Rapport and Relationship Building in a Therapeutic Community: Examining the Dynamic Between Correctional Officers and Incarcerated Persons

Relationships Between COs and Incarcerated Persons

The existing research on officer–incarcerated individual relationships details the complex dynamics that guide interactions within carceral settings. Whereas there may be overarching assumptions that fuel a general distrust or animosity (Crewe, 2011), most day-to-day interactions between imprisoned individuals and officers are respectful and officers are viewed as a source of practical support within prison environment (Logan et al., 2020). There is a robust body of research about how officer–incarcerated individual interactions and officers’ use of authority impact the number of disciplinary infractions and incidents of violence within the prison (Steiner & Wooldredge, 2018). COs perceived by those incarcerated as legitimate sources of authority, typically earned through consistent and fair exercise of power (Vieraitis et al., 2018), can gain greater compliance than officers lacking legitimacy, who often rely on coercion (Crewe & Liebling, 2015; Liebling, 2011; Steiner & Wooldredge, 2018).

The COs’ role has traditionally elevated the objectives of security and control over those prioritized by treatment staff. However, a new discussion is taking root regarding therapeutic environments, which focuses attention on the impact prison staff have on treatment outcomes. Research suggests that COs can play an active role in the promotion of rehabilitative goals by providing encouragement and positive support and assisting in the procurement of resources and services (Schaefer, 2018; Tait, 2011). In the American criminal justice system, duties that were traditionally assigned to various correctional staff are slowly blending to other positions as ideas about the effectiveness of prison programming are changing and the need for boundary spanning ¹ has become imminent in jail-to-community initiatives (Bratina, 2017; Bursac et al., 2018; Manchak et al., 2014; Rao et al., 2016).

Using COs as an extension of the rehabilitative process is not a new concept. COs in Norway, for example, receive training on how to maintain a meaningful rapport and relationship with those incarcerated. They do this through both formal and informal interactions. With respect to formal interactions, COs are assigned three to four individuals to serve as their “contact officer” (Norwegian Prison and Probation Service [KDI], 2021). One of the duties of a contact officer is to help those they oversee devise a “future plan” (very similar to a treatment plan). They discuss with them their needs (e.g., education, vocational training, and medical) and help them identify the services available within the prison. In terms of informal interactions, COs move around a housing unit and engage in conversation with those incarcerated. Talking, while playing board games or eating dinner with people, presents opportunities where COs officers can show interest and positive support in their lives.

Positive Criminology and COs

Principles related to positive criminology may help to understand the importance of relationships between COs and incarcerated persons within prison-based rehabilitation programs. Positive criminology derives many of its concepts and ideas from the field of positive psychology, which was founded by Dr. Martin E. P. Seligman (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). According to Seligman, positive psychology is a scientific endeavor that aims to explore positive emotions, positive character traits, and positive institutions as the key drivers to mental well-being/wellness and optimal human functioning. As an adaptation to Seligman’s theory, positive criminology examines behavior and relates deviance and/or criminal offending to an imbalance of negative subjective human experiences (Ronel & Elisha, 2011; Ronel & Segev, 2014).

The good lives model (GLM) is one example of a strengths-based program grounded in a positive psychology/criminology perspective (Ronel & Segev, 2014; Walgrave et al., 2021). Through the incorporation of multiple theories and models, program elements include self-care, social acceptance, human kindness and respect, reintegration, positive emotions, and resilience (Walgrave et al., 2021). Other examples of philosophies and programs utilized with juveniles and adults in correctional settings that reflected a positive criminology perspective include restorative justice, art therapy, mindfulness and meditation, yoga, trauma-informed care, and animal therapy (Ronel & Segev, 2014).

Reflective of a positive criminology approach, Antonio et al. (2009) shared findings from a self-reported survey among correctional personnel, which stated that treatment staff and COs believed they shared a joint responsibility for promoting a good social environment in the prison (“social climate”), modeling positive behavior, and correcting inappropriate behavioral displays when observed. Furthermore, other findings showed the need for correctional staff to think about their job in terms of “dual” or multifaceted roles. For example, findings gathered from observations with individuals on probation and their supervising officers revealed that the latter were more compliant when the relationship with their probation officer involved a combination of caring, fairness, and trust (Skeem et al., 2007). In terms of TCs, a study focusing on the inclusion of positive criminology within the framework of the program shows the potential for decrease in self-centeredness (Ronel et al., 2015).

These findings suggest a general acceptance and willingness for staff, especially COs and nontreatment staff, to engage in duties that go beyond their traditional roles of maintaining order. However, these changes have not been accepted by all COs or supervisory personnel in correctional settings everywhere. In addition, there may be resistance from incarcerated individuals to accept officers into the treatment process due to their long-established role as rule-enforcers and the embodiment of penal control (Logan et al., 2020).

The Role of COs Within Prison-Based TCs

TCs have been used in the American prison system for several decades and are often successful in lowering rates of relapse and recidivism (De Leon, 2010; Vanderplasschen et al., 2013). TCs involve an intensive socialization milieu where the interactions among program staff and program participants play a significant role in the treatment process (De Leon, 2000). The goal of TCs is to address problems associated with substance abuse, as well as underlying factors that may lead to crime and other problematic behaviors (e.g., histories of traumatization, cognitive distortions, and behavioral health conditions; De Leon, 2000; Peters et al., 2017). Treatment staff in TCs work to identify individual treatment needs and to develop treatment plans that are specific to the problems experienced by incarcerated individuals. In addition, treatment staff manage the daily structure of TC programming and participate in community meetings and group therapy sessions. Relationship/rapport building between treatment staff and program participants is an important dynamic within TCs that impacts successful recovery from substance abuse and addiction.

Within some prison TCs, treatment and services are available to address co-occurring substance abuse and mental health disorders (CODs) that are found to be prevalent among incarcerated persons (Bratina, 2017; De Leon & Unterrainer, 2020). COD programs are more intensive than traditional TCs and, therefore, are likely to provide a mix of behavior modification, vocational training, group therapy, and exposure to prosocial peer networks. Some also support reentry needs including housing and employment (Peters et al., 2017). A subset of prisons purports to have COD programs that are “Modified” TCs (MTCs). MTCs offer an array of more specialized services than traditional TCs, including psychoeducational groups, medication management, and gender-specific services for incarcerated females (Peters et al., 2017; Sacks et al., 2011). Generally, the research on COD TC programs (traditional and modified) supports positive outcomes in relation to reductions in substance use, mental health-related symptoms (increased psychological functioning), and recidivism, although results are not consistent across subgroups and over time (follow-up; Davidson & Young, 2019; De Leon & Unterrainer, 2020; Peters et al., 2017; Sacks et al., 2011), and more research is needed.

Successful TCs facilitate interactions among many dynamic groups within the treatment setting. For example, individuals who are incarcerated play a pivotal role in the treatment process. They are expected to maintain the strict regimen of the TC, support others in their recovery, and hold each other accountable when they fail to act in accordance with rules and responsibilities associated with the program. Without willful engagement and commitment, the chance for a successful treatment outcome is minimal.

TCs have a distinct focus on building trust, overall wellness, and establishing positive preventive measures (e.g., prosocial thinking, prosocial relationships) to combat reoffending and promote successful reintegration into society. A broad review of existing literature in corrections indicates that responsibility for the care and rehabilitation of incarcerated persons is typically relegated to treatment staff (counselors, social workers, psychological services, and educators), whereas the traditional roles of custody and control for the safety of the institution is relegated to security staff (COs and prison guards) (Farkas, 1999; Gordon, 1999; Robinson et al., 1993; Young & Antonio, 2009). Such dichotomized thinking is limited and even detrimental for fostering a successful treatment environment.

While lacking sufficient research, the effectiveness of TCs may also be impacted by the security staff who work in these treatment settings. COs, as a group, comprise the majority of staff who are employed within a correctional facility; however, they are often overlooked as part of a prison-based TC process. Generally, COs provide custodial duties related to supervising people incarcerated, including performing routine head counts, maintaining safety and security, and responding to individual issues or concerns as they arise (Farkas, 1999; Gordon, 1999; Robinson et al., 1993; Young & Antonio, 2009). Although these are essential tasks, COs and prison administrators must be mindful that a TC is a different environment than traditional prison settings (e.g., the main housing units or “general populations”) and thus requires a unique approach for the care of those incarcerated. Because the primary difference between a traditional cell block and a TC environment is community involvement, it is important that ideas about rapport and relationship building be incorporated into established needs for safety and security. These are positive criminology ideals. COs have prolonged exposure and direct contact with incarcerated persons, which offers opportunities for growth and learning. Given their continuous presence within this environment, COs have potential to play a positive and encouraging role in the lives of these individuals.

The Current Study

Much of the research discussed here about blending roles of correctional staff were related to general prison programming initiatives in traditional housing units. Today, many correctional settings offer more intensive inpatient treatment environments, including TCs, where traditional roles and assigned duties among staff may require closer interaction and additional assistance for persons incarcerated. As previously stated, a quality working relationship between staff and individuals who are incarcerated is essential to achieve desired outcomes in these settings, including recovery from severe substance abuse problems. One indicator of success is a perceived fairness by inmates as to the “extent to which the climate is supportive of therapy and therapeutic change” (Casey et al., 2016). Overall, there is a developing line of research indicating that a positive prison climate that includes supportive and competent relations between staff and individuals who are incarcerated may have immediate and lasting effects on relapse and successful community integration post-release (Auty & Liebling, 2020; Galea et al., 2002; Skeem et al., 2003, 2007).

Although the working relationship between staff and incarcerated individuals has been explored previously, we extend this research by focusing on incarcerated persons’ perceptions and attitudes toward COs working in a therapeutic setting. Through one-on-one interviews with men who were participating in a prison-based TC, we explored their opinions about the treatment environment and their perceptions of the staff who worked in that setting. Our results provide insight into how relationship building can influence treatment outcomes and these findings have important policy implications that may help to reshape future training initiatives for COs. In addition, findings uncovered here may expand the level of importance and value that COs and prison administration place on the therapeutic nature of their jobs and may spur discussion about the importance of positive therapeutic experiences with measurable and lasting treatment outcomes for incarcerated persons.

Research Location—Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (PA-DOC)

The site of this study was a medium-security state prison operated by the PA-DOC. All staff employed in PA-DOC are required to complete several weeks of training related to interacting with incarcerated persons in a correctional setting (PA-DOCs, 2021). COs are provided a 5-week training program that includes coursework related to general correctional policies, security protocols, assault management, and incident command systems. Furthermore, individuals in these settings have unique treatment needs related to substance abuse and addiction that contributed to their incarceration. Several courses address substance abuse specifically, including Drug Awareness, Addiction and Recovery, and Naloxone Training. In addition, COs are required to complete two courses related to Tactics for Effective Communications in Corrections (TECC). Typically, individual training sessions are approximately 2 hr in duration. TECC I and II were scheduled for a combined 7.5 hr and drug awareness and naloxone for a combined 2.5 hr. These courses are designed to improve interpersonal communications in a correctional setting through the promotion of active listening strategies and techniques that will lead to clear and more effective two-way communication between COs and incarcerated persons. The training provides COs with better observational skills, awareness of nonverbal behaviors, and verbal de-escalation strategies. Drug awareness and TECC are important courses; however, additional training may be necessary when assigned to a specialized treatment unit such as a TC.

This prison housed approximately 1,200 incarcerated men classified with a history of substance abuse. The facility provides the men with treatment programs and services focusing on drug treatment as well as prosocial and adaptive habilitation. The most intensive treatment modality within this prison is the TC. The TC contains five separate units, housing approximately 64 participants within each unit. The general programming structure of the TC involves three phases of treatment lasting an average of 6 months in duration. Progression between phases is contingent upon successful completion of specific therapeutic and program requirements (e.g., achieving goals outlined within the treatment plan). Upon completing the TC program, individuals may elect to transfer to a recovery unit. Recovery units offer follow-up care to former TC participants (focusing on issues of sobriety) and separation from the general incarcerated population.

Participants

When recruiting study participants, the research team (RT) was interested in conducting one-on-one interviews with the men who were near completion of the prison-based TC. While reducing the potential sample size may be a limitation, it was determined that having a longer experience in the TC would result in a broader perspective and more meaningful responses. This study also included individuals from the recovery unit who had recently graduated from the TC and were awaiting release from prison. It was decided by the RT that this would not jeopardize the reliability of findings as all questions would remain focused on the TC program itself, and not the recovery unit.

Procedures

Our study involved three stages (planning, data collection, and analysis of data), lasting over the course of approximately one year. The planning stage consisted of developing data collection instruments and obtaining approvals from both the principal investigators’ (PI) home institution’s institutional review board (IRB) and the Office of Planning, Research, and Statistics (OPRS) within the PA-DOC. The RT consisted of the PI and two research associates. The RT worked together in developing the semi-structured interview guide and collaborated on issues or problems that might hinder the reliability of data collected from interviews that were conducted by different members of the RT.

Upon approval of the project, OPRS assisted the RT by establishing a line of communication between the RT and the prison. The RT contacted a designated administrator within the prison and an individual of authority within the TC program (hereafter, referred to as the working group). Over a period of approximately two months, the working group communicated regularly through emails and in person. The RT briefed the other members of the working group on the purpose of the study and the specific characteristics of participants that the RT would like to interview. The working group also coordinated logistical details such as when and where the interviews would take place within the prison. There were no significant issues or obstacles during the planning stage.

Data collection took place during the spring of 2015. Interviews were conducted in a private office located next to the TC units. Prior to each interview, the TC treatment staff would call individual participants into the administrative suite where the office for interviewing was located. The study design did not incorporate the collection of demographic information, which impeded our ability to provide a table of respondent characteristics or examine findings on an aggregate level. At these designated times, participants and member(s) of the RT were introduced to one another. Most interviews were conducted by only one member of the RT although initial interviews included two members of the RT to establish protocols and consistent interview strategies. Several participants indicated they had no prior information about why they were summoned to the TC treatment staff’s administrative unit or the purpose of the visitation.

After initial introductions, the member(s) of the RT described the scope and purpose of the study and provided a general overview of the types of questions that would be asked during the interview. Next, participants were provided a copy of the informed consent, which detailed the overall purpose of the project, protections, and voluntary consent. All participants were provided an opportunity to ask questions before signing the informed consent document. The final sample consisted of 26 separate participant interviews. Only one of the individuals recruited declined to be interviewed. The RT is confident that saturation was achieved with the number of interviews conducted. Interviews and notes were coded in the order they were conducted, and the later interviews yielded very few new codes. Findings from studies on data saturation in qualitative research using non-probabilistic sampling has consistently found that eight to 12 interviews are generally sufficient with homogeneous samples (Guest et al., 2006; Mason, 2010). Even with recommendations suggesting 20 to 30 interviews as a more conservative estimate for achieving saturation (Charmaz, 2006), 26 interviews fall within the most widely accepted guidelines.

Interview Guide

The instrument used to collect data for our research was a semi-structured interview guide that contained 20 questions inquiring about the physical and social environment of the TC treatment program, attitudes and perceptions of COs and treatment staff, and the adequacy of the TC experience for preparing incarcerated persons for reentry into society. Due to the focus of our research, only findings that pertained to attitudes and perceptions of COs are discussed here; specific findings related to treatment staff were beyond the scope of this analysis. Participants were asked to describe the types and quality of interactions with COs, whether they believed COs were knowledgeable and interested in the therapeutic experience, and to explain how COs influenced the TC program. Responses from the interviews were recorded on a laptop computer directly into an excel spreadsheet, with separate cells for answers to each specific question (no audio-recording devices were allowed by the prison). Individual participant interviews lasted approximately 45 to 60 min each.

Data Analysis

Interviewers’ notes were edited and cleaned after each interview. As audio-recording of interviews was forbidden by the prison, the RT transcribed responses to questions at the same time the interviews took place. As a result, careful proofreading upon completion of each interview (e.g., typos, missing words) was required. The RT also added notes to specific responses during individual interviews. These notes consisted of probes for clarification on details provided by the participant (e.g., whom they were speaking about) and thoughts or interpretations of the responses formulated by the interviewer. All interview notes were saved as word processing files and coded within the word processing software using annotation tools.

