U.S. Department of JusticeNational Institute of CorrectionsJails Division

PODULAR, DIRECTSUPERVISIONJAILSINFORMATION PACKET

January 1993

COVER: The Metropolitan Correctional Center,Chicago, Illinois.

The illustration is courtesy ofInland Architect.

PODULAR, DIRECT SUPERVISION JAILSINFORMATION PACKET

This packet contains a collection of articles designed to give the readerbasic information on the principles of podular, direct supervision andlocal detention’s experience with it. The information here is not

comprehensive but should serve as an introduction to the concept. Furtherinformation is available through the National Institute of Corrections(NIC) Jail Center and Information Center.

The NIC Jails Division provides information, technical assistance, andtraining related to planning for and operating a podular, direct super-vision jail. The Jails Division welcomes questions about its servicesand can be reached at:

NIC Jails Division1960 Industrial Circle, Suite ALongmont, CO 80501

(303) 682-0639

1-800-995-6429

The NIC Information Center maintains a large library of materials onall aspects of corrections, including direct supervision. Requests for in-formation or materials should be directed to:

NIC Information Center1860 Industrial Circle, Suite ALongmont, CO 80501

(303) 682-0213

1-800-877-1461

PODULAR, DIRECT SUPERVISION JAILSINFORMATION PACKET

CONTENTS

Direct Supervision of Correctional Institutions . . . . . . . . . 1

Resolution:Resolution: Isolation of Staff from Inmates . . . . . . . . . . .9

Special Focus On:Special Focus On: Comparison of Direct and Indirect

Supervision Facilities, Part I: Research Findings . . . . . 11

Special Focus On: Comparison of Direct and Indirect

Supervision Facilities, Part II: Conclusions . . . . . . . . . .19

New Generation Jails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2525

DIRECT SUPERVISION OF CORRECTIONALINSTITUTIONS

Richard Wener, F.W.Frazier, Jay Farbstein

1987

There is an overpoweringsmell in the air of urine,

sweat, stale food, and Pinesol.Dirty, graffitied walls and lit-tered floors of cold gray con-crete, with steel bar doors,remind one of zoo cages,designed to be washed downwith a hose. Blaring TV,banging doors, yelling men,make the noise deafening.Most of the inmates are youngand have been there before.This is their turf. A fewwander about, obviously men-tally ill. The few uniformedofficers remain secure behinda row of bars. One occasional-ly hurries in and out of thisarea on some mission, but lit-tle eye contact or personalcontact is established.

joke around ordinary cardtables while playing check-ers. In a corner, severalwatch TV while sitting on anupholstered couch. Theuniformed officer strolls byand stops to chat. An inmateasks her to open the door tohis room so he can use thetoilet. The room has a bedsink, desk with desk lamp,and window with a view of thecity street below.

The first scene closelyresembles many of the 3,000jails and 600 prisons in theU.S. today. The old Tombs,the infamous ManhattanHouse of Detention--was likethis, only worse: a dangerousbedlam of bodies jammed intotoo-small cages, until it be-came uncontrollable and wasclosed by a federal court orderin 1974.

The second scene

That scene is not unlike thosemovie buffs would recognizeas the “slammer ” from the lateshow. But, how about thisone?

A sunlit room with carpetedfloors, attractive, soft furni-ture covered with fabrics ofmuted greys combined withbright blues and reds. Men

use of a new modelof management and designknown as “Direct Super-vision” models.

This system is not for everyinmate. Careful classificationand screening usually weedout five to ten percent of in-coming inmates-such as thosewho arc mentally ill, thosewho are especially violent-formore structured settings. Butit seems able to work in almostany jurisdiction and type ofincarceration--jails (pretrial,short-term detention) as wellas prisons (sentenced, longer-term institutions).

Officers and inmates come When the Federal Bureau offrom the same population as Prisons, traditionally the mostbefore. Crime statistics innovative force in Americanhaven’t improved, and corrections, developed theviolence has, if anything, be- direct supervision model, itcome more common. What was trying to follow a basic

has changed is the design andmanagement of these par-ticular new institutions.

The direct supervision style isacombination of managementand operational philosophy,design features, and stafftraining. It has spread from ex-periences of the U. S. Bureauof Prisons in several prisonsand three prototypical jailsbuilt in the 1970s to a dozencounty jails within a dozenmore in various stages of con-struction. Over the past 10years, we have formallyevaluated several of thesefacilities and found that theywork well, to a degree fewcorrections veterans orpsychologists would have im-agined.

- l -

directive: “If you can’trehabilitate, at least do noharm. " Three federalMetropolitan CorrectionalCenters (MCCs) were built inChicago, New York, and SanDiego to provide humane,secure detention.

The key concept was direct

supervision-placing officersin housing units and not incontrol booths, in constant anddirect contact with inmates.This philosophy was difficultto implement in older facilitiesdesigned to keep officers andinmates separate. The ar-chitecture of the MCCs al-lowed direct supervision towork as intended.

The first reaction to this arran-gement by traditional war-dens, jail officials, and mostvisitors is usuallyastonishment. They think ofthe public and staff safety interms of hard barriers betweenUS and THEM The newdesign seemingly places of-ficers at the mercy of inmates.But our research with theMCCs showed just the op-posite. Officers in constantand direct contact with in-mates get to know them and

can recognize and respond totrouble before it escalates intoviolence. They arc no longerforced to wait to respond after

trouble starts. Negotiationand communication becomemore important staff skillsthan brute strength. (There is,for example, strong evidencethat female officers do at leastas well as male officers whileworking on male units.Females make up as much as40% of the officer corps in

these institu-tions.)

Compared totraditional jailsof similar size,the MCCs andother direct su-pervision jails

report much less conflictamong inmates, and betweeninmates and staff. Violent in-cidents ate reduced 30% to90% and homosexual rape vir-tually disappears.

There are similar dramaticdrops in vandalism and graf-fiti. In the new jail at PimaCounty, Arizona, for example,the number of damaged mat-tresses dropped from 150 peryear to none in two years;from an average of two TVsneeding repair per week to twoin two years; and from anaverage of 99 sets of inmateclothes destroyed per week to15 sets in two years.

This is accomplished in jailsthat are, in the long run,cheaper to construct thantraditional jails. Because van-dalism is so ram, constructionmoney can be saved by usingstandard materials (such asporcelain plumbing and ordi-nary lighting fixtures) instead

of more costly vandal-proofversions.

It is impossible to directlycompare operating costs, be-cause the level of programs forinmates provided varies great-ly among direct and indirectsupervision jails. But in look-ing at personnel costs (whichcan account for as much as70% of the operating budget),one can note that sick leave isgenerally lower in direct su-pervision jails (by as much as50% in the Tombs), while jobsatisfaction among officers ishigher.

A most striking finding wasthe high level of agreementbetween officers and inmateson the advantages of direct su-pervision. While roles remaindistinct, officers generally ac-knowledged that what wasgood for inmates helped staffas well, by reducing tensionand improving conditions.

This agreement extended totheir joint criticism of somefeatures of the MCCs-confin-ing all activities to the smallhousing unit was restrictive,monotonous, and excessivelyboring. (While the excessiveboredom can and has been im-proved, it is vastly superior asa predominant experiencethan a sense of terror.) Theyalso complained about the airquality in scaled, environmen-tally regulated buildings, acomplaint echoed by workersin many modem office build-ings.

Our studies showed that, over-

all , the new approachproduced a string of successesin a field better known for itsfailures. Curiously, despitethe successes, the federalmodel didn’t initially “sell”well among local correctionalofficials, who were not con-vinced this model would workin their systems, with their in-mates.

Finally, in the late 1970s. offi-cials in one California county,Contra Costa, were impressedby the tension-free atmos-phere at the MCC in Chicago.They used it as a model fortheir own jail, making designimprovements based in parton the recommendations ofour study, which they laterused as a staff training docu-ment.

For example, Contra Costaprovided outdoor recreationyards for each living unit.Key features were the same,however. The of f icerremained inside the livingarea. Inmates had easy accessto television, phones, andother services. The designused carpeting, comfortablefurniture, pleasant colors, andprovided for inmate privacy.

When we evaluated the ContraCosta County Jail, we foundthe same compelling resultswe had in the MCCs. Assaultswere rare, down 90%fromtheold facility. Homosexual rapehad disappeared. Vandalismand graffiti were nonexistent.

Contra Costa’s experienceconvinced some visiting cor-

rectional officials. One com-mented:

"I must say that I felt yourtype of Operation was, to sapthe least, a very liberal ap-proach to incarceration-thatwas prior to (my tour)... it be-came quite evident that theapproach was not necessarilyliberal but instead practicalThe lack of tension could befelt ... Some (of us) thoughtthe prisoners were tranquil-ized We soon realized thatthe prisoners were notdrugged. They were insteadreacting to the environ-ment....”

Others, however, argued thatthese inmates were not as“tough” as those in their sys-tem. This argument becameharder to make after the suc-cessful opening of the Tombsin New York City. It followedthe direct supervision model,although rather conservative-ly, as a concession to internalconcerns that New Yorkmight, indeed, be a specialtougher case. These conces-sions included provid-ing smaller inmate-to-staff ratios (35:l vs.45-65: l-)-and harderfinishes. The exposedofficers’ desks weredesigned so that theycould later be enclosed inglass if needed. The partitionshave never been used

living units. (Some visitorssuggest it may be the onlybuilding in New York withoutgraffiti!) There were nohomicides, suicides, or sexualassaults, or escapes, and only52 incidents of inmate-inmateor inmate-staff assaults duringthe first two years, about asmany as may occur weekly insome other city facilities. In-mates rarely made or smug-gled in weapons, not becauseit was difficult to do so, butbecause, they told us, theydidn’t feel the fear whichdrives prisoners to obtainweapons for self protection.

The Tombs is not problem-free, nor are most other directsupervision jails. Serious dif-ficulties often occur in intakeand receiving areas, placesmost like traditional jails indesign and operation. There,anxiety levels are highest aspeople who, hours before,were free now become in-mates and at placed in hard,barren cells with a doxen ormore others. There is also noprivacy-toilets are often open

In its first two years of opera-tion, the Tombs has performedbetter than any other NewYork City jail. Vandalism andgraffiti cannot be found on

stalls in the corner oftheccll.

These areas typically have

partitions are broken. Staff and in-mates call these places the mostdangerous in the facility.

- 3 -

By contrast, the Contra Costajail designed the intake area tobe like the rest of the facility.Most inmates wait in open car-peted lounges, much like adoctor’s waiting room.

Televisions and magazinesare available, as is access tophones, water, and toilets. Thestrategy appears to work.These areas did not suffer themistreatment of their counter-parts in the Tombs and otherdirect supervision jails.

These jails seem to succeedbecause of a managementphilosophy that commits theorganization to the methodsand training needed for direct

supervision, and complemen-tary physical design that sup-ports its function. Tom Barry,former warden of the Tombs,notes: “Jail design is to thecorrectional staff what toolsare to the plumber. You canget the job done with out-of-date tools, but not as weIl oras easily.”

peed, what willbe reinforced, and whatpunished.

The setting of a traditional jailsuggests that animal-like be-havior is likely and expected.Inmates are placed in hardcages, while staff maintain asafe distance on the other sideof steel bars.

The National Institute of Cor-rections has identified a series

Direct supervision sends a

of basic management prin-very different message. The

ciples for operating direct su-open setting, use of colors and

pervision institutions. Ourmaterials atypical of institu-

interviews and observationstions, presence of an officer in

suggest how this systemthe living area, and use of non-secure furniture and fixtures

manages to mitigate twomajor jail problems-violence

all speak of positive, prosocial

and vandalism.behavior. Although no onewould mistake it for anything

- 4 -

VIOLENCE ANDVANDALISM

Many feel that jails are in-evitably violent settings, be-cause of the aggressive natureof inmates. The experience ofdirect supervision jails. how-ever, reinforces the notion that“violent personality” is not asufficient explanation. Thephysical and social environ-ment play a critical role in anumber of ways.

First, the physical and socialenvironment plays a role insetting behavioral expecta-tions. The cues provided bythe behavior we observe ofothers and the messages im-

p l ic i t in thephysical settinghelp define for usthe behavioralnorm of a place-

other than a jail, it is a jail witha different set of behaviornorms.

Second, the presence of theofficer constantly in andamong the inmates plays apowerful role in improvingsafety. The officer continuallyinteracts with the inmates andcan learn of and respond toproblems before they explodeinto disruptions.

This presence reducesinmates’ fear and the “macho”posturing that often leads toserious fights. Inmatesrepeatedly told us that theyknew “the man” would bethere to intervene if they wereattacked. In traditional jails,officers often do not knowabout an attack, or wait torespond until the fight is over.

The close officer-inmate con-tact, and close managementsupervision of officers assuresthat officers and inmates willbe held accountable for theiractions.

Third these facilities typicallyprovide considerably moreprivacy for inmates than dotraditional jails. By being ableto go to their own room when-ever desired, inmates can“cool or rather than directlyrespond to the threatening be-havior of others. The cycle ofmacho posturing is broken.

