Us Nic Supermax Overview 1999
Download original document:
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Corrections Supermax Prisons: Overview and General Considerations National Institute of Corrections Morris L. Thigpen, Director Susan M. Hunter, Chief Prisons Division Richard H. Franklin, Project Manager Photos taken at Washington Department of Corrections’ Clallam Bay Corrections Center. Supermax Prisons: Overview and General Considerations by Chase Riveland January 1999 This document was developed under Technical Assistance #98P4002 from the National Institute of Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Contents Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v Section 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Section 2. Survey and Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Section 3. History and Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Admission/Release Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Section 4. Operational Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Programming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Religion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Length of Stay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Human Contact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Medical Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Mental Health Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Food Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Hygiene and Sanitation Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Policies and Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Use of Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Documentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Section 5. Staff Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Personnel Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Recruitment and Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Stress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Leadership and Supervision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Section 6. Siting, Design, and Construction Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Co-Located vs. Separate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Site Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Design Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Construction Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Implications for Operating Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Further Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Section 7. Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 References and Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Appendix. Checklist of Considerations for an Extended Control Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 iii Acknowledgments Preparation for the writing of this monograph included several tasks. First, a group of correctional administrators, experienced in the design and/or operation of supermax-type correctional facilities, came together for a couple of days to share their experiences, opinions, and “lessons learned” about these facilities. Thank you to the members of this group: Greg Hershberger, North Central Regional Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons (former Warden of the Ad Max–Florence); Ken McGinnis, Director, Michigan Department of Corrections (former Director, Illinois Department of Corrections); Larry Meachum, Director, Office of Justice Programs/Corrections Program Office (former director of three state corrections systems); James Spalding, Director, Idaho Department of Corrections (former Director, Division of Prisons, Washington State); Mary West, Regional Director, Colorado Department of Corrections; Frank Wood, former Director, Minnesota Department of Corrections (former Warden, Oak Park Heights Correctional Facility); and Richard Franklin, NIC Prisons Division (former Director of Prisons–Alaska). Their knowledge and input were invaluable. Second, visits were made to several supermax facilities. Particular thanks go to Warden John Hurley and staff at the federal Ad Max–Florence, CO; Superintendent Donice Neal and staff at the Colorado State Penitentiary, Canon City, CO; and Warden Steve Cambra and staff at Pelican Bay State Prison, Crescent City, CA. The author had earlier visited Oak Park Heights Correctional Facility at Stillwater, MN; the U.S. Penitentiary at Marion, IL; and three Intensive Management Units in Washington State, as well as a number of segregation units around the country. Numerous corrections professionals throughout the country were contacted in a follow-up to an NIC Information Center survey. They were, without exception, generous with their time in responding to questions. Last, but certainly not least, appreciation is extended to the members of the NIC Advisory Board who recognized an emerging issue and to those at NIC who followed up on that interest: Morris Thigpen, Director; Larry Solomon, Deputy Director; and Susan Hunter, Prisons Division Chief. iv Foreword Units and programs for the management of dangerous and disruptive inmates have been a source of controversy in the field of corrections for many years. Although correctional approaches such as concentration, dispersal, and isolation are not new, the development of “supermax” prisons is a relatively recent trend. More than 30 states are operating one or more units or facilities created specifically for their corrections systems’ most threatening inmates. This document discusses issues that are germane to planning and operating supermax units. The author has more than 30 years of correctional experience, including planning and operating highsecurity prisons, and has served as director of two state departments of corrections. We hope the document will contribute to the development of some common definitions where there is now broad divergence, enhance understanding of the myriad issues related to the management of violent and disruptive inmates, and provide benchmarks by which corrections systems may examine their need for specialized prisons or units for high-risk inmates. Morris L. Thigpen, Director National Institute of Corrections v Section 1. Introduction “Supermax” prisons—fad, trend, or wise investment? Prisons historically have had “jails within prisons.” Simply because people are in the controlled environment of a prison does not stop some of them from being assaultive or violent, attempting to escape, inciting disturbances, preying on weaker inmates, or otherwise exhibiting disruptive behavior. Such people must be removed from the general population of the prison environment while they threaten any of those behaviors. Order and safety are the priority objectives of any correctional facility. Prison administrators have traditionally placed persons exhibiting such behaviors into separate housing units—generally called segregation, punitive segregation, disciplinary segregation, or some other name that differentiates the unit from general population housing. In recent years, particularly since the significant involvement of the federal courts in the 1970s and 1980s, this has ordinarily been accomplished after due process hearings and a finding of guilt. In disciplinary placements, the inmate would be given a specific amount of time to serve based on the seriousness and frequency of the violation(s). Other inmates who were repeat offenders or very serious violators of critical institutional rules would be individually confined and segregated from the general population until it was believed they no longer threatened to prey, incite, assault, or escape. Isolated housing has also been used for protective custody inmates who might be at risk from other inmates as well as for other “special” populations, such as inmates who are on death row, HIV-positive, or mentally ill. In the last few years, many jurisdictions across the country have built or renovated prison facilities or units with the express purpose of incarcerating inmates under highly isolated conditions with severely limited access to programs, exercise, staff, or other inmates. Other jurisdictions are in various stages of considering or planning such units or facilities though a faction made up of corrections officials, inmates, and inmate advocates has raised concerns about, or even condemned, them. They suggest they are “cruel and inhumane,” susceptible to abuses, and damaging to the inmates housed in them. Many corrections officials have defended the need for such facilities based on the perceived “toughening” of the inmate population, increased gang activity, the difficulty of maintaining order in severely crowded prisons, and from experience gained over time that suggests such units are beneficial. Use of such facilities also represents a philosophical change, moving from what Professor David Ward and Mr. Norman Carlson, in their article entitled “SuperMaximum Custody Prisons in the United States,” termed the “dispersion” approach to the “concentration” approach for the handling of troublesome inmates. Many agencies in the past would spread their troublemakers around the system or in various units of a prison and, in some instances, house them in other states or with the Federal Bureau of Prisons. This dispersal of problem inmates would be an attempt to prevent them from uniting in their misconduct and also allow staff at a given institution to gain a measure of relief from dealing with the same troublemakers over an extended period of time. This approach also enabled prison officials to break up cliques and gangs, but the success of the approach was—and is—at least partially dependent on the number and types of correctional facilities available at various custody levels. The more recent “concentration” approach creates specific units or facilities to manage this troublesome type of inmate in a high-security environment, generally isolated from all other inmates. The premise is that general population prisons will be more easily and safely managed if the troublemakers are completely removed. In some places, these highly focused institutions have been a component of “tough on crime” agendas touted by elected officials, combating the assertions of many observers that “prisons are like country clubs.” In other jurisdictions, they have been proposed by corrections officials to meet the existing or projected need to isolate identified individuals or groups of inmates from the general population to enhance the management of their facilities. Whatever the motivation for building such facilities, the number of them already in operation, under construction, planned, or proposed has increased significantly over the last several years. More than 30 states report they are operating one or more such units or facilities. These units and facilities are significantly more ex- 1 pensive to build than traditional general population prisons, due in part to the enhanced and extensive security features on locks, doors, and perimeters; reinforced walls, ceilings, and floors; and, frequently, the incorporation of advanced electronic systems and technology. Their operating costs have proven to be much greater also. Providing meals and other services at individual cell fronts, multiple-officer escorts, and maintenance of elaborate electronic systems are examples of things that add up quickly. The number of correctional officers required to assure both internal and external security, movement of inmates, security searches of cells, and the delivery of food and other supplies and services to individual cells generally drives staffing ratios—and therefore operating costs—much higher than those of general population prisons. The cost, cost-benefit, operating, legal, and ethical/ moral issues of such facilities also raise a great deal of debate. Little is known about the impact of locking an inmate in an isolated cell for an average of 23 hours per day with limited human interaction, little constructive activity, and an environment that assures maximum control over the individual. Are potential negative effects greater after an individual has been in such a facility for three months, one year, three years, five years, or more? Do extended isolation, absence of normal stimuli, and a controlling environment result in damage to an inmate’s psyche? Research in this area is sparse. That which does exist tends to focus on the eventual recidivist criminal behavior—either in or out of prison—rather than on the potential psychological damage to the inmate. Very little is known about the effect of these facilities on inmates with existing mental illnesses or developmental disabilities. Are certain types of mentally ill inmates made worse? Can they be treated effectively in this type of environment? Again, little research is available to help us evaluate the efficacy of such placements. Proponents point to reductions in assaults on inmates and staff and other serious incidents throughout the entire corrections system since the establishment of such facilities. There exists little or no hard data comparing such perceived impacts on entire systems versus the fiscal cost to gain such results, although anecdotal information is common. 2 Generally, the overall constitutionality of these programs remains unclear. The impact of supermax facilities on staff working there has also been a subject of much discussion over the last several years, ranging from the need to pick very experienced staff to the heightened levels of stress that they experience. Having to deal on a daily basis with inmates who have proven to be the most troublesome —in an environment that prioritizes human control and isolation—presents line staff, supervisors, and facility administrators with extraordinary challenges. Correctional administrators with experience in operating supermax facilities talk about the potential for creating a “we/they syndrome” between staff and inmates. The nature and reputation of the inmate and frequently the behavior combined with ultra-control and rigidity magnify the tension between inmates and staff. When there is little interaction except in control situations, the adversarial nature of the relationships tends to be one of dominance and, in return, resistance on both sides. Generally, the overall constitutionality of these programs remains unclear. As larger numbers of inmates with a greater diversity of characteristics, backgrounds, and behaviors are incarcerated in these facilities, the likelihood of legal challenge is increased. Caution in expanding the types and number of inmates placed in these facilities will serve all parties well. A discussion of legal issues relevant to supermax facilities is contained in a forthcoming National Institute of Corrections (NIC) publication entitled Supermax Prisons: Legal Issues and Considerations. It is important then to assist agencies that are operating such facilities in asking the right questions about how they are operated. It is equally important to assist jurisdictions that are planning such facilities to ask the right questions about who they intend to put there, what design considerations they should explore, and how the facility will be operated. And, finally, it is important to assist jurisdictions that are yet or will be debating the issue, by providing as much information as possible to help frame the debate. A checklist contained in the appendix to this document was developed to guide practitioners’ discussions. Section 2. Survey and Survey Results In 1997, the NIC Prisons Division and Information Center released a Special Issues in Corrections paper entitled “Supermax Housing: A Survey of Current Practices,” based on a December 1996 survey of corrections systems nationwide. Responses were received from the 50 state corrections departments; the Federal Bureau of Prisons; the Correctional Service of Canada; and the New York City, Cook County, and District of Columbia Departments of Corrections. For the purposes of the survey, supermax housing was defined as follows: “A freestanding facility, or a distinct unit within a freestanding facility, that provides for the management and secure control of inmates who have been officially designated as exhibiting violent or seriously 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 access to staff and other inmates.” Survey results revealed that jurisdictions do not share a common definition of supermax due to their differing needs, classification criteria and methods, and operational considerations. It became clear that what may be “supermax” in one jurisdiction may not be in another. Examples of how differently jurisdictions define supermax and its operations follow. C One jurisdiction with approximately 20,000 inmates anticipates a need for supermax housing for 1% of its inmate population. It currently operates a 50-bed supermax unit within a maximum-security prison and is planning an additional 150 to 175 beds. Inmates housed in this unit have been unable or unwilling to conform to the rules and regulations of administrative segregation and have a history of violent, assaultive, and/or disruptive behavior within the corrections system. The minimum length of stay in supermax is 18 months. C Another jurisdiction with an inmate population under 15,000 reports a need for supermax housing for 5% of its inmate population. It reports as “supermax” a 500-bed prison for inmates in administrative segregation status. This facility houses inmates in several levels of transition to general population. C A third jurisdiction, with about 30,000 inmates, projects a need for 20% of its capacity to be supermax beds. It currently operates two facilities, with over 1,000 beds collectively, that it describes as supermax and reports plans to nearly double that number. These facilities house all new arrivals to the prison system, who are placed in maximum confinement requiring movement in restraints and living restrictions akin to segregation conditions. Inmates in the next lower custody classification live in medium-security units under medium-custody restrictions. C Two other jurisdictions, one with an inmate population of more than 100,000 and the other with nearly 45,000 inmates, each report having a supermax facility of approximately 500 beds designated to house inmates who have threatened or injured other prisoners or staff; possessed deadly weapons or dangerous drugs; disrupted the orderly operation of a prison; or escaped or attempted to escape in a manner that involved injury, threat of life, or use of deadly weapons. These jurisdictions report a need for supermax housing for .5% to 1% of their inmate populations. The survey revealed that some supermax facilities house only inmates who could not be controlled in traditional administrative segregation conditions. Others are an extension or expansion of traditional segregation or administrative segregation and may house protective custody and/or disciplinary segregation inmates. Yet others house inmates who would reside in close-custody general population in most other jurisdictions. In some jurisdictions, mentally ill inmates are specifically excluded from the supermax population while, in others, this level of control is considered necessary because of the paucity of mental health resources available in the system. Some agencies include transition programs in their supermax facilities that provide opportunity to earn privileges similar to those available to maximum or close general population inmates. A supermax unit within a high-custody facility does not usually have transition beds as would be found in a free- 3 standing supermax facility. Several general conclusions can be drawn from the survey: C There is no universal definition of what supermax facilities are and who should be placed in them. C The current and projected reasons stated for needing supermax space vary widely among jurisdictions, including increased violence, legislative interest, and availability of federal funds for such construction. C The reported need for supermax beds ranges from 0% to 20% of the reporting jurisdictions’ total bed capacity. C Some jurisdictions use supermax facilities interchangeably with disciplinary and/or administrative segregation. C The process for admission to and release from supermax facilities varies widely, with the final approving authority ranging from the institution superintendent/warden to the director/commissioner of the department of corrections. C Jurisdictions operating supermax housing vary widely in the length of time they hold inmates there. Some have determinate timeframes and some indeterminate. 4 • The inclusion or exclusion of mentally ill and developmentally disabled inmates differs greatly among jurisdictions. C Programs available in supermax facilities range from none, to cell front only, to televised programming, to some congregate programming. C Some jurisdictions provide transition programming to assist those leaving the extended control unit, while others do not. Supermax as defined in the survey may exist in relatively few jurisdictions. The survey results suggest that in some jurisdictions “supermax” may be primarily a correctional architecture term that describes a type of prison construction and a decision to concentrate higher risk inmates while, in other jurisdictions, it may be a new custody or confinement status associated with a changing inmate profile. The “supermax count” in the reporting jurisdictions includes inmates ranging from the most intractable to those who would reside in close or maximum general population in some other jurisdictions. The lack of a universal definition suggests the need for further examination and determination of whether “supermax” should be a custody/confinement status or a facility/unit security designation. Section 3. History and Definition History Various versions of high-custody and high-control prisons have existed in this country over the years. Prisons dating back to the earliest settlers operated a variety of isolation cells or units commonly referred to as “the hole” and generally used as a form of extra punishment for those who violated a prison’s rules repeatedly or egregiously. Commonly recognized as the forerunner of today’s supermax facilities, Alcatraz became the high-security penitentiary for “habitual” and “intractable” federal prisoners in 1934. Until its closure in 1963, Alcatraz housed the federal government’s most highly publicized offenders, its most sophisticated prison escape artists and riot leaders, and its most assaultive inmates. Alcatraz was closed in an era in which rehabilitation had become the primary rationale for penal confinement. The “concentration model” was abandoned, and inmates at Alcatraz were dispersed to federal penitentiaries across the country. Then, in 1978, the level of assaults and violence directed toward staff and prison unrest prompted the development of a special high-security control unit at the U.S. Penitentiary in Marion, Illinois. In 1983, the deaths of two officers and an inmate resulted in this prison’s conversion to indefinite administrative segregation, or lockdown. Marion housed the Bureau of Prisons’ most violent and troublesome prisoners until the opening of the Administrative Maximum Penitentiary in Florence, Colorado, in 1994. Although many of the state corrections systems have historically targeted one or more of their prisons for the most threatening prisoners, seldom have those prisons operated on a total lockdown basis as normal routine. Even prisons designated as maximum security have generally allowed movement, inmate interaction, congregate programs, and work opportunities. They have become political symbols of how “tough” a jurisdiction has become. As correctional populations have escalated in recent years, prison crowding has become the norm in most jurisdictions. Most prisons across the country have been operating at well over 100% of design capacity. This crowding aggravated by the increase in street gang members, drug offenders, mentally ill, and youthful offenders has stressed the prisons and corrections systems. Maintaining order has been a daunting challenge for prison wardens and corrections system administrators. One response on the part of prison officials in many jurisdictions, in attempting to maintain control, has been the introduction of supermax units or facilities. The trend toward proliferation of supermax housing would appear to be at least partially related to the belief that maintaining order in the larger part of a prison—or an entire corrections system—is enhanced by isolating the most serious and chronic troublemakers from the general population. In fact, many corrections officials state that the mere threat of such units is preventative in nature—that many inmates who might otherwise be disruptive are not, due to their fear of placement there. The fact that such facilities often are politically and publicly attractive (despite the considerable cost to build and operate them) also has had a role in their increase nationwide. They have become political symbols of how “tough” a jurisdiction has become. In some places, the motivation to build a supermax has come not from corrections officials, but from the legislature and—in at least one instance—the governor. Definition As supermax prisons have increased in number, been reported on by the media, and gained popularity with the public, a variety of names have emerged around the country to describe them. Special housing unit, maxi-maxi, maximum control facility, secured housing unit, intensive housing unit, intensive management unit, and administrative maximum penitentiary are but a few of the names used. The term “supermax” is the one heard most frequently in the media and in the field of corrections—the “generic descriptor.” Yet, as learned from the NIC survey, the term is applied to a wide variety of facilities and programs handling an equally wide variety of inmate populations. 5 For purposes of this report, we will describe supermax as “a highly restrictive, high-custody housing unit within a secure facility, or an entire secure facility, that isolates inmates from the general prison population and from each other due to grievous crimes, repetitive assaultive or violent institutional behavior, the threat of escape or actual escape from high-custody facility(s), or inciting or threatening to incite disturbances in a correctional institution.” The term “facility” is used throughout this report for brevity to refer to either or both a unit within a facility or an entire separate facility. It is assumed that such a facility would be operated with the majority of services and programs provided at cell front, that movement from the cell would be in restraints with multiple-officer escort, and that overall security would be the highest level available in an institution or the corrections system. It is important for agencies to develop a working definition if they want to properly evaluate an existing supermax facility or if they are planning to build and/or operate one. Differentiating these programs from traditional segregation units is essential if they are to be planned and operated efficiently and defensibly. Ambiguity in definition inhibits the ability of the corrections profession to develop sound models that may be readily adapted across jurisdictions with relative assurance that they will meet legal challenges, humane expectations, and generally accepted professional standards. In actuality, formal standards (such as those promulgated by the American Correctional Association and American Bar Association for correctional facilities) do not exist for supermax facilities specifically. custody populations with extended control populations runs the risk of overkill in the custody and security provided to inmates who have traditionally been handled without such rigorous and expensive control features. Few inmates serving short disciplinary segregation sanctions require the 22-hour-plus lockdown status, the privilege reductions, and the multiple-officer movement practices that extended control units generally employ. Admission/Release Criteria Critical to developing a working definition for an extended control facility is determining who will be in it. “Extended control” suggests that inmates who have demonstrated that they are chronically violent or assaultive, who present a serious escape risk, or who have demonstrated a capacity to incite disturbances or otherwise are threatening the orderly operation of the general population institution may become target populations. Thought should be given to limiting the use of extended control housing to inmates who present a “clear and present danger.” In clearly defining the population that is appropriate for extended control housing, agencies should also identify housing and placement criteria for inmates for whom lesser levels of security and custody may be appropriate, including: C those who are uncontrollable due to mental illness, C the incorrigible who are subject to frequent disciplinary segregation, C those in need of protective custody, Purpose The combined best thinking of professionals who have administered, developed, operated, and/or planned such programs would suggest their purpose should be for extended control of inmates known to be violent, assaultive, major escape risks, or likely to promote disturbances in a general population prison and that the criteria for admission to and release from such a facility should be explicit and narrow. The use of these facilities for problem inmates for whom lesser levels of control may be satisfactory may deprive them of freedoms, education, treatment, and work opportunities from which they could reap significant benefits and may subject them to pressures detrimental to their physical and psychological health. Mixing disciplinary segregation and protective 6 C those in need of administrative confinement for reasons that may require separation but not extended control, • those requiring observation because of unacceptable or problematic adjustment. Use of extended control housing for inmates who have only been situationally assaultive, or who commit minor (albeit frequent) infractions, or who cannot control their behavior due to mental illness will simply consume very expensive high-security beds with little overall operational impact. Prison staff have always had to deal with uncooperative inmates. They continuously test the limits, frequently break minor rules, and consume an inordinate amount of staff time. As comforting as it may be to an institution staff to be rid of such persons, the use of costly high-custody beds for this population is probably not only inefficient, but arguably overkill. These facilities are inappropriate for the nuisance inmate. Underlying the challenge of who to put in such facilities is the question of whether placement should rely solely on actual behavior or also include individuals who could be troublesome. Attempting to use predictive criteria based on subjective information has led historically to unsatisfactory and possibly indefensible results. Most agencies, therefore, base their criteria on objective behavior-driven information—although that behavior may include only the threat to commit or incite violence, or to escape. In addition to the target population for which extended control housing is designed, consideration must also be given to the inmates other than the target population who may reside in the facility. Terms of definition are frequently applied to both the facility and the residents. Often, a labeling process takes place and inmates housed in supermax facilities are known, counted, and treated as supermax inmates even though they may be in a transition program or assigned to another program in the facility. These facilities are inappropriate for the nuisance inmate. In large extended control facilities in which a portion of the population is close or maximum custody— with some general population movement capabilities —all inmates are often viewed as supermax or at least more difficult than “regular” maximum-custody inmates in other facilities. They may even view themselves as supermax inmates, and staff may subject them to controls and surveillance well beyond what their particular status demands, ascribing to them levels of threat far beyond reality. Viewing inmates who are not actually in extended control status as such may be a selffulfilling prophecy that diminishes progress or leads to a deterioration of behavior on the part of the inmates. Release criteria must also be given serious thought by the agency operating an extended control facility. Whether based on explicit timeframes, behavioral expectations, or combinations of both, it is important that the inmate be informed as to the conditions under which he/she may be released. With the goal of safely transferring inmates to lesser custody as soon as feasible, facility and central administration staff should conduct regular reviews of each inmate to assess the necessity of retaining him/her in the extended control environment. This becomes even more essential as a sentence nears its end and the inmate may be released to the community. 7 Section 4. Operational Issues Many management and operational issues gain heightened importance in extended control facilities. Some of these are: C The criteria by which inmates are admitted to or excluded from the facilities, C How inmates are managed, C The services they are provided, C The manner in which they are expected to behave, C The amount of human contact they have, C The allowable use of force and control of the use of force, C The criteria and process for release from extended control. The potential for abuse in an environment that prioritizes control of human beings, who by definition or in reality are the “worst of the worst,” can be mitigated by thoughtful attention to the manner in which such facilities are operated. The agency and facility mission and objectives, which include humane treatment, reduction of anger and violence, and reintegration into general population, should be clearly stated and affirmed in operations, programs, and staff training. The agency planning to operate such a facility, or evaluating its existing operation, should recognize the critical importance of the extended control mission and operational practices, including those discussed next. Classification Most prison classification systems have evolved over the last two decades from very subjective means of classifying inmates to relatively objective systems. This move toward objectivity has occurred mainly to avoid unbridled discretion and to incorporate into classification instruments the philosophical and policy preferences significant to the agency. Typically the classification process will allow for 8 the orderly determination of the level of custody an inmate requires, based on criminal and behavioral history; the medical, psychological, and programmatic needs and limitations of the inmate; and the type of institution that can best meet those considerations. Objective classification systems have not only helped correctional agencies defend their placement decisions when challenged, but have helped them attempt to place individuals in the least-restrictive facility—and therefore presumably the least costly. Objective classification systems also generally provide inmates with a known path for moving to less secure facilities and incentives for behaving appropriately, working, and pursuing improvement programs. It is therefore wise for agencies that are operating or planning to operate extended control facilities to assure that the process for identifying inmates for placement there is at least consistent with and preferably an integral part of the agency’s classification process. This will probably assist in legal defense of the placements as well as help avoid the overuse—or inappropriate use —of very expensive housing. Inherent in using the classification process to determine an inmate’s eligibility for extended control is that the criteria for admission are clearly articulated, non-ambiguous, and consistent with the agency’s disciplinary process. Many agencies operate under administrative rule or policy that provides a mechanism and authorization for placement of an inmate in administrative confinement or segregation when he/she is deemed to be a threat to the safety, security, or orderly operation of the institution. This is often a non-disciplinary status—that is, the placement is not a penalty with a determinate time affixed to it, but is based on a pattern or history of dangerousness or unconfirmed but reliable evidence of pending disruption. With the advent of extended control facilities and specific criteria for placement, agencies should carefully consider what impact the need or requirement to provide objective or behaviorally based criteria for admission there would have on administrative segregation decisions. In many agencies, administrative segregation of an inmate who may be a threat to safety, security, or order is an approved remedy without application of objective criteria or verified misconduct. Wardens peri- odically invoke this procedure as a preventative or protective measure based on strong belief that an inmate’s continued presence in the general population may create a threat to safety and security. Following periodic reviews, segregation of such inmates may then be continued, despite exemplary behavior in segregation, because of the strong belief that the inmate’s violent proclivities and/or intentions to harm others or threaten security of the facility when given the opportunity remain unchanged. ior, knowledge, or skills. It would be prudent to have the final authority for approving admission to, retention in, and release from extended control rest at the highest levels of the organization. Hans Toch and Kenneth Adams, in The Disturbed Violent Offender, discuss the management of offenders who are viewed as having mental health deficiencies and who are violent. They differentiate between the disturbed violent offender and the disturbed violent offender. Herein lies one of the numerous classification difficulties related to the protection of others by segregation of offenders with a history and potential of violence. Diagnosis, prediction, risk assessment, and identification of causal factors to violent acting out often defy objective criteria and invite a significant degree of subjectivity. Prison administrators should be cognizant of that difficulty in defining admission, release, and length of stay criteria. Education is provided in a variety of ways in extended control facilities around the country. Some agencies allow television in the cells and provide education or self-help programs through intra-institution cable. Some supplement this with instructors providing assistance through cell-front visits. Others allow small congregate classes in day rooms or special rooms in close proximity to the housing units. Some provide no educational programs at all. Once an inmate is placed in an extended control facility, specific classification review periods are advisable, either chronological or event-driven, or both. The reviews should provide the inmate with the opportunity to offer information that would lead to consideration of a reduced custody placement and to be informed of the conditions that must be met for such consideration. Exercise in most extended control facilities is limited to three to seven hours (in one-hour intervals) per week, generally in an indoor space or small, secure, attached outdoor space. Usually exercise is provided to one inmate at a time and the inmate is escorted in restraints by two or more correctional officers to and from the exercise space. Congregate exercise occurs only in transition programs provided in some facilities. It would be prudent to have the final authority for approving admission to, retention in, and release from an extended control facility rest at the highest levels of the organization. This would preclude—or minimize— potential abuse of the policy criteria for admission and release and also raise the level of organizational consciousness of the seriousness of such placements. Programming Decisions on what types of programming to provide and how should be well thought out. Obviously the more programs available to the inmates, the less vulnerable the facility will be to legal challenge and the more likely that inmates’ negative reaction to isolation will be ameliorated. Programming for this purpose includes education, work opportunities, exercise, and various other programs aimed at improving the inmates’ behav- Most allow no work activities, although they might provide some work opportunities in transition programs for inmates being prepared to leave the extended control environment. Agencies evaluating their extended control facilities or planning new ones should pay close attention to exercise and how they provide it. It is a critical issue not only because of the human, health, and legal issues it presents, but for the staffing cost and security implications. The number of staff required to move each inmate from a cell to the exercise space and back three to seven times each week is considerable. As these events also constitute the most frequent time that the inmate is out of his/her cell, they also present the most likely opportunity for resistive or combative behavior or the exchange or introduction of contraband. Most other types of programming offered in extended control facilities, such as substance abuse treatment, anger management, and vocational training, are provided only through television, correspondence, or 9 written materials. Several agencies operating transition units offer congregate programming, generally concentrating on education, substance abuse treatment, and behavior control (such as anger management). Agencies planning or evaluating extended control facilities would be well served to thoughtfully address the provision of inmate programs. Legal, human, financial, and security implications attach to each of the choices made. The choices can range from an approach of no more programming than is legally required to provision of as much programming as resources allow, consistent with the security needs of the facility. The choices made will set the tone for the overall nature of the extended control environment and will inevitably have an impact on the quality of the program. Religion Providing for the inmate to practice his/her religion poses particular challenges to extended control facility administrators, since the entry of any person to the housing unit presents additional opportunity for the introduction of contraband. Agencies operating extended control facilities usually provide for religious programming through cell-front visits by staff chaplains; approved clergy; or, in some instances, approved religious volunteers. Several agencies provide religious services and information through closed-circuit television available in the cells. A few allow small groups of inmates to participate in congregate services, normally in or immediately adjacent to the housing unit. Extended control facilities also tend to have somewhat abbreviated lists of approved religious articles that inmates are allowed to keep in their cells. Those planning such programs should review their intended religious articles allowance lists and try to strike a balance between actual security needs and the inmate’s right to practice his/her religion. Length of Stay The length of stay in extended control facilities varies greatly across jurisdictions. Some agencies have determinate periods of time to be served, but most have relatively or wholly indeterminate placements. The amount of time served may depend upon the perceived risk the inmate presents, behavior changes, the amount of time left in the inmate’s sentence, changes in the inmate’s physical or psychological condition, the inmate’s willingness to renounce gang ties, or other factors. 