U.S. Department of Justice 

National Institute of Corrections 
U.S. Department of Justice 

National Institute of Corrections 

320 First Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20534 

Morris L. Thigpen 

Director 

Thomas J. Beauclair 

Deputy Director 

Virginia A. Hutchinson 

Chief, Jails Division
 

Project Manager
 

National Institute of Corrections 

www.nicic.gov 
David Bogard 

Virginia A. Hutchinson 

Vicci Persons 

February 2010 

NIC Accession Number 024192 
This document was prepared under cooperative agreement award number 03J28GIZ0 and technical assistance award number 

08–J1071 from the National Institute of Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view or opinions stated in this document 

are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Contents 

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
 

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
 

Chapter 1: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
 

The Principles Reflected in Design and Operations .............................1
 

The Principles in the Administrator’s Role ....................................2
 

Conclusion ............................................................2
 

Chapter 2: The Jail Administrator’s Leadership Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
 

The Jail Administrator’s Leadership Role Inside the Jail ..........................3
 

The Jail Administrator’s Leadership Role Outside the Jail .........................4
 

The Jail Administrator and the Agency’s Chief Executive Officer ...................6
 

Conclusion ............................................................7
 

Chapter 3: Recruiting, Hiring, and Promoting Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
 

Identifying the Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities Required for Each Position ...........9
 

Developing Recruiting Tools for Direct Supervision Jails.........................13
 

Screening and Hiring for Direct Supervision Jails ..............................14
 

Promoting Staff in Direct Supervision Jails ...................................15
 

Conclusion ...........................................................16
 

Chapter 4: Training Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
 

Staff Positions and Related Training Topics ..................................17
 

Types of Training ......................................................20
 

Conclusion ...........................................................21
 

Chapter 5: Supervising Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
 

Set, Convey, and Reinforce Clear Expectations ...............................23
 

Give Staff the Resources and Tools To Meet Expectations .......................23
 

Monitor Staff Performance ...............................................24
 

iii
Hold Staff Accountable ..................................................25
 

Conclusion ...........................................................25
 

Chapter 6: Determining the Number of Inmates One Officer 


Can Supervise Effectively . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
 

Chapter 7: Rotating Housing Unit Staff Assignments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
 

Control of the Unit .....................................................31
 

Familiarity With Inmate Behavior Patterns and Needs ..........................31
 

Investment in Managing the Housing Unit ...................................31
 

Ability To Set and Achieve Goals for Housing Unit Management ..................32
 

Consistency of Operations ...............................................32
 

The Supervisor’s Ability To Assess Officer Performance.........................32
 

Conclusion ...........................................................32
 

Chapter 8: Ensuring That Officers Interact With Inmates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
 

Design Issues .........................................................33
 

Management Issues ....................................................35
 

Conclusion ...........................................................36
 

Chapter 9: Addressing the Isolation of the Housing Unit Officer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
 

Staff Development of Personal Relationships With Inmates ......................37
 

Staff Overidentification With Inmates ......................................38
 

The Officer as Part of the All-Staff Team ....................................38
 

The Officer as Part of the Shift Team .......................................38
 

The Officer as Part of the Housing Unit Team ................................39
 

Conclusion ...........................................................39
 

Chapter 10: Decisionmaking Using the Principles of Direct Supervision . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
 

Should I Establish a Jail-Based Emergency Response Team? .....................42
 

Should I Use Closed-Circuit Television Monitors in the Housing Units?..............44
 

Should Staff Be Equipped With Pepper Spray and Conductive Electrical Devices? .....44
 

Should the Jail Use Open Booking?.........................................45
 

Can I Review Incidents Using the Principles? .................................46
 

Conclusion ...........................................................49
 

iv
Chapter 11: Assessing Direct Supervision Operations and Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
 

Assessing Operations ...................................................51
 

Assessing Outcomes....................................................52
 

Conclusion ...........................................................53
 

Appendix A: Annotated Principles of Direct Supervision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
 

Appendix B: Strategies for Managing a Direct Supervision Housing Unit . . . . . . . . . . . 63
 

Exhibits 

Exhibit 1–1. Direct Supervision Principles ....................................1
 

Exhibit 3–1. Role of the Firstline Supervisor: Traditional Jails 


versus Direct Supervision Jails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
 

Exhibit 3–2. Sample Dimension Benchmarks and Questions .....................16
 

Exhibit 10–1. Using Direct Supervision Principles to Guide Decisionmaking .........42
 

Exhibit 10–2. Emergency Response Teams ..................................43
 

Exhibit 10–3. Closed-Circuit Television .....................................45
 

Exhibit 10–4. Pepper Spray and Conductive Electrical Devices ...................46
 

Exhibit 10–5. Control and Operations ......................................47
 

v

Foreword 

Since the National Institute of Corrections first introduced the direct supervision principles to jails in the early 1980s, there has been much focus on the role of the detention officer and, to a somewhat lesser degree, the role of the firstline supervisor. This focus 

was warranted because their roles in a direct supervision jail changed significantly from their 

roles in a traditional jail. Far less attention has been given to the role of the jail administrator, whose leadership, demonstrated commitment, and vigilant oversight are critical not only 

to implementing direct supervision, but also—and probably more challenging—to sustaining 

it over time. This guide brings much-needed attention to the role of the administrator and 

describes the most fundamental areas in which the administrator’s leadership, guidance, 

decisions, and actions are essential to the success of direct supervision. 

Morris L . Thigpen 

Director

National Institute of Corrections 

vii

Acknowledgments 

The authors would like to acknowledge those who contributed to the development of 

this document. First, many thanks go to the direct supervision jail administrators who 

responded to a survey conducted early in the project. Second, the authors benefited 

greatly from the contributions of Dennis Liebert, who served as a project consultant on the 

basis of his wealth of expertise on and experience with direct supervision jails. Third, Curtiss 

Pulitzer’s extensive knowledge in jail planning and design directly informed all discussion of 

physical plant issues. Fourth, Kristin Keller, formerly of the National Institute of Corrections 

(NIC) Jails Division, reviewed many drafts of this document and suggested improvements 

based on her experience in a direct supervision jail and on her NIC work with direct supervision jails. Finally, Stacy Sinner and Mike Sinner, administrators of direct supervision facilities in Olmsted County, MN, reviewed the final draft of the document and offered valuable 

insights into needed revisions. 

The development of this document was also directly informed by the experience of the 

authors: David Bogard as a direct supervision jail administrator, Virginia A. Hutchinson as 

chief of the NIC Jails Division and an accreditation and training manager for a direct supervision jail, and Vicci Persons as a manager in a direct supervision jail and former staff member 

of the NIC Jails Division. 

ix

 

CHAPTER 1: Introduction 1

Note: See appendix A for a more indepth description 

of the direct supervision principles. 

This guide is for direct supervision jail 

administrators. A direct supervision 

jail is designed and operates based on 

the eight direct supervision principles listed 

in exhibit 1–1. A direct supervision jail implements these eight principles through both the 

facility’s design and its operations, as illustrated in the examples below. 

The Principles Reflected in Design 

and Operations 

Design 

General population housing units feature an 

officer’s station or desk inside the dayroom so 

officers can interact with and manage inmates 

without physical barriers between them. The 

housing units contain fixtures and furnishings 

that convey an expectation of positive behavior and create a “normalized,” though secure, 

environment. 

General population inmates, as defined in 

this guide, include those whom officers can 

manage with little or no risk to staff or other 

inmates. They follow rules and get along with 

fellow inmates. Usually, they represent 90 to 

95 percent of the inmate population. The general population excludes inmates whom the jail 

must segregate because they pose a high security risk or who have special needs that cannot 

be met in general population units. 

CHAPTER 1 

Introduction 

Exhibit 1–1 

Direct Supervision Principles 

1. Effective control. 

2. Effective supervision. 

3. Competent staff. 

4. Saftey of staff and inmates. 

5. Manageable and cost-effective operations. 

6. Effective communication. 

7. Classification and orientation. 

8. Justice and fairness. 

Note that in smaller jails—generally, those with 

fewer than 100 beds—there may be certain 

general population subgroups, such as women, 

who are housed in units of 8, 10, or 12 

inmates. In this case, stationing an officer continuously in a dayroom is unlikely, because this 

could impose a fiscal burden that many smaller 

jurisdictions are unable to bear. Instead, the 

officer provides supervision by moving among 

these smaller units. However, if the jail houses 

most of its general population inmates in a 

direct supervision unit managed by a single 

officer, that jail would be considered a direct 

supervision jail. 
Operations 

The housing unit officer’s primary role is to 

manage inmate behavior, thus ensuring that 

the unit is safe, secure, and orderly. The officer 

interacts with inmates continuously to convey 

and reinforce expectations for positive behavior, provide incentives for positive behavior, 

and hold individual inmates accountable for 

negative behavior. The officer is familiar with 

and addresses the behaviors and needs of 

individual inmates, is the primary source of 

information for inmates, and is a role model 

for positive behavior. The officer is the authority in the housing unit and does not share that 

authority with inmates. 

Although the housing unit officer is the primary 

manager of inmate behavior, jail operations 

and the roles of other staff also align with the 

goal of managing inmates to achieve positive 

behavior. For example, a direct supervision 

jail’s hiring criteria, staff training, performance 

appraisal system, approach to inmate classification, housing plan, and inmate programs and 

services are designed to support the inmate 

management strategy. 

The Principles in the 

Administrator’s Role 

All staff in a direct supervision jail have specific 

roles in ensuring that they fully and correctly 

implement direct supervision. There has been 

much discussion of the role of line staff and 

firstline supervisors, but experts have published little information about the administrator’s role in the direct supervision jail. This 

lack of information should not be perceived 

as an indication that the administrator’s role 

is minor. In fact, the administrator has the 

most critical role in implementing the direct 

supervision principles, fully integrating them 

into operations, and sustaining them over time. 

It is only through the administrator’s leadership that staff can successfully apply the direct 

supervision principles. This guide explores the 

administrator’s role in implementing and sustaining direct supervision in the following key 

areas: 

•	Providing	leadership.

•	Recruiting,	hiring,	and	promoting	staff.

•	Training	staff.

•	Supervising	staff.

•	Determining	the	number	of	inmates	one	

officer can supervise effectively. 

•	Rotating	housing	unit	staff	assignments.

•	Ensuring	that	officers	interact	with	inmates.

•	Addressing	the	isolation	of	the	housing	unit	

officer. 

•	Making	decisions	using	the	direct	supervision	

principles. 

•	Assessing	direct	supervision	operations.

By employing the suggestions in this guide, an 

administrator can contribute greatly to ensuring that officers integrate the direct supervision 

principles fully into all aspects of jail operations 

and use them as the basis for management 

and operational decisions. 

Conclusion 

Note that this guide, while focusing on the 

administrator’s role in a direct supervision jail, 

is not a primer on direct supervision or jail 

administration in general. The authors assume 

that the reader is familiar with the direct supervision principles and the basics of jail administration. The intent of this guide is to highlight 

issues pertinent to direct supervision in various 

areas of jail administration. 

2 Direct Supervision Jails: The Role of the Administrator
 

CHAPTER 2 

The Jail Administrator’s 


The foundation of the jail administrator’s 

leadership role in direct supervision is 

the administrator’s commitment, based 

on a thorough understanding of the direct 

supervision principles and their implications 

for operations and decisionmaking. The jail 

administrator should clearly and continually 

demonstrate this commitment both inside the 

jail, to staff and inmates, and outside the jail, 

Leadership Role 

required to monitor the implementation of the 

principles, this is not something that an administrator	should	simply	delegate.	Direct	supervision cannot be implemented and maintained 

without the administrator’s constant evaluation, attention, and leadership. 

Successful	leaders	must	know	where	they	

want to lead their staff (direct supervision) and 

to local officials and community members. 

The administrator demonstrates commitment 

through what he or she says and does and the 

decisions that he or she makes. The administrator must be a highly visible leader and role 

model in support of direct supervision. 

The Jail Administrator’s Leadership 

Role Inside the Jail 

The administrator must make being in the jail, 

observing operations, speaking with staff and 

inmates, and generally keeping a finger on the 

pulse of the jail a priority. The administrator 

should formally and informally support staff 

efforts that conform to the direct supervision 

principles.	Staff	usually	respond	positively	to	

the administrator’s regular presence in the jail 

and appreciate reinforcement for their work. 

The jail administrator also should be alert to 

indicators that staff are not implementing the 

principles effectively, then seek out the reasons 

for this and plan corrective action. Although 

all managers and supervisors also should be 

how to get the staff’s support. Not visibly and 

consistently demonstrating a commitment to 

direct supervision prevents the full and successful implementation of the direct supervision	principles.	Staff	support	will	be	minimal	

to	nonexistent.	Many	staff	are	likely	to	question the effectiveness of direct supervision, 

especially if their work experience has been in 

a more traditional jail or if their exposure to 

jails primarily has come from a misrepresentation of corrections in the media. As one direct 

supervision jail administrator put it:1 

Achieving staff buy-in is just more difficult 

in a direct supervision jail. In some cases, 

it is because staff are coming from an old 

linear or podular remote facility and that is 

what they know and are comfortable with. In 

other cases, it is because direct supervision is 

just counterintuitive to many folks’ notion of 

what jail is or should be like. And then there 

is the “fear factor,” whereby staff are anxious 

about being locked up with 50 or 60 inmates 

1 Some quotes in the document come from responses to surveys sent to direct supervision jail administrators. To protect the 

participants’ confidentiality, their names have been omitted. 

CHAPTER 2: The Jail Administrator’s Leadership Role 3
 

 

without the safety of bulletproof glass separating them from the inmates. 

Staff	need	to	see	that	the	jail	administrator	

thinks about jail operations within the context 

of direct supervision. For example, the jail 

administrator must keep direct supervision in 

mind when making decisions on policies and 

operational procedures (e.g., How might the 

decision support or undermine direct supervision?). Also, decisions made in response to 

incidents must be made in the context of the 

direct supervision principles. 

The jail administrator also demonstrates commitment to direct supervision by ensuring that: 

•	Staff	appraisal	and	reward	systems	support	

the implementation of the principles. 

•	Staff	receive	adequate	resources	for	training,	

allowing them to fully and successfully implement the principles in all aspects of their 

work. 

•	The	system	of	staff	supervision	supports	and	

holds staff accountable for implementing the 

direct supervision principles. 

•	The	recruiting,	hiring,	and	screening	processes	

are structured to identify applicants who will 

thrive in a direct supervision environment. 

Strong	leadership	is	also	critical	when	a	jurisdiction decides to build a direct supervision 

jail.	Moving	staff	from	a	traditional	jail	setting	

to direct supervision often creates fear and 

anxiety for staff at all levels and in all functions.	During	this	transition,	it	is	particularly	

important for the jail administrator to be accessible to staff, hear their concerns, keep them 

updated on the transition, talk with them about 

direct supervision—explaining how and why it 

works—and assure them that they will receive 

the tools and training that will allow them to 

succeed in a direct supervision setting. 

Although the jail administrator is the primary 

leader in this transition, there should be staff 

advocates for direct supervision available who 

can support the administrator’s leadership. 

4 Direct Supervision Jails: The Role of the Administrator

The jail administrator can do this by involving representatives from all levels of staff and 

all jail functions in the planning process. The 

jail administrator should also be aware of 

informal staff leaders, since their influence is 

often significant. The administrator’s efforts 

should target getting staff “on board,” including 

involving them in transition planning and having them observe operations and talk with staff 

and inmates about successfully operating direct 

supervision jails. Care must be taken in selecting jails to be used as introductions to direct 

supervision to ensure that they fully embrace 

and demonstrate the concepts the administrator desires. 

The Jail Administrator’s Leadership 

Role Outside the Jail 

Not only should the administrator be a visible presence in the jail, but the administrator should also actively educate and seek the 

support of local officials and the community. 

Every	jail	administrator	should	help	educate	

local officials and community members about 

the jail, because the public’s misconceptions of 

the role, operations, complexity, and resource 

needs of the jail usually translate into inadequate support for jail operations. The direct 

supervision jail administrator, however, has an 

additional	challenge.	Direct	supervision	jails	

may be perceived by officials and the community as “soft on inmates” or providing a “luxurious” environment for inmates. 

To address this challenge, the administrator 

needs to inform and educate local officials and 

the community about: 

•	The	role	of	the	jail	in	the	local	criminal	

justice system. 

•	The	nature	and	complexity	of	jail	operations.

•	The	role	of	direct	supervision	in	establishing	

control of the jail, actively managing inmate 

behavior, and achieving safety and security 

for inmates, staff, and the public. 

•	The	improvement	in	the	work	environment	

for staff. 
Only through such educational efforts will local 

officials and the community have a basis for 

supporting the jail generally and direct supervision specifically. The jail administrator may 

want to: 

•	Speak	at	schools,	community	service	agencies, and meetings of religious congregations 

and civic organizations. 

•	Invite	members	of	the	jail’s	funding	authority	

to tour the jail or hold periodic meetings at 

the jail. 

•	Organize	open	houses	for	families	of	staff	to	

tour the jail, so they can gain a better understanding of direct supervision and relay that 

to friends and neighbors. 

•	Develop	an	informational	flier	about	the	jail	

and the benefits of direct supervision, including improvements in inmate behavior, safety 

and security, staff work environment, and 

potential or actual cost savings. 

The benefits of educating officials and the 

public sometimes surprise jail practitioners. 

The sheriff of one jail administrator asked him 

to address a community group known as the 

Committee of 100—the 100 most influential 

citizens in the community—about the new 

direct supervision jail under construction in his 

county. He said: 

So, here I am in front of a dinner group that 

numerically far exceeded its name, anxious about the response to my speech about 

“Direct Supervision: Inmate Accountability, 

Responsibility and Self-Sufficiency.” I emphasized that there was nothing particularly soft 

about the management of the direct supervision jail, and that it actually served as a tool 

to enhance control and individual accountability. I explained that television and nicer 

surroundings were used as a control tool, and 

when inmates messed up, they were sent to 

other areas of the facility that were far more 

Spartan. They ate it up! Much to my surprise, 

these elected officials and otherwise influential citizens were fascinated by what we were 

doing, expressed no reservations whatsoever 

during the question and answer period, and 


gave me perhaps the best reaction I’ve ever 


received in the realm of public speaking. 


This support remained with us throughout 


the construction process and continues to 


this day.
 

Another jail administrator, leading a tour 

through a newly opened direct supervision jail, 

recalled: 

We invited the public, local officials, and the 


press to our open house for the new direct 


supervision jail. I was assigned to escort the 


press corps and found myself being somewhat apologetic about the relatively nice features such as extensive natural light, bright 


colors, carpeting, wood doors, and the like. 


After approximately a half-hour of my justifications and rationalizations, the reporter 


from the main newspaper confronted me. 


Her response to my justifications was that 


she saw nothing particularly nice about the 


place. She was freaked out by the omnipresent cameras, by the fact that we couldn’t pass 


through a door without pressing an intercom 


and having an officer remotely unlock the 


door, by the heavy steel doors that I pulled 


shut as we moved through them, and essentially by all of the security features that I 


took for granted. She strongly suggested 


that I had no need to apologize for the 


facility being soft!
 

It is important for the jail administrator to 

educate and obtain the ongoing support of 

the community and local officials when the 

direct supervision jail is operational. It is also 

essential to obtain this support while planning 

for the jail. Just as staff involvement in the 

planning process is key to getting staff support, community involvement increases the 

likelihood of public support for the new direct 

supervision jail. 

Some	communities	create	citizen	advisory	

boards to actively involve the public throughout 

the jail planning and design processes. Advisory 

CHAPTER 2: The Jail Administrator’s Leadership Role 5
board members tour operating direct supervision jails in other jurisdictions and meet with 

staff, inmates, and public officials in those communities.	During	these	tours,	board	members	

are persuaded that direct supervision makes 

sense, and, in many cases, they return to their 

communities as advocates of the concept. 

One community planning a new regional direct 

supervision jail organized such a citizen advisory board at the outset. Although consultants 

committed to direct supervision advised this 

group, the citizens themselves, as a result of 

their tours, made the decision to go with direct 

supervision. They were instrumental in the success of the bond referendum to construct the 

new jail. The public viewed these individuals as 

fellow taxpayers and not just as a collection of 

“experts.”	During	design	meetings,	it	was	the	

citizens who often argued for strict adherence 

to design features that support the direct supervision principles. 

