Supermax and Recidivism
| Author | Kristen M. Zgoba,Jesenia M. Pizarro,Sabrina Haugebrook |
| Date | 01 June 2014 |
| Published date | 01 June 2014 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032885514524697 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
research-article2014
Article
The Prison Journal
2014, Vol. 94(2) 180 –197
Supermax and
© 2014 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permissions:
Recidivism: An
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0032885514524697
tpj.sagepub.com
Examination of the
Recidivism Covariates
Among a Sample of
Supermax Ex-Inmates
Jesenia M. Pizarro1, Kristen M. Zgoba2, and
Sabrina Haugebrook2
Abstract
This study examines the recidivism covariates of 610 released inmates who
were confined in a supermax unit in 2004. Follow-up data (an average of
66 months from prison release in 2004) were collected for each inmate
to assess the recidivism covariates of those who re-engaged in crime after
prison release. The findings show that when compared with ex-supermax
inmates who did not recidivate, those who did were younger, more likely to
be serving time for a drug offense, and had a history of prior incarcerations
and disciplinary infractions while incarcerated. Time to recidivate, however,
was significantly predicted by gang membership, length of sentence, and prior
substance abuse history. The implications of this research are discussed.
Keywords
supermax, administrative segregation, recidivism
1Michigan State University, East Lansing, USA
2New Jersey Department of Corrections, Research & Evaluation Unit, Trenton, USA
Corresponding Author:
Jesenia M. Pizarro, Associate Professor, Michigan State University, 560 Baker Hall, East
Lansing, MI 48824, USA.
Email: pizarros@msu.edu
Pizarro et al.
181
Introduction
Supermax prisons have become a mainstay in the American correctional
landscape. Today anywhere from 25 to 44 states and the Federal Government
are operating one or more of these facilities (Pizarro & Narag, 2008). Despite
their popularity, the operation of supermax is not without controversy.
Placement in these facilities imposes deprivations on inmates that are unique
when compared with the overall incarceration experience. One of its defining
features is extended isolation, where human contact is limited and inmates
spend approximately 23 hr a day in solitary confinement. As a result, some
advocates and scholars alike posit that placement in these facilities may result
in the deterioration of inmates’ mental health, and can pose a greater threat to
the safety of the general prison population and communities (Pizarro &
Narag, 2008).
Very few studies have examined the actual effect that placement in these
institutions have on inmate behavior, or whether it can result in a greater
safety threat. The few studies that have examined this issue report that
although supermax inmates recidivate at a higher rate than non-supermax
inmates, the difference is not as dramatic as some scholars suggest (Mears &
Bales, 2009). Interestingly, not all inmates placed in supermax recidivate
upon their release into the community (Mears & Bales, 2009). While numer-
ous studies have examined the covariates of recidivism for inmates released
from the general prison population, no study to date has examined the released
inmates from supermax who do not recidivate. Given the scrutiny these facil-
ities have received by the activist and academic community in recent years,
and the fact that confinement in a supermax can affect current prisoner re-
entry efforts that aim at reducing recidivism, this is an issue that warrants
further examination and analyses.
This study seeks to further the knowledge of these controversial facilities
by answering the following research question: What variables differentiate
supermax ex-inmates who recidivate from those who do not?
Are the covariates of supermax ex-inmate recidivism unique, or do they
mirror those set forth by research examining the recidivism of inmates
released from the general prison population? In examining this research
question, data for 815 inmates who were placed in supermax in a densely
populated northeastern state on January 1, 2004, were examined. Specifically,
follow-up criminal history data for 610 of the 815 inmates who have since
served their court-ordered sentence and have been released into the commu-
nity were collected post-release from supermax and were analyzed in addi-
tion to criminal history prior to incarceration/placement in supermax as well
as inmate demographic and social characteristics. The follow-up time in the
182
The Prison Journal 94(2)
community was an average of 5 years (66 months) for each sampled inmate.
The findings of this study have implications for re-entry efforts as they pro-
vide a clearer picture of the factors that affect the post-release success of
inmates placed in such restrictive environments.
Supermax Inmates: What We Know
The National Institute of Corrections (NIC; U.S. Department of Justice, NIC,
1997) defined supermax prisons as “[F]ree-standing facilities, or a distinct
unit within a facility, that provides for the management and secure control of
inmates who have been officially designated as exhibiting violent or seri-
ously disruptive behavior while incarcerated” (p. 1). Supermax facilities are
designed to house problematic inmates (Pizarro & Stenius, 2004). They serve
as prisons within prisons and are often utilized with the intention of providing
safety to prison personnel and inmates alike.
These facilities have defining characteristics that differentiate them from
traditional maximum security prisons. Inmates housed in supermaxes are iso-
lated for 22 to 23 hr a day. They are often devoid of human physical contact
other than the occasions when they are escorted out of their cell for showers
or recreation, which typically occur on an inmate-to-inmate basis. Systems
vary considerably in their criteria for placing and releasing inmates (Mears,
2006). In most jurisdictions, the decision to place an inmate in supermax is
made by prison administrators, who are permitted to base their decision on
factual evidence or simply the perception that an inmate poses a threat to the
orderly operation of the general prison population. Generally, the criteria for
release are not published or revealed to prisoners (Riveland, 1999). The
amount of time served may depend upon the perceived risk the inmate pres-
ents, changes in an inmate’s mental health, and the amount of time left on the
inmate’s sentence (Riveland, 1999).
Some jurisdictions house less than 1% of their inmate population in these
facilities (e.g., Pennsylvania), while others house more than 10% of their pop-
ulation (e.g., Mississippi; Mears, 2006). Research that has examined the char-
acteristics of inmates placed in supermax confinement suggests that when
compared with the general inmate population these inmates are more likely to
(a) have more convictions for violent offenses, (b) have engaged in infractions
that are more serious while in prison, (c) are younger, and (d) are serving lon-
ger sentences (Lovell, Cloyes, Allen, & Rhodes, 2000). Lovell and colleagues
also found that the supermax population is comprised of an array of inmates,
including (a) inmates in protective custody, (b) inmates who have difficulty
coping with life in prison, (c) inmates who committed rule infractions while in
prison, and (d) inmates who are suffering from mental illnesses.
Pizarro et al.
183
To date, very few studies have examined the effect placement in these
institutions has on inmates. Prison administrators assert that administrative
segregation is an effective management tool because it serves as a specific
and general deterrent within the correctional population (Mears & Castro,
2006). The studies that have examined this issue have not supported this
assumption; however, Briggs, Sundt, and Castellano (2003) found that the
opening of supermax prisons in Illinois, Arizona, and Minnesota did not
reduce the levels of inmate-on-inmate violence. Sundt, Castellano, and
Briggs (2008) found similar results in their analyses of Illinois supermax
facilities.
Studies that have examined the effect placement in these facilities has on
the behavior of inmates once released show mixed results. In the first study
examining the effect of supermax on individual inmates, Ward and Werlich
(2003) found that only 16% of the 1,020 inmates who served time at the
Federal Penitentiary at Marion from 1983 to 1994 returned to administrative
segregation after release. They also found that only 3.1% of 520 inmates who
served time in Alcatraz were returned to isolation for engaging in disruptive
and/or violent behavior. They further report that out of 80 inmates released
from Marion to the community (i.e., who completed their court-ordered sen-
tence), less than one-half of them recidivated and thus returned to prison.
More recent studies, however, suggest conflicting results. Lovell, Johnson,
and Cain (2007) found that a sample of supermax inmates released into the
community were more likely to commit a new felony than those who were
released from the general prison population. Interestingly, their findings sug-
gest that inmates housed in supermax who were released and spent time in the
general prison population prior to the end of their court-ordered sentence did
not differ from non-supermax inmates in terms of their recidivism rates. The
only differences appeared to be inmates released straight from supermax into
the community.
Mears and Bales (2009) also tested the recidivism rates of supermax
inmates once released into the community; however, they used more robust
...
To continue reading
Request your trial