative segregation [if] [t]he
2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

109
prisoner refuses required medical screening, testing, or treatment for a communicable disease
and requires medical quarantine . . . [or] [t]he prisoner tests positive for HIV infection and is
subsequently found guilty of a misconduct for behavior that presents a significant risk of
transmitting HIV infection.” 600 Vermont’s policy provided that “[a]n inmate may be confined on
Administrative Segregation . . . [u]pon the order of a physician or equivalent provider (Advanced
Practice Nurse, Nurse Practitioner or Physician Assistant).” 601
Classification Status: Most jurisdictions’ policies, including the BOP, North Dakota, and
Georgia, noted that segregation could be used as a non-disciplinary tool to limit an incarcerated
person’s movement upon arrival at an institution, while awaiting transfer, or before or during
classification. 602 Pennsylvania’s policy authorized segregation when “the inmate is being held
temporarily for another authority” or when “the inmate has a detainer for a pending capital case,
for which the prosecution is seeking the death penalty, or is a phase 1 capital case.” 603
Protection: Policies in several jurisdictions, including Florida, Virginia, the BOP, and
North Dakota, allowed an incarcerated person to be placed in segregated housing if that person
requested it for protection. 604 California’s policy also authorized temporary, non-disciplinary
segregation for individuals found to be “a relative or an associate of a prison staff member.” 605
Catch-All Authority: The ten and the four jurisdictions diverged on what this Report
terms a “catch-all” criterion: a provision granting prison officials broad discretion to place
incarcerated people in segregation based on a finding that they pose a threat to facility safety
and/or security. Across the ten high-prison population jurisdictions, these provisions repeatedly
used terms like “threat to the safety of the inmate or others” 606 or “threat to the security of the
institution.”607 Nine of these ten jurisdictions had unrestricted catch-all provisions. A few
examples are provided below.
Virginia: “General detention” in Restorative Housing “will be utilized for the immediate
secure confinement of an inmate only when their presence in the general population or a
step-down status poses a direct threat to the inmate (to include when inmate requires
personal protection and no reasonable alternative is available), other inmates, institutional
staff, or a clear threat to the safe, secure operation of the institution.” 608
Michigan: “A prisoner may be classified to administrative segregation . . . 2) [if] the
prisoner is a serious threat to the physical safety of staff or other prisoners or to the good
order of the facility. . . .” 609
California: “When an inmate’s presence in an institution’s General Population (GP) . . .
presents an immediate threat to the safety of the inmate or others . . . the inmate shall be
immediately removed from the GP and placed in administrative segregation.” 610
Texas: “Security detention is used for an offender who is a current escape risk; threat to
the physical safety of other offenders or staff, to include volunteers and contract staff;
threat to the order and security of the prison as evidenced by repetitive serious
disciplinary violations; or a confirmed member of a security threat group (STG).” 611
2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

110
Georgia: “The Warden or Superintendent and their designee may place an offender in the
Tier I Segregation Program in the following circumstances: A. The offender is noted as a
threat to the safe and secure operation of the facility . . . .” 612
The BOP also included a catch-all provision in its official policies that was somewhat
less broad than others. 613 The policy read:
You may be placed in administrative detention status for . . . [r]emoval from
general population. Your presence in the general population poses a threat to life,
property, self, staff, other inmates, the public, or to the security or orderly running
of the institution and:
1. Investigation. You are under investigation or awaiting a hearing for possibly
violating a Bureau regulation or criminal law;
2. Transfer. You are pending transfer to another institution or location;
3. Protection. You requested placement.
4. Post-disciplinary detention. You are ending confinement in disciplinary
segregation status, and your return to the general population would threaten
the safety, security, and orderly operation of a correctional facility, or public
safety
Among the four states reporting no use of restrictive housing in 2019 and/or 2021, only
Vermont’s policies included an unrestricted catch-all provision, permitting placement in
segregation “if staff feel the inmate poses a threat to the secure and orderly operation of the
facility.” 614 Yet that policy may be out of date, as Vermont’s publicly available policies were
published in 2012. Moreover, as noted, because the CLA-Liman 2021 Survey’s definition of
restrictive housing is narrower than most jurisdictions’ definitions of segregation or isolation, the
four jurisdictions could have had incarcerated people in segregation conditions, such as people
held for twenty or twenty-one hours a day, which did not fall within the Survey’s definition.
Moreover, in Delaware, North Dakota, and Colorado, all of which have policies issued
within the last eleven years, officials’ authority to use isolation is limited. In Delaware, official
policy barred prisons from using segregation or restraints as a disciplinary action. 615 North
Dakota had a policy for punitive segregation that, as discussed above, relied on specific criteria
and contained no catch-all provision. 616 Colorado’s policy did include a catch-all provision
authorizing an individual’s removal from general population for “conduct [that] poses serious
threat to the safety and security of [the] facility.” 617 However, such “temporary” placement in
segregation was time-limited; procedures required individuals to be “returned to the general
population within ten working days after removal, unless reclassification or disciplinary review
procedures have been initiated.” 618
Leaving Segregated Housing: Step-down Programming
As discussed, “step-down” programs to transition an incarcerated person out of
segregated housing are designed to reduce the challenges of reentry and mitigate the adverse
physical and psychological effects of segregated housing. The American Correctional
Association (“ACA”) describes step-down programming as “a system of review” with an
2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

111
“establish[ed] criteria to prepare an [incarcerated person] for transition to general population or
the community.” 619 The specific design, content, and requirements of the different programs
varied in terms of behavioral expectations, authorized incentives, program offerings, and
specialized programs for defined subgroups.
In most of the policies reviewed, the completion of a program did not require a person’s
release from segregation. For example, the BOP’s step-down program was expected to take nine
to thirteen months to complete, but BOP policy stated that successful program completion
“normally” leads to release from segregated housing and noted some people might nonetheless
“not be [deemed] appropriate for general population.” 620 In contrast, Vermont’s step-down
program policy stated that “release from [restrictive housing] status shall be authorized when the
condition, which required placement, is no longer present.” 621
Behavioral Expectations: In general, step-down programs seek to incentivize good
behavior by lessening certain restrictions, such as those applying to contact visits, commissary
purchases, or recreation. In six of the ten jurisdictions with the largest prison populations—
Michigan, the BOP, Ohio, California, Pennsylvania, and Virginia—segregated housing
restrictions lessened when individuals satisfied certain behavioral expectations. The four
jurisdictions reporting the fewest people in restrictive housing in 2021 also had policies that
eased segregated housing restrictions as rewards for “positive behavior.” 622
Michigan defined its step-down program as “a six-stage progression of behavior
expectations and incentives to encourage appropriate conduct.” 623 Prison administrators were
responsible for “identifying behavior expectations for each stage of the program and the
incentives that may be offered at each stage.” 624 Staff periodically evaluated “the prisoner’s
progress in meeting these expectations when making behavior-based recommendations for or
against the prisoner’s reclassification.” 625 Completing the program was a factor in deciding
whether to reclassify an individual, but did not alone ensure release from segregated housing.
North Dakota’s policy did not explicitly outline a step-down program, but a 2015-2017
biennial North Dakota Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“NDDCR”) report noted
that the agency had redesigned its segregated housing policy to include a “behavior modification
program” that offers “alternatives to segregation.” 626 The program was described as available to
individuals facing punishment for “commit[ting] ten specific institution violations.” As part of
the program, staff members identified ways to keep individuals in the “least restrictive
environment,” 627 affording them “the opportunity to learn and practice skills to avoid
problematic behavior while also building quality relationships with staff in the unit.” 628
The BOP step-down program identified five behavioral accomplishments individuals
should exhibit before a return to general population: (1) their “[r]elationship with other inmates
and staff members … demonstrate[d] that [they are] able to function in a less restrictive
environment,” (2) their level of “[i]nvolvement in work and recreational activities and
assignments,” (3) their “[a]dherence to institution guidelines and Bureau of Prisons rules and
policy,” (4) their “[p]ersonal grooming and cleanliness,” and (5) their “[q]uarters sanitation.” 629
Authorized Incentives: Many policies described increased or added incentives as a tool
for rewarding successful progress within a step-down program. Pennsylvania authorized staff to
“approve additional privileges,” including telephone calls, commissary, television, and tablet and
kiosk access, “based on individual needs, safety and security, and the behavioral progress of the
2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

112
inmate.” 630 However, these “privileges” could be withdrawn again, if “Management Team
provide[d] a written justification.” 631
BOP policy described its step-down program as one that afforded incarcerated
individuals “increased privileges (e.g., increased commissary, property, etc.)” for
“accomplish[ing] unit goals and maintain[ing] appropriate conduct.” 632 Similarly, Colorado
allowed staff to “adjust [the] canteen limits” of anyone in restrictive housing to “create
incentives for positive behavior,” 633 and Delaware, although lacking a formal behavior-incentive
structure, allowed for additional “outdoor recreation, gymnasium . . . or other leisure activities,”
provided that such activities did not raise “safety and health concerns.” 634 Ohio’s policies
directed prison staff “to establish privileges and services for inmates assigned to Restrictive
Housing,” which “shall be designed to ensure housing and program areas are safe and secure as
well as to encourage inmates to comply with [department] and institution rules and regulations
and to motivate them to improve their conduct.” 635
Program Offerings: Generally, step-down programs included some combination of
academic programming, behavioral therapy, interactive group activities, and/or journaling.
Proactive participation in these programs was key to progressing through the program’s multiple
phases. Texas’s curriculum required participation in multiple programs, including “cognitive
intervention, anger management, substance abuse education, and programming addressing
criminal addictive behavior.” 636 California’s criteria also included a “Voluntary Education
Program,” as well as elective programming, interactive journaling, and pro-social videos.637
Pennsylvania offered educational and “behavioral health treatment services.” 638
Colorado “[g]radually increas[ed] education and programming opportunities” to include
“[c]ognitive programming,” parenting classes, and “pre-release” programming. 639 Delaware
offered “correspondence programming to all inmates in Restrictive Housing based on each
inmate’s individualized needs,” including therapeutic programs “offered in a group setting.”640
Vermont required completing unspecified “in-cell programming requirements” and
“participation in a behavioral plan,” 641 and North Dakota offered “programming three days a
week” that emphasized “skills . . . to avoid future placements in segregation.” 642
Specialized Programs: Several jurisdictions had specialized step-down programs for
certain populations, including individuals diagnosed with serious mental illness, or anyone with a
history of assaultive behaviors or designated gang affiliations. Virginia’s Red Onion State Prison
offered different step-down programs (the Red Onion State Prison Restrictive Housing
Reduction Step-Down Program) for (1) those with a “history that indicates the willingness to
carry out intentional, serious, or deadly harm,” those considered a “high escape risk,” and/or
those associated with “high profile crimes and/or significant media attention”; and (2) those with
“frequently recurring disciplinary violations” and/or a history of “fighting with staff or
inmates.” 643
The Red Onion program “focus[ed] on risk reduction, in addition to risk control.”644
Individuals were expected “to progress to a general population setting through an interactive
journaling series utilized independently and in group settings, through the use of therapeutic
modules and programming.” 645 Designated Virginia institutions also had the Steps to Achieve
Reintegration (“STAR”) program “for inmates, who motivated by unspecified fear, refuse to
leave restorative housing and enter general population.” 646 The Virginia Department of
Corrections also described “Shared Allied Management Units” as an alternative to “restorative
housing,” created to “promote safety and stability within institutions while reducing the cycling
2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

113
of certain inmates”—including “mentally ill or seriously mentally ill (SMI) individuals”—“into
and out of restorative housing.” 647
Texas’s Mental Health Therapeutic Diversion Program (“MHTDP”) stated that it
provided “mental health assessments, evaluations, and treatment services to offenders assigned
to restrictive housing with a history of mental illness.” 648 The diversion program’s goal was to
“improve the offender’s decision-making abilities, impulse control, quality of life, and prepare
the offender for release to a less restrictive environment.” 649
Texas, Arizona, and California were among the jurisdictions with programs specifically
focused on individuals classified as members of a Security Threat Group (“STG”) or gangs. The
nine-month “Gang Renouncement and Dissociation (GRAD) Process” in Texas was “designed to
give an STG member the ability to dissociate with their current affiliation, with the possibility of
being assigned to [the] general population following successful completion.” 650 In California, an
“incentive-based” step-down program specific to “Security Threat Group (STG) affiliates” had
an “ultimate goal . . . to assist validated STG affiliates with transitioning to a general population
setting.” 651
Individuals classified as STG or gang members in Arizona were not to be reclassified
below maximum security until completing “the required [step-down] programming and . . . a 24
month period, from the date of placement into Maximum Custody, where they ha[d] not
participated in any documented STG/Gang or Terrorist activity.” 652 The BOP authorized redesignating an individual from segregated housing status after “a minimum of 9 months,”
provided that their behavior demonstrated that they would “abstain from . . . group/gang-related
activity.” 653 Pennsylvania also allowed staff to keep an individual in restrictive housing if he or
she had “attempt[ed] to organize inmates” or had otherwise “demonstrated involvement in a
Security Threat Group . . . that pose[d] a risk to the security of the facility.” 654
Concerns about Release Directly to the Community
The ACA’s 2016 Performance-Based Restrictive Housing Standards stated that facilities
should make efforts to move incarcerated people out of restrictive housing through step-down
programs. The ACA also urged prison officials to “attempt to ensure offenders are not released
directly into the community from Restrictive Housing” and to take precautions when direct
release was imminent. 655 While no jurisdiction banned release directly from segregation to the
community, the desire to avoid such releases was evident in all fourteen of the jurisdictions
analyzed.
In some, the process and availability of release from segregation changed if the person
was to be released directly into the community. For example, Virginia’s policy mandated
additional oversight—directing that anyone “assigned to a Restorative Housing Unit in excess of
30 days should not be discharged directly to the community” unless so approved by the MultiDisciplinary Team (MDT), which conducts a “formal due process hearing” no less than “30 days
prior” to discharge; if approved, the incarcerated individual must undergo a “release plan that is
tailored to [their] specific needs.” 656 Under BOP policies, if an individual seeking release from
segregated housing is within 180 days of completing their prison sentence, “[e]very effort should
be made to avoid releasing [the] inmate directly from [segregated housing] to the community,”
and “options to release [them] to less restrictive settings should be considered.” If releasing the
individual to “a less restrictive setting is not possible,” the BOP required “targeted reentry
programming to prepare [them] for return to the community.” 657
2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

114
Another example comes from Texas, which Vera reported as having the nation’s second
highest prison population as of March 2021, and which, according to the state’s response to the
2021 CLA-Liman Survey, held 3,918 people in restrictive housing. Texas’s policy required
prison officials to make “[e]very effort . . . to ensure that offenders are not released directly into
the community from extended restrictive housing.” 658 The Serious and Violent Offender Reentry
Initiative (SVORI), a program for any “male security detention offenders” who have received a
“release vote” from the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, was “designed to reduce recidivism
by better preparing and assisting offenders confined to security detention to successfully reenter
their communities.” 659 Texas also described a Cognitive Intervention Pre-Release Program
(CIPP) for individuals in restrictive housing and approaching release to the community, which
used evidence-based principles and strategies “targeting offender criminogenic needs, cognitive
behavioral interventions, and enhancement reentry opportunities for offenders when released.” 660

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

115

VI. Legislative Activity
When this series of reports began, very few statutes focused on the use of restrictive
housing. In contrast, today, this issue has become a subject of proposed and enacted legislation in
dozens of jurisdictions. As documented in Time-in-Cell 2019, between 2018 and 2020,
legislators in more than twenty-five states introduced bills that would limit the use of
isolation, 661 and at least fifteen states enacted legislation. 662 These bills and statutes covered a
range of issues, including the use of isolation for subpopulations, conditions of confinement, the
duration of isolation, and reporting requirements.
This Report does not reiterate the analyses of those materials; the focus is on proposals
and enactments during the period studied here, from 2019 through spring 2022, as state and
federal lawmakers proposed and some enacted a variety of laws. Some limited the use of
restrictive housing, standardized conditions within restrictive housing units, required regular
reporting of the number and characteristics of people held in restrictive housing, and, in some
cases, eliminated the use of restrictive housing for some or all incarcerated populations. This
Section details the provisions of some of those laws and of some of the data collected pursuant to
statutory mandates.
By way of a brief preview, at the state and local level, legislators in more than thirty
states introduced bills aiming to regulate the use of isolation in 2021. 663 Bills were enacted in
seven states: New York, North Carolina, Arkansas, Connecticut, Tennessee, Kentucky, and
Colorado. In addition, Louisiana passed a resolution. 664 In Connecticut, after the governor did
not sign legislation in 2021 and issued an executive order limiting the use of “isolated
confinement,” 665 the governor in April of 2022 signed a revised version, known as the
PROTECT Act. At the local level, voters in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania approved a ballot
measure banning “restrictive housing,” 666 and the New York City Board of Corrections adopted
rules prohibiting the use of “solitary confinement.” 667 Moreover, Massachusetts in 2021 released
a study commissioned to measure the impact of a 2018 state law limiting the use of solitary
confinement.
At the federal level, developments since 2019 include reports issued pursuant to the 2018
First Step Act (FSA), which addresses aspects of the use of restrictive housing in the federal
prison system and requires data collection and publication of annual reports detailing the
characteristics of people placed in those conditions, how long they were held there, and why. In
March 2020, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) for the first time issued data collected in
compliance with the FSA provisions, including statistics regarding the number of incarcerated
people placed in segregated housing within the prior year. Subsequent reports were released in
February of 2021 and in November of 2021.
As of the end of April 2022, members of the House of Representatives and the Senate
had introduced nineteen bills 668 and six resolutions during the 117th Congress (2021-2022) that
referenced “solitary confinement.” 669 These bills include H.R. 176, the “Restricting the Use of
Solitary Confinement Act,” and H.R. 131, the “Effective and Humane Treatment of Youth Act
of 2021” or “Kalief’s Law.” President Biden also issued an executive order that included
2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

116
provisions requiring data collection and reporting to document BOP compliance with directives
to reduce the use of solitary confinement. 670 Below, we provide details of some of such
provisions in the states and federal system.
State Statutes, Local Regulations, and Data Collection (2019 to 2022)
A research caveat is in order. Tracking and analyzing legislative activity at the state and
local level is complex. This Section is based on publicly available data from state legislatures,
the media, and advocacy reports. As noted, developments include passage of New York State’s
HALT Act that went into effect on April 1, 2022; statutes and regulations governing a wide
range of issues, including the types of facilities impacted, special rules regarding subpopulations,
conditions of confinement, duration of isolation, staff training, and reporting requirements; a
Connecticut executive order and statute limiting the use of isolation; passage of a reform ballot
measure in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania; the New York City Board of Corrections’ adoption
of recommended rules; implementation of recent legislation in Massachusetts; and data collected
and reported in compliance with new statutory requirements in several jurisdictions. Because
New York’s statute is comprehensive in its scope, its provisions are sketched below before a
discussion organized not by jurisdiction but by the activities regulated.
New York’s HALT Act: The HALT Act, passed in New York’s 2020-2021 Regular
Session, addresses many facets of isolation to limit its use. The HALT Act defines “segregated
confinement” as “any form of cell confinement for more than seventeen hours a day other than in
a facility-wide emergency or for the purpose of providing medical or mental health treatment.”671
The HALT Act bans the use of “segregated confinement” for people who are “twenty-one years
of age or younger; fifty-five years of age or older;” living with a disability; or pregnant,
postpartum, or caring for a child in a correctional institution.672 HALT also restricts the use of
segregated confinement for people diagnosed with a “serious mental illness.” 673
For people who do not fall into these categories, the HALT Act prohibits “segregated
confinement” for more than three consecutive days or more than six days in a thirty-day period
unless the person is found, “pursuant to an evidentiary hearing,” to have “violated department
rules which permit a penalty of segregated confinement.” 674 If the person is found to have
committed such a violation, the bill prohibits placement in “segregated confinement” for “longer
than necessary and no more than fifteen consecutive days or twenty total days within any sixty
day period.” 675
The HALT Act requires correctional administrators to publish monthly reports online
detailing demographic information of people in “segregated confinement,” the “number of days
[spent] in segregated confinement, a list of all incidents resulting in sanctions of segregated
confinement by facility,” and the number of people in segregated confinement by facility. 676 The
Act also requires “out-of-cell programming at least four hours per day, including at least one
hour for recreation.” 677 The HALT Act became effective on April 1, 2022.
Types of Facilities Regulated: The seven states, including New York, that enacted
statutes in 2021 and the one state that enacted a resolution in 2021 regulate a range of facilities.
Four of the enacted statutes cover both statewide and local facilities. Arkansas’s statute applies
to people detained “in the division of correction, in a local or regional detention facility, or in a
2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

117
juvenile detention facility.” 678 Kentucky’s statute covers pregnant and postpartum people
“housed in a jail, penitentiary, or local or state correctional or detention facility, residential
center, or reentry center.” 679
New York’s statute primarily applies to “correctional facilities,” 680 defined as “[a]ny
place operated by the department and designated by the commissioner as a place for the
confinement of persons under sentence of imprisonment or persons committed for failure to pay
a fine.” 681 The New York statute also includes a provision mandating assessment of the use of
isolation in “local correctional facilities,” defined as “[a]ny place operated by a county or the city
of New York as a place for the confinement of persons duly committed.” 682
North Carolina’s statute applies to “any unit of the State prison system, juvenile detention
facility, or other entity under the authority of the State that has the power to detain or restrain a
person under the laws of this State” 683 and “‘[l]ocal confinement facilities’ includ[ing] a county
or city jail, a local lockup, a regional or district jail, . . . and any other facility operated by a local
government for confinement of persons.” 684
One statute applies to jails exclusively. Colorado, where the Department of Corrections in
2017 banned state correctional facilities from using “restrictive housing” for more than 15
days, 685 enacted a law in 2021 to limit “restrictive housing” in local jails. The statute went into
effect on July 1, 2022. 686
Two state statutes enacted in 2021 apply exclusively to juvenile facilities. Tennessee’s
law, effective May 25, 2021, covers “juvenile detention facilities approved, certified, or licensed
by the department of children’s services.” 687 Louisiana’s resolution applies to “facilities housing
juveniles arrested or adjudicated for a delinquent or status offense.” 688
Limits for Subpopulations: Seven states that enacted bills or resolutions in 2021
addressing the use of isolation included limits on the use of isolation for at least one
subpopulation. Five states limited the use of isolation for young people. Arkansas’s legislation
prohibits people in juvenile detention facilities from being placed in “punitive isolation 689 or
solitary confinement 690 as a disciplinary measure for more than twenty-four (24) hours, unless”
the “juvenile” has committed a physical or sexual assault or engaged in “conduct . . . that poses
an imminent threat,” or has escaped or attempted escape. 691 Colorado also prohibits local jails
from placing people who are under eighteen years old in “restrictive housing.” 692 In New York,
correctional staff may not place people under the age of twenty-two in segregated confinement
for any length of time. 693 Tennessee prohibits “seclusion” of a “child” for “discipline,
punishment, administrative convenience, retaliation, staffing shortages, or any reason other than
a temporary response to behavior that threatens immediate harm to a youth or others.”694
Louisiana’s resolution urges a legislative audit of the use of restrictive housing “in facilities
housing juveniles arrested or adjudicated for a delinquent or status offense.” 695
Six states place limitations or prohibitions on the use of isolation for prisoners who are
pregnant or postpartum. In Arkansas, correctional staff may not place someone in “restrictive
housing 696 for thirty (30) or more days if the [prisoner] is pregnant; has delivered a child within
the previous thirty (30) days . . . ; is breastfeeding; or is under a physician’s care for postpartum
2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

118
depression” or other postpartum conditions. 697 Colorado prohibits the use of “restrictive
housing” 698 for prisoners detained in local jails if they are pregnant or postpartum, unless a series
of conditions are met, including the presence of “imminent danger” to others and the
unavailability of less restrictive options. 699 Kentucky bans “restrictive housing” for prisoners
who are “pregnant or in the immediate postpartum period.” 700 New York prohibits “segregated
confinement” 701 for prisoners who are pregnant, in the first eight weeks of the post-partum
recovery period . . . or caring for a child in a correctional institution.”702 North Carolina prohibits
the placement of pregnant or postpartum prisoners “in restrictive housing 703 unless a correctional
facility employee makes an individualized determination that an important circumstance704
exists.” 705 Tennessee prohibits “solitary confinement” for people who are pregnant or have given
birth within the past eight weeks unless “the inmate has demonstrated potential for self-harm,
harm to the unborn child, or harm to other inmates or correction staff.” 706
Colorado and New York prohibit the use of isolation for people with certain mental or
physical impairments. Colorado forbids local jails from placing someone in “restrictive housing”
involuntarily if the individual suffers from a “serious mental illness,” experiences “significant
auditory or visual impairment that cannot . . . be accommodated,” is “significantly
neurocognitively impaired,” or “has an intellectual or developmental disability,” except in
extreme cases of danger, and only if alternative options are unavailable. 707 New York requires
mental health assessments upon placement in “segregated confinement” and prohibits
“segregated confinement” for people diagnosed with “serious mental illness[es].” 708 New York
also prohibits people with certain disabilities from being placed in “segregated confinement.”709
In addition to the provisions outlined above, New York’s HALT Act bans the use of “segregated
confinement” for people over fifty-five years of age. 710
Conditions of Isolation: Two states enacted provisions in 2021 regulating conditions in
isolation. Colorado requires that people in isolation in local jails be supplied with “basic hygiene
necessities, including shaving and showering at least three times per week”; receive regular
“exchanges of clothing, bedding, and linen”; have opportunities to write letters, receive letters,
use the telephone, and receive visitors; have “access to legal materials” and “reading materials”;
exercise at least one hour each day “five days a week outside of the cell,” with at least one of
those hours spent outside, “weather permitting”; and have access to “programs and services”
such as “educational, religious, and recreational programs and medical, dental, and behavioral
health services and medications.” 711 New York requires that people in “segregated
confinement . . . be offered out-of-cell programming at least four hours per day, including at least
one hour for recreation.” 712 New York also prohibits changes in diet or “limitation[s] on services,
treatment or basic needs such as clothing, food and bedding” as forms of punishment. 713
Duration of Isolation: Colorado and New York also place limitations on the duration of
isolation. Colorado prohibits the use of isolation for people in jail “for more than fifteen days in a
thirty-day time period without a written court order.” 714 As discussed above, corrections staff in
New York may only place someone in “segregated confinement” for more than three consecutive
days or more than six days in a thirty-day period if, after an evidentiary hearing, it determines
that the person engaged in certain kinds of serious conduct, including, for example, “causing or
attempting to cause serious physical injury or death to another,” leading or organizing a riot, or
“procuring deadly weapons,” among other violations. 715 In addition, correctional staff in New
2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

119
York may not place someone in “segregated confinement” for “longer than necessary and no
more than fifteen consecutive days or twenty total days within any sixty day period.” 716
Staff Training: New York’s HALT Act also establishes staff training requirements,
requiring staff to receive “a minimum of thirty-seven hours and thirty minutes of training prior to
assignment” to a “special housing unit” and “twenty-one hours of additional training annually
thereafter.” 717 Annual training “topics includ[e], but [are] not limited to, the purpose and goals of
the non-punitive therapeutic environment, trauma-informed care, restorative justice, and dispute
resolution methods.” 718
Reporting Requirements: Five states passed legislation requiring reporting on the use of
isolation, and one state issued a resolution urging reporting. Colorado requires jail officials to
submit quarterly reports to the Department of Public Safety on “how many times the local jail
sought a written order to hold someone beyond fifteen days in restrictive housing and the
outcome.” 719 The report must also contain the demographics of people held in “restrictive
housing”; whether “the individual was placed in restrictive housing for a disciplinary reason”;
the length of confinement; and injuries, deaths, and crimes committed while in confinement. 720
Kentucky requires the Department of Corrections to submit annual reports to the state’s
Judiciary and Legislative Research Committees and requires that reports “be published on the
Legislative Research Commission’s Web site [sic].” 721 The reports must contain information
about the demographics of people held in restrictive housing, reasons for placement in restrictive
housing, and the dates of placement and release. 722 North Carolina requires written reports
whenever a “correctional facility employee makes an individualized determination that an
important circumstance exists” warranting the placement of a pregnant or postpartum person in
restrictive housing. 723 These reports must include a justification for the restrictive housing
placement. 724 Under the PROTECT Act, Connecticut’s Department of Correction must report
“measures taken by the department to address . . . [t]he frequency, cause and duration of
lockdowns.” 725
As discussed above, New York requires correctional administrators to publish monthly
reports on the New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision’s website with
details about the demographics of people held in “segregated confinement” and the duration of
their confinement. 726 It also requires the online publication of cumulative semi-annual and
annual reports. 727 Louisiana’s Resolution “urge[s] and request[s] the legislative auditor” to
submit a report to the state’s Juvenile Justice Reform Act Implementation Commission on the
use of “isolation in facilities housing juveniles arrested or adjudicated for a delinquent or status
offense in the state of Louisiana.” 728 The reports would include available data on demographics
for “juveniles” held in isolation, the duration of their confinement by facility, and “the top five
reasons juveniles were held in room confinement and room isolation . . . by facility.” 729
In addition to enacting external reporting requirements, Colorado also requires internal
monitoring and documentation. Under Colorado’s law, if a person held in a local jail is
involuntarily placed in restrictive housing, “[a]t least twice per hour, a medical or mental health
professional or local jail staff shall check, face-to-face or through a window, on [the]
individual.” 730 Each individual within a protected subpopulation must receive “a clear
2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

120
explanation of the reason” for the placement in isolation, the “monitoring procedures that the
local jail will employ to check the individual,” “the date and the time, when the individual’s next
court date is,” and “the behavioral criteria the individual must demonstrate to be released from
restrictive housing.” 731 Local jails must also document the time each person spends out of cell on
a daily basis, including “all meaningful human contact the individual received while out of cell
and any mental or medical services received.” 732
Legislative and Executive Action in Connecticut: In 2021, after declining to sign a bill
reforming solitary confinement policies in the state, Connecticut’s governor issued an executive
order requiring the Connecticut Department of Correction to limit the use of “isolated
confinement” for anyone under eighteen-years-old or sixty-five-years-old or older; pregnant or
postpartum; or suffering from certain mental health conditions, medical conditions,
developmental disabilities, or “significant auditory or visual impairment[s].” 733 The executive
order also limited prolonged detention in “isolated confinement.” 734 The Connecticut General
Assembly in May 2022 enacted the PROTECT ACT. The law limits the number of days a person
can spend in isolated confinement to no more than fifteen consecutive days or thirty total days
within any sixty-day period, including for individuals in pretrial, presentencing, and postconviction confinement. 735 PROTECT also created an independent “ombuds” position to
investigate complaints regarding the Department of Correction and an oversight advisory
committee. 736
Counties and Cities: In May 2021 in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, nearly seventy
percent of voters supported a measure to prohibit the local jail from using “solitary
confinement,” 737 defined as “the confinement of a detainee or inmate in a cell or other living
space for more than 20 hours a day.” 738 The ballot measure created exceptions in the event of
“[f]acility-wide lockdown[s]” and for emergency short-term use, defined as up to “a period of 24
hours, but no longer than necessary.” 739 The measure also permitted voluntary confinement for
up to 72 hours. 740 The ballot measure required the Warden of the Allegheny County Jail to
collect “information on the use of lock-downs and solitary confinement” and publish this
information on the facility’s website in “a report on a monthly basis.” 741 The Allegheny County
Jail holds approximately 1,500 people. 742
In June 2021, New York City’s Board of Corrections, an oversight agency, adopted new
rules restricting the use of isolation at Rikers Island. 743 Although New York’s mayor
subsequently paused its implementation, 744 the Board’s rules would have required that all people
in custody at Rikers Island have a minimum of ten hours of out-of-cell time per day, access to
“therapeutic programming,” and the opportunity to have “legal representation at internal
hearings” on disciplinary infractions. 745 In November 2021, New York’s mayor issued an
executive order declaring a state of emergency due to staff shortages and suspending the rules on
isolation. 746 Following New York’s 2021 mayoral election, the city’s mayor-elect indicated that
he also supported a delay on reform of isolated confinement and that he would support replacing
“solitary confinement” with “a new form of isolation.” 747
Implementation of Recent Legislation: In 2018, Massachusetts legislators passed a law
prohibiting the isolation of people with serious mental illnesses and requiring incarcerated people
to receive a mental health screening before placement in “restrictive housing.” 748 The statute also
2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

121
prohibited the placement of certain subpopulations in isolation, including anyone who is
pregnant, 749 and required “access to vocational, educational, and rehabilitative programs” for all
individuals held in isolation for over 60 days, as well as regular written reviews of isolation
placements. 750 State officials subsequently commissioned Falcon Correctional and Community
Services consultants to conduct an analysis of the use of isolation in Massachusetts following the
2018 statute enactment. In February 2021, Falcon released Elevating the System: Exploring
Alternatives to Restrictive Housing, which concluded that “conditions of confinement in the
[Department Disciplinary Unit] result[ed] in prolonged stays in Restrictive Housing.” 751 Falcon
recommended the dissolution of Massachusetts’s disciplinary unit as well as the elimination of
all “restrictive housing” that confined individuals in cells for twenty-two hours or more per
day. 752
As noted in Time-In-Cell 2019, between 2018 and 2020, six other states enacted
legislation 753 requiring correctional officials to submit data to various oversight bodies:
Maryland, 754 Michigan, 755 Minnesota, 756 Nebraska, 757 New Mexico, 758 and Virginia.759 These
reporting requirements included numerical totals of the number of people placed in isolation; the
age, race, ethnicity, gender, sex, and reason for placement for each person in isolation; and the
duration of isolation. The laws also required reporting on serious mental health issues of people
held in isolation, release into community and step-down programs, staffing numbers, and
changes in policies related to isolation. Maryland required annual reporting on “the number of
inmates known to be pregnant when placed in restrictive housing” and “the number of incidents
of death, self-harm, and attempts at self-harm by inmates in restrictive housing.” 760 Five of the
six states—Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Mexico, and Virginia—submitted reports in
compliance with their recently-created reporting requirements, while two states—Nebraska and
Maryland—reported that data collection challenges prevented them from doing so.
The Michigan legislature required the Michigan Department of Corrections to submit a
report to legislative committees on “administrative segregation” data including the number of
people in administrative segregation who “were diagnosed with serious mental illness or have a
developmental disorder” and their duration in isolation. 761 The Michigan Department of
Corrections 2021 report included annual totals for the number of days and daily average number
of people in “administrative segregation” and annual totals for the number of days and daily
average of all people in isolation with severe mental illness or developmental disorders for fiscal
years 2007-2008 through 2020-2021. The “daily average number of all prisoners in
administrative segregation” in 2020-2021 was 421, with a daily average of 2.8 people in
administrative segregation with “severe mental illness” or “developmental disorders.” 762
Michigan’s report also discussed the change over time of “prisoner days spent in
administrative segregation.” 763 The report noted a 95% reduction in the “total time in segregation
during the year” spent by “prisoners with severe mental illness or developmental disabilities”
from the 2007-2008 fiscal year to the 2020-2021 fiscal year. 764 In 2007-2008, the total number of
days people with “severe mental illness” or “developmental disorders” spent in “administrative
segregation” was 20,337 days. 765 In 2020-2021, the number of days reported was 1,032. 766
Michigan’s 2021 report attributed what it termed the “lowest total and [severely mentally ill]
administrative segregation populations in the 14-year history of this report” to its “continued use
of strategies such as SMART units to divert prisoners with mental health and protection concerns
2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

122
from long-term segregation,” to new review processes, and to its reduction of the capacity to
segregate individuals. 767
Minnesota’s statute required data on “the number of inmates in each institution placed in
restrictive housing during the past year,” “the number of inmates by race in restrictive housing,”
“the number of inmates transferred from restrictive housing to the mental health unit,”
“disciplinary sanctions by infraction,” and duration in isolation.768 The 2021 Minnesota
Restrictive Housing Report documented the “disciplinary sanctions by infraction” for over sixty
types of infractions. 769 These infractions include “Refusal to Provide Sample,” “Lying and
Misrepresentation,” “Being in an Unauthorized Area,” and “Disorderly Conduct.” 770 The report
also noted the duration of isolation and population breakdowns by age and race. 771 The report
stated that, during Fiscal Year 2020, there were 9,544 “individuals released from restrictive
housing” and that 891 of those individuals spent more than thirty days in “restrictive housing.” 772
New Mexico’s statute required quarterly reports from every correctional facility
including information about “age, gender, and ethnicity”; reasons for placement; and duration of
placement. 773 The New Mexico Corrections Department published the January through March
2022 Quarter 1 Report that documented the gender, age, reason for placement, placement
duration, and ethnicity of every prisoner placed in isolation. 774 Reasons for placement include
“[b]ehavior and/or actions [that] threaten the safety of others” and “[p]ending transfer
review/[p]ending bedspace.” 775
The Virginia legislature required the Virginia Department of Corrections (VADOC) to
report population data, demographic data of people held in “restrictive housing,” the number of
people “released from restrictive housing directly into the community,” mental health staff
numbers, and changes to policies related to isolation. 776 VADOC published a report on October
1, 2021, that outlined population numbers by unit, gender, race, ethnicity, age, mental health,
medical conditions, duration, and more. 777 VADOC stated “in practice, the end of restrictive
housing took place in January 2020.” 778 VADOC highlighted its shift from restrictive housing to
“restorative housing,” where “participants identify criminogenic thinking patterns through the
use of interactive journaling and guided group discussion.” 779 As of June 30, 2021, VADOC
reported 337 people in the “restorative housing program,” which represented “a 21% reduction
from FY2020 (N=426).” 780 From July 1, 2020, to June 30, 2021, 5,093 people were “placed in
restorative housing,” and in that same time period, 5,168 people were “released from restorative
housing.” 781 The report noted that there were 163 full-time mental health staff members as of
June 30, 2021. 782
As of April 2022, Nebraska and Maryland notified lawmakers that they were not yet able
to meet the new reporting requirements. The Nebraska law created a requirement for juvenile
facilities to submit quarterly data reports to the legislature, and that the Office of Inspector
General of Nebraska Child Welfare (OIG) submit annual reports analyzing that facility data on
juvenile “room confinement.” 783 In its 2020-2021 annual report, the OIG indicated that “[m]any
facilities over the past year did report room confinement numbers on a quarterly basis, but
several did not.” 784

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

123
“Without full and complete reporting,” the report continued, “a comprehensive review of
juvenile room confinement in Nebraska cannot be undertaken.” 785 The OIG noted that it has
“met with facility administrators to discuss actions, efforts, and procedure related to the issue,
and made requests for data clarification, when needed, from individual facilities.”786
Nonetheless, the OIG analyzed the available data and found “the most frequent reason for
confinement was concern for the safety of other juveniles and staff.” 787 The report found “[o]f
the 1,777 total incidents of confinement reported, [threats to the safety of youth and threats to the
safety of facility staff] accounted for a total of 1,009 incidents (57%).” 788
In Maryland, a 2019 law expanded existing reporting requirements to require the
Governor’s Office of Crime Prevention, Youth, and Victim Services (“Governor’s Office”) to
submit restrictive housing information—including population, demographics, duration of
confinement, and direct release to the community—for all correctional units in each jurisdiction
within the state. 789 In March 2020, the Governor’s Office submitted a brief letter explaining
“[g]iven the recent enactment of this bill, which took effect on October 1, 2019, and the limited
time frame for correctional units to report . . . the first set of data will be collected and reported
on by December, 31, 2020.” 790 On that date, the Governor’s Office submitted another letter that
explained “the data collection process was delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic that resulted
in a State of Emergency.” 791 As of May 2022, no further reports and updates had been publicly
filed.
Legislative Activity at the Federal Level
As noted, the First Step Act of 2018 (FSA) was enacted in December 2018 and covers a
range of issues. The law addresses isolation in federal facilities in two ways: it requires the
federal government to report certain information about the number of people in “solitary
confinement” in federal prisons and jails and limits the use of “room confinement” for “covered
juvenile[s]” in federal custody. This Section explains the relevant provisions of the Act and the
BOP’s implementation efforts as of March 2022.
This Section also describes other federal legislative proposals, pending as of February
2022, which would address the use of isolation. The “Restricting the Use of Solitary
Confinement Act” (RUSCA), H.R. 176, contained an array of provisions that would have limited
the reasons for placement, created procedural protections governing placements in isolation,
capped the duration of isolation, regulated the conditions of isolation, and restricted when
correctional officials could release people from prison directly from isolation. Four other
proposals, including two companion bills introduced in the House and the Senate, aimed to limit
the use of isolation by eliminating or limiting prison officials’ authority to place certain
subpopulations in isolation and by requiring publication of information about the use of isolation.
Members of Congress have also proposed eleven other bills and six resolutions that would have
addressed the harms of isolation, and another two bills impacting the use of isolation in response
to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The FSA’s Data Reporting Requirements for “Solitary Confinement”: The FSA created a
new requirement for the BOP to report “the number of prisoners who have been placed in
solitary confinement at any time during the previous year.” 792 The FSA specifies that the BOP
must provide this information annually to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) for inclusion in
2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

124
the National Prisoner Statistics Program, a data collection program begun in 1926. 793 The FSA
also imposes a more general requirement for the Attorney General to submit annual reports to
Congress with “[a] summary of the activities and accomplishments of the Attorney General in
carrying out” the FSA. 794
The FSA does not define the term “solitary confinement” for purposes of data reporting.
Since the enactment of the FSA, the National Prisoner Statistics Program has included in its
annual reports the number of people in federal custody in “segregated housing.” 795 The BOP
website provides information updated weekly on people in “restricted housing.” 796 As discussed
below, these categories include various forms of isolation.
As of the spring of 2022, the National Prisoner Statistics Program has published two
reports titled “Federal Prisoner Statistics Collected under the First Step Act.” The first report,
published in February 2021, provided information about people in federal custody through
2019. 797 The second report, published in November 2021, provided information about people in
federal custody through 2020. 798 Both reports included the number of people “held in segregated
housing units at any time during the year” in 2018 and 2019, and the second report added the
number of people held in such conditions in 2020. 799
The reports indicated that “segregated housing” included three subcategories: “special
housing unit[s],” “special management unit[s],” and “administrative maximum.” 800 The reports
described a “special housing unit (SHU)” as a “facility where prisoners are separated from the
general prison population” and may be housed with or without other people. 801 A “special
management unit (SMU)” was defined as a “segregated housing unit . . . that holds any
sentenced person whose interaction requires greater management to ensure the safety, security,
or orderly operation of BOP facilities or the protection of the public.” 802 Within each SMU, three
levels of confinement varied in dimensions and duration. The strictest level, SMU level 1, meant
“persons [had] limited interaction and [were] normally restricted to their assigned cells.”803
“Administrative maximum (ADX)” referred to “a type of segregated housing unit designed for
occupancy by a single person.” 804 The reports indicated that ADX Florence in Colorado was the
only BOP facility with administrative maximum units. 805
As illustrated in Table 40, in 2018, the BOP reported to the National Prisoner Statistics
Program that it held 11,675 federal prisoners in “segregated housing”: 10,214 in “special housing
units,” 1,054 in “special management units,” and 407 in “administrative maximum.” 806 In 2019,
the BOP reported that it held 12,035 federal prisoners in “segregated housing”: 10,649 in
“special housing units,” 1,000 in “special management units,” and 386 in “administrative
maximum.” 807 In 2020, the BOP reported that it held 11,703 federal prisoners in “segregated
housing”: 10,236 in “special housing units,” 1,094 in “special management units,” and 373 in
“administrative maximum.” 808

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

125
Table 40
Year
2018
2019
2020

Federal BOP Restricted Housing Data (National Prisoner Statistics Program)
Total in
Segregated
Housing
11,675
12,035
11,703

Special
Housing Units
10,214
10,649
10,236

Special
Management
Units
1,054
1,000
1,094

Administrative
Maximum
407
386
373

As noted above, as of the spring of 2022, the BOP’s website also included information
about the number of people in what it terms “Restricted Housing” (rather than Restrictive
Housing) in federal facilities. The website indicated that “Restricted Housing” refers to the same
three forms of isolation: Special Housing Units, Special Management Units, and Administrative
Maximum. 809 According to the BOP’s website, this information is “updated on a weekly basis
and reflects the current population at the time the data is collected.” 810 As of the website’s update
on May 25, 2022, 9,811 people were in “special housing units,” 538 people were in “special
management units,” and 344 prisoners were in “administrative maximum.” 811
In addition, the BOP’s website includes information about how many days people are
held in Special Housing Units and the reasons for placements in Special Housing Units. As of
the website’s update on May 25, 2022, 8,888 people had been in Special Housing Units for 90 or
fewer days and 923 people had been in Special Housing Units for more than 90 days, including
403 people who had been in Special Housing Units for more than 180 days and 49 people who
had been in Special Housing Units for a year or more. 812 The website indicated that 8,334 people
were in Special Housing Units for “Administrative Detention,” and 1,477 were in Special
Housing Units for “Disciplinary Detention.” 813
The FSA’s Limits on “Room Confinement” for “Covered Juveniles”: The FSA limits the
reasons for and duration of placements of “covered juvenil[e]s” in federal custody in “room
confinement.” 814 The FSA defines a “covered juvenile” as a “juvenile” who “has been
adjudicated delinquent,” “is being proceeded against . . . for an alleged act of juvenile
delinquency,” or “is being proceeded against as an adult in a federal district court for an alleged
criminal offense.” 815 Chapter 403 of Title 18 defines a “juvenile” as “a person who has not
attained his eighteenth birthday, or for the purpose of . . . juvenile delinquency, a person who has
not attained his twenty-first birthday.” 816 The FSA defines “room confinement” as “the
involuntary placement of a covered juvenile alone in a cell, room, or other area for any
reason.” 817
Under the FSA, a federal “juvenile facility” may not use “room confinement” for
“discipline, punishment, retaliation, or any reason other than as a temporary response to a
covered juvenile’s behavior that poses a serious and immediate risk of physical harm.” 818 The
FSA also mandates that any period of isolation in “room confinement” must end after three hours
in the case of an “immediate risk of physical harm to others,” after thirty minutes in the case of
“an immediate risk of harm only to himself or herself,” or “immediately when the covered
juvenile has sufficiently gained control so as to no longer engage in behavior that threatens
serious and immediate risk of physical harm.” 819
2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

126

In December 2020, the Attorney General published the first annual report on the
implementation of the FSA. This report stated that the BOP and the U.S. Marshal Service
complied with “the Act’s requirements that prohibit certain room confinement for juvenile
offenders,” and that “the BOP does not house juveniles in its facilities.” 820 In April 2022, the
Attorney General published its second annual report, which again stated that the BOP had
complied with the FSA and that the BOP “does not house juveniles in its facilities.” 821
Proposals in the 117th Congress: Six bills introduced during the 117th Congress (20212022), including a pair of companion bills introduced in the House and Senate, proposed to limit
the use of isolation: H.R. 176, the “Restricting the Use of Solitary Confinement Act” (RUSCA);
H.R. 2222 and S. 1186, the “Dignity for Detained Immigrants Act of 2021” (DDIA); 822 H.R.
131, the “Effective and Humane Treatment of Youth Act of 2021” or “Kalief’s Law”; H.R. 6878,
the “Protecting the Health and Wellness of Babies and Pregnant Women Act of 2022”
(PHWBPWA); and H.R. 7424, “The Solitary Confinement Reform Act of 2022” (SCRA).
Definitions of isolation varied among these bills. RUSCA defined “solitary confinement”
as “confinement of an inmate in a correctional facility, pursuant to disciplinary, administrative,
protective, investigative, medical, or other classification, in a cell or similarly confined holding
or living space, alone or with other inmates, for approximately 20 hours or more per day, with
severely restricted activity, movement, and social interaction.” 823 The DDIA defines “solitary
confinement” as (i) “in the case of an individual who is older than 21 years of age, the state of
being confined to the individual’s cell, alone or with a cellmate, for more than 22 hours during a
24-hour period, with very limited out-of-cell time and severely restricted activity, movement,
and social interaction whether pursuant to disciplinary, administrative, or classification action”
or (ii) “in the case of an individual who is 21 years of age or younger, involuntary confinement
alone in a cell, room, or other area for a period greater than 3 hours.” 824 Kalief’s Law,
PHWBPWA, and SCRA did not define “solitary confinement.” Kalief’s Law focused on
“temporary separation,” which is defined as “the involuntary restriction of an individual alone in
a cell, room, or other area isolated away from all human contact except for the employees of the
detention facility.” 825 PHWBPWA and SCRA referred to isolation in the form of restrictive
housing. The former defined it as “any type of detention” involving “removal from the general
inmate population,” “placement in a locked room or cell, whether alone or with another inmate,”
and the “inability to leave the room or cell for the vast majority of the day.” 826 SCRA defined
restrictive housing as “any housing in which an inmate is removed from general population
housing to housing with little or no contact with others for a disciplinary purpose.” 827
The six bills did not have the same jurisdictional reach, nor did they propose to address
the same populations. RUSCA, PHWBPWA, and SCRA would have governed the federal prison
system, 828 the two DDIA companion bills aimed to regulate detention by the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS), 829 and Kalief’s Law would have applied to state and local
governments seeking juvenile accountability block grants under the Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1964. 830
The Restricting the Use of Solitary Confinement Act: RUSCA would have limited the
reasons for placement, created procedural protections governing placements in isolation, capped
2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

127
the duration of isolation, regulated the conditions of isolation, and restricted when correctional
officials could release people from isolation to outside prison. With regard to the reasons for
placements, RUSCA would have authorized “solitary confinement” only for people who “create
a substantial risk of immediate serious harm to another, as evidenced by recent threats or
conduct.” 831 RUSCA would also have required a determination that “a less restrictive
intervention would be insufficient to reduce this risk,” and would have prohibited “solitary
confinement for non-disciplinary reasons.” 832
Under RUSCA, placement in “solitary confinement” was to have triggered a “preliminary
examination” within twelve hours before confinement and “a personal and comprehensive
medical and mental health examination conducted by a clinician” within forty-eight hours of
confinement. 833 RUSCA would also have granted people in restrictive housing “the right to an
initial hearing within 72 hours of placement and a review every 15 days thereafter.” 834 People
facing placements in “solitary confinement” were to have rights to appear at hearings, to be
represented, to be heard by independent hearing officers, and to receive written statements of
reasons following hearings. 835
RUSCA also proposed to prohibit the use of “solitary confinement” for “an inmate who is
a vulnerable person” and require that any such person “be placed in an appropriate medical or
other unit as determined by the administrator.” 836 RUSCA defined a “vulnerable person” as:
any inmate who is 25 years of age or younger; is 65 years of age or older; has a disability
based on a mental illness, a history of psychiatric hospitalization, or has recently
exhibited conduct, including serious self-mutilation, indicating the need for further
observation or evaluation to determine the presence of mental illness; has a
developmental disability; has a serious medical condition which cannot effectively be
treated in isolated confinement; is pregnant, is in the postpartum period, or has recently
suffered a miscarriage or terminated a pregnancy; has a significant auditory or visual
impairment; or is perceived to be lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or intersex. 837
RUSCA would have required “a clinician [to] evaluate each inmate placed in solitary
confinement on a daily basis, in a confidential setting outside of the cell whenever possible, to
determine whether the inmate is a vulnerable person.” 838
After a person is placed in “solitary confinement,” RUSCA would have limited the
duration of isolation to no “more than 15 consecutive days, or for more than 20 days during any
60-day period.” 839 RUSCA required corrections officials to remove prisoners from “solitary
confinement” as soon as they determine “that the inmate no longer meets the standard for the
confinement.” 840 Additionally, RUSCA would have prohibited denying any person held in
“solitary confinement” access to “food, water, medical care including emergency medical care,
or any other basic necessity.” 841 RUSCA would have prohibited any prisoner from being
“directly released from solitary confinement to the community during the final 180 days of the
inmate’s term of incarceration, unless it is necessary for the safety of the inmate, staff, other
inmates, or the public.” 842

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

128
The Solitary Confinement Reform Act of 2022: SCRA would have limited the reasons for
restrictive housing placement, created procedural protections governing placements in restrictive
housing, regulated the conditions of isolation, capped the duration of isolation, required stepdown or transition programs for people released from restrictive housing, mandated that facilities
establish standing committees to review restrictive housing policies, and required regular
employee training on use of force and restrictive housing policies.
SCRA would have authorized restrictive housing “only . . . to eliminate or mitigate a
specific facility threat such as a fight between inmates or the threat of imminent danger to
inmates or staff” and would prohibit its use “as a form of punishment or deterrence.” 843 SCRA
would have also required that prisoners “be housed in least restrictive setting necessary to ensure
their own safety, as well as the safety of staff, other inmates, and the public.” 844
Upon a restrictive housing placement, SCRA would have required the facility’s
management to “clearly articulate each specific reason” for the placement and provide “objective
evidence that such placement and retention is necessary.” 845 It would also have required that the
facility’s leadership “make a plan for the return of the inmate to less restrictive conditions
and . . . share such plan with the inmate, unless sharing such plan would put the health and safety
of the inmate, staff, other inmates, or the public at risk.” 846 Under SCRA, each placement would
have had to be reviewed by an institutional review panel “not later than 15 days after such
placement and not less than every 15 days thereafter until such time as the inmate is removed
from restrictive housing.” 847 Under SCRA, “institutional review panels” would have been
“composed of the leadership” of the facility and “medical professionals and mental health
professionals who are employed by and work outside of such facility.” 848
Regarding the conditions of restrictive housing, SCRA would have required the U.S.
Attorney General, Director of the Bureau of Prisons, and the Secretary of Defense to “establish
policies to increase the minimum amount of time inmates in restrictive housing spend outside
their cells to 3 hours per day . . . and to offer enhanced in-cell opportunities.” 849 These officials
would have also required to provide people in restrictive housing with “opportunities for
recreation, education, clinically appropriate treatment therapies, skill-building, and social
interaction with staff and other inmates.” 850
SCRA would have prohibited the use of restrictive housing “for more than 5 days as part
of a routine investigation or for more than 15 days as part of a non-routine
investigation . . . absent documented extenuating circumstances.” 851 SCRA defined a non-routine
investigation as one that “addresses a grave risk of safety and security of the facility, such as a
riot, killing, or terror attack.” 852 SCRA would also have banned the “release [of] inmates directly
from restrictive housing to the general inmate population,” thereby requiring some form of a
transition program. 853
Under SCRA, the U.S. Attorney General, Director of the Bureau of Prisons, and the
Secretary of Defense were to “establish policies to prohibit the placement of inmates in
restrictive housing during the final 180 days of the[ir] term of imprisonment” and “provide
targeted re-entry programming for inmates who require restrictive housing during the such final
180-day period.” 854 SCRA would also have required these officials to “establish in each covered
2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

129
facility a standing committee, consisting of high-level correctional officials . . . to regularly
evaluate existing restrictive housing policies.” 855 These committees were to “review use of force
and abuse allegations,” present “written recommendations on preventing unlawful use of force or
abuse to the Department of Justice” and congressional committees, “develop[] safe and effective
alternatives to restrictive housing,” and share “best practices for use of force.” 856 SCRA would
also have required prison staff to be “trained on use of force and restrictive housing policies not
less than quarterly” and to wear body cameras when “interacting with [people] in restrictive
housing for any forced movement or physical interaction.” 857
Limits on the Use of Isolation for Young People in RUSCA, the DDIA, and Kalief’s Law:
RUSCA, the DDIA companion bills, and Kalief’s Law all addressed the use of isolation for
young people. The bills defined differently the age ranges that they propose to regulate. RUSCA
proposed to treat anyone 25 years of age or younger as a “vulnerable person” whom prison
officials may not place in “solitary confinement.” 858 Kalief’s Law and the DDIA were to have
applied to individuals who are 21 years of age or younger and limit how long they can be placed
in “temporary separation” or “involuntary confinement.” 859
The bills also differed in the number of hours per day that would constitute impermissible
confinement for young people. As discussed above, RUSCA defined “solitary confinement” as
“approximately 20 hours or more per day” of confinement and would prohibit prison officials
from placing anyone 25 years of age or younger in “solitary confinement.” 860 The DDIA aimed
to prohibit the use of “involuntary confinement alone in a cell room, or other area for a period of
greater than 3 hours” for people 21 years of age and younger. 861 Kalief’s Law would have
allowed for “temporary separation,” which was defined as “the involuntary restriction of an
individual alone in a cell, room, or other area isolated away from all human contact except for
the employees of the detention facility.” 862 Kalief’s Law would have capped the duration of
“temporary separation” at three hours and it would have prohibited “consecutive periods of
temporary separation for the same episode of behavior.” 863 A “youth” was to have been released
from “temporary separation” before the end of three hours if “he or she no longer poses a risk of
serious and immediate physical harm.” 864 If a “youth . . . continues to pose a risk of serious and
immediate physical harm after being in temporary separation for 3 hours,” the facility was
required to transfer the “youth” to a “facility that can provide necessary services without the use
of temporary separation or refer[] the individual to a mental health facility that can provide
necessary services.” 865
Kalief’s Law would also have regulated the reasons for placement in isolation and
conditions of confinement for young people. Under Kalief’s Law, prison officials would have
been prohibited from putting people 21 years of age and younger in “temporary separation” for
“any purpose other than a temporary response to behavior of the individual that poses a serious
and immediate risk of physical harm to that individual or to others.” 866 Kalief’s Law would also
have required “a good faith effort to employ less restrictive techniques” and would have required
a detention official to provide an explanation to the individual “before or immediately after a
youth is placed in temporary separation” of “the reasons for the separation and under what
circumstances it will end.” 867 In addition, Kalief’s Law would have mandated that “the physical
space used for temporary separation” be “at least 80 square feet, suicide-resistant, and
protrusion-free; ha[ve] adequate lighting and ventilation;” be “kept at a reasonable temperature;”
2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

130
and included “access to clean potable water, toilet facilities, and hygiene supplies.” 868 Any
“youth” in isolation was to have received “access to appropriate medical and mental health
services” as well as “crisis intervention and one-on-one observation.” 869
Reporting Requirements in RUSCA, SCRA, Kalief’s Law, and PHWBPWA: RUSCA,
SCRA, Kalief’s Law, and PHWBPWA would have required publication of information on the
use of isolation. RUSCA would have required the BOP to prepare and submit a report to
Congress with recommendations to reduce the use of solitary confinement in Federal prisons to
“near zero over the 10-year period beginning on the date of the submission of the report.”870
SCRA would have required the U.S. Attorney General, the BOP Director, the Secretary of
Defense, and the leadership of any state facility housing federal prisoners to “submit data on
restrictive housing to the Department of Justice” and to Congress “on a quarterly basis.” 871 It
would also have required committees at each facility to “submit redacted written
recommendations on preventing unlawful use of force of abuse to the Department of Justice” and
Congress. 872
Kalief’s Law would have required the Attorney General to submit a report to Congress
detailing the types and conditions of “temporary separation” used for Federal prisoners or
detainees who are “youths,” together with a list of the number of instances in which “temporary
separation” was used for “youths” in federal custody, disaggregated by age, race, ethnicity,
gender, and a description of the circumstances specific to such instance, including the cause,
length, and result.” 873 The PHWBPWA would have required the Attorney General to submit
biannual reports to Congress with data on the restrictive housing placements of people who were
pregnant or in the postpartum period, including the duration, “attempts to use alternative
interventions and sanctions before the restrictive housing was used,” and “any resulting physical
effects . . . observed or reported by the health care professional[s] responsible for the health and
safety” of the people placed in restrictive housing. 874 In addition, the Department of Homeland
Security Appropriations Act, S. 3058, which would not have otherwise limited the use of
isolation, would have required the Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
to report on “the use and duration of solitary confinement” of persons detained by ICE. 875
Resolutions Seeking to Recognize the Harms of Isolation: Members of the 117th Congress
introduced four resolutions addressing “solitary confinement” in the United States. House
Resolution 226, put forth by Rep. Ayanna Pressley, stated “that it is the sense of the House of
Representatives that the time is now for the Federal Government” to “reduce the risk of
recidivism by transforming the experience of confinement by [in part] ending solitary
confinement” and banning “solitary confinement and physical restraints on pregnant people.”876
House Resolution 723, introduced by Rep. Tony Cárdenas, and Senate Resolution 423,
introduced by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, declared that “it is harmful to public safety and to
young people in the legal system to confine youth in adult jails or prisons where they are
significantly more likely to be physically and sexually assaulted and often placed in solitary
confinement.” 877 House Resolution 64, introduced by Rep. Pramila Jayapal, stated that lowincome people and people of color have been disproportionately impacted by “deplorable
conditions in the custody of Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, including . . . rampant use of solitary confinement.” 878
2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

131
Proposed Legislation Seeking to Address Isolation in a Global Context: The Department
of Peacebuilding Act of 2021, H.R. 1111, would have required documentation of “domestic and
international human rights abuses, including . . . solitary confinement.” 879 This bill would also
have created “an Office of Human Rights and Economic Rights” which would work with other
federal entities “to gather information on and document domestic and international human rights
abuses, including . . . solitary confinement (especially among children).” 880 In addition, two sets
of companion bills discussed the harms of “solitary confinement” on certain subpopulations,
such as LGBTQI individuals or detained immigrants, 881 and three bills 882 and two resolutions883
criticized the use of solitary confinement by foreign governments.
The Impact of COVID-19: The COVID-19 pandemic prompted concerns that medical
isolation may lead to an undue expansion of isolation in prisons.884 One set of companion bills
addresses these issues in federal prisons. 885 The Federal Correctional Facilities COVID-19
Response Act would have required the Department of Justice to issue guidelines on how “to
minimize the similarity of punitive solitary confinement and other punitive measures with
medical quarantine.” 886 The guidelines were to have addressed “the provision of materials, such
as books, television shows, magazines, and movies . . . recreation hours . . . and programming
and phone and email communication privileges for incarcerated persons in medical isolation.”887
The Federal Correctional Facilities COVID-19 Response Act would have required the Attorney
General to “submit to Congress a report on prevention, mitigation, and control activities relating
to the spread of COVID-19 in prisons conducted by the Department of Justice and the Bureau of
Prisons,” including efforts “ensuring that medical isolation for COVID-19 is distinct from
punitive solitary confinement.” 888
May 2022 Executive Order: President Biden on May 25, 2022, issued an executive order
on “Advancing Effective, Accountable Policing and Criminal Justice Practices to Enhance Public
Trust and Public Safety.” 889 The introductory language referenced the administration’s goals to
reduce racial disparities in policing, sentencing and incarceration; increase public trust in law
enforcement institutions and the courts; and “ensure that conditions of confinement are safe and
humane, and that those who are incarcerated are not subjected to unnecessary or excessive uses
of force, are free from prolonged segregation, and have access to quality health care, including
substance use disorder care and mental health care.” 890
Two sections of the nineteen-page order referred to “restrictive housing.” The first ordered the
Attorney General, within 120 days, to undertake “updating BOP and USMS procedures and
protocols . . . to identify alternatives consistent with public health recommendations to the use of
facility-wide lockdowns to prevent the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, or to the use of restrictive
housing for detainees and prisoners who have tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 or have known,
suspected, or reported exposure.” 891 A second reference ordered the Attorney General to, within
180 days, submit to the President a report describing steps the Department of Justice has taken
to—among other goals—“ensure that restrictive housing in Federal detention facilities is used
rarely, applied fairly, and subject to reasonable constraints,” and to implement the department’s
January 2016 Report and Recommendations Concerning the Use of Restrictive Housing. 892 The
order’s reporting deadlines are in September and November of 2022.

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

132

VII. Looking Ahead: Continuing to Build the Data
This decade-long effort of data collection and reporting by CLA and the Liman Center
has produced important insights into the use and reconsideration of restrictive housing. By
looking at changes in population trends, policies, legislation, and ACA standards, this series of
surveys and reports has illuminated concerns about isolation in prisons and the many efforts to
address those concerns by correctional systems and others.
This Report reflects the utility of asking questions, inviting dialogue, learning more, and
building on that knowledge to make further changes. The goals remain to gather information
across jurisdictions and encourage discussion and collaboration around a common vision.
Readers are welcome to make suggestions on the issues in need of documentation and methods
to develop shorter questionnaires to maximize responses. The hope is that the information will
continue the last decade’s efforts to create more resources to end profound isolation. Thank you
for
engaging
with
this
work.

2021 CLA Liman RH Report Revised Aug 22 2022 final revised for distribution

133

As of the late spring of 2022, prisons and immigration detention centers across the United States reported 3,100
deaths of incarcerated people; 308 deaths of correctional officials; 600,383 infections of incarcerated people; and
207,983 infections of correctional officials resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. UCLA COVID Behind Bars
Data Project, UCLA SCHOOL OF LAW (last visited May 8, 2022), available at https://uclacovidbehindbars.org/.
1

See, e.g. Press Release, Bureau of Prisons Update on COVID-19, FED. BUREAU OF PRISONS (Mar. 24, 2020)
(announcing “aggressive steps to protect the safety and security of all staff, and inmates, as well as visitors and
members of the public,” including “restricting inmate movement to only required and mission-essential transfer” and
“a mandatory 14-day quarantine for all new inmates”); Keri Blakinger, What Happens When More Than 300,000
Prisoners Are Locked Down, THE MARSHALL PROJECT (Apr. 15, 2020) (reporting on facility-wide “lockdowns”
imposed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in state and federal prisons), available at https://www.themarshall
project.org/2020/04/15/what-happens-when-more-than-300-000-prisoners-are-locked-down.
2

In addition, increases in uses of certain types of isolation in response to COVID-19 are not reflected in the data if
these forms of isolation did not fall within the Survey’s definition of “restrictive housing.” Amend, a public-health
organization at the University of California-San Francisco, has developed guidance and separate definitions for
“Solitary Confinement,” “Quarantine,” and “Medical Isolation.” Under Amend’s definitions, “Solitary Confinement
is the practice of isolating incarcerated people from the rest of the prison population while simultaneously imposing
punitive measures such as major restrictions on visitors, phone calls, recreation and outdoor time, and access to
personal property”; “Quarantine is the practice of separating and restricting the movement of people who may have
been exposed to a contagious disease until results of a laboratory test confirm whether or not they have contracted
the disease”; and “Medical Isolation is the practice of isolating incarcerated people from the rest of the prison
population when they show signs or test positive for COVID-19 in order to stem the risk of COVID-19 transmission
throughout the prison.” COVID-19 in Correctional Facilities: Medical Isolation, AMEND (last visited July 6, 2022),
available at https://amend.us/covid-19-in-correctional-facilities-medical-isolation/.
3

The jurisdictions that responded to the survey were the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Alabama, California, Colorado,
Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia,
Wisconsin, and Wyoming. West Virginia responded to some questions but did not provide information about the
number of people in restrictive housing.

As of the summer of 2022, prisons, jails, and immigration detention centers across the United States reported 3,128
deaths of incarcerated people; 309 deaths of correctional officials; 618,498 infections of incarcerated people; and
220,647 infections of correctional officials resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. UCLA COVID Behind Bars
Data Project, UCLA SCHOOL OF LAW (last visited July 14, 2022), available at https://uclacovidbehindbars.org/.
Neal Marquez, MPH; Julie A. Ward, MN, RN2; Kalind Parish, MA; Brendan Saloner, PhD; Sharon Dolovich, JD,
PhD, COVID-19 Incidence and Mortality in Federal and State Prisons Compared With the US Population, April 5,
2020, to April 3, 2021, Journal of the American Medical Association, (Oct. 6, 2021).
5

See, e.g. Keri Blakinger, What Happens When More Than 300,000 Prisoners Are Locked Down, THE MARSHALL
PROJECT (Apr. 15, 2020) (reporting on facility-wide “lockdowns” imposed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic
in state and federal prisons), available at https://www.themarshallproject.org/2020/04/15/what-happens-when-morethan-300-000-prisoners-are-locked-down; see also Press Release, Bureau of Prisons Update on COVID-19, FED.
BUREAU OF PRISONS (Mar. 24, 2020) (announcing “aggressive steps to protect the safety and security of all staff,
and inmates, as well as visitors and members of the public,” including “restricting inmate movement to only
required and mission-essential transfers” and “a mandatory 14-day quarantine for all new inmates”).
6

134

7
Katherine LeMasters, Morgan Maner, Meghan Peterson & Lauren Brinkley-Rubinstein, Staff Shortages In Prisons
And Jails Highlight Opportunities For Decarceration, Health Affairs (Jan. 21, 2022), available at
https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/forefront.20220119.329328/
#:~:text=The%20COVID%2D19%20pandemic%20has,to%2070%20percent%20staff%20shortages; Michael R.
Sisak & Michael Balsamo, Cooks, Nurses Guard Inmates with US Prisons Down 6K Officers, ASSOCIATED PRESS
(May 21, 2021), available at https://apnews.com/article/business-health-coronavirus-pandemic-prisons-governmentand-politics-88fff925b1901a36a10581c28d826916.

See, e.g., The Ninth Circuit Corrections Summit, Sacramento, California, November 4-6, 2015; The Ninth Circuit
Corrections Summit, Santa Ana, California, April 25-27, 2018; Racial Disparities in Prisons: A Seminar, Yale Law
School, 2017.

See, e.g., Chesa Boudin, Trevor Stutz & Aaron Littman, Prison Visitation Policies: A Fifty State Survey, 32 YALE
LAW
&
POLICY
REVIEW:
149
(2013),
available
at
http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/
viewcontent.cgi?article=1654&context=ylpr; Giovanna Shay, Visiting Room: A Response to Prison Visitation
Policies: A Fifty-State Survey, 32 YALE LAW & POLICY REVIEW 191 (2013), available at
http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/ylpr/vol32/iss1/6/; Ashbel T. Wall II, Why Do They Do It That Way?: A
Response to Prison Visitation Policies: A Fifty-State Survey, 32 YALE LAW & POLICY REVIEW 199 (2013), available
at http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/ylpr/vol32/iss1/7/; David Fathi, An Endangered Necessity: A Response to
Prison Visitation Policies: A Fifty-State Survey, 32 YALE LAW & POLICY REVIEW 205 (2013), available at
http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/ylpr/vol32/iss1/8/; Philip M. Genty, Taking Stock and Moving Forward to
Improve Prison Visitation Practices: A Response to Prison Visitation Policies: A Fifty-State Survey, 32 YALE LAW
& POLICY REVIEW 211 (2013), available at http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/ylpr/vol32/iss1/9/; ARTHUR LIMAN
PUBLIC INTEREST PROGRAM AT YALE LAW SCHOOL, Rethinking "Death Row": Variations in the Housing of
Individuals
Sentenced
to
Death
(2016),
available
at
https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/Liman/deathrow_reportfinal.pdf
[hereinafter
“Rethinking
"Death Row"].
9

Jacob Kang-Brown, Chase Montagnet & Jasmine Heiss, People in Jail and Prison in Spring 2021, Vera Institute
of Justice (June 2021), available at https://www.vera.org/downloads/publications/people-in-jail-and-prison-inspring-2021.pdf [hereinafter People in Jail & Prison in Spring 2021], at 1.
10

11
See Chase Montagnet, Jennifer Peirce & David Pitts. Mapping U.S. Jails’ Use of Restrictive Housing: Trends,
Disparities, and Other Forms of Lockdown, Vera Institute of Justice (2021), available at
https://www.vera.org/downloads/publications/mapping-us-jails-use-of-restrictive-housing.pdf, at 2, 22.
12

This jurisdiction was Vermont.

As noted above, West Virginia responded to the 2021 Survey with information about the number of people in
their total custodial population and their demographics, as well as information about the rules governing restrictive
housing, but West Virginia did not provide information about the number of people in restrictive housing.
13

In the few jurisdictions with unified correctional systems in which jails come under the authority of the state-wide
prison system, these totals may include some people in jails.
14

These jurisdictions were Delaware, North Dakota, and Vermont. Vermont noted that it held people in a form of
isolation, which it referred to as “restrictive housing,” that allowed up to six hours of out-of-cell time per day (and
therefore fell outside the Survey’s definition of restrictive housing). Virginia, which did not respond to the 2021
CLA-Liman Survey, stated in an October 2021 report that, “[i]n 2020, VADOC completely eliminated restrictive
housing by increasing the minimum amount of out-of-cell time to 4 hours a day, 7 days a week.” VIRGINIA DEP’T OF
CORRECTION, A DECADE OF PROGRESS: 2011-2020,
at
16
(Oct.
2021),
available
at
https://vadoc.virginia.gov/media/1731/vadoc-decade-of-progress-report-2020.pdf.
15

135

These jurisdictions were Colorado, which reported holding four people, and Maine, which reported holding eight.

These jurisdictions were Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota,
Utah, Vermont, and Wyoming.

This jurisdiction was Colorado.

CLA-LIMAN TIME-IN-CELL 2019 at 9–10, tbl. 1 [hereinafter TIME-IN-CELL 2019].

This jurisdiction was Utah.

This figure represents the average of Nebraska (3.4%) and Texas (3.2%).

These jurisdictions were the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Alabama, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware,
Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South
Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Delaware did not answer this
question, because Delaware did not hold people in restrictive housing under the survey definition as of July of 2021.
22

These jurisdictions were the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Alabama, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois,
Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and
Wyoming.

24
These jurisdictions were the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Vermont,
and Wyoming.

These jurisdictions were the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Alabama, Colorado, Iowa, Massachusetts, Minnesota,
Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, and Utah.

26
These jurisdictions were the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Alabama, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware,
Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. New Jersey did not respond to the
survey question asking about different time intervals in restrictive housing. West Virginia did not provide
information regarding the number of people in restrictive housing.

One jurisdiction’s response to the survey question asking about different time intervals in restrictive housing
reflected restrictive housing population totals that differed slightly from the totals that this jurisdiction reported in
response to the survey question asking for the total number of people in restrictive housing. This jurisdiction was
Utah (635 people for the time interval question, as compared with 640 people for the total restrictive housing
population question). Thus, the thirty-four jurisdictions’ responses to the question about time intervals reflected a
total of 25,029 people in restrictive housing in these jurisdictions, whereas the same jurisdictions’ responses to the
question about total restrictive housing populations reflected a total of 25,034 people. This report uses the 25,029
figure for the purposes of reporting data related to the question about time intervals.

Table 4 identifies when jurisdictions began regularly tracking length of time in restrictive housing.

The 2019 CLA-Liman Survey asked jurisdictions in what year they “beg[an] to regularly track length of time,”
while the 2021 CLA-Liman Survey asked “[i]n what year did your jurisdiction begin to keep length-of-stay data.”
For this reason, some jurisdictions’ responses to the 2019 Survey do not match the responses to the 2021 Survey.
29

136

These jurisdictions were the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Alabama, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii,
Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire,
New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas,
Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Colorado, Illinois, New Jersey, and Ohio did not respond to
the question about reasons for placements in restrictive housing. West Virginia did not provide information
regarding the number of people in restrictive housing.

31
For example, the Federal Bureau of Prisons provided responses to the “Administrative” and “Other” categories
but not for the other reasons for placements in restrictive housing, and South Dakota provided responses only to the
“Safety” and “Other” categories.

Idaho's response to this question indicated a total of 401 people in restrictive housing, as compared with a total of
400 people in restrictive housing for other questions. This Report used 401 for that purpose of calculating
percentages for this question.
32

33
These jurisdictions were the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Alabama, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware,
Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South
Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. West Virginia did not provide
information regarding the number of people in restrictive housing.

These jurisdictions were Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota,
Utah, Vermont, and Wyoming.

This jurisdiction was New Hampshire.

These jurisdictions were Delaware, North Dakota, and Vermont, which did not have any people in restrictive
housing under the Survey’s definition. Among jurisdictions that held at least one person in restrictive housing under
the Survey’s definition, Colorado had the smallest percentage of people in restrictive housing in men’s prisons (4
out of 13,041 people, or 0.03%).
36

This jurisdiction was Utah.

This jurisdiction was Alabama.

These jurisdictions were Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota,
Utah, Vermont, and Wyoming. Among jurisdictions that held at least one woman in restrictive housing under the
Survey’s definition, California had the smallest percentage of people in restrictive housing in women’s prisons (5
out of 3,580 people, or 0.1%).

This jurisdiction was South Carolina.

ACA 2016 RESTRICTIVE HOUSING STANDARDS at 3.

ACA 2016 RESTRICTIVE HOUSING STANDARDS at 40 (ACA Standard 4-RH-0035). The national standards under
the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) called for careful attention to the needs and safety of transgender
individuals, defined as “a person whose gender identity (i.e., internal sense of feeling male or female) is different
from the person’s assigned sex at birth.” PRISON RAPE ELIMINATION ACT (PREA) National Standards, 28 C.F.R.
§ 115.5 (2012); see generally 28 C.F.R. §§ 115.15, 115.31, 115.41-42, 115.86.
42

These jurisdictions were the Federal Bureau of Prisons, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii,
Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New

137

York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,
Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.
44

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Iowa, and West Virginia.

This jurisdiction was Utah.

46
Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Dakota,
Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Vermont all reported having no transgender people in restrictive
housing.
47

This jurisdiction was Nevada.

ACA 2016 RESTRICTIVE HOUSING STANDARDS at 38 (ACA Standard 4-RH-0033).

49
These jurisdictions were the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Alabama, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware,
Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.

West Virginia provided information on the number of pregnant people in total custodial population but not in
restrictive housing.

These jurisdictions were Delaware, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.

These jurisdictions were the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Alabama, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii,
Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and
Wisconsin.

These jurisdictions were the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Alabama, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware,
Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Hawaii and New Jersey did not respond
to the survey question asking about the race/ethnicity of people in restrictive housing. West Virginia did not provide
information regarding the number of people in restrictive housing.
53

Wyoming’s response to the survey question about race/ethnicity reflected a total male custodial population of
1,928, as compared with a total male custodial population of 1,931 in response to the survey question about total
custodial population. This Report uses 1,928 for the purposes of data relating to race/ethnicity.

55
Alabama and Maine indicated “No Data” for the number of Hispanic or Latino people among their total custodial
populations for men’s prisons.
56

First Step Act of 2018, § 5043, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194, 5247-48.

Id. at § 5043, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5249.

58
The Humane Alternatives to Long-Term (HALT) Solitary Confinement Act, New York Senate Bill 1623, New
York Assembly Bill 2500, 2019-2020 New York State Assembly, 2020 Regular Session (enacted 2021).

138

Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee,
Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Hawaii and New Jersey did not respond to the
survey question asking for the ages of people in restrictive housing. Oklahoma provided this information for people
in restrictive housing in women’s prisons but not for people in restrictive housing in men’s prisons. West Virginia
did not provide information regarding the number of people in restrictive housing.
60

This jurisdiction was Oklahoma.

One jurisdiction’s response to the survey question asking about different time intervals in restrictive housing
reflected restrictive housing population totals that differed slightly from the totals that these jurisdictions reported in
response to the survey question asking for the total number of people in restrictive housing. This jurisdiction was
Utah (635 people for the time interval question, as compared with 640 people for the total restrictive housing
population question). Thus, the thirty-four jurisdictions’ responses to the question about time intervals reflected a
total of 25,029 people in restrictive housing in these jurisdictions, whereas the same jurisdictions’ responses to the
question about total restrictive housing populations reflected a total of 25,034 people. This report uses the 25,029
figure for the purposes of reporting data related to the question about time intervals.

62
Wyoming’s response to the survey question about age groups reflected a total male custodial population of 1,930,
as compared with a total male custodial population of 1,931 in response to the survey question about total custodial
population. This Report uses 1,930 for the purposes of data relating to age.
63

These jurisdictions were Iowa (2) and Pennsylvania (7).

A 2021 report from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, analyzing data from 2016, found that “[a]n estimated 13% of
all state and federal prisoners reported experiences that met the threshold for serious psychological distress (SPD)
during the 30 days prior to their interview.” Additionally, 43% of people in state prisons and 23% of people in
federal prisons reported that they had “been told by a mental health professional [that] they had a mental disorder”
sometime in the past. According to the report, 44% of people in state prisons “and 65% of federal prisoners had no
indication of a mental health problem.” Laura M. Maruschak & Jennifer Bronson, Indicators of Mental Health
Problems Reported by Prisoners and Jail Inmates, Survey of Inmates, 2016, at 1-2, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S.
Dep’t of Justice (2021), available at
https://bjs.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh236/files/media/document/imhprpspi16st.pdf.
65

AMERICAN CORRECTIONAL ASSOCIATION, Restrictive Housing Performance Based Standards (Aug. 2016), at 36
(Standard 4-RH-0031) [hereinafter ACA 2016 RESTRICTIVE HOUSING STANDARDS].

Id.

COLO. REV. STAT. § 17-26-303 (2021).

N.Y. CORRECT. LAW §§ 2, 137 (Consol. 2021).

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,
Maine, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.

See, e.g., ACA 2016 RESTRICTIVE HOUSING STANDARDS at 34 (ACA Standard 4-RH-0029).

139

72
See, e.g., Braggs v. Dunn, 257 F. Supp. 3d 1171, 1190 n.11, 1245-1246 (M.D. Ala. 2017) (preventing the
placement of seriously mentally ill people in restrictive housing and identifying the medical conditions considered to
be serious mental illnesses).
73

For example, Alabama and Minnesota adopted the ACA’s definition for serious mental illness.

74
For example, Colorado reported that it uses the following definition: “The current diagnosis of any of the
following DSM diagnoses accompanied by the P-code qualifier of M, denoting the presence of a major mental
disorder: schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, delusional disorder, schizophreniform disorder, brief psychotic
disorder, substance-induced psychotic disorder (excluding intoxication and withdrawal), unspecified schizophrenia
spectrum and other psychotic disorder (previously psychotic disorder not otherwise specified), major depressive
disorders, and bipolar disorders. Offenders, regardless of diagnosis, indicating a high level of mental health needs
based upon high symptom severity and/or high resource demands, which demonstrate significant impairment in their
ability to function within the correctional environment.”
75
For example, Hawaii responded with the following definition: “Any individual who displays serious and
persistent mental health [disease] as determined by the Department of Health and/or our internal medical staff.”

In response to Question 33, which asked for the numbers of male and female imprisoned people “classified as
seriously mentally ill by your jurisdiction’s definition” in total custodial population and in restrictive housing,
Oklahoma indicated that there were six men and three women with serious mental illness in restrictive housing.
However, Oklahoma’s responses to Questions 35 and 37, which asked about the races/ethnicities and ages of people
with serious mental illness in restrictive housing, indicated that there were three men and six women with serious
mental illness in restrictive housing. Given that Oklahoma also indicated, in response to multiple questions, that it
held a total of five women in restrictive housing, this Report treats Oklahoma’s responses to Questions 35 and 37 as
intending to indicate that there were six men and three women with serious mental illness in restrictive housing.
76

Rethinking "Death Row", at 3–8.

These jurisdictions were the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Alabama, California, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Montana,
Nebraska, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah.
78

The total March 2021 prison populations for each responding jurisdiction are as follows: Federal Bureau of
Prisons (152,259), Alabama (25,105), California (96,499), Colorado (15,670), Connecticut (8,961), Delaware
(4,586), Hawaii (4,099), Idaho (8,226), Illinois (27,503), Indiana (24,296), Iowa (7,625), Kansas (8,749), Maine
(1,666), Massachusetts (6,664), Minnesota (7,455), Montana (2,477), Nebraska (5,319), Nevada (11,222), New
Hampshire (2,189), New Jersey (12,538), New York (31,412), North Dakota (1,538), Ohio (43,537), Oklahoma
(22,625), Oregon (13,433), Pennsylvania (38,262), South Carolina (16,069), South Dakota (3,252), Tennessee
(22,994), Texas (133,024), Utah (5,602), Vermont (1,238), Washington (15,067), Wisconsin (20,161), and
Wyoming (1,880). See People in Jail and Prison in Spring 2021, at 11–12. Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, and
Vermont operate unified systems that include both prisons and jails. For this reason, Vera’s total population
estimates for these states include people in jails. See id. The 2021 CLA-Liman Survey asked jurisdictions for “the
total number of people sentenced to and received by your department,” which included people serving sentences in
jails in these states but not people detained pretrial.
79

These jurisdictions were Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan,
Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Virginia.
80

This jurisdiction was West Virginia.

These eleven jurisdictions were Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi,
Missouri, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Virginia. West Virginia responded to both the 2019 and 2021 surveys
82

140

but did not provide information about the number of people in restrictive housing. The remaining jurisdictions that
did not respond to the survey in 2019 and 2021 were Alaska, Florida, Michigan, and New Mexico.
The reported percentage of the population in restrictive housing for these eleven jurisdictions according to their
responses to the 2019 ASCA-Liman survey were as follows: Arizona (4.6%), Arkansas (11.0%), Georgia (4.9%),
Kentucky (2.1%), Louisiana (4.8%), Maryland (5.8%), Mississippi (3.9%), Missouri (8.1%), North Carolina (4.7%),
Rhode Island (2.5%), and Virginia (1.7%). The weighted average for these jurisdictions was 5.0% (12,684/251,682).
83

84
See Chase Montagnet, Jennifer Peirce & David Pitts, Mapping U.S. Jails’ Use of Restrictive Housing: Trends,
Disparities, and Other Forms of Lockdown at 22, Vera Institute of Justice (Apr. 2021),
https://www.vera.org/downloads/publications/mapping-us-jails-use-of-restrictive-housing.pdf. The Vera Institute’s
survey “defined restrictive housing as anyone held in a cell for 22 hours or more per day” and therefore includes
people held in such conditions for fewer than fifteen consecutive days. Id. at 2.

The math for the lower estimate is 25,083 + 15,733 = 40,816 and for the higher estimate, 25,083 + 23,137 =
48,220.

ASSOCIATION OF STATE CORRECTIONAL ADMINISTRATORS & ARTHUR LIMAN PUBLIC INTEREST PROGRAM AT
YALE LAW SCHOOL, Time-in-Cell: The ASCA-Liman 2014 National Survey of Administrative Segregation in
Prison
3
(Aug.
2015),
available
at
https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/area/center/liman/document/asca-liman_administrativesegregationreport.pdf.
As discussed in Section I of this Report, the definitions used in the ASCA/CLA-Liman surveys have shifted over
time. The 2019 and 2021 Surveys both asked jurisdictions about “restrictive housing,” which these surveys defined
as “separating prisoners from the general population and holding them in cell for an average of 22 or more hours per
day, for 15 or more continuous days.”
86

ASCA-LIMAN REFORMING RESTRICTIVE HOUSING 2018 at 4.

TIME-IN-CELL 2019 at 7.

Brennan Klein, C. Brandon Ogbunugafor, Benjamin J. Schafer, Zarana Bhadricha, Preeti Kori, Jim Sheldon,
Nitish Kaza, Emily A. Wang, Tina Eliassi-Rad, Samuel V. Scarpino & Elizabeth Hinton, The COVID-19 Pandemic
Amplified Long-Standing Racial Disparities in the United States Criminal Justice System, medRxiv, Dec. 16, 2021,
at 2 (preprint), available at https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.14.21267199v2 (observing “a
convergent pattern across the country: a substantial decrease in the overall number of people incarcerated
(approximately 200,000), and a significant increase in the proportion of incarcerated Black and other non-white
people.”).
89

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia,
Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

The thirty jurisdictions that responded to some questions about cell lighting were Alabama, Colorado,
Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska,
Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

92
Jurisdictions that reported leaving the lights on or dimmed at night were Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, New Hampshire,
New Jersey, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Washington, and Wyoming.

Wyoming reported that cell lights were not dimmed or turned off at night, and that people in restrictive housing
had no control over cell lighting.
93

141

Those jurisdictions were Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Washington, and Wyoming.

Those jurisdictions were Colorado, Hawaii, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, and South Dakota. New Jersey
noted that control of cell lighting in restrictive housing by imprisoned people varied across its institutions, ranging
from 0–24 hours of control per day.
95

96
These twenty-six jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and
Wyoming.

Wisconsin qualified its response by explaining that this was not the case in every institution, and New Jersey
noted that one facility had frosted glass windows.

Those jurisdictions were Hawaii, Indiana, Oregon, and Texas.

99
These jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia,
Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and
Wyoming reported they allowed access to reading materials in restrictive housing. Pennsylvania reported that it
permits access to reading materials in restrictive housing but did not respond to questions about its specific policies.
101

These jurisdictions reported that people in restrictive housing had access to books or other reading materials
twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week: Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma,
Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.

102

That jurisdiction was Wisconsin. Alabama, Hawaii, Maine, and West Virginia also restricted access to books, but
these jurisdictions permitted access seven to twenty hours per day, seven days per week.
103

104

These jurisdictions were Connecticut and West Virginia.

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Jersey,
South Dakota, Texas, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

105

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada,
New Jersey, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
Massachusetts reported that it did not take away books or other reading materials as a disciplinary sanction, but that
“the book or other reading material itself may be confiscated if it is not in its original condition, or it has been used
in a manner that interferes with the security and the orderly running of the facility.”
106

142

107
These jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,
North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont,
Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. All responding jurisdictions permitted general population
access to reading materials for eight or more hours per day, seven days per week. Twenty-four jurisdictions
permitted access twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week.
108

Those jurisdictions were Connecticut, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.

109

These jurisdictions were Colorado, Connecticut, Maine, New Jersey, Texas, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Montana,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
110

113
These jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia,
Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Pennsylvania confirmed that it permits access to writing materials in restrictive housing
but did not respond to questions about its specific policies.

Those jurisdictions were Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota,
Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South
Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Alabama, Maine, and West Virginia
limited access to writing materials but reported that people in restrictive housing could access writing materials eight
to twenty hours per day, seven days per week.

114

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Iowa, Maine, Nebraska, New Jersey, South Dakota, Texas, West Virginia,
Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
115

116
Those jurisdictions were Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey,
Oklahoma, Texas, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
117

Those jurisdictions were Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, and West Virginia.

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,
North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont,
Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. All responding jurisdictions permitted general population
access to writing materials for twelve or more hours per day, seven days per week. Thirty jurisdictions permitted
access twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week.
118

119

Those jurisdictions were Hawaii, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.

143

120

Those jurisdictions were Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey, Texas, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

Those jurisdictions were Hawaii, Iowa, Nebraska, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and
Wyoming.
121

124
These jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

These jurisdictions reported that people in restrictive housing could access programming worksheets twenty-four
hours per day, seven days per week: Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana,
Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas,
Utah, and Washington.
125

126
Jurisdictions limiting access to programming worksheets by time were Alabama, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine,
Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. At the lower end, Wisconsin restricted access to two hours
per day, four days per week, and Wyoming limited access to three hours per day, seven days per week. On the
higher end, Maine permitted worksheet access twenty hours per day, seven days per week. Alabama, Hawaii, Idaho,
Pennsylvania, and West Virginia permitted access between eight and fourteen hours per day, five to seven days per
week.
127

That jurisdiction was West Virginia.

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, South
Dakota, Texas, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
128

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, Texas, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

129

130
Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Texas, West
Virginia, and Wisconsin.

These jurisdictions were Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana,
Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont,
and Washington. Alabama, New York, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming also permitted access ten or more
hours per day, seven days a week. Delaware allowed access two hours per day, seven days per week. Connecticut,
Hawaii, and Idaho allowed access to worksheets twelve or more hours per day, five days per week. North Dakota
132

144

and South Dakota limited programming worksheet access to four and two hours per day, respectively, five days per
week.
133

Those jurisdictions were Pennsylvania and West Virginia.

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
South Dakota, Texas, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
134

135
Those jurisdictions were Connecticut, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, South
Dakota, and West Virginia.

137
These jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,
North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont,
Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

Jurisdictions that permitted the use of audio players in restrictive housing were Alabama, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana,
Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota,
Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
138

139
Alabama was the only jurisdiction that permitted the use of audio players in restrictive housing but limited their
use to a certain number of hours per day. That jurisdiction reported permitting audio players to be used fourteen
hours per day, seven days per week.
140

Those jurisdictions were Hawaii, Kansas, and Utah.

141
Those nine jurisdictions were Alabama, Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska, New Jersey, South Dakota, Texas, Washington,
and Wyoming.

143
Jurisdictions that permitted the use of audio players in general population twenty-four hours per day, seven days
per week were Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington,
Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Alabama and West Virginia permitted people in general population to use audio players
fourteen and twelve hours per day, respectively, seven days per week.

These jurisdictions were Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Washington,
and West Virginia.

144

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania,
Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
145

145

146
These jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia,
Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Montana, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, and
Wyoming. New Jersey reported permitting tablets for people living in restrictive housing but not for people in
general population. New Jersey did not respond to other questions about their restrictive housing policies on the use
of tablets, other than to confirm that people in restrictive housing are allowed to access tablets.
148

149
These jurisdictions were Alabama, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
150

That jurisdiction was Iowa.

151

That jurisdiction was Idaho.

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire,
New York, South Dakota, and Wyoming.

152

153

These jurisdictions were Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, New York, and South Dakota.

Utah reported that people living in restrictive housing had access to electronic tablets one hour per week. Kansas
reported that people living in restrictive housing had access to electronic tablets for thirteen hours each day.
Alabama, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, South Carolina, West Virginia, and Wyoming also reported
that they restricted when tablets could be accessed.
154

155

These jurisdictions were Idaho, Indiana, and South Dakota.

156

That jurisdiction was Iowa.

157

That jurisdiction was Massachusetts.

158
These jurisdictions were Alabama, Hawaii, Kansas, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, New York, South
Carolina, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
159

That jurisdiction was Wyoming.

160

That jurisdiction was Utah.

161

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

162
These jurisdictions were Alabama, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Montana, New
Hampshire, New York, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma,
163

146

Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and
Wyoming.
Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota,
Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
South Carolina, South Dakota, and Vermont.
164

165
If all their people in general population requested a tablet at once, West Virginia said they had enough to give one
each to fifty percent of the population and Connecticut said they had enough for fifty-five percent. On the lower end,
Wisconsin (5%) and Washington (8%) said they didn’t have enough to cover ten percent of their general population.

These jurisdictions were Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
and West Virginia.
166

Twenty-seven jurisdictions charged people in general population for some tablet content, including Illinois and
Iowa, which charged for all tablet content. The other twenty-five jurisdictions were Alabama, Connecticut,
Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont,
West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
167

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Connecticut, Illinois, New York, Maine, New Jersey, Utah, West Virginia,
and Wyoming.
168

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,
South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
169

Twenty-one jurisdictions reported that they permitted people in general population to access tablets twenty-four
hours per day, seven days a week. Those jurisdictions were Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Maine,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Most of the other
jurisdictions permitted access eight or more hours per day, seven days per week. They were Alabama, Hawaii,
Indiana, Kansas, Oregon, and West Virginia. Montana reported that they allowed access six hours per day, four days
per week (every other day). Utah had the most restrictive electronic tablet policy among those permitting their use. It
reported allowing access one hour per week.
170

Seventeen jurisdictions reported that people in general population were permitted to keep their tablets in their
cells at all times: Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New
York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wisconsin. Three other
jurisdictions (Maine, New Hampshire, and Washington) explained that some people are permitted to keep tablets in
their cells depending on factors like their housing and whether the tablet is personally owned.
171

147

174
These jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Pennsylvania
indicated that access to television was “possible” depending on “behavior.”

The jurisdictions permitting access to television twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week in restrictive
housing were Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, South Dakota, Tennessee, and
Washington.
175

176
On the lower end, Wyoming permitted people in restrictive housing to watch television up to two hours per day,
seven days per week. South Carolina and West Virginia allowed people in restrictive housing to watch television up
to eight hours per day, seven days per week. Alabama reported that it allowed people in restrictive housing to watch
television up to nine hours per day, seven days per week.
177

This jurisdiction was Pennsylvania.

178

Those jurisdictions were Iowa, Nevada, and West Virginia.

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska, Nevada, South Dakota, Washington,
West Virginia, and Wyoming.

179

180

South Carolina reported that it did not rescind access to television as a punishment.

The jurisdictions permitting access to television twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week were Colorado,
Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana,
Nebraska, Nevada, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, and Washington.
182

183
These jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and
Wyoming.

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Nevada, New Jersey, New York,
North Dakota, Texas, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

184

185
These jurisdictions were Iowa, Massachusetts, Nevada, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Washington, and West
Virginia. Massachusetts clarified, in comments to a draft of this Report, that “[t]here is a charge to purchase a
personal TV, but not the day room TV which is available to all where available.”

148

188
These jurisdictions were Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, South
Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Washington.

South Dakota reported that people in restrictive housing could access puzzles or board games one hour per day,
one day per week. Ten jurisdictions reported that they did not limit when people in restrictive housing could access
puzzles or board games. Those jurisdictions were Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, New Hampshire,
Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. Washington reported allowing people in restrictive housing to
access puzzles or board games sixteen hours per day, five days per week.
189

190

Those jurisdictions were Illinois, Indiana, and Texas.

Nebraska, South Dakota, Texas, and Washington reported that they used puzzles and board games as incentives
for behavioral change among people in restrictive housing.
191

192
These jurisdictions were Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee,
Texas, and Washington.

Only Colorado (6) and South Dakota (2) provided less than eight hours per day for people to do puzzles and play
board games. Seventeen jurisdictions permitted puzzles and board games to be played at any hour of the day:
Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New
York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Vermont.
194

195

Washington reported that it limited access to puzzles and board games to six days per week.

196

Those jurisdictions were Pennsylvania and West Virginia.

197
Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey, North Dakota, Texas, West
Virginia, and Wyoming.

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Nebraska, New Jersey,
New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
198

201

Those jurisdictions were Hawaii, Idaho, Massachusetts, and Nebraska.

Idaho, Nebraska, and Massachusetts permitted people living in restrictive housing to access handheld videogames
twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week. Hawaii limited such access to twelve hours per day, seven days per
week.
202

149

203

Those jurisdictions were Hawaii and Idaho.

204

Nebraska said that videogames were used as incentives for behavioral change in restrictive housing.

Those jurisdictions were Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota,
Montana, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
205

206
Jurisdictions that allowed people in general population to access handheld videogames twenty-four hours per day,
seven days a week were Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New
Hampshire, Oregon, and Pennsylvania. Wyoming permitted such access thirteen hours per day every day of the
week, and Hawaii and West Virginia permitted access twelve hours per day each day of the week. Colorado allowed
such access six hours per day, seven days per week.
207

Those jurisdictions were Hawaii, Idaho, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.

208
These jurisdictions were Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire,
Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
209

Those jurisdictions were Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

212

That jurisdiction was West Virginia.

213

Those jurisdictions were Maine, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.

Pennsylvania reported that it permitted people to access the Internet twenty-four hours per day, seven days per
week. Oregon and West Virginia also reported allowing Internet access every day of the week. Oregon permitted
access eight hours per day, and West Virginia permitted access twelve hours per day. Maine allowed access for up to
six hours a day, five days a week.
214

215
These jurisdictions were Pennsylvania and West Virginia. In addition, Maine responded “Yes” to a question
asking whether “prisoners in the general population purchase” Internet access “to access it,” but responded no to a
question asking whether “prisoners in the general population have to pay a fee to use” the Internet.
216

These jurisdictions were Maine, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.

217

These jurisdictions were Maine and West Virginia.

218
These jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia,
Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

150

219
These jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,
North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont,
Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
220

221

Those jurisdictions were Connecticut, New Jersey, and South Carolina.

Twenty-four of twenty-six responding jurisdictions reported allowing people in restrictive housing to purchase
writing and mailing products from the commissary. They were Alabama, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa,
Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Oregon,
South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Additionally, Illinois
reported allowing people in restrictive housing to purchase writing materials but not mailing materials from
commissary, and New York reported allowing them to purchase mailing materials but not writing materials.
222

Twenty-five of twenty-six responding jurisdictions reported allowing people in restrictive housing to purchase
personal hygiene products (such as soap, shampoo, and deodorant) from the commissary. They were Alabama,
Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada,
New Hampshire, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, West
Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
223

224
Twenty-two of twenty-six responding jurisdictions reported allowing people in restrictive housing to purchase
dental products (such as toothbrushes, toothpaste, mouthwash, and dental floss) from the commissary. They were
Alabama, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada,
New Hampshire, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin,
and Wyoming.

