Federal Bureau of Prisons: Special Housing Unit Review and Assessment Key Contributors: Kenneth McGinnis, Dr. James Austin, Karl Becker, Larry Fields, Michael Lane, Mike Maloney, Mary Marcial, Robert May, Jon Ozmint, Tom Roth, Emmitt Sparkman, Dr. Roberta Stellman, Dr. Pablo Stewart, George Vose, and Tammy Felix December 2014 Distribution limited to Federal Bureau of Prisons Acknowledgements The project team acknowledges and thanks Director Charles E. Samuels, Jr. and the executive staff of the Bureau of Prisons for their assistance and support in conducting an independent assessment of the restrictive housing programs within the agency. This review could not have been successfully completed without Director Samuels’ strong personal support of the scope of the review and the goals and objectives of this project. His personal involvement and interest in the independent review of the operations and programs of this aspect of the Bureau was critical to completing the assessment. In addition, the project team thanks the wardens and staff of the institutions visited by the team for their outstanding support and willingness to fully open their operation to outside scrutiny. Finally, this project could not have been possible without the support and deep involvement of the National Institute of Corrections and Acting Director Robert M. Brown, Jr. and his staff. In particular, the CNA project team is grateful to Shaina Vanek for her commitment to and coordination of the project and for facilitating communication and the exchange of information between the project team and the Bureau staff. Without her personal involvement and the initiative she took to find resolution to literally every challenge that arose during the project, this report could not have been completed. Distribution Distribution limited to Federal Bureau of Prisons. Specific authority: Order Number DJBP0700NAS079 Distribution authority is controlled by Federal Bureau of Prisons. This document represents the best opinion of CNA at the time of issue. Approved by: December 2014 Monica Giovachino Managing Director, Safety and Security CNA, Institute for Public Research Copyright © 2014 CNA Abstract This report provides an independent, comprehensive review of the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ operation of restrictive housing and identifies potential operational and policy improvements. Specifically, it provides a comprehensive, detailed evaluation of the Bureau’s use of restrictive housing, including the following key areas: national trends and best practices in the management of restrictive housing units; profile of the Bureau’s segregation population; Bureau policies and procedures governing the management of restrictive housing; unit operations and conditions of confinement; mental health assessment and treatment within restrictive housing units; application of inmate due-process rights; reentry programming; and the impact of the use of restrictive housing on system safety and security. The report also evaluates the impact of the restrictive housing program on the federal prison system and places the Bureau’s use of segregation in context with professional standards and best practices found in other correctional systems. The findings and recommendations contained in this report are based on the information and data collected while conducting site visits to the Bureau’s restrictive housing units and facilities from November 2013 through May 2014. Any operational changes or new written policies implemented by the Bureau after completion of the site visits regarding their use of restrictive housing are not reflected in this report. Some such changes were in process or were scheduled for implementation after the completion of the site visits. i This page intentionally left blank. ii Executive Summary The Federal Bureau of Prisons (Bureau) uses restrictive housing for serious infractions of institutional and system-wide rules governing inmate conduct, such as engaging in violent, aggressive behavior against other inmates and staff. Restrictive housing is also used for inmates who cannot be safely managed in a general population setting, or who have been otherwise determined to be a security threat. There are three categories of restrictive housing used by the Bureau: Special Housing Units (SHU), Special Management Units (SMU), and the United States Penitentiary, Administrative Maximum (ADX) in Florence, Colorado. The Bureau’s Program Statements governing the three types of segregated housing units indicate that all three types of housing have a similar function and purpose which is to “separate inmates from the general inmate population to protect the safety, security, and orderly operation of Bureau facilities, and to protect the public.” The specific placement criteria and conditions of confinement vary for each type of segregated housing unit as does the type of inmate housed in each of the respective units. As of November 2013, approximately 5 percent of the entire Bureau’s prisoner population was being housed in one of these restrictive housing populations with the vast majority in the SHU status (see Figure 1). Shortly thereafter the number of inmates held in SHU housing began to decline. Similarly the SMU population began to decline in the summer of 2013. The Bureau population as a whole has also been slightly reduced from a peak of 217,815 to its current population of 212,283 as of December 12, 2014. This level of use of restrictive housing is consistent with that experienced by most state correctional systems. Much of the decline is attributable to a reduction in the SHU population and, in particular, inmates who have been assigned to protective custody or are serving disciplinary segregation sanctions. The Bureau was able to provide detailed SHU population statistics beginning in February 2013. At that time, the count was 10,262 in over 100 facilities and has steadily declined since then reaching 8,939 by June 2014. This is a reduction of 31 percent from the 13,000 reported count of the SHU population in 2011. There have been no reductions in the ADX populations. iii Figure 1. Number of ADX, SMU and SHU Inmates February 2013 – June 2014 Below we summarize key findings from our review: The general conditions of confinement in restricted housing units are consistent with national regulations and standards. Management of the SHU’s is complicated by the high percentage of inmates that have requested protection from other inmates, often due to gang related issues. The Bureau does not have adequate non-punitive protective custody housing units that have equivalent levels of programs and privileges as general population inmates. Backlogs in inmates awaiting transfer to the next program level negate the intent of the program design and decrease the motivation to change behavior. Mental health services in restrictive housing require improvement in three specific areas: 1) proper mental health diagnoses; 2) more effective treatment; and 3) providing sufficient psychiatric staffing. The lack of time parameters for completion of disciplinary hearings results in substantial variation among facilities in the amount of time served in segregation for similar offenses, and can result in disproportionately long sanctions. There is no formal Bureau-wide reentry preparedness program specific to restrictive housing and inmates in these settings have very limited access to reentry programming. iv Bureau information systems do not effectively track the number and movement of inmates within the restrictive housing units. There are additional opportunities available to the Bureau to further lower the SHU and SMU populations by adopting the recommendations outlined in this report. Primary approaches to further reduce the restrictive housing population include: Establish a time limit on the amount of time that an inmate can be held in investigative status; Allow credit for time served in SHU upon determination of disciplinary sanction; Establish a housing option separate from SHU for inmates in protection status (protective custody); Continue rigorous review of referrals to restrictive housing; Reduce the time period for completion of the SMU program from the present 18-24 months to 12 months and compress the four levels to three levels by combining Level 3 and Level 4 and allowing more differentiation between the conditions of confinement between the levels; and To ensure appropriate treatment for seriously mentally ill inmates, a complete review of all inmates assigned to ADX, SMU and SHU should be completed by the Bureau to identify all inmates who should be transferred to a secure mental health program similar to the ones being developed at USP Atlanta and USP Allenwood. v This page intentionally left blank. vi Contents Chapter 1: Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1 Project background ............................................................................................................... 1 Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 2 Facility selection ............................................................................................................. 3 Operational assessment—facility site visit protocol .............................................. 4 Inmate samples and interviews ................................................................................... 6 Mental health