November 2, 2025 • 41 mins
Ever wondered what life is really like inside a maximum-security prison? In this episode, we explore the hidden world behind the razor wire — from the strict routines and intense surveillance to the psychology of isolation and control. Discover how inmates survive under constant watch, how prison gangs operate, and what measures are taken to manage the most dangerous offenders. We’ll also examine the ethics and effectiveness of these facilities, are they truly about justice, or do they breed more violence?
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-infographics-show-podcast--6317257/support.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-infographics-show-podcast--6317257/support.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:10):
Welcome to Beyond Infographics. We're the show that goes past
the simple charts and headlines to really understand the complex
systems around us.
Speaker 2 (00:17):
And today we're definitely going deep. We're looking into a
really challenging area restrictive housing and prisons.
Speaker 1 (00:23):
Right. We're talking about the places designed to manage the
most dangerous, the most disruptive individuals within maximum security facilities.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
It's about control fundamentally, the policies, the actual physical buildings,
the philosophies behind it all, and of course the human impact.
It's much more complicated than just solitary confinement.
Speaker 1 (00:45):
Absolutely, so our mission today is to sort of decode
all of that. We want to connect the dots between,
say the specific rules about how thick a wall needs
to be or staffing levels and the psychological effects of
extreme isolation.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
And we'll be looking at this through the lens of
international standards too, like the UN's Mandela rules.
Speaker 1 (01:03):
Yeah, that's crucial context our analysis today. It's built on
some pretty heavy duty sources.
Speaker 2 (01:08):
It really is. We've got a big National Institute of
Correction study that looked at practices across the US. We've
also got specific case studies, think places like USP Marian Arizona.
Washington State's Intensive Units place is known for very strict.
Speaker 1 (01:23):
Control, and we're layering onto that research about the brain.
You know, what actually happens neurologically when someone is deprived
of social contact.
Speaker 2 (01:32):
It's a lot to unpack.
Speaker 1 (01:33):
It definitely is. And if you listening appreciate this kind
of in depth analysis going beyond the surface level, please
take a second right now and give Beyond Infographics a
five star rating. It really helps us keep doing this
kind of work.
Speaker 2 (01:47):
So Okay, to really grasp why these restrictive solutions exist,
we have to start with the problem they're trying to solve.
Who are the people that end up in these units exactly?
Speaker 1 (01:55):
Let's transition into defining that population and the frankly immense
pressures these systems are under.
Speaker 2 (02:01):
You know, when people hear disruptive inmate, I think they
often picture like a huge riot or someone taking hostages,
big dramatic events, right, the Hollywood version exactly. But the reality,
according to the NIC study, is that the day to
day grind, the real operational strain, comes from more persistent lower.
Speaker 1 (02:19):
Level stuff, things like what specifically.
Speaker 2 (02:21):
Well, refusing orders obviously, but also constant verbal abuse directed
at staff, throwing things, food, water, sometimes even bodily fluids.
You're in feces. That's incredibly difficult for staff to deal with.
Speaker 1 (02:35):
I can only imagine, and things like contraband, making.
Speaker 2 (02:38):
Weapons, yes, and even just forcing movement an inmate refusing
to leave the reckyard, for example. It sounds simple, maybe,
but it immediately triggers a whole high risk protocol, multiple officers,
potential use of force, It grinds the unit to a halt.
Speaker 1 (02:53):
So it's this constant friction, this baseline level of resistance
and danger.
Speaker 2 (02:57):
It is. But then, of course there are the actions
that trigger plays into the most restrictive housing, the absolute
top tier.
Speaker 1 (03:03):
Okay, so what are those defining behaviors what gets you
sent to one of these specialized units.
Speaker 2 (03:07):
The study as agency is exactly that, and the answers
were pretty consistent. Murder and hostage taking were critical factors
for literally one hundred percent of the agencies unsurprising right
and close behind nearly ninety percent listed deadly assault, also
making or smuggling serious weapons. We're talking firearms, explosives, even
poison gas.
Speaker 1 (03:28):
So it's really about posing an existential threat to the
institution or the people in it not just being difficult.
Speaker 2 (03:34):
Precisely, it's that level of danger that justifies this extreme
level of segregation.
Speaker 1 (03:40):
And what about the background of these individuals. Does the
data show anything about, say, education or skills.
Speaker 2 (03:45):
It does, and it points to some well systemic issues.
Over sixty percent of this specific population hadn't finished high school.
Speaker 1 (03:52):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (03:52):
That high Yeah, And generally they were more likely to
lack basic academic or vocational skills compared to inmates in
the general popular which is sort.
Speaker 1 (04:00):
Of a tragic irony, isn't it. Yeah. The people who
might benefit most from educational programs are the ones whose
behavior puts them in places where those programs are least available.
Speaker 2 (04:09):
That's exactly the dilemma. Their lack of skills might even
contribute to their inability to navigate the rules, leading to
more conflict and deeper segregation. Hashtag tag tag two point
two special management needs.
Speaker 1 (04:20):
Okay, so beyond the security threats, there's another layer of
complexity special management needs, particularly mental health. The stats you
mentioned earlier about mentally ill inmates in these units, they're
all over the.
Speaker 2 (04:33):
Place, they really were. The percentage identified as mentally ill
ranged from zero in over half the agency surveyed all
the way up to almost thirty two percent in one state, Nebraska.
Speaker 1 (04:45):
Zero percent. That seems unlikely. Does that mean those agencies
just don't have mentally ill inmates in restrictive housing.
Speaker 2 (04:52):
It's more likely a policy thing. Many agencies explicitly stated
that their policies don't allow housing mentally ill prisoners in
these standards disruptive units.
Speaker 1 (05:01):
Ah, okay, So the behavior might be driven by the illness,
but policy dictates they go somewhere.
Speaker 2 (05:06):
Else exactly because the standard unit is built purely for
security and control through you know, punishment and taking away privileges.
That's often totally inappropriate, even harmful. If the disruptive behavior
stems from a mental illness.
Speaker 1 (05:18):
Where they go. You mentioned specialized.
Speaker 2 (05:20):
Units, right, specialized forensic units. These are different. They're designed
not just to contain, but also to treat. The focus
is on psychological intervention, continuous mental health staffing. The goal
is stabilization, maybe eventually getting them back to a therapeutic setting,
not just indefinite lockdown.
Speaker 1 (05:38):
That's a critical difference. Trying to manage severe mental illness
with purely security tools sounds like it would just make
things worse.
Speaker 2 (05:46):
It often does. And we also saw that about five
percent of the disruptive population were perceived as having intellectual disabilities,
which again requires a totally different approach. How So, well
the standard behavior management systems, the phase programs were you
earn privileges, those often just don't work for people with
serious mental illness or developmental disabilities. Their behavior might not
(06:07):
be fully within their control. Punishing them for symptoms is ineffective,
incredibly stressful for everyone involved, and legally very shaky.
Speaker 1 (06:14):
So it really has to be mental health professionals making
the call on placement and strategy.
Speaker 2 (06:18):
Absolutely, it needs to be based on diagnosis, prognosis tailored intervention,
not just a one size fits all security response hashtag
textags two point three pressures on correctional systems.
Speaker 1 (06:31):
Okay, let's zoom out a bit from the individual to
the system itself. These units don't operate in a vacuum, right.
They're facing huge external pressures.
Speaker 2 (06:41):
Immense pressures. Overcrowding is a constant issue in many systems,
and funding is almost always tight, especially with conservative fiscal policies.
Running these highly specialized, high staffing units is incredibly expensive.
Speaker 1 (06:54):
And then there's the legal side. You mentioned these units
are magnets for lawsuits.
Speaker 2 (06:57):
They absolutely are. It forces admitted stras to walk this
constant tightrope regarding the Eighth Amendment, the ban on cruel
and unusual punishment.
Speaker 1 (07:06):
How common is that kind of legal oversight?
Speaker 2 (07:08):
Pretty significant. The study found a quarter of the agency
surveyed were already under court orders specifically about managing disruptive inmates.
Nearly a third had consent decrees.
Speaker 1 (07:18):
So basically, lawyers have to sign off on almost any
policy change.
Speaker 2 (07:21):
Pretty much every significant change gets scrutinized to make sure
it doesn't cross that constitutional line.
Speaker 1 (07:26):
What kinds of things trigger an Eighth Amendment claim in
this setting? It's not just about physical abuse, is it?
Speaker 2 (07:31):
Oh? Not at all. Courts look at really fundamental conditions
of confinement, things like inadequate hygiene, poor heating or ventilation,
faulty toilets, even just the lack of any meaningful activity
or exercise, stuff that.
Speaker 1 (07:46):
Might seem minor but becomes magnified in total isolation.
Speaker 2 (07:49):
Exactly, if there's a pattern of neglect in those basic areas,
it can lead to major lawsuits and force expensive changes.
So policy is always being shaped by court decisions or
the threat of court decisions.
Speaker 1 (08:01):
And what about factors outside the prison walls? Do things
happening on the street affect what goes on inside these units?
Speaker 2 (08:07):
Definitely? Two big things stood out in the research. First,
sentencing changes, longer sentences, three strikes laws, things like that
they create a larger population of inmates with very long
terms maybe life sentences, with little hope of getting out and.
Speaker 1 (08:21):
Less incentive to follow the rules.
Speaker 2 (08:22):
I suppose research suggests that yes, they may have higher
rates of violent infractions because the traditional correctional incentive like
earning parole don't really apply to them in the same way.
Speaker 1 (08:31):
Makes sense. And the second factor gangs.
Speaker 2 (08:35):
At least half the agencies pointed to gang activity as
a major source of problems inside, but also interestingly crackdowns
on drug dealing on the outside. How does that connect, Well,
more people getting locked up for drug offenses means more
drug trafficking inside prisons. Arizona, for example, saw a massive
spike like two hundred and eighty percent in inmate violence
(08:55):
between eighty two and eighty five, and they directly linked
it to the rise in internal drug dealing and the
violence that comes with it.
Speaker 1 (09:01):
Wow. So the challenges are constantly shifting based on external
forces too.
Speaker 2 (09:05):
It's incredibly dynamic. Hashtag tag three core management philosophies and
structural models hashtag tag tech three point one. Punishment versus
opportunity models.
Speaker 1 (09:14):
All right, so you've got this incredibly difficult population. You're
under legal and financial pressure. Administrators need a core philosophy
for how to manage these units. The sources seem to
boil it down to two main approaches, punitive or opportunities.
Speaker 2 (09:29):
That's right. The punitive model is basically rooted in retribution.
The idea is negative behavior gets a fixed punishment. Usually
that means isolation and losing privileges. You break a rule,
you go before a disciplinary committee, you get a sentence,
a set amount of time and segregation.
Speaker 1 (09:45):
And the key part there is fixed. Right. Good behavior
doesn't shorten.
Speaker 2 (09:49):
The sentence exactly. Under a strict punitive model, good behavior
just means you don't get more time added on. The
punishment duration is set in stone. The main goal is
deter currents, making an example to discourage others. It's a
very hardline approach, focused squarely on security and accountability.
Speaker 1 (10:07):
Okay, so how does the opportunities model differ from that?
Speaker 2 (10:09):
The opportunities model is well arguably a more evolved approach
and certainly more common now. It still recognizes segregation is
necessary for safety, but it builds in ways for inmates
to actually earn their way towards better conditions.
Speaker 1 (10:22):
So it introduces incentives.
Speaker 2 (10:23):
Precisely, things like face systems or level programs or behavior contracts.
Good behavior adherence to the rules is directly rewarded with
increased privileges, more personal property, maybe more out of cell time,
access to certain programs.
Speaker 1 (10:38):
So the inmate has some agency in improving their situation.
Speaker 2 (10:42):
Yes, that's the key difference. It shifts the focus from
just deterrence to actually trying to modify behavior. It offers
a pathway, maybe a very difficult one, but still a
pathway back towards the general population, or at least a
less restrictive setting. And frankly, this model generally aligns better
with current legal thinking about rehbait ilitation and avoiding those
Eighth Amendment issues around indefinite harsh isolation hashtag hashtag tech
(11:07):
tach three point two concentration versus dispersal strategies.
Speaker 1 (11:10):
Okay, so once you have a philosophy, you need to
decide where to house these individuals. Do you put them
all together in one or two specialized high security prisons, concentration,
or spread them out across different facilities.
Speaker 2 (11:21):
Dispersal Concentration tends to be the dominant strategy, mostly for
practical and financial reasons.
Speaker 1 (11:26):
What are the advantages of putting everyone in one place,
like a USP marian or a dedicated state unit.
Speaker 2 (11:32):
Well, cost efficiency is a big one. You avoid duplicating
expensive high security construction, specialized staff training, specific programs, You
centralize it all. Plus it arguably makes the other prisons
safer and calmer, allowing them to focus more on general
population programming.
Speaker 1 (11:51):
Makes sense from a budget perspective. But what are the
downsides you mentioned staff earlier.
Speaker 2 (11:55):
Yeah, that's the major drawback. Concentrating all the most difficult,
violent and disruptive individual rules in one place puts immense,
unrelenting stress on the staff working.
Speaker 1 (12:03):
There, even if they're highly trained elite staff.
Speaker 2 (12:06):
Especially then perhaps they're dealing with the absolute toughest cases
day in, day out burnout fatigue, The emotional toll is
significantly higher, and often the range of programs available to
inmates and these concentrated units is narrower because of the
intense security focus.
Speaker 1 (12:23):
So dispersal tries to alleviate that staff stress.
Speaker 2 (12:26):
That's the idea. Spreading the disruptive population out means no
single group of staff bears the entire burden, and theoretically
it gives those inmates better access to the programs and
services available in general population prisons. Seeing others with more
privileges can also be an incentive.
Speaker 1 (12:44):
Right, But wouldn't dispersal mean building many high security units
inside lots of different prisons. That sounds incredibly expensive.
Speaker 2 (12:51):
It is. That's usually the killer argument against it. Duplicating
high security infrastructure and specialized staffing across many sites is
often seen as just too costly. Plus you run the
risk of a small number of very volatile inmates disrupting
the operations of an entire general population facility.
Speaker 1 (13:09):
So, given the budget constraints we talked about, concentration usually
wins out, even with the higher stress on staff.
Speaker 2 (13:15):
That seems to be the prevailing logic. Yes, it's seen
as the most cost effective, though certainly not perfect approach.
Speaker 1 (13:22):
Let's shift to how these places are actually run on
the inside. Traditionally, prisons use a very top down, centralized
management style, but the sources say there's been a move
towards something called unit management, pioneered by the Federal Bureau
of Prisons.
Speaker 2 (13:36):
Right, this is a pretty significant shift in organizational structure.
Instead of one big hierarchy managing the whole institution, unit
management breaks the facility down into smaller, semi independent units.
Speaker 1 (13:49):
What does that look like on the ground for the
staff and inmates?
Speaker 2 (13:52):
The key is the unit team. You have a unit manager, caseworkers,
correctional officers, maybe counselors or support staff, all dedicated to
one specific unit, typically housing maybe fifty to one hundred inmates.
And crucially, their offices are located right there, adjacent to
the inmate living area, so.
Speaker 1 (14:09):
They're physically present and focused just on that group exactly.
Speaker 2 (14:12):
It really increases the amount and quality of staff inmate interaction.
The idea is to move away from impersonal bureaucratic management
towards staff who really know the inmates in their unit,
their issues, their behaviors.
Speaker 1 (14:25):
What are the claimed benefits of organizing things this.
Speaker 2 (14:27):
Way several big ones. Better communication among staff, definitely better
observation of inmates. It allows for much more individualized classification
and program planning because the staff actually know the people
they're managing and flights ability, huge flexibility. Because each unit
is semi autonomous, you can tailor programs or security measures
(14:48):
for that specific unit's needs without having to change things
for the entire prison. Decisions can be made faster by
the people directly involved. That's vital in a high risk environment,
where a quick informed response can prevent things from escalating.
Speaker 1 (15:01):
Interesting. So it's trying to bring some individualized attention into
these very controlled environments.
Speaker 2 (15:08):
That's the goal. Now we've talked a lot about the
structures and philosophies, but we need to confront the costs,
the real human consequences of this level of control.
Speaker 1 (15:17):
And just a reminder, if you're finding this breakdown helpful,
please do consider rating beyond infographics five stars. It helps
others find the show. We've got to get into some
really heavy material now, the psychological and even neurological effects
of isolation.
Speaker 2 (15:30):
So while these super secure units are sometimes necessary for
managing extreme violence, the reality is that solitary confinement or
restrictive housing often gets used much more broadly.
Speaker 1 (15:40):
You mean not just for violent acts, right.
Speaker 2 (15:42):
It's frequently used for things like non violent rule breaking, disrespect,
having too much canteen, sometimes even for protecting vulnerable inmates,
but the tool itself, isolation has profound effects regardless of
why someone is there.
Speaker 1 (15:57):
And those effects last, don't they The research suggests the
harm isn't just temporary.
Speaker 2 (16:02):
That's the really sobering finding. The psychological damage seems to
get worse the longer someone is isolated, and critically, it
doesn't just disappear when they leave solitary or even when
they're released from prison entirely. The trauma can persist for years,
and the.
Speaker 1 (16:16):
Most extreme outcome suicide. The statistics are.
Speaker 2 (16:19):
Just horrifying, they really are. The New York State data,
for instance, showed suicide rates and solitary were over five
times higher than in the general prison population between twenty
fifteen and twenty nineteen.
Speaker 1 (16:30):
Five times. That's staggering.
Speaker 2 (16:31):
It's an undeniable, massive increase in risk, and it follows
people out the door too.
Speaker 1 (16:36):
What do you mean the risk continues after release?
Speaker 2 (16:38):
Yes, there's a huge study tracked over two hundred thousand
people released from prison. It found that individuals who had
spent any time in solitary were seventy eight percent more
likely to die by suicide within their first year back
in the community.
Speaker 1 (16:53):
My god, so they're carrying that damage back with them
into a potentially chaotic environment exactly.
Speaker 2 (16:59):
And it's not just suicide risk. There's another really alarming
finding related to substance abuse OKA. That same study found
that having been in solitary made people one hundred and
twenty seven percent more likely to die from an opioid overdose,
particularly in the first two weeks after release.
Speaker 1 (17:14):
Wow. One hundred and twenty seven percent. Why what's the connection?
Speaker 2 (17:18):
The researcher suggests it's likely a combination of factors. The
intense stress of isolation, maybe underdeveloped coping skills, the shock
of re entry, and perhaps inadequate support services right when
they're most vulnerable. It creates this perfect storm for relapse
and overdose. It points to a real failure in preparing
people for release after isolation. Hashtag tached hashtag four point two.
Isolation is physical.
Speaker 1 (17:38):
Pain, so the psychological toll is immense. But you mentioned earlier,
the sources suggest this goes beyond psychological pain, that isolation
is registered by the brain almost like a physical injury.
Speaker 2 (17:49):
Yes, this is where the neuroscience comes in, and it's
fascinating and disturbing. Research shows that being socially deprived triggers
what scientists call social pain, and the brain circuitry that
lights up when someone experiences social pain it's the same
circuitry that activates during physical pain.
Speaker 1 (18:06):
So feeling isolated literally hurts in a neurological sense.
Speaker 2 (18:10):
That's what the evidence indicates. The brain treats social connection
as a fundamental need and its absence as a threat
akin to physical harm.
Speaker 1 (18:18):
And if that state of social pain goes on for
a long time, like in prolonged solitary, does it actually
change the brain?
Speaker 2 (18:26):
The evidence points strongly towards yes. Prolonged social deprivation seems
to cause actual structural changes in the brain, potentially permanent ones.
We've seen studies even going back decades showing that just
one week in solitary can alter brainwave activities, slowing it down,
impairing performance on complex tasks.
Speaker 1 (18:44):
The sources specifically mentioned two brain areas, the hippocampus and
the amygdala. Can you walk us through what happens to them?
Speaker 2 (18:52):
Sure, the hippocampus is vital for learning and memory, but
it's also really critical for regulating our stress response. Think
of it as the brain's brake pedal for anxiety and
emotional reactions okay. Studies, including those on animals with similar
brain structures, show that under conditions of isolation, the hippocampus
can actually shrink physically shrink, which means it means the
(19:14):
individual loses some of their capacity to manage stress and
control emotional responses. They become more reactive, more easily overwhelmed
by stress later on. Isolation literally damages the brain's ability
to cope, which.
Speaker 1 (19:28):
Is the opposite of what you'd want for someone you're
trying to manage in a high stress prison environment exactly.
Speaker 2 (19:32):
And then you have the amygdala. This is more like
the brain's alarm system. It processes fear and anxiety.
Speaker 1 (19:38):
And what happens to it during isolation, it.
Speaker 2 (19:40):
Goes into overdrive. Studies show a surge of activity in
the amygdola in isolated individuals. This hyperactivation directly correlates with
the feelings of intense fear, anxiety, hypervigilance, even paranoia that
people in solitary confinement so often report.
Speaker 1 (19:57):
So isolation is effectively locking the brain into a state
of high alert, high fear while also damaging its ability
to calm itself down.
Speaker 2 (20:05):
That's a very good way to put it. It's rewiring
the brain for fear and stress hashtag tag tag tag
four point three special vulnerabilities and restrictive housing.
Speaker 1 (20:13):
We also need to talk about how this impacts specific
groups who might be especially vulnerable. The sources mentioned women
and people with disabilities.
Speaker 2 (20:20):
Yes, for women, there's an issue, often stemming from classification
systems that were mostly designed with male prisoners in mind.
This can lead to women being placed in higher security
settings than their actual risk might warrant.
Speaker 1 (20:32):
And they might be punished more harshly for smaller infractions.
Speaker 2 (20:36):
Research suggests that can happen. Yes, they might receive harsher
sanctions for minor, non violent rule breaking compared to men.
This sometimes results in women experiencing shorter but more frequent
stints in solitary, a kind of revolving door effect that
maximizes their exposure to its harms over time.
Speaker 1 (20:54):
And this is compounded by the fact that mental health
issues are already very prevalent among incurs.
Speaker 2 (21:00):
Women incredibly prevalent. Nearly seventy percent of women in jails
or prisons have a history of mental health problems, so
placing this population, often with significant trauma histories, into deep isolation.
It's not just counterproductive, it risks compounding existing psychological wounds
very significantly.
Speaker 1 (21:18):
What do international standards like the Mandela Rules say about
using solitary for vulnerable groups?
Speaker 2 (21:24):
They're very clear. The Mandela Rules explicitly condemn using solitary
confinement for individuals with mental or physical disabilities. Rule forty
four states it shouldn't be used on them at all.
The idea is that their behavior might stem from their disability,
not defiance, and isolation is not an appropriate or humane response.
Speaker 1 (21:40):
Does that always happen in practice?
Speaker 2 (21:42):
Sadly no. Sometimes individuals with physical disabilities end up in isolation,
not because they broke a rule, but simply because the
general population areas lack accessible cells or facilities. It becomes
a default placement out of convenience, not necessity.
Speaker 1 (21:57):
And what about people with sensory disabilities, being deaf or
blind and solitary. That must be an unimaginable level of deprivation.
Speaker 2 (22:05):
It's horrific to contemplate. They experience an even more profound
level of sensory deprivation and isolation. Often they lack access
to basic communication tools, sign language interpreters, assistive devices for
reading materials. They're effectively cut off from any potential programming
or human contact, leading to an almost complete isolation within isolation,
it's a massive failure of accommodation.
Speaker 1 (22:28):
Okay, let's ship gears a bit now from the human impact,
back to the mechanics of control. These maximum security units
are physical structures designed for one primary purpose, containment. What
are some of the key architectural musk halves.
Speaker 2 (22:42):
Well, it starts with the basics. Walls have to be
incredibly strong. Reinforced concrete or masonry is standard. You see
specs like concrete blocks filled solid with high strength grout
laced with steel rebar. The goal is to make breaching
them physically impossible.
Speaker 1 (22:59):
And you mentioned very specific rule about openings in walls,
the eight inch rule.
Speaker 2 (23:03):
Yes, it's quite telling about the level of detail involved.
Any opening like a food pass through or observation port
generally can't be larger than eight inches by eight inches.
If it's a longer slot, it can't be wider than
five inches. Why so specific, It's based on physiology. The
thinking is if an opening is too small for a
human head to pass through, the body can't follow. It's
a fundamental security measure baked into the design.
Speaker 1 (23:25):
And inside the cell given the potential for vandalism.
Speaker 2 (23:29):
Or self harm, everything has to be heavy duty and
tamper proof. Stainless steel toilets and sinks are common, designed
with smooth surfaces, no sharp edges, and bolted securely to
the floor and walls. This stops inmates from breaking off
parts to use as weapons, causing flooding or hurting themselves.
Speaker 1 (23:45):
Does the overall design try to account for the psychological
impact at all or is it purely about security.
Speaker 2 (23:52):
Security is absolutely paramount high walls, reinforced doors, sally ports.
The design has to screen control. The sources do advise
administrators to try, where practical to mitigate the harshness, maybe
using better lighting, less stark colors, small things that might
lessen the institutional feel and potentially reduce some of the
trauma associated with being in such a restrictive place. It's
(24:15):
a balance, but security always comes first. Hashtag tag tag
five point two supervision methods. Okay, so you have the
physical structure, then there's the human element supervision. The guiding
principle here is effective and total control.
Speaker 1 (24:27):
Meaning staff run everything, no inmate influence allowed.
Speaker 2 (24:31):
Zero Staff must maintain complete control over every aspect of
the unit's operation. There's no room for inmates to manage
any part of it. The entire system relies on constant staff,
vigilance and immediate response capability.
Speaker 1 (24:43):
What about technology? CCTD cameras seem like an obvious tool here.
Speaker 2 (24:47):
They're used, for sure, but the sources are really clear
that cameras are not a replacement for having enough staff
on the ground.
Speaker 1 (24:53):
Why not? Seems like eyes everywhere would be good.
Speaker 2 (24:56):
There are limitations. Camera views are two dimensional, making it
hard to judge situations accurately. Sometimes there can be blind spots,
and there's the risk of staff becoming complacent, just sort
of passively watching monitors instead of actively observing.
Speaker 1 (25:11):
So where does tech help most?
Speaker 2 (25:13):
It's really useful for monitoring areas where staff aren't usually present,
perimeter fences, rooftops, corridors, sally ports inside the units. One
low cost but effective recommendation was adding listen in talk
back capabilities to the intercom system.
Speaker 1 (25:29):
So staff can hear what's going on in cells, even
periods of silence which might be suspicious, and talk directly
to inmates without opening doors exactly.
Speaker 2 (25:37):
It enhances monitoring and communication without compromising security.
Speaker 1 (25:41):
Let's talk staffing ratios. This must be hugely expensive. What's
considered the ideal number of staff to inmates for this
level of control?
Speaker 2 (25:48):
Well, the numbers varied quite a bit in the study,
depending on the specific unit in state. Some suggested ratio
is as low as one point one, others much higher,
like one point two in the most volatile settings in
Ohio or Arizona.
Speaker 1 (25:59):
But was there a general consensus and average?
Speaker 2 (26:02):
Synthesizing the data, the sort of optimal average for a
day shift using indirect supervision came out to roughly one
staff member for every seven inmates, so one to seven okay.
Speaker 1 (26:12):
But did the agencies feel they were actually meeting that standard?
Speaker 2 (26:15):
Mostly no. While about seventy nine percent felt they had
enough supervisors, managers, caseworkers, only sixty four percent felt they
had enough frontline correctional officers, so.
Speaker 1 (26:25):
A significant shortfall on the people doing the direct monitoring. Yes.
Speaker 2 (26:29):
On average, agencies reported needing about an eighteen percent increase
in officers just to meet what they considered adequate levels
for effective control. The strain is clearly being felt most
by the officers on the tiers hashtag tag tag tag
five point three managing movement and force.
Speaker 1 (26:44):
The sources consistently emphasized that moving inmates is perhaps the
most dangerous time in these units. The potential for assault
or escape attempts as highest.
Speaker 2 (26:53):
Then absolutely, which is why the protocols for any movement
outside the cell are incredibly strict. Strict do we talk
restraint is the defail handcuffs, waste chains, leg irons, often
used in combination and always escorted by multiple officers. The
Washington doc policy, for example, requires inmates to be handcommed
for basically everything outside their cell except showers and visits,
(27:15):
and even during movement, staff physically hold onto the.
Speaker 1 (27:18):
Cuffs handcuffed even in the shower.
Speaker 2 (27:20):
Some policies, like Washington's require it. It illustrates just how
little unsupervised freedom is allowed, minimizing any opportunity. Arizona's policy
adds that officers put on protective vests before even entering
the most volatile housing units.
Speaker 1 (27:35):
Total preparedness what happens when force is unavoidable, If an
inmate resists movement or becomes violent.
Speaker 2 (27:41):
Using forces always a last resort, but when it's necessary,
videotaping the entire event is strongly recommended as a best practice.
Speaker 1 (27:48):
Why is videotaping so important?
Speaker 2 (27:49):
Several reasons. It provides an objective record, which can deter
staff misconduct. It also provides crucial evidence if the inmate
later files a lawsuit alleging abuse. Institution like Marion credited
their use of specialized response teams and mandatory videotaping with
actually reducing both the need for forced cell extractions and
the number of lawsuits. It protects everyone involved in a way.
Speaker 1 (28:12):
Okay, and what about searches, particularly the really intrusive ones
like strip searches or body cavity searches? When are those allowed?
Speaker 2 (28:19):
They're recognized as highly invasive and are supposed to be
used only when absolutely necessary, such as typically upon admission
to the unit, or if an inmate returns from outside
the secure perimeter like a court trip where they might
have had an opportunity to obtain contraband. Policies like at
WCCIMU are very.
Speaker 1 (28:37):
Specific, and body cavity searches those must have even stricter rules.
Speaker 2 (28:41):
Definitely, they require prior authorization from senior staff like the superintendent,
and crucially, they should be performed by qualified medical personnel,
not the regular correctional officers, or at least by staff
specifically trained in hygienic procedures. If an inmate resists, that
incident is often also videotaped and documented very carefully because
of the serious legal implications. Hashtag tag six staff management
(29:05):
I morele hashtag tag tag book six point one Staff
selection and training Right.
Speaker 1 (29:10):
It's clear that the staff working in these units are
under immense pressure. The environment is inherently stressful, confrontational, potentially dangerous,
so getting the right people seems absolutely critical.
Speaker 2 (29:21):
It's probably the single most important factor in maintaining stability
and safety. Alongside the physical design. The selection process has
to be incredibly rigorous.
Speaker 1 (29:29):
What are they looking for?
Speaker 2 (29:30):
Personalities, huge maturity, professionalism, the ability to remain calm under pressure,
resilience prior experience matters, and very often agencies rely on volunteers,
people who actually want to work in this challenging environment,
rather than being forced into it.
Speaker 1 (29:46):
Some places like Marion seem to treat it almost like
an elite assignment.
Speaker 2 (29:50):
Yes, that's the deliberate strategy. Marian historically selected staff for
its control unit based on outstanding performance reviews from other
federal prisons, was seen as a promotion, a reward. Washington
States i am U staff are similarly considered top tier
correctional personnel.
Speaker 1 (30:08):
So you filter for the best, most motivated people exactly.
Speaker 2 (30:12):
You want people who are not just competent security wise,
but who also have the temperament to handle constant hostility
and manipulation without resorting to unprofessional or abusive behavior themselves.
Speaker 1 (30:23):
But it's just selecting the right people enough or is
specialized training also key?
Speaker 2 (30:27):
Selection helps, but it's not enough on its own. Specialized
training is absolutely crucial. The recommendation is for at least
eighty hours of dedicated training for anyone having daily contact
with these inmates.
Speaker 1 (30:38):
And that training needs to cover more than just security tactics.
Speaker 2 (30:41):
Presumably, oh definitely, it has to include things like de
escalation techniques, recognizing and managing mental health crises, understanding manipulative behaviors,
and crucially, how to cope with the psychological stress of
the job itself, dealing with constant verbal abuse, threats and
the inherent tension of the environment hashtag tech tag six
(31:01):
point two incentives and stress reduction.