Eighteen of twenty-six responding jurisdictions reported allowing people in restrictive housing to purchase food
from the commissary. They were Alabama, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, New
Hampshire, New York, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and
Wyoming.
225

Seventeen of twenty-six responding jurisdictions reported allowing people in restrictive housing to purchase
medications (such as Tums or aspirin) from the commissary. They were Alabama, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, West
Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
226

227
The jurisdiction that reported allowing people in restrictive housing to purchase recreation items (such as tennis
balls or footballs) was Alabama.

The four jurisdictions that reported they allow people in restrictive housing to purchase blankets were Hawaii,
Idaho, Iowa, and Nevada.
228

The six jurisdictions that reported allowing people in restrictive housing to purchase laundry products (such as
detergent or softener) were Alabama, Idaho, Illinois, Montana, Texas, and Utah.
229

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,
North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont,
Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
230

151

231

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Kansas, and Montana.

These jurisdictions were Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,
Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
232

233

Those jurisdictions were Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

These jurisdictions were Colorado, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada,
New Hampshire, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, and
Wyoming.
234

235

These jurisdictions were New York, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and West Virginia.

236
These jurisdictions were Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,
Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

These jurisdictions were Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire,
Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
237

The jurisdictions that reported placing special restrictions on commissary food and beverage purchases for people
in restrictive housing were Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, Oklahoma, and Oregon.
Jurisdictions that reported such restrictions for beverage but not food products were Massachusetts, New York,
South Dakota, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
238

The jurisdictions that reported permitting people in general population but not restrictive housing to purchase
games, such as playing cards or board games, from the commissary were Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, New
Hampshire, New York, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Jurisdictions reporting the same
policy for recreation items, such as tennis balls or footballs, were Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, and
Nebraska.
239

The jurisdictions that reported permitting people in general population but not restrictive housing to purchase
music players, such as MP3 players or radios; headphones; and batteries and/or electronics charging devices from
the commissary were Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Washington,
and West Virginia. Additionally, Nebraska said it allowed people in general population but not people living in
restrictive housing to purchase music playing devices as well as batteries and/or chargers from the commissary.
South Dakota reported that it placed the same restrictions on batteries and chargers, and New Hampshire did the
same for music players.
240

241
These jurisdictions were Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oregon,
Nebraska, Nevada, Utah, and Wisconsin.

These jurisdictions were Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, Oklahoma,
Oregon, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

242

These jurisdictions were Colorado, Hawaii, Indiana, Maine, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Washington, and West Virginia.
243

Jurisdictions reporting that they permitted people in general population but not restrictive housing to purchase
medications (such as Tums and aspirin) from the commissary were Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Nevada, New
Hampshire, Oklahoma, and Utah.
244

152

245
Illinois, Maine, Texas, and Utah reported that they did not permit people in restrictive housing to purchase dental
items (such as toothbrushes, toothpaste, mouthwash, and dental floss) from the commissary, even though general
population had access to such products. Additionally, Illinois reported allowing people in general population but not
restrictive housing to purchase products like soap, shampoo, and deodorant.
246

These jurisdictions were Illinois, Indiana, Maine, and Utah.

247
New York reported that it permitted people in general population but not restrictive housing to purchase cards or
other writing materials. Illinois reported the same restriction for mailing materials such as postage stamps or
envelopes.
248

These jurisdictions were Colorado and West Virginia.

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
249

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oklahoma (females only),
Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Texas noted, “Presently,
the GED/HSE for restrictive housing residents is only a pilot program.”
251

These jurisdictions were Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oklahoma (people in
women’s prisons only), Texas, and West Virginia. Additionally, South Dakota reported that “higher education [was]
not offered by DOC, however [incarcerated people] may try to obtain this on their own.”
252

253
These jurisdictions were Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oklahoma (people in
women’s prisons only), and Texas. Additionally, South Dakota reported that “higher education [was] not offered by
DOC, however [incarcerated people] may try to obtain this on their own.”
254

These jurisdictions were Iowa, Kansas, and Oklahoma (women only).

255

That jurisdiction was New Hampshire.

256
These jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North
Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont,
Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South
Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
257

South Dakota noted, “Higher education [was] not offered by DOC, however inmates may try to obtain this on
their own.” Wyoming reported that it did not offer bachelor’s or associate’s degree programming but said college
courses could be taken “through [the] Education Department.”
258

153

259

Those jurisdictions were Maine, Minnesota, and New Hampshire.

260

These jurisdictions were South Dakota and Washington.

261

That jurisdiction was Oklahoma.

262

That jurisdiction was New Jersey.

263

That jurisdiction was Connecticut.

264

That jurisdiction was South Dakota.

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and
Wyoming. New York did not respond to questions about education programming.
265

266

These jurisdictions were Colorado, Illinois, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Utah, and West Virginia.

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
267

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Hawaii, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Texas,
Washington, and Wisconsin.
268

269

This quote represents comments from Hawaii, Minnesota, Nevada, Texas, and Wisconsin.

270

Alabama, Montana, Oklahoma, and Washington made comments to this effect.

271

These jurisdictions were Maine, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Jersey, and Tennessee.

272

These jurisdictions were Maine, Nebraska, and New Jersey.

273

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Idaho, Kansas, South Carolina, and Wyoming.

274

These jurisdictions were Connecticut and Indiana.

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington,
Wisconsin, and Wyoming. In addition, New Jersey stated that out-of-cell activities were “Available daily dependent
upon individual program participation and structure of facility.”
275

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Illinois Kansas, Maine,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia,
Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
276

Seventeen jurisdictions cited the classification or status of an incarcerated person as a factor affecting out-of-cell
opportunities. These jurisdictions were Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada,
New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
Representative qualitative survey responses from these jurisdictions included, “Amount of out of cell unstructured
277

154

time varies between security levels of inmate classification,” “[capital punishment] offenders have more group
interaction than other offenders in restrictive housing,” and “the amount of time varies by custody and privilege
level.”
Delaware, Indiana, Iowa, Utah, and Washington cited medical, psychological, and religious needs as factors
affecting out-of-cell opportunities. Representative qualitative survey responses from these jurisdictions included,
“some offenders need medical or psychological services more than other offenders so their time out of cell varies
according to their needs,” “religious services are scheduled through the chapel,” and “inmates in a Therapeutic
Community Treatment unit may have more structured out of cell activities.”
278

Colorado, Massachusetts, Oregon, and Wisconsin reported that out-of-cell opportunities varied by facility.
Representative survey responses included, “each institution determines out-of-cell time,” “each institution can have
different program availability,” and “[it] varies by facility.”
279

Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Oregon reported that out-of-cell opportunities varied based on staffing levels.
Representative survey responses included, “[opportunities are] dependent on architecture and staffing” and
“religious observances depend on chaplain availability.”
280

These responding jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, West
Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
281

These responding jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana,
Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, North
Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont,
Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. New Jersey and West Virginia responded to all questions about out-of-cell
meals for people in general population with, “No data.”
282

Those jurisdictions were Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and
Wyoming. This list includes Nevada, which responded “no data” to the question about group meals without security
chairs, and Wisconsin, which responded “no data” to both questions about group meals.
283

284

That jurisdiction was Hawaii.

These jurisdictions permitted people in general population to eat every meal out-of-cell: Colorado, Delaware,
Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire,
New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
They reported that they permitted people in general population to eat twenty-one or more meals per week in
individual out-of-cell settings. Jurisdictions permitting seven to twelve meals to be eaten out-of-cell were Alabama,
Connecticut, Idaho, Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Tennessee. Oklahoma reported that people in general
population were not permitted to eat meals out-of-cell, which may be explained by COVID-19 precautions.
285

These jurisdictions were Colorado, Delaware, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana,
Nebraska, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. They
reported that they permitted people in general population to eat twenty-one or more meals per week in individual
out-of-cell settings.
286

Those jurisdictions were Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New York, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. They reported that they permitted people
in general population to eat twenty-one or more meals per week in group settings without security chairs.
287

155

Additionally, Nevada reported that it permitted people in general population to eat fourteen meals per week (an
average of two meals per day) in group settings without security chairs. Hawaii and New Hampshire reported they
allowed people in general population to eat twenty-one meals per week in group settings with security chairs.
These jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia,
Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
288

290

Their restrictive housing policies limited people to three to seven showers per week.

291
Eighteen jurisdictions reported allowing three showers per week for people living in restrictive housing. They
were Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

The jurisdictions reporting that people in general population could take seven or more out-of-cell showers per
week were Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Alabama and
New York also responded to this question; they reported that they allowed four and three showers per week,
respectively.
292

These jurisdictions were Colorado, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New
Hampshire, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Additionally,
Oregon permitted twenty-one showers per week, or an average of three per day.
293

294
These jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia,
Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

296
These jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Oklahoma
noted that female people in restrictive housing do not have access to an outdoor exercise area with views of the sky
but do have access to outdoor exercise areas without a view of the sky.

Those jurisdictions were Colorado, Connecticut, Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Hampshire, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
297

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Hampshire, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
298

156

299
Nine jurisdictions with both indoor and outdoor exercise areas reported that decisions on where people in
restrictive housing could exercise were based on weather. Those jurisdictions were Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas,
Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming. Representative responses to “Who
decides if exercise will be indoors or outdoors for restrictive housing?” included “Shift Supervisor or higher
depending on inclement weather”; “floor officer, weather permitting”; and “exercise outdoors for inmates in
restrictive housing is dependent on weather.” Jurisdictions also cited “unit schedules” and other “operational
limitations” as factors that were considered.
300
South Carolina reported that its outdoor exercise area used by people living in restrictive housing did not meet
the ACA dimension guidelines, but that the outdoor exercise area used by people in general population did.
Vermont, which did not have restrictive housing as the Survey defined it, reported that its outdoor exercise area did
not meet ACA dimension guidelines. As an additional note, New Jersey noted that all of its outdoor exercise areas
met the criteria except for those at one facility: The New Jersey State Prison.
301

ACA 2016 RESTRICTIVE HOUSING STANDARDS 63.

302

Id.

303

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine,
Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin,
and Wyoming. North Dakota noted that indoor exercise areas are available for people in general population men’s
prisons but not for people in general population in women’s prisons.
304

Those jurisdictions were Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Indiana, Maine, Nebraska, New Jersey, Oregon, and
Vermont.
305

306
Jurisdictions that allowed people in restrictive housing access to equipment for body weight exercises included
Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, Texas, Utah, and Washington.

Alabama, Illinois, Indiana, Montana, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin reported that they permitted
people in restrictive housing to access to sports equipment. Except for Illinois, each listed jurisdiction reported that
they provided people in restrictive housing with basketballs. Illinois reported that it provided people in restrictive
housing with “rec balls.”
307

308
Oregon and Texas reported that people in restrictive housing could access weightlifting machines, but not free
weights. Montana reported that it only provided access to weightlifting equipment to women in restrictive housing,
and that this equipment did not include free weights. Alabama said that men in restrictive housing units had access
to free weights, but not women, and that it did not permit people in restrictive housing access to other weightlifting
equipment.

These jurisdictions reported that free weights and other weightlifting equipment were available to people in
general population: Alabama, Colorado, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota,
Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South
Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Additionally, Connecticut, Hawaii, Kansas, Oklahoma, South
Carolina, Texas, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin provided access to some weightlifting equipment but not
free weights.
309

157

310
Jurisdictions that provided people in general population with access to indoor cardio machines were Alabama,
Colorado, Delaware, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont,
Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Jurisdictions allowing access to outdoor cardio machines
were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota,
Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

Although the survey did not specifically ask about sports equipment, eleven jurisdictions noted they allowed
people in general population access to sports equipment. They were Alabama, Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas, Maine,
Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wyoming. Representative comments included,
“basketballs,” “horseshoes, basketball, volleyball,” and “recreation equipment.”

311

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and
Wyoming.
312

313
Utah and Wyoming reported allowing out-of-cell individual exercise three times per week for people in
restrictive housing.

Those jurisdictions that reported allowing out-of-cell individual exercise seven times per week for people in
restrictive housing were Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, New
Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, and Texas.
314

315
Those jurisdictions that reported allowing out-of-cell individual exercise at the median of five times per week for
people in restrictive housing were Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Oregon,
South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Washington, and West Virginia. Alabama and Wisconsin reported
allowing out-of-cell individual exercise four times per week.

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Hawaii, Illinois, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, and Oregon. Their
policies permitted between three and seven group exercise sessions per week, with a median of five. Hawaii noted
that group exercise was only available for people living in restrictive housing if they were in restrictive housing for
protective custody. Indiana and Wisconsin did not report data on how often people in restrictive housing could
attend out-of-cell group exercise.
316

Those jurisdictions were Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Montana,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas,
Utah, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming. This list includes jurisdictions that allowed people to exercise
individually in fenced areas where they could see and/or hear other incarcerated people.

317

318
Those jurisdictions were Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin,
and Wyoming. Alabama permitted people in general population to exercise individually out-of-cell four times per
week.

Those jurisdictions were Colorado, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New
Hampshire, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
Additionally, Oregon permitted people in general population to exercise individually out-of-cell up to twenty-one
times per week, or an average of three per day. Delaware permitted people in general population to exercise
individually out-of-cell up to fourteen times per week, an average of twice per day, with no maximum on group
exercise activity.
319

158

320
Those jurisdictions were Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wyoming. Alabama, Montana,
Nevada, and Wisconsin also allowed some group exercise each week. Oklahoma reported that it did not permit
group exercise during the surveyed year, which may be explained by COVID-19 precautions.

Those jurisdictions were Colorado, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, New
Hampshire, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wyoming. Additionally, Oregon
permitted people in general population to exercise out-of-cell in group settings up to twenty-one times per week, or
an average of three per day.
321

Reena Kapoor & Robert Trestman, Nat’l Inst. Just., NCJ 250321, Mental Health Effects of Restrictive Housing,
in RESTRICTIVE HOUSING IN THE U.S.: ISSUES, CHALLENGES, AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS (2016).
322

323

The Survey did not ask specifically about access to in-cell mental health or physical health services.

324
These jurisdictions were Alabama, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma,
Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and
Wyoming.

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Hampshire, New York, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Washington.
326

327

Those jurisdictions were Hawaii, Kansas, Maine, New Jersey, Oklahoma, and Tennessee.

328
These jurisdictions were Connecticut, Illinois, Oregon, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. The following
jurisdictions reported that they permit people in restrictive housing to access out-of-cell mental health services five
or more times per week: Alabama, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota,
Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Washington.

Connecticut reported that people living in restrictive housing were permitted to leave their cells for mental health
services zero times per week.
329

330
Jurisdictions that reported permitting people in general population to access mental health services five or more
times per week were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,
Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington,
and Wisconsin. Wyoming reported that it permitted such access only once per week.

These twenty jurisdictions reported that they did not place any limitations on the number of times a person in
general population could access mental health services: Alabama, Colorado, Delaware, Indiana, Iowa, Maine,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,
Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.
331

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Hampshire, New York, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Washington.
332

159

333

These jurisdictions were Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, New Jersey, Oklahoma, and Tennessee.

334

Those jurisdictions were Oregon, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

Jurisdictions that reported permitting people in general population to access physical health services at five or
more times per week were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington,
and Wisconsin. Wyoming reported that it permitted such access only once per week.
335

These twenty jurisdictions reported that they did not place any limitations on the number of times a person in
general population could access physical health services: Alabama, Colorado, Delaware, Indiana, Iowa, Maine,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,
Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. Additionally, Oregon reported that people in general population
could access physical health services up to 28 times per week or an average of four times per day.
336

337
These jurisdictions were Alabama, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee,
Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

338

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, Oregon, Utah,
Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
339

340

These jurisdictions were Idaho, Kansas, Oregon, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

341

These jurisdictions were Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, and Utah.

Iowa, Minnesota, Nevada, and Utah did not place a limit on the number of times a person in restrictive housing
could attend out-of-cell religious observances.
342

Those jurisdictions were Connecticut, Illinois, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, Oklahoma, South
Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming.
343

344
These jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington,
Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

Jurisdictions that did not limit out-of-cell religious observances were Colorado, Delaware, Indiana, Iowa, Maine,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas,
Utah, Vermont, and Washington. Jurisdictions limiting people in general population to seven out-of-cell religious
observances per week were Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, and Tennessee. Wisconsin
allowed up to eight out-of-cell religious observances per week.
345

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
346

160

347
These jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas,
Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin,
and Wyoming.

These jurisdictions permitted people in restrictive housing to access individual out-of-cell programming once or
more per week: Alabama, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon, South Carolina, South
Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming.
348

These jurisdictions reported that they did not allow people in restrictive housing to leave their cells for individual
programming: Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Kansas, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah,
Washington, and West Virginia.
349

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas,
Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, and Wyoming. Oklahoma
reported that it did not permit individual out-of-cell programming for general population or people in restrictive
housing, but that it did allow out-of-cell group programming for people in general population.
350

These jurisdictions were Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota,
Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Vermont,
and Wyoming.
351

352
Those jurisdictions without a limit on out-of-cell individual programming were Colorado, Iowa, Maine,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah,
Vermont, and Wyoming.

That jurisdiction was Alabama. Alabama reported that people in restrictive housing were allowed out of their cell
four times per week for group meals with security chairs, four times per week for group meals without security
chairs, and four times per week for group programming without security chairs.
353

354
Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee,
Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

These jurisdictions reported that they did not allow people in restrictive housing to leave their cells for group
programming with security chairs: Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, New Jersey, New York,
Oklahoma, Texas, and West Virginia.
355

356

These jurisdictions were Illinois, Maine, Nebraska, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Utah.

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Maine,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
357

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Texas, Vermont, and Wyoming.

358

359

161

360

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Hawaii, Montana, New Hampshire, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming.

361

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Oregon, Illinois, and Utah.

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas,
Maine, Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. This
“other” individual time appeared to be fairly significant—every jurisdiction listed except Alabama (four times per
week) reported that people in general population were permitted out of their cells seven or more times per week for
individual, unstructured time not described in the survey.
362

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Maine,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. This “other” group time appeared to be
fairly significant—every jurisdiction listed except Alabama (four times per week) reported that people in general
population were permitted out of their cells seven or more times per week for group, unstructured time not described
in the survey.

363

These comments represent responses from Hawaii, Idaho, South Dakota, Washington, West Virginia, and
Wyoming and refer to their restrictive housing policies.
364

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia,
Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
365

Those jurisdictions were Connecticut, Idaho, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and West Virginia. Although the Survey
asked how many times per week people could leave their cells for religious observances, it did not specifically ask
whether these included group religious services. Idaho, Kansas, and West Virginia reported that they permitted
people in restrictive housing to leave their cells once per week for a religious observance.
366

367

Those jurisdictions were Colorado, Indiana, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and
Wyoming.
368

369
These jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington,
West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

That jurisdiction was Hawaii. Notably, Hawaii reported charging people in general population $4 per minute,
meaning a 15-minute phone call would cost $60.
370

162

other jurisdictions selected “Unlimited/More than 100” calls per “year,” which could represent no limits on the
number of calls placed or policies allowing as few as two calls per week. Those jurisdictions were Colorado, Illinois,
Maine, Minnesota, Tennessee, and Washington.
The Survey asked jurisdictions to choose two variables from set lists: First, how many calls could be made and,
second, whether that number referred to the number of calls that could be placed per day, week, month, or year.
Eight jurisdictions selected “Unlimited/More than 100” calls per “day,” “week,” or “month” for restrictive housing
non-legal calls: Indiana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, and
West Virginia. The ninth jurisdiction referenced (Connecticut) reported that people in restrictive housing were
allowed up to four phone calls per day. Three other jurisdictions selected “Unlimited/More than 100” calls per
“year,” which could represent no limits on the number of calls placed or policies allowing as few as two calls per
week. Those jurisdictions were Illinois, Minnesota, and Washington.
372

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington,
West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
373

The Survey asked jurisdictions to choose two variables from set lists: First, how many calls could be made and,
second, whether that number referred to the number of calls that could be placed per day, week, month, or year.
Nineteen jurisdictions selected “Unlimited/More than 100” calls per “day,” “week,” or “month”: Alabama, Hawaii,
Idaho, Indiana, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, and West Virginia. The twentieth jurisdiction
referenced (Wisconsin) reported that people in general population were allowed up to five legal phone calls per day.
Nine other jurisdictions selected “Unlimited/More than 100” calls per “year,” which could represent no limits on the
number of calls placed or policies allowing as few as two calls per week. Those jurisdictions were Colorado,
Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Tennessee, and Washington.
374

The survey asked jurisdictions to choose two variables from set lists: First, how many calls could be made and,
second, whether that number referred to the number of calls that could be placed per day, week, month, or year.
Nineteen jurisdictions selected “Unlimited/More than 100” calls per “day,” “week,” or “month”: Alabama, Hawaii,
Idaho, Indiana, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming. The other two
jurisdictions referenced reported that people in general population were allowed up to five non-legal phone calls per
day (Wisconsin) or up to six per day (Connecticut). Eight other jurisdictions selected “Unlimited/More than 100”
calls per “year,” which could represent no limits on the number of calls placed or policies allowing as few as two
calls per week. Those jurisdictions were Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Tennessee, and
Washington.
376

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
The 2021 Survey did not ask about policies regarding legal contacts on call lists.

377

Connecticut, Massachusetts, Tennessee, and Utah each reported that people could have ten non-legal contacts on
their call lists.
378

163

379
Jurisdictions reporting a limit of thirty non-legal contacts per call list were Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Oklahoma,
and Wisconsin. Jurisdictions reporting that they allowed more than thirty non-legal contacts were Alabama, Idaho,
Maine, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, South Carolina, and South Dakota.

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
380

381
Jurisdictions charging by the minute were Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota,
Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

Jurisdictions charging on a fifteen-minute basis were Alabama, Illinois, Minnesota, South Carolina, and
Tennessee.
382

383

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Illinois, and South Carolina.

384

That jurisdiction was Indiana.

The jurisdictions charging the median $1.50 for a fifteen-minute phone call were Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho,
Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota,
Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Four jurisdictions charged more than this amount:
Indiana, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Tennessee.
385

386
These jurisdictions were Alabama, Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Texas, and West Virginia.
387

That jurisdiction was New Jersey.

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and
Wyoming.
388

390
The survey asked jurisdictions to choose two variables from set lists: First, how many letters could be sent or
received and, second, whether that number referred to the number of letters per day, week, month, or year. Nineteen
jurisdictions with restrictive housing selected “Unlimited/More than 100” letters per “day,” “week,” or “month”:
Alabama, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin,
and Wyoming.

The survey asked jurisdictions to choose two variables from set lists: First, how many letters could be sent or
received and, second, whether that number referred to the number of letters per day, week, month, or year. These
jurisdictions with restrictive housing units selected “Unlimited/More than 100” letters per “year,” which could
represent no limits on the number of letters sent and received or policies allowing as few as two letters per week.
Those jurisdictions were Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Tennessee, and Washington.
391

164

392
These jurisdictions were Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Nevada, New Hampshire,
Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia.

The seven jurisdictions only providing free stamps and writing materials to people in restrictive housing
considered indigent were Hawaii, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, and West Virginia.
393

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and
Wyoming.
394

396
Those jurisdictions were Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and
Washington.

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota,
Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, West Virginia,
Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
397

Those four jurisdictions were Nevada, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and West Virginia. New Hampshire and
South Carolina reported that they did not limit the amount of time people in general population could access emails,
but New Hampshire said that it limited people in restrictive housing to one hour per week and South Carolina said it
limited people in restrictive housing to twenty-eight hours per week. Nebraska reported that it permitted people in
general population to access email eight hours per week and people in restrictive housing to access email two hours
per week. West Virginia allowed twelve hours of access for people in general population and eight hours for people
in restrictive housing.
398

399
Those six jurisdictions were Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, and Texas. Iowa noted that
some people in restrictive housing were allowed to access emails via tablet, depending on their privilege level and
whether they had a personal tablet.

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

400

401
These jurisdictions were Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, Vermont, and Wisconsin.
402

Those jurisdictions were Alabama and Nevada.

Twenty-three jurisdictions reported that emails could be accessed via a kiosk, tablet, or similar device. Those
jurisdictions were Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina,
Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
403

404

Those jurisdictions were Colorado, Pennsylvania, and Texas.

165

405
Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, West Virginia, and
Wisconsin.
406

That jurisdiction was Wisconsin.

Sixteen jurisdictions described a process of screening emails for content. Those jurisdictions were Alabama,
Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Representative comments included, “No
threats/nudity/illegal materials”; “e-mail may be reviewed for content”; and “[no] participating in media interviews.”

407

Four jurisdictions described policies restricting who a person in general population could email: Indiana,
Montana, Nebraska, and Texas. Representative comments included, “The person the offender is corresponding with
has to email the offender first,” “not able to send emails ending in @nebraska.gov,” and “if the sender is on the
inmate’s negative mailing list, the email will be returned to the sender.” Additionally, Iowa limited emails to
“14,000 characters and no attachments.”
408

409

Those jurisdictions were Kansas and Wyoming.

Seventeen jurisdictions described a process of screening emails for content. Those jurisdictions were Alabama,
Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia. Representative comments included, “No
pornography, violence, or gang symbols”; “Screened for security purposes”; “Messages with inappropriate content
may result in suspended privileges”; and “When certain keywords are used . . . the email may be flagged and
reviewed by the DOC.”
410

Six jurisdictions described policies restricting who a person in general population could email: Indiana,
Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Texas, and Vermont. Representative comments included, “The person the offender
is corresponding with has to email the offender first,” “not able to send emails ending in @nebraska.gov,” and
“incarcerated individuals cannot contact those who are on their individualized court-ordered no contact list.”
Additionally, Iowa limited emails to “14,000 characters and no attachments.”
411

412

Those jurisdictions were Delaware, Kansas, North Dakota, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

Those jurisdictions were Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
413

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
414

Indiana was an exception. It reported charging people in restrictive housing 27 cents to receive an email but did
not charge people in general population for emails received.
415

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Delaware, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Wisconsin. Iowa, however, reported that it did
not charge people in general population for emails received but did charge people in restrictive housing for them.

416

417

Those jurisdictions were Colorado and Nevada.

418

That jurisdiction was Massachusetts.

166

Connecticut (20 cents per email received) was at the lower end, and Texas (47 cents) and West Virginia (50
cents) were at the higher end.

419

Jurisdictions at the median for emails received fees were Kansas, Massachusetts, and South Carolina. North
Dakota was near the median; it charged 24 cents per email received.
420

Wisconsin (10 cents per email received) was at the lower end, and New Hampshire (45 cents) and West Virginia
(50 cents) were at the higher end.
421

Jurisdictions at the median for fees for sending emails were Delaware, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Vermont. North Dakota (24 cents) and Indiana (27 cents) were near the median.
422

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and
Wyoming.
423

424
Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North
Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont,
Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

These jurisdictions were Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
425

These jurisdictions were Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota,
Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington,
West Virginia, and Wyoming.
426

All twenty-eight responding jurisdictions reported that legal visits could not be withdrawn from people in
restrictive housing as a punishment. Those jurisdictions were: Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois,
Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington,
West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
427

Seventeen of twenty-eight jurisdictions reported that physical contact was not allowed during restrictive housing
legal visits. Those jurisdictions were Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, New
Hampshire, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin. Jurisdictions
that reported that they permitted contact during legal visits were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Iowa,
Massachusetts, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, South Carolina, South Dakota, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
428

Those jurisdictions were Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South
Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
429

430

Those jurisdictions were New Jersey and Oregon.

431
Thirty-two jurisdictions reported whether physical contact was allowed in legal visits for people in general
population. Twenty-nine reported that it was. Those jurisdictions were: Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho,
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire,
New Jersey, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas,

167

Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. These three jurisdictions required legal visits to be nocontact: Delaware, Hawaii, and Wyoming.
Thirty-two jurisdictions responded to this question, all of which said legal visits could not be withdrawn as
punishment for people in general population. Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware,
Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

432

These jurisdictions were Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana,
Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, West
Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
433

Those jurisdictions were Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, and
Wyoming.
434

435
Those jurisdictions were Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Oregon, South Carolina, Utah, and West
Virginia.
436

That jurisdiction was Connecticut.

Nineteen of twenty-seven responding jurisdictions reported that physical contact was not permitted for religious
visits for people in restrictive housing. Those jurisdictions were Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Maine,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee,
Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. The jurisdictions that reported allowing such contact during these
visits were Alabama, Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, New Jersey, South Carolina, Utah, and West Virginia.
437

Twenty-one of twenty-eight responding jurisdictions reported that religious visits could not be withheld from
people in restrictive housing as a form of punishment. Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho,
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. The seven jurisdictions
that reported they revoked access to religious visits from people in restrictive housing in response to disciplinary
issues were Maine, Nevada, New Jersey, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and Wyoming.
438

The jurisdictions that provided data on the number of religious visits they permitted for people in general
population were Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee,
Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

439

440
These jurisdictions reported that they did not limit general population religious visits: Connecticut, Delaware,
Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont,
Washington, and Wyoming.

Nebraska reported that they allow up to sixty-four religious visits per month for each person in general
population. New Jersey and Oregon permitted up to 20 such visits per month.
441

442

That jurisdiction was Nevada.

443
Thirty-one jurisdictions reported whether physical contact was allowed in religious visits for people in general
population. Twenty-eight reported that it was. Those jurisdictions were: Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho,
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,

168

Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. These three jurisdictions required religious visits to be nocontact: Delaware, Hawaii, and Wyoming.
Thirty-one jurisdictions responded to a question about whether access to religious visits could be withdrawn from
people in general population as a punishment. Twenty-four reported that it could not. Those jurisdictions were:
Alabama, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana,
Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont,
Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. The four jurisdictions that reported that opportunities for religious visits
could be withdrawn as punishment against people in general population were Connecticut, Maine, Oklahoma, South
Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and Wyoming.
444

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

445

446

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Hawaii, and Oklahoma.

447
Those jurisdictions were Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota,
Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,
Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

Those jurisdictions were Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Montana,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas,
Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
448

449
These jurisdictions were Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia,
Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

The eight jurisdictions that reported they permitted twenty or more social visits per month for people in general
population were Indiana, Maine, Nebraska, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and West Virginia.
Indiana, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee reported that they do not limit social visits for general population. Nebraska
reported that they allow up to sixty-four social visits per month for each person in general population.
450

Hawaii, Oklahoma, and Utah reported that they permit four social visits per month for people in general
population. In Nevada, the number was two. Alabama reported that it did not allow any social visits for people in
general population.
451

452
The jurisdictions at the median were Delaware, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and South
Dakota.

Twenty-seven of thirty-one jurisdictions reported that physical contact was allowed during general population
social visits. Those jurisdictions were Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and
Wisconsin.
453

454
Thirty-one jurisdictions reported whether access to social visits could be withdrawn from people in general
population as a punishment, twenty-eight of which reported that it could. Those jurisdictions were: Colorado,
Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota,

169

Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Indiana, Minnesota, and West Virginia
said that social visits could not be kept from people in general population as punishment.
These quotes are representative of comments from thirteen jurisdictions: Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois,
Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Washington, and West Virginia.
455

These jurisdictions were Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, and New Hampshire.
Representative comments explaining the circumstances under which visitation opportunities could be withdrawn
include, “for a violation of the visitation policy,” “violation of visitation rules,” and “violation of rules and
regulations during a visit or evidence of a planned violation to occur during visiting.”
456

457

These jurisdictions were Texas and Wisconsin.

The following jurisdictions reported that the length of a suspension of visits varied and did not provide an upper
limit: Connecticut, Colorado, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota,
Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
458

459
Kansas, Maine, and Washington reported that a person’s non-legal visits could be suspended indefinitely.
Montana and North Dakota reported that such suspensions could be made “permanent” or enacted “up to date of
discharge.” The Supreme Court has upheld social visit restrictions lasting up to two years but has not ruled on
permanent visit prohibitions. See Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126, 134 (2003).
460

These jurisdictions were Illinois, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oklahoma, and Tennessee.

461
In Louisiana, the research organization Incarceration Transparency publishes reports devoted to documenting
deaths in prisons and jails. See Research, Articles, and Reports, INCARCERATION TRANSPARENCY (last visited July
13, 2022), available at https://www.incarcerationtransparency.org/?page_id=13.

In 2019, for example, a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that “exposure
to restrictive housing is associated with an increased risk of death during community reentry.” Lauren BrinkleyRubinstein, Josie Sivaraman, David L. Rosen, David H. Cloud, Gary Junker, Scott Proescholdbell, Meghan E.
Shanahan & Shabbar I. Ranapurwala, Association of Restrictive Housing During Incarceration with Mortality After
Release JOURNAL OF AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (Oct. 2019) [hereinafter Association of Restrictive Housing
During
Incarceration
with
Mortality],
at
1
available
at
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/
jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2752350. According to the study’s authors, “those who spent more than 14 consecutive
days in restrictive housing had a greater risk of all-cause mortality, homicide, suicide, and reincarceration within 1
year.” Id. at 6. A law review symposium, published in 2020, provided a series of articles related to isolation,
including the Consensus Statement from the Santa Cruz Summit on Solitary Confinement and Health, 115 NW. U. L.
REV. 335 (2020). More information on harms are in Solitary Confinement: Effects, Practices, and Pathways Toward
Reform (2019), edited by Jules Lobel and Peter Scharff Smith.
462

463
See generally Death in Custody Reporting Act, 18 U.S.C. § 4001 (federal facilities) and 34 U.S.C. § 60105 (state
facilities); Prison Rape Elimination Act, 34 U.S.C. § 30303.

Allen J. Beck, Marcus Berzofksy, Rachel Caspar & Christopher Krebs, Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails
Reported by Inmates, 2011–12, BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS (May 2013), at 8, available at https://bjs.ojp.gov/
content/pub/pdf/svpjri1112.pdf.
464

465
Those jurisdictions were Connecticut, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska,
Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas,
Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. This list includes jurisdictions that reported zero incidents.

170

466
These jurisdictions were Connecticut, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska,
Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas,
Washington, and Wyoming. This list includes jurisdictions that reported zero incidents. Indiana said that it did not
have data to report for prisoner-on-prisoner homicides.

These jurisdictions were Connecticut, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Hampshire, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, and
Wyoming. This list includes jurisdictions that reported zero incidents. Maine and Nevada said they did not have data
to report for staff-on-prisoner physical assaults in restrictive housing, and Wisconsin said it did not have data to
report for prisoner-on-prisoner or staff-on-prisoner physical assaults in restrictive housing but did provide data on
prisoner-on-staff physical assaults.
467

These jurisdictions were Connecticut, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, and
Wyoming. This list includes jurisdictions that reported zero incidents. Four jurisdictions said that they did not have
data to report for prisoner-on-staff sexual misconduct, and three said the same for staff-on-prisoner sexual
misconduct. The former were Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, and New Jersey; the latter were Maine, Nevada, and
New Jersey. Additionally, South Carolina said that it did not have data to report for prisoner-on-prisoner sexual
misconduct.
468

These jurisdictions were Connecticut, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, and
Wyoming. This list includes jurisdictions that reported zero incidents. Four jurisdictions reported that they did not
have data to report on incidents of sexual violence perpetrated by people in restrictive housing against staff. Those
jurisdictions were Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, and New Jersey. Three jurisdictions said that they did not have data
to report on incidents of sexual violence perpetrated by staff against people in restrictive housing. Those
jurisdictions were Maine, Nevada, and South Carolina. South Carolina also said it did not have data to report for
prisoner-on-prisoner sexual violence.
469

These jurisdictions were Connecticut, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin,
and Wyoming. This list includes jurisdictions that reported zero incidents.
470

These jurisdictions were Connecticut, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
This list includes jurisdictions that reported zero incidents.
471

472

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Utah.

473
Thirty jurisdictions reported some data on incidents of violence for the entire custodial population. They were
Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Montana,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
This list includes jurisdictions that reported zero incidents.

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin,
and Wyoming. This list includes jurisdictions that reported zero incidents. Nine listed jurisdictions said they did not
have data to report for staff-on-prisoner physical assaults. Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Illinois, Maine,
Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Wisconsin said it did not have any
data to report for physical assaults against imprisoned people but did provide data on prisoner-on-staff physical
assaults.
474

171

475
These jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,
Maine, Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oklahoma,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and
Wyoming. This list includes jurisdictions that reported zero incidents. Two listed jurisdictions, Indiana and
Oklahoma, said that they did not have data to report for prisoner-on-prisoner homicides. Alabama reported that it did
not have data on staff-on-prisoner homicides.
476
These jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin,
and Wyoming. This list includes jurisdictions that reported zero incidents.

These jurisdictions were Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts,
Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. This list includes jurisdictions that reported
zero incidents.
477

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts,
Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South
Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming. This list includes jurisdictions that reported
zero incidents. Four listed jurisdictions said they did not have data to report for prisoner-on-staff sexual violence,
and three said the same for staff-on-prisoner violence. The former were Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, and New
Jersey; the latter were Alabama, Maine, and Nevada.
478

479
These jurisdictions were Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee,
Texas, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming. This list includes jurisdictions that reported zero incidents. Four
of these listed jurisdictions said that they did not have data to report for prisoner-on-staff sexual misconduct. Those
jurisdictions were Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, and New Jersey. Additionally, New Jersey and Nevada said they did
not have data to report for staff-on-prisoner sexual misconduct.
480

See Association of Restrictive Housing During Incarceration with Mortality at 6.

Twenty-one jurisdictions provided data on attempted and completed suicides in both total custodial population
and restrictive housing. These jurisdictions were Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Montana,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South
Dakota, Texas, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. This list includes Delaware, South Dakota,
Oregon, and Wyoming, each of which reported zero incidents.
481

482
These jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and
Wyoming.
483

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina.

Those jurisdictions were Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas,
Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
484

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania. Alabama said it developed tables, charts, and
graphs to “depict monthly totals” of violent incidents and “track incident trends.” Oklahoma reported that it
485

172

conducted research on the “frequency of inmate on staff assault vs. [the] frequency of inmate on inmate assault.”
Pennsylvania reported that it tracked “incidents by type [and] location of incidents.”
486

That jurisdiction was Pennsylvania.

That jurisdiction was South Carolina, which reported that “a weekly confidential report was produced” based on
its predictive analyses.
487

488
Elena Vanko, Step-Down Programs and Transitional Units: A Strategy to End Long-Term Restrictive Housing,
VERA INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE, at 2 (June 2019), at https://www.vera.org/downloads/publications/step-downprograms-and-transitional-units-strategy-to-end-long-term-restrictive-housing-policy-brief.pdf (citing AMERICAN
CORRECTIONAL ASSOCIATION (ACA), Restrictive Housing Expected Practices (Alexandria, VA: ACA, 2018), 4,
http://www.aca.org/ACA_Prod_IMIS/ACA_Member/Standards___Accreditation/Standards/Restrictive_Housing_C
ommittee/ACA_Member/Standards_and_Accreditation/Restrictive_Housing_Committee/Restrictive_Housing_Com
mittee.aspx?hkey=458418a3-8c6c-48bb-93e2-b1fcbca482a2).
489
These jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington,
West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

This table does not include Delaware and Vermont because those jurisdictions reported they held no people in
restrictive housing over the surveyed year. It does include North Dakota, which reported that it held people in
restrictive housing over the course of the surveyed year but did not have any people in restrictive housing as of July
2021.
490

This data represents the number of women who were released to general population from restrictive housing.
Oklahoma did not report data on the number of men released.
491

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and
Wyoming.
492

These jurisdictions were Colorado, Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Montana, Nevada, South Carolina, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin. Washington reported that thirty-seven people had completed a
transition program before returning to general population over the course of the surveyed year, but also noted that its
“transition pods” were generally not available during COVID.
493

494
That jurisdiction was Nebraska. It described its controlled movement unit as follows: “The controlled movement
unit offers residents many programming options and involves a formal review of a resident’s continued determined
risk level.”

South Dakota reported that the transition program could be as short as 30 days, while Montana described a
program lasting over a year.
495

Those jurisdictions that reported restrictive housing to general population transition programs lasting the median
of 90 days were Iowa, Nevada, and South Carolina. Colorado and Washington did not report a length of time for
their transition programs between restrictive housing and general population, and Wisconsin indicated that the
transition time was behavior dependent.
496

These jurisdictions were Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Montana, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas,
Utah, and Washington. (This excludes Oregon, Oklahoma, and Wyoming, which did not report having such
497

173

transition programs in place and provided us with data on the number of people who transitioned back to general
population from restrictive housing without having completed such a program.)
498

That jurisdiction was Colorado.

That jurisdiction was Wisconsin. It reported that 637 people had transitioned from restrictive housing to general
population but that did not collect data distinguishing those who had completed a transition program.
499

500

That jurisdiction was South Carolina. Maine reported a rate of 1.5%.

Connecticut, Tennessee, Utah, and Washington each reported that all people who returned to general population
from restrictive housing had completed a transition program.
501

Those jurisdictions were Connecticut (100%), Tennessee (100%), Utah (100%), Washington (100%), and Texas
(61.8%).
502

503
Those jurisdictions were Iowa (4.6%), Maine (1.5%), and South Carolina (1.0%). South Dakota reported a rate of
32.7%, and Montana reported a rate of 26.4%.
504

These jurisdictions were Iowa, Montana, Tennessee, and Texas.

These jurisdictions were Iowa, Montana, and Texas. Texas reported that 61.8% of the people who returned to
restrictive housing had successfully completed a transition program, Montana reported that 26.4% had completed
such a program, and Iowa reported that 4.6% had done so.
505

506

These jurisdictions were Colorado, South Carolina, and South Dakota.

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and
Wyoming.
507

508
These jurisdictions were Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Montana, Nevada, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee,
Texas, Washington, and Wyoming.

Those jurisdictions were Iowa, Maine, Montana, Nevada, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and
Washington.
509

510

That jurisdiction was Tennessee.

511
Nevada and South Carolina reported that their transition programs from restrictive housing to release to the
community or a halfway house lasted 90 days.

Wyoming reported that its transition program from restrictive housing to release to the community or a halfway
house lasted 180 days.
512

These jurisdictions were Iowa, Maine, Montana, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming.
(This excludes Connecticut, Indiana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Oregon, and South Dakota, which did not report
having such transition programs in place and provided us with data on the number of people who were released from
prison directly from restrictive housing.)
513

514

That jurisdiction was Wyoming.

174

515

These jurisdictions were Iowa, Montana, Texas, and Washington.

Montana and Washington reported that everyone who was released to the community or a halfway house from
restrictive housing had completed a transition program.
516

Iowa (60.0%) and Texas (89.2%) reported that most people who were released to the community or a halfway
house from restricted housing had completed a transition program.
517

518
Maine and South Carolina reported that nobody who was released to the community or a halfway house from
restrictive housing had completed a transition program. Wyoming said that nobody was released to the community
or a halfway house from restrictive housing during the surveyed year.
519

These jurisdictions were Connecticut and Hawaii.

520

That jurisdiction was Connecticut.

521

That jurisdiction was Hawaii.

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and
Wyoming.
522

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey,
Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
523

Those jurisdictions were Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Texas.
524

Jurisdictions requiring that training were Colorado, Illinois, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oregon, and
South Carolina.
525

526

Jurisdictions requiring that training were Colorado, Illinois, Montana, Nebraska, and South Carolina.

527

Jurisdictions requiring that training were Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, and South Carolina.

528

Jurisdictions requiring that training were Iowa, Minnesota, Oregon, and South Carolina.

529

Jurisdictions requiring that training were Illinois and Nebraska.

530

Jurisdictions requiring that training were Illinois, Nebraska, and South Carolina.

531

Jurisdictions requiring that training were Colorado and Pennsylvania.

532

The jurisdiction requiring that training was Minnesota.

533

The jurisdiction requiring that training was Colorado.

534

Jurisdictions requiring that training were Connecticut and Pennsylvania.

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
535

175

536
These jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington,
West Virginia, and Wyoming.

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming.
537

Connecticut (36 hours) and Illinois (37.5 hours) were on the lower end. South Carolina (42 hours), Wyoming (49
hours), and Oklahoma (50 hours) were on the higher end.
538

These eighteen jurisdictions reported that their restrictive housing and general population staff worked an average
of forty non-overtime hours per week: Alabama, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah.
539

540
Texas (68.3%) and Nevada (73%) were on the lower end. Alabama, Idaho, Iowa, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and
Utah each reported that 100% of their restrictive housing staff worked overtime over the course of the surveyed
year.

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,
South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, and West Virginia.
541

542

Those jurisdictions were Montana, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

543

That jurisdiction was New Hampshire.

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee,
Texas, and Washington.
544

Sixteen jurisdictions restricted prison staff to no more than sixteen hours worked per day. Those jurisdictions
were Alabama, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Jersey, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Washington. Minnesota and South Dakota reported that they
permitted staff to work up to eighteen hours per day, and Idaho reported that it limited overtime hours to no more
than four per day.
545

Alabama, South Carolina, and Texas described policies requiring one or more days off per week. Alabama
reported that employees could work no more than eighty hours per week, Utah limited them to seventy-six hours per
week, and South Carolina said they could work no more than seventy-two hours per week. Additionally, Oklahoma
reported that it forbade staff from working more than two double-shifts within a one-week period but did not require
any days off or limit the total number of overtime hours that could be worked.

546

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and
Wyoming.
547

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia,
Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
548

176

549
Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska,
Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Nebraska reported that only corporals and
sergeants were routinely rotated out of restrictive housing and that all rotations were “subject to facility needs.”

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Hawaii, Indiana, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and
Tennessee. Nebraska noted that “some staff are rotated periodically.” Alabama said that rotations were typical but
not required. Hawaii and Massachusetts reported that staff placements were based on job bidding, and South
Carolina reported that staff requests to stay in restrictive housing beyond the typical rotation period were considered.
550

Connecticut (56 days), Alabama (90), and Illinois (90) were at the lower end. Oregon, Minnesota, and Montana
reported that restrictive housing staff were rotated out after two years.
551

Oklahoma, West Virginia, and Wyoming were at the median, although West Virginia explained that rotations
could take place after one year instead, “depending on staff needs.”
552

553
These jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and
Wyoming.

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
554

555

That jurisdiction was South Dakota.

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and
Wyoming.
556

557
Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Connecticut, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Montana,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Washington.

Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Connecticut, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Montana,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon, South Carolina, and Washington.
558

These jurisdictions were Maine, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Maine wrote, “MDOC continually reviews and
enhances restrictive housing practices, including reviewing alternative housing placements and interventions to
further divert residents from restrictive housing.” New Jersey said it was “reviewing current practices & policies as
well as related legislation,” and Pennsylvania merely commented, “in progress.”
559

These jurisdictions were Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Minnesota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas,
Utah, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
560

Jurisdictions seeking to eliminate or limit the use of restrictive housing were Connecticut, Massachusetts,
Nebraska, and Oregon. Connecticut reported that, as of December 1, 2021, it would no longer hold people in
isolated confinement for more than fifteen consecutive days or more than thirty days in any sixty-day period, which
would, in essence, eliminate its use of restrictive housing as defined in this survey. Connecticut also reported that, as
of October 1, 2021, it would implement policy changes limiting the use of isolated confinement for vulnerable
populations. Massachusetts reported that it had “a plan to potentially eliminate all restrictive housing in
Massachusetts.” Nebraska reported that it had “eliminated restrictive housing for individuals 17 years old or
561

177

younger” and for women. Oregon reported that it had moved people who were on death row from restrictive housing
to general population.
Jurisdictions seeking to increase programming for people in restrictive housing were Iowa, Nebraska, Oregon,
and Washington. Iowa described plans to offer mental health programming for people in restrictive housing.
Nebraska said they had expanded in-cell programming options, and Oregon reported that it had increased group
programming options for people in restrictive housing. Washington said it was working on an initiative to increase
programming opportunities.
562

Jurisdictions seeking to align their policies with outside guidelines were Alabama, Montana, and New
Hampshire. Alabama reported that it was revising its practices and policies based on guidance from the National
Institute of Corrections (NIC). Montana noted it was “trying to follow [] statutory guidelines.” New Hampshire
reported that it was “actively rewriting restrictive housing policies to ensure alignment to DOJ recommended best
practices.”
563

564
Jurisdictions seeking to change the amount of time people in restrictive housing spent out-of-cell were Alabama,
Idaho, and Washington. Alabama reported that it was revising policies on the amount of time people spend out of
their cells for exercise but did not report whether they were increasing or decreasing the amount of time. Idaho said
it was “working to add more out of cell time for restrictive housing (up to 3 hours a day).” Washington reported that
it was also seeking to increase out-of-cell time.

Jurisdictions seeking to reduce the length of restrictive housing stays were Alabama, Connecticut, and
Washington. Alabama said it was reducing the length of stays in restrictive housing for people with serious mental
illnesses. Connecticut reported that, as of December 1, 2021, it would no longer hold people in isolated confinement
for more than fifteen consecutive days or more than thirty days in any sixty-day period. Washington said it was
working on “reducing the number of days an individual can be housed in Administrative Segregation.” Kansas will
implement a “modification of long term restrictive housing” involving “a psychological review when an offender
resides in longer than 30 days.”
565

Indiana and Oregon reported that they were changing policies on transitions out of restrictive housing. Indiana
said it had “created a new review form to review the need for continued placement or recommended release from
restrictive status housing.” Oregon said it had implemented a step-down pilot program, but that it was “on hold due
to COVID.”
566

Oregon reported that it was approaching use of force incidents differently “to ensure actual force is only resorted
to when no other options exist.”
567

568

Washington said it was working to “improv[e] conditions of confinement.”

569

That jurisdiction was Kansas.

570
Nevada said its “procedures on tracking those in restrictive housing [was] actively going through a review to
ensure that tracking [was] done consistently through [its] current database software.”

These jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine,
Massachusetts, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South
Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, and Washington.
571

572
Those jurisdictions were Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Vermont. Hawaii reported that it
would be willing to share its “experience in this area,” South Carolina and Vermont both said they were “willing to
share information,” and Iowa said its staff “would be willing to provide expertise on [restrictive housing].” Idaho
said it would like to “serve as a reference in regards to our procedures, what we’ve done, what has worked, issues

178

we’ve seen, and changes we’ve made.” Tennessee reported that it would be willing to share best practices with other
jurisdictions.
Those jurisdictions were Indiana, South Carolina, Vermont, and Washington. Indiana said it would be willing to
“share existing policies and state forms utilized for offender reviews in restrictive housing.” South Carolina and
Vermont reported that they were willing to share their policies, and Washington offered “documents” on their
restrictive housing policies and practices.
573

574
The twenty-five jurisdictions that provided data on the number of people in restrictive housing in response to the
2015, 2017, 2019, and 2021 Surveys were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois,
Indiana, Kansas, Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. An
additional eight jurisdictions provided data in 2015, 2017, and 2019. These jurisdictions were Arizona, Georgia,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, and North Carolina. Two jurisdictions, Minnesota and
Vermont, provided data in 2015, 2019, and 2021. The BOP provided data in 2015, 2017, and 2021. Two more
jurisdictions, Arkansas and Rhode Island, provided data in 2017 and 2019. Virginia provided data in 2015 and 2019.
An additional three jurisdictions—California, New Jersey, and Utah, responded in 2015 and 2021. Nevada provided
data in 2017 and 2021. Maine provided data in 2019 and 2021. An additional six jurisdictions provided data in 2015
only: Alaska, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire, and New Mexico. In some survey years, CLA and the
Liman Center have also sought and obtained responses from large jail systems.

The nineteen jurisdictions that provided data on the duration of restrictive housing in response to the 2015, 2017,
2019, and 2021 Surveys were Colorado, Delaware, Indiana, Kansas, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New York, North
Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington,
Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
575

The definition of restrictive housing was clarified in the 2017, 2019, and 2021 Surveys. The 2015 Survey defined
restrictive housing as being in-cell for twenty-two or more hours for fifteen or more continuous days; in 2017, 2019,
and 2021, the Surveys defined restrictive housing as being in cell for an average of twenty-two or more hours a day
for fifteen or more continuous days.
576

577
For example, Indiana’s total custodial population decreased from 27,508 in 2015 to 26,317 in 2017. During the
same time, however, its restrictive housing population increased from 5.9% in 2015 to 6.6% in 2017. In the next
period—between 2017 and 2019—Indiana’s total custodial population increased from 26,317 in 2017 to 27,182 in
2019, but its restrictive housing population decreased in parallel from 6.6% to 5.8%. In the most recent period, from
2019 to 2021, Indiana once again recorded a decrease in its total custodial population (from 27,182 in 2019 to
23,804 in 2021) but an increase in its restrictive housing population: from 5.8% in 2019 to 6.0% in 2021.

These jurisdictions were Delaware, Nebraska, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, South Dakota, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
578

579
These jurisdictions were Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Montana,
Oregon, Tennessee, and Texas.

These jurisdictions were Hawaii, Kansas, and Washington. Hawaii saw decreases in the number of people
reported to be in restrictive housing from 2015 to 2017 and from 2017 to 2019 but reported an increase from 2019 to
2021. Kansas saw a decrease in the number of people in restrictive housing from 2015 to 2017, followed by an
increase from 2017 to 2019, followed by another decrease from 2019 to 2021. Washington reported two consecutive
periods of increase, from 2015 to 2017 and from 2017 to 2019, followed by a decrease from 2019 to 2021.

580

581

These jurisdictions were, in order of greatest reduction to least, New York, Texas, Illinois, and Oklahoma.

179

582
The jurisdictions which experienced an increase in restrictive housing populations from 2019 to 2017 were, from
order of greatest increase to least, Hawaii, Alabama, Idaho, and Colorado.
583

This jurisdiction was Delaware.

584

This jurisdiction was Hawaii.

585
In 2015, the number used for total custodial population was the number of people for which a jurisdiction had
restrictive housing data. The 2017, 2019, and 2021 Surveys asked for the total custodial population for which a
jurisdiction had restrictive housing data and which was under the direct control of the jurisdiction. In 2015, some
jurisdictions had restrictive housing data for facilities that were not under their direct control and included those
people in their responses. Those jurisdictions were Alabama, Delaware, and Wisconsin. Differences between the
2015 and 2017 total custodial populations for these jurisdictions may therefore result from changes in the calculation
of the total custodial population rather than changes in the number of people in prison. In addition, the 2015 Survey
defined restrictive housing as being in-cell for twenty-two or more hours for fifteen or more continuous days,
whereas the 2017, 2019, and 2021 Surveys defined restrictive housing as being in cell for an average of twenty-two
or more hours a day for fifteen or more continuous days.

These jurisdictions were Colorado, Delaware, Indiana, Kansas, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New York, North
Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington,
Wisconsin, and Wyoming. In addition, four jurisdictions provided this data in 2015, 2017, and 2019: Arizona,
Kentucky, Louisiana, and North Carolina. Three jurisdictions provided this data in 2015, 2019, and 2021:
Connecticut, Minnesota, and Vermont. Alabama provided this data in 2017, 2019, and 2021. Rhode Island provided
this data in 2017 and 2019. Maryland provided this data in 2015 and 2019.

586

The 2021 Survey asked about people held for 15-29 days, 30-60 days, and 61-180 days. Prior surveys asked
about people held for 15-30 days, 31-90 days, and 91-180 days.

587

Some increases in restrictive housing populations for Wisconsin noted in Tables 37A and 37B may reflect a
change in counting methodology. In connection with the 2019 CLA-Liman Survey, Wisconsin noted that in both
2015 and 2017 it did not count people in administrative segregation as placed in restrictive housing. By contrast,
Wisconsin’s 2019 and 2021 restrictive housing totals include those in administrative segregation.

588

Some increases in restrictive housing populations for Wisconsin noted in Tables 37A and 37B may reflect a
change in counting methodology. In connection with the 2019 CLA-Liman Survey, Wisconsin noted that in both
2015 and 2017 it did not count people in administrative segregation as placed in restrictive housing. By contrast,
Wisconsin’s 2019 and 2021restrictive housing totals include those in administrative segregation.

589

590

We plan to make these policies accessible online.

591

People in Jail and Prison in Spring 2021 at 3. The figures in the text reflect the tallies of 692,278 of 1,193,934.

Vera collected prison population numbers directly from each state’s department of corrections and from the
Federal Bureau of Prisons by obtaining materials online, direct outreach, or public information requests. Id. Virginia
noted, in comments to a draft of this Report, that the estimated total of 31,548 includes people serving prison
sentences in local jails, and that its own records reflected a total population of 31,556 people as of March 2021.
592

593

TIME-IN-CELL 2019 at 1.

594

See People in Jail and Prison in Spring 2021 at 3.

595

Florida, DOC, 33-601.800 (2016).

180

596

Georgia, DOC, 209.07 (2015).

597

Arizona, DOC, 801.9.3.1-3 (2017).

598

Texas, TDCJ, Restrictive Housing Plan I.C (2019).

599

North Dakota, DOC 3A-18 (2011).

600

Michigan, DOC, 04.05.120.Q.5-6 (2019).

601

Vermont, DOC, 410.03 (2012).

Federal Bureau of Prisons, §541.23 (2016) (“You may be placed in administrative detention status for the
following reasons: (a) Pending Classification or Reclassification. You are a new commitment pending classification
or under review for Reclassification. . . (b) Holdover Status. You are in holdover status during transfer to a
designated institution or other destination”); Georgia, DOC, 209.07.H (“The offender has not been classified due to
their arrival at a Facility”); North Dakota, DOC 3A-18 (authorizing placement in segregation when an incarcerated
person is “pending transfer or is in holdover status during transfer, or has been recently received into the institution
via transfer from another penal or psychiatric institution.”).
602

603

Pennsylvania, DOC, 802.B.1 (2016)

Florida, DOC, 33-602.220.a (2021) (“Inmates shall be placed in administrative confinement pending review of
the inmate’s request for protection from other inmates . . . .”); Virginia, DOC, 841.4.III.B (“When an inmate
requests protective custody and the need for protective custody is documented and no alternative exists, the Shift
Commander will authorize the inmate’s assignment to general detention . . . .”); Federal Bureau of Prisons, § 541.23
(3) (authorizing placement in segregation when “[incarcerated person] requested, or staff determined [incarcerated
person] need[ed], administrative detention status for [their] own protection”); North Dakota, DOC 3A-18
(authorizing placement in segregated housing when “the person has requested admission for his own protection or
the staff has determined and documentation has been obtained that admission is necessary for the adult in custody’s
protection and no other reasonable alternative is available.”)
604

605

California, Cal. Code. Regs. tit. 15 § 3335 (2020).

606

Id.

607

Arizona, DOC 801.9.2.1-3 (2017).

608

Virginia, DOC, 841.4.II.B (2021).

609

Michigan, DOC, 04.05.120.Q.1-2 (2019).

610

California, CCR, § 3335 (2020).

611

Texas, TDCJ, Restrictive Housing Plan I.A (2019).

612

Georgia, DOC, 209.07 (2015).

613

Federal Bureau of Prisons, §541.23 (2010).

614

Vermont, DOC, 410.03 (2012).

615

Delaware, DOC Policy G-02 (2019).

181

616

North Dakota, DOC 3A-18 (2011).

617

Colorado, AR 600-09 (2021).

618

Id. at 600-01A.

619
American Correctional Association, Restrictive Housing Standards Open Hearing, ACA Winter Conferences,
January 2016 at 11. See also Elena Vanko, Vera Inst. of J., Step-Down Programs and Transitional Units: A Strategy
to End Long-Term Restrictive Housing (June 2019).
620

Federal Bureau of Prisons, P5217.02(6)(b) (2016).

621

Vermont, DOC, § 410.03.8.b (2012).

622

Colorado, AR 600-9(IV)(A)(5) (2021).

623

Michigan, DOC, 405.120.QQQ (2021).

624

Id. at 405.120.SSS.

625

Id. at 405.120.QQQ.

2015-2017 Biennial Report, NORTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION (2017)
[hereinafter N.D. DOCR Biennial Report], at 45, available at https://www.docr.nd.gov/sites/www/files/documents/
Biennial%20Report%20Archive/Biannual%20 Report%202015-2017.pdf.
626

627

Id.

628

Id.

629

28 C.F.R. § 541.50 (1995).

630

Pennsylvania DOC, 802.A.9 (2016).

631

Id. at 802.A.10.

632

Federal Bureau of Prisons, P5217.02(6)(a) (2016).

633

Colorado, AR 600-9(IV)(A)(5) (2021).

634

Cmty. Legal Aid Soc’y., v. Coupe, 15-CV-688-GMS (D. Del. 2016).

635

Ohio DRC, 55-SPC-02.V (2020).

636

Texas, TDCJ, Restrictive Housing Plan IV.E (2019).

637

CDCR Step-Down Policy (2022).

638

Pennsylvania, DOC, 802.B (2016).

639

Colorado, AR 600-9 IV.D (2021).

182

640

Cmty. Legal Aid Soc’y., v. Coupe, 15-CV-688-GMS (D. Del. 2016).

641

Vermont, DOC, § 410.03.8.b.d (2012).

642

N.D. DOCR Biennial Report at 45.

Adoption of Restorative Housing in the Virginia Department of Corrections FY2021 Report, VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT
OF
CORRECTIONS
(Oct.
2021),
at
6,
available
at
https://rga.lis.virginia.gov/Published/2021/RD447/PDF.
643

644

Id. at 2.

645

Id.

646

Virginia, DOC, 841.4 (2021).

Adoption of Restorative Housing in the Virginia Department of Corrections FY2021 Report, VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT
OF
CORRECTIONS
(Oct.
2021),
at
7,
available
at
https://rga.lis.virginia.gov/Published/2021/RD447/PDF.
647

648

Texas, TDCJ, Restrictive Housing Plan IV.B (2019).

649

Id.

Id. at IV.E; By some accounts, “[a]n estimated 46% of Texas prisoners in administrative segregation are there
solely because they were reasonably believed to be associated with a gang, not because they committed any
misconduct while incarcerated.” Sarah Kline, Confronting Administrative Segregation in Texas: Ending Automatic
Lockdown For Suspected Gang Affiliated Members, 19 Tex. Tech, Admin. L.J. 197 (2017) (internal quotations
omitted). While the GRAD Process lasts nine months, “[m]ost offenders” reportedly “wait months, if not years,
before a spot in the program opens up for them.” Kline, at 209-10. With 3,000 people in ad-seg due to suspected
gang affiliations and only 180 openings for the GRAD program, the “ACLU estimates it . . . would take twelve
years for the . . . program to move every currently eligible offender in ad-seg back to the general population.” Id.
650

651

CDCR Step-Down Policy.

652

Arizona, DOC, Department Order (DO) Manual 801.3.2.5 (2017).

653

Federal Bureau of Prisons, P5217.02(8)(a) (2016).

654

Pennsylvania, DC-ADM 802(C)(2)(e) (2016).

655

ACA Restrictive Housing Standards 2016, 4-RH-0032.

656

Virginia, DOC, 841.4 (2021).

Federal Bureau of Prisons, P5270.11(14) (2016). The criteria for the BOP’s step-down programming may have
varied depending on whether the individual was held in a “Control Unit” (“CU”) or a “Special Management Unit”
(“SMU”). Although both housing units are deemed non-punitive, §541.50’s exit criteria applied to people held in
CUs. BOP Program Statement 5217.02 provided a different step-down criteria for people held in SMUs.
657

658

Texas, TDCJ, Restrictive Housing Plan IV.H (2019).

659

Id.

183

660

Id. at IV.A.

661

TIME-IN-CELL 2019 at 80–83.

662

Id. at 80.

The states in which legislation was introduced included Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado,
Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia. See
Alabama House Bill 36; Alabama House Bill 253; Alabama House Bill H105; Alabama Senate Bill 91; Arizona
House Bill 2167; Arkansas House Bill 1470; Arkansas House Bill 1887; California House Bill 1225; California
House Bill 1211; Colorado House Bill 21-1211; Connecticut Senate Bill 1059; Connecticut House Bill 5927;
Connecticut House Bill 6505; Delaware Senate Bill 98; Florida Senate Bill 542; Florida Senate Bill 550; Florida
House Bill 377; Florida Senate Bill 570; Georgia House Bill 58; Illinois House Bill 3738; Illinois House Bill 3564;
Indiana House Bill 1430; Kentucky House Bill 86; Kentucky Senate Bill 84; Louisiana House Bill 68; Louisiana
House Resolution 50; Maine Legislative Document 696; Maryland House Bill 851; Maryland House Bill 917;
Maryland House Bill 131; Massachusetts House Bill 1851; Massachusetts House Bill 2504; Massachusetts Senate
Bill 1578; Massachusetts House Bill 2089; Massachusetts Senate Bill 128; Mississippi Senate Bill 2138; Missouri
Senate Bill 471; Montana Senate Joint Resolution 34; Nebraska Legislative Bill 620; Nebraska Legislative Bill 471;
Nevada Senate Bill 187; New Hampshire House Bill 557; New Mexico House Bill 191; New York Senate Bill 1623;
New York Senate Bill 2177; New York Senate Bill 4984; New York Senate Bill 2105; New York Assembly Bill
2518; New York Senate Bill 2836; New York Senate Bill 570; North Carolina, House Bill 608, Pennsylvania House
Bill 1004; Pennsylvania House Bill 1037; Pennsylvania Senate Bill 138; Rhode Island House Bill 5740; Rhode
Island Senate Bill 395; South Carolina House Bill 3212; South Carolina Senate Bill 51; South Carolina Senate Bill
53; Tennessee House Bill 0223; Tennessee Senate Bill 1418; Tennessee House Bill 0031; Tennessee Senate Bill
0827; Tennessee House Bill 0916; Tennessee House Bill 0222; Tennessee Senate Bill 1412; Tennessee Senate Bill
383; Tennessee House Bill 1579; Texas House Bill 2751; Virginia Senate Bill 1301; Virginia House Bill 2325;
Washington Senate Bill 5413; Washington Senate Bill 2428; Washington House Bill 1312; West Virginia House
Bill 3189.
663

664
Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Kentucky, New York, North Carolina, and Tennessee passed bills. Louisiana
enacted a resolution.
665

Connecticut Executive Order No. 21-1 (June 30, 2021).

Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, Prohibit Solitary Confinement Initiative, BALLOTPEDIA, May 2021, available at
https://ballotpedia.org/Allegheny_County,_Pennsylvania,_Prohibit_Solitary_Confinement_Initiative_(May_2021).

666

667
Michael Gartland, De Blasio Touts End of Solitary Confinement in NYC Jails, NY DAILY NEWS, June 9, 2021,
available at https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/new-york-elections-government/ny-nyc-de-blasio-solitaryconfinement-rikers-20210609-z43w5a72zrf5pgibvl2tlkedla-story.html.
668

This Report counts companion bills separately. Of the nineteen bills, ten are companion bills.

This Report found legislation by searching www.congress.gov for bills and resolutions introduced in the 20212022 Congress that contained the phrases “solitary confinement,” “restrictive housing,” or “administrative
segregation.” See Appendix E for a list of legislative proposals introduced in the 117th Congress (2021-2022)
relating to isolation in prison.
669

670

Exec. Order No. 14074, 87 FR 32945 (May 25, 2022).

184

671

New York Senate Bill 2836, 2021-2022 State Assembly, 2021 Regular Session § 1 (N.Y. 2021).

672

Id. § 2.

673

Id. § 4.

674

Id. § 5.

675

Id.

676

Id.

677

Id.