The interviews and notes were analyzed, using both deductive and inductive coding processes (Rubin & Rubin, 2011), by one member of the RT who was most experienced with qualitative analysis. ² Using a directed content analysis (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005), the first step of the analysis involved reading each of the interviews to gain familiarity with the data and classifying responses and notes into broad themes based on a developed a priori coding scheme reflecting three primary areas of interest associated with the study and interview questions: (a) general attitudes of incarcerated individuals toward COs, (b) CO influence on the therapeutic process, and (c) recommendations from incarcerated individuals on how to improve the role of COs in the treatment program. Next, interviews and notes were reviewed a second time, using an inductive coding process (Holsti, 1969) that included line-by-line coding, which facilitated the identification of any additional concepts and ideas provided by participants to emerge. Fereday and Muir-Cochrane (2006) provided a detailed overview on the use of hybrid thematic analysis for demonstrating rigor in qualitative research.

Perceptions and Attitudes Toward COs

The first question in the interview instrument asked participants to describe the type(s) and quality of interactions and relationships they had with COs. As part of the wider interview (questions not specifically involving COs), participants were asked about their perceptions of treatment staff. When asked about their attitudes toward treatment staff, participants were animated and provided specific information and insight. They spoke directly to the type and quality of interaction with treatment staff (both good and bad) and the importance of the role those individuals played in their TC experience. From these responses, it was clear that participants were able to relate to the purpose and professional duties of TC treatment staff within a TC-based environment. In contrast, when asked about COs, participants perceived their interaction with them to be nonsignificant and largely a matter of custodial interaction. They did not appear to recognize the presence of COs within the TC as playing any role of importance in the therapeutic environment. As an example, one participant bluntly described this perspective, “I don’t care one way or another about the COs (correctional officers)” (Participant 10).

When probed by the interviewer for more detail, study participants talked about the power differential existing between them and COs—often expressing a frustration resulting from the overuse of control and power in carrying out their daily functions. Many participants believed that several COs misused their positions of authority or exerted more control than was necessary to maintain order within the TC. Some believed that differences in professional tactics were influenced not by training, but rather, the personality differences among COs. For example, one participant stated,

COs are just correctional officers. They might be going through something and they’ll come in here and take it out on you. But they are basically doing their job. If you’re too soft, they’re [participants response to COs] gonna run you over. (Participant 18)

In addition to inquiring about their general perceptions of COs, participants also were asked how much influence COs had on their treatment experience. Overall, they appeared either disinterested or had not given much consideration to the matter. Interviewers frequently had to probe participants to elicit more substantive information, including asking about what makes someone a “good” versus a “bad” CO. Participants were much more certain and consistent about differentiating COs by this dichotomy. For example, good COs were often described as having compassion and/or showing respect and a sense of care for the individuals incarcerated, whereas bad COs often looked down upon them and treated them with malice or indifference. Examples of participants describing this dichotomy include the following:

Certain COs are good, and others act above you. Most of them have good relationships because they talk to you like a normal person. (Participant 4)

*****

Some of them you have a good relationship with, they actually seem to care, and make it a little easier on us. Some guards have other qualities and don’t seem to care, and don’t let you do as much as others. (Participant 5)

Problems with inconsistency were often expressed as a source of frustration by participants. This became an indicator about whether a CO was as a good officer or a bad officer. COs who were consistent in their duties were more respected, whereas those who showed inconsistencies were perceived to be ineffective as COs and/or a source of stress within the TC. Perceptions about inconsistency often marked older and more experienced COs as being lax (viewed as a positive attribute), but newer COs, who were consistent in their duties, were viewed as strict (viewed as a negative attribute)—perhaps trying to establish themselves within the unit and to gain respect. Several participants illustrated the influence of COs attitudes and the influence of consistency/inconsistency:

If they are in a good mood, it’s a better day for everyone. (Participant 4)

*****

Very important [consistency in COs]. In my block, we do not have steady officers. All have different expectations. . . . some really want to help, others are here for a paycheck. (Participant 1)

Overall, attitudes and perceptions toward COs were viewed as largely inconsequential to the functioning of the TC. Although COs are a continuous presence within the TC, incarcerated individuals do not consider them to be an integral part of it. In some respects, they viewed COs as outsiders to the TC—only present for the purposes of control. This shaped an “us” versus “them” mentality where there was little substantive interaction. Overall, COs who were predictable and not overly restrictive were favored compared with inconsistent and overzealous ones.

