Prison Reform: The Origin of Contemporary Jail Standards

By Lynne Woodruff, Kane County (IL) Sheriff’s Office (ret.)

Editor’s Note: This article is part of a series on the history of jails. Read the article “Understanding Our Roots: A Brief History of Prisons.”

Prison Reform - LexipolJail facilities in the United States are governed by hundreds of state and federal laws, as well as standards imposed by state auditing bodies or accreditation groups. Jail standards detail everything from how many inches off the floor canned food must be stored to lighting levels to how often inmates must be checked. For correctional officers, these regulations can sometimes seem onerous. But they are the product of an important part of correctional history: the prison reform movement.

Focus on Punishment
Although the earliest prisons were merely holding facilities on the prisoner’s journey toward death, mutilation or exile, by the end of the 18th century, authorities had begun to use imprisonment as punishment. This change was influenced by the Catholic Church, which taught that sinners could be led to see the error of their ways and change their behavior.

But these prisons were still no walk in the park. Whips, hard labor, solitary confinement and the gallows were used to keep prisoners in line and to deter others from committing similar crimes. Many prisons were run for profit and charged the prisoners for beds, linens, food and the fitting and removal of chains. These overcrowded prisons frequently lacked sewers, water and fresh air, which resulted, not unexpectedly, in death for a high number of prisoners.

Although prison building increased to accommodate the influx of those charged with crimes, prison architecture remained trapped in the past, supporting the idea of confinement and physical punishment rather than inmate reform. One example of this period remains in Warwick, England. This prison was built as an underground dungeon beneath a county jail. It was octagonal, 21 feet in diameter, 19 feet underground. It was accessed by several doors and a long staircase, with a grate in the ceiling. In the center of the dungeon is a small open drain for sewage, which drops down to a spring. Around this pit were eight posts, to which heavy chains were attached. Prisoners were chained by the leg to these posts in circular fashion. In 1817, a visitor observed 45 prisoners housed there.

Over time, the prisoners themselves began to change. No longer just debtors or petty criminals, prisoners were more hardened, violent offenders, convicted of murder, robbery, rape and arson. In England in the 1770s, 60 percent of prisoners were debtors; by the 1870s, only 3 percent were debtors. As a result, sentences were longer and treatment of the prisoners became harsher.

Focus on Reform
The call to improve prison conditions dates to 1699 in England, when the Christian Knowledge Society visited prisons, distributing religious books and money. They also proposed keeping each prisoner in a separate cell.

Prison Reform -Lexipol

Eastern State Penitentiary in Pennsylvania, an example of the Pennsylvania system of prison design.

In the late 1700s and 1800s, a strong prison reform movement began to take shape. Instead of only punishing criminals, prisons were now expected to reform them. John Howard, a Calvinist who did time as a prisoner when his ship was captured by French privateers, served a brief stint as High Sheriff of Bedfordshire, where he was exposed to the deplorable conditions of the local jail. That led him to visit hundreds of prisons in Europe and abroad and advocate for improvements in the treatment of prisoners and jail security and order.

Howard’s single-mindedness of purpose, as well as that of Jeremy Bentham, who was a leader of the reformers of the time, positively influenced prison building and administration. Originally constructed based on fear of incarceration, prison designs began to accommodate religious instruction, education and the health of the prisoners.

Surveillance or inspection of prisoners had been lax at best over the years, resulting in assaults, collusion and unsafe conditions. Bentham, Howard and their contemporaries pushed for continued surveillance, which it was believed would lessen the abuses and bad influences of the prisoners, as well as prevent riots, escapes and bad behavior. Other improvements they sought included:
• Segregation of prisoners by age, sex and severity of offense
• Individual cells instead of common rooms
• Salaried staff to prevent extortion of prisoners
• Provision of adequate clothing and food
• Hiring chaplains and doctors

In England, the Gaols Act of 1823 was an attempt to bring organization to prisons. Classification was introduced as a way to control the violence common in prisons. Separate cells were too expensive for most governments, so administrators began to classify the prisoners according to sex, seriousness of charges and age. Although this plan lost favor over time, it was a foreshadowing of the classification aspect of the Direct Supervision model commonly used today.

Pennsylvania and Auburn Systems
Reform concepts were also embraced as prison building began to take off in the United States. The first U.S. penitentiary was the Walnut Street Jail built in Philadelphia in 1790. Men and women were housed separately, no liquor was available and offenders were classified by the seriousness of their offense. Prisoners worked silently in their cells during the day and were encouraged to meditate on their evil ways at night. Solitary confinement was necessary to eliminate “contamination” from other prisoners. This jail was the model for the Pennsylvania system (or “separate system”) in the northeastern states, but it did not last because suicides and increased mental illness caused by solitary confinement forced changes, as did overcrowding.

Prison Reform -Lexipol

The Auburn system emphasized order and discipline, including marching in lockstep.

Based on the Pennsylvania system, the Auburn plan was slightly different in that prisoners were expected to work in silence during the day, stay in isolation at night and receive harsh discipline for infractions. The goal of this system was to break the spirit of the prisoner and make them completely submissive. By the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the U.S. was experiencing labor shortages. Reformers and law makers believed that prisoners should work to support their incarceration. Because this plan could produce labor, it was a profitable system and was followed in several states such as New Jersey, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Tennessee and Indiana. The cell size of these prisons varied greatly; for instance in Green Bay, WI, the cells were roughly 10 feet by 6 feet and 7 feet high, but in Jackson, MI, they were only about 3 ½ feet by 7 feet. Overcrowding during the early 20th century eliminated the single-cell theory of the Auburn plan.

In 1870, the National Congress on Penitentiary and Reformatory Discipline, now known as the American Correctional Association, met for the first time in an attempt to coordinate professional effort in corrections. This group established 37 principles for the operation of prisons, placing emphasis on:
• Education
• Incarceration by stages, from maximum security to daytime work release
• Indeterminate sentence
• Classification
• Programs specific for the different classifications of the inmates

Following this meeting, minimum custody institutions began to be built, and classification became more widely used during the 1930s. These principles, born out of the reform movement that began in England, are the foundation of contemporary jail standards and reflect our commitment today to house inmates in humane conditions, focusing on their rehabilitation while also guaranteeing security and order to enhance public safety.

Of course, these standards could not be effectively implemented in prisons designed to be dungeons of punishment. Prison architecture had to change as well. And that will be the subject of my next article!

Lexipol’s Custody Policy Manual and Daily Training Bulletin Service provides essential policies that can support a professional environment, including policies that guide environmental conditions and inmate welfare. Contact us today to find out more.

Lexipol Custody

LYNNE WOODRUFF retired from the Kane County (IL) Sheriff’s Office with 24 years of service. She was the first female promoted to Sergeant at the Kane County jail (1995) and the first female promoted to Lieutenant in the Sheriff’s Office (2002). Lynne earned a BA in Management and Leadership at Judson College and a Master’s degree in Law Enforcement and Justice Administration at Western Illinois University. Currently, she is a Management Services Representative for Lexipol; before moving into this position, she served as Training Coordinator and also as an independent contractor for Lexipol’s Training and Implementation Services teams.

REFERENCES
Woodruff, L. (2010) A Secondary Data Analysis of Staff Reaction to the Transition from a Linear Jail to a Direct Supervision Model in Kane County, Illinois.

  • REQUEST MORE INFORMATION

    (844) 312-9500

Director Daniel Keen
Northampton (PA) Department of Corrections

“It came down to three main factors for us: safety, time and efficiency. This is a way to protect  the staff, public and inmates in the best interest of all.”

Major Jeff Fox
Vigo County (IN) Sheriff's Office

“Lexipol’s Implementation Services program was key to getting our manuals off the shelf. If it weren’t for that, we wouldn’t be implemented today. Departments should recognize their limitations and realize that they likely don’t have the resources to do it on their own. Implementation Services is key to getting it done.”

Chief Deputy Ray Saylo
Carson City (NV) Sheriff's Office

"It’s a huge priority of this administration to teach policy to our sergeants, and Lexipol’s Daily Training Bulletins help us do that. We are constantly drilling into them that policy will protect them as an individual officer. If they ensure that their people are following policy, even if they’re sued, they will be OK.”

Sgt. Bryan Ward
Cumberland County (PA) Sheriff's Office

"Calling Lexipol an insurance policy doesn’t do it justice, because it doesn’t capture the enormous power that partnering with Lexipol provides.”

Chief Deputy Klint Anderson
Weber County (UT) Sheriff's Office

“We spent a considerable amount of money and effort trying to develop and maintain comprehensive and legally based policies and procedures. Lexipol has relieved us of that burden and provided us with a policy system that we have great confidence in and that we can tailor to suit our particular goals and community standards.”

Sheriff Blaine Breshears
Morgan County (UT) Sheriff's Office

“We had a use of force lawsuit, and as soon as the attorneys discovered that we have Lexipol, they said, ‘We won’t have an issue there.’ Our policies were never in question.”

Lt. Craig Capps
White County (TN) Sheriff's Office

"I would recommend Lexipol to any law enforcement agency, whether three-person or 2,000-person—it makes no difference. The program works.”

Chief John Defore
Hiawatha, KS

“By offering 365 daily training bulletins to my officers, I am saving far more than the cost of the software every year. In fact, I was able to show my commissioners a cost savings by utilizing Lexipol for our policy and policy training needs.”

Captain Jeff Schneider
Yakima (WA) Police Department

“KMS tracks and logs when people acknowledge and accept updates, which is very important, and it lets us track who isn’t getting the updates so we can give them the appropriate attention.”

Chief David Maine
The Village of Hunting Valley (OH) Police Department

“What we had before Lexipol had been around for years. It was like every other policy manual I had seen: It didn’t get the updates it needed. The Lexipol manual is a living, breathing document.”

Chief Deputy Lauren Osborne
Surry County (NC) Sheriff’s Office

“If there’s a change as a result of case law, or a procedure that needs to change, Lexipol does the legwork, sends it to us, we approve it and send it out to our people for acknowledgement—and it’s all documented.”

Sheriff Gerald Antinoro
Storey County (NV) Sheriff’s Office

“Lexipol is one of the best products I have seen in my 30+ years in law enforcement.”

Deputy Chief John McGinty
Simi Valley (CA) Police Department

“You get sued for your policies or you get sued for your actions, or both. You can only do so much about actions. But having Lexipol gives me confidence that if we draw a lawsuit, our policies won’t come under attack.”

Chief Kelly Stillman
Rocky River (OH) Police Department

“I can’t say enough about the positives from a chief’s perspective. I don’t know why everyone isn’t with Lexipol.”

Chief Jeff Wilson
Orofino (ID) Police Department

“The Lexipol Policy Manual is easy to use, it’s convenient and you have peace of mind knowing that you have a thorough manual that is going to stand up to any challenge the agency may face.”

Chief Ralph Maher
Oak Creek (CO) Police Department

“With Lexipol, I know our policy manual is going to be up to date. I can turn my back on it today and tomorrow there will be any needed updates waiting for me. That allows me to focus on some of the other things I have to do as a chief.”

Chief Steven Vaccaro
Mokena (IL) Police Department

“If you compare Lexipol to other policy providers, Lexipol is the only one that has policy that has been vetted by other chiefs, industry experts and lawyers. All you have to do is tailor the policies to your agency’s needs.”

Commander Leslie Burns
Mercer Island (WA) Police Department

“Lexipol provides a huge advantage for agencies pursuing accreditation. The tools take about 60% of the difficulty out of the accreditation process. If you want to be accredited, this is the way to do it.”

Deputy Chief Robin Passwater
Kankakee (IL) Police Department

“If you don’t have Lexipol, even with a full-time person dedicated to policy, there’s almost no way you can keep updated on all the laws and also have the training component. It’s an excellent system.”

Assistant Chief Bill Holmer
Glen Ellyn (IL) Police Department

“It’s a no-brainer for me. Someone is watching for changes to laws for me, and then tweaking the content based on those changes or updates in best practices.”

Lt. Ed Alvarez
Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) (CA) Police Department

“I like the mobile app because it tells me no matter where I am when I have updates to complete or when people take the DTBs. No matter where I am, I have access. The officers can get real-time updates. Everything is at their fingertips, any time.”

Chief Greg Knott
Basalt (CO) Police Department

“Lexipol gives you peace of mind because the policies that you’re implementing have been reviewed by professionals in the field and by attorneys—not just your agency’s legal counsel.”

Chief Corry Blount
Bartonville (TX) Police Department

“I feel comfortable that when we issue a policy, it covers what it needs to cover. It’s the most comprehensive policy content I’ve used in my career.”

Lt. Victor Pecoraro
Auburn (CA) Police Department

“The updates are super easy because you can pop them open, see the redline versions and be able to edit it on the fly. Once I learned I could do that, I was excited.”

Chief Joseph Morris
Arapahoe Community College (CO) Police Department

“Officers are not infallible. We have limited memories like everyone else. Working under stress presents more challenges. There are times we need to access policies in the field so we are comfortable in our decision making. The mobile application has been great for this!”

Captain Jesus Ochoa
Coronado (CA) Police Department

“Knowing that Lexipol is keeping our policies current means that there isn’t something else for us to worry about. We can focus on our jobs. That definitely gives us peace of mind.”

Chief Steven Vaccaro
Mokena (IL) Police Department

“If you compare Lexipol to other policy providers, Lexipol is the only one that has policy that has been vetted by other chiefs, industry experts and lawyers. All you have to do is tailor the policies to your agency’s needs.”

Jim Franklin, Executive Director
Minnesota Sheriffs' Association, MN

"Lexipol is, indeed, ahead of the curve with their unique risk management solutions in law enforcement. The Minnesota Sheriffs' Association has been eagerly anticipating the release of the Lexipol Custody Manual. Lexipol meets the needs of law enforcement and custodial agencies by recognizing the emerging challenges facing our agencies, and providing comprehensive tools and resources to reduce liability and risk in a professional and highly efficient manner. The Minnesota Sheriffs' Association is proud of its continued partnership with Lexipol."

Close [X]
Close [X]
Close [X]
Close [X]