Yesterday afternoon, the state’s Office of the Child Advocate (OCA) released a report evaluating the impacts of solitary confinement on late adolescents, those aged 18 to 21, issuing a recommendation that “long term restrictive housing be prohibited for this age group,” due to the severely negative impacts that it has on their mental health.
“Examining the conditions for this population, OCA found grave concerns, including lengthy periods of solitary confinement, frequent strip searches, lack of access to minimally adequate mental health services, and limited educational services,” reads the report. “DOC records depict stark mental health deterioration of some of these individuals who were often teenagers when they were first incarcerated. OCA is concerned that these findings implicate the legal rights of these late adolescents to adequate care and services.”
The report examined conditions of confinement for late adolescents at Manson Youth Institution (MYI), York Correctional Institution (YCI) and other adult facilities operated by the Connecticut Department of Corrections (DOC) from the years of 2022 to 2024. The report was conducted via review of records and data kept by DOC and the Department of Children and Families (DCF), site visits to DOC facilities, interviews with incarcerated youth, and a cross-examination of DOC policies and procedures with pertinent state and federal laws.
The report found that the majority of late adolescents, 66%, were not provided with regularly scheduled mental health services. DOC uses a mental health score to assess inmates’ needs, but the OCA found that “there is no uniform standardized tool used for determining mental health score,” and found severe and frequent inadequacies in DOC’s mental health evaluations and responses to mental health crises.
The report contained the stories of 13 late adolescent boys in DOC custody, raising concerns surrounding the conditions of those held in isolated confinement or restricted housing settings, and the lack of programming or mental health services provided to them. The OCA found that nine of these 13 boys “participated in no groups or programs, except for very limited hours of special education services for those who were eligible,” and that the four others received “only a few hours of programming over the course of the entire year.”
These 13 boys were placed in a variety of restrictive housing settings, such as punitive segregation, administrative detention, transfer detention, and the DOC’s infamous Security Risk Group (SRG), a restricted housing setting which has gained notoriety for its conditions and screening processes.
“OCA’s audit of conditions in these Restrictive Housing settings raised immediate concerns about prolonged isolation and deprivation for these late adolescents,” read the report.
While SRG represents the most draconian housing setting for inmates, the report defined and analyzed the use of three other restrictive housing settings. Punitive segregation is reserved for inmates who violate the DOC’s Code of Penal Discipline, and stays are intended to be 3-15 days long. Administrative detention is intended to remove inmates from the general population for the purpose of awaiting the completion of disciplinary hearings and investigations, or pending the completion of mental health evaluations and inmate requests for protective status. Transfer detention is for inmates awaiting transfer to another facility, “for the inmate’s own protection or the protection of others.”
The OCA found the conditions of punitive segregation to be “highly restrictive;” late adolescent boys were made to eat in their cells, barred from having personal belongings, making phone calls, or receiving visitors, and were provided with no school or programming. They were brought out of their cells twice a day for 30 minutes to an hour, in which they were allowed to shower but unable to partake in recreational or structured programming. The OCA also found DOC documentation surrounding late adolescents’ length of stays in PS to be inadequate and, at times, contradictory.
“One late adolescent boy had 38 documented days in Punitive Segregation over the course of one calendar year, but other DOC records indicated that the individual spent an additional 16 days in punitive segregation without specific documentation,” read the report. “Another late adolescent boy’s records noted placement in Punitive Segregation for 5 days, but review of records indicated that he remained in Segregation for 16 days, with an intervening cell movement for less than 24 hours.”
Additionally, the OCA found that punishments doled out to late adolescents in punitive segregation often exceeded their length of stay.
“Discipline in Punitive Segregation often includes other consequences such as loss of recreation (out of cell time), loss of commissary, loss of visits, loss of social correspondence, and loss of tablets,” reads a statement by OCA released in conjunction with the report. “These are generally of longer duration than the days in Punitive Segregation. For example, David, who has intellectual disability, was placed in Punitive Segregation for a total of 106 out of 466 days. For the same period, he lost 248 days of recreation, 373 days of commissary, 300 days of social contact (visits, mail, phone).”
The OCA found that out-of-cell time for late adolescents in restricted housing settings was less than the statutorily required four hours per day, and characterized the out of cell time as being of little benefit due to the sparse nature of restricted housing recreation areas.
“At McDougal-Walker and Corrigan, where late adolescent boys on restrictive status are housed, the chain link cage is in an area enclosed by tall concrete walls such that only the sky is visible,” reads the report. “Some late adolescent boys are placed alone in the cage, and some are placed in the same cage with other individuals. Inside the cage, in these locations, there are no seats and no tables. On the SRG I units, there is nothing to use for the purpose of recreation. On multiple occasions, OCA staff observed individuals simply standing in the outdoor cage as that is the only thing they can do in that space.”
The OCA found that nine of the 13 adolescent boys interviewed were placed in SRG, with all of them staying in SRG for far longer than the DOC’s 12-month, five-phase guidelines for completion of the program.
“The degree of isolation and inactivity for these late adolescents was alarming,” said the OCA. “Of the 9 late adolescent boys in the cohort reviewed by OCA, 4 spent the entire one-year period reviewed in SRG I/II, and records indicate they had been on SRG status for years. For example, at the time of our review, Charles had been on SRG status for 4.5 years. Jeremy had been on SRG status for a total of over 3.5 years.”
The OCA found Jeremy to have received only two visits, two hours of coping skills programming and one mental health session throughout the one year period of his incarceration they assessed. The OCA noted he was classified as a Mental Health 2, indicating a lack of need for mental health treatment, despite the fact that staff noted severe deterioration in his mental health, having observed him “pacing in his cell, punching the wall, being unable to sleep, and having racing thoughts and mood swings.” He was taken into behavioral observation and hospitalized several times after engaging in suicidal behaviors.
“He later reported fixating on suicide and death,” reads the report. “He expressed how difficult his incarceration had been and that ‘he didn’t care anymore.’”
After having spent three and half years of time in SRG, OCA successfully advocated for Jeremy’s placement in a mental health unit, where he was diagnosed with manic bipolar disorder and a depressive mood disorder. The OCA noted that Jeremy was first incarcerated at the age of 16, and was placed in SRG at the age of 18 “based on the belief he was gang affiliated.” Jeremy was a special education student, receiving special education services until the age of 22, the same age he received his high school diploma. Jeremy’s story of mental deterioration while in restrictive housing was not unique; the report included the stories of three other boys who experienced rapid declines in mental health upon placement in restrictive housing.
Despite the fact that 10 of the 13 boys placed in restrictive housing were classified by the DOC as mental health 3 or above, none of them received regular mental health treatments during their time in restrictive housing, and the frequency of crisis calls for the boys “did not appear to result in a change to the individual’s mental health classification or result in an increased number of scheduled visits by mental health staff.” The OCA said that correction officers and clinicians alike viewed their “indicators of mental distress” as being “maladaptive and manipulative in nature,” and responded in kind.
“When individuals did report feeling suicidal, they were put on Behavioral Observation Status (BOS), placed in a cell alone and often stripped and provided with a stiff covering (which individuals refer to as the “turtle suit”),” reads the report. “There was little treatment provided and individuals were generally released from BOS status when they indicated that they no longer felt suicidal.”
Despite DOC’s requirement that inmates be assessed by a psychologist prior to their placement in restrictive housing settings, the OCA found assessments to be “very limited,” and “not conducted by a mental health professional.”
“Review of multiple videos by OCA showed that assessment frequently consisted of a cell side inquiry to the late adolescent that lasted less than a minute or two and was completed in the presence of non-clinical staff,” reads the report. “Review of records indicated that such assessments have disregarded prior documentation of an individual’s serious mental health concerns.”
In addition to the length of stays, lack of recreational, rehabilitative or mental health programming, and inadequate documentation, the OCA also criticized the frequent strip-searching of late adolescents placed in restrictive housing. Late adolescents were strip searched every time they left their cells for any reason. Furthermore, the OCA found a lack of access to educational programming, especially special education programming, for late adolescents.
“OCA is concerned that educational services for late adolescents in restrictive housing settings are not adequate and violate state and/or federal laws,” reads the report.
Other significant findings of the report were a sharp spike in the use of pepper spray against adolescent boys in 2024 (132 times in 2024 compared to 59 times in 2023), and the use of in-cell restraints on late adolescent boys, 30 times from 2023 to 2024, with a lack of DOC analysis or tracking on their use.
The OCA noted that DOC officials “made efforts to identify ways to reduce the use of restrictive housing and improve conditions,” meeting with the OCA in November 2022 as well as contracting a restrictive housing study in 2023, which was completed in November 2024. While the DOC has failed to properly reach its provision of out of cell time goals for inmates, the OCA noted it received “revised administrative directives” from DOC regarding out of cell time provisions for inmates placed in restricted housing, and has developed a dashboard for better tracking of length of PS stays.
The OCA also noted that DOC has since added an area to Walker where late adolescents on SRG can receive educational programming, and is currently renovating the mental health unit of Garner Correctional, creating an herb garden and outdoor space for visitors. Garner has also created a mental health response team, though OCA noted that it is not staffed by clinicians.
“At the time of OCA’s visit, this effort was in the early stages and there was not yet outcome data,” reads the report. “Nonetheless, these changes are promising.”
Ultimately, the OCA made several recommendations to DOC officials moving forward.
- That long term restrictive housing be prohibited for late adolescents
- That late adolescents be housed solely at MYI
- That DOC count days placed in restrictive housing while awaiting determination of housing status towards the 15-day time of solitary/isolated confinement outlined under the PROTECT Act
- The creation of a working group to consider how an elimination of long term restrictive housing could be implemented for this age group
- That DOC should ensure medical and health exams be done without custody staff sans a high risk of violence
- That DOC eliminate the use of in-cell restraints, and obtain body scanners to use in lieu of strip searches
- That DOC provides the legislature with any data points left missing in its Jan. 1, 2024 report, in adherence with the PROTECT Act
DOC spokesman Andrius Banevicius provided Inside Investigator with a statement in response to the OCA’s report.
“The Department of Correction’s (DOC) leadership is in the process of a thorough review of the recommendations presented in the Child Advocate’s final report on the Conditions of Confinement for Incarcerated/Detained Late Adolescents Aged 18-21 in order to determine the appropriate next steps, and course of action,” read the statement. “The administration thanks the Child Advocate for her diligent work, as well as her shared commitment to protecting the best interest of the adolescents under the supervision of the DOC.”
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
