nd workplace accidents. Extreme substance-related toxicity can contribute to psychotic symptoms, although sometimes those symptoms pre- ceded the substance use and were masked. Biopsychosocial Model Researchers use a biopsychosocial model to understand addictive processes. Biological processes that have been identified include physiological reactivity to the 778 ———Substance Use Disorders S-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:44 PM Page 778 ingestion of substances, physiological changes due to acute or chronic use of substances, and physiological adaptations to the level of exposure to the substances. Physiological reactivity occurs in response to the sub- stance and results in metabolic changes in the body. Sub- stances activate the pleasure-reward system in the brain, which often results in euphoria. Acute or chronic sub- stance abuse can cause neurotoxicity and damage to vital organs. Commonly experienced cognitive impairments include difficulties with short-term and working mem- ory; problems with executive cognitive functions related to decision making, problem solving, impulse control, and abstraction; and, in some cases, difficulties with bal- ance and motor functions. Existing evidence suggests that some physiological changes are reversible, including cognitive impairment, after a period of abstinence. Psychological processes include behavioral, cogni- tive, and emotional responses to substance use. Behavioral processes operate according to learning prin- ciples. Classical conditioning in substance abuse occurs when particular stimuli are paired or associated with substance use. In substance abuse research, these stim- uli are often referred to as cues or triggers. Substance use may occur at an automatic level when cues trigger sub- stance use so quickly that the individual may be momen- tarily unaware of actions. Common triggers or cues include places, situations, things, physical senses (sen- sations, sights, sounds, smells, and tastes), emotions, or events that become paired with substance use and may trigger cravings or desires to use. Operant conditioning operates when substance use is reinforced or punished. Positive reinforcement is conceptualized as a consequence following a behavior that is rewarding or pleasurable and makes it likely that the behavior will be repeated. Substance use can have rewarding properties that positively reinforce the behaviors related to substance use. In addition, sub- stance use can be negatively reinforced. Negative rein- forcement occurs when an aversive consequence is lifted or withdrawn, which in effect reduces an aversive experience. Because the aversive consequence is with- drawn or reduced, it makes it more likely that the behavior will be repeated. An example of this process is when someone uses substances because it has reduced pain or discomfort previously (negatively reinforced) as opposed to using substances because it has caused euphoria in the past (positive reinforcement). An excel- lent and common example of substance use being neg- atively reinforced among users is when they described using substances to “self-medicate” symptoms. The behavior described as self-medication alludes to a history where the substance use may have caused aver- sive symptoms to subside. Research has demonstrated that punishment can effectively stop or reduce sub- stance use over the short term but that for long-term changes to occur punishment must be followed by learning new behavior and having that reinforced. Substance abuse is difficult to change because it is reinforced on a variable schedule. Since substances are sometimes reinforcing and sometimes not, the user cannot predict when substance use will be rein- forcing and continues using substances in the hope that the next event will be reinforcing. Variable rein- forcement is one process that contributes to the transi- tion from recreational use to substance abuse. Observational learning also is a powerful predictor of substance use. Youths and young adults are very much influenced by observing and then modeling the behaviors of significant others in their lives. Before adolescence, youths tend to model the substance use behavior of their parents. Researchers have noted that substance abuse tends to be intergenerational in family systems. The assumption for many years was that this intergeneration “transmission” of substance abuse must be genetic. However, recent research has identified that at least part of the intergenerational phenomenon in family systems appears to be learned behavior, princi- pally from observing and modeling parents who misuse substances. As youths move into the teen years and early adulthood, peer groups tend to influence sub- stance use more than parents. In addition, researchers have found that adolescents and young adults tend to overestimate the substance use of peers and at the same time underestimate their own substance use. Cognitive factors related to addictive processes include expectancies about substance use, motivation to change, and self-efficacy. Expectancies are beliefs about the expected effects of substance use. Expectancies can develop through personal experience or observational learning. As an example of the latter, to sell their prod- ucts advertisers of alcohol beverages often advertise that alcohol makes people sexy or socially attractive, beliefs that are assumed by youths who observe the advertise- ments. Positive expectancies refer to beliefs that sub- stance use will provide a desirable outcome, whereas negative expectancies refer to beliefs that substance use will lead to an undesirable outcome. Positive expectan- cies have been found to predict continued and some- times increased substance use, whereas negative expectancies have been linked to reductions. Motivation to change determines whether a user will consider and ultimately change substance use. Substance Use Disorders ———779 S-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:44 PM Page 779 Decisions to change often follow a process known as the decisional balance, where a user considers the pros and cons for change. Ambivalence is quite normal for some- one contemplating change. If a user decides that the pros for change outweigh the cons, then she or he likely will be more committed to changing behavior and seeking help. Self-efficacy also has been found to predict sub- stance abuse. Self-efficacy is a term from social learning theory that describes, in the case of substance abuse, whether a person has competence and confidence to negotiate a specific situation without use of substances. Lower self-efficacy in a situation predicts poorer sub- stance use outcomes in that situation. Cognitive impairment is of concern when a user has engaged in extreme or chronic substance abuse. Perceptual problems result from acute intoxication. One phenomenon, substance use myopia, refers to how cognitive processes become impaired as intoxication increases, literally narrowing a person’s ability to see or accurately perceive events occurring around him or her. During substance use myopia, clients are vulnerable to impulsive, disinhibited, and risky behavior because per- ception of risk is impaired. As an example, substance- induced myopia leads to poor judgment, such as believing that it is safe to drive under the influence of substances. Emotions and moods also have been associated with substance abuse. Many users report links between emotional events and substance use behavior, and relapses have been linked to extreme emotions (positive or negative). Users often use substances to manage emotions and moods but also report that sub- stance use contributes to loss of emotional control. Research has established that chronic substance use may disrupt emotional expression and contribute to substance induced dysphoria. Social and environmental factors linked to addictive processes may include relationship stressors and envi- ronmental stressors such as unemployment and poverty. Some researchers believe that a major function of sub- stance misuse is in tension reduction. Changes in rela- tionship interactions and environmental conditions have been linked to changes in substance use. Youths are espe- cially vulnerable to changes in the environment and sub- stance abuse in that age group can be influenced heavily (both positively and negatively) by such changes. Diagnosis of Substance Use Disorders Misuse of substances can be diagnosed by means of structured clinical interviews that assess for criteria specified by the American Psychiatric Association in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition (DSM-IV). The most com- monly used interviews are the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID) and the Diagnostic Interview Schedule (DIS). Substance misuse is classi- fied as either substance abuse or dependence for a sin- gle substance or for multiple substances. DSM-IV diagnostic categories also include “specifiers” that denote abuse with or without physiological depen- dence and “course specifiers” that define the course of the disorder, including early full remission, early par- tial remission, sustained full remission, sustained par- tial remission, on agonist therapy (such as methadone), or in a controlled environment (where access is restricted). DSM-IV diagnoses conceptualize substance abuse as a chronic condition subject to periods of remission. However, researchers have found evidence that a sub- group of people diagnosed with alcohol dependence, for example, show evidence of controlled moderate drinking without problems later in life. In addition, other research shows that the course of substance abuse does not necessarily worsen with time nor do users need to hit the bottom to want help. Substance use diagnoses for adolescents have been found to be very unstable. Many adolescents meeting DSM-IV cri- teria for substance abuse or dependence experience a “maturing out” process as they age and go on to adult lives free of substance-related problems. Therefore, substance use diagnoses for adolescents should be interpreted with caution. Arthur W. Blume See also Substance Abuse Treatment; Therapeutic Communities for Treatment of Substance Abuse Further Readings DiClemente, C. C. (2003). Addiction and change: How addictions develop and addicted people recover. New York: Guilford Press. Donovan, D. M., & Alan Marlatt, G. (Eds.). (2005). Assessment of addictive behaviors (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press. McCrady, B. S., & Epstein, E. E. (Eds.). (1999). Addictions: A comprehensive guidebook. New York: Oxford University Press. Miller, W. R., & Carroll, K. M. (2006). Rethinking substance abuse: What the science shows, and what we should do about it. New York: Guilford Press. 780 ———Substance Use Disorders S-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:44 PM Page 780 S UICIDE A SSESSMENT AND P REVENTION IN P RISONS Prisoner suicide assessment and prevention is an area of active research and clinical involvement. Indeed, it is an important component of the forensic psychologist’s clinical responsibilities due to the disproportionately high incidence of prison suicide as compared with the general population. This high incidence is a consistent phenomenon across countries. In some countries, this translates into suicide being a major cause of death among prisoners. To address the topic of suicide assess- ment and prevention, first the research challenges in conducting prisoner suicide research and the relevant theory in conceptualizing the process of prisoner suici- dality are briefly summarized. A review of relevant risk factors as evidenced by research are categorized into several domains and described. These domains include demographic factors, historical factors, criminality fac- tors, and clinical factors. Following a review of risk fac- tors, suicide prevention within the prison setting is summarized. Research and Theory In an effort to better understand and assess (i.e., predict) prisoner suicide, a large body of research has investi- gated the risk factors related to prisoner suicide. However, there are some intrinsic challenges in the prediction of suicide generally, and there are some methodological weaknesses in prisoner suicide research specifically. The major challenge in predicting suicide is that it is a relatively rare event (i.e., has a low base rate). Statistically, it is more difficult to predict a rare event than a frequent event. This creates significant challenges for researchers in designing good-quality predictive studies. For example, because suicide is a relatively infrequent event, a researcher would need to have a very large number of subjects at the beginning of a study for there to be a sufficient sample size of even- tual suicides for analyses. For individual clinicians, this difficulty in predicting rare events creates the higher risk of false positives (i.e., predicting suicide where none occurs). False negatives (a suicide occurs when it was predicted that no suicide would occur) literally have life and death implications and represent what most clinicians and staff members want to avoid. Some particular methodological weaknesses in pris- oner suicide research include samples consisting of mixed populations of prisoners (e.g., remanded and sentenced prisoners), lack of control or comparison groups of nonsuicide or nonattempter prisoners, and reliance on descriptive studies, which generates diffi- culties in establishing a causal relationship between risk factors and outcome. Of note is that, in recent years, researchers have made efforts to address these methodological problems. There have been efforts to design more comparative studies, to use more sophisti- cated statistical analyses (e.g., logistic regression), and to even undertake matched control studies. This is a welcome shift in the research approach to prisoner sui- cide. Indeed, given the plethora of descriptive studies generated over the last 25 to 30 years, there are limita- tions in the value added by purely descriptive studies of prisoner suicide at this time. Designing more method- ologically sound studies will more meaningfully build on current knowledge. Overall, despite the challenges presented by researching prisoner suicidality, identifying relevant risk factors has facilitated the development of suicide assessment protocols and scales. Prior to reviewing rel- evant risk factors, it is important to note that, as useful as individual risk factors are, there has been a major contribution by researchers who have offered valuable conceptualizations of the suicidal process as one that occurs over time and is affected by multiple factors. In particular, Marti Heikkinen and colleagues have pro- vided one of the most well-developed models. Their process model of suicide consists of risk factors, pre- cipitating factors, vulnerability factors, and protective factors that contribute to the process of suicidality. In this model, the suicidal process is viewed as dynamic and affected by several categories of risk factors (i.e., biological, psychological, social, cultural). At the same time, the individual’s vulnerability and protective fac- tors affect risk. For instance, a prisoner who has diffi- culty in coping with various areas of his life will likely experience greater risk. A prisoner with a strong social support system would likely experience some protec- tion against risk. Finally, the model includes precipitat- ing factors such as stressors and external events that contribute to triggering suicidality (e.g., loss of support, negative decision regarding release). Risk Factors Research on prisoner suicidality reveals several domains of risk factors that are relevant to suicide assessment. These general domains include demo- graphic factors, historical factors, criminality factors, and clinical factors. Suicide Assessment and Prevention in Prisons ———781 S-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:44 PM Page 781 D D e e m m o o g g r r a a p p h h i i c c F F a a c c t t o o r r s s During the last couple of decades, predominantly descriptive research has linked prisoner’s age with suicidal risk. Generally, the research has suggested that younger age groups (e.g., approximately under the age of 30 years) are overrepresented in suicide completer samples. However, a couple of recent and more methodologically sound research studies have challenged this conclusion, suggesting that either no relationship exists or that older age (i.e., 40 years and above) is predictive of prisoner suicide. More research will be required to clarify predictive relationships between age and prisoner suicide. A relatively new result provided by one of these recent studies was identifying homelessness as a predictive factor. It is worth mentioning that many descriptive studies have examined marital status as a correlate of prisoner sui- cide. These results have been equivocal and not uni- formly supported by the recent better-quality research. H H i i s s t t o o r r i i c c a a l l F F a a c c t t o o r r s s The research has been fairly convincing that both the presence of a psychiatric history (typically broadly defined in prisoner suicide research) and a history of substance abuse are connected to an increased risk of prisoner suicidality. Recent research using the matched control methodology and/or logistic regres- sion analyses has supported these predictive relation- ships. Some research suggests that recent psychiatric contact or intervention may possess additional predic- tive power. Results from the larger body of suicide research have revealed the increased risk generated by a family history of suicide. In particular, a genetic component has been attributed as partly responsible for the relationship. Individuals with first-degree rela- tives (i.e., parents, siblings) who committed suicide are at greater risk for committing suicide. This risk becomes more elevated if the relative suffered from a mood disorder (i.e., depression, bipolar disorder). Given this research, it is important to consider this factor in assessing prisoner suicidality. C C r r i i m m i i n n a a l l i i t t y y F F a a c c t t o o r r s s Several criminality factors are linked with greater risk of prisoner suicidality. These include sentence length, time served in sentence, security level, crimi- nal history, and institutional adjustment. In terms of a prisoner’s sentence length, generally prisoners with lengthier sentences are disproportionately represented among prisoner suicides. In particular, those prisoners with life or indefinite sentences may be at higher risk. The amount of time served in one’s sentence is also linked to prisoner suicide but not as definitively as sen- tence length. Generally, prisoners who commit suicide do so earlier in their sentences (within approximately the first 2 years of being sentenced). A prisoner’s secu- rity level appears to be relevant to suicidal risk. A lim- ited amount of recent research, some of which has used logistic regression, has revealed an overrepresentation of higher security prisoners (i.e., maximum security level) among suicide completers and attempters. Recent more methodologically sound research has indi- cated that several characteristics of prisoner criminal history are linked with suicidal risk. In one study, sui- cide attempters were more likely to have current con- victions for homicide, break and enter, or robbery. Consistent with that result were two studies that found having a current violent offense was more predictive of suicide completers. In addition, prisoners with a history of prior criminal involvement (variously defined as prior offense, prior incarceration) were more likely to attempt or commit suicide. One study found that sui- cide completers and attempts were more likely to have had breach of trust offenses (i.e., escapes, violations of parole or probation). Finally, limited recent research using comparison groups and logistic regression found that both suicide completers and attempters had demonstrated negative institutional adjustment (e.g., institutional violence, contraband violations, substance abuse incidents, escape, requests for protective cus- tody). Prisoners with a history of contraband-related incidents were three times more likely to attempt sui- cide. Those with a disciplinary history were 19 times more likely to engage in a suicide attempt. Both suicide completers and attempters participated in correctional programs less than nonattempters. C C l l i i n n i i c c a a l l F F a a c c t t o o r r s s In addition to assessing the risk factors characteris- tic of suicidal prisoners, there is a fundamental role for the assessment of relevant generic clinical factors as part of the suicide assessment. In other words, a good assessment of prisoner suicidality is predicated on con- ducting a competent clinical assessment. In fact, there are several salient clinical factors that require particular attention. Clinical domains and factors important to the 782 ———Suicide Assessment and Prevention in Prisons S-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:44 PM Page 782 suicide assessment are described. The work of John and Rita Sommers-Flanagan has been used to lend some structure to the description of clinical factors. In addi- tion, where relevant, prisoner suicide research related to that factor is summarized. The overarching clinical fac- tors include the presenting problem, depression, suici- dal ideation suicidal intent, suicidal plan, self-control, vulnerability, and coping. Presenting Problem Similar to a suicide assessment with a nonforensic client, the initial goal is to attempt to establish rapport and determine the nature of the presenting problem. Determining the prisoner’s level of distress and cop- ing efforts will provide some indication of how to pace the remainder of the assessment. Identifying the precipitating factors and current stressor(s) provides some contextual and situational information. Depression There is a strong relationship between depression and suicidality as well as between depression and hopelessness. If a user combines alcohol and depres- sion, then risk will further elevate. Therefore, it is important to determine the presence of depressive symptomatology. The diagnostic criteria and sympto- matology of depression are not detailed here. Rather, relevant domains of functioning are reviewed as a means of suggesting some structure for the assess- ment process. These include emotional, physical, cog- nitive, behavioral, and social domains. The emotional domain primarily refers to determin- ing the presence of depressed mood and related factors such as frequency, intensity, and duration. Of particular concern is the presence of hopelessness. Research has established hopelessness as a strong predictive factor of suicide generally. Available research investigating this factor in prison populations has confirmed the predic- tive relevance of hopelessness. An additional emotional factor that warrants attention is the occurrence of a sud- den and unexplained change in the individual’s mood and/or functioning. This is a salient clinical sign that has traditionally been interpreted as an indication of increased risk. Experts in suicide assessment suggest that the improvement may result from the individual making a decision about ending his or her emotional pain or result from an alleviation of mental illness. The suggested dynamic is that either of these occurrences reduces ambivalence, brightens moods, and frees up energy to act (and possibly carry out a plan for suicide). The physical domain refers to determining the presence of physical symptomatology indicative of depression. Relevant factors include appetite, weight, sleep, energy level, concentration, psychomotor func- tioning, and self-care. The cognitive domain involves assessing whether cognitive functioning is intact. For example, there may be the presence of thought distortions, disorga- nized thought, impaired judgment, or event psychotic symptoms. Research has also pointed to the relation- ship between depression and the presence of negative thinking about oneself, the world, and the future (referred to as the cognitive triad). The behavioral domain refers to behavioral symp- toms of depression that can be observed. These may include decreased pleasure in one’s usual activities, decreased physical activity, restlessness, poor concen- tration, and poor problem solving. Changes in self- care and other negative behavior may be present. The social domain refers to interpersonal and social functioning. Some examples can include social withdrawal, rejecting support, interpersonal conflict, and decline in social skills. Suicide Ideation and Suicidal Intent Suicidal ideation and suicidal intent are related to increased risk for suicide. Ideation does not necessar- ily result in high risk. Expressing suicidal intent gen- erally presents a greater risk than ideation. Inquiring directly about ideation and intent is important. Questions regarding frequency, duration, and intensity can provide additional information. In addition, col- lateral information and/or behavioral observations can be useful. If the prisoner commits or contracts, it is suggested that the commitment be made for both self- harm and suicide rather than assuming the commit- ment for one act will generalize to the other. Suicide Plan Having a suicide plan can present a serious level of risk. Determining the details is crucial. Relevant domains of functioning to assess include prior suicide attempts, specificity, lethality, availability, and proximity. A history of prior suicide attempts increases the risk for suicide. A suicide attempt within the past year ele- vates risk even further. Obtaining details about the prior Suicide Assessment and Prevention in Prisons ———783 S-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:44 PM Page 783 attempts can help identify any patterns or past precipi- tants that may be relevant to the current situation. Specificity of the suicide plan needs to be deter- mined. Generally, the more detailed (i.e., high speci- ficity) a plan, the greater the risk of suicide. Lethality of a suicide plan is defined as the amount of time that passes between initiating the suicidal act and dying. High lethality is a plan that results in a quick death (e.g., hanging) and translates into high risk. In addition to the lethality presented by a specific method, there is also an impact resulting from how the method will be used. Research on prison suicide has revealed that hanging, a very lethal method, is the pri- mary method of committing suicide. Self-Control By examining a prisoner’s behavioral history (e.g., history of impulse control difficulties) and obtaining information about previous suicide attempts, the pris- oner’s degree of self-control can be assessed. Another factor affecting self-control is the use of alcohol or substances. Coping and Vulnerability A prisoner’s poor ability to cope is a risk factor of suicide. Research has identified a component of the prison population that is particularly vulnerable and poor copers. These individuals tend to have difficulty coping across time and situations. Psychosocial isolation (e.g., emotional and social support) increases the likelihood of suicide. The pris- oner’s access to emotional and social support resources should be assessed. Physical isolation of suicidal prisoners can have a detrimental effect. Research addressing this issue had revealed that placing suicidal prisoners in some form of isolation (e.g., constant observation) is quite detrimental and can actually contribute to increased suicidal risk. Suicide Prevention Suicide prevention is typically conceptualized as an institutional or organizational approach to preventing prisoner suicides. Among the preventive strategies, there can be policies and procedures that specify the manage- ment of identified suicidal prisoners (e.g., type, fre- quency, and/or location of observations; mental health referrals). More broadly, there can be policies, proce- dures, and programs designed to improve identification of suicidal prisoners. Screening for suicidal risk at intake can be a valuable preventive strategy. During the last decade, there has been an appreciable amount of research directed toward developing effective screening instruments. Some scales are designed to be adminis- tered by nonclinical frontline staff at intake (e.g., correc- tional staff), while other scales require mental health training to administer. Some screening instruments have been designed for specific settings (e.g., remand centers vs. prisons), while other scales have been designed for use across a variety of settings. Implementing a screen- ing instrument can be influenced by human resource and cost factors. A brief scale that requires no mental health training to administer is typically less resource intensive than a scale that may require clinically trained staff (e.g., nurse) to administer. However, the administrative costs must be weighed against the effectiveness of the scale to accurately identify prisoners as potential suicide risks. An important component of suicide prevention pro- grams includes training programs for prison staff. These programs can vary in scope. Some training pro- grams target improved knowledge about the indicators of suicidality, while others target skill building in detec- tion and basic intervention. Indeed, some institutions or jurisdictions have developed programs that provide training to prisoners in an effort to improve knowledge and/or provide skills that facilitate detection and peer support. Yet another suicide prevention strategy can involve changes to the physical environment that essen- tially decrease opportunity for a suicidal prisoner. For example, changes in cell location (e.g., observation cell) may improve visibility of a suicidal prisoner. Improvements to the physical structure of a cell may include installing tamper-proof fixtures and eliminating structures that provide opportunities to implement a suicide plan (e.g., a noose attached to a pipe). Overall, research supports the conclusion that sui- cide prevention programs can reduce the incidence of prisoner suicides. Wider implementation of suicide prevention policies, procedures, and programs is nec- essary to further advance prevention efforts. Indeed, more comprehensive suicide prevention programs would also be beneficial. Natalie H. Polvi See also Critical Incidents; Extreme Emotional Disturbance; Forensic Assessment; Jail Screening Assessment Tool 784 ———Suicide Assessment and Prevention in Prisons S-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:44 PM Page 784 (JSAT); Mood Disorders; Personality Disorders; Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD); Substance Use Disorders Further Readings Bonner, R. L. (2000). Correctional suicide prevention in the year 2000 and beyond. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 30, 370–376. Daigle, M., Labelle, R., & Cote, G. (2006). Further evidence of the validity of the Suicide Risk Assessment Scale for prisoners. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 29, 343–354. Hayes, L. M. (2007). Jail suicide/mental health update. National Institute of Corrections. Retrieved April 12, 2007, from http://www.nicic.org/Library/000001 Heikkinen, M., Aro., H., & Lonnqvist, J. (1993). Life events and social support in suicide. Suicide and Life- Threatening Behavior, 23, 343–358. Liebling, A. (1995). Vulnerability and prison suicide. British Journal of Criminology, 35, 73–187. Polvi, N. H. (1997). Assessing risk of suicide in correctional settings. In C. D. Webster & M. A. Jackson (Eds.), Impulsivity: Theory, assessment, and treatment (pp. 278–301). New York: Guilford Press. Sommers-Flanagan, J., & Sommers-Flanagan, R. (1995). Intake interviewing with suicidal patients: A systematic approach. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 26, 41–47. S UICIDE A SSESSMENT M ANUAL FOR INMATES (SAMI) The Suicide Assessment Manual for Inmates (SAMI) is a new instrument designed to assess risk for suicide attempts among individuals admitted to a pretrial remand center or jail. The SAMI is a 20-item clinical checklist of risk factors derived from the suicide research literature. Initial research on the SAMI has focused on its factor structure and predictive validity. Suicide is the leading cause of death of inmates in jail facilities. Research on suicide prevalence rates indicates that the rate of suicide in an incarcerated pop- ulation is higher than that in the general population, with some estimates indicating the prevalence to be as much as nine times higher in incarcerated populations. In addition, the prevalence of suicide may be higher in a population of remanded (pretrial) offenders than in a population of sentenced offenders. Suicide is a low base rate behavior; therefore, it is difficult to predict which individuals will attempt to commit suicide. It is, however, important to be able to identify those inmates who are at an increased risk for suicide on admission to a correctional facility so that they may be classified and housed accordingly. Structured clinical guidelines are useful in attempt- ing to determine which individuals are at an increased risk for suicide. The SAMI was developed to provide a framework of important variables that should be assessed for each individual admitted to a pretrial remand center or jail to determine that individual’s risk for suicide within the next 24 hours. The SAMI is a clinical checklist of risk factors for institutional sui- cide attempts. It consists of 20 items that were identi- fied by a review of the literature on suicide in general as well as suicide in jails and prisons. The purpose of the SAMI is to guide evaluators through important information and variables that should be assessed to determine an inmate’s risk for institutional suicide. The SAMI was developed for use as a way to structure professional judgment in the assessment of institu- tional suicide risk. Each of the 20 items contained in the SAMI can be rated on a 3-point scale, with a score of 0 being asso- ciated with low risk, a score of 1 being associated with moderate risk, and a score of 2 being associated with high risk with respect to the particular item. It is important to note, however, that like many instru- ments developed to structure professional judgment, the item scores on the SAMI are not to be added but, rather, are to be considered within the full context of the individual, the institution, and the circumstances. Both the self-report of the inmate as well as the obser- vations and professional judgment of the evaluator are to be considered for each item. Extensive and thorough literature reviews have iden- tified numerous variables that are associated with risk for suicide in general as well as in jails and prisons, including age; sex; marital status; history of drug or alcohol abuse; psychiatric history; history of suicide attempts; history of institutional suicide attempts; family history of suicide; arrest history; history of impulsive behavior; high-profile crime or position of respect within the community; current intoxication; concern about major life problems; feelings of hope- lessness or excessive guilt; presence of psychotic symp- toms or thought disorder; symptoms of depression, Suicide Assessment Manual for Inmates (SAMI) ———785 S-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:44 PM Page 785 stress, and coping; social support; recent significant loss; suicidal ideation; suicidal intent; and suicide plan. The SAMI includes an assessment of each of these variables, with the exception of age and sex given the low variability on these factors since the vast majority of jail inmates are males in their 20s and 30s. The SAMI is a new instrument, and research exam- ining its reliability and validity is limited. Results of a preliminary study in which the SAMI was administered to 138 pretrial defendants indicate acceptable levels of interrater reliability. In addition, this research indicates that scores on the SAMI items are related to institu- tional category of risk for suicide (low, medium, high), need for mental health services, and need for monitor- ing within the pretrial facility. Factor analysis of the SAMI items identifies six factors: affective disturbance, suicide history, current cognitive state, current situa- tional variables, impulsivity, and support and coping. The first three factors (affective disturbance, suicide history, and current cognitive state) are strongly associ- ated with institutional category of risk for suicide, need for mental health services, and need for monitoring within the institution. The sixth factor, support and cop- ing, is also strongly associated with need for mental health services. Regression analyses with the SAMI have indicated that Factors 1 and 2 (affective distur- bance and suicide history) are predictive of referral to mental health services within the institution, whereas Factors 2 and 3 (suicide history and current cognitive state) are predictive of category of institutional suicide risk. Further research investigating the predictive utility of the SAMI is currently underway. Patricia A. Zapf See also Suicide Assessment and Prevention in Prisons Further Readings Zapf, P. A. (2006). Suicide assessment manual for inmates. Burnaby, BC: Mental Health, Law, and Policy Institute. S UICIDE BY C OP Suicide by cop (SbC) is a phenomenon confronted by police officers in which suicidal individuals behave in such a way as to force officers to use lethal force against them. Research findings have found common characteristics and behaviors among SbC subjects. The phenomenon is recognized sufficiently that there are a number of court decisions that are relevant to incidents that are defined as SbC. Finally, police offi- cers often suffer psychologically after their involve- ment in SbC incidents. Their suffering must be addressed if they are not to have