A Future for Research on Prisons: [Commentary]

American Bar Foundation

A Future for Research on Prisons: [Commentary]Author(s): Walter J. DickeySource: Law & Social Inquiry, Vol. 16, No. 1 (Winter, 1991), pp. 101-114Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Bar FoundationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/828549 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 07:13

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Wiley and American Bar Foundation are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toLaw &Social Inquiry.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.179 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 07:13:36 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=abf

http://www.jstor.org/stable/828549?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


A Future for Research on Prisons

Walter J. Dickey

INTRODUCTION

John DiIulio concludes his review essay' by indicating that he is leav-

ing corrections as his principal area of professional concentration. His brief encounter with the field, as part of his broader interest in public administration, has certainly left it the better for his involvement. This is true whether one counts oneself among the skeptics about his work or one believes his propositions are fundamentally sound. The skeptics cannot

help but be stimulated, if only to respond to the information he provides and the exploratory findings he makes. Those who see good sense in his work are encouraged by it to explore what he explicitly leaves open, "the crucial question of what types of prison leadership and management re-

gimes work best under what conditions" (at 85). Any careful work about prisons and how to manage them ought to be

taken seriously, and DiIulio's is no exception. After all, we are imprisoning record numbers of people in this country in 1990. We will continue to have large prison populations in the foreseeable future, even though, at least to me, the imprisonment of many of these offenders serves no useful

purpose and is in fact destructive of important values which should be

promoted by our criminal justice systems. To fail to know how to run

prisons in decent, humane ways, and to lack the will to do so, does and will continue to result in enormous cost, in financial and human terms, and in terms of our self-respect.

Walter J. Dickey is professor of law, University of Wisconsin-Madison. J.D. 1971, University of Wisconsin-Madison. The author was on leave to serve as Director of the Wisconsin Division of Corrections, 1983-1987.

1. John J. Dilulio, Jr., "Understanding Prisons: The New Old Penology," 16 Law & Soc. Inquiry 65. Citations in the text are to this review essay.

© 1991 American Bar Foundation. 0897-6546/91/1601-0101$01.00 101



102 LAW AND SOCIAL INQUIRY

But the fact is that too few prisons in this country are well run, by which I mean they are not safe, clean institutions where prisoners can work and go to school, participate in decent recreation programs, and ben- efit in whatever ways people can from such environments. The reasons are

many. Lack of public commitment and support, history, lack of resources, lack of know-how, and ideology, as well as the simple difficulty of running such complex institutions well are all part of the explanation.

But if there is any single truth about corrections, it is that despite the attention it receives at times of crisis, we have too little shared knowledge about it. This is explained in part by the dominance of ideology in policymaking and in research in the field, when we are in desperate need of

objective information about it. But ideology dominates now, in the time of emphasis on punishment,

just as it did 35 years ago in the heyday of the rehabilitative ideal; and 35

years before that as rehabilitation struggled to push punishment out of its central position in the correctional value system.

Had more time and effort been spent in the recent past developing information and knowledge (difficult as that is) about what works with offenders rather than arguing ideology, making extravagant claims for one value system or another, and playing to the politics of the times, the corrections world would not be where it is today: without a sound body of

knowledge, leaderless, bereft of ideas, overly bureaucratic, in imminent

danger of being overwhelmed by the numbers of inmates, and bankrupt by the cost of imprisoning them.

Enter John Dilulio with an admittedly exploratory study which asserts

prisons can be run well. This work is heresy to those who would imprison less and a bible for others who have long taken for granted that order is

possible in prisons, if only .... But it is neither heresy nor the bible. Dilulio's work should be taken for what it is, not for what it is not or

for what others may try to make of it. Read on its own terms, it has value for the information it provides. It should be a starting point for more fact- based research, both to test its accuracy and to advance our understanding of these troubling but persistent institutions of our society: prisons.

Rather than enter what I believe is a fruitless debate about the accuracy of Dilulio's views, I want to suggest where future research might profitably be done in the prison world and to suggest what I think we will find if we have the opportunity and patience to do it. I choose this course because it gives me the opportunity to reflect on my experience in corrections in relation to Dilulio's work. It also provides an opportunity for me to express a few ideas about the field which I hope are valuable. Finally, it allows me to emphasize an important point Dilulio makes: The challenge for the future is whether information can replace ideology and politics as the basis for policymaking in corrections. Whether this challenge is met



A Future for Research on Prisons 103

turns in part on the quality and value of the information that is developed. I want to share a few ideas about the nature of that information in the

hope that I can thereby contribute to its quality.

JOHN DIIULIO'S WORK

Without attempting to summarize Dilulio's essay, which itself reflects the ideas developed in his book Governing Prisons,2 let me identify the major points that I want to address. Dilulio raises two distinct but related sets of questions that are critical to correctional policymaking in the next decade.

The first question is whether we as a society are imprisoning too much. Are there alternatives that are more workable and efficient than prison? Dilulio does not directly address these important issues, nor need he do so.

Rather, the focus of his work is to address the general question of how prisons are best run to achieve order, amenity, and service. He also asks and answers how this information should be developed. He defines order as the absence of individual or group misconduct that threatens the safety of others; amenity as the availability of the things that enhance the comfort of inmates-decent food, clean cells, constructive recreation; and service as the availability of things that improve the life prospects of prisoners, schools, jobs, etc (at 81).

Dilulio's "bottom line" is that "strong, politically astute leadership, an organizational culture built around 'security-first' goals, and a paramilitary organizational structure were associated with higher levels of order, amenity, and service behind bars" (at 82).

This conclusion is based on comparative examination of maximum security prisons in California, Michigan, and Texas. Dilulio offers three important qualifications. The first is that his work is exploratory. It is "by no means a bible" (at 35). He also points out that he leaves unanswered the "crucial question of what types of prison leadership and management regimes work best under what conditions" (at 86). This is a point I take to be related to the third qualification he makes, his recognition of the range of offenders we imprison: "Where 'lighter' classes of offenders housed in duly classified low-custody institutions are concerned, it is entirely in ac- cord with common sense to suspect that less security-driven regimes work as well if not better than tighter ones" (at 85).

Perhaps for rhetorical reasons, perhaps for emphasis, Dilulio contrasts his work (as have others) with earlier prison research. The focus of

2. John J. Dilulio, Jr., Governing Prisons: A Comparative Study of Correctional Manage- ment (New York: Free Press, 1987).




his search for answers is with the management of the prisons. Earlier work, he believes, looked for answers in the society of inmates, arguing that this

community defined prison life for offenders and inevitably dominates the culture of prisons.3

But it is unfair and inaccurate to characterize Dilulio's work so nar-

rowly, even though he occasionally does so himself. He does explicitly acknowledge a point that I believe should receive greater emphasis. Prisons are highly complex organizations which vary from state to state and within states. They are parts of larger correctional systems and therefore may have specific roles to play within them. How a prison operates is the result of the complex interplay of line staff, unions, offenders, offender organizations (where they exist), administrative staff, wardens, correctional directors, politicians-all affected by public attitudes and expectations.

His major point is that amidst this complexity, people make the differ- ence. He urges that the leaders of prisons-the wardens, security chiefs, treatment directors-can shape prison life and inmate behavior and that

they do so best when they suppress inmate control over other inmates, require staff and inmates to adhere to clear prison rules, and engage in

routine, consistent, tried and true security practices. The basis for DiIulio's conclusions is what he observed, not the ideol-

ogy of either the old-time prison regimes or those who argue for democratic prisons with heavy participation by inmates in the management of

prisons (at 85). Perhaps for this reason, his findings are "messy" and, in that sense, realistic. They do not fit many of the theories but suggest we need to look more carefully at the prison world and develop new theories. This latter point is mine, but I expect he would agree with it.

CRITICISM OF DIIULIO'S WORK

To me, an unacceptable form of criticism is to take an author to task for the book or essay he did not write or for what others may try to make of the one he did write. If some fear that others will use DiIulio's work to

impose heavy-handed prison regimes or to advance their own ideology, that is not a fair or proper basis on which to criticize it. One critic of DiIulio engages in this when he writes that "it would be a tragedy if we succeed in managing so many prisoners, many of which are serving exces- sive long sentences.... What are needed ... are not how-to-manage prison studies but studies that reveal how we can get by with less prisoners and shorter sentences."4

3. See Dilulio's discussion of the "new penology" at 72-80. 4. John Irwin, "Donald Cressey and the Sociology of the Prison," Crime & Delinquency

335 (1988).




I expect that one reason underlying such criticism of Dilulio is the fear that evidence that prisons can work-in terms of order, amenity, and service-will undercut efforts to bring our nation to imprison fewer people for shorter periods. According to this view, well-run prisons are "bad" because they can increase our use of imprisonment. Perhaps it is naive of me, as we enter the nineties, to say the search for "truth" should begin with empirical reality, as best we can see it. Analysis should follow rather than precede this search.

That is not to say that I am without reservations about DiIulio's work. At times, it alternates between an "in your face" aggressiveness toward those who have emphasized the society of prisoners in their work and a certain defensiveness about his own interests. This tone detracts from one's ability to read the work with objectivity, because it raises needless

questions about the author's own objectivity. Another shortcoming of the work is that the prison systems studied are not among the best run in the

country, nor did DiIulio spend as much time as is desirable observing their actual administration. One worries that he listened too much and observed too little.

Perhaps most significant, I think, is that DiIulio's emphasis on

"paramilitary," "security-first" governance obscures the simple, crucial

point that people respond to the way they are treated. Treat them like animals, and they will act that way. Treat them decently, firmly, fairly, in

ways that stress order, cleanliness, adherence to rules, security, and ac- countability and they respond accordingly. I do not suggest that DiIulio disagrees with this but rather that his emphasis and tone obscure it. DiIu- lio's emphasis suggests that leaders impose order, when in fact they intro- duce it. Order is the result of the interplay of many factors, and it is naive to believe it can be imposed. As one prison warden often commented to me: "Never forget, there are way more of them than there are of us." Inmates, like staff, respond to good sense and leadership.

I take DiIulio at his word when he emphasizes that the work is exploratory, if by this he means that the ideas in it are not as fully developed as they may become. For example, in this essay he mentions, but does not emphasize, the role of work and school activity for inmates in a well-run prison. I believe such activity is essential to order, amenity, and service; and I expect that given the time and opportunity to examine this issue, DiIulio or another researcher would find factual support for this proposi- tion. This point receives greater emphasis in his book, but the role of amenity and service in achieving order is worthy of further work.

By exploratory, I also take the author to mean that his work is not about every aspect of prison management worth exploring. Again, DiIulio indicates that he understands that individual prisons exist within systems that include institutions that range from maximum close custody to ad-




ministrative (paper) supervision of probationers who owe restitution. An individual prison plays a role within an overall system. It is essential that this be understood, that prisons be managed in ways best suited to the individual mission, and that they be so evaluated. DiIulio studied maximum security prisons. That is of value, as would be the study of other prisons at other levels of security. DiIulio recognizes that one would find that other methods work for other inmates in other settings.

THE FUTURE: SOME ASSUMPTIONS

If the work is exploratory, a logical question is what else needs to be explored and how it should be done. Let me suggest where correctional research might profitably be done in the next decade and how we should

begin to do it. In making these suggestions, let me make explicit my assumptions:

1. The state of the recorded knowledge about corrections-about how to run prisons that are orderly, amenable, and provide service, and about what works with what offenders in what settings-is akin to the recorded knowledge of the natural world in the 16th century. If corrections were a map of the world, it would look about like the maps that

Christopher Columbus had when he sailed with his three ships. 2. Prisons are going to be with us for a long time. We need to know

how to run them well, or the human consequences will be devastating. I stress this point because I lived with the responsibility for 11 pris-

ons, 5,500 prisoners, and 27,000 probationers and parolees for 4 years. If one does this with any sensitivity at all, not a day goes by that one does not worry intensively about the personal welfare of the offenders, the staff, and the public. The death of an inmate by his own hand, injury to prison staff inflicted by prisoners, harm to members of the public by probationers, or any of the other myriad of tragedies that can occur all weigh heavily on anyone who works in corrections. One must and should be deeply concerned with order, amenity, and service in a prison, because at the most basic level, they spell human dignity, human welfare, and life. We need to know how to run prisons well.

3. My personal view is that we imprison more people than need to be in prison and many for longer periods than necessary-for any purpose, be it punishment, retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, or rehabilitation. I also believe prisons can be run in ways that are safe, decent, and constructive. But what matters more than my opinions is whether there is a factual basis for them, a determination that requires careful, objective attention to the world as we find it.

4. If anything in corrections deserves emphasis in research, it is this apparently simple question: What works for what people in what setting?




Careful and continued attention to this issue will help us shed light on

(a) what we want from prisons, parole, and probation; (b) what we can

expect; (c) where, when, and for whom we can expect it. For some offenders, perhaps the most that we can expect is that they

be locked up for life in settings that are safe and decent. For others, we can

expect helpful community supervision that is a launching pad for a respon- sible, secure, crime-free life. There are many ticks on the spectrum between these extremes that are reasonable expectations, whose achievement de-

pends on the who, what, where, why, and how of individuals, communities and, sometimes, prisons, all unique. By knowing what to expect from prisons, we will also know what not to expect.

5. Answers for correctional professionals and policymakers-the map for the geographer, the classification of elements for the chemist-lie in the development and analysis of information, information which can be

brought to bear on policymaking and its implementation. Knowledge, un-

fortunately, plays a peripheral role in policymaking in corrections today. In my opinion, the three dominant factors that have influenced cor-

rectional policy and its implementation during the past two decades are punishment, politics, and bureaucracy. Clearly, punishment has become the

prevalent objective of the system, replacing the utilitarian purpose of the avoidance of further crime by offenders.5 Punishment, determinancy, and the avoidance of disparity now dominate statements of correctional objectives in ways that the rehabilitative ideal did years ago. This is the ideology of the eighties. As a result, the sentences actually imposed on offenders and served are longer now than two decades ago. This explains in part, but only in part, the well-documented crowding in our nation's

5. The issue of whether American correctional institutions should punish or rehabili- tate offenders has been intensely debated, most recently since the mid-1970s. In 1975, Er- nest van den Haag argued that punishment is necessary to denounce wrongdoers and to confirm the social solidarity of law-abiding citizens. Van den Haag, Punishing Criminals (New York: Basic Books, 1975). A year later Andrew von Hirsch, in Doing Justice (New York: Hill & Wang, 1976), and Alan Dershowitz, in the Twentieth Century Fund's Fair and Cer- tain Punishment (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1976), attacked the indeterminate sentences which were part of the rehabilitative package. Indeed, von Hirsch flatly asserted that in those cases where no successful treatments for offenders are known-most cases "the rehabilitative disposition is plainly untenable." Doing Justice at 18.

By the mid-1980s, the policy statement of the United States Sentencing Commission indicated the extent to which punishment had replaced rehabilitation as the goal of criminal sentencing. The commission asserted that the proper goals of sentencing were honesty, uniformity, and proportionality (that is, proportionality to the seriousness of the offense); rehabilitation was specifically excluded as a goal. United States Sentencing Commission, Sentencing Guidelines and Policy Statements (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, April 13, 1987), and Supplementary Report on the Initial Sentencing Guidelines and Policy State- ments (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, June 18, 1987). By 1990, the dominant model for corrections has become the "just deserts"/punishment model advocated by von Hirsch and embodied in the federal sentencing guidelines. A useful discussion of the various-and often conflicting-goals of sentencing appears in Hyman Gross & Andrew von Hirsch, eds., Sentencing (New York: Oxford University Press, 1981).




prisons and jails and the less obvious crowding in community corrections. We do not know whether punishment achieves other objectives, for we have no factual knowledge about this.

The rise of punishment as the system's primary objective has been

accompanied by public concern about crime that has made sentencing and correctional policies political issues at the local, state, and national level. The popular appeal of punishment has combined with political concerns, such as those raised in the Willie Horton case, to make "get-tough" programs a typical response by government at all levels. Increasingly, criminal

justice programs are created "at the top," in the governor's office, in the

legislature, in the office of corrections commissioner, where political re- sponsiveness and sophistication are substantial. These programs are keyed to political concerns but not necessarily to the behavioral problems of offenders. They are usually well packaged, like "shock incarceration" and "boot camp" in corrections, but whether there is much in the package is often questionable. There is similar pressure and response in other parts of the criminal justice system. "Mandatory arrest" in the area of domestic violence is an example "at the front end" of the system of a policy with

political appeal, the effectiveness of which is very questionable.6 One interesting aspect of these developments is the legitimacy be-

stowed on them by academics and think tanks. "Policy studies," which are often little more than arguments about the superiority of one set of values as opposed to another, have blessed the shift to punishment as the system's objective. For example, definite sentencing was "sold" on the

grounds that certainty and punishment were desirable objectives, without careful consideration as to whether it would prevent crime. A cynic would

say that academics, like politicians, know which way political winds blow and where the money is.

Politicalization and punishment have contributed to the proliferation

6. In 1984, Lawrence W. Sherman and Richard A. Berk published the results of a Minneapolis study which, the authors asserted, indicated that arresting domestic violence offenders lowered the number of new offenses. See Lawrence W. Sherman & Richard A. Berk, "The Specific Deterrent Effects of Arrest for Domestic Assault, 49 Am. Soc. Rev. 261 (1984), and The Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment (Washington, D.C.: Police Foun- dation, 1984). Once the Minneapolis experiment was publicized, the idea of mandatory arrest for domestic violence offenses became politically popular, influencing both legislatures and police agencies. In Wisconsin, for example, a "mandatory arrest" bill was passed by the state legislature (Wis. Act 346 (1987)). Moreover, over one-third of the respondents from police departments in 117 American cities surveyed by Sherman and Ellen Cohn stated that their policies on domestic violence have been influenced by the Minneapolis experiment. Lawrence W. Sherman & Ellen G. Cohn, "The Impact of Research on Legal Policy: The Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment," 23 Law & Soc'y Rev. 117 (1989). Richard Lempert has argued that the Minneapolis experiment was publicized too early, before its results could be replicated; that the results themselves are doubtful; and that the experiment has had undue influence on American legal policy making. Richard O. Lempert, "From the Editor," 18 Law & Soc'y Rev. 505 (1984), and "Humility Is a Virtue; On the Politization of Policy-relevant Research," 23 Law & Soc'y Rev. 145 (1989).




of bureaucracy in corrections. This can be attributed to the growth in size of correctional systems and to the increased desire to control an aspect of government that so intimately affects life and liberty as corrections does. Growth attributable to these factors is understandable. But there is a more insidious aspect of bureaucracy worth noting.

Parole board members, parole agents, and prison superintendents read the newspapers. They do not see anything but "get tough" pro- claimed there, and see the same thing in the policy statements and actions of political leaders. They have no desire to be on the front line when the system misfires, as it inevitably must in the complex world of corrections. The messages from leaders and the public are clear: when in doubt, do not grant parole; when in doubt, revoke parole; when in doubt, do not trans- fer the inmate to a lower security level. One way these are translated within bureaucracies is, above all, to make sure all the procedures are fol- lowed to avoid blame for system misfires. As a result, there is developing a bureaucratic culture that reinforces in the world of unwritten rules the same culture that is reflected in the press, in politics, and in academic writing. Perhaps this is as it should be in a republic, but the erosion of discretion and the use of judgment in decisionmaking rob the system of necessary vitality.

Another dimension of this culture is created by the sheer numbers of cases in the correctional system. It is very difficult for a parole agent with 80 cases or a social worker in a prison with upwards of 100 to get to know the clients in the way that is desirable. What time there is for clients is usually devoted to surveillance and processing the paperwork. Rarely, then, does the client take on the human dimension that he has when the agent can spend time with him in his home and job setting, when the agent meets the family and observes his daily struggle with life. There is great distance between agent and client. These difficulties are multiplied for the prison social worker, teacher, and officer, usually burdened by an even heavier caseload in a prison environment which places additional de- mands on their time.

In my judgment, correctional policies ought to be shaped by knowledge. Objectives should be tested to determine whether they are achieved and what actual practices develop to implement them. Offenders should be seen not as pieces of paper to process but as humans. Such insight and knowledge provide a basis for informed policy making in corrections. I am not so naive as to think politics and other factors would and should play no role. My point simply is that knowledge plays almost none now and that this does not portend well for the future. The best evidence of this is the past.




THE FUTURE: RESEARCH FROM ONE IMPORTANT PERSPECTIVE

It would be presumptuous of me to suggest I know all the varieties of research that could advance our knowledge of corrections. But, like DiIu- lio, I believe there is one reservoir of knowledge that has gone untapped too long-correctional staff. When I worked in corrections I spent a good deal of my time wandering. My wanderings took me into segregation units, cell halls, social worker offices, parole agent cars, and the homes of offenders in rural Wisconsin and the Milwaukee inner city. Since leaving corrections, I have spent even more time in these settings, seeing the world through the eyes of staff reputed to be the best in the Wisconsin correctional system. I have found that line-level staff know an enormous amount about offenders, about how to control them, and how to help them avoid further crime. Logic tells me it could not be otherwise. My observations have strongly confirmed it.7

Line-level staff spend most of their time with offenders. Like the teacher who must face the class everyday and is compelled to learn to teach, so the parole agent who must face the offender and community learns to work helpfully with offenders and communities. All teachers are not effective, nor are all correctional staff. But some are very, very good, and we need to know why. If we do learn why, we will begin to chart what works for what offenders in what settings.