678

Arkansas House Bill 1470, 93rd General Assembly (2021) (enacted).

679

Kentucky Senate Bill 84, 2021 Legislature, Regular Session § 1(1) (2021) (enacted).

680

New York Senate Bill 2836, passim.

681

N.Y. CORRECT. LAW § 2 (McKinney 2022).

Id. The definition read, in full: “Any place operated by a county or the city of New York as a place for the
confinement of persons duly committed to secure their attendance as witnesses in any criminal case, charged with
crime and committed for trial or examination, awaiting the availability of a court, duly committed for any contempt
or upon civil process, convicted of any offense and sentenced to imprisonment therein or awaiting transportation
under sentence to imprisonment in a correctional facility, or pursuant to any other applicable provisions of law.”

682

683

North Carolina House Bill 608, General Assembly, 2021 Session § 2(a) (2021)(enacted).

684

Id. § 3(a).

685
Colorado DOC Eliminates Extended Restrictive Housing, CORRECTIONAL NEWS, (Oct. 30, 2017), available
at https://correctionalnews.com/2017/10/30/cdoc-extended-restrictive-housing/.
686

Colorado House Bill 21-1211, 73rd Assembly, 2021 Session (2021) (enacted).

687

Tennessee Senate Bill 383, 112th General Assembly § 1(b) (2021) (enacted).

688

Louisiana House Resolution 50, Louisiana State Legislation, Regular Session (2021) (enacted).

689
Punitive segregation was defined as “the placement of a juvenile in a location that is separate from the general
population as a punishment.” Arkansas House Bill 1470, 93rd General Assembly § 1(a) (2021) (enacted).

Solitary confinement was defined as “the isolation of a juvenile in a cell separate from the general population as a
punishment.” Id.
690

691

Id. § 1(b).

Restrictive housing was defined as “the state of being involuntarily confined in one’s cell for approximately
twenty-two hours per day or more with very limited out-of-cell time, movement, or meaningful human interaction
whether pursuant to disciplinary, administrative, or classification action.” Colorado House Bill 21-1211 § 1.
692

185

693

New York Senate Bill 2836, 2021-2022 State Assembly, 2021 Regular Session §§ 2, 5 (2021) (enacted).

694

Tennessee Senate Bill 383, 112th General Assembly § 1 (2021) (enacted).

695

Louisiana House Resolution 50, 2021 Legislature, Regular Session (enacted).

Restrictive housing was defined as “a housing placement that requires an inmate or detainee to be confined in a
cell for at least twenty-two (22) hours per day.” Arkansas House Bill 1470, 93rd General Assembly § 2(a) (2021)
(enacted).
696

697

Id. § 2(b).

699

Id.

700

Kentucky Senate Bill 84, General Assembly, Regular Session. § 1 (2021) (enacted).

Segregated confinement was defined as “any form of cell confinement for more than seventeen hours a day other
than in a facility-wide emergency or for the purpose of providing medical or mental health treatment.” New York
Senate Bill 2836, 2021-2022 State Assembly, 2021 Regular Session § 1 (2021) (enacted).
701

702

Id. §§ 2, 5.

“Restrictive housing” is defined as “any type of detention that involves removal from general population and an
inability to leave a room or cell for the vast majority of the day.” North Carolina House Bill 608, General Assembly,
2021 Session § 3(a) (2021) (enacted).
703

704
“Important circumstance” is defined as “reasonable grounds to believe that the . . . incarcerated person presents a
threat of harming [themself], the fetus, or any other person, or an escape risk that cannot be reasonably contained by
other means.” Id.
705

Id. § 2(a).

706

Tennessee Senate Bill 0827, 112rd General Assembly, 2021-2022 Session § 1 (2022) (enacted).

707

Colorado House Bill 21-1211, 73rd Assembly, 2021 Session § 1 (2021) (enacted).

708

New York Senate Bill 2836, § 4.

709

Id. § 4.

710

Id.

711

Colorado House Bill 21-1211, § 1.

712

New York Senate Bill 2836, § 5.

713

Id.

186

714

Colorado House Bill 21-1211, § 1.

715

New York Senate Bill 2836, § 5.

716

Id.

717

Id.

718

Id.

719

Colorado House Bill 21-1211 § 2.

720

Id.

721

Kentucky Senate Bill 84, General Assembly, Regular Session § 4(1)-(2) (2021) (enacted).

722

Id. § 4(1).

723

North Carolina House Bill 608, General Assembly, 2021 Session § 1(a) (2021) (enacted).

724

Id.

725

Connecticut Senate Bill 459, General Assembly (2022) (enacted).

726

New York Senate Bill 2836, 2021-2022 State Assembly, 2021 Regular Session § 5 (2021) (enacted).

727

Id.

728

Louisiana House Resolution 50, 2021 Legislature, Regular Session (enacted).

729

Id.

730

Colorado House Bill 21-1211, 73rd Assembly, 2021 Session § 1 (2021) (enacted).

731

Id.

732

Id.

733

Connecticut Executive Order No. 21-1 (June 30, 2021).

734

Id.

735

Connecticut Senate Bill 459, General Assembly § 3(e)(2) (2022) (enacted).

736

Id. § 1.

David Reutter, Local Pennsylvania Voters Ban Solitary Confinement and No-Knock Warrants, PRISON LEGAL
NEWS (Oct. 1, 2021), available at https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2021/oct/1/local-pennsylvania-votersban-solitary-confinement-and-no-knock-warrants/.
737

Petition to the Board of Elections of Allegheny County, PA. ALLIANCE FOR POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY, available
at https://apa-pgh.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/solitary.pdf.
738

187

739

Id.

740

Id.

741

Id.

Layout,
Features,
and
Amenities,
ALLEGHENY
https://www.alleghenycounty.us/jail/about/current-facility.aspx.
742

743

COUNTY,

available

Gartland, supra note 668.

N.Y.C.
Emergency Executive
Order
No. 279 § 2 (Nov. 1, 2021)
available
at
https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/home/downloads/pdf/executive-orders/2021/eeo-279.pdf.
See
also
Gabby
DeBenedictis, Adams Backs De Blasio Delay Of Solitary Confinement Reform, PATCH (Nov. 3, 2021), available at
https://patch.com/new-york/new-york-city/adams-backs-de-blasios-delay-solitary-confinement-reform.
744

745

Gartland, supra note 668.

746

See N.Y.C. Emergency Executive Order No. 279 § 2. See also DeBenedictis, supra note 745.

747

See DeBenedictis, supra note 745.

The statute defines restrictive housing as in-cell confinement “for more than 22 hours per day,” other than a
mental health evaluation observation. An Act Relative to Criminal Justice Reform, 2018 Mass. Acts Ch. 69 § 87, 93.
748

749

Id.

750

Id.

FALCON, INC., Elevating the System: Exploring Alternatives to Restrictive Housing 5 (Mar. 2021), available at
https://www.mass.gov/doc/falcon-report/download.
751

752

Id. at 6.

753

Evaluating the bills enacted in the time frame of the 2019 report (i.e., October 2018 through June 2020).

754

See Maryland House Bill 1001, General Assembly, 2019 Session (2019) (enacted).

755

See Michigan Senate Bill 848, Ninety-Ninth Legislature, 2018 Regular Session (2018) (enacted).

756

See Minnesota Senate File 8, Ninety-First Legislature, 1st Special Session 2019-2020 (2019) (enacted).

757

See Nebraska Legislative Bill 230, 2019-2020 Unicameral Legislature (2020) (enacted).

758

See New Mexico House Bill 364, 2019 Legislature, Regular Session (2019) (enacted).

759

See Virginia House Bill 1642, 2019 Legislative Session, (2019) (enacted).

760

Maryland House Bill 1001, General Assembly, 2019 Session § 1(b) (enacted).

761

Michigan Senate Bill 848, Ninety-Ninth Legislature, Regular Session Art. V, § 925 (2018) (enacted).

188

762
2021 Report to the Legislature: Administrative Segregation Report, MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
available at https://www.michigan.gov/documents/corrections/LR011422_Sec_925_745829_7.pdf.
763

Id.

764

Id.

765

Id.

766

Id.

767

Id.

768

Minnesota Senate File 8, Ninety-First Legislature, 1st Special Session Art. 3, § 10 (2019) (enacted).

769
Restrictive Housing Report, MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (2020), 3-5, available at
https://mn.gov/doc/assets/DOC%202020%20Restrictive%20Housing%20Report%20%28final%29_tcm1089466710.pdf.
770

Id. at 3-4.

771

Id. at 6.

772

Id.

773

New Mexico House Bill 364, 2019 Legislature, Regular Session § 5 (2019) (enacted).

2022 Restrictive Housing Report, NEW
https://www.cd.nm.gov/about-us/notice-reports/.

774

MEXICO

CORRECTIONS

775

Id.

776

Virginia House Bill 1642, 2019 Legislative Session § 1 (2019) (enacted).

DEPARTMENT,

available

Adoption of Restorative Housing in the Virginia Department of Corrections, FY2021 Report, VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 9-10, available at https://rga.lis.virginia.gov/Published/2021/RD447/PDF.
777

778

Id. at 3.

779

Id. at 3-6.

780

Id. at 5.

781

Id. at 9.

782

Id.

783

Nebraska Legislative Bill 230, 2019-2020 Nebraska Unicameral Legislature § 4 (2020) (enacted).

Jennifer A. Carter, Juvenile Room Confinement in Nebraska, 2020-2021 Annual Report, OFFICE OF INSPECTOR
GENERAL OF NEBRASKA CHILD WELFARE, 43, available at https://nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/107/PDF/
Agencies/Inspector_General_of_Nebraska_Child_Welfare/650_20211228-155244.pdf.
784

189

785

Id.

786

Id. at 2.

787

Id. at 1, 38.

788

Id. at 9.

789

Maryland House Bill 1001, Maryland General Assembly, 2019 Session § 1(b) (2019) (enacted).

Letter from V. Glenn Fueston, Jr., Executive Director of the Maryland Governor’s Office of Crime Prevention,
Youth, and Victim Services to Governor Larry Hogan, State Senate President William C. Ferguson, IV, and Speaker
of
the
State
House
of
Delegates
Adrienne
Jones
(March
4,
2020),
available
at
http://dlslibrary.state.md.us/publications/Exec/GOCPYVS/COR9-614(b)_2019.pdf.
790

791

Id.

792

First Step Act of 2018, § 610, Pub. L. 115–391, 132 Stat. 5194, 5245.

Id. See also BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, National Prisoner Statistics
Program, available at https://bjs.ojp.gov/data-collection/national-prisoner-statistics-nps-program.

793

794

First Step Act of 2018, § 101, at 5205.

See E. ANN CARSON, DEP’T OF JUSTICE, FEDERAL PRISONER STATISTICS COLLECTED UNDER THE FIRST STEP ACT,
2020 (Feb. 2021), available at https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/fpscfsa20.pdf [hereinafter FEDERAL PRISONER
STATISTICS REPORT 2020].
795

See FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Restricted Housing, (Apr. 17, 2022), available at https://www.bop.gov/about/
statistics/statistics_inmate_shu.jsp.
796

797

2019 FEDERAL PRISONER STATISTICS.

E. ANN CARSON, DEP’T OF JUSTICE, FEDERAL PRISONER STATISTICS COLLECTED UNDER THE FIRST STEP ACT,
2021 (Nov. 2021), available at https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/fpscfsa21.pdf [hereinafter FEDERAL PRISONER
STATISTICS REPORT 2021].
798

799

See FEDERAL PRISONER STATISTICS REPORT 2020 at 4; FEDERAL PRISONER STATISTICS REPORT 2021 at 5.

800

See id.

801

FEDERAL PRISONER STATISTICS REPORT 2020 at 17; FEDERAL PRISONER STATISTICS REPORT 2021 at 24.

802

FEDERAL PRISONER STATISTICS REPORT 2021 at 24. See also FEDERAL PRISONER STATISTICS REPORT 2020 at 18.

803

Id.

804

FEDERAL PRISONER STATISTICS REPORT 2020 at 15; FEDERAL PRISONER STATISTICS REPORT 2021 at 21.

805

Id.

806

FEDERAL PRISONER STATISTICS REPORT 2021 at 5.

190

807

Id.

808

Id.

See FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Restricted Housing, (Apr. 17, 2022), available at https://www.bop.gov/about/
statistics/statistics_inmate_shu.jsp.
809

810

Id.

811

Id.

812

Id.

813

Id.

814

See First Step Act of 2018, § 613, Pub. L. 115–391, 132 Stat. 5194, 5247-49.

815

Id. at 5247–48.

816

18 U.S.C. § 5031.

817

First Step Act of 2018, § 613, at 5248.

818

Id.

819

Id. at 5248–49.

U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE, The Attorney General’s First Step Act Section 3634 Annual Report (Dec. 2020), available
at
https://nij.ojp.gov/first-step-act/the-attorney-generals-first-step-act-section-3634-annual-report-december-2020
.pdf.
820

U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE, First Step Act Annual Report (Apr. 2022), available at https://www.bop.gov/
inmates/fsa/docs/First-Step-Act-Annual-Report-April-2022.pdf.

821

822

S. 1186 and H.R. 2222 are companion bills.

823

House Bill 176, One Hundred and Seventeenth Congress §2(b)(2) (2021).

Dignity for Detained Immigrants Act of 2021, House Bill 2222, One Hundredth and Seventeenth Congress
§ 10(b); Dignity for Detained Immigrants Act of 2021, Senate Bill 1186, One Hundredth and Seventeenth Congress
§ 10(b).
824

Effective and Humane Treatment of Youth Act of 2021, House Bill 131, One Hundredth and Seventeenth
Congress § 4(a).
825

Protecting the Health and Wellness of Babies and Pregnant Women Act of 2022, House Bill 6878, One
Hundredth and Seventeenth Congress § 7(5).
826

827

Solitary Confinement Reform Act of 2022, House Bill 7424, One Hundredth and Seventeenth Congress § 11(6).

828

See House Bill 176; House Bill 6878, § 4(a); and House Bill 7424, § 11(1).

829

See House Bill 2222 and Senate Bill 1186.

191

830

See House Bill 131, § 2.

831

House Bill 176, § 2(a).

832

Id.

833

Id.

834

Id.

835

Id.

836

Id.

837

Id.

838

Id.

839

Id.

840

Id.

841

Id.

842

Id.

843

Solitary Confinement Reform Act of 2022, House Bill 7424, One Hundredth and Seventeenth Congress § 3(c–d).

844

Id. § 3(a).

845

Id. § 3(b).

846

Id. § 4(b).

847

Id. § 4(a).

848

Id. § 11(3).

849

Id. §§ 7(a), 11(5)

850

Id. § 7(c).

851

Id. § 3(d).

852

Id. § 11(4).

853

Id. § 6(a).

854

Id. § 7(f).

855

Id. § 5(c).

192

856

Id. § 5(c).

857

Id. §§ 5(a), 8(a).

Restricting the Use of Solitary Confinement Act, House Bill 176, One Hundredth and Seventeenth Congress
§ 2(a) (2021).

858

859
See Effective and Humane Treatment of Youth Act of 2021, House Bill 131, One Hundredth and Seventeenth
Congress § 4(a); Dignity for Detained Immigrants Act of 2021, House Bill 2222, One Hundredth and Seventeenth
Congress § 10(b); Dignity for Detained Immigrants Act of 2021, Senate Bill 1186, One Hundredth and Seventeenth
Congress § 10(b).

Restricting the Use of Solitary Confinement Act, House Bill 176, One Hundredth and Seventeenth Congress
§ 2(a) (2021).
860

861

House Bill 2222 § 10(b); Senate Bill 1186, § 10(b).

862

House Bill 131, § 4(a).

863

Id. § 3(a).

864

Id.

865

Id.

866

Id. § 4(a)

867

Id. § 3(a).

868

Id.

869

Id.

Restricting the Use of Solitary Confinement Act, House Bill 176, One Hundredth and Seventeenth Congress § 3
(2021).
870

871

Solitary Confinement Reform Act of 2022, House Bill 7424, One Hundredth and Seventeenth Congress § 8(a).

872

Id. § 5(c).

873

House Bill 131, §4(a).

Protecting the Health and Wellness of Babies and Pregnant Women Act of 2022, House Bill 6878, One
Hundredth and Seventeenth Congress § 4(a), (c).
874

Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2022, Senate Bill 3058, One Hundredth and Seventeenth
Congress § 213(3) (2021).
875

876

House Resolution 226, One Hundredth and Seventeenth Congress (2021).

House Resolution 723, One Hundredth and Seventeenth Congress (2021); Senate Resolution 423, One Hundredth
and Seventeenth Congress (2021).
877

193

878

House Resolution 64, One Hundredth and Seventeenth Congress (2021).

Department of Peacebuilding Act of 2021, House Bill 1111, One Hundredth and Seventeenth Congress
§ 110(b)(2).
879

880

Id.

See GLOBE Act of 2021, House Bill 3800, One Hundredth and Seventeenth Congress § 2(13) (LGBTQI
individuals seeking asylum and refugee protection are “frequently targeted for violence, including sexual assault, in
refugee camps and in immigration detention” and “may be segregated against their will for long periods in solitary
confinement”). The Act describes “prolonged solitary confinement” as a “form of abuse that is profoundly damaging
to the social and psychological well-being of any individual.” Id. See also End Transfers of Detained Immigrants
Act, House Bill 3384, One Hundredth and Seventeenth Congress § 2(b)(3) (2021) (defining “nonpunitive medical
unit” to “exclude[] any punitive holding area, including isolation, solitary confinement, and administrative
segregation.”).
881

882
See Iran Hostages Congressional Gold Medal Act, House Bill 1179, One Hundredth and Seventeenth Congress
§ 2(2) (2021) and Iran Hostages Congressional Gold Medal Act, Senate Bill 2607, One Hundredth and Seventeenth
Congress § 2(2) (2021) (“the hostages [of the Iran Hostage Crisis] were subjected to intense physical and
psychological torture throughout their captivity, such as mock execution, beatings, solitary confinement, and
inhospitable living conditions.”); Defending the Human Rights of Palestinian Children and Families Living Under
Israeli Military Occupation Act, House Bill 2590, One Hundredth and Seventeenth Congress § 5 (2021) (would
prohibit “the funds authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available for assistance to the Government of
Israel” to “be obligated or expended for . . . incommunicado detention or solitary confinement.”).

See House Resolution 175, One Hundredth and Seventeenth Congress (2021) (recognizing “the Saudi
Government had unjustly detained American citizens . . . [and] subjected them to torture and solitary confinement”);
Senate Resolution 241, One Hundredth and Seventeenth Congress (2021) (recognizing “the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia maintains an especially hostile environment towards journalists through systematic and arbitrary arrests,
torture and inhumane or degrading treatment . . . including Maha Al-Rafidi Al-Qahtani, a journalist and writer
arrested in September 2019, held in solitary confinement, and physically abused while in prison.”).
883

884
See David H. Cloud, Cyrus Ahalt, Dallas Augustine, David Sears, & Brie Williams, Medical Isolation and
Solitary Confinement: Balancing Health and Humanity in US Jails and Prisons During COVID-19, 35 J. GEN.
INTERNAL MED. 2738, 2738-39(2020), available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-020-05968-y; David Cloud,
Dallas Augustine, Cyrus Ahalt, & Brie Williams, The Ethical Use of Medical Isolation—Not Solitary
Confinement—to Reduce COVID-19 Transmission in Correctional Settings, AMEND (Apr. 9, 2020), available at
https://amend.us/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Medical-Isolation-vs-Solitary_Amend.pdf; AMEND, COVID-19 in
Correctional Facilities: Medical Isolation, available at https://amend.us/covid-19-in-correctional-facilities-medicalisolation/.
885
See Federal Correctional Facilities COVID-19 Response Act, House Bill 2293, One Hundredth and Seventeenth
Congress (2021) and Federal Correctional Facilities COVID-19 Response Act, Senate Bill 328, One Hundredth and
Seventeenth Congress (2021).
886

Id. § 6.

887

Id.

888

Id. § 7.

889

Exec. Order No. 14074, 87 FR 32945 (May 25, 2022).

194

890

Id. § 1.

891

Id. § 16(a)(ii).

892

Id. § 16(b)(i).

A-1

Appendix A: CLA-Liman 2021 Restrictive Housing Survey

Liman/CLA Restrictive Housing Survey 2021
Start of Block: Section 0.a: Introductory Information
Introduction
The Correctional Leaders Association (CLA)--the successor organization to the Association of
State Correctional Administrators (ASCA)--and the Liman Center at Yale Law School began to
collect data in 2012 to understand the policies about and the use of restrictive housing. Because
of the many jurisdictions that have answered the surveys in prior years, we have created the only
longitudinal database in the United States to track the changing policies on and uses of restrictive
housing.
The 2021 questionnaire has been prepared by a joint-drafting committee of CLA and Liman
Center members. A subcommittee of CLA and Liman members have worked to simplify and
streamline questions from previous surveys, and to make answering simpler through drop-down
menus and check boxes. The survey, which need not be answered in one sitting, aims to learn
about the general population of each jurisdiction to create a baseline so as to understand the use
of restrictive housing.
The questionnaire begins with a sequence of questions about the number of people who have
been placed under the custody of and have been received by each jurisdiction. It then focuses on
the length of stay and other facets of restrictive housing. Answering as many questions as
possible will be helpful. Our goal is that all jurisdictions answer some, even if not all, questions.
Once this information is received, compiled, and analyzed, a draft will be provided to CLA
members for review, and the 2021 report will be finalized.
Please complete as many parts of the survey as you can. We appreciate your participation and
feedback.

Page 1 of 82

A-2

Instructions and Definitions
Defined below are terms commonly used in the survey. These definitions will be repeated in
questions when the survey is taken on Qualtrics.
The definition of “total custodial population” used in this survey is
the total number of people sentenced to and received by your department.
Note: In some jurisdictions, significant numbers of post-conviction sentenced prisoners are held
in other states or in jails over which the jurisdiction’s corrections department does not have
direct authority and does not have data on the use of restrictive housing. This survey therefore
asks about the number of people in a jurisdiction’s total population (including restrictive
housing) under that jurisdiction’s direct control. The words “sentenced to and received” include
only that set of individuals and exclude people who are sent out of the jurisdiction or held under
local or county authority.
The definition of “restrictive housing” used in this survey is
separating prisoners from the general population and holding them in cell for an average
of 22 or more hours per day, for 15 or more continuous days.
This definition means that “restrictive housing” includes individuals placed in these conditions
for any and all reasons, including due to COVID-19 concerns. Please only include individuals
who are required to be in-cell in this count (in other words, do not include individuals who
choose to remain in their cells even though they are free to leave).
To calculate the time during which a person is in restrictive housing requires beginning on the
first day when that person is placed in restrictive housing, whether or not a decision has been
made about the length of stay or the reasons for it. Therefore, include people in all and any form
of restrictive housing, whether the placement is provisional – pending an investigation and
decision - or not, and whether the placement is described as segregation, disciplinary
segregation, protective custody, intensive management, or by another term.
Further, include all individuals held in restrictive housing, whether in single cells or in cells
housing more than one person.
This survey seeks data as of July 1, 2021, and most jurisdictions have daily information from
which to obtain the answers. If your jurisdiction does not, use data from July 15, 2021, or specify
another data in the month of July of 2021 for which the information is provided.
The survey's due date is September 1, 2021.

Please contact us at cla.limansurvey@yale.edu.
Page 2 of 82

A-3

Reminder: the survey need not be completed in one session. In addition, to keep a copy of the
survey for your records, you can download the survey as a PDF via (click on the hyperlink to
access):
Google Drive
Dropbox
Box
End of Block: Section 0.a: Introductory Information
Start of Block: Section 0.b: Respondent's Contact Information
Q1. Select your jurisdiction
▼ Alabama (1) ... Wyoming (51)

Q2. Name of contact person(s) in your jurisdiction. Include no more than two contacts.
________________________________________________________________

Q3. Position/Title of contact person(s)
________________________________________________________________

Q4. Contact phone number(s). Please include your extension in parenthesis.
________________________________________________________________

Q5. Contact email(s)
________________________________________________________________

Page 3 of 82

A-4

Q6. Date for which Data are provided
Use data from July 1, 2021, unless otherwise indicated. If you do not have data for this date, use
data from July 15, 2021. If neither of these dates are an option, use and specify another date in
the month of July 2021. Which date will you be using for the data entered for this survey?
▼ July 1, 2021 (1) ... July 31, 2021 (31)
End of Block: Section 0.b: Respondent's Contact Information
Start of Block: Section 1: Demographics and Background
Q7. How many people are in your jurisdiction’s total custodial population, including people who
are held in restrictive housing, as long as they are individuals sentenced to and received by your
department.
(1)

Total custodial population (8)

Total (male) (9)

Total (female) (10)

No data (1)

▢
▢
▢

Page 4 of 82

A-5

Q8. How many hours, on average, do prisoners in the general population spend in cell each day?
Please make this calculation for the facility which houses the largest number of individuals in the
general population, and round to the nearest whole number.
▼ 0 (4) ... No data (29)

Q9. How many people are in restrictive housing, defined as being in a cell for an average of 22
hours or more a day for 15 or more continuous days. Include all individuals in restrictive
housing, whether the placement is provisional pending investigation and decision-making, or
whether placement has been confirmed for any of a variety of reasons.
Note: these numbers should include individuals held in restrictive housing for whatever reasons,
including COVID-19 concerns.
(1)

Total restrictive housing
population (7)

Total (male) (8)

Total (female) (9)

No data (1)

▢
▢
▢

Page 5 of 82

A-6

Q10. How many people are in restrictive housing for the following reasons? Please choose only
the primary reason a person is in restrictive housing (e.g., if someone is in restrictive housing for
both safety and COVID-19 reasons, please only count that person in one category).
Number of people (1)

Administrative (1)

Safety (2)

Punishment (3)

Personal choice of the
prisoner (4)

COVID-19 isolation (5)

Other (6)

No data (1)

▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
Page 6 of 82

A-7

Q11. Does your jurisdiction impose capital sentences?

o Yes (1)
o No (2)
Display This Question:
If Q11. Does your jurisdiction impose capital sentences? = Yes
Q12. If so, how many individuals are currently serving capital sentences? Below, provide the
numbers of each by the kind of housing they are in.

o General population (1) ________________________________________________
o In a subpopulation of capital-sentenced individuals that are separated but not held in
restrictive housing (2) ________________________________________________

o Restrictive housing (3) ________________________________________________
Q13. Does your jurisdiction keep length-of-stay data on the time each individual spends in
restrictive housing?

o Yes (1)
o No (2)
Display This Question:
If Q13. Does your jurisdiction keep length-of-stay data on the time each individual spends in
restri... = Yes
Q14a. How often does your system collect these data?
Number (4)
Every (5)
▼ 0 (1) ... 10 ~ Year (55)

Page 7 of 82

A-8

Display This Question:
If Q13. Does your jurisdiction keep length-of-stay data on the time each individual spends in
restri... = Yes
Q14b. How often does your system collect and review these data?
Number (4)
Every (5)
▼ 0 (1) ... 10 ~ Year (55)

Display This Question:
If Q13. Does your jurisdiction keep length-of-stay data on the time each individual spends in
restri... = Yes
Q15. In what year did your jurisdiction begin to keep length-of-stay data for restrictive housing?
▼ 2021 (1) ... 1951 (71)

Display This Question:
If Q13. Does your jurisdiction keep length-of-stay data on the time each individual spends in
restri... = Yes
Q16. Is the restrictive housing length-of-stay data accessible by (check all that apply):

▢ Computer-based data (1)
▢ Historical review of physical files (2)
▢
Other means (explain) (3)
________________________________________________
▢
Not available (explain) (4)
________________________________________________
Page 8 of 82

A-9

Q17. These questions address the length of time individuals have spent in restrictive housing,
defined as being in a cell for an average of 22 or more hours per day for 15 or more continuous
days.
Again, include people in all and any form of restrictive housing, whether the placement is
provisional – pending an investigation and decision - or not, and whether the placement is
described as segregation, disciplinary segregation, protective custody, intensive management, or
by another term. Include all individuals housed for 15 or more days.
Below, fill in each box with the number of people in restrictive housing for that length of time.
Use zero to indicate that no people were in restrictive housing for that length of time. If you do
not have data for a category, indicate that with number -99 (i.e. use negative sign).

Page 9 of 82

A-10

15
days –
29
days
(1)

30
days –
60
days
(2)

61
days –
180
days
(4)

181
days –
365
days
(5)

1+
years
–3
years
(6)

3+
years
–6
years
(7)

6+
years10
years
(8)

10+
years
(9)

Number
of MALE
prisoners
in
restrictive
housing
(1)

Number
of
FEMALE
prisoners
in
restrictive
housing
(2)
Q18. Does the length-of-stay data provided above include information from before your
jurisdiction began to regularly collect this form of data? For example, if regular collecting began
in 2008 and some prisoners had been placed in restrictive housing from before 2008, does the
reported length-of-stay data include the time in restrictive housing before 2008?

o Yes (1)
o No (2)

Page 10 of 82

A-11

Display This Question:
If Q18. Does the length-of-stay data provided above include information from before your
jurisdiction... = Yes
Q19. How did you calculate the total time for each prisoner who has been in restrictive housing
since before you began collecting length of time data? (check all that apply)

▢ We reviewed individual records. (2)
▢ We estimated on the basis of staff knowledge. (3)
▢
Other (please explain) (4)
________________________________________________

Q20. From July 1, 2020 to July 1, 2021, what was the average length of stay (days) for an
individual placed in restrictive housing? Please include individuals who spent time in restrictive
housing prior to July 1, 2020, but were either released from or still reside in restrictive housing
during the period from July 1, 2020 to July 1, 2021.
Average length of stay (days)
for an individual placed in
restrictive housing from July
1, 2020 to July 1, 2021 (1)

(3)

End of Block: Section 1: Demographics and Background

No data (1)

▢

Page 11 of 82

A-12

Start of Block: Section 2: Demographics-- Race/Ethnicity, Age, Gender, And Pregnancy
These questions ask about the demographics of the general and restrictive housing populations.

Q21. Does your jurisdiction have definitions for the race/ethnic categories below? If so, explain.
Provide also the source of this definition (e.g., U.S. Census, state legislation, et cetera).
Yes (explain) (1)

White (non-Hispanic or
Latino/a) (1)

Black or African American
(2)

Hispanic or Latino/a (3)

American Indian or Alaska
Native (4)

Asian (5)

No (1)

▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
Page 12 of 82

A-13

Native Hawaiian or Pacific
Islander (6)

Other (7)

▢
▢

Q22. How are race/ethnic identifications of prisoners made?

o Self-reported (1)
o Visual identification (2)
o Court or other legal documentation (3)
o Other (explain) (4) ________________________________________________

Page 13 of 82

A-14

Q23. How many people by gender and age are in the total custodial population, defined as the
total number of people sentenced to and received by your department?
Male (1)

Under 18 years old
(1)

18-25 years old (2)

26-50 years old (3)

51-70 years old (4)

Over 70 years old (5)

TOTAL (must add
up) (6)

Female (2)

No Data (1)

▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
Page 14 of 82

A-15

Q24. How many people by gender and race/ethnicity are in the total custodial population?
Male (1)

White (non-Hispanic
or Latino/a) (1)

Black or African
American (2)

Hispanic or Latino/a
(3)

Asian (4)

Native American or
Alaskan Native (5)

Native Hawaiian or
Pacific Islander (6)

Female (2)

No data (1)

▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
Page 15 of 82

A-16

Other (7)

TOTAL (must add
up) (8)

▢
▢

Page 16 of 82

A-17

Q25.How many people by gender and age are in restrictive housing?

Male (1)

Under 18 years old
(1)

18-25 years old (2)

26-50 years old (3)

51-70 years old (4)

Over 70 years old (5)

TOTAL (must add
up) (6)

Female (2)

No data (1)

▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
Page 17 of 82

A-18

Q26. How many people by gender and race/ethnicity are in restrictive housing?
Male (1)

White (non-Hispanic
or Latino/a) (1)

Black or African
American (2)

Hispanic or Latino/a
(3)

Asian (4)

Native American or
Alaskan Native (5)

Native Hawaiian or
Pacific Islander (6)

Female (2)

No data (1)

▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
Page 18 of 82

A-19

▢

Other (7)

TOTAL (must add
up) (8)

▢

Q27. How are prisoners identified as transgender within your jurisdiction?

o Self-identification by prisoner (1)
o Medical records (2)
o Other (please explain) (3) ________________________________________________
Q28. How many transgender prisoners are in the total custodial population?
Number (1)

(1)

No data (1)

▢

Page 19 of 82

A-20

Q29. How many transgender prisoners are in restrictive housing?
Number (1)

No data (1)

▢

(1)

Q30. How many pregnant prisoners are in the total custodial population?
Number (1)

(1)

No data (1)

▢

Page 20 of 82

A-21

Q31. How many pregnant prisoners are in restrictive housing?
Number (1)

(1)

No data (1)

▢

End of Block: Section 2: Demographics-- Race/Ethnicity, Age, Gender, And Pregnancy
Start of Block: Section 3: Mental Health
Q32. What is your jurisdiction’s definition of “serious mental illness”? Specify if your definition
is based on a diagnostic manual from the health sciences and if so, the date and version used.
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Page 21 of 82

A-22

Q33. How many male and female prisoners are classified as seriously mentally ill by your
jurisdiction’s definition and placed in 1) the total custodial population and are in 2) the restrictive
housing population?
Male (1)

1) Prisoners with
Serious Mental
Illness in TOTAL
CUSTODIAL
population. (1)

2) Prisoners with
Serious Mental
Illness in
RESTRICTIVE
HOUSING
population. (2)

Female (2)

No data (1)

▢
▢

Page 22 of 82

A-23

Q34. How many prisoners, by race/ethnicity, classified as seriously mentally ill by your
jurisdiction’s definition are in the total custodial population?
Male (1)

White (non-Hispanic
or Latino/a) (1)

Black or African
American (2)

Hispanic or Latino/a
(3)

Asian (4)

Native American or
Alaskan Native (5)

Native Hawaiian or
Pacific Islander (6)

Female (2)

No data (1)

▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
Page 23 of 82

A-24

▢

Other (7)

TOTAL (must add
up) (8)

▢

Q35. How many prisoners, by race/ethnicity, classified as seriously mentally ill by your
jurisdiction’s definition are in the restrictive housing population?
Male (1)

White (non-Hispanic
or Latino/a) (1)

Black or African
American (2)

Hispanic or Latino/a
(3)

Female (2)

No data (1)

▢
▢
▢
Page 24 of 82

A-25

Asian (4)

Native American or
Alaskan Native (5)

Native Hawaiian or
Pacific Islander (6)

Other (7)

TOTAL (must add
up) (8)

▢
▢
▢
▢
▢

Page 25 of 82

A-26

Q36. How many prisoners, by age, classified as seriously mentally ill by your jurisdiction’s
definition, are in the total custodial population?
Male (1)

Under 18 years old
(1)

18 to 25 years old (2)

26 to 50 years old (3)

51 to 70 years old (4)

Over 70 years old (5)

TOTAL (must add
up) (6)

Female (2)

No data (1)

▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
Page 26 of 82

A-27

Q37. How many prisoners, by age, classified as seriously mentally ill by your jurisdiction’s
definition, are in the restrictive housing population?
Male (1)

Under 18 years old
(1)

18 to 25 years old (2)

26 to 50 years old (3)

51 to 70 years old (4)

Over 70 years old (5)

TOTAL (must add
up) (6)

Female (2)

No data (1)

▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
Page 27 of 82

A-28

Q38. Fill in each box with: 1) the number of seriously mentally ill people in restrictive housing
for that length of time, or 2) a zero to indicate there were no seriously mentally ill people in
restrictive housing for that length of time.
Include the total number of days in restrictive housing, whatever their status (disciplinary,
administrative, protective, or other) and include all individuals, whether they were moved from
one status or type of restrictive housing to another.
Number (1)

15 days – 29 days (1)

30 days – 60 days (2)

61 days – 180 days (3)

181 days – 365 days (4)

1+ year – 3 years (5)

No data (1)

▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
Page 28 of 82

A-29

3+ years – 6 years (6)

6+ years - 10 years (7)

10+ years (8)

TOTAL (must add up) (9)

▢
▢
▢
▢

Page 29 of 82

A-30

Q39. In the last 12 months, how many prisoners have been diagnosed with serious mental illness
while residing in restrictive housing?
Number (1)

No data (1)

▢

Total (1)

Q40. Of those diagnosed with serious mental illnesses while residing in restrictive housing, how
many were released from restrictive housing as a result of receiving the diagnosis?
Number (1)

Total released after diagnosis
(4)

No data (1)

▢

Page 30 of 82

A-31

Q41. Of those released from restrictive housing after receiving a serious mental illness diagnosis,
how soon after their diagnosis were they released?
Number of days (1)

(4)

End of Block: Section 3: Mental Health

No data (1)

▢

Start of Block: Section 4.a: Facets of Restrictive Housing Part I
These questions ask about physical space, access to exercise, showers, interpersonal contact,
and programming in restrictive housing.
In these questions, if facilities and programs vary among your jurisdiction, answer with
information about the rules applicable to the largest number of individuals in restrictive housing
for each gender.

Q42. Do restrictive housing cells have clear windows through which individuals held can
directly see outside?

o Yes (1)
o No (3)
Q43. For how many hours a day is artificial light turned on in a restrictive housing cell? Please
round to the nearest whole number.
▼ 0 (1) ... 24 (25)

Page 31 of 82

A-32

Q44. Does the person in a restrictive housing cell have any control over the use of artificial light?

o Yes (1)
o No (2)
Display This Question:
If Q44. Does the person in a restrictive housing cell have any control over the use of
artificial li... = Yes
Q45. For how many hours a day does the person in a restrictive housing cell have control over
the use of artificial light?
▼ 0 (1) ... 24 (25)

Q46. During nighttime hours, does the department turn the lights:

o On (1)
o Off (2)
o Dim (3)

Page 32 of 82

A-33

Q47. All or most prisoners in general population are permitted to use [check all that apply]:

▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢

Electronic tablet (1)
Books and other reading materials (2)
Television (3)
Radios, mp3 players, CDs, or other audio media devices (4)
Handheld video games for entertainment, programming, or education (5)
Puzzles or board games (6)
Programming or education worksheets (7)
Internet (8)
Writing materials (9)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Page 33 of 82

A-34

Q48. All or most prisoners in restrictive housing are permitted to use [check all that apply]:

▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢

Display This Question:
If Q47. All or most prisoners in general population are permitted to use [check all that
apply]: = Electronic tablet
Q49. Do prisoners in general population keep their tablets in their cells at all times, or must
prisoners request use from staff?

o Keep in cell (1)
o Must request use (2)
o Other (3) ________________________________________________

Page 34 of 82

A-35

Display This Question:
If Q47. All or most prisoners in general population are permitted to use [check all that
apply]: = Electronic tablet
Q50. Are tablets available for every prisoner in the general population?

o Yes (1)
o No (2)
Display This Question:
If Q50. Are tablets available for every prisoner in the general population? = No
Q51. What percentage of the general population can get a tablet, if they all asked for tablets at
once?
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percent of tablet coverage ()

Display This Question:
If Q48. All or most prisoners in restrictive housing are permitted to use [check all that
apply]: = Electronic tablet
Q52. Do people in restrictive housing keep their tablets in their cells at all times, or must
prisoners request use from staff?

o Keep in cell (1)
o Must request use (2)
o Other (3) ________________________________________________

Page 35 of 82

A-36

Display This Question:
If Q48. All or most prisoners in restrictive housing are permitted to use [check all that
apply]: = Electronic tablet
Q53. Are tablets available for every prisoner in the restrictive housing population?

o Yes (1)
o No (2)
Display This Question:
If Q53. Are tablets available for every prisoner in the restrictive housing population? = No
Q54. What percentage of the restrictive housing population can get a tablet, if they all asked for
tablets at once?
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percent of tablet coverage ()

Display This Question:
If Q47. All or most prisoners in general population are permitted to use [check all that
apply]: = Electronic tablet
Q55. People in general population housing have access to content on the tablets:

o Without charge for all content (1)
o With charge for all content (2)
o Without charge for some content (education, for example) (please explain): (3)
________________________________________________

Page 36 of 82

A-37

Display This Question:
If Q48. All or most prisoners in restrictive housing are permitted to use [check all that
apply]: = Electronic tablet
Q56. People in restrictive housing have access to content on the tablets:

Q57. Which vendor(s) provides the department with tablets? (Check all that apply)

▢
▢
▢
▢

GTL (1)
Securus (2)
CenturyLink (3)
Other (4) ________________________________________________

End of Block: Section 4.a: Facets of Restrictive Housing Part I
Start of Block: Section 4.b: General Population Access Loop
Please note: if you are viewing a PDF, the "${lm://Field/1}" printing you see below will be
populated with whatever boxes you checked in Q47. If you are viewing this in Qualtrics, you
should just see whatever box you checked. This section will repeat for each box you checked in
Q47.

Q58. How many hours a day do prisoners in the general population have access to
${lm://Field/1} [Q47 response]?
▼ 0 (1) ... 24 (25)

Page 37 of 82

A-38

Q59. How many days a week do persons in general population have access to ${lm://Field/1}
[Q47 response]?
▼ 0 (1) ... 7 (8)

Q60. Do prisoners in the general population purchase ${lm://Field/1} [Q47 response] to access
it?

o Yes (1)
o No (2)
Q61. Do prisoners in the general population have to pay a fee to use ${lm://Field/1} [Q47
response]?

o Yes (1)
o No (2)
Q62. Can access to ${lm://Field/1} [Q47 response] be taken away from prisoners in the general
population for disciplinary reasons (other than for disciplinary reasons if you answered “Yes” in
Q62)?

o Yes (1)
o No (2)
Q63. Is there guaranteed access to ${lm://Field/1} [Q47 response] for every prisoner in the
general population (other than for disciplinary reasons)?

o Yes (1)
o No (2)
Page 38 of 82

A-39

Q64. Are ${lm://Field/1} [Q47 response] used as incentives for behavioral change in the general
population (i.e. people are provided with a privilege as a reward for certain kinds of behaviors)?

o Yes (1)
o No (2)
End of Block: Section 4.b: General Population Access Loop
Start of Block: Section 4.c: Restrictive Housing Access Loop
Please note: if you are viewing a PDF, the "${lm://Field/1}" printing you see below will be
populated with whatever boxes you checked in Q48. If you are viewing this in Qualtrics, you
should just see whatever box you checked. This section will repeat for each box you checked in
Q48.

Q65. How many hours a day do prisoners in restrictive housing have access to ${lm://Field/1}
[Q48 response]?
▼ 0 (1) ... 24 (25)

Q66. How many days a week do persons in restrictive housing have access to ${lm://Field/1}
[Q48 response]?
▼ 0 (1) ... 7 (8)

Q67. Do prisoners in restrictive housing purchase ${lm://Field/1} [Q48 response] to access it?

o Yes (1)
o No (2)
Page 39 of 82

A-40

Q68. Do prisoners in restrictive housing have to pay a fee to use ${lm://Field/1} [Q48 response]?

o Yes (1)
o No (2)
Q69. Can access to ${lm://Field/1} [Q48 response] be taken away from prisoners in restrictive
housing for disciplinary reasons?

o Yes (1)
o No (2)
Q70. Is there guaranteed access to ${lm://Field/1} [Q48 response] for every prisoner in
restrictive housing (other than for disciplinary reasons if you answered “Yes” in Q69)?

o Yes (1)
o No (2)
Q71. Are ${lm://Field/1} [Q48 response] used as incentives for behavioral change in restrictive
housing (i.e. people are provided with a privilege as a reward for certain kinds of behaviors)?

o Yes (1)
o No (2)
End of Block: Section 4.c: Restrictive Housing Access Loop
Start of Block: Section 4.d: Facets of Restrictive Housing Part II
Q72. Upload any relevant policy or program documents regarding in-cell programming and
limits on participation. If you have more than one file, upload a .zip file or email the files to
cla.limansurvey@yale.edu.

Page 40 of 82

A-41

Q73. May prisoners in restrictive housing purchase items from the commissary?

o Yes (1)
o No (2)

Q74. What restrictions on commissary exist for prisoners in the general population and
restrictive housing?
General Population (1)

Restrictive Housing (2)

How much can be spent on
commissary per month?
(Dollars) (1)

How many times per month
can someone access
commissary? (2)

Page 41 of 82

A-42

Q75. Which items are available to prisoners in the general population through commissary?
(check all that apply)

▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢

Food (1)
Beverages (2)
Soap, shampoo, deodorant (3)
Shaving tools (4)
Medication (Tums, aspirin, et cetera) (5)
Toothbrushes, toothpaste, mouthwash, dental floss (6)
Cosmetics (blush, eye liner, et cetera) (7)
Laundry items (detergent, softener, et cetera) (8)
Batteries, electronics charging devices (9)
MP3 Players, radios (10)
Headphones (11)
Clothing (sweaters, shoes, et cetera) (12)
Blankets (13)
Postage stamps, envelopes (14)
Cards, other writing materials (15)
Reading materials (16)
Games (playing cards, board games, et cetera) (17)
Page 42 of 82

A-43

▢

Recreation items (tennis balls, footballs, et cetera) (18)

Q76. Which items are available to prisoners in restrictive housing through commissary? (check
all that apply)

▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢

Page 43 of 82

A-44

▢
▢
▢

Reading materials (16)
Games (playing cards, board games, et cetera) (17)
Recreation items (tennis balls, footballs, et cetera) (18)

Q77. How many times per week are prisoners in the general population allowed out of their cell
for the following activities. If they are not permitted to engage in the activity, select 0.
Showers (1)

▼ 0 (1) ... No maximum on activity (33)

Individual exercise (2)

▼ 0 (1) ... No maximum on activity (33)

Group exercise (3)

▼ 0 (1) ... No maximum on activity (33)

Individual out-of-cell programming (4)

▼ 0 (1) ... No maximum on activity (33)

Group out-of-cell programming with security
chairs (5)

▼ 0 (1) ... No maximum on activity (33)

Group out-of-cell programming without
security chairs (6)

▼ 0 (1) ... No maximum on activity (33)

Individual meals out-of-cell (7)

▼ 0 (1) ... No maximum on activity (33)

Group meals out-of-cell with security chairs
(8)

▼ 0 (1) ... No maximum on activity (33)

Group meals out-of-cell without security
chairs (9)

▼ 0 (1) ... No maximum on activity (33)

Mental health services (10)

▼ 0 (1) ... No maximum on activity (33)

Doctor visits and other physical health
services (11)

▼ 0 (1) ... No maximum on activity (33)

Religious observances (12)

▼ 0 (1) ... No maximum on activity (33)

Other individual, unstructured time out-ofcell (not designated for showers, exercise,
meals, formal programming) (13)

▼ 0 (1) ... No maximum on activity (33)

Other group, unstructured time out-of-cell
(not designated for showers, exercise, meals,
formal programming) (14)

▼ 0 (1) ... No maximum on activity (33)

Page 44 of 82

A-45

Q78. How many times per week are prisoners in restrictive housing allowed out of their cell for
the following activities. If they are not permitted to engage in the activity, select 0.
Showers (1)

▼ 0 (1) ... No maximum on activity (33)

Individual exercise (2)

▼ 0 (1) ... No maximum on activity (33)

Group exercise (3)

▼ 0 (1) ... No maximum on activity (33)

Individual out-of-cell programming (4)

▼ 0 (1) ... No maximum on activity (33)

Group out-of-cell programming with security
chairs (5)

▼ 0 (1) ... No maximum on activity (33)

Group out-of-cell programming without
security chairs (6)

▼ 0 (1) ... No maximum on activity (33)

Individual meals out-of-cell (7)

▼ 0 (1) ... No maximum on activity (33)

Group meals out-of-cell with security chairs
(8)

▼ 0 (1) ... No maximum on activity (33)

Group meals out-of-cell without security
chairs (9)

▼ 0 (1) ... No maximum on activity (33)

Mental health services (10)

▼ 0 (1) ... No maximum on activity (33)

Doctor visits and other physical health
services (11)

▼ 0 (1) ... No maximum on activity (33)

Religious observances (12)

▼ 0 (1) ... No maximum on activity (33)

Other individual, unstructured time out-ofcell (not designated for showers, exercise,
meals, formal programming) (13)

▼ 0 (1) ... No maximum on activity (33)

Other group, unstructured time out-of-cell
(not designated for showers, exercise, meals,
formal programming) (14)

▼ 0 (1) ... No maximum on activity (33)

Page 45 of 82

A-46

Q79. If the amount of time out of cell varies for different categories of prisoner or for the type of
restrictive housing, explain:
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Q80. Where does exercise take place, if any, for prisoners in general population? (check all that
apply)
Male (1)
Outdoors with view of the
sky (1)
Outdoors without view of the
sky (2)
Indoors (3)

▢
▢
▢

Female (2)

▢
▢
▢

Q81. Who decides if exercise will be indoors or outdoors for the general population?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Page 46 of 82

A-47

Q82. Where does exercise take place, if any, for prisoners in restrictive housing? (check all that
apply)
Male (1)
Outdoors with view of the
sky (1)
Outdoors without view of the
sky (2)
Indoors (3)

▢
▢
▢

Female (2)

▢
▢
▢

Q83. Who decides if exercise will be indoors or outdoors for restrictive housing?

________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Q84. Do people in general population housing have access to recreational exercise equipment?
(check all that apply)
Male (1)
Female (2)
Outdoors: cardio machines
(1)
Outdoors: free weights (2)
Outdoors: weight-lifting
equipment besides free
weights (3)

▢
▢
▢

Page 47 of 82

A-48

Outdoors: other (7)
Indoors: cardio machines (4)
Indoors: free weights (5)
Indoors: weight-lifting
equipment besides free
weights (6)
Indoors: other (8)

▢

▢
▢
▢

Q85. Do people in restrictive housing have access to recreational exercise equipment? (check all
that apply)
Male (1)
Outdoors: cardio machines
(1)
Outdoors: free weights (2)
Outdoors: weight-lifting
equipment besides free
weights (3)
Outdoors: other (7)
Indoors: cardio machines (4)
Indoors: free weights (5)

Female (2)

▢

▢
▢
▢
▢

Page 48 of 82

A-49

Indoors: weight-lifting
equipment besides free
weights (6)
Indoors: other (8)

▢
▢

Q86. While exercising, people in restrictive housing interact (check all that apply):

▢
▢
▢

With other restrictive housing prisoners (1)
With general population prisoners (2)
With no one (i.e., alone) (3)

Display This Question:
If Q82. Where does exercise take place, if any, for prisoners in restrictive housing? (check
all tha... = Outdoors with view of the sky [ Male ]
Or Q82. Where does exercise take place, if any, for prisoners in restrictive housing? (check
all tha... = Outdoors with view of the sky [ Female ]
Or Q82. Where does exercise take place, if any, for prisoners in restrictive housing? (check
all tha... = Outdoors without view of the sky [ Male ]
Or Q82. Where does exercise take place, if any, for prisoners in restrictive housing? (check
all tha... = Outdoors without view of the sky [ Female ]
Q87. Is the outdoor exercise area used by restrictive housing prisoners also used by the general
population?

o Yes (1)
o No (2)

Page 49 of 82

A-50

Display This Question:
If Q82. Where does exercise take place, if any, for prisoners in restrictive housing? (check
all tha... = Outdoors with view of the sky [ Male ]
Or Q82. Where does exercise take place, if any, for prisoners in restrictive housing? (check
all tha... = Outdoors with view of the sky [ Female ]
Or Q82. Where does exercise take place, if any, for prisoners in restrictive housing? (check
all tha... = Outdoors without view of the sky [ Male ]
Or Q82. Where does exercise take place, if any, for prisoners in restrictive housing? (check
all tha... = Outdoors without view of the sky [ Female ]
Q88. Do the dimensions of the outdoor exercise area for the restrictive housing population
satisfy the ACA requirements?

o Yes (1)
o No (2)
Display This Question:
If Q80. Where does exercise take place, if any, for prisoners in general population? (check
all that... = Outdoors with view of the sky [ Male ]
Or Q80. Where does exercise take place, if any, for prisoners in general population? (check
all that... = Outdoors with view of the sky [ Female ]
Or Q80. Where does exercise take place, if any, for prisoners in general population? (check
all that... = Outdoors without view of the sky [ Male ]
Or Q80. Where does exercise take place, if any, for prisoners in general population? (check
all that... = Outdoors without view of the sky [ Female ]
Q89. Do the dimensions of the outdoor exercise area for the general population satisfy the ACA
requirements?

o Yes (1)
o No (2)

Page 50 of 82

A-51

Display This Question:
If Q82. Where does exercise take place, if any, for prisoners in restrictive housing? (check
all tha... = Indoors [ Male ]
Or Q82. Where does exercise take place, if any, for prisoners in restrictive housing? (check
all tha... = Indoors [ Female ]
Q90. Is the indoor exercise area used by restrictive housing prisoners otherwise used by the
general population?

o Yes (1)
o No (2)
Display This Question:
If Q82. Where does exercise take place, if any, for prisoners in restrictive housing? (check
all tha... = Indoors [ Male ]
Or Q82. Where does exercise take place, if any, for prisoners in restrictive housing? (check
all tha... = Indoors [ Female ]
Q91. Is the sky visible in the indoor exercise area used by restrictive housing prisoners?

o Yes (1)
o No (2)
Display This Question:
If Q80. Where does exercise take place, if any, for prisoners in general population? (check
all that... = Indoors [ Male ]
Or Q80. Where does exercise take place, if any, for prisoners in general population? (check
all that... = Indoors [ Female ]
Q92. Is the sky visible in the indoor exercise area used by prisoners in the general population?

o Yes (1)
o No (2)

Page 51 of 82

A-52

Display This Question:
If Q82. Where does exercise take place, if any, for prisoners in restrictive housing? (check
all tha... = Indoors [ Male ]
And Q82. Where does exercise take place, if any, for prisoners in restrictive housing? (check
all tha... = Indoors [ Female ]
Q93. Do the dimensions of the indoor exercise area used by prisoners in restrictive housing
satisfy the ACA requirements?

o Yes (1)
o No (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------Display This Question:
If Q80. Where does exercise take place, if any, for prisoners in general population? (check
all that... = Indoors [ Male ]
Or Q80. Where does exercise take place, if any, for prisoners in general population? (check
all that... = Indoors [ Female ]
Q94. Do the dimensions of the indoor exercise area used by prisoners in the general population
satisfy the ACA requirements?

o Yes (1)
o No (2)

Q95. Can prisoners in the general population obtain: (check all that apply)

▢ GED/high school equivalence (1)
▢ Vocational certification (2)
▢ Associates degrees (3)
▢ Bachelors degrees (4)
▢
Other education degrees (explain) (5)
________________________________________________

Page 52 of 82

A-53

Q96. Can prisoners in restrictive housing obtain: (check all that apply)

Q97. Is someone enrolled in educational programming removed from the program when they are
placed in restrictive housing?

o Yes (1)
o No (2)
o Varies (explain) (3) ________________________________________________

Page 53 of 82

A-54

Q98. Fill in the number of visits allowed for prisoners in the general population and in restrictive
housing for each group per month. If no visit is allowed, fill in “0” for the number of visits. If
you do not have data for a category, indicate that with number -99 (i.e. use negative sign). If
unlimited visits are allowed, please fill in “999” for the number of visits.
General population: number
of visited allowed per month
(1)

Restrictive housing: number
of visits allowed per month
(2)

Social visits (6)

Lawyer visits (7)

Religious visits (8)

Q99. Which of the following visits are permitted for prisoners in...
The General Population?
Restrictive Housing?
Contact (1)
Social
visits (1)
Lawyer
visits (2)
Religious
visits (3)

o
o
o

NonContact (2)

o
o
o

No Visits
(3)

o
o
o

Contact (1)

o
o
o

NonContact (2)

o
o
o

No Visits
(3)

o
o
o

Page 54 of 82

A-55

Q100. Can opportunities for visits be withdrawn as punishment for prisoners in the general
population?

Social visits (1)
Lawyer visits (2)
Religious visits (3)

Yes (1)

No (2)

o
o
o

Q101. If opportunities for visits can be withdrawn as punishment for prisoners in the general
population, explain under what circumstances can they be withdrawn?

o Social visits (1) ________________________________________________
o Lawyer visits (2) ________________________________________________
o Religious visits (3) ________________________________________________
Q102. If opportunities for visits can be withdrawn as punishment for prisoners in the general
population, how long can the be withdrawn for?

Page 55 of 82

A-56

Q103. Can opportunities for visits be withdrawn for prisoners in restrictive housing?
Yes (1)
No (2)
Social visits (1)
Lawyer visits (2)
Religious visits (3)

o
o
o

Q104. If opportunities for visits can be withdrawn as punishment for prisoners in restrictive
housing, explain under what circumstances can they be withdrawn?

o Social visits (1) ________________________________________________
o Lawyer visits (2) ________________________________________________
o Religious visits (3) ________________________________________________
Q105. If opportunities for visits can be withdrawn as punishment for prisoners in restrictive
housing, how long can they be withdrawn for?

o Social visits (1) ________________________________________________
o Lawyer visits (2) ________________________________________________
o Religious visits (3) ________________________________________________
Q106. How many legal phone calls can prisoners in the general population make?
Number of calls (1)
Per (2)
▼ 0 (1) ... Unlimited/More than 100 ~ year (510)

Page 56 of 82

A-57

Q107. How many legal phone calls can prisoners in restrictive housing make?
Number of calls (1)
Per (2)
▼ 0 (1) ... Unlimited/More than 100 ~ year (510)

Q108. How much do legal phone calls cost prisoners in the general population? (please round to
the nearest dollar value)
Cost (1)
Per (2)
▼ $0.00 (1) ... $25.00 ~ 15 minutes (753)
Q109. How much do legal phone calls cost prisoners in restrictive housing? (please round to the
nearest dollar value)
Cost (1)
Per (2)
▼ $0.00 (1) ... $25.00 ~ 15 minutes (753)

Q110. How many non-legal phone calls can prisoners in the general population make?
Number of calls (1)
Per (2)
▼ 0 (1) ... Unlimited/More than 100 ~ year (510)

Q111. How many non-legal phone calls can prisoners in restrictive housing make?
Number of calls (1)
Per (2)
▼ 0 (1) ... Unlimited/More than 100 ~ year (510)

Page 57 of 82

A-58

Q112. How much do non-legal phone calls cost prisoners in the general population? (please
round to the nearest dollar value)
Cost (1)
Per (2)
▼ $0.10 (1) ... $25.00 ~ 15 minutes (750)

Q113. How much do non-legal phone calls cost prisoners in restrictive housing? (please round to
the nearest dollar value)
Cost (1)
Per (2)
▼ $0.10 (1) ... $25.00 ~ 15 minutes (750)

Q114. How many phones are available in (please include tablets that have phone calling
capabilities--e.g., WhatsApp):
No data

General
Population (1)

(1)

Restrictive
Housing (2)

General
Population (1)

▢

Restrictive
Housing (2)

▢

Page 58 of 82

A-59

Q115. What is the ratio of phones to prisoners in the general population and in restrictive
housing (e.g., 10 phones and 20 prisoners would be a ratio of .5; please include tablets with
phone calling capabilities in this calculation)?
No data

General
Population (1)

(1)

Restrictive
Housing (2)

General
Population (1)

▢

Restrictive
Housing (2)

▢

Q116. How many (non-legal) contacts can someone in the general population have on their call
list?
▼ 0 (1) ... More than 30/unlimited (32)

Q117. How many (non-legal) contacts can someone in restrictive housing have on their call list?
▼ 0 (1) ... More than 30/unlimited (32)

Q118. Can prisoners in the general population send and receive non-legal mail?

o Yes (1)
o No (2)
Page 59 of 82

A-60

Q119. Can prisoners in restrictive housing send and receive non-legal mail?

o Yes (1)
o No (2)
Q120. How many non-legal letters can prisoners in the general population send and receive?
Number (1)
Per (33)
▼ 0 (1) ... Unlimited/More than 100 ~ year (510)

Q121. How many non-legal letters can prisoners in restrictive housing send and receive?
Number (1)
Per (2)
▼ 0 (1) ... Unlimited/More than 100 ~ year (510)

Q122. Are prisoners in the general population provided with writing materials and stamps
without charge?

o Yes (if so, what quantity are they provided?) (1)

________________________________________________

o No (2)

Q123. Are prisoners in restrictive housing provided with writing materials and stamps without
charge?

o Yes (if so, what quantity are they provided?) (1)

________________________________________________

o No (2)

Page 60 of 82

A-61

Q124. Can prisoners in the general population keep writing materials and stamps with them in
their cells?

o Yes (1)
o No (2)
Q125. Can prisoners in restrictive housing keep writing materials and stamps with them in their
cells?

o Yes (1)
o No (2)
Q126. May prisoners in the general population send and receive personal email?

o Yes (1)
o No (2)
Q127. May prisoners in restrictive housing send and receive personal email?

o Yes (1)
o No (2)

Page 61 of 82

A-62

Q128. If prisoners in the general population are permitted to send and receive personal emails,
how much access are they permitted?

o Number of hours permitted to be on email: (1)

________________________________________________

o Number of emails permitted to send each week: (2)

________________________________________________

o Number of emails permitted to receive each week: (3)

________________________________________________

Q129. If prisoners in the restrictive housing population are permitted to send and receive
personal emails, how much access are they permitted?

o Number of hours permitted to be on email: (1)

________________________________________________

o Number of emails permitted to send each week: (2)

________________________________________________

o Number of emails permitted to receive each week: (3)

________________________________________________

Q130. How do prisoners in the general population access email?

o Tablet (1)
o Paper printed by correctional staff (2)
o Other (explain) (3) ________________________________________________

Page 62 of 82

A-63

Q131. How do prisoners in restrictive housing access email?

o Tablet (1)
o Paper printed by correctional staff (2)
o Other (explain) (3) ________________________________________________
Q132. How much does it cost prisoners in the general population to send and receive emails, in
dollars and cents? If it is free, please put a 0. If you do not have data, please put a -99 (and
include the negative symbol).

o Cost to send an email (in dollars, e.g. 1.99) (1)

________________________________________________

o Cost to receive an email (in dollars, e.g. 1.99) (2)

________________________________________________

Q133. How much does it cost prisoners in restrictive housing to send and receive emails, in
dollars and cents? If it is free, please put a 0. If you do not have data, please put a -99 (and
include the negative symbol).

o Cost to send an email (in dollars, e.g. 1.99) (1)

________________________________________________

o Cost to receive an email (in dollars, e.g. 1.99) (2)

________________________________________________

Q134. Are there any restrictions on personal email correspondences for prisoners in the general
population?

o Yes (explain) (1) ________________________________________________
o No (2)

Page 63 of 82

A-64

Q135. Are there any restrictions on personal email correspondences for prisoners in restrictive
housing?

o Yes (explain) (1) ________________________________________________
o No (2)
Q136. Are any of the rules (other than those listed above) different for permitted use of items,
commissary, equipment, frequency of activities, educational programming, visits, and mail
depending on the length of time a person spends in restrictive housing?

o Yes (1)
o No (2)
Display This Question:
If Q136. Are any of the rules (other than those listed above) different for permitted use of
items,... = Yes
Q137. How do the rules for permitted use of the above items differ, based on the length of time a
person spends in restrictive housing?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
End of Block: Section 4.d: Facets of Restrictive Housing Part II

Page 64 of 82

A-65

Start of Block: Section 5: Exiting Restrictive Housing
These questions ask about transitions out (sometimes called “step downs”) of restrictive
housing.

Q138. When leaving restrictive housing but remaining in prison, does a person directly return to
the general population?

o Yes (1)
o No (2)
Display This Question:
If Q138. When leaving restrictive housing but remaining in prison, does a person directly
return to... = No
Q139. Do prisoners currently go to a step-down/transition program when leaving restrictive
housing?

o Yes (1)
o No (2)
Display This Question:
If Q139. Do prisoners currently go to a step-down/transition program when leaving
restrictive housing? = Yes

Q140. How long is the step-down/transition program? Please enter the number of days.
________________________________________________________________

Page 65 of 82

A-66

Display This Question:
If Q139. Do prisoners currently go to a step-down/transition program when leaving
restrictive housing? = Yes
Q141. If a prisoner leaving restrictive housing (but remaining in prison) does not complete the
step-down/transition program successfully, do they return to restrictive housing?

o Yes (1)
o No (explain) (2) ________________________________________________
Q142. When leaving prison immediately from restrictive housing, a person is directly returned to
(check all that apply):

▢
▢
▢

The community (1)
A halfway house (2)
Other (explain) (3) ________________________________________________

Display This Question:
If Q142. When leaving prison immediately from restrictive housing, a person is directly
returned to... = A halfway house
Q143. Do people leaving restrictive housing go to a step-down/transition program?

o Yes (1)
o No (2)
Display This Question:

If Q143. Do people leaving restrictive housing go to a step-down/transition program? = Yes

Q144. How long is the step-down/transition program? Please enter the number of days.
________________________________________________________________

Page 66 of 82

A-67

Display This Question:
If Q143. Do people leaving restrictive housing go to a step-down/transition program? = Yes
Q145. If a prisoner leaving prison directly from restrictive housing does not complete the stepdown/transition program successfully, do they return to restrictive housing?

o Yes (1)
o No (explain) (2) ________________________________________________
Q146. Upload any relevant policy or program documents regarding step-down or transition
programs. If you have more than one file, upload a .zip file or email the files to
cla.limansurvey@yale.edu.

Q147. How many prisoners between July 1, 2020 and July 1, 2021, were released from
restrictive housing to the general population?

o After completing a transition program? (1)

________________________________________________

o Without completing a transition program? (2)

________________________________________________

o No data (explain) (3) ________________________________________________
Q148. How many prisoners between July 1, 2020 to July 1, 2021 were released from restrictive
housing to the community or halfway house?

o After completing a transition program? (1)

________________________________________________

o Without completing a transition program? (2)

________________________________________________

o No data (explain) (3) ________________________________________________
Page 67 of 82

A-68

Q149. Describe the transition program used for the largest number of people in restrictive
housing in your jurisdiction:
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
End of Block: Section 5: Exiting Restrictive Housing
Start of Block: Section 6: Staff
These questions ask about the staff who oversee prisoners in restrictive housing.

Q150. Does working in the restrictive housing unit require different qualifications than working
in general population units?

o Yes (1)
o No (2)

Page 68 of 82

A-69

Display This Question:
If Q150. Does working in the restrictive housing unit require different qualifications than
working... = Yes
Q151. What qualifications are required to work with the restrictive housing population that are
not required for the general population? (check all that apply)

▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢
▢

Special training in conflict management (1)
Special training in stress management (2)
Special training on mental health (3)
Special training on behavior modification (4)
Special training on de-escalation (5)
Special training in cell extraction (6)
Other (explain) (7) ________________________________________________

Q152. How many hours per week do general population staff members work, not including
overtime (average from July 1, 2020 to July 1, 2021)?
Hours (1)

(4)

No data (1)

▢

Page 69 of 82

A-70

Q153. What percentage of staff working in the general population had overtime from July 1,
2020 to July 1, 2021?
Percentage (1)

No data (1)

▢

(4)

Q154. How many hours per week do restrictive housing staff members work, not including
overtime (average from July 1, 2020 to July 1, 2021)?
Hours (1)

(4)

No data (1)

▢

Page 70 of 82

A-71

Q155. What percentage of staff working in restrictive housing had overtime from July 1, 2020 to
July 1, 2021?
Percentage (1)

(4)

No data (1)

▢

Q156. What was the staff to prisoner ratio in the general population on July 1, 2021 (e.g., 20
staff and 50 prisoners would be 0.4)?
________________________________________________________________
Q157. What was the staff to prisoner ratio in restrictive housing on July 1, 2021 (e.g., 30 staff
and 20 prisoners would be 1.5)?
________________________________________________________________

Q158. How many staff do you have who routinely work in a custody/security capacity? Please
include staff who work in custody regardless of any additional duties they may hold, such as case
work.
________________________________________________________________

Q159. What are the limits for general population staff overtime?
________________________________________________________________

Page 71 of 82

A-72

Q160. What are the limits for restrictive housing staff overtime?
________________________________________________________________

Q161. Are staff in restrictive housing rotated out of restrictive housing to other units after a
specified time period? (If so, specify the number of days, weeks, months, or years, after which
staff are rotated to other units and how long before they can be placed on the restricted housing
unit again.)

o Yes (explain) (1) ________________________________________________
o No (2)
Q162. Are restrictive housing staff paid more?

o Yes (1)
o No (2)
Q163. Are restrictive housing staff given more time off?

o Yes (1)
o No (2)

Page 72 of 82

A-73

Q164. Are restrictive housing staff rotated out of restrictive housing?

o Yes (1)
o No (2)

Q165. Do restrictive housing staff receive other benefits?

o Yes (explain): (1) ________________________________________________
o No (2)
End of Block: Section 6: Staff
Start of Block: Section 7: Incidents of Violence
These questions ask about the incidents of violence in restrictive housing.

Q166. List the number of incidents in each category in the total custodial population from July 1,
2020 to July 1, 2021:
Enter 0 if you track it and there were zero
incidents. If you do not have data for a
category, indicate that with number -99 (i.e.
use negative sign) (1)

Prisoner-on-prisoner assaults (Attacks among
prisoners that involve all levels of injury,
including minor physical contact with no
injury) (1)

Prisoner-on-staff assaults (Attacks by
prisoners on staff members that involve all

Page 73 of 82

A-74

levels of injury, including minor physical
contact with no injury) (2)

Staff-on-prisoner assaults (Attacks by staff
members on prisoners that involve all levels
of injury, including minor physical contact
with no injury) (3)

Prisoner-on-prisoner sexual violence (Nonconsensual sexual acts or abusive sexual
contact, including completed and attempted
acts. Incidents must be substantiated by a
finding of guilt through disciplinary process,
a court of law, or formal investigation) (4)

Prisoner-on-staff sexual violence (Nonconsensual sexual acts or abusive sexual
contact, including completed and attempted
acts. Incidents must be substantiated by a
finding of guilt through disciplinary process,
a court of law, or formal investigation) (5)

Staff-on-prisoner sexual violence (Nonconsensual sexual acts or abusive sexual
contact, including completed and attempted
acts. Incidents must be substantiated by a
finding of guilt through disciplinary process,
a court of law, or formal investigation) (6)

Page 74 of 82

A-75

Prisoner-on-prisoner sexual misconduct (All
completed, attempted, threatened, or
requested sexual acts or sexual harassment
between prisoners. Incidents must be
substantiated by a conviction through
disciplinary process, a court of law, or formal
investigation) (7)

Prisoner-on-staff sexual misconduct (All
completed, attempted, threatened, or
requested sexual acts or sexual harassment
between staff and the prisoner. Incidents must
be substantiated by a conviction through
disciplinary process, a court of law, or formal
investigation) (8)

Staff-on-prisoner sexual misconduct (All
completed, attempted, threatened, or
requested sexual acts or sexual harassment
between prisoners. Incidents must be
substantiated by a conviction through
disciplinary process, a court of law, or formal
investigation) (9)

Prisoner-on-prisoner homicides (Homicides
of prisoners committed by other prisoners)
(10)

Prisoner-on-staff homicides (Homicides of
staff committed by prisoners) (11)

Page 75 of 82

A-76

Staff-on-prisoner homicides (Homicides of
prisoners committed by staff) (12)

Prisoner suicides (Prisoners who committed
or attempted to commit suicide, including
self-injury behavior determined by a medical
or mental professional as an attempt to kill
oneself and results in the prisoner being
placed on suicide watch) (13)

Prisoner self-injury (Prisoners who harm
themselves, excluding attempted or
completed acts of suicide) (14)

Other (explain) (if NA, please enter a -99 in
the box to the right) (15)

Page 76 of 82

A-77

Q167. List the number of incidents in each category in the restrictive housing population from
July 1, 2020 to July 1, 2021:
Enter 0 if you track it and there were zero
incidents. If you do not have data for a
category, indicate that with number -99 (i.e.
use negative sign) (1)

Prisoner-on-prisoner assaults (Attacks among
prisoners that involve all levels of injury,
including minor physical contact with no
injury) (1)

Prisoner-on-staff assaults (Attacks by
prisoners on staff members that involve all
levels of injury, including minor physical
contact with no injury) (2)

Staff-on-prisoner assaults (Attacks by staff
members on prisoners that involve all levels
of injury, including minor physical contact
with no injury) (3)

Page 77 of 82

A-78

Staff-on-prisoner sexual misconduct (All
completed, attempted, threatened, or
requested sexual acts or sexual harassment

Page 78 of 82

A-79

between prisoners. Incidents must be
substantiated by a conviction through
disciplinary process, a court of law, or formal
investigation) (9)

Prisoner-on-prisoner homicides (Homicides
of prisoners committed by other prisoners)
(10)

Prisoner-on-staff homicides (Homicides of
staff committed by prisoners) (11)

Staff-on-prisoner homicides (Homicides of
prisoners committed by staff) (12)

Prisoner self-injury (Prisoners who harm
themselves, excluding attempted or
completed acts of suicide) (14)

Other (explain) (if NA, please enter a -99 in
the box to the right) (15)

Page 79 of 82

A-80

Q168. Has your jurisdiction done research on incidents of violence in general population or in
restrictive housing?

o Yes (1)
o No (2)
Display This Question:
If Q168. Has your jurisdiction done research on incidents of violence in general population
or in re... = Yes

Q169. When was the last research completed on incidents of violence in the general population
or in restrictive housing (mm/dd/yyyy)?
________________________________________________________________

Display This Question:
If Q168. Has your jurisdiction done research on incidents of violence in general population
or in re... = Yes
Q170. If your jurisdiction has done research on incidents of violence in general population or
restrictive housing, what was the research on? (i.e. what was asked and answered)
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Page 80 of 82

A-81

Q171. Upload any research on incidents of violence in general population or restrictive housing
in your jurisdiction. If you have more than one file, upload a .zip file or email the files to
cla.limansurvey@yale.edu. Include both published research as well as any internal agency
reporting, if available.
End of Block: Section 7: Incidents of Violence
Start of Block: Section 8: Final Questions
Q172. Upload any restrictive housing policies and any research on restrictive housing in your
jurisdiction. If you have more than one file, upload a .zip file or email the files to
cla.limansurvey@yale.edu.

Q173. Is your jurisdiction altering its practices on restrictive housing?

o Yes (1)
o No (2)
Display This Question:
If Q173. Is your jurisdiction altering its practices on restrictive housing? = Yes
Q174. If your jurisdiction is altering its restrictive housing practices, how is it doing so?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Page 81 of 82

A-82

Q175. Would staff in your jurisdiction be willing to serve as a resource for other jurisdictions
seeking to limit or modify the use of restrictive housing?

o Yes (explain how) (1) ________________________________________________
o No (2)
Q176. You have completed the survey. Once you press next, the survey will be marked complete
and you will not be able to submit any more answers.

o I understand, and I have completed the survey (1)
End of Block: Section 8: Final Questions

Page 82 of 82

B-1
Appendix B: Total Prison Populations for Responding and Non-Responding Jurisdictions

Jurisdiction
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Federal (BOP)
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota

Total Population Under
Legal Control as of
March 2021 1
25,105
4,250
36,704
16,085
152,259
96,499
15,670
8,961
4,586
81,168
46,315
4,099
8,226
27,503
24,296
7,625
8,749
18,686
26,543
1,666
14,963
6,664
32,962
7,455

Population Under Direct Control as of
Difference: Incarcerated
July 2021 and Reported for the 2021
Population Not Counted by the
CLA-Liman Survey
2021 CLA-Liman Survey
17,975
7,130
0 (No 2021 Survey Response)
4,250
0 (No 2021 Survey Response)
36,704
0 (No 2021 Survey Response)
16,085
130,191
22,068
97,866
-1,367
13,910
1,760
9,129
-168
2,880
1,706
0 (No 2021 Survey Response)
81,168
0 (No 2021 Survey Response)
46,315
4,820
-721
7,754
472
7,672
19,831
27,583
-3,287
23,804
-16,179
8,571
178
0 (No 2021 Survey Response)
18,686
0 (No 2021 Survey Response)
26,543
0 (No 2021 Survey Response)
1,666
0 (No 2021 Survey Response)
14,963
6,292
372
1,596
31,366
7,174
281

Jacob Kang-Brown, Chase Montagnet & Jasmine Heiss, People in Jail and Prison in Spring 2021, Vera Institute of Justice (June 2021), available at
https://www.vera.org/downloads/publications/people-in-jail-and-prison-in-spring-2021.pdf.
1

B-2
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total

17,701
22,939
2,477
5,319
10,841
2,189
12,538
5,877
31,412
29,192
1,538
43,537
22,625
13,433
38,262
2,275
16,069
3,252
22,994
133,024
5,602
1,238
31,548
15,067
3,905
20,161
1,880
1,193,934

0 (No 2021 Survey Response)
0 (No 2021 Survey Response)

0 (No 2021 Survey Response)

1,788
1,645
5,448
2,000
12,521
10,474
32,118
42,975
3,678
12,068
41,139
15,459
3,352
20,335
118,139
4,318
1,125
13,900
19,306
10,125
2,197
741,327

17,701
22,939
689
3,674
5,393
189
17
-4,597
-706
29,192
1,538
562
18,947
1,365
-2,877
2,275
610
-100
2,659
14,885
1,284
113
31,548
1,167
-15,401
10,036
-317
452,607

C-1
Appendix C: Identifying Transgender People (Responses to Survey Question 27)
Jurisdiction
Alabama
Federal (BOP)
California
Colorado

Connecticut
Delaware
Hawaii
Iowa
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Massachusetts
Maine
Minnesota
Montana
North Dakota
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
Nevada
New York
Ohio
Oklahoma

Q27. How are prisoners identified as transgender within your jurisdiction?

Other (please explain): Monthly Review Committee
Self-identification by prisoner
Self-identification by prisoner
Self-identification by prisoner
Other (please explain): Connecticut has implemented Administrative Directive 8.17, gender non-conforming as
the governing policy. Within that policy, there are multiple avenues to identify gender non-conforming need.
Some include self-reporting, mental health input, review of medical records (including community records), and
other agency documentation.
Self-identification by prisoner
Self-identification by prisoner
Other (please explain): Self-identification, followed with a multidisciplinary review
Self-identification by prisoner
Self-identification by prisoner
Self-identification by prisoner
Medical records
Medical records
Other (please explain): Both self-identification by prisoner and medical records
Self-identification by prisoner
Self-identification by prisoner
Self-identification by prisoner
Other (please explain): The department identifies prisoners with gender dysphoria based off of psychological
evaluations.
Other (please explain): Self-identification by prisoner and/or medical records
Other (please explain): Inmates are given a PREA monitoring risk screening at intake, are identified during
encounters with medical staff and/or can self-report at any time.
Self-identification by prisoner
Self-identification by prisoner
NA
Self-identification by prisoner

C-2
Oregon
Pennsylvania

South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Washington
Wisconsin
West Virginia
Wyoming

Self-identification by prisoner
Self-identification by prisoner
Other (please explain): Inmates who identify as transgender report it through self-identification during
assessments, notification to staff and/or through medical records if available. Once identified, Transgender
inmates are then tracked by the Agency PREA Coordinator and the Multi-Disciplinary Management Team
(MMTT)to ensure services and treatment is provided as indicated.
Self-identification by prisoner
Self-identification by prisoner
Self-identification by prisoner
Self-identification by prisoner
Self-identification by prisoner
Self-identification by prisoner
Self-identification by prisoner
Self-identification by prisoner
Self-identification by prisoner

D-1
Appendix D: Definitions of “Serious Mental Illness” (Responses to Survey Question 32)
Jurisdiction

Alabama
Federal (BOP)
California

Colorado
Connecticut

Delaware
Hawaii
Iowa

Q32. What is your jurisdiction’s definition of “serious mental illness”? Specify if your definition is based on a
diagnostic manual from the health sciences and if so, the date and version used.
Psychotic disorders, bi-polar disorders, & major depressive disorder; any diagnosed mental disorder (excluding substance
abuse disorders) currently associated with serious impairment in psychological, cognitive, or behavioral functioning that
substantially interferes with the person's ability to meet ordinary demands of living and requires an individualized treatment
plan by a qualified mental health professional(s).
No Response
No Response
Serious Mental Illness: The current diagnosis of any of the following DSM diagnoses accompanied by the P-code qualifier
of M, denoting the presence of a major mental disorder: schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, delusional disorder,
schizophreniform disorder, brief psychotic disorder, substance-induced psychotic disorder (excluding intoxication and
withdrawal), unspecified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder (previously psychotic disorder not otherwise
specified), major depressive disorders, and bipolar disorders. Offenders, regardless of diagnosis, indicating a high level of
mental health needs based upon high symptom severity and/or high resource demands, which demonstrate significant
impairment in their ability to function within the correctional environment
CDOC Clinical Services uses the Diagnostic and Strategic Manual of Mental Disorder, Fifth Edition (DSM-5)
An inmate with a Mental Health(MH) score of 4-5 is considered our highest mental health level. If an inmate is placed as
mental health score of a 4 or 5, they are usually prescribed a psychoactive drug. The Mental Health level can change. The
raising or lowering of a score can only be done by a mental health professional.
Serious Mental Illness (SMI): includes offenders diagnosed with the following: Schizophrenia; Delusional Disorder;
Schizophreniform Disorder; Schizoaffective Disorder; Brief Psychotic Disorder; Substance-Induced Psychotic Disorder
(excluding intoxication or withdrawal); Other Specified Psychotic Disorder; Major Depressive Disorder; Bipolar I, II
Disorder; Other Specified Bipolar Disorder; Anyone who has Significant Functional Impairment (SFI) due to their mental
health (including severe Personality Disorders, Intellectual Disability, Autism Spectrum Disorder), defined as: Self-directed
violence (i.e., cutting, head-banging, suicide attempts, self-strangulation, self-mutilation, swallowing foreign bodies, etc.),
Demonstrated difficulty in his or her ability to engage in activities of daily living (i.e., eating, grooming, participation in
recreation, etc.), Demonstrated a pervasive pattern of dysfunctional or disruptive social interactions (i.e., social isolation,
bizarre behavior, disruptive behavior, etc.). (Disability Law Center, Inc. v. Massachusetts Department of Correction, et. al.,
Civil Action No. 07-10463)
Any individual who displays serious and persistent mental health decease as determined by the Department of Health and/or
our internal medical staff.
Serious mental illness is defined as Major Depression, Schizophrenia, Bipolar, and Organic Mental Disorders (Dementia).

D-2
SMI is defined as inmates on a mental health level of care of ICMHS and ACMHS. Policy 324 defines these as:
Intermediate Correctional Mental Health Services (ICMHS)
An incarcerated individual at this LOC demonstrates some significant functional impairment. These incarcerated individuals
require specialized housing with a treatment goal of improving functioning and returning to general population. These
incarcerated individuals must be housed in a Behavioral Health Unit or Acute Mental Health Unit, unless imminent security
reasons exist, in which case alternative placement must be approved by the chief psychologist and the facility head.
Acute Correctional Mental Health Services (ACMHS)

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

This LOC is for incarcerated individuals with the most profound and debilitating impairments in functioning. These
incarcerated individuals may present a serious risk to the safety of self and others. Those at this LOC must be housed in a
specialized Acute Mental Health Unit unless imminent security issues exist, in which case alternative placement must be
approved by the chief psychologist and facility head.
A person shall be considered to be “Seriously Mentally Ill” (“SMI”) if he or she, as a result of a mental disorder as defined in
the current edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (“DSM”) of the American Psychiatric
Association, exhibits impaired emotional, cognitive, or behavioral functioning that interferes seriously with his or her ability
to function adequately except with supportive treatment or services. These individuals also must either currently have, or
have had within the past year, a diagnosed mental disorder, or must currently exhibit significant signs and symptoms of a
mental disorder. A diagnosis of alcoholism or drug addiction, developmental disorders, or any form of sexual disorder shall
not, by itself, render an individual seriously mentally ill. The combination of either a diagnosis or significant signs and
symptoms of a mental disorder and an impaired level of functioning, as outlined above, is necessary for one to be considered
Seriously Mentally Ill.
Whether a person meets the criteria of Seriously Mentally Ill is initially determined by a comprehensive, professional clinical
assessment by an Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) mental health professional in order to 1) determine if the
individual has a diagnosable mental disorder as defined by the current DSM and 2) to establish the person’s overall level of
functioning. The appropriate threshold to establish level of functioning that equates to a Serious Mental Illness includes
serious impairments in capacity to recognize reality, in work environments, school or learning environments, frequent
problems with the authority/rules, occasional combative behavior, serious impairments in relationships with friends and
family, serious impairments in judgment, thinking, and mood, and serious impairment due to anxiety. These aforementioned
disturbances must be observed in at least one of the areas listed above.
a. Prisoners determined to have a current diagnosis or recent significant history of schizophrenia, delusional disorder,
schizophreniform disorder, schizoaffective disorder, brief psychotic disorder, substance-induced psychotic disorder
(excluding intoxication and withdrawal), undifferentiated psychotic disorder, bipolar I or II disorders;
b. Prisoners diagnosed with any other validated mental illness that is clinically severe, based on evidence-based standards,
and that results in significant functional impairment; and

D-3

c. Prisoners diagnosed with an intellectual or developmental disability or other cognitive disorder that results in a significant
functional impairment.
d.
(i)
(ii)

As used above:
Recent significant history refers to a diagnosis made at any time in the last 12 months.
Significant functional impairment includes one of the following as determined by qualified mental health staff:

Within the previous 6 months, the prisoner has either made a suicide attempt that mental health staff considers serious,
inflicted self-injury that mental health staff considers serious, or both;
The prisoner has demonstrated difficulty in his/her ability to engage in activities of daily living including: Eating; Grooming
and/or personal hygiene; Maintenance of housing area; Participation in recreation; Ambulation

Kansas

Massachusetts

Maine

The prisoner has demonstrated a pervasive pattern of dysfunctional or disruptive social interactions, bizarre or disruptive
behavior, etc., as a result of mental illness.
Severe and persistent mental illness. A mental illness that is prolonged and recurrent, impairs activities of daily life and
requires long-term treatment.
Serious Mental Illness (M.G.L. c.127, §1) A current or recent diagnosis by a qualified mental health professional of one
or more of the following disorders described in the 5th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders:
(a) schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders;
(b) major depressive disorders;
(c) all types of bipolar disorders;
(d) a neurodevelopmental disorder, dementia or other cognitive disorder;
(e) any disorder commonly characterized by breaks with reality or perceptions of reality;
(f) all types of anxiety disorders;
(g) trauma and stressor related disorders; or
(h) severe personality disorders; or a finding by a qualified mental health professional that the inmate is at serious risk of
substantially deteriorating mentally or emotionally while confined in Restrictive Housing, or already has so deteriorated
while confined in Restrictive Housing, such that diversion or removal is deemed to be clinically appropriate by a qualified
mental health professional.
Below is the definition in the Maine statutes:
Severe and persistent mental illness means a diagnosis of one or more qualifying mental illnesses or disorders plus a listed
disability or functional impairment that has persisted continuously or intermittently or is expected to persist for at least one
year as a result of that disease or disorder. The qualifying mental illnesses or disorders are schizophrenia, schizoaffective

D-4

Minnesota

Montana

North Dakota

Nebraska
New Hampshire

New Jersey

Nevada
New York

disorder or other psychotic disorder, major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder or a combination of mental disorders
sufficiently disabling to meet the criteria of functional disability. The listed disabilities or functional impairments, which
must result from a diagnosed qualifying mental illness or disorder, include inability to adequately manage one's own
finances, inability to perform activities of daily living and inability to behave in ways that do not bring the attention of law
enforcement for dangerous acts or for acts that manifest the person's inability to protect the person from harm.
Serious mental illness (SMI): psychotic disorders, bipolar disorders, and major depressive disorder; and any other diagnosed
mental disorder (excluding substance use disorders) currently associated with serious impairment in psychological,
cognitive, or behavioral functioning that substantially interferes with the person’s ability to meet the ordinary demands of
living and requires an individualized treatment plan by a mental health professional.
“Severe mental illness” means a substantial organic or psychiatric disorder of thought, mood, perception, orientation, or
memory that significantly impairs judgment, behavior, or the ability to cope with the basic demands of life. Intellectual
disability, epilepsy, other developmental disabilities, alcohol or substance abuse, or brief periods of intoxication or criminal
behavior do not alone constitute severe mental illness. The individual must also: (i) currently have or have had within the
past year a diagnosed mental disorder; and (ii) currently exhibit significant signs and symptoms of a mental disorder. July 1,
2021 Sec. 53-30-702(13), Mont. Code Ann.
Adults in custody found to have current symptoms or who are currently receiving treatment for the following types of
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Fifth Edition diagnoses that cause or have caused significant functional impairment:
Delusional Disorder, Psychotic disorders of all types including Schizophrenia, Major Depressive Disorder, Bipolar Disorder
I and II, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, Panic Disorder, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Borderline Personality
Disorder
A serious mental illness is “any mental condition that current medical science affirms is caused by a biological disorder of
the brain and that subsequently limits the life activities of the person with the serious mental illness. Serious mental illness
includes, but is not limited to (i) schizophrenia, (ii) schizoaffective disorder, (iii) delusional disorder, (iv) bipolar affective
disorder, (v) major depression, and (vi) obsessive compulsive disorder.” N.R.S. § 44-792(5)(b).
Must 1) be diagnosed (per DSM-V) and 2) have severe functional impairment as a result
NJDOC uses the DSM-V for all diagnoses and ICD-9 codes but adheres to the functional method of SMI which is the subset
of inmates on the Mental Health Special Need roster who reside in a Mental Health unit. This functional approach does not
distinguish what diagnosis is underlying the need to reside on an inpatient unit and instead uses a more naturalistic method
based on the clinical need for a higher level of care as the indicator of seriousness.
NDOC uses the definition of “SMI” from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIH), SMI is defined as mental,
behavioral, or emotional disorder resulting in serious function impairment, which substantially interferes with or limits one
or more major life activities. The burden of mental illness is partially concentrated among those who experience disabilities
due to SMI.
Chapter 1 of the Laws of 2008 was signed by the Governor which amended the Correction Law and Mental Hygiene Law in
relation to the confinement conditions and treatment of convicted persons with serious mental illness. In accordance with

D-5

Ohio
Oklahoma

Oregon
Pennsylvania

Correction Law § 137, an inmate has a serious mental illness (SMI) when he or she has been diagnosed by OMH with one or
more of the following: schizophrenia (all sub-types) delusional disorder, schizophreniform disorder, schizoaffective disorder,
brief psychotic disorder, substance-induced psychotic disorder (excluding intoxication and withdrawal), psychotic disorder
not otherwise specified, major depressive disorders, or bipolar disorder I and II; he or she is actively suicidal or has engaged
in a recent, serious suicide attempt; he or she has been diagnosed with a mental condition that is frequently characterized by
breaks with reality, or perceptions of reality, that lead the individual to experience significant functional impairment
involving acts of self-harm or other behavior that have a seriously adverse effect on life or on mental or physical health; he
or she has been diagnosed with an organic brain syndrome that results in a significant functional impairment involving acts
of self-harm or other behavior that have a seriously adverse effect on life or on mental or physical health; he or she has been
diagnosed with a severe personality disorder that is manifested by frequent episodes of psychosis or depression, and results
in a significant functional impairment involving acts of self-harm or other behavior that have a seriously adverse effect on
life or on mental or physical health; or he or she has been determined by a mental health clinician to have otherwise
substantially deteriorated mentally or emotionally while confined in segregated confinement and is experiencing significant
functional impairment indicating a diagnosis of serious mental illness and involving acts of self-harm or other behavior that
have a serious adverse effect on life or on mental or physical health.
Persons who currently or at any time during the past year, have a diagnosable mental, behavioral, or emotional disorder of
sufficient duration to meet diagnostic criteria specified within the most current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders and that has resulted in functional impairment which substantially interferes with or limits one or more major life
activities. These disorders have episodic, recurrent, or persistent features; however, they vary in terms of severity and
disabling effects.
A substantial disorder of thought or mood which significantly impairs judgment, behavior, capacity to recognize reality or
cope with the ordinary demands of life within the prison environment and which is manifested by substantial suffering or
disability. Most current version of the DSM is used to identify those with SMI.190
Any current or recent (within the preceding 6 months) diagnosis of: other specified schizophrenia and psychotic disorders,
unspecified schizophrenia and psychotic disorders, schizophrenia, bipolar I disorder, bipolar II disorder/other specified
bipolar disorder, unspecified bipolar disorder, schizoaffective disorder, schizophreniform disorder, major depressive disorder
(single episode or recurrent), brief psychotic disorder, psychotic disorder due to medical condition, and/or major
neurocognitive disorder unless the treatment record clearly indicates that symptoms of the disorder(s) are (have been) in
partial remission (with or without treatment); an IQ of 69 or below, with adaptive skills deficit; engagement in a recent
(within the preceding year) serious suicide attempt; or any diagnosed mental disorder (excluding any disorder manifested
solely by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct, substance use/induced disorders, and paraphilias) currently
associated with significant impairment in cognitive, behavioral or emotional functioning that substantially interferes in a
person’s ability to function on a daily basis and that has a seriously adverse effect on life or on mental or physical health.
Inmates are determined to SMI by Psychiatric Review Team (PRT). In order to be diagnosed as SMI, the inmate needs to
have a current diagnosis or recent significant history of any of the DSM5 diagnosis codes.

D-6

South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee

Texas
Utah

Vermont

Washington

Wisconsin

Anyone requiring mental health care equivalent to Intensive Outpatient, or higher level of care; or anyone requiring
placement in a Behavioral Management Unit or Secure Mental health unit due to an inability to effectively conform their
behavior to facility rules as a result psychiatric illness and/or extreme personality disorder.
Seriously Mentally Ill (SMI): For the purposes of this policy, (Restrictive Housing) an inmate who meets the criteria for SMI
(Seriously Mentally Ill), who has a chronic mental illness by history, diagnosis, or prognosis and requires repeated and
prolonged periods of mental health care, and who exhibits persistent disability or impairment in the prison.
A substantial disorder of thought or mood that significantly impairs judgment, behavior, capacity to recognize reality or cope
with the ordinary demands of life within the correctional environment and is manifested by substantial impairment or
disability.
Per the Correctional Managed Health Care (CMHC) policy G-52.4, the definition of SMI is defined as any diagnosed mental
disorder (excluding substance use disorders) currently associated with serious impairment in psychological, cognitive, or
behavioral functioning that substantially interferes with the person’s ability to meet the ordinary demands of living and
requires an individualized treatment plan by a qualified mental health professional(s). This definition is based on the
American Correctional Association (ACA) Adult Correctional Institution (ACI) 5th edition’s definition.
DSM-V
Serious Functional Impairment (SFI) is defined as: a) A substantial disorder of thought, mood, perception, orientation, or
memory, any of as diagnosed by a qualified mental health professional, which grossly substantially impairs judgment,
behavior, capacity to recognize reality, or ability to meet the ordinary demands of life, and which substantially impairs the
ability to function within the correctional setting or b) a developmental disability, traumatic brain injury or other organic
brain disorder, or various forms of dementia or other neurological disorder as diagnosed by a qualified mental health
professional, which substantially impairs the ability to function in the correctional setting
This definition is from the DSM-5, 2013.
A substantial disorder of thought or mood which significantly impairs judgment, behavior, capacity to recognize reality or
cope with the ordinary demands of life within the prison environment and is manifested by substantial pain or disability.
Serious mental illness requires a mental health diagnosis, prognosis and treatment, as appropriate, by mental health staff. It is
expressly understood that this definition does not include inmates who are substance abusers, substance dependent, including
alcoholics and narcotics addicts, or persons convicted of any sex offense, who are not otherwise diagnosed as seriously
mentally ill.
MH-2a: A current diagnosis of, or being in remission from, the following conditions: Schizophrenia, Delusional Disorder,
Schizophreniform Disorder, Schizoaffective Disorder, Other Specified (and Unspecified) Schizophrenia Spectrum and Other
Psychotic Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder, Bipolar I Disorder, and Bipolar II Disorder. MH2-a also includes inmates
with current or recent symptoms of the following conditions: Brief Psychotic Disorder, Substance / Medication-Induced
Psychotic Disorder, head injury or other neurological impairments that result in behavioral or emotional dyscontrol, chronic
and persistent mood or anxiety disorders, and other conditions that lead to significant functional disability.
MH-2b: Inmates with a primary personality disorder that is severe, accompanied by significant functional impairment, and

D-7

West Virginia
Wyoming

subject to periodic decompensation (i.e., depression or suicidality). If an inmate has stable behavior for two years, the code
may be reassessed. Excluded from MH-2B classification are inmates who have a primary diagnosis of Antisocial Personality
Disorder and whose behavior is primarily the result of targeted goals rather than impairment from diagnosed mental illness.
WV DCR uses NCCHC definition of Serious Mental Illness--those individuals that have basic psychotic or mood disorders.
No Response

E-1
Appendix E: Legislative Proposals Introduced in the 117th Congress (2021-2022) Relating to Isolation in Prison
Bill Number

Bill Name

Sponsor

Introduced

H. Res. 64

N/A

Rep. Jayapal, Pramila [D- 01/28/2021
WA-7]

S. Res 241

N/A

Sen. Menendez, Robert [D- 5/26/2021
NJ]

H. Res 723

N/A

Rep. Cárdenas, Tony [D- 10/19/2021
CA-29]

S. Res 423

N/A

Sen. Whitehouse, Sheldon 10/19/2021
[D-RI]

H.R. 2590

Defending the Human Rights of Palestinian Children and Rep. McCollum, Betty [D- 04/15/2021
Families Living Under Israeli Military Occupation Act
MN-4]

S. 3058

Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act

Sen. Murphy, Christopher
[D-CT]

10/25/2021

H.R. 1111

Department of Peacebuilding Act of 2021

Rep. Lee, Barbara [D-CA13]

02/28/2021

H.R. 2222

Dignity for Detained Immigrants Act of 2021

Rep. Jayapal, Pramila [DWA-7]

03/26/2021

S 1186

Dignity for Detained Immigrants Act of 2021

Sen. Booker, Cory A. [DNJ]

04/15/2021

H.R. 3384

End Transfers of Detained Immigrants Act

Rep. Crow, Jason [D-CO-6] 05/20/2021

E-2
S. 1778

End Transfers of Detained Immigrants Act

Sen. Bennet, Michael F. [D- 05/20/2021
CO]

H. Res 175

N/A

Rep. Trone, David J. [DMD-6]

S. 328

Federal Correctional Facilities COVID-19 Response Act Sen. Warren, Elizabeth [D- 02/12/2021
MA]

H.R. 2293

Federal Correctional Facilities COVID-19 Response Act Rep. Barragan, Nanette
Diaz [D-CA-44]

S. 1996

GLOBE Act of 2021

Sen. Markey, Edward J. [D- 06/09/2021
MA]

H.R. 3800

GLOBE Act of 2021

Rep. Titus, Dina [D-NV-1] 06/08/2021

H.R. 1179

Iran Hostages Congressional Gold Medal Act

Rep. Suozzi, Thomas R. [D- 02/18/2021
NY-3]

S. 2607

Iran Hostages Congressional Gold Medal Act

Sen. Padilla, Alex [D-CA]

08/04/2021

H.R. 131

Kalief’s Law

Rep. Jackson Lee, Sheila
[D-TX-18]

01/04/2021

H. Res 226

N/A

Rep. Pressley, Ayanna [DMA-7]

03/11/2021

S. 1605

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022 Sen. Scott, Rick [R-FL]

05/13/2021

H.R. 6878

Protecting the Health and Wellness of Babies and
Pregnant Women Act of 2022

03/01/2022

Rep. Bass, Karen [D-CA37]

02/26/2021

04/01/2021

E-3
H.R. 176

Restricting the Use of Solitary Confinement

Rep. Watson Coleman,
Bonnie [D-NJ-12]

01/04/2021

H.R. 7424

Solitary Confinement Reform Act of 2022

Rep. Gohmert, Louie [RTX-1]

04/06/2022