This paper examines prison systems and their impact on inmate adjustment and behavior, with a comparative focus on the United States and the Netherlands. It explores the concept of institutionalization — defined through administrative cohesion, shared principles, and consistent practices — and applies it to both systems. The paper describes the Federal Bureau of Prisons' five security classifications and contrasts them with the more decentralized, community-based Dutch model. It also analyzes how prison structure affects inmates' ability to adjust, both during and after incarceration, and surveys persistent behavioral issues within prison environments, including violence, sexual assault, self-harm, drug use, and staff abuse of prisoners.
Prison systems have long been a topic of debate within the realm of criminal justice. There are many opinions concerning the proper implementation and management of prison systems (King & McDermott, 1995; Prison Inmates Pay for Their Upkeep, 2004). The purpose of this discussion is to examine prison systems and the impact of those systems on inmates' adjustment and behavior.
A central point of any prison system is its level of institutionalization. According to Boin and Reinner (2001), the level of institutionalization is determined by the amount of administrative cohesion. Cohesion is defined as the strength of the relationship between individual aspects of the system and the system as a whole. For instance, a prison system that is highly institutionalized has a strong relationship between individual prison organizations and the entire prison system (Boin & Reinner, 2001). This means that the prison system behaves as a single large organization in which employees share similar values and act in concert with organizational goals. On the other hand, in a prison system with a low level of institutionalization, individual organizations operate in a more autonomous manner.
The authors assert that there are three aspects that characterize cohesion: principles, practices, and esprit de corps. Principles refers to the like-mindedness of employees working within any given prison system (Boin & Reinner, 2001). This aspect of cohesion reveals the extent to which field administrators and policymakers share a reciprocal understanding and appreciation of policy goals and implementation strategies. The practices aspect of cohesion focuses on the variety of practices taking place within a prison. The authors explain that:
"Such variety is perfectly normal in prison systems that adhere to the principle of correctional differentiation (to my knowledge, most Western systems do). In these systems, inmates are categorized according to such criteria as sex, age, status, and behavioral characteristics. Prisons for women operate differently from institutions for male offenders; remand centers are different from prisons that house long-term inmates; juvenile offenders are separated from adult prisoners. Moreover, differences are bound to occur as a result of situational circumstances (for instance, prisons have different designs, locations, and climates)" (Boin & Reinner, 2001, p. 50).
The authors further explain that variety is measured by examining prison regimes (Boin & Reinner, 2001). A regime is defined as the body of rules established as a model for behavior in a prison to which a prisoner must respond. Therefore, a prison regime illustrates the ways in which the goals of imprisonment are actually implemented or practiced (Boin & Reinner, 2001). The three main features of regime character are punishment practices, organizational structure, and management styles (Boin & Reinner, 2001).
In the United States, the Federal Bureau of Prisons governs the management of corrections facilities throughout the country. According to Boin and Rienner (2001), the prison system in the United States is highly institutionalized — that is, characterized by cohesion and like-mindedness throughout the system:
"The federal prison facilities are found scattered across the United States, often far away from the public eye. The distance between correctional officers, wardens, and policymakers in Washington, D.C., is bridged by a shared set of assumptions and aims and a view of how prisons should be run and for what reasons. Most employees are proud to be part of this public institution" (Boin & Rienner, 2001, p. 49).
A hallmark and rather controversial issue in the American prison system involves the disproportionate representation of African Americans and Latinos among the incarcerated population (James, 2004; Gilmore, 2000). Gilmore (2000) asserts that through the prison system, the remnants of slavery have continued.
According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, several types of prisons exist within the system, designated by security level: administrative, high, medium, low, and minimum (Prison Types & General Information, 2005).
Administrative facilities serve unique purposes, including the detention of pretrial offenders, treating inmates with serious medical conditions, and containing extremely dangerous, violent, or escape-prone inmates (Prison Types & General Information, 2005). Administrative facilities include Federal Detention Centers (FDCs), the Administrative-Maximum (ADX) U.S. Penitentiary, Metropolitan Correctional Centers (MCCs), Metropolitan Detention Centers (MDCs), Federal Medical Centers (FMCs), the Federal Transfer Center (FTC), and the Medical Center for Federal Prisoners (MCFP). These facilities are capable of handling inmates at every security level (Prison Types & General Information, 2005).
High security facilities are commonly referred to as penitentiaries (Prison Types & General Information, 2005). These facilities feature both multiple-occupant and single-occupant cells, highly secure perimeters such as walls and fences, closely managed inmate movement, and the highest staff-to-inmate ratios in the system (Prison Types & General Information, 2005).
Medium security facilities also have reinforced perimeters and cell-type housing (Prison Types & General Information, 2005). In addition, these facilities typically offer a wide range of work and treatment programs, maintain higher staff-to-inmate ratios than low security facilities, and employ strong internal controls (Prison Types & General Information, 2005).
Low security facilities generally feature double-fenced perimeters with dormitory or cubicle housing (Prison Types & General Information, 2005). These institutions also tend to offer robust work and rehabilitation programs, and their staff-to-inmate ratios are higher than those found in minimum security facilities (Prison Types & General Information, 2005).
Minimum security prisons, known as Federal Prison Camps, have low staff-to-inmate ratios and dormitory-style housing (Prison Types & General Information, 2005). These facilities have limited perimeters with little or no fencing and are generally work- and program-oriented. The majority of minimum security facilities are situated adjacent to larger corrections facilities or on military bases, and inmates often serve the labor needs of those institutions (Prison Types & General Information, 2005). The classification of prison systems is important not only for security reasons but also for the purposes of proper resource allocation (Brown, 2000).
"Decentralized, lenient Dutch corrections model"
"Violence, abuse, adjustment challenges in prison"
Prison-industrial complex not real deterrent to crime. (1996, April 17). The Washington Times, p. 2.
Prison inmates pay for their upkeep; more states charging room, board. (2004, February 1). The Washington Times, p. A04.
Prison types and general information. (2005). Federal Bureau of Prisons.
Sabbatine, R. (2003, April). Risk management in jails: How to reduce the potential of negative outcomes. Corrections Today, 65, 66+.
Tak, P. J. P. (1993). Criminal justice systems in Europe: The Netherlands. Deventer: Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers.
van Kalmthout, A. M., & Tak, P. J. P. (1992). The Netherlands. In Sanctions-systems in the member-states of the Council of Europe, Part II (pp. 663–807). Deventer: Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers.
Wortley, R. (2002). Situational prison control: Crime prevention in correctional institutions. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
You’re 42% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.