THE FUTURE: WHAT ARE WE LIKELY TO FIND?

A. In Probation and Parole

While prisons are the darling of the media, we need to remind our- selves that the majority of offenders in this country are in communities on probation and parole. The numbers in Wisconsin, while emphasizing community over prison more than most states, are instructive. There are 7,000 prisoners and 30,000 offenders on probation and parole.8 If we ask what is

7. See Walter J. Dickey, "From the Bottom Up: Probation Supervision in a Small Wis- consin Community (Monograph, 1988); Dickey, "From the Bottom Up: The High Risk Intensive Supervision Unit" (Monograph, 1990; Dickey, "From the Bottom Up: The Fox Lake Prison (Monograph, 1990); Dickey, "From the Bottom Up: Probation and Parole Su- pervision in Milwaukee" (Monograph, forthcoming 1990).

8. 1990 Wisconsin Department of Corrections statistics. In Wisconsin, then, about 81% of the individuals under correctional supervision are not in custodial institutions. The Wisconsin figure is only slightly higher than the national average: in the United States as a whole, out of 3.7 million persons under correctional supervision in 1988, over 2.76 million-or about 75%-were on probation or parole. 14 Corrections Compendium No. 8 (Nov. 1989), at 17.




going on at the bottom, at the line level, what will we see in community corrections:

1. The population of offenders is diverse. They vary widely in the risks they pose, the needs they have, the way they function. Relatively few are sophisticated; most are pathetic and cannot cope with life. This is in stark contrast to the "monsters" the media portrays, a picture that is the foundation of much correctional policy.

2. History, time, place, and the unique "cultures" of communities shape how offenders are supervised day to day. They dictate what is possible and what is not. Again, what goes on is incredibly rich and diverse and is not easily captured or reduced to generalizations. We need to see this world in all its messy detail.

3. Environment substantially shapes how corrections operates. While there are surprising similarities between what parole agents do in the city and rural areas, there are also significant differences attributable to scale as well as to the unique qualities of city and rural settings. If we look closely at the lives most offenders inhabit, we will see, in city and country, igno- rance, poverty, hopelessness, despair. This should shape what we should do with offenders.

4. First-class line staff who are given the time, support, and opportunity are ingenious in the development of methods to control offenders and help them avoid future crime. Not only do operational staff devise means to supervise offenders, they redefine and enlarge on correctional objectives in response to the human faces and experiences they encounter. Good staff take on serious community problems, because they are intertwined with the problems of offenders. For example, a parole agent concerned about leisure activity of delinquents will work with schools and communities to get the schoolyard basketball courts fixed so kids can play on them.

5. At the line level, offenders are human and evoke human responses from probation and parole agents. The result is a good deal of the common sense that John Dilulio finds so compelling among prison staff. So, staff set clear expectations for offenders; appropriately structure their lives; hold offenders accountable, yet recognize that to falter is not to fail; care about offenders; invoke community resources such as police, schools, and factories to assist in the supervision of offenders; are opportunistic as they carefully watch offenders for openings that allow for changes in behavior; are realistic in their expectations for offenders.

6. If we study what first-rate probation and parole agents do, we will find much of the order, amenity, and service that defines the "good" for Dilulio. We will also find less crime, stronger communities, and offenders who cope well enough with life to avoid having to go to prison. In short, if we look for what works, we will find some things that do.




B. In Prisons

DiIulio stresses that one of his major contributions is to shift attention to what leaders do in effective prisons. He contrasts this with earlier work that emphasized the sociology of inmate society as critical to under-

standing how prisons function (at 72-80). It is clear to me (and to DiIulio, I think) that understanding the complex organization of prisons requires knowledge of inmates and administrators, as well as other people (e.g., line

staff), and other bodies and institutions (e.g., unions and media). More significant, I think, is DiIulio's insistence that the examination

of prison governance be a broad fact-based inquiry, taking into account the rich variety of human and institutional actors that influence prisons. His emphasis on administrative leadership is well placed for a simple reason: The best prisons are run by the staff, and effective leadership is crucial to the endeavor. My experience bears out much of what he found. If further inquiry were made that elicited the "facts" of well-run prison systems, what would we find? Let me briefly outline a few ideas:

1. As said above of offenders, inmates sentenced to prison in 1990 are a diverse group.

2. Different offenders require different levels of security. DiIulio ex- amined maximum security prisons, but in Wisconsin only 2,000 of the 7,000 prisoners are in maximum security institutions. Sophisticated classification systems allow for sensible judgments about levels of security and

custody. Lower security levels are usually less expensive than higher. So, the study of prisons should emphasize prison systems in which various institutions have different roles. Well-run maximum security institutions play a crucial role in orderly prison systems by insuring the proper mix of inmates at lower security levels and by providing incentive to inmates to behave in order to avoid maximum security life. One reason lower security level prisons can work differently from maximum security is that maximum security does work. In Wisconsin, we opened a close custody institution that was (and is) run strictly. This greatly enhanced the order and flexibility of other prisons in the system.

3. What works in prisons varies among security levels, at least to a degree. For example, all prisons require adherence to rules among inmates and staff. But the rules can vary among security levels. At lower levels of security, greater responsibility can be given to prisoners without sacrificing order, amenities, and service if the institution is properly administered.

4. Prisons have unique histories and cultures. Practices that work well in one would not necessarily work at other prisons. Evaluation of a prison requires close attention to history and culture.

5. I emphatically agree with DiIulio that prisons can be changed. In Wisconsin, we had a single prison that inmates had begun to dominate.




The warden had abrogated responsibility for the prison and expressly given authority to inmate groups, which promptly abused it. They intimi- dated and "shook down" other inmates and profiteered in the prison by selling goods with the warden's blessing. Through a careful process, we were able to end that inmate domination, but it was a slow, difficult one, which began by removal of the warden. My point is simply this: A worthy subject for research is the examination of prisons over time as a way of understanding how they can be improved.

6. The administration can control prisons. Adherence to rules; sensible, routine security practices; control of the essentials of life by staff (job assignments, food, safety); high levels of activities; and strong paramilitary leadership are the key ingredients in the kind of control that brings order, amenities, and service. This is not to suggest that staff should ignore inmate concerns, not listen carefully to them, or be closed to inmate griev- ances. On the contrary, strong leaders know where those being led are. People respond to how they are treated. This means it is critical to listen to staff and to inmates without sacrificing the responsibilities and preroga- tives of those in control.

7. Critical to the control of inmates is the control of staff. Absent strong leadership, staff will allow security practices to erode; prisons to be dirty; favorites (among inmates) to be played; rule violations to be ignored; rules to be inconsistently enforced; inmates to take more responsibility than they should have; short-run staff self-interest to dominate decisionmaking. These are a prescription for disaster. Well-run prisons have leaders who control staff and avoid the deterioration these practices portend.

8. Well-run prisons are run in ways that are consistent with the values of a free, democratic society. I do not mean they are run democratically. On the contrary, this too portends disaster. What I do mean is that well-run prisons are properly attentive to democratic values. They comply with the law and constitution; processes are fair and orderly. Adherence to democratic values often simply means that prisons do not unnecessarily limit freedoms, but do so to the degree necessary to fulfill their missions. Again, people respond to how they are treated. If we want prisoners to be fair, they should be treated fairly.

9. Well-run prisons are properly attentive to the world outside the walls. It is a foolhardy prison warden who ignores the media, legislature, governor, state employees union, inmate advocacy groups, victims' groups, and state bureaucracy. These are among the institutions and groups that shape what is possible and impossible in prisons. An effective leader panders to none of them but recognizes that in a free society it is the interplay of a rich variety of cultures, groups, institutions, and forces that shape the lives we lead. I offer no formula for success in dealing with such groups except to suggest that for a correctional leader to fail to be open to




those interested in prisons in our society begins a trip down the road to serious problems in prisons. The maintenance of order and control re-

quires attention to every detail and these are part of the details of life for

prisons. DiIulio properly recognizes this.

To conclude, let me again acknowledge Dilulio's contributions to corrections and decry the lack of knowledge about what works in this important field. Perhaps if we knew more, the facts would play a more significant role in policymaking than they do now. If we fail to live up to the challenge of learning more, it will be costly in human and financial terms. The field will continue to move from one panacea to another, as it has from rehabilitation to punishment; and words like these will be written again, well into the next century.



Documents

A Future for Research on Prisons: [Commentary]