State of New York
Offices of the Inspector General

Review of the First Two Years of HALT
at the New York State
Department of Corrections and Community Supervision

August 2024

Lucy Lang
Inspector General

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On March 31, 2021, the Humane Alternatives to Long-Term Solitary Confinement Act
(HALT) was enacted in New York State to place restrictions on the use, duration, and
circumstances of segregated confinement as a punishment for misbehavior in New York State
correctional systems and created alternative therapeutic and rehabilitative confinement options.
The law was inspired, in part, by the United Nations’s “Nelson Mandela Rules,” which set forth
standards for a model system of prison administration and placed primary value on the following
basic principle:
All prisoners shall be treated with the respect due to their inherent dignity and
value as human beings. No prisoner shall be subjected to, and all prisoners shall
be protected from, torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment, for which no circumstances whatsoever may be invoked as a
justification. The safety and security of prisoners, staff, service providers and
visitors shall be ensured at all times.1
According to Nelson Mandela, solitary confinement was “the most forbidding aspect of
prison life. There was no end and no beginning; there’s only one’s own mind, which can begin
to play tricks.”2
Prior to HALT, people held in New York State correctional facilities could be segregated
in Special Housing Unit (SHU) cells for up to 23 hours a day over many consecutive days,
months, or even years, and offered as little as one hour of daily out-of-cell recreation, which
often took place in a caged area attached to the back of their cell. Under HALT, “segregated
confinement” was newly defined as confinement of a person in any cell for more than 17 hours a
day and is generally limited to 15 consecutive days (or 20 days in any 60-day period).
To hold a person in segregated confinement up to 15 consecutive days, the New York
State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) must hold an
evidentiary hearing and determine in writing the following three criteria apply:
1. The person committed at least one of seven acts found in Correction Law
section 137(6)(k)(ii);
2. The act(s) were so heinous or destructive that placement of the person in
general population housing creates a significant risk of imminent serious
physical injury to staff or other incarcerated persons, and;

1

The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, General Assembly resolution 70/175,
annex, Rules of General Application, Basic principles, Rule 1, Adopted December 17, 2015.
2
See https://www.un.org/en/un-chronicle/nelson-mandela-rules-protecting-rights-persons-deprived-liberty

1

3. The act(s) were so heinous or destructive that placement of the person in
general population housing creates an unreasonable risk to the security of the
facility.
HALT also prohibits segregated confinement for vulnerable people, and established
Residential Rehabilitation Units (RRUs), which are alternative housing units that provide
therapeutic and rehabilitative programs, among many other provisions. RRUs house people
transferred from segregated confinement, among others.
Since HALT went into effect on March 31, 2022, several organizations have identified
perceived inadequacies in its implementation, including DOCCS’s failure to conduct required
hearings and provide written justification for holding people in segregated confinement;
DOCCS’s failure to make individual assessments before handcuffing or shackling incarcerated
people; DOCCS’s violation of the 15-day cap on segregation; and DOCCS’s segregation of
people who may arguably be properly classified as “disabled” by the statute. Employing the
unique statutory oversight authority and access to DOCCS’s internal materials granted to the
New York State Inspector General, the review described herein details the Inspector General’s
investigation of those reported inadequacies, identifies the ways in which DOCCS has already
effectuated reforms to address its initial shortcomings in implementation, and makes
recommendations for the correction of those which persist.
However, as the Inspector General has found in other unrelated monitoring undertaken of
DOCCS, DOCCS’s antiquated paper-based recordkeeping systems rendered impossible several
important areas of investigation. One such area was investigation into how much vitally
important recreation and programming time incarcerated people were offered as required by
HALT. Thus, while the Inspector General’s review found that DOCCS has and continues to take
meaningful steps to comply with HALT, efforts at detailed analysis highlighted the impediments
to monitoring a sprawling system with dozens of facilities, which employ divergent and often
deficient recordkeeping processes. To that end, and in addition to the recommendations
specifically designed to increase DOCCS’s compliance with HALT, the Inspector General
recommends that DOCCS undertake the process of developing holistic electronic recordkeeping
to enable increased oversight and transparency of its compliance with this and other relevant
laws.

2

BACKGROUND

The March 2021 Legislation – Humane Alternatives to Long-Term Solitary
Confinement Act (HALT)
In March 2021, the New York State legislature passed the Humane Alternatives to LongTerm Solitary Confinement Act (HALT, S2836/A2277), which amended Correction Law to limit
the time a person can spend in segregated confinement, end segregated confinement for
vulnerable people, restrict criteria resulting in such confinement, improve conditions of
confinement, and create alternative therapeutic and rehabilitative confinement options. The bill,
intended to make practices in New York’s prisons and jails more humane, was premised on
studies that found lengthy and sustained periods of segregated confinement can be tantamount to
torture; cause deep and permanent harm, especially to vulnerable people; and lead to further
noncompliance with prison rules. On April 1, 2021, then Governor Andrew Cuomo signed
HALT into law. It became effective on March 31, 2022.
In summary, HALT:
•

Revises the definition of segregated confinement to include any form of cell
confinement where a person is held more than 17 hours a day.

•

Initially limits time spent in segregated confinement to three consecutive days
(or six total days in any 30-day period) if an evidentiary hearing determines a
person violated DOCCS rules which allow for a penalty of segregated
confinement.

•

Requires that segregated confinement up to 15 consecutive days be supported
by an evidentiary hearing that determines by written decision the following
three criteria found in Correction Law section 137(6)(k)(ii) apply:
1. The person committed one of the following seven acts:
a) Causing or attempting serious physical injury or death, or
making an imminent threat of the same if the person has a
history of causing the same and there is a strong likelihood
the person will carry out such a threat;
b) Compelling or attempting to compel another by force or
threat of force to engage in a sexual act;
c) Extorting another by force or threat of force for property or
money;
d) Coercing another by force or threat of force to violate any
rule;
e) Leading, organizing, inciting, or attempting to cause a riot,
insurrection, or other similarly serious disturbance that
results in the taking of a hostage, major property damage,
or physical harm to another;

3

f) Procuring a deadly weapon or other dangerous contraband
that poses a serious threat to facility security; or
g) Escaping, attempting to escape, or facilitating an escape
from a facility or outside program.
2. The DOCCS commissioner (or designee) determines in writing
that the acts were so heinous or destructive that to place the person
in general population creates a significant risk of imminent serious
physical injury to staff or other incarcerated persons, and,
3. The DOCCS commissioner (or designee) determines in writing
that the acts were so heinous or destructive that to place the person
in general population creates an unreasonable risk to the security
of the facility.
•

Requires the offering of four hours out-of-cell time daily while in segregated
confinement.

•

Caps the use of segregated confinement at 15 consecutive days (or 20 total
days in any 60-day period), and confinement in RRUs at one year, unless
specific acts are committed while in such confinement.3

•

Prohibits placement of people in segregated confinement prior to a
disciplinary hearing unless a reasonable belief exists that their misbehavior
fits the aforementioned criteria found in Correction Law section
137(6)(k)(ii).4

•

Prohibits any segregated confinement of “special populations,”5 which
includes people who are 21 or younger and those 55 and older; people who
are pregnant, up to eight weeks postpartum, or caring for a child in a facility;
and those with a “disability” as defined in Executive Law.6

•

Prohibits the placement of people in segregated confinement for “Protective
Custody” purposes.7

3

Correction Law § 137(6)(j)(vi) describes the requirements for the extension of confinement in SHU or an RRU
including a new act of certain misbehavior or a determination that the person poses an “extraordinary and
unacceptable” risk of imminent harm to safety and security. See also Correction Law § 137(6)(m)(ii) and (iii) for
other RRU discharge criteria.
4
Correction Law § 137(6)(l).
5
Per HALT, members of a special population may be placed in keeplock for up to two days prior to their
disciplinary hearing if certain specified criteria are met. Keeplock is defined as the confinement of a person in a
general population cell or dorm, or separate keeplock unit, pending a disciplinary hearing. DOCCS discontinued the
use of keeplock prior to HALT becoming effective.
6
Executive Law defines the term “disability” as “(a) a physical, mental or medical impairment resulting from
anatomical, physiological, genetic or neurological conditions which prevents the exercise of a normal bodily
function or is demonstrable by medically accepted clinical or laboratory diagnostic techniques or (b) a record of
such an impairment or (c) a condition regarded by others as such an impairment, provided, however, that in all
provisions of this article dealing with employment, the term shall be limited to disabilities which, upon the provision
of reasonable accommodations, do not prevent the complainant from performing in a reasonable manner the
activities involved in the job or occupation sought or held.” See, New York State Executive Law § 292(21).
7
Protective custody, which can be voluntary or involuntary, includes alternative confinement for those people who
are potential victims or witnesses, lack the ability to live in the general population, or are at high risk for sexual
victimization.

