U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Assessment of Supermax Prisons Using an Evaluation Research Framework

NCJ Number
221851
Journal
The Prison Journal Volume: 88 Issue: 1 Dated: March 2008 Pages: 43-68
Author(s)
Daniel P. Mears
Date Published
March 2008
Length
26 pages
Annotation
This study used an evaluation research framework to examine the following questions about "supermax" prisons, which house the "worst of the worst" inmates under a tight security regimen: are they needed; are they based on sound theory; are they implemented as intended; do they achieve their goals; and are they cost-efficient?
Abstract
The study concludes that there is minimal evidence that supermax prisons are needed as long-term solutions to any of a range of problems (e.g., order, safety, escape prevention, and public safety). Neither is there a strong or consistent theoretical foundation for anticipating that such prisons would exert any substantial effect on a range of outcomes; on the contrary, there are strong theoretical grounds to anticipate a worsening of these outcomes. Further, there is minimal documentation of their implementation procedures, notably in admitting and releasing inmates, monitoring inmate behavior, or compliance with State and Federal laws and constitutional requirements. There are accounts that mentally ill and other inmates ill-suited for extended solitary confinement are housed in supermaxes. In addition, there is minimal evidence of any positive impact on any of a range of outcomes; whereas, there is considerable evidence of harmful, unintended effects. There is no evidence that supermaxes are cost-efficient. The author discusses the implications of these findings for theory and research as well as policy. These conclusions and recommendations are based on a review of research relevant to the five questions posed. 72 references