Speaker 1 (31:04):
That stress is a major issue. You mentioned three quarters
of agencies rotate staff out of these units periodically.
Speaker 2 (31:10):
Yeah, rotation is a common strategy to prevent burnout. You
don't want anyone exposed to that level of intensity for
too long without a break. It helps maintain perspective and resilience.
Speaker 1 (31:20):
That rotation can be disruptive right breaks up team cohesion.
Speaker 2 (31:23):
It can be, which is why finding other ways to
support staff and boost morale is also important. Low cost
incentives can make a big difference.
Speaker 1 (31:30):
What kind of incentives work.
Speaker 2 (31:32):
Things like hazard duty pay or maybe special recognition. Some
places use distinctive uniforms to signify the prestige of the assignment,
small things that acknowledge the difficulty and importance of the work.
Speaker 1 (31:43):
The idea being that if you make it a sought after,
a respected role, you attract and retain better staff.
Speaker 2 (31:48):
Exactly, it helps reduce turnover, which saves money on training
new people. It improves a morale. If you're asking your
best staff to do the hardest job, you need to
acknowledge that. Intangible ways to offset the high emotional and
psychological costs hashtag tag tech six point three healthcare and
accountability Mandela rules.
Speaker 1 (32:07):
We talked about the psychological and neurological damage of isolation earlier.
This brings us to the role of health care staff
in these units. The Mandela rules seem to give them
a specific crucial function they do.
Speaker 2 (32:19):
The rules position healthcare personnel as having a degree of
independence and oversight. They must have daily access not just
to inmates who report sick, but to all prisoners being
held in any kind of involuntary separation or isolation.
Speaker 1 (32:32):
So it's not just reactive care, it's proactive monitoring.
Speaker 2 (32:35):
Yes, they're required to provide prompt medical attention is requested,
but also to conduct ongoing health surveillance of everyone in isolation, and.
Speaker 1 (32:43):
Their role goes beyond just treating physical ailments.
Speaker 2 (32:46):
Critically. Yes, according to rule forty six, if health care
staff observe any adverse effects of the restrictive measures on
an inmate's physical or mental health, they have a duty
to report it immediately to the prison director.
Speaker 1 (32:59):
So they can actually flag if the isolation itself is causing.
Speaker 2 (33:03):
Harm precisely, and they don't just report, they are supposed
to advise the director if they believe it's medically necessary
to change or even terminate the restriction.
Speaker 1 (33:12):
Wow, So a doctor could recommend pulling someone out of
solitary even if security wants them there.
Speaker 2 (33:18):
That's the intent of the rule. If the isolation is
exacerbating a mental health condition, for example, the medical opinion
should in theory carry significant weight and could override a
purely security based decision. It's meant to be a vital,
independent check on the use and effects of isolation.
Speaker 1 (33:35):
Okay, So for most inmates in these units, excluding those
maybe serving indefinite terms, the goal is eventually to get
them back to the general population.
Speaker 2 (33:44):
Presumably yes, How does that happen? What's the mechanism for
moving out? It's managed through internal classification systems. The study
found that the vast majority, about eighty one percent, use
some kind of phase or level system.
Speaker 1 (33:57):
This can expect to the opportunities model.
Speaker 2 (33:58):
We discussed exactly. These systems put that model into practice.
They lay out a clear step by step path. Inmates
earn more privileges less restriction by demonstrating consistent good behavior
over time. The onus is on the inmate to prove
they can follow the rules.
Speaker 1 (34:15):
And you mentioned earlier the difference between reacting to bad
behavior and proactively trying to manage risk.
Speaker 2 (34:21):
Right. Traditional segregation is reactive. You break a major rule,
you get isolated, But some systems try to be more proactive.
South Carolina's AIM System Adult Internal Management System as an.
Speaker 1 (34:31):
Example, how does aims work.
Speaker 2 (34:33):
It tries to identify potentially problematic inmates right when they
enter the prison system, based purely on their behavior and
management needs, not their crime or background.
Speaker 1 (34:43):
So it's trying to predict who might cause trouble later.
Speaker 2 (34:46):
Sort of. The idea is if you can identify individuals
who need closer management or specific interventions early on, you
might be able to prevent major incidents down the road,
reducing the need for long term reactive segregation later. It's
about early inner rather than just containment after the fact.
Hashtag tag tax seven point two the gradual release model.
Speaker 1 (35:06):
Let's get more specific about these level systems. How do
they actually work day to day? What kind of privileges
are we talking about as someone moves up.
Speaker 2 (35:13):
Let's take Arizona Cell Block six program as an example.
Inmates typically start at level one with very few privileges.
By following the rules consistently known factions, good cell sanitation, cooperation,
they can earn promotion to level two than level.
Speaker 1 (35:28):
Three, and each level unlocks more.
Speaker 2 (35:30):
Yes, maybe at level two you get slightly more phone
time or access to more items from the canteen. Level
three might mean more visitation. Maybe eligibility for an in
cell work assignment, more personal property allowed, but any misstep,
any rule violation, usually results in immediate demotion back down
a level and loss of those privileges. It's a very
(35:50):
direct cause and effects system.
Speaker 1 (35:52):
For someone who's been in deep segregation for months or
even years, Going straight from that back to the noise
and chaos of general population sounds like a huge shock.
Speaker 2 (36:02):
It is, and it often leads to failure. The inmate
gets overwhelmed, acts out, and ends up right back in segregation.
That's why transitional programs are strongly recommended for long term
isolated inmates.
Speaker 1 (36:14):
What do those look like? A sort of halfway step exactly.
Speaker 2 (36:17):
They're designed to gradually reacclimate inmates. South Carolina, for instance,
uses a transitional unit. It might involve things like multiman cells,
maybe the first time in years the inmate has had
a cellmate. There might be group counseling, specific behavioral contracts.
Speaker 1 (36:31):
So staff can watch how they handle increased social interaction
in a controlled setting.
Speaker 2 (36:36):
Precisely, it allows staff to observe their adjustment, their coping skills,
their ability to follow rules in a more complex environment
before they're fully released back into the general population. It
aims to make the transition more successful and permanent. Hashtag
tag tag seven point three privileged details.
Speaker 1 (36:52):
The whole concept of privilege in these units really highlights
the extreme scarcity of their world, doesn't it. What kind
of things are typically off limits compared to general population.
Speaker 2 (37:03):
Well, programs involving tools or significant movement are usually out
so vocational training prison industries generally prohibited because of the
security risks. Academic programs are often restricted to self study
courses done in the cell.
Speaker 1 (37:18):
And personal property. The sources had some incredibly specific examples.
Speaker 2 (37:22):
Oh, absolutely, everything is minutely regulated. Strict limits on how
many candy bars you can buy, how much coffee, how
many writing tablets or envelopes. Even something deeply personal like
a wedding ring might only be allowed if it has
no stones, because a stone could potentially be pried out
and used somehow.
Speaker 1 (37:39):
And staff regularly checked to make sure inmates don't have
even one extra.
Speaker 2 (37:42):
Item regular inventories. Yes, accumulating unauthorized property is a rule violation.
It comes back to that total control.
Speaker 1 (37:49):
There is that one anecdote in the sources that really
struck me about the photo right.
Speaker 2 (37:53):
The inmate who had to earn something like sixty points
through good behavior, which took about three month of perfect
conduct in that environment just to be allowed one photograph
of his wife.
Speaker 1 (38:05):
Three months for one photo.
Speaker 2 (38:06):
It really underscores how much psychological weight these tiny privileges carry.
When something so basic requires that much sustained effort and
self control, it becomes a powerful motivator within that level system,
however harsh it seems.
Speaker 1 (38:21):
And finally, recreation even that's not really free time.
Speaker 2 (38:24):
Is it not at all? It's essential for well being,
but it's still a highly controlled security operation. In cell
activities like puzzles are drawing are encouraged, but outdoor recreation
is limited and intensely monitored.
Speaker 1 (38:36):
How limited.
Speaker 2 (38:37):
Washington's IMU inmates, for example, might only get two hours
twice a week. And even when they're in the reckyard,
staff are watching closely, watching for what, making sure they
don't misuse equipment, like you can't use a bench for
intense physical training that might damage it, or use a
wall in a way that blocks officers view. Every object
is assessed for potential misuse. Staff are trained to anticipate
(38:59):
problems and absolute control even during supposed downtime. Hashtag tag
eight outro synthesis and final thought.
Speaker 1 (39:07):
So we've covered a huge amount of ground today, from
the tiny details of architectural design like that eight inch rule,
all the way to the profound neurological impacts of isolation
and the complex systems trying to manage it all.
Speaker 2 (39:20):
And what really emerges is this fundamental conflict, isn't it.
On one hand, you have the administrative reality, segregation, concentration.
These are often seen as necessary for cost efficiency for
the safety of the broader prison population.
Speaker 1 (39:34):
You need control, but that clashes directly with the human cost.
We've seen the evidence isolation can damage the brain, shrinking
the hippocampus, overactivating the amigdala. It dramatically increases suicide risk.
Even after release, risk of overdose skyrockets. Seems like the
tool itself can make the problem.
Speaker 2 (39:50):
Worse, which is why the shift towards more objective, data
driven approaches is so important. Things like the Proactive Aims
system and the or level systems for gradual release. These
try to balance the need for control with constitutional requirements
and basic humanity.
Speaker 1 (40:08):
Right they tie progress directly to behavior exactly.
Speaker 2 (40:11):
It gives management the control they need, but it also
provides inmates with a clear earned path out of the
most restrictive conditions. It's about minimizing the duration of exposure
to that damaging environment. By rewarding positive behavior.
Speaker 1 (40:24):
It makes the opportunities model not just more humane, but
potentially more effective in the long run than just fixed punishment.
Speaker 2 (40:31):
That seems to be the direction things are moving, or
at least should be moving.
Speaker 1 (40:35):
Okay, So that leads us to a final thought to
leave you the listener with. We learn that these units
demand the assignment of the institution's most elite, highly trained staff.
Places like Marion saw it as a prestigious posting right.
Speaker 2 (40:48):
You're concentrating your best human resources, both in terms of
staff expertise and arguably the inmates requiring the most intensive
management into these very small, very expensive, high intensity environments.
Speaker 1 (41:01):
And we know this costs of fortune financially and emotionally.
So the question becomes, is this model truly achieving system
wide stability or are we essentially just trading widespread, lower
level chaos throughout the prison system for an incredibly concentrated, hidden,
and extremely costly form of control in these specialized units.
Speaker 2 (41:22):
Are we solving the problem or just isolating it at
immense expense? It's a really difficult question about the true
cost and effectiveness.
Speaker 1 (41:29):
Of this approach, something to definitely think about. Thank you
for joining us for this deep dive on beyond infographics.
