Assessing the Impact of Restrictive Housing on Inmate Post-Release Criminal Behavior

  • Kristen M. ZgobaEmail author
  • Jesenia M. Pizarro
  • Laura M. Salerno


The placement of inmates in restrictive housing (RH) units has become a staple of corrections policy in recent years. Despite its increased use, research on its continued effects is relatively rare when compared to the breadth of general correctional research. This study contributes to the literature by examining the effect placement in restrictive housing has on offender recidivism post prison release. Subjects include approximately 4000 inmates matched through Propensity Score Matching (PSM) techniques and followed 36 months post-release. The findings reveal that inmates placed in restrictive housing had elevated levels of recidivism and proportionally more new commitments for all crime types than those not placed in restrictive housing. Restrictive housing subjects also displayed shorter time to rearrest than non-RH individuals. The theoretical and policy implications of these findings are discussed.


Restrictive housing Administrative segregation Disciplinary segregation Supermax Recidivism Propensity score matching 



  1. Apel, R. J., & Sweeten, G. (2010). Propensity score matching in criminology and criminal justice. In A. Piquero & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative criminology (pp. 543–562). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Bales, W. D., & Piquero, A. R. (2012). Assessing the impact of imprisonment on recidivism. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 8(1), 71–101.Google Scholar
  3. Baumgartel, S., Guilmette, C. Kalb, J., Li, D., Nuni, J., Porter, D., Resnik, J. (2015). Time-In-Cell: The ASCA-Liman 2014 National Survey of Administrative Segregation in Prison. Yale Law School, Public Law Research Paper No. 552. Available at SSRN: Accessed 8 Feb 2018;
  4. Beccaria, C. (1994). On crimes and punishment. In J. E. Jacoby (Ed.), Classics of criminology (2nd ed., pp. 277–286). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland (Original work published 1764).Google Scholar
  5. Beck, A. J. (2015). Use of restrictive housing in U.S. prisons and jails, 2011–12 (NCJ249209). Washington, DC: U.S.: Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.Google Scholar
  6. Beijersbergen, K. A., Dirkzwager, A. J., Eichelsheim, V. I., Van der Laan, P. H., & Nieuwbeerta, P. (2015). Procedural justice, anger, and prisoners’ misconduct: A longitudinal study. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42(2), 196–218.Google Scholar
  7. Bentham, J. (1992). Punishment and deterrence. In A. von Hirsch & A. Ashworth (Eds.), Principled sentencing (pp. 62–66). Boston: Northeastern University Press (Original work published 1789).Google Scholar
  8. Briggs, C. S., Sundt, J. L., & Castellano, T. C. (2003). The effect of supermaximum security prisons on aggregate levels of institutional violence. Criminology, 41(4), 1341–1376.Google Scholar
  9. Butler, H. D., Griffin, O. H., III, & Johnson, W. W. (2013). What makes you the “worst of the worst?” an examination of state policies defining supermaximum confinement. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 24(6), 676–694.Google Scholar
  10. Butler, H. D., & Steiner, B. (2017). Examining the use of disciplinary segregation within and across prisons. Justice Quarterly, 34(2), 248–271.Google Scholar
  11. Butler, H. D., Steiner, B., Makarios, M. D., & Travis, L. F., III. (2017). Assessing the effects of exposure to supermax confinement on offender postrelease behaviors. The Prison Journal, 97(3), 275–295.Google Scholar
  12. Butler, M., & Maruna, S. (2009). The impact of disrespect on prisoners’ aggression: Outcomes of experimentally inducing violence-supportive cognitions. Psychology, Crime & Law, 15(2–3), 235–250.Google Scholar
  13. Clark, V. A., & Duwe, G. (2018). From solitary to the streets. The effect of restrictive housing on recidivism. Corrections: Policy, Practice, and Research.
  14. Cloyes, K. G., Lovell, D., Allen, D. G., & Rhodes, L. A. (2006). Assessment of psychosocial impairment in a supermaximum security unit sample. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33(6), 760–781.Google Scholar
  15. Duwe, G., & Clark, V. (2014). The effects of prison-based educational programming on recidivism and employment. The Prison Journal, 94(4), 454–478.Google Scholar
  16. Fellner, J., & Mariner, J. (1997). Cold storage: Super-maximum security confinement in Indiana. New York: Human Rights Watch.Google Scholar
  17. Frost, N., & Monteiro, C. (2016). Administrative segregation in US prisons. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
  18. Garcia, M., Cain, C. M., Cohen, F., Foster, H., Frost, N. A., Kapoor, R., & Labrecque, R. M. (2016). Restrictive housing in the US: Issues, challenges, and future directions. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
  19. Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works! Criminology, 34(4), 575–608.Google Scholar
  20. Haney, C. (2003). Mental health issues in long-term solitary and "supermax" confinement. Crime and Delinquency, 49(1), 124–156.Google Scholar
  21. Ho, D. E., Imai, K., King, G., & Stuart, E. A. (2007). Matching as nonparametric preprocessing for reducing model dependence in parametric causal inference. Political Analysis, 15(3), 199–236.Google Scholar
  22. Huebner, B. M. (2003). Administrative determinants of inmate violence: A multilevel analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31(2), 107–117.Google Scholar
  23. Huebner, B. M., & Berg, M. T. (2011). Examining the sources of variation in risk for recidivism. Justice Quarterly, 28(1), 146–173.Google Scholar
  24. IBM Corp. (2017). IBM SPSS statistics for windows, version 25.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.Google Scholar
  25. Imbens, G. W., & Rubin, D. B. (2015). Causal inference in statistics, social, and biomedical sciences. Boston, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. King, R. D. (1999). The rise and rise of supermax: An American solution in search of a problem? Punishment & Society, 1(2), 163–186.Google Scholar
  27. King, R. D. (2005). The effects of supermax custody. In A. Liebling & S. Maruna (Eds.), The effects of imprisonment (pp. 118–145). Portland, OR: Willan.Google Scholar
  28. Kleinbaum, D. G., & Klein, M. (2005). Competing risks survival analysis. In D. G. Kleinbaum & M. Klein (Eds.), Statistics for biology and health: Survival analysis: A self-learning text (2nd ed., pp. 391–461). New York: NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  29. Kupers, T. A. (1996). Trauma and its sequelae in male prisoners: Effects of confinement, overcrowding, and diminished services. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 66(2), 189–196.Google Scholar
  30. Kupers, T. A. (2008). What to do with the survivors? Coping with the long-term effects of isolated confinement. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(8), 1005–1016.Google Scholar
  31. Kurlychek, M. C., Brame, R., & Bushway, S. D. (2006). Scarlet letters and recidivism: Does an old criminal record predict future offending? Criminology & Public Policy, 5(3), 483–504.Google Scholar
  32. Labrecque, R. M. (2015). The effect of solitary confinement on institutional misconduct: A longitudinal evaluation (Doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinnati).Google Scholar
  33. Labrecque, R. M. (2018). Taking stock: A meta-analysis of the predictors of restrictive housing. Victims & Offenders, 1–18.Google Scholar
  34. Langan, P. A., & Levin, D. J. (2002). Bureau of Justice Statistics special report: Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994. NCJ, 193427.Google Scholar
  35. Lovell, D., Cloyes, K., Allen, D., & Rhodes, L. (2000). Who lives in super-maximum custody-a Washington state study. Federal Probation, 64(2), 33–38.Google Scholar
  36. Lovell, D., Johnson, L. C., & Cain, K. C. (2007). Recidivism of supermax prisoners in Washington state. Crime & Delinquency, 53(4), 633–656.Google Scholar
  37. Lucas, J. W., & Jones, M. A. (2019). An analysis of the deterrent effects of disciplinary segregation on institutional rule violation rates. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 30(5), 765–787.Google Scholar
  38. Mallik-Kane, K., & Visher, C. A. (2008). Health and prisoner reentry: How physical, mental, and substance abuse conditions shape the process of reintegration (p. 82). Washington, DC: Urban Institute Justice Policy Center.Google Scholar
  39. Mears, D. P., & Bales, W. D. (2009). Supermax incarceration and recidivism. Criminology, 47(4), 1131–1166.Google Scholar
  40. Mears, D. P., & Castro, J. L. (2006). Wardens' views on the wisdom of supermax prisons. Crime & Delinquency, 52(3), 398–431.Google Scholar
  41. Meyers, T. J., Infante, A., & Wright, K. A. (2018). Addressing serious violent misconduct in prison: Examining an alternative form of restrictive housing. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(14), 4585–4608.Google Scholar
  42. Miller, H. A., & Young, G. R. (1997). Prison segregation: Administrative detention remedy or mental health problem? Criminal Behavior and Mental Health, 7(1), 85–94.Google Scholar
  43. Morgan, R. D., Gendreau, P., Smith, P., Gray, A. L., Labrecque, R. M., MacLean, N., et al. (2016). Quantitative syntheses of the effects of administrative segregation on inmates’ well-being. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 22(4), 439.Google Scholar
  44. Morris, R. (2016). Exploring the effect of exposure to short-term solitary confinement among violent prison inmates. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 32(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
  45. Nagin, D. S., Cullen, F. T., & Jonson, C. L. (2009). Imprisonment and reoffending. Crime and Justice, 38(1), 115–200.Google Scholar
  46. O’Keefe, M. L. (2007). Administrative segregation for mentally ill inmates. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 45(1–2), 149–165.Google Scholar
  47. O'Keefe, M. L. (2008). Administrative segregation from within: A corrections perspective. The Prison Journal, 88(1), 123–143.Google Scholar
  48. O’Keefe, M. L., Klebe, K. J., Metzner, J., Dvoskin, J., Fellner, J., & Stucker, A. (2013). A longitudinal study of administrative segregation. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 41(1), 49–60.Google Scholar
  49. Paternoster, R. (1987). The deterrent effect of the perceived certainty and severity of punishment: A review of the evidence and issues. Justice Quarterly, 4(2), 173–217.Google Scholar
  50. Pizarro, J., & Stenius, V. M. (2004). Supermax prisons: Their rise, current practices, and effect on inmates. The Prison Journal, 84(2), 248–264.Google Scholar
  51. Pizarro, J. M., & Narag, R. E. (2008). Supermax prisons: What we know, what we do not know, and where we are going. The Prison Journal, 88(1), 23–42.Google Scholar
  52. Pizarro, J. M., Stenius, V. M., & Pratt, T. C. (2006). Supermax prisons: Myths, realities, and the politics of punishment in American society. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 17(1), 6–21.Google Scholar
  53. Pizarro, J. M., Zgoba, K. M., & Haugebrook, S. (2014). Supermax and recidivism: An examination of the recidivism covariates among a sample of supermax ex-inmates. The Prison Journal, 94(2), 180–197.Google Scholar
  54. Pyrooz, D., & Mitchell, M. M. (2019). The use of restrictive housing on gang and non-gang affiliated inmates in U.S. prisons: Findings from a National Survey of correctional agencies. Justice Quarterly.
  55. Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1), 41–55.Google Scholar
  56. Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1985). Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. The American Statistician, 39(1), 33–38.Google Scholar
  57. Shalev, S. (2009). Supermax: Controlling risk through solitary confinement. Portland, OR: Willan Publishing.Google Scholar
  58. Sherman, L. W. (1993). Defiance, deterrence, and irrelevance: A theory of the criminal sanction. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30(4), 445–473.Google Scholar
  59. Snedecor, G. W., & Cochran, W. G. (1980). Statistical methods (7th ed.). Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
  60. StataCorp. (2009). Stata statistical software: Release 11. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP.Google Scholar
  61. Stuart, E. A. (2010). Matching methods for causal inference: A review and a look forward. Statistical science: A review Journal of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics, 25(1), 1–21.Google Scholar
  62. Sundt, J. L., Castellano, T. C., & Briggs, C. S. (2008). The sociopolitical context of prison violence and its control: A case study of supermax and its effect in Illinois. The Prison Journal, 88(1), 94–122.Google Scholar
  63. Sweeten, G., & Apel, R. (2007). Incapacitation: Revisiting an old question with a new method and new data. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 23(4), 303–326.Google Scholar
  64. Ward, D. A., & Werlich, T. G. (2003). Alcatraz and Marion: Evaluating super-maximum custody. Punishment & Society, 5(1), 53–75.Google Scholar
  65. Weisburd, D., Hasisi, B., Shoham, E., Aviv, G., & Haviv, N. (2017). Reinforcing the impacts of work release on prisoner recidivism: The importance of integrative interventions. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 13(2), 241–264.Google Scholar
  66. Widom, C. S. (1989). The cycle of violence. Science, 244(4901), 160–166.Google Scholar
  67. Wooldredge, J., & Steiner, B. (2015). A macro-level perspective on prison inmate deviance. Punishment & Society, 17(2), 230–257.Google Scholar
  68. Zgoba, K. M., & Salerno, L. M. (2017). A three-year recidivism analysis of state correctional releases. Criminal Justice Studies, 30(4), 331–345.Google Scholar
  69. Zimring, F. E., & Hawkins, G. J. (1973). Deterrence: The legal threat in crime control. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Southern Criminal Justice Association 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Criminology & Criminal JusticeFlorida International UniversityMiamiUSA
  2. 2.School of Criminology & Criminal JusticeArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  3. 3.New Jersey Department of Corrections, Research & Evaluation UnitTrentonUSA

Personalised recommendations