long-term effects. Suicide requires an active decision to kill oneself. Such action may conflict with religious ideology, or the subject may fear societal stigma. Suicidal individuals also may fear pain and believe that the police officers’ training in lethal force will ensure their instant death. Some of these individuals have a desire to die in a high- profile “blaze of glory.” Often, the decision of individ- uals to induce the police to use lethal force against them is impulsive. Emotionally distraught and under the influence of alcohol, many individuals form a cloudy decision to die only when the police arrive in response to a precipitating event such as a domestic dispute. Due to some of these conditions, suicidal subjects may become SbC subjects, inducing officers to kill them. As with other suicidal behavior, the subject fre- quently is ambivalent about death. If the police can delay a confrontation, SbC subjects often are open to negotiation, especially if they become sober. Unfortunately, as found by studies conducted by the author, SbC subjects often place officers in situations in which they cannot get themselves or the victims in a safe place, so must shoot the SbC subjects. Also similar to other forms of suicide attempts, the behav- ior that often accompanies an SbC incident is an endeavor to cope with stressful life events by self- destructive behaviors. SbC subjects primarily are male, White, and more than 25 years old. They often have a mental illness his- tory, including mood and personality disorders. Alcohol is used in a majority of the recorded SbC inci- dents, with a number of the individuals having a history of alcohol abuse. Subjects under the influence of alco- hol overcome their inhibitions and are more impulsive and lethal. Often, anger and aggression are indicated by a number of past assault or domestic violence com- plaints, homicidal pre-incident conversations, and negotiation conversations that include injury to others. Precipitating events to the SbC incidents often include the termination of a relationship and/or other family problems. SbC subjects have been known to attempt to use the incident as a means to coerce a sig- nificant other to remain in a relationship or for revenge against a significant other. Unlike other suicide victims, 786 ———Suicide by Cop S-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:44 PM Page 786 SbC subjects usually have significant others in their lives, although these others are often part of the prob- lem. Outstanding criminal warrants on the SbC subject also are prevalent. They may state that they would rather die than return to prison. Although early research in SbC focused on prepa- ration by SbC subjects, more recent research done by the author has found that about half of the SbC inci- dents are impulsive rather than planned. About half of the SbC subjects, who she studied, had made some sort of statement or had a change in behavior that could be interpreted as presuicidal. These behaviors included writing and leaving a note, telling a therapist or significant other of what they were considering, and giving away possessions. Prior suicide attempts overall were not very prevalent; however, those who had attempted suicide in the past were more likely to be successful in their attempts in inducing police offi- cers to shoot them. The courts have not decided predominantly in favor or against police officers in all SbC cases; how- ever, the courts have agreed that only the facts known by the officers at the time of the incident are relevant to the case. Intentions or motives of the SbC subjects discovered later are not directly related. The degree of danger that the officer or another person is in is judged at what is known by the officer at the time of the inci- dent. Officers are granted qualified immunity unless they violate established law. The plaintiff has the bur- den to prove that the officers committed a constitu- tional violation. Although the courts should consider only what the officer would have known at the time of the incident, it is useful to conduct a psychological autopsy to investi- gate what the individual’s state of mind was at the time of the SbC incident. Such information will give officers a better understanding of the subject’s motivation, plan, and pathology. It can help also in officers’ psychologi- cal debriefings. Information for a psychological autopsy often is obtained from the subject’s friends, family, and co-workers, as well as from any notes left by the subject, recent high-risk behavior, the giving away of personal property, and actions or statements that suggest preoccupation with death and/or suicide. Officers who are involved in the SbC incident, espe- cially the officer(s) who actually shoot the subject, are quite likely to suffer psychological traumatic stress dis- order. Often, the subject does not actually have a loaded or real gun, although it appears real at the time of the incident. The officer may feel manipulated by the subject and is unprepared for the emotional and physi- ological reactions that follow the shooting. The officer also is often not given the opportunity to verbalize or emotionally ventilate his or her emotions. It is critical that police agencies require officers to see a therapist if they are involved in shootings or other violent incidents. Vivian B. Lord See also Critical Incidents; Police Psychology; Psychological Autopsies Further Readings Hutson, H. R., Anglin, D., Yarbrough, J., Hardaway, K., Russell, M., Strote, J., et al. (1998). Suicide by cop. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 32, 665–669. Lord, V. B. (2004). Suicide by cop: Inducing officers to shoot. Flushing, NY: Looseleaf Law. Parent, R. B., & Verdun-Jones, S. (1998). Victim precipitated homicide: Police use of deadly force in British Columbia. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 21, 432–448. S UPERMAX P RISONS Super-maximum secure or “supermax” prisons are used to hold those prisoners whom prison authorities regard as the most problematic in the prison system. These facilities merge the 19th-century practice of long-term solitary confinement with 21st-century tech- nology in ways that subject prisoners to unparalleled levels of isolation, surveillance, and control, usually for long duration, with the potential to inflict significant amounts of psychological harm. Despite a range of aca- demic studies documenting the serious and potentially long-lasting psychological harm it may inflict, and sev- eral judicial opinions criticizing the risks it entails and significantly limiting its use, the supermax prison form persists. This entry describes the conditions in which prisoners in supermax confinement are held, character- istics of the supermax population, effects on prisoners of supermax confinement, and the current legal status of supermax prisons. Although different prison systems employ different terminology to refer to supermax-like conditions (e.g., “control unit,” “special management unit,” “security housing unit,” or “close management”), these units have enough distinctive features in common to be analyzed as Supermax Prisons ———787 S-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:44 PM Page 787 a separate penal form. Their use has continued to increase over the past several decades, and there are now tens of thousands of prisoners in supermax-type con- finement throughout the United States. Conditions of Supermax Confinement Conditions in supermax confinement are marked by the totality of the isolation, the intended duration of the confinement, the reasons for which it is