Gendered Adherence: Correctional Officers and Therapeutic Reform in a Reentry Facility

Abstract

How do correctional officers (COs) adhere to changing workplace philosophy and practices during interactions with inmates? This study explores COs’ perceptions and interactions during organizational change to examine how different factors (such as gender, position/rank, and reason for interaction) affect implementation. Using observations and interviews with COs, our data suggest gender-based differences in CO adherence when implementing redesigned workplace practices. Gendered adherence to using evidence-based practices within custody environments is potentially impactful on the success of the reform. Future training and skill development should address these gender-based findings to improve adherence to organizational change processes.

Keywords

organizational change correctional officers therapeutic reform reentry gender

Introduction

The “revolving door” that cycles offenders in and out of prison means that more than two thirds of U.S. inmates released from prison are rearrested, half return to jail or prison for a new crime or technical violation, and a quarter return to prison for a new crime conviction in the three years following their release (Padfield & Maruna, 2006). These numbers are largely stable since the mid-1960s (Petersilia, 2003). With growing concern over large prison populations and prisoner reentry, justice agencies have begun to use evidence-based practices (EBPs; scientifically validated and effective tools and behaviors) to reduce offender recidivism (Sherman, 1998; Taxman & Belenko, 2011; Viglione, Rudes, & Taxman, 2015). To achieve success in EBP implementation, criminal justice agencies must undergo organizational change processes that include training staff members and administrators on ways of integrating EBPs into work. Although common, training staff to incorporate new practices in existing workplace routines is not easy. Training challenges are immediate and continual (Latessa, 2004; Taxman, 2008; Taxman, Shepardson, & Byrne, 2004) as staff rarely act consistently and uniformly and are sometimes change-resistant (Clawson, Bogue, & Joplin, 2005; Joplin et al., 2004). In this study, we consider individual correctional officer (CO) responses to an evidence-based organizational reform aimed at changing CO perceptions of and behaviors toward inmates to improve reentry success.

Prior Scholarship

Justice System Actors Responses to Reform

Prior research on organizational change within correctional agencies suggests staff who value treatment quality, possess organizational commitment (Henderson et al., 2007), and express change readiness (Lerch, Viglione, Eley, James-Andrews, & Taxman, 2011; Lerch, James-Andrews, Eley & Taxman, 2009) are more likely to use EBPs. Likewise, correctional staff who value rehabilitation are more likely to attain cognitive behavioral change (Henderson et al., 2007). Existing scholarship on change processes within correctional workplaces suggests staff perceptions of current and reforming practices matter greatly for how and why they implement or resist reform. Research finds that staff deal with reform depending on how it aligns with their current perspectives, ideologies, and philosophies. In this regard, several studies note that correctional employees continue using prechange behaviors (Lawrence & Johnson, 1990; Lynch, 1998; McCorkle & Crank, 1996; Rudes, 2012a, 2012b; Steiner, Travis, & Makarios, 2011) of reform. For instance, correctional staff such as prison, probation/parole workers may perceive reform as ineffective when it ignores their needs (Lawrence & Johnson, 1990; McCorkle & Crank, 1996), wishes (Ekland-Olson & Martin, 1988), prior decision making (Lynch, 1998; Steiner et al., 2011), or when they have organizational commitment or change readiness (Lerch et al., 2011; Palumbo, Maynard-Moody, & Wright, 1984).

In one study, Ferguson (2002) found reform left probation staff concerned about losing discretion and input regarding presentence recommendations and case plans. In another study, Battalino, Beutler, and Shani (1996) suggested prison staff resisted behaviorally based reform believing nonauthoritarian styles were impractical to correctional work. Staff also described this reform as “soft” and suggested it conflicted with existing organizational culture. Finally, in a study of how juvenile probation officers implement a new program, Pullen (1996) found reform was unsuccessful because although trained, they did not develop the skills or interest needed to implement the program, focusing on its mandatory nature rather than relevancy to their work.

One important component that research on correctional change processes generally overlooks is how individual worker perceptions, as related to staff attributes and social identities, affect adherence or resistance to change/reform. In a prison environment, the bridge between staff perceptions of reform and staff perceptions of inmates represents a link connecting the two literatures and offers unique insight into reform processes and outcomes. In a reform like the one presented in this study, uncovering how individual staff perceive inmates postreform training offers analytic purchase over how and why staff navigate the EBP-based reform designed to change both their perception of and behavior toward inmates.

Factors Shaping Staff Perceptions of Inmates and Workplace Behaviors

Prior research notes a multitude of factors affecting staff attitudes/behaviors toward inmates, including social factors of COs such as race, gender, and age (Britton, 1997; Cullen, Lutze, Link, & Wolfe, 1989; Farkas, 1999; Hogan, Lambert, Hepburn, Burton, & Cullen, 2004; Jurik, 1985a; Paboojian & Teske, 1997; Stohr, Hemmens, Kifer, & Schoeler, 2000; Toch & Klofas, 1982; Whitehead & Lindquist, 1989) as well as type and environmental setting of correctional facility (Jurik, 1985a, Jurik, 1985b; Toch & Klofas, 1982). The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports approximately 37% of U.S. COs are female (Langton, 2010); a gradually increasing percentage (Morton, 1991). In comparison, female representation in the correctional field is more than twice as high as in policing, where females comprise, approximately, 15% of police officers (Langton, 2010), yet research devotes much less attention to the issues faced by female COs. One of the first studies to examine gender in a correctional institution found that female COs face a number of challenges ranging from restricted training opportunities to harassment from male coworkers and inmates (Zimmer, 1986, 1987). Other studies echo this finding (Jurik, 1988; Owen, 1988; Pollock, 1986), noting female COs are regularly stereotyped as emotionally and physically weak and incapable of performing a job associated with masculinity. In fact, some research argues that a gendered organizational logic dominates correctional institutions and guides both policies and practices (Britton, 1997; Gordon, Proulx, & Grant, 2013; Trammell, Raby, Anderson, Hampton, & Stickney, 2014).

