1 of 1

Solitary Confinement and Mental Health in Pennsylvania Prison System

Teebeh Rose Nyounway’27

Mentors: Prof. Darakhshan Mir & Prof. Vanessa Massaro

Bucknell-Boulder Mozilla Just Computing Fellows�Bucknell University, Lewisburg, PA.

Abstract

Introduction

This research interrogates the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections’ (PADOC) approach to addressing mental health concerns through a mixed method analysis of policy documents, investigation reports and data on more than 280,000 distinct incarcerated people. It specifically investigates the practice of restrictive housing units and the conditions of solitary confinement through examination of policies, investigations, data, and algorithms used for reception and housing classifications for incarcerated people with mental health diagnoses. It also evaluates the adequacy and availability of mental health services to the general incarcerated population and those in solitary confinement. Utilizing a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods, the research draws upon documents and data from the PADOC and external sources to identify deficiencies and recommend reforms. The findings aim to improve policies and practices, promote rehabilitative approaches, and uphold humane treatment of incarcerated people.

Findings

Acknowledgement

Type	Date	Entity	Purpose
Department of Justice Investigation Report	2012-2014	U.S Department of Justice(DOJ)	DOJ Investigative findings of how PADOC treats offenders who are Seriously Mentally Ill and intellectually Disabled. Investigation started in 2012
PADOC Housing Reports	Dec 2014 & Feb 2024	PADOC	Review of the # of “offenders” in Solitary Confinement and Generalized Housing.
Segregation Reduction Project Findings and Recommendations	January 30, 2015	VERA Institute of Justice	Evaluates PADOC’s use of Administrative Custody and Disciplinary Custody and recommend alternatives to solitary confinement.
Pennsylvania Mental Health Services Policy Document	2015	PADOC	List of Mental Health Services PADOC made available after DOJ investigation.
The Wetzel Settlement Agreement	2019	Disability Rights Network PA(DRN)	Challenges PADOC’s solitary confinement practices for SMI/ID offenders, advocate for better mental health services and alternative housing option. Lead to a settlement with PADOC.
Classification and Reception Policy Document	June 19, 2023	PADOC	Policies on how PADOC houses and classifies “offenders” during reception.

Documents/Investigative Reports Reviewed

The PADOC operates 24 correctional institutions and houses approximately 39,000 individuals.

Solitary confinement poses serious harm to incarcerated people’s mental health, thus PADOC's solution does not resolve the issue but rather exacerbates previously existing illnesses. According to findings from the US Department of Justice, more than 70% of the documented suicide attempts between 2012-2013 occurred in the solitary confinement units.

�My investigation focuses on PADOC use of solitary confinement for offenders with serious mental illness and intellectual disabilities. PADOC has been criticized by the US Department of Justice, VERA Institute and the Disability Rights Network for failing to provide adequate mental health services to this vulnerable population. In most cases, solitary confinement appears to be used as a way to temporarily address the unmet need of mental health services.

The extensive use of solitary confinement, particularly for offenders with serious mental illness and intellectual disabilities, has sparked significant questions and concerns. This has led to numerous investigations and lawsuits questioning the effectiveness and negative impact of PADOC's practices. My investigation delves deeper, examining how these legal challenges and investigations have impacted PADOC's approach to housing and treatment services for SMI/ID offenders.

Furthermore, I aim to determine whether these investigations and lawsuits have resulted in any meaningful consequences for PADOC. Did they prompt changes in solitary confinement policies to ensure compliance with recommendations made by the Department Of Justice, VERA and the court Settlement? Ultimately, my investigation seeks to hold PADOC accountable and ensure that they adhere to best practices that prioritize the health and well-being of offenders, especially those with serious mental illness and intellectual disabilities.

Inadequate Mental Health Services: psychological services provided to SMI/ID offenders in solitary confinement are minimal, with some receiving only in-cell treatment, which is largely ineffective. The DOJ and DRN found that the mental health care provided does not meet clinical psychological standards.
Extensive Use of Solitary Confinement for SMI/ID Offenders: offenders with SMI/ID are disproportionately placed in solitary confinement, DOJ findings and external investigations show that PADOC has failed to implement meaningful alternatives to restrictive housing for SMI offenders.
Underreporting of SMI/ID Offenders: PADOC has historically undercounted the number of offenders with mental health conditions, leading to wrongful housing classification and inadequate treatment provisions. DOJ reports indicate inconsistencies in how PADOC identifies and categorizes inmates with SMI/ID.
Limited Implementation of Reform Policies: despite numerous external reviews and lawsuits, PADOC has made only superficial changes to its solitary confinement policies. Settlement agreements and legal challenges have not significantly reduced the number of SMI/ID offenders in solitary confinement, PADOC’s internal reports suggest minimal progress in reducing solitary confinement.

This project was funded by:

The Mozilla Foundation Responsible Computing Challenge
Google Award for Inclusion
National Endowment for the Humanities - Dangers and Opportunities of Technology Award #DOC-2999600-24

Distribution of incarcerated individuals in Solitary Confinement in 2014 and 2024

Distribution of Incarcerated Individuals in PADOC as of Feb, 2024

Figure 2. Mental Health Classification

Mental Health Classification

This figure shows the Mental Health Classification of offenders from 2001 to 2018. A significant increase in classifications begins in 2012, suggesting important changes in record-keeping or mental health classification. Based on my analysis of documents and investigations, I can infer that the PADOC began properly classifying offenders into mental health categories in response to the DOJ investigation initiated in 2012. This trend also implies that PADOC may have had long standing issues with record-keeping or misclassification of offenders, both of which raise serious concerns.

Code A: No identified mental health needs.

Code B: History of mental illness but currently stable.

Code C: Current mental health needs requiring treatment.

Code D: Serious and ongoing mental health issues requiring intensive mental health services.