The expectation of positivebehavior extends to takingc a r e o f the setting.Psychologist Robert Sommerof the University of Califor-

nia, Davis, suggests that in-stitutionally “hard” architec-ture proclaims itsinvulnerability to attack andmay be viewed as a challengeto be overcome. Site harden-ing, the most commonresponse to vandalism, both inand out of institutions, doesnot deter vandalism. Destruc-tion is rampant in many placeswhich might appear imper-vious to human impact

Vandalism is further reducedby the ability of residents toadjust and regulate the directsupervision setting. Muchvandalism in jails, as in othersettings, is less wantondestruction than accidental orattempts to adjust the setting.In these settings, unlike manytraditional jails, chairs can bemoved, TV sets have acces-sible controls and inmates canturn lights on and off. A fewdesign oversights prove theexceptions which emphasizethis point. In the ChicagoMCC, the only living arealamp regularly broken was theone without an accessibleswitch which shone on thetelevision making it hard tosee.

Similarily, inmates often stufftowels in room air vents tocontrol air flow (called van-dalism by maintenance staff).In the Contra Costa jail, VIPsfrom around the country sleptin the jail before its officialopening, and many stuffedtowels in the vents to keep thedrafts off their necks. Alouvre control could preventthis “vandalism.”

Making certain resourcesavailable in adequate quan-tities also works to lessenviolence by reducing competi-tion. Competit ion fortelevisions, telephones, orprime seats can lead to con-flict. The Chicago MCCprovided four TV areas for 44inmates, while there wereonly two TV areas for 48 in-mates in the New York MCC.Conflict over TV channelswas common in New York,rare in Chicago. Our recom-mendations for the Tombs in-cluded adding moretelephones to living units forinmate use. Competition for

-phones was one of the fewregular sources of conflict.

The success of direct super-vision jails raises a naturalquestion: If they worked sowell, why are jails still beingbuilt according to oldermodels of operation anddesign? Why haven’t correc-tional officials flocked on thebandwagon?

suggest a new direction forfear of losing a new contract.

Since jails are an extraordi-nary expense for most localjurisdictions, politics and in-volved. It may be politicallysafer to build traditionally.Who wants to be accused of“coddling” criminals, espe-cially if there should later be akilling, riot, or escape? (Thismay change as litigationmakes jurisdictions financial-ly liable for injuries in unsafejails.)

Direct supervision may beviewed as a threat by some. Itsphilosophy implies that if ajail doesn’t operate well, theresponsibility rests with thequality of administrationrather than the failings of staffor inmates. Correctional of-ficers are often initially skep-tical about direct supervision,especially after years of con-tract bargaining based on(reasonable) assumptions ofhigh job danger. For example,the officers’ union initially

There a r es e v e r a lreasons. Oneis size. Manyjails are simp-ly too small(fewer than50 beds) to afford the staffneeded for this kind of opera-tion. Also, many decisionmakers either don’t knowabout direct supervision ordon’t know how well it hasworked. Some architecturalfirms these officials dependupon for expertise are them-selves unaware or reluctant to

vigorously opposed direct su-pervision for the Tombs: of-ficers who are there nowstrongly support the concept.

Philosophical differences canalso play a role in rejectingdirect supervision. Whiledirect supervision supportersrun the gamut of correctionalphilosophies-separation from

- 5 -

society vs. rehabilitation vs.punishment-some who support a punishment model firm-ly be l ieve in harsherenvironments and greaterstaff-inmate separation.Others agree with Universityof Chicago criminologist Nor-val Morris who commentedthat, in this society, people arcsent to prison as punishment,not for punishment.

evidence anyone finds thempreferable to being “outside.”

Direct supervision will notdirectly affect our notoriouslyhigh recidivism rates. At thevery least, however, it canreduce the harm traditionaljails have done throughdegrading, terrifying, and as-saultive conditions. At best, itcan help provide a setting in which rehabilitative programs

have a chance towork. AaronBrown of theNational In-stitute of Cor-rections says

Direct supervision supportershave no distinguishing politi-cal leanings. They includehardline old correctional of-ficers and new criminologyPh.D.‘s, liberals as well asconservatives. Direct super-vision is winning favor notsimply because it is seen as away of treating inmates morehumanely, although that iscritical for some. Supporterssee it as a way of making cor-rectional institutions workbetter and safer than everbefore, for inmates as well asstaff.

The hardest and cruelest ofjails have not deterred crime,as best we can tell, anymorethan public hangings deterredLondon pickpockets in Char-les Dickens’ time. However“nice” the direct supervisionjail environment may be, thereis no doubt it is still viewed asa jail by the inmates. Loss offreedom is the essentialpunishment, and there is no

that direct su-pervision ” . ..is simply a betterway of treating people...andthat’s who institutions arebuilt for- people, inmates,and staff...it all comes down tothis.” Brown adds, “correc-tional institutions can bedesigned to be peoplemanagement institutions orhardware institutions.” Directsupervision represents an at-tempt at people management.

Billions. of tax dollars arcbeing wasted on jails andprisons short-sightedly beingplanned and built using tradi-tional management anddesignconcepts, which arc destinedto produce more dangerous,stressful, and traumatic set-tings for inmates and the staffwho operate them. We willhave to live with these mis-takes well into the next cen-tury. They are mistakes wedon’t have to make and cannotafford, economically or so-cially. As Chief Justice War-

ren Burger said, “to put peoplebehind walls and bars and dolittle or nothing to changethem is to win a battle but losea war. It is wrong. It is expen-sive. It is stupid.”

DIRECT SUPERVISION

The direct supervisionphilosophy is best ex-

plained by contrasting it toearlier design/managementstyles. The oldest style isreferred to as providing“Linear Remote Surveil-lance.’ Cells line up in rowsand officers look into them bypatrolling along separatecorridors or along catwalks.Officers and inmates arephysically separated, usuallyby bars. The officers haveonly intermittent views of in-mate activity, with few oppor-tunities for contact and com-munication with them

The second-generation, “In-direct Surveillance” model,was developed in the 1960’s.Cells became rooms, and barsare replaced by solid doors.These rooms usually surroundan open dayroom space for TVviewing, and other activities.Officers sit in secure glassenclosed control booths fromwhich they observe, but rarelyenter the living area and haveonly sporadic personal com-munication with inmates.

In the third generation’ “DirectSupervision” living areas maylook much like second genera-tion facilities, although theyare often larger and arc morelikely to use “softer” materials

and fixtures. The critical dif-ference is that there is noenclosed officer booth. of-ficers spend their time in thehousing module interactingwith the inmates. The focus ison active supervision in placeof more passive surveillance.The officer’s job is to knowabout and be in control of ac-tivity. not just observe it. SaysAaron Brown of the NICWashington office, “the dif-ference between observation(indirect surveillance) and su-pervision (direct supervision)is a wall...whether it’s glass orconcrete, it’s a wall,” and onecan’t effectively supervisefrom the other side of a wall.

In fact, the officer’s entire rolehas been redefined as a profes-sional rather than a turnkey.Officers need skills in inter-personal communication.crisis intervention, and coun-seling. They may begin to seetheir role as a service providerand manager, rather than justa strong-arm security agent.We found, within a year afterthe Contra Costa DetentionFacility opened, a strikingchange for the better in thesense of professionalism ex-hibited by officers there, andin how challenging anddesirable they consideredtheir new job assignment.

The physical setting supportsthis management philosophyby providing an atmosphere inwhich interaction with in-mates can occur more natural-ly. Inmate can move freelywithin the living area.Television areas are acces-

sible. Telephones hang on thewall for inmates to use. Theycan go to their rooms whenthey want, although theyusually need an officer to un-lock the door. In most cases,they can let themselves out oftheir rooms, except duringspecial lock-in periods andovernight.

COMMANDMENTS OFDIRECT SUPERVISIONMANAGEMENT

Political scientist LindaZupan, of washington stateUniversity, has suggested thatthe mere existence of acohesive managementphilosophy helps set direct su-pervision jails apart fromtraditional ones. Their basicmanagement principles, asidentified by the National In-stitute of Corrections’ are:

1. Effective Control. Themanagers must be in totalcontrol of the facility at alltimes. There cannot beareas under de facto controlof inmates.

2. Effective Supervision.Staff must be in direct con-tact with inmates and relyheavily on personal inter-action with inmates for su-pervision. Manageablestaff-inmate ratios arc criti-cal for effective super-vision.

3. Competent Staff. Recruit-ment, training, and leader-ship by management arenecessary for direct super-

vision to operate as in-tended.

4. Safety of Staff and In-mates. The basic missionof a jail is to keep inmatessafe and secure and not ex-pose staff to undue risk.

5. Manageable and Cost-Effective Operations.Running a less dangerousinstitution allows for morearchitectural options, atreduced cost, providing anincentive for inmates tomaintain acceptable stand-ards of behavior.

6. Effective Communica-t ion. Frequent com-munication between staffand inmates and amongstaff is critical.

7. Classification and Orien-tation. Inmates should beclosely observed in the first48 hours of confinement(when suicide risk isgreatest) and oriented tothe operation of the setting.A key to-being able to pro-vide expectations of posi-tive behavior is identifyingand selecting out in-dividuals who will not con-form to behavior norms ofthe living unit.

8. Justice and Fairness.Conditions of incarcera-tion must respect inmates’constitutional rights. In-mates must believe thatthey will be treated fairlyand that there are ad-minstrative remedies fordisputes.

- 7 -

- 9 -

SPECIAL FOCUS ON: COMPARISON OF DIRECTAND INDIRECT SUPERVISION FACILITIES

Part I: Research Findings

October 1989

This “Special Focus” articleis the first of a two-part

series that summarizes thenewly-released findings of aNational Institute of Correc-tions (NIC) research effort.

NIC grant GG-1 sponsored anextensive comparison ofdirect and indirect supervisionfacilities, producing the FinalReport: A Comparison ofDirect and Indirect Super-vision Facilities in June, 1989.The project Co-Directors, JayFarbstein, Ph.D. and RichardE. Wener, Ph.D., have ap-proved the application of thefollowing excerpts from theirreport.

I. INTRODUCTION

Purpose. This report describesa study that attempts to quan-tify the differences betweendirect and indirect supervisionand to specify the design im-plications of each mode so thatjurisdictions faced withchanging or expanding theircorrectional programs willhave a more sound basis forchoosing between them.

Definitions. Modem indirectsupervision facilities havebeen shaped by corrections

tradition, changing views ofprisoners rights, and technol-ogy. The most highly regardedlayout consists of a central,enclosed control booth Withone or more officers overlook-ing a dayroom surrounded bysingle cells (often referred toas a modular or podular plan,with an individual unitreferred to as a “pod”). Avariation is to surround thedayroom with multiple oc-cupancy cells or dorms. Pods

-usually contain 48 to 60 bedswhich are further subdividedinto 12- to 15-bed units,though, in some cases, a singlecontrol booth may observecloser to 100 cells. Durable,vandal-resistant building sys-tems, fixtures, and finishes arecommonly used. It is typical tofind elaboratee l e c t r o n i cdetection, lock-ing, and com-m u n i c a t i o nsystems, alloperated fromthe control sta-tion.

many such facilities, officerscommunicate with inmatesusing a public address or inter-com system. Staff safety isprovided by a physical barrierplaced between them and theinmates. Inmate security isprovided by the use of in-dividual cells and the ability ofstaff to muster a response teamin the event of an incident.

The operational and physicalenvironments of direct super-vision facilities take a dif-ferent a p p r o a c h t o .management. They aredesigned to express the expec-tation of acceptable behaviorby the inmates. The physicaldesign might be similar inoverall configuration to in-direct supervision facilities

T h e p r i m a r yfunctions of the correctionalofficer in indirect supervisionfacilities is to operate the con-trol systems, observe inmatebehavior, provide limited in-tervention in response tominor infractions, and call forbackup staff response in theevent of a major incident. In

(with single cells arrayedaround a dayroom), but oftenwould also include addedamenities such as carpeting,upholstered furnishings,several television spaces,game tables, and exerciseequipment. Most important,correctional officers are sta-tioned inside the living unit

- l l -

with the inmates , no tseparated from them by a bar-rier.

Personal interaction with theinmates is one of the primaryduties of the officers in thedirect supervision model.Security is heavily dependentupon the ability of highlytrained staff to detect anddefuse potential problems. Of-ficers walk through and con-trol the entire living unit,eliminating de facto inmatecontrolled territories.

Direct supervision pods of 48to 60 beds are not further sub-divided, so that the officer cancirculate among all the in- mates without having to un-loch doors. This also allowsspecial use areas to be createdwithin a much larger con-tinuous dayroom space. Thelarger living area contributesto normalization of the en-vironment and increases thetendency of inmates togravitate into smaller, com-patible groups.

Physical amenities have oneof two purposes in thesefacilities. First, they allow theinmates to fulfill basic needsindependently. These are

needs that the officers wouldhave to fill if the amenity werenot there, taking the officeraway from the primary task ofinmate supervision. For ex-

ample, inmates are given ac- between staff and inmates canass to controls for lights in be anywhere from formal andtheir cells. The other possible limited to informal and ongo-function of an amenity is its ing. But the single featureuse in setting up expectations distinguishing direct super-of rational and cooperative in- vision is the constant presencemate behavior. of the officer in the living unit.

The combination of physicalamenities and continual inter-action between inmates andstaff facilitates the use of be-havior management techni-ques. If an inmate exhibitsinappropriate behavior, thecorrectional officer’s job is torecognize it and respond im-mediately. Consequences canrange from restrictingprivileges to removing the in-mate to a less desirable, moresecure section of the facility.Inmates who are cooperativeand well-behaved enjoy theprivileges of a nicer environ-ment. The ability to regain lostprivileges gives inmates themotivation to improve theirbehavior. The power tomanage the institution is takenaway from dominant inmatesand given to the correctionalofficers.

This points to the issue thepresent study is intended toaddress. To date most of theinformation on the effects ofdirect supervision is basedupon anecdotes from thoseusing and happy with themethod or from case studies ofindividual institutions. Thesestudies report reductions inviolence, homosexual rape,and vandalism, together withimproved staff morale, greaterjob satisfaction, and reductionof staff stress. There is littleevidence substantiated byrecognized methods of in-quiry to support or refute theclaims being made for directsupervision. There has beenno systematic, large scalecomparison of direct and in-direct supervision institutions.

Some institutions arc hybridsof the two idealized types ofsettings described above. Forexample, a facility which has

control boothscan, in addition,post officersdirectly in housingunits. Finishesand furnishings ineither type of

facility can range from thosethat arc soft and commercialto those that are hard and in-stitutional. The interactions

Evaluation Issues. It was theintention of this project to ex-plore the following types ofissues for the two types offacilities. (Note that for someissues sufficiently reliabledata were not able to be col-lected).

cost. The cost of construc-tion, operating costs for staff-ing, maintenance, and repairs.

Staff Impacts. Objective andsubjective measures of staffinjuries and use of sick time.

- 1 2 -

Objective information onstaffing ratios.

Safety and Security. Objec-tive and subjective measuresof physical assaults, suicideattempts, and escapes.

Environmental-BehaviorIssues. The relationships be-tween the built environmentand behavior, such as the im-pact of soft furnishings,finishes, and inmate control ofsurroundings on such out-comes as incidents and van-dalism. These features may ormay not contribute to the over-all management approach

Design Issues. An overviewof the range of design optionsassociated with each super-vision type including singleversus multiple occupancy,types of finishes and furnish-ings, etc.

Impact of Overcrowding. Theextent of overcrowding andsubjective impressions of thephysical and operationalability to cope with it.

Research Hypothesis. Ouroperating hypothesis, basedon previous research, was thatthe direct supervision institu-tions would demonstrate anumber of benefits comparedto indirect supervision in-stitutions. We expect them toreport a greater level of safetyfor inmates and staff withoutreducing security, They wouldshow increased levels of staff-inmate contact and morequality contact (longer dura-tion; more personal). We

would also expect less use ofstaff sick leave, less inmateutilization of health care ser-vices, and less vandalism.

Direct supervision settingsare expected to be able to copebetter with overcrowding.

Within this model, it will beimportant to control for othervariables such as staffingratios, "Hardness or softness"of the environment, theavailability of resources, andthe type of inmate (long versusshort time, type of offense.etc.).

Overview of Methods. Thisproject adopted a two-phasedapproach: Phase 1 involvedthe mailing of a detailed sur-vey to a broad sample of directand indirect supervisionprisons and jails. Phase IIconsisted of in-depth onsitecase studies at seven facilities.

Phase I: Survey. A 19-pagequestionnaire was distributedto a sample of direct and in-direct supervision jails andprisons.

Phase II: Case StudyMethods. the second phaseof the study, we sought to col-lect more detailed data at asmallernumber of institutionsconcerning the physical en-vironment as well as the be-haviors and attitudes of users.Several modes were used fordata gathering, including sur-vey instruments, interviewformats, and searches of ad-ministrative or archival data.

- 13 -

II. FINDINGS FROMC A S E S T U D I E S

A. Behavioral Tracking.

Tracking data provide a pic-ture of the interactions thattake place in the jails andprisons -where, how and withwhom officers and inmatescommunicate. While the pic-ture is complicated by speciallocal conditions and designvariations, patterns emergewhich highlight the com-parison between direct and in-direct supervision facilities.

There are several consistentdifferences between the four

direct supervision facilities ascompared with the three in-direct supervision facilities.The indirect facilities show alower level of interactionoverall and the interactionswhich do occur tend to be of abriefer duration (that is, most

living units, interacting withother officers. The greateststaff-to-inmate interaction isseen at CHIL, where officersspend most of their time inter-acting with inmates indayrooms.

Direct supervision and in-direct supervisionfacilities were similarin the way officer be-havior was affected by

are quick exchanges, withfewer long conversations).

In parallel, the amount of timewhich correctional officers inindirect facilities spend in anyliving unit is lower than fordirect supervision facilities.(Note: The data for RSP andNSP represent a composite ofthe pair of living units super-vised by correctional of-ficers).

Partly as a result, the amountof interaction between staffand inmates is considerablylower in indirect supervisionfacilities than in direct super-vision ones. Officers in in-direct facilities (except NSP)experience a far higherproportion of staff-to-staff(versus staff-to-inmate) inter-actions than do officers indirect facilities. In otherwords, direct supervision of-ficers spend a higher percent-age of their time interactingwith inmates than do indirectsupervision officers.

RCJ is the extreme example ofthis phenomenon, where of-ficers spend most of their timein control stations away from

having a second of-ficer present. We noted (bothin the formal data as well as ininformal observations) thatwith a second officer present,both officers tend to spendmore time in or near the of-ficer station, and more timeinteracting with each otherthan with inmates.

This information has implica-tions for responses to over-crowding. In some settings,policy states that when inmatepopulations exceed certainlevels (65 at CCC) a secondcorrectional officer is added tothe unit. While the second of-ficer may be needed, our datasuggest that he/she may alsodetract from the desiredoperation of direct super-vision. Under the stress of thejob, correctional officers ap-pear to be drawn together andaway from inmate contact.

B. Questionnaires

Perceptions of Inmates andStaff at Jails. Inmate respon-dents in the direct supervisionjails rated their contacts withofficers as more friendly andless hostile. They saw the of-

- 1 4 -

ficers as doing a better jobprotecting inmate safety andresponding more quickly incase of an emergency. Theyindicated then was less van-dalism, more privacy (espe-cially for toilet use), and thatthe facilities were cleaner.They rated time in thesefacilities as less stressful.

On the negative side, thesedirect supervision facilitieswere clearly rated as morecrowded than the indirect su-pervision jail. This validatesobjective data that those par-ticular direct supervisionfacilities were indeed muchmore crowded. A number ofissues which were closely re-lated to crowding were seen asproblems by inmates in thedirect supervision facilities(i.e., harder access to TV’s,phones, etc.).

There were also some incon-sistencies among items. Forexample, inmates in the in-direct supervision jail ratedofficers as involved more incounseling -and casual chat-ting (in spite of clear trackingdata showing much less inter-action at this facility).

The view from the correction-al officers was generallysimilar to those of inmates.Officers in the direct super-vision jails rated interactionwith inmates as mom frequentand mote positive than did of-ficers in the indirect super-vision jail. They rated theirfacility as having less risk ofsexual assault, as safer for of-ficers, and as affording a better

response time in case of emer-gencies than did indirect su-pervision officers.

The direct supervisionfacilities were seen by officersas better designed to facilitatesurveillance, cleaner, andeasier for inmate movement.Consistent with inmateratings, the officers also sawcrowding, with its relatedspace and facilities problems,as a much more severe prob-lem in the direct supervisionfacilities.

Perceptions of Inmates andStaff at Prisons. Inmates inthe direct supervision prisonsrated their settings as havingmore officer contact, and saidthat the contact was less for-mal, more friendly, and lesshostile than did inmates in theindirect supervision facilities.They saw less chance of a cor-rectional officer-inmate at-tack, fewer fights, and fastercorrectional officer responseto emergencies. They felt lessstressed than inmates in theindirect supervision prisons,as indicated by lower scoreson the somatic complaintscale. They also felt the livingunits were cleaner, less van-dalized, and better in ap-pearance.

As in the jails, however, in-mates in direct supervisionprisons rated their settings assignificantly more crowdedthan did indirect supervisioninmates. Possibly as a conse-quence, they also saw risk ofinmate-on-inmate attacks and

sexual assaults as greater (lar-gely because of shared rooms)

The staff data for prisons is notas clear. Officers in direct su-pervision prisons indicatedthat they had more interactionwith inmates than did those indirect supervision facilities.They also felt the facilities of-fered better surveillance, bet-ter designed staff controlareas, and were cleaner. In-direct supervision officers,however, rated their prisonssomewhat better in terms ofease of contacting another of-ficer and lower risk of sexualassault. They saw their settingas less crowded and havingmore adequate resources interms of TV’s, phones, andall privacy.

C. Interviews

Overall Impressions from theInterviews. Some of thedirect supervision institutionsreceived highly positive com-ments, along the lines of “thisis the best facility I’ve everbeen in.” The facilities were

characterized as low stress set-tings. Overcrowding, where itexisted, clearly made inmatesmore negative about settings.

At the indirect supervision in-stitutions, com-ments were neutralto negative, withsome inmates find-ing the settingsrather stressful. rStaff in the indirectfacilities bemoaned the lack ofvisibility of inmate areas. In-mates seemed to find these

facilities more stressful thandid direct supervision in-mates, and particularly noteddifficulties in staff contact.

Safety and Security. Inmatesin direct supervision facilitiesgenerally express feelingquite safe.

In indirect supervisionfacilities, there is clearly lessof a feeling of safety amongboth inmates and staff. In-mates do not feel protected bystaff and have to fend forthemselves.

Privacy. Staff and inmateswere asked the followingquestions:

Inmates: Does the housingunit give you the privacy youneed?

Staff: Does your work settinggive you the privacy you needto do your job?

Privacy is not related so muchto a supervision mode as toother factors (single versusdouble occupancy cells,crowding, noise, placement oftelephones, provision of of-ficers). Inmates in double cellscomplained of a lack ofprivacy as did those in a

facility with toilets visiblefrom the dayroom. Ease ofaccess to rooms is an importantfactor in inmates’ perceived

-15-

privacy. Privacy for phone inmates reported unpleasantconversations and places for interactions and officersstaff and/or inmates to gather reported less frequent con-for a private conversation tacts. Inmates in both the in-were felt to be important. Staff direct supervision prisonsneeded a place for paperwork, reported contacts to be onlythough this did not need to be occasional, while officers sawan enclosed control booth. In them as more frequent. Bothone of the indirect supervision groups reported typical inter-facilities, staff complained actions to be perfunctory--that inmates had privacy from brief discussions over unitstaff but not from each other. business.

Staff Inmate Interaction. Akey difference between super-vision modes becomes clearwith these questions. In directsupervision facilities, staff-in-mate interaction is describedas frequent, professional topleasant in nature, and in-mates feel that they have easyaccess to staff when they needor want it. officers feel thatthey get to know the inmateswell (which helps in evaluat-ing them). Officers state theneed to keep contacts fromgetting too personal or friend-ly.

Care Of Facilities. There waslittle difference in the level ofcare (or degree of vandalism)reported at the various sites.All reported a rather good togood level of care. At some oft h e direct supervisionfacilities, this was attributed tothe clear expectations, rewardsystem, and continual obser-vation by staff.

In indirect supervisionfacilities, the quantity andquality of interactions isdescribed as being muchlower. At an indirect jail, in-mates described feeling iso-lated from staff and unable toget anofficer’s attention whenneeded They admitted goingout of their way to hassle theofficers, who in their turn, per-ceivcd much verbal abusefrom inmates. Betweenthe in-direct and hybrid prisons,there was a considerable dif-ference in interactions due tothe character of the staff sta-tion. Where it was enclosed,

Crowding. By and large, theindirect supervision facilitiesin our sample were not over-crowded, so our results are notenlightening regarding anydifferences in coping thatmight be due to supervision.By contrast, all the direct su-pervision facilities in oursample were experiencingsome degree of over-crowd-ing. This varied from crowd-ing in one or two units, todistributed double bunking ofabout 40% of the roomsthroughout the facility, to onefacility that was greatly over-crowded throughout (a secondfacility under these conditionsdid not supply interview data).All comments agreed thatovercrowding leads to nega-tive outcomes for those whoexperience it.

- 1 6 -

Among the strategies for copingwith overcrowding, addingequipment (phones and TVs)and staff, as well as using thesingle occupancy rooms asrewards and the overcrowdingareas for new arrivals and short-termers, were mentioned.

Control Over the Environ-ment. The direct supervisionfacilities generally seem to pro-vide inmates more control overlights and sleeping room doors,with two of the prisons evensupplying inmates with theirown keys. This is in keepingwith a philosophy of encourag-ing responsible behavior.

Synthesis: Features to Keep orChange. Inmates and staffwere asked which aspects of thehousing unit’s design andoperation worked well and whatchanges they would make.

There were no clear contrastsbetween the supervision modes.In general, respondents ap-preciated dayrooms or open-ness,visibility, and provision ofequipment (when adequate) andcomplained when visibility wasimpaired or equipment inade-quate. Single rooms were great-ly praised for the their provision ofprivacy.Staffing at less than thefull complement and over-crowding were uniformlyrejected. Inmates in the in-direct supervision prisons clear-ly wanted more access to freshair, reduced noise, and greaterfacilities. They also criticizedthe lack of a continual officerpresence. Staff in thesefacilities also criticized the in-termittent officer presence.

- 17 -

SPECIAL FOCUS ON: COMPARISON OF DIRECTAND INDIRECT SUPERVISION FACILITIES

PART II: Conclusions

DETENTION REPORTER

November 1989

This Special Focus article isthe second of a two-part

series that summarizes thenewly-released findings of aNational Institute of Correc-tions (NIC) research effort.

NIC grant GG- I sponsored anextensive comparison ofdirect and indirect supervisionfacilities, producing the FinalReport: A Comparison ofDirect and Indirect Super-vision Facilities in June, 1989.The project Co-Directors, JayFarbstein, Ph.D. and RichardE. Wener, Ph.D., have ap-.proved the publication of thefollowing excerpts from theirreport.

I. INTRODUCTION

The last issue of the DetentionReporter summarized severalkey findings from the re-search effort. The study at-tempted to quantify thedifferences between direct andindirect supervision and tospecify the design implica-tions of each mode so thatjurisdictions faced withchanging or expanding theircorrectional programs willhave a more sound basis forchoosing between them.

This issue will summarize theconclusions of the authors ofthe report.

II. CONCLUSIONS

The study has revealed someof the multiple facets of directsupervision, as summarized inthe following responses to theresearch questions.

What is direct Supervision?(Or, "indirect Supervision,By Any Other Name")

Many prisons describe them-selves as direct supervision,even though they haveenclosed control booths at thehousing units with at leastsome of their staff stationed inthem. This makes it difficult toclassify prisons and to identifyones that are truly limited to

- 1 9 -

indirect supervision. The in-direct supervision prisons inour study actually best repre-sented the hybrid direct/in-direct supervision model, withsome aspects of each mode.Jails, by contrast, appear tomore closely follow thedirect/indirect dichotomy,though some direct super-vision jails are provided withenclosed control booths,either because the systemcommitted to direct super-vision after plans were final-ized, or as a fall back orfailsafe measure.

How Is Each SupervisionMode Perceived By Manage-ment?

There is a trend toward directsupervision facilities beingrated somewhat better than in-direct ones. Managers ofdirect supervision facilitieswere significantly more likelythan managers of indirectfacilities to feel that direct su-pervision was an appropriatedesign and management form.

In What Ways Do Direct andIndirect Facilities DifferPhysically?

The presence of an enclosedcontrol booth in the housingunit characterizes indirect su-pervision facilities (thoughthis is not a decisive differen-tiation). We also found thatdirect supervision facilitiesarc more likely to be softer and

more normalized and theircells arc likely to have moreamenities. Sanitation levels.cleanliness, and overall condi-tion were not found to differ.

How Critical is the BuiltEnvironment?

An improved quality of en-vironment contributes to

inmate management and otherbeneficial outcomes, settingup positive behavioral expec-tations and norms. Direct su-pervision administrators ratea quality environment as ap-propriate and inmates weremore favorable toward condi-tions in the direct supervisionfacilities. But, it is not clearhow soft an environmentneeds to be: at what point thedesired expectations are com-municated to inmates andstaff.

A great deal of effort in cor-rectional facility design hasgone into achieving un-obstructed visual observation.Good visibility was uniformlypraised and poor visibilitydecried where they were per-

ceived to exist. Of course, ifstaff are not limited to a fixedvantage point from a controlbooth, the geometry of theunit becomes less important.With staff moving about, theopenness of a direct super-vision dayroom (if there arenot significant blind spots or

hidden areas) appears to suf-fice. Visibility from a fixedcontrol station is all impor-tant in indirect supervisionfacilities.

The provision-or not-of anenclosed control booth(which is assumed to beprovided at indirect super-vision facilities) seems to bequite critical in direct super-vision facilities. While manyindirect supervision systemsappear to believe that thebooth is needed for security oras refuge, it is clear from ob-servations and interviews thatit is possible to do without itvery successfully.

Is One Mode Safer Than TheOther For Inmates or Staff?

T h e r e i s considerableevidence that direct facilitiesarc seen as safer than indirectsupervision ones. From ourmailout survey, we found thatdirect supervision ad-ministrators rated theirfacilities as better on variablesof safety and reported fewerincidents of violence (at bor-

derline sig-n i f i c a n c elevels) thandid indirect

other dataappears to have been distortedby extreme overcrowding attwo of the direct facilities.However, when crowding (inthe form of double bunking) atthe prisons is taken into ac-count, inmates appear to feelconsiderably safer in direct su-

pervision facilities. The directsupervision facilities wereseen by inmates as providingan acceptably quick response(under a minute), while the in-direct supervision facilitieswere felt to have unacceptablylong response tunes (in the 3to 5 minute range).

How Do Staff and InmatesInteract in the Two Modes?

Observations of staff-inmateinteraction showed that of-ficers in direct supervisionfacilities do indeed spend theirtime within the living units,largely in interaction with in-mates. In contrast with in-direct facilities, directsupervision officers regularlyspoke of stopping problemsbefore they start. Staff, ratherthan inmates, appear to be incontrol of direct supervisionfacilities. Indirect supervisionstaff spend more time withother staff and corresponding-ly less time interacting withinmates.

Does Supervision Mode Havean Impact on Coping WithOvercrowding?

Crowding (occupancy abovedesign or rate capacity) has anegative or distorting effecton the results at direct super-vision facilities. The direct su-pervision housing units westudied were much larger thanthe indirect supervision andfar more over capacity. How-ever, the supervision sitesseem to hold up fairly wellunder what in some cases isextreme overcrowding. For

- 2 0 -

some factors, the over-crowded direct super-vision facilities areoperating as well as, andin some cases better than,the indirect supervisionfacilities. But in someways, the crowding seemsto strike at the foundationof the principles of directsupervision. For example,one sees officers spendingmore time with other of-ficers and at their desksthan the direct supervisionmodel would support. Of-ficers also indicate thatthey are increasingly un-familiar and out of touchwith inmates. Addingextra officers on the living unitas population increases doesnot fully compensate for deal-ing with additional inmates.Planned and actual living unitsize is a key factor in compar-ing supervision outcomes,staffing effectiveness, and ef-ficiency.

The average direct super- similarly lower for the directvision prison cost per bed was supervision cases. Staffing40% lower than for the costs were 37% lower for theaverage indirect supervision average direct supervisionprison. The direct supervision prison and 33% lower for thejail we visited cost 45% less direct supervision jail. Main-to build per inmate than the tenance costs were 37% lowerindirect supervision jail. for the direct supervision

I Iprisons and 33% lower for the

Operational costs were direct supervision jail.Are There Differencesin Cost Between TheTwo Modes?

There is evidence fromother studies that directsupervision facilitiesmay cost less to buildand operate than do in-direct ones. our studiesare not conclusive, butsuggest that this may bethe case. Threemeasures of cost wereconsidered: construc-tion cost, staffing cost,

and maintenance. Theresults are shown in thefollowing table.

- 2 1 -

Staffing and Supervision.staffing ratios are difficult tocompare due to program dif-fe rences be tween thefacilities. Regardless of thedifficulties for program dif-ferences, there is no clear cor-relation between staffing andsupervision styles. It appearsthat program choices affectstaffing ratios more than su-pervision type.

How Do Managers Choose aSupervision Model?

Given the currency of thedebate within the correctionsfield concerning direct super-vision (and endorsementsfrom some professional as-sociations), it may be difficultfor a correctional system toavoid facing a consciouschoice of supervision modeswhen planning a new facility.With considerable (even if in-conclusive) evidence pointingto benefits of direct super-vision (and little or noevidence that alternativemodels are superior), why dosome systems select direct su-pervision while others con-

facilities may be seen as beingtoo nice for inmates, who afterall are supposed to bepunished. Again, the super-vision mode may not repre-sent what some see as beingexpected of an officer (inter-action, communications, andinmate management). If theimpression of the supervisionmodel runs counter to deeplyhelp feelings or beliefs, it maybe rejected no matter howmuch objective evidence ismarshaled on its behalf. Directsupervision requires very con-siderable change for a systemwhich is operating by indirectsupervision and this changemay be perceived as unneces-sary risk-taking by decisionmakers.

Conclusion: Direct Super-vision Requires a Commit-ment to Make It Work.

There must be a commitmentfrom top management thatdirect supervision works andc o n t r i b u t e s t o theorganization’s mission.Management must believethat it is viable and effective

sidcr and reject it?

Reasons may include the no-tion that direct supervisionfacilities are not consonantwith some correctionsprofessional’s deepest feel-ings about what acorrectionalsetting should be like. These

.

commitment ofresources, man-power, training,public relations,and so forth. Aneffective clas-

sification system to screen in-mates and alternative settingsfor those inmates who cannotsucceed in a direct supervisionunit arc also essential.

There has also been a concernexpressed that, with many sys-

- 2 2 -

tems planning new ‘direct su-pervision facilities, one ormore will put the officer in thehousing unit without the train-ing and the classification ofinmates required to make thedirect supervision systemwork. This could lead to amajor disaster, such as an of-ficer being killed, which hasan unfair negative reflectionon direct supervision ingeneral.

We observed some situationsin which officers were indirect contact with inmateswithout the benefits of an ex-plicit management commit-ment to direct supervision orthe kind of training and sup-port which accompanies thatphilosophy. Under those cir-cumstances, officers weremore likely to feel exposedand endangered, and weregenerally uncomfortable withthat level of inmate contact.By contrast, in explicit directsupervision systems, inmatecontact was s e e n a sreasonable, natural, and safe.

III. SUMMARY

To summarize, direct su-pervision facilities appear

to cost less or the same as in-direct supervision ones tobuild and operate, requireless or the same level of staff-ing, and achieve desirable out-comes in terms of meetingtheir missions, reducingstress, improving safety andsecurity, and so forth. If thereis a drawback to direct super-vision facilities it is that theymay take more effort and com-

mitment to plan, train for, andmanage.

On the other hand, and evenwith the apparent advantagesof direct supervision, it mustbe stated that some of the in-direct supervision facilities inour surveys performed quitewell in many ways. Wellmanaged, well designed in-direct supervision correction-al facilities must not be lookeddown upon, particularly sinceso many of them are hybridswith partial direct supervisioncharacteristics. Such facilitieswould appear to fall within anacceptable range in terms ofcritical outcomes. Thus, whileour research shows clearlythat direct supervision doeswork and can work very well(especially when crowding isl i m i t e d ) , i t d o e s n o tdemonstrate that indirect su-pervision does not work.

Two factors could account forthe lack of stronger differen-ces in our study. First, the

selected direct supervisionfacilities were uniformly over-crowded and experiencingdouble bunking at moderate tosevere levels. The indirect su-pervision facilities, by con-trast, were largely at capacity,using single bed rooms. Thedirect supervision facilitieswere operating at a clear dis-advantage. It is very possiblethat the questionnaire ratingswould have been more posi-tive for direct supervision atlower population levels.

Second, an overview of eachof the indirect supervisionfacility case studies suggeststhat they may be operatingwell in spite of rather thanbecause of their design andmanagement philosophy.The indirect supervisiondesign and operation seemsto clearly make the officer’sjob more difficult, and attimes seems to require in-creased staffing.

IV. LIMITATIONS OFTHE STUDY

It has become obvious that,in spite of our careful atten-

tion to selection of case studysites, the results are not (andcannot be) a simple com-parison of direct versus in-direct supervision. Differen-ces in supervision style clearlyexisted and appeared to havean impact, but facilities alsodiffered in significant wayssuch as unit size, degreepopulation was over capacityand staff-inmate ratios.

There are other limitations onthe generalizability of our.findings. We only looked atrelatively new, mediumsecurity, adult male institu-tions. Because of theproblems of “hybridization,”we were only able to have alimited sample of indirect su-pervision prisons. We havebeen careful, however, not tocompare prisons with jails.

- 23 -

NEW GENERATION JAILS

W. Raymond Nelson

December 1983

INTRODUCTION

The term new generationjail refers to new or

remodeled jails that aredesigned around a podular ar-chitectural design in conjunc-tion with a direct supervisioninmate management orienta-tion. While jails of this stylewere first introduced in theFederal system nearly 10years ago, it has only been inthe past few years that theoperational principles anddynamics have been docu-mented and the concept hasbegun to gain acceptance inlocal jurisdictions. A nationaltrend appears to be emergingthat favors this architecturaldesign and management ap-proach in both detention andsentenced facilities.

In an effort to document dif-ferences between traditionallinear jails and podular/directsupervision (new generation)jails, Mike O’Toole of theNIC Jail Center collectedcomparative data from the twotypes of facilities. Anecdotalinformation and general ob-servations had seemed to indi-cate the new generation jailswere at least as secure as tradi-tional linear jails and provided

a higher level of safety forboth staff and inmates. Col-lecting and presenting data todemonstrate this, however,

p o s e d s o m e d i f f i c u l tproblems. A uniform report-ing system used by the fourfederal jails (MCC’s) allowsfor good comparison betweenthose facilities and otherfederal institutions, but therearc no uniform reporting pro-.cedures among local jails. Inaddition, general terms like“assault,” “escape,” and “van-dalism” take on highlyspecific definitions that varyto some degree from localityto locality, making any one-to-one comparisons meaning-less.On the other hand, if thegross data collected from newgeneration jails are comparedto the gross, or aggregate, datafrom traditional jails, it be-comes apparent that sig-nificant differences do existbetween the two, particularlyin relation to staff and inmateSafety.

The tradi-tional jailsselected forcomparisonare fromjurisdictionsthat are con-templating Inew genera-tion concepts in planning fortheir new facilities. They alsorepresent the range of capacitytypical of jails that might con-sider the new concept. Datawere collected from 10 juris-dictions; those excluded fromthe final report were facilitiesthat did not provide the neces-sary data and those whose data

elements were inconsistentwith others in the sample.

The concept of a podulardesign with direct supervisionhas now been endorsed byseveral national professionalcorrectional authorities. TheAmerican Correctional As-sociation endorsed this ap-proach in their publicationentitled “Design Guides forSecure Adult CorrectionalFacilities,” published inNovember of 1983. TheAmerican Ins t i tu te ofArchitecture’s Committee onArchitecture for Justice ap-pointed a subcommittee in1983 to draft a position infavor of new generation jailconcepts for adoption by theAIA. The National Instituteof Correction’s AdvisoryBoard took a formal position

- 2 5 -

on the podular design anddirect supervision manage-ment concept at their Novem-ber 21, 1983 meeting. Theirposition is worded as follows:

The Advisory Board of the Na-tional Institute of Correctionsadvocates that jurisdictionsthat are contemplating the

construction or renovation ofjails and prisons should ex-plore the appropriateness ofthe podular direct supervision(new generation) concept ofjail and prison design andmanagement for their newfacilities. The NIC AdvisoryBoard believes that theeconomic, social, and profes-sional values explicit in theconcept of jail and prisondesign and management ex-emplify an appropriate direc-tion for detention of personswho require incarceration.Evidence indicates suchfacilities are most cost effec-tive in terms of both construc-tion and operation. The Boardinstructs the Director of theNational Institute of Correc-tions to give emphasis to thedissemination of information;the training of jail and prisonpractitioners; the provision oftechnical assistance; the for-mulation of standards andpolicy; and a continuousevaluation of the effectivenessof the “Podular/Direct Super-vision” concept of jail andprison design and manage-ment, in addition to existingNIC programs.

The appendices to this ar-ticle contain informationfrom a collection of docu-ments prepared by W.R.Nelson and Mike O‘Tooleof the National Institute ofCorrections Jails Divisionin Longmont, Colorado. Italso contains information

about some of the facilitieswhere the concept has beenintroduced. Since docu-

mentation of this concept isvery recent and still evolving,i n f o r m a t i o n o n thepodular/direct supervisionconcept will be continuouslyupdated as appropriate newmaterial is received.

NEW GENERATIONJAILS: THEPODULAR/DIRECTSUPERVISION CONCEPT

D espite lofty claims ofadvanced practices and

standards compliance, there isserious doubt as to whethermost of our nearly 500 newjails will resolve fundamentalcustody problems that havetraditionally plaguedAmerican jails. In the UnitedStates, it is estimated that 478local jails of all shapes, sizes,and varieties arc currentlyproposed or under construc-tion, at a cost exceeding $3billion.’ While there is a greatvariation in the design of thesefacilities, most have one thingin common: their proponentsclaim the jails will be “state-of-the-art,” on the “leadingedge,” or “new generation.”Few are inclined to claimcredit for building a "pastgeneration" jail.

But this admittedly trite term-"new generation" - can belegitimately applied to certainnew jails that have ma& a sig-nificant departure from tradi-tional management practices.Moreover, the physical struc-tures of the these new jails aredesigned to facilitate thesepractices.This non-traditionalmanagement and design con-

- 2 6 -

cept has been called “non-bar-rier architecture” or, moreesoterically, “podular/directsupervision.” But the morepopular term is the “newgeneration jail.”

To develop a more precisedefinition of the term for thepurposes of this discussion,the approximately 1,000 jailsthat have been constructedduring the past decade havebeen classified into three basicarchitectural/managementcategories:

n n Linear/IntermittentSurveillance;

n n Podular/RemoteSurveillance; and

n Podular/DirectSupervision.

While all new jails have theirown unique characteristics,and were not designed accord-ing to this simple classifica-tion system, this identificationof three basic models is, none-theless, a useful means of or-ganizing observations andconveying a general concept.

Linear/IntermittentSurveillance

The most common category iswhat will be referred to as theLinear/Intermittent Surveil-lance model, a design pat-terned after the jails of ournot-so-glorious past. Thedesign is generally rectan-gular, with corridors leadingto either single or multiple oc-cupancy cells arranged at rightangles to the corridor. With

several exceptions, most ofour eighteenth and nineteenthcentury institutions were ofthis Linear/Intermittent Sur-veillancc type.

The management of a linearjail is, of necessity, orientedtoward intermittent surveil-lance and supervision. Sincejail officers cannot see aroundcomers, they must patrol tosee into cells or housing areas.When in a position to observeone cell, they am seldom ableto observe others; thus, whilethe inmates are not beingdirectly observed, they are es-sentially unsupervised.Prisoners who require closesupervision have been knownto create horrendous manage-ment problems. Examples ofthe resulting barbarity andsecurity breaches need not beenumerated to correctionalpractitioners.

The critical variables thatdetermine the severity ofproblems associated with theLinear/Intermittent Surveil-lance category are the fre-quency and thoroughness ofpatrols and the aggressivenessof inmates in multiple-oc-cupancy cells. Once a problemis detected, help usually mustbe summoned to resolve it.The interval between patrols isa management variable noteasily controlled, given theexigencies of the jail settingand the influence of inmateson patrol frequency. In alinear/intermittent jail, in-mates have the intervals be-tween patrols to make escapepreparations, fashion

weapons, assault others, etc.Because destruction of fix-tures and

be an effective architecturalsolution.

is necessaryto installexpensive vandal-proof hous-ing materials.

The surveillance deficienciesof the linear design wererecognized early in the historyof prisons. one of the earliestprison reformers, JeremyBentham, introduced the“panoptican” model,2 a cir-cular, multi-floored structurewith cells arranged around thecircumference or outer wall ofthe building. From a positionin the center of the circle, anofficer could observe all cellsin the cell house. Despite hisstrong advocacy for hispanoptican concept, it wasnever fully adopted in hislifetime.

The most prominent exampleof the panoptican design,and the fulfi l lment ofBentham’s dream, is the cir-cular cell houses at the IllinoisState Prison at Statesville,constructed in 1924.3 Atstatesville, the large scale ofthe panoptican designdefeated the concept’s utility,for it was difficult to deter-mine who was being observedmore effectively -the officeror the inmates. The panop-tican design did not prove to

-27-

Podular/Remote Surveillance

The panoptican design, how-ever, may be considered theforerunner of our secondcategory, the Podular/RemoteSurveillance model.4 Underthis approach, inmate housingareas are divided into“manageable-sized” units orpods. In typical units, singleoccupancy cells arc clusteredaround a common area and asecure control booth fromwhich an officer observes in-mate activity. The design ofthe Boulder County Jail inColorado ,and the VenturaCounty Jail in California arerepresentative of thePodular/Remote surveillanceM o d e l .

The size considered “manage-able” varies with the user’sdefinition as well as the con-straints imposed by the size ofthe total population andseparation requirements. Inpractice, unit size rarely ex-ceeds 50 beds and generally isfurther divided into subsec-tions of 12 or 16 to facilitatethe control of negative inmatebehavior.

The Podular/Remote Surveil-lance &sign facilitates a reac-

tive management style; i.e., itis organized to react to inmatemanagement problems ratherthan to prevent them. Fromsecure observation booths,staff have minimal contactwith inmates; they are only ina position to observe and tosummon help to react to in-mate misconduct within a pod.

Anticipated negative behavioris further controlled bysecurity doors, electronicallyclosed and locked room thesecure control booth. Cellsarc also quipped with van-dalproof cast aluminum toiletsand bowls, steel or concretebeds, and security hardwareand furnishings. The prin-ciple strategies for inmatecontrol are a reliance on somedegree of sight surveillance,technological restraints, andresponding to negative be-havior only after it has oc-curred.

I n m a n y c a s e s , t h epodular/remote model isreported as a significant im-provement over theLinear/Intermittent Surveil-lance model. It has becomepopular with employeeunions because staff areremoved from contact withinmates, and assaults on staffhave been reduced. In viewof these benefi ts , thePodular/Remote Surveil-lance model is rapidly gain-ing in popularity and willprobably overtake the

Linear/Intermittent Surveil-lance model in future facilityconstruction.

Podular/Direct Supervision

The third architec-tural/management categoryisthe Podular/Direct Super-vision model, introduced in1974 by the Federal Prisonsystem’s (FPS) MetropolitanCorrectional Centers (MCCs).In 1969, the Federal PrisonSystem developed threeprototype detention facilities.While the FPS had extensiveexperience operating institu-tions for sentenced prisoners,its experience with detentionfacilities was limited. There-fore, the FPS launched an ex-tensive planning effort thatsought to incorporate thethinking of experts in local jailmanagement. The resultingarchitectural programs werestrongly influenced by the“functional unit managementconcept,” which had recentlybeen developed in FPS institu-tions.5

Three architects from amongthe nation’s leading firmswere selected to design theMetropolitan CorrectionalCenters in New York,Chicago, and San Diego. Inaddition to obtaining originalthinking from the field of ar-chitecture, a special workingcondition was imposed on thearchitects that prohibited eachfrom consulting with the ar-chitects selected to design theother MCCs. While each ofthe MCCs reflected the in-dividuality of its architect’sresponse to essentially thesame architectural program,they were all similar in thatthey effectively facilitated the

- 2 8 -

same required managementorientation. The housing areaswere divided into “manage-able” units with the cells ar-ranged around a commonmulti-purpose area.

In Chicago, the generalpopulation units contained 44rooms; in the the New Yorkand San Diego facilities, theunits contained 48 rooms. Theunits were not further dividedinto smaller sub-units, norwere they equipped withsecure control stations, in-destructible furnishings, fix-tures and finishes that werecharacteristic of the linear/in-termittent and podular/remoteapproaches.

The management orientationof the resulting Podular/DirectSupervision category is con-sidered to be proactive; i.e., itis organized to prevent nega-tive inmate behavior before itoccurs. The podular/directmodel relies on staffs abilityto supervise rather than onstructural barriers or tech-nological devices. Structureand technology are employeddirectly to facilitate staff ef-forts to control the population.

In the podular/direct model,each unit is staffed by one of-ficer in direct control of 40 to50 inmates. It is the respon-sibility of the officer to controlthe behavior of the inmates inhis/her unit, keeping negativebehavior to a minimum andreducing tension. In thismodel, the role of themanagement team is to struc-ture the environmental forces

so that correctional officerswill be successful in proactivecontrol.

In the eight years that theMCCs have been in operation,a great deal has been learnedabout shaping environmentalforces and structuring theofficer’s influence on the in-mates to effectively preventmost common negative be-haviors. There have been fewmurders, sexual assaults, oraggravated assaults. Suicides,contraband weapons, distur-bances, escapes, vandalism,and graf f i t i a re ra re .Managers arc pleased withthe manageability of theirfacilities, and staff perceivethe environment as safe, clean.and challenging.

Since the housing units areequipped with commercial-grade fixtures and furnishingsrather than costly indestruc-tible security equipment, thePodular/Direct Supervisionfacilities are less expensive tobuild. The cost of maintainingthese institutions is also mini-mized because destructive in-mate behavior is effectivelycontrolled Staffing ratios arcreasonable, with a direct su-pervision ratio of 1 to 48; thiscompared to Texas State JailStandards, which require adirect supervision ratio of 1 to45.

Specific principles anddynamics for managing thePodular/Direct Supervisionmodel have been identifiedwhich, when applied, consis-tently elicit a desired inmate

response. The application ofthese principles has satisfac-torily confirmed that correc-tional workers can effectivelymanage the behavior of in-mates so that the traditionalproblems of the American jailare neutralized.6 A discus-sion of these principles fol-lows.

THE PRINCIPLES ANDDYNAMICS OF NEWGENERATION JAILMANAGEMENT

Principle I: Effective Con-

A detention facility, by defini-tion, is a controlled environ-ment for those charged with acrime, awaiting a disposition,or serving a short sentence.Therefore, effective control ofinmates is one of the primaryobjectives of any jail or pro-gram.

I. Total Control

The managers of podulardirect supervision jails mustbe in total control of their jailsat all times. Control shouldnever be shared with inmates.When inmates are even tem-porarily unsupervised, theyare, in effect, left in control ofeach other. Whenever an of-ficer is reluctant to enter anypart of the jail, the inmates, ineffect, can be said to be incontrol of that part of the jail,even if temporarily.

2. Sound Perimeter Security

The physical security of thepodular direct supervision

facility is concentrated on theperimeter. A strong perimetersecurity permits greaterflexibility of internal operat-ing procedures and increasesstaff safety. Staff in contactwith inmates should neverhave the ability to cause therelease of an inmate.

3. Population Divided IntoControllable Groups

Dividing the jail population sothat jail administration willnot have to deal with morethan 50 inmates at any onetime will facilitate their abilityto remain in control. The ad-ministrator may very wellwish to manage larger groupsof inmates when it is con-sidered appropriate; however,this option should be discre-tionary and not dictated bydesign.

4. Easily Surveillable Areas

The supervising officershould always be in a positionto easily observe the areahe/she controls. This shouldbe facilitated by the design ofthe unit. The concept of“protectable space” whichwas developed in the environ-mental design of public hous-ing and other public spacesvulnerable to theft and van-dalism can be very effectivelyemployed in an inmate hous-ing unit.

5. Maximize Inmates’ InnerControls

One of the most significantelements of the principle. of

effective control is to structurethe inmate’s environment sothat his inner controls will bemaximized. Just as most in-mates have the capacity fornegative behavior in order toachieve their ends, they alsohave the capacity to conformtheir behavior to the desires ofthe administration if that willserve to meet their needs.Many “street wise” inmateslearn at an early age tomanipulate their environmentto their best advantage. In thetraditional jail or prison en-vironment, violent anddestructive behavior is one ofthe means usually employedby inmates to effectivelyachieve their needs.

A proactive management ap-proach to this problem is tomanipulate the inmate’s en-vironment so that his criticalneeds are best achievedthrough compliant behaviorand his negative deeds willconsistently result in frustra-tion. In such a custodial set-ting, the inmate has asignificant investment inremaining in the generalpopulation.

The display of responsible be-havior from unlikely inmatesin new generation jail settingsdoes not necessarily representa miraculous change in theirbasic belief systems. Theymay merely be manipulatingthe environment in which theyfind themselves to their bestadvantage. They may verypossibly revert to their morefamiliarly negative “modusoperandi” whenever it ap-

pears to be in their best inter-ests. However, the mission ina detention setting is not tobring about basic personalitychange, but to control inmatebehavior, ensure staff and in-mate safety, and protect publicproperty.

Principle XI: EffectiveSupervision

Direct staff supervision of in-mates is requisite for theachievement of effective con-trol. Effective supervision in-volves more than visualsurveillance; it includes theuse of all the human senses, aswell as extensive personal in-teraction between staff and in-mates. The elements ofsupervision proven effectivein other human enterprise alsocan be productively applied ina detention setting.

1. Staff To-Inmate Ratio

The military has struggledwith the concept of super-vision ratios for centuries.While there arc still no precisefigures or absolute rules, pastpractice indicates that aplatoon of approximately 44men is a manageable group formilitary purposes. The ex-perience of the past eightyears in podular/direct super-vision facilities indicates thatan officer can effectively su-pervise 50 inmates, but it isstill too early to determine thevalidity or reliability of thisdata However, at the presenttime there is sufficient ex-perience to establish 1-to-50

ratio as a reliable benchmarkfor detention facility design.

As one would reasonably as-sume, smaller groups areeasier to supervise. However,the cost effectiveness of alesser ratio has to be taken intoconsideration since it couldrepresent a considerable in-crease in annual operating costfor large institutions. On theother hand, smaller institu-tions, e.g., under 200 may notbe able to achieve the l-to-50ratio because of mandatoryclassification groupings.

When inmates are divided intogroups of 16 or 12 as in thestandard podular/remote sur-veillance facility, the separa-tions serve as a severeimpediment to direct super-vision. To attempt to staffeach of the subdivisions withan officer would result in anoperating cost few com-munities could afford.

2. Officer In Control Of Unit

Effective supervision dependson the officers being in controlof the unit. If an inmate chal-lenges an officer’s authorityby failing to comply with ver-bal commands, the offendinginmate must be removed fromthe unit. The inmate shouldonly be returned when there isa clear understanding that heagrees to comply with all or-ders given by the officer. Theinmate may need removalonly for a brief time if it ap-pears that he is responding tocounseling and is prepared to

- 3 0 -

accept the officer 's direction.On the other hand, the inmatemay need to be placed in ad-ministrative segregation toawait a disciplinary hearing.In either case, the unit officershould not be expected to con-tend with an inmate on his unitwho is not agreeable topromptly obeying all lawfulorders. The housing unitshould always be viewed asthe “officer’s space” with theinmates in the role of thevisitor; not vice versa, as is sooften the case.

The principle that an officermust have the authority com-mensurate with his respon-sibility must not be confusedwith the old axiom that “theofficer is always right.” An in-stitution must be managed bya clearly defined and under-stood set of policies and pro-cedures, along with a goodmeasure of common sense.When these are violated,management must promptlyrespond in an intelligent andequitable way.

3. The Officer's LeadershipRole

One of the major sources ofinmate violence is the struggleto assert leadership when aleadership void exists. This isa natural group response tosuch a situation in any seg-ment of society. However,the struggle for leadership orthe dominant role in an inmategroup is usually violent and

brutal. Inmate rapes, for ex-ample, are often tacticsemployed by inmates to exerttheir dominance over others.

In order to avoid this situationthe officer must fill the leader-ship void and protect his orher role jealously. There isonly room for one leader on aunit during any one shift andthat must be the officer.Management’sresponsibilityis to stucturethe unit en-vironment toensure that theofficer remainsthe undisputedleader. Any in-mate who vies for the leader-ship role has to be dealt witheffectively, even if that invol-ves his removal from thegroup.

4. Frequent Supervision ByManagement

Management must activelyassume the responsibility forassuring that staff are success-ful in fulfilling their inmatesupervisory responsibilities.This is achieved principallythrough the high visibility ofmanagers in the housing units.The supervisor must ensurethat the officer is performinghis duties correctly, is achiev-ing the desired results, and canbe fully supported by manage-ment.

A considerable body ofknowledge has been collectedand verified concerning effec-tive supervision and leader-ship in all forms of humanendeavors. These principlesare also applicable to super-

vision and leadership in apodular direct supervisionfacility. Mastery of these tech-niques will enable the officerto accomplish his objectivesskillfully and with a sense ofprofessional competence.

The officer who practices thecorrect techniques of super-vision and leadership on adaily basis will soon becomeexpert in skills that are highlytransferable. These skills willprove invaluable to the entireorganization when the unit of-ficer is eventually promoted toa supervisory position in theorganization. All too oftenofficers are promoted from theranks to supervisory positionswithout the proper trainingand skills for the job. One ofthe residual benefits of apodular/direct supervisionfacility which practices theaccepted techniques of effec-tive supervision and leader-ship will be the attrition ofhighly skilled individuals intothe supervisory and eventual-ly the command ranks. Thebenefit to the officer exposedto such training and ex-perience will be the acquisi-tion of skills critical to thefuture advancement not usual-ly so available to his peers onother assignments.

- 3 1 -

Principle III: Need ForCompetent Staff

In order to run an institutionwhen successful operation isdependent upon the effective-ness of staff rather than tech-nological devices, the staffmust be competent. A com-munity which places littlevalue on this factor would bebest advised not to consider apodular/direct supervisionfacility.

1. Recruitment of QualifiedStaff

A basic requirement for ac-quiring a qualified staff is a

2. Effective Training 1. Critical To Mission AndPublic Expectations

In addition to basic correc-tional officer training, the of-ficer needs to be trained in thehistory, philosophy and theprinciples and dynamics ofnew podular/direct super-vision facilities. He shouldalso receive training todevelop the critical skills ofeffective supervision, leader-ship, management, and inter-personal communication

3. Effective Leadership ByManagement

Even trained staff can onlyfunction as

formal recruitment programwhich recognizes thequalifications for officers tostaff a podular/direct super-vision facility. A candidatefor such a position shouldhave the ability to relate effec-tively to people, to become aleader, and to possess thecapacity to learn the skills re-quired of this position.Qualified candidates do nothave to be college graduates,but should be capable of par-ticipating beneficially in therequired training. such can-didates cannot be expected tobe recruited at salaries lowerthan their road patrol counter-Parts.

effectively astheir leaders.As indicatedpreviously,managementmust assumethe respon-

sibility for making staff effec-tive. They must develop theirstaff through constructive su-pervision and leader&p, en-sure that they receive propertraining, and maintain highrecruitment standards.

Principle IV: Safety of Staffand Inmates

Probably the greatest con-cern about being incar-c e r a t e d o r seekingemployment in a detentionfacility is personal safety.Our detention facilities havegained a reputation ofdanger and fear.

- 3 2 -

Despite the general fear ofjails in our society, there is apublic expectation that in-mates should be safe, and thestaff who operate thesefacilities should not be ex-posed to undue hazards. Thebasic mission of a detentionfacility is to provide safe andsecure custody of its wardsuntil they arc released.

2. Life Safety Codes

Prisons and jails are often thescenes of tragic fires. Duringthe past 15 years, there havebeen more than a dozen mass-fatality fires in American cor-rectional facilities. Thefatalities from these fires oc-curred primarily from smokeinhalation which resultedfrom deficient evacuationplans and key control proce-dures. Any jail, regardless ofarchitectural or managementstyle, must be responsive tothese critical issues.

3. Personal Liability

Millions of dollars have beenpaid in court-awardeddamages to victims or theirfamilies as a result of personalinjuries sustained in jails be-cause of preventable, unsafeconditions. It is atravesty thatthese public funds were notspent in the first place to cor-rect the unsafe conditionsresponsible for the injuries.The community now has tonot only pay the damages andthe attorneys’ fees, but must

also correct the unsafe condi-tions after the fact.

4. Inmate Response toUnsafe Surroundings

A critical day-to-day elementof this principle is how in-mates respond to unsafe sur-roundings. Their response israther predictable--selfpreservation. It is one of thebasic instincts of man. In-mates attempt to enhance per-sonal safety by acquiringdefensive weapons, affiliatingwith a kindred group for com-mon defense, presentingthemselves as tough personsnot to be messed with, or bypurchasing security with cashor kind. Inmates often com-mit violent or destructive actsin order to be placed in ad-ministrative or punitivesegregation, where they per-ceive it to be safer than thegeneral population The veryacts which practitioners iden-tify as the primary inmatemanagement problems areoften normal reactions to un-safe surroundings.

Inmates in a podular direct su-pervision facility where per-sonal safety is ensured do notfind these defensive strategiesnecessary or in their best inter-ests. On the contrary, such be-havior is dysfunctional. Itdoes not fulfill their needs andserves no constructive pur-pose. An important indicatorof this condition is the almosttotal absence of contrabandweapons in podular/direct su-pervision facilities.

5. Staff Response To UnsafeWorking Conditions

Staffs’ response to unsafe con-ditions is not too differentfrom the inmates’ since self-preservation is also one oftheir basic instincts. Staffoften affiliate with unions toachieve safer working condi-tions. They avoid personalcontact with inmates andavoid patrolingareas perceivedby them to beunsafe. Theyoften avoid com-ing to work al-t o g e t h e r b y

-using an excessive amount ofsick leave for stress-relateddisabilities and, at other times,by simply abusing the sickleave system. They are alsoknown to occasionally carrytheir own personal andprohibited weapons, and somehave tried to buy personalsafety from inmates throughthe granting of special favors.

6. Fear-Hate Response

The inevitable result of an un-safe environment is the “fear-hate” response. Fear and hatearc closely related emotions.We usually hate those we fear,and fear those we hate. Theinmates’ fear and the resultanthate of other inmates and stafflead to some hideous conse-quences. The staffs’ similarfeelings towards inmates andeven other segments of staffexacerbate the situation. Thecombined result of all of thisintense hatred for one anotheris a “cancerous” working

-33-

situation which is extremelyhazardous. Such conditionsfueled the atrocities of thetragic New Mexico StatePrison riot in 1980.

Principle V: ManageableAnd Cost Effectiveoperations

One very practical and impor-tant consideration for any jail

is that it be manageable andcost effective. The jail’s mis-sion and goals should be readi-ly obtainable. Taxpayers arenot anxious to spend morethan they have to on jail opera-tions, and rightly so. Acommunity’s discretionaryfiscal priorities generally donot include the jail. However,jail expenses cannot beavoided by neglect. Manycommunities have tried thisstrategy, only to find it farmore costly in the long run.The podular direct super-vision facility is able to fulfillthe mission of the jail while, atthe same time, reduce costs.

1. Reduced Constructioncosts

Construction costs vary ac-cording to region and uniquecircumstances confronting thearchitect and contractor.Therefore, the costs of con-structing podular direct su-pervision facilities vary from

one location to another. Thefact that this type of institutionis free to take on many ar-chitectural styles, as long asthey facilitate the principlesand dynamics, also con-tributes to the variation incost.

Then are, however, basiccomponent cost charac-teristics, which are unique tothe podular direct supervisionstyle. The absence of vandal-proof and security-style fur-nishings, fixtures and finishesthroughout 90% of the facilityis the major contributor tolower construction costs.When one considers that thecost of a china toilet bowl isabout $150 and a stainlesssteel, vandal-proof toilet andbowl is about $1,500, someappreciation for constructioncosts savings is gained Thecosts of gang cell door closersand locking systems are alsoavoided.

2. Wider Range OfArchitectural Options

Since the architect does nothave to select materialsprimarily as a reaction to theanticipated destructive be-havior of inmates, he is free toselect a wider range ofmaterials. For example, if afacility wishes to utilize car-peting as a floor covering andbenefit from its relative costadvantage, ease of main-tenance, and sound dampen-

ing qualities, it may do so.

3. Reduced Vandalism

One unique characteristic ofthe podular/direct supervisionfacility is the absence of graf-fiti and vandalism which is sopervasive in other types ofjails. This contributes to areduced operating cost. As inother public facilities, van-dalism and graffiti are sig-nificantly reduced by bothpleasant appearance of thefacilities and perpetual super-vision and maintenance.

4. Anticipate Fundamental

an influential dynamic inmanaging the general housingunit. The timing and condi-tions of the visiting area are allvery important. If contactvisits are available to thosewho conduct themselvesresponsibly, the motivationfor responsible behavior isgreatly enhanced. The poten-tial loss of privileges that af-fect an inmate’s relations withhis loved ones is one of themost potent forces that can beapplied to achieve responsibleinmate behavior.

Needs

As indicated previously, muchnegative inmate behavior isdriven by efforts to fulfill theirmany human needs. Theproactive jail manager uses hisknowledge of how humanneeds affect behavior toachieve the behavioralresponse he is seeking. Heperceives them as environ-mental forces that can be ef-fectively manipulated to assisthim in accomplishing hisagency’s mission and goals. Ifthe inmate understands thatmost of his fundamentalhuman needs can be fulfilledon a general housing unit, thenhe has a very important invest-ment in remaining on the unit.

Telephone access is likewisean important priority for theinmate. Through thetelephone he is able to keep incommunication with the im-portant people in his life. weall know how frustrating it canbe when our telephone accessis limited when we have aneed to communicate withsomeone important to us.Therefore, another importantingredient for the generalhousing unit is sufficient col-lect-call phones to meet thepopulation 's telephone needs.Not only does this meet theinmate’s need, but it relievesthe officer from the annoyingand time-consuming task ofprocessing inmate telephonecalls.

One of the most powerful for-ces affecting the inmates be-

Television viewing is an im-

havior, n e x t t o theportant part of contemporarylife. Most of the inmateshave

self-preservation instinct, isthe need to communicate and

been raised on it since infancy.

have contact with family andThey have been conditioned

significant others. The fulfill-to sit quietly in front of thetube for hours on end. Con-

ment of this need then becomes sidering how effectively

- 3 4 -

television occupies aninmate’s time, it is one of themost economical devices wecan obtain for this purpose.This is particularly true inthose institutions where suchequipment is purchased fromthe inmate welfare fund

Television is by no means apanacea. As in the home, it canbe the source of a great deal ofstrife. On a housing unit of 50felons representing a varietyof cultural backgrounds, theresulting discord over channelselection can be violent. Thesolution to this problem is tohave sufficient television setsto be responsive to basic needsand interests of the popula-tion. Usually two to four setsare sufficient, depending onthe design of the unit and themix of the population. Using

multiple sets can keep thesound volume lower anddivide the population intosmaller and more compatiblegroups.

Inmates should be able to pur-chase important items fromthe inmate store or commis-sary on a regular basis. Wheninmates are unable to makepurchases from the inmatestore or commissary, they willmake their purchases fromother inmates with all of thenegative factors associatedwith these transactions.

The service of meals alsotakes on all exaggerated im-portance in jails. Good food,well prepared and presented,goes a long way toward in-creasing the inmate’s invest-

ment in the general unit. Onthe other hand, the unprofes-sional preparation and presen-tation of the same basic foodcan cause considerable unrest.

Security of personal propertyis another important con-sideration. The lack of securestorage for the inmate’s per-sonal property contributes to ahigh incidence of theft, alongwith concomitant correctiveactions attempted by the in-mate with all of their negativeimplications.

A great many problems occurin multiple or gang showers.The installation of sufficientindividual shower stalls vir-tually eliminates the difficul-ties associated with dailyactivity.

Physical exercise is an effec-tive way to release pent-upemotional tensions which ac-company the stress of incar-ceration. The opportunity forexercise is also a condition ofconfinement required by thecourts. When the unit isdesigned to meet this need, itis no longer a managementproblem.

Inmate idleness still remainsone of the leading manage-ment problems in a detentionfacility. The introduction ofindustrial opportunities cancontribute significantly to theresolution of that problem.The income earned by theinmate’s involvement in thisactivity is a significantmotivator to remain eligiblefor those assignments. In-

mates involved in construc-tive activity arc seldomm a n a g e m e n t p r o b l e m s .

5. Sanitation andOrderliness

A very important dynamic inmanaging a unit in a podulardirect supervision facility isthe set of activities involved inmaintaining a clean and order-ly unit. These activitiespromote a healthy interactionbetween staff and inmate inwhich the inmate becomesconditioned to responding tothe officer’s directives. Theorderly state of the unit is alsoa continual reminder that theofficer is exerting active con-trol of the unit. Competitionbetween units for a prizeawarded to the cleanest unitcan produce amazing resultsin maintaining a high standardof sanitation and orderliness.

Principle VI: EffectiveCommunication

Effective communication is acritical element in the operat-tional strategy of all humanenterprises. Jails are not ex-ceptions, and managementmust be sensitive to the im-portant impact of the variouselements of this principle.

1. Frequent Inmate AndStaff Communication

Frequent communication be-tween staff and inmatesshould be encouraged. In-mates will often advise staff ofillegal activities beingplanned by other inmates ifthey have the opportunity todo so without running the risk

of being identified. Theinmate’s cooperation ismotivated both by an expecta-tion of favorable treatmentfrom the administration andby a desire not to have hisliving conditions jeopardizedby the irresponsible actions ofothers, particularly if he doesnot stand to benefit.

2. Communication AmongStaff Members

Because of the assignment ofindividual officers to separateunits, there is particular needfor management to facilitateeffective communicationamong staff members. Thisneeds to be accomplished be-tween shifts and between as-signments. It can be achievedthrough shift roll calls, timelyand clear policy and proce-dure statements, post orders,and unit logs.

3. Training and Techniquesof Effective Communication

Every officer should betrained in the techniques of in-terpersonal communication.These skills will greatly assisthim in accomplishing his ob-jectives. Considerableknowledge has been as-sembled over the years bycommunication specialists incorrectional settings andshould be fully utilized to easethe officer’s task. Theofficer’s acquisition of theseimportant communication

skills and his mastery of themthrough daily application willserve him well in other assign-

ments as well as prepare himfor promotional opportunities.

Principle VII: Classificationand Orientation

The classification and orienta-tion of inmates must be in-cluded in the day-to-dayoperations of podular directsupervision facil i t ies.

1. Knowing With WhomYou Are Dealing

The officer must know withwhom he is dealing and shouldhave the benefit of as muchinformation about the inmateas possible. while it is truethat jails receive manyprisoners on whomlittle infor-mation exists, they alsoreceive many repeaters whoseconfinement records shoulddetail, among other things,their behavior patterns in con-finement.

2. Orientation

Inmates should be told what isexpected of them. Any correc-tional facility is a strange andstructured environment, and apodular/direct supervisionfacility-& unique amongdetention facilities. A careful-ly structured orientation pro-gram will save a lot of timeand misunderstanding andwill provide a further oppor-tunity to learn about theinmate’s behavior.

3. Assumption of RationalBehavior

Human behavior is amazinglyresponsive to expectations

communicated. This has beendemonstrated frequently ineducational settings and alsohas been seen in detentionfacilities. When we convey toa person the kind of behaviorwe expect from him, eitherverbally or nonverbally, histendency is to respond to theseclues.

The traditional detentionfacility approach is to treat allnewly admitted inmates aspotentially dangerous untilthey prove otherwise. Thejailers’ expectation of the newinmate’s behavior in thesesituations is clearly trans-mitted. In a podular direct su-pervision facility, the reverseapproach is taken. All newinmates are treated with aclear expectation that they willbehave as responsible adultsuntil they prove otherwise.Staff are required to dealwith those who prove other-wise, but the vast majority ofinmates conduct themselvesresponsibly even during theadmission process. Observersof this “phenomenon” fromtraditional jails frequentlyconclude that t h epodular/direct supervisionfacility has a “better class ofinmate” than they do, whenoften the reverse is true.

4. Maximum SupervisionDuring Initial Hours ofConfinement

The first 24 to 48 hours ofconfinement is a criticalperiod in the detentionprocess. The highest rate ofsuicide occurs during thisperiod, accounting for nearly

- 36 -

half the total jail suicides. In-tensive supervision at thisphase of the detention processwill contribute to a lowersuicide rate.

Principle VIII: Justice andFairness

To advocate that detentionfacilities operate in a just andfair manner sounds more likea homily than a principle ofjail management. However,the many implications of thisissue in a detention facilitywarrant further examinationand because of its significanceto correctional facilitymanagement, it is regarded asan operational principle.

1. Critical To Mission AndPublic Policy

A critical part of the missionof most detention facilities isthe provision of just custody.This is in recognition of thefundamental obligation tocomply with constitutionalstandards and other ap-plicable codes and courtdecisions. Despite widespreadpublic confusion regardingthe role of the jail, there ispublic expectation thatprisoners should be treatedfairly and in accordance withthe provisions of the law.

Unfortunately, a large seg-ment of the public and evenmany jail practitioners appearto be oblivious of the FifthAmendment prohibitionagainst pretrial punishment.The Supreme Court’s May

1980’s decision in Bell VS.Wolfish is explicit in its inter-pretation of the Fifth Amend-m e n t t o p r o h i b i t t h eimposition of any condition ofconfinement onpretrial prisoners

- 37 -

2. Consistent Root Cause OfC o l l e c t i v e V i o l e n c e

The level of violence in oursociety has reached such

for the purposeof punishment.Most pretrialpunishment ad-vocates backdown when theyare confrontedwith the il-legality of their position andveil their position with suchcomments as “we can’t makeit too too nice for them canwe?” or “we can’t make acountry club out of the jail”and jails need to look jail-like.” It becomes particularlyobvious what is meant bythese comments when used tocriticize normal housing ac-commodations that are devoidof the harshness of the tradi-tional jail. Even though theharsher furnishings arecostlier, they are preferred be-cause they are perceived tofulfill the punishment objec-tive.

There is no place for the selfappointed-public avenger in aprofessionally run jail. Suchpreoccupations are counter-productive to the proactiveresolution of managementproblems. It is, therefore, notonly legally correct to managejails in harmony with our con-stitutional chatter, but it is alsoa critical element in the prin-ciples and dynamics ofmanaging podular direct su-pervision facilities.

alarming. proportions thatthere have been two Presiden-tial Commissions appointed tostudy this phenomenon withinthe past 15 years. After ex-amining the history of collec-tive violence in the UnitedStates, they were able to iden-tify a set of root causes whichwere present in all of the manyoccurrences. One consistentroot cause, which is par-ticularly relevant to the cor-rectional setting, is that inevery such event there wasstrong feeling by the par-ticipants that they had beentreated unfairly.

When -a person is in a captivestate, the impact of unfairtreatment is greatly mag-nified. This is particularly trueof Americans because wehave been conditioned to ex-pect fair and just treatment byour government. As a prin-ciple of inmate management,it is not sufficient for manage-ment to be, in fact, just andfait; it is also vitally importantthat management’s actions areperceived by the inmatepopulation as just and fair.

3. Critical Leadership Quality

As referred to previously, theofficer’s role as the leader ofthe unit is an importantdynamic in exerting positivecontrol over the inmatepopulation. A critical qualityof any leader is a keen sense offairness that can be consistent-ly depended upon by subor-dinates. Any compromise ofthe officer’s reputation forfairness will seriously jeop-ardize his operational effec-tiveness.

4. Formal AdministrativeRemedy And DisciplinarySystem

There will always be thosecases where the inmate doesnot accept the officer’s posi-tion. Regardless of the basisfor the inmate’s disagreement,a formal administrative pro-cedure should exist in whichto channel such disputes. Acreditable third patty review isnot only a good pressurerelease mechanism, but it alsoserves as a good monitoringsystem to ensure consistencyof equitable treatment.

CONCLUSION

These pr inc ip les anddynamics of jail managementare neither a dogma nor aphilosophy around which amanagement approach wasdesigned. They represent thecollective observations ofboth successful and unsuc-cessful examples of thepodular direct supervisiontype detention facilities over a

period of several years andunder the leadership of a suc-cession of chief executive Of-ficers.

It is reasonable to concludethat if these principles anddynamics are implementedwithin an institution that isdesigned to facilitate them,they will achieve the same,beneficial results as the suc-cessful examples. The resultswill be a safe, secure, humane,and just facility which will beconsidered an appropriateplace for the detention ofAmerican citizens chargedwith crimes and requiringdetention.

ACCEPTANCE OF TEEPODULAR/DIRECT SU-PERVISION CONCEPT

The Federal Prison System’sexperience with its ex-perimental detentionfacilities, the MetropolitanCorrectional Centers, hasbeen very positive. Theoriginal three have now beenin operation for nine years.They have been joined by twomore: a new ZOO-bed, cam-pus-style facility in Tucson,and a converted Federal Cor-rectional Institute in Miami.A new Metropolitan Correc-tional Center is currently inthe planning stages for the LosAngeles area.

Although many features ofthese prototype centers wereincorporated in the design oflocal detention facilities, theoverall concept was generallyrejected by local jail ad-

- 38 -

ministrators. True, thepodular design was adoptedby many, but it was modifiedto fit the traditional jail prac-tices with which most ad-ministrators werecomfortable. The customaryhigh-security, vandal-prooffixtures, furnishings, andfinishes were added, and the48-cell units were furtherdivided into subunits of 12 or16. Supervision was achievedeither remotely from a secureobservation post, or intermit-tently by officers patrollingthe adjoining corridors.

There was virtually a univer-sal disbelief among local jailadministrators that direct su-pervision facilities could besafe, secure, cost effective,free of vandalism, and adesirable place to work. Evenif the “Feds” found this to bethe case, such an approachwould not work with local jailprisoners, nor would it be ac-cepted in the local com-munities.

It must be remembered that forthe past 200 years, jailmanagement has been basedon successfully anticipatingand responding to negative in-mate behavior. Given thisreactive management style, itis understandable that thepodular concept was seen byjail practitioners as providingopportunities to more ade-quately respond to theproblems that have plaguedthe traditional linear jail.Ironically, the relative successof the modified podulardesign, coupled with high-

security furnishings and high-security electronics, tended tomask the true potential of thepodular concept. The succes-scs in the FederalMetropolitan CorrectionalCenter were either ignored orattributed to the idea that thefederal prisoner was somehowdifferent. Few realized or ac-cepted the point that this newdesign allowed managementpractices that would obviatethe need for most of the react-tive strategies so characteristicof traditional jail manage-ment.

Contra Costa County openedits new detention center inMartinez, California. TheContra Costa CountySheriff’s Department fullyadopted the operational con-

ever, they en-hanced the design by incor-porating the recommenda-tions from a user’s evaluation,and they added the openbooking concept developed inSt. Louis.

A second substantial barrier togeneral acceptance was thatthe jail did not look like a jail.Certainly it did not fulfill thepublic’s expectation of a jailas a place of punishment, eventhough, in most jails, over60% of the prisoners have notbeen convicted or sentenced.But many elected communityleaders, as well as criminaljustice administrators, havebeen reluctant to tell the publicthat the imposition of condi-tions of confinement for thepurpose of punishment is indirect violation of the Fifthand Fourteenth Amendments.Because of this ignoranceabout the role of jails as hold-ing centers, those jail plansthat are based on non-punitiveconditions of confinement areunacceptable in many com-munities.

During the three years that theContra Costa facility has beenin operation, they have ex-perienced the same benefits asthe Metropolitan CorrectionalCenters-and then some. Theyhave accomplished the objec-tives of safe, secure, humane,and just custody. In addition,they enjoy a vandal- and graf-fiti-free facility. More impor-tantly, the deputy sheriffsassigned to the jail have foundthat the new facility providesan opportunity for interestingand challenging employment.The Contra Costa facility notonly demonstrates that a "newgeneration jail" can be effec-tively operated at the locallevel, but that it can alsoeliminate many of the person-nel problems that plague localcorrectional operations.

The result was that the real Representatives of over 250benefits of the new generation jurisdictions have visited thejails were never fully shared Contra Costa County Deten-with the local communities tion Center since it opened.until January, 1981, when Many believed that their suc-

cess could be attributed to atemporary “halo effect” andwould not last very long.Others felt that the facility isa “time bomb” waiting to ex-plode. However, many

visitors learned how the “newgeneration jail” principles anddynamics have proven effec-tive in a variety of detentionsettings over the past nineyears. They understand thatcoutra Costa’s experience ispart of a well established pat-tern. And they also believethat this concept can be ef-fectively employed in theirjurisdictions.

Despite the early animositiestoward (and misapprehen-sions about) the “new genera-tion jail,“, 1983 marked adecided swing in local accep-tance of the concept. Thenewly rebuilt ManhattanHouse of Detention, morecommonly known as TheTombs, opened as a direct su-pervision facility in October,1983. Soon after, the newMultnomah County Jail inPortland, Oregon, also openedunder this concept. In thespring of 1983, the Miami-Dade County Council votedunanimously to build a 1000-bed facility that they refer toas a “third generation jail.”Nearly 30 other “new genera-tion” detention facilities underconstruction or in the planningstage are listed in Appendix B.

-39-

20-YEAR COMBINED CONSTRUCTIONAND OPERATING EXPENDITURES

1,000-MAN CAPACITY

2nd Generation 3rd Generation

lnitial Construction Cost $25,000,000 $37,000,000Annual Principal & Interest $ 2,935,937 $ 4,352,941Annual Operating Expense $ 9,313,056 $ 6,238,901

Principal and interest is based on the debt of the total constructioncost amortized over 20 years at an interest rate of 10%. The 10% an-nual interest rate is derived-from the average interest to be paid onthe recently passed Date County Criminal Justice Bond Issue.

For the comparison, annual operating expenses are assumed to esca-late at an annual rate of 7% due to inflation.

Total Expenditure to Year

Year 2nd Generation

1 $ 12,248,9933 38,748,3535 68,235,6356 84,234,61310 158,032,70220 440,511,927

SUMMARY

3rd Generation Total Savings

$ 10,591,842 $ 1,657,15133,116,265 5,632,08857,642,994 10,393,64170,746,316 13,488,297

129,718,853 28,313,849342,815,568 97,696,359

The above chart indicates that the operational savings of the 3rd generationdesign would be equal to the additional monies required for constructionwithin approximately 5.5 years. Over a 20-year period, the 3rd generationdesign constructed at a cost of $37,000,000 would save Dade Countyapproximately $97,696,359 compared to the 2nd generation design.

- 40 -

leviate fear nor allow for 3. Norman Johnston, Humanchange. Cage pp. 19,20, and 57.

National Institute of CorrectionsJails Division

National Institute of CorrectionsJails Division

The podular/direct super-vision architectural manage-ment design provides a safecorrectional environment thatis compatible both with cur-rent knowledge of human be-havior and with nationalcorrectional standards. Itcreates an environment inwhich the evolving standardsof correctional practice canflourish. As we approachOrwell’s proverbial "1984,"we as a profession shouldstrive to avoid Orwell’sprophesies. We should advo-cate the control of jailsthrough humane, people-oriented architectural/manage-ment strategies.

4. The term “podular” iscoined to avoid the confusionassociated with the term“modular.” While the twoterms can be used at timesinterchangeably, the term“modular” is also frequent-ly used to refer to prefabri-cated structure.

5. The functional unit con-cept was developed by theFederal Prison System in thelate 1960s as a managementstrategy for dividing institu-tions into smaller com-ponents to facilitate moreindividualized treatment ofinmates. The ideal unit con-sisted of 50 inmates in aseparate housing unit staffedwith a unit manager, a casemanager, two counselors,and correctional officers.See Robert B. Levinson andRoy E. Gerard “FunctionalUnits: A Different Correc-tional Approach,” FederalProbation (December 1973).

I. "Cage Count," Jericho,Nos. 28-30 (Washington,D.C.: National Moratoriumon Prison Construction,1982).

2. Norman Johnston, TheHuman Cage (New York:Walker and Co., 1983), pp.19-20.

6. Further information on theprinciples and dynamics ofmanaging Podular Direct

Supervision Jails is availablefrom the:

1860 Industrial CircleSuite ALongmont, CO 80501

Telephone:

(303)682-0213

1-800-877-1461

1960 Industrial circleSuite ALongmont, CO 80501

Telephone:

(303)682-0639

1-800-995-6429

- 4 1 -

JAIL ARCHITECTURAL/MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES

Linear/Intermittent Surveillance

Pod&r/Remote Surveillance

Podular/Direct Supervision

-43-

LINEAR/INTERMlTTENTSURVEILLANCE

TYPICALHOUSING

UNIT

-44-

PODULAR/REMOTE SURVEILLANCE

PODULAR/DIRECT SUPERVISION

- 4 5 -

APPENDIX A

New-Generation Jail Survey

Comparative Data from 1981 and 1982

on Assaults and Escapes*

“Data collected by Michael O’Toole of the NIC Jails Division

-47-

APPENDIX B

Examples of Facilities Designed Around

the Direct Supervision Concept

and

Planned or Committed Podular/Direct

Supervision Facilities

-49-

- 5 0 -

APPENDIX C

The Cost Benefits of Podular Designed and

Directly Supervised Correctional Facilities

Stephen Horn, President

California State University at Long Beach

Member, NIC Advisory Board

February 16, 1984

- 5 1 -

THE COST BENEFITS OF PODULAR DESIGNEDAND DIRECTLY SUPERVISED CORRECTIONAL

FACILITIES

Dr. Stephen Horn, PresidentCalifornia State University at Long Beach

February 16,1984

Improved safety and professional perfor-mance are generally associated with in-

creased cost. A new generation correctionalfacility deploys trained staff to provide directsupervision of inmates in a correctionalfacility and setting that has been compatiblydesigned for that purpose. The result isreduced construction and operational cost.

When staff members are assigned to workwithin “podular” designed housing unitsthat have approximately 40 to 50 cellsarranged around a common living area,vandalism and other destructive behavioris significantly reduced. Because of thesteadying and controlling influence ofdirectly-involved, trained staff over in-mate behavior, it is no longer necessary toprovide vandalproof fixtures and furnish-ings in 90% of the facility. The tablebelow presents some examples of the costdifferential between traditional securityfixtures and the commercial fixtures thatcan be used in “podular/direct super-vision” facilities.

Since trained staff can effectively superviseapproximately 50 inmates in a “podular”housing unit, there is also no need to con-struct additional barriers to further divide thehousing units into smaller subunits as is thepractice in typical “remote surveillance”facilities. It is also unnecessary to divide in-mates into isolated small groups to accom-modate inmate classification practices thatwere originally designed to protect one typeof inmate from another as is necessary intraditional jails.

One may logically ask: “Are the structuralsavings offset by increased staffing cost?”While staffing deployment practices varyconsiderably around the nation, there is sub-stantial evidence indicating that the"podular/direct supervision" concept is staffefficient and, more importantly, staff effec-tive.

An excellent example of comparative staff-ing patterns for the three basic architecturaldesigns and management styles is providedby Dade County (Miami, Florida). DadeCounty presently operates a large linear-stylejail with an intermittent surveillance manage-ment approach. In mid-1982, they had an

bed “podular/remote surveillance” facility.After conducting extensive cost analysis ofthe three approaches, Dade County aban-doned plans valued at $250,000 for the“podular/direct supervision” approach. Inaddition to what Dade County officialsbelieved to be improved operational perfor-mance, they expect to achieve sufficient costsavings from reduced staffing that will enablethem not only to recoup the cost of the dis-carded plans and some construction cost, butalso the entire $37 million construction costwithin the first 14 years.

As you can see on the attached chart, thestaffing requirements of the “podular/directsupervision” facility, which the Dade Countyofficials refer to as third generation jail, areapproximately 50% less than they presentlyrequire for their existing linear jail and 42%less than the initially-proposed"podular/remote surveillance" facility. While

such staffing economies may not apply to thisdegree in all communities, this analysis is avalid indicator of the potential for staffingeconomies offered by the “podular/direct su-pervision” concept.

There are other presumptive cost savings tobe derived from reduced officer injury,facility maintenance, and court judgementsover conditions of confinement. As yet, suf-ficient data has not been collected to substan-tiate these presumptions as fully as we wouldlike; however, there are numerous anecdotalobservations that indicate their validity.

At the time when many of our communitiesspend more tax dollars on correctionalfacilities than schools or hospitals, reducingcorrectional costs while improving correc-tional effectiveness is an important issue forstate and local governments to explore.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OFDESIGN SCHEMES

DADECOUNTYSTOCKADEEXPANSIONDade County, FloridaGSA Project No. 5202-003

HARPER & BUZINEC Architects/Engineers, Inc.

-56-