A randomized evaluation in the Oregon Department of Corrections compared the Step-Up Program (SUP) with continued placement in the Intensive Management Unit (IMU), examining misconduct both during restrictive housing and after return to the general prison population.
The study examines all, violent, and non-violent misconduct using both official records and self-reports.
The study follows official misconduct for six months after participants leave restrictive housing.
People already housed in the Intensive Management Unit were randomly assigned to remain in the IMU or to be offered a transfer to the Step-Up Program. The study then measured misconduct during restrictive housing and, using official records, for six months after return to the general population.
Everyone in the randomized sample was already housed in long-term restrictive housing.
Eligible participants were randomly assigned either to remain in the IMU or to be offered a transfer to SUP.
Official records were observed between randomization and the end of the restrictive-housing stay.
Official records captured misconduct during the six months following return to the general prison population.
102 assigned to IMU; 109 assigned to SUP.
The published equivalence table compares age, race/ethnicity, gang affiliation, mental health designation, risk score, offense characteristics, prison history, prior misconduct, and IMU history.
Of 24 comparisons in the full and interview samples, most were statistically equivalent; a small number of differences occurred at conventional thresholds and were adjusted for in the regression analyses.
Participants spent an average of 142 days in the Disciplinary Segregation Unit before transfer to IMU.
The full study cohort averaged 5.1 months from randomization to the end of restrictive housing. Those who transferred to SUP spent an average of 51 days in IMU before the move.
Interviews were intended to occur shortly before participants returned to general population; 101 were conducted remotely and 11 in person.
IMU: n = 102
SUP: n = 109
IMU: 50 · SUP: 62. Eleven people were missing the self-report misconduct section because of partial interviews and were excluded from that analysis.
Official administrative data were available for all 211 randomized participants; the self-report analyses used the resulting 101-person interview sample.
The Step-Up Program combined environmental changes, additional opportunities and programming, and a different approach to staff–prisoner interaction. It was intended to provide a less restrictive and more rehabilitative setting than the IMU.
SUP combined changes to the physical environment, social interaction, programming, case management, recreation, and staff culture.
The program was designed to provide 5–6 hours of out-of-cell time per day, compared with about 1 hour available in the IMU.
Participants had more opportunities for social interaction, including outdoor recreation with others and greater access to staff.
SUP expanded access to treatment and recreational activities, including Free Your Mind in Segregation, DBT, GOGI, Living Well, HHAAP, and Charting a New Course.
A correctional case counselor coordinated treatment plans and matched participants with programs based on their risks and needs.
Correctional officers in SUP were encouraged to adopt a more humanistic approach, including participating in activities such as card or video games with prisoners. The authors note that this did not occur in the IMU.
SUP was not a single treatment component. The study evaluates a bundle of changes in living conditions, socialization, treatment access, recreation, case management, and staff culture.
The study estimates the difference between SUP and IMU housing. Click between the two outcome windows and estimators. Points are estimates; lines are 95% confidence intervals.
| Outcome | ITT | p | LATE | p |
|---|
Because interviews were conducted before participants returned to general population, self-report outcomes were available only for misconduct during restrictive housing.
| Outcome | ITT | p | LATE | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| All misconduct | −0.003 | .974 | −0.005 | .973 |
| Violent misconduct | −0.052 | .350 | −0.078 | .335 |
| Non-violent misconduct | +0.001 | .995 | +0.001 | .995 |
The experimental results are more nuanced than a single “worked” or “didn’t work” finding.
The official-record estimates were mostly null. Violent misconduct was the exception in the LATE analysis: b = +0.097, p = .043. The authors interpret this partly through greater opportunity for interpersonal contact in SUP.
The official-record estimates did not show statistically significant differences between SUP and IMU across all three outcomes. The ITT coefficients were −0.021, +0.024, and −0.001.
The authors identify several reasons to interpret the findings in context.
Enrollment was paused from May 2020 through March 2021, and the SUP operated in a modified format during part of the pandemic.
Only 52 of the 109 people assigned to SUP agreed to move, which is why the study reports both ITT and LATE estimates.
Staffing shortages meant the program did not consistently reach its intended 5–6 hours of out-of-cell time per day.
The study included 211 randomized participants, and the interviewed sample was smaller, limiting the ability to detect subtle effects in self-reported outcomes.