4

•

Mandates the implementation of alternative rehabilitative measures including
the creation of RRUs, which are separate housing units used for therapy,
treatment, and rehabilitative programming.

•

Provides for the assessment of people in RRUs and the creation of Individual
Rehabilitation Plans (IRPs), and the treatment of people who are seriously
mentally ill (SMI) and their placement in Residential Mental Health
Treatment Units (RMHTUs).8

•

Prohibits the use of restraints on people who are participating in out-of-cell
activities in RRUs unless an “individual assessment” is made that determines
an incarcerated person poses a “significant and unreasonable” safety and
security risk.9

•

Mandates the offering of additional daily out-of-cell time and rehabilitative
programming in congregate settings totaling seven hours for people in RRUs
(unless “exceptional circumstances” exist that present a safety and security
risk).

•

Prohibits the denial of services, treatment, basic needs (food, clothing,
bedding, etc.), and personal belongings, and the use of special diets as
punishment, unless allowing such things would pose a safety or security risk.

•

Mandates that staff and supervisors assigned to segregated housing units and
RRUs, as well as hearing officers, undergo specialized training.

•

Requires DOCCS to publish on its website certain data on segregated and
RRU confinements in monthly, semi-annual, and annual reports.

•

Requires that the New York State Justice Center for the Protection of People
With Special Needs (Justice Center) assess DOCCS’s compliance with HALT
and report annually, and that the New York State Commission of Correction
do the same for local correctional facilities including the New York City
Department of Correction.

COMPLAINT
Following the effective date of HALT, the Inspector General received multiple
complaints from incarcerated individuals’ rights groups and incarcerated people and their loved
ones alleging that DOCCS had violated various HALT provisions by:
•

Disregarding statutory provisions10 requiring a written determination
pursuant to an evidentiary hearing that the person committed certain
“heinous or destructive” acts that to place them in general population would
create a “significant risk of imminent serious physical injury” to staff or other
incarcerated persons and an “unreasonable risk” to facility security to exceed

8

Correction Law § 2(21) defines Residential Mental Health Treatment Units (RMHTU) as operated by DOCCS and
the New York State Office of Mental Health and including Residential Mental Health Units (RMHUs), Behavioral
Health Units (BHUs), Therapeutic Behavioral Units (TBUs), and Intensive and Transitional Intermediate Care
Programs (ICPs).
9
Correction Law § 137(6)(j)(vii).
10
New York State Correction Law § 137(6)(k)(i) and (ii).

5

three days of segregated confinement by asserting that any “Tier III”
violation satisfies the requirements.11
•

Placing people in segregated confinement for longer than the statutory cap of
15 days, or 20 days in any 60-day period.12

•

Violating provisions involving RRUs including requiring that all people
participating in out-of-cell activities be restrained, among others.

•

Refusing to apply RRU-like conditions and privileges to people held in
certain alternative programs and units.

•

Confining people with disabilities in segregated confinement contrary to
HALT.

METHODOLOGY
The findings in the Inspector General’s review were based on:
•

Interviews of 20 DOCCS employees including then DOCCS acting
Commissioner Daniel Martuscello III13 and other executive/managerial staff
involved in HALT implementation, staff training, and tracking the movement
and confinement of incarcerated people in SHUs, RRUs, and other units;

•

Interviews of three New York State Office of Mental Health (OMH)
employees including the OMH deputy director of correction-based operations;

•

Interviews of incarcerated people during site visits to three correctional
facilities;

•

A comprehensive analysis of available data maintained by DOCCS on
incarcerated populations, discipline, sanctions imposed and served, and SHU
and RRU confinements;

•

Review of HALT provisions, DOCCS directives and memoranda, housing
logbooks and out-of-cell spreadsheets, audit reports, and HALT-mandated
public reports;

•

Review of reports issued by the Correctional Association of New York
(CANY) and the Justice Center, among other entities, on DOCCS’s
implementation of HALT; and

•

A survey sent by the Inspector General to all DOCCS facilities with SHU or
RRU units, which required facility superintendents to report on compliance
with HALT-mandated procedures.

11

Prisoners’ Legal Services of New York argues that HALT’s confinement criteria do not match that of Tier III
violations.
12
Correction Law § 137(6)(i).
13
On May 23, 2024, Martuscello was confirmed by the New York State Legislature. The former DOCCS
commissioner, Anthony Annucci, retired in August 2023.

6

FACTUAL FINDINGS

DOCCS Established Residential Rehabilitation Units
Prior to the HALT legislation, DOCCS policy allowed for the confinement of people in
SHU cells for periods up to 23 hours a day. In some instances, only one hour of daily out-of-cell
recreation was offered to people confined in SHU cells, which if accepted, often took place in a
caged area adjoining the back of the cell. Under HALT, “segregated confinement” is newly
defined as confinement in a cell for periods of more than 17 hours a day, and which now must be
limited to 15 consecutive days (or 20 days in any 60-day period).14 Also per HALT, people in
segregated confinement are to be offered at least four hours out-of-cell programming each day
including at least one hour of daily out-of-cell recreation.
Importantly, there is a distinction between confinement location, such as SHU and RRU,
which indicates a unit of a prison, and confinement status, such as segregated confinement,
which characterizes a particular set of restrictions placed on a person in any housing location. A
person is deemed to be in segregated confinement irrespective of the cell’s location if that person
is held for more than 17 hours each day. Accordingly, although DOCCS’s practice is that those
sanctioned to segregated confinement be physically housed in SHU, if a person held in a SHU
cell is offered at least seven hours out-of-cell daily, they are not considered to be in segregated
confinement. Conversely, if a person housed in general population is confined in their cell for
more than 17 hours in a day, they are considered to be in segregated confinement.
Shortly after the implementation of HALT, DOCCS issued rules and protocols for new
housing units known as RRUs.15 RRUs were created to provide therapy, treatment, and
rehabilitative programming for people sanctioned to more than 15 days of segregated
confinement.16 These units house people transferred from SHU, “special populations,” those
needing protective custody, and people in “administrative segregation.”17 Because people
confined in RRUs are required to be offered at least seven hours out of their cells each day, this

14

For another violent felony act included in Correction Law section 137(6)(k)(ii) occurring within the 60-day period
of segregated confinement, up to an additional 15 days of segregated confinement may be added for each subsequent
incident.
15
DOCCS Directive 4933D (latest iteration January 16, 2024).
16
A person may receive more than 15 days of confinement as a disposition. Per policy, no more than 15 days of that
disposition is to be served in SHU, with the remainder to be served in an RRU or another SHU-alternative unit.
17
DOCCS utilizes administrative segregation for the involuntary removal of a person from general confinement
after a determination that they pose “an unreasonable and demonstrable risk to the safety and security of staff,
incarcerated individuals, the facility, or would present an unreasonable risk of escape.” While in administrative
segregation, a person cannot be confined for more than 17 hours each day.

7

arrangement is not considered segregated confinement under HALT. Currently, DOCCS
operates RRUs at 18 facilities.
Per DOCCS’s RRU directive, upon admission to an RRU, a person is assigned to a cell
and receives a medical and mental health evaluation and suicide screening. DOCCS and OMH
staff are also required to complete assessments and develop an IRP with that person. People
housed in an RRU are permitted periodic telephone calls; laundry service; showers; and access to
a commissary, law library, and legal supplies/services, among other privileges. Additionally,
DOCCS provides them with daily access to tablets, which can be used for limited purposes
including certain telephone calls, educational materials, videos, music, and games. They are also
permitted their personal property.18 Incentives (such as additional commissary, books,
magazines, hygiene products, haircuts, time cuts,19 etc.) may be offered or recommended for
positive behavior and participation in programs.
The directive further requires that people in an RRU be offered at least seven hours outof-cell daily, including at least six hours of out-of-cell congregate “programming, work
assignments, services, treatment, recreation, activities and/or meals,” and one hour of congregate
out-of-cell recreation.20 Program components may include cognitive behavioral treatment,
emotional regulation techniques, wellness, recreation, communication, and other “personal
growth” topics. People 21 and younger are also offered academic programs. Each facility offers
different programming packages from an approved list of electronic resources. Program
Management Teams (PMTs) are required to assess each RRU participant’s progress towards
their IRP goals at least every 60 days.21
With respect to restraints, this directive states, “Restraints shall not be used when
[people] are participating in out of cell activities within an RRU” unless the incarcerated person
requests to wear restraints or “an individual assessment is made that restraints are required

18

If DOCCS determines that a person’s access to their personal property poses an existing unreasonable risk to the
safety of other incarcerated people or staff on the unit, such access may be denied. This individualized assessment
must be documented in a Deprivation Order.
19
Time cuts are reductions in disciplinary sentences.
20
Programming offered to people held in segregated confinement and RRUs includes programming led by
therapeutic staff five days per week, except on recognized state legal holidays. Per HALT, “All other out-of-cell
time may include peer-led programs, time in a day room or out-of-cell recreation area with other people, congregate
meals, volunteer programs, or other congregate activities.”
21
Program Management Teams are also required to conduct a status review of each RRU participant every seven
days during the person’s first two months in RRU and at least every 30 days thereafter.

8

because of a significant and unreasonable risk to the safety and security of staff or other
incarcerated individuals.” These assessments must be documented in a restraint order form.22
People must be discharged from an RRU within one year23 of their admission to the unit
or within 60 days of their scheduled release to the community unless they commit certain other
violations24 while in the unit and pose a significant and unreasonable risk to others.25 When a
person successfully completes the goals of their IRP, they must be released from RRU and the
sanctions from their original wrongdoing dismissed.

DOCCS Changed Policy to Only Allow Segregated Confinement for the Most
Serious Offenses (Tier III)
Although HALT allows DOCCS to place a person in segregated confinement for up to
three consecutive days (or six days in any 30-day period) if an evidentiary hearing determines
that the person violated DOCCS rules which permit a penalty of segregated confinement,
DOCCS does not apply this provision. According to the DOCCS deputy commissioner for
correctional facilities, holding a person in segregated confinement for up to three days was
inefficient as it would require significant resources to move a person into SHU for such a short
duration.
Instead, DOCCS modified its disciplinary guidelines and sanctions to meet Correction
Law section 137(6)(k)(ii) criteria so that only people who committed a Tier III offense would be
eligible for segregated confinement.26 In practice, if a person is charged with a Tier III violation,
DOCCS places that person in segregated confinement for up to five days prior to any
disciplinary hearing taking place, as allowed under HALT. If a hearing finds that the person’s
actions violated the law’s criteria, the person may be held in segregated confinement for no more
than 15 consecutive days, despite receiving a sanction in excess of this.

22

Form 4933DA, RRU Individual Assessment Restraint Order (April 2022), see Appendix 1.
The RRU directive states that people may remain in an RRU beyond the one-year cap if they commit a specified
offense, are determined to pose a significant and unreasonable risk to the facility, and the DOCCS and OMH
commissioners approve this determination. Additionally, in “extraordinary circumstances,” a person may remain in
an RRU beyond regular time limits if both commissioners determine that person poses an extraordinary and
unacceptable risk of imminent harm to others.
24
Correction Law § 137(6)(k)(ii).
25
Per the RRU directive, people who commit certain acts of wrongdoing while in an RRU and pose a significant
security risk may have their out-of-cell time reduced to at least four hours each day (two hours programming and
two hours of congregation recreation) for a period up to 15 days. Such action must be documented in a Report of
Exceptional Circumstances.
26
See Appendix 2, HALT Law – Impact on Disciplinary Process (March 29, 2022).
23

9

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL’S DETERMINATIONS
DOCCS’s Recordkeeping Practices Hinder Oversight of HALT Compliance
DOCCS Was Unable to Identify All Confinements Since HALT Became Effective
At the outset of this review, the Inspector General requested DOCCS provide data on all
people held in segregated confinement and RRUs since the effective date of HALT, March 31,
2022. However, and as has happened in a variety of ways in past monitoring efforts by the
Inspector General, DOCCS advised it was unable to provide this data due to limitations of its
systems.
DOCCS maintains and tracks data related to the incarcerated population across dozens of
electronic databases. DOCCS accesses these various databases through a central application,
which allows it to run reports on the population’s histories, statuses, and locations. However,
due to their antiquated nature, these databases do not communicate with each other, which
requires manual review, cross-referencing, and verification of data to perform meaningful
analysis.
Moreover, DOCCS’s data does not identify a person’s confinement status, such as
segregated confinement. Instead, DOCCS advised it is only able to provide data on the location
of confinements—SHU or RRU. DOCCS further advised it was unable to provide complete data
on all historical confinements since HALT became effective because no mechanism exists for
extracting such historical information.27 Rather, DOCCS generates monthly spreadsheets listing
all SHU and RRU confinements active at any point during the prior two months.
The Inspector General intended to combine these monthly spreadsheets provided by
DOCCS to create a complete list of all SHU and RRU confinements from the effective date of
HALT. However, DOCCS could not provide spreadsheets for the period March 31, 2022,
through October 31, 2022, because the contents of those files were no longer available as they
had been overwritten. DOCCS advised that as of November 1, 2022, it no longer overwrites
these spreadsheets. As earlier data was not available, the Inspector General’s analysis was
limited to SHU and RRU confinements active between November 1, 2022, through January 31,
2024, when the period of review ended.

27

The New York State Office of Information Technology Services hosts DOCCS’s IT systems.

10

DOCCS Was Unable to Readily Identify the Underlying Misbehavior that Led to Disciplinary
Confinement
To identify whether DOCCS maintained the required justification for holding people in
segregated confinement for disciplinary infractions, the Inspector General attempted to use data
maintained by DOCCS to support such confinement. DOCCS maintains data on incidents
involving misbehavior by incarcerated people that tracks, among other things, the incident date
and location, date of the disciplinary hearing, rules allegedly violated, disposition, and any
sanctions. In a separate data set, DOCCS tracks the housing locations (e.g., SHU, RRU) where
people serve disciplinary confinements and the duration of such confinements. However, these
two sets of data are not linked.
Consequently, in an attempt to verify that each confinement had an underlying
misbehavior report and the misbehavior justified the confinement, the Inspector General had to
manually cross-reference the two data sets. However, this relied on various assumptions and
limited the scope of the review, thus hindering the Inspector General’s ability to verify whether
all people held in segregated confinement committed an offense that warranted such
confinement.28
DOCCS Was Unable to Confirm People Were Offered the Appropriate Out-of-Cell Time
Minimizing the number of consecutive days and hours a person must spend in a cell is a
crucial part of the HALT legislation, as one of the driving forces behind its enactment is the
premise that solitary confinement is inhumane.
Under HALT, persons held in segregated confinement must be offered at least four hours
daily out-of-cell programming including one hour of recreation, while those held in an RRU are
to be offered at least seven hours of daily out-of-cell time including six hours of congregate
programming, services, treatment, recreation, activities and/or meals and one additional hour of
out-of-cell congregate recreation. Given this mandate, it is incumbent on DOCCS to track
whether people held in the various forms of confinement, including segregated confinement, are
offered the appropriate amount of out-of-cell programming and recreation.
However, when the Inspector General attempted to verify whether the appropriate
amount of out-of-cell time was offered to people, significant barriers were encountered. Since
28

For example, because of the data limitations, the Inspector General’s review was necessarily limited to instances
in which a person’s confinement began on the same date the person had a reported incident of misbehavior and
assumed, given that fact, the misbehavior was the reason for the confinement. Using this methodology, the
Inspector General could not confirm the underlying misbehavior for approximately 14 percent of confinements.