10 The ongoing agency need for extended control beds requires some movement of inmates out of extended control. To the extent possible, such movement should be based upon clear criteria related to the factors that led to the inmate’s placement there. While specific categories of offense or violation, such as homicide, may merit a far-distant date for possible return to lesser custody, most inmates should be considered for reduced custody in the shorter term. The development of release criteria that enable estimating length of stay is of practical importance in maintaining bed availability and projecting the agency’s bed needs for operating and capital budget planning purposes. It is critical that the agency planning or evaluating an extended control facility consciously address the length-of-stay issue. Duration of certain types of confinement, particularly if that confinement is atypical of the norm, has frequently been one of the yardsticks courts have used in evaluating the constitutionality of a program. Presumably, once the threat that the inmate presented to other people or the orderly operation of the institution has passed, there is no need for him/her to be retained in an extended control environment. Ideally, specific criteria should be developed, along with a process for assessment, that would allow the inmate to transition from an extended control facility to lesser levels of custody and security. Many agencies provide several levels of control and privileges in the same facility, offering the inmate the opportunity to display the ability to adjust and behave in a less-controlled environment. Failure to provide some transition or release mechanism will not only create a sense of hopelessness among many of the inmates, but will cause the overuse of costly high-security beds. Corrections professionals agree that, ideally, dangerous inmates should not be released directly to the community from extended control and that transition and pre-release programming would prepare them for reintegration. It is difficult, however, to balance the inmate’s need for such programming with the agency’s responsibility to provide a safe and secure work environment for its staff. An approaching release date seldom, if ever, changes the degree of threat to staff for the better. Most often, inmates who are dangerous pose greater threat to staff as the term of control by the agency decreases. An agency’s policies should address this very important but difficult issue. Human Contact One of the most frequent criticisms of extended control facilities is the degree to which the inmate is isolated from contact with other human beings. In the typical facility, cell doors, unit doors, and shower doors are operated remotely from a control center. Human contact may be limited to instances when medical staff, clergy, or a counselor stops at the front of the inmate’s cell during rounds. Physical contact may be limited to being touched through a security door by a correctional officer while being placed in restraints or having restraints removed. The bulk of verbal communication may occur through intercom systems. Further minimization of human contact may result from the use of technologies such as cameras; remote listening devices; and remote control devices for televisions, water, and lights. Specific scheduling of different staff who check on the inmate regularly and provide some verbal interaction opportunity will help mitigate the “we/them” syndrome that is inherent to an extended control environment. Special training in techniques for communicating with this population is advisable for all staff. Medical Services One of the most vulnerable parts of any correctional operation is the medical care provided to an inmate population. The less freedom an inmate has to seek out medical assistance, the greater the burden on corrections officials to assure that adequate medical care is available and provided. Agencies planning or evaluating extended control facilities must assure that they adequately provide for routine and emergency medical care and that policies, procedures, and training assure that all staff are alert to actual medical problems and needs. Logistically, providing appropriate medical care in an extended control facility is a special challenge due to the inability of the inmate to move unescorted to a central medical infirmary. Most facilities use a triage process for providing medical services, involving regular cell-front visits by medical personnel to administer medication and listen to inmates’ medical concerns. Many facilities regularly schedule medical personnel to perform simple examinations in small exam rooms located in or near the housing units. More extensive medical examinations or procedures usually require movement to a central location within the facility, to a different facility, or even to a community setting. This requires a significant investment of custody staff time —generally two or three correctional officers accompanying the inmate, who is in restraints, at all times. Care should be taken by those planning and evaluating extended control facilities to balance the need for security, safety, and efficiency with the need to provide adequate human interaction between the inmate and selected staff. Adequate visiting programs for approved visitors—albeit in non-contact visiting areas —can at least partially compensate for the absence of human contact in the housing unit. The frequency of visiting varies greatly among extended control facilities, ranging from one hour to several hours per month. Some facilities tie the frequency of visits to the phase of the program that the inmate is in, with more frequent visits allowed as the inmate progresses through the phases. The inclusion of modern equipment and technology in the facility—such as specially designed video equipment that allows conducting medical examinations from a remote site (telemedicine)—has proven effective in some jurisdictions. Such technology can reduce the need for inmate transport and thereby reduce the cost of custody staff and enhance security. Mental Health Services Prominent in recent legal challenges to extended control facilities are issues around the provision of mental health services. As the percentage of mentally ill offenders represented in correctional populations has grown over the last decade, corrections systems have had to deal with a wide range of mental illnesses and 11 disorders, frequently without adequate resources. Inmates displaying self-destructive, assaultive, or aberrant behavior often end up being treated solely as disciplinary cases and, in many corrections systems, become prime candidates for extended control. Other inmates become mentally ill while in the extended control environment. Most corrections officials will agree that the inmate with multiple diagnoses (for example, mental illness, addiction, and violence) poses significant problems in the orderly operation of a prison. It is an unfortunate circumstance that housing, program, and offender management decisions must often be based on options available (driven by the agency’s resources) and system needs (safe, secure, and orderly operations), rather than through a prioritization of the multiply diagnosed offender’s needs. An offender with a serious history of violence and current propensities that suggest probable reoccurrence of such behaviors might possibly be housed in an extended control environment—absent the availability of a secure mental health treatment unit. Agencies with extended control facilities manage this population in different ways. Some—generally larger agencies that have the numbers to support consolidation—have created separate segregation units specifically for offenders diagnosed as mentally ill. Others attempt to provide services within the extended control facility. Yet others exclude mentally ill offenders from placement there, at least those who have been clinically diagnosed and/or are receiving psychotropic medications. It is important that prison officials examine their options in managing inmates with special needs. If extended control becomes the housing of choice (or of necessity) for these populations, care must be taken to assure that services are provided to address their needs. It is critical that, at a minimum, provision is made for mental health professional staff to regularly visit each inmate housed there to assess for signs of mental illness. Provision then must be made to assure that treatment is available in the facility or elsewhere. Security measures in most extended control facilities make such assessment and treatment programs difficult and expensive. To facilitate recognition of symptoms of mental illness, early referral, and proper management, many agencies are now providing basic mental health training to correctional officers. Insofar as possible, mentally ill inmates should be excluded from extended control facilities. Each inmate 12 being considered for such a facility should have a mental health evaluation. Although some mentally ill offenders are assaultive and require control measures, much of the regime common to extended control facilities may be unnecessary, and even counterproduc-tive, for this population. Food Service Correctional administrators have learned over the years that providing adequate, nutritionally balanced, properly cooked food is essential—both for the successful management of a prison and to meet constitutional minima when conditions of confinement are challenged. Extended control facilities provide the ultimate correctional food service challenge. Normally meals are prepared remotely from the extended control housing unit(s). They then must be moved to the housing units and distributed to each cell. A variety of cart and tray systems are currently in use, but all are staff intensive and time consuming. Care must be taken that food is maintained at the proper temperature and that proper hygiene precautions are followed during distribution and cleanup. In most facilities this burden falls entirely on staff—normally the custody staff—and can be a daily source of conflict and resistance if the food and/or procedures are inadequate. All of the other complexities of correctional food service should also be considered by those evaluating an extended control facility or planning a new one. These include quantity and quality control, religious diets, medical diets, and presentation. Adherence to normally accepted dietary standards should be maintained, and food service and facility managers should monitor this. Property The property an inmate is allowed to possess always poses a challenge for prison administrators, but even more so in extended control facilities. On one hand, allowing the inmate to maintain certain types of property (such as a television, radio, and recreational reading materials) would help mitigate the absence of other stimuli. The more property allowed, however, the more difficult it is for staff to conduct thorough searches. A large amount of property in housing units makes the introduction and concealment of contraband much easier. It may present a fire hazard, as well as make maintenance of sanitation standards more difficult. Incentives, disincentives, or both should be incorporated as part of the facility’s policies to encourage inmates to maintain acceptable levels of sanitation in their cells. Policies should be developed to govern the distribution of materials and equipment to inmates for cleaning their cells. Efficient, hygienic laundry services must be available, and routine linen and clothing exchange procedures maintained and monitored. Excess linen and clothing in the cells becomes both a sanitation and facility budget issue and makes it difficult to conduct good cell searches. Careful evaluation of property to be allowed should strike a balance between the security, safety, and sanitation needs of the facility and a property allowance that supports reasonable human dignity. Particular attention must be given to items that could present a security threat: razors, pens, matches, etc. Agencies vary widely in what and how much they allow. Some allow commissary purchases, some allow them only after certain phases of the program have been completed, and some disallow such purchases entirely. Critical to planning or evaluation efforts is that such decisions must be commensurate with the level of risk presented by the specific population of the facility. Hygiene and Sanitation Issues Inmate personal hygiene and cleanliness of the facility are important when planning or evaluating extended control options. Most facilities have toilet and washbasin fixtures in each cell and showers located centrally within the housing units. Two or more correctional officers move inmates individually in restraints to the shower (normally three or more times per week). This is a staff-intensive process that presents an opportunity for resistance, combativeness, or contraband introduction. Recent designs for extended control facilities include a shower in each cell with the water remotely controlled, thereby eliminating the need for staff-intensive escort to central showers. Sanitation of other parts of the facility and other hygiene issues must also be taken into account. Since extended control inmates are restricted to their cells unless in restraints and under escort, they cannot perform cleaning or other facility maintenance work in common areas that inmates in a general population prison would typically do. Accommodation must then be made for staff to maintain these areas. Security Security issues clearly become the focal point of most extended control facilities. If indeed the inmate population held there is limited to those who have 13 displayed a propensity for violence or escape, or who present a threat of disruption within a prison, then strict control of all materials, information, and personnel entering or leaving the facility becomes crucial to its orderly and safe operation. Many security issues are dependent upon the physical design, and proper design can go a long way in ameliorating many security problems. However, the greatest contribution to a sound security program is an alert, well-trained, professional staff. With few exceptions, escapes, disturbances, and homicides in extended control facilities were the result of human error. The routine inherent to these facilities can become disarming, leading to potential breakdown in critical procedures. Some agencies, by policy or scheduling, attempt to lessen the effects of routine by rotating staff in the housing units, between units, or into other parts of the facility. Frequent shakedowns of the cells and areas of the facility that inmates may use are essential and require extensive staff training and supervision if they are to be conducted properly. Technology can contribute to a sound security program. A variety of options are now available for staff and visitor screening, and new types of scanners and detectors for examining property and mail. New types of perimeters, security doors, and control mechanisms can enhance security. Particular attention should be paid to those technologies that not only qualitatively improve the facility’s security, but also reduce staffing requirements. Policies and Procedures Particularly critical to the operation of extended control facilities are policies that enumerate what must be done (or not be done) and procedures that dictate how things should be done. The policies should clearly state the correctional agency’s philosophy and expectations for the operation of the extended control facility, along with explicit procedures for how and when which things should be accomplished. Staff must be thoroughly trained on policies and procedures that apply to them and be aware of who, if anyone, can make exceptions. The policies should elaborate on the behavior expected of both staff and inmates, as well as between staff and inmates. Operational difficulties in the past generally were the result of inadequate policies and procedures, failure to adequately 14 train staff, or both. Communication of changes in policies and procedures must be quick and thorough. As in other correctional settings, the legality of operations in extended control facilities will be measured against the facility’s or agency’s own policies and procedures and whether staff performance is consistent with those policies and