The Wisconsin Department of Corrections' current policies and practices in the use of solitary confinement are not only inhumane, but they are dangerous, destructive, and as this brief will show, create substantial public safety risks, especially true of individuals who are released from segregation housing units.  This policy brief will analyze the use of solitary confinement in the Wisconsin Department of Corrections (DOC) by examining the myriad of aspects, including conditions, procedures, over-reliance, recent trends, and the multifaceted destructive bio-psycho-social effects upon individuals. We will then examine several alternative and innovative approaches that have been adopted by other states and jurisdictions, analyzing the outcomes of such methods. Finally, we will offer a number of evidence-based policy and legislative recommendations grounded in principles of rehabilitation that foster personal accountability, institution security, and the public safety.

​

In Wisconsin, solitary confinement (a term DOC officials have relabeled as "restrictive housing" for the express purpose of avoiding accountability for the known and proven destruction caused by the practice), is a correctional method characterized by the complete and total isolation of an inmate through placement into a 6x8 cell, entirely segregated from all meaningful human contact and opportunity to participate in prosocial and productive programming. Inmates subjected to this status are physically confined into their cell for not less than twenty-two, and oftentimes up to twenty-three and one-half hours per day for extended periods of time, that in many cases, equal or exceed one year. 

 

In Wisconsin, solitary confinement is accepted as an appropriate disciplinary response to minor-moderate rule violations, with data from the last three years showing sixty-one percent of all individuals placed into solitary confinement had non-violent, non-escape, non-drug related offenses. In fact, experiential testimony and open record requests both reveal solitary confinement has and continues to be used for infractions such as possessing an excess of personal property, having an interpersonal conflict with a staff member, exceeding the number of seconds allowed for physical contact during family visitation, and wearing shower shoes in the housing unit dayroom.

  

I. Processes and Procedures

An individual's initial placement into solitary confinement is decided by a security supervisor with no secondary or higher-level oversight. The overwhelming majority of the DOC's security supervisors began their career as a corrections officer, lacking professional and educational training/expertise in alternative interventions. Security protocols at decentralized levels of the department remain predominantly aligned with the practical use and expression of force, punitive response, and exaggerated punishment, as such approaches continue to be understood as the most effective methods of inmate management and control.

 

An individual's initial placement into solitary confinement is justified by any one of four broad and uncontextualized rationales that do not require a substantive showing. Following placement, the department has, in place, review mechanisms that, in theory, assure the integrity of the initial and ongoing use of solitary confinement. However; the data shows that in over ninety-eight percent of all solitary confinement placements, the department's reviewing authorities have affirmed and continued an individual's placement. Such data further reveals that when solitary confinement is initiated, the department will very rarely take action to correct improper and/or exaggerated discretion. Remarkably consistent reporting from incarcerated people and their loved ones suggests that in the majority of cases when a solitary confinement placement is reversed, such reversal is only acted upon through the outside intervention of an individual's family member, advocacy organization, or other external stakeholder-support that many incarcerated individuals do not have access to. Finally, several reports have pointed to the reality that there exist high numbers of unsupported disparities in decision-making processes, suggesting a lack of consistency, transparency, and equity in how solitary confinement practices are regulated. 

 

In Wisconsin, solitary confinement placements and practices are unilaterally decided by prison officials with no external or independent oversight mechanisms in place. Processes to facilitate transparent and accountable oversight are directly assigned to administrators who are also responsible for making determinations about an individual's solitary confinement status. Relying upon inmate grievance records from 2020-2023, multiple reports surfaced that solitary confinement is frequently employed as a tool of retaliation by prison officials against inmates involved in self-advocacy, whistle-blowing, and efforts to seek accountability for departmental actions. Particularly alarming are patterns which show employees who are the subject of the inmate's concerns, are oftentimes directly or indirectly involved in the inmate's placement into solitary confinement.   

 

Once placed into solitary confinement, for all practical purposes, the inmate loses his/her due process rights, almost entirely forced to seek relief through the judiciary (a year's long economically costly, highly complicated process which frequently results in claims being dismissed for procedural failings). Current policy of the department permits for an individual's continued placement through a number of procedural loopholes including, a) finding the individual guilty of any disciplinary infraction (irrespective of severity); b) assigning the inmate as a risk without requisite substantive evidence; and c) cursory suppositions an individual cannot be safely or competently managed outside of such status without definite action steps or timetables. Upon any such finding, the inmate has no recourse outside of seeking remedy through internal review processes that operate within a culturally nepotistic leadership structure.     

​

II. Conditions of Confinement

Inmates are housed in small, windowless cells approximately 6x8 feet containing, in most cases, a narrow cement block only slightly elevated off the ground, and an "all-in-one" toilet/sink. In some facilities, there is a shower in the cell that is not in any way segregated from the rest of the cell. Cell property includes one state-issued uniform, a pair of rubber shoes, a thin mattress and blanket, two sheets, a child-sized bath towel, one 6-ounce Styrofoam cup, a 3-inch long pencil or flex pen, one small bar of soap, a "supermaxx" toothbrush, a small tube of "prison-for-profit" toothpaste, a segregation unit inmate handbook, and 3-5 "request forms." If an inmate is housed in a "luxury" facility, they may also be provided with a hard pillow/pillow case and washcloth. Each such item must be traded out on a 1:1 basis. Unless the inmate has outside financial resources, this will be his/her entire property while housed in solitary confinement. For individuals with outside financial support, he/she can purchase writing paper, envelopes, and a small number of items through the prison canteen program-items that are sold at anywhere from 60% - 275% higher costs than that found in the community.

​

Depending upon when an individual is placed into solitary confinement, s/he may have to wait up to five days before receiving any of his/her personal property such as address book, envelopes, writing paper (assuming s/he has any), and up to seven days before being given access to facility library books. Providing an inmate with a Bible or other sacred religious text is statutorily mandated; however; an inmate may wait up to thirty-six hours before receiving such text.

​

All Wisconsin segregation cells are designed with either a harsh, ultra-bright cell light or in the other extreme, dim lighting, and in select institutions, the inmate has no control over turning his/her cell light on/off. At those institutions, cell lights are controlled by security staff and kept on for almost 17 hours per day. All segregation units lack adequate ventilation, and inmates are subject to extreme weather patterns (heat, cold). Inmates are assigned to a cell-range with an average of 12-14 other inmates, and when over-crowded, are forced to live with another person who must sleep on the floor next to the toilet. The cells lack sound-proofing of any kind, and as such, individuals are subject to almost twenty-four hour a day noise such as loud conversations, screaming, banging, and loud singing as inmates try to develop his/her own schedule to cope with the conditions.

​

By department practice, inmates are restricted from participating in any type of organized programming such as educational training, faith engagement, and life skill classes. The full extent of an individual's access to treatment / programming extends to "five-second cell checks" by nursing/mental health staff on a weekly basis, and such contact requires the individual to speak out of his/her cell door within earshot of every other inmate housed on that cell-range. As a general practice, and consistent with department management approaches case managers/social workers, educators, chaplains, treatment specialists, and recreation staff do not and are not required to provide programming, counseling, or other rehabilitative services for solitary confinement inmates, even when requested. It is standard and commonly accepted practice for inmates to be told to make such request after release from segregation. 

 

The daily structure of solitary confinement further reinforces the despairing conditions. Inmates are fed at 6:00am, 10:00am, and 3:30pm through metal slots in the cell door. Inmates are provided with three cold and weak water pressure showers per week with each shower period limited to five minutes. Medications are delivered in-cell four times per day by a corrections officer. A maximum of four library books are delivered to inmates in-cell on a once-per-week basis. Inmates are provided with their mail Monday through Friday, and an inmate has, at a maximum, two "in-cell" telephone calls per week. For inmates with financial resources, canteen is delivered once every two weeks. One hour of recreation is provided three times per week where an inmate is transported to an enclosed cement cell with a semi-open "ceiling" of similar size to their housing cell. Finally, by request, an inmate may request access to a satellite law library within the segregation unit for one hour per week. During such period, the inmate remains shackled. By department design, this schedule constitutes the entire scope of an inmate's daily schedule in solitary confinement irrespective of how long s/he may spend there.

