Prison Report Debated at ACA Conference

Critics Say Recommendations Lack Scholarly Research, Information Misleading

Charlotte, N.C. — The merits of a report on U.S. prisons were discussed during an organized debate at the American Correctional Association 136th Congress of Correction in August, where two critics and two key organizers spoke.

The report “Confronting Confinement,” authored by the 20-member Commission on Safety and Abuse in America’s Prisons, was released in June following an investigative effort that lasted more than a year. The 121-page document makes a variety of broad recommendations, ranging from reducing recidivism to extending Medicaid and Medicare to eligible prisoners.

At the ACA-organized debate, critics of the report cited flaws in data presentation and the lack of an emphasis on scholarly research.

Christopher Innes, chief of research and evaluation at the National institute of Corrections, said the report’s assertion that assaults at correctional facilities are grossly inaccurate or underreported is incorrect. He also said statistics that show a declining homicide rate at prisons suggest that the assault rate could be decreasing as well.

“We should be much more confident that we’ve been on track over the last two decades than one would be if they read that report,” Innes said.

Michela Bowman, who served as counsel for the commission, agreed that the decrease in homicides could be correlated to the number of assaults, but she said the issue is likely more complicated.

“It seems like a fairly realistic conclusion to draw,” Bowman said.

Alexander Busansky, a former federal prosecutor who served as executive director of the commission, said until a more uniform and accurate way of tracking assaults at correctional facilities is implemented, there is no way to gauge how often and to what extent they are occurring.

“Until we get the best data possible, we are not going to be able to understand the national portrait,” Busansky said.

Richard Tewsbury, a professor for the department of justice administration and the University of Louisville in Kentucky, criticized the report for not including more examples from scholarly research to help back the commission’s recommendations. He also criticized the commission for not asking more academic experts to testify at four public hearings that were held before the report was created.

“As a scholar viewing your report, I have to come away very disappointed,” Tewsbury said.

He said the report was a disservice to the research community that has attempted to improve the corrections industry through research and studies.

Bowman said scholarly research was presented to commissioners during the investigative process, but the commission’s report was not meant to be viewed as a scholarly document.

“Our goal was to write recommendations that reflect this group of commissioners’ primary concerns,” she said. “We made an internal decision to take the conclusions of that research and write it to reach a broad audience.”

Bowman, who is a Ph.D. candidate at New York University’s law and society program, said as a researcher, she never felt uncomfortable with the report’s findings and if academic research were incorporated the report would have been significantly longer.

“There is real work that stands from their recommendations,” Bowman said. “They did not just fall from the sky.”