Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A comparative evaluation of a new generation jail

  • Articles
  • Published:
American Journal of Criminal Justice Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study reports findings from an evaluation of a new generation jail in a large southwestern state. The jail is one component of a complex containing a traditional jail, an indirect supervision facility (barracks), and the new generation jail. Using survey and operational data, we compare the new generation jail to the other two facilities. The findings provide generally positive support for the effectiveness of the new generation jail. Inmates and staff were much more satisfied with the physical facilities. Staff perceived it as more secure, though they reported only limited advantages in safety and security. Violence and disciplinary problems were substantially lower. However, no savings in staffing levels were noted, nor were there differences in job satisfaction for staff in the new generation jail. We discuss the implications of the findings and suggest additional directions for jail evaluations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bayens, G., Williams, J., & Smykla, J. (1997). Jail type and inmate behavior: A longitudinal analysis.Federal Probation, 61, 54–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farbstein, J., & Wener, R. (1982). Evaluation of correctional environments.Environment and Behavior, 14, 671–694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farbstein, J., & Wener, R. (1989).Comparison of “direct” and “indirect” supervision correctional facilities, final report. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, D. (1980). The interplay of theory, issues, policy, and data. In M. Klein & K. Teilmann (Eds.),Handbook of Criminal Justice Evaluation (pp. 123–142). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horn, S. (1984).The cost-benefits of podular designed and directly supervised correctional facilities. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, P., & Stearns, C. (1995). Gender issues in the new generation jails.Prison Journal, 75, 203–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, W., & O’Toole, M. (1983).New generation jails. Longmont, CO: National Institute of Corrections Information Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, W., & Davis, R. (1995). Podular direct supervision: The first 20 years.American Jails, 9, 11–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sechrest, D. (1991). The effects of density on jail assaults.Journal of Criminal Justice, 19, 211–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Senese, J. (1997). Evaluating jail reform: A comparative analysis of podular/direct and linear jail inmate infractions.Journal of Criminal Justice, 25, 73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stohr, M., Lovrich, N., & Wilson, G. (1994). Staff stress in contemporary jails: Assessing problem severity and the payoff of progressive personnel practices.Journal of Criminal Justice, 22, 313–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stohr, M., Self, R., & Lovrich, N. (1992). Staff turnover in new generation jails: An investigation of its causes and prevention.Journal of Criminal Justice, 20, 455–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wener, R., Frazier, W., & Farbstein, J. (1985). Three generations of design and evaluation of correctional facilities.Environment and Behavior, 17, 71–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wener, R. (1995). Evaluating the design of direct supervision jails.Progressive Architecture, 76, 79–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, J., & Sadri, M. (1997, March). Bringing theory into correctional research: Applications to new generation jails. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southwestern Sociological Association, New Orleans.

  • Zimring, C., & Wener, R. (1985). Evaluating evaluation.Environment and Behavior, 17, 97–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zupan, L. (1991).Jails: Reform and the new generation philosophy. Cincinnati: Anderson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zupan, L., & Menke, B. (1988). Implementing organizational change: From traditional to new generation jail operations.Policy Studies Review, 7, 615–625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zupan, L. & Stohr-Gillmore, M. (1988). Doing time in the new generation jail: inmate perceptions of gains and losses.Policy Studies Review, 7, 626–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology and Social Work, Texas Woman’s University, P.O. Box 425887, 76204-5887, Denton, TX

    James L. Williams

  2. University of North Texas, USA

    Daniel G. Rodeheaver

  3. Texas Woman’s University, USA

    Denise W. Huggins

Authors
  1. James L. Williams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniel G. Rodeheaver
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Denise W. Huggins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James L. Williams.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Williams, J.L., Rodeheaver, D.G. & Huggins, D.W. A comparative evaluation of a new generation jail. Am J Crim Just 23, 223–246 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02887273

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02887273

Keywords

Search

Navigation