11

DOCCS has not modernized many of its archaic pen and paper recordkeeping practices,
investigators were required to conduct onerous examinations of various handwritten paper logs
and files maintained in a nonuniform manner within each facility and in archives. These logs are
used by DOCCS to record all activities and movements within a designated area.
Based on log entries reviewed during site visits to correctional facilities, the Inspector
General found no consistent methodology for logging offers of out-of-cell programming and/or
recreation, whether such offers were accepted or refused, or for recording the length of time
spent out of cell. For example, paper logs maintained at Fishkill Correctional Facility, in some
instances, listed each person who was offered out-of-cell programming or recreation, whether
they attended, and if so, the duration. On the other hand, some paper logs maintained at Greene
Correctional Facility simply noted “programs pulled,” an entry for a group of people held in
RRU, which does not reveal if each person in that group was offered programming/recreation,
who accepted or refused it, and if accepted, the length of time spent out of cell.29
Excerpts from Housing Logs at Greene Correctional Facility

29

Greene Correctional Facility advised that it utilizes an additional log in its program area on which the names of
people who attended programming as well as their arrival and departure times are recorded. However, this program
area log does not capture all people who have been offered time out of cell but only those who have accepted
programming.

12

In an October 24, 2022 memorandum, DOCCS instructed facilities to offer an additional
three hours out-of-cell time to people held in SHU beyond 15 consecutive days and to track this
offer on a weekly spreadsheet. The Inspector General reviewed these spreadsheets for a sample
of 22 people and found out-of-cell time was offered approximately 97 percent of the time.30
While this is an improvement in the tracking of certain people, the spreadsheets are not used to
track out-of-cell time for all people but only those held in SHU longer than 15 days. And like
the other paper logs and records maintained by DOCCS, the information contained within is
cumbersome to access and difficult to analyze systemwide.
Given DOCCS’s deficient recordkeeping, the Inspector General attempted to verify
whether DOCCS was offering the appropriate amount of out-of-cell time in other ways. First,
the Inspector General sent a survey to the superintendent of each correctional facility that
operates a SHU and/or RRU and asked that they self-report on compliance with HALT
provisions including the offering of out-of-cell opportunities. In their responses, all facility
superintendents (or their designees) reported offering the required number of hours of out-of-cell
time to people held in SHU and RRU.
The Inspector General also reviewed numerous SHU and RRU inspection reports issued
by the DOCCS Special Housing and Incarcerated Individual Disciplinary Programs Unit in 2022
and 2023. These inspections, which evaluate compliance in a number of areas systemwide (e.g.,
30

The Inspector General selected people from among those with the longest SHU confinements active between
November 2022 and February 2023.

13

supervisory rounds, restraints, tablets, etc.), have been updated to include the review of records
relevant to HALT, including unit and program logs, to determine if the appropriate amount of
out-of-cell time is being offered. As relevant to this review, the inspections found issues of noncompliance at eight facilities that failed to record program participation, start/end times, and
refusals. The inspections reveal that DOCCS recognizes the necessity to accurately track and
document this information to ensure compliance with HALT.
The Inspector General similarly reviewed reports issued by the Justice Center, which
found that 33 percent of those people surveyed stated they were not offered the appropriate
amount of out-of-cell programming, and approximately 20 percent advised they were not always
offered daily out-of-cell recreation.31 The Justice Center also separately conducted interviews
with incarcerated people who consistently reported that they were not offered out-of-cell
programming on a daily basis. In a discussion with the Inspector General, the Justice Center
advised that it was “almost impossible” to determine out-of-cell time from its review of facility
logs and programming schedules. Likewise, CANY, in its interviews of incarcerated people,
also reported some people claimed they were not offered all daily HALT-mandated out-of-cell
programming opportunities. Specifically, in CANY’s March 2023 report, it noted that “many
incarcerated individuals in different RRUs reported that staff had denied them the ability to
participate in programs” and some RRUs provided “as little as three hours out-of-cell time.”32
The Inspector General also interviewed 14 incarcerated people at three facilities who had been
held in SHU or RRU. All claimed they were offered out-of-cell programming and recreation
opportunities.
Given the inconsistencies and inadequacies in DOCCS records, and the conflicting
information reported by other sources, the Inspector General could not always determine whether
the incarcerated population was offered the appropriate amount of out-of-cell time.33 In addition,
DOCCS’s pen and paper recordkeeping practices hinder DOCCS’s ability to readily access
complete records on people held in its 44 facilities, identify systemic trends, and transparently
and accurately report to the public and oversight entities on the circumstances of the more than
31

The Justice Center for the Protection of People With Special Needs, Programming and Recreation Survey
Analysis 2023 (January 19, 2024).
32
The Correctional Association of New York, Assessing the Early Months of Implementation of the HALT Solitary
Confinement Law in New York State Prison (March 2023).
33
Prisoners’ Legal Services of New York and other incarcerated individuals’ rights groups lodged similar
complaints about people in other alternative units/programs (Step Down Program, Administrative Segregation,
Protective Custody, RMHTUs, etc.). As movements in these units/programs is tracked in the same antiquated
manner, the Inspector General’s efforts to comprehensively investigate these claims were similarly thwarted.

14

32,000 people in its custody. As such and in furtherance of true transparency, the modernization
of DOCCS recordkeeping systems is imperative.
DOCCS Reports on Confinement Location (SHU) Not Status (Segregated Confinement)
Pursuant to HALT, DOCCS must publish monthly reports on its website, along with
semi-annual and annual cumulative reports listing the total number of people in segregated
confinement and RRUs on the first day of each month. In such reports, DOCCS reports on the
number of people held in SHU cells under the heading Segregated Confinement. However,
placement in a SHU cell does not necessarily equate to segregated confinement, which is defined
as confinement for more than 17 hours a day in any cell. According to DOCCS, since October
24, 2022, all people held in SHU beyond 15 days are offered three hours of additional time out of
cell, thereby removing them from segregated confinement.
In presenting statistics in this fashion, DOCCS did not clearly distinguish between status
(segregated confinement) and location (SHU) and thereby overstated the number of people held
in segregated confinement. Indeed, in an excerpt from its July 2023 report (pictured below),
DOCCS reported that 189 people were held in segregated confinement for more than 15
consecutive days. In fact, even though these people were housed in SHU cells more than 15
days, because they were offered three additional hours out-of-cell time after the 15th day, as
required by DOCCS policy, they were no longer considered to be in segregated confinement.
And although monthly reports include a footnote that attempts to explain this fact to a reader, it
fails to fully explain the significance of offering the additional out-of-cell time to this SHUhoused population.

15

The significance of this issue has lessened over time, as DOCCS is now largely in
compliance with HALT’s 15-day cap on segregated confinement. Thus, those people held in
SHU cells are, for the most part, in “segregated confinement.” Nonetheless, the Inspector
General recommends that DOCCS increase transparency in its public reports by providing clear
statistics on the number of people held in segregated confinement.

DOCCS Lacked HALT-Mandated Justification for Holding Some People in
Segregated Confinement
To place a person in segregated confinement for up to 15 days, HALT requires that
DOCCS have an evidentiary hearing that determines the person committed the aforementioned
three criteria specified in Correction Law section 137(6)(k)(ii). DOCCS is required to document
the justification for this determination in writing. However, the Inspector General reviewed
disciplinary files for a sample of Tier III incidents involving people placed in segregated
confinement and found that many lacked sufficient written justification for such confinement.
Specifically, a review of 119 incidents occurring between September 2022 and December
2022 found that approximately 24 percent (29 incidents) lacked sufficient written justification
that the person committed one of the seven categories of offenses. For example:
•

16 of these disciplinary matters involved interference with a DOCCS employee.
In one such example, in November 2022, a person incarcerated at Attica
Correctional Facility was directed multiple times by a correction officer to return
to their cell but refused to do so. After being found guilty of interference with a
DOCCS employee, a Tier III violation, the person was sanctioned to and served
14 days in segregated confinement. While these actions pose a risk to the facility,
they do not meet HALT criteria. Notably, the disciplinary file includes paperwork
written by the hearing officer that, “I find that the misbehavior does not constitute
a k(ii) offense.” This note was crossed out.

•

Nine of these disciplinary matters involved lewd conduct. In one such example,
in September 2022, a person incarcerated at Clinton Correctional Facility stuck
their arms through their cell bars and, while holding a mirror to observe an officer,
began to masturbate. After being found guilty of lewd conduct, a Tier III
violation, they were held in SHU for 40 days, the first 25 of which were in
segregated confinement. While HALT allows segregated confinement if a person
compels or attempts to compel another person, by force or threat of force, to
engage in a sexual act, there was no evidence in DOCCS’s records that this person
used or threatened force to compel the officer to engage in such an act.

