Procedural Justice in Prison

Abstract

A humane and fair treatment of prisoners is of intrinsic value in itself, and is generally acclaimed to reduce prisoners’ psychological distress and misconduct in prison, and their criminal behavior after release from prison. To create a more just prison climate, scholars have emphasized the importance of correctional staff. However, there is a lack of empirical research on the relationship between correctional officers’ characteristics and prisoners’ perceptions of a just treatment in prison. Our study fills this gap in knowledge. Data were used from (a) the Prison Project, a large-scale study in which prisoners held in all Dutch remand centers were surveyed (n = 1,610) and (b) the Dutch Correctional Staff Survey 2011 (n = 690). Multilevel analyses showed that prisoners perceived their treatment in prison as more procedurally just in units where there are more female officers, where officers held more positive attitudes toward rehabilitation, and where there is a higher officer-to-inmate ratio.

Keywords

prison life procedural justice staff–prisoner relationships correctional officers prisoners’ perceptions

Introduction

A significant body of literature suggests that the use of procedural justice by criminal justice authorities can be an effective strategy to secure citizens’ compliance with the law. According to procedural justice theory, people are more likely to comply with the law and cooperate with authorities’ rules and decisions when they think that the actors in the criminal justice system exercise their authority in a fair and respectful way (Lind & Tyler, 1988; Thibaut & Walker, 1975; Tyler, 1990). The presumption is that the more people feel that they are treated in a procedurally just manner during their interactions with criminal justice actors, the more they will view them as legitimate and respect them. Empirical research testing the ideas of procedural justice theory generally confirmed that when criminal justice actors (i.e., police, judges, correctional officers) treat people with fairness, respect, and dignity, people view these actors as more legitimate and are more willing to comply and cooperate (e.g., Reisig & Mesko, 2009; Sprott & Greene, 2010; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tyler, 2001).

Regretfully, despite the fact that theoretical and empirical literature on procedural justice has been well developed over the past decades and that this literature has focused on a variety of law enforcement settings, this literature has focused almost exclusively on the consequences of procedural justice (e.g., compliance, confidence). The antecedents of procedural justice have remained largely neglected (with some exceptions: Casper, Tyler, & Fisher, 1988; Wright & Bronstein, 2007). Knowing that procedural justice matters for obtaining compliance, it is relevant to examine which factors contribute to a higher sense of procedural justice.

In the current study, we focus on the determinants of procedural justice in the correctional setting, a context in which interactions between authorities (correctional staff) and prisoners are frequent and prolonged. Obtaining a procedurally just prison climate is important for several reasons. First, mission statements of national Prison Services in North-American and European countries typically emphasize the importance of a decent and humane treatment of prisoners (http://www.justice.gov.uk/about/hmps; http://www.kriminalforsorgen.dk; Custodial Institutions Agency, 2009; Gaes, Camp, Nelson, & Saylor, 2004). Second, a procedurally just prison climate is important for the manageability of prisons. In line with procedural justice theory, prisoners who evaluate their treatment in prison as more fair and respectful appear less involved in misconduct, such as disobedience, possession of contraband, and violence (Reisig & Mesko, 2009; Sparks & Bottoms, 1995), and report lower levels of psychological distress (e.g., Gover, MacKenzie, & Armstrong, 2000; Liebling, Durie, Stiles, & Tait, 2005). Finally, a procedurally just treatment can also be related to prisoners’ (offending) behavior after release from prison. Research in police and court settings has shown that offenders who evaluated their treatment by the police and judges as fair and non-stigmatizing were less likely to re-offend (McGrath, 2009; Paternoster, Brame, Bachman, & Sherman, 1997). In line with these results, it can be expected that when prisoners perceive their treatment in prison as more procedurally just, this may contribute to lower levels of re-offending. In sum, a more procedurally just prison climate is one of the aims of Prison Services and may contribute to a safer prison environment, prisoners’ well-being, and lower recidivism risks. Therefore, it is important to examine contextual factors within the correctional setting that may contribute to a more procedurally just prison climate.

When theorizing about what determines a fair and humane prison climate, scholars have particularly emphasized the importance of the behavior and characteristics of correctional officers (Bottoms, 1999; Crewe, Liebling, & Hulley, 2011; Liebling, 2004). Correctional officers play a central role in the correctional system and are ultimately responsible for putting criminal justice policies into practice. Therefore, they determine or shape, to a large extent, how the system is run and how prisoners are treated (Crewe, Bennett, & Wahidin, 2008; Kifer, Hemmens, & Stohr, 2003). Correctional officers play a key role in the lives of prisoners as they interact with prisoners on a daily basis and are generally prisoners’ first link to the outside world during incarceration. Moreover, the behavior of officers seems to be an important determinant of prisoners’ perceptions of fairness and respect. Research among British prisoners indicated that prisoners’ perceptions of fairness were substantially more dependent on perceptions of staff fairness and staff–prisoner relationships than they were on regime fairness (e.g., material provisions and facilities; Ahmed, 1996).

Surprisingly, theoretical and empirical knowledge on the extent to which officers contribute to a procedurally just treatment in prison is rather limited. Although some studies examined the effects of correctional officers’ characteristics (e.g., age, gender, tenure, job-related attitudes), these studies focused on other outcome variables such as officers’ work-related attitudes (e.g., Jurik, 1985; Kifer et al., 2003; Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2008), prisoners’ perceptions of other prison conditions such as their perceived autonomy or safety (Crewe et al., 2011; Molleman & Leeuw, 2012), or prisoners’ violent behavior (e.g., Bierie, 2012a; Camp, Gaes, Langan, & Saylor, 2003). To our knowledge, no study has examined the relationship between correctional officers’ characteristics and whether prisoners feel that they are treated in a procedurally just manner.

This study aspires to fill this gap in knowledge. The aim of the study was to examine the relationship between correctional officers’ characteristics and prisoners’ perceptions of a just treatment in prison. More specifically, this article addresses the following research question:

Research Question: To what extent are (a) background characteristics of correctional officers, (b) work-related attitudes of correctional officers, and (c) the workload of correctional officers related to prisoners’ perceptions of fairness, respect, humanity, and relationships with officers?

To answer this question, a unique multilevel data set was used, which combined data from a nationwide survey among prisoners in all remand centers in the Netherlands (n = 1,610) with data from a national survey among correctional officers working in these remand centers (n = 690).

Empirical and Theoretical Framework

A review of the literature suggests that three types of correctional officers’ characteristics may be related to officers’ behavior and, consequently, to how prisoners experience their treatment in prison: officers’ background characteristics, their work-related attitudes, and their workload. Here, we discuss these characteristics and formulate hypotheses on their relationship with prisoners’ perceptions of procedural justice.

Background Characteristics of Correctional Officers

Our first hypothesis states that a higher number of female officers are expected to result in a more fair, respectful, and humane treatment of prisoners, and in more positive staff–prisoner relationships. This expectation can be deduced from social role theory and evolution theory, which suggest that males and females differ in their social behavior, attitudes, and skills. Both theories propose that women dispose of more social attitudes and behavior than men, either due to differences in gender roles (social role theory) or due to evolved dispositions and skills (evolution theory; Eagly & Wood, 1999). Prior empirical research has confirmed this hypothesis: When compared with men, women show more empathy and consideration for others, smile and laugh more, touch other people more, and show more involvement with others (e.g., Anderson & Blanchard, 1982; Eagly & Wood, 1991). Moreover, research within the prison context showed that when compared with male staff, female staff are more likely to support a human service or rehabilitative orientation (e.g., Farkas, 1999; Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2008), or adopt a caring approach (Tait, 2011). It is to be noted, however, that some studies did not observe differences between male and female officers in their human service orientation (e.g., Cullen, Lutze, Link, & Travis Wolfe, 1989; Jurik, 1985; Lambert & Hogan, 2009).

Second, correctional officers who finished a higher educational level are expected to exhibit greater tolerance and understanding of prisoners, which may result in more fair, respectful, and humane behavior toward prisoners, and more positive relationships with them. This expectation can be deduced from theoretical models suggesting that higher levels of education are related to more prosocial attitudes, such as tolerance for out-groups (e.g., criminals, homosexuals, and homeless people). For instance, according to the “developmental” perspective (Phelan, Stueve, Link, & Moore, 1995), education fundamentally alters people, changing their characters and basic values in the direction of tolerance of diversity. Empirical studies have confirmed that higher educated people show more tolerance for nonconformist groups in general (e.g., Bobo & Licari, 1989; Phelan et al., 1995). Within the prison context, studies showed that higher educated correctional officers either had more positive attitudes toward prisoners and rehabilitation (e.g., Burton, Ju, Dunaway, & Wolfe, 1991; Lambert, Hogan, Barton, & Elechi, 2009; Van der Broek & Molleman, 2012) or did not significantly differ in attitudes from their lower educated counterparts (e.g., Gordon, 2006; Moon & Maxwell, 2004; Whitehead & Lindquist, 1989).

Third, older officers can be hypothesized to have more positive attitudes toward prisoners and toward the rehabilitation goal of imprisonment and, consequently, are expected to approach prisoners with more fairness, respect, and humanity, and have more positive relationships with them. This expectation is based on empirical research revealing that older officers hold more optimistic attitudes toward prisoners and are more supportive of rehabilitation than younger officers (e.g., Farkas, 1999; Kifer et al., 2003; Lambert et al., 2009; Paboojian & Teske, 1997). In line with these empirical results, it has been hypothesized that officers “mellow” with age (Farkas, 1999). Aging may, therefore, increase officers’ interest in a human service approach, although not all studies have observed significant differences between older and younger officers (e.g., Antonio & Young, 2011; Burton et al., 1991; Lambert & Hogan, 2009).

Fourth, both officers who are relatively new to the job and officers with a long tenure can be expected to have more positive attitudes toward prisoners and, therefore, approach prisoners with more fairness, respect, and humanity, and have more positive relationships with them. The expectation that new officers are more likely to treat prisoners in a procedurally just manner can be deduced from two theoretical notions. First, it has been suggested that officers with long tenure become cynical after working in prison for years and will develop more negative attitudes about prisoners and prisoners’ possibilities to successfully reintegrate (Jurik, 1985). As a consequence, they may treat prisoners in a less procedurally just way. Second, it has been argued that due to a selection bias, the pro-prisoner and less punitively oriented officers are more likely to quit their job because they become dissatisfied with their working conditions (Jurik, 1985). In contrast and supporting the expectation that the most experienced officers are more likely to treat prisoners in a procedurally just way, it has been argued that officers who are more in favor of the custodial functions of corrections may drop out of correctional work because it also focuses on inmate treatment and rehabilitation (Antonio & Young, 2011; Farkas, 1999). Moreover, as mentioned above, officers with a long tenure are generally older, and aging may result in more leniency and in more support for rehabilitation (Farkas, 1999). Prior empirical research on correctional officers’ work experience has indeed shown mixed results. Some studies observed that new officers were the most likely to have a human service orientation (e.g., Jurik, 1985; Kifer et al., 2003; Van Voorhis, Cullen, Link, & Travis Wolfe, 1991), others showed that the most experienced officers were more likely to support the rehabilitation goal of corrections (e.g., Antonio & Young, 2011; Cullen, Latessa, Burton, & Lombardo, 1993; Farkas, 1999), and still others reported no significant association between years of service and officers’ correctional orientation (e.g., Gordon, 2006; Lambert & Hogan, 2009; Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2008).

In sum, in this study, we hypothesize that in units where there are more female officers, more officers with a higher educational level, more older officers, and more officers with either a short or a long tenure, prisoners will perceive their treatment in prison as more fair, respectful, and humane, and experience more positive relationships with officers.

Work-Related Attitudes of Correctional Officers

Hypotheses regarding the effects of correctional officers’ work-related attitudes can be deduced from theories on the link between attitudes and behavior (e.g., Ajzen, 1991; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977). These theories in general assume that attitudes have a powerful influence on behavior. The attitude–behavior relationship is based on a general notion of consistency: People act toward a certain object in accordance with their attitude toward that object. Ajzen and Fishbein (1977) argued that the strength of this relationship increases when the attitude and behavior are directed at the same target and action. For example, a person’s behavior to donate to church will be more strongly related to his or her “attitude towards donating money to church” than his or her more general “attitude towards churches” (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977). In a similar vein, prison scholars have argued that correctional officers’ work-related attitudes and beliefs affect the way they interact with prisoners (e.g., Farkas, 1999; Whitehead & Lindquist, 1989). Based on these ideas, it is hypothesized that officers with a more positive attitude toward prisoners and toward rehabilitation will approach prisoners in a more fair, respectful, and humane manner, and develop more positive relationships with them.