imposed, and the technological sophistication with which it is achieved. Supermax facilities house prisoners in vir- tual isolation and subject them to almost complete idleness for extremely long periods of time. These prisoners rarely leave their cells and are typically given at most 1 hour a day of out-of-cell time. They eat all their meals alone in the cells, and typically, no group or social activity of any kind is permitted. In most of these units, prisoners are escorted outside their cells or beyond their housing units only after they first have been placed in restraints—chained while still inside their cells (through a food port or tray slot on the cell door)—and sometimes tethered to a leash that is held by an escort officer. Prisoners in supermax confinement are rarely if ever in the presence of another person (including physicians and psychotherapists) without being in some form of physical restraints (e.g., ankle chains, belly or waist chains, handcuffs). They also often incur severe restrictions on the nature and amounts of personal property they may possess and have limited access to the prison library, legal materials, and can- teen. Their brief periods of outdoor exercise or “yard time” typically take place in caged-in or cement- walled areas that are so constraining they are often referred to as “dog runs.” In some units, prisoners get no more than a glimpse of overhead sky or whatever terrain can be seen through the tight security screens that surround their exercise pens. Supermax prisoners often are monitored by camera and converse with staff through intercoms rather than through more direct and routine interactions. In newer facilities, computerized locking and tracking systems allow most of their movement to be regulated with a minimum of human contact (or none at all). Some super- max units conduct visits through videoconferencing equipment rather than in person, which means that pris- oners are denied immediate face-to-face interaction (let alone physical contact), even with loved ones who may have traveled great distances to see them. In addition to “video visits,” some facilities employ “telemedicine” and “telepsychiatry” procedures in which prisoners’ medical and psychological needs are addressed by staff members who “examine” and “interact” with them over television screens from locations many miles away. As noted, supermax prisons routinely keep prison- ers in this near-total isolation and restraint for extremely long periods of time. Unlike punitive segre- gation in which prisoners typically are isolated for rel- atively brief periods of time for specific disciplinary infractions, supermax prisoners may be kept under these conditions for years on end. In addition, many correctional systems impose supermax confinement as part of a long-term strategy of correctional man- agement and control rather than as an immediate sanc- tion for discrete rule violations. Population of Supermax Prisons Supermax prisons are usually justified by reference to the alleged dangerousness of the prisoners who are housed there—the “worst of the worst,” as correc- tional administrators often characterize them. Thus, the increased use of this distinctive prison form is linked to the contention that an especially dangerous or “new breed” of disruptive prisoner now inhabits the modern maximum security prison. In fact, there is little or no empirical support for these contentions. Instead, many prisoners appear to be placed in super- max less for what they have done than who they are judged to be (e.g., “dangerous,” “a threat,” or, espe- cially, a member of a “disruptive” group). In many states, a large group (sometimes the major- ity) of supermax prisoners has been given “indetermi- nate” terms, usually on the basis of having been officially labeled by prison officials as gang members. An indeterminate supermax term often means that these prisoners will serve their entire prison sentences in iso- lation unless they “debrief” by providing incriminating information about other alleged gang members. These practices have resulted in a significant overrepresenta- tion of racial and ethnic minorities in supermax prisons and what analysts have described as an “overclassifica- tion” of the prisoners who end up in these units. In addition, the percentage of mentally ill prisoners in supermax appears to be much higher than in the general prison population. Thus, researchers estimate that approximately 30% of supermax prisoners suffer from “severe mental disorders.” This overrepresentation of the 788 ———Supermax Prisons S-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:44 PM Page 788 mentally ill likely results from the fact that some men- tally disturbed prisoners engage in disruptive behavior that prison officials punish rather than treat. It also may indicate that supermax conditions themselves are severe enough to exacerbate and perhaps even create psycho- logical disturbances in persons subjected to them. Effects of Supermax Confinement Numerous empirical studies have documented the harmful psychological consequences of living in supermax facilities. The evidence is substantial and comes from personal accounts, descriptive studies, and systematic research on solitary and supermax- type confinement conducted over a period of many decades by researchers from several different conti- nents with diverse backgrounds and a wide range of professional expertise. Direct studies of prison isolation have documented an extremely broad range of harmful psychological reactions, including potentially damaging symptoms and problematic behaviors such as negative attitudes and affect; insomnia, anxiety, withdrawal, hypersensi- tivity, ruminations, cognitive dysfunction, hallucina- tions, loss of control, irritability, aggression; and rage, paranoia, feelings of hopelessness, lethargy, depression, a sense of impending emotional breakdown, self- mutilation, and suicidal ideation and behavior. Self- mutilation and suicide are also more prevalent in iso- lated prison housing—the hallmark of supermax confinement, as are deteriorating mental and physical health (beyond self-injury); other-directed violence, such as stabbings, attacks on staff, and property destruc- tion; and collective violence. In fact, many of the nega- tive effects of solitary confinement are analogous to the acute reactions suffered by torture and trauma victims, including posttraumatic stress disorder. Some researchers have estimated the prevalence rates of these adverse symptoms among prisoners who are confined in supermax-type conditions. One study found that three-fourths or more of a representative sample of supermax prisoners reported suffering from ruminations or intrusive thoughts; an oversensitivity to external stimuli; irrational anger and irritability; confused thought processes; difficulties with attention and often with memory; and a tendency to withdraw socially, to become introspective, and to avoid social contact. An only slightly lower percentage of prisoners in the same study reported a constellation of symptoms that appeared to be related to developing mood or emotional disorders—concerns over emotional flatness or losing the ability to feel, swings in emotional responding, and feelings of depression or sadness that did not go away. Finally, sizable minorities of supermax prisoners reported symptoms that are typically only associated with more extreme forms of psychopathology—hallucinations, per- ceptual distortions, and thoughts of suicide. In addition to these specific symptoms, many super- max prisoners undergo other kinds of significant and