•

Two disciplinary matters involved stalking. In one example, in December 2022
at Wyoming Correctional Facility, an incarcerated person placed a Christmas card
on the desk of a civilian working at a facility shop. The person, who was not
authorized to be in this area of the facility, had no previous history of such
conduct—which was determined by DOCCS to be a mitigating factor in their
16

disposition. The person’s actions caused the civilian employee to fear for their
safety. A hearing officer found the person guilty of a Tier III charge of stalking,
for which the person served 21 days in SHU. While these actions pose a risk to
the facility, they do not meet HALT criteria, which would allow for segregated
confinement.
DOCCS Corrective Action - The Confinement Justification Form
On June 26, 2023, then acting Commissioner Martuscello took action to aid staff in
complying with HALT with his issuance of a new form, the Confinement Justification form.34 In
a memorandum to superintendents accompanying the form, Martuscello directed review officers
to complete this form when reviewing Misbehavior Reports for Tier III violations. As noted
above, to hold a person in segregated confinement, the three criteria found in Correction Law
section 137(6)(k)(ii) must apply. For the first criteria, the form requires the review officer to
identify which of the seven offenses found in Correction Law section 137(6)(k)(ii)(A-G) were
committed by the incarcerated person. The form also directs review officers to assess and
document the second and third criteria (the acts are so heinous or destructive that placing the
person in general population would create a “significant risk of imminent serious physical
injury” and “unreasonable risk to the security of the facility”) were met to justify segregated
confinement.
Following the hearing, the hearing officer must indicate if they agree with the review
officer’s determination that segregated confinement is justified. This decision must also be
approved by the facility superintendent. If any reviewer determines that the conduct does not
meet the HALT criteria, the person is to be released from segregated confinement.
Continuing its review from above, the Inspector General examined a second set of
disciplinary files for a sample of Tier III incidents occurring after the new form was
implemented by DOCCS. This review of 100 incidents occurring between June 2023 and
January 2024 found that nearly one in five (17 incidents) lacked sufficient written justification
that the person committed one of the seven categories of offenses.35 Fourteen of these
disciplinary matters involved threats of violence towards a DOCCS employee.
In one such example, in June 2023, a person incarcerated at Bare Hill Correctional
Facility refused to depart at the conclusion of their program. After a DOCCS staffer repeatedly

34

See Appendix 3, Confinement Justification Record (June 26, 2023). The initial confinement justification form
was revised in September 2023. See Appendix 4.
35
Of note, nine of these disciplinary files did not include a Confinement Justification form.

17

ordered the person to return to their cell, the person responded with expletives, stating, “I’m not
going anywhere . . . I’m going to kill the first Mother [F*****] I see.” After stating that he
feared for his life, he pled guilty to all charges including making a threat, a Tier III offense. At a
hearing, the person was found guilty of making threats and sanctioned to 45 days of
confinement, of which 15 were spent in segregated confinement. Although HALT requires that
threats be supported by a history of causing serious physical injury or death, the disciplinary file
indicated no such history. Indeed, the hearing officer wrote, “Past charges do not indicate that
this individual has like behaviors.”

DOCCS Placed Certain People on OMH’s Caseload in Segregated Confinement
Without a Required OMH Determination
When a person is charged with threatening another person with serious physical injury or
death, Correction Law section 137(6)(k)(ii)(A) authorizes DOCCS to place that person in
segregated confinement for up to 15 days only if all the following criteria have been met:
•
•
•
•

An evidentiary hearing finds that the person threatened another person with
imminent serious physical injury or death;
The person had a history of causing such physical injury or death;
The DOCCS commissioner (or designee) reasonably determines that there is a
strong likelihood the person will carry out such threat;
The DOCCS commissioner (or designee) finds the threat(s) were “so heinous or
destructive that placement of the individual in general population housing creates
a significant risk of imminent serious physical injury to staff or other incarcerated
persons, and creates an unreasonable risk to the security of the facility;”
In instances where the person is on the OMH caseload36 or appears to require psychiatric

attention, Correction Law further requires that the OMH commissioner (or designee) reasonably
determine that there is a strong likelihood the person will carry out such threat. To effectuate
this, DOCCS’s Confinement Justification form includes a section instructing hearing officers,
prior to sanctioning a person to segregated confinement for making threats, to seek this OMH
determination. The form further notes that absent such OMH determination, the person shall not
be confined solely on the basis of threats.
However, during the review of the aforementioned sample of disciplinary files for
incidents resulting in segregated confinement, the Inspector General found that four out of eight

36

According to OMH’s deputy director of correction-based operations, OMH Levels 1 through 4 require mental
health services and are considered on “OMH’s caseload.”

18

disciplinary files involving threat violations lacked documentation reflecting that OMH
determined there was a strong likelihood the person would carry out the threat.
For example, in October 2023, a person held at Franklin Correctional Facility was found
guilty of making a violent threat. After advising a sergeant that other incarcerated people had
“looked up my crime and told me I couldn’t live [in his current housing unit] anymore,” he stated
that he was going to assault the first incarcerated person with whom he came into contact.
Despite this person being on OMH’s caseload (OMH Level 3), the DOCCS disciplinary file did
not contain any record reflecting a determination by OMH of a strong likelihood the person
would carry out the threat. The person was sentenced to a 60-day confinement penalty of which
15 days were served in segregated confinement.
In another example, in July 2023 at Auburn Correctional Facility, an incarcerated person
stated to an officer, “That fat f*** is gonna get it, something is gonna happen.” Then he stated to
staff, “When I get back to my cell, they better watch out. I’ll throw on them. . . I have HIV.”
DOCCS consulted OMH, as the person was an OMH Level 1, which determined that “there is
not a strong likelihood that the individual will carry out the threat.” Despite this determination
and contrary to HALT, DOCCS still held the person in segregated confinement for 15 days of
their 45-day sanction.

Differing Interpretations of Members of a Special Population with a Mental
Disability
HALT mandates that members of a special population—defined in Correction Law as
people who are 21 or younger; 55 or older; with a disability, as defined in the Executive Law; or
pregnant, postpartum, or caring for a child in a correctional facility37—are not to be placed in
segregated confinement for any length of time.38 Executive Law defines disability as a physical,
mental, or medical impairment resulting from anatomical, physiological, genetic, or neurological
conditions, which prevents the exercise of a normal bodily function or is demonstrable by
medically accepted clinical or laboratory diagnostic techniques.39

37

Correction Law § 2(33).
HALT does allow members of a special population to be placed in keeplock for up to 48 hours pending a
disciplinary hearing and transfer to an RRU or RMHTU, but DOCCS discontinued the use of keeplock prior to
HALT’s effective date. According to the deputy commissioner for correctional facilities, this action was taken
because DOCCS “felt keeplock would serve no useful purpose and the use of non-confinement sanctions would be
more effective.”
39
Executive Law § 292(21).
38

19

There is significant disagreement between DOCCS, OMH, incarcerated individuals’
rights groups, and members of the legislature as to whether certain people who are receiving
mental health services have a disability such that they should be classified as members of a
special population.
By way of background, upon admission and as needed thereafter, OMH assesses each
person’s need for mental health services and designates an OMH level based on such need.
Levels 1 through 4 require mental health services, and are considered on “OMH’s caseload,”
whereas Level 6 does not require mental health services and is therefore not on OMH’s
caseload.40 According to OMH, people who experience a “substantial functional disability due
to their mental health” are considered “seriously mentally ill” (SMI).41 Of the 32,918 people
incarcerated at DOCCS as of April 1, 2024, approximately 9,658 (29 percent) required mental
health services and were on OMH’s caseload, of which approximately 1,879 (6 percent) were
designated SMI.
The position of DOCCS and OMH is that only people designated by OMH as SMI are
properly considered members of a special population and thus may not be held in segregated
confinement. As such, DOCCS diverts them to a number of alternative units/programs including
RRUs, Residential Mental Health Units, and Step-Down Units, among others. Conversely, per
DOCCS and OMH, people who are on OMH’s caseload but not designated as SMI do not fall
under the definition of special population. Therefore, per DOCCS, these non-SMI people may
be placed in segregated confinement.
Incarcerated individuals’ rights groups including CANY, which provides monitoring and
oversight of State correctional facilities, and Prisoners’ Legal Services of New York (PLSNY),
which offers legal representation/assistance to indigent incarcerated people, have argued
otherwise. According to CANY, HALT’s definition of a special population prohibits “anyone
with a mental health diagnosis, including anyone on [OMH’s] caseload, and anyone with a
physical or cognitive disability diagnosis” from being placed in segregated confinement. OMH,
in its response to CANY’s report and finding, noted, “Not all mental health diagnoses are
synonymous with an individual experiencing substantial functional disability.” PLSNY, in a
complaint to the Inspector General, also noted that “many people who have mental illnesses that

