ANSTATEU NIEV R8 ITY

JJ JJJJJJ J|JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ

1293 00885 3339

IJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4-. an... - vv- 1' "- "" ""

--This is‘to certify that the

thesis entitled . - ~ - -

THE ANALYSIS OF ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
IN THE GENESEE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

presented by

Brian Richard Johnson

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Masters—_degree in miminal_.IUstice

flW/j/o/a/QL/

Major professor

 

Date May 201 1991

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

PLACE IN RETURN BOX
to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

MAG {C i

 

41 Or 15:9
risk}! "“3011‘1“

 

1‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1M 60mm.“

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE ANALYSIS OF
ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
IN THE
GENESEE COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT

By

Brian Richard Johnson

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Criminal Justice

1991

ABSTRACT

THE ANALYSIS OF ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
IN THE GENESEE COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT

By

Brian Richard Johnson

This longitudinal study examined organizational change from a traditional-
linear to a new generation jail at the Genesee County Sheriff’s Department in
Flint, Michigan. Correctional officers completed questionnaires regarding
communication and management, inmate management, inmate control and
safety, indicators of tension and safety, as well as demographic characteristics.
Data analysis was conducted to identify variables associated with the
philosophical and physical change to the new jail environment. The research
found several factors associated with the change to the new generation jail.
Correctional officers reported improved communication, greater control and

satisfaction regarding the work environment, and an increased perception of

safety and security in the new generation jail.

Copyright by
BFHAUN’RJCJTAUKE>JCHHIJSCHV

1991

To
Richard D. Johnson

My Father

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Although there is only one name on the title page, there are many

individuals who made this thesis possible.

I would first like to thank David B. Kalinich, Ph.D. for serving as
Chairman of my Thesis Committee. I am thankful for the guidance, support,
and friendship that Professor Kalinich provided throughout this project.

I would also like to thank Doctors Robert Worden and Jay Siegel for

serving on my thesis committee and providing valuable assistance in the

construction and editing of this document.

Also, I appreciate the assistance of Doctors Stan Stojkovic (U-W

Milwaukee) and Jeff Senese (University of Baltimore) with their valuable

input into this document. Without the assistance and cooperation of Sheriff

Joe Wilson, Undersheriff Art Evans, Major Robert Aguirre, as well as all of

the employees of the Genesee County Sheriff's Department that participated

in this study, this project could not have been accomplished.

Lastly, I would like to express my gratitude towards my family and

friends for their support and inspiration.

iii

W

NTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1
Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................... 1
Change Defined ................................................................................................ 1
Linear Styled Jails ............................................................................................. 3
Podular Remote Jails ....................................................................................... 5
Podular Direct Supervision Jails .................................................................. 7

LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................. 14
Types of Organizational Change ................................................................... 14

Planned Organizational Change ....................................................... 14
Unplanned Organizational Change ................................................. 15
The Change Process ......................................................................................... 16
Strategies In Change ........................................................................................ 17
Barriers To Change .......................................................................................... 18
Overcoming Resistance To Change ............................................................. 20
Studies of Organizational Change in Criminal Justice ............................ 21
Organizational Change in Policing .............................................................. 21
Organizational Change in Corrections ........................................................ 26
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .................................................................................. 29
Research Questions ....................................... . .................................................. 29
Research Design ............................................................................................... 30
Unit of Analysis ............................................................................................... 30
Research Site ..................................................................................................... 31
Goals ................................................................................................................... 33
Mission ............................................................................................................... 33
Philosophy ......................................................................................................... 33
The Change Process ......................................................................................... 34
Data Collection ................................................................................................. 38
Interview Component ........................................................................ 38
Survey Component ............................................................................. 40
Sampling ................................................................................................ 41
Data Analysis ........................................................................................ 42
FINDINGS/ RESULTS ................................................................................................. 44
Demographic Findings ................................................................................... 44
Analysis of Communications Category ..................................................... 51
Analysis of the Policies and Procedures Category ..................................... 57
Inmate Management ....................................................................................... 59
Inmate Control and Safety ............................................................................. 65
Control for Old Employees CompareCl to New Employees in
Responses to New Questionnaire ................................................................ 75

iv

Table of Contents (continued)

CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................. 82
Findings ............................................................................................................. 82
Overall Findings .............................................................................................. 83
Controlled Findings ........................................................................................ 86
Directions for the Future ................................................................................ 89

APPENDIX A ................................................................................................................ 93

APPENDIX B ................................................................................................................. 94

APPENDIX C ................................................................................................................. 102

APPENDIX D ................................................................................................................. 109

APPENDIX E ................................................................................................................. 110

BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................... 122

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE I ......................................................................................................................... 45
Age of respondents.
TABLE 2 ......................................................................................................................... 46

Change in the number of male and female respondents.

TABLE 3 ......................................................................................................................... 47

Change in the variable race between the old jail and new jail.

TABLE 4 ......................................................................................................................... 48
Respondent's shift assignment.

TABLE 5 ......................................................................................................................... 49
Length of employment.

TABLE 6 ......................................................................................................................... 50
Analysis of job positions.

TABLE 7 ......................................................................................................................... 52

Perceived effectiveness of communication between top management
and correctional officers.

TABLE 3 ......................................................................................................................... 53

Perceived effectiveness of communication between upper level
management of the jail and first line supervisors.

TABLE 9 ......................................................................................................................... 54

Effectiveness of communication between first line supervisors
and correctional officers.

vi

List of Tables (continued)

TABLE 10 ....................................................................................................................... 55

Effectiveness of communication between the social service staff and
correctional officer.

TABLE 11 ....................................................................................................................... 56
It is routing for communication not to flow through the chain of
command.

TABLE 12 ....................................................................................................................... 57

Policies and procedures are effectively communicated.
TABLE 13 ....................................................................................................................... 58

Existing policies and procedures are effective inmate
management tools.

TABLE 14 ....................................................................................................................... 60

Correctional Officers need more decision making power
to manage inmates.

TABLE 15 ....................................................................................................................... 61

Problems can be solved by the deputies in the pods
through discussions with inmates.

TABLE 16 ....................................................................................................................... 62

Preference of using social service workers or superiors to
manage inmate problems. ~

TABLE 17 ....................................................................................................................... 63

Correctional Officers can use their discretion to apply rewards
and punishments to control inmates.

vii

List of Tables (continued)

TABLE 18 ....................................................................................................................... 64
Correctional Officers prefer to manage inmate problems.
TABLE 19 ....................................................................................................................... 66

The importance of the physical structure of the jail as a safe
component of the jail environment.

TABLE 20 ....................................................................................................................... 67

Change of Cell / Pod assignments during an inmate’s stay
decreases general safety in the jail.

TABLE 21 ....................................................................................................................... 68
High turnover of the inmate population decreases safety in the
jail.

TABLE 22 ....................................................................................................................... 69

Overcrowding (double-bunking) contributes to the lack of safety
in the jail.

TABLE 23 ....................................................................................................................... 71

High amounts of inmate movement, such as on court days,
reduces safety in the jail.

TABLE 25 ....................................................................................................................... 76
Communication / Management Category.

TABLE 26 ....................................................................................................................... 77
Policies and Procedures Category.

TABLE 27 ....................................................................................................................... 79

Inmate Management Category.

viii

List of Tables (continued)

TABLE 28 ....................................................................................................................... 81

Inmate Control and Safety.

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1 ....................................................................................................................... 4
Linear-Styled Jail.
FIGURE 2 ....................................................................................................................... 6

Podular Remote Supervision Jail.
FIGURE 3 ....................................................................................................................... 7
New Generation (Podular Direct Supervision) Jail.
FIGURE 4 ....................................................................................................................... 72
Analysis of Assault Rates (Old Jail versus New Jail).
FIGURE 5 ....................................................................................................................... 73
Analysis of Jail Populations.
FIGURE 6 ....................................................................................................................... 74

Analysis of Felony Bookings.

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Pmse of the Study

The purpose of this thesis is to examine organizational change in the
Genesee County Jail located in Flint, Michigan. The Genesee County Jail has
changed from a traditional linear jail to a new generation jail. A new
generation jail is a recent concept in corrections that adopts a radically new
jail philosophy and design that departs from the traditional or linear-styled
jail that has predominated jail design and administration for hundreds of
years.
As a result of this change in correctional philosophy, many of the
operations and daily functions of the Genesee county jail have undergone
change. Many of these changes have been obvious and direct or situation-
specific, such as the architectural design of the new jail and the job expansion
of the correctional officer. However, many of the changes have also been
indirect, affecting the daily functions of the employees of the jail which
inadvertently affects the operations of the jail. Thus, one of the main reasons
for performing this study is to provide the criminal justice administrator,

particularly the jail manager, with meaningful information regarding

organizational change.

Change Defined

Change is something that happens to an organization, a group, or an
individual (Huse, 1975). Moreover, change is the transformation,
modification, alteration, or the passing from one place, state, form or phase to

another. As this definition suggests, change is not static; rather, it is dynamic

 

and continuous in nature and it is complex rather than a simple
phenomenon (Klofas, et al. 1989). Furthermore, change is not random - it
occurs in relation to the past and present conditions of the organization (Hall,
1982), and it occurs as the result of pressures from an agency’s environment
or from conflict within the agency (Klofas, et al. 1989).

Change also has technical and social aspects. The technical aspect of
change is a measurable modification in the physical routine of the job. The
social aspect of change refers to the way those affected by change think or
perceive how it will later affect their established relationships within the
organization (Lawrence, 1971). Thus, the term organizational change refers to
any significant alteration of the behavior patterns of a large part of the
individuals who constitute that organization, or the object of change in
planned change programs is the behavior and attitudes of individuals
(Duncan, 1978). Organizational change can alsobe understood as a function of
strategies which bridge an organization with its environment (Klofas, et al.
1989).
Change, technical or social, occurs as the result of a performance gap. A
performance gap is when an individual, official or entire organization detects
a gap between what the organization is doing and what they feel the
organization should be doing (Downs, 1967). These performance gaps may
arise from employee or internal turnover where new personnel in the
organization change the organization's behavior, depending upon its
stability. Performance gaps may also arise from internal technical changes
such as use of new technologies which may result in reorganization, as well
as external changes where the bureau's social function may change.

Furthermore, the way a bureau performs it's functions may also generate

effects that destabilizes its equilibrium, thus causing a performance gap
(Downs, 1967).

Some of these forces that may produce a performance gap were
investigated by Kalinich (1986). In the ’case of jails, it was found that external
forces such as professional organizations and case law placed jail personnel
between the new rules and regulations they should abide by, and the old
traditional methods of operations, which can prove to be disfunctional. This
was further substantiated by Embert (1986) who wrote that the ignorance of
jail management to professional ethics and adherence to the law creates a

performance gap for the correctional agency which could lead to lawsuits and

civil actions against the agency.

Linear Styled [ails

The prevailing architectural design of the past two centuries in

America for jail design has been the linear style jail with intermittent

surveillance. The design of this jail consists of rows of multiple or individual
cells arranged at right angles to the surveillance corridor. Cells are equipped
with costly vandal-proof fixtures such as indestructible stainless steel toilets,

mirrors, and light fixtures as well as costly security locking devices and heavy

duty doors or steel bars and grating.

Linear-Styled Jail

Linear—Styled Jail

 

FIGURE 1
(Source: Nelson, 1988)

In this type of jail design, correctional officers randomly patrol the
corridors to control the behaviors of the inmate population. Since the
patrolling officer can only observe a small number of cells at a time, the
management of the jail is oriented toward intermittent surveillance and
supervision. Some of the problems associated with this form of supervision
is the fact that the interval between patrols varies according to the inmates,
exigencies in the jail environment and the jail management itself, which

contributes to inconsistencies in the overall operations of the patrol of the

corridors (Nelson, 1968).
Because of these problems, the time interval between patrols could lead

to attempted or successful escapes, violent assaults, suicides and the

destruction of property, including vandalism to fixtures and furnishings

5

which requires the installation of expensive vandal-proof equipment
(Nelson, 1986). Thus, the result is that inmates are not safe in their
environment which causes them to form gangs for protection as well as
construct weapons for their own defense. (Library Information Specialists,
1983). This in turn creates a stressful environment for the correctional officer
as illustrated by Regoli, Poole, and Progrebin's (1985) study of linear jails
where it was found that the architectural as well as the organizational
structure made the correctional officer feel threatened by inmates,
unsupported by their supervisors, and isolated from their fellow officers.

Moreover, the function of the correctional officer in this type of environment
appears to be that of a servant to bureaucratic chores which requires little or
no judgment, initiative, or skill on the part of the correctional officer. Rather,
the work performed in this type of correctional environment is fragmented,

routinized, menial, and according to Zupan and Menke (1988), an

impoverished environment to work in.

Podular Remote Jails

In an effort to reduce assaults and officer and inmate tensions as well as
other problems associated with linear styled jails, proponents of a better and
safer jail environment proposed the podular remote form of supervision
known as a second generation jail. In the typical podular remote jail, cells are
broken down into manageable sizes of 50 beds or cells, and subdivided into
units of 12 to 16 cells clustered around a common area where the supervision

of the inmates and cells are conducted from a secure control booth (Nelson,

1986).

Pod ular Remote Jail
xLLLEJWELJ- J J I
w- 1, ‘ J

MAXIMUM SECURITY Sally SaIIy
CORRIDOR Port Fort

- _J" 1.

 

 

   
     
    

 

        
 

Security

\(s
9,;
a,

I

FIGURE 2
(Source: Nelson, 1988)

The underlying role of the correctional officer in the podular remote
jail is reactive in nature. This can be attributed to the fact that the design of
the facility allows the correctional officer in his/ her secure booth to have
minimal contact with the inmates. Negative behaviors of the inmates are
controlled by the security doors which are regulated from within the secure
observation booth. However, the architectural design of the cells is not
significantly different from the traditional linear jail. Cells are equipped with
vandal-proof cast aluminum toilets, steel or concrete beds, and security

hardware and furnishings (Library Information Specialists, 1983).

Podular Direct Supervision jails

In contrast to the linear jail and the podular remote jail is the podular
direct supervision jail, or the new generation jail which was introduced into
the federal prison system in 1974. New generation jails are detention facilities
that use state of the art designs in jail construction while also adopting new
concepts or philosophies in the incarceration of individuals. Rather than
having corridors as in the linear jail, new generation jails are constructed in
"pods" which consist of 48 or 50 bed housing units. Within these pods, staff
members are stationed directly in the pods with no physical barriers between

themselves and the inmates (Nelson, 1986).

Direct Supervision Jail

 

Jilmlu

“dummy

  

FIGURE 3
(Source: Nelson, 1988)

8

Since correctional officers are in constant and direct contact with

inmates, their function has now shifted from custodial agents to first-line
treatment agents, who are responsible for the early diagnosis and referral of
inmate problems (Poole & Regoli, 1980). Furthermore, the correctional officer
is now able to provide guidance and direct supervision to inmates to prevent
negative behavior in the prison environment which existed in the earlier
designed correctional facilities (Library Information Specialists, Inc., 1983).
Thus, the correctional officer's new role as a counselor instead of a "hack"
leads to greater job satisfaction. This was supported by Cullen, Link, Wolfe,
and Frank (1985) who found that the job satisfaction of correctional officers in
new generation jails had increased in comparison to their counterparts in the
custody-oriented correctional environments.

This vertical and horizontal expansion of the correctional officer's job

is, according to Thompson (1965), a positive change since individuals in a
bureaucracy need autonomy and freedom to innovate while also possessing
self-direction and a large voice in deciding the conditions of their work. The
new generation philosophy provides the correctional officer with the needed
stimuli to transform their position from a duty-oriented profession to a
professional type position.

Many of the underlying principles of the new generation jail differ
from the traditional jail. Since correctional officers are now in direct contact
with the inmates to prevent negative behaviors, officers must be in total
control of their pods at all times; thus, the management philosophy of the
new generation jail is proactive in nature, rather than reactive. In addition,
the physical security of the institution is now concentrated on the perimeter
which permits greater flexibility of internal operating procedures while

allowing the staff greater security (Gettinger, 1984).

9

With physical security emphasized on the perimeter, new generation
jails rely less on internal structural barriers within the pods such as bars,
safety doors and fixtures, and more upon the correctional officers' ability to
supervise their pod. This may result in greater job satisfaction with the
correctional officer since they are now responsible and in control of their
environment. Although some structural barriers still exist in these facilities,
they are considered secondary in nature while the primary emphasis is on the
correctional officer's ability to manage the pod. This results in the
correctional officer exerting more authority and power in the control of their
environment (Gettinger, 1984).

Apart from the architectural design and direct supervision in new
generation jails, inmates have at their disposal a host of services and benefits
which are not available in the old traditional styled jail. For instance,
inmates have access to televisions in the carpeted congregation area. Usually,
there are two to four televisions in each pod which keeps the sound level
low, while dividing the population into smaller, more controllable and
compatible groups. Also, inmates have access to telephones within the pod
where they can place collect calls to the outside world to keep in contact with
important people in their lives as well as arrange for bail and other needs
(Gettinger, 1984).

Inmates are also able to purchase items from the inmate store or
commissary located in the pod. Meal service takes place within the pod and
large gang showers do not exist; rather individual shower stalls are used
which helps to eliminate problems such as sexual assaults that occur in gang
showers. Inmates also have access to a physical exercise area during selected
times which aids in eliminating some of the boredom and pent-up

frustrations experienced in the jail environment (Gettinger, 1984).

10

Another underlying philosophy of podular direct supervision
recognizes is that inmates engage in illegitimate behavior to manipulate and
control a physical environment when their safety and security are threatened.
As a consequence of this fear, inmates will make weapons, join gangs, try to
escape, and vandalize the jail. Thus, proponents of the new generation jail
concept feel that through the application of an appropriate architecture and
inmate management that provides for safety , security, personal space,
familial contact, and dignity, desire and need for control of the environment
by inmates will be reduced (Zupan, 1988).

Furthermore, inmates must also be in controllable groups in areas that
are easily surveillable. In conjunction with this, proponents of this form of
incarceration and supervision also feel that the direct approach in
supervision maximizes the inmates’ inner controls. Basically, it is felt that in
traditional linear jails the inmates manipulate their environment to their
best advantage which is often negative, causing violence and destruction.
Conversely, it is felt that the inmate in the new generation jail will
manipulate their environment to their best advantage, which means that
they will actually engage in positive behaviors in order to try to manipulate
the correctional officer. As a consequence, one of the most important
elements of the new generation jail is that the inmate;s environment is now
controlled in a positive manner which essentially results in inmate control
being maximized so they conform their behavior to the desires of the
administration. This results in the elimination of both violence in the prison
environment as well as destruction of prison property (Library Information
Specialists, 1983).

Effective supervision of the facility is another principle of the new

generation jail. Although the new generation jail maximizes visual

11

observation of the inmates, another facet is to maximize personal interaction
or communication between the staff and inmates where the staff member can
act as a referral agent for the inmate who has a specific need and concern
regarding their incarceration. Since the staff member is now in direct contact
with inmates, they are at an advantageous position to communicate with
inmates. Thus, the correctional officer can detect possible problem inmates
within the pods as well as have other inmates notify the staff members of
impending situations before they accelerate into major problems for the
correctional officer and administration (Gettinger, 1984).

This means that the staff-to-inmate ratio must be controlled.
According to Gettinger (1984), a military platoon of 44 men is manageable for
military purposes, and experience in new generation jails indicates that a
group of 50 inmates is considered a manageable size. Moreover, in order for
the jail to run properly, officers stationed within the pods must have the
ability to create, establish and administer some of standards, rules and
regulations for their particular pod. Thus, the dispersal of power and hence,
authority, is an important factor to consider since power concentrated at the
top often prevents imaginative solutions to problems (Thompson, 1965).

In addition to a manageable inmate population within the pods,
another principle in direct supervision jails is that the officer must be in total
control of his pod at all times. This means that the housing unit or pod
should also be viewed as under control of the officer and the inmate is to be
considered a visitor. Thus, inmates must know what the facility expects of
them and if an inmate should challenge the authority of the correctional
officer, they should be immediately removed from the pod and returned only

when they agree to comply with the directions of the unit officer. Effective

supervision also rests with the management of the correctional institution.

12

Management must assure that the line officer is performing his function
consistent with the philosophy of the new generation jail (Library
Information Specialists, 1983).
Competent staff members are also a necessity for new generation jails.

A technique to attain a competent staff is to includes recruit qualified staff
members at equal pay to the road officers of the agency. Furthermore, existing
correctional officers must receive effective and proper training in areas such
as communication and negotiation, which requires management of the
facility to recognize the necessity of such forms of training (Wener, Frazier &
Farbstein, 1987). This training must be ongoing throughout the officer’s career
so he will be prepared and competent to perform other duties and functions
of managers as they are promoted.

Another principle of new generation jails is to maintain the safety of
inmates and staff of the facility. This means that management must be
responsive to safety codes and cognizant to personal liability issues within
correctional institutions. In addition to safety, another factor is cost control.
One of the greatest assets of the new generation jail is that construction costs
are generally lower than for the construction of the traditional linear jail.
Commercial grade plumbing fixtures can now replace more costly vandal-
proof fixtures, and items such as lighting fixtures, walls and safety glazing in
podular remote supervision cells can be eliminated as well as the enclosed
control station itself. According to Nelson (1988), this alone can save as much
as $25,000 to $50,000 in each housing unit or pod. Moreover, in the general
population area where inmates are allowed to congregate, it would not be
necessary to have vandal-proof fixtures and steel cell doors, gates and
hardware; rather, these areas could now be constructed using commercial

grade materials (Nelson, 1988). Other cost saving factors concern

13

maintenance. Since officers are in direct contact and supervision with
inmates, vandalism in the form of graffiti should be reduced. In addition,
since the environment in which the inmates reside has less tension, inmates
should be acting out less in negative manners which will cut down of

destruction of property and vandalism (Library Information Specialists, 1983).

CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW

Types of Organizational Change

Organizational change can be either planned or unplanned; however,

 

it must be understood that the two may not be mutually exclusive. All
planned change may have some unexpected or unintended effects on the
organization. As a result, both forms may be susceptible to resistance on many

levels.

Planned Organizational Change

Planned organizational change or deliberate change refers to a set of
activities and processes designed to change individuals, groups, and
organizational structures and processes. This illustrates the intentional
attempt by managers and employees to improve the functioning of groups,
departments or an entire organization in some important way. Usually the
change goals rest in the objective of ignoring the capacity to adapt to changes
in the environment and to change patterns of employee behavior (Hellriegel,
1986). In addition, this conscious change by organizational members can also
be responsive to environmental pressures, internal conflict or a perceived
need to change or improve the functions of the system (Klofas, et a1. 1989).
Therefore, planned change is goal-directed and initiated for the purpose of
obtaining a specific outcome (Duncan, 1978).

There are three types of planned organizational change. One form is
aimed primarily at the individuals within the organization. This assumes

that behavior in organizations is determined its members of the organization.
14

15

Thus, if the members of the organizations can be changed in some way, it is
assumed that greater efforts will be available for goal-directed activities by the
members. These change strategies may take many forms, including training
programs and attitude-motivation training (Steers, 1977).

A second major approach to planned change involves the use of
organizational structural and systematic change strategies to create conditions
in an organization that facilitate and reward goal-directed efforts. In the
application of these change strategies, the main goal is to alter or change such
processes as reporting procedures, decision making processes, changes in
organizational policies or practices, decentralizing power and modifying
technological processes (Steers, 1977). These types of change can be seen in
criminal justice organizations in the applications of foot patrol programs and
new generation jails where the decision making, organizational, and
technical processes are changed within the organization.

Another selected planned change strategy for an organization consists
of modifying employee self awareness and relations with others. This is
called climate and interpersonal change, and it is assumed that under this
approach, desirable outcomes are largely influenced by social and emotional
processes that characterize relationships between people in organizations.
Techniques used to bring about change in the application of this strategy
includes organizational development programs such as team building
exercises, survey feedback, conflict resolution exercises and T-groups (Steers,

1977).

Unplanned Orrganizational Change
Although change is generally planned, it can also be unplanned or

crescive. This means that the change occurs independently or outside the

l6

organization's control. According to Klofas et al. (1989), crescive change can
result from environmental influences or from internal organizational
conflict. Crescive change can also result from new individuals entering the
organization; for no matter how carefully screened, a new employee,
according to Kaufman (1971), brings "values and perceptions as least a little
divergent from those prevailing among leaders and members of long
standing"

Change, according to Ackerman (1986), can also be developmental,
transitional and transformational which creates different reactions and
responses in an organization. For example, developmental change is an
improvement upon the current way of operating where the aim is to do more
or do things better. This type of change is the least threatening; yet, it requires
system-level support to be effective. Transitional change consists of an
implementation of a new state which requires rearranging and dismantling
of old operating methods, while transformational change is more profound
and traumatic. This form of change is out of control and produces a future
state largely unknown until it evolves (Ackerman, 1986). In addition to
Ackerman's finding on transformational change, Hannan and Freeman
(1984) found that change occurs more often because of selection and
replacement than organizational transformation due to the trauma involved

(Signh, House & Tucker, 1986).

The ChaitggProcess

There are two common methods of producing change. According to
Massie (1971), one approach is through the unilateral continuum of the
organization where the individuals near the top make the change. This top-

down change process was researched by Beer (1980) who differentiated this

l7

continuum into three models. The first model is change by or through
decree which consists of a memo, speech, verbal command or policy
statement from management regarding the change. Change could also take
place through new technology where it is assumed that since top
management has accepted the innovations, lower-level individuals should
also accept the changes. Change can also take place through replacement
which occurs when management is impatient with the slow pace of change
following a decree; thus, they resort to replacing individuals. Lastly, change
can take place through restructuring the organization.

Another common approach to change is by sharing power by group
decision making or by group problem solving (Massie, 154). This problem-
solving approach shares power throughout the decision process since lower
level subordinates help to define the problem and offer solutions. Another
approach is bottom-up change Beer (1980). Here, solutions to problems and
change take place at the bottom level in the organization. One example of
bottom-up change is through training individuals to influence attitudes and
behaviors of large numbers of people in the organization. Change in this
approach can also take place through staff groups that introduce management
disciplines such as organizational development and planning by setting up
groups who are responsible for motivating line-level managers to adopt more

sophisticated approaches to management.

W3 In Change

Although change is dynamic, several initial steps or procedures can be
examined and compared in planned change. Lewin (1952) enumerated three
basic steps in the process of change, consisting of unfreezing the basic level of

behavior, taking action that will change the social system from its original

18

level of behavior or operation to a new level, and, refreezing which is the
establishment of a process that will make new behavior secure against
change. These three steps are sequential in nature and there are many
processes at work moving simultaneously toward the projected change
outcome. Some of these subprocesses may include moving away from
generalized goals to specific objectives, changing formal social ties to new
relationships which support intended changes; moving away from self-doubt
and lowered self—esteem and internalizing the motive for change (Dalton,

1978).

Barriers To Change

According to DuBrin (1974), resistance to change occurs because new
ideas are speculative and dangerous to an individual‘s personal goals of
power and status by threatening his emotional or financial security.
Lawrence (1971) found that employees usually do not resist technical change,
however, social change in human relationships creates barriers to change
which occurs due to "blind spots" and attitudes that members have as the
result of their preoccupation with the behavioral aspect of new ideas.
Furthermore, Harman and Freeman (1984) define resistance to change as
“structural inertia" that includes both internal and external forces. Some
internal forces may include sunk costs in the plant, equipment and
personnel, dynamics of political coalitions, and the tendency for prior
activities, policies and procedures to become ingrained as normative
standards. External factors which contribute to structural inertia include legal
barriers to change, exchange relationships with other organizations that bar or

prevent change, and the fact that attempting radical structural change may

19

threaten the legitimacy of the organization which may lead to the loss of
institutional support.
In addition, Kaufman (1971) writes that other "system obstacles" such
as informal customs, accumulation of official constraints such as laws and
regulations, informal customs, interorganizational agreements and labor-
management contracts also contribute to resistance to change. In addition to
these system obstacles, individuals will affect the outcome of the desired
changes (Barone, 1986). As a consequence of these barriers, Hannan and
Freeman (1984) reported that changes in the structural arrangement may also
become moral and political issues rather than simply technical ones in the
change process.
Other factors that contribute to resistance to change include that
organizations are "overdetermined" or there are multiple mechanisms such
as hiring and training procedures as well as rewards systems that reinforce
the status quo in the organization (Hall, 1982). Organizations may also possess
institutional ignorance and believe that a change in one part of the
organization will not affect the organization system-wide, and if there is
individual and group inertia, as indicated by Batman and Freeman (1984), it
can threaten the established power system. Moreover, change can
horizontally and vertically threaten those who will profit from the present
allocation of goods and resources (Hall, 1982). Furthermore, people may resist
change even when they cannot identify any harmful results. This occurs
simply because of anxiety about consequences that cannot be foreseen
(Kaufman, 1971).
Resistance to change also occurs because established processes the

organization presently has represent an enormous investment in time, effort

and money (Downs, 1967). Thus, change has many "sunk costs" that represent

20

a large investment by the organization, and unless the situation can be
changed to compensate for these costs, the changes may be in jeopardy (March
& Simon, 1958). In addition, most large organizations have a tendency to
continue doing today whatever they did yesterday due to their rigidity
(Downs, 1967). This structural inertia was further examined by Hannan and
Freeman (1984) who concluded that society or social influences actually make
organizations more resilient to change. This is due to the fact that society
imposes standards of accountability and reliability on organizations that
produce symbolic or information-loaded products, and risks occur in the
operations of the organization when long-term relations exist between the
organization and its clients, and when the organizations purposes are highly

political.

Overcoming Resistance To Change
There are, however, some conventional and scientific means to

overcome resistance to change. Traditional forms of organizational change
rely upon screening ideas, and those concepts considered safe for the
organization are then pursued. Conversely, the scientific approach to
alleviate resistance to change applies psychological factors where the
fundamental strategy is to build on the views of everyone concerned, both
inside and outside the organization. Here, the ultimate goal is to weld
responsible managers and other professionals together into a team committed
to getting the correct objectives accomplished (Humphrey, 1986). Yet,
resistance may prove to be a necessary component of the change process
because it indicates that some actual form of change is occurring within the

organization (Pascarella, 1987).

21

Studies of Orthionel Cheyge in Criminal justice

Much of the research regarding organizational change has been
conducted in the private sector. Coch and French (1948) studied resistance to
change in a factory setting, and Leavitt (1965) categorized and evaluated
approaches to change in industries. Other individuals such as Downs (1967)
examined organizational change in the public sector and in bureaucracies.
Tolbert and Zucker (1983) examined change and reform in formal
organizational structures. Boschken's (1988) study of change concluded that a
competitive public economy places a greater burden on agencies to cope with
uncertainty and change. Donaldson (1987) examined the change process in
organizations where he found that there is a cycle of change in organizations
which can lead to mismatch and low performance, and then structural
adjustment to a new match. These and other studies analyzed organizations
under a holistic or macro approach that grouped together all bureaucratic
organizations.

Other researchers such as Gilsinan and Valentine (1987) studied change
processes in criminal justice agencies and concluded that many times the
actual units created to implement change in organizations, such as planning
and research, may be ceremonial and ritualistic. This is because these units
rarely are progressive and usually maintain traditional organizational values
in the change process by defining problems and solutions within existing

organizational definitions or conditions.

Organizational Change in Policing

Cizankas and Hanna (1977) examined change strategies in law

 

enforcement and determined that two basic organizational change strategies

exist which consist of participatory and coercive methods of change. The

22

participatory strategy of change involves the formal and informal influence
of police administrators who enact change through their positions in the
agency by using their personal skills to enact change through knowledge and
attitudes which affect both the individual and organizational behavior of the
agency. It was found that this technique was more appropriate for initiating
change in mature organizational groups which display a large degree of
motivation to achieve job knowledge and experience which enhances the
development of new strategies for accomplishing organizational goals. This
change strategy is more effective when it is implemented by all
administrators with formal and informal influence. Once that change has
been accepted by all the members of the organization, there is greater
potential for personal commitment. Thus, the change tends to be longer
lasting; however, this strategy is slow and evolutionary.

Conversely, it was also discovered that if the organization is immature
and the employees display dependency and unwillingness to assume new job
roles, a coercive strategy would be necessary to implement change. Basically,
the coercive strategy involves the power of the police administrator who
directly affects the behavior and attitudes of the organizational members.
This technique offers the advantage of speed in organizational change. The
disadvantage, however, is that this type of change can be of limited duration
because it can only be maintained while the police administrator has the
power to make the change adhere (Cizankas & Hanna, 1977).

Kuykendall and Roberg (1982) also studied organizational change in
policing and proposed a strategic or conceptual shift from the traditional
bureaucratic format to an organic styled format. The authors indicated that

the traditional model of policing is far too rigid for a police organization that

functions in a volatile and changing technological work environment. This

23

can be attributed to the outdated mechanistic model of specialization within a
hierarchical organization, where interactions between members tend to be
vertical with authority based at the top, where the organization is rule-
oriented, where job accountability is based on job descriptions, and rewards
are obtained through precise following of instructions (Kuykendall & Roberg,
1982).

Yet, a shift to the organic model in policing would require five basic
constructs consisting of deoemphasizing special jobs and tasks, making
interactions between members of the organization horizontal instead of
vertical, shedding responsibility regarding rights, obligations, and methods of
performance, and creating a goal-oriented form of accountability that is based
on task achievement and commitment to organizational-wide goal objectives
with the organizational process being emphasized (Kuykendall and Roberg,
1982).

However, in determining change for police organizations, Kuykendall
and Roberg (1982) indicate that change agents of the organization must
consider structural and behavioral constructs of the organization. Structural
constructs are tasks concerned with the formal organization and data that is
readily available rather than hidden. Conversely, behavioral constructs are
emotional and psychological reactions related to the informal organization
and the individual, which are obscured rather than public.

Taking all of these variables into account, the goal of change in a police
organization, according to Roberg and Kuykendall (1982), is to produce change
in both structural and behavioral constructs in order to make organizations
more organic or more capable of adopting or conforming to change in the

turbulent environments in which police organizations operate. This would

require a change from specialization to generalization of jobs (i.e. combine the

24

patrol and investigative functions) while also allowing lower-level flexibility
in decision making which would require a change from an organization
where interactions between members are vertical in nature to a system where
interactions between ranks and specialities would be horizontal, while
knowledge and authority in the agency would no longer intervene at the top.

The problem of change in police organizations was also explored by
Cordner (1978) who observed that the mechanistic or bureaucratic model of
police organizations makes change difficult due to the pyramid hierarchy,
task specialization, and vertical communication. Cordner suggests that the
open model of change should be adopted which holds that management
should consult with employees at all levels of the organization. This is on
account that all positions within the agency have specialized and/ or "nuts
and bolts" knowledge, while modern police organizations are stressing
problem-solving and conflict resolution at the lowest points in their
structure.

Change in police organizations was further analyzed by Nichols (1986)
who supports a needs-assessment and goal-setting open model to change.
This technique involves informing all employees involved in the change
process where it is anticipated that there will be greater support for change if
all individuals are involved in the change process. This would make the
employees feel that they are a part of the decision-making process which
would create a sense of collectivity and belonging in the organization and
contribute to a reduction in resistance to change. Furthermore, to facilitate all
aspects of the change process, Nichols also promotes contact between the
police and community.

Planned change in policing was also studied by Greene (1981) who

investigated organizational-structural change factors that influenced regional

25

detective bureaus, covert surveillance units, and saturation patrol units.
Greene observed that planned change in law enforcement can actually be
broken down into three categories, consisting of (1) individual level change
that attempts change by focusing on employee skills, attitudes and
motivation, (2) organizational/ structural change that modifies policies,
procedures and technological processes, and (3) organizational/ climate
change which attempts to modify employee awareness and relations with
those around them through tactics such as surveys, conflict resolution and
other team-building exercises (Greene, 1981). However, these change
strategies may conflict or compete with one another within the organization
as well as its external environment. As a result, the creation of specialized
units within a department may reduce the potential for change unless there is
consensus regarding the role and function of the specialized unit.

Planning and change in criminal justice organizations was also
studied by Bynum, Greene, and Cordner (1986) who investigated the factors
that affect the acquisition and use of resources by criminal justice agencies.
They found that increased planning in criminal justice agencies will not
guarantee efficient decisions regarding allocation of resources because exterior
forces such as political commitments, ideologies, and the constituencies that
the agency serves can affect the change process.

Greiner (1987) expanded upon Bynum, Greene, and Cordner's (1986)
. study and reaffirmed that unplanned forces play an important role in
planned change. Greiner indicated that historical events establish
preconditions that can affect training. Furthermore, Guyot (1979) also
determined that attempts in the 1970's had failed because of management
inflexibility in personnel decisions, lack of incentives within the ranks of

police organizations, the military rank structure, insularity within the ranks,

26

and the fact that the tall organizational layout effectively blocks
communication.

Although many individuals have proposed change in the structure of
police organizations, change may prove to be more difficult in criminal
justice agencies than in other non-bureaucratic agencies. This can be
attributed to the fact that all criminal justice agencies are bureaucracies.
According to Downs (1967), an organization is considered a bureau if it is
large, a majority of its members are full-time workers who depend upon their
employment in the organization for most of their income, the hiring of
personnel and promotions are based on some form of assessment, and the
major portion of its output isn't directly or indirectly evaluated in any
markets external to the organization by quid pro quo transactions.

Moreover, criminal justice organizations may also be more resilient to
change because their purpose to society is to maintain the status quo of the
community that they serve. Consequently, they may be more rigid than other
large organizations not entrusted with such a responsibility. This may also
differ in respect to the size of the community. For instance, small police
organizations may be more susceptible to change because the chief and fellow
employees have more direct contact with members of the community.
Conversely,in the context of a large urban police department, change may be
more resistant because the department is insulated from the citizens, and less

susceptible to community influences or pressures.

Organizational Change in Corrections
Besides organizational change being investigated in policing, studies
regarding organizations and organizational change have been conducted

regarding jails and prisons. Lindquist and Whitehead (1986) examined

27

perceptions of burnout, stress, and job satisfaction among Alabama
Correctional Officers and found that the chain of command and supervision
were contributing organizational factors. They subsequently recommended
that management should change known stressors to improve the status of
correctional officers. Gemstein (1987) found that the correctional
environment contributed to burnout in the form of physical and emotional
exhaustion and lowered productivity. Gemstein subsequently recommended
that management must change the organizational structure to decrease
overlap between institutional units and increase the responsibilities of
personnel by giving staff members more precise goals and missions and
greater control of their environment.

Bartollas (et al. 1976) found that correctional officers adhere to a system
that stresses cynicism and distrust toward administration which in turn
affects the change process. Duffee (1974) concluded that guards possess values
that are "antagonistic to the successful implementation of managerial desired
correctional policy". Hepburn (1987) found that prison guards feel more
alienated when they perceived that the administration had greater control,
and Johnson (1977) concluded that a change in the role of a correctional
officer from a custodial to a human services function produces organizational
strains because of conflicting roles that the correctional officer must now
perform. Hayeslip (1982) in his study of job satisfaction among correctional
officers found that correctional officers felt that the administration failed to
back individual officers an their actions that were thought to be necessary.
This in turn could affect future and existing change processes in the
organization.

Other research has been concluded in jails. Regoli, Poole and Progrebin

(1986) investigated the work relations of jailers, relations with inmates, and

28

relations with fellow officers. Zupan and Menke (1988) investigated
organizational change in new generation jails and recommended that in
order to facilitate change, the correctional officer's duties should be expanded
vertically as well as horizontally. The study also found that the podular direct
method of supervision improved job satisfaction of correctional officers.
However, the study failed to evaluate if and how communications and
perceptions of safety were affected by organizational change.

Apart from the aforementioned studies, very little research has been
conducted regarding change in jails. Although these and other studies
produced data regarding organizational change, there are deficiencies

particularly in organizational change in jails.

CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Reseerch Questions

The research questions addressed in this thesis concern the reactions
of correctional officers to the environment and operations of a direct
supervision jail. Specifically, this thesis will examine how the perceptions of
correctional officers in new generation jails differ from those of linear
supervision jails.

Through analysis of organizational change in Genesee County, some
of the outcome measures that this thesis will explore is how the shift from a
traditional or linear-styled to a new generation or direct supervision jail has
affected the operations and personnel of the jail in terms of communications
and management, inmate management,inmate control and safety, tension
and safety factors, and overall job satisfaction.

This thesis will examine if communication has increased or decreased
in the new jail. Subtopics in communication include communications
between staff members as well as written and verbal communications
between the line staff and administration. Moreover, communication
between the staff and inmates in Genesee County will be studied.

In regard to indicators of tension and safety in the new jail, changes in
perception of safety and tension will be examined. If indicators of tension
and safety have increased, new factors which contribute to the higher rate of
tension and perceptions of fear will be examined and analyzed.

Inmate control and management issues will also be examined. Here,

the change in control methods from the old jail to the new jail will be
29

30

examined. Whether correctional officers actually follow guidelines of new
generation jails will be studied in terms of how inmates are being treated. In

addition, the relationship between the officer and inmate will be examined.

Research Desigp

Since the purpose of this research is to examine the effects of
organizational change within the Genesee County Jail, the research design
consists of a longitudinal analysis of the change process. This longitudinal
analysis is descriptive, examining the change process, and exploratory as it

examines the opinions and perceptions of the affected officers.

Unit of Analysis

The unit of analysis consists of all currently employed individuals of
the Genesee County Jail. The research sample consists of line-level
correctional officers, supervisory staff, social service workers, jail
administration, and other employees such as food service, prisoner transport,
booking, and medical units.

The line officers at the old Genesee County Jail numbered 111
individuals as of November 12, 1988. As of December 13, 1989, the total
number of correctional officers in the new jail numbered 115 employees. The
primary employment of the line officer in the new jail is a pod officer who is
responsible for the direct supervision of inmates. Line officers are also
employed as pod supervisors, medical transport to and from the pods,
booking, and intake.

Subjects for this study consist of all currently-employed full-time
correctional employees of the Genesee County Jail, located in Flint, Michigan.

This included the line personnel or the officers who worked the pods as well

31

as administrators such as the sheriff, undersheriff and other individuals.
Tertiary service positions involved in the daily operations of the jail, such as

social service workers, were also included.

Research Site

The Genesee county jail prior to 1988 was the traditional linear-styled
jail constructed in 1930. After the addition of two floors in the 1950’s and an
annex to the sixth floor in 1969, the basic structure consisted of six floors,
comprising a housing capacity of 440 beds. In 1978, inmates initiated a
lawsuit alleging unconstitutional living conditions in the Genesee County
Jail due to conditions of confinement and population limits being practiced at
that time. As a result, in 1980, a federal court implemented a population
limitation of 252 and required an increase in jail staffing.

Conditions in this linear styled jail were very poor for the inmate and
correctional officer. Correctional officers reported poor lighting conditions
and an overall poor working environment. As a result of of this intolerable
environment, the performance and morale of correctional officers was also
affected. They became complacent in their patrol of the corridors due to
confrontations with inmates. This instilled fear in the staff, whereas they
simply stayed at their stations rather than patrolling the corridors, thus ceding
custodial control of the jail to the social service workers.

As a result of the above factors, in 1982 the Genesee County Board of
Commissioners changed from an incarcerative philosophy to a rehabilitative
philosophy, and in June 1985, ground was broken for a New Generation Jail.
This jail, the first in Michigan, had a total housing capacity of 394 inmates.
Based on the new generation concept, the units were to be podular in design,

consisting of 60 individual rooms or cells grouped around a common Open

32

area. The facility was to be constructed of brick and concrete block with cast in
place concrete columns, beams, girders, and one-way reinforced walls. The
gross area of the jail was to be 180,460 square feet and the net area being
110,230 square feet. (See Appendix A).

33

Goals

 

The goal of Genesee County's new generation jail is to operate a
constitutional and efficient jail which complies with the Michigan
Department of Corrections standards while also complying with standards of
the American Correctional Association and the American Medical
Association. The county intends to instill public confidence in the jail while
maximizing coordination within the criminal justice system of the entire
county. The jail also will provide staff with necessary training resources
aimed at improving job understanding and performance while creating a
positive atmosphere through implementation and utilization of the direct

supervision by the staff and inmates.

Mission

The mission of the Genesee County Sheriffs Department, through its
corrections division, is to serve as a holding facility for pre-trial offenders and
assure their appearance at judicial proceedings, and for holding offenders on
short-term sentences until their release. Moreover, the objective of the jail is
to assure the public's safety and maintain custody of offenders in compliance
with all local state and federal regulations and statutes. Genesee County is to
provide offenders with a living and working environment that will allow

them to use their incarcerated period in a productive manner.

Philosophy
The philosophy of Genesee County, as it applies to the jail,is based on

some fundamental assumptions. The county feels that that inmates should
leave the jail no worse physically, emotionally, or psychologically than when

they entered. All inmates will be accountable for their actions within the jail,

34

and the community is encouraged to be involved in the correctional process.
Furthermore, the County believes that confinement alone is seldom
corrective; thus, the jail will provide each inmate with the opportunity to

increase his or her educational and social skills during their incarceration.

The Change Process

The Trainsition Tea_rr_t

To attain the goals, missions and phiIOSOphy of new generation jails, a
transition team was created by the Sheriff in September of 1986 to facilitate all
aspects of the move and to make the change process proceed more smoothly.
The transition team was the planning arm of the administration, charged
with the responsibility of many unique tasks which included planning,
policy, procedure and organizational development for the new jail. This team
consisted of two ranking correctional officers, (one lieutenant, one sergeant),
two social service workers, two corrections deputies and one clerical
employee.

One of the first activities of the change process was the training and
orientation of the transition team. In October of 1986, the transition team
received a week-long training session which was funded by the National
Institute of Corrections. Transition team members engaged in team building
exercises, were taught how to develop and implement work teams, engaged
in interpersonal group activities, received training on writing and analyzing
policies and procedures, and were given insight into new job responsibilities
and duties of correctional officers in a new generation jail. At the same time,
the Sheriff and major as well as selected lieutenants and sergeants were also

brought to the training seminar for three days to receive training on

35

organizational development and their roles and responsibilities in the change
process. In addition, other training was conducted regarding skill training and
transition team building, as well as seminars by the National Institute of
Justice on managing new generation facilities and basic supervisory skill
training.

Some of the responsibilities of the transition team were to provide
liaison to the Sheriff and community for all the components of the jail
which included identifying, researching, writing, and gathering information
for policy and procedures for direct supervision jails. Here, transition team
members investigated the functions of other transition teams such as Pima
County Sheriffs Department in Tucson, Arizona, that had created a transition
team for their new medium security annex to their jail. Besides the exchange
of information, transition team members also visited new generation jails in
Conta Costa County, California, and Bucks County, Pennsylvania.

Transition team members were also responsible for establishing lines
of communication with other individuals, departments, and agencies
involved in the jail planning process, as well as public relations with public
and civic groups interested in the new jail. Transition team members were
also responsible for jail operations. Activities included reviewing new
policies and procedures, staffing analysis, development of training programs,
and monitoring the actual physical construction of the jail, including
studying blueprints and assisting in the development of the interior designs
including the development of phone systems, computer systems and other
equipment.

Other individuals besides the transition team were also included in the
change process. Employees of the Genesee County jail were selected in a

lottery fashion to tour new generation jail facilities in Bucks County,

36

Pennsylvania, and Contra Costa County, in Martinez, California. At the
California site visit, commissioners, judges and prosecuting attorneys were
included to introduce and familiarize them to the operations and philosophy
of new generation jails.

In the spring of 1987, the supervisors of the Genesee County Jail were
also sent to Bucks County, Pennsylvania to introduce them to a new
generation jail. The supervisors disseminated what they learned to their
deputies. It was felt that this procedure would help alleviate some
apprehensions and resistance to change of the employees of the Genesee
County Jail.

As indicated, one of the responsibilities of the transition team was
training. The initial stage of training involved in—service training for
correctional officers. This included facility and procedural training which
continued up to the day that the new jail became operational. Some of the
new forms of training that were necessary for the correctional officers to
function effectively and efficiently included skill training as well as role
playing. In this process, high school students were used as inmates which
gave correctional officers a feel for the operations of the new jail.

In addition to training, a staff advisory committee was created to
consider medical, social service and correctional issues in the new jail. This
committee held monthly meetings to discuss logistics and economics of the
move. The committee submitted newly-formed policies and procedures to
the transition team and Sheriff for inspection and review.

In addition to the staff of the Genesee County Jail receiving training, it
was essential to keep the public and related criminal justice organizations
informed of the construction of the new generation jail. Consequently, the

transition team created and published a public relations booklet which

37

provided an introduction to and photographs of the new jail. Open houses
for employees and guests were conducted, which included an overnight
fund-raiser for the county, where citizens could spend "a night in jail". Local
law enforcement agencies were also provided tours and given an explanation
of the new policies and procedures of the jail. Furthermore, a local television
station provided an analysis and debate about the new jail that further
informed the general public and citizens of Genesee County.

Inmates were also provided information on the new jail. Meetings
were held with key inmates to provide information on the new jail. These
inmates were also provided tours of the new complex in groups of eight. The
result was that inmate apprehensions were lessened as information regarding
the new jail was passed on to other inmates in the old jail.

Prior to the move to the new jail on November 12, 1988, a move
logistic committee was formed on July 17, 1987, to create an action plan for the
move. This committee was comprised of representatives from each division
of the Sheriff's department who were appointed by the Division Head.
Departmental representatives on the the committee consisted of the Courts
Division, Detective, Traffic, Paramedics, Administration, Records, Visiting,
Training, Classification, Medical, Security, Radio, Booking, and other tertiary
services to the jail such as food services, supply and laundry.

In addition, correctional officers received preliminary briefings and
received training for the move through a step by step move day scenario prior
to the actual move. Correctional officers were provided with a facility

shutdown checklist to assure that the old jail would be efficiently and
effectively closed down. One week prior to the scheduled move, clerical and

other administrative staff moved into the jail.

38

The transition team and sheriff developed a timetable format where
all decisions regarding housing were planned ahead of the move, based on
the inmates' assignments as well as their behavior in the old jail. To further
alleviate any misconceptions and apprehensions that inmates had regarding
the move, video tapes were produced which explained the process of the
move as well as an orientation tape regarding new procedures in the new jail.
Inmates were transported from the old jail to the new jail via deputies
organized into escort teams. Inmates were not allowed to take anything with
them on the move. Each was given an admission kit containing clean
clothing, and commissary bags containing hygiene products, cigarettes and
snacks.

The last step in the move was the post—move process. Here, some
unanticipated problems and unclear policies and procedures were re-
evaluated and rewritten to improve the daily functions of the jail. This last
stage also served to prevent the older and more experienced officers from
slipping back into the old routine of the previous jail, which would create
instability in the new jail environment. Meetings with key personnel solved

the majority of the problems that the move encountered.

Data Collection

Interview Component

The objectives of the interview procedure were twofold. It was
anticipated that information collected during the interviews would shed light
on organizational change in Genesee County. It was also anticipated that the
findings regarding the change would correlate with prior research conducted

on organizational change.

39

A second objective of the interview stage was to provide data for the
survey portion of the study for relevant research issues. These interviews
were important since much of the information gathered regarding stages of
the change were collected from interviewing the transition team members
and correctional officers involved in the change process. In addition, the
information collected also served as a basis on which the questionnaire
would be based.

These interviews were exploratory in nature. In the pre-test, which was
conducted in the old jail, approximately 30 individuals were interviewed
during the winter and spring of 1988. In the post-test, conducted in the new
generation jail, approximately 20 individuals were interviewed between the
months of June and August, 1989. Information gathered at this stage
provided enlightening information regarding the operations of a New
Generation Jail as well as some of the concerns and problems that existed.
Moreover, these initial interviews were conducted to determine if the initial
questionnaire would have to be modified to make it more applicable to the
new generation jails.

Individuals were randomly selected and consisted of line personnel of
both sexes who worked directly in the pods with the inmates. Supervisory
staff or command staff were also interviewed as well as tertiary employees of
the jail such as booking and social service workers. All of these interviews
were semi-structured and confidential in nature. Interview questions were
structured in four basic categories. These consisted of communications with
the administration and other officers, inmate/ staff tensions and relations,
training, and the overall environment of the jail. Interviews conducted in

the new jail also contained structured questions regarding the officers

4o

perception of the old jail compared to the new jail, and the overall

environment of the new jail compared to the old jail.

Survey Component
In order to have the opportunity to illicit responses from all employees

of the Genesee County Jail, a questionnaire was constructed based on
information collected from the interviews. Simple random sampling was
employed whereas every employee had the opportunity to complete the
questionnaire.

The questionnaire was divided into 5 categories consisting of neutrally
phrased statements regarding communications and management, inmate
management, inmate control and safety, indicators of tension and safety, and
respondent characteristics.

The format of the questionnaire was close-ended and focused
primarily upon ordinal-level data in a Lickert styled format (Babbie, 1986).
Each questionnaire provided instructions included on the front page where
respondents were asked to Strongly Agree (SA), Agree (A), Disagree (D),
Strongly Disagree (SD), or have No Opinion (NO) to the statements.
Nominal-level, open-ended questions regarding the respondent's
demographics were also included in order not to exclude any of the categories
that could exist in the responses.

The first questionnaire disseminated to employees of the old jail
consisted of 7 pages and 55 statements and demographic questions (see
appendix B). The subsequent questionnaire, which was distributed to jail
personnel in the new jail was basically a duplication of the first. This

consisted of 7 pages and was reduced to 53 questions (see appendix C).

41

Sam
The initial questionnaire was distributed on March 17, 1988.

