Full opinion text
OPINION AND ORDER STANTON, District Judge. This is a class action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by inmates in the Fishkill Correctional Facility (“FCF”) in Beacon, New York, on behalf of all persons who are or will be confined in FCF. The plaintiff class alleges that the totality of conditions caused by overcrowding at FCF subjects them to cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Upon the testimony of expert witnesses, inmates and New York State Department of Correctional Services (“DOCS”) employees, my observations during two weeks of trial held at the prison, an eight-hour inspection of FCF on one occasion and an evening inspection on another, the trial exhibits and the demeanor of witnesses, I find that the conditions of confinement at FCF, taken separately or in their totality, do not violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The Facility FCF is a medium security correctional facility, denominated by DOCS as “terminal.” As such, the majority of FCF inmates are assigned to the facility because they are close to their release date (e.g., parole release, conditional release or expiration of sentence). Most of these pre-release inmates come from the New York City metropolitan area and are assigned to FCF by the Division of Classification and Movement, DOCS, Albany, primarily to allow them to be closer to home prior to their release, which also allows an inmate’s family easier access to him. Thus, even though this policy may result in a higher annual turnover of inmates than at other maximum and medium security facilities, it permits the inmate to re-establish, renew or strengthen his family ties before his release into the community. Situated in rolling country in Beacon, New York, FCF consists of red brick buildings, roads, walkways and yards, and some areas of grass and trees, giving the general visual impression of the late nineteenth century hospital facility it once was, with contemporary additional buildings — except for the tall fences topped with spirals of razor-edged wire, the uniformed officers, the barred windows, locked gates and metal doors which identify it as Fishkill Correctional Facility. Inmates in green shirts, trousers and field jackets, similar to those frequently worn by automobile mechanics and service station attendants, move about from building to building singly or in small groups, talking and unescorted but under the surveillance of officers at watchposts. There are three principal housing buildings — Main Building and Buildings 21 and 21A — separated by administrative buildings that contain industries, an infirmary and dental clinic, parole services, counseling, school, chapel and visiting facilities. The FCF kitchen is located in Building 21, at the northeast end of the complex. An underground tunnel connects the Main Building and Buildings 21 and 21A and is used during bad weather and on specially designated family visiting days. History of Matteawan State Hospital/Fishkill Correctional Facility Matteawan State Hospital was opened on April 25,1892 on a 250 acre farm in Dutchess County as a psychiatric hospital for persons ruled by the courts to be criminally insane, dangerously retarded or unfit to stand trial. Matteawan was originally designed to house a population of 550 persons. When Matteawan opened it had an initial patient population of 261. As the numbers of persons who were adjudicated criminally insane and in need of secure confinement grew, more land was purchased and more buildings were erected. By the mid-1960’s the hospital had four major inmate/patient housing components: 1) The Main Building Complex (now called Main Building) was built over six construction phases between 1888 and 1951. It housed dangerously incapacitated males; 2) The Women’s Building Complex (now called Buildings # 12 and 13) was built in five construction phases between 1906 and 1954. It housed dangerously incapacitated females; 3) The Reception Building (now called building # 21) housing areas were built in 1925 and the kitchen and dining areas were built in 1961; and 4) Building # 21A was built in 1961 as an annex for the Reception Building. It housed persons serving normal criminal sentences. On December 31, 1962, the population of the entire Matteawan State Hospital Complex was 2,116. Plaintiffs contend that the facility was overcrowded at that time. On December 20, 1966 the population of Matteawan State Hospital had dropped to 683. By the mid-1970’s, Matteawan State Hospital complex covered 845 acres. A decision was then made to phase out Matteawan as a mental hospital. In January, 1977, Theodore Reid was appointed Superintendent of Matteawan State Hospital and FCF. The hospital portion of the facility had a population of 310 males and 5 females for a total of 315. The population of the Elderly and Handicapped Unit in Building # 13 was 97. The population in the Diagnostic and Evaluation Unit in Building # 21A was 26. The Work Release Unit population in Building # 13 was 84. The general confinement population in Buildings # 21 and 21A was 518. The total population of the facility was 1,040. At that time half of the main building complex was closed and underwent remodeling and/or repair. When the decision to close Matteawan was made, it was also decided that the facilities at Matteawan State Hospital, as well as the other complexes on the grounds, several of which were already in use as correctional housing and operated by DOCS, would be best suited for a medium security correctional facility, given their open ward structures. Thus, in late 1977 Matteawan and its various components became what is now known as Fish-kill Correctional Facility. Space for housing inmates in DOCS became critical in the spring and summer of 1977. As contractors finished units in Matteawan State Hospital (main building complex), general confinement inmates were moved into those areas. Before completion of the transfer of Matteawan State Hospital inmates to Central New York Psychiatric Center at Marcy, New York, the main building complex housed general confinement prison inmates in the north half and Matteawan State Hospital patients in the south half. The population statistics for the second week in August, 1977 show 108 Matteawan patients (including 4 females) and 582 general confinement prison inmates. The next week (August 26, 1977) population figures show 65 Matteawan patients and 739 general confinement inmates, thus depicting the gradual assumption of Matteawan State Hospital space by general confinement inmate space. The FCF population increased over the next two years. In January 1980, the general confinement population was 1,110, work release at 19 and the Elderly and Handicapped Unit at 24 for a total facility population of 1,153. At that time, plans were formulated to convert Building # 13 from housing units to a service building centralizing the four pre-existing visiting areas and providing central space for counseling, parole services, ministerial services, academic programs and education administration. This made the first floor of Building # 21 (which had previously been used for offices) and the visiting areas in the Main Building Complex, Building # 21 and Building # 21A available for inmate housing. During this period work was also completed in the portions of the main building complex which had been undergoing remodeling and repair. Thus, by January of 1981 there were 1156 general confinement inmates and 28 work release inmates for a total population of 1184. There were still areas throughout the facility and on many housing units which had no designated use. In 1981, DOCS came under increased population pressures because of the passage of the Violent Felony Offender Act, the Second Felony Offender Act and the reversal of New York City’s previous offer to sell the correctional facilities on Rikers Island to the state. All New York State correctional facilities were reviewed by DOCS to see if any available or undesignated space could, with the addition of the necessary infrastructure, be converted into inmate housing. Several facilities were found to have space available to convert to inmate housing. Because the changeover from Matteawan State Hospital to FCF had yielded what DOCS viewed as available space, both in terms of undesignated areas and underutilized housing units, DOCS determined to add approximately 454 additional beds at FCF. These beds were, and still are, designated as Temporary Housing Capacity, which DOCS describes as a bookkeeping device to keep track of where those beds were added, because DOCS intends to remove those beds from the FCF population count when, and if, the population pressures ever decrease or new buildings give the state a capacity which exceeds intake demands. In the meantime, DOCS has built what it considers the necessary infrastructure (security staff, programs, food, clothing, housing, medical facilities, administrative staff, etc.) at FCF to support those beds in the same way it does those beds which are designated as Permanent Capacity. During the DOCS population increase of early 1981, additional spaces were identified and converted to bed space. By April of 1981 the FCF population was 1,287, of whom 31 were work release inmates. At that time the conversion of Building # 13 to a service area was completed and the first floor housing units in Building #21 were finished. This, along with modifications to seven units in Building # 21A and six units on the second and third floors of Building # 21, allowed FCF to increase its population to 1,634 general confinement inmates and 36 work release inmates for a total facility population of 1,664. Beginning in about July 1984, FCF had an average of 96 beds vacant on a day-today basis because of inmates who had moved into a restricted confinement bed (Secure Confinement Area or infirmary bed) or were out of the facility at an outside hospital or “out-to-court”. DOCS decided to fill forty of the vacant beds by a process known as double-encumbering. This increased the total facility population without adding additional beds, or creating or converting any further housing units. Fifty-six restricted capacity beds remained “off the facility count” and continued to do so at the time of trial. In its January 1986 review of FCF, the New York State Commission on Corrections (“SCOC”), an independent “watchdog” agency, reported that the DOCS master count sheet listed the general housing capacity of FCF as follows: (1) Permanent Maximum Capacity, 1142; (2) Temporary Capacity, 531; (3) Work Release, 35; (4) Special Housing Unit, 56; (5) Hospital, 21; (6) Total, 1785. The population of FCF on November 6, 1986 was 1,696, of which 34 were in the Work Release Program and 37 in the Special Housing Unit. The Commissioner of DOCS, Thomas A. Coughlin III, testified that the FCF infrastructure could appropriately support approximately 1700 inmates. He noted, however, that FCF would be easier to run at 1,200 from the perspective of both the inmates and staff. Law The Eighth Amendment, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, imposes “the constitutional limitation upon punishments: they cannot be ‘cruel and unusual.’ ” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 345, 101 S.Ct. 2392, 2398, 69 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981). This includes punishments which, although not physically barbarous, involve the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain, or are grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime. Id. at 346, 101 S.Ct. at 2399. Unnecessary and wanton inflictions of pain include pain “totally without penological justification.” Ibid, (citing, e.g., Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103, 97 S.Ct. 285, 290, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976) (deliberate indifference to medical needs)). But conditions that cannot be said to be cruel and unusual under contemporary standards are not unconstitutional. To the extent that such conditions are restrictive and even harsh, they are part of the penalty that criminal offenders pay for their offenses against society____ [T]he Constitution does not mandate comfortable prisons, and prisons ... which house persons convicted of serious crimes, cannot be free of discomfort. [T]hese are considerations properly weighed by the legislature and prison administration rather than a court. Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 347, 349, 101 S.Ct. at 2399, 2400. In assessing claims that conditions of confinement are cruel and unusual, courts must bear in mind that their inquiries “spring from constitutional requirements and that judicial answers to them must reflect that fact rather than a court’s idea of how best to operate a detention facility.” Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 539, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 1874, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979). The role of the court is to enforce constitutional standards and to protect the constitutional rights of inmates, not to second-guess prison administrators or supervise prison administration. Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 404-05, 94 S.Ct. 1800, 1807, 40 L.Ed.2d 224 (1974): Traditionally, federal courts have adopted a broad hands-off attitude toward problems of prison administration. In part this policy is the product of various limitations on the scope of federal review of conditions in state penal institutions. More fundamentally, this attitude springs from complementary perceptions about the nature of the problems and the efficacy of judicial intervention. Prison administrators are responsible for maintaining internal order and discipline, for securing their institutions against unauthorized access or escape, and for rehabilitating, to the extent that human nature and inadequate resources allow, the inmates placed in their custody. The Herculean obstacles to effective discharge of these duties are too apparent to warrant explication. Suffice it to say that the problems of prisons in America are complex and intractable, and, more to the point, they are not readily susceptible of resolution by decree. Most require expertise, comprehensive planning, and the commitment of resources, all of which are peculiarly within the province of the legislative and executive branches of government. For all of those reasons, courts are ill equipped to deal with the increasingly urgent problems of prison administration and reform. Judicial recognition of that fact reflects no more than a healthy sense of realism. Moreover, where state penal institutions are involved, federal courts have a further reason for deference to the appropriate prison authorities. (footnotes omitted). Prison administration is, moreover, a task that has been committed to the responsibility of the legislative and executive branches of government and separation of powers concerns “counsel a policy of judicial restraint.” Turner v. Safley, — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 2259, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987). Inmates retain certain constitutional rights, but those rights are subject to restrictions and limitations. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 545-46, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 1877-78, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979). Lawful incarceration brings about the necessary withdrawal or limitation of many privileges and rights, a retraction justified by the considerations underlying our penal system____ The fact of confinement as well as the legitimate goals and policies of the penal institution limits these retained constitutional rights____ There must be a mutual accommodation between institutional needs and objectives and the provisions of the Constitution that are of general application. Id. at 546, 99 S.Ct. at 1878 (citations omitted). Maintaining institutional security and preserving internal order and discipline are essential goals that may require limitation or retraction of the retained constitutional rights of inmates. Ibid. “No static ‘test’ can exist by which courts determine whether conditions of confinement are cruel and unusual, for the Eighth Amendment ‘must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.’ ” Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 346, 101 S.Ct. at 2399 (citation omitted). Eighth Amendment judgments should be informed by objective factors to the maximum extent possible. Ibid. The specific categories of Eighth Amendment concern were set forth by the Second Circuit in Wolfish v. Levi, 573 F.2d 118, 125 (2d Cir.1978), rev’d on other grounds, sub nom., Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979). The Second Circuit there stated that sentenced inmates are entitled only to “adequate food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety.” 573 F.2d at 125. Limited work hours and delay before receiving education “do not inflict pain, much less unnecessary and wanton pain; deprivations of this kind simply are not punishments.” Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 348, 101 S.Ct. at 2400. Concurring in Rhodes, joined by Justices Blackmum and Stevens, Justice Brennan itemized the conditions to be examined: In determining when prison conditions pass beyond legitimate punishment and become cruel and unusual, the “touchstone is the effect upon the imprisoned.” Laaman v. Helgemoe, 437 F.Supp. [269], at 323 [D.N.H.1977]. The court must examine the effect upon inmates of the condition of the physical plant (lighting, heat, plumbing, ventilation, living space, noise levels, recreation space); sanitation (control of vermin and insects, food preparation, medical facilities, lavatories and showers, clean places for eating, sleeping, and working); safety (protection from violent, deranged, or diseased inmates, fire protection, emergency evacuation); inmate needs and services (clothing, nutrition, bedding, medical, dental, and mental health care, visitation time, exercise and recreation, educational and rehabilitative programming); and staffing (trained and adequate guards and other staff, avoidance of placing inmates in positions of authority over other inmates); See ibid.; Ramos v. Lamm, 639 F.2d [559] at 567-581 [10th Cir.1980]. When “the cumulative impact of the conditions of incarceration threatens the physical, mental, and emotional health and well-being of the inmates and/or creates a probability of recidivism and future incarceration,” the court must conclude that the conditions violate the Constitution. Laaman v. Helgemoe, supra, at 323. Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 364, 101 S.Ct. at 2408 (concurring opinion). My findings concerning the conditions at FCF follow that outline. I. Physical Plant General Physical Plant Maintenance Issues Plaintiffs allege that “[n]ecessary repair work to the physical plant, fixtures, and equipment is frequently delayed for months, and in some cases have been put off for over a year.” PI. Post-trial Proposed Findings of Fact (“PI. Findings”), at 33. Plaintiffs’ rely, inter alia, on (1) minutes from FCF’s Environmental Services CommitteeI. (“ESC”) concerning ongoing physical plant problems; (2) repeated capital budget requests for (a) rehabilitating toilets and showers for inmate housing units and (b) replacing heating systems; (3) testimony of inmate Happel that his room in Housing Unit (“HU”) R-East had chunks of plaster missing from the wall, a leaking overhead pipe, and “a flood” of water coming through the wall and a radiator; (4) design defects in the mechanisms for opening and closing the windows in Building 21A; (5) testimony by inmate Nilsson that it took maintenance two weeks to replace a broken window in his room; and (6) a broken step near the entrance to Housing Unit J in Building 21A that was not repaired for several months. William Butler, FCF Plant Superintendent for 14 years, testified that the FCF physical plant was big, structurally sound and continually updated. He also testified that FCF has an aggressive preventive maintenance program and that the maintenance staff attempts timely to repair any malfunctioning equipment or facilities. Superintendent Reid also testified that no major equipment or facilities, such as kitchen equipment or water and heating systems, were in need of repair. A review of maintenance staff responses to (1) the ESC’s inspection reports, (2) the annual health and safety inspection conducted by FCF staff pursuant to DOCS directive, (3) New York Department of Health Annual Inspections, and (4) work orders (about 800 each month) logged in the maintenance staff’s logbook (copies of which are also kept by the administrative department), establishes that for the most part necessary repair work is meticulously identified and performed. Plaintiffs’ expert witness, Mr. Gordon Kamka, prison consultant, inspector, and former warden, testified that although the facility was old, there was a maintenance program to address and resolve problems of leakage and plumbing, and that no part of the facility was left unattended in the general area of maintenance. Mr. Kamka also testified that during his tour of FCF he did not see evidence of broken or unrepaired windows. He testified that if there had been a large number he would have noted it. Assuming Mr. Happel’s testimony about the condition of his room to be clinically accurate, no testimony was presented to establish that such conditions were widespread, rather than an isolated occurrence. Based on my tour of all of the housing units in FCF and all other testimony, I conclude that the condition of Mr. Happel’s room was not typical of the conditions in other rooms. FCF makes Capital Budget Requests for major renovation or building projects each year. These requests are in addition to the facility’s operating funds. As in all governmental processes which are controlled by fiscal considerations and evaluations made by agencies beyond FCF’s administrators’ control, some projects are funded and some are not, depending upon available state resources. Superintendent Reid testified that whether or not the Budget Requests are granted, FCF is able to maintain the Facility and perform renovations and repairs with the funding provided for such activities. Although there was inmate testimony concerning isolated instances of delays in repairs, and the failure to repair, I conclude that FCF is able to make the necessary repairs to the physical plant that keep it from posing a threat to the health and safety of the inmates. 1) Lighting. Plaintiffs claim that housing unit HU-15-2’s exit light “was repeatedly reported as broken from November 25,1984 through at least September 8, 1985.” PI. Findings, at 34. Based on my inspection of FCF and the other evidence and testimony presented, I find that lighting at FCF is adequate. 2) Heat. Plaintiffs contend that there are “frequent problems with the heating ... throughout the facility____ Areas of the facility do not or have not had an adequate amount of heat at various times.” PI. Findings, at 50. There was inmate testimony of instances of inadequate heat in certain housing units. There have been breakdowns of the heating systems at FCF. The maintenance staff attempts to repair them promptly. FCF has put new heating systems in Buildings 21 and 13, and parts of the Main Building heating system have been replaced. There was inmate testimony that at times they had to wear outdoor clothing indoors, but there was no showing of adverse health effects experienced as a result of heating breakdowns. FCF is also addressing the design problem of the windows (louver crank strips threads in trying to seal) in Building 21A with Capital Budget Requests and the interim use of plastic sheeting to seal the windows to avoid wintertime drafts. The present state of the heating system has flaws and problems but is generally adequate and does not threaten the health of the inmates. 3) Plumbing — Toilets, Showers and Sinks Plaintiffs contend that the number of showers, toilets and sinks in most of the housing units is insufficient to meet the basic physiological needs of the inmates living in those units. Plaintiffs first rely on the standard established by the American Correctional Association (“ACA”) which states that a multiple occupancy room should provide “[tjoilet and shower facilities at a minimum of one operable toilet and shower for every eight occupants” and “[o]ne operable wash basin with hot and cold running water for every six occupants.” ACA Standard 2-4131. This standard is labeled “important” by the ACA as opposed to “essential” or “mandatory”. Plaintiffs also rely on the standards established by DOCS which require toilets, sinks and showers in the ratio of one to ten inmates in dormitory housing. 7 N.Y.C. R.R. 320.3. In my analysis of whether the numbers of showers, sinks and toilets are sufficient, I rely on the total capacity listings for each housing unit from Defendants’ Exhibit B. The following table shows the capacity of each of the housing units, the numbers of showers, sinks and toilets in each unit, and the resulting ratio of showers, sinks and toilets to inmates in each housing unit. The figures for numbers of toilets, showers and sinks are taken from Defendants’ Exhibit C. The number of toilets in each unit includes urinals. MAIN BUILDING Unit Capacity No. of Showers Ratio of Showers to Inmates No. of Sinks Ratio of Sinks to Inmates No. of Toilets Ratio of Toilets to Inmates 1 52 2 1:26 4 1:13 4 1:13 2 49 7 1:7 6 1:8.17 8 1:6.13 3-1 27 2 1:13.5 29 1:0.93 30 1:0.9 3- 2 29 2 1:14.5 35 1:0.83 33 1:0.88 4- 1 28 1 1:28 30 1:0.93 31 1:0.9 4- 2 28 1 1:28 30 1:0.93 32 1:0.88 5- 1 27 3 1:9 4 1:6.75 6 1:4.5 5- 2 27 1 1:27 2 1:13.5 3 1:9 6- 1 27 3 1:9 4 1:6.75 5 1:5.4 6-2 27 1 1:27 2 1:13.5 3 1:9 9-1 27 3 1:9 2 1:13.5 6 1:4.5 9-2 27 1 1:27 2 1:13.5 3 1:9 10-1 27 3 1:9 4 1:6.75 6 1:4.5 10-2 27 1 1:27 2 1:13.5 3 1:9 11-1 24 3 1:8 2 1:12 6 1:4 11-2 24 1 1:24 2 1:12 3 1:8 12-1 24 3 1:8 4 1:6 1:4 12-2 24 1 1:24 2 1:12 1:8 13-2 24 3 1:8 3 1:8 3 1:8 14 35 4 1:8.75 29 1:1.21 29 1:1.21 15- 2 24 2 1:12 3 1:8 3 1:8 16- 2 36 5 1:7.2 7 1:5.14 26 1:1.38 17-19 25 3 1:8.33 27 1:0.93 27 1:0.93 21 30 2 1:15 3 1:10 4 1:7.5 22 25 4 1:6.25 5 1:5 9 1:2.78 BUILDING 21 1/East 52 4 1:13 4 1:13 6 1:8.67 1/West 42 4 1:10.5 3 1:14 6 1:7 1/Cntr. 53 4 1:13.25 6 1:8.83 6 1:8.83 A/East 56 4 1:14 6 1:9.33 9 1:6.2 A/Cntr. 47 4 1:11.75 6 1:7.83 10 1:4.7 A/West 56 4 1:14 5 1:11.2 9 1:6.2 B/East 56 4 1:14 6 1:9.33 9 1:6.2 B/Cntr. 47 4 1:11.75 6 1:7.83 10 1:4.7 B/West 56 4 1:14 5 1:11.2 10 1:5.6 C/Cntr. 51 4 1:12.75 6 1:8.5 10 1:5.1 BUILDING 21A I 57 4 1:14.25 7 1:8.14 11 1:5.18 J 54 4 1:13.5 7 1:7.71 11 1:4.91 K 54 4 1:13.5 7 1:7.71 11 1:4.91 L 54 4 1:13.5 7 1:7.71 10 1:5.4 M 54 3 1:18 7 1:7.71 11 1:4.91 N 54 4 1:13.5 7 1:7.71 11 1:4.91 0 28 1 1:28 32 1:0.88 35 1:0.8 P 28 1 1:28 32 1:0.88 35 1:0.8 Q 30 1 1:30 29 1:1.03 30 1:1 B/East 40 3 1:13.33 4 1:10 6 1:6.67 R/West 24 3 1:8 4 1:6 5 1:4.8 S 13 3 1:4.33 7 1:1.86 8 1:1.68 Mr. Butler described plans to add one shower to each of housing units 5-2, 7-2, 10-2 and 12-2 in the Main Building. Toilets and sinks are also located in the program areas (e.g., visiting area, chapel, school, gym, law library and inmate organization areas). Toilets, sinks and showers are also located in some recreational day-rooms. The above table assumes that the facilities are operable at all times. There was trial testimony, however, that some of the toilet, shower and sink facilities were sometimes inoperable. Thus, on occasion there was a greater number of inmates per toilet, shower and sink. This is not determinative as to whether the physiological needs of the inmates were met, but rather, is one factor to be considered by the Court. Although the ACA and DOCS standards constitute appropriate goals formulated by experts in the field, and may provide guidance for prison administrators or other branches of the government, they do not establish constitutional minima. Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. at 348, n. 13, 101 S.Ct. at 2409, n. 13; Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. at 544, n. 27, 99 S.Ct. at 1876, n. 27; Miles v. Bell, 621 F.Supp. 51, 60 (D.Conn.1985). The Court must look at the effect of the challenged condition upon the imprisoned. Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 364, 101 S.Ct. at 2408 (Brennan, J., concurring). The inmates who testified described the adverse effects created by this shortage or insufficiency of facilities. The most obvious effects were that inmates had to wait to use the showers, particularly during the busy times of the day, and conflicts arose over the limited facilities. Inmates, however, also testified that they took showers in other housing units when their own unit’s showers were unavailable. In its January 1986 review of FCF, the SCOC noted that no inmate complaints surfaced in the area of sanitary facilities. The question then arises as to what harm is caused inmates who are forced to wait to use shower facilities. No evidence of any institutional restriction on the number of showers allowed inmates per week was presented. Inmates have access to shower facilities throughout the day and evening, 16 hours a day, seven days a week. Their immediate unavailability on demand is an inconvenience which may be considered as part of the penalty criminal offenders pay for their offenses against society. Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 347, 101 S.Ct. at 2399. The record in this case shows that plaintiffs are often forced to wait, but there is no evidence that this significantly affects their health or cleanliness. On the contrary, although most of the shower, toilets and sink facilities fail to meet the ACA and DOCS standards, these facilities do meet the inmates’ basic physiological needs. Plaintiffs also contend that “[r]epairs and maintenance to sanitary facilities are constantly required, but are frequently delayed for long periods of time.” PI. Findings, at 29. Although some sanitary fixtures are old, FCF maintains and repairs these fixtures on a daily basis to keep them in proper working order. The only testimony concerning an inmate contracting a disease from an alleged unsanitary facility was inmate Happel’s, that bathrooms on HU 11-1 in the beginning of 1985 were not properly disinfected, that the sinks were filthy and grimy, and that he developed a fungus (which might have been athlete’s foot) from using the showers in Housing Unit R-East. One of the tasks of the porter inmates is to keep the bathrooms clean. When these porters do not perform their job properly, the result is a dirty bathroom. Mr. Happel himself testified that he spends only twenty minutes of a three-hour work period mopping the area to which he is assigned as a housing unit porter. No reason was given why the solution to inmate claims of dirty facilities does not lie in better cleaning of those facilities by the inmates themselves. 4) Ventilation The plaintiffs claim that “[t]he ventilation in the welding shop is inadequate” (PI. Findings, at 52) and it apparently is. The administration tried to remedy the problem by installing a new ventilation system in the summer of 1984. Superintendent Reid testified that the administration continues to investigate possible ways to improve the system. Mr. Gaffney also testified that there was inadequate ventilation in Housing Unit 1, Main Building during the summer he was housed there. No testimony was presented that this resulted in health problems to Mr. Gaffney or any other inmate. 5) Living Space — Residential Areas Some cells (since inmates are never locked in them, they serve merely as rooms and inmates and staff alike refer to them as rooms) house 2, 3 or 4 roommates. The great majority of inmates, however, live in dormitories modified to provide individual cubicles: personal areas in which a bed, chair, locker and open shelf space for personal property are enclosed by low walls about four feet high, open in front to a passageway, but marking a division of that unit from its neighbor. The cubicle encloses about 35 square feet of space. Plaintiffs contend that the cubicle space is insufficient to meet the personal space and privacy needs of the inmates living in the dormitories. There is an individual dayroom separate from, but adjoining each housing unit, except for the twenty-eight man units in the Main Building in which two housing units share a double-sized dayroom located between the two units. There are chairs, tables and a cable color television set in each dayroom. Theodore Reid became Superintendent of FCF in early 1977, when Matteawan State Hospital was being converted to FCF. He decided that each inmate should have a clearly defined personal space. He thus “abandoned the open barracks dormitory setting found in most medium security correctional facilities in this country and had installed modular cubicles in each dormitory unit.” Reid Aff., sworn to October 27, 1986, II22. The cubicle life inherently involves exposure, and only a limited sense of privacy. Superintendent Reid believes that this forced interaction provides rehabilitation, reflecting the fact that people in the outside community do not live in cells. That is a reasonable perception, and a strategy well within the jurisdiction of the prison administrator. Superintendent Reid testified that his primary concern was that the house correction officer be able to see the inmates. “If the inmate is standing he can be seen. If he is sitting [in his “cube”] he can be seen. If he is lying down he cannot. So when he was lying down, unless someone came to the end of his module, he would have that sense of privacy.” T. Reid, Tr. at 104. Plaintiffs’ experts Mr. Verne Cox, a researcher in the area of prison crowding, and Mr. Kamka both testified that the cubicle space is insufficient to meet the personal space and privacy needs of the inmates living in the dormitories. Plaintiffs rely on the standard established by the ACA, which states that a multiple occupancy room should provide “[a] minimum floor area of 50 square feet per occupant in the sleeping area.” ACA Standard 2-4131. This standard is labeled “important” by the ACA, rather than “essential” or “mandatory.” Although not beyond cavil, I accept defendants’ calculations of the square footage of living space per inmate (not including recreational dayrooms) (Defendants’ Exhibit B) by taking the total square footage of the room in which cubicles are placed and dividing by the number of inmates. This shows, after arithmetic corrections by the Court: Building 21-A — Total Capacity = 490 (includes Secure Confinement Areas) Square Footage per Inmate Housing Unit I (Capacity = 57) Front Dorm (15) Rear Dorm (28) Single rooms (4) Double rooms (3) Four-man rooms (1) 81.47' 162 63 and 72 72 and 76 64 Housing Unit J (Capacity = 54) Front Dorm (15) Rear Dorm (25) Single rooms (4) Double rooms (3) Four-man rooms (1) 81.47 ■ , 181.44 63, 70, 72 and 80 72 and 76 68 Housing Unit K (Capacity = 54) Front Dorm (15) Rear Dorm (25) Single rooms (4) Double rooms (3) Four-man room (1) 81.47 181.44 63 and 72 72 and 76 64 Housing Unit L (Capacity = 54) Front Dorm (15) Rear Dorm (25) Single rooms (4) Double rooms (3) Four-man room (1) 81.47 178.20 63, 70, and 72 72 and 76 64 Housing Unit M (Capacity = 54) Front Dorm (15) Rear Dorm (25) Single rooms (4) Double rooms (2) Four-man room (1) 81.47 181.44 70 and 80 72 and 76 68 Housing Unit N (Capacity = 54) Front Dorm (15) Rear Dorm (25) Single rooms (4) Double rooms (3) Four-man room (1) 81.47 181.44 70 and 80 72 and 76 68 Housing Unit 0 (Capacity = 28) (Secure Confinement Area) Single rooms (28) 80 and 81 Housing Unit P (Capacity = 28) (Secure Confinement Area) Single rooms (28) 80 and 81 Housing Unit Q (Capacity = 30) Single rooms (30) 80 and 81 Building 21-A — Total Capacity -• 490 (includes Secure Confinement Areas) Square Footage per Inmate Housing Unit R/W (Capacity = 24) (Behavior Intervention Unit) Dorm 1 (8) Dorm 2 (8) Dorm 3 (4) Single rooms (4) 40.93 40.31 58.12 72.8 Housing Unit R/E (Capacity = 40) Dorm (32) Single rooms (4) Double rooms (2) 92.5 80 85.5, 82.5 Housing Unit S (Capacity = 13) (Presently vacant) Dorm (11) Single rooms (2) 161.45 140 Main Building — Total Capacity = 724 (includes Secure Confinement Area) Housing Unit 1 (Capacity = 52) Dorm (38) Single rooms (6) Double rooms (4) 89.9 63 66 Housing Unit 2 (Capacity = 49) Dorm (46) Single rooms (3) 88.9 65.5 Housing Unit 3-1 (Capacity = 27) Single rooms (27) 77.1 Housing Unit 3-2 (Capacity = 29) Single rooms (29) 77.1 Housing Unit 4-1 (Capacity = 28) (Reception) Single rooms (28) 77.1 Housing Unit 4-2 (Capacity = 28) (Secure Confinement Area) Single rooms (28) 77.1 Housing Unit 5-1 (Capacity = 27) Dorm (24) Single rooms (3) 90.4 96 Housing Unit 5-2 (Capacity = 27) Dorm (24) Single rooms (3) 90.4 96 Housing Unit 6-1 (Capacity = 27) Dorm (24) Single rooms (3) ■ 100.5 96 Housing Unit 6-2 (Capacity = 27) Dorm (24) Single rooms (3) 97.7 96 Housing Unit 9-1 (Capacity = 27) Dorm (24) Single rooms (3) 99 96 Housing Unit 9-2 (Capacity = 27) Dorm (24) Single rooms (3) 99 96 Square Footage Main Building — Total Capacity - 724 (includes Secure Confinement Areas) per Inmate (Capacity = 27) Dorm (24) Single rooms (3) Housing Unit 10-1 103.5 96 (Capacity = 27) Dorm (24) Single rooms (3) Housing Unit 10-2 103.5 96 (Capacity = 24) Dorm (24) Housing Unit 11-1 99.2 (Capacity = 24) Dorm (24) Housing Unit 11-2 99.2 (Capacity = 24) Dorm (24) Housing Unit 12-1 99.2 (Capacity = 24) Dorm (24) Housing Unit 12-2 99.2 (Capacity = 24) Dorm (24) Housing Unit 13-2 99.2 (Capacity = 35) Dorm (10) Single rooms (25) Housing Unit 14 140.35 80.5 (Capacity = 24) Dorm (24) Housing Unit 15-2 81.5 (Capacity = 36) Dorm (10) Single rooms (26) Housing Unit 16-2 140.35 80.5 (Capacity = 25) Single rooms (25) Housing Unit 17-19 77 (Capacity = 30) Dorm (10) Single rooms (20) Housing Unit 21 93.3 88 (Capacity = 25) Single rooms (1) Double rooms (9) Triple rooms (2) Housing Unit 22 96 51, 54, 57, and 60 48 and 56 Building 21 — Total Capacity = 516 Housing Unit C/Center (Capacity = 51) Single rooms (9) Double rooms (3) Triple rooms (4) Four-man rooms (6) 106.2, 103.1, 91.4, 82.8, 104, 120, 105.6, 102 77, 88.5, 67.3 62.9, 68, 72, 96.3 67.5, 71.3, 73.8 Housing Unit B/West (Capacity = 56) Dorm (12) Single rooms (7) Double rooms (2) Triple rooms (7) Four-man rooms (3) 111 73.6, 104.5, 95, 103.4, 120.3 61.5, 62.5 52.5, 69.3, 74.7, 67.6, 61.3, 56, 63.6 56.3 Housing Unit B/Center (Capacity = 47) Dorm (8) Single rooms (6) Double rooms (4) Triple rooms (7) Four-man rooms (1) 65 91.2, 103.4, 111.5, 123.9, 109.5, 104.4 61.9, 79.1, 107, 78.1 81.6, 77.9, 73.7, 68.3, 73.1, 80.6 60.9 Building 21 — Total Capacity = 516 Housing Unit B/East (Capacity = 56) Dorm (12) Single rooms (7) Double rooms (2) Triple rooms (7) Four-man rooms (3) Square Footage per Inmate 114.3 113.2, 75.6, 95.4, 102.8, 103.8 62.3, 60.4 67.2, 51.6, 74, 65, 50.6, 61.1 54.1, 56.3 Housing Unit 1/East (Capacity = 52) Dorm 1 (5) Dorm 2 (33) Dorm 3 (7) Dorm 4 (7) 90.2 100.8 133.2 87.7 Housing Unit 1/Center (Capacity = 53) Double rooms (1) Triple rooms (1) Four-man rooms (3) Five man rooms (1) Six man rooms (4) Seven man room (1) 93 50.4 58.2, 63.7, 81.3 58 62.7, 66.2, 66.4, 63.3 58.8 (Capacity = 42) Dorm 1 (11) Dorm 2 (10) Dorm 3 (21) Housing Unit 1/West 106 64.9 63.8 (Capacity = 56) Dorm (12) Single rooms (7) Double rooms (2) Triple rooms (7) Housing Unit A/East Four-man rooms (3) 118.5 749, 94.4, 98.6, 100.7, 117.4 65.4 and 66 47.6, 67.1, 65.1, 58.1, 52.9, 62.2, 73.3 53.4, 55.6, 56.3 Housing Unit A/Center (Capacity = 47) Dorm (4) Dorm (4) Single rooms (5) Double rooms (5) Triple rooms (8) 66.5 66.5 81.4, 99.9, 100.6, 111, 100 60, 65.6, 69, 78, 61.5 68, 72, 76.3, 71.8, 74, 78.9, 80.2, 80 Housing Unit A/West (Capacity = 56) Dorm (12) Single rooms (6) Double rooms (4) Triple rooms (6) Four-man rooms (3) 111 99.3, 92.1, 72.7, 86.9, 100.4, 95.2 60.5, 77.6, 62.7, 59.7 57.3, 65, 65.6, 59.1, 62.9, 77.6 52.8, 53.4, 51.1 A review of these calculations reveals that nearly all of the housing units provide the ACA standard of fifty square feet of living space. As was discussed in the foregoing section on toilets, showers and sinks, a failure to meet ACA standards is in any event only one factor to be considered by the Court. While the ACA standards represent goals formulated by experts in the field, and may provide guidance for prison administrators or other branches of the government, they do not establish constitutional minima. Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. at 348, n. 13, 101 S.Ct. at 2400, n. 13; Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. at 544, n. 27, 99 S.Ct. at 1876, n. 27; Miles v. Bell, 621 F.Supp. 51, 60 (D.Conn.1985). Plaintiffs do not claim that the cubicle, space in the dormitories provides each inmate with less than 32 square feet of personal space. In Rhodes, the court held that double celling in a maximum-security state prison, which provided an inmate with 31V2 square feet (one-half of a cell measuring 63 square feet) did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Here, as in Rhodes, an inmate is not confined to his sleeping cubicle. He is able to spend a considerable part of the day in the day-room, recreation yards, dining and program areas. In short, plaintiffs fall far short of establishing that their personal living space is unconstitutionally small. Plaintiffs’ expert Mr. Cox testified that partitions are better than open dorms, and that the actual space allotted is much less significant than the number of unwanted or uncontrollable social interactions. This astute observation invokes the constitutional right to privacy, Carey v. Population Services Int’l, 431 U.S. 678, 684-86, 97 S.Ct. 2010, 2016-17, 52 L.Ed.2d 675 (1977), which may be restricted to the extent necessary to further the penal institution’s legitimate goals and policies, Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. at 546-47, 99 S.Ct. at 1878, but does not vanish altogether. The limited sense of privacy provided by the cubicle arrangement — as contrasted to the more private and isolated security of housing in a maximum security cell — is consciously designed to serve FCF’s legitimate security and rehabilitative goals. The inmates are no more crowded than they would be in a military barracks, and less crowded than they might be aboard a naval vessel; indeed, the cubicle arrangements give the inmates more defined personal space and facilities for the possession and display of personal articles than any entry-level military counterpart. For the reasons stated above, I find that the cubicles adequately meet inmates’ personal space and privacy needs. 6) Noise Levels Plaintiffs contend that “[cjubicle style dormitory housing at Fishkill creates constant noise problems for prisoners. Noise on the dormitory units may be so high that prisoners are unable to sleep, rest or read. Noise levels are a constant source of tension. Fights and confrontations frequently erupt over noise.” PI. Findings, at 17. Plaintiffs point to the 1986 SCOC report which stated that normal communication was almost impossible in the evening, when most inmates are in the housing units. I visited housing units, chosen by plaintiffs, in the evening and heard the noise. Its levels are within the normal volume to be expected in a dormitory housing vigorous and vocal young men. While some inmates testified that the noise levels in the housing units prevented them from reading or studying in their “cube” or sleeping during the day, there was no evidence of significant adverse health effects caused by noise. Daytime leisure activity program modules are not designed for inmates to be able to sleep. There are now partitions between the dayrooms and sleeping areas in all housing units, and these have alleviated noise levels in the sleeping areas. Higher noise levels in the recreational day-rooms are natural and do not appear to interfere unreasonably with inmates’ competing leisure activities. There is no showing that fights “frequently erupt over noise.” While noise and the stresses of enforced dormitory life may contribute to confrontations, together with the personality characteristics found in a correctional facility, inmate testimony most often described fights as stemming from disagreements over what television show to watch. 7) Recreation Space Plaintiffs contend that the outdoor recreation yards require significant repair work and have been the cause of injuries, and that the recreation facilities are inadequate to meet the needs of 1700 inmates. Pl. Findings, at 11,87. Opportunities for exercise must be afforded to prisoners. See, e.g., Anderson v. Coughlin, 757 F.2d 33, 35 (2d Cir.1985) (citing cases). FCF has nine major outdoor recreational and exercise yards with the following measurements: Building # 21A East yard— 232' x 160’ = 37,120 sq. ft. Building # 21A West yard— 232' x 160' = 37,120 sq. ft. Building # 21 West yard— 180' X 106' = 19,080 sq. ft. Building # 21 East Keeplock yard (closed at present)— 180' X 106' = 19,080 sq. ft. Visiting room yard— 118' x 90' = 10,620 sq. ft. South Yard (Main Bldg.)- 222* X 147* = 32,634 sq, ft. North Yard (Main Bldg.) (closed in winter)— 209' X 164' = 34,276 sq. ft. Main Bldg. Keeplock yard— 125' x 79' = 9,875 sq. ft. Main Bldg. “New” yard (Ath. field)— 375' X 280' = 105,000 sq. ft. Defendants’ Exhibits D and E. There was inmate testimony that the surfaces of Building 21A East and West yards need to be smoothly graded, but evidence of injuries from moving or playing on the uneven surface was sparse. James Hayden, education and recreation supervisor, testified that recreation instructors (who are not correctional officers) daily check the condition of the recreation yards and equipment. Plaintiffs have not established that the conditions of the recreation yards pose a significant threat to the safety and health of inmates. The athletic field next to the Main Building is available for the several FCF sport teams who conduct intra- and extra-mural sporting events such as soccer, football and softball, and for team practices. FCF has an indoor gymnasium building consisting of two floors which are attractive, well-equipped and obviously popular: First Floor — gymnasium/auditorium— 76' X 125' = 9,375 sq. ft. Lower level weight/exercise room— 75' X 100' « 7,500 sq. ft. As discussed above, dayrooms adjoining the housing units contain chairs, tables and cable color television. Inmates also play cards, checkers, and chess in the dayrooms. Mr. Stubbs testified that as recreation clerk, he delivered one or two decks of cards and ping pong balls to each housing unit each month. Plaintiffs’ expert Mr. Kamka testified that there was adequate recreation space at FCF. Its facilities do not remotely approach an unconstitutional deprivation of the inmates’ rights to physical exercise. The inmates at FCF are required to spend relatively little time in their living units. The moderate disrepair of some of the recreational yards does not pose a threat to the safety or health of the inmates, who have ample facilities to satisfy their basic need for physical exercise, even when particular equipment is unavailable or certain recreational yards are closed. II. SANITATION 1) Control of Vermin and Insects Plaintiffs contend that “[vjermin are not adequately controlled throughout the facility----[and] [r]oaches have been a problem in [FCF] mess halls.” PL Findings, at 45. Inmate testimony did establish incidents of foreign matter (e.g., chicken bone, rock in canned beans) being found in their food. Vermin are adequately controlled in FCF. A private pest control firm is under contract with the facility and performs regular exterminations. All areas, including housing units, are sprayed at least once every four weeks. Housing units are fogged at least twice per year, or more frequently if necessary. Plaintiffs’ expert, Mr. Kamka, testified that he found no evidence of infestations of insects or vermin during his tour of FCF. A January 1986 roach problem in the tray area in the Main Building dining room was brought to the administration's attention and taken care of with extra spraying. Any roach problems in the housing units are exacerbated by FCF's policy of allowing inmates to do personal cooking on hot plates on tables in areas at the end of the housing units. Inmates purchase food items at the commissary, and are also permitted to take back bread from the dining hall to their housing unit. The policy gives inmates a measure of independence and control over an aspect of their daily life, which is a rarity in prison, and its allowance is humane although the cooking (originally intended to be only the warming of food) inevitably does attract vermin and create smells in the housing areas, especially in the evenings. Nonetheless, on the whole roaches and vermin are adequately controlled throughout FCF. 2) Food Preparation Plaintiffs challenge the sanitation in the food service and preparation areas. They claim that “[u]tensils in the mess hall are frequently dirty [and] [sanitation in the kitchen areas is inadequate.” PI. Findings, at 48. Their charge that utensils in the dining areas are “frequently dirty” was not supported at trial. Inmate witness Happel testified that he had not seen dirty utensils in the dining area. Dirty trays or utensils reported to the staff were removed and replaced. Plaintiffs’ expert Kamka testified that during his tour he saw no dirty trays in the kitchen or mess halls, and no remarkable buildup of dirt on trays or eating utensils. The New York State Department of Health inspects FCF’s food service facilities each year. Plaintiffs point to New York State Department of Health Food Service Establishment Inspection Reports, the latest of which was conducted on February 7, 1986, to support their charge of lack of sanitation in the kitchen. The February 7, 1986 report listed only two critical items — (1) soap stored with corn starch and (2) inmate smoking in the bakery while baking buns. Both were corrected immediately. The inspection report also listed items that need to be corrected by the next annual inspection. Many were corrected shortly after the inspection. The remaining ones do not establish plaintiffs’ contentions that sanitation in the kitchen is inadequate. FCF also takes monthly environmental cultures in the dining and kitchen areas. None of these cultures has shown any unsanitary or dangerous condition. It may be noted that plaintiffs presented evidence that the Federal Center for Disease Control recommends against performing food service cultures because of the frequent problem of false negatives; but that does not, even if given full effect, establish that conditions are unsanitary. In its January 1986 review of FCF, the SCOC found that the kitchen and dining areas were “well lit and clean”, a “variety of meals” were made available to the inmate population, and meals sampled on three different days were “warm and tasty”. The SCOC made no mention of any complaints received concerning the food services. In its January 1984 review of FCF, the SCOC also found the kitchen and dining halls to be “clean and in good order”. From the above, and personal inspection, I find that sanitation in the FCF kitchen is adequate. 3) Lavatories and Showers One inmate, Mr. Happel, testified that the bathrooms were not properly disinfected, and that the sinks and showers in HU 11-1 were filthy and grimy. Mr. Happel testified that he developed a fungus (which may have been athlete’s foot) from using the showers. This was the only testimony of an instance of disease resulting from alleged unsanitary conditions. It falls far short of establishing a constitutional violation. My own inspection showed these areas to be generally clean and functional, although with some missing or inoperable fixtures. Mr. Happel also testified in this connection that the bathrooms were cleaned by inmates who live in the housing unit, that their work was completed in about twenty minutes out of the three hours or more allocated, and that cleansers (see below) and mops were available. 4) Clean Places for Eating, Sleeping and Working Plaintiffs claim that “there is a lack of adequate cleaning supplies for housing units.” PI. Findings, at 47. Approximately five hundred twenty four inmate porters are assigned during some part of the day to keep the eating, sleeping and working areas of FCF clean. Plaintiffs’ expert Mr. Kamka testified that he felt that the facility was generally well run and well managed. He did not challenge the proposition that the facility had not been specially cleaned for his tour of FCF, because it is so huge and sprawling it would have been impossible to do a top-to-bottom clean up. He testified that what he found “dirty" about the facility were the inmates’ personal clothes drying on racks in the bathrooms, and cleaning equipment strewn about in a secure confinement area. Mr. Kamka also testified that there were adequate cleaning supplies for the housing units. There have been no significant shortages of cleaning supplies. Inmate testimony indicated that adequate cleaning supplies were furnished, but the inmates thought that they should be given disinfectants. Superintendent Reid testified that he did not allow the use of disinfectants with a deodorizer in the correctional facility, because it tends to mask unsanitary conditions rather than eliminate them. FCF provides housing units with chlorinated scouring powder cleansers, soap and soap derivatives, all of which are cleansing agents and simultaneously kill bacteria. The decision is well within his province. Based on my tour of FCF and the trial testimony, I find that FCF is adequately neat and clean. III. SAFETY 1) Protection from Violent, Deranged or Diseased Inmates Plaintiffs contend that the “population expansion and the consequent overcrowding has caused a disproportionate increase in violence and other unusual incidents, rendering conditions of confinement dangerous” and that “[t]he high rate of violence manifests itself in constant physical fights and the frequent use of weapons. Violence is commonplace”. PI. Findings, at 53, 63. Defendants counter that the “expanded and converted FCF housing units have not created an unconstitutional risk of, or present fact of, undue violence.” Def. Findings, at 27. Plaintiffs rely primarily on the Unusual Incident Reports (“UIRs”) filed by the FCF administration. Plaintiffs contend that the increase in the number of UIRs at FCF reporting inmate-on-inmate assaults, inmate-on-staff assaults, inmate-on-inmate assaults with a weapon, housing area fires, suicides, suicide attempts and self-inflicted injuries was proportionately greater than the increase in the population since 1980, before the population expansion. A table proffered by plaintiffs, and not challenged by defendants, shows that while the FCF population grew approximately 43% between 1980 and 1985, inmate-on-inmate assaults increased by 111%; such assaults with weapons, 138%; inmate-on-staff assaults, 142%; housing area fires, 460%; suicides, suicide attempts and self-inflicted injuries, 850%. These superficially shocking figures, however, dissipate upon examination. They measure only the number of reports, thus concentrating upon a symptom rather than a condition. Further, by taking the relatively low-population figure of 1980 as a base, the comparisons mask the year to year changes which reflect more accurately the realities of daily prison life: the distortion is magnified in the most recent years when the figures in significant categories (inmate assaults on other inmates, assaults with weapons, assaults on staff, and fires) are approximately the same — or actually reduced — despite a constantly rising population. FCF has experienced a steady decline in the inmate-on-inmate assault incident rate per 1,000 inmates from a high of nine for the first quarter in 1984 to three for the third quarter in 1986. It also saw a steady decline in the inmate-on-inmate assault incident rate involving cutting and stabbing weapons, from a high of five and six during the first two quarters of 1984, to one for the third quarter in 1986. The number of inmate-on-inmate assaults involving weapons was thirty-one in both 1981 and 1985, although during that time the inmate population rose from approximately 1100 to over 1700. One might have expected an exponential increase in the number of such assaults because of sharp increases in population during 1981-82; yet it dropped by 20% during 1981-82, and by 25% in 1984-85. The inmate-on-staff assault rate peaked in 1983 and has since steadily decreased. These recent improvements are also reflected in SCOC reviews of FCF. In its January 1986 review SCOC stated that inmate-staff relations were generally satisfactory and no inmate-officer conflicts were observed; it noted that UIRs for 1984 and 1985, revealed a decrease of 27.7% in inmate assaults on staff and a decrease of 38.3% in inmate assaults on other inmates; it found that “the number of staff and inmate assaults, an average of 2.16 and 3.91 per month respectively, appeared to be relatively low”; and it found that the number of inmate disciplinary cases processed had decreased “significantly” from 1984 to 1985. In its January 1984 review the SCOC found that there was a slight decline in the inmate assaults on staff in the latter part of 1983, while inmate assaults on inmates remained relatively consistent with an average of 2.27 assaults per month reported; it found the assault rates at FCF to be “on the low side” compared with other facilities. The recent drops in these statistics may be partly explained by plaintiffs’ expert Mr. Cox’s testimony that there may be a disproportionate increase in violence during a period of growth in population, and that the violence drops when the population stabilizes at a higher level. With respect to the 1981 influx of inmates, Superintendent Reid also testified that “when you have an influx of new people into an area ... you have more conflict than you do with the same people you have dealt with over a period of time, the old pecking order____ So there is a period of time when you throw new people together when there is that likelihood of more friction than there is when you have a static population.” Mr. Kamka, a veteran prison administrator, testified that during his tour of FCF he sensed no tension either between inmates or between staff and administration, and that he saw no evidence of staff upon inmate brutality at FCF. The number of reports of housing unit fires peaked at 28 in 1985, and dropped to 19 in 1986. Since 1980, there has been one suicide (6/13/82) and one homicide (8/30/84). Plaintiff’s expert Mr. Kamka conceded that one killing in five years is not an unusual rate of violence in a correctional facility (“... we’re not running camps for boy scouts”). Plaintiffs failed to establish either a pervasive pattern of violence at FCF, or a failure by the administration to respond to violent behavior. Inmate testimony about violence and fighting showed that when a spontaneous fight broke out, correction officers usually responded immediately. There were times when a fight between inmates was “organized” and fellow inmates served as lookouts to thwart correction officer detection, and these undetected fights were not reported to correction officers. Correction officers or other inmates stopped the fight in the majority of occasions related by inmate witnesses. On the whole, one could probably postulate — even without the dramatic rises in the number of UIRs at various times during the period — that an increase of over 40% in the inmate population would bring with it a disproportionate number of violent incidents of one sort or another. Inevitably an increased population, troubled by inadequate social skills and in competition for resources, will experience provocations and resolve them violently a disproportionate number of times as the number of unwanted social interactions multiply. All parties agree that it would be better if FCF’s population were reduced to 1200. However, that is not the point. The issue here is whether the presen