Another method administrators use frequently 

to develop support for the direct supervision jail is having the public spend a night in 

jail.	Many	jails	have	sponsored	an	event	that	

allowed community members and local officials to spend a night in a new direct supervision facility just before the actual opening. 

The event allays any notion that the jail is too 

lenient. In fact, attendees usually react viscerally to such features as narrow steel bunks, the 

lack of privacy when using toilets, and the faceless voices emanating from the public address 

system and door intercoms. 

The support of local officials and the community is essential to an adequately funded and 

well-operated jail. Getting this support requires 

leadership and ongoing effort from the jail 

administrator. Because direct supervision is a 

new concept for many communities and runs 

counter to traditional notions of what a jail 

should be, the jail administrator may have to 

be especially assertive and deliberate in his or 

her efforts to educate local officials and community members. Where jail administrators 

have taken the initiative to do this, they have 

found the benefits well worth the effort. 

6 Direct Supervision Jails: The Role of the Administrator 

The Jail Administrator and the 

Agency’s Chief Executive Officer 

One of the most important local officials who 

needs to be educated about direct supervision	is	the	chief	executive	officer	(CEO)	of	the	

agency that oversees the jail. Jail administrators	should	ensure	the	CEO	is	well	educated	

about direct supervision, regardless of whether 

the jail is a function of the county sheriff, the 

local police, or tribal, county, or city government. The full understanding and support 

of	the	CEO	is	critical	to	implementing	and	

maintaining	direct	supervision.	If	the	CEO	is	

an	elected	official,	such	as	a	sheriff,	the	CEO	

will have political considerations about the jail. 

Often, an elected official will come under fire 

if the citizens perceive the jail as “too soft.” In 

these cases, the official must be prepared to 

respond. When an elected official presents a 

budget request, the official must be versed in 

jail operations generally and direct supervision 

specifically to justify budget requests for the jail 

effectively. 

One challenge many direct supervision jail 

administrators	face	is	a	change	in	the	CEO,	

often	because	of	an	election.	If	the	new	CEO	

is a sheriff, for example, the sheriff may have 

campaigned with a promise to “get tough on 

criminals” and may see the direct supervision 

jail as potentially undermining the political 

stance used to win the election. The administrator	should	quickly	educate	the	new	CEO	

about	the	jail	after	the	CEO	takes	office.	Efforts	

to	educate	the	CEO,	whether	or	not	the	CEO	is	

newly elected, may include the following: 

•	Providing	the	CEO	with	resource	materials	on	

direct supervision. 

•	Identifying	opportunities	for	the	CEO	to	attend	

training or symposia on direct supervision. 

•	Explaining	that	direct	supervision,	fully	and	

properly implemented, is highly effective in 

controlling and managing inmate behavior, 

and thereby enhances safety and security. 

•	Arranging	for	the	CEO	to	meet	other	sheriffs	

who have embraced direct supervision, 
especially those who have had experience 

with more traditional jails and can speak to 

the difference direct supervision makes. 

•	Sharing	performance	measures	with	the	CEO.	

These may include measures of levels of vandalism, escape, suicide, and assaults. If the 

measures show operational efficiencies and 

effectiveness,	the	CEO	might	be	reluctant	to	

change the jail’s operating philosophy. 

•	Encouraging	the	CEO	to	speak	with	jail	staff	

about their experience with direct supervision. 

•	Explaining	clearly	the	full	implications—

especially those related to safety and security— 

of	the	CEO’s	proposed	policy	changes	that	

might undermine direct supervision. 

Through efforts such as these, the jail administrator	is	more	likely	to	get	the	CEO’s	advocacy	

and support for direct supervision. 

Conclusion 

The jail administrator has a pivotal leadership 

role in implementing and maintaining direct 

supervision. The administrator must clearly 

demonstrate commitment to direct supervision 

and reflect it in all of his or her actions and 

decisions, with direct supervision principles 

providing the conceptual framework for these 

actions and decisions. 

CHAPTER 2: The Jail Administrator’s Leadership Role 7

 

 

 

CHAPTER 3 

Recruiting, Hiring, and
 

Recruiting, hiring, and promoting staff 

are some of the most important responsibilities the jail administrator has in 

managing the direct supervision jail. The 

administrator must develop performance standards that support direct supervision for each 

category of staff; identify related knowledge, 

skills,	and	abilities	(KSAs);	and	recruit,	hire,	or	

promote	staff	who	have	the	KSAs	to	meet	perPromoting Staff 

must an officer possess to be effective in a 

direct	supervision	jail?	Most	often,	direct	supervision jail administrators say officers must 

have “good people skills” and be skilled in 

interpersonal communication. While it is true, 

this description is too general to be the basis 

for sound recruiting and hiring decisions. There 

is, however, work to which direct supervision 

jail administrators can refer in identifying the 

formance standards. 

Identifying the Knowledge, 

Skills, and Abilities Required 

for Each Position 

In the direct supervision jail, staff—especially 

those who work directly with inmates—must 

have knowledge, skills, and abilities that support the implementation of the direct supervision principles. Administrators must identify 

and	clearly	document	these	KSAs	as	the	basis	

for all recruiting, hiring, and promotion efforts. 

This section looks at two job positions: detention	officer	and	firstline	supervisor.	The	KSAs	

listed in this section are those that are critical 

to direct supervision, but the list is not exhaustive.	This	section	does	not	list	the	general	KSAs	

essential to a given position in any type of jail. 

KSAs for the Detention Officer 

Detention	officers	make	up	the	largest	percentage of jail staff. What critical characteristics 

specific	KSAs	required	to	be	an	effective	detention officer. 

In 1986, researchers collected data from four 

direct supervision jails and used it to analyze 

staff job performance.1 Using a combination 

of interviews and written questionnaires, the 

researchers surveyed officers with more than a 

year of experience in direct supervision jails, officers whom supervisors identified as particularly 

effective in the performance of their jobs, and 

firstline supervisors. This approach allowed them 

to identify those dimensions most indicative of 

effective officer performance in a direct supervision jail. The seven dimensions are listed below. 

1.	 Managing the living unit to ensure a safe 

and humane environment: The extent to 

which an officer uses observation and communication to maximize compliant inmate 

behavior and minimize the occurrence of 

disruptive inmate behavior in the living unit, 

communicates rules and expectations to 

1 Ben A. Menke, Linda L. Zupan, Nicholas P. Lovrich, and Don Manning, Model Personnel Selection Process for Podular Direct 

Supervision New Generation Jails. (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections, 1986). 

CHAPTER 3: Recruiting, Hiring, and Promoting Staff 9
 

 

inmates clearly, and responds immediately 

to all incidents of inmate misbehavior. 

2.	 Handling inmate discipline: The extent to 

which an officer responds fairly and effectively when disciplining inmates for disruptive behavior or rule violations. 

3.	 Responding to inmate requests: The extent 

to which an officer effectively responds to 

inmate requests and demands in a fair and 

balanced fashion and avoids inmate manipulation. 

4.	 Building positive rapport and personal 

credibility with inmates: The extent to 

which an officer creates an environment 

of mutual respect by demonstrating consistency and a courteous manner. 

5.	 Supervising in a clear, well-organized, 

and attention-getting manner: The extent 

to which an officer effectively organizes, 

supervises, and motivates inmates in their 

activities. 

6.	 Resolving inmate problems and conflicts: 

The extent to which an officer provides guidance for solving inmate problems, recognizes the steps in resolving inmate conflicts, 

and deals with inmates in confrontational 

situations. 

7.	 Maintaining effective administration and 

staff relations: The extent to which an officer knows facility rules and procedures and 

applies them consistently, coordinates activities with coworkers, supports the authority 

of staff members, and communicates with 

supervisors and other administrators. 

In 1996, NIC developed a curriculum for housing unit officers on how to manage a direct 

supervision housing unit.2	Dr.	Thomas	Reid	

and Vic Jacobsen authored that curriculum and 

identified 22 strategies a direct supervision 

housing officer must implement to manage a 

unit effectively. These strategies (paraphrased 

below) are the substance of indepth group and 

individual interviews with experienced direct 

supervision housing unit officers and their 

supervisors. They give jail administrators the 

information they need to understand the role 

of the direct supervision housing unit officer. 

Appendix B includes the original direct supervision housing unit strategies used in direct 

supervision officer training. 

1.	 Think like a good supervisor. In the direct 

supervision jail, the housing unit officer 

supervises inmates and, therefore, must 

think in terms of providing leadership, making decisions, solving problems, and managing behavior in the unit. 

2.	 Expect the best: The self-fulfilling prophecy. 

Staff	expectations	of	positive	inmate	behavior are key to direct supervision. All staff 

should convey positive expectations of 

inmate behavior, but because inmates interact most extensively with the housing unit 

officer, it is critical that the officer expect 

the best of the inmates. Officers who convey 

contempt for inmates or whose words or 

actions convey an expectation of negative 

behavior will not successfully manage 

inmate behavior. 

3.	 Set clear expectations with inmates. The 

officer must clearly set, explain, and continually reinforce expectations for inmate 

behavior. 

4.	 Use positive reinforcement techniques. 

The officer must know how to use positive 

reinforcement to encourage appropriate 

inmate behavior. This is often more effective 

in managing behavior than are criticism and 

threats of discipline. 

5.	 Hold inmates accountable for their behavior. 

The officer must be willing and able to hold 

individual inmates accountable for meeting behavioral expectations. The officer 

must be continually aware of the behavior 

of individual inmates in the unit, be able to 

identify inappropriate behavior, and choose 

the method most effective in addressing that 

behavior. 

6.	 Treat inmates with respect and consideration: The Golden Rule. The officer should 

treat inmates with the same respect and 

2 Thomas Reid and Vic Jacobsen, How to Run a Direct Supervision Housing Unit: A Training Curriculum (Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections, 2005). 

10 Direct Supervision Jails: The Role of the Administrator 
 

 

 

consideration that the officer would like to 

receive from others. Inmates usually respond 

with respect and consideration toward officers who show respect and are considerate. 

7.	 Be just and fair. Historically, experts identify inmates’ perception of unfair treatment as 

a major factor in institutional disturbances. 

The housing unit officer should be consistent in his treatment of inmates, should not 

have or appear to have favorites, and should 

respond to requests and grievances promptly and according to policy. 

8.	 Rely on the least restrictive supervisory 

techniques necessary. In making requests 

of inmates or addressing behavioral issues, 

the officer should use the least confrontational technique that is appropriate given all 

the circumstances to achieve the intended 

objective. In most cases, the officer will be 

successful using less restrictive techniques, 

but if not, an array of options is available if 

the officer must escalate the use of force. 

9.	 Manage the unit by walking and talking. In 

a direct supervision housing unit, inmates 

should see conversation with the officer as 

desirable. The officer must create an environment in which it is the norm for inmates 

to converse with the officer. The officer 

must foster positive formal and informal 

communication with inmates, be easily 

accessible to inmates, and interact with 

inmates continually. 

10. Identify and address inmate concerns. The 

officer must take time to deal with inmate 

concerns, make thoughtful judgments and 

decisions, or refer them to an appropriate 

resource. 

11. Be a source of information and services. 

The housing unit officer is a primary source 

of information and services for inmates. 

Inmates are more likely to view officers who 

are effective in this role as valuable, dependable, and worthy of respect. 

12. Encourage inmates to take responsibility 

for themselves. Although the officer is their 

primary source of information and services, 

inmates should not depend on the officer to 

think through every decision for them. The 


officer should encourage inmates to make 


thoughtful choices (e.g., return to their cells 


rather than argue with another inmate), take 


responsibility for the choices they make, 


and do certain things for themselves (e.g., 


the officer can make forms available in a 


forms rack or store toilet paper and soap in 


an area accessible to the inmates so they do 


not have to ask for them).
 

13. Plan and supervise unit activities. In most 

jails, program staff provide structured activities for inmates outside the housing unit. 

The housing unit officer, though, should also 

plan, implement, and supervise in-unit activities to keep inmates productively occupied. 

Such	activities	may	include	board	game	or	

card game tournaments, art projects, or 

other activities that can reasonably take 

place within the housing unit. 

14. Develop and measure personal goals for 

the unit. Housing unit officers should set 

goals for what they want to accomplish over 

time in the unit and develop criteria to measure achievement of those goals. Goals may 

relate to, for example, unit cleanliness, the 

level of inmate involvement in programs, 

and improvements in overall inmate behavior. The team of officers assigned to the unit 

for a given period should jointly develop 

their goals and the strategies to meet them. 

15. Apply policies and procedures appropriately to achieve unit objectives. The housing officer must understand the jail’s policies 

and procedures thoroughly and know their 

application in housing unit management. 

The officer should know when to exercise 

discretion within the context of policy and 

should apply all policies and procedures 

thoughtfully and with understanding of their 

intent. 

16. Keep the supervisor and coworkers 

informed. Communication among staff is 

key to managing inmates and maintaining 

the jail’s safety and security. The jail should 

have a system of communication among 

officers assigned to a unit, among officers 

on a shift, between officers and supervisors, 

CHAPTER 3: Recruiting, Hiring, and Promoting Staff 11
and among staff generally about inmate 

management issues. The housing unit officer 

must understand the importance of frequent 

and complete communication and should 

be able to convey information clearly, both 

orally and in writing. 

17. Take the initiative: Just do it. In most 

traditional jails, officers are discouraged 

from being creative or using much discretion, and they usually rely on supervisors to 

make many decisions related to supervising 

inmates. In a direct supervision jail, though, 

the housing unit officer is a supervisor. The 

officer must be able to take initiative and 

use discretion within existing policies and 

procedures to provide effective leadership 

in the unit, solve problems, make decisions, 

and manage inmate behavior. 

18. Take calculated risks. The housing unit officer, as a supervisor, must be able to analyze 

situations, consider options in addressing 

those situations, and pursue what appears to 

be the best option. The officer must consider 

options within the context of policy and 

procedure without compromising safety and 

security. However, if the option the officer 

chooses is not the most effective, the officer 

must then reanalyze the circumstances and 

take a calculated risk on another option. 

19. Be creative. Within the guidelines of policy 

and procedure, the officer should be creative 

and willing to try new approaches to manage the housing unit. 

20. Be flexible. Flexibility is essential to managing people effectively. The housing unit 

officer must be just and fair with all inmates, 

but must also be flexible enough to adapt to 

changing conditions in the housing unit. 

21. Be a role model for the unit. In a direct 

supervision housing unit, the officer sets the 

example for expected behavior. The officer 

needs not only to set high standards but also 

to model those standards in actions, language, and demeanor. 

22. Be yourself. This strategy requires the officer to have self-confidence. Inmates know 

when an officer is putting up a façade and 

12 Direct Supervision Jails: The Role of the Administrator 

may view that officer as weak and not worthy of respect. 

Using the 7 dimensions and the 22 strategies, 

the jail administrator can identify the essential 

KSAs	required	of	a	housing	officer	in	a	direct	

supervision jail. For example, the jail administrator may conclude that an effective housing 

unit officer must: 

•	Understand	the	principles	of	direct	supervision and their implications for jail operations. 

•	Be	flexible	and	creative.

•	Be	skilled	in	communication,	planning,	

and organization. 

•	Know	how	to	use	positive	motivation	

techniques. 

•	Take	initiative.

•	Interpret	and	apply	written	guidelines	and	

use discretion to make decisions within those 

guidelines. 

•	Hold	inmates	accountable	for	their	actions.

•	Have	self-confidence.

•	Serve	as	an	effective	role	model	for	inmates.

•	Analyze	situations	and	identify	options	for	

addressing them. 

•	Be	a	thoughtful	problem-solver.

•	Enjoy	supervising	people	and	managing	

behavior. 

KSAs for the Firstline Supervisor 

The role of the firstline supervisor in a direct 

supervision jail is critical to effective jail operations, but many times administrators give 

insufficient attention to this position—to the 

detriment of direct supervision operations. The 

supervisor has significant influence on the line 

detention staff and needs to fully understand 

the direct supervision principles, the role of the 

detention officer, and the supervisor’s own role 

in supporting, supervising, and coaching detention officers. Unfortunately, many direct supervision jails have begun operation with firstline 

supervisors who do not understand the significant difference between their role in a direct 
 

 

supervision jail and their role in a traditional jail. 

One jail administrator summarized his position 

as follows: 

Firstline supervisors seem to have the most 

difficult time transitioning and adjusting 

to direct supervision. Supervisors who’ve 

worked in traditional linear or podularremote surveillance jails are used to being 

decisionmakers and are used to working 

directly on resolving inmate complaints. The 

direct supervision model relies on ownership and leadership by line officers in housing pods. The role of the firstline supervisor 

shifts to an agent of support and conduit 

for communication between the officer and 

the watch commander or administration. 

Additionally, the new role shifts the supervisor from being a decisionmaker to being a 

decision evaluator and trainer. 

Structurally,	the	role	of	the	supervisor	in	direct	

supervision differs from that in a traditional 

jail. In a traditional jail, both staff and inmates 

expect supervisors to be the primary decisionmakers regarding inmate issues and concerns. 

Their reliance on a strict paramilitary model 

reinforces the idea that detention officers are 

to follow rules and orders, exercising little or 

no	formal	discretion.	Standard	operating	procedures, which line officers routinely apply, cover 

most day-to-day inmate management decisions 

in the jail. When a matter falls outside the written dictates, or when inmates challenge the 

officer’s decision, the officer then calls the shift 

supervisor—often at the rank of sergeant— 

and refers the matter for higher-level decisionmaking. In fact, inmates often say, “I want to 

see the sergeant,” as if it is the sergeant who 

holds	the	power.	Moreover,	consistent	with	the	

paramilitary model, when the sergeant is anxious about making decisions, the sergeant calls 

the	lieutenant.	Eventually,	even	captains	and	

majors are called to participate in decisions. 

The direct supervision firstline supervisor, 

on the other hand, makes far fewer inmate 

management	decisions.	Most	decisions	about	

inmate management rest with the detention 

officer, unless a situation is so complex or 

grave that the officer needs to confer with the 

supervisor. This represents a significant change 

in the role of the firstline supervisor, as depicted in exhibit 3–1. 

Given the role of the firstline supervisor in 

a direct supervision jail, the jail administrator may conclude that an effective supervisor 

must, for example: 

•	Understand	the	direct	supervision	principles	

and their operational implications. 

•	Understand	the	22	strategies	and	the	role	of	

the detention officer in a direct supervision 

jail. 

•	Assess	staff	performance	for	adherence	to	

direct supervision principles. 

•	Supervise	and	manage	staff	effectively	

through coaching, support, counseling, and 

discipline. 

•	Make	decisions	based	on	the	analysis	of	a	

situation, the options available, and the implications of each option for being effective in 

the context of direct supervision. 

•	Act	as	an	effective	conduit	of	information	

between detention officers and jail administration. 

KSAs of Other Staff in Direct 

Supervision Jails 

The work and behavior of all staff—including 

those who work in medical and food service 

operations, inmate programs and services, and 

other noncustodial functions—need to support 

the implementation of direct supervision. The 

jail administrator must identify the specific ways 

that	staff	provide	support,	with	related	KSAs.

Developing Recruiting Tools for 

Direct Supervision Jails 

Direct	supervision	jails	should	carefully	design	

their recruiting tools to ensure that they attract 

applicants	with	the	KSAs	needed	for	the	job,	

many	of	which	differ	from	the	KSAs	required	

to work in a traditional jail. Too often, recruitCHAPTER 3: Recruiting, Hiring, and Promoting Staff 13
 

 

Exhibit 3–1 

Role of the Firstline Supervisor: traditional Jails versus Direct Supervision Jails 

TRADITIONAL JAILS DIRECT SUPERVISION JAILS 

Makes decisions for staff rather than facilitating Facilitates decisionmaking at the line level. 

decisionmaking at the line level. 

Deals with inmates directly. Anticipates institutional problems, allows the unit 

officer to manage the inmate population, and 

supports the officer’s decisions unless they clearly 

violate policy or procedure. 

Handles inmate requests. Reviews officer decisions and intervenes only when necessary, after 

allowing the unit officer the opportunity to handle inmate requests. 