40

There is no Level 5 designation.
OMH may designate certain Level 1 and Level 2 individuals SMI. These individuals are referred to as “1S” and
“2S,” respectively.
41

20

meet the Executive Law standard of disability are not classified as [SMI], so as to be exempt
from SHU.”
A State Senate bill (S6977/A7533) proposed in the 2023-2024 session sought to amend
the Correction Law to clarify “the definition of persons with a disability for purposes of the
definition of special populations.”42 The bill language noted, “Under [the definition of special
populations], any person in DOCCS custody who is, for example, on the OMH mental health
caseload, would be deemed to be in the ‘special population’ banned from segregated
confinement.” The bill’s proposed amendments included further defining “disability” to include
(i) all people with any mental health diagnosis; (ii) all people on [OMH’s] caseload currently or
within the past year; (iii) all people with any intellectual, developmental, or cognitive diagnosis;
(iv) all people with any physical disability diagnosis or mobility impairment; and (v) all people
with any sensorial disability diagnosis.”
Of note, given this interpretation, DOCCS would be prohibited from placing any
incarcerated person who is on OMH’s caseload in segregated confinement. However, this
interpretation appears to conflict with another section of the HALT legislation, Correction Law
section 137(6)(k)(ii)(A), which requires that DOCCS consult OMH in certain instances when
seeking to hold a person who is on OMH’s caseload in segregated confinement.
The Inspector General reviewed the more than 11,000 reported SHU confinements
between November 1, 2022, and January 31, 2024, to determine if any members of a special
population were held in segregated confinement during this period. The review found that at
least six people under 21 years of age were confined in SHU; however, each person was released
from SHU the same or next day. Accordingly, as these people were never confined in a cell for
more than 17 consecutive hours in one day, they were, under the definition set forth by HALT,
never in segregated confinement. The review also found at least 24 instances involving 22
people over 55 years of age who were confined in SHU. For 19 of the 24 confinements, the
person was released from SHU the same day as their confinement began or the next day and
were therefore similarly never in segregated confinement. The remaining five people were held
in segregated confinement for varying durations; two were released after two days, two were
released after three days, and one person was released from segregated confinement after seven
days. DOCCS advised that these SHU confinements were inadvertent and due to either delays in

42

At the close of the legislative session on June 6, 2024, this bill did not pass.

21

updating the person’s status in DOCCS’s population management system or an oversight by a
facility. According to DOCCS, since the effective date of HALT, its electronic incarcerated
management system includes a flashing indicator of “No SHU Cell” to flag members of a special
population for staff. DOCCS further advised that it did not maintain historical data for members
of a special population who were pregnant, in a postpartum recovery period, or had a medical
disability. Therefore, the Inspector General could not review these categories for SHU
confinement.
The differing interpretations of which people constitute members of a special
population with respect to a mental disability raises the possibility that certain people were held
in segregated confinement contrary to HALT. Given DOCCS’s and OMH’s interpretations, the
Inspector General found that between November 1, 2022, and January 31, 2024, there were no
members of a special population with a mental disability placed in segregated confinement.
However, using the broader interpretation suggested by incarcerated individuals’ rights groups
and sponsors of the bill presented to the State legislature, during this same period, at least 2,383
people on OMH’s caseload were held in segregated confinement.43 (See chart below.)
Number of Individuals Held in Segregated Confinement
By OMH Level and Confinement Start Date (Month & Year)
November December January February March
2022
2022
2023
2023 2023
SMI
0
0
0
0
0
1
12
14
22
15
14
2
60
52
40
51
46
3
77
107
107
98
114
4
25
36
36
21
31
6
315
397
443
418
413
Unknown
19
14
4
13
9
Total
538
640
676
640
650
Total on OMH Caseload
174
209
205
185
205
% on OMH Caseload
32%
33%
30% 29%
32%
OMH Level

April
2023
0
14
51
111
27
415
7
648
203
31%

May
2023
0
25
55
114
35
422
12
695
229
33%

June
2023
0
20
50
111
46
422
10
710
227
32%

July August September October November December
2023 2023
2023
2023
2023
2023
0
0
0
0
0
0
18
16
17
15
25
18
55
49
50
54
53
55
107
122
110
105
95
111
27
31
22
27
26
37
379
488
382
443
393
423
17
15
15
8
10
34
640
751
618
670
619
700
207
218
199
201
199
221
32% 29%
32%
30%
32%
32%

January
Overall
2024
0
0
17
204
56
571
132
1,207
34
401
450
4,821
38
222
796
7,173
239
2,383
30%
33%

Absent further clarification from the New York Legislature, class-action litigation
commenced in May 2024 may resolve this issue.44

43

Due to limitations in the data provided by DOCCS, the Inspector General could not determine the OMH level for
approximately four percent of all SHU confinements.
44
See Anthony, et al, v State of New York, Sup Ct, Kings County, May 7, 2024, Capell, J., index No. 512871/2024.

22

For Almost 15 Months, DOCCS Restrained People While Out-Of-Cell Without
Conducting HALT-Mandated Individual Assessments
Per HALT, restraints are prohibited for people participating in out-of-cell activities
within RRUs unless an individual assessment finds they are required because of a significant and
unreasonable risk to the safety and security of other incarcerated people or staff. However, just
20 days after the effective date of HALT, then acting Commissioner Anthony Annucci issued a
memorandum advising that he had directed all superintendents supervising RRUs, RMHTUs,
Step-Down Programs, and/or Diversion Units to place people in restraints when they were being
escorted or participating in out-of-cell activities and programs.45 Per the memorandum, people
were to be shackled with wrist restraints when being escorted to and from their cells and program
areas. Once in a program area, a person was to be secured with leg restraints to chairs/desks,
which are referred to by DOCCS as “ReSTART”46 chairs/desks, before the wrist restraints are
removed.

DOCCS ReSTART Desks (Corcraft image)

According to the memorandum, this action was a result of an escalation in violence
within the referenced units that was “very concerning and will not be tolerated.” The
memorandum stated that this directive was made under authority vested in him by New York
State Correction Law47 and was in line with HALT. Although HALT established a presumption

45

See Appendix 5, Safety (April 21, 2022). The memorandum allowed for the removal of restraints in seven
specific circumstances.
46
Reduced Security Therapy And Recreation Table.
47
See Correction Law § 112, which describes the powers and duties of the DOCCS commissioner.

23

against using restraints barring an “individual assessment,”48 this blanket order ignored such
individual assessments for the hundreds of people in RRUs who attended programming.49
On the heels of this new instruction to use restraints, Annucci convened a Central Office
HALT subgroup and established a formal process for it to meet every two weeks to evaluate the
need to continue or modify this order. In an internal memorandum on May 6, 2022, Annucci
further documented his justification for the change in procedure, reporting that restraints were
necessary to comply with the U.S. Constitution’s Eighth Amendment prohibition on the
infliction of “cruel and unusual punishment” by not exposing incarcerated people to potential
dangers, and to create a safe workplace for staff, as is required under the Public Employees
Safety and Health Act (PESH).
Annucci also instructed that “use of force incidents and assaults, and the level of program
participation” must be considered when determining the need to continue the order for restraints.
Annucci pointed to a disturbing trend in the overall increasing rate of assaults on incarcerated
people and staff when comparing the period January through April 2021 to the same period in
2022—assaults among incarcerated people rose approximately 40 percent from 308 in 2021 to
432 in 2022, and assaults on staff rose more than 21 percent from 342 in 2021 to 415 in 2022.
The increase was against a “steady and unprecedented decline” in the overall prison population.
The memorandum also cited two serious incidents, which resulted in facility lockdowns and
frisks: the cutting of the face of a correction officer at Cape Vincent and a series of assaults
between rival gangs at Attica. The lockdown at Attica resulted in “31 assaults on staff, 50 uses
of force and 58 weapons confiscated.” The use of restraints was continued by unanimous vote at
each biweekly meeting. This mandate, which is no longer in effect, remained in force for
approximately 14 months, until June 2023, shortly before Annucci’s retirement from State
service.
According to DOCCS records, following the order to use restraints on people in RRUs
when out of cell, there were some fluctuations but little overall change in the total number of

48

Correction Law § 137(6)(j)(vii). Of note, Annucci’s memorandum includes language from HALT addressing the
presumption against the use of restraints but refers only to the need to conduct “an assessment” rather than the
“individual assessment” required by the Act.
49
This mandate was initially implemented in all DOCCS facilities but, according to DOCCS, gradually pared back
in some facilities. For example, in late July and August 2022 respectively, Adirondack Correctional Facility and
Hudson Correctional Facility began conducting individual assessments and only restraining people when deemed
appropriate.

24

assaults by an incarcerated person on either staff or another incarcerated person systemwide and
within RRUs.
Assault Rates (April 2022 – June 2023)

On June 21, 2023, then newly appointed acting Commissioner Martuscello issued
guidance rescinding Annucci’s restraint order and providing for people in RRUs to be escorted
and attend programming without restraints.50 The guidance noted that people could be restrained
only if an individual assessment was conducted that determined they posed a significant and
unreasonable risk to the safety and security of other incarcerated people or staff and a restraint
order approved by the facility superintendent was issued. This order complies with HALT’s
restraint provisions. According to Martuscello, after his order, although pockets of violence
were observed in these units, it was not like before.
Assault Rates (July 2023 – March 2024)

50

See Appendix 6, HALT – Restraints (June 21, 2023).

25

While both the implementation and rescinding of the restraint order could have
contributed to the change in the number of assaults, this could not be confirmed as a causal
factor.

During the First Seven Months of HALT, DOCCS Held People in Segregated
Confinement for Periods Exceeding Mandated Limits
HALT limits the time a person can be held in segregated confinement to no more than 15
consecutive days or a total of 20 days in any 60-day period. After 15 consecutive days (or 20
days in any 60-day period), a person must be released from segregated confinement or diverted
to an RRU or other SHU-alternative unit.
From March 31, 2022 through October 24, 2022, DOCCS offered no more than four
hours out-of-cell time for programming and/or recreation to people held in SHU, which, under
HALT, constitutes segregated confinement.51 During this period, of the approximately 6,200
people held in SHU, over 2,500 (40 percent) were held for more than 15 consecutive days, while
approximately 1,850 (30 percent) were held more than 20 days in a 60-day period.52

According to DOCCS, at the outset, a lack of RRU capacity was the primary factor
contributing to the holding of people in segregated confinement beyond the 15-day cap. As of
February 2023, DOCCS reported that it had sufficient physical space within its established RRUs
51

See DOCCS Monthly HALT Reports for May 2022 through November 2022, https://doccs.ny.gov/research-andreports.
52
The data reported by DOCCS included confinements that occurred between October 24, 2022, and October 31,
2022. During this time, DOCCS offered people in SHU a total of seven hours out-of-cell and, thus, such people
were no longer in segregated confinement.

26

to house any person receiving a confinement sanction. However, a deficit of appropriate mental
health staffing has resulted in a shortage of beds for people designated OMH Level 2, as these
people require housing in a facility with full-time OMH staff. This lack of beds prevents the
timely transfer of a person from a SHU cell to an RRU or other SHU-alternative unit. OMH
acknowledges that it lacks sufficient staff to maintain these types of beds. As this staffing
shortage still exists today, the Inspector General recommends that DOCCS and OMH assess and
adjust the number and types of beds and associated staffing levels needed to ensure people are
timely transferred to the appropriate RRU or SHU-alternative unit as mandated.
Other issues cited by DOCCS as preventing the timely transfer of people to RRUs
include transportation schedules/lack of transportation, refusal by incarcerated people to be
transported, and the need to ensure that people in RRUs are kept separate from their enemies
and/or codefendants. On average, more than 300 people are transferred from SHU to an RRU
each month to comply with HALT’s 15 consecutive day cap on segregated confinement. All
these transfers are processed through Central Office’s Class & Movement unit.
To address the fact that DOCCS was not always able to timely transfer people to an RRU
or another SHU-alternative unit, on October 24, 2022, the deputy commissioner for correctional
facilities issued a memorandum advising facility superintendents of the need for “a proactive
approach to address the issue of incarcerated individuals being held in SHU beyond 15 days.”53
Per the memorandum, people held in SHU more than 15 consecutive days pending transfer to an
RRU or SHU-alternative unit must be offered an additional three hours of outdoor exercise,
bringing their total daily out-of-cell time to seven hours. The offer of additional out-of-cell time
removes these people from segregated confinement. Notably, the memorandum does not instruct
facilities to provide other privileges and services required by HALT for these same people such
as the development of a tailored IRP, out-of-cell congregate programming, and access to
personal property.
Despite offering additional out-of-cell time to people who have been held in SHU more
than 15 consecutive days, incarcerated people informed the Inspector General that DOCCS did
not always afford them these other privileges and services. For example, one person told the
Inspector General that while they were confined in SHU more than 15 days at Clinton
Correctional Facility, they were not provided programming or access to their personal property.

53

See Appendix 7, Segregated Confinement (October 24, 2022).

27

Another person confined in SHU more than 15 days at Washington Correctional Facility
indicated they were not provided access to their personal sheets and sneakers. A third person
who was confined in SHU at Woodbourne Correctional Facility claimed they were not afforded
their personal property, stating, “the more you complain, the more you lose.” For the reasons
described above related to the limitations of DOCCS recordkeeping, the Inspector General was
not able to verify or disprove any of these anecdotal accounts.
In addition, many facilities, in their response to the Inspector General’s survey, reported
they do not always offer these additional privileges to people held in SHU more than 15 days.
Specifically, of the 36 facilities with SHU cells:
•

All responsive facilities indicated they provide people held in SHU more
than 15 consecutive days with an additional three hours out-of-cell time,54

•

28 facilities do not create an IRP for people held in a SHU cell,

•

26 facilities do not provide access to personal property to people held in a
SHU cell, and

•

25 facilities do not provide congregate recreation to people held in a SHU cell.

And during the period reviewed, there were many people confined to a SHU cell for more
than 15 days who reportedly did not receive such privileges. The Inspector General’s review
found that in the 36 DOCCS facilities with a SHU, approximately 4,210 SHU confinements
surpassed 15 consecutive days during the period November 1, 2022, through January 31, 2024.
Based on facility responses to the Inspector General’s survey, people confined in at least 25 of
these facilities were likely denied the aforementioned mandated privileges. An encouraging
finding, as seen in the chart below, is that the number of people confined in SHU more than 15
consecutive days has trended downward, particularly since July 2023. Thus, the number of
people that are being denied these privileges while housed in a SHU cell has dramatically
decreased. Such privileges would also be required to be offered to people held in SHU more
than 20 total days in any 60-day period, unless they commit another act described in Correction
Law section 137(6)(k)(ii).

54

The responses from two facilities were unclear as to whether they offer the additional out-of-cell time.

28

DOCCS’s Implementation of Other HALT Provisions
Comparable Core Programs and Work Assignments in RRU
During the Inspector General’s review, it became evident that there is unclear and
inconsistent terminology used in describing programming requirements under HALT with
respect to “core” and “mandatory.” Per HALT, a person in an RRU must have “access to
programs and work assignments comparable to core programs and types of work assignments in
the general population.” However, core programs are not defined in HALT nor in DOCCS
directives. In its March 2023 report, CANY noted that people housed in RRUs at four facilities
claimed that core programs—“such as education, vocational, ASAT, and ART”—were not being
offered. ASAT is the Alcohol and Substance Abuse Treatment program while ART refers to
DOCCS’s Aggression Replacement Training program. Indeed, nearly all people interviewed by
CANY at these four facilities reported that they had not been offered programs in RRU that were
consistent with those they could receive in general population,55 and many reported not being
offered ASAT or ART programs. In its 2023 Programming and Recreation Survey Analysis, the
Justice Center indicated incarcerated people also claimed they were not offered “mandatory”
programs such as ASAT and ART. However, “mandatory” is not referenced in HALT.
DOCCS, in its response to CANY, advised that people in RRUs receive Cognitive
Behavioral Treatment (CBT) programming and that it is a misconception they are required to
have access to mandatory DOCCS programming. “To provide for mandatory programs that
55

The facilities included Orleans, Coxsackie, Albion, and Upstate.