potentially damaging transformations during their iso- lated confinement. Because they are so tightly and completely controlled, they may lose the ability to ini- tiate or to control their own behavior or to organize their personal lives. Because individual identity is socially constructed and maintained, the virtually com- plete loss of genuine forms of social contact and the absence of any routine and recurring opportunities to ground thoughts and feelings in a recognizable human context leads to an undermining of the sense of self. For other prisoners, total social isolation leads, paradoxi- cally, to social withdrawal. That is, some prisoners recede even more deeply into themselves than the sheer physical isolation of supermax requires. Legal Regulation Because supermax prisons are of relatively recent ori- gin, their constitutionality—the question of whether the conditions of confinement in this new prison form represent “cruel and unusual punishment”—has been tested in only a few important legal cases. The first of these cases, Madrid v. Gomez (1995), addressed con- ditions of confinement in California’s Pelican Bay Security Housing Unit. Although the judge found that overall conditions in the supermax units were harsher than they needed to be, he concluded that he lacked any constitutional basis to close the prison or even to require significant modifications in many of its gen- eral conditions. Instead, he barred certain categories of prisoners from being sent there because of the ten- dency of the facility to literally make them mentally ill or to significantly exacerbate preexisting mental ill- ness. However, he also emphasized that the record before him had pertained to prisoners who had been in supermax for no more than a few years and that longer-term exposure might lead to a different result. The constitutionality of supermax confinement has been tested in federal courts in several other states (notably in Texas and Wisconsin), with largely similar results—a strongly worded condemnation of the Supermax Prisons ———789 S-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:44 PM Page 789 harshness of the conditions, exclusionary orders that exempted certain categories of prisoners from such confinement, but a concession that there was no legal basis to order that the supermax prisons be closed. The legal threshold for finding conditions of confine- ment unconstitutional has been set especially high in the United States over the past several decades. Supermax prisons per se continue to come very close to this thresh- old and, in the case of mentally ill prisoners, were found to have crossed it. As the empirical record about the psy- chological effects of this kind of confinement continues to be augmented, and the consequences of long-term confinement in these units becomes clearer, other courts may reach different and perhaps even more sweeping conclusions about the legality of supermax. Craig Haney See also Prison Overcrowding Further Readings Haney, C. (2003). Mental health issues in long-term solitary and “supermax” confinement. Crime & Delinquency, 49, 124–156. Haney, C., & Lynch, M. (1997). Regulating prisons of the future: The psychological consequences of solitary and supermax confinement. New York University Review of Law and Social Change, 23, 477–570. King, R. (2000). The rise and rise of supermax: An American solution in search of a problem? Punishment and Society, 1, 163–186. Kurki, L., & Morris, N. (2001). The purposes, practices, and problems of supermax prisons. Crime and Justice, 28, 385–424. Madrid v. Gomez, 889 F. Supp. 1146 (1995). Riveland, C. (1999). Supermax prisons: Overview and general considerations. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. 790 ———Supermax Prisons S-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:44 PM Page 790 791 T ENDER Y EARS D OCTRINE The tender years doctrine, or the practice of awarding infants and young children to mothers in custody dis- putes, was employed in most state courts from the late 19th century until the 1960s. The tender years doctrine is based on the idea that mothers have superior, “nat- ural” nurturing abilities and a biological connection to their infants. In the 1970s, most states abolished the tender years doctrine and replaced it with a gender- neutral “best interests of the child” standard. However, some current research claims that a maternal prefer- ence, especially in custody disputes over infants, con- tinues to exist in practice in lower-level courts. History of Child Custody Law Historically, fluctuations in child custody law have reflected societal changes in beliefs about parenthood. Until the mid- to late 1800s, fathers had sole rights to custody, reflecting the notion that women and children were considered the property of the male head of the household. The father’s absolute claim to custody also reflected the view of children at the time: In the primar- ily agrarian economy of the early 19th century, children were seen as economic assets. This agrarian economy shifted to an industrial one in the mid- to late 19th cen- tury, which made children less economically valuable and also necessitated the separation of home and work. With the emergence of separate spheres, men worked outside of the home, and women had responsibility for the home. At this time, the law shifted to a “tender years” doctrine. The tender years doctrine emphasized mothers’ biological superiority as a parent and gave a legal preference to mothers in custody matters. In the past few decades, most states have replaced the tender years doctrine with a best interests of the child doctrine, under which both mothers and fathers are con- sidered equally. This shift in custody law reflected more widespread changes to gender-neutral legal language. For example, in Watts v. Watts (1973), a New York family court stated that “application of the ‘tender years presumption’ would deprive [the father] of his right to equal protection of the law under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” Adopting the “best interests” standard also coincided with increasing public acceptance of the notion that fathers are able to care for children as well as mothers. In 1986, in Pusey v. Pusey , a Utah appeals court held that a maternal preference “lacks validity because it is unnecessary and perpetuates outdated stereotypes.” At the same time, psychological research was used in legal proceedings to bolster the idea that mothers or fathers could be good caregivers to young children. Research on father-child interactions supported this idea, as did studies claiming that preserving the child’s relationship to its “psychological parent”—the adult most responsible for and connected to the child—was paramount. This psychological research was used to discredit the tender years doctrine and to endorse the best interests of the child policy. Current Research on the Tender Years Doctrine Despite the shift to a more gender-neutral custody standard, the consideration of tender years is not a relic T T-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:44 PM Page 791 of the past. As recently as 1989, a Florida appeals court, in DeCamp v. Hein , applied a maternal prefer- ence in the case of a child of tender years. And until 1997, the Tennessee child custody statute allowed judges to consider the sex of the parents in the case of a child of tender years. Thus, some scholars argue that judges in the lower courts have not “caught up” with this change in the law. Even if the tender years doctrine is not endorsed in statutory or case law, trial court judges may subscribe