procedures. A formal, official, frequent, and ongoing updating of policies and procedures is essential. Informal exceptions, handwritten modifications, and memoranda at variance with existing policies or procedures quickly render them ineffective, if not useless. If operations or incidents are challenged in court, the facility’s policies and procedures will become its greatest ally or greatest adversary. Routine security audits are excellent tools to ensure compliance with established policies and procedures. A comprehensive audit program and well-designed system checks that assess staff response, equipment, and operational practices will help assure a strong security system. Such a program will also maintain the knowledge and skill levels of the staff and reinforce their attentiveness. Use of Force The use of force is inevitable in extended control settings. Care must be taken in planning or evaluating these facilities to ensure that policies and procedures, techniques, philosophies, and controls of the use of force are thoroughly analyzed. Although a few agencies have officers in control booths armed with firearms and/or gas, most rely on higher numbers of staff as their primary means of physical control, supplemented by a variety of nonlethal weapons. A case can be made that force is used each time an inmate is moved out of the cell. Typically, two or more officers handcuff the inmate (often supplemented by leg or waist chains) before he/she is allowed out of the cell. The inmate is then moved under the supervision of two or three officers—in some agencies by hands-on escort —to the destination point. Such instances are referred to as routine use of force. Operational policies should require 1) thorough documentation of the use of force through written reports by each staff member present during the use of force, 2) videotaping of each planned use of force, 3) periodic debriefing and examination of practices with involved staff, 4) regular review of all use-of-force incidents by facility administrators, and 5) mandated review of documentation and videotapes of specified levels of use of force by higher authority. Some agencies are now installing constantly operating panoramic video cameras in their housing units and corridors, taping everything that occurs there. This not only acts as a control measure to prevent abuse or violation of policies and procedures, but documents staff and inmate activities to forestall unfounded claims by inmates. Documentation Other uses of force that must be anticipated include cell extractions; controlling self-destructive behavior; and dealing with combative, resistive, and assaultive behaviors. Although few facilities have experienced large-scale disturbances, all must be prepared for such an event and be able to respond with specialized, welltrained tactical teams. Critical to use-of-force planning or evaluation are policies and procedures that clearly articulate what level of authority is required for each level of force used, the steps that must be taken to reduce or eliminate the need for using force, the type of force to be used, and the steps to be taken once the force has been applied. Routine documentation of the activities and events in extended control facilities, including videotaping cell extractions or other planned uses of force, is essential for several reasons: C It allows supervisory and administrative staff to monitor the day-to-day performance of staff. C It reinforces staff observance of policies and procedures and the need for performing certain tasks and activities. C It creates a record of the completion of required tasks and exceptions to the normal routine that can be used in the event of a legal challenge. C It allows continuity and communication across work shifts. It is particularly important to consistently document hearings; use of force; medical and dental services provided; mental health evaluations and contacts; and access to personal hygiene facilities, exercise, and religious and legal resources. It is critical that staff document an inmate’s refusal of a proffered service or opportunity, such as a meal, medical or dental care, use of facilities and resources, etc. 15 Section 5. Staff Issues Personnel Characteristics Corrections officials who have operated extended control facilities agree that, ideally, staff should possess the characteristics of maturity, intelligence, and good judgment, and—at least for custody positions—be physically capable of performing the rigorous duties required of them. They should be even-tempered, consistent, and capable of respecting diversity in the inmate population. The difficulty of working day-to-day in an environment that is a mixture of repetitive routine, unscheduled incidents, and physical/personal challenges requires that the staff be uniquely adaptable to working in an abnormal setting with persons who present inordinate adjustment and management problems. Agencies vary in the types of pre-employment testing they require. Ideally, such testing would include medical examinations and tests for physical agility, psychological fitness, use of illegal drugs, and special knowledge and skills. Certainly the high-security nature of these facilities requires thorough background investigations. Recruitment and Selection Most professionals agree that the staffing of an extended control facility is the single most important factor in ensuring safe, secure, and humane operations. Although the ability to be highly selective in assignment of staff is very important, it is not always possible because of limitations that may include bargaining agreements, an existing staffing complement, or a requirement to hire displaced staff. Although some managers prefer to hire new staff and provide them intensive training rather than rely on experienced staff who may have “bad habits” developed in other settings, it is difficult to justify assignment of inexperienced staff to work with the system’s most difficult inmates. Most new staff, with or without intensive training, will have difficulty in an extended control environment, and many will “opt out” through resignation or when transfer becomes available to them. Initial assignment to extended control may result in the loss of new staff who otherwise may have promising career potential. An agency should also recognize that the assignment of inexperienced staff to such critical posts may subject them to safety and security risks they 16 can ill afford to take. Assigning staff to an extended control facility strictly on a seniority basis is also troublesome because seniority (or lack of it) may not relate in any way to requisite interest, temperament, skills, knowledge, and experience. Agencies should be especially mindful of the risks inherent in staffing a unit with predominately low seniority workers, as can happen when seniority prevails and segregation work is unpopular. In such instances, a mismatch of skills, experience, interest, and temperament can negatively impact the operation of the facility and can create a dangerous situation, hinder the adjustment of the inmates to difficult conditions, result in staff turnover, or be detrimental to staff’s physical and psychological health. Agencies should consider establishing special eligibility requirements or, perhaps, a special employee classification for extended control workers that would require successful completion of a specialized training program before regular or relief assignment to extended control posts. In addition to familiarizing staff with the dynamics of violence and disruptive and/or antisocial behavior, such training should prepare them to communicate regularly and positively with inmates in an environment that is structured to make such communication difficult. Selecting staff who choose to work in extended control and have prepared themselves and acquired special knowledge and skills will pay great dividends as opposed to staffing the facility through seniority, rotation, or with those considered the “toughest of the tough.” Many of the extended control facilities built in recent years are located in rural areas far from metropolitan centers. This creates extraordinary challenges in recruitment and retention of staff, particularly in specialty areas such as physicians, dentists, and mental health professionals, and may require recruitment efforts and flexibility in employment practices that are beyond standard practice. Achieving a diverse workforce is also more difficult when the facilities are located in relatively isolated areas. However, it is important, if not essential, that an agency ensure by whatever means necessary that an appropriate racial, ethnic, and gender balance is achieved and maintained. Agencies that have required gender balance and provided training to ensure understanding of professional and operational expectations of both men and women have found that gender balance “softens” the environment and encourages the development or maintenance of positive social, hygiene, and behavioral practices by inmates. Racial and ethnic balance is critical in the minimization of anger, creating perceptions of fairness, providing equity in interpersonal dialogue with under-represented inmate groups in the population, and maintaining cultural sensitivity. Although recruiting, hiring, and retaining minority staff for extended control work is difficult in some jurisdictions, specialized training and a special employee classification could prove helpful. Care must be taken to assure that all personnel in an extended control facility are thoroughly trained.... Training Training, which is crucial to any correctional operation, is especially critical for staff working in extended control facilities. Custody staff in particular must perform their duties in an environment in which inmates by reputation—and frequently in reality—are combative, assaultive, or threatening. Staff must work together and be able to rely on each other to a greater degree than in most other correctional settings. Regular counts, feeding, handling of correspondence and property, delivery of medications, providing escort, and performing cell searches all require specific knowledge and attention to detail. Staff must be able to handle their responsibilities consistently and professionally. Failure to properly restrain an inmate, perform a thorough pat search, or operate control panels precisely can lead to disastrous results. Only quality training and regular refresher courses can provide the skills essential to carry out these duties in a professional manner and ensure that bad habits are not passed along to new staff members. Top performance levels can only be reached through thorough orientation and basic training, solid on-the-job training with competent supervision, and annual review/refresher training. Care must be taken to assure that all personnel in an extended control facility are thoroughly trained in security procedures and requirements and facility operations philosophy, as well as their own job skills. It is particularly important that training be provided to ensure that staff understand the documentation that is required in all aspects of the extended control operation. Cross-training of individuals so they can perform in a number of posts increases the flexibility of the custody staff and enhances their understanding of the total operation. Specialized training also should be planned for special operations teams, search and shakedown teams, emergency medical response teams, and cell extraction teams. Stress Many corrections professionals who have operated or administered extended control facilities express concern that the unique challenges of these facilities can create a great deal of stress for the individuals who work there. A very stressful environment is created by much of the work day being extremely routine while emergencies can occur instantaneously, staff being challenged verbally and/or physically by inmates, and so much emphasis on security and control. Agencies operating extended control facilities attempt to mitigate the impact of this environment in a variety of ways. Some require rotation of assignments within the unit or facility, some require periodic rotation out of the unit or facility, and others rely on training and stress reduction classes to help employees handle the work environment. Bargaining unit contracts in some jurisdictions inhibit or prohibit the rotation of staff between shifts, posts, units, or facilities. Agencies that are planning extended control facilities should evaluate existing contracts or agreements and attempt to develop the flexibility to allow management to rotate staff. Contracts should also include provision for staff to have access to counseling, particularly after traumatic incidents such as necessary use of force. Leadership and Supervision Integral to the operation of a quality and legally defensible extended control facility are strong, technically competent, and professional leadership and supervision at all levels—from the line-level supervising custody officer to the administrators of the agency. Administrators at the central agency level must assure that thorough policy guidance is provided to set 17 the parameters for the operation of the facility. Policy must clearly outline who will be considered for admission to the facility; what authority may allow such a placement; what reviews will occur, how often, and by whom; and what the release criteria are and who approves. Central agency administrators should also establish a process to review the policies and procedures developed at the local level and to regularly review useof-force incidents. They also should, on a regular basis, personally review the operation of the facilities onsite to assure that the policies and procedures are indeed being followed. Administrators and managers at the local level (superintendents, wardens, and their delegates) must assure that the local policies and procedures are consistent with central agency policies and are sufficiently thorough to provide clear guidance to staff working in the extended control facility. It is also incumbent on local managers to observe operations—routine and exceptional—on a regular basis. They also have the responsibility to assure that training time and resources are available, that training is thorough and consistent with their own policies and procedures, and that the training is relevant to the effective and efficient operation of the facility. Local managers must also ensure that support services are coordinated and functioning at a level that permits proper delivery of services to both inmates and staff. First- and second-level supervisors have critical roles in the proper operation of extended control facilities. They must assure, on a day-to-day, momentby-moment basis, that the staff know what to do and 18 how to do it. They must see to it that routine tasks are indeed routinely accomplished, yet be able to take an onsite leadership role when incidents occur. Comprehensive training is imperative for this segment of the staff also, as they must be thoroughly knowledgeable of and understand the policies and procedures and how to implement them. In addition, they must be well trained in the supervision of subordinates, crisis management, and use-of-force techniques. Non-custody staff must also be selected and trained to provide leadership and supervision over their particular specialties. Medical, dental, food service, mental health, religious, program, maintenance, and other support staff must provide leadership and technical knowledge in their areas of expertise to create balance in the facility operation. They must also be thoroughly grounded in knowledge of the mission of the facility and understand and accept the safety and security requirements of the operation. If the extended control facility is to avoid common pitfalls, it is incumbent on administrators at all levels to think through, adopt, and implement consistent policies, procedures, and behaviors that promote professional operation of these very demanding and challenging places. If successful, the agency may be able to avoid, or at least reduce, the risks of the “we/they” syndrome between the staff and inmates. If quality leadership and supervision are absent, the program is likely to face major problems and probably litigation. Section 6. Siting, Design, and Construction Issues Co-Located vs. Separate Jurisdictions in the planning stages of developing an extended control facility should give a great deal of thought to their decision to either co-locate it with another correctional institution or to site and build a separate facility. Extended control facilities in operation are sited in both ways and in variations of those ways. Co-location, either through renovation or new construction, usually offers several advantages: less public resistance to the siting process, existing utility extensions and agreements, opportunity for staff at the parent institution to oversee the renovation/construction phase, and availability of logistical support once the new facility is in operation. Co-location also may offer the advantage of a ready source of experienced staff, facilitate rotation of staff from extended control to less stressful units, and provide greater backup capability in an emergency. Those critical of co-located facilities suggest it is difficult to maintain the high level of security and custody when lower custody programs are at the same location. A separate stand-alone facility at a different site may mitigate that fear. It allows for a “brand new beginning” in the startup of the program and allows for all elements, from security features to housing units to support areas, to be designed in support of the extended control program. However, transition programs within the facility can have an effect similar to having lower custody programs colocated. Site Selection It would be desirable to locate extended control facilities in or near urban areas to facilitate recruiting and maintaining a diverse workforce; recruiting specialty staff and services (medical, dental, and mental health); and reducing logistical costs associated with such things as transportation of people and supplies. Many corrections officials advise against urban sites, however, suggesting they create greater visibility and uninformed criticism of the program, greater public resistance to siting, and a greater threat (real or perceived) to security. Rural sites have become more of the norm in recent years, as the building of correctional facilities is seen by smaller communities as a means of enhancing the local economy with an “industry” that is relatively envi- ronment-friendly and stable. Locating in a community that is accepting rather than resistant is desirable for any endeavor, public or private. Before initiating a siting process for an extended control facility, agencies should address the issues of staff recruitment and retention; transportation; access to medical, law enforcement, and fire services; availability of affordable housing; and environmental impact. Siting often becomes a political decision with little regard for pragmatic correctional issues, but corrections officials should at least document their concerns. Design Issues The designs of extended control facilities vary greatly, and many agencies with newer facilities have borrowed design ideas from earlier models. As in all new construction, the design should be heavily based on the mission of the facility. Considerations in defining the mission should include the profile of the target population; custody requirements; planned programs and services; the facility’s relationship to other parts of the corrections system, particularly in matters concern-ing reception and release; and if transition programs will be housed in the facility. Once these elements are defined, technology requirements and housing, program, and shared spaces can be determined. An agency should carefully consider the number of extended control beds that are or will be needed. Officials should avoid the approach that “more is better” and limit the size of the facility to the number of beds essential to the management of dangerous inmates for whom no other viable means of control is available. Overbuilding extended control capacity—which will be used by some profile of inmate in this era of burgeoning prison populations—may cause problems operationally and legally as the agency attempts to house inmates in an extended control environment who do not require that level of custody or security. Once constructed, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to use the facility without the intensive staffing characteristic of extended control operations. Most extended control facility designs incorporate single cells; a relatively small number of cells in each pod; and a remote central control booth that 19 electronically operates cell doors, shower doors, unit doors, and any number of other functions in several pods. Some new facilities, though considered supermax, are designed for double-celling, which suggests that the target population requires a lesser level of custody than that required by a true extended control population. If the target population is suitable for double-celling, the planning agency should consider whether a lower level of control that is less costly than extended control may be appropriate. In planning new facilities, inclusion of relatively inexpensive technology can provide amenities that can become incentives for good behavior and support health, safety, and security. Secure, built-in intercoms, radios, and monitors with which to communicate with inmates and provide educational, religious, and treatment programs and access to legal information and current events are among the possibilities for humanizing a sterile environment. Although an agency may choose to provide few programs to inmates in extended control, consideration should be given to including program delivery capabilities in design and construction to accommodate necessary modifications in future years based on changing needs, court decisions, or policy revisions. If transition programming is to be provided, the design should include adequate day room, program, recreation/ exercise, and other shared spaces to facilitate progressively greater freedom of movement for inmates. Housing, programs, out-of-cell opportunity, and staff interaction should all demonstrate that the inmate is making progress, but sufficient custody should be maintained to ensure safety. Space separation from the extended control housing should be apparent and should clearly distinguish transition inmates and staff who supervise them from extended control inmates and staff. Most extended control designs significantly “harden” and limit the number of access and egress points on the perimeter. Support services are generally near but remote from the housing units. Some designs include an inner perimeter that allows lower custody inmates, normally from an adjacent institution (but possibly inmates in transition programs housed in the extended control facility), to provide support such as food, library, maintenance, and sanitation services but without contact with the extended control inmates. Space for some support services and activities, such as attorney and family visiting areas, hearing rooms, medical examination rooms, and counselor 20 and supervisor offices, is often provided in immediate proximity to or in the housing pods. Space designed for administrators and managers varies, but normally is split between an “outside” administration building to house support personnel who ordinarily do not have routine inmate contact and “inside” administration areas for staff providing direct inmate services. Limiting the number of staff who enter the secure perimeter to those essential to the daily operation of the institution lessens the potential for security breaches and reduces staff security processing time. Critical design decisions faced by planners—with varying choices being made—include cell size, windows (or not), types of cell fronts and doors, locking and control systems, types of electronic systems on the perimeter, special relationships of support services, training space for staff, program space (if any), congregate recreation and/or exercise space (if any), and many others. It is important that the experience of extended control managers in other agencies be considered and that policy and operations issues be addressed before planning and design. Poor decisions up front inevitably lead to extensive retrofitting or remodeling at a later date, increased operating costs, and the potential for weakened security. Agencies planning new facilities should try to avoid designs that are so “tight” that they restrict additions or changes to the facility in the future, when correctional needs may change. For example, some extended control facilities contain little or no space for programs, based on the assumption that the type of population they will house will not be allowed to participate in congregate programs. In the future, either due to court decisions or different system needs, they may encounter serious and probably very costly problems in attempting to meet new challenges if the design is so inflexible as to pre-clude additions to the original facility. Construction Costs During the past decade, the costs of operating prison systems have increased dramatically due to increasing numbers of inmates, new prison construction, and the swelling ranks of corrections staff. As the share of a jurisdiction’s budget dedicated to corrections increases, so does attention to correctional operations. This has often resulted in a reduction of critical services. Construction of extended control facilities is very costly due to the need for high-security components: elaborate perimeters; high-security doors, hardware, and locking systems; heavily fortified walls, ceilings, and floors; and sophisticated electronic systems in master and unit control rooms. Although construction costs are high, they are dwarfed by the costs to staff such facilities over a period of years. Virtually all inmate services, maintenance, and sanitation work are provided wholly or in part by corrections staff in these facilities. Cost-benefit analysis of construction methods, materials, and equipment and visionary planning of space needs and use are essential in all construction planning. While use of lower-grade materials and equipment, reduction of core space to the minimum footage feasible, and not “footprinting” in space for possible other uses in the future have enabled agencies to reduce initial construction costs, these approaches to cost containment have resulted in significant maintenance, replacement, and retrofitting costs later. A footprint that includes space for expansion, alternate use, or addition of program modules adds little to construction costs and can produce great savings in future years. able to operate with reduced custody staffing as a result of a significant reduction in the number of out-of-cell escorts. Some agencies have been able to reduce the number of security staff through use of video cameras and other electronic equipment, this being particularly effective when their use is incorporated into the original facility design. One particularly critical factor that has a significant impact on operating costs is the design of the perimeter. Whether (and how many) towers are incorporated has long-term operating budget implications. Maintaining coverage in one tower seven days per week, 24 hours per day requires approximately 5.3 full-time employees. Obviously, staffing multiple towers would consume significant portions of the facility’s operating budget. Agencies operating extended control facilities vary in their response to this issue. Some have chosen towers. Others have chosen lethal fences and few, if any, towers. Yet others rely on heavily “wired” fences with a variety of electronic alarm systems, with or without towers. Those that opted for the fewest towers typically placed the tower(s) at the vehicular or pedestrian entrance, or both. Implications for Operating Costs In most jurisdictions, operating costs for extended control facilities are generally among the highest when compared to those for other facilities. Facilities that have similar or higher costs tend to be other specialized ones, such as medical or psychiatric facilities. The location of the facility will contribute to operating costs. Facilities that are distant from supplies and services will ordinarily have greater operating expenditures due to transportation-related factors. Transporting inmates to and from the extended control facility, courts, and community medical services will be more costly. Design factors will also influence operating costs. The number of inmates per unit, per pod, and in the total facility and the number of staff required to provide adequate security and services are all design-related issues. The number of officers required to staff control centers, monitor housing units, provide escort within and outside the institution, and provide internal and external security will affect the operating costs. Facilities designed with clear sight lines may be able to operate effectively with less staff than those with obstructed views. Those with showers in the cells may be Further Considerations Before (or during) planning or designing an extended control facility, the planning team should observe extended control operations in several jurisdictions. It would be most helpful if those jurisdictions share the same philosophy regarding extended control and operate a facility of the approximate size anticipated. The visiting team should discuss the strengths and weaknesses of various design features with managers and line staff at the operating facilities. Asking them, “What would you change if you could?” may produce helpful design tips. To help assess the impact of the design on operational efficiency and costs, the team should review the staffing pattern, post orders, and policy and procedure manuals. The type of inmate misconduct that is most common may also help identify possible improvements in the design and operations. Issues related to constitutional conditions of confinement, including cell size, exercise space, natural light, and air exchange, should be carefully studied. 21 Section 7. Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations Correctional philosophies shift over time, fads are born, and trends evolve. Large linear prisons emphasizing large industrial plants were the norm up to the 1950s. Smaller prisons emphasizing education and treatment emerged in the 1960s only to be replaced once again by large prisons in the 1980s and even larger prisons in the 1990s. Some of the recent fads and trends include boot camps, privatization, lethal fences, chain gangs, removal of exercise weights and other privileges, sex offender treatment, and inmate co-pay for services. Some of these gained prominence due to political attractiveness, and some because they do present partial solutions for today’s correctional problems. Typically, “new” programs in the field of corrections are not based on extensive research. Some are born out of emerging needs; some are created in reaction to a crisis or emergency; others are the result of political agendas. It would seem that the “supermaxes” have emerged from a blend of these influences, depending on the jurisdiction. It appears that the purest intent of supermaxes around the country is to isolate inmates who through behavior—or threat of such behavior—are dangerous or chronically violent, have escaped or attempted to escape from a high-security correctional facility, or have incited or attempted to incite disruption in a correctional facility. The physical facility or unit and the program implemented there isolate these individuals in a highly restrictive setting for the primary purpose of protection of staff, other inmates, and the community. The purpose of such facilities is not, or should not be, to exact additional punishment. Nor should such a facility be used as the repository for inmates who are simply bothersome, selfdestructive, or mentally ill; who need protection; or who have an infectious disease. The extended control facility in its purest form is operated with the assumption that the inmate placed in it must be denied access to people that he/she might harm, to the opportunity to incite disturbances or disrupt the operation of a correctional facility, and to materials with which he/she may harm self or others. Some agencies do place many other types of inmates in these facilities. The questions an agency may wish to ask before expanding the criteria beyond the very limited ones, or in planning, building, or operating a new facility, include: 22 C Do we want to risk the possible legal challenges that may accompany the expansion of placement criteria beyond what is absolutely necessary? C Do we want to incur the significant expense of placing inmates in extended control who do not actually require that level of control? C Do we want to subject inmates to the severe and rigid conditions of extended control if they do not clearly meet the narrow criteria for placement there? C Is a policy of “concentration” rather than one of “dispersal” in the best interest of our agency? When a jurisdiction has decided to operate an extended control facility, the questions of what to allow (or deny) in programs and services become critical, as do the issues of staffing, staff training, supervision, and administration. Analysis of existing and planned extended control facilities and a review of concerns and experiences regarding them suggest that the field would benefit from implementation of the following recommendations. C Initiate research on the effects of such facilities on the inmates housed in them, to include the impact of varying lengths of time and the availability (or absence) of a variety of programs. C Initiate research on the impact of such facilities on the personnel who work in them. C Evaluate the options that agencies might use to more effectively manage some types of inmates who they currently place or plan to place in extended control. C Evaluate more thoroughly the impact of these facilities on the correctional agency and its other facilities. C Create cost-benefit analysis capability to better assess the value returned by these facilities. C Adopt a universal definition of the population that would be housed in extended control facilities. C Develop professional standards specific to extended control facilities that provide a template for agencies to follow in the areas of policies and procedures, training, staffing, and program and service provision. References and Bibliography Barnes, H.E. The Story of Punishment: A Record of Man’s Inhumanity to Man, 2d Edition. Monclair, NJ: Patterson Smith, 1972. Bottoms, A.E., and Light, R. eds., Problems of Long-Term Imprisonment. Aldershot: Gower, 1987. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, 1995. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 1996. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, 1996. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 1997. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, 1997. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 1998. Bukstell, L.H. and Kilman, P.R. “Psychological Effects of Imprisonment on Confined Individuals,” Psychological Bulletin 88(2), 1980. Camp, G.M. and Camp, C.G. Prison Gangs: Their Extent, Nature and Impact on Prisons. Salem, NY: Criminal Justice Institute, 1985. Carter, Stephen A. “Issues Impacting Supermax Facilities.” Presentation to ACA 127th Congress of Correction: August 13, 1997. Conklin, John F. Criminology (Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon) 6th Edition, 1993. Federal Bureau of Prisons. Security Designation and Custody Classification Manual. Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Prisons, 1996. Federal Bureau of Prisons, North Central Regional Counsel. Legal Issues Regarding Administrative Maximum Institutions and Control Units. Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Prisons, July 1997. Fellner, Jamie and Mariner, Joanne. Cold Storage: Super-Maximum Security Confinement in Indiana. Human Rights Watch, NY, October 1997. Garland, David. Punishment and Modern Society. University of Chicago Press, 1990. Gendreau, P. and Goggin, C. “Principles of Effective Correctional Programming.” Forum on Corrections Research. Grassian, Stuart. “Psychopathological Effects of Solitary Confinement.” American Journal of Psychiatry 140, 1983. Haney, Craig. “Infamous Punishment: The Psychological Consequences of Isolation,” National Prison Project Journal (ACLU), Spring 1993. 23 Johnson, Robert. Hard Time: Understanding and Reforming the Prison. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1987. King, Roy. “Maximum-Security Custody in Britain and the USA.” British Journal of Criminology, Volume 31 No. 2, Spring 1991. Lemov, Penelope. “Roboprison.” Governing. March 1995. Mauer, Marc. The Lessons of Marion. Philadelphia, PA: The American Friends Service Committee, 1985. National Institute of Corrections and LIS, Inc. “Supermax Housing: A Survey of Current Practice.” Special Issues in Corrections, March 1997. Shelden, R.G. “A Comparison of Gang Members and Non-Gang Members in a Prison Setting.” The Prison Journal (Fall-Winter 1991). Toch, Hans and Adams, Kenneth. The Disturbed Violent Offender. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 1992 (revised). Ward, David. “A Corrections Dilemma: How to Evaluate Supermax Regimes.” Corrections Today, July 1995. Ward, David A. and Carlson, Norman A. “Super-Maximum Custody Prisons in the United States.” Prison Service Journal, Issue No. 97. April 1994. 24 Appendix. Checklist of Considerations for an Extended Control Facility The checklist that follows identifies many of the important factors relevant to extended control facilities. It may be used in several ways. C To help frame discussions about whether an extended control facility is needed or appropriate. • To lead decisionmakers in discussion of critical policy issues that should precede planning or design of an extended control facility. C To assist in the development of a program statement and plans for a new extended control facility. C To guide correctional decisionmakers in the process of designing an extended control facility. C To assist in the development of an operations plan for an extended control facility. C To assess current extended control operations. Although the checklist is not exhaustive, it will help broaden the user’s considerations regarding extended control facilities. 25 Issue Agency Policy 1. Has a decision been made to concentrate, rather than disperse, high-risk inmates? 2. Is the agency’s philosophy concerning the management of high-risk inmates and the operation of extended control facilities clearly articulated in policy? 3. Have a clear definition and criteria been adopted that describe the “high-risk inmates” who may be considered for placement in extended control housing? 4. Will the facility house inmates of lesser custody than “extended control”? C If so, have such levels of custody been clearly defined and differential movement regulations, staffing requirements, etc. been determined? 5. Will inmates diagnosed with mental illness be placed in the facility if their conduct meets extended control placement criteria? C Will those receiving psychotropic medications be admitted? C If so, will they be housed in the same unit/area as other inmates? 6. Have gender issues been considered and housing identified for women in extended control status? 7. Has clear differentiation been made between disciplinary segregation, administrative segregation, protective custody, and extended control status? 8. Has length of stay been addressed? C based on precipitating incident(s) and history? C based on extended control conduct? C a fixed time determined at or prior to placement? C other criteria? 9. Has transition programming been considered? C within the extended control facility? C upon transfer to an alternate site? 10. Has consideration been given to what programming will be offered in the extended control facility, including where and by whom? 11. Has consideration been given to the regimen for female inmates in extended control as compared to that for male inmates? 12. Does policy require agency review and approval of all extended control facility policies, procedures, and regulations? Admission and Release 1. Is authority for approving placement in and release from the extended control facility explicitly stated in agency policy? 26 Yes No Comment Issue Yes No Comment 2. Does approval or review of placements occur at the upper administrative levels of the agency? 3. Does agency policy require periodic review of the extended control status of each inmate placed there? 4. Are policies and procedures governing extended control placement and release explicit and clear? 5. Are inmates provided information enabling them to anticipate a date of release from extended control and the criteria governing their release? Classification 1. Can the classification system be modified to identify inmates meeting the criteria for extended control placement while maintaining its structural integrity? 2. Have objective classification criteria been identified that will govern extended control placement and release? 3. Are the criteria for override of classification recommendations clearly stated? 4. Does the authority for override of classification decisions concerning inmates in extended control status reside in upper levels of agency administration? 5. Do classification policies and procedures require periodic review of extended control inmates and provide opportunity for inmate input? 6. Does the classification review team include a central office representative(s)? Programs 1. Is congregate programming permitted for inmates in extended control status? 2. What programs are offered in extended control units? C anger management? C education? C addiction (drug and alcohol)? C cognitive restructuring? C other ? 3. What programs are offered in the transition program (if applicable)? C anger management? C education? C addiction (drug and alcohol)? C cognitive restructuring? C other? 27 Issue 4. Is in-cell communication technology provided to facilitate in-cell program delivery (intercom, radio, tv/video monitor, etc.)? 5. Are community volunteers permitted to participate in program planning and delivery? 6. Is completion of programs a criterion in release considerations? 7. Are inmates provided written information concerning programming expectations and the potential relationship to release decisions, when appropriate? 8. Is a program provided to mitigate possible damage to inmates due to absence of human contact over a period of time? 9. Is a specially designed program provided for inmates who will be released directly to the community from extended control status? Siting, Design, and Construction 1. If planning an extended control facility, has co-location vs. a separate facility been considered and have cost and efficiency comparisons been made? 2. If planning an extended control facility, will the site being considered be an asset to, or detract from, the efficiency and effectiveness of the operation? 3. Will the site of the extended control facility allow for recruitment and retention of qualified staff who reflect the ethnic and gender diversity of the inmate population? C correctional officers? C medical staff? C mental health staff? C program staff? C support staff? 4. Is backup community medical care readily available within a reasonable travel/response distance of the site? C If so, are they willing to serve the extended control population? 5. Has consideration been given to separately housing groups eligible for extended control that may require varying types of care (mentally ill, elderly, developmentally disabled, etc.)? 6. Has the design of other extended control facilities been examined and evaluated? 28 Yes No Comment Issue Yes No Comment 7. Are in-cell monitoring, communication, and program delivery systems being considered? C intercom? C radio? C tv/video monitor? C other? 8. Has the potential need for cell-front program delivery been considered in the design of cell fronts? 9. Have issues of interest to the courts been addressed (e.g., natural light, cell size, air exchange, exercise space)? 10. Have observation and line-of-sight design factors been thoroughly reviewed? 11. Has space been “footprinted” into the design to allow for the future addition of space if system or facility needs change? 12. Have adequate physical facilities been provided for staff functions, including training? 13. Has adequate office space been provided for program and support staff and located in areas that encourage their presence in the housing areas? 14. Are adequate backup (manual) systems to electronics and other technologies planned to support operations in the event of equipment or power failure? 15. Is reliance on electronics and other technologies justified either by increased efficiency, improved security and operations, or reduced operating costs? 