Learn Correctional Admin Perspectives

Learning Outcomes
After reading this chapter, you should be able to
▪ Discuss correctional administration from different analytical
perspectives.
▪ Understand common concerns for management, including
bureaucracy, budgets, managing, decision making,
and both informal and formal aspects of organization.
▪ Discuss prominent management issues that arise in a typical
maximum security prison and a probation
field office.
▪ Identify issues associated with the changing nature of
correctional administration.
Charles Rex Arbogast/Associated Press
Correctional
Administration
6
© 2019 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for
resale or redistribution.
Analytical Levels for Correctional Administration
Introduction
“Administration is most often discussed as the art of getting

things done” (Simon, 1976, p. 1).
In the context of prisons, administration is the process of
managing a correctional organiza-
tion. Indeed, correctional managers and leaders have a great
deal to do. They must be con-
cerned with leadership, planning, organizing, managing internal
and external environments,
decision making, budgets and fiscal management, program
implementation and assessment,
human resource management and development, and related
areas. Correctional leaders and
managers are responsible for directing correctional staff as they
accomplish specific goals
(Stojkovic & Farkas, 2003). They are expected to maintain a
safe and secure environment
for both staff and inmates, to provide sanctions to offenders
while also providing services
that might “correct” their behavior, to “do more with less” as
budgets become tighter, and
to respond to both internal interests (such as the concerns of
unions) and external interests
(such as those of courts, legislative bodies, and others;
Stojkovic & Farkas, 2003).
This chapter explores selected aspects of correctional
administration—ones we think can
help develop a fundamental perspective from which to ask
questions about why things hap-
pen in corrections the way they do. With this aim in mind, it is
important to realize that there
is a great deal of diversity among corrections organizations and
their administration; yet
there is also much common ground. For example, Cerrato
(2014) notes that certain goals,
such as stability and order, are common across all correctional
institutions.

6.1 Analytical Levels for Correctional Administration
In the United States corrections efforts are not centralized at the
national level—there is no
single, organizational pyramid with a designated center for
coordinating, controlling, and
allocating resources. Rather, the United States has a system of
federal, state, and local correc-
tions efforts. At each level of government, various corrections
agencies—such as the Federal
Bureau of Prisons, the U.S. Probation and Pretrial Services,
each of the State Departments of
Corrections, local jails, locally organized probation agencies,
and other local agencies—must
work within different realms of jurisdiction and responsibility,
respond to different external
political forces, and deal with different arrangements for
funding. Each state has a Depart-
ment or Division of Corrections, the typical organization of
which is discussed later in this
chapter. This section looks at American corrections from
different analytical levels of analysis,
which include societal, Department of Corrections (DOC), and
service delivery. Our primary
interest in this discussion is to gain a clearer idea of the
context(s) in which correctional
organizations are administered and identify some relevant
implications for administration.
Societal Level
The United States is a diverse society, composed of individuals
and groups who hold all dif-
ferent types of beliefs and opinions, many of which are often in
direct conflict. Americans
are also vastly different in terms of their wealth, power, and
influence. Therefore, in an orga-

nizational sense, we must think about society in a broad manner
as providing the “major
option-setting context” (Perrow, 1986, p. 263) within which
corrections organizations and
administrators must operate.
Section 6.1
Section 6.1Analytical Levels for Correctional Administration
Although corrections has no organizational pyramid extending
from the national to the local
level, it is important to consider the types of forces and factors
that shape policies and actions
in corrections at the broadest level. At this societal level, we
must consider the political, eco-
nomic, and cultural conditions that affect the administration of
corrections.
Political Considerations
Politically, correctional administration is shaped by the
distribution of power. Power is the
ability to influence or obtain compliance, either as a result of
formal authority or the develop-
ment of informal influence. Our governmental and social
arrangements, and the ways people
respond to and think about these arrangements, are crucial
facets of the overall context for
In American society, power is distributed among many sets of

persons at various levels of
government. There are many ways to develop and apply
influence and power at each level.
Individuals and groups with different interests and unequal
influence use a variety of tech-
niques to ensure their interests are reflected in the policies that
shape the direction of correc-
tions. The policies that emerge are political resultants that
reflect the power and influence
exerted at different levels of government; Allison (1971) used
this term to refer to decisions
that result from bargaining among key decision makers.
The policies that result are developed gradually. Past decisions,
policies, actions, and beliefs
have great force and form the base on which current policies are
argued, expressed, and
implemented. Just as there is no single theory that covers all
causes of crime, there is no
singular approach to corrections. Those who hold different
beliefs about crime’s causes and
effects, and about appropriate approaches to corrections, may
participate in a complicated
set of processes that direct the correctional endeavors in this
nation. Those with sufficient
influence tend to have their preferences expressed in policy and
put into action.
Correctional administrators operate in a societal context
characterized by controversy, com-
peting interests, and persons and groups who have varying
degrees of power. These people
and groups seek to “use” corrections organizations to further
their beliefs, visions, and inter-
ests. Because of the complexity of the U.S. government, there is
the possibility for, and the

actuality of, competing beliefs, visions, and interests to pull
corrections in many directions.
Correctional administrators must report to those who have
direct control over their opera-
tions (for example, the state governor, the legislature’s
Corrections Committee or Appropri-
ations Committee, and more) and to those who influence those
who directly control their
operations (for example, powerful political constituents who
want a new prison sited in their
community, or leaders who see a political advantage in building
more prisons rather than
finding community alternatives). Powerful, well-organized
interests may also include correc-
tional officer unions, among others. (See more examples later in
this chapter, and consider the
issues raised in the feature box, Applying Criminal Justice:
Unions, Budgets, and Job Concerns:
Powerful Interests.) Remember too that most Americans know
very little about corrections,
and if they engage with correctional issues at all, it is usually in
general ways regarding gen-
eral notions about how government operates—or they might
respond to select information
that is made available by those who have specific interests in
government or corrections.
Economic Considerations
Economically, the most prominent corrections-related concerns

pertain to the general state
of the economy and its potential impact on matters related to
During national recessions, there are generally fewer resources
available to perform govern-
ment work. Conversely, times of rapid economic expansion may
result in increased resources
or surpluses. It is far easier, many say, to administer an agency
or organization whose budget
is “fat.”
Applying Criminal Justice: Unions, Budgets, and Job Concerns:
Powerful Interests
Correctional departments sometimes face sudden
and unanticipated budget reductions, which may
force officials to reconsider their capacity for
administration and staffing. In some cases, unions
may be able to powerfully respond to politically
backed budget changes and other correctional
administration issues.
In a 2012 news article, the Hanford Sentinel
reported that in response to a bill passed by the
California legislature aimed at reducing costs, lead-
ers at the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR) had ordered reductions in the number of
guards at Corcoran State
Prison. Corcoran is a maximum security facility operated by the
CDCR, and the California
Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA), one of the
most powerful unions in Califor-
nia, had serious concerns regarding the reductions.
Leaders of the Corcoran chapter of the CCPOA were
particularly concerned about potential

safety issues associated with the reductions and upset that the
CDCR had not responded to
these concerns. The article explained the situation as follows:
Rene Hernandez, the chapter’s vice president, said the major
problem is the state is
cutting important armed positions such as maximum security
guards, compromis-
ing the safety of the public and other staff.
“We’re trying to get state legislators to see the concerns of the
staff and how many
critical safety positions are being eliminated,” he said.
Hernandez said the CCPOA has tried to voice its concerns to
prison administration
as well as to state legislators, but have been ignored. (Luiz,
2012, para. 3)
The concerns presented by the Corcoran CCPOA chapter
describe a confrontation between
the union and CDCR administration. This union is well funded,
has articulate leaders, and
employs skilled attorneys. The CCPOA lobbies the California
legislature and important politi-
cal figures; it also tries to strategically place its members on
important policy making boards
and commissions to influence the CDCR.
Imagine you are the secretary of the CDCR, an organization
with over 22,000 correctional
officers. How would you envision creating a “win-win” from a
situation like that presented
here? How could your organization work with a union to
address labor interests? What
would be your overall strategy regarding labor relations?

Drew Perine/The News Tribune/Associated Press
Resources, budgets, and operating costs are often used to frame
issues pertaining to correc-
tional administration. In general, corrections agencies must
compete with all other agencies
for available resources. Correctional administrators often think
their organizations receive
too little or less than adequate resources.
A significant challenge for correctional administration revolves
around the fact that, looking
at aggregate profiles of those funneled into the correctional
system, the “business” of correc-
tions largely involves correcting persons from society’s lower
socioeconomic levels. Correc-
tions agency leaders are tasked with designing strategies,
programs, policies, and actions that
“correct” people, while being unable to do much about the
environments from which offend-
ers emerge and to which they most often must return.
Corrections is often a frustrating busi-
ness, in terms of whether correctional staff can achieve impact
or be effective in situations
in which outcomes are to a large extent dependent on social,
economic, and political forces
that are beyond their ability to harness or control. For example,
Turkington (2017) notes

that Louisiana’s high rate of incarceration is influenced by a
variety of sources, including the
state’s use of mandatory minimums, recidivism, a shortage of
public defenders, and “incen-
tives to keep the state’s incarceration rate high” (p. 570).
Cultural Considerations
Culturally, we must consider the attitudes, orientations, and
beliefs that predominate dis-
cussions of just what corrections is supposed to accomplish.
Correctional administrators are
often forced to engage in a balancing act. They are often placed
in no-win situations, stemming
from debates and political maneuvering over what options to
pursue. They are faced with
reinforcing the image of the government as acting to “solve”
large problems in the absence of
viable “solutions” and in situations in which policy
development and implementation must
often be derived from a compromise negotiated among those
with competing interests and
varying degrees of influence over decision makers. There are
cyclical calls to “reform” correc-
tions—to pursue different options. However, traditions,
customs, habits, and past practices
can have a very strong pull. It is often very difficult to gain
widespread acceptance to pursue
new or different options. The overriding political approach to
corrections often features a
“don’t hurt me” agenda, which means that administrators make
as few waves as possible,
appeasing any significantly competing interests while trying to
show that something con-
structive is underway—all while maintaining an acceptable
image.

The DOC Level
We have chosen to call a second level of analysis the DOC
(Department or Division of Correc-
tions) level. Our primary concern at this level is for the
administrative contexts of Depart-
ments or Divisions of Corrections, which are normally
structured as major elements of state
government, and the large organizations established to carry out
corrections efforts for the
federal government (e.g., the Federal Bureau of Prisons). Few
of these “systems” could be
called centralized; that is, various state and federal corrections
functions are not organized
under a single administrative identity or one large agency.
Nonetheless, these large, com-
plex organizations are primary elements in the delivery of
corrections services in the United
States, and it is important to understand the concerns and issues
related to administration at
this level.
Chapter 2 discussed variations in the structure of state and
federal departments/divisions
of corrections. As you read, keep those variations in mind.
Figure 6.1 shows a typical DOC: a
large, complex governmental organization structured to provide
an array of correctional ser-
vices under the authority of a state government. The state

represented also has correctional
services (such as probation, in its largest cities; community
correctional centers; jails; and
some other community-based services) organized under local
government authority, but the
focus of our attention is the big state agency.
Figure 6.1: Internal and external environments that affect the
DOC
The DOC is a complex, state-run governmental organization
that must address numerous, often
competing, concerns from both internal and external
environments.
In terms of its organization, the DOC has an internal
environment (the composite of formal
and informal aspects within the organization). We will further
discuss the internal environ-
ment of corrections organizations in upcoming sections on
common concerns and institu-
tional management. For now, it is important to note that the
DOC is highly differentiated, it
has several major subdivisions, and many of its members work
in specialized subunits. In
effect, the issues, problems, and tasks the DOC must address
and carry out are subdivided,
and its structure reflects this.
Organizational Interests
Those who manage and work within each major subcomponent
and specialized subunit tend
to concentrate on their own portion of the organization and to
selectively prioritize their roles,
their share of the overall problems, and their organizational
interests as the most important.

Top-level management must ensure that the entire organization
functions as a well-integrated
entity. As might be expected, many difficulties stem from
having a differentiated structure.
State legislature State governor
External
External
Internal
Other exec agencies
Field services Field services Field services
Media Interest groups Other CJ agencies
Federal courts
DOC
State courts
Division of community
correctionsJuvenile institutionsAdult institutions

Top-level management must allocate resources for the entire
organization, often using a
limited budget. At budgeting time, those in charge of
administering the major subcompo-
nents and specialized subunits often compete with each other
for slices of the budget pie, and
budget maneuvering can cause organizational tension. Top-level
management is ultimately
accountable for distributing resources throughout the
organization, and difficult decisions
must be made about internal issues that rarely satisfy all those
concerned. Similar difficulties
emerge when trying to coordinate and control the operations of
the DOC.
Different Locations
The DOC’s subelements are physically located across the state.
Their operations do not take
place in a vacuum, and they are subject to the influences of
their immediate environments.
This makes controlling and coordinating the organization a very
complicated undertaking.
Consider a probation field office operating in a particular city.
This office must establish work-
ing relationships with nearby law enforcement agencies, courts,
district attorneys’ offices,
and more. These relationships may include both formal and
informal working agreements
that require the cooperation of all who are involved.
Top-level management may issue general policies to guide the
field office’s operation, but
lower level managers are usually tasked with executing such
policies and dealing with the
details of day-to-day operations. In addition, field offices across
the state will encounter vari-

ous situations. Even this cursory illustration should help us
begin to understand the dele-
gation of authority (the legitimate power inherent in a position
to manage, sanction, and
provide incentives) and the existence of discretion at all levels
of management. These are
important aspects of the internal environment. Coordinating and
controlling such a large
agency is difficult, and considering the many aspects of DOC
operation (budgeting, personnel
decisions, task accomplishment, etc.), administration is neither
simple nor easy.
The External Environment
DOC administrators must also confront the external
environment, which encompasses the
significant forces outside the organization that affect its
operation. Most top-level correc-
tional administrators recognize that they operate in very
political contexts. As important and
time-consuming as their activities are in terms of confronting
and resolving the organiza-
tion’s internal issues and problems regarding its day-to-day
functioning and the accomplish-
ment of tasks, most top-level managers are primarily focused on
interacting with significant
people in the external environment. At the system (department
or division) level, there are
numerous significant relationships to be maintained with other
organizations, groups, and
individuals important to the operation of the DOC. The slate of
“significant relationships” may
vary somewhat from state to state and per the issues or
problems that directly involve the
DOC. It is important to think about such relationships and how
the external environment

affects administration. It is not necessary to exhaustively list all
potentially important “signifi-
cant others,” but we offer the following as examples.
The DOC is an agency within the executive branch of state
government. Its top administra-
tor is appointed by the governor; therefore, the governor has
significant influence over the
direction of overall policy for the DOC. Here, policy means a
formally expressed practice or
strategy of action.
Do not lose sight of the fact that governors are elected and
respond to influential constituents;
they also have many demanding responsibilities. Under one
governor, a DOC might have a top
administrator who has a strong corrections background and is
inclined to “do something con-
structive” with offenders; under another governor, however, the
top administrator may have a
corporate or “big government” background and be primarily
inclined to operate an “efficient
agency.” It may be somewhat uncharitable to say, but many
governors develop a “don’t hurt
me” agenda regarding the DOC’s operation—meaning that the
top administrator is expected
to keep a low profile for the DOC, satisfy as many interests as
possible, keep operations stable
and efficient, and otherwise avoid having problems surface.

The state legislature is another critical player in the DOC’s
external environment. The DOC’s
budget is dependent on the action of the legislature, and top-
level administrators must
attempt to maintain relationships that put them in a good
position to lobby for funding. Also,
the legislature passes laws that directly affect the DOC’s
operations. Top-level administrators
must maintain relationships that put them in a strong position to
lobby for or against legisla-
tion important to them and the organization. The legislature has
committees, subcommittees,
and individual members (those who are particularly interested
in corrections, for whatever
reason) important to the DOC. The DOC’s top-level
administrators are particularly concerned
with relationships with finance committees, judiciary
committees, corrections commit-
tees, and individual legislators who take a keen interest in
corrections—either as allies or
antagonists.
Both state and federal courts are also sig-
nificant to those who control the DOC.
Regarding the courts, many correctional
administrators view themselves as gener-
ally on the defensive, responding to litiga-
tion (and even possible litigation) that may
arise from various sources. Consider a
hypothetical DOC currently operating
under a consent decree, a settlement of a
lawsuit in which the administration agrees
to take certain actions without admitting
fault or guilt for the situation that gave
rise to the suit (Oran, 1983). This decree is

issued by a federal district court, stem-
ming from a class action lawsuit filed by
inmates. It should be noted that this situa-
tion is not far-fetched—almost all state
DOCs have had a federal court order
issued against either the entire system or
one or more of the major institutions. In
such a situation, the DOC’s administrators, under a plan agreed
to in court, are required to
take action in a number of areas to alleviate conditions the
federal judge has found unaccept-
able. The court will monitor progress. The DOC’s top
administrators will respond directly to
ongoing inquiries made by the federal judge. In addition, other
litigation is continually pend-
ing. A great deal of top management’s energy is thus focused on
maintaining a management
posture and creating sets of policies and operating procedures
that can provide a strong array
of defensible positions to litigation.
Alex Wong/Getty Images News/© 2009 Getty Images
The media plays an important role in corrections
administration because their coverage
influences how the public views the DOC. How
can an administration use the media to regulate
its image?
The media must also be recognized as an element of the external

environment affecting the
DOC. The media, and its various elements, are powerful: It
helps set the tone for opinions of
the DOC and pursues issues that can result in either criticism of
or favorable publicity about
the DOC and its administration. The DOC’s top administrators
are concerned with image
management—the process of designing and controlling an
organization’s representation,
which involves policies and procedures regarding interactions
with media personnel and the
release of information. Controlling image management is
difficult given the organization’s
size, and the fact that its subelements and personnel are spread
throughout the state, offering
many points of potential access and interaction.
The general public is also an important part of the external
environment. After all, tax dollars
support the organization, and the “public” may quite rightfully
be termed the “clients” (or
purchasers) of the services the DOC provides. However, as
noted earlier, the public is com-
posed of individuals and groups that have and advocate for
diverse interests and opinions and
have varying degrees of access to and influence over important
decision makers.
There are a variety of interest groups within the external
environment. These are organized
groups of people who want their preferences expressed in
policies or actions—in this case
those that pertain to corrections organizations.
Examples of potentially important external interest groups are

• inmate rights groups;
• various reform groups (e.g., neo-retributionist reformers);
• professional groups with vested interests (e.g., the American
Correctional
Association);
• unions (e.g., correctional officer unions);
• community interest groups (e.g., those seeking or opposing the
location of a particu-
lar prison); and
• private-sector interest groups (e.g., those interested in vendor
contracts, private sec-
tor financing arrangements, or institutional facility management
contracts).
The external environment may also produce technologies that
inform aspects of correctional
administration. Bargaric, Hunter, and Wolf (2018) explore how
emerging technologies could
be used as substitutes for incarceration, which could potentially
reduce the number of pris-
ons and alter how correction is administered.
Top-level DOC managers must interact with those seeking to
influence the organization’s
operation. Often, these external “significant others” are quite
powerful and have a broad base
of political support. However, many external groups are
relatively underpowered; that is, they
may act in “good conscience” but have not amassed the power
or support to swing a great
deal of weight. The difficulty for top management lies in
determining to whom to respond,
and how. Occasionally, top management may wish to use

external interest groups to further
its own aims. In this case, management issues center on
developing and maintaining alliances
that are considered critical for the organization’s support and
management’s perceptions of
the DOC’s interests.
Beyond this, the DOC’s external environment includes several
other organizations important
to its operation. Other criminal justice organizations are
important in the sense that they
Section 6.2Bureaucracy in Corrections Organizations
provide a larger process, of which the DOC is a part. Policies
(such as sentencing changes) are
important to the DOC and its leadership. The DOC’s
administrators must stay aware of poten-
tial shifts and may need to provide input on other organizations’
policies.
Other government agencies, such as a Department of
Administration, or Management and
Budget, are also important. The DOC’s administrators must
comply with the policies and pro-
cedures of outside agencies when resulting actions affect the
DOC. Again, the DOC’s top man-
agers may need to have input concerning the development of
policies and procedures that
affect them; they also may need to establish and maintain good
working relationships with

the administrators of other agencies to help facilitate the DOC’s
smooth operation as a part of
the larger network of government organizations.
Service-Delivery Level
The service-delivery level includes single organizations that are
directly involved with correc-
tions-related operational activities—these include correctional
institutions, probation field
offices, and other organizations established to provide various
correctional programs. These
organizations may be component parts of DOCs, the Federal
Bureau of Prisons, or any one
of the organizations established and controlled through a local
government (i.e., that serve
limited areas and populations). Correctional administration can
also include indirect govern-
ment delivery of services, which “combines the authority,
legitimacy, and resources of the
government with the management capabilities of more flexible
and theoretically more cost
efficient private sector entities” (Ferrandino, 2017, p. 55). The
privatization of corrections
is explored further in Chapter 10. An extensive list of the many
facilities associated with the
Federal Bureau of Prisons can be found at
https://www.bop.gov/about/facilities/. As you
review this list, think about how various facilities in the Federal
Bureau of Prisons contribute
to correctional operations.
Earlier, we used the term system to refer to the DOCs. In the
terminology of organizational the-
ory, system can refer to a large, multifaceted organization such
as a DOC; to a smaller, single
organization and its component parts; or to any of the

component parts analyzed unto them-
selves. In other words, a correctional institution may be viewed
as an organizational system
with an internal and external environment, in the same way we
viewed the DOC as a system.
6.2 Bureaucracy in Corrections Organizations
Whether we are considering a DOC, a prison, a probation field
office, or a particular program-
delivery organization, corrections organizations should be
understood as complex, bureau-
cratic organizations. Corrections organizations are not unique in
this sense; that is, govern-
ment organizations, and most private sector organizations, may
be generally characterized in
the same way.
Bureaucracy refers to a ubiquitous organizational form,
characterized by hierarchy of
authority, written rules and procedures, specialization, and
expertise. Most of society’s orga-
nizations are to a large degree bureaucratic. Their structures and
activities are based on the
following:
Section 6.2Bureaucracy in Corrections Organizations
• a division of labor,
• a multilevel formal structure with a hierarchy of positions or
offices,
• dependence on formal rules and procedures to ensure

uniformity and to regulate
the behavior of job holders,
• an impersonal nature,
• employment decisions based on merit,
• career tracks established to allow for advancement and secure
commitment of
employees, and
• supposedly the separation of the organization member’s work
affairs and his or her
personal affairs. (Robbins, 1987, p. 233)
These characteristics illustrate the classical perspective on
organization proposed by Max
Weber in 1947. They illustrate “Weber’s ‘ideal’ type of rational
[goal-oriented] and efficient
organization” (Robbins, 1987, p. 233). An investigation into
any corrections organization will
reveal formal design features that to a large extent reflect the
above characteristics. However,
it is important to note that the Weber “ideal” is just that. It is
not a factual description of how
most organizations operate (Robbins, 1987). When considering
the internal environments of
a corrections organization, we find the formal frameworks to be
bureaucratic, both in terms
of their structure and expected behaviors. Nonetheless, the
operation and administration of
these organizations does not necessarily match the ideal in all
respects.
As an organizational design, bureaucracy
has many strong and positive qualities.
For example, at the very least, lines of for-

mal authority and accountability, duties,
and responsibilities are specified and
made clear. Standardization—the con-
sistency in operations resulting from the
use of rules and procedures for recurring
situations or aspects of operation—is the
central theme of bureaucracy, and the var-
ious mechanisms associated with stan-
dardizing operations help coordinate and
control the activities of large numbers of
people.
On the other hand, the bureaucratic form
itself can give rise to many organizational
dysfunctions. For example, rules and regu-
lations can become more important than
the ends they are designed to achieve,
employees may become alienated by the impersonality inherent
in bureaucratic design, and
there may be impediments to adaptation or change that stem
from the effort to standard-
ize and regulate behaviors by developing routines and
repertoires of action (Robbins, 1987;
Rainey, 2009; Bibas, 2017). These are among the many
criticisms of bureaucracy as an orga-
nizational form.
The formal foundation for corrections organizations is
bureaucratic. This foundation in part
shapes the context within which correctional administrators
operate. However, there is more
Rogelio V. Solis/Associated Press
Bureaucracy is a key part of the corrections
system. Here, Mississippi’s corrections
commissioner addresses members of the

House Corrections and Judiciary Committees.
Why is bureaucracy necessary in correctional
organizations?
Section 6.3Management Issues for Administrators
to consider in thinking about the internal environment and
administration. Notably, there is
an informal dimension to life in complex organizations. Patterns
and networks of commu-
nication, influence, and power, along with norms and
expectations concerning work group
performance and behaviors, are among the many aspects of
administration and operation
that arise as informal facets of organizational life that get
overlaid and intertwined with the
formal design. The informal may supplement, complement, or
compete with the formal. Cor-
rectional administrators must attempt to live with, understand,
confront, utilize, and perhaps
even change the formal and informal dimensions of their
organizations.
6.3 Management Issues for Administrators
The generic functions of management include planning,
organizing, leading, and controlling
(Robbins, 1984; Rainey, 2009). We have noted that corrections
organizations are bureaucratic
and hierarchical. In other words, manage-
ment positions exist at various levels of
these organizations. If we refer to the DOC

example, we see that there is a top level of
management for the entire organization,
another level at the major subdivision
level, and another at the single subunit
level (for example, each prison has a war-
den or superintendent and deputy war-
dens or deputy superintendents, and each
probation field office has a chief probation
officer and perhaps a deputy chief proba-
tion officer). Within each subunit organi-
zation are levels of management (from the
subunit’s top managers, such as wardens
and deputy wardens, through supervi-
sors, such as shift supervisors or living unit managers). Some
organizations have more levels
of hierarchy (more levels of management) than others.
It is important to think in a broad sense about what managers at
different levels do. They all
make decisions, as well as plan, organize, lead, and control
(Robbins, 1984). But as we move
from an organization’s lower, operational levels (where service-
delivery tasks are carried out
by line workers) to its upper, policy-oriented levels, there are
differences in terms of the nature
of problems that arise, what managers need to focus on, and the
nature and scope of the man-
agement functions performed. Supervisors are most likely to be
concerned with technical
problems associated with carrying out specific sets of tasks on a
day-to-day basis. Their man-
agement activities tend to primarily involve leading or
controlling by directly supervising line
employees. Upper level managers are most likely to be
concerned with problems or issues
that often are not well defined, that involve a large number of

interested parties, and that
primarily involve resolving questions of value or preference in
selecting and organizing
options to pursue. As our focus moves from middle-level
management to top-level manage-
ment, we would expect to see managers devoting more time to
planning and resolving very
broad issues, as well as organizing to pursue the appropriate
options, and less time directly
leading and controlling the activities of subordinates.
Kevin G. Gilbert/Herald-Mail/Associated Press
Management is an important role that exists at
every level of a bureaucracy. How do the roles
of managers along a hierarchy work together to
benefit correctional policies?
Decision Making and Context
When it comes to making decisions in the field of corrections, it
is again important to consider
context. We have already discussed how the external context for
decision making is political;
the same is true for the context of the internal environment. As
noted, those in various subdi-
visions normally prioritize their own subdivision’s interests.
Moreover, different individuals
and groups throughout the organization may think their own
individual or group interests
are most essential, and these interests may not coincide with

management’s perceptions of
the organization’s best interests. Beyond this, the development
of informal networks of influ-
ence, communication, and power within the organization
overlap formal groupings.
In their decision-making activities, correctional administrators
engage in a process charac-
terized by bureaucratic politics (Allison, 1971). Particularly at
the middle and upper levels of
management, most decisions may be described as political
resultants
in the sense that what happens is not chosen as a [rational]
solution to a prob-
lem but rather results from compromise, conflict, and confusion
of officials
with diverse interests and unequal influence; political in the
sense that the
activity from which decisions and actions emerge is best
characterized as bar-
gaining along regularized chan nels. (Allison, 1971, p. 162)
Consider the development of a policy, such as an organization’s
budget, which is the resultant
of a set of decisions concerning the allocation of its financial
resources. Inside the organiza-
tion, in its internal environment, everyone will be affected by
these decisions, and many will
try to influence them. Certain managers, by virtue of their
position, will participate directly in
the decision-making process; their positions place them in
formal networks or lines of author-
ity, giving them formal responsibility for budget decisions or
for input regarding these. Others
may seek to influence those directly involved, either using

formal communication channels
or informal lines of influence. “Power,” formally or informally,
is a blend of (a) “bargaining
advantages,” (b) “skill and will in using bargaining
advantages,” and (c) “others’ perceptions
of the bargaining advantages” (Allison, 1971, p. 168) available
to anyone who participates in
the process.
This means that those with interests in the budget seek to sway
the most influential deci-
sion makers, and the influential decision makers seek to
influence one another. There may be
many permutations of interests and interested parties. To put it
in simple terms, consider a
top-level administrator who wishes to increase the number and
quality of programs offered to
inmates. Imagine that the correctional officer force is
unionized, is strong, and has a primary
interest in receiving pay increases, having job security (both in
the sense of job tenure and
in terms of working in a physically secure environment), and
increasing the number of cor-
rectional officer positions. Imagine that those with professional
interests in various programs
(e.g., inmate education or therapeutic programs) are seeking
increases in funding, staffing,
and programming. Imagine that there is a limited projected
increase in monies available for
salaries and positions—one item in the overall budget.
The correctional officer union has bargaining advantages tied to
its strength in numbers, its
connections to decision makers inside the organization who
favor the union’s position, and
its external connections to influential lobbyists and others.

Those with an interest in securing
funding for programs have similar advantages. Although they
may not speak with as singular
a voice as the union, they may present support from externally
organized professional asso-
ciations, have several administrators in favor of their position,
and for the purposes of our
example, may represent inmates’ desire for more programs.
Add to this the maneuvering of significant others outside the
organization and we can imag-
ine the intense debate among those who must reach a resultant
decision. The overall budget
decision process may involve many such difficult issues, and
ultimately it may be necessary
to compromise—or it may be that those with sufficient
bargaining advantages may prevail in
having the policy reflect their interests.
These types of complex problems are continually emerging in
corrections organizations, and
management must confront many such problems simultaneously.
Many of the problems will
have deadlines by which they must be solved, and thus
management will focus its attention
on meeting those deadlines, presenting “acceptable” decisions,
and designing or providing
incentives and controls that encourage those tasked with

carrying out the corresponding
actions to conform with the effort.
Correctional administrators’ legitimacy largely depends on
maintaining fairly stable organi-
zations that achieve something (or at least appear to). Do not
disregard “bureaucratic poli-
tics” as necessarily negative. Rather, consider that the extent to
which formal and informal
interactions involve the internal and external environment is an
important factor in why
things happen the way they do in corrections.
Focus on Institutional Management
Much of the research on correctional administration has
emphasized the management of
maximum security correctional institutions. In this section we
use the administration of a
maximum security institution to analyze management at the
service-delivery level. Keep in
mind that correctional facility census data (2005) shows that
approximately 20% of the con-
finement facilities in the United States are maximum security
institutions. Furthermore, they
house approximately 33% of all inmates (Bureau of Justice
Statistics, 2005). The average size
of the inmate population in these institutions is just over 1,000
(Bureau of Justice Statistics,
2005). Also keep in mind that there is significant variability
among confinement facilities,
particularly if we consider all institutions, from maximum to
minimum security. Nonethe-
less, correctional institutions have enough in common in terms
of administration that we can
extend our analysis across institution types.

Consider a typical maximum security prison—Waupun
Correctional Institution in Wisconsin
(see Figure 6.2). Information about the prison is available at the
Wisconsin Department of
Corrections website (https://doc.wi.gov/). Like most
correctional institutions in the United
States, Waupun Correctional is located in a small, rural
community. As of April 2018, its inmate
population was approximately 1,258. From July 1, 2016, to June
30, 2017, the average daily
cost to incarcerate each inmate was $102.30 (State of Wisconsin
Department of Corrections,
2017). The prison is a rather large, complex, bureaucratic
organization with a differentiated
structure—there are major divisions for custody, program
services, and management opera-
tions, each of which is subdivided into a number of sections
with several specialized subele-
ments (see Figure 6.2). As of June 2017, Waupun Correctional
had a total staff of approxi-
mately 445, with administrative positions extending from
superintendent to line supervisor.
Figure 6.2: Internal and external environments affecting
Waupun Correctional
Institution
As is the case for the DOC and other large, maximum security
prisons in the United States,

administrators at Waupun Correctional Institution must contend
with numerous influences from
both internal and external environments.
As a complex organization, Waupun Correctional Institution
may be said to have both an
internal environment and an external environment (remember
our previous discussion of
the DOC and see Figure 6.1). Correctional institution managers
must be aware of an array
of influences or forces in both the external environment and
internal environment. In this
regard, the administration of a correctional institution takes
place in a very complex context.
External Concerns
Correctional institutions like Waupun are a part of a larger
organization; in this case, the
Wisconsin DOC. The institution must operate within the
parameters and policies established
by the DOC’s top management. The superintendents of
correctional institutions are granted
much freedom in setting institutional policies, depending on the
degree of control their upper
level DOC management deems necessary. In general, wardens or
superintendents have a rela-
tively high degree of autonomy. However, these administrators
remain accountable to other
administrators, such as the director of adult institutions and the
DOC’s chief executive.
In addition, Waupun Correctional is situated in a small, rural
community. The prison is a major
local industry and, similar to an auto plant or other factory,
supports many jobs in the area.

State government Local government
DOC administration
External
Internal
Custody
Program
services
Business
management
CourtsCourts
Superintendent
Inmates
Correctional officer labor unions
MediaInterest groups
Vendors
(contract services)
Organizers (Representatives)

As of June 30, 2017, Waupun Correctional had an annual
operating budget of over $46 million
(State of Wisconsin Department of Corrections, 2017) and each
year maintains a multimil-
lion-dollar payroll. The prison’s operation depends on numerous
contracts with local vendors
(e.g., food service and maintenance contracts). Local
community leaders are interested in the
operation of Waupun Correctional. They are likely to initiate
interactions with the superin-
tendent or other upper level managers concerning the prison’s
economic potential. Also, local
leaders may initiate interactions regarding community
protection or even on issues associ-
ated with better understanding the prison and its operations.
Waupun’s superintendent must also interact with individuals
and groups that are interested
in this particular prison because of its inmates. The
superintendent and other upper level
managers may interface with inmate rights’ groups, their
families (regarding issues such as
visitation), and court officials (particularly when litigation
specific to the institution is under-
way). Beyond this, the prison’s administrators may interact
sporadically with other inter-
ested parties, such as researchers who want to enter the prison
to carry out various projects,
state legislators who have special interest in its operation, and
members of the media. Media
attention and interest may range from sporadic to continuous.
Journalism regarding prisons
involves topics such as escape, prison conditions and deaths,
AIDS, and debates regarding
punishment versus rehabilitation. Therefore, the prison’s

administration must be sensitive
to the fact that media might be interested in the prison, and the
administration should be
aware of any interactions between media and staff or inmates.
In fact, many DOCs have a
communications office that responds to news items and issues
press releases related to cor-
rectional activities. For example, Waupun Correctional’s media
interactions are handled by
the Wisconsin DOC’s Communications Office
(https://doc.wi.gov/Pages/AboutDOC/Commu-
nicationsOffice.aspx).
As a final example of a significant external
interest, consider that Waupun Correc-
tional’s officer force is unionized. The
union is organized outside the institution
and reflects interests of a constituency
much larger than its members who work
in the prison. The upper level managers
must understand the labor contract and
be prepared to interact with union repre-
sentatives. Such interactions are particu-
larly important—even though this inter-
est group is externally organized, many of
its members work inside the institution
(are a part of its internal environment as
correctional officers) and are vital to its
functioning.
Administrators must realize the nature
of the external environment and develop
an understanding of the degree to which
such forces may affect the institution.
These administrators cannot hope to control all these forces, but
they may seek to shape

the environment through interactions designed to maximize
favorable relationships between
those connected to the institution and external parties with
interest in it.
Rich Pedroncelli/Associated Press
Assuring that inmates have access to recreation
time is one of many internal concerns
administration must consider. What concerns
might administrators regard as more important
than others?
Internal Concerns
Waupun Correctional has a differentiated internal environment
and presents complex issues
for administration (see Figure 6.2). Moreover, managing the
prison requires coordinating and
controlling diverse work groups (administrative personnel,
correctional officers, program
services personnel) and the inmate population. Administrators
must plan for and manage
operations in a variety of areas, some of which are listed here
(adapted from McGee, 1981,
pp. 76–77):
a. Inmate custody and institutional security
1. discipline
2. inmate records
3. grievances

4. visitation
5. rights and other privileges
b. Inmate care and welfare
1. classification and counseling
2. health and medical care
3. education and vocational training
4. recreation
5. religion
6. social services
7. release services
c. Inmate work programs
1. plant maintenance, perhaps construction
2. factory management
3. farm production
4. inmate wages and account system
5. hobby management and management of other income-
producing activities
d. Business and fiscal management
1. budgets
2. accounting
3. procurement
4. property control
5. food services
e. General administration
1. personnel management and labor relations
2. personnel development
3. public relations
4. relations with other government agencies
5. relations with others in the DOC
Waupun Correctional also offers several rehabilitative
programs, including anger manage-

ment, coping skills, prerelease modules, Thinking for a Change,
a behavioral health unit,
building maintenance and construction, and correspondence
courses (Wisconsin Depart-
ment of Corrections, 2017).
We noted earlier that standardization is a central feature of
bureaucratic organization. Rules,
regulations, standard operating procedures, and routines provide
a formal basis for much
of what needs to be done. Together with the formal system of
hierarchy and authority, these
help coordinate and control the work of the institution. Waupun
Correctional is typical of
other institutions in that it is bureaucratized—it has several
levels of hierarchy and has myr-
iad policies, rules, and regulations.
Formal operation arrangements are often complemented and
sometimes circumvented by
informal expectations, informal policies, interpretations and use
of discretion, and informal
routines that develop over time. Formal expressions (e.g.,
policies and rules) are not always
appropriate for and do not always cover every situation, which
can mean those involved must
interpret the situation and use their discretion. At times, formal
authority associated with a

person’s position gives way to informal forms of power (such as
wielding the ability of an
expert to influence others, being a force of personality, or using
certain bargaining advantages).
Formal and Informal Concerns
From an administrative point of view, managing the institution
is largely a matter of recogniz-
ing and utilizing the formal and informal aspects present in the
organizational context. This is
not simple. The formal organization refers to the explicit
aspects of an organization, includ-
ing its rules and policies, structure, positions, authority, and
channels of communication. The
informal organization refers to patterns of behavior, interaction,
and power that arise from
personal association in an organization beyond the explicit
formal arrangements.
The formal and the informal come together in practically all of
the institution’s activities.
Think again about authority and power. Authority, as we have
defined it, is formally present
in the hierarchy of institutional positions. Most people probably
conceive of the institution as
controlled through the formal organizational authoritative
pyramid—in other words, having
a superintendent who issues broad orders or directives that are
clarified and embellished as
needed at the middle levels of management, then having first-
line supervisors who present
the ultimate orders to line personnel, who apply them in their
areas of operation. This con-
ception describes the essential notion for operation. It also
describes a bureaucratic concep-
tion of “total power,” in that it is expected that the power to

reward or sanction will account
for task accomplishment and control. Those lower in the
organizational pyramid are usually
regarded as responsible for obeying those in positions of
authority.
However, maintaining an institution’s control or equilibrium is
not adequately described by
the above. The distribution of power does not simply coincide
with the lines of formal author-
ity. Rather, power is distributed in a polycentric manner, across
many centers of control. At
the very least, we must recognize that the institution’s
management and staff are concerned
with controlling a large inmate population (management and
staff are far outnumbered). This
inmate population has no absolute duty to obey those with
formal organizational authority
(Sykes, 1958). Moreover, the inmate population is not
composed of a single-minded group of
persons. The inmate subculture is differentiated, and power and
influence within this sub-
culture are distributed in a polycentric manner. Controlling the
inmate population involves a
complicated blend of formal authority and informal influence,
power that is shared or distrib-
uted among those in management, staff, and inmate groupings.
We must also recognize that management is differentiated, at
least by level and across divi-
sions. Managers in the institution are not necessarily of a single
mind regarding the institu-
tion’s operation and which tasks are most important, which
activities should take priority,
and which approaches might result in acceptable outcomes.
Staff are also differentiated and

represent different interests or at least different perspectives on
the institution’s operation
Section 6.4A Changing Landscape for Correctional
Administration: Special Populations
and their own roles within it. Consider differences such as those
between program service
personnel and the correctional officer force, as well as those
within these nominal groupings.
Think about the different potential roles, aims, perspectives,
and interests within the officer
force. While overall the correctional officer union from our
example may present a rather
singular perspective when negotiating with management, the
correctional officers may them-
selves present a broad set of concerns regarding the institution’s
operation. This may be more
apparent when we think about the activities, task assignments,
and possible aims of cell block
officers, those working in administrative assignments, work
detail officers, yard officers, and
so on. Roles within an administration may vary in part due to
the focal points of persons in
such roles, and even those in the same role may hold different
perspectives on how the insti-
tution should be operated (Ricks & Eno Louden, 2015).
It is critical to realize that informal aspects of organization and
power may complement,
supplement, and circumvent the formal aspects. We must be

aware of the numerous con-
cerns involved with the management and operation of an
institution. Maintaining equilibrium
or stability—control of the institution—is a primary aim. Doing
so requires careful balance
among many factors, especially managing a give-and-take
relationship among the various
work groups and between the inmates and staff.
If we conceive of stability as a primary outcome, then we may
think of the various factors that
affect power as variables in an equation. Changes in the balance
of these factors—these vari-
ables—may result in changes in the balance of power and affect
stability. Successful admin-
istrators understand this and carefully consider the balance of
any given institution. Success-
fully maintaining stability while also accomplishing something
constructive requires those
who manage institutions to possess technical proficiency,
conceptual ability, and well-devel-
oped social skills. Successful administrators understand an
institution’s polycentric distribu-
tion of power, as well as the nature and effects of external
forces that impact this distribution.
6.4 A Changing Landscape for Correctional
Over the past 3 decades, the landscape for correctional
administration has been changing,
particularly with regard to special inmate populations. In states
with three-strikes laws and
where the law allows life sentences without chance of early
release or parole, populations of
elderly inmates are growing and constitute one such special

population group. Some states, as
well as the Federal Bureau of Prisons, have increased the use of
security housing units (SHUs)
for inmates who are designated as dangerous, creating a
different type of special population.
(See the scenario in the feature box Applying Criminal Justice:
Managing the SHU.)
In some prison systems, the prevalence of HIV/AIDS and
hepatitis C have created special
populations that require special attention (Stojkovic, 2005; Iroh,
Mayo, & Nijhawan, 2018).
Concerns for the provision of mental health services have drawn
the attention of the courts,
and some prisons, even entire systems, have responded to far-
reaching court orders to deal
with mental health issues.
The following have become other specialized areas of concern
for correctional administration
(Stojkovic, 2005):
Section 6.4A Changing Landscape for Correctional
• treating chronic diseases, such as tuberculosis, asthma,
hypertension, heart disease,
diabetes mellitus, epilepsy
• treating depression
• addressing post-traumatic stress disorder

• managing youthful offenders incarcerated in adult institutions
• managing transgender offenders
• managing sex offenders
• managing death row inmates
• providing for pregnant inmates in facilities for women
Special populations will continue to demand attention from
correctional administrators.
According to Stojkovic (2005):
These special population prison-
ers are often unable to be effec-
tively managed and supervised
by correctional staff in traditional
ways. Instead, the effective man-
agement of special population
prisoners requires either new or
innovative approaches or modi-
fication and alteration to existing
policies and procedures. (p. xv)
Additionally, Blanck (2017) explores ser-
vices, risks, and legislation associated
with managing offenders with physical
challenges and/or special needs. Correc-
tional administrators must prepare for all
such challenges.
Applying Criminal Justice: Managing the SHU
The following discussion is adapted from McGrath and Lovell,
2005.
SHUs were created to remove violent and disruptive inmates
from general prison popula-
tions so that other inmates would not have to fear victimization

(18–2). SHU units come in
different shapes and physical plant designs (18–2). They are
specifically intended to isolate
designated inmates (18–2–18–3). The CDCR has two types of
SHU placements. The first is a
“determinate” placement. Inmates may be placed in an SHU for
specific misconduct or crimi-
nal behavior for a time period lasting from 2 months to 6 years
(18–3). The second is an
“indeterminate placement.” Inmates may be placed in an SHU
for an indeterminate time as
the result of a pattern of misconduct/criminal behavior
involving multiple violations (18–3).
“These placements are reviewed on a semiannual basis to
evaluate the need for continued
SHU placement” (18–3). Inmates who are violent and disruptive
and who have been
(continued on next page)
Rich Pedroncelli/Associated Press
The number of elderly inmates in prisons is
increasing, as is the cost of maintaining them.
What can be done to address issues related to
managing this special population?
Conclusion
Conclusion
Correctional administration covers a broad set of issues. It is
useful to analyze correctional

administration from different levels and perspectives, focusing
on the relevant administrative
implications at each level. Correctional organizations vary
significantly in terms of their size,
budget, structure, degree of bureaucratic complexity, and scope
and nature of operations. It
is important to consider the societal level of analysis and
identify concerns associated with
the “major option-setting context” (Perrow, 1986, p. 263). At
this level, attention is directed
toward the overall development of aims and policies.
At a second level, which we have termed the DOC level,
attention is directed toward large,
complex organizations, such as the Departments or Divisions of
Corrections and the Federal
Bureau of Prisons. Here, the relationships of these organizations
to significant others in an
external environment, or operating context, deserve attention. In
addition, administrators
need to appreciate a complex internal environment that may be
characterized by bureau-
cratic politics, as described by Allison (1971).
At the service-delivery level, we focus on organizations of
various sorts directly involved in
providing correctional services. These may be state government
agencies, locally organized
and administered organizations, or those that carry out broad or
limited correctional func-
tions. Attention at this level is directed toward managing
complex internal structures and
environments while appreciating the external contexts and
operational and administrative
requirements.

Applying Criminal Justice: Managing the SHU (continued)
validated as having gang affiliations may be placed in an SHU
for an indeterminate time
period (18–3). Gang members in an SHU must complete a 6-
year period without evidence
of continued gang activity to be designated “inactive” and be
released from the SHU. Gang
members may “defect” or dissociate themselves from the gang
by completing a rigorous pro-
cess. Any who complete this process may be considered for
release from the SHU (18–4).
Consider the California SHU (a fact sheet with additional
information on SHUs can be found
at https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/STG/docs/Fact%20Sheet-
SHU%20with%20photos.pdf ).
Inmates may be in isolation for very long periods. These
inmates are placed in this situation
for being violent and disruptive, and the procedures for placing
them there are explicitly
detailed. There are many concerns for administrators regarding
management of inmates
and SHU placements (see McGrath and Lovell, 2005, for a full
discussion). Consider this
statement:
It is absolutely imperative that everyone be clear that inmates
are human beings,
and the job is to keep them safe, provide for their physical
needs, and provide them
an opportunity to change and grow. While individual choices
made by inmates may
limit their privileges, we are not in the punishment business.
(18–6)

If you were the administrator of an SHU, what values would you
want to instill in the SHU
staff ? Remember the inmates are violent and disruptive and are
placed there to isolate them
from the general population. What would be your approach?
Under conditions of isolation,
how would you envision providing the opportunity to change
and grow?
Conclusion
Correctional administrators face many challenges, including
budgeting concerns and emerg-
ing issues associated with special populations. Many
correctional administrators feel intense
pressure to “do something positive” while balancing the
demands of a vast array of both inter-
nal and external entities. This chapter is a basic foundation to
developing an understanding of
the complexities facing administrators in corrections.
Key Ideas
• Administration as used in this chapter refers to managing
organizations, specifically
correctional organizations.
• Three levels of analysis are useful for understanding
administration and corrections:
the societal, DOC, and service-delivery levels.
• It is important to understand political, economic, and cultural

considerations at the
societal level of analysis.
• It is important to consider organizational interests, the internal
and external envi-
ronments, and the constellation of external interests, especially
at the DOC level
of analysis.
• It is important to consider bureaucracy and particular
management issues, including
internal and external concerns, at the service-delivery level.
• The considerations discussed at each level of analysis apply at
all levels, in
adapted forms.
• The formal and informal aspects of organization come together
in practically every-
thing that is done in correctional organizations or by corrections
personnel.
• Special inmate populations are changing the landscape for
correctional administra-
tion in the 21st century.
Critical-Thinking Questions
1. Describe the external environment for correctional
administration at a societal level
of analysis, a DOC level of analysis, and a service-delivery
level of analysis.
2. Relate the internal environments of correctional
organizations to issues of correc-

tional administration.
3. Depict the internal and external environments of
a maximum security prison and
discuss the context of administration.
4. Explain how the landscape for correctional
administration is changing with regard to
special populations.
5. Discuss how correctional officer unions might
impact the operation of correctional
organizations.
6. Discuss the influence of power and internal
bureaucratic politics in a correctional
organization’s decision-making process.
7. Explain the bases of power in a
maximum security prison.
8. Imagine you are the top administrator at a
state’s Department of Corrections. What
would be your top three concerns in leading the organization?
9. Discuss the importance of understanding formal
and informal aspects of organiza-
tion in managing a maximum security prison.
10. Discuss the operational context of a probation field office
that is part of a State
Department of Corrections. Imagine you are the agent in charge
of the office. What
are your top three concerns in managing the office?

Conclusion
Key Terms
administration The process of managing a
correctional (or any) organization.
authority The legitimate power inherent in
a position to manage, sanction, and provide
incentives.
bureaucracy An organizational form char-
acterized by hierarchy of authority, written
rules and procedures, specialization, and
expertise.
consent decree A settlement of a lawsuit
in which the administration agrees to take
certain actions without admitting fault or
guilt for the situation that gave rise to the
lawsuit.
“don’t hurt me” agenda An administra-
tive strategy that advocates making as few
waves as possible and appeasing any signifi-
cantly competing interests.
external environment The significant
forces outside the organization that affect its
operation.
formal organization The explicit aspects
of an organization, including its rules and
policies, structure, positions, authority, and

channels of communication.
image management The process of
designing and controlling an organization’s
representation.
informal organization Patterns of behav-
ior, interaction, and power that arise from
personal association in an organization,
beyond the explicit formal arrangements.
interest groups Organized groups of peo-
ple who want their preferences expressed in
policies or actions—in this case, those that
pertain to corrections organizations.
internal environment Elements within
an organization that shape its policies and
actions.
policy A formally expressed practice or
strategy of action.
political resultants A term used by Allison
(1971) to refer to decisions resulting from
bargaining among key decision makers.
power The ability to influence or obtain
compliance either as a result of formal
authority or the development of informal
influence.
standardization Consistency in operations
resulting from the use of rules and proce-
dures for recurring situations or aspects of
operation.

Web Resources
This web page includes information on correctional facilities
associated with the Federal
Bureau of Prisons. Additional information on the Federal
Bureau of Prisons may be found
through the various links within the site.
https://www.bop.gov/about/facilities/
This website contains a wealth of information about the
administration of one of the
world’s largest corrections organizations, the California
Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation, including the CDCR strategic plan.
http://www.cdcr.ca.gov
Conclusion
This website contains information concerning the structure and
operation of a typical
DOC, the Wisconsin Department of Corrections, and its
elements.
https://doc.wi.gov
This website provides information and insight into what is
perhaps the most powerful cor-
rectional officers union in the world, the California Correctional
Peace Officers Association.
http://www.ccpoa.org
The website of the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) leads

to information on most
aspects of corrections and other criminal justice organizations
and operations.
http://www.bjs.gov
The American Correctional Association website leads to many
sources of information on
correctional administration and the operation of corrections
organizations, including
standards.
http://www.aca.org
Additional Resources
This article studies the impacts of the three-strikes legislation
in California, with regard to
deterrence and incapacitation.
Datta, A. (2017). California’s three strikes law revisited:
Assessing the long-term
effects of the law. Atlantic Economic Journal, 45(2), 225–249.
This article explores ideas that address cost challenges in
California’s correctional
institutions.
Fuetsch, H. (2017). The progressive programming facility: A
rehabilitative, cost-effec-
tive solution to California’s prison problem. University of the
Pacific Law Review, 48(2),
449–473.
This article explores power and objectives associated with
prosecutors and sheriffs, within
the context of elements that may inf luence incarceration rates.
Hoeffel, J. C., & Singer, S. I. (2015). Elections, power, and

local control: Reining in chief
prosecutors and sheriffs. University of Maryland Law Journal of
Race, Religion, Gender &
Class, 15(2), 319–328.
This book provides an interesting approach to examining the
administration of public
organizations. It provides excellent background in
organizational theory and concerns for
managing complex organizations.
Rainey, H. G. (2009). Understanding and managing public
organizations (4th ed.). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
This article considers how inmate participation in a vocational
activity may impact self-
perception during and following incarceration. Changes in this
regard may affect correc-
tional administration.
Rogers, K. M., Corley, K. G., & Ashforth, B. E. (2017). Seeing
more than orange: Organiza-
tional respect and positive identity transformation in a prison
context. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 62(2), 219–269.
Conclusion
This anthology illuminates criminal justice administration from
a number of perspectives

and includes several articles specific to correctional
administration.
Stojkovic, S., Klofas, J., & Kalinich, D. (Eds.). (2010). The
administration and manage-
ment of criminal justice organizations: A book of readings (5th
ed.). Long Grove, IL:
Waveland Press.
This is a classic work on bureaucracy and the nature of public
bureaucracies.
Wilson, J. Q. (2000). Bureaucracy (2nd ed.). New York, NY:
Basic Books.
Learning Outcomes
After reading this chapter, you should be able to
▪ Describe early conceptions of the prison social system.
▪ Explain the functional/deprivation model of prison social
organization.
▪ Explain the importation model of prison social organization.
▪ Explain contemporary conceptions of imprisonment.
▪ Identify modern explanations of doing “hard time.”

▪ Describe both the private agenda and public agenda of
correctional officers.
Ann Johansson/Associated Press
Imprisonment 4
Early Conceptions of Prison Social Organization
Introduction
“This is our home. . . . What you got to remember is that we
live here. This prison is noth-
ing but a mini-society that we run. The guards are only here for
a job. We are here twenty-
four hours a day.” This quote from the movie Other Prisoners
highlights the importance of the
prison social structure and its influence on a prison’s everyday
workings. From correctional
officers to “new fish” inmates, each individual involved in a
prison is immersed in its social
world. Many scholars have attempted to understand the effects
the prison world has on those
who interact within it. This chapter discusses various ideas
about the origin of prison social
structures and the internal and external factors that influence
them.
In our discussion, we will examine models that attempt to
explain the character and for-
mation of inmate societies, highlighting the most important
aspects of each. We show how

each model contributes something different to the discussion of
prison social structures and
imprisonment as well as how prisoners’ roles make each model
significant.
Our examination of prison social structure begins by exploring
early conceptualizations of
the prison world. From there we look at the
functional/deprivation model of inmate social
systems, a model that has significantly contributed to the
research literature. This model
was heavily influenced by the discipline of sociology and
remains a major explanation for the
social structures that exist behind prison walls. Then we explore
another model of inmate
social systems that was created, in part, by an ex-offender. This
model, known as the impor-
tation model, argues that influences external to a prison are the
most critical when trying to
understand and explain its social structures.
The chapter then examines some contemporary ideas regarding
how prison social structures
are created. Prisons today are quite complex and require other
models to fully explain their
social workings. We examine these contemporary ideas and
comment on their relevancy to
understanding prison social structures and imprisonment in
general. We also explore the
research literature on correctional officers, raising some key
issues that face these crimi-
nal justice professionals. Finally, we conclude by exploring
some contemporary ideas about
prison management and its relation to prisoner social systems.
These ideas are at the fore-
front of thought about how prisoners’ social systems should be

controlled by prison officials.
4.1 Early Conceptions of Prison Social Organization
Our understanding of prison social structures was quite limited
until the mid-20th century. It
was clear that people who ran institutions of confinement were
aware of many of the key ele-
ments of what we would call a social system today, such as
roles, differentiation, organization,
and complexity. Nevertheless, an investigation of the prison’s
own unique social structure did
not begin until 1940, when Donald Clemmer published his now
classic piece, The Prison Com-
munity. In it, Clemmer argued that prisoners formed social
arrangements inside the institu-
tion similar to those found on the outside. More importantly,
Clemmer argued that through
institutionalization, inmates experience a process whereby
traditional values, beliefs, and
attitudes were stripped from them and replaced by the prison’s
cultural values, which are
often based on manipulation, deceit, and criminality.
Section 4.1
Section 4.1Early Conceptions of Prison Social Organization
Prisonization
Clemmer’s analysis suggested that prison-
ers changed their behavior upon being
incarcerated. This change, which Clemmer

called prisonization, involves the adop-
tion of specific behavioral patterns that
are consistent with a prison’s culture.
Clemmer argued that a prisoner becomes
increasingly removed from conventional
and accepted behaviors and actions the
longer he or she is under the influence of
prison society. In addition to suggesting
that prisoners internalize unconventional
attitudes in prison, Clemmer also argued
that these antisocial attitudes become
more firmly entrenched the longer a per-
son is institutionalized. In effect, the lon-
ger the incarceration experience, the more prisonized the inmate
becomes; and the more
prisonized the inmate, the more difficult it is to reach and
reform him. Clemmer argued that
the length of time served is a key factor that affects the degree
to which an inmate loses his or
her belief in and acceptance of traditional values, beliefs, and
attitudes.
Testing the Prisonization Hypothesis: Wheeler
To test Clemmer’s hypothesis, many early researchers examined
the influence of time served
on prisoner behavior, as well as the relationship between time
served and the acceptance and
internalization of the prison culture. For example, Stanton
Wheeler (1961) sought to test the
degree to which prisoners become prisonized over time and how
that affects their allegiance
and conformity to the prison staff ’s expectations. Did an
inmate who had many contacts with
the prison social system exhibit more of a prisonized experience
than the inmate who had
fewer contacts with the prison social system? In addition, how

did an inmate’s allegiance
to the prison social system vary by degree of time served? Were
there differences between
inmates who had served shorter sentences compared to those
who served longer ones in
terms of their allegiance to staff expectations? Wheeler’s
analysis largely supported the priso-
nization hypothesis put forth by Clemmer.
Wheeler found that the degree to which inmates became
prisonized was directly related to
their involvement in the informal social system of the prison.
Inmates also experienced a
sense of role conflict as they became more assimilated into the
social system. Wheeler (1961)
states:
The inmate who values friendship among his peers and also
desires to con-
form to the staff ’s norms faces a vivid and real role conflict.
The conflict is not
apparent or perhaps is not felt so intensely during the earliest
stages of con-
finement, but with increasing length of time in the prison the
strain becomes
acute; inmates move to resolve the strain either by giving up or
being excluded
from primary ties, or by a shift in attitudes. (p. 704)
© Columbia/courtesy Everett Collection
Movies like The Shawshank Redemption illustrate
the idea of prisonization: that it is hard to return
to society after a long imprisonment. In what
ways do you think movies stereotype prison life?

Section 4.1Early Conceptions of Prison Social Organization
Wheeler also argued that the degree of assimilation to inmate
culture was contingent on
the “career phase” in which inmates found themselves. This
concept, known as differential
attachment, suggests inmates assimilate in a U-shaped pattern,
whereby greater allegiance
to conventional attitudes and staff norms are experienced in the
early and late phases of con-
finement, and there is less acceptance of such norms in the
middle phase of incarceration.
In other words, inmates who had served less than 6 months were
generally very accepting
of staff expectations and conformed to them, whereas those who
had served more than 6
months and had more than 6 months left were the least
accepting and conforming. Thus, the
more removed a prisoner is from the community, the less
accepting he or she is of staff expec-
tations and, as a result, the more pronounced the prisonization.
Research suggests inmates
behave this way out of self-interest; most show conformity with
staff expectations toward the
end of a sentence as a means to ensure release from the
institution.
Wheeler’s research essentially agreed with Clemmer’s
prisonization hypothesis but indicated
it was not necessarily the case for all inmates. He went on to
suggest that prisoners need to
be dealt with according to their phase of incarceration. His

research suggests that inmates
are prisonized and “deprisonized” and that a direct, linear
progression into negative behav-
ior patterns is not always the result of length of time served.
Instead, inmates’ adaptive pat-
terns are complex and require other types of research to
determine how they cope with their
environments.
Testing the Prisonization Hypothesis: Garabedian
Peter Garabedian (1963) continued the investigation into the
prisonization process by exam-
ining the social roles and socialization processes present in the
prison community. Like
Wheeler, Garabedian sought to examine the complexities
associated with prisonization but
also aimed to identify role types exhibited by inmates. He found
essentially five role types:
Square John, Right Guy, Politician, Outlaw, and Ding. These
role types represent prisoners’
adaptive responses to problems endemic to the prison setting.
Square Johns are most in tune with the conventional attitudes
and values of the prison’s staff
and its society. They seek to do their time with as few problems
as possible and in accordance
with the expectations of the staff.
Right Guys are most opposed to the expectations of the staff;
they are viewed as the prisoner
most in tune with the expectations and demands of the inmate
society and ultimately the
most respected. According to Garabedian, both the Square John
and Right Guy roles subor-
dinate their individual interests to the collective interests of the
group. It is the group that

counts, not the individual.
Politicians are the keenest type of inmate and have usually
committed crimes that involved
manipulation and deceit. They tend to interact with both
inmates and staff.
Outlaws are the most feared type of inmate. They have resorted
to violence or will use it to get
what they want from others. They tend to be isolated from other
inmates and staff because of
their penchant for physical confrontations.
Finally, the Dings are those who have no other social
characterization that clearly defines
their behaviors. In many cases, according to Garabedian, they
have committed nonviolent sex
Section 4.2The Functional/Deprivation Model of Prison Social
Organization
offenses. They tend to fade into the background of the inmate
culture and are isolated from
meaningful inmate and staff contact.
These role types respond to the prison environment in
differentiated and unique ways. Like
Clemmer and Wheeler, Garabedian found that an inmate’s
degree of prisonization varies by
role type. For Dings, the early phase is the most important; for
Right Guys and Square Johns,

the middle phase; and for Outlaws, the late phase. Politicians
were not found to have a critical
phase during institutionalization. Prisoners’ differential form of
adaptation by role type not
only suggests that inmate social systems are complex but also
reinforces the idea that uni-
form treatment programs may not be the most effective for
changing the behaviors of inmates
who hold different roles.
The early research on prisons and the prisonization process
suggests not only that adapting
to the prison environment is a complex process but also that a
prison’s social structure pro-
duces behaviors and role types that vary over time.
Accordingly, it would be reasonable to ask
whether prison social systems vary by both time and location.
For example, is the prisoner
social system of a medium security institution the same as that
found in a maximum secu-
rity penitentiary—and do these systems remain constant over
time? The early evidence sug-
gested that prisoner social structures represent prisoners’
complex adaptation to their indi-
vidual environments. As such, prison social structures may be
viewed as prisoners’ unique
attempts to cope with their environment. Or they may be the
function of attitudes, beliefs,
and values that prisoners bring into the institution by virtue of
being incarcerated. These two
views seek to answer the most fundamental question about how
prisoner social structures
develop: “How and why do these social structures originate in
the prison environment?” To
provide an answer, we must explore the two major models of
inmate social system devel-

opment: the functional/deprivation and importation models. We
begin with the functional/
deprivation model.
4.2 The Functional/Deprivation Model of Prison
Social Organization
In 1958 sociologist Gresham Sykes published The Society of
Captives, which provided com-
prehensive and enlightening accounts of prison life and how
incarcerated men adapted to
it. Today this small work is considered a classic in prison
literature, since it put forth a
major conceptual model for understanding prisoner social
systems: the functional/depri-
vation model.
This model observes that prisoners interact with and adapt to
the prison setting by devel-
oping rules and regulations that enable them to cope with its
unique demands. As a result,
prison behavioral patterns are directly functional to the
environment of the prison. All pris-
oner behaviors are viewed as responses to the regimen imposed
by the institutional setting.
Sykes wanted to know how and why prisoners respond to prison
the way they do, and he
sought to identify and classify related behaviors.
To answer these questions, Sykes went to a maximum security
prison in New Jersey and
observed the adaptation patterns exhibited by prisoners. He
found three fundamental adap-
tive processes at work. First, he argued that prisoners
experience pains of imprisonment

Organization
by virtue of being placed in the institution. These pains are
unique to an inmate’s particular
prison environment, and the prisoner social system revolves
around trying to cope with these
pains individually and collectively.
Second, Sykes found that prisoners create clearly identifiable
argot roles in prison. Note
that these labels are now largely considered outdated by most
modern correctional schol-
ars and professionals However, Sykes’s intent at the time was to
describe specific identities
and expectations for the prisoners who assume them. Take, for
example, the prisoner who is
aggressive toward other inmates. Known as the “gorilla” in the
prison of the 1950s (and as
Garabedian’s “outlaw” in the 1960s), this person resorts to the
threat or use of force to get
what he or she wants from other prisoners. Like the pains of
imprisonment, these argot roles
represent functional responses to the deprivations experienced
in prison.
Finally, Sykes argued that there is a relationship between prison
stability and inmates’ social
organization. Understanding control in a prison requires an
examination of the role the
inmate social system plays in providing stability. A prison’s

stability is inexorably tied to pris-
oners’ social organization and how they adapt to the day-to-day
contingencies of prison life.
The Pains of Imprisonment
Inmates essentially experience five pains of imprisonment; each
one is a deprivation experi-
enced simply by virtue of being in prison.
Deprivation of Liberty
First and foremost, prisoners experience the deprivation of
liberty. The most visible and
deeply felt pain, this deprivation is the most obvious, since the
inmate cannot leave the prison;
and in fact, the deprivation of liberty is a prison’s central
purpose. The inmate is in the state
of “involuntary seclusion of the outlaw” (Sykes, 1958, p. 65).
He or she is not only restricted
from making decisions about the ability to move at will but,
more importantly, is rejected by
the community through being placed in prison. The inmate must
find a way to cope with the
label of prisoner (both within prison and upon being released).
Often, the prisoner “copes” by
rejecting the society that has placed him or her in prison.
Deprivation of Goods and Services
Second, prisoners are deprived of most goods and services when
incarcerated; they no longer
have access to many of the amenities they enjoyed when they
were free. In this process, the
prisoner is stigmatized as less of a social being, in society’s
eyes. In a world where material
possessions are critical to the definition of oneself, a rather
poor disposition is created and
perpetuated by being incarcerated—a prisoner is denied the

basic items that general society
uses to define success or even acceptance. In short, as Sykes
(1958) suggests, “[The prisoner]
must carry the additional burden of social definitions which
equate his material deprivation
with personal inadequacy” (p. 70).
Deprivation of Sexual Contact
Third, prison settings typically deprive an inmate of her or his
preferred sexual activi-
ties. Because of the physical limitations imposed by prison, it
may be impossible for some
Organization
prisoners to adopt their preferred sexual roles while
incarcerated. As with material posses-
sions, denying an inmate’s sexual expression restricts an
important part of his or her iden-
tity. Heterosexual prisoners who engage in same-gender sexual
behaviors while incarcerated
are reflecting functional adaptations to a setting in which their
preferred means of sexual
expression are denied. Interestingly, since the 1950s a few
states—California, Connecticut,
New York, and Washington—have instituted conjugal visits as a
way to alleviate this form of
deprivation (Goldstein, 2015).
Denial of Autonomy

Fourth, prison denies inmates their auton-
omy. Autonomy refers to one’s ability to
make daily decisions about one’s life. In
prison, however, practically all decisions
are made for the inmate; as a result, he or
she is at the mercy of the wishes of the
correctional staff. This situation of depen-
dency reduces many prisoners to a state
of childhood, in which they are unable to
make even rudimentary decisions about
their lives. In this sense the custodial regi-
men is demeaning and repulsive to many
inmates; it violates their self-image as
people who can make their own decisions.
By being denied this opportunity to make
their own decisions, prisoners are forced
to live dependent lives.
Deprivation of Security
Finally, while in prison, inmates are
deprived of security. Most prisoners do
not feel safe in an environment where
dangerous people have been placed. As
one inmate put it, “The worst thing about
prison is you have to live with other pris-
oners” (Sykes 1958, p. 77). Indeed, many
prisoners feel that the institution is not
safe and secure and that they could be vic-
timized at any time. Moreover, many
inmates experience constant conflict with
other inmates who seek to gain favors or
property and test them for weakness or
strength. This pressure strains an inmate’s
self-image, producing a deep-seated anxi-
ety. How an inmate reacts to these chal-
lenges affects his or her reputation among

other inmates.
David Goldman/Associated Press
Being denied autonomy, such as the ability to
decide when and what to eat, is one of several
pains of imprisonment. In your opinion, is it
necessary to deprive inmates of their autonomy?
Why or why not?
Nanine Hartzenbusch/Associated Press
Loss of security is another major pain of
imprisonment. This photo shows weapons
confiscated from inmates after a prison sweep.
How might this specific pain of imprisonment
influence prisoner behavior?
Organization
Taken together, these five pains of imprisonment are focal
points around which inmates’ social
interactions revolve. In response, Sykes (1958) suggests that an
inmate can either function as
a participant in a “war of all against all” (pp. 82–83) or bind
him- or herself into a position of
cooperation with other inmates to alleviate the pains of
imprisonment.
Through this lens, the prison social structure represents a
compromise between individuals
seeking to cope with the pains of imprisonment and a collective

body of inmates who negoti-
ate informal rules regarding how they address the pains of
imprisonment. It is the mixture of
these two positions that defines the nature and extent of a
prison’s social system. Addition-
ally, the prisoner social world functions as a mechanism by
which to adapt to the “rigors of
confinement.” These rigors “can at least be mitigated by the
patterns of social interaction
established among the inmates themselves” (Sykes, 1958, p.
82).
Social Roles in Prisons
Surprisingly, there has been scant research on inmate social
groups over the past several
decades. Most prison research has focused on negative actions
without conscious regard for
how social groups function or how they affect prisoners and
those whose job it is to keep
them in check.
One study (Chong, 2013), however, investigated social groups
in California prisons with the
aim of understanding how they function. The most striking
finding was that racial segregation
Applying Criminal Justice: Prison Gangs and Drugs
Research has documented the existence and prevalence of prison
gangs. In most prisons,
gangs are a part of the social system and have proved to be very
difficult to control, espe-
cially because such gangs have many members spread across
different institutions. Not only
do prison gangs exist in the big states of California, Texas,
Florida, and Illinois, they also pose

a problem for correctional systems at all levels of government
(federal, state, and local).
A 2010 study by Winterdyk and Ruddell of prisons systems with
nearly 2 million U.S.
inmates revealed that not only had prison gangs increased in
number, they had also become
more “disruptive and sophisticated” (p. 731) over the previous 5
years. The study indicated
that there were no obvious ways to address the problems these
gangs cause. One complaint
lodged in this study was that a lack of rehabilitation
opportunities for inmates was “one
shortcoming in the range of gang management strategies in most
jurisdictions” (Winterdyk
& Ruddell, 2010, p. 730).
Among the more serious issues associated with prison gangs is
their distribution of illegal
drugs. As discussed earlier, the deprivation of goods and
services is a significant adjustment
for prisoners; when the inmate social system serves to distribute
items to prisoners, it pro-
vides a way to ameliorate the harsh conditions of confinement.
How do drugs affect prison-
ers’ attitudes toward their surroundings? Is there a way to offer
prisoners an alternative
to prison gangs and illegal drugs that is more prosocial? Or are
prison gangs too powerful,
especially in their ability to distribute illegal drugs? How might
correctional officials combat
prison gangs and drug distribution?

Learn Correctional Admin Perspectives

Learn Correctional Admin Perspectives

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Learn Correctional Admin Perspectives

Similar to Learn Correctional Admin Perspectives (14)

More from croysierkathey

More from croysierkathey (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Learn Correctional Admin Perspectives