Questionnaires, along with self-addressed stamped envelopes were
distributed to all of the officers during in-service training programs conducted
by the researchers. Officers had the option of returning the completed
questionnaires at the training seminar, or they could return them to
Michigan State University at their own convenience. The number of
correctional officers employed at this time numbered 111, including the jail
administration. Eighty questionnaires were returned complete, comprising a
72% response rate.

Dissemination of the second questionnaire was conducted in December
of 1989. One week prior to distribution, the Sheriff's department issued a
memorandum to its employees explaining the purpose of the study. On the
day of distribution, researchers met with union representatives of the jail, the
Undersheriff, the major in charge of jail Operations and the shift lieutenant.
Issues regarding the questionnaire were discussed, and the best method of
distribution was determined.

Questionnaires were given to shift sergeants who then distributed
them to their employees at the beginning of the shift when they picked up
their equipment. Along with the questionnaire, a cover letter was attached
stressing the importance of the questionnaire, while assuring that all
responses would be confidential and results of the survey would be available
for inspection by all members of the department (See appendix D). Employees
had the option of mailing the completed questionnaire with the self-
addressed stamped envelope provided, or could turn them in at the end of

their shift, and the county would then mail them out.

42

Dissemination of the questionnaire initially resulted in collection of 18
complete and usable questionnaires. Due to the lack of participation, the
researcher personally went to the Genesee County Jail to re-distribute the
questionnaire on January 17, 1989. This time the researcher personally talked
with every employee on all three shifts to explain the purpose(s) behind the
research being conducted. This resulted in the collection of 55 additional
completed questionnaires.

Although all three shifts were covered at this time, it was determined
that all of the employees in the jail that were not working that day should
also have the opportunity to complete the questionnaire. Again the
researcher went to the Genesee County Jail to personally disseminate the
questionnaires on February 8, 1990. In order to assure that every individual
had the opportunity to complete a survey, questionnaires were also left in the
employee locker rooms with a letter explaining the purpose of the survey. In
aggregate, 80 surveys were returned to the researcher with the final response

rate being 67%.

Data Analysis

Items 1 - 47 in the old survey and items 1-48 in the new survey
received a score from 1 to 5, with 1 representing SA (Strongly Agree), 2
representing Agree (A), 3 representing Disagree (D), 4 representing Strongly
Disagree (SD), and 5 representing No Opinion (NO). All items were edge
coded, not necessitating codesheets. A codebook was constructed to describe
the locations of variables and code assignments, and for later interpretation
during data analysis (See Appendix B).

Data was later recoded in the data analysis stage. Here, repondent's that

answered no opinion (NO) to statements were coded with a value of 3 to

43

create a neutral response, which in turn would not skew the results, since it
could not be determined if the subjects agreed or disagreed to the statement at
hand. Statements that received a response of Disagree (D), were subsequently
coded with a value of 4 and statements that received a response of Strongly
Disagree (SD), were coded with a value of 5.

Data was examined with univariate analysis techniques to obtain
descriptive statistics or a summary of the characteristics of the respondents
and data as well as relationships between some of the variables. All variables
were reported in terms of their central tendencies to find summary statistics.

After examining the distributions of the variables, inferential statistics
were employed to obtain meaningful data or generalizations from the sample
populations. T-tests were used to compare the means of the two groups. This
was determined to be the most appropriate statistical procedure since the
standard error of the sampling distribution was unknown and the two
samples were drawn from two independent, normally distributed

populations.

CHAPTER IV
F INDINGS/ RESULTS

Demographic Findings

The category of demographics was constructed of personal and work
characteristics or generalizations of the respondent's in the old and new jail.
Variables analyzed in this category consisted of the respondent's age, sex,
race, shift assignment, job title, and years of employment with the Genesee
County Sheriff's Department.

The purpose of analyzing the respondent‘s characteristics is to control
for these variables when analyzing the succeeding data. Moreover, it is
essential to determine if there are significant differences between the pre and

post groups studied.

45

Table 1 reports the distribution of the ages of correctional officers before
and after the move from the traditional jail to the direct supervision facility.
In analysis, there is no substantive or statistically significant change in the
ages of the correctional officers responding to the surveys. Responses

indicated that the majority of responding officers were between the ages of 31

and 40.
TABLE 1
Age of respondent’s to the questionnaire
Age Old New
Jail jail
bl 172 N. %

1. 20-30 20 26.0% 19 24.7%
2. 31 -40 35 45.5% 34 44.2%
3. 41 -50 16 20.8% 15 19.5%
4. 51 - 60 6 7.8% 9 11.7%
5. 61 or Older 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

TOTAL (N) '7? 3660-93; ’79 3666?;

MEAN OLD JAIL = 2.1039

MEAN NEW JAIL = 2.1818

DIFFERENCE = -0.0779 T = .53 P = .597

The data presented in Table 2 examines the gender of the respondent's
before and after the move to the new generation jail. As illustrated, there is a
significant change in the gender of the respondent's where more males and

less females responded to the second survey than in the old jail.

TABLE 2

Change in the number of male and female respondents

Sex Old New
Jail Jail
bl. 572 N %
1. MALE 44 56.4% 57 72.2%
2. FEMALE 34 43.6% 22 27.8%
TOTAL (N) _7§ 3666A? ’75 366.61%
MEAN OLD JAIL .4615

= I
MEAN NEW JAIL = 1.2785

47

The results presented in Table 3 regarding the race of the respondent's
in the pre and post test indicate no significant changes in the racial
compositions of the respondents. Basically, the racial composition of the
respondent's in the old jail remained consistent with respondent's to the

survey in the new jail in which the majority of respondent's were white.

TABLE 3

Change in the variable race between the old jail and new jail

Race Old New
Jail Jail
N % N %
1. Black 16 21.1% 15 19.7%
2. White 56 73.7% 57 75.0%
3. Hispanic 2 2.6% 3 3.9%
4. Other 2 2.6% 1 1.3%
TOTAL (N) '78 3660?; ‘78 3666a:
MEAN OLD JAIL 1.8684

MEAN NEw JAIL = 1.8684

DIFFERENCE = 0.0000 T = 0.00 P = 1.00

48

The results presented in Table 4 indicate that there are no significant
changes in the respondent's shift assignments in the old jail compared to the
new jail. The responses from both surveys indicated that the majority of the

respondent's were from the first shift.

TABLE 4

Respondent's shift assignment

Shift Old New
Jail Jail
N % N %
1. First 34 45.3% 34 45.3%
2. Second 17 22.7% 22 29.3%
3. Third 19 25.3% 14 18.7%
4. Other 5 6.7% 5 6.7%
TOTAL (N) 55- "16667-0 55’ 366672
MEAN OLD JAIL 1.9333

MEAN NEW JAIL = 1.8667

DIFFERENCE = 0.0666 T = -.42 P = .675

49

The results presented in Table 5 indicate that there is no significant
change in the number of years respondent's worked in the Genesee County
Jail. In both responses, the majority of respondent's have worked in the

Genesee County Jail for a period of 6 to 10 years.

TABLE 5

Length of employment of respondent’ 5

Length of Old New
Employment Jail Jail
N % N %

1. 0 - 1 Years 11 14.9% 13 16.9%
2. 1 - 5 Years 23 31.1% 19 24.7%
3. 6 - 10 Years 29 39.2% 27 35.1%
4. 11 - 15 Years 4 5.4% 8 10.4%
5. 16 or more 7 9.5% 10 13.0%

TOTAL (N) '71 366673 77' 6666');

MEAN OLD JAIL = 2.6351

MEAN NEW JAIL = 2.7792

DIFFERENCE = 01441 T = .76 P = .450

The results presented in Table 6 indicate that there are no significant
differences in the job positions of the respondent's in the old and new jails.
Analysis indicates that the majority of respondent’ s are deputies who are

responsible for the daily functions of the jail.

TABLE 6
Analysis of job positions

Job Title Old New
Jail Jail
N % N %

1. Deputy 42 63.6% 50 73.5%
2. Sergeant 6 9.1% 5 7.4%
3. Lieutenant 1 1.5% 0 0.0%
4. Captain 1 1.5% 0 0.0%
5. Other 8 12.1% 11 16.2%
6. Social Service 8 12.1% 2 2.9%

TOTAL (N) —66 366.60}; —68 66666;

MEAN OLD JAIL = 2.2727

MEAN NEW JAIL = 1.8676

DIFFERENCE = 0.4051 T = -1.26 P = .211

51

Analysis of Communications Category

The category of communications was constructed of five aspects
regarding communication within the Genesee County Jail. These consisted of
communications between the upper command (Sheriff and Undersheriff)
and the correctional officer; communications between the upper level
management and the first line supervisors or sergeants; communications
between first line supervisors and correctional officers; communications
between the social service staff of the jail and correctional officers; and, a

statement regarding the flow of communication.

52

Table 7 addresses communications between correctional officers and
the top management (being the Sheriff, Undersheriff, and Major) of the Jail.
As Table 7 indicates, there has been a significant change regarding employee
perceptions of communication with upper management before and after the
transition to the new jail. Officers, after the transition to the new jail, feel that
communications between the top management and line levels has improved.
This is indicated by the shift of more responses from a negative to positive

opinion regarding this aspect of communications.

TABLE 7

Perceived effectiveness of communication between
top management and correctional officers

Communications Viewed Old New
As Effective Jail Jail
15. 2'9 1N. %

1. Strongly Agree 3 2.8% 4 5.1%
2. Agree 8 11.3% 27 34.2%
3. No Opinion 7 8.9% 3 3.8%
4. Disagree 20 28.2% 19 24.1%
5. Strongly Disagree 41 57.7% 26 32.9%

TOTAL (N) ’76 "166696 ’76 666696

MEAN OLD JAIL = 4.1139

MEAN NEW JAIL = 3.4557

DIFFERENCE 0.6582 T = ~3.23 P = .002

53

The results presented in Table 8 indicate that significant differences
exist among communications between upper-level management and first
line supervisors. Table 8 indicates that there has been an improvement in
communications from the old jail to the new jail. Essentially, there has been a
percentage shift from the old jail to the new jail, where 59.5% indicated in the
old jail that communications were not effective, while only 42.3% of the
respondent's in the new jail indicated that there was a Strong Disagreement

or Disagreement that communications were effective in the new jail.

TABLE 8

Perceived effectiveness of communication between upper level
management and first line supervisors

—————————————_-—
“—--—-—-o—.-—~———————-————-—————-——.————————

Communications Viewed Old New
as Effective Jail Jail
N. % N. %

1. Strongly Agree 4 5.1% 7 9.0%
2. Agree 17 21.5% 30 38.5%
3. No Opinion 11 13.9% 8 10.3%
4. Disagree 27 34.2% 19 24.4%
5. Strongly Disagree 20 25.3% 14 17.9%

TOTAL (N) 36 666676 ’76 100.0%

MEAN OLD JAIL = 3.5316

MEAN NEW JAIL = 3.0385

DIFFERENCE = 0.4931 T = -2.43 P = .016

54

The data presented in Table 9 compares the old and new responses of
employees regarding communications between first-line supervisors and
Correctional Officers within the pods. As illustrated, there is no statistically
significant change regarding communication between correctional officers
and sergeants in the new jail. Although the majority of respondent’ s have
indicated that communications are effective, over 30% report that

communications is not effective in the new jail.

TABLE 9

Communications between first line supervisors and the
correctional officers in the pods are effective

Communications Viewed Old New
As Effective Jail Jail
_ % hi 10

1. Strongly Agree 3 3.8% 8 10.1%
2. Agree 40 50.6% 44 55.7%
3. No Opinion 2 2.5% 1 1.3%
4. Disagree 23 29.1% 17 21.5%
5. Strongly Disagree 11 13.9% 9 11.4%

TOTAL (N) "76 666676 ‘76 666672

MEAN OLD JAIL = 2.6835

MEAN NEW JAIL = 2.9873

DIFFERENCE = -0.3083 T = -1.54 P = .126

————————-—-——-——-’
——————_
—————_—
—————————————_————————————

55

The results presented in Table 10 indicate that there is no significant
change in communications between correctional officers and social service
workers in the old jail compared to the new jail. In both the old jail as well as
the new jail, it was perceived that communication between the social service
workers and correctional officers were regarded as poor, with no

improvement occurring in the new generation jail.

TABLE 10

Communications between the social service staff
and the correctional officer are effective

Communications Viewed Old New
As Effective Jail Jail
N % N :72

1. Strongly Agree 1 1.3% 0 0.0%
2. Agree 12 15.0% 10 12.5%
3. No Opinion 1 1.3% 8 10.0%
4. Disagree 19 23.8% 29 36.3%
5. Strongly Disagree 45 56.3% 33 41.3%

TOTAL (N) ’76 36667; 80 666676

MEAN OLD JAIL 4.0625

MEAN NEw JAIL 4.2179

DIFFERENCE -0.1554 T = -O.91 P = .365

The results presented in Table 11 indicate that there has been a

significant change in the statement that it is routine for communications not

56

to flow through the chain of command Basically, the responses from the old
jail indicated that it was routine for communications not to flow through the
chain of command. However, respondent's from the new jail indicate that

communications now have a greater tendency to flow through or follow the

established or formal lines of communications established by the jail

administration.

TABLE 1 1

It is routing for communications not to flow through
the chain of command

Communications Viewed Old New
As Effective Jail JaIl
N % N %

1. Strongly Agree 34 42.5% 28 35.4%
2. Agree 31 38.8% 28 35.4%
3. No Opinion 0 0.0% 3 3.8%
4. Disagree 14 17.5% 22 27.8%
5. Strongly Disagree 1 1.3% 5 6.3%

TOTAL (N) _80 66667; .76 666070

MEAN OLD JAIL = 1.9625

MEAN NEW JAIL = 2.4304

DIFFERENCE = 04679 T 2.34 = .020

57

Analysis of the Policies and Progedures Category

The policies and procedures category examined if policies and
procedures are effectively communicated to jail personnel, and if existing
policies and procedures are effective inmate management tools.

Table 12 reports that employees now feel that policies and procedures
are now more effectively communicated to jail personnel. There has been a
statistically significant shift where officers in the new jail agree more often
that policies and procedures are now better communicated to jail personnel.
However, the majority of respondent’ 5 still indicate that policies and

procedures are not effectively communicated.

TABLE 12

Policies and procedures are effectively communicated to jail personnel

P 8: P are Old New
Effective Jail Jail
N % _I\_1 :72

1. Strongly Agree 3 3.8% 7 9.0%
2. Agree 12 15.0% 23 29.5%
3. No Opinion 1 1.3% 2 2.6%
4. Disagree 20 25.0% 25 32.1%
5. Strongly Disagree 44 35.0% 21 26.9%

TOTAL (N) 80 36667; ‘76 366670

MEAN OLD JAIL = 4.1250

MEAN NEW JAIL = 3.3846

DIFFERENCE = 0.7404 T = -3.55 P = .001

 

58

Table 13 addresses employee’s perceptions if the new policies and
procedures are better or effective inmate management tools. As Table 13
indicates, there has been a significant increase in Opinion that policies and
procedures in the new jail are significantly better than the policies and
procedures in the old jail.

TABLE 13

Existing policies and procedures are effective inmate management tools

Effective Old New
Management Tools Jail Jail
N % N %

1. Strongly Agree 8 10.1% 7 8.8%
2. Agree 15 19.1% 40 50.0%
3. No Opinion 2 2.5% 4 5.0%
4. Disagree 22 27.5% 18 22.5%
5. Strongly Disagree 32 40.5% 11 13.8%

TOTAL (N) ’76 ”16667.; _80 66667;

MEAN OLD JAIL = 3.6962

MEAN NEW JAIL = 2.8250

DIFFERENCE 0.8712 T = -4.06 P = .000

 

59

Inmate Management

The category of inmate management was constructed of the statements
regarding discretion and control of inmates in the new generation jail. These
statements examined if correctional officers need more decision making
power to manage inmates; if most problems can be solved by the deputies in
the pods through discussion with inmates; if correctional officers prefer
social service staff or superiors to manage inmate problems in the pods; if
correctional officers can use their discretion to apply rewards and
punishments to control inmates; and, if correctional officers prefer to manage

inmate problems in the pods.

 

60

Table 14 examines if correctional officers feel that they need more
decision making power to manage inmates. The data indicates that there has
been a significant change in responses from the old jail where officers more
strongly agreed to the statement, than to the new jail where correctional
officers feel that they need less decision making powers to manage inmates.
This suggests that correctional officers may be somewhat more satisfied with
their decision making power. Yet, it also appears that the correctional officers
would like more power to manage inmates as indicted by the fact that more
than two-thirds strongly agree or agree that they need more decision making

power.

TABLE 14

Correctional Officers need more decision making power to manage inmates

Need More Old New
Decision Making Jail JaIl
N % N %

1. Strongly Agree 46 57.5% 27 33.8%
2. Agree 23 28.8% 29 33.8%
3. No Opinion 0 0.0% 6 7.5%
4. Disagree 10 12.5% 16 20.0%
5. Strongly Disagree 1 1.3% 2 2.5%

TOTAL (N) '86 666675 —80 "166670

MEAN OLD JAIL 1.7125

MEAN NEW JAIL = 2.2125

II
I
O
U!
C
O
O
t-l
II
N
00
pa
"6
||
5%

DIFFERENCE

61

The results presented in Table 15 examine the statement that most
problems can be solved by the deputies in the pods through discussion with
inmates. The findings from this statement indicate that there is no statistical
significant change from the old jail and new jail, where the general consensus
from the respondent's indicated that problems can be solved through
effective communication with inmates. This is the kind of difference that you
would expect to see in new generation jails, since effective pod management
is contingent upon communication. However, it should be emphasized that
there is very little room for improvement in this category from the old jail in

terms of agreement upon this statement.

TABLE 15

Problems can be solved by the deputies in the pods
through discussion with inmates

Problem Solving Old New
With Inmates Jail Jail
bl 2'0. bl. %

1. Strongly Agree 20 25.0% 17 21.3%
2. Agree 43 57.3% 59 73.8%
3. No Opinion 2 2.7% 2 2.5%
4. Disagree 7 9.3% 0 0.0%
5. Strongly Disagree 3 4.0% 2 2.5%

TOTAL (N) ’76 166676 ‘86 100.0%

MEAN OLD JAIL 2.0667

MEAN NEW JAIL 1.8625

DIFFERENCE 0.2042 T = -1.53 P = .129

__._—._———_————-
—_ ———————_——".——
————_——
————————————————————

 

62

Examining control in the pods, Table 16 indicates that there has been a
significant change in the perception of correctional officers managing inmate
problems in the pods. In analysis of the respondent's in the old jail with
respondent's from the new jail, there has been a shift where employees in the
new jail prefer to manage inmate problems without the assistance of their
superiors or social service workers. Basically, the consensus is that
correctional officers want to maintain their own pods which is consistent

with the philosophy of operations of new generation jails.

TABLE 16

Preference of using social service workers or
superiors to manage inmate problems

_————————_———__————_—————-—-—————————————————————————_

Inmate Management Old New
Problems Jail , Jail
N % N %

1. Strongly Agree 8 10.0% 0 0.0%
2. Agree 23 28.8% 11 14.5%
3. No Opinion 2 2.5% 8 10.5%
4. Disagree 24 30.0% 23 30.3%
5. Strongly Disagree 2 27.8% 34 44.75

TOTAL (N) ’76 166676 ‘76 166673

MEAN OLD JAIL = 3.3671

MEAN NEW JAIL = 4.0526

DIFFERENCE = -0.6855 T = 3.41 P = .001

63

Consistent with the findings in Table 16, an analysis of correctional
officer discretion indicates that officers now have more discretionary powers
within the new generation jail. Table 17 indicates that there has been a
statistically significant shift in opinions in the new jail where 76.3% of the
respondent's in the new jail feel that they can use their discretion to control
inmates in contrast to 57.5% of the respondent's in the old jail, who feel that
they could use their discretion to apply sanctions and rewards among

inmates.

TABLE 17

Correctional Officers can use their discretion to apply rewards
and punishments to control inmates

Discretion Old New
Jail Jail
.1\_1 2'9 .151. %

1. Strongly Agree 20 25.0% 13 16.3%
2. Agree 26 32.5% 48 60.0%
3. No Opinion 0 0.0% 1 1 3%
4. Disagree 15 18.8% 14 17.5%
5. Strongly Disagree 19 23.8% 4 5.0%

TOTAL (N) 136 166676 136 100.0%

MEAN OLD JAIL = 2.8375

MEAN NEW JAIL = 2.3500

DIFFERENCE = 0.4875 T = -2.27 P = .025

——.————~———————_
———_-——
__—— _-—_———————_———

———-————_———————

64

Table 18 reports that correctional officers in new generation jails prefer

to manage inmate problems in their pods, in contrast to respondent's in the

old jail. Findings indicate that 74.3% of respondent's in the new jail prefer to

manage inmate problems in their pods in contrast to 67.1% of the

respondent's in the old jail, who preferred to manage inmates problems

within the cells.

TABLE 18

Correctional Officers prefer to manage inmate
problems in the pods

——_—-———_—__—————————-—————-—————————-——————————-p————_——

Prefer To Manage Old New
Problems Jail Jail
N % N %

1. Strongly Agree 18 22.8% 23 29.5%
2. Agree 35 44.3% 42 53.8%
3. No Opinion 2 2.5% 2 2.6%
4. Disagree 20 25.3% 11 14.1%
5. Strongly Disagree 4 5.1 % 0 0.0%

‘76 166673 '78 166673

TOTAL (N)

MEAN OLD JAIL = 2.4557
MEAN NEW JAIL = 2.0128

DIFFERENCE = -0.4429 T = -2.52 P = .013

——
__————-——_—.————————_————————_—.——————_———_—————_—--

65

Inmate Control and Safety

Since one of the philosophies of new generation jails is that line level
correctional officers should have more responsibility for the maintenance of
stability in their pods, while having more problem solving capabilities on
account of their direct contact with inmates, a category was constructed to
assess inmate control and safety issues.

This category was constructed of statements that attempted to assess
control and safety issues in the Genesee County Jail. Issues that were analyzed
included if it was perceived that the physical structure of the jail contributed
to overall safety in the jail. In addition, inmate safety and control issues were
examined to examine how these activities were perceived to affect safety and
control within the jail. These items included statements regarding frequent
changes in pod assignments, high inmate turnover, inmate movement, and
double-bunking or assigning two inmates to a cell.

Corollary to inmate control and safety, an analysis of inmate on inmate
assaults, inmate on staff, attempted suicides, suicides and the overall number
of these incidents were analyzed to assess if the environment of the new
generation jail appeared to be a safer environment for the correctional officers
as well as the inmates.

Inmate populations were also compared with the correctional officer
population in the new jail, as well as the type of inmates booked in the jails to
determine if there was a change in the old and new jails. This data was
analyzed because it was felt that the overall population and type of

incarcerated individual would affect inmate control in the new jail.

Table 19 examines officer's opinions regarding the physical structure of
the jail and how they feel it contributes to their overall safety. Findings
regarding this statement indicate that there has been a statistically significant
change where officers now feel less strongly that the physical structure of the
jail is an important component of a safe jail environment. As Table 19
indicates, respondents in the old jail had a stronger positive opinion that the
physical structure was important, while respondent's in the new jail feel that

the although the physical structure is important, it is less important for safety

in the jail.
TABLE 19
The importance of the physical structure of the jail as a
component of a safe jail environment
The Physical Old New
Structure Jail Jail
N % N %

1. Strongly Agree 50 62.5% 34 43.6%
2. Agree 29 36.3% 38 48.7%
3. No Opinion 0 0.0% 2 2.6%
4. Disagree 1 1.3% 1 1.3%
5. Strongly Disagree 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

TOTAL (N) 186 166673 _78 166673

MEAN OLD JAIL = 1.4000

MEAN NEW JAIL = 1.7051

DIFFERENCE = -0 3051 T = 2.75 P = 007

——*———-————-——_—-————.————————————————-———_——-—-——_—_
_———.—

67

Table 20 examines if frequent changes in an inmate's pod assignment
decreases the general safety in the jail. The findings indicate that no statistical
differences were found in the perceptions of the respondent's in the old jail
compared to the new jail. In both responses, there was a mixed opinion if

frequent changes in assignments did decrease the general safety on the jail

environment.

TABLE 20

Change of Cell/ Pod assignments during an inmates stay
decreases general safety in the jail

Change of Pod Old New
Assignments Jail Jail
N i N. %

1. Strongly Agree 12 15.2% 10 12.5%
2. Agree 18 22.5% 25 31.3%
3. No Opinion 4 5.1% 11 13.8%
4. Disagree 32 40.0% 27 33.8%
5. Strongly Disagree 13 16.3% 7 8.8%

TOTAL (N) ’76 166673 _80 166673

1.
MEAN OLD JAIL = 3.2025
MEAN NEW JAIL = 2.9500

0.2525 T = 2.75 P = .007

DIFFERENCE

68

Table 21 examines if a high turnover of inmates in the jail decreases
the perception of safety in the jail. According to the findings, there is no
statistically significant change in the perceptions of respondent's in the old
jail in new jail. In both response groups, the majority of the respondent's

disagreed that high inmate turnovers contributed to a perception of decreased

safety in the jail.
TABLE 21
High turnover of the inmate population ‘1
decreases safety in the jail
Inmate Old New
Turnover Jail Jail
151 :72 bl %

1. Strongly Agree 5 6.4% 8 10.1%
2. Agree 22 28.2% 6 7.6%
3. No Opinion 9 11 5% 6 7.6%
4. Disagree 32 41.0% 38 48.1%
5. Strongly Disagree 10 12.8% 9 11.4%

TOTAL (N) 78 100.0% 77 100.0%

MEAN OLD JAIL = 3.2405

MEAN NEW JAIL = 3.2785

DIFFERENCE = 0.0380 T = .20 P = .844

 

69

Table 22 examines the issue of overcrowding in the form of double
bunking or assigning two inmates to a cell, and if this reduces the
respondent's perception of safety in the jail. As Table 22 indicates, in both
the old jail and new jail, over 80% of the respondent's strongly agreed or
agreed to the statement that double bunking/ overcrowding was a factor in
determining the safety of the jail. As a consequence, there is no statistical
change in the opinions from respondent's in the old jail as well as the new

jail regarding this safety issue.

TABLE 22
Overcrowding (double-bunking) contributes to the
lack of safety in the jail
Overcrowding Old New
Jail Jail
N. 172. N. %

1. Strongly Agree 44 55.7% 44 55.0%
2. Agree 27 34.2% 21 26.9%
3. No Opinion 0 0 0% 0 0.0%
4. Disagree 6 7.6% 10 12.8%
5 Strongly Disagree 0 0 0% 3 3 8%

TOTAL (N) 77 100.0% 78 100.0%

MEAN OLD JAIL = 1.6125
MEAN NEW JAIL = 1.8077

DIFFERENCE = -0.0535 T = 1.18 P = .240

_—_———.——--———__—
_ _—_————
_———— — —_—————¢-——_———
— — ___——_-_

 

70

Another issue examined was if high amounts of inmate movement,
such as on court days, contributed to an overall decrease in the perception of
safety in the jail. As Table 23 indicates, over 90% of the respondent's in the
old jail strongly agreed or agreed that this form of inmate movement in the
jail did make the jail a less safer environment. Conversely, over 65% of the
respondent's in the new jail strongly agreed or agreed that inmate
movements reduced the safety in the new jail. As a result of this, there has
been a statistically significant shift in the Opinions of the respondent's in the
old jail and new jail, where it is now felt that inmate movement within the
new jail is still a concern, however, it is not a primary concern as it was in the

old jail.

71

TABLE 23
High amounts of inmate movement, such as on court days,
reduces safety in the jail
Inmate Old New
Movement Jail Jail
N % N %
1. Strongly Agree 35 44.9% 18 23.1%
2. Agree 37 47.4% 35 44.9%
3. No Opinion 0 0.0% 2 2.6%
4. Disagree 6 7.7% 21 26.9%
5. Strongly Disagree 0 0.0% 2 2.6%
TOTAL (N) 78 100.0% 78 100.0%
MEAN OLD JAIL = 1.6962
MEAN NEW JAIL = 2.4103
DIFFERENCE = -0.7141 T = 4.37 P = .000

72

As Figure 4 indicates, there has been a decrease in assault rates in the
new jail as indicated by a reduction in inmate on inmate (In/ In) assaults, and
attempted suicides (A/ S) in the new jail, in comparison to the assault data in
the old jail. Inmate on staff assaults did not decrease from the old jail to the
new jail. However, it could be assumed that if new generation jail principles

are enforced, this from of assault should further decrease.

Analysis of Assault Rates (Old Jail vs. New Jail)

GENESEE COUNTY RSSRULT DRTR
YERRLY TOTRLS

 

         

      
     

     
 

 

 

           

 

4O
- 32

30 r- § §
. § § Total
. s N .
_. \ \ SUICICJes
- \ \ 10

10 — N N V
- § § 3 6 § In/SIaH
' \ \ \ -

DI ‘ § 1, .\\ In/In

12/86-11/87 12/87-11/88 l2/88-ll-89

FIGURE 4

 

73

Consistent with the analysis of assault rates, an analysis of the overall
jail population was also analyzed. As Figure 5 indicates, the overall
population of the jail has increased, while the number of correctional officers
employed has slightly increased. This may indicate that there is greater

control of inmates in the new jail on account of the new generation

 

 

 

 

 

philosophy.
Analysis of Jail Populations
INMRTE POPULRT I ON IN COMPRRISON
TO CORRECT IONRL OFFICERS
400 000000000
' , ......... 361 385
300 3 256
ZOO —-
' 108 1 15 1 15
lOO -— —""'—‘ .......
, Inmates
O I Or’ t icers
1987 1988 1989

FIGURE 5

 

74

In addition to an overall increase in the jail population, there has been
an increase in felony bookings in the new jail. This may indicate that the jail
is now accommodating a different inmate population, possible more violent
in nature than the inmate population of the old jail. Yet, with a greater
number of felony bookings, which may mean a more violent type of inmate,

assault rates have not increased as illustrated by Figure 4.

Felony Bookings

INMFITE JOIL POPULRTIONS
(CENERHL HOUSING)
11/87-10/88 11/88-10/8911/89-PRE8ENT

 

 

 

 

     

)-
\‘
§ \‘ § '93 S ..$ :0 :E
" N gv§ A 3:\ :-:\ ;:;x ;;x :3:
\ .':\ :‘:§ :O§ Izl§ o§\ o.§ :':
'- 8 33"} :'\ v:\ 2-:\ 33 "§ -:;
300 8 .-:§ 3§ :-'§ R w -\ :~.
— § 3N 3N ’3‘ § 3\ ' § '1:
.-\ -:'\ .;.\ ‘x‘ ;\ \ x.
- .;\ j.;\ -.'\ .\ .\ \ I
~.\ _..\ .x .\ \ ,\ \ .
.,\ _.‘\ ‘\ .\ \ .\ § ,
' § 5:8 -: '- S 3‘ § 2 ‘
- S "‘3 = fix 3 9 s ‘J 2 m
200 -— s s s s t s: N J —
'- § § .\ -.§ § .:\ 's 3 EU 81 1
‘ '§ \ § 3 § 3\ N ;
,.. 1 \ \ ;\ ._\ l \ 4.1 \ »
\ \ .\ .\ \ . \ .,
-\ \ .\ .\ \ .\ \ _
- s s ' : s = s i
x x f ; x ;\ : . .
100 __ § § . § § 5 § 1; New Jall
- ‘\ \ ;\ '\ \ :\ \ 3
\ :\ . § .\ § T
)- § § :\ "g S 3 § '. -
r- § § '\ I s i t I .
O i 8 s . s . 5. : Old .1311

FIGURE 6

75

Control for Old Employees Compared to New Employees in Responses

to New estionnaire

In Order to Control for employees who worked in the old jail
compared to those that worked in the new jail, In order to determine if there
were differences in the responses in the new questionnaires, the variable of if
the employee worked in the new jail was controlled for.

As Table 25 indicates, there are statistically significant differences in the
responses from individuals have have only worked in the new jail in
comparison to those who have worked in the old jail . As Item 7 indicates,
new employees indicate that communications between top management and
correctional officers was effective, while respondent's who worked in the old
in jail disagreed to the statement that communications were effective.
Analysis of Items 8, 9, 10 and 11 also indicated that when controlling for new
employees, there was a difference in responses. In all of these items, new
employees reported higher positive opinions relating to jail communication
than their counterparts who had experience in both the old and new jail

systems.

 

76

TABLE 25

Communications / Management Category

l'I'EM7

Perceived effectiveness of communication between top management and correctional officers.

Old Employees 65 3.7692 T = 8.89
New Employees 13 2.0000 P = .000
ITEM 8

Perceived effectiveness of communication between upper-level management of the jail and first
line supervisors.

Old Employees 64 3.2344 T = 4.25
New Employes 13 2.1538 P = .000
ITEM 9

 

Communications between first-line supervisors and the correctional officers are effective.

Old Employees 65 2.8615 T = 3.05
New Employees 13 1.8462 P = .007
ITEM 10

 

Communications between the social service staff and the correctional officers are effective.

Old Employees 66 4.1818 T = 2.29
New Employees 13 3.4615 P = .036
ITEM 11

 

It is routine for communications not to flow through the chain of command.

Old Employees 65 2.2154 T = -3.02
New Employees 13 3.3846 P = .(Xl7

 

 

 

77

Responses were also controlled for tenure of employment regarding
opinions on the effectiveness of policies and procedures. As Table 26 reports,
there are statistically significant differences regarding policies and procedures.
Individuals who have work experience in the old jail report greater
dissatisfaction with communication as well as the overall effectiveness of the

policies and procedures established by the jail administration.

TABLE 26

Policies and Procedures Category

Policies and Procedures are effectively communicated to jail personnel.

Old Employees 64 3.6563 T = 4.22
New Employees 13 2.1538 P = .000
ITEM 13

Existing policies and procedures are effective management tools.

Old Employees 66 3.0152 T = 5.17
New Employees 13 1.9231 P = .000

78

Table 27 investigates the responses of the correctional officers who
have only worked in the new jail to those correctional officers who have
worked in the old and new jails, regarding their perceptions of inmate
management issues. As the data indicates, there are no statistically significant
differences between the two groups of respondents in regard to decision
making (Item 14), problem solving (Item 15), using social service workers to
manage inmates (Item 16), and preference to manage inmate problems on
their own accord (Item 18).

However, there is a statistically significant difference regarding the
perception of correctional officers using their discretion to apply rewards and
punishments. Basically, correctional officers who have had experience only
in the new jail feel that they have discretionary powers to apply rewards and
punishments, while officers with experience in the old and new jail feel that
they have less discretionary powers to apply rewards and punishments to

inmates.

79

TABLE 27

Inmate Management Category

ITEM 14

Correctional Officers need more decision making power to manage inmates.

OLD EMPLOYEES 66 2.1212 T = -1.77
NEW EMPLOYEES 13 2.6923 P = .093
ITEM 15

Problems can be solved by the deputies in the pods through discussion with inmates.

OLD EMPLOYEES 66 1.8485 T = -0.48
NEW EMPLOYEES 13 1.9231 P = .635
ITEM 16

Preference of using social service workers or superiors to manage inmate problems.

OLD EMPLOYEES 62 4.1452 T = 1.57
NEW EMPLOYEES 13 3.6154 P = .136
M

Correctional Officers can use their discretion to apply rewards and punishments to control
inmates.

OLD EMPLOYEES 66 2.4394 T = 1.86
NEW EMPLOYEES 13 1.9231 P = .076
ITEM 18

Correctional Officers prefer to manage inmate problems in the pods.

OLD EMPLOYEES 65 1.9385 T = -1.44
NEW EMPLOYEES 12 2.4167 P = .173

80

Table 28 investigates the responses of correctional officers who have
worked only in the new jail to those correctional officers who have worked in
the old and new jail in terms of their Opinions regarding inmate control and
safety issues. In aggregate, both the old and new officers feel that the physical
structure is important for a safe jail environment (Item 19), the frequent
change of cell assignments is a factor in jail safety (Item 20), as well as inmate
population turnovers (Item 21), double bunking (Item 22), and inmate

movement or traffic in the jail as on court days (Item 23).

81

TABLE 28

Inmate Control and Safety

——__*——_——_—_—————_’~———_-—_————_——_—-—_————’”-————-‘—

The importance of the physical structure of the jail as a component of a safe jail environment.

OLD EMPLOYEES 65 1.7231 T = .26
NEW EMPLOYEES 12 1.6667 P = .796
ITEM g2

Change of cell/ pod assignments during an inmates stay decreases the general safety in the jail.

OLD EMPLOYEES 66 1.219 T = -.57
NEW EMPLOYEES 13 1.345 P = .576
ITEM 21

 

High turnover of the inmate population decreases safety in the jail.

OLD EMPLOYEES 65 1.247 T: -.63
NEW EMPLOYEES 13 1.198 P = .537
[LEM 22

Overcrowding (double—bunking) contributes to the lack of safety in the jail.

OLD EMPLOYEES 64 1.119 T = -1.39
NEW EMPLOYEES 13 1.437 P = .183
ELM

High amounts of inmate movement, such as on court days, reduces safety in the jail.

OLD EMPLOYEES 65 1 .209 T = -.27
NEW EMPLOYEES 12 1.168 P = .790

 

CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION
Findings

Research concerning new generation jails is limited in its scope and
nature. As a result, the purpose of this thesis was to examine the dynamics of
organizational change within the context of the Genesee County Jail and its
transformation from a traditional linear-styled jail to a progressive new
generation jail. This concept, as illustrated, was not only a physical change;
rather, it consisted of a philos0phical change from a custody-oriented
environment where officers interacted as little as possible with inmates, to a
new generation concept where the correctional officer is now an integral part
of the daily functions and stability of the jail operations.

This study was important for many reasons. New generation jails are
on the cutting edge of correctional technology. In order to diagnose if new
generation jails are a viable alternative for correctional agencies, it is
important to understand the internal dynamics of new generation jails and
how a shift to this phiIOSOphy will affect the entire organization.

This study provided many interesting findings. As with all research,
these findings should be interpreted with caution for several reasons.
Although the study was conducted in the natural environment instead of a
laboratory, extraneous variables may have affected the responses. One may
have to take into consideration the Hawthorne effect in this analysis where
respondents may have acted in an overpositive manner to the questionnaire
simply because they knew that they were being studied (Hagen, 1982). The
fact of the newness of the jail may have also affected the responses where
problems regarding the daily operations have not surfaced and become

important issues. In addition to the newness of the jail, the jail is also a
82

83

showcase within the state of Michigan, since it is the first new generation jail
in the State. As a result, correctional officers may possess departmental pride
which could affected their responses in the questionnaire. In addition, the
Sheriff of Genesee County has an open door policy, allowing many public
officials, organizations, and schools the opportunity to tour a jail in addition
to having retired individuals inspect the jail on a weekly basis. As a result of
these activities occurring, workers in the jail may sense that this is a
professional establishment under the scrutiny of the public. Hence, they may
have made socially desirable responses to further impress the public and jail
administration. Conversely, the respondent’s may have performed the
opposite and responded in a negative manner due to the new policies and
procedures that they were possibly still learning, which could have created an

air of frustration among them, skewing their replies to a negative response.

Overall Findings

A number of variables were identified and measured in this research to
determine if relationships existed in terms of communications, inmate
management, inmate control and safety, and indicators of tension and safety.

As the findings indicated, there have been some changes regarding
communication. Officers now indicate that the use of formal channels of
communications, rather than relying upon the ”grapevine”, has improved
between the top management, supervisors and correctional officers. This
change in communication can be attributed to attempts by the transition team
in rewriting the policies and procedures of the jail as well as training of the
staff. Through this revision of the policies and procedures, communications
are now comprehensive and better understood by the staff. This is a

fundamental requirement because the philosophy of a new generation jail

84

requires more open forms of communication since correctional officers
stationed in the pods are managers and subsequently require better forms of
communication to satisfactorily execute their job responsibilities.

In the analysis of the policies and procedures category, there have also
been statistically significant shifts where officers now feel that policies and
procedures are more effectively communicated to the staff. Moreover, the
rewritten policies and procedures are now better inmate management tools
than those that existed in the old jail. It appears that the efforts of the
Transition Team was successful in the revision process where site visits as
well as input by the correctional officers contributed to effective policies and
procedures that are more widely accepted by the staff.

In the analysis of inmate management, there has also been changes.
Consistent with the new generation philosophy, officers indicated that they
have enough decision-making authority in their pods, a greater responsibility
and a greater degree of discretion and preference for managing problems in
their pods without relying upon superiors or social service workers to
intervene in situations.

In regard to inmate control, officers have indicated that the physical
structure is important for control and safety; yet, it was agreed upon that this
concern was secondary in nature. This can be attributed to the fact that the
officers now rely less upon physical structures and rely more upon their
interpersonal attributes to handle and solve problems in the jail. However,
there are still some control issues that are a concern in the new jail. Officers
still agree that factors that create instability and potential security breeches are
changes of cell assignments. Respondent's also indicated that double-
bunking, or assigning two individuals to a cell (leading to overcrowding)

decreased the general safety in the jail. Yet, inmate movement within the jail

85

is less of a concern in the new jail. This may be attributed to several factors.
The revised policies and procedures regarding inmate movement may
alleviate some of the problems of inmate movement that existed in the old
jail. The correctional officer through improved training and a proper
understanding of their responsibilities may have more self-confidence in
their control of inmates.

Another factor where correctional officers reported a greater sense of
safety and greater control of inmates is the analysis on assault rates among
inmates which has decreased. This finding can be attributed to the fact that
correctional officers are now in direct contact with inmates where they may
be able to detect potentially hostile situations before they erupt. Moreover,
inmates now realize that they have some privileges that they can lose if they
engage in imprOper or violent behavior. When this is associated with an
increase in the jail population, and the possible increase of more violent
offenders (based on the increase of felony bookings), this finding suggests that
the new generation philosophy, coupled with an effective change process, has
made the jail a safer working environment for correctional officers.

From these findings, it can be inferred that the change strategies
employed have resulted in less stress among correctional officers due to
greater control of their environmental surroundings. Yet, the demands of
their jobs have not decreased. In fact, correctional officers now have greater
responsibilities in the new generation jail because their job has evolved from
a passive to an active-type job. Correctional Officers in the old jail engaged in
custodial activities where there was very low control of their work
environment due to the physical layout of the jail and existing policies and
procedures. This had a negative effect on learning followed by atrophy of

their previously learned skills. However, the new jail architecture and

86

environment as well as the reconstruction of job duties has created new
responsibilities for correctional officers.

Through these work reconstruction efforts, the correctional officer’ 5
skills are more sufficiently developed, enhanced, and utilized, possibly
leading to increased reports of job satisfaction and less stress-related
responses. Thus, the correctional officers workload may not be a determinant
of stress; rather, control or lack of control in the environment may be a
factor to increased stress, job dissatisfaction, and negative reports of the
workplace in terms of the variables that were analyzed in this study. This
proposition is substantiated by Karasek and Theorell (1990) who found that
demanding work is not a major contributor toward stress. Rather, the
primary work-related risk factor for stress is the lack of control over how one
meets their job demands and how one uses their skills. As a result of the new
generation philosophy and the expansion of the correctional officers
responsibilities and duties, their confidence and self-esteem has also
increased, subsequently increasing their sense of control in all aspects of their

work environment.

Controlled Findings

When employees who have never worked in the old jail are controlled
for (Tables 25 through 28), there are some significant findings. In analysis of
communications, new employees reported greater satisfaction than their
counterparts who had experience in the old jail. Furthermore, new
employees reported greater satisfaction regarding policies and procedures

than officers that had experience in the old jail.

87

This suggests a host of possibilities regarding the change to the new
generation philosophy. One could assume that the older officers carried over
old philosophies from the old jail. This could be attributed to the fact that
employees with experience in the old jail have had years of experience or
sunk costs in their Operations in the old jail, the change process has
interrupted their established social relations with other employees, and the
overall apprehensions or fear associated with a large change of this type may
have led to increased resistance.

An interesting finding during control for the old and new employees
was in the category of inmate control and safety. Both old and new
employees indicated that the physical structure was an important
determinant to safety as well as the fact that inmate movement, turnovers
and double-bunking (overcrowding) were factors that aggravated inmate and
control and safety. These problems can be addressed by the management. For
instance, greater control efforts can be imposed during inmate movements.
Tactics that could be employed would be the movement of smaller numbers
of inmates at one time to ensure safety and control. Likewise, a greater
number of officers could be used during these times to ensure control and
safety of the inmate population as well as the safety of the correctional
officers. However, some of the other problems expressed such as population
turnovers and double bunking are endemic to the jail environment and not
mutually exclusive of Genesee County.

One explanation why individuals who only have work experience in
the new jail responded more favorably is the fact that many of these officers
may not be fully socialized into the culture of the Genesee County Jail. Many
scholars have examined correctional officer socialization and subcultures in

corrections (Sykes, 1958; Crouch, 1980; Klofas, & Toch, 1982). This

88

socialization and subculture that exists among correctional officers may not be
deeply rooted in new correctional officers. As a result, the responses may
have been more positive in nature.

In accompaniment to socialization, another topic which can be
addressed is the educational level of the new officers. Many of the officers
recently hired to work in the Genesee County Jail have post-high school
educations and college degrees. Through this formal educational process,
new officers may have a greater understanding of their roles in a correctional
environment, while being better-suited to understanding the social dynamics
occurring between the inmate and correctional officer. Consistent with this
higher education is the fact that these new correctional officers may want a
career in corrections. The history of the Genesee County jail reflects that the
position of jailer was originally a entry level position for County Deputies,
whereas the accruement of seniority led to a road promotion or other
positions outside the confines of the jail. However, many of these new
applicants may not view the jail as a starting point but rather a career. Thus,
their overall exceptions may be more positive than individuals with years of
experience.

From these findings, some fundamental assumptions can be surmised.
On analysis of the actual change, concentrating on the older officers is
important. First of all, older officers are acclimated to the old operating
policies and procedures that existed in the old jail. As a consequence of these
old beliefs that may contradict new operating policies and procedures,
emphasis should be placed on re-educating these individuals in the new
generation philosophy. Attempts to change these perceptions may consist of
including include older officers more often in the change process.

Involvement here could include greater emphasis on training, on-hands

89

involvement in the revision of policies and procedures, as well as site visits
and tours of other new generation jail facilities. Through greater
involvement in the change process, officers may possess greater motivation
and responsibility to uphold the new policies and procedures.

Another approach or technique to deal with those individuals that do
not accept the new generation philosophy is more drastic in nature. The
administration could take a "lost cause" approach and subsequently
concentrate their change efforts on the officer’ 5 receptive to the new jail
philosophy. This would essentially allocate resources where they would be
best implemented and applied. This change strategy could be dangerous. It
could create deep factions within the organization, leading to greater
resistance to change by some members of the organization. This technique
would also being quite slow and evolutionary in nature, since it relies upon
officer attrition to achieve the desired results. However, some techniques
could be employed to expedite this process. Such examples would be a
transfer out of the jail division to other divisions within the Sheriff’ 5
department if feasible, or early retirements or ”buy-outs" to eliminate those

resistant to the changes.

Directions for the Future

While there are practical implications regarding this research which is
valuable to the Operation of the Genesee County Jail, there are also some
future research implications for individuals desiring to investigate
organizational change in correctional facilities, particularly new generation

jails.

90

Although this study has provided meaningful data, it has opened
avenues for further investigation into the dynamics of organizational change
in a correctional environment. As indicated, many issues regarding the
perceptions of correctional officers have been raised in accordance to the fact
that new officers do not share the same opinions as their contemporaries that
worked in the traditional jail. An in-depth analysis in to this concept may be
launched. For instance, one method to determine if these officers’ opinions
are due to the fact that they are new and not fully socialized into the
correctional culture, a recommendation would be to conduct further
longitudinal studies into correctional officer socialization.

Another topic to consider is the shared culture among correctional
officers that may affect the change process. As correctional officers discover
beneficial patterns of action and solutions to problems encountered in the
jail, they may describe those activities in symbolic terms and express them as
general principles of the jail. As a result, these generalizations are formulated
as customs and traditions in the jail. In other words, as patterns of social
ordering develop among correctional officers, those correctional officers
create and share sets of cultural ideas that symbolize, reflect, and give
meaning to their careers (Olsen, 1978). An attempt to change these shared
cultural norms may be met with great resistance. Consequently, the culture
that developed in the old jail may conflict with the phiIOSOphy of the new jail
and correctional officers may resist the new changes in an attempt to
preserve their established shared culture of the old jail.

Other topics for further research may include the effects of higher
education on the perceptions of correctional officers and their jobs. This may
reveal that individuals with higher levels of education indicate higher

reports of satisfaction in the work environment. However, findings here

91

may actually represent the opposite. Job satisfaction may actually be decreased
as the result of higher education in a work environment that is perceived as
impoverished.

As previously indicated, one of the features of a new generation jail is
that it is a safer and positive environment for inmates. Thus, other topics of
research could consist of examining inmate stress in new generation jails.
From this analysis, it could be inferred that since their environment is now
safer, stress levels may be lowered. However, inmate stress may increase due
to the continual observation and supervision of their daily activities by
correctional officers.

Corollary to inmate stress, another theoretical inquiry for researchers
would be the differences in the types of inmate power relationships in new
generation jails compared to traditional-styled jails. Since correctional officers
are in more control of their environment, further research could examine
how this affects the power and exchange relationships between the inmate
and correctional officer. With the officer having greater control, the inmate
may be deprived or allocated types of power in comparison to traditional jails.

In order to validate these findings, further research could also include
studying Sheriff’s Departments that are contemplating a change or shift to a
new generation jail. Here, similar studies could be replicated to validate the
findings in the Genesee County Jail. It is anticipated that findings regarding
the variables studied would yield comparable findings. Moreover, if changes
were found in studies of other jails, an examination into the different change
strategies may result in more efficient change strategies for other
department’s anticipating organization change.

In aggregate, the examination of organizational change in the Genesee

County Jail resulted in useful findings for social science researchers as well as

92

the jail itself. However, these findings have also opened up new avenues of
inquiry that must be examined to fully understand organizational change in

new generation jails.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

Diagram of the Genesee County Jail

93

Depict- Future

flbor Additions

Structure Currently

Under Construction

4
C

V

 

 

 

GENESEE COUNTY JAIL

Aerial View

 

  

.

\
\
..

\\

         

a »
.‘.~W
/

§<
§

.
e
‘

    

3.9%

\

Risa-Nu . - .. .

APPENDIX B

Pre-Test Questionnaire

94

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

COLLEG! Oi SOCUIL SCIZNCI 0 SCHOOL 0! Cllfllssl ,lt STTC! [.«ST Lnslxc - MICHlGn . um uxa
lam HALL

March l7, l988

Dear Staff Member:

Attached is a questionnaire that we are asking you to fill out. The purpose
of this questionnaire is to learn your views on problems within the jail
concerning issues of communications and inmate management. The questions in
the last section will also assist us in developing a way of Judging the safety
and tension levels in the Genessee County jail, as well as in other jails.

The questionnaire was developed with the assistance of the many jail personnel
that we have had the opportunity to interview personnally. Time does not
permit us to interview everyone. Therefore, your assistance in filling cut

the questionnaire will be deeply appreciated.

All questionnaires will be kept in our files and all individual responses will
be absolutely anonymous and confidential. Copies of our final report will

be made available to you upon recuest.

Thank you for your cOOperation.

Sincerely yours.

"‘L. I: ‘- Vlam¢lnv 5””. ii“, (”bmugfill\ Inunaalaul

95

GENESEE COUNTY SURVEY

GENERAL lNSTRUCTlONS: Beside each of the follOwing statements, please indicate
(circle) whether you Strongly Agree (SA). Agree(A), Disagree (D). Strongly Disagree
(SD), or have No Opinion (NO). You may also write any additional comments whenever
y0u wish.

 

COMMUNICATIONS/HANAGEHENT: The following statements address communications and
management relations in the jail. For these questions effective communications
are when a large percentage of information is both delivered and understood.

 

1. Communications between upper-level management
(Sheriff, Undersheriff, etc.) and the correctional
officers are effective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (SA) (A) (D) (50) (N0)

2. Communications between upper-level management

and first line supervisors (Sergeants) are
effective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (SA) (A) (0) (50) (N0)

3. Communications between first line Supervisors

and the correctional officers on the pods are
effective (SA) (A) (D) (50) (NC)

A. Communications between the social service staff

and the correctional staff are effective . . . . . . (SA) (A) (0) (SD) (N0)

5. It is routine for communications not to fIOw
through the chain of command . . . . . . . . . . . (SA) (A) (D) (50) (N0)

6. Policies and procedures are effectively communicated

to jail perSOnnel (SA) (A) (D) (50) (N0)

7. Existing policies and procedures are effective

inmate management tools (SA) (A) (D) (50) (N0)

- Page One -
Over Please

96

 

 

INHATE HANAGEHENT: Tne fiDIIOwing statements address inmate Inanagement i55ues in
the jail.
8. Inmates routinely use the social service staff

to overrule the correctional staff . . (SA) (A) (0) (SO) (NO)
9. Correctional officers need more decision making

pewer to manage inmates . . . . . . . . . . . . (SA) (A) (0) (SD) (N0)
10. Correctional officers can help resolve most

disputes between inmates by acting as a go-between

or mediator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (SA) (A) (D) (SO) (NO)
ll. Most correctional officers are consistent in

managing inmates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (SA) (A) (D) (SD) (NO)
12. Inmates get away with bending the rules on a

regular basis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (SA) (A) (0) (50) (NO)
13. Host of the social service staff responds in a

reasonable period of time to inmate requests for

service (reasonable is within a few hours) (SA) (A) (D) (50) (N0)
lb. The majority of the social service staff prOvides I

immediate response to crisis situations on the pods (SA) (A) (D) (SO) (N0)
15. Problems can be solved by the deputies on the

pods thrOugh discussion with inmates . . . . . . . (SA) (A) (0) (SO) (NO)
l6. Correctional officers prefer social service staff

or Superiors to manage inmate problems on the pods (SA) (A) (D) (50) (N0)
1?. Correctional officers can use their discretion to

apply rewards and punishments to control inmates (SA) (A) (D) (50) (NC)
1 . ‘ f ' r fer to mana e inmate
8 Correctional c fnce 5 pre 9. . . (SA) (A) (0) (SD) (NO)

prcolems on the pods . . . . . . .

- Page Two -
Next Page Please

97

 

INHATE CONTROL 8 SAFETY: Tne foll0wing section attempts to assess inmate control
and safety iSSues in the jail.

 

)9. One method for controlling a pod is to control
the inmate leader(s) on the pod . . . . . . . . . (SA) (A) (0) (SD)

A
Z
(3

20. Another method for controlling a pod is to all0w
the inmate leader to control the inmates . . . . . (SA) (A) (0) (SD) (NO)

21. It is possible for the correctional officer to

manage inmates through both formal and informal
control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (SA) (A) (0) (SD) (NO)

22. A climate of mutual respect, between correctional
officers and inmates is important to a safe pod . . (SA) (A) (0) (50) (N0)

23. Staffing with personnel who fear inmates decreases
the ability to control inmates . . . . . . . . . . (SA) (A) (0) (SD (N0)

2h. The physical structure of the jail facility is an
important part of a safe environment . . . . . . . (SA) (A) (D) (50) (NC)

25. Housing inmates in more than one area during their

stay decreases safety in the jail . . . . . . . . . (SA) (A) (0) (50) (N0)

26. High turnover of the inmate pOpulation decreases

safety in the jail . . . . . . . . . . (SA) (A) (D) (SD) (ND)

27. OvercrOwding contributes to the lack of safety

inthejail................... (SA) (A) (D) (SD) (ND)

28. When there is a high amount of inmate movement,

Such as on court days, the jail is less safe . . . (SA) (A) (D) (50) (N0)

29. In order to create a safe environment the inmates
must be treated as citizens who happen to be In

custody . . . . . . . . . (SA) (A) (0) (50) (NO)

- Page Three -
Over Please

30.

31.

32.

The majority of correctional officers treat

inmates as human beings

Problem inmates are the exception rather than the

rule

The majority of problem inmates can be handled

withOut writing them up .

98

(SA)

(SA)

(A)

(A)

(D)

(0)

(SO)

(SO)

(NO)

(NC)

(ND)

 

INDICATORS OF TENSION AND SAFETY:
and safety in the jail.

and safety is defined as the absence of physical harms or assaults.

The following statements attempt to assess tension
Tension is defined as anger, hostility. resistence, etc.;

 

33.

3h.

35.

36.

37.

Verbal harassment between/among the inmates indicates

A. an unsafe pod .

8. a tense pod .

Verbal harassment from inmates tOward corrections

officers indates
A. an unsafe pod .

8. a tense pod

Verbal harassment from corrections officers

toward inmates indicates . . .
A. an unsafe pod .

B. a tense pod .

A clean pod is an indicator of
A. an unsafe pod .

B. a tense pod .

Inmate compliance with the directives
correctional officers is an indicator of

a. an unsafe pod .

b. a tense pod

- Page F0ur
Next Page Please

(SA)

(SA)

(SA)

(SA)

(SA)

(SA)

(SA)

(SA)

(A)
(A)

(A)
(A)

(A)
(A)

(A)
(A)

(A)
(A)

(D)

(D)
(D)

(D)
(D)

(D)
(D)

(D)
(D)

(so)

($0)

($0)

(SD)

(50)

(SD)

(SD)

(50)

(N0)

(N0)

(N0)

(N0)

(N0)

(NO)

(NO)

38.

39.

#0.

Al.

42.

43.

bk.

“5.

99

Excessive noise (on yOur shift) indicates .
a. an unsafe pod

b. a tense pod .

L0ud discussion (on your shift) is a sign of .
a. an unsafe pod .

b. a tense pod .

Inmate complaints indicate
a. an unsafe pod . . . . . . . .

b. a tense pod . . . .

Correctional officer complaints indicate . . . . .
a. an unsafe pod .

b. a tense pod .

Inmate participation in programs (recreatiOn,
education, etc.) is important to

a. an safe pod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

b. a tension free pod

High staff to inmate ratios are indicative of .
al an safe pOd O u o a o o o a a a a a o o 0 a o
b. a tension free pod

The greatest concern the staff has about the new
jail is a concern for .

a. an unsafe jail . . . . . . . . . . . .

b. a tension filled jail

Staff members' fear of inmates indicates
a. an unsafe pod .

b. a tense pod .

- Page Five -
Cver Please

(SA)

(SA)

(SA)

(SA)

(SA)

(SA)

(SA)

(SA)

(SA)

(SA)

(SA)

(SA)

(SA)

(SA)

(A)

(A)
(A)

(A)
(A)

(A)
(A)

(A)
(A)

(A)
(A)

(A)
(A)

(A)
(A)

(D)
(D)

(D)
(D)

(D)
(D)

(D)

(so)

(SD)

(50)

(50)

(SO)

(SO)

(NO)

(NO)

(NO)

(N0)

(NO)

(NO)

(NO)

(NO)

(NO)

(NO)

(NO)

(NC)

L6.

“7.

100

rcrreztional officer dislike of inmates tends to

indicate
a. an unsafe pod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (SA) (A) (D) (50) (NO)
b. a tense pod . . . . . . . . .'. . . . . . . . . (SA) (A) (D) (SD) (NO)

Acts which correctional officers identify as inmate
management problems (weapons, contraband, assaults,
etc.) are normal reactions to the jail environment (SA) (A) (D) (50) (No)

 

RESPONDANT CHARACTERISTICS: Finally, we would like to know a little abOut you so
we can see how different types of people feel about the iSSues we have been examining.

 

AB.

“9.

50.

SI.

52.

53.

What is y0ur current age (circle the range of years
which applies)? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)20-25 (2)26-30 (3)3l-h0
(A)AI-so (5)51-60 (6)61 or

more

What sex are you? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1) Male (2) Female

(I) Black, (2) White.
(3) Hispanic,
(A) Other

What race are you? . . . . . . . . .

 

(I) First (2) Second,
(3) Third,
(A)

What is your current shift assignment?

Other

 

What is y0ur current job title? . . . . . . . . . .

 

HOw many years (and months) have your been employed
in each of the follwoing duties in the Genessee County
Sheriff's Department?

 

 

A. Months in the jail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Months
8. Months in road patrol Months
C. Months in social serivec Months

 

- Page Six -
Next Page Please

101

SA. Are you a certified police officer? . . . . . . . . (I) Yes (2) No

55. Do you have a part time job with another police
agenCY? o o a a o a a o a o o a a o o a a a a o a a (I) Yes (2) No

 

Please add any additional comments you may have (beIOw). In addition, please let
us know if there are any indicators of safety or tension which we are not aware
of. That is, are there other ways to assess safety or tension on the floors?

 

THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR COOPERATION AND ASSISTANCE!
- Page Seven -
END

APPENDD( C

Post-Test Questionnaire

102

GENES EE COL'NTY SL'R VET

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS: Beside each of the follow ing Statements. please indicate
(Circle) whether you Strongly Agree (SA). Agree (A). Disagree (D). Strongi} Disagree

(SD). or have No Opinion (NO).

 

COALVIUMCA'I'IONSMANAGENEE.\'T: The following Statements address
communications and management relations in the jail. For these queszions, effecdve
communications means that a large percentage of disseminated informanon lS b0th

delivered and undersxood.

1. Communications between upper-level management
(Sheriff, Undersheriff, etc.) and the correcuonal

officers are cffecrive (SA) (A) (D) (SD)

Io'

. Communications between upper-level management
and firs: line supervisors (Sergeants) are effecuve (SA) (A) (D) (SD)
3. Communications between firsx line supervisors
and the correczional officers in the pods are
effective (SA) (A) (D) (SD)

4. Communications between the social service Staff
and the correcnonal Staffare effecdvc (SA) (A) (D) (SD)

5. It is routine for communications nor (0 flow

through the chain of command (SA) (A) (D) (SD)

6. Policies and procedures are effecdvely .
communicated to jail personnel (5.“\) (A) (13) (SD)

7. Exisring policies and procedures are effecrive
inmate management tools (5A) (A) (D) (50)

(NO)

(NO)

(NO)

(NO)

(NO)

(NO)

(NO)

103

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘ssaes

lNMATE MANAGEMENT: The following statements address inmate management .
in the jail.

 

8. Inmates routinely use the social service staff

tooverrule the correCtional Staff (SA) (A) (D) (SD) (NO)

9. Correcrional officers need more decision making .
power to manage inmates (SA) (A) (D) (SD) (NO)
10. Correcu'onal officers can help resolve m05t
disputes between inmates by acting as a ‘ '
go-between or mediator (SA) (A) (D) (SD) (50)
ll. MOSt correCtional officers are consistent in

managing inmates (SA) (A) (D) (SD) (NO)

17. Inmates get away with bendin g the rules on a

regular basis (SA) (A) (D) (SD) (NO)

13. Most of the social service Staff responds in a
reasonable period of time to inmate requeSts for .
service (reasonable is within a few hours) (SA) (A) (D) ( SD) (50)

14. The majority of the social service Staff provides . g .
immediate response to crisis situations in the pods (SA) (A) (D) (SD) (NO)
15. Mosr problems can be solved by the deputies . ‘
in the pods through discussion with inmates (SA) (A) (D) (SD) (30)

16. Correcdonal officers refer social service staff or .
p (SA) (A) (D) (so) (so)

superiors to manage inmate problems in the pods

l7. Correctional officers can use their discretion to apply . ‘
rewards and punishments tocontrol inmates (SA) (A) (D) (SD) (.NO)

18. CorreCtional officers refer to manage inmate .
problems in the podsp (SA) (A) (D) (SD) (\O)

 

 

INMATE CONTROL & SAFETY: The following seetion attempts to assess inmate control

and safety issues in the jail.
M

19. One method for controlling a pod is to control / ' (50: (NO:
the inmate leader(s) in the pod (SA) (A) (D) .

30.

D)
H

'J-J
Ix)

104

Another method for controlling a pod is to allow
the inmate leader to control the inmates

. A) It is possible for the correetional officer to

manage inmates through formal control
methods (ex. written disciplinary procedureS)

B) It is possible for the correcrional officer to
manage inmates through informal control
methods (ex. an officers' persuasive skills)

. A climate of mutual reSpeCt between correCtional

officers and inmates is important to a safe pod

. Staffin g with personnel who fear inmates

decreases the ability to control inmates

The physical Strucmre of the jail facility is
an important part of a safe jail environment

. The frequent change of pod assignments during

an inmates Stay decreases general safety in the
jail

. High tumover of the inmate population decreases

safety in the jail

. Overcrowding (double-bunkin g) contributes to

the lack of safety in the jail

. When there is a high amount of inmate movement.

such as on court days, the jail is less safe

. In order to create a safe environment. the inmates

muSt be treated as citizens who happen to be in
cu5tody

The majority of correCtional officers treat
inmates as human beings

. Problem inmates are the exception rather

than the rule

. The majority of the problem inmates can

be handled without writing them up

(SA) (A)

(SA) (A)

(SA)

(SA)

(SA)

(SA)

(SA)

(SA)

(SA)

(SA)

(SA)

(SA)

(SA)

(SA)

(A)

(A )

(A)

(A)

(A)

(A)

(A)

(A)

(A)

(A)

(A)

(A)

D)

a.

(D)

(D)

(D)

(D)

(D)

(D)

(D)

(D)

(D)

(D)

(D)

(D)

(SD)

(SD)

(SD)

(513)

(50}

(SD)

(SD)

(SD)

(SD)

(SD)

(SD)

(SD)

(SD)

(NO

(NO)

(.NO)

(NO)

(NO)

(NO)

(NO)

(NO:

(NO )

(NO)

(NO)

(NO)

(NO)

(NO)

.5

105

 

 

INDICATORS OF TENSION AND SAFETY: The follow ing Statements attempt to assess
tension and safety in thejail. Tension is defined as anger. hostzlity. res1szance. etc.; and
safety is defined as the absence of physical harms or assaults. Please answer A and 8
below each statement.

U)
'JJ

'JJ
'JI

'JJ
0\

DJ
\J

38.

A. An unsafe pod
B. A tense pod

officers indicates:
A. An unsafe pod
B. A tense pod

toward inmates indicates:
A. An unsafe pod
B. A tense pod

. A clean pod is an indicator of:

A. An unsafe pod
B. A tense pod

. Inmate compliance with the direCtives of

correcdonal officers is an indicator of:
A. An unsafe pod
B. A tense pod

Excessive noise (on your shift) indicates:

A. An unsafe pod
B. A tense pod

. Verbal harassment between/among inmates indicates:

(SA) (A) (D) (SD) (.\'O)
(SA) (A) (D) (SD) (.\'O)

. Verbal harassment from inmates toward corrections

(SA) (A) (D) (SD) (NO)
(SA) (A) (D) (SD) (NO)

. Verbal harassment from corrections officers

(SA) (A) (D) (SD) (NO)
(SA) (A) (D) (SD) (NO)

(SA)(A)(D)(SD)(NO)
(SA) (A) (D) (SD) (.\'O)

(5A) (A) (D) (SD) (.\'O)
(5A) (A) (D) (SD) (.\'O)

(SA) (A) (D) (SD) (.\'O)
(SA) (A) (D) (SD) (NO)

41.

1.
0”

44.

45.

106

Loud discussion among/between inmates
(on your shirt) is a sign of:

A. An unsafe pod

B. A tense pod

. Inmate complaints indicate:

A. An unsafe pod

B. A tense pod

Correcrional Officer complaints indicate:
A. An unsafe pod

B. A tense pod

-. Inmate participation in programs (recreation.

education. etc.) is important to:
A. A safe pod

B. A tension-free pod

. l-figh Staff-to-inmate ratios are indicators of:

A. A safe pod
B. A tension-free pod

The greateSt concern the Staff has about
the new jail is a concern for;

A. An unsafe jail

B. A tension-filled jail

Staff members“ fear of inmates indicates:
A. An unsafe pod

B. A tense pod

(SA)
(SA)

(SA)

(SA)

(SA)

(SA)

(SA)

(SA)

(SA)
(SA)

(SA)
(SA)

(SA)
(SA)

(A) (D)

(A) (D)

(A) (D)
(A) (D)

(A) (D)

(A) (D)

(A) (D)

(A) (D)

(A) (D)

(A) (D)

(A) (D)
(A) (D)

(A) (D)
(A) (D)

(SD)
(SD)

(SD)
(SD)

(SD)

(SD)

(SD)

(SD)

(SD)
(SD)

(SD)
(SD)

(SD)
(SD)

(550)

(.\'O)

(.\'O)

(.\'O)

(.\'O)

(N O)

(.\'O)

(.\'O)

(.\'O)
(.\'O)

(N O)
(NO)

(X0)
(.\'O)

107

46. A correctional officers dislike of lhITTillfs‘
tends to indicate:

A. An unsafepod (SA) (A) (D) (SD) (.\'O)

B. A tense pod (SA) (A) (D) (SD) (.\’O)
47. Acts which correcn'onal officers identify as inmate

management problems (weapons. contraband.

assaults. etc.) are normal reacdons to the jail
environment: (SA) (A) (D) (SD) (.\'O)

 

RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS: Finally. we would like to know a little about you
so we can see how different types of people feel about the issues we have been examining.

 

48. Current age (circle the range of years which
applies): (1)2060 (2) 31-40

(3) 41-50 (4) 51-60

(5) 61 or older

‘9. Sex: (1) Male (2) Female

50. Race: (1) Black. ('2) White.
(3) Hispanic,

(.1) Other

51. Shift Assignment: (1) Rm. (3) SCCOHd.

(3) Third.
(.1) Other

 

 

'JI
IJ

. Current job title:

108

53. A). Length ofEmployment: (Z. 0-1 yrs

(2) 1.5 yrs

 

(3) 6-IOyTS
{-1) ll-lSyrs
(5) léormore______

B). Have you worked in the old jail? (I) Yes (2) No

C). Have you worked in road patrol? (I) Yes (2) No

 

Please add any additional comments you may have (below). In addition. please let us
know if there are any indicators of safety or tension which we are net aware of. That is.

are there Other ways to assess safety or tension in the pods?

THANK YOL' AGAIN FOR \"OL'R COOPERATION AND ASSISTANCE?

APPEN DIX D

Cover Letter

109

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OI’ SOCIAL SCIENCE ° SCHOUI Of (.RI‘IINAI _IL \TICE EAST LANSING 0 MICHIG AN 0 «mu-nut

BsKER HALL

December 13, 1989

Dear Staff Member,

we have been doing research in the

As you may already know,
officer-

jail for some time now regarding inmate management,

inmate relations, safety, and communications.
Throughout the summer, we have been conducting confidential

interviews with some jail personnel to discover some of the

problems and areas for improvement in the jail.
In order to obtain more information from all concerned

employees of the new jail, a confidential questionnaire will be

distributed to the entire jail staff.
Basically, it is anticipated that the summarized findings

will provide insights into the problems associated with the

Genesee County Jail.
will be confidential and mailed

Again, all responses
directly to Michigan State University. Your input is greatly
appreciated, and without your input, some highly significant
information could be lacking in our final report.

Attached to this letter you will find a questionnaire to fill
out at your convenience. Beside each of the statements please
indicate whether you strongly agree (SA), Agree (A), Disagree
(D), Strongly Disagree, or have No Opinion (NO). If you have any
additional comments, please feel free to include them adjacent to
the statement.

To ensure confidentiality, we have provided a self-
addressed, stamped envelope with your questionnaire. After

sealing the questionnaire, please mail it.
The final product will be a report analyzing the success of

the transition from the old jail to the new jail. This will be
available to all staff by request. The report will be available

in the spring of 1990

Thank You,

flaw Kw!
a..%._

Dave Kalinich
Brian Johnson

"H u .n ”Inmate” 1.1mm IgufiUp/mflumh Imnluuun

APPENDIX E

Data Codebook

1 1 0
DATA CODEBOOK

Columns Variable Codes

1-3 Questionnaire Number
4-5 V1 01 - SA
02 - A
03 - D
04 - SD
05 - N O
99 - MIS

6-7 V2 01-SA
OZ-A
03-D

04-SD

05-NO

99-MIS

8-9 V3 Ol-SA
02-A
O3-D

04-SD

05-NO

99-MIS

10-11 V4 01-SA
OZ-A
O3-D
O4-SD
OS-NO
99-MIS

01-SA
OZ-A
O3-D
04-SD
05-NO
99-MIS

12-13 V5

14-15

16-17

18-19

20-21

22-23

24-25

111

V6

V7

V8

V9

V10

V11

OI-SA
OZ-A
03-D
04-SD
OS-NO
99-MIS

01-SA
OZ—A
03-D
O4-SD
05-NO
99-MIS

OI-SA
02-A
03-D
O4-SD
OS-NO
99-MIS

01-SA
02-A
03-D
04-SD
OS-NO
99-MIS

OI-SA
02-A
O3-D
04-SD
05-NO
99-MIS

OI-SA
02-A
O3-D
O4-SD
05-NO
99-MIS

26-27

28-29

30-31

32-33

34-35

36-37

112

V12

V13

V14

V15

V16

V17

OI-SA
02-A
03-D
O4-SD
05-NO
99-MIS

Ol-SA
OZ-A
03-D
O4-SD
05-NO
99-MIS

Ol-SA
02-A
03-D
O4-SD
05-NO
99-MIS

Ol-SA
OZ-A
O3-D
04-SD
OS-NO
99-MIS

01-SA
OZ-A
03-D
04-SD
05-NO
99-MIS

Ol-SA
02-A
03-D
04-SD
OS-NO
99-MIS

38-39

40-41

42-43

44-45

46-47

48-49

113

V18

V19

V20

V21 (A)

V21(B)

V22

Ol-SA
OZ-A
03-D
O4~SD
05-NO
99-MIS

Ol-SA
02-A
03-D
O4-SD
05-NO
99-MIS

Ol-SA
02-A
03-D
04-SD
05-NO
99-MIS

01-SA
02-A
03-D
O4-SD
05-NO
99-MIS

Ol-SA
02-A
03-D
04-SD
05-NO
99-MIS

01-SA
02-A
03-D
04-SD
05-NO
99-MIS

50-51

52-53

54-55

56-57

58-59

60-61

114

V23

V24

V25

V26

V27

V28

Ol-SA
02-A
03-D
04-SD
05-NO
99-MIS

Ol-SA
02-A
03-D
04-SD
05-NO
99-MIS

01-SA
02-A
03-D
04-SD
05-NO
99-MIS

Ol-SA
02-A
03-D
04-SD
05-NO
99-MIS

01-SA
02-A
03-D
04-SD
05-NO
99-MIS

Ol-SA
02-A
03-D
O4-SD
05-NO
99-MIS

62-63

64-65

66-67

68-69

70-71

72-73

115

V29

V30

V31

V32

V33(A)

V33(B)

01-SA
02-A
03-D
04-SD
05-NO
99-MIS

01-SA
02-A
03-D
04-SD
05-NO
99-MIS

01-SA
02-A
03-D
04-SD
05-NO
99-MIS

01-SA
02-A
03-D
04-SD
05-NO
99-MIS

01-SA
02-A
03-D
04-SD
05-NO
99-MIS

01-SA
02-A
03-D
O4-SD
05-NO
99-MIS

74-75

76-77

78-79

80-81

82-83

84-85

116

V34(A)

V34(B)

V35(A)

V35(B)

V36(A)

V36(B)

01-SA
02-A
03-D
04-SD
05-NO
99-MIS

01-SA
02-A
03-D
04-SD
05-NO
99-MIS

01-SA
02-A
03-D
04-SD
05-NO
99-MIS

01-SA
02-A
03-D
04-SD
05-NO
99-MIS

01-SA
02-A
03-D
04-SD
05-NO
99-MIS

01-SA
02-A
03-D
04-SD
05-NO
99-MIS

86-87

88-89

90-91

92-93

94-95

96-97

117

V37(A)

V37(B)

V38(A)

V38(B)

V39(A)

V39(B)

01-SA
02-A
03-D
04-SD
05-NO
99-MIS

01-SA
02-A
03-D
04-SD
05-NO
99-MIS

01-SA
02-A
03-D
04-SD
05-NO
99-MIS

Ol-SA
02-A
03-D
04-SD
05-NO
99-MIS

01-SA
02-A
03-D
04-SD
05-NO
99-MIS

01-SA
02-A
03-D
04-SD
05-NO
99-MIS

98-99

100-101

102-103

104-105

106-1 07

108-109

118

V40(A)

V40(B)

V41 (A)

V41 (B)

V42(B)

V42(B)

01-SA
02-A
03-D
04-SD
05-NO
99-MIS

01-SA
02-A
03-D
04-SD
05-NO
99-MIS

Ol-SA
02-A
03-D
04-SD
05-NO
99-MIS

01-SA
02-A
03-D
04-SD
05-NO
99-MIS

01-SA
02-A
03-D
04-SD
05-NO
99-MIS

01-SA
02-A
03-D
04-SD
05-NO
99-MIS

110-111

112-113

114-115

116-117

118-119

120-121

119

V43(A)

V43(B)

V44(A)

V44(B)

V45(A)

V45(B)

01-SA
02-A
03-D
04-SD
05-NO
99-MIS

01-SA
02-A
03-D
04-SD
05-NO
99-MIS

01-SA
02-A
03-D
04-SD
05-NO
99-MIS

01-SA
02-A
03-D
04-SD
05-NO
99-MIS

01-SA
02-A
03-D
04-SD
05-NO
99-MIS

01-SA
02-A
03-D
04-SD
05-NO
99-MIS

122-123

124-125

126-127

128-129

130-131

132-133

134-135

120

V46(B)

V46(B)

V47

V48

V49

V50

V51

01-SA
02-A
03-D
04-SD
05-NO
99-MIS

01-SA
02-A
03-D
04-SD
05-NO
99-MIS

01-SA
OZ-A
03-D
04-SD
05-NO
99-MIS

01 - 20-30
02 - 31-40
03 - 41-50
04 - 51-60
05 - 61+
99 - MIS

01- MALE
02 -FEMALE
99 - MIS

01 - BLACK
02 - WHITE
03 - H151"
04 - OTHER
99 - MIS

01 - IST

02 - 2ND

03 - 3RD

04 - OTHER
99 - MIS

136-137

138-139

140-141

142-143

121

V52

V53(A)

V53(B)

V53(C)

01 - CO.

02 - SGT

03 - LT.

04 - CRT

05 - OTHER
06 - 5.5.

99 - MIS

01 - 0-1
02-1-5
03- 6-10
04-11-15
05-16+
99 - MIS

01-YES
02-N0
99-MIS

01-YES
02-NO

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ackerman, L.S. (April, 1986). Change Management: Basics for Training.
Training and Develgpment Iourna_ljL 67-68.

Allen, H.E., Simonsen, CE. (1986). Corrections In America: An Introduction.
New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc.

Babbie, E. (1986). The Practice ef Sog‘al Reseerch, (4th ed). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth Publishing Co.

Barone, FJ. (August 1986). Can Conflicting Values on a Change Team Work?
Training and Devekgament Iournel, 50-52.

Bartollas, C.; Miller, 5.; and Dinitz, S. (1976). Iuvenile Victimization: The
Institutional Paradox. New York: Halstead Press.

Beer, M. (1980). Organizational Change end Development: A Systeme View.
CA: Santa Monica, Goodyear Publishing Company, Inc.

Bennis, WC. (1966). Applying Behavioral Sciences to Planned Organizational
Change. In Changing Organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 81-
94.

Boschken, H.L. (Spring 1988). Turbulent Transition and Organizational
Change: Relating Policy Outcomes To Strategic Administrative
Capacities. Policy Studies Review, Z (3), 477-499.

Burke, W.W. (1982). Organizational Development: Principles 8: Practices.
Boston: Little Brown 8: Company.

Bynum, T.S., Greene, ].R., 8: Cordner, G.W. (1986). Planning and the Play of
Power: Resource Acquisition Among Criminal Justice Agencies.
Lournal of Criminal Justice 13, 529-544.

Cizanckas, VI. 8: Hanna, D.G. (1977). Modern Police Management and
Organization. New Jersey: Englewood Cliffs.

122

123

Coch, L. 8: French, J.R.P. Jr. (1948). Overcoming Resistance To Change.
Human Relations 512-532.

 

Cordner, G.W. (1978). Open and Closed Models of Police Organizations:
Traditions, Dilemmas, and Practical Considerations. lournal of

Police Science and Administration, _6_ (1), 22-34.

Cullen, F.T., Link, B.G., Wolfe, N .T., 8: Frank, J. (1985). The Social
Dimensions of Correctional Officer Stress. Justice Quarterly, 2 (4), 505-
533.

Crouch, BM. (1980). The Keepers: Prison Guards and Contemporary

Corrections. Illinois: C. Charles Thomas.

Dalton, G.W. (1978). Influence and Organizational Change. In RT.
Golembiewski and W.B. Eddy (Eds), Organizational Develppment in
Public Administration: Part 1 (pp. 72-102). New York: Marcel Dekker

Inc.

Donaldson, L. (January 1987). Strategy and Structural Adjustment To Regain
Fit and Performance: In Defense of Contingency Theory. lournal of
Manfiagement Studies, 2_4 (1), 1-24.

Downs, A. (1967). Inside Bureaucragy. Boston: Little Brown 8: Company.

DuBrin, AJ. (1974). Fundafimentals of Organizationeflehavior: An Applied
Perspective. New York: Pergamon Press.

Duffee, D. (1974). The Correctional Officer Subculture and Organizational
Change. lournal of Research in Crime end Delinquency, 155-172.

Duncan, J.W. (1978). Organizational Behgior. Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Company.

Embert, RM. (1986). Correctional Law and Jails. In Kalinich, DB. 8: Klofas,
J.M. (Eds), SneakinLInmates Down The Alley (pp. 63-84).
Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas.

Gernstein, L.I-I.; Topp, CG; and Correll, G. (September, 1987). The Role of the
Environment and Person When Predicting Burnout Among
Correctional Personnel. Criminal Justice end Behavior, 2% (3), 352-369.

Gettinger, SH. (March, 1984). New Generation Iails: An Innovative
Approach to an Age-Old Problem. National Institute of Corrections,
US. Department of Justice, pp. 1-18.

124

Gilsinan, J.F., 8: Valentine, J.R. (1987). Bending Granite: Attempts to Change
the Management Perspective of American Criminologists and Police

Reformers. lournal of Police Science and Administration,_1_§ (3), 196-
203.

Greene, J.R. (1981). Organizational Change In Law Enforcement. Journal of
Criminal Justice. 2, 79-91.

Greiner, LE. (1967). Antecedents of Planned Organizational Change. In
Journal of Applied BehaLvior_el Science, _3 (1), 51-61.

Guyot,D. (1979). Bending Granite: Attempts to Change the Rank Structure of
American Police Departments. In bumflf Police Science egg
Administration Z (3), 253-284.

 

Hagen, RE. (1982). Research Methods in Criminal Lustice and Criminolch
New York: McMillan.

Hannan, M.T. 8: Freeman, J. (April 1984). Structural Inertia and
Organizational Change. In Americen Sociology Review, 4_9_, 149-164.

Hall, RH. (1982). annizfiations: Structure Q Process. New Jersey:
Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall.

Hayesslip, D.W. (1982). Determinants of Job Dissatisfgtionend Iob
Setisfaction Among Correctional Officers: An ElploratoivLStudfisp
(Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State Univeristy, East
Lansinf, Michigan).

Hellriegel, D., Slocum, J.W., 8: Woodman, R.W. (1986). Organizational
Behavior. (4th ed). St Paul: West Publishing Company.

Hepburn, IR. (1987). The Prison Control Structure and its Effect on Work
Attitudes: The Perceptions and Attitudes of Prison Guards. lournal of

Criminal lustice,1_5_, 49-64.

Humphrey, AS. (1986). Gearing Up For Change. Management Decision, 2_4
(6),12-15.

Huse, RF. (1975). Organizational Development and Change. St. Paul: West
Publishing.

Irwin, J. (1980). Prisons In Turmoil. Boston: Little Brown 8: Company.

l 2 5
Jacobs, J.B. (1977). Steteville: The Penitentiary in Mass Society. Chicago: The

University of Chicago Press.

Johnson, R. (1977). Ameliorating Prison Stress: Some Helping Roles for
Custodial Personnel. InterpaLtionanurnal of Criminolegy and
Penolegy, 263-273.

Johnson, R. (1987). Hard Time: Undersfitapding8: Reforming the Prison.
Monterey: Brooks/ Cole.

Kalinich, DB. (1980). Power, Stability, 8: Contraband: The Inmate Economy.
Prospect Heights, Illinois: The Waveland Press.

Kalinich, DB. (1986). New Rules and Old Rituals. In Kalinich, DB. 8: Klofas,
J.M. (Eds), Snearkigglnmates Down The Alley (pp. 51-62).
Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas.

Kalinich, D., Stojkovic, S., 8: Klofas, J. (1989). CriminaLl Justice Organizations:
Administration and Management. Pacific Grove, CA. Brooks/ Cole
Publishing.

Kanter, RM. (1983). The Architecture of Culture and Strategy Change. In The
Change Masters (pp. 278-306). New York: Simon 8: Schuster, Inc., .

Karesek, R. 8: Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy Work: Stress, Productivity and the
Reconstruction of Working Life. New York: Basic Books.

Kaufman, H. (1971). The Limits of Organizational Change. Alabama: The
University of Alabama Press.

Klofas, J. 8: Toch.H. (1982). The Guard Subculture Myth. lournal pf Research
in Crime and Delinquency, 12, (2), 238-254.

Kuykendall, J. 8: Roberg, R.R. (August 1982). Mapping Police Organizational
Change. Criminology, 23 (2), 241-256.

Lawrence, RR. (1971). How To Deal With Resistance To Change. In Kolb,
D.A., Rubin, I.M., 8: McIntyre, J.M. (Eds), annizational Psychology;

An Experimental Approach (pp. 375-387). New Jersey: Englewood
Cliffs.

Leavitt, H]. (1965). Applied Organizational Change in Industry: Structural,
Technological and Humanistic Approaches. Handbook of
Organizations. Chicago: Rand McNally.

126

Lewin, K. (1952). Group Decision and Social Change. From Readings in
Social Psychology. By Maccoby, E.E., Newcomb, TM. 8: Hartley, E.L.
Holt, Rinehart Library Information Specialists, Inc. (December 1983).
Corrections Informetion Series: New Generation Jails.

Lindquist, CA. and Whitehead, J.T. (Summer, 1986). Burnout, Job Stress and
Job Satisfaction Among Southern Correctional Officers: Perceptions

and Causal Factors. Iournarl of Offender Counseling, Services 8:
Rehabilitation 1p (4), 5-26.

 

March, J.G., 8: Simon, HA. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.

Massie, J.L. (1971). Essentials of Management (2nd Ed). New Jersey: Prentice-
Hall.

Nelson, R.W. (1986). Changing Concepts In Jail Design and Management. In

Kalinich, DB. and Klofas, J.M. (Eds), Sneaking Inmates Down The I
Alley (pp. 167-179). Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas. "

 

Nelson, W.R. (July 188). Cost Savings In New Generation Jails: The Direct

Supervision Approach. Nationfiagl Institute of [ustice Corrections
Bulletin.

Nichols D. (1986 January-February). A Model: Needs Assessment and Goal

Setting for Police Departments. Campus Law Enforcement lournal, 41-
42.

Olsen, ME. (1978). The Preeess of Social Qrgenization. Chicago: Holt,
Rinehart 8: Winston.

Pascarella, P. (1987, July 27). Resistance to Change: It Can Be A Plus. In
Industry Week, pp. 45-47.

 

Regoli, R.M., Poole, ED, 8: Pogrebin, MR. (1986). Working In Jail: Some -
Observations on the Work Relations of Jailers. In Kalinich, DB. 8: '
Klofas, J.M. (Eds), Sneaking Inmates Down The All_ey (pp. 39-51).
Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas.

Signh, J.V., House, R.J. 8: Tucker, D.J. Organizational Change and

Organizational Mortality. In Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 587-
611.

Steers, R.M. (1977). Organizational Effectiveness: A Beheyiorel View.
California: Santa Monica: Goodyear Publishing Company.

127

Sykes, GM. (1958). The Society of Captives. New Jersey: Princeton
University Press.

Tafoya, W.L. (1983). Needs Assessment: Key to Organizational Change.
Journel of Police Science end Administration, 1_1_ (3), 303-310.

Thompson, V.A. (1965, June). Bureaucracy and Innovation. In
Administrative Science Quarterly, 1-20.

Toch. H. (1977). Living In Prison: The Ecology of Survival. New York: The
Free Press.

Tolbert, PS. and Zucker, LG. (1983). Institutional Sources of Change in the
Formal Structure of organizations: The Diffusion of Civil Service
Reform, 1880-1935. Administretive Science Quarterly, _2_§_, 22-39.

Wener, R., Frazier, W. 8: Farbstein, J. (June 1987). Building Better Jails.
Psychology Today, Z, pp. 41 -48.

Zupan, LL. and Stohr-Gillmore, M.K. (Spring 1988). Doing Time In The New

Generation Jail: Inmate Perceptions of Gains and Losses. Policy Studies
Review, Z (3), 626-640.

Zupan, LL. 8: Menke, EA. (Spring, 1988). Implementing Organizational
Change: From Tradition To New Generation

Jails. In Policy Studies
Review Z(3), 615-625.

 

 

   

"llllllllllllllllr