BOP: Publications - Federal Prisons Journal Spring 1989 · Justice Reference Service The Attorney General has determined ... McKean, Pennsylvania Patricia L. Millard Director of Communications

Summer 1989 1

3 A Message From Attorney 11 The Future of Federal

General Dick Thornburgh Corrections

4 The Log

Correctional notes and comments

On the Modern Correctional Officer

Don’t Just Do Something...

Stand There (and Think About It)

Seven Tips for Improving Your

Newsletters

Heart Healthy Nutrition:

Changing Diets, Changing Habits

Mandatory Literacy for Prisons

ContentsVOL. 1, NO. 1 n SUMMER 1989

J. Michael Quinlan

An introduction to the first issue of theFederal Prisons Journal by the Directorof the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

15 Ensuring a Safe,Humane Institution

James D. Henderson and

Richard Phillips

Examining the first principles of success-ful correctional practice.

20 Suicide Prevention

Dennis Schimmel, Jerry Sullivan, and

Dave Mrad

How well does it work in the FederalPrison System?

25 From “College Town”to “Prison Town”

Doug Green

A chronicle of a small community’sintense debate as its college was con-verted to a Federal Prison Camp.

31 serious Prison Infractions

Loren Karacki

Why incidents of group violence de-clined—despite the Cuban uprisings in1987—from the 1970’s to the 1980’s.

36 Two Innovations: ThreeDecades Later

William D. Messersmith

interviewed by John Roberts

A historical perspective on two majorinnovations in the Federal Bureau ofPrisons: Community Treatment Centersand regionalization.

43 NIC and BOP

Nancy Sabanosh

An overview of the resources andoperations of the National Institute ofCorrections.

2 Federal Prisons Journal

Published quarterly by the Doug Green

Federal Bureau of Prisons Editor

J. Michael Quinlan

DirectorKristen Mosbæk Design StudioDesign and Art Direction

James B. Jones

Chief, Office of Public Affairs

Richard Phillips

Chief of Communications

Editor’s Advisory Group:

Joe Holt Anderson

Executive Editor, National CriminalJustice Reference Service

The Attorney General has determinedthat the publication of this periodical isnecessary in the transaction of the publicbusiness required by law of the Depart-ment of Justice.

Opinions expressed in this periodical arenot necessarily those of the FederalBureau of Prisons or of the U.S. Depart-ment of Justice.

Printed by Federal Prison Industries, Inc.

Judy Green

Editor, Office of Research and Evalu-ation, Federal Bureau of Prisons

Dennis Luther

Warden, Federal Correctional Institution,McKean, Pennsylvania

Patricia L. Millard

Director of Communications andPublications, American CorrectionalAssociation

Dr. Curt Toler

Chief, Psychology Services, FederalBureau of Prisons

Cover illustration by Rebecca Leer.Contributing artists: Web Bryant, BobDahm, Bill Firestone, Thomas Hoffman,Rebecca Leer, Paul Lloyd, StuartArmstrong ( “THE LOG” logo)

The Federal Prisons Journal welcomesyour contributions and letters. Pleasecontact the editor at:

Federal Bureau of PrisonsU.S. Department of Justice320 First Street, NWWashington, DC 20534

202-724-3198

Let us hear from you...We hope you will find the Federal

Prisons Journal useful in your profes-sional work and interesting to read. Wewant to reach not only the 14,000 menand women who work within the FederalPrison System and Federal PrisonIndustries, but their colleagues in Stateand local correctional systems and inother parts of the justice system.

Because this is a new magazine, and anew outreach effort on the part of theFederal Bureau of Prisons, we’reparticularly interested in your reactionsto our first issue. Feedback at this earlystage will help us shape the magazine inthe direction that will make it most usefulto you. In addition, we’re wide open forarticle ideas, and they don’t have to beconfined to the Federal system.

Please write to the Editor, Federal

Prisons Journal, at the address on thispage. If you want to talk to us, we’re at202-724-3198. We’re particularlyinterested in your responses to the fol-lowing questions:

What article did you find most interest-ing? Why?

IWhat article did you find least interest- Iing? Why?

Were any articles too long or too short?

Were any articles too difficult or too easyto read?

What topics would you like to see treatedin future issues?

TO THE READERS OF THE FEDERAL PRISONS JOURNAL:

I am pleased to be able to speak to you through the firstissue of the Federal Prisons Journal. The Department of Justiceis particularly pleased to support this publication not onlybecause it will be a valuable vehicle for personal andprofessional growth, but also because of the increasingimportance of the role of corrections in our criminal justicesystem.

As you know, President Bush announced in his new Crime Billthat he is prepared to commit increased resources to expand thefederal criminal justice system to meet his crime-fightinginitiatives. The President and I are both committed toincreasing the nation's ability to arrest, prosecute, andimprison those who would break the law. Under the President'splan the federal prison system's capacity would be enlarged by24,000 beds. Obviously, correction professionals will haveincreased responsibility in our war against crime and drugs.

As the corrections system grows, those who make it work mustcommunicate with each other, with opinionmakers, and with thepublic. The voices of professional correctional workers mustalso be heard in the national debate over issues of crime andjustice.

The Federal Prisons Journal provides a forum for thesediscussions: I urge your active participation through yoursubmissions and feedback.

The Federal Prisons Journal will also be an opportunity topresent to the nation a view of the problems facing thecorrectional system today. It is important to get the messageout about the resourcefulness and professionalism of correctionalworkers in providing a vital public service -- safe, secure, andhumane institutions -- often under difficult circumstances.

I salute you.

Federal Prisons Journal

On the Modern

Correctional Officer

Mike Grotefend

By many measures, we are an invisibleprofession because the people we serverarely, if ever, see us at work. We live“on the edge”—crossing daily between“normal” society and the inmate world.

Sadly, correctional officers die in theline of duty. Too often, the fate of ourfallen comrades has gone unnoticed.Hundreds of others have been injuredon the job. On their behalf, wededicate ourselves to the goal of raisingthe level of the public’s awareness ofwho we are and what we do.

We find ourselves in what has unfortu-nately become a growth industry.Given the choice, we would welcome adownturn in the industry if it meantthat crime is on the decline. Clearly,that is not a likely situation in the shortrun. On the contrary—correctionalfacilities are bulging at the seams,representing a failure of our Nation tofind ways to reduce crime. Newfacilities are filled as quickly as theyare built. It is important to realize thatthese facilities will not be self-admini-stering. Thoughtful administrators andpolitical leaders recognize that theymust identify and train sufficientpersonnel to staff these institutions andoffer compensation, benefits, andrecognition for a job well done.

We note, too, that some influentialadministrators are preparing to em-brace the notion that corrections workcan be turned over to “for profit”organizations, a trend that we viewwith alarm. On behalf of our members

Illustrations by Web Bryant

and the entire profession, we condemnthat notion. Crime and its conse-quences are a problem of the entiresociety.

If there is one governmental functionthat cannot be relegated to contractors,it is incarceration. We urge theNation’s lawmakers and publicadministrators to join with us indeclaring a commitment to fulfillingthis public obligation as a govemmen-tal function.

It is important, therefore, that theNation recognizes the unique contribu-tion correctional officers make tosociety. It is our role to providehumane incarceration and custodialprotection for inmates and to serve thepublic by keeping those who haveperpetrated crime segregated from thelaw-abiding.

The concept of corrections, rather thanpunishment, is often overlooked in the

discussion of crime. But, clearly, aslong as we believe that criminalbehavior can be changed and theindividuals who engage in it are to bediscouraged, we must remember thatthe role of correctional officers is morethan simply to act as a “turnkey,”keeping criminals behind bars andinvisible from the rest of society.Successful corrections programs relyon highly motivated, well trained, anddedicated corrections professionals.

That is why we stress the complexnature of the modem correctionalofficer’s role. He or she must betrained and educated, prepared torespond appropriately in a crisis, anddedicated to public service—tough yetcompassionate. Most of all, thecorrectional officer must believe thatsociety and the employer value thecontributions he or she makes.

Mike Grotefend is President of the

Council of Prison Locals, American

Federation of Government Employees.

He works at the Federal Correctional

Institution, Oxford, Wisconsin. A

different version of this article ap-

peared in Oxford Blues, the newsletter

of AFGE Local 3495.

Don’t Just DoSomething...Stand There

(and Think About It)

Warren J. Welsh, Ph.D.

Years ago at an educational seminar, aspeaker reminded the listeners that ifthe railroad companies had been asinterested in transportation as they hadbeen in railroads, they’d now own theairlines. The speaker’s point? Teach-

Summer 1989 5

ers must not limit their involvement inthe educational process to “classroomtechnology.” Instead, they must beconcerned with the total process ofeducation.

The same point is appropriate forcorrectional workers like us. If welimit our horizons to the cellblock,we’ll most certainly fall out of stepwith the times. Though many of us canremember when “sex was dirty and theair was clean,” such simplicity is longgone. In the atmosphere, we haveholes in the ozone; in corrections, wecan no longer just lock up inmates,work them, feed them, and releasethem when their time is up. Quite apartfrom social, moral, or political con-cerns, pure numbers force us to rethinkour approach. We have simply run outof places to put them.

The time has come to replace double-and triple-bunking with completelynew methods of carrying out ourmission. The Curfew Parole Program(electronic monitoring of “inmates”sentenced to “house arrest”) is anexample of what can happen when weare forced to think about what we’re

doing-looking at the forest instead of being able to do the job, than wrongindividual trees. about being able to do it.

Our “forest” is more than the field ofcorrections. It covers the wholecriminal justice system from thetheories of the classroom to therealities of the cellblock. A pervasivesense of “territoriality” has left hugegaps between the legislature makingthe laws, the police enforcing the laws,the courts sanctioning lawbreakers, andthe prisons managing the results. Ourmission in the Bureau of Prisons isneither to make laws nor convictlawbreakers. However, novel as theidea may seem, it is time to enlarge ourhorizons and begin to voice our ideasand concerns about legislation,enforcement, and sanctioning as wellas incarceration.

The Bureau can no longer remainunconcerned about such issues as zerotolerance, alternative sentencing,decriminalization of drugs, disparity insentencing, prisons for profit, illegalaliens, gun control, police corruption,and so on. We all need to be talking toeach other. This will help elevate ourinvolvement with criminal justice fromthe “provincialism” of the prisons tothe professionalism of the widestpossible field of view.

Dr. Warren J. Welsh is Chief of

Psychology Services at the Federal

Correctional Institution in Milan,

Michigan.

The first step is communication.Legislators, judges, police officers,parole officers, correctional workers,educators, everyone involved in anyaspect of criminal justice must begintalking to each other about what each isdoing, while thinking about the effect ithas on the rest of the system. It is notunusual for the various components ofthe system to be working at odds. Ifwe don’t talk, we can only assumeeveryone else is doing ‘just fine.”

Seven Tips for Improving

Your NewslettersDoug Green

Every institution has a newsletter, butthat by itself doesn’t tell you much.The newsletters are as diverse as theinstitutions themselves. They rangefrom a single typewritten page to full-color printed booklets with artwork andphotographs.

One of the most important reasons forcommunication is the need to know theproblems in other areas. Unfortu-nately, many have the attitude that toadmit a problem is to admit weaknessand incompetence. Thus, we display a“can do” attitude, even when, if wethought about it, we’d realize we werein a “can’t do” situation. Positiveattitudes are admirable, as long as theydon’t lead to self-deception. It’salways better to be right about not

Even with all this diversity, there is—or should be—a common underlyingprinciple. A good newsletter is onethat communicates—that gets itsmessage across to its audience. Thatmeans you have to be clear about boththe message and the audience; every-thing else is secondary. The followingtips are meant to improve your commu-nicating.


Stress people, not programs

Do people read your newsletterbecause they want to learn about newinitiatives in the Regional Office orwhere the warden is off to next week?Partly. But they really want to knowabout their friends and colleagues, andto keep up with what’s going on intheir immediate work environment.

The more people involved, the better

One person should be in charge of thenewsletter, but that person shouldinvolve as many others as possible.Try to get regular contribu-

certainly notice when it’s done badly.People don’t like having their namesmisspelled or their titles garbled.When they work hard on articles forthe newsletter, they like to see theirwork come out as they wrote it. Asimple misspelling can quickly changethe meaning (it’s the differencebetween “great” and “grate”). Findsomeone in your institution who canspell and punctuate—then don’t everlet him or her leave.

Don’t reinvent the wheelWhatever you’re doing for your

institution has been done before—probably at another institu-

tion. If you aren’t alreadyreceiving them, write to all

the institutions in yourregion—in the Nation, for

that matter—and get them tosend you copies of their news-

letters. Looking at otherpeople’s successes (and failures)

tors from every depart-ment within your institu-tion—and find outabout people’s hiddentalents. Somewherewithin your perime-ter are at least onecartoonist andone poet.

The Sea Breeze,

newsletter of the U.S.Penitentiary, Lompoc, CA,

will help you know what to borrow(or avoid). And take note of how

the professionals do it—go to thewon the Bureau of Prisons’ firstinstitution newsletter contest in 1989.

Keep it simple

People often confuse “good” with “ex-pensive” or “fancy.” Not so. You canput a great publication together with atypewriter and some Elmer’s glue—nocolor or typesetting or computer graph-ics necessary—if you’re providingpeople with something they need toread. Concentrate on that first, thenstart tinkering to improve your designand readability.

Have it proofread

Proofreading is something you nevernotice when it’s done right, but you

library and look at a few magazines.There are quite a few useful books onediting and design—E.B. White’s TheElements of Style is a classic for theformer; anything by Jan White willhelp you with the latter.

Get outside help if you need it

Most Bureau people have never hadoccasion to learn anything about publi-cations design or how to edit. Butthere are people in your communitywho do know—your local paper, forinstance, or your town’s print shop—and usually they’ll be happy to sharetheir knowledge. You might talk tothem about setting up a course ineffective writing for staff while you’reat it. Of course, if there’s a UNICOR

printing plant at your institution, you’llhave considerable expertise in-house.

Spend a little to save a lot

One of the best things about computersis that they allow an individual to domuch of the work of a print shop—withno greater investment of time thanyou’d spend at a typewriter. If yourinstitution is upgrading its microcom-puters, for instance, why not piggybackthe costs and invest in a desktoppublishing system, such as PageMakeror ReadySetGo? You’ll be amazed athow much time you’ll save, and howdramatic the improvement in qualitywill be.

Doug Green is editor of the FederalPrisons Journal. He has edited far toomany newsletters.

Heart Healthy Nutrition:

Changing Diets,

Changing Habits

Jerry Collins

In recent years more and more Ameri-cans have been concerned with healthand fitness. This trend has carried overinto the field of corrections. The oldphilosophy of nutrition in correctionalsettings could well be characterized as“keep them fat and happy.” But this isno longer acceptable. Both inmatesand staff are becoming much moreconscious of the nutritional qualities ofthe foods being provided at institutions.

As health costs continue to spiral forprisons as for the rest of society, goodnutrition becomes a form of preventivemedicine. The effects of diet on

Summer 1989

L._

psychological states are not wellunderstood, but it’s reasonable tosuppose that an unbalanced diet—one heavy in fats, sugar, and salt—can reinforce tendencies to “act out.”

Heart Healthy Meals

The birth of Heart Healthy Meals tookplace in the Bureau of Prisons in fall1988. Heart Healthy Meals are basedon the Dietary Guidelines for Ameri-cans developed to promote healthynutritional behavior. Heart HealthyMeals are also compliant with theRecommended Dietary Allowances(RDA’s), developed to meet the knownnutritional needs of practically allhealthy Americans. The guidelinesaddress overeating, and recommendreaching a desirable weight that youcan maintain, reducing consumption offat, saturated fat, and cholesterol,eating a variety of foods, eating anadequate amount of starch and fiber byincreasing the intake of grains, fruits,and vegetables, and decreasing intakeof sugar and salt.

