Bill Overview
Title: Solitary Confinement Reform Act of 2022
Description: This bill limits the use of restrictive housing (such as solitary confinement) in certain prison facilities. These facilities are those under the jurisdiction of (1) the Bureau of Prisons, (2) the Department of Defense, or (3) a state or local government in which persons are held in custody pursuant to a contract or agreement with the federal government and the facility receives federal funds for law enforcement purposes. For example, the bill specifies that inmates shall be housed in the least restrictive setting necessary for safety purposes. It also requires that inmates remain in restrictive housing for no longer than necessary to address each specific reason for such placement.
Sponsors: Rep. Gohmert, Louie [R-TX-1]
Target Audience
Population: People incarcerated in facilities receiving federal funds or under federal control
Estimated Size: 190000
- The bill impacts inmates in federal prison facilities under the Bureau of Prisons, which has jurisdiction over approximately 150,000 inmates.
- It also affects individuals held in military detention facilities under the Department of Defense.
- State and local facilities holding inmates under federal contracts and receiving federal funding are affected, though estimating their exact numbers is complex.
- The global prison population is over 10 million, but this bill targets facilities with U.S. federal or contractual involvement, not every prison worldwide.
Reasoning
- The bill primarily targets a specific subset of the prison population in the U.S., focusing on those in federal and federally affiliated facilities. We estimated around 190,000 individuals might be initially affected, based on Bureau of Prisons numbers and potential state and local government contributions.
- Given the budget constraints, the initial implementation focuses on providing more humane confinement conditions, potentially leading to improved mental health and well-being among affected inmates.
- To provide a balanced view, some of the interviewees will be from within the prison system who could be directly affected, while others will reflect perspectives of people indirectly involved or not impacted at all.
- Since solitary confinement reform is a contentious issue, the range of opinions will reflect divergent views, including those who see potential benefits, critics who may worry about safety implications, and others indifferent to the change due to lack of direct impact.
Simulated Interviews
Inmate (California)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think it's a good idea to limit solitary confinement. Being alone for so long messes with your head. This change is going to help people like me cope better.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Correctional Officer (Texas)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Reducing solitary confinement might improve mental health for inmates, but I'm concerned about maintaining order and safety.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Public Policy Analyst (New York)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a crucial step toward more humane incarceration practices. It's vital for mental health reform within prisons.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Nurse at State Correctional Facility (Georgia)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Solitary confinement can be necessary for certain inmates, but overuse is harmful. More mental health support is needed now.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Prison Warden (Illinois)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Reducing restricted housing can be risky. We need the right resources to manage inmate behavior effectively.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Social Worker (Michigan)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill shows we're valuing human rights within our justice system. It could improve family dynamics too.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
College Student (Florida)
Age: 24 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Reforming solitary confinement is necessary but difficult. We need studies to measure its impact.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Advocate for Prisoner's Rights (Virginia)
Age: 38 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Great step forward, but implementation must be watched carefully to ensure actual change.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Former Inmate (Ohio)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If this policy was in place during my time, it might have changed my life for the better.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
None (Colorado)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Solitary can break people. It's good that something is being done about its misuse.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $750000000 (Low: $500000000, High: $1000000000)
Year 2: $768750000 (Low: $512500000, High: $1025000000)
Year 3: $787968750 (Low: $525312500, High: $1053125000)
Year 5: $827830078 (Low: $551953125, High: $1103906250)
Year 10: $928541955 (Low: $618697024, High: $1230851632)
Year 100: $1500000000 (Low: $1000000000, High: $2000000000)
Key Considerations
- Initial implementation costs can be high as facilities adjust to new operational standards and infrastructure requirements for less restrictive housing.
- Long-term savings are likely as mental health improves and recidivism decreases, impacting overall prison populations.
- The extent of state and local government participation and how federal funds are applied can vary, affecting uniformity in savings and implementation costs.
- Policy affects a significant number of federal inmates and those in facilities with federal contracts, necessitating extensive coordination.