Directors’ Message

It is by now a commonplace that the number 

of people under criminal justice supervision 

in this country has reached a record high. As 

a result, the sentencing policies driving that

number, and the field of corrections, where 

the consequences are felt, have acquired an

unprecedented salience. It is a salience defined

more by issues of magnitude, complexity, and

expense than by any consensus about future

directions. 

Are sentencing policies, as implemented through

correctional programs and practices, achieving

their intended purposes? As expressed in the

movement to eliminate indeterminate sentencing and limit judicial discretion, on the one

hand, and to radically restructure our retributive system of justice, on the other, the purposes seem contradictory, rooted in conflicting

values. The lack of consensus on where sentencing and corrections should be headed is

thus no surprise. 

Because sentencing and corrections policies

have such major consequences—for the 

allocation of government resources and, more

fundamentally and profoundly, for the quality 

of justice in this country and the safety of its 

citizens—the National Institute of Justice and the

Corrections Program Office (CPO) of the Office

of Justice Programs felt it opportune to explore

them in depth. Through a series of Executive

Sessions on Sentencing and Corrections, begun

in 1998 and continuing through the year 2000,

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

May 2000 Papers From the Executive Sessions on Sentencing and Corrections

No. 8

Research in Brief

Correcting Corrections: 

Missouri’s Parallel Universe

by Dora Schriro

P

risons are “total institutions”—organizations in which officials decide when, 

where, and with whom prisoners will

live, work, eat, and play. Such comprehensive

control serves various management aims but

disserves the goal of preparing prisoners to

live in the community, where they must be

responsible for all the decisions, however

important and mundane, that affect their lives.

Recognizing the disconnect between life

inside and outside prison, the Missouri

Department of Corrections overhauled its

approach to prison management to improve

correctional outcomes. The new strategy,

“Parallel Universe,” is premised on the notion

that life inside prison should resemble life

outside prison and that inmates can acquire

values, habits, and skills that will help them

become productive, law-abiding citizens.

Of the more than 27,000 inmates in Missouri’s

prisons, about 600 (less than 3 percent) have

been sentenced to life—or death. Only this

small group will remain in a correctional

institution for the rest of their lives. The vast

majority will be released to the community.

Since more than 97 percent of all State prisoners will return home, confinement should

be much more than a time and place for

incapacitation. In Missouri, it has become an

opportunity for staff to share responsibility for

prerelease preparation with the offenders who

will be released. The parallel universe transfers

a measure of power from prison managers to

prisoners in a process that achieves compliance

through strategies focused internally, not

externally imposed.

■ ■ ■

Why a parallel universe?

Missouri’s parallel universe offers a better

way to influence offender behavior than

do other models of offender management.

Criminal thinking and behavior are largely

egocentric: Offenders tend to focus on what

they want, rationalizing their misconduct, understating its effects, and often discounting

social norms and community values. In conventional prison management, control is the

major management tool. The level of control

eliminates any opportunity for prisoners to

make decisions and be held accountable.

Avoiding punishment becomes many prisoners’

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

Research in Brief CONTINUED ...

SIssues for the 21st Century

ENTENCING & CORRECTION S S ENTENCING 

Issues for the 21st CenturyS
primary preoccupation, a pastime scarcely

conducive to learning the skills and internalizing the underlying values necessary to function in the world outside.

In Missouri, offenders are engaged full time in

activities paralleling those of the outside world.

The structure of prison life has been reengineered

to require that they make decisions and be

accountable for them. Their decisions affect

employment in prison as well as other conditions

of confinement. They also affect employability

after release and, in other ways, their lives in the

community. Because prisoners are prepared for

release throughout their confinement, they no

longer face an abrupt transition that leaves

them ill equipped for the real world.

■ ■ ■

Correctional systems as 

bureaucratic organizations 

Missouri’s decision to revamp prison 

management can be best understood in

the context of the structure of conventional 

correctional systems. Correctional agencies

are bureaucratic organizations—hierarchical,

with decisionmaking flowing from top to

bottom. In each agency, responsibility for

each function is demarcated by rank and

further divided between uniformed and civilian personnel. Offenders also have a place in

the hierarchy: They are at the bottom.

Correctional agencies are a particular type of

bureaucratic organization. They have been

called “total institutions” by sociologist Erving

Goffman,1 who described them as sharing

characteristics modified only slightly to serve

different regimented populations—the mentally disabled, the physically infirm, convicted

felons, the military, and religious orders.

Regardless of the population, the purpose is

the same: To maintain as much control as

much of the time as possible over all “inmates.”

In the community, people choose where and

with whom they live, work, and recreate. In

the course of a day, most people have an

opportunity for success in one or more aspects of life. In the total institution of the

prison, the administration makes those choices.

All activities are conducted in one place under

one authority, and in each phase of the inmates’

day they are in the company of others with

whom they do not choose to associate. Unlike

those who live in the community, inmates are

given little chance to succeed.2

Civilian and uniformed personnel alike are

authorized to sanction inmates whenever they

fail to conform to the schedule or to any other

expectations. Introduction to rules, schedule,

and staff occurs at admission, when all conventional means of identification—drivers’

licenses, proof of voter registration, credit

cards—are exchanged for a number plus one

or more classification scores denoting risk to the

public and personal needs. Street clothes are

replaced with prison-issued uniforms in colors

and styles easily distinguishable from those of

staff or visitors. Hair is cut and facial hair

removed; access to grooming products is

limited. The inmates’ loss of articles that

communicate the sense of self to others does

not mean they have lost that sense of self. Their

“presenting culture” continues to inform inmates’

decisionmaking throughout their incarceration.3 Sublimated but never abandoned, it

continues to operate covertly unless modified.4

Inmates’ status or standing is skewed. During

admission, inmates are issued all property

they will be permitted to own while confined.

Schedules vary little by custody level and

quality of conduct. Opportunity for community

service is curtailed for all but a few low-risk

offenders. In calculating the presumptive

release date, good time is credited only at

intake. While opportunities to advance standing are rare, inmates can lose status—by

property restrictions, temporary punitive

segregation, or loss of good time—because

prisons tend to reward bad conduct and

ignore good conduct. 

2 Sentencing & Corrections

practitioners and scholars foremost in their

field, representing a broad cross-section of

points of view, were brought together to find

out if there is a better way to think about the

purposes, functions, and interdependence of

sentencing and corrections policies. 

We are fortunate in having secured the assistance of Michael Tonry, Sonosky Professor 

of Law and Public Policy at the University of

Minnesota Law School, and Director, Institute

of Criminology, University of Cambridge, as

project director. 

One product of the sessions is this series of

papers, commissioned by NIJ and the CPO as

the basis for the discussions. Drawing on the

research and experience of the session participants, the papers are intended to distill their

judgments about the strengths and weaknesses

of current practices and about the most promising ideas for future developments. 

The sessions were modeled on the executive

sessions on policing held in the 1980s and

1990s under the sponsorship of NIJ and

Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government.

Those sessions played a role in conceptualizing

community policing and spreading it. Whether

the current sessions and the papers based on

them will be instrumental in developing a new

paradigm for sentencing and corrections, or

even whether they will generate broad-based

support for a particular model or strategy for

change, remains to be seen. It is our hope that

in the current environment of openness to new

ideas, the session papers will provoke comment, promote further discussion and, taken

together, will constitute a basic resource document on sentencing and corrections policy

issues that will prove useful to State and local

policymakers.

Julie E. Samuels

Acting Director

National Institute of Justice

U.S. Department of Justice 

Larry Meachum

Director

Corrections Program Office

U.S. Department of Justice

2 Sentencing & Corrections

Directors’ Message

CONTINUED ...
Sentencing & Corrections 3

Bureaucracies promote 

efficiency

As bureaucratic organizations, correctional

systems achieve efficiency in distinctive ways.

The staff-to-offender ratio is as great as 1 to

150. Because there are many inmates with

special needs and so few staff to address them,

inmates are often managed in blocks, not as

individuals. They are moved as blocks, housed

as blocks, fed as blocks. The chief staff activity

is surveillance, not individualized assistance.

To enhance control by a small staff over large

groups of unwilling inmates, conventional

systems prescribe roles for both offenders and

employees. The rules typically restrict interactions that resemble ordinary social intercourse

between officers and offenders, which reduces

the likelihood that they will view one another

as individuals, much less sympathetic ones. 

In the name of efficiency, employees are also

strictly regulated. Correctional system management is paramilitary. The chain of command

offers limited opportunities for correctional

officers to make decisions that will improve

their standing. In the same way as number of

years can move up inmates’ time of release,

for line staff career advancement is based

largely on tenure. As with the offender population, for employees the incentive for extra effort

is largely extrinsic. Given the large numbers of

inmates whom they manage at great social

distance, it is difficult for correctional employees

to find much intrinsic satisfaction in their work.

This tends to affect the public’s perception of

correctional staff, and correctional officers in

particular, unjustly stereotyping them.

Bureaucracies do not promote

effectiveness

An organization is effective to the extent it is 

an open system continuously interacting with

its environment. The total institution of the

prison almost always inadequately deals with

environmental complexities because it is a

closed system. Isolating prisoners from the

public in facilities far removed from population centers, the prison releases people ill

prepared to reenter the community.

In the world outside, people develop a sense

of self and establish standing through work,

community service, and citizenship. Work is

the primary way people support themselves

and is a means of self-expression. For prisoners it is different. Their basic needs are met by

the facility, and self-expression is prohibited.

The usual motive to work is lacking and its

ordinary rewards denied. On the outside,

volunteering in the community is a way people

demonstrate concern for their neighbors and

neighborhoods in nonwork hours. In prison,

there is no unscheduled leisure time, and any

opportunity for community service is available

only to small numbers of low-risk felons. On

the outside, people have civic responsibilities—most notably, voting. Prisoners experience “civil death” and are not allowed to vote,

at least as long as the sentence lasts. 

Operating this way means lost opportunities.

Because the prison is not adept at distinguishing criminal from noncriminal relationships, it

prevents normal social interaction. Prisoners

are prevented from cultivating relationships

that might reduce the public’s fear of crime or

increase the possibility of forgiveness. The

divide between life inside and outside prison, 

symbolized by stone walls and razor ribbon

fences, separates prisoners from the citizens

who authorize these institutions, the taxpayers

who fund their operations, and the stakeholders

who monitor them. Not only is contact with

citizens in general limited, but so too is contact

between inmates and their families and between

inmates and the community. This is so although

ex-offenders’ success is based in some significant measure on reconciling felons, their

families, and those in the community who 

fear the offenders’ return.

■ ■ ■

The prison as a total institution

impedes public safety 

I

f the total institution of the prison produces

ex-offenders whom the public values—

people who reside in the community in a civil

and productive manner—it does so infrequently

and almost accidentally. The prison uses two

correctional models, the restraint/retributive

and the rehabilitative, that are remarkably

similar to one another. Neither offers offenders

realistic opportunities to practice decisionmaking. The restraint/retributive model uses

surveillance by uniformed staff who punish

prisoners for untoward actions. The rehabilitative model relies on surveillance by treatment

staff who punish prisoners for untoward intentions. Neither approach promotes learning

skills associated with civility and productivity.

The retributive model restricts all skills acquisition, and the rehabilitative model assumes skills

acquisition alone suffices. The consequences

are significant. Short-term goals—care, custody, control—may be met, but long-term

goals—humane confinement and adequate

prerelease preparation—may be impeded. 

The reason is straightforward. Offenders who

acquire literacy, employability, and sobriety

skills may not understand why these skills are

essential. The rules and regulations of corrections and its approach to work and civic involvement discourage critical thinking and

personal responsibility. Even inmates who

unfailingly follow prison officials’ directives

often encounter difficulty as ex-offenders. Many

have been “colonized” and continue to heed

others’ directions, whether good or bad, after

release. They have not internalized the values

underlying civil, productive conduct.

■ ■ ■

Components of the parallel

universe 

The parallel universe attempts to make the

correctional system an effective organization—one that interacts with the changing

environment outside. It presupposes a system

whose requirements and rewards are like those

of the “real world.” The goal is to cultivate in

offenders the skills that yield civil, productive

conduct. Essentially, the parallel universe is a

corrections-based reentry program.

Sentencing & Corrections 3
Prisoners in Missouri make choices and

assume responsibility for decisions that have

real-life ramifications. They learn to recognize

community expectations and reconcile them

with their own attitudes. They practice making

decisions that do not contravene security in

prison and that will enhance public safety on their

release. In short, they make the same choices

as other Missouri citizens for prosocial, productive

conduct. In so doing, they can acquire what

criminologist James Q. Wilson called a “moral

sense” to remain crime free all their life.5

The parallel universe has four interactive expectations or opportunities. First, every offender is engaged during work and nonwork

hours in productive activities that parallel

those of free society. In work hours, offenders

go to school and work and, as applicable,

to treatment for sex offenses, chronic mental

health problems, and drug and alcohol

dependencies. In nonwork hours they participate in community service, reparative

activities, and recreation. Second, every offender must adopt relapse prevention strategies and abstain from unauthorized activities,

including drug and alcohol consumption and

sexual misconduct. Third, most offenders

can earn opportunities to make choices and

are held accountable for them. Fourth, offenders are recognized for good conduct

and can improve their status by obeying the

rules and regulations.

Productive activity—during

work hours 

“Buns Out of Bed,” the initiative requiring

that general population inmates engage full

time in school, work, and treatment, was

adopted in 1993 and became State law a year

later. The word that best conveys this approach

is “press”: The institution’s time and talent are

organized around inmates’ skill building.

School. The need for prisoner education is

great in Missouri prisons. The majority of

entering offenders lack basic literacy. Only onethird are high school graduates or had earned

a general equivalency diploma (GED) before

sentencing. Of the high school dropouts who

constitute the other two-thirds of admissions,

half are functionally illiterate. Given the level

of need, every adult prisoner who does not have

a high school diploma or GED must attend

school part time. Certified juvenile offenders

must attend school full time. Other inmates

younger than age 21 who need educational

assistance receive additional, specialized

instruction. 

Work. Offenders’ work records are as weak

as their educational records. The majority are

unemployed or underemployed at the time of

commitment. Their work histories are sporadic,

and most have supplemented their earnings

with the proceeds of their criminal activity.

Work is mandatory. Prison employment encompasses a variety of full-time and part-time

assignments that amount to a full day’s work, 5

days a week. As in most other prisons, work

details in Missouri often involve menial 

assignments. However, Missouri is different 

in that prisoners are interviewed for the jobs

and they keep the jobs by following directions

and learning to accept criticism. 

Treatment. Offenders fail far more often at

sobriety than in school or at work. Most

Missouri prisoners need drug education, and

many need long-term treatment. Thirteen

percent are convicted sex offenders, all of whom

must complete treatment before parole release.

Overlapping those two groups are the 15 percent

with chronic mental health problems. Treatment

is the first step. Relapse prevention is the second.

Compliance is checked continuously in a variety

of ways, including urinalysis for substance

abusers and lie detector tests for sex offenders.

Underlying values. It is not enough that

offenders become literate, employable, and

drug free. Inmates who earn a GED are better

educated criminals. Inmates who work are

employable criminals. Inmates who have

undergone detoxification are sober criminals.

To reduce relapse, revocation, and recidivism, offenders must understand why these

skills are beneficial and how to use them

beneficially. In short, they must internalize the

values inherent in school, work, and treatment. The parallel universe promotes such

understanding by bringing the outside world

inside and operating as much like the community as possible within security constraints.

As in the community, education increases

earning potential: When offenders earn their

GED, their pay increases. Similarly, the GED is

now the prerequisite for enrolling in vocational education and for “premium pay” work.

Productive activity—during

nonwork hours 

On the outside, life consists of more than work.

Thus, the core prisoner reentry program of

school, work, and treatment is augmented with

activities that help inmates acquire other life

skills and learn the underlying values. Community

service, reparation, and recreation are used to

this end. 

Community service. In addition to being

gainfully employed, many citizens engage in

activities that improve their community. In so

doing, they better appreciate their own good

fortune and better understand the plight of others. In Missouri, offenders participate in community service as an elective activity when they are

not working. They select charities to which they

donate time and money throughout the year. 

Reparation. Offenders commonly displace

blame for their crimes onto their victims and

hold loved ones accountable for their lot in

life. To reverse this thinking, Missouri has

instituted three reparative activities—victimoffender mediation, victim impact classes, and

institution-specific reparative projects. Inmates

participate to better understand the effect of

their conduct on others and to make amends. 

