In the realm of corrections, restrictive housing, often termed solitary confinement, has garnered criticism from human rights advocates and the public alike — and rightly so.
Our decades-long experience within the field as a correctional leader and policy researcher have made us keenly aware of how restrictive housing may harm a person’s mental, emotional and physical well-being. The consensus across National Institute of Justice (NIJ) sponsored research on restrictive housing concludes that it is not an effective deterrent. Overall, the studies found that restrictive housing does not reduce institutional-level misconduct or violence. In fact, two NIJ-sponsored studies, one by Florida State University and one by the University of Cincinnati, found that people whose incarceration involved restrictive housing had a greater likelihood of reoffending after release than those who did not experience restrictive housing.
You cannot change what you do not measure. It is paramount that we understand why and for how long people are placed in restrictive housing, exploring viable alternatives that prioritize their safety and security while minimizing harm.
Environments that focus on rehabilitation, mental health support, and values of normalcy and humanity can address the root causes of misconduct and create a safer correctional environment for all. In fact, a recent NIJ-sponsored evaluation of the Vera Institute’s Restoring Promise initiative found that a prison unit that more closely replicates life on the outside had 71 percent less violence and 83 percent less use of restrictive housing than a typical correctional environment, with no greater number of infractions. Taking a holistic approach to correctional climates that focuses on rehabilitation and the well-being of incarcerated individuals not only fosters a safer environment but also promotes positive outcomes for society as a whole. When people are treated with respect and dignity and provided with opportunities for personal growth, everyone wins. Prison environments can be more conducive to rehabilitation, employee retention increases, and recidivism rates decrease.
Through the benefit of systematic data collection and empirical analyses, we can promote more humane environments for both correctional employees and the people in their care and custody. For all of the aforementioned reasons, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (FBOP) and NIJ have partnered to invest in research that will inform how federal correctional institutions can effectively reduce the use of restrictive housing.
The research will begin by exploring policies and discerning whether and how they can reduce a correctional institution’s reliance on restrictive housing. Data collection and performance assessments are essential for researchers to assess how reforms are implemented and to understand their impact on the correctional environment.
Strong science is foundational to the work that we do to ensure public safety and make good neighbors upon release back into our collective communities. When we embrace a comprehensive approach that prioritizes rehabilitation and mental health support, we can create a correctional system that promotes human dignity and safety for all.
NIJ-sponsored research is imperative to documenting the reasons for and length of restrictive housing placements. We will use those findings to explore alternatives, implement effective policies, and ensure compliance within our correctional institutions.
Nancy La Vigne, Ph.D., is the director of the National Institute of Justice and Colette S. Peters is the director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons.