The podular direct-supervision jail design and supervision strategy has gained popularity amongcriminal justice researchers and administrators duringthe past 20 years. These “new generation” jails are a radical departure from the traditional linear intermittent design that dominated jail architecture for two centuries. The current study involves an examination of characteristics of 76 jails identified by their administrators as podular direct-supervision facilities. The purpose is to determine the extent to which the jails adhere to what researchers and administrators have identified as elements vital to the success of this type of institution. Specifically, jail characteristics will be presented within Gettinger’s (1984) framework of the psychology of new generation jails. Results indicate that few jails are strictly adhering to the trainingand design techniques that have been recommended for the successful operation of these institutions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bayens, G. J., Williams, J. J.,& Smykla, J. O. (1997a). Jail type and inmate behavior:A longitudinal analysis. Federal Probation, 61(3), 54-62.
2.
Bayens, G. J., Williams, J. J., & Smykla, J. O. (1997b). Jail type makes a difference:Ev aluating the transition from a traditional to a podular, direct supervision jail across ten years. American Jails, 11(2), 32-39.
3.
Bell v. Wolfish 441 U.S. 520 (1979).
4.
del Carmen, R. V., Ritter, S. E., & Witt, B. A. (1998). Briefs in leadingcases in corrections (2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH:Anderson.
5.
Farbstein, J. (1986). Correctional facility planningand design. New York: V an Nostrand Reinhold.
6.
Farbstein, J.,& Wener, R. (1989). A comparison of “direct” and “indirect” supervision correctional facilities. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.
7.
Gettinger, S. H. (1984). New generation jails: An innovative approach to an age-old problem. Longmont, CO: NIC Jails Division.
8.
Houston, J. G., Gibbons, D. C.,& Jones, J. F. (1988). Physical environment and jail social climate. Crime and Delinquency, 34, 449-466.
9.
Kerle, K. (1995). Direct supervision:The need for evaluation. American Jails, 9(3), 5-8.
10.
Levinson, R. B. (1999). Unit management in prisons and jails. Lanham, MD: American Correctional Association.
11.
Nelson, W. R. (1983, April). New generation jails. Corrections Today, pp. 108-112.
12.
Nelson, W. R. (1986). Can cost savings be achieved by designing jails for direct supervision inmate management? In J. Farbstein & R. Wener (Eds.), Proceedings of the First Annual Symposium on Direct Supervision Jails. Boulder, CO: National Institute of Corrections.
13.
Nelson, W. R. (1988). The origins of the podular direct supervision concept:An eyewitness account. American Jails, 2(1), 8-16.
14.
Nelson, W. R., & Davis, R. M. (1995). Podular direct supervision:The first twenty years. American Jails, 9(3), 11-22.
15.
Newman, O. (1972). Defensible space. New York: Collier .
16.
Resser, J. P. (1989). The design of safe and humane police cells. Royal Commission Into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody.
17.
Sechrest, D. K.,& Price, S. J. (1985). Correctional facility design and construction management. Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute of Justice.
18.
Senese, J. D., Wilson, J., Evans, A. O., Aguirre, R.,& Kalinich, D. B. (1992). Evaluating jail reform:Inmate infractions and disciplinary response in a traditional and a podular/direct supervision jail. American Jails, 6(4), 14-23.
19.
Shernock, S. (1992). The effects of college education on professional attitudes among police. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 3(1), 71-92.
20.
Smith, S. M.,& Aamodt, M. G. (1997). The relationship between education, experience and police performance. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 12(2), 7-14.
21.
Suman, K. (1998). Self-evaluations of police performance:An analysis of the relationship between police officers’ education level and job performance. Policing—An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 21, 632-647.
22.
Sykes, G. (1972). Society of captives: A study of a maximum security prison. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
23.
Truxillo, D. M., Bennett, S. R., & Collins, M. L. (1998). College education and police job performance:A ten-year study. Public Personnel Management, 27, 269-272.
24.
U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2001). State and local law enforcement statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Also available from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/sandlle/htm
25.
Welch, M. (1996). Corrections: A critical approach. New York: McGra w-Hill.
26.
Wener, R., Frazier, W.,& Farbstein, J. (1985). Three generations of evaluation and design of correctional facilities. Environment and Behavior, 17, 71-95.
27.
Wener, R., Frazier, F. W., & Farbstein, J. (1993). Direct supervision of correctional institutions. In National Institute of Corrections (Eds.), Podular, direct supervision jails(pp. 1-8). Longmont, CO: NIC Jails Division.
28.
Williams, J. L., Rodeheaver, D. G.,& Huggins, D. W. (1999). A comparative evaluation of a new generation jail. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 23, 223-246.
29.
Zupan, L. L. (1991). Jails: Reform and the new generation philosophy. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
30.
Zupan, L. L.,& Menke, B. A. (1988). Implementing organizational change:From traditional to new generation jail operations. Policy Studies Review, 7, 615-625.
31.
Zupan, L. L.,& Menke, B. A. (1991). The newgeneration jail:An overview. In J. A. Thompson& G. L. Mays (Eds.), American jails(pp. 180-194). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
32.
Zupan, L. L.,& Stohr-Gilmore, M. K. (1988). Doing time in the new generation jail:Inmate perceptions of gains and losses. Policy Studies Review, 7, 626-640.