Providing healthier meals need notrequire major alterations to yourinstitution’s current menus. Initially,

the emphasis should be on providingadditional choices for those interestedin healthier eating. Some effectiveHeart Healthy alternatives are:

n Provide a hot or cold fiber-richcereal at breakfast.

n Offer lowfat (2 percent) and skimmilk in place of whole milk.

n Limit eggs to no more than threeservings a week—and not always fried.

n Prepare vegetables without salt orbutter, which can be added at the table.

P Offer a baked alternative when themain entree is fried—baked chickenalong with the fried chicken, forinstance.

n Offer fresh or canned fruit as themain dessert.

n Offer margarine as an alternative tobutter.

Many Bureau institutions have alreadyimplemented these simple changes andfound them to be well received by theirinmate population.

n Jerry Heftler, Food Service Adminis-trator at FCI Fort Worth, startedproviding lowfat (2 percent) milk andwas then asked if skim milk could beprovided. Jerry started with three 5-gallon containers of skim milk and noworders 15 containers a week. Skimmilk is now offered in many institu-tions to the general population, not justto inmates on therapeutic diets.

n Phil Bradshaw, Food Service Admin-istrator at MCFP Springfield, initiallystarted preparing 25 servings of abaked entree as an alternative to friedmeats. In just a couple of weeks thedemand increased to 150 portions.Springfield’s alternative entrees areidentified on the menu board and areavailable upon request.

n Salad bars have provided inmates anexcellent and popular choice for HeartHealthy eating. In the past few years, atthe majority of institutions, salads havechanged from a simple bowl of lettuceto the opportunity to create your ownsalad with a wide variety of items. Thesalad bar provides inmates with a rareenough opportunity in institutions—the opportunity to select their personalpreferences. Inmates wishing to eatlight can do so; those seeking analternative to meat, fish, and poultrycan find protein substitutes on manysalad bars in the form of cheese,cottage cheese, garbanzo beans, or abean salad.

n Dual entrees have also added toinmate choices. Walt Breeden, formerFood Service Administrator at USPLompoc, offered a dual entree to theinmates consisting of a meat entree anda meatless entree in the form of a soyprotein dish. John Scozzafava, formerFood Service Administrator at FCIDanbury, made his second entree a


Heart Healthy choice. As statedearlier, other institutions are preparingan entree two different ways—friedand baked.

Changing habits through education

As many perpetual dieters know,changing your eating habits is not easy.Educating yourself about the content ofwhat you eat is a start. Grace Rodgers,the Bureau of Prisons’ Chief Dietitian,and the field dietitians are developingmaterial to promote healthier eatingbehavior among inmates. For instance,to educate the general population, aNutrition Corner Bulletin Board hasbeen developed to provide informationfor inmates supporting Heart HealthyFood choices. The first NutritionCorner display was the “Weight,Height, and Longer Life Chart,” whichshowed the ideal weight for height andframe size, followed by proper portionsizes to maintain a desirable weight.

Nutrition education begins on theserving line, where, as in the outsideworld, the “customers” are likely tomake some last-minute decisions.Some simple reinforcers can greatlyincrease the success of the program.

n Menu boards are an excellent tool forteaching healthy eating. This fall anew Bureau policy will be imple-mented requiring menu boards to listthe calories, sodium, and cholesterol ineach food item.

n Another “home remedy” to makeinmates more aware of what and howthey eat is a scale. Several institutionshave a scale available in the diningroom for inmates who want to monitortheir weight.

n A full-length mirror placed at theentrance of the dining room has provedto be excellent for making peopleaware of how they look, thus hopefullyaffecting what they eat.

Supporting field initiatives

To date, the success of the Bureau’sHeart Healthy Meals program hascome from a close collaborationbetween Central Office and theinstitutions. Grace Rodgers has metwith institutional food service adminis-trators at two regional conferences, andthe regional administrators and fielddietitians have been very supportive.Individual food service administratorshave also undertaken a number ofinitiatives:

n FCI Fort Worth is piloting a newconcept—therapeutic diets. Foodservice staff, medical staff, and thecontract dietitian are working togetherto provide inmates requiring specialdiets with counseling and educationalmaterials to enable them to makehealthier choices from mainline foods.The medical staff continues to monitorinmates’ conditions during this pilotprogram. A final determination will bemade this fallwhether to imple-ment this programBureauwide.

Intensified nutrition training for foodservice administrators is planned for1990 at the National Food ServiceAdministrators Conference and at theFood Management Training Center.The results of this training will betracked through future nutritionalanalysis of Bureau menus and willbenefit the inmate population throughpromoting preventive health care. Theinmate nutrition education program,and the clinical nutrition educationprogram for the population at nutri-tional risk for chronic disease, will bekey components in the success of HeartHealthy eating.

Jerry Collins is Food and Farm

Services Administrator for the Federal

n Tom Issermoyer, Food ServiceAdministrator at FCI Memphis, feedsdiabetic patients from the main lineafter they are taught the exchange

Bureau of Prisons.

system for meal selection by theNutrition Health Educator.

n Carl Vitanza, Food Service Adminis-trator at FCI Otisville, and the educa-tion department have incorporatednutrition training into the institution’sprerelease program.

The Bureau of Prisons’ farms have alsobeen very supportive of the HeartHealthy program. A year ago theywere informed of the goal to providehealthier foods; the farms then up-graded their milk processing equipmentto provide lowfat milk to their custom-ers. In addition, USP Lompoc iscurrently breeding their beef herd withleaner cattle of limousin stock, in anattempt to provide a healthier cut ofmeat for inmates in the WesternRegion.

Summer 1989

Mandatory Literacy

for Prisons

Sylvia McCollum

When Warren E. Burger was ChiefJustice of the United States, he had astrong interest in prison education pro-grams. In a speech to George Wash-ington University graduates in 1981, heurged education for all inmates so that,at a minimum, all would be literate andhave a saleable skill. Just 5 days later,Norman A. Carlson, then Director ofthe Bureau of Prisons, appointed a taskforce to advise him regarding thepolicy implications of the ChiefJustice’s speech.

Within a year, the Bureau establishedits first mandatory adult basic educa-tion policy, incorporating the followingpoints:

n Inmates functioning at less than 6th-grade level (as measured by theStanford Achievement Test, or SAT)were required to enroll in an adult basicliteracy (ABE) program for 90 days.

n Inmates could not be promoted tojobs above the lowest level until theymet the 6th-grade standard.

n Each institution had to develop a“needs list” to follow each inmate’sprogress (or lack of progress), includ-ing 30-day reviews and counselingsessions.

n Institutions also had to develop asystem of incentives and awards torecognize satisfactory progress.

That both staff and inmates so readilyaccepted the mandatory literacyprogram came as a surprise to many.One question was whether inmates whohad verified high school diplomas andcollege degrees should be required totake the SAT. Early on, the decisionwas made to test all new admissions,since there was evidence that manywho had such diplomas and degreesfunctioned below the 6th-grade levelon SAT subtests.

Some inmates thought they were tooold to learn enough to meet the newstandards. Others had enrolled in pastliteracy programs and failed only oneor two of the SAT subtests. Thesecases were handled on an individualbasis; work promotions were occasion-ally allowed if the inmates continued inthe ABE program and made satisfac-tory progress.

The impact of the new policy on thenumber of ABE enrollments andcompletions was substantial, as shown

in the table. Population increased 54percent, while ABE completionsincreased 327 percent! We believe thatthe compulsory nature of the programand its tie to work promotion accountsfor this accomplishment.

Constant monitoring has been animportant characteristic of the Bureau’sliteracy effort. There was consensusthat problems should be quicklyaddressed. Thus, in October 1983, thepolicy was amended to require eachinstitution to have either a qualifiedreading specialist or a special educationinstructor on staff, as the averageclassroom teacher did not always havethe necessary skills.

After 3 years, it became apparent thatthe 6th-grade level was not highenough to meet employers’ risingexpectations and comparable commu-nity standards. In July 1985, a pilotprogram was initiated in the NortheastRegion to test the establishment of the8th grade as the new standard; a year


Adult Basic Education Program, 1981-86

81 82 83 84 85 86

BOPAvg. dailypopulation 24,933 27,730 29,718 30,723 33,263 38,402

Newenrollments 2,653 3,785 6,004 6,896 8,048 9,000 est

Completions 1,441 1,983 3,774 4,909 5,221 6,161

% Incr. overprev. yr.—Complet ions — 37.6 90.3 30.1 6.4 18.0

% Incr. overprev. yr.—Pop. — 11.2 7.25 3.4 8.3 14.2

Increase81-86

13,469

6,347

4,720

327.6

54.0

Note: A new Education Data System was established in 1987; data for FY 1987 and 1988 are not yet available.

later, that standard became nationwide.Last year, the SAT—originallydesigned for use with children—wasreplaced by the Adult Basic LevelExamination (ABLE) as the qualifyingtest.

The consensus we have reached in theBureau echoes that of the privatesector—a literate worker is a betterworker. The literacy program is almostuniversally supported by line staff aswell as managers. We attribute thissuccess to two major factors:

n The connection between literacyachievement and wages and promo-tions. The difference between aUNICOR entry-level grade of 22 centsan hour and the top grade of $1.10 anhour is a significant motivator. Andboth inmates and staff immediatelyunderstood and accepted the realities ofthe outside job market.

n The increased availability of com-puter-aided instruction. Computers areperfect for drill and practice, and allowstaff to manage enlarged enrollmentswithout losing one-on-one contact.More than 600 personal computers arenow in use throughout the system.

Eight States have some form ofmandatory literacy program, withstandards ranging from the 4th to the8th grade. A few others have manda-tory requirements under certainconditions in particular institutions.These States’ experience tends tosupport the Bureau’s. Its positiveexperience with mandatory literacy hasencouraged the Bureau to considerexpanding the concept. A l-year pilotprogram in the Southeast Region field-tested the requirement of a high schooldiploma or GED for promotions to topjobs; we anticipate establishing thisrequirement nationwide in 1989.

The mandatory GED program is takingplace at the same time as the Federalprison population is exploding. Insteadof competing for inmate time, educa-tion programs are increasingly viewedas necessary to meet increases inavailable inmate time. Job opportuni-ties for educated ex-offenders may wellincrease as businesses have difficultyfinding skilled entry-level workers.These factors make mandatory educa-tion more important than ever.

The bottom line, as always in educa-tion, is the classroom teacher andeducation manager. The literacyprogram in the Federal Prison Systemis one of their crowning achievements.

Sylvia McCollum is Director ofEducation of the Federal Bureau ofPrisons. An expanded version of thisarticle will appear in the Yearbook ofCorrectional Education, 1989, pub-lished by OxfordU n i v e r s i t y

Summer 1989

The Future of Federal Corrections

11

An introduction by the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons

J. Michael Quinlan

I want to use this inaugural issue of theFederal Prisons Journal to share somethoughts about how I think the Bureau ofPrisons is likely to develop as ourprofession enters a period of astound-ingly rapid change.

During the past year, scientists’ direpredictions about the “greenhouse effect”and the depletion of the ozone layer, aswell as such disasters as the recentAlaskan oil spill, have made all of usmore conscious of ecology. As a Nation,we are beginning to realize that there areno quick fixes for environmental prob-lems, and that decisions—good andbad—made decades ago have a lastinginfluence.

The ecology comparison helps usunderstand the criminal justice system.Only recently have we begun thinking ofthe entire process (and the many agen-cies) through which a criminal passes—from investigation through arrest, trial,sentencing, prison or diversion, probationand parole—as a system. We are not sofar removed from the days when all theseagencies operated in virtual isolation,with little thought for how decisions atone level would affect others furtherdown the line.

And yet, we are now entering a periodthat is likely to see the greatest overallexpansion of prison capacity in Americanhistory. It is not unreasonable to thinkthat we will have almost twice as manyprisoners in Federal custody by themiddle of the next decade. As Americancitizens, we should not be proud of this—indeed, many see it as a symptom ofnational failure.

But the mechanisms are in place to driveprison growth through the end of thecentury, even if major judicial and lawenforcement policies were to be reversedtoday—an unlikely event. As correctionsprofessionals, however, we are nowpresented with a problem—and anopportunity—very much like that of thescientists working on the greenhouseeffect: the greatest professional challengewe will ever know. We will need all thecreativity we can muster to manageprisons in the Information Age. Let memention a few areas:

n Moving away from “walls and fences”prisons. Information Age technologiessuch as electronic monitoring andintensive use of satellites may make itpossible for an increasingly largepercentage of offenders to serve theirsentences under conditions of homeconfinement—holding down jobs,

keeping their families intact, and keepingoff the streets.

n Monitoring our own performance.

Public accountability in the InformationAge means more than answering ourmail. It means developing sophisticatedfeedback mechanisms to measure howwell our programs work, allow formidcourse corrections, and provide asolid data base so that we can managebetter and help States repeat our suc-cesses and avoid our failures.

O Keeping pace with the private sector.We must take account of the privatesector’s technical and managerialinnovations while retaining our distinc-tively public goals. UNICOR providesus with a unique laboratory to do justthat.

n Reaching out to our colleagues and

the public. Institutions know theimportance of Community RelationsBoards and joint ventures with otherpublic safety agencies in cementingsupport in their localities. But we mustalso use the full range of InformationAge technologies—old (film, radio,public displays, newspapers) and new(video, computer networks)—for tellingour story.

Inevitably, this challenging new “prisonecology” will require change within theorganization to keep pace. Correctionalofficers joining the Bureau in 1989 willretire as senior administrators from avery different agency.

The Bureau wants to maintain a leader-ship role in corrections. We enjoy strongsupport in Congress. The Federal courtshave time and again backed our policieswhen challenged. But this is not enough.We are moving into a wider arena.


The public’s attitude toward prisons isparadoxical. On one hand, “lock ‘em up”never fails to win support at electiontime. On the other, “not in my backyard” is the typical response when we getdown to hard cases of siting and con-struction. Most of all, the public isunaware of the staggering costs in-volved—and that the costs of operatinga prison don’t decrease with time. It ischeaper to send a prisoner throughcollege than to keep him locked up for ayear.

Corrections agencies have generallypreferred to live with this “out of sight,out of mind” attitude, and have stayedlargely in a reactive mode as far as thepublic is concerned. We have notparticularly tried to get our messageacross—we may not even have beenaware that we had one. But we do.

Our message grows out of the Bureau’smission statement, which conveys theBureau’s goals to:

“Maintain secure, safe, and humanecorrectional institutions for individualsplaced in the care and custody of theAttorney General.

“Develop and operate correctionalprograms that seek a balanced applica-tion of the concepts of punishment,deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilita-tion.

“Provide, primarily through the NationalInstitute of Corrections, assistance toState and local correctional agencies.”

Let us look at each of those elements.

We do have

a message to get across.

The message is that

good correctional practice

works.

The foundation of corrections is secu-rity—protecting the public. If we fail atthis, our successes in other areas simplywill not matter. No conceivable securitysystem is 100 percent perfect, but ourobjective is to approach that level ofperfection to the greatest possible degree.

It’s frustrating to all of us that theoccasional walkaway or escape—moreoften an escape attempt that fails—receives so much attention. But thepublic has the right to take security forgranted; it’s the first principle of theentire criminal justice system. We mustbe open in acknowledging the occasionalsecurity breaches, quick in fixing them,and constantly looking for ways toprevent them from occurring.

The “safe and humane” part of thestatement is much less well understood.Sadly, many people still hold to thenotion that a criminal belongs to somesort of separate species that deserves noconsideration whatever. But prison, forthe overwhelming majority of inmates, isnot the end of the line. Almost all will bereleased back into the community.

We must help the public understand thatthe prison experience itself is punish-

ment. It is neither Constitutional norgood correctional practice to increasethat punishment by allowing inhumane

conditions to exist in prisons. TheBureau’s record of leadership on thisissue must continue to be strengthened inthe next decades.

Overcrowding is a serious problem andwill remain with us for years to come. Atleast some of its bad effects can bereduced through good management,however. If inmates feel safe fromassault, and if sufficient opportunities forwork, education, and recreation areavailable, then a reasonable level ofovercrowding is manageable.

This brings us to the second element.The concept of “balance” is a particularlyimportant part of the statement. Some-times we feel that it is difficult tomaintain our balance in the shiftingwinds of public opinion, but leaning toofar toward punishment or towardrehabilitation is not professionallyresponsible.

It’s not our job to change an inmate’sways of thinking—and we have to admitthat we simply don’t know how torehabilitate people consistently. Therecidivism rate is proof of that. Never-theless, inmates do straighten themselvesout in prison—and it’s our job to helpthose who want to change.

Still, it is the rehabilitative aspect of theBureau’s work that most often meetswith public incomprehension. It seemsto many to be “coddling criminals.” Butwe know that the mix of programs andopportunities we offer within ourinstitutions actually enhances safety andsecurity. Again, almost everyone now inFederal custody will return to thecommunity. We can’t “cure” criminalbehavior, but we know that some

programs work for some inmates some of

Growth of the Federal Prison System

the time—and that’s a better chance than formal and informal, in which we can with many American families, our

many of them had on the street. Our goalmust be to increase our percentages ofsuccess.

The third element of our missionstatement reflects our position as a publicagency and one of the recognized leadersin corrections. Government informa-tion—including the collected profes-sional experience of thousands of Bureauemployees—is not proprietary; it ismeant to be shared. The NationalInstitute of Corrections is our formalmechanism to provide specific types ofassistance to States and localities. Butthere are many other situations, both

help (and learn from) our colleagues inother agencies. Indeed, we have recentlybegun talks with the Correctional Serviceof Canada on areas of mutual interest.

So we do have a message to get across.The message is that good correctional

practice works. It keeps citizens safe, itkeeps inmates secure, it allows someinmates to make the choice not to returnto prison, and it allows the Bureau tomanage an ever-expanding population.

This overall growth in the system means,of course, that the size of our staff willexpand as well. We have always thoughtof the Bureau as a family, and just as

“family” is subject to outside pressures—demographic shifts, competition from theprivate sector, a tightened Federal wagestructure, and so on. What will this meanfor the Bureau as a place to work, a placein which to grow?

Organizing a Human Resources DivisionBureauwide in the past year was one partof our strategy to cope with the realitythat our “family” is changing. We arenow an extended family, and the work wedo requires an increasing level ofsophistication and more specialization.In that respect we are like the private

sector. Computer literacy, for instance,will be an increasingly necessary skill forall BOP staff. Managers who are used tomaking decisions “by feel” will find thatthey must make use of research findingsand powerful information-gatheringsystems in their daily work. Evaluationmust become a part of every Bureauactivity, not just because it improves ourefficiency, but because it ensures a wiseruse of public resources. (Our ProgramReview Division was also establishedthis past year to implement this philoso-phy Bureauwide.)

Hand in hand with these changes inemployees’ skill profiles, styles ofmanagement must change. Only oneperson is a real expert when it comes to aparticular job—the person who does it.Managers will increasingly involveemployees in decisions that affect them.This does not mean running institutions“by consensus,” but it does meanallowing everyone’s voice to be heard.American business is discovering that aparticipatory style of management isgood for the bottom line—the publicsector will see that it increases staffinterest and involvement in their work.

The private sector is also discovering thathelping its employees maintain theirpersonal health and well-being—throughexercise, better diet, assistance in dealingwith alcohol, drug, and nicotine addic-tions, and similar programs—has greatlycut down on the number of sick days andincreased overall job satisfaction. TheBureau is moving as fast as possible toexpand this concept of “wellness”throughout our institutions, and to makeit a permanent part of our thinking.

When

the exercise of creativity

becomes an accepted

part of the job,

we will be well on our way

to coping with the

new world of corrections we

are entering.

Corrections is a people-intensiveprofession. Programs are only as good asthe people who administer them. We canbe proud of the increasing professionali-zation of our workforce, without thinkingthat we’ve come nearly as far as we haveto go. In theory, if you find the bestpeople and reward them well, you shouldhave no staffing problems. Ours areobvious, and not just in specialized areassuch as nursing, where a nationwideshortage of trained personnel has placedthe Bureau in competition with leadinghospitals and medical centers. Theunfortunate situation is that we havegood people, but can’t always pay themwhat they’re worth. We can hope thatthe long-standing pay inequities in ourfield will be redressed, but this is out ofour control.

What we can do, in line with the con-cepts of participation and wellnessoutlined above, is to create an environ-ment in which it is personally satisfyingto work—to reinforce already existingskills and cross-train for new ones, tonurture future leaders and give them asmuch responsibility as possible, to keepcommunications open up and down thelines of authority. When the exercise ofcreativity becomes an accepted part of

the job, we will be well on our way tocoping with the new world of correctionswe are entering.

I said earlier that the huge expansion ofthe prison system we are about to enterreflects a national failure in the eyes ofmany observers. We have not come togrips with the causes of crime; indeed,we are not even close to agreement aboutwhat they are. But we know the symp-toms all too well. A recent estimate (bycriminologist Simon Dinitz) suggests thatto lock up every felony offender for 5years would mean increasing the Ameri-can prison population by 300 to 500percent, with construction costs of $130billion and operating costs rising accord-ingly. Clearly, this will not happen, butthe shift toward more stringent sentenc-ing and the public’s “get tough” attitudehave produced changes that couldn’thave been foreseen as recently as adecade ago.

The “ecology” of criminal justice in thisNation is in a state of upheaval. Thefuture presents both dangers and opportu-nities. We must manage this growth, orit will manage us. The Federal Prisons

Journal is an important part of ourintegrated approach, and I urge you toread it, write for it, and support it.

As the debate on American crime andjustice continues, we in the Bureau ofPrisons have a special part. We must allbe advocates for good correctionalpractice. We’re the experts on that. n

J. Michael Quinlan became the fifth

Director in the 59-year history of the

Federal Bureau of Prisons in July 1987

Ensuring a Safe, Humane InstitutionThrough the basics of corrections

James D. Henderson and

Richard Phillips

This is a challenging time in the field ofcorrections—and an appropriate time toconsider a few thoughts about contempo-rary, yet classic, correctional manage-ment. The need to focus on safe, humanemanagement has never been greater.Federal and State systems constantlystress “the basics” in training, andcontinue to be managed in a highlyprofessional manner. But correctionalstaff now face unprecedented numbers ofcommitments throughout the country.Thus, it’s worth stepping back for amoment to think about just why thebasics are so important.

Today there are a multitude of ideasabout how to manage prisons better.People “search for excellence,” try theirhand at “managing by objectives,” oreven become “1-minute managers.”“Theory X” and “Theory Y” may explainhow some people act when they manage.“Quality circles” might set up a meansfor letting staff be more involved inimportant decisions. Any one of a halfdozen other theories could very easily bea basis for successful institutionaloperations. As a common denominator,though, each seems to involve some typeof comprehensive strategic managementsystem, based on principles that areclearly understood and subscribed to byall staff. Within such a managementstructure, sound institutional operationsrely on diligent application of thefundamentals of security technology andcommon sense, blended with a reason-able response to the human condition.

The fact is that good management in acorrectional environment is made up of arelatively few fundamentals: the personalvisibility of top staff, attention to high

Thomas Hoffman


levels of housekeeping and sanitation,inmate accountability, key control, toolcontrol, good staff training, and having asound policy basis for decisions.

You can be sure that there will be asession on “overcrowding” in everymajor correctional gathering held in theforeseeable future. Obviously, this is amajor problem in corrections, yet it isessentially beyond our control—deter-mined by the policies and practices ofagencies and individuals outside our ownorganizations. There are things correc-tional staff do have control of, though—basic correctional practices, and visibilityand accessibility of management andsupervisory personnel. Having control ofthose factors will not only make prisonjobs easier, but ensure that offenders incustody serve their sentences under safe,humane conditions.

Creating a safe institutional environmentshould be of paramount importance toevery correctional worker. As everyoneknows, though, just about anything thatcan go wrong, will. What is needed is amanagement style that gives an advan-tage—an “edge”—on the critical areasthat create the most problems.

“Management bywandering around”The first thing managers can do to gain acritical advantage, and improve the wayan institution runs, is to increase thevisibility—the physical presence in everyarea of the facility—of mid- and upper- ulevel staff. While workloads are admit-tedly high for top administrators, it isimperative that the warden, his executivestaff, and department heads regularly tourthe institution and make themselvesavailable to staff and inmates.

The first thing

managers can do to gain

a critical advantage

is to increase the

the physical presence

in every area of

the facility—of mid- and

upper-level staff.

A concrete example helps illustrate thispoint. During a recent visit by one of theauthors to a State institution, the wardenapproached the segregation unit, butstayed in the corridor. It was p.m.;individual logs on the doors in the unitindicated that the inmates had been fedall three meals for the day, had beenrecreated and taken showers, and hadbeen checked by medical personnel.Afterward, the warden was asked if heever visited the unit. His response wasthat he never did, because “verbal abusealways leads to physical abuse.”Whether or not that was the real reason,one fact was clear—he didn’t know whatwas going on inside one of the mostcritical areas of the institution.

Administrators need to use their tours ofthe facility to personally communicatetheir standards of sanitation, conduct,performance, and professionalism. Whenthey tour, they must actively seek outinformation, not just passively walkaround. If they don’t ask questions—probing questions—and give clearinstructions leading to concrete actions,then the acceptable performance levelmoves toward whatever level is in forceat the time. Ignoring conditions youdon’t like, or that violate policy, in effect

condones them. If the top staff don’t sayanything, you can bet that no one elsewill. It is critical that the warden set apositive example in this respect, andinsist that other management staff dolikewise. This extends in particular tospecial housing areas such as death row,protective custody, and detention orsegregation units, where serious prob-lems can quickly develop from relativelysmall issues.

This personal visibility builds staffconfidence in their leaders. Instead ofvisualizing front-office paper-pushers,line staff can relate to managers they seeand talk to regularly, and who listen totheir concerns and problems. There areinstitutions in which neither staff norinmates know the warden. In otherlocations, unit logs in segregationindicate that the warden visits there forvery brief periods, seldom, or not at all.That’s simply not enough attention tosuch a critical area of the institution. Inone case involving a serious escape,supervisory personnel had failed to visitdeath row for weeks at a time.

Personal credibility is almost priceless inthe people-intensive business of correc-tions. There is no better way to build itthan through face-to-face contactsbetween line and administrative staff.Moreover, better decisions are madewhen administrators know their staff andinstitution on a personal basis. This istrue in ordinary circumstances, and reallypays extra dividends in times of crisis.Whether it’s an employee job action, ahostage situation, an uprising, or someother crisis, administrators who have thisextra dimension of knowledge about theirinstitution will inevitably fare better thanthose who rely on second- or third-handinformation. Maybe it’s not the hard

facts as much as the feel of the institu-tion, the more intimate knowledge of thestaff and their capabilities, or evenpersonal knowledge of the inmatesinvolved. Those hard-to-quantifybenefits of hands-on administration payoff when the tough decisions have to bemade.

Many people promote the benefits of so-called “inmate councils” to get this kindof communication and credibility goingin their institution. Inmate councils,however, tend to be composed of theprivileged few—the inmates who try tostyle themselves as power brokers in theinstitution. This situation is ripe fordisaster. If, on the other hand, adminis-trators are out and about, and makingthemselves available to inmates forindividual contacts, they will be gettingeverybody’s view, not just the predict-able group of gang leaders and jailhouselawyers who have intimidated andpressured their way into the inmatecouncil. If staff at every level areaccessible, the entire population is theinmate council.

Another reason for high-visibilitymanagement is to fulfill top administra-tors’ direct supervisory responsibilities.Without constant attention, it is only amatter of time until administrators losecontact with the realities of day-to-dayoperations, and are unable to see first-hand how their subordinate supervisorsare performing. The larger and morecomplex the institution, the moreimportant this element becomes.

A few years ago, this management stylewas immortalized in the Hewlett Packardcompany as “Management By Wander-ing Around.” That’s as good a name asany, but it didn’t start in the semiconduc-tor industry. It’s been going on for years

Personal credibility

is almost priceless in the

people-intensive business of

corrections. There is no

better way to build it than

through face-to-face

contacts between line and

administrative staff.

in well-managed correctional facilities,practiced by incorrigible old captains andother wise department heads who madewarden, then couldn’t keep their nosesout of the day-to-day running of theinstitution.

The accompanying principle is that if thewarden isn’t out and around, othersupervisors won’t be either. The wardenshould set the example, then insist thatthe proactive management strategyextends to the associate wardens, and onthrough to the shift supervisors and otherdepartment heads. Every managershould be acutely aware of the need toget out into the institution, particularlythe locked units, to ensure that standardsare being met. Only by personallyconveying and communicating theexpectations of the administration, andregularly following up with those whoactually carry them out, will managersavoid slippage in critical areas.

In high-security settings particularly, thepresence of top staff moving confidentlythroughout the facility conveys amessage—that working conditions aresafe. This is not a small matter in someprison systems, where the personal safetyof line staff is a pervasive concern, and insome cases they literally work under the

gun all day. When the warden showsthat he or she is not afraid to go into thehousing units, onto the yard, or into othersections of the facility, the message isthat it is safe for line staff as well. Themorale implications of conveying anyother message are serious, to say theleast.

As a final pragmatic note on visibility,when superiors are confident that amanager knows the institution, the resultis a gain in credibility that should makethe manager’s job easier in many ways.Persuading agency heads and legislaturesto support policy and procedure changesmay be one positive result. Anothermight be less effort in gaining andmaintaining the staff and fiscal resourcesneeded to run the institution even better.

This element has been discussed at lengthnot only because it is important in itsown right, but because virtually everyother correctional management tenet risesor falls on the personal visibility of topmanagement in an institution. Visibilityis the vehicle for ensuring that everythingelse takes place.

Sanitation

The second basic issue is sanitation. Toooften, staff overlook the obvious—ifinmates (and employees too) have to liveand work in a place that is dirty, poorlymaintained, and smells like a barn,sooner or later they will start actingaccordingly. A strong emphasis on basichousekeeping and sanitation is a clearindicator of a well-managed institution.High standards of housekeeping shouldbe communicated clearly to staff andinmates. Carefully crafted, conservativepersonal property limitations are essen-tial. When deviations begin to occur,


personnel assigned to the problem areaneed to act immediately to preventfurther deterioration.

This factor has direct implications forinmate behavior and morale. There is norecord anywhere of an inmate complain-ing that the kitchen, dining room, orvisiting rooms were too clean. Whenstaff maintain high standards of cleanli-ness in these and other areas of theinstitution, they convey a message thatthey care in a positive way about how theinmates in their charge live.

The kitchen and food service sectionsobviously require the highest standardsof cleanliness. Cluttered shop areastelegraph conditions ripe for accidents.Even in high-security units, inmatesshould be required to participate insanitation efforts; where any othertradition exists, changing it should be ahigh priority. Structured inmate involve-ment in sanitation activities will relievestaff of this responsibility, provide morewholesome working conditions foremployees, and result in better livingconditions for the inmates—and highermorale all around.

When activating new institutions orhousing units, establishing high standardsof housekeeping should be an immediaterequirement. Personnel assigned thereneed to set them immediately to preventthe deterioration that will soon set in ifinmates are allowed to set their ownstandards—ones that will certainly belower.

Along those lines, it’s important toalways have some active constructionproject in the institution, showing thepopulation that there is some interest onthe part of the administration in their

It’s importantto always have some

active construction project

in the institution,

showing the population

that there is some interest

on the part of the administra-

tion in their welfare.

welfare. This could be constructing anew ball court, refinishing the gym floor,refurbishing the dining hall, or anynumber of other things. Within the limitsyour budget allows, you need to have atleast one highly visible inmate-related

project going all the time.

Policies and procedures

A well-developed body of policy iscritical for the efficient operation of anyinstitution. The official agency policieson discipline, visiting, correspondence,use of firearms, use of force, hostagesituations, and many others all need to bebrought together, organized, and pub-lished. Field staff should certainly havesignificant input into the formulation ofthese policies. Once these policies are inplace, there should be a comprehensivesystem of local and central audits.Above all, staff need to follow thesepolicies. It may be better not to have apolicy than to have it and ignore viola-tions.

Inmate accountability

Accountability for inmates is high on thelist of basics, yet it is a complex subjectthat hinges on a great many other factors.The mission of corrections is to confine

properly committed offenders for thecourts; if prisons don’t keep inmatesinside the perimeter, they very simplyhave failed. That is a basic level ofexternal accountability—ensuring thatthe right number of inmates are countedevery midnight.

There is a second level of accountability,though—internal accountability. Itincludes a sufficient number of counts atmeaningful intervals. But it also entailscensus checks that monitor the where-abouts of inmates between counts, passsystems to track the movement ofinmates on the compound, methods ofconfidentially posting pictures andidentification information on particularlydangerous or escape-prone inmates, aswell as other local systems for keepingtrack of inmates. These, coupled with analert, well-trained staff, are the minimumcomponents of any effective inmateaccountability system.

Any number of facilities have exception-ally secure perimeters, but little in theway of internal inmate controls. Ifinmates have enough latitude inside theperimeter, eventually they will find somemethod to defeat even the best wall orfence. This is especially true if otherinternal control systems are also vulner-able to inmate exploitation.

.Contrary to some opinions, inmatesprefer to be controlled if procedures areconsistent. Internal controls such as passsystems and callouts, bolstered withprograms and jobs that structure majorportions of the inmate day, all serve tostrengthen internal accountability.

Summer 1989 1 9

Key control

Absolute and comprehensive key controlis another cornerstone of successfulinstitutional management. Every key andkey ring in the institution must beaccountable to a person or location at alltimes. Every lock and key must be a partof a rigorous inventory, accountability,and testing program that ensures thatkeys are where they are supposed to be,in the proper hands, and that they workas intended without fail. Effectivemethods must be in place for controllingand issuing emergency keys and certainrestricted keys. Special issue, logging,and color-coding procedures should beused, and training should be constantlyemphasized.

Good key handling practices on the partof staff are essential; if inmates obtainkeys or impressions of them, serioussecurity problems are sure to arise.

Tool control

Tool control is yet another area wherestaff cannot afford to let down even for aminute. Every tool in the facility must beissued to a specific department, andthereafter controlled by strict inventoriesusing shadowboards and other functionalcontrol and storage methods. Division oftools into categories for high- and low-risk items, and strict enforcement ofinmate access restrictions, are necessities.In particular, this involves control ofknives, files, saw blades, grinders, andtorch cutting tips, but needles, syringes,caustics, and poisonous and hazardousmaterials also need high-priority atten-tion.

The agency bears the responsibility forsetting down the requirements of such a

Any number of facilities

have exceptionally secure

perimeters, but little

in the way of internal inmate

controls. If inmates have

enough latitude inside

the perimeter, eventually

they will find

some method to defeat

even the best wall

or fence.

program. Once that is done, a concertedeffort must be made by local staff toadapt the agency policy and specify howit will be carried out—through localpolicy supplements as well as a set ofcomprehensive post orders and emer-gency plans tailored to each locality.Supervisory efforts in the policy enforce-ment area are paramount, and, as alreadymentioned, personal visibility is the bestway to achieve them.

Training

Lastly, staff training is the glue thatholds everything in an institutiontogether. It’s great to have a well-developed body of policy in the agency’scentral office, or in the warden’s office inthe institution. But if staff are notfamiliar with that policy, and don’t havelocal mechanisms for carrying it out, it isvirtually worthless.

Introductory sessions for policies need tostart in the training academy; needless tosay, training academy staff should be

respected professionals who are wellversed in the policy basis for what theyteach. There should also be local trainingin the specific application of policies inthe institution. Refresher training isneeded at least annually to keep everyoneup to date. All of these systems shouldcomplement each other—the centraloffice policy development process, stafftraining academy activities, and localtraining and refresher courses. The trained staff member who is familiar withpolicy and how it is carried out in his orher institution is the real asset in correc-tions. Training systems have to prepareemployees for the basics, or nothing elsedone, said, or thought about will matter.

Making a difference

It’s hard to overstate the importance ofpersonal involvement and visibility, theneed to maintain high standards ofmaintenance and sanitation, and the otheraccountability and control systemsmentioned here. Sometimes staff losesight of the fact that one person can makea difference. As an individual, eachadministrator and correctional workercan create the climate necessary to sethigh standards and expectations that willmake his or her institution or agencyfunction at its best. n

James D. Henderson retired in 1981from the Federal Bureau of Prisons as

Regional Director, North Central

Region. He is now a private correctional

consultant. Richard Phillips is Director

of Communications of the Federal

Bureau of Prisons.

Suicide PreventionIs it working in the Federal Prison System?

Dennis Schimmel, Ph.D.; Jerry Sullivan,

Ph.D.; and Dave Mrad, Ph.D.

IntroductionThose of you who worked for the Bureauof Prisons before 1982 may recall thatsuicide watches were handled verydifferently. Typically, the potentiallysuicidal inmate was counseled, put in asingle cell in detention with limitedproperty and clothes, and checked every15 minutes. The Bureau had no formalpolicy or procedures for the managementof suicidal inmates; institutions may havevaried considerably in their treatment ofinmates in crises and the trainingprovided to staff.

In mid- 1982, the Bureau of Prisonsissued a new policy in the form ofProgram Statement 6341.1, whichoutlined a comprehensive suicideprevention effort involving increasedstaff training and attempts to betteridentify suicidal inmates. It also requiredcontinuous observation of suicidalinmates, allowed trained inmate “com-panions” to assist in suicide watches, andcalled for a form al review, or “psycho-logical autopsy,” of each suicide. Therehas been only one minor revision to thepolicy since its inception.

A psychology work group was estab-lished last year to review the Bureau’ssuicide prevention program. The workgroup reviewed all psychologicalautopsies from the past 5 years andconducted a phone survey of all ChiefPsychologists. This article summarizesthe work group’s efforts.

Autopsy analysis

Suicide rates

The “bottom line” issue is what happenedto the rate of suicides during the first 5years. The various studies of Bureausuicides use slightly different criteria for

developing the suicide rate; this discus-sion should be considered suggestiverather than conclusive.

A summary submitted to the Bureau ofPrisons’ Executive Staff by Gaes, Beck,and Lebowitz (1981) , suggested an annual rate of 24 per 100,000 in the 6years prior to the implementation of the1982 Program Statement. A study byAnne Schmidt (1978) reported a rate of28 per 100,000 for sentenced Federalprisoners between 1970 and 1977.

Finally, a major influence on our suiciderate since 1983 has been the influx ofCubans. Of the 43 suicides, 10 havebeen Marie Cubans—8 detainees atAtlanta, and 2 incarcerated at otherinstitutions. Excluding the 8 detainees,the annual suicide rate since 1983 wouldbe 21 per 100,000. The annual rateamong Cuban detainees has beenapproximately 75 per 100,000.

There were 43 suicides in the Bureauduring 1983-1987, which translates intoan annual rate of about 24 per 100,000.This is not very en-

Thus, comparing “apples with apples,”there appears to have been a cleardecrease in the suicide rate, especiallyamong regular Federal inmates, since theimplementation of the suicide preventionprogram in 1982.

couraging at f irst glance, but some sig-nificant factors need Table 1. Comparative suicide ratesto be considered. Annual Cited “Apples withFirst, Gaes used a suicide rate rate apples”different formula incomputing his rate. In Schmidt, 1970-77 28/1,000,000 35/l,000,000our review, we looked Gaes, 1977-81 24/l,000,000 34/l,000,000at the number of sui- Current Study, 1983-87 24/l,000,000 24/l,000,000”tides relative to theaverage daily count. *Without 8 Atlanta detainee suicides—21/100,000

Gaes added an addi-tional 40 percent to the average daily Gender

count to account for every person in the All 43 suicides involved males. Thesystem during a given year. If he had suicide rate for male inmates was aboutnot added this 40 percent, the annual rate 26 per 100,000. The annual suicide rateof suicide from 1977 to 1981 would for males in the community, oftenhave been 34 per 100,000. Conversely, considered an underestimate, is about 18had we added 40 percent to our average per 100,000.daily count, our rate would have beenapproximately 17 per 100,000. There have apparently been only a few

female suicides in the Bureau’s history,Second, Schmidt did not include eight and none that were recorded since thesuicides of unsentenced prisoners and a mid-1970’s. The estimated rate forsuicide by an inmate on furlough in her females in the community is about 7 peranalysis. These additional suicides 100,000, though their rate of attempts orwould have elevated the rate to over 35 suicidal gestures is actually higher thanper 100,000. that of males.

Summer 1989 21


Method

The most frequent method of suicide washanging. Thirty-four of the 43 suicides(79 percent) have been by hanging,including all 8 Atlanta detainees. Five(12 percent) have been by self-inflictedcuts. Two have involved an overdose ofmedication, one individual jumped froma second-floor tier, and one shot himselfwhile on an unescorted furlough.

Place

The most common setting for suicidecontinues to be a segregation or seclusioncell. Twenty-four suicides occurred insegregation (56 percent). Another three(7 percent) occurred in a mental healthseclusion unit. Only 29 percent of thesuicides occurred in regular housing.One suicide occurred on a medical unit,one in an admissions and orientation unit,and one while on a furlough. It should benoted that no suicides occurred while anindividual was on an actual suicidewatch.

Time of day

Twenty-one of 43 suicides (48 percent)occurred during a 5-hour period betweenmidnight and 5 a.m. The other suicideswere evenly distributed throughout theday, with one exception—a cluster offive suicides that occurred shortly after 4p.m. It has been hypothesized that thesesuicides may have been manipulative, inthat there was a higher possibility ofdiscovery by staff at that time. In anycase, the greater risk occurs in the earlymorning hours and shortly after the 4p.m. count.

Psychiatric/suicidal history

In 13 (30 percent) of the 43 cases, aprimary previous diagnosis of schizo-phrenia was mentioned. There was onecase of bipolar disorder (commonlyknown as “manic-depressive illness”). In

two additional cases, there were promi- Sentence length

nent diagnoses of both schizophrenia and A review of the length of sentence of thebipolar disorder. Thus, in 16 of the 43 suicidal inmates appears to reveal threecases (36 percent), there was a history of high-risk groups. First, 8 of the 43a psychotic condition. In an additional suicides (19 percent) occurred in thefour cases (9 percent) there was a history presentence population, though theyof treatment for nonpsychotic depression. represented only about 8 percent of theThe rate of mental health problems is total population. Twelve (28 percent)clearly dispropor-tionately highamong those whoactually do commit Table 2. Sentence length/status (in %)

suicide.

In 19 of 43 suicidesthere was a historyof at least one pre-vious attempt. In

Length in years

PT O-2 2-5 5-10 l0-15 15-20 20 CU

Total BOP 8 8 22 24 12 7 13 6Suicides 19 5 16 7 2 5 28 19

an additional twocases, the individ-

(PT=Pretrial; CU=Cuban)

had been previ-ously placed on a suicide watch but hadno history of actual attempts. These 21cases account for approximately 49percent of the individuals who actuallycommit suicide.

Time of year

Thirty-three percent of suicides occurredin May or June (eight in May and six inJune). The suicides were evenly distrib-uted across the other months, with theexception of a slight increase in Januaryand February (four suicides in Januaryand five in February).

Race/ethnicity

Sixteen of the suicides were by whites,15 by Hispanics, and 12 by blacks. TheHispanics accounted for 35 percent of thesuicides, while their approximate averagein our population over the past 5 yearshas been about 24 percent. Of course,the percentage of Hispanics in ourpopulation has grown steadily.

were in cases involving a greater than 20-year sentence, though they represent 13percent of the population. Although theCuban detainees represented only 6percent of our population, they accountedfor 8 suicides (19 percent). In none ofthe other sentence length categories didthe rate appear to be disproportionatelyhigh.

It was interesting to review the factorslisted as precipitating suicide in each ofthe cluster groups. In the presentencecluster, legal and family problemsappeared preeminent. In the 20-to-Lifecluster, the inmates usually were havingproblems within the institution. Theyhad often been perceived to be “snitches”or in need of protection. In some cases,they appeared quite threatened, and mayeven have begun to develop paranoidtendencies toward the other inmates.These individuals would typically notcommit suicide shortly after sentencing,but rather after 4 to 5 years of incarcera-tion. An outside crisis (e.g., a death of aclose family member) might also trigger

Summer 1989 23

the suicide. In the detainee group, therewas very seldom any evident precipitant.Most of the autopsies simply address theindividual’s history of impulsivenessand, in many cases, psychiatric distur-bance.

AgeWhile most of the factors listed aboveconfirm previous thinking relative tosuicide risk, the age factor was surpris-ing. In the current program statement, the19- to 24-year-old inmate is cited to be atsignificant risk. However, the data fromthe last 5 years reveal only five suicidesin this age group (12 percent of allsuicides), which is consistent with their11-percent representation in our popula-tion. The highest number of suicides (39percent) occurred in the 30- to 39-year-old group, which represents 40 percent ofour population. Overall, the distributionof suicides by age did not suggest thatone group was at significantly higher riskthan another.

efforts better identify and intervene withthe younger, immature inmate.

Survey of chiefpsychologists—Overview

The work group sent a questionnaire toall chief psychologists and followed itwith a direct phone contact. It should beemphasized that, in general, the surveyrevealed a very high degree of satisfac-tion with the current suicide preventionprogram. The consensus was that, whilethe program needs some “fine tuning,”we should not significantly modify it.Among the survey’s findings:

Program Coordinator

In all but eight institutions, the desig-nated Suicide Prevention ProgramCoordinator is the chief psychologist. Infive of those institutions, a psychiatrist isdesignated as coordinator. In the threeremaining institutions there is currentlyno psychology staff; the Health Systems

Administrator is the

Table 3. Age groups (in %)

Age

<26 2 6 - 2 9 3 0 - 3 9 40-50 50-59 60+

Total BOP 11 14 40 22 9 3Suicides 12 19 39 21 9 0

The data on age, in relation to the othervariables already mentioned, werediscussed at some length by the workgroup. One hypothesis for the lower thanexpected rate of suicides in our youngergroup was that the current program mayhave a differential effect. Perhaps our

designated coordi-nator. In allsettings, exceptwhere there is nopsychology staff,PsychologyServices doesalmost all (if notall) of the staff andinmate companion

Training

training.

All institutions contacted reported thatsuicide prevention training was con-ducted during both institution familiari-zation and annual training. The universalrecognition of the importance of thistraining was clear. In a number of insti-tutions, additional training was providedduring the year either to correctionalcounselors, physician’s assistants, orselected custodial staff (e.g., detentionofficers).

Inmate companions

Probably the single most interestingsurvey response involved the use ofinmate companions, in 32 of the 46institutions surveyed. Inmate compan-ions were hailed by most people who usethem as providing a valuable service.The chief psychologist often commentedon the quality of the job they did andoften suggested that the rewards for thecompanions should somehow be in-creased. A few chiefs cited a number ofadvantages in the use of companions, butstill discussed liability and ethical issuesthat raised doubts in their minds. Mostpeople who use companions wanted tosee this program component retained.

Those who did not use companions oftencited philosophical or ethical problemswith the program, liability concerns, orsecurity and logistical problems at theirparticular institution. It was clear thatthere were strong opinions on both sides;no other issue so clearly appears togenerate a strong opinion one way or theother.

Other survey issues

The survey suggests that the vastmajority of suicide watches are done inthe institution hospital. In only a fewinstitutions did logistical problemsprevent a hospital watch.

Most watches do not lead to psychiatrictransfer. A majority of watches areshort-term and handled in-house. Whena psychiatric transfer was required, noneof the chief psychologists reported sig-nificant difficulties in getting an inmatetransferred to a medical facility.


Restraints appear to be used in only asmall percentage of Bureau suicidewatches. In most institutions, the use ofphysical restraints while an inmate wason watch was described as “a rareoccurrence.”

ConclusionThe Bureau’s suicide prevention effortsover the past 5 years are widely viewedas successful. While the differing criteriaused in studying the suicide rate meanthat no cause-and-effect relationship canbe shown, the overall rate of suicideappears to have declined, and staff arebetter trained and more sensitive to issuesinvolved in prevention. The informationcontained in this article should providesome encouragement that our effortshave been worthwhile. n

Dr. Dennis Schimmel is Chief Psycholo-gist at the Federal Correctional Institu-tion, Oxford, Wisconsin. Dr. JerrySullivan is Chief Psychologist at theFederal Correctional Institution, ElReno, Oklahoma. Dr. Dave Mrad is astaff psychologist at the U.S. MedicalCenter for Federal Prisoners, Spring-field, Missouri.

Inmate companions—Pro and con

The use of inmate companions was one of the more innovative aspects of the1982 Program Statement on Suicide Prevention. Though the concept was notinitially embraced by many institutions and staff, today the majority of institu-tions have companions and the feedback from Program Coordinators isgenerally quite positive. Here are a few of the thoughts expressed during thesurvey of chief psychologists:

Pro“At first I had a number of reserva-tions about companions, but now I’msold on them.”

“They do a great job. In some waysthey are more effective than staff.”

“No problem. They are motivatedand do a good job.”

“One way to improve the suicideprevention program is to give inmatecompanions more reward and recog-nition. They deserve it.”

“There is now a track record of theirsuccess.”

Con“Staff are to provide for the care andcustody of inmates.”

“There is no way to logistically iso-late an inmate and a companion at ourinstitution.”

“We have them at our institution, butthe liability issue still somewhatbothers me.”

“I would not sleep as well at night ifwe had companions.”

“All it will take is one bad incidentwith a companion.”

Summer 1989 25

From “College Town” to “Prison Town”A wrenching conversion for a small community

The Federa1 Prison Camp in Yankton,

South Dakota, one of the Bureau of’Prisons' newest institutions, is also paradoxically one of the oldest sites.Most Bureau conversions of facilities toprison spacehave taken place on militarybases—Yankton is a former collegecampus, on a national historic site atthat, and is located in the heart of thecommunity, not at its fringe as are mostinstitutions.

This was a unique conversion effort forthe Bureau, and a wrenching one for thecommunity. This article chron ic les the

d e b a t e that led to the es tabl i shment of

FPC Yankon. As more new prisons arebuilt and other facilities are convertedthis debate w i l l occur again and again ,not jus t in the Bureau of Prisons but in all correctional systems.

The Lewis and Clark Expedition stoppedby Yankton (then a Sioux winter camp-ground known as E-hank-to-wan) in1804, on its way to points further west.The territory was opened for settlementjust before the Civil War, and Yanktonbecame capital of the Dakota Territoryuntil 1883.

The first college in the territory, YanktonCollege, was chartered in 1881, andprovided a liberal arts education forthousands of students for slightly morethan a century. But in December 1984,long-standing debts and large projecteddeficits forced the college to close itsdoors.

The effect on the South Dakota commu-nity of about 12,000 was immediate andsevere. More than 200 students and 100faculty and staff would have theireducations and their careers disrupted,and the town would lose a $1.4-million


annual payroll—a heavy blow to anycommunity of Yankton’s size.

Beyond the economic losses, however,were the intangibles of pride andcommunity image. To many citizens(and alumni), reactions “ranged fromshock and sadness to bitterness.”according to the Yunkton Daily Press andDakotan. The great-grandson of founderJoseph Ward wrote, “Most of us experi-enced frustration and even anger at notbeing able to make one last heroic effortto save our college.”

Efforts were made, however. Twomonths after the last graduation cere-mony in 1985, the college’s Board ofTrustees entered into an agreement with aprivate corporation, Education SystemsDevelopment Corp., formed specificallyto recapitalize the college. The trusteeswere optimistic that the college couldreopen in 1986, but the hoped-for fundsnever materialized. The Chamber ofCommerce also attempted to interestcorporations in using the grounds as aretreat center, with no success.

As the college’s financial condition haddeteriorated over the previous 10 years,so had its physical plant (16 buildings on33 acres). The Conservatory of Music,known as “Old Middle,” built in 1881and listed as a National Historic Land-mark since 1975 (the entire YanktonCollege Historic District is listed on theNational Register of Historic Places),was in serious need of repairs. From oneof the town’s greatest assets, the collegewas turning into a liability.

Enter the Bureau of Prisons

In mid-1987, the office of South DakotaSenator Larry Pressler contacted anumber of Federal agencies to see if any

“Most of us

experienced frustration

and even anger

at not being able to make

one last heroic effort to

save our college.”

(about 50 percent). The prisonworkforce, Patrick said, would include100 to 120 people, with 50 to 60 percenthired locally, and an average salary of$22,000. The conversion would take 6 to8 months.

City Commissioner Leon Abler askedhow many walkaways could be expected.Patrick replied, “Generally, two to fourper year with a facility in this range.”Commissioner Dave O’Brien then askedif the security level could ever bereclassified upward. It would be impos-sible to do that in Yankton, according toPatrick, because of the unique nature ofthe campus. Acting YC President DonPeterson added that he would only allowa Level 1 facility on the campus.

of them had a use for the YanktonCollege facility. The Bureau of Prisonswas immediately interested.

Chief of Facilities Development andOperations Bill Patrick first visitedYankton in September 1987. At a jointmeeting of the Yankton County andYankton City commissions, Patrick notedthat a prison camp on the college campuswould be classified as a Security Level 1institution (the lowest of six levels). Hesuggested that community leaders talk tocitizens—especially citizens who livednear the campus—to solicit their reac-tions about having a prison so close by.

This initial discussion raised severalissues that would be hot topics in thefollowing months. Patrick said that thecamp would house 300 to 500 maleinmates, serving average sentences of 18months, and typically having committedsuch crimes as tax evasion, fraud, andmoney laundering—and drug trafficking

“As long as I’m acting president up there,that would be part of the contract,” hesaid. “It would not go to Level 2 as longas I’m alive.” Patrick said that theBureau of Prisons could probablypromise that the security level would notchange.

Peterson noted that while at first hewasn’t interested in having a prison campin Yankton, “I personally have changedmy mind and have no fear of what BillPatrick is optioning to us.” The prisonwould probably be the best chance ofrepaying the college’s debtors “100 centson the dollar.”

The Daily Press and Dakotan wrote,“The news that the federal government islooking at the Yankton College campusas a possible location for a minimumsecurity prison may leave some residentswith a feeling of discomfort, perhapseven disbelief.” The citizens of Yanktonwould soon find themselves debatingsome highly technical aspects of correc-tions.

Summer 1989 27

The debate begins

A hundred and fifty residents who livednear the college attended a town meetingshortly after the Commission meeting.They were shown a film on the FederalPrison Camp, Big Spring, Texas. thatdepicted the positive effects of thatinstitution on the community. But, assome immediately noted, the camp islocated on an abandoned air base,nowhere near the middle of a residentialarea.

Some of the residents’ concerns ex-pressed at this meeting would structurethe debate in the coming weeks:

n What type of crimes were the inmateslikely to have committed?

n Was there any danger from walk-aways?

n Would the college need to be fenced?

n Could the Government decide toupgrade to a Level 2 facility or higher?

n Would the value of their homesdecrease with a prison so close?

The community would not have thechance to vote on the issue, whichdispleased many. The City and CountyCommissions would decide, once theBureau presented a formal plan. Oneattendee said, “I think we’re going to getsomething rammed down our throats thatwe probably don’t like.”

A newspaper poll a week after BillPatrick’s presentation found that, of 25area residents polled, 9 were in favor, 9against, and 7 undecided. Resident JimAbbott said, “I view it as a choicebetween something and nothing. Myfirst choice would be a college. That isunobtainable. My second choice is any

“I guess

I have a little bit of concern.

But I also think

property values won’t be

too super if there is nothing

over there.”

kind of possible solution that avoids ruinand decay of the property.” Anotherneighbor noted that in recent months theempty campus had been plagued byvandalism.

One of the “undecideds,” JohnWillcockson, when asked if he wasconcerned about his property values,replied, “I guess I have a little bit ofconcern. But I also think property valueswon’t be too super if there is nothingover there.”

The proposed conversion picked up anearly booster in the Yankton Daily Press

and Dakotan. The newspaper, soon afterthe debate began, ran a number ofeditorials in support of “an option thathas more benefits than drawbacks.” Thepaper noted, for instance, that “thoughsome of the inmates would be servingtime for drug abuse, the strict testingsystem used at level 1 facilities virtuallyeliminates any use at these sites. Ifevidence shows up in regular urine tests,the inmate is automatically and quickly

transferred to another facility. But theseincidents are rare because the inmates areshort termers who don’t wish to extendtheir prison time.”

Over the next weeks, opponents of theprison organized into a group led by twoformer Yankton College faculty mem-bers, Pete DelFavero and John Notheis.The group felt local media had beenbiased in favor of the prison and began tofill the newspaper’s letters columns.

One opponent wrote, “I know we havethe Human Services Center [whichhoused some State prisoners as trustees]and halfway houses in Yankton and thatdoesn’t bother me. 1 visit the HSC fivedays a week in the trusty unit. I was aprobation officer for four years. I haveworked with and been around people introuble with the law in one way oranother. They need help. Yankton hasbeen helping them in many ways. Butwhere does it stop?”

Debra Jorgensen, who lived 50 feet fromthe campus, wrote, “No child shouldhave to be afraid of their ownneighborhood....When we were buying [ahouse], I looked for a nice house, niceneighborhood, and a school nearby. If Iwere now looking to buy a house, aprison across the street would not be oneof my priorities.”

Another letter-writer suggested, “Do youreally want Yankton’s promotionalliterature to read, ‘Yankton, a place togrow. Even if you mess up, you won’thave to leave.’?”

While many citizens were nostalgicabout the loss of the college, a localattorney wrote, “I have been directlyinvolved in law enforcement in Yankton


almost continually since 1969 and duringthat period I have seen Yankton Collegestudents prosecuted for everything fromshoplifting to drugs, sex offenses.burglaries, and robberies.”

“I believe I know what the fears of thearea residents are. I would have moreconcern with inmates from the mentalinstitution than I would from a level 1camp facility. The inmates are notviolent and are not interested in getting

Visits to Level 1 facilities

A number of Yankton residents, includ-ing some opposed to the conversion,visited FPC Big Spring at the end ofSeptember in the company of someBureau officials. Those already in favorcame away more strongly in favor (acounty commissioner noted, “...you driveby and it looks just like a collegecampus”), while those opposed seemedonly marginally less so.

“If I

were now looking

to buy a house,

a prison across the street

would not be

one of my priorities.”

into trouble which will only cause themto receive a longer sentence or betransferred to a higher security prison.The inmates at a camp want to get theirtime served and return to their familiesand jobs as soon as possible. Most of theinmates at this level of camp are or weremarried and have families on the outsideto return to.

“As I recall, the residents in the area ofYankton College complained about the‘rowdyism’ of the college studentsperiodically. The students were veryinconsiderate of people’s property attimes. It was usually a very smallpercentage of the students that caused theproblem. The area residents will have noproblems with ‘rowdyism’ from a campfacility.”

While Big Spring residents generallyseemed supportive of the prison camp,they were less enthusiastic when askedhow they would feel about a prison intheir own college. “It would be too closeto residential sections,” one said, while aBig Spring homemaker, asked why thecamp was “better” located on theoutskirts of town, replied, “Sometimesthey leave out there.” Big Springaveraged 20 walkaways or escapes peryear in 1985 and 1986, from a populationof more than 700.

The Federal Prison Camp at Duluth,Minnesota, the closest such facility toYankton, also became an issue. Theopponents’ group thought that theinmates’ profile—more than half servedtime for violating drug laws, and othersfor robbery and firearms offenses—didn’t match the Bureau’s promises forYankton.

wrote, “One of the major concerns, otherthan safety, has been the fear of adecrease in Yankton’s adjacent propertyvalues. I wish I had an answer. I do not.I do feel, after seeing the Duluth facility,and understanding a Level 1 institutionbetter, that I would have no fear in livingin or buying a home next to a Level 1facility. I do feel the facility wouldprobably create doubts and fears withnew people coming into a community....”

One of the most unusual communicationscame from an inmate at Duluth—aformer Yankton resident serving time forembezzlement. Ronald Wright wrote, “Iwas sentenced on March 10, 1987, andordered to report [to Duluth] on April 14,1987. During the month-long waitingperiod, I conjured up many ideas in mymind as to what would hannen to me in

The decision is made—and criticized

A public meeting was held on October 6at the college’s Nash Gymnasium. Morethan 400 attended—a huge number in acity of 12,000—for 3 hours . Bill Patrickrepresented the Bureau and presided overthe hearing.

On the following Monday, the CityCommission would vote on whether torecommend to the college’s trustees tosell the campus to the Federal Govern-ment. Patrick said that the Bureau could

Four Yankton residents, including prison. These include homosexual acts, not look to a popular vote as a measure

beatings by other inmates, getting AIDS, of community support, but relies onlandowners directly adjacent to the

and all sorts of bad things....but as I soon elected officials instead. The Bureau,college and a county commissioner,

came to find, all my fears were un- however, would not proceed with thevisited Duluth on September 24. RichardWright, one of the immediate neighbors, founded and a figment of my imagination.

Summer 1989 29

project if the college trustees approvedthe sale but the city and county commis-sions did not. Patrick also addressed oneof the residents’ major concerns byguaranteeing that the facility’s environ-mental impact statement would includeconditions making future upgrading ofthe facility effectively impossible.

Safety remained uppermost in people’sminds. One resident who lived a blockfrom the college said, “Why should mychildren have to walk out of the wayclose to a prison with guards withoutguns? I’d prefer they were carried.”

Patrick could not guarantee that childrenwouldn’t be negatively affected by theprison. Opponent John Notheis notedthat the Government could not buyneighboring homes or pay for upgradedsecurity, but “all of the major issues I canthink of did come up, and I think BillPatrick did an excellent job of answeringthe questions.”

At the City Commission meeting onMonday, the head of the board ofselectmen from Putney, Vermont, PeterShumlin, was brought in by the oppo-nents’ group. Shumlin told the hearingthat Putney, a small town of 1,400, faceda situation similar to Yankton’s when itscollege closed. The Bureau of Prisonshad attempted to acquire the campus, butwhen put to a public vote, 80 percent ofthe residents rejected it. After anauction, the town was able to recruit anew 2-year college for dyslexic students.

Nevertheless, the City Commission votedunanimously to recommend that theFederal Government continue negotia-tions to purchase the campus. (TheCounty Commission also voted unani-mously in favor the next day.) After the

“I’mvery disappointed

to see...we can’teven allow 30 days

to evaluate putting a prison

in town.”

vote, one opponent said, “I’m verydisappointed to see...we can’t even allow30 days to evaluate putting a prison intown.”

The Daily Press and Dakotan wrote,“Some of the arguments that continue tobe raised will never be answered oraddressed to everyone’s satisfaction.Many are hypothetical scenarios, the kindof ‘what if ’ situations that are fair ques-tions but which ultimately cannot beanswered with certainty. But the bestjudgment is one based on what othercommunities have experienced, and thesereports confirm that a level 1 facilitywould be a plus for this community.”

Taking it to a vote

The next strategy on the part of theopponents (now organized as Citizens fora Better Alternative) was to gather theseveral hundred signatures needed to putan initiative measure on the ballotrequiring the city to buy the college, aswell as focus on alternative solutions,such as a civic center/cultural complex,

post office, or selling buildings toindividual buyers.

Although the petition drive succeeded(about 1,100 citizens signed), and theCity Commission set the election date forDecember 15, it was not clear that theresults would have any validity. YanktonCollege’s acting president, Don Peterson,said, “I think the ordinance is meaning-less. It will not change my thinking ormy negotiations with the Federal Bureauof Prisons.”

In addition, any alternative solutionseemed certain to require a tax increase.The City Manager projected a propertytax levy of between 30 and 39 percent tofinance the city’s purchase of the collegeand maintain it while another buyer wassought.

Both sides spent the month before thevote in intensive lobbying. An Associ-ated Press story in early November washeaded “Prison has Yankton in ‘civilwar’,” and related the “believe it or not”story of Bill and Shirley Jennewein. TheJenneweins had both been instructors atthe University of South Dakota inSpringfield, which closed in 1984 whenthe State legislature voted to convert it toa State prison. They both found jobs inYankton, three blocks from the college.Their 8-year-old son was quoted, “Wherecan we go where they won’t try to makeit a prison?” NBC News (whose anchorTom Brokaw came from Yankton) alsofound the story of interest—“...a smalltown right in the middle of the countryactually wanting a prison right in themiddle of the town.”

As it turned out, the residents did wantthe prison. Election day, December 15,saw the vote go decisively against askingthe city to purchase the college (and thus


in favor of the Government purchasingit)—3,025 against to 986 for.

Preparing to open

The following January, the Bureau madeits formal offer to the college’s trustees.All creditors would be fully paid off, thecampus would be restored and main-tained, and the city could look forward toabout 100 stable new jobs.

The prison’s new management team bothcame from FCI Phoenix. StephenPontesso was Associate Warden (Indus-tries and Education) and Rick Stiff wasExecutive Assistant at Phoenix. Theyfirst visited Yankton in February, aboutthe time the buyout plan was submittedto U.S. Bankruptcy Court for approval.

On April 21, the court approved thebankruptcy. The Bureau paid $3.1million for the college; after all debts andclosing costs were paid, about $1 millionwould be left to ensure the continuity ofthe Yankton College corporation. Thesale closed on May 5—ironically, thebirthday of Joseph Ward, the college’sfounder.

Throughout the spring and summer, workproceeded on facility conversion.Almost 1,000 people attended jobseminars in March, showing a great dealof interest in the 50-90 positions ex-pected to be filled locally. The firstYankton-area employees were on thepayroll by June.

Over the summer, the Bureau begansome facilities work that was not strictlyin preparation for the camp’s opening. AMinnesota firm came to the Old Middleconservatory to remove and restore the104-year-old clock in time for the camp’sdedication in September.

“The daybrought some sadness that

the campus

really will be a prison

but happiness

that it will be so well taken

care of.”

By August, the Sioux Falls paper couldheadline a story, “Prison boosts Yank-ton’s economy,” noting that “real estateagents are selling houses that have beenon the market as long as 4 years.”

The transition was not totally withoutfriction. The prison asked the city toclose part of a street that ran throughFederal property because inmates wouldcross it regularly to go from theirquarters to work and school. The cityplanning commission denied the petitionrequest and Pontesso withdrew it. Inaddition, some areas previously used forparking by local sports fans were markedoff limits.

The first six inmates arrived from FPCDuluth in late August to help with therenovation, and on September 6, thefacility was dedicated. Director Quinlanand Senator Pressler were joined byMayor Ron Tappe, Donald J. Porter,Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court inPierre, and about 300 citizens. Local

columnist Wheeler Bowen wrote, “...for[Donald] Peterson and other YanktonCollege supporters who spent 3 yearstrying to find a use for the bankruptcollege, the day brought some sadnessthat the campus really will be a prisonbut happiness that it will be so well takencare of.” As promised, the clock wasback and working well for the first timein years.

A year later

Yankton College still exists. Early in1989, its officers decided to place halfthe money left over from the sale ininvestments to perpetuate the college,with the other half going to an alumnioffice and a variety of scholarships. Itsoffices are still on campus. Renovationwork continues on various campusbuildings, and the facility, still under theleadership of Stephen Pontesso, isexpected to reach its full complement of500 inmates by 1990.

Overall, the citizens of Yankton seempleased with their choice in favor of theprison camp. Still, there are some mixedfeelings. Last fall, the Bureau of Prisonsbegan erecting a 4-foot fence around theperimeter of the institution. It is de-signed for decorative purposes, not forsecurity; it provides a barrier for childrenand pedestrians. Nevertheless, the fenceis a daily reminder for Yanktonians that,while the economic benefits promised bythe camp are real, some things about theirtown will never be the same. n

Doug Green is editor of the FederalPrisons Journal. Douglas P. Sall,Supervisor of Education at the Federal

Prison Camp, Yankton, South Dakota,

provided substantial assistance in the

preparation of this article.

Summer 1989 31

Serious Prison InfractionsDifferences between the 70’s and 80’s

Loren Karacki

While the Federal inmate population hasnearly doubled since the early 1970’s,incidents of serious infractions have in-creased only slightly. The Bureau ofPrisons’ Office of Research and Evalu-ation recently completed an analysis ofinmate infractions in the BOP for fiscalyears 1985, 1987, and 1988, and com-pared it with similar information for theyears 1970 through 1973.1 This articlepresents key findings from both analysesand offers some explanation as to whythe type of infraction most likely to occurtoday differs from that which was morecommon during the early 1970’s.*

For purposes of the recent study, a“serious infraction” was defined as “anyconcerted act of rule violation” involvingfive or more inmates, excluding the fewinstances when the violation was anassault by a group of five or moreinmates on another inmate (as opposed toa fight among two inmate groups).+

These acts of inmate-on-inmate assaultwere excluded because they seemed tofall outside the scope of “infractions”defined as a group phenomenon directedagainst prison officials or other inmatefactions (and because no such acts werereflected in the earlier survey). However,even if these assaults had been includedin the present survey, there were notenough to significantly affect the surveyresults.

*For a copy of the full report, contact theOffice of Research and Evaluation,202-724-3118.

+The definition of “infraction” used forthe earlier study was not available; con-sequently, we established a new defini-tion that sufficiently overlapped with theearlier definition to allow reasonablecomparisons.

Bob Dahm


Information for the present survey wasobtained primarily from reports ofserious incidents sent to the Bureau’sCentral Office from various institutions.This information was augmented byother data to try and provide a completepicture of infractions for the currentperiod. As undoubtedly was the casewith the 1970-1973 survey, we can’t besure that this is a complete accounting ofinmate infractions. However, the infor-mation is complete enough to provide agood synopsis of infractions in BOPfacilities for fiscal years 1985, 1987, and1988.

Serious infractions in the Federal Prison SystemBy number and percentage

1970-73 (Total 70 infractions)

FY 85,87,88 (Total 65 infractions)FY 86 data not available

Number of infractionsAs shown in the graph at right, 70 seriousinfractions were reported from 1970through 1973, an average of 17.5 peryear during the 4-year period.2 Sixty-five serious incidents were identified forthe 3-year period covering fiscal years1985, 1987, and 1988, an average of21.67 per year. While the current figureof 21.67 per year is somewhat higherthan the 17.5 per year figure for 1970-1973, note that the prison population hasincreased considerably; during 1970-1973, it averaged more than 21,000,while during the more recent period, theaverage was close to 40,000.

Group Group Work Foodstrike Fight— F ight— Other group Otherdistur- disturbance/ stoppage racial other demon-bance/ riot—other strationriot—racial

PERCENT

14.3 - 22.9 47.7 44.3 10.8 10.0 20.0 4.3 1.5 1.4 12.3 2.9 3.1 - 4.6

Type of infractions Numbers in parentheses reflect unrest situations involving INS detainees.

When type of major infractions is consid-ered, as presented in the chart at right,there is a substantial decrease betweenthe two reporting periods in inmate workstoppages and racial disturbances/fights.During 1970-1973, almost 44.3 percentof all serious infractions involved workstoppages, while the current figure fell to10.8 percent. In the case of racial distur-bances, 13 were recorded during 1970-1973 (18.6 percent of the total) while

only 1 was reported during the FY 1985,1987, and 1988 period (1.5 percent). Incontrast, the percentage of food strikesincreased from 10 percent of the totalinmate infractions in 1970-1973 to thecurrent 20-percent figure.

Service (INS) detainees, most of whom(27 of 28) were Cuban detainees held atAtlanta or elsewhere. Most of theseincidents (24 of 28) fell into the groupdisturbance/riot category; the figureincludes, of course, the November 1987riots at Atlanta and Oakdale.

Incidents involving INS detaineesOf the 65 incidents identified during FY1985, 1987, and 1988, 28 (43.1 percent)involved Immigration and Naturalization

Summer 1989 33

The number of incidents involvingCuban detainees is disproportionate totheir numbers in BOP facilities—wellunder 10 percent. These instances reflectthe enormous difficulties faced by staff indealing with the Cuban population, giventheir uncertain status, their often longperiods of confinement, and their historyof disruptive behavior over time both inFederal confinement and elsewhere.Indeed, had this population not been inBOP confinement, the average number ofinfractions for the current period wouldhave been only 12.67 per year, instead of21.67.

Changes in typeof infractions

The figures reported in this survey appearto reflect the tenor of the times. Theearly 1970’s was a period of prisonerrights movements and confrontations aswell as greater racial awareness anddemands for equality on the part ofvarious minority groups, especiallyblacks; not surprisingly, therefore, wefind in the 1970-1973 figures manyinstances of prison work stoppages andracial conflicts.

Some observers attribute the occurrenceof prisoner work strikes to the Attica rioton September 9-13, 1971, and the impactthis had on prisoners throughout thecountry. Bagdikian, for example, in hisbook on the February 1972 work strike atUSP Lewisburg, stated that “strikes werebreaking out all over the country afterAttica’s exposure of prison conditionsgave prisoners self-consciousness.”3 Headded that in a 6-month period, eightFederal institutions had strikes or prisonprotests.

While his figures on work strikes in theFederal system are correct, he failed to

If Attica

had any impact at all

on the Federal

prison system, it may

have been in the area of

race relations.

mention that of the eight work strikes,five actually occurred in the 2 monthspreceding Attica rather than afterwards.Indeed, information for 1970-1973 forthe Federal system, while indicating afairly substantial number of work strikes,does not support any notion that Atticaprovided the catalyst for these strikes;they were as likely to occur beforeSeptember 1971 as after.

If Attica had any impact at all on theFederal prison system, it may have beenin the area of race relations. Of the 13racial disturbances/fights during 1970-1973, only 1 occurred in the 20 monthsbefore Attica, while 12 occurred in the 28months following.

More recently, with the exception of theCuban detainees who have been aparticularly troublesome population, thefigures on serious infractions appear toreflect a more benign prison system.Food strikes have replaced work stop-pages as the most common form of groupdemonstration, and only one incident ofracial unrest was reported in the 3-yearperiod of FY 1985, 1987, and 1988.

We suspect that much of the changebetween the two time periods is attribut-able to the efforts made over time toimprove relations between staff andinmates and to enhance living condi-

tions—in particular, the adoption of thehuman relations approach in dealing withinmates, the emergence of unit manage-ment, emphasis on staff professionalism,initiation of the Administrative Remedyprocedure as a means for inmates tovoice complaints, and steps taken toreduce barriers to the free community.This is, of course, speculative, but onecan argue that these actions and othershave served to reduce tensions betweenstaff and inmates, lessen or eliminatesome of the deprivation of confinement,and improve the atmosphere of institu-tions. These positive changes, in turn,are reflected in the figures on inmateinfractions in BOP prisons.

Unfortunately, efforts to work with theCuban population have been lesssuccessful. The language and culturalbarriers and the Cubans’ prolonged anduncertain status in confinement havemade dealing effectively with thispopulation a serious challenge for staff.

Conclusions

The comparison of instances of majorinmate infractions in BOP facilitiesduring 1970-1973 and during FY 1985,1987, and 1988 generally reflectsfavorably on current operations. It showsonly a small increase in the averagenumber of such incidents between thetwo periods—from 17.5 to 21.67 peryear—despite a doubling of the Federalprison population. Moreover, many ofthe more recent incidents (27 of 65) areconcentrated among the Cuban detaineepopulation, whose backgrounds andcircumstances present a particularlydifficult challenge for prison staff and


other Government officials. Absent thispopulation, there would have been asubstantial decline in the annual averagenumber of infractions (17.5 vs. 12.67).

The figures in this survey appear toreflect changes that have occurred overtime in society and in prison operations.Thus, the decrease in racial disturbances/fights from 13 in 1970-1973 to 1 in FY1985, 1987, and 1988 probably mirrorsthe changing circumstances of blacks andother minority groups in society. Simi-larly, the substantial decrease in inmatework stoppages from 31 to 7 probablyreflects both a decrease in inmatemilitancy and the improved prisonconditions noted above. If one excludesthe special problem of the Cubandetainees, these figures suggest a morebenign prison environment marked bybetter relations between staff and inmatesand improved conditions. n

Loren Karacki is a Senior ResearchAnalyst, Office of Research and Evalu-ation, Federal Bureau of Prisons.

Notes1Fiscal year 1986 is not included in the surveybecause of problems encountered in gathering

information.

2The actual figure for 1970-1973 was 71; however, one incident appeared to involve only four inmatesand, consequently, fell outside the definition ofprison unrest.

3Bagdikian, Ben H., Caged: Eight Prisoners and Their Keepers, New York: Harper and Row, 1976,p. 35.

Some examples of prison infractions, 1985-1988

The examples that follow are drawnfrom the chronicle of 65 incidents ofserious inmate infractions recorded inFiscal Years 1985, 1987, and 1988(as noted in the article, data for 1986are not available). This samplinggives an overview of the types ofincidents Bureau of Prisons staff mustdeal with. It should be noted that thetakeovers by Cuban detainees in late1987 of the U.S. Penitentiary atAtlanta and the Federal DetentionCenter in Oakdale, Louisiana—thetwo most serious examples of“infractions” in the history of Federalprisons—are included in the list of65.

damaged plumbing, and set fires infront of their cells, causing $100,000worth of damage. Staff confiscated allcombustible material and detaineeswere ordered to place personal belong-ings in individual lockers, which wereremoved and placed in storage.Disruptive activity continued through-out the next month.

Work stoppage

Federal Correctional InstitutionPetersburg, VirginiaNovember 1984

Fight

Federal Correctional InstitutionEnglewood, ColoradoOctober 1984

Only 40 inmates reported for work,while the remainder went on a workstoppage, apparently in protest of themore restrictive use of telephonesrecently put in effect. Emergencyprocedures were ordered, staff began tointerview all inmates, and four wereplaced in AD for investigation.

Following Saturday brunch, inmatesbegan to gather in front of two of theinstitution’s housing units. Inmates infront of Lower East rushed toward thegroup by Lower West, exchangingblows and entering the living unitwhere more inmates were attacked.Thirty inmates were placed in Admin-istrative Detention (AD). Nineteenreceived injuries, including a possiblebroken arm and puncture wounds tothe chest.

Work stoppage

U.S. PenitentiaryTerre Haute, IndianaMay 1985

At 7:30 a.m., some 300 inmates in twounits conducted a work strike becausethey believed staff had killed an inmatewho had committed suicide by hangingon May 15. At 10:45 a.m., they werepersuaded by staff to return to work andthe institution returned to normal.

Group disturbance Work/food strike

U.S. Penitentiary Metropolitan Correctional CenterAtlanta, Georgia Chicago, IllinoisOctober I984 August 1985

During the evening of October 15,Cuban detainees who were confined intheir cells threw personal property onthe tiers, broke many windows,

At 4 p.m., staff received a letter signedby 30 Cuban inmates housed on the 13thfloor jail unit that indicated there wouldbe a work/food strike because they

disagreed with BOP policy five inmates. Information indicated thatregarding their management at Chicago. three inmates had weapons fashionedThe unit was placed in lockdown status, from razor blades; one inmate acciden-detainees were interviewed, and sus- tally cut her hand. Those involved werepected leaders placed in AD. placed in AD.

Fight

Federal Correctional InstitutionRay Brook, New YorkOctober 1986

At 1:30 p.m., an inmate was acciden-tally hit by another inmate whileplaying flag football. Both teams andspectators rushed onto the field and hadto be separated by staff. Two inmateswere place in AD for fighting. After theinmates had returned to their livingunits, an inmate accompanied by anumber of others went to another unit tofight an inmate there; it was necessaryto place two more inmates in AD beforethe situation was resolved.

Group disturbance

Federal Correctional InstitutionMilan, MichiganJune 1987

At 11:30 p.m., an inmate in AD startedyelling obscenities at staff and beatingon his bed. Others in the unit joined inthe demonstration, which lasted until 1a.m. At 11:30 a.m., the inmate threw acup of urine on a segregation officer.He was moved to the hospital andplaced in four-point restraints.

Fight

Federal Correctional Institution

Alderson, West VirginiaDecember 1987

At approximately 7:40 a.m., an argumentdeveloped between two roommates,which escalated into a fight involving

Commissary break-in

Federal Correctional InstitutionTerminal Island, CaliforniaJanuary 1988

At 7:45 p.m., seven inmates weredetected as having broken into thecommissary and taken such items asshoes, coffee, and cigarettes. All wereplaced in AD pending FBI investigationand disciplinary hearings.

Group disturbanceU.S. PenitentiaryLompoc, CaliforniaJanuary 1988

At 12:01 a.m., a small disturbanceoccurred in the special housing unitwhen inmates began yelling, floodingtheir cells, and throwing items onto therange floor. These inmates were movedto disciplinary segregation. One refusedto move and had to be wrestled undercontrol, with two staff receiving minorinjuries. The inmate then refused toallow the cuffs to be removed until12:40 p.m.

Disruptive conduct

Federal Correctional Institution

La Tuna, Texas

July 1988

During the evening meal, a Cubandetainee in the AD unit threw his foodtray on the range, complaining the mealwas cold. He then placed his arms outthrough the food slot and grabbed anofficer’s wrists, resulting in a struggle

before the officer was able to freehimself. The detainee then showed theofficer a cut on his right arm and statedthat the officer had cut him. He encour-aged other detainees to flood the cellblock and to throw liquids on the rangeand on staff. Six other detainees joinedin, throwing urine and water andflooding the range. A squad of officerswas assembled and entered the range toplace the detainees involved in re-straints. Some complied but others didnot and had to be forceably removed toother cells and put in four-pointrestraints. Silent Partner tear gas wasused. Two detainees were treated forminor injuries.

Hostage taking and escape plan

Federal Correctional InstitutionTalladega, AlabamaAugust 1988

Staff uncovered a plan by Cubandetainees to take over one of the rangesof their living unit in order to seizehostages as a means to get out of theU.S. before they could be deported toCuba. Two leaders of the plan wereplaced in segregation and a full investi-gation started.

Food boycottFederal Correctional InstitutionMemphis, TennesseeDecember 1988

All but 100 of 981 inmates avoided thenoon meal in protest against bans onChristmas packages and large portableradios. Staff met with the inmates andagreed to review both issues, as well asother complaints. n


Two Innovations: Three Decades LaterCommunity Treatment Centers and regionalization

William D. Messersmithas told to John W. Roberts, Archivist,Federal Bureau of Prisons

Community treatment was one of themost important correctional concepts toemerge in the 1960’s. In 1961, theBureau established three model “Pre-Release Guidance Centers” to test theconcept by providing halfway houseservices to help prepare youthful offend-ers for release. In 1965, the programwas expanded to include adult offenders,and the halfway houses became known asCommunity Treatment Centers.

Later, the Bureau chose its new Commu-nity Services Division to test the region-alization concept. Regionalization wasintroduced as a pilot project in theCommunity Services Division in 1971,and shortly thereafter the concept wasapplied throughout the Bureau.

William D. Messersmith was involved inthe piloting and implementation of bothcommunity treatment and regionaliza-tion. He recalls the challenges andexperiences of helping to develop theseinnovations in this edited interview,which was conducted as part of theBureau’s oral history project.

William D. Messersmith joined the Bureau ofPrisons in 1959 as a parole officer at the FederalCorrectional Institution in Englewood, Colorado.From 1962 to 1970 he served at the Los AngelesPre-Release Guidance Center as assistant directorand later as director. He transferred to the CentralOffice in 1970 as coordinator of Federal commu-nity treatment centers and the following yearbecame Director of Residential Programs. In 1972he was named Community Services RegionalDirector for the North Central Region. He wasAssociate Warden for Operations at the Metropoli-tan Correctional Center in Chicago from 1974 to1982, and retired in 1987 as Executive Assistant atFCI La Tuna, Texas.

Before the halfway houses, were thereany special procedures to try tosmooth an inmate’s transition backinto the community?

Only two things. There had to be anapproved parole plan for release, whichinvolved communication between theinstitution and the U.S. ProbationOfficer, at which time they tried toresolve some of the problems, familyproblems or whatever. But that waslong-distance, so it wasn’t a real goodsituation. The others varied by institu-tion, but Englewood had an extremelyactive prerelease program where therewere some outside speakers and help forrelease in general: seeking employment,what to expect from the U.S. ProbationOfficer, and things like that. But eventhat was just general for the whole group,not a specific or individual kind of thing.So it was hit or miss, really.

How did the halfway house or commu-nity treatment program get started inthe Bureau, and what was the earlyprogram like?

Halfway houses were not a new idea, butvery few were actually in operation.Then in 1961, Attorney General RobertKennedy asked the Bureau of Prisons toproceed with establishing a pilot programfor halfway houses.

Those of us who were in on this earlyeffort knew there were three basic thingswe had to establish through this pilot.The first was to provide actual releaseservices that would improve postreleaseoutcomes. Second was to set an exampleacross the United States, to stimulate theprivate sector. And third was to providefeedback to our own institutions regard-ing vocational training, release prepara-tion, and other programs.

At the time the first Bureau centersstarted in 1961, there were only three

private halfway houses to be found, fromwhich early staff could draw informationon how to operate a halfway house.They were St. Leonard’s House inChicago, Dismas House in St. Louis, andCrenshaw House in Los Angeles.

There were three basic models in the firstthree centers operated by the Bureau, inorder to see if different sorts of staffingor types of facilities would make adifference in postrelease outcome. Thefirst units opened in September 1961 inNew York and Chicago. In Chicago, theprogram was housed in a YMCA andoperated with Bureau of Prisons staff.New York, the unit was likewise in aYMCA, but staffed by people fromSpringfield College in Massachusetts,known for training YMCA personnel.October 1961, the Los Angeles centerwas opened. It was also staffed byBureau personnel, but in a separatebuilding, a former Baptist seminary,where staff had to provide all mainte-

In

In

nance and meals. About 1 year later afourth center was opened in Detroit, butthe basic effort was in the original three,and that was where the staffing andlocation differences were intentionallymade.

The program in the early days was[designed] for male Federal JuvenileDetention Act [F.J.D.A.] or YouthCorrections Act [Y.C.A.] offenders whowould go to the center 90 to 120 daysprior to release. They remained incustody of the Attorney General untilrelease, unlike [offenders in] privatefacilities, where it was primarily postre-lease placement.

Pre-Release Guidance Centers in thoseearly days were more like work-releaseunits. There were tight controls. Theinmate just went out to work and came

Summer 1989 37

Pre-Release Guidance Center staff, Los Angeles, 1963. Left to right: Kenneth A. McDannell, Director; Betty Suit, secretary; William D.

Messersmith, caseworker, Assistant Director; Orville G. Bills, William Thomas, and Edward F. Arbogast, counselors; Stan Lay, employment

placement officer.

right back, spending the rest of the hoursin the center. If there were infractions—for example, if there was the smell ofalcohol on a person’s breath when hereturned to the center—it was fairlyautomatic return to the institution as aprogram failure.

Institution staff at the first Pre-ReleaseGuidance Centers weren’t really preparedfor the street side of corrections. Weknew a lot about institutions, and wetheorized a lot about what it took to getby on the street; we even planned some

of our institution programs that way. Butwe found that when people get out thereand have to go face an employer and tryto get a job, when they have to make itout there on the street, there were somethings they weren’t quite prepared for.Hopefully, we were able to feed this backto the institutions.

At the Pre-Release Guidance Centers,there was an emphasis on employmentand on encouraging educational, relig-ious, and recreational interests that couldbe followed after release. Staff providedcounseling and guidance for the transi-tion to community living. As part of theprogram, each resident would meet with

the U.S. Probation Officer to establish asupervisory relationship for theirendeavors after release.

Specifically in the Los Angeles center, togive you some feel for what went onthere, the staff provided individual andgroup counseling on seeking and holdingemployment. We checked for old trafficwarrants; we weren’t prepared to find somany of these kinds of problems thatpeople have to resolve before they caneven drive, which sometimes affectedtheir employment. The staff also workedwith the inmate on a savings plan, whichwas mandatory so that he’d have some


money to get started on. Other elementsin the program that evolved in the firstfew years included driver education.And we introduced [inmates] to newrecreational opportunities, such aslearning how to play golf or attendingmusicals, plays, ice shows, movies,taping of TV programs in Hollywood,professional basketball, baseball, hockeygames—things to try to stimulate aninterest in what to do in a person’s non-working hours.

At least one night a week, an outsidespeaker or participant came in. Theyprovided information on job seeking,adult education, and vocational educa-tion. We had an Assistant U.S. Attorneycome in to talk about the implications oftheir sentence in the future, relative tovoting or holding public office or similarmatters. Somebody from InternalRevenue spoke about tax preparation; astate educational representative talkedabout apprenticeships; a realtor came into talk about renting and buying realestate; union representatives; a publichealth official to talk about venerealdisease; a marriage counselor to talkabout interpersonal problems in mar-riage. A lady who was very good camein to talk about manners and socialcustoms, because many of our inmatesfelt ill at ease in social contacts. Aninsurance agent came in to talk about carinsurance problems. Armed Forcesrecruiters came in to answer questionsfrom those who might be interested inmilitary service after completing theirsentences. A banker came in to talkabout different services of a bank—otherthan being robbed. Car buying. Interper-sonal relations in general. Quite a widevariety of topics.

In addition to providing these directservices, we also found that another one

Gradually,

we found that we could

loosen up a little. It didn’thurt, once in a while, if

somebody had a little touch

of alcohol on their breath.

We could handle

those kinds of things

without sending somebody

back to the institution.

of our goals—stimulating county, State,and private interests—developed. Wehad many visitors, including internationalvisitors, and some of us probably feellike foster parents to some of theseprograms operating around the countrynow. We exchanged much operational,day-to-day information with each other.From some of this information, then, wewere able to be helpful to those outsiderswho now could go to a board of directorsor county board or State legislature withfigures on how much money it wouldtake, how much bed linen would beneeded, what kinds of problems could beexpected, and so forth. And thosespecifics are what helped a lot ofprograms get under way.

Along that same line, in 1963 a smallgroup started, with Bureau participation,called the International Halfway HouseAssociation. One of our Bureau people,Woody Toft, was president. I wassecretary to the group for a while, andinitiated newsletter mailings and the firstdirectory. By 1968, only 5 years later,this group was large enough and stableenough that it became an affiliate body ofthe American Correctional Association.

By the mid-to-late 1960’s, we could lookback at some of the original purposes forthe centers and make some observations.First, we were providing prereleaseservices to more and more people,especially with the advent of legislationin 1965 that allowed expansion of Pre-Release Guidance Centers to houseadults, in addition to the F.J.D.A. andY.C.A. cases. Secondly, we werecertainly having a booming business instimulating city, county, State, andprivate sector people; just look at theearly figures—three of our own centersand three private places—and then lookat the size of today’s internationalhalfway house directory! Third, in termsof getting information back to institu-tions, we began visiting Bureau institu-tions regularly, to develop some of theirstreet-wise knowledge.

In terms of program emphasis in ourcenters, there were some significantevolutions. At first it was an in-houseprogram, with just our own staff. Webegan to turn more and more to commu-nity resources. These people were moreexpert than we were in specific areas, andthe inmates could go to them after releasefor expert help, instead of remainingdependent on us.

A second evolution point in our programswas moving away from the paternal“doing for” somebody to helping them todo for themselves. That way, theydevelop confidence, and they know howto do things themselves in the future. Wefelt that was an important change.

Third, we expanded from the originalprerelease emphasis to handling studyand observation cases for the court and aplace of service for short sentences andsplit sentences. We also received some

Summer 1989 39

direct parole and probation-violatorcommitments, instead of them beingreturned to the institution. So with thischanged emphasis, the name “prereleaseguidance center” was altered to “commu-nity treatment center.”

A fourth area—we found that the numberof Federal offenders being released toparticular geographical areas madefeasible having only a certain number ofFederal C.T.C.’s, eventually expanded tonine cities. But with our success instimulating other agencies, public andprivate, we got to the point where wecould contract with them for providingthis service.

Tell me about the staff reactions to theC.T.C. program. Was there muchresistance, or did they think it was a

good idea?

Generally, people thought it was a goodidea, even at the institutions. When I wasgoing to get into it, about a year after thefirst ones opened, I went out for a fewdays before the guy I was replacing leftLos Angeles. And when I returned toEnglewood, Warden Joe Bogan, Sr. drewme off to the side and said, “I wouldappreciate it if, in the final few weeksthat you are here, you would circulateamong staff, because they’re going to becurious about this new thing. They knowyou’ve seen it, and I want you to talk itup as much as you can.” And so, therewas good, positive support by theWarden. People were curious about it,thought it was a good idea.

Did you have any special training

before going into this, or was it almost

trial and error?

It was pretty much trial and error. Therewere only the three private places, andthey drew a little on that, and then from

there on it was trying to figure out whatthings to do or not to do. And tryingsome things and discarding them. It wasjust so totally new, that there reallywasn’t anything to train on. Later, ofcourse, on the basis of several years’work, we helped come up with standardsand training for the International Half-way House Association.

But in the beginning, it was just trial anderror. It started out very tight. Gradu-ally, we found that we could loosen up alittle. It didn’t hurt, maybe, once in awhile, if somebody had a little touch ofalcohol on their breath. We learned howwe could handle those kinds of things,dealing with them in the center setting,without sending somebody back to theinstitution. So we just sort of figured itout as we went along.

How did inmates view the program?

Generally, people were anxious to getinto it, because it compared favorably tothe more restricted life in the institution.Those who weren’t eligible were a littlejealous or envious, but, deep down, theycould understand why. And there weresome, surprisingly, who were not

interested. The latter were similar tothose who will turn down parole to spendjust a few more months in the institution,preferring to go out without having to besupervised by a U.S. Probation Officer.That’s because when they get out on thestreet, they just don’t want any stringsattached. So there were a few, not many,that said they’d prefer not to go to acenter because they weren’t sure theycould handle that kind of pressure. Andthere was a certain amount of pressure,being part way out, but not all the wayout. They had some of the same tempta-tions as if they were totally on the street,but they always had us lurking in thebackground.

This relates to an interesting researchfinding. One time I tallied, over a fewyears at Los Angeles, those who wereprogram failures. They either tended tofail right after they got there or justbefore they got out. They didn’t failmuch during that time in the middle,perhaps because it just seemed easier


once they got into the routine. But theyhad trouble adjusting when they first gotthere, and apparently some got nervousjust about release time as to whether theycould really handle everything alone.

At one time, there was an experiment tosend some people there for 6 monthsinstead of just the 90 to 120 days. Andthat really didn’t work. Apparently, the90 to 120 days was fairly optimal,because you have those restrictions, butyou know that it’s only 90 to 120 days,and it compares favorably to the institu-tion. But if you get there with 6 monthsto go, it’s an awful long time out there,and it was just hard to hang on. It justwasn’t close enough to get them throughthese constant temptations. People atwork, not knowing of your status, wouldsay, “Hey, let’s go out for a couple ofbeers,” or something. And if the kidturned them down, then they’d feel hewas antisocial, even though he wanted tomake new friends. With all of thispressure on the 6-month cases, almostevery night we’d have to go man to manwith them to get them out of theirdepression. So a shorter time seemed tobe better.

Was there any difference in terms ofthe attitude or sincerity of the juve-niles versus the adults?

I don’t recall a difference in that direc-tion. A difference somewhat relatedmight have been that the ones that werein the program as pre-releasees, comingfrom institutions, tended to handle itbetter than those who came in off thestreet as study cases or to serve shortsentences. They hadn’t been inside yet,didn’t really realize what they wererisking, and tended to be a little more

We began

to turn more and more

to community resources.

The inmates could

go to them after release

for expert help, instead of

remaining dependent

on us.

immature or less sincere. And some-times the ones with the institutionalbackground would try to pull them off tothe side and say, “Hey, you don’t knowwhat a second chance you’re gettinghere, without going to the main institu-tion, and you’d better try to take advan-tage of it or you’re going to be sorry.”So sometimes the older heads would helpgive a hint to the younger ones.

To what extent did you involve familymembers in the reintroduction of theseinmates to society?

Most of the family members visited theinmate at the center right away. The staffmembers would go out of their way tosay hello and chit-chat a little, let themknow they were available if there wasanything they needed to call them about.And then we also tried, during most ofthose years, to make a home visit. Inother words, pop the inmate in the carand go out and see where he lives, who’sthere, and what the situation looks like.And that worked very well. Very often,if something was going wrong, we’d geta call from one of these people, saying,“Hey, I’m concerned about my son or myhusband or whatever; he’s doing this orthat, and I’m afraid he’s going to wind upback in trouble. Is there any way that wecan work with you on this to avoid that

kind of thing?” So, very often, it paidoff. It helped us out with a situationbefore it got out of hand.

What were the neighborhoods likewhere the initial centers were located,and what kind of public response wasthere to the centers?

In Los Angeles, the center was located ina modest-to-poor Hispanic neighborhood,East Los Angeles. When the Center firstopened, staff did go up and down thestreet to chit-chat a little with theneighbors, explained to them who wewere and what we were doing. I don’trecall hearing of any particularly nega-tive reaction there. People were curious,maybe a little concerned, but not toomuch. There weren’t any ongoingproblems that I can think of. Except onenight; we’d always been open with thelocal precinct of the Los Angeles PoliceDepartment—told them to stop by anytime they wanted to get acquainted, seewhat was going on, see we had nothingto hide. Once they just had a slow night,so about six or seven police cars came upat one time and about eight to ten officerscame inside. This was okay with us, butit scared the inmates half to death. Wewere in a building with 30 inmates, butas we walked around the building, wenever saw more than two or three. Wewould go in one direction, and theywould run down a stairway to where wehad just come from. And then somebodylooked outside, and saw quite a fewpeople out on the sidewalk, expecting, Iguess, to see the police carry a body out.So it upset the neighbors and it upset theinmates, but it was good public relationswith the police!

Summer 1989 41

What sorts of jobs did the inmates

have?

The whole range of jobs. There wouldbe drafting, auto mechanics, office work,sales. It might just be factory or assem-bly work. However, we generally wouldtry to upgrade. Sometimes a personwould go ahead and take a job, if the jobmarket was rather tight. Then he and theemployment placement officer wouldwork toward trying to convert that to abetter job, more like what they felt theyneeded or had training in.

How did institutional work-release

programs fit into all this?

Legislation passed in 1965 authorizedwork release. This led to an institutionnumbers game, in which institutions weregetting people out for the sake ofreporting large numbers.

While it was not intended for work-release inmates to remain in the commu-nity after release, the inevitable hap-pened. Many of the employers liked theinmate working for them, many inmatesliked their jobs, and so those who didn’thave supervision requirements statingthey had to be released to a certaindistrict elsewhere began to stay in town.When they did that, there was negativecommunity reaction.

With the rise of Pre-Release GuidanceCenters, later C.T.C.’s, many institutionswere even keeping people in the work-release program to play the numbersgame, instead of sending them on to oneof these pre-release programs.

Finally, reality set in, and work-releasewas phased out for the realism of sendingpeople to their release areas, to get

Bill Messersmith in I989.

established in a more permanent way,rather than this artificial employment inthe local community.

What role did Community Services

have in establishing regionalization?

Regionalization started in the Commu-nity Services Division, sometime beforethe agency fully regionalized.

First, I need to back up a little andexplain that in 1972, the CommunityServices Division had five non-institu-tional responsibilities: the CommunityTreatment Centers; Employment Place-ment; Jail Services; Technical Assis-tance, through the Law EnforcementAssistance Administration; and specificaftercare services mandated by theNarcotics Addict Rehabilitation Act of1966.

Meanwhile, back at the regionalizationranch, the Director and Executive Staffapparently had been discussing thepossibility of decentralizing the wholeBureau of Prisons. They were aware thatthe Community Services Division wasplanning to regionalize all its operationsand by 1971 had two pilot regionsalready in progress—one under aninstitutional program manager in theDallas area, and the other model under an

independently based person in the SanFrancisco area. The Executive Staffdecided to use that experience to deter-mine what advantages or disadvantagesthere would be in regionalizing the wholeagency. Should they decide that it wouldnot be feasible, they could more easilyreverse regionalization in the CommunityServices pilot than they could back up ifthey regionalized the whole agency. Sothat decision led to full CommunityServices Division regionalization onMarch 1, 1972. At that time, SportKirkland, the person in the Dallas area,and Fred Dickson, who was in the SanFrancisco area, were joined by formerJail Services Administrator HaroldThomas, going to Atlanta, formerEmployment Placement AdministratorStan Lay, going to Baltimore, andmyself, Bill Messersmith, the ResidentialPrograms Director, going to Chicago.My Chicago placement was primarilybecause I was out of town on annualleave when the cities were divided up;when I returned, Chicago was the onlycity left.

I really want to emphasize that therewere two issues in this pilot for theBureau. One was decentralization, andthe other was changing from the special-ist to the generalist. Instead of specializ-ing in a particular Community Servicesfunction, generalists would work in allfunctions but have responsibility for asmaller geographic area—with theexception that the Law EnforcementAssistance Administration-basedtechnical assistance program wouldremain unchanged. Not only were thepeople in the field going to have to shiftgears from being specialists to general-ists, but those of us who were going toadminister each of these five pilot


regions had to do the same. So whileregionalization was effective March 1,1972, the three of us still in the CentralOffice remained there for 3 monthsbefore moving so that we could cross-train each other. That way, for example,I could learn more about jail problemsand services from Harold Thomas,Harold could learn more about centersfrom me, both Harold and I could learnabout employment placement from StanLay, and so forth. And this worked verywell. By the time June came, we wereready to move out and start, and we eachhad very intensive training with the fieldpeople that we had called in for thistransition.

So, overall, it was an exciting new time,with the cross-training and good commu-nication among people, and many goodthings happened. I called on most of theChief U.S. District Judges in the NorthCentral Region; many of them weresurprised and pleased, saying I was thefirst Bureau of Prisons person to be intheir office. They, along with the ChiefU.S. Probation Officers and U.S.Marshals, whom I also called on in eachof those districts, now had a higher-levelBureau person accessible to them locally,without the past inhibition of trying tocontact somebody in Washington.

We were able to provide more technicalassistance to jails and halfway housesand so forth, because we had people withwider backgrounds now, rather than justone specialty. Also, I was our agencyrepresentative at regional meetings ofState department of corrections adminis-trators for my part of the country at atime when they were dealing with a

number of problems, and sometimeswe were able to provide some assis-tance.

Full Community Services Divisionregionalization was to be a 2-year pilotbefore evaluation. In the latter stage ofthe pilot, we were reporting to WardenChuck Hughes of Seagoville. At the endof the 2 years, he and I were selected togive a report and recommendations onour 2 years’ combined experience toDirector Norm Carlson and the ExecutiveStaff, meeting at Williamsburg, Virginia.We gave our report, stating the benefitsand some disadvantages. For example,regionalization freed the Director for“larger picture” issues, because thesmaller span of control meant that allBureau managers nationwide would nolonger be reporting to the Director, andthere would be less pressure on theDirector from judges, congressmen, andsenators. Secondly, we noted improvedBureau of Prisons management commu-nication with judges and representativesof Federal, county, and city agencies.Third, we noted improved personalsupervision of Bureau of Prisons staff, asopposed to when they were just moni-tored from one central location. Fourth,we noted improved monitoring andmanagerial troubleshooting of contracts,such as jails, community treatmentcenters, and Narcotic Addicts Rehabilita-tion Act [N.A.R.A.] aftercare. Fifth, wesaw reduced generalist travel and broadertechnical assistance available from thesepeople in the smaller area in which theywere working.

We did note one possible disadvantageand that was, perhaps, interregionalinconsistency relative to a specific issue.But experience and good communicationamong regional directors could minimizethese inconsistencies among the regions.This was a minor price to pay for thebenefits that we saw.

Norm’s reaction to our presentation was,I felt, a somewhat cool one. He said thatdecentralization and recentralizationcycles are normal in many agencies, andthat he didn’t want to rush into some-thing quickly and then have to change itlater.

Personally, I left the WilliamsburgExecutive Staff meeting seriouslydoubting that full regionalization wouldoccur. But 3 or 4 months later, Normannounced that the total agency wasgoing to regionalize, and that all regionaldirectors must have been wardenspreviously so the institutions wouldrealize that they had someone there whowould understand their problems.

I personally believe that was an excellentmove on the part of the agency. Normhas been recognized by many private andpublic sector people over the years as anoutstanding administrator. He was not apolitician-type appointee, common tomany agencies which change directorswith every election. However, with allhis interests and managerial skill, it justwasn’t practical for him to have thewarden of every institution reporting tohim directly at the same time he wastrying to deal with all those outside,press, judicial, politician-type demands.And that was at a time before we’d evenopened a lot of the newer institutions.From what I’ve seen over the years sinceregionalization, it has served the agencywell. n

Summer 1989 43

NIC and BOPWorking Together, Sharing Expertise

Nancy Sabanosh

Editor’s note: If Bureau of Prisons staffare aware of the National Institute of

Corrections at all, they are liable to think

of its efforts as purely directed to States

and localities. In fact, NIC and the BOP

often work together on projects and

share resources and expertise, as this

article indicates.

Future articles in the Federal PrisonsJournal will discuss particular areas of

NIC operations; this first issue’s articleprovides an overview of NIC resources

and how Bureau staff can benefit from

them.

The National Institute of Corrections wascreated in 1974 to help State and localcorrectional agencies by providingtraining, technical assistance, and aninformation clearinghouse. In its first 15years, it has evolved into a nationalcenter of assistance for all correctionalprofessionals. The Institute also awardsgrants for practical research, evaluation,and policy and program formulation incorrections.

Administered by a director appointed bythe U.S. Attorney General, the Institute isoverseen by a 16-member AdvisoryBoard. Though the Institute is independ-ent of the Bureau of Prisons, it sharescertain administrative functions with theBureau and each year receives a distinctappropriation as a line item in theBureau’s budget. The Institute’sadministrative offices, Prisons Division,and Community Corrections Division arehoused in the Bureau’s Central Office,while its National Academy of Correc-tions, Jails Division, and InformationCenter are located in Boulder. Colorado.

A training conference for new directors of State corrections systems, sponsored by NIC, washeld in Santa Fe, NM, June 29-July 2.Each year the Institute provides funds to theAssociation of State Correctional Administrators to conduct two sessions for new directorsand another for all directors of State corrections departments.

Project networking

Bureau and Institute staff have oftenworked together to coordinate resourcesto assist State and local personnel. Whilethe Institute provides most servicesthrough a pool of independent consult-ants, on occasion Bureau personnel arerequested to provide the assistanceneeded by a State agency. In such casesthe Institute coordinates and finances theassistance. For example, in April of thisyear, the Bureau’s Food and FarmServices Administrator Jerry Collins andMCC San Diego Food Service Adminis-trator Robert Paradise travelled to Hawaiiunder NIC auspices. They were respond-ing to a request from the Hawaii Depart-ment of Corrections for assistance inevaluating its food service operations andmaking recommendations for establish-ing a unified, systemwide food serviceprogram. In another instance, the

Institute underwrote expenses for twoteams of correctional professionals fromthe Virgin Islands to visit MCC Miami tostudy classification processes. In bothcases, the Institute received a writtenrequest from the State department ofcorrections and coordinated with theBureau regional directors and institu-tional wardens to arrange the assistance.Likewise, Institute staff are available toassist Bureau personnel. During theAtlanta/Oakdale hostage crisis inNovember 1987, the Institute providedstaff support to the Director’s Office andhelped develop the after-action reportonce the crisis was resolved.

Information services

More generally. however, Institute staffare able to assist Bureau staff by provid-


ing information and referrals on differentsubjects. Each year the Institute sponsorsspecific studies and projects and devel-ops a broad expertise in those subjectareas. Frequently, the Institute compilesinformation for use by the Bureau onprograms available in State correctionalinstitutions. NIC staff can respond au-thoritatively on such subjects as commu-nity corrections programming, detentionissues, overcrowding, institutionalsecurity, classification, treatment of sexoffenders, prison parenting programs,recreational programs, and others as theresult of extensive involvement withprojects of national scope.

Training

The Institute’s training academy inBoulder, Colorado, conducts numeroustraining programs each year, primarilyfor State and local correctional adminis-trators, managers, and trainers. Up totwo Bureau of Prisons staff can attendeach course. (A descriptive schedule ofcourses, which includes applicationprocedures, is available from the Acad-emy.) Conversely, the Bureau makesavailable a limited number of slots in itstraining programs for State and localpractitioners with a special training need;these individuals attend a Bureauprogram under the sponsorship of theInstitute, which pays their travel and perdiem expenses. The Bureau alsoprovides a special course in locksmithingat the Staff Training Academy in Glynco,Georgia, for State and local practitionerssponsored by the Institute.

Resources

The NIC Information Center is a nationalclearinghouse for the collection anddissemination of information on correc-tional subjects, and the Bureau of Prisonsis both a welcome contributor and client.

The Information Center has a computer-ized data base and linkages with otherclearinghouses; it specializes in collect-ing materials from State and localagencies on correctional operations andprograms. The Information Center alsomaintains a collection of Bureau publica-tions, program statements, researchreviews, and other materials and sharesthem as appropriate with State and localagencies.

The Center conducts quarterly surveys ofcorrectional agencies throughout thecountry and compiles and disseminatesinformation gathered from State prisonsystems, large jail systems, and commu-nity corrections programs. (The Bureauparticipates in the quarterly surveys ofState prison systems.) The results of theState department of corrections surveysare compiled in a Corrections Quarterly,which contains information on recentlitigation, legislation, prison capacities,and new programs. Copies of thisdocument are distributed to the Bureauregional directors and are available toBureau personnel through the regionaloffices.

The Information Center also coordinatesthe Institute’s Correctional TrainingNetwork (CTN), through which lessonplans, audiovisuals, and other trainingmaterials submitted by Federal, State,and local agencies are made available toother agencies throughout the country.All Bureau wardens are sent the CTNcatalog and need only contact theInformation Center to obtain loan copiesof the training materials.

Bureau personnel are welcome to contactthe Information Center for any type ofinformation on corrections and areencouraged to submit their published andunpublished documents that would be ofuse to others. The Information Center is

currently beginning a CorrectionalEducation Project, with emphasis onacquiring a collection of curriculummaterials, program descriptions, andevaluations in all areas of adult correc-tional education, including vocationaleducation.

Staff assignments

The Bureau and the Institute worktogether in another mutually beneficialway. At any given time, a few Bureau ofPrisons staff augment the small, 41-person staff of the Institute. Currently,four Bureau employees are working atthe Institute in both Boulder and Wash-ington, D.C., as Correctional ProgramSpecialists. As NIC professional staff,whose salaries are paid by the Instituteon a reimbursable basis, these individualsmanage grant projects; provide technicalassistance; plan, design, and implementtraining programs; and otherwise assistState and local agencies. While Bureaupeople stay with the Institute for only afew years before assuming a new Bureauassignment, they are able to gain a broadunderstanding and exposure to correc-tional operations at all levels of Govern-ment and to work on a variety of proj-ects. To date, 18 Bureau staff membershave also been NIC staff members.

The NIC administrative offices can becontacted at 202-724-3106; the PrisonsDivision, at 202-724-8300; the Commu-nity Corrections Division, at 202-724-7995; the Jails Division, at 303-939-8866; the Academy, at 303-939-8855;and the Information Center, at 303-939-8877. n

Nancy Sabanosh is Director of Publica-tions for the National Institute of

Corrections.

Documents

BOP: Publications - Federal Prisons Journal Spring 1989 · Justice Reference Service The Attorney General has determined ... McKean, Pennsylvania Patricia L. Millard Director of Communications