The Prison Journal http://tpj.sagepub.com The Elusive Data on Supermax Confinement Alexandra Naday, Joshua D. Freilich and Jeff Mellow The Prison Journal 2008; 88; 69 DOI: 10.1177/0032885507310978 The online version of this article can be found at: http://tpj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/88/1/69 Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com On behalf of: Pennsylvania Prison Society Additional services and information for The Prison Journal can be found at: Email Alerts: http://tpj.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://tpj.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations http://tpj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/88/1/69 Downloaded from http://tpj.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA BERKELEY LIB on September 17, 2009 The Prison Journal Volume 88 Number 1 March 2008 69-93 © 2008 Sage Publications The Elusive Data on 10.1177/0032885507310978 http://tpj.sagepub.com hosted at Supermax Confinement http://online.sagepub.com Alexandra Naday Metropolitan State College of Denver Joshua D. Freilich Jeff Mellow John Jay College of Criminal Justice, The City University of New York This exploratory research examines supermax confinement in the United States. An examination of counts of supermax institutions and inmates from 2001- 2004 produced by the American Correctional Association and an examina- tion of Criminal Justice Institute data found that different procedures made it difficult to compare numbers across states. Certain states produced incorrect figures about the number of supermax prisons and inmates because of reporting and/or recording errors. This study found, in short, that disagreements about definitions, changing policies and court decisions, reporting and recording errors, and different counting procedures have led to a lack of reliable and valid data on supermax issues. These findings indicate that researchers attempting to examine, or collect data on, supermax issues on the macrolevel (e.g., across states) face important difficulties. This article accounts for this confusion, discusses policy implications that may result from this confusion, and concludes with suggestions for future research. Keywords: supermax institutions; corrections; measurement issues his article examines supermax confinement in the United States. Our Texploratory research demonstrates that disagreements about what consti- tutes supermax confinement or a supermax institution has led to uncertainty about how many such institutions exist. It is also unclear how many inmates are confined under these conditions. Because of policy changes and court decisions, states changed their definitions and produced statistics that fluc- tuated yearly. The percentage yearly change in the number of inmates in supermax confinement in some states topped 1,000. An examination of counts of supermax institutions and inmates from 2001-2004 produced by the American Correctional Association (ACA) and an examination of Criminal Justice Institute (CJI) data found that different procedures and focuses made 69 Downloaded from http://tpj.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA BERKELEY LIB on September 17, 2009 70 The Prison Journal it difficult to compare numbers across states. Certain states produced incor- rect figures about the number of supermax institutions and inmates because their departments of corrections (DOCs) made reporting and recording errors. In other words, disagreements about definitions—as well as changing definitions and policies and court decisions—reporting and recording errors, and different counting procedures have led to a lack of reliable and valid data on supermax issues. Supermax confinement was always part of American correctional policies and it still plays an important role. It is usually associated with the “worst of the worst” prisoners (Henningsen, Johnson, & Wells, 1999; Nagel, 1973). Generally, three types of inmates fall into this category: (a) serious institu- tional rule violators, (b) serious escape risks, and (c) prisoners awaiting death sentences. In the past, retribution and rehabilitation were used to justify solitary confinement. Today, most correctional officials defend supermax confinement with incapacitation and deterrence arguments. Supermax insti- tutions are needed to safeguard staff and other inmates from the most dangerous inmates. Some claim that the most vulnerable inmates are disproportionately placed into these harsh conditions (Toch, 2001). Indeed, solitary confined inmates often have co-occurring conditions that implicate public health issues. For example, the Correctional Association of New York (CANY; 2003) found that although mentally ill inmates represented 11% of New York State’s DOC’s inmate population, they were 23% of those placed in disciplinary lockdown, conditions consistent with supermax confinement. Furthermore, once an inmate is placed within a supermax facility, transfer to a lower security level facility is unlikely (Good, 2003). It is alleged that the harsh conditions of supermax confinement—some- times described as custodial overkill—are detrimental to inmates’ mental health (Madrid v. Gomez, 1995). Strict conditions combined with the slim likelihood of transfer may contribute to future dangerousness. Toch (2001) explains that Rules spark efforts to evade them, and regimentation breeds resistance... officers and prisoners are situationally dehumanized....The supermax mission of sequestering “the worst of the worst” can lead staff members to view their charges with trepidation or contempt. The fact that there is no real contact with the inmates converts them into physical objects to be ministered to. The exercise of handmaiden functions...can be experienced as demeaning [to officers]. Sometimes this experience can lead to compensatory demonstrations of power...escalating vindictive interactions result. (pp. 382-383) Downloaded from http://tpj.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA BERKELEY LIB on September 17, 2009 Naday et al. / Elusive Data on Supermax Confinement 71 Bruton (2004), the former warden at the Oak Park Heights supermax prison in Minnesota similarly comments that “after long-term confinement and the loss of hope for offenders controlled under these conditions, mental deteri- oration is almost assured” (p. 38). He states that he would not want to live near someone who experienced these conditions for months or years. Supermax confinement directly affects the general American population, because most inmates will eventually be released. In sum, solitary confinement consists of harsher conditions (i.e., more than 23 hr alone in their cells) that are usually applied to a special popula- tion1 who will mostly be released. It is therefore subjected to additional legal scrutiny and should also be subjected to rigorous scientific investigations. Academics and others are unable, however, to systematically study most issues related to solitary confinement. The commissioner of New York State’s DOC recently commented, for example, that historically, the most reliable data on restricted inmate housing around the nation was contained in The Corrections Yearbook, published annually by the Criminal Justice Institute, Inc. in Middletown, CT. Unfortunately, it ceased publication with its 2002 edition that included data for January 1 of that year. (Goord, 2006, p. 19) This article identifies discrepancies in the literature, and highlights the confusion surrounding (a) the definition of the term supermax prison, (b) the number of supermax prisons, and (c) the number of inmates in supermax confinement. Our findings indicate that researchers attempting to examine, or collect data on, supermax issues on the macrolevel (e.g., across states) face important difficulties. The study accounts for this confusion, discusses some policy implications that result from this confusion, and concludes with suggestions for future research. Defining Supermaximum Institutions or Security Levels Developing a nationwide consensus on when the term supermaxium security level, (supermax), should be used to describe a facility’s security level or a specific unit within a facility has been elusive. Riveland (1999) notes, “there are no universal definitions of what supermax facilities are and who should be placed in them” (p. 4). The National Institute of Corrections (NIC; 1997) set forth one of the earliest and most cited definitions of supermax: [A] free-standing facility, or a distinct unit within a facility, that provides for the management and secure control of inmates who have been officially designated Downloaded from http://tpj.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA BERKELEY LIB on September 17, 2009 72 The Prison Journal as exhibiting violent or seriously and disruptive behavior while incarcerated. Such inmates have been determined to be a threat to safety and security in traditional high security facilities, and their behavior can be controlled only by separation, restricted movement, and limited direct access to staff and other inmates. (p. 1) The second part of the NIC’s definition, which is rarely cited, states that the following institutions or units should not be classified as supermax housing: maximum or close custody facilities or units that are designated for routine housing of inmates with high custody needs, inmates in disciplinary segrega- tion or protective custody, or other inmate requiring segregation or separation for routine purposes. (p. 1) The NIC definition incorporates both the conditions expected in a supermax facility (e.g.,