U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Comparative Evaluation of a New Generation Jail

NCJ Number
178856
Journal
American Journal of Criminal Justice Volume: 23 Issue: 2 Dated: Spring 1999 Pages: 223-246
Author(s)
James L. Williams; Daniel G. Rodeheaver; Denise W. Huggins
Date Published
1999
Length
24 pages
Annotation
This article presents the methodology and findings of an evaluation of a "new generation" jail in a large southwestern State.
Abstract
The jail is one component of a complex that contains a traditional jail, an indirect supervision facility (barracks), and the new generation jail. Using survey and operational data, the evaluation compared the new generation jail to the other two facilities. New generation jails represent a significant change in correctional architecture and management. The typical facility houses up to 48 inmates in large, open living areas typically called pods. New generation jails forego the use of traditional bars and cells in favor of open living areas. The management philosophy envisions a new mode of interaction between staff and inmates that does not include coercive measures and the labeling of the inmates; humane, respectful treatment of both inmates and staff is encouraged. The findings of this evaluation provide generally positive support for the effectiveness of the new generation jail. Inmates and staff were much more satisfied with the physical facilities than were the inmates and staff of the other two facilities. Staff perceived the facility as more secure, although they reported only limited advantages in safety and security. Violence and disciplinary problems were substantially lower in the new generation jail; however, no savings in staffing levels were noted; nor were there differences in job satisfaction for staff in the new generation jail. Implications of the findings are discussed, and suggestions are offered for jail evaluations. 8 tables and 19 references