Ashley B. Batastini

Although barriers to conducting correctional research are familiar to those who do this work, there have been no known efforts to document the challenges reported by social and behavioral science researchers across the United States. Quantitative and qualitative analyses from 83 respondents revealed barriers mostly centered on concerns or constraints by a partnering correctional agency; however, few respondents reported issues with the agency’s willingness to collaborate. The extent of barriers was not associated with researchers’ career level, age, years of experience, or employment setting. Despite challenges, participants were primarily motivated to do this work by their interests in addressing social justice issues. Researchers’ strategies for conducting research in correctional settings and experiences publishing their work are also presented. Quantitative and qualitative results support the need to allocate better resources to correctional researchers and agencies if the goal is to improve our criminal justice system more effectively and efficiently.

Using a vignette-based experimental design, this study tested whether the racial or ethnic identity of a justice-impacted person influences jury-eligible individuals’ perceptions of post-conviction risk, placement (incarceration vs. community supervision), and need for mandated treatment. Furthermore, we examined whether the inclusion of data from a reoffense risk tool could mitigate racial bias. Participants recruited through Amazon’s MTurk ( N = 448) were randomly assigned to conditions varying by race/ethnicity of an examinee (Black, Latino, White) and if/how risk assessment data were included (no risk data, risk data only, and risk data reported by a qualified examiner). There was no statistically significant effect of the examinee’s racial/ethnic identity on ratings of reoffense risk or placement decisions; however, the Black examinee was more likely to be mandated with treatment. Regardless of examinee identity, participants exposed to risk information proffered by an expert more often calibrated their risk decisions to the examinee’s actual risk level.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent impact on psychological work, Division 41 of the American Psychological Association convened a taskforce to provide guidance to its membership regarding the use of technology for practice and research at the intersection of psychology and law. Drawing from existing research in psychology-law and beyond, as well as the first-hand experience of taskforce members, this document outlines foundational guidance to apply technology to forensic and correctional work while acknowledging these settings provide unique challenges to ethical practice. The recommendations provide support for psychologists involved in assessment, treatment, training, and research. However, these recommendations may not exhaustively apply to all areas of psycholegal practice or all forms of technology. Further, these recommendations are intended to be consulted in conjunction with other professional practice guidelines, emerging research, and policy changes that impact the integration of technologies into this work.

The use of administrative segregation (AS) in North American prisons remains a common but contentious practice that is currently at the forefront of human rights and legal discussions. While extant research is mixed regarding the direct links between segregation and psychological functioning, it is clear these individuals are worse off in many ways. Mental and behavioral health interventions appear especially limited for people incarcerated in secure units, yet little is known about the extent of services offered or existing barriers to service provision. Using a standardized survey, we attempted to obtain a nationally representative sampling of mental health practices for people incarcerated in segregation and frontline provider perspectives across 24 state prisons. Survey results suggest that, while most facilities offer some form of mental health services to clients in restrictive units, most do not provide structured, manualized interventions. An even smaller number provide interventions specifically tailored to this unique population. Perceptions of service delivery barriers fell into four categories: (a) the nature of the restrictive environment, (b) lack of available programs, (c) staff-related concerns, and (d) client/inmate-related concerns. We conclude with recommendations to improve program accessibility and delivery on segregated units. Focused intervention efforts may reduce the number and duration of restricted placements. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

This chapter will begin with a discussion about the different models and settings of restricted housing and how these can look differently and serve different functions in jails compared to prisons, where individuals can spend years in segregated placements. This chapter will review the current literature on the psychological impact of segregated placement, highlight gaps in this literature, and reconcile these findings with the stories of gross misuse and overuse of solitary confinement in jails that has come to the attention of civil rights advocacy groups, politicians, and the general public. Finally, the chapter will offer recommendations for screening and intervention, with particular focus on reducing the number of people with mental illness who are placed and maintained in these units.