Governance

Background

Two alternative models of prison governance gained prominence in the latter half of the 20th century both of which continue to influence how prisons are run today. The first of these approaches is known as the control model and is characterized by a rigid and routinized model of administration that is hierarchical in nature and emphasizes obedience, work, and education. The roots of the control model can be traced to the first penitentiaries in the Pennsylvania system. These institutions controlled prisoners and sought to reform them through regimes of silence and labor. John DiIulio is the contemporary scholar whose work is most often associated with this model of prison governance.

In contrast, the participatory model, advocated by scholars such as Hans Toch and John Irwin, stresses a system of inmate democracy. For its supporters, prisons are run best when they use prisoner input to shape their policy and programs. In this system, prisoners may be permitted a voice in the day-to-day operations through representatives on administrative committees. There is also usually a formalized protocol through which prisoner grievances can be heard. According to its supporters, this strategy helps maintain prison order, because all members are invested in it. It also prepares inmates more effectively for their eventual discharge by permitting them to engage in decision making that trains them for the challenges they will face upon release from prison.

Control Model

Supporters of the control model believe that deviance occurs because of a lack of discipline and responsibility. As a result, only a social environment of absolute control can teach inmates acceptable patterns of behavior.

The control model is bureaucratic in the classic Weberian sense of the term. According to Max Weber, for a rational bureaucracy to work, there must be prescribed roles that each individual plays, and transactions between different members of the organization must be regulated. This will create stability, thereby reducing conflict between different members of the prison organization (namely, administration and staff) as well as staff and inmates. A clearly defined set of rules and principles that govern everyone's role, and the means by which they can interact reduces the uncertainty that often leads to conflict in prison. Any deviation from the control model, through inmate participation, for example, threatens the balance created by a bureaucratic model and could potentially lead to the emergence of violence, “con bosses,” and gang conflict.

Prisons run according to the control model function like paramilitary organizations, with respect and obedience enforced relentlessly through a rigid system of discipline. The assumption is that obedience, work, and education, administered in a supervisory environment of zero tolerance, is the only way to bring about reform in the behavior of the inmates. To make this system work, everyone in the prison must know that the guards are in control.

...