Patterns of Disturbed Behavior in a Supermax Population

• Author: David Lovell
• DOI: 10.1177/0093854808318584
• Published date: 01 August 2008
• Date: 01 August 2008
• Subject Matter: Articles

985

PATTERNS OF DISTURBED BEHAVIOR

IN A SUPERMAX POPULATION

DAVID LOVELL

University of Washington

Results of a systematic survey of the clinical status of supermax residents, showing the association of mental health issues

with disruptive behavior, are followed by eight brief case studies. The survey covers 131 inmates selected at random from

Washington’s supermax facilities,representing almost half the residents. From interviews with 87 of these inmates, combined

with reviews of medical and institutional behavior records, it is concluded that 45% of supermax residents suffer from seri-

ous mental illness, marked psychological symptoms, psychological breakdowns, or brain damage. With this empirical

grounding, an argument is presented that the concept of disturbed behavior, notwithstanding its lack of a clear diagnostic ref-

erence, is needed if we are to understand interactions between prison settings and the mental health issues of prisoners. The

clinical profile and histories of disturbed prisoners provide reasons to establish greater flexibility in prison classification and

disciplinary procedures, especially those that determine how long prisoners stay in supermax. Institutional obstacles to flex-

ibility are diagnosed, and the possibility of shrinking supermax populations is proposed.

Keywords: supermax; mental health; mental illness; prisoner; deterrence; custody

In 2003, a committee was formed to design a program for “behaviorally disturbed”

prisoners in the Washington Department of Corrections (DOC). After some preliminary

discussions—despite recognizing the need, few prisons sought the honor of hosting this

population—a program site was selected. The veteran staff members on the design commit-

tee were quite aware of the challenges posed by the program’s intended participants; they

knew who they were talking about. Nevertheless, in the next stage of planning, a DOC psy-

chologist raised a hurdle to defining the “target group.” Undaunted by recent arrival at

DOC—“people are people, and behavior is behavior”—and confident in the scientific cre-

dentials represented by a clinical PhD, the psychologist challenged the usefulness of the

concept of disturbance, pointing out that it corresponded to no recognized clinical or oper-

ational category, neither DOC’s definition of serious mental illness nor any Diagnostic and

Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.; American Psychiatric Association, 1994)

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, Vol. 35 No. 8, August 2008 985-1004

DOI: 10.1177/0093854808318584

© 2008 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

AUTHOR’S NOTE: This article draws on data collected between 1999 and 2001 with funding by the

Washington Department of Corrections (DOC) through the University of Washington–Department of

Corrections Mental Health Collaboration. Access to inmates and records was enabled through the efforts of

officials and administrators in the Department of Corrections at the time of the study: Joseph Lehman, secre-

tary; Eldon Vail, deputy secretary; and Gary Jones, associate superintendent. I am also grateful to the other

University of Washington members of the study team: David Allen, Kristin Cloyes, Cheryl Cooke, Susan

Graham, and Lorna Rhodes. Understanding of the issues has been considerably advanced by discussions with

Bruce Gage, Gregg Gagliardi, and Ron Jemelka, colleagues in past work at McNeil Island. Finally, this article

is thoroughly permeated with ideas developed in conversations with Hans Toch and in reading his books and

papers over the past 15 years. Please address all correspondence to David Lovell, University of Washington,

Box 351271, Seattle, WA 98195-1271; e-mail: lovelld@u.washington.edu

Axis I diagnosis or Axis II diagnoses such as borderline or antisocial personality disorder.

So the program was renamed Behavioral Change Unit, and its potential participants were

defined very operationally as inmates who continued to accrue infractions after being

placed in a supermax setting.

The Behavioral Change Unit has yet to be established. But this was for the usual reasons:

funding shortages, leadership changes, shifting priorities. It was not because prison staff

cannot identify the people they hoped to send there, that is, the people they hoped to send

away from their own facility: the people who fight when there is nothing to gain, who want

to rattle their doors till the rights they claim are restored, who mutilate themselves and con-

taminate the wounds, who not only smear their walls and flood their cells but do so for

incomprehensible or seemingly trivial reasons. The syndrome was described in 1982 by

Toch in “The Disturbed Disruptive Inmate: Where Does the Bus Stop?” In Washington,

years before the discussion cited above, a counselor at one of the usual bus stops prepared a

list of 40 problem inmates who, coincidentally, closely resembled Toch’s description and

displayed one of the primary indicators: shuttling back and forth between prisons and

between disciplinary and mental health settings. The occasion for this listing was the DOC

secretary’s request to the University of Washington for help with “behaviorally disturbed

inmates.”

If the concept of disturbance has no clinical meaning, why is it readily recognized by

administrators, and how was it possible for staff to list the people to whom it applies? Part

of the answer, of course, is that a concept can have operational meaning for those who man-

age an organization, such as a prison, even if the behavior it covers is diverse and its causes

contestable or mysterious. But that does not mean that causes are irrelevant, as implied by

the simple behavioral criterion advocated by the psychologist: continued infractions after

placement in supermax. There are two main problems with this operational definition. First,

it does not distinguish those who are disruptive because they are disturbed from people

whose disruptiveness is undertaken to settle a debt, honor a creed, or serve an alliance; for

example, a “security threat group.” Second, responding successfully to extreme behavior

requires that we take its causes and objectives into account.1Such, at least, was the pre-

sumption of our team when asked to consult with DOC on the treatment of behaviorally

disturbed inmates; so we undertook a systematic description of prisoners living in super-

max units (SMUs).

Some results of this investigation have been reported in two studies:2a statistical profile

of all prisoners living in Washington SMUs (Lovell, Cloyes,Allen, & Rhodes, 2000), based

on electronic records and describing the diverse prison career patterns that characterize

supermax prisoners, and an analysis of measures of psychosocial impairment (Cloyes,

Lovell, Allen, & Rhodes, 2006), developed during an intensive follow-up study that used

interviews and chart reviews as well as electronic records. This article further describes the

clinical status of supermax residents. Data used in the previous study are recompiled, with

the addition of measures of disruptive behavior. Causal and conceptual issues are explored

by following up on eight cases that cover the useful range of the concept of disturbance,

together with several additional cases, not classified as disturbed, that serve to demarcate

the range from the other side of the boundary. Finally, the patterns of provocation and

response observed in these cases—on the part of prisoners and keepers alike—are applied

to policies for governing and improving disruptive prisoners and the places they live.

986 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR