The organization and operation of prisons, jails, and probation and parole functions in our society are largely unknown and misunderstood. Indeed, most of what the public “knows” about the inner workings of these organizations is obtained through Hollywood’s eyes and depictions—The Shawshank Redemption, The Green Mile, The Longest Yard, Escape from Alcatraz, and Cool Hand Luke are a few examples of such popular depictions that are frequently shown on the big screen and on television.
Unfortunately, however, because the movie industry is more concerned with box office sales than with depicting reality, liberties are taken and the portrayal of prisons in film is generally inaccurate. Furthermore, although problems certainly can and do arise in correctional institutions, movies often accentuate and exaggerate their negative aspects; therefore, it should be remembered that the reality of prison operations, and prison life for that matter, is often at considerable variance with what is projected on the big screen. For example, among individuals who have not been incarcerated, there is an exaggerated fear of being raped in jails or prisons. In reality, only 4 percent of state and federal prison inmates and 3.2 percent of jail inmates reported some form of sexual victimization in a recent survey. While each case is certainly unacceptable in its own right, the degree of fear among the general public does not match the actual risk.1
This chapter begins by demonstrating that corrections is yet a booming industry in terms of both expenditures and employment, although correctional populations have been declining over the past few years. We look at some reasons for the decline. Then we focus on correctional agencies as organizations, including their mission and a view of the statewide central offices overseeing prison systems and their related functions as well as individual prisons. Next is a discussion of supermax prisons, including their unique method of operation, alleged effects on inmates, constitutionality, and implications for corrections policy. After that is a consideration of selected constitutional and civil rights that federal courts and Congress have granted to jail and prison inmates; then we review prison litigation generally, including the rationale and impact of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA).
Next, we examine local jails, including their organization, the unique structure and function of podular direct supervision jails, and, after briefly considering the accreditation of corrections facilities, we review probation and parole organizations, to include the organizational structure, arming, and peace officer status of adult and juvenile probation and parole agencies and their officers. The chapter concludes with review questions and exercises in the Deliberate and Decide, Learn by Doing, and Case Study sections.
Correctional Organizations
Employment and Expenditures
Today, prisons and jails at the federal, state, and local levels employ about 785,000 people (one-third of them at the local level and about 60% for state governments), and cost about $36 billion in annual payrolls.2 This figure excludes another $5.4 billion in annual prison costs arising from such expenditures as retiree health care, employee benefits, and taxes; capital costs; underfunded employee pensions; and health and hospital care for the prison population.3 For just the federal system (which is barely a fraction of the population of the state system), it costs taxpayers $31,977.65 per year, or an average of $87.61 per day to incarcerate offenders.4
Declining Prison Populations: Reasons and Some Caveats
As shown in Table 10-1, U.S. prisons now hold about 1,526,800 adult prisoners—a number that has been generally declining since 2010, when there was approximately 100,000 more prison inmates than there are today (while the table shows the number of jail inmates has remained fairly stable, averaging about 753,000 since 2005).5
Table 10-1 Prison Populations in the United States
YearTotal Correctional PopulationCommunity SupervisionIncarcerated
TotalProbationParoleTotalJailPrison
20006,467,8004,564,9003,839,400725,5001,945,400621,1001,394,200
20057,055,6004,946,6004,162,300784,4002,200,400747,5001,525,900
20107,089,0004,888,5004,055,900840,8002,279,000748,7001,613,800
20116,994,5004,818,3003,973,800855,5002,252,500735,6001,599,00
20126,949,8004,790,7003,944,900858,4002,231,300744,5001,570,400
20136,899,7004,749,8003,912,900849,5002,222,500731,2001,577,000
20146,856,9004,713,2003,868,400857,7002,225,100744,6001,562,300
20156,741,4004,650,9003,789,900870,5002,173,800728,2001,526,800
Average annual percent change, 2007–2015–1.1%–1.2%–1.6%0.7%–0.7%–0.9%–0.6%
Percent change, 2014–2015–1.7%–1.3%–2.0%1.5%–2.3%–2.2%–2.3%
Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Correctional Populations in the United States, 2015 (December 2016).
Why a decline in prison populations? According to experts, the hard-nosed, punitive crime policies that began in the early 1980s—which included mass incarceration of nonviolent drug addicts, mandatory sentencing laws, and stiff sentences for repeat offenders, all of which brought a prison construction boom—are now being relaxed in many states. Some argue that declaring “war” on social issues now amounts to little more than a shout in the crowded public sphere. This initially may have worked for the Drug War: individuals were asked to sacrifice some measure of privacy and judicial forgiveness in the battle to get drugs off the streets and keep our kids safe. However, the secondary consequences of this militaristic approach are now understood to be ineffective in preventing cycles of crime.6 Indeed, marijuana is being increasingly decriminalized, and stiff sentences for repeat offenders that were in effect in a number of states are being eased. Another telling development is that 13 states have abolished the death penalty since 2007.7
Why this philosophical shift? Certainly dwindling public resources are a major reason: it costs all units of government about $80 billion per year to house close to 2.2 million inmates in their jails and prisons. Also, experts increasingly see the fundamental question of fairness being raised; as David Kennedy of New York’s John Jay College of Criminal Justice put it, the movement to ease mandatory minimum sentences and to reduce the use of solitary confinement is a result of “the basic recognition that the application of power without justice is brutal.”8 Not surprisingly, then, there is even a measure of growing public support for alternative sanctions for drug offenders. In a recent survey in Florida, slightly over half of the respondents (51.1%) agreed that drug treatment is needed to best fight the war on drugs.9
Even some conservative politicians are admitting that the extreme punishment policies of the past several decades have largely failed. And this philosophical shift is literally paying off for the states. Since 2011, New York has closed 24 of its 93 adult and juvenile corrections facilities (thus saving about $221 million per year), and 16 other states have either closed or proposed prison closings of their own in a bid to slice about 30,000 beds.10 More recently, New York governor Andrew Cuomo spoke of further intentions to continue this trend of prison closures, citing a desire to find alternatives to incarceration.11 And California voters in 2014 passed Proposition 47, which reduced some possession charges and other nonviolent offenses from felonies to misdemeanors, allowing prison inmates to petition a reduction in their sentences.12 See Exhibit 10.1 for a description of further reductions to California’s prison system.
Exhibit 10.1 As California Goes, So Goes The Nation…
It would probably not be inaccurate to say “As California goes, so too goes the nation” with respect to U.S. prison populations. In May 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court (in Brown v. Plata) upheld a lower court ruling mandating that within 2 years the state reduce its prison population to alleviate overcrowding (built to house approximately 85,000 inmates, at that time the prison system housed nearly twice that number, approximately 156,000 inmates).13 Known as the Public Safety Realignment (PSR) policy, this approach “realigned” almost 30,000 inmates—some of whom were kept in county jails, others paroled, and still others put on probation. The policy pertained to those inmates who were convicted of nonviolent, nonserious, and non–sex related crimes.14
Another problem is that today’s former prison inmates are less likely to have participated in prison rehabilitation and work programs, which also militates against their succeeding in the free world. At least a part of this lack of involvement in programming may be due to Robert Martinson’s well-publicized finding of the mid-1970s that “almost nothing works”15 in correctional treatment programs served to ignite a firestorm of debate that has lasted more than two decades.16 Legislators and corrections administrators became unwilling to fund treatment programs from dwindling budgets, and academics such as Paul Louis and Jerry Sparger noted that “perhaps the most lasting effect of the ‘nothing works’ philosophy is the spread of cynicism and hopelessness” among prison administrators and staff members.17
Interestingly enough, despite the mass decarceration in California due to the Supreme Court ruling and the ensuing legislation noted above, two recent studies suggest that it has not had a negative effect on California’s crime rates as some had feared.18 Only automobile thefts in California increased in 2012, followed by another slight increase in 2013, then no increase by 2014. And in terms of violent crime, prisoner realignment was associated with a decrease from 2013 to 2014.19 Additionally, cost savings from the reduced prison populations have been estimated at over $450 million.20
General Mission and Features
Correctional organizations are complex hybrid organizations that utilize two distinct yet related management subsystems to achieve their goals: One is concerned primarily with managing correctional employees and the other is concerned primarily with delivering correctional services to a designated offender population. The correctional organization, therefore, employs one group of people (correctional personnel) to work with and control another group (offenders).
The mission of corrections agencies has changed little over time. It is as follows: to protect the citizens from crime by safely and securely handling criminal offenders while providing offenders some opportunities for self-improvement and increasing the chance that they will become productive and law-abiding citizens.21
An interesting feature of the correctional organization is that every correctional employee who exercises legal authority over offenders is a supervisor, even if the person is the lowest-ranking member in the agency or institution. Another feature of the correctional organization is that—as with the police—everything a correctional supervisor does may have civil or criminal ramifications, both for himself or herself and for the agency or institution. Therefore, the legal and ethical responsibility for the correctional (and police) supervisor is greater than it is for supervisors in other types of organizations.
Exhibit 10.2 Prison Missions: A Comparative Analysis
While the idea would certainly be unpopular with some American voters, the fact is that Swedish and other Scandinavian prisons have lower rates of recidivism—in part because they focus on treatment of criminogenic issues for each inmate. It would be foolish to suggest that these lower crime levels are due solely to the increased role of treatment in correctional facilities, but it would be equally foolish to think that the findings do not have any relation to fundamental philosophical differences. Justice leadership is slowly realizing that solely focusing on punishment and incarceration of offenders ultimately does very little to stop the cycle of crime.22
Finland, similar to the United States, dealt with an increase in illegal drug use in the late 1980s into the 1990s. However, they did not respond in nearly the same fashion as the United States. Instead of focusing on harsh punishments and punitive sanctions, the ultimate goal in Finnish courts and corrections is to decrease recidivism, even if this involves a degree of what is called “penal welfarism.”23 Compare penal welfarism in Finland, for example, with the mission of the Michigan Department of Corrections: “We create a safer Michigan by holding offenders accountable while promoting their success.”24 The goal of rehabilitation is not mentioned in the Michigan mission, but is implied in its vision.
Prisons as Organizations
As noted earlier in this chapter, the mission of most prisons is to provide a safe and secure environment for staff and inmates, as well as programs for offenders that can assist them after release.25 This section describes how prisons are organized to accomplish this mission. First, we examine the larger picture—the typical organization of the central office within the state government that oversees all prisons within its jurisdiction. Then, we review the characteristic organization of an individual prison.
The Central Office
The state’s central organization that oversees its prison system is often called the central office. Some of the personnel and functions typically found in a central office are discussed in the following subsections.
Office of the Director
Each state normally has a central department of corrections that is headed by a director (or someone with a similar title); in turn, the director appoints a person to direct the operation of all of the prisons in the state. The prison director sets policy for all wardens (discussed more thoroughly in Chapter 11) and prisons in terms of how the institutions should be managed and inmates cared for (with regard to both custody and treatment). In addition to the director, the staff within the office of the director typically includes public or media affairs coordinators, legislative liaisons, legal advisers, and internal affairs representatives.
As they are one of the largest state agencies, a tremendous demand for public information is made on correctional agencies. If a policy issue or a major incident is involved, the media will contact the director for a response. The office of public affairs also oversees the preparation of standard reports, such as an annual review of the department and its status or information on a high-profile program or project. In addition, because state correctional agencies use a large percentage of the state budget, the legislature is always interested in their operations. Therefore, there is usually within the department of corrections an office of legislative affairs, which responds to legislative requests and tries to build support for resources and programs.26
Legal divisions, typically comprised of four to six attorneys, often report to the director as well. The work of the legal division includes responding to inmate lawsuits, reviewing policy for its legal impact, and offering general advice regarding the implementation of programs in terms of past legal decisions. These attorneys will predict how the courts are likely to respond to a new program in light of legal precedents.
Finally, the director’s office usually has an inspector or internal affairs division. Ethics in government is a major priority; corrections staff may be enticed to bring contraband into a prison or may be physically abusive to inmates. Whenever there is a complaint of staff misconduct by anyone, the allegation needs to be investigated.
Administrative Division
Two major areas of the administrative division of a corrections central office are budget development/auditing and new prison construction. The administrative division collects information from all of the state’s prisons, other divisions, and the governor’s office to create a budget that represents ongoing operations and desired programs and growth. Once it is approved by the governor’s office, this division begins to explain the budget to the legislative budget committee, which reviews the request and makes a recommendation for funding to the full legislature. After a budget is approved, this division maintains accountability of funds and oversees the design and construction of new and renovated facilities.27
Correctional Programs Division
A central office will usually have a division that oversees the operation of correctional programs, such as security, education, religious services, mental health, and unit management. It is clear that
Offenders enter prison with a variety of deficits. Some are socially or morally inept, others are intellectually or vocationally handicapped, some have emotional hangups that stem from psychological problems, still others have a mixture of varying proportions of some or even all of these.28
Having to deal with inmates suffering from such serious and varied problems is a daunting task for correctional organizations. Prison culture makes the environment inhospitable to programs designed to rehabilitate or reform.
A major contemporary problem among persons entering prison is drug addiction. To put this into perspective, a recent report from the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) indicated that more than 60 percent of those in jails and prisons met the medical standards for addiction.29 Drug-addicted offenders are subjected to one of three types of treatment programming that attempt to address the problem: punitive (largely involving withdrawal and punishment), medical (consisting of detoxification, rebuilding physical health, counseling, and social services), and the communal approach (using group encounters and seminars conducted by former addicts who serve as positive role models).30 Chapter 12 discusses what prison administrators can do to interdict drugs coming into prisons and the kinds of treatment programs that are maintained in them.
Medical or Health Care Division
One of the most complicated and expensive functions within a prison is health care. As a result, this division develops policy, performs quality assurance, and looks for ways to make health care more efficient for inmates and less expensive for the prison. One of the best outcomes for a corrections health care program involved HIV/AIDS. A widespread epidemic of HIV/AIDS cases was initially feared in prisons (through homosexual acts and prior drug use) but such an outbreak never happened. Today, the problem persists, with about 20,100 prison inmates having HIV or AIDS, but the overall number has declined about 3 percent per year, from 194 cases per 10,000 inmates in 2001 to 146 per 10,000 at present.31
Human Resource Management Division
The usual personnel functions of recruitment, hiring, training, evaluation, and retirement are accomplished in the human resource management division. Affirmative action and labor relations (discussed in Chapter 14) may also be included. Workplace diversity is important for corrections agencies, particularly with the growing number of African American and Hispanic inmates. Most states have a unionized workforce, and negotiating and managing labor issues are time-consuming; therefore, this division has staff with expertise in labor relations.
It’s important to note that states differ in terms of the organization of their central offices. In one Midwestern state, for example, its budget and operations administration are housed together within the central office. In addition, many states’ central offices also have research and planning units, training units, probation and parole services, prison industries division, and emergency response teams.
Figure 10-1 shows an example of the organizational structure of a central office in a state of 3 million people.
Figure 10-1 Example of an Organizational Structure for a Correctional Central Office
Figure 10-1 Full Alternative Text
Individual Prisons
Over time, prison organizational structure (see Figure 10-2) has changed considerably to respond to external needs. Until the beginning of the twentieth century, prisons were administered by state boards of charities, boards comprised of citizens, boards of inspectors, state prison commissions, or individual prison keepers. Most prisons were individual provinces; wardens who were given absolute control over their domain were appointed by governors through a system of political patronage. Individuals were attracted to the position of warden because it carried many fringe benefits, such as a lavish residence, unlimited inmate servants, food and supplies from institutional farms and warehouses, furnishings, and a personal automobile. Now most wardens or superintendents are civil service employees who have earned their position through seniority and merit.32
Figure 10-2 Example of an Organizational Structure for a Maximum-Security Prison
Figure 10-2 Full Alternative Text
Attached to the warden’s office are (possibly by some other title) an institutional services inspector and the institutional investigator who deal with inmate complaints against staff. As mentioned in the earlier section on central office, prisons also need personnel who deal with labor contracts and the media, and who collect and provide this information to the central office. A computer services manager maintains the management information systems.
Also reporting to the warden are deputy or associate wardens, each of whom supervises a department within the prison. The deputy warden for operations will normally oversee correctional security, unit management, the inmate disciplinary committee, and recreation. This is typically the largest unit in terms of number of employees, as approximately 66 percent of all correctional employees are in the role of correctional officer, line staff, or supervisors in direct contact with inmates.33 The deputy warden for special services will typically be responsible for functions that are more treatment oriented, including the library, mental health services, drug and alcohol recovery services, education, prison job assignments, religious services, and prison industries. Note that a large percentage of federal and state correctional facilities provide inmate work programs (88%), educational programs (85%), and counseling programs (92%).34 Finally, the deputy warden for administration will manage the business office, prison maintenance, laundry, food service, medical services, prison farms, and the issuance of clothing.35
It is important to note that custody and treatment are not either-or in correctional organizations; rather, they are complementary. Although custody overshadows treatment in terms of operational priorities—treatment programs are unable to flourish if security is weak and staff and inmates work and live in chronic fear and danger—prisons without programming options for offenders are nothing more than warehouses, being amenable to violence, disruption, and the continuation of criminally deviant behavior. Correctional staff, regardless of their job function, does not support such volatile conditions. Most often, the overriding concern in a prison or jail is and should be security. Security must be maintained so that programs can be implemented. Programs are generally supported by staff, especially those that address inmate deficiencies such as lack of education and job skills as well as substance abuse. Keep in mind that according to a recent report, only a low percentage of offenders actually receive treatment: just 11 percent of all jail and prison inmates receive the proper level of treatment prescribed by the judiciary.36 Prison administrators must decide which programs they will allow to be introduced into their facility; this is not often an easy task, especially when much of the public perceives that programs only “coddle” inmates.37
Next, we discuss several related aspects—correctional security, unit management, education, and penal industries—in more detail.
The correctional security department supervises all of the security activities within a prison, including any special housing units, inmate transportation, and the inmate disciplinary process. Security staff wear military-style uniforms, a captain normally runs each 8-hour shift, lieutenants often are responsible for an area of the prison, and sergeants oversee the rank-and-file correctional staff. Missteps by this department, in particular, can have dire consequences for officer and prisoner safety and institutional integrity, such as recently when a group of inmates at a Delaware maximum-security prison took several officers hostage and engaged in a standoff with police that lasted several hours.38
The unit management concept originated in the federal prison system in the 1970s and now is used in nearly every state to control prisons by providing a “small, self-contained, inmate living and staff office area that operates semiautonomously within the larger institution.”39 The purpose of unit management is twofold: to decentralize the administration of the prison and to enhance communication among staff and between staff and inmates. Unit management breaks the prison into more manageable sections based on housing assignments; assignment of staff to a particular unit; and staff authority to make decisions, manage the unit, and deal directly with inmates. Units are usually comprised of 200 to 300 inmates; staff are not only assigned to units, but their offices are also located in the housing area, making them more accessible to inmates and better able to monitor inmate activities and behavior. Directly reporting to the unit manager are case managers, or social workers, who develop the program of work and rehabilitation for each inmate and write progress reports for parole authorities, inmate classifications (discussed in Chapter 12), or inmate transfers to another prison. Correctional counselors also work with inmates in the units on daily issues, such as finding a prison job, working with their prison finances, and creating a visiting and telephone list.40
The education department operates the academic teaching, vocational training, library services, and sometimes recreation programs for inmates. An education department is managed similarly to a conventional elementary or high school, with certified teachers for all subjects that are required by the state department of education or are part of the General Education Degree (GED) test. In federal and state prisons, 90 percent of facilities offer formal educational programs, the most common of which is a secondary education or a GED program.41 Vocational training can include carpentry, landscaping or horticulture, food service, and office skills.
Prison industries also exist—programs intended to provide productive work and skill development opportunities for offenders, to reduce recidivism and prepare offenders for reentry into society.42 They are typically legislatively chartered as separate government corporations and report directly to the warden because there is often a requirement that the industry be self-supporting or operate from funds generated from the sale of products. Generally, no tax dollars are used to run the programs, and there is strict accountability of funds.
Correctional administrators report that joint ventures provide meaningful, productive employment that helps to reduce inmate idleness and supplies companies with a readily available and dependable source of labor, as well as the partial return to society of inmate earnings to pay state and federal taxes, offset incarceration costs, contribute to the support of inmates’ families, and compensate victims.
Several different types of business relationships exist—the personnel model, the employer model, and the customer model. In the personnel model, prisoners are employed by the state division of correctional industries, which in turn charges the companies a fixed rate for their labor. In the employer model, the company employs the inmates, and private companies own and operate their prison-based businesses, with prison officials providing the space in which the companies operate as well as a qualified labor pool from which the companies hire employees. In the customer model, the company contracts with the prison to provide a finished product at an agreed-on price. The correctional institution owns and operates the business that employs the inmates. These joint ventures provide challenges and problems: absenteeism and rapid turnover of employees, limited opportunities for training, and logistical concerns. Still, many inmates who participate in these programs show up for their jobs on time, work hard during their shifts, and have been hired by companies after their release.43 A typical prison industry organizational structure is presented in Figure 10-3.
Figure 10-3 Organizational Structure for a Prison Industry
Source: Seiter, Richard P., Correctional Administration: Integrating Theory and Practice, 1st Ed., © 2002, p. 199. Reprinted and Electronically reproduced by permission of Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
The Controversy of Supermax
Definition and Operation
There are supermax prisons or their equivalent in more than 40 U.S. states; these institutions provide the most secure levels of custody in prisons, with long-term, segregated housing for inmates who represent the highest security risks.44 Their method of operations and, as will be seen, the degree of controversy about them among academics and others justify some discussion about them specifically. To understand what supermax prisons are and how they operate, one can look at the Administrative Maximum prison, or ADX, located in Florence, Colorado.
ADX is the only federal supermax prison in the country (the others are state prisons). It is home to a Who’s Who of criminals: “Unabomber” Ted Kaczynski; “Shoe Bomber” Richard Reid; Ramzi Yousef, who plotted the 1993 World Trade Center attack; “Oklahoma City Bomber” Terry Nichols; “Olympic Park Bomber” Eric Rudolph, and “Boston Marathon Bomber” Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. ADX is known as the “Alcatraz of the Rockies”; 95 percent of its prisoners are the most violent, disruptive, and escape-prone inmates from other federal prisons. Upon viewing its external aspect for the first time, one immediately sees that this is not the usual prison: large cables are strung above the basketball courts and track; they are helicopter deterrents.45
The supermax prison is known variously in different states as a special management unit, security housing unit (SHU), high-security unit, intensive management unit, or special control unit; its operations are quite different inside as well. In a recent study, 95 percent of state wardens agreed that the defining characteristics of supermax are the following: (1) a stand-alone facility or part of another facility designated for violent or disruptive inmates; (2) supermax facilities typically adhere to a 23-hour per day, single-cell confinement regimen for an indefinite period of time; and (3) supermax inmates have little contact with other inmates or staff.46 In addition, inmates are generally denied access to vocational or educational training programs.47
Exhibit 10.3 Mimicking Supermax In Lower Security Institutions
While only a small number of supermax facilities exist in the country, lower security institutions are mimicking some of the distinctive features of supermax facilities. Communication management units, or CMUs, severely restrict inmates’ ability to communicate with the outside world. Rather than two calls per week (the normal standard), inmates may be restricted to only three 15-minute calls per month, with calls being able to be cut down to as little as 3 minutes at the discretion of the warden. Furthermore, while all inmate mail is screened for contraband, those in CMUs typically have their mail opened, read, analyzed, and independently evaluated before it is sent or received, which causes delays. The sole exception is for correspondence with lawyers and the courts.48
Effects on Inmates
While research indicates a high degree of public support for supermax prisons,49 since their early existence and given their nature of confinement, researchers have been interested in determining the effects of supermax prisons on inmates—specifically, whether or not their treatment is cruel and inhumane. Given the high degree of isolation and lack of activities, a major concern voiced by critics of supermax facilities is their social pathology and potential effect on inmates’ mental health. Although there is very little research to date concerning the effects of supermax prison confinement,50 some authors point to previous isolation research showing that greater levels of deprivation lead to psychological, emotional, and physical problems: as inmates face greater restrictions and social deprivations, their level of social withdrawal increases; limiting human contact, autonomy, goods, or services is detrimental to inmates’ health and rehabilitative prognoses, and tends to result in depression, hostility, severe anger, sleep disturbances, and anxiety. Women living in a high-security unit have been found to experience claustrophobia, chronic rage reactions, depression, hallucinatory symptoms, withdrawal, and apathy.51 In addition, increased mental illness is a very real danger to inmates in supermax facilities.52
In a recent essay, Travis Dusenbury describes his 10-year stint at the ADX Florence. Dusenbury explains that at the so-called “Alcatraz of the Rockies,” inmates are unable to see virtually any semblance of nature. Supermax cells are solid concrete and induce, in Dusenbury’s opinion, a measure of claustrophobia that can result in eventual insomnia. In fact, Dusenbury claims that his insomnia lasted his entire 10-month stint at the ADX. When Dusenbury was not in his cell, he was in a recreation cage for an hour a day. To communicate with a neighbor in the cell below him, Dusenbury would take a toilet paper roll and blow water down a sink or shower drain, just far enough so that the pipes between him and his neighbor were clear. He could then speak through the toilet paper roll.53
Constitutionality
Because of their relatively recent origin, the constitutionality of supermax prisons—whether or not the conditions of confinement constitute cruel and unusual punishment (i.e., that the punishment either inflicts unnecessary or wanton pain or is grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime)—has been tested in only a few cases. Not surprisingly, most of these challenges assess the harms done by extreme social isolation. The first, Madrid v. Gomez,54 in 1995, addressed conditions of confinement in California’s Pelican Bay Special Housing Unit (SHU). The judge pointed to the “stark sterility and unremitting monotony” of the interior of the prison and noted that its image was “hauntingly similar to that of caged felines pacing in a zoo” (p. 1229; however, the judge concluded that he lacked any constitutional basis to close the prison).
In 1999, a federal district court in Ruiz v. Johnson55 examined Texas’s high-security units and concluded that prisoners there “suffer actual psychological harm from the almost total deprivation of human contact, personal property, and human dignity” (p. 913). This judge also opined that such units are virtual incubators of psychoses and that long-term supermax confinement could result in mental illness.
In Jones ‘El v. Berge,56 in 2004, a federal district court in Wisconsin concluded that “extremely isolating conditions cause SHU syndrome in relatively healthy prisoners, as well as prisoners who have never suffered a breakdown; supermax is not appropriate for seriously mentally ill inmates.” The judge ordered several prisoners to be removed from the supermax facility.
Finally, Cunningham v. Federal Bureau of Prisons is an ongoing class action lawsuit filed in 2012 by 12 inmates at ADX Florence. The suit contends that BOP and certain personnel at the facility have failed to adhere to federal policy and the Eighth Amendment by not properly treating inmates with serious mental illness.57 The suit requests reform at the ADX by providing appropriate mental health treatment. In late 2016, an initial settlement was reached between the two parties, which remedied some of the major contentions by the plaintiffs, including the following: (1) ADX will screen all inmates for mental illness and ensure access to treatment; (2) ADX will improve conditions of confinement so as to reduce the risk for mental illness or its exacerbation, including enhancing recreation programs, creating private counseling areas, group therapy facilities; and (3) mental health units will be developed at several other BOP locations.
A Boon to Public Safety?
Pizarro et al.58 examined whether supermax prisons, by housing the worst of the worst inmates, actually enhance public and prison safety. This claim, Pizarro et al. argue, has not been proven; they believe that the potential long-term, negative effects of supermax institutions (as discussed earlier) on inmates will contribute to future violence because the inmates begin to lose touch with reality and exhibit symptoms of psychiatric decomposition. Consequently, they believe that supermax prisons potentially endanger society, beyond regular imprisonment. They also bemoan that although most supermax inmates will one day return to society or to the general prison population, only a few supermax prisons provide inmates with a transitional program (e.g., moving inmates from supermax prison into a maximum-security prison, allowing inmates to participate in group activities, and placing inmates in institutional jobs).59 Gordon60 found similar trends in the long-term recidivism rates among former supermax inmates: the isolation and lack of contact tends more often than not to worsen the psychological problems present in many inmates.
Policy Implications
Given the negative psychological effects of many forms of long-term supermax confinement, researchers such as Craig Haney61 believe that there is a strong argument for limiting the use of supermax prisons:
We should take steps to ensure that all such facilities implement the best and most humane of the available practices. Far more careful screening, monitoring, and removal policies should be implemented to ensure that psychologically vulnerable prisoners do not end up there in the first place, and that those who deteriorate once they are immediately identified and transferred. Strict time limits should be placed on the length of time that prisoners are housed in supermax. [T]here are very serious psychological, correctional, legal, and even moral issues at the core that are worthy of serious, continued debate.
What’s the future of the supermax? While many believe that there is a need for supermax prisons for the most dangerous and violent inmates,62 others point to the unintended, negative consequences to inmates noted above, including increased mental illness among inmates who spend long periods of time in solitary confinement. Brutal conditions and high costs have led to the closing of some supermax prisons, including the Tamms Correctional Center in Illinois in 2013.63 In Chapter 12, we discuss the related issue of solitary confinement and movements to limit its use across correctional systems in the United States. Suffice it to say, additional research is warranted to determine whether supermax prisons can be effective.
Constitutional Rights of Inmates
From Hands Off to Hands On: A Shift in Prisoners’ Rights, Law, and Philosophy
Historically, the courts followed a hands-off policy regarding prisons, and prisoners’ rights were virtually nonexistent as prisoners were deemed as “slaves of the state.” Hands-off meant that the judiciary, believing it was neither trained in nor knowledgeable about penology, allowed wardens the freedom and discretion to operate their institutions without outside interference while being fearful of undermining the structure and discipline of the prison.
All that has changed, and the hands-on policy, beginning in the mid-1960s, brought about a change of philosophy in the courts regarding prisoners’ rights—the collective body of constitutional rights afforded jail and prison inmates relating to the fundamental human rights and civil liberties, to include the right to acceptable prison conditions and treatment. In sum, prison inmates now retain all the rights of free citizens except those restrictions necessary for their orderly confinement or to provide safety in the prison community.
In subsequent sections, we discuss several U.S. Supreme Court decisions that spelled the demise of the hands-off era, in which it was established that no “iron curtain” was erected between inmates and the Constitution and that they were not “wholly stripped of constitutional protections” (see the discussion of Wolff v. McDonnell). These decisions improved the everyday lives of prison and jail inmates and reformed correctional administration. Specifically, basic rights extended to inmates included greater access to the courts, to appeal their convictions and conditions of confinement; greater freedom of religious expression; restricting mail censorship by prison officials; and granting them due process for the purpose of inmate disciplinary proceedings.
A “Slave of the State”
Ruffin v. Commonwealth (1871)
An excellent beginning point for this overview of significant court decisions concerning inmates’ rights is the 1871 case of Ruffin v. Commonwealth.64 There, the Virginia Supreme Court held that a prisoner “had, as a consequence of his crime, not only forfeited his liberty, but also all his personal rights except those that the law in its humanity accords to him.” The Court in Ruffin even declared inmates to be “slaves of the state,” mentioned earlier, losing all their citizenship rights, including the right to complain about living conditions.
This view certainly does not reflect the law at present and may never have been entirely accurate. For example, in 1948, in Price v. Johnston,65 the Supreme Court declared that “lawful incarceration brings about the necessary withdrawal or limitation of many privileges and rights,” which indicated a much softer view than that stated in Ruffin; furthermore, “many” privileges indicate less than “all,” and it was clear that the due process and equal protection clauses did apply to prisoners to some extent.
Prison Regulations and Laws vis-à-vis Inmates’ Constitutional Rights
Turner v. Safley66 (1987)
Prison inmates brought a class action suit challenging the reasonableness of certain regulations of the Missouri Division of Corrections. Here, the Supreme Court took the opportunity to modify previous standards—such as “compelling state interest,” “least restrictive means,” and “rational relationship”—used to determine whether prison regulations and laws violate constitutional rights of inmates. In Turner v. Safley, the Court said that a prison regulation that impinges on inmates’ constitutional rights is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests (emphasis added). This decision gave prison authorities more power; all they must do is prove that a prison regulation is reasonably related to a legitimate penological interest in order for that regulation to be valid, even if a constitutional right is infringed. The policies challenged in this case were then-present prison regulations that forbade inmates from corresponding with inmates in other institutions, as well as requiring warden approval for inmates to marry. The Supreme Court upheld the former, determining that it served a valid penological interest, but struck down the latter, opining that an inmate’s right to marriage does not fall under the purview of the institution.
Legal Remedy and Access to the Courts
Cooper v. Pate67 (1964)
One of the earliest prison cases, it is significant because the Supreme Court first recognized the use of Title 42 of the U.S. Code Section 1983 as a legal remedy for inmates. (Section 1983, discussed thoroughly in Chapter 14, concerns a public officer’s violation of a prisoner’s constitutional rights while acting under “color of law.”) Cooper, an inmate at the Illinois State Penitentiary, sued prison officials under Section 1983, alleging that he was unconstitutionally punished (i.e., placed in solitary confinement) and denied permission to purchase certain Muslim religious publications. Both the federal district court and the circuit court of appeals upheld Cooper’s punishment but the Supreme Court reversed their ruling, finding that he was entitled to relief—and that he could use Section 1983, thereby mandating that prison administrators treat religions equally unless there is a compelling reason not to do so.
Johnson v. Avery68 (1969)
This was one of the first prison decisions that involved an alleged violation of a constitutional right—here, the right of access to the courts. Johnson, a Tennessee prisoner, was disciplined for violating a prison regulation that prohibited inmates from assisting other prisoners in preparing writs. The Supreme Court acknowledged that “writ writers” like Johnson are sometimes a menace to prison discipline, and their petitions are often so unskillful as to be a burden on the courts receiving them. However, because the State of Tennessee provided no “reasonable alternative” to assist illiterate or poorly educated inmates in preparing petitions for postconviction relief, the Supreme Court held that the state could not bar inmates from furnishing such assistance to other prisoners. However, what constituted “reasonable alternatives” to writ writers was not explained.
Bounds v. Smith69 (1977)
This was another court-access decision, clarifying Johnson v. Avery. In Bounds—where North Carolina inmates alleged denial of reasonable access by having only one library in the North Carolina prison system (which was inadequate in nature)—the Court went further, saying that prisoners have a constitutional right to adequate law libraries or assistance from persons trained in the law, guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. This case also listed several possible alternatives that prisons could use for providing inmates such access, including training inmates as paralegals to work under lawyers’ supervision; using paraprofessionals and law students to advise inmates; hiring lawyers on a part-time consultant basis; and having voluntary programs through bar associations, whereby lawyers visit the prisons to consult with inmates.
Lewis v. Casey70 (1996)
In the same year that the Prison Litigation Reform Act was signed (discussed later in this chapter), the Supreme Court ruled on a case that took issue with the ruling in Bounds v. Smith. In Lewis, inmates contended that the law library provided to them in the Arizona corrections system was inadequate and called for mandated access to translators for inmates who did not speak English. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state, rejecting the prisoners’ claims and directly stating that in order for a prison law library to be deemed unacceptable, prisoners must prove not only that it is inadequate in a theoretical sense (i.e., fails to provide the needed breadth of topics and laws) but also that the library’s inadequacy disadvantaged their case specifically.
First Amendment
Cruz v. Beto71 (1972) (Religious Practices)
This landmark case clarified the right of inmates to exercise their religious beliefs, even if they did not belong to what are considered mainstream or traditional religions. Cruz, a Buddhist, was not allowed to use the prison chapel and was placed in solitary confinement on a diet of bread and water for sharing his religious material with other prisoners. He sued under Section 1983, alleging violations of the First Amendment right to freedom of religion. The Supreme Court held that inmates with unconventional religious beliefs must be given a reasonable opportunity to exercise those beliefs. In January 2012, the U.S. Department of Justice issued a consent injunction with a South Carolina county based on the concerns raised in the Federal District Court of South Carolina case of Prison Legal News et al. v. DeWitt et al. (2011), affirming the reasonable right for inmates to exercise certain religious practices.72
Procunier v. Martinez73 (1974) (Mail Censorship)
Here, the Supreme Court invalidated prison mail censorship regulations that permitted authorities to hold back or to censor mail to and from prisoners whenever they thought that the letters “unduly complain[ed],” “express[ed] inflammatory views or beliefs,” or were “defamatory” or “otherwise inappropriate.” The Court based its ruling not on the rights of the prisoner, but instead on the free-world recipient’s right to communicate with the prisoner, either by sending or by receiving mail, and in this case law students who were attempting to communicate with prisoners. The Court held that the regulation of mail must further an important interest unrelated to the suppression of expression; regulation must be shown to further the substantial interest of security, order, and rehabilitation; and it must not be utilized simply to censor opinions or other expressions. Furthermore, a prison’s restriction on mail must be no greater than is necessary to the protection of the security interest involved.
Fourth Amendment
Bell v. Wolfish74 (1979) (Searches of Body Cavities and Cells, Other Conditions of Confinement)
This is one of the few cases decided by the Supreme Court concerning the rights of pretrial detainees housed in local jails. Here, the Court in effect said that jail officials may run their institutions the same way prisons are managed. New York City’s Metropolitan Correctional Center, within a short time of opening, experienced overcrowding and began double bunking inmates in rooms built for single occupancy (later). Guards also conducted searches of inmates’ cells in their absence, prohibited inmates from receiving hardcover books that were not mailed directly by publishers or bookstores, prohibited inmates’ receipt of personal items from visitors, and employed body cavity searches of inmates following contact visits. Inmates sued and alleged several constitutional violations based on the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, but the Supreme Court held none of these practices to be unconstitutional “punishment,” saying that these restrictions and practices were reasonable responses to legitimate security concerns and noting that they were of only limited duration. (Note that in a 1981 case specifically challenging the use of double bunking, Rhodes v. Chapman,75 the Court held that double bunking of prisoners does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment as long as the conditions of confinement do not constitute the wanton infliction of pain.)
Eighth Amendment
Estelle v. Gamble76 (1976) (Medical Care)
Although Gamble lost in this case, it was the first major prison medical treatment case decided by the Supreme Court and set the standards by which such cases are determined. Here, the Court coined the term deliberate indifference, which occurs when the serious medical needs of prisoners involve the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain. Examples the Court gave are injecting penicillin with the knowledge that the prisoner is allergic to it, refusing to administer a prescribed painkiller, and requiring a prisoner to stand despite the contrary instructions of a surgeon. Gamble, an inmate of the Texas Department of Corrections, claimed that he received cruel and unusual punishment because of inadequate treatment of a back injury sustained while he was engaged in prison work. The Court did not find a constitutional violation in his case, however, because medical personnel saw him on 17 occasions during a 3-month period, and treated his injury and other problems. Justice Thurgood Marshall, who wrote the opinion of the court, indicated that medical attention that does not result in adequate medical care does not constitute medical mistreatment under the Constitution, so long as it is inadvertent.77
Overton v. Bazzetta78 (2003) (Visitation)
The Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) prohibited younger siblings, nieces, nephews, and other minors from visiting inmates. A group of prisoners sued MDOC, contending that the ban violated both their First Amendment’s right to association and the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. The Sixth Court of Appeals unanimously ruled in favor of the district court’s official dismissal of the case before it went to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, ruled that the MDOC’s regulations were within constitutional bounds. Justice Anthony Kennedy delivered the Court’s opinion, which reasoned that the restrictions on visitation served a legitimate penological interest in ensuring institutional security.
Fourteenth Amendment
Wolff v. McDonnell79 (1974) (Due Process)
This case is significant because, for the first time, the Supreme Court acknowledged that inmates are entitled to certain due process rights—”fundamental fairness”—during prison disciplinary proceedings. McDonnell and other inmates at a Nebraska prison alleged, among other things, that disciplinary proceedings at the prison violated their due process rights. To establish misconduct, prison officials required a preliminary conference, where the prisoner was orally informed of the charge; a conduct report was prepared and a hearing was held before the prison’s disciplinary body; and the inmate could ask questions of the charging party. The Court said, now rather famously, “There is no iron curtain drawn between the Constitution and the prisons of this country, a prisoner is not wholly stripped of constitutional protections, and prisoners must be given the following due process rights”:
Advance written notice of charges no less than 24 hours before appearing before the hearing committee.
A written statement by the fact finders as to the evidence relied on and reasons for the disciplinary action.
Ability to call witnesses and to present documentary evidence in the inmate’s defense (if this did not jeopardize institutional safety or correctional goals).
Use of counsel substitutes (e.g., a friend or staff member) when the inmate is illiterate or when complex issues require such assistance.
An impartial prison disciplinary board.
The Court, however, did not go so far as to say that prisoners have full due process protections, especially when prison safety would be at stake.
Wilkinson v. Austin80 (2005) (Due Process)
When Ohio opened its first supermax prison in Youngstown, there were no standards or guidelines to help judges and corrections professionals to determine when an inmate should be classified for placement to this facility or to a lower-security type. This was obviously unacceptable, and after a short time the state devised a new policy for practitioners to refer to. The guidelines included, but were not limited to, formalized definitions for crimes meriting supermax assignment, a tiered review process after a supermax assignment was made, and opportunity for the inmate to rebut the placement at a hearing. Prisoners sued the state, complaining that the policies violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s right to due process. The district court agreed and initially ordered far-reaching modifications to the policy. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed, in part, but dismissed the modifications on the grounds that they exceeded the court’s authority. The Supreme Court unanimously reversed it, opining that prisoners’ constitutional rights are needfully limited and that the procedures in Ohio’s new policy met the standards for due process.
See Exhibit 10.4 for a description of the world’s worst prisons.
Exhibit 10.4 The World’s Worst Prisons81
Certainly any attempt to catalogue the worst prisons in the world will be open to serious debate, and the following list of such prisons is no exception; however, as will be seen, these are included (in no particular order) for very good reasons:
La Sant, France: This, the last remaining prison in Paris, was established in 1867. Its mattresses are infested with lice; because prisoners can only take two cold showers per week, skin diseases are common. Overcrowded cells, infestation of vermin, and inmate rape are also common. Its rate of suicide attempts each year is estimated to be almost five times higher than that of California’s prison system. Its conditions have been condemned by the U.N. Human Rights Committee and the country’s own minister of justice.
Black Beach Prison, Equatorial Guinea: Amnesty International has described life in this prison as a slow, lingering death sentence. Torture, burning, beatings, and rape are systematic and brutal. Because food rations are minimal, with prisoners sometimes going up to 6 days without food, starving to death is common. Amnesty also reports that inmates are routinely denied access to medical treatment.
Vladimir Central Prison, Russia: Constructed by Catherine the Great to house political prisoners during the Soviet era, the prison became synonymous with persecution of political dissidents. Today the prison also functions as a museum for the public. Visitors are not allowed into the penitentiary, where cells often contain six prisoners and reports of abuse by guards are common. HIV and tuberculosis are also rampant.
Camp 1391, Israel: Officially, this prison does not exist, but descriptions of its conditions have been validated. Even the Red Cross is banned from visiting, and prisoners typically have no idea where they are being kept or when they might be released—a fact that former inmates say is the worst torture of all. Sexual humiliation and even rape are reportedly used as interrogation techniques.
The North Korean Gulag: Up to 200,000 prisoners are held in these detention centers, and one houses more than 50,000 inmates. Entire families and even neighborhoods are sent here as punishment for the infraction of one member. In some camps, up to 25 percent of the prisoners die every year, only to be replaced by new inmates. Most of the camps are located along the North Korean border with China and Russia, and thus prisoners are forced to endure harsh weather conditions as well as inhumane treatment.
Petak Island, Russia: Comparisons to Alcatraz are common when speaking of Petak Island. It is not officially a supermax prison, but it’s geographically isolated in a similar manner to Alcatraz and ADX Florence. Inmates in this institution often stay in their cells for at least 22 hours a day. On top of the virtually unending sense of isolation just within the cell, prisoners are only allowed to have two visitors per year. If prisoners do not follow the rules, they are punished by being sent to an even smaller cell, devoid of natural light. The minimum term for this punishment is 15 days.
Again, any such list is debatable given harsh prison conditions in many places around the world; prisons and/or labor camps in China, Thailand, Cuba, Venezuela, Syria, Africa, and other foreign venues could easily have been included.82
Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons
The Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA) of 1980 is a federal law83 broadly enacted to protect the rights of people in state or local facilities who are mentally ill, disabled, or chronically ill or handicapped, and are residing in a jail, prison, or other correctional facility or pretrial detention facility. Juveniles are also covered, to be free from violent residents and abusive staff members and not be excessively isolated or unreasonably restrained. They must also receive medical and mental health care; be educated, and be granted access to legal counsel, family communication, recreation, and exercise. Private institutions are not covered under CRIPA.
The U.S. Department of Justice claims to now have open CRIPA matters in more than half the states.84 Potential CRIPA law violations are investigated and prosecuted by the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division (CRD). If a pattern of civil violations is uncovered, the facility will be informed of the alleged violations and the evidence supporting the findings, as well as what must minimally be done to correct the violations. Under CRIPA, there’s an emphasis on remedying conditions through the process of negotiation; lawsuits under CRIPA are a last resort and cannot award money. If suggested remedies are not fulfilled by a stated deadline, the Department of Justice has the option of bringing a lawsuit against the institution.
The following are four examples of jail- and treatment-related CRIPA investigations:85
Erie County, New York (agreement reached, June 2010): A complaint was filed regarding conditions at several correctional facilities, alleging unconstitutional conditions that included the following: staff-on-inmate violence, inmate-on-inmate violence, sexual misconduct between staff and inmates, sexual misconduct among inmates, inadequate systems to prevent suicide and self-injurious behavior, inadequate medical and mental health care, and serious deficiencies in environmental health and safety. The agreement also addressed the county’s inadequate system of suicide prevention and self-injurious behavior of holding center inmates, requiring officials to implement measures to ensure that holding center inmates are protected from suicide hazards.
Lake County, Indiana (agreement reached, December 2010): Unlawful conditions of confinement were corrected after an investigation of the jail uncovered systemic deficiencies, including a suicide rate that was more than five times the national average. Conditions violated the constitutional rights of approximately 1,000 male and female inmates confined there, including failure to protect individuals from harm (particularly involving suicide risk); failure to identify and treat individuals’ psychiatric disabilities; failure to provide adequate medical services and fire safety; and failure to adequately maintain the physical plant of the facility, thereby endangering both staff and inmates.
Delaware Mental Health (agreement reached, July 2011): An investigation concluded that the state’s mental health services system failed to provide services to individuals with serious mental illness in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs, as required by the ADA. These failures were needlessly prolonging institutionalization of many individuals who could have been adequately served in community settings. Delaware will prevent unnecessary hospitalization by expanding and deepening its crisis intervention system and providing intensive community supports, such as assertive community treatment and intensive case management, rehabilitation services, and improved family and peer support systems.
Rikers Island (CRIPA investigation ongoing): Rikers Island is one of the more notorious facilities in the New York corrections system. Founded in 1932, the jail facility takes in more than 100,000 inmates per year, with a daily population of approximately 10,000. The budget for this institution alone is $860 million. In the last 10 to 15 years especially, the facility has come under intense scrutiny and criticism for numerous instances of violence. Mother Jones ranked Rikers Island as one of the ten worst correctional institutions in the United States. Abuse and neglect of prisoners is reportedly commonplace.
nmate Litigation
Prior to the Twenty-First Century: “Hair-trigger” Suing
The volume of inmate litigation increased significantly following the aforementioned Cooper v. Pate decision in 1964. In 1980, inmates in state and federal correctional institutions filed 23,287 petitions alleging both civil and criminal violations of their rights and seeking compensatory damages, injunctions, and property claims.86 By 1990, the number of such petitions had swollen to nearly 43,000, and more than 64,000 petitions were filed in 199687 (a more contemporary view of inmate filings, since the passage of the PLRA of 1995, is provided in the “Has PLRA Served Its Purpose” section later in this chapter).
Prisoners sued primarily because they were either unwilling to accept their conviction or wished to harass their keepers.88 Inmate litigants tend to fall into one of two categories. First are those who file a single suit during their entire period of incarceration (usually requiring the assistance of others to do it); one study found that 71 percent of all litigants filed only one action but accounted for about half of all litigation.89 The other group is comprised of inmates who make law a prison career—the so-called jailhouse lawyers or writ writers.90
Although in past decades the media brought to light many abuses inside prisons, in the 1980s and 1990s media attention began turning in another direction: reports of trivial and frivolous lawsuits—those actions filed by parties or attorneys who are aware they are without merit, due to a lack of legal basis or argument for the alleged claim—by inmates. The following are some examples:
A death row inmate sued correction officials for taking away his Gameboy electronic game.
A prisoner sued demanding L.A. Gear or Reebok “Pumps” instead of Converse.
An inmate sued because he was served chunky instead of smooth peanut butter.
An inmate claimed it was cruel and unusual punishment that he was forced to listen to his unit manager’s country and Western music.
An inmate claimed $1 million in damages because his ice cream melted (the judge ruled that the “right to eat ice cream was clearly not within the contemplation” of our nation’s forefathers).91
A now-released Pennsylvania inmate filed over 2,600 different lawsuits in various jurisdictions, sometimes against defendants who did not exist.92
Such examples of litigation caused an uproar over frivolous civil right lawsuits brought by inmates. Furthermore, the expense of defending against such lawsuits, coupled with the fact that the United States has the world’s largest and costliest prison system,93 combined to foster public resentment against prisons and prisoners.
Of course, not all lawsuits against prison administrators concerning inmate living conditions and treatment are frivolous. For example, in August 2006 Timothy Joe Souders, a 21-year-old mentally ill young man held in the Southern Michigan Correctional Facility in Jackson, died after 5 days of horrific abuse and neglect. He was held for 5 days in isolation, naked, shackled by his arms and legs to a concrete slab in temperatures exceeding 100 degrees, and forced to lie in his own urine. His family settled for $3.25 million.94 A federal judge called Souders’ death “predictable and preventable,” and cited numerous documented and appalling instances of nontreatment, including an inmate who died of untreated cancer. He was found lying in excrement in his cell, after having lost 60 pounds from a “hunger strike.”95
The Prison Litigation Reform Act
Four Main Parts
By the late 1980s, the courts were displaying more tolerance for minor violations of prisoners’ constitutional rights, as exemplified by the following three cases:
Turner v. Safley (1987),96 discussed earlier, in which the Supreme Court stated that when a prison regulation impinges on inmates’ constitutional rights, “the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.”
Wilson v. Seiter (1991),97 which stated that when an inmate claims that the conditions of his or her confinement violate the Eighth Amendment, he or she must show a culpable state of mind on the part of prison officials.
Sandin v. Conner (1995),98 which emphasized the Supreme Court’s desire to give “deference and flexibility to state officials trying to maintain a volatile environment.” This decision made it “more difficult to bring constitutional suits challenging prison management.”99
Then, in April 1996, the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) of 1995 was enacted.100 The PLRA has been praised by proponents as necessary “to provide for appropriate remedies for prison condition lawsuits, to discourage frivolous and abusive prison lawsuits, and for other purposes.”101
The PLRA has four main parts:102
Exhaustion of administrative remedies. Before inmates can file a lawsuit, they must try to resolve their complaint through the prison’s grievance procedure, which usually includes giving a written description of their complaint to a prison official; if the prison requires additional steps, such as appealing to the warden, then the inmate must also follow those steps. The PLRA, however, does not mandate specific procedures for grievances, only that the inmate must follow the procedure set forth by the state. Finally, the one exception to the exhaustion requirement is when no formal grievance procedures exist or when a formal grievance is lost.103
Filing fees. All prisoners must pay court filing fees in full. If they do not have the money up front, they can pay the fee over time through monthly deductions from their prison commissary account. A complex statutory formula requires the indigent prisoner to pay an initial fee of 20 percent of the greater of the prisoner’s average balance or the average deposits to the account for the preceding 6 months.
Three-strikes provision. Each lawsuit or appeal that an inmate files that is dismissed for being frivolous, malicious, or not stating a proper claim counts as a strike. After an inmate receives three strikes, he or she cannot file another lawsuit in forma pauperis; that is, he or she cannot file another lawsuit unless he or she pays the entire court filing fee up front (an exception is made if the inmate is at risk of suffering serious physical injury in the immediate future, described in the next point). An appeal of a dismissed action that is dismissed is a separate strike, and even dismissals that occurred prior to the effective date of the PLRA count as strikes.
Physical injury requirement. An inmate cannot file a lawsuit for mental or emotional injury unless he or she can also show physical injury. (The courts differ in their evaluation of what constitutes sufficient harm to qualify as physical injury.)
Has PLRA Served Its Purpose?
According to a recent study, in 1995—the year before the implementation of the act—there were 24.6 prisoner civil rights filings in federal district court per 1,000 inmates; in 1997, the first year following the implementation of the act, there were 15.1 filings per 1,000 inmates. By 2012, the number of filings had gone down to 10.2 per 1,000.104 Clearly, prisoner petitions to the U.S. district courts have significantly diminished in number. We also note that the PLRA has been criticized on the grounds that it has contributed to the over-incarceration and crowding present in many corrections facilities: inmates who bring even legitimate cases against the prison are all but guaranteed to have their cases viewed with extreme skepticism. The burden of proof still rests on the plaintiff, but given the other hurdles that inmates face in cases (they may have access to law libraries, but are unlikely to have the same intricate understanding that a lawyer will), it can be questioned as to whether the process is fair.105
Jails as Organizations
Across the United States, approximately 3,280 jails are administered,106 which together have an average daily population of approximately 721,000 inmates. This number, however, does not represent the total number of inmates admitted into jails in a given year at 10.9 million.107 The organization and hierarchical levels of jails are determined by several factors: size, budget, level of crowding, local views on punishment and treatment, and even the levels of training and education of the jail administrator. An organizational structure for a jail serving a population of about 250,000 is suggested in Figure 10-4.
Figure 10-4 Organizational Structure of a Jail Serving a Population of 250,000
Figure 10-4 Full Alternative Text
The administration of jails is frequently one of the major tasks of county sheriffs. Several writers have concluded that sheriffs and police personnel see themselves primarily as law enforcers first and view the responsibility of organizing and operating a jail as an unwelcome task.108 Therefore, their approach is often said to be at odds with advanced corrections philosophy and trends.
Podular/Direct Supervision Jails
Rationale and Expanding Use
As noted previously, in the past, the federal courts have at times become more willing to hear inmate allegations of constitutional violations ranging from inadequate heating, lighting, and ventilation to the censorship of mail. One of every five cases filed in federal courts was on behalf of prisoners,109 and 20 percent of all jails were a party in a pending lawsuit.110
Court-ordered pressures to improve jail conditions afforded an opportunity for administrators to explore new ideas and designs; therefore, over the past several decades and in response to the deluge of lawsuits concerning jail conditions, many local jurisdictions constructed what is now known as the podular direct supervision (PDS) jail, where inmates’ cells are arranged around a common area—in podular fashion, with no physical barriers between the officer and the inmates, having an open dayroom area—and inmate management style is direct in nature, with officers moving about the pod and interacting with the inmates to manage their behavior. PDS jails also typically offer more amenities in the living areas, including visiting areas, books, and telephones.111 The PDS jail (formerly known as “new-generation” jail) represents a comparatively new approach for addressing many of the earlier problems found in local jails.112
According to the National Institute of Corrections (NIC), the number of PDS jails increased in the United States from approximately 199 in 1995 to about 350 at present. Today, approximately one-fifth of medium- to large-sized jails use the podular architecture.113 This growing number, the NIC stated, “suggests that direct supervision continues to be adopted as a design style and management philosophy in large and small jurisdictions across the United States.”114
Departing from Tradition
PDS jails differ from traditional jails in several ways. First, the physical environment is different (See Figure 10-5). In traditional jails, cells are arranged linearly along a corridor, with officers being separated from inmates by bars, glass, or other physical barriers. Officers must patrol halls where their line of sight into each cell is severely restricted, and officers can observe what is happening inside a cell only when they are almost directly in front of it. In the PDS jail, inmates are separated into relatively small groups (usually 50 or fewer), housed in self-contained living units including several one- to two-person cells, a day room, and recreation space. These units, or “pods,” usually are triangular or wedge shaped so that jail officers have a direct line of sight into all areas of the pod at all times. The furnishings in the living units also differ and generally include carpeting, porcelain lavatories, moveable furniture that may be padded or plastic, and other “soft” fixtures. The direct supervision philosophy has officers stationed within the living area with no physical barriers to separate them from inmates. In these units, officers maintain a constant physical presence, but they also interact extensively with inmates.115
Figure 10-5 Architectural Jail Types
Source: United States Department of Justice.
Figure 10-5 Full Alternative Text
Because of their constant physical and close presence, correctional officers (COs) in PDS jails (unlike in linear or podular/remote supervision jails pictured in Figure 10-5) must use active observation in order to gather information about what is occurring in the module, to gauge sources of conflict or tension, and to identify and react to situations before they escalate into serious problems. They must also develop a higher degree of interpersonal skills and creativity in managing inmates. Even minor conflicts and problems must be proactively addressed within the pod. The COs must also be fair with their discipline, and treat inmates with respect and dignity. Both formal and informal sanctions should be used so that punishment meted out is commensurate with the gravity of the infraction. Inmates should also be told the reason for their punishment.116
Most evaluations of direct supervision jails have been encouraging. Researchers and practitioners have reported reductions in inmate–inmate violence and assaults against jail officers and staff members;117 inmates have also reported having more positive attitudes about the officers than inmates in more traditional facilities, and direct supervision officers have reported feeling less hostile toward the inmates.118 In addition, there appear to be fewer lawsuits arising out of PDS jails, which reduce overall costs, and officers tend to have a more enriched worklife (as discussed in Chapter 2).119
Community Jails
Beyond jail design and supervision type, with almost 11 million inmates admitted into our local jails each year, jail administrators undoubtedly must be concerned with the provision of treatment services for inmates both within the jail and in the community once an inmate is released. The community jail concept is akin to a system of care that recognizes that some inmates admitted into jail are already receiving treatment in the form of mental health services, drug and alcohol treatment, and/or educational programming. Community jails continue to provide these treatment services while the inmate is incarcerated, and ensure that services continue when the inmate is released—whether that’s days, weeks, or months later.120
What’s unique about community jails are the intentional efforts to view the jail as part of the larger community where treatment services are provided. Ideally, the same service providers in the community provide the services to inmates upon entry into the jail, and again once released. While the concept is appealing on many fronts, including from the perspective of a continuity of care, implementation of community jails is easier said than done. For example, jails must create space for treatment to occur. In addition, with scarce resources available for treatment services, providing these services to jail inmates may be a tough sell.121
Along the lines of the community jail concept, the National Institute of Corrections and the Urban Institute has launched the Transition from Jail to Community (TJC) initiative, which focuses on offender reentry into the community. The goal of this initiative is to improve long-term integration for those returning to the community from jail.122 Under this program, NIC provides technical assistance to selected jurisdictions to support collaborative planning, continuity of care, and systems change processes.123
A New Supreme Court Decree: Collecting DNA at Point of Arrest
After the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Maryland v. King (2013), employees of local jails have been kept somewhat busier and have had more responsibility. The Court ruled that a DNA swab may be taken from anyone arrested for a crime of violence. The Court’s majority rationalized the decision on the grounds that, like fingerprinting and photographing, taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee’s DNA is a legitimate police booking procedure, akin to fingerprinting, under the Fourth Amendment. The majority also maintained that a DNA swab serves legitimate state interests and is not invasive enough to require a warrant.124 The dissenting minority, however, suggested that the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures prohibit DNA swabs when there is no evidence linking an arrestee to a specific DNA-related crime.125
Corrections Accreditation
Like police organizations (discussed in Chapter 4), corrections organizations may be accredited by meeting national standards through a series of reviews, evaluations, audits, and hearings. Since 1978, the American Correctional Association (ACA) has promulgated standards generally covering administrative and fiscal controls, staff training and development, physical plant, safety and emergency procedures, sanitation, food service, and rules and discipline. The ACA utilizes a 28-member private, nonprofit body, the Commission on Accreditation for Corrections, to render accreditation decisions. Today, approximately 1,300 facilities and agencies are accredited through the ACA.127
There are 22 different sets or manuals of accreditation standards covering all types of correctional facilities and programs, including state and federal adult institutions, juvenile facilities, probation and parole agencies, and health care and electronic monitoring programs. In order for a state or federal adult corrections institution to be accredited, it must meet 100 percent of 62 mandatory standards as well as 90 percent of 468 nonmandatory standards.128 Because of differences among facilities, not all standards apply to all facilities. When this occurs, these standards are deducted from the overall compliance score.
As with the police, there are several benefits to be realized for corrections agencies wishing to become accredited: determining the facility or program’s strengths and weaknesses, identifying obtainable goals, implementing state-of-the-art policies and procedures, establishing specific guidelines for daily operations, aiding in defending against frivolous lawsuits, and ensuring a higher level of staff professionalism and morale.129
Probation and Parole Agencies as Organizations
Community corrections originated in the years following World War II, when returning veterans encountered adjustment problems as they attempted to reenter civilian life.130 It has also been stated that community corrections is “the last bastion of discretion in the criminal justice system.”131 Community corrections are typically viewed as a humane, logical, and effective approach for working with and changing criminal offenders.132
Today there are about 4.65 million adults under community supervision in the United States, a 6 percent decline from 2005. Of the 4.65 million, 3.8 million are on probation (the lowest number since 2005) and about 870,500 on parole. While probationers have steadily decreased, parolees have increased by 11 percent since 2005. 133
Agency Organization, Armed and Sworn Status of Officers
What follows is a secondary analysis of a national survey by the American Probation and Parole Association. Specifically, the survey included questions concerning how adult/juvenile probation and parole agencies in the 50 states are organizationally structured (e.g., under which branch of government they function, to whom the administrators report), and whether or not the probation and parole officers are armed and possess peace officer powers. (Note: The definition of a “peace officer” can be quite broad, but normally includes those persons having arrest authority either with a warrant or based on probable cause.)134
Adult probation: 32 (64%) of the state agencies are under the executive branch, and 13 (26%) are under the judicial branch; 5 (10%) are organized under an agency that is either a combination of these or a state or county agency.
Juvenile probation: 21 (42%) of the state agencies are organized under the executive branch, and 19 (38%) are under the judicial branch; 10 (20%) are either a combination of these or under a state or county agency.
Adult parole: 43 (86%) of the state agencies are organized under the executive branch, and 2 (4%) are under the judicial branch; 4 (8%) are either a combination of these or under a state or county agency; one state has abolished parole. We note here that parole rates tend to be quite low in states where parole is administered. For example, only 116 of 3,156 cases that came before the Virginian parole board actually resulted in parole being granted.135
Juvenile parole (generally, aftercare plans and activities for institutionalized juvenile offenders assist them to transition back into the community): 39 (78%) of the state agencies are organized under the executive branch, and 6 (12%) are under the judicial branch; 5 (10%) are either a combination of these or under a state or county agency.
Regarding the arming of these officers, 18 states (36%) do not authorize their officers to carry arms, while 19 (38%) authorize it; the remainder of the states are optional or allow being armed if approved by the governing body or supervisor. In the federal system, U.S. probation officers have statutory authority to carry firearms. With so much variation among states, the carrying of firearms among probation/parole officers is an often debated topic in corrections. The American Probation and Parole Association’s official position on the issue is that they neither support nor oppose the carrying of firearms. Its statement reads, in part, “should the decision be made by an agency to authorize officers to carry weapons, that decision must be made within the framework of actual need, officer safety demands, and must be consistent with the laws and policies which guide that agency.”136
Traditionalists believe that carrying a firearm contributes to an atmosphere of distrust between the client and the officer; enforcement-oriented officers, conversely, view a firearm as an additional tool to protect themselves from the risk associated with violent, serious, or high-risk offenders.137 The latter view is understandable, given that officers must make home and employment visits in the neighborhoods in which offenders live (some of which are very unsafe), and officers must often revoke offenders’ freedom.
Some states classify probation and parole officers as peace officers and grant them the authority to carry a firearm both on and off duty.138 Some believe that officers should not be required to carry a firearm if they are opposed to arming, and that providing an option allows for a better officer/assignment match.139 In sum, it would seem that the administrator’s decision concerning arming should focus on need, officer safety, and local laws and policies.
Probation and parole officers do not possess peace officer authority in 24 (48%) of the states, while they are authorized such powers in 26 (52%) states. Note, however, that in 8 (16%) of those states that grant officers such powers, it is granted only to adult probation and parole officers, not to those who work with juveniles.140
Probation Systems
Types of Systems
Figure 10-6 depicts an organizational structure for a regional probation and parole organization. Probation—where a court places a person on supervision in the community, generally in lieu of incarceration—is the most frequently used sanction; it costs offenders their privacy and self-determination and usually includes some element of the other sanctions: jail time, fines, restitution, or community service.141 Probation in the United States is administered by more than 2,000 different agencies. Its organization is a patchwork that defies simple explanation. In about three-fourths of the states, adult probation is part of the executive branch of state government.142 By contrast, more than half of the agencies providing juvenile probation services are administered in juvenile courts on the local level.143
Figure 10-6 Organizational Structure for a Regional Probation and Parole Organization
Figure 10-6 Full Alternative Text
According to Howard Abadinsky, the administration of probation systems can be separated into six categories:144
Juvenile. Separate probation services for juveniles are administered on a county, municipal, or state level.
Municipal. Independent probation units are administered by the lower courts under state laws and guidelines.
County. Under laws and guidelines established by the state, a county operates its own probation agency.
State. One agency administers a central probation system, which provides services throughout the state.
State combined. Probation and parole services are administered on a statewide basis by one agency.
Federal. Probation is administered as an arm of the federal courts.
This patchwork nature of probation systems has raised two central organizational questions concerning the administration of probation services: Should probation be part of the judicial or the executive branch of government? Does the lack of uniformity in administering probation make justice less equitable statewide?145 These important and lingering issues were first considered nearly 50 years ago by the President’s Commission.146
Although it was shown previously that few probation/parole agencies are organized and governed at the county level, Abadinsky argued that probation administered by the judiciary on a county level promotes diversity:
Innovative programming can be implemented more easily in a county agency because it has a shorter line of bureaucratic control than would a statewide agency. A county agency can more easily adapt to change, and the successful programs of one agency can more easily be adopted by other probation departments and unsuccessful programs avoided. Although the judiciary is nominally responsible for administering probation, the day-to-day operations are in the hands of a professional administrator—the chief probation officer.147
Systems Theory
As with the administration of police, court, or prison organizations, the probation department administrator’s goals may affect the services provided to the client, which in turn may have an impact on the client’s request for services. This systematic interaction between an organization’s resources and structure and the community has been referred to as its “sociotechnical environment,”148 meaning that the principles of the system are organized to execute the basic production technologies of the organization.
Each probation administrator needs to recognize that the organization is a system of inputs, processes, and outputs (discussed in Chapter 2). For probation, inputs are clients coming into the office for counseling and supervision (the processes); outputs are the probationer’s obtaining employment, acquiring a skill, observing a curfew, and so on. This understanding of probation, using systems theory, provides a means of learning how probation departments function and interact with their environment and of examining the resources, activities, and outcomes in a way that can identify the goals, describe the day-to-day activities, and link the department’s activities to resources and outcomes.
According to systems theory, probation may be conceptualized as a network of interwoven resources, activities, and outcomes.149 According to Hardyman, resources include the probation department’s funding level, goals, policies and procedures, organizational structure, and caseload; the probation staff’s characteristics; the services available to probationers; and the rates of unemployment, poverty, and crime in the county. Activities are supervision techniques, rewards, leadership style, contacts, and direct and indirect services provided by the probation department. Outcomes, according to systems theory, are the number of probationers who were arrested, incarcerated, and/or cited for a technical violation during the follow-up period, as well as the needs of probationers that were considered.150 See Exhibit 10.5 for a description of Hawaii’s Project HOPE.
Exhibit 10.5 A “Best Practice” In Probation: Hawaii’s Project Hope
A probation reform program developed in 2004 in Hawaii has resulted in an 80 percent drop in positive drug tests and in recidivism. The backbone of the program is simple: Rather than let small problems pile up, closely monitored probationers receive immediate punishment, usually a brief stint in jail. The Hawaii model, known as HOPE, or Hawaii’s Opportunity Probation Enforcement, has now been implemented in five states while also being established in cities in four states. The U.S. Department of Justice also is experimenting with HOPE.
According to program founder Judge Steve Alm, “This is Parenting 101, Personal Responsibility 101. One reason it works is because even the offenders think it’s fair. They used to go along with infraction piling on top of infraction, over and over with no consequences. Now there is some jail every time, though it’s brief—it is swift, certain and proportionate. They get it.”
HOPE’s stated goals are reductions in drug use, new crimes, and incarceration. The National Institute of Justice commissioned a study to determine whether or not those goals were met. According to the study’s authors:
Those goals have been achieved. Probationers assigned to HOPE had large reductions in positive drug tests and missed appointments, and were significantly less likely to be arrested during follow-up at 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months. They averaged approximately the same number of days in jail for probation violations, serving more but shorter terms. They spent about one-third as many days in prison on revocations or new convictions.151
In the state of Washington, where HOPE’s model is being replicated under the name Swift and Certain (SAC) throughout its community supervision system, initial results are promising across multiple measures, including recidivism. But with many programs of this type, it remains to be seen whether long-term success (beyond one year) can be realized.
Parole Systems
Models for Providing Services
Unlike the general trend in probation, offenders on parole have increased over the last 10 years. From an organizational perspective, the administration of parole—for offenders who are conditionally released from prison to serve the remaining portion of their sentence in the community—is much less complex than that of probation because parole services are administered centrally on a statewide basis.152 (It should also be noted that in about 20 states, probation officers also serve as parole officers; thus, much of the information presented in the previous section applies to parole as well.) One state agency administers the parole function on a statewide basis, except that in a number of states, parolees from a local jail come under the supervision of a county probation and parole department.153
A parole agency can provide three basic services: parole release, parole supervision, and executive clemency. In a number of states that have abolished discretionary parole release (such as California), parole officers continue to supervise offenders released by the prison through mandatory parole, based on good time (reduction of sentence through good behavior).
The National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals delineated two basic models for administering parole services:
The independent model. A parole board is responsible for making release (parole) determinations as well as supervising persons released on parole (or good time). It is independent of any other state agency and reports directly to the governor.
The consolidated model. The parole board is a semiautonomous agency within a large department that also administers correctional institutions. Supervision of persons released on parole (or good time) is under the direction of the commissioner of corrections, not the parole board.154
Both models sometimes combine probation services with parole services in a single statewide agency.
The President’s Commission summarized the advantages of the independent model:155
The parole board is in the best position to promote the idea of parole and to generate public support and acceptance of it. Because the board is accountable for parole failures, it should be responsible for supervising parolees.
The parole board that is in direct control of administering parole services can evaluate and adjust the system more effectively.
Supervision by the parole board and its officers properly divorces parole release and parolees from the correctional institution.
An independent parole board in charge of its own services is in the best position to present its own budget request to the legislature.
Conversely, the commission summarized the advantages of including both parole services and institutions in a consolidated department of corrections as follows:156
The correctional process is a continuum; all staff, both institutional and parole, are under a single administration rather than divided, which avoids competition for public funds and friction in policies.
A consolidated correctional department has consistent administration, including staff selection and supervision.
Parole boards are ineffective in performing administrative functions; their major focus should be on case decision, not on day-to-day field operations.
Community-based programs that fall between institutions and parole, such as work release, can best be handled by a single centralized administration.
Clearly, the trend in this country, beginning in the late 1960s, has been in the direction of consolidation. With the number of parolees on discretionary parole increasing and mandatory parolees decreasing (resulting in an overall increase in the parolee population), further research is warranted as to the effectiveness of independent and consolidated models across significant parole outcomes, including efficiency and effectiveness.
11)
Introduction
The 1994 movie Shawshank Redemption depicts prison life during a 20-year period beginning in 1947 and centers around its title character, Andy Dufresne, who is convicted of murdering his wife and her lover. The film features multiple transgressions among inmates, as well as those of prison administrators and correctional officers (COs). Warden Samuel Norton eventually takes his own life, but prior to this appears to have little control over Shawshank Prison, a facility that he supposedly runs. During the course of the movie, we see contraband running through the prison by an inmate, Red; a particularly brutal CO, Hadley; and Warden Norton himself, engaged in a money-making scheme, as well as facilitating the murder of another inmate, Tommy. Prison administration at Shawshank is at its worst. But as we shall cover in this chapter, Hollywood’s depiction of prison management (or lack thereof) is unlikely to be anywhere near reality.
This chapter focuses on the role and functions of personnel who work within correctional institutions and in probation and parole agencies. Presented first is a profile of prison wardens, including means of preparing new wardens for the position, principles of good prison leadership, and the administrator’s role in carrying out death sentences. Next, we cover the roles of correctional middle managers and supervisors, and following that we examine the front-line personnel in prisons: COs. This section includes a typology of the types of COs in terms of their overall job performance. Then, we consider the “cousins” of prisons, the local jails: the functions of the jail administrator, motivating and retaining jail personnel, and some problems in selecting and keeping people who will want detention work to be their career. Next, we consider administrative functions and management styles as they relate to probation and parole. The chapter concludes with review questions and exercises in the Deliberate and Decide, Learn by Doing, and Case Study sections.
Before examining these personnel who work within corrections, it is important to bear in mind that correctional facilities constitute a society within a society; as such, a wide range of personnel are employed therein. As examples, a typical prison employs food service workers, skilled tradesmen (e.g., carpenters and electricians), teachers, secretaries, chaplains, nurses, mental health clinicians, computer technicians, and recreation personnel.
Even more importantly, as mentioned in Chapter 10, remember that whether or not one wears a correction officer’s uniform, everyone’s job is to be security oriented. As former corrections administrator Mary Ellen Mastrorilli puts it:
Nurses must double and triple check their syringe counts to ensure that syringes do not end up in the hands of an inmate. Catholic priests must substitute grape juice for wine when saying Mass, as alcohol is prohibited inside prison walls. Carpenters must carefully account for each and every one of their tools during the work day. A hacksaw in the hands of an inmate can mean a future escape or a deadly assault. Every secretary’s desk is home to a pair of scissors or a letter opener, but not so in a prison. A prison chef must keep track of all kitchen utensils, especially cutlery, because metal objects can be easily fashioned into shanks (homemade prison knives).1
Finally, before discussing corrections administration, we need to mention two basic principles that undergird corrections administration: First, whatever the reasons for which a person is incarcerated, he or she is not to suffer pains beyond the deprivation of liberty—confinement itself is the punishment. Second, regardless of the crime, the prisoner must be treated humanely and in accordance with his or her behavior. Even the most heinous offender is to be treated with respect and dignity and given privileges if institutional behavior warrants it.2 Our analysis of institutional management is predicated on these two principles.
Prisons
The Warden: A Profile
Several guest corrections speakers in one of the author’s criminal justice administration classes have argued that the prison warden—that person who is responsible for all activities, safety, and security of the staff and inmates within the prison, to include establishing prison policies and carrying out financial and programming goals—has the most difficult position of all in the corrections field.3 This assessment is arguably true because the warden must also take the central office and prison director’s general policies and put them into effect throughout the prison, while being responsible for the smooth day-to-day operation of the institution. These correctional executives also oversee the fastest-growing agencies in state government; administer increasingly visible operations; and are held accountable by politicians, auditors, the press, organized labor, and numerous other stakeholders.4 Wardens work within a field that has become more demanding, consumes an increasing share of public funds, and involves responsibility for the lives and safety of others.
In Their Own Words Administrative Advice from the Field
Name: Robert Bayer, Ph.D.
Current position/City/State: Former director of Corrections/Warden/Inspector General, other related positions, State of Nevada
College attended/academic major/degree(s): University of Nevada, Reno: Ph.D., political science/public administration; master of public administration (MPA); master of arts, English literature. University of New York, College at Oswego, bachelor of arts in liberal arts.
My primary duties and responsibilities in this position include: functioning as the CEO of a very large public organization. Unlike a warden, who administers departmental policy, the director is responsible for the actual promulgation and oversight of the department’s policies and procedures. It is important to operate a constitutional prison within the budget provided by the legislature and the policies and procedures are the lynchpin to accomplish this duty. The director is responsible for the overall departmental budget development, legislative passage, and ongoing implementation throughout the budget calendar. The director also provides testimony during the legislative session, presents to the Board of Prison Commissioners, and provides key testimony on policies, procedures, and actions of the department in state and federal court as required. As one of the senior cabinet members for the governor, an essential responsibility is to function as part of the governor’s cabinet and ensure that there is an efficient and effective flow of information between the governor and the department. The director must be an effective communicator and this takes up much of the average working day at every level including inmates, inmate families, victims and victim groups, interested stakeholder groups, legislators, staff and staff organizations, the courts, and the media. One of the key divisions reporting directly to the director is the human resources division, which recognizes the critical importance of every level of staff recruitment, hiring, training, and benefits. The inspector general of the system reports directly to the director to ensure that all levels of staff and inmate investigations are being properly conducted and brought to a timely conclusion. It is important to develop a span of control that is practical and provides you with the proper level of control and oversight over the entire system in order to accomplish all of these duties and responsibilities.
Personal attributes/characteristics that have proven to be most helpful to me in this position are:
Top Ten:
Intelligence. It may be a trait we are born with, but it is essential at this level because of the constant multitasking and complexity of decisions that must be made.
Integrity. Demonstrate a strong moral ethic. Always do the right thing, even when no one is looking. Staff looks to you as true north on their compass even though they may not say it.
A sense of fairness to everyone, the public, legislators, staff, and inmates alike.
Commitment to the position. Demonstrate a strong work ethic that includes reliability, willingness to take on more important assignments, and the stamina to work long hours.
Develop a reputation for loyalty and trust.
Assertiveness and tenacity while remaining open to criticism and new ideas.
An absolute passion for the field of corrections. This attitude is infectious with staff. Love every assignment and learn as much as you can from every position you work. It all goes into a valuable database in your brain that you will rely on during critical times and emergency situations.
Be honest, approachable, and always tell the truth to staff, politicians, and even the inmate population. Your reputation for diligence and honesty will really help develop a solid rapport with the inmate population, which is always important.
Cooperate with all stakeholders in this field. Ensure that they all feel welcomed at the discussion table, even if their constituency holds opposite opinions.
A sense of humor is critical in a field like this that is rife with tensions and life-altering decisions.
My three greatest challenges in this administrative role include: (1) the operation of a constitutional prison system in the face of dwindling and scarce fiscal resources; (2) the nurturing, maintaining, and developing good political relationships with all legislative and executive branch stakeholders; (3) the hiring, training, and retention of sufficient professional and law enforcement staff to ensure the seamless operation of a state prison system.
Personal accomplishments during my administrative career about which I am most proud are:
The first privatization of a prison in Nevada: the women’s correctional center in Las Vegas. It stood for years as one of the best examples of a privatization contract in the nation.
The appointment by first a Democratic governor and then a Republican governor.
The first director of corrections ever promoted from within the Nevada system and subsequent to retirement, three of my top level staff were appointed to director in succession. Nevada has not had to look outside the system for talented, well-trained, and well-qualified administrative appointments.
No staff ever died or sustained serious life-altering injury while on duty during my watch. Staff safety was always a paramount concern. The department experienced a steady decline in industrial injury claims and expenditures from the first year to the last year of my employment as director.
The longest serving director in Nevada’s 150-year history.
Advice for someone who is interested in occupying an administrative position such as mine would be: to take a long-term view of a position such as this. Corrections is a field that takes a lot of actual experience in a wide variety of positions, to gain the necessary experience to make good decisions, especially in emergency situations. I would urge anyone interested in becoming a director or commissioner of corrections to become a “triple threat” in these areas: operations, programming, and budget. In addition, here are some milestones to accomplish:
Develop a mentor relationship with a top-level role model who will take an active interest in your education and advancement through the system.
Obtain an advanced education, because that is a characteristic that is found in most current directors. A master’s degree should be considered a minimal criterion. Never forget, however, that this is an experience-based field and it is critical to develop a thorough operational knowledge of the laws, policies, and procedures of the system. Remember that when you attain the position of director, “the buck stops here,” and it is important to make final decisions with the confidence of a complete experience-based background.
Study the budget and learn in great detail how to build and execute a budget within appropriations.
Develop excellent written and verbal skills. Again, be a good communicator.
Be a student of politics and develop the political connections needed for support when a governor begins to search for the next director of corrections.
Develop your leadership skills throughout your career. They should improve with every promotion that you receive. Although there are certain characteristics of leadership that a person is born with, leadership is a skill that can be learned and one should read and study management and leadership throughout their career.
Source: Used with permission from Robert Bayer.
Of course, both staff and inmates are sensitive to the warden’s granting of what each side perceives to be a strengthened position for the other side. For example, if a policy is enacted that gives the staff more power over inmates, the inmates will be unhappy, perhaps even rebellious; conversely, if a policy is put into practice that the staff thinks affords too much additional freedom to inmates, the staff will feel sold out. Furthermore, the prison director, typically appointed by and serving at the pleasure of the state’s governor, can exert on the warden all manner of political influences at any time.
Who are prison wardens? A national survey of wardens was commissioned by the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) in 2013, which sheds some light on who wardens are. A total of 326 wardens responded to the survey representing a total of 43 states.5 Of the surveyed wardens, the mean number of years they have been working in the corrections field was 26.65, indicating considerable, relevant experience among the top leaders in correctional institutions. Seventy-eight percent of the wardens indicated they were male, while 22 percent were female. The average age of the surveyed wardens was 51.72 years. The minority of wardens possessed an earned associate’s degree or less (28%), while the majority of wardens possessed a bachelor’s degree (51%) or higher (21%).6 Seventy-seven percent of wardens identified as Caucasian, another 18 percent as black, and 4 percent as Hispanic.
A national survey by Kim et al.7 of more than 600 male and female prison wardens at adult state prisons suggested some interesting differences between male and female wardens. Regarding the goals of imprisonment, male wardens ranked their four preferred goals as follows: incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation, and retribution. Female wardens, however, ranked them thus: incapacitation, rehabilitation, deterrence, and retribution. A greater proportion of female wardens (89.9%) than male wardens (83.3%) strongly or very strongly agreed that rehabilitation programs had an important place in their institutions. A majority of the wardens thought that the following amenities should be reduced or eliminated in prisons: martial arts instruction, conjugal visitation, cosmetic surgery and dentistry, condom distribution, disability benefits, sexually oriented reading material, and nonregulation clothing. Male wardens were more likely than female wardens to support the reduction of college education, copy privileges, condom distribution, a full-time recreation director, musical instruments, and special diets. By contrast, female wardens were more likely to support reduction of organ transplants, weight lifting, boxing, and tobacco smoking. Generally, data support the findings that female wardens seem more likely to reduce amenities that can potentially promote violence in prison and are more interested than male wardens in the health conditions of inmates. Overall, Kim et al. concluded that although the differences between male and female wardens are somewhat noticeable, the roles of corrections administrators are becoming more gender neutral.8
Preparing New Wardens for Success
The nature of, and issues posed by today’s incarcerated population, discussed in Chapter 12, has increased the need for competent correctional administrators to ensure public safety, ensure that staff and inmates are safe, and spend tax dollars effectively. They must also understand and appreciate the importance of culture (the sum total of the organization’s history, staff, inmates, community, and past leadership) as they begin their tenure at an institution. Today’s correctional administrator must excel in more than just correctional operations and not rely on the all-powerful, autocratic working style and strong paramilitary organization of decades past.9
In fact, in the 2013 national survey of wardens, there was widespread agreement regarding a variety of necessary skills and abilities to be a successful warden.10 These include the following: capability of identifying emerging trends in correction; capability to assure organizational accountability; capability to assure compliance with legal mandates; capability to assure ethical decision making; capability to assess/manage organizational culture; capability to resolve organizational conflicts; capability to guide organizational change; capability to manage human resources; capability to plan for future leadership/management needs; capability to take disciplinary action; capability to mentor subordinates; capability to develop a positive rapport with stakeholder organizations; capability to develop positive rapport with the community; and capability to balance work and personal life. Of interest to note is that while 95 percent of the surveyed wardens noted that balancing work and personal life was either “very necessary” or “completely necessary,” only 67 percent indicated that they were either “very capable” or “completely capable” of doing so.
New wardens who were surveyed by McCampbell indicated that they would have been better prepared for the challenges of the job had they had job experience or skills in business administration/fiscal management, personnel and labor relations, legislative issues, and media and public relations.11 Unfortunately, however, a large majority (90%) of new wardens also reported in this survey that they did not receive any special training or orientation for their new responsibilities prior to, or just after, they received their assignment. Since 1994, there has been a 36-hour training program for new wardens, as well as related publications and other resources, available through the NIC. Participants of NIC Executive Training Program for New Wardens enhance their understanding in such areas as institutional culture, central office relationships, budget management strategies, decision making, and media relations.12
Principles of Good Prison Leadership
Throughout the nineteenth century and the early twentieth century, studies of prisons generally focused on the administrators rather than the inmates. Beginning in the 1940s, however, an ideological shift from studying prison administrators to studying inmates occurred. The central reason for the shift seems to have been that prisons were poorly managed or were what prison researcher John J. DiIulio Jr. referred to as “ineffective prisons.”13 Many writers expressed grave doubts about the efficacy of correctional administrators and stated that prison managers could do nothing to improve conditions behind bars.
It is not surprising that when contemporary researchers attempt to relate prison management practices to the quality of life behind bars, the results are normally quite negative: Prisons that are managed in a tight, authoritarian fashion are plagued with disorder and inadequate programs; those that are managed in a loose, participative fashion are equally troubled; and those with a mixture of these two styles are no better.14
In a 3-year study of prison management in Texas, Michigan, and California, however, DiIulio found that levels of disorder (rates of individual and collective violence and other forms of misconduct), amenities (availability of clean cells, decent food, and so on), and service (availability of work opportunities and educational programs) did not vary with any of the following factors: a higher socioeconomic class of inmates, higher per capita spending, lower levels of crowding, lower inmate–staff ratios, greater officer training, more modern plant and equipment, and more routine use of repressive measures. DiIulio concluded that “all roads, it seemed, led to the conclusion that the quality of prison life depended mainly on the quality of prison management.”15
DiIulio also found that prisons managed by a stable team of like-minded executives, structured in a paramilitary, security-driven, bureaucratic fashion, had better order, amenities, and service than those managed in other ways even when the former institutions were more crowded, spent less per capita, and had higher inmate–staff ratios: “The only finding of this study that, to me at least, seems indispensable is that prison management matters” (emphasis in the original).16
Studies analyzing the causes of major prison riots found that they were the result of a breakdown in security procedures—the daily routine of numbering, counting, frisking, locking, contraband control, and cell searches—that are the heart of administration in most prisons.17 Problems such as crowding, underfunding, festering inmate–staff relations, and racial animosities may make a riot more likely, but poor security management will make a riot inevitable.18
DiIulio offered six general principles of good prison leadership:19
Successful leaders focus, and inspire their subordinates to focus, on results rather than process, on performance rather than procedures, on ends rather than means. In short, managers are judged on results, not excuses.
Professional staff members—doctors, psychiatrists, accountants, nurses, and other nonuniformed staff—receive some basic prison training and come to think of themselves as COs first.
Leaders of successful institutions follow the management by walking around principle. These managers are not strangers to the cellblocks and are always on the scene when trouble erupts.
Successful leaders make close alliances with key politicians, judges, journalists, reformers, and other outsiders.
Successful leaders rarely innovate, but the innovations they implement are far reaching and the reasons for them are explained to staff and inmates well in advance. Line staff is notoriously sensitive to what administrators do “for inmates” versus “what they do for us.” Thus, leaders must be careful not to upset the balance and erode staff loyalty.
Successful leaders are in office long enough to understand and, as necessary, modify the organization’s internal operations and external relations. DiIulio used the terms flies, fatalists, foot soldiers, and founders. The flies come and go unnoticed and are inconsequential. Fatalists also serve brief terms, always complaining about the futility of incarceration and the hopelessness of correctional reform. The foot soldiers serve long terms, often inheriting their job from a fly or fatalist, and make consequential improvements whenever they can. Founders either create an agency or reorganize it in a major and positive way.
To summarize, to “old” penologists, prison administrators were admirable public servants, inmates were to be restricted, and any form of self-government was eschewed. To “new” penologists, prison administrators are loathsome and evil, inmates are responsible victims, and complete self-government is the ideal. DiIulio called for a new old penology, or a shift of attention from the society of captives to the government of keepers. He asserted that tight administrative control is more conducive than loose administrative control to decent prison conditions. This approach, he added, will “push administrators back to the bar of attention,” treating them at least as well as their charges.20
Stan Stojkovic adds to DiIulio’s notions of good prison leadership by articulating that prison leaders must adapt to increasing prison oversight.21 He notes, “Prison oversight, in its varied forms, will be the norm for prison leadership and management in the 21st century prison.”22 Stojkovic suggests that prison leaders will need to demonstrate greater transparency, which can improve effectiveness of prisons in the long run. Because of increased prison oversight in the twenty-first century, prison leaders will be held more accountable to democratic values.23
Administering the Death Penalty
One of the major responsibilities of prison administrators, in 32 states (three states abolishing capital punishment since 2009) and in federal prisons, is to carry out the death penalty. By law, the warden or a representative presides over the execution.
To minimize the possibility of error, executions are carried out by highly trained teams. The mechanics of the process have been broken down into several discrete tasks and are practiced repeatedly. During the actual death watch—the 24-hour period that ends with the prisoner’s execution—a member of the execution team is with the prisoner at all times. During the last 5 or 6 hours, two officers are assigned to guard the prisoner. The prisoner then showers, dons a fresh set of clothes, and is placed in an empty tomb-like death cell. The warden reads the court order or death warrant. Meanwhile, official witnesses—normally 6 to 12 citizens—are prepared for their role. The steps that are taken from this point to perform the execution depend on the method of execution that is used.24
Today state prisons and the Federal Bureau of Prisons hold about 3,000 inmates under sentence of death; lethal injection is the predominant method of execution in use; it is employed in all death-penalty states and in the federal system. In addition to lethal injection, 16 states authorize an alternative method of execution: Eight states also use electrocution; three states, lethal gas; three states, hanging; and two states, firing squad. California has the most number of prisoners under the sentence of death (735), followed by Florida (398) and Texas (273)25 See Exhibit 11.1 for a recent notorious case.
Exhibit 11.1 The Federal Government And Capital Punishment: Complicated and Controversial
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was convicted in 2015 for the Boston Marathon attack that killed three people and injured hundreds of others. Tsarnaev was also convicted of killing an MIT police officer in a gun battle after the attack. In May 2015, Dzhokhar was sentenced to death and currently resides in the United States Penitentiary in Florence, Colorado, also known as the Supermax. Should Tsarnaev ultimately be executed, he will be moved beforehand to Terre Haute, Indiana, where federal executions are carried out.26 Prior to the sentencing decision, there was considerable speculation as to whether Tsarnaev’s sentence would be life in prison or death. A majority of Americans favor capital punishment and have little or no sympathy toward terrorists since 9/11; furthermore, the case against him was strong, and he was ultimately convicted of all 30 counts in the indictment.27
In Tsarnaev’s case, a litany of factors could have militated against his execution. First, although a poll conducted in May 2013 by the Washington Post found that 70 percent of respondents favored Tsarnaev’s execution, Massachusetts jurors have long opposed the death penalty28; then there was Tsarnaev’s youthfulness—and the question of whether or not Tsarnaev’s participation may have been the result of duress or influence by his older brother, Tamerlan (who was killed during the incident by police). Finally, the federal government has an extensive appeals process and, at the time, was also coping with challenges to its lethal injection protocol.29
Despite his sentence of death, it likely will be years (if ever) before Tsarnaev is actually executed.
In the new millennium, the U.S. Supreme Court has rendered a number of significant decisions concerning the administration of the death penalty: In Roper v. Simmons (March 2005), the Court abolished the death penalty for convicted murderers who were less than 18 years of age when they committed their crimes; this decision ended a practice used in 19 states and affected about 70 death row inmates who were juveniles when they committed murder. In Atkins v. Virginia (June 2002), the Court held that the execution of mentally retarded persons—which was permissible in 20 states—constituted cruel and unusual punishment.30 And in 2015 in a 5–4 decision, the Court upheld the use of midazolam, the first drug sedative in a three-drug protocol for administering the death penalty via lethal injection.31
Achieving Racial Balance
The rapid growth of the inmate population, increased oversight by the federal courts, increased demands from the public, and a change in the demographic composition of the inmate population (more African American and Hispanic prisoners) all have presented wardens with a new set of challenges. As a result, half of all wardens in maximum-security prisons now have a policy on racially integrating male inmates within prison cells to try to achieve racial balance. Similarly, about 40 percent of these wardens do not allow their inmates to object to their cell assignments.32 In a national survey of wardens conducted by Martha Henderson and her colleagues,33 wardens reported that even in the absence of specific policies on racial integration, they attempted to work toward racial balance. This represents a major shift from arguments by wardens beginning in the 1960s that integration could lead to a loss of control. In Henderson and colleagues’ study, the majority of wardens reported that there had been no instances of inmate violence in racially balanced prison cells.34
Middle Managers and Supervisors
Chapter 5 examined in detail the roles of police supervisors and managers. It would be repetitious to dwell at length here on those roles and functions because most of them apply to corrections supervisors and managers as well.
Custodial staff at most prisons is typically divided into four ranks: captain, lieutenant, sergeant, and officer. Captains typically work closely with the prison administration in policymaking and disciplinary matters, lieutenants are even more closely involved with the security and disciplinary aspects of the institution, and sergeants oversee a specified number of rank-and-file COs who work in their assigned cellblocks or workplaces.
Middle managers, although not on the front lines, are also in challenging and important positions. They are responsible for organizing their departments, planning and developing goals and objectives, overseeing the efficient use of resources, and developing effective communication networks throughout the organization.
Clearly, supervisors have one of the most demanding positions in correctional institutions. They must direct work activities, assign tasks, provide employee feedback, and serve as technical experts for the staff reporting to them. They serve as boss, adviser, counselor, mentor, coach, trainer, and motivator.
Carl ToersBijns, who served in the corrections field for over 25 years, notes that corrections supervisors must correct potential “bad traits” in order to be successful with today’s generation of COs and inmates.35 According to ToersBijns, these bad traits include the following: (1) Arrogance, which can create an us versus them mentality between supervisors and officers; (2) Being Opaque, which does not convey a sense of transparency; (3) Being Undisciplined, which can result in over delegation, something officers tend to resent; (4) Being Detached, which conveys a disinterest in officers and the role they play in the institution; and (5) Exhibiting a Lack of Self-Awareness, which can lead to a lack of understanding of one’s own strengths and weaknesses.36
“Thy Brother’s Keeper”: Evolving Roles and Types of COs
Subordinate to the institutional administrator, middle managers, and supervisors is the correctional staff itself—those who, in the words of Gordon Hawkins, are “the other prisoners.”37 Their role is particularly important and challenging, given that they provide the front-line supervision and control of inmates and constitute the level from which correctional administrators may be chosen. Recall, for example, that in the 2013 National Survey of Prison Wardens, they worked an average of nearly 27 years in the field of corrections, many of whom likely rose through the ranks.38 Certainly one of the most challenging positions in prisons is that of the front-line correctional officer (CO), who is generally responsible for the following: the custody, safety, security, and supervision of inmates; ensuring that inmates adhere to the relevant rules, regulations, and policies; maintaining discipline, peace, and order in prison; conducting searches for contraband; transporting inmates as needed; and tactically responding to riots and other emergency situations.
According to Harriet Fox, a CO in California, successful COs exhibit eight traits that will carry COs far in their profession.39 These traits include the following: (1) excellent communication skills—both in written reports and oral communication; (2) teamwork promoter—rather than working solo; (3) practical problem-solving—evaluate, assess, and work toward problem resolution; (4) decisiveness—take action in a timely manner after processing information; (5) resilience—learning from mistakes strengthens leaders; (6) selflessness—do not lead out of ego; (7) open-mindedness—in order to adapt to changes in the environment; and (8) dedication—a must to earn the respect of coworkers.
Correctional officer duties may be categorized as follows:
Work detail supervisors: Many prisons have inmates working in various positions, such as the prison cafeteria, laundry, and other such locations; officers must supervise them during such activities.
Industrial shop and educational programs: Prison industries have inmates producing everything from license plates, state-use paint, and mattresses to computer parts; COs must ensure that inmates do not create any problems during their workday and do not misappropriate any related tools that may be fashioned into weapons.
Yard officers: While inmates are outdoors and engaged in physical exercise and socialization, there is the potential for problems, such as fights between different racial or ethnic groups; officers must be alert for breaches of security and order.
Tower guards: Officers observe inmates who are in the prison yard while encased in an isolated, silent post high above the prison property and being vigilant for any outbreaks of violence or attempts to escape while inmates are outdoors.
Administrative building assignments: Officers are responsible for providing security at all prison gates, places where inmates’ families come to visit, clerical work that involves inmate transfer, and so on.40
Mary Ann Farkas41 also categorized COs into five types based on their approach to, and philosophy regarding, their role, as follows:
Rule enforcers (about 43% of COs) are the most common type in Farkas’ sample. They are characterized as rule bound and inflexible in discipline. They are likely to be less than 25 years old and to have a baccalaureate degree; they tend to have less work experience and to work the evening or night shift. They are more likely to have entered corrections for extrinsic reasons, including job security, benefits, and job availability, and to have a militaristic approach to inmates, expecting deference to their authority and obedience to their orders. Generally, they are not willing to negotiate or use exchange as a strategy to gain inmate compliance.42
The hard-liners (14%) are actually an extreme version of the rule enforcers, being hard, aggressive, power hungry, and inflexible in applying rules. These officers are also more likely to be men, with a high school education or GED, and between the ages of 26 and 36 years. They also tend to work in maximum-security or segregation units, and to endorse militaristic values and distinction and deference to rank and the chain of command. At times, they may become abusive and aggressive toward inmates and perceive acting tough as the way a CO is supposed to act to maintain control and order.43
People workers (22% of COs) have a more comfortable style with inmates, are more flexible in rule enforcement and disciplinary measures, use their own informal reward and punishment system, and believe that the way to gain inmate compliance is through interpersonal communication and personalized relations. They regard overreliance on conduct reports as an indication of one’s inability to resolve difficult situations. They often discuss issues privately with inmates instead of embarrassing them in front of peers. They often rely on verbal skills in defusing situations, enjoy the challenge of working with inmates, and prefer the posts with more inmate contact.44
The synthetic officers (14% of COs), according to Farkas, are essentially a synthesis of the rule enforcer and the people worker types. They are typically older (37 years of age or older), more experienced officers who work in regular inmate housing units on the day shift. These officers follow rules and regulations closely, yet they try to consider the circumstances. They are careful not to deviate too far from procedure, however, which might cause sanctions for themselves. Strict enforcement of rules and flexibility in enforcement are juggled in their interactions with inmates.45
Loners (about 8% of COs) are also similar to rule enforcers but differ in the motivation behind their policy of strict enforcement. Loners closely follow rules and regulations because they fear criticism of their performance. Farkas believes that female and black officers are more likely to be of this type. Loners are likely to be between the ages of 26 and 36 years, to be less experienced COs, and to work on solitary posts. They feel a need to constantly prove themselves, and neither feel accepted by other officers nor identify with them. They are wary of inmates. There is a basic mistrust, even fear, of working with inmates.46
To summarize, age and seniority are associated with officer types. Rule enforcers and hard-liners tend to be younger, less experienced COs, whereas older, more experienced officers belong to the people worker or synthetic officer categories. Generally, as officers mature, they become more interested in service delivery. Educational attainment is also a factor as Farkas found that rule enforcers were more likely to hold baccalaureate or master’s degrees.47 Considerable evidence also suggests that higher education may lead to lower job satisfaction.48 Other studies have determined that as officers’ educational level increases, the less likely they are to feel a sense of accomplishment working as COs, or to want to make a career of corrections, and the less willing they are to engage in rehabilitation activities.49
Managing Staff Deviance
In Chapter 14, we will discuss examples of deviant behavior and ethical misconduct in corrections. Here we focus more on what to do to manage it.
Certainly most COs are honest, hard-working people; however, as with any occupation, there will be a few individuals who come into this work and engage in deviant behavior. Such behavior may simply be defined as that CO conduct performed while on duty that violates either statutory law or agency policies and procedures.
Prison and jail corruption differs from other forms of public corruption because of the uniqueness of the environment, function, opportunities, and patterns of relationships of correctional institutions. Prison and jail personnel must control a reluctant, resistant, and sometimes hostile inmate population whose welfare—and comfortable lifestyle, by their standards—may seem better served by corruption than by honest compliance with prison rules; a culture of manipulation and violence may ensue.
To counter the existence of such acts, there are three types of approaches that administrators can take in terms of one’s career phase: preservice, in-service, and continuous. Following are activities relating to all three phases that, per criminal justice ethicist Sam Souryal, correctional administrators can implement:
Upgrade the quality of correctional personnel. The entry-level pay for COs must be competitive. Correctional administrators should ensure that their hiring standards are competitive enough to attract qualified applicants yet high enough to keep high-risk applicants away from employment. Certainly included are thorough background investigations and certification. Psychological testing should also be used to check the character of those who are selected, and interviews should be conducted by a hiring board prior to appointment.
Establish quality-based supervisory techniques. Supervisors should realize that loyalty to moral principles is more durable than loyalty to individuals, and understand that although trivial and insignificant policy violations can be justified, serious transgressions must be earnestly reported. Quality-based supervisors are expected to possess the professional wisdom to be able to know which matter is trivial and which is serious, without being told. They should also see that employees are properly evaluated, subjected to random drug tests, and credit checks.
Strengthen fiscal controls. Most acts of prison corruption involve the illegal acquisition of money; therefore, establishing financial controls is an effective tool for checking corruption in correctional institutions and involves the proper conduct of preaudit and postaudit controls. Experienced internal auditors can determine whether bidding procedures are followed, expenditure ceilings are observed, and purchase vouchers are issued for the exact objects.
Emphasize true ethical training. If correctional leaders truly want their subordinates to act professionally, to pursue integrity, fidelity, and obligation and to shun corruption, they should support and increase such training—to include cultural awareness, diversity, and gender sensitivity training. Doing otherwise would signal that the subject is unimportant.50
Staff–Inmate Relationships
Despite formal policies prohibiting familiarity between inmates and prison staff employees, infractions occur that range from serious (e.g., romantic affairs—sometimes leading to childbearing) to minor (e.g., giving or receiving candy or soft drinks to/from an inmate). Many contemporary prisons are no longer sexually segregated, with female security officers working in male institutions. Such situations—and adding as well the fact that many inmates are quite manipulative—can foment different types of inappropriate staff–inmate relationships to develop. These relationships can involve behavior that is not only sexual in nature but also other transgressions, such as staff performing special favors for inmates or smuggling in contraband. Such wrongdoing by staff typically results in both staff and inmates being placed at risk and undermining the overall safety of the prison.
Worley et al.51 found three types of “turners”—offenders identified as developing inappropriate relationships with staff members:
Heartbreakers. They seek to form an emotional bond with a staff member, which can even lead to marriage; they generally act alone and may spend several months courting a staff member.
Exploiters. They use an employee as a means of obtaining contraband or fun and excitement; they usually act with the help of other inmates, are very manipulative, and are likely to use a “lever” (intimidation) on prison employees.
Hell raisers. These inmates engage in a unique kind of psychological warfare, and simply want to cause trouble and create hell for the prison system. They often have a long history of personal involvement and form relationships as a way to create problems or disruptions. They thrive on putting staff members in situations wherein their jobs are compromised and enjoy the notoriety that follows the exposure of their relationship. They focus on staff members (e.g., secretaries; trustees have even become involved with staff members’ spouses) rather than security officers.
Worley et al. point out that such behaviors are not the norm in penal environments; nevertheless, prison administrators must understand that offenders are very persistent in initiating interactions with employees for a variety of reasons.52
Jail Personnel
About 721,000 individuals are incarcerated in local jails on an average day in the United States, either awaiting trial or serving a sentence.53 The jail incarceration rate of 230 inmates per 100,000 is the lowest since mid-year 2000 when the rate was 220 per 100,000.54 Furthermore, about 161,000 people are employed in local jails.55 Jails represent the point of entry into the criminal justice system. Although prisons hold persons who have committed felonies and have been sentenced to at least 1 year in prison, jails hold persons who are arrested and booked for criminal activity or are waiting for a court appearance if they cannot arrange bail, as well as those who are serving sentences of up to 1 year for misdemeanors. Jails also temporarily hold felons whose convictions are on appeal or are awaiting transfer to a state prison.
Perhaps one of the most neglected areas in criminal justice research concerns individuals who are employed in local jails; what limited studies have been performed generally focus on the conditions of confinement. Jail personnel—such as police and prison employees—must often work in an environment that is potentially unstable, uncertain, and unsafe. Therefore, it would be beneficial for jail administrators to become knowledgeable about why people choose to work in local jails, as well as jail employee job satisfaction and turnover, discussed later.
Jail Administrators’ Functions
Because of their responsibilities, changes in structure and function, and shifts in inmate populations (as discussed in Chapter 10), today’s jails warrant being recognized and operated as professional institutions—rather than an adjunct to, or an ad hoc appendage (most of them being administered by a county sheriff, in the sheriff’s department). The jail administrator should be a full-time professional, capable of handling multiple roles internal and external to the jail; therefore, according to a federal report, jail administrators must function as the jail’s leader, as the manager of its operations and resources, and as its supervisor.56 Exhibit 11.2 discusses these three roles in more depth, and “In Their Own Words” (next page) lets you hear from a former jail administrator.
Exhibit 11.2 The Sheriff’s Roles in Effective Jail Operations
As a leader, the sheriff:
helps define the jail’s mission and the goals that must be met to achieve that mission.
creates a sheriff’s office executive management team that includes the jail administrator as an equal member.
builds a culture within the jail division that supports the attainment of desired outcomes.
serves as liaison to the external environment (i.e., the local criminal justice system, special interest groups, stakeholders, the community, and the media).
influences and develops public policy supporting the agency mission.
creates and maintains a competent and diverse workforce.
As a manager, the sheriff:
mentors and coaches the jail administrator and other staff to elicit desired behaviors and develop talent.
ensures that policies and procedures that meet professional standards are established to guide the staff and the organization in day-to-day operations.
motivates the jail administrator and other staff to align their personal goals with those of the jail.
provides thorough written directives and training on those directives.
monitors activities and assesses results by collecting and analyzing performance data on a regular basis.
manages and allocates budgets, staff, and other resources.
manages the organization’s preparation for and response to crisis situations and emergencies.
As a supervisor, the sheriff:
stays informed about day-to-day operations in the jail and is visible and available to assist when necessary.
monitors compliance with policies, standards, and legal requirements through the establishment of a systematic internal inspection and review process.
supports and facilitates the jail administrator’s efforts to redirect underperformers and address misconduct of jail staff.
monitors the jail administrator’s performance through regular reviews and quality assessment.
Source: Based on Mark D. Martin and Paul Katsampes, Sheriff’s Guide to Effective Jail Operations (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections, 2006), pp. 5–6.
A Few Comments on “Jail First” Policies and Detention as a Career Path
A “jail first” policy is where sheriffs’ offices require that recruits first work in the jail—often for several years—before they can become eligible for patrol duties. Such policies can result in jail administrators having considerable difficulty in recruiting and keeping people for jail duties, and can also result in high employee attrition due to low job satisfaction (deputies going elsewhere to do “real” police work out on patrol). Jail administrators may wish to reexamine this policy and try to create a culture that values detention work. In addition to thus establishing detention as a career path—where one can choose to remain in detention, be promoted within it, and, it is hoped, eventually retire from it—jail administrators can encourage their recruiters to emphasize the “big picture,” for example, that only about 20 percent of a deputy’s 20-year career would be spent working in detention, with the remaining 80 percent being spent as a road deputy.
Employee Training
Jail administrators and employees need to be thoroughly trained in all aspects of their job. Jail workers have been criticized for being untrained and apathetic, although most are highly effective and dedicated. One observer wrote that:
[p]ersonnel is still the number one problem of jails. Start paying decent salaries and developing decent training and you can start to attract bright young people to jobs in jails. If you don’t do this, you’ll continue to see the issue of personnel as the number one problem for the next 100 years.57
Training should be provided on the booking process; inmate management and security; general liability issues; policies related to AIDS; problems of inmates addicted to alcohol and other drugs; communication and security technology; and issues concerning suicide, mental health problems, and medication. In-house training can be supplemented by trainings offered through the NIC. A brief review of NIC’s training catalog for 2017 revealed a number of topical sessions, including direct supervision training, planning and implementing effective mental health services in jails, managing restrictive housing, and inmate behavior management.58
In Their Own Words Administrative Advice from the Field
Name: Gary Raney
Current and former positions/City/State: I started with the Ada County, Idaho, Sheriff’s Office in 1983 as a jail deputy and rose through the ranks and was elected sheriff in 2004. The Sheriff’s Office is a full-service agency with a large jail, a consolidated emergency communications center, and policing duties that include three contract city police departments. I have also held the positions of vice-chair of the Idaho Criminal Justice Commission, the chair of the Peace Officers Standards and Training Council, the chair of the Idaho Criminal Justice Grants Council, the president of the Idaho Sheriffs’ Association, and a US attorney general appointment to the board of the NIC.
Primary duties and responsibilities in your position as sheriff: While the county commissioners are statutorily bound to provide funding for the jail, as sheriff I am solely responsible for the operation of it. As we all know, there are many different philosophies about what that should look like, but mine is that it should be a positive and safe place for staff and inmates and that we have an obligation to help inmates improve their lives and reduce the likelihood they will reoffend. The Ada County Jail has been recognized as a model jail by the U.S. Department of Justice, jail experts, and others since about 2008. Our jail and its related services include:
A 1,300-bed facility that has housing areas that range from maximum-security single cells to large dormitory settings. Every housing unit built since 2004 has been built for direct supervision, where the staff is directly interacting with the inmates 24/7/365.
An 80-bed specialized area for medical and mental health treatment for inmates.
Evidence-based recidivism reduction programs and a comprehensive inmate behavior management system that incentivizes inmates to be active in their success and learn good decision-making skills that translate to better decisions after they reenter the community.
Pretrial release services that rely upon research and science to guide the judiciary in their release decisions. The research is clear that low risk offenders are harmed by being held in jail and high risk offenders are too often released simply because they have access to bail money.
Alternative sentencing programs that allow offenders to serve their sentence through community contribution and reinvestment rather than sitting in jail.
Personal attributes/characteristics that have proven to be most helpful in my position as sheriff: While my experience has been invaluable, it is my education and personal reliance upon research and data that has helped me make the best decisions. I returned to college and earned my master’s degree near the time I became sheriff and it was during that coursework that I came to appreciate the vast amount of research that is available to help us make better criminal justice decisions. There are many myths around jails like, “Let them sit there a couple days and that’ll teach them a lesson.” We made smarter decisions based on reliable research and that has lowered the incarceration rate, lowered the recidivism rate, and made the community better.
Along with my education, my curiosity has been a great asset. I try to be a life-long learner and I love discussions that bring forth new ideas and new ways of doing things. I have always had an open mind and I listen to people even though I may disagree with them. When you model that as a leader, others follow and I have always tried to create a collaborative learning organization.
My three greatest challenges in the role of sheriff:
Hiring and retaining the absolute best people. Even if you’re the greatest organization in the world, you should always try to be better. All law enforcement and corrections agencies are service organizations because our success depends upon the quality of people we hire and the way they interact with others, including inmates. The difference between a deputy who takes the opportunity to talk to an inmate and the one who avoids talking to an inmate is all the difference in the world. Agencies that don’t develop hiring and promotional processes to put the best people in the right position are destined to be average at best.
Leadership requires constant and iterative communication and it’s easy to forget that when you’re the one who is responsible to do it. Whether changing public attitudes about jails or helping employees understand the direction of the agency, success comes by not only having a vision but by being able to explain it in a way that people buy into. Then, you have to repeat those messages over and over and over. Sometimes it seems like you’ve beaten a subject to death, just to then see someone new “get it.”
Changing attitudes and perceptions about jails. Even today some people think the right way to deal with crime is to make more arrests. We know crime and criminal behavior are complex problems that require complex solutions. Forward thinking people now recognize the critical role jails play in criminal justice and that they are the pivot point where we can intercept offenders early in their lifestyles and redirect them to be healthy, positive members of our community. We need to be prescriptive about the way we deal with offenders. Some need locked up. Others need enough education to get a job that pays enough to live on. Still others need help dealing with the physical and sexual abuse they experienced as a child. Many need to overcome substance abuse and mental health issues. We are learning more all the time, but right now we are at an exciting time when we are seeing change come at an exponential pace.
Personal accomplishments during my administrative career about which I am most proud:
Having a consistently high rate of employee satisfaction. Happy people are productive people. Just before I became sheriff, I initiated an annual employee satisfaction survey as a report card on our leadership. We consistently had about a 94 percent satisfaction rating across all employees that work in the jail. There are few organizations that could exceed that, regardless of who they are.
Changing the jail from one that was probably better than average to one that was nationally recognized as a model. We have had people come from all over the nation to watch and learn how we run our jail. That makes the jail staff and me proud and reminds us of the importance of what we do.
I have been fortunate to meet and learn from many criminal justice leaders from across the country who are changing the nation, if not the world. Those opportunities came because I was involved. I count that as an accomplishment because I controlled my destiny. Over time, I moved from being more of a listener to being someone people wanted to listen to. It’s a good feeling to contribute.
Advice for someone who is interested in occupying an administrative position such as sheriff:
You must be educated. This is the information age and just like the CEO of a business, the modern criminal justice leader has to be knowledgeable in many areas. You must not only know how to do the job but how to do it differently, in a better way and in the right way. We have moved from corrections being a high-school educated blue-collar job to one where advanced degrees are common and the modern CO is an educated professional. The future will only further that trend and leaders must be the example of the educated professional.
Good leaders are passionate. Leadership is hard because it takes a lot of time and effort. It’s not for those people who want to send e-mails and then go home at 5:00 (or the end of shift). Leaders need knowledge, but they also need to be committed to the success of the organization and willing to put in the time and effort to make it better. One of the most common failures of leadership is not having the courage to do the right thing rather than the easy thing.
Source: Used with permission from Gary Raney.
You need to be a communicator and that also means being a listener. First, you need to be open-minded. It’s the only way you can hear all the potential answers to a problem. It also creates buy-in from those involved in creating the solution. People who think they know all the answers lead by ego, and they eventually fail. Listeners succeed. But also, once you know the right answer, the real job becomes communicating it. You must know your people and you must know their concerns and perceptions. Change will be hard for some of them but effective leaders are effective communicators and they help everyone understand their role in the future of the organization.
Probation and Parole Officers
How many probation and parole officers are employed in the United States today? Unfortunately, that question is impossible to answer, due to the diverse nature of organization and functions of the community corrections field. For example, does one count only those officers who supervise a caseload? What about supervisory staff, with no direct supervisory duties? Furthermore, some staff members only write presentencing reports or work in an agency’s pretrial division, and larger agencies may also have treatment staff. The problem of “headcounts” thus becomes obvious, so even the national American Probation and Parole Association does not venture to estimate the numbers of officers.59 What is known, however, is that these persons directly or indirectly supervise 4.7 million adults who are either on parole or probationary status.60 This section discusses their primary duties, supervisory styles (over their probationers and parolees), and sources of stress.
In Their Own Words Administrative Advice from the Field
Name: Jolene R. Whitten
Current position/City/State: Chief United States Probation and Pretrial Services Officer, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, Texas
College attended/academic major/degree(s): Bachelor of Science in Education (major in Political Science, minor in English), Midwestern State University, Wichita Falls, Texas; Master of Arts, Humanities (coursework in history, literature, art, music, and philosophy), California State University at Dominguez Hills.
My primary duties and responsibilities in this position include: serving as the court unit executive for the United States Probation and Pretrial Services Office in the Northern District of Texas, which covers a geographical area that includes 100 counties. I am responsible for the oversight of our mission and staff, as well as for the budgetary and personnel decisions, implementation of policy, and communicating with our judges, including the Chief U.S. District Judge. I also represent our office when meeting with leaders of other agencies and community organizations. As the chief probation and pretrial services officer, I am also a law enforcement officer.
Personal attributes/characteristics that have proven to be most helpful to me in this position are: optimism, resilience, innovation, integrity, the ability and desire to interact with people from diverse backgrounds, written and verbal communications skills, organizational skills, confidence, compassion, a high energy level, and knowledge about and a strong belief in our mission. A sense of humor also helps!
My three greatest challenges in this administrative role include:
Budgeting: Over the past 2 years, the federal courts have not been funded adequately to achieve our mission. Sequestration has hit us hard. Our work does not decrease when we have limited resources, so we’ve had to be very innovative in order to be effective and also protect our employees’ jobs.
Communication: Because our district is so large, it’s not possible to communicate face-to-face with all employees. Learning how and when to communicate information has been challenging but is critical. Effective communication can prevent problems and ensure success.
Personnel issues: Even in the best of organizations, personnel issues will arise. Learning how to respond appropriately for all concerned can be challenging.
Personal accomplishments during my administrative career about which I am most proud are: managing our limited resources innovatively so our agency did not have to furlough staff during sequestration while maintaining our ability to meet our mission. Working with others to implement strengths-based leadership and evidence-based practices in our district. Having the first mobile officer team in the system and expanding the mobile concept in order to greatly reduce rental costs for the judiciary by closing three field offices. Ensuring quality to serve our courts, protect our communities, and assist clients in making positive changes in their lives.
Advice for someone who is interested in occupying an administrative position such as mine would be: first—work hard! If you are successful in your current position, others will recognize your efforts. Furthermore, developing a strong work ethic will serve you well, regardless of your position. Be willing to take on additional responsibilities and volunteer for projects and initiatives that will benefit your organization. Be a “servant leader,” in whatever position you occupy. You don’t have to have a title to be a leader. Be innovative and always continue learning. Learn to work with others, rather than trying to do it all yourself. Find good mentors, and be a mentor to others. Take care of your health and don’t forget your personal priorities, such as family. In this type of position, one never really escapes the responsibilities of the job. During vacations, I’ve responded to e-mails, taken calls, and made some difficult work-related decisions. Over time, it can be draining. So, it’s important to find ways to make time for yourself and to live a healthy, balanced lifestyle. Have a few people you can trust and call for advice or just to listen. Always remember the “why” of what you do—I can’t imagine doing this job if I didn’t believe in the purpose of the organization.
Source: Used with permission from Jolene R. Whitten.
Duties and Orientation
Probation officers supervise convicted offenders whom the courts have allowed to remain at liberty in the community, while being subject to certain conditions and restrictions on their activities. Parole officers, conversely, supervise inmates who have been conditionally released from prison and returned to their community. These officers report violations of the conditions of offenders’ release to the body that authorized their community placement and placed conditions on their behavior (the court for probation and the parole board for parole).61
Because a number of agencies are often organized under a state’s department of public safety umbrella—probation and parole, state police/highway patrol, capitol police, state bureau of investigations, and even fire marshals—probation and parole officer recruits often go through the same background, physical, polygraph, drug testing, and psychiatric exam regardless of which division they wish to work in.
Probation and parole officers must possess important skills similar to those of a prison caseworker, such as good interpersonal communication, decision making, and writing skills. They operate independently, with less supervision than most prison staff. These officers are trained in the techniques for supervising offenders and then assigned a caseload. Probation and parole officers supervise inmates at the two ends of the sentencing continuum (incarceration being in the middle).
Whom do we want to be supervising probationers and parolees—officers who are more grounded in enforcement or treatment in their orientation? In some jurisdictions, probation and parole officers are given, to the extent possible, a far different role or job description from those agencies having much more of an enforcement-oriented mission. As one Western probation and parole administrator put it:
Although we arrest people, conduct investigations, conduct surveillance, and so on, a huge part of our job is trying to help people. The biggest hat we wear here is social worker. The law enforcement officer hat is much smaller for the most part. I think that is the most unique situation P&P has to offer. Our officers find themselves being social workers, disciplinarians, officers, mentors, coaches, etc. given the offender and his/her specific set of needs.62
In fact, official job duties of and postings for probation and parole officers tend to articulate both the enforcement-oriented approach and the treatment approach. For example, the Florida Department of Corrections posts the following about the duties and responsibilities of its correctional probation officers:
Maintains an awareness of offenders’ daily activities and evaluates desirability to remain at liberty;
Counsels and refers offenders to specialized treatment services at guidance clinics, mental health clinics, and related organizations;
Assists offenders in securing jobs;
Evaluates offender progress and recommends intensity of supervision.63
The relative influence of one approach over the other is likely dependent on a variety of factors, including offender caseload type, supervisory orientation, and agency culture. For agencies wishing to screen for applicants’ orientation, there are means for determining this.64 One approach to determining such orientation—although no doubt considerably more costly, time-intensive, and laborious—is for the agency to hire a for-profit human resources firm that has developed a reliable and valid survey instrument for this purpose. Such questions as the following might be included in such a survey: “Most offenders should receive strict and harsh discipline,” “Most offenders are lazy and do not wish to work,” “Most offenders cannot be trusted,” “Most offenders want to better themselves,” “Most offenders are not better or worse than other people,” “Most offenders are victims of unfortunate circumstances,” and “In general, rehabilitation of criminal offenders is not possible.”
In reality, most probation and parole agencies probably cannot afford to employ an outside entity to test prospective officers in terms of their attitudes; however, once an extensive background investigation has been completed, applicants can then be sent to a contracted psychiatrist for an evaluation. In addition, as indicated above, because some parole and probation agencies are part of their state’s larger department of public safety or corrections, all prospective officers can be subjected to the same hiring process as other state employees.
Research has shown, not surprisingly, that probation and parole officers’ attitudes will largely influence and can even predict their supervisory practices toward their offender clients. The message for parole and probation administrators is that they may wish to consider applicants’ attitudes when making hiring decisions. See Exhibit 11.3 for a parole decision-making exercise.
Exhibit 11.3 Parole Decision Making for a Notorious Killer65
Assume that you are a parole officer who is to make a recommendation to your state’s parole board in the following matter: Charles Manson, age 83, is serving a life sentence for a 1969 killing spree in Los Angeles (his “family” brutally murdered seven people). Manson has not been a model inmate, recently caught possessing a weapon, threatening a peace officer, and being caught twice with contraband cell phones. Given his age, this could be Manson’s final appearance before the state parole board. Debra Tate, a victim’s sister (murdered actress Sharon Tate), is attending the hearing, and attorneys from both sides are prepared to give presentations, read documents by victims’ relatives or other interested parties, and examine Manson’s prison records. Manson, as is his custom, is not attending the parole hearing.
Will you recommend that the board grant or deny Manson’s parole at this time?
If not, do you believe there are programs or redeeming actions or qualities Manson might undertake or possess to secure his freedom in the future?
(The outcome of Manson’s 2012 parole hearing is provided in the Notes section.)
Probation Management Styles
Patricia Hardyman’s study of probation administrators focused on their probation management style—this style being the fundamental determinant of the nature of the probation organization—and was instructive in describing the impact of this style on the department’s operation. Few departments, even those with a hierarchical organizational structure, had a pure management style; administrators vacillated among a variety of styles, including laissez faire, democratic, and authoritarian. The degree to which administrators included the probation officers in the decision-making process and communicated with officers varied. Authoritarian administrators created emotional and physical distance between the officers and themselves. Surprisingly, the most common management style used by probation administrators was laissez faire.66
Hardyman found that many probation administrators simply did not participate in the day-to-day activities and supervision strategies of the staff. They remained remote but made final decisions on critical policies and procedures.67 Hardyman also found that few probation administrators across the country operated with the democratic style. Those who did, of course, listened more to the concerns and suggestions of the line supervisors and officers, which, as you might recall from Chapter 2, can be likened to operating in an open system where employee contributions are valued. The administrator still made the final decisions, but information was generally sought from the line staff and their opinions were considered. Officers working under administrators with this style had a greater sense that their opinions mattered and that the administrator valued their input. An additional benefit of the democratic style was that the administrators had power by virtue of both their position and their charisma, which inspired teamwork and task accomplishment.68
Addressing Stress, Burnout, and Attrition
As with the other components of the criminal justice system, anyone working in corrections—either with clients behind bars or in an office, often in antiquated facilities, and surrounded by clients who possess all forms of social and behavioral problems—can find themselves to be severely stressed. Certainly, administrators must realize that such stress can have a direct bearing on the quality of one’s work productivity, job satisfaction, and even retention on the job; therefore, this is a topic that merits closer examination.
Stressful Prisons
Concerning COs in prisons, one recent study of 500 officers in a Southern prison system found that while race, marital status, and education did not appear to significantly affect CO’s job stress or satisfaction, their gender and generation did. Specifically, female COs often feel that some characteristics they can bring to the job—compassion and a family orientation, for example—might be undervalued in a correctional environment that emphasizes toughness and physical strength. Furthermore, individuals who are part of the younger X and Y generations were found to be far more likely to be dissatisfied with their job as COs than older generations. As indicated in Chapter 2, as younger people enter the correctional workforce, it is important to understand what motivates them, and for correctional administrators to consider the needs of workers of every generation, for developing retention strategies and increasing job satisfaction. Allowing for individual preferences in such areas as compressed work schedules and a more participatory style of leadership and management, to the extent that doing so is viable, may help to improve generation X and Y workers’ needs and job satisfaction.69
Prison crowding has also been correlated with stress, fear of inmates, and health issues. Although, as was shown in Chapter 10, U.S. prison populations have declined a bit in the past few years, many if not most remain crowded due to the tough sentencing policies and War on Drugs of past decades. A study of three Alabama prisons for men found that all responding officers identified crowding as negatively affecting officer safety, job performance, and health while leading to violence at their facility. Specifically, crowding foments mental and physical health problems among officers, causing chronic health problems involving headaches, alcoholism, hypertension, obesity, heart attacks, diabetes, and weak immune systems. The study concluded that such issues will likely persist unless state and federal policymakers begin to address prison crowding, especially with regard to greater use of diversion programs (e.g., drug courts) and alternative sentencing (discussed in Chapter 12), as well as U.S. crime and sentencing laws.70
The effects of job stress can permeate throughout the institution. For example, in a study conducted at a Midwestern correctional facility, job stress was related to lower levels of organizational commitment and job satisfaction among correctional staff.71 While little research has been conducted on organizational commitment in correctional institutions, low levels of commitment likely result in low levels of organizational pride and a decreased willingness to go the extra mile for the sake of organizational goals. What’s more, job satisfaction and organizational commitment have a positive relationship to one another, underscoring the importance for correctional administrators to work toward creating a favorable work environment, including low levels of job stress.72
Stressors in Jails
Stress among COs in jails is an understudied area in the field of corrections. In one of the few studies on this topic in the twenty-first century in a Northeastern jail, Tammy Castle and Jamie Martin found that a number of factors predicted occupational and general stress.73 Occupational stress was operationalized as job-related stress, and general stress was defined as stress from the workplace that affected officers outside of work. In this study of 373 COs, individual factors such as perceptions of danger and ambiguous expectations resulted in both occupational and general stress, while correctional experience affected general stress. Organizational factors also affected levels of stress. Here, if an officer believed that the organization was running well, he or she was more likely to have less occupational and general stress. Those more satisfied with their salary (likely because of higher positions with more responsibilities) were more likely to have higher levels of occupational stress. And lower job satisfaction resulted in an increase in both occupational and general stress. Finally, jail factors such as the number of training hours pre-employment affected general stress and the daily population of the jail affected occupational stress (lower population, higher stress).74
More recent studies have also examined generational differences in jails in order to assess job satisfaction and hopefully stem turnover rates. Jail administrators also need to realize that, like in prison, when employees from different generations come together in the same workplace, they are not likely to be motivated or rewarded in the same manner, or responsive to the same supervisory techniques. And, as Abraham Maslow taught us in the 1950s in his hierarchy of needs (see Chapter 2), what satisfies employees’ needs can also vary depending on one’s priorities and even location in the organizational hierarchy: Extrinsic motivators as paychecks, fringe benefits, and other economic incentives are generally sufficient only at the lowest levels, where salaries are lower and working conditions possibly more demanding; conversely, individuals functioning at higher levels are more likely to be motivated intrinsically, deriving satisfaction from receiving respect and appreciation from subordinates, and given more and more responsibility. As was also indicated in Chapter 2, the younger generations are more positively influenced by having input into decisions that affect them, control over how they complete their assignments, engaging in leadership mentoring programs, and a say in how things are done. They are more motivated by being recognized for good work and feeling appreciated by the community for the work they do, and seek opportunities for personal development and upward advancement. They also value such extrinsic benefits as college tuition, child care, and a fitness center. Although there will always be some aspects of the workplace that agency officials can do nothing about—for example, civil service rules and bargaining contracts regarding tenure and seniority, legislative control over compensation and retirement plans—there are a number of intrinsic types of rewards that administrators can attempt to use to positively influence job satisfaction and reduce turnover—for example, reducing paperwork, treating people fairly, maintaining a positive work climate, and allowing employees to have input and to be recognized and appreciated.75
But keeping people happily working in the nation’s jails may not be as daunting as it might appear: A national survey by Jeanne Stinchcomb of more than 2,000 line staff and nearly 600 administrators76 found, for example, that:
Jail employment was not the job of “last resort”—only 13 percent of staff said they had no other employment options when they accepted the jail’s offer.
Most staff rated their jail as a good (45%) or an excellent (20%) place to work.
Fifty-nine percent of jail staff described themselves as “very committed” to the agency where they work, and this finding held among various generations of employees.
Nearly 7 in 10 (69%) staff members felt appreciated by their supervisor, and believed that they are recognized when they do good work (64%).77
Still, Stinchcomb’s survey underscored the need for jail administrators to strengthen the jail as a workplace by providing some of the intrinsic and extrinsic rewards that are discussed above.
Stress in Probation and Parole
Finally, with regard to probation and parole officers, studies indicate that their job stress and clinical depression are closely related to organizational climate. In specific, a study of nearly 900 probation and parole officers found that they tend to characterize their work environments as having high levels of role ambiguity (i.e., they are unclear about the objectives and goals of their position—see the discussion of enforcement versus assistance orientations, above), role conflict (i.e., having a general feeling that one cannot satisfy the conflicting demands of their administrators, managers, and supervisors), role overload (e.g., feeling under heavy job pressure at all times), and emotional exhaustion/burnout. Of particular note, researchers found that emotional exhaustion/burnout and role conflict contribute to, and can even predict, depression. And in another study of 300 probation officers in three states, researchers found that challenging elements of some caseloads resulted in higher levels of traumatic stress and burnout.78 Many challenging caseload events also resulted in mistrust, family issues, anger, and social/emotional isolation.79 Challenging caseload events included such things as a personal or family threat made by the offender; offender suicide while on the officer’s caseload; a violent offense involving a child; and sex offense recidivism.
This is obviously a complex undertaking for probation and parole administrators—that is, untangling the web of complex work roles and organizational environment in order to identify those aspects of work that contribute to stress, burnout, and depression. Clearly, administrators must do what they can to investigate and identify such stressors (perhaps being manifested by employees’ resignations, interpersonal problems, poor work productivity, etc.), and then develop strategies for ameliorating their negative effects. Such strategies may include knowing how and when to refer such officers to professional counseling, given that many officers may well lack adequate coping skills with high levels of stress, role conflict, and burnout associated with their jobs.80
12)
Issues Concerning Inmate Populations
Correctional administrators must not only deal with issues such as institutional population and design, budgets, politics, and the Eighth Amendment’s proscription against cruel and unusual punishment, but also cope with problems relating to the types of inmates who are under their supervision. Here, we consider several selected administrative issues and problems.
Juvenile Justice: An End to Death and Life without Parole Sentences
Over the past 10–15 years, juvenile offenders have received considerable attention from the U.S. Supreme Court, and have seen a more benevolent justice system as a result. First, having ruled in 2005 that it is unconstitutional to execute a person who committed a capital crime while younger than 18 years (see Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551), in May 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Graham v. Florida,1 which held that the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment prohibits juveniles who commit nonhomicide crimes from being sentenced to life without parole (LWOP) (however, this type of sentence can still be applied to convicted adult offenders, who must spend the remainder of their natural life in prison). Although 37 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal government had laws allowing LWOP sentences for youthful offenders, the justices stated that such sentences had been “rejected the world over,” and that only the United States and perhaps Israel had imposed such punishment even for homicides committed by juveniles.
Then, in 2012 the Court, combining two cases, ruled that the Eighth Amendment also prohibits sentencing any juvenile offender who commits a murder to serve a term of LWOP sentence (see Miller v. Alabama and Jackson v. Hobbs).2 The Court noted that such sentences do not take into account the possibility that an adolescent’s personality and judgment are still developing, and that criminal tendencies can be outgrown. And in a Supreme Court ruling in 2016, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority decision, expanded the 2012 decision of the Court by applying the ruling retroactively to those serving the LWOP sentence when they were convicted as a juvenile.3 Essentially, the 2016 decision allows the 1,200 to 1,500 inmates who were previously sentenced to LWOP to argue for a favorable parole decision, despite their life sentence.4 Justice Kennedy noted in the majority option that the 2012 decision was a “substantive change in the law,” and therefore should be applied to LWOP cases retrospectively.5
Sexual and Physical Violence: Facts of Institutional Life
Physical violence is a constant possibility in correctional institutions, and sexual violence—termed the plague that persists6—must also be addressed. Sexual violence is defined by the World Health Organization as
any sexual act, attempt to obtain a sexual act, unwanted sexual comments or advances, or acts to traffic, or otherwise directed, against a person’s sexuality using coercion, by any person regardless of their relationship to the victim, in any setting, including but not limited to home and work.7
Persons entering prisons and jails express their sexuality in many forms: solitary or mutual masturbation, consensual homosexual behavior, and gang rapes. Factors that appear to increase sexual coercion rates include large population size (more than 1,000 inmates), understaffed workforces, racial conflict, barracks-type housing, inadequate security, and a high percentage of inmates incarcerated for crimes against persons.8 Furthermore, inmates who are young, physically small or weak, suffering from mental illness, known to be “snitches,” not gang affiliated, or convicted of sexual crimes are at increased risk of sexual victimization.9
Wolff and Shi10 examined physical and sexual victimizations that were reported by nearly 7,000 male inmates. They found that during the study period, nearly one-third (32%) of inmates had been physically assaulted at least once, and approximately 3 percent reported at least one sexual assault. On average, regardless of the type of assault, victims were typically in their early 30s, African American, had spent 2 years at their prison, had 4 to 5 years left on their current sentences, and had spent roughly 8 years in prison since turning 18. Mental health problems were more frequently reported by victims of sexual assault. The most common forms of physical assault reported were being threatened with a weapon and being hit. Inmate-on-inmate sexual assault most often involved forced, attempted, or coerced anal or oral sex. Physical assaults were most likely to occur between noon and midnight (primarily between noon and 6 P.M.) and in an inmate’s cell or yard. For sexual assaults, the inmate’s cell was also the most likely place of occurrence, and inmates were at greatest risk of sexual assault by other inmates between 6 P.M. and midnight.11
Wolff and Shi also found that inmate-on-inmate physical and sexual assault incidents most often involved attackers with a gang affiliation and with whom the victim was acquainted, and roughly half of the incidents involved the use of a weapon, typically a knife or shank. Victims typically did not know why they were attacked. Episodes of inmate-on-inmate sexual assault were more likely to be committed by a repeat perpetrator, and physical injuries were more likely from inmate-on-inmate sexual assaults; injuries typically involved bruises, cuts, and scratches. One-third of the physical and sexual assaults resulted in medical attention, and about one-fifth of the incidents involving medical attention required hospitalization outside the prison.12
Alarid conducted a content analysis of sexual assault and coercion based on 5 years of letters from a female inmate in multiple institutions. She found that sexual coercion (pressuring and harassment) in female institutions was much more prevalent than sexual assaults, particularly among those who were in the masculine “stud” role in homosexual relationships.13 Alarid also found that later instances of physical and sexual violence were related to sexual pressure tactics. Sexually aggressive, heterosexual femmes saw few constraints to their behavior by correctional officers (COs).14
Several policy issues arise from these findings. Wolff and Shi15 suggest that, at a minimum, an intervention plan be employed that is selectively targeted to prison areas and times of day, and to inmates who are most at risk (e.g., those with mental illness; mental disabilities; or bisexual, transsexual, or homosexual orientations); these at-risk individuals should be placed in single cells or protective units. Prison administrators must attempt to prevent and prosecute sexual assaults, as well as increase surveillance in vulnerable areas, such as transportation vans, holding tanks, shower rooms, stairways, and storage areas. In addition, Alarid suggests that prison administrators make efforts to identify those who engage in sexual coercion, a factor related to later physical and sexual assault. Finally, new inmates should be informed of the potential for being sexually assaulted while incarcerated and be told about prevention and what medical, legal, and psychological help is available if they are targeted.16
The Urban Institute’s report on addressing sexual violence in prisons provides a number of strategies for administrators and others to prevent and respond to sexual violence in prisons.17 Among the recommendations are the following: (1) Department of Corrections (DOCs) should engage in multipronged approaches to deal with sexual violence, including specific policies, prevention programs, staff training, investigation, prosecution, victim services, and documenting incidents;18 (2) DOCs should include outside experts in the area of prison sexual violence and use them to help develop appropriate response strategies; (3) policymakers should authorize funding for community organizations to assist DOCs with prison sexual violence; (4) DOCs should forge partnerships with prosecutors in an effort to facilitate successful prosecutions; and (5) DOCs should thoroughly document instances of sexual violence to identify hot spots and to improve problem-solving.19
The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003
Until recently, there were very little current data on the extent of sexual coercion in prisons. Fortunately, however, federal legislation has indirectly provided some enlightenment. As part of the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA) (P.L. 108-79), the U.S. DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) was mandated to develop a new national data collection effort on the incidence and prevalence of sexual assault in correctional facilities. The law also required that public hearings be held concerning the prisons having the highest and lowest rates in order to determine what they are doing, that is, right and wrong; ultimately, a commission is to develop national standards for preventing prison rape.20
A BJS survey of federal and state prisons and local jails found that the number of allegations of sexual violence actually increased by 21 percent following enactment of the PREA; some of this increase, BJS states, may be the result of new definitions that were adopted, as well as improved reporting by correctional authorities. In fact, a more recent BJS survey found that, while the problem of sexual violence still exists, it is at least consistent with patterns over the previous 6 years.21 Following are some of the BJS findings:
An estimated 4 percent of state and federal prison inmates and 3.2 percent of jail inmates experienced one or more incidents of sexual victimization in the past 12 months.
Among state and federal prison inmates, 2 percent reported an incident involving another inmate, 2.4 percent reported an incident involving facility staff, and 0.4 percent reported both an incident by another inmate and staff.
About 1.6 percent of jail inmates reported an incident with another inmate, 1.8 percent reported an incident with staff, and 0.2 percent reported both an incident by another inmate and staff.22
In 2016, the BJS published a report dealing with sexual victimization in juvenile facilities, as reported by juvenile correctional authorities. Among the findings were the following:
865 allegations of sexual victimization were made in juvenile correctional facilities in 2012, up from 690 in 2010.
Within state juvenile systems, the rate of sexual victimization allegations more than doubled from 2006 to 2012, from 19 per 1,000 youth to 47 per 1,000.
From 2007 to 2009, 55 percent of allegations of sexual victimization of youth involved youth-on-youth victimization; 45 percent involved staff-on-youth victimization.23
A Dilemma: Should Inmates Be Issued Condoms?
An issue related to the earlier discussion of sexual violence in prisons is whether or not inmates should be given condoms. Given that prison inmates have unprotected sexual contact, both forced and consensual—and at times leading to the spread of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases in the prisons as well as in communities where felons are paroled—the question is raised about the possible wisdom of offering inmates condoms.
Recently, California passed a law requiring that condoms be made available in all of its state prisons by 2020.24 Prior to this, only the Vermont Department of Corrections had made condoms available throughout its prison system; it has been doing so since 1987, and the state’s 2,200 inmates can request one condom at a time from a nurse. Canada, most of the European Union, Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, and South Africa already offer condoms to inmates. Mississippi has provided condoms to inmates for at least 20 years, but only to the few (about 10%) of inmates who are married and qualify for conjugal visits.25
Public health officials have found few problems and recommended the program be expanded. Similarly, the Center for Health Justice has found no related security problems in cities where condoms are being issued.26 On the other hand, critics believe that handing out condoms would result in increased levels of voluntary or forced sexual activity, and that the condoms could be used to smuggle or hide drugs and other contraband.
From a policy standpoint, what must be recognized is that illicit relations by inmates have always been, and will likely always be an ongoing problem, and no state law barring inmate sex alone will solve the problem. Perhaps what might serve to convince both camps—those pros and cons—is an estimate by the University of California, San Francisco, that the rate of HIV infection among state prison inmates is 10 times higher than in the population at large (the main reason why Vermont issued its prison directive in the 1980s); in addition, California’s prison officials estimate that more than 1,000 prisoners are HIV-infected, or about 1 percent of the state’s inmate population.27
But prison and jail administrators take another tack: Issuing condoms sends the wrong message; it encourages consensual or coercive sex (and prison rapists might use condoms to avoid leaving DNA evidence after their assaults), and condoms can be used to conceal drugs. Others suggest that the issuing of condoms, which might send the message that consensual sex is condoned, can create disharmony in the institution, which could create security risks.28 Nonetheless, the dilemma of issuing condoms to prisoners remains a hotly debated topic. Despite the Vermont directive and the recent California law, the fact is that few institutions make condoms available to its inmates. What do you think?
Hostage Taking in Detention Facilities: An Overview
Nature of the Problem
Riots and hostage taking are probably as old as corrections itself, and are the jail and prison administrator’s worst nightmare. They can occur at any time; even the most safety-concerned staff cannot always avoid such crises. Inmates will be inmates, and they do not want to be where they are.29 A corrections hostage-taking event occurs when any person—staff, visitor, or inmate—is held against his or her will by an inmate seeking to escape, gain concessions, or achieve other goals such as publicizing a particular cause. It may also be a planned or an impulsive act. When they occur, jail and prison rioting and hostage taking are potentially explosive and perilous situations from beginning to end; hostages are always directly in harm’s way.30 The following are some examples of such incidents:
At the Morey Unit of the Lewis Prison Complex in Buckeye, Arizona, two inmates took two COs hostage and seized the unit’s tower, triggering a 15-day standoff—the longest prison hostage situation in the nation’s history.31
Approximately 450 prisoners rioted in the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, in Lucasville, Ohio; nine inmates and one officer were murdered and six officers taken hostage during the 10-day siege.32
Jail inmates in a Louisiana parish held the warden and two corrections officers hostage at knifepoint, demanding a helicopter to escape to Cuba or anywhere else.33
One female correctional staff member was rescued and a male CO was killed in a day-long standoff at the James T. Vaughn Correctional Center in Smyrna, Delaware34 (see Exhibit 12.1).
Exhibit 12.1 The 2017 Smyrna, Delaware, Standoff: An Example of A Hostage Rescue Protocol
An early February 2017 standoff at the James T. Vaughn Correctional Center near Wilmington, Delaware, ended with the rescue of a correctional staff member and the death of a 16-year veteran correctional officer, Sergeant Steven Floyd. The standoff, which began on February 1 and ended 18 hours later, involved irate inmates in the C Building and four hostages. Within the first 10 hours, two of the four hostages were freed. In contacting a local newspaper, hostage takers noted that their rebellion was due to the then newly elected President Trump’s policies and their concerns about the future of the correctional facility. The hostage takers demanded education, a rehabilitation program, and disclosure of the prison’s budget and spending. Negotiations with the hostage takers were constant, and at one point, the water was turned on, conceding to one demand while developing a tactical plan to rescue the hostages. During their negotiations, officials believed that inmates were involved in stalling tactics to allow them more time to build a barricade. The tactical plan eventually included using a backhoe at the prison to knock down a make-shift wall inmates had built using containers that were filled with water once it had been turned back on. Once the plan was implemented, the rescue of the last hostages took place—a female staff member as well as Sergeant Floyd, who was later pronounced dead. None of the inmates were harmed during the standoff. An after-incident investigation would be conducted and would focus on how the standoff occurred in the first place and steps to prevent such an incident in the future.
Source: Max Berman and Katie Mettler, Mark Berman and Katie Mettler, “Hostage standoff in Delaware prison ends with one corrections officer dead,” The Washington Post, February 2, 2017, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/02/02/inmates-demanding-education-protesting-trump-take-hostages-at-delaware-prison/?utm_term=.47fdccfeb27a
.
Also permanently seared in the annals of corrections rioting are the horrific incidents at the Attica Correctional Facility in Attica, New York, in 1971 (39 inmates and staff killed), and at the New Mexico State Prison in Santa Fe, in 1980 (33 inmates dead), where inmates took over most of these institutions.35
Local jails are included in this discussion because such incidents certainly occur in them, and are even more common in jails in foreign venues. U.S. jails—such as prisons—can become quite dangerous because of their overcrowded conditions and the nature of their clientele, which include arrestees awaiting trial for felony offenses, mentally ill persons awaiting movement to health facilities, convicted felons awaiting transport to a state or federal institution, military offenders, and many violent, often mentally unstable or sociopathic offenders with histories of substance abuse; certainly such individuals are capable of hostage taking. Indeed, about 7 of 10 jail inmates are being held for a felony offense.36 Because 85 percent of local jails are operated by sheriff’s offices or municipal police departments,37 local sheriffs and police chiefs with lockup responsibilities must shoulder the burden of preparing for such emergencies.
Administrative Considerations: Using Force and Negotiation
Before correctional administrators can begin to plan for emergencies within their facilities, the following three broad elements are especially important: command, planning, and training (subsequently). Successful resolution also requires a controlled, measured response, clear lines of authority, and effective communication. Unity of command—the principle that members of an organization are accountable to a single superior—is also a paramount consideration.38 Also, staffing levels must be established—traditional crisis response teams (CRTs), armed CRTs, and tactical teams—all of which can employ less lethal intervention options and even the use of deadly force:
Traditional CRTs. The first, primary level of response is the traditional CRT, which is comprised of staff from all job specialties who train in riot control formations and use of defensive equipment (e.g., batons, stun guns, chemical agents, control, and containment).
Armed CRTs. This level of response provides managers with an option for dealing with the emergency situation if it escalates to the point where staff members’ or inmates’ lives are in imminent danger; it involves a specially trained team that can respond with deadly force when necessary.
Tactical teams. These are the most highly trained and skilled emergency response staff. They must be trained in advanced skills, such as barricade breaching; hostage rescue; and precision marksmanship with pistols, rifles, and assault rifles.39
Another critical element of emergency planning is a use-of-force policy. Which staff members are authorized to order the use of force, and what weapons and less lethal munitions are appropriate? The riot plan should also include contact names and phone numbers and an outline of existing agreements between agencies.40 Training is another indispensable facet of emergency planning. It does little good to have an emergency plan if staff and supervisors are not trained to activate it; people must clearly understand their own functions as well as those of people in other components; indeed, negotiators and personnel from tactical teams should train together regularly.41
The goals of hostage negotiation are to open communication lines, reduce stress and tension, build rapport, obtain intelligence, stall for time, allow hostage takers to express emotion and ventilate, and establish a problem-solving atmosphere.42 Jail/prison records will provide valuable intelligence information on the hostage taker, including prior criminal, educational, work, psychological, and family history. Studies of hostage negotiations indicate that they tend to follow a common cycle: Initially, both parties make exaggerated demands. This is followed by a period of withdrawal and a return to negotiations with more moderate demands.
The passage of time can be a very important ally during such incidents and is a major element of the negotiator’s role. Often, the preferred strategy for negotiating is to wait it out. The advantages of time’s passing include that hostage takers may develop sympathy for their hostages, develop rapport with negotiators, or just get tired of doing what they are doing.43 The question “How long is too long?” cannot be easily answered because every incident is different. Generally, negotiations may continue if no one is being injured and if no major damage or destruction to the facility is occurring.
Certain demands by hostage takers are nonnegotiable: Allowing release or escape, weapons, an exchange of hostages, and pardon or parole are not on the table. A number of other demands are open to negotiation. A maxim of negotiations is “Always get something for something.” Negotiators should never cede to a demand without obtaining a concession in return.44 Nor should they engage in trickery such as trying to drug hostage takers’ food or drink (it might backfire) or have face-to-face contact (unless, as in rare instances, the decision is made that it is advantageous to do so).45
When negotiations deadlock, commanders may decide to employ ultimatums regarding use of force and issues. A use-of-force ultimatum can be given in the expectation that inmates, given a clear choice between surrender and an armed assault, will choose surrender.46
Aftermath: A Return to Normalcy
In the aftermath of hostage incidents, it is critical to learn whether or not there were contributing factors such as lax inmate search activities, contraband, contractors and visitors coming and going, inmate familiarity with staff work routines, unlocked doors or gates, or other contributing factors; if so, new policies and procedures must be enacted covering those exigencies. The administration must also consider any damages, renovations, repairs, and remodeling that need to be addressed, and continuing control of the inmates while these are attended to.47
Mentally Ill Offenders
While in solitary confinement in a Massachusetts prison, an inmate cut his legs and arms, tried to hang himself with tubing from a breathing machine, smashed the machine to get a sharp fragment to slice his neck, and ate pieces of it, hoping to cause internal bleeding; he eventually hanged himself. Such inmates, with histories of mental illness and depression, often try suicide. In fact, this was one of 18 suicides or attempted suicides in Massachusetts during a three-year period. A federal lawsuit filed by advocates for inmates and the mentally ill is seeking to prevent the state from placing mentally ill inmates in such segregated cells.48 But, correctional administrators certainly are in a pinch as to what to do with mentally ill inmates at a time when “prisons and jails have become America’s ‘new asylums’.”49
Several other states have faced similar lawsuits and other challenges in attempting to address the problem of mentally ill inmates. These are prisoners who meet a specified definition based on the diagnostic system of the American Psychiatric Association and can include schizophrenia, bipolar disorders, and major depression, among others.50
To provide some perspective on the issue of mental illness among the incarcerated population, the BJS noted the following:51
Fifty-six percent of state prisoners, 45 percent of federal prisoners, and 64 percent of jail inmates had a mental health problem.
State prisoners who had a mental health problem were twice as likely as those who did not to have been homeless in the year before their arrest.
An estimated two-thirds of state prisoners with a mental health problem used drugs the month prior to their arrest (compared to less than half who did not have a mental health problem).
About three-fourths of state prisoners and jail inmates who had a mental health problem also fit the criteria for substance dependence or abuse.
Owing to several causes—the closing or downsizing of state psychiatric hospitals, the lack of adequate community support programs, chronic underfunding of public services, the poverty and transient lifestyles of many people with serious mental illness, and substance abuse disorders—the number of criminal offenders and inmates suffering from mental illness has been increasing.52 In 2017, the BJS reported that 26 percent of jail inmates and 14 percent of state and federal prisoners met the threshold for serious psychological distress.53 In prison, these individuals pose a dual dilemma for administrators. They are often violent and may be serving a long sentence; therefore, they require a high level of security and are housed with other offenders who have committed equally serious offenses and who are serving equally long sentences. The presence of potentially violent, mentally ill prisoners in high-security and probably overcrowded institutions is a dangerous situation. Mental illness must be treated while inmates are incarcerated.
A related problem concerns the release of mentally ill convicts back into the community. These inmates must be tracked and supervised to ensure that they receive proper case management and stay on their medications. This approach goes far beyond the traditional “$25 in gate money and a bus ticket” for the inmate, and not only protects the public but also helps to hold the prison population down. To provide these follow-up services, many states have developed written agreements between the state and local correctional agencies and between the state and local mental health services agencies. Local mental health agencies can be used to provide counseling and support to probationers. The challenge for correctional administrators is to maintain a viable program to treat and control a difficult group of offenders, some of whom have both serious mental health issues and the co-occurring disorder of substance abuse. The treatment of this group requires resources, trained staff, and appropriate facilities. BJS also reports that of those incarcerated persons afflicted with a mental health problem, 49 percent of prison inmates and 24 percent of jail inmates are receiving counseling or therapy.54
According to the Treatment Advocacy Center’s 2014 report, prison and jail administrators have few options when it comes to the treatment of inmates with serious mental health issues. Administrators are neither trained nor equipped to handle such inmates, often do not have the medications to treat their conditions, and sometimes rely on solitary confinement as a way to protect mentally ill inmates, other inmates, and correctional staff.55 Among the solutions offered by the Treatment Advocacy Center are the following: (1) eliminate barriers to treatment in the community; (2) reform laws so that inmates can receive adequate mental health services while behind bars; (3) promote diversion programs such as mental health courts; and (4) develop release planning to increase the odds of recovery.56
The Problem with Solitary Confinement
Earlier in this section, we discussed the need for correctional officials to use solitary confinement for inmates with severe mental health problems, as well as other inmates in special groups, namely some of the most violent inmates. Solitary confinement is known by various names, including administrative segregation, restrictive housing, or the box.57 Recently, however, the use of solitary confinement in prisons and jail has come under scrutiny, and reform movements to ban or significantly reduce it have surfaced. In fact, in 2016, President Barack Obama adopted a list of recommendations limiting the use of solitary confinement in federal prisons.58 President Obama’s action stemmed from the potential detrimental effects of long-term solitary confinement, the lack of data concerning its effects, how segregation policies were written, and whether solitary confinement achieves its goals.59
A study in 2014 sheds some light on the detrimental effects of solitary confinement in jails, which indicated that it was strongly associated with instances of self-harm.60 The researchers also found that with the mentally ill population in solitary confinement, they often commit new infractions, which lead to more time in solitary confinement.61 In Colorado, the practice and use of solitary confinement is now rare throughout the state’s prison system, due in large part to a state statute that prohibits its use for those with severe mental illness.62 Given growing research on the negative effects of solitary confinement, the challenge for administrators is to find ways to deal with violent inmates and those with mental illness in a way that keeps them and others safe. In this regard, Colorado has experimented with de-escalation rooms, where inmates are provided stress balls, chalkboards to write down their thoughts, and music.63
Finally, in the summer of 2016, President Obama directed the DOJ (DOJ) to review the use of solitary confinement for 100,000 prisons then being held in federal prisons. Although finding certain circumstances when solitary is a necessary tool (e.g., to protect themselves, staff, and other inmates), the DOJ put forth a number of recommendations to reform the federal prison system, which the president adopted: banning solitary confinement for juveniles, expanding treatment for the mentally ill, and increasing the amount of time inmates in solitary can spend outside of their cells.64
The Aging of Inmates: Problems and Approaches
James “Whitey” Bulger, Boston’s most notorious gangster, was convicted in 2013 at age 84 for 11 murders and 31 counts of racketeering, extortion, money laundering, trafficking in cocaine and marijuana, and weapons possession; he was sentenced to 2 life sentences plus 5 years after evading capture for 16 years.65
This example, while unusual given Bulger’s age at the time of conviction, is symbolic of a significant national problem that the U.S. DOJ has also termed a top management problem: the aging of the inmate population and the special needs of geriatric inmates.66 According to the Vera Institute of Justice, there is no national consensus or definition concerning when an inmate qualifies as “old” or “elderly.” While the U.S. Census Bureau defines the general “elderly” population as those 65 and older, the 27 states that have definitions for who is an “older prisoner” include 15 states that used age 50 as the cutoff, five states age 55, four states 60, two states 65, and one used age 70.67
What is known, however, is that prisoners older than 55 make up the single fastest-growing segment of the U.S. prison community—indeed, approximately 124,000 inmates are now age 55 or older (a 282% increase from 1995) and are raising medical costs dramatically (see Exhibit 12.2).68 Unforeseen consequences of legislative enactments—tougher mandatory sentencing laws, “truth in sentencing” laws, three-strikes laws, the abolition of parole for certain violent offenders (with concurrent reductions in early release), and the elimination of parole in the federal system—have combined to put people in prison longer and create this situation.69
Certainly, prison administrators are already confronted with an aging inmate population, seeing increasing numbers of prisoners who need wheelchairs, walkers, canes, a supply of oxygen, and hearing aids; many cannot even dress or go to the bathroom by themselves and are incontinent, suffering from dementia and chronic illnesses, extremely ill, or dying. They also see the high costs of caring for these inmates: it costs approximately $24,000 per year for younger prisoners, but costs associated with older prisoners can be as high as $72,000 per year; this gap is largely due to higher health care costs.70
Some states now contract with private providers to establish and operate skilled nursing facilities to incarcerate and care for inmates who (1) have limited ability to perform activities of daily living and (2) need skilled nursing services. Others contract with physicians to assess and diagnose all inmates who are limited in performing activities of daily living; the physicians then develop a service plan to meet the individual inmate’s medical and mental health needs, and to see they are housed consistent with their custody level and medical status. Other states have developed special units to work with the cognitively impaired (dementia).71 Finally, one state has a dedicated structured living program just for such inmates (see Exhibit 12.2).
There are some relatively easy, short-term responses and accommodations that can be adopted for this growing population: assigning them to a bottom bunk, installing grab bars near the toilets and in showers, housing them closer to the dining hall, and giving them more time to report to prison counts.72 However, policy decisions and recommendations for a more long-term time frame are more challenging; in short, the policy question that requires more thought and attention concerns what to do, as a society, with inmates who suffer from dementia or have become nearly or totally paralyzed—in short, how to make society safe but also be as humanitarian as possible. Compassionate release is one option that we may see more of in the future, given the continued increases in the elderly prison population. But such programs require lengthy application and evaluation processes, and some deem their release as simply unfair.73 Despite this, former attorney general Eric Holder announced in 2013 an early release program for elderly inmates who had served at least one-half of their sentence and did not pose a threat to society. As we have seen, however, the aging of the inmate population is a complex problem with no easy solutions.
Exhibit 12.2 Nevada’s Program for Geriatric Inmates
Only about 5.8 percent of Nevada’s 13,000 prison inmates are age 60 and older, but they consume 20 percent of the medical budget. The state now has 14 inmates in their 80s, and until recently, one inmate was in his 90s.74
A unique—and increasingly publicized—program at the Northern Nevada Correctional Center in Carson City, Nevada, called the Senior Structured Living Program, is designed to work with such inmates. The program provides physical fitness, diversion therapy (arts, crafts, games, reading, poetry), music (a choir and band), wellness and life skills training, individual and group therapy, and community involvement (involving area social services, veterans, Alcoholics Anonymous, and other groups). Volunteers also provide psychological, spiritual, and social support to the men. To enter the program, inmates must sign a contract obligating them to maintain certain standards of conduct, be at least 60 years of age, and not be engaged in a full-time job or educational program. Today, 170 men are enrolled in the program (with a waiting list of 50). The prison medical department has witnessed a significant reduction in the men’s overall medical complaints, overutilization of medical care, and the use of psychotropic medications.75 As such, this program is an innovative example of rehabilitation, constructive care for elderly inmates, and a novel way to prepare for reentry into the community.
Inmate Classification: Cornerstone of Security and Treatment
Although it may not seem to be so on its face, the classification of inmates into proper levels of security, housing, programming, and other aspects of their incarceration is of utmost importance. Classification decisions will have a major influence on their behavior, treatment, and progress while in custody, as well as the general safety of inmates and staff.
Corrections staff must make classification decisions in at least two areas: the inmate’s level of physical restraint or “security level” and the inmate’s level of supervision or custody grade. These two concepts are not well understood and are often confused, but they significantly impact a prisoner’s housing and program assignments76 as well as an institution’s overall security level.
The most recent development in classification is unit management, in which a large prison population is subdivided into several mini-institutions analogous to a city and its neighborhoods.
Unit management is felt to be a more humane, effective, and efficient approach than the former, centralized approach. A unit can include a unit manager, case manager(s), counselor(s), full- or part-time psychologist(s), an education representative, and COs whose offices are in the living unit; this approach also enables classification decisions to be made by personnel who are in daily contact with their inmates and know them fairly well.77
Robert Levinson delineated four categories into which corrections agencies classify new inmates: security, custody, housing, and programs:78
Security needs are classified in terms of the number and types of architectural barriers that must be placed between the inmates and the outside world to ensure that they will not escape and can be controlled. Most correctional systems have four security levels: supermax (highest), maximum (high), medium (low), and minimum (lowest).
Custody assignments determine the level of supervision and types of privileges an inmate will have. A basic consideration is whether or not an inmate will be allowed to go outside the facility’s secure perimeter, so some systems have adopted four custody grades—two inside the fence (one more restrictive than the other) and two outside the fence (one more closely supervised than the other).
Housing needs were historically determined by an “assign to the next empty bed” system, which could place the new, weak inmate in the same cell with the most hardened inmate; a more sophisticated approach is known as internal classification, in which inmates are assigned to live with prisoners who are similar to themselves. This approach can involve the grouping of inmates into three broad categories: heavy (victimizers), light (victims), and moderate (neither intimidated by the first group nor abusers of the second).
Program classification involves using interview and testing data to determine where the newly arrived inmate should be placed in work, training, and treatment programs; these are designed to help the prisoner make a successful return to society.
In the past, most prison systems used a highly subjective system of classifying inmates that involved a review of records pertaining to the inmate’s prior social and criminal history, test scores, school and work performance, and staff impressions developed from interviews. Today, however, administrators employ a much-preferred objective system that is more rational, efficient, and equitable. Factors used in making classification decisions are measurable and valid and are applied to all inmates in the same way. Criteria most often used are escape history, detainers, prior commitments, criminal history, prior institutional adjustment, history of violence, and length of sentence.79
Prison administrators also should facilitate systematic evaluations of their inmate classification systems to ensure that the system being used is achieving its goals. Here, administrators may want to partner with trained social scientists to conduct both process and outcome evaluations. According to the National Institute of Corrections (NIC), an objective classification system should be evaluated in terms of implementation (process evaluation) and goals (outcome evaluation).80 The NIC also recommends the following: (1) evaluations should be based on objective data; (2) evaluations should be timely and useful; (3) evaluations should be fair; and (4) evaluations should be clearly written.
Drug Use in Prisons: Interdiction and Treatment
More than half of all adult arrestees test positive for drug use at the time of their apprehension; their drug use prior to incarceration is typically chronic. Indeed, 50 percent of federal prisoners and 56 percent of state prison inmates used drugs during the month before the arrest for which they were incarcerated.81 Furthermore, offenders still manage to obtain illicit drugs during their incarceration, threatening the safety of inmates and staff while undermining the authority of correctional administrators, contradicting rehabilitative goals, and reducing public confidence.82
Some jail and prison administrators have aimed to reduce the number of visitors to an institution by switching to a video visitation system. The advantages to such a system, in part, is that there is less worry about contraband coming into the institution, fewer inmate searches, and reductions in staff time.83 More than 500 correctional facilities use some form of video visitation, although it’s used mostly in county jails. Indeed, a multipronged effort is needed to deal with inmates who not only are addicted to substances but who also use drugs in our prisons and jails.
We first discuss Pennsylvania’s approach to drug interdiction, which may be defined as a continuum of efforts to reduce the supply and demand for drugs in the prison, and includes focusing on visitors, staff, mail, warehouses, gates, volunteers, and contractors. Next, we examine what can be done to treat offenders’ substance abuse problems inside the institution.
The Pennsylvania Plan
The state of Pennsylvania was compelled to acknowledge that drug use was pervasive in several of its prisons. Six inmates had died from overdoses in a 2-year period, and assaults on COs and inmates had increased. To combat the problem, the state first adopted a zero-tolerance drug policy, the so-called Pennsylvania Plan for drug interdiction. Inmates caught with drugs were to be criminally prosecuted, and those who tested positive (using hair testing) were to serve disciplinary custody time. Highly sensitive drug detection equipment was employed to detect drugs that visitors might try to smuggle into the prison, to inspect packages arriving in the mail, and to detect drugs that correctional staff might try to bring in. New policies were issued for inmate movement and visitation, and a new phone system was installed to randomly monitor inmates’ calls.84
The results were impressive. The state’s 24 prisons became 99 percent drug free. The number of drug finds during cell searches dropped 41 percent, assaults on staff decreased 57 percent, inmate-on-inmate assaults declined 70 percent, and the number of weapons seized during searches dropped from 220 to 76. Marijuana use dropped from 6.5 percent before interdiction to 0.3 percent, and there was a significant decline in the use of other types of drugs. Pennsylvania now believes that the foundation has been laid for inmates to abstain from drug use while serving their sentences—a necessary first step toward long-term abstinence and becoming a better citizen for their families and communities.85 However, despite the apparent effectiveness of the Pennsylvania Plan, there are no simple solutions to the complex problem of drug dependency among many inmates.
Treating the Problem
During the past several years, a number of aggressive federal and state initiatives have been undertaken to expand substance abuse treatment within correctional settings. These initiatives have been fueled by the high rates of substance abuse among offenders. In Ohio in 2014, for example, 1,900 inmates in the state prison system did not pass random drug screens, a 41 percent increase over previous years.86 Intensive prison-based treatment efforts can significantly reduce postprison substance use and recidivism.87
Several barriers remain for correctional administrators in implementing substance abuse treatment programs, however. First, institutions tend to use limited criteria (such as any lifetime drug use, possession, drug sales, or trafficking) to determine the need for treatment, leading to a lack of treatment of a large portion of the prison population that has abused substances; conversely, many inmates who legitimately need treatment may be excluded for reasons unrelated to their substance abuse problems (e.g., because of gang affiliation or the commission of a sexual or violent offense). Kathryn Nowotny, in her recent study, found that less than 50 percent of more than 5,000 inmates received any kind of treatment in prison.88 What’s more, she found that Hispanic inmates (vs. white or black inmates) were least likely to use treatment services in prison. The explanation, at least in part, may have to do with the differences between white inmates and Hispanic inmates when it comes to court-ordered treatment in prison; whites were more likely than Hispanics to have mandated treatment as part of their sentence. Nowotny also suggests that language barriers may make a difference.89 Treatment staff should be involved in the selection of candidates for treatment to ensure the appropriateness of the program population.90
Second, it is difficult to find and recruit qualified and experienced staff in the remote areas where prisons are often located. In addition, counselors who are well suited for community-based treatment programs will not necessarily be effective in the prison setting. They often resist the rigid custody regulations that are common in institutional settings. For these reasons, limited human resources and high turnover rates for drug abuse treatment counselors make staffing an ongoing problem for prison administrators.91
Possible solutions to this staffing problem include offering sufficient wages and other amenities to induce counselors to move to and stay with the prison, recruiting and training “lifers” as inmate counselors and mentors, and professionalizing treatment positions for COs. With the use of counselors, certification and financial incentives would help to retain staff, as well as enhance their professional development for the treatment setting.92
Can a “Therapeutic Community” Work?
As indicated earlier, drug use is not unknown to most prison inmates, with more than half of all adult arrestees testing positive for drug use at the time of their apprehension and using drugs during the month before the arrest for which they were incarcerated. Several treatment modalities have been attempted in the past to deal with such offenders, including individual and group counseling, methadone maintenance, Vivitrol injections,93 shock incarceration (or boot camp), drug education, and 12-step programs.94
One of the most widely used treatment models, however, is the therapeutic community (TC). Existing for more than a half-century, contemporary TCs have evolved over the years and are typically drug-free residential programs relying heavily on peer influence and group processes to promote drug-free behavior. At the root of TCs is the provision of an environment in which drug abusers seek and receive support from individuals with similar problems. Also extremely important for drug-abusing inmates’ success is aftercare upon release. Contemporary TCs use a social learning theoretical framework and stress the importance of community. It is within a community that an individual can best realize the impact of TC.
Evaluations of TCs with prison inmates have been mostly positive, finding that TCs that include aftercare are both effective in reducing drug use and recidivism, and cost effective. However, the use of boot camps (or shock incarceration discussed later in this chapter) and group counseling have not been found to be effective in these regards. Most studies of TCs have been based on short-term outcomes, typically one to two years following release.95
A more long-term study, using 5 years of data with about 400 California inmates, contradicted these studies; it found that TCs as implemented there failed to reduce reincarceration and rearrest rates over time. Researchers believed that this was a result of the prison TC program failing to optimize its aftercare-phase treatment. Furthermore, because most aftercare programs are voluntary, it appears that inmates there fell short of the levels of participation needed and thus successful reintegration into the community.96 Other evaluations of TCs suggest that there is a relationship between duration of treatment, aftercare participation, and ultimately recovery. Participating in a TC for at least 3 months was associated with positive outcomes; participation for at least 6 months was even better, with 5-year outcomes indicating reduced drug use and criminal activity as well as increased employment rates.97
The implications are obvious: Because few prison drug programs are available, and yet the demand for such programs remains high, there needs to be rigorous research into what seems to work best for the TC as a treatment strategy, along with appropriate community-based aftercare treatment.
The Controversy of Private Prisons
Emergence of the Concept
Perhaps one of the most controversial and rapidly growing aspects of corrections has been the outsourcing or privatization of prisons, a term that includes either the operation of existing prison facilities by a private company or the building and operation of new prisons by for-profit companies. In 1995, there were fewer than 30 adult facilities operated by private contractors. Within 5 years, private prisons had increased to more than 100.98 Now, the BJS reports that about 7 percent of state prison inmates (91,300) and 18 percent of federal prisoners (34,900, including federal immigration detainees) are in private correctional facilities.99 Currently, six states (Hawaii, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, and Oklahoma) house 20 percent or more of their state inmates in private facilities.100
The two largest companies, CoreCivic (formerly Corrections Corporation of America) and the Geo Group, reported combined revenues of $2.9 billion in 2010. CoreCivic houses about 80,000 prisoners; of the more than 60 facilities it operates, it owns 44.101
Historically, strong arguments have been put forth, both pro and con, regarding the privatizing of prisons; and today there is no dearth of differing viewpoints on the matter. Proponents, such as the Reason Foundation, argue that private prisons
provide an effective, cost-saving alternative for governments seeking to address significant capacity needs while taking pressure off their corrections budgets. Studies have consistently shown that privately run correctional facilities typically save a conservative range of 5 to 15% over staterun prisons while offering the same level of security and service and easing overcrowding in staterun prisons.102
Opponents, on the other hand, maintain that there is no guarantee that standards will be upheld, no one will maintain security if employees go on strike, the public will have regular access to the facility, there will be different inmate disciplinary procedures, the company will be able to refuse certain inmates or could go bankrupt, and the company can increase its fees to the state.103
Comparing Public versus Private Prisons
Which is better—public or private prisons? There is a tendency to compare public and private institutions in terms of their inmates’ recidivism rates; however, some observers104 argue that this is an unfair comparison, as prison administrators are not responsible for what occurs outside of their prison’s walls.
What might stand as a much better and comprehensive standard to use for comparison is what was developed originally in 1992 by Charles H. Logan,105 and refined in 2003 by Dina Perrone and Travis C. Pratt,106 which are termed the seven domains of prison quality and include the following:
Condition, which refers to the physical environment in which the inmates are held. Indications of a poorly kept prison such as crowding, noise, food, and sanitation have been used as measures.
Management, which refers to the ability of the prison administrators to effectively and efficiently run their institution; it can be measured by comparing staff turnover and stress rates.
Activity, which refers to the ability of prison administrators to keep their inmate population involved and active in prison life; this domain is commonly measured in terms of the number of educational, treatment, and work programs available to and used by inmates.
Care refers to the extent and quality of medical care afforded to inmates.
Security measures how well the prison is able to keep its inmates securely incapacitated from the outside world; it can be evaluated by measuring the number of escapes, while some studies have also taken into account the amount of contraband entering the prison.
Safety refers to the ability to keep both inmates and prison staff from being assaulted or killed; and
Order refers to the overall ability of an institution to control its population; often considered is the number of disciplinary actions and disturbances that occur.
No single study has examined all seven domains; however, a number of studies have examined the quality of private prisons by examining some of the domains. The results have tended to be mixed in all such studies, with most comparing only a small number of private institutions (usually one or two) to a public institution(s); therefore, generalizing these findings to other institutions is problematic. Another shortcoming is that custody level, size, crowding, age, and architecture all can have a strong influence on such measures of quality.
Makarios and Maahs sought, in 2012, to address these shortcomings by examining a larger sample of private and public prisons. Specifically, they examined 1,129 institutions—105 private, 80 federal, and 944 state-operated.107 They found a significant difference in one regard: state prisons were much more likely to be under a court order for the conditions of confinement than private prisons. Therefore, private prisons are less crowded than those that are publicly operated. Given the negative effects of crowding, this is a significant finding and most likely a result of public facilities having much less control over the level and nature of new admissions.
Overall, however, Makarios and Maahs generally found a fair degree of similarity between private and public prisons. Consistent with prior research, they found that “the differences between private and public prisons become relatively small.”108 Despite this, private prisons have come under considerable scrutiny of late for problems discovered across many of the seven domains.
In fact, in 2016 prior to President Donald Trump’s election, the U.S. DOJ announced its plans to discontinue the use of private prisons in the federal system, affecting 13 federal prisons and 22,000 inmates.109 The plan called for a nonrenewal of private prison contracts over the next 5 years. The inspector general’s report, which preceded the announcement, articulated more safety and security violations in private prisons than in prisons run by the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The report noted property damage in private prisons, personal injuries, and the death of a CO.110 The report also noted that private prisons in the federal system were expensive and ineffective at reducing recidivism.111
However, during the Trump presidency, we may see a reversal of sorts from the Justice Department’s announcement. First, it is well known that President Trump is a fan of privatization and he has gone on record saying that private prisons work better than government-operated prisons.112 In addition, immigrant detention could increase markedly under President Trump. Currently, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency holds 60 percent of its detainees in private prisons, and an increase in the numbers of detainees may result in the need for more bed space in prisons.113 In 2016, just when it appeared that prison privatization was beginning to show a downturn, private prisons may be making a resurgence.
Alternatives to Incarceration: Intermediate Sanctions
Because prisons are not in a position to effect great change,114 the search for solutions must include correctional programs in the community. The demand for prison space has created a reaction throughout the corrections industry.115 With the cost of prison construction now exceeding $250,000 per cell in maximum-security institutions, cost-saving alternatives are not only becoming more attractive but also essential.
An alternative to incarceration can be any form of punishment or treatment other than prison or jail time given to a convicted person. It must have three elements to be effective—it must incapacitate offenders enough so that it is possible to interfere with their lives and activities to make committing a new offense extremely difficult, it must be unpleasant enough to deter offenders from wanting to commit new crimes, and it has to provide real and credible protection for the community.116
The aforementioned realities of prison construction and crowding have led to a search for an intermediate range of punishments.117 This, in turn, has brought about the emergence of a new generation of programs, making community-based corrections, according to Barry Nidorf, a “strong, full partner in the fight against crime and a leader in confronting the crowding crisis.”118 Economic reality dictates that cost-effective measures be developed, and this is motivating the development of intermediate sanctions:119 a range of sentencing options designed to fill the gap between probation and confinement, reduce institutional crowding, and reduce correctional costs. They have included such sanctions as intensive supervision probation (ISP), problem-solving courts, fines, community service, day reporting centers (DRC), home detention/EM, and boot camps.
A recent survey by the BJS found that of all persons being supervised outside a jail facility, 23 percent were engaged in some form of community service and 22 percent were involved in EM; fewer than one percent were undergoing home detention only.120 Table 12-1 shows these findings as well as the number of persons under jail supervision and involved with other types of programs.
Table 12-1 Persons Under Jail Supervision, by Confinement Status and Type of Program, Midyear 2000 and 2006–2014
Confinement status and type of program2000200620072008200920102011201220132014
Total687,033826,041848,419858,385837,647809,360798,417808,622790,649808,070
Held in jail621,149765,819780,174785,533767,434748,728735,601744,524731,208744,592
Supervised outside of a jail facility65,88460,22268,24572,85270,21360,63262,81664,09859,44163,478
Weekend programs14,52311,42110,47312,32511,2129,87111,36910,35110,9509,698
Electronic monitoring10,78210,99913,12113,53911,83412,31911,95013,77912,02314,223
Home detention3328075124987387368092,1291,337646
Day reporting3,9694,8416,1635,7586,4925,5525,2003,8903,6834,413
Community service13,59214,66715,32718,47517,73814,64611,68014,76113,87714,331
Other pretrial supervision6,2796,40911,14812,45212,4399,37510,4647,7387,5428,634
Other work programs8,0118,3197,3695,8085,9124,3517,1657,1375,3417,003
Treatment programs5,7141,4862,2762,2592,0821,7992,4492,1642,0022,100
Other2,6821,2731,8571,7391,7661,9831,7312,1492,6872,430
Intensive Supervision in the Community
Intensive supervision—tight control and supervision of offenders in the community through strict enforcement of conditions and frequent reporting to a probation officer—has become a popular program in probation and parole. Early versions were based on the premise that increased client contact would enhance rehabilitation while affording greater client control. Current programs are simply a means of easing the burden of prison crowding.121
Intensive supervision can be classified into two types: those stressing diversion and those stressing enhancement. A diversion program is commonly known as a front door program because its goal is to limit the number of generally low-risk offenders who enter prison. Enhancement programs generally select already sentenced probationers and parolees and subject them to closer supervision in the community than they receive under regular probation or parole.122
Intensive supervision units generally are in charge of intensive supervision in a given jurisdiction—for those who are deemed high risks in the community. Commonly, these offenders have either committed violent crimes, are gang members, sex offenders, or serious substance abusers. ISP officers have a dual role of both law enforcement officers and brokers of treatment, and conduct their jobs by building relationships not only with offenders but also with the offenders’ social networks, as well as law enforcement agencies, employers, treatment providers, and school officials (in the case of juveniles).
As of 1990, jurisdictions in all 50 states had instituted intensive supervision programs (ISP). Persons placed on ISP are supposedly those offenders who, in the absence of intensive supervision, would have been sentenced to imprisonment. In parole, intensive supervision is viewed as risk management—allowing a high-risk inmate to be paroled but under the most restrictive circumstances. In either case, intensive supervision is a response to crowding; although ISP is invariably more costly than regular supervision, the costs “are compared not with the costs of normal supervision but rather with the costs of incarceration.”123 However, the cost savings from ISP and its potential to reduce prison overcrowding only come when ISP is used as an alternative to incarceration. When it’s used as an alternative to a less restrictive sanction, widening of the criminal justice net occurs.
ISP is demanding for probationers and parolees, and while they are not incarcerated, ISP does not represent freedom; in fact, it may stress and isolate repeat offenders more than imprisonment does. Given the option of serving prison terms or participating in ISPs, many offenders have chosen prison.124 Many offenders may prefer to serve a short prison term rather than spend five times that in ISP. Consider the alternatives now facing offenders in one Western state:
ISP. The offender serves two years under this alternative. During that time, a probation officer visits the offender two or three times per week and phones on the other days. The offender is subject to unannounced searches of his or her home for drugs and has his or her urine tested regularly for alcohol and drugs. The offender must strictly abide by other conditions set by the court: not carrying a weapon, not socializing with certain persons, performing community service, and being employed or participating in training or education. In addition, he or she is strongly encouraged to attend counseling and/or other treatment, particularly if he or she is a drug offender.
Prison. The alternative is a sentence of two to four years, of which the offender will serve only about three to six months. During this term, the offender is not required to work or to participate in any training or treatment but may do so voluntarily. Once released, the offender is placed on two-year routine parole supervision and must visit his or her parole officer about once a month.125
This point also can be illustrated with a recent case in Colorado, where a convicted felon (sexual exploitation of a child) asked the court to send him to prison, rather than serving out 20 years on ISP.126 The court agreed to revoke his probation, and he was sentenced to 12 years in prison. At the hearing, the offender argued that he did not want to be in the “probation/treatment” trap any longer.127
Although compelling evidence of the effectiveness of ISP is lacking, it has been deemed a public relations success.128 Intensive supervision is usually accomplished by greatly reducing the caseload size per probation or parole officer, leading to increased contact between officers and clients or their significant others (such as the client’s spouse or parents). It is hoped that this increased contact will improve service delivery and control and thus reduce recidivism.129
House Arrest/Electronic Monitoring
House arrest (or home detention) is typically a court-ordered punishment where convicted or accused offenders must remain in their home, usually while being monitored electronically, and can leave only for work, community service, or medical attention. Although it has become increasingly common, BJS data provided in Table 12-1 show that few offenders are sentenced to home detention only. Many more (about 14,000, or about 22% of those sentenced in the community) were being monitored electronically—many of them monitored in their homes. The primary motivation for using this intermediate sanction is a financial one: the conservation of scarce resources. It is also hoped, of course, that HA is more effective in preventing recidivism than traditional probation alone or incarceration.
But does HA work? In a study of public perceptions of HA and its potential goals, many people feel that HA is not effective or punitive enough; nearly half (44%) of the public feels that HA is not very effective or not effective at all.130 In terms of recidivism as an outcome measure, Jeffery Ulmer131 found that the sentencing combination associated with the least likelihood of rearrest was HA/probation. The combinations of HA/work release and HA/incarceration were also significantly associated with decreased chances of rearrest compared with traditional probation. Furthermore, whenever any other sentencing option was paired with HA, that sentence combination significantly reduced the chances and frequency of rearrest.132 Clearly, HA works when used in tandem with other forms of sentencing options and when rearrest is used as the outcome variable.
What is it about HA that might explain its success? First, it’s not all about punishment. Rather, it puts the offender in touch with opportunities and resources for rehabilitative services (such as substance abuse or sex offender counseling and anger management classes), which supports the contention that for intermediate sanctions of any type to reduce recidivism, they must include a rehabilitative emphasis.133 Other studies have sought to determine the effectiveness of HA paired with EM, the more usual form of HA according to the BJS data provided in Table 12-1. For example, Martin et al.134 examined offenders’ perceptions of HA/EM. The typical respondent in their survey spent approximately one month on HA/EM, paid $3,578.00 in fines, and provided 17 hours of community service. Respondents indicated that while being sentenced to HA was preferable to being incarcerated, it is a punitive sanction. These punitive aspects are manifested in at least two ways:
The restrictive nature of personal freedoms: Offenders reported that this was the most troublesome aspect of their experience with EM. Although employed offenders were permitted to go to and from work, they are generally prohibited from leaving their homes to run errands or to complete outdoor tasks without permission from their probation officer.
The degree to which this sanction causes embarrassment/shame for the offender: Respondents reported that EM had a shaming effect for them or their family members, and that the supervision associated with EM was intrusive. Wearing a visible ankle bracelet and having a device attached to their telephone caused embarrassment, as well as having to tell other people that they could not leave the house.
Despite the loss of freedom and embarrassment of serving time on EM, the survey respondents indicated that they preferred EM to incarceration. The majority (about 70%) of the respondents in this study indicated that they would rather be sentenced to HA than to jail.135
Finally, other studies have examined the cost estimates of HA/EM as compared to incarceration. It is far cheaper to keep an offender at home on EM than to incarcerate him or her in prison—which runs about $62 per day compared with EM’s cost of about $5.00 per day. Even a higher-level system where an e-mail is sent or a beep goes off if an offender goes past set boundaries or active monitoring (an offender’s movement is tracked on a computer screen) costs only about $12 a day.136 Of course, cost savings are only realized if HA/EM is used as an alternative to incarceration rather than an alternative to a less restrictive community alternative. Critics suggest that with the growing technology, HA/EM is being used for an expanded array of individuals and dispositions, including those awaiting trial, those on probation or parole, and simply as its own punishment.137 The question being asked, then, is whether some of these individuals really would have been incarcerated prior to the growth of HA/EM.
Shock Probation/Parole
Shock probation/parole—where a judge sends a convicted offender to prison for a short time and then suspends the remainder of the sentence by granting probation—has as its goal the hope that the “shock” of a short stay in prison will give the offender a taste of institutional life and make such an indelible impression that he or she will be deterred from future crime and thus avoid the negative effects (and costs) of lengthy confinement.138 Typically, the sentencing judge will reconsider the original sentence to prison and, upon a motion, recall the inmate after a few months in prison and place him or her on probation under conditions deemed appropriate.
Shock probation is typically used for first-time or early career lower-level offenders. Offense categories typically eligible for shock probation include drug crimes, larceny/theft, and forgery crimes. Shock probation is not used with violent offenders. From the perspective of the offender, and perhaps from that of correctional officials, the major advantage to shock incarceration is that the offender spends only a short time incarcerated (usually a period of months) and then returns to the community under supervision. Like other alternatives to incarceration, shock probation can result in a cost savings (compared to longer-term incarceration), and can provide the offender with community resources once on supervised probation. But like other alternatives to incarceration, the cost savings are only real when it’s used as an alternative to longer-term incarceration.
In many states, each candidate for shock probation/parole must obtain a community sponsor who will be responsible for the applicant’s actions while in the community. The sponsor serves as an adjunct to and a resource for the probation officer. Specific activities for the sponsor can include providing transportation to work, checking on compliance with curfew and other restrictions, assisting with housing and employment problems, and maintaining contact with the probation officer. The offender may also be required to perform community service, usually physical labor.139
Boot Camps/Shock Incarceration
Correctional boot camps, also called shock incarceration, were first implemented as an intermediate sanction in 1983.140 This approach is usually a few months’ duration, where (typically) young, nonviolent offenders experience rigorous military drill and ceremony, strenuous physical training and labor, and treatment and education to promote their reintegration into the community as law-abiding citizens and the development of personal responsibility. The goal is to reduce recidivism, prison and jail populations, and operating costs. Eligible inmates are young, nonviolent offenders.
However, the effectiveness of boot camps has been called into question. Early evaluations of boot camps generally found that participants did no better than other offenders without this experience.141 For example, California’s juvenile boot camp, LEAD (leadership, esteem, ability, and discipline), which was established in 1992, was subject to an evaluation, which indicated that LEAD was no more effective than other custodial sanctions at reducing recidivism or saving money.142 Only boot camps that were carefully designed, targeted the right offenders, and provided rehabilitative services and aftercare were deemed likely to save the state money and reduce recidivism.143 As a result of these findings, the number of boot camps declined; by the year 2000, only 51 prison boot camps remained out of the more than 100 that had been in operation by the mid-1990s.144
Boot camps have evolved over time, however, and are now in their third generation. The first-generation camps were those just discussed, which stressed military discipline and physical training. Second-generation camps emphasized rehabilitation by adding components such as alcohol and drug treatment and social skills training (some even including postrelease EM, HA, and random urine tests). Recently, in the third generation, some boot camps have replaced the military components with an emphasis on educational and vocational skills.145 In an evaluation of the Pennsylvania State Motivational Boot Camp—a program that combined militaristic exercise with multilayered treatment (much like the second-generation programs)—overall results related to recidivism were disappointing when comparing boot camp participants to those released from prison. More encouraging results were noted regarding recidivism for boot camp participants who were employed and those who were repeat offenders. On average, a boot camp sentence reduced a prison stay by 1 year.146
A U.S. DOJ report, coauthored by former U.S. attorney general John Ashcroft, stated that correctional administrators and planners might learn from boot camps’ failures to reduce recidivism or prison populations by considering the following:147
Building reintegration into the community into an inmate’s program may improve the likelihood that he or she will not recidivate.
Programs that offer substantial reductions in time served to boot camp “graduates” and that choose for participation inmates with longer sentences are the most successful in reducing prison populations.
The chances of reducing recidivism increase when boot camps last longer and offer more intensive treatment and postrelease supervision.
Day Reporting Centers
Another intermediate sanction is the day reporting center (DRC)—a site where selected offenders report while under probation or parole supervision to receive an array of educational, vocational, treatment, and other services in order to reduce the risk factors that are linked with recidivism. The needs of each offender are assessed so that case workers and employment specialists may provide positive problem-solving, coping, and social skills. Also used for offenders returning from incarceration, the centers also assist in their reintegration back into society.148 Table 12-1 shows about 7 percent (roughly 4,400 of 63,500) of persons being supervised outside of jail were involved with day reporting. The goals of DRCs are twofold: to provided needed treatment to offenders and to reduce jail and prison crowding.149
DRCs tend to operate using a phased approach, where offenders move through phases from higher to lower levels of control based on their ability to successfully complete treatment and their compliance with rules of supervision.150 Exhibit 12.3 discusses some of the benefits one jurisdiction has realized by opening DRCs—rather than by expanding their existing jails.
Exhibit 12.3 Five Years of Success For Waukesha County Day Report Center
In 2012, Waukesha County, Wisconsin, officials celebrated 5 years of successes for its day report center. Praise for the program’s contribution to public safety and prisoner rehabilitation came with the realization that many offenders don’t need to be locked up; they can be held accountable in other ways while being given a chance and support to change their behavior.
A Waukesha County circuit judge called its establishment and success his proudest accomplishment in 6 years with the council. According to program statistics, the day report center has had nearly 1,000 participants since opening in April 2007. Of those, 85 percent have successfully completed requirements that may include drug and alcohol testing, EM, job searches, community service, and regular meetings with case managers (who connect with, monitor, advise, encourage, and support the clients).
The program, first established in an open hallway area of a jail, now has several offices and a group meeting room, so participants can meet with staff. The caseload is 55 participants—many of whom have been convicted of drunken driving, but also include those convicted of other nonviolent misdemeanors and felonies.
Judges order center reporting as an addition to or condition of sentences, while the sheriff uses it to supplement some Huber inmates released on EM. Officials say it appears to be reducing crowding in jails and changing clients’ behavior. The day report center saved 13,739 jail bed days in 2011—each the equivalent of one prisoner a day—and 38,969 days over 5 years.151
The Waukesha County example notwithstanding, studies of DRCs generally indicate success, but there are few of them. A 2011 study of day centers in Pennsylvania found that 95 percent of offenders completed the treatment programs without recidivating and the results translated to cost savings for the county—about $970,000 over 3 years.152 But without additional evidence, administrators are left with numerous questions about the effectiveness of DRCs. What’s the correct mix of surveillance and treatment, for example?153 Until we have more studies on the effectiveness of DRCs, administrators will need to operate with incomplete information on impact and potential cost savings.154
Source: Excerpt from Laurel Walker (2012). Officials Laud Success of Waukesha County Day Report Center. © 2015 Journal Sentinel Inc., reproduced with permission.
