The rating was based on the descriptions of management styles, as presented in the questionnaire, and on the physical layout of the institutions. Results - Mail Survey Administrators rated direct supervision institutions significantly higher on measures of safety and on the ability to survey the inmate setting, as well as for the appropriateness of direct supervision, soft and moveable furniture and for the number of cell amenities. Surprisingly, direct supervision administrators were also more apt to feel that barred doors, which go against the philosophy of a normalized environment, were acceptable. Correctional administrators at direct supervision institutions' also reported less violence than did administrators at indirect supervision institutions. As well, attempts were made to control such other variables as staffing ratios, hardness or softness of the environment, the availability of resources and the type of inmate.
Some correctional institutions employ aspects of both direct and indirect supervision.
In the case studies, institutions that had a preponderance of characteristics related to one supervision type or the other were selected. Indeed, staffing ratios appeared to be affected more by program choices at the institution than type of supervision. Direct supervision institutions tended to provide more services at the housing unit. Supervision style did not affect the hardness or softness of cells, though. The level of interaction was fairly high at all sites, with no apparent differences between direct and indirect supervision institutions.