In general, empirical studies supported the attitude–behavior link. A meta-analysis demonstrated that attitudes and behavior are not always perfectly aligned, but in general, attitudes significantly and substantially predict future behavior (Kraus, 1995). Within the prison context, research on the relationship between officers’ attitudes and prisoners’ perceptions of their treatment is lacking. There are two studies that examined how officers’ attitudes and orientations are related to the way prisoners perceive their stay in prison (Crewe et al., 2011; Molleman & Leeuw, 2012). However, instead of examining the effects of officers’ attitudes on prisoners’ perceptions of a fair and just treatment, these studies focused on prisoners’ perceptions of other aspects of prison life (e.g., autonomy, program delivery, overall quality of life in prison).

Workload of Correctional Officers

Finally, we hypothesize that in units where there is a higher officer-to-inmate ratio and where there are more officers experiencing a lower workload, prisoners will judge their interactions with officers as more fair, respectful, and humane, and view their relationships with them as more positive. This expectation is based on the theoretical notion that besides quality time, “quantity time” is important in relationships (Emmers-Sommer, 2004). The presumption is that a higher frequency of contact and a longer duration of interactions will result in positive relational outcomes such as satisfaction. Likewise, in the correctional setting, it has been suggested that more staff–prisoner contact will result in more positive relationships (Fairweather, 2000). When applied to correctional officers, a higher workload most likely reduces the available time officers have for interacting with prisoners. Therefore, it can be expected that a higher officer-to-inmate ratio and a lower perceived workload among officers is associated with a more fair, respectful, and humane treatment, and more positive officer–prisoner relationships.

Empirical research on the association between “quantity time” and relationship quality confirmed that more frequent face-to-face interactions and spending more time together were associated with higher relational satisfaction in friendship, romance, and manager–employee relationships (e.g., Callan, 1993; Emmers-Sommer, 2004; Kingston & Nock, 1987). Within the court setting, Casper et al. (1988) showed that the amount of time spent with the lawyer was positively related to defendants’ perceptions of procedural justice. However, to our knowledge, research on this association in the prison context is lacking.

The Current Study

In sum, the current study is, to our knowledge, the first study to examine the extent to which correctional officers’ background characteristics, work-related attitudes, and workload are related to prisoners’ perceptions of a procedurally just treatment in prison. The following hypotheses will be tested:

Hypothesis 1: In units where there are more female officers, more officers with a higher educational level, more older officers, and more officers with either a short or long tenure, prisoners will perceive their treatment in prison as more fair, respectful, and humane, and will experience more positive relationships with officers.

Hypothesis 2: In units with officers with a more positive attitude toward prisoners and with a more positive attitude toward rehabilitation, prisoners will perceive their treatment as more fair, respectful, and humane, and will experience more positive relationships with officers.

Hypothesis 3: In units where there is a higher officer-to-inmate ratio and where there are more officers experiencing a lower workload, prisoners will judge their treatment in prison as more fair, respectful, and humane, and will view their relationships with officers as more positive.

Method

Data

To examine the relationship between correctional officers’ characteristics and prisoners’ perceptions of procedural justice in prison, this study used two data sets: (a) prisoner data from the Prison Project and (b) staff data from the Correctional Staff Survey 2011 held by the Dutch Prison Service.

Prisoner data from the Prison Project

The Prison Project is a large-scale longitudinal study on the effects of imprisonment in the Netherlands. In the project, a representative sample of 1,909 prisoners is followed for several years, during and after their incarceration. The sample of the Prison Project consists of male prisoners aged 18 to 65 years, who were born in the Netherlands, who had no significant psychiatric problems, who entered one of the Dutch remand centers between October 2010 and April 2011, and who were held in pre-trial detention for approximately 3 weeks. In the first few weeks of their pre-trial detention, employees of the Prison Project approached and informed all eligible prisoners. Participation was voluntary, and all participants signed an informed consent declaration.

The present study used data of the first wave of the Prison Project that was performed when the prisoners were held in pre-trial detention for about 3 weeks. This first measurement consisted of a structured interview and a self-administered questionnaire. Between October 2010 and April 2011, 2,945 prisoners meeting the selection criteria entered the remand centers in the Netherlands. Of this group, 170 prisoners could not be approached (mainly because they were already released or were not allowed to have contact with others during the police investigation). Of the 2,775 prisoners who were approached, 1,909 prisoners (69%) participated in the interview and 1,764 prisoners (64%) also completed the questionnaire.^1,2

Staff data from the Correctional Staff Survey

The Dutch Prison Service regularly conducts a survey among their correctional staff, and for the present study, data were used from the survey administered in April 2011 (Van der Broek & Molleman, 2012). All 3,740 correctional officers working in Dutch correctional facilities (i.e., remand centers and prisons) were asked to participate in the study. Participation in the survey was voluntary and staff were allowed to fill out the questionnaires during working hours. To guarantee anonymity, staff members could send their completed questionnaire to an independent research institute. In total, 2,277 officers (61%) participated in the survey.³

Combining the two data sets

For the present study, the prisoner and staff data from all Dutch remand centers were combined on unit level. Every unit in the correctional facilities had a unique code and for each prisoner and officer, it was known in which unit he or she was living or working. Staff data were aggregated on unit level (e.g., the average age of the correctional officers per unit), and these aggregated staff measures were attached to the data of the individual prisoners.

In the process of combining the two data sets, we could not include prisoners of whom it was unclear in which unit they were held (n = 49 prisoners), and prisoners who were housed in a unit for which insufficient staff data were available (n = 105 prisoners).⁴ This resulted in a final sample of 1,610 prisoners, who were housed in 105 different units. The data on the staff characteristics of these units were obtained from 690 officers, who worked in these 105 different units.

Measures

Dependent variables: Prisoners’ perceptions of procedural justice (inmate level)

In the Prison Project, four measures were used to determine prisoners’ perceptions of a procedurally just treatment: (a) fairness, (b) respect, (c) humanity, and (d) relationships with officers. Although “relationships with authorities” (in this study “relationships with correctional officers”) traditionally is not included in measures of procedural justice, prior research in the correctional setting suggests that prisoners’ perceptions of justice and fairness depend to a large extent on their perceptions of staff–prisoner relationships (Ahmed, 1996; Liebling, 2004). The four scales and items were based on two existing instruments measuring prisoners’ perceptions of their conditions of confinement: the Measurement of Quality of Prison Life (Liebling, 2004) and the Dutch Inmate Survey (Mol & Henneken-Hordijk, 2008). Examples of items used for the measures on prisoners’ perceptions of a procedurally just treatment are as follows: “Overall, I am treated fairly by staff in this prison” (fairness, six items), “This prison is poor at treating prisoners with respect” (respect, three items), “Some of the treatment I receive in this prison is degrading” (humanity, three items), and “The prison officers are nice to me” (positive relationships with officers, five items).