    

III. Physical, Psychological, Spiritual, Social, and Reintegration

Impacts of Solitary Confinement

The overwhelming body of scholarly research in the last thirty years has definitively and unquestionably proven the seriously destructive, harmful, and adverse consequences solitary confinement, even for relatively short periods of time, has on an individual's physical, psychological, spiritual, relational, and emotional well-being, and shown to contribute to the deterioration in a person's overall health. Moreover, the irresponsible and overuse of solitary confinement has been definitively linked to creating and causing additional barriers for individual's reintegrating back into his/her community following release from custody. Finally, much of the unconfirmed data shows that individuals released home from solitary confinement are reasonably estimated to be three times more likely to recidivate than those released from a general population unit. Some of the more compelling research findings on the effects of solitary confinement are described below. 

​

A. Physical Health:

• Solitary confinement exerts a profound toll on physical health, with individuals experiencing disruptions in sleep patterns, chronic headaches, gastrointestinal disorders, weakened immune function, and heightened vulnerability to infectious diseases (Smith, 2019; Bruscato et al., 2020).

• Prolonged isolation in confined spaces leads to musculoskeletal problems, such as joint stiffness and muscle atrophy, due to limited movement and lack of exercise opportunities (Reiter et al., 2019). 

• Prolonged isolation in solitary confinement cells can lead to physical health problems such as vitamin D deficiency, weakened immune system, and increased susceptibility to infections (ACLU of Wisconsin, 2018).

• Inadequate ventilation and exposure to artificial lighting can disrupt sleep patterns and exacerbate pre-existing medical conditions, such as hypertension or diabetes (Smith, 2015).

• Lack of exercise opportunities and restricted movement in small cells can contribute to muscle atrophy, joint stiffness, and chronic pain (Wright, 2018). Prolonged isolation can lead to various physical health issues, including weakened immune system functioning, cardiovascular problems, and exacerbation of pre-existing medical conditions (Haney, 2018).

​

B. Psychological, Mental, and Emotional Well-being:

• Extensive research underscores the detrimental effects of solitary confinement on mental health, including heightened levels of anxiety, depression, paranoia, hallucinations, and suicidal ideation (Haney, 2003; Grassian, 2006; Kaba et al., 2014).

• The absence of meaningful human interaction and mental stimulation exacerbates psychological distress, resulting in long-lasting cognitive impairment and emotional trauma among isolated individuals (Arrigo & Bullock, 2008).

• Solitary confinement has been linked to increased rates of anxiety, depression, hallucinations, and suicidal ideation (Metzner & Fellner, 2010). The lack of social interaction and meaningful stimulation can exacerbate existing psychiatric conditions or precipitate the onset of new symptoms.

• Individuals in solitary confinement may experience sensory deprivation, leading to hallucinations, perceptual distortions, and cognitive impairment. The lack of social interaction and meaningful activities can contribute to feelings of loneliness, despair, and existential distress (Bonta, 2018).

• Individuals in solitary confinement may experience cognitive deficits, memory impairment, and difficulties with concentration and decision-making (Shalev, 2015).

• The absence of social interaction and meaningful activities can lead to feelings of loneliness, despair, and emotional distress (Goffman, 2014). Individuals in solitary confinement may develop maladaptive coping strategies, such as self-harm or suicidal ideation, as a means of coping with the stress and isolation (Shalev, 2015).

​

C. Spiritual and Relational Strain:

• Solitary confinement undermines individuals' sense of spiritual and emotional well-being, depriving them of opportunities for communal worship, religious fellowship, and emotional support from peers and loved ones (Arrigo & Bullock, 2008).

• The profound sense of isolation, hopelessness, and despair experienced in solitary confinement erodes individuals' resilience, sense of identity, and capacity for meaningful interpersonal relationships (Suedfeld & Steel, 2000). 

• Extended periods of isolation can impair an individual's ability to form and maintain social relationships, hindering reintegration into society upon release (Grassian, 2006).

• The trauma and stigma associated with solitary confinement may further marginalize individuals and impede their successful reentry into the community. Solitary confinement can disrupt an individual's sense of identity, autonomy, and existential meaning (Haney, 2018).

• The absence of social cues and environmental stimuli can erode a person's sense of self and connection to the outside world, fostering feelings of alienation and despair. Spiritual practices and beliefs may provide solace and coping mechanisms for some individuals, but these resources are often inaccessible or inadequate in solitary confinement settings. Solitary confinement can disrupt an individual's sense of self, identity, and existential purpose, leading to existential crises and spiritual distress (Goffman, 2014).

• The absence of social connections and meaningful relationships can erode a person's sense of belonging and connectedness to others, exacerbating feelings of isolation and alienation (Halsey, 2017).

