Correctional staff attitudes after one year of employment: perceptions of leniency and support for inmate rehabilitation.Correctional staff are frequently the subjects of research studies that examine the culture of a prison or jail. For example, some research has explored staff burnout (Carson and Thomas, 2006; Garland, 2004; Garner, Knight and Simpson, 2007), job satisfaction and retention (Lambert and Hogan, 2009; Tipton, 2002), use of force (Griffin, 2002; Hemmens and Stohr, 2001), career goals (Shaffer, 1999) and stress (Armstrong and Griffin, 2004; Belcastro, Gold and Grant, 1982; Griffin, 2006; Lambert and Cluse-Tolar, 2007; Lambert and Paoline, 2008), while other studies have examined the level of support correctional staff have for rehabilitation programs. Findings from these studies showed that females (Gordon, 1999; Hemmens and Stohr, 2000; Stohr et al., 2000), racial minorities (Cullen et al., 1989; Maahs and Pratt, 2001; Paboojian and Teske, 1997) and older or tenured staff (Cullen et al., 1989; Farkas, 1999; Farkas, 2000; Maahs and Pratt, 2001; Paboojian and Teske, 1997; Stohr et al., 2000) supported inmate treatment and rehabilitation programs more than males, whites and younger staff. Beyond these staff characteristics, prior studies also found that support for rehabilitation varied by job category. This was particularly evident for correctional officers versus noncorrectional officers, with the latter group viewing treatment more favorably than the former (Antonio, Young and Wingeard, 2009; Antonio, Young and Wingeard, foKhcoming; Gordon, 1999; Kifer, Hemmens and Stohr, 2003; Robinson, Porporino and Simourd, 1993). Specifically, these Findings revealed that clerical and treatment staff expressed higher levels of support for rehabilitation and were more oriented toward human services (Robinson et al., 1996). In contrast, correctional officers tended to report more punitive attitudes and were less inclined to understand or recognize the benefits of rehabilitation (Gordon, 1999; Lariviere and Robinson, 1996). As Lariviere and Robinson (1996) discovered, a similar trend held when examining staff in additional job categories, including labor and administrative support positions. Correctional officers and labor/technical staff indicated the lowest levels of support for inmate rehabilitation and tended to adopt a more favorable attitude toward retribution and punitive behaviors. In contrast, health care professionals, programs staff and supervisors/managers reported the most support of inmate rehabilitation. Prior research from the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (PADOC) found similar results, as newly hired treatment and clerical staff recognized better than correctional officers that staff support of treatment programs impacts inmate rehabilitation outcomes, and that staff actions and interactions with others can make a correctional facility a more positive, rehabilitation-focused environment (Antonio, Young and Wingeard, 2009; Antonio, Young and Wingeard, forthcoming). This study expands on these findings by presenting responses from staff who were employed by PADOC for approximately one year. Qualitative responses to questions about the importance of studying staff support of inmate rehabilitation and perceived leniency toward inmates were analyzed. The focus of this article was to determine whether employee attitudes toward rehabilitation and perceived leniency varied by job category. Given prior research, it was believed that maintenance personnel and correctional officers would place less importance on studying staff attitudes, as earlier research found these groups to be less supportive of rehabilitation in general (Gordon, 1999; Kifer et al., 2003; Robinson et al., 1993). It was also expected that maintenance personnel and correctional officers would report a stronger preference for following correctional rules rather than allowing for leniency toward inmates. This hypothesis was shaped by prior research indicating that these groups exhibited more punitive and rule-oriented attitudes (Young, Antonio and Wingeard, 2009; Lariviere and Robinson, 1996; Robinson et al., 1996). Reinforcing Positive Behavior To evaluate the attitudes that prison staff have about inmate treatment and rehabilitation, PADOC developed a two-hour training seminar called Reinforcing Positive Behavior (RPB) that was delivered to new employees during their required orientation to the department. RPB exposed new employees to PADOC's approach to inmate treatment, explained the principles on which programs are based, and clarified the roles and responsibilities of correctional staff for reinforcing positive behavior in a prison. A basic premise of the training was that staff support of inmate treatment and rehabilitation can positively impact inmate behavior. This positive impact occurs when staff use inmate interactions to teach and reinforce treatment concepts and when staff serve as role models by consistently demonstrating desired behaviors. Evaluations conducted by PADOC showed that the RPB training was effective for improving staff attitudes about inmate treatment and rehabilitation efforts (Antonio, Young and Wingeard, 2009; Antonio, Young and Wingeard, forthcoming). Because findings from the original analyses were favorable toward the immediate effectiveness of the RPB training for improving new employees' attitudes, research efforts were refined to focus on the long-term effects of the training. The decision was made to reassess staff who received the two-hour RPB training during their orientation at a time interval of one year after being employed by PADOC. A self-administered survey was designed and delivered to these staff members to gauge their responses. The purpose of the current analysis was to evaluate variations among staff attitudes about perceived leniency shown toward inmates and the importance of studying inmate treatment and rehabilitation efforts. The one-year follow-up survey was comprehensive and collected responses from open-ended and close-ended questions. Findings gathered from both lines of questioning were examined. Procedures PADOC keeps detailed records about all employees who attend the new employee orientation, including the date the training was completed and the name of the state facility where individuals are employed. Using these records, it was possible to determine when each new employee completed his or her first year of employment with PADOC and the institution where he or she could be contacted. A sampling strategy was designed based on this information. One-year follow-up surveying of correctional staff began in November 2007. Employees who received these surveys had completed one year of employment at PADOC and were the first to participate in the RPB training during their orientation. Each employee in that class received a package that included a letter requesting their participation in the study, the actual survey instrument and a self-addressed envelope. The letter informed staff that their participation was voluntary and asked them to complete the survey, as their responses would help with future training and curriculum development. Staff were instructed not to put their names or any other self-identifying information on the survey. After completing the survey, staff were instructed to place it in the self-addressed envelope, seal the envelope and return it to the institution's mailroom, where it would be delivered to the research and evaluation office for analysis. This process continued for every employee who received the RPB training and was employed at PADOC for one year. From November 2007 through November 2008, responses were collected from 465 staff members employed in state correctional institutions, community corrections centers and central administration offices. Subjects Table 1 shows staff characteristics of the employees included in this analysis for the full sample of respondents and when separated by job category. The full sample of respondents (N = 465) reveals that the majority were male (55.9 percent), white (89.9 percent) and young (38.0 years old). This sample represents a 39.4 percent response rate among all eligible respondents. The table also shows that 107 clerical support, 51 maintenance personnel, 133 treatment staff and 174 correctional officers completed and returned surveys. The largest differences among the job categories were found when examining response rates. Overall, clerical support, treatment staff, and maintenance personnel reported higher response rates (64.7 percent, 60.1 percent, and 58.1 percent, respectively) compared with correctional officers (24.7 percent). Findings Structured questions. On the survey, staff were asked two questions about the importance of studying staff attitudes concerning inmate rehabilitation and about perceptions of leniency shown toward inmates. Specifically, staff were asked to respond "yes" or "no" to the following question: "Do you think your institution is too lenient on inmates?" Staff also were asked to respond on a range from "not important" to "extremely important" to the following question: "Overall, how important is it that PADOC study staff attitudes about inmate treatment and rehabilitation efforts?" The percentage of respondents who said "yes" to the question, "Do you think your institution is too lenient on inmates?" was less than half (46.8 percent), as was the percentage who reported it was "extremely important" that PADOC study staff attitudes about inmate treatment and rehabilitation efforts (37.1 percent). When the full sample of respondents was separated by job category, less than half of the respondents from clerical support (31.5 percent), maintenance personnel (41.9 percent) and treatment staff (33.0 percent) replied "yes" to "Do you think your institution is too lenient on inmates?" In contrast, the majority (59.8 percent) of correctional officers reported agreement to this question. Also, approximately one-third of clerical support (32.4 percent) and correctional officers (30.1 percent) believed it was "extremely important" that PADOC "study staff attitudes about inmate treatment and rehabilitation efforts." Close to half of the respondents in the treatment staff category (43.8 percent) and slightly more than half in the maintenance personnel category (52.1 percent) believed it was extremely important to study this topic. Additional comments to structured questions. Staff were given the opportunity to elaborate on their responses to the structured questions by writing additional comments on the survey that explained their answer. Not all respondents chose to write an additional response, although many did. A thorough review of these written comments provided further insight about staff responses to each question. These comments are helpful in providing additional details not available by staff responses to the structured questions alone. Are Institutions Too Lenient on Inmates? Overall, 155 respondents chose to write additional comments to the question about perceived leniency for inmates. Table 2 lists four distinct themes that were found when reviewing these respondents' written comments. One theme was addressed by 50 staff members who commented about how their institutions delivered fair and equitable treatment to inmates. The majority of comments on this theme came from clerical support (28.0 percent) and treatment staff (46.0 percent). A similar number of staff (42) wrote comments about a second theme--that inmates have far too many freedoms and privileges. Correctional officers represented the majority of these responses (52.4 percent), followed by clerical support (28.6 percent). A third theme that was uncovered by reviewing staff comments was the belief that inmates need stricter discipline and should be held more accountable for their actions. Overall, 40 staff noted this theme, with many of these comments being provided by correctional officers (57.5 percent) or treatment staff (25.0 percent). For the final theme, 23 respondents commented that staff did not consistently use discipline or grant privileges. The majority of these comments were noted by treatment staff (47.8 percent) and correctional officers (26.1 percent). In the next section, the four distinct themes generated from responses about showing leniency toward inmates will be described in further detail. Respondents" comments that were one or more complete sentences in length and provided a clear theme were considered in this analysis. Correctional staff deliver fair but firm treatment. Staff who shared comments about their institutions being appropriately lenient toward inmates generally believed that inmates received fair and equitable treatment in the PADOC correctional system. These comments indicated that staff do follow the appropriate policies, procedures and rules when interacting with inmates. Clerical support, primarily, commented that inmates are treated fairly: "Inmates are held to the same standard and the level of discipline imposed is fair." Other staff members noted that "Our institution works hard to follow the rules and to treat everyone fairly. If punishment is necessary, it is handed out as required" and "I see the institution as being very fair and generally most [staff] treat the inmates with respect. Consequences and positive affirmations are given as called for." Treatment staff made similar comments about institutional staff following PADOC rules and policies. They mentioned that inmates were treated "fair but firm." For example, one staff member wrote, "I feel our institution follows all PADOC policies and treats inmates how they should be treated according to DOC policy," while another staff member noted: "I don't think my institution is too lenient on inmates. Staff provide care, custody and control. Security is of the highest priority and is enforced on a daily basis. Misconducts seem to be congruent with inmate violations of institutional policies/rules." Inmates have too many freedoms and privileges. Comments provided on this theme indicated a general concern among certain staff that inmates have too many freedoms and privileges. These comments suggested that inmates should not have basic freedoms afforded to them such as freedom of movement and speech and access to activities like sports, exercise, television and other "privileges." For example, one respondent commented: "I don't like how the inmates feel it is okay to speak when they are not spoken to. They obviously do not know their boundaries." Other staff noted concerns about inmate recreational activities in the prison, including: "I'm old school. I believe in a shovel in every inmate hand--digging ditches, etc. Letting them play basketball or other sports or letting them watch movies is hardly punishment." Another commented, "I think that the inmates here get too many opportunities to do what "free" people do out in the real world such as getting ice cream, family fun day, holiday bags, movies, cable, great commissary, Christmas trees and jobs." Finally, comments provided by correctional officers emphasized how inmates could freely issue grievances and that correctional staff allowed inmates too many opportunities to file these grievances against staff. One correctional officer wrote: "The inmates can grieve every little thing. The more the inmates grieve the more they get handed to them." Some staff provided comments comparing the number of privileges available to inmates with those available to the nonincarcerated population. Generally, these comments displayed beliefs that inmates had more opportunities and privileges than law-abiding citizens. For example, one correctional officer summarized these feelings by saying: "They should be punished, not paid and given free education when their victims themselves cannot get the same benefits.... Inmates are given medical care for minimal cost, free education and free recreation." Some comments specifically addressed concerns about providing inmates with basic needs of subsistence or "benefits," including food, shelter, employment and clothing. Some respondents found this particularly troubling, writing that "some people want to go to jail or prison because they eat, sleep, watch TV, get clothing, all at taxpayers" expense." Inmates need stricter discipline. Correctional officers often cited a need for harsher inmate discipline, many believing that prison environments should be more punitive and less corrective or treatment-focused. Staff specifically expressed beliefs that more punishment and fewer privileges would deter inmates from returning to prison and, as a result, effectively stop the revolving door of recidivism. One respondent commented: "The inmates need to feel like they are in prison and that this is a 'bad" place to be so they do their best upon their release not to return. I've seen too many excited about their return [to prison]." Other staff echoed similar sentiments. Some staff blamed this lack of punishment on both management personnel and their own colleagues for not enforcing rules and "looking the other way rather than dealing with the situation." Treatment staff most often commented on a need for increased rule enforcement. Some treatment staff felt their colleagues "let [inmates] get away with too much" and that inmates are allowed "too many misconducts." Many noted that management staff "make the rules and don't make [inmates] stick to them." While some treatment staff blamed correctional officers for not enforcing rules, correctional officers assigned blame to their superiors and the prison administration for not providing needed support. Correctional officers felt "penalized" for enforcing policy and felt they were not being supported by their superiors. Several correctional officers expressed concern that fellow officers were reluctant to enforce institutional rules for punishment, especially since these rules were frequently not supported by other staff and their superiors. For example, two correctional officers commented: "There have been entirely too many cuts in [disciplinary custody] time for serious infractions. COs are beginning to believe that there is little gained by strict enforcement of the policies," and "I've observed a great deal of [inmate misconducts] either thrown out completely or the inmate may get off on a minor infraction. This overall affects and deters officers from enforcing ... the procedures or policies of the PADOC." Inmates are treated inconsistently by correctional staff. Another theme that emerged from staff comments about leniency concerned inconsistent treatment of inmates in a prison. Staff noted that inmates exhibiting the same behavior might receive different consequences depending on which personnel manage the situation. It was treatment staff mostly who emphasized that inconsistency, not leniency, was the problem. They pointed out inconsistencies in staff reactions to inmate behavior ("Overall it is more a question of consistency in the way you respond to the inmates"); special privileges in return for information from inmates ("Certain individuals provide information and therefore may not suffer the same consequences for inappropriate behavior as other inmates do when they commit an infraction"); and selectiveness about which policies are enforced ("We are strict on minor issues and far too lenient of the issues that really matter like safety and security"). Staff working in institutions housing female inmates only specifically mentioned inconsistencies in how female versus male inmates are treated by staff, citing that staff are generally more lenient toward females. Some respondent comments included, "It seems like the inmates are able to get away with a lot cause they are women" and "Just because I work in an institution that houses female inmates does not mean that the females should be treated any differently than males! Their crimes are just as severe. There should be no double standards." Importance of Studying Staff Attitudes Overall, 220 respondents chose to write additional comments to the question about the importance of studying staff attitudes. Table 3 lists four distinct themes that were found when reviewing these respondents' written comments. For example, 73 staff members wrote comments about the direct impact of staff attitudes on treatment outcomes and demonstrated an understanding that both negative and positive attitudes affect rehabilitation. Respondents in three job categories primarily wrote about this theme (clerical support, 28.8 percent; treatment staff, 30.1 percent; and correctional officers, 28.8 percent). Table 3 also shows a second theme that emerged from 70 staff members who wrote about the overall benefits of studying staff attitudes in a correctional facility. Treatment staff (25.7 percent) and correctional officers (45.7 percent) mostly offered these comments. A third theme came from 43 respondents commenting that both inmates and staff have responsibilities for making prison rehabilitation efforts successful. Correctional officers represented the majority of responses (34.9 percent), while clerical support followed close behind (27.9 percent). A final theme uncovered from 34 respondents related to the presence of overtly negative attitudes among correctional staff. These comments emphasized that many prison employees exhibited poor attitudes toward treatment and also addressed the need for education or training to change these negative attitudes. Correctional officers and treatment staff wrote about this theme the most (52.9 percent and 35.3 percent, respectively). In the next section, these four distinct themes concerning the importance of studying attitudes about inmate treatment and rehabilitation will be described in further detail by showing the clearest and most comprehensive comments provided by correctional staff. Staff attitudes directly impact treatment outcomes. A core component of the RPB training teaches staff that their actions and attitudes impact the success of inmate rehabilitation. Respondents" comments demonstrated familiarity with this concept and showed a general recognition that poor staff attitudes hinder