Qualitative research finds a general perception that male COs are more likely to possess the necessary ability to deal with inmate violence. In contrast, common perceptions hold that female COs exhibit more interpersonal communication skills when dealing with unruly inmates (Britton, 1997; Kissel & Katasampes, 1980). Along similar lines, many view female COs as less supportive of punishment and more supportive of a human services orientation (Gordon, 2006; Hemmens & Stohr, 2000; Stohr et al., 2000). This view suggests that female COs generally rely on less punitive actions than their male counterparts (Cullen, Link, Wolfe, & Frank, 1985; Tait, 2011) and may even exert a “calming effect” on inmate behavior (Kissel & Katasampes, 1980). Zimmer (1987) argued female COs develop “friendship-oriented” strategies because they rarely have support and approval from male coworkers and because gender-specific training is unavailable. Regularly evaluated based on male-derived standards, many consider female COs less successful at their jobs (Trammell et al., 2014; Zimmer, 1987).

In contrast, some studies find that female COs are actually stricter, with actions driven more heavily by authority as compared with male officers (Farkas, 2000; Jenne & Kersting, 1996). Farkas (2000) found female officers more likely to write a violation when inmates broke rules, whereas male officers were more likely to speak with inmates to determine motive. Similarly, in interviews with female COs working in male facilities, Jenne and Kersting (1996) found female CO’s likely approach situations as aggressively as men, and even more so in some situations.

Along with gender differences, CO’s race, age, job tenure, and education also matter. In several studies, White COs display more punitive attitudes (Paboojian & Teske, 1997; Whitehead & Lindquist, 1989) as compared with COs of color who are more favorable toward rehabilitation (Cullen et al., 1989; Jurik, 1985a). Likewise, studies examining staff members’ age and job tenure find that older workers (Cullen et al., 1989; Farkas, 1999; Paboojian & Teske, 1997; Stohr et al., 2000; Toch & Klofas, 1982) and employees with longer job tenure (Farkas, 2000; Stohr et al., 2000) are more likely to favor treatment programs and support rehabilitative ideals. One study reported that COs tend to “mellow with age” as COs with more job experience become less custody-oriented and more supportive of rehabilitation (Toch & Klofas, 1982). Finally, education also affects correctional staff relations with inmates as those with higher education generally hold more positive perceptions of inmates (Jurik, 1985a).

Study Setting and Training Overview

This research occurred within a state-run male work-release facility on the U.S. east coast where most inmates have less than 18 months left on their sentence. We refer to this facility as Inner City Prison (pseudonym). Historically, this facility operated as a work-release correctional institution where inmates nearing release received opportunities to pursue employment while still incarcerated. Recently, it became a reentry center, emphasizing reintegration through employment, alongside treatment, education, and housing.¹ Correctional administrators saw this shift as a good time to introduce staff to attitudinal and behavioral reform that relies on humanistic/therapeutic approaches to supervising inmates. Examining staff postreform training allows insight into how they manage organizational change. In line with prior scholarship on correctional staff adherence to reform implementation and perceptions of inmates, the present research addresses the following question:

Research Question: How do COs adhere to changing workplace philosophy and practices during interactions with inmates?

This research began as the prison system sought to convert all of its minimum-security work-release facilities into reentry centers. The goal of the broader organizational change process was to alter the culture of the facility by shifting the focus from employment and security to a more holistic inmate-approach that includes assisting inmates with broader issues regarding community reintegration (Rudes, Lerch, & Taxman, 2011; Taxman, 2008; Taxman, Henderson, & Belenko, 2009). The researchers and training team designed a training protocol titled, Inside Out: Enhancing Communication in Prisons, based on an industry book, Tools of the Trade (Taxman et al., 2004) and several EBPs on behavioral change. The training focuses on using correctional staff as prosocial role models for inmates. Staff members receive training on evidence-based ways of employing humanistic approaches in their interactions as opposed to confrontational, authoritarian approaches. To facilitate this change, all staff members received training in developing and using motivational communication strategies with inmates. The training instructed COs to move away from prior practices that do not align with the reforms’ goal of interacting with inmates as positive and encouraging role models to assist in their preparation for postprison life.

In consultation with research project staff,² the facility incorporated training protocols that align with current literature on effective training practices. For example, research suggests that EBP training should include multiple sessions, follow-up training, and on-site training assistants to generate and maintain changes in individuals and organizations (Baer, 2006; Baer et al., 2004; Ford et al., 2007; Joyce & Showers, 2002; Miller, Yahne, Moyers, Martinez, & Pirritano, 2004; Walters, Vader, Nguyen, Harris, & Eells, 2010). Thus, project researchers incorporated all three of these processes into the reform training design. One innovative component of the change process involved training consultants (coaches) who continually worked with facility staff to facilitate the integration of the new skills into practice. The initial training contained eight modules presented in approximately 90-min intervals over 2 days. Modules focused on (a) learning about EBPs and communication, (b) managing offenders while supporting change, (c) gender bias, (d) listening skills, (e) communication skills, (f) understanding criminal thinking, (g) understanding behavioral change, and (h) collaboration/use of skills throughout interactions.

Data Collection and Analysis

Data collection for this project served two primary purposes. First, given the holistic reform and training approach offered by the project’s training team, qualitative researchers conducted ethnographic fieldwork to gather information related to training implementation. The goal of qualitative research was not evaluative, but to provide feedback to the training team regarding practices and interactions within the facility. Trainers used this information to frame and reframe coaching and booster sessions. Each data collection visit by qualitative researchers lasted between 4 and 8 hr, resulting in approximately 201 total hours in the field.

Fieldwork consisted of observations of the behaviors of and interactions between COs, supervisors, case managers, and inmates, as well as informal semistructured interviews with COs and supervisors (n = 39 officers of whom 37 were observed, representing, approximately, 65% of all CO staff working in this institution). Fieldwork occurred on all three shifts (7:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m., 3:00 p.m.-11:00 p.m., and 11:00 p.m.-7:00 a.m.), sometimes overlapping to get the clearest picture of what a working day at the facility consists of (shift changes, night shift, etc.). Researchers observed and interviewed staff members as they carried out their daily responsibilities and duties. They spent time with COs and supervisors in their offices, at stationary posts, during rounds, and other activities (e.g., mealtime, mail delivery). Researchers made a strong effort to observe and speak to each officer at least once, with most COs observed/interviewed multiple times. The time spent with each officer ranged from 30 min to 3 hr.

One major focus of observations was on interactions between staff and inmates and staff and staff. To capture important dynamics, we coded interactions (lasting 5+ min) as distinct interactional episodes (n = 69). Nineteen interactional episodes observed possessed missing data and were not included in our typology.³ Our analysis uses 50 distinct interactional episodes—any instance in which a conversation occurred between a CO or COs and inmate(s).⁴

Table 1 provides summary statistics for studied staff members. Forty-nine percent of staff members were male, while 51% were female. Thirty percent were supervisory COs, while the majority of the sample were nonsupervisory COs (70%). Of supervisors, five were female while six were male. Job tenure ranged from 1 to more than 20 years (average 10 years).

Table 1.

Summary Statistics for COs (n = 37).

Social identity variables	Frequency	Percentage
Gender
Male	18	49
Female	19	51
Race
White	1	2.7
Black	35	94.6
Other	1	2.7
Age
18-24	6	21.4
25-34	4	14.3
35-44	13	46.4
45-54	5	17.9
Position/rank
CO	26	70
Supervisor	11	30
Job tenure
0-5	7	29
6-10	5	21
11-15	5	21
16-20	6	25
21-25	1	4

Note. CO = correctional officer.

While in the field, researchers did not take notes or record conversations with staff. As is established practice in ethnographic research (Emerson, 2001; Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 1995; Morrill, 1995), researchers typed detailed field notes as soon as possible after leaving the facility to provide thorough and accurate account of observations and interviews. This process maintains the integrity of conversation and ensures informants are as comfortable as possible (Emerson, 2001). In the few instances where informants provided useful and interesting quotes, researchers excused themselves (for privacy) to record quotes on a small piece of paper kept in their pocket.

Throughout data collection and analysis processes, researchers relied on a constant comparative method (Glaser & Straus, 1967) to reflect on time spent in the field and knowledge of previous research and to guide future observations and interviews. After typing field notes, researchers linked the files to Atlas.ti, for coding and analysis (Muhr, 1991). Researchers first used a line-by-line coding strategy (Charmaz, 1995). Initial codes for this study focused on times, places, people, and events. After completing line-by-line coding, researchers coded again, focusing on emergent themes and determining if/how new data fit in with existing codes.

Analysis focuses on interactions between COs and inmates, as this was the focus of the EBP reform in the facility. We examined the data by coding for all possible information surrounding the interactions (e.g., gender, age, tenure, education, position/rank; Lofland, Snow, Anderson, & Lofland, 2006). When this was complete, we queried the data to look for emergent patterns. This process made clear among many factors, that gender, CO rank/position, and age play important roles in shaping EBP adherence. In addition, we found CO and inmate interactions took on three distinct forms: resolving, confronting, and placating and primarily focused on a triad of conversational topics including orders/procedures, requests/complaints, and small talk/private conversations. In the “Findings” section that follows, we present data suggesting that gender, rank/position, and age influence how COs adhere to changing workplace reform practices.

Findings

The findings address two subquestions related to the overall research question. The first question is “To what extent does the desired, reform-based interactional approach between staff and inmates occur?” This question is part of the original study design and was part of the information relayed to trainers. The second question is “Under what conditions are COs most likely to align their interactional behavior with inmates with the reform goals?” This question developed during data coding and analytic reflection. We thread the answers to these questions through a series of sections on each focal area of interactional episodes: form, content, and conditions under which a particular type of behavior is most likely.

Typology of Primary CO Interactional Behavioral Forms

As a mechanism for understanding CO perceptions of inmates and adherence to reform ideologies, we present our data on COs and inmate interactions using a typology composed of three primary interactional forms. These include CO–inmate interactions where COs engage in (a) resolving (trying to solve a problem), (b) confronting (challenging or threatening), or (c) placating (pacifying or appeasing) behaviors. Although these CO interactional forms are not mutually exclusive, we used the most prevalent interactional type to classify each interaction.

First, roughly 30% of interactional episodes involved resolving behaviors that directly support the key principles of the reform. These involve COs actively listening, responding to, and interacting with inmates in a friendly and helpful manner. For example, when one inmate complained about being strip-searched many times, one CO listened attentively and then smiled as he explained it was all a part of the process.

Second, we also found confronting interactions in 44% of the interactional episodes. These behaviors directly contradict the reform agenda by involving nonresolving actions such as challenging or scolding inmates. One example of confrontational interactions occurred when an inmate told several COs that he had been sick and was not sure he could work that day. After complaining that he had “doo doo’d” on himself and the food was making him ill, the COs responded to the inmate by laughing in his face and commenting that the inmate was “slow.”

Third, our data revealed placating CO behaviors in 26% of the interactional episodes. This behavioral form falls between confronting and resolving interactions. Placating COs often listened or answered inmates after a delay or solely provided a “yes” or “no” answer to a question without follow-up. Placating interactions are a step above confronting but are not quite at the level of resolving interactions and thus do not wholly align with the reform.

Content of CO Interactional Episodes

Next, we expanded the analysis of the form (typological classification) and added analysis of the interactional episode content. The three most common content types include (a) orders or procedures (COs giving an inmate an order or interactions during a facility procedure), (b) small talk/private conversations, or (c) questions/requests (involves inmates asking questions/requesting something from COs). Results suggest COs most often respond to small talk/private conversations and inmate questions/requests in an equally confronting and resolving manner, whereas orders/procedures (which are more indicative of the everyday roles and responsibilities of COs) are more likely handled in a confronting manner. In one example, a CO purposefully made inmates arriving at Post 1 at 1:30 a.m. wait 20 min for urinalysis testing. He stated, “I’m going to take my time and make them wait.” This especially upset one inmate who complained to the CO that he was “sleepy.”

Small talk and private conversations received equal confronting or resolving responses (40% each). When small talk/private conversations were resolving, they involved COs listening and speaking calmly to inmates, bonding over sports events or even providing words of support and motivation. In one example of this, a smiling CO Savannah⁵ made direct eye contact with an inmate and said, “Have confidence [and] believe you can do it.”

When small talk or private conversation was confronting, COs’ mostly ignored or rejected inmates who tried to chat. For example, when one inmate asked the Lieutenant on duty how she was doing, she replied, “Too late for that,” implying she was already in a bad mood. In another instance, an inmate tried to engage in small talk with CO Snik who told him to “Shut up.” After the inmate left, Snik stated, “That’s how you know when they need a job . . . when they bother and need attention.”

COs also handled inmate questions and requests in an equally confronting or resolving manner (36% each). Common inmate requests included asking for property, meals, or yard time. In half of these observed interactional episodes, COs were helpful and took time answering questions or fulfilling requests. A supportive, resolving response is different from the confronting response that some COs gave to inmate questions and requests. For example, when one inmate accidently locked himself out of his room, he asked several COs for assistance with no luck for more than 20 min. Finally, one CO asked another CO to unlock the inmate’s door. He replied that he had something else to do. In another example, inmate Tony asked CO Lehigh for a scraper (tool for cleaning). Lehigh did not look at Tony or acknowledge his request. He ignored him and continued talking to the researcher. When Tony asked CO Anno for a scraper again, Anno ignored him and said to the researcher rhetorically, “Tell this knucklehead Tony to wait.” Tony fired back saying, “Tell this shithead . . .”

CO Social Identities (Gender, Age, Position/Rank) and Adherence to Reform

Using our typology to represent one behavior that aligns with reform goals (resolving) and two that do not (confronting and placating), we examined each interactional episode according to form and content through different factors, including gender, age, and position/rank.⁶ This analysis is informative regarding the conditions under which COs are most likely to align interactions with reform goals (resolving behaviors).

Gender

With regard to the relationship between CO social identities and perceptions of and behaviors toward inmates, our results show gender as an important variable. Specifically, we find male and female COs act and react differently toward inmates. We find male COs more likely employ resolving (36%) and placating techniques (33%) while female COs most likely use confrontational techniques (63%). Figure 1 provides an overview of these findings.

Figure 1.

CO–inmate interactions by CO gender.

The following representative field note excerpts highlight this finding. The first excerpt depicts a male CO using a resolving strategy, while the second depicts a female CO using a confrontational strategy in similar situations:

Example 1: Lehigh [the male CO] said he liked to walk around and deliver the mail in person . . . One inmate approached Lehigh and began speaking to him about an earlier event. Lehigh hung his head and looked down at the floor as he listened to the inmate eventually looking up at the inmate as he spoke to him in a soft-spoken way.

Example 2: Fingwave quickly distributed the mail. She did not make conversation and did not respond to inmates who thanked her for giving them their mail . . . one inmate asked Fingwave if he could speak with Lemon [another CO] . . . Fingwave said no and held up her hand to motion him to stop coming forward. The inmate stopped, but still made his case. Fingwave ordered the inmate to leave Post 1 immediately.

As illustrated in the above examples, the first male CO went out of his way to hand-deliver mail to inmates. This differs from the female CO who distributed the mail quickly and without engaging in any conversation with inmates, despite inmate requests.

The finding that male COs are more often resolving and placating while female COs are more often confronting warranted further analysis. Despite the fact that the interactional episodes involved 18 unique males and 19 unique females, there were more male interactions (n = 33) as opposed to female interactions (n = 24) observed in this study. As such, we present interactional episodes as a proportion of the total interactions for each gender (Figure 1). When examining the data in this way, we see that females use confronting strategies in observed interactions more frequently (63% of the time), compared with the use of resolving and placating strategies (used, approximately, 21% and 18%, respectively.) For males, the pattern was different. Resolving strategies occur more frequently in observed interactions (36%) while placating was the second most used technique in interacting with inmates (33%). Finally, males use confronting techniques least often (30%). The following representative example from field notes highlights the finding that females overwhelmingly communicate confrontationally. When one inmate said he was “Tired of being strip searched . . . they are going to have to start paying me to be strip searched,” a female CO, Lloyd, responded, “The only thing someone will pay you for is to shut your mouth.”

In a similar situation, interactions between a male CO and an inmate differed. After returning from work, an inmate asked a male CO, Heathrow, “Where my dinner?” Heathrow responded politely and told him to hold on because he was multitasking to complete a previous task/request. When that task was completed (roughly 5 min later), he gave the inmate his meal. Even though this CO did not immediately grant the inmate’s request, he explained his rationale in a polite and calm manner and then responded.

Gender and position/rank

In line with prior work examining the role of managers/supervisors in reform implementation, we also considered behavioral variations among COs in a supervisory position (e.g., Lieutenant, Sergeant, Captain) versus COs in a nonsupervisory, line-level position (e.g., COs). This analysis revealed that during observed interactions, supervisory COs use confronting techniques most often (44%), but use resolving techniques almost as frequently (39%). Figure 2 presents an overview of these findings. The previous examples that depicted different methods of handling mail delivery highlight this finding by suggesting supervisors engage in both resolving and confronting techniques. Supervisors frequently handle inmate questions or requests. In another example, an inmate requested something. Supervisor Leather playfully responded by pushing the top half of the door toward the inmate as if to close the door in front of the inmate’s face. Leather then told the inmate, “I don’t have time for your buffoonery.” In another example, Supervisor Rend responded in a confrontational manner toward an inmate patiently waiting to be strip-searched. In this scenario, the inmate returned from work and waited more than 10 min. When Supervisor Rend approached the inmate, she immediately questioned him sternly and loudly (rude/harsh tone) about why he was sitting on the stairs. The inmate softly noted he was waiting to be strip-searched. Rend whipped her body around and ordered another CO to strip search him. She then turned back to the inmate and told him that he could not sit, he needed to stand up and wait.

Figure 2.

CO–inmate interactions by CO gender and position/rank.

The above representative examples depict supervisory COs as more confrontational when dealing with inmate requests/questions or orders/procedural issues. However, analysis also suggests that supervisors interact in a more resolving way when engaging in small talk with inmates. In one example, an inmate returned several garbage cans and noticed Supervisor Lemon’s computer monitor showing a baseball game. Lemon told the inmate the team they both liked was down and not playing well. The inmate smiled as he bent down closely over Lemon’s shoulder to see the details on the screen. Lemon continued to discuss the team’s performance and the inmate smiled and shook his head.

Similarly, nonsupervisory COs mostly use confrontational strategies during inmate communication (44%) and use resolving strategies least (26%). It was common for nonsupervisory COs to emphasize power, often making inmates wait before communicating with them or ignoring them completely. For example,

One inmate asked CO Ether for gloves several times. CO Stone waited and then eventually pulled out some gloves from the box of gloves. The inmate asking for gloves left and reappeared. He told Ether, “If you talk to me right, I can be a nice person” . . . he returned a few seconds later and said something I could not quite hear, but Ether responded curtly, saying “Goodbye with your nasty mouth, goodbye.” She motioned with her hands and arms for the inmate to move along, shooing him away.

Later on, that same CO also responded to inmate requests by telling them, “When I am ready.” In one situation, an inmate came out of the kitchen and politely asked a CO, “May I get a pat down (required for all inmates leaving kitchen duty)?” CO Ether told him to get back in the kitchen. She said she would get to him when she was ready. CO Coral looked up from her paperwork and sharply said, “What?” The inmate walked back into the kitchen. As he walked away, Coral said, “Looking at me like I’m killing his mother.” To this, CO Ether responded annoyed, “They act like they run things.”

Next, we examined the data to see if the finding that females were more confrontational than males still played a mitigating role in determining how COs interact with inmates when considering their position/rank (Figure 2). This analysis reveals that female COs and supervisors (n = 5) engaged in more observed confrontational interactions than male COs and supervisors (n = 6). A primary difference observable after splitting the sample by position/rank is that female COs engaged in more resolving interactions compared with their male counterparts 28% (females) and 24% (males). Male supervisors engaged in overwhelmingly more resolving interactions compared with female supervisors, as no female supervisors displayed resolving strategies in any observed interactions. For example, in commissary distribution, a female supervisor yelled at an inmate to pick up his bag, saying, “I’ve been locked up 17 years; I’m tired of DOC . . . shit! Come back in five minutes” (implying that her work within the prison walls was comparable with being locked up herself).

Gender and age

We also analyzed the data to determine whether COs’ age affects inmate interactions. We broke data down into two categories: (a) COs 35 years of age and younger (36%) and (b) COs 36 years of age and older (64%). Again, because most staff were older than 36 in our sample, we present data as a proportion of total staff members in each category. This analysis revealed that both younger and older staff use confrontational strategies (approximately 47% younger and 41% of older staff) most frequently as opposed to resolving and placating strategies in observed interactions. Older staff use resolving strategies (approximately 36%) most frequently in observed interactions.

We also examined the data by gender to determine if a similar pattern occurs for males and females, considering CO age. Our findings reveal that males are again more likely to engage in resolving interactions compared with females regardless of age, but the greatest use of resolving strategies come from males aged 36 years or older (44%; Figure 3). More frequently, older male COs engage in small talk/private conversation and talk things out with inmates, explaining situations rather than shutting inmates down. One older male CO offered an inmate leftover food after sharing a private conversation with him. However, younger males are more likely to use confrontational strategies (33%). Prior excerpted examples of confrontational strategies involved younger males, such as making inmates wait to undergo urinalysis testing and ignoring an inmate’s plea for help entering his room after locking himself out.

Figure 3.

CO–inmate interactions by gender and age.

Females, regardless of age, are most likely to use confrontational strategies with inmates. Older females are slightly more likely to use confronting strategies (64%) as opposed to younger female COs (56%; Figure 3). In the following example, a 46-year-old female CO received an inmate request form. CO Lloyd immediately snapped at him, telling him that he should not be there because the facility was not open yet [and] she told him to come back. He asked when and she repeated her same response. The inmate wanted clarification on time and Lloyd responded by again repeating what she said before, “When the building is open again.” In other examples involving younger female officers, COs ignored inmates’ attempt at conversation, ignored inmates request for help, and ordered a new inmate to put his belongings away in his locker (ignoring his request for a bag).

COs in the current sample interact with inmates in a variety of ways, depending on gender, age, or nature of the interaction. Overall, females (both supervisory and nonsupervisory COs, regardless of age) engage in more observed confrontational interactions with inmates. These findings have important implications for the implementation of change processes.

Discussion

Prior research suggests that social factors such gender and age influence COs’ interactions, attitudes, and behaviors. It also suggests that female COs more often fulfill a human service orientation and use positive communication and interpersonal skills, whereas male COs express punitiveness in inmate interactions (Britton, 1997; Cullen et al., 1985; Gordon, 2006; Hemmens & Stohr, 2000; Stohr et al., 2000). In contrast, our study finds female COs, regardless of age and position/rank, regularly engage in confrontational interactions with inmates, even in an environment moving toward nonconfrontational, resolving interactional techniques.

The importance of gender in this study contradicts most prior research on females working in correctional facilities. However, it lends support to a small body of research that suggests females are more authoritative and punitive (Farkas, 2000; Jenne & Kersting, 1996). It also contributes to an ongoing question regarding what predicts COs’ behaviors and attitudes toward inmates. In prior work, Jurik (1985a) found that both male and female COs shared several beliefs about female COs including that females were more likely to be physically and mentally weak and may become too emotionally involved with inmates. These traits create a perception that females are a liability rather than asset in a work environment focused on safety and security (Jurik, 1985a). An alternative explanation for the behavior and attitudes of female COs in the current research is that they attempt to overcompensate for such stereotypic perceptions of the female gender. Thus, female COs may face pressure to respond confrontationally to defend against the potential for male violence and/or to combat perceptions of frailty or vulnerability by both inmates and their male counterparts.

COs employed within Inner City Prison also reside in the surrounding neighborhoods, alongside many of the inmates housed within the facility. This means it is common for COs to encounter released inmates in their communities while they are on probation or living/working in the community. One reasonable hypothesis might suggest that female COs in our sample may wish to emphasize their power and authority within the institution to avoid any complications or problems that may occur outside prison walls. This is an issue requiring further research to better understand how COs handle and manage working and living in the same communities as the inmates they supervise. In addition, research notes that female correctional staff share a masculinized conception of their work (Britton, 2000). This could also shape female COs behavior. Previous research cites the challenges that females and people of color face in organizations. Specifically, they face challenges to their authority more often and they are unable to use rank and social status as a defense. Rather, they must rely on official rights and rules as a key basis for their authority (Portillo, 2010, 2012).

An alternative explanation for female CO’s behavior relates to class and race. In this institution, staff demographics suggest there may be a class difference from much of the research published in the early 1980s when women entering into male dominated positions mostly regularly came to work from the middle-class backgrounds and with some higher education. The resulting mannerisms reflected middle-class culture. However, most of the COs in this study live in the similarly situated, lower socioeconomic neighborhoods as inmates. Thus, perhaps female CO behavior reflects class and what is expected in their neighborhoods. Race/cultural traditions may also play a role in the behavior of female CO in this study as most of the COs are Black.

In line with at least one prior study, Hogan et al. (2004), male COs in the current study engaged in more resolving techniques compared with females with male inmates in this study site. One explanation considers the nature of relationships between male inmates and male versus female staff. Prior research suggests males may interact differently based on ideals of mutual respect and rules of masculinity and male privilege (Connell, 1987; Lewis, 1978). Thus, male–male versus male–female relationships within the same facility may be different based on contextual influences shaping human interactions and relationships. Furthermore, some prior work suggests that when officer safety trumps other concerns (as it regularly does in prison environments), COs try to de-escalate potentially violent situations with male inmates based on their own perceptions of safety. Where male-to-male aggression seems culturally more likely in terms of physical violence, male correctional staff may work harder to avoid physical altercations with inmates through resolving techniques (Hogan et al., 2004).

Generating organizational change and adherence to new practices is a difficult process requiring criminal justice agencies to not only change their daily operations but also shift their mentality (Clawson et al., 2005; Joplin et al., 2004; Taxman & Belenko, 2011). One of the biggest challenges organizations face when implementing EBPs is altering the existing organization to support the new practice. EBP implementation within an organization depends on a variety of factors including (a) adequate training, monitoring, and support of the EBP (Fixsen, Naoom, Blasé, Freidman, & Wallace, 2002; Joyce & Showers, 2002; Proctor, 2004) and (b) commitment by key leaders and authority (Klein & Sorra, 1996). With the difficulty organizational change presents, it is important to consider gender utilization, particularly among staff with limited educational attainments. Because EBP adoption is more likely with higher educated staff (Henggeler & Lee, 2002; McCarty et al., 2007; Taxman & Belenko, 2011), training and skill development protocols may address these issues. It is also particularly interesting that supervisory COs used confronting techniques most often and female supervisory COs were not observed using resolving techniques at all. Because prior research finds leadership crucial in implementation processes (Klein & Sorra, 1996; Latessa, 2004), future initiatives should consider dedicating additional resources toward training leaders and supervisors.Training changes might include a focus on evidence that breaks some of the myths of women as the weaker sex or as resorting more quickly to communication for de-escalation. In this way, both male and female COs learn to separate fact from fiction and focus on maintaining a humane and safe environment for staff and inmates using a variety of techniques that are uncloaked by gender stereotypes.

Some limitations of the current study include data collected from only one reentry facility in one city. In addition, our sample may not be representative of COs as a whole, therefore this research should be replicated elsewhere. The case study approach limits generalizability, but provides a useful starting point for research on gendered adherence to reform implementation. In addition, we encountered some challenges with data collection. For example, one CO refused observation and interviewing and there were several instances where CO’s were not enthusiastic about being part of the research. Despite these few instances, staff members were generally open to and enthusiastic about participating. Finally, we were unable to collect data on inmates, including both demographic information and limited information regarding their characteristics during interactions with COs. This suggests a need for future research to understand how inmate characteristics and demeanor may influence the way in which inmates interact and behave toward male and female COs, which in turn could influence CO interactions and behaviors.

There is still more work needed in this area to advance understanding of how COs adhere to change processes and use their interpersonal skills on the job.The current research was innovative in that the qualitative research team worked in conjunction with the training team to provide a feedback loop to improve future trainings and booster sessions. We cannot provide conclusions regarding the effectiveness of the reform because we did not collect baseline data. In addition, we did not design data collection for evaluative purposes. However, we suggest that within the prison, gender and rank are important components of the change adherence process. This research highlights the need for additional thinking about specialized gender training. On a broader scale, there is a greater need for building a criminal justice system supportive of desistance. This involves supporting offenders, rather than focusing on individual deficits. Ultimately, the behaviors and attitudes of COs not only affect the lives of inmates but also are potentially impactful on the ultimate success of workplace reform—a costly negative outcome with a legacy of additional consequences.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the state agency that sponsored this research. All opinions are those of the authors and do not represent the opinions of this agency or any governmental agency. They would also like to thank Christopher Hild and Dr. Ajima Olgahere for their data collection efforts and Jennifer Lerch for her work on the study. Finally, thank you to Rosemary Gido (editor) and the anonymous reviewers for their thorough read and helpful suggestions.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biographies

Danielle S. Rudes, PhD, is an associate professor in the Department of Criminology, Law, and Society at George Mason University and deputy director of the Center for Advancing Correctional Excellence (ACE!). Her research areas include prisons, parole/probation and problem-solving courts, and organizational change process negotiation.

Jill Viglione, PhD, is an assistant professor of criminal justice at the University of Central Florida. Her work focus includes probation/parole and the use of mixed methods to examine transportability of evidence-based practices into workplace routine.

Faye S. Taxman, PhD, is university professor of criminology, law, and society at George Mason University and director of the Center for Correctional Excellence (ACE!). Her research interests are correctional systems/organizations and developing and testing evidence-based approaches for improving correctional outcomes. She is the founder/editor of Health & Justice.

References

Baer

J. S.

Rosengren

D. R.

Dunn

Wells

Ogle

Hartzler

(2004). An evaluation of workshop training in motivational interviewing for addiction and mental health clinicians. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 73, 99-106.

Baer

R. A.

(2006). Mindfulness-based treatment approaches: Clinician’s guide to evidence base and applications. Burlington, MA: Academic Press.

Battalino

Beutler

Shani

(1996). Large-system change initiative: Transformation inprogress at the California Department of Corrections. Public Productivity & Management Review, 20, 24-44.

Britton

(1997). Perceptions of the work environment among correctional officers: Do race and sexmatter? Criminology, 35, 85-105.

Britton

(2000). The epistemology of the gendered organization. Gender & Society, 14, 418-434.

Charmaz

(1995). The body, identity, and self. The Sociological Quarterly, 36, 657-680.

Clawson

Bogue

Joplin

(2005). Implementing evidence-based practices in corrections. Williamsburg, VA: Crime & Justice Institute, National Institute of Corrections.

Connell

R. W.

(1987). Gender and power: Society, the person, and sexual politics. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Cullen

F. T.

Link

B. G.

Wolfe

N. T.

Frank

(1985). The social dimensions of correctional officer stress. Justice Quarterly, 2(4), 505-533.

10.

Cullen

F. T.

Lutze

F. E.

Link

B. G.

Wolfe

N. T.

(1989). The correctional orientation of prison guards: Do officers support rehabilitation? Federal Probation, 53(1), 33-42.

11.

Ekland-Olson

Martin

(1988). Organizational compliance with court-ordered reform. Law & Society Review, 22, 359-384.

12.

Emerson

Fretz

R. I.

Shaw

L. L.

(1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

13.

Emerson

(2001). Contemporary field research: Perspectives and formulations. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.

14.

Farkas

M. A.

(1999). Inmate supervisory style: Does gender make a difference? Women & Criminal Justice, 10(4), 25-45.

15.

Farkas

M. A.

(2000). Inmate supervisory style. Women & Criminal Justice, 10(4), 25-45.

16.

Ferguson

(2002). Putting the “what works” research into practice. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, 472-492.

17.

Fixsen

D. L.

Naoom

S. F.

Blasé

K. B.

Freidman

R. M.

Wallace

(2002). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Tampa: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network.

18.

Ford

J. H.

Green

C. A.

Hoffman

K. A.

Wisdom

J. P.

Riley

K. J.

Bergmann

Molfenter

(2007). Process improvement needs in substance abuse treatment: Admissions walk-through results. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 33, 379-389.

19.

Glaser

Strauss

(1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

20.

Gordon

J. A.

Proulx

Grant

P. H.

(2013). Trepidation among the “keepers”: Gendered perceptions of fear and risk of victimization among corrections officers. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 245-265.

21.

Gordon

M. S.

(2006). Correctional officer control ideology: Implications for understanding a system. Criminal Justice Studies, 19, 225-239.

22.

Hemmens

Stohr

M. K.

(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), 326-349.

23.

Henderson

Young

Jainchill

Hawke

Farkas

Davis

(2007). Program use of effective drug abuse treatment practices for juvenile offenders. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 32, 279-290.

24.

Henggeler

S. W.

Lee

(2002). What happens after the innovation is identified? Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 9(2), 191-194.

25.

Hogan

N. L.

Lambert

E. G.

Hepburn

J. R.

Burton

V. S.

Jr. Cullen

F. T.

(2004). Is there a difference? Exploring male and female correctional officers’ definition of and response to conflict situations. Women & Criminal Justice, 15, 143-165.

26.

Jenne

D. L.

Kersting

R. C.

(1996). Aggression and women correctional officers in male prisons. The Prison Journal, 76, 442-460.

27.

Joplin

Bogue

Campbell

Carey

Clawson

Faust

Woodward

(2004). Using an integrated model to implement evidence-based practices in corrections. Williamsburg, VA: Crime & Justice Institute, National Institute of Corrections.

28.

Joyce

Showers

(2002). Student achievement through staff development (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

29.

Jurik

(1985a). An officer and a lady: Organizational barriers to women working as correctional officers in men’s prisons. Social Problems, 32, 375-388.

30.

Jurik

(1985b). Individual and organizational determinants of correctional officer attitudestoward inmates. Criminology, 23, 523-539.

31.

Jurik

(1988). Striking a balance: Female correctional officers, gender role stereotypes, and male prisons. Sociological Inquiry, 58, 291-305.

32.

Kissel

Katasampes

(1980). The impact of women corrections officers on the functioning of institutions housing male inmates. Journal of Offender Counseling Services and Rehabilitation, 4, 313-331.

33.

Klein

K. J.

Sorra

J. S.

(1996). The challenge of innovation implementation. Academy of Management Review, 21, 1055-1081.

34.

Langton

(2010). Women in law enforcement, 1987-2008. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

35.

Latessa

(2004). The challenge of change: Correctional programs and evidence-based practices. Criminology & Public Policy, 3, 547-560.

36.

Lawrence

Johnson

(1990). Effects of the Minnesota sentencing guidelines on probation agents. Journal of Crime & Justice, 13, 77-104.

37.

Lerch

James-Andrews

Eley

Taxman

F. S.

(2009). “Town Hall” strategies for organizational change. Federal Probation, 73(3), 2-9.

38.

Lerch

Viglione

Eley

James-Andrews

Taxman

F. S.

(2011). Organizational readiness in corrections. Federal Probation, 75, 5-10.

39.

Lewis

(1978). Emotional intimacy among men. Journal of Social Issues, 34, 109-121.

40.

Lofland

Snow

Anderson

Lofland

(2006). Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitative observation and analysis. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.

41.

Lynch

(1998). Waste managers? The new penology, crime fighting, and parole agent identity. Law & Society Review, 32, 839-870.

42.

McCarty

Gustafson

Wisdom

Ford

Choi

Molfenter

. . . Cotter

(2007). Network for the improvement of addiction treatment (NIATx): Enhancing access and retention. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 88, 138-145.

43.

McCorkle

Crank

(1996). Meet the new boss: Institutional change and loose coupling in parole and probation. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 21, 1-25.

44.

Miller

W. R.

Yahne

C. E.

Moyers

T. B.

Martinez

Pirritano

(2004). A randomized trial of methods to help clinicians learn motivational interviewing. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 1050-1062.

45.

Morrill

(1995). The executive way. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

46.

Morton

(1991). Change, challenge, and choices: Women’s role in modern corrections. Laurel, MD: American Correctional Association.

47.

Muhr

(1991). Atlas.ti—A prototype for the support of text interpretation. Qualitative Sociology, 14, 349-371.

48.

Owen

(1988). The reproduction of social control: A study of prison workers at San Quentin. New York, NY: Praeger.

49.

Paboojian

Teske

R. H. C.

Jr. (1997). Pre-service correctional officers: What do they think about treatment? Journal of Criminal Justice, 25, 425-433.

50.

Padfield

Maruna

(2006). The revolving door at the prison gate: Exploring the dramatic increase in recalls to prison. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 6, 329-352.

51.

Palumbo

Maynard-Moody

Wright

(1984). Measuring degrees of successful implementation: Achieving policy versus statutory goals. Evaluation Research, 8, 45-74.

52.

Petersilia

(2003). When prisoners come home: Parole and prisoner reentry. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

53.

Pollock

(1986). Sex and supervision: Guarding male and female inmates. New York, NY: Greenwood Press.

54.

Portillo

(2010). How race, sex, and age frame the use of authority by local government officials. Law & Social Inquiry, 35, 603-623.

55.

Portillo

(2012). The paradox of rules: Rules as resources and constraints. Administration & Society, 44, 87-108.

56.

Proctor

E. K.

(2004). Leverage points for the implementation of evidence-based practice. Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention, 4, 227-242.

57.

Pullen

(1996). Evaluation of the reasoning and rehabilitation cognitive skills development program as implemented in juvenile ISP in Colorado. Boulder, CO: Division of Criminal Justice.

58.

Rudes

D. S.

(2012a). Framing organizational reform: Misalignments and disputes among parole and union middle managers. Law & Policy, 34(1), 1-31.

59.

Rudes

D. S.

(2012b). Getting technical: Parole officers’ continued use of technical violations under california’s parole reform agenda. Journal of Crime & Justice, 35(2), 249-268.

60.

Rudes

D. S.

Lerch

Taxman

F. S.

(2011). Implementing a reentry framework at a correctional facility: Challenges to the culture. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 50, 467-491.

61.

Sherman

(1998). Ideas in American policing series: Evidence-based policing. Washington, DC: Police Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.policefoundation.org/publication/evidence-based-policing/Sherman.pdf

62.

Steiner

Travis

Makarios

(2011). Understanding parole officers’ responses to sanctioning reform. Crime & Delinquency, 57, 222-246.

63.

Stohr

M. K.

Hemmens

Kifer

Schoeler

(2000). We know it, we just have to do it: Perceptions of ethical work in prisons and jails. The Prison Journal, 80, 126-150.

64.

Tait

(2011). A typology of prison officer approaches to care. European Journal of Criminoloy, 8, 440-454.

65.

Taxman

F. S.

(2008). No illusions: Offender and organizational change in Maryland’s proactive community supervision efforts. Criminology & Public Policy, 7, 275-302.

66.

Taxman

F. S.

Belenko

(2011). Implementing evidence-based practice in community corrections and addiction treatment. NewYork, NY: Springer.

67.

Taxman

F. S.

Henderson

C. E.

Belenko

(2009). Organizational context, systems change, and adopting treatment delivery systems in the criminal justice system. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 103, S1-S6.

68.

Taxman

F. S.

Shepardson

Byrne

J. M.

(2004). Tools of the trade: A guide to incorporating science into practice. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.

69.

Toch

Klofas

(1982). Alienation and desire for job enrichment among correctional officers. Federal Probation, 46, 35-44.

70.

Trammell

Raby

Anderson

Hampton

Stickney

(2014). Maintaining order and following the rules: Gender differences in punishing inmate misconduct. Deviant Behavior, 35, 804-821.

71.

U.S. Department of Labor. (2009). Unemployment rates for metropolitan areas. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/web/laummtrk.htm

72.

Viglione

Rudes

D. S.

Taxman

F. S.

(2015). Misalignment in supervision: Implementation of risk/needs instruments in probation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42, 263-285.

73.

Walters

S. T.

Vader

A. M.

Nguyen

Harris

T. R.

Eells

(2010). Motivational interviewing as a supervision strategy in probation: A randomized effectiveness trial. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 49, 309-323.

74.

Whitehead

J. T.

Lindquist

C. A.

(1989). Determinants of correctional officers’ professional orientation. Justice Quarterly, 6(1), 69-87.

75.

Zimmer

(1986). Women guarding men. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

76.

Zimmer

(1987). How women reshape the prison guard role. Gender & Society, 1, 415-431.