Observations and unstructured interviews were conducted between 1987 and 1999 in Australia, Bhutan, Brazil, Egypt, Finland, Guatemala, India, Mongolia, the Netherlands, and the United States. Four types of police personnel custodial tasks were identified: police do not perform custodial duties, except for the holding of suspects in police-station cells for brief periods during processing; police are responsible for jail facilities, but not prisons; police act as prison officers when assigned to custodial facilities temporarily; and police officers function as both law enforcers and custodial officers. The findings of this preliminary study suggest that in the countries investigated there was a significant risk of violating international human rights standards when the police are used as prison custodial officers. By training, attitude, and spirit, as well as by organizational culture, police are not oriented to the prison custodial role. Human rights covenants address the issues of fair treatment, humane prison conditions, attention to special needs, etc. Prison officers have a unique role in that they are expected to inculcate good behavior in inmates under their supervision and contribute to their rehabilitation through character building, skills development, and other forms of programming. Human rights standards for the treatment of prisoners imply that prison officers must be well-trained, humane, and sensitive to the needs of persons entrusted to their custodial care. According to United Nations standards, prison officers must be oriented to the view that prison work is an important social service task. Based on the complaints of police officers interviewed, they have not been trained for nor did they enter the police service with the intent of serving as custodial officers. This suggests that they are not prepared, either by attitude or training, to comply with human rights standards for the management of prisoners. Additional research should be conducted on this important issue. 7 notes and 19 references