16. Do design and finish features (e.g., color and lighting) create an environment as positive as possible for staff and inmates, and the ability to maintain satisfactory levels of sanitation? 17. Are cell design, equipment, and construction sufficiently “hardened” to resist destructive behavior of disruptive inmates? 18. Has the possible need to evacuate housing areas in an emergency been considered? 19. Does the design accommodate efficient provision of inmate services such as food service, laundry and clothing exchange, cell sanitation, showers, exercise, family and attorney visits, and professional contacts? 20. Have total costs been projected (including debt service, if any) in estimating the overall cost of the project compared to “normal” prison construction? 21. Have operating costs been projected to gain an understanding of future financial implications? 29 Issue 22. Have projected total costs (project, construction, and operations) been made available to policymakers? 23. Does the design mitigate operating costs to the extent possible? 24. Has adequate cost-benefit analysis been performed on materials and equipment? Staffing 1. Will the extended control facility be staffed initially by employees with extensive correctional experience? 2. Are adequate training resources available to assure thorough orientation and basic training for all staff? 3. Has a training curriculum been developed that will provide information and knowledge concerning agency philosophy, policy, and operational principles relevant to an extended control facility? 4. Has a training curriculum been developed that will provide information and knowledge concerning facility policies and procedures and an overview of the total operation of the extended control facility? 5. Are the trainers well versed and knowledgeable about the agency and extended control facility policies, procedures, and operations? 6. Is ongoing training available in use of force and emergency response, and for staff assigned to special response teams? 7. Has a program of refresher training been developed and provision made to ensure attendance by all staff? 8. Is there provision for the monitoring of all training to ensure currency, appropriateness, and compliance with agency/facility mission, goals, and objectives? 9. Are provisions made for the mandatory rotation of staff among assignments, to other units, or to other facilities to aid them in maintaining objectivity in inmate management and to relieve stress? 10. Are programs in place to assess and assist staff following traumatic events? 11. Are supervisory staff responsibilities well defined in policies and procedures? 12. Are supervisory staff adequately trained in the principles and techniques of supervision? 13. Are supervisory staff adequately trained in the management of high-risk inmates and the operation of an extended control facility? 30 Yes No Comment Issue Yes No Comment 14. Do protocols exist to assure that facility administrators provide adequate onsite monitoring and guidance to first- and second-level supervisors? 15. Do protocols exist to assure adequate presence and monitoring of extended control operations by agency central office staff? Food Service 1. How will food be served to inmates? C congregate central dining? C congregate or individually in day rooms? C at cell front? 2. Have food service criteria and monitoring procedures been clearly established in written policies and procedures? C menu development? C food preparation and kitchen sanitation? C quality control? C portion control? C food temperatures? C supervision of food line or cell-front service? C preparation of special food trays by staff? ____ Under direct staff supervision? ____ 3. Is each meal taste-tested by staff and its quality and relevant information documented? Inmate Mail and Property 1. Do written policies and procedures govern the receipt, monitoring, and delivery of staff and inmate mail? 2. Does written policy provide for inmate receipt of “legal mail” that is subject to inspection for contraband but is not subject to monitoring? C are the approved originators of legal mail clearly designated in written policy? C do delivery procedures ensure proper handling of legal mail? 3. Is inmate-to-inmate communication through the mail system allowed? 4. Does written policy state the amount and type of mail an inmate may possess in his/her cell? 5. Is the amount of legal material, magazines, books, newspapers, and other flammable items an inmate may have in his/her cell clearly established in written policy? 31 Issue 6. Do written policies and procedures regulate the items of personal property inmates may have in their possession? C personal radios? C televisions? C other electronic equipment? C other? 7. Will inmates be provided uniform clothing? 8. Will personal hygiene items be provided to inmates without charge? C if not, are they available in an inmate commissary? C was a decision made concerning shaving equipment? 9. Do policies and procedures require regular clothing exchange and limit the amount of clothing inmates may have in their possession? 10. Do policies and procedures require regular linen exchange and limit the number of sheets, blankets, towels, etc. inmates may have in their possession? Medical Services 1. How, when, and where will sick call be conducted? 2. How and where will outpatient medical services be provided? 3. Where will inpatient medical services be provided? 4. Where will medical specialty clinics be held or services provided? 5. Where will emergency medical services be provided? By whom? 6. Does facility design and/or space use provide for adequate safety and security for medical staff while ensuring required levels of privacy and confidentiality? 7. Will nursing care be available, and will physicians who live or work within a reasonable distance be on call 24 hours each day? Mental Health Services 1. Will all inmates referred to the facility be screened for mental illness? 2. Has provision been made for the treatment of diagnosed mentally ill inmates or their transfer to other facilities with treatment resources? 3. Has provision been made for periodic review of the mental health status of all inmates in extended control housing? 4. Are correctional officers provided training to help them recognize symptoms of deteriorating mental health? 32 Yes No Comment Issue Yes No Comment 5. Is a referral process clearly articulated in policies and procedures to ensure timely referral for mental health services? Religious Services 1. Will chaplaincy or other staff be available to provide for inmates’ religious needs? 2. Will community religious leaders and volunteers be allowed in the extended control housing areas to provide religious services? C If not, how will religious services be delivered to inmates who adhere to religions that are not represented by the facility’s chaplaincy corps? 3. Where will religious services be provided and by whom? C at cell front? C congregate worship/study? C by intercom, radio, or video in cell? C by staff chaplains only? C by community religious leaders? C by religious volunteers? C by combination of 4. Have the allowable articles of personal property pertinent to an inmate’s religion been clearly defined? Sanitation 1. Has provision been made for maintaining the sanitation of extended control housing that does not compromise the security of the unit by admitting inmate workers into the area? 2. Will inmates be responsible for the regular cleaning of their cells? C If so, have nontoxic, noncaustic, nonflammable cleaning supplies been identified for use? 3. Does agency policy require regular safety/sanitation inspection of the facility by institution and agency administrators? Security and Custody Control A. Supervision 1. Are supervisory staff available in the extended control facility at all times? 2. Does agency policy require that institution administrators and managers visit the extended control housing areas frequently and document their entry and egress? 33 Issue 3. Are all supervisory staff adequately trained in the principles and techniques of staff and inmate supervision? 4. Have up-to-date, comprehensive security policies and procedures been developed and training provided to all supervisory staff? 5. Does all planned use of force require supervisory approval and oversight? 6. Does the use of chemical agents require supervisory approval and oversight, to the extent possible? 7. Does agency policy require that all planned use of force be videotaped and that written reports be submitted by all involved staff? C is review of all documentation (including videotape) by the warden or deputy warden mandated? C is central office review required? B. Searches and Inspections 1. Have policies and procedures been developed governing searches of inmates in extended control status? C personal property and cells? (protocol, frequency, documentation) C pat (frisk) searches? C strip searches? (when, where, by whom) C body cavity searches? (presenting problems/conditions, by whom) 2. Does agency policy require that each cell be closely inspected before each occupancy and that the inspection and cell condition be documented? 3. Does agency policy require security inspection of all locking and control devices by qualified staff or others on a routine basis? 4. Does agency policy require frequent inspection of lights, sprinklers, power outlets, vents, etc. in cells to identify attempts to tamper and damage? 5. Does agency policy require inspection of medical facilities, visiting areas, exercise spaces, and other areas an extended control inmate may enter to ensure no weapons, drugs, or other contraband are secreted there? C. Use of Force 1. Do clear and concise written policies and procedures govern the use of force? 2. Is there a standardized list of security equipment with which all security staff have been familiarized? C restraints? C chemical agents? C cell entry/CERT protective gear? 34 Yes No Comment Issue C C C C Yes No Comment video camera? riot batons? stun devices? lethal weapons? 3. Is a continuum of force documented in all relevant post orders that defines conditions in which lethal force shall be employed? 4. Has provision been made for activating SERT, SWAT, or search teams in the event of an emergency? 5. Has written protocol been developed governing the movement/transport of extended control inmates both within and outside the facility? C number of escort staff within the extended control facility? C number of escort staff outside the extended control facility? C criteria for use of armed “chase” vehicle in motor transports? C security protocol in court and hospital or clinic? C notification of law enforcement when inmates are transported on public highways? C use of restraints, chemical agents, stun devices, or lethal force during transport? Inmate Telephone and Visits 1. Are provisions made for inmate use of the telephone to maintain family contact? 2. Does policy clearly establish eligibility criteria and protocol for the preapproval screening of all potential visitors? 3. Will contact visits be allowed for inmates in extended control status? C If not, are adequate non-contact visit facilities available? 4. Are strip searches routinely conducted following face-to-face contact of extended control inmates with visitors, attorneys, or others? 5. Does the frequency, duration, or type (contact or non-contact) of visiting, and/or number of persons with whom an extended control inmate may visit provide incentive to gain a lesser level of custody? 6. Are inmates in lesser levels of control in the same facility? C If so, are separate visiting facilities provided for extended control inmates and those in lesser levels of control to ensure the security integrity of the extended control area? 35 USER FEEDBACK FORM Please complete and mail this self-addressed, postage-paid form to assist the National Institute of Corrections in assessing the value and utility of its publications. 1. What is your general reaction to this document? ____Excellent 2. ____Good ____Average ____Poor ____Useless To what extent do you see the document as being useful in terms of: Very Useful Of Some Use Not Useful Providing new or important information Developing or implementing new programs Modifying existing programs Administering ongoing programs Providing appropriate liaisons 3. Do you feel that more should be done in this subject area? If so, please specify what types of assistance are needed. 4. In what ways could the document be improved? 5. How did this document come to your attention? 6. How are you planning to use the information contained in the document? 7. Please check one item that best describes your affiliation with corrections or criminal justice. governmental program, please also indicate level of government. ____Dept. of corrections or prison ____Jail ____Probation ____Parole ____Community corrections ____Court ____Juvenile justice ____Federal 8. ____State If a ____Police ____Legislative body ____Professional organization ____College/university ____Citizen group ____Other government agency ____Other (please specify)_________________________ ____County ____Local ____Regional OPTIONAL: Name_______________________________ Agency ______________________________________________ Address___________________________________________________________________________________ Telephone No. ( ) Supermax Prisons: Overview National Institute of Corrections Advisory Board Shay Bilchik Administrator Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Washington, D.C. Michael Brown Division of Field Services New Hampshire Department of Corrections Concord, New Hampshire Norman A. Carlson Adjunct Professor, Department of Sociology University of Minnesota Stillwater, Minnesota Sharon English Deputy Director California Youth Authority Office of Prevention and Victims’ Services Sacramento, California Newman Flanagan Executive Director National District Attorneys Association Alexandria, Virginia Michael Gaines Chairman U.S. Parole Commission Chevy Chase, Maryland Olivia Golden Assistant Secretary for Children and Families Department of Health and Human Services Washington, D.C. James H. Gomez Deputy Executive Officer California Public Employees Retirement System Sacramento, California Kathleen Hawk Director Federal Bureau of Prisons Washington, D.C. Norval Morris Professor University of Chicago Law School Chicago, Illinois Barry J. Nidorf Chief Probation Officer, Retired Los Angeles Probation Department Granada Hills, California Gayle Ray Sheriff Davidson County Nashville, Tennessee Laurie Robinson Assistant Attorney General Office of Justice Programs Washington, D.C. Arthur M. Wallenstein Director King County Department of Adult Detention Seattle, Washington Odie Washington Director Illinois Department of Corrections Springfield, Illinois Judge Rya W. Zobel Director Federal Judicial Center Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Corrections Washington, D.C. 20534 Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300 Forwarding and Return Postage Guaranteed Address Correction Requested Supermax Prisons: Overview and General Considerations