Attitudes Toward Punishment,Organizational Commitment,and Cynicism: A Multilevel Analysis of Staff Responses in a Juvenile Justice Agency

Abstract

Staff commitment to agency goals is important in juvenile justice settings, where the mission oscillates between the often-competing goals of rehabilitating youth and punishing them. Although prior research considers how staff characteristics relate to commitment to, and/or cynicism about, criminal justice organizations, less work examines these relationships in juvenile justice settings, and even less examines the effects of staff attitudes toward punishment. The current study assesses the influence of rehabilitative and punitive attitudes on organizational commitment and cynicism in a juvenile justice agency (n = 204). Multilevel analyses evaluating staff members within organizational units reveal that staff holding more traditional (punitive) attitudes are significantly and positively associated with cynicism, whereas staff holding rehabilitative values demonstrate greater commitment to the agency. Findings suggest attitudes toward punishment play an important role in staff commitment to, and cynicism about, justice organizations, which may affect workers’ adherence to organizational policies and goals.

Keywords

attitudes toward punishment organizations juvenile justice commitment cynicism

Staff organizational commitment is an essential component to achieving desired goals in any organization. More committed staff typically adhere more closely to the agency mission, resulting in a greater likelihood of implementing policies and practices as intended (Taxman & Belenko, 2011). As such, criminal justice staff commitment to achieving public safety and dispensing justice are paramount for agencies striving to achieve the same. This is especially true in juvenile justice settings, where a primary aim is to reach at-risk youth and intervene before they become more deeply embedded in criminal lifestyles (Cullen & Jonson, 2012). Although the juvenile justice system historically oscillates between rehabilitation and punishment goals, rehabilitation and the “child-saving” mission are again emerging as the prevailing objectives (Zimring, 2000). To this end, many juvenile justice agencies are adopting and using rehabilitation-oriented evidence-based practices (EBPs) and policies to improve both agency processes and outcomes.

The structure and functioning of organizations likely affect the implementation of EBPs and achievement of agency goals. In particular, two contrasting aspects of organizational functioning—commitment and cynicism—may facilitate or impede an agency’s goals. However, little scholarship examines how staff attitudes toward punishment intersect with these constructs. Research suggests that commitment to the rehabilitation-oriented goals underlying EBPs influences their use (Farrell, Young, & Taxman, 2011). Their effectiveness may very well depend on staff members’ commitment to or, by contrast, cynicism about the types of EBPs and their associated goals. Staff may be encouraged to use these practices in pursuit of the agency’s rehabilitation-oriented goals; however, even practices intended to improve outcomes may contribute to cynicism or lack of commitment if staff have different aims. For example, justice workers committed to primarily punitive approaches such as “zero tolerance” or “incarceration first” may encourage their own desired outcomes, regardless of the agency’s goals, even if their own aims are ineffective or potentially detrimental to clients and public safety (Nagin, Cullen, & Jonson, 2009). When mismatches occur on either end of the rehabilitation–punishment spectrum, employee cynicism about agency goals may result in conflict (Stazyk, Pandey, & Wright, 2011).

Prior research on criminal justice workers considers the impact of organizational features on staff members’ commitment to and cynicism about the agency, such as input in decision making (Minor, Wells, Lambert, & Keller, 2014), burnout and job satisfaction (White, Aalsma, Holloway, Adams, & Salyers, 2015), and role alignment (Bolin & Applegate, 2016). However, extant research rarely considers the relationship between organizational commitment and cynicism in conjunction with juvenile staff attitudes toward punishment. The current study examines this relationship while accounting for variations in office location within a single juvenile justice agency. Considering these relationships among juvenile justice workers may provide opportunities for aligning staff views with agency goals and mission, thus improving service delivery and youth outcomes.

Literature Review

The juvenile justice system is no stranger to policy shifts, sometimes dramatic, in efforts to solve the problem of juvenile delinquency. In response to soaring crime rates during the 1980s and early 1990s, lawmakers in the United States enacted numerous “get tough” policies. Like their adult counterparts, juvenile courts shifted toward more punitive responses, expanding legislation to more easily prosecute juveniles as adults including lifting age restrictions and increasing petitions to waive cases to adult courts (Hockenberry & Puzzanchera, 2018; Kupchik, 2006). However, at the turn of the century, rehabilitation once again became the prevailing focus for juvenile justice agencies. Between 2000 and 2015, total arrests for juvenile crime declined by 57% (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2017). As youth crime rates and arrests decreased, courts increasingly relied on alternatives to detention, resulting in a 44% decline in the number of delinquency cases involving detention between 2005 and 2015 (Hockenberry & Puzzanchera, 2018). As of 2015, 49% of the nearly 602,000 delinquency cases resulted in probation as the most severe sanction (Hockenberry & Puzzanchera, 2018; Sickmund, Sladky, & Kang, 2018). With U.S. juvenile courts focusing on alternatives to incarceration and a renewed emphasis on rehabilitative efforts within agencies, the attitudes and actions of juvenile justice staff become important mechanisms of implementing such practices.

Criminal Justice Workers’ Attitudes Toward Punishment

The two primary attitudes about punishment contrast traditional, disciplinary punishment with rehabilitative ideals. The first orientation follows a law enforcement ideology, emphasizing the power of the legal system to deter criminal behavior and ensure offender compliance (Schwalbe & Maschi, 2009; Skeem, Louden, Polaschek, & Camp, 2007). Traditional attitudes tend to be more punitive and retributive in nature, highlighting rule enforcement via close monitoring and sanctions, such as detention. However, rehabilitative beliefs focus on the power of reform. Today, justice workers demonstrate this ideal by using EBPs, which aim to increase the influence of protective factors while reducing the effects of risk factors. For example, workers may focus on substance abuse, family functioning, or mental health treatment, providing access to community resources to reshape behavior (Andrews & Bonta, 2010; Lipsey, 2009).

Prior research commonly distinguishes between staff working inside correctional facilities (detention, in the case of juveniles) and those working in the community (probation or parole). Just as officer orientation may affect staff relationships with clients, offender population and staff caseload may also affect attitudes toward punishment (Farkas, 1999). In a survey of adult Canadian correctional workers (line staff in prisons vs. probation officers, managers, administration, etc.), Larivière (2002) shows that correctional officers working directly with prison inmates have more negative and punitive attitudes toward offenders compared with probation and parole officers. Prior literature generally indicates less emphasis on punishment and more emphasis on rehabilitation (and especially using EBPs) among adult probation officers, compared with staff working in prisons (Andrews & Bonta, 2010; Viglione, 2016; Young, Antonio, & Wingeard, 2009).

Research suggests that institutional and community corrections workers in both juvenile and adult settings experience tension between these competing ideologies, and many staff ultimately support a mixture of rehabilitative and punitive strategies depending on the circumstances (Bazemore & Dicker, 1994; Blevins, Cullen, & Sundt, 2007; Bolin & Applegate, 2016; Cullen, Latessa, Burton, & Lombardo, 1993; Cullen, Lutze, Link, & Wolfe, 1989; Farkas, 1999; Sluder & Reddington, 1993). For example, Cullen and colleagues (1989) point out the dichotomy between prison officers’ sentiments that treatment is as important as punishment, while agreeing that prisons are too soft on inmates. Sluder, Shearer, and Potts (1991) find a similar dichotomy among probation officers who felt their goal should be to change offender behavior through a helping relationship, while agreeing that their job is to control, regulate, and document. Despite often grappling with the types of attitudes most appropriate for their work, workers’ actions typically demonstrate a preference for one orientation or the other. Although substantial research exists on correctional staff attitudes in both institutions and the community, much of this focuses on adult staff, and generalizations to juvenile justice workers are difficult to make. Still, studies comparing juvenile corrections staff with their adult counterparts find both groups share an ideological tension between punitive and rehabilitative orientations. In this work, staff frequently express significant support for treatment and services for youth, and simultaneously emphasize the importance of punishment and control (Bazemore & Dicker, 1994; Blevins et al., 2007; Bolin & Applegate, 2016; Schwalbe & Maschi, 2009; Shearer, 2002; Sluder & Reddington, 1993).

Some differences appear in staff orientations toward work, however, underscoring the need for the current study. For example, Shearer (2002) observe that juvenile probation trainees scored significantly lower than their adult counterparts did on law enforcement work ideologies, despite similar scores on casework and resource brokering ideologies. Similarly, Sluder and Reddington (1993) reveal differences in their analysis of 193 juvenile and adult probation trainees, noting that juvenile officers scored significantly higher on casework scales than the adult officers did, again without differences in casework and resource brokering perspectives. More recently, Bolin and Applegate (2016) surveyed 347 juvenile and adult probation and parole officers, finding that juvenile officers more likely championed rehabilitative ideals than did their adult counterparts.

Organizational Factors: Commitment and Cynicism

Employee commitment and cynicism represent two important factors related to organizational outcomes. Research increasingly focuses on staff commitment to organizations, given its relationship with adherence to agency goals (Stazyk et al., 2011). Organizational commitment refers to the strength of an individual’s bond or identification with an organization (Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982). Committed employees experience less role conflict/ambiguity, and demonstrate a greater acceptance of the goals and values of the organization (Stazyk et al., 2011; Vickovic & Griffin, 2014). Moreover, commitment to an organization influences an employee’s job performance, absenteeism, and tenure/longevity with the organization (Vickovic & Griffin, 2014). For instance, in Matz, Wells, Minor, and Angel’s (2013) study of juvenile detention workers, staff with greater commitment and job satisfaction were less likely to express intent to leave their jobs.

A limited body of work examines the influence of staff attitudes toward punishment on commitment to the organization. In one study, Lambert, Hogan, Barton, Jiang, and Baker (2008) studied these traits among correctional officers in adult prisons, finding that rehabilitation-oriented officers were more committed to the organization and punishment-oriented officers were less committed. In a subsequent study of staff in a high-security prison in the Midwest, Lambert, Hogan, Barton, and Elechi (2009) demonstrated that organizational commitment and job involvement significantly predicted alignment with rehabilitative ideals.

Staff cynicism is a growing, but understudied, area within criminal justice organizations. Cynicism emerges when workers develop both a pessimism and skepticism toward an organization’s ability to change (DeCelles, Tesluk, & Taxman, 2013). Cynicism refers to the belief that problems exist within the organization and organizational failures will prevent solutions (Tesluk, Farr, Mathieu, & Vance, 1995). This disbelief in the ability of the organization to solve problems may exist due to irreconcilable differences between employee and agency goals, a common origin of cynicism. Importantly, organizational cynicism exists as both an “employee’s attitude and an organizational climate,” suggesting researchers should consider individual-level cynicism while also accounting for perceptions of organizational climate (DeCelles et al., 2013, p. 154).

Cynicism is critically important to justice organizations because cynical staff are more likely to exhibit rule-breaking behavior (or simply not follow agency directives) and experience burnout and turnover (Griffin, Hogan, Lambert, Tucker-Gail, & Baker, 2010). Because cynicism varies among workers, even in similar institutions such as adult prisons, it is not enough to work at the organizational level to improve it. Regoli, Poole, and Shrink (1979) speculated that cynicism may connect to one’s specific job duties because it varies among staff within the same institution. Moreover, many factors affect cynicism. For example, in treatment-focused institutions, adult prison staff exhibit high cynicism, suggesting that it is a defense mechanism against the competing orientations of rehabilitation and punishment (Farmer, 1977; Rudes, Lerch, & Taxman, 2011; Ulmer, 1992).

Research on cynicism among staff in juvenile justice agencies focuses mostly on probation officers and shows that it emerges from a variety of places. Notably, cynicism largely arose among juvenile probation officers in one study due to frustrations about role conflict, not negative feelings about the youth with whom they worked (Curtis, Reese, & Cone, 1990). However, more than two decades later, a study revealed that juvenile probation officers who were more cynical about the organization also exhibited stigma toward clients (White et al., 2015). In the same study, White and colleagues (2015) found that cynicism and stigma changed the way officers provided services. Thus, cynicism is important for organizations to study whether they want officers to follow specific directives, such as using EBPs.

The Current Study

Prior literature reveals gaps in understanding how juvenile justice workers’ attitudes about punishment and rehabilitation influence their commitment to, and/or cynicism about, the agency. As important, past research tends to compare community versus institutional corrections workers, overlooking important variation within juvenile corrections agencies, where workers’ jobs often reach beyond the confines of the settings where they work. Current trends in juvenile institutional and community corrections suggest workers are more alike than different (Huebner, 2013; Lipsey, Howell, Kelly, Chapman, & Carver, 2010). Understanding the relationships between staff attitudes toward punishment, commitment, and cynicism may provide agencies with important information for improving the work environment and increasing the likelihood that workers meet agency goals. This study aims to answer the following research questions:

Research Question 1: What individual staff member characteristics relate to attitudes toward punishment?

Research Question 2: Are staff attitudes toward punishment related to organizational commitment and/or cynicism, after controlling for organizational factors?

Method

Data and Sample

Data for this study come from an organizational survey conducted among employees working in a large county juvenile justice agency in a mid-Atlantic state. The agency provides pretrial services, child welfare services, probation, detention, and rehabilitative programming, and includes 16 staff offices, each serving one or more of the above functions in a different location in the county. Staff in each office receive similar or the same training and professional development resources, often participating in agency-wide trainings for multiple offices at once. The organization aims to use evidence-based and evidence-informed practices¹ across all offices and to understand and improve working environments in the agency. As part of the effort to understand and assess EBP implementation and organizational culture, agency administrators enlisted researchers to conduct a survey.

The agency’s offices vary across their climates, cultures, clientele served, and geographic locations within the large suburban county. Although prior research distinguishes between juvenile and adult correctional workers by their work environment—community or institutions—those distinctions may mask the microlevel variation among employees and the cohesive mission within this juvenile justice agency. For instance, this agency titles its juvenile detention workers “youth counselors.” These staff undergo extensive training in EBPs such as trauma-informed care and motivational interviewing techniques. Similarly, staff in the pretrial services unit have job descriptions similar to traditional community probation officers. Thus, similar to model agencies such as the Missouri model (see Huebner, 2013), institutional and community staff in this agency are more alike than different. For this reason, we examine our data by type of staff and within the agency as a whole.

Beginning in October 2014, researchers visited each unit in the agency to administer an organizational survey to all 320 employees. Researchers coordinated with unit supervisors to determine the most opportune time to administer the survey to capture as many staff as possible. Most often, this involved attending a staff meeting, at the end of which researchers presented the study, reviewed the survey protocol and consent procedures, and obtained consent. The organizational survey contained numerous scales measuring dimensions such as client engagement, working with judges, organizational measures, and demographic information.

In total, 233 employees completed a survey (response rate = 73%).² However, of these employees, 17 are nonmerit, meaning they do not have primary employment with the agency (e.g., relief staff, interns, and select support staff) and were, therefore, excluded from the current study. List-wise deletion of missing data in the control variables resulted in a final sample size of 204 respondents.³ Table 1 presents demographic information on the study sample. Most staff are female (56.4%) and identify as White (51.9%). The average age of participants is 41.81 years (SD = 10.03 years) with an average tenure of 11.36 years (SD = 8.44 years). Nearly one third of staff reported having a master’s degree or higher (30.4%). One quarter of staff work in a detention setting (28.7%), as compared with a community-based setting (71.3%). Comparisons with agency records on staff demographics suggest the study sample is representative of the organization.

Table 1:

Summary Statistics

Variable	%	M (SD)	Range
Race
White	51.9
Non-White	48.0
Gender
Male	43.6
Female	56.4
Supervisor	20.4
Education
Bachelor’s degree or less	69.57
Master’s degree or higher	30.43
Tenure		11.36 (8.44)	0-35 years
Age		41.81 (10.03)	24-67 years
Attitudes toward punishment
Rehabilitation attitudes		4.42 (0.66)	1-5
Traditional sanctions attitudes		2.22 (0.73)	1-5
Organizational climate		3.34 (0.78)	1-5
Organizational commitment		3.57 (0.61)	1-5
Cynicism		2.43 (1.00)	1-5
Type of staff
Detention	28.7
Community	71.3
Number of participants in each office (n = 204)		13.5	6-51

Note. Percentages do not equal 100% due to rounding.

Outcome Variables

Table 1 presents the outcome variables: organizational commitment and cynicism. Organizational commitment (Cronbach’s α = .820) is a 12-item measure developed by Taxman, Young, Wiersema, Rhodes, and Mitchell (2007), and represents the degree to which staff feel committed to the goals of the agency. This measure uses a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) and contains questions such as, “I feel a sense of ownership for this organization rather than just being an employee.” Cynicism (Cronbach’s α = .921) is a five-item measure using a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) in which the questions are reverse worded so that a lower score reflects a more positive attitude toward the organization (Taxman et al., 2007). For example, staff ideally disagree with the statement, “I’ve pretty much given up trying to make suggestions for improvements around here.”

Predictor Variables

Table 1 also presents the primary variables of interest regarding staff attitudes toward punishment, as measured by two alternate viewpoints (Taxman et al., 2007). Rehabilitation attitudes (Cronbach’s α = .792) is a four-item scale reflecting the respondent’s level of agreement (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) with the belief that crime control strategies are most effective when they take a rehabilitative approach focusing on treatment, education, and individualized responses (e.g., “We should make sure that treatment provided is matched to the client’s needs”). The traditional sanctions attitudes scale contains five items indicating the respondent’s level of agreement (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) with the belief that the most effective punishment is incarceration (Cronbach’s α = .818). For example, “We should keep delinquents in detention and off the street.”

Control variables include staff demographics such as gender (male = 0, female = 1), race (White = 0, non-White = 1), and age. An indicator of tenure is also included, measuring time employed with the agency in years and months, with the mean participant tenure of 11.36 years. We include a dichotomous measure for denoting supervisor status (yes = 1, no = 0). Education reflects whether the participant has a bachelor’s degree or less (coded as 0) or a master’s degree or above (coded as 1).⁴ A measure of organizational climate (Cronbach’s α = .957) is included as a control and represents the organizational culture and function affecting job satisfaction (Taxman et al., 2007). This 20-item 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) includes questions such as, “Ideas and suggestions from employees get fair consideration by unit supervisors.”⁵ The average score was 3.57 (SD = 0.61), indicating a moderately positive climate.

Grouping Variable

Given the nested nature of the data and our research questions about the influences of office setting and individual characteristics on outcomes, we rely on multilevel modeling (MLM) procedures. Staff members (Level 1) are situated within 16 offices (Level 2), representing an array of units within the juvenile justice agency that are also geographically dispersed across the county. Controlling for staff members’ work locations accounts for office-level differences, which might explain variation in the outcomes of interest. In the same way that past scholarly work distinguishes between institutional and community officers, we control for type of staff (community = 0, detention = 1) at Level 2 as an attribute of between-office differences. Because the traditional view of institutional versus community roles in this agency is restricting, however, we instead control for the differences between offices (geographic location and type of work performed) because all the offices work together to contribute to the same agency mission. This approach provides a more holistic view of the factors that predict cynicism and organizational commitment in this juvenile justice agency.

Analytic Strategy

We first conducted bivariate analyses, including t tests, chi-square, and correlation tests, to understand group differences and associations on key variables. We then employed MLM for the multivariate analysis using hierarchical linear model(ing) 7.02 (Raudenbush, Bryk, Cheong, Congdon, & du Toit, 2011). Accounting for the hierarchical structure of data isolates nuanced patterns not captured by other multivariate methods (Gelman & Hill, 2007). Respondents were spread across the 16 staff offices, ranging from six to 51 participants per office. This range and the moderate participant size ensure adequate variation within offices, reducing the risk of biased standard error estimates at the office level (Maas & Hox, 2005). Significant unconditional models for both dependent variables organizational commitment (p < .001) and cynicism (p < .001) validate MLM and affirm the random intercept of the resulting models (Woltman, Feldstain, MacKay, & Rocchi, 2012). All continuous independent variables were grand-mean centered, allowing us to make predictions about the outcomes (Enders & Tofighi, 2007).

Results

Descriptive Analysis

A series of bivariate tests reveals important group differences and associations among our variables of interest. Participants reported an average organizational commitment score of 3.57 (SD = 0.61), indicating moderately positive commitment to the agency. Supervisors reported significantly higher commitment than nonsupervisors did (t = −4.45, p < .001). Furthermore, older (r = .28, p < .001) and more tenured (r = .25, p < .001) participants also scored higher on commitment to the organization. Higher scores on commitment also associate with higher scores on organizational climate (r = .58, p < .001), rehabilitation attitudes (r = .20 p < .001), and lower on traditional sanctions attitudes (r = −.161, p < .001). There were no differences in commitment based on race, education, gender, or working in a detention setting.

The average perceived cynicism score in the organization was 2.43 (SD = 1.00), indicating a low to moderate level of cynicism. Non-Whites reported significantly higher cynicism than Whites did (t = 3.65, p < .001), as did line staff compared with supervisors (t = 4.48, p < .001) and those working in a detention setting (t = 3.69, p < .001). Younger participants were more cynical (r = −.13, p = .050). Higher scores on cynicism were significantly associated with higher scores on traditional sanctions attitudes (r = .24, p < .001) and lower scores on climate (r = −.73, p < .001). There were no differences in cynicism based on education, gender, or tenure.

The average rehabilitation attitudes score was 4.42 (SD = 0.66), reflecting high levels of support for rehabilitation. We observed no statistically significant differences or associations among our controls and rehabilitation attitudes. The average traditional sanctions score was 2.22 (SD = 0.73), indicating low support for incarceration. Men scored significantly higher on traditional sanctions attitudes than women (t = 3.53, p < .001), as did non-Whites compared with Whites (t = 2.88, p = .004) and those with a bachelor’s degree or less compared with those with a master’s degree or higher (t = 2.74, p = .009). Line staff scored significantly higher on traditional sanctions than supervisors (t = 2.08, p = .039). Staff working in a detention setting reported higher scores on traditional sanctions than community staff (t = 5.50, p < .001). There were no associations between traditional sanctions attitudes and age or tenure.

Prior to conducting multilevel analyses, we also tested for multicollinearity by evaluating variance inflation factors (VIF; Gelman & Hill, 2007). A model regressing the independent variables on rehabilitation attitudes showed multicollinearity is not a concern (largest VIF = 3.26 and lowest tolerance = 0.41). A model regressing the independent variables on traditional sanctions attitudes also suggests no issues with multicollinearity (largest VIF = 3.26 and lowest tolerance = 0.31).

Multilevel Analyses

To assess the impact of working in different offices across the agency on commitment and cynicism toward the organization, we employ two multilevel models. This analytic strategy allows us to control for between- and within-office effects on the outcome variables. Table 2 shows the fit of these models. Our models account for 11.9% and 13.1% of the total variation in organizational commitment and cynicism, respectively. Between-office differences account less than 20% of variation in the outcomes, meaning that most variation in our models occurs within offices.

Table 2:

Model Justification and Fit

Model	χ² p value for unconditional models	Intraclass correlations	Proportional reduction of error	Total effect on variation
1. Organizational commitment	p < .001	15.7%	75.4%	11.9%
2. Cynicism	p < .001	18.3%	71.5%	13.1%

We present two multilevel models to evaluate the relationship between our predictors and organizational commitment (Model 1) and cynicism (Model 2), shown in Table 3. We first consider the influence of type of staff at Level 2 on the dependent variables. We found no significant impact of this Level 2 attribute on either organizational commitment or cynicism. We then examined Level 1 individual-level variables. An individual’s attitude toward punishment (traditional or rehabilitative) significantly influenced organizational commitment and cynicism. For every 1-point increase in rehabilitation attitudes score, an individual’s organizational commitment score should increase by 0.13 units. Similarly, for every 1-point increase in traditional sanctions attitudes score, an individual’s cynicism score should increase by 0.18 points. This larger value for traditional attitudes indicates that traditional attitudes have a stronger effect on individual cynicism levels than rehabilitation views have on commitment levels.

Table 3:

Multilevel Models Predicting Associations Between Individual and Workplace Characteristics and Organizational Commitment and Cynicism

Variable	Dependent variables, β (SE)
Variable	Model 1Organizational commitment	Model 2Cynicism
Constant	3.566*** (0.125)	2.921*** (0.207)
Level 2: Offices
Type of staff	−0.132 (0.129)	−0.229 (0.215)
Level 1: Participants
White	0.037 (0.066)	−0.268** (0.091)
Gender	0.089 (0.069)	−0.112 (0.095)
Supervisor	0.039 (0.095)	−0.114 (0.131)
Tenure	0.010 (0.006)	−0.008 (0.008)
Age	0.011** (0.004)	−0.003 (0.006)
Education	0.011 (0.073)	−0.074 (0.100)
Organizational climate	0.427*** (0.045)	−0.852*** (0.062)
Rehabilitation attitudes	0.129** (0.049)	−0.038 (0.067)
Traditional attitudes	0.075 (0.048)	0.180** (0.065)
N	204	204

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Organizational climate is also a significant predictor of both organizational commitment and cynicism. For every 1-point increase in organizational climate score, an individual’s attitude toward cynicism score should decrease by 0.85, whereas organizational commitment score should increase by 0.43. A more positive organizational climate encourages stronger commitment, whereas negative climates promote cynicism. This finding suggests that an employee’s perception of the overall organizational climate significantly affects his or her level of cynicism about, and commitment to, the organization.

Discussion

The current study examines the impact of juvenile justice employees’ attitudes toward punishment on their organizational commitment and cynicism levels. Individuals who view traditional sanctions (such as incarceration) more favorably are more likely to hold a cynical view of the workplace. By contrast, individuals with higher rehabilitation attitudes are more likely to feel a sense of commitment to the organization. Our work aligns with prior research about staff attitudes and organizational factors, while also advancing the literature by applying the concepts to juvenile justice workers and accounting for organizational factors (Farrell et al., 2011; Griffin et al., 2010; Matz et al., 2013; Minor et al., 2014; White et al., 2015).

A key finding of our study relates to the magnitude of the effects of staff attitudes on organizational outcomes. We find that the effect of traditional sanctions beliefs is stronger on staff cynicism than the effect of rehabilitative beliefs is on organizational commitment. This suggests that rehabilitation-oriented agencies will suffer more negative effects from punishment-oriented employees’ cynicism than can be remedied by improving commitment. This effect may be similar to the psychological mechanism that causes individuals to remember one negative experience more prominently than a history of many positive experiences, such as in the case of one negative experience at a store or restaurant (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer, & Vohs, 2001). For juvenile justice workers, if employees are punishment oriented and cynical about agency goals, they may treat their young clients more punitively and not adhere to EBPs. More important, if the punishment orientation lasts, then agencies must develop strategies to shift the tide back toward reform and rehabilitation. Although many factors influence attitudes toward punishment, agencies have a stake in employing staff who will advance their larger goals and objectives in ways that align with the evidence.

Considering the impact of office-level differences, organizational climate significantly affects both cynicism and commitment. The more positive the climate, the less likely individuals are to hold cynical attitudes and more likely they are to express greater commitment to the agency. However, negative views toward organizational climate had the largest impact on an individual’s cynicism levels. Past work details an explicit link between organizational climate and the psychological well-being of employees, and a positive organizational climate is key to establishing a model for improving an employee’s passion for his or her work (Bahrami, Taheri, Montazeralfaraj, & Tafti, 2013; Lambert & Paoline, 2008). Although we do not model this relationship directly, positive organizational climate correlates with higher rehabilitation attitudes and lower traditional sanctions attitudes. This suggests a positive office environment may be a key ingredient influencing staff alignment or misalignment with agency goals. Future research should consider the impacts of climate, attitudes toward punishment, and adherence or commitment to the goals of the agency.

The impacts of the workspace also varied across individual characteristics. We find a positive relationship between age and organizational commitment, though no association with tenure. This finding suggests staff who are older may have more experience and be more likely to invest in the organization longitudinally. Although qualitative research could uncover why this is the case, some research suggests that baby boomers experience significantly less organizational mobility than millennials (Lyons, Schweitzer, & Ng, 2015). Future research should consider variation in age and experiential factors other than tenure to better explain this relationship.

Race also strongly predicts cynicism among staff in this agency, with Whites appearing less cynical about the organization than non-Whites. It may be that the presence of racial disparities and unequal treatment of minority juveniles fuel cynicism among minority staff. If minority workers are seeing an increasing number of non-White juveniles in the justice system, this may reinforce a cynical attitude toward the rehabilitative goals of the system and, thus, the organization overall. Other research supports the increase in cynicism among minority employees (Nunn, 2002; Petta & Walker, 1992), but this question demands additional theoretical and empirical attention. This is especially important within a context of increasing support for reducing disproportionate minority contact in juvenile justice settings (Kempf-Leonard, 2007).

Study results also present important implications for agencies as they seek to simultaneously implement EBPs and improve working conditions. As the focus in the juvenile justice system moves back toward rehabilitation and diversion practices, individual staff members’ attitudes toward punishment may play a critical role in steering implementation of the prescribed reforms. If misaligned with agency goals, these attitudes may contribute to undetected or subconscious barriers to fidelity and adherence to EBPs. For example, if a staff member feels harsh punishment is necessary for youth and believes detention is the most appropriate sanction in general, this attitude may conflict with, and potentially override, the agency’s preference for diversion programs or other rehabilitative techniques. Alternately, staff who favor rehabilitation may be more likely to buy into programs and practices supporting this orientation and more readily implement them. Although recent research examines attitudes toward EBP implementation (Viglione, 2017; Viglione, Blasko, & Taxman, 2018), the literature has yet to consider the influence of individual attitudes toward punishment on these reforms. Furthermore, preexisting attitudes may influence the way staff do their jobs because individuals form opinions about the justice system prior to employment or training. In turn, those attitudes may affect willingness to implement certain practices if they appear in opposition to one’s own orientation.

The importance of staff attitudes in this research makes agency training a critical implication. As more agencies move to adopt EBPs, they may consider developing protocols to assess staff attitudes toward punishment, and develop professional development trainings to educate staff about their own attitudes and the consequences of those attitudes for implementation. As the evidence amasses about the importance of staff relationships with justice-involved individuals, training programs could focus not only on recruiting more rehabilitation-oriented staff but also on retaining them by accounting for the influence of those attitudes on workplace satisfaction.

This study contributes to the expanding literature on organizational factors in criminal justice agencies; however, some limitations exist. First, this study uses data from one county-level juvenile justice agency, so it lacks generalizability to jurisdictions that are organized differently (e.g., statewide systems). In particular, the college education requirements of this agency may limit generalizability to other agencies who do not require staff to have postsecondary education, especially for detention workers. The relationship between the staff education levels, attitudes toward punishment, and agency goals should be explored in future research. This study is also cross sectional, so claims about causality are not possible. Future work in this area should consider surveying staff at multiple times points to develop a longitudinal frame that includes preexisting attitudes and notes how perceptions of the organization and attitudes shift over time. It is possible that staff who embrace the rehabilitative orientation of the agency at the time of hire will exhibit greater commitment and less cynicism over time. As our finding about the stronger effect of traditional attitudes than rehabilitative ones suggests, negative experiences in the organization (or with the reforms implemented) may have a lasting impact on organizational attitudes that warrants further inquiry.

It is also likely that other individual-level factors explain staff commitment, cynicism, and attitudes toward punishment, such as victimization experiences, being a parent, compensation and benefits, training, and disciplinary action. Future studies should examine how such factors relate to organizational perceptions. Similarly, we only include organizational climate as a contextual factor helping to explain the outcome, but it may be that culture, morale, or other organizational perceptions influence attitudes. Finally, the current study reveals that individual characteristics explain the most variation in attitudes. Future work could include additional predictors at the office level to provide further insight into shaping individuals’ attitudes agency wide.

The current study contributes to the growing literature focused on understanding the influence of individual and workplace factors on important organizational outcomes such as commitment. These organizational factors are also integral to the successful adoption, implementation, and fidelity of EBPs aimed at reducing recidivism and improving outcomes. This is especially important in the juvenile justice system, where preventing youth from continuing into adult offending is paramount. Staff who hold more rehabilitative attitudes may be better suited for this work because they are more committed to the organization and, thus, potentially more committed to the rehabilitative aims of the juvenile justice system.

Footnotes

Appendix

Response items for each scale used in the analyses are presented here with reliabilities in parentheses.

Authors’ Note:

The authors wish to thank the anonymous reviewers for suggestions on a previous draft of this article. This research was supported by funding provided by the study organization. The organization’s identity remains confidential to protect the privacy of the participants.

Notes

ORCID iDs

Jared R. Dmello

Kimberly S. Meyer

Kimberly R. Kras, PhD, is an assistant professor in School of Criminology and Justice Studies at the University of Massachusetts Lowell. Her work centers on the study of community corrections, reentry, and desistance from offending behavior, and utilizes both quantitative and qualitative methodologies. Her work has been published in Criminology and Public Policy, the Journal of Criminal Justice, and the Journal of Drug Issues.

Jared R. Dmello, MA, is a doctoral candidate in the School of Criminology and Justice Studies at the University of Massachusetts Lowell and a research associate at the Center for Criminal Justice Research at the California State University at San Bernardino. His work primarily focuses on collective violence, ranging from criminal street gangs to terrorist activity, and applying advanced quantitative approaches to criminological research. His work has been published in Crime & Delinquency and Journal of Interpersonal Violence.

Kimberly S. Meyer, PhD, is an assistant professor at Central Connecticut State University. She earned her PhD in criminology, law, and society from George Mason University. Her work uses multiple methods to understand policy and practice implementation in the justice system.

Allison E. Butterfield, MSW, MA, is a doctoral candidate in the School of Criminology and Justice studies at the University of Massachusetts Lowell and a lecturer at Johnson & Wales University. She also has 10 years of direct practice experience in probation and social work. Her studies primarily focus on community corrections, restorative justice, and juvenile delinquency, using both quantitative and qualitative methodologies.

Danielle S. Rudes, PhD, is an associate professor of criminology, law, and society and the deputy director of the Center for Advancing Correctional Excellence (ACE!) at George Mason University. She uses qualitative research methods to study corrections agencies including prisons, jails, probation/parole agencies, and problem-solving courts. She is recognized for her work examining how social control organizations and their managers and street-level workers understand, negotiate, and at times, resist change.

References

Andrews

D. A.

Bonta

(2010). Rehabilitating criminal justice policy and practice. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16, 39-55.

Bahrami

M. A.

Taheri

Montazeralfaraj

Tafti

A. D.

(2013). The relationship between organizational climate and psychological well-being of hospital employees. World Journal of Medical Sciences, 9, 61-67.

Baruch

Holtom

B. C.

(2008). Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research. Human Relations, 61, 1139-1160.

Baumeister

R. F.

Bratslavsky

Finkenauer

Vohs

K. D.

(2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323-370.

Bazemore

Dicker

T. J.

(1994). Explaining detention worker orientation: Individual characteristics, occupational conditions, and organizational environment. Journal of Criminal Justice, 22, 297-312.

Blevins

K. R.

Cullen

F. T.

Sundt

J. L.

(2007). The correctional orientation of child savers: Support for rehabilitation and custody among juvenile correctional workers. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 5(3/4), 47-83.

Bolin

R. M.

Applegate

B. K.

(2016). Adultification in juvenile corrections: Examining the orientations of juvenile and adult probation and parole officers. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 41, 321-339.

Cullen

F. T.

Jonson

C. L.

(2012). Correctional theory: Context and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Cullen

F. T.

Latessa

E. J.

Burton

V. S.

Lombardo

L. X.

(1993). The correctional orientation of prison wardens: Is the rehabilitative ideal supported? Criminology, 31, 69-92.

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, 33-42.

11.

Curtis

R. L.

Jr. Reese

W. A.

II . Cone

M. P.

(1990). Cynicism among juvenile probation officers: A study of subverted ideals. Journal of Criminal Justice, 18, 501-517.

12.

DeCelles

K. A.

Tesluk

P. E.

Taxman

F. S.

(2013). A field investigation of multilevel cynicism toward change. Organization Science, 24, 154-171.

13.

Enders

C. K.

Tofighi

(2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12, 121-138.

14.

Farkas

M. A.

(1999). Correctional officer attitudes toward inmates and working with inmates in a “get tough” era. Journal of Criminal Justice, 27, 495-506.

15.

Farmer

(1977). Cynicism: A factor in corrections work. Journal of Criminal Justice, 5, 237-246.

16.

Farrell

J. L.

Young

D. W.

Taxman

F. S.

(2011). Effects of organizational factors on use of juvenile supervision practices. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 565-583.

17.

Gelman

Hill

(2007). Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

18.

Griffin

M. L.

Hogan

N. L.

Lambert

E. G.

Tucker-Gail

K. A.

Baker

D. N.

(2010). Job involvement, job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment and the burnout of correctional staff. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 239-255.

19.

Hockenberry

Puzzanchera

(2018). Juvenile court statistics, 2015. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice. Retrieved from https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/njcda/pdf/jcs2015.pdf

20.

Huebner

B. M.

(2013). The Missouri model: A critical state of knowledge. In Bonnie

Johnson

Chemers

Schuck

(Eds.), Reforming juvenile justice: A developmental approach (pp. 411-430). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

21.

Kempf-Leonard

(2007). Minority youths and juvenile justice: Disproportionate minority contact after nearly 20 years of reform efforts. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 5, 71-87.

22.

Kupchik

(2006). Judging juveniles: Prosecuting adolescents in adult and juvenile courts. New York: New York University Press.

23.

Lambert

E. G.

Hogan

N. L.

Barton

Elechi

O. O.

(2009). The impact of job stress, job involvement, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment on correctional staff support for rehabilitation and punishment. Criminal Justice Studies, 22, 109-122.

24.

Lambert

E. G.

Hogan

N. L.

Barton

Jiang

Baker

(2008). The impact of punishment and rehabilitation views on organizational commitment among correctional staff: A preliminary study. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, 85-98.

25.

Lambert

E. G.

Paoline

E. A.

(2008). The influence of individual, job, and organizational characteristics on correctional staff job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Criminal Justice Review, 33, 541-564.

26.

Larivière

(2002). Antecedents and outcomes of correctional officer attitudes towards federal inmates: An exploration of person-organization fit. Forum on Corrections Research, 14, 19-23.

27.

Lex

Gehlenborg

Strobelt

Vuillemot

Pfister

(2014). UpSet: Visualization of intersecting sets. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 20, 1983-1992.

28.

Lipsey

M. W.

(2009). The primary factors that characterize effective interventions with juvenile offenders: A meta-analytic overview. Victims & Offenders, 4, 124-147.

29.

Lipsey

M. W.

Howell

J. C.

Kelly

M. R.

Chapman

Carver

(2010). Improving the effectiveness of juvenile justice programs. Washington, DC: Center for Juvenile Justice Reform at Georgetown University.

30.

Lyons

S. T.

Schweitzer

E. S. W.

(2015). How have careers changed? An investigation of changing career patterns across four generations. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 30, 8-21.

31.

Maas

C. J. M.

Hox

J. J.

(2005). Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling. Methodology, 1(3), 86-92.

32.

Matz

A. K.

Wells

J. B.

Minor

K. I.

Angel

(2013). Predictors of turnover intention among staff in juvenile correctional facilities: The relevance of job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 11, 115-131.

33.

Minor

K. I.

Wells

J. B.

Lambert

E. G.

Keller

(2014). Increasing morale: Personal and work environment antecedents of job morale among staff in juvenile corrections. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41, 1308-1326.

34.

Mowday

Porter

Steers

(1982). Employee-organization linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York, NY: Academic Press.

35.

Nagin

D. S.

Cullen

F. T.

Jonson

C. L.

(2009). Imprisonment and reoffending. Crime and Justice, 38, 115-200.

36.

Nunn

K. B.

(2002). Race, crime and the pool of surplus criminality: Or why the “war on drugs” was a “war on blacks.” Journal of Gender, Race & Justice, 6, 381-445.

37.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (2017). Statistical briefing book. Retrieved from https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/qa05101.asp?qaDate=2015

38.

Petta

Walker

(1992). Relative deprivation and ethnic identity. British Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 285-293.

39.

Raudenbush

S. W.

Bryk

A. S.

Cheong

Y. F.

Congdon

du Toit

(2011). HLM 7: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Skokie, IL: Scientific Software International.

40.

Regoli

R. M.

Poole

E. D.

Shrink

J. L.

(1979). Occupational socialization and career development: A look at cynicism among correctional institution workers. Human Organization, 38, 183-187.

41.

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.

42.

Schwalbe

C. S.

Maschi

(2009). Investigating probation strategies with juvenile offenders: The influence of officers’ attitudes and youth characteristics. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 357-367.

43.

Shearer

R. A.

(2002). Probation strategies of juvenile and adult pre-service trainees. Federal Probation, 66, 33-37.

44.

Sickmund

Sladky

Kang

(2018). Easy access to juvenile court statistics: 1985-2016. Retrieved from http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezajcs/

45.

Skeem

J. L.

Louden

J. E.

Polaschek

Camp

(2007). Assessing relationship quality in mandated community treatment: Blending care with control. Psychological Assessment, 19, 397-410.

46.

Sluder

R. D.

Reddington

F. P.

(1993). An empirical examination of the work ideologies of juvenile and adult probation officers. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 20, 115-137.

47.

Sluder

R. D.

Shearer

R. A.

Potts

D. W.

(1991). Probation officers’ role perceptions and attitudes toward firearms. Federal Probation, 55(3), 3-11.

48.

Stazyk

E. C.

Pandey

S. K.

Wright

B. E.

(2011). Understanding affective organizational commitment: The importance of institutional context. American Review of Public Administration, 41, 603-624.

49.

Taxman

F. S.

Belenko

(2011). Implementing evidence-based practices in community corrections and addiction treatment. New York, NY: Springer.

50.

Taxman

F. S.

Young

D. W.

Wiersema

Rhodes

Mitchell

(2007). The national criminal justice treatment practices survey: Multilevel survey methods and procedures. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 32, 225-238.

51.

Tesluk

P. E.

Farr

J. L.

Mathieu

J. E.

Vance

R. J.

(1995). Generalization of employee involvement training to the job setting: Individual and situational effects. Personnel Psychology, 48, 607-632.

52.

Ulmer

J. T.

(1992). Occupational socialization and cynicism toward prison administration. The Social Science Journal, 29, 423-443.

53.

Vickovic

S. G.

Griffin

M. L.

(2014). A comparison of line and supervisory officers and the impact of support on the commitment to the prison organization. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 25, 719-742.

54.

Viglione

J. E.

(2016). Bridging the research/practice gap: Street-level decision making and historical influences related to use of evidence-based practices in adult probation (Doctoral dissertation) (National Criminal Justice Reference Service, Document Number 250424). Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/250424.pdf

55.

Viglione

J. E.

(2017). Street-level decision making: Acceptability, feasibility, and use of evidence-based practices in adult probation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44, 1356-1381.

56.

Viglione

J. E.

Blasko

B. L.

Taxman

F. S.

(2018). Organizational factors and probation officer use of evidence-based practices: A multilevel examination. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62, 1648-1667.

57.

White

L. M.

Aalsma

M. C.

Holloway

E. D.

Adams

E. L.

Salyers

M. P.

(2015). Job-related burnout among juvenile probation officers: Implications for mental health stigma and competency. Psychological Services, 12, 291-302.

58.

Woltman

Feldstain

MacKay

J. C.

Rocchi

(2012). An introduction to hierarchical linear modeling. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 8, 52-69.

59.

Young

J. L.

Antonio

M. E.

Wingeard

L. M.

(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, 435-441.

60.

Zimring

F. E.

(2000). The common thread: Diversion in juvenile justice. California Law Review, 88, 2477-2495.