• I would like to have more training to deal with sex offenders;
• Working with sex offenders adds stress to the job;
• My training for this job did not prepare me to work with sex offenders;
• Sex offenders are treatable; and
• Offenders in general are treatable.

Correctional officers perceived sex offenders, in general, as significantly more dangerous, harmful, violent, tense, bad, unpredictable, unchangeable, aggressive, weak, irrational and afraid than non-sex offenders (see figure). Sex offenders against children were perceived as being significantly more immoral and mentally ill than sex offenders against women, who, in turn, were perceived as more immoral and mentally ill than non-sex offenders.

There were five scales on which sex offenders and non-sex offenders received similar ratings. These two groups were perceived as having similar levels of sex drive, control and intelligence, and were thought to be equally active/passive and nonmanipulative/manipulative.

The vast majority (89%) of correctional officers reported having at least some contact with sex offenders.

Most respondents (68%) indicated that they would like more training to deal with sex offenders. Only about 12% felt that their training had adequately prepared them to deal with this unique group.

When asked whether sex offenders could be treated, only about one fifth (20.7%) of respondents thought that sex offenders are treatable. On the other hand, more than half (52.4%) thought that offenders in general are treatable.

The most salient finding of the study was that correctional officers had different perceptions of different inmate groups. Overall, sex offenders were perceived much more negatively than non-sex offenders.

However, these perceptions are at odds with research examining sex offenders' criminality, personality characteristics and social skills. For example, Gordon and Porporino⁽¹⁾ high-light the similarities rather than the differences between rapists and non-rapists on such diverse characteristics as criminal history, personality, social skills, sexual attitudes and arousal patterns. On the other hand, current literature on pedophiles and incest offenders suggests that these offenders are more likely to display unique differences in various characteristics.

It may be that maintaining negative perceptions of sex offenders serves to insulate staff from aligning themselves too closely with individuals who are commonly looked upon with disgust and abhorrence.

The findings of this study suggest that line staff openly endorse the social stigma surrounding sex offenders. It is important to note, however, that the study did not formally compare the perceptions of correctional officers to those of the general public toward sex offenders. That is, it did not assess the extent to which correctional officers as members of the general public, albeit in a unique situation of close contact with offenders, mirror society's perceptions of sex offenders. Future research is planned to address this issue.

Most respondents expressed a desire for additional training, presumably to better understand, and deal more effectively with, sex offenders. It is likely that training programs for new staff and in-service education for existing personnel would be improved by emphasizing the dynamics of inmates convicted of sexual offences. However, given the resiliency of attitudes and beliefs, it may be unrealistic to expect that informational training programs will extinguish the differences found in the present study between officers' perceptions of sex offenders and non-sex offenders.

Alternatively, a two-pronged approach to staff training - focusing on the modification of gross misconceptions as well as the development of effective ways of managing and integrating sex offenders in general-population institutions - will help reduce job-related stress, enhance correctional officers' self-efficacy and improve staff-inmate interaction. At the same time, such an approach would foster a more treatment-oriented environment.