treatment efforts. For example, staff commented extensively about the effect of negative or poor attitudes on treatment, writing that "A very good planned rehabilitation program could fall very short of expectations due to poor (staff) attitudes." Another respondent mentioned: "If staff are not invested in the inmate's treatment, it can show a lack of support and discredits treatment and rehabilitation efforts, therefore inmates may have a lack of commitment in treatment. A nonsupportive or negative attitude undermines treatment." Staff also recognized that positive staff attitudes could create a favorable treatment environment and promising outcomes from inmates' rehabilitation efforts. Written comments indicated that "staff attitudes directly impact inmate attitudes and by studying staff, DOC can work toward a more positive environment in facilities which would help with inmate behaviors and treatment." Another respondent noted: "People, in general, respond to positive attitudes. If all staff supported treatment and rehab efforts and saw its worth, inmates would respond in kind." In addition to recognizing that staff attitudes affect treatment, respondents also discussed issues of staff and inmate respect. Correctional staff seemed to understand that when inmates are treated with respect, they respond with respectful behavior in return. One respondent wrote, "I have learned that most inmates look up to staff and a little respect and explanation of policies carry a lot of weight." Another shared a similar sentiment, "Inmates, for the most part, are respectful and if you treat them with basic respect and convey a genuine helpfulness, they respond positively." Tied to issues of respect were comments related to staff buy-in of treatment efforts, as respondents stressed the importance of believing in the treatment process. According to one correctional officer, this required staff to "practice what they are preaching." Another felt this was important because "unless treatment staff believe in what they are teaching, it will be useless." Benefits to studying staff attitudes. Another theme uncovered from reviewing respondents" written comments was that staff recognized the potential value and tangible benefits that could be derived from research findings examining staff attitudes. Some staff reported that these study results could help PADOC avoid future problems. One respondent wrote, "By having this information, possible problems could be corrected before a problem actually arises," while another staff recognized that "we need to know where we are in order that we can move toward meeting the mission and vision of the PADOC." Others believed the results would inform PADOC executive management about obvious deficiencies in rehabilitation efforts and staff attitudes--particularly given how negative staff attitudes can adversely impact treatment. Treatment staff were especially vocal about this issue, as several of their comments showed: "It is important for all DOC staff to study attitudes about treatment, etc. because it will provide a larger support system for reinforcing the treatment and rehab efforts as well as encourage teamwork." Another treatment staff commented, "It is always important to gauge staff attitudes toward treatment efforts for it to be a success." Some respondents noted the importance of the study, but warned that research is only effective if information gained is put into action. Several commented that the study is only important if "the information achieved is put forth to good use" and "the results are assessed and used appropriately and matriculated into action." Others felt that studying staff attitudes is too limiting and that evaluating institutional work environments would be more revealing. One clerical staff member stated this clearly, "In order to understand how well the various programs are working, or why they aren't, it is necessary to have an understanding of the total environment the inmates are subjected to (i.e. positive reinforcement, positive role model, etc.)." Both staff and inmates have specific treatment responsibilities. Information also was gathered from written comments that indicated both staff and inmates have specific roles and responsibilities toward treatment and rehabilitation. Several respondents--primarily clerical support and treatment staff--pointed specifically to the responsibility of staff to serve as role models to inmates, especially since inmates "should learn by what [staff] do." Several other respondents expressed similar beliefs writing, "It is critically important that staff members demonstrate (by example) the positive impact of treatment and rehabilitation." Commenting specifically on the importance of the current study, one treatment staff member mentioned, "It is important to know if inmates are seeing positive role models and if employees are creating a good atmosphere in which inmates are treated with respect while maintaining discipline." Other respondents, mostly clerical support and maintenance personnel, emphasized the importance of staff supporting inmates, helping them realize their potential and encouraging them to succeed after release. One maintenance personnel wrote, "I think staff can make a difference in an inmate's choices in life in the future." Others provided similar comments, noting: "I would imagine that most inmates would like to have a more positive future than being behind bars for the rest of their lives, but if no one believes that they have the ability to make things better, then they will not believe in themselves and will continue to reoffend." Respondents also felt that staff were responsible for fostering a spirit of teamwork, and several pointed to the benefits of staff working as a team to encourage rehabilitation. Treatment staff in particular emphasized this point by commenting, "Everyone needs to be sending the same message so the inmates see that it is worth changing their thinking and behaviors" and "Basically, staff need to work together and support each other." Several staff members emphasized the importance of all staff being "on the same page," citing sharp divisions among job categories (i.e., "most of us are divided into groups and inmates can and will take advantage of that"). While respondents most often pointed to areas of staff responsibility, they also emphasized the role inmates have in successful rehabilitation. A number of respondents commented that rehabilitation only succeeds when inmates make the conscious decision to change behaviors. One clerical support staff wrote, "If the inmate does not want to change, [rehabilitation] is a pointless effort and huge waste of time and money." Worth noting is that correctional officers were key proponents of this belief that inmates must want treatment. Two in particular wrote: "I believe that inmates will only respond to treatment and rehab if they are willing and ready. However, being respectful and treating them like humans will/may help them ... want to rehab," and "Inmates enter a facility with or without intentions of bettering themselves and that will not change throughout their term. As a DOC officer we can only point inmates in the right direction, not hold their hands. We are not glorified babysitters." A need to educate staff to change negative attitudes. Despite positive comments and a general understanding that staff attitude impacts treatment efforts, there is a critical need expressed in the respondents' written comments to further educate correctional staff about the adverse effects of their negative attitudes on inmate treatment. These concerns were verified by some staff comments suggesting that rehabilitation efforts are not effective. Correctional officers provided most of these negative comments. For example, one correctional officer wrote, "Too much time and money is spent on the treatment and rehab of inmates for the lack of results yielded," while another commented, "With all the programs and activities an inmate can take part in ... the rehabilitation programs are not working." Other correctional officers discussed the negative staff attitudes pervasive throughout correctional institutions, and several suggested that these negative staff attitudes are impossible to correct despite well-intentioned PADOC training efforts like RPB. These officers wrote: "Negative staff attitudes are unfortunately the rule rather than the exception, and they undermine positive treatment efforts"; "There are many staff who are set in their ways and will not change"; "My answer doesn't matter, 90 percent of staff attitudes will never change!"; and "COs are too busy with care, custody and control to pay attention to treatment and rehabilitation efforts." Given this negativity, some mentioned the need to further educate staff on the benefits of treatment, with the hope of improving negative attitudes and creating more staff investment in treatment programs. These comments were related to educating staff about treatment and determining additional ways to improve staff attitudes. One respondent commented, "If staff aren't educated about [treatment] and rehab they may not understand the impact they could have on an inmate." Other respondents wrote, "It is self-evident that staff training in the applications of rehabilitative social, educational and treatment environments and attitudes is imperative," and "The right or wrong officer in a [therapeutic community] program could make or break the spirit of the inmates housed there. People are afraid of what they don't know. Educating officers on treatment, I believe, would help tremendously." While RPB addressed some of these issues, these comments indicated that additional training related to treatment education is needed. Discussion The actions and attitudes of correctional staff impact a prison environment and influence the effectiveness of inmate treatment and rehabilitation programs. This is an important issue that has received much attention recently. PADOC delivers a two-hour RPB training to all new employees to inform them about inmate treatment goals. Evaluations of this program have shown that it is effective for improving staff attitudes in the short term (Antonio, Young and Wingeard, 2009; Antonio, Young and Wingeard, forthcoming). The purpose of the present analysis was to examine attitudes about the treatment of inmates and support for rehabilitation programs among PADOC staff who have been employed for one year. Findings gathered from a self-administered survey supported the hypothesis that correctional officers, more so than clerical support, maintenance personnel and treatment staff, believed that their institution was too lenient on inmates. Responses provided to open-ended questions indicated several themes related to perceived leniency--specifically, that correctional officers believed inmates have far too many freedoms and that inmates need stricter discipline. Comments provided by treatment staff indicated that inmates are treated in a fair and equitable manner, but that the use of discipline and granting privileges