Solves problems. Advises or coaches staff in problemsolving, as necessary. 

Responds to grievances.	 Encourages staff to manage inmate requests at their level to avoid 

grievance issues. If inmates still wish to pursue a formal grievance, 

the officer handles it according to policy and procedure. 

Focuses primarily on the results of incidents and 

staff decisions rather than on factors that contribute 

to incidents and reasons for officer decisions. 

Reviews and evaluates incidents and officers’ decisions to understand 

underlying factors. Analyzes incidents in the context of the direct 

supervision principles. 

Issues directives to staff based on upper-level Conveys information from administration to staff and from staff to 

management decisions. administration, ensuring a two-way flow of communication. 

Source: Adapted from Don Manning, Ben A. Menke, Linda L. Zupan, Mary K. Stohr-Gillmore, Michael W. Stohr-Gillmore, and Nicholas P. Lovrich, 

Performance Appraisal in New Generation Jails: Model Performance Appraisal Processes and Forms and Training Materials for New Generation Jail 

Facilities (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections, 1988). 

ing tools for direct supervision jails do not 

clearly reflect the reality of the job or fully 

describe the duties of the job announced. In 

fact, some advertisements for positions in 

direct supervision jails are indistinguishable 

from advertisements for the same types of 

positions in traditional jails. 

For example, one newly opened direct supervision jail developed an eye-catching recruiting 

flier. The front of the flier invited the reader 

to be part of “the future of detention,” “join 

a professional group of men and women in a 

progressive, state-of-the-art jail,” and discover 

“a new, creative, and exciting direction in 

detention.” The front described a job that was 

interesting and challenging. The inside of the 

flier did not. In listing specific duties of the 

detention officer, it focused solely on laundry 

exchange, cell searches, monitoring meals, 

counting utensils in and out at mealtimes, and 

other necessary, but routine, duties. Nowhere 

did the flier talk about managing inmate 

behavior, defusing problems among inmates, 

interacting and communicating with inmates, 

14 Direct Supervision Jails: The Role of the Administrator

planning and organizing housing unit activities, 

and functioning as the leader within a housing 

unit. The front of the flier may have attracted 

one type of applicant and the inside another 

type entirely. The flier conveyed a superficial 

understanding of direct supervision jails as different from traditional jails and an inability to 

articulate fully the new role of the detention 

officer. This flier was not an effective recruiting 

tool for the new direct supervision jail. 

Job postings and recruiting tools should accurately reflect job duties and should incorporate	required	KSAs—especially	those	that	are	

critical to implementing the direct supervision 

principles. If not, the result will be the recruitment of a traditional jail applicant for a nontraditional jail. 

Screening and Hiring for Direct 

Supervision Jails 

Recruiting	tools	designed	specifically	for	a	position in a direct supervision jail will be more 

effective as screening instruments because 
 

 

they	were	developed	based	on	the	KSAs	

required for a specific position. Good candidates for the job should have the required 

KSAs	or	the	potential	to	acquire	them	through	

training and experience. 

Just as organizations need to design recruiting 

tools for a specific job that reflect the direct 

supervision environment, they need to do the 

same for screening and hiring tools. Again, 

this is an area where many direct supervision 

jails—especially those that are new and were 

preceded by traditional jails—tend to screen 

based on criteria more applicable to traditional 

jails. For example, one agency that opened a 

new direct supervision jail continued to use its 

old interview questions. They asked candidates 

how they felt about having urine thrown on 

them or how they would deal with an inmate 

who spat on them, almost as if these were 

everyday occurrences. The jail had been open 

for several months and neither of these events 

had occurred in the new jail and did not happen often in the traditional jail. The agency 

neglected to revise the questions to meet the 

needs of the new jail. 

Organizations can use a variety of tools, such 

as interviews, written examinations, and 

scenario analyses, for screening and hiring. 

However, organizations must construct these 

instruments	carefully	to	target	the	KSAs	and	

attitudes required of each position to be able 

to implement and support direct supervision 

effectively. 

Novice job candidates should not be expected 

to be sufficiently cognizant of effective direct 

supervision performance requirements or 

facility rules to be able to demonstrate the 

behaviors required of a position or articulate 

them during an interview or examination. 

Nevertheless, there are ways of getting at a 

candidate’s potential to model these types of 

behaviors. For example, to screen potential 

detention officers, interviewers could construct scenarios or vignettes of jail incidents 

and present them in narrative or video form. 

Interviewers could then ask candidates to 

comment on what they read or observed. The 

interviewers would evaluate their responses 

based on benchmarks ranging from excellent 

to poor. The interviewer can pose questions 

such as: “What do you think the officer did 

well in that scene?” or “What could the officer 

have done differently?” 

Model Personnel Selection Process for Podular, 

Direct-Supervision New Generation Jails by 

Menke	and	colleagues3 provides benchmarked 

answers4 for each of the seven dimensions discussed	at	the	beginning	of	this	chapter.	Exhibit	

3–2 shows two examples. 

Promoting Staff in Direct 

Supervision Jails 

Promoting	staff	in	a	direct	supervision	jail	

requires the jail administrator to determine 

the competencies specific to the successful 

direct	supervision	supervisor.	Simply	because	

an officer is effective in managing a unit does 

not mean the officer is qualified to supervise 

staff in a direct supervision jail. Longevity as a 

detention officer is also not a valid criterion. 

Use of carefully designed, realistic scenarios 

(best developed by working teams of line 

staff, supervisors, and administrators) can be 

excellent tools for testing potential supervisors. The scenarios should assess a candidate’s 

understanding of the role of the supervisor and 

3 Ben A. Menke, Linda L. Zupan, Nicholas P. Lovrich, and Don Manning, Model Personnel Selection Process for Podular, DirectSupervision New Generation Jails (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections, 1986). 

4 A subsequent study focused exclusively on the situational interviewing process. It found that the situational interview questions 

used in the Menke study had content validity, meaning that they were created via a systematic job analysis and were judged as 

appropriate and related to effective job behaviors by a panel of direct supervision personnel. The questions were also, in fact, 

related to the performance measures being tested. The study also showed the long-term predictive validity of the situational interview process and questioning. See Mary K. Stohr-Gillmore, Michael W. Stohr-Gilmore, and Nanette Kistler, “Sifting the Gold From 

the Pebbles: Using Situational Interviews To Select Correctional Officers for New Generation Jails,” Paper presented at the annual 

meeting of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, Washington, DC (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National 

Institute of Corrections, 1989). 

CHAPTER 3: Recruiting, Hiring, and Promoting Staff 15
 

 

Exhibit 3–2 

Sample Dimension Benchmarks and Questions 

Dimension 1: Managing the Living Unit To Assure a Safe and Humane Environment 

Question Score Response 

On an inmate’s first day in your 

module, he fails to make his bed, 

which is in violation of the facility’s 

rules. What would you do? 

5 

Because it was the inmate’s first day in the module, I would explain the 

rule to the inmate, give him a verbal warning, document the violation, and 

ensure that he complies in the future. 

3 

I would order the inmate to make his bed (interviewee gives no indication 

that he would explain the rule or the violation to the inmate). 

I would tell the inmate that I would let it pass this one time—after all, he is 

new to the module (interviewee gives no indication that he would explain 

the rule or the violation to the inmate). 

1 

I would ignore the rule violation—after all, he is new to the module. 

I would punish him (interviewee indicates some excessive form of 

punishment, such as lockdown). 

Dimension 2: Handling Inmate Discipline 

Question Score Response 

Inmates in the module you supervise 

are committing numerous minor rule 

violations. For example, they are not 

keeping the module clean; they are 

slow to get up in the morning, etc. 

How would you correct these minor 

violations? 

5 

I would hold a meeting with all inmates in the module and communicate 

my expectations. I would advise them of the consequences of continued 

problems. 

3 I would communicate my dissatisfaction with only a few inmates—they 

will pass the word on to other inmates. 

1 I would discipline all inmates in the module for these rule violations. 

Source: Adapted from Ben A. Menke, Linda L. Zupan, Nicholas P. Lovrich, and Don Manning, Model Personnel Selection Process 

for Podular, Direct Supervision New Generation Jails (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections, 1986). 

the relationship between the detention officer 

and the supervisor. They can help interviewers eliminate candidates who will overrule the 

officer’s decisions and undermine the officer’s 

ability to manage the housing unit. They can 

also help assess the extent to which the candidate can be comfortable being a manager 

rather than a decisionmaker, focusing on such 

core tasks as educating, coaching, supporting, 

leading, and motivating staff. 

Conclusion 

The importance of effective recruitment, hiring, 

and staff promotion are apparent, but organizations often overlook the unique challenges 

associated with hiring and promoting staff for 

a direct supervision jail. The direct supervision 

jail administrator must require the development of new standards for employment and 

promotion and ensure that tools for recruiting, 

screening, and hiring applicants reflect those 

standards. 

16 Direct Supervision Jails: The Role of the Administrator 
CHAPTER 4 

Training Staff 


indicate that this continues to be an issue for 

direct supervision jails. 

Staff Positions and Related 

Training Topics 

All staff need training, to varying degrees, specific to direct supervision. The type and extent 

of training needed relates directly to the direct 

supervision	KSAs	identified	for	each	position.	

The sections below discuss several positions 

and	selected	KSAs	related	to	these	roles.

Training for the Detention Officer 

Detention	officers,	especially	housing	unit	officers, constitute the largest group of staff who 

require training. They are the front line in managing inmate behavior, running the housing 

unit, and implementing the direct supervision 

principles daily. Given the 7 dimensions of the 

officer’s job and the 22 strategies for effectively 

managing a housing unit (see chapter 3 for a 

discussion of these dimensions and strategies), 

officers need extensive training to be successful. 

J ust as staff knowledge, skills, and abilities 

(KSAs)	specific	to	direct	supervision	must	

be incorporated into the recruiting and 

hiring processes, they must also be integrated 

into initial and ongoing staff training. 

Often, in preparation for the opening of a new 

direct supervision jail, organizations train staff 

extensively in the direct supervision principles 

training the initial staff received. The auditors 

also pointed out concerns about training for 

supervisors, especially those who transferred to 

the facility laterally or who did not have experience as direct supervision officers. Overall, the 

auditors expressed concern that the sites were 

not giving ongoing training in direct supervision	the	priority	it	required.	Recent	audits	conducted by the National Institute of Corrections 

and, ideally, their specific operational implications. Over time, however, many of these jails 

allow training on direct supervision to wane. 

They may provide training to new staff only, 

and that training may be limited to a brief overview of direct supervision and an abbreviated 

presentation on interpersonal communication 

skills. This is not sufficient to ensure successful 

implementation of direct supervision. Training 

must reflect the full scope and dimensions of 

each position in the jail as they relate to the 

implementation of direct supervision. 

In 1996, the National Institute of Corrections 

conducted audits of three direct supervision 

jails.1 The auditors found that jail staff at all 

three sites were receiving quality training, 

although not necessarily on direct supervision 

principles and practices. They found that staff 

who had been involved in the initial move to 

the new direct supervision jail had received the 

most	training	in	direct	supervision.	Staff	hired	

later, however, received less training. The auditors deemed this training less effective than the 

1 Jay Farbstein, Dennis Liebert, and Herbert Sigurdson, Audits of Podular Direct-Supervision Jails (Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections. 1996). 

CHAPTER 4: Training Staff 17
Following are sample training topics for housing unit officers: 

•	Understanding	the	implications	of	the	direct	

supervision principles for jail design and 

operations. 

•	Communicating	with	inmates	using	interpersonal communication skills. 

•	Establishing	and	maintaining	the	officer’s	

leadership role in the unit. 

•	Setting	and	conveying	expectations	of	

inmate behavior. 

•	Using	incentives	for	positive	inmate	behavior.

•	Using	appropriate	and	effective	consequences	

for negative inmate behavior. 

•	Using	positive	reinforcement	techniques.

•	Planning	and	supervising	inmate	activities	in	

the unit. 

•	Developing	and	measuring	goals	for	the	

housing unit. 

•	Being	a	role	model.

•	Managing	conflict.	

•	Implementing	behavioral	coaching	techniques.	

•	Analyzing	incidents	within	the	framework	of	

the direct supervision principles. 

•	Making	decisions	within	the	framework	of	the	

direct supervision principles. 

Training for the Firstline Supervisor 

(Security Staff) 

As noted in chapter 3, organizations often 

give insufficient attention to the role of the 

firstline supervisor, and, as a result, insufficient training has been targeted to this group 

of staff. However, given the significant and 

direct influence the firstline supervisor has on 

detention officers, this position is key. Firstline 

supervisors need extensive training related to 

direct supervision. If they do not support direct 

supervision and all its operational implications, 

they can quickly and profoundly undermine 

its implementation. Below are sample training 

topics specific to direct supervision for firstline 

supervisors: 

18 Direct Supervision Jails: The Role of the Administrator 

•	Direct	supervision	principles	and	their	implications for jail design and operations, 

•	The	role	of	the	housing	unit	officer.

•	The	role	of	the	firstline	supervisor	in	coaching	

and supporting housing unit officers in implementing direct supervision. 

•	Interpersonal	communication	skills.

•	Role	modeling.

•	Operational	assessment	within	the	framework	

of the direct supervision principles. 

•	Operational	indicators	that	housing	officers	

are or are not implementing direct supervision 

effectively. 

•	Assessment	of	staff	performance	as	it	relates	

to implementing direct supervision. 

•	Decisionmaking	within	the	framework	of	the	

direct supervision principles. 

•	Analysis	of	incidents	within	the	framework	of	

the direct supervision principles. 

Jail administrators should ensure that firstline supervisors fully understand not only all 

aspects of the housing officer’s role but also 

how to support the housing officer in this role. 

One jail administrator opening a new direct 

supervision jail developed a strategy to ensure 

that firstline supervisors understood the role 

of the detention officer. In 1988, Hillsborough 

County, FL, opened a new 384-bed direct 

supervision annex to its downtown linearintermittent surveillance jail. In preparation for 

the opening, the administrator ensured that 

firstline supervisors received training in direct 

supervision principles, policies and procedures 

for the new jail, leadership, and management 

as well as an orientation to the new jail. 

Although the facility ran well, the administration found that the firstline supervisors were 

having difficulty with their role in direct supervision, and officers perceived that supervisors 

were not allowing them to make decisions 

and manage their housing units as intended. 

Because the supervisors had never worked in 

direct supervision, the officers often went to 

their counterparts for advice, since they had 
more firsthand experience in direct supervision 

than did their supervisors. 

To remedy this, the jail administrator required 

more than 100 firstline supervisors to attend a 

40-hour block of specialized training for detention officers. They were then required to serve 

a 56-day rotation as detention officers in a 

direct supervision housing unit. The jail administrator found this successful in helping firstline 

supervisors understand officers’ responsibilities and related challenges. It also enabled the 

firstline supervisors to appreciate their role in 

relation to the officers better: that the officers 

managed the inmates and the supervisors, 

instead of intervening in or undermining the 

officers’ decisions regarding inmate management, supported and coached the officers in 

fulfilling	their	responsibilities.	Since	that	time,	

most staff promoted to supervisory positions in 

the Hillsborough County jail have had experience as housing officers. The jail administrator 

has not had to employ this particular training 

strategy again. 

Another direct supervision jail administrator 

required supervisors to work 1 day a month as 

a housing unit officer to ensure that they did 

not forget the importance of allowing staff the 

autonomy required to make sound decisions in 

their housing units. 

Training for the Jail Administrator 

Many	times,	in	discussions	about	staff	training	

in direct supervision jails, organizations overlook training for the jail administrator. The jail 

administrator provides leadership and sets the 

philosophical	direction	for	operations.	Some	

interpret this to mean that the jail administrator does not need ongoing training and education in direct supervision. However, if the jail 

administrator does not have an indepth understanding of the direct supervision principles 

and their operational implications, the administrator cannot provide effective leadership or 

ensure that the jail is operating according to 

the direction the administrator has set. 

The jail administrator must thoroughly understand the philosophical underpinnings of direct 

supervision and how they translate into operations. It is essential that the administrator stay 

current on research and publications on direct 

supervision. The administrator must visit other 

direct supervision jails, meet with other direct 

supervision jail administrators, and continually 

learn about strategies to implement and sustain operations that support direct supervision. 

Critical areas of training for the jail administrator include: 

•	The	direct	supervision	principles	and	the	

implications of each principle for jail design 

and operations. 

•	The	role	of	each	category	of	staff	in	implementing and supporting direct supervision. 

•	Operational	assessment	within	the	framework	

of the direct supervision principles. 

•	Operational	indicators	that	staff	are	or	are	not	

implementing direct supervision effectively. 

•	Assessment	of	staff	performance	as	it	relates	

to the implementation of direct supervision. 

•	Decisionmaking	within	the	framework	of	the	

direct supervision principles. 

•	Analysis	of	incidents	within	the	framework	of	

the direct supervision principles. 

•	Role-modeling	behaviors	that	align	with	direct	

supervision. 

Training Support Service Staff 

In this guide, support service staff include 

those who have regular contact with inmates, 

such as food service, medical service, and 

program staff. They also include staff who 

supervise inmate labor. These staff and their 

supervisors must understand how their work 

with inmates supports the direct supervision 

principles and the overall effort to manage 

inmate behavior. Below are some sample training topics for support service staff: 

•	Understanding	the	implications	of	the	direct	

supervision principles for jail design and 

operations. 

•	Communicating	with	inmates	using	interpersonal communication skills. 

CHAPTER 4: Training Staff 19
•	Setting	and	conveying	expectations	of	inmate	

behavior. 

•	Using	incentives	for	positive	inmate	behavior.

•	Using	appropriate	and	effective	consequences	

for negative inmate behavior. 

•	Using	positive	reinforcement	techniques.

•	Being	a	role	model.

•	Managing	conflict.

•	Implementing	behavioral	coaching	techniques.	

•	Analyzing	incidents	within	the	framework	of	

the direct supervision principles. 

•	Making	decisions	within	the	framework	of	the	

direct supervision principles. 

Training for Staff Who Have Minimal 

Contact With Inmates 

Staff	who	have	little	to	no	contact	with	inmates	

should receive, at a minimum, an overview of 

the direct supervision principles and their operational implications. Also, these staff do not 

always understand the role and functions of 

jails and sometimes hold misconceptions based 

on	media	portrayals.	Educating	them	about	

jails in general, and the difference between traditional and direct supervision jails specifically, 

may help. 

Training for Volunteers 

Volunteers should receive, at a minimum, an 

overview of the direct supervision principles 

and their operational implications. Because 

volunteers also may not understand the role 

and functions of jails, they should be educated about jails generally and the differences 

between traditional and direct supervision jails 

specifically. They also need to know how their 

work and interaction with inmates support the 

implementation of direct supervision. 

Types of Training 

Organizations should ensure that preservice, 

on-the-job, and inservice training for all staff 

integrate varying levels of training related to 

direct	supervision.	Staff	who	have	direct	contact with inmates and those who supervise 

these staff should receive the most extensive 

training.	Preservice	training	should	cover	the	

conceptual foundation for direct supervision, 

with examples of how the concepts are put 

into operation. It should also cover the roles of 

various staff in implementing these concepts. 

On-the-job training should provide specific 

information on how staff should incorporate 

the direct supervision principles in the dayto-day operation of the jail. Finally, when 

ongoing inservice training is determined to 

be the appropriate remedy, it should enhance 

staff skills and knowledge and address operational problems related to staff performance. 

Training, then, becomes a powerful tool for 

successfully implementing and sustaining 

direct supervision in the jail. 

Many	jails	face	severe	resource	limitations.	

Often, when officials reduce their detention budgets, staff training is one of the first 

areas cut. Not only does this create liability 

for the jail administrator, but it also severely 

undermines the potential success of the direct 

supervision jail. The jail administrator should 

explore a variety of training strategies that may 

help reduce the cost of training. Traditional 

classroom-based training is the most costly 

form of training—whether staff are sent offsite 

or trained at the jail itself. Administrators may 

combine classroom-based instruction with 

less costly options to achieve training goals. 

Such	options	might	include	on-the-job	training,	

electronic training, review and discussion of 

informational videotapes, training minisessions 

during shift briefings, well-constructed and 

debriefed scenarios on inmate management, 

critiques of incidents based on the direct supervision principles, and use of curriculum packages such as the National Institute of Corrections’ 

course on interpersonal communication skills 

and its course on how to run a direct supervision housing unit. The jail administrator might 

also consider developing a staff library of materials related to direct supervision. 

20 Direct Supervision Jails: The Role of the Administrator 
Conclusion 

To manage a direct supervision jail effectively 

and to ensure that the principles and supporting concepts of direct supervision are 

understood fully and manifested in operations, 

the direct supervision jail administrator must 

ensure that all staff receive the necessary training. Although the amount and types of training 

will vary according to job classification, it is 

important that the administrator ensure staff 

are trained on a regular basis, with frequent 

updates and reminders. Failure to provide this 

level of training often leads to a deterioration 

of the implementation of direct supervision. 

By providing appropriate training at regular 

intervals, the jail administrator will do much to 

ensure that staff fully integrate direct supervision principles into jail operations. 

CHAPTER 4: Training Staff 21

 

 

CHAPTER 5 

Supervising Staff 


performance expectations related to direct 

supervision. 

Give Staff the Resources and Tools 

To Meet Expectations 

The jail administrator should carefully assess 

the resources and tools staff need to carry out 

expectations and should consider, at a minimum, the following areas: 

Training 

One of the most important tools staff will need 

is training, as outlined in chapter 4. 

Equipment and Supplies 

The administrator should consider the equipment and supplies all staff need to comply with 

expectations related to implementing the direct 

supervision principles. For example: 

•	If	the	administrator	expects	housing	officers	to	

manage inmate behavior by keeping inmates 


productively occupied, the officers will need 


access to basic supplies and equipment such 


as televisions, board games, writing paper 


and pens, art supplies, playing cards, and 


books. If the housing unit has an outdoor 


recreation area, the officers should be able to 


provide inmates with soccer balls, basketballs, 


handballs, or other equipment that gives the 


inmates something productive to do while in 


outdoor recreation.
 

CHAPTER 5: Supervising Staff 23

Effective supervision of staff is critical to 

the full and successful implementation 

of the direct supervision principles. If 

supervisors at all levels do not reinforce direct 

supervision continually, staff may begin to perform their duties in a way that is contrary to 

the direct supervision principles—unbeknownst 

to either the supervisors or the administrator. 

This chapter explores four crucial components 

of implementing and sustaining direct supervision through staff supervision: (1) setting, 

conveying, and reinforcing clear expectations; 

(2) giving staff the resources and tools to meet 

expectations; (3) monitoring staff performance; 

and (4) holding staff accountable. 

Set, Convey, and Reinforce 

Clear Expectations 

The jail administrator must make it a priority to set, convey, and routinely reinforce 

clear expectations for implementing the direct 

supervision principles, with the roles of all staff 

defined. The administrator must then work 

closely with management and supervisory staff 

to ensure that they understand and support 

those expectations and are equipped to help 

staff	fulfill	them.	Policies	and	procedures,	training content, administrator behavior, and meeting discussions all help convey and reinforce 

expectations. In some cases, jail administrators 

have been creative in conveying their expectations by asking staff to craft posters, newsletters, and artwork that convey and reinforce 
•	If	the	administrator	expects	housing	officers	

to maintain a clean unit, the officers must 

have ready access to cleaning materials for 

the inmates. 

•	If	the	administrator	expects	housing	officers	to	

give inmates incentives and tangible rewards 

for positive behavior (such as popcorn and 

soda for winning a weekly competition for 

housing unit cleanliness), then those rewards 

must be available consistently. 

•	If	the	administrator	expects	staff	to	orient	new	

inmates to the facility, all orientation tools 

must be available and in good condition. 

Time 

Time is another important consideration. To 

implement the direct supervision principles 

effectively, housing officers must interact with 

inmates continually and supervisors must 

visit the housing units frequently. Tasks that 

distract housing officers and supervisors from 

these essential duties should be reviewed to 

determine if they are necessary, if they can 

be performed overnight while the inmates are 

sleeping, if they can be performed by staff other 

than the housing officers and supervisors, or if 

they can be performed in a different way that 

decreases the time required. 

Space 

Space	may	also	be	required	to	meet	certain	

expectations. If housing unit officers must 

counsel individual inmates on their behavior 

or classification staff must conduct interviews 

with new inmates to determine their suitability 

for general population housing, the administrator should allocate a private space for this. 

Authority and Discretion 

Staff	must	have	the	authority	and	discretion	to	

achieve what is required of them. For example: 

•	Where	staff	are	expected	to	make	decisions	

and take action in their areas of responsibility, 

policies and the practices of management and 

supervisory staff need to support this. 

•	Where	staff	are	encouraged	to	be	flexible	and	

creative within prescribed limits, policies and 

24 Direct Supervision Jails: The Role of the Administrator

practices should be assessed to ensure there 

are no deliberate or inadvertent obstacles. 

•	A	basic	concept	in	direct	supervision	has	to	

do with anticipating and meeting inmates’ 

basic needs. The jail administrator should 

ensure staff can address these needs. For 

example, if an inmate is too cold to sleep, the 

officer should have the authority to issue an 

extra blanket and notify maintenance staff 

to check air temperature and airflow in the 

inmate’s room. 

In traditional jails, decisionmaking rests mostly 

with supervisory staff, some of whom have 

difficulty allowing officers to be the primary 

decisionmakers in the housing units when they 

move to a direct supervision jail. Although the 

administrator may fully support giving staff 

the authority and discretion required to carry 

out their duties, the administrator must ensure 

there are no obstacles to the exercise of that 

authority and discretion. 

Monitor Staff Performance 

The administrator must ensure that management and supervisory staff actively support 

direct supervision in all aspects of their work 

and that they, in turn, ensure the same in the 

staff they supervise. The administrator can 

monitor performance through observation, 

discussions with staff, and reviews of minutes 

from supervisory and management staff meetings. The administrator can audit unit logs 

and supervisors’ logs to determine how much 

time supervisors and managers spend in the 

housing units, the booking room, and program 

and service areas. The administrator can also 

review disciplinary decisions made by supervisors and staff performance appraisals completed by supervisors and managers. When 

the jail administrator sees indicators that direct 

supervision is not being properly implemented 

(e.g., inmate-on-inmate assaults rise, housing 

units are not clean, or inmates are disregarding 

rules), the administrator must analyze how not 

only line staff, but also supervisory and management staff, contribute to the problem. 
Hold Staff Accountable 

The jail administrator should ensure that staff 

appraisals reflect the performance standards 

and expectations set for all staff related to 

implementing direct supervision. Often, jails 

must use standardized agency, county, or jurisdictional forms that address general employee 

competencies but not competencies specific 

to direct supervision. However, administrators 

can usually include direct supervision performance expectations in the narrative written 

for more general appraisal categories. If performance expectations and standards are to be 

meaningful to staff, they must be reflected in 

performance appraisals. 

Conclusion 

To demonstrate a commitment to direct supervision effectively and ensure its successful 

implementation, the jail administrator must 

pay particular attention to the supervision of 

staff. Ongoing attention to setting and conveying expectations, ensuring that staff are 

equipped to meet expectations, monitoring 

staff performance, and holding staff accountable for meeting expectations is essential to 

preventing an operational drift away from 

direct supervision. 

CHAPTER 5: Supervising Staff 25

CHAPTER 6 

Determining the Number of 

Inmates One Officer 

Since the first direct supervision local 

jail opened in 1981, beliefs about the 

number of inmates one officer can 

supervise effectively have changed considerably. In earlier direct supervision jails, housing 

units were designed based on the assumption 

Can Supervise Effectively 

must house, not because of a well-analyzed 

decision about how many inmates one officer 

can supervise effectively. How a jail chooses 

to manage its direct supervision housing units 

under crowded conditions has implications 

for the implementation of the direct supervision 

that 1 officer could effectively supervise 32 

inmates	(Multnomah	County,	OR),	40	inmates	

(Manhattan	House	of	Detention	for	Men,	NY),	

46 inmates (Contra Costa County, CA), or 48 

inmates	(Philadelphia	Industrial	Correctional	

Center,	PA;	Arlington	County,	VA;	Hillsborough	

County, FL). 

As jail practitioners gained more experience 

operating direct supervision jails, they learned 

that 1 officer could, in fact, supervise more 

than 48 general population inmates effectively, 

depending on certain factors (listed later in 

this chapter). As a result, jurisdictions began 

designing new direct supervision jails with an 

increasing number of beds per housing unit. By 

the year 2000, it was common to see housing 

units designed to hold 56, 64, or 72 inmates 

under the supervision of 1 officer. Jurisdictions 

based this change in design on the deliberate decisions of local officials and planned jail 

operations accordingly. 

Crowding has also influenced the number 

of beds per housing unit. It has forced some 

jails to increase—sometimes to double—the 

number of beds in their housing units simply 

to accommodate the number of inmates they 

principles. An administrator should analyze all 

options for managing crowded housing units for 

their effect on the jail’s ability to maintain the 

integrity of the direct supervision principles. 

Finally, fiscal considerations have affected the 

number of inmates per housing unit under the 

supervision of one officer. As direct supervision jails demonstrate that they can operate in 

crowded conditions without major incidents, 

the argument for decreasing the number of 

beds per housing unit in an existing or newly 

planned jail falls on deaf ears. 

Despite	the	reasons	for	increases	in	housing unit beds and the number of inmates 

under one officer’s supervision, questions still 

remain: How many inmates can one officer 

supervise effectively, and how is that effectiveness measured? A fundamental assumption in 

direct supervision is that the key to safety and 

security is managing inmate behavior. The link 

between managing inmate behavior and safety 

and security has been demonstrated clearly 

through the experience of direct supervision 

jails since 1981. Although a variety of factors 

in the jail environment influence inmate behavior, the primary influence appears to be the 

CHAPTER 6: Determining the Number of Inmates One Officer Can Supervise Effectively 27
presence of a housing unit officer who actively 

supervises inmates through continuous interaction with them. The purpose of this interaction 

is to enable the officer to, for example: 

•	Become	established	as	the	undisputed	leader	

in the unit. 

•	Know	the	individual	inmates	in	the	

housing unit. 

•	Become	familiar	with	group	and	individual	

inmate behavior patterns and identify changes 

that could signal a problem. 

•	Respond	to	requests	and	meet	inmates’	

basic needs. 

•	Be	a	primary	source	of	information	to	

inmates. 

•	Uphold	behavioral	expectations	and	hold	individual inmates accountable for their behavior. 

•	Provide	counseling,	coaching,	and	informal	

and formal incentives for positive behavior. 

•	Ensure	that	the	housing	unit	is	clean	and	

well maintained. 

•	Identify	and	defuse	potential	conflicts	

among inmates. 

•	Identify	inmates	who	may	be	depressed,	

suicidal, or in need of counseling services. 

A direct supervision housing unit officer supervises inmates effectively if the officer carries 

out the activities listed above fully and competently. The purpose of direct supervision is 

not merely to distract a large group of inmates 

away from inappropriate behavior, but rather 

to actively supervise and manage inmates to 

ensure safety and security. 

There is no formula for how many inmates 

one officer can supervise effectively, and what 

works in one jail may not in another. Also, the 

number of inmates assigned to one officer will 

vary within a given jail and will depend on a 

variety of factors, such as: 

• Number and types of administrative duties 

assigned to the officer: Is the officer able 

to focus primarily on interacting with and 

managing inmates, or do the officer’s administrative duties significantly reduce the time 

for this? 

• Housing unit layout and sightlines: Can the 

officer easily see all areas of the housing unit 

from any area of the dayroom? 

•	Classification of inmates in the unit:	Do	

the inmates, as a whole, get along with each 

other and comply with facility rules? Or do 

the inmates present behavior problems or a 

threat	to	safety	and	security?	Do	the	inmates	

have special needs that require significant 

attention? 

• Level of inmate movement in and out of 

the unit: How much movement in and out of 

the unit (e.g., for programs and services) must 

the officer track? How much does this distract 

him or her from interacting with and managing the inmates? 

•	Unit acoustics: Are the acoustics poor? Is the 

unit very noisy, even with normal activity 

and	conversation?	Does	this	increase	tension	

among inmates? Are conflicts among inmates 

more	likely	as	a	result?	Does	noise	prevent	the	

officer from hearing conversations or conflicts 

that require staff attention? 

• Dayroom size: Have the number of beds in 

the unit been increased so that more inmates 

must use a dayroom designed for a much 

smaller population? Is the increase such that 

the number of inmates using the dayroom 

increases tension levels? 

• Officer capability: How competent is the 

officer in managing inmate behavior? Is the 

officer particularly skilled at managing certain 

types of inmates? 

•	Shift and level of inmate activity: Inmate 

activity levels in the housing unit vary among 

shifts.	Sometimes,	during	the	day	shift,	many	

inmates are out for court appearances or to 

attend programs. At night, the activity level 

drops	significantly.	Some	direct	supervision	

jail administrators shut down every other 

housing post during the overnight shift, with 

28 Direct Supervision Jails: The Role of the Administrator
one officer making continuous security and 

inmate welfare checks for two housing units. 

Other direct supervision jail administrators 

believe this practice compromises the intent 

of direct supervision. 

The jail administrator must weigh all these considerations when deciding how many inmates 

to place under one officer’s supervision. This 

is a significant challenge, given crowding, 

budgetary constraints, and political pressures. 

The jail administrator will need to educate 

the agency’s chief executive officer, funding 

authority, community, and staff to garner support in the face of pressure to increase the 

number of inmates assigned to one officer. 

Otherwise, the number of inmates assigned to 

one officer may increase to a point at which 

the officer can no longer be effective, the jail 

cannot maintain the integrity of the direct 

supervision principles, and the jurisdiction jeopardizes the safety and security of the jail’s staff, 

its inmates, and the surrounding community. 

CHAPTER 6: Determining the Number of Inmates One Officer Can Supervise Effectively 29

 

CHAPTER 7 

Rotating Housing Unit 

Staff Assignments 

Rotation of assignments among housing unit officers is an oft-debated issue. 

Many	jail	administrators	prefer	to	assign	

staff to a housing unit for at least 90 days 

to foster continuity of management, consistency of operations, and staff investment in 

the quality of housing unit operations. Other 

administrators fear assignments of 90 days or 

more are too long and increase the risk of staff 

becoming overly familiar or developing inappropriate relationships with inmates. Unions 

and staff may also request that jail administrators institute frequent rotations. When determining the length of officer assignment to 

the housing unit, the jail administrator should 

consider issues related to the effectiveness of 

direct supervision housing unit management, 

including those listed below. 

Control of the Unit 

One of the primary concepts of direct supervision is that the officer is in charge of the 

housing unit. The officer does not share control with the inmates. Frequent rotation may 

undermine the officer’s ability to become 

established	as	the	person	in	charge.	Some	

officers have likened the experience of frequent rotation to that of the short-term substitute teacher. The teacher does not know the 

students in the class, is taken advantage of 

by them, and cannot establish control of the 

classroom. 

Familiarity With Inmate Behavior 

Patterns and Needs 

Consistency of staff assignment—assignment 

to a unit for at least 90 days—allows the housing officer to become familiar enough with the 

inmates to know their behavior patterns, potential problems, and needs. This gives the officer a 

solid basis for developing behavior management 

strategies. In this sense, “familiarity” does not 

connote development of an inappropriate relationship, but instead relates to the effectiveness 

of the professional relationship between the officer and the inmates—the supervisor-subordinate 

relationship. 

Investment in Managing 

the Housing Unit 

When officers know they will be assigned to a 

unit for 90 days or more, they are more likely 

to have an investment in the unit and actively 

address problems and manage behavior. 

Frequent rotations increase the likelihood that 

an officer may not address inmate misbehavior or inmate concerns because assignment 

to that unit may not occur again for several 

days. As a result, inmate behavior may deteriorate because officers are not holding inmates 

accountable for their behavior and are not 

consistently addressing inmate concerns. As 

inmate behavior deteriorates, so does the safety of the jail environment for staff, inmates, 

and, ultimately, the community. 

CHAPTER 7: Rotating Housing Unit Staff Assignments 31
Ability To Set and Achieve Goals 

for Housing Unit Management 

When an administrator assigns an officer to a 

unit for 90 days or more, the officer can and 

should set longer term goals for the management of the housing unit—goals related to 

cleanliness, group or individual inmate behavior, inmate involvement in programs, or housing unit work projects. The officer can work 

with other officers assigned to the unit to set 

these goals, and all officers can collaborate to 

meet	them.	Each	officer,	then,	has	the	support of other officers in managing the unit. 

Supervisors	have	an	opportunity	to	review	the	

goals and further support the officers. When 

the goals are achieved, supervisors may reward 

the officers and reinforce their good work. 

Consistency of Operations 

Jail officers often raise inconsistency of operations among shifts as an issue. When administrators also rotate officers frequently among 

housing units on a single shift, inconsistencies within a shift from day to day may also 

become an issue. Lack of consistency undermines inmate management and peer support 

among officers. It frustrates the inmates, who 

may feel they face constant and confusing 

changes in officers’ expectations and management styles, and this may lead to anger and 

rebellion against what inmates may perceive 

as arbitrary and unfair treatment. Although 

staff styles will always vary, depending on individual personalities, inmates conform to officer 

expectations better when these variances are 

kept to a minimum. 

The Supervisor’s Ability To 

Assess Officer Performance 

When an officer is assigned to a unit for a longer period, the supervisor can better assess the 

officer’s performance and progress in managing 

the unit. The supervisor is in a much better position to identify performance deficiencies and 

develop strategies to help the officer improve. 

The supervisor is also better positioned to discern the officer’s strengths and use these to the 

advantage of housing unit management and 

overall jail operations. 

Conclusion 

The administrator should consider the length 

of assignments to housing units in terms of an 

officer’s ability to work as team with other officers in the unit, achieve consistency of operations, and manage inmate behavior effectively. 

The administrator should educate staff about 

the purpose and benefits of assignment to a 

unit for at least 90 days and encourage housing 

unit teams to work actively toward realizing 

those benefits. 

32 Direct Supervision Jails: The Role of the Administrator
Effective supervision of inmates and 

management of their behavior depend 

on the housing officer’s continual interaction	with	inmates.	Many	times,	however,	the	

direct supervision jail administrator finds that 

ensuring this interaction is a challenge. As one 

direct supervision jail administrator noted:1 

A significant challenge associated with the 

CHAPTER 8 

Ensuring That Officers 

Interact With Inmates 

unit, closely observing and interacting with 

inmates. Whether they can do so depends 

on the facility’s design and management. 

Design affects visibility and the location of 

equipment like telephones, computers, and 

controls. If these devices are at a fixed post, 

an officer could be required to stay there to 

operate them. Management affects the extent 

operation of a direct supervision jail is keeping housing pod officers engaged and interested in fully interacting with the inmates 

in his or her unit. This is especially true in 

housing units designed with large officers’ 

workstations. It appears that a large workstation with a computer and other equipment 

becomes “the officer’s turf” or a space that 

the officer feels compelled to protect. 

In 1996, the National Institute of Corrections 

funded audits of three direct supervision jails.2 

Using a combination of questionnaires and 

interviews at each site, researchers evaluated 

the three facilities, which ranged in size from 

140 to 1,600 beds, from a number of different 

perspectives. The researchers noted:3 

To do their job most effectively, officers 

need to circulate throughout the housing 

to which officers are instructed or encouraged to circulate among, observe, and communicate with inmates. 

The audits found variances in the design of each 

facility as well as in the degree to which officers 

regularly circulated throughout the units. 

Design Issues 

Tasks Centered at the 

Officer’s Workstation 

Three of the most common tasks that tie the 

officer to the workstation are operating individual cell doors, responding to phone calls, 

and documenting unit activities. When the 

door control panel is at the officer’s station, the 

officer may find that inmate requests to unlock 

cell doors are so frequent that the officer has 

difficulty getting away from the workstation. 

1 Some quotes in the document come from responses to surveys sent to direct supervision jail administrators. To protect the confidentiality of participants, their names have been omitted. 

2 Jay Farbstein, Dennis Liebert, and Herbert Sigurdson, Audits of Podular Direct Supervision Jails (Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Justice, National Institute of Corrections, 1996). 

3 Ibid. 

CHAPTER 8: Ensuring That Officers Interact With Inmates 33
The placement of door control panels at the officer’s desk is a frequently debated design issue. 

In the 1980s, a direct supervision jail administrator	in	Bucks	County,	PA,	concerned	about	

officer interaction with inmates, disconnected 

the door control panels in the housing units 

and issued door keys to the housing officers. 

This forced the officers to move around the 

unit each time inmates needed to be let in or 

out of their rooms. In the 1990s, a West Coast 

jail provided a counter against the wall rather 

than	a	workstation	for	the	officer.	Doors	had	to	

be unlocked either manually by the officer or 

remotely by staff in central control. 

Both these jails tried to remedy issues related 

to the officer’s station after the jail’s construction. Jurisdictions planning a new direct 

supervision jail should consider designing the 

officer’s station in the housing unit to minimize 

the	time	the	officer	must	spend	there.	Many	

currently operating jails, however, do have 

door control panels at the officer’s station and 

may want to consider changes to the system or 

an addition to the system, such as the use of 

handheld remote control devices for operating 

cell doors. 

If the jail administrator chooses to keep door 

control only at the officer’s station, the administrator might meet with housing unit officers 

to discuss the feasibility of opening doors only 

at certain intervals. Housing unit rules might 

specify, for example, that cell doors will be 

opened on the half hour only for inmates who 

request this. Also, the team of officers working on all shifts in a housing unit might jointly 

decide on a schedule for opening cell doors, 

depending on shift workloads. The officer, 

then, is free from constantly unlocking doors at 

the station. 

Officers also cite their need to respond to 

telephone calls as a reason they spend considerable time at the workstation. A widely available alternative is the portable telephone or 

combined portable telephone and radio that 

the officer can carry while circulating about 

the unit. 

34 Direct Supervision Jails: The Role of the Administrator

Documenting	the	numerous	housing	unit	activities, such as inmate movement in and out of 

the unit, inmate welfare or status checks, meal 

delivery, and laundry exchange also requires 

officers to remain at their workstation. The 

jail administrator may want to purchase a 

handheld, mobile device on which officers can 

document these activities while moving about 

the unit. In some cases, the administrator can 

combine this function with a door control feature in one device. 

Finally, the placement of computer terminals 

on the officer’s desk can tie the officer to the 

workstation. Use of the computer may give the 

officer immediate access to information regarding frequently asked inmate questions about, 

for example, visitation schedules, upcoming 

court dates, and commissary balances. If so, it 

enhances the officer’s role as an important and 

helpful source of information to the inmates. 

Although this is a benefit, the jail administrator 

must balance this by ensuring that having the 

computer is not another hindrance to the officer’s ability to move about the unit and interact with inmates regularly. The jail administrator might want to encourage the housing unit 

officer team to consider scheduling time during 

each shift to look up information in response to 

inmate questions. The administrator may also 

consider installing kiosks in the dayrooms that 

inmates can use to look up information such as 

court dates, commissary lists, and account balances that inmates commonly request. 

Workstation Design 

In some direct supervision jails, the workstation is designed to set it clearly apart from 

the dayroom, even though there are no barriers, such as security glass or doors, to separate 

it from the dayroom. For example, the workstation might be elevated to convey the message that it is the officer’s space, off limits to 

inmates, and unapproachable without permission. There might be painted lines around the 

workstation to denote that the area inside the 

lines is off limits to inmates. A commonly 

cited rationale for these approaches is that 

they are the only way to prevent inmates from 
wandering around the desk, looking at reports 

or other sensitive documentation, stealing 

items, or tampering with equipment. 

This notion of the officer’s private space is 

contrary to two fundamental concepts in direct 

supervision: that all areas of the unit belong to 

the officer and that the officer is in control of 

the unit.4	Elevated	workstations,	with	or	without “do not cross” lines painted around them, 

may inadvertently convey that the unit consists 

of the officer’s space and the inmate’s space. 

These workstations may also give license to the 

officer to retreat to “the officer’s area” rather 

than circulate throughout the unit and interact 

with inmates. 

To address concerns about controlling papers 

and equipment, the jail administrator should 

look closely at the design of the desk itself, 

ensuring that there are sufficient drawers in 

which to secure items quickly and rapid methods of securing door controls and computer 

terminals so the officer can leave the desk area 

as often as desired and needed. The jail administrator should also ensure that a unit rule prohibits inmates from hovering around the desk, 

looking at papers, and taking items. Breaking 

this rule will subject them to disciplinary procedures. The unit officer has the responsibility 

to ensure that inmates know and comply with 

the rule. 

If the workstation is raised to the degree that it 

clearly removes the officer from the inmates, 

it may not be feasible to redesign and reconstruct the station. In this case, it is especially 

important that the officer minimize his or her 

time at the station, going there only when 

absolutely necessary. 

Management Issues 

The audits referenced earlier in this guide concluded that management must instruct and 

encourage officers to circulate among, observe, 

and communicate with inmates. Once administrators remove design impediments, they 

may still find that officers spend more time at 

the workstation than they do interacting with 

inmates. This speaks to a variety of issues such 

as those listed below. 

• Does each officer understand that interacting with inmates is critical to safety, 

security, and success in managing inmate 

behavior? The jail administrator should consider how clearly this role was portrayed during the recruiting and hiring process, how 

effectively the officer was trained, and how 

effectively the supervisor and others in the 

management hierarchy reinforce the nature 

of the officer’s role. 

• Does each officer accept and want to fulfill 

this role? If the officer does not want to fulfill 

the role, training will not modify the officer’s 

behavior. The jail administrator might want to 

consider the officer’s suitability for the job. 

• Does the officer have the necessary skills 

to interact effectively with inmates? The 

jail administrator should consider the officer’s aptitude for the role of officer and the 

effectiveness of the training the officer has 

received. The jail administrator should also 

consider whether the officer’s supervisor 

provides the necessary support and coaching 

needed to help the officer interact effectively 

with inmates. 

• Does the officer have the tools to interact effectively with inmates and manage 

their behavior? The jail administrator should 

consider whether the officer has the authority to manage inmate behavior and whether 

supervisors undermine the officer’s authority 

by stepping in to make the decisions that the 

officer should make. The jail administrator 

might also ask whether the officer has a range 

of positive incentives to encourage positive 

behavior and whether the disciplinary process 

is clear, fair, and effective. 

• Do administrative tasks distract the officer from interacting with inmates? The jail 

administrator should consider identifying all 

the tasks that officers must complete on all 

4 Principle 1 states in part: “Staff in direct supervision jails firmly establish their authority over all space and activities in the facility, 

particularly inmate housing areas.” Principle 2 states officers have authority commensurate with their responsibilities. 

CHAPTER 8: Ensuring That Officers Interact With Inmates 35
shifts while in the housing units and review 

these to determine whether: (1) the officers 

can accomplish them in a way that does not 

prevent them from interacting with inmates, 

(2) staff other than housing unit officers can 

complete the tasks, and (3) the tasks are 

necessary. 

• Is the importance of the officer’s interaction 

with inmates consistently reinforced by all 

levels of management and the jail administrator? The jail administrator should consider 

whether the supervisor: 

° Makes	frequent	visits	to	the	unit	to	

support and coach the officer in effective 

and continual interaction with inmates. 

Is aware of the level and quality of 

interaction the officer has with the inmates 

and takes corrective action when necessary. 

°

Includes the level and quality of interaction 

between the officer and the inmates as a 

component of the officer’s formal performance appraisal. 

°

Understands that all levels of management 

need to reinforce the importance of this 

interaction frequently and consistently. 

°

Conclusion 

When housing unit officers do not interact 

with inmates, a methodical examination of 

both design and management issues is likely to 

reveal a variety of reasons. The jail administrator can then develop and implement a strategy 

to address these reasons and, in doing so, 

demonstrate commitment to this critical component of direct supervision operations. 

36 Direct Supervision Jails: The Role of the Administrator
 

 

CHAPTER 9
 

Addressing the Isolation of 

the Housing Unit Officer 

Some direct supervision jail administrators have voiced concern about the isolation of housing unit officers from their 

peers, since they have little time to interact 

with their coworkers during a shift. Usually, 

one officer is assigned per housing unit, and 

the nature of the officer’s work requires a focus 

entirely on the management of that unit. There 

is little time for formal or informal interaction 

among officers during a shift, and interaction 

with medical, food service, or program staff 

who come to the housing unit is usually brief. 

This, combined with the requirement that 

officers interact continually and extensively 

with inmates—whom they may be assigned 

to supervise for 60 days or more—sometimes 

raises the following questions: 

•	Does	this	increase	the	potential	for	staff	to	

develop personal relationships with inmates? 

•	Does	this	create	an	environment	where	staff	

will identify too closely with inmates? 

Staff Development of Personal 

Relationships With Inmates 

There is sometimes concern about officers 

developing personal relationships—friendships 

or romantic, sexual relations—with inmates. 

Such	relationships	pose	serious	problems	related	

to security, ethics, and overall operations. They 

compromise the officer’s ability to carry out 

duties with full integrity. Furthermore, in all 

states, an officer who has a sexual relationship 

with an inmate—consensual or not—is subject 

to criminal prosecution. 

Staff	development	of	personal	relationships	

with inmates, however, is not an issue unique 

to direct supervision jails, nor has there been 

any research that shows there is a higher 

occurrence	in	direct	supervision	jails.	Personal	

relationships between staff and inmates are a 

possibility in any jail. The precautions that jails 

need to take—in any type of jail—are integral 

to the screening and hiring process, policies 

and procedures, training, and supervision. The 

jail administrator should ensure that jails deliberately and thoughtfully apply such precautions 

so that: 

•	Persons	who	might	have	a	propensity	toward	

such relationships can be screened out during 

the hiring process. 

•	Policies,	procedures,	and	the	staff	disciplinary	

process clearly address staff-inmate relations. 

•	Staff	training	programs	thoroughly	and	consistently address the boundaries of an appropriate professional relationship between staff and 

inmates (supervisor to subordinate). 

•	Supervisors	provide	the	supervision,	coaching,	

and support needed to help staff identify the 


signs of a developing relationship and prevent 


such relationships from developing.
 

•	Supervisors	are	trained	on	how	to	detect	

signs of a developing or fully formed personal 

CHAPTER 9: Addressing the Isolation of the Housing Unit Officer 37
 

 

relationship between staff and inmates and 

the steps to take to address it. 

•	Inmates	are	oriented	to	the	agency’s	policies on appropriate professional relationships 

between staff and inmates. 

Staff Overidentification 

With Inmates 

Staff	overidentification	with	inmates	raises	

another potential issue related to the isolation 

of housing unit officers. Overidentification 

has often been discussed in the context of 

the	Stockholm	Syndrome,	which	describes	

the behavior of kidnap victims who become 

sympathetic to their captors over time. The 

Stockholm	Syndrome	refers	specifically	to	

a	hostage	incident	at	a	bank	in	Stockholm,	

Sweden,	in	1973.	After	6	days,	several	of	the	

kidnap victims resisted authorities’ attempts to 

rescue them. These victims also refused to testify against the perpetrators after the incident. 

Research	has	not	tested	the	hypothesis	that	

the relative isolation of the housing unit officer 

from peers, combined with extensive interaction	with	inmates,	creates	a	risk	of	Stockholm	

Syndrome	or	staff	overidentification	with	

inmates. Nonetheless, it is important that the 

jail administrator be aware of the issue and 

implement strategies to ensure that housing 

unit officers clearly see themselves as an integral part of at least three teams of staff: 

•	All	staff	who	work	in	the	jail.

•	All	staff	on	their	shift.

•	All	staff	assigned	to	their	housing	unit	during	

a given rotation. 

Not only will this mitigate the sense of isolation 

an officer might have, but it should also help 

staff work together to ensure that the jail operates effectively. 

The Officer as Part of the 

All-Staff Team 

The jail administrator can foster the sense of 

an all-staff team by: 

38 Direct Supervision Jails: The Role of the Administrator

•	Conducting	all-staff	meetings	periodically.

•	Establishing	off-duty,	informal	activities,	such	

as annual picnics, to which the administrator 

invites all staff and which staff may also help 

plan. 

•	Establishing	short-	or	long-term	cross-unit	staff	

teams or projects to accomplish certain tasks 

or functions. 

•	Establishing	staff	award	ceremonies	to	which	

administrators invite all staff. 

•	Maintaining	a	staff	bulletin	board	or	newsletter that contains information on staff accomplishments that contribute to effective jail 

operations. 

•	Visiting	the	housing	units	and	speaking	with	

officers regularly about their concerns and 

contributions to achieving the jail’s mission. 

•	Providing	clear,	frequent,	and	highly	visible	

support for the mission of the jail—the accomplishment of which requires the concerted 

effort of all staff. 

The Officer as Part of the 

Shift Team 

Shift Briefings 

Each	shift	should	begin	with	a	briefing	conducted by the shift supervisor and attended by all 

staff on the shift. Generally, shift briefings last 

from 15 to 30 minutes and include a review 

of notable information provided by the previous shifts and general staff announcements. 

To ensure more of a sense that shift members 

work together to operate the jail, the shift 

supervisor should regularly incorporate time 

for staff to share their concerns and successes 

related to the management of their posts. All 

staff on a shift should be encouraged to feel as 

if they are part of the success of any individual 

staff member, and all staff should be encouraged to support others regarding their challenges and concerns about managing their posts. 

If the jail does not have shift briefings, the jail 

administrator should devise another method of 

routinely sharing information and fostering a 

sense of teamwork among shift members. For 
 

example, shift members may have a briefing 

meeting only once a week, but might share 

information electronically in a special briefing format on other days. The briefing format 

should allow the shift supervisor and all shift 

members to post information, ask questions, 

and make responses and comments—preferably in real time. Also, the shift supervisor 

might visit each post to provide briefing information to the staff. This, however, does not 

allow for interaction among shift members. 

The ability for shift members to interact as 

a team is crucial, and the jail administrator 

should explore alternatives if briefing meetings 

are not possible. 

Interaction Between the Shift Supervisor 

and Staff 

A core part of the shift supervisor’s duties is to 

visit various posts throughout the shift. These 

visits are essential to the supervisor’s knowledge of what is taking place throughout the 

jail, managing the shift, assessing staff performance, and providing coaching and support to 

individual staff. In addition, these visits are a 

key staff-to-staff interaction for the housing unit 

officer, and administrators should make supervisors aware of its importance. Also, unlike the 

housing unit officer, the supervisor is mobile 

throughout the jail. The supervisor is aware of 

activities and incidents in all areas of the jail 

and can share this information with the housing officer, helping the officer keep connected 

to overall jail operations and the shift team. 

Breaks 

The shift supervisor should ensure that officers 

take their meal breaks away from the housing unit, preferably in a common area, and 

that two or more staff can take the meal break 

together. The shift supervisor should arrange 

for additional breaks to be taken away from 

the post, if possible. 

The Officer as Part of the 

Housing Unit Team 

If administrators do not rotate officers frequently among housing units, but instead 

assign them to units for a minimum of 60 

days, officers can form intershift teams focused 

on the management of the housing unit. The 

jail administrator should consider the formal 

establishment of such teams—with team meetings at specified intervals—because they are 

highly valuable not only to individual officers 

but also to the quality of inmate management 

and jail operations. The formation of housing 

unit teams that meet regularly gives staff the 

opportunity to support one another and, within 

the limits of policy and procedure, develop 

team strategies to manage inmate behavior, 

plan for unit activities, set unit goals, and 

determine how to meet those goals. This team 

approach should also increase the level of consistency in operations among shifts. 

Conclusion 

To ensure the housing unit officer is not isolated from his or her coworkers, the jail administrator should develop formal and informal 

means for interaction among staff. This not 

only helps individual staff but also benefits 

overall jail operations as staff begin to see 

themselves as part of various teams working 

toward specific goals for the good of all staff 

and the jail. 

CHAPTER 9: Addressing the Isolation of the Housing Unit Officer 39

CHAPTER 10 

Decisionmaking Using 


Direct Supervision 

the Principles of 


they have a reason to be out, such as for 

a clinic appointment, visit, or class. To do 

anything else, they tell you, is to confirm the 

officers’ suspicion that you don’t care about 

them and that you are pro-inmate. 

You are concerned about your staff, and you 

do not want the union to file a public grievance, so you decide to consider the union 

demands. You call in the security chief and 

discuss the options the union officials posed. 

On the surface, the union’s demands make 

sense. However, as a jail administrator fully 

committed to direct supervision, you choose 

to examine the union’s proposal in light of its 

implications for direct supervision. You raise 

the questions in exhibit 10–1 as a basis for 

decisionmaking. 

Exploration	of	questions	such	as	those	in	

exhibit 10–1 should allow the jail administrator to focus on the underlying causes of the 

problem, rather than to react to the problem as 

the union staff presented it and possibly create 

even more problems. This exploration should 

lead to a more substantial and long-term solution and enable the jail administrator to avoid 

drastic measures that undermine direct supervision and, in the long term, could diminish 

safety and security in the jail. 

Making	decisions	within	the	conceptual	framework of direct supervision allows the administrator to demonstrate commitment to direct 

Sound decisionmaking and leadership 

in a direct supervision jail require 

ongoing consideration of the direct 

supervision principles. All decisions the administrator makes have some effect on the implementation of direct supervision, including 

those related to, for example, budget requests, 

budget reductions, staffing, hiring, training, 

facility maintenance, and daily operations. 

Administrators should make decisions on all 

matters within the conceptual framework of 

direct supervision and with an examination of 

the implications of a decision on the perception and reality of direct supervision. 

Consider the following scenario. 

Two inmates in the recreation yard of a 

general population housing unit try to bully 

several others. An officer intervenes and 

orders the inmates to lockdown. The inmates 

shove and punch the officer. Days later, the 

union shop steward and president arrive in 

your office to express their concerns about 

the incident. They demand that something be 

done and tell you that the cause of the problem is both the direct supervision philosophy 

that places a single officer in direct contact 

with inmates and the jail’s policy that allows 

inmates to be in the recreation yards at any 

time during the day. They want all inmates 

to have no more than the mandatory 1-houra-day out-of-cell time. Inmates otherwise 

should be locked down in their cells unless 

CHAPTER 10: Decisionmaking Using the Principles of Direct Supervision 41
 

 

 

 

Exhibit 10–1 

Using Direct Supervision Principles to Guide Decisionmaking 

What factors might have contributed 

to the assaults? 

Principle 7: Classification and orientation—Knowing with whom you are dealing 

Had the inmates involved been properly assessed and classified? 

Principle 4: Safety of staff and inmates—Inmates’ response to unsafe surroundings 

Were the inmates involved fearful about their own safety, and did they commit the 

assaults purposefully to be reclassified into segregation? 

Did staff supervise and control the 

inmates effectively? 

Principle 1: Effective control—Accountability for behavior 

Did officers consistently hold inmates 

accountable for negative behavior, or 

did they allow inmate behavior to 

deteriorate over time? 

Principle 1: Effective control—Accountability for behavior 

What will be the implications of 

essentially punishing all inmates for 

the behavior of a few? 

Principle 8: Justice and fairness—Consistent root cause of collective violence 

What are the long-term implications 

of minimizing physical recreation for 

inmates and keeping them confined 

in their cells? 

Principle 1: Effective control—Maximizing inmates’ self-control 

Frequent recreation allows inmates to release their energy in a positive way Excessive 

confinement to a cell is likely to increase stress and frustration, which inmates may 

express in disruptive or violent behavior. 

How often did management staff visit 

this housing unit? 

Principle 2: Effective supervision—Frequent supervision by management 

Such visits might have uncovered patterns of inmate or staff behavior that 

precipitated the assaults. 

What assumptions about inmate 

behavior will the jail administrator’s 

decision convey to staff? 

Principle 7: Classification and orientation—Assumption of rational behavior 

Implementation of the union’s proposal would imply that the jail administrator 

believes that all inmates are likely to assault staff, and this may become a self-fulfilling 

prophecy for inmates. This contradicts principle 7. 

supervision clearly and to model behavior and 

ways of thinking that the administrator wants 

staff to adopt. The administrator should require 

that all staff proposals for new or revised 

policies and procedures be accompanied by a 

rationale framed in the direct supervision principles and the implications for those principles. 

This is essential to fully integrating the direct 

supervision principles into jail operations. 

The remainder of this chapter explores several 

issues that direct supervision jail administrators 

often confront. 

Should I Establish a Jail-Based 

Emergency Response Team? 

Within the direct supervision community, there 

has been debate over whether emergency 

response	teams	(ERTs)	are	consistent	with	

42 Direct Supervision Jails: The Role of the Administrator 

direct supervision principles and operations. 

ERTs	come	in	various	forms.	In	some	jails,	

ERTs	comprise	staff	who	are	not	assigned	to	a	

specific post, but rather are available throughout the shift to respond to incidents or perform 

special	assignments.	In	others,	ERT	staff	have	

regular post assignments, but post operations 

are	such	that	ERT	staff	can	leave	on	short	notice	

to respond to an incident. In either case, the 

jail decides to form a special team rather than 

follow a more traditional model that ensures all 

staff receive emergency-response training. 

In this guide, the phrase “emergency response 

team” defines a team of carefully screened and 

selected staff who are specially trained to (1) 

use force as a last option and (2) respond to 

specific types of incidents or carry out special 

assignments, such as: 
 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit 10–2 

Emergency Response Teams 

Will the existence of an ERT affect staff 

and inmate safety? 

How does the existence of an 

ERT affect the officer’s role in the 

housing unit? 

Principle 2: Effective supervision—Officer in control of unit, Unit officer’s 

leadership role 

Inmates and staff may perceive that the officer does not have ultimate authority 

over the unit if the officer frequently relies on the ERT when inmates do not comply 

with an order or when the officer must search an inmate’s cell. Because the housing 

officer’s role is critical to the success of direct supervision, the perception that the 

officer is in control of the unit should not be jeopardized. 

What message does the presence 

of an ERT convey to inmates about 

behavioral expectations? 

•	Housing	unit	disturbance	control

•	Cell	extractions

•	Unit	or	cell	shakedowns

•	High-risk	prisoner	transport

Although	ERTs	may	also	deal	with	other	types	

of incidents or assignments, such as high-risk 

hospital duty, bomb threats, hostage situations, 

natural and man-made disasters, and major 

disturbances, it is only the four assignments 

listed above that are the focus of this discussion and the subject of debate. 

Exhibit	10–2	lists	sample	questions	related	to	

direct supervision that the jail administrator 

might want to consider in deciding whether to 

establish	an	ERT.

The jail administrator should identify and 

weigh all issues related to direct supervision 

when	making	decisions	regarding	an	ERT.	If	

the	administrator	decides	to	establish	an	ERT	

because of the potential benefits related to the 

first two questions in exhibit 10–2, the administrator	will	want	to	ensure	that	ERT	missions	and	

operations are framed in a way that does not 

Principle 4: Safety of staff and inmates—Inmates’ response to unsafe surroundings, Staff 

response to unsafe working conditions 

An ERT may possibly enhance safety. Fewer inmates may be injured if ERT staff are 

highly competent in the use (or avoidance) of force to make cell extractions or subdue 

minor disturbances. If inmates back down when simply faced with an ERT action, the 

jail can avoid inmate injuries altogether. Furthermore, an ERT may enhance staff safety 

because non-ERT staff are not expected to become involved in high-risk incidents for 

which they have not been adequately trained. 

Principle 7: Classification and orientation—Assumption of rational behavior 

The assumption of rational behavior is fundamental to direct supervision. The 

presence of an ERT may convey the message to inmates that staff expect them 

to behave badly and that preparations are in place for this—in much the same 

way that fixtures, furnishings, and the design of traditional jails convey the expectation that inmates will behave badly. 

undermine the officer’s role in the unit or convey negative expectations of inmate behavior. 

Perhaps	in	routine	matters,	such	as	large-scale	

unit	searches,	an	ERT	should	support	the	housing unit officer, who might be more active in 

the	searches,	while	ERT	officers	secure	the	unit	

and staff the desk. Careful consideration should 

also be given to the housing unit officer’s 

responsibility in the case of an inmate altercation. The housing unit officer should remain 

in control by being the person to lock down 

the unit, give verbal orders to stop fighting, 

identify the combatants, note their actions, and 

remove potential weapons nearby. It is essential that inmates continue to view the housing 

officer as an authoritative figure even in such 

difficult situations. 

One direct supervision jail with an on-call 

ERT	experienced	the	importance	of	this	when	

inmates were overheard saying during a minor 

disturbance,	“Don’t	worry	about	those	officers	

coming to get you out of the cell. They’re just 

‘brown shirts’ (unit officers). They have to wait 

for	the	‘black	shirts’	(ERT)	to	do	it	for	them.”	

CHAPTER 10: Decisionmaking Using the Principles of Direct Supervision 43
 

 

It	may	advisable	to	have	ERT	officers	wear	the	

same uniforms as other officers (perhaps with 

a special patch or other subtle designation). 

The jail administrator might also want to consider	integrating	ERT	officers	into	post	assignments, even if they are assignments from 

which administrators can deploy them rapidly. 

Some	direct	supervision	jail	administrators	have	

established	ERTs	as	a	way	of	overcoming	staff	

resistance to direct supervision. They believed 

staff would accept working directly with inmates more readily if they knew a specialized 

team would provide a rapid response if they 

were	to	get	into	trouble.	Establishing	an	ERT	

for this reason can directly undermine direct 

supervision, since staff should understand that 

continual interaction with inmates, setting 

behavioral expectations for inmates, holding 

them accountable, meeting their basic needs, 

and treating them fairly are the real basis for 

safety and security in the jail. 

Should I Use Closed-Circuit 

Television Monitors in the 

Housing Units? 

Jail administrators consider the use of closedcircuit television (CCTV) in housing units generally for three purposes: (1) as a deterrent to 

inmate misbehavior, (2) as a means for central 

control or remote supervisors to view or call 

for a response to unit activities, and (3) as a 

means of recording incidents for investigative 

or prosecutorial purposes. 

The use of CCTV cameras in direct supervision 

housing units is becoming more prevalent. 

Using CCTV cameras to record incidents may 

make sense in areas of high liability and can 

provide a sense of safety to housing unit officers. However, it is important to remember 

that appropriately classified and managed 

inmates who are properly housed in a general 

population housing unit should not present a 

high	risk	of	misbehavior.	Staff	who	rely	on	a	

central control officer to observe misbehavior 

may have a false, potentially dangerous, sense 

of security, since the central control officer 

44 Direct Supervision Jails: The Role of the Administrator

may have so many cameras to watch and 

other duties to attend to that the officer does 

not have much time to observe housing unit 

cameras. Jail administrators who opt to install 

CCTV cameras need to consider carefully what 

their purposes are and what they can reasonably accomplish (see exhibit 10–3), and ensure 

that staff are aware of both the uses and limitations of the cameras. 

Should Staff Be Equipped with 

Pepper Spray and Conductive 

Electrical Devices? 

Although it is always preferable that staff use 

interpersonal communication skills and avoid 

the use of force, there will be situations that 

require staff to use more than verbal directives. 

Administrators should address these situations 

in	training	and	in	policy	and	procedures.	Many	

agencies employ a “use-of-force continuum” to 

govern what kinds of force they can use in 

specific situations. Over the past 10 to 15 

years, jails have made efforts to provide officers with alternatives to hands-on use of force 

and to integrate those options into the use-offorce continuum. 

Pepper	spray	is	the	most	frequently	used	

alternative, and many jail officials opt for its 

use to subdue and control violent inmates in 

volatile situations. While some jails authorize 

only	supervisors	or	ERT	officers	to	carry	pepper spray, others have issued pepper spray to 

housing unit officers and trained them in its 

use. They have done so on the assumption that 

the use of pepper spray may decrease injuries 

to staff and inmates by avoiding the need for 

a	higher	level	of	force.	More	recently,	drawing from the experience of law enforcement, 

some jail officials have also authorized the use 

of	conductive	electrical	devices	(CEDs),	such	

as stun guns. These are hand-held weapons 

that can stun and immobilize a target from a 

few feet away with a jolt of up to 50,000 volts 

of electricity. From the perspective of direct 

supervision principles, administrators can consider both these use-of-force options together 

(see exhibit 10–4). 
 

Exhibit 10–3 

Closed-Circuit Television 

How might the use of closed-circuit 

television (CCTV) affect staff and 

inmate safety? 

Principle 4: Safety of staff and inmates—Personal liability 

The presence of housing unit cameras may deter inmate or staff misbehavior. Staff in 

control rooms might see potentially dangerous behavior on the camera that the officer in 

the housing unit might miss. If the officer is in trouble, assistance might be more readily 

deployed if the control room staff can view the incident. 

On the other hand, placing CCTV in housing unit dayrooms could send a message to 

the officer that the administration does not really believe that direct supervision is safe 

for staff. Also, CCTV potentially can give the officer a false sense of security, since the 

cameras’ reach will probably not allow central control staff to observe all areas of the 

housing unit. Finally, the addition of a large number of cameras focusing on the housing 

units may require central control staff to monitor an unwieldy bank of monitors, perhaps 

with longer rotations, compromising their ability to detect an incident or unsafe condition. 

Can I hold inmates accountable for 

their actions more easily with the use 

of CCTV? 

Principle 1: Effective control—Accountability for behavior 

CCTV might give staff the opportunity to record misbehavior. Administrators can then use 

the recordings to hold an inmate accountable in administrative or criminal proceedings. 

How might the presence of CCTV affect Principle 2: Effective supervision—Officer in control of unit 

the officer’s role in the housing unit? Potentially, the presence of cameras could undermine the officer’s control if inmates 

perceive that it is not the officer who is truly in charge, but rather another staff member or 

supervisor monitoring the unit from a remote location. The perception may be unjustified, 

but it may have negative consequences nonetheless. 

Might the cameras send a message 

to inmates that they are expected 

to behave negatively? 

Principle 7: Classification and orientation—Assumption of rational behavior 

Can cameras compensate for a Principle 1: Effective control—Easily surveillable areas 

housing unit with poor sightlines? If the housing unit has poor sightlines, administrators might compensate by placing 

CCTV monitors at the officer’s workstation. However, this also gives the officer an 

excuse for remaining at a workstation and neglecting primary duties, including 

walking about the unit, interacting with inmates continually, and managing inmate 

behavior. 

If the jail administrator authorizes the use 

of	pepper	spray	or	CEDs,	the	administrator	

should ensure that the highest quality training, supervision, and development of policies 

governing use of force serve as the basis for 

the decision. The administrator should also 

consider to whom these tools are issued and 

whether they should be visible to inmates. The 

jail administrator should also ensure that staff 

clearly understand that their primary goal is 

to manage inmate behavior effectively, not 

through force, but through extensive interaction and supervision. 

Should the Jail Use Open Booking? 

Open booking employs a “waiting room” 

design, whereby officers may seat wellbehaved, newly admitted arrestees in an open 

waiting area until they are processed. Arrestees 

in the waiting area are in full view and under 

the direct supervision of booking room staff. 

The waiting area often gives arrestees full 

access to pay phones, bathrooms, reading 

materials, and a television. Officers do not separate male and female arrestees; these inmates 

share the waiting area. Only those arrestees 

who are combative or whom officers must 

segregate for other reasons, such as contagious 

disease or the need for protection, are placed 

in	a	secure	holding	cell.	Direct	supervision	jail	

administrators have found that most arrestees 

may remain in the open waiting area. 

Open booking is, in fact, integral to direct 

supervision. It introduces arrestees to direct 

CHAPTER 10: Decisionmaking Using the Principles of Direct Supervision 45
 

Exhibit 10–4 

Pepper Spray and Conductive Electrical Devices 

What effect might pepper spray and 

CEDs have on inmate and staff safety? 

Principle 4: Safety of staff and inmates—Staff response to unsafe working conditions 

One could argue that pepper spray and CEDs offer the officer a protective option if an 

inmate attacks, and they provide an alternative to hands-on tactics when an officer needs 

to intervene in an inmate altercation. Having an officer employ an alternative to hands-on 

force could also potentially be safer for inmates. Similarly, the presence of either tool on 

the officer’s person may deter negative behavior and, therefore, enhance the safety of 

both inmates and staff. 

Conversely, pepper spray and CEDs are potentially dangerous weapons that inmates 

could take and use against an officer. Also, an inmate who gains control of these weapons 

could use them against other inmates. In this way, pepper spray and CEDs can present a 

significant safety risk. 

It is also worth noting that CEDs and pepper spray may present some serious health 

risks. However, current research is inconclusive, with strong anecdotal evidence of 

potential risk but limited scientific data. Before authorizing the use of either option, 

the jail administrator should research the current literature and studies on these tools 

thoroughly to understand their uses and risks. 

Principle 7: Classification and orientation—Assumption of rational behavior 

The visibility of items such as pepper spray and CEDs may send a clear message 

to inmates that staff expect them to be assaultive, destructive, and violent. Such 

perceptions may foster the very behavior the jail wants to prevent, as it may create 

a negative, self-fulfilling prophecy. 

If officers are issued pepper spray or 

CEDs, what effect might this have on 

their interaction with inmates? 

Principle 2: Effective supervision—Techniques of effective supervision and leadership 

Principle 6: Effective communication—Communication skills training 

Access to pepper spray and CEDs may diminish the officers’ perception of the need 

to employ the most fundamental tools in managing inmate behavior: interpersonal 

communication skills, interaction with inmates, and effective supervision. If so, the 

officer’s access to pepper spray and CEDs could potentially undermine the effective 

implementation of direct supervision. 

What message does the visibility 

of CEDs and pepper spray send to 

inmates? 

supervision and sets the tone for an inmate’s 

stay	in	the	jail.	Some	jail	administrators,	

though, have questioned its necessity. For 

example, questions about open booking may 

arise during the design of a new direct supervision jail. In operating direct supervision jails, 

staff may propose modifications to the design 

and operations of the booking room that would 

undermine the intent and implementation of 

open booking. 

Exhibit	10–5	discusses	open	booking	and	decisionmaking in the context of direct supervision. Because open booking is integral to direct 

supervision, this discussion will take a different format and simply list some of the direct 

supervision principles with a related discussion 

of open booking. 

46 Direct Supervision Jails: The Role of the Administrator

Open booking is so integral to direct supervision operations that it is hard to identify a 

legitimate counterargument. Although some 

might argue that jail staff know too little about 

inmates at this stage of detention to justify what 

may appear to be a relative lack of security and 

control, an examination of open booking in 

relation to the principles shows that it enhances 

security and control. The jail administrator 

should carefully review proposals not to build or 

to do away with open booking in light of direct 

supervision principles and the effect on the jail’s 

overall implementation of direct supervision. 

Can I Review Incidents 

Using the Principles? 

Not only can administrators review incidents 

in the context of the direct supervision principles, 
Exhibit 10–5 

Control and Operations 

Principle 1: Effective control	 Accountability for behavior—From the onset of the detention process, open booking 

allows arrestees to recognize that they will be accountable for their behavior and that there 

are rewards for positive behavior and negative implications for unacceptable behavior. 

Open booking also removes the anonymity associated with large, group holding cells and 

allows staff to hold arrestees individually accountable for their behavior. 

Maximizing inmates’ self control—Open booking provides both the opportunity and 

motivation for inmates to control their behavior. Incoming inmates prefer to wait in an open 

area, with easy access to television, restrooms, phones, and staff instead of having an officer 

lock them in a holding cell, possibly with others who may be assaultive. Inmates have an 

incentive to behave. 

Principle 4: Safety of staff and inmates Inmates’ response to unsafe surroundings—Traditional booking holding cells, which are 

often crowded, can frequently lead inmates to negative behavior as in response to unsafe 

surroundings. Dangerous conditions may include staff’s inability to see all areas of these cells, 

the mix of arrestees who have not yet been fully assessed for risk and need, the potential 

spread of disease, and the limited and very public hygiene facilities. It is no surprise that 

arrestee response to placement in group holding cells ranges from hostile behavior (as a 

defensive or offensive mechanism) to extreme withdrawal and fear. Also, suicide attempts 

frequently take place during this initial holding period. Finally, the locked holding cell places 

a barrier between staff and arrestees, making it difficult for staff to detect and prevent potential problems. 

Open booking, in contrast, creates a calmer, safer environment for arrestees. Those 

in the waiting area—the majority of arrestees—are under the constant supervision of staff. 

Many new arrestees are fearful and view the staff presence as protection. The open areas 

separate well-behaved arrestees from other inmates and shield them from the negative 

behavior of those in holding cells. Furthermore, since those placed in holding cells are likely 

disruptive or dangerous to themselves or others, officers can place them on special watches 

to ensure their safety. 

Principle 5: Manageable and 

cost-effective operations 

Reduced construction and furnishings costs, wider range of architectural options— 

Open waiting areas are less costly to construct than traditional rows of secure cells. 

Similarly, the open space and use of commercial-level detailing and furnishings allow 

architects to introduce natural light, colors, finishes, and other features that make the 

space less oppressive for arrestees, and, equally important, for staff. 

Anticipation of fundamental needs—Open booking anticipates and provides for the 

fundamental needs of inmates, including personal safety, physical needs (access to 

bathroom), needs related to reaching friends and relatives (telephone access), and 

needs to information (access to staff). 

CHAPTER 10: Decisionmaking Using the Principles of Direct Supervision 47

Principle 7: Classification and 

orientation 

Assumption of rational behavior—The assumption of rational behavior is fundamental to 

direct supervision. With open booking, arrestees are introduced to the assumptions staff 

hold about inmate behavior. At the front door of the jail, arrestees are shown that rational 

behavior will earn them good treatment, respect, and a less onerous incarceration experience. Jail officials say, in effect, to the inmate, “We assume you will behave rationally 

and we will treat you accordingly. Only in the event that you opt for negative behavior 

will your experience in this facility be a negative one.” Most arrestees understand the 

choice and fulfill the assumption of rational behavior, and what they experience in booking will likely carry through to their housing assignment as well. The design, fixtures, and 

furnishings of the waiting area in open booking—just as in the general population housing 

areas—should convey expectations of positive behavior. 

Orientation—Orientation is an important element of the booking and admission process, 

since arrestees need to learn what jail staff expect of them. The design and philosophy 

of direct supervision is clearly conveyed through the open booking arrangement, thus 

enhancing the orientation process. Often, jails may use the television in the open waiting 

area to show orientation videos or informational scrolling banners that give information 

about the booking process, court processes, or general jail rules and information. 

Maximum supervision during initial hours of confinement—Open booking allows for 

constant, unobstructed observation and supervision of arrestees in the open waiting area. 

It also allows staff to isolate inmates whose behavior or needs require segregation and to 

implement special watches for them. 
 

they	absolutely	should.	Doing	so	supports	the	full	

integration of the direct supervision principles 

into	the	jail’s	operations.	Staff,	supervisors,	and	

administrators should employ a deliberate 

process of evaluating incidents within the 

framework of the direct supervision principles, 

and then make the necessary corrections. For 

example, if there is a disturbance in a housing 

unit, a traditional evaluation might focus on the 

following: 

•	The	adequacy	of	the	physical	plant	and	its	

fixtures and furnishings to withstand a violent 

disturbance. 

•	The	adequacy	of	the	response	to	the	incident	

(backup deployed, ability to lock inmates 


down, use-of-force options).
 

•	Inmate	behaviors	that	could	have	foretold	the	

disturbance (in hindsight). 

•	The	adequacy	of	sanctions	for	inmates	

involved in the disturbance. 

A review in the context of direct supervision 

would include these points, but also focus on 

issues such as the following: 

•	To	what	degree	did	staff	have	control	over	

inmate behavior in the unit? What detracted 

from control? Were unit officers continually 

interacting with inmates, and were they aware 

of group and individual behavior patterns? 

(Principle 1: Effective control—Total control) 

•	Did	staff	hold	inmates	accountable	by	managing their behavior and dealing with them as 

individuals rather than as a group? (Principle 1: 

Effective control—Accountability for behavior) 

•	Was	the	number	of	inmates	housed	in	the	

units appropriate for the supervision level? 

(Principle 2: Effective supervision—Staff-toinmate ratio)
 

•	Did	the	officer	have	the	tools	and	opportunities to exercise a leadership role? (Principle 2: 

Effective supervision—Officer in control of unit, 

Unit officer’s leadership role) 

•		Were	supervisors	making	frequent	rounds	and	

ensuring that staff were properly supervising 

48 Direct Supervision Jails: The Role of the Administrator

inmates (and did the supervisors have the 

skills and knowledge of direct supervision to 

do so)? (Principle 2: Effective supervision—Frequent supervision by management, Techniques 

of effective supervision and leadership) 

•		Did	line	staff,	supervisors,	and	top	management receive the right kinds and amounts of 

direct supervision training before and after the 

facility opened? (Principle 3: Competent staff— 

Effective training) 

•		Were	line	officers	assigned	to	the	same	posts	

for a fixed period to ensure consistency, continuity, and knowledge of the inmates and 

their behaviors? (Principle 3: Competent staff— 

Effective leadership by management) 

•		Did	the	jail	provide	safe	and	secure	custody	

for the inmates, and did the inmates feel safe? 

(Principle 4: Safety of staff and inmates—Mission and public expectations) 

•		Was	the	incident	a	result	of	inmates	acting	

out because of fear for their own safety? 

(Principle 4: Safety of staff and inmates—
 

Inmates’ response to unsafe surroundings)
 

•		Were	inmates’	fundamental	needs	being	met	

in the units? (Principle 5: Manageable and costeffective operations—Anticipation of fundamental needs) 

•		Was	there	frequent	communication	between	

inmates and staff in the unit in which this 

incident occurred? (Principle 6: Effective communication—Frequent inmate and staff communication) 

•		Did	the	staff	assigned	to	the	unit	communicate among themselves about inmate concerns, difficult-to-manage inmates, security 

issues, tension in the unit, and inmates who 

might have exerted influence over others? 

(Principle 6: Effective communication— 

Communication among staff members) 

•		Was	the	classification	system	effective?	Did	it	

retrieve information about the incident perpetrators that should have resulted in their 

placement in a section other than the general 

population? (Principle 7: Classification and orientation—Knowing with whom you are dealing) 
 

•		If	information	existed	about	the	potential	danger of the inmates involved in the disturbance, 

did the staff who had the information communicate it to the officers who supervised the 

inmates and to those officers’ supervisors? 

(Principle 7: Classification and orientation—
 

Knowing with whom you are dealing)
 

•		Did	the	facility	have	formal	grievance	systems in place, and did inmates perceive the 

disciplinary systems to be fair? (Principle 8: 

Justice and fairness—Mission and public policy, 

Consistent root cause of collective violence, and 

Formal administrative remedy (grievance) and 

disciplinary system) 

Conclusion 

Full integration of direct supervision into jail 

operations requires the administrator to make 

decisions and review incidents within the 

framework of the direct supervision principles. 

The administrator should not base decisions 

on a “knee jerk” response, the loudest voice, 

or even the most persuasive voice, but rather 

on a careful examination of the principles and 

the implications that a particular decision will 

have on the perception and reality of direct 

supervision. 

Employing	this	type	of	process	in	reaching	

decisions will provide senior managers with a 

positive	impression.	Requiring	all	levels	of	staff	

to justify their decisions and recommendations 

gives them an opportunity to use the principles 

and understand their benefits, especially in 

terms of safety and security. The clear message 

staff receive is that the principles are not just 

words in a document. They are the foundation 

of the jail’s operations. 

CHAPTER 10: Decisionmaking Using the Principles of Direct Supervision 49

CHAPTER 11
 

Assessing Direct Supervision 

Operations and Outcomes 

Many administrators of direct supervision jails find that, without strong oversight and constant vigilance, 

operations often revert to those of more traditional	jails.	Many	times,	it	happens	slowly	

and almost imperceptibly, a creeping away 

from direct supervision, until the jail is direct 

supervision	in	design	only.	Sometimes	officers	

advocate—and get approval—for longer and 

more frequent lockdown periods for inmates, 

often with the rationale that it is necessary 

because inmates need this quiet time or so that 

officers can complete their work. Their work 

is, in fact, managing inmate behavior, which 

they cannot achieve if inmates are locked 

down much of the time. Other times, officers 

build a virtual fortress around their workstations, keeping inmates at bay and avoiding 

the interaction essential to managing inmates. 

Sometimes	jails	institute	graduated	privileges	

for inmates, requiring inmates to prove they 

are worthy of varying levels of privileges. This 

contradicts the assumption of rational behavior 

and the direct supervision practice of giving all 

general population inmates all privileges from 

the outset and removing privileges from individual inmates only when their behavior demonstrates they should lose them. Occasionally, 

firstline supervisors begin exerting authority in 

the housing units, undermining the authority of 

the officer. 

These are but a few of the signs that operations 

are reverting to more traditional practices and 

moving away from direct supervision. There 

are various theories as to why this happens. 

If many staff come from a linear intermittentsurveillance or podular remote-surveillance jail, 

they may have never really understood or supported direct supervision and so try to change 

operations to better suit what they think the 

jail should be. Alternatively, staff sometimes 

simply revert to old ways because they know 

them and are more comfortable with them. To 

prevent this from happening, the administrator 

must be fully aware of and continually assess 

jail operations. 

Assessing Operations 

All jail administrators should have a systematic 

method of assessing the operations in their 

jail to determine if the jail is operating according to legal mandates, codes, standards, and 

policies and procedures. However, the direct 

supervision jail administrator must be especially vigilant in ensuring ongoing implementation 

of the direct supervision principles, with all 

related operational implications—both obvious 

and subtle. This is part of the jail administrator’s leadership responsibility and demonstrated commitment to direct supervision. The 

assessment provides the basis for corrective 

action and prevents backsliding into practices 

that undermine direct supervision. All levels 

of staff should be encouraged to be mindful of 

practices that support or contradict the direct 

supervision principles. 

CHAPTER 11: Assessing Direct Supervision Operations and Outcomes 51
In 2004, the National Institute of Corrections 

published a self-audit instrument1 that gives 

jail administrators information, instruction, 

and tools to assess the implementation of the 

direct supervision principles in their jail. This 

self-audit instrument translates the principles 

of direct supervision into measurable elements. 

Information on these elements is gathered 

from administrator, staff, and inmate surveys; staff and inmate interviews; and facility 

and document reviews. The audit instrument 

also includes instructions for evaluating audit 

results. Administrators can conduct the audit 

process as a one-time assessment or conduct it 

at regular intervals as part of an ongoing monitoring effort. 

Assessing Outcomes 

Direct	supervision	is	an	approach	to	jail	design,	

management, and operations that intends 

to produce certain outcomes. Outcomes 

most often associated with direct supervision 

include: 

•	Lowered	levels	of	vandalism	and	graffiti.

•	Lowered	levels	of	inmate-on-inmate	assault.

•	Lowered	levels	of	inmate-on-staff	assault.

•	Lowered	levels	of	dangerous	contraband.

•	Lowered	levels	of	escape.

•	Lowered	levels	of	suicide.

•	Improved	sanitary	conditions	in	all	jail	areas.

•	Improved	inmate	compliance	with	jail	rules.

•	Enhanced	sense	of	safety	on	the	part	of	staff.

•	Enhanced	sense	of	safety	on	the	part	of	

inmates. 

The jail administrator should assess not only 

how well staff are implementing direct supervision but also how fully the jail is realizing 

these benefits. If the administrator determines 

that the jail is not experiencing one or more 

benefits, the administrator can then assess the 

reasons for this and take corrective action. To 

assess outcomes, the jail administrator should, 

at a minimum: 

•	Identify	the	outcomes	(for	example,	inmates	

feel safe in the jail). 

•		Identify	outcome	indicators	(for	example,	

number of inmates placed into protective 

custody, total number of bed days spent in 

protective custody, the amount of dangerous 

contraband found in housing units, number of 

inmate groups formed for self-protection). 

•		For	each	indicator,	identify	the	benchmark	

level. 

•		For	each	indicator,	identify	sources	of	information (for example, incident reports, grievances, 

records of inmate housing assignments). 

•		For	each	indicator,	identify	in	what	form	the	

jail administrator will receive the information 

(Does	the	jail	administrator	want	to	see	individual	reports?	Does	the	administrator	want	

staff to compile information into a summary 

report?). 

•		Determine	the	frequency	of	outcome	measurement (different outcomes might be measured at different intervals, depending on such 

factors as the span of time required to accumulate sufficient information or the criticality 

of the outcome). 

The outcome assessment will enable the jail 

administrator to: 

•		Identify	and	analyze	trends	in	outcome	

achievement over time. 

•		Set	goals	by	setting	increasingly	higher	

benchmarks in some areas, pushing the jail 

to higher levels of performance. 

•		Identify	areas	that	warrant	further	analysis	

and action. 

It is important to note that administrators 

cannot always take assessment results at face 

value, and there may be more than one possi1 Michael O’Toole, Raymond Nelson, Dennis Liebert, and Kristin Keller, Self Audit Instrument for Administrators of Direct 

Supervision Jails: Based on the Measurable Elements of Direct Supervision. (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 

National Institute of Corrections, 2004). 

52 Direct Supervision Jails: The Role of the Administrator
ble interpretation for a given result. For example, an indicator related to levels of vandalism 

may show that officers are charging fewer 

inmates for damage to their cells. This may 

connote success—that officers are in control 

of the housing units and are actively managing 

inmate behavior, but it could also mean they 

are not conducting cell searches or walkthroughs and are not finding damage as a 

result. In such a case, an administrator should 

examine the number of inmates charged for 

damage to their cells against reports of unit 

inspections conducted by staff other than the 

officers. 

Conclusion 

Although tools such as the self-audit instrument help the jail administrator determine 

the degree to which staff are implementing 

the direct supervision principles, the measurement of outcomes helps determine whether 

the jail is experiencing the expected benefits 

of direct supervision. The administrator who 

assesses both the implementation of direct 

supervision and the achievement of outcomes 

is well positioned to ensure that the jail operates as intended and to prevent backsliding 

into practices that undermine direct supervision and jeopardize the effective management 

of inmates—and ultimately, the safety and 

security of all. 

CHAPTER 11: Assessing Direct Supervision Operations and Outcomes 53

A P P E N D I X A 

Annotated Principles of 


Direct Supervision 

Principle 1: Effective Control 

Effective control of inmate behavior is fundamental to a correctional facility’s operation. The 

control of inmate behavior in a direct supervision facility is achieved through the application of 

the following six subprinciples of this principle. 

Population Divided into 

Manageable Groups 

Total Control 

Staff	in	direct	supervision	jails	firmly	establish	

their authority over all space and activities in 

the facility, particularly inmate housing areas. 

When staff control the inmates, rather than 

allowing inmates to control one another, both 

will be far safer. A fundamental precondition of 

direct supervision is that inmates who do not 

comply with the verbal instructions of staff be 

housed in a segregation unit. 

Sound Perimeter Security 

A direct supervision jail’s physical security is 

concentrated	on	the	perimeter.	Sound	perimeter security permits greater flexibility in the 

internal operations, permitting them to take 

place in a more normalized environment. To 

lessen the chances that perimeter security is 

breached, doors that unit staff control should 

not lead to a direct path of escape from the 

facility and frequent security inspections 

should be conducted to detect any damage or 

attempts to compromise the perimeter’s structural integrity. 

The size of inmate groups should not exceed 

that which can be effectively managed. When 

staff perceive that the size of the inmate group 

that they are supervising is not manageable, 

they will lack the confidence to function at 

their highest potential. 

Easily Surveillable Areas 

Unit officers can more effectively control 

inmates’ behavior when they can easily 

observe their housing unit. This does not necessarily mean there is one point from which all 

areas of the unit are visible, but lines of sight 

should be unobstructed so that officers can 

see most areas by turning their head and all 

areas by taking a few steps. Not only should 

staff easily be able to view all areas under their 

supervision, but the inmates should also be 

able to see the entrances to their rooms easily from the dayrooms. This provides a quality 

known as “protectable space.” 

Reprinted from M.A. O’Toole, W.R. Nelson, D.R. Liebert, and K.D. Keller, “The Annotated Principles of Direct Supervision.” In SelfAudit Instrument for Administrators of Direct Supervision Jails (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of 

Corrections, 2004, pp. 2.1–2.8). www.nicic.org/pubs/2004/019640.pdf., accessed June 11, 2009. 

Appendix A: Annotated Principles of Direct Supervision 55
Accountability For Behavior 

Accountability for behavior is established 

through both inmate management techniques 

and structural design features. When inmates 

have a feeling of anonymity, they are emboldened to behave unacceptably. To remedy this 

condition, staff must deal with the inmates as 

individuals by making a concerted effort to 

address them by their names. Greater accountability for behavior can also be achieved by completing a cell inspection form when inmates 

are assigned to a new cell and holding them 

accountable for any subsequent damage. A 

facility design that incorporates the concept of 

space accountability, such as single cells and 

dedicated space for one unit, further supports 

accountability for behavior. 

Maximizing Inmates’ Self-Control 

Most	inmates	are	very	capable	of	exercising	

control over their behavior when provided the 

opportunity and the motivation. One example 

is the opportunity to retreat to an individual 

cell when tempted to display aggressive behavior. Hyperactive inmates are provided a chance 

to release their energy in the outdoor exercise area at any time of the day. Consistent 

enforcement of inmate rules by staff provides 

the necessary motivation for inmates to 

employ self-control. 

Principle 2: Effective Supervision 

Effective supervision of inmates is closely related to effective control, but more specifically 

refers to the interaction between the unit officer and the inmate. Effective supervision is a 

dynamic process the unit officer employs to manage inmate behavior, based on generally 

accepted behavior management techniques. To achieve effective supervision, the following 

five subprinciples of this principle must be in place. 

Staff-to-Inmate Ratio 

The number of inmates that a unit officer has 

to supervise will have a critical bearing on how 

effective this supervision will be. While fewer 

inmates are easier to supervise, fiscal reality dictates that an officer supervise as many 

inmates as reasonably possible. The collective experience with staffing ratios during the 

past 25 years is that one officer can effectively 

supervise 64 inmates and under special circumstances can effectively supervise 72. An 

additional finding is that one officer supervising 

64 inmates is more effective than two officers 

supervising	100	inmates.	Many	variables	affect	

the effective ratio of unit officers to inmates, 

such as the inmates’ classification, the housing unit design, the officer’s supervision skills, 

and the types of activities in the unit. Because 

of this, setting one ratio for all applications is 

unrealistic. 

Officer in Control of Unit 

A critical precondition to assigning a single officer to manage a housing unit is that the officers have sufficient authority commensurate 

with	their	responsibilities.	Since	officers	will	

exercise their authority through verbal commands rather than physical force, there should 

be a mechanism to remove inmates who 

refuse to comply with officers’ directions. 

Unit Officer’s Leadership Role 

One of the major sources of inmate violence is 

the struggle for leadership when a leadership 

void exists. To prevent competition for leadership among inmates, the officer must fill the 

void. There is room for only one leader on a 

housing unit and that leader must always clearly be the officer. The officer must not share 

the leadership role with an inmate by placing 

one inmate in a subordinate role to another. 

56 Direct Supervision Jails: The Role of the Administrator 
The officers’ duties and the unit environment 

should be structured to support and emphasize their role as undisputed leader of the unit. 

Any inmate who competes for the leadership 

role must be dealt with effectively, even if that 

means removal from the housing unit. 

Frequent Supervision by Management 

Management	must	take	an	active	role	in	ensuring that staff are successful in supervising 

inmates.	Supervisors	and	administrators	must	

maintain a high profile on the units to assure 

that staff are performing their duties correctly 

and according to established policy. The exercise of considerable independent authority 

by unit officers requires frequent monitoring 

to ensure that this authority is not abused. 

Supervisors	should	give	this	attention	in	a	supporting way, taking care not to undermine the 

unit officers’ authority. 

Techniques of Effective Supervision 

and Leadership 

A considerable body of knowledge has been 

collected and verified concerning techniques 

of supervision and leadership in all forms of 

human	endeavors.	Most	of	these	techniques	

are also applicable in a direct supervision facility.	Mastery	of	these	techniques	will	enable	the	

officers to perform their duties skillfully and 

with a sense of professional competence. 

Principle 3: Competent Staff 

When a correctional facility emphasizes the management of inmate behavior, staff effectiveness 

is most critical. When successful operation depends on staff rather than technological devices 

or physical barriers, staff must be sufficiently competent to achieve these important objectives. 

Recruiting Qualified Staff 

The first requirement for assuring competent 

staff is to recruit staff with the qualifications 

necessary to perform the duties of a direct 

supervision unit officer. A candidate for this 

position should be able to relate effectively to 

people and to learn the skills required of this 

position and should have leadership potential. 

Qualified candidates do not have to be college graduates, but should be capable of being 

trained. 

Effective Training 

In addition to basic correctional officer training, the officer must be trained extensively in 

the following areas: the history, philosophy, 

and principles of direct supervision; responsibilities and tasks specific to the unit officer’s 

position; and techniques of effective supervision, leadership, and interpersonal communications. 

Effective Leadership by Management 

It is critical that supervisors and managers visit 

the units with sufficient frequency to assure 

that staff are functioning consistently with 

institutional	policy.	Policy	should	be	adequately	

documented to provide a consistent structure 

that facilitates continuity among shifts and 

units. To maximize the benefits of direct supervision, management must engineer the role of 

the housing officer and structure the supervisors’ visits to assure quality performance. 

Appendix A: Annotated Principles of Direct Supervision 57
Principle 4: Safety of Staff and Inmates 

Probably the greatest concern about being incarcerated or seeking employment in a detention 

facility is personal safety. It is imperative that jails ensure the safety of staff and inmates, as well 

as create the perception of safety, for the full benefits of direct supervision to be achieved. The 

following five subprinciples emphasize why this principle is so important. 

Mission and Public Expectations 

Despite	the	general	fears	associated	with	

detention facilities in our society, there is a 

public expectation that inmates should be safe 

and that the staff who operate these facilities 

should not be exposed to undue hazards. The 

basic mission of a detention facility is to provide safe and secure custody of its wards until 

they are released. 

Life Safety Codes 

Prisons	and	jails	have	all	too	often	been	the	

scenes of tragic fires. The fatalities from these 

fires occurred primarily from smoke inhalation 

resulting from deficient evacuation plans and 

key control procedures. Any facility, regardless 

of architectural style or inmate management 

style, must comply with life safety codes. 

Personal Liability 

Millions	of	dollars	have	been	paid	in	courtawarded damages to victims or their families 

as a result of personal injuries sustained in 

detention facilities because of preventable 

unsafe conditions. The facility administrator’s 

obligation to protect prisoners has been clearly 

established in case law. 

Inmates’ Response to 

Unsafe Surroundings 

Inmate response to unsafe surroundings is 

rather predictable—self-preservation. It is 

a basic human instinct. Inmates attempt to 

enhance personal safety by acquiring defensive 

weapons, affiliating with a kindred group for 

common defense, presenting themselves as 

tough persons not to be messed with, or by 

purchasing security with cash or kind. Inmates 

often commit violent or destructive acts in 

order to be placed in administrative or punitive 

segregation, which they perceive to be safer 

than general population housing. The very 

acts that practitioners identify as the primary 

inmate management problems are often normal reactions to unsafe surroundings. 

Staff Response to Unsafe 

Working Conditions 

Staff’s	response	to	unsafe	conditions	is	similar	

to the inmates’ response, since self-preservation 

is a basic instinct that we all have in common. 

Staff	often	affiliate	with	unions	to	achieve	safer	

working conditions. They avoid personal contact with inmates and avoid patrolling areas 

they perceive to be unsafe. All too frequently, 

staff avoid coming to work by using sick leave 

for stress-related disabilities or by simply abusing the sick leave system. They are also known 

to occasionally carry their own personal and 

prohibited weapons, and some have tried to 

buy personal safety from inmates by granting special favors. Housing units should be 

designed to maximize what is known as “protectable space” to reinforce the officers’ safety 

as well as their perception of safety on the unit. 

58 Direct Supervision Jails: The Role of the Administrator 
Principle 5: Manageable and Cost-Effective Operations 

One very practical consideration for any facility is that it be manageable and cost effective. 

Many jurisdictions are already spending more on detention than they consider proportionate 

to their tax base without achieving their correctional objectives. The effective application of 

the following six subprinciples will enable the facility to fulfill its mission and, at the same time, 

reduce costs and improve manageability. 

Reduced Construction and 

Furnishing Costs 

The initial cost savings in a direct supervision 

facility are those related to construction. The 

absence of vandal-proof and security-style furnishings, fixtures, and finishes throughout 90 

percent of the facility is the major contributor 

to	lower	construction	costs.	Experience	with	

commercial-grade material in direct supervision facilities since 1975 has demonstrated 

that administrators may confidently select 

less-costly alternatives to security/vandal-proof 

components without concern that replacement 

costs will cancel out initial savings. 

Wider Range of Architectural Options 

In a facility where inmate behavior is managed 

so that vandalism is minimal, the architect 

is free to select a wider range of materials 

to improve the facility’s manageability. For 

example, good acoustics are critical to the 

daily operations of a detention facility. Good 

acoustical qualities facilitate officers’ communication with inmates and enable them to hear 

radio communications clearly, and also aid in 

the detection of security breaches. The use of 

carpeting in the dayroom area is one way to 

improve acoustics. Carpeting also reduces slippage on wet floor surfaces, which is a major 

cause of staff injury. Wooden cell doors do not 

expand like steel doors in a fire and are less 

likely to impede safe evacuation. This option 

can be selected without concern that the doors 

will be defaced. 

Reduced Vandalism 

Operating costs can be dramatically reduced 

by curtailing vandalism. The virtual absence of 

graffiti and vandalism in a direct supervision 

facility is achieved by making inmates accountable for their behavior and by promptly restoring	any	area	that	has	been	vandalized.	Since	

graffiti and vandalism are two environmental 

indicators of the absence of control, it is important that they are not visible in a correctional 

facility. 

Anticipation of Fundamental Needs 

As indicated previously, much negative inmate 

behavior results from efforts to fulfill human 

needs.	Proactive	managers	can	use	their	

knowledge of how human needs affect behavior to achieve the behavioral response they 

are seeking. They must engineer the dynamics 

of the living unit so that the fulfillment of the 

inmates’ human needs can only be achieved 

through positive behavior. If inmates understand that most of their fundamental needs 

can be fulfilled in a general population housing 

unit, then they have a very important investment in remaining on the unit. 

Sanitation and Orderliness 

The activities involved in maintaining a clean 

and orderly unit are important devices for 

managing a direct supervision housing unit. 

These activities promote a healthy interaction between staff and inmates in which the 

inmates become conditioned to responding 

positively	to	the	officer’s	directives.	Equally	

important is the frequent opportunity provided for inmates to resist the officer’s directives. These instances continually verify that 

the inmate is compliant enough to function 

on a direct supervision unit. The orderly state 

of the unit is also a constant visual reminder 

that the officer is actively controlling the unit. 

Competition among units for a prize awarded 

Appendix A: Annotated Principles of Direct Supervision 59
to the cleanest can produce positive results in 

maintaining a high standard of sanitation and 

orderliness. The pursuit of high sanitary objectives also provides an important structured 

opportunity for officers to develop their leadership skills. 

Opportunities for Reintegration 

This sixth subprinciple, reintegration or 

redirection, has evolved since the original 

development of the principles of direct supervision.	Rehabilitation	to	any	degree	has	not	

traditionally been a function of detention facilities, which hold primarily pretrial inmates. 

The rehabilitation of even sentenced offenders 

has been considered a questionable goal. In 

direct supervision facilities, however, there has 

been increased focus on developing rehabilitative programs and activities, because many 

of the day-to-day inmate management problems, which previously consumed much of the 

administrators’ attention, have been significantly reduced. 

Principle 6: Effective Communication 

Effective communication is a critical ingredient in the operational strategy of all human 

enterprises. Jails are not exceptions, and management must be sensitive to the important 

impact of the three subprinciples of this principle. 

Frequent Inmate and Staff Communication 

Communication skills are essential to the officers’ leadership position in the housing unit. 

Management,	then,	should	structure	the	unit	

officer’s duties so that frequent communication 

with all inmates is a requirement of the post 

and not merely left up to the initiative of the 

officer. 

Communication Among Staff Members 

Because individual officers are assigned to 

separate units, management must be especially careful to facilitate communications 

among staff members. Unit officers who work 

effectively with inmates sometimes find that 

the obstructions they encounter appear to be 

placed there by other staff members. This can 

be prevented by establishing good channels 

of communication between shifts and among 

assignments. Arrange lunch breaks to be taken 

with other unit officers. Good communications 

can also be achieved through shift roll calls, 

timely and clear policy and procedure statements, post orders, and unit logs. Team meetings with unit officers have also been found 

effective in providing the necessary opportunities for staff communication. 

Communication Skills Training 

Staff	should	receive	thorough	training	in	interpersonal communication skills. The techniques 

of effective communication will greatly assist 

unit officers in achieving their objectives. 

60 Direct Supervision Jails: The Role of the Administrator 
Principle 7: Classification and Orientation 

The classification and orientation of inmates must be an integral part of the day-to-day 

operations of direct supervision facilities. 

Knowing With Whom You Are Dealing 

Officers must know with whom they are dealing and should have the benefit of as much 

information about each inmate as possible. 

While it is true that detention facilities often 

receive many prisoners about whom little 

information exists, they also receive many 

repeaters whose confinement records should 

detail, among other things, their behavior patterns in confinement. 

Orientation 

Inmates should be told during the admission 

process what is expected of them. For most 

people, a correctional facility is an unfamiliar 

environment, and a direct supervision facility is 

unique among correctional facilities. A carefully 

structured orientation program will save time 

and prevent misunderstandings. A videotaped 

orientation presentation in the languages frequently encountered among admitted inmates 

has proven extremely effective. 

Assumption of Rational Behavior 

Human behavior is amazingly responsive to 

expectations communicated. This has been 

demonstrated frequently in educational settings and has been the object of considerable 

research. When we convey to people the 

kind of behavior we expect from them, either 

verbally or nonverbally, their tendency is to 

respond to these cues. 

Maximum Supervision During Initial Hours 

of Confinement 

Special	attention	during	the	orientation	period	

is indicated because the first 24 to 48 hours of 

confinement are a critical period in the detention process. The highest rate of suicide occurs 

during this time, accounting for nearly half the 

total jail suicides. Intensive supervision at this 

phase of the detention process and the prompt 

identification of inmates with self-destructive 

tendencies will contribute to a lower suicide 

rate. 

Principle 8: Justice and Fairness 

Justice is a fundamental aspect of correctional facility management. Because of the many implications of this issue for jail operations and its significance for jail management, it is regarded as 

an operational principle. The application of the following four subprinciples will help to achieve 

this concept. 

Mission and Public Policy 

A critical part of the mission of most detention 

facilities is the provision of just custody. This 

is in recognition of the fundamental obligation 

to comply with constitutional standards and 

other applicable codes and court decisions. 

Despite	widespread	public	confusion	regarding	

the role of the detention facility, there is a public expectation that inmates should be treated 

fairly and in accordance with the law. 

Consistent Root Cause of 

Collective Violence 

The level of violence in our society has reached 

such	alarming	proportions	that	two	Presidential	

commissions have been appointed to study 

this phenomenon. After examining the history	of	collective	violence	in	the	United	States,	

they were able to identify a set of root causes 

present in all of the many occurrences. One 

consistent root cause, which is particularly 

Appendix A: Annotated Principles of Direct Supervision 61
relevant to the correctional setting, is that in 

every such event, the participants strongly felt 

that they had been treated unfairly. As a principle of inmate management, it is not sufficient 

for management to be just and fair; it is also 

vitally important that management’s actions 

are perceived by the inmate population as just 

and fair. 

Critical Leadership Quality 

As referred to previously, the officer’s role as 

the leader of the unit is important in exerting 

positive control over the inmate population. 

A critical quality of any leader is a keen sense 

of fairness that subordinates can consistently 

depend on. Any compromise of officers’ reputation for fairness will seriously jeopardize their 

operational effectiveness. 

Formal Administrative Remedy 

(Grievance) and Disciplinary System 

There will always be cases where an inmate 

does not accept the officer’s position. 

Regardless	of	the	basis	for	the	inmate’s	disagreement, a formal administrative procedure 

should exist to channel such disputes. A creditable third-party review not only is a good pressure release mechanism, but also serves as a 

monitoring system to ensure consistent equitable	treatment.	Disciplinary	systems	for	dealing	

with inmate rule violators should be structured 

and fair. 

62 Direct Supervision Jails: The Role of the Administrator 
A P P E N D I X B 

Strategies for Managing 


1. Think like a good supervisor. 

You	are	a	supervisor	of	people	the	first	day	

you enter a direct supervision housing unit. 

a Direct Supervision 

Housing Unit 

The following 22 strategies will help you succeed in managing a direct supervision housing unit. 

This list was developed from interviews with direct supervision officers. Please add to it as your 

skills, confidence, and competency increase. 

new inmates and continuously reinforce them 

with	everyone	in	the	unit.	Do	not	assume	that	

inmates can guess what you want. 

The inmates look to you for leadership, decisionmaking, problem solving, and positive 

reinforcement. If you think and perform like a 

good supervisor, you will be more successful at 

achieving your goals in the unit. 

2. Expect the best: The self-fulfilling 

prophecy. 

If you set and reinforce high expectations of 

inmates,	they	will	perform	at	that	level.	People	

tend to behave as people expect them to 

behave.	Expect	the	best,	and	they	will	rise	to	

that level. 

3. Set clear expectations with inmates. 

Tell inmates what you expect of them. They 

usually receive a general orientation to the 

facility before being assigned to a housing 

unit. However, you must also orient each 

inmate specifically to your housing unit and 

your expectations of appropriate behavior. 

Because inmates test the boundaries you set, 

you should clearly explain your expectations to 

4. Use positive reinforcement 

techniques. 

Everyone	likes	to	hear	when	they	do	something	right.	Managing	behavior	through	positive	

reinforcement is more effective than relying 

on	criticism	and	threats	of	discipline.	Most	

inmates rarely hear anything positive about 

themselves. When they do hear praise, they’ll 

usually work hard to earn more of it. Take time 

to “catch them doing something right” and give 

them immediate reinforcement. Find a variety 

of ways to reinforce good behavior. 

5. Hold inmates accountable for their 

behavior. 

A critical element of managing behavior is 

holding inmates accountable for their actions. 

In traditional jails, this was more difficult to 

accomplish because staff and inmates were 

separated, staff observed inmates only periodically, and staff tended to view inmates as 

a group instead of as individuals. Too often, 

Source: Thomas Reid and Vic Jacobsen, How to Run a Direct Supervision Housing Unit: A Training Curriculum (Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections, 2005) 

Appendix B: Strategies For Managing a Direct Supervision Housing Unit 63
staff permitted inmates to act “like inmates.” 

In direct supervision, you have the opportunity 

to hold individual inmates directly responsible, 

because you now have continuous contact and 

can connect specific behavior with individuals. 

You	can	then	assign	effective	consequences	

when necessary. 

6. Treat inmates with respect and 

consideration: The Golden Rule. 

Treat inmates as you would want staff to treat 

you if you were in jail. Offer them respect and 

consideration. In turn, they will treat you with 

respect, and you will have fewer behavioral 

problems	in	the	unit.	Set	the	standard.

7. Be just and fair. 

Nobody likes it when others treat them unfairly.	You	must	be	just	and	fair	in	all	of	your	dealings with inmates. This is difficult since each 

inmate is different—you will like some more 

than	others.	Some	will	require	more	of	your	

time; others very little of it. However, almost 

all of them will be watching to see if you treat 

everyone fairly or if you play favorites. Inmates 

who believe an officer is treating them unfairly 

become a management problem, and they can 

try to include others as part of the problem. 

Inmates’ perception of unfair treatment has 

historically been identified as a major factor in 

institutional disturbances. If you are just and 

fair in dealing with all inmates, you will find 

fewer management problems. 

8. Rely on the least restrictive supervisory 

techniques necessary. 

You	cannot	manage	a	unit	by	always	using	

commands, orders, and discipline. Once you 

start at this level, you have nowhere to go but 

up. Force yourself always to start with lowlevel, nonconfrontational supervisory techniques. If you always begin at this level, you 

have	all	of	your	options	available.	Remember,	

most inmates in most circumstances will 

respond	well	to	simple	requests.	You	will	be	

surprised at how well they work. The key is 

always to start at the least restrictive level—it 

will make your job much easier over time. 

64 Direct Supervision Jails: The Role of the Administrator 

9. Manage the unit by walking 

and talking. 

To run the unit effectively and manage behavior, you must be aware of what is happening in 

the	unit.	Since	it	may	be	difficult	for	inmates	to	

initiate meaningful conversations with you, you 

must make yourself accessible, interact with 

them on an ongoing basis, and initiate and foster communication. 

Your	desk	is	there	only	for	short-term	paperwork; do not use it as a barrier between you 

and	the	inmates.	Moving	around	the	unit	during your shift will help you be a successful 

supervisor. “Walking and talking” works well if 

you approach inmates in a casual manner and 

see this as an opportunity to learn about them 

and	what	is	really	going	on	in	the	unit.	You	will	

be less effective if you merely do “surveillance 

rounds” and play “gotcha.” 

Do	not	assume	that	communication	and	

interaction come easily; you must create the 

environment that facilitates good formal and 

informal communication. This means making yourself accessible and approachable and 

listening carefully as a regular way of doing 

business. Also approach inmates on a regular 

basis and give them the opportunity to talk. In 

a direct supervision housing unit, conversation 

with the officer should be the norm for inmate 

behavior. 

10. Identify and address inmate concerns. 

Take	time	to	address	inmate	concerns.	Make	

thoughtful judgments and help the inmates 

address their concerns directly or by referring 

to	an	appropriate	resource.	Remember	to	follow	up.	Remember	that	if	an	issue	is	important	

to an inmate, you should treat it as important 

whether you think it is or not. If you do not 

deal with inmates’ concerns, you will face a 

management problem as a result. 

11. Be a source of information 

and services. 

As the housing officer, you are a significant person	in	the	inmates’	lives.	You	are	their	primary	

source for everything, including information and 
services. This gives you great leverage over 

them, but it can also lead to problems if you 

do not fulfill this role. Learn where to get 

answers to often-asked questions and become 

aware of the services provided in the jail and 

the community. 

Make	sure	inmates	see	you	as	a	good	resource;	

they will present fewer management problems 

in return. 

12. Encourage inmates to take responsibility for themselves. 

In direct supervision, it is important to get 

inmates to do things for themselves. They 

need to be involved in unit activities and goals 

as a group, but they must also take the initiative to address their own individual needs. 

Since	inmates	are	not	used	to	this,	you	may	

consciously have to delegate this responsibility to them. In old-style jails, officers generally 

did everything for the inmates and made them 

dependent on staff. In a direct supervision 

housing unit, officers must encourage inmates 

to make their own choices, be responsible, and 

do things for themselves. 

13. Plan and supervise unit activities. 

You	have	a	vested	interest	in	keeping	the	

inmates productively occupied while they are 

in the unit. The program staff will provide 

some structured activity, but you need to take 

the time to plan, implement, and supervise 

activities in the unit to keep inmates occupied. 

It makes them easier to manage and makes 

your job easier in the long run. Be creative and 

plan things such as tournaments, projects, or 

other	formal	and	informal	activities.	Define	

planning as part of your job. 

14. Develop and measure personal 

goals for the unit. 

As a direct supervision housing officer, you 

must	think	beyond	your	shift.	Set	goals	for	

what you want to accomplish over time in 

the unit and develop criteria to measure 

your	achievement.	You	will	want	to	continue	

improving conditions and the “atmosphere” in 

the unit by setting reasonable goals, working 

with inmates to achieve them, and then setting slightly higher goals. Important areas for 

goal setting may include improving sanitation, 

reducing noise levels, or reducing the number 

of inmate complaints or disputes. 

15. Apply policies and procedures 

appropriately to achieve unit objectives. 

Policies	and	procedures	are	an	excellent	

management tool for housing officers. They 

define the minimum requirements for housing 

unit operations and help in decisionmaking. 

However, you should remember to apply those 

policies and procedures with discretion and 

thoughtfulness.	Do	not	use	them	as	an	excuse	

to avoid your responsibility to manage the unit. 

Remember,	most	people	do	not	appreciate	

having “the book” continually or rigidly applied 

to them. 

16. Keep the supervisor and 

coworkers informed. 

Nobody likes surprises. This is especially true 

of your supervisor and other officers who work 

in the unit. Keep them informed of your management strategies and unit activities. They 

may begin to adopt some of your strategies, 

provide you with helpful insights, and support 

what you are trying to accomplish. Finding 

ways to keep your colleagues informed should 

become a routine part of your job. 

17. Take the initiative: Just do it. 

Do	not	feel	that	you	need	to	ask	permission	

to do your job. If it’s really your unit and you 

are really a leader, don’t wait for decisions 

from	above.	You	are	there	to	make	decisions.	

Take initiative, and try new things in your 

unit (within policy and procedure guidelines). 

This is very important: Inform your supervisor 

beforehand if you plan to try something substantially new. 

18. Take calculated risks. 

Officers take calculated risks all the time. This 

is especially true in a direct supervision unit. 

You	may	choose	to	give	an	assignment	to	an	

inmate who may seem not to be ready for it. 

You	may	decide	to	try	some	nontraditional	

Appendix B: Strategies For Managing a Direct Supervision Housing Unit 65
approaches to situations in the unit. While 

every effort may not be a stunning success, it 

is important that you weigh a given circumstance, make a reasonable decision, and occasionally take a chance as long as it does not 

compromise security and safety. 

19. Be creative. 

Try new things. There is more than one way to 

manage behavior and accomplish goals. Be creative and be willing to try new approaches. 

Although policies and procedures establish 

guidelines, you still have a lot of latitude in 

how	you	can	accomplish	tasks	in	the	unit.	Do	

not be afraid to try new things, talk to other 

staff, and learn from others’ triumphs and 

failures. The more you try, the more you will 

accomplish. 

20. Be flexible. 

You	will	find	that	one	of	your	greatest	management tools is the ability to be flexible as circumstances	change.	You	must	be	just	and	fair	

with all the inmates and yet be flexible enough 

to adapt to the ever-changing conditions in 

the	unit.	Don’t	let	yourself	get	into	a	rigid	routine or set pattern so that your decisions and 

behavior suffer. 

21. Be a role model for the unit. 

In a direct supervision housing unit, you set 

the example for the behavior you want. The 

inmates will look to you for their behavioral 

cues. Not only do you need to set high standards, you must also model those standards 

in your actions, words, body language, and 

demeanor.	Your	challenge	is	to	continue	to	be	

a positive role model, to be poised and confident, and to provide leadership in the unit 

even when you are having a bad day. 

22. Be yourself. 

The final principle of running a direct supervision housing unit is to be yourself. Inmates will 

know if you are putting up a façade or pretending to be something or someone you are not. 

Be honest about who you are, and inmates 

will find a way to adapt to your unique style. 

Inmates understand that each officer is different.	Do	not	be	afraid	to	add	your	own	unique	

spin to housing unit management. 

Summary 

The 22 strategies above are a few of the guiding concepts that have worked in direct supervision housing units. They will work for you, 

too, if you give them a chance. Of course, not 

every inmate may respond positively to a management style based on these strategies, but 

most will. Once the majority of inmates present no management problems, you can focus 

more strategies on the few who do. 

A positive inmate “culture” based on your 

influence as the housing unit supervisor will 

build upon itself. New inmates will come into 

the unit and become part of the prevailing 

environment. Other officers will want to know 

your secret for running a good housing unit. It 

is really no secret; it is a pattern and practice 

of effective supervisory skills. 

66 Direct Supervision Jails: The Role of the Administrator 





U.S. Department of Justice 

National Institute of Corrections 

Washington, DC 20534 

Official Business 

Penalty for Private Use $300 

Address Service Requested 

www.nicic.gov

MEDIA MAIL
 

POSTAGE & FEES PAID
 

U.S. Department of Justice
 

Permit No. G–231