Speaker 2 (41:34):
If you found this discussion valuable, please do take a
moment to rate the show five stars on your podcast app.
It really helps other people discover our work.
Speaker 1 (41:41):
We appreciate your time and attention. We'll be back soon
with another exploration beyond infographics.
Welcome to Beyond Infographics. We're the show that goes past
the simple charts and headlines to really understand the complex
systems around us.
Speaker 2 (00:17):
And today we're definitely going deep. We're looking into a
really challenging area restrictive housing and prisons.
Speaker 1 (00:23):
Right. We're talking about the places designed to manage the
most dangerous, the most disruptive individuals within maximum security facilities.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
It's about control fundamentally, the policies, the actual physical buildings,
the philosophies behind it all, and of course the human impact.
It's much more complicated than just solitary confinement.
Speaker 1 (00:45):
Absolutely, so our mission today is to sort of decode
all of that. We want to connect the dots between,
say the specific rules about how thick a wall needs
to be or staffing levels and the psychological effects of
extreme isolation.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
And we'll be looking at this through the lens of
international standards too, like the UN's Mandela rules.
Speaker 1 (01:03):
Yeah, that's crucial context our analysis today. It's built on
some pretty heavy duty sources.
Speaker 2 (01:08):
It really is. We've got a big National Institute of
Correction study that looked at practices across the US. We've
also got specific case studies, think places like USP Marian Arizona.
Washington State's Intensive Units place is known for very strict.
Speaker 1 (01:23):
Control, and we're layering onto that research about the brain.
You know, what actually happens neurologically when someone is deprived
of social contact.
Speaker 2 (01:32):
It's a lot to unpack.
Speaker 1 (01:33):
It definitely is. And if you listening appreciate this kind
of in depth analysis going beyond the surface level, please
take a second right now and give Beyond Infographics a
five star rating. It really helps us keep doing this
kind of work.
Speaker 2 (01:47):
So Okay, to really grasp why these restrictive solutions exist,
we have to start with the problem they're trying to solve.
Who are the people that end up in these units exactly?
Speaker 1 (01:55):
Let's transition into defining that population and the frankly immense
pressures these systems are under.
Speaker 2 (02:01):
You know, when people hear disruptive inmate, I think they
often picture like a huge riot or someone taking hostages,
big dramatic events, right, the Hollywood version exactly. But the reality,
according to the NIC study, is that the day to
day grind, the real operational strain, comes from more persistent lower.
Speaker 1 (02:19):
Level stuff, things like what specifically.
Speaker 2 (02:21):
Well, refusing orders obviously, but also constant verbal abuse directed
at staff, throwing things, food, water, sometimes even bodily fluids.
You're in feces. That's incredibly difficult for staff to deal with.
Speaker 1 (02:35):
I can only imagine, and things like contraband, making.
Speaker 2 (02:38):
Weapons, yes, and even just forcing movement an inmate refusing
to leave the reckyard, for example. It sounds simple, maybe,
but it immediately triggers a whole high risk protocol, multiple officers,
potential use of force, It grinds the unit to a halt.
Speaker 1 (02:53):
So it's this constant friction, this baseline level of resistance
and danger.
Speaker 2 (02:57):
It is. But then, of course there are the actions
that trigger plays into the most restrictive housing, the absolute
top tier.
Speaker 1 (03:03):
Okay, so what are those defining behaviors what gets you
sent to one of these specialized units.
Speaker 2 (03:07):
The study as agency is exactly that, and the answers
were pretty consistent. Murder and hostage taking were critical factors
for literally one hundred percent of the agencies unsurprising right
and close behind nearly ninety percent listed deadly assault, also
making or smuggling serious weapons. We're talking firearms, explosives, even
poison gas.
Speaker 1 (03:28):
So it's really about posing an existential threat to the
institution or the people in it not just being difficult.
Speaker 2 (03:34):
Precisely, it's that level of danger that justifies this extreme
level of segregation.
Speaker 1 (03:40):
And what about the background of these individuals. Does the
data show anything about, say, education or skills.
Speaker 2 (03:45):
It does, and it points to some well systemic issues.
Over sixty percent of this specific population hadn't finished high school.
Speaker 1 (03:52):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (03:52):
That high Yeah, And generally they were more likely to
lack basic academic or vocational skills compared to inmates in
the general popular which is sort.
Speaker 1 (04:00):
Of a tragic irony, isn't it. Yeah. The people who
might benefit most from educational programs are the ones whose
behavior puts them in places where those programs are least available.
Speaker 2 (04:09):
That's exactly the dilemma. Their lack of skills might even
contribute to their inability to navigate the rules, leading to
more conflict and deeper segregation. Hashtag tag tag two point
two special management needs.
Speaker 1 (04:20):
Okay, so beyond the security threats, there's another layer of
complexity special management needs, particularly mental health. The stats you
mentioned earlier about mentally ill inmates in these units, they're
all over the.
Speaker 2 (04:33):
Place, they really were. The percentage identified as mentally ill
ranged from zero in over half the agency surveyed all
the way up to almost thirty two percent in one state, Nebraska.
Speaker 1 (04:45):
Zero percent. That seems unlikely. Does that mean those agencies
just don't have mentally ill inmates in restrictive housing.
Speaker 2 (04:52):
It's more likely a policy thing. Many agencies explicitly stated
that their policies don't allow housing mentally ill prisoners in
these standards disruptive units.
Speaker 1 (05:01):
Ah, okay, So the behavior might be driven by the illness,
but policy dictates they go somewhere.
Speaker 2 (05:06):
Else exactly because the standard unit is built purely for
security and control through you know, punishment and taking away privileges.
That's often totally inappropriate, even harmful. If the disruptive behavior
stems from a mental illness.
Speaker 1 (05:18):
Where they go. You mentioned specialized.
Speaker 2 (05:20):
Units, right, specialized forensic units. These are different. They're designed
not just to contain, but also to treat. The focus
is on psychological intervention, continuous mental health staffing. The goal
is stabilization, maybe eventually getting them back to a therapeutic setting,
not just indefinite lockdown.
Speaker 1 (05:38):
That's a critical difference. Trying to manage severe mental illness
with purely security tools sounds like it would just make
things worse.
Speaker 2 (05:46):
It often does. And we also saw that about five
percent of the disruptive population were perceived as having intellectual disabilities,
which again requires a totally different approach. How So, well
the standard behavior management systems, the phase programs were you
earn privileges, those often just don't work for people with
serious mental illness or developmental disabilities. Their behavior might not
(06:07):
be fully within their control. Punishing them for symptoms is ineffective,
incredibly stressful for everyone involved, and legally very shaky.
Speaker 1 (06:14):
So it really has to be mental health professionals making
the call on placement and strategy.
Speaker 2 (06:18):
Absolutely, it needs to be based on diagnosis, prognosis tailored intervention,
not just a one size fits all security response hashtag
textags two point three pressures on correctional systems.
Speaker 1 (06:31):
Okay, let's zoom out a bit from the individual to
the system itself. These units don't operate in a vacuum, right.
They're facing huge external pressures.
Speaker 2 (06:41):
Immense pressures. Overcrowding is a constant issue in many systems,
and funding is almost always tight, especially with conservative fiscal policies.
Running these highly specialized, high staffing units is incredibly expensive.
Speaker 1 (06:54):
And then there's the legal side. You mentioned these units
are magnets for lawsuits.
Speaker 2 (06:57):
They absolutely are. It forces admitted stras to walk this
constant tightrope regarding the Eighth Amendment, the ban on cruel
and unusual punishment.
Speaker 1 (07:06):
How common is that kind of legal oversight?
Speaker 2 (07:08):
Pretty significant. The study found a quarter of the agency
surveyed were already under court orders specifically about managing disruptive inmates.
Nearly a third had consent decrees.
Speaker 1 (07:18):
So basically, lawyers have to sign off on almost any
policy change.
Speaker 2 (07:21):
Pretty much every significant change gets scrutinized to make sure
it doesn't cross that constitutional line.
Speaker 1 (07:26):
What kinds of things trigger an Eighth Amendment claim in
this setting? It's not just about physical abuse, is it?
Speaker 2 (07:31):
Oh? Not at all. Courts look at really fundamental conditions
of confinement, things like inadequate hygiene, poor heating or ventilation,
faulty toilets, even just the lack of any meaningful activity
or exercise, stuff that.
Speaker 1 (07:46):
Might seem minor but becomes magnified in total isolation.
Speaker 2 (07:49):
Exactly, if there's a pattern of neglect in those basic areas,
it can lead to major lawsuits and force expensive changes.
So policy is always being shaped by court decisions or
the threat of court decisions.
Speaker 1 (08:01):
And what about factors outside the prison walls? Do things
happening on the street affect what goes on inside these units?
Speaker 2 (08:07):
Definitely? Two big things stood out in the research. First,
sentencing changes, longer sentences, three strikes laws, things like that
they create a larger population of inmates with very long
terms maybe life sentences, with little hope of getting out and.
Speaker 1 (08:21):
Less incentive to follow the rules.
Speaker 2 (08:22):
I suppose research suggests that yes, they may have higher
rates of violent infractions because the traditional correctional incentive like
earning parole don't really apply to them in the same way.
Speaker 1 (08:31):
Makes sense. And the second factor gangs.
Speaker 2 (08:35):
At least half the agencies pointed to gang activity as
a major source of problems inside, but also interestingly crackdowns
on drug dealing on the outside. How does that connect, Well,
more people getting locked up for drug offenses means more
drug trafficking inside prisons. Arizona, for example, saw a massive
spike like two hundred and eighty percent in inmate violence
(08:55):
between eighty two and eighty five, and they directly linked
it to the rise in internal drug dealing and the
violence that comes with it.
Speaker 1 (09:01):
Wow. So the challenges are constantly shifting based on external
forces too.
Speaker 2 (09:05):
It's incredibly dynamic. Hashtag tag three core management philosophies and
structural models hashtag tag tech three point one. Punishment versus
opportunity models.
Speaker 1 (09:14):
All right, so you've got this incredibly difficult population. You're
under legal and financial pressure. Administrators need a core philosophy
for how to manage these units. The sources seem to
boil it down to two main approaches, punitive or opportunities.
Speaker 2 (09:29):
That's right. The punitive model is basically rooted in retribution.
The idea is negative behavior gets a fixed punishment. Usually
that means isolation and losing privileges. You break a rule,
you go before a disciplinary committee, you get a sentence,
a set amount of time and segregation.
Speaker 1 (09:45):
And the key part there is fixed. Right. Good behavior
doesn't shorten.
Speaker 2 (09:49):
The sentence exactly. Under a strict punitive model, good behavior
just means you don't get more time added on. The
punishment duration is set in stone. The main goal is
deter currents, making an example to discourage others. It's a
very hardline approach, focused squarely on security and accountability.
