10.4: Supervising Inmates

The evolution of inmate supervision in the American prison system reflects a broader shift from control-centered practices toward more interaction-based approaches aimed at improving institutional safety and rehabilitation. Traditionally, the indirect or “static security” model relied heavily on surveillance, physical barriers, and limited contact between correctional officers and incarcerated individuals, reinforcing distance and authority. In contrast, the development of direct supervision in the 1970s introduced a model that emphasizes continuous officer presence within housing units, increased communication, and the potential for more constructive relationships. While this newer approach has been associated with improved social interaction, reduced isolation, and enhanced opportunities for rehabilitation, it also introduces new challenges related to officer training, emotional labor, and institutional culture. As a result, the comparison between indirect and direct supervision highlights ongoing tensions between security, control, and the goal of fostering more humane and effective correctional environments.

Direct and Indirect Supervision

The indirect supervision or “static security” approach is the traditional model of supervision, where correctional officers govern through visual, intensive surveillance practices and physical barriers between staff and incarcerated people, such as a secure control room and deploying camera systems that capture and monitor prisoner behavior and movement (Wener, 2006). Developed in the 1970s, the direct supervision model has increasingly been implemented in North American correctional services to remedy the (especially social) obstacles posed by indirect supervision models, including opportunities to build and facilitate more positive interactions between officers and incarcerated people (Morin, 2016; Weinrath et al., 2016). Sometimes referred to as “new generation jails” (Bayens et al., 1997), correctional facilities incorporate direct supervision models to more substantively promote freedom of movement, expression, and greater independence among incarcerated people. The direct supervision model also promotes spaces to engage in leisurely activities (e.g., watching television, reading, accessing telephones), reduces feelings of isolation, improves the trajectory for incarcerated people meeting the goals of their correctional plan, and provides opportunities to interact meaningfully with correctional officers who are directly stationed within the pods (rather than positioned in control rooms or “bubbles” in indirect supervision models). Proponents assert the “new” model improves sociality among correctional staff and incarcerated people by fostering direct lines of empathetic communication and reciprocity—that is, frequent micro-interactions between incarcerated people and staff that are neither disciplinary nor administrative in nature, but rather are pro-social and rehabilitative (i.e., meeting incarcerated people’s needs in preparation for re-entry; Weinrath et al., 2016).

While prison space is, inevitably, imbued with diffuse, highly gendered, and strategic assertions and struggles for power, control, and status (Pyrooz and Becker, 2019; Ricciardelli et al., 2015), the direct supervision approach still aims to create a stronger therapeutic alliance between incarcerated people and correctional staff (Andrews et al., 2011)—despite the lack of training in therapeutic alliances and the related relationship building direct supervision requires. As Fusco et al. (2021) suggest, a therapeutic alliance allows for a mutually beneficial relationship between justice-involved individuals and those governing them. Currently, the lack of adequate mental health and counseling services available to incarcerated people has led to some correctional officers becoming obliged to fill mental health service gaps (Johnston and Ricciardelli, 2022); yet, building relationships conducive to sound mental health is not easily accomplished within indirect supervision settings due to the physical and emotional distance that such a model necessitates between officers and incarcerated people: “Prisons are intended to be cold and punitive places where offenders are continuously reminded that they are defective individuals whom society has shut away” (Ross et al., 2008: 470).

Furthermore, officers must—for safety, control, care, and protective reasons—be hyper-vigilant of the movements and behaviors of incarcerated people. Critical criminological research often insists this mandate will lead to “us versus them” mentalities and relations of distrust in prisons that prioritize rule-infringement enforcement and more impersonal relations (Ben-David et al., 1996), and consequently, leave incarcerated people to police and protect themselves (Dirga and Hasmanová Marhánková, 2014; Trammell, 2011).

There are, however, limitations to the use of direct supervision. For example, due to the constant contact with incarcerated people, there is early evidence to suggest correctional officers may be exposed to more frequent minor abuses by incarcerated people, such as disrespect or insubordination (Bayens et al., 1997). In addition, some staff may be uncomfortable with the increased levels of interaction with incarcerated people, leading to a higher demand for emotional labor and workplace exhaustion—factors that may precipitate officer burnout and turnover (Lambert et al., 2015). Given that direct supervision departs from interpretations of traditional supervision approaches, successful implementation requires a more intensive training curriculum, accompanied by clearly defined operational and management philosophies. Early studies showed partial implementations of direct supervision were less effective, pointing to the need for correctional services to ascertain the feasibility of complete adoption of spatial and infrastructure requirements, consistent and comprehensive training of correctional officers, and endorsement by senior managers and administrators (Tartaro, 2002, 2003).

Arguably but importantly, Wener’s (2006) study warned that part of the hesitation toward direct supervision may be rooted in the conservative social and political beliefs of some prison staff. While political values and beliefs of correctional staff are subject to constant change as is the case in free society (see, for example, Johnston et al., 2022), some staff, Wener (2006) argues, may hold pre-existing assumptions that direct supervision is “too soft” or conflicts with their ideas around the role of punishment in society. This finding uncovers how the successes of direct supervision may be rooted in its biggest challenge: the need for wholesale commitment to its philosophical and epistemological tenets.⁴⁸

---

⁴⁸Sibley, M., Ricciardelli, R., Johnston, M., and Mario, B. (2024)