is not applied consistently. It also was believed that correctional officers and maintenance personnel would place limited importance on studying staff attitudes. Findings shown here indicate that approximately one-third of respondents in the clerical support and correctional officer job categories believed it was extremely important to study staff attitudes about inmate treatment and rehabilitation compared with approximately half of treatment staff and maintenance personnel. As a result, treatment and maintenance staff appeared more supportive of the study and more apt to believe that inmate rehabilitation serves a vital role in prisons. Themes that emerged from this analysis indicated a need to address the overall poor attitude of correctional staff and an understanding that real benefits for inmates could be achieved if staff supported treatment programs. Also, there seemed to be a general understanding among correctional staff, regardless of job category, that staff attitudes do affect treatment outcomes and that all staff have a responsibility to make prison rehabilitation efforts successful. Overall, responses provided by new staff employed by PADOC were consistent with prior research showing that staff attitudes generally were supportive of rehabilitation, but that the degree of support varied by job category. Survey results suggest that staff who received the RPB training one year prior still appeared to understand and support the central tenets of the training program, which included supporting rehabilitation through staff actions and attitudes, and maintaining a focus on inmate treatment and rehabilitation. Some comments, however, revealed that additional training might be needed to correct negative attitudes among correctional staff. Staff in job categories with a majority of female employees (treatment staff) expressed concern for how inmates are treated, while staff in job categories with a majority of male employees (correctional officers) commented about institutional security and inmate discipline. Additional Findings showed that all correctional staff recognized that their behaviors impacted inmate treatment outcomes and some placed importance on educating employees about expressing overtly negative attitudes in a prison. These findings contributed new information about correctional staff attitudes that can be explored through additional research efforts. While the present analysis builds upon previous research findings from the RPB study (Antonio, Young and Wingeard, 2009; Antonio, Young and Wingeard, forthcoming; Young, Antonio and Wingeard, 2009), further data collection was believed to be important. Reviewing how staff attitudes vary by institution may reveal how staff employed by different prisons prioritize correctional goals such as inmate rehabilitation. A study of responses by research site, taking into account factors such as prison location, security level and size, may better explain staff perceptions of rehabilitation and indicate whether certain prisons appear more lenient than others. There is too little data collected to perform a meaningful analysis on this level, but as additional staff complete their first year of employment at PADOC, these questions will be addressed. Finally, an additional phase of this research study is currently under way that seeks to gather responses from correctional staff who have been employed by PADOC for longer than one year. Experienced staff may have significantly different views about the treatment of inmates and level of support for rehabilitation programs. Because of the importance of staff attitudes to the success of inmate rehabilitation, this is a topic worth additional study. REFERENCES Antonio, M.E., J.L. Young and L.M. Wingeard. 2009. Reinforcing positive behavior in a prison: Whose responsibility is it? Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 48(1):53-66. Antonio, M.E., J.L. Young and L.M. Wingeard. Forthcoming. When actions and attitudes count most: Assessing perceived level of responsibility and support for inmate treatment and rehabilitation programs among correctional employees. The Prison Journal, forthcoming. Armstrong, G.S. and M.L. Griffin. 2004. Does the job matter? Comparing correlates of stress among treatment and correctional staff in prisons. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32(6):577-592. Belcastro, P., R. Gold and J. Grant. 1982. Stress and burnout: Physiological effects on correctional teachers. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 9(4):387-395. Carson, J.R. and G. Thomas. 2006. Burnout among prison caseworkers and corrections officers. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 43(3):19-34. Cullen, F.T., F.E. Lutze, B.G. Link and N.T. Wolfe. 1989. The correctional orientation of prison guards: Do officers support rehabilitation? Federal Probation, 53:3342. Farkas, M.A. 1999. Correctional officer attitudes toward inmates and working with inmates in a "get tough" era. Journal of Criminal Justice, 27(6):495-506. Farkas, M.A. 2000. A typology of correctional officers. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44:431-449. Garland, B. 2004. The impact of administrative support on prison treatment staff burnout: An exploratory study. The Prison Journal, 84(4):452471. Garner, B.R., K. Knight and D.D. Simpson. 2007. Burnout among corrections-based drug treatment staff: Impact of individual and organizational factors. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 51(5):510-522. Gordon, J. 1999. Do staff attitudes vary by position? A look at one juvenile correctional center. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 24(1):81-93. Griffin, M.L. 2002. The influence of professional orientation on detention officers' attitudes toward the use of force. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29(3):250-277. Griffin, M.L. 2006. Gender and stress: A comparative assessment of sources of stress among correctional officers. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 22(1):4-25. Hemmens, C. and M.K. Stohr. 2000. The two faces of the correctional role: An exploration of the value of the correctional role instrument. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44(3):326349. Hemmens, C. and M.K. Stohr. 2001. Correctional staff attitudes regarding the use of force in corrections. Corrections Management Quarterly, 5(2):2740. Kifer, M., C. Hemmens and M.K. Stohr. 2003. The goals of corrections: Perspectives from the line. Criminal Justice Review, 28:47-69. Lambert, E.G. and T. Cluse-Tolar. 2007. This job is killing me: The impact of job characteristics on correctional staff job stress. Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 3(2): 117-142. Lambert, E. and N. Hogan. 2009. The importance of job satisfaction and organizational commitment in shaping turnover intent: A test of a causal model. Criminal Justice Review, 34(1):96-118. Lambert, E.G. and E.A. Paoline. 2008. The influence of individual, job, and organizational characteristics on correctional staff job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Criminal Justice Review, 33(4):541-564. Lariviere, M. and D. Robinson. 1996. Attitudes of federal correctional officers toward offenders (CSC Research Report No. R-44). Ottawa, Ontario: Correctional Service of Canada. Maahs, J. and T. Pratt. 2001. Uncovering the predictors of correctional officers' attitudes and behaviors: A meta-analysis. Corrections Management Quarterly, 5(2):13-19. Paboojian, A. and H.C. Teske, Jr. 1997. Pre-service correctional officers: What do they think about treatment? Journal of Criminal Justice, 25(5):425-433. Robinson, D., F.J. Porporino and L. Simourd. 1993. The influence of career orientation on support for rehabilitation among correctional staff. The Prison Journal, 73:162-177. Robinson, D., F.J. Porporino and L. Simourd. 1996. Do different occupational groups vary on attitudes and work adjustment in corrections? Federal Probation, 60(3):45-53. Shaffer, J.S. 1999. Life of the installment plan: Careers in corrections. Corrections Today, 61(7):84-89. Stohr, M.K., C. Hemmens, M. Kifer and M. Schoeler. 2000. We know it, we just have to do it: Perceptions of ethical work in prisons and jails. The Prison Journal, 80(2): 126-150. Tipton, J.A. 2002. Attitudes and perceptions of South Carolina's juvenile correctional officers, insight into the turnover epidemic. Journal of Crime and Justice, 25(1):81-98. Young, J.L., M.E. Antonio and L.M. Wingeard. 2009. How staff attitude and support for inmate treatment and rehabilitation differs by job category: An evaluation of findings from Pennsylvania's Department of Corrections' employee training curriculum 'Reinforcing Positive Behavior.' Journal of Criminal Justice, 37(5):435-441. Jacqueline L. Young, MA, is a research and evaluation analyst for the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, Bureau of Planning, Research, Statistics, and Grants. Michael E. Antonio, Ph.D., is research and evaluation manager for the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, Bureau of Planning, Research, Statistics, and Grants.
Table 1. Staff Characteristics by Job Category
% %
All Clerical Maintenance
Respondents Support Personnel
(N = 465) (N = 107) (N = 51)
Sex
Female 44.1 80.6 12.5
Male 55.9 19.4 87.5
Race
White 89.9 89.5 93.9
Black 7.6 8.6 6.1
Age* 38.0 42.0 47.5
Response
Rate 39.4 64.7 58.1
% %
Treatment Correctional
Staff Officers
(N = 133) (N = 174)
Sex
Female 61.0 17.4
Male 39.0 82.6
Race
White 91.5 87.7
Black 4.7 9.8
Age* 38.0 34.0
Response
Rate 60.1 24.7
* Median figures
Table 2. Themes Generated From Respondents' Written Comments About
Leniency for Inmates by Job Category
% % %
Clerical Maintenance Treatment
Support Personnel Staff
Theme
Correctional staff deliver
fair, but firm treatment 28.0 8.0 46.0
Inmates have too many
freedoms and privileges 28.6 7.1 11.9
Inmates need stricter
discipline 5.0 12.5 25.0
Inmates are treated
inconsistently by
correctional staff 13.0 13.0 47.8
%
Correctional Total
Officer (N = 155)
Theme
Correctional staff deliver
fair, but firm treatment 18.0 50
Inmates have too many
freedoms and privileges 52.4 42
Inmates need stricter
discipline 57.5 40
Inmates are treated
inconsistently by
correctional staff 26.1 23
Table 3. Themes Generated From Respondents' Written Comments About
the Importance of Studying Staff Attitudes About Inmate Treatment and
Rehabilitation by Job Category
Clerical Maintenance Treatment
Theme Support Personnel Staff
Staff attitudes directly
impact treatment outcomes 28.8 12.3 30.1
Benefits to studying
staff altitudes 18.6 10.0 25.7
Both staff and inmates have
specific treatment
responsibilities 27.9 16.3 20.9
A need to educate staff to
change negative attitudes 2.9 8.8 35.3
Correctional Total
Theme Officer (N = 220)
Staff attitudes directly
impact treatment outcomes 28.8 73
Benefits to studying
staff altitudes 45.7 70
Both staff and inmates have
specific treatment
responsibilities 34.9 43
A need to educate staff to
change negative attitudes 52.9 34
|
|
||||||||||||||||
Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion