Reforming solitary confinement: the development, implementation, and processes of a restrictive housing step down reentry program in Oregon

Ryan M Labrecque,David C Pyrooz,Jennifer J Tostlebe,Bert Useem

doi:10.1186/s40352-021-00151-9

Ryan M Labrecque, David C Pyrooz + Show 2 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40352-021-00151-9

Copy DOI

Abstract

BackgroundOver the past decade there have been numerous and impassioned calls to reform the practice of solitary confinement in U.S. prisons. This article examines the development, implementation, and processes of a restrictive housing reentry program in the Oregon Department of Corrections. It draws on data from official documents, site observations, and interviews with 12 prison officials and 38 prisoners. The Step Up Program (SUP) seeks to improve the living conditions in restrictive housing over business-as-usual, alleviate physiological and psychological harms of solitary confinement, and use rehabilitative programming to increase success upon returning to the general prison population or community.ResultsThe impetus to change the culture and structure of restrictive housing was primarily the result of internal administrative reform. Prisoners assigned at random to housing assignments offered accounts of their daily activities suggesting that the SUP provides more time out-of-cell and greater access to other services and activities. Program participants preferred the living conditions in the SUP because they had more opportunities for social interaction and incentives for compliant behavior. However, views on the value of programming among respondents were mixed.ConclusionsThe launch of the SUP occurred in early 2020, which was soon followed by the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, the program was never fully implemented as intended. As Oregon returns to more normal operations, it is possible that the SUP will be able to include even more out-of-cell time, greater socialization opportunities, and increased access to programming and other beneficial activities. As we await the opportunity to conduct prospective psychological and behavioral analyses, this study provides tentative support for the use of step down reentry programs in restrictive housing units.Trial registrationOpen Science Framework, Preparing adults in custody for successful reentry: An experimental study of a restrictive housing exit program in Oregon. Registered 4 October 2019, https://osf.io/t6qpx/

Highlights

Over the past decade there have been numerous and impassioned calls to reform the practice of solitary confinement in U.S prisons
Toward the goal of filling key aspects of this research gap, we focus on the task set forth by the Oregon Department of Corrections (DOC) to create a new unit that is committed to rehabilitative programming, increased socialization opportunities, incentivizing reintegration, and blunting some of the harsher conditions of restrictive housing
Vera recommended that the Oregon DOC should seek to improve the conditions of confinement in restrictive housing settings, increase the availability of out-ofcell programming and congregate activities, and create a structured reentry process to help prisoners transition more effectively out of long-term segregation

Summary

Introduction

Over the past decade there have been numerous and impassioned calls to reform the practice of solitary confinement in U.S prisons. This article examines the development, implementation, and processes of a restrictive housing reentry program in the Oregon Department of Corrections. It draws on data from official documents, site observations, and interviews with 12 prison officials and 38 prisoners. While restrictive housing typically does not entail complete isolation or sensory deprivation, meaningful social interaction, and other lifelines (e.g., visitation, phone calls, and programming) are severely curtailed. This has led to extensive litigation based on Eighth Amendment protections against the use of cruel and unusual punishment. Governor of California, was settled in September of 2015, nearly 6 years after the initial pro se complaint was filed (Center for Constitutional Rights, n.d.; Reiter, 2016), ending California’s use of indeterminate placement in restrictive housing

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion