Incarcerated Women’s Perceptions of the Role Model Prison Officer as Procedurally Just

Abstract

Studies applying procedural justice to the prison context have largely been quantitative and sampled men. These studies have explored prisoner’s procedural justice perceptions of the police and courts, but whether and to what extent their perceptions of the prison officer are associated with procedural justice is unknow. This study extends this research by qualitatively exploring how a sample of women incarcerated in an American prison perceive the role model prison officer and if their perceptions of the model officer are in line with the tenants of procedural justice theory. Findings reveal women’s perceptions of the model prison officer as procedurally just and point to the value of correctional officers developing strategies that enhance the procedural justice aspects of their encounters with women in prison.

Keywords

incarcerated women procedural justice prison qualitative prison officer

Introduction

The treatment prisoners receive from prison officers—the individuals who are tasked with providing constant monitoring and protection of prisoners through rule enforcement—is not unidirectional, but rather occurs on a positive to negative continuum from providing help and support to being unsupportive and dehumanizing (Owen et al., 2008). Studies recognize that female prisoners’ interactions with prison officers differ from those of their male counterparts (e.g., Crewe et al., 2017; Liebling, 2009). Studies have found that correctional officers consistently punish women more frequently than men for minor rule violations (Pogrebin & Dodge, 2001; Vuolo & Kruttschnitt, 2008) and women relate being controlled by prison officers to their experiences on the outside, noting their loss of identity and self-esteem (Kruttschnitt et al., 2000). However, fair and humane treatment, a reoccurring theme in prison research, consistently show up as a point of importance to prisoners (Crewe, et al., 2011; Dirkzwager & Kruttschnitt, 2012; Liebling, 2004; Liebling et al., 2011) and two characteristics officers should possess.

One theoretical concept considered in the literature that has focused on fair and humane treatment is procedural justice. Procedural justice considers the fairness in how decisions get made (Thibaut & Walker, 1975; Tyler, 2006). To that end, the process by which a decision is made should be fair and entail dignity and respect (Tyler, 2006). The application of procedural justice to the prison context has been used to explore compliance in prison (e.g., Beijersbergen, Dirkzwager, Eichelsheim, et al., 2015; Campbell et al., 2020; Reisig & Mesko, 2009; J. R. Sparks & Bottoms, 1995), prison violence and the grievance process (e.g., Bierie, 2013), and the importance of prison staff background characteristics (e.g., age, gender, education) on prisoners’ perceptions of a just treatment (Beijersbergen, Dirkzwager, Molleman, et al., 2015). However, it has not been used to explore female prisoners’ perceptions of what they consider a role model prison officer. A role model officer is someone who other officers can and should model to emulate their behavior and attitude toward and treatment of prisoners. Understanding how women in prison perceive the model officer can inform their gender-specific needs which are predictive of community compliance and recidivism (Salisbury et al., 2009; Salisbury & Van Voorhis, 2009; Van Voorhis et al., 2010) and can help them to move through the prison system. Furthermore, studies find that prisoners’ perceptions of officers shape the prison experience (e.g., Pogrebin & Dodge, 2001) and influence how effectively the prison operates (Vuolo & Kruttschnitt, 2008). Thus, how the components of procedural justice map onto the model officer can inform officer training which not only can benefit women but may also benefit the safety of staff and the operation of the prison.

Perceptions of procedural justice within the United States prison context have largely been quantitative (but see Bickers et al., 2019; Jenness & Calavita, 2018), and have involved asking prisoners questions about predetermined procedural justice components rather than gaining a more nuanced understanding of the topic from focusing on the perspective of the individual. Additionally, many of these studies have derived information garnered from male prisoners (but see Alward et al., 2021; Baker et al., 2019; Fitzalan Howard & Wakeling, 2020), making it unclear as to whether procedural justice is important in regard to women behind bars. To address these gaps, this study draws from 58 qualitative interviews with women confined to a Midwestern American prison to explore how they perceive the role model officer and if their perceptions of the role model officer map onto the components of procedural justice.

Procedural Justice

Procedural justice focuses on the way legal authorities interact with people (Leventhal, 1980; Lind & Tyler, 1988; Thibaut & Walker, 1975; Tyler, 1990). It posits that in practice the concern may be more about the process by which a decision is made than the outcome of the decision (Thibaut & Walker, 1975). Thus, people are more inclined to conform to rules and regulations if the process itself, by which decisions are made, is viewed as fair (Thibaut & Walker, 1975; Tyler, 1990; Tyler & Huo, 2002; Tyler & Wakslak, 2004). Much of the current work on procedural justice is guided by the process-based model of regulation (Tyler, 2003, 2006), which includes two key components of procedural justice: treatment quality, being treated with dignity and respect by criminal justice actors, and decision-making quality, decisions being made in a neutral and fair manner (Solomon, 2019; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tyler, 2006; Tyler & Huo, 2002). When people experience these two forms of justice, it increases the acceptance of social rules and voluntary engagement in self-regulatory behavior (Tyler & Blader, 2000; Tyler & Huo, 2002). This model provides a framework for understanding how interactions, between those who are in authority and those who are not, shape perceptions of and cooperation with legal authorities (e.g., police, court officials, prison officers).

Leventhal (1980) expanded on Thibaut and Walker’s (1975) conceptualization of procedural justice and proposed that for procedures to be considered fair they must be consistent, accurate, unbiased, ethical, correctable, and representative of all parties involved. Adopting concepts from Thibaut and Walker (1975) and Leventhal (1980), Lind and Tyler (1988) developed the relational model of procedural justice. Under this model, for a procedure to be perceived as fair it must be neutral, meaning that it is honest and unbiased, trustworthy and caring about the concerns of others, with the parties not in authority treated politely with dignity and respect. Much of the literature on procedural justice draws from these studies and highlights four theoretical constructs: citizen participation (or voice), fairness and neutrality, dignity and respect, and trust (Goodman-Delahunty, 2010; Murphy & Cherney, 2011; Tyler, 2006; Tyler & Huo, 2002). Examining women in prisons’ perceptions of a role model officer and whether or not their perceptions map onto procedural justice stems from the idea of procedural justice and its four tenets. The study most closely associated with mapping the tenets of procedural justice onto the inmate-officer relationship was conducted by Bickers et al. (2019), who asked men in a medium security prison in England four questions, each addressing one of the four tenants of procedural justice, to better understand how they perceived their relationship with offender supervisors—previously prison staff. Most respondents felt that they were listened to and that respect was present. However, only some expressed trust in their offender supervisors and most felt that officers were not neutral but judged them for their past behavior. The low levels of procedural justice the men reported negatively impacted their relationship with prison staff and their overall prison experience, making it difficult for them to move through the prison system. Although Bickers et al. (2019) study provide a nuanced understanding of men’s procedural justice perceptions, they do not speak to women’s perceptions of prison officers as procedurally just. The study most closely associated with women prisoners’ procedural justice perceptions was conducted by Fitzalan Howard and Wakeling (2020) who surveyed a large enough number of women to explore similarities and differences between male and female prisoners held in English and Welsh prisons. Overall, women held significantly more positive procedural justice perceptions compared to men. They also found that, among the women surveyed, those who had harmed themselves in prison and served more time had significantly poorer perceptions of justice than those who had never harmed themselves or were at the start of their sentences. These quantitative differences, although important, do not capture the nuanced perceptions women have of prison officers and which components of procedural justice they should possess.

Mapping the Components of Procedural Justice Onto the Role Model Prison Officer

Prison officers are responsible for maintaining custody of those confined to prison. They are expected to regulate prisoners’ behavior; prevent escapes; provide safety and security; and enforce rules, regulations, policies, and procedures (Crawley, 2004; Liebling et al., 2011; Ryan et al., 2022). Other duties include locking and unlocking cell doors, conducting inmate counts and searches, and report writing. Officers typically see custody and security as the core elements of their job, and rehabilitation and care of inmates as the job of treatment and medical staff (Crawley, 2004; Crewe, 2011; Lin, 2000). Studies that sample prisoners have found maintaining a safe environment (Beijersbergen, Dirkzwager, Molleman, et al., 2015; Liebling & Arnold, 2004; Pogrebin & Dodge, 2001; Ross, 1994), consistent rule enforcement (Crewe et al., 2014), and professional orientation (Liebling et al., 2011) to be important features prison officers take part in. However, the first study to explore the idea of a model prison officer was in Denmark (Krimminalforsorgens Uddannelsescenter, 1994, as cited in Liebling et al., 2011), but only considered the perceptions of prison officers and their managers. The study produced a long list of qualities including, but not limited to, physical characteristics, mental capacity, and administrative tasks that made up the profile of an ideal officer. However, many of the qualities were in tension and do not reflect the perspective of inmates. Similarly, in their study at Whitemoor Prison in England, Liebling et al. (2011) found that prison officers, their, managers and prisoners identified a wide range of qualities that prison officers can adopt but focused on six core characteristics salient in the most admired officers working in the prison: maintaining consistent boundaries, moral fiber (e.g., confidence, integrity, honesty), being aware of their own power, understanding the pains of imprisonment, being professional, and having an optimistic outlook. While this study was the first to explore the characteristics of a model officer from the perspective of inmates, it is unknown to what extent they map onto the procedural justice framework. Moreover, Whitemoor is an all-male prison located outside of the United States, thus, women’s perceptions of the model officer in an American prison were not included.

Although the four theoretical tenants of procedural justice—respect, fairness, voice, and trust—have not been applied to women’s perceptions of a model officer—they are concepts highlighted in the literature on women in prison. Respect is a concept embedded in the norms and values of the prison world (Owen et al., 2008). It is often the first value to be brought up in qualitative work with prisoners when asked about ‘what matters’ in prison. In their study of female offenders in two large prisons and three jails, Owen et al. (2008) found that the most common problem women reported in terms of staff was “‘down talk’ or disrespectful and derogatory verbal interactions” (p. 11). Similarly, female prisoners in a midwestern institution described staff disrespect as expressing their power inappropriately through verbal fights (Wulf & Trammell, 2021). In addition to respect, fairness has been established in the prison literature and is critical to life in prison as it demonstrates effects on order (R. Sparks & Bottoms, 2008; R. Sparks et al., 1996) and well-being (Liebling, 2004; Liebling et al., 2005). In a study of the effects of correctional officers on female prisoners’ adjustment to prison life, female inmates had difficulty adjusting to prison when they felt officers did not follow the rulebook and wrote prisoners up for minor infractions (Vuolo & Kruttschnitt, 2008). Voice, a third component of procedural justice, allows those in prison to state their concerns and be heard by those in authoritative positions (Brunton-Smith & McCarthy, 2016). The concerns and needs of female prisoners qualitatively differ from their male counterparts (Hoskins & Cobbina, 2020) and include, but are not limited to, medical, programming, safety, and staff and family support (Butler, 2022). Women prisoners want higher levels of support from the correctional establishments compared to men who instead focus on efficient delivery of services (Liebling et al., 2011). Women’s gender-specific needs, which can be conveyed through use of their voice, may reflect how they perceive the model officer. Lastly, trust in prison can be described as a “rare occurrence” (Hacin & Mesko, 2018, p. 4344). In her study on female prisoners, Greer (2002) reported that women talked about the prison environment as one based on manipulation and mistrust. This is similar to Hacin and Mesko (2018) who found that half of the male and female Slovene prisoners interviewed did not trust prison staff as they were representatives of the prison and out to harm them. The literature on women in prison has established that respect and fairness matter to women in prison, but whether and to what extent they believe a model officer should possess such qualities is unknown. It is less clear how important voice and trust are to women in prison. Although trust is rare, is it a characteristic women associate with the model officer? Similarly, do women put importance on being heard by prison officers? The current study aims to answer these questions.

Current Study

The following study builds on the existing research in two ways. First, it fills a gap in the literature by qualitatively examining how women prisoners perceive the model prison officer. Qualitative data offer unique insight into women’s perceptions of prison officers. The range of experiences women have in prison and with prison officers is broad and therefore cannot be captured through quantitative methods alone. Second, it inductively explores whether and to what extent the factors women associate with being a role model prison officer coincide with the four common components—voice, fairness and neutrality, dignity and respect, and trust—of procedural justice.

Method

Participants, Recruitment, and Sampling

The current study draws on qualitative in-depth interviews with 58 women incarcerated in a Mid-western prison and four closed-ended questions. The all-female prison is one of two women’s prisons in the state and consists of five security levels: minimum, medium, close (i.e., women are locked down 21 out of 24 hr a day) maximum, and administrative maximum. However, at the time of data collection, women were not being held under administrative security and less than 1% of women were under maximum security. Interviews took place in various locations around the prison including an office in the visiting area and offices in the housing units. All interviews were conducted behind a closed door with only the interviewer and interviewee present. Prior to beginning the interview, the author outlined the purpose of the study and assured respondents’ confidentiality. Participation in the study was voluntary and participants were not paid for their involvement as it was prohibited by the state’s Department of Corrections.

To allow all members an equal chance of selection (Marshall, 1996) and to generalize findings (Shadish et al., 2002) to the prison population being studied, participants were selected through random sampling. Using a random number generator, women were randomly selected from a roster of all women incarcerated at the prison. Initially, 60 women were sent a recruitment letter as it was expected that data saturation would occur, and no new themes would emerge by 60 interviews. The recruitment letter explained the study and included a day and time to meet with the researcher to learn additional details about the study. As each female prisoner arrived on her specified day and time, the study was explained, and she was asked if she would like to participate. For each woman who declined, the next randomly generated number was used to select an additional woman from the list. A total of 72 women received a recruitment letter. However, 12 (16.6%) women declined for reasons including not wanting to be a statistic, having trust issues, tired, medicated, feeling sick, and simply not wanting to take part; and two (2.7%) of the interviews were cut short due to other scheduled activities the women were involved in. Thus, the participant response rate for the current study was 81%.

Data Collection

Data collection began with an in-depth, semi-structured interview, which allowed for probing. To examine the factors that shape the role model prison officer, participants were asked, “In your view, what makes a role model prison officer?” Interviews lasted approximately 90 min and were digitally recorded, allowing for more accurate data gathering than taking notes while women responded to the interview questions (Maxwell, 1996; Patton, 1990). At the end of each interview, women were given a short survey consisting of closed-ended items that they were asked to answer on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “never” to “always.” The survey questions were adapted from Vuolo and Kruttschnitt’s (2008) work with women in prison and are indicators of prison adjustment (Kruttschnitt & Gartner, 2003). They were not designed to elicit women’s perceptions of procedural justice but to better understand their perceptions of the prison officers working in the prison. These questions help to explain why women might perceive the role model officer in the way that they do and, in part, reflect some of the tenants of procedural justice. The four items are: (1) “The officers listen to my problems,” (2) “The officers increase my self-esteem,” (3) “The officers go by the rulebook,” and (4) “The officers treat me with respect.” An alpha score of .81 was generated for the four items.

Data Analysis

Digital audio recordings of the interviews were transcribed verbatim and serve as the primary data for this examination. NVivo, a qualitative research software, was used to auto-code each transcription and organize the data. Additionally, transcripts were carefully read and coded by hand. To begin the analysis, data were unitized, which is the process of separating the data to reflect one idea or response (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Inductive analysis techniques were used to identify respondents’ perceptions of factors that shape the role model prison officer. First, the author and graduate research assistant independently coded all 58 cases for recurring concepts and repeating ideas. Second, to strengthen internal validity of the analysis elements of grounded theory were used including a constant comparative methodology to create categories. This process allows for categories to be developed and reworked rather than preparing categories beforehand (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Third, the author and graduate research assistant examined the transcripts to identify concepts and themes that recurred, which they discussed, compared, and refined (Holsti, 1969). Thus, the concepts and categories developed typified the most common patterns in female prisoners’ accounts. Lastly, basic tabulations were used to identify the strength of the thematic patterns uncovered (see Silverman, 2006, pp. 296–301). Additionally, all 58 participants answered the four closed-ended questions. SPSS statistical software was used to enter women’s responses to each of the four questions and calculate frequencies. The in-depth interviews result in rich contextual evidence regarding women prisoners perceived characteristics of the model officer and fill a noticeable gap in the current corrections literature.

Of the 58 participants, 63% self-identified as white, 33% as Black, and the remaining 4% Hispanic. Women ranged in age from 19 to 69 years of age, with a mean of 33 years. Sentence length ranged from 8 months to life without parole with an average sentence length of 72 months. More than half (55%) of the women were incarcerated for a violent offense while the remaining women were incarcerated for a property (30%) or drug (15%) offense. Additionally, about 35% of the women reported serving a prior prison term. The random sample is representative of the institutional population on race, age, and security level. Other variables were not made available by the prison and thus not accessed. The next section includes a discussion of the most common factors shaping women’s perceptions of the role model prison officer, how those factors coincide with the tenants of procedural justice, and their perceptions of the officers working in the prison.

Results

Four common factors shaping female prisoners’ perceptions of the role model prison officer, which are not mutually exclusive, include showing respect (n = 25), being fair and consistent (n = 21), providing order and security (n = 12), and being responsive (n = 10). Although questions asked were not designed to intentionally elicit interpretations of procedural justice, women’s perceptions of a role model prison officer did indeed reflect some of the central tenants found in the procedural justice framework.

Respect

The most common characteristic women perceived a role model prison officer to possess was respect (43%), which comprised compassion and not passing judgment. Women explained respect as being treated as a “human being” and not as “subhuman” by the officers. Amy, who was in her mid-30s and under minimum security, illustrated the role model officer as respectful when they “don’t just treat you like you’re subhuman… yelling and screaming at every turn.” Similarly, Courtney, a 21-year-old under medium security, stated that a model officer “doesn’t treat you like shit” and at the very least can “talk to you like you’re a human being.” Although women were not asked if there were officers in the prison who fit their description of the model officer, some women went on to provide examples of what they had witnessed or experienced. For example, Courtney described many officers in the prison as “really cool, they don’t talk down on you,” but noted that there are a “little handful [of officers in the prison] and all you are to them is bitches and hoes and fuck-ups. They yell at you and they let it be known that you’re nothing but a number to them.” Likewise, Debra, a white woman in her late 20s, who perceived a model officer as respectful, detailed an incident that demonstrates the opposite:

When they do cell searches, they can be disrespectful, tear it up, have your shit just threw everywhere or they can go in and just look and do it without doing all that. Some of them [tear it up] just to do it just to be pricks and it’s disrespect[ful].

Being respectful included showing compassion, which is what Amanda, a 33-year-old white woman under close security, lamented of a role model officer:

[A role model officer] does the job with compassion [and not] because [it is] just a paycheck. [T]he [officer] does it because he understands that we made bad choices and that we are not bad people and you know, some good can come out of us, not maybe all of us but some of us.

Doing the job with compassion also meant “understand[ing] some of the women’s circumstances.” Latasha, a Black woman in her 30s and under close security, noted that in order to be compassionate officers need to “leave their problems at the gate.” She continued:

I hear a lot of officers [when they’re angry] say, ‘I’m going home and you going to be here [in prison].’ I think that’s just disgusting because you really don’t know what this person has been through in their life, to say, ‘You’re never going home and I’m going home at 10 o’clock or I’m going home at 2 o’clock.’ I just think that is so disgusting… I feel like this [place] is supposed to rehabilitate us, and the officers beat us down more than we beat each other down.

Another part of being respectful included officers not passing judgment on the people they are supervising. For example, Martina, who was under close security, declared of a model officer, “They don’t judge you for your crime or even judge you for being here [in prison]. They give you that chance to set the tone of the kind of person you are.” She went on to say that “98 percent of them [officers] that are here [at the prison], they’re good, they’re nice.” Likewise, Amy lamented that a model officer would realize that “just because we’re in prison, doesn’t necessarily mean we’re horrible people.” She continued, “there’s some of them [prison officers’] that act like this is their own little hunting ground for women.” Asked to explain what she meant by “hunting ground,” she stated, “it’s like they thrive on making the women miserable.”

The closed-ended question asking women if officers in the prison treat them with respect revealed that 41% often or always do (38% and 3% respectively), 38% sometimes do, and nearly 21% rarely or never do (15.5% and 5% respectively). When asked if officers in the prison increase their self-esteem, over two-thirds (69%) of women reported that they rarely or never do (36% and 33% respectively), 19% sometimes do, and 12% often or always do (10% and 2% respectively).

Women’s accounts of a model prison officer as respectful are in line with the “dignity and respect” component of procedural justice. However, women commonly provided examples of disrespect and connected it to being treated as less than a person, using words such as “subhuman,” “bitch,” and “nothing but a number.” Less than half of the women reported officers treating them with respect most or all the time. This differs from Bickers et al. (2019), who found that most male prisoners felt that respect was present in their relationship with prison staff. Women’s detailed examples of disrespect illuminate the possible impacts officers’ actions can have on them. For example, Latasha, who noted that model officers need to be compassionate, detailed an example of officers doing the opposite and leaving her feeling “beat down” more than she already beats herself down. Thus, it is not surprising that only one-third of the women reported that officers increase their self-esteem. When people feel they have been demeaned or stereotyped by authorities, they feel less of a person and disrespected beyond what is appropriate by authorities (Tankebe & Mesko, 2015).

Fair and Consistent

Approximately one-third (36%) of the women perceived a role model officer to be “fair” and “treat everybody the same way.” Part of being fair to them meant being “consistent” with enforcing rules. Women’s reasoning for fair and consistent officers centered on reducing conflict and animosity among prisoners and between officers and prisoners, and reducing disruption in the housing units. Laura, who was under medium security, questioned why an officer wouldn’t want to be fair:

I don’t know why you would want to be in a situation where you’re treatin’ some people better than others, because the next day you come to work the people you treated bad are gonna be mean to you. They’re gonna be disrespectful and loud and disruptive, and it creates this whole complete atmosphere in the whole dorm as soon as you walk in. It’s done, it’s there, and you created it for yourself.

Similarly, Felicia, a 30-year-old white woman, noted that a model officer is “Someone that’s fair that doesn’t show favoritism.” Asked to explain why that makes a model officer, she explained:

Because when they show favoritism or whatever, it can cause like conflict or animosity between people like “Oh, well he’ll let you do this but won’t let us do that.” So I mean if you are fair with everybody then you don’t have a problem.

Part of being fair meant not having a “relationship” with women confined to the prison. Samantha, a 27-year-old housed in medium security, clearly noted this when she described the model officer as “one that don’t have sex with the other inmates.” Samantha continued, “if you’re going to have sex with [them] you’re gonna show more favoritism – she’s going to get more privileges.” Likewise, Lisa, a 31-year-old under minimum-security, contended that a role model officer is: “Someone that’s not in here having relationships with women. A lot of them [officers] try to have relationships with the inmates and [they can] get the officers to bring in drugs or something of that nature [for them].”

Being fair also meant being “consistent” with “enforc[ing] the rules.” For example, Anna, a young white woman, proclaimed of a role model officer:

Once they’re consistent, everyone knows what to expect – what they put up with, what they don’t. So, people know, like if they’re going to go out of place [and be in an area of the prison you cannot be in] and he’s going to get you, or he don’t care. They don’t change. You know what to expect all day long.

Nicole expressed similar sentiments as she described the rules officers should be consistent with:

You know [that] when the staff member [is] in the unit that you are going to have to follow the rules [because] [t]he [officer] doesn’t tolerate being out of place. [Y]ou know there is only supposed to be three people in line for the phone. Count times, you know you’ve got to keep the noise level down, or he’ll lock you down. Stuff like that. And he’s the same all the time. It’s not flip-flopping. One day I’m feeling this way so I’m going to treat you this way and another day I’m feeling this way so I’m going to treat you this way.

Not only did women perceive a model officer to be consistent in their own work style, but with the work style of other officers. Terry, a 41-year-old under close security, claimed, “There’s 20 million rules around here that are all different and each CO is different. One is telling you to go left and the other one is telling you to go right. Be consistent!” In line with women’s desires for a model officer to be fair and consistent were the results from the survey question that asked women if officers go by the rule book. Thirty-three percent reported that they never or rarely do (28% and 5% respectively), 41% sometimes do, and 26% often or always do (21% and 5% respectively).

Research has found that the way the staff behaves is a “significant factor in ‘setting the tone’ in a unit” and can either create an atmosphere of tension or peace (Owen et al., 2008, p. 74). Approximately one-third of the women in this study reported being fair as a characteristic model officers should possess, and noted that failing to do so would create an environment filled with animosity and disruption. This is consistent with the “fairness and neutrality” component of procedural justice. In addition to women perceiving the model officer as fair, they also described the model officer as consistent in enforcing the prison rules. This too is in line with the procedural justice model which argues for consistent application of rules to create legitimacy in authority. Women’s perception of the model officer as fair may be coming from their past and current experiences in the prison, as only a quarter of women reported that officers working in the prison go by the rule book.

Order and Security

Some women (21%) expected a role model officer to “do their job” which consisted of maintaining order and security. Keeping order meant minimizing fights and drug use to “make sure everyone’s safe,” as Faith, a young Black woman under close security, stated of a role model officer. Likewise, Molly, a 28-year-old under medium security, noted that a role model officer “does his job every day.” Asked what an officer’s job includes, she replied, “[to] make sure things stay in line, stay in order as far as like not fighting, obviously no drugs or anything like that going on. And just to make sure inmates follow the rules.” Ashley, a young white woman, concurred and recounted a story about an officer not doing her job in keeping order and security:

And she [the officer] come in, she’s just sitting at the desk and she’s got five or six black girls just sitting around her desk. You know they are chopping it up like they on the streets. And as she’s doing this there was six different fights in different rooms. So now if she would have been doing her job none of them girls would have got their ass beat.

Studies within the criminal justice field consistently support procedural justice as an approach to obtaining and maintaining order in prison. Women detail a model officer as someone who can create this type of environment through rule enforcement, which will help to prevent fighting and drug use. Women’s perception of the model officer as maintaining order and security is in line with the official duties of a prison officer.

Responsiveness

Lastly, some (17%) women in the prison described a role model officer as being responsive to their needs. Whether the need be medical, as Rosie, a Hispanic woman in her late 20s, explained, “An officer who genuinely cares if we are sick and need to get into medical”; or protection, as Andrea, a 33-year-old white woman under minimum security, pointed out, “[If] fighting or any type of abuse was going on and [they would] help you.” Women understood that some things are out of the individual officers’ control, but a model officer “will try to direct you in the way that you need to be directed – if you have a problem they can’t assist you with or [they] don’t know, they would direct you in the way you need to go,” as Dana, who was under minimum security, noted.

A few women described the model officer as someone “you can tell your problems to” and in response “will listen.” In addition, a couple of women look to the model officer for “good advice” when they have a problem or have a question that needs answering. Asked if officers in the prison listen to their problems, over half (57%) of the women reported that they rarely or never do (29% and 28% respectively), 36% sometimes do, and 7% often or always do (5% and 2% respectively).

Women’s perceptions of the role model officer as responsive maps onto the voice component of procedural justice, which allows people to state their case to those in positions of authority and be heard. Women describe using their voice to state their needs, in terms of tangible and emotional support, and they contend that in response a model officer will listen and try to help. Although this appears to be an important characteristic women perceive a model officer should have, more than half of the women reported officers rarely or never listening to them. This finding differs from Dirkzwager and Kruttschnitt (2012) who interviewed mostly male English and Dutch prisoners and found that the central role of prison staff was the extent to which they were responsive or helpful.

Discussion and Conclusion

Prison officers who treat prisoners in a procedurally just manner can positively impact prisoner’s perceptions of the officers (R. Sparks et al., 1996). However, limited attention has been paid to procedural justice in the context of women in prison (but see Alward et al., 2021; Fitzalan Howard & Wakeling, 2020), and no study to date has offered an examination of the characteristics of a role model officer from the perspectives of females in prison. The current study extends previous research through a qualitative analysis of female prisoners’ perceptions of the role model prison officer and how their perceptions map onto the procedural justice framework. Women detailed four common characteristics of a model officer: is respectful, is fair and consistent, maintains order and security, and is responsive. In alignment with the procedural justice framework, women placed the greatest emphasis on officers being respectful and providing fair and consistent treatment. They also perceived the model officer as someone who provides order and security; however, this last point was emphasized less. Although providing order and security do not map onto the procedural justice framework, they are the “official” job responsibilities of prison officers. Being responsive to women’s verbal requests, the least perceived trait of a model officer, partially maps onto the voice component of procedural justice. Women described the model officer as someone who “listens” when they speak. However, women reference their voice being heard in the context of their emotional and tangible needs rather than hearing their side of a story. One component of procedural justice that did not come up in women’s descriptions of a model officer was that of trust. This is not surprising, given the inherent interpersonal distrust that prison perpetuates. The absence of trust speaks to the value of other characteristics women identified and their implications for theory and practice in a women’s prison.

Theoretically, women’s perceptions of the role model officer clearly contain two key components of procedural justice: being treated with dignity and respect by prison officers and keeping officer-inmate interactions neutral and fair. While findings from this study do not reveal the model officer as trustworthy or someone who listens to the inmates’ side of the story, more research should be conducted to further clarify if these components of procedural justice matter to women in prison. Future studies should consider asking women how important officer trust and being heard by officers in times of conflict are to them. Additionally, this study can only speak to how women define the model officer and if this definition is in line with procedural justice. This begs the question of whether and to what extent the role model officer exists in a women’s prison. Future studies should explore this avenue of questioning.

Findings point to the value of prison officers placing greater emphasis in developing strategies that enhance the dignity and respect aspect of procedural justice during their encounters with female prisoners. Treating prisoners decently promotes rehabilitation, which can increase the likelihood of their successful reentry into society once released (Johnson, 1996; Liebling, 2004). As women in this study noted, a model officer is humanizing—a fundamental right of all human beings regardless of their place in or out of society. Disrespectful treatment can make people feel devalued (Jackson et al., 2012), which can decrease the chances of securing cooperation (Mazerolle et al., 2013) and negatively impact self-esteem. Studies have found that female prisoners report lower levels of self-esteem than male prisoners (Ireland, 2002) in addition to women who have never had contact with the criminal justice system (Kalemi et al., 2019). Feelings of being dehumanized were present as women discussed their perceptions of model officers and used examples of instances in which officers were disrespectful and unfair in their interactions with them. Prior research has found that supportive messages, such as compliments and encouragement, can reinforce positive behaviors and enhance self-efficacy (Dakof & Taylor, 1990; Drummond, 2005; Dunkel-Schetter, 1984). In a sample of female offenders, Smith et al. (2016) found that probation and parole officer communication style had an impact on levels of self-efficacy. Prison officer training should focus on raising women’s morale and feelings of self-worth through positive affirmations to enhance the respect component of procedural justice.

Findings also point to the value of treating everyone fairly and consistently, going by the rule book. Women discussed the unpredictability of rule enforcement and conveyed the importance of officers being fair and consistent to prevent the disruption and animosity that ensues among those living in the prison and with the officers when they are unfair and inconsistent. Treating everyone in a fair and consistent manner communicates important information about social status and inherent worth (Henderson et al., 2010). Liebling (2009) found that lack of fairness in women’s prisons is related to high levels of distress. Additionally, a feeling of safety was created when relationships with staff were predictable. Although prisons have yet to provide procedural justice training to prison officers, the police literature demonstrates positive procedural justice training outcomes for law enforcement officials (Mazerolle et al., 2013; Sahin et al., 2017). Sahin et al. (2017) found that integrating procedural justice components into police traffic stops improves citizens’ perceptions of their encounters with law enforcement. Training for prison officers should focus on a set of behaviors (i.e., respect and fair treatment) to assist in creating a positive, calm, and uplifting environment for the women confined to it.

Like most prior research, this study is not without limitations. Although a strength of the current study is the inductive focus on a random sample of females, further research is needed to generalize findings beyond this prison site. There is no reason to believe that “respect” and “fair” treatment should not be instituted in all women’s prisons across the US, but the prison climate, as well as the attitudes of prison officers, undoubtedly vary across intuitions and may change the characteristics of a model officer that are most important to female prisoners. Interviewing prison officers about their role and how they perceive the model officer could add additional contextualization to the findings. Moreover, studies should consider extending similar research to males incarcerated in US prisons to distinguish similarities and differences in perceptions of the model officer across gender. Lastly, research should explore how female prisoners’ perceptions of prison officers are associated with behavioral outcomes. This may lend additional credence to various aspects of procedural justice and female prisoners’ needs.

In conclusion, this study advances the research on procedural justice in the correctional context by exploring how women’s perceptions of the role model officer map onto the components of procedural justice. Findings reveal that women in prison place a heavy emphasis on officer characteristics that convey respect and fair treatment. These characteristics are in line with the procedural justice model and point to the value in prison officers infusing various aspects of procedural justice during their interactions with female prisoners.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Thank you to the anonymous reviewers for the insightful reviews and comments which helped to improve the quality of the manuscript.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

ORCID iD

Kimberly A. Bender

References

Alward

L. M.

Baker

Gordon

J. A.

(2021). Procedural justice and incarcerated people’s obligation to obey institutional rules: An examination of current, former, and never-gang members. Journal of Criminal Justice, 73, 101757.

Baker

Abderhalden

F. P.

Alward

L. M.

Bedard

L. E.

(2019). Exploring the association between procedural justice in jails and incarcerated people’s commitment to institutional rules. Corrections, 6(3), 189–202.

Beijersbergen

K. A.

Dirkzwager

A. J.

Eichelsheim

V. I.

Van der Laan

P. H.

Nieuwbeerta

(2015). Procedural justice, anger, and prisoners’ misconduct: A longitudinal study. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42(2), 196–218.

Beijersbergen

K. A.

Dirkzwager

A. J.

Molleman

van der Laan

P. H.

Nieuwbeerta

(2015). Procedural justice in prison: The importance of staff characteristics. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 59(4), 337–358.

Bickers

Crewe

Mitchell

R. J.

(2019). Offender supervision, prisoners and procedural justice. The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice, 58(4), 477–495.

Bierie

D. M.

(2013). Procedural justice and prison violence: Examining complaints among federal inmates (2000–2007). Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 19(1), 15.

Brunton-Smith

McCarthy

D. J.

(2016). Prison legitimacy and procedural fairness: A multilevel examination of prisoners in England and Wales. Justice Quarterly, 33(6), 1029–1054.

Butler

H. D.

(2022). Understanding how in-prison experiences influence female offenders’ maladjustment to prison. Justice Quarterly, 39, 174–200.

Campbell

C. M.

Labrecque

R. M.

Schaefer

R. L.

Harvis

Zavita

K. R.

Reddy

Labranche

(2020). Do perceptions of legitimacy and fairness matter in prison? Examining how procedural and distributive justice relate to misconduct. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 47(12), 1630–1653.

10.

Crawley

(2004). Doing prison work: The public and private lives of prison officers. Willan Publishing.

11.

Crewe

(2011). Soft power in prison: Implications for staff–prisoner relationships, liberty and legitimacy. European Journal of Criminology, 8(6), 455–468.

12.

Crewe

Hulley

Wright

(2017). The gendered pains of life imprisonment. British Journal of Criminology, 57(6), 1359–1378.

13.

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.

14.

Crewe

Liebling

Hulley

(2014). Heavy-light, absent-present: Rethinking the “weight” of imprisonment. The British Journal of Sociology, 65(3), 387–410.

15.

Dakof

G. A.

Taylor

S. E.

(1990). Victims’ perceptions of social support: What is helpful from whom? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(1), 80.

16.

Dirkzwager

A. J.

Kruttschnitt

(2012). Prisoners’ perceptions of correctional officers’ behavior in English and Dutch prisons. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(5), 404–412.

17.

Drummond

D. K.

(2005). Diabetes management: An exploration into the verbal support attempts of relational others. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 6(1), 69–76.

18.

Dunkel-Schetter

(1984). Social support and cancer: Findings based on patient interviews and their implications. Journal of Social Issues, 40(4), 77–98.

19.

Fitzalan Howard

Wakeling

. (2020). People in prisons’ perceptions of procedural justice in England and Wales. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 47(12), 1654–1676.

20.

Glaser

Strauss

(1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Aldine Publishing Company.

21.

Goodman-Delahunty

(2010). Four ingredients: New recipes for procedural justice in Australian policing. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 4(4), 403–410.

22.

Greer

(2002). Walking an emotional tightrope: Managing emotions in a women’s prison. Symbolic Interaction, 25(1), 117–139.

23.

Hacin

Mesko

(2018). Prisoners’ perception of legitimacy of the prison staff: A qualitative study in Slovene prisons. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(13), 4332–4350.

24.

Henderson

Wells

Maguire

E. R.

Gray

(2010). Evaluating the measurement properties of procedural justice in a correctional setting. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37(4), 384–399.

25.

Holsti

O. R.

(1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Addison-Wesley.

26.

Hoskins

K. M.

Cobbina

J. E.

(2020). It depends on the situation: Women’s identity transformation in prison, jail, and substance abuse treatment settings. Feminist Criminology, 15(3), 340–358.

27.

Ireland

J. L.

(2002). Social self-esteem and self-reported bullying behaviour among adult prisoners. Aggressive Behavior, 28(3), 184–197.

28.

Jackson

Bradford

Hough

Myhill

Quinton

Tyler

T. R.

(2012). Why do people comply with the law? Legitimacy and the influence of legal institutions. British Journal of Criminology, 52(6), 1051–1071.

29.

Jenness

Calavita

(2018). “It depends on the outcome”: Prisoners, grievances, and perceptions of justice. Law & Society Review, 52(1), 41–72.

30.

Johnson

(1996). Humane prisons: A call for decency in conservative times. Corrections Today, 58(4), 130–132.

31.

Kalemi

Michopoulos

Efstathiou

Tzeferakos

Gkioka

Gournellis

Douzenis

(2019). Self-esteem and aggression in women: Differences between female prisoners and women without criminal records. Women & Health, 59(10), 1199–1211.

32.

Kruttschnitt

Gartner

(2003). Women’s imprisonment. Crime and Justice, 30, 1–81.

33.

Kruttschnitt

Gartner

Miller

(2000). Doing her own time? Women’s responses to prison in the context of the old and the new penology. Criminology, 38(3), 681–718.

34.

Leventhal

G. S.

(1980). What should be done with equity theory? In Gergan

K. J.

Greenberg

M. S.

Willis

R. H.

(Eds.), Social exchange (pp. 27–55). Springer.

35.

Liebling

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

36.

Liebling

(2009). Women in prison prefer legitimacy to sex. British Society of Criminology Newsletter, 63, 19–23.

37.

Liebling

Arnold

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

38.

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). Routledge.

39.

Liebling

Price

Shefer

(2011). The prison officer. Willan Publishing.

40.

Lin

A. C.

(2000). Reform in the making: The implementation of social policy in prison. Princeton University Press.

41.

Lincoln

Y. S.

Guba

E. G.

(1985). Naturalistic inquiry (Vol. 75). SAGE.

42.

Lind

E. A.

Tyler

T. R.

(1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. Springer Science & Business Media.

43.

Marshall

M. N.

(1996). Sampling for qualitative research. Family Practice, 13(6), 522–526.

44.

Maxwell

J. A.

(1996). Qualitative research design. SAGE.

45.

Mazerolle

Antrobus

Bennett

Tyler

T. R.

(2013). Shaping citizen perceptions of police legitimacy: A randomized field trial of procedural justice. Criminology, 51(1), 33–63.

46.

Murphy

Cherney

(2011). Fostering cooperation with the police: How do ethnic minorities in Australia respond to procedural justice-based policing? Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 44(2), 235–257.

47.

Owen

B. A.

Wells

Pollock

J. M.

Muscat

Torres

(2008). Gendered violence and safety: A contextual approach to improving security in women’s facilities. US Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

48.

Patton

M. Q.

(1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). SAGE.

49.

Pogrebin

M. R.

Dodge

(2001). Women’s accounts of their prison experiences: A retrospective view of their subjective realities. Journal of Criminal Justice, 29(6), 531–541.

50.

Reisig

M. D.

Mesko

(2009). Procedural justice, legitimacy, and prisoner misconduct. Psychology, Crime & Law, 15(1), 41–59.

51.

Ross

(1994). Race, gender, and social control: Voices of imprisoned Native American and white women. Wicazo Sa Review, 10(2), 17–39.

52.

Ryan

Brennan

McNeill

O’Keeffe

(2022). Prison officer training and education: A scoping review of the published literature. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 33(1), 110–138.

53.

Sahin

Braga

A. A.

Apel

Brunson

R. K.

(2017). The impact of procedurally-just policing on citizen perceptions of police during traffic stops: The Adana randomized controlled trial. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 33(4), 701–726.

54.

Salisbury

E. J.

Van Voorhis

(2009). Gendered pathways: A quantitative investigation of women probationers’ paths to incarceration. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(6), 541–566.

55.

Salisbury

E. J.

Van Voorhis

Spiropoulos

G. V.

(2009). The predictive validity of a gender-responsive needs assessment: An exploratory study. Crime & Delinquency, 55(4), 550–585.

56.

Shadish

W. R.

Cook

T. D.

Campbell

D. T.

(2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

57.

Silverman

(2006). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analyzing talk, text and interaction (3rd ed.). SAGE.

58.

Smith

S. W.

Cornacchione

J. J.

Morash

Kashy

Cobbina

(2016). Communication style as an antecedent to reactance, self-efficacy, and restoration of freedom for drug-and alcohol-involved women on probation and parole. Journal of Health Communication, 21(5), 504–511.

59.

Solomon

S. J.

(2019). How do the components of procedural justice and driver race influence encounter-specific perceptions of police legitimacy during traffic stops? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 46(8), 1200–1216.

60.

Sparks

J. R.

Bottoms

A. E.

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

61.

Sparks

Bottoms

A. E.

(2008). Legitimacy and imprisonment revisited: Some notes on the problem of order ten years after. In Byrne

Hummer

Taxman

(Eds.), The culture of prison violence (pp. 91–104). Allyn & Bacon.

62.

Sparks

Bottoms

Hay

(1996). Prisons and the problem of order. Clarendon Press.

63.

Sunshine

Tyler

T. R.

(2003). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law & Society Review, 37(3), 513–548.

64.

Tankebe

Mesko

(2015). Police self-legitimacy, use of force, and pro-organizational behavior in Slovenia. In Mesko

Tankebe

(Eds.), Trust and legitimacy in criminal justice (pp. 261–277). Springer.

65.

Thibaut

J. W.

Walker

(1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Erlbaum Associates.

66.

Tyler

T. R.

(1990). Why people obey the law: Procedural justice, legitimacy, and compliance. Yale University Press.

67.

Tyler

T. R.

(2003). Procedural justice, legitimacy, and the effective rule of law. Crime and Justice, 30, 283–357.

68.

Tyler

T. R.

(2006). Restorative justice and procedural justice: Dealing with rule breaking. Journal of Social Issues, 62(2), 307.

69.

Tyler

T. R.

Blader

S. L.

(2000). Cooperation in groups: Procedural justice, social identity, and behavioral engagement. Psychology Press.

70.

Tyler

T. R.

Huo

Y. J.

(2002). Trust in the law: Encouraging public cooperation with the police and courts. Russell Sage Foundation.

71.

Tyler

T. R.

Wakslak

C. J.

(2004). Profiling and police legitimacy: Procedural justice, attributions of motive, and acceptance of police authority. Criminology, 42(2), 253–282.

72.

Van Voorhis

Wright

E. M.

Salisbury

Bauman

. (2010). Women’s risk factors and their contributions to existing risk/needs assessment: The current status of a gender-responsive supplement. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37(3), 261–288.

73.

Vuolo

Kruttschnitt

(2008). Prisoners’ adjustment, correctional officers, and context: The foreground and background of punishment in late modernity. Law & Society Review, 42(2), 307–336.

74.

Wulf

Trammell

(2021). Understanding disrespectful behavior through a gendered lens: Race and power in a women’s prison. Journal of Qualitative Criminal Justice and Criminology, 10(2), 5.