• Spiritual practices and religious beliefs may provide solace and coping mechanisms for some individuals, but access to religious services and spiritual support may be limited in solitary confinement settings (Kerley, 2019).

​

D. Reintegration & Reentry Barriers

• The trauma and psychological effects of solitary confinement can exacerbate existing risk factors for recidivism, leading to higher rates of reoffending among individuals subjected to solitary confinement (Johnson, 2019). 

• A comprehensive meta-analysis published in the Journal of Experimental Criminology in 2017 examined the relationship between solitary confinement and recidivism. The analysis concluded that the use of solitary confinement was associated with a higher likelihood of reoffending after release from prison.

• A longitudinal study conducted by the University of California, Santa Cruz, tracked the post-release outcomes of individuals who had been subjected to solitary confinement. The researchers found that those who had experienced solitary confinement were more likely to return to prison within three years of release compared to individuals who had not been placed in solitary.

• Research published in the Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency in 2017 explored the socialization challenges faced by individuals released from solitary confinement. The study found that former solitary confinement inmates often struggle to establish and maintain positive relationships with family, friends, and peers due to the social isolation experienced during confinement.

​

IV. Efforts to Reduce Solitary Confinement in Other States:

In view of the comprehensive, collective body of research that has been conducted over the last several years regarding the very destructive impact of solitary confinement, several states have undertaken efforts to either substantially reduce, or altogether eliminate the use of solitary confinement barring a highly, highly substantive showing that its use is absolutely required for security. And even in such cases where such showing is made, these states have taken to stipulate strict conditions regarding its duration as well as conditions. The examples shown below, are only a small sampling.

 

Colorado:

Colorado has implemented significant reforms to reduce the use of solitary confinement, including establishing restrictive housing units designed to provide more humane conditions and programming opportunities for individuals deemed too dangerous for general population housing (Metzger & Ritter, 2019). The implementation of structured programming and therapeutic interventions within restrictive housing units aims to address underlying behavioral issues and promote rehabilitation among isolated individuals (Bartlett et al., 2021).

​

New Jersey:

New Jersey enacted legislation to limit the use of solitary confinement, imposing strict time limits on isolation placements and mandating regular mental health evaluations for individuals in solitary confinement (Metzger & Ritter, 2019). The adoption of alternative disciplinary measures, such as behavior modification programs and graduated sanctions, aims to promote positive behavior change and reduce reliance on solitary confinement as a punitive measure (Rutherford et al., 2020).

​

V. Policy Recommendations:

In light of the department's continued reliance upon solitary confinement as a tool of punitive punishment, and the overwhelming body of scholarly research revealing the inexcusable damage caused by its use, the LSCI call for the following policy changes to be implemented immediately. 

Legislative Reform:

• Enact legislation to establish clear criteria for the use of solitary confinement, limiting its application to situations involving imminent threats to safety and security that cannot be addressed through less restrictive means.

• Prohibit the use of solitary confinement for punitive purposes, ensuring strict adherence to due process protections and judicial oversight.

Improved Conditions:

• Implement measures to safeguard the mental and physical health of individuals in solitary confinement, including regular psychiatric evaluations, access to evidence-based mental health treatment, and opportunities for meaningful social interaction.

• Establish maximum time limits for solitary confinement placements, with periodic reviews conducted by independent experts to assess the necessity and impact of continued isolation.

• Provide individuals in solitary confinement with limited but comparable property items to those allowed in general population to include, either a television or radio with headphones. 

Promotion of Alternatives:

• Allocate resources to expand the availability of evidence-based alternatives to solitary confinement, such as restorative justice programs, cognitive-behavioral interventions, educational and vocational training, and community-based reentry support services.

• Prioritize staff training and professional development initiatives to enhance the capacity of correctional personnel to effectively manage challenging behaviors, de-escalate conflicts, and promote a rehabilitative and therapeutic environment.

​​

VI. Conclusion:

The realities of solitary confinement in Wisconsin underscores the urgent need for evidence-based reforms to mitigate its harms. By addressing the physical, psychological, spiritual, and emotional impacts of solitary confinement and drawing on successful strategies implemented in other states, Wisconsin can advance toward a more humane, rehabilitative, and just correctional system. It is imperative for policymakers, stakeholders, and the broader community to prioritize the implementation of these reforms to uphold the expectation that the department will provide meaningful avenues for the rehabilitation of offenders, the very thing that will ultimately enhance public safety.

​

VII. References & Additional Reading

To better understand the impacts of Wisconsin DOC practices with regard to the use of solitary confinement, we invite you to explore the following links: 

• Austin, J., & Coventry, G. (2018). Emerging Issues on Privatized Prisons and Solitary Confinement: A Review of the Literature. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 29(1), 6-26.

• Bonta, J., & Gendreau, P. (2018). Reexamining the cruel and unusual punishment of prison life. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 45(9), 1333-1347.

• Cox, J. (2018). Solitary Confinement as Torture: Mental Health and Human Rights in Wisconsin's Prisons. Wisconsin Journal of Law, Gender & Society, 33(1), 71-110.

• Fleury-Steiner, B., & Longazel, J. G. (2016). Understanding the Impact of Solitary Confinement: Opening the Window to the Prison Experience. American Behavioral Scientist, 60(14), 1709-1729.

• Goffman, E. (2014). Asylums: Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates. Routledge.

• Grassian, S. (2006). Psychiatric effects of solitary confinement. Wash. U. JL & Pol'y, 22, 325.

• Haney, C. (2018). The psychological effects of solitary confinement: A systematic critique. Crime and Justice, 47(1), 365-416.

• Halsey, M. (2017). The Embodiment of Isolation: Disentangling the Physical, Psychological, and Social Effects of Solitary Confinement. The Prison Journal, 97(1), 80-106.

• Jacobson, M. (2021). Downscaling American prisons: strategies, policies, and practices to reduce prison overcrowding and cut costs. Routledge.

• James, R. K. (2016). Recidivism Among Former Prison Inmates: Evaluation of the Wisconsin Prisoner Reentry Initiative. Wisconsin Law Review, 27(2), 363-390.

• Johnson, M. C., & Granof, M. (2019). Recidivism Among Former Inmates: An Analysis of Wisconsin Department of Corrections Data. Wisconsin Policy Forum.

• Jones, N. (2017). Solitary Confinement in Wisconsin Prisons: A Case Study of Administrative Segregation in the United States. Wisconsin Law Review, 29(3), 577-602.

• Kerley, K. R., & Copes, H. (2019). Exploring the Impact of Religion on Solitary Confinement Experiences. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 35(3), 345-364.

• Lacock, T. (2019). Restricting Solitary Confinement: A Necessary Reform in the Criminal Justice System. Duke Law Journal, 69(2), 367-406.

• Lovell, J. (2014). Solitary Confinement and International Human Rights: Why the US Prison System Fails Global Standards. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 21(2), 797-824.

• Nowotny, K. M., & Resnik, D. B. (2016). Health at the Margins: An Introduction to Medical Humanities for Bioethicists, Solitary Confinement Research. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 37(4), 325-340.

• Peters, L. H., & Houston, J. B. (2018). Caring for the Carceral State: A Social Work Perspective on Solitary Confinement. Social Work, 63(1), 17-24.

• Rouder, S. A. (2020). Social Isolation and the Struggle to Reintegrate After Solitary Confinement: A Phenomenological Study. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 31(3), 393-412.

• Schiraldi, V., & Ziedenberg, J. (2013). The Dangers of Detention: The Impact of Incarcerating Youth in Detention and Other Secure Facilities. Justice Policy Institute.

• Shalev, S. (2008). A source of conflict: Local practice versus international law in the regulation of solitary confinement. Harvard International Law Journal, 49(1), 1-52.

• Shalev, S. (2015). Solitary Confinement as a Mode of Governance. Theoretical Criminology, 19(2), 155-173.

• Smith, P. S. (2015). The Power of the Mind: Solitary Confinement as a Practice of Identity Construction. Journal of Criminal Justice and Law Review, 4(1), 35-51.

• Smith, R. S. (2017). Restructuring American Correctional Policy: Toward a Constructive Agenda. Palgrave Macmillan.

• Wagner, R. (2020). Addressing the Mental Health Needs of Incarcerated Persons in Solitary Confinement. Psychiatric Services, 71(6), 560-562.

• Wright, K. N. (2018). Reducing the Use of Solitary Confinement in US Correctional Facilities: Strategies, Best Practices, and Emerging Trends. Corrections Today, 80(2), 50-52