Recreation and other elective activities.

Most criminals do not commit crimes while 

at work or school. They do so during leisure

hours. Public safety therefore dictates that

offenders have free time in prison to learn how

4 Sentencing & Corrections 4 Sentencing & Corrections
Sentencing & Corrections 5

to use it constructively. In Missouri, the schedule

has been revamped to allow recreation during

evenings and weekends. Other elective activities

(such as doing laundry, visiting the legal and

reading library and the canteen, and receiving

visitors) have been rescheduled to avoid

conflict with workday activities.

Underlying values. Nonwork activities

should not interfere with school, work, and

treatment. Community service, reparation, and

recreation should take place before or after the

workday. In the real world, few people routinely

walk out of school or off the job to work out at

the gym or to volunteer at the soup kitchen.

Offenders have responsibilities to themselves and

others; the schedules ensure they do not leave

key tasks incomplete and do not walk away

from some responsibilities to attend to others. 

Achieving sobriety, preventing

relapse

Offenders develop cognitive skills and learn

other strategies to achieve sobriety and prevent

relapse by abstaining from unauthorized

activities—alcohol consumption and sexual

misconduct, and using illicit substances and

engaging in other forms of offending. 

Each offender enters prison with a unique

sense of self, personal history, and world view.

The total institution suppresses inmates’ identities and imposes change superficially. It is no

wonder that many inmates are sober only in

prison: Conventional systems do not provide

offenders who are trying to avoid drugs and

alcohol with the skills to recognize the signs of

relapse or to value sobriety. Not surprisingly,

many released sex offenders also reoffend

when in close proximity to potential victims

because they lack the skill and insight to value

abstinence. Many other ex-offenders supplement their income by illegal activity because

they genuinely do not believe it is wrong. 

Good citizenship. Tolerance as part of

prosocial conduct is as important in Missouri

prisons as the prohibition against drug trafficking. Many inmates, like many other citizens,

find it difficult to accept people whose race,

religion, and ethnicity are different from theirs.

Many prison disturbances are race based.

Gangs are often organized around religious

beliefs and formed within ethnic groups. In

conventional correctional practice, cultural

diversity training is often provided to staff but

rarely to inmates. In Missouri, this training is

an integral part of inmates’ orientation. It is

as important that offenders interact in a civil

manner with one another and the staff as it 

is that the staff do so.

Cognitive restructuring. Criminals differ

from other people largely in their thought

processes. They tend to focus more on their

own desires (“I want your car”) than on the

community’s. They often rationalize their

conduct (“He had it coming”) and minimize

its effects on others (“She was insured”). Such

thinking discounts social norms and community values. Cognitive restructuring programs

enable inmates to spot the rationalizations they

use to violate institutional rules and break the

law. In Missouri, the courses are offered

electively. For offenders whose conduct is

poor, the classes are required in addition to

ordinary sanctions. Other programs that instill

awareness of the effects of crime include

classes on the impact of crime on victims.

Verbally abusive or physically aggressive

inmates are referred to anger management

programs in addition to receiving the ordinary sanctions.

Staying sober. It is important for offenders

to learn to adopt a lifestyle that increases the

likelihood they will remain sober and crime

free. The parallel universe differs from conventional practice in informing prisoners of

the results of their substance abuse and sex

offender assessments. Because they are aware

of their need for treatment as well as their

risk of reoffending, they are better able to

make related decisions.

Prisoners are encouraged to use the information proactively to avoid drugs and alcohol

and reduce the likelihood of other rule violations. For example, they are encouraged to

request assignment to different housing units

or changes in parole home plans if those they

live with put them at risk of relapse.

Underlying values. In the world outside,

the members of one’s immediate family participate in treatment teams or other support

groups because they are often key to recovery.

The same approach is taken in Missouri prisons, where prerelease preparation includes

families. It begins at intake. Inmates’ families

are invited to an orientation and are encouraged to participate throughout their loved

one’s confinement. Milestones (such as earning the GED) are identified, and offenders’

successes in reaching them are celebrated

with letters congratulating the family. Sex

offenders are encouraged to authorize family

members to receive reports of treatment

progress.

In some instances, families and friends impede

inmates’ progress. A family may be unwilling

to accept that the prisoner lives with and takes

direction from people who are racially or

ethnically different. Family members may be

unwilling to hold the offender accountable or

behave responsibly themselves (by abstaining

from drugs and alcohol, for example). When

such conduct is likely to affect the offender,

parole plans are developed that involve people

who will not increase the chance of relapse,

revocation, and recidivism.

Making decisions and solving

problems

People sentenced to prison have failed at a

number of things. Most notably, they have failed

to obey the law. They failed to make wise choices. In prison, they need opportunities to make

choices commensurate with their social skills

and the public safety risk they pose because,

on release, they will resume making both important and mundane decisions on a daily basis.6

In exercising strong control, traditional prison management does not develop two important skills offenders need—making decisions

Sentencing & Corrections 5
and accepting their consequences. The parallel

universe, while regimented, recognizes sound

decisionmaking as essential to prisoners’

success and that of the institution. 

Problem solving in prison is often adversarial.

Riddled with formalities, inmate grievance

mechanisms short-circuit many complaints.

The grievance system is also a gatekeeper.

Unless inmates exhaust the State’s administrative remedies, they cannot seek redress in

Federal court. While correctional systems

resist prisoner litigation and court-initiated

change, most do not make problem solving a

priority and fewer have viable strategies for

corrections-based remedies.

In the parallel universe, problem solving is fast

and informal. The Department of Corrections

Office of Constituent Services finds and fixes

the root causes of legitimate complaints at the

earliest point at which they are recognized.

Responsibility for resolution is shared, with

participation by inmates and staff essential.

Inmates must talk to staff and staff must listen.

Remedies usually include better communication between prisoners and prison staff—

notably, better explanations by inmates of their

problems and better explanations by staff of

reasons for the rules, more timely notice when

rules change, and opportunities for feedback

before changes are made. 

Inmates are encouraged to participate in the

governance of the institution through the

inmate council and other offender organizations concerned with conditions of confinement. Inmate representatives meet regularly

with the prison administration to critique

institutional activities and develop rehabilitative program proposals, doing so while taking

into account the same time, space, and staffing

constraints as well as the same security considerations the administration faces. 

Underlying values. When personal choice

is eliminated, so is personal accountability

because the system makes all decisions for

prisoners. Whether the correctional model is

retributive or rehabilitative, expectations for

prisoner behavior are reduced to the most

basic: Avoid punishment.

By contrast, the parallel universe promotes

responsibility in a number of ways. For example, the management of offenders’ personal

affairs has been revised to promote decisionmaking. Offenders keep track of their account

balance at the canteen. They learn to manage

their time. They renew their prescriptions

before their supply of medication runs out.

Making such decisions and accepting the

consequences for not making them are no

longer the responsibility of prison authorities.

Decisions about other routine activities, including doing laundry and cleaning cells, have

also been made the prisoners’ responsibility.

Only positive conduct counts

In prison, as in the world outside, status counts.

However, in prison, unlike the world outside,

misconduct is emphasized in determining

status. Good behavior rarely matters. Inmates

are thus more likely to receive sanctions and

lose standing—personal property, generalpopulation housing, and a set parole release

date may be taken from them—than to improve

standing. In Missouri, offenders are recognized for good conduct and improve their

standing by obeying the rules and regulations. 

Offenders come to prison with a basic issue of

property and limited access to amenities. In the

parallel universe, opportunities for better work

assignments, additional visits, and more property are earned by mastering basic skills. By

performing responsibly at work and in school

and treatment, offenders demonstrate prosocial

conduct and earn privileges. Some privileges

involve acquiring goods; others involve trustee

assignments. In the same way, as in the world

outside, underachievement reduces status.

Underlying values. Offenders acquire

basic literacy, employability, and sobriety skills

at the earliest opportunity and use them

throughout their confinement and on parole.

Inmates who dropped out of school must

earn a GED because a basic education is

prerequisite to a productive life. And since

education is tied to economic advancement,

base pay is greater for graduates and the

highest paying work assignments are reserved

for offenders who have earned a high school

diploma or GED.

■ ■ ■

Corrections corrected

The 25,339 felons in the Missouri prison

system7 could be considered failures on a

number of counts at admission. The vast

majority were high school dropouts—academic failures. Many had been unable to

obtain or hold a job, and most abused drugs

and alcohol. Because every Missouri correctional facility has adopted most components

of the parallel universe, almost all prisoners

participate. Their transformation from failure

to success can be measured, chiefly by recidivism. The reduction by one-third (from 33 to

20 percent) in the proportion returned to

prison on new felony charges between 1994

and 1999 attests to success. At the same time,

each of the four component areas shows

evidence of effectiveness.

More than 98 percent of the inmates are engaged in some combination of school, work,

and treatment full time. Since 1993, when

the school requirement was instituted, the

schools’ capacity increased 172 percent and,

at the end of 1999, more than 8,000 inmates

were attending school daily and more than

2,400 had earned their GED that year.

Institutional employment increased about 65

percent between 1994 and 1999. When the

announcement was made in 1997 that a high

school diploma or GED would be required

for the highest paying jobs, fully half of all

prison workers did not have a GED. A year

later, only one-fourth had not yet earned a

GED. When the policy went into effect in

6 Sentencing & Corrections 6 Sentencing & Corrections
Sentencing & Corrections 7

1999, only 74 offenders refused to attend

school, and because they had not earned a

GED in the allotted time, were reassigned to

lower paying jobs. 

The number of substance treatment slots has

more than tripled, from 772 in 1993 to 2,765

in 1999. Previously, offenders whose need for

treatment was acute but not chronic did not

receive services. Now, substance abuse assessments and drug education are available at

every Missouri facility.

Problem solving is showing results, as measured by the work of the Office of Constituent

Services. The number of lawsuits brought by

prisoners in 1999 was less than one-fourth

what it was in 1994. 

Toward a more perfect parallel

universe

Inmates in Missouri serve an average of 

28 months in prison. The Department of

Corrections uses these 28 months as a time 

of prerelease preparation for their reentry as

responsible individuals. As a model for offender management and prerelease preparation,

the parallel universe yields far better outcomes

than conventional correctional systems.

The offenders have enthusiastically embraced

the principles of the parallel universe, even

making suggestions for expansion. The need

to maintain security will, of course, always

preclude exact replication of the world outside. Moreover, there are limits to what inmates can earn through good conduct, good

grades, and a good work history. They cannot

earn early release because their sentences

were imposed by the court. Within these confines, however, is ample latitude for managers

to rethink any number of community-linked

resources that promote reentry. Inmates’

families, a notable example, should increasingly be part of prerelease preparation.

Increased organizational 

effectiveness

The organizational functioning of the Missouri

Department of Corrections has benefited from

the parallel universe. Shifting from a system

focused on punishing misconduct to one that

blends remedial responses with rewards for

good conduct requires reengineering such

internal processes as recordkeeping. Now

Missouri tracks the number of GED certificates 

awarded, inmates employed, and urine tests

for drugs, in addition to the number of escapes and homicides. Because each inmate’s

performance and program participation is

important, it is essential to maintain work and

training reports and to document academic

performance, vocational training, and job skill

levels. Such records permit feedback to offenders and can be used by the parole board

and inmates’ prospective employers. 

Management also benefits from the parallel

universe. When policies are reviewed or new

procedures developed, one simple question is

asked: How would this issue be handled if it

were not in the prison setting? Dealing with

medical copayments is an example. Requiring

copayments of inmates has become increasingly popular as a way to limit unnecessary

clinic visits. In keeping with the principles 

of the parallel universe, offenders who have

the resources to pay could be required to.

Missouri is aware that copayments should 

not be a way to make prison more punitive. 

Inmates benefit by becoming better acquainted

with the way the world outside operates and

why it operates as it does. Management benefits. And when prison policies and practices

parallel those in the community, they are more

likely to appear reasonable to staff and to win

their support. When staff understand the

reasons for adopted practices, they are far

more likely to enforce them clearly and consistently and with greater confidence. That

surely translates as a more effective correctional system.

Notes 

1. Goffman, Erving, Asylums, New York:

Doubleday, 1961.

2. Cressey, Donald, “Contradictory Directives 

in Complex Organizations: The Case of the

Prison,” Administrative Science Quarterly 4 

(June 1959).

3. Goffman, Erving, The Presentation of Self 

in Everyday Life, Upper Saddle Ridge, NJ: 

Prentice-Hall, 1973.

4. Sykes, Gresham, The Society of Captives,

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1958.

5. Wilson, James Q., The Moral Sense, New York:

The Free Press, 1993.

6. O’Leary, Vincent, Correctional Policy

Inventory: A Survey of Correctional Philosophy

and Characteristic Methods of Dealing With

Offenders, Hackensack, NJ: National Council 

on Crime and Delinquency, 1970.

7. Figure is for the start of fiscal year 2000.

Dora Schriro, Ph.D., is Director of the Missouri

Department of Corrections.

This study was supported by cooperative agreement

97–MUMU–K006 between the National Institute of

Justice and the University of Minnesota.

Findings and conclusions of the research reported

here are those of the author and do not necessarily

reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice. 

The National Institute of Justice is a component

of the Office of Justice Programs, which also

includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the

Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the

Office for Victims of Crime.

This and other NIJ publications can be found 

at and downloaded from the NIJ Web site

(http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij).

NCJ 181414
8 Sentencing & Corrections 8 Sentencing & Corrections

Neal Bryant

Senator

Oregon State Senate

Harold Clarke

Director

Department of Correctional Services

State of Nevada

Cheryl Crawford

Deputy Director, Office of 

Development and Communications

National Institute of Justice

U.S. Department of Justice

Barbara Damchik-Dykes

Project Coordinator

Executive Sessions on Sentencing 

and Corrections

Walter Dickey

Evjue-Bascom Professor of Law

University of Wisconsin 

Ronald Earle

District Attorney

Austin, Texas

Tony Fabelo

Director

Texas Criminal Justice Policy Council

Richard S. Gebelein

Superior Court Judge

Wilmington, Delaware

John Gorczyk

Commissioner

Department of Corrections

State of Vermont

Kathleen Hawk Sawyer

Director

Federal Bureau of Prisons

U.S. Department of Justice

Sally T. Hillsman

Deputy Director

National Institute of Justice

U.S. Department of Justice

Martin Horn

Secretary

Department of Corrections

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Susan M. Hunter

Chief, Prisons Division

National Institute of Corrections

U.S. Department of Justice 

Leena Kurki

Research Associate 

Law School

University of Minnesota

Project Associate

Executive Sessions on Sentencing 

and Corrections 

John J. Larivee

Chief Executive Officer

Community Resources for Justice

Joe Lehman

Secretary

Department of Corrections

State of Washington

Dennis Maloney

Director

Deschutes County (Oregon) 

Department of Community Justice

Larry Meachum

Director

Corrections Program Office

Office of Justice Programs

U.S. Department of Justice

Mark H. Moore

Guggenheim Professor of Criminal

Justice Policy and Management

John F. Kennedy School of Government

Harvard University

Norval Morris

Emeritus Professor of Law and

Criminology

University of Chicago

Joan Petersilia

Professor of Criminology, 

Law and Society

School of Social Ecology

University of California, Irvine

Kay Pranis

Restorative Justice Planner

Department of Corrections

State of Minnesota

Michael Quinlan

Former Director

Federal Bureau of Prisons 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Chase Riveland

Principal

Riveland Associates

Thomas W. Ross

Superior Court Judge, 

18th Judicial District

Chair, North Carolina Sentencing 

and Policy Advisory Commission

Dora Schriro

Director

Department of Corrections

State of Missouri

Michael Smith

Professor of Law

University of Wisconsin 

Morris Thigpen

Director

National Institute of Corrections

U.S. Department of Justice

Michael Tonry

Director

Institute of Criminology

University of Cambridge

Sonosky Professor of 

Law and Public Policy

University of Minnesota 

Project Director

Executive Sessions on Sentencing 

and Corrections

Jeremy Travis

Senior Fellow

The Urban Institute

Former Director

National Institute of Justice

U.S. Department of Justice

Reginald A. Wilkinson

Director

Department of Rehabilitation 

and Correction

State of Ohio

The Executive Sessions on Sentencing and Corrections 

Convened the following distinguished panel of leaders in the fields:

PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/NIJ

Permit No. G–91

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300