Towards a Fair and Balanced Assessment of Supermax Prisons

Abstract

Supermaximum (“supermax”) security prisons have become a common feature of the corrections landscape. Despite their substantial costs, questions about their constitutionality, growing fiscal and managerial challenges confronting correctional systems, and increased demand for evidence‐based practices, little systematic empirical research about their effectiveness exists. Against this backdrop and a debate often framed in ideological terms, we identify five dimensions that we argue should be taken into account to provide a fair and balanced assessment of supermax prisons. Our study draws on a comprehensive analysis of existing research, site visits to three states, and interviews with 60 corrections policymakers, officials, and practitioners. We conclude with recommendations for research and policy.

Keywords:

• assessment
• supermax prisons
• supermaximum security prisons

Acknowledgments

Partial support for development of this article was provided by research grant #2002‐IJ‐CX‐0019, awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, US Department of Justice to the Urban Institute. Points of view in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the US Department of Justice or of the Urban Institute, its board of trustees, or its sponsors. We gratefully thank the Editor, the anonymous reviewers, Avi Bhati, Lisa Brooks, Emily Leventhal, and Christy Visher, for their invaluable suggestions and comments, as well as the many policymakers, officials, and practitioners who assisted us with this research. A version of this paper was presented at the 2003 annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology.

Notes

1. One reviewer noted that little research exists on penal policies in general, citing Simon's (2000) article to that effect. The lack of research on supermax prisons is especially striking because these prisons have so rapidly become common, and they are costly and controversial.

2. Ward and Werlich (2003) found that fewer than 10 percent of inmates in Alcatraz were “clinically diagnosed as manifesting evidence of psychosis” and suggest that “most of the men … were able to survive their years in supermaximum custody without suffering psychological damage serious enough that they could not adjust to life in other prisons or in the free world after release, as measured by prison conduct, parole supervision and arrest records” (p. 65). Their findings suggest that supermaxes do not create or aggravate mental illness (cf. Haney, 2003).

3. Specific questions that were used in the interview protocol included the following: (1) Please introduce yourself by telling us a bit about yourself, such as your title and responsibilities. (2) To start things off, I'm curious about what you'd say a supermax prison is–i.e., what are the characteristics that somehow differentiate a supermax prison from other types of correctional facilities, and what kind of inmates belong in them? (3) What are the goals of (your) supermax facilities? (4) What are the impacts of (your) supermax facilities? How do you know there have been these impacts? How large do you think each impact has been? How do you think supermax facilities caused each impact? Are there other groups, apart from supermax inmates and those you have identified to this point, who are affected by supermax facilities? (5) What do your state's supermax facilities do particularly well? (6) Have there been impacts of (your) supermax facilities that you did not anticipate or expect? (7) If money wasn't an issue, what changes would help improve the impacts of your supermax facilities? (8) Which goals and impacts do you think are most important to, and are the best measures for, assessing the effectiveness of (your) supermax prisons? (9) If you did not have supermax facilities, what alternatives might achieve similar goals or impacts? (10) Are you aware of any cost–benefit studies of supermax facilities in your state? If yes, who did the studies, and what were the main conclusions? If no, do you think a cost–benefit study would help and, if so, how? Who should be responsible for conducting a cost–benefit study in your state? (11) Are you aware of documents that would help us better understand supermax facilities in your state? Do you have copies of admissions/release criteria for your supermax facilities?

4. After selecting specific states in which to conduct site visits, we compiled a list of individuals recommended to us as potential interview respondents. At the same time, we identified corrections officials, supermax wardens, and criminal justice legislative committee members in other states. We then conducted interviews with individuals on this list until we no longer heard new or different responses to our questions. After 60 interviews with respondents across 11 states, we judged that this process–when coupled with the comprehensive review of documents–was sufficient to have likely identified the bulk of potential impacts and issues relevant to providing balanced assessments of supermax prisons. It is not sufficient for assessing whether supermax prisons are actually effective.

5. One reviewer expressed surprise at this assessment, and suggested that inmate views, especially supermax inmate views, are the most important to obtain because it is these inmates who are most affected by supermaxes. As we emphasize throughout this paper, assessment of supermax prisons should be based on their goals and unintended impacts. If supermax prisons exist solely to improve systemwide order and safety, then supermax inmate views matter little. However, their views do matter substantially when discussing potential unintended impacts. In these cases, we have drawn on a number of extremely extensive ethnographic accounts of supermax inmates and their experiences, as well as research on extended solitary confinement.

6. One concern with qualitative research involving contentious issues is the possibility that respondents will provide “official” or “on the record” responses. As with conventional surveys, this issue cannot always be avoided. We took several steps to address it: Promising confidentiality; asking probing questions; using humor to put respondents at ease; and interviewing individuals who represented a diverse range of occupations and life experiences (see Caudle, 2004; Rossi et al., 1999). Our assessment is that the responses we received were honest reports. First, with rare exception, respondents were keen to discuss supermaxes and often expressed surprise at the views they heard others express in, for example, focus groups. Second, respondents expressed a wide range of views, one sufficiently large to cast doubt on the possibility that a consistent “official” voice was being expressed. Third, almost all the respondents mentioned at least one or more negative aspects of supermax prisons, suggesting a departure from any “official” view.

7. As one reviewer emphasized, although no systematic study has been conducted, states appear to vary in their stated and actual supermax entry and release criteria, as well as the transitional assistance that may be provided. Actual practices would affect, of course, the reintegration success of supermax inmates into other prisons, as well as communities and families.

8. This intriguing possibility was suggested by one reviewer, who noted that a marked increase in the use of supermax‐like facilities in Texas contributed to a substantial decline in a rapidly escalating prison homicide rate (see Ralph & Marquart, 1991).

9. The authors thank one of the reviewers for identifying the need for this line of research.

10. It is by no means simple to gain access to these different populations. Nonetheless, examples of successful attempts exist (see, e.g., Burt, 1981).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Daniel P. Mears

Daniel P. Mears is an Associate Professor at Florida State University. He conducts basic and applied research on delinquency and a range of criminal justice programs and policies, including juvenile justice reforms, supermax prisons, drug treatment, agricultural crime, and prisoner re‐entry.

Jamie Watson

Jamie Watson is a Senior Research Specialist at Travis County Juvenile Probation Department. She has focused extensively on prisoner re‐entry issues, including a profile of re‐entry in Texas, and currently conducts evaluations of juvenile justice programs.