Speaker 1 (10:07):
Okay, so how does the opportunities model differ from that?
Speaker 2 (10:09):
The opportunities model is well arguably a more evolved approach
and certainly more common now. It still recognizes segregation is
necessary for safety, but it builds in ways for inmates
to actually earn their way towards better conditions.
Speaker 1 (10:22):
So it introduces incentives.
Speaker 2 (10:23):
Precisely, things like face systems or level programs or behavior contracts.
Good behavior adherence to the rules is directly rewarded with
increased privileges, more personal property, maybe more out of cell time,
access to certain programs.
Speaker 1 (10:38):
So the inmate has some agency in improving their situation.
Speaker 2 (10:42):
Yes, that's the key difference. It shifts the focus from
just deterrence to actually trying to modify behavior. It offers
a pathway, maybe a very difficult one, but still a
pathway back towards the general population, or at least a
less restrictive setting. And frankly, this model generally aligns better
with current legal thinking about rehbait ilitation and avoiding those
Eighth Amendment issues around indefinite harsh isolation hashtag hashtag tech
(11:07):
tach three point two concentration versus dispersal strategies.
Speaker 1 (11:10):
Okay, so once you have a philosophy, you need to
decide where to house these individuals. Do you put them
all together in one or two specialized high security prisons, concentration,
or spread them out across different facilities.
Speaker 2 (11:21):
Dispersal Concentration tends to be the dominant strategy, mostly for
practical and financial reasons.
Speaker 1 (11:26):
What are the advantages of putting everyone in one place,
like a USP marian or a dedicated state unit.
Speaker 2 (11:32):
Well, cost efficiency is a big one. You avoid duplicating
expensive high security construction, specialized staff training, specific programs, You
centralize it all. Plus it arguably makes the other prisons
safer and calmer, allowing them to focus more on general
population programming.
Speaker 1 (11:51):
Makes sense from a budget perspective. But what are the
downsides you mentioned staff earlier.
Speaker 2 (11:55):
Yeah, that's the major drawback. Concentrating all the most difficult,
violent and disruptive individual rules in one place puts immense,
unrelenting stress on the staff working.
Speaker 1 (12:03):
There, even if they're highly trained elite staff.
Speaker 2 (12:06):
Especially then perhaps they're dealing with the absolute toughest cases
day in, day out burnout fatigue, The emotional toll is
significantly higher, and often the range of programs available to
inmates and these concentrated units is narrower because of the
intense security focus.
Speaker 1 (12:23):
So dispersal tries to alleviate that staff stress.
Speaker 2 (12:26):
That's the idea. Spreading the disruptive population out means no
single group of staff bears the entire burden, and theoretically
it gives those inmates better access to the programs and
services available in general population prisons. Seeing others with more
privileges can also be an incentive.
Speaker 1 (12:44):
Right, But wouldn't dispersal mean building many high security units
inside lots of different prisons. That sounds incredibly expensive.
Speaker 2 (12:51):
It is. That's usually the killer argument against it. Duplicating
high security infrastructure and specialized staffing across many sites is
often seen as just too costly. Plus you run the
risk of a small number of very volatile inmates disrupting
the operations of an entire general population facility.
Speaker 1 (13:09):
So, given the budget constraints we talked about, concentration usually
wins out, even with the higher stress on staff.
Speaker 2 (13:15):
That seems to be the prevailing logic. Yes, it's seen
as the most cost effective, though certainly not perfect approach.
Speaker 1 (13:22):
Let's shift to how these places are actually run on
the inside. Traditionally, prisons use a very top down, centralized
management style, but the sources say there's been a move
towards something called unit management, pioneered by the Federal Bureau
of Prisons.
Speaker 2 (13:36):
Right, this is a pretty significant shift in organizational structure.
Instead of one big hierarchy managing the whole institution, unit
management breaks the facility down into smaller, semi independent units.
Speaker 1 (13:49):
What does that look like on the ground for the
staff and inmates?
Speaker 2 (13:52):
The key is the unit team. You have a unit manager, caseworkers,
correctional officers, maybe counselors or support staff, all dedicated to
one specific unit, typically housing maybe fifty to one hundred inmates.
And crucially, their offices are located right there, adjacent to
the inmate living area, so.
Speaker 1 (14:09):
They're physically present and focused just on that group exactly.
Speaker 2 (14:12):
It really increases the amount and quality of staff inmate interaction.
The idea is to move away from impersonal bureaucratic management
towards staff who really know the inmates in their unit,
their issues, their behaviors.
Speaker 1 (14:25):
What are the claimed benefits of organizing things this.
Speaker 2 (14:27):
Way several big ones. Better communication among staff, definitely better
observation of inmates. It allows for much more individualized classification
and program planning because the staff actually know the people
they're managing and flights ability, huge flexibility. Because each unit
is semi autonomous, you can tailor programs or security measures
(14:48):
for that specific unit's needs without having to change things
for the entire prison. Decisions can be made faster by
the people directly involved. That's vital in a high risk environment,
where a quick informed response can prevent things from escalating.
Speaker 1 (15:01):
Interesting. So it's trying to bring some individualized attention into
these very controlled environments.
Speaker 2 (15:08):
That's the goal. Now we've talked a lot about the
structures and philosophies, but we need to confront the costs,
the real human consequences of this level of control.
Speaker 1 (15:17):
And just a reminder, if you're finding this breakdown helpful,
please do consider rating beyond infographics five stars. It helps
others find the show. We've got to get into some
really heavy material now, the psychological and even neurological effects
of isolation.
Speaker 2 (15:30):
So while these super secure units are sometimes necessary for
managing extreme violence, the reality is that solitary confinement or
restrictive housing often gets used much more broadly.
Speaker 1 (15:40):
You mean not just for violent acts, right.
Speaker 2 (15:42):
It's frequently used for things like non violent rule breaking, disrespect,
having too much canteen, sometimes even for protecting vulnerable inmates,
but the tool itself, isolation has profound effects regardless of
why someone is there.
Speaker 1 (15:57):
And those effects last, don't they The research suggests the
harm isn't just temporary.
Speaker 2 (16:02):
That's the really sobering finding. The psychological damage seems to
get worse the longer someone is isolated, and critically, it
doesn't just disappear when they leave solitary or even when
they're released from prison entirely. The trauma can persist for years,
and the.
Speaker 1 (16:16):
Most extreme outcome suicide. The statistics are.
Speaker 2 (16:19):
Just horrifying, they really are. The New York State data,
for instance, showed suicide rates and solitary were over five
times higher than in the general prison population between twenty
fifteen and twenty nineteen.
Speaker 1 (16:30):
Five times. That's staggering.
Speaker 2 (16:31):
It's an undeniable, massive increase in risk, and it follows
people out the door too.
Speaker 1 (16:36):
What do you mean the risk continues after release?
Speaker 2 (16:38):
Yes, there's a huge study tracked over two hundred thousand
people released from prison. It found that individuals who had
spent any time in solitary were seventy eight percent more
likely to die by suicide within their first year back
in the community.
Speaker 1 (16:53):
My god, so they're carrying that damage back with them
into a potentially chaotic environment exactly.
Speaker 2 (16:59):
And it's not just suicide risk. There's another really alarming
finding related to substance abuse OKA. That same study found
that having been in solitary made people one hundred and
twenty seven percent more likely to die from an opioid overdose,
particularly in the first two weeks after release.
Speaker 1 (17:14):
Wow. One hundred and twenty seven percent. Why what's the connection?
Speaker 2 (17:18):
The researcher suggests it's likely a combination of factors. The
intense stress of isolation, maybe underdeveloped coping skills, the shock
of re entry, and perhaps inadequate support services right when
they're most vulnerable. It creates this perfect storm for relapse
and overdose. It points to a real failure in preparing
people for release after isolation. Hashtag tached hashtag four point two.
Isolation is physical.
Speaker 1 (17:38):
Pain, so the psychological toll is immense. But you mentioned earlier,
the sources suggest this goes beyond psychological pain, that isolation
is registered by the brain almost like a physical injury.
Speaker 2 (17:49):
Yes, this is where the neuroscience comes in, and it's
fascinating and disturbing. Research shows that being socially deprived triggers
what scientists call social pain, and the brain circuitry that
lights up when someone experiences social pain it's the same
circuitry that activates during physical pain.
Speaker 1 (18:06):
So feeling isolated literally hurts in a neurological sense.
Speaker 2 (18:10):
That's what the evidence indicates. The brain treats social connection
as a fundamental need and its absence as a threat
akin to physical harm.
Speaker 1 (18:18):
And if that state of social pain goes on for
a long time, like in prolonged solitary, does it actually
change the brain?
Speaker 2 (18:26):
The evidence points strongly towards yes. Prolonged social deprivation seems
to cause actual structural changes in the brain, potentially permanent ones.
We've seen studies even going back decades showing that just
one week in solitary can alter brainwave activities, slowing it down,
impairing performance on complex tasks.
Speaker 1 (18:44):
The sources specifically mentioned two brain areas, the hippocampus and
the amygdala. Can you walk us through what happens to them?
Speaker 2 (18:52):
Sure, the hippocampus is vital for learning and memory, but
it's also really critical for regulating our stress response. Think
of it as the brain's brake pedal for anxiety and
emotional reactions okay. Studies, including those on animals with similar
brain structures, show that under conditions of isolation, the hippocampus
can actually shrink physically shrink, which means it means the
(19:14):
individual loses some of their capacity to manage stress and
control emotional responses. They become more reactive, more easily overwhelmed
by stress later on. Isolation literally damages the brain's ability
to cope, which.
Speaker 1 (19:28):
Is the opposite of what you'd want for someone you're
trying to manage in a high stress prison environment exactly.
Speaker 2 (19:32):
And then you have the amygdala. This is more like
the brain's alarm system. It processes fear and anxiety.
Speaker 1 (19:38):
And what happens to it during isolation, it.
Speaker 2 (19:40):
Goes into overdrive. Studies show a surge of activity in
the amygdola in isolated individuals. This hyperactivation directly correlates with
the feelings of intense fear, anxiety, hypervigilance, even paranoia that
people in solitary confinement so often report.
Speaker 1 (19:57):
So isolation is effectively locking the brain into a state
of high alert, high fear while also damaging its ability
to calm itself down.
Speaker 2 (20:05):
That's a very good way to put it. It's rewiring
the brain for fear and stress hashtag tag tag tag
four point three special vulnerabilities and restrictive housing.
Speaker 1 (20:13):
We also need to talk about how this impacts specific
groups who might be especially vulnerable. The sources mentioned women
and people with disabilities.
Speaker 2 (20:20):
Yes, for women, there's an issue, often stemming from classification
systems that were mostly designed with male prisoners in mind.
This can lead to women being placed in higher security
settings than their actual risk might warrant.
Speaker 1 (20:32):
And they might be punished more harshly for smaller infractions.
Speaker 2 (20:36):
Research suggests that can happen. Yes, they might receive harsher
sanctions for minor, non violent rule breaking compared to men.
This sometimes results in women experiencing shorter but more frequent
stints in solitary, a kind of revolving door effect that
maximizes their exposure to its harms over time.
Speaker 1 (20:54):
And this is compounded by the fact that mental health
issues are already very prevalent among incurs.
Speaker 2 (21:00):
Women incredibly prevalent. Nearly seventy percent of women in jails
or prisons have a history of mental health problems, so
placing this population, often with significant trauma histories, into deep isolation.
It's not just counterproductive, it risks compounding existing psychological wounds
very significantly.
Speaker 1 (21:18):
What do international standards like the Mandela Rules say about
using solitary for vulnerable groups?
Speaker 2 (21:24):
They're very clear. The Mandela Rules explicitly condemn using solitary
confinement for individuals with mental or physical disabilities. Rule forty
four states it shouldn't be used on them at all.
The idea is that their behavior might stem from their disability,
not defiance, and isolation is not an appropriate or humane response.
Speaker 1 (21:40):
Does that always happen in practice?
Speaker 2 (21:42):
Sadly no. Sometimes individuals with physical disabilities end up in isolation,
not because they broke a rule, but simply because the
general population areas lack accessible cells or facilities. It becomes
a default placement out of convenience, not necessity.
Speaker 1 (21:57):
And what about people with sensory disabilities, being deaf or
blind and solitary. That must be an unimaginable level of deprivation.
Speaker 2 (22:05):
It's horrific to contemplate. They experience an even more profound
level of sensory deprivation and isolation. Often they lack access
to basic communication tools, sign language interpreters, assistive devices for
reading materials. They're effectively cut off from any potential programming
or human contact, leading to an almost complete isolation within isolation,
it's a massive failure of accommodation.
Speaker 1 (22:28):
Okay, let's ship gears a bit now from the human impact,
back to the mechanics of control. These maximum security units
are physical structures designed for one primary purpose, containment. What
are some of the key architectural musk halves.
Speaker 2 (22:42):
Well, it starts with the basics. Walls have to be
incredibly strong. Reinforced concrete or masonry is standard. You see
specs like concrete blocks filled solid with high strength grout
laced with steel rebar. The goal is to make breaching
them physically impossible.
Speaker 1 (22:59):
And you mentioned very specific rule about openings in walls,
the eight inch rule.
Speaker 2 (23:03):
Yes, it's quite telling about the level of detail involved.
Any opening like a food pass through or observation port
generally can't be larger than eight inches by eight inches.
If it's a longer slot, it can't be wider than
five inches. Why so specific, It's based on physiology. The
thinking is if an opening is too small for a
human head to pass through, the body can't follow. It's
a fundamental security measure baked into the design.
Speaker 1 (23:25):
And inside the cell given the potential for vandalism.
Speaker 2 (23:29):
Or self harm, everything has to be heavy duty and
tamper proof. Stainless steel toilets and sinks are common, designed
with smooth surfaces, no sharp edges, and bolted securely to
the floor and walls. This stops inmates from breaking off
parts to use as weapons, causing flooding or hurting themselves.
Speaker 1 (23:45):
Does the overall design try to account for the psychological
impact at all or is it purely about security.
Speaker 2 (23:52):
Security is absolutely paramount high walls, reinforced doors, sally ports.
The design has to screen control. The sources do advise
administrators to try, where practical to mitigate the harshness, maybe
using better lighting, less stark colors, small things that might
lessen the institutional feel and potentially reduce some of the
trauma associated with being in such a restrictive place. It's
(24:15):
a balance, but security always comes first. Hashtag tag tag
five point two supervision methods. Okay, so you have the
physical structure, then there's the human element supervision. The guiding
principle here is effective and total control.
Speaker 1 (24:27):
Meaning staff run everything, no inmate influence allowed.
Speaker 2 (24:31):
Zero Staff must maintain complete control over every aspect of
the unit's operation. There's no room for inmates to manage
any part of it. The entire system relies on constant staff,
vigilance and immediate response capability.
Speaker 1 (24:43):
What about technology? CCTD cameras seem like an obvious tool here.
Speaker 2 (24:47):
They're used, for sure, but the sources are really clear
that cameras are not a replacement for having enough staff
on the ground.
Speaker 1 (24:53):
Why not? Seems like eyes everywhere would be good.
Speaker 2 (24:56):
There are limitations. Camera views are two dimensional, making it
hard to judge situations accurately. Sometimes there can be blind spots,
and there's the risk of staff becoming complacent, just sort
of passively watching monitors instead of actively observing.
Speaker 1 (25:11):
So where does tech help most?
Speaker 2 (25:13):
It's really useful for monitoring areas where staff aren't usually present,
perimeter fences, rooftops, corridors, sally ports inside the units. One
low cost but effective recommendation was adding listen in talk
back capabilities to the intercom system.
Speaker 1 (25:29):
So staff can hear what's going on in cells, even
periods of silence which might be suspicious, and talk directly
to inmates without opening doors exactly.
Speaker 2 (25:37):
It enhances monitoring and communication without compromising security.
Speaker 1 (25:41):
Let's talk staffing ratios. This must be hugely expensive. What's
considered the ideal number of staff to inmates for this
level of control?
Speaker 2 (25:48):
Well, the numbers varied quite a bit in the study,
depending on the specific unit in state. Some suggested ratio
is as low as one point one, others much higher,
like one point two in the most volatile settings in
Ohio or Arizona.
Speaker 1 (25:59):
But was there a general consensus and average?
Speaker 2 (26:02):
Synthesizing the data, the sort of optimal average for a
day shift using indirect supervision came out to roughly one
staff member for every seven inmates, so one to seven okay.
Speaker 1 (26:12):
But did the agencies feel they were actually meeting that standard?
Speaker 2 (26:15):
Mostly no. While about seventy nine percent felt they had
enough supervisors, managers, caseworkers, only sixty four percent felt they
had enough frontline correctional officers, so.
Speaker 1 (26:25):
A significant shortfall on the people doing the direct monitoring. Yes.
Speaker 2 (26:29):
On average, agencies reported needing about an eighteen percent increase
in officers just to meet what they considered adequate levels
for effective control. The strain is clearly being felt most
by the officers on the tiers hashtag tag tag tag
five point three managing movement and force.
Speaker 1 (26:44):
The sources consistently emphasized that moving inmates is perhaps the
most dangerous time in these units. The potential for assault
or escape attempts as highest.
Speaker 2 (26:53):
Then absolutely, which is why the protocols for any movement
outside the cell are incredibly strict. Strict do we talk
restraint is the defail handcuffs, waste chains, leg irons, often
used in combination and always escorted by multiple officers. The
Washington doc policy, for example, requires inmates to be handcommed
for basically everything outside their cell except showers and visits,
(27:15):
and even during movement, staff physically hold onto the.
Speaker 1 (27:18):
Cuffs handcuffed even in the shower.
Speaker 2 (27:20):
Some policies, like Washington's require it. It illustrates just how
little unsupervised freedom is allowed, minimizing any opportunity. Arizona's policy
adds that officers put on protective vests before even entering
the most volatile housing units.
Speaker 1 (27:35):
Total preparedness what happens when force is unavoidable, If an
inmate resists movement or becomes violent.
Speaker 2 (27:41):
Using forces always a last resort, but when it's necessary,
videotaping the entire event is strongly recommended as a best practice.
Speaker 1 (27:48):
Why is videotaping so important?
Speaker 2 (27:49):
Several reasons. It provides an objective record, which can deter
staff misconduct. It also provides crucial evidence if the inmate
later files a lawsuit alleging abuse. Institution like Marion credited
their use of specialized response teams and mandatory videotaping with
actually reducing both the need for forced cell extractions and
the number of lawsuits. It protects everyone involved in a way.
Speaker 1 (28:12):
Okay, and what about searches, particularly the really intrusive ones
like strip searches or body cavity searches? When are those allowed?
Speaker 2 (28:19):
They're recognized as highly invasive and are supposed to be
used only when absolutely necessary, such as typically upon admission
to the unit, or if an inmate returns from outside
the secure perimeter like a court trip where they might
have had an opportunity to obtain contraband. Policies like at
WCCIMU are very.
Speaker 1 (28:37):
Specific, and body cavity searches those must have even stricter rules.
Speaker 2 (28:41):
Definitely, they require prior authorization from senior staff like the superintendent,
and crucially, they should be performed by qualified medical personnel,
not the regular correctional officers, or at least by staff
specifically trained in hygienic procedures. If an inmate resists, that
incident is often also videotaped and documented very carefully because
of the serious legal implications. Hashtag tag six staff management
(29:05):
I morele hashtag tag tag book six point one Staff
selection and training Right.
Speaker 1 (29:10):
It's clear that the staff working in these units are
under immense pressure. The environment is inherently stressful, confrontational, potentially dangerous,
so getting the right people seems absolutely critical.
Speaker 2 (29:21):
It's probably the single most important factor in maintaining stability
and safety. Alongside the physical design. The selection process has
to be incredibly rigorous.
Speaker 1 (29:29):
What are they looking for?
Speaker 2 (29:30):
Personalities, huge maturity, professionalism, the ability to remain calm under pressure,
resilience prior experience matters, and very often agencies rely on volunteers,
people who actually want to work in this challenging environment,
rather than being forced into it.
Speaker 1 (29:46):
Some places like Marion seem to treat it almost like
an elite assignment.
Speaker 2 (29:50):
Yes, that's the deliberate strategy. Marian historically selected staff for
its control unit based on outstanding performance reviews from other
federal prisons, was seen as a promotion, a reward. Washington
States i am U staff are similarly considered top tier
correctional personnel.
Speaker 1 (30:08):
So you filter for the best, most motivated people exactly.
Speaker 2 (30:12):
You want people who are not just competent security wise,
but who also have the temperament to handle constant hostility
and manipulation without resorting to unprofessional or abusive behavior themselves.
Speaker 1 (30:23):
But it's just selecting the right people enough or is
specialized training also key?
Speaker 2 (30:27):
Selection helps, but it's not enough on its own. Specialized
training is absolutely crucial. The recommendation is for at least
eighty hours of dedicated training for anyone having daily contact
with these inmates.
Speaker 1 (30:38):
And that training needs to cover more than just security tactics.
Speaker 2 (30:41):
Presumably, oh definitely, it has to include things like de
escalation techniques, recognizing and managing mental health crises, understanding manipulative behaviors,
and crucially, how to cope with the psychological stress of
the job itself, dealing with constant verbal abuse, threats and
the inherent tension of the environment hashtag tech tag six
(31:01):
point two incentives and stress reduction.
Speaker 1 (31:04):
That stress is a major issue. You mentioned three quarters
of agencies rotate staff out of these units periodically.
Speaker 2 (31:10):
Yeah, rotation is a common strategy to prevent burnout. You
don't want anyone exposed to that level of intensity for
too long without a break. It helps maintain perspective and resilience.
Speaker 1 (31:20):
That rotation can be disruptive right breaks up team cohesion.
Speaker 2 (31:23):
It can be, which is why finding other ways to
support staff and boost morale is also important. Low cost
incentives can make a big difference.
Speaker 1 (31:30):
What kind of incentives work.
Speaker 2 (31:32):
Things like hazard duty pay or maybe special recognition. Some
places use distinctive uniforms to signify the prestige of the assignment,
small things that acknowledge the difficulty and importance of the work.
Speaker 1 (31:43):
The idea being that if you make it a sought after,
a respected role, you attract and retain better staff.
Speaker 2 (31:48):
Exactly, it helps reduce turnover, which saves money on training
new people. It improves a morale. If you're asking your
best staff to do the hardest job, you need to
acknowledge that. Intangible ways to offset the high emotional and
psychological costs hashtag tag tech six point three healthcare and
accountability Mandela rules.
Speaker 1 (32:07):
We talked about the psychological and neurological damage of isolation earlier.
This brings us to the role of health care staff
in these units. The Mandela rules seem to give them
a specific crucial function they do.
Speaker 2 (32:19):
The rules position healthcare personnel as having a degree of
independence and oversight. They must have daily access not just
to inmates who report sick, but to all prisoners being
held in any kind of involuntary separation or isolation.
Speaker 1 (32:32):
So it's not just reactive care, it's proactive monitoring.
Speaker 2 (32:35):
Yes, they're required to provide prompt medical attention is requested,
but also to conduct ongoing health surveillance of everyone in isolation, and.
Speaker 1 (32:43):
Their role goes beyond just treating physical ailments.
Speaker 2 (32:46):
Critically. Yes, according to rule forty six, if health care
staff observe any adverse effects of the restrictive measures on
an inmate's physical or mental health, they have a duty
to report it immediately to the prison director.
Speaker 1 (32:59):
So they can actually flag if the isolation itself is causing.
Speaker 2 (33:03):
Harm precisely, and they don't just report, they are supposed
to advise the director if they believe it's medically necessary
to change or even terminate the restriction.
Speaker 1 (33:12):
Wow, So a doctor could recommend pulling someone out of
solitary even if security wants them there.
Speaker 2 (33:18):
That's the intent of the rule. If the isolation is
exacerbating a mental health condition, for example, the medical opinion
should in theory carry significant weight and could override a
purely security based decision. It's meant to be a vital,
independent check on the use and effects of isolation.
Speaker 1 (33:35):
Okay, So for most inmates in these units, excluding those
maybe serving indefinite terms, the goal is eventually to get
them back to the general population.
Speaker 2 (33:44):
Presumably yes, How does that happen? What's the mechanism for
moving out? It's managed through internal classification systems. The study
found that the vast majority, about eighty one percent, use
some kind of phase or level system.
Speaker 1 (33:57):
This can expect to the opportunities model.
Speaker 2 (33:58):
We discussed exactly. These systems put that model into practice.
They lay out a clear step by step path. Inmates
earn more privileges less restriction by demonstrating consistent good behavior
over time. The onus is on the inmate to prove
they can follow the rules.
Speaker 1 (34:15):
And you mentioned earlier the difference between reacting to bad
behavior and proactively trying to manage risk.
Speaker 2 (34:21):
Right. Traditional segregation is reactive. You break a major rule,
you get isolated, But some systems try to be more proactive.
South Carolina's AIM System Adult Internal Management System as an.
Speaker 1 (34:31):
Example, how does aims work.
Speaker 2 (34:33):
It tries to identify potentially problematic inmates right when they
enter the prison system, based purely on their behavior and
management needs, not their crime or background.
Speaker 1 (34:43):
So it's trying to predict who might cause trouble later.
Speaker 2 (34:46):
Sort of. The idea is if you can identify individuals
who need closer management or specific interventions early on, you
might be able to prevent major incidents down the road,
reducing the need for long term reactive segregation later. It's
about early inner rather than just containment after the fact.
Hashtag tag tax seven point two the gradual release model.
Speaker 1 (35:06):
Let's get more specific about these level systems. How do
they actually work day to day? What kind of privileges
are we talking about as someone moves up.
Speaker 2 (35:13):
Let's take Arizona Cell Block six program as an example.
Inmates typically start at level one with very few privileges.
By following the rules consistently known factions, good cell sanitation, cooperation,
they can earn promotion to level two than level.
Speaker 1 (35:28):
Three, and each level unlocks more.
Speaker 2 (35:30):
Yes, maybe at level two you get slightly more phone
time or access to more items from the canteen. Level
three might mean more visitation. Maybe eligibility for an in
cell work assignment, more personal property allowed, but any misstep,
any rule violation, usually results in immediate demotion back down
a level and loss of those privileges. It's a very
(35:50):
direct cause and effects system.
Speaker 1 (35:52):
For someone who's been in deep segregation for months or
even years, Going straight from that back to the noise
and chaos of general population sounds like a huge shock.
Speaker 2 (36:02):
It is, and it often leads to failure. The inmate
gets overwhelmed, acts out, and ends up right back in segregation.
That's why transitional programs are strongly recommended for long term
isolated inmates.
Speaker 1 (36:14):
What do those look like? A sort of halfway step exactly.
Speaker 2 (36:17):
They're designed to gradually reacclimate inmates. South Carolina, for instance,
uses a transitional unit. It might involve things like multiman cells,
maybe the first time in years the inmate has had
a cellmate. There might be group counseling, specific behavioral contracts.
Speaker 1 (36:31):
So staff can watch how they handle increased social interaction
in a controlled setting.
Speaker 2 (36:36):
Precisely, it allows staff to observe their adjustment, their coping skills,
their ability to follow rules in a more complex environment
before they're fully released back into the general population. It
aims to make the transition more successful and permanent. Hashtag
tag tag seven point three privileged details.
Speaker 1 (36:52):
The whole concept of privilege in these units really highlights
the extreme scarcity of their world, doesn't it. What kind
of things are typically off limits compared to general population.
Speaker 2 (37:03):
Well, programs involving tools or significant movement are usually out
so vocational training prison industries generally prohibited because of the
security risks. Academic programs are often restricted to self study
courses done in the cell.
Speaker 1 (37:18):
And personal property. The sources had some incredibly specific examples.
Speaker 2 (37:22):
Oh, absolutely, everything is minutely regulated. Strict limits on how
many candy bars you can buy, how much coffee, how
many writing tablets or envelopes. Even something deeply personal like
a wedding ring might only be allowed if it has
no stones, because a stone could potentially be pried out
and used somehow.
Speaker 1 (37:39):
And staff regularly checked to make sure inmates don't have
even one extra.
Speaker 2 (37:42):
Item regular inventories. Yes, accumulating unauthorized property is a rule violation.
It comes back to that total control.
Speaker 1 (37:49):
There is that one anecdote in the sources that really
struck me about the photo right.
Speaker 2 (37:53):
The inmate who had to earn something like sixty points
through good behavior, which took about three month of perfect
conduct in that environment just to be allowed one photograph
of his wife.
Speaker 1 (38:05):
Three months for one photo.
Speaker 2 (38:06):
It really underscores how much psychological weight these tiny privileges carry.
When something so basic requires that much sustained effort and
self control, it becomes a powerful motivator within that level system,
however harsh it seems.
Speaker 1 (38:21):
And finally, recreation even that's not really free time.
Speaker 2 (38:24):
Is it not at all? It's essential for well being,
but it's still a highly controlled security operation. In cell
activities like puzzles are drawing are encouraged, but outdoor recreation
is limited and intensely monitored.
Speaker 1 (38:36):
How limited.
Speaker 2 (38:37):
Washington's IMU inmates, for example, might only get two hours
twice a week. And even when they're in the reckyard,
staff are watching closely, watching for what, making sure they
don't misuse equipment, like you can't use a bench for
intense physical training that might damage it, or use a
wall in a way that blocks officers view. Every object
is assessed for potential misuse. Staff are trained to anticipate
(38:59):
problems and absolute control even during supposed downtime. Hashtag tag
eight outro synthesis and final thought.
Speaker 1 (39:07):
So we've covered a huge amount of ground today, from
the tiny details of architectural design like that eight inch rule,
all the way to the profound neurological impacts of isolation
and the complex systems trying to manage it all.
Speaker 2 (39:20):
And what really emerges is this fundamental conflict, isn't it.
On one hand, you have the administrative reality, segregation, concentration.
These are often seen as necessary for cost efficiency for
the safety of the broader prison population.
Speaker 1 (39:34):
You need control, but that clashes directly with the human cost.
We've seen the evidence isolation can damage the brain, shrinking
the hippocampus, overactivating the amigdala. It dramatically increases suicide risk.
Even after release, risk of overdose skyrockets. Seems like the
tool itself can make the problem.
Speaker 2 (39:50):
Worse, which is why the shift towards more objective, data
driven approaches is so important. Things like the Proactive Aims
system and the or level systems for gradual release. These
try to balance the need for control with constitutional requirements
and basic humanity.
Speaker 1 (40:08):
Right they tie progress directly to behavior exactly.
Speaker 2 (40:11):
It gives management the control they need, but it also
provides inmates with a clear earned path out of the
most restrictive conditions. It's about minimizing the duration of exposure
to that damaging environment. By rewarding positive behavior.
Speaker 1 (40:24):
It makes the opportunities model not just more humane, but
potentially more effective in the long run than just fixed punishment.
Speaker 2 (40:31):
That seems to be the direction things are moving, or
at least should be moving.
Speaker 1 (40:35):
Okay, So that leads us to a final thought to
leave you the listener with. We learn that these units
demand the assignment of the institution's most elite, highly trained staff.
Places like Marion saw it as a prestigious posting right.
Speaker 2 (40:48):
You're concentrating your best human resources, both in terms of
staff expertise and arguably the inmates requiring the most intensive
management into these very small, very expensive, high intensity environments.
Speaker 1 (41:01):
And we know this costs of fortune financially and emotionally.
So the question becomes, is this model truly achieving system
wide stability or are we essentially just trading widespread, lower
level chaos throughout the prison system for an incredibly concentrated, hidden,
and extremely costly form of control in these specialized units.
Speaker 2 (41:22):
Are we solving the problem or just isolating it at
immense expense? It's a really difficult question about the true
cost and effectiveness.
Speaker 1 (41:29):
Of this approach, something to definitely think about. Thank you
for joining us for this deep dive on beyond infographics.
Speaker 2 (41:34):
If you found this discussion valuable, please do take a
moment to rate the show five stars on your podcast app.
It really helps other people discover our work.
Speaker 1 (41:41):
We appreciate your time and attention. We'll be back soon
with another exploration beyond infographics.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!