29

allow for credit toward merit time or limited credit time, would reward misbehavior, serve as a
disincentive for positive institutional adjustment, and not address the fundamental behavior
which resulted in their placement in an RRU.” In response to the Justice Center’s report,
DOCCS reported it currently utilizes a variety of therapeutic material in its core curriculum in
RRUs including CBT and Interactive Journaling “with a focus on developing new thought
patterns and coping strategies to succeed in general population.” DOCCS also indicated it
routinely adds holistic group materials including topics on support recovery, self-regulation,
CBT, soft skills, and lessons to encourage thoughtful reflection on one’s behaviors and the
impact that has on their goals. Academic studies are also offered.
Moreover, DOCCS reported it does not offer ASAT and ART to people in RRUs because
these programs require continuous participation and often a reliance on “familiarity with the
same group membership.”56 DOCCS further noted that substance abuse treatment is best suited
for a residential therapeutic community setting, and aggression programming uses closed-group
modality. Instead, educational material related to drug and alcohol rehabilitation is available to
incarcerated people on tablets and by request. Both the curriculum in SHU and RRU include
courses related to behavior modification, self-regulation and other topics that encourage group
discussion and developing pro-social behaviors.
DOCCS advised the Inspector General that, as required by HALT, comparable
programming, from a selection of over 1,000 courses, is offered to people housed in RRUs.
According to the DOCCS deputy commissioner for program services, as 80 percent of the prison
population has substance abuse issues and 91 percent exhibits aggression, programming in RRUs
is developed to meet these needs. DOCCS’s RRU Program Manual reads, “the curriculum
includes cognitive behavioral treatment (CBT), emotional regulation techniques, wellness,
recreation, communication, and a variety of topics which emphasize personal growth.” In
addition, the Program Management Team will review and refer those eligible to Intensive
Alcohol and Substance Abuse Treatment, Step-Down to General Population, and/or Step-Down
to Community programs.
With regard to work assignments, DOCCS advised that approximately 49 people housed
in RRUs across 16 facilities are provided work assignments as porters and painters. DOCCS

56

See DOCCS response included in the Justice Center for the Protection of People With Special Needs,
Programming and Recreation Survey Analysis 2023 (January 19, 2024).

30

indicated these are the only work assignments currently offered to people in RRUs. Some work
assignments available to general population are not offered to those in RRU because such
assignments are physically located outside the RRU.
Absent a statutory definition of core programming, a complete determination cannot be
reached as to DOCCS’s compliance or non-compliance.
Out-of-Cell Congregate Recreation in RRUs
Per HALT, people housed in RRUs are required to be offered recreation in a congregate
setting “unless exceptional circumstances mean doing so would create a significant and
unreasonable risk to the safety and security of other incarcerated individuals, staff, or the
facility.” According to CANY’s March 2023 report, some people housed at Upstate Correctional
Facility’s RRU reported that they did not have access to congregate recreation. CANY also
reported that in the RRUs at Upstate Correctional Facility and Orleans Correctional Facility,
outdoor recreation for people took place in recreation pens attached to people’s cells, and that
outdoor recreation at Coxsackie Correctional Facility’s RRU was not congregate and took place
in the previous SHU recreation pens. DOCCS did not dispute these claims and advised that
Upstate Correctional Facility currently has plans to build or expand its congregate recreation
pens and Orleans Correctional Facility, which has no congregate recreation pens, has awarded a
contract for the construction of one.
The Inspector General’s site visit to Greene Correctional Facility in June 2023 noted no
congregate recreation pens, while a site visit to Fishkill Correctional Facility in July 2023 found
congregate recreation pens for its medium-security RRU but not its maximum-security RRU.
Of the 18 facilities with RRUs, 12 currently have a congregate recreation pen, while six
do not.57 DOCCS advised that construction or expansion of congregate recreation pens at eight
facilities has yet to commence but, as of the date of this report, awards have been made to
contractors for such pens at five of these facilities.58 Once completed, all facilities with an RRU
will have a congregate recreation pen.

57

The correction facilities with congregate recreation pens include Adirondack, Attica, Auburn, Albion, Bedford
Hills, Coxsackie, Elmira, Five Points, Great Meadow, Hudson, Mid-State, and Upstate. The six correction facilities
without congregate recreation pens are Cayuga, Collins, Fishkill, Gouverneur, Greene, and Orleans.
58
The correction facilities with projects to build or expand recreation plans include Cayuga, Collins, Fishkill,
Gouverneur, Greene, Mid-State, Orleans, and Upstate. At Cayuga, Collins, Gouverneur, Orleans and Upstate,
contracts have been awarded. DOCCS also plans to build a congregate recreation pen at Wende for its Step-Down
Program.

31

CONCLUSION
Subjecting people to segregated confinement for lengthy periods without meaningful
human interaction, programming, recreation, or therapeutic services can cause lasting impact to
their physical and mental health. Given this, the primary aim of HALT is to limit the use of
segregated confinement for the most serious violations, and even then, to limit it to no more than
fifteen days. Having the ability to monitor practices to ensure compliance with HALT is vital to
protecting the wellbeing of the incarcerated population.
DOCCS’s implementation of HALT’s standards has evolved over the last two years.
This is evidenced by the improvement of compliance with HALT time limits, revocation of a
systemwide restraint order, development of a uniform confinement justification form,
acceleration of transfers from SHU to RRUs, promulgation of an RRU directive, and creation of
congregate recreation pens and RRUs. However, DOCCS’s use of antiquated and nonuniform
paper recordkeeping practices and electronic tracking mechanisms hinders internal monitoring
and compliance reviews by outside agencies. As such, DOCCS could not provide the level of
detail sought by the Inspector General in its analyses of DOCCS compliance with various
requirements of HALT, such as providing the required hours of out-of-cell programming and
recreation. Accordingly, a modernization of DOCCS recordkeeping is essential to its ability, and
the ability of other oversight bodies, to ensure compliance with this critical law.
These measures should include clarifying in written policy and practice the requirement
for facilities to track the offering of out-of-cell opportunities to all people serving disciplinary
confinements, whether such offers were accepted or rejected, and the amount of time spent out of
cell by persons engaged in programming, recreation, and other out-of-cell activities.
Additionally, DOCCS should develop and implement electronic recordkeeping systems for
tracking the same, link misbehavior and confinement data to readily identify the basis for all
disciplinary confinements, and enhance its data mining capabilities including the ability to
generate a historical record of all confinements.
Further, the international community has recognized that prolonged isolation can
exacerbate or adversely affect those with mental illness. In New York State, DOCCS in its care
and custody role, OMH in its promotion of mental health, and the Inspector General in its
oversight capacity, share a common goal of treating the most vulnerable people with humanity
and dignity. HALT was designed to protect those designated as members of a special population
from being exposed to segregated confinement but lacks specificity in its definition of who
32

should be protected. Statutory clarification is necessary to ensure that DOCCS is appropriately
applying the law with respect to this vulnerable population.
Modernizing DOCCS’s movement and tracking systems and ensuring its disciplinary
policies are aligned with contemporary rehabilitative and therapeutic standards will assist
DOCCS, OMH, and the Inspector General in achieving their shared goal. Only then will the
system move towards one that no longer promotes confinement that, to its subjects, is “the most
forbidding aspect of prison life.”

DOCCS’S RESPONSE TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL’S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
DOCCS has reviewed the Inspector General’s comprehensive review of the Department’s
implementation of HALT including the acknowledgement of the evolution of such
implementation over the last two years. In response to the Inspector General’s investigation and
report, DOCCS will clarify in written policy and practice the requirement of tracking the offering
of out-of-cell opportunities for people serving a disciplinary confinement sanction and will
standardize such recording with the creation of a stamp to be utilized in all such unit log books.
While the Department has established a long term goal of delivering increased technology to
staff, which would allow for more electronic record keeping, our housing units are not wired nor
do they have connectivity to the DOCCS network, which we are beginning to explore, however,
would be a costly and time consuming endeavor. We also have to balance such use of
technology with the importance of interacting with the incarcerated individual rather than
spending the majority of time on data entry, and detracting from safety and security procedures.

33

Appendix 1

1

Appendix 2

1

2

1

1

2

1

2

1

1

2

3

4

5

6