The statements about the perceived treatment in the remand center were presented to the prisoners on a 5-point scale, and prisoners could indicate to what extent they agreed or disagreed with these statements (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). All items were coded (or reverse coded) so that a lower score reflected a more negative judgment about the treatment in prison and a higher score reflected a more positive judgment. The four scales proved reliable with Cronbach’s alpha ranging between .70 (humanity) and .87 (relationships with officers).

Independent variables: Characteristics of the correctional officers in the units (unit level)

In the Correctional Staff Survey, several background characteristics of the correctional officers were included, which led to the following aggregated measures: the proportion of female officers in a unit, the average educational level of the officers in a unit, the average age of the officers in a unit, and the average number of years of work experience of the officers in a unit. Because there was not much variation in the educational level of correctional officers, this variable was dichotomized into a lower level (score 0; representing intermediate secondary education) and a higher level (score 1; representing higher secondary education or intermediate vocational training).

In the Correctional Staff Survey, two scales were included to measure correctional officers’ attitudes toward prisoners and toward rehabilitation in each unit. First, correctional officers were asked to give their opinion on four items measuring attitudes toward prisoners. The scale (and items) was based on the Prison Staff Quality Life survey (e.g., Crewe et al., 2011; A. Liebling, personal communication, 2010). An example of an item of this scale includes “It is important to have compassion for prisoners.” Second, correctional officers were asked to give their opinion on five items measuring attitudes toward rehabilitation. This scale was originally developed by the Dutch Prison Service (Van der Broek & Molleman, 2012). An item of this scale is, for instance, “You try to encourage prisoners to change”. Items of both scales were rated on a 5-point scale (1 = completely disagree, 5 = completely agree). All items were coded in such a way that a lower score indicated a more negative attitude and a higher score indicated a more positive attitude. The Cronbach’s alphas for both scales were good (α = .83 for prisoners and α = .87 for rehabilitation).

Two measures were created to determine officers’ workload in each unit. First, the officer-to-inmate ratio per unit was calculated. For each unit, the total number of officers assigned to the unit was divided by the maximum number of prisoners in the unit. Employees of the Prison Project visited all remand centers to collect this information. Second, in the Correctional Staff Survey, correctional officers were asked how they perceived their workload. This scale (six items) was developed by the Dutch Prison Service (Van der Broek & Molleman, 2012). An example of an item of this scale is “I often work under time pressure”. Officers were asked to indicate on a 5-point scale (1 = completely disagree, 5 = completely agree) to what extent they agreed or disagreed with the six statements. The internal consistency of the perceived workload scale proved to be good (α = .89).

The descriptive statistics of the correctional officers’ characteristics on unit level are shown in Table 1. The proportion of female officers in a unit was .22, meaning that on average one out of five correctional officers working in a unit was a female. However, there were also units where all officers were males. On slightly less than half of the units (45%), officers had a lower educational level, and on average the correctional officers in a unit were 44 years old. Units had on average officers who had almost 16 years of work experience in prison. Even in the least experienced units, officers had on average 7 years of tenure. On average, the units were slightly positive with regard to “attitudes toward prisoners” (M = 3.66) and “attitudes toward rehabilitation” (M = 3.62). The average officer-to-inmate ratio was 0.26, meaning that overall, there was one officer for every four prisoners. In some units, there was one officer for every eight prisoners, while other units showed a ratio of 1:2. On average, the 105 units had a neutral score of 2.98 on officers’ perceived workload.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics of Aggregated Officers’ Characteristics per Unit (n = 105).

Officers’ characteristics per unit	n	%	M	SD	Minimum	Maximum
Background characteristics of officers
Proportion of female officers	102		0.22	0.11	0.00	0.44
Educational level
Lower	48	45.7
Higher	57	54.2
Age	105		44.08	4.14	32.00	53.00
Number of years of service	105		15.72	4.54	7.00	25.50
Work-related attitudes of officers
Attitude toward prisoners	105		3.66	0.26	3.13	4.58
Attitude toward rehabilitation	105		3.62	0.31	2.98	4.70
Workload of officers
Officer-to-inmate ratio	105		0.26	0.09	0.12	0.50
Perceived workload	105		2.98	0.44	1.75	3.86

Control variables: Prisoners’ background and prison situation characteristics (inmate level)

Using prisoner data from the Prison Project, this study controlled for several background characteristics of prisoners. First, demographic characteristics of the prisoners were included, such as age upon arrival in the remand center, ethnicity (0 = Dutch background, 1 = one or both parents are born outside the Netherlands), having an intimate relationship at the time of their arrest that lasted at least 3 months (0 = no, 1 = yes), and educational level. The educational level of the prisoners was divided into three categories: low (primary school or intermediate secondary education), middle (higher secondary education or intermediate vocational education), and high (higher vocational education or university education). Second, we controlled for the personality of prisoners, which was measured with the Dutch Big Five Inventory (Denissen, Geenen, van Aken, Gosling, & Potter, 2008). In this questionnaire, several traits were presented, and participants indicated to what extent these traits applied to them. The inventory distinguishes five scales: neuroticism (8 items), extraversion (8 items), openness to new experiences (10 items), agreeableness (9 items), and conscientiousness (9 items). The Dutch Big Five Inventory has been validated and has shown good psychometric qualities (Denissen et al., 2008). In the present study, the five personality factors had acceptable internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha ranging from .63 (agreeableness) to .79 (neuroticism). Third, two variables concerning criminal behavior were taken into account: whether or not the prisoner had experienced a prior prison spell (0 = no, 1 = yes), and the type of offence the prisoner was suspected of (property, violent, sexual, drugs, property damage and public order, and other offences).

This study also controlled for two characteristics of the detention situation of the prisoners. First, in the Prison Project, prisoners were asked whether they shared a cell with another prisoner (0 = no, 1 = yes), because research has suggested that double bunking may negatively affect the relationships between officers and prisoners (Dutch Inspectorate for the administration, 2011). Second, the type of unit where the prisoner was housed was taken into account. This information was collected in all remand centers by Prison Project employees. Besides standard units, there were “entry” units for prisoners who just entered the facility and “care” units for vulnerable prisoners or prisoners with psychological problems.

The descriptive statistics on prisoners’ background and prison situation characteristics are presented in Table 2. On average, the prisoners were 30 years old, and almost 40% of the prisoners had at least one parent who was not born in the Netherlands. Nearly 55% of the sample had an intimate relationship at the time of their arrest and two thirds of the prisoners had finished a low educational level. Almost two thirds of the prisoners had been incarcerated before and most of the prisoners were suspected of a violent offence (42%) or a property offence (24%). Around 22% of the sample shared a cell with another prisoner at the time of the interview. The majority of the prisoners (57%) were housed in a standard unit, whereas one third resided in an entry unit and 10% in a care unit.⁵

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics of Prisoners’ Characteristics (n = 1,610).

Prisoners’ characteristics	n	%	M	SD	Minimum	Maximum
Age	1,610		30.41	10.79	18.00	65.00
Ethnicity
Dutch background	926	57.5
Other background	623	38.7
Missing	61	3.8
Partner
No	605	37.6
Yes	884	54.9
Missing	121	7.5
Educational level
Low	1,075	66.8
Middle	384	23.8
High	76	4.7
Missing	75	4.7
Personality: neuroticism	1,610		2.88	0.61	1.00	5.00
Personality: extraversion	1,610		3.50	0.56	1.00	5.00
Personality: openness	1,610		3.33	0.54	1.00	5.00
Personality: agreeableness	1,610		3.37	0.47	1.56	5.00
Personality: conscientiousness	1,610		3.51	0.46	1.78	5.00
Previously incarcerated
No	514	31.9
Yes	1,004	62.4
Missing	92	5.7
Type of offence
Property	391	24.3
Violence	682	42.3
Sexual	54	3.4
Drugs	195	12.1
Property damage and public order	85	5.3
Other	203	12.6
Double bunking
No	1,250	77.6
Yes	360	22.4
Kind of unit
Standard unit	919	57.1
Entry unit	522	32.4
Care unit	169	10.5

Data Analyses

This study examined to what extent characteristics of correctional officers are related to prisoners’ perceptions of fairness, respect, humanity, and relationships with officers. To address this question, multilevel linear regression analyses were conducted, linking the correctional officers’ characteristics in each unit to prisoners’ perceptions of the treatment in these units. Multilevel linear regression analyses—instead of ordinary least square (OLS) regression—were performed to account for the hierarchical structure of the data: 1,610 prisoners were nested within 105 units.⁶ Ignoring the hierarchical structure and the dependence across observations from the same unit would lead to an underestimation of standard errors and would possibly result in incorrect conclusions about nonexistent relations (Hox, 2010; Snijders & Bosker, 1999). The estimation method used was maximum likelihood, and all continuous predictors were (grand mean) centered. Although some predictors correlated with each other, the analyses indicated no multicollinearity (variance inflation factor [VIF] well below 5).

Results

Prisoners’ Perceptions of Procedurally Just Treatment in Prison

Table 3 shows how prisoners on average experienced their treatment in prison. One fifth of prisoners reported that correctional officers treated them fair, whereas another 20% did not think that they were treated fairly. The mean score regarding fairness was 3.05 (SD = 0.65), indicating a neutral opinion regarding the fairness of officers’ behavior. Respect and relationships with officers displayed a similar distribution. About a third of the prisoners (38%) felt that they were treated with respect in prison, and about a third (36%) were positive about their relationships with officers. Fifteen percent of the prisoners judged negatively about respect and relationships with officers. The mean scores of respect (M = 3.21, SD = 0.78) and relationships with officers (M = 3.19, SD = 0.67) were somewhat positive. Finally, a quarter of the prisoners perceived the treatment of officers as humane, whereas another quarter judged negatively about this. The mean score of humanity was neutral (M = 2.96, SD = 0.81).

Table 3.

Prisoners’ Perceptions of Procedurally Just Treatment in Prison.

Prisoners’ perceptions of procedurally just treatment	% negative judgment (score = 1.0-2.5)	% neutral judgment (score = 2.5-3.5)	% positive judgment (score = 3.5-5.0)
Fairness (n = 1,558)	20.9	58.7	20.4
Respect (n = 1,548)	15.1	47.0	37.9
Humanity (n = 1,533)	26.0	47.5	26.5
Relationships with officers (n = 1,550)	15.6	48.8	35.6

Effect of Officers’ Characteristics on Prisoners’ Perceptions of Procedurally Just Treatment in Prison

To answer our main research question, Table 4 presents the results of the multilevel regression analyses testing the associations between correctional officers’ characteristics and prisoners’ perceptions of a procedurally just treatment. First, we hypothesized that in units where there are more female officers, more officers with a higher educational level, more older officers, and more officers with a short or long tenure, prisoners will perceive their treatment in prison as more fair, respectful, and humane, and experience more positive relationships with officers. The results show that only the proportion of female officers had a significant effect. In units where there are more female officers, prisoners perceived their treatment as more fair and humane, and evaluated their relationships with officers as more positive. The relationship between officers’ gender and prisoners’ perceptions of respectful treatment was also positive but not statistically significant. The other officers’ background characteristics had no significant effect.

Table 4.

Multilevel Linear Regression Analyses for Prisoners’ Perceptions of Procedurally Just Treatment in Prison (n_{Level 1} = 1,523-1,548; n_{Level 2} = 102).

	Prisoners’ perceptions of procedurally just treatment
	Fairness	Respect	Humanity	Relationships with officers
	B	B	B	B
Intercept	3.248**	3.488**	3.241**	3.504**
Level 2: Officers’ characteristics per unit
Background characteristics of officers
Proportion of female officers	0.433*	0.328	0.617*	0.591**
Higher educational level	−0.003	−0.025	−0.004	0.010
Age	−0.005	−0.004	−0.004	−0.005
Number of years of service	0.003	0.001	0.002	0.001
Work-related attitudes of officers
Attitude toward prisoners	−0.084	−0.107	−0.107	−0.195
Attitude toward rehabilitation	0.131	0.149	0.124	0.208*
Workload of officers
Officer-to-inmate ratio	0.642*	1.032**	0.967**	1.040**
Perceived workload	−0.020	0.023	0.020	0.067
Level 1: Prisoners’ characteristics
Age	0.005**	0.007**	0.008**	0.011**
No Dutch background	−0.155**	−0.134**	−0.136**	−0.217**
Having a partner	−0.051	−0.149**	−0.121**	−0.089*
Educational level (ref. = low)
Middle	0.010	0.035	0.001	0.017
High	−0.096	−0.193*	−0.172	−0.230**
Personality:neuroticism	−0.052	−0.034	−0.106**	−0.012
Personality:extraversion	−0.011	0.009	0.059	0.084*
Personality:openness	−0.150**	−0.081*	−0.193**	−0.079*
Personality:agreeableness	0.114**	0.119**	0.097*	0.137**
Personality:conscientiousness	0.083*	−0.006	0.013	0.041
Previously incarcerated	−0.176**	−0.192**	−0.193**	−0.173**
Type of offence (ref. = property)
Violence	0.045	0.080	0.068	0.001
Sexual	−0.131	−0.203	−0.162	−0.388**
Drugs	−0.025	−0.036	−0.145*	−0.056
Property damage and public order	0.096	0.012	0.054	0.034
Other	0.039	0.023	0.066	0.030
Double bunking	0.031	0.013	0.007	−0.023
Kind of unit (ref. = standard unit)
Entry unit	0.018	0.003	−0.037	−0.037
Care unit	0.018	0.006	−0.057	0.047
ICC empty model	3.3%	2.3%	2.8%	7.0%

Note. Missing values on prisoners’ ethnicity, partner, educational level, and previous incarceration were included in the model as separate categories. None had significant effects on the outcome variables and were, therefore, not shown in the table. ICC = intraclass correlation coefficient.

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

Second, we hypothesized that officers with a more positive attitude toward prisoners and officers with a more positive attitude toward rehabilitation would approach prisoners in a more fair, respectful, and humane manner and would develop more positive relationships with them. The results provided only limited support for this hypothesis. Only officers’ attitude toward rehabilitation was significantly related to officer–prisoner relationships: In units where officers had more positive attitudes toward rehabilitation, prisoners were more positive about their relationships with correctional officers. Officers’ attitude toward prisoners was not significantly related to prisoners’ perceptions of a procedural just treatment.

Third, we hypothesized that in units where there is a higher officer-to-inmate ratio and where there are more officers experiencing a lower workload, prisoners will judge their treatment in prison as more fair, respectful, and humane, and view their relationships with officers as more positive. The results show that officer-to-inmate ratio was significantly associated with prisoners’ procedural justice perceptions. In units where there is a higher officer-to-inmate ratio, prisoners perceived their treatment in prison as more fair, respectful, and humane, and perceived their relationships with officers as more positive. Officers’ perceived workload in a unit had no significant effect.

Finally, analyses showed that several background characteristics of prisoners were associated with their perceptions of a procedurally just treatment in prison. In general, older prisoners, prisoners with a Dutch background, prisoners with no partner prior to their arrest, and prisoners with a lower educational level evaluated their treatment and relationships with officers as more fair, respectful, humane, and positive. In addition, personality traits mattered. Prisoners with a lower score on neuroticism and openness to new experiences, and prisoners with a higher score on extraversion, conscientiousness, and agreeableness were more positive about (some aspects of) their treatment in prison. Furthermore, prisoners imprisoned for the first time perceived their treatment as more fair, respectful, and humane, and judged their relationships with officers as more positive. Clearly, it is important to include such prisoners’ characteristics into the analyses, because ignoring the effects of these characteristics on prisoners’ perceptions of a just treatment would bias the estimates of the effects of the correctional officers’ characteristics.

Discussion

Knowledge about the determinants of a procedurally just prison climate is important, because a procedurally just treatment of prisoners is one of the aims of Prison Services in many Western countries and is beneficial for prison safety and prisoners’ well-being. Although it is well-known that correctional officers may play a central role in obtaining a just prison climate (Bottoms, 1999; Liebling, 2004), empirical research examining this relationship is lacking. To our knowledge, this is the first study that examined the extent to which background characteristics, work-related attitudes, and the workload of officers are related to prisoners’ perceptions of a procedurally just treatment in prison.

The results of this study suggested that—even after controlling for many prisoner characteristics—certain officers’ characteristics are related to the way prisoners perceive their treatment in prison. First, in units where there are more female officers, prisoners experienced more fairness, humanity, and positive relationships with officers. Second, in units where officers held more positive attitudes toward rehabilitation, prisoners experienced more positive relationships with officers. Third, in units where there is a higher officer-to-inmate ratio, prisoners perceived more fairness, respect, and humanity, and evaluated their relationships with officers as more positive.

Our finding that female officers have a positive impact on prisoners’ perceptions of a procedurally just treatment aligns with theoretical notions that social behavior is linked to gender (Eagly & Wood, 1999). It is generally accepted that females possess more social attitudes and display more social behavior than males due to different gender roles or evolved dispositions. Prior studies have indeed shown that when compared with men, women show more empathy, are more willing to listen, and have greater concern for good interpersonal relationships (e.g., Anderson & Blanchard, 1982; Eagly & Wood, 1991). In a similar vein, it has been suggested that female social control agents, such as prison officers, have “more skills in terms of talking, bonding, and building rapport with people they are attempting to control” than their male colleagues (Bierie, 2012b, p. 213). Our findings support this notion. Female officers seem better in creating a supportive and human prison environment, and the presence of female officers may contribute to a procedurally just treatment of prisoners.

In line with theories of attitudes (e.g., Ajzen, 1991), this study provided evidence that a positive attitude toward rehabilitation among officers is related to more positive officer–prisoner relationships. Although attitudes and actual behavior are not always perfectly related and other factors play a role in the prediction of behavior as well, it is clear that attitudes predict behavior (e.g., Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977; Kraus, 1995). Officers with a positive attitude toward rehabilitation may be more likely to support prisoners in changing their lives and will probably approach prisoners in a more positive and encouraging way.

In line with our hypothesis, a higher officer-to-inmate ratio was positively related to all four aspects of a procedurally just treatment in prison. When more officers are available in a unit, they will have increased opportunities to interact with prisoners, which may result in closer officer–prisoner relationships. It should be mentioned, however, that in this study, the prisoners had been incarcerated for only a few weeks, which is a relatively short period for staff and prisoners to interact. Nevertheless, our finding seems in line with prior research in social psychology showing that the frequency and the length of interactions have an effect on relationship quality (e.g., Emmers-Sommer, 2004; Kingston & Nock, 1987). In addition, our finding corroborates research among defendants and their lawyers, showing that spending more time with the lawyer increases the defendants’ perceptions of procedural justice (Casper et al., 1988). Moreover, our results are consistent with outcomes of a recently held meeting organized by the Dutch Prison Service, discussing the workload within the Dutch prison system. During this meeting, officers indicated that understaffing and continuous changes within the prison system contributed to an increased workload, which negatively affected their relationships with prisoners (Dutch Custodial Institutions Agency, 2012).

Although the data used in this study are very rich, detailed, and adequate to address the research question, some methodological concerns need to be acknowledged. The first concern relates to the time of measurement of both surveys. Prisoners of the Prison Project were approached between October 2010 and April 2011, whereas the staff survey was conducted in April 2011. However, unlike correctional facilities in some other countries, officers in the Netherlands do not rotate across different units within the facility; instead, they work consistently in one unit. Therefore, we are fairly confident that the prisoners in our study encountered the correctional officers in our study. Nonetheless, the results of this study are based on cross-sectional data. Therefore, no conclusions can be made about the causality of the findings.

Second, this study was conducted in penitentiary institutions in the Netherlands. Although some changes occurred in recent years, the Netherlands is still known for having a relatively mild prison policy (Kruttschnitt & Dirkzwager, 2011). When compared with many other countries, prison conditions in the Netherlands are rather liberal and decent. For instance, Dutch prisons do not face major overcrowding or understaffing, most prisoners reside in a single cell, prisoners do not have to wear a prison uniform, and officer–prisoner relationships are generally characterized as informal and peaceful (Dervan, 2011; Kruttschnitt & Dirkzwager, 2011). In addition, this study was based on prisoners who were detained in remand centers and who were still awaiting their trial. Prisons (with convicted prisoners) were not included in the study. Besides the fact that convicted prisoners in prisons might perceive their interactions with officers differently from prisoners in remand centers, staff–prisoner relationships may objectively differ between prisons and remand centers. In the Netherlands, for instance, prisoners in prisons are allowed to spend more time outside their cells than prisoners in remand centers. In this way, prisoners in prisons have more opportunities to interact with officers. In sum, we cannot be certain that the findings of this study are generalizable to other countries or to convicted prisoners; replications of our findings in other countries and correctional settings are needed.

A third concern relates to the contextual variance of procedural justice perceptions. As is often the case in multilevel studies, the contextual variance in this study was limited (see Table 4). Individual characteristics of prisoners contributed to a larger extent to the explanation of differences in perceived treatment than characteristics of the staff composition did. Nevertheless, after controlling for a variety of prisoner characteristics such as their personality traits, several officers’ characteristics were still significantly related to the extent to which prisoners felt they were treated in a procedurally just manner. Moreover, aspects of the prison environment, such as the staff composition, are adjustable, whereas individual prisoner characteristics (e.g., age and personality) are rather fixed. Therefore, it seems a more beneficial approach to focus on contextual factors that may influence prisoners’ perceived procedural justice. Examining the effects of other characteristics of the staff composition (e.g., ethnicity) or other aspects of the prison environment (e.g., prison architecture) would be an interesting avenue for future research.

Notwithstanding these limitations, we feel confident that the present study generated important new knowledge regarding the effects certain correctional officers’ characteristics have on the way prisoners feel treated within prison. This knowledge is relevant from a policy perspective, because such characteristics are manageable. Prison Services and prison management can—when desirable—make adjustments in their staff policy, staff selection, and staff training. In this way, they may stimulate a procedurally just prison climate. Although hiring more officers might be difficult due to limited financial resources, it seems worthy to think about the right balance between male and female officers. Especially in units where there are only male officers, it could be beneficial to add a female officer to the team. Moreover, prisoners perceived their relationships with officers as more positive, when officers held more positive attitudes toward rehabilitation. In staff education and training, Prison Service and prison management could try to encourage officers to adopt a more rehabilitative orientation. Recently, the Dutch Prison Service decided that all correctional officers should be educated on the importance of rehabilitation and trained in motivational interviewing techniques to encourage prisoners to change their lives. In the context of our results, this seems a good development.

Footnotes

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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The Prison Project is financially supported by Leiden University, the Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement (NSCR), the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO), and Utrecht University.

Notes

References

Ahmed

(1996). Fairness in prisons (Doctoral thesis). Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge.

Ajzen

(1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.

Ajzen

Fishbein

(1977). Attitude-behavior relationships: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 888-918.

Anderson

L. R.

Blanchard

P. N.

(1982). Sex differences in task and social-emotional behavior. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 3, 109-139.

Antonio

M. E.

Young

J. L.

(2011). The effects of tenure on staff apathy and treatment orientation: A comparison of respondent characteristics and environmental factors. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 36, 1-16.

Bierie

D. M.

(2012a). Is tougher better? The impact of physical prison conditions on inmate violence. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 56, 338-355.

Bierie

D. M.

(2012b). Prison violence, gender, and perceptions: Testing a missing link in discretion research. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 209-228.

Bobo

Licari

F. C.

(1989). Education and political tolerance: Testing the effects of cognitive sophistication and target group affect. Public Opinion Quarterly, 53, 285-308.

Bottoms

A. E.

(1999). Interpersonal violence and social order in prisons. Crime and Justice, 26, 205-282.

10.

Burton

V. S.

Dunaway

R. G.

Wolfe

N. T.

(1991). The correctional orientation of Bermuda prison guards: An assessment of attitudes toward punishment and rehabilitation. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 15, 71-80.

11.

Callan

V. J.

(1993). Subordinate-manager communication in different sex dyads: Consequences for job satisfaction. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 66, 13-27.

12.

Camp

S. D.

Gaes

G. G.

Langan

N. P.

Saylor

W. G.

(2003). The influence of prisons on inmate misconduct: A multilevel investigation. Justice Quarterly, 20, 501-533.

13.

Casper

J. D.

Tyler

T. R.

Fisher

(1988). Procedural justice in felony cases. Law & Society Review, 22, 483-507.

14.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

15.

Crewe

Bennett

Wahidin

(2008). Introduction. In Bennett

Crewe

Wahidin

(Eds.), Understanding prison staff (pp. 1-13). Devon, UK: Willan Publishing.

16.

Crewe

Liebling

Hulley

(2011). Staff culture, use of authority and prisoners quality of life in public and private sector prisons. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 44, 94-115.

17.

Cullen

F. T.

Latessa

E. J.

Burton

V. S. J.

Lombardo

L. X.

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

18.

Cullen

F. T.

Lutze

F. E.

Link

B. G.

Travis Wolfe

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

19.

Denissen

J. J.

Geenen

van Aken

M. A.

Gosling

S. D.

Potter

(2008). Development and validation of a Dutch translation of the Big Five Inventory (BFI). Journal of Personality Assessment, 90, 152-157.

20.

Dervan

L. E.

(2011). American prison culture in an international context: An examination of prisons in America, The Netherlands and Israel. Stanford Law & Policy Review, 22, 413-428.

21.

Dutch Custodial Institutions Agency. (2009). Brochure custodial institutions agency: Where freedom ends and may be regained. The Hague, The Netherlands: Dutch Custodial Institutions Agency.

22.

Dutch Custodial Institutions Agency (2012). Van werkdruk naar werkplezier [From work stress to job]. The Hague, The Netherlands: Dutch Custodial Institutions Agency.

23.

Dutch Inspectorate for the administration of penal sanctions (2011). Meerpersoonscelgebruik [The use of double bunking]. The Hague, The Netherlands: Dutch Inspectorate for the administration of penal sanctions.

24.

Eagly

A. H.

Wood

(1991). Explaining sex differences in social behavior: A meta-analytic perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 306-315.

25.

Eagly

A. H.

Wood

(1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior. American Psychologist, 54, 408-423.

26.

Emmers-Sommer

T. M.

(2004). The effect of communication quality and quantity indicators on intimacy and relational satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 399-411.

27.

Fairweather

(2000). Psychological effects of the prison environment. In Fairweather

McConville

(Eds.), Prison architecture: Policy, design and experience (pp. 31-48). Oxford, UK: Architectural Press.

28.

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.

29.

Gaes

G. G.

Camp

S. D.

Nelson

J. B.

Saylor

W. G.

(2004). Measuring prison performance: Government privatization & accountability. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.

30.

Gordon

M. S.

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

31.

Gover

A. R.

MacKenzie

D. L.

Armstrong

G. S.

(2000). Importation and deprivation explanations of juveniles’ adjustment to correctional facilities. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44, 450-466.

32.

Hox

J. J.

(2010). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

33.

Jurik

N. C.

(1985). Individual organizational determinants of correctional officer attitudes towards inmates. Criminology, 23, 523-539.

34.

Kifer

Hemmens

Stohr

M. K.

(2003). The goals of corrections: Perspectives from the line. Criminal Justice Review, 28, 47-69.

35.

Kingston

P. W.

Nock

S. L.

(1987). Time together among dual-earner couples. American Sociological Review, 52, 391-400.

36.

Kraus

S. J.

(1995). Attitudes and the prediction of behavior: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 58-75.

37.

Kruttschnitt

Dirkzwager

(2011). Are there still contrasts in tolerance? Imprisonment in the Netherlands and England 20 years later. Punishment & Society, 13, 283-306.

38.

Lambert

E. G.

Hogan

N. L.

(2009). Exploring the predictors of treatment views of private correctional staff: A test of an integrated work model. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 48, 504-528.

39.

Lambert

E. G.

Hogan

N. L.

Barton

S. M.

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.

40.

Liebling

(2004). Prisons and their moral performance: A study of values, quality and prison life. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

41.

Liebling

Durie

Stiles

Tait

(2005). Revisiting prison suicide: The role of fairness and distress. In Liebling

Maruna

(Eds.), The effects of imprisonment (pp. 209-231). Devon, UK: Willan Publishing.

42.

Lind

E. A.

Tyler

T. R.

(1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York, NY: Plenum.

43.

McGrath

(2009). Offenders’ perceptions of the sentencing process: A study of deterrence and stigmatisation in the New South Wales children’s court. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 42, 24-46.

44.

Mol

G.D.

Henneken-Hordijk

(2008) Gedetineerd in Nederland 2007. Een survey onder gedetineerden in het Nederlandse gevangeniswezen [Imprisonment in the Netherlands 2007. A survey among all prisoners in Dutch correctional facilities]. The Hague, The Netherlands: Dutch Custodial Institutions Agency.

45.

Molleman

Leeuw

(2012). The influence of prison staff on inmate conditions: A multilevel approach to staff and inmate surveys. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 18, 217-233.

46.

Moon

Maxwell

S. R.

(2004). Assessing the correctional orientation of corrections officers in South Korea. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 48, 729-743.

47.

Nelissen

P. P.

(2000). Resocialisatie en detentie: Een onderzoek naar de houdingen van gedetineerden en gevangenispersoneel ten aanzien van de voorbereiding van de terugkeer in de samenleving [Rehabilitation and imprisonment: A study on attitudes of prisoners and prison staff on the preparation of return to society]. Maastricht, The Netherlands: University Maastricht.

48.

Paboojian

Teske

R. H. C.

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

49.

Paternoster

Brame

Bachman

Sherman

L. W.

(1997). Do fair procedures matter? The effect of procedural justice on spouse assault. Law & Society Review, 31, 163-204.

50.

Phelan

Stueve

Link

B. G.

Moore

R. E.

(1995). Education, social liberalism and conservatism: Attitudes toward homeless people. American Sociological Review, 60, 126-140.

51.

Reisig

M. D.

Mesko

(2009). Procedural justice, legitimacy and prisoner misconduct. Psychology, Crime & Law, 15, 41-59.

52.

Snijders

T. A. B.

Bosker

R. J.

(1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. London, England: Sage.

53.

Sparks

J. R.

Bottoms

A. E.

(1995). Legitimacy and order in prisons. British Journal of Sociology, 46, 45-62.

54.

Sprott

J. B.

Greene

(2010). Trust and confidence in the courts. Crime & Delinquency, 56, 269-289.

55.

Sunshine

Tyler

T. R.

(2003). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law & Society Review, 37, 513-547.

56.

Tait

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

57.

Tewksbury

Mustaine

E. E.

(2008). Correctional orientations of prison staff. The Prison Journal, 88, 207-233.

58.

Thibaut

Walker

(1975). Procedural justice. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

59.

Tyler

T. R.

(1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

60.

Tyler

T. R.

(2001). Public trust and confidence in legal authorities: What do majority and minority group members want from the law and legal institutions. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 19, 215-235.

61.

Van der Broek

T. C.

Molleman

(2012). Tevredenheid van gevangenispersoneel in 2011. Een verdieping in personele en inrichtingspecifieke kenmerken [Prison staff satisfaction 2011. A study on staff and prison characteristics].The Hague, The Netherlands: Research and Documentation Centre of the Dutch Ministry of Security and Justice.

62.

Van Voorhis

Cullen

F. T.

Link

B. G.

Travis Wolfe

(1991). The impact of race and gender on correctional officers’ orientation to the integrated environment. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 28, 472-500.

63.

Whitehead

J. T.

Lindquist

C. A.

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

64.

Wright

K. N.

Bronstein

(2007). Creating decent prisons: A serendipitous finding about prison hospice. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 44, 1-16.