COs and the Therapeutic Process

The crucial element of the TC is the community environment itself and the prosocial kinship it is intended to create. Incarcerated persons and staff alike are expected to be active participants in a TC and to interact with one another during the therapeutic process. Incarcerated individuals were questioned on the ways in which COs operated within this therapeutic environment, including the following topics: (a) perceptions about how well COs understood the TC model, (b) positive ways in which COs influenced the therapeutic process, and (c) ways in which COs added or detracted from the TC experience.

Participants were asked directly about whether COs understood the purpose of a TC. Again, they expressed indifference about COs being involved in the TC and/or believed that COs had limited understanding of treatment. Whereas the TC model is a 24-hr intensive socialization milieu, the participants differentiated between “treatment” time and “normal” prison time, with COs relegated into the latter. When responding to a question about the influence of COs on the treatment experience, one participant observed,

Security guards don’t have much input into treatment. When group is over, they run a block like a normal block. (Participant 2)

Most of the participants did not consider COs part of the TC or an integral aspect of meeting their treatment needs. Participants’ views often reflected their perceptions about the responsibilities of COs as primarily custodial in nature and often a source of friction within the unit. For example, one stated the following when asked whether COs understood that TCs are treatment units and whether COs demonstrated a certain level of compassion for incarcerated persons:

I don’t even think they look at that. I think they just do their job as far as keeping us under control. This is a jail too, so they are not looking at that—whether it’s a TC or what. They look at it as jail. (Participant 18)

Interviewers frequently probed participants for more information about the influences that COs had on the therapeutic process. Some simply stated that COs left treatment up to the treatment staff, whereas others suggested that many COs had no idea of the basic principles of the TC or what the specialized unit represented. The following two quotes provide a glimpse of the COs involvement and the therapeutic process:

They don’t seem to know what’s going on [how the daily program should be] half the time. It breaks down the therapeutic relationship and trust. Why would you want to come over to someone that is being disrespectful? (Participant 6)

*****

Um, I guess I wouldn’t say they’re not helpful. They leave that to the counselors. They talk to you about general questions, but they won’t ask how your girlfriend is or how your family is back home. (Participant 17)

Many participants talked about the rigid stance COs take toward the custodial nature of their jobs and how this demeanor served as a barrier that negatively impacted the treatment process. Some reported that COs used the structure and rules of the TC against participants—intentionally trying to get them removed—whereas others observed a lack of understanding among COs about the TC, which negatively impacted their recovery and caused additional challenges. Each of these viewpoints are demonstrated in the following two statements:

COs acting like real cops. Acting that way is bad. We are in the bottom of the bottom—you are just kicking me lower. Some COs talk to you, others want you to break up. (Participant 7)

*****

There’s some that write you up to get you kicked out of the TC program, and they’ll tell you that to your face. (Participant 20)

Whereas a majority reported indifferent or negative attitudes toward the COs, a few participants described how COs enhanced their therapeutic experience. Those who expressed positive perceptions indicated that some COs understood the point of the TC and showed a general interest or desire to get to know and relate to them. This was viewed favorably by the individuals who shared these perceptions and highlighted the positive role that COs can play in this therapeutic environment. The following statements exemplified this perspective:

Some COs are alright. They want you to have a good visit with family. They ask about how it went. (Participant 7)

*****

Some [COs] you can talk to and they’ll give you feedback. You can talk to them about the program . . . they understand the point of TC. (Participant 13)

Recommendations About How to Improve the Role of COs

As a part of the interview process, participants were given the opportunity to provide recommendations about how COs could better support the TC process. The two most common types of responses centered on an improved understanding of the TC and an increasing consistency among COs. With respect to the former, participants believed there were ways in which COs could contribute to the therapeutic experience and, at the very least, they did not want COs to be a hindrance to the therapeutic process. To support the TC experience, participants wanted COs to understand what they are going through and the process of recovery. The following response reflected the desires of many others:

I think correctional officers should be more understanding. Like me, I came with a chemical imbalance in my brain and my body. I wasn’t the same person I had been since I started using drugs. Try [correctional officers] to get where I’m coming from. If I come asking for something, instead of just shunning me away, take the time to explain why you’ve done it. Being more compassionate with their jobs. (Participant 22)

To improve the therapeutic environment, some suggested the need for TC training, specifically targeted at COs. This training would introduce them to some of the basic challenges faced by incarcerated persons who were suffering from substance abuse and dependency, and educate them about the TC process. Having this training, as some mentioned, might make COs more receptive to the needs of incarcerated individuals and to view them from a more sympathetic and understanding perspective.

Let them understand what we are doing. Yeah, we’re inmates, but let them know we are in a treatment program. Not be as harsh. They come off other blocks, with regular people [general population], and come over here with an attitude. They don’t care as much as they should. (Participant 5)

In addition to a better understanding of substance abuse and the TC process, participants overwhelmingly reported that there were problems caused by lack of consistency among COs. This lack of consistency centered around differences in personalities among COs, perceptions that some COs were more lenient than others, and that certain COs were out to “get them” for violating TC rules. Many of the individuals who were interviewed mentioned this inconsistency as a major impediment to the TC environment and something that needed to be changed to make the TC program run smoothly.

Stop enforcing stupid rules and be more standard, more consistency. Every single CO has different rules. Our blocks get the new COs first because we’re treatment blocks and they all have their own rules. One CO may let you get hot water after breakfast for coffee and then the next day the CO won’t let you get hot water. They’re not the same, ever. (Participant 21)

Responses such as this suggest the need for creating more consistency among COs working in a therapeutic setting. Prison officials may consider placing more seasoned officers on TC units and regularly placing the same COs within these TC units as this may help to increase the sense of continuity and consistency. This may also facilitate the critical therapeutic relationship between incarcerated persons and COs. This point was illustrated in the following response:

If we had the same one’s [correctional officers] maybe they could adapt with us. (Participant 21)

Limitations

This study had several limitations. First, because of daily fluctuations in the number of incarcerated persons participating in the prison TC, simple random sampling techniques were not employed. The only criterion for inclusion in the study was that participants were required to be in the third and final phase of the TC (or had recently completed it and were housed in the recovery unit). Second, individuals who participated in the study were selected by the treatment staff and not the RT. This raises the possibility that participants identified by the TC staff to be interviewed were those who might hold a favorable impression of the TC. There is no indication this occurred, however, as many participants provided negative views and responses to interview questions. These limitations may reduce overall generalizability of study findings.

A third limitation is the lack of descriptive information about our sample. Our study design did not incorporate the collection of demographic information at the start of the research. Although this impedes our ability to examine any unique characteristics of the sample and potential relationships with other variables, findings revealed here are informative, nevertheless. Another limitation associated with this study was that incarcerated persons were drawn from only one prison. Although the conceptual ideas and structure behind TCs are universal, the implementation of the treatment programming may be different across treatment sites. There may also be variations among other TC programs, including the types and quality of services, differences in the training and professional experience of treatment staff and COs, and characteristic discrepancies in the types of individuals selected to participate in these programs. Given these potential differences, it is uncertain whether the views of TC participants would be consistent with the views of TC participants at other locations. Moreover, an additional limitation of the study is the lack of measurement regarding how well the TC was implemented.

Unfortunately, we did not consider the value of concepts associated with positive criminology in formulating questions for participant interviews. In hindsight, this would have been an appropriate setting to ask additional questions or alter those asked based on what is known within this theoretical framework. Questions could have been reframed in such a way as to focus on the attitudes and perceptions of those incarcerated on COs’ efforts to promote an environment of social inclusion and feelings of self-worth. Despite this oversight, the findings from our